D&D 5E Professions in 5e

[prabe]

Depends on the gravity of the charges, and the evidence at hand, too. Highly specific example, honestly,more data needed.

Agreed. Hence "might," and that's leaving aside the possibility of different DCs, (Dis)Advantage, etc. The system does require judgment (heh) on the part of the DM, but I find it to be more than flexible-enough.

 

[Lem23]

At the very least, if the guy representing himself was facing an actual lawyer, I'd maybe let him roll with disadvantage, while the lawyer rolled with advantage.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Then why give proficiency a +10%-60% bonus at all. Why not make it all about gating and adv/dis-adv?

 

[Parmandur]

Then why give proficiency a +10%-60% bonus at all. Why not make it all about gating and adv/dis-adv?

Some things can be done untrained (like jumping). It's all tools to be applied as needed. It's not all about gating by training, but it's an important tool at the heart of the system.

 

[prabe]

Then why give proficiency a +10%-60% bonus at all. Why not make it all about gating and adv/dis-adv?

Because that's not the whole story--and you know it, or you wouldn't be asking that question that way.

You can have a gate, so only people with proficiency in (because it's come up) Religion can even roll, or, you can have everyone roll INT and those with proficiency in Religion get to add that. You can change the DC for those with proficiency in Religion, relative to those without, or you can give those with the proficiency Advantage (and/or those without Disadvantage). You can go a little into weirdness, and name more than one proficiency that seem relevant (say, Religion and History) and if someone has more than one of those proficiencies, they get Advantage (something I'm personally fond of).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Then why give proficiency a +10%-60% bonus at all. Why not make it all about gating and adv/dis-adv?

Because 3 different tools in a toolbox are better than 2 of those 3 tools.

 

[TwoSix]

If there isn't a rule for it to quantify it, it doesn't exist in the game world. Points, scores, ranks, levels etc. are the basic nuts and bolts under which the game is built. A vague "describe it to the DM and roll" isn't a rule, it's barely a game.

Strange, I thought most players had evolved beyond that.

 

[wingsandsword]

Strange, I thought most players had evolved beyond that.

I thought D&D had evolved beyond "just make up some stuff, roll some dice, and let it all be DM fiat" about 40 years ago.

I'm getting the impression that the people who actually like games with well defined rules were chased away from here when 5e came out.

I'm trying to give 5e a chance, but replies like yours do NOT make that easy.

 

[TwoSix]

Then why give proficiency a +10%-60% bonus at all. Why not make it all about gating and adv/dis-adv?

Definitely something I've thought about.

 

[TwoSix]

I thought D&D had evolved beyond "just make up some stuff, roll some dice, and let it all be DM fiat" about 40 years ago.

I'm getting the impression that the people who actually like games with well defined rules were chased away from here when 5e came out.

I'm trying to give 5e a chance, but replies like yours do NOT make that easy.

You should probably try not using words like "evolved" in your initial responses, then; it carries the implication that rules-heavy/simulationist play is some sort of goal that the game is trying to move towards, which is decidedly not true. Rules-heavy play is a fairly popular flavor of TTRPGs, for sure, but it's not some sort of ideal.

I'm perfectly OK with the implication that 5e doesn't work for you, but acting like 5e has somehow regressed from the 3E ideal raises my ire a bit.