Proficiency bonus

[paladinn]

Hola all,

I've been enthusiastic about 5e since it was first announced; and I particularly like the proficiency bonus mechanic that drives everything from attack to saves to skills. Pretty cool really!

I do have two issues with it though..

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves. For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

Has anyone house-ruled any of these? any other thoughts?

Thanks!

[KorvinStarmast]

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.
Feat. Skilled. It's in the PHB. There is Prodigy in Xanathar's, and there are a bunch of feats (like Skill Expert) in Tasha's, that offer proficiency and expertise ...

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter. KISS principle. Fighter gets three attacks, wizard gets one. Not a problem that needs solving.

Has anyone house-ruled any of these? any other thoughts? No. It isn't broken, no need to fix it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Hola all,

I've been enthusiastic about 5e since it was first announced; and I particularly like the proficiency bonus mechanic that drives everything from attack to saves to skills. Pretty cool really!

I do have two issues with it though..

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves. For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

Has anyone house-ruled any of these? any other thoughts?

Thanks!

The reason proficiency works the way it does is due to bounded accuracy. Increasing any amount of To-Hit or an AC bonus is incredibly valuable.

The problem you're describing with Saves not scaling is akin to having an issue with someone at level 1 having 16 AC and then that same person still being limited to 16 AC when they're level 7. Which is to say... it's only an issue if you think it's an issue. AC isn't something that generally increases all that much without some kind of investment from the player, and they have the option for that with saves (with things like the Resilience feat).

As far as proficiency goes, you're not quite counting impact. Characters don't change their to-hit all that much from features, they scale off of other things, generally damage.

Say a Wizard and a Fighter have a +3 Proficiency. But the Fighter has a +4 modifier while the Wizard has a +0, and just say that accounts for about 25% more for the Fighter due to the increased hit chance. Then the Fighter deals an additional +4 damage due to the modifier while the Wizard adds nothing. If we're comparing the same weapon (a quarterstaff), you're talking about the Fighter dealing more than double what the Wizard is dealing.

So while the Wizard is dealing 100% of the Wizard's damage with that Quarterstaff, the Fighter is dealing 250% of that same damage, just because of the modifier difference. That's not including other things like Extra Attack or Action Surge or whatever. And if you decide to ignore all of those, what does the word Fighter even mean?

Don't take things like "Proficiency" so literally, the system already kinda accounts for the stuff you're looking for in other ways.



The part where this all breaks down is skills. That's where any concerns related to scaling should be focused on (since classes already get scaling bonuses for attacks and spells through increased damage or spammed attempts, while skills get no such support).

[stoutstien]

Hola all,

I've been enthusiastic about 5e since it was first announced; and I particularly like the proficiency bonus mechanic that drives everything from attack to saves to skills. Pretty cool really!

I do have two issues with it though..

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves. For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

Has anyone house-ruled any of these? any other thoughts?

Thanks!

1. Saves are the one area proficiency probably falls a lot flat. The good news for fighter is the extra ASIs/feats allows them to address this better than most other classes. Past that, granting a 3rd (or more) save proficiency is a common PC feature for a reason.

2. The base ability gap and extra attack is the key. Bonuses are kept pretty low as a general rule so more attacks are a big deal. Wizards also get very limited weapon proficiencies to use compared to any and all for the fighter.

I wouldn't try to change this without extensive system mastery. For example I made a homebrewed alt Rogue that had a higher proficiency bonus than anyone else. It took almost 3 months of play testing to get that one option to balance out correctly.

[Unoriginal]

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

And? The Fighter will still be enormously much better at fighting with a staff than the Wizard will. Even if they have the same STR mod.




For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves.

This would be terrible for the game.


For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

...You mean double the proficiency bonus?

Also, there are Feat if you want to augment your saves.

[quindraco]

Hola all,

I've been enthusiastic about 5e since it was first announced; and I particularly like the proficiency bonus mechanic that drives everything from attack to saves to skills. Pretty cool really!

I do have two issues with it though..

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves. For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

Has anyone house-ruled any of these? any other thoughts?

Thanks!

Stat dependencies matter - the wizard needs to invest in INT to function, and can't spare the STR the staff would require. But the whole point of proficiency is that you're proficient or you aren't, and everyone in either proficiency state is equal. WOTC went out of their way to design this into 5E, and it's a significant component of whatever internal balance there is. Mucking with it is a bad idea.

Also, you're just incorrect about the staff even assuming equal stats, as the fighter can swing the staff twice (three times at level 3). Wizards can only swing twice base with the Bladesinger subclass or if they use Haste, and it's another deliberate design choice that abilities that are limited per day are more powerful than always available ones, in general.

In terms of saves, if you've decided you think fighters are imbalanced with respect to wizards and the core of this issue is saves, the low-hanging fruits are to let fighters choose dexterity save proficiency instead of constitution if they want, and to roll a custom feat for whatever it is you're after. For example, you could absolutely get away with a feat granting half proficiency in any two saves and +1 to either of the stats belonging to the one of the two saves. That would be slightly worse than the Resilient feat, and hence you would be assured you hadn't rendered fighters OP.

[firelistener]

Others have mentioned it already, but I thought it might be helpful to point out that 5e is designed with a philosophical difference. In past editions, the mechanics were designed to more strictly define a character. If you wanted your character to pick up spears after using swords most of the time, you were probably just going to reroll because you spent so many points in weapon proficiencies or skills to use swords already. In 5e, you can more easily keep the same character and use them in new ways. The different classes are still going to play very differently, but you no longer have to craft your character's stats and skills quite as carefullyif you want them to be versatile. Reducing number bloat with concepts like Bounded Accuracy helps with this too, and it's why I prefer 5e to other editions in practice.

[Theodoxus]

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves.

I remember when this 'solution' was all the rage in 2015. And then people actually started playing the game to higher levels and all the white room theorycrafting regarding supplementing saving throws went out the window.

As others have pointed out, this isn't actually an issue. Or, more like, it's a feature, not a bug.

I always say, play the game as written first. A few times. At least 5. Like, campaigns. Then start changing things. But if you can't grok the underlying mechanics at a gut level, instinctively, you very much risk unintentionally bending the game in ways that will make it less fun for those involved. I won't say break - it takes a LOT to actually break the game, but it's quite easy to make it a lot less enjoyable to gather around the table for.

[Rynjin]

Hola all,

I've been enthusiastic about 5e since it was first announced; and I particularly like the proficiency bonus mechanic that drives everything from attack to saves to skills. Pretty cool really!

I do have two issues with it though..

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves. For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

Has anyone house-ruled any of these? any other thoughts?

Thanks!

Indeed, there are extensive houserules which "solve" these "problems": they're called other editions of D&D, particularly 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Real talk though, 5e has some pretty solid math when it comes to proficiency stuff (Not so much damage, IMO, but that's another discussion), and I wouldn't muck with it without knowing what I'm doing in-depth. If you like 5e but aren't a fan of this one thing, I'd say the best solution is to suck it up and use what's there, because you're more likely to break things than "fix" them.

[PhantomSoul]

I remember when this 'solution' was all the rage in 2015. And then people actually started playing the game to higher levels and all the white room theorycrafting regarding supplementing saving throws went out the window.

As others have pointed out, this isn't actually an issue. Or, more like, it's a feature, not a bug.

I always say, play the game as written first. A few times. At least 5. Like, campaigns. Then start changing things. But if you can't grok the underlying mechanics at a gut level, instinctively, you very much risk unintentionally bending the game in ways that will make it less fun for those involved. I won't say break - it takes a LOT to actually break the game, but it's quite easy to make it a lot less enjoyable to gather around the table for.

