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

[Mistwell]

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

I am not sure what situation for "makeshift tool" isn't "extreme" like that. You tie rope to some branches and attempt to use that as a grappling hook. You tie bark to your feet and attempt to use those as snow shoes. This is when "makeshift" comes into tool use.

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.

I don't think anyone was arguing that makeshift tools would be for sale as makeshift tools.

As for masterwork, I don't think it's entirely out of line to say that the finest alchemy set in all the land gives you advantage on your alchemy crafting attempts.

I don't think these things go against the philosophy of 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

In 3e we just used the Take20 rule. But honestly, it delivers a sour feeling. Because that maximum DC you can hit only with a 20 and maybe get a "hurrah!" moment, now it's a guarantee. With a skill allowing Take20 (not all do), everything is either certain success or certain failure (I know, I know... "not if you are under pressure", but the truth is those skills most often than not happen when you are not under pressure).

There's another, very different approach: just allow one check per challenge, and rework the narrative backwards. E.g. when a lock has DC at which you'd succeed with 30% probability, don't think of it as "if I try to pick this lock 100 times, I would succeed ~30 times", but instead think of it as "if I try to pick 100 locks similar to this, I would succeed with