Why is allowing players to stack their skill proficiency bonus overpowered?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am the DM for a campaign and play with the following house rules:




  1. When gaining proficiency in any skill (during character creation, taking the Skilled feat, etc.), you may choose a skill more than once. Your proficiency bonus for that skill is the number of times that skill has been chosen times your base proficiency bonus.


  2. When you gain proficiency in multiple skills at the same time, the skills chosen must all be distinct.


  3. Any feat that allows a player to "double" their proficiency bonus for a skill instead allows the player to mark one additional level of proficiency in the given skill (e.g. Expertise).




Example of stacking proficiencies



Create a very sneaky and acrobatic Kenku Rogue.



Through Kenku Training, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth. Rule (2) prevents me from choosing Acrobatics and Acrobatics. Through the Rogue features, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth (and any two others) and Expertise in Acrobatics and Stealth. From the Criminal background, gain proficiency in Stealth.



At level 1, the character's base proficiency bonus is +2. The player has selected Acrobatics three times, and stealth four times. The new proficiency bonus to Acrobatics is +6 and to stealth is +8.



Question



In RPG.SE questions such as this or this, it is clear that stacking proficiency bonuses should be avoided and is "insanely OP."
Why?

I see a trade-off here where a character could be (unreasonably) skilled at one or two things, but isn't very good at anything else.



Why is allowing players to stack their skill proficiency bonus considered to be overpowered?






dnd-5e balance house-rules proficiency







share|improve this question









New contributor




Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1




    re: the number of downvotes, I would love some feedback on what about this post is poorly researched, unclear, or not useful.
    – Santana Afton
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    I didn't down-vote the question, but in the beginning you say you're the DM, but then you're talking about character creation, it's not completely clear if you're talking from a DM's or a player's POV.
    – Jack
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @NautArch They aren't required, but they're often helpful in teaching. And a lot of the time people do comment their reason.
    – Jason_c_o
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    If you are the DM and have been a running campaign with players using this system, I'd very much suggest that you put up an answer with how it's worked for you. At the moment, you are the best person to say if it's balanced because you're using it :) And self-answering questions, especially with table experience, is accepted and encouraged. You can then compare your real-world results with the other answers.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    @NautArch you don't have to try everything to see if it is broken. Playtest is for the not obviously broken things. I am pretty sure WotC did not playtest Wizards with Heavy Armor and d12 for HD.
    – András
    49 mins ago

















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












I am the DM for a campaign and play with the following house rules:




  1. When gaining proficiency in any skill (during character creation, taking the Skilled feat, etc.), you may choose a skill more than once. Your proficiency bonus for that skill is the number of times that skill has been chosen times your base proficiency bonus.


  2. When you gain proficiency in multiple skills at the same time, the skills chosen must all be distinct.


  3. Any feat that allows a player to "double" their proficiency bonus for a skill instead allows the player to mark one additional level of proficiency in the given skill (e.g. Expertise).




Example of stacking proficiencies



Create a very sneaky and acrobatic Kenku Rogue.



Through Kenku Training, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth. Rule (2) prevents me from choosing Acrobatics and Acrobatics. Through the Rogue features, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth (and any two others) and Expertise in Acrobatics and Stealth. From the Criminal background, gain proficiency in Stealth.



At level 1, the character's base proficiency bonus is +2. The player has selected Acrobatics three times, and stealth four times. The new proficiency bonus to Acrobatics is +6 and to stealth is +8.



Question



In RPG.SE questions such as this or this, it is clear that stacking proficiency bonuses should be avoided and is "insanely OP."
Why?

I see a trade-off here where a character could be (unreasonably) skilled at one or two things, but isn't very good at anything else.



Why is allowing players to stack their skill proficiency bonus considered to be overpowered?






dnd-5e balance house-rules proficiency







share|improve this question









New contributor




Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 1




    re: the number of downvotes, I would love some feedback on what about this post is poorly researched, unclear, or not useful.
    – Santana Afton
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    I didn't down-vote the question, but in the beginning you say you're the DM, but then you're talking about character creation, it's not completely clear if you're talking from a DM's or a player's POV.
    – Jack
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @NautArch They aren't required, but they're often helpful in teaching. And a lot of the time people do comment their reason.
    – Jason_c_o
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    If you are the DM and have been a running campaign with players using this system, I'd very much suggest that you put up an answer with how it's worked for you. At the moment, you are the best person to say if it's balanced because you're using it :) And self-answering questions, especially with table experience, is accepted and encouraged. You can then compare your real-world results with the other answers.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    @NautArch you don't have to try everything to see if it is broken. Playtest is for the not obviously broken things. I am pretty sure WotC did not playtest Wizards with Heavy Armor and d12 for HD.
    – András
    49 mins ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











I am the DM for a campaign and play with the following house rules:




  1. When gaining proficiency in any skill (during character creation, taking the Skilled feat, etc.), you may choose a skill more than once. Your proficiency bonus for that skill is the number of times that skill has been chosen times your base proficiency bonus.


