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

Hussar · Jul 10, 2019

Shhhh. If you added this sort of thing, the edition warriors would have had the WotC dev's heads on pikes. After all, this is precisely what 4e did and apparently everyone hated it because it was a spectacularly bad idea. So bad of an idea that it retroactively kicked puppies before they were even born.

So, good luck with this.

Krachek · Jul 10, 2019

Another question about the realism of proficiency bonus.

if we give level to tennis pro player.
Top1 player is level 20.
Top 2 and 3 are which level?
What level do have an obscure 215 ranked player.
What level is a casual player?
what level is a player at its very first week of play?

the 215 ranked is beaten 6-0 6-1 against top 1.
the casual player merely return a service from the 215 ranked.

akr71 · Jul 10, 2019

Some people, even though they do certain tasks every day or nearly every day, do not improve. They don't want to learn, it doesn't stick - whatever. It doesn't matter. I remind co-workers how to do certain things all the time.

Your fighter who is no better at Perception checks at level 20 as he was at level 1 is the same way. If he wanted to become better, the player would choose a feat that does so, or increase the relevant ability score.

DND_Reborn · Jul 10, 2019

Sword of Spirit said:
Because no one in D&D ever uses a weapon they aren't proficient in, except for an occasional critical moment (only a strike from the Sword of Stuffage can kill the Badgui, and the proficient party members are all out for the count).

This isn't really addressing anything you said, just an observation that players don't actually use weapons they aren't proficient in, so it doesn't tend to matter.

We've never had someone use an item without proficiency for long. In prior editions, if a character got a new powerful weapon or something, they would use a Weapon Proficiency as soon as possible. I suppose in a featless game, without Weapon Master, or dipping into a battler class, there isn't any way for a Wizard to learn the longsword. If you opt for training like in XGtE, then the wizard could train to learn a longsword.

Regardless of how you want to do it, there are always ways for that wizard to learn that longsword.

Leatherhead said:
There is one feat for that. Resilient. Which you can only take once, for one stat.

And people have asked the devs if they can take it twice or more because it's recommended for everyone except Monks.

You know, I find it funny that Elemental Adept is the only feat you can take more than once! I never even realized Resilient was a once-only thing since if any other feat should be allowed more than once, why not that? It also seems ridiculous to state a feat can be taken more than once if the description says it can when Elemental Adept IS the only one. IMO they should have just removed taking a feat more than once entirely or apply it to more than a single feat.

Krachek said:
Another question about the realism of proficiency bonus.

if we give level to tennis pro player.
Top1 player is level 20.
Top 2 and 3 are which level?
What level do have an obscure 215 ranked player.
What level is a casual player?
what level is a player at its very first week of play?

the 215 ranked is beaten 6-0 6-1 against top 1.
the casual player merely return a service from the 215 ranked.

Watching Wimbledon are you?

I would imagine rankings to be similar to the Tiers in D&D. If you are in the top 10 or 20, you are somewhere in Tier 4. If you are in the top 250 or so, you are likely in Tier 3. If you play regularly at all and are fairly decent at least, you are somewhere in Tier 2, and if you play rarely or are just learning you are probably in Tier 1. Now, that isn't to say you couldn't have a 15th-level Tennis Player who plays rarely, those are simply general guidelines. It is feasible for a rank 60 player to beat a rank 1, just as it is possible for a level 14 character to beat a level 20. Is it likely? Certainly NOT! But, it is possible.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

akr71 said:
Some people, even though they do certain tasks every day or nearly every day, do not improve. They don't want to learn, it doesn't stick - whatever. It doesn't matter. I remind co-workers how to do certain things all the time.

Your fighter who is no better at Perception checks at level 20 as he was at level 1 is the same way. If he wanted to become better, the player would choose a feat that does so, or increase the relevant ability score.

