Expertise: Breaking Bounded Accuracy?

[RickAllison]

This came off the new UA discussion, where a sidetrack was created on Expertise "breaking bounded accuracy". The problems cited seemed to primarily revolve around making checks that become impossible to resist. So here are some questions to discuss:

1) Does Expertise actually break the bounded accuracy of the system?

2) Is that an actual problem? I.e. is a rogue or bard with a +17 in a stat he brought to 20 and with a skill he burned a level feature for breaking the game?

3) If so, how can it be solved. One solution proposed was a constant advantage on those skill checks, but that seems... Odd, at least to me. It seems to take the jockeying for advantage that exists throughout the system and removes that complete aspect of the game for those skills.

Thoughts?

[pwykersotz]

Expertise may or may not create certainty of success on checks that, according to expectations set by the system, should generally have a failure chance. But it doesn't break bounded accuracy because that's not what bounded accuracy is.

The only way to break bounded accuracy is to introduce assumptions into the game design that players will have certain pluses to X at certain levels. It's a calculation of minimums, not maximums.


The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game that the player’s attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster’s hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character’s increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM’s side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don’t have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level.

[Shaofoo]

The problem is that it is all depends on the skill. Someone with Expertise in Diplomacy might not be able to do so if the campaign is a doorkicker dungeon crawl, can't really spend time being social if you are constantly on the move. Skills seem to only be as influential as the DM allows it to be, a DM can decide a skill to be too difficult to even attempt (not a super high DC, no check at all you just can't do it).

My last campaign I wanted to be a charismatic bard but the most I did with skills was Survival checks to get food (at a +1), only once did I actually get to use my diplomatic skills and it was to basically convince the guys we saved the store to stay for the night (not hard at all).

It can be a problem but it isn't an universal problem because skills can only affect the world as far as the DM allows, also consider that the books encourage DMs to not roll for every single action and instead let players do things.

[Safety Sword]

As a game mechanic which is intended to simulate someone being an expert at certain things isn't it reasonable that it increases the probability of success at those things?

Working as intended?

[DanyBallon]

At mid to high level play, I often consider that someone with expertise in the relevant skill a no chance of failure, thus succeed immediately. Skill checks are meant to be done only if there's a chance of failure and/or if failure may have dire consequences. I believe that if someone become an expert in a given field (expertise + max ability + high procifiency bonus) should be able to succeed to a task that other will often fail.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I had a thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483815-Replacing-Expertise), which should sum up the standard "5e is perfect don't question WotC" counterarguments. In any case, as I've argued (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20857568&postcount=24), I think Expertise is necessary to make skills work in a practical fashion. I think that all skill checks should get double Proficiency, and those who currently get Expertise should get some other feature in its place. (Perhaps a minimum roll, perhaps daily rerolls, perhaps Advantage, perhaps ignoring Disadvantage...)

[jas61292]

At mid to high level play, I often consider that someone with expertise in the relevant skill a no chance of failure, thus succeed immediately. Skill checks are meant to be done only if there's a chance of failure and/or if failure may have dire consequences. I believe that if someone become an expert in a given field (expertise + max ability + high procifiency bonus) should be able to succeed to a task that other will often fail.

This is a good thing to do. Obviously you could set DCs for everything, allow everyone to roll, and theoretically have someone without proficiency succeed where the person with expertise fails, but if it is not something crucial or dangerous, that is just a waste of time. Just let them do things, and the game runs far more smoothly.

Now, as for the topic at hand, as mentioned in the other thread, bounded accuracy is about preventing the whole "this tall to ride" thing. So, unless the game features monsters or NPCs with expertise on skills with important opposed checks that are key to how they function, and with high enough stats or other features like a rogue's reliable talent that make it literally impossible for a character of a lower level to beat, then no, this really has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is about preventing things from previous editions like 30 AC being the norm for high level creatures so that a lower level character literally cannot hit them without a crit. It is absolutely not about simply keeping numbers low for the sake of it. Its all about the target numbers, not the roll numbers. Now obviously, the system does rely on certain assumptions of things being low, especially when it comes to monsters, making numerical bonuses undesirable for game design reasons. But that is not really an issue with the bounded accuracy itself.

Maybe expertise is an issue, for other reasons, but not because of the bounded accuracy design aspect.

[WickerNipple]

Expertise may or may not create certainty of success on checks that, according to expectations set by the system, should generally have a failure chance. But it doesn't break bounded accuracy because that's not what bounded accuracy is.

The only way to break bounded accuracy is to introduce assumptions into the game design that players will have certain pluses to X at certain levels. It's a calculation of minimums, not maximums.

This. Very glad to see it as the first response too. Kudos.

[Specter]

I don't think so. Using Athletics as example, a Fighter/Rogue tries to jump over a DC15, 4-feet tall wall. With a STR of 16 at 2nd level, he has a 35% of failure. At level 20, he has no chance of failure. But at level 20, the Wizard is creating universes and the Cleric can have his deity do whatever he wants. So cool, do your thing well.

Expertise + Pass Without Trace, on the other hand...

[Safety Sword]

I don't think so. Using Athletics as example, a Fighter/Rogue tries to jump over a DC15, 4-feet tall wall. With a STR of 16 at 2nd level, he has a 35% of failure. At level 20, he has no chance of failure. But at level 20, the Wizard is creating universes and the Cleric can have his deity do whatever he wants. So cool, do your thing well.

Expertise + Pass Without Trace, on the other hand...

And the wizard is falling on his face 50% of the time jumping the same wall unless he spends resources to avoid the obstacle. It's still working as it should.

[R.Shackleford]

I had a thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483815-Replacing-Expertise), which should sum up the standard "5e is perfect don't question WotC" counterarguments. In any case, as I've argued (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20857568&postcount=24), I think Expertise is necessary to make skills work in a practical fashion. I think that all skill checks should get double Proficiency, and those who currently get Expertise should get some other feature in its place. (Perhaps a minimum roll, perhaps daily rerolls, perhaps Advantage, perhaps ignoring Disadvantage...)

It would work well if Expertise was factored into the base system and not just thrown in almost at random.

[wunderkid]

I played a level 9 character with:
Dex 20
Expertise sleight of hand
Gloves of theivery.
Halfling

Getting +18 before rolling basically meant I could steal from absolutely anyone. 20 was basically the lowest I could ever get (if I did roll a 1 the halfling lucky would kick in and let me reroll making my odds of getting a 19 about 0.25%)

[RickAllison]

I played a level 9 character with:
Dex 20
Expertise sleight of hand
Gloves of theivery.
Halfling

Getting +18 before rolling basically meant I could steal from absolutely anyone. 20 was basically the lowest I could ever get (if I did roll a 1 the halfling lucky would kick in and let me reroll making my odds of getting a 19 about 0.25%)

And this is why my wizard has a mini-bear trap for his coinpurse. He doesn't need to see you pick his pocket, he just needs to hear the trap go off!

[Grod_The_Giant]

It would work well if Expertise was factored into the base system and not just thrown in almost at random.
...is essentially what I want to do? The DC-reliability-by-level math looks terrible with base proficiency but lines up just about perfectly with Expertise (you have to roll an 8 to hit a level-appropriate skill DC, and you need to roll an 8 to hit a level-appropriate AC or saving throw).

[Vogonjeltz]

Getting +18 before rolling basically meant I could steal from absolutely anyone. 20 was basically the lowest I could ever get (if I did roll a 1 the halfling lucky would kick in and let me reroll making my odds of getting a 19 about 0.25%)

You should be getting +22 by my count: (+5 dex, +5 gloves, +12 expertise)

Which is fine for coin purses or small objects, and other small objects that slight of hand works on, especially considering that wisdom focused characters would still have about a 25% chance of winning the contest.

[Jakinbandw]

You should be getting +22 by my count: (+5 dex, +5 gloves, +12 expertise)

Which is fine for coin purses or small objects, and other small objects that slight of hand works on, especially considering that wisdom focused characters would still have about a 25% chance of winning the contest.

You missed he was lvl 9

[R.Shackleford]

...is essentially what I want to do? The DC-reliability-by-level math looks terrible with base proficiency but lines up just about perfectly with Expertise (you have to roll an 8 to hit a level-appropriate skill DC, and you need to roll an 8 to hit a level-appropriate AC or saving throw).

Sorry for agreeing with you? :smallconfused:

[Demonic Spoon]

"Bounded accuracy" refers to the fact that there are bounds to the modifiers you can get to a d20 roll.

Double proficiency to checks is a core part of the system - several classes have it, and it was a part of the system from day one, and you cannot stack it. Regardless of what you think of double proficiency mechanics, it cannot break bounded accuracy by definition.

[wunderkid]

You should be getting +22 by my count: (+5 dex, +5 gloves, +12 expertise)

Which is fine for coin purses or small objects, and other small objects that slight of hand works on, especially considering that wisdom focused characters would still have about a 25% chance of winning the contest.

Oh yeah but I also had portent, lucky and a party member to bump into them or as a backup an invisible imp familiar who on very rare occasions used the help action to grant me advantage with slight of hand (kind of how pickpockets often work in real life). Generally speaking if I wanted something that wasn't being held in your hand I would get it within a few days with a 99% certainty. Or on the spot with very very good chance even against clerics. The usual perception of a Cleric passively will be 5 Wis, 6 proficiency, 10 passive. So 21. Basically I beat them on a 3+ unless they are actively looking for someone pickpocketing them and even then the odds are in my favor.

Of course the true counter build (cleric with a dip into rogue and a feat on the +5 to perception and eyes of the Eagle) will have a much better chance to spot me as he would be passively on:

5 Wis + 12 expertise +5 advantage +5 feat +10 passive. So 37 passively. Pretty flipping insane eh? Bounded accuracy can suck those niblets xD

[Kryx]

I, and several posters as of late, prefer expertise to give advantage.

d20 w/ advantage averages around 13.82. Or ~3.32 above normal.

Level 1-4:
2 + 3 + d20 = 6-25. Avg 18.82

Level 5-8:
3 + 4 + d20 = 8-27. Avg 20.82

Level 9-12:
4 + 5 + d20 = 10-29. Avg 22.82

Level 13-16:
5 + 5 + d20 = 11-30. Avg 23.82

Level 17-20:
6 + 5 + d20 = 12-31. Avg 24.82

Seems pretty good based on
DC 5 = very easy
DC 10 = easy
DC 15 = medium
DC 20 = hard
DC 25 = very hard
DC 30 = nearly impossible.

[wunderkid]

I, and several posters as of late, prefer expertise to give advantage.

d20 w/ advantage averages around 13.82. Or ~3.32 above normal.

Level 1-4:
2 + 3 + d20 = 6-25. Avg 18.82

Level 5-8:
3 + 4 + d20 = 8-27. Avg 20.82

Level 9-12:
4 + 5 + d20 = 10-29. Avg 22.82

Level 13-16:
5 + 5 + d20 = 11-30. Avg 23.82

Level 17-20:
6 + 5 + d20 = 12-31. Avg 24.82

Seems pretty good based on
DC 5 = very easy
DC 10 = easy
DC 15 = medium
DC 20 = hard
DC 25 = very hard
DC 30 = nearly impossible.


@Wunderkid: advantage is not 5. If you want to use a single number 3 is more accurate.

Umm advantage is 5.

"If the character has advantage on the check, add 5. For disadvantage, subtract 5." P175

Note I'm talking a passive check. Not active which may be where the confusion occured

[Kryx]

Note I'm talking a passive check. Not active which may be where the confusion occured
Indeed. My mistake. I noticed passive too, just didn't put two and two together. Ignore that bit!

[wunderkid]

Indeed. My mistake. I noticed passive too, just didn't put two and two together. Ignore that bit!

No worries it happens xD I do find it frustrating that passively looking for something is actually better than actively looking on average assuming you have advantage. It's like a penalty for paying attention...

[Oramac]

2) Is that an actual problem? I.e. is a rogue or bard with a +17 in a stat he brought to 20 and with a skill he burned a level feature for breaking the game?

Purely my opinion here.

I would say no to this. Even with multiclassing you can't get more than 4 (i think?) skills with Expertise. And they're supposed to represent a character that has gone to great lengths to be the best there is at those particular skills.

Also, if they choose Expertise in skills A and B, it means they DON'T have expertise in skills X and Y. So there is still a trade-off.

[JeffreyGator]

Purely my opinion here.

I would say no to this. Even with multiclassing you can't get more than 4 (i think?) skills with Expertise. And they're supposed to represent a character that has gone to great lengths to be the best there is at those particular skills.

Bard 10 gets 4 expertise (levels 3 and 10 pick 2)
rogue 6 gets 4 expertise (levels 1 and 6 pick 2)
Knowledge cleric 1 gets two expertise (any two knowledge)

I think that fighter PDK gets expertise in Persuasion at 3.

So potentially 11 skills by level 20 easily 8 by level 10

[JNAProductions]

8 at level 10, with some serious dipping and two of them have to be knowledge skills.

Not that big a deal, methinks.

[RickAllison]

Bard 10 gets 4 expertise (levels 3 and 10 pick 2)
rogue 6 gets 4 expertise (levels 1 and 6 pick 2)
Knowledge cleric 1 gets two expertise (any two knowledge)

I think that fighter PDK gets expertise in Persuasion at 3.

So potentially 11 skills by level 20 easily 8 by level 10

I thought PDK got it at 7th?


8 at level 10, with some serious dipping and two of them have to be knowledge skills.

Not that big a deal, methinks.

Rogue 11/Lore Bard 3/Knowledge Cleric 1. Same 8, but your minimum roll is 10 :smallbiggrin:

[Oramac]

Rogue 11/Lore Bard 3/Knowledge Cleric 1. Same 8, but your minimum roll is 10 :smallbiggrin:

True enough. Were I DM'ing, I'd argue that this is a build, not a character.

Then again, I'm not a huge fan of multi-multi-classing. To each their own.

[ClintACK]

I played a level 9 character with:
Dex 20
Expertise sleight of hand
Gloves of theivery.
Halfling

Getting +18 before rolling basically meant I could steal from absolutely anyone. 20 was basically the lowest I could ever get (if I did roll a 1 the halfling lucky would kick in and let me reroll making my odds of getting a 19 about 0.25%)

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

Remember your Tiers. (5-10: "These characters have become important, facing dangers that threaten cities and kingdoms." and 11-15: "... characters have reached a level of power that sets them high above the ordinary populace...")

