D&D 5E duplicate proficiency

[Saeviomagy]

Actually, as has been discussed, what's spelled out in the rules is the exact reverse of this.

I think we're all fine that at level 1, that everyone gets what they get and proficiencies are spread as efficiently as they can be.

After that, however, is not the case. Let's take an example with proficiencies:

When a trickster cleric multiclasses into fighter, no one argues that because the cleric already has proficiency in light and medium armour, they get to take the armour proficiencies gained from becoming a fighter (also light and medium) and can "trade them in" and get heavy armour proficiency. No -- the armour proficiencies overlap, and the cleric multi classing into fighter gets less than the wizard multiclassing into fighter.

Another example: a rogue multiclasses into warlock, and so gets proficiency in all simple weapons. Though the character already is proficient in simple weapons, there is no sense that the warlock can now choose to be proficient in martial weapons instead.

That seems straightforward.

Note that none of your examples result in someone playing against their character concept in order to maximize their bonus. There's no "I specifically was bad at disguise until level 3 so I could learn it from being an assassin" going on here. Noone is going start as a wizard so that they get the most bonus proficiencies for switching to fighter at a later level.

Also note that none of your examples have explicit rules text saying that you do completely the opposite thing to what you are suggesting.

Another example, this time with a spell (to show that the principle is not restricted to proficiencies): A wizard with the light cantrip multiclasses into cleric, and becomes a light cleric. That person does not gain a free cantrip: though the class gives proficiency in the light cantrip, it does not default to another choice.

As a DM, I'd probably let him switch his wizard cantrip. It just seems like the nice thing to do, that will have limited negative effects and a minor beneficial one in that now I don't encourage people to completely avoid their area of speciality for fear of doubling up.

Given examples like these (that could be multiplied), the burden, I suggest, is to explain why tool and skill proficiencies work differently than armour proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, and other class abilities including spells. The situation won't happen very often, and I agree that most tables will probably let it roll. But the consistent answer is (I suggest) the narrow reading in the OP.

Because the rules explicitly call out that they do. The consistent reading is... gasp... to read the rules and use them. The narrow reading doesn't really do anything but create penalties for people creating characters that make sense.

Here are some examples to think with:
1. An orphan fighter 5 (who is proficient in thieves' tools) multiclasses into rogue. Does he get to reassign the tool proficiency to navigator's tools (or some other tool proficiency), and if so, why?

Yes, because otherwise he is best served by choosing something else for his orphan background tool proficiency, which mildly corrupts his character concept until he's level 6. And incidentally, he's just fine picking a different skill for his orphan background tool proficiency - that's the default rule in backgrounds - switch them around as much as you want, and if something you want flat out does not exist THEN you have to ask the DM.

2. A charlatan rogue hosts level 3 and becomes an assassin. Does she get to choose a free tool proficiency since she already has proficiency with the disguise kit?

Yes, because otherwise it's more common to find charlatans turned assassins that used to be bad at disguise than ones which were good at it, which is bizarre and stupid.

My sense is no in both cases, and that's based on analogy with the way other proficiencies work after first level.

In that case take a look at how your analogy fails, then change your mind.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yes, but I'd absolutely house rule that they get another cantrip.

Okay -- so that's a decision that is directly contrary to the wording of the text; without any ambiguity.

Then we have scenarios that could fall into either category and they neglect to tell us which.

They don't neglect to tell us which: given that they make positive statements about duplication with respect to backgrounds, the absence of a statement is an unambiguous presumption of the default position.

If a 5e DM was ruling that I didn't get the skill proficiencies or cantrip from gaining levels in another class (not counting the 1st level proficiencies) I would create the character in such a way as to not suffer a penalty, or I'd shelf the concept and play a completely different character. I wouldn't interact with that rule.

This, I'll admit, I don't get. Let's look at the first of the final examples I gave: How can your fighter 5 be "shafted"? He's been picking locks for five levels! It's no different than the weapon and armour proficiencies. And if you want to build your character so that you don't pick locks for those first five levels of play -- you can! See? There's no constraint on you at all.

The thing is, I think 5e's philosophy of PCs is to let character be cool and not weigh them down with stupid, and I will interpret anything from perspective.

See, when you are start calling the position I am arguing "stupid", that's just a personal attack. You understand of course, that reasonable thinkers might come to the opposite view, based on the analogies of other proficiencies? Maybe you don't.

If name-calling is your best argument, I know clearly which side I want to be on in the discussion.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Because the rules explicitly call out that they do. The consistent reading is... gasp... to read the rules and use them.

