Is there a better way to balance expertise? [Archive]

Thrasher92

2017-09-15, 03:59 AM

I've been thinking about Rogues a lot lately. Since I started 5th edition I have always gotten a little annoyed as a DM that rogues seem to have an easy way to be insanely successful at their chosen 4 skills that they get to add expertise in to grant themselves double their proficiency.

By level 11 a rogue will get at least +8 in their chosen skill and, with reliable talent, they can't roll below a 10. So they are always getting at least an 18, and that's assuming they have a modifier of 0 for the attribute. It is more likely that the chosen skill has a modifier of +4 or +5 which means that they are consistently getting a 22... at least. When they get to have a +5 modifier at 13 they are always getting a 25 for the DC, as a minimum.

Now, a 25 DC is supposed to be a very difficult thing to beat. I understand that many of you reading this are probably thinking "But Thrasher92, they are high level rogues! Their skills SHOULD be that high." Or at least that is the reaction I have gotten before. I disagree. An Arcane Trickster rogue who chose Arcana as a chosen skill will always be far better than a wizard, even though a wizard should certainly know more about Arcana than a half-caster half-martial class like the Arcane Trickster. A level 20 wizard with a 20 in intelligence would only have a +11 in Arcana. An arcane trickster could beat his knowledge at level 9... how does that make sense?

There must be a way to balance this feature, or at the very least I'm willing to hear some better reasons of how this isn't unbalanced.

djreynolds

2017-09-15, 04:07 AM

There are now "feats as skills from the UA"

And remember that same wizard can cast time stop or wish or teleport.

Also counterspell is an intelligence check and the only character to add their proficiency to that is an Abjurer Wizard, 10th level

Lombra

2017-09-15, 04:41 AM

If you really want to tone it down, I'd make things as follows:

Expertise adds half your proficiency modifier, doesn'
t double it.

Each class except those that get expertise, can choose a skill in which they are proficient (or choose from a discrete list of 2-3 skills for each class), and add double their proficiency bonus to the checks made with that skill.

This way rogues and bards become good at many things, but can't beat classes devoted on their focus (like for example, a cleric in religion, a wizard in arcana, a druid in nature, a ranger in survival, a barbarian in intimidation, a fighter in athletics, a monk in acrobatics... (couldn't think about characteristic skills for warlocks and sorcerers))

Unoriginal

2017-09-15, 05:01 AM

There must be a way to balance this feature, or at the very least I'm willing to hear some better reasons of how this isn't unbalanced.

I have one argument

Do you think that the Rogue is so good they need to have one of the few things they are better at than other classes taken away from them?

Do you really think that Rogues being good at skills give them so much of an unfair advantage over the other classes that if you removed it the Rogue would be just as efficient?

Rogues are the skillmonkey martial class. It means that they train their chosen skills more than anyone except the Bards.

Yes, a Rogue with expertise in Arcana will be more trained in the theories of magic than a Wizard, because while the Wizard trained to learn how to cast high level spells and the like the Rogue doubled down on the theory only.

Your post illustrates two issues you have: Rogues succeeding at too many rolls, and Rogue daring to be better than the Wizard in a domain.

For the first issue: how many time do you make PCs have DC 20+ checks where skill proficiency matters?

Is that really a problem to have PCs be successful at ability checks?

For the second issue: it's not an issue, the Rogue has indeed the capacity to be better at Arcana than a Wizard, because they train this skill way more than a Wizard, while a Wizard can do things like create walls of fire that the Rogue will never be able to.

The Rogue is balanced, don't take away from them one of the advantages of playing the class.

Matticusrex

2017-09-15, 05:04 AM

Rogues are not stronger than casters. If you are going to start nerfing classes you started on the wrong side.

Lombra

2017-09-15, 06:19 AM

Wow someone mentions wizard and another class in the same post and it becomes a casters vs everyone thread again.
The OP made an example. And I understand it.

It's weird for characters that devout a career to a skill, or set of skills, related to their actual competence, to never be the best that there can be at that skill. Practice and theory grow together, so the point "he studies harder while the other fings fireballs" is not really that strong.

But this is a problem that lies within the metagame and within the metagame only. In an actual game, double proficiency in a skill, say religion for a very devout cleric, that gets roleplayed as such, can be rewarded by a DM as a downtime activity or quest reward.

The skill system leaves many unsatisfied, it's too simple for many, and those generalization are the price for simplicity. A wizard who wants to be the best arcanist in the world will have to dip rogue. Does it make sense? Do you justify it as "he took a level worth of time to become an expert in arcana, oh and by the way, he learned a new skill and can now sneak attack, plus smuggling books made him understand the secret code that the thieve's guild use to communicate with each others"? It feels weak and just an excuse to get more points in a skill.

The point is: it isn't unbalanced, but it feels wrong, and blurs immersion.

Sigreid

2017-09-15, 06:22 AM

No, it doesn't bother me because that is their shtick. Being legendary at a few skills is really the main point of the class.

TheUser

2017-09-15, 06:23 AM

It's balanced.
If you take issue with the skill monkey class succeeding at 4 skills then you need to re-assess how you view campaigns. The DM is not only there to challemge the player but also to provide moments each player can shine.

If a rogue has expertise in Perception and Investigation and took the Observant Feat and now picks up on every trap and secret door with their 20+ passives you don't begrudge the player or the system for building this way; you put traps and hidden foes out their for them to feel their choices have impact.

Expertise is not the problem. You are.

Unoriginal

2017-09-15, 06:36 AM

Wow someone mentions wizard and another class in the same post and it becomes a casters vs everyone thread again.
The OP made an example. And I understand it.

I doubt OP would have found weird or in need of change that a Rogue can beat a Barbarian in Str(Athleticism), but I could be wrong.

It's weird for characters that devout a career to a skill, or set of skills, related to their actual competence, to never be the best that there can be at that skill.

Actually the one who devote a career to a skill, or a set of skill, is the best that there can be at that skill, because the one who does that is the Rogue.

The Wizard devote a career to casting spells, and it is not the same as Arcana.

Practice and theory grow together, so the point "he studies harder while the other fings fireballs" is not really that strong.

You would have a point if Int (Arcana) was used to cast spells, but it isn't. Studying Int(Arcana) doesn't teach you to throw fireballs, learning to cast spells does.

Arcana.
Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

A Rogue with expertise in Int(Arcana) will have spent a lot of time learning about the history of spells, how to identify magic items or methods, how the Astral Plane works and what's the difference between a Night Hag and a Devil, while a Wizard will have spend less time doing that and more time learning how to cast spells and go to a different plane by their sheer power.

JellyPooga

2017-09-15, 06:41 AM

If you want to limit Expertise to avoid that immersion breaking thing, limit it to Rogue Class skills.

If Rogues "breaking" skill DC's is the problem, then your challenges are not sufficient. At level 11 a Rogue is supposed to be achieving very difficult tasks routinely. Throw the "impossible" at them; i.e. DC 25-30+. A high-level Rogue should be doing things that others cannot because that's the entire point of the Class; Fighters own melee, Wizards break reality and Rogues perform skill challenges beyond the capabilities of even other "mighty heroes". That a Rogue is capable of skill-feats beyond the capabilities of other Classes is the entire point of them. A Rogue can't make three attacks as a single Action, he can't cast Forcecage, he can't call down Divine Intervention...but he can hit DC:30 skill checks at level 5 (at a push), while others cannot.

Eric Diaz

2017-09-15, 06:54 AM

Mostly, I agree.

My suggestion: use skill feats from the UA, as others have said. You keep the rogue's shtick and allow characters that really want to be expert to have it too. If you want everyone to be good in a single skill, give everyone a free skill feat, and the rogue a free feat of some other kind.

But it bears repeating: wizard does spells, fighters fight, and rogues have skills. It has been this way since Greyhawk and they were hardly ever overpowered because of that.

Willie the Duck

2017-09-15, 07:26 AM

No, it doesn't bother me because that is their shtick. Being legendary at a few skills is really the main point of the class.

Yes, but what I find is that the DCs for things, now lovingly in the DM's hands, tend to shift to match the expectation that someone will have expertise in a skill. Expectation-inflation, if you will. By that measure, I think expertise fails to do its job of making rogues and bards good at skills, only making the odd medium-armor-master fighter with the criminal background who wants to be part of the party's 'team stealth' not need to bother. Stretching the potential skill checks from -5 to +11 into -5 to +17 (at 20th) does little except mean that the DM can put skill-check DCs in the 32-37 range without necessarily making the rogues actually any better at what they do. Even, as a DM, I have a hard time not shifting my expectations like this.

In my games, I have replaced normal expertise with this: "Expertise-chose one skill, expertise will eliminate one level of disadvantage from the skill checks in this skill, or, if there is none, give a flat +2 bonus on the roll." This is still strong (how many things in the game can eliminate disadvantage) without broadly skewing the skill check range and encouraging the DM to change their DCs to match.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-15, 08:12 AM

Yes, but what I find is that the DCs for things, now lovingly in the DM's hands, tend to shift to match the expectation that someone will have expertise in a skill. Expectation-inflation, if you will. By that measure, I think expertise fails to do its job of making rogues and bards good at skills, only making the odd medium-armor-master fighter with the criminal background who wants to be part of the party's 'team stealth' not need to bother. Stretching the potential skill checks from -5 to +11 into -5 to +17 (at 20th) does little except mean that the DM can put skill-check DCs in the 32-37 range without necessarily making the rogues actually any better at what they do. Even, as a DM, I have a hard time not shifting my expectations like this.

In my games, I have replaced normal expertise with this: "Expertise-chose one skill, expertise will eliminate one level of disadvantage from the skill checks in this skill, or, if there is none, give a flat +2 bonus on the roll." This is still strong (how many things in the game can eliminate disadvantage) without broadly skewing the skill check range and encouraging the DM to change their DCs to match.

DMs that are shifting skill check DCs with level/expertise/etc are not following the guidance anyway. That's warned against in the DMG. You can't fix someone who refuses to read the rules by adding rules. Instead, talk to the DM.

By way of example--I have a rogue in my group. Expertise in stealth. Reliable Talent. His minimum Dexterity (Stealth) check result is a 23. Basically, that means that no one can see him if a) he's trying to hide and b) they're not actively looking for him. Does nothing to help the poor druid who has +2 (no proficiency, low-ish dex) and always rolls horribly. Just allows the rogue a chance to shine.

And as mentioned above, the INT-based skills are about recall of knowledge. There's a long-standing trope of the academic mage--he can't cast a single spell but he knows everything about the theory of magic, about symbols, traditions, etc. A good librarian may not be able to do the actual research, but has a breadth of knowledge that allows her to pull out the right facts pretty much everywhere. Knowing and doing are separate skill sets.

Sigreid

2017-09-15, 08:14 AM

MadBear

2017-09-15, 08:20 AM

If you find it unbalanced (I don't necessarily think it is, but I've rarely played at levels 10+)

Instead of taking from the rogue, why not at the level rogues get reliable talent also give each class a single skill to get double proficiency on?

So at level 10 fighters get to pick either athletics, or acrobatics to have expertise

rangers get stealth or nature
druids get nature or knowledge religion
wizards get knowledge arcana or history
so on and so forth

This way you're not likely taking away from the rogue, because outside of a few of them, the skills others are taking don't conflict with what a rogue normally pick. They still get 4 as opposed to 1 (or if you really want let the rogue do it two so they have 5 expertise skills while everyone else only gets 1).

This also allows your fighter at level 10 to always be good at athletic checks, your cleric to be great at their religion etc.

seems like a good thing to me.

Sigreid

2017-09-15, 08:29 AM

MadBear

2017-09-15, 08:32 AM

Personally, I am opposed to giving one classes key defining toys to another class. Not that I'm overly concerned what another group does at their table.

for sure. Like I said, probably wouldn't do it at my table. But if your concern is the trickster rogue will know more about arcana then the wizard, or the thief be better at athletics then the fighter despite much lower strength, I think this is an easy fix. That way at a much higher level then the rogue (meaning less multi-class shenanigans) other classes get 1/4 of access to a super restricted, but fluff appropriate skill.

tieren

2017-09-15, 08:34 AM

Is there something a rogue can learn from an arcana check that a wizard can't learn better with the appropriate divination spell?

I haven't really played a high level wizard but I thought that was what those fluffy spells like legend lore and things were for.

It seems to me the wizard studies to learn magical ways to solve his problems, not just to know stuff, thats so mundane.

In a party with a wizard and such an arcane trickster I would suggest they put their heads together when faced with an arcana challenge, mechanically the wizard can be taking the help action to guide the arcane trickster through the bits the wizard is knowledgeable in, and then the DM can say they came up with the solution together.

Sigreid

2017-09-15, 08:51 AM

So I just had another thought. I wouldn't fuss too much if a champion fighter's remarkable athelete feature were replaced with expertise in athletics.

Kobard

2017-09-15, 09:06 AM

I'm still mulling it over, but I will provide you with several simple suggestions that I have seen bounced around.

1) Expertise provides only Advantage with the skill. So that gives the player an effective +5 to the skill roll, while still not exceeding certain skill caps or breaking bounded accuracy.

2) Expertise provides a bonus die added to the roll. I have seen some suggest a d6, while I have also seen some suggest a die that scales with level or proficiency: i.e., d4, d6, d8. The effect is that the max value that the bonus die adds may be the same as max proficiency (i.e. 8) there is also a lot more variation added through the bonus die mechanic rather than the flat bonus.

MinotaurWarrior

2017-09-15, 09:13 AM

Arcana and Religion aren't about the things Wizards and Clerics do. Iirc, they're mainly about the vulnerablility of enemy creature types.

A high level rogue becomes pretty much guaranteed to win skill checks with well defined DCs. A high level wizard is 100% guaranteed to be able to cast spells.

jas61292

2017-09-15, 09:23 AM

I personally don't mind expertise, and I actually really like the fact that it lets rogues and bards be the best at skills by a wide margin. However, I do have one issue with it, and it is the same issue have with the Warlock's agonizing blast and a few other class features: auto-scaling.

The vast majority of features in the game require you to stick to a class that has the feature for it to scale. Getting more attacks as a fighter requires you to remain a fighter. Getting more spell slots requires you to be on a class that has spell slots, while getting higher level spells of a particular class requires you to stay in that same class. Getting better (and more uses of) rage requires you to remain a barbarian. But a few features, such as expertise, scale independently of the class that gives them. The fact that you can dip for these features and get the same benefit across 20 levels as the guy that dedicated themselves to the class is poor design, in my opinion. I'd rather see such features give set bonuses (or even non-set extra dice bonuses) that scale up at higher level, rather than be based on a feature that scales independently.

Now of course, for a lot of people who dislike expertise, this is probably the opposite of what they would like, as it makes rogue and bard even harder to match. But to me, that is the point. They are the skillmonkeys; let them do their job better than anyone else.

qube

2017-09-15, 09:34 AM

But a few features, such as expertise, scale independently of the class that gives them. The fact that you can dip for these features and get the same benefit across 20 levels as the guy that dedicated themselves to the class is poor design, in my opinion.Consider that a multiclass lvl 1 rogue only gets two expertises, while full rogue gets more; and gets better with them as well (like unable to roll below 10).

strangebloke

2017-09-15, 10:06 AM

That's a flaw in the DM. Don't know what can really be done about that.

