In PF, a horde of 1st level ninjas have a BAB of +0, but a single high level ninja has a BAB of +15 (possibly 20 if gestalt).
In 5E, low level ninjas have a proficiency bonus of +2, and high level ninjas have a proficiency bonus of +6 (maybe +9 with 30 monster levels).
Does that seem right to you?
What's wrong with it?
In high level PF, you can have AC's in the 30s and 40s. In high level 5e, you'll see AC's mostly in the 20s and maybe 30s. Given a d20, you'll get about the same effect.
Also, don't forget to take into account ability bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your 1st level ninja has 15 DEX (+2). Your 20th level ninja might have 20 DEX (+5)
So effectively you are going from +4 to +11
But bounded accuracy goes both ways, the AC of a high level character is not much higher than that of a low level character
Hmmmm.....
What about 5th level ninjas hitting for +6 (16 Dex, +3 proficiency) vs 15th level ninjas hitting for +9 (18 Dex, +5 proficiency).
Hmmmm.....
What about 5th level ninjas hitting for +6 (16 Dex, +3 proficiency) vs 15th level ninjas hitting for +9 (18 Dex, +5 proficiency).
Don't forget that 'skill in battle' isn't measured purely in bonuses to hit. The 15th level ninja has many class features the level 5 ninja doesn't (presumably much better sneak attack damage, for example).
In PF, a horde of 1st level ninjas have a BAB of +0, but a single high level ninja has a BAB of +15 (possibly 20 if gestalt).
In 5E, low level ninjas have a proficiency bonus of +2, and high level ninjas have a proficiency bonus of +6 (maybe +9 with 30 monster levels).
Does that seem right to you?
Personally...NO.
However, if you are fine if a Normal person can run 400 Yards in 60 seconds, and the track stars can only run it in 56 seconds (instead of less than 45 seconds, or 3/4s the time that a normal person might)...then...I suppose you'd think it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Or that a Doctor only has a 20% chance of being better in surgery than joe blow from the street...then obviously...you'd chance Joe Blow removing your cancer from you most of the time.
It really depends on your world view to tell the truth though. If you think that the world allows people's proficiencies to remain around static no matter how much they study, learn, and practice...and it's more an outshoot of their natural born abilities than hard work and dedication...than your description of the 5e way of application is probably perfect for you
(in many ways, your ability growth is as much, if not more, an indication of your ability to pull something off).
Of course, that's not entirely indicative of 5e's way of applying stuff, as a counter argument could be put below as...
I would like to point out, that those Ninja's, if they are Rogues, can get a double proficiency bonus in their skills...so in that arena instead of a +2 to +6, it would be a +2 to +12 in the applicable skills (this is off the top of my head by the way...so don't criticize my thoughts too much if my numbers are off).. That's actually a far better representation in some ways if varying ability and skill growth.
Perhaps the Rogues just focus more on their skills than fighting ability?
of course that doesn't explain why Fighters or warriors don't get the x2 attack proficiency bonuses (BAB) as per their skill set. If they did, I'd probably be FAR more pleased with how Attack Bonuses are handled in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
r that a Doctor only has a 20% chance of being better in surgery than joe blow from the street...then obviously...you'd chance Joe Blow removing your cancer from you most of the time.
That's only true if you ignore the rule about the d20 roll only being used when the results are uncertain.
It seems right to me. I personally like that gaining levels doesn't make a character exponentially more powerful.
PS: Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are contending?
I would say, it is up to DM fiat on how skills are applied. Most DM's would apply weapon proficiency to combat, or proficiency with Thieves tools to things like picking locks.
My goal in my post is NOT to tell ANYONE how they should play or run their game, and if they are fine with certain things working in how they interpret it...that's fine with me.
However, as I stated there, I had a slightly different look on how the proficiency works in synergy with the classes....
As far as your interpretations of how a roll is only done if the results are uncertain, I would say that depends on the DM, once again, and their interpretation of the game rules. Under skills in both the PHB and DMG I didn't exactly find it as clear cut, and so it can be that people interpret HOW the skills are applied differently (and as per the rules, DM's can even apply different abililties at times to different skills and vice versa).
