Expertise replacement?

[Humnhapymeal]

I may have an unpopular opinion, but I despise expertise. I feel it overwhelms the balance of the game when it comes to skill checks.

With that being said I have a proposal for an alternative that I feel might be acceptable
Please note that this change is specific to the rouge, as I have not yet began to look at the bard yet
Expertise & Improvisation:
You gain a number of expertise points equal to your proficiency bonus, using a point will double your proficiency bonus for any skill check that you make. (Note you must be proficient in a skill to use expertise). You regain all point on a long rest.
Additionally you gain proficiency in improvised weapons. And a number of improvisation points equal to your proficiency bonus. You may use a improvisation point to make small changes to an environment to suit your needs, or to gain temporary proficiency in a skill that you lack proficiency in.

6th level feature replacement:
Skill focus:
At level 6 you may add +2 to an amount of skills equal to your proficiency bonus. As you gain more proficiency, you may add more skill focus. Note you may not apply this to a skill more than once

I feel like the rouge should have a focus on adapting to a situation and show a great amount of skill. But they shouldn't have something like jack of all trades. That is specific to the bard and I wanted it to remain unique.
Also I am not the original person for the improvisation point system. That was made by Bob BobtheNob over on enworld

[Amdy_vill]

not a big fan of changing expertise as I find it underpowered in most games. outside of picks like stealth and sleight of hand it often just fails to be useful in most games. now if you have a good dm running the skill system right Expertise can be great but I have rarely found that and I even struggle with getting the rules right.

What is your specific grief with Expertise anyway?

[Humnhapymeal]

not a big fan of changing expertise as I find it underpowered in most games. outside of picks like stealth and sleight of hand it often just fails to be useful in most games. now if you have a good dm running the skill system right Expertise can be great but I have rarely found that and I even struggle with getting the rules right.

What is your specific grief with Expertise anyway?

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise. I stick thmo the skill dc chart that is in the dm screen. And with advantage from help, with their ridiculous modifier they usually succeed. And if I just inflate the skill DC then that isn't very fair to other PC's who don't have expertise.

[Amdy_vill]

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise. I stick thmo the skill dc chart that is in the dm screen. And with advantage from help, with their ridiculous modifier they usually succeed. And if I just inflate the skill DC then that isn't very fair to other PC's who don't have expertise.

the first thing is the Rogues and Bards are two of the three classes the focus on skills making up about 1/4 of their abilities. so yeah there are supposed to be good at skills. Second, I have generally found that requiring proficiency to give help fixes the advantage problem(My players never seem to remember the help action exsiteds.) thrid remember the imposable task are imposable. I find that people tend to give imposable task high dc and get frustrated when people succeed at them. four you can use different dc for different players. things outside of skill effect dc's. a noble will have a lower dc then a thief when persuading a king. a life long blacksmith should have lower dc then a rogue who just learned yestorday. the final thing I suggest is a deep read of the skill in both the PHB and DMG, there are a lot of small but important caveats and system most people miss that help with this. things like the social encounter system witch make the social skill weaker then most people play them as.

to an extent Artificers, Bards, and Rogues will always be better at skills they dedicate large amounts of class features to them and one of their key roles is skill money.

[Humnhapymeal]

Second, I have generally found that requiring proficiency to give help fixes the advantage problem(My players never seem to remember the help action exsiteds.) thrid remember the imposable task are imposable. I find that people tend to give imposable task high dc and get frustrated when people succeed at them. four you can use different dc for different players. things outside of skill effect dc's. a noble will have a lower dc then a thief when persuading a king. a life long blacksmith should have lower dc then a rogue who just learned yestorday. the final thing I suggest is a deep read of the skill in both the PHB and DMG, there are a lot of small but important caveats and system most people miss that help with this. things like the social encounter system witch make the social skill weaker then most people play them as.

to an extent Artificers, Bards, and Rogues will always be better at skills they dedicate large amounts of class features to them and one of their key roles is skill money.

I already require proficiency, in order to help in a skill check. That does help eliminate alot of issues. But not all the time.
As far as skill DCs go I usually keep them relatively the same for all the characters, If I do adjust them it is for the exact reason you listed. Adjustment for specific situations. But that usually only increases or decreases the DC by 5. Mind you that is mainly only for social encounters (BTW zee bashew has an amazing video for the social mechanics on youtube), unfortunately that has very little to do with expertise in physical or mental skills.