I like to think I am not roleplaying your co-workers and saving throws are vital to survival

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

Let's call it Heroic Competence even

jasper · 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. However, this isn't manifested in non-proficient skills or saves. The level 1 fighter with 10 wisdom and no perception proficiency is typically as good as the level 20 fighter at that skill. Why? Does it really make sense for that to be the case? Can the same be said for other skills? What about saving throws? What about non-proficient weapons. 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 totally agree with you. IF you bring back the age chart where your stats physical stats decrease with age bracket and mental stats increase with age bracket. Until Venerable age bracket. Then every thing decreases. This would overrule the various ageless features classes get.

5ekyu · 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. However, this isn't manifested in non-proficient skills or saves. The level 1 fighter with 10 wisdom and no perception proficiency is typically as good as the level 20 fighter at that skill. Why? Does it really make sense for that to be the case? Can the same be said for other skills? What about saving throws? What about non-proficient weapons. 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?

"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."

Everything he does, sure. All the things he could have done or ever do? Nope.

But its just a matter of how you represent the better? A 20th level wizard can pull out his dagger and wipe the floor with a 1st level wizard. He doesnt beed to get more and more stacking bonuses to do it.

We have seen games with stacking higher and higher bonuses. Meh.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

dnd4vr said:
I thought this way once myself. But I would like to point out that people change and unless you practice something, you lose it. I used to skateboard when I was in my teens, but that was 30 years ago. Would I fall if I jumped on one now? Hopefully not, but I wouldn't be any better at it since I haven't been in continual practice and using it since then.

In the previous edition you were allowed you to retrain many character things .... swapping one for another as part of advancement. This allowed you to hone your build as your character went along could swap out one skill focus for another for instance but you still gained in general capacity along side that.

Garthanos · Jul 10, 2019

dnd4vr said:
True, I don't think I've ever seen a system that degenerates skills for non-use.

RuneQuest used tick marks to track what they used for randomized advancement in those abilities and it resulted in silly behavior... personally I assume off camera activities

I think in 4e if you retrain your skill focus and 3 points move from one skill to another... that kind of represents degeneration by way of ahem refocusing

dnd4vr said:
When I've discussed it in the past in a game I made with some other players years ago, the result in playtesting was players using skills for silly reasons simply so it wouldn't degrade. In a like manner, when adventures stop adventuring for an extended period of time, hit points should also degrade IMO, but they don't. Heck, 5E even removed aging modifiers so characters would lose STR, DEX, and CON in exchange for gaining INT and possibly some WIS. I liked those ideas in AD&D.

For better or worse, D&D fails to model a lot of things that happen in real life and the best we can do is adapt with what we have to work with. In your wizard/longsword example, if the wizard has been using it without gaining his proficiency bonus, but is determined to use it any way because the player wills it so, then the DM could gradually award proficiency. Perhaps with each level, the DM decides "Has the wizard used the longsword enough to warrant improvement since last level?" If so, grant a +1 "leaning bonus". Once the learning bonus matches the character level proficiency bonus, the character is proficient.

If you prefer a purely mechanical method, something like "if during this level, the wizard has made X number of attacks with the longsword, he earns a learning bonus for this level." You can decide on the X as you feel suites your table.

For simplicity's sake, the half bonus (maybe starting at level 3?) works well IMO if you absolutely had to include it. With rounding down, the non-proficiency bonus would thus be:

Level 1: +0
2: +0
3: +1
4: +1
5: +1
6: +1
7: +1
8: +1
9: +2
10: +2
11: +2
12: +2
13: +2
14: +2
15: +2
16: +2
17: +3
18: +3
19: +3
20: +3

A simple option could be +1 at level 3, +2 at level 9, +3 at level 15 (just a +1 every six level beginning at 3rd). Another option is make it Tier-based: Tier 1, no bonus, Tier 2 = +1, Tier 3 = +2, Tier 4 = +3. It works out somewhat close to the half-proficiency bonus, but is slightly slower.

I don't know, there are tons of ways to implement it. Pick your poison.

Reminds me of the Inherent bonuses option from 4e. Basically you could only get the bonus if you didnt have a magic item that did better. Of course that would be closer to a full proficiency not half though It was only for attack and armor and such.