Proficiency bonus in 3e

[paladinn]

Hola all,

Being the hacker/tinkerer that I am, I've been pondering the possible use/s of a "proficiency bonus" mechanic in 3e/PF/D20. No, I wouldn't want to replace the 3e to-hit mechanics or, probably, the skill system. But it seems to me that the PB idea is a good one when it comes to adjudicating limited-use abilities like paladin smites, ranger favored enemies, maybe rogue sneak attacks, etc. Either using a PB to determine the number of uses or the effectiveness of said ability.

Has anyone implemented or pondered something like this? How did/could it work?

Gracias!

[Lilapop]

Those kinds of numericals usually just scale with class levels or hitdice directly. All you'd do is introduce a level of abstraction between the two, probably with a need to make multiple classes/abilities more similar to one another than they currently are. Many classes gain smites per day at different rates than the base paladin, for instance.

And then there's the question of multiclassing. Do you want all classes contribute to your sneak attack dice, like they do with BAB, instead of dipping fighter having an opportunity cost in the form of reduces SA damage? Or do you want to track your "PB for sneak attack" separately from your "PB for smites"?

[pabelfly]

I don't understand what this is trying to achieve.

In 5e, a proficiency bonus is added to ability checks, saving throws and attack rolls. In 3e, we increase these different aspects of the character as we level and/or buy gear, depending on the choices we make as we level.

Let's say you add a proficiency bonus to, say, a Rogue's sneak attack. What do you want that to mean for them, that their class does not already do?

[paladinn]

I'm not thinking to use a PB in all the ways it's used in 5e. It would be strictly to limit the number of uses Or the potency of certain class abilities. Smites are one thing that comes to mind. Still pondering

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not thinking to use a PB in all the ways it's used in 5e. It would be strictly to limit the number of uses Or the potency of certain class abilities. Smites are one thing that comes to mind. Still pondering

So if I understand you correctly, your aim is either to increase the amount of smites / damage of sneak attack / etc for a multiclassed character; OR to decrease these amounts for a singleclass character.

Which is it?

[Crake]

So if I understand you correctly, your aim is either to increase the amount of smites / damage of sneak attack / etc for a multiclassed character; OR to decrease these amounts for a singleclass character.

Which is it?

It could (in fact under most circumstances will) do both, not either

[paladinn]

So if I understand you correctly, your aim is either to increase the amount of smites / damage of sneak attack / etc for a multiclassed character; OR to decrease these amounts for a singleclass character.

Which is it?

Still working through it all. A paladin whose smites were bound to a PB would get more smites/day and likely more powerful. Which is fine since I'd want a spell-less paladin anyway.

[Maat Mons]

If you're trying to create more symmetry between classes on when major features are gained, casters generally gain their most important benefits, access to new spell levels, on odd-numbered levels. So the easy thing to do seems to be to go with strong abilities coming every-other level. For abilities that should advance more slowly, it would be relatively easy to to have them advance every four levels, and then stagger another ability in there that also advances every four levels. For example:




Barbarian
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue


1
DR 1/-, Fast Movement
Armor Training 1, Weapon Aptitude
Unarmed Damage 1d8, Unarmored AC (+Wis)
Aura of Courage, Divine Health, Favored Enemy (Evil) +2
Studied Target +1, Track
Combat Style, Sneak Attack +1d6, Trapfinding


2








3
DR 2/-, Rage +2
Armor Training 2, Weapon Training +1
Flurry (+1 Attack), Unarmored AC +1
1st-Level Spells
1st-Level Spells
Evasion, Sneak Attack +2d6


4








5
DR 3/-, Uncanny Dodge
Armor Training 3, Armored Defense 1/2/3, Martial Flexibility (1 Feat)
Ki Strike (Magic), Unarmed Damage 1d10
Divine Grace, Favored Enemy (Evil) +4
Studied Target +2, Woodland Stride
Darkstalker, Sneak Attack +3d6


6








7
DR 4-, Rage +4
Armor Training 4, Weapon Training +2
Evasion, Purity of Body, Unarmored AC +2
2nd-Level Spells
2nd-Level Spells
Sneak Attack +4d6, Uncanny Dodge


8








9
DR 5/-, Pounce
Armor Training 5, Armored Defense 2/4/6, Martial Flexibility (2 Feats)
Ki Strike (Cold Iron/Silver), Unarmed Damage 2d6
Aura of Resolve, Favored Enemy (Evil) +6
Stalker, Studied Target +3, Swift Tracker
Improved Combat Style, Sneak Attack +5d6


10
?? Demi-Capstone ??
?? Demi-Capstone ??
?? Demi-Capstone ??
?? Demi-Capstone ??
?? Demi-Capstone ??
?? Demi-Capstone ??