Bear in mind that I am not against my players, I dont want to come off as the dm who is trying to get one over on his players. But like I said I simply want to try and rebalance expertise, with the goal being, to make the system more fair for the entire table.

[Amdy_vill]

if you could go into more detail about the problem, examples and so on that might help here.

[JellyPooga]

Your proposed "fix" will not rectify your problem.

How many significant skill checks per long rest are your players really making? If the answer is "between 2 and 6", then these improvisation points are just adding bookeeping to the existing system and aren't really putting a functional limit on them. In addition, you're adding versatility, allowing Expertise to literally do what you're only perceiving to be true; i.e. allowing Rogues to freewheel Expertise in everything. In addition, you're further compounding the problem bu adding another bonus on top.

Your fix don't work.

[sayaijin]

...And if I just inflate the skill DC then that isn't very fair to other PC's who don't have expertise.

Each class has things they are good at. The casters should be able to solve most of their challenges with magic, and pure martials often use fighting to get past their obstacles. The rogue is meant to be good at skills - especially skill checks that are "unfair" for other players.

In regards to realism, rogues are meant to be the characters who can accomplish things that other non-caster classes can't. They're supposed to be the only guy who can do the things they specialize in - that's what makes them a rogue.

That being said, it's perfectly fine to have DC's that some characters can't overcome because you have a rogue. With good strategy maybe the players can find another solution besides that one DC. If not, then you give your rogue player a reason to be glad they picked their class.

[Humnhapymeal]

Your proposed "fix" will not rectify your problem.

How many significant skill checks per long rest are your players really making? If the answer is "between 2 and 6", then these improvisation points are just adding bookeeping to the existing system and aren't really putting a functional limit on them. In addition, you're adding versatility, allowing Expertise to literally do what you're only perceiving to be true; i.e. allowing Rogues to freewheel Expertise in everything. In addition, you're further compounding the problem bu adding another bonus on top.

Your fix don't work.

The expertise points are limited for the purpose of making the player feel the need to really think about it.
The +2 bonus' are there to grant a small bonus to skills they want to have more "umph"
In between both of these I understand that using an expertise point with an additional +2 is even worse than the original problem. But its a temporary boost.

As far as "significant skill checks" that is a very complicated question, I run a more social/ puzzle solving campaign, rather than a combat heavy dungeon crawl (i find combat boring for the most part). So any skill check that could account to being "significant" is very subjective.

I came up with these changes to make the rouge think more outside the box, enable them to have the skill bonuses and the flexibility to accomish things in a pinch. If I missed the mark here, then I'll be heading back to the drawing board. But I feel like I accomplished my goal.

[Amdy_vill]

The expertise points are limited for the purpose of making the player feel the need to really think about it.
The +2 bonus' are there to grant a small bonus to skills they want to have more "umph"
In between both of these I understand that using an expertise point with an additional +2 is even worse than the original problem. But its a temporary boost.

As far as "significant skill checks" that is a very complicated question, I run a more social/ puzzle solving campaign, rather than a combat heavy dungeon crawl (i find combat boring for the most part). So any skill check that could account to being "significant" is very subjective.

I came up with these changes to make the rouge think more outside the box, enable them to have the skill bonuses and the flexibility to accomish things in a pinch. If I missed the mark here, then I'll be heading back to the drawing board. But I feel like I accomplished my goal.

I disagree with Jelly but I still don't like this replacement. mostly as if removes one of the big features of rogues and bards. these classes are defined by expertise and an ability that combos with it.

Rogues gain a bonus to their sneak attacks because of expertise and this ability replacement would remove that and honestly discourage it.

Bard gains a bonus to their magic by having expertise in social skills and while this would be less of a nerf to bard compared to rogue it still is big and still discourages the use of the combo.

I honesty feel the solution to this will be found in tweaking the skill system its self and not the feature. expertise is just so wide spread in the game now. and is such a big part of these 2 classes.

[stoutstien]

So basically you run a game that has a bigger emphasis on being good at ability checks and you are trying to add rules because your players are picking features that make them better at said ability checks?
You're probably better off refreshing the rules around them before changing them. Admittedly they are scattered across all the books so it takes some time but knowing what a DC X means both mechanically and within a given game's logic.

[Contrast]

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise. I stick thmo the skill dc chart that is in the dm screen. And with advantage from help, with their ridiculous modifier they usually succeed. And if I just inflate the skill DC then that isn't very fair to other PC's who don't have expertise.

