D&D 5E Proficiency vs Non-Proficiency

[DND_Reborn]

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.

I agree. The only times we require proficiency is 1) in aiding another to grant that person advantage and 2) if the knowledge/task is truly obscure and would unlikely be covered by general knowledge or experience gained in life. There are some skills I wouldn't think you could attempt without proficiency, such as knowledge skills. But this is where my understanding differed from the designers as Baba helpfully pointed out. This is a derivation from most game systems in the past IMO.

So, in 5E, a character with an INT 16 would get their +3 to any INT-based skills, such as Arcana, but a character who selected the skill and has proficiency in it has actively dedicated additional time in studying Arcana. With further thought, this works out fine really. I've always considered myself a very smart person, and having participated in several I.Q. tests and other measurements of knowledge and reasoning, etc. I am comfortable in claiming I am well within the 3rd standard deviation above the norm. I've picked up a LOT of obscure knowledge over the years and my keen memory allows me to recall most things easily. I've never studied many subjects, but my exposure to a good education, world-experiences and such gives me a deep knowledge base to draw from. While I would most certainly have proficiency in "Arcana" in modern terms, I wouldn't in Religion for example. Still, I know a lot about many religions just due to picking up knowledge about them over the years despite never "studying" them. I would certainly defer to others who have made it an effort to actively learn about Religion, which is why characters likely will defer a skill check to the character with proficiency over the character without.

I am very glad Baba pointed out that difference in game design concept and from a design aspect hobbyist myself it helps me wrap my head around what the 5E designers choices were.

 

[Umbran]

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?

This question has no meaning unless we know what the task is. If the task is "making waffles" we answer one way. If the task is, "making waffles while climbing a polished marble wall in high wind as the Queen's elite guard is trying to pour boiling oil on your head,"... that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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."

It isn't flawed for what I am questioning, and frankly although I am still lacking as many votes as I would like to feel comfortable drawing conclusions yet, the present evidence brings about surprising support (from my point of view anyway), particularly in light with the design intent Baba pointed out (for which I will freely admit I was ignorant of and was skewing my own personal expectations).

The only inherent issue is people's distrust of what I am trying to accomplish. I was surprised a few people initially replied they felt like this was a trap. Like I was trying to trick them into voting a certain way. I would imagine for those who love 5E, they don't like the idea of seeing a system challenged and thus either aren't voting because of that or because they like things as is and see no need. The other end of the spectrum are those who do think maybe things are a bit off, so they are voting hoping my conclusions will support their own ideas that things are off a bit maybe.

Unfortunately, this is the case with opinion polls.

And the purpose of all of the choices being within the 95% CI is because most people would (likely) find those options most reasonable, which makes perfect sense. Given the question, I doubt many individuals would argue one of the poll options should include 15 out of 20 for instance.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Really? Damn.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This question has no meaning unless we know what the task is. If the task is "making waffles" we answer one way. If the task is, "making waffles while climbing a polished marble wall in high wind as the Queen's elite guard is trying to pour boiling oil on your head,"... that's a different kettle of fish.

The question has meaning, it simply isn't as specific as you would like to feel able to vote. With all the different scenarios possible, there is no point in specifying, it is a general question meant to run the gambit of possibilities. That is another reason why as asked what people think/feel/intuit about it--if you decide to vote, go with your gut.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It isn't flawed for what I am questioning, and frankly although I am still lacking as many votes as I would like to feel comfortable drawing conclusions yet, the present evidence brings about surprising support (from my point of view anyway), particularly in light with the design intent Baba pointed out (for which I will freely admit I was ignorant of and was skewing my own personal expectations).

The only inherent issue is people's distrust of what I am trying to accomplish. I was surprised a few people initially replied they felt like this was a trap. Like I was trying to trick them into voting a certain way. I would imagine for those who love 5E, they don't like the idea of seeing a system challenged and thus either aren't voting because of that or because they like things as is and see no need. The other end of the spectrum are those who do think maybe things are a bit off, so they are voting hoping my conclusions will support their own ideas that things are off a bit maybe.

Unfortunately, this is the case with opinion polls.

And the purpose of all of the choices being within the 95% CI is because most people would (likely) find those options most reasonable, which makes perfect sense. Given the question, I doubt many individuals would argue one of the poll options should include 15 out of 20 for instance.

I didn't feel it is a trap. I think the thread is a good one. I just think your premise that +6 is the ultimate skilled is flawed.
If we take an attack roll there is much more to it. Since winning is inherently done with more than a single check, number of attacks is quite a big factor. While a level 5 fighter might only be +1 ahead over a 1st level fighter, he will be able to make 4 attacks instead of 1 in the first round. A level 20 fighter can do 16 attacks while the 1st level one only does 2. So instead of expertise, we have extra attack here to be called ultimately skilled.
In skills we need to take expertise into account even though there is sadly no way for the cleric to get it if he is no human with access to xanathar's guide or taking a level of rogue or 3 of bard... (which seems inappropriate for most clerics).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[the Jester]

You have two people: one has no proficiency to a skill or attack, the other is 20th level and with the highest proficiency possible. Now, remember, we are talking ONLY proficiency or not, there is no ability score bonus, magic, etc. to add. Also, I am not considering Expertise, but that is a very valid issue to consider.

...

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?

Someone without expertise and without a stat bonus is not the ultimately skilled guy. This presumption, in my judgment, undermines the whole question you pose.

In the real case of an ultimate skill guy, the unskilled and not-suited-to-the-task guy ought to better the ultimate skill guy almost never- and the math of 5e supports that (+12 expertise, +5 stat = +17 vs +0, meaning that the unskilled guy only beats the skilled guy if skill guy rolls a 1 or 2 AND unskilled guy rolls a 20, or a 19 if the skilled guy rolled a 1).

The guy you describe, who is highly skilled but neither expert nor suited to the task at hand (by virtue of having poor stats), is going to 'win' against the other guy substantially less often, and that's okay- because he isn't really the paragon of skill in this case.

 

[the Jester]

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".

The way you couched the question, your insistence that ability bonus doesn't apply, and your disregard of expertise is exactly you saying that +6 is the ultimate proficiency. As many others in this thread have argued, that is pretty far from what the 5e rules allow for.

 

[the Jester]

However, since there is no "expertise" you can apply to attacks, it still falters a bit in that respect... hmm...

Skills and attacks are entirely different beasts in D&D. Checks are explicitly a different type of roll than attack rolls. You're mixing apples with hot dogs here.

If you want to figure out how often a max-proficiency warrior should lose to an unskilled one, you have to take into account things like increased damage, multiple attacks, tricks like superiority dice, etc. Simply comparing proficiency bonuses is like trying to assess the relative health of a pair of forests by examining a single tree from each.