D&D 5E Proficiency vs Non-Proficiency

[the Jester]

He asked about winning. So a tie is in favour of the expert.

In a contest in 5e, a tie results in the situation remaining as it is. So I'm not sure where you get this- is there a special clause under Expertise or something?

 

[Umbran]

The question has meaning, it simply isn't as specific as you would like to feel able to vote.

No. You see, you had to give additional context in order to make yourself clear - that means the question, as stated, lacked the semantic content to be answered.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Thanks, that is an excellent point on the 5E design! It wasn't, obviously, my take on the system at large but it does explain more of what the designers were doing. Kuddos!

Literally groaned when I read this.

The exact same point made by Baba had already been made by multiple other posters before (including myself) trying to tell you that ability scores (and other things) are included in a characters "skill" at something.

I give them credit for actually cracking open a PHB and quoting it to get you to see the point. Kudos indeed.

DS

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In a contest in 5e, a tie results in the situation remaining as it is. So I'm not sure where you get this- is there a special clause under Expertise or something?

Easy to explain again. If the question is: what chance does a inproficient person has to WIN against an expert, a toe is not a win... sorry.

 

[Blue]

No. Ultimate skill is exactly what I describe: their proficiency is as good as experience can ever make it. They have no ability modifier (natural) to augment it. What you describe is someone with both high proficiency and high ability score (natural). My poll and question removes all other factors. If it makes you feel better, you can assume both persons have the same ability score appropriate for the skill/attack-type. Thus, non-proficiency versus highest or ultimate proficiency is the question here.

Hmm, is that so.

Wonder what the OED says. Pulling out just the relevant parts (not needed that's a type of American frisbee.)

ultimate

adjective
2 Being the best or most extreme example of its kind.
‘the ultimate accolade’

noun
1 the ultimateThe best achievable or imaginable of its kind.‘the ultimate in decorative luxury’

You've already opening up the skill being increased beyond proficiency by various things such as expertise. Is there something beyond what you described? Yes, higher results boosted by feats and abilities scores. Therefore "just expertise" isn't ultimate.

Sorry, Oxford English Dictionary says you are wrong.

 

[77IM]

Now, remember, we are talking ONLY proficiency or not, there is no ability score bonus, magic, etc. to add. Also, I am not considering Expertise, but that is a very valid issue to consider.

I reject this portion of the question.

The ONLY thing that matters to me is game-play: what effects do these numbers have on how the players act, and on the consequences of their actions. In that context, the difference between "worst PC" and "best PC" is very important and I'd happily discuss that question. But the difference between proficient and non-proficient characters at 20th level is totally irrelevant to me.

 

[Satyrn]

If you don't like the options, please answer and explain your own take. Thanks to all for participating and your feedback.

It's not that I don't like the answers. I reject the foundation of the question.

To me, the PCs are adventurers with a broad range of skills that aren't represented by game mechanics. The proficiency bonus just applies to a subset of this that they are especially focused on.

The mechanics simply shouldn't be used or even considered in answering your question.

How many times should LeBron James win a game of 21 against me? Every time.
How many times should, uh, Kasparov best me at chess? Every time.
How many times should Neil Peart outdrum me? Every time.

If I was to answer your poll, I'd go with the first option, but it should just be "zero" not 0-1.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If you want to figure out how often a max-proficiency warrior should lose to an unskilled one, you have to take into account things like increased damage, multiple attacks, tricks like superiority dice, etc. Simply comparing proficiency bonuses is like trying to assess the relative health of a pair of forests by examining a single tree from each.

Unless it's a duel to first blood, of course, where your capacity to withstand injury is irrelevant (since we know for a fact that 1hp of damage is sufficient to draw blood). In that case, the only relevant factors are initiative and the chance of landing at least one hit on your turn.

And in that case, which is only slightly contrived, a high-Dex wizard has a decent chance of besting a high-Strength fighter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I didn't feel it is a trap. I think the thread is a good one. I just think your premise that +6 is the ultimate skilled is flawed.
If we take an attack roll there is much more to it. Since winning is inherently done with more than a single check, number of attacks is quite a big factor. While a level 5 fighter might only be +1 ahead over a 1st level fighter, he will be able to make 4 attacks instead of 1 in the first round. A level 20 fighter can do 16 attacks while the 1st level one only does 2. So instead of expertise, we have extra attack here to be called ultimately skilled.
In skills we need to take expertise into account even though there is sadly no way for the cleric to get it if he is no human with access to xanathar's guide or taking a level of rogue or 3 of bard... (which seems inappropriate for most clerics).

The way you couched the question, your insistence that ability bonus doesn't apply, and your disregard of expertise is exactly you saying that +6 is the ultimate proficiency. As many others in this thread have argued, that is pretty far from what the 5e rules allow for.

Literally groaned when I read this.

The exact same point made by Baba had already been made by multiple other posters before (including myself) trying to tell you that ability scores (and other things) are included in a characters "skill" at something.

I give them credit for actually cracking open a PHB and quoting it to get you to see the point. Kudos indeed.

DS

Well, without the quote from the book indicating the intent of the designers, I was going from prior editions where ability scores literally were only natural ability for something and didn't represent some level of skill, even without proficiency. To me then the term "proficiency" is poorly chosen because it implies the training I thought 5E wanted it to represent. Without the quote, it could simply be an issue of my interpretation versus yours, both could be valid but would be a matter of preference. So, when people were telling me this before, I was stressing MY interpretation as what I was looking at thinking your points were simply YOUR interpretation, not necessarily that of the designers.

Sorry it made you groan LOL!

Skills and attacks are entirely different beasts in D&D. Checks are explicitly a different type of roll than attack rolls. You're mixing apples with hot dogs here.

If you want to figure out how often a max-proficiency warrior should lose to an unskilled one, you have to take into account things like increased damage, multiple attacks, tricks like superiority dice, etc. Simply comparing proficiency bonuses is like trying to assess the relative health of a pair of forests by examining a single tree from each.

Skill and attacks are not entirely different beasts. The use the same d20 mechanic and are both under the bounded accuracy design.

The "contest" for attacks could be simply shooting a single arrow, etc. While not a "contested roll" the same concept still applies.

Never discount luck or random happenstance.

I mean, what if Peart goes all Spinal Tap?

Precisely, barring something that makes a task impossible, there should always be the 1-in-20 chance (or 1-in-400 with disadvantage) for failure and success IMO.