Expertise as a +5 instead of double Proficiency

[Jervis]

Since dndone is moving away from the 5e fear of numeric bonuses I was thinking about how expertise works. The recent thread about skill checks and how DCs were wonky and nonsensical at times made me think about this. As is expertise is kinda ok at low levels, breaks bounded accuracy like it’s suppose to but the bonus doesn’t become that impactful until your prof starts to go up. And the set example DCs can be kinda hard to hit at the high end at low levels despite just having names like “very hard” on them. So I was wondering how changing expertise to a flat +5 to the roll would impact things. It would certainly make people that have it much more reliable early game with some harder checks than normal being an option relatively early on. I’d like to hear what people think about it.

[stoutstien]

Honestly the best move for expertise is decoupling it from skills and put it directly on the ability checks themselves. This works better on two fronts.
The first is you could have expertise as a 'group' type feature rather than. A copy n paste option. So instead of it just doubling your proficiency bonus it allows you to add a secondary ability score modifier to another one. So rangers being the Wis secondary focused class you just allow them to add that modifier to Cha and int checks. Quick, easy, and more thematically on point.

The second front is it normalizes the curve so DMs don't fall into the habit of misusing DCs.

There's nothing wrong with proficiency bonuses in isolation but it's too large of an impact on a single roll, with both the top and bottom of the curve, to not consider it. Yet if you do assume Prof in the math then you once again reinforce specialized roles to the point of negative feedback loops.

[OldTrees1]

So I was wondering how changing expertise to a flat +5 to the roll would impact things.
It would

Not increase the small difference between 1st level untrained & untalented vs 1st level trained & talented.
Increase the difference between 1st level expert and 1st level non experts
Not increase how little non expert characters improve as they level.
Decrease how little experts improve as they level.



As is expertise is kinda ok at low levels, breaks bounded accuracy like itÂ’s suppose to but the bonus doesnÂ’t become that impactful until your prof starts to go up
It sounds like you wish the small gap between 1st level experts and 1st level trained were a bit bigger. Your change would do this, but at the cost of keeping that gap static as the characters level instead of letting it grow.


And the set example DCs can be kinda hard to hit at the high end at low levels despite just having names like “very hard” on them.
If you, like me, consider the example DCs to be misnamed, then an easier solution is to decrease all DCs by 5.



Personally I would prefer increasing (relative to the size of the RNG) both the 1st level gaps and the 1st vs 20th gaps. So replacing Expertise with +5 has downsides for me despite having some upsides.

[Segev]

Honestly the best move for expertise is decoupling it from skills and put it directly on the ability checks themselves. This works better on two fronts.
The first is you could have expertise as a 'group' type feature rather than. A copy n paste option. So instead of it just doubling your proficiency bonus it allows you to add a secondary ability score modifier to another one. So rangers being the Wis secondary focused class you just allow them to add that modifier to Cha and int checks. Quick, easy, and more thematically on point.

The second front is it normalizes the curve so DMs don't fall into the habit of misusing DCs.

There's nothing wrong with proficiency bonuses in isolation but it's too large of an impact on a single roll, with both the top and bottom of the curve, to not consider it. Yet if you do assume Prof in the math then you once again reinforce specialized roles to the point of negative feedback loops.

I'm not following. Could you give an example of how, say, Rogue's Expertise class feature would be worded with your suggestion, please?

[stoutstien]

I'm not following. Could you give an example of how, say, Rogue's Expertise class feature would be worded with your suggestion, please?
*Spitball*
in the 5e framework it would have
Something like
Expertise- at 1st level you have a knack for always landing on your feet and having hands faster than most eyes. You gain the following benefits:

When you make any strength checks involving climbing, jumping, swimming, squeezing, or maintain your footing you can add ypur dexterity modifer to that check.

When you attempt any dexterity check of manual trickery, or otherwise conceal your actions, you can add your intelligence or wisdom modifier to that check.


*I don't like the idea of expert as a grouping. I think every class should have some depth in that regard. Nothing wrong with the rogue being better at it or having a wider range overall but it's a weird place to stick classes to each other. you could give each class one area of expertise.

