D&D 5E Status of skills/tools and expected changes

[Li Shenron]

I suppose the skill systems of 5e is pretty much in place, but to me it also clearly looks unfinished.

What is probably set:

- skills are a fixed list, but presumably the DM is free to add more
- each skill is officially tied to a single ability score
- skills/tools use the proficiency system i.e. you are either unproficient (no bonus), proficient (bonus) or expert (double bonus)
- proficiencies to skills/tools are delivered primarily by background, secondarily by class, and occasionally by race and feats
- overlapping proficiencies are resolved by allowing a free pick of another one
- skills can be used without proficiencies (in which case they're just ability checks)

What is unfinished:

- it's not clear if tools can be used without proficiency, it might depend on the specific tool, there can be additional uses if proficient
- several tools overlap with skills but are generally worse (see Deception skill vs disguise kit, Athletic skill vs climb kit)

I definitely think there must be some change to those tools because the current situation ain't quite right... They might just remove overlapping tools and let the skill handle everything, but removing too many tools from the game will probably require to revise downward the current amount of proficiencies granted by backgrounds for instance.

OTOH they might improve the functionality of such tools by focusing on additional uses or benefits, in which case it would still make sense to distinguish between someone with proficiency in climber's kit, someone with proficiency in Athletics, and someone with proficiency in both. This would be my preferred solution, but obviously it requires more design work.

What do you think? Are you ok with tools as now? Do you expect other changes to skills and tools?

 

[1of3]

Another option would be to work on overlap: If you have skill and tool proficiency, consider yourself an expert.

 

[Li Shenron]

Another option would be to work on overlap: If you have skill and tool proficiency, consider yourself an expert.

Yes, I was thinking also in general terms, there is a possibility they may choose to revise the idea of expertise and make it available more generally with a rule like that. Maybe if you get the same skill proficiency from both class and background, you get expertise instead?

But OTOH they might be worried that this significantly lowers the value of expertise, for those classes which get it in order to represent their general skillfulness, the Rogue first and foremost.

After all, we have to keep in mind that skills are mere bonuses, and not even that large anymore. There is still nothing preventing unproficient PCs to try pretty much every check they want (except some tools), therefore it does make sense to "protect" Bards', Rangers' and Rogues' unique additional bonuses.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Also, proficiency bonus cannot be applied more than once on the same check, so some tool proficiency will have to be reworked to still provide a benefit when coupled with an associated skill (such as for a Charisma (Deception) check with a disguise kit to which you have proficiency)

skills can be used without proficiencies (in which case they're just ability checks)

FWIW You don't use skills without proficiency. Skills are a
bonus to an ability check (represented by the proficiency bonus) that is or is not applied as opposed to being a task resolution itself.

 

[Li Shenron]

Also, proficiency bonus cannot be applied more than once on the same check, so some tool proficiency will have to be reworked to still provide a benefit when coupled with an associated skill (such as for a Charisma (Deception) check with a disguise kit to which you have proficiency)

Yes, this is pretty much my concern. It doesn't seem good to have both a skill and a tool, where the tool grants you the prof.bonus on a subset of situations compared to the skill, and nothing in return. Unless they stacked, but then we might have an issue against the general idea of keeping bonuses low.

FWIW You don't use skills without proficiency. Skills are a
bonus to an ability check (represented by the proficiency bonus) that is or is not applied as opposed to being a task resolution itself.

Indeed, I just didn't know how to better write it shortly, but I meant that there is nothing you can't try if you don't have the proficiency (you can't reach beyond a certain DC, but that's it), unlike for instance with several 3e skills which were "trained only".

 

[Plaguescarred]

I think tools should give you an advantage or straight up allow you to perform a task you wouldn't otherwise be able to do instead of granting proficiency bonus. Ex. Thieve's tools may be required to make a Dexterity check to open lock or disarm trap for exemple. Or a Charisma (Deception) check is made with advantage with a disguise kit.


Alternatively, certain checks could instead be made at a disadvantage without a specific tool. Ex. A Wisdom (Medecine) check is at a disadvantage without a healer's kit.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The current rules on tool proficiencies are a problem, and it's one you and I discussed when the pack first came out (me, you, me). Since then, play has confirmed most of these problems.

Tools attempt to do too much: granting abilities (e.g. herbalism, riding, thieves' tools), giving flavour without clear implementation (e.g. musical instruments, gaming kits), giving bonuses to ability checks already covered with skills (e.g. disguise, instruments probably), and duplicate the effect of magical implements, which are not labelled tools (leading to other inconsistencies).

I hope there will be changes: I really like the ideas behind tools and skills as they are using them, but the last test pack introduced too many bonuses, too many die roll adjustments. This leads to three specific problems:

1. it's too clumsy -- a lot of advantage flies around, removing the ability to enhance a roll through teamwork, advantageous circumstances, etc.

2. it's too common -- characters have too many proficiencies, so that there is very little sense of niche specialization, or even difficult choices in character creation.

3. some rules on implementation are missing.

I do expect changes, but I do not expect a return to the more streamlined implementation of tools, which is what I'd prefer.

 

[Li Shenron]

1. it's too clumsy -- a lot of advantage flies around, removing the ability to enhance a roll through teamwork, advantageous circumstances, etc.

2. it's too common -- characters have too many proficiencies, so that there is very little sense of niche specialization, or even difficult choices in character creation.

3. some rules on implementation are missing.

Absolutely agreed on all these!

 

[Sadrik]

Neither here nor there but I always felt that they should use the the advantage disadvantage mechanic for proficiency.

They already use disadvantage for not being proficient in a weapon. It would make sense to extrapolate that to the who proficiency/tools system. It removes gray areas of the current adv/dis system. Gives the mechanic a clear use. Allows DC to be developed in line with the expected rolls. I wrote about this in another thread with many more details... I don't know where it is now though...

As to the math in the current system. the three options are:
Unskilled Roll + Stat
Skilled Roll + Stat + 2 + 0-4 scaling bonus
Expert Roll + Stat + (2 + 0-4 scaling bonus)*2

This seems acceptable to me.

I cannot think of too many better ways to handle it. I would be interested to see if they can pull off a system without skills. I think with the scaling expert bonus being up to +12 it will be hard to do.

Tools should be skills. I can imagine many situations where you attempt to pull off the underlying skill with makeshift or inappropriate tools. In which case the important factor is your training not the actual tool itself... So my thought would be to go with the underlying training not the name of the tool used with the training.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I expect that tool use will be folded into relevant skills whenever possible. If you're proficient in Deception, then you know how to use a disguise kit, and doing so will give you advantage (or whatever).