EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Because proficiency is +2 at level 1, and I was generously assuming some other minor benefit adding an additional +1.And why wouldn't he still suck at stealth checks against level 1 enemeies? He wears heavy armor, has a DEX penalty, and no proficiency in stealth. He literally has no chance to get better. He sucks to begin with and willl continue to suck unless he dedicates something to stealth, such as gaining proficiency.
Yeah, I get the desire for "half improvement" in such things, but to me it just isn't worth the nick-picking of keep track of which skills get it and which don't, etc. FWIW, for a while we played where you had "proficient skills", "class skills", an other skills. Whatever skills you didn't choose for proficiency from your class choices you got proficiency - 2. So, at 5th level you got a +1, etc.
Anyway, back to Peter Paladin. So, even with half-level or half-proficiency, he's improving but not a lot. He goes from disadvantage with a -1 penalty, to at best disadvantage with a +2 or 3. Considering the swinginess of the d20, it hardly seems worth it to me to bother with.
I could see it being an optional Variant rule in 5E, for those who want something of that nature, however.
Hmm... I saw this more as a side effect, but since I was never involved in 5E development or play testing, sure, I guess.
But if that was the case, it seems a bit odd to begin proficiency at +2... if you wanted more constrained numbers, make non-proficiency disadvantage and then have proficiency remove disadvantage, begin at +0, and progress from there.
Sorry, I'm not following this. How is a 5E character getting +25... ever? I mean, +17 certainly with expertise, maybe a bit more with guidance, and I suppose you could throw in bardic inspiration or something for a bit more. But IMO then you're really piling it on, and that would be for a single check. You can't do that every time.
Otherwise, I'm not really following your point, here. Sorry.
Not so much IMO. The extreme examples, are just that: extreme. They aren't common. At 20th level, most PCs will have skills in the +8 to +11 range, which makes those DC 30 checks very hard, if not impossible. Anyway, your weakness never get less weak, is true. But that is true of everything. You either shore up those weaknesses, or you don't. It just depends on how important that is to you.
And yes, your enemies get stronger---in some ways, but they also still have weaknesses, just like PCs. Most enemies are not universally better at everything, after all.
No, not surprised at all.
And I agree competence should be more, but that is also because 5E starts at no penalty, and only adds to your chances. It depends I suppose on how you view the numbers. Since ability scores now can potentially include some "training" as well as natural ability, proficiency isn't just competence, it is some level of additional dedication. I know that sort of goes against the definition of proficiency, but that really is what it is.
I know this is a bit side-tracked, but consider the example of Athletics. How can a +2 be competence when a STR 18 is +4. So, a lot of people look at this as someone with "no training" (i.e. non-proficient) has a better chance with STR 18 at making the check to swim than another who's had "training" (i.e. proficiency) in Athletics? IMO, the PC who actually is proficient in Athletics should have the better chance.
This is why non-proficiency as disadvantage is better. The STR 18 PC without proficiency would succeed on DC 15 25%, while the STR 10 with proficiency +2 succeeds 40%. In fact, the proficient STR 10 does better than the non-proficient STR 18 on all DC's 8 or higher.
Anyway, otherwise I'm not quite certain when you get the 15% more often from...
Otherwise, "competence" would have been even smaller.
But I don't think there's more we can say to one another that is productive. Your characterization of the half-level bonus is simply dead wrong and I'm not convinced that discussing it further will lead to any positive outcome for anyone.
Precisely. Further: Does you playing golf have any impact on your ability to survive from one day to the next? I should think that if it did, then even if you never reached PGA levels, you'd still get better than you were as an absolute novice who didn't know a 5-wood from a 5-iron.
No. It. Cannot.
That is not DESIGN. You are not DESIGNING. You are not articulating a functional element and testing to see whether it performs the function for which it was designed!
Popularity isn't a design goal! No part of a car CAUSES sales. No part of a car CAUSES popularity. No part of a car FORCES people to buy it because of the way it was engineered. That is what design is. A design goal is a function the product is meant to have, such as fuel economy in a car, or small radar cross-section for a stealth plane, or fewer and small numbers to make addition easier in a TTRPG. If it isn't a function performed or evinced by the product itself, it is not and cannot be a design goal.
You can, of course, set design aside and consider rules for reasons entirely unrelated to design. But that does not make it part of the design process.
Folks want their designs to succeed. But you cannot design something with a design goal of success; success is not something found within the design, but rather found once the design is implemented and presented to the world. That is why you do testing, and (more importantly) why you must choose wise design goals: unwise design goals usually cause problems.
"It should feel like X" is not a design goal, and barely even an aesthetic goal. "It should produce an experience of high-stakes dungeon heisting" is a weak but still potentially serviceable goal. Significant refinement would still be needed to make it useful in any but the most general, vague senses for actually writing rules.
Last edited:
