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

[Garthanos]

This is how a lot of those conversations go in our game:

DM: There is an eerie glow around the chalice which is decorated with a stag symbol.
Player 1: Hey didn't we hear something about a stag chalice from some wizard dude in that town a while back?
Player 2: Maybe? That was, like, last March in real time. Four character sheets ago for me.
Players shrug to DM
DM sighs
DM: OK just go ahead and make an Arcana check with advantage.

Yeh I like the idea of people noting all the tid-bits and I will include them but honestly that is why anyone can potentially roll for most things. Also tib-bits reveal patterns from which other things can be generalized unless the skill is utterly insane ie you can generally learn from experience.

 

[Fenris-77]

Curious on why?

Most parties end up using horses, mules, or pack or draft animals of some kind all the time and most characters don't take the skill. Medicine is in the same boat IMO, although it gets taken more often that AH.

 

[Mistwell]

Which is why my OP also proposed a method to opt out of the bonus for specific skills.

That is a fiddly-bit too far.

 

[Garthanos]

To kick this off, any opposition to the following being included?

Athletics, stealth, perception, persuasion?

saving throws have been mentioned but I am thinking even just the strong saving throws
Con,Wis,Dex

 

[ClaytonCross]

We are talking about adventurers who are doing adventurer things. If you did golf things for the past 60 years you surely would be better at said golf things.

​

​

Sure but wizards don't generally use longswords so they don't get better at them. You have option for ASI / feat to choose what you have been doing and improving as well as any skill you actually do can count toward training gaining said proficiency bonus... and done.

​

Why do you assume I don't have as much fun as others are having with said system?

We don't assume, we have seen your many posts! lol jk

… in seriousness the point I believe @jgsugden is making is if your happy under the current system then why talk about changing it? Kind of falls under the "if its not broke don't fix it" rule of life. Also, since they are functional to most people, its possible (but not by any means or even normally the case) that some one not enjoying this system is because your not playing in the play style that will bring you the most joy. So trying the multiple other approaches that are out there to see if there is a way of playing you will enjoy more is not bad advice... however, it could also be a negative GM who values "His story" over everything else including player agency and "The Rule of cool". Even the perfect rules do not guarantee perfect play (I am not saying 5th Edition rules are perfect by any means) because each person at the table GM or player brings their own baggage, joy, and misery to share.

I can't say if your having fun or not, if your playing the best style for you, if your playing with people who will make the game fun for you, if you need to be proficient in all things because your GM will not let you do anything without it, and 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.

… My personal opinion is that I don't want to be proficient in all things or for my abilities to scale evenly. Your 1d4, Not Proficient, Proficient, and Expertise method looks to reflect that too. You want negative qualities, qualities you keep up with, and qualities you excel at so we are in agreement there. We differ is that I would prefer to not proficient the majority of things to highlight when I am proficient for greater separation of party roles and do distinguish Player characters more.Where you appear to want to generally proficient in all things with a few deficiencies. This is just a perspective difference. I prefer the greater separation because it reduces toe stepping.

 

[Garthanos]

Classic heroes in fiction/legend and myth are often broadly competent I wonder if there is a trope for it. I think getting virtually no advancement in things obviously central to adventuring makes no sense and further doesnt support the heroes of fiction well.

Oh and remember wizards can change their specialization over night martial types are comparatively on lock down.

 

[FrogReaver]

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Sure but wizards don't generally use longswords so they don't get better at them. You have option for ASI / feat to choose what you have been doing and improving as well as any skill you actually do can count toward training gaining said proficiency bonus... and done.

Agreed. Weapons and tools should be excluded from such a system.

We don't assume, we have seen your many posts! lol jk ​

lol

… in seriousness the point I believe @jgsugden is making is if your happy under the current system then why talk about changing it? Kind of falls under the "if its not broke don't fix it" rule of life.

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.

Also, since they are functional to most people, its possible (but not by any means or even normally the case) that some one not enjoying this system is because your not playing in the play style that will bring you the most joy.

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.

So trying the multiple other approaches that are out there to see if there is a way of playing you will enjoy more is not bad advice... however, it could also be a negative GM who values "His story" over everything else including player agency and "The Rule of cool". Even the perfect rules do not guarantee perfect play (I am not saying 5th Edition rules are perfect by any means) because each person at the table GM or player brings their own baggage, joy, and misery to share.

Ironic that you and him are trying to fix me ​

 

[FrogReaver]

Classic heroes in fiction/legend and myth are often broadly competent I wonder if there is a trope for it. I think getting virtually no advancement in things obviously central to adventuring makes no sense and further doesnt support the heroes of fiction well.

Oh and remember wizards can change their specialization over night martial types are comparatively on lock down.

Honestly, i'd like both styles represented. Surely a modular design approach where you could use the heroic style or the gritty style would work well?

 

[FrogReaver]

… My personal opinion is that I don't want to be proficient in all things or for my abilities to scale evenly. Your 1d4, Not Proficient, Proficient, and Expertise method looks to reflect that too. You want negative qualities, qualities you keep up with, and qualities you excel at so we are in agreement there. We differ is that I would prefer to not proficient the majority of things to highlight when I am proficient for greater separation of party roles and do distinguish Player characters more.Where you appear to want to generally proficient in all things with a few deficiencies. This is just a perspective difference. I prefer the greater separation because it reduces toe stepping.

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?

 

[Garthanos]

Honestly, i'd like both styles represented. Surely a modular design approach where you could use the heroic style or the gritty style would work well?

That would be reasonable except its a huge module. Show me the tactical AND heroic module for 5e.

The latest edition is not feeling particularly heroic. I have mentioned in other threads that in the previous edition someone skilled can advance to a degree that the impossible is doable and with the right choices reliably.(its supported both by skill powers and by core numbers)