Yes...they'll usually succeed at tests associated with one of a couple of skills. In the case of rogues this is part of the trade off for being a martial with no spells and mediocre damage. In the case of bards this is part of the trade off for being a spells known caster with a very narrow and focused spell list with minimal access to damage.


Your proposed "fix" will not rectify your problem.

How many significant skill checks per long rest are your players really making? If the answer is "between 2 and 6", then these improvisation points are just adding bookeeping to the existing system and aren't really putting a functional limit on them. In addition, you're adding versatility, allowing Expertise to literally do what you're only perceiving to be true; i.e. allowing Rogues to freewheel Expertise in everything. In addition, you're further compounding the problem bu adding another bonus on top.

Your fix don't work.

I came here to say this. If the party needs to pass a skill check the rogue is now always the person who will make that check, regardless of what skill it relates to. I don't particularly like the change in principle and aren't convinced that it'll achieve what you're setting out to achieve. If you're interested the Level Up playtest rogue (https://www.levelup5e.com/news/category/Playtests) explores an alternate expertise mechanic. I don't particularly like that either but you might!

Feel free to give it a trial run and let us know how it goes :smallsmile:

[bid]

I feel like the rouge should have a focus on adapting to a situation
But what about eye shade?

No, I feel expertise is perfect for dump stats. Just make expertise replace the stat modifier if higher. This way a proficient skill will cap at +11 [prof(6) + mod(5)] while expertise will cap at +12 [prof(6) + prof(6)]. Way below the +15 RAW cap.

[Sorinth]

Have you considered making Expertise an early version of Reliable Talent. So at level 1 you have two skills and a minimum roll of 5 on checks with those skills. At 6 you gain 2 more skills and the minimum becomes 8, then at level 10 it's all your skills and the minimum is 10.

[Droppeddead]

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise.

The master thief is good at sneaking? Stephen Hawking is good at maths? Robin Williams is good at making people laugh? How exactly is this a problem?



Rogues gain a bonus to their sneak attacks because of expertise and this ability replacement would remove that and honestly discourage it.

Bard gains a bonus to their magic by having expertise in social skills and while this would be less of a nerf to bard compared to rogue it still is big and still discourages the use of the combo.

Uhm, what? When did this happen?

[MoiMagnus]

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise.

I mean, if it's within their domain of expertise, they should succeed, not fail.
The point of expertise is to allow the rogue to compete with spellcasters who get stuff like "at-will disguise self" (which is a low level warlock invocation).

Moreover, except at very high level, it's less than a +5, meaning that it only decreases the difficulty of the task they try by less than one rank (hard -> medium, etc) compared to the normal difficulty.

IMO, if there is a problem in 5e, it's the help action, not the expertise. The difficulty tables are not calibrated on PCs systematically having advantages.
(Arguably, help should be "both players make the check with their own ability and proficiency and you take the maximum", not "the most skilled player make the check twice and take the maximum").

[Galithar]

Uhm, what? When did this happen?

The only thing I can think of is expertise in stealth allowing them to hide easier to get advantage when they otherwise don't have access to sneak attack?

And a Bard using expertise in social skills along with something like a charm person spell?

[Mastikator]

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise. I stick thmo the skill dc chart that is in the dm screen. And with advantage from help, with their ridiculous modifier they usually succeed. And if I just inflate the skill DC then that isn't very fair to other PC's who don't have expertise.

Why is this a problem though? DND is a power fantasy game, the players are supposed to be awesome and win. Punishing the players for being creative and using their class abilities is just going to make them feel bad.

[Arkhios]

Instead of replacing expertise entirely, alter it's function a little.

Dungeon Master's Guide offers alternative for proficiency bonus by using a bonus die instead of a flat bonus (FYI: this method was used in the pre-5th edition playtest period, which was called "D&D Next". Seeing that it ended up in DMG instead of Player's Handbook, it probably had enough positive feedback to include as an optional rule, but not the standard rule).

I'm currently AFB, but IIRC, it goes as follows:
Levels 1 to 4: 1d4 (average: 2)
Levels 5 to 8: 1d6 (average: 3)
Levels 9 to 12: 1d8 (average: 4)
Levels 13 to 16: 1d10 (average: 5)
Levels 17 to 20: 1d12 (average: 6)

As you can see, the average result from the dice aligns perfectly with how proficiency bonus normally evolves.

