D&D 5E Proficiency vs Non-Proficiency

[JiffyPopTart]

Personally, despite how much I enjoy elements of 5E, it is a step backwards in many ways. Other game systems have better mechanics, albeit not as simplistic. I get that was part of the appeal of 5E was to keep it simple, so I can accept that and still have some fun playing. I won't go into it here since it would derail this thread and take me more time than it's worth since it isn't as though the designers will listen or read this and make any of the changes.

This statement here is getting to the nugget of the actual reason you started this thread. The topic you want to discuss isn't "5e Proficiency Bonuses", it's actually "5e is too simplified for my tastes". That's a totally valid discussion topic and, while some might challenge your opinion, you could probably find people weighing in on all sides of the topic.

If you yearn to play a more realistic game you aren't in some boat out by yourself. There are lots of people like you. But that realistic game is not going to be 5e, because that's not what its striving for. At one time during the playtests the design team mentioned releasing different optional "rules modules" to accommodate groups that like things such as more tactical combat but it seems like thats not going to be happening and they have instead focused mainly on adventures and settings. Maybe someday it will happen, and maybe even then its not going to be realistic enough for some.

I'm 45 years old. I have a house that leaks when it rains (which it is now), a kid that's college age and driving me crazy, and a job that can grind me down because there is no one higher than me to hand of sticky issues to. When I head to DnD night I want to chill out, laugh with my buddies, and throw some dice. I don't find a situation like "The giant crab has you grappled and the only way you are going to escape is to roll a 20 because of game math" to be fun in any way. I don't find "I rolled a 2 so I fell face first when I tried to hop the 2 foot wide creek" funny. I just want to take part in a fun story that I will remember in the future. I can have fun succeeding, but only if it was a challenge. I can have fun failing, but only if I had a chance to win. Either extreme (You can never win/You can never fail) has no drama. Drama is what makes the game fun.

Making a game more realistic might be more up your alley (20th level characters are essentially indestructible to CR1 monsters) or more up your alley in a different way (any hit you take could be your last, even if you just tripped on the ice). Both of those games exist and are out there, so figure out the one that most floats your boat, buy it, and offer to run it when your game group isn't playing 5e.

In the late 80s/early 90s there was sort of an arms race to have "The Most Realistic" game, and the craziest one of those I ever "Played" (made a character and did one combat) was Rolemaster. I did a quick search and found this chart. This is the Rolemaster "Bashing Attacks" combat reference chart. I think you would agree that there is some point of diminishing returns on trying to make everything realistic. Its just that 5e skews "simple" from the median of that bell curve and you are probably looking for something on the other side.

 

[5ekyu]

"In a contest between the two (out of 20 attempts each), how often do you feel or think an unskilled, non-proficient person should better a person of ultimate skill?"

To me the test case does not match the question.

A 20th level character with only basic proficiency in a skill and no ability score bonus or other traits that can influence it is **not** an example of ultimate skill. With no ability score bonus, it's a sideline, beefed up by his general experience.

But then, I have been playing many different games and systems which use both "broad trait" (ability score) and "narrow specialty" (skill or proficiency) as a combined measure of capability for ages (and often other features to help add more specialty) so the idea of divorcing one from the other is basically a non-starter.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But, have you done the right math?

The math is fine. Yours has some slight errors, but nothing major. Your 105/400 is already counting ties as losses, and then you seem to want to add them in again (unless I misread something... always a possibility). If I ever have more votes (10 is not nearly enough for me to even begin to use the information from the poll), then I'll go into detail on the math.

Poorly expressed poll, but if you are asking "what percent of the time is 1d20 > 1d20 + 11, the answer is about 9%. 11% if it's greater than or equal to. Small difference, but two different answers in your poll.

And really why are you taking a poll? This is a matter of mathematics, not opinion. Or are you testing math literacy?

This is not simply a matter of mathematics, it is a matter of perception on a game mechanic. How SHOULD it function when we break down the numbers? That is what I am asking for: opinion.

"In a contest between the two (out of 20 attempts each), how often do you feel or think an unskilled, non-proficient person should better a person of ultimate skill?"

To me the test case does not match the question.

A 20th level character with only basic proficiency in a skill and no ability score bonus or other traits that can influence it is **not** an example of ultimate skill. With no ability score bonus, it's a sideline, beefed up by his general experience.

But then, I have been playing many different games and systems which use both "broad trait" (ability score) and "narrow specialty" (skill or proficiency) as a combined measure of capability for ages (and often other features to help add more specialty) so the idea of divorcing one from the other is basically a non-starter.

Then don't vote.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This statement here is getting to the nugget of the actual reason you started this thread. The topic you want to discuss isn't "5e Proficiency Bonuses", it's actually "5e is too simplified for my tastes". That's a totally valid discussion topic and, while some might challenge your opinion, you could probably find people weighing in on all sides of the topic.

Sure, many mechanics of 5E are frustratingly simplistic to me and that is why I only "like" 5E and don't "love" it like other versions I've played. But, again, I don't want to get into a discussion (yet) about it until later. Then, I'll be more than happy to go over everything but beforehand it is counter-productive. If you're still around and interested at that point then cool, let's chat then, OK? If not, no problem and I'm sure I'll see ya around on the boards.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not, myself, saying ultimate proficiency is represented by +6. That is what 5E says, and people can go with that, but what people believe might show +6 isn't the best number to consider "ultimately proficiency".