Sounds like he could use some guidance... Like maybe a TABLE OF EXAMPLE DCs!!! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536334-Skill-Check-Table-Crowdsourcing-Effort)

:D

Kidding. Not Kidding.

Seriously though, OP, get over it. Rogues are masters of niche knowledge and skill. And even then, they aren't going to completely blow others out of the water if they don't have the right ability scores. A wizard with +5 int and proficiency is only only going to be ahead of of or at least competitive with a +0 INT rogue for most of the game. If the Rogue wants to invest points into INT... he's giving up a a lot of combat utility to get that super-awesome skill check. let him have fun.

Worst case, allow skill expertise feats. If a character wants to be the best at a skill, he should be willing to invest something in that. You're never going to see a stereotypical barbarian studying proper lifting form so that he can get just a few more pounds into his bench press. A stereotypical wizard doesn't spend all his time in reading Planar Geographic, he spends time studying MAGIC. Even your average cleric probably doesn't care that much about other pantheons. Rogues are obsesssive towards their niche.

TheUser

2017-09-15, 10:10 AM

In my games, I have replaced normal expertise with this: "Expertise-chose one skill, expertise will eliminate one level of disadvantage from the skill checks in this skill, or, if there is none, give a flat +2 bonus on the roll." This is still strong (how many things in the game can eliminate disadvantage) without broadly skewing the skill check range and encouraging the DM to change their DCs to match.

Rogue's level 11 feature lets you ignore disadvantage... congrats your reworked expertise sucks.

Sigreid

2017-09-15, 10:27 AM

Sounds like he could use some guidance... Like maybe a TABLE OF EXAMPLE DCs!!! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?536334-Skill-Check-Table-Crowdsourcing-Effort)

:D

Kidding. Not Kidding.
.

Yeah, let's not cross pointless debates where nothing will be solved. 😁

strangebloke

2017-09-15, 10:29 AM

Side note, if the concern is about reliable talent rather than Expertise, you could always use the 'auto-success variant' in the DMG where any check that the PC would succeed on with a 5 or less is treated as an auto-success. It doesn't destroy the Rogue's niche, but it does make skills in general stronger.

Willie the Duck

2017-09-15, 10:43 AM

Rogue's level 11 feature lets you ignore disadvantage... congrats your reworked expertise sucks.

It lets you treat it as a 10, which is similar, but not the same thing as what you say. I will take that under advisement though.

If you do not care about my impression of you, you would not bother to respond, and yet your behavior is such that I no longer think of you as an adult. You clearly thought that you had the power to hurt me with your words, and yet in doing so ceded to me (by your behavior) any power to do so. Welcome to true impotence.

Laurefindel

2017-09-15, 11:57 AM

If the concern is about the rogue being better in Arcana and Religion than the wizard and the cleric, you could limit Expertise to the skills listed in the rogue class (Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth). That solves the issue for the rogue, but not for the bard.

If the concern is about breaking the core principles of bounded accuracy, then Expertise as advantage (as suggested above) comes to mind.

D.U.P.A.

2017-09-15, 12:06 PM

A task can be trivial, impossible or possible. Skill checks are for the last ones. As you do not need to roll a check to push an inconscious person, you cannot succeed a stealth check when in open space or jump over a lake, no matter who high you roll. DM should organize various task he and player come out with, like no Sleight of hand check if you want to steal an item from a hidden pocket on a person.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-15, 01:12 PM

JellyPooga

2017-09-15, 02:18 PM

I find the best way to handle this is to make is to make impossible checks actually impossible. Don't even call for a role. Likewise trivial checks always succeed and do not need a role either.

If I as a DM think the game will be ruined by a Character succeeding at their stated approach to a challenge, I shouldn't be going to the dice anyway.

That's just it; Rogue features actually define what they consider trivial or impossible compared to other Classes. For a Level 10+ Rogue with +15 to a given Skill, "trivial" to them is "impossible" to a non-proficient character with Stat<20. Likewise, "possible" for a level 5 Rogue is "impossible" for other Classes of equal level.

TheUser

2017-09-15, 03:23 PM

It lets you treat it as a 10, which is similar, but not the same thing as what you say. I will take that under advisement though.

If you do not care about my impression of you, you would not bother to respond, and yet your behavior is such that I no longer think of you as an adult. You clearly thought that you had the power to hurt me with your words, and yet in doing so ceded to me (by your behavior) any power to do so. Welcome to true impotence.

Nice diatribe, it's not about you, or me wanting to hurt you (which I don't, get over yourself), it's about how your rework functions poorly with the level 11 rogue feature and I don't care to sugar coat it.

I was just saying your rework sucks. If you think that I'm right when considering the rogue level 11 feature then my words have been far from impotent.

Sigreid

2017-09-15, 03:29 PM

I find the best way to handle this is to make is to make impossible checks actually impossible. Don't even call for a role. Likewise trivial checks always succeed and do not need a role either.

If I as a DM think the game will be ruined by a Character succeeding at their stated approach to a challenge, I shouldn't be going to the dice anyway.

Interesting. I'm actually thrilled when the party comes up with and execute a plan that completely trashes what I though was going to happen.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-15, 03:47 PM

Interesting. I'm actually thrilled when the party comes up with and execute a plan that completely trashes what I though was going to happen.

Oh me too. What I love the most is when my players describe something I never thought of that is a brilliant solution to the problem at hand.

Its quite the mind shift though, to go from thinking "what DC do I set for this?" to "how do I narrate the success of their awesome approach?" in the space of a few seconds.

90sMusic

2017-09-15, 04:26 PM

Yes, why don't we kill two class features of the rogue class and make them as simplistic as champion fighters where all they can do is attack every round. That'll certainly liven up the table and make it more fun!

And hey, while we're complaining about hating players for using their features to be successful, lets just scale back all the features of every class to make the game that much harder.

You know it really burns my biscuits when my glorious and creative and inventive pit trap or cliff they have to climb is completely circumvented by flying spells and teleportation related magic. Let's remove all that...

I don't like that champion fighters can crit more often or barbarians can do more damage when they crit because if they get lucky it ends fights way sooner than I want, so lets dial all that back.

I don't like charm spells because being able to charm someone and get them to be cooperative makes it too easy to do too many things, so lets dial that back.

And you know, Fireball is just way too strong doing 8d6 for a third level spell and being AOE as well. Let's nerf that damage down and also make it a single target spell because after all most classes can't deal AOE damage so it is doubly unfair to them.

And while we're at it, having spells to read or speak all languages completely trivializes some of my puzzles and precludes the need to have a large diversity of languages known so lets do away with that too.

And oh geez, druids can double or triple their effective hitpoints by using wildshape. Let's downgrade that so it doesnt affect their hitpoints at all.

^ You may try to call this a strawman argument, because that is a favorite buzz word and key term around here that folks love to throw around because they can't think of anything else to say, but the fact is every single one of these issues are complaints people have had and created threads on these forums over that are just as silly as this one. They're all in the same boat.

Fact is, rogues are supposed to be skill monkeys, they were the original skill monkeys. Reliable talent and expertise are core features to the class and are class defining, they are doing exactly what they are intended to do. They are supposed to have an easier time accomplishing tasks than anyone else.

Level 11 is fairly high up there. And yeah, they'll get a minimum of an 18 on any skill they have expertise in (which is only four) and more than that with skills they have good modifiers for like stealth, sleight of hand, etc bringing those up to 23 minimum.

At the same level, casters are getting their 6th level spells and can do crazy powerful things like transport via plants, tree seeing, magic jar, mass suggestion, heal, forbiddance, flesh to stone, disintegrate , heroes feast and a lot of other powerful stuff. And from there, the magical powers only increase and get even more bananas.

You can already use magic to circumvent a great deal of skill checks, and with their automatic minimum of 18-23, they still aren't going to hit those 25, 30, or higher DCs unless they actually roll that number, it just prevents them from failing easier rolls with the skills that they chose to be very good at.

Anytime I see threads like this, i'm just so thankful i'm not playing in the games of the various people who love to cripple class features just because they feel, as a DM, it's harder to screw over your players when they have useful features.

Straight out of the PHB, the "typical" difficulty class has 15 as medium, 20 at hard, 25 at very hard, 30 as nearly impossible.

That means the rogue will always succeed on "medium" difficulty tasks in their expertise skill without any ability modifier backing it up, and always suceed on "hard" difficulty tasks if they do have ability score backing it up.

Very hard and nearly impossible and beyond all still require a good roll.

It is a class feature and a logical one. Most people with a job that entails doing difficult things constantly on a daily basis don't just fail half the time at doing their job. They have honed those skills and developed them to a reliable level, it would take something out of the ordinary to affect that.

grumbaki

2017-09-15, 04:47 PM

I like it, personally. Far too often magic solves all problems. This lets a rogue shine.

And plus, it really lets the rogue personalize his character. He can do "perception/investigation" to be someone with the eyes of an eagle. He can do "persuasion/deception" and be a smooth talker like no other. He can do "history/religion" and be a religious scholar. He can go for "stealth/sleight of hand" to be the kind of rogue who lives in the shadows and is never seen.

It lets the rogue personalize his character. And a good GM will work ways into the story for those skills to come in use so the rogue can feel special.

mephnick

2017-09-15, 06:14 PM

And plus, it really lets the rogue personalize his character. He can do "perception/investigation" to be someone with the eyes of an eagle.

That's what my rogue I just started the other day is. A wannabe relic hunter researcher (Indy rip off yes) with expertise in perception/investigation. At 6 I'll take Arcana and History to finish the "knowledgeable grave robber" vibe. It would be pretty hard for me to pull this off without expertise, as INT and WIS are not my primary stats.

Beelzebubba

2017-09-16, 04:12 AM

If I as a DM think the game will be ruined by a Character succeeding at their stated approach to a challenge, I shouldn't be going to the dice anyway.

Alternatively: let characters trivialize certain things over time, and stop thinking of them as challenges and more as set dressing.

A high level Wizard trivializes long distance travel. Why not have a high level Rogue trivialize a steep wall?

Why does everyone force realism on this game? It's supposed to feel engagingly immersive, not plausibly realistic.

Sindeloke

2017-09-16, 10:38 AM

However, I do have one issue with it, and it is the same issue have with the Warlock's agonizing blast and a few other class features: auto-scaling.

In the various "5e skills suck" threads, one of the common suggestions is to give everybody double proficiency on skill checks to make success more reliable, which of course is a problem for Expertise because now it has to be changed to something else. One of the suggestions that makes the most sense to me is to make it similar to Reliable Talent; if you have Expertise in a skill, you can't roll lower than the class level that gave you Expertise. (Reliable Talent is then sort of a Jack-of-all-Trades type feature, giving you partial expertise in all skills to compliment your actual expertise in your four of choice). This makes expertise kinda useless at early levels, admittedly, but it does meet your qualification of requiring the player to stay in their class to make good use of it.

strangebloke

2017-09-16, 11:37 AM

Alternatively: let characters trivialize certain things over time, and stop thinking of them as challenges and more as set dressing.

A high level Wizard trivializes long distance travel. Why not have a high level Rogue trivialize a steep wall?

Why does everyone force realism on this game? It's supposed to feel engagingly immersive, not plausibly realistic.
plus, you know, according to the rogues class features and the climbing rules in the PHB Only especially smooth or especially slippery walls merit checks.

In the various "5e skills suck" threads, one of the common suggestions is to give everybody double proficiency on skill checks to make success more reliable, which of course is a problem for Expertise because now it has to be changed to something else. One of the suggestions that makes the most sense to me is to make it similar to Reliable Talent; if you have Expertise in a skill, you can't roll lower than the class level that gave you Expertise. (Reliable Talent is then sort of a Jack-of-all-Trades type feature, giving you partial expertise in all skills to compliment your actual expertise in your four of choice). This makes expertise kinda useless at early levels, admittedly, but it does meet your qualification of requiring the player to stay in their class to make good use of it.

I would rather give everyone reliable talent, personally. Or a toned down version of it. Like, say, 5 or lower. This has the effect of making easy checks trivial for skills you're proficient in, without making hard checks easier. The DMG suggests this as an option. 'Variant: automatic success.'

djreynolds

2017-09-18, 12:31 AM

You can grab as a wizard......... 1 level of rogue

1 level of knowledge cleric

3 levels of bard

or something from the feats as skills

I do agree with Lombra... that is does take you out of the game a bit. It is the little things that ground us in reality.

But you just have to let it go, like the in the movie Frozen, just let it go

Is it silly that even an arcane trickster is better at arcana than a wizard.... yes I agree

What I have tried is doubling the ability modifier instead, so proficiency plus intelligence plus intelligence, at least this way you have to invest to see dividends

Willie the Duck

2017-09-18, 07:35 AM

<list>

^ You may try to call this a strawman argument, because that is a favorite buzz word and key term around here that folks love to throw around because they can't think of anything else to say, but the fact is every single one of these issues are complaints people have had and created threads on these forums over that are just as silly as this one. They're all in the same boat.

The problem I have with this is not that you are making a strawman argument, but that you can kind of say it about anything you in particular don't like and/or find compelling. So it's not so much a strawman as it isn't really addressing anything about anyone else's points. 'I find your complaint silly' isn't really an argument at all.

moreover, the "You may try to call this a strawman argument, because that is a favorite buzz word" part really doesn't work. You can't preemptively negate others' counterarguments to what you say. Or, if you do, you're pretty much just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA" as loud as possible.

Fact is, rogues are supposed to be skill monkeys, they were the original skill monkeys. Reliable talent and expertise are core features to the class and are class defining, they are doing exactly what they are intended to do. They are supposed to have an easier time accomplishing tasks than anyone else.

And, to play devil's advocate, if we like the rogue class, and want them to be played, shouldn't the mechanics of one of their biggest class benefits feel good to people? Shouldn't people find the way that they and other classes interact with the skill system be satisfactory?

Level 11 is fairly high up there. And yeah, they'll get a minimum of an 18 on any skill they have expertise in (which is only four) and more than that with skills they have good modifiers for like stealth, sleight of hand, etc bringing those up to 23 minimum.

At the same level, casters are getting their 6th level spells and can do crazy powerful things like transport via plants, tree seeing, magic jar, mass suggestion, heal, forbiddance, flesh to stone, disintegrate , heroes feast and a lot of other powerful stuff. And from there, the magical powers only increase and get even more bananas.

There's no argument that 5e did not perfectly thread the needle between full casters and everyone else. But that does not mean that expertise is the perfect implementation of the concept of 'this class is the skill-monkey class.' The fact that someone else got a Lamborghini does not make the muscle car you are working on to compete with it (and everyone else) good, bad, or otherwise. It certainly doesn't address how the system works for other non-casters, or those skills other than the 4 you will eventually get expertise in.

There might not be a perfect system out there. WotC certainly isn't going to change course mid-stream. But, particularly for people coming up with house rules, the very discussion of whether the system as-it-stands works well and what other methods might work better is not silly in the slightest*.
*IMO, of course.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-19, 06:46 PM

Brawndo

2017-09-19, 10:57 PM

mephnick

2017-09-19, 11:16 PM

Doesn't an Arcane Trickster have to take the Sage background to even get proficiency in Arcana in the first place? I don't see any other way for them to get it, so that means per RAW they spent years learning about the multiverse. I don't see how it's a problem that someone who did that could out-do a Wizard's in the book learning department.

