Welp, I should have listened to Haravikk when he talked about people not reading what is written. Anyways, if you look back in this thread at the context of this line of discussion, then you'll notice that we were only talking about DM's deciding when to -- and when not to -- roll. And the auto-fail/auto-success rules impact on it. I actually agree with you on most of what you were saying there, but it does not relate whatsoever to anything I was saying. It was not about misunderstanding the auto-fail rule, it was about what situations require rolls and what situations don't.
Previous posters had repeatedly made points saying that DM's could use this rule to kill players by giving them ridiculous checks for no reason on things that their obviously shouldn't be checks for, and my above argument is that no DM, new or otherwise, would give people checks to see if, say, their lungs ruptured randomly and they died (as given in the linked example). As long as the DM has any idea of how reality works, they would not start assigning roles for things as ridiculous as that, and killing players off for taking a deep breath. In short, that argument is built off the idea that DM's might do that, ignoring the fact that no, only perhaps 1 in a million DM's might be close to that bad. Also, if the DM's are that bad, then they have infinite power and can ruin the game with their ineptitude anyways, this rule, just like any rule, can be misused in ridiculous ways by one person out there in the world who is either actively being malicious, or just one of the worst, rarest DM's, who can't grasp any rule and messes rule like that up along with numerous others.
The misunderstanding of the rules is related though, at least in the context of the current 5E rule and how that can be used to see how One D&D can be affected if the rule was made official; essentially, we can use the current misunderstanding with 5E as a preview for One D&D if the rule was to be made RAW. I have seen inexperienced DMs simply ask for rolls because they thought that Nat 1's were auto fails and they only stopped because I told them that by 5E RAW that was not the case. If the same happened in One D&D and Nat 1 Auto fails were RAW, then a lot of inexperienced DMs will suddenly have a "reason" to continue calling for rolls when they shouldn't.
Yeah, some of the examples are ridiculous, but it is a rule that can cause inexperienced DMs to actually make mistakes such as calling for rolls when they shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily call them a strawman's argument just because some of the analogies were outlandish; like I don't think the examples I provided were outlandish; and the argument itself is something I have seen (just without the extreme examples).
Really then why was I told by WotC officials when signing up my FLGS for running AL, that ALL Optional rules had to be used? Why is it that every player that sits down at the AL table EXPECTS every single optional rule to be in effect?
Are you sure you didn't mishear the official? Or perhaps they were just claiming to be an official. If we take a look at the official AL Documents:
DDAL_PlayersGuidev12_1.pdf (wizards.com) On page 1, in the box "What Rulebooks Should I Use?" It says "Additional, the following variant or optional rules are available:" Followed by a list of what is allowed for character creation.
ddal_fr_dmsguidev11_0.pdf (wizards.com) On page 3, Running the Game, under The Rules of the Game: "Further, the options and variant rules listed below from the Dungeon Master's Guide and Chapter 2 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything are available for your use; others aren't permitted without campaign documentation."
Following this statement is a list of variant and optional rules, and not all of the possible optional/variant rules are used. Flanking is not on the list for example.
DDAL_Forgotten_Realms_FAQ_v11.1.pdf (wizards.com) On the beginning of page 4, under Variant and Optional Rule Availability: "Without specific campaign documentation, any other variant or optional rules aren't available for use."
The actual official document for AL specifically lists the allowed optional/variant rules and specifically says that others are not allowed. I don't know why you were told that all optional rules were used, but it is clearly stated in the documents that only a specific set of optional/variant rules may be used.
Well it was 8 years ago when we first went to get it established... And NO I did not mis-hear... I asked them to repeat that statement 3 times to make sure I heard it correctly. The all optional rules was the killer on that deal for us. No AL in the shop. Store backed/sponsored campaigns galore just no official WotC ones.
And are you sure they were WotC officials; or were they just some volunteers who were trying to set up an AL scene in the area. Because I would find it strange for actual WotC employees to visit a local store to set up AL there.
I don't have the documents for Season 4 (I think, maybe it was 3) of AL anymore, but I am very sure that they never used Flanking nor Variant Encumbrance. If those "officials" said all optional rules had to be used; then I am pretty sure they were wrong. If someone still has the AL documents from back then, they can probably check. Maybe I'll scour the internet for them. Pretty sure someone has it archived.
With AL, it is always best to check the documents if something sounds incredibly off like that.
