Proficiency Bonus

[paladinn]

Hola all,

Question about the proficiency bonus concept. I know the way it's designed, it keeps a lid on crazy increasing pluses and makes it all work with "bounded accuracy". It's definitely a better solution than C&C's "Siege engine" (I still have no idea why they named it that).

Is there a good reason why they started with +2 instead of +1 for starting characters? It just seems a little weird that a 1st level character has a +2 just like a level 4 character. Even little +1's are supposed to be important in 5e. I think I'd have gone with +1, going up every 3 levels, with + 6 for the last 5 levels.

Is there a rationale behind the way they went?

Gratzi!

[nickl_2000]

I can't read the minds of the developers and wasn't one myself, but I'm going to make a stab at it that they wanted a larger demarcation from the beginning of something you are trained in and something you are not trained it.

[paladinn]

I can't read the minds of the developers and wasn't one myself, but I'm going to make a stab at it that they wanted a larger demarcation from the beginning of something you are trained in and something you are not trained it.

I get that; but newbie characters are supposed to be at least slightly incompetant. I don't think it's right for 1st and 4th level characters to be equally good at whatever. But that's just MHO

[JNAProductions]

I get that; but newbie characters are supposed to be at least slightly incompetant. I don't think it's right for 1st and 4th level characters to be equally good at whatever. But that's just MHO

They aren't. 4th level characters have had an ASI to improve what they think they need.

And why would you say that a 1st level character is supposed to be incompetent? These people are ADVENTURERS-the kind of people who brave unknown dangers. They should be pretty freaking competent, even from the start.

[paladinn]

They aren't. 4th level characters have had an ASI to improve what they think they need.

And why would you say that a 1st level character is supposed to be incompetent? These people are ADVENTURERS-the kind of people who brave unknown dangers. They should be pretty freaking competent, even from the start.

I meant no insult.. It was the grognard in me talking.

In OD&D, B/X and 1e, it was kind of assumed that newbies weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

And I get the ASI thing. We didn't have those back in the day either..lol

[JNAProductions]

I meant no insult.. It was the grognard in me talking.

In OD&D, B/X and 1e, it was kind of assumed that newbies weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

And I get the ASI thing. We didn't have those back in the day either..lol

That's fair. But, starting at least in 3rd (I lack experience with earlier editions), characters of even 1st level are meant to be a cut above.

3rd had its NPC classes, for the unwashed masses. 4th was, well, 4th. You start out REAL STRONG there. And 5th has stats for a commoner-they're a LOT weaker than any PC built with Standard Array.

[nickl_2000]

I get that; but newbie characters are supposed to be at least slightly incompetant. I don't think it's right for 1st and 4th level characters to be equally good at whatever. But that's just MHO

They may be equally good with their basic attack or basic saves, but there is a lot more going on than just that

Casters now have second level spells, rogue get 2d6 sneak attack dice and bonus actions, paladins have casting and smites, etc.

I just think that taking proficiency alone isn't looking enough at the overall picture.

[Trickery]

My two cents: the designers wanted something simple that wouldn't require much bookkeeping and which would fit on a class table. They started at +2 because having +1 to a skill you're proficient in compared with someone who's never done it before is basically nothing.

My problem with it is: +2 is also basically nothing. If I'm trying to do something that's not too hard but not too easy and has DC10, and I have proficiency and +3 while someone else just has +3, then I'm successful 80% of the time while the untrained person is successful 70% of the time. That's nothing. In regard to actual skills like swimming, training is the difference between being able to do it versus not being able to do it at all.

In my opinion, the way to treat proficiency such that it makes more sense is: can you do the thing at all? Only allow players to make a skill check if they're proficient. That will speed things up and make proficiency more meaningful.

And if the skill isn't needed for the check, then just lower the DC and make it an ability check.

[Vogie]

In OD&D, B/X and 1e, it was kind of assumed that newbies weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.



characters of even 1st level are meant to be a cut above

That's right - What separates 1st levels from other CR 1/4 and lower things is that they're actually good at things.

[Balyano]

Technically not an explanation but,
Bards get Jack of all trades level 2.
This ability is worthless when your proficiency bonus is 1.
Perhaps they wanted to leave an opening for future abilities that add half prof bonus at lower levels.
Also leaves an opening for level 0 optional rules where you are classless but have your background and a ''beginner'' class with +1 prof.
Could be a good starting point for homebrew since prof doesn't go up till level 5 but usually subclasses kick in at level 3.
There is lots of room to create subclass abilities at level 3 that use half prof.

