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

Garthanos · Jul 12, 2019

Fenris-77 said:
Even the Sword of Truth isn't really Grimdark, it's more Fifty Shades of Tolkein.

Well you pegged that one.

Fenris-77 · Jul 12, 2019

Garthanos said:
Well you pegged that one.

Thanks! I made that up on the fly just now and was particularly pleased with it.

ClaytonCross · Jul 12, 2019

FrogReaver said:
I know the point. Do you get why raising that point is rude and uncalled for? In case you missed it. It's because I and many others find fixing things fun.

I get that he is saying "its fun and there is no issue on raising an idea of an alternate system" but I also don't think its rude to bring up a point of consideration and question the need for the topic.

ClaytonCross said:
I am not saying we can't have different opinions on system mechanics. I mean we are hear to post about it so that seems kind of the point.

I also don't think is rude to bring up a consideration

that problems at tables are not always the game but often how the table approaches the game. Its a valid point of consideration but only you can know if its is true for you. To make it rude, you have to add connotation which text does not provide. You could read his example of age and everyone else having fun, as simple points of reference trying to provide points of support for his argument OR you infer emotional subtext of belittling arrogance. I read it both ways and it works just as well both ways. So not knowing his intended connotation you added your own and made him a jerk. You MIGHT be right or you MIGHT not. I don't know. I am taking it as a point in discussion that, "People play as much a factor as rules. Have you considered adapting play style with the same rules might work just as well?" Which is on topic and a far point for a conversation.

FrogReaver said:
Which get's back to the whole, why do you think I don't enjoy 5e. I can think something is the best thing since sliced bread and still want to make it better. That's me. That's not everyone. But to come to a thread I started and then tell me don't bother. Stop doing what you enjoy because no one cares. That's crapping on my thread. That's being rude.

I never said you do or don't. Your enjoyment is not relative to the point as far as I can see. I am looking a subject making a point and an answer making a counter point in order to look at the same topic from a different angle. He no where in the post says don't change the rule and nether do I. Play as you want. You introduce a point for consideration and a point of consideration was made, that is the nature of discussion. Your taking it personal but I know that is not my intent, and Its possibly not his. The emotional connotation you added to me is incorrect to my intent.

Question: Should we put proficiency bonus on all things as we level?

Clarification Query: Is this due to problem? Is the Problem caused by the rules as it is or perhaps style of play or attitude of players at the table?

Reason a Clarification is requested: Many Players have been playing this game with a verity of styles and many years of experience and don't see the reason for the consideration of the change. If you can clarify what problem the current system has and confirm that its not a play style or player created issue then we would be better suited to answer your question or comment on the change in question. If in that chain of thought leads to a "this is only an issue with a specific player and/or play style combination" statement then the answer may be "yes at that table for that type game, but no the rest of the time" … of course that could be wrong but its hard to say without clarification.

FrogReaver said:
Ironic that you and him are trying to fix me

Actually in a long winded way I was saying your not wrong but that he has a valid point on the subject. I would never fix you if I did who would I debate with? lol, jk. I have no malicious intent, I am not telling you "your fun is wrong", and I am not telling you how you feel. I am only pointing out, bad writing or not, that @jgsugden has a valid point. As I said, I could see a base scaling proficiency with a deficit and a bonus but I actually prefer non-proficient, proficient, and expert. They both have a scale of 3 tiers I just prefer a style of play that leans toward proficiencies then expertise because I find the more skills you have the more toe stepping I get at my tables... but that's a personal table preference not a statement for or against your way of running it. You even agreed with where weapons and tools are concerned so that moves us even closer.

FrogReaver · Jul 12, 2019

[MENTION=6880599]ClaytonCross[/MENTION]

This is what was 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. If that time were instead spent playing the game, planning sessions, or doing something unrelated to D&D, it would likely be time that generated more benefit than arguing over whether a wizard should inherently be better at Medicine after years of adventuring.

It's flat out rude to tell someone they are wasting their time doing something they enjoy. How you are defending that, I don't think I'll ever understand.

ClaytonCross · Jul 12, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Maybe it would help to abstract this out a little more. How much worse should a bad character be at something than a good character? Should the bonus difference be a 5 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 100?

That's not wrong. Its just the same as taking a -5, 0, or +5, instead of a 0, +5, or +10. I simply prefer a default of 0 being no skill and the base at which they start. Then your good or your and expert. I get the idea of being truly bad at something but at the same time a bad swordsman might still be better than a untrained person who is not a swords man. In this case -- t0 me -- a bad swordsman is still a trained proficient swordsman who simply has bad habits but would still beat and untrained swordsman picking up sword for the first time... (unless your name is Rai apparently). So to answer you question of scale, Untrained 0 , in training is >0 (proficient) and a good character would be double that (expertise) that's not stating the game it just a statement of thought which closely aligns with the game. If the scale was 0, 1, 2 or 0, 2, 4or 0, 6, 10 or even 0, 50, 100 I would be fine with it. The interesting thing is that for the most part parties compare their skill and growth in a skill vs other part member. As a result the comparison of untrained, bad, and good is not normally relevant out side player characters. Most NPCs for example don't actually have any skills with the exception of perception and stealth. If the GM wants an enemy to have a skill, they simply do and at the level the GM wants them to have it. Players have to grow it. So an NPC is weaker or stronger in a skill arbitrarily for story reason. If you want to -5, 0, +5 instead of 0, +5, +10 I don't see that it really matters as long as all players scale within the same frame and the scales the game to the strongest player in a skills so that players stat is capable of mattering.

