Swap a skill for weapon proficiency.

[Kurt Kurageous]

What's the rule? What document? What ratio?

I'm looking to get a rogue to use a heavy crossbow.

What's your opinion?

Sorry, I can't find a similar thread in time. yes, I'm sure there was one. Please forgive.

[suplee215]

RAW I don't think there is a way to do it. Ask the DM about it. Heavy Crossbow on a Rogue is also the strongest weapon you can give them for sneak attack so I question if this is for roleplay/concept reasons or min/max reasons. RAW no way to get a rogue with a heavy crossbow without the weapon master feat, hobgoblin race (Volo's Guide to Monsters), or multiclassing.

[PeteNutButter]

Seems like a raw power boost, and upsets game balance. Its like asking if a wizard can give up skills for armor proficiency. I'm sure you can find a homebrew out there, but I can promise it's not really balanced.

Best solution, just take a level of fighter. The +2 to hit and other goodies are more than worth it.

You could find a race that gives it. Hobgoblin gives proficiency in two martial weapons of your choice, if you are feeling like a Spiderman villain.

[dejarnjc]

The rule is "talk to your DM". Explain why you want to use a heavy crossbow. Let him/her decide. It's legal per RAW if you want to consider that your character , before the start of the campaign, trained extensively with a heavy crossbow but only if your DM OKs it.



*EDIT* for those that say it could upset balance... it's a difference of 2 extra damage per round (on average). It may make a difference for the first 3 levels but that's it. You also don't have to worry about multiple attacks with rogues either.

[PeteNutButter]

*EDIT* for those that say it could upset balance... it's a difference of 2 extra damage per round (on average). It may make a difference for the first 3 levels but that's it. You also don't have to worry about multiple attacks with rogues either.

It upsets balance in that another player could take a level in class to specifically gain proficiency in something, while the rogue got it for free. It's the equivalent damage increase of allowing the rogue's rapier to deal 1d12 damage, just because.

Meanwhile the barbarian is asking for "1d14" for his greataxe to keep up with free damage increases.

Yes, its minor, but it still is beyond the balance.

[dejarnjc]

It upsets balance in that another player could take a level in class to specifically gain proficiency in something, while the rogue got it for free. It's the equivalent damage increase of allowing the rogue's rapier to deal 1d12 damage, just because.

Meanwhile the barbarian is asking for "1d14" for his greataxe to keep up with free damage increases.

Yes, its minor, but it still is beyond the balance.

The player is offering up a skill so it's definitely not for "free" and mechanically it's probably less powerful than him just going human variant and crossbow master from level 1. As I said, talk to the DM, give him/her a good reason why. And yes it affects balance slightly but it won't break the game and is potentially less DPS-optimall than other completely standard options.

[Beelzebubba]

Well, if you want to be super duper pedantic:

The feat for adding weapon proficiencies gives you four.
The feat for adding skills gives you three.
So, in game terms, a skill is worth slightly more than a weapon proficiency.

That's not the whole picture (skills vary in power, same with weapons) but it's something to consider.

[Ninja_Prawn]

So, in game terms, a skill is worth slightly more than a weapon proficiency.

Weapon Master is a half-feat, as well, so you could say it's actually 3 skills to 8 weapons.

Anyway, as a DM and a homebrewer I tend to agree with this principle; when I'm designing new races, I rate a racial skill as roughly equal to a set of three or four racial weapon proficiencies (on the proviso that at least some of those weapons are the unpopular ones).

[Kurt Kurageous]

You and I are the DM. I let players take a free feat at level 1 because I start them at level 1.

This request is for a NPC or possibly player concept. Here's the concept/backstory.

A variant human (or half elf) guild artisan (from a family that, guess what, makes crossbows) is the slightly more charming one and instead of being stuck in the shop toiling away becomes the family salesman. Selling involves demonstration, and some demonstrations are more realistic/demanding than others. Sometimes, aggressive customers want incentives that have nothing to do with price and delivery dates and rates. So, like any normal salesman, they do what it takes to make the sale. And that leads down some dark and bloody paths.

Here's the build concept. Rogue Assassin specializing in extreme range. Sharpshooter feat. Eventually (or immediately as variant human and free feat) take Lucky feat.

