D&D 5E Proficiency vs Non-Proficiency

[UngeheuerLich]

Every hit is a scratch. Just a slight one. Enough to deliver poison or break concentration.
If you go that route, you are usually safe.

 

[the Jester]

Although both the PHB and the Basic Rules suggest that these details will vary according to the DM's preference, the Monster Manual states clearly that sharks frenzy against any creature that doesn't have full HP.

The distinction between HP and actual wounds has never been clear, in any edition, but the fact that HP damage necessarily draws blood in 5E is irrefutable.

That's a good argument, but hardly "irrefutable".

Bear in mind that damage can be psychic. It's pretty easy to argue that 1 point of psychic damage won't draws blood. In addition, a shark gets advantage on creatures that don't even have blood, so long as they are below maximum hps. A damaged water elemental? Advantage. A damaged stone golem? Advantage. A damaged skeleton? Advantage.

Sorry, I don't fully buy your argument. Given that there is no hard and fast rule for when you actually leak blood after being damaged, and given the above, I have to conclude that the shark's blood frenzy ability is designed to make it easy to play, not to model when damage causes a creature to bleed.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That's a good argument, but hardly "irrefutable".

Bear in mind that damage can be psychic. It's pretty easy to argue that 1 point of psychic damage won't draws blood. In addition, a shark gets advantage on creatures that don't even have blood, so long as they are below maximum hps. A damaged water elemental? Advantage. A damaged stone golem? Advantage. A damaged skeleton? Advantage.

Sorry, I don't fully buy your argument. Given that there is no hard and fast rule for when you actually leak blood after being damaged, and given the above, I have to conclude that the shark's blood frenzy ability is designed to make it easy to play, not to model when damage causes a creature to bleed.

It's designed to be easy to play, by making certain basic assumptions, such as that the shark is fighting one or more of the PC races. In most cases, the shark isn't fighting a golem or skeleton, and it won't be fighting someone who has only suffered psychic damage. That's fair. If the basic assumptions don't hold, for whatever reason, then the DM is there to adjudicate that.

That being said, the general underlying principle of the mechanic is that - barring exceptional circumstances - any amount of damage to a PC will necessarily draw blood. A duel with swords between a fighter and a wizard does not include any mitigating circumstances. If a shark shows up to the duel, it will definitely have advantage against the first one to suffer HP damage. That's how those rules intend for you to describe the effects of a successful hit, regardless of how many HP the fighter has remaining.

And even though those rules flatly contradict the previous suggestion of how to describe damage, in the PHB. Because the game is poorly written.

 

[the Jester]

That being said, the general underlying principle of the mechanic is that - barring exceptional circumstances - any amount of damage to a PC will necessarily draw blood.

Do you have a citation for that? Because right now, without such a cite, I don't think that what you say here is correct. It's your reading of the way damage works, but not everyone is going to share your reading.

I'm not saying you're wrong to see it that way, but you're kind of out of line insisting that it's the One True Way that damage works. It simply isn't and never has been.

 

[DND_Reborn]

For my understanding HP has always been represented by three categories: meat body, skill, and luck/blessing/magic/etc.

Getting hit in 5E (or any edition IMO) could result in a loss of one or more from categories. Once damage is done, the DM narrates it as the story dictates. If you have 50 hp, and get hit for only 1 or 2, then maybe it is a scratch, but maybe it was also you moving to avoid the edge, and only the "flat of the blade" hit you. Sure, it stung, but didn't necessarily draw blood...

That's one reason why I prefer difference systems, but if you can accept the idea behind hp it is okay as a game mechanic I suppose.

 

[MaximusArael020]

My first intuition says "zero". If I'm unskilled/untrained at basketball, and I go up against someone who is ultimately skilled (Michael Jordan, Timmy Duncan, etc), I will win zero times in a one-on-one hoops contest. Zero out of 20. If I play 1,000,000 games, and in one of those games Timmy gets violently ill and cannot play because he's literally incapacitated, then sure I could maybe win one. So basically zero.

Lets talk other skills. Out of 20 times, how many could I, an unskilled/untrained person smith a better sword than a trained blacksmith? Again, zero. Zero out of 20.

I think whatever the "skill" is, if I am untrained/unskilled and am going up against an ultimately-skilled person, I will always lose. Even Usain Bolt, if he had never trained for sprinting, would probably lose against a trained sprinter ultimate sprinter a good amount of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Every hit is a scratch. Just a slight one. Enough to deliver poison or break concentration.
If you go that route, you are usually safe.

You can break concentration without drawing blood, and you only need a scratch IF you have a creature with poison. The need for damage for poison and similar attacks is why the rule says "typically shows no signs of damage." Otherwise, 5e very explicitly does no physical damage at all until you drop below 50% hit points.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You can break concentration without drawing blood, and you only need a scratch IF you have a creature with poison. The need for damage for poison and similar attacks is why the rule says "typically shows no signs of damage." Otherwise, 5e very explicitly does no physical damage at all until you drop below 50% hit points.

Every hit might be a scratch.

 

[Maxperson]

Every hit might be a scratch.

A scratch is a sign of injury, so according to RAW most hits do not result in scratches. They use "typically," because sometimes you need injury at over 50% hit points. You can always house rule every hit to show signs of injury, but as 5e is written that does not occur.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Now that I have over 50 votes (53), let's see what is happening:

Vote option 1 (23 votes): 0-1 times equates to a +15 modifier over +0
Vote option 2 (10 votes): 2-3 times equates to a +10 modifier over +0
Vote option 3 (12 votes): 4-5 times equates to a +6 modifier over +0
Vote option 4 (5 votes): 6-7 times equates to a +3 modifier over +0
Vote option 5 (3 votes): 8-9 times equates to a +1 modifier over +0

The expected value (using the mean for each voting block) is 2.8 times (within option 2) so a +10 modifier (with rounding, this is discrete after all).

Now, originally I was only comparing "proficiency bonus" against no proficiency bonus. As many people have pointed out, my word choice might have mislead some of the voting choices with the poll question, but hopefully the explanation I gave in the OP went into enough detail to remedy this. With the added caveat about not considering expertise, which would otherwise double the proficiency bonus.

Either way, if you understood my intent in only considering proficiency bonus (all other things being 0 or equal between the two contestants), then the +6 currently used in 5E doesn't really offer enough of a difference between maximum proficiency bonus and no proficiency. A difference that more represents the expected results of such a contest would be +10.

I know bounded accuracy was meant to stop the treadmill effect, and it has nicely, but personally I always felt there was not enough of a difference between the two ends of the spectrum. I don't want a full 20-points like in prior editions, but 6 seems too little. We've been playing with a house-rule that maxes out proficiency bonus at +8 for a while now, and considered raising it again.

All that being said, if you think that ability modifier must be included due to the intent of the designers and voted with that in mind, then the current +11 max (+5 for ability, +6 for proficiency) is close to the poll results and works pretty well.

Thanks to all for voting and adding your comments. It has given me much to think on.