  2. When you gain proficiency in multiple skills at the same time, the skills chosen must all be distinct.


  3. Any feat that allows a player to "double" their proficiency bonus for a skill instead allows the player to mark one additional level of proficiency in the given skill (e.g. Expertise).




Example of stacking proficiencies



Create a very sneaky and acrobatic Kenku Rogue.



Through Kenku Training, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth. Rule (2) prevents me from choosing Acrobatics and Acrobatics. Through the Rogue features, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth (and any two others) and Expertise in Acrobatics and Stealth. From the Criminal background, gain proficiency in Stealth.



At level 1, the character's base proficiency bonus is +2. The player has selected Acrobatics three times, and stealth four times. The new proficiency bonus to Acrobatics is +6 and to stealth is +8.



Question



In RPG.SE questions such as this or this, it is clear that stacking proficiency bonuses should be avoided and is "insanely OP."
Why?

I see a trade-off here where a character could be (unreasonably) skilled at one or two things, but isn't very good at anything else.



Why is allowing players to stack their skill proficiency bonus considered to be overpowered?






dnd-5e balance house-rules proficiency







share|improve this question









New contributor




Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I am the DM for a campaign and play with the following house rules:




  1. When gaining proficiency in any skill (during character creation, taking the Skilled feat, etc.), you may choose a skill more than once. Your proficiency bonus for that skill is the number of times that skill has been chosen times your base proficiency bonus.


  2. When you gain proficiency in multiple skills at the same time, the skills chosen must all be distinct.


  3. Any feat that allows a player to "double" their proficiency bonus for a skill instead allows the player to mark one additional level of proficiency in the given skill (e.g. Expertise).




Example of stacking proficiencies



Create a very sneaky and acrobatic Kenku Rogue.



Through Kenku Training, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth. Rule (2) prevents me from choosing Acrobatics and Acrobatics. Through the Rogue features, choose to gain proficiency in Acrobatics and Stealth (and any two others) and Expertise in Acrobatics and Stealth. From the Criminal background, gain proficiency in Stealth.



At level 1, the character's base proficiency bonus is +2. The player has selected Acrobatics three times, and stealth four times. The new proficiency bonus to Acrobatics is +6 and to stealth is +8.



Question



In RPG.SE questions such as this or this, it is clear that stacking proficiency bonuses should be avoided and is "insanely OP."
Why?

I see a trade-off here where a character could be (unreasonably) skilled at one or two things, but isn't very good at anything else.



Why is allowing players to stack their skill proficiency bonus considered to be overpowered?






dnd-5e balance house-rules proficiency




dnd-5e balance house-rules proficiency






share|improve this question









New contributor




Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 25 mins ago









KorvinStarmast

67.8k16213375




67.8k16213375






New contributor




Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 2 hours ago









Santana Afton

1183




1183




New contributor




Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Santana Afton is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 1




    re: the number of downvotes, I would love some feedback on what about this post is poorly researched, unclear, or not useful.
    – Santana Afton
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    I didn't down-vote the question, but in the beginning you say you're the DM, but then you're talking about character creation, it's not completely clear if you're talking from a DM's or a player's POV.
    – Jack
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @NautArch They aren't required, but they're often helpful in teaching. And a lot of the time people do comment their reason.
    – Jason_c_o
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    If you are the DM and have been a running campaign with players using this system, I'd very much suggest that you put up an answer with how it's worked for you. At the moment, you are the best person to say if it's balanced because you're using it :) And self-answering questions, especially with table experience, is accepted and encouraged. You can then compare your real-world results with the other answers.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    @NautArch you don't have to try everything to see if it is broken. Playtest is for the not obviously broken things. I am pretty sure WotC did not playtest Wizards with Heavy Armor and d12 for HD.
    – András
    49 mins ago













