Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 7633032" data-attributes="member: 19857">The answer to the question that is the title of your post (i.e. why isn't everything scaled by proficiency bonus) is &quot;because 4th edition did it the way you suggest and it was one of the things people complained about that they adjusted for 5th edition&quot;.&nbsp; There's an argument to be made that some folks weren't complaining about the idea of advancing all of the skills by the same amount, just the range of advancement made the numbers too big and adjusted the difficulties by what they thought were ridiculous amounts (i.e. 1/2 level is too much, 1/4 level as per 5e would be fine), but it's certainly the case that many were complaining about the idea of advancing all skills by the same amount period.As to why there were complaints about it - you can see it in this whole thread.&nbsp; Everyone has a different idea of how character skills should work.&nbsp; Some of us see character progression in D&amp;D as overall competence as &quot;adventurers&quot; and think that all of the &quot;adventuring skills&quot; (i.e. the skills that we bother to track on a character sheet and make die rolls for) should advance as the character levels up.&nbsp; Others see the skill list as a set of individual expertises and see no justification for advancing all of them because it breaks their suspension of disbelief in how the world works, or their view of their own character's abilities, or something along those lines.Personally I'm in the &quot;D&amp;D is about adventurers and adventurers are special&quot; camp and think that all of your skills should go up as you level up and the skills you're trained in should give you an added bonus (if I were designing the game it likely would have been advantage on skill checks you were trained in and figuring out how to make that work).&nbsp; I think that's probably because for me skills were a tacked-on afterthought to the game I was brought up playing (skills didn't show up in AD&amp;D until I had been playing the game for a few years, and didn't show up in my then preferred BECMI rules until well after that) and they continue to feel that way to me in pretty much every edition of the game.&nbsp; Also because I've played plenty of classless skill point games over the years and if I want to play a game like that I will - if I want to play a class/level system then the class and the level should be what matters, not some distribution of skill points.&nbsp; But that's not how they went with 5e, so I just roll with it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 7633032, member: 19857"] The answer to the question that is the title of your post (i.e. why isn't everything scaled by proficiency bonus) is "because 4th edition did it the way you suggest and it was one of the things people complained about that they adjusted for 5th edition". There's an argument to be made that some folks weren't complaining about the idea of advancing all of the skills by the same amount, just the range of advancement made the numbers too big and adjusted the difficulties by what they thought were ridiculous amounts (i.e. 1/2 level is too much, 1/4 level as per 5e would be fine), but it's certainly the case that many were complaining about the idea of advancing all skills by the same amount period. As to why there were complaints about it - you can see it in this whole thread. Everyone has a different idea of how character skills should work. Some of us see character progression in D&D as overall competence as "adventurers" and think that all of the "adventuring skills" (i.e. the skills that we bother to track on a character sheet and make die rolls for) should advance as the character levels up. Others see the skill list as a set of individual expertises and see no justification for advancing all of them because it breaks their suspension of disbelief in how the world works, or their view of their own character's abilities, or something along those lines. Personally I'm in the "D&D is about adventurers and adventurers are special" camp and think that all of your skills should go up as you level up and the skills you're trained in should give you an added bonus (if I were designing the game it likely would have been advantage on skill checks you were trained in and figuring out how to make that work). I think that's probably because for me skills were a tacked-on afterthought to the game I was brought up playing (skills didn't show up in AD&D until I had been playing the game for a few years, and didn't show up in my then preferred BECMI rules until well after that) and they continue to feel that way to me in pretty much every edition of the game. Also because I've played plenty of classless skill point games over the years and if I want to play a game like that I will - if I want to play a class/level system then the class and the level should be what matters, not some distribution of skill points. But that's not how they went with 5e, so I just roll with it. [/QUOTE]

Verification