D&D 5E First Level Proficiency Bonus of +2

[Jester David]

Bah. I would have been happy seeing it start at +0 and going to +5 rather than +2 to +7 or so, but including a penalty for not being proficient. So if the wizard grabs the longsword (and implausibly has the same strength as the fighter) the penalty makes it so the fighter is more effective.

That said, I imagine it has more to do with skills so the difference between knowing a skill and having a good attribute are closer.

 

[LFK]

I liked the skill die, but I understand it was controversial. It will probably return in the DMG as an option. I might actually use it.

Reminds me of Alternity, which was awesome.

 

[Paraxis]

I liked the skill die, but I understand it was controversial. It will probably return in the DMG as an option. I might actually use it.

Pretty easy to use it now if you want.
+2 = +1d4 = average roll of 2.5
+3 = +1d6 = average roll or 3.5
+4 = +1d8 = average roll of 4.5
+5 = +1d10 = average roll of 5.5
+6 = +1d12 = average roll of 6.5

So using a skill die or proficiency die, is only +0.5 higher on average. It does add a lot more swingyness to the roll and combined with the base 1d20 your extreme results of very high and very low just got increased, I assume that is why they moved away from the skill die system.

If you did this I would not keep expertise as a bonus to the roll, I would let expertise give you advantage on the skill die so that it becomes more consistent but doesn't increase the already high possible bonus.

So a level 5 rogue with an 18 dexterity and expertise in Thieves' Tools would roll 1d20 +4 (ability mod) +2d6 (take the highest from proficiency and expertise). The max is 30, the same as if you used the the rules as written. Same happens at level 20 with a 20 dexterity, 1d20 +5 (ability mod) +2d12(take the highest) = max roll of 37, just like now with proficiency and expertise.

I might use that one day, but for my fist campaign using Tyranny of Dragons I plan on playing as close to RAW as possible.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Pretty easy to use it now if you want.
+2 = +1d4 = average roll of 2.5
+3 = +1d6 = average roll or 3.5
+4 = +1d8 = average roll of 4.5
+5 = +1d10 = average roll of 5.5
+6 = +1d12 = average roll of 6.5

So using a skill die or proficiency die, is only +0.5 higher on average. It does add a lot more swingyness to the roll and combined with the base 1d20 your extreme results of very high and very low just got increased, I assume that is why they moved away from the skill die system.

If you did this I would not keep expertise as a bonus to the roll, I would let expertise give you advantage on the skill die so that it becomes more consistent but doesn't increase the already high possible bonus.

So a level 5 rogue with an 18 dexterity and expertise in Thieves' Tools would roll 1d20 +4 (ability mod) +2d6 (take the highest from proficiency and expertise). The max is 30, the same as if you used the the rules as written. Same happens at level 20 with a 20 dexterity, 1d20 +5 (ability mod) +2d12(take the highest) = max roll of 37, just like now with proficiency and expertise.

I might use that one day, but for my fist campaign using Tyranny of Dragons I plan on playing as close to RAW as possible.

yeah me too. I'm gonna try it for a while before doing any messing with it. Probably see what the DMG offers first. I like your take on the skill die though.

 

[1of3]

Bah. I would have been happy seeing it start at +0 and going to +5 rather than +2 to +7 or so...

It probably doesn't go to 7, but 6 as before.

What we are seeing here is a rather usual evolution. First you figure out, what the maximum is. Say 6. Then you imagine who divide those six points and make up a rule. Then you realise that +1 doesn't matter. You change the distribution of those 6 points, but there is no reason to increase the cap unless there were problems on that end, too.

 

[Melkor]

Bah. I would have been happy seeing it start at +0 and going to +5 rather than +2 to +7 or so, but including a penalty for not being proficient. So if the wizard grabs the longsword (and implausibly has the same strength as the fighter) the penalty makes it so the fighter is more effective.

I touched on this a bit above, but I am assuming that they didn't do an across-the-board penalty because then everyone would be penalized in skills and saving throws they weren't proficient in - like Perception, Athletics, a Wisdom save, etc. Abilities that "normal characters" could generally try without a penalty.

 

[Mercurius]

I love skill dice - that adds a fun element of randomness that could really spruce up a game, especially if you add in some kind of extra level of critical hits - say, max on a skill die is a "minor crit" (added skill die to damage), max on the d20 (natural 20) is a "standard crit" (max damage), and max on both is a "superior crit" (double max damage).

But the +2 to +6 proficiency dovetails nicely with descriptors; I'm not sure if they are still being used, but something like this:

0 novice
+1 apprentice
+2 journeyman
+3 expert
+4 adept
+5 master
+6 grandmaster

0/+1 could allow for 1ed "zero-level play" so you could play, say, the blacksmith's apprentice when the town is attacked by orcs in a kind of prologue to the main campaign, and then receive training and go off to fight the Ancient Evil that is swallowing the land...

 

[Philousk]

Someone (Mearls?) claimed the +1 bonus was fairly minor and didn't seem like a giant step up for proficiency. +2 feels a little more hefty without skewing the math.

For example, at low level you have a wizard and a fighter. Both of them pick up a longsword, despite only the fighter being proficient in it. For sake or argument, they have similar strength scores. (14).

The Wizard would smack a goblin with his sword with a +2 to hit, the Fighter a +3. In this case, the fighter only has a slight edge, but for practical purposes its alike.

The wizard now smacks a goblin with his sword for a +2, but the fighter has a +4. Its easier to see the gulf between "proficient" and "non-proficient" in a weapon. Its small, but significant enough to say "wow, the fighter is the better warrior with his sword".

Hi all,

I wasn't aware of the starting +2 proficiency bonus change from the final playtest document until I saw the sample Fighter character from the boxed set. Seems like I missed out on some info at some point.

Was this discussed at length anywhere, or can anyone provide some insight into why this was changed?

From looking at the character sheet for the fighter, it seems like it is +2 from levels 1 through 4, but when you hit level 5, it goes to +3. That being the case, if I prefer +1 at first level, or first and second level, I don't think it would be too hard to house rule without throwing off the math in a significant way.

Just curious about the change, really.

Thanks

Do you have a souce of this? A tweet from Mike Mearls or perhaps another member of the design team that validates your statement?


The goal is to know if the character advancement table was really changed in the Starter Set in comparison with the last playtest. After all, without proof, the score of + 2 assigned to the "Proficiency Bonus" box that we see on the character sheet can be another source as an additional trait granted to the human race in addition to this theory.

 

[Thaumaturge]

In this L&L article, Mearls mentions:

The proficiency bonus starts at +2 and increases up to +6. This follows our model of keeping bonuses under control to ensure that the range of DCs remains consistent across all levels.

It was mentioned in a more recent article, too. I just haven't found it yet. In this Rule-of-Three article Rodney says this:

Is double proficiency bonus the new expertise?

Yes. We think this provides a less jarring jump in skill than the flat +5 bonus, and also allows the character benefitting from Expertise to see that benefit scale upward. We’ve also tweaked the proficiency bonus to go from +2 at 1st level up to +6, so that proficiency and Expertise alike are more meaningful at 1st level.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Philousk]

Ok, Thank you for shed some light on this point,Thaumaturge.


Have a nice day!