  • 1




    re: the number of downvotes, I would love some feedback on what about this post is poorly researched, unclear, or not useful.
    – Santana Afton
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    I didn't down-vote the question, but in the beginning you say you're the DM, but then you're talking about character creation, it's not completely clear if you're talking from a DM's or a player's POV.
    – Jack
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    @NautArch They aren't required, but they're often helpful in teaching. And a lot of the time people do comment their reason.
    – Jason_c_o
    1 hour ago






  • 1




    If you are the DM and have been a running campaign with players using this system, I'd very much suggest that you put up an answer with how it's worked for you. At the moment, you are the best person to say if it's balanced because you're using it :) And self-answering questions, especially with table experience, is accepted and encouraged. You can then compare your real-world results with the other answers.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago







  • 1




    @NautArch you don't have to try everything to see if it is broken. Playtest is for the not obviously broken things. I am pretty sure WotC did not playtest Wizards with Heavy Armor and d12 for HD.
    – András
    49 mins ago








1




1




re: the number of downvotes, I would love some feedback on what about this post is poorly researched, unclear, or not useful.
– Santana Afton
1 hour ago




re: the number of downvotes, I would love some feedback on what about this post is poorly researched, unclear, or not useful.
– Santana Afton
1 hour ago




2




2




I didn't down-vote the question, but in the beginning you say you're the DM, but then you're talking about character creation, it's not completely clear if you're talking from a DM's or a player's POV.
– Jack
1 hour ago




I didn't down-vote the question, but in the beginning you say you're the DM, but then you're talking about character creation, it's not completely clear if you're talking from a DM's or a player's POV.
– Jack
1 hour ago




1




1




@NautArch They aren't required, but they're often helpful in teaching. And a lot of the time people do comment their reason.
– Jason_c_o
1 hour ago




@NautArch They aren't required, but they're often helpful in teaching. And a lot of the time people do comment their reason.
– Jason_c_o
1 hour ago




1




1




If you are the DM and have been a running campaign with players using this system, I'd very much suggest that you put up an answer with how it's worked for you. At the moment, you are the best person to say if it's balanced because you're using it :) And self-answering questions, especially with table experience, is accepted and encouraged. You can then compare your real-world results with the other answers.
– NautArch
1 hour ago





If you are the DM and have been a running campaign with players using this system, I'd very much suggest that you put up an answer with how it's worked for you. At the moment, you are the best person to say if it's balanced because you're using it :) And self-answering questions, especially with table experience, is accepted and encouraged. You can then compare your real-world results with the other answers.
– NautArch
1 hour ago





1




1




@NautArch you don't have to try everything to see if it is broken. Playtest is for the not obviously broken things. I am pretty sure WotC did not playtest Wizards with Heavy Armor and d12 for HD.
– András
49 mins ago





@NautArch you don't have to try everything to see if it is broken. Playtest is for the not obviously broken things. I am pretty sure WotC did not playtest Wizards with Heavy Armor and d12 for HD.
– András
49 mins ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
10
down vote













Stealing thunder from classes who get expertise



Gaining expertise is a class feature for some - to give that out for 'free' to others reduces that value of that feature and it may be un-fun for those who chose them.



Whether or not it's OP is going to be very table dependent, but the bigger concern for me is taking away a feature given only to some and making it available to all.



Opposed Skill Contests become unbalanced



An area where this may become a legitimate balance concern is with regard to the opposed skill contest. In these cases, the classes (see above) that wouldn't ordinarily have expertise all of a sudden become a lot more powerful in these cases (grapples, etc.) - especially considering monsters don't have an explanation of how they chose their ability proficiencies or an opportunity to create expertise when they normally don't have it like the PCs would.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Bounded accuracy also makes skill challenges more trivial.
    – Slagmoth
    2 hours ago










  • @Slagmoth Depending on how the DM set the DC. But yeah, opposed skill checks become easier against NPCs...i'll add that.
    – NautArch
    2 hours ago










  • related question: Are people's competencies in 5e really as flat...?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago










  • @NautArch a number of monsters do have doubled proficiency bonus
    – David Coffron
    1 hour ago











  • @DavidCoffron I was wondering about that after I typed it. I tried to search, but failed :(. I've edited.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago

















up vote
8
down vote













It leads to "All or Nothing" skill development



This is going to cause exactly the situation that the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy of 5th edition was designed to address: All skill checks become either trivially easy for experts, or impossible for everyone else.



That is to say, the DM either sets skill DCs low enough for everyone to have a fair shot at making it, in which case the expert almost can't fail, or the DM sets the DCs high enough for the expert to be challenged, in which case everyone else can't possibly do it.



