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

[Mistwell]

Some insight from Twitter:

Q: Any benefit to dual proficiency in both climbing kit and climbing with athletics?
A: No, but expect the climbing kit to be reworked. I think it will let you set up a rope on other surfaces, to reduce/remove the DC

Q: Can tools can be used without proficiency?
A: Yes, you can always try to use a tool.

 

[Sadrik]

Some insight from Twitter:

Q: Any benefit to dual proficiency in both climbing kit and climbing with athletics?
A: No, but expect the climbing kit to be reworked. I think it will let you set up a rope on other surfaces, to reduce/remove the DC

Q: Can tools can be used without proficiency?
A: Yes, you can always try to use a tool.

This seems to be a more natural position.

Hand the thieves tools to the smart gnome wizard tinker to attempt to open a lock. Good.

My only concern is what about the quality of the tools. That should be a factor. Make shift tools vs. masterwork and those should have an impact on your skill roll.

 

[Mistwell]

This seems to be a more natural position.

Hand the thieves tools to the smart gnome wizard tinker to attempt to open a lock. Good.

My only concern is what about the quality of the tools. That should be a factor. Make shift tools vs. masterwork and those should have an impact on your skill roll.

I think that's in the ad/disad rules.

1) Makeshift tools - check at disadvantage
2) Standard tools - normal check
3) Masterwork tools - check at advantage

Probably better than a separate rule or each situation.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I think that's in the ad/disad rules.

1) Makeshift tools - check at disadvantage
2) Standard tools - normal check
3) Masterwork tools - check at advantage

Probably better than a separate rule or each situation.

I like this idea a lot as it puts the check adjucator in the quality of tools.

 

[Mistwell]

I am always curious how others use tool rules.

In most situations (IE when not in an encounter), couldn't the character just keep trying until they get a perfect result, assuming they have time?

Seems to me if there is a locked door, unless "noise from the check" is relevant to alerting something on the other side, or "time spent which allows wandering monsters to come by" is relevant, the check would always (eventually) succeed, right?

How do others do this? Do you allow multiple checks until it finally works, and if not, why not?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How do others do this? Do you allow multiple checks until it finally works, and if not, why not?

I'm not sure how much the rules actually spell it out, but someone in the other forums has me convinced that you're not even supposed to roll in that situation. If the door is DC 22 to kick down, and there's no penalty for failure, then let's get on with the show instead of just rolling the die twenty times.

The exception being where time is a factor, and it suddenly matters whether it takes one try or ten tries.

It's a lot like the old "Take 20" rule, I think.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

1) Makeshift tools - check at disadvantage
2) Standard tools - normal check
3) Masterwork tools - check at advantage

I dislike this approach because it places a lot of importance on something that should be less important than the skill of the user. As I approach it, a tool is a tool, and you either have sufficient tools for the task or you do not. Some checks require you to have a tool to even make an attempt.

Remember, this edition is all about moving things along quickly, and not getting caught up in the minor details. Things like tool quality are a minor detail. If your table is so detail-oriented that you want to differentiate the bonus from a masterwork tool and a standard tool, then you're probably detail-oriented enough that you can handle a +1 to the die roll.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not sure how much the rules actually spell it out, but someone in the other forums has me convinced that you're not even supposed to roll in that situation. If the door is DC 22 to kick down, and there's no penalty for failure, then let's get on with the show instead of just rolling the die twenty times.

The exception being where time is a factor, and it suddenly matters whether it takes one try or ten tries.

It's a lot like the old "Take 20" rule, I think.

They removed any mention of the "Take 20" rule from the playtest, even though the logic for it still kind of applies. In my way of thinking that means that you should be rolling to see if you can succeed even if you'll eventually succeed.

I like to make people roll at least to simulate the idea that it is really hard and is taking a long time. For some rolls, I think it makes even more sense to say "No, you can't try again, you tried already and this particular door is too strong to knock down for you. Maybe if someone ELSE tried, they'd have a chance." This way it gives the non-specialists a chance to shine now and then and it means that the roll means something(instead of it just being a meaningless step you go through in order to eventually succeed). Even if you allow people to roll again, I find that after 5 or 6 rolls most players will assume that this particular DC is too high for them too make and their character isn't going to bang their head against it over and over hoping to roll high enough since that seems tedious and boring. Which is precisely what their characters would think in the same situation.

But then again, I never liked "take 20" because I've never known someone who failed at something 19 times in a row to attempt it a 20th time. Most people get frustrated at about the 5th time they do something and give up, assuming it is too hard for them.

 

[Mistwell]

I dislike this approach because it places a lot of importance on something that should be less important than the skill of the user. As I approach it, a tool is a tool, and you either have sufficient tools for the task or you do not. Some checks require you to have a tool to even make an attempt.

Remember, this edition is all about moving things along quickly, and not getting caught up in the minor details. Things like tool quality are a minor detail. If your table is so detail-oriented that you want to differentiate the bonus from a masterwork tool and a standard tool, then you're probably detail-oriented enough that you can handle a +1 to the die roll.

"I've whittled a bone down to be a makeshift lockpick, and now I try to open the lock with it before the guard on his way can catch me doing it".

That doesn't seem like getting caught up in a minor detail. The quality of the tool is pretty major in that encounter.

In addition, 5e is specifically trying to get away from little +1 and -1 bonuses/penalties. Instead, they encourage more use of the ad/disad mechanic instead. Because it 1) does not change the max/min result outside the intended boundaries, and 2) serves as a nearly universal mechanic for dealing with smaller bonuses and penalties.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"I've whittled a bone down to be a makeshift lockpick, and now I try to open the lock with it before the guard on his way can catch me doing it".

In that sort of extreme situation, then sure, go ahead with disadvantage. Common sense should always apply.

I'm just saying that it's against the philosophy of Next to bother distinguishing between a set of 5sp tools, 5gp tools, and 50gp tools. If you're using a paper clip, then that matters, just as much as if you're doing it during a blizzard. You can't offset a blizzard by paying a small amount of money to get the electrum-plated files, though.