D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Azurewraith]

Sure, but that wasn't the question.

After re reading I did misinterpret the question

 

[Hussar]

In reality, that isn't true. Natural talent doesn't match training. Training > natural talent. However, training + natural talent > than training. That's why I change the rules the way I do. The rules fail to adequately model skills. They also negate player choice. I player choosing proficiency with a skill is saying they want to be good at it. When everyone can roll and as a result, they are often not even the best roll at the table, that choice is negated.

Heh, well, I think we'Re at the point in the conversation where we agree to disagree. I could train for the rest of my life and still never skate as well as Gretzky. I could play Basketball with the greatest coaches in the world for the rest of my life, and I will still never be as good as Jordan. Let's not forget, Gretzsky and others were that good right from the word go. Natural talent makes all the difference in the world and no amount of training makes up for it. If it did, then every runner would be exactly the same, every skater, every professional athlete would be identical.

Since that's not true, I'm going to say that natural talent means a lot more.

And, no, the choice is not negated. The trained character will succeed more often than the untrained one. Granted, he might not succeed on that specific roll, but, overall, training will give you the edge.

The difference between max natural talent and max proficiency is one point. How does a +1 allow you to do things natural talent won't?

Any time the DC is 26 or higher. And, let's be honest here, we're very, very rarely looking at a case where a character has no ability bonus at all to go with that proficiency. Even just a 14 stat means that there is a 3 point difference. And, you're talking about an extremely specialised character that has a 20 in a stat. That is the absolute epitome of natural talent. And he's no better than a fairly average, moderately trained individual ( +2 stat and +3 proficiency - I don'T have my books in front of me, that's what, 5th level?)

A 5th level character (IIRC) with a 14 stat is as good as the absolute best natural talent. I'd say things are pretty balanced.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Heh, well, I think we'Re at the point in the conversation where we agree to disagree. I could train for the rest of my life and still never skate as well as Gretzky. I could play Basketball with the greatest coaches in the world for the rest of my life, and I will still never be as good as Jordan. Let's not forget, Gretzsky and others were that good right from the word go. Natural talent makes all the difference in the world and no amount of training makes up for it. If it did, then every runner would be exactly the same, every skater, every professional athlete would be identical.

Since that's not true, I'm going to say that natural talent means a lot more.

And, no, the choice is not negated. The trained character will succeed more often than the untrained one. Granted, he might not succeed on that specific roll, but, overall, training will give you the edge.

This wasn't aimed at me, but I'd like the opportunity to respond.

Gretzsky not only has natural talent, but has also extensively trained. If you have no natural talent, but have extensively trained, yes, you will not equal Gretzsky. While it's not perfect, the in game analogy would be that Gretzsky has a high defining attribute and proficiency, while you have an average or low defining attribute and proficiency. In game, he will consistently be better than you.

Now, if someone had a natural talent but never trained, it's very likely you, with little or no talent but extensive training, would be better at skating.

Any time the DC is 26 or higher. And, let's be honest here, we're very, very rarely looking at a case where a character has no ability bonus at all to go with that proficiency. Even just a 14 stat means that there is a 3 point difference. And, you're talking about an extremely specialised character that has a 20 in a stat. That is the absolute epitome of natural talent. And he's no better than a fairly average, moderately trained individual ( +2 stat and +3 proficiency - I don'T have my books in front of me, that's what, 5th level?)

A 5th level character (IIRC) with a 14 stat is as good as the absolute best natural talent. I'd say things are pretty balanced.

Wouldn't that be "any time the DC is 26 exactly?" Neither have the chance to succeed at a higher DC.

But I think it's very relevant. If you're insisting that natural talent is as good (you actually said better) than training, then the case to look at is exactly high talent no training vs no talent, no training. That this is a rare case is beside the point, it's the one most likely to provide a true comparison in capability.