[NNescio]

In my opinion, the way to treat proficiency such that it makes more sense is: can you do the thing at all? Only allow players to make a skill check if they're proficient. That will speed things up and make proficiency more meaningful.

This doesn't make sense for Stealth, Athletics, Persuasion, Deception, Perception, Insight, Intimidation, most uses of Investigation, and some uses of Acrobatics. Basically everything that would be equivalent to a skill that isn't Trained Only in older editions, or, in real life, anything that can be attempted by people even without specialized training or knowledge.

(In 3.5e there were some skills have the Trained Only tag, and can only be used by users who have invested skill ranks [3.5e version of proficiency] in them (there might be an exception allowing for very limited effects by untrained users, like figuring out "common knowledge" for Knowledge skills). Most INT skills tend to work this way. But a lot of skills can be attempted for full effect even by untrained users; they just don't get to add any skill ranks [proficiency-like] to them. These skills tend to be ones that doesn't require much specialized training or knowledge to attempt in real-life either.)

[Trickery]

This doesn't make sense for Stealth, Athletics, Persuasion, Deception, Perception, Insight, Intimidation, most uses of Investigation, and some uses of Acrobatics. Basically everything that would be equivalent to a skill that isn't Trained Only in older editions, or, in real life, anything that can be attempted by people even without specialized training or knowledge.

(In 3.5e there were some skills have the Trained Only tag, and can only be used by users who have invested skill ranks [3.5e version of proficiency] in them (there might be an exception allowing for very limited effects by untrained users, like figuring out "common knowledge" for Knowledge skills). Most INT skills tend to work this way. But a lot of skills can be attempted for full effect even by untrained users; they just don't get to add any skill ranks [proficiency-like] to them. These skills tend to be ones that doesn't require much specialized training or knowledge to attempt in real-life either.)

I covered that. If it's something you don't need training to do, lower the DC and just make it an ability check. In this case, you'd allow someone to use the skill if they have it. Regardless, having proficiency in a skill becomes more important.

As-is, it's not clearly spelled out which skills or skill checks require training and which don't. As a result, I often see situations where everyone at the table attempts a check until someone succeeds. For four players, this is like having Advantage, Lucky, and Inspiration all at once.

[NNescio]

I covered that. If it's something you don't need training to do, lower the DC and just make it an ability check. In this case, you'd allow someone to use the skill if they have it. Regardless, having proficiency in a skill becomes more important.

Then proficiency in Stealth, Athletics, Persuasion, Deception, Perception, Insight, and Intimidation become mostly useless. Nearly all applications of these skills can be attempted by a(n able-bodied) person without any training.



As-is, it's not clearly spelled out which skills or skill checks require training and which don't. As a result, I often see situations where everyone at the table attempts a check until someone succeeds. For four players, this is like having Advantage, Lucky, and Inspiration all at once.

1) Use group checks.

2) Limit the number of characters that can perform skill checks in certain situations (e.g. no 4x Persuade attempts on an NPC).

3) Put in consequences for failed checks, like jammed doors/locks for failed lockpicking/breaking, or alerting enemies. Failed Persuasion checks may lower an NPC's disposition towards the party. This is related to (2).

4) Set DCs high enough for specialized applications so that people without Proficiency (or positive ability modifiers) cannot succeed at the skill check. DC 21 is a good start. Note that Nat 20s don't autosucceed on ability (including skill) checks.

[Bjarkmundur]

I get that; but newbie characters are supposed to be at least slightly incompetant. I don't think it's right for 1st and 4th level characters to be equally good at whatever. But that's just MHO

Achoo! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24073859&postcount=15)

Well, imagine being a developer. You have two main tools at your disposal. Math, and feeling.

The math has already been explained, but the feeling might need some looking into.

Developer: You gain a +1 bonus to your check. How does that feel?
Player: Hm, It's nice, but I already had a +3 from my dexterity, so it doesn't feel significant.
Developer: Alright, what if I'd give you a +2 bonus?
Player: So instead of +3 I'd have a +5? That's almost double, I love that!
Developer: How about I'd give you a +3 bonus!
Player: That's amazing, that's equal to my dexterity! I didn't even need to bother with increasing my stats so high, since the bonus is so significant. I can just rely on this bonus to make checks for me.

[Trickery]

Then proficiency in Stealth, Athletics, Persuasion, Deception, Perception, Insight, and Intimidation become mostly useless. Nearly all applications of these skills can be attempted by a person without any training.



1) Use group checks.

2) Limit the number of characters that can perform skill checks in certain situations (e.g. no 4x Persuade attempts on an NPC).