Sure, one could go for a strict interpretation of the rules (which I'd say from most of your posts, you do anything but...), however most people I find who LIKE 5e, enjoy the flexibility it offers for DMs and players to interpret and arrange rules as they wish.
So as I said, at the very beginning of my post...Personally, NO...his statement did NOT seem right...at least in my interpretation.
I would think that plain, simple, line spoke very clearly and plainly and am confused how ANYONE could misinterpret it.
However, if you ARE going to go the route, you can start quoting page and paragraph to back your statements up rather than saying an opinion or an interpretation of the rules...and at the same time, make sure that you are actually addressing what someone said instead of what your jumping to conclusions hoping they said so you can say bad stuff about imagined things.
To me, with how proficiency and especially skills are written, it could be open to interpretation.
Furthermore, I believe I'm the ONLY one who actually pointed out that though proficiency in one area may only increase incrementally, in other areas where they specialize in (which I used the Expertise for Rogues as my example) it actually has a far wider range.
Finally, if one is wondering why my posts suddenly increased in size, it's because obviously, if someone couldn't understand my post before, perhaps I need to be more wordy about it with a longer explanation.
Sorry, this was supposed to be kind of a funny thread. I didn't mean for people to get angry on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PHB, Page 7, under The D20, 1st paragraph:
"In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain, the Dungeons & Dragons game relies on rolls of a 20-sided die, a d20, to determine success or failure."
PHB, Page 174, under Ability Checks, 1st paragraph:
"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, if one is wondering why my posts suddenly increased in size, it's because obviously, if someone couldn't understand my post before, perhaps I need to be more wordy about it with a longer explanation.
IME, it's the reverse. Short and concise statements have the best chance of effectively communicating an idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bookrat's quote supports his point that the doctor vs. Joe Blow example is moot.
The result is not uncertain when Joe Blow attempts a complicated medical procedure, so he doesn't even get to roll dice.
The doctor on the other hand is trained for the procedure, but surgery is a procedure with risk associated to it, so he rolls to succeed.
The difference in their Medicine skill bonus doesn't matter here.
Now let's say they want to bandage a small wound properly. Joe Blow should roll Medicine to see if he remembers the correct way to disinfect, but the doctor does this at least once a week at his job, there's no outcome in which he fails to do the job properly, so he doesn't have to roll. The difference in their Medicine skill bonus doesn't matter here either.
This all stems from "In cases where the outcome of an action is uncertain".
It's kind of like the background features that remove the necessity of rolling for some things. Ex. an Entertainer doesn't need to roll Perform to see if he gets to stay for free at an inn, he just has that as a base level of competence. Someone else who can play an instrument might be able to accomplish that as well, but they can't take their success for granted.
GreyWolfLord - I asked you in those other threads, but you've never answered the question; what official sanctioned events are you referring to? Are you talking about Adventure League games?
Adding: Something I would like is to see something similar applied to BAB.
It can already be done, but in a more limited fashion.
For example, if you take the Archery fighting style...you can get a +2 to hit.
Another exception, similar to the Rogue's idea...but with only an addition to the proficiency roll on BAB would be Precision attack.
However, that is on a more limited scale and the results are random. For example, the average is a +4-5 on your BAB at first (which is actually better than what low level rogues get in expertise to skills), and an average of +5-6 after that. However, as I said, it is random (so that could result in a roll of +1, or be a roll of +8 or +10 later) and limited (you expend superiority dice).
A DM COULD rule and take a more even route of saying the average can be used instead (so perhaps a +4 at first, then a +5 later when expending a usage)...but that is a houserule instead of RAW.
I'd like something more concrete and stable than the RAW personally speaking...something more similar to the Expertise than the random ness of the dice.
GreyWolfLord - I asked you in those other threads, but you've never answered the question; what official sanctioned events are you referring to? Are you talking about Adventure League games?
