Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7129178" data-attributes="member: 7006">I've always maintained that the development of &quot;tool&quot; proficiencies was due to the original development of 5E to be able to be reflective of all the past editions of the game.&nbsp; With the belief that there would be some players of old editions who would not want to use &quot;Skills&quot; in their game... they needed a way to still reflect the ability to open locks and disable traps.&nbsp; Wherein 1E and the like, the Thief just had a chart that said &quot;Here's what you roll to open locks and disable traps&quot; without them being actual &quot;Skills&quot; (a la a &quot;skill list&quot;).&nbsp; Their development answer to that seemed to me to be &quot;Thieves Tools&quot;.&nbsp; If you could use Thieves Tools (because you were proficient with them), you could be allowed to make checks to open locks and disable traps without having to bring into your game the concept of &quot;Skills&quot;.So that development occurred, and I think they then tried to add to that idea of Tools by coming up with other things that could be Tool proficiencies (like musical instruments, herbalism, vehicles, blacksmithing tools etc. etc.)&nbsp; All these things that would grant PCs the ability to do/make all these things even if the DM chose not to use &quot;Skills&quot; in their game.But unfortunately, I think over the course of the game development someone's work on Tool proficiencies did not get fully in line with someone else's work on the development of the Skill system (in the same way Mearls said one developer worked on the Elemental Monk and another worked on the Shadow Monk, which is why they are off-balance from each other due to differing expectations they had of design).&nbsp; A final pass in design really needed to happen between Skills and Tools to make them align better with each other for those groups that DID choose to use both.&nbsp; Because I don't think that final pass really ever occurred.&nbsp; Otherwise something like this potential Performance / Musical Instrument overlap never really would have gotten through.In truth... I think knowing then what we know now (and how I expect there's probably little to no groups playing 5E that DON'T use Skills after all)... there's really no reason to HAVE Tools in the game anymore just for the really old-school players they thought were there.&nbsp; You could easily just put Thievery back into the skill list, and reincorporate all of the current uses of the various tools back into the skills themselves.&nbsp; Using Herbalism falls under Survival.&nbsp; Using Alchemy falls under Arcana.&nbsp; Using Land Vehicles falls under Animal Handling.&nbsp; Navigating a boat falls under Nature (or whatever).I think in this fictional 5.5 or 6E update that might happen in another five to ten years... a realigning of Skills and Tools probably would be one of the things to occur.&nbsp; Although in point of fact... this is actually one of those rather easy homebrewing areas that probably a lot of us have already &quot;corrected&quot; in our own personal games.&nbsp; I know I have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7129178, member: 7006"] I've always maintained that the development of "tool" proficiencies was due to the original development of 5E to be able to be reflective of all the past editions of the game. With the belief that there would be some players of old editions who would not want to use "Skills" in their game... they needed a way to still reflect the ability to open locks and disable traps. Wherein 1E and the like, the Thief just had a chart that said "Here's what you roll to open locks and disable traps" without them being actual "Skills" (a la a "skill list"). Their development answer to that seemed to me to be "Thieves Tools". If you could use Thieves Tools (because you were proficient with them), you could be allowed to make checks to open locks and disable traps without having to bring into your game the concept of "Skills". So that development occurred, and I think they then tried to add to that idea of Tools by coming up with other things that could be Tool proficiencies (like musical instruments, herbalism, vehicles, blacksmithing tools etc. etc.) All these things that would grant PCs the ability to do/make all these things [I]even if[/I] the DM chose not to use "Skills" in their game. But unfortunately, I think over the course of the game development someone's work on Tool proficiencies did not get fully in line with someone else's work on the development of the Skill system (in the same way Mearls said one developer worked on the Elemental Monk and another worked on the Shadow Monk, which is why they are off-balance from each other due to differing expectations they had of design). A final pass in design really needed to happen between Skills and Tools to make them align better with each other for those groups that DID choose to use both. Because I don't think that final pass really ever occurred. Otherwise something like this potential Performance / Musical Instrument overlap never really would have gotten through. In truth... I think knowing then what we know now (and how I expect there's probably little to no groups playing 5E that DON'T use Skills after all)... there's really no reason to HAVE Tools in the game anymore just for the really old-school players they thought were there. You could easily just put Thievery back into the skill list, and reincorporate all of the current uses of the various tools back into the skills themselves. Using Herbalism falls under Survival. Using Alchemy falls under Arcana. Using Land Vehicles falls under Animal Handling. Navigating a boat falls under Nature (or whatever). I think in this fictional 5.5 or 6E update that might happen in another five to ten years... a realigning of Skills and Tools probably would be one of the things to occur. Although in point of fact... this is actually one of those rather easy homebrewing areas that probably a lot of us have already "corrected" in our own personal games. I know I have. [/QUOTE]

Verification