11
DR 6/-, Rage +6
Armor Training 6, Weapon Training +3
Flurry (+2 Attacks), Unarmored AC +3
3rd-Level Spells
3rd-Level Spells
Improved Evasion, Sneak Attack +6d6


12








13
DR 7/-, Improved Uncanny Dodge
Armor Training 7, Armored Defense 3/6/9, Martial Flexibility (3 Feats)
Ki Strike (Lawful), Unarmed Damage 2d8
Favored Enemy (Evil) +8, Mettle
Studied Target +4, Quarry
Hide in Plain Sight, Sneak Attack +7d6


14








15
DR 8/-, Rage +8
Armor Training 8, Weapon Training +4
Diamond Body, Improved Evasion, Unarmored AC +4
4th-Level Spells
4th-Level Spells
Sneak Attack +8d6, Improved Uncanny Dodge


16








17
DR 9/-, Tireless Rage
Armor Training 9, Armored Defense 4/8/12, Martial Flexibility (Any Number)
Ki Strike (Adamantine), Unarmed Damage 2d10
Aura of Righteousness, Favored Enemy (Evil) +10
Studied Target +5, Improved Quarry
Greater Combat Style, Sneak Attack +9d6


18








19
DR 10/-, Rage +10
Armor Training 10, Weapon Training +5
Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Unarmored AC +15
5th-Level Spells
5th-Level Spells
Slippery Mind, Sneak Attack +10d6


20
??? Capstone ???
??? Capstone ???
??? Capstone ???
??? Capstone ???
??? Capstone ???
??? Capstone ???



However, I feel this approach would work better by just eliminating the dead levels and condensing all classes to be 10 levels long.

[paladinn]

However, I feel this approach would work better by just eliminating the dead levels and condensing all classes to be 10 levels long.

Definitely not wanting all this. I prefer spell-less rangers and paladins. And the Pathfinder armor training really only works for melee fighters, especially tanks.

For "core" fighters, I'm thinking to allow the PB to be added to all damage for one weapon chosen at L1. And a 2nd Wind-type ability to regain some hp X times per day.

[JNAProductions]

Definitely not wanting all this. I prefer spell-less rangers and paladins. And the Pathfinder armor training really only works for melee fighters, especially tanks.

For "core" fighters, I'm thinking to allow the PB to be added to all damage for one weapon chosen at L1. And a 2nd Wind-type ability to regain some hp X times per day.

As someone who really likes 5E... This seems like a misguided attempt to shoehorn in something from another system.

Fighters could just get an ability where they add +X to their weapon damage rolls-say, one third Fighter levels (rounding down).
They could also just get Second Wind-once per day at level one, they can regain 1d10+Fighter level HP. Get another use at level 5, then another at 10, 15, and 20.

I also would NOT add "Can only use on one weapon," without also adding something like the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude.

[paladinn]

Fighters could just get an ability where they add +X to their weapon damage rolls-say, one third Fighter levels (rounding down).
They could also just get Second Wind-once per day at level one, they can regain 1d10+Fighter level HP. Get another use at level 5, then another at 10, 15, and 20.

I also would NOT add "Can only use on one weapon," without also adding something like the Warblade's Weapon Aptitude.

The math formula part is where the PB would come in. I mean sure, giving a fighter 1/3 level plus this, minus that, divided by sunspot activity or whatever is possible. But the PB would be something consistent and something there for any class, if needed. It's one thing that, for most special abilities, 5e got right, IMO.

[Lilapop]

So you want the size of the bonus the fighter gets with this favored weapon, the number of smites per day the paladin has, and the number of damage dice the rogue gets through sneak attack, all be the same number? Then you'll have to make sure those are also worth the same, or compensate elsewhere. Which is gonna be a whoooole pile of work to achieve precisely zero.