I think we've already discussed this before when I answered it already...which you then stated AL games are a random thing overall in regards to quality and ability of the DM.
While I might agree, I think what I see going on there is still basically sanctioned (they get credit for doing it, and everything else).
On this topic that you've actually addressed...you have been VERY confusing overall. (and the more it goes on, with how much I've clarified about my original post, the more insulting to say honestly).
You seem to post things and quotes that support MY interpretation of how I run the game, but your aggressive posture seems to indicate you don't agree with my interpretation of the rules and lean more towards the OP's ideas...of which I utilized examples (which people have quoted multiple times in this thread) of how things would work if it were run that way.
It's very confusing...and annoying to a degree. Perhaps you should clarify...
It just occurred to me, that perhaps I missed the point of your greivances.
It may actually be that you DO agree with the mere +4 differences between the two levels of the Ninjitsu (which actually WOULD go in conjunction with other discussions we've had on the topic).
Where as, for someone who sees how people can min/max their characters...most level 1's are going to be vastly different than the higher levels.
For example, when I use Rogues as the example, instead of saying a 1st level Rogue would only be +4 different in their skills...I go with a somewhat normal optimization route (I don't go full on powergamer, but a more typical thing a normal person would do...at least from what I've seen). In that, they will utilize expertise. This would then mean the difference between a Rogue Ninja could be up to +17 for a Skill roll vs. a +2 (or +6 with an 18 in the ability then it would be a +11 difference at 20th instead of +17) at 1st level.
If we are saying the Ninja's are martial classes...our previous discussions of min/max and rule abuses have at times focused on how high power gamers can get AC or BAB...in which case when you get BAB's up to the 30s or higher...there's a VAST difference between first level and 20th.
However, even going to normal route of just somewhat trying to get a higher score...You could have a +2 AB at first level (or +6 with an 18 in either DEX or STR...whichever you are using), where as at 20th, without really trying to min/max anything you could have a
+14 to hit (which is far greater than a +6) with a +5 in your ability, a +6 proficiency bonus and a +3 weapon.
That's far greater of a difference than +4 in my book, but that's how I interpret these things.
I just realized, perhaps you guys WERE disagreeing on that method which I think is typical and normal of advancement, and actually WERE advocating that there is only a +4 difference.
In which case...I suppose I took what your supports and discussion were as wrong...and we'll have to agree that we interpret the rules VERY differently.
I don't think your playstyle is wrong...and everyone should play as they want, but it's not one that I think really syncs with what I feel the 5e rules are stating, personally speaking.
GreyWolfLord - I asked you in those other threads, but you've never answered the question; what official sanctioned events are you referring to? Are you talking about Adventure League games?I think we've already discussed this before when I answered it already...which you then stated AL games are a random thing overall in regards to quality and ability of the DM.
While I might agree, I think what I see going on there is still basically sanctioned (they get credit for doing it, and everything else).
So.... They are Adventure League games? A simple yes or no would suffice. I can see you're alluding to it, but you still haven't answered the question and I want to be certain of your answer - so there's no misunderstanding.
So.... They are Adventure League games? A simple yes or no would suffice. I can see you're alluding to it, but you still haven't answered the question and I want to be certain of your answer - so there's no misunderstanding.GreyWolfLord - I asked you in those other threads, but you've never answered the question; what official sanctioned events are you referring to? Are you talking about Adventure League games?I think we've already discussed this before when I answered it already...which you then stated AL games are a random thing overall in regards to quality and ability of the DM.
While I might agree, I think what I see going on there is still basically sanctioned (they get credit for doing it, and everything else).
I put a simple No answer above(in regards to the original topic)...did you actually understand that one or not.
In regards to your question...I could say yes...but then it's possible you'd interpret it as a NO as per your other posts in this very topic!
So, I didn't allude at all...what do you think AL is abbreviated for. I said we discussed this previously, and I think it was you (it may have been someone else) who stated that the DM's in those games are random and it was flawed to see their rulings as officially sanctioned...even if AL games are sanctioned events.
