• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Why don't everything scale by proficiency bonus?

Saelorn

Explorer
Instead of trying to 'fix' a system that is not broken (as evidenced by the countless games that use those rules and are incredibly fun), try experimenting with different ways to look at and utilize it to see if you can match the fun that others are having. Youll get a LOT more out of it.
Some people were content with Basic. That's no reason why everyone else should be stuck with that. If you can't criticize, then you can't optimize.
 
Last edited:

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
Surely the level 20 wizard is a bit better with a longsword than the level 1 wizard,
Thoughts?
Why would they be? To be a level 20 wizard one would expect them to have spent a lot of time practicing and studying magic, not training with swords.

If you don't use something you don't get any better.

And don't call me... never mind.
 
Last edited:

Leatherhead

Adventurer
Really this should only be considered for saving throws, and that's only because it gets much easier for monsters and NPCs to hit a PC in one of their off-saves to take them out of the fight entirely as CRs go up, and that's just not fun.

Skill checks would be mostly brought in line with bounded accuracy by capping expertise and letting the natural stat growth of a characters take care of things.

As for a Wizard learning how to swing a sword better, that's what Tenser's Transformation is for. ;)
 

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
If a wizard really wants to learn to use a sword, the downtime rules in Xanathar's guide can be used. For 300 hours practice they can become proficient.
 

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
Perhaps downtime training could be applied to saving throws?

In HP: The Order of the Phoenix the protagonist is supposed to be being trained to resist the mind-influencing spells of the villain. The effectiveness of said training was doubtful though.
 

Torquar

Villager
Really this should only be considered for saving throws, and that's only because it gets much easier for monsters and NPCs to hit a PC in one of their off-saves to take them out of the fight entirely as CRs go up, and that's just not fun.
Perhaps downtime training could be applied to saving throws?

In HP: The Order of the Phoenix the protagonist is supposed to be being trained to resist the mind-influencing spells of the villain. The effectiveness of said training was doubtful though.
There are Feats for this. But people don't like taking them because it interferes with "my build...".
 

Paul Farquhar

Explorer
There are Feats for this. But people don't like taking them because it interferes with "my build...".
There is, and I personally wouldn't allow the full proficiency bonus - half at best.

But feats are an optional rule, it might be a good idea to alow something of this sort in a no-feats game.

But personally, I think that if a party if falling foul of saving throw spells too often, they need to prepare better, not change the rules.
 
Last edited:

Krachek

Explorer
DnD is a silly system.
The proficiency bonus and the ability bonus are just there to make believe you’re playing a hero in some strange world.
Their only goal is to give you the impression of power and some kind of progression.
Are they realistic? No.
Can we have a comparaison in real life between a level 20 and a level 1? No
They are only a game mechanic, they work fine and are intuitive if you don’t ask to much question!
 

Leatherhead

Adventurer
There are Feats for this. But people don't like taking them because it interferes with "my build...".
There is one feat for that. Resilient. Which you can only take once, for one stat.

And people have asked the devs if they can take it twice or more because it's recommended for everyone except Monks.
 

Hussar

Legend
Shhhh. If you added this sort of thing, the edition warriors would have had the WotC dev's heads on pikes. After all, this is precisely what 4e did and apparently everyone hated it because it was a spectacularly bad idea. So bad of an idea that it retroactively kicked puppies before they were even born.

So, good luck with this.
 

Krachek

Explorer
Another question about the realism of proficiency bonus.

if we give level to tennis pro player.
Top1 player is level 20.
Top 2 and 3 are which level?
What level do have an obscure 215 ranked player.
What level is a casual player?
what level is a player at its very first week of play?

the 215 ranked is beaten 6-0 6-1 against top 1.
the casual player merely return a service from the 215 ranked.
 

akr71

Explorer
Some people, even though they do certain tasks every day or nearly every day, do not improve. They don't want to learn, it doesn't stick - whatever. It doesn't matter. I remind co-workers how to do certain things all the time.

Your fighter who is no better at Perception checks at level 20 as he was at level 1 is the same way. If he wanted to become better, the player would choose a feat that does so, or increase the relevant ability score.
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
Because no one in D&D ever uses a weapon they aren't proficient in, except for an occasional critical moment (only a strike from the Sword of Stuffage can kill the Badgui, and the proficient party members are all out for the count).

This isn't really addressing anything you said, just an observation that players don't actually use weapons they aren't proficient in, so it doesn't tend to matter.
We've never had someone use an item without proficiency for long. In prior editions, if a character got a new powerful weapon or something, they would use a Weapon Proficiency as soon as possible. I suppose in a featless game, without Weapon Master, or dipping into a battler class, there isn't any way for a Wizard to learn the longsword. If you opt for training like in XGtE, then the wizard could train to learn a longsword.

Regardless of how you want to do it, there are always ways for that wizard to learn that longsword.

There is one feat for that. Resilient. Which you can only take once, for one stat.

And people have asked the devs if they can take it twice or more because it's recommended for everyone except Monks.
You know, I find it funny that Elemental Adept is the only feat you can take more than once! I never even realized Resilient was a once-only thing since if any other feat should be allowed more than once, why not that? It also seems ridiculous to state a feat can be taken more than once if the description says it can when Elemental Adept IS the only one. IMO they should have just removed taking a feat more than once entirely or apply it to more than a single feat.

