D&D 5E Expertise is RUINING THE GAME!

[Xeviat]

Okay, hyperbole out of the way. I don't think it's ruining the game. I just think it's existence limits what can be done with skills.

I've been working on an expanded skill system. I'm adding a few skills, because I want to have Intelligence grant additional trained skills, and I'm granting proficiency bonus to all saves (and changing how classes give out save bonuses), but while I'm at it, I thought I could codify more of what skills can do. I don't like that cool skill actions are hidden away in the feats; many of these could be skill checks. Acrobatics check to stand up from prone quickly, athletics checks to climb faster or jump further, stealth checks to disappear when someone glances away. The skill system can be expanded to allow non-casters to do incredible things, the likes of mythological heroes.

But, bounded accuracy makes it so that skills with Expertise cannot be put up aside saving throws. Saves are Proficency+Stat, expertise is (2xProficiency)+Stat. A +17 vs. +11 is simply not fair, and that's assuming a common threat would have a +5 ability modifier on something like Wisdom if we were, say, adding a Demoralize "Intimidationg check vs. Wisdom save" mechanic.

And that got me thinking that Expertise might have not been the best way to model how experts are better at certain skills. I mean it makes perfect sense, an expert is just better, right? But if an expert in thief's tools is the only way for the party to get past a lock, then only the expert in thief's tools in the party is going to get past it.

Why can't expertise allow someone to do things faster (bonus action instead of an action)? Why can't expertise allow someone to perform routine tasks easily under pressure (take 10, or reliable talent)? Heck, expertise could allow for double proficiency bonus BUT not ability score modifier; this would allow a rogue who is an expert in athletics to not need high Strength to perform incredible feats of athleticism while not needing a high strength (that would be out of character) ... I'm really liking that idea.

Instead of just "I can hit higher numbers", I think expertise should be "I can do cooler things". Bake in a mechanic like "power attack"; take -5 to your check, but you achieve something more with a success. A regular person wouldn't do this, but an expert could. Expertise could allow for doing those sort of actions without the -5 penalty, or ignoring up to a -5 penalty.

I'm just throwing stuff out there at this point. I'm in the early black board stage. Seeing what sticks. But the more I think about it, the more I'm not liking "double proficiency bonus" in a vacuum. Advantage, maybe. Base 10, or 8, or whatever skill floor, yeah maybe. But not double proficiency bonus.

What do you think?

 

[Fenris-77]

Higher numbers are boring, cooler things are cool. That's about all that needs to be said about that.

To port over a thought from the thread that spawned this one, I find Expertise especially difficult to deal with in intrigue heavy 3rd pillar campaigns. I would much rather deal with added effect over having to plan for a character that has +15 to his deception rolls when everyone else has +6 (numbers picked out the air, don't think look to deep there).

 

[iserith]

Out of curiosity, if you have a problem with expertise, do you also play the game such that players ask to make or declare they are making ability checks?

 

[Fenris-77]

Out of curiosity, if you have a problem with expertise, do you also play the game such that players ask to make or declare they are making ability checks?

As opposed to the GM telling them what ability to roll?

On a separate note, I have decided to dub problems of this nature, ones where there is significant difficulty aligning massively differential stats within a party, the Glitterboy Conundrum. Trademarked.

 

[iserith]

As opposed to the GM telling them what ability to roll?

As opposed to the DM deciding whether there is a roll at all, then what ability check to make and any skill proficiency that applies (per the rules).

And in this case I'm not referring to a paradigm where the DM can decide a player-proposed roll is not necessary (e.g. Player: "Can I make an Investigation check to..." DM: "Nah, you just figure it out...").

 

[FrogReaver]

Why not simply, the DM will take into account if you have expertise when determining whether you succeed and giving it an appropriate mechanical impact for the task at hand. Now you don't even have to handle it the same way everytime. Maybe sometimes it's advantage. Maybe sometimes it's a take 10. Maybe sometimes it does actually need to be double proficiency. Maybe sometimes it's being able to do it as a bonus action etc.

Why pick any one method when you can create you a toolbox and apply accordingly?

 

[Fenris-77]

I think I see where you're going. More automatic success for the character with expertise (and reliable talent) is the opposite of what I'm looking for however. The exact problem is how often that's going to be the case for that character with that skill in an environment weighted to the party skill level and not that particular character's skill level. I'm definitely not advocating for forcing an inappropriate roll when there's no real consequence (as per the rules).

 

[iserith]

I think I see where you're going. More automatic success for the character with expertise (and reliable talent) is the opposite of what I'm looking for however. The exact problem is how often that's going to be the case for that character with that skill in an environment weighted to the party skill level and not that particular character's skill level. I'm definitely not advocating for forcing an inappropriate roll when there's no real consequence (as per the rules).

I'm not really "going" anywhere, only checking to see if there's a rough correlation between people who have some kind of issue with the ability check system and playing the game in the very common way I described upthread wherein the players ask to make or declare they are making ability checks.

Without taking anything away from your perception of the problem you outline above, could you explain how that is a problem for you exactly? It sounds like you're wanting to set DCs in the abstract, which is fine for specific approaches to specific goals, like when you're writing a module, but in actual game play where the DM is judging the efficacy of the player's proposed action against the fictional situation that is unfolding, I can't see that as being much of a concern from where I'm sitting. DCs can't really be set until the player describes what he or she wants to do.

 

[Fenris-77]

I wasn't pointing fingers. To answer your question, I generally have players declare their action, not their skill use, and then I decide roll/not then DC/ability/skill, generally as per the rules.

I'm going to try and limit this conversation to one thread or the other. As I explained in some detail in the other thread, my issues surface in 3rd pillar heavy intrigue campaigns where skills, and specific skills, are very much more front and center in driving the action of the game, and where where the party will often tend to represent those skills on multiple characters, only some of whom have access to expertise, but all of whom expect to use those skills on a regular basis. In that context, the extent to which expertise puts a finger on the scales can really dampen the enjoyment of the rest of the party.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why can't expertise allow someone to do things faster (bonus action instead of an action)? Why can't expertise allow someone to perform routine tasks easily under pressure (take 10, or reliable talent)? Heck, expertise could allow for double proficiency bonus BUT not ability score modifier; this would allow a rogue who is an expert in athletics to not need high Strength to perform incredible feats of athleticism while not needing a high strength (that would be out of character) ... I'm really liking that idea.

But you can.

Remember the key rule of 5e that it is up to the DM to grant a check in the first place? You can decide to grant a check for a "premium" result only to a character who has expertise.

The only thing the game doesn't do this is exactly to codify this for you. Partly because there are so many possibilities that it would take a whole book just for that, and partly because whatever the designers' choice there would be plenty of gamers who would disagree and whine. So you have to codify it yourself.