FrogReaver · Jul 12, 2019

ClaytonCross said:
That's not wrong. Its just the same as taking a -5, 0, or +5, instead of a 0, +5, or +10. I simply prefer a default of 0 being no skill and the base at which they start. Then your good or your and expert. I get the idea of being truly bad at something but at the same time a bad swordsman might still be better than a untrained person who is not a swords man. In this case -- t0 me -- a bad swordsman is still a trained proficient swordsman who simply has bad habits but would still beat and untrained swordsman picking up sword for the first time... (unless your name is Rai apparently). So to answer you question of scale, Untrained 0 , in training is >0 (proficient) and a good character would be double that (expertise) that's not stating the game it just a statement of thought which closely aligns with the game. If the scale was 0, 1, 2 or 0, 2, 4or 0, 6, 10 or even 0, 50, 100 I would be fine with it. The interesting thing is that for the most part parties compare their skill and growth in a skill vs other part member. As a result the comparison of untrained, bad, and good is not normally relevant out side player characters. Most NPCs for example don't actually have any skills with the exception of perception and stealth. If the GM wants an enemy to have a skill, they simply do and at the level the GM wants them to have it. Players have to grow it. So an NPC is weaker or stronger in a skill arbitrarily for story reason. If you want to -5, 0, +5 instead of 0, +5, +10 I don't see that it really matters as long as all players scale within the same frame and the scales the game to the strongest player in a skills so that players stat is capable of mattering.

The 100 was a joke since it is so much higher than a d20.

Assuming your resolution mechanic is a d20 roll, which of those feels right to you? I think 0, 5, 10 fells too high. I'd like 0, 3, 6 I think.

ClaytonCross · Jul 12, 2019

FrogReaver said:
@ClaytonCross

This is what was said....

It's flat out rude to tell someone they are wasting their time doing something they enjoy. How you are defending that, I don't think I'll ever understand.

I never said that and It was not in the post to which you replied that I was replying on. So if some where later in that thread on some post @jgsugden said that, then he did cross that line into jerk. I don't see that post and I am posting in the context of the original post. It would not surprise me at all for the first comment to be a legitimate suggestion but for later posts arguing the point broke down into... well crap like that. So while I see the original post. I do agree this...

"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. If that time were instead spent playing the game, planning sessions, or doing something unrelated to D&D, it would likely be time that generated more benefit than arguing over whether a wizard should inherently be better at Medicine after years of adventuring."

….is rude and not constructive conversation. So lets be clear... I am not and never did defend this comment. Please don't say I did. You replied to a post and I replied to that reply on that post. That is not universal agreement on everything they say any where for life. I mean even you and agree sometimes, I would hate for you to be tied to all my opinions for life. lol ...such an advent would signal the END OF THE WORLD.
8 )-

ClaytonCross · Jul 12, 2019

FrogReaver said:
The 100 was a joke since it is so much higher than a d20.

Assuming your resolution mechanic is a d20 roll, which of those feels right to you? I think 0, 5, 10 fells too high. I'd like 0, 3, 6 I think.

I am not sure it matters as long as the Bonus and DC adjust to the scale. That's all I am saying. Even if we use your joke 100 skill +1d20, but then we make the DC 115 its really no different than 10

skill +1d20

with DC 25. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy philosophy behind 5th edition. So what really that means is how much do you want to hand out bonuses? if you do it at on the 0-10 scale you are increasing the bonus and DC every 2 levels. If you increase is 0-6 you increase the skill and DC about every 3 levels. The only impact is to unskilled checks on a DC change of +6 vs +10 but I am saying I mostly don't care about that because generally when you need a door unlocked, the guy who picks locks does the test, so the other players skills only mattered as far as they are lower than his so they are not doing it. If he was gone and the second best was going to try it I can have effect but at the same time they might not have anyone else who picks locks and instead they get the strongest player to break down the door.

To me, if the party doesn't have a top tear player able to try and open the door with 15% or 50% less chance than the expert and more than the untrained. It doesn't effect the over play of the game because the same players will still try and do the same actions. Then scale becomes a personal preference. Larger scale is like playing on hard mode and smaller scale on easy. Nether are wrong or will be the sole factor of a good time or bad. This means you can do ether as you like with little or no consequence but the work your willing to put in to find and make the adjustments. : )

FrogReaver · Jul 12, 2019

ClaytonCross said:
I am not sure it matters as long as the Bonus and DC adjust to the scale. That's all I am saying. Even if we use your joke 100 skill +1d20, but then we make the DC 115 its really no different than 10
skill +1d20
with DC 25. That's the whole point of bounded accuracy philosophy behind 5th edition. So what really that means is how much do you want to hand out bonuses? if you do it at on the 0-10 scale you are increasing the bonus and DC every 2 levels. If you increase is 0-6 you increase the skill and DC about every 3 levels. The only impact is to unskilled checks on a DC change of +6 vs +10 but I am saying I mostly don't care about that because generally when you need a door unlocked, the guy who picks locks does the test, so the other players skills only mattered as far as they are lower than his so they are not doing it. If he was gone and the second best was going to try it I can have effect but at the same time they might not have anyone else who picks locks and instead they get the strongest player to break down the door.

To me, if the party doesn't have a top tear player able to try and open the door with 15% or 50% less chance than the expert and more than the untrained. It doesn't effect the over play of the game because the same players will still try and do the same actions. Then scale becomes a personal preference. Larger scale is like playing on hard mode and smaller scale on easy. Nether are wrong or will be the sole factor of a good time or bad. This means you can do ether as you like with little or no consequence but the work your willing to put in to find and make the adjustments. : )

The 100 was stated to be the difference in high and low stat. so if the DC is 115 then the low stat character never succeeds or the high stat character always does.