D&D 5E CR and Proficiency

[ProgBard]

Yes, you can, but those are single-focus abilities. Sometimes that's what you want. And sometimes you want to be able to say, "This creature is as generally skillful and knowledgeable as a 15th-level adventurer, despite that it hits like a ten-year-old."

A couple of responses in this thread imply that this approach gets a little under the skin of some folks, and I suppose I'm curious why.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Yes, you can, but those are single-focus abilities. Sometimes that's what you want. And sometimes you want to be able to say, "This creature is as generally skillful and knowledgeable as a 15th-level adventurer, despite that it hits like a ten-year-old."

Sorry, but what does this even mean? In addition, why can't that be replicated with 'Competence as the DM demands: +100,000,000, to rolls when the DM so desires'?

 

[ProgBard]

Well, mechanically, it means a critter with a proficiency bonus of +4 that calculates as a CR 1 or less. Situations that might suggest that combination will be things you can either imagine wanting or not, so I leave them as a creative exercise for the reader.

Beyond that... uh, I feel like I'm not understanding the question you do me the honor of asking? Because closing that gap in my comprehension might help me understand why I keep getting suggestions that read to me like kludgy alternatives to a fairly straightforward design approach.

 

[Devilbass]

Yes, you can, but those are single-focus abilities. Sometimes that's what you want. And sometimes you want to be able to say, "This creature is as generally skillful and knowledgeable as a 15th-level adventurer, despite that it hits like a ten-year-old."

A couple of responses in this thread imply that this approach gets a little under the skin of some folks, and I suppose I'm curious why.

The example I have before was in relation to a specific ability, but again, you could design a generic trait. Here are two ideas :

Expert - This creature doubles its proficiency bonus on all abilities and attack rolls with which it is proficient.

Competent - This creature adds a +x bonus to all saves, save DCs, and attack rolls with which it is proficient.


Just two possibilities that seem to accomplish something like you're looking for. Again though, if one does not care about staying within the guidelines in the DMG (which is totally fair), then traits aren't even necessary for such changes to be made.

Personally, part of the fun is working on the guidelines and making the system work for me. I would have no problem using traits like the ones above. I could make a low CR npc with high-level skills, all while working within the system and not having to assign ability scores that feel out of place. Tweaking the system is fun!

Edit: in regards to skills in particular, many creatures or NPCs are given expertise where appropriate in the MM. Same can be done with your custom creatures or NPCs.

 

[ProgBard]

Personally, part of the fun is working on the guidelines and making the system work for me. I would have no problem using traits like the ones above. I could make a low CR npc with high-level skills, all while working within the system and not having to assign ability scores that feel out of place. Tweaking the system is fun!

Edit: in regards to skills in particular, many creatures or NPCs are given expertise where appropriate in the MM. Same can be done with your custom creatures or NPCs.

Oh, absolutely. It's a totally valid approach (and, coming from a slightly different direction, there's no reason not to give a creature something like the bard's Jack of All Trades ability, making it decently good at things it isn't even proficient at). There are lots of options working both within the RAW and bending them a bit.

And I did note the "give expertise where it's appropriate" bit in the creature-building guidelines, which you're right, is a nice out if nothing else seems to fit.

As far as the OP goes, I think my starting question of whether it breaks the system to decouple proficiency and CR has been asked and answered. Whether it also violates some unspoken principle of design philosophy is a deeper question than I intended, but possibly worth exploring.

 

[S'mon]

That's a pretty good suggestion.

But honestly, I'm not sure why anyone would want to change the proficiency bonus so it didn't follow the guidelines (other than with the sort of non-combatant expert NPCs we've discussed). I mean, are people really thinking, "I need this proficiency bonus to be 2 points higher than the CR says it should
be"?

If I want an NPC to resemble a PC, they'll often need a PB higher than their CR would
indicate. If the PCs are attacking at +10 it looks a bit odd if the NPC is attacking at +6.
The MM Archmage for instance with his +4 Prof (& +4 Attribute bonus) looks oddly
incompetent considering he casts as an 18th level Wizard.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Well, mechanically, it means a critter with a proficiency bonus of +4 that calculates as a CR 1 or less. Situations that might suggest that combination will be things you can either imagine wanting or not, so I leave them as a creative exercise for the reader.

Beyond that... uh, I feel like I'm not understanding the question you do me the honor of asking? Because closing that gap in my comprehension might help me understand why I keep getting suggestions that read to me like kludgy alternatives to a fairly straightforward design approach.

But what you're asking for is easy. It's just a generic bonus to doing things with the exception of attacks, saves and so on. There's nothing to stop somebody from fitting a bonus like that into a creatures prof bonus. Something like...

'Doing stuff bonus: This creature adds +x to its' Proficiency bonus when using non-combat ability checks.'

 

[ProgBard]

But what you're asking for is easy. It's just a generic bonus to doing things with the exception of attacks, saves and so on. There's nothing to stop somebody from fitting a bonus like that into a creatures prof bonus. Something like...

'Doing stuff bonus: This creature adds +x to its' Proficiency bonus when using non-combat ability checks.'

Nothing in particular wrong with that approach. But what's the benefit of doing that instead of just... raising the proficiency bonus?

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Nothing in particular wrong with that approach. But what's the benefit of doing that instead of just... raising the proficiency bonus?

Well, you don't have alter the CR. Which is what you wanted. You wanted somebody that was good at one thing without being good at a specific other thing, that being violence.

EDIT: and more to the point, I did raise the proficiency bonus in that example. But only for specific things.

 

[ProgBard]

Aaaaaaah, I get it now. I understand what I have been unclear on. Mea culpa.

I'm not actually in need of ways to model that. My question is actually more straightforward.

Given that:
1) Proficiency bonus is a useful shorthand for the all-around competence, skillfulness, and capability of a character or creature, and
2) RAW indicates that monster and NPC proficiency bonus is based on CR, BUT
3) CR is almost entirely dependent on combat effectiveness by way of high hit points, AC, and DPR;
4) Does it make sense to treat CR and proficiency bonus as separate numbers when creating a creature or NPC that should have a high all-around indicator of competence, skillfulness, and capability whose hit points, AC, and DPR would otherwise indicate a low CR and therefore the minimal proficiency?

That's it! And the responses on balance seem to me to indicate that, no, I will not break the game by using a high proficiency bonus on a low-CR creature. So that's my issue put to rest.

Other ways to model that same thing are interesting but orthogonal to the heart of my query. But in due gratitude to the spirit in which they were offered, [MENTION=6804638]NotActuallyTim[/MENTION], you have my thanks and appreciation for the thought put into your responses, and my apologies for not making clearer that you were trying to solve a problem I don't have. Which isn't to say I might not use them anyway, a good idea being a good idea after all. Cheers!