D&D 5E Proficiency vs Non-Proficiency

[Ristamar]

Unless it's a duel to first blood, of course, where your capacity to withstand injury is irrelevant (since we know for a fact that 1hp of damage is sufficient to draw blood). In that case, the only relevant factors are initiative and the chance of landing at least one hit on your turn.

Okay, time to break out the popcorn...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[5ekyu]

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.

"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."

Wow, that's some hefty bias on assumptions there.

Is it any wonder why folks may think your poll is not on theblevrl?
I mean, more than a few have pointed out the obvious bias in presentation - ultimate skill vs non-proficient but let's ignore all these other differences. Tossing in combat checks to help dismiss expertise but still acting like it's a one-check-and-done which most combats are not one-check-and-done.

And you admit after a ways in the purpose...it is to fuel a later position... which makes the flaws and biases in the collection method more important.

" If the votes don't support my assumption, I will gladly admit it and move on. If they do, I'll present the results and my ideas and THEN see what others have to say about it. It is premature to discuss it at this point."

So, let's collect votes with a slanted approach then if they surprisingly support our argument we will use them to strike back.

But, I am definitely an outlier cuz I dont see 5e as a thing I love and have issues with reasonable challenges to it... yet I did not vote because of the obvious skew-to-support-agenda going on.

Frankly, I find *if you dont agree with me it must be blindly following ABC" arguments to be rather dull, unimaginative and pointless - even if they are "supported" by skewed polls.

But, on the subject of odds of experts vs novices and success - there are DMG options that help that a lot.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I liked that, in 3rd ed, some skills weren't doable without having some training.

Disable device (thieves tools), Use Magic Device, Tumble(acrobatics)

Knowledge skills could only get you DC 10 information if you had no training. (common knowledge)

I don't think that someone with the most training should get beat by someone with no training at all. In most activities. Some activities do rely on chance.

It would be an easy thing to put in to 5e to say that someone without proficiency could only achieve a DC 10 in certain skills. In fact, I don't allow the Help action for certain tests if you aren't proficient in the appropriate skill.

That said, I think, in 5e, the assumption is that adventurers have some degree of competency in all the skills. It's just that some adventurers are more specialized - or should I say - more proficient.

For what it's worth, I answered your pole.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I liked that, in 3rd ed, some skills weren't doable without having some training.

Disable device (thieves tools), Use Magic Device, Tumble(acrobatics)

Knowledge skills could only get you DC 10 information if you had no training. (common knowledge)

I don't think that someone with the most training should get beat by someone with no training at all. In most activities. Some activities do rely on chance.

It would be an easy thing to put in to 5e to say that someone without proficiency could only achieve a DC 10 in certain skills. In fact, I don't allow the Help action for certain tests if you aren't proficient in the appropriate skill.

That said, I think, in 5e, the assumption is that adventurers have some degree of competency in all the skills. It's just that some adventurers are more specialized - or should I say - more proficient.

For what it's worth, I answered your pole.

While I can see your point and agree on many levels, given the designers' perspective that ability score does represent natural talent and training in a skill, I don't mind a character without proficiency attempting higher DCs since RAW there is no autosuccess with a nat 20. At best, with a 20 ability score and +5 mod, the highest DC they would even have a chance with is 25. Even DC 15 would only have a 55% chance to succeed with a +5 ability mod only.

I like your take with choosing the words competency, specialized (or "proficient"). I know it is only semantics, but it would have made more sense to my anyway if the designers had said something like what you did, but replacing "proficiency" in the books with "specialized", with the expertise feature taking the bonus further. But now that I am aware of the designers' intent, I can roll with it as is.

And thanks for participating in the poll! The more people who do, the more inference I can make from it.

 

[Ristamar]

For what it's worth, I answered your pole.

 

[the Jester]

Unless it's a duel to first blood, of course, where your capacity to withstand injury is irrelevant (since we know for a fact that 1hp of damage is sufficient to draw blood).

We do? Since when? I'd need a cite on this, and even with one, I find it a dubious assertion. Since 1e and before, the distinction between hit points and actual wounds has been clearly drawn.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

We do? Since when? I'd need a cite on this, and even with one, I find it a dubious assertion. Since 1e and before, the distinction between hit points and actual wounds has been clearly drawn.

Although both the PHB and the Basic Rules suggest that these details will vary according to the DM's preference, the Monster Manual states clearly that sharks frenzy against any creature that doesn't have full HP.

The distinction between HP and actual wounds has never been clear, in any edition, but the fact that HP damage necessarily draws blood in 5E is irrefutable.

 

[77IM]

Although both the PHB and the Basic Rules suggest that these details will vary according to the DM's preference, the Monster Manual states clearly that sharks frenzy against any creature that doesn't have full HP.

The distinction between HP and actual wounds has never been clear, in any edition, but the fact that HP damage necessarily draws blood in 5E is irrefutable.

Sharks can smell "fatigue, bruises, and near-misses" a mile away.

 

[Tony Vargas]

We do? Since when? I'd need a cite on this, and even with one, I find it a dubious assertion. Since 1e and before, the distinction between hit points and actual wounds has been clearly drawn.

While it doesn't call it Bloodied like 4e, 5e has a sidebar that suggest visible damage (Which, sure, could be bruising rather than bleeding, so hardly definitive) starts accumulating at 1/2 max hps; 1e had a lot to say about hps and open wounds (with regard to poison), that was pretty convoluted, but could be plausibly worked out to conclude that hp damage didn't always involve wounds, and if whether a given hit resulted in an open wound mattered, a poison save would resolve the question.
All other eds are silent on the issue.