9th to 11th level is where players start to tip from gritty fantasy heroes into Marvel superheroes. Your sage type (knowledge cleric or divination wizard) has just gotten Legend Lore, Scrying, and their version of Commune. Your healer has just gotten Raise Dead, Greater Restoration and Mass Cure Wounds. Your archanist or druid has just radically transformed how your party gets from place to place with Teleportation Circle or Transport Via Plants and Wind Walk. Monks can run up walls, walk on water, outrun horses and teleport between shadows. Rangers can track over bare stone and shoot dozens of arrows in six seconds.

If your 9th level character has been built as an expert in sneaky sleight of hand, then damned right you can walk through the market and grab all the purses you can fit in your bag of holding. Gods help the world if you also took Arcane Trickster.

tl;dr: You're a super hero, yes you are.

[Kryx]

I do find it frustrating that passively looking for something is actually better than actively looking on average assuming you have advantage. It's like a penalty for paying attention...
Ya, I liked the concept of passive and tried to use it in the beginning, but have since wiped it out.

I find it to be uninteresting - a binary choice that when I design a dungeon is either they see it or they don't. If I overuse passive perception then players never roll and so they never see hidden things.
So now I just ask for rolls - it now feels like I have the option to set things to be more difficult to see now without them just never seeing it.

[MrFahrenheit]

Like the moon circle druid's wild shapes, it appears crazy at first, then mellows out. DCs are expected to grow as the game goes on. At level 9, dex of 20 + gloves of thievery + sleight of hand expertise is huge, but that skill will only go up 4 more points over the rest of that rogue's adventuring career. Also, classes that get expertise typically need to put it in what they're already good at. Not always, but usually.

If you wanted to be an uber skill monkey, you'd be rogue 6/lore bard 10/knowledge cleric 1 (but really 2 for "all teh skillz"). You'd be incredible. You'd be a master of nearly all skill trades, yet only a jack for combat ones. It al balances out.

[Kryx]

DCs are expected to grow as the game goes on.
In 5e DCs are static and specifically do not grow. See page 174 of the PHB.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In 5e DCs are static and specifically do not grow. See page 174 of the PHB.
You should, however, be able to accomplish progressively more difficult tasks as you gain levels-- otherwise what's the point in a level-based game?

[Oramac]

In 5e DCs are static and specifically do not grow. See page 174 of the PHB.

A DC is static for a given ability, but the DC does grow in accordance to the CR of the monster being fought. The DC against an Ancient Dragon is going to be significantly higher than the DC against a low-CR minion.

[DanyBallon]

You should, however, be able to accomplish progressively more difficult tasks as you gain levels-- otherwise what's the point in a level-based game?

By leveling you are getting better and better, and can succeed more easily at challenge you face. If you overspecialized yourself to be extremely good at a particuliar task, then you should be able to succeed with your eyes closed. This is represented by the ridiculously high bonus and by DM allowing you to succeed without having to make a skill check.

[Kryx]

You should, however, be able to accomplish progressively more difficult tasks as you gain levels-- otherwise what's the point in a level-based game?
You are more likely to accomplish the tasks. Please see the progression I wrote on page 1:

Level 1-4:
2 + 3 + d20 = 6-25. Avg 18.82

Level 5-8:
3 + 4 + d20 = 8-27. Avg 20.82

Level 9-12:
4 + 5 + d20 = 10-29. Avg 22.82

Level 13-16:
5 + 5 + d20 = 11-30. Avg 23.82

Level 17-20:
6 + 5 + d20 = 12-31. Avg 24.82

Seems pretty good based on
DC 5 = very easy
DC 10 = easy
DC 15 = medium
DC 20 = hard
DC 25 = very hard
DC 30 = nearly impossible.

So if you use advantage you start out being able to do medium more often than not and advance to almost being able to do very hard regularly. That is progression!




A DC is static for a given ability, but the DC does grow in accordance to the CR of the monster being fought. The DC against an Ancient Dragon is going to be significantly higher than the DC against a low-CR minion.
Yes, Monsters scale as you do. That is intentional in the system. A dragon shouldn't be as easy to shove prone as a goblin is. That said contested checks aren't very common in my experience except for cases like grapple/prone. Static DCs for finding things seem much more common in my experience, but I don't run very social games so I assume those would be more contest based.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Honestly, I'd put forward that Expertise is alright, so long as you keep it from stacking with similar bonuses.

The real killer is Jack of All Trades. Seriously. SERIOUSLY. Get rid of it!

[MrFahrenheit]

Also as you level, the harder DCs become more frequent. Others have addressed the static issue.

[Kryx]

Taking Athletics for example as it's the most common case:
At CR 1 the average enemy has 1.8 athletics. By 20 that increases to 6.9. That's an increase of 5.1. As mapped out earlier the benefit of a PC increased by 6 (or more if you started with 14 in the main stat). Numbers can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1829796671

So a 5.1 increase for NPC and a 6 point increase for PCs.

So static DCs become easier as you level as do contested DCs. I'm not seeing any issue with the math of the system (not including RAW expertise as that blows these numbers way out of proportion). If you see it please specifically point it out so it can be verified or not.

[Safety Sword]

Taking Athletics for example as it's the most common case:
At CR 1 the average enemy has 1.8 athletics. By 20 that increases to 6.9. That's an increase of 5.1. As mapped out earlier the benefit of a PC increased by 6 (or more if you started with 14 in the main stat). Numbers can be seen here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1829796671

So a 5.1 increase for NPC and a 6 point increase for PCs.

So static DCs become easier as you level as do contested DCs. I'm not seeing any issue with the math of the system (not including RAW expertise as that blows these numbers way out of proportion). If you see it please specifically point it out so it can be verified or not.

This is fascinating.

So, let's get back to it:

Is the system in balance at the base level? Yes.
Is Expertise supposed to make you really really good at a thing? Yes.
Do the mechanics of Expertise do that? Yes.
Is it working as intended then? Yes.


What are we worried about again?

[Kryx]

What are we worried about again?
Transforming my earlier math to compare expertise as advantage vs expertise as double proficiency (RAW):

Level 1-4 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/892d)):
RAW: 2 + 2 + 3 + d20 = 8-27. Avg 17.5 with a 65% chance to pass DC 15 and a 90% chance to pass DC 10.
Adv: 2 + 3 + 2d20kh1 = 6-25. Avg 18.82 with a 79.75% chance to pass DC 15 and a 96% chance to pass DC 10.

Level 5-8 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/892e)):
RAW: 3 + 3 + 4 + d20 = 11-30. Avg 20.5 with a 55% chance to pass DC 20 and a 80% chance to pass DC 15.
Adv: 3 + 4 + 2d20kh1 = 8-27. Avg 20.82 with a 64% chance to pass DC 20 and a 87.75% chance to pass DC 15.

Level 9-12 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/892f)):
RAW: 4 + 4 + 5 + d20 = 14-33. Avg 23.5 with a 45% chance to pass DC 25 and a 70% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 4 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 10-29. Avg 22.82 with a 43.75% chance to pass DC 25 and a 75% chance to pass DC 20.

Level 13-16 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8930)):
RAW: 5 + 5 + 5 + d20 = 16-35. Avg 25.5 with a 55% chance to pass DC 25 and a 80% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 5 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 11-30. Avg 23.82 with a 51% chance to pass DC 25 and a 79.75% chance to pass DC 20.

Level 17-20 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8931)):
RAW: 6 + 6 + 5 + d20 = 18-37. Avg 27.5 with a 65% chance to pass DC 25 and a 90% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 6 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 12-31. Avg 24.82 with a 57.75% chance to pass DC 25 and a 84% chance to pass DC 20.

based on
DC 5 = very easy
DC 10 = easy
DC 15 = medium
DC 20 = hard
DC 25 = very hard
DC 30 = nearly impossible

I prefer the advantage. The comparison links show the distribution quite well. With advantage your average starts higher, but ends up being lower. However the distribution of advantage makes your roll much more likely to be high and much less likely to be low. A character with double prof bonus still can roll really poorly. I think advantage better models someone who is exceptionally good at a skill.

Based on that I prefer the advantage system. But that is my opinion and everyone should make their own choice based on the math they prefer. :)

[RickAllison]

Transforming my earlier math to compare expertise as advantage vs expertise as double proficiency (RAW):

Level 1-4 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/892d)):
RAW: 2 + 2 + 3 + d20 = 8-27. Avg 17.5 with a 65% chance to pass DC 15 and a 90% chance to pass DC 10.
Adv: 2 + 3 + 2d20kh1 = 6-25. Avg 18.82 with a 79.75% chance to pass DC 15 and a 96% chance to pass DC 10.

Level 5-8 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/892e)):
RAW: 3 + 3 + 4 + d20 = 11-30. Avg 20.5 with a 55% chance to pass DC 20 and a 80% chance to pass DC 15.
Adv: 3 + 4 + 2d20kh1 = 8-27. Avg 20.82 with a 64% chance to pass DC 20 and a 87.75% chance to pass DC 15.

Level 9-12 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/892f)):
RAW: 4 + 4 + 5 + d20 = 14-33. Avg 23.5 with a 45% chance to pass DC 25 and a 70% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 4 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 10-29. Avg 22.82 with a 43.75% chance to pass DC 25 and a 75% chance to pass DC 20.

Level 13-16 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8930)):
RAW: 5 + 5 + 5 + d20 = 16-35. Avg 25.5 with a 55% chance to pass DC 25 and a 80% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 5 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 11-30. Avg 23.82 with a 51% chance to pass DC 25 and a 79.75% chance to pass DC 20.

Level 17-20 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8931)):
RAW: 6 + 6 + 5 + d20 = 18-37. Avg 27.5 with a 65% chance to pass DC 25 and a 90% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 6 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 12-31. Avg 24.82 with a 57.75% chance to pass DC 25 and a 84% chance to pass DC 20.

based on
DC 5 = very easy
DC 10 = easy
DC 15 = medium
DC 20 = hard
DC 25 = very hard
DC 30 = nearly impossible

I prefer the advantage. The comparison links show the distribution quite well. With advantage your average starts higher, but ends up being lower. However the distribution of advantage makes your roll much more likely to be high and much less likely to be low. A character with double prof bonus still can roll really poorly. I think advantage better models someone who is exceptionally good at a skill.

Based on that I prefer the advantage system. But that is my opinion and everyone should make their own choice based on the math they prefer. :)

Here is my main problem with the advantage approach: it removes an entire portion of the game, the vying for advantage to increase odds of success.

For comparison, we have two wizards: a roguish (1 level dip) Arcana "Expert" against a wizard with Arcana proficiency alone (he decided to focus more on the practical side of magic). If they just compared at a given moment, the Expert has the advantage, pun intended. Give the other wizard 10 minutes and he brings out a familiar who then uses the Help action. For 10 gp and a little time, he is now just as good at these checks as the supposed Expert. The Expert does the same... And gains no benefit.

I suppose one option could be a Lucky-style benefit. How about "Once per ability check when using this skill, you may roll the check again with the same parameters and choose which roll to use as the result" It functions similarly to advantage, but stacks with it and so an Expert isn't invalidated by a ritual spell while being unable to use the same in turn.

[Kryx]

Here is my main problem with the advantage approach: it removes an entire portion of the game, the vying for advantage to increase odds of success.
This is a problem with the advantage system never offering a benefit for stacking. I implemented a stacking system and it has come up less than 5 times. I'd suggest +1 or +2 for an additional stack.

Not a fan of the pseudo-advantage system of lucky. Nor a fan of applying it here. It screams the need to have a system to actually handle stacking advantage (at least allow 2 to stack).


Expert isn't invalidated by a ritual spell.
Help can only be used on a very limited subset of skills and situations. If your GM is letting your familiar help with knowledge skills I'd be inclined to say that is an area where a familiar can't really help the caster very much. This depends on GM interpretation of the "Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive."

[Vogonjeltz]

You missed he was lvl 9

Ah...in which case the margin would only be +4? That's not that big a deal at all.


Oh yeah but I also had portent, lucky and a party member to bump into them or as a backup an invisible imp familiar who on very rare occasions used the help action to grant me advantage with slight of hand (kind of how pickpockets often work in real life).

Fair enough on the good strategy, but I'd say the portent is, by far, the most powerful aspect of that, and it's not intrinsic to a character who has expertise anyway.

Seems like a lot of resources to burn on getting an item off someone without them seeing you get it off them, resources better expended on things like life or death situations. And, much as saavy individuals do not allow you to violate their personal space in modern times (and would check any valuables on their person immediately revealing such a ruse), I'd expect such a trick to result in fantasy medieval times to result in immediate violence.

Imagine bumping into The Mountain (Game of Thrones). I'd say there's approaching a 100% chance he kills the characters involved on the spot even if he doesn't notice the theft.

So, yeah, it's good enough for what it's worth when you go to the trouble of investing so much (and there is alot being invested there), but I don't think it's really worth much of anything given the setting.

[RickAllison]

This is a problem with the advantage system never offering a benefit for stacking. I implemented a stacking system and it has come up less than 5 times. I'd suggest +1 or +2 for an additional stack.

Not a fan of the pseudo-advantage system of lucky. Nor a fan of applying it here. It screams the need to have a system to actually handle stacking advantage (at least allow 2 to stack).


Help can only be used on a very limited subset of skills and situations. If your GM is letting your familiar help with knowledge skills I'd be inclined to say that is an area where a familiar can't really help the caster very much. This depends on GM interpretation of the "Moreover, a character can help only when two or more individuals working together would actually be productive."

The familiar holds a book, he is now able to Help because he can point out information in the book.

You have a point about stacking advantage. I say the simplest way is to just use the actual book's rules on Expertise as I haven't seen how they actually decrease the entertainment value of the system.

[Mr.Moron]

1) Yes, it breaks bounded accuracy. However for skill checks alone it's not totally egregious.
Once it starts getting involved in combat or opposed checks (read: grapple rules) it's horrible and breaks the back of the game's feel & flow over its knee and then uses the spine as a toothpick.
2) Yes, it is a problem. Particularly because it sets the bar for "being good" too high, relative to other options. Also see comments on opposed checks & combat
3) The solution? Replace it with something else. There are lots of options, but 1/Rest automatic high result is a good one.

[Kryx]

The familiar holds a book, he is now able to Help because he can point out information in the book.
If you have a book at hand that contains the information then you'd be rolling investigation to see how quickly you can find it in that book.

A familiar can help you remember something, but can't help you inherently know something which is what knowledge skills are asking.
The same as how an ally (or familiar) can't help you perceive something better.

Treating find familiar as advantage on all ability checks is not intended imo. To treat it as such vastly overpowers it.
Though there are many GMs who would disagree. Probably 50/50 on this topic so we shouldn't get too bogged down on this small topic of the overall topic.

[RickAllison]

1) Yes, it breaks bounded accuracy. However for skill checks alone it's not totally egregious.
Once it starts getting involved in combat or opposed checks (read: grapple rules) it's horrible and breaks the back of the game's feel & flow over its knee and then uses the spine as a toothpick.
2) Yes, it is a problem. Particularly because it sets the bar for "being good" too high, relative to other options. Also see comments on opposed checks & combat
3) The solution? Replace it with something else. There are lots of options, but 1/Rest automatic high result is a good one.

And how does being better at grappling destroy the balance of the game as much as you describe? Especially when monsters and NPCs use Expertise already (Assassin has it on Stealth, Hydra has it on Perception, etc.). Can you provide some examples of how the balance of the game is so thoroughly destroyed by an extra +2 to +6 to grappling and sneaking?

I can see the argument of setting the bar too high. Let's be real, though, two skills with Expertise is easy to obtain and someone who wants to focus in a skill's use can express it with the sacrifice of one level. Why is that such a bad thing? Why shouldn't those who are willing to sacrifice a level be able to be better than those who just picked a skill as a background? It is reality, those who go out of their way to learn to be better than others at a task generally can become better.

And your solution to the problem is to give the Rogue's capstone? Actually, that's not such a bad idea if we give the Rogue the capstone of being able to double his proficiency bonus for his proficient skills. Although we then run into the issue that the PCs can never be as good at any skills as NPCs can.

[JNAProductions]

The trick is, give appropriate enemies proficiency/expertise in Athletics/Acrobatics. That makes expertise in grappling much less game-mauling.

[Kryx]

And how does being better at grappling destroy the balance of the game as much as you describe?
Step 1: Have a GM who uses terrain like cliffs, boats, lava, etc.
Step 2: Have amazing expertise in athletics
Step 3: Grapple monster, drop into terrain from step 1
Step 4: Monster go bye bye.

Alternate Step 3: Use Athletics to push creature into terrain from step 1 (assumes they are close enough).

In my current campaign of being on a boat this kind of build would obliterate any battle on boats. Save or die rolls for enemies effectively.

[Easy_Lee]

I will chip in.

As a DM, one must create encounters which will challenge the party. That includes anticipating their dice rolls. One can assume that rolling a 5 is easy, a 10 moderate, a 15 difficult, and a 20 legendary, for example. Therefore, if I know a player has a total possible mod of +6 at a given level, I can set DCs appropriately, so rolling a total 11 is easy, and a total 16 would be moderate, and so on..

Expertise messes with that. Suddenly, I have some players who have +2 to +6 on top of that score. If I raise the DCs to challenge these players, then many tasks become impossible for the others.

That's why, ever since people started using bounded accuracy, many have moved away from static +X features altogether.

I have two alternative rules which make the expertise useful without breaking the numbers (without raising the ceiling of what's possible).

Expertise grants advantage. Simple, but has the problem mentioned earlier.
Edit for clarity: when you roll a d20 for the relevant skill and roll less than 10, treat it as a 10 (average benefit is +2.25 on a d20). This way, difficult tasks are still difficult, but the expert never screws up something easy or moderately hard. One could strengthen this feature by raising the number. Average benefit = X*(X-1)/40. For 12, the average benefit becomes +3.3.

In closing, expertise allows the rogue or bard to go beyond the impossible. In my opinion, that sort of thing should be reserved for high-level magic and capstone features.

[Kryx]

If I raise the DCs to challenge these players, then many tasks become impossible for the others.
This is a huge issue, yup. This is the primary reason I now use advantage as well.


I like your "no less than 10". Though by the numbers on advantage I posted above that is already <4% for even level 1-4 (assuming you have a +3 ability mod, so maybe slightly higher rate of failure).
So it seems less necessary.

[RickAllison]

Step 1: Have a GM who uses terrain like cliffs, boats, lava, etc.
Step 2: Have amazing expertise in athletics
Step 3: Grapple monster, drop into terrain from step 1
Step 4: Monster go bye bye.

Alternate Step 3: Use Athletics to push creature into terrain from step 1 (assumes they are close enough).

In my current campaign of being on a boat this kind of build would obliterate any battle on boats. Save or die rolls for enemies effectively.

So it is a creature that does not have Acrobatics or Athletics proficiency, no countermeasures for being dropped from great heights, no ability to damage the guy who is blowing his turns dragging it off a cliff with all its friends, and who does have anyone with the ability to force movement in any way.

If none of the creatures have any way to counter someone who is just moving at half speed to a pitfall that they have been near before the party arrived, that battle SHOULD be a cakewalk. That is the easy, breather encounter of the day.

This isn't even getting into other classes that can do this even easier! Arguably the most common monk archetype can launch him 30 feet with a Strength save, and the Warlock launches them 10 ft per Eldritch Blast with no save at all! Not only can non-Expertise methods do this, but they do it better.

Edit: Easy_Lee, how about you just don't change the DCs. You have PCs who have chosen their skills and levels to gain an edge in those skills. If it was DC 20 for a party without Expertise, it should still be DC 20 for one that has it. If the fighter picks up the Archery FS, do you raise the AC of all enemies? No.

This isn't an arms race, what is the problem with letting a PC be good at their chosen specialties?

[Easy_Lee]

I like your "no less than 10". Though by the numbers on advantage I posted above that is already <4% for even level 1-4 (assuming you have a +3 ability mod, so maybe slightly higher rate of failure).
So it seems less necessary.

Ah, I meant adjust the d20 die roll to 10, meaning it would affect half of all rolls and have an average benefit of +5, without breaking the upper bounds. I'll update my post.

[Kryx]

So it is a creature that does not have Acrobatics or Athletics proficiency
Even with normal prof on Athletics or Acrobatics the Expertise is giving between 10-30% more likely success rate. And that's assuming the monster has decent str/dex.

So lets look at the math here:
level 1 Barbarian/1 Rogue vs CR 2 enemy
CR 2 enemy rolls d20+1.2 on average. Lvl 2 Barb/Rogue rolls 2d20kh1 (13.82), adds 4 from profx2, adds 3 from str.
So 10.5+1.2 = 11.7 on average
13.82+4+3 = 20.82 on average

My contested math is failing me right now, but a difference of 9 points doesn't bode well for monster.

Math on monsters: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1829796671
You'll be surprised by the lack of strength and athletics/acrobatics proficiency.


no countermeasures for being dropped from great heights
Of course you wouldn't try to drop a flying creature. So then we're looking at fly as a reaction which is probably 10/576 creatures.


no ability to damage the guy who is blowing his turns dragging it off a cliff with all its friends
Grab and drop can happen in 1 turn. Even if it takes 2 turns it's very difficult to avoid.


who does have anyone with the ability to force movement in any way
Again, this number is very very small. Maybe around 20 total. 20/576 is not good.


This isn't even getting into other classes that can do this even easier! Arguably the most common monk archetype can launch him 30 feet with a Strength save, and the Warlock launches them 10 ft per Eldritch Blast with no save at all! Not only can non-Expertise methods do this, but they do it better.
Monk's open hand requires a dex save vs DC ~13. The math is infinitely better here.
Repelling blast is broken itself. Pushing up to 40 breaks many encounters.

[Kryx]

Ah, I meant adjust the d20 die roll to 10, meaning it would affect half of all rolls and have an average benefit of +5, without breaking the upper bounds.
Ah, that's interesting! Let's look at the mathematical distribution!


Level 1-4 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8941)):
RAW: 2 + 2 + 3 + d20 = 8-27. Avg 17.5 with a 65% chance to pass DC 15 and a 90% chance to pass DC 10.
Adv: 2 + 3 + 2d20kh1 = 15-25. Avg 19.54 with a 100% chance to pass DC 15 and a 100% chance to pass DC 10.

Level 5-8 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8942)):
RAW: 3 + 3 + 4 + d20 = 11-30. Avg 20.5 with a 55% chance to pass DC 20 and a 80% chance to pass DC 15.
Adv: 3 + 4 + 2d20kh1 = 17-27. Avg 21.54 with a 64% chance to pass DC 20 and a 100% chance to pass DC 15.

Level 9-12 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8943)):
RAW: 4 + 4 + 5 + d20 = 14-33. Avg 23.5 with a 45% chance to pass DC 25 and a 70% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 4 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 19-29. Avg 23.54 with a 43.75% chance to pass DC 25 and a 75% chance to pass DC 20.

Level 13-16 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8944)):
RAW: 5 + 5 + 5 + d20 = 16-35. Avg 25.5 with a 55% chance to pass DC 25 and a 80% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 5 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 20-30. Avg 24.54 with a 51% chance to pass DC 25 and a 100% chance to pass DC 20.

Level 17-20 (Any dice comparison (http://anydice.com/program/8945)):
RAW: 6 + 6 + 5 + d20 = 18-37. Avg 27.5 with a 65% chance to pass DC 25 and a 90% chance to pass DC 20.
Adv: 6 + 5 + 2d20kh1 = 21-31. Avg 24.82 with a 57.75% chance to pass DC 25 and a 100% chance to pass DC 20.

Seems pretty nice!

[rollingForInit]

Expertise doesn't break anything.

Even though you can easily get Expertise in a lot of skills, for instance by going Bard/Rogue ... skill checks are typically not that powerful, and they aren't rolled in isolation. Let's say you've got a Bard 10/Rogue 6/Cleric 1, with Expertise in Arcana, History, Perception, Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Insight, Thieves' Tools, Deception, Persuasion and Intimidation. For fun, let's say the character has the Observant feat to really boost the skills.

This character will succeed on a lot of checks, but it never guarantees succees for the party. Sure, the character might be able to pick any pocket ... but it doesn't help if the noble has some sort of trap around what's getting pocketed, or if there's a magical tracker on the stolen item that leads back to the party. It doesn't matter that no ordinary lock can stand in their way, if there's a magical seal in place. The absolutely grotesque Perception (especially the passive) doesn't matter if the party is attacked on another character's watch. The super stealth skills are limited if the rest of the party are running around in heavy armour. Having +17 Persuasion doesn't matter if the NPC cannot possibly be persuaded. It is not magical coercion, after all. High Insight doesn't matter if the NPC has magically protected their lies from being seen through.

Yes, Expertise is good, but it doesn't break anything, because there are many factors that could render skills useless in specific situations.

[RickAllison]

Even with normal prof on Athletics or Acrobatics the Expertise is giving between 10-30% more likely success rate. And that's assuming the monster has decent str/dex.

So lets look at the math here:
level 1 Barbarian/1 Rogue vs CR 2 enemy
CR 2 enemy rolls d20+1.2 on average. Lvl 2 Barb/Rogue rolls 2d20kh1 (13.82), adds 4 from profx2, adds 3 from str.
So 10.5+1.2 = 11.7 on average
13.82+4+3 = 20.82 on average

My contested math is failing me right now, but a difference of 9 points doesn't bode well for monster.

Math on monsters: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1829796671
You'll be surprised by the lack of strength and athletics/acrobatics proficiency.


Of course you wouldn't try to drop a flying creature. So then we're looking at fly as a reaction which is probably 10/576 creatures.


Grab and drop can happen in 1 turn. Even if it takes 2 turns it's very difficult to avoid.


Again, this number is very very small. Maybe around 20 total. 20/576 is not good.


Monk's open hand requires a dex save vs DC ~13. The math is infinitely better here.
Repelling blast is broken itself. Pushing up to 40 breaks many encounters.

So a build with a focus on grappling and expending a long rest resource to get advantage is really good at grappling. I'm still failing to see the problem. What this tells me is that anyone who decides to hang out near a cliff without any planning of how to avoid being thrown in is either not a major enemy, or is an incredibly stupid major enemy.

So what you have established is that a build optimized for grappling is good at it, and can take down an enemy easily if the situation is optimal for it. That seems like the system is working like it should! If you create a room with countless places to hide and where the enemies are split up, you shouldn't be surprised that a rogue is cleaning house. If you set up a bunch of melee users closing in from 600 feet, you shouldn't be surprised that a longbow user tears them to pieces. You have created the perfect environment for a grappler while assuming stupid enemies. That is going to skew analysis massively.

Try your analysis again in a more typical combat encounter and see how much that extra grappling breaks the game. I'm not seeing it.

[Mr.Moron]

And how does being better at grappling destroy the balance of the game as much as you describe? Especially when monsters and NPCs use Expertise already (Assassin has it on Stealth, Hydra has it on Perception, etc.). Can you provide some examples of how the balance of the game is so thoroughly destroyed by an extra +2 to +6 to grappling and sneaking?

I can see the argument of setting the bar too high. Let's be real, though, two skills with Expertise is easy to obtain and someone who wants to focus in a skill's use can express it with the sacrifice of one level. Why is that such a bad thing? Why shouldn't those who are willing to sacrifice a level be able to be better than those who just picked a skill as a background? It is reality, those who go out of their way to learn to be better than others at a task generally can become better.

And your solution to the problem is to give the Rogue's capstone? Actually, that's not such a bad idea if we give the Rogue the capstone of being able to double his proficiency bonus for his proficient skills. Although we then run into the issue that the PCs can never be as good at any skills as NPCs can.

No. Because I said nothing about balance. Intended to say nothing about balance. I do not care all that much about "Balance" as this forum tends to conceptualize it. I said it interrupts play feel & flow, which in general means when making rolls (particularly in combat) that there is some risk or chance of failure. Expertise* in opposed rolls and very particularly in combat (where monsters never, ever have athletics proficiency) you basically just win the roll, every time, period. It's the only area of the game where success/failure is marginalized and while these tend not be particularly high-powered things it doesn't mesh with the rest of the game for me. It feels broken in the sense of "non-functional" or "inappropriate" rather than "overpowered".

imo, the grapple rules should be:

*You try to grapple. The target makes a reflex/strength save (defender's choice) against a DC of 8 + Your Str or Dex Mod (your choice) + Proficiency bonus. Why? This follows the template for every other status imposing ability in the game, and interacts with the save system standard monsters have access to. The current iteration read like some weird leftover from some kind of PvP rules in a pre-alpha state, not something that fits with the rest of the 5e design.

[Easy_Lee]

Try your analysis again in a more typical combat encounter and see how much that extra grappling breaks the game. I'm not seeing it.

I'll back up Kryx on this. I made a build a year or so ago and posted it here, the Iron Scoundrel. 6 or so levels of fighter and the rest rogue, rapier and shield, shield mastery, and athletics expertise.

The point of the build was this: take the attack action, bonus action shove the target to the ground first (opposed athletics), then make two attacks. You're virtually guaranteed to deal good damage every round, and have very good defenses with the combination of evasion, shield mastery, and general rogue features.

That's a build optimized for practical shoves and grapples without sacrificing mobility, defense, or damage. The odds of failing a grapple or shove check for such a build, assuming even 14 strength, are tiny when compared against the MM.

For the coup DE grace, the 30 strength tarrasque, with no athletics proficiency, has a modifier of +10, unless I'm missing something. The 14 strength level 20 athletics expertise iron scoundrel has a modifier of +14. He can reliably knock the tarrasque prone and shove it a few feet every round. This is not a save, but a skill contest, so legendary resistance does not apply. Lure it to a cliff for best results.

That's what expertise does. Something that should be reserved for a 20 strength barbarian or fighter is easily accomplished by the rogue or bard, due to expertise and the way skills were implemented.

[mephnick]

Would it be a jerk move to limit what skills expertise can apply to?

If it's only a feature for 2 classes it wouldn't be too hard to say "Ok, Rogues can pick from Stealth, Acrobatics, Investigation etc. Bards can pick from Knowledges, Performance, Persuasion etc."

That way the classes still get their huge bonus to thematic choices, but there won't be any rogues or bards auto-pinning barbarians.

[wunderkid]

Would it be a jerk move to limit what skills expertise can apply to?

If it's only a feature for 2 classes it wouldn't be too hard to say "Ok, Rogues can pick from Stealth, Acrobatics, Investigation etc. Bards can pick from Knowledges, Performance, Persuasion etc."

That way the classes still get their huge bonus to thematic choices, but there won't be any rogues or bards auto-pinning barbarians.

a rogue wont really auto pin a barbarian.

Even with expertise the barb will get 5 str, 6 prof. And advantage.

Rogue will get basically nothing from strength lets say +2 and 12 from expertise. no advange.

thats 11 vs 14. but the advantage makes up for the difference.

Now you could build a strength rogue. and then if you max str it can be a gap of 11 vs 17. however the barb still has advantage so even then its not an auto pin.

[RickAllison]

I'll back up Kryx on this. I made a build a year or so ago and posted it here, the Iron Scoundrel. 6 or so levels of fighter and the rest rogue, rapier and shield, shield mastery, and athletics expertise.

The point of the build was this: take the attack action, bonus action shove the target to the ground first (opposed athletics), then make two attacks. You're virtually guaranteed to deal good damage every round, and have very good defenses with the combination of evasion, shield mastery, and general rogue features.

That's a build optimized for practical shoves and grapples without sacrificing mobility, defense, or damage. The odds of failing a grapple or shove check for such a build, assuming even 14 strength, are tiny when compared against the MM.

For the coup DE grace, the 30 strength tarrasque, with no athletics proficiency, has a modifier of +10, unless I'm missing something. The 14 strength level 20 athletics expertise iron scoundrel has a modifier of +14. He can reliably knock the tarrasque prone and shove it a few feet every round. This is not a save, but a skill contest, so legendary resistance does not apply. Lure it to a cliff for best results.

That's what expertise does. Something that should be reserved for a 20 strength barbarian or fighter is easily accomplished by the rogue or bard, due to expertise and the way skills were implemented.

So your optimized build is successful at what it does. Is that a problem? You aren't doing anything world-ending by being able to prone Large creatures reliably (you can't shove the tarrasque or any Huge or larger creatures as a Medium. If a mage buddy Enlarges you, you could do it against Huge). Meanwhile, the creatures you are shoving can respond by just attacking. And if you don't have a cliff nearby, how is what you are doing making the game worse?

What do you think of the following system. Instead of contesting with Athletics/Acrobatics, they can choose to defend with a Str/Dex save with a DC equal to the instigator's roll. If it is contested with a skill and the defender wins by 5 or more, they may spend a reaction to make a reversal.

Athletics reversals include grappling the instigator or shoving him 5 feet away. Acrobatics reversals include rendering the instigator prone and jumping over the target to the other side.

This way, we allow for the use of the save system to defend, while still rewarding the use of skills.

[ClintACK]

Step 1: Have a GM who uses terrain like cliffs, boats, lava, etc.
Step 2: Have amazing expertise in athletics
Step 3: Grapple monster, drop into terrain from step 1
Step 4: Monster go bye bye.

Alternate Step 3: Use Athletics to push creature into terrain from step 1 (assumes they are close enough).

In my current campaign of being on a boat this kind of build would obliterate any battle on boats. Save or die rolls for enemies effectively.

1) Grappling lets you *drag* someone with you. You can't throw them off the side of a cliff. You can jump off with them. If you can disengage the grapple and can fly, I guess this works. Compare to Telekinesis, Bigby's Hand, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

2) Shoving is 5' per attack, 15'/round at 11th level fighter -- in lieu of three big melee attacks. Compare to Repelling Blast (10' per eldritch blast, no save or contest). (A warlock can have this at 2nd level. And he gets to do damage *and* push, not just either or.)

If this would obliterate your battles, you have a problem. Because the ability to shove enemies around is not unique to munchkined-out expertise grappler/shovers. It's all over the game.


TL;DR:
This isn't an arms race, what is the problem with letting a PC be good at their chosen specialties?

A thousand times this.

If someone wants to build a phenomenal wrestler -- what's wrong with letting him be a phenomenal wrestler?

He wins that encounter, and looks awesome doing it. And most importantly, he (and hopefully the other players) should have fun with this.



For the coup DE grace, the 30 strength tarrasque, with no athletics proficiency, has a modifier of +10, unless I'm missing something. The 14 strength level 20 athletics expertise iron scoundrel has a modifier of +14. He can reliably knock the tarrasque prone and shove it a few feet every round. This is not a save, but a skill contest, so legendary resistance does not apply. Lure it to a cliff for best results.

You're missing something.

Both shoving and grappling are limited to creatures within one size category of you. If your iron scoundrel is a Fire Giant, then by all means, wrestle the Tarrasque to the ground. Otherwise, nope. Doesn't work by RAW, so it certainly can't be an argument to change the RAW.

Also, just because I can, I'll point out that you've now initiated a grapple with the Tarrasque. At the end of your turn of dragging/shoving it 0', it takes a Legendary Action to Swallow you whole. Apologies. I really couldn't help myself.


That's what expertise does. Something that should be reserved for a 20 strength barbarian or fighter is easily accomplished by the rogue or bard, due to expertise and the way skills were implemented.

So, this is an argument I am very sensitive to -- that it's going to stomp all over the fun of another player at the table. That would be a really good reason to change things up.

But notice that *anyone* can get this feature by taking a one level dip in rogue. It's not a capstone ability, or even a level 3 archetype feature. If you were going to build a super-duper wrestling champ barbarian or fighter, you'd obviously take the one level dip in rogue, wouldn't you? Heck, you get sneak attack, one good skill, and another expertise (say, for stealth or perception or something flavorful like survival for wolf-totem tracking). It's a really nice dip for anyone.

And the 19 Barbarian/1 Rogue still out-wrestles the 20 Rogue who buffed strength and took athletics expertise. The 20 Rogue is just out-wrestling the 20 Barbarian who will be frenzied-rage-GWM-reckless-attacking with his really big axe while the Rogue drags him 15' per round.

I just don't see how this breaks the game, or spoils another player's fun.

[wunderkid]

1) Grappling lets you *drag* someone with you. You can't throw them off the side of a cliff. You can jump off with them. If you can disengage the grapple and can fly, I guess this works. Compare to Telekinesis, Bigby's Hand, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

2) Shoving is 5' per attack, 15'/round at 11th level fighter -- in lieu of three big melee attacks. Compare to Repelling Blast (10' per eldritch blast, no save or contest). (A warlock can have this at 2nd level. And he gets to do damage *and* push, not just either or.)

If this would obliterate your battles, you have a problem. Because the ability to shove enemies around is not unique to munchkined-out expertise grappler/shovers. It's all over the game.


TL;DR:

A thousand times this.

If someone wants to build a phenomenal wrestler -- what's wrong with letting him be a phenomenal wrestler?

He wins that encounter, and looks awesome doing it. And most importantly, he (and hopefully the other players) should have fun with this.



You're missing something.

Both shoving and grappling are limited to creatures within one size category of you. If your iron scoundrel is a Fire Giant, then by all means, wrestle the Tarrasque to the ground. Otherwise, nope. Doesn't work by RAW, so it certainly can't be an argument to change the RAW.

Also, just because I can, I'll point out that you've now initiated a grapple with the Tarrasque. At the end of your turn of dragging/shoving it 0', it takes a Legendary Action to Swallow you whole. Apologies. I really couldn't help myself.



So, this is an argument I am very sensitive to -- that it's going to stomp all over the fun of another player at the table. That would be a really good reason to change things up.

But notice that *anyone* can get this feature by taking a one level dip in rogue. It's not a capstone ability, or even a level 3 archetype feature. If you were going to build a super-duper wrestling champ barbarian or fighter, you'd obviously take the one level dip in rogue, wouldn't you? Heck, you get sneak attack, one good skill, and another expertise (say, for stealth or perception or something flavorful like survival for wolf-totem tracking). It's a really nice dip for anyone.

And the 19 Barbarian/1 Rogue still out-wrestles the 20 Rogue who buffed strength and took athletics expertise. The 20 Rogue is just out-wrestling the 20 Barbarian who will be frenzied-rage-GWM-reckless-attacking with his really big axe while the Rogue drags him 15' per round.

I just don't see how this breaks the game, or spoils another player's fun.

Just to tag on the end here only a 20 strength rogue will out wrestle a 20 barbarian. And even then the difference is a whole 4. But the barb has advantage. So a suboptimised rogue will be able to wrestle with a full power barbarian.

And a Dex based 20 rogue is amazing at escaping grapples. Which is kind of a slippery rogue thing to do don't you think?

[RickAllison]

1) Grappling lets you *drag* someone with you. You can't throw them off the side of a cliff. You can jump off with them. If you can disengage the grapple and can fly, I guess this works. Compare to Telekinesis, Bigby's Hand, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere.

2) Shoving is 5' per attack, 15'/round at 11th level fighter -- in lieu of three big melee attacks. Compare to Repelling Blast (10' per eldritch blast, no save or contest). (A warlock can have this at 2nd level. And he gets to do damage *and* push, not just either or.)

If this would obliterate your battles, you have a problem. Because the ability to shove enemies around is not unique to munchkined-out expertise grappler/shovers. It's all over the game.


TL;DR:

A thousand times this.

If someone wants to build a phenomenal wrestler -- what's wrong with letting him be a phenomenal wrestler?

He wins that encounter, and looks awesome doing it. And most importantly, he (and hopefully the other players) should have fun with this.



You're missing something.

Both shoving and grappling are limited to creatures within one size category of you. If your iron scoundrel is a Fire Giant, then by all means, wrestle the Tarrasque to the ground. Otherwise, nope. Doesn't work by RAW, so it certainly can't be an argument to change the RAW.

Also, just because I can, I'll point out that you've now initiated a grapple with the Tarrasque. At the end of your turn of dragging/shoving it 0', it takes a Legendary Action to Swallow you whole. Apologies. I really couldn't help myself.



So, this is an argument I am very sensitive to -- that it's going to stomp all over the fun of another player at the table. That would be a really good reason to change things up.

But notice that *anyone* can get this feature by taking a one level dip in rogue. It's not a capstone ability, or even a level 3 archetype feature. If you were going to build a super-duper wrestling champ barbarian or fighter, you'd obviously take the one level dip in rogue, wouldn't you? Heck, you get sneak attack, one good skill, and another expertise (say, for stealth or perception or something flavorful like survival for wolf-totem tracking). It's a really nice dip for anyone.

And the 19 Barbarian/1 Rogue still out-wrestles the 20 Rogue who buffed strength and took athletics expertise. The 20 Rogue is just out-wrestling the 20 Barbarian who will be frenzied-rage-GWM-reckless-attacking with his really big axe while the Rogue drags him 15' per round.

I just don't see how this breaks the game, or spoils another player's fun.

Do note that the tarrasque needs to be grappling a target to swallow him, not be grappled. And Big T can only do his awesome bite attacks on creatures that are too small to grapple him (Large or Smaller).

On the plus side for the Iron Scoundrel, he can take the Climb On a Bigger Creature action and be just fine so long as the tarrasque doesn't land his bite attacks...

[ClintACK]

Noted. :)

Back in 3.5, grappling was a mutual thing. Hence, my mental picture.

I think the 5e version is a significant improvement.


Hmm... Tarasque hunting. Always a good topic.

So, I'm picturing a Rogue 1/Moon Druid 12 with expertise in athletics. She wild shapes into an elephant (CR:4, size: Huge, Str: 22(+6)). 13th level gives +5 proficiency, so Athletics: +6+5+5=+16.

Zero trouble grappling the Tarasque -- then moving it 20'/round. (Cue Longstrider and other exploits.) Except now she's in melee range of the Tarasque.

Now what?

[RickAllison]

Noted. :)

Back in 3.5, grappling was a mutual thing. Hence, my mental picture.

I think the 5e version is a significant improvement.


Hmm... Tarasque hunting. Always a good topic.

So, I'm picturing a Rogue 1/Moon Druid 12 with expertise in athletics. She wild shapes into an elephant (CR:4, size: Huge, Str: 22(+6)). 13th level gives +5 proficiency, so Athletics: +6+5+5=+16.

Zero trouble grappling the Tarasque -- then moving it 20'/round. (Cue Longstrider and other exploits.) Except now she's in melee range of the Tarasque.

Now what?

I played out a theoretical build with this!! I got it to the point where the tarrasque (and every other creature besides a few Giants) was unable to escape the restrain condition from the Giant Octopus (Enlarged)/Constrictor Snake. I considered playing it until I had the sad realization that the animal forms had so little health that he wouldn't be able to survive long in melee range...

[jas61292]

1) Grappling lets you *drag* someone with you. You can't throw them off the side of a cliff. You can jump off with them.

Technically, this is not exactly true. You move them with you, but, unlike say 3.5e, nothing says they share your space. Its ambiguous, but I'd argue the closest to raw we have is that they move relative to you. Therefore, if the cliff is behind them and you move straight for it, they will go off while you are on the edge. Then you just let go.

Now whether or not that's how your DM actually rules grapple, that's not for me to say. But it is a perfectly viable ruling. And even if its not allowed, you just push them to the edge, and then shove them. If you are pretty much always winning the grapple, you are winning the shove too.

[Kryx]

Technically, this is not exactly true. You move them with you, but, unlike say 3.5e, nothing says they share your space. Its ambiguous, but I'd argue the closest to raw we have is that they move relative to you. Therefore, if the cliff is behind them and you move straight for it, they will go off while you are on the edge. Then you just let go.

Now whether or not that's how your DM actually rules grapple, that's not for me to say. But it is a perfectly viable ruling. And even if its not allowed, you just push them to the edge, and then shove them. If you are pretty much always winning the grapple, you are winning the shove too.
Exactly this. Either drop or shove.

[RickAllison]

Exactly this. Either drop or shove.

And this then provides a handful of d6s of damage and neutralizes an enemy for the encounter but not permanently.

... I want a player to do this. Then, I'm going to have an NPC support group that discusses the brutality that they have felt from adventurers who have decided crueler methods were sufficient.

Then, the party will eventually find themselves at a support group meeting. The grappler can get to hear all these former enemies who he has emotionally scarred through callous treatment. It would almost be like the Villains support group in Wreck-It Ralph!

[MrStabby]

So I have only ever had problems with expertise with social skills. There it is always the difficulty of setting DCs so they are accessible to all players but still significantly better for the players that have invested in it.

Everything else - not a problem.

Athletics for grapple and shove? Starts of with the PC being a bit better than others then gets up to much better in the field in which they have specialised. Someone has gone beyond being merely strong and has developed effective techniques? They are not inappropriately good.

Athletics/acrobatics for climbing and jumping? By the time the discrepancy gets this big players have the fly spell and it isn't even using what would be a high level spell slot for them. A player effectively having permanent spider climb as a class feature is cool by me.

Knowledge? Sure you know stuff and can answer questions the party faces. Often as DM I have to make up new facts to represent what can be known at the upper end of the roll. Not a problem - it's fun and it gives me a great way to introduce new lore, plotpoints and monster vulnerabilities into the game.

Perception. A bit trickier. Not as game breaking as allowing a player to have a weapon of warning and for dedicated, pre-planed ambushes in dense cover in dim light by patient well washed enemies I see no reason to have a DC that won't still pose a challenge. Sure the other PCs won't get this ambush but for an occasional encounter I don't see it as a problem. See invisibility is a level 2 spell

Stealth/hiding - the other side. Sure someone can sneak about unnoticed. Warlocks can go invisible at will by level 5, invisibility is a level 2 spell.

Generally, at best, I see skills as being an at will low level spell. Even then it is only as proficiency grows that expertise starts to pull away. So by level 8 if you can get invisibility at will, is it really too much of a problem? And this is something that someone has expended an iconic class feature on.

On shove - my first 5th edition character was a multiclass champion/assassin based around strength and shield master. It was a good character that was powerful but only, as mentioned by others, against smaller targets. I don't think it felt like I was breaking anything - not least as I actually needed to get close to an enemy to use it.

[Zalabim]

This isn't an arms race, what is the problem with letting a PC be good at their chosen specialties?

Not much I can add to this.


Even with normal prof on Athletics or Acrobatics the Expertise is giving between 10-30% more likely success rate. And that's assuming the monster has decent str/dex.

So lets look at the math here:
level 1 Barbarian/1 Rogue vs CR 2 enemy
CR 2 enemy rolls d20+1.2 on average. Lvl 2 Barb/Rogue rolls 2d20kh1 (13.82), adds 4 from profx2, adds 3 from str.
So 10.5+1.2 = 11.7 on average
13.82+4+3 = 20.82 on average

My contested math is failing me right now, but a difference of 9 points doesn't bode well for monster.

Just tell Anydice to give you chance aggressor roll > defender roll. In this case:
vs. +1 (http://anydice.com/program/8973). 87.31% success. Whole numbers only.
vs. +5 (http://anydice.com/program/8974). 73.64% success. This is like an acrobatic goblin.
Without expertise (http://anydice.com/program/8975). 81.3% success. Just a barbarian.
Without advantage (http://anydice.com/program/8976). 73.75% success. Just a rogue.
20 Str Rogue vs 24 Str Barbarian (http://anydice.com/program/8978) 61.76% success.
20 Str Valor Bard vs 24 Str Barbarian (http://anydice.com/program/8979) 46.06% success. The reverse is 48.94%

Now, if you wanted to actually know how well creatures defend against combat maneuvers you'd need to redo your sheet to find the average of the highest of Str or Dex.

[Kryx]

vs. +1 (http://anydice.com/program/8973). 87.31% success. Whole numbers only.
Ah, great. That's the syntax! Thanks for letting me know!

So 87% success rate. Ya, that's too much for 5e. I had enough auto-success with touch attacks in PF. Never again.

[Zalabim]

Ah, great. That's the syntax! Thanks for letting me know!

So 87% success rate. Ya, that's too much for 5e. I had enough auto-success with touch attacks in PF. Never again.

An attack with average attack bonus against average AC (roll an 8 to hit) hits 87.75% of the time if you have advantage. It doesn't seem out of line. Opposed checks are the most swingy thing in the game.

[Kryx]

An attack with average attack bonus against average AC (roll an 8 to hit) hits 87.75% of the time if you have advantage. It doesn't seem out of line. Opposed checks are the most swingy thing in the game.
That's true, a barbarian with advantage is hitting ~87.5% of the time as well. The difference in this case is the chance of success grows quite high. Up to 96.4%. Also the other difference here is the consequences of success. In the case of a barbarian it's a fair amount of damage, but from 1 swing it's likely around 10-30% of max HP depending on tier of play. In the cliff/boat/lava case it's 100% of hp.

Beyond that CC typically doesn't have as high of a chance as hitting does (grapple is light CC with the potential for insta kill with environment). I think they're 1 case where the enemy is forced to make their save at disadvantage, but the consequences, if I remember correctly, aren't huge.

But even with the advantage case that I present the numbers are still in favor of the PC. 81% at tier 1 (http://anydice.com/program/8975)

If we take level 17 and CR 17 that's (anydice (http://anydice.com/program/897c))
Adv: 2d20kh1 + 6 + 5 vs 20+5.8 (6) = 84.5%
RAW: 2d20kh1 + 12 + 5 vs 20+5.8 (6) = 96.4%

[Zalabim]

The effect being too great is different from the chance to apply an effect being too great. It seems the CC effect of dropping someone is more important than the maximum damage of a fall. Isn't that just making good use of the environment? How many CR 17 creatures can you actually push off a cliff? If it takes three attacks and all your movement (grab and drag, push over the edge, prone to cause a winged flier to fall), is that fair? I'm sure you could get a few more if you were also Enlarged. What if the party just sneaks past them instead? This is the level where the party doesn't actually need boats anymore, after all.

On success alone, there's barely any difference between just expertise (like a level 17 valor bard) 88.75% and just advantage (like a level 17 barbarian) 84.5%. By that level, the rogue would have reliable talent to succeed up to 100% of the time. Examples. (http://anydice.com/program/897d)

In the grand scheme of things, it feels more awesome and intended than busted and accidental.

[Kryx]

Isn't that just making good use of the environment?
Turn the sitatuion around to see the problem: Give a NPC the same success rate and have him grapple + insta-gib PCs. They will not enjoy this activity as they have an incredibly small chance of not dying if conditions are met. imo that's one of the best way to determine balance: "If I did this to my PCs would they feel like it was fair?". In this case I'd say no.

Regarding getting as high of a success chance with advantage: It is indeed a problem even if expertise doesn't give double prof. 84.5 vs 96.4 in the grand scheme of things still feels oppressing if used against a PC. That's why I'd give athletics proficiency to the appropriate NPCs.
The grapple issue isn't solved by not giving double proficiency, but the other issue of setting DCs for a party mentioned above is solved.


For similar reasons I give half proficiency bonus to unproficienct saving throws. This makes those rolls not insta fails at high level play.


I'm curious if the method suggested earlier is actually the best method for handling grapple: Make it not a skill. Pathfinder did this with CMB and CMD. Perhaps it should be treated like the fighter manuevers with a DC 8 + prof + str/dex vs enemy's strength or dex save.

[Zalabim]

If you're turning it around on the players, a Str or Dex save is just as hard for some PCs, and mostly serves to make monsters more resistant to it. Though I do like the reduced rolling necessary to resolve it. I'd argue since monsters and NPCs don't have athletics proficiency, by and large, it looks like something that isn't going to be turned around on the players.

It's not insta-gib either. It's up to 70 average damage and removed from the fight, or less damage and thrown into the water, or thrown into lava and yeah, you're probably dead. Being probably dead in a burning volcano isn't the end of a PCs story though. You could have been dropped to 0 HP by a banshee's wail, pushed into the same hazard by a Gust of Wind, shifted to another plane, or had your intellect devoured. PCs can fail saves and have terrible things happen to them. Being grappled and thrown around for failing ability checks is actually less likely.


The grapple issue isn't solved by not giving double proficiency, but the other issue of setting DCs for a party mentioned above is solved.


If one party member has a much better ability check than the rest of the party, you could:
A) Raise the DCs so they still fail as often as you think players should fail.
B) Limit their class feature so they still fail as often as you think players should fail.
C) Let them succeed more often at a thing they've devoted a class feature to improving.

It's not the only solution nor the one I'd choose.

CMB/CMD is handled terribly in Pathfinder. Mr. Moron's idea is actually clear and manageable. It clearly makes grappling a worse option for PCs and a better option for monsters, compared to RAW. Monsters still lack the Extra Attack feature.

Well, work's done, so I'm out of time for the day.

[MrStabby]

Even if a PC is grappled and thrown into a volcano it isn't just the DM saying, "hey make this impossible save or you die".

The DM is presenting the volcano, a clear hazard, the enemy being described as strong or muscular. Even if the players decide to go near the obvious hazard it isn't a simple save. the grappler has to grab the player from amongst his friends, survive the opportunity attacks, make the grapple and then shove the player off the edge.

There are plenty of spells to help - things like misty step. Fly to keep out of reach etc.. Yes, occasionally it may seem powerful, but as much due to making the party focus on freeing the grappled player as anything else.

[Easy_Lee]

I come at this from a game philosophy point of view. I don't want a rogue with 12 strength and athletics expertise to have an equal average roll as a 24 strength maxed barbarian. I don't want the barbarian to have to take a rogue or bard dip just to compete for what should be his niche.

[JNAProductions]

I come at this from a game philosophy point of view. I don't want a rogue with 12 strength and athletics expertise to have an equal average roll as a 24 strength maxed barbarian. I don't want the barbarian to have to take a rogue or bard dip just to compete for what should be his niche.

Why is it the Barbarian's niche?

[Easy_Lee]

Why is it the Barbarian's niche?

Because he's stronger than the rogue...being a skill monkey shouldn't mean being the clear best at any skill you want to choose.

[JNAProductions]

Because he's stronger than the rogue...being a skill monkey shouldn't mean being the clear best at any skill you want to choose.

Um... Then what's your definition of a skill monkey?

And sure, he's not stronger, but he's more skilled than the Barbarian. He has grappling techniques, while the Barbarian uses brute strength. The Barbarian can dip Rogue, however, to develop his grappling techniques and truly be the best at it, at some cost to his straight Barbarian abilities.

[Kryx]

There are plenty of spells to help - things like misty step. Fly to keep out of reach etc.. Yes, occasionally it may seem powerful, but as much due to making the party focus on freeing the grappled player as anything else.
That's all assuming multiple rounds.

[Easy_Lee]

Um... Then what's your definition of a skill monkey?

And sure, he's not stronger, but he's more skilled than the Barbarian. He has grappling techniques, while the Barbarian uses brute strength. The Barbarian can dip Rogue, however, to develop his grappling techniques and truly be the best at it, at some cost to his straight Barbarian abilities.

Skillmonkey used to mean a character with a lot of skills. Let's not forget 3.5 where rogues just had the most skill points to spend, making them overall the most skilled without beating other classes at everything. This idea that rogues and bards should always have the highest possible skill rolls is brand new in 5e.

That's why I suggest changing expertise. Advantage on the skill is fine, though I prefer for expertise to set a min roll of 10 on the d20 for that skill. That way, experts can't do things others can never do, they're just good enough to never screw up easy or moderately difficult tasks.

[Kryx]

C) Let them succeed more often at a thing they've devoted a class feature to improving.
Ugggggggggggh this wording is always worded so condescendingly. I don't want to nerf player options top be useless. I want player options to not break the math. You don't consider this to break the math. Many do. No need to be condescending about it.


CMB/CMD is handled terribly in Pathfinder. Mr. Moron's idea is actually clear and manageable. It clearly makes grappling a worse option for PCs and a better option for monsters, compared to RAW.
I never said it was handled well and I wasn't planning on implementing it. I was suggesting Mr. Moron's idea.

His idea actually unifies how the game handles proning and shoving. Currently it can either be a skill contest or a flat dc vs a saving throw. The fact that both can be used is quite weird. It's like having touch AC, flatfooted AC, etc. It should just use one system imo.

[MrStabby]

I come at this from a game philosophy point of view. I don't want a rogue with 12 strength and athletics expertise to have an equal average roll as a 24 strength maxed barbarian. I don't want the barbarian to have to take a rogue or bard dip just to compete for what should be his niche.

So I see good grapplers as much being nimble Judo masters as huge hulking steroid filled meatheads. For me this is as much a rogue niche as a barbarian niche. Now if a wizard were to be kicking down doors better than a barbarian I might have some concerns.

