D&D 5E Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?

[Kobold Stew]

You seem to be answering why they wouldn't in 5e. I'm you realized that wasn't the question I was asking....

At least one of us isn't understanding the other. Perhaps re-read what you are responding to, and proofread your own posts, so a more productive exchange will be possible.

 

[FrogReaver]

At least one of us isn't understanding the other. Perhaps re-read what you are responding to, and proofread your own posts, so a more productive exchange will be possible.

After you

 

[Tony Vargas]

If a fighter spends a lot of their time making perception checks, actively looking out for things, fighting off mind-affecting spells and learning what sort of things work and what doesn't, its up to the player to justify why their perceptiveness, willpower and common sense haven't improved.

And if the player can't justify it, is he penalized with bonuses?




Edit: No, wait, I get it, you re-assign his ASIs. Not enough pumping iron, too much reading, your ASI goes to INT.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Dude, in post 1, you ask, "Does it really make sense for that to be the case?" I said yes (as have many others). You have a right to disagree, but now you are simply trolling.

I offered my opinion (post 86), and asked why would they do better at something they had no aptitude in. You quoted the post (105), and asked only "Why wouldn't they?" I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and answered your question, rather than assume you were simply fighting for the sake of it.

Your response in 109 is ungrammatical (you've still not corrected it), and I do not know what you are attempting to say there. Rather than read your own post, however, you again fight back.

Your most recent "after you" (112) suggests that you feel that I have not communicated clearly at some point, or have failed to read something correctly -- if so, please tell me what that is.

(I'm making an inference, since you have not offered anything substantive to my points).

Bad-faith discussions are not worth anyone's time. If you want to talk about the issue you raised, I'm happy to proceed.

 

[Garthanos]

I think it makes utter sense that with the way adventures go that people would have direct proficiency in the three most common saves... it isn't even something you choose or choose not to do.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Or, they system could have perception automatically scale with level, but also have other things affect it like stat and proficiency.

Are there any ability scores that wouldn't improve with the constant use through widespread but generic adventuring tasks.

And if the player can't justify it, is he penalized with bonuses?
Edit: No, wait, I get it, you re-assign his ASIs. Not enough pumping iron, too much reading, your ASI goes to INT.

If you only have limited ability improvements and can choose where they go, the player may prefer putting them into a different ability score, unless having a high Wisdom is important to their concept.

But this thread seems to be about a level of 'realism', and in that context, it is tricky to imagine that carrying adventuring gear, moving deftly, travelling for long periods of time exposed to the elements, thinking through plans, keeping an eye out for danger, and talking with your companions and those you meet would not make you better at that sort of thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But this thread seems to be about a level of 'realism', and in that context, it is tricky to imagine that carrying adventuring gear, moving deftly, travelling for long periods of time exposed to the elements, thinking through plans, keeping an eye out for danger, and talking with your companions and those you meet would not make you better at that sort of thing.

I'm not fond of Realism, in general. Call it fidelity, or verisimilitude or consistency...

...but, really, there's no reason characters shouldn't get broadly better at coping with adventuring challenges (like all saving throws, at a minimum), just like they get a lot better at surviving being beaten on with sticks, even if they take no damage at all for levels at a time (ie HD).

 

[Garthanos]

Are there any ability scores that wouldn't improve with the constant use through widespread but generic adventuring tasks.

Not that I am thinking...

In the last edition at 11 and 21 all attributes went up by 1 each

that would be like advancing in 5e at 10 and 16 or something similar

 

[FrogReaver]

If you want to talk about the issue you raised, I'm happy to proceed.

Then don't get so defensive when I complain about you providing an obvious non-answer to the question I asked.

 

[FrogReaver]

Are there any ability scores that wouldn't improve with the constant use through widespread but generic adventuring tasks.

Ability scores are a bit more biological than skillful. Strength and intelligence and Wisdom are the easiest to envision raising with level. Dexterity, con and charisma are the hardest for me. Especially con.

But more importantly, the ability scores aren't strictly coupled with skills - what I mean by that is that when you raise an ability score your skill bonuses increase. However, when you increase your skill bonuses your ability scores don't increase.

I think because of this it makes more sense to leave it at skills, but there's some ability scores I wouldn't be particularly opposed to increasing by level.

But this thread seems to be about a level of 'realism', and in that context, it is tricky to imagine that carrying adventuring gear, moving deftly, travelling for long periods of time exposed to the elements, thinking through plans, keeping an eye out for danger, and talking with your companions and those you meet would not make you better at that sort of thing.

Isn't every system concerned with some level of 'realism' in the abilities, skills etc that are used?