Here's the desired mechanic. The wanting a heavy crossbow is not really about the base weapon damage, but about being able to do damage at long range. At third level with the assassin archetype feature (ONLY in the ideal situation of target surprised) gives advantage. Assuming a DEX mod of +3 and Proficiency of +2, using the -5 to hit/+10 damage, add sneak, add critical, roll 2d20 for advantage, and you have a really "big shot." I don't really care that the damage die is a d10, It could be a d6 or d8. The build just needs the range. The range is needed to make the shot impressive and/or allow separation and a maximum chance for our hero (?) to escape.

When you add the lucky feat, you could be rolling three(!) d20s to hit when making your big shot. If the shooter has a spotter casting guidance (add d4 to the best roll), it really ups the odds for a hit vs a high AC and increases the likeliness of a critical if it's not a qualifying assassination.

Yes, I thought about going elf rogue for the racial ability with a longbow. I'm turned off by the concept of having to stand up to make the shot and hung up on the craft/artisan aspect of the crossbow vs a longbow, which I feel is more about the wood used and skill of the user and less about the craftsmanship in production.

And I'm willing to give up the proficiency bonus if push comes to shove, but a -2 to the best roll really ruins the whole thing versus a high target AC.

What say you now, DM?

[nickl_2000]

I see your concept, but the same concept could easily be achieved with going High or Wood Elf. Then you get a Longbow which has a longer ranger than the Heavy Crossbow and is following normal Rules. It's an interesting background, but doing the same thing with a Bow would be completely RAW and wouldn't cause any issues.


If a PC really had their heart set on it, I would probably do it as a Custom Background.
The PC gets
Tool Profs: Woodcarvers tools and Heavy Crossbow Prof
Skill Profs: Persuasion

Then some custom flavor Feature. In general, I don't like the idea of a direct combat skill from a background which is why you loose a Skill and a Tool prof to get it. If you are willing to sacrifice both of those for the background story and idea then I know you are serious about it from a story perspective and not just doing it to get a little more power out of a character.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I didn't want to go the longbow route for RW historical reasons. There were houses/families that had contracts to provide the rulers crossbows. Crossbows were much preferred over longbows because they could be used well by almost anyone, whereas the skill to nock an arrow, the strength to pull a yew bow, and the eye to aim and hit a man on a horse at 100 yards or more took a lot of training time. That meant paying for the time/quartering of the man, making them very expensive. Far more attractive to hand a part time guard/ militia levy the equivalent of a hunting rifle with a fixed sight, put a strap with a hook on their belt, and put them on top of a wall with a weapon capable of doing nearly the same damage at the same range with a bolt (not an easily warped arrow!) that is cheaper to make and maintain.

[nickl_2000]

I didn't want to go the longbow route for RW historical reasons. There were houses/families that had contracts to provide the rulers crossbows. Crossbows were much preferred over longbows because they could be used well by almost anyone, whereas the skill to nock an arrow, the strength to pull a yew bow, and the eye to aim and hit a man on a horse at 100 yards or more took a lot of training time. That meant paying for the time/quartering of the man, making them very expensive. Far more attractive to hand a part time guard/ militia levy the equivalent of a hunting rifle with a fixed sight, put a strap with a hook on their belt, and put them on top of a wall with a weapon capable of doing nearly the same damage at the same range with a bolt (not an easily warped arrow!) that is cheaper to make and maintain.

Makes sense, so I would fall back on the Background I mentioned.

[mgshamster]

When I saw the title of the thread, my first reaction was, "No, you shouldn't let a player do that, because skills are worth more than weapons."

I was thinking that if they wanted to give up a hard earned skill, they should be getting more than one weapon proficiency. I was also thinking a weapon proficiency would be closer in value to a tool or language proficiency.

Then I read the thread and see that practically everyone else is against it because they think the weapon is too strong. Really? Wow.

That really sets my mind on the matter: go ahead and do it. It'll be fine.

If it's an npc, don't even bother with trading out mechanics. Just give the npc the weapon proficiency and be done with it. If it's a PC, there's a few things you can do to keep it balanced:

1) Give everyone a feat, and that PC gets the weapon master feat.
2) Give everyone an extra 250 gp*, and give that PC downtime training for a weapon proficiency.
3) Trade out a language or tool proficiency (or both) for it.
4) Just give everyone an extra weapon proficiency. If someone already has all weapons, give them an extra tool or language proficiency​ (or maybe give them an extra +1 to attack for one weapon).

*Alter it if you're using the UA downtime rules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Then I read the thread and see that practically everyone else is against it because they think the weapon is too strong. Really? Wow.

That really sets my mind on the matter: go ahead and do it. It'll be fine.
Yeah. It's a minor benefit for a fair price. No harm done. I swear, people flip out at changing the smallest things in this edition...

[Citan]

What's the rule? What document? What ratio?

I'm looking to get a rogue to use a heavy crossbow.

What's your opinion?

Sorry, I can't find a similar thread in time. yes, I'm sure there was one. Please forgive.
Hi!

Should be no problem imo, just talk to your DM. Atlhough you could easily achieve this RAW by starting as a Variant Human with the Weapon Master feat. ;)

@other people saying it would unbalance things: no, it wouldn't, because OP asked specifically for a trade of skill against weapon. So it's not "free".

You could honestly argue OP is actually losing here because skill has more wide uses than "just" a weapon.
Also, consider the feats : Skilled (3 skills) vs Weapon Master (4 weapons): as inconvenient as this kind of comparison may be, it still shows that it's of more or less equal value.

Finally, damage-wise, it really won't make a significant difference in the first place.

[Naanomi]

If you are at a table that is ok with minor rule alterations (and not all are, I don't in general), this one won't break anything major. However I might still recommend a level in Fighter instead; archery style adds a loot of oomph to a sniper concept

[Ninja_Prawn]

What say you now, DM?

I'd allow it, as a trade for your racial skill (or one of same, if you go half-elf). That seems fair to me, and what you're proposing won't break my game.

[Tanarii]

Take Weapon master.You just bought 4 weapons and a ability score point for the price of three skills. (Also this allows you to select Whip and Longbow while you're at it.)

It's worth noting that the ratio, using the feats as a baseline is:
1 ability score points vs
4 weapon proficiencies vs
1.5 skills

[ZorroGames]

What's the rule? What document? What ratio?

I'm looking to get a rogue to use a heavy crossbow.

What's your opinion?

Sorry, I can't find a similar thread in time. yes, I'm sure there was one. Please forgive.


First question I ask you as a DM - what are you giving up in trade?

In other words, show me why I should open that can of worms and what is your motivation?

[mgshamster]

Yeah. It's a minor benefit for a fair price. No harm done. I swear, people flip out at changing the smallest things in this edition...

It's a philosophy I really don't understand. Of all the editions of d&d, this one is the most customizable. The books actively encourage gaming groups and DMs to customize the rules to best fit their style, and even the entire design philosophy of the game - rulings over rules - is about adjusting the rules and game to what makes sense for you.

[dejarnjc]

It's a philosophy I really don't understand. Of all the editions of d&d, this one is the most customizable. The books actively encourage gaming groups and DMs to customize the rules to best fit their style, and even the entire design philosophy of the game - rulings over rules - is about adjusting the rules and game to what makes sense for you.

I could not possibly agree more.

[LordCdrMilitant]

If it was my campaign, I'd say "sure, go ahead".

IMO, the skill is a lot more valuable than the marginal damage increase from the crossbow.

I'd be more worried the character would end up underpowered due to the loss of the skill than overpowered from 2 extra potential damage.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's a philosophy I really don't understand. Of all the editions of d&d, this one is the most customizable. The books actively encourage gaming groups and DMs to customize the rules to best fit their style, and even the entire design philosophy of the game - rulings over rules - is about adjusting the rules and game to what makes sense for you.
And of all the things to care about when tweaking, DPS is pretty much the last thing that matters. 5e monsters have too much health half the time anyway.

[Ruslan]

As mentioned above, there's no RAW way to exchange skill proficiency for weapon proficiency. However, I would argue that allowing it is not necessarily unbalancing. Compare:

Skilled feat: three skills at the cost of one feat (therefore, 1 skill prof = 0.333 feat)
Weapon Master feat: four weapon proficiencies at the cost of a half-feat (therefore, 1 weapon prof = 0.125 feat)

Going by this criteria, at least, a weapon proficiency 'costs less' than a skill proficiency.

[LordCdrMilitant]

As mentioned above, there's no RAW way to exchange skill proficiency for weapon proficiency. However, I would argue that allowing it is not necessarily unbalancing. Compare:

Skilled feat: three skills at the cost of one feat (therefore, 1 skill prof = 0.333 feat)
Weapon Master feat: four weapon proficiencies at the cost of a half-feat (therefore, 1 weapon prof = 0.125 feat)

Going by this criteria, at least, a weapon proficiency 'costs less' than a skill proficiency.