This leads inevitably to a situation where there isn't much point to basic proficiency; everyone wants to dump all their advancement into a few skills in order to be "the one" for that specific skill, and everyone else avoids that skill like the plague because they know they can't be good at it.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    And skills are no equally useful. Perception comes up in every session, but I have yet to roll for Animal Handling, after more than a 100 sessions
    – András
    51 mins ago










  • @Rubiksmoose thanks for the heads-up
    – Darth Pseudonym
    37 mins ago










  • @András Well, a DM could easily jack up the difficulty of Intimidate and Perception while leaving Handle Animal checks relatively easy, since nobody is going to bother going all-in on that one. But yes, the highly variable value of skills does play into it somewhat.
    – Darth Pseudonym
    36 mins ago










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Santana Afton is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132930%2fwhy-is-allowing-players-to-stack-their-skill-proficiency-bonus-overpowered%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
10
down vote













Stealing thunder from classes who get expertise



Gaining expertise is a class feature for some - to give that out for 'free' to others reduces that value of that feature and it may be un-fun for those who chose them.



Whether or not it's OP is going to be very table dependent, but the bigger concern for me is taking away a feature given only to some and making it available to all.



Opposed Skill Contests become unbalanced



An area where this may become a legitimate balance concern is with regard to the opposed skill contest. In these cases, the classes (see above) that wouldn't ordinarily have expertise all of a sudden become a lot more powerful in these cases (grapples, etc.) - especially considering monsters don't have an explanation of how they chose their ability proficiencies or an opportunity to create expertise when they normally don't have it like the PCs would.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Bounded accuracy also makes skill challenges more trivial.
    – Slagmoth
    2 hours ago










  • @Slagmoth Depending on how the DM set the DC. But yeah, opposed skill checks become easier against NPCs...i'll add that.
    – NautArch
    2 hours ago










  • related question: Are people's competencies in 5e really as flat...?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago










  • @NautArch a number of monsters do have doubled proficiency bonus
    – David Coffron
    1 hour ago











  • @DavidCoffron I was wondering about that after I typed it. I tried to search, but failed :(. I've edited.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago














up vote
10
down vote













Stealing thunder from classes who get expertise



Gaining expertise is a class feature for some - to give that out for 'free' to others reduces that value of that feature and it may be un-fun for those who chose them.



Whether or not it's OP is going to be very table dependent, but the bigger concern for me is taking away a feature given only to some and making it available to all.



Opposed Skill Contests become unbalanced



An area where this may become a legitimate balance concern is with regard to the opposed skill contest. In these cases, the classes (see above) that wouldn't ordinarily have expertise all of a sudden become a lot more powerful in these cases (grapples, etc.) - especially considering monsters don't have an explanation of how they chose their ability proficiencies or an opportunity to create expertise when they normally don't have it like the PCs would.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1




    Bounded accuracy also makes skill challenges more trivial.
    – Slagmoth
    2 hours ago










  • @Slagmoth Depending on how the DM set the DC. But yeah, opposed skill checks become easier against NPCs...i'll add that.
    – NautArch
    2 hours ago










  • related question: Are people's competencies in 5e really as flat...?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago










  • @NautArch a number of monsters do have doubled proficiency bonus
    – David Coffron
    1 hour ago











  • @DavidCoffron I was wondering about that after I typed it. I tried to search, but failed :(. I've edited.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago












up vote
10
down vote










up vote
10
down vote









Stealing thunder from classes who get expertise



Gaining expertise is a class feature for some - to give that out for 'free' to others reduces that value of that feature and it may be un-fun for those who chose them.



Whether or not it's OP is going to be very table dependent, but the bigger concern for me is taking away a feature given only to some and making it available to all.



Opposed Skill Contests become unbalanced



An area where this may become a legitimate balance concern is with regard to the opposed skill contest. In these cases, the classes (see above) that wouldn't ordinarily have expertise all of a sudden become a lot more powerful in these cases (grapples, etc.) - especially considering monsters don't have an explanation of how they chose their ability proficiencies or an opportunity to create expertise when they normally don't have it like the PCs would.






share|improve this answer














Stealing thunder from classes who get expertise



Gaining expertise is a class feature for some - to give that out for 'free' to others reduces that value of that feature and it may be un-fun for those who chose them.



Whether or not it's OP is going to be very table dependent, but the bigger concern for me is taking away a feature given only to some and making it available to all.