Welp, I should have listened to Haravikk when he talked about people not reading what is written. Anyways, if you look back in this thread at the context of this line of discussion, then you'll notice that we were only talking about DM's deciding when to -- and when not to -- roll. And the auto-fail/auto-success rules impact on it. I actually agree with you on most of what you were saying there, but it does not relate whatsoever to anything I was saying. It was not about misunderstanding the auto-fail rule, it was about what situations require rolls and what situations don't.
Previous posters had repeatedly made points saying that DM's could use this rule to kill players by giving them ridiculous checks for no reason on things that their obviously shouldn't be checks for, and my above argument is that no DM, new or otherwise, would give people checks to see if, say, their lungs ruptured randomly and they died (as given in the linked example). As long as the DM has any idea of how reality works, they would not start assigning roles for things as ridiculous as that, and killing players off for taking a deep breath. In short, that argument is built off the idea that DM's might do that, ignoring the fact that no, only perhaps 1 in a million DM's might be close to that bad. Also, if the DM's are that bad, then they have infinite power and can ruin the game with their ineptitude anyways, this rule, just like any rule, can be misused in ridiculous ways by one person out there in the world who is either actively being malicious, or just one of the worst, rarest DM's, who can't grasp any rule and messes rule like that up along with numerous others.
The misunderstanding of the rules is related though, at least in the context of the current 5E rule and how that can be used to see how One D&D can be affected if the rule was made official; essentially, we can use the current misunderstanding with 5E as a preview for One D&D if the rule was to be made RAW. I have seen inexperienced DMs simply ask for rolls because they thought that Nat 1's were auto fails and they only stopped because I told them that by 5E RAW that was not the case. If the same happened in One D&D and Nat 1 Auto fails were RAW, then a lot of inexperienced DMs will suddenly have a "reason" to continue calling for rolls when they shouldn't.
Yeah, some of the examples are ridiculous, but it is a rule that can cause inexperienced DMs to actually make mistakes such as calling for rolls when they shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily call them a strawman's argument just because some of the analogies were outlandish; like I don't think the examples I provided were outlandish; and the argument itself is something I have seen (just without the extreme examples).
Really then why was I told by WotC officials when signing up my FLGS for running AL, that ALL Optional rules had to be used? Why is it that every player that sits down at the AL table EXPECTS every single optional rule to be in effect?
Are you sure you didn't mishear the official? Or perhaps they were just claiming to be an official. If we take a look at the official AL Documents:
DDAL_PlayersGuidev12_1.pdf (wizards.com) On page 1, in the box "What Rulebooks Should I Use?" It says "Additional, the following variant or optional rules are available:" Followed by a list of what is allowed for character creation.
ddal_fr_dmsguidev11_0.pdf (wizards.com) On page 3, Running the Game, under The Rules of the Game: "Further, the options and variant rules listed below from the Dungeon Master's Guide and Chapter 2 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything are available for your use; others aren't permitted without campaign documentation."
Following this statement is a list of variant and optional rules, and not all of the possible optional/variant rules are used. Flanking is not on the list for example.
DDAL_Forgotten_Realms_FAQ_v11.1.pdf (wizards.com) On the beginning of page 4, under Variant and Optional Rule Availability: "Without specific campaign documentation, any other variant or optional rules aren't available for use."
The actual official document for AL specifically lists the allowed optional/variant rules and specifically says that others are not allowed. I don't know why you were told that all optional rules were used, but it is clearly stated in the documents that only a specific set of optional/variant rules may be used.
Well it was 8 years ago when we first went to get it established... And NO I did not mis-hear... I asked them to repeat that statement 3 times to make sure I heard it correctly. The all optional rules was the killer on that deal for us. No AL in the shop. Store backed/sponsored campaigns galore just no official WotC ones.
And are you sure they were WotC officials; or were they just some volunteers who were trying to set up an AL scene in the area. Because I would find it strange for actual WotC employees to visit a local store to set up AL there.
I don't have the documents for Season 4 (I think, maybe it was 3) of AL anymore, but I am very sure that they never used Flanking nor Variant Encumbrance. If those "officials" said all optional rules had to be used; then I am pretty sure they were wrong. If someone still has the AL documents from back then, they can probably check. Maybe I'll scour the internet for them. Pretty sure someone has it archived.
With AL, it is always best to check the documents if something sounds incredibly off like that.
