D&D 5E Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?

Cap'n Kobold said:

I think its unnecessary, but the OP was couched in terms of realism and making sense, so I'm engaging with it on the basis that this is the case, and in those terms.

Click to expand...

I feel like the 'realism' argument is more to head off realism objections to what is essentially a playability concern.

Consistency would be another way to put it. It's not consistent that some things, like hps and weapon attacks, for instance, advance steadily for all characters, even though some are highly specialized in well for others it's an afterthought, while other things, also prevalent in adventuring, like exploration & interaction tasks and saving throws, don't, and net degrade as you level. You could also phrase that in terms of balance.

That's the point: Most of the "generic adventuring tasks" that others are saying adventurers would improve at given their daily regime, are ability checks, not skill checks.

Click to expand...

Skill checks /are/ ability checks, of course. But scaling ability checks would make a good deal of sense, instead, would make a good deal of sense.

Scaling ability checks, and /not/ proficiency - so proficiency provides the initial +2 mod, scaling happens at the stat - would be simple, elegant, address the problem of non-proficient characters falling further behind, and keep proficient characters (and those who invest ASIs in a given stat) noticeably better, at all levels.

Tony Vargas said:

Consistency would be another way to put it. It's not consistent that some things, like hps and weapon attacks, for instance, advance steadily for all characters, even though some are highly specialized in well for others it's an afterthought, while other things, also prevalent in adventuring, like exploration & interaction tasks and saving throws, don't, and net degrade as you level.

Click to expand...

Why is consistency important for something like that? WHy should saves and HP and Attack rolls work the same?

doctorbadwolf said:

Why is consistency important for something like that? WHy should saves and HP and Attack rolls work the same?

Click to expand...

Because it's a game.

Tony Vargas said:

Scaling ability checks, and /not/ proficiency - so proficiency provides the initial +2 mod, scaling happens at the stat - would be simple, elegant, address the problem of non-proficient characters falling further behind, and keep proficient characters (and those who invest ASIs in a given stat) noticeably better, at all levels.

Click to expand...

Yeh that is a conclusion I am coming to a broader more extensive attribute enhancement with static proficiency benefits works better for portraying generalized competence AND maintains emphasis that is character appropriate.

Tony Vargas said:

Because it's a game.

Click to expand...

That isn't a reason. Do you hate that skills don't break down the Difficulty Points of a challenge until it hits 0 and you defeat that challenge? It would be consistent.

Clearly, consistency isn't required for a game to work and be well made. It isn't a goal in itself.

doctorbadwolf said:

That isn't a reason.

Click to expand...

In the context of discussing an RPG, it's a very cogent reason.

You participate in the game via your characters abilities. The game includes mechanisms of advancement. Some are more or less even, some are profoundly uneven. The game thus becomes less playable as advancement progresses.

BA limits that degradation, but it could have as easily avoided it.

Clearly, consistency isn't required for a game to work and be well made. It isn't a goal in itself.

Click to expand...

It's not a sufficient condition for a game to work nor a goal in itself (though it could be a valid design goal, among others), but a game will work better when more consistent than when less so.

Tony Vargas said:

In the context of discussing an RPG, it's a very cogent reason.

You participate in the game via your characters abilities. The game includes mechanisms of advancement. Some are more or less even, some are profoundly uneven. The game thus becomes less playable as advancement progresses.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't become less playable. At all. Most games don't put consistency of advancement across the board on design priority pedestal, which is a very good thing.

5e is as consistent as it should be. What you train in increases, what you don't stays the same. This means you have to choose between further specialization and shoring up weaknesses via training. That is good design.

BA limits that degradation, but it could have as easily avoided it.

Click to expand...

It isn't degradation, it's a diminishing return on hyper specialization and an increased need to work together, which is good design.

It's not a sufficient condition for a game to work nor a goal in itself (though it could be a valid design goal, among others), but a game will work better when more consistent than when less so.

Click to expand...

No, it won't, necessarily, though now some of your comparisons of 4e and 5e, and your view of 5e as inherently unbalanced to the point where balance "isn't even a concern" make a lot more sense, now.

There are specific areas where consistency matters in and of itself, like in how success is determined. The modern game works better than the OG game, because you always roll a d20 and add or don't add whatever mods apply, and compare it to a positive number, where in the past you had different dice for different actions, and sometimes high was good and sometimes high was bad. Consistency in the core resolution method is good.