Opposed Skill Contests become unbalanced



An area where this may become a legitimate balance concern is with regard to the opposed skill contest. In these cases, the classes (see above) that wouldn't ordinarily have expertise all of a sudden become a lot more powerful in these cases (grapples, etc.) - especially considering monsters don't have an explanation of how they chose their ability proficiencies or an opportunity to create expertise when they normally don't have it like the PCs would.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 1 hour ago

























answered 2 hours ago









NautArch

45.9k6165314




45.9k6165314







  • 1




    Bounded accuracy also makes skill challenges more trivial.
    – Slagmoth
    2 hours ago










  • @Slagmoth Depending on how the DM set the DC. But yeah, opposed skill checks become easier against NPCs...i'll add that.
    – NautArch
    2 hours ago










  • related question: Are people's competencies in 5e really as flat...?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago










  • @NautArch a number of monsters do have doubled proficiency bonus
    – David Coffron
    1 hour ago











  • @DavidCoffron I was wondering about that after I typed it. I tried to search, but failed :(. I've edited.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago












  • 1




    Bounded accuracy also makes skill challenges more trivial.
    – Slagmoth
    2 hours ago










  • @Slagmoth Depending on how the DM set the DC. But yeah, opposed skill checks become easier against NPCs...i'll add that.
    – NautArch
    2 hours ago










  • related question: Are people's competencies in 5e really as flat...?
    – nitsua60♦
    1 hour ago










  • @NautArch a number of monsters do have doubled proficiency bonus
    – David Coffron
    1 hour ago











  • @DavidCoffron I was wondering about that after I typed it. I tried to search, but failed :(. I've edited.
    – NautArch
    1 hour ago







1




1




Bounded accuracy also makes skill challenges more trivial.
– Slagmoth
2 hours ago




Bounded accuracy also makes skill challenges more trivial.
– Slagmoth
2 hours ago












@Slagmoth Depending on how the DM set the DC. But yeah, opposed skill checks become easier against NPCs...i'll add that.
– NautArch
2 hours ago




@Slagmoth Depending on how the DM set the DC. But yeah, opposed skill checks become easier against NPCs...i'll add that.
– NautArch
2 hours ago












related question: Are people's competencies in 5e really as flat...?
– nitsua60♦
1 hour ago




related question: Are people's competencies in 5e really as flat...?
– nitsua60♦
1 hour ago












@NautArch a number of monsters do have doubled proficiency bonus
– David Coffron
1 hour ago





@NautArch a number of monsters do have doubled proficiency bonus
– David Coffron
1 hour ago













@DavidCoffron I was wondering about that after I typed it. I tried to search, but failed :(. I've edited.
– NautArch
1 hour ago




@DavidCoffron I was wondering about that after I typed it. I tried to search, but failed :(. I've edited.
– NautArch
1 hour ago












up vote
8
down vote













It leads to "All or Nothing" skill development



This is going to cause exactly the situation that the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy of 5th edition was designed to address: All skill checks become either trivially easy for experts, or impossible for everyone else.



That is to say, the DM either sets skill DCs low enough for everyone to have a fair shot at making it, in which case the expert almost can't fail, or the DM sets the DCs high enough for the expert to be challenged, in which case everyone else can't possibly do it.



This leads inevitably to a situation where there isn't much point to basic proficiency; everyone wants to dump all their advancement into a few skills in order to be "the one" for that specific skill, and everyone else avoids that skill like the plague because they know they can't be good at it.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    And skills are no equally useful. Perception comes up in every session, but I have yet to roll for Animal Handling, after more than a 100 sessions
    – András
    51 mins ago










  • @Rubiksmoose thanks for the heads-up
    – Darth Pseudonym
    37 mins ago










  • @András Well, a DM could easily jack up the difficulty of Intimidate and Perception while leaving Handle Animal checks relatively easy, since nobody is going to bother going all-in on that one. But yes, the highly variable value of skills does play into it somewhat.
    – Darth Pseudonym
    36 mins ago














up vote
8
down vote













It leads to "All or Nothing" skill development



This is going to cause exactly the situation that the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy of 5th edition was designed to address: All skill checks become either trivially easy for experts, or impossible for everyone else.



That is to say, the DM either sets skill DCs low enough for everyone to have a fair shot at making it, in which case the expert almost can't fail, or the DM sets the DCs high enough for the expert to be challenged, in which case everyone else can't possibly do it.