Don't Know where you got your information... But WotC officials never come to your store. Your store has to go to them. So AGAIN no these were not "volunteers" these were individuals in the direct employ of WotC informing us of these requirements (along with all the requirements for MtG organized play... all under one roof you know). We ended up staying with the MtG OP (too many good perks to pass up at the time) but decided that AL was not worth the extra hassles it was going to produce for the limited support WotC was willing to give.
Welp, I should have listened to Haravikk when he talked about people not reading what is written. Anyways, if you look back in this thread at the context of this line of discussion, then you'll notice that we were only talking about DM's deciding when to -- and when not to -- roll. And the auto-fail/auto-success rules impact on it. I actually agree with you on most of what you were saying there, but it does not relate whatsoever to anything I was saying. It was not about misunderstanding the auto-fail rule, it was about what situations require rolls and what situations don't.
Previous posters had repeatedly made points saying that DM's could use this rule to kill players by giving them ridiculous checks for no reason on things that their obviously shouldn't be checks for, and my above argument is that no DM, new or otherwise, would give people checks to see if, say, their lungs ruptured randomly and they died (as given in the linked example). As long as the DM has any idea of how reality works, they would not start assigning roles for things as ridiculous as that, and killing players off for taking a deep breath. In short, that argument is built off the idea that DM's might do that, ignoring the fact that no, only perhaps 1 in a million DM's might be close to that bad. Also, if the DM's are that bad, then they have infinite power and can ruin the game with their ineptitude anyways, this rule, just like any rule, can be misused in ridiculous ways by one person out there in the world who is either actively being malicious, or just one of the worst, rarest DM's, who can't grasp any rule and messes rule like that up along with numerous others.
The misunderstanding of the rules is related though, at least in the context of the current 5E rule and how that can be used to see how One D&D can be affected if the rule was made official; essentially, we can use the current misunderstanding with 5E as a preview for One D&D if the rule was to be made RAW. I have seen inexperienced DMs simply ask for rolls because they thought that Nat 1's were auto fails and they only stopped because I told them that by 5E RAW that was not the case. If the same happened in One D&D and Nat 1 Auto fails were RAW, then a lot of inexperienced DMs will suddenly have a "reason" to continue calling for rolls when they shouldn't.
Yeah, some of the examples are ridiculous, but it is a rule that can cause inexperienced DMs to actually make mistakes such as calling for rolls when they shouldn't. I wouldn't necessarily call them a strawman's argument just because some of the analogies were outlandish; like I don't think the examples I provided were outlandish; and the argument itself is something I have seen (just without the extreme examples).
Really then why was I told by WotC officials when signing up my FLGS for running AL, that ALL Optional rules had to be used? Why is it that every player that sits down at the AL table EXPECTS every single optional rule to be in effect?
Are you sure you didn't mishear the official? Or perhaps they were just claiming to be an official. If we take a look at the official AL Documents:
DDAL_PlayersGuidev12_1.pdf (wizards.com) On page 1, in the box "What Rulebooks Should I Use?" It says "Additional, the following variant or optional rules are available:" Followed by a list of what is allowed for character creation.
ddal_fr_dmsguidev11_0.pdf (wizards.com) On page 3, Running the Game, under The Rules of the Game: "Further, the options and variant rules listed below from the Dungeon Master's Guide and Chapter 2 of Xanathar's Guide to Everything are available for your use; others aren't permitted without campaign documentation."
Following this statement is a list of variant and optional rules, and not all of the possible optional/variant rules are used. Flanking is not on the list for example.
DDAL_Forgotten_Realms_FAQ_v11.1.pdf (wizards.com) On the beginning of page 4, under Variant and Optional Rule Availability: "Without specific campaign documentation, any other variant or optional rules aren't available for use."
The actual official document for AL specifically lists the allowed optional/variant rules and specifically says that others are not allowed. I don't know why you were told that all optional rules were used, but it is clearly stated in the documents that only a specific set of optional/variant rules may be used.
Well it was 8 years ago when we first went to get it established... And NO I did not mis-hear... I asked them to repeat that statement 3 times to make sure I heard it correctly. The all optional rules was the killer on that deal for us. No AL in the shop. Store backed/sponsored campaigns galore just no official WotC ones.
And are you sure they were WotC officials; or were they just some volunteers who were trying to set up an AL scene in the area. Because I would find it strange for actual WotC employees to visit a local store to set up AL there.