I've gotten more relaxed since then in regards to the DM's in 5e...in that I can accept that there are different DM's with different interpretations...and that's fine. This is one reason to say how one personally interprets the rules, rather than laying it on blanket statements these days.
as I said, if you truly are arguing about that there is only a mere +4 difference...that's your prerogative...
However, as you would realize when we talked about min/maxing...I really don't agree with that mere +4 idea in how I interpret how the rules can be used...(which I believe is where part of the discussion of AL games came up, though it's been a while).
and even if I go with how I typically see it, as I showed above, even a modicum of normal optimization that your average player does will see a higher difference than that.
I have seen it, but personally don't apply it that way.
But to each their own.
How about you clarify your STANCE on the actual topic. Do you really believe that there is only a +4 difference (which I suppose goes hand in hand with our disagreements about powergaming and min/max and or the abuse of 5e rules to get super high AC's, number of attacks, and Attack Bonuses, with me pushing that there are those that get the super high bonuses, and you not agreeing it can happen in the rules).
So.... They are Adventure League games? A simple yes or no would suffice. I can see you're alluding to it, but you still haven't answered the question and I want to be certain of your answer - so there's no misunderstanding.GreyWolfLord - I asked you in those other threads, but you've never answered the question; what official sanctioned events are you referring to? Are you talking about Adventure League games?I think we've already discussed this before when I answered it already...which you then stated AL games are a random thing overall in regards to quality and ability of the DM.
While I might agree, I think what I see going on there is still basically sanctioned (they get credit for doing it, and everything else).
I put a simple No answer above(in regards to the original topic)...did you actually understand that one or not.
In regards to your question...I could say yes...but then it's possible you'd interpret it as a NO as per your other posts in this very topic!
So, I didn't allude at all...what do you think AL is abbreviated for. I said we discussed this previously, and I think it was you (it may have been someone else) who stated that the DM's in those games are random and it was flawed to see their rulings as officially sanctioned...even if AL games are sanctioned events.
So... Is that a yes or a no? Were you taking about Adventure League games when you said "officially WotC sanctioned games"?
Please. Just a one-word response.
After that, I'll happily go into further details with all your questions for me (likely later tonight after I put the kids to bed).
So.... They are Adventure League games? A simple yes or no would suffice. I can see you're alluding to it, but you still haven't answered the question and I want to be certain of your answer - so there's no misunderstanding.GreyWolfLord - I asked you in those other threads, but you've never answered the question; what official sanctioned events are you referring to? Are you talking about Adventure League games?I think we've already discussed this before when I answered it already...which you then stated AL games are a random thing overall in regards to quality and ability of the DM.
While I might agree, I think what I see going on there is still basically sanctioned (they get credit for doing it, and everything else).
I put a simple No answer above(in regards to the original topic)...did you actually understand that one or not.
In regards to your question...I could say yes...but then it's possible you'd interpret it as a NO as per your other posts in this very topic!
So, I didn't allude at all...what do you think AL is abbreviated for. I said we discussed this previously, and I think it was you (it may have been someone else) who stated that the DM's in those games are random and it was flawed to see their rulings as officially sanctioned...even if AL games are sanctioned events.
So... Is that a yes or a no? Were you taking about Adventure League games when you said "officially WotC sanctioned games"?
Please. Just a one-word response.
After that, I'll happily go into further details with all your questions for me (likely later tonight after I put the kids to bed).
I've already been abundantly clear.
How about...you clarify your stance in regards to this thread...and if you misinterpreted my statements because you assumed instead of actually reading my post...
You give me an apology.
Because when I gave a one word statement at the beginning of this thread...you either misinterpreted a YES OR NO answer...(which is why I want to explain everything FAR more than a simple ONE word answer)...OR we have vastly different interpretations of how we use the 5e rules.
you do that so I have a more full understanding of where you are coming from and how you interpret one word answers...and I'll probably give you that answer (though if you read my post above...you'd realize I already gave you a yes or no answer).