This leads inevitably to a situation where there isn't much point to basic proficiency; everyone wants to dump all their advancement into a few skills in order to be "the one" for that specific skill, and everyone else avoids that skill like the plague because they know they can't be good at it.






share|improve this answer


















  • 2




    And skills are no equally useful. Perception comes up in every session, but I have yet to roll for Animal Handling, after more than a 100 sessions
    – András
    51 mins ago










  • @Rubiksmoose thanks for the heads-up
    – Darth Pseudonym
    37 mins ago










  • @András Well, a DM could easily jack up the difficulty of Intimidate and Perception while leaving Handle Animal checks relatively easy, since nobody is going to bother going all-in on that one. But yes, the highly variable value of skills does play into it somewhat.
    – Darth Pseudonym
    36 mins ago












up vote
8
down vote










up vote
8
down vote









It leads to "All or Nothing" skill development



This is going to cause exactly the situation that the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy of 5th edition was designed to address: All skill checks become either trivially easy for experts, or impossible for everyone else.



That is to say, the DM either sets skill DCs low enough for everyone to have a fair shot at making it, in which case the expert almost can't fail, or the DM sets the DCs high enough for the expert to be challenged, in which case everyone else can't possibly do it.



This leads inevitably to a situation where there isn't much point to basic proficiency; everyone wants to dump all their advancement into a few skills in order to be "the one" for that specific skill, and everyone else avoids that skill like the plague because they know they can't be good at it.






share|improve this answer














It leads to "All or Nothing" skill development



This is going to cause exactly the situation that the 'bounded accuracy' philosophy of 5th edition was designed to address: All skill checks become either trivially easy for experts, or impossible for everyone else.



That is to say, the DM either sets skill DCs low enough for everyone to have a fair shot at making it, in which case the expert almost can't fail, or the DM sets the DCs high enough for the expert to be challenged, in which case everyone else can't possibly do it.



This leads inevitably to a situation where there isn't much point to basic proficiency; everyone wants to dump all their advancement into a few skills in order to be "the one" for that specific skill, and everyone else avoids that skill like the plague because they know they can't be good at it.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 38 mins ago

























answered 1 hour ago









Darth Pseudonym

5,184931




5,184931







  • 2




    And skills are no equally useful. Perception comes up in every session, but I have yet to roll for Animal Handling, after more than a 100 sessions
    – András
    51 mins ago










  • @Rubiksmoose thanks for the heads-up
    – Darth Pseudonym
    37 mins ago










  • @András Well, a DM could easily jack up the difficulty of Intimidate and Perception while leaving Handle Animal checks relatively easy, since nobody is going to bother going all-in on that one. But yes, the highly variable value of skills does play into it somewhat.
    – Darth Pseudonym
    36 mins ago












  • 2




    And skills are no equally useful. Perception comes up in every session, but I have yet to roll for Animal Handling, after more than a 100 sessions
    – András
    51 mins ago










  • @Rubiksmoose thanks for the heads-up
    – Darth Pseudonym
    37 mins ago










  • @András Well, a DM could easily jack up the difficulty of Intimidate and Perception while leaving Handle Animal checks relatively easy, since nobody is going to bother going all-in on that one. But yes, the highly variable value of skills does play into it somewhat.
    – Darth Pseudonym
    36 mins ago







2




2




And skills are no equally useful. Perception comes up in every session, but I have yet to roll for Animal Handling, after more than a 100 sessions
– András
51 mins ago




And skills are no equally useful. Perception comes up in every session, but I have yet to roll for Animal Handling, after more than a 100 sessions
– András
51 mins ago












@Rubiksmoose thanks for the heads-up
– Darth Pseudonym
37 mins ago




@Rubiksmoose thanks for the heads-up
– Darth Pseudonym
37 mins ago












@András Well, a DM could easily jack up the difficulty of Intimidate and Perception while leaving Handle Animal checks relatively easy, since nobody is going to bother going all-in on that one. But yes, the highly variable value of skills does play into it somewhat.
– Darth Pseudonym
36 mins ago




@András Well, a DM could easily jack up the difficulty of Intimidate and Perception while leaving Handle Animal checks relatively easy, since nobody is going to bother going all-in on that one. But yes, the highly variable value of skills does play into it somewhat.
– Darth Pseudonym
36 mins ago










Santana Afton is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









 

draft saved


draft discarded


















Santana Afton is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Santana Afton is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Santana Afton is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f132930%2fwhy-is-allowing-players-to-stack-their-skill-proficiency-bonus-overpowered%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does second last employer means? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
Read more

Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
Read more

One-line joke

A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
Read more