That's before you get into the fact that you use skill all the time for a diverse varieties of applications, and with one less skill you're losing out on 25% of the chances you could be contributing, sitting aside instead, whereas you're probably only ever going to make use of the one proficiency for your favorite weapon and armor the whole campaign, and forget you have proficiency in the other many varieties of weapon.

[Naanomi]

That's before you get into the fact that you use skill all the time for a diverse varieties of applications, and with one less skill you're losing out on 25% of the chances you could be contributing, sitting aside instead, whereas you're probably only ever going to make use of the one proficiency for your favorite weapon and armor the whole campaign, and forget you have proficiency in the other many varieties of weapon.
Well... a V. human rogue would only have 14% less skills... but the point still stands

[LordCdrMilitant]

Well... a V. human rogue would only have 14% less skills... but the point still stands

Well, yes, I was using the default case, but really the point is that most of the skills are far more valuable than a weapon prof, far more than the .33 to.25 feat value suggests.

Maybe there's one or two I might consider giving up for a prof. I don't think I've ever rolled medicine because Clerics and Paladins are a thing, but even then, the prof would have to be like "siege ordnance operator".

[JNAProductions]

This is a strict DOWNGRADE in power. A free weapon proficiency represents a boost of maybe 1-2 DPR, with one attack. At most, with 4 attacks (AKA FIGHTER FREAKING 20!) it's maybe 8 DPR.

A skill, on the other hand... Most people only get four of the damn things! Even Rogues only get six! I would never give up a skill for a weapon proficiency.

Allowing that should be fine.

[Ruslan]

This is a strict DOWNGRADE in power. A free weapon proficiency represents a boost of maybe 1-2 DPR, with one attack. At most, with 4 attacks (AKA FIGHTER FREAKING 20!) it's maybe 8 DPR.A Fighter is already proficient in all weapons, so doesn't need this trade ever.

Most classes who could consider a skill-to-weapon trade only have 1 attack. The Monk has 2 (and his Martial Arts die soon outpaces the damage die of any martial weapon anyway)

[Tanarii]

That's before you get into the fact that you use skill all the time for a diverse varieties of applications, and with one less skill you're losing out on 25% of the chances you could be contributing, sitting aside instead, whereas you're probably only ever going to make use of the one proficiency for your favorite weapon and armor the whole campaign, and forget you have proficiency in the other many varieties of weapon.If you're only contributing to checks you're proficient in, your DM has missed the entire point of the 5e ability check system.

[LordCdrMilitant]

If you're only contributing to checks you're proficient in, your DM has missed the entire point of the 5e ability check system.

I didn't say you weren't taking the checks. You're just failing them if you do. Which is the same thing, really, except there's a bad effect instead of no effect.

Without proficiency, if there's a task anyone can do, then the proficient person gets nominated and the non-proficient stand aside and cheer him on. If the GM puts a specific person on the spot for a check, or a check everyone has to do, you fail it if you're not proficient, and everyone has to help you.

[Tanarii]

I didn't say you weren't taking the checks. You're just failing them if you do. Which is the same thing, really, except there's a bad effect instead of no effect.

Without proficiency, if there's a task anyone can do, then the proficient person gets nominated and the non-proficient stand aside and cheer him on. If the GM puts a specific person on the spot for a check, or a check everyone has to do, you fail it if you're not proficient, and everyone has to help you.
Yeah, everything you've said here indicates you *have* missed the point of the 5e ability check system. There's no assumption of PC proficiency, nor that they will or should fail if they are non-proficient.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Yeah, everything you've said here indicates you *have* missed the point of the 5e ability check system. There's no assumption of PC proficiency, nor that they will or should fail if they are non-proficient.

A skill proficiency is worth +2 to +6, IIRC, Expertise +4 to +12. Your characteristic bonus to the skill is going to be worth between -2 to +5.

If the roll is a DC15, then unless you have a full 20 in the stat for the non-proficient skill, which you probably don't, since you can only get a 20 in one, maybe two stats, you have a >50% chance of failing it, even at high level. If you're proficient in it, at low level it'll make a small difference, but at mid to high levels you're passing skills checks easily you'd have small chance of passing otherwise. And, if you've got expertise, then you almost can't fail. That's before considering that your skills tend to align with your good stats.