I see two potential changes to Expertise:

1) when you gain expertise in a check, instead of adding your proficiency bonus twice, having expertise lets you roll an additional die depending on your current level, according to the progression above.
2) when you gain expertise in a check, instead of adding your proficiency bonus twice, having expertise lets you choose to roll to check your bonus from proficiency.

Pro's and Cons of both:
1) this method may result in larger bonus than with standard expertise, but it doesn't come without a risk. Either way, your normal proficiency bonus remains as is, and nothing can take it away from you.
2) This method is at most as effective as standard expertise, but on the other hand, the end result may just as well be lower than your level appropriate (flat) normal proficiency bonus would be.

[KorvinStarmast]

I may have an unpopular opinion, but I despise expertise. I feel it overwhelms the balance of the game when it comes to skill checks. It works very well in any game that I have played in. It reflects specialization, whereas garden variety ability checks don't. In tiers 1 and 2 it is not overwhelming at all. Mind you, in Tier 4, having expertise in athletics if you are trying to shove or grapple an opposing creature adds +12: that's kind of cool, but in that tier of play you are approaching demigod status anyway, and wizards are slinging 7th, 8th and 9th level spells.

Do you complain about those too?

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise.
They are supposed to be skill monkeys. Game working as intended. Rogue gets two expertise to start, bard gets two at third level, anyone with the Prodigy feat gets one.
How many skills are there?
Over a dozen.

I already require proficiency, in order to help in a skill check. That's not in the rules, though.
I am sensing a bit of a DM-versus-player approach there. :smallconfused:

Secondly: are you aware that a DM can apply situational disadvantage at any time, based on circumstances? It's a tool you can use, particularly when it makes sense to use it in a narrative sense.

[Sigreid]

I disagree with your basic premise. IMO, expertiese is the Rogue's one cool thing. A small handful of skills where they have a competence that reaches into supernatural levels. I think it does a pretty good job of representing a mastery that is every bit as reliable as, and sometimes even more reliable than magic. Weakening it just creates another argument for caster supremacy.

[MoiMagnus]

As you can see, the average result from the dice aligns perfectly with how proficiency bonus normally evolves.
Not "perfectly" but it's near enough. A d6 averages to 3.5, not 3. And 2d6 average to 7, not 6.

[Arkhios]

Not "perfectly" but it's near enough. A d6 averages to 3.5, not 3. And 2d6 average to 7, not 6.

Well, in D&D there's a general rule:
"Always round down, unless mentioned otherwise."

...that said, 2d6 average is indeed 7, so there is some more pronounced deviation.

[Vogie]

I'd say that the best idea for your situation is to switch to the proficiency dice.

I mean, yes, a rogue could have expertise in stealth to use that BA:Hide, Sneak attack "combo" that is built into their kit, and yes, Bards typically grab Charisma skills with their Expertise because they're largely CHA-based. However, that really never has to be the case.

A Swords or Whispers Bard could just as easily be focused on Dexterity skills, while a Swashbuckling Rogue may grab Charisma skills. The expertise in either class is also at a low-enough level that they are available for dips - a grappler build may dip in for expertise in Athletics, for example, while an arcane caster may dip in for Expertise in Arcana (for Counterspells).

If a GM is treating Stealth Expertise as effective invisibility, or Persuasion expertise as effective Charm Person, that's an issue with the GM, not the game.

[Droppeddead]

an arcane caster may dip in for Expertise in Arcana (for Counterspells).

Hpw would Expertise in Arcana help with Counterspell? :smallconfused:



If a GM is treating Stealth Expertise as effective invisibility, or Persuasion expertise as effective Charm Person, that's an issue with the GM, not the game.

This is very true and can't be said often enough.

[Xervous]

I suspect the problem lies in obstacles being decided by a single roll. Not everything needs a roll, and there’s plenty that could be expanded beyond the scope of a single roll.

So the rogue can 100% get past the scything blade trap without triggering it. What do they do for the rest of the party then? Shout back a vague description of the runes to the wizard and hope you’re interpreting his response correctly when you push the jade button?

If it’s a piece of a larger whole the rogue’s actions won’t automatically decide things. If the rogue can’t bring the rest of the party along in his success by default there’s still a puzzle to be solved.

[Amdy_vill]

Uhm, what? When did this happen?

