Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest 7037866" data-source="post: 9501126">Thanks... I guess? But are you saying you do not agree with my interpretation? If so, no issues, just checking. I wasn't aware all the other instances specify Sleight of Hand since the samples for it doesn't include this function (see below).Sure, it is the rule. My point was Sleight of Hands is not the skill for picking locks or opening traps, or I should say, that certainly isn't made clear:[ATTACH=full]385129[/ATTACH]It would seem if Sleight of Hand was meant to be used to open locks and disarm traps, it would be here given how prevalent it is in the game. But, of course, we don't have it, do we? I realize this is just supposed to be a "sample" of things you can do, but omitting one of the most common uses seems pretty egregious.I agree completely. I HUGE fail in 2024 by WotC.Sure. It would have been useful, certainly.NOTE: again, personally, IMO Sleight of Hand should NOT be used for picking a lock or disarming a trap. Making it so means proficiency in Thieves' tools alone is sort of pointless. How can you pick the lock or disarm the trap without them? A tool proficiency is all you should need to use a tool. There should not be a skill that goes with it. I mean, is Forgery then a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check as well??Whatever works for you. For myself, I won't allow doubling down on skills and tools.Sure.Yep. The idea that a trap's tripwire, once you notice it, can just "be disabled" without a check needed is stupid IMO. IME simply cutting a tripwire is a sure-fire way to set off the trap, not disable it.Narrate or roll is inconsequential to me as far as the rules are concerned. For the people who preferred rolling to role-ing, concrete rules should be in place.Returning to Thieves' tool and Sleight of Hand, for example.Although nothing in the Sleight of Hand examples implies it is used with picking a lock, all the rules everywhere else support this is the case. Fine, I don't personally AGREE with that use of the skill, but whatever...The instances where Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) is used for picking a lock specifies "with Thieves' tools". So, RAW you have:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: normal check with PB</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">no skill proficiency, tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: normal check with PB</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">skill proficiency, tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: advantage with PB</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and improvised "thieves' tools" (like a slim dagger): disadvantage with PB</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">no skill proficiency, tool proficiency, using improvised "thieves' tools": disadvantage with PB</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">no skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, using improvised tools: disadvantage without PB</li> </ol>Ultimately, that is the way I see it RAW. It is stupid, IMO, because it makes two different proficiencies allow you to add your proficiency bonus to the same check (in other words--either method "works" to open a lock). If you have a tool proficiency, that is all you should need IMO. Having the physical tools, but not knowing how to use them, but still being able to apply your proficiency bonus, seems strange to me. That is #1 above.What #1 should be IMO, if you wanted to use synergies, would be:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, and having thieves' tools to use: advantage without PB</li> </ol>Only proficiency in the tool would allow you to add your proficiency bonus. Synergies could still grant advantage if you have the physical tools to use. This would also create another option:7. skill proficiency, no tool proficiency, using improvised tools: check without PBThe skill synergy would offset the use of improvised tools.However, I know this would never be accepted because the idea of having a skill proficiency and NOT being able to add proficiency bonus flies in the face of 5E's "design".</blockquote>

Verification