D&D 5E Proficiency vs Non-Proficiency

UngeheuerLich · Apr 30, 2019

Maxperson said:
It is a rule. It's a rule on describing damage. Just because it's in a sidebar does not make it something other than a rule.

Right. Atypical attacks, like poison delivery can be done differently. If you are describing all attacks as giving scratches, that is not atypical. You have changed typically no sign, to typical(actually every) showing a sign. That goes against RAW.

You might not call it that, but it's an injury, however minor, no matter what you call it. It even goes on to describe scratches, cuts and bruises as injuries in the next sentence.

Ok.

BookBarbarian · Apr 30, 2019

Coming in late on this one, apologies if it's already been mentioned.

My players and party mates tend to play toward their strengths. So they describe what they are doing in a fashion that if a check is called for (or even if an attack is made) usually it's something they are proficient in.

So unskilled beating moderately skilled much less ultimate skilled is for all intents and purposes ~0% at my table.

Stalker0 · May 1, 2019

I also think part of the issue is the amount of dice rolling we do for expediency.

For example, lets say I was to play a game of chess with a grand master (and I am not great at chess). The chance to beat them is probably less than 1%, I could easily believe I could play them for a month and never win.

Now one DM might say "ok both of you make an opposed 'chess' roll". And under that condition, the unskilled player will win way more often than is realistic.

Another one may go "give me your passive 10 + 'chess modifier' vs the grand master's". Under such a scenario, I would never beat the grand master.

And a third may go "roll an opposed chess roll for every round of chess". If you win a round, you get a point. If you lose a round, you lose a point. First player to 10 wins. In this scenario, I would have a very small but possible chance to beat the grand master.

The third option is the most realistic. It provides a very small but possible chance of beating someone that has incredible mastery of a thing compared to me...but its also very tedious.

So to me the trick is how you want your "world" to handle this, versus the "PCs". For your world, it probably makes plenty of sense for people to take 10s on almost all things. This means Grand Masters never lose to base pupils at chess. But Pcs always get a straight up roll, because they are "special". So when a PC beats the grand master "that one special time", its a notable thing.

DND_Reborn · May 4, 2019

Just a *bump* to see if anyone who hasn't voted yet wants to over the weekend.

Sorry for the interruption.

Playing tomorrow, so I hope you all have a great weekend and if you're gaming, roll lots of nat 20's!!

5ekyu · May 4, 2019

Stalker0 said:
I also think part of the issue is the amount of dice rolling we do for expediency.

For example, lets say I was to play a game of chess with a grand master (and I am not great at chess). The chance to beat them is probably less than 1%, I could easily believe I could play them for a month and never win.

Now one DM might say "ok both of you make an opposed 'chess' roll". And under that condition, the unskilled player will win way more often than is realistic.

Another one may go "give me your passive 10 + 'chess modifier' vs the grand master's". Under such a scenario, I would never beat the grand master.

And a third may go "roll an opposed chess roll for every round of chess". If you win a round, you get a point. If you lose a round, you lose a point. First player to 10 wins. In this scenario, I would have a very small but possible chance to beat the grand master.

The third option is the most realistic. It provides a very small but possible chance of beating someone that has incredible mastery of a thing compared to me...but its also very tedious.

So to me the trick is how you want your "world" to handle this, versus the "PCs". For your world, it probably makes plenty of sense for people to take 10s on almost all things. This means Grand Masters never lose to base pupils at chess. But Pcs always get a straight up roll, because they are "special". So when a PC beats the grand master "that one special time", its a notable thing.

Agreed.

In my games I established pre-game that all efforts taking more than a minute will be resolved in a trios check (race to three) like death saves. Even just that move to three minimum shifts the random luck odds significantly. Add in the DMG rules on auto-success and you get far more obvious demonstrations of the value of aptitude.

TaranTheWanderer · May 4, 2019

I think I mentioned this before but I'll reiterate/expand what I was saying previously. Keep in mind I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so maybe it's been said already:

I don't think 'non proficient' means 'unskilled' (as it's worded in the poll).

I think 5e assums that adventurers are 'skilled' at all skills listed but that those with 'proficiency' have a more specialized training. Otherwise, if 'non-proficient' meant 'non-skilled', certain skills would be impossible to do perform without training. If you have no concept of how tumblers work in a lock, you have almost no hope of picking a lock.

Which, imo, is why so many people chose the first answer in the poll. Obviously, someone with no training in a skill or discipline(unskilled) will lose out to someone with Olympic/doctoral training(highest proficiency).

But someone with some training, could potentially beat someone with highest proficiency.

The difference between fully proficient and non-proficient is 30%. The difference between 'unskilled/untrained' and fully proficient is, naturally, a huge impassable canyon.

Someone who has never played (or hardly played) chess(unskilled) and has little to no grasp of the rules, will never win against a grand master. Someone who has good grasp of chess and plays casually or, even, regularly(non-proficient) could, possibly win, given enough tries.

In short: I don't think the poll properly describes what it is to be 'non-proficient' and is misleading - at least, in the context of D&D 5e.

GreyLord · May 5, 2019

Something to note.

While I see the OP's premise and actually agree a good deal, if we go by how the rules are made, there is the DM's option of a Variant with Automatic successes. If the DC is 10 or less a proficient character automatically succeeds. A Character that is 11th level or higher automatically succeeds on tasks with skills they are proficient that have a DC of 15 or less.

That should skew the results far more in favor of those who are proficient in certain skills (and with ability scores as the variant as well it can increase that tremendously for some characters) to being far more successful more often than those that are unskilled.