Just the +2 alone at base level is worth 4 points of the stat. A 16 with prof is equal to a 20 without.

[Tanarii]

A skill proficiency is worth +2 to +6, IIRC, Expertise +4 to +12. Your characteristic bonus to the skill is going to be worth between -2 to +5.Right. Proficiency is about equal to a good stat bonus, or rather about 1 point ahead, from what I can see. And given that the majority of play is expected to happen in the range of levels 5-10, we're actually talking about a +3 to +4 (+15% to +20%) bonus being 'typical' for proficiency. About 5% better than a talented/trained character with a 14-16 score.


If the roll is a DC15,DC 15 checks are quite difficult checks, 75% chance of failure for someone with no natural talent, training (both of which are represented by ability scores), or special focus (proficiency). They shouldn't be all that common.

Nothing you've said justifies your claim that "You're just failing them if you do [take checks without proficiency]". In fact, the DMG specifically tells the DM to keep in mind how likely a character with no bonuses is likely to fail when setting DCs. Not maxed bonuses. This isn't 3.5, where you have to max ranks to even think about making a check with a chance of success.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Right. Proficiency is about equal to a good stat bonus, or rather about 1 point ahead. As intended. And given that the majority of play is expected to happen in the range of levels 5-10, we're actually talking about a +3 to +4 (+15% to +20%) bonus being 'typical' for proficiency. About 5% better than a talented/trained character with a 14-16 score.

DC 15 checks are quite difficult checks, 75% chance of failure for someone with no natural talent, training (both of which are represented by ability scores), or special focus (proficiency). They shouldn't be all that common.

Nothing you've said justifies your claim that "You're just failing them if you do [take checks without proficiency]". In fact, the DMG specifically tells the DM to keep in mind how likely a character with no bonuses is likely to fail when setting DCs. Not maxed bonuses. This isn't 3.5, where you have to max ranks to even think about making a check with a chance of success.

DC15 representing "challenging" seems appropriate to me. I don't see how these "aren't all that common". They strike me as probably the most common checks called for.

[Tanarii]

DC15 representing "challenging" seems appropriate to me. I don't see how these "aren't all that common". They strike me as probably the most common checks called for.
If that's been your 5e gaming experience, I can see why you think that only people with proficiency (and I assume a high stat bonus too) should make checks.

[LordCdrMilitant]

If that's been your 5e gaming experience, I can see why you think that only people with proficiency (and I assume a high stat bonus too) should make checks.

To some degree, yes. I don't actually know what the DC's of the checks our GM for 5e calls for are.

GM'ing for Dark Heresy, I mostly call for "Challenging" checks, which an ordinary human without training would pass on the order of 25%-30% of the time. Sometimes I call for easier checks, but most easy and routine things I don't call for a check to do.

[Ruslan]

DC 15 checks are quite difficult checks, 75% chance of failure for someone with no natural talent, training (both of which are represented by ability scores), or special focus (proficiency). 70%, actually. Which mean, a random Joe Shmoe from the village on Nowhereburg, who has no training and no natural aptitude, would still succeed 30% of the time. If Joe Shmoe has a Jane Shmoe assisting him somehow, he will, in fact, succeed more than half of the time (due to Advantage).

I don't see what's so exceptional about pitting a group of adventurers to face a task in which two random villagers will succeed more than half the time.

[Crusher]

If that's been your 5e gaming experience, I can see why you think that only people with proficiency (and I assume a high stat bonus too) should make checks.

Except that a DC15 check isn't THAT hard, nor should it be uncommon. A DC10 check is a check than an absolutely average, untrained person could make half the time. Adventurers, most of the time, aren't average, untrained people. Even at level 1, they are highly skilled, extraordinarily talented people.

An adventure calibrated around DC10 challenges is an adventure with (non-combat) challenges that reasonably should be overcome by a completely average group of non-adventuring farmers. That sounds like an extremely low bar for a party of level 1 adventurers. And since you seem to be talking about level 5-10 characters, that seems *ridiculously* low.

Edit - Ruslan beat me to it with the same point.

[Tanarii]

To some degree, yes. I don't actually know what the DC's of the checks our GM for 5e calls for are.