The "Normal" Picks for the classes help them with these mechanics. Stealth for rogues helps with hiding and other ways of getting Advantage. Social skills help bards with getting more out of the charm spells. most charm spells make people your friends and that helps with the social encounter system.

this is not a direct bonus but a bonus made from the systems. I have been talking about this a lot recently, there are a lot of bonuses that come out of system interactions. these do require you to take the "Normal" picks but other picks do similar things but don't combo with your class features.

[Vogie]

Hpw would Expertise in Arcana help with Counterspell? :smallconfused:


"Identifying a Spell" from XGTE.

Basically, one caster can use a reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, shouting it to another caster who can then use their reaction to use the appropriate level counterspell.

... I mean, it's not a GOOD reason to want expertise in Arcana, but it is A reason.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd say that the best idea for your situation is to switch to the proficiency dice.

I mean, yes, a rogue could have expertise in stealth to use that BA:Hide, Sneak attack "combo" that is built into their kit, and yes, Bards typically grab Charisma skills with their Expertise because they're largely CHA-based.

However, that really never has to be the case. My bard (sailor background) took expertise in Athletics at 3rd. She likes to shove people aside if they get between her and the rum. :smallbiggrin:


If a GM is treating Stealth Expertise as effective invisibility, or Persuasion expertise as effective Charm Person, that's an issue with the GM, not the game. QFT.

[Droppeddead]

The "Normal" Picks for the classes help them with these mechanics. Stealth for rogues helps with hiding and other ways of getting Advantage. Social skills help bards with getting more out of the charm spells. most charm spells make people your friends and that helps with the social encounter system.

So not at all a "bonus to their sneak attack" as previously claimed? Gotcha.

[Arkhios]

"Identifying a Spell" from XGTE.

Basically, one caster can use a reaction to identify a spell as it's being cast, shouting it to another caster who can then use their reaction to use the appropriate level counterspell.

... I mean, it's not a GOOD reason to want expertise in Arcana, but it is A reason.

That's as good a reason as any, in my honest opinion.

[MrStabby]

I find the opposite, in the games I run it feels like the rouges and bards are able to do what ever they want so long as it falls under their expertise. I stick thmo the skill dc chart that is in the dm screen. And with advantage from help, with their ridiculous modifier they usually succeed. And if I just inflate the skill DC then that isn't very fair to other PC's who don't have expertise.

What do you mean by "fair"? I think that digging into what you consider fair or unfair might help here.

Is it fair that rogues have different things they are good at to fighters, or is is unfair if one of those things is skill checks? What decides for you if an ability "isn't very fair to other PC's" (sic)?

I mean you hit tier 2 and rogues get +3 in some skills over what other classes would - there is a 15% chance it makes a difference. Is this too much? Is it unfair that a rogue gets this wheras the wizard only gets abilities like creating a demiplane and sending a bad guy to the naughty step there? Is the ability to be beter at grappling or acrobatics crowding out the cleric who can bring the dead back to life?

One character is maybe likely to succeed at a narrow subset of tasks or problems when solved in a very specific way, where some other character would be more likely to fail. Where do you draw the line between Unfair and just character differentiation where some are good at some things and others at other things?

Is this a player led change? Are some of your PCs complaining that this is a problem?


I mean there are two approaches if there is a problem - change expertise so it's "fair", by whatever definition of fair you want. Or, adjust the game such that expertise isn't the overpowered ability it seems to be.

I mean I can see a game where expertise IS that powerful - skill checks are plentiful with real consequences and are as frequent as attack rolls, they are thrown at individuals not the party so you can't rely on others and they fulfil roles where a spell couldn't replicate (usually as a reaction). Frankly, if this is your game - good on you. I would love to play a game like that.

[Amdy_vill]

So not at all a "bonus to their sneak attack" as previously claimed? Gotcha.

It is a bonus but in the abstract mechanical sense and not the direct damage buffing. I should have been more clear.

[KorvinStarmast]

We had an artificer with a 20 int blow an investigation check by rolling a two. He's the party lock picker. A lot of poison came out of that trap.

In our first campaign, over 5 years ago, our rogue / assassin rolled low (with expertise in thieves tools) and failed to disable a trap. My cleric got poisoned in that cloud that erupted.

I guess what I am saying is that usually, the expertise helps the player to succeed, but that can also make the whole party complacent such that the "Aw, crap!" moment, when it arises, is actually kind of fun.

"Wait, he failed?" :smalleek:

This, the fun-ness of screw ups, may depend on whether or not your table is full of control freaks, beer and pretzel players, or something in between.