Yes, unless you make a custom background, which is also RAW.

I have major problems with the backgrounds because like 80% of them give Insight proficiency. If you don't want Insight proficiency you're screwed. So I always make custom.

Sigreid

2017-09-19, 11:34 PM

Yes, unless you make a custom background, which is also RAW.

I have major problems with the backgrounds because like 80% of them give Insight proficiency. If you don't want Insight proficiency you're screwed. So I always make custom.

RAW you can also pick a background that has a skill you picked as a class or received as a racial skill and then be free to pick any skill you like.

Laurefindel

2017-09-19, 11:50 PM

Why does everyone force realism on this game? It's supposed to feel engagingly immersive, not plausibly realistic.

Because some people find it engagingly immersive when they (the players) can relate to the things their characters are doing. When things get too implausible, immersion is broken and the game loses quality. That's not unique to this media, it goes the same when reading a book or watching a movie.

Now I'm with you about the fact that D&D isn't (nor does it pretend to be) a realistic simulation game, and people drawn to fantasy RPG normally come to this hobby with a certain willingness for suspension of disbelief. Thus D&D players can accept that dragons exist and that magic, by definition, defies natural laws as we know them. Yet, this suspension of disbelief doesn't stretch as far for everyone, and some will by turned off by lack of "realism" before others.

Markoff Chainey

2017-09-20, 03:26 AM

In my opinion, many of the rage-replies are mislead because the posters obviously believe that everybody plays the game like they do.

You cannot make a statement like "it is balanced" without adding context.

In our game, we do not play according to the DMG, we have far less encounters per day and in our "story mode" skill checks are far more important. RAW applied leads to situations where the "story mode" simply gets skipped, because its so hard to miss checks. We have 2 rogues in the party (AT and Assassin) with a different specialization.

Does it make them weaker in combat situations when their expertise is nerfed? - A very little (and I balanced that by giving them a little better equipment then they ought to have.)

Does it make the rest of the game less rewarding if they are weaker? No, the opposite, because it gets challenging. Under RAW, everything turns into a piece of cake. "Let me talk to the king, I will talk him into stopping the war..." - "Why fight the dragon, with a roll of a mere 25, I will just sneak by..." you name it. The only challenging situations left are fights and so the whole game is about them.

So we changed 2 things - first we introduced the "advantage mechanic" that many homebrew rules use. One source of advantage and one source of disadvantage cancel each other out. When all sources of advantage and or disadvantage are canceled out, advantage of disadvantage is determined. (= No stacking of dis/advantage)

Next, expertise (simply) grants advantage.

This did indeed nerf the rogues AND it made their gaming experience more fun, under the rules and setting and the way we play..

mephnick

2017-09-20, 06:39 AM

Does it make the rest of the game less rewarding if they are weaker? No, the opposite, because it gets challenging. Under RAW, everything turns into a piece of cake. "Let me talk to the king, I will talk him into stopping the war..." - "Why fight the dragon, with a roll of a mere 25, I will just sneak by..." you name it

That's...not how the game works, unless you really want it to. RAW the DM says "Some random dude won't convince the king to stop a war because of a CHA check, shut up." and then the game goes on normally. Persuasion isn't mind control.

Unoriginal

2017-09-20, 06:44 AM

That's...not how the game works, unless you really want it to. RAW the DM says "Some random dude won't convince the king to stop a war because of a CHA check, shut up." and then the game goes on normally. Persuasion isn't mind control.

Indeed. And I'm pretty sure even actual mind control would hardly work in a case like that.

JBPuffin

2017-09-20, 07:40 AM

Are there ways to change balance so that rogues and bards can't do the awesome stuff other people can't with skills? Yes

Does is hurt rogues if other classes each get one skill they're that good at? Early game more than late-game, but it's manageable if each character keeps to different skills.

Would it hurt rogues or bards if their expertise had to be in class skills? Bards laugh at your puny attempts at restraint, while rogues shrug and say, "Well, it could be worse."

With that said, my Arcane Trickster has expertise on Arcana because they're rather magic-obsessed, and Performance to be good at it despite a poor Charisma modifier. He's also the only arcane caster and intelligence-focused character in the party, so he's pulling down several jobs at once to make up for our party composition. So long as I can do that, Expertise can do whatever it wants to.

What irks me about Expertise is the fact that bards get it. I think they should only get one of Jack of All Trades and Expertise, because frankly, bards can perform every role you'd want a character to take from 1st to 20th - healer, utility caster, blaster, skill monkey, melke secondary, melee primary, tank...clerics are even worse about that, but I guess that's what 5e T1 is all about...

Sigreid

2017-09-20, 08:10 AM

Easy_Lee

2017-09-20, 08:42 AM

Changing expertise is not necessarily bad. Both it and Bardic Inspiration violate the principle of Bounded Accuracy by allowing those classes to hit numbers that no one else can hit.

DMs could be forgiven for challenging rogues and Bards with higher DCs than other classes - they're probably just trying to keep things equal for everyone. But that's not a good solution, because it negates those features. Nor is it particularly interesting for Rogues and Bards to succeed on every check once they get to +4 or so.

Also, I dislike that expertise starts as +2 and ends as +6. It should be consistent.

Advantage is consistent regardless of level, so that works. It works out to between +3 and +5. But it doesn't stack with itself. I think a better solution is the following:

Revised Expertise: any time you fail a check with one of your Expert Skills, you may immediately try again one time.

This stacks with advantage / disadvantage and doesn't add extra modifiers or dice.

spinningdice

2017-09-20, 10:12 AM

Willie the Duck

2017-09-20, 10:26 AM

First up, I am now interested to make a "Wizard" using the Rogue class who spent his lifetime in study, but just couldn't learn magic for some reason...

Take an Arcane Trickster, high Int, give them expertise in Arcana, maybe the Ritual, Initiate, and/or Sniper feats, maybe even a 1 level dip into Arcana Cleric if their wisdom is high enough. A familiar. Maybe bracers of defense instead of armor. Also have Deception (perhaps with expertise, depending on whether you want them to succeed) and you have the snake-oil salesman (or delusional guy) desperately trying to convince people that he's a 'real wizard' and not realizing that, frankly, they pretty much aren't pretending at this point.

Neat idea.

Unoriginal

2017-09-20, 10:51 AM

First up, I am now interested to make a "Wizard" using the Rogue class who spent his lifetime in study, but just couldn't learn magic for some reason...

https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/discworld/images/e/e8/Rincewind.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150514182916

Though to be fair with Rincewind, he knows magic, and can even use it if he really tries, he's just basically incapable of memorizing spells and trying to use wizard-style magic on the Disc without spells is so atrociously difficult it's not worth the bother most of the time.

Sigreid

2017-09-20, 10:53 AM

First up, I am now interested to make a "Wizard" using the Rogue class who spent his lifetime in study, but just couldn't learn magic for some reason...

But back to the point: I always thought the great thing about Expertise is that it could push you to attempt more, sure no ordinary guy would try and do X, but I got this...

If you go thief subclass you eventually get the ability to use all the magic items while having no magic of you're own. Which to me sounds awesome for a magic obsessed character that doesn't have any magic talent.

2017-09-20, 11:24 AM

Changing expertise is not necessarily bad. Both it and Bardic Inspiration violate the principle of Bounded Accuracy by allowing those classes to hit numbers that no one else can hit.

I'm not sure if this is such a bad thing, if those two things "break" bounded accuracy then so do Bless, Guidance, Haste, Precision Strike, and any other buff to a roll that isn't damage and isn't advantage. That's a lot of design space to remove, makes buffing a little one-note and often redundant.

To the OP, if the rogue has invested resources (ie class features) in a skill, the rogue should be highly competent in this skill. This really shouldn't be a problem. Try to think about what's fun for the player, and why the player did this. If the player did it precisely so they could be good at doing a certain thing, and you are attempting to undermine them, then I would have to ask... why?

Easy_Lee

2017-09-20, 12:11 PM

I'm not sure if this is such a bad thing, if those two things "break" bounded accuracy then so do Bless, Guidance, Haste, Precision Strike, and any other buff to a roll that isn't damage and isn't advantage. That's a lot of design space to remove, makes buffing a little one-note and often redundant.

Yes, but those are spells. Spells breaks a lot of rules and, more importantly, are temporary. That's why I think Bardic Inspiration isn't as big of a deal as Expertise.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-20, 01:31 PM

Yes, but those are spells. Spells breaks a lot of rules and, more importantly, are temporary. That's why I think Bardic Inspiration isn't as big of a deal as Expertise.

Here's the quote about bounded accuracy (source is no longer available, but taken from D&D Wiki):

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.

There is no rule that skill bonuses don't scale, just that they're not expected (in general) to scale with level. Certain classes can override this general rule with specific rules (like having proficiency or expertise in particular skills). Yes, that means that rogues break the general rules by adding specific rules. That's the specific-beats-general principle. This is not a violation of bounded accuracy as a concept. This allows characters that are genuinely good at something (represented by expertise in that field) to do hard things more consistently than those who are merely pretty good (proficiency and a high modifier). That's their class feature: "You're really good at this and can do it more reliably than others." Taking it away from them deprives them of a class feature, for no gain to the game.

Also, if most things are really ability checks (and so don't add proficiency), the effect of expertise is muted to where it should be. How many times are people rolling INT (Arcana) when they really should be rolling plain INT? Or DEX (Acrobatics) instead of DEX (Athletics)?

A third thing about expertise is that it allows rogues (and bards) to be as good at skills related to their lower stats as people with high stats and proficiency in a few particular areas. Only at very high levels does a +1 INT Arcana-expertise rogue beat a +5 INT Arcana-proficient wizard. And how many rogues roll +5 INT?

Easy_Lee

2017-09-20, 01:35 PM

Here's the quote about bounded accuracy (source is no longer available, but taken from D&D Wiki):

There is no rule that skill bonuses don't scale, just that they're not expected (in general) to scale with level. Certain classes can override this general rule with specific rules (like having proficiency or expertise in particular skills). Yes, that means that rogues break the general rules by adding specific rules. That's the specific-beats-general principle. This is not a violation of bounded accuracy as a concept. This allows characters that are genuinely good at something (represented by expertise in that field) to do hard things more consistently than those who are merely pretty good (proficiency and a high modifier). That's their class feature: "You're really good at this and can do it more reliably than others." Taking it away from them deprives them of a class feature, for no gain to the game.

That's why I said it violates the principle of bounded accuracy, rather than violating a rule. There is no rule.

If expertise is meant to make Rogues and Bards more consistent, then it's better than it ought to be. As is, it lets those classes do things that others can't do at all. That's why I think it's reasonable to revise it.

2017-09-20, 01:39 PM

Yes, but those are spells. Spells breaks a lot of rules and, more importantly, are temporary. That's why I think Bardic Inspiration isn't as big of a deal as Expertise.

The mentality that spells get to break the rules but the filthy non-casters get to suffer needs to die already.

Guidance is a cantrip and can be cast constantly, by the way. It's not a large bonus, but it is more flexible in that you can always choose which ability check to apply it to (as opposed to Expertise, which is a larger bonus but only affects the skill checks you have chosen).

Easy_Lee

2017-09-20, 01:42 PM

The mentality that spells get to break the rules but the filthy non-casters get to suffer needs to die already.

Guidance is a cantrip and can be cast constantly, by the way. It's not a large bonus, but it is more flexible in that you can always choose which ability check to apply it to (as opposed to Expertise, which is a larger bonus but only affects the skill checks you have chosen).

That was only half of my post. The other half was that the effects were temporary and limited, just like Action Surge.

2017-09-20, 01:46 PM

That was only half of my post. The other half was that the effects were temporary and limited, just like Action Surge.

And the other half of my post pointed out that they were in fact not all limited, as in Guidance. Its effect is "temporary" but it can be cast over and over.

Not that it makes much difference--limited resources that can be used when they are needed most are generally as valuable as permanent bonuses, especially when they have superior flexibility. There are situations where this is not the case, of course, but yeah. I think Expertise is one thing in 5E that was done very intentionally.

Willie the Duck

2017-09-20, 01:51 PM

Yes, but those are spells. Spells breaks a lot of rules and, more importantly, are temporary. That's why I think Bardic Inspiration isn't as big of a deal as Expertise.

That's... probably something you want to elaborate on unless you want the 'spellcasters-get-everything-nice' arguments to pile on.

And the other half of my post pointed out that they were in fact not all limited, as in Guidance. Its effect is "temporary" but it can be cast over and over.

Not that it makes much difference--limited resources that can be used when they are needed most are generally as valuable as permanent bonuses, especially when they have superior flexibility. There are situations where this is not the case, of course, but yeah. I think Expertise is one thing in 5E that was done very intentionally.

Like this. I disagree that limit resources are as valuable. They are more valuable under the 15 minute workday, and less valuable during a tense dungeon crawl, so it completely depends on the adventure you are in. However, yes, I think it was done very intentionally. And if it didn't play havoc with the dice math, I would love the heck out of it (much like I like the idea behind the 5e saving throws, but don't like the implementation).

Easy_Lee

2017-09-20, 02:03 PM

That's... probably something you want to elaborate on unless you want the 'spellcasters-get-everything-nice' arguments to pile on.

That occurred to me after I wrote it. I, too, dislike the casters get all the nice things, guy at the gym fallacy, etc. situation. Martials have it rough, especially in the later tiers of play. But this isn't that kind of situation.

Breaking the rules should be temporary. Casters have more resources than martials, and so get to break the rules more often. That's probably the main source of the problem, from a balance perspective. And it is a problem. Long rest full casters shine in many typical circumstances, especially things like random encounters while traveling (where you probably get a long rest both before and after).

But that's beside the point. Rogues, with the exception of some archetypes, don't have a single expendable resource until level 20 (besides items and hit points). Their features are online at all times. So we have expertise, which is basically Guidance, active for those skills on a permanent basis. It also stacks with Guidance, and Inspiration, and Enhance Ability. This means Rogues (and Bards) can hit numbers that no one else can, all without having to expend any resources.

mephnick

2017-09-20, 02:12 PM

One could argue the "resource" they're spending is an entire major class feature that could be something else.

Willie the Duck

2017-09-20, 02:26 PM

One could argue the "resource" they're spending is an entire major class feature that could be something else.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that they shouldn't get some such resource. Or even the basic concept of rogues as skill masters. It is the particular implementation that is under analysis and critique.

Thrasher92

2017-09-20, 04:41 PM

Wow, I haven't checked this thread since I got the answer I was looking for... the skill feats.

I originally started it because a rogue in my party focused on Charisma skills for his expertise and he is always getting at least a 23 or 24 on Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation checks. Technically if I go by the written rules he isn't doing anything WRONG. But, the act of haggling every NPC and avoiding encounters entirely by trying to talk the enemies to death is grating on the other players. I have since spoken to him about it and we simply agreed he would get an automatic discount with most NPCs, but not enough that it would cause them to lose money and he will check with the party first before trying to talk his way through a fight instead of killing things.

I totally thought this thread would die after the skill feats thing was posted.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-20, 05:00 PM

I totally thought this thread would die after the skill feats thing was posted.

We're pedantic round these parts.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-20, 05:03 PM

We're pedantic round these parts.

