D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Not really. If I were to try to jump across a gap, then I'd have a lesser chance than a professional athlete, but I could have a go.

If I tried to read Sumerian / Akkadian script, then I'd have no chance of doing so, whereas a scholar of Sumerian / Akkadian should be able to make a decent effort at doing so.

Why do you seem to think that's odd in any way?

You don't think the prof. athlete would have only a maximum 60% advantage?

 

[prabe]

House rules are a way to cover up a game's shortcomings. Yes.

That's one way to look at it. One can also look at the ability to customize a game easily as being a strength.

 

[prabe]

You don't think the prof. athlete would have only a maximum 60% advantage?

Given the noted swinginess of the d20, the athlete might be able to do it sans roll, whereas I'd have to roll (and do well). Seems more than 60% to me, and pretty reasonable.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It would be odd, but the acrobat has training (and Proficiency) in Athletics and/or Acrobatics, while the untrained historian doesn't have either of those in Arcana. You can only be better than the acrobat if you have a better ability score in the relevant skill, or are higher level, and those are more-marginal than the historian's never having cracked a book of magickal theory.

Exactly.

Given eqaul ability scores, Professional 1 is only 10% better than Incompetent Carl while professional 2 is infinitely better than Incompetent Carl.

It's odd.

 

[Lem23]

Exactly.

Given eqaul ability scores, Professional 1 is only 10% better than Incompetent Carl while professional 2 is infinitely better than Incompetent Carl.

It's odd.

See my post above. Why should something anyone can have a go at (jumping) be the same chance as something that requires knowledge (reading Sumerian) is? Why is that odd?

 

[prabe]

Exactly.

Given eqaul ability scores, Professional 1 is only 10% better than Incompetent Carl while professional 2 is infinitely better than Incompetent Carl.

It's odd.

Where are you getting the 10% from? Or is it 60%? I've kinda lost track.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Given the noted swinginess of the d20, the athlete might be able to do it sans roll, whereas I'd have to roll (and do well). Seems more than 60% to me, and pretty reasonable.

Well, Let's take two character. LeBron Jameison and Incompetent Carl.

Both have equal ability scores (18) and are level 6. We're comparing training, not genetics.

LeBron Jameison has +7

Incompetent Carl has +4.

If the DC is 8, LeBron Jameison will autosucceed and Incompetent Carl will succeed 85% of the time.

If the DC is 22, LeBron Jameison will succeed 25% of the time, whereas Incompetent Carl will succeed only 10% of the time.

In effect, LeBron Jameison is either not a professional athlete, or else Incompetent Carl is nearly as good as a professional athlete.

 

[Lem23]

If Carl has 18 stat, that doesn't sound very incompetent to me. Sounds like a lot of natural skill. Equal to LeBron in fact.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Where are you getting the 10% from? Or is it 60%? I've kinda lost track.

10% = Proficiency at level 1; +60% = expertise at level 20.

 

[prabe]

I think it's probable that if the DC is 22, I'm not letting someone without proficiency roll, or I'm having them roll at Disadvantage, primarily because the d20 swings that much.