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

[Sword of Spirit]

If you weren't proficient in a weapon, why didn't you ever get proficiency if you've been using it so much?

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.

 

[Greg K]

I am fine with saves scaling up with level. However, I would prefer if proficiencies with skills and tools improved by allocating skill points upon leveling.

 

[Garthanos]

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 consider it General Competency. To me the answer is yes. And I would largely add it on top of the other things why not.

 

[Kor]

Technically, your non-proficient skills and saves do increase slightly, if you increase your ability scores as you level up. Also, just because you become more experienced doesn't mean that everything you know should increase. If there are other saves and skills that you want increased over time, then there are mechanics for doing it with feats.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

In real life there is huge overlap between broad categories and when you are skilled enough seeing how its done can still teach some, On top of that the heroes arent real life either so there is that and I cannot imagine a character patterned after Cu Cuhlaine taking more than half an hour to be better with a weapon than the one who "taught" him.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

Because.

It could be like you say, but it just isn't.

When it was (4e), a common complaint was that the character who never ever wielded X or used Y was getting better at it just by doing nothing, and better than a fully-dedicated character just a few levels lower.

It's simply a design choice, and every design choice as well as its opposite can be criticised for not making sense enough.

 

[Garthanos]

If I were to design the system. All skills increase by proficiency modifer except for skills you excel at and skills you are poor at. To determine what skills you excel and are poor at roll a d4. You excel at that many skills and are poor at that many skills. Skills you excel at get double proficiency bonus. Skills you are poor at receive no proficiency bonus.

There, the whole thing is fixed

Very interesting I like it ... not the random die part but still

 

[Li Shenron]

And generally speaking, D&D is NOT supposed to be a model or simulation of real life. If you want a top-accurate representation of it, go fight monsters in real life.

- Li "I've owned a piano for 20 years, never played it but had a very successful career in medicine, how come I am still not a good pianist" Shenron

 

[Torquar]

That level 20 Fighter has had 7 opportunities to improve their skills or shore up weak saves. If they would rather put all their effort into working out, or new and interesting ways to kill things that's their decision .

 

[Garthanos]

I think the games adventuring skills are not the same as everyday skills, they are in a sense about how those skills are being leveraged in an adventure context and they are being touched in small ways all the time and you are seeing how others do it as well.

Acrobatics is not the entertainment sport that a certain plucky lass mixes in dance moves which makes makes my heart thump while she does crazy flips... usually its that edging around a cliff face and sometimes its fast travel over bad terrain after studying it or catching wildly while you are about to fall off a cliff and similar things.

The Dungeoneering skill in 4e was somewhat silly but I picture Frodo listening to Uncle bilbo's stories and learning it every inn stop is a lesson.

And so on and so forth