[Kryx]

So I see good grapplers as much being nimble Judo masters as huge hulking steroid filled meatheads. For me this is as much a rogue niche as a barbarian niche.
And what you're suggesting would be true with the advantage system proposed by lee and myself. It would be equivalent.

[Sigreid]

This is clearly just my opinion, but I think the biggest part of the problem people have with skills, including expertise, is that we're all still conditioned to the idea that the DCs the party faces will climb as they level, and the game assumption is that the DCs the party faces will remain largely flat. If the DC's go up as the party levels, then no one ever gets to be good at anything. If the DCs remain mostly flat, then your proficiency increase will give you a significant reliability increase. Flat DCs also mean that the high level rogue's mastery of his skills becomes practically a supernatural power in its own right.

[Osrogue]

I'll back up Kryx on this. I made a build a year or so ago and posted it here, the Iron Scoundrel. 6 or so levels of fighter and the rest rogue, rapier and shield, shield mastery, and athletics expertise.

The point of the build was this: take the attack action, bonus action shove the target to the ground first (opposed athletics), then make two attacks. You're virtually guaranteed to deal good damage every round, and have very good defenses with the combination of evasion, shield mastery, and general rogue features.

That's a build optimized for practical shoves and grapples without sacrificing mobility, defense, or damage. The odds of failing a grapple or shove check for such a build, assuming even 14 strength, are tiny when compared against the MM.

For the coup DE grace, the 30 strength tarrasque, with no athletics proficiency, has a modifier of +10, unless I'm missing something. The 14 strength level 20 athletics expertise iron scoundrel has a modifier of +14. He can reliably knock the tarrasque prone and shove it a few feet every round. This is not a save, but a skill contest, so legendary resistance does not apply. Lure it to a cliff for best results.

That's what expertise does. Something that should be reserved for a 20 strength barbarian or fighter is easily accomplished by the rogue or bard, due to expertise and the way skills were implemented.

There is a size limitation. You won't be shoving or grappling huge or larger creatures unless a caster blows enlarge on you, and then you still aren't shoving a tarrasque. You won't be doing that to ranged attackers, fliers, anything that teleports. Not useful against mob-type enemies like goblins. but hey, great survivability and single target damage against large or smaller creatures, I guess typically bruisers like ogres and whatnot.

Really like the build by the way, but it does have its counters.

[Easy_Lee]

There is a size limitation. You won't be shoving or grappling huge or larger creatures unless a caster blows enlarge on you, and then you still aren't shoving a tarrasque. You won't be doing that to ranged attackers, fliers, anything that teleports. Not useful against mob-type enemies like goblins. but hey, great survivability and single target damage against large or smaller creatures, I guess typically bruisers like ogres and whatnot.

Really like the build by the way, but it does have its counters.

That's true. I couldn't remember if there was a size limitation, so I left it in figuring someone would correct me. I didn't want to be right about big T. Turns out that the only thing one would need to do is fix the size difference - which I still think is crazy, given the strength difference.

[Kryx]

I think the biggest part of the problem people have with skills, including expertise, is that we're all still conditioned to the idea that the DCs the party faces will climb as they level, and the game assumption is that the DCs the party faces will remain largely flat.
I think what you say is likely true, but it doesn't seem related to the topic or a cause for either the RAW or advantage position taken by the posters here.

[Osrogue]

That's true. I couldn't remember if there was a size limitation, so I left it in figuring someone would correct me. I didn't want to be right about big T. Turns out that the only thing one would need to do is fix the size difference - which I still think is crazy, given the strength difference.

Yeah, but the reason why it's crazy is because the tarrasque is so large. PCs can have obscenely high strength with a proper belt, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for an NPC to push them away with a shield or kick their legs out from under them in my mind.

[Sigreid]

I think what you say is likely true, but it doesn't seem related to the topic or a cause for either the RAW or advantage position taken by the posters here.

That part was covered where I talked about Expertise being meant to be essentially a supernatural ability. You've become so good that your mastery of the skill IS magic.

[Kryx]

it doesn't seem unreasonable for an NPC to push them away with a shield or kick their legs out from under them in my mind.
It doesn't seem unreasonable, but by RAW Big T would struggle to do so. He rolls d20+10 vs either d20+17 or 2d20kh1+17.
There are no benefits for size to shove.

Fun, right?

[Easy_Lee]

It doesn't seem unreasonable, but by RAW Big T would struggle to do so. He rolls d20+10 vs either d20+17 or 2d20kh1+17.
There are no benefits for size to shove.

Fun, right?

Pretty much exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

That said, repelling eldritch blast, unless there's errata I'm not aware of, pushes targets 10' per hit with no save (just has to hit). Expertise is far from my biggest bone to pick with 5e.

Getting back on topic, I think DMs need number ranges to set DCs appropriately. We need to know, for instance, about what number would be a difficult bluff check for a level 12 character. Expertise messes with that by raising both the floor and roof for die rolls. I'm perfectly fine with expertise raising the floor, but roof raising ought to be a bit more difficult to achieve than an always-on feature.

What do you guys think of this?
Expertise: you cannot have disadvantage on this skill. When you roll a d20 for a check with this skill, you may change the result to 10 after rolling.

Numerically, it's an average +2.25 to rolls, and +3-5 for rolls you would have made with disadvantage.

[RickAllison]

Just as an aside, thanks to everyone in this thread for keeping the discussion relatively friendly. I know some threads about these subjects can get heated and I appreciate that everyone is discussing this in such a pleasant manner.

[Kryx]

I'm perfectly fine with expertise raising the floor, but roof raising ought to be a bit more difficult to achieve than an always-on feature.

What do you guys think of this?
Expertise: you cannot have disadvantage on this skill. When you roll a d20 for a check with this skill, you may change the result to 10 after rolling.

Numerically, it's an average +2.25 to rolls, and +3-5 for rolls you would have made with disadvantage.
I think roof-raising is problematic. It makes you redefine all skill DCs and then you have to fix all monsters as a result.

I prefer the static DCs and the system you suggested earlier:

Expertise = advantage on roll (stack up to 2 with a +1 or +2 as desired).

I'm still on the fence of a "minimum 10 on the d20". I'm inclined to say that advantage should cover it in nearly all cases.

[Easy_Lee]

I think roof-raising is problematic. It makes you redefine all skill DCs and then you have to fix all monsters as a result.

I prefer the static DCs and the system you suggested earlier:

Expertise = advantage on roll (stack up to 2 with a +1 or +2 as desired).

I'm still on the fence of a "minimum 10 on the d20". I'm inclined to say that advantage should cover it in nearly all cases.

My only real concern with the advantage method is the whole double advantage thing. But yeah, addressing that, it's the easiest way to do it. Honestly, I'd probably just have players roll three dice if they already had advantage. But I have more of a laissez faire style.

[Kryx]

I actually just swapped Pass Without Trace to advantage instead of +10. At least I'm consistent, right? :D
Still should be a decent spell for sneaking up on people, just not an auto success. It'll cancel out the Paladin's plate at least.

Are there other "roof-raisers" that I should know about? I'm sure there is another one or two out there.

[Easy_Lee]

Oddly enough, I'm generally fine with +X from spells, just because that's a temporary boost. But yeah, I see your point and don't disagree with your reasoning. Pass without trace, a +10, is one where I might say advantage and you can't have disadvantage.

Some sources of +X that I don't like:

Archery (fighting style): +2 to hit on ranged attacks.
Alert (feat): +5 on initiative. This one has long been noted as pretty busted compared with other feats.
Dual Wielder (feat): it's +1AC, which is basically half-shield bonus. Still, I dislike this, but more because spending a feat for +1 AC, the ability to dual wield bigger weapons, and a benefit that should be assumed (draw or stow two weapons at once), seems super weak for a feat. I'd probably take away the +1 and change it to +1 strength or dexterity. There have been entire threads about this feat.
Ram, Portable (item): +4 bonus on strength checks to break down doors. Why specifically doors? I can't ram a wall with it? I'd probably just make it an auto-success on anything that's not reinforced.
Beast Master's pets add the ranger's proficiency to their AC. This, apparently, stacks with barding. I've talked about this before. I'd specify proficiency is added to the beast's base AC.
War Domain Cleric - Channel Divinity - Guided Strike and War God's Blessing: These add a whopping +10 to attack rolls. That's a bit insane.

Anyway, that's all I have for now. I think I'll just make it a policy to change static bonuses to something else in my games.

[Kryx]

Archery (fighting style): +2 to hit on ranged attacks.
This is intended to counter the flat bonus of half-cover or 3/4 cover. No other way to handle it imo.


+5 on initiative. This one has long been noted as pretty busted compared with other feats.
Busted as in good, or busted as in bad? In my half feat system (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H19CLykV) I have it as the following:

You gain a +3 bonus to initiative.
You can’t be surprised while you are conscious.

A half-feat seems a fair enough cost to go earlier. Though maybe +3 is too much - maybe should be 2.



Dual Wielder (feat): it's +1AC, which is basically half-shield bonus. Still, I dislike this, but more because spending a feat for +1 AC, the ability to dual wield bigger weapons, and a benefit that should be assumed (draw or stow two weapons at once), seems super weak for a feat. I'd probably take away the +1 and change it to +1 strength or dexterity. There have been entire threads about this feat.
Seems fine to me - half the benefit of a shield. I agree the feat is weak and my TWF is drastically different (with ability score being there by default on the second weapon and being able to draw 2 light by default).

Half-feat for +1 AC seems ok to me. ~10% less damage. It could use something very small alongside it.


Ram, Portable (item): +4 bonus on strength checks to break down doors. Why specifically doors? I can't ram a wall with it? I'd probably just make it an auto-success on anything that's not reinforced.
Seems like advantage is a better option. Advantage is ~3.


Beast Master's pets add the ranger's proficiency to their AC. This, apparently, stacks with barding. I've talked about this before. I'd specify proficiency is added to the beast's base AC.
Ya, I'd be inclined to wipe out the prof and just expect barding. Though I'd probably find some homebrew of beast master


War Domain Cleric - Channel Divinity - Guided Strike and War God's Blessing: These add a whopping +10 to attack rolls. That's a bit insane.
I saw this the other day - it's rather crazy. It's similar to precise strike from Fighter which can add 1-12 to an attack. I feel like this one is ok as the resource usage is rather low. For clerics 1-3 attacks depending on tier.
I'd be inclined to replace war cleric abilities with 2 fighter manuevers which use a d8

Not sure fighter's precise strike is so bad. It's pretty variable and limited.

[RickAllison]

Oddly enough, I'm generally fine with +X from spells, just because that's a temporary boost. But yeah, I see your point and don't disagree with your reasoning. Pass without trace, a +10, is one where I might say advantage and you can't have disadvantage.

Some sources of +X that I don't like:

Archery (fighting style): +2 to hit on ranged attacks.
Alert (feat): +5 on initiative. This one has long been noted as pretty busted compared with other feats.
Dual Wielder (feat): it's +1AC, which is basically half-shield bonus. Still, I dislike this, but more because spending a feat for +1 AC, the ability to dual wield bigger weapons, and a benefit that should be assumed (draw or stow two weapons at once), seems super weak for a feat. I'd probably take away the +1 and change it to +1 strength or dexterity. There have been entire threads about this feat.
Ram, Portable (item): +4 bonus on strength checks to break down doors. Why specifically doors? I can't ram a wall with it? I'd probably just make it an auto-success on anything that's not reinforced.
Beast Master's pets add the ranger's proficiency to their AC. This, apparently, stacks with barding. I've talked about this before. I'd specify proficiency is added to the beast's base AC.
War Domain Cleric - Channel Divinity - Guided Strike and War God's Blessing: These add a whopping +10 to attack rolls. That's a bit insane.

Anyway, that's all I have for now. I think I'll just make it a policy to change static bonuses to something else in my games.

My opinions:

Archery: Why do archers get all the accuracy boosts? They are the only ones to get +X from two sources (bow and arrow) already.

Alert: I don't mind the +5 actually, I don't like the "can't be surprised" part. Seems kind of silly to let a feat invalidate the primary boosts of an entire archetype (Assassin).

BM's pet: They need extra help. Thus, I am okay with it. It keeps the beast around for longer so the bond between man and beast means more (rather than having to get a new pet every other day).

[Kryx]

Archery: Why do archers get all the accuracy boosts? They are the only ones to get +X from two sources (bow and arrow) already.
The bonus is there to counteract cover. Many people play without +X magic items so the double boost isn't a problem. Even if you do use +X magic items ammo is a consumable.


Alert: I don't mind the +5 actually, I don't like the "can't be surprised" part. Seems kind of silly to let a feat invalidate the primary boosts of an entire archetype (Assassin).
Interesting. I hadn't considered the Assassin bit. Time to take that away!

[ClintACK]

Turn the sitatuion around to see the problem: Give a NPC the same success rate and have him grapple + insta-gib PCs. They will not enjoy this activity as they have an incredibly small chance of not dying if conditions are met. imo that's one of the best way to determine balance: "If I did this to my PCs would they feel like it was fair?". In this case I'd say no.

That's a really nice rule of thumb.

And a good reason to give a dex save (to grab the side of the cliff).

Honestly, though, if a PC is really going on a boat adventure wearing armor that would insta-kill them if they fall in the water (because they'd drown in the time it would take to remove it)... there's something very wrong. Perhaps a couple of warnings/hints before letting them get into a "he shoves you off the boat" combat situation?

[Kryx]

And a good reason to give a dex save (to grab the side of the cliff).
Agreed, I add one for that.


Honestly, though, if a PC is really going on a boat adventure wearing armor that would insta-kill them if they fall in the water (because they'd drown in the time it would take to remove it)... there's something very wrong. Perhaps a couple of warnings/hints before letting them get into a "he shoves you off the boat" combat situation?
We're playing a pirate campaign so boats are relatively common. When I say Insta-gib I mean effectively removed from combat. If a caster was able to go around and remove 1 creature from combat every turn people would not be happy. This can effectively accomplish that.

It hasn't been a problem because I cautioned against it, but after reading this thread I should actually just make the boat a bit more dynamic (like the boats from Black Sails). If the boat wasn't just a flat board then it wouldn't be much of a problem. And if the enemy does get knocked off it would be 2 rounds of CC. Still pretty impactful, but I can plan around that on both the NPC side and the PC side.