Agreed -- and when you tweak, tweaking "within the confines" is a good starting point (unless the confines are a big problem in themselves), e.g. if you want point-buy skills / skill points, point buy with skills going up to your proficiency bonus in total (I like having the proficiency die for that concept like apparently was in the playtesting, and then you get some granularity where 4 and 5 skill points spent both give 1d4).

[Greywander]

At this point, I'm probably just echoing what others have said, but...


1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.
You can improve in areas you aren't proficient by increasing your ability scores. There are also feats that can give you additional proficiencies, such as Skilled and Resilient. Keep in mind that each feat may only be taken once, unless it says otherwise (to my knowledge, only Elemental Adept allows itself to be taken more than once). Some classes or subclasses also add extra proficiencies, for example the Samurai fighter who gets proficiency in Wisdom saving throws.

And then there's multiclassing. Dipping a single level into cleric makes for a good armored wizard build. There are also some crazy multiclass combos that get pretty close to having proficiency in every skill (not that it's necessary, but it's an interesting theorycraft build).


2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.
Don't forget to factor in ability scores. A wizard doesn't need Strength, so the fighter will still be much better at hitting things with a staff, and will deal more damage. Fighters also get a fighting style and more attacks than any other class, so even if you did have a muscle wizard, the fighter would still outpace it in weapon attacks.

Give it a try as-is, and I think you might start to see how well the proficiency system works. It's very simple and easy to use, and does what it's supposed to do without any complicated fiddly bits. I really don't advise you try to mod the game until you've played it a bit, as a lot of rules look very different on paper compared to how they feel during actual gameplay. I've written quite of bit of my own homebrew for 5e, and my understanding of the game and its rules is much better now than it was several years ago, and there are certain things I did back then that I would never do now because I better understand the conventions of the game. So try playing the game as written for now and see how you like it.

[Kane0]

I've been enthusiastic about 5e since it was first announced; and I particularly like the proficiency bonus mechanic that drives everything from attack to saves to skills. Pretty cool really!

Agreed, it is... elegant.



1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves.

For tools, musical instruments, languages and anything else that isn't an attack, skill or save you can train up using Downtime, only some time and money is in the way of becoming proficient. Some DMs also permit weapons, armor, skills, etc.

Becoming proficient in equipment and/or skills can come from multiple sources (race, class, feat) however saves are rarer. The Resilient feat is particularly popular for exactly this but some classes and subclasses also give you additional save proficiencies, notably the Monk.

Magic items can also come into play but that isn't concrete, same story with Epic Boons or other DM-provided benefits.

If this is a recurring problem at the table and everyone agrees it should be addressed, I concur that half prof to saves you aren't proficient is an adequate measure to implement. It's a +1 to +3 on saves you aren't getting +2 to +6 on, and will scale ever so slightly from level 1 without rendering you functionally immune to everything nor stepping on abilities that actually do give proficiency to one or more saves.



2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

Although you are technically correct (the best kind of correct), the idea is that the mage is not equal to the warrior when it comes to using a weapon due to cumulative benefits. The wizard doesn't (usually) get access to the better weapons, Extra attack, nor a fighting style, nor typically as high an attack stat, nor other features such as superiority die or rage damage or smite. They can still bonk you with a staff, but for the most part that bonk just isn't as threatening or impactful as a warrior walloping you with a warhammer. You can of course build towards being a good fighting mage and the Bladesinger, Valor Bard, Blade Pact Warlock, War Cleric, etc all exist to do exactly that but that requires some effort and opportunity cost from the character and often still doesn't quite match that of a fighter, barbarian, ranger, etc at their base even before they expend the same effort on the same thing.
If you look only at the chance of them hitting you then is appears they are 'equally proficient' (notable exception: archery fighting style), however that is largely because bounded accuracy is all about everyone having a chance at being successful even at things they are bad at (like saves above, even a character without CON save prof could potentially make most CON save DCs even at higher levels. Likewise a wizard should still have a chance at hitting a target with say an opportunity attack even at higher levels).

If your table agreed that this is a problem and the warriors should be more likely to hit (please keep in mind bounded accuracy, everyone should have a chance), then I agree that double prof to hit is too much. You can get extra to-hit via fighting styles, spells, magic items, etc but perhaps implementing a small system involving stances, concentration or a tradeoff of AC to get up to half prof extra to hit could be worthwhile for your group.

[Tanarii]

05R : Into the Unknown gave all characters proficiency in all saves. That weakens Magic and special monster attacks, but conversely it means casters are making concentration checks more easily. Of course, that mod is only supposed to run up to level 10, and leveling is much slower.

Of course, for a real OSR feel that'd be a Fighter class ability at mid to high levels.

[Unoriginal]

05R : Into the Unknown gave all characters proficiency in all saves. That weakens Magic and special monster attacks, but conversely it means casters are making concentration checks more easily. Of course, that mod is only supposed to run up to level 10, and leveling is much slower.

Of course, for a real OSR feel that'd be a Fighter class ability at mid to high levels.

It's a feature already in the game, for Monks.

[Valmark]

Hola all,

I've been enthusiastic about 5e since it was first announced; and I particularly like the proficiency bonus mechanic that drives everything from attack to saves to skills. Pretty cool really!

I do have two issues with it though..

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.

2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.

For # 1, I've been advised to use a "common" proficiency bonus equal to half the proficiency bonus, at least for saves. For #2, it was suggested to apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks, but it seems a little high to me.

Has anyone house-ruled any of these? any other thoughts?

Thanks!

1) There are feats and class features geared towards exactly this. Aside from that I feel like it makes sense- if I never train my strenght I shouldn't get better at it. I certainly wouldn't let half proficiency apply, because it'll rapidly screw up the semblance of balance this game has.

2) Same as (1), there are feats and class features geared towards making (to take your example) the fighter better then the wizard at swinging the staff. They look equally proficient until you notice that the fighter is doing more then three times the damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's a feature already in the game, for Monks. In mid Tier 3. :smallcool:

[Waazraath]

A few things:

- in general the (5e) system works wonderful.

- afaic, the OP is onto something though, regarding two things: saves and skills.

- regarding the latter, I don't like it too much that how good much you know about medicine, history, how good a diplomate you are, or how good you can track, is level dependent (and so effectively in dnd mostly related to how many monsters you killed and puzzles you've solved). You should be able to be good at a skill already at lvl 1, I think, some point buy system would be better (though more complicated - mabye something for an alternative rule in a splat book?). Only rededming feature here is that pc rules aren't npc rules in this edition, so you can build a good blacksmith as a DM if you need one without it being a high level character (like in 3.x).

- regarding saves, some people mention feats. Obligtory note that these are optional, and actually disturb the balance between casters (one of sorcerers strong points is its con save proficiency). Moreover, it makes sense from a rp-perspective that even bad saves get moderately better. Lets take a level 1 bookish wizard with a str 8 that hardly left the library. By level 20, he or she walked hunderds or thousands of miles, climbed cliffs, jumped chasms, got grapples, got grappled again (and again and again), got swallowed and had to crawl out of the mouth of a dead monster, walked some more carrying big bags of loot, fallen comrades and whatnot. I don't think it is it really fair and serving versimilitude that by level 20, he or she is just as inadequate at strength skills and saving throws as at level 1 (basicly a negative modifier on everything!). I would't mind half proficiency on 'bad' saves therefore, and if I ever DM a 1-20 campaign I think I'll give everybody somewhere halfway a bonus to a non-relevant stat for that character, to symbolize character growth behond the 'useful'.

[Unoriginal]

In mid Tier 3. :smallcool:

Enlightenment is no easy path.

[Tanarii]

It's a feature already in the game, for Monks.
Right. And that feature should belong to Fighters. Monks should save as Clerics.

[Stangler]

There are very set ways to "scale" up saves in D&D and it is very useful to have people in the party that can help. It is much more of a team effort than scaling up AC which is more often based on the player character.

For example bless and the Paladin aura, heroes feast, and plenty more options that make things better but for multiple players. There are also some items that can help boost saves or resistances but they are generally expensive.

I like this being team dependent but I get some of the head scratching from the pov of the fighter who seems powerless by themselves to do anything about it.

[quindraco]

A few things:

- in general the (5e) system works wonderful.

- afaic, the OP is onto something though, regarding two things: saves and skills.

- regarding the latter, I don't like it too much that how good much you know about medicine, history, how good a diplomate you are, or how good you can track, is level dependent (and so effectively in dnd mostly related to how many monsters you killed and puzzles you've solved). You should be able to be good at a skill already at lvl 1, I think, some point buy system would be better (though more complicated - mabye something for an alternative rule in a splat book?). Only rededming feature here is that pc rules aren't npc rules in this edition, so you can build a good blacksmith as a DM if you need one without it being a high level character (like in 3.x).

- regarding saves, some people mention feats. Obligtory note that these are optional, and actually disturb the balance between casters (one of sorcerers strong points is its con save proficiency). Moreover, it makes sense from a rp-perspective that even bad saves get moderately better. Lets take a level 1 bookish wizard with a str 8 that hardly left the library. By level 20, he or she walked hunderds or thousands of miles, climbed cliffs, jumped chasms, got grapples, got grappled again (and again and again), got swallowed and had to crawl out of the mouth of a dead monster, walked some more carrying big bags of loot, fallen comrades and whatnot. I don't think it is it really fair and serving versimilitude that by level 20, he or she is just as inadequate at strength skills and saving throws as at level 1 (basicly a negative modifier on everything!). I would't mind half proficiency on 'bad' saves therefore, and if I ever DM a 1-20 campaign I think I'll give everybody somewhere halfway a bonus to a non-relevant stat for that character, to symbolize character growth behond the 'useful'.

We had this in 3.5, but it wasn't done very well in terms of what you want. It did have some serious upsides compared to 5E, but nonetheless, 3.5 still capped your skill bonus based on your level.

Translating to 5E directly is awkward, but doable - for example, we already have classes letting you reach +4 to a skill from proficiency right at level 1. It's unlikely you need to be terrified of high ability checks early if you cost it well. A bigger question is how you want bonuses to progress, exactly - do you want to return to the 3.5E days of Intelligence making you more skilled or not? Etc. You need some mechanic for determining how many skill points a creature has.

Certainly one thing you can do, with the precedents set in Tasha's, is let anyone combine two proficiencies into one with expertise. For something like blacksmithing, you can invent a "blacksmithing skill" to let someone spend a proficiency on advantage, as well. As a PC, it's trivial to roll out the gate at level 1 as a Rogue with expertise+advantage in, say, playing the drums, so applying that to blacksmithing isn't a big deal.

[KorvinStarmast]

Right. And that feature should belong to Fighters. Monks should save as Clerics. And they should do (0.5 x level) extra damage with unarmed strikes too!

[DwarfFighter]

1. There is no provision for higher level characters to improve in any areas in which they aren't proficient. This is particularly true for saves. A 10th level fighter doesn't save any better than a 1st level wizard, if they both aren't proficient.


You touch on a point where 5e is significantly different from 3.x. Now only your good saves and primary skills improve by level.

If you want to address the disparity, then the "half proficiency" option is there. I assume you mentioned it since you want to use something like it. Bear in mind that the Fichter Champion already has a class feature dedicated to doing this, and that only affects a limited set of predetermined skills (no choice!), some of which he may have already selected proficiencies in.

Also, I'd work a "proficiency -2" into that algorithm in some way so that at first level the proficient character has a +2 vs. +0 non-proficient.

Thinking of a different mechanic: How about a system where, when characters reach a certain level, they get a pool of dice they can spend when making non-proficient attacks, saves and ability checks, limited to the current character level proficiency bonuses, e.g a d3 at level 5 (prof +3) and d6 at level 17 (prof +6)? It could be a way to give a nod to the character's experience without having to rebuild the proficiency system?




2. All characters who are proficient with a given weapon are equally good with said weapon. So the wizard above is equally as proficient with a staff as a fighter.


I don't really get what you mean with "apply both proficiency bonuses for fighter attacks", do you mean add to both attack roll or damage?

This one I think you may be over-thinking things. I mean, a Str/Dex 10 Wizard isn't going to be as good as a Str/Dex 16 Fighter a making weapon attacks. Add in the Fighter's fighting styles, and the difference is even more noticeable.

I suggest you let this one go.

-DF

[Greywander]

You touch on a point where 5e is significantly different from 3.x. Now only your good saves and primary skills improve by level.
This actually stems from the Bounded Accuracy system implemented into 5e. There's a common misconception that bounded accuracy is just about keeping stats within a narrow range, but that's merely something that naturally follows from bounded accuracy.

What bounded accuracy really is is this: difficulty does not artificially increase as you level up.

See, in some games, including 3.x, there was an assumption that leveling up meant all your numbers increase. And so they did. In order to keep up, things like DCs would also increase. This was necessary because if DCs did not increase then either a task would very quickly become trivial as your bonuses outstripped the target number, or the task would be outright impossible until you attained some minimum level where your bonuses are enough to make success possible. So instead, they start DCs low and scale them up as you level.

Now, there can be some interesting consequences from this. Let's say you have a wizard who, at 1st level, has enough strength that they can break down a door. Maybe not all the time, but at least some of the time. As you level up, you obviously put all points into intelligence, not strength, because you're a wizard, not a barbarian. But as you level up, the DC to break down a door increases. Leveling up actually makes it harder for you to break down doors, and at some point the DC will become high enough that your modest starting strength is insufficient for breaking down the door to even be possible. In other words, you're actually getting weaker as you level up.

If you're coming from a system that works this way, then it's easy to come to the conclusion that 5e not increasing your non-proficient saves is wrong. After all, if your saves don't increase as you level, then you're actually getting weaker at doing those saves. But you're not. Because 5e used bounded accuracy, it doesn't expect you to gain, well, any bonuses. The DC to break down a door is the same at 20th level as it is at 1st level. A monster will have a higher save DC, not because the game expects you to have a save bonus, but because the monster is simply a more difficult monster.

Of course, you do gain bonuses to some things, but not everything. The game expects this. IIRC, the highest save DC you'll see on a monster is 19, which is still beatable even if you have a +0 to that save. Obviously that would be a very difficult fight, but that's because it's a very difficult monster (e.g. Tiamat). But 5e is a game were a 1st level character can kill powerful monsters like dragons or beholders, it's just very unlikely until you have more HP and some shiny class features (HP and damage is arguably one place bounded accuracy doesn't apply, but I'm not sure how this is defined exactly). Likewise, a high level character can be taken down by goblins if they're careless or there are enough goblins.

Bounded accuracy basically makes your level matter less and your stats matter more. (Your level is still important for other reasons, mostly class features and HP.)

[Tanarii]

However, ability check DCs will go up if you do more challenging things. And so will save DCs. And the latter is far more likely. It's not 100%, since the game doesn't necessarily assume you'll be fighting solos with CR = APL. But it's very likely. So saving throws is definitely a category where, like attack rolls in your primary attack, assuming proficiency is always applied would not be unreasonable.

Also I'm pretty sure that 3e skill check DCs didn't scale with level.

[MaxWilson]

1. Saves are the one area proficiency probably falls a lot flat. The good news for fighter is the extra ASIs/feats allows them to address this better than most other classes. Past that, granting a 3rd (or more) save proficiency is a common PC feature for a reason.

To the extent there's an issue with saving throws not scaling, I'd say it's because proficiency isn't enough, especially if it's not your primary ability score. When you're facing DC 19 to 23 saves to avoid being stunned or dominated or disintegrated, getting an extra +6 to your save on top of your +2 from your ability is nice, but still, +8 leaves you failing DC 19 half the time.

Counterpoint 1 (Combat As Sport-ish viewpoint): proficiency alone isn't supposed to be enough. Other high-level abilities like Bardic Inspiration, Aura of Protection, Flash of Genius, Lucky feat, etc. are available to swing the odds more in your favor.

Counterpoint 2 (Combat As War-ish viewpoint): if you make a saving throw you've already failed to some degree. Saving throws are a last-ditch effort, not a first line of defense. You don't boost your Con save to avoid petrification by a Medusa--you fight her from within a Greater Invisibility or Darkness spell. You don't rely on your Wisdom save to protect you from a mind flayer's Dominate Person--you laugh at its wasted action because you already cast Protection From Evil. You don't rely on beating the DC 21 Wisdom save on an ancient red dragon's Frightful Presence--you plan to pre-acclimate yourself with an initial skirmishing action to render yourself immune first. You don't hope to beat an Elder Evil's DC 20+ Unnameable Doom with your Wisdom save, you kill its cultists before they can summon the Elder Evil. If you wind up making a Wisdom save against Cthulhu, you've failed.

Or you're so crazy-reckless that you let Cthulhu get summoned just so you can see how tough he really is. :) That's not failure but it's kind of suicidal.

[No1ofIntrst]

Are saves balanced in DnD as they are?

Say a party of 11th level characters is fighting an Adult Black Dragon, and it uses its Frightful Presence feature (DC 16 WIS save)

The fighter has to roll very high (15+)
The ranger has to roll well (12+)
The druid only has to roll okay (7+)

The druid has around a 3x higher chance to pass their save in this situation
Comparatively, if the dragon attacks with its claw attack (+11 to hit)
[LIST]
The fighter (AC 20) needs the dragon to roll a 8 or lower
The Ranger (AC 17) needs the dragon to roll a 5 or lower
The druid (AC 14) needs the dragon to roll a 2 or lower
In this situation attacks actually seem more spread out than saves as the druid is 4x more likely to get hit than the fighter.

However, it is also important to consider the effects of these abilities. Frighting Presence has the ability to weaken a character for at least a round, and up to a minute. It also doesn't allow for many abilities to play around it in combat. So long as you are within 120 feet of the dragon and can see it, you need to save. On the other hand, the claws can deal a decent amount of damage, but have a reasonable amount of counter-play. The druid could buff themselves with spells, stay out of melee, or heal themselves.
Additionally, the druid has a much easier time improving their AC. They could take a level of fighter, or pick up the heavily armoured feat (assuming they can find non-metal armour). However, the fighter will have a hard time boosting their saves. They could take resilient, but that only buffs one save, leaving them open to 3 others.

[stoutstien]

To the extent there's an issue with saving throws not scaling, I'd say it's because proficiency isn't enough, especially if it's not your primary ability score. When you're facing DC 19 to 23 saves to avoid being stunned or dominated or disintegrated, getting an extra +6 to your save on top of your +2 from your ability is nice, but still, +8 leaves you failing DC 19 half the time.

Counterpoint 1 (Combat As Sport-ish viewpoint): proficiency alone isn't supposed to be enough. Other high-level abilities like Bardic Inspiration, Aura of Protection, Flash of Genius, Lucky feat, etc. are available to swing the odds more in your favor.

Counterpoint 2 (Combat As War-ish viewpoint): if you make a saving throw you've already failed to some degree. Saving throws are a last-ditch effort, not a first line of defense. You don't boost your Con save to avoid petrification by a Medusa--you fight her from within a Greater Invisibility or Darkness spell. You don't rely on your Wisdom save to protect you from a mind flayer's Dominate Person--you laugh at its wasted action because you already cast Protection From Evil. You don't rely on beating the DC 21 Wisdom save on an ancient red dragon's Frightful Presence--you plan to pre-acclimate yourself with an initial skirmishing action to render yourself immune first. You don't hope to beat an Elder Evil's DC 20+ Unnameable Doom with your Wisdom save, you kill its cultists before they can summon the Elder Evil. If you wind up making a Wisdom save against Cthulhu, you've failed.

Or you're so crazy-reckless that you let Cthulhu get summoned just so you can see how tough he really is. :) That's not failure but it's kind of suicidal.

Still think the npc DCs scale to far on the upper side with saves. 13-17 is my personal favorite Range and would rather just have more automatic effects for NPCs OR replace some of the PC features from rerolls/adv to just allow them to pass. Rerolls with zero or near zero chance are just insult on top of injury.

[Anonymouswizard]

As people have said, Proficiency Bonus is something that Works As Intended. If you don't like how it's implemented you can change how it works, but because it's so central to the system it's going to have unintended side effects.

Is it perfect? No, I've seen much better ways of doing the same thing but they all tend towards more complex character creation. I'm my mind 13th Age just does skills perfectly for this sort of game*, you get a small number of points in backgrounds at 1st level and slowly get more while you level up at a completely different rate to how your combat stats scale (attacks for martial characters deal an extra die if damage every level, casters instead jump two dice every other level). But Proficiency Bonus works well enough for the kind of game the designers wanted, and if you're not throwing Save or Suck powers at the player's weak saves with regularity than the fact that only things you're good at scale is a relative non-issue.

But yes, I personally have minor issues with PB. But they're mainly that I think the bonus from Expertise is too large and that the need to keep PC attacks and defences in line means that world ending threats are impossible, both of which are very much personal opinion and I'm sure that most people here will disagree on both.

* If I was running a game based on, for example, Allen I'd want more detail on skills and less on combat.

[MaxWilson]

Still think the npc DCs scale to far on the upper side with saves. 13-17 is my personal favorite Range and would rather just have more automatic effects for NPCs OR replace some of the PC features from rerolls/adv to just allow them to pass. Rerolls with zero or near zero chance are just insult on top of injury.

I agree, stuff like Indomitable needs a redesign.

[Theodoxus]

There are other things that help. Sure, you're not guaranteed to get them, but you can certainly work with your DM to try to increase your odds of finding them (either purchased, found or created). Rings and Cloaks of Protection, Ioun Stones, and my personal favorite, the Stone of Good Luck. The cloak and Stone are uncommon, so shouldn't be too hard to grab. The ring is rare, so might take a while to obtain. Of course, that's all three of your attunement slots, but that's also +3 to all saves, +2 to AC and +1 to skill checks. If that's what you're worried about, they have you covered.

The Ioun Stones are certainly more of a crap shoot, and arguably the best for this specific problem is the legendary Mastery stone that boosts your PB by 1 (with no note of max, so AFAIK, is the only way to get a PB of +7). But legendary magic items aren't growing on trees...

Now, if you're playing a low/no magic item game, I can't help you, and there seems to be a bit of fear about Christmas Tree builds destroying bounded accuracy... but the games where you're concerned about BA are not the same games where you're worried about trying to avoid DC 22 effects... they're pretty much mutually exclusive.

[Ettina]

Personally, I think high-level characters not getting better at literally everything is a feature, not a bug. I like the idea that the archmage isn't automatically better at wrestling than a burly farmhand who's just started adventuring.

In practice, most high-level PCs get plenty of ways to circumvent their weaknesses, anyway. Which is more interesting than just a flat numerical bonus.

[paladinn]

Thanks for the input, all. I don't think a player should rely/count on getting stuff from a DM. It's nothing to plan a character's future on, IMO. DM's do what they do.

I'm not thinking that a character should improve in Everything as they level up. But saves is one thing I would think should be improvable, even if not proficient. A 10th level fighter saves as well as a 1st level wizard if not proficient. That's where I'm thinking the "half proficency" bonus might come in, or at least a -2 or some such.