:smallsmile: Ain't that the truth.

Laurefindel

2017-09-20, 05:41 PM

I totally thought this thread would die after the skill feats thing was posted.

Well, not everyone plays with UA material.

Also, if the perceived problem is "expertise break bounded accuracy", the skill feats don't solve anything as much as spreading the problem across.

Zalabim

2017-09-22, 03:05 AM

That's why I said it violates the principle of bounded accuracy, rather than violating a rule. There is no rule.
The point of pasting the principle of bounded accuracy was to show that expertise doesn't violate the principle of bounded accuracy. Because it doesn't. Or at least, it does break the principle in the same way that proficiency, ASI, +x magic items, seemingly half the fighting styles, and plenty of spells do.

If expertise is meant to make Rogues and Bards more consistent, then it's better than it ought to be. As is, it lets those classes do things that others can't do at all. That's why I think it's reasonable to revise it.
You know what else lets classes do things that other classes can't do? Class features. It's almost like expertise is a class feature.

That occurred to me after I wrote it. I, too, dislike the casters get all the nice things, guy at the gym fallacy, etc. situation. Martials have it rough, especially in the later tiers of play. But this isn't that kind of situation.

Breaking the rules should be temporary. Casters have more resources than martials, and so get to break the rules more often. That's probably the main source of the problem, from a balance perspective. And it is a problem. Long rest full casters shine in many typical circumstances, especially things like random encounters while traveling (where you probably get a long rest both before and after).

But that's beside the point. Rogues, with the exception of some archetypes, don't have a single expendable resource until level 20 (besides items and hit points). Their features are online at all times. So we have expertise, which is basically Guidance, active for those skills on a permanent basis. It also stacks with Guidance, and Inspiration, and Enhance Ability. This means Rogues (and Bards) can hit numbers that no one else can, all without having to expend any resources.
Yes, it is that kind of situation. There's tons of rules breaks/changes/additions that are permanent and unlimited. That's fine. There's no reason I've seen that rule breaking class features should be temporary. Some are. Some aren't.

imanidiot

2017-09-22, 03:31 AM

So I just had another thought. I wouldn't fuss too much if a champion fighter's remarkable athelete feature were replaced with expertise in athletics.

I would. Athletics expertise wouldn't add half my proficiency bonus to my initiative.

Sigreid

2017-09-22, 07:09 AM

I would. Athletics expertise wouldn't add half my proficiency bonus to my initiative.

I hear you. And I personally don't have a.problem with the status quo. I do kind of have a problem with either giving the rogue' s key feature to everyone or breaking it so it's useless.

Rogue expertise is designed not to make them good at skills, but to make them LEGENDARY at some skills.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-22, 08:22 AM

The point of pasting the principle of bounded accuracy was to show that expertise doesn't violate the principle of bounded accuracy. Because it doesn't. Or at least, it does break the principle in the same way that proficiency, ASI, +x magic items, seemingly half the fighting styles, and plenty of spells do.

You know what else lets classes do things that other classes can't do? Class features. It's almost like expertise is a class feature.

Yes, it is that kind of situation. There's tons of rules breaks/changes/additions that are permanent and unlimited. That's fine. There's no reason I've seen that rule breaking class features should be temporary. Some are. Some aren't.

Exactly. That was exactly why I posted that.
* General rule: ability checks don't add proficiency (and so don't scale with level). DCs are set against the general case and do not scale with level. This is bounded accuracy.
** Exception 1: If a character is proficient in a skill, and that skill applies, add the proficiency modifier (which scales with level). Bounded accuracy is already broken at this point. By design. For every PC out there, and a lot of the monsters.
*** Exception 2: Rogues and bards can add double their proficiency to select skill-related ability checks. Bounded accuracy is still broken, but that's because it broke with any proficiency being added.

Class features are all "letting certain people do things others can't." By default, you can't cast a spell. You can't dash as a bonus action. You can't crit on a 19. That's the nature of an exception-based architecture like 5e. That's the entire point of having classes. This includes weapon and armor proficiencies, hit die based on class, not size category, saving throw proficiency, etc.

I hear you. And I personally don't have a.problem with the status quo. I do kind of have a problem with either giving the rogue' s key feature to everyone or breaking it so it's useless.

Rogue expertise is designed not to make them good at skills, but to make them LEGENDARY at some skills.

Right. If you want to be a true expert (able to both accomplish tasks that are out of reach for others and do regular tasks more consistently) at particular ability-check-related tasks, be a rogue or a bard. Yes, that means that wizards aren't experts at Arcana-related knowledge. That's because they're focused on casting spells. They're technicians, not theoreticians. A theoretical physicist usually makes a horrible engineer, but knows way more about the deep dark details. Rogues with expertise in an INT skill are the theoreticians of that field. They're like an atheist theologian--they don't necessarily practice the faith (can't cast the spell/contact deities/etc) but that doesn't stop them from knowing the underlying theory better than a working priest (who is often focused on other matters).

Beelzebubba

2017-09-22, 08:25 AM

I originally started it because a rogue in my party focused on Charisma skills for his expertise and he is always getting at least a 23 or 24 on Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation checks. Technically if I go by the written rules he isn't doing anything WRONG. But, the act of haggling every NPC and avoiding encounters entirely by trying to talk the enemies to death is grating on the other players. I have since spoken to him about it and we simply agreed he would get an automatic discount with most NPCs, but not enough that it would cause them to lose money and he will check with the party first before trying to talk his way through a fight instead of killing things.

Yeah, I think there is a fact of certain things being limited by what's sensible, and where the 'rulings not rules' of 5E can help.

You're encountering Sir Bearington from 3E (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sir_Bearington). If the rules are too explicit about what the high rolls mean, as in the effects of the upper bounds, then it gets silly.

I could see a vendor of expensive goods in a politically powerful part of town giving any discount at all to a non-noble 'almost impossible'. Getting them to do something stupid or harmful to themselves? Nah.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-22, 09:55 AM

Yeah, I think there is a fact of certain things being limited by what's sensible, and where the 'rulings not rules' of 5E can help.

You're encountering Sir Bearington from 3E (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Sir_Bearington). If the rules are too explicit about what the high rolls mean, as in the effects of the upper bounds, then it gets silly.

I could see a vendor of expensive goods in a politically powerful part of town giving any discount at all to a non-noble 'almost impossible'. Getting them to do something stupid or harmful to themselves? Nah.

Building on that--

There's a good description of what the CHA social checks mean in terms of what the NPCs should be willing to do (based on prior relationships) on pg 245 of the DMG. If the creature isn't already friendly, even a DC 20 check gets "accepts minor risk or sacrifice to do as asked" (and there isn't anything better). Do note that not all conversational checks involve skill proficiency--straight up CHA checks should be just as common.

Unoriginal

2017-09-22, 10:11 AM

Easy_Lee

2017-09-22, 10:33 AM

I for one am outraged that the Fighter disposes of more attacks than any other classes, without expending ressources. So, how do we balance the Fighter to make sure they doesn't outshine anyone in fights?

Whoa, it's about as painful to write than it is to read.

Fighters get the most attacks, but they aren't at a permanent +6 bonus compared to other classes. The only fighting style that adds to attack rolls is Archery, and a lot of folks around here don't like Archery.

pwykersotz

2017-09-22, 12:05 PM

With the exception of Bounded Accuracy (but that's a disagreement for another thread) I am firmly in agreement with Easy_Lee. This isn't about taking away the Rogues toys. It's about a system that goes just a little too far askew by doubling proficiency bonuses. I'm one of those people who's on the fence about it.

I like the following suggestions (individuallly applied):
Can't get disadvantage and get +2 to the check
Can't roll below a minimum number on the d20
Any time you fail a check with one of your Expert Skills, you may immediately try again one time.

But so far none of them quite convince me to replace Expertise. Maybe I'm being overly greedy, looking for a magical solution that doesn't exist.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-22, 12:30 PM

1) Can't get disadvantage and get +2 to the check
2) Can't roll below a minimum number on the d20
3)Any time you fail a check with one of your Expert Skills, you may immediately try again one time.

2) is already a class feature (and a very strong one) for rogues (Reliable Talent, not limited to expertise skills).

3) is basically advantage, just more complicated (and has stacking issues with adv/disadv).

1) doesn't make sense in terms of what advantage/disadvantage is for (circumstances that alter your chances of success).

Of the three, if I had to choose I'd go with 1, sort of.

Unoriginal

2017-09-22, 12:36 PM

Of course it's taking away the Rogue's toys. It might not be the intent, maybe, but it's the result.

Rogues are the "we do the near impossible ability checks" martial class. Nerfing Expertise would be like removing cantrips from the Warlock and making Eldritch Blast a limited-use-per-day invocation.

Willie the Duck

2017-09-22, 12:52 PM

Only if you removed it without replacement, which no one is suggesting. "we do the near impossible ability checks" is not the part of expertise that people are having a problem with, nor is it rogues having the role of skill-mastering character.

pwykersotz

2017-09-22, 01:12 PM

2) is already a class feature (and a very strong one) for rogues (Reliable Talent, not limited to expertise skills).

3) is basically advantage, just more complicated (and has stacking issues with adv/disadv).

1) doesn't make sense in terms of what advantage/disadvantage is for (circumstances that alter your chances of success).

Of the three, if I had to choose I'd go with 1, sort of.

Agree on all four points, which is why none of them have convinced me yet. But they are all reasonable starting points that can be further tweaked if needed.

And Unoriginal, Willie the Duck is correct. In your example, it would be more like changing the Force damage of Eldritch Blast to psychic damage instead because of an unwanted interaction with other Force mechanics. That's the goal, anyway.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-22, 01:21 PM

Agree on all four points, which is why none of them have convinced me yet. But they are all reasonable starting points that can be further tweaked if needed.

And Unoriginal, Willie the Duck is correct. In your example, it would be more like changing the Force damage of Eldritch Blast to psychic damage instead because of an unwanted interaction with other Force mechanics. That's the goal, anyway.

But in doing so, you're hard nerfing it (much more than changing force to psychic. More like changing force to non-magical bludgeoning). One of the big things is that now rogues can't substitute expertise for a high ability score + proficiency. That is, if you want to make an Indiana Jones rogue (expert at history), you would have to cap INT instead of having a more normal INT score and having expertise.

Until proficiency hits +6 (at level 17), having expertise and 0 native ability score is the same or worse than having a good ability score and proficiency. Even after that, it's only +1 relative to someone who has a capped score and proficiency. This is the design of rogues--they don't have to invest in INT unless they want to cast spells. Or they can be investigators or manipulators (WIS/CHA) without having to cap those scores. Expertise makes them able to be skill monkeys without being horribly MAD.

Doug Lampert

2017-09-22, 01:24 PM

I doubt OP would have found weird or in need of change that a Rogue can beat a Barbarian in Str(Athleticism), but I could be wrong.

I have seen the same complaint with rogues and bards vs. barbarians and fighters on grappling builds. A complaint that the barbarian should be the best at this, and isn't because the Rogue has expertise.

I disagree in the case of the rogue, it doesn't bother me for the slippery and skilled class to be the best wrestler and best at tripping ext...

But in both cases it's the BARD I have problems with, he's a full caster, he can get spells from another class list (sooner than that class can for half casters), he can get the second attack like a martial if he'd rather have that then better spell-casting, he's the "jack of all trades and master of a bunch too" because he gets expertise on top of all the rest.

I really don't think that phrase is supposed to go "jack of all trades and master of a bunch too", magic is supposed to be hard, a magic user should give up something significant for the potential to hit level 9 spells.

Edited to add:

But in doing so, you're hard nerfing it (much more than changing force to psychic. More like changing force to non-magical bludgeoning). One of the big things is that now rogues can't substitute expertise for a high ability score + proficiency. That is, if you want to make an Indiana Jones rogue (expert at history), you would have to cap INT instead of having a more normal INT score and having expertise.

Until proficiency hits +6 (at level 17), having expertise and 0 native ability score is the same or worse than having a good ability score and proficiency. Even after that, it's only +1 relative to someone who has a capped score and proficiency. This is the design of rogues--they don't have to invest in INT unless they want to cast spells. Or they can be investigators or manipulators (WIS/CHA) without having to cap those scores. Expertise makes them able to be skill monkeys without being horribly MAD.

If that's a significant part of the intent, then "+2 and treat your underlying ability as a 20 if the actual score is lower", would probably be a better rule. It doesn't put a rogue into the stratosphere compared to other characters, but a Rogue can still be very good at his narrow expertise without needing to be MAD to also be good at combat.

Ability scores are pretty broad, "You just happen to be really good at this one part of that ability" isn't really implausible.

pwykersotz

2017-09-22, 01:45 PM

But in doing so, you're hard nerfing it (much more than changing force to psychic. More like changing force to non-magical bludgeoning). One of the big things is that now rogues can't substitute expertise for a high ability score + proficiency. That is, if you want to make an Indiana Jones rogue (expert at history), you would have to cap INT instead of having a more normal INT score and having expertise.

Until proficiency hits +6 (at level 17), having expertise and 0 native ability score is the same or worse than having a good ability score and proficiency. Even after that, it's only +1 relative to someone who has a capped score and proficiency. This is the design of rogues--they don't have to invest in INT unless they want to cast spells. Or they can be investigators or manipulators (WIS/CHA) without having to cap those scores. Expertise makes them able to be skill monkeys without being horribly MAD.

I don't understand the insistence that even trying to come up with something new is a hard nerf and should be avoided at all costs. The crowd-sourcing of ideas hasn't finished yet, so it's pretty hard to judge a non-existent final product.

You raise great points that ought to be considered. Now I've never seen Expertise used as you suggest, but it could and it's worth considering how valuable that is. I've only ever seen it used to double proficiencies on skills that already have high ability scores backing them, which skews the skill system in ways I don't particularly like.

snickersnax

2017-09-22, 02:15 PM

There must be a way to balance this feature, or at the very least I'm willing to hear some better reasons of how this isn't unbalanced.

I like minimum of 5 for proficiency, minimum of 10 for expertise. Under this system. expertise doesn't double proficiency. That means reliable talent needs a little tweak, which I do as minimum 10 for proficiency and minimum 15 to those skills with expertise.

This helps separate the proficient from the non-proficient, makes expertise a great skill, but doesn't make the impossible commonplace until you get reliable talent.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-22, 02:35 PM

I don't understand the insistence that even trying to come up with something new is a hard nerf and should be avoided at all costs. The crowd-sourcing of ideas hasn't finished yet, so it's pretty hard to judge a non-existent final product.

You raise great points that ought to be considered. Now I've never seen Expertise used as you suggest, but it could and it's worth considering how valuable that is. I've only ever seen it used to double proficiencies on skills that already have high ability scores backing them, which skews the skill system in ways I don't particularly like.

The skills that naturally have a high ability score for rogues are the stealth/thievery skills (stealth, sleight of hand, and acrobatics). It's natural for rogues (the skill masters who are also the sneaky types) to be the absolute best at these. So let them. These are also skills that don't lend themselves to one-check-wins things. Either the rogue is alone (and so lacking backup, but passes easily) or the rogue is with the group and everyone has to make the stealth/acrobatics checks. This isn't a problem for me.

