D&D 5E Are proficiency swaps too strong for some races?

[ScuroNotte]

You can swap out armor or a weapon for a weapon or tool. In the example, an elf can swap a long sword for a tool as per page 8. So if a player playing an Elf martial character who already gains martial weapons through the class, can swap the 4 weapons (longsword, shortsword, shortbow, longbow) for 4 tools. Or a martial Mountain Dwarf character can exchange 4 weapons and 2 armor proficiencies for 6 tools.
Or am I over reacting.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s still incredible to me that so many DMs don’t find tools useful. They’re literally skills by another name.

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s still incredible to me that so many DMs don’t find tools useful. They’re literally skills by another name.

No [apprentice/journeyman] alchemist/brewer/calligrapher/capenter/cartographer/cobbler/cook/disguiser/forger/gambler/caravanner/herbalist/leatherworker/mason/musician/navigator/painter/poisoner/potter/smith/thief/tinker/weaver/woodcarver/etc are skills. Knowing how to use the tools used by those tradespeople is a very narrow skill that can be much harder to apply.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah I'm just gonna ban or replace them with Dragonkin.

Usually didn't bother then I had a newb who insisted on running one lasted two sessions left group, went to another group and left that one.

Couldn't make his Dragonborn cleric of the raven queen work. He rolled ok in my group other group was stat array/point buy only.

Honestly, for a Dragonborn I would just use custom lineage and let them take the Dragonborn feats from XgTE.

 

[Charlaquin]

No [apprentice/journeyman] alchemist/brewer/calligrapher/capenter/cartographer/cobbler/cook/disguiser/forger/gambler/caravanner/herbalist/leatherworker/mason/musician/navigator/painter/poisoner/potter/smith/thief/tinker/weaver/woodcarver/etc are skills. Knowing how to use the tools used by those tradespeople is a very narrow skill that can be much harder to apply.

It’s easy to apply. Watch:

“Ok, make an Intelligence check.”
“Can I add my proficiency bonus since I’m trained in smith’s tools?”
“Sure.”

See? Easy.

 

[BacchusNL]

It’s easy to apply. Watch:

“Ok, make an Intelligence check.”
“Can I add my proficiency bonus since I’m trained in smith’s tools?”
“Sure.”

See? Easy.

But that's you making extra room for it. Most officialy published material would call it an investigation check and call it a day.
I'm not defending it but it inherritly lowers the value of tools.

 

[Dausuul]

It's fine.

Yes, there are a couple of tools that are genuinely useful. But you mostly only need one person in the party with proficiency and you're set. And once you've got that, what difference does it make if you also get several other proficiencies you won't ever use?

For non-martial elves, I think the weapon proficiencies are just as useful as (random tool). Once in a blue moon, it comes in handy, the rest of the time it's character sheet decoration. For martials, obviously, it is a strict upgrade, but a very small one and it expands your non-combat options, which is generally a good thing for martials.

 

[BookTenTiger]

It isn't exactly overpowered, but it's very very silly and a likely candidate for errata or clarification.

I think for an Elf it makes a lot of sense! They've already lived a long life before adventuring, I could easily see them mastering four different tools.

I've lived 34 years and I'd say I'm proficient in Potter's Tools, Sculptor's Tools, and Google Drive.

 

[Charlaquin]

But that's you making extra room for it. Most officialy published material would call it an investigation check and call it a day.
I'm not defending it but it inherritly lowers the value of tools.

No, all officially published material would call it an Intelligence (Investigation) check. So what it should look like is:

“Make an Intelligence check, plus proficiency if you’re trained in Investigation.”
“I’m not, but my Smith’s Tools proficiency seems pretty relavent here. Can I add that instead?”
“Sure.”

Of course, this exchange is clunkier than the previous one, which is why I just call for the ability and let the player suggest a proficiency instead of offering one off the bat.

Now, I’m aware that despite both what the rules say and how published adventures are presented, many DMs just ask for skill checks like we’re still playing 3e. Getting a tool proficiency to apply with one of these DMs can take a bit more coaxing, but it generally looks something like this:

“Make an Investigation check.”
“With Intelligence, I assume?”
“Huh?”
“Am I adding my Investigation proficiency to my Intelligence modifier, or another ability?”
“Oh. Yeah, just a standard Investigation check, so Intelligence plus Investigation.”
“Ok. I’m not trained in Investigation, but it seems like my knowledge of Smithing would be pretty relevant here. Can I add my proficiency bonus for Smith’s Tools to my Intelligence check instead?”
“Hmm... I guess... But you’ll have disadvantage!”
“Wha... Ok, I’ll just roll straight Intelligence, I guess.”

That’s a horribly clunky exchange and might not actually lead to getting to add your tool proficiency, but that’s on the DM for trying to run 5e like another edition.

Then there are the DMs who let players initiate rolls. They’re the easiest to get tool proficiencies to work with.

“Hey, can I make an Intelligence check with my Smith’s Tools proficiency to (whatever)?”
“You can certainly try.”

 

[BacchusNL]

No, all officially published material would call it an Intelligence (Investigation) check. So what it should look like is:

“Make an Intelligence check, plus proficiency if you’re trained in Investigation.”
“I’m not, but my Smith’s Tools proficiency seems pretty relavent here. Can I add that instead?”
“Sure.”

Of course, this exchange is clunkier than the previous one, which is why I just call for the ability and let the player suggest a proficiency instead of offering one off the bat.

Now, I’m aware that despite both what the rules say and how published adventures are presented, many DMs just ask for skill checks like we’re still playing 3e. Getting a tool proficiency to apply with one of these DMs can take a bit more coaxing, but it generally looks something like this:

“Make an Investigation check.”
“With Intelligence, I assume?”
“Huh?”
“Am I adding my Investigation proficiency to my Intelligence modifier, or another ability?”
“Oh. Yeah, just a standard Investigation check, so Intelligence plus Investigation.”
“Ok. I’m not trained in Investigation, but it seems like my knowledge of Smithing would be pretty relevant here. Can I add my proficiency bonus for Smith’s Tools to my Intelligence check instead?”
“Hmm... I guess... But you’ll have disadvantage!”
“Wha... Ok, I’ll just roll straight Intelligence, I guess.”

That’s a horribly clunky exchange and might not actually lead to getting to add your tool proficiency, but that’s on the DM for trying to run 5e like another edition.

Then there are the DMs who let players initiate rolls. They’re the easiest to get tool proficiencies to work with.

“Hey, can I make an Intelligence check with my Smith’s Tools proficiency to (whatever)?”
“You can certainly try.”

Even if that is how your DM approaches tools the actual use you will get out of tool proffeciencies will be pretty limited and most likely only get you info or advantages you could have gotten in a number of other ways aswell.

For extra tool proficiencies to be actually "too strong" there would have to be an actual crafting system where those prof's would net you either recources, items, buffs or gold (and then another system to actually spend it) instead of just RP-fluff or minor narrative advantages. And in your classic, non-homebrewed 5E game they don't.

 

[aco175]

I kind of leave adding tool proficiency to checks up to the players. It mostly never comes up except thieves' tools. I could ask more about tools, but I tend to give a stat check or just add the skill directly by saying "Make a Investigation check", instead of saying "You can add proficiency if you have smith tools". I could also make checks only if you have the skill in tools. Say the PCs are looking over a forge area and there is a chance to notice a fake set of tools there. Would a check only for those that have the tool proficiency be allowed, or are you now restricting the adventure by placing a block only one PC has a chance to get through. Or is it just easier if they have the tool proficiency and the others are just making a Int check or such.