Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TaranTheWanderer" data-source="post: 7600771" data-attributes="member: 15882">I think I mentioned this before but I'll reiterate/expand what I was saying previously.&nbsp; Keep in mind I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so maybe it's been said already:I don't think 'non proficient' means 'unskilled' (as it's worded in the poll).I think 5e assums that adventurers are 'skilled' at all skills listed but that those with 'proficiency' have a more specialized training.&nbsp; Otherwise, if 'non-proficient' meant 'non-skilled', certain skills would be impossible to do perform without training.&nbsp; If you have no concept of how tumblers work in a lock, you have almost no hope of picking a lock.Which, imo, is why so many people chose the first answer in the poll.&nbsp; Obviously, someone with no training in a skill or discipline(unskilled)&nbsp; will lose out to someone with Olympic/doctoral training(highest proficiency).But someone with some training, could potentially beat someone with highest proficiency.&nbsp; The difference between fully proficient and non-proficient is 30%.&nbsp; The difference between 'unskilled/untrained' and fully proficient is, naturally, a huge impassable canyon.Someone who has never played (or hardly played) chess(unskilled) and has little to no grasp of the rules, will never win against a grand master.&nbsp; Someone who has good grasp of chess and plays casually or, even, regularly(non-proficient) could, possibly win, given enough tries.In short:&nbsp; I don't think the poll properly describes what it is to be 'non-proficient' and is misleading - at least, in the context of D&amp;D 5e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TaranTheWanderer, post: 7600771, member: 15882"] I think I mentioned this before but I'll reiterate/expand what I was saying previously. Keep in mind I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so maybe it's been said already: I don't think 'non proficient' means 'unskilled' (as it's worded in the poll). I think 5e assums that adventurers are 'skilled' at all skills listed but that those with 'proficiency' have a more specialized training. Otherwise, if 'non-proficient' meant 'non-skilled', certain skills would be impossible to do perform without training. If you have no concept of how tumblers work in a lock, you have almost no hope of picking a lock. Which, imo, is why so many people chose the first answer in the poll. Obviously, someone with no training in a skill or discipline(unskilled) will lose out to someone with Olympic/doctoral training(highest proficiency). But someone with [I]some training[/I], could potentially beat someone with highest proficiency. The difference between fully proficient and non-proficient is 30%. The difference between 'unskilled/untrained' and fully proficient is, naturally, a huge impassable canyon. Someone who has never played (or hardly played) chess(unskilled) and has little to no grasp of the rules, will never win against a grand master. Someone who has good grasp of chess and plays casually or, even, regularly(non-proficient) could, [I]possibly[/I] win, given enough tries. In short: I don't think the poll properly describes what it is to be 'non-proficient' and is misleading - at least, in the context of D&D 5e. [/QUOTE]

Verification