For bards, the things they're naturally good at are the CHA social skills. That's their natural wheelhouse. If you want to make an amazing face, make a bard. Expertise in social skills (using the DMG table) is kinda wasted--they don't list benefits for DCs higher than 20. Bards are also much weaker at everything else than martial classes and more MAD than rogues are (needing CHA, high DEX and CON). They don't have reliable talent either, so a 1 can still hurt them. They also get fewer expertises. Their native spell list is also the weakest for combat (so they need to spend their spell steals on that).

All in all, I think that expertise is a great thing. It allows you to build a skillful character who isn't super MAD.

Unoriginal

2017-09-22, 03:00 PM

Only if you removed it without replacement, which no one is suggesting.

Inferior replacements would have the same effect.

"we do the near impossible ability checks" is not the part of expertise that people are having a problem with, nor is it rogues having the role of skill-mastering character.

It pretty much is, since it's what Expertise gives to the Rogue.

And Unoriginal, Willie the Duck is correct. In your example, it would be more like changing the Force damage of Eldritch Blast to psychic damage instead because of an unwanted interaction with other Force mechanics. That's the goal, anyway.

And what unwanted interaction is there with Expertise, then?

pwykersotz

2017-09-22, 05:05 PM

And what unwanted interaction is there with Expertise, then?

This is a trap. You are asking for clarification on an anecdote as opposed to the real point. If you want to clarify the point, the OP should be sufficient to lay the groundwork. But I'll bite anyway.

The rogue's numbers get too high for my taste (and evidently other people's as well). This leads to skewed expectations at the table, both from a GM perspective and from a fellow player perspective. Everyone wants the Rogue to be awesome, but the method of that awesomeness is in debate.

I would like it if Rogues could be awesome without number inflation. That's it.

Unoriginal

2017-09-22, 05:24 PM

Well, sorry if I seem annoying, but your answer only raised more questions:

The rogue's numbers get too high for my taste (and evidently other people's as well). This leads to skewed expectations at the table, both from a GM perspective and from a fellow player perspective.

What do you mean by that? That the GM starts making DC higher because they expect every characters to meet the Rogue's standards? That the players expect every characters to be able to do as well as the Rogue in ability checks? That the GM is making DC bigger because they want to make it harder for the Rogue?

Everyone wants the Rogue to be awesome, but the method of that awesomeness is in debate.

So you want the Rogue to be awesome, but you don't like how they're allowed to be awesome, correct?

I would like it if Rogues could be awesome without number inflation. That's it.

What do you mean by "number inflation" ?

Easy_Lee

2017-09-22, 05:25 PM

I would like it if Rogues could be awesome without number inflation. That's it.

I agree, and will add that this is the same problem people have with the Archery fighting style and the Lore Mastery (UA) arcane tradition. Static increases to numbers just don't feel right this edition.

pwykersotz

2017-09-22, 07:14 PM

Well, sorry if I seem annoying, but your answer only raised more questions:

What do you mean by that? That the GM starts making DC higher because they expect every characters to meet the Rogue's standards? That the players expect every characters to be able to do as well as the Rogue in ability checks? That the GM is making DC bigger because they want to make it harder for the Rogue?

So you want the Rogue to be awesome, but you don't like how they're allowed to be awesome, correct?

What do you mean by "number inflation" ?

Oh no worries at all, I definitely don't think you're annoying. I probably should have put one of these :smalltongue: after my trap comment to indicate my tone a bit better.

It gets difficult to answer your questions at this level of specificity, because identifying the exact problem is part and parcel with coming up with a satisfying solution. Both elude me right now. But I'll try to elaborate.

Unpopular opinion: I like the skill system as it is. However, it only works if there is an actual chance of failure. A +29 to all skill checks renders the system useless. Obviously we're not at that level with Expertise, but the closer you approach that top end, the less useful the system is. I think the top end for a maximum is around a +15 before the roll for checks. This gives a wide chance for success and a small margin for failure for your standard range of checks (10-20), but keeps both in relative balance to my tastes. It's higher than I would like, but not higher than I'm willing to accept. As you can see, expertise goes beyond this. We also have to consider how the rest of the game plays into it. The skill system doesn't exist in isolation. It should work both by itself and with any simple interactions that other classes can expect to have as well.

When numbers get too high on a skill check, they create a frustrating area of the rules. Any time that particular check is called for, it is trivialized unless escalation happens. It's not a resource to be burned through or something that is done at a cost. It just happens. And this is a problem because the skill system is designed to be used when there is a chance for failure. Having no chance for failure on your decision tool for probability of failure is not useful.

That's what I mean by number inflation. So no, I'm not concerned about GM's boosting DC's, nor about the comparative effectiveness to non-skill-monkey PC's. I don't like this way of them being "awesome" because it invalidates the primary GM tool for action resolution across multiple skills.

While I was typing this, I thought of an interesting one that is a bit crazy, but it might make for good discussion. When a Rogue fails a skill check, they can instead succeed by paying a number of HP equal to 2x the difference between their roll and the DC. So if the DC is 25 and they rolled a 15, 20hp would let them pass the check. Since I'm firmly in the camp of HP is your luck, skill, and stamina more than meat, this is an interesting idea to me. Not sure it would ever gain widespread popularity though.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-22, 08:12 PM

Unpopular opinion: I like the skill system as it is. However, it only works if there is an actual chance of failure. A +29 to all skill checks renders the system useless. Obviously we're not at that level with Expertise, but the closer you approach that top end, the less useful the system is. I think the top end for a maximum is around a +15 before the roll for checks. This gives a wide chance for success and a small margin for failure for your standard range of checks (10-20), but keeps both in relative balance to my tastes. It's higher than I would like, but not higher than I'm willing to accept. As you can see, expertise goes beyond this. We also have to consider how the rest of the game plays into it. The skill system doesn't exist in isolation. It should work both by itself and with any simple interactions that other classes can expect to have as well.

But that gives a maximum of 4 skills that can be obviated, and most ability checks shouldn't be skill checks, so expertise doesn't apply. And you only get silly numbers if the rogue has expertise in DEX skills (or pumped another stat to maximum). The system is designed so that a high-level rogue (with reliable talent) should succeed just about every time on anything he has expertise in. But what about the fighter? Or that druid (in my group) who always fails stealth checks?

When numbers get too high on a skill check, they create a frustrating area of the rules. Any time that particular check is called for, it is trivialized unless escalation happens. It's not a resource to be burned through or something that is done at a cost. It just happens. And this is a problem because the skill system is designed to be used when there is a chance for failure. Having no chance for failure on your decision tool for probability of failure is not useful.

If and only if the rogue succeeding removes the threat entirely, for everybody. That's not how ability checks (not skill checks) are supposed to work. For true individual checks, it means the rogue is safe. Everyone else can fail. For group checks, it gives +1 automatic success, the rest of the group can still fail. Don't do "one-success-wins" checks and the problem goes away.

Also, there's already a tool that makes problems go away, 100% of the time, without fail. They're called spells, and most other classes have them. Why are rogues the only one whose consistency mechanic is a problem?

While I was typing this, I thought of an interesting one that is a bit crazy, but it might make for good discussion. When a Rogue fails a skill check, they can instead succeed by paying a number of HP equal to 2x the difference between their roll and the DC. So if the DC is 25 and they rolled a 15, 20hp would let them pass the check. Since I'm firmly in the camp of HP is your luck, skill, and stamina more than meat, this is an interesting idea to me. Not sure it would ever gain widespread popularity though.

That's more punitive most of the time than failing. Failing an ability check should not risk death most of the time--death is a boring consequence. So taking damage whenever you use a non-combat class feature seems...harsh.

Now I can see that having expertise available at 2nd level (in a world of multiclassers) might be a problem because it's too easy of a dip, but that's problem with front-loaded classes in general, not expertise in particular.

pwykersotz

2017-09-22, 08:31 PM

But that gives a maximum of 4 skills that can be obviated, and most ability checks shouldn't be skill checks, so expertise doesn't apply. And you only get silly numbers if the rogue has expertise in DEX skills (or pumped another stat to maximum). The system is designed so that a high-level rogue (with reliable talent) should succeed just about every time on anything he has expertise in. But what about the fighter? Or that druid (in my group) who always fails stealth checks?

If and only if the rogue succeeding removes the threat entirely, for everybody. That's not how ability checks (not skill checks) are supposed to work. For true individual checks, it means the rogue is safe. Everyone else can fail. For group checks, it gives +1 automatic success, the rest of the group can still fail. Don't do "one-success-wins" checks and the problem goes away.

Also, there's already a tool that makes problems go away, 100% of the time, without fail. They're called spells, and most other classes have them. Why are rogues the only one whose consistency mechanic is a problem?

That's more punitive most of the time than failing. Failing an ability check should not risk death most of the time--death is a boring consequence. So taking damage whenever you use a non-combat class feature seems...harsh.

Now I can see that having expertise available at 2nd level (in a world of multiclassers) might be a problem because it's too easy of a dip, but that's problem with front-loaded classes in general, not expertise in particular.

To your first and second points, it's a problem if it happens at all. This seems like a good time to put in a reminder though, that so far I haven't considered this to be enough of a problem to actually address. It merely annoys me and I think it's worthy of a thought experiment to try and solve it.

Regarding spells, I have other problems with those. Rogues are not the only ones with a mechanic problem, but this is a thread talking about the Expertise issue. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of having a disingenuous argument without first asking me about it.

And regarding your response to my HP idea, I disagree on the premise that it is always a player choice as to whether to succeed by doing this. Would you feel the same if it was always one hitpoint as opposed to 2x the difference? Is there a degree where it becomes too much or too little? Or do you just hate using HP as a resource? If so, is there a better one you'd prefer?

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-22, 08:51 PM

a)To your first and second points, it's a problem if it happens at all. This seems like a good time to put in a reminder though, that so far I haven't considered this to be enough of a problem to actually address. It merely annoys me and I think it's worthy of a thought experiment to try and solve it.

B)Regarding spells, I have other problems with those. Rogues are not the only ones with a mechanic problem, but this is a thread talking about the Expertise issue. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of having a disingenuous argument without first asking me about it.

C) And regarding your response to my HP idea, I disagree on the premise that it is always a player choice as to whether to succeed by doing this. Would you feel the same if it was always one hitpoint as opposed to 2x the difference? Is there a degree where it becomes too much or too little? Or do you just hate using HP as a resource? If so, is there a better one you'd prefer?
Posting from mobile, so no fancy quote breaking.

A) why is it a problem? That's what's never been answered (for me at least). People don't like it, but why? Many class features are designed to reduce variability and ensure consistency at various tasks. Reckless attack reduces variability in attack rolls. Proficiency at all makes many things possible that weren't before. And with many checks being ability (not skill-based) and most not being solved with a single success, the system is still there for the majority of checks. Just like creatures being immune to certain damage or status types doesn't break those types.

B) I apologise for the apparent insinuation. None was intended.

C) I find using HP as a penalty out of combat either boring (if it's minor or near the end of the day) or extremely harsh (if it's major and there's no time to rest). Getting a system that works consistently and is still useful would be extremely hard, and most players would ignore it completely due to being risk averse.

What's wrong with letting a player feel like a big darn hero occasionally? Plan your ability checks right, and they feel good about succeeding, but the party still has risk and uncertainty. Or use more ability checks without skills. That's a major part of the system--forcing everything into one of the skills is doing it wrong and causing part of the problem to begin with.

pwykersotz

2017-09-22, 11:15 PM

Posting from mobile, so no fancy quote breaking.

A) why is it a problem? That's what's never been answered (for me at least). People don't like it, but why? Many class features are designed to reduce variability and ensure consistency at various tasks. Reckless attack reduces variability in attack rolls. Proficiency at all makes many things possible that weren't before. And with many checks being ability (not skill-based) and most not being solved with a single success, the system is still there for the majority of checks. Just like creatures being immune to certain damage or status types doesn't break those types.

B) I apologise for the apparent insinuation. None was intended.

C) I find using HP as a penalty out of combat either boring (if it's minor or near the end of the day) or extremely harsh (if it's major and there's no time to rest). Getting a system that works consistently and is still useful would be extremely hard, and most players would ignore it completely due to being risk averse.

What's wrong with letting a player feel like a big darn hero occasionally? Plan your ability checks right, and they feel good about succeeding, but the party still has risk and uncertainty. Or use more ability checks without skills. That's a major part of the system--forcing everything into one of the skills is doing it wrong and causing part of the problem to begin with.

A) There are several reasons why it can be a problem. For me the primary frustration is as I said below, that when the system is utilized, the system should be useful. It's like Wild Magic. Brokenly bad if used as implemented. When you cast a spell the DM decides if you roll 1d20, and you get Wild Magic on a 1. That is not useful, that does not enable wild magic. The chance of it happening is so low, that unless the DM tells you to roll on every spell, odds are that it won't even happen more than a few times in an entire campaign. And even if he does, a low level campaign might not ever see it in use. (I have them simply roll a Wild Magic check if I want them to, eliminating the d20. My players love it because they choose that subclass so that they can have their crazy effects, and we end up with several per game. If a system is called into action, it should be useful. If it is not useful, it should not be called into action. If the point of a Rogue with Expertise is that they do not fail the check, then I would rather have them auto-succeed than have a check called. But I'm not a fan of unlimited auto-success either, so I'd like a midway point.

B) All good, I'm also inattentive to wording today, that probably came off harsher than I intended. I'm enjoying the discussion.

C) Fair points. My players would probably use the option about 50% of the time they failed a check, because I play with consequences for failure. The risk of failing many checks is far higher than the guaranteed loss of a few HP. But as I said, it's a vastly imperfect idea, it was more just an interesting thought. I'm kind of fond of it though, I might offer it to my table and see what they think.

To your unlabeled D point, I also want players to feel like big darn heroes. But "Planning your checks right" reminds me of why I switched to 5e from 3.5. I DO NOT mean to start an edition war. I love 3.5 for many reasons. But it got to the point where I had to carefully plan around TONS of player abilities to make the feel come off right. 5e has just a few of those, but I'd rather they didn't exist at all. And as far as calling for checks without skills attached, that is a good suggestion, but it has its faults. Primarily, players will choose Expertise in skills which have wide usage. Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics, etc. I'd rather call the check I think is appropriate than play around a move a player has. You can call that "forcing" if you want, but I feel that when a playstyle has very few red flags that are thrown during play and one of the few is easily solved by changing that ability than the use of the rest of the system, that the particular table is better served by changing that ability.

Elric VIII

2017-09-23, 12:25 AM

I havent really had a problem with this. To be honest, I really wish the skill system wasn't so simple. 3.P had a good number of skills to cover the things your character could do, they just got the scale wrong. Bounded accuracy makes that issue much better, so I would say that any fix to the rogue's expertise should work toward that end.

Here's my idea on a change to expertise:
"If you have expertise in a skill you can replace your ability modifier with your proficiency bonus if it would result in a higher total modifier."

