Weapon Proficiency: All or nothing?

[jrowland]

Using the Adv/Dis mechanic for non-proficiency has a drawback: What happens when you also have advantage to counter the disadvantage? I think that would be "too good", that is to say you are *mostly* at a disadvantage, but situationally you could be *normal*.

 

[Gryph]

Isn't the proficiency bonus the weapon attack bonus? Attacks with non-proficient weapons are straight ability rolls right?

That's how I read it and that interpretation leaves Advantage/Disadvantage in play when situationally appropriate.

 

[Sunseeker]

I meant objectively, as should really have been obvious. If you're going to talk comparitively, then it makes no difference whether proficiency gives a bonus or merely negates a penalty. Hell, it would make no difference if non-proficient characters got a +20 bonus and proficient ones a +24 bonus - the DCs on tests would need to be scaled accordingly, with the net result that the raw probabilities of success would be the same.

I was talking comparatively, as should really have been obvious.

Edit: Clarification: My point is only that I feel the game benefits more from the carrot than the stick.

It would do exactly what it does with skills - replacing the bonuses means that you replace the effect of raw aptitude with the effects of training.

Yet realistically, skills are a combination of raw ability and training. You can train all you want to dig a ditch, but someone physically more powerful than yourself is still going to do better with less training.

Replacing a number with a different number begs the question of the relevance of the initial number.