D&D 5E Ability Scores, Proficiencies, etc.

[DND_Reborn]

This has probably been brought up before, but in case it hasn't I wanted to share it with others (or if they missed it, as I might have).

In 5E, ability scores are thought to represent some training or skill, as well as natural talent, in the skills you can take proficiency in. After all, if you have a STR 16, you get to add +3 to any Stregth check, including attempts at Athletics, for example. You don't have to have proficiency, as it instead applies a bonus to the ability score to represent additional training, etc.

Now, this used to bother me. Being accustomed to earlier editions, I reconciled ability score bonuses as natural talent. You were better at Athletics, for example, because you were stronger (faster, etc.).

At this point, I've realized 5E does it the other way around. You are stronger (faster, etc.) because you have done things like Athletics and other activities that made you strong. You are Intelligent because you have exercised your mind in pursuing things such as Arcana or History or any other thing you can think of.

Now, some part of your ability scores are still natural talent, of course, since people tend to gravitate towards whatever natural inclinations they have. But it is interesting to me that this way of doing things is actually more representative of reality and how things work IRL.

Although it is only a matter of semantics, but with this way of thinking I do wish they had used a term such as "skilled" or "trained" instead of just "proficient" for skills you take proficiency in since this represents additional practice, etc.

Anyway, just something to share. Thanks for reading.

 

[Hriston]

I’m generally in agreement with what you’ve said here except I think it’s true for skill proficiency as well. That is, proficiency in a skill can represent natural ability just as easily as it can represent training. Skills, after all, are just particular aspects of abilities. The division between nature and nurture is left undefined by the system and up to the particular story of each character.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

The way I look at it is that the ability score represents natural, untrained talent and the skill proficiency represents some formal training, which includes instruction in terminology.

For example, at level 1, a DEX 16 character and a DEX 12 character with Tools (Carpentry) boith have the same bonus to mnaking a chair, that is +3. The character with proficiency can tell you that what they just used was a dovetail joint and why its better than other joints. The untrained character can only say, "well, its a chair, I made it, it doesn't wobble."

 

[Umbran]

At this point, I've realized 5E does it the other way around. You are stronger (faster, etc.) because you have done things like Athletics and other activities that made you strong. You are Intelligent because you have exercised your mind in pursuing things such as Arcana or History or any other thing you can think of.

I think the game has effectively leaned this way... since the time we started arranging stats rather than rolling them in order. That ancient way kind of spoke to the stats as being just the way the person is, and they have to choose their profession to fit. Choosing tat arrangement (either standard array or point buy) can speak rather well to "this is what the character wanted to be, and worked to become".

 

[Blue]

To me, ability scores represent natural talent while proficiency represent training and/or knowledge. Which jives nicely with the names.

To bring this to real life, I know some smart but under-educated people. Grew up poor, academics was not important, and got a job as soon as they were able to help support their family - no college or other "higher learning". They are still smart. You can explain concepts and they get it and are asking insightful questions. But they don't have a depth of knowledge on History, for example of an in-game skill relevant now.

My wife used to do belly dancing, a performance skill she put a lot of work into. Weekly But she's spent no effort on becoming skilled in, say, intimidation, performing with a musical instrument, or deception - and her natural talent (ability scores) along those lines does not help her fake them, just not get a penalty.

 

[BookBarbarian]

If I want to become a faster sprinter I can work on improving my sprinting techniques (Proficiency in Athletics), work on strengthening my leg muscles (increasing Strength score), or both. Either would make me better, but if I wanted to be the best in the world I would do both.

 

[Ovinomancer]

5e changed the paradigm. You don't make skill checks, you make ability checks to which proficency may apply. So, ability does measure your ability in broad categories. Dexterity isn't a physical measure (although it could be) but a measure of this character's ability at dexterous challenges. If the character is proficient in a proficency that applies, then they may af their proficency bonus.

So, ability scores measure ability. Proficiencies are narrower areas that represent additional aptitude. How much of either is physical, natural aptitude, or training is up to the player.

 

[DND_Reborn]

5e changed the paradigm. You don't make skill checks, you make ability checks to which proficency may apply. So, ability does measure your ability in broad categories. Dexterity isn't a physical measure (although it could be) but a measure of this character's ability at dexterous challenges. If the character is proficient in a proficency that applies, then they may af their proficency bonus.

So, ability scores measure ability. Proficiencies are narrower areas that represent additional aptitude. How much of either is physical, natural aptitude, or training is up to the player.

That's a good way of putting it. A lighter person could be very adapt at applying their strength and this have a higher STR score than pure muscle would represent. Of course, they will have a good amount of muscle to apply it, but don't have to be muscle-bound brute to have a high STR score.

 

[Hriston]

Likewise, a smaller person could be possessed of a wiry, supple frame and thus be naturally good at wrestling, represented by proficiency in Athletics, but not so good at moving large, heavy objects, represented by an unexceptional Strength score.

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's a good way of putting it. A lighter person could be very adapt at applying their strength and this have a higher STR score than pure muscle would represent. Of course, they will have a good amount of muscle to apply it, but don't have to be muscle-bound brute to have a high STR score.

On the other hand, if someone's proficient in athletics but has a low strength score, I default to assuming they're just small but very athletically built. Like a cheerleader who really couldn't grapple people (she wouldn't slow them down much by adding her grip because the mass isn't there) but could jump over you while you're trying to stand in her way because dang she can jump.