Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7633313" data-attributes="member: 7006">For me... the reason why I have no reason or desire to have skills or saving throws get better even if you haven't trained in them is simple...I don't treat the bonus as the end-all-and-be-all of how good someone is at doing something.&nbsp; I look at the total score they can get.How does the Level 20 character do better at a skill they don't have proficiency in?&nbsp; They roll higher on a particular check.&nbsp; Hell... even a Level 1 character can oftentimes do better than a Level 20 character who HAS trained in a particular skill-- when the Level 1 character rolls a '19' and the Level 20 character rolls a '6'.Quite frankly, I think it makes much less sense that the numbers gained from ability modifier + proficiency bonus is considered the &quot;training&quot; of a character, while the &quot;complete randomness of the world&quot; has a much greater impact on whether or not you succeed.&nbsp; Proficiency bonus for most characters go from +0 to +6 (non-proficient to Level 20 proficient)... and yet the &quot;wild vagaries of life&quot; produce results from 1 to 20.&nbsp; When looked at through that lens... being high level and trained is comparatively less important than just how &quot;the randomness of life&quot; is.THAT'S what I think is the dumber proposition.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />When you have a Level 1 character without proficiency and any ability modifier (+0 total) able to roll a check against a fully ability modified (+5) and full proficient (+6) person and still be able to beat that supposedly uber person on various checks (&quot;I rolled a 17 on my Perception check and I have no bonus, what'd you roll?&nbsp; Oh, a 3-- grand total of 14?&nbsp; Oh, what a shame!&quot;... the idea that the Level 1 character needs to somehow &quot;get better&quot; over time I think is kind of silly.&nbsp; Because more often than not, it ain't that +1 bonus you might want to give non-proficient PCs over time that makes them feel like they are &quot;getting better&quot;... it's all the times they roll 15s, 18s, and 20s on all their checks that does it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7633313, member: 7006"] For me... the reason why I have no reason or desire to have skills or saving throws get better even if you haven't trained in them is simple... I don't treat the bonus as the end-all-and-be-all of how good someone is at doing something. I look at the [I]total score[/I] they can get. How does the Level 20 character do better at a skill they don't have proficiency in? They roll higher on a particular check. Hell... even a Level 1 character can oftentimes do better than a Level 20 character who HAS trained in a particular skill-- when the Level 1 character rolls a '19' and the Level 20 character rolls a '6'. Quite frankly, I think it makes much less sense that the numbers gained from ability modifier + proficiency bonus is considered the "training" of a character, while the "complete randomness of the world" has a [B]much greater[/B] impact on whether or not you succeed. Proficiency bonus for most characters go from +0 to +6 (non-proficient to Level 20 proficient)... and yet the "wild vagaries of life" produce results from 1 to 20. When looked at [I]through that lens[/I]... being high level and trained is comparatively less important than just how "the randomness of life" is. THAT'S what I think is the dumber proposition. ;) When you have a Level 1 character without proficiency and any ability modifier (+0 total) able to roll a check against a fully ability modified (+5) and full proficient (+6) person and still be able to beat that supposedly uber person on various checks ("I rolled a 17 on my Perception check and I have no bonus, what'd you roll? Oh, a 3-- grand total of 14? Oh, what a shame!"... the idea that the Level 1 character needs to somehow "get better" over time I think is kind of silly. Because more often than not, it ain't that +1 bonus you might want to give non-proficient PCs over time that makes them feel like they are "getting better"... it's all the times they roll 15s, 18s, and 20s on all their checks that does it. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification