D&D 5E Proficiency "Dice": Do you (or have you) use them?

[Charlaquin]

How does proficiency die do that? As I understand it, you still use your ability modifier, you just roll a die instead of adding a flat proficiency bonus.

You roll the d20 and add your ability modifier. Then, if you have a relevant proficiency, you roll your proficiency die and add the result. Doesn’t matter what ability you’re making the check with.

Again, you can do this with proficiency bonus too. I do. But not having total Ability (Skill) modifiers already written on the sheet does make it a little easier for players to grok.

 

[Shiroiken]

I personally love the concept, but I can't get my players to accept it. I don't know why they don't like it.

I used it during the playtest. I liked them a lot, but the players didn’t care for the swinginess. Players tend to want to perform reliably better in the areas they chose to specialize in. And human biases make the moments where you rolled a one on your proficiency die and just failed more memorable than the moments where you rolled the maximum number and succeeded by a lot.

Many people talk about the "swinginess" of it, but in reality it reduces the overall swing of the result. By rolling 2 dice you statistically move towards the center of both (such as 7 being the most probable result on 2d6). Thinking of the swinginess of the proficiency die is completely forgetting the massive swinginess of the d20 built into the game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Many people talk about the "swinginess" of it, but in reality it reduces the overall swing of the result.

This was one of the reasons I was considering trying it.

You could take the ability score bonus and apply the same concept:
+1 = flat +1
+2 = +d4
+3 = +d6
+4 = +d8
+5 = +d10

So, if you have +3 proficiency and +2 ability, you would roll d20 + d6 + d4.

It creates a "flattened" bell-curve:

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I personally love the concept, but I can't get my players to accept it. I don't know why they don't like it.


Many people talk about the "swinginess" of it, but in reality it reduces the overall swing of the result. By rolling 2 dice you statistically move towards the center of both (such as 7 being the most probable result on 2d6). Thinking of the swinginess of the proficiency die is completely forgetting the massive swinginess of the d20 built into the game.

What? It increases the range of possible results and the swinginess of d20 remains exactly the same. If we were talking about replacing d20 with 2d10 or something like that then you'd have point.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Its my favorite way of handling proficiency, but my players dont like the extra steps.

I personally love the fact that it adds another layer of options when homebrewing new rules or players option.

• Add proficiency die to X (damage, healing received etc)
• Dis/Advantage on the proficiency die when X.
• Proficiency die de/increases by one step when X.

It also make Magic a little more wild, since even your Spell DC will fluctuate. Pretty fun if the magic of your setting is less controlled and ''safe'' than in basic 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

I feel like in general most players conflate their skill bonuses with intrinsic abilities and bonus dice with extrinsic, temporary abilities, and they don't like that psychological association to be messed with.

 

[Charlaquin]

I personally love the concept, but I can't get my players to accept it. I don't know why they don't like it.


Many people talk about the "swinginess" of it, but in reality it reduces the overall swing of the result. By rolling 2 dice you statistically move towards the center of both (such as 7 being the most probable result on 2d6). Thinking of the swinginess of the proficiency die is completely forgetting the massive swinginess of the d20 built into the game.

I know, but it feels swingy to the players when they sometimes roll very high or low on the proficiency die. Yes, statistically proficiency die has a slightly higher average result, but it doesn’t feel consistent, and how a mechanic feels is often more important than how the math actually bears out.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked proficiency dice. But my players never cared for it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know, but it feels swingy to the players when they sometimes roll very high or low on the proficiency die. Yes, statistically proficiency die has a slightly higher average result, but it doesn’t feel consistent, and how a mechanic feels is often more important than how the math actually bears out.

Don’t get me wrong, I liked proficiency dice. But my players never cared for it.

It doesn't feel consistent because it isn't! The player intuition is completely correct in this regard. d20 + d8 is more random than d20 +4. This should be pretty clear.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It doesn't feel consistent because it isn't! The player intuition is completely correct in this regard. d20 + d8 is more random than d20 +4. This should be pretty clear.

There is a difference between random and swingy. A d20 is linear (as you know) and you have just as much chance to roll a 10 as a 1.

But rolling (and adding) two or more dice, you are more likely to get the middle results--thus making the extremes less likely and removing the swinginess.

The flattened curve in my previous post demonstrates this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There is a difference between random and swingy. A d20 is linear (as you know) and you have just as much chance to roll a 10 as a 1.

But rolling (and adding) two or more dice, you are more likely to get the middle results--thus making the extremes less likely and removing the swinginess.

The flattened curve in my previous post demonstrates this.

Technically true but misleading. The extremes are not less likely in practice with the proficiency die method. With d20 + d8 results 2, 3, 4, 25, 26, 27 and 28 may be unlikely, but with d20 +4 they're impossible. And I may not be a maths genius, but possible is definitely more likely than impossible! The fact remains that the proficiency dice makes the results less predictable and a lot of people don't want that.