D&D 5E Skills that you u are not proficient with

[EzekielRaiden]

Yesterday was my 1st day of D&D

As a bard I was feeling good that with Jack of All Trades, I can roll almost on every ability checks. I thought that was one of the delights of Bard, as a Draconic Sorcerer can get Wings.But I was soooo wrong ! Everyone was allowed to roll on everything, on skills that they dont had proficiency with .... It was really lame ! They just did not have proficiency bonus on those skills.

It is this way in D&D with skills u dont know? Because in Rolemaster, you had huge minus over things u were not trained with.
I cant remember anything about this on PHB.

In 5e, building on groundwork from 3e and 4e D&D, the majority of skills can be rolled regardless of whether you're Proficient in them, though certain uses of them may not be possible unless you're trained. For example, I don't believe that a Wisdom(Medicine) roll to stabilize a dying ally requires Proficiency, but I do believe that certain forms of diagnosis (determining which specific poison or disease a person suffers from) require Proficiency.

Think of it this way: In some games, doing something you aren't good at (like trying to fight with two weapons when you don't have the feat/perk for it) gives you a substantial minus, and you invest resources to remove that minus--negative numbers are considered the "starting point," and one must build up to reach 0 or beyond. In other games--like 4e and 5e--you start with zero benefits to a particular action, and must build up to a high positive value. In the end, the two are essentially equivalent mathematically, but the "start at negative" requires some amount of subtraction, which is a slower mental operation than addition, so there is an efficiency difference that makes "start from 0 and add" slightly superior.

I am kinda disappointed .....Does not matter what you have decided to pick. I spent my last few days to customize my character too like a real Noble Bard, seems it was not necessary .....And also Jack of All Trades is kinda meaningless :S

Such customization technically isn't necessary, no. But I think it makes for a more fulfilling character. 5e has moved away from having deep, intricate customization systems that squeeze out a tiny bonus here or there--it's seen as excessive complexity for minimal gain (or even loss, in some players' eyes).

As for Jack of All Trades, I think you need to re-evaluate its significance. Firstly: it was never meant to be a keystone Bard ability. It's a small feature that provides broad competence, and it's essentially unique to the Bard (Champion Fighters get something similar, but it applies only to physical scores, and thus a much, much narrower range of abilities). Secondly: JoAT applies to all "ability checks," including things that normally cannot get Proficiency....such as Initiative. You now have a bonus to initiative that no other character (except a Champion Fighter) can acquire. Third: JoAT means you are never "bad" at any skill--since the maximum (innate) penalty is -1 from having a "dump" stat (8), and the minimum bonus from JoAT is +1, you are always at least mediocre at all skills. With even a modest ability score (say, 14 for a +2 modifier) and reaching level 9, you have a total minimum skill bonus of +4, so you're only 1 point shy of what a total master could do at level 1 (+3 from ability score, +2 from Proficiency), and getting nearly half the bonus that a hyper-focused character would (+4 Proficiency, +5 from maxed stat, = +9 total). It's not huge, to be sure, but with decent-all-around stats and JoAT, there's very little you cannot attempt to do.

Add in Expertise (double Proficiency for 2 skills, later 4) and more Proficient skills than most characters, and you're talking about a truly excellent class for skill rolls--as far as 5e is concerned. Remember that the absolute best bonus a character can have on their own is +11 (6 from maximum Proficiency, 5 from maxed stat), so even if you only have a +5 or +6, you're half as good as the very best a person can be. That's nothing to sneeze at.

I am so pissed of that I got Bard, now its the most weakest class when it comes to feats that every classes gain at their levels.

That's...not true, though perhaps there is a terminology issue here. All classes get Ability Score Increases (usually abbreviated as "ASIs") at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19--when you get them, you can increase one ability score by two points, or two ability scores by one point. Two classes get more (Rogue gets one more at level 10; Fighters get two more, one at 6th and one at 14th level). Instead of increasing stats, though, you can choose to take a feat (which might still include +1 to one stat as part of its benefits).