I am fine with most classes proficiency in combat. And I know that fighter-types get other benes, mostly in the way of damage. I wouldn't think a +1 to hit with a signature weapon would be that game breaking, just to give fighters a leg up as compared to casters. I know that battlemasters (which I find myself disliking due to the "superiority dice" mechanic) have maneuvers that can have the effect; but I would want to make such a bonus available at least to all "baseline" fighters (especially champions).

I'm definitely seeing that while 5e has a lot of options baked-in, it's a lot less "tinkerable" that other editions.

[Sigreid]

IMO the people who advocate for every class getting better at all saves are essentially arguing that spellcasters should never actually improve in making their spells stick. As it is, a spellcaster gets better at making their magic work on their target provided they are able to deduce what their opponent will be weakest at resisting. Finding the chink in their armor as it were. Otherwise spellcasters would endure the frustration of never feeling like a powerful spellcaster, becoming just the utility power guy.

[PhantomSoul]

IMO the people who advocate for every class getting better at all saves are essentially arguing that spellcasters should never actually improve in making their spells stick. As it is, a spellcaster gets better at making their magic work on their target provided they are able to deduce what their opponent will be weakest at resisting. Finding the chink in their armor as it were. Otherwise spellcasters would endure the frustration of never feeling like a powerful spellcaster, becoming just the utility power guy.

The solution is to have AC also get better with level! (Even if just at the equivalent half-proficiency.)

[stoutstien]

IMO the people who advocate for every class getting better at all saves are essentially arguing that spellcasters should never actually improve in making their spells stick. As it is, a spellcaster gets better at making their magic work on their target provided they are able to deduce what their opponent will be weakest at resisting. Finding the chink in their armor as it were. Otherwise spellcasters would endure the frustration of never feeling like a powerful spellcaster, becoming just the utility power guy.

What does that have to do with NPCs saves? They rarely have the diversity of spells or mechanical options to try to pick the ideal save to target. They also tend to be static in performance in the fact they don't really grow at all.

The plight of trying to use the same design system for PCs and NPCs.

[Sigreid]

What does that have to do with NPCs saves? They rarely have the diversity of spells or mechanical options to try to pick the ideal save to target. They also tend to be static in performance in the fact they don't really grow at all.

The plight of trying to use the same design system for PCs and NPCs.

My personal preference is for everything to work on the same rules/design. I like 5e overall, but I'm not a fan of PC and NPC rules being different.

[PhantomSoul]

What does that have to do with NPCs saves? They rarely have the diversity of spells or mechanical options to try to pick the ideal save to target. They also tend to be static in performance in the fact they don't really grow at all.

The plight of trying to use the same design system for PCs and NPCs.

And monster saves do already tend to increase with CR (part of this correlates with creature types, though).

https://i.imgur.com/c96zsbx.png

[stoutstien]

And monster saves do already tend to increase with CR (part of this correlates with creature types, though).

https://i.imgur.com/c96zsbx.png

I meant NPCs themselves as individuals don't change. They don't have any agency so they can't change their spells or save DCs.

[stoutstien]

My personal preference is for everything to work on the same rules/design. I like 5e overall, but I'm not a fan of PC and NPC rules being different.

It sort of works but unfortunately the players and npc have vastly different resource pools and goals. PCs need to be more adaptive and we'll live longer than 1-2 encounters where if NPCs are built to provide a challenge in a small window.
If both are the same the game would be very slow or basically gambling to see who goes first who would then probably win.

[MaxWilson]

It sort of works but unfortunately the players and npc have vastly different resource pools and goals. PCs need to be more adaptive and we'll live longer than 1-2 encounters where if NPCs are built to provide a challenge in a small window.

Are they though? Monsters are built to provide a challenge for (typically no more than) one adventure, but many NPCs aren't intended to provide a "challenge" at all, just social interaction. Others are to provide structure ("quest-givers", leadership, information, adventure hooks). NPCs built for challenge are (or should be) built to provide challenge on a larger scale than eighteen seconds of combat, or else they'd be monsters instead of NPCs.

Two guards blocking the door to see the bandit king: go ahead and make them NPC monsters (MM Guards, or Ogres, whatever).

The mage who modified the bandit king's memory in the first place to believe there's a huge reward for the PC's heads on a pike: go ahead and make him an actual Enchanter, and give him goals and relationships and a set of non-combat capabilities (e.g. decide if he can Teleport or if he rides around on a horse making trouble). If the players ever catch up to him they'll probably catch him in the middle of doing something, probably not at full spell slots, because like them he is proactive. He's an NPC: a character played by the DM, not a player.

Bandit king: could be either NPC monster or actual NPC, depending on the DM's intent.

Monsters can sometimes get promoted to full NPC if players pay enough attention to them.

[stoutstien]

Are they though? Monsters are built to provide a challenge for (typically no more than) one adventure, but many NPCs aren't intended to provide a "challenge" at all, just social interaction. Others are to provide structure ("quest-givers", leadership, information, adventure hooks). NPCs built for challenge are (or should be) built to provide challenge on a larger scale than eighteen seconds of combat, or else they'd be monsters instead of NPCs.

Two guards blocking the door to see the bandit king: go ahead and make them NPC monsters (MM Guards, or Ogres, whatever).

The mage who modified the bandit king's memory in the first place to believe there's a huge reward for the PC's heads on a pike: go ahead and make him an actual Enchanter, and give him goals and relationships and a set of non-combat capabilities (e.g. decide if he can Teleport or if he rides around on a horse making trouble). If the players ever catch up to him they'll probably catch him in the middle of doing something, probably not at full spell slots, because like them he is proactive. He's an NPC: a character played by the DM, not a player.

Bandit king: could be either NPC monster or actual NPC, depending on the DM's intent.

Monsters can sometimes get promoted to full NPC if players pay enough attention to them.

Oh I'm all in favor with NPCs acting accordingly with the world that they inhabit and they can change. Kind of a carryover from the discussion on alignment how NPCs really do need some form of framework to give them goals and motivations to make them feel like actual characters. Doesn't matter if it is a bandit King or the enchanter wanting to modify his memory or even just an owlbear protecting its territory they need some depth to give them meaning.
In the same vein I don't worry about how the enchanter came by their magical powers past maybe a little bit of background. They don't need to earn experience and choose spells as they progress. They progressed based on the in-game logic and DM discretion. In my games I do my darndest to make sure that most intelligent NPCs are usually doing something when the party interacts with them because it makes sense and sometimes they are not a full health or have all the resources for similar reasons. I don't roll out the dice to see the lizard folk and the yuan ti actual blow by blow to see the inflicted damage on each other, I just make a decision with an occasional dice thrown in there if I want some randomness.

Nothing really affects the process of introducing an NPC that has a certain feeling or effect and adjusting DCs back a tad so you can throw more interesting things at the party without completely screwing them over. Why go through all the fuss of adjusting all the stat scores, proficiency bonus, and so on to make it all line up when you can just use the DC that makes sense and move on.

[KorvinStarmast]

The NPC knight can be an opponent that they have to fight, an ally, or someone that they have to negotiate with.
The DM (or the published adventurer's writer) provides the motivation, not the rulebook.

[Kane0]

I'm not thinking that a character should improve in Everything as they level up. But saves is one thing I would think should be improvable, even if not proficient. A 10th level fighter saves as well as a 1st level wizard if not proficient. That's where I'm thinking the "half proficency" bonus might come in, or at least a -2 or some such.

As i said, half prof for saves you arent proficient in is fine




I am fine with most classes proficiency in combat. And I know that fighter-types get other benes, mostly in the way of damage. I wouldn't think a +1 to hit with a signature weapon would be that game breaking, just to give fighters a leg up as compared to casters.

