D&D 5E What about 1 and a 1/2 Proficiency?
Lyxen
Great Old One
The fact is that expertise is too strong for me, in a bounded accuracy environment. Yes, it's good to have experts, but when these are always combined with the strongest stat possible, the result makes it hard to manage with standard DCs. Add this to the fact that expertise is fairly limited to specific classes, barring using expensive feats makes it a bit unwieldy. So why not 1 1/2. I wouldn't be using it, but if you think about it in your campaign, I can find some justifications.
Benjamin Olson
Hero
I don't think it makes for a particularly satisfying progression, at least not as you've rounded it, given that it makes the effectiveness of whatever feature you apply it to deviate more from average at the highest and lowest character levels, which are already extreme enough in comparative effectiveness. I can't imagine tying any feature to 1.5 proficiency would ever break anyone's game, but it seems like proficiency bonus +2 gives you nearly the same results with a more even progression.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
I think proficiency bonus progression in general needs an overhaul.
I don't want to make it too complicated, but I would like a bit more progression as standard, something like your 1 and 1/2. Maybe even start with +3 and then +1 per 3 levels. (2+level/3 rounded up)
So at...
... level 1: +3
... level 4: +4
... level 7: +5
... level 10: +6
... level 13: +7
... level 16: +8
... level 19: +9
that way, you have a smoother progression that resembles your 1 and 1/2 proficiency bonus.
I'd like to have that as standard progression.
This progression leaves room for our current standard progression:
(1+level/4 rounded up)
I would change half proficiency to
(0 + level/5 rounded up)
And expertise would remain
(3+level/2 rounded up)
I don't want to make it too complicated, but I would like a bit more progression as standard, something like your 1 and 1/2. Maybe even start with +3 and then +1 per 3 levels. (2+level/3 rounded up)
So at...
... level 1: +3
... level 4: +4
... level 7: +5
... level 10: +6
... level 13: +7
... level 16: +8
... level 19: +9
that way, you have a smoother progression that resembles your 1 and 1/2 proficiency bonus.
I'd like to have that as standard progression.
This progression leaves room for our current standard progression:
(1+level/4 rounded up)
I would change half proficiency to
(0 + level/5 rounded up)
And expertise would remain
(3+level/2 rounded up)
If I thought it would be useful, sure I could add it. But I will usually always just go with using 2d10 for ability checks rather than 1d20 if I feel the need to constrain the upper levels of the check.
I mean, 1 and 1/2 proficiency is just a point or two higher than regular proficiency. When you are then adding in potentially 20 more points from the d20 die roll... those one or two additional points are comparatively almost worthless, so I personally wouldn't go out of my way to find places to add them into the game.
I mean, 1 and 1/2 proficiency is just a point or two higher than regular proficiency. When you are then adding in potentially 20 more points from the d20 die roll... those one or two additional points are comparatively almost worthless, so I personally wouldn't go out of my way to find places to add them into the game.
I introduced mechanics to do:
"If you do not have proficiency, add 1/2 (rounded up) your proficiency bonus. If you already add proficiency, add +1."
This sort of matches the 1 and 1/2 proficiency zone with a bit less math. Btw, 1.5 rounded down is 3 4 6 7 9 not 3 5 6 7 9. The difference between +1 and 1.5 rounded down is 1 point at level 9-16, then 2 points at level 17+. While this is somewhat important, I don't find it important enough to care. And, intentionally, "+1 if you have proficiency" stacks with expertise (or even another 1/2 proficiency ability).
I use this for abilities like Remarkable Athlete; you have a broad-spectrum base of support in an area, but not universal proficiency. This +1 extra then doesn't penalize you for actually having proficiency in that area; I assume areas you invest in proficiency are areas you use a lot, so the +1 is worth as much on average as 1/2 in the other areas is.
"If you do not have proficiency, add 1/2 (rounded up) your proficiency bonus. If you already add proficiency, add +1."
This sort of matches the 1 and 1/2 proficiency zone with a bit less math. Btw, 1.5 rounded down is 3 4 6 7 9 not 3 5 6 7 9. The difference between +1 and 1.5 rounded down is 1 point at level 9-16, then 2 points at level 17+. While this is somewhat important, I don't find it important enough to care. And, intentionally, "+1 if you have proficiency" stacks with expertise (or even another 1/2 proficiency ability).
I use this for abilities like Remarkable Athlete; you have a broad-spectrum base of support in an area, but not universal proficiency. This +1 extra then doesn't penalize you for actually having proficiency in that area; I assume areas you invest in proficiency are areas you use a lot, so the +1 is worth as much on average as 1/2 in the other areas is.
Slit518
Adventurer
My brain must be broken lately. I blame the new infant to the household. I know math, I swear I do!
jgsugden
Legend
There is no reason not to introduce it. It doesn't break anything. However, it isn't going to make much of a difference at all.
If I were building 6E, I'd keep the basic proficiency bonus mechanic for attacks and saves, but I would remove it from skills. Instead:
This is a pretty standard system seen in a lot of games - and I think it works better than the 5E system.
I'd add an optional rule to limit the min-maxing a bit:
If I were building 6E, I'd keep the basic proficiency bonus mechanic for attacks and saves, but I would remove it from skills. Instead:
- You'd gain proficiency points based upon a few factors and would be able to devote those points to train up your skills.
- Each purchase would increase your skill bonus with a particular skill by 1.
- The number of points you get would be impacted by your background/origin/heritage/class/intelligence.
- Further, the 'cost' to advance skills would differ based upon your class/heritage/etc...
- Skill advancement would have an increasing cost. Obtaining a little skill in something is easy - mastery requires a lot of your focus.
- More skill points could be obtained as one advances in level, or even as a reflection of time spent studying in the ROG.
This is a pretty standard system seen in a lot of games - and I think it works better than the 5E system.
I'd add an optional rule to limit the min-maxing a bit:
- When you make the decision to advance a skill with available proficiency points, you have to make an ability score check with a DC15 in order to spend those points. If you fail, you can hold onto the points and try again later when you advance again, or spend them on something else - but you're done on that skill for that level (or you're allowed to spend them, but the cost would be higher, giving you less bang ofr the buck).
Argyle King
Legend
I'll say what I've said elsewhere: proficiency dice should be the default.
I also support the idea that I've seen in a different thread that proficiency bonuses should be reduced.
I haven't done any research or analysis of this, but my initial thoughts to combine both ideas would look something like...
+1 ---> +1d4 ---> +1d6 ---> +1d8....
Abilities which currently grant double proficiency would instead bump you up to the next die size.
Overall, I think smaller boosts work better with "bounded accuracy."
I also support the idea that I've seen in a different thread that proficiency bonuses should be reduced.
I haven't done any research or analysis of this, but my initial thoughts to combine both ideas would look something like...
+1 ---> +1d4 ---> +1d6 ---> +1d8....
Abilities which currently grant double proficiency would instead bump you up to the next die size.
Overall, I think smaller boosts work better with "bounded accuracy."
Similar Threads