[RickAllison]

The bonus is there to counteract cover. Many people play without +X magic items so the double boost isn't a problem. Even if you do use +X magic items ammo is a consumable.


Interesting. I hadn't considered the Assassin bit. Time to take that away!

I get that reasoning, but you would think they would just say "You may reduce any AC from half or 3/4 cover by 2". For the magic items, I tend to play in magic-heavy campaigns. We have yet to see many +X anything, but the potential is there.

Yeah. Against Alert foes, the assassin is just a basic rogue that is good at disguises.

[Kryx]

I get that reasoning, but you would think they would just say "You may reduce any AC from half or 3/4 cover by 2".
Ya, I considered for a while to simply reduce the level of cover by 1. I used that for the sharshooter feat before getting rid of the ignore cover part. So half cover becomes none and 3/4 cover becomes cover.

But according to my analysis (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) the ranged archetpes are at a good spot in terms of damage.

But you're right - it would probably put the Ranged Fighting style in line with the other fighting styles. I'd do so if Ranged damage didn't drop off hard as a result.

[ClintACK]

Oddly enough, I'm generally fine with +X from spells, just because that's a temporary boost. But yeah, I see your point and don't disagree with your reasoning. Pass without trace, a +10, is one where I might say advantage and you can't have disadvantage.

Some sources of +X that I don't like:

(snipped)

Anyway, that's all I have for now. I think I'll just make it a policy to change static bonuses to something else in my games.

Wow. That's a lot of rules to change. Have you actually played in a game where each of these caused a real problem?

You know you can always play the rules as written and then make changes when actual problems arise. Congratulate your players on breaking the game, let them "win" once. Then fix the problem (and let them rebuild a bit, if their build depended on what you "fixed").

I especially don't get the worry that the Beast Master's pet might be *over*powered. Most people seem to think the opposite is true.




We're playing a pirate campaign so boats are relatively common. When I say Insta-gib I mean effectively removed from combat. If a caster was able to go around and remove 1 creature from combat every turn people would not be happy. This can effectively accomplish that.

Yep. And much worse, the warlock, at 11th level, is shoving three people like that, at range, every round. I'm picturing archers in the rigging of a ship...

Re: grabbing someone and throwing them overboard...

It feels like there ought to be a mechanic for the "victim" to pull the grappler in with them. Sure, the uber-grappler can win any athletics contest, and so break any grapple attempt, but it seems like the quick action of defeating a quick grab would be more a dexterity thing (his strength and technique breaks the hold easily, but he's already overbalanced and falling in). Perhaps the "victim" can use his reaction to try to pull the grappler in with him -- dexterity contest to determine the outcome.



Against Alert foes, the assassin is just a basic rogue that is good at disguises.

Yep. There's a counter for pretty much everything. An uber-charmer fails against the raging berserker. An uber-grappler fails against a huge target. An uber-surprise-round-novaer fails against an alert target. A PAM-Sentinel fails against an archer.

That's how it should be -- there shouldn't be a single "win" button that wins all battles.

[Easy_Lee]

Ya, I considered for a while to simply reduce the level of cover by 1. I used that for the sharshooter feat before getting rid of the ignore cover part. So half cover becomes none and 3/4 cover becomes cover.

But according to my analysis (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) the ranged archetpes are at a good spot in terms of damage.

But you're right - it would probably put the Ranged Fighting style in line with the other fighting styles. I'd do so if Ranged damage didn't drop off hard as a result.

I wonder if ranged damage being lower isn't a good thing, considering all of the advantages that come with range. As Biggie said, "when I throw my clip in the A.K., I slay from far away."

[Kryx]

Have you actually played in a game where each of these caused a real problem?
No need to be rude. We've been quite cordial so far. Let's not change that please.


Yep. And much worse, the warlock, at 11th level, is shoving three people like that, at range, every round. I'm picturing archers in the rigging of a ship...
Repelling blast has a saving throw in my games.


Re: grabbing someone and throwing them overboard...

It feels like there ought to be a mechanic for the "victim" to pull the grappler in with them.
Pulling the grappler with them would imo be a grapple check which they'd likely lose.




I wonder if ranged damage being lower isn't a good thing, considering all of the advantages that come with range. As Biggie said, "when I throw my clip in the A.K., I slay from far away."
Ranged does less than melee already. By RAW a Longbow Fighter does about 82% of a fighter GWM. A Ranger does about 79% of a fighter GWM. The only outlier being hand crossbows which the fighter is doing 94% of GWM, the Ranger and Rogue 86-87% of fighter GWM.

Houserules are about the same except fighter longbow sucking and hand crossbows not being broken (except rogue).

80-85% of melee damage is a perfectly good position imo.

[Easy_Lee]

Ranged does less than melee already. By RAW a Longbow Fighter does about 82% of a fighter GWM. A Ranger does about 79% of a fighter GWM. The only outlier being hand crossbows which the fighter is doing 94% of GWM, the Ranger and Rogue 86-87% of fighter GWM.

Houserules are about the same except fighter longbow sucking and hand crossbows not being broken (except rogue).

80-85% of melee damage is a perfectly good position imo.

That's fair. I do wonder the odds, on a given round, of a ranged character being able to attack when a melee character cannot. Certainly the chance would be highest on the first round of combat.

[Kryx]

That's fair. I do wonder the odds, on a given round, of a ranged character being able to attack when a melee character cannot. Certainly the chance would be highest on the first round of combat.
True. With the average combat likely lasting around 5 rounds that first round shot would make up that 20% difference.

I adjusted my goal to match that and RAW is a bit high. Houserules are slightly better.

[Sigreid]

No need to be rude. We've been quite cordial so far. Let's not change that please.


I hadn't thought he was being rude. I think it's a fair question as to whether changes are in response to issues you've seen at a table or potential issues found by mathematically running situations in a white room.

[Kryx]

I hadn't thought he was being rude. I think it's a fair question as to whether changes are in response to issues you've seen at a table or potential issues found by mathematically running situations in a white room.
It boils down to a different approach to balancing. He, and you, seem to believe that balance can only properly be determined at a gaming table. His words are pretty condescending and suggest his way of letting players win "for once" is the only acceptable way in his eyes.

The topic of table-balance and game-balance has come up many times and people have different opinions. The point was that his way of voicing his opinion was "you're doing badwrongfun" imo.

On the topic of "white room": Now you may not like the idea of mathematical averages determining balance, but the game depends on them. It was playtested after, but that's how it was designed.


To properly play test grapple you'd have to run hundreds if not thousands of scenarios with many different classes, NPC enemies, and environmental factors. The same is true for expertise - they'd have to test thousands of scenarios for social situations, combat situations, etc. The game was barely tested at high tier at all (where it becomes the most egregious) so there is little room to say that it has been extensively playtested.

The game designers likely never tested high level expertise nor grappling to an extensive amount. The onus to do extensive play testing (which is required for play testing balance) is on no one.

[Zalabim]

Ugggggggggggh this wording is always worded so condescendingly. I don't want to nerf player options top be useless. I want player options to not break the math. You don't consider this to break the math. Many do. No need to be condescending about it.

I actually reworded that to try to make it sound more neutral. "Breaking the math" is pretty non-neutral.

How about this, if a character has a higher ability check bonus than the rest of the party:
A)Change the DC. The world was wrong.
B)Change the ability. The character was wrong.
C)Change the expectations. I was wrong.


I never said it was handled well and I wasn't planning on implementing it. I was suggesting Mr. Moron's idea.

His idea actually unifies how the game handles proning and shoving. Currently it can either be a skill contest or a flat dc vs a saving throw. The fact that both can be used is quite weird. It's like having touch AC, flatfooted AC, etc. It should just use one system imo.

There's also creatures that grapple or restrain on a successful attack automatically. I'm okay with ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws all having some use in combat.


And what you're suggesting would be true with the advantage system proposed by lee and myself. It would be equivalent.

If there's no way to exceed Stat+proficiency on an ability check, and expertise gives advantage, the nimble judo master will also have to have 20 or 24 strength to be as good as the steroid-fueled meathead. So that would not be true with the advantage system.


Pretty much exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

That said, repelling eldritch blast, unless there's errata I'm not aware of, pushes targets 10' per hit with no save (just has to hit). Expertise is far from my biggest bone to pick with 5e.

True, though Big T is also immune to EB for other reasons.


Oddly enough, I'm generally fine with +X from spells, just because that's a temporary boost. But yeah, I see your point and don't disagree with your reasoning. Pass without trace, a +10, is one where I might say advantage and you can't have disadvantage.

Some sources of +X that I don't like:

trimming
Ram, Portable (item): +4 bonus on strength checks to break down doors. Why specifically doors? I can't ram a wall with it? I'd probably just make it an auto-success on anything that's not reinforced.

Anyway, that's all I have for now. I think I'll just make it a policy to change static bonuses to something else in my games.

Do we really allow this kind of anti-martial rhetoric around here?

You forgot Observant, Bardic Inspiration, Guidance, Bless, and the Paladin's saving throw aura.

For the portable ram, I actually experienced last week where my buddy can't help me open a door with a crowbar, because the tool already gives advantage. For a tool like a ram that can typically be used by two or more people, it has to do something other than give advantage. If it was automatic success we'd have someone complaining about the game being broken when their party busts down an adamantine door. The difference between a wall and a door is mostly a matter of perception, but probably a matter of construction.

A lot of things give a number change instead of advantage or disadvantage because they'll come up where they'd make advantage or disadvantage useless for that feature. For example, cover gives AC instead of disadvantage, since that would overlap with distance and prone targets. A fast travel pace gives a penalty to perception instead of disadvantage, since that would overlap with darkness. Guidance gives a bonus die roll because you could already just Help. Bardic inspiration is noted as a very powerful effect that they have to be careful with.


Pulling the grappler with them would imo be a grapple check which they'd likely lose.

Just holding onto another creature would likely be opposed by Dexterity (acrobatics), like the climb onto a bigger creature example, but I think that contest would already be lost when you got Shoved (pushed) away.


True. With the average combat likely lasting around 5 rounds that first round shot would make up that 20% difference.

I adjusted my goal to match that and RAW is a bit high. Houserules are slightly better.

If the first round starts far enough away that melee characters cannot attack at all, every combat, then they'd lose ~20% of their damage. They also wouldn't use resources on those rounds.

Also, they'd then be losing melee damage in later rounds as well, since they can attack a target that's actually pretty far away between their movement and access to thrown weapons.

[Specter]

One thing I've noticed that is absent from this discussion:

Advantage is meant to give you consistency at what you do, while numeric bonuses are meant to expand your ability in things you can do. The Archery fighting style, for example, is meant to show a character can make some shots that other less-trained people can't, or make those half-cover shots normally. Pass Without Trace also creates a veil of shadow and silence around you, and now you can sneak where you otherwise couldn't (it allows to reach the 'nearly impossible' DCs of sneaktitude [30], like through guard dogs and crowded gates, maybe).

So if you turn Expertise simply into advantage, it means that the social-god, master-manipulator rogue can't do better than the pretty-faced paladin if they both have Persuasion. Same as Pass Without Trace. If you want to balance it, make it +5 instead of +10.

[Kryx]

So if you turn Expertise simply into advantage, it means that the social-god, master-manipulator rogue can't do better than the pretty-faced paladin if they both have Persuasion. Same as Pass Without Trace. If you want to balance it, make it +5 instead of +10.
That's exactly the purpose - to remove the roof raisers. Having a 25% higher chance causes the problems outlined above.

Some do not like those problems.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm mostly fine with roof raisers through powerful magic, like I've said. I just don't think such features should come as always-on abilities, especially low level ones.

And I do think it's a problem when the 14 strength rogue can match the athletics, including breaking things, that a maxed barbarian can do. Or when the 14 CHA rogue is a better negotiator than the 20 CHA bard who put his expertise elsewhere. The +6 benefit ultimately provided by expertise is way too big for this generation.

[RickAllison]

I'm mostly fine with roof raisers through powerful magic, like I've said. I just don't think such features should come as always-on abilities, especially low level ones.

And I do think it's a problem when the 14 strength rogue can match the athletics, including breaking things, that a maxed barbarian can do. Or when the 14 CHA rogue is a better negotiator than the 20 CHA bard who put his expertise elsewhere. The +6 benefit ultimately provided by expertise is way too big for this generation.


A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation. The Athletics skill reflects aptitude in certain kinds of Strength checks.

Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing, jumping, or swimming. Examples include the following activities:

So breaking things would be a strength check, not Athletics. So the Barbarian still gets his advantage while the Rogue gets his +2 alone.

For the persuasiveness... Why is that a problem? The rogue chose to hone his persuasive techniques to make up for his relatively low natural ability. The bard chose to rely on his natural ability and so never learned more advanced techniques. But while the rogue perhaps only beats the bard in Persuasion, the bard can use his superior charisma to defeat him in Intimidation, Deception, and Performance, as well as any raw Charisma checks.

[jas61292]

So breaking things would be a strength check, not Athletics. So the Barbarian still gets his advantage while the Rogue gets his +2 alone.

For better or worse, in my experience a lot of people try to shoehorn in a skill to every check, and the lack of multiple strength skills means every feat of strength is always rolled as athletics. This is not how the game is designed, but it is often how it is played, and, of course, it makes it so expertise seems a lot stronger that it otherwise would.

But this is not a problem with expertise. Its a problem with people using the system incorrectly.

[Sigreid]

It boils down to a different approach to balancing. He, and you, seem to believe that balance can only properly be determined at a gaming table. His words are pretty condescending and suggest his way of letting players win "for once" is the only acceptable way in his eyes.



This isn't really an accurate statement. It's more of "Does the situation really come up enough to worry about a hard coded fix?" At least for me.

[Specter]

There's also nothing wrong with a Rogue being a bit better than a Barbarian at grappling; have you ever seen a judo match? The big guys rarely win, they get their strenght used against them. What could be a problem is DM's not imagining how it happens, and not imagining means not describing it well, and not describing it well means bad RPG.

[Kryx]

This isn't really an accurate statement. It's more of "Does the situation really come up enough to worry about a hard coded fix?" At least for me.
Well ability checks are one of the most common rolls in the game. Probably second to attack rolls.