You also haven't addressed where you want to go with multiclassing. You're essentially creating a system were everybody has all the swift/daring/ascetic hunter/outlaw/whatever feats, for free, so that simply dipping a single level each in rogue, barbarian and paladin of freedom gives an otherwise vanilla fighter 10d6 SA, +8/+8/+4 rage, and 5 smites/day. And if you can juggle the alignment restrictions, just one level in monk adds two additional flurry attacks and 2d10 unarmed damage, without any of the other scaling features taking a hit.



It's one thing that, for most special abilities, 5e got right, IMO.

It did not get anything right. Nothing in that pile of crap is salvageable.

[glass]

It did not get anything right. Nothing in that pile of crap is salvageable.I am not the biggest 5e fan, but this is ridiculous hyperbole (not to mention textbook edition warring).

That said, you're not wrong about the rest of it. Given that unifying save bonuses, weapon attack bonuses, and skill bonuses is 90% of the point of the standardised proficiency bonus and the OP is not proposing to do that, what's left is a lot of work for very little gain (with a lot of balance implications).

[Xervous]

The math formula part is where the PB would come in. I mean sure, giving a fighter 1/3 level plus this, minus that, divided by sunspot activity or whatever is possible. But the PB would be something consistent and something there for any class, if needed. It's one thing that, for most special abilities, 5e got right, IMO.

5e wanted hazy general approximations and a one size fits all bonus works there. For tuning abilities of different magnitudes it’s far better to give each its own unique progression. Feats are the most famous example across multiple editions of what (bad stuff) happens when effects of different potencies are shackled to a singular progression.

[paladinn]

I am not the biggest 5e fan, but this is ridiculous hyperbole (not to mention textbook edition warring).

That said, you're not wrong about the rest of it. Given that unifying save bonuses, weapon attack bonuses, and skill bonuses is 90% of the point of the standardised proficiency bonus and the OP is not proposing to do that, what's left is a lot of work for very little gain (with a lot of balance implications).

Thank you for your statement about the hyperbole. And I agree.

The Vast majority of 3e/PF I would absolutely leave alone. But when it comes to special class abilities, the progression and effects are all over the map. I'm just thinking that some framework for those abilities might be desirable. But of course everyone has an opinion.

[Chronos]

Yes, because the abilities themselves are all over the map. A powerful ability shouldn't be usable the same number of times as a weak ability.

[pabelfly]

The Vast majority of 3e/PF I would absolutely leave alone. But when it comes to special class abilities, the progression and effects are all over the map. I'm just thinking that some framework for those abilities might be desirable. But of course everyone has an opinion.

I'm trying to understand the point of these changes and what you want to do right now, and I don't. For example, you want to give bonus damage to a Fighter, but damage is one of the few things Fighter can do properly. You want to add damage to a Rogue's Sneak Attack (or maybe accuracy, which is in effect the same thing) if I understand you correctly, but the amount of damage or the accuracy of Sneak Attack is not the problem with Sneak Attack.

The idea that a Paladin doesn't get enough Smites a day, I can understand at least. I even agree with you, actually. But unless you drastically change the amount of Smites a character gets, you haven't really changed anything if, say, a level 20 Paladin has six or seven Smites per day instead of five.

Whenever I'm trying to work out homebrew, I ask myself four questions:
1) What problem or deficiency does the regular 3e rules have, that I am going to attempt to fix,
2) What is my proposed solution?
3) Does my solution work? Are there issues with my solution, or are there unintended consequences elsewhere in the game?
4) Is the amount of improvement I have over vanilla worth the effort it takes for everyone to learn, understand and implement the new rule, and for me to communicate it?

Perhaps clarifying point 1) would help us help you.

[JNAProductions]

The math formula part is where the PB would come in. I mean sure, giving a fighter 1/3 level plus this, minus that, divided by sunspot activity or whatever is possible. But the PB would be something consistent and something there for any class, if needed. It's one thing that, for most special abilities, 5e got right, IMO.

Classes in 3.5 vary in power vastly more than they do in 5E.

And I really don’t think “One third your Fighter levels, rounded down” is hard math to do. Especially since it’s done once per level, and then just sits on your sheet as a static bonus.