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

akr71 · Jul 10, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
Lots of the people who earn blackbelts in Karate also can't really even do Karate, so there's that.

I think there's some solid opinion here showing that people would like the option to add new skills as characters level, rather than having to spend portions of ASI advancement to up the connected stat. Really it's just a matter of deciding how one wants to accomplish that in a given campaign.

LOL! I was going to use karate as an example instead of the 'showing my co-worker the same thing repeatedly.' I've been studying karate for a little more than 2 years and I'm still baffled by the number of people who get to their black belt (sometimes brown) and just ghost. Like that was the goal. No, that's just the beginning - you've now learned enough basics to actually start learning karate!

Back to the topic though - class Saving Throws can be baffling sometimes. Why does a monk get Strength & Dexterity? Why does a fighter who plans to be an EK not have the option of Intelligence? I would entertain each class getting proficiency in one Save and choose a second. I would also entertain allowing the player to choose the Resilient Feat more than once, providing they choose a different stat.

I'm a pretty open DM - if the player can justify why they want something changed, I will consider it. I want my players to be happy and want to play. My own play style, however, is that I like my character to have weak spots to lean into. The uncertainty makes it fun for me.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

I also think having even the subtle over all competence of 1, 2 and 3 at tiers 2 3 and 4 is a heroic trope. The strangely incompetent in one area for humor is another

Fenris-77 · Jul 10, 2019

I'd be happier about picking saves if the saves were all created equal, but the really aren't. Maybe give each class one of the strong three and let them pick from the weaker three. Or even chose one from each list.
[MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] - if you gave each of those tiers +1 (for a range from +1 to +3) I don't think you'd be breaking anything. I don't think it's as interesting as adding specific skills, but that's a matter of personal taste.

dave2008 · Jul 10, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Surely the level 20 wizard is a bit better with a longsword than the level 1 wizard, but such isn't actually the case.

Thoughts?

I think this example demonstrates why it wouldn't work to add prof to everything (similar to how 4e did it). I definitely would not expect a wizard who has never used a longsword to suddenly be 50% better a using a longsword when he/she reaches lvl 20. That, to me, would be a mistake.

I do think some method of partial proficiency would be nice for parts of the game (saving throws maybe). But I think full proficiency is to much. Also, if I am being honest with myself, I don't like the idea of gain proficiency in something I haven't trained at. I get the idea that to simplify the game you provide a blanket improvement rather than give everyone a bunch of feats/skill points/whatever to "train," but it just isn't my taste.

Maybe a middle road would be a lessened proficiency bonus (max out at +3) and then expertise is for those who have really trained?

TwoSix · Jul 10, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Consider this. Your Character at level 1 and your character at level 20. Should your character not always be better at nearly everything he does as a level 20 character than when he was a level 1 character.

No.

FrogReaver said:
Thoughts?

That was easy.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
I'd be happier about picking saves if the saves were all created equal, but the really aren't. Maybe give each class one of the strong three and let them pick from the weaker three. Or even chose one from each list.

But as to save they are very much the combat arena and arguably the reason 4e defenses were collapsed to three ref, fort, and will was about making them created about equal you could still use feats to shore up ones where you lacked attribute focus.

Fenris-77 said:
if you gave each of those tiers +1 (for a range from +1 to +3) I don't think you'd be breaking anything. I don't think it's as interesting as adding specific skills, but that's a matter of personal taste.

Its definitely a subtle tweak less impactful as you say.

I think your adding a skill relates directly to the idea of separating out non-combat character design resources in general from the combat oriented ones and most definitely I would be putting specific skill training/proficiency as an option in that set

4e had skill powers that highlighted skills applied in big bold ways generally in combat but a few were definitely just general use cases. In efffect you can see them as "trade a resource for reliable use" of something a DM might just let you do if unreliably.

Sacrosanct · Jul 10, 2019

Another "no" vote here. There are really two things here as to why:

1. As others have mentioned, you don't get better at skill X by becoming an expert at skill Z. That makes no sense.
2. People seriously underestimate how hard it is to become proficient at something. It takes more than a few swings to know how to use a sword properly. Everyone seems to look at something and say, "I can totally do that! That's not too hard!" But when they actually do, they are in for a surprise. I can't count the number of times I see people who tried rock climbing thinking they would be all super good right away and within minutes their arms are burned out. Even the big strong guys. It's all about technique and practice to build up the right muscles and flexibility. Or people who think woodworking is pretty easy and then can't put together a right angle to save their life, let alone a tight mortise and tenon. Being good at something requires a lot of learning and conditioning, and muscle memory. That takes a lot of time.

DND_Reborn · Jul 10, 2019

A quick summary of some things I've gleaned from this thread before I head off to a long day at work:

1. I like the idea of each class having one save that is specified and allowing the player to choose the second. Fighters might get Strength by default, but could then pick Wisdom or Charisma or whatever instead of ALWAYS having to take Constitution. I will probably encourage a house rule that a character must choose one of the two listed by class, but can choose the other to be any save.

2. Adding a skill, tool, kit, or language at the ASI levels is good and expands the skills characters can learn in a simple way. The option of a one-time per skill +2 bonus for "semi-expertise" might be included (I have to get it a bit more thought). Instead of a skill, etc., proficiency in a specific weapon or armor can also be learned.

3. Generally adding a level-based variant to all skills or saves probably isn't a great idea after further consideration. There are way to many skills in real life to assume anyone would get better at them all simply because the are moving on through life. Using idea #2 above will allow of someone to improve if they want to.

I'm sure there's more, but that's it for now.

FrogReaver · Jul 10, 2019

So you all don’t believe that the level 20 adventurer tends to be naturally more perceptive than the level 1?

That the level 20 fighter hasn’t gotten a little smarter in his adventures (defining smart as more knowledge)

now theres some skills that that are a bit of a stretch. But It seems very strange to say this is a typical

The Crimson Binome · Jul 10, 2019

jgsugden said:
Optimization is inefficient.

Optimization is the act of making the absolute best out of a particular thing. You're trying to perfect it. However, there is going to be a point where putting effort into improving that particular thing will have a greater incremental cost than incremental benefit.

That's not optimization. That's specialization. You're allowed to account for efficiency when optimizing a system.

jgsugden said:
5E is a very good system. While not perfect, it is at a point where most (if not all) of the effort I see to 'improve', 'fix', 'adjust', etc... it are inefficient uses of time.

I honestly can't tell whether or not you're being serious here. But in any case, no, 5E is not a good system. It has obvious and glaring flaws that are immediately apparent to anyone who looks. Tool proficiency is one. The ambiguity between applicable saving throws is another issue. Modifiers that routinely fall out of the operable range of the d20 are another. The inconsistent mess behind HP and healing is just the nail in the coffin.

No, 5E is not a good system. Not even close. It's borderline playable, with judicious house rules. I can, and have, done better. At this point, it would be hard for anyone to do worse.

jgsugden said:
This is not Basic. This is not AD&D. This is a game that has been honed through trial and error over 5 decades and is very well constructed at this point. Not perfect - but good enough that it is smart to trust the guardians of the game to decide what does, and does not, need to be 'fixed'.

Appeal to authority is only valid if the authority is trustworthy. If I trusted the designers to learn from any of the mistakes of the past, then you might have an argument. As it stands, the "guardians of the game" are not good or trustworthy people.