An NPC surgeon would probably be built using the NPC/Monster rules, and just be given a decent score in Wisdom, so their Medicine check would be their Wisdom modifier + double their proficiency bonus.
A "Super Surgeon" NPC might be CR 5, have an 18 Wisdom, so a +10 on Medicine checks.
Surgery might have a DC of 20 or 25 (Hard or Very Hard), but she might also have a nurse using the Help Action, so the Super Surgeon would have advantage on the check.
An NPC surgeon would probably be built using the NPC/Monster rules, and just be given a decent score in Wisdom, so their Medicine check would be their Wisdom modifier + double their proficiency bonus.
A "Super Surgeon" NPC might be CR 5, have an 18 Wisdom, so a +10 on Medicine checks.
Surgery might have a DC of 20 or 25 (Hard or Very Hard), but she might also have a nurse using the Help Action, so the Super Surgeon would have advantage on the check.
I'd be fine with that ruling.
Unfortunately, it may be a few days till I get back, I'm about to take off to the mountains for a little bit. Still, if BR has made the mistake I think he has (since I really don't think he believes it's a mere +4, he/she just jumped to conclusions and didn't read my entire post)...
I'll say, an apology about jumping to conclusions and assuming things would be nice...
But I'll give the one word answer he wants...but would appreciate that if he misinterprets it like he did with my first post in this topic, at least someone please clarify what I said.
That one word for you Bookrat is
Yes.
I'm just going to point out that for whatever reason you have consistently been one of the hardest people on these forums for me to understand and as far as I can tell from the responses of other posters it seems to be true for other people as well. I'm not sure what it is about your posting style, but I wouldn't be quick to assume someone claiming not to understand you is somehow malicious. Most likely they're just confused because, despite your best efforts, you're not being clear.
It could be my posting style.
I've tried to clarify multiple times though, I would hope by this point with the examples I've given, that it's pretty clear though.
What you aren't seeing is that there is past history on this type of topic. I have shown power gaming ideas towards BAB, AC, number of attacks and other things in 5e previously. Whilst I was arguing for far higher numbers in regards to what one could achieve, others were very skeptical.
So, in that light...it could also be that they disagree with my ideas that there are vast differences between a 1st level and a 15th (or 20th level is normally what I do with my min/max examples). Instead of a big numerical difference, they may actually see it as a mere +4 difference.
Or, as I suspected from the start...and tried to clarify (if you note, none of the quotes were of where I posted my counter argument, which actually included the word counter...which is something people seemed to be looking for specifically) they simply misunderstood and took it out of context...well...
I can understand it at first...but after multiple clarifications?
it could be my posting style...but I have tried to be ever more explicit in what I meant as it's gone on...is it really hard to understand what I said after all my explanations?
Or, it could be that it boils down to our elemental differences in how game rules have been interpreted at the tables in regards to how vastly different a 1st level can be from a 20th level in terms of BAB, and other aspects of the game.
Use a few short sentences.
Do not use a wall of text.
Do not use many, many, many shells of quotes.
Keep It Simple, Scout (K.I.S.S.)
I know. I was just using BAB vs. pro bonus to simplify things.
I guess I was thinking about how in PF, fighting a CR 20 ninja would be a lot harder to fight than 20 CR 1 ninjas. In 5th Edition, fighting a CR 18 ninja (taking into account the difference CR means in PF & 5E) and 18 CR 1 ninjas isn't necessarily a lot harder. Or whatever the equivalent XP would be (30 or 40 or 50 ninjas???).
Ninjas in 5th Edition: Path of the Shadow Monk/Assassin Rogue multiclass. Especially Monk 6/Rogue 3+
So, ninjas....
I really like that horde-breaking rule. It's like Great Cleave for free! 2 sessions ago, I almost got to use that rule with a horde of zombies, but the PCs wised up and just left them alone behind a locked door.
So, ninjas....
Can you do me a favor and restate your hypothesis?