Further, there are several things Bards have that either aren't universal, or are truly unique to them. Bards get 1 more skill proficiency than all other characters, and have no limits on what those three skills can be. (Most classes only get to choose 2 proficiencies from a narrow list, plus an extra 2 from background, for a total of 4.) As stated above, if you have a race--like Elf--that grants Proficiency in a skill, this can get you a total of 6 skills, 50% more than most characters. Not too shabby! Jack of All Trades, as I said earlier, then makes sure that there's really nothing you're bad at--in your weakest areas, you're just as good as the average person, and your "merely okay" is better than some "trained experts" (if you have a +2 stat and JoaT, your total is +3 at level 1; if another person is Proficient but with a -1 or +0 from stats, they're only at +2--and won't get better than you for something like 9 levels!)
Bards are also full casters in 5e, with a very diverse and flexible spell list. Just about the only thing you don't have is huge blasty/wide-area spells, but everything else, from buffs to debuffs to tricky tricks to basic (single-target) damage, you've got covered. And then on top of that, at high levels (or even middle levels, if you're a Lore Bard), you can steal spells from any other class. You have a smaller pool of options, since you can't learn spells the way a Wizard can and don't have access to the whole list like a Cleric would, but Spell Secrets lets you cherry-pick the best spells from ANY class--a huge, huge benefit if you use it wisely!

So, while this is still probably a step down in power in your eyes--going from "I'm the only one capable of doing anything!" to "I'm the only one fair to competent at everything!"--I don't think it's fair to sell the 5e Bard so short. It's a flexible and variable class, capable of being tailored to many different interests, particularly with the contrast between the Colleges of Lore and Valor.

 

[Inoeex]

5e is a game that is designed to encourage people to try to do stuff and reach for the stars. Rolemaster is...not.

Are you actually interested in discussing the Bard and the merits of your abilities? Or maybe how to get what you want out of your class?

Or do you just want a place to complain and have everyone vindicate your idea that you're somehow getting screwed over by playing one of the best classes in the game?

haha no I am here to get confirmation over my nags, I am not nagging in fact

I am here to talk about it, cuz I was thinking maybe our DM is not doing it right. I really had no clue its really like that :S

And it really is not a good idea at lower level, we have a Draw player in disguise, she wanted to deceive my mother the Queen of Moon Elves.
The Drow was not trained with deception, she rolled 9, and DM rolled 9 for the Queen's perception which is level 20.
And the level 1 Drow deceived the level 20 Queen with the same roll : |

 

[Inoeex]

[MENTION=6802927]Inoeex[/MENTION]: Look at it this way: All checks are ability checks. Having proficiency in a skill gives you a bonus on a related ability check. If you're not proficient in, say, Nature, and the DM calls for an Intelligence (Nature) check and you roll, you're not really making a Nature skill check. You're just making an Intelligence ability check because you're not adding your proficiency bonus (or any other bonus you might get if you were proficient in the Nature skill).

So anyone can make an ability check. However, only those proficient in a specific skill can turn that ability check into an actual skill check.

To put it another way: While every skill check is an ability check, not every ability check is a skill check.

I totally understand you and I agree with you, but in our game players where adding half of their levels to the skill check, it was not a pure ability score check, when we got level 2, we could add half of our level to our ability score check. Is this the way it should be when you are not trained?

Cuz I found your saying totally logical.

In 5e, building on groundwork from 3e and 4e D&D, the majority of skills can be rolled regardless of whether you're Proficient in them, though certain uses of them may not be possible unless you're trained. For example, I don't believe that a Wisdom(Medicine) roll to stabilize a dying ally requires Proficiency, but I do believe that certain forms of diagnosis (determining which specific poison or disease a person suffers from) require Proficiency.


That's...not true, though perhaps there is a terminology issue here. All classes get Ability Score Increases (usually abbreviated as "ASIs") at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19--when you get them, you can increase one ability score by two points, or two ability scores by one point. Two classes get more (Rogue gets one more at level 10; Fighters get two more, one at 6th and one at 14th level). Instead of increasing stats, though, you can choose to take a feat (which might still include +1 to one stat as part of its benefits).

I don't think it's fair to sell the 5e Bard so short. It's a flexible and variable class, capable of being tailored to many different interests, particularly with the contrast between the Colleges of Lore and Valor.

Thank you for your time, writing me about Jack of All Trades, yes I think I was furious with the way things was in our game and my mind was shut down :|

About Medicine roll ... YES ! Thats what I am talking about ! Why should a warrior or a sorcerer who does have anything to do with healing has a chance to try it? They must face a penalty even if DM let them to try it out. This way the game will be really fair.

