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

doctorbadwolf said:

If you spent 60 years doing golf things with enough regularity and active interest to improve at it noticeably, you'd be a golfer, not just a guy who occasionally has to try and hit a golf ball in the course of doing other things you actually care about.

In other words, you'd have proficiency.

Click to expand...

Tony Vargas said:

I thought it was 25, but it's been a long time & a game I never got to play as much as I might've liked.

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

No. No matter what I've accomplished in my life or places I've visited, nothing has helped me get better at X if I wasn't doing X. I'm most certainly wiser than I was 20 years ago, but that doesn't mean I learned extra skills by osmosis. And since PCs get ASIs as they level up, they do get better than level 1 PCs in general. Whatever the player decides to put those ASIs into.

Click to expand...

Sacrosanct said:

Doesn't matter. In a life or death situation I wouldn't suddenly learn how to play. Don't be silly. (also, that's shifting the goalposts from what the OP is describing. They didn't limit a prof bonus only in life and death situations, but all situations based solely on level)

Click to expand...

Kobold Stew said:

If the character has used none of his or her ASIs in that time to improve the relevant abilities, why would they be doing better at something they had no particular aptitude for in the first place?

Click to expand...

Slit518 said:

Hi, let us say I am a master carpenter, and a master mason.

Now, I have spent many, many years traveling the globe, learning techniques, and honing my craft.

Surely, just because I can whip up a chair in an hour, or seal coat a basement in an afternoon doesn't mean I should also be better at the flute too! Whether I played it from before I became a carpenter/mason or after.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

Why wouldn't they?

Click to expand...

Kobold Stew said:

Well, let's start with the reasons in the message you quote:
1. They have no particular expertise (not proficient)
2. They have not improved the abilities they don't have (no "skilled" feat, or multiclassing)
3. They have not invested in improving the core abilities (ASIs are another way to raise performance on an untrained skill).

The game provides ways to improve your rolls to skills, and proficiencies chosen are a player choice. The reason they don't improve can be explained both in real-world terms and in game-mecanical terms.

That's why they wouldn't. Now tell me why they would.

Click to expand...

Cap'n Kobold said:

If a fighter spends a lot of their time making perception checks, actively looking out for things, fighting off mind-affecting spells and learning what sort of things work and what doesn't, its up to the player to justify why their perceptiveness, willpower and common sense haven't improved.

Likewise if a rogue spends a lot of time climbing walls, running around, and yomping a pack full of rations, camping equipment, weapons and loot up hill and down dale, it is up to the player to explain why they still still have their Str-8 couch-potato physique.

If a wizard has spent a lot of their time watching the fighter kill orcs with a sword, and being attacked by orcs with swords, then they probably still don't understand the nuances of using a sword without training and practice, but they are probably much better at not getting killed by swords than they were when they started out.

Click to expand...