I don't have the documents for Season 4 (I think, maybe it was 3) of AL anymore, but I am very sure that they never used Flanking nor Variant Encumbrance. If those "officials" said all optional rules had to be used; then I am pretty sure they were wrong. If someone still has the AL documents from back then, they can probably check. Maybe I'll scour the internet for them. Pretty sure someone has it archived.
With AL, it is always best to check the documents if something sounds incredibly off like that.
Don't Know where you got your information... But WotC officials never come to your store. Your store has to go to them. So AGAIN no these were not "volunteers" these were individuals in the direct employ of WotC informing us of these requirements (along with all the requirements for MtG organized play... all under one roof you know). We ended up staying with the MtG OP (too many good perks to pass up at the time) but decided that AL was not worth the extra hassles it was going to produce for the limited support WotC was willing to give.
I never suggested that they did come to your store. Rather I suggested the opposite because your post sounded like they came to your store and that made me suspicious. Hence why in my previous post I said, "Because I would find it strange for actual WotC employees to visit a local store to set up AL there."
Still sounds incredibly strange because I just found a copy of the Season 4 AL DM Guide on my phone (it luckily was in the files I've been transferring over from my old phones whenever I get a new one) and it says DMs are allowed to use the optional rules for playing on a grid and no other optional rules presented in the DMG are allowed.
Then when I look at the copy of the Season 1 AL Players Guide (also found on my phone) it essentially says the same thing. So it is incredibly strange for WotC officials to contradict their own official documents.
Ignore the video playing in the upper right corner; I was listening to a live stream.
Anyhow, I've proved that not all optional rules are used in AL, even from its beginning. So whether or not a rule is optional or not can matter in organized play. Again, I continue to believe that the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule should at most be an optional/variant rule with the current 5E rules contunuing to be the default RAW, only better clarified.
I have. My group used that rule extensively during the early years of 5E. It felt horrible to fail on a nat 1 when your modifier was high enough to succeed if it was not for the auto fail. It is a 5% chance of your build not mattering.
Having a 95% chance of success is the opposite of "your build not mattering"; if your DM didn't want there to be a chance of failure, then they can simply not ask you for a check at all.
It's also kind of a weird assumption that it should be possible to build a character that can never fail at something; fighters can always miss with an attack, so why shouldn't a bard always be able to accidentally insult someone, or a healer be unable to foresee every potential complication in an emergency surgery? If an ancient red dragon can fail to intimidate someone, why shouldn't a humanoid adventurer?
Automatic successes are the more complex case, and one where DM's may wish to adjust the results for an unexpected success; while in a game of dragonchess you might plausibly play so erratically that you throw off your opponent and somehow blunder into a victory, if we go back to the emergency surgery example it's unlikely that a well meaning adventurer might luck onto saving someone, but you might rule that they've bought more time instead. It's reasonable for a DM to rule that characters with and without proficiency in a skill may achieve different outcomes for the same check with the same DC; this is why we have a DM, to make these kinds of determinations.
The DM also plays a crucial role in what a failure actually means; for example, if you build a character to be really good at climbing, and they're properly equipped etc., then failing an Athletics check to climb shouldn't result in a fall except in extreme circumstances, more likely you just don't climb as fast until you can recover. Not ever failure (even a natural 1) needs to involve a character soiling themselves before landing flat on their ass, though there is an unfortunate tendency for some DM's to delight in humiliating players for rolling poorly, that's not really something that can be fixed by the rules.
It is a 1/20 chance that your build does not matter. If a nat 1 is a failure regardless of you having a -5 or a +30, then it is a case of your build not mattering because if your build always mattered, then there would not be an auto fail chance. The nat 1 auto fail, is a 5% chance of negating any bonus your build offers you. If your build always mattered, then if you have a +9, you should always be succeeding at a DC10 or lower not you fail on a DC10 with a nat 1.
I honestly don't like that nat 1's are auto miss and nat 20's being auto hits; however, it is heavily mitigated by the fact that against level appropriate enemies, the nat 1's and nat 20's auto miss and hit rarely ever make a difference as you would normally miss on those rolls anyway. Furthermore, rolling a nat 1 on an attack generally has far lesser consequences than failing a Saving Throw.
Also, it is not weird making a character that can succeed on a nat 1; note that is different from building a character that can never fail. If the DC is high enough, you can still fail. An commoner should not have a chance at succeeding against an an ancient red dragon's frightful presence as the DC for it is 21 and the commoner should not have any bonuses to wisdom saves, meaning it should be impossible for them to succeed that DC21 wisdom save.
Also, complications for certain surgeries are well below the 5% mark. If every surgery had a 5% chance of failure, that would mean 1 in every 20 surgeries, no matter how major or minor, would fail. However, that is not the case in reality. If there is a chance of failure, it should simply be represented by a higher DC.
The rule shouldn't require the DM to think that they shouldn't need to ask for the check. Having a nat 1/20 auto fail/success will imply to DM that they should always ask for a roll because there is always a chance of success or failure.
If a rule relies on a DM being good, it is not a good rule. The current rule in 5E is more ideal when considering a variety of DM's, especially the inexperienced ones. They can introduce the nat 1/20 autofail later as a variant/optional rule later, but it shouldn't be the default RAW.
Except for the fact that 30 is the highest DC in the rules. 30 is nearly impossible. So if you have a build that gives you a plus 30 you are always succeeding. Even the DMG says that someone level 20 with proficiency and an ability of 20 should need to role a 19 or 20 on a DC 30. Now if they want to adjust the rule of DC we can do that.
As for the real world. Do you have a 100% success rate? Do you never make a mistake? According to you I should be fired becase my accuracy rate is 98%. Your 5% error is too high, note I remember you saying last time we discussed this even 1% was too high, is still 95% of the time a success. Your surgery example still has the mistake you think they relate to each other. Each one has a 95% chance of success. If they have 19 in a row succeed doesn't mean the 20th fails.
I'm confused at this math. If the DC is 30, then you only need to roll whatever 30 minus your total bonus is. If your bonus is +10, then you succeed on that roll 5% of the time. If your bonus is more than +10, that's more likely. If your bonus was +15, you'd only need to roll a 15 and thus succeed on a DC 30 check 25% of the time. That doesn't imply 'nearly-impossible' to me so much 'unlikely until a higher level', with some exceptional lower-level cases that are also not nearly-impossible. Either way, you don't need a +30 bonus to succeed at a DC 30 check. You wouldn't even need a +30 bonus to succeed on a DC 30 even rolling a 1, you'd need a +29. Someone at level 20 with a +5 ability bonus would still need +5 or +6 to succeed on a roll of 19 or 20, which probably just indicates proficiency. But that doesn't account for situational modifiers nor expertise when proficiency is relevant. If you optimize for a certain task, it's plausible to have at least a +17 as a character with a +5 ability score, a +6 proficiency bonus, and something like Expertise that doubles that proficiency bonus on the relevant check. Meaning you succeed every time on a roll of 13 when doing that check. You don't even need to be level 20 for that fairly-common situation, much less optimized for a skill.
nearly impossible is supposed to be amazing feats. Higher level characters pull off the nearly impossible with some frequency because they are the nearly impossible themselves. Higher levels aren't normal people. The DC's are so much a rating of how hard it is to hit those numbers at various levels it is the difficulty of the TASK. a dc 25 task is so supposed to be VERY hard. a dc 20 task is supposed to be hard. a dc 15 is a normal difficulty task, 10 is easy, and 5 is very easy. This is all probably for the average joe. The PC's aren't average Joe's in terms of skill.
I agree with what Aquilontune says. A DC 30 is nearly impossible for any normal person to accomplish. Certainly I couldn't. In any skill in the game. Earth's best experts would have trouble. Our smartest people, our best athletes. But DnD characters at level 20 are superhuman.
The books say that DC 30 is only achievable on an 19 or 20, for even a max level character, because the proficiency bonus max is 6, and stat max is 5, therefore a +11. I think we can reasonably assume that this is also the maximum possible bonus a person in the real world could get.
That is backed up by the fact that Expertise is a Class Group of its own now. Wizards can Wish a problem away. Clerics can bring the dead back to life. Barbarians can shrug off mortal wounds like the Incredible Hulk. Expertise is a superhuman ability.
If you have +17 in a skill with expertise, you can still fail the nearly impossible. More than half the time. But the nearly impossible is at least within your reach. Because of your super powers. They might not be flashy, but they are as much of the fantasy as the spells are.
I agree with what Aquilontune says. A DC 30 is nearly impossible for any normal person to accomplish. Certainly I couldn't. In any skill in the game. Earth's best experts would have trouble. Our smartest people, our best athletes. But DnD characters at level 20 are superhuman.