Another question about the realism of proficiency bonus.

if we give level to tennis pro player.
Top1 player is level 20.
Top 2 and 3 are which level?
What level do have an obscure 215 ranked player.
What level is a casual player?
what level is a player at its very first week of play?

the 215 ranked is beaten 6-0 6-1 against top 1.
the casual player merely return a service from the 215 ranked.
Watching Wimbledon are you? :)

I would imagine rankings to be similar to the Tiers in D&D. If you are in the top 10 or 20, you are somewhere in Tier 4. If you are in the top 250 or so, you are likely in Tier 3. If you play regularly at all and are fairly decent at least, you are somewhere in Tier 2, and if you play rarely or are just learning you are probably in Tier 1. Now, that isn't to say you couldn't have a 15th-level Tennis Player who plays rarely, those are simply general guidelines. It is feasible for a rank 60 player to beat a rank 1, just as it is possible for a level 14 character to beat a level 20. Is it likely? Certainly NOT! But, it is possible.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Some people, even though they do certain tasks every day or nearly every day, do not improve. They don't want to learn, it doesn't stick - whatever. It doesn't matter. I remind co-workers how to do certain things all the time.

Your fighter who is no better at Perception checks at level 20 as he was at level 1 is the same way. If he wanted to become better, the player would choose a feat that does so, or increase the relevant ability score.
I like to think I am not roleplaying your co-workers and saving throws are vital to survival
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Consider this. Your Character at level 1 and your character at level 20. Should your character not always be better at nearly everything he does as a level 20 character than when he was a level 1 character. However, this isn't manifested in non-proficient skills or saves. The level 1 fighter with 10 wisdom and no perception proficiency is typically as good as the level 20 fighter at that skill. Why? Does it really make sense for that to be the case? Can the same be said for other skills? What about saving throws? What about non-proficient weapons. Surely the level 20 wizard is a bit better with a longsword than the level 1 wizard, but such isn't actually the case.

Thoughts?
I totally agree with you. IF you bring back the age chart where your stats physical stats decrease with age bracket and mental stats increase with age bracket. Until Venerable age bracket. Then every thing decreases. This would overrule the various ageless features classes get.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Consider this. Your Character at level 1 and your character at level 20. Should your character not always be better at nearly everything he does as a level 20 character than when he was a level 1 character. However, this isn't manifested in non-proficient skills or saves. The level 1 fighter with 10 wisdom and no perception proficiency is typically as good as the level 20 fighter at that skill. Why? Does it really make sense for that to be the case? Can the same be said for other skills? What about saving throws? What about non-proficient weapons. Surely the level 20 wizard is a bit better with a longsword than the level 1 wizard, but such isn't actually the case.

Thoughts?
"Should your character not always be better at nearly everything he does as a level 20 character than when he was a level 1 character."

Everything he does, sure. All the things he could have done or ever do? Nope.

But its just a matter of how you represent the better? A 20th level wizard can pull out his dagger and wipe the floor with a 1st level wizard. He doesnt beed to get more and more stacking bonuses to do it.

We have seen games with stacking higher and higher bonuses. Meh.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I thought this way once myself. But I would like to point out that people change and unless you practice something, you lose it. I used to skateboard when I was in my teens, but that was 30 years ago. Would I fall if I jumped on one now? Hopefully not, but I wouldn't be any better at it since I haven't been in continual practice and using it since then.
In the previous edition you were allowed you to retrain many character things .... swapping one for another as part of advancement. This allowed you to hone your build as your character went along could swap out one skill focus for another for instance but you still gained in general capacity along side that.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
True, I don't think I've ever seen a system that degenerates skills for non-use.
RuneQuest used tick marks to track what they used for randomized advancement in those abilities and it resulted in silly behavior... personally I assume off camera activities

I think in 4e if you retrain your skill focus and 3 points move from one skill to another... that kind of represents degeneration by way of ahem refocusing

When I've discussed it in the past in a game I made with some other players years ago, the result in playtesting was players using skills for silly reasons simply so it wouldn't degrade. In a like manner, when adventures stop adventuring for an extended period of time, hit points should also degrade IMO, but they don't. Heck, 5E even removed aging modifiers so characters would lose STR, DEX, and CON in exchange for gaining INT and possibly some WIS. I liked those ideas in AD&D.

For better or worse, D&D fails to model a lot of things that happen in real life and the best we can do is adapt with what we have to work with. In your wizard/longsword example, if the wizard has been using it without gaining his proficiency bonus, but is determined to use it any way because the player wills it so, then the DM could gradually award proficiency. Perhaps with each level, the DM decides "Has the wizard used the longsword enough to warrant improvement since last level?" If so, grant a +1 "leaning bonus". Once the learning bonus matches the character level proficiency bonus, the character is proficient.

If you prefer a purely mechanical method, something like "if during this level, the wizard has made X number of attacks with the longsword, he earns a learning bonus for this level." You can decide on the X as you feel suites your table.

For simplicity's sake, the half bonus (maybe starting at level 3?) works well IMO if you absolutely had to include it. With rounding down, the non-proficiency bonus would thus be:

Level 1: +0
2: +0
3: +1
4: +1
5: +1
6: +1
7: +1
8: +1
9: +2
10: +2
11: +2
12: +2
13: +2
14: +2
15: +2
16: +2
17: +3
18: +3
19: +3
20: +3

A simple option could be +1 at level 3, +2 at level 9, +3 at level 15 (just a +1 every six level beginning at 3rd). Another option is make it Tier-based: Tier 1, no bonus, Tier 2 = +1, Tier 3 = +2, Tier 4 = +3. It works out somewhat close to the half-proficiency bonus, but is slightly slower.

I don't know, there are tons of ways to implement it. Pick your poison. :)
Reminds me of the Inherent bonuses option from 4e. Basically you could only get the bonus if you didnt have a magic item that did better. Of course that would be closer to a full proficiency not half though It was only for attack and armor and such.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top