Skill are fine but they are both vague and restricted all at once. I'd remap them as well to be very specific in application and a little harder to gain.*

[OldTrees1]

*Spitball*
in the 5e framework it would have
Something like
Expertise- at 1st level you have a knack for always landing on your feet and having hands faster than most eyes. You gain the following benefits:

When you make any strength checks involving climbing, jumping, swimming, squeezing, or maintain your footing you can add ypur dexterity modifer to that check.

When you attempt any dexterity check of manual trickery, or otherwise conceal your actions, you can add your intelligence or wisdom modifier to that check.

Rogues are quite varied and some are not experts in mobility or thievery. For examples some are experts in dungeoneering (overlaps but does not match thievery), others are suave social scoundrels, and others are knowledge brokers of hidden lore.

Expanding on your idea, it might make sense for Rogue to have a list of these traits where they might pick 2.

[stoutstien]

Rogues are quite varied and some are not experts in mobility or thievery. For examples some are experts in dungeoneering (overlaps but does not match thievery), others are suave social scoundrels, and others are knowledge brokers of hidden lore.

Expanding on your idea, it might make sense for Rogue to have a list of these traits where they might pick 2.

True. I'd probably give them a floating pick for one at each point and a bonus one from subclass but overall they are bonuses so shouldn't restrict any personal play styles. That's one of the goals of preventing stacking bonuses just for the sake of it.

[olskool]

Since dndone is moving away from the 5e fear of numeric bonuses I was thinking about how expertise works. The recent thread about skill checks and how DCs were wonky and nonsensical at times made me think about this. As is expertise is kinda ok at low levels, breaks bounded accuracy like it’s suppose to but the bonus doesn’t become that impactful until your prof starts to go up. And the set example DCs can be kinda hard to hit at the high end at low levels despite just having names like “very hard” on them. So I was wondering how changing expertise to a flat +5 to the roll would impact things. It would certainly make people that have it much more reliable early game with some harder checks than normal being an option relatively early on. I’d like to hear what people think about it.

I use an odd system but I dislike "min-maxers." For all of my Proficiencies, including Weapon Proficiencies, I use the following system. It consists of four tiers of Proficiency. Those tiers are...

NONPROFICIENT: The situation where you have no idea how to use a given weapon or skill at all. I used to give this a -2 but now I just use *DISADVANTAGE for the penalty. You may still add any Characteristic/Attribute bonuses (or penalties) to this total as a form of "natural talent."

BASIC PROFICIENCY: In this situation, you train just enough to have no penalties but you also gain NO BONUSES other than any Bonuses (or penalties) from your Characteristic/Attribute score. This never changes, even as you level up because you do not devote sufficient time or resources to improving your skill with the Weapon or Skill in question.

EXPERTISE/MARTIAL PROFICIENCY: This Weapon or Skill is part and parcel of your character's unique build. You practice often and with a real eye toward improving the use of this Weapon or Skill. You gain your Proficiency Bonus in addition to any Characteristic/Attribute bonuses you may possess and this bonus INCREASES as you level up.

MASTERY OF A SKILL OR WEAPON: Mastery grants you *ADVANTAGE on your Skill task or Weapon attacks. You MUST have Expertise to be able to gain Mastery of a Weapon or Skill.


I give each Class a couple of Basic Proficiencies and a couple of Expert Proficiencies (including Weapon Proficiencies). Most full casters only get Basic Weapon Proficiencies, meaning that their chance to hit NEVER improves except when they raise a Characteristic/Attribute. This is one way that I use to balance the Martial versus Caster disparity in 5e. Please note that you can have either Basic or Martial Proficiency with MOST weapons, while a few weapons (Shepard Slings, Whips & Flails) are only available to use with a Martial Proficiency.


A NOTE ON THE PROFICIENCY BONUS:

I use the option of either a flat bonus or the incorporation of the Proficiency Die rules at the PLAYER'S DISCRETION. They may choose whether they want to use either the flat bonus or a die roll for their Proficiency Bonus. This choice is made for EVERY roll and a PC (or NPC) can switch back and forth between the flat bonus and die roll at will. I use the following bonuses in RAW...

+2 or +1D4
+3 or +1D6
+4 or +1D8
+5 or +1D10
+6 or +1D12


*I allow ADVANTAGE & DISADVANTAGE to stack so a PC could have two or even three ADVANTAGE dice so that they would be rolling either 3D20 or 4D20 for a test.