[Cazero]

There's also nothing wrong with a Rogue being a bit better than a Barbarian at grappling; have you ever seen a judo match? The big guys rarely win, they get their strenght used against them. What could be a problem is DM's not imagining how it happens, and not imagining means not describing it well, and not describing it well means bad RPG.

If you're going to use real life to rationalize this, then a DEX based champion fighter with a monk dip should trash the floor with the rogue at grappling. But he will be behind at all times for no good reason.

Similarly, a rogue with 10 INT can know more about magic than a wizard, more about nature than a druid, more about religion than a cleric. And the rogue basicaly dumped the relevant stat.

I have no problem with rogue being good at any skills, but other classes should not be below the rogue at their own speciality.

[Kryx]

more about nature than a druid, more about religion than a cleric
These are bad examples as both are intelligence and both those classes are wisdom.

[Cazero]

These are bad examples as both are intelligence and both those classes are wisdom.

And? Nothing stops them from raising their INT to 20 anyway and still be lower than the rogue. The situation being even worse in most cases doesn't weaken my point.

[Kryx]

And? Nothing stops them from raising their INT to 20 anyway and still be lower than the rogue. The situation being even worse in most cases doesn't weaken my point.
I'm not disagreeing with your point, just saying that those aren't great examples.

[Easy_Lee]

There's also nothing wrong with a Rogue being a bit better than a Barbarian at grappling; have you ever seen a judo match? The big guys rarely win, they get their strenght used against them. What could be a problem is DM's not imagining how it happens, and not imagining means not describing it well, and not describing it well means bad RPG.

But there is no way for the barbarian to close the gap without dipping rogue or bard. The barbarian can't learn judo. That's my main concern.

[Kryx]

But there is no way for the barbarian to close the gap without dipping rogue or bard. The barbarian can't learn judo. That's my main concern.
Doesn't this problem exist in both situations? Prof or advantage.

If you want to fix it then you'd give each class prof/adv in their one skill: Barbarian athletics, druid nature, cleric religion, rogue stealth, wizard arcana, etc

[Specter]

If you're going to use real life to rationalize this, then a DEX based champion fighter with a monk dip should trash the floor with the rogue at grappling. But he will be behind at all times for no good reason.

Similarly, a rogue with 10 INT can know more about magic than a wizard, more about nature than a druid, more about religion than a cleric. And the rogue basicaly dumped the relevant stat.

I have no problem with rogue being good at any skills, but other classes should not be below the rogue at their own speciality.

Nice try, but that's another argument (whether rogues/bards should be the only ones to get Expertise). Point is, Expertise is needed for anyone to be an expert at skills.

[mephnick]

Maybe the skill system shouldn't exist and everything should be done by ability checks.

[Kryx]

Maybe the skill system shouldn't exist and everything should be done by ability checks.
Maybe the ability check system shouldn't exist and there should just be abilities (that apply to what we currently consider checks and saves).

It existed similarly to that at one point during the playtest. Meh.

[RickAllison]

If you're going to use real life to rationalize this, then a DEX based champion fighter with a monk dip should trash the floor with the rogue at grappling. But he will be behind at all times for no good reason.

Similarly, a rogue with 10 INT can know more about magic than a wizard, more about nature than a druid, more about religion than a cleric. And the rogue basicaly dumped the relevant stat.

I have no problem with rogue being good at any skills, but other classes should not be below the rogue at their own speciality.

The three examples you gave are actually great examples of why this is called Expertise! Let me give a few examples at the local magical university!

Sam: Knowledge Cleric. Though Sam was a rather bright fellow (18 Int), he decided to focus on the specialties of Histiry and Divine Magic rather than expanding out into other disciplines. In his specialities, he was nigh-uncontested, and he seemed to keep pace in other disciplines. As the years went by, he became a professor in his chosen fields of study, but fell behind his peers in other realms.

Erk: Land Druid. Ahead of the pack in intelligence (16), Erk cared only for Nature, though his heart wasn't fully into it. He preferred going out and interacting with nature rather than studying it. Though he did surpass most of his friends in his knowledge of Nature, a bookworm named Eric eclipsed him when he chose to further study while Erk preferred his practical work.

Dent: Evoker Wizard. Dent was never one for book-learning, only learning enough of Arcana to effectively use his magic. A prodigy (20 Int); Dent always figured his big brain would carry him through his studies (all four knowledge skills). And they did for many years. Dent always had a good laugh about Eric's study habits; despite studying day and night, Eric was never as good as Dent. At least that was true for many years, but where Dent was content being on top, Eric kept learning. Eventually, Dent had the surprise of his life when Eric actually out-did him in a debate over magic, no one had done that before!

Eric: Thief Rogue. Eric was fascinated with how magic worked, even though he lacked the talent to make it himself. Though he wasn't as bright as some of his friends (only 10 Int), he had a dedication that none of his more gifted colleagues held. He pored over his studies of all things magical, though he had a focus on Arcana and Magic History, even pursuing higher degrees. For many years, it seemed like he could never hope to match his more talented friends, even when he later returned to school to learn more of Divine Magic and Magic of Nature. Many years passed and his friends went into their various careers, but he just kept learning about magic. Eventually, he became the dean of the school and found that his studies had paid off when he out-debated two of his old friends in their disciplines of choice, while at least not losing too badly to Sam.

[Cazero]

Nice try, but that's another argument (whether rogues/bards should be the only ones to get Expertise). Point is, Expertise is needed for anyone to be an expert at skills.
Spot on. It might not be the core point of the thread, but right now there is a multiclassing tax to be an "expert" at something. A level 20 adventurer should by all means be an expert to his speciality, but he isn't. Why the awful design decision of putting expertise behind a multiclassing tax? Why no core feats or background to get it? If it's because you shouldn't ever need to have it, then why design it as a trivial way to get rolls higher than the hard limit of bounded accuracy?

Maybe the skill system shouldn't exist and everything should be done by ability checks.
It's already the case. Having a relevant skill is a circumstance modifier. A very, very big circumstance modifier. No such thing as a skill check, we call them that way out of habit.
Now if you meant ditching the skill proficiencies modifiers entirely, it's a whole other can of worms.

The three examples you gave are actually great examples of why this is called Expertise! Let me give a few examples at the local magical university!

-snip-
So you gave a reason why Eric was better than Dent. But it sounds a lot more like "Dent didn't bother picking skill proficiencies in knowledge because he had such a big INT modifier". And Erk being outdone is still arbitrary and cringeworthy.
How about addressing my actual point? Why is it litteraly impossible for a wizard who dedicates his life to know more stuff about arcana than anyone else to be better than Eric? My problem is not that expertise exists, but that it's behind a multiclassing tax. Any PC should be allowed to be an expert at one class-related field if not more. The occasional anecdote where the barely litterate rogue is better than the wizard at arcana can already happen with the swinginess of the dice, there is no reason to break the system to make it more likely.

[Zalabim]

Spot on. It might not be the core point of the thread, but right now there is a multiclassing tax to be an "expert" at something. A level 20 adventurer should by all means be an expert to his speciality, but he isn't. Why the awful design decision of putting expertise behind a multiclassing tax? Why no core feats or background to get it? If it's because you shouldn't ever need to have it, then why design it as a trivial way to get rolls higher than the hard limit of bounded accuracy?

It is because you don't need to have it, it doesn't make beating a DC 30 check trivial, and there's room for more feats than have been published so far. Without expertise, the tax to be an expert at something is 20 in a stat. That would mean that Purple Dragon Knights won't be persuasive, Knowledge Clerics won't have a good knowledge skill, Rogues won't be able to find and disable magical traps, Rangers won't be special even in their favored terrain, Dwarves won't share way too much information about rocks, and the Bard won't be able to choose what to specialize in.


So you gave a reason why Eric was better than Dent. But it sounds a lot more like "Dent didn't bother picking skill proficiencies in knowledge because he had such a big INT modifier". And Erk being outdone is still arbitrary and cringeworthy.

And training and dedication never being able to beat talent is also arbitrary and cringeworthy. Thanks, Naruto.


How about addressing my actual point? Why is it litteraly impossible for a wizard who dedicates his life to know more stuff about arcana than anyone else to be better than Eric? My problem is not that expertise exists, but that it's behind a multiclassing tax. Any PC should be allowed to be an expert at one class-related field if not more. The occasional anecdote where the barely litterate rogue is better than the wizard at arcana can already happen with the swinginess of the dice, there is no reason to break the system to make it more likely.

Your bruised sensibilities are not sufficient reason to call the system broken. There's room for a feat that gives expertise; it just should be more interesting than, "You add double your proficiency bonus to Arcana checks." There's also room for a generalist wizard that focuses on study over specialization. Also, a rogue like Indiana Jones would not be "barely litterate".

In order for a character to even exceed +11 on an ability check (a common capability of level 17 adventurers) with expertise before level 11 (when they're world-changing heroes), they still have to have 18 in the ability score.

[Vogonjeltz]

I come at this from a game philosophy point of view. I don't want a rogue with 12 strength and athletics expertise to have an equal average roll as a 24 strength maxed barbarian. I don't want the barbarian to have to take a rogue or bard dip just to compete for what should be his niche.

Barbarian:

Minimum outcome: 24 (str score)
Maximum outcome: 33 (7+6+20)
Average outcome: 26.25 w/Rage Advantage: 28

Rogue Minimum outcome w/expertise: 23 (10 + 12 + 1 str mod)
Maximum outcome: 33 (1+12+20)
Average outcome: 25.75

Rogue underperforms the Barbarian, and only has one attack that they're giving up to achieve the status effect. The Barbarian can both outperform the Rogue on status effects AND continue to attack them to death because of Extra Attack. The Berserker Barbarian would also be able to impose disadvantage on their foe. Advantage (so to speak): Barbarian.

[Kryx]

(7+6+20)
1 level out of 20 is not worth taking a stand on.

And the numbers have already been presented above. The rogue wins, especially when combined with advantage which any semi-optimizer would pick up.

[Vogonjeltz]

1 level out of 20 is not worth taking a stand on.

And the numbers have already been presented above. The rogue wins, especially when combined with advantage which any semi-optimizer would pick up.

1) The rogue, more than 50% of the time loses, by default.

2) How is the rogue even getting advantage? Even with advantage, against a Berserker imposing disadvantage the two would cancel out, leaving the Rogue at just normal. Even if it's a Totem Warrior, the Barbarian has more attacks with which to reimpose the status on the Rogue, and with better odds of success. The rogue only has one attack/action with which to free themselves, and doing so prohibits them from attempting to impose the status on the Barbarian until after winning 3 contests in a row (freeing themselves + 2 attack options from the Barbarians turn). Contests they lose more often than they win.

The rogue loses most, if not all, match ups.

[Easy_Lee]

1) The rogue, more than 50% of the time loses, by default.

2) How is the rogue even getting advantage? Even with advantage, against a Berserker imposing disadvantage the two would cancel out, leaving the Rogue at just normal. Even if it's a Totem Warrior, the Barbarian has more attacks with which to reimpose the status on the Rogue, and with better odds of success. The rogue only has one attack/action with which to free themselves, and doing so prohibits them from attempting to impose the status on the Barbarian until after winning 3 contests in a row (freeing themselves + 2 attack options from the Barbarians turn). Contests they lose more often than they win.

The rogue loses most, if not all, match ups.

Oh, did you not like my "12 strength athletics expertise rogue gains slight numbers advantage over maxed barbarian" argument? How about a 20 strength rogue, who has a +4 advantage over the barbarian? Berserker rage? Not gonna cut it. Multiple checks? The rogue still wins most contests. The game isn't about PvP, but assuming it was, the rogue can still out-wrestle the barbarian if the rogue is even half-optimized for it.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that one could make a Valor bard who gets just as many attacks as the barbarian and beats him by a minimum of +4 in every single skill the barbarian can pickup, and then some.

[Zalabim]

1 level out of 20 is not worth taking a stand on.

And the numbers have already been presented above. The rogue wins, especially when combined with advantage which any semi-optimizer would pick up.

And yet, here we are. You really mean that level out of 20 is not worth taking a stand on.


Oh, did you not like my "12 strength athletics expertise rogue gains slight numbers advantage over maxed barbarian" argument? How about a 20 strength rogue, who has a +4 advantage over the barbarian? Berserker rage? Not gonna cut it. Multiple checks? The rogue still wins most contests. The game isn't about PvP, but assuming it was, the rogue can still out-wrestle the barbarian if the rogue is even half-optimized for it.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that one could make a Valor bard who gets just as many attacks as the barbarian and beats him by a minimum of +4 in every single skill the barbarian can pickup, and then some.

Do you really believe that there's a strategy that involves grappling and shoving that is better done by a rogue that should be better done by a barbarian? If the game were PVP, trying to out-wrestle the barbarian would just get you killed, because you're putting yourself right where he performs best.

When you want to make changes, remember that the same numbers apply to trying to not get caught by a barbarian, using Acrobatics. Would you be okay saying that even a rogue specialized in slipping away could not usually escape a barbarian?

The valor bard does make a good wrestler character, but there's still trade-offs with the barbarian's extra toughness and the fighter's extra attacks and better armor.

[Vogonjeltz]

Oh, did you not like my "12 strength athletics expertise rogue gains slight numbers advantage over maxed barbarian" argument? How about a 20 strength rogue, who has a +4 advantage over the barbarian? Berserker rage? Not gonna cut it. Multiple checks? The rogue still wins most contests. The game isn't about PvP, but assuming it was, the rogue can still out-wrestle the barbarian if the rogue is even half-optimized for it.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that one could make a Valor bard who gets just as many attacks as the barbarian and beats him by a minimum of +4 in every single skill the barbarian can pickup, and then some.

Well, you were arguing the Rogue did the job as well, I was just showing it didn't.

The problem for the Rogue is that Strength isn't important for his job. Investing the points to get Str to 20 requires mortgaging his important stats (Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence for some things).

Now you have a Rogue who, to have a slightly better roll on average in an attempt to sort of Emulate the Barbarian, cost themselves AC or hit points.

If Con isn't set to 20, that's 40 hit points lost (losing out on a 25% hit point gain!); if Dex isn't set to 20, that's 2 AC or 10% more damage taken. All for something that can't even be used against the larger more dangerous creatures out there.

I'm not buying that as being problematic.

[Kryx]

The rogue is a multiclass dip, not a pure class in the case of grapple/shove/prone

In other cases like knowledge or social skills it can be a pure rogue or bard class.