The books say that DC 30 is only achievable on an 19 or 20, for even a max level character, because the proficiency bonus max is 6, and stat max is 5, therefore a +11. I think we can reasonably assume that this is also the maximum possible bonus a person in the real world could get.
That is backed up by the fact that Expertise is a Class Group of its own now. Wizards can Wish a problem away. Clerics can bring the dead back to life. Barbarians can shrug off mortal wounds like the Incredible Hulk. Expertise is a superhuman ability.
If you have +17 in a skill with expertise, you can still fail the nearly impossible. More than half the time. But the nearly impossible is at least within your reach. Because of your super powers. They might not be flashy, but they are as much of the fantasy as the spells are.
THIS Exactly, thank you for even putting it in better words. Expertise, the experts super power. Their fantasy of being able to just DO things that others would consider insane.
And are you sure they were WotC officials; or were they just some volunteers who were trying to set up an AL scene in the area. Because I would find it strange for actual WotC employees to visit a local store to set up AL there.
I don't have the documents for Season 4 (I think, maybe it was 3) of AL anymore, but I am very sure that they never used Flanking nor Variant Encumbrance. If those "officials" said all optional rules had to be used; then I am pretty sure they were wrong. If someone still has the AL documents from back then, they can probably check. Maybe I'll scour the internet for them. Pretty sure someone has it archived.
With AL, it is always best to check the documents if something sounds incredibly off like that.
Don't Know where you got your information... But WotC officials never come to your store. Your store has to go to them. So AGAIN no these were not "volunteers" these were individuals in the direct employ of WotC informing us of these requirements (along with all the requirements for MtG organized play... all under one roof you know).
We ended up staying with the MtG OP (too many good perks to pass up at the time) but decided that AL was not worth the extra hassles it was going to produce for the limited support WotC was willing to give.
I never suggested that they did come to your store. Rather I suggested the opposite because your post sounded like they came to your store and that made me suspicious. Hence why in my previous post I said, "Because I would find it strange for actual WotC employees to visit a local store to set up AL there."
Still sounds incredibly strange because I just found a copy of the Season 4 AL DM Guide on my phone (it luckily was in the files I've been transferring over from my old phones whenever I get a new one) and it says DMs are allowed to use the optional rules for playing on a grid and no other optional rules presented in the DMG are allowed.
Then when I look at the copy of the Season 1 AL Players Guide (also found on my phone) it essentially says the same thing. So it is incredibly strange for WotC officials to contradict their own official documents.
https://i.imgur.com/J3qMwuD.jpg
Ignore the video playing in the upper right corner; I was listening to a live stream.
Anyhow, I've proved that not all optional rules are used in AL, even from its beginning. So whether or not a rule is optional or not can matter in organized play. Again, I continue to believe that the nat 1/20 auto fail/success rule should at most be an optional/variant rule with the current 5E rules contunuing to be the default RAW, only better clarified.
nearly impossible is supposed to be amazing feats. Higher level characters pull off the nearly impossible with some frequency because they are the nearly impossible themselves. Higher levels aren't normal people. The DC's are so much a rating of how hard it is to hit those numbers at various levels it is the difficulty of the TASK. a dc 25 task is so supposed to be VERY hard. a dc 20 task is supposed to be hard. a dc 15 is a normal difficulty task, 10 is easy, and 5 is very easy. This is all probably for the average joe. The PC's aren't average Joe's in terms of skill.
I agree with what Aquilontune says. A DC 30 is nearly impossible for any normal person to accomplish. Certainly I couldn't. In any skill in the game. Earth's best experts would have trouble. Our smartest people, our best athletes. But DnD characters at level 20 are superhuman.
The books say that DC 30 is only achievable on an 19 or 20, for even a max level character, because the proficiency bonus max is 6, and stat max is 5, therefore a +11. I think we can reasonably assume that this is also the maximum possible bonus a person in the real world could get.
That is backed up by the fact that Expertise is a Class Group of its own now. Wizards can Wish a problem away. Clerics can bring the dead back to life. Barbarians can shrug off mortal wounds like the Incredible Hulk. Expertise is a superhuman ability.
If you have +17 in a skill with expertise, you can still fail the nearly impossible. More than half the time. But the nearly impossible is at least within your reach. Because of your super powers. They might not be flashy, but they are as much of the fantasy as the spells are.
THIS Exactly, thank you for even putting it in better words. Expertise, the experts super power. Their fantasy of being able to just DO things that others would consider insane.