Optional Rule: Negative Proficiency

[Fable Wright]

So, just getting people's initial reactions to an idea:

1. Whenever you roll a zero or less on any roll, take inspiration.
2. You may choose to subtract, rather than add, your proficiency bonus from one skill or tool of choice, chosen for free at character generation. In addition to other proficiencies, not replacing any.
3. You may lower your stats at character generation if you like.

Just checking to see if people would view this rule as pointless, or leading to overly comedic situations, or if it might be a good incentive to leave characters open to having flaws in their character.

[Particle_Man]

subject to abuse: be the world’s worst flute player and get inspiration back after every combat and after almost every skill check out of combat.

[JNAProductions]

Whenever you roll zero or less on a roll that has consequences.

I don't care if you rolled a 0 on your attempt to seduce the barmaid, the only thing that gets you is spit in your drink.
I do care if you roll a 0 on your Deception check to convince the guard that you belong here.

Second one, seems fine, but I'd never do it. In addition to just making me worse at something, it TAKES one of my four skill proficiencies or one of my few tool proficiencies? Hell no.

For three, that's fine. Again, probably wouldn't do it, but it is what it is.

[Fable Wright]

To clarify, the negative proficiency is strictly optional and in addition to normal proficiencies, not in lieu of a normal skill/tool.

To address flute concerns, you don't roll a check unless the DM asks for one. You cannot roll to play the flute every round, but if you get a negative value on your one roll walking through the city, you might attract very irate thugs.

[JNAProductions]

To clarify, the negative proficiency is strictly optional and in addition to normal proficiencies, not in lieu of a normal skill/tool.

To address flute concerns, you don't roll a check unless the DM asks for one. You cannot roll to play the flute every round, but if you get a negative value on your one roll walking through the city, you might attract very irate thugs.

Okay-the wording is not clear on that.

And that's fine in theory, but then you'll get players asking for checks over non-consequential things, just to get inspiration. I'd include the "Consequential" bit on that rule, just to make it clear that you only get inspiration when it actually HARMS you, or at least has potential to, not just for rolling bad.

[MoiMagnus]

So, just getting people's initial reactions to an idea:

1. Whenever you roll a zero or less on any roll, take inspiration.
2. You may choose to subtract, rather than add, your proficiency bonus from one skill or tool of choice, chosen for free at character generation. In addition to other proficiencies, not replacing any.
3. You may lower your stats at character generation if you like.

Just checking to see if people would view this rule as pointless, or leading to overly comedic situations, or if it might be a good incentive to leave characters open to having flaws in their character.

Pointless, not leading to that much fun, but do represent flaws of characters.

I mean, why would you, RP-wise, make a test where you are objectively the worse for it? Making a test hoping to fail it (because it might give you inspiration) does not feel right at all. Comedic effects can come from incompetence, but even when you're incompetent, you're trying to succeed the test, not trying to find a reason to make a test you can afford to fail.
The only situation where it happens is when your forced into the test by the DM, but if the effect of the flaw is mostly controlled by the DM, I'd rather have some more narrative flaw (like "paranoiac") and me or the DM suggesting that this test is subject to paranoia, so I get a disadvantage, and an inspiration in compensation (maybe only if it makes the test fail). In other words, rather than having the flaw being a technical penalty that only applies to a specific skill or tool, the penalty apply to any test relevant to the flaw.
(And I chose a disadvantage instead of a proficiency penalty, because it is a little more in the spirit of 5e)

If I wanted a more technical (but comedic) effect in D&D, I would be much more happy with "d40-15" (Where a d40 is just a d4 and a d10) "2d20-15". Which mean I'm very bad (-5 in average compared to normal peoples, and my test have catastrophic consequence if the result is < 0) but on a lucky day, I can succeed where I shouldn't have.

EDIT: I've realised "d4" numbered "0-1-2-3" are not very common, so my idea to simulate a d40 with a d4 and a d10 is crap. If you have a real d40, then "d40-15" is still interesting, but that's an uncommon dice too. I guess you could use 2d20-15, that's the easiest here.

[Bjarkmundur]

Just checking to see if people would view this rule as pointless, or leading to overly comedic situations, or if it might be a good incentive to leave characters open to having flaws in their character.

The problem with all optional penalties, is that they have to have some sort of compensatory benefit attached to it. The problem with compensatory benefits is that players will eventually start taking meaningless penalties in order to gain the benefit.

If the goal is to create fun situations for being awful at something, there are probably cleaner more general ways to go about that. I suggest a general mechanic, rather than a flaw/merit system.


Failing Forward
Whenever you fail an ability check by 10 or more you can use one inspiration to Fail Forwards. Failing Forward means you reach or make progress towards your desired outcome, but might suffer some additional consequences based on your method. A failed Strength check to open a locked door might take the door of it's hinges, but leave you trapped under it and attempting to talk down a guard might succeed, but leave the guard madly in love with you.

To complement this mechanic the minimum ability score at character creation is 7 instead of 8. In addition, when the DM asks you for an ability check using an ability score for which you have a modifier of 0 or lower, you can choose to do so at a disadvantage to increase your chance of failing forward.



I think this method is cleaner and can be explained in one sentence at character creation, and one sentence during gameplay, which is how rule variants should be designed when adding complexity is not part of the design goal.