Source?

I know the rule concerning backgrounds (cited in my OP), but I know of nothing generally applicable, except for the analogies I have provided, which use rules in the same section as the ones in my example.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

See, when you are start calling the position I am arguing "stupid", that's just a personal attack. You understand of course, that reasonable thinkers might come to the opposite view, based on the analogies of other proficiencies? Maybe you don't.

If name-calling is your best argument, I know clearly which side I want to be on in the discussion.

I'm sorry if my statement came off as a personal attack. I was actually surprised to see that response because it wasn't intended to be directed at anyone (not even in general). I was referring entirely to my perception of 5e's design philosophy compared to 3e design philosophy (in particular). And at that, I wasn't even intending to attack the designers of 3e (my prior favorite edition). So apologies for the miscommunication.

As far as the details of my argument, it basically amounts to the fact that there are "holes" and inconsistencies in this area and I'm choosing to interpret--and even house-rule--to capture what I expect they probably intended all along, based on spending way too much time following just about everything the designers have said since the beginning of the public playtest until now.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm willing to argue "broad" just to keep people from the "build" mentality vs organic evolution. A wizard pc who decides to take a level of light cleric for story reasons shouldn't be penalized for not building his PC to take advantage of the free cantrip.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is still the premier discussion thread about skills, and so I'll ressurrect it rather than to start another - it contains various worthy input that can well stand to be re-examined now in 2017.

Specifically, I want to say that in hindsight the RAW rules that allow any character to start with any skill that's simply too generous (for me).

The fix is simple: only allow them additional choices OFF THEIR CLASS SKILL LIST.

You make a Half-orc Barbarian (Soldier). He has 5 skills. He gets intimidate for free (half-orc). He then gets Athletics and Intimidate (again) for free (Soldier). Since he already has Intimidate, he gets an extra choice off the Barbarian List. He can now select three additional skills off of his class list; (Say, Perception, Survival, Animal Handling). He couldn't use his cross-over skill (Intimidate) to select Arcana since its not on his class skill list.

This is what I'll be using the next time it's chargen. Thank you.

 

[Satyrn]

Such as "you get skills from your class skill list and then you get your background skills. But if you don't like your background skills, you're free to choose any two skills instead."

This way, the background selection becomes easygoing and carefree, and you still end up with at least some class skills. Only difference is that it is the background you can dismiss instead of your class!

Every time I've read the background rules that is exactly how I interpret them as working.

 

[CapnZapp]

Every time I've read the background rules that is exactly how I interpret them as working.

Nobody is contesting how the rules work (any longer).

My involvement now is to report that I'm no longer sure it's good for the game. Careful selection of backgrounds effectively mean your class choice doesn't matter much, and players can always get hold of the top skills.

One way of reinstating more clear boundaries between different classes is to change the background rule. In Remathilis example, Barbarians can no longer gain Arcana proficiency just by picking any background that duplicates one of his class skills.

In my campaign, starting off any martial character by a couple of Fighter levels is very popular. Any limitations in the Fighter class skill list can be easily circumvented.

I'd like to try a more restricted tack (or more old-school tack, if you will).

 

[Plaguescarred]

I use a broad reading as it give more options to the player character by letting him choose off-limit skills.

 

[MostlyDm]

I will not be allowing the use of this. It is obviously intended to give all characters an equal benefit from a background, but it will not be used that way. This will only see use when a player wants to take a skill that is not in their class list. By selecting a skill that is doubled by their intended background, a player can then opt for proficiency in any skill.

Using it for tools instead of skills might be more valid, but in general I don't think a character should be rewarded with additional versatility for over-specializing.

The entire purpose of backgrounds is already to give character access to "any skill."

Right there in the description of backgrounds it says that if no background appeals to you, you should talk to your DM and invent one.

What sort of shenanigans do you expect your players to get up to? A wizard with Athletics? Already easily achievable. A fighter with Arcana? Equally trivial to achieve.

What's the purpose of limiting it? What problem, precisely, are you trying to solve?

To the OP, I also favor the broad interpretation. There's zero reason to penalize characters in any of those circumstances. I'd do the same for a multiclass Light cleric who already had the light cantrip, too. Why not? What's the risk?

Edit: Oops! Only just noticed the necromancy, Capn Zapp. My bad.

I don't get your objection. Just to reduce flexibility? I'll reiterate my question: What, precisely, is the abuse you are seeing that you wish to curb?