3) Put in consequences for failed checks, like jammed doors/locks for failed lockpicking/breaking, or alerting enemies. Failed Persuasion checks may lower an NPC's disposition towards the party. This is related to (2).

4) Set DCs high enough for specialized applications so that people without Proficiency (or positive ability modifiers) cannot succeed at the skill check. DC 21 is a good start. Note that Nat 20s don't autosucceed on ability (including skill) checks.

We're getting off topic. Suffice it to say that certain kinds of Stealth, Athletics, Persuasion, Deception, Perception, Insight, and Intimidation checks may require training. You can't swim without training. You can jump without training. These are both athletics. Do you get me?

And I'm not interested in arguing about how high DCs should be or how DMs should handle group checks or consequences. These things work themselves out at the table.

I'm also not interested in setting DCs so high that only the Rogue and Bard can reliably succeed. That defeats the whole point of having proficiency and encourages players to just play around the obstacle rather than even attempting it - players already can and will do that without extra encouragement.

[NNescio]

We're getting off topic. Suffice it to say that certain kinds of Stealth, Athletics, Persuasion, Deception, Perception, Insight, and Intimidation checks may require training. You can't swim without training. You can jump without training. These are both athletics. Do you get me?

All PCs can swim by default. See Movement rules.

Proficiency allows a PC to swim better, especially under hazardous situations. This represents training. Like how trained scouts can spot things better with Perception (but anybody can potentially see something if they notice something or are lucky). Turning everything into a ability check nukes this training difference. (Or makes people unable to do a common-sense thing if you're overly restrictive on what requires training.)



And I'm not interested in arguing about how high DCs should be or how DMs should handle group checks or consequences. These things work themselves out at the table.

I'm also not interested in setting DCs so high that only the Rogue and Bard can reliably succeed. That defeats the whole point of having proficiency and encourages players to just play around the obstacle rather than even attempting it - players already can and will do that without extra encouragement.

I feel things like this is best handled with more granularity — using in-game tools like group checks and arranging encounters (including non-combat ones) to prevent repeated uses of skills (anything trivial that allows repetition can be autowaived as "player eventually rolls a 20 given enough time", AKA Taking 20). Similar techniques as in older editions and other games, really.

Not less granularity by flattening DCs and flat-out prohibiting certain skill checks.

What exactly is the sort of issues you are seeing with players all having a go at attempting skill checks? Repeated knowledge checks? These are the kind where a high DC is justified for esoteric information unless the character has some sort of personal experience with the matter or a reference at hand. For the more common stuff, it makes sense that having more people would help recall some information. And if that's an issue you can make failed checks result in recalling false information, so in the end it's the expert's word who is most reliable. Unless the player metagames seeing the result of the roll, but that's more of a player problem that should be handled out-of-game, not a problem with the in-game rules per se.

[Trickery]

All PCs can swim by default. See Movement rules.

Proficiency allows a PC to swim better, especially under hazardous situations. This represents training. Like how trained scouts can spot things better with Perception (but anybody can potentially see something if they notice something or are lucky). Turning everything into a ability check nukes this training difference. (Or makes people unable to do a common-sense thing if you're overly restrictive on what requires training.)



I feel things like this is best handled with more granularity — using in-game tools like group checks and arranging encounters (including non-combat ones) to prevent repeated uses of skills (anything trivial that allows repetition can be autowaived as "player eventually rolls a 20 given enough time", AKA Taking 20). Similar techniques as in older editions and other games, really.

Not less granularity by flattening DCs and flat-out prohibiting certain skill checks.

What exactly is the sort of issues you are seeing with players all having a go at attempting skill checks? Knowledge ones? These are the kind where a high DC is justified for esoteric information unless the character has some sort of personal experience with the matter or a reference at hand.

Few things:

I was talking about swimming in real life, not in game. I think you understand my point about some things requiring training whether they fall under a skill like Athletics or not. Your example about swimming under a hazardous situation is a good example. As far as I'm concerned, if someone without the athletics skill (or related) tries to swim through a hazardous situation, they're going to fail. No skill means no skill. On the other hand, if someone is just trying to swim across still water, that's like jumping across a five-foot gap - no check necessary.
I don't like group checks because that's the same as just taking an average. What about the guy who does really good compared to the others? I don't want to punish him by lumping him in with the slackers.
I also don't want to finagle every encounter in such a way that players can't just try until they succeed. If the players are looting the damn room after a fight or investigating a spooky house, they have all the time in the world to do it and it isn't reasonable to put time constraints on that.
The issue I have with all players attempting a skill check at once is simple: I either have to set the DC higher as a result, or it's an auto success because so many players attempted it.