There were feats in UA that gave +1 to hit with certain weapon categories, didnt male print but they were fine. You could tale crusher/piercer/slasher and swap out somethi for the +1 to hit, or introduce a fighting style that gives +1 to hit (versatile weapons comes to mind).



I'm definitely seeing that while 5e has a lot of options baked-in, it's a lot less "tinkerable" that other editions.

True in a certain sense, its harder to adjust skills, attacks, spell saves, etc individually because theyre all tied together with the proficiency framework rather than bab, skill points, save progressions, etc.
But within that framework theres still plenty of stuff to work with. 5e might have fewer interconnected parts but if youre doing custom content and changes that tends to make your job easier since its easier to see how your stuff affects things.

[Segev]

A paladin in the party likely is giving +3 to +5 to the whole party's saves by mid tier 2.

[Kane0]

IMO the people who advocate for every class getting better at all saves are essentially arguing that spellcasters should never actually improve in making their spells stick. As it is, a spellcaster gets better at making their magic work on their target provided they are able to deduce what their opponent will be weakest at resisting. Finding the chink in their armor as it were. Otherwise spellcasters would endure the frustration of never feeling like a powerful spellcaster, becoming just the utility power guy.

I disagree.

Tier 1 a casters spell attack/DC will be competitive against most targets despite relatively few spells known to target different defences (at leadt two though). Your DC is about 13 and enemy saves are about -1 to +3, so good chances for you and some spells dont even rely on saves or attacks in the first place (Sleep im looking at you).

By Tier 3 you have a higher spell DC/Attack by at least 2 and more likely 4, whereas only 2 to 3 out of 6 enemy saves keep pace and the others are more easily targeted by your embiggened selection of available spells. A small scaling of +1 or +2 in these cases will not render you ineffectual.

However, if you’re adding half prof to all saves including those you’re already proficient in then that’s a different story, I would say you’re going too far in that case.

[Hytheter]

Good saves in D&D 3.5 go from +2 to +12, while bad saves go from +0 to +6. That's a difference of +2 at first level and +6 at 20th.

Good saves in D&D 5e go from +2 to +6, while bad saves start at zero and stay there. That's a difference of +2 at first level and +6 at 20th. Wait, that sounds familiar!

"Bad saves don't scale" is only a problem of perception. They don't scale because the maths was designed such that they don't have to. I do think some of the high CR save DCs are a little unreasonable, but it's the same story if not worse in 3.5.

[Composer99]

IMO the people who advocate for every class getting better at all saves are essentially arguing that spellcasters should never actually improve in making their spells stick. As it is, a spellcaster gets better at making their magic work on their target provided they are able to deduce what their opponent will be weakest at resisting. Finding the chink in their armor as it were. Otherwise spellcasters would endure the frustration of never feeling like a powerful spellcaster, becoming just the utility power guy.

As I understand it, paladinn's proposed change to saving throws applies to player character classes. As such this complaint just seems inapplicable. Player characters don't care if other player characters have better saving throws (well, most of the time), and NPCs and monsters, even ones built with spellcasting and other features derived from PC classes, aren't usually built as PCs.

PC spellcasters likely wouldn't notice this change.

[Segev]

Good saves in D&D 3.5 go from +2 to +12, while bad saves go from +0 to +6. That's a difference of +2 at first level and +6 at 20th.

Good saves in D&D 5e go from +2 to +6, while bad saves start at zero and stay there. That's a difference of +2 at first level and +6 at 20th. Wait, that sounds familiar!

"Bad saves don't scale" is only a problem of perception. They don't scale because the maths was designed such that they don't have to. I do think some of the high CR save DCs are a little unreasonable, but it's the same story if not worse in 3.5.

Just to add some numbers to the save DCs, a typical save DC for a SAD caster will range from 13 (8+2+3) to 19 (8+6+5). I'm not actually sure it's possible to get a save DC higher than that as a PC. I'm sure monsters do get higher, though.

[Kane0]

Rod of the pact keeper, archmage robes, etc

[Valmark]

That's litterally jack of all trade.
Why would the figher gain a bard ability ?

That's for ability checks, not saves.

[stoutstien]

That's litterally jack of all trade.
Why would the figher gain a bard ability ?

Jack of all trades doesn't apply to saves.

*Ninjaed*

[stoutstien]

Oh...
I'm not very smart, am I ?

It can be a little confusing especially when there isn't a real pattern when a check vs a save is called for.

[Sigreid]

As I understand it, paladinn's proposed change to saving throws applies to player character classes. As such this complaint just seems inapplicable. Player characters don't care if other player characters have better saving throws (well, most of the time), and NPCs and monsters, even ones built with spellcasting and other features derived from PC classes, aren't usually built as PCs.

PC spellcasters likely wouldn't notice this change.

This assumes that either 1, an NPC is never just built as a character (some of us do that for consistency) or 2, the party never comes at odds.

[Anonymouswizard]

This assumes that either 1, an NPC is never just built as a character (some of us do that for consistency) or 2, the party never comes at odds.

I think this is a point, we need to consider PC/NPC transparency. The industry at the moment is leaning away from it, but it's still a thing (and in crunch-lite systems it might actually be easier to have it). Sometimes the tendency to boil down NPCs/Opponents legs to oversimplification, every time I pick up Romance of the Perilous Land I wonder why they reduced every monster to a single number instead of just giving them the five stats. But if we don't have it (as 5e assumes by default) than checking how saves scale doesn't really matter, as NPCs don't have to even have a Proficiency Bonus.

As for the second, well I wonder if it even matters that much. PVP isn't that uncommon, and somebody looking to boost saves all around either isn't in a group that possess it, or doesn't think it affects it that much. It also assumes that PC Classes are built with PVP balance in mind, which due to the aforementioned default lack of PC/NPC Transparency I don't think is the case.

[KorvinStarmast]

as NPCs don't have to even have a Proficiency Bonus.
CR determines PB (IMO, any CR < 1/2 ought to have PB of 1, but that's not how they chose to do it)
Assassin: Save proficiency in Dex and Int (+6 +4)
Archmage: Save proficiency in Int and Wis (+9 +6)
Bandit Captain: is proficient in three saves Str +4, Dex +5, Wis +2

Bandit, Druid, Guard: proficient in no saves.

So it varies. :smallconfused:

[Waazraath]

CR determines PB (IMO, any CR < 1/2 ought to have PB of 1, but that's not how they chose to do it)
Assassin: Save proficiency in Dex and Int (+6 +4)
Archmage: Save proficiency in Int and Wis (+9 +6)
Bandit Captain: is proficient in three saves Str +4, Dex +5, Wis +2

Bandit, Druid, Guard: proficient in no saves.

So it varies. :smallconfused:

Good point, this part feels very inconsistent sometimes - for example, the Yuan-ti abomination doesn't have proficiency in any save, despite it being a big fat boss-monster on its way to becoming demi-deity while lesser yuan-ti's do have proficiency in several saving throws. Even if the designers made the choice (like they did) that 'rules for npcs's/monsters differ from pc rules', they could have used some guidelines to feel monsters being a bit more coherent, and having high CR have some characteristics in common.

[Anonymouswizard]

CR determines PB (IMO, any CR < 1/2 ought to have PB of 1, but that's not how they chose to do it)
Assassin: Save proficiency in Dex and Int (+6 +4)
Archmage: Save proficiency in Int and Wis (+9 +6)
Bandit Captain: is proficient in three saves Str +4, Dex +5, Wis +2

Bandit, Druid, Guard: proficient in no saves.

So it varies. :smallconfused:

True, but besides my point. There is no system mandated reason for NPCs to have a Proficiency Bonus (or Ability Scores for that matter). They have one, but it would be fairly trivial to design the system so they didn't (attack bonus and saves become directly CR dependent, skills become whatever you want).

