D&D 5E Proficiency vs Non-Proficiency

[S'mon]

This is also why I very seldom use other DC's than 10 or 15. I might sneak in a 20 now and
then.

With my high level game I like saying stuff like "OK Rogue, you auto spot the DC 25 secret
door with your passive per" and "OK Barbarians, with your minimum 20+s on Athletics you have no trouble steering the canoe for hours down the foaming rapids" or even "DC 28 to break open the fortress gates - so you rip them off their hinges..." - definitely feels super-heroic, and lets the players see how far they've come. Conversely, even level 20 5e PCs can still be beaten up by a few giants, and need to play smart.

 

[Krachek]

In real life absolute 0.
In DnD, basically +17 (but sometime more) vs +0, do the math.

 

[5ekyu]

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.



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.



Then don't vote.

I didn't but thanks so very much for the permission.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Um... you are missing something. You missed the point that the math for the question you asked is a probability density function and doesn't map onto what you asked. The math says all but one of your options is within the 2 standard deviation marks of the pdf.

As for the error you cite, you are correct. I noted that Unger's +12 ignored ties abd assumed he'd done the same for +6. It was hasty, thank you. It only slightly contracts the pdf, though, as mean is now 5.25 and sd is 1.9. This pulls 10 just slighty outside of 2sd.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.)

Thanks, that is an excellent point on the 5E design! It wasn't, obviously, my take on the system at large but it does explain more of what the designers were doing. Kuddos!

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.

Good point. I am not looking to rekindle the huge point spreads from prior editions, just FYI. I am curious if the present system is in sync with the overall expectations of the people playing.

Um... you are missing something. You missed the point that the math for the question you asked is a probability density function and doesn't map onto what you asked. The math says all but one of your options is within the 2 standard deviation marks of the pdf.

As for the error you cite, you are correct. I noted that Unger's +12 ignored ties abd assumed he'd done the same for +6. It was hasty, thank you. It only slightly contracts the pdf, though, as mean is now 5.25 and sd is 1.9. This pulls 10 just slighty outside of 2sd.

I'll think on that later when I get some time. Either way, the options pretty well cover the likely outcomes and since the poll is growing, I'm happy to see it might provide some useful results eventually.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Um... you are missing something. You missed the point that the math for the question you asked is a probability density function and doesn't map onto what you asked. The math says all but one of your options is within the 2 standard deviation marks of the pdf.

As for the error you cite, you are correct. I noted that Unger's +12 ignored ties abd assumed he'd done the same for +6. It was hasty, thank you. It only slightly contracts the pdf, though, as mean is now 5.25 and sd is 1.9. This pulls 10 just slighty outside of 2sd.

He asked about winning. So a tie is in favour of the expert.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.)

I actually love combining DC 5 checks with the DMG autosuccess rule:
With 10 in the relevant ability score you autosucceed on those checks. Not so with an 8. That is important for any knowledge check and simple things like swimming in calm waters. So anyone with int 10 knows about something. Int 8 and you have to roll with 25% chance of failure.
I did the same in 3e with DC10 checks and take 10. Str 8 and you risk drowning in the bath tub.

I also like DC 20+x checks. DC 20 is what you can achieve with Str 10 and enough time. 25 is what you can do with Str 20 and enough time. And no chance of failure.
I used the same in 3.x. I actually encouraged my players to always take 20 if there is enough time. Saved us rolls and also brought used time in line with expectations. Searching a room thouroughly took 20 minutes instead of only 1.

 

[S'mon]

Good point. I am not looking to rekindle the huge point spreads from prior editions, just FYI. I am curious if the present system is in sync with the overall expectations of the people playing.

Good question. I think 5e is loose enough that for players that will depend almost entirely on
whether GM & player expectations match.

As GM, the system expectation that "everyone rolls, no one quits" - that you don't need Proficiency to make a check - somewhat clashes with my own expectations. So I'll quite often rule that a check requires Proficiency. One reason for this is to reduce the number of people rolling.

 

[Ovinomancer]

He asked about winning. So a tie is in favour of the expert.

I think you could go either way on that -- depends on a ruling. You, however, went for ties for the skilled on expertise but for the unskilled on just proficiency. Easy mistake, I missed it, too.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thanks, that is an excellent point on the 5E design! It wasn't, obviously, my take on the system at large but it does explain more of what the designers were doing. Kuddos!



Good point. I am not looking to rekindle the huge point spreads from prior editions, just FYI. I am curious if the present system is in sync with the overall expectations of the people playing.



I'll think on that later when I get some time. Either way, the options pretty well cover the likely outcomes and since the poll is growing, I'm happy to see it might provide some useful results eventually.

Well, no, it won't provide useful results because it's pretty flawed. It may, however, provide you with some biased support for your hidden objective, and it does seem intentionally crafted to do this using leading language and options not suited to the question asked. It appears likely you will be able to get the answers you desire, especially since all but one of the options is in the 95% likely bounds. I do not count this as "useful."