In short, I think our discussion boils down to you saying "just do things this way" and me replying "no, I don't like that way."

[NNescio]

Few things:

I was talking about swimming in real life, not in game. I think you understand my point about some things requiring training whether they fall under a skill like Athletics or not. Your example about swimming under a hazardous situation is a good example. As far as I'm concerned, if someone without the athletics skill (or related) tries to swim through a hazardous situation, they're going to fail. No skill means no skill. On the other hand, if someone is just trying to swim across still water, that's like jumping across a five-foot gap - no check necessary.
I don't like group checks because that's the same as just taking an average. What about the guy who does really good compared to the others? I don't want to punish him by lumping him in with the slackers.
I also don't want to finagle every encounter in such a way that players can't just try until they succeed. If the players are looting the damn room after a fight or investigating a spooky house, they have all the time in the world to do it and it isn't reasonable to put time constraints on that.
The issue I have with all players attempting a skill check at once is simple: I either have to set the DC higher as a result, or it's an auto success because so many players attempted it.


1. What I feel is that if a person can float, then said person can attempt to swim even under hazardous conditions without automatically failing (and ruling otherwise can hose players when they accidentally fall into water or are subjected to an aquatic spell or effect). Barring superhuman feats like swimming up a waterfall, of course, but stuff like those should have DC-so-high-you-ain't-gonna-make-it-without-Prof+Expertise+High-Ability-Score anyway.

2. Give him some bennies as consolation. Like not being detected in an ambush the party triggered because they failed their group Stealth check.

3. Well, if they are searching a room, and they get all the time in the world to do it (no wondering enemies/guards, no time pressure on quests, huh)... then why shouldn't they auto-succeed (or at least get their rolls treated as 20)? It's not logical to institute your system here anyway — not being able to search a room because one is not trained in Investigation is frankly ludicrous.

4. Just design harder encounters and handwave away the trivial ones that the players have demonstrated to come up with a guaranteed solution, if given enough time (and they are allowed to take that much time, with zero negative consequences for failures). You don't need rolls for trivial encounters. It just happens. They succeeded, move on. There's nothing (inherently) wrong with auto successes. Not everything needs a roll.


In short, I think our discussion boils down to you saying "just do things this way" and me replying "no, I don't like that way."

Generally speaking I prefer to work within the rules instead of coming up with new ones (yes, I have a Lawful bent). In any case, it's hard to progress any further in this discussion due of the lack of specifics. I could stop with this back-and-forth and... shall we say "agree to disagree"? If you want.

[JackPhoenix]

I covered that. If it's something you don't need training to do, lower the DC and just make it an ability check. In this case, you'd allow someone to use the skill if they have it. Regardless, having proficiency in a skill becomes more important.

As-is, it's not clearly spelled out which skills or skill checks require training and which don't. As a result, I often see situations where everyone at the table attempts a check until someone succeeds. For four players, this is like having Advantage, Lucky, and Inspiration all at once.

That's the thing: there are no skill checks. EVERYTHING (that isn't attack or save, for nitpickers) already is ability check in 5e. Some of the ability check allows you to add your proficiency bonus, which may (or may not) be caused by being proficient with appropriate skill.

And it's up to the GM to decide if, and what, check gets rolled. Players don't get to decide they want to make a check, they describe what their characters are doing, the GM then decide if a) if the situation is interesting or significant enough to bother with roll instead of just narrating what's happening and b) there's any chance of success or failure (if there isn't, no need for check)

[ad_hoc]

I covered that. If it's something you don't need training to do, lower the DC and just make it an ability check. In this case, you'd allow someone to use the skill if they have it. Regardless, having proficiency in a skill becomes more important.

As-is, it's not clearly spelled out which skills or skill checks require training and which don't. As a result, I often see situations where everyone at the table attempts a check until someone succeeds. For four players, this is like having Advantage, Lucky, and Inspiration all at once.

You're doing ability checks wrong.

If people can just keep attempting it until someone succeeds then there shouldn't be an ability check at all. They should just do it.

Ability checks are for dramatic moments where there is something on the line. If there is no drama in the roll it shouldn't be happening. A +2 is a big deal when the check is important, which it always should be.

[Âmesang]

I'm happy with the setup 'cause I have a homebrew spell that requires magic items to make a saving throw and the number of proficiency bonuses fits in well with the rarity classifications: +2 for common, +3 for uncommon, +4 for rare, +5 for very rare, +6 for legendary, and artifacts are unaffected.