But that's still beside the point, as I think you've answered that the benefits of proficiency are only in the bonus, and there is no other benefits in your mind. Correct?

 

[Hussar]

Yes, I think that's fair to say. Proficiency provides a bonus to a roll. It's not different than an attack bonus.

And, there's a good comparison. A 1st level fighter with no stat bonus attacks at +2. A character with an 18 stat attacks at +4. Are we now going to argue that proficiency bonuses should supersede stats in combat as well? Why not? If training>natural talent, as [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] insists, then why doesn't that apply in combat?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I think that's fair to say. Proficiency provides a bonus to a roll. It's not different than an attack bonus.

And, there's a good comparison. A 1st level fighter with no stat bonus attacks at +2. A character with an 18 stat attacks at +4. Are we now going to argue that proficiency bonuses should supersede stats in combat as well? Why not? If training>natural talent, as [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] insists, then why doesn't that apply in combat?

There's a range of longswords to choose from. The proficient player immediately knows which is the only one that won't break the first time it's used. The non-proficient is welcome to guess.

You sidle up to the guard and strike up a conversation to distract him. You quickly find out that the guard is nuts about warhammers -- how good warhammers are, etc, etc -- you mention to him that you like maces. He immediately ignores you because anyone proficient in martial weapons would know, like KNOW, that warhammers are superior to maces. Your lack of proficiency has failed you.

 

[Maxperson]

Heh, well, I think we'Re at the point in the conversation where we agree to disagree. I could train for the rest of my life and still never skate as well as Gretzky. I could play Basketball with the greatest coaches in the world for the rest of my life, and I will still never be as good as Jordan. Let's not forget, Gretzsky and others were that good right from the word go. Natural talent makes all the difference in the world and no amount of training makes up for it. If it did, then every runner would be exactly the same, every skater, every professional athlete would be identical.

Since that's not true, I'm going to say that natural talent means a lot more.

Well that example is colossally wrong. I bet you that the first time Wayne played hocky, he'd have had trouble scoring on a high school goalie, let alone you if you were trained for a lifetime. The same goes for Jordan. You are giving examples of training + natural talent and calling it natural talent. No amount of natural talent is going to make you better than someone who is trained. You need training as well.

And, no, the choice is not negated. The trained character will succeed more often than the untrained one. Granted, he might not succeed on that specific roll, but, overall, training will give you the edge.

Sure, if it's you and one other person in the party. In the typical party of 4-5, you will lose most of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I think that's fair to say. Proficiency provides a bonus to a roll. It's not different than an attack bonus.

And, there's a good comparison. A 1st level fighter with no stat bonus attacks at +2. A character with an 18 stat attacks at +4. Are we now going to argue that proficiency bonuses should supersede stats in combat as well? Why not? If training>natural talent, as [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] insists, then why doesn't that apply in combat?

It does apply in combat. A 20th level fighter will stomp anyone with no training and even a 20 stat when it comes to fighting. Now let's go to the 1st level fighter and the no class peasant with an 18. That 1st level fighter also has a fighting style and extra wind, making him far superior to the peasant with the 18. The discrepancy only gets worse the more levels (training) the fighter has.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes, I think that's fair to say. Proficiency provides a bonus to a roll. It's not different than an attack bonus.

And, there's a good comparison. A 1st level fighter with no stat bonus attacks at +2. A character with an 18 stat attacks at +4. Are we now going to argue that proficiency bonuses should supersede stats in combat as well? Why not? If training>natural talent, as [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] insists, then why doesn't that apply in combat?

Also, do you think it's fair to compare the top of natural talent with the apprentice of training?

 

[Maxperson]

Also, do you think it's fair to compare the top of natural talent with the apprentice of training?

Even if he does, the training still wins out. Training for combat is much more than +'s to hit and damage.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Even if he does, the training still wins out. Training for combat is much more than +'s to hit and damage.

I'm trying to keep the focus on proficiency and not bring in other class features.