Actually 5e says that +12 is the ultimate proficiency for skills. It's only that 2 classes can achieve it.
I'd wager that Usain bolt not only has expertise in a skill but also better stats than you.
So if you wanted to cap it at +6, you should have asked differently.
I'd also say, that a challenge is not done with a single skill check but maybe 3 of them. If you take this into account to win you need to win 2 out of 3 which also reduces your chances to win.
Also if you do something over a longer period of time, the DM might even just ask for your passive checks which reduces your chance to win to 0.
The DM could rule that a difference in a passive skill of 5 or more is an auto win does not seem out of order because your chances to get more wins than losses is not big anymore.
Another challenge might be doing a series of checks against a certain DC. You male progress only if you beat it. You eed to accumulate successes and you might lose progress if you fail by 5 more.
Assume simple checks of DC 10. Someone with a +6 bonus makes progress 85% of the time and never falls back. Someone with +0 makes progress on 55% of the time and falls back 20% of the time. The expert needs an average of 4 rounds to achieve the goal. The other one needs nearly 9 rounds on average to achieve the goal.
I am too lazy to calculate the chances that the untrained might win but they are not good by any standard. Lets make a quick sanity check. 0.55^3 is 1331/8000 ~ 17% for the untrained to make 3 successes in 3 rounds. The expert's chance is 0.85^3 = 4913/8000 ~ 61%
So the chance for the untrained to win in 3 rounds is 0.17*0.39 ~ 0.065. Slightly above 5%. Chances to win might accumulate to 10% which is not bad actually but about what people expect according to your poll.

 

[Horwath]

The question should have been:

How many times SHOULD an unskilled person win over an expert?

Also if you replace d20 with 3d6, then 1 in 20 comes alot sooner than currently. Even +5 bonus means alot in 3d6 variant.

 

[Baba]

Proficiency is training and then experience which builds on that training. Ability score bonus is natural talent or inclination towards a skill or attack type, whi. […]

That's not true in d&d5, though. That's not how those characteristics are described.

"An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability." (PHB p. 173.)

"A skill represents a specific aspect of an ability score , and an individual's proficiency in a skill demonstrates a focus on that aspect." (PHB p. 174.)

So proficiency bonus does not equal total skill, or experience, or training.

You can have some experience and training even when you DON'T add your proficiency bonus - this is reflected by your ability score.

You can't have ultimate skill without having a good ability score.

Your premise is that proficiency bonus marks the difference between an unskilled person and a person of ultimate skill, but it doesn't. Their total modifier marks the difference between them.

(Special features, like the ability to roll with advantage in certain situations or treat a roll of 9 or lower as a 10 may differentiate between them even further.)

 

[S'mon]

I am not, myself, saying ultimate proficiency is represented by +6. That is what 5E says

No it does not. All 5e says is that Level 17-20 PCs and CR 17-20 monsters get a +6 Proficiency bonus, which they get to apply to all checks they are proficient in. So just being high level by default
gives you a +4 bonus on proficient checks over CR 0-4 people & monsters. Nothing about +6 representing "ultimate skill" in any way. It's more like "default skill" you get just for being a superhero.

Personally I find this works a lot better than the 15 point check difference in 4e between 1st level and 30th and the 19 point difference in 3e/PF between 1st and 20th. It keeps the 'real world' relevant to high level PCs in a way you don't see in those editions.

 

[Baba]

I don't find a situation like "The giant crab has you grappled and the only way you are going to escape is to roll a 20 because of game math" to be fun in any way. I don't find "I rolled a 2 so I fell face first when I tried to hop the 2 foot wide creek" funny. I just want to take part in a fun story that I will remember in the future. I can have fun succeeding, but only if it was a challenge. I can have fun failing, but only if I had a chance to win. Either extreme (You can never win/You can never fail) has no drama. Drama is what makes the game fun.

I very much agree with this. This, to me, is the soul of bounded accuracy.


This is also why I very seldom use other DC's than 10 or 15. I might sneak in a 20 now and then. But failure always has consequences, you never get a retry if you fail, you have to look for another solution. (This last part may be a bit of a house rule one my part, inspired by other games.)

 

[S'mon]

"An ability score is not just a measure of innate capabilities, but also encompasses a creature's training and competence in activities related to that ability." (PHB p. 173.)

Very important point for understanding how 5e works! So the willowy Atlantean wizard-fighter IMC can have STR 18 because of her athletic and combat training, not because she looks like The
Mountain.

IME in 5e a very high level "PC of ultimate skill" typically has a total bonus of around +13 to +18 or
so, and often has features giving advantage on the check, and features capping the minimum roll at either their passive score or their attribute number. so eg at the high end my son's epic Barbarian-20 with magic & boon enhanced STR 30 has a minimum Athletics check result of 30 and rolls Athletics on d20+16 with Advantage. He's looking to get one of those Ioun stones that will give him +7 Proficiency.
A more typical STR 24 Barbarian-20 would have a minimum Athletics result of 24 and roll d20+13 with Advantage.
Likewise the Rogue-17 has typical minimum or passive check results of around 25-27 in his areas of expertise, stuff like Perception Stealth & Investigation.

These are actual 'persons of ultimate skill' (or close to it) in the context of the 5e rules system.