GM'ing for Dark Heresy, I mostly call for "Challenging" checks, which an ordinary human without training would pass on the order of 25%-30% of the time. Sometimes I call for easier checks, but most easy and routine things I don't call for a check to do.
5E says you shouldn't call for a check that an untrained person can do 80% of the time (ie DC 5). The normal range of checks are supposed to be:
DC 10 (50% chance of failure for: untrained ie stat 8) --> ie untrained people can succeed 50% of the time.
DC 15 (50% chance of failure for: lvl 9 prof, lvl 5 prof w Stat 12, lvl 1 exp w stat 10, or stat 18) --> ie proficient or statted character can succeed 50% of the time.
DC 20 (50% chance of failure for: lvl 9 w stat 20, lvl 9 exp w stat 12, lvl 5 exp w stat 16) --> ie proficient and statted, or experts, can succeed half the time.

Edit: in other words, if your players are regularly facing DC 15 checks, it's no wonder you're ending up with a 'one roll to rule them all' mentality by players, only willing to make a check if they're proficient or highly statted, or even both.

[Knaight]

For one thing it's not necessarily a task. There could easily be a fair few in relatively short succession, and the odds of succeeding at all of them plummet pretty quickly as more of them stack up.

[Tanarii]

70%, actually. Which mean, a random Joe Shmoe from the village on Nowhereburg, who has no training and no natural aptitude, would still succeed 30% of the time. If Joe Shmoe has a Jane Shmoe assisting him somehow, he will, in fact, succeed more than half of the time (due to Advantage).

I don't see what's so exceptional about pitting a group of adventurers to face a task in which two random villagers will succeed more than half the time.


Except that a DC15 check isn't THAT hard, nor should it be uncommon. A DC10 check is a check than an absolutely average, untrained person could make half the time. Adventurers, most of the time, aren't average, untrained people. Even at level 1, they are highly skilled, extraordinarily talented people.

An adventure calibrated around DC10 challenges is an adventure with (non-combat) challenges that reasonably should be overcome by a completely average group of non-adventuring farmers. That sounds like an extremely low bar for a party of level 1 adventurers. And since you seem to be talking about level 5-10 characters, that seems *ridiculously* low.

Edit - Ruslan beat me to it with the same point.


For one thing it's not necessarily a task. There could easily be a fair few in relatively short succession, and the odds of succeeding at all of them plummet pretty quickly as more of them stack up.Exactly. If you're talking about a single check or two for resolving the entirety of an encounter, then sure, higher DCs make some sense. But ability checks are there to be used to resolve any action the player might care to declare. If you're consistently ruling they have a 65-75%* chance to fail their ability score 8-12 checks things they want to do, they'll pretty quickly end up doing nothing at all. Unless you're just ruling everything else as auto-success of course ... I'm not sure what the impact would be on players in that case. Dumping everything except a few key abilities, and pumping those up supported by proficiency?

*75% chance of failure is correct for -1 vs DC 15, which is what I meant by 'untrained'. But I made it a range for typical adventurer 'low' scores of 8-12 because that's where they will be making a lot of checks.

Edit: Also, I am far too good at wandering severely off topic.

[Crusher]

5E says you shouldn't call for a check that an untrained person can do 80% of the time (ie DC 5). The normal range of checks are supposed to be:
DC 10 (50% chance of failure for: untrained ie stat 8) --> ie untrained people can succeed 50% of the time.
DC 15 (50% chance of failure for: lvl 9 prof, lvl 5 prof w Stat 12, lvl 1 exp w stat 10, or stat 18) --> ie proficient or statted character can succeed 50% of the time.
DC 20 (50% chance of failure for: lvl 9 w stat 20, lvl 9 exp w stat 12, lvl 5 exp w stat 16) --> ie proficient and statted, or experts, can succeed half the time.

Edit: in other words, if your players are regularly facing DC 15 checks, it's no wonder you're ending up with a 'one roll to rule them all' mentality by players, only willing to make a check if they're proficient or highly statted, or even both.

But those percentages are for *individuals*, not parties. If the party is working together with Help actions and you've got a Cleric along for Guidance, an untrained, stat 10 person is going to pass a DC15 check 67% of the time and will even pass a DC20 check 32% of the time.

Also, in all seriousness, is it BAD to have checks that not every single person in the party is going to be able to succeed at? What's the downside of having mental challenges tough enough that having the Wizard attempt it instead of the Barbarian is a good idea? Seriously, if the challenges are so easy that *everyone* has a realistic shot, why bother having them at all?

Edit2 - Ah, I see part of this a difference in perceptions as to what sort of checks were talking about.

[Crusher]

Edit: Also, I am far too good at wandering severely off topic.

To be fair, you've got company in this regard. ;)

[Tanarii]

Also, in all seriousness, is it BAD to have checks that not every single person in the party is going to be able to succeed at? What's the downside of having mental challenges tough enough that having the Wizard attempt it instead of the Barbarian is a good idea? Seriously, if the challenges are so easy that *everyone* has a realistic shot, why bother having them at all?So that people can actually do things they want to do, instead of failing at them and therefore being afraid to do anything at all? Or do you just rule anything with a ~50% chance of success for an untrained person an auto-success, as opposed to ~25%, to avoid that problem?

[Crusher]

So that people can actually do things they want to do, instead of failing at them and therefore being afraid to do anything at all? Or do you just rule anything with a ~50% chance of success for an untrained person an auto-success, as opposed to ~25%, to avoid that problem?

I suppose it depends on what they want to do. If the Wizard with 8s in STR and DEX and proficiency in neither Acrobats or Athletics wants to, say, vault a 4' tall wall as part of their movement to get in position before casting their spell, I'd be fine with them having to make a DC10 check which they'll fail half the time. But the Athletics proficient, STR 20 Barbarian will be able to make it about 100% of the time.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Exactly. If you're talking about a single check or two for resolving the entirety of an encounter, then sure, higher DCs make some sense. But ability checks are there to be used to resolve any action the player might care to declare. If you're consistently ruling they have a 65-75%* chance to fail their ability score 8-12 checks things they want to do, they'll pretty quickly end up doing nothing at all. Unless you're just ruling everything else as auto-success of course ... I'm not sure what the impact would be on players in that case. Dumping everything except a few key abilities, and pumping those up supported by proficiency?

*75% chance of failure is correct for -1 vs DC 15, which is what I meant by 'untrained'. But I made it a range for typical adventurer 'low' scores of 8-12 because that's where they will be making a lot of checks.

Edit: Also, I am far too good at wandering severely off topic.

Exactly that.

Characters tend to be really, really good at a couple of specialist things, and assumed to be able to do all mundane things adequately enough not to require a test.

Also, if the check tends to be repeated often, like the way-too-many checks to conduct a Warp Transit or the 3 to operate the J-drive, I also tend to make it auto-pass if you're trained in it. It always annoyed me that you had an absurdly high chance of being crippled or dying trying to initiate FTL travel. I mean, yes, it's an innately hazardous task, especially in the universe of Warhammer 40k, but seriously, if the hundreds of thousands of ships of the Imperial Navy can do this every few weeks or months and not lose 75% of the fleet in the Warp, surely we can manage this.

[Ruslan]

So that people can actually do things they want to do, instead of failing at them and therefore being afraid to do anything at all? Or do you just rule anything with a ~50% chance of success for an untrained person an auto-success, as opposed to ~25%, to avoid that problem?

Which scenario, in your opinion, is more immersive? Which one looks like actual adventurers doing adventuring stuff:

Scenario A: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard come to a 30' cliff they must scale. They all start climbing the cliff and making checks, because that's what they want to do and they are not afraid.

Scenario B: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard come to a 30' cliff they must scale. The Fighter, being the strongest climber, goes first. Possibly the Cleric helps him out with some magic. The Rogue spots him by pointing out good handholds along the way. Once he's up there, he throws down a secured rope. The Rogue and Cleric, being moderately good climbers, scale up the rope. The frail Wizard doesn't trust his athletic abilities even with the rope. He ties the rope around his waist and the three hoist him up like a sack of potatoes.

To me, (A) is boring, while (B) makes it look like we're all right there in the fictional world, and doing in-world stuff.

[Knaight]

Which scenario, in your opinion, is more immersive? Which one looks like actual adventurers doing adventuring stuff:

Scenario A: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard come to a 30' cliff they must scale. They all start climbing the cliff and making checks, because that's what they want to do and they are not afraid.

Scenario B: Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard come to a 30' cliff they must scale. The Fighter, being the strongest climber, goes first. Possibly the Cleric helps him out with some magic. The Rogue spots him by pointing out good handholds along the way. Once he's up there, he throws down a secured rope. The Rogue and Cleric, being moderately good climbers, scale up the rope. The frail Wizard doesn't trust his athletic abilities even with the rope. He ties the rope around his waist and the three hoist him up like a sack of potatoes.

To me, (A) is boring, while (B) makes it look like we're all right there in the fictional world, and doing in-world stuff.

Let's assume a DC 10 cliff here - the sort of thing a normal person has a decent chance of scaling. The wizard is probably at +0, the fighter at +6 (Strength and Proficiency), and the Cleric and Rogue at +3*. With everyone climbing, the wizard has a failure chance of 45%, the Cleric and Rogue of 30%, and the Fighter of 15%. There is a 77.1% chance at least one of them fails that roll, and falls off the cliff. With the second example there's still a 2.25% chance that the fighter falls, again at DC 10. Thus it can be concluded that even DC 10 suggests going with Scenario B.

Then there's the matter of the scale. The hypothetical +0 represents a professional adventurer with the talent of an average person. For a pretty typical cliff that 55% success rate isn't unreasonable. If it's worse than the typical cliff, then it's time to break out the higher DCs - I have absolutely no qualms as a DM making a granite cliff in the rain DC 25 to climb, and PC stats only come into it inasmuch as a high level strength rogue with athletics expertise can still probably pull it off.

*All of these are rough approximations.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I'm not sure the "weapon profs are worth less than skill profs" argument is 1000% on point, because flexibility also has value: presumably if someone (say) taking Skilled chose two skill profs and one weapon prof, they would only do so when they didn't really need another skill, but could get something out of another weapon. Also I never buy "it's not overpowered" as a general argument. That's not saying no one should allow it though, just that allowing an optional switch can never be a worsification.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Hey, it's the OP again!

I believe my GitP colleagues have arrived at a conclusion I feel is just.

Skills are used (at my table) more often than weapons. Having an additional skill proficiency is far more useful than a weapon, which can only be used against seen targets under certain conditions. As compared to perception, which is used to see the target and understand the conditions. The RAW ratios posted in this thread imply this very clearly. Giving up a skill to gain a weapon is a sacrifice/downgrade in almost every circumstance.

My comment on the rest is, all well and good that players have a x% chance of success. But that's the DM-centric view. On the other side of the screen, the concern is all about the chances and consequences of FAILURE. Average shmos with a 50% chance of falling (only 20' or so) to their near certain death while climbing a hypothetical average cliff WON'T DO IT IRL. You think 70% or 75% chance of success is too easy? What's the consequence of failure? Without knowing that, a player will be very hesitant to roll the die. If there's no significant consequence, you should not as a DM be asking for a die roll.

Thank you again for your cerebral assistance!

[Grod_The_Giant]

Also I never buy "it's not overpowered" as a general argument. That's not saying no one should allow it though, just that allowing an optional switch can never be a worsification.
So "it'll make the player happy and it won't break game balance" isn't a reason to change something*? Then what on earth is?


*Assuming they're not breaking the setting or tone, obviously

[Hrugner]

I'm in the camp of folks who would let the trade happen, though I'd recommend not making the trade since it's a poor one. Given the story provided, I'd probably just give you the crossbow proficiency in exchange for the martial melee proficiencies rogues get and give you advantage when doing things like crossbow demos and target shooting when nobody is dealing HP damage.

[Coffee_Dragon]

So "it'll make the player happy and it won't break game balance" isn't a reason to change something*?

You put two separate things in those quotes: "player happy" and "won't break game". The first one is a reason, the other is a requirement.

Edit: On reflection that's probably not a very helpful answer. Hold on, this is complicated. Making the players happy is a goal. But inherent in playing the game is also that players can't or shouldn't always get what they want, and this goes both for in-game events and mechanical considerations. When you choose to play a certain system there should be (as I see it, but someone else might not) be a certain inertia to system changes. There can be lots of reasons to change rules, from "this doesn't make any sense" to "if we just remove this restriction I can capture my concept perfectly at level X" to "I want d14 for a damage die". Every proposed change will be there because someone wants it, obviously, so should everything be granted? Probably few if any would say that. So should everything be granted that isn't overpowered? Some might say that. I just don't agree. There is an arbitrary number of changes that could fall below that threshold and I want my system to have more inertia than that, so yet another reason is desirable, above "I want it" and "it won't be noticeably unbalanced". Does this make sense?