This does two things. First, it respects bounded accuracy by decreasing the maximum bonus to +12 instead of +17. Second, it encourages the rogue to be good at many things instead of insane at just a few. As part of this I would also give an additional skill to receive expertise each time the feature is gained.

lperkins2

2017-09-23, 02:12 AM

So, something to consider. Skill checks are meant to be beaten, every time. Sure, without the risk of failure, it would be pointless, and the occasional failure can be interesting, but by and large, most checks will be passed every time. Why? Because they are easy for a specialist, or they are a group check. Group checks are like sorta super advantage, yeah not everyone has the +5 to the check that the specialist does, but the average value for just the highest d20 in a party of 4 is 16.4, almost 1 in 5 times someone will roll a 20. Even at a -1, if it's the worst character at that skill that rolls the 16, you're talking the party hitting DC 15. There are even character background features designed specifically to avoid the whole 'plot dead end because we failed a skill check' thing. Specifically, check out the sage. If you failed your arcana or history check to know something, that's fine, you know where to go to find it out, or anything else for that matter. So if your session is set up so the party making all the checks is a problem, you've got bigger issues. Specifically, check out the Angry article on 'gotchas'.

The obvious question is: why are checks meant to be passed? The answer to this is somewhat complex, but there are a couple major reasons. First, success is fun, failure is disappointing. If the party routinely fails at what the players think should be straightforward things, it just kinda sucks. 5e fixes a lot of this by discouraging checks when failure is unlikely or uninteresting, and what checks are left tend to be low enough DC for *someone* to make the check. The second reason is success leads to more content, while failure leads to... nothing? Consider a party seeking a possible hidden entrance to an underground complex. They don't know the entrance is here, they just think there *might* be something. Out come the Investigation rolls. If they roll well, they find the adventure hook for the night. If they roll badly, they find nothing. While that's an extreme example, the same holds true in all sorts of real cases. They found the complex, but miss the treasure hoard, so the fighter goes into the next session sans the magic armor, or what not. What's the point of designing the map if significant portions of it will be missed due to bad luck? If you don't have the players do a check to find the secret door, it can seem like you are railroading them, so have them roll the check, with a suitably low DC. Again, the occasional failure is fine.

So, once you accept that the PCs are expected to excel at their areas of expertise, the remaining question is how do you account for it in your game design?

First, above all, absolutely do not punish the player/character for their design choice. Remember, the more the excel at a given thing (usually this comes up over skills, but dpr or AC causes similar issues), the less they are specialized into other things. I see this come up most often with passive Perception, when a player pushes it to 20 at first level, or higher at level 3, but consider what they give up to manage that. It takes a feat, which they are not putting into GWM, PAM, or a race with darkvision. It takes a 16 in wisdom, which means either they're running a divine caster (no expertise to push it higher than 20 easily), or they're putting their top stat in something other than their class's main stat. It is easy to counter this, simply make sure all your perception DCs are 21, so they have to roll, and since the feat only gives a bonus to passive, they have to roll at least a 16 to make the check. The rest of the party has to roll 19 or 20, but that's a side point. This is a terrible idea, don't do it. Let the player who thought this important and neat enough to build a character around have his area to excel.

Second, don't use 'gotchas', if you didn't catch the mention of the Angry DM article above, seriously check it out, it's good stuff. If you aren't using gotchas, the observant PC spotting the gelatinous cube in a pit trap isn't a problem for you.

Third, 'me too checks' are a good thing. When some player wants some bit of lore about your setting, and rolls badly, so the rest of the party, even those untrained, say "me too, I'll roll", this is not a problem. It's an opportunity to give out a bit of lore for your setting, something a lot of DMs would love a chance to do. To make it fun, and not an insta win, don't give all the characters the same information. This one kind of check I sometimes make in secret on behalf of the players, that way they don't know who gets the correct information, and who gets the nearly correct information, but they all get *something*.

Fourth, consider using the auto-pass rules from the DMG. As I recall, the rule is that if the character's base ability score is higher than the DC of the check, they pass, without taking extra time and without a check. This means the strength 20 barbarian can break down the DC15 athletics check door every time, and avoids the situation where the strength 8 wizard kicks down the door the turn after the barbarian bounces off. It can equally well let the wizard autopass the arcana check that the expertise rogue would probably manage with a check. There's also a mention of 5e's replacement for 'take 20'. If it is possible for the character to succeed, and they are under no time pressure, and there is no consequence for failure, and they spend 10 times the normal duration of the check, they are supposed to just pass. This isn't even in a side bar as an optional rule, it's just the way it works. Of course, it is up to the DM to decide if those preconditions are met, but they usually are when the party is kicking around in town trying to remember some esoteric bit of lore.

Fifth, allow rerolls, or better, use the DC and check to ballpark how long it takes them to complete the action. My dart on the wall figure is it takes 1 round per point they failed a check by to finish it. So the thief opening the locked door will likely be the fastest at it. This mostly avoids the 'me too's as well, especially combined with number 6.

Sixth, apply time pressure. Pretty much everything I've mentioned so far has been for checks against the environment, or knowledge checks. These are generally things where there is no rush (there might be in the cosmic sense, but taking an extra 10 minutes of PC time is trivial). If you apply time pressure, like in combat when you are tracking actions, lots of these 'problems' go away. Trying to find the hidden lever? That takes a 'Search' action, yeah the party can 'me too' it, but only by sinking an entire round into it. That may be important enough to do, but its much more likely that the player best at the task at hand will try on each of their turns while the rest of the party provides cover.

Unoriginal

2017-09-23, 06:06 AM

Oh no worries at all, I definitely don't think you're annoying. I probably should have put one of these :smalltongue: after my trap comment to indicate my tone a bit better.

It gets difficult to answer your questions at this level of specificity, because identifying the exact problem is part and parcel with coming up with a satisfying solution. Both elude me right now. But I'll try to elaborate.

Unpopular opinion: I like the skill system as it is. However, it only works if there is an actual chance of failure. A +29 to all skill checks renders the system useless. Obviously we're not at that level with Expertise, but the closer you approach that top end, the less useful the system is. I think the top end for a maximum is around a +15 before the roll for checks. This gives a wide chance for success and a small margin for failure for your standard range of checks (10-20), but keeps both in relative balance to my tastes. It's higher than I would like, but not higher than I'm willing to accept. As you can see, expertise goes beyond this. We also have to consider how the rest of the game plays into it. The skill system doesn't exist in isolation. It should work both by itself and with any simple interactions that other classes can expect to have as well.

When numbers get too high on a skill check, they create a frustrating area of the rules. Any time that particular check is called for, it is trivialized unless escalation happens. It's not a resource to be burned through or something that is done at a cost. It just happens. And this is a problem because the skill system is designed to be used when there is a chance for failure. Having no chance for failure on your decision tool for probability of failure is not useful.

That's what I mean by number inflation. So no, I'm not concerned about GM's boosting DC's, nor about the comparative effectiveness to non-skill-monkey PC's.

You need to consider that the Rogue is the one supposed to have a decent chance to pass DC 30 checks IF the checks call for the few proficiencies they're expert at.

I don't like this way of them being "awesome" because it invalidates the primary GM tool for action resolution across multiple skills.

What do you mean?

While I was typing this, I thought of an interesting one that is a bit crazy, but it might make for good discussion. When a Rogue fails a skill check, they can instead succeed by paying a number of HP equal to 2x the difference between their roll and the DC. So if the DC is 25 and they rolled a 15, 20hp would let them pass the check. Since I'm firmly in the camp of HP is your luck, skill, and stamina more than meat, this is an interesting idea to me. Not sure it would ever gain widespread popularity though.

Seems like a pretty bad way to do it, as few players would want their PCs to get closer to death just to succeed a check in something they're supposed to be good at, and it fall back into the "Rogues must spend ressources or else they're broken" argument, which has no leg to stand on.

If the point of a Rogue with Expertise is that they do not fail the check, then I would rather have them auto-succeed than have a check called. But I'm not a fan of unlimited auto-success either, so I'd like a midway point.

The point of the Rogue with Expertise is that they can succeed at things others would have next to no chance succeeding. If Expertise makes the Rogue have no chance of failure for something, then not asking for them to roll is simply logical, because it means they are so good the task is not a challenge.

To your unlabeled D point, I also want players to feel like big darn heroes. But "Planning your checks right" reminds me of why I switched to 5e from 3.5. I DO NOT mean to start an edition war. I love 3.5 for many reasons. But it got to the point where I had to carefully plan around TONS of player abilities to make the feel come off right. 5e has just a few of those, but I'd rather they didn't exist at all. And as far as calling for checks without skills attached, that is a good suggestion, but it has its faults. Primarily, players will choose Expertise in skills which have wide usage. Stealth, Athletics, Acrobatics, etc. I'd rather call the check I think is appropriate than play around a move a player has. You can call that "forcing" if you want, but I feel that when a playstyle has very few red flags that are thrown during play and one of the few is easily solved by changing that ability than the use of the rest of the system, that the particular table is better served by changing that ability.

There is no such thing as "planning your checks right" for a player, in 5e. It's always the DM who tells what is used.

Beelzebubba

2017-09-23, 06:46 AM

While I was typing this, I thought of an interesting one that is a bit crazy, but it might make for good discussion. When a Rogue fails a skill check, they can instead succeed by paying a number of HP equal to 2x the difference between their roll and the DC. So if the DC is 25 and they rolled a 15, 20hp would let them pass the check. Since I'm firmly in the camp of HP is your luck, skill, and stamina more than meat, this is an interesting idea to me.

Wizard: I STOP TIME. This allows us to trivialize the most dramatic fight in our adventure! Sure, I can do it only once, but you know how often the most dramatic fight happens? Once. You know how I do it? I just do it. "I cast a spell."

Rogue: I CLIMB A WALL. This allows us to trivialize an out-of-combat obstacle that is usually hand-waved away because it's boring to have the party role-play scaling a wall, because we want to get to the dramatic fight, where the Wizard will win it for us. Sure, I can understand wanting to nerf it, since the #1 most frequent and difficult situation in D&D is 'climbing a wall'. It makes it so boring for everyone else. So, naturally, when I want to do a cool thing, I must have a good chance for failure, where the DM can narrate a humiliating story around it, and I take a huge amount of damage afterwards.

This is what makes for a great game. This is fine!*

Not sure it would ever gain widespread popularity though.

PS It did already gain widespread popularity - WoTC built an entire game system around punishing non-spellcasters, called D&D 3.5.

* Not really

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-23, 07:04 AM

@pwykersotz

That's not what I meant by "planning your checks." The system only goes out of balance if you fail to do the following (all of which are general, not based on any specific class ability):

* Use ability checks without proficiency as much as ability (skill) checks. Bards are a little better, but nothing crazy at these, everyone else is capped at +5 (+7 for level 20 barbs).

* Don't use "one-success-wins" checks without strong failure consequences. Either such a check has dramatic consequences for failure--if you don't pick that lock now, the guards will come, or its boring--just do auto-success. Everybody rolls and if one person makes it you win is nowhere in the rules. Expertise in Stealth (one of the more common ones for crazy high expertise) is only useful for the rogue himself. Since everyone else has to pass as well, there's still consequences and a meaningful chance for failure.

* Use group checks (50% have to pass to succeed) or individual checks (each person must pass individually). This means that most of the time the rogue doesn't have to roll if he has expertise, but everyone else does.

* Use varied checks. The rogue (at best) has 4 expertise skills, and some of those he won't have a crazy modifier in. The DM controls what check is called for, the players don't. Break them out of their comfort zone. Call for WIS (Stealth) checks to intuit the pattern of a patrol and sneak by. If all you use are 4 skills (and no straight abilities), of course expertise will be a problem.

* Allow the rogue to attempt things that others can't. Let him show off his expertise. Let him sneak past a group of magical warders at DC 30 (which even with expertise, reliable talent, and high DEX he's gonna fail periodically). Let the bard (with persuasion expertise) talk down that king who wants them exiled/imprisoned. But there's a chance of failure, so a check is still needed. No one else could do it, which makes it cool.

None of these (except maybe the last one) are class specific. If you're using only ability (skill) checks, you're misusing the system and artificially inflating the power of expertise. If you're not using group checks (or using the same one-success-wins checks constantly without strong consequences), you're removing the whole point of the ability check system. Yes, the rogue may get by without having to roll, but everyone else still does. If you don't let them shine occasionally, then you're not letting them be BDH in the same way that a DM might squelch fireball by never giving groups of minions to obliterate.

On average, PCs should succeed most (>50%) of the time on checks. Interesting consequences should change the scenario, forcing a change in plans for the PCs. That's why HP damage (most of the time) is boring. It doesn't meaningfully change things. Ropes breaking, cliffs crumbling, guards being alerted--all of these change the situation.

pwykersotz

2017-09-23, 08:59 AM

With that many long replies, it's too much for me to give a considerate reply all points. I can only afford a few minutes at a time to check on threads today. So suffice it to say:

lperkins2 - completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. And I mean completely. The fact that you feel the need to give such advice means you assume a great deal about one side or the other in this thread, and I don't believe either side is committing the sins you assume.

Unoriginal - Planning your checks right is PhoenixPhyre's words, not mine. And I evidently got it wrong. I recommend not replying to that part. For the rest, I understand that Expertise meets your needs. Now maybe we can brainstorm a way that all those same things can happen with a different mechanic that doesn't add flat numbers. That's the point. Dissecting my points further won't help you in that endeavor.

Beelzebubba - Comments like this are where good discussion goes to die. Did you not read earlier that spells have their own problems, but that shouldn't stop us from having good discussion about the Rogue?

PhoenixPhyre - See my first two replies. Your advice is mis-targeted. I already know all this and apply it. Mechanics are as countless as the stars. Just because you like expertise doesn't mean that it's the only way. Let's see what other interesting ideas are out there rather than devolve into this stuff. You're trying to solve my problem by making me okay with expertise, which will not happen because I'm already okay with it in the same way that I'm okay with 5e spellcasting and 5e combat. Which is to say it's usable, but it's worth discussing if there's a better way.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-23, 09:12 AM

PhoenixPhyre - See my first two replies. Your advice is mis-targeted. I already know all this and apply it. Mechanics are as countless as the stars. Just because you like expertise doesn't mean that it's the only way. Let's see what other interesting ideas are out there rather than devolve into this stuff. You're trying to solve my problem by making me okay with expertise, which will not happen because I'm already okay with it in the same way that I'm okay with 5e spellcasting and 5e combat. Which is to say it's usable, but it's worth discussing if there's a better way.

Accepted and understood.

As I see it, first the problem needs a clear definition. Different people seem to have different problems, so we end up talking past/over each other. Is it

a) the numerical modifiers are too high and thus rogues/bards can do things no one else can?

OR

b) the numerical modifiers are too high and thus rogues/bards don't suffer a reasonable chance of failure in those skills?

OR

c) having numerical modifiers that scale with level that fast is an inherent problem?

OR

d) something else entirely/a combination of several above (please specify then)?

Possible solutions will depend on the exact nature of the problem.

Unoriginal

2017-09-23, 10:15 AM

Unoriginal - Planning your checks right is PhoenixPhyre's words, not mine. And I evidently got it wrong. I recommend not replying to that part. For the rest, I understand that Expertise meets your needs. Now maybe we can brainstorm a way that all those same things can happen with a different mechanic that doesn't add flat numbers. That's the point. Dissecting my points further won't help you in that endeavor.

Well, I suppose if you really wanted to change what Expertise do without adding flat numbers, you could make so the Rogue can roll a certain number of dice after each long rests, and then if a task involves an ability check -be it something the Rogue does or someone else that the Rogue can interact with -they have proficiency with they can replace the die with one of the dice from their Expertise reserve.