What's a goblin's Proficiency Bonus? As the GM I couldn't give a damn. Unless they're a PC I'm just going to decide that they get +4 at picking locks because goblin's are sneaky, and only pull out the rulebook for combat stats. If the book then says they get +8 to Dexterity saves I'm not seeing any kind of issue.

[KorvinStarmast]

True, but besides my point. {snip]
What's a goblin's Proficiency Bonus? As the GM I couldn't give a damn. ??? It's in the MM; there's a table and everything. I think the reason it's in there is to save the DM from being in a position where they have to make one up. (Though any of us can, sure).

I am now not sure what point you are making.

Having that PB makes, for example, the spell save DC for an NPC mage or a spell casting monster fit within the general mechanics of the game and bounded accuracy. (Or so it appears to me)

[Hytheter]

CR determines PB (IMO, any CR < 1/2 ought to have PB of 1, but that's not how they chose to do it)

Not all monster stat blocks actually follow the formula, though. For lack of a known example, I just now picked a creature from the MM at random and found one on the first try: The Kuo-Toa Monitor. It's CR3, so its PB should be +2. But its actual PB is clearly +4 - it's bite has a +6 to hit (with +2 str) and both of its skills align with a +4 PB.

I'm sure there are other examples, and I'm pretty sure there are monsters whose modifiers don't add up no matter how you shake it.

(If you saw a version of this post a second ago, it's because I took a second look at the stat block and thought I had made a mistake, only to realise on third review I had it right in the first place.:smallsigh:)

[KorvinStarmast]

Not all monster stat blocks actually follow the formula, though. For lack of a known example, I just now picked a creature from the MM at random and found one on the first try: The Kuo-Toa Monitor. It's CR3, so its PB should be +2. But its actual PB is clearly +4 - it's bite has a +6 to hit (with +2 str) and both of its skills align with a +4 PB. The skills thing is a pretty common, a proficiency doubling (like expertise) for selected skills. (Aboleth comes to mind)
Not going to try and parse the to hit, since they sometimes make mistakes.

I'm sure there are other examples, and I'm pretty sure there are monsters whose modifiers don't add up no matter how you shake it. The MM got some errata, I need to go and see if that monster was one of them. BRB.
Hmm. Kuo-toa Archpriest (p. 200). Unarmed strike: 5 (1d4 + 3) [was 1d4 + 2]. That was corrected to fit the model, it seems, but its to hit ought to be +5, not the +6 that is listed in the book.

The Kuo-toa to hit ought to be +4. Not sure what's going on there. Changing it to +4 fits the model better. Odd; not seeing an explanation anywhere.

[PhantomSoul]

The skills thing is a pretty common, a proficiency doubling (like expertise) for selected skills. (Aboleth comes to mind)
Not going to try and parse the to hit, since they sometimes make mistakes.
The MM got some errata, I need to go and see if that monster was one of them. BRB.
Hmm. Kuo-toa Archpriest (p. 200). Unarmed strike: 5 (1d4 + 3) [was 1d4 + 2]. That was corrected to fit the model, it seems, but its to hit ought to be +5, not the +6 that is listed in the book.

The Kuo-toa to hit ought to be +4. Not sure what's going on there. Changing it to +4 fits the model better. Odd; not seeing an explanation anywhere.

It's a common thing, though, as I recall...

[Unoriginal]

Good point, this part feels very inconsistent sometimes - for example, the Yuan-ti abomination doesn't have proficiency in any save, despite it being a big fat boss-monster on its way to becoming demi-deity while lesser yuan-ti's do have proficiency in several saving throws. Even if the designers made the choice (like they did) that 'rules for npcs's/monsters differ from pc rules', they could have used some guidelines to feel monsters being a bit more coherent, and having high CR have some characteristics in common.

Consistency doesn't make the statblocks inherently better: would the Yuan-ti Abomination be better if the had proficiency in several saves with different weaknesses to compensate?

I don't think that's the case. The Yuan-ti Abomination has somewhat-decent-to-good stat mods in all six stats, with which Magic Resistence makes them good-but-not-too-impervious against save spell, and they have PCs-will-hit-on-an-average-roll-but-not-on-a-bad-roll AC.

Let's compare that with a monster of the same CR: the Stone Giant. The Giant has great STR and CON, somewhat decent DEX, nothing to write home about in INT and WIS, and bad CHA. With their save proficiencies, they're very hard to affect with anything CON related, are not the easiest to affect with WIS and DEX, are still good against STR saves even without proficiency, and for the rest they've got a big hole in their defense. On top of that their AC means the PCs will likely need an average-to-slightly-above-average roll to hit

As a result, while the Abomination is an all-rounder who gives their opponents at best a slight incentive to use attack rolls, the Stone Giant is pretty hard to hit in one place and pretty easy to hit on another, giving a big incentive to casters to target their mental saves while still allowing attack-action-users to be plenty helpful, but discouraging effects that target physical stats.

I think the feel of an Yuan-ti Abomination encounter would be lost, if they were given proficiency in WIS and CHA like some other Yuan-ti, compensated by lower stats here and there.

[Hytheter]

Hmm. Kuo-toa Archpriest (p. 200). Unarmed strike: 5 (1d4 + 3) [was 1d4 + 2]. That was corrected to fit the model, it seems, but its to hit ought to be +5, not the +6 that is listed in the book.

It has +3 strength and should have +3 proficiency as a CR6, that one actually does work. The fact that there was a mistake though, and that it happens to be another kuo-toa, makes me wonder if they just dropped the ball on that entire species.

Let's see... I don't see any other discrepencies. Interestingly all Kuo-toa have expertise in their skills, so the attack bonus of the monitor probably is a mistake after all.

[KorvinStarmast]

It has +3 strength and should have +3 proficiency as a CR6, that one actually does work. The fact that there was a mistake though, and that it happens to be another kuo-toa, makes me wonder if they just dropped the ball on that entire species. Ah, good point, forgot to double check the archpriest's CR.

Let's see... I don't see any other discrepencies. Interestingly all Kuo-toa have expertise in their skills, so the attack bonus of the monitor probably is a mistake after all.
But they didn't catch that when they put out the errata, even though they did catch the other one. *shakes head* Not sure what's going on there.

[Willie the Duck]

I agree, stuff like Indomitable needs a redesign.
That's where I land -- individual things don't work, but the overall paradigm seems to.


I'm definitely seeing that while 5e has a lot of options baked-in, it's a lot less "tinkerable" that other editions.

I really don't find that to be the case. The homebrew stuff on DMSGuild or the Homebrew section here is absolutely familiar to me (90% drek or reinventing-the-wheel, but the other 10% is still full of creative stuff that generally works) having lived through that for most of the editions.

I think (as in IMO) what it really is is that 5e isn't '3e, version 4' -- it looks superficially like another take on the same system, and thus people can tend to expect it to work the same way. Mind you, while 3e gives you all sorts of knobs and levers and dials to play with and the PrC model and all those splats set an expectation that it is infinitely tinkerable, but by the standards we are using, it isn't. What we're saying for 5e is that you shouldn't mess with basic components of the game math simply because it sounds like it meets some need without understanding the actual effects because you could well disrupt a downstream balance between attackers/defenders/martials/casters/etc. With 3e, you don't have that problem only because the game balances along those lines are already all over the map -- If it were all finely balanced than suddenly giving the classes with bad saves a boost in them (or the like) would upset the balances just as easily.

[MaxWilson]

That's where I land -- individual things don't work, but the overall paradigm seems to.

Y'know, it wouldn't be terrible for Indomitable N to simple be +N to all saves, instead of N/day rerolls. +3 to saves by level 20 isn't a ton compared to AD&D Fighters, but it's at least a nod in the general direction.