Different parts of the game progressing differently isn't inherently good or bad. It depends on what it promotes and how it impacts complexity, and the balance between those factors. Untrained checks and saves not progressing promotes differentiation between characters, makes your stat always matter, isn't noticeably more complex (arguably less complex) than everything increasing but at a different rate if trained, and helps keep the numbers from inflating out of whack.

And it feels more right, for more players.

doctorbadwolf said:

But it doesn't become less playable. At all. Most games don't put consistency of advancement across the board on design priority pedestal, which is a very good thing.

Click to expand...

Most games don't use level advancement.

What you train in increases, what you don't stays the same.

Click to expand...

Not true, at all. If your character makes a level while avoiding combat and never being wounded, his hps go up. If he makes (and fails) lots of DEX saves, but he's not proficient in DEX saves, they stay the same. If he never gets called on to make a WIS save, but is proficient, it goes up.

It isn't degradation, it's a diminishing return on hyper specialization and an increased need to work together, which is good design.

Click to expand...

Again, it's not. There's no diminishing return on specialization, if anything, there's increasing return on some specializations.

There are specific areas where consistency matters in and of itself, like in how success is determined. ...Different parts of the game progressing differently isn't inherently good or bad. It depends on what it promotes and how it impacts complexity, and the balance between those factors.

Click to expand...

… eh... not completely off base, sure. But, in a level-based game, there's this rising tide that floats all boats. Under BA, it doesn't rise a /lot/, but if you're not in a boat, you're wearing cement shoes. There's no treading water. You get better, or you get worse, relatively speaking.

Untrained checks and saves not progressing promotes differentiation between characters

Click to expand...

It makes that differentiation inconsistent - much like LFQW or the skill-inflation issues in 3e, just /really/ muted by BA.

makes your stat always matter, isn't noticeably more complex (arguably less complex) than everything increasing but at a different rate if trained, and helps keep the numbers from inflating out of whack.

Click to expand...

Different rates definitely strikes me as a poor idea, even if it was, like, The D&D Way from '74 to 2008. 5e only has one rate - my suggestion wouldn't be to change that rate, just to apply only the rate (not the initial proficiency bonus) more universally.

dnd4vr said:

Wait?! Do you know about King Arthur's search for the Holy Grail while riding unreal horses as your lackies "clippity-clop" some coconut shells to sound like hooves? Did you ever encounter a crazy, killer rabbit with viscous pointy things?

Click to expand...

I ride a phantom horse with coconut shell horse shoes!

That killer rabbit was quite the ruffian! I ran!

For me... the reason why I have no reason or desire to have skills or saving throws get better even if you haven't trained in them is simple...

I don't treat the bonus as the end-all-and-be-all of how good someone is at doing something. I look at the total score they can get.

How does the Level 20 character do better at a skill they don't have proficiency in? They roll higher on a particular check. Hell... even a Level 1 character can oftentimes do better than a Level 20 character who HAS trained in a particular skill-- when the Level 1 character rolls a '19' and the Level 20 character rolls a '6'.

Quite frankly, I think it makes much less sense that the numbers gained from ability modifier + proficiency bonus is considered the "training" of a character, while the "complete randomness of the world" has a much greater impact on whether or not you succeed. Proficiency bonus for most characters go from +0 to +6 (non-proficient to Level 20 proficient)... and yet the "wild vagaries of life" produce results from 1 to 20. When looked at through that lens... being high level and trained is comparatively less important than just how "the randomness of life" is.

THAT'S what I think is the dumber proposition.

When you have a Level 1 character without proficiency and any ability modifier (+0 total) able to roll a check against a fully ability modified (+5) and full proficient (+6) person and still be able to beat that supposedly uber person on various checks ("I rolled a 17 on my Perception check and I have no bonus, what'd you roll? Oh, a 3-- grand total of 14? Oh, what a shame!"... the idea that the Level 1 character needs to somehow "get better" over time I think is kind of silly. Because more often than not, it ain't that +1 bonus you might want to give non-proficient PCs over time that makes them feel like they are "getting better"... it's all the times they roll 15s, 18s, and 20s on all their checks that does it.