 

[Valmarius]

I totally understand you and I agree with you, but in our game players where adding half of their levels to the skill check, it was not a pure ability score check, when we got level 2, we could add half of our level to our ability score check. Is this the way it should be when you are not trained?

This doesn't sound like 5e. The only effect your level has on ability checks is to provide you with a Proficiency Bonus and that bonus is only added to checks using skills you're proficient in.

And on the topic of your Drow player deceiving the Queen. It sounds like the deception was pretty far-fetched, in which case the DM is not obliged to make it a skill check. They can simply say it doesn't work. However, if the deception had a chance of success then the dice decide the result and you've got to stick to it.

 

[jadrax]

If your GM has rewritten the rules so that you had half your level to all Ability checks, before you add proficiency bonus, then yes I think Jack-of-all-trades would feel somewhat less impressive.

 

[Inoeex]

If your GM has rewritten the rules so that you had half your level to all Ability checks, before you add proficiency bonus, then yes I think Jack-of-all-trades would feel somewhat less impressive.

Can you pleaaase tell me what is the default rule of Ability Checks? Yes This is how it works in our game :S

Ability Modifier + Half of level + Prof bonus


Edit : Found it, page 174, PHB

Nothing about half of level mentioned : |

 

[jadrax]

Ability Modifier + Prof Bonus

 

[Inoeex]

Ability Modifier + Prof Bonus

But come to think of it ..... Does it really outplay Jack of All Trades ?
I mean is its a big difference that everyone is getting half of their level adding to Ability Checks? Since its applying to all NPCs and PCs, from the matter of its effects .... I think its the same as not applying it, because everyone has it.

I dont know if I could make my point clear ?

 

[jadrax]

But come to think of it ..... Does it really outplay Jack of All Trades ?
I mean is its a big difference that everyone is getting half of their level adding to Ability Checks? Since its applying to all NPCs and PCs, from the matter of its effects .... I think its the same as not applying it, because everyone has it.

I dont know if I could make my point clear ?

As I said, I think it would make it feel somewhat less impressive. I don't think mathematically it makes a huge difference to jack-of-all-trades.

 

[Li Shenron]

Everyone was allowed to roll on everything, on skills that they dont had proficiency with .... It was really lame ! They just did not have proficiency bonus on those skills.

So does it mean that everyone can roll on every skills even if they dont have proficiency with them? With no penalty ?

I do dislike how everyone gets to role on non proficient skills at such a minor penalty as it gives you a much higher chance as a group to nail the check. I would have preferred disadvantage on non proficient skill checks, but then im all so not a fan of the no child left behind system the world is running on.

Nobody is entitled a check until the DM says so. Many DMs will just let you try & roll everything, but no DM has to grant a player the right to make an ability check just because the player is asking. The DM can always decide you just can't succeed at a task, or she can decide you have disadvantage.

The proficiency bonus is too small until high levels, and even with expertise the difference is not large enough at low levels, so if the DM allows everyone to try everything, there is indeed a problem with probabilities: even with low probability per person, if you have 4-5 PCs trying the overall success probability is very high, making the group succeed almost always at tasks which require just 1 success (this is not a problem with tasks that requires group/majority success, such as Stealth). Increasing the DC restores a more reasonable success chance, but doesn't solve the problem that proficient PCs will still be overshadowed by the rest of the group.

IMXP this is a problem for example for Knowledge, trapfinding, lockpicking, tracking, strength checks (e.g. stuck doors, bend bars, lift portcullises)...

Ultimately the reason for the problems lies in the swinginess of the d20 dice coupled with too small proficiency bonus (in fact my guess is that they introduced Expertise during the playtest exactly to mitigate this problem).

If you don't see this problem happen in your game, fine. But if you do see it, then consider trying one or more of the following:

- always let proficient PCs roll first
- if applicable, put a penalty for failure that works so that the DC increases for additional attempts (locks get jammed, traces are disturbed, doors get even more stuck...)
- set a max DC achievable depending on your proficiency grade (non-prof/half-prof/full-prof/expert) or bonus
- use passive checks instead of rolls
- use d10 instead of d20 (adjust DC accordingly)
- flat out disallow untrained check

However, you must do these carefully because not all skills are born equal... There is no reason to restrict Perception checks to avoid being surprised for example.