It'd fall into the "Rogues must spend ressources" bs, but eh.

Beelzebubba

2017-09-23, 02:05 PM

Comments like this are where good discussion goes to die. Did you not read earlier that spells have their own problems, but that shouldn't stop us from having good discussion about the Rogue?

Well, reason isn't working, so I tried sarcasm.

It's been said before - this is what the Rogue does. They're supposed to have a few areas of utter competence that leaves everyone else in the dust.

This isn't traveling between dimensions, or conjuring a dozen animals to fight, or taking the entire party across a continent. It's climbing a damn wall. Or picking a pocket. Or hiding.

I brought in the example of the spellcaster not to bring up the old saw of linear/quadratic, but to illustrate that for so many of their incredibly powerful abilities, other classes don't have to roll. They just do. And when Clerics and Wizards and Druids are doing physics-altering things, the Rogue is high enough level to make a wall trivial, and this thread is trying to take that away.

A high level Rogue's Deception check is comparable to a weaker Charm Person - a first level spell. Oh, man, how powerful! We need to nerf it!

It's about balance between classes. The idea that these Rogue things should be nerfed at high levels is utterly ridiculous. These are heroes. They are supposed to be bad-ass at higher levels.

So, 'good discussion'? Nah. I find the entire thing flawed from the ground up.

Easy_Lee

2017-09-23, 02:12 PM

As I see it, first the problem needs a clear definition. Different people seem to have different problems, so we end up talking past/over each other. Is it
a) the numerical modifiers are too high and thus rogues/bards can do things no one else can?
b) the numerical modifiers are too high and thus rogues/bards don't suffer a reasonable chance of failure in those skills?
c) having numerical modifiers that scale with level that fast is an inherent problem?
d) something else entirely/a combination of several above (please specify then)?

In my opinion, the problem is with having static modifiers at all because rogues and bards can do things no one else can. Expertise pushes them into the next difficulty class. Like I said, people have the same problem with this as they do with Archery (+attack) and UA Arcane Tradition: Lore Mastery (+spell save DC). A character operating at a +2, +4, or +6 bonus compared to everyone else is not just better; they're in the next tier of play as far as that area is concerned.

Because +1's are very powerful. That's why there are so few in 5e, in general (contrast with past editions, especially 3.5e). Some players feel there should not be any in 5e.

Are there other places where +1's can get out of hand? Sure. A level 14 monk with a Paladin in his party will almost never fail a saving throw for the perpetual +3-5 and proficiency in all saves. An Archery BM with Sharpshooter and Precision Attack will seldom miss. But the biggest one is a Rogue with Expertise in a party with a Bard - that rogue should never fail an expertise check. That takes all of the tension out of that kind of skill check. It encourages DMs to require checks with which the Rogue doesn't have Expertise, or to simply raise the numbers required for those checks. Neither is a good solution.

pwykersotz

2017-09-23, 06:45 PM

Easy_Lee: +1

Beelzebubba: Reason isn't working on what? My tolerance of a mechanic at my table even with reservations, despite having several high level Rogues and Bards to date? My conceit that having a variety of mechanics available aimed at the same end empowers individual tables to play with what works best? From my perspective, you're the one worshiping at the altar of an enshrined mechanic that you unreasonably cling to. I enter threads I disagree with all the time and make good faith efforts to create ideas that synergize with the premise, because I like the idea of people getting what they want out of game. It helps me break out of my comfort zone and try new things. I have fun with it. In fact, I find opponents of an idea who make a good faith effort to try and find alternatives that they don't hate come up with some of the best ideas. Case in point...

Unoriginal: Neat idea to crib the Divination Wizard's mechanic. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet, but I really like it in concept.

PhoenixPhyre: In my own words: Having the skill system 'beaten' by having high numbers is the problem. If the skill system is to be surpassed, I would like an ability be written that has fun and interesting interactions. Like the interactions with invisibility and stealth (see the ongoing thread). I'm okay with, for example, giving Rogues spells which exemplify their mastery of their skill. Expertise in Stealth granting Greater Invisibility whenever you meet X criteria for hiding sounds awesome. Each skill having a powerful spell that serves as an expertise capstone sounds pretty fun. Is that way better than a flat high score? Probably! But it doesn't skew the existing system. The skill system should be a reliable quantifier of success/failure at all levels of play, just like all the other systems. Challenges and class abilities should account for it. If a Rogue is to be so awesome as to have minimal chance of failure, I would prefer that be expressed in a way other than raw numbers.

Also, as a demonstration that I do not think myself infallible or in some sort of absolute right on this idea, I proposed my HP idea to my table and was soundly rejected. I have thus trashed it and am looking to other ideas.

Unoriginal

2017-09-23, 07:11 PM

There is no skill system in 5e, and giving Rogues spells as capstone is just going "look, we all know martials can't really do anything special, so give them magic."

Easy_Lee

2017-09-23, 07:27 PM

There is no skill system in 5e

There are skills with descriptions; there's a table of easy, medium, and hard Checks, though there are few examples of these; and the book tells you how to roll Checks for both attributes and skills. If that's not a system, what would you call it?

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-23, 07:47 PM

PhoenixPhyre: In my own words: Having the skill system 'beaten' by having high numbers is the problem. If the skill system is to be surpassed, I would like an ability be written that has fun and interesting interactions. Like the interactions with invisibility and stealth (see the ongoing thread). I'm okay with, for example, giving Rogues spells which exemplify their mastery of their skill. Expertise in Stealth granting Greater Invisibility whenever you meet X criteria for hiding sounds awesome. Each skill having a powerful spell that serves as an expertise capstone sounds pretty fun. Is that way better than a flat high score? Probably! But it doesn't skew the existing system. The skill system should be a reliable quantifier of success/failure at all levels of play, just like all the other systems. Challenges and class abilities should account for it. If a Rogue is to be so awesome as to have minimal chance of failure, I would prefer that be expressed in a way other than raw numbers.

I still don't really see the problem, but in the interests of trying to be helpful, let me propose one numerical compromise and one non-numerical compromise. Tell me if you think that either (or both) solve the problem, even if they're inelegant.

Numerical shift: Each skill you choose for expertise no longer uses the associated modifier--instead the bonus is calculated as 5 + proficiency.
Discussion: This retains the "no need for ability scores" feature of expertise, but reduces the maximum bonus to that of any other player with proficiency and a maxed score. In some ways, this is more powerful [since if the DM calls for a WIS (Stealth) check, the rogue now has the same modifier as for a DEX (stealth) check], but generally it's less powerful than regular expertise. Even so, when combined with Reliable Talent the rogue can still routinely reach minimum rolls of 20/21 which removes 90% of the checks encountered for that skill. Thus, it seems the system-breaker (for rogues) is Reliable Talent, not expertise.

Non-numerical shift X times per rest (short vs long would depend on X) you can declare "I got this" and auto-succeed on a single check to which you apply proficiency.
Discussion: This is an active ability and provides a resource. X would have to scale with level, or dips would be super powerful. This provides the "I can do certain things better than others can," but doesn't really help with most checks. It does make the Skilled feat (or being a half-elf/variant human) more powerful though. Still, rogues with Reliable Talent are succeeding on every single stealth check (and any other DEX-based proficient skill) since they have a minimum of 20 with a maxed DEX. Even a skill in which they have proficiency and no ability modifier is still an auto-success on DC 15 and below checks.

Realization: If the issue is that rogues are succeeding too much (breaking the ability check system through high numbers), then the system breaker is Reliable Talent, not Expertise, although Expertise aggravates the issue. At level 11 (when you get Reliable Talent), the minimum roll for any proficient skill is 15 (assuming a non-negative ability modifier). That alone removes fully 2/3 of all proficient checks automatically (since 99% are in the range 10-20 if you're following the DMG's guidance). Combined with expertise (and a 0 modifier), you're looking at all checks of DC 20 or below are automatically passed. With a maxed ability score + expertise, any check DC <= 25 is an automatic success. At level 11.

Bards on the other hand still struggle even with expertise except in CHA things. The table lists the minimum non-auto-success DC given a maxed ability score: 5 + X + 2, the +2 is 1 from rolling a 1 and 1 from being the next step up (since a tie goes to the roller):

Proficiency
Not Proficient Minimum
Proficient Minimum
Expertise Minimum

3
8
10
13

4
9
11
15

5
9
12
17

6
10
13
19

Interesting.

bid

2017-09-23, 08:41 PM

Here's my idea on a change to expertise:
"If you have expertise in a skill you can replace your ability modifier with your proficiency bonus if it would result in a higher total modifier."
I was going to comment on that, but PhoenixPhyre did better

Numerical shift: Each skill you choose for expertise no longer uses the associated modifier--instead the bonus is calculated as 5 + proficiency.
Discussion: This retains the "no need for ability scores" feature of expertise, but reduces the maximum bonus to that of any other player with proficiency and a maxed score. In some ways, this is more powerful [since if the DM calls for a WIS (Stealth) check, the rogue now has the same modifier as for a DEX (stealth) check], but generally it's less powerful than regular expertise. Even so, when combined with Reliable Talent the rogue can still routinely reach minimum rolls of 20/21 which removes 90% of the checks encountered for that skill. Thus, it seems the system-breaker (for rogues) is Reliable Talent, not expertise.
I hope nobody believes expertise capping at 5+prof(+11) needs a nerf. It has to be better than the free guidance. Anything less makes that feature mere fluff.

- It eliminates the "proficiency doubling" that breaks the natural progression from low to high level.

- It transforms that feature into "expertise outside your area of knowledge", as expertise in Dex becomes pointless when you have Dex20. This is a great tool for RP concepts.

- It doesn't do anything for the "roll for everything", but that's a DM failure. Expecting that rolling 30+ will make kings bow to you is sheer folly.

I can see some people still asking for a wrestler nerf, that 1 level rogue dip being too good. If that's the case, make the early expertise (1,3) give a +3 "stat mod", which becomes +5 with the late expertise (6,10). OTOH, them skill feats are even cheaper than a dip.

Unoriginal

2017-09-24, 04:55 AM

- It transforms that feature into "expertise outside your area of knowledge", as expertise in Dex becomes pointless when you have Dex20. This is a great tool for RP concepts.

Actually it just makes Expertise worthless. While it's possible a Rogue won't have 20 Dex, it's not likely, and most Rogues will at least have 18.

A class feature should be more meaningful than "is made redundant by 1-2 ASI"

bid

2017-09-24, 10:46 AM

Actually it just makes Expertise worthless. While it's possible a Rogue won't have 20 Dex, it's not likely, and most Rogues will at least have 18.
Of course, expertise in arcana is "worthless" since you also have Int20.

What did you think "outside your area of knowledge" actually meant?

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-24, 10:56 AM

Actually it just makes Expertise worthless. While it's possible a Rogue won't have 20 Dex, it's not likely, and most Rogues will at least have 18.

A class feature should be more meaningful than "is made redundant by 1-2 ASI"

Of course, expertise in arcana is "worthless" since you also have Int20.

What did you think "outside your area of knowledge" actually meant?

This is why I noted that it fullfilled the "makes expert rogues less MAD" criteria, not the "can do things better than anyone" criteria. I'd like to know if it meets the objections to current expertise--I like to start on the low end of the power spectrum and build up, instead of nerfing down. This particular option would encourage rogues (and bards) to take expertise in skills outside of DEX (rogues) or CHA (bards). Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view.

Unoriginal

2017-09-24, 11:51 AM

Of course, expertise in arcana is "worthless" since you also have Int20.

What did you think "outside your area of knowledge" actually meant?

First, I think it's kind of a misnomer to call "expertise" something that help you with things outside your area of knowledge.

Second, as you used Dex as an exemple, I was saying that Rogues will most likely have high Dex. Other builds exist, of course, but a Rogue without high Dex will lack in AC and have troubles with other typical Rogue stuff.

I would have been more accurate if I had said "Expertise in Dex is basically worthless with that system", maybe.

bid

2017-09-24, 11:59 AM

I would have been more accurate if I had said "Expertise in Dex is basically worthless with that system", maybe.
Yes, because the gripe was about reaching +17. Nobody minds the +11 that anyone can reach.

And I disagree. A level 20 is an "expert" at swordfighting. Anyone has expertise in their class. But arguing about the meaning of a word won't change the mechanics.

pwykersotz

2017-09-24, 06:20 PM

There is no skill system in 5e, and giving Rogues spells as capstone is just going "look, we all know martials can't really do anything special, so give them magic."

You continue to polarize this, and doing so is robbing you of perspective. Spells are nothing more than modular class features, just like anything else. Depending on circumstance and the other abilities that a class can bring to bear, a relatively innocuous spell might be incredibly powerful, or vice versa.

I still don't really see the problem, but in the interests of trying to be helpful, let me propose one numerical compromise and one non-numerical compromise. Tell me if you think that either (or both) solve the problem, even if they're inelegant.

Numerical shift: Each skill you choose for expertise no longer uses the associated modifier--instead the bonus is calculated as 5 + proficiency.
Discussion: This retains the "no need for ability scores" feature of expertise, but reduces the maximum bonus to that of any other player with proficiency and a maxed score. In some ways, this is more powerful [since if the DM calls for a WIS (Stealth) check, the rogue now has the same modifier as for a DEX (stealth) check], but generally it's less powerful than regular expertise. Even so, when combined with Reliable Talent the rogue can still routinely reach minimum rolls of 20/21 which removes 90% of the checks encountered for that skill. Thus, it seems the system-breaker (for rogues) is Reliable Talent, not expertise.

Non-numerical shift X times per rest (short vs long would depend on X) you can declare "I got this" and auto-succeed on a single check to which you apply proficiency.
Discussion: This is an active ability and provides a resource. X would have to scale with level, or dips would be super powerful. This provides the "I can do certain things better than others can," but doesn't really help with most checks. It does make the Skilled feat (or being a half-elf/variant human) more powerful though. Still, rogues with Reliable Talent are succeeding on every single stealth check (and any other DEX-based proficient skill) since they have a minimum of 20 with a maxed DEX. Even a skill in which they have proficiency and no ability modifier is still an auto-success on DC 15 and below checks.

Realization: If the issue is that rogues are succeeding too much (breaking the ability check system through high numbers), then the system breaker is Reliable Talent, not Expertise, although Expertise aggravates the issue. At level 11 (when you get Reliable Talent), the minimum roll for any proficient skill is 15 (assuming a non-negative ability modifier). That alone removes fully 2/3 of all proficient checks automatically (since 99% are in the range 10-20 if you're following the DMG's guidance). Combined with expertise (and a 0 modifier), you're looking at all checks of DC 20 or below are automatically passed. With a maxed ability score + expertise, any check DC <= 25 is an automatic success. At level 11.

Bards on the other hand still struggle even with expertise except in CHA things. The table lists the minimum non-auto-success DC given a maxed ability score: 5 + X + 2, the +2 is 1 from rolling a 1 and 1 from being the next step up (since a tie goes to the roller):

Proficiency
Not Proficient Minimum
Proficient Minimum
Expertise Minimum

3
8
10
13

4
9
11
15

5
9
12
17

6
10
13
19

Interesting.

Interesting ideas. From my perspective, the Numerical shift offers a cool option to mitigate low ability scores. That is a great ability. However, the lack of anything for skills with already high ability scores is less than desirable. As I said, I want Rogues to have their cool toys. Having more versatility is cool, but it could be upset by a magical tome increasing your stats or a later build choice that turns your great bonus into something kind of depressing. These aren't inherently deal-breakers, but they are a detriment. So your experiment here is a success, I think this is too much of a nerf.

The non-numerical shift option is solid. A little boring, but solid. I would want it to need to be chosen before the roll is made so that it doesn't feel like a re-roll power. The downside is in flavor, of course. Not the first time D&D runs afoul of this, but it's preferable not to have that downside if possible.

Another way to approach this jumps out at me. In World of Warcraft, Blizzard reskinned the xp bar in beta. Originally it provided an xp penalty for playing too long. People HATED it. So they reskinned it, changing no mechanics, and made what had been 'normal xp' into 'rested xp' and turned the penalty into normal. People loved it.

Maybe a Rogue could, by having the appropriate tools, decrease the DC of a check in which they have expertise by their proficiency bonus. And if we're really feeling generous, maybe this could apply to the whole team as well. So if swinging across that rope onto a rickety bridge and diving past the crocodiles is a DC 20 Acrobatics check, well that top level Rogue cries "Follow me," and demonstrates that it's easier than it looks at a now DC 14 (wrapping a leather strap around the hands to prevent rope burn, landing just as the bridge swings towards the rope, and tossing a pouch of sand into the eyes of the crocodiles, for example), and lets the rest of the party follow at the same DC. It's probably far from perfect, but on first pass I like this idea.

Edit: The idea could be manipulated further. Subtract proficiency for just the rogue, subtract half proficiency if it's the entire party. Or either/or. Just throwing thoughts around.

thereaper

2017-09-25, 12:18 AM

Why would anyone want to nerf expertise, when Guidance and Peerless Skill are already better?

MadBear

2017-09-25, 01:10 AM

This may be way too fiddly, but what if we took a cue from the BM fighter here. They start with 4 superiority dice that work their way up from d6 to d12 over the course of the game. Unlike the BM instead of choosing powers they chose which skills get this bonus. They may add the dice to a proficient skill check, or they can choose to expend 2 dice to add a dice after a roll has been made, but before success is known.

The d6-d12 mimic the +3 to +6 bonus that expertise provides, but the limited quantity ensures that it's a limited resource to be used. Being able to spend 2 dice to add it to a roll after the fact also allow that rogue who rolled well, but not great to push themselves over a close check.

As far as I can see here are some pro's/con's

Pro's:
- Mimics the system helping keep relative balance (it hopefully isn't breaking the game)
- The random nature of the roll means that it doesn't lead to autosuccess as often (you could still roll a 1)
- Rogues still get to feel awesome at their chosen skills

Con's:
- It's fiddly
- It's very similar to what the bard does making it not feel as unique (although the bards is more party focused while this is self focused).

pwykersotz

2017-09-25, 07:00 AM

My idea doesn't work. I played a bit with it and reducing the DC is just too fussy. Oh well.

Willie the Duck

2017-09-25, 07:06 AM

Why would anyone want to nerf expertise, when Guidance and Peerless Skill are already better?

Guidance is great at 1st level (barring all the times when you can't use it because of time or subterfuge/need-for-silence reasons) but does not improve. Peerless Skill is a SR limited, starts-at-level-14 ability. Adding much of anything to skill checks is up for discussion, to be certain, but I'm not exactly sure how you think this negates the concern over expertise.

alchahest

2017-09-25, 02:06 PM

Easy_Lee

2017-09-25, 02:33 PM

I like the skill expertise feats, because if I want to play a character who is an expert in ________, I don't necessarily also want to play someone who a: is a sneak attacker , or b: is a primary spellcaster. Why is it beyond the pale for a paladin to be an expert in religion, or a barbarian to be an expert in survival?

I long ago suggested expertise as a half feat. I'm not the only one to do so. But it sparks debate because some feel that steps on Bards' and Rogues' toes. They're assumed to be the best skill monkeys, which presumably means having the best skill Checks.

alchahest

2017-09-25, 02:43 PM

Bard and Rogue already got a couple of advantages over other (especially martial) classes;
1: the number of and options for skills they get to learn just by virtue of their class
2: great class and subclass features that boost their skills (thief rogue can interact as a bonus action, bards can give their opponent disadvantage, etc)
3: They expertise without taking a feat. and if expertise feats are available to everyone, they also have the option to take expertise feats - which means they're still streets ahead

Sigreid

2017-09-25, 03:12 PM

I like the skill expertise feats, because if I want to play a character who is an expert in ________, I don't necessarily also want to play someone who a: is a sneak attacker , or b: is a primary spellcaster. Why is it beyond the pale for a paladin to be an expert in religion, or a barbarian to be an expert in survival?

Not saying anyone has to agree with me but I equate this to if there were a feat you could take to get extra attack.

alchahest

2017-09-25, 03:27 PM

or a feat to be able to cast a spell and some cantrips, or a feat to be able to use superiority dice, or a feat to gain proficiency in a save you don't already have, or a feat to gain extra skills from any list...

Willie the Duck

2017-09-25, 03:32 PM

Not saying anyone has to agree with me but I equate this to if there were a feat you could take to get extra attack.

I would pin it closer to Magic Initiate or Ritual Caster (which are designed to allow you to step on others toes), but the point is well made.

I think what we have here, is a bit of a dichotomy. We don't want people stepping on the rogues toes, but we do what to be able to make a 'good at sneaking' fighter or something similar if that's our character concept, and it's hard to do both.

alchahest

2017-09-25, 03:42 PM

Willie the Duck

2017-09-25, 03:50 PM

a fighter won't ever (outside of multiclassing, which negates this whole thing anyways) be able to hide as a bonus action, or do sneak attack damage by attacking out of hiding, nor will they ever get assassin or thief subclass abilities. The sneaky martial side of things is still very firmly a rogue thing, I think.

It was just an example. But yes, there are things other than the flat skill total + that makes a rogue the class to do rogue-y things. My point is that we want to have rogues have a niche, yet if you have a character concept (<class> that surprisingly is a really good <skill>), you want to be able to do it. At least I think that's why the UA skill feats are there.

alchahest

2017-09-25, 03:57 PM

me too!

My current character has the investigation feat, and a previous one had the insight feat. Neither was even remotely thiefy, but they fit the character (the investigation character is a former city guard / detective who is an eldritch knight, and the previous is a hexblade who was a second son, doomed to diplomatic duty, the insight feat was representative of his manner of studying people, he was a very patient listener, despite not having a huge wisdom score (which meant his perception was still fairly poor)

Sigreid

2017-09-25, 04:19 PM

It was just an example. But yes, there are things other than the flat skill total + that makes a rogue the class to do rogue-y things. My point is that we want to have rogues have a niche, yet if you have a character concept (<class> that surprisingly is a really good <skill>), you want to be able to do it. At least I think that's why the UA skill feats are there.

I consider expertise and reliable talent the defining features of rogue. The one thing that makes them special. There's no feat for a paladin aura. There's no feat for metamagic. While I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I hope at least you can see the ground I'm standing on. :smallbiggrin:

alchahest

2017-09-25, 04:24 PM

For many people, rogues are defined by sneak attack and their array of bonus action options, along with the number of and variety of skills they can learn

Sigreid

2017-09-25, 04:30 PM

For many people, rogues are defined by sneak attack and their array of bonus action options, along with the number of and variety of skills they can learn

Discounting crits, I think 1 attack with sneak attack is just another way of doing about what all martial do. Skills are thankfully not walled off in this edition (in 3.x the real way they screwed the fighter was by giving it few and only terrible skills). As I said, I like that the rogue is the class to be legendary for doing almost magical things with skill alone. I also think it wasn't the best idea to give that to bards as well.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-25, 05:28 PM

Sigreid

2017-09-25, 05:31 PM

Interesting. i would have pegged the "identity" of Rogues as Sneak attack & Cunning action in the same way for Barbarians I think it's Rage & Reckless Attack and Fighters it's Actions Surge & additional Extra Attacks. It never hurts to read different perspectives though.

Part of my problem with Expertise is I think there is little narrative reason to tie it to Thieve's Cant. Like why does my character have to know Thieve's Cant to an expert at Survival if he was raised by wolves? Admittedly this specific problem is fixed by moving Thieve's Cant to the Thief subclass.

Can't say I've played in a 5e game that makes use of thieves cant at all.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-25, 05:36 PM

Can't say I've played in a 5e game that makes use of thieves cant at all.

True for me too. Funny how it bothers me so much.

PhoenixPhyre

2017-09-25, 05:39 PM

True for me too. Funny how it bothers me so much.

Yeah, same with Druidic. Although I kinda forced the issue with that one in my last session. Didn't really matter because there was a) a druid, and b) a 14th level monk, so languages were covered. That group can speak with/read anything--monk + warlock with the language invocation = bases covered.

Sigreid

2017-09-25, 05:49 PM

Yeah, same with Druidic. Although I kinda forced the issue with that one in my last session. Didn't really matter because there was a) a druid, and b) a 14th level monk, so languages were covered. That group can speak with/read anything--monk + warlock with the language invocation = bases covered.

Yeah, I'm with you on druidic. If I were them I think I would have dropped that language all together and gone with druids knowing primordial. I think that would be pretty thematic for them.

And I really appreciate this being a thread with different viewpoints that at least so far hasn't degenerated into a mindless argument.

GlenSmash!

2017-09-25, 07:16 PM

And I really appreciate this being a thread with different viewpoints that at least so far hasn't degenerated into a mindless argument.

Indeed. i was just thinking: Pretty good day on the forums.

alchahest

2017-09-25, 07:18 PM

well done, everyone!

jas61292

2017-09-25, 07:53 PM

I consider expertise and reliable talent the defining features of rogue. The one thing that makes them special. There's no feat for a paladin aura. There's no feat for metamagic. While I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I hope at least you can see the ground I'm standing on. :smallbiggrin:

I kinda agree with this. As I said earlier in the thread, my only real problem with expertise was its auto scaling, which lets other classes dip and get the full effect of what I see as a core rogue feature. While I certainly would have no problem with a feat that gives you a bonus to certain skills, straight up expertise would be too much, imo. People can point to Martial Adept of Magic Initiate, but both of those give only a limited version of the thing they are based on. Martial Adept gives you only 1d6 superiority die. That is a smaller size and a quarter of the number the battlemaster gets, and it never scales. Magic Initiate on the other hand, is based off of spellcasting, and it gives you a single spell per day, and two cantrips. Most classes get more cantrips, and the number they get scales with level. They also know more spells, and, even at level one, get more every day. A feat that straight up gives expertise would be giving the full power rogue feature out as a feat. Maybe in lower number, but far greater a fraction of the real feature than any other feat, and it does scale fully.

Now, a feat that was something like.... "choose a skill with which you are proficient and add 2 to any roll you make with it" would be much more in line with these other feats. Lesser in quantity and unscaling. I'd almost even be willing to give out two skills in one feat. But straight up expertise... not something I will ever want from a feat.

With all this said, I do actually have one other problem with Expertise, and that is that Bards get it. They have enough good stuff going for them as is. They don't need it and it takes away from the rogue's identity.

alchahest

2017-09-25, 09:08 PM

I guess the real reason I like the expertise feats is, I feel that you don't need to be a thieves' cant speaking, sneak-attacking, evasion-having assassin, trickster or second story man to be an expert in a thing. Rogues are "skill monkeys" because in the earliest editions they were the only ones who had access to moving silently, hiding in shadows, climbing and lockpicking, and other thiefly things. Now, that's tied into "Stealth" and "acrobatics" and "athletics" which, while everyone can do, rogues can do really well (because of expertise without spending ASIs on it, and things like the thief rogue being able to be more acrobatic, and interact with objects as a bonus action). They also get to be dodgier because of evasion, and are more able to utilise their skills because of reliable talent.

They're skill monkeys because at their inception, skills were something not everyone could have, there was a much less defined way of dealing with abilities beyond spells and fighting - As skills became a thing everyone could have (hurray!) they were moved more into a specialist role for combat, but maintained a wide breadth of skills. Even in 3.5, the closest thing to "expertise" they had was that they had the option to essentially take reliable talent but only for three of their skills. This idea of rogues being the only ones who can be experts in skills is new, and I think perhaps it isn't fully intentional.

thereaper

2017-09-26, 07:23 AM

Guidance is great at 1st level (barring all the times when you can't use it because of time or subterfuge/need-for-silence reasons) but does not improve. Peerless Skill is a SR limited, starts-at-level-14 ability. Adding much of anything to skill checks is up for discussion, to be certain, but I'm not exactly sure how you think this negates the concern over expertise.

Point is, the Rogue is, if anything, not good enough at skills. All it really has going for it when it comes to skills is 2 extra proficiencies (3, counting Thieves' Tools), expertise, and Reliable Talent (which is an average of +2.75 to any skill the Rogue is proficient in). Meanwhile, Guidance alone is an average of +2.5 to any ability check you want, and Knowledge Domain is two proficiencies and expertise in them (let's not even get into what the Bard gets). Wanting to nerf expertise, therefore, seems misguided at best to me. There's nothing wrong with a Rogue having permission to succeed at something. Spellcasters get to do that sort of thing all the time.

Willie the Duck

2017-09-26, 08:42 AM

Point is, the Rogue is, if anything, not good enough at skills. All it really has going for it when it comes to skills is 2 extra proficiencies (3, counting Thieves' Tools), expertise, and Reliable Talent (which is an average of +2.75 to any skill the Rogue is proficient in).

If this boils down to an accounting game of what everyone 'gets,' I really don't see the point of the discussion. 'Rogues don't get enough,' to me, is not really an argument for or against whether the mechanical implementation of the expertise base-concept is a good system or not. It's a genuinely orthogonal issue. If you want to argue that the OP should house rule more good things for the rogue, frankly I'll help brainstorm ideas. But that has very little to do with the implementation of expertise.

Meanwhile, Guidance alone is an average of +2.5 to any ability check you want, and Knowledge Domain is two proficiencies and expertise in them (let's not even get into what the Bard gets).

+2.5... when you can spend an action ahead of time, and maintain concentration, and satisfy v and s spell components, and not arise suspicion by casting a spell. However, yes, I agree. Guidance is insanely good at 1st level. But another example of all too easy bonuses isn't an argument for expertise, it's another example of the skill system breaking down (IMO).

As to the bard, all I got is the designers clearly thought the bard needed part of the rogues' role, because they got some of the rogues stuff. On paper, they clearly seem like a class that got EVERYTHING. My experience with them in play is that they do not dominate the game, so I am of two minds on it. It would be interesting to ask what the designers had in mind or what their thought process was.

Wanting to nerf expertise, therefore, seems misguided at best to me.

As has been mentioned massively multiply numerous times, people ARE NOT wanting to nerf expertise. They are arguing that the current implementation does not fit their preferences. If you want to keep arguing against nerfing expertise, feel free, but since no one on the opposing side thinks that's what they are doing, it will be a lonely hill to fight upon.

There's nothing wrong with a Rogue having permission to succeed at something. Spellcasters get to do that sort of thing all the time.

So is this just another 'spellcasters get all the goodies' thing?