Is there a better way to balance expertise?

[GlenSmash!]

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.

[JellyPooga]

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

<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!]

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.

I agree completely.

[Brawndo]

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.

[mephnick]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

I tend to agree that they were a bit too generous with bards, but I'm not fussed about it enough to hl use rule them.

As far as rogues and arcana expertise? Why not? I could very easily see rogues studying very hard to be able to identify and disarm or bypass magical protections when robbing the local wizard.

[Easy_Lee]

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]

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...

[Willie the Duck]

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]

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...

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]

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.

[Nu]

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]

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.