Tier 4 Fighters would wind up with the best Str and Con saves in the game, except that Monks who spend ki on rerolls might be slightly better against some DCs. 20th level Barbarians would have slightly worse Str/Con saves (by +1) but better Str checks, more HP, and attack/damage rolls.

I dislike N/day abilities on the Fighter chassis (Fighter archetypes like Conan and the Terminator are all about inherent, at-will capabilities, not Vancian magic) so converting Indomitable to a passive ability seems good.

[Willie the Duck]

I dislike N/day abilities on the Fighter chassis (Fighter archetypes like Conan and the Terminator are all about inherent, at-will capabilities, not Vancian magic) so converting Indomitable to a passive ability seems good.

I certainly can imagine an otherwise-upgraded fighter that loses the N/day and M/short rest abilities but got such and such boosts elsewhere (saves, blanket immunities, etc.). Make the Champion newFighter be truly AD&D/BX-esque.

[Waazraath]

Consistency doesn't make the statblocks inherently better: would the Yuan-ti Abomination be better if the had proficiency in several saves with different weaknesses to compensate?

I don't think that's the case. The Yuan-ti Abomination has somewhat-decent-to-good stat mods in all six stats, with which Magic Resistence makes them good-but-not-too-impervious against save spell, and they have PCs-will-hit-on-an-average-roll-but-not-on-a-bad-roll AC.

Let's compare that with a monster of the same CR: the Stone Giant. The Giant has great STR and CON, somewhat decent DEX, nothing to write home about in INT and WIS, and bad CHA. With their save proficiencies, they're very hard to affect with anything CON related, are not the easiest to affect with WIS and DEX, are still good against STR saves even without proficiency, and for the rest they've got a big hole in their defense. On top of that their AC means the PCs will likely need an average-to-slightly-above-average roll to hit

As a result, while the Abomination is an all-rounder who gives their opponents at best a slight incentive to use attack rolls, the Stone Giant is pretty hard to hit in one place and pretty easy to hit on another, giving a big incentive to casters to target their mental saves while still allowing attack-action-users to be plenty helpful, but discouraging effects that target physical stats.

I think the feel of an Yuan-ti Abomination encounter would be lost, if they were given proficiency in WIS and CHA like some other Yuan-ti, compensated by lower stats here and there.

I didn't understand your post, but see the mistake was mine: I meant "anathema" instead of "abomination" - now I understand the comparison you make.

You could be right that it doesn't matter, and even makes the statblock better by just ignoring it, I didn't looked into it that detailed. It suprised me though that such powerful opponents (anathema is cr 12) have some saves with only a +1 or +3 bonus - meaning failure most of the time, even with advantage. If I look at the comparision you make between the stone giant and the abomination, you could be right that all of this is behind the designs, but to me it feels more like a random/whatever/we'll improvise something-strategy was employed when monsters were designed. These inconsistencies are part of that.

As a sidetrack, in general I don't think parties know (or are supposed to know) about these kind of weaknesses, when they encounter foes. Not beyond "big giant will probably have good str and con saves".

[KorvinStarmast]

I dislike N/day abilities on the Fighter chassis (Fighter archetypes like Conan and the Terminator are all about inherent, at-will capabilities, not Vancian magic) so converting Indomitable to a passive ability seems good. Advantage on all saving throws is what that boils down to, if I understand where you are headed with this. (Works for me).Were you thinking of adding half proficiency to all saves rather than roll advantage for all saves?

[stoutstien]

Advantage on all saving throws is what that boils down to, if I understand where you are headed with this. (Works for me).Were you thinking of adding half proficiency to all saves rather than roll advantage for all saves?

Adv would fall short in terms of addressing saves you don't have high relevant stats in. One of the reasons the feature is considered bad to begin with. Rerolls are only worth it if you have at least a decent chance from the get go. Advantage acts in a similar fashion.

A small flat bonus for fighter would help in the upper levels when DCs reach 20+.

[MaxWilson]

Advantage on all saving throws is what that boils down to, if I understand where you are headed with this. (Works for me).Were you thinking of adding half proficiency to all saves rather than roll advantage for all saves?

No, I was thinking of adding +1 to saves per level of Indomitable, so it stacks with proficiency (and/or advantage).

So, at level 8, half proficiency is +1, but you don't have any Indomitable yet so your bonus is +0. At level 9 you get Indomitable 1, at level 13 you get Indomitable 2, at level 17 you get Indomitable 3. Same ability schedule as before, only now Indomitable is actually mildly exciting.

Getting Indomitable 3 and a second a Action Surge at level 17 isn't as good IMO as getting True Polymorph or other 9th level spells, but with this change it would at least be pretty good. +11ish to Con saves, +8ish to Dex saves, +8ish to Str saves, +4ish to Wis saves, and +3ish to Cha saves isn't fantastic and you'll still probably fail most Cha/Wis saves, but it's better than a kick in the teeth. And you can invest in Lucky and Resilient to improve your odds further.



A small flat bonus for fighter would help in the upper levels when DCs reach 20+.

Yes, exactly.

[stoutstien]

No, I was thinking of adding +1 to saves per level of Indomitable, so it stacks with proficiency (and/or advantage).

So, at level 8, half proficiency is +1, but you don't have any Indomitable yet so your bonus is +0. At level 9 you get Indomitable 1, at level 13 you get Indomitable 2, at level 17 you get Indomitable 3. Same ability schedule as before, only now Indomitable is actually mildly exciting.

Getting Indomitable 3 and a second a Action Surge at level 17 isn't as good IMO as getting True Polymorph or other 9th level spells, but with this change it would at least be pretty good. +11ish to Con saves, +8ish to Dex saves, +8ish to Str saves, +4ish to Wis saves, and +3ish to Cha saves isn't fantastic and you'll still probably fail most Cha/Wis saves, but it's better than a kick in the teeth. And you can invest in Lucky and Resilient to improve your odds further.



Yes, exactly.

Really eloquent. I might shameless still this. Currently I've just been giving fighters a limited form of legendary action which can be finicky.

[Anonymouswizard]

??? It's in the MM; there's a table and everything. I think the reason it's in there is to save the DM from being in a position where they have to make one up. (Though any of us can, sure).

I am now not sure what point you are making.

Having that PB makes, for example, the spell save DC for an NPC mage or a spell casting monster fit within the general mechanics of the game and bounded accuracy. (Or so it appears to me)

We've gone past this, but to clarify my point: there's no inherent need for NPCs to work off the same proficiency system, or even the same list to be honest, and there advantages to doing so. Mainly in fine tuning, a change of one punt can make an encounter feel vastly different. But both ways are valid, it's just weird to me to complain about Proficiency Bonus changes agreeing monsters when they could easily be redesigned not to use it.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, I was thinking of adding +1 to saves per level of Indomitable, so it stacks with proficiency (and/or advantage).

So, at level 8, half proficiency is +1, but you don't have any Indomitable yet so your bonus is +0. At level 9 you get Indomitable 1, at level 13 you get Indomitable 2, at level 17 you get Indomitable 3. Same ability schedule as before, only now Indomitable is actually mildly exciting.
Probably gonna steal this; will discuss with my DM brother, we have a champion at 9th level at the moment ... not sure he'll want to plug that in.

... to clarify my point: there's no inherent need for NPCs to work off the same proficiency system, or even the same list to be honest, and there advantages to doing so. Mainly in fine tuning, a change of one punt can make an encounter feel vastly different. But both ways are valid, it's just weird to me to complain about Proficiency Bonus changes agreeing monsters when they could easily be redesigned not to use it. OK, I see what you are getting at, but I guess it saved them a lot of work to do as they did. :smallcool: