D&D 5E [House Rule] Dropping proficiency bonus

[Horwath]

As a general observation, I've noticed that the players that tend to struggle with rules complexity really tend to have problems with adding multiple bonuses to the d20 roll. Even when the numbers are written on their character sheet.

this is problem with either laziness or poor example of a character sheet.

people should not do:
stealth: +4(dex) +3(prof) +3(exp)

just write Stealth: +10

done

So I'm curious if putting the complexity on the die choice, rather than the math, will help engagement and turn speed.

math should not be the problem unless you are teaching D&D to toddlers.
dnd math with d20 rolls is literally 1st grade elementary school for 6 year olds.

Less analytically, d12s and d30s are cool and I like using them more.

d12 yes,
d30 is too unpredictable, huge result swings.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

As a general observation, I've noticed that the players that tend to struggle with rules complexity really tend to have problems with adding multiple bonuses to the d20 roll. Even when the numbers are written on their character sheet.

So I'm curious if putting the complexity on the die choice, rather than the math, will help engagement and turn speed.

Less analytically, d12s and d30s are cool and I like using them more.

That makes a lot of sense, I’ve observed such struggles among certain players as well.

This is one thing I think the proficiency die did better than the proficiency bonus. Even though it’s just as much arithmetic, for some reason adding together the results of two die rolls and one flat bonus is more intuitive to some players than adding two different flat bonuses to the results of one die roll.

Why are you adding multiple bonuses? Why is the total of ability mod + proficiency bonus (doubled if expertise) not already written as one number next to the skill? It is die + one number, the exact same situation than with the proposed "fix."

people should not do:
stealth: +4(dex) +3(prof) +3(exp)

just write Stealth: +10

Yes, exactly this.

 

[Njall]

Well, when 5e was in the playtest phase, that's how things used to work. The level scaling was supposed to come mainly from the damage increase and the amount of HP each character had.
IIRC, that came to an end when, during a convention, group of level...15? 17 ? Lost to a bunch of Ghouls, which were supposed to be a speed bump for a group of that level, after a long and pretty tedious stun(or paralysis?)-lock.
And so proficiency was added to all saving throws and made its grand entrance in 5e (and yeah, it's been eleven years and I'm still quite salty that a couple of months later they seemed to forget the problem and started adding proficiency to skills, attack rolls and only a couple of saving throws instead, essentially reintroducing the math problem they'd fixed about a couple of months before. Oh well.).

So yeah, I'd be mindful of Saving Throws, rather than accuracy.

 

[TwoSix]

this is problem with either laziness or poor example of a character sheet.

people should not do:
stealth: +4(dex) +3(prof) +3(exp)

just write Stealth: +10

done

Some of that is on me; I call for skill + off stat checks (like Intimidation + Str, or Athletics + Con) all the time. I also use tool checks pretty often, which don't have straight mappings. (Tools are something else I'm changing.)

It's not the arithmetic, it's the process by which people determine what they need to roll and add.

d12 yes,
d30 is too unpredictable, huge result swings.

This is for my classless game where most of the character's powers are gained via ad-hoc negotiation. "Unpredictable" is a virtue here.

 

[el-remmen]

math should not be the problem unless you are teaching D&D to toddlers.

I get frustrated sometimes that other folks cannot quickly add up small numbers in their head like I can, but the reality is all kinds of people (most of whom are adults) do have trouble with that or have trouble doing it in the moment under pressure when everyone is waiting on them to be able to move on.

I think it makes more sense to accept that reality and work around or with it, then to just dismiss is as "toddler-like" as if that would solve the problem and not just serve to further alienate and belittle those folks.

Also, dyscalculia is a thing.

 

[TwoSix]

So yeah, I'd be mindful of Saving Throws, rather than accuracy.

Yea, I'm thinking of starting them with 4 saves proficient, rather than 2. I'm also generous with save-boosting items, in general.

 

[TwoSix]

I get frustrated sometimes that other folks cannot quickly add up small numbers in their head like I can, but the reality is all kinds of people (most of whom are adults) do have trouble with that or have trouble doing it in the moment under pressure when everyone is waiting on them to be able to move on.

I think it makes more sense to accept that reality and work around or with it, then to just dismiss is as "toddler-like" as if that would solve the problem and not just serve to further alienate and belittle those folks.

Also, dyscalculia is a thing.

One of my players only has 3/4 of his brain (a portion was removed due to complex seizures.) I try to give him a pass when he gets foggy around some of the processes of play.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why are you adding multiple bonuses? Why is the total of ability mod + proficiency bonus (doubled if expertise) not already written as one number next to the skill? It is die + one number, the exact same situation than with the proposed "fix."



Yes, exactly this.

That works fine, if you never use skills with different abilities. However, I like to use skills with different abilities. I ask for ability checks rather than skill checks, and players can add their proficiency bonus if they have proficiency in a relevant skill or tool.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I get frustrated sometimes that other folks cannot quickly add up small numbers in their head like I can, but the reality is all kinds of people (most of whom are adults) do have trouble with that or have trouble doing it in the moment under pressure when everyone is waiting on them to be able to move on.

I think it makes more sense to accept that reality and work around or with it, then to just dismiss is as "toddler-like" as if that would solve the problem and not just serve to further alienate and belittle those folks.

Also, dyscalculia is a thing.

One thing that helps here a bit, is to announce the ACs/DCs, so then people don't need to calculate the exact result, just whether it was enough, and as results only rarely are very close to the target number, this is quicker to figure out to some.

(Like if the person knows the AC is 15, and they roll 13, they know they hit even though it might take them a sec to calculate that their exact result was 19.)

 

[TwoSix]

One thing that helps here a bit, is to announce the ACs/DCs, so then people don't need to calculate the exact result, just whether it was enough, and as results only rarely are very close to the target number, this is quicker to figure out to some.

(Like if the person knows the AC is 15, and they roll 13, they know they hit even though it might take them a sec to calculate that their exact result was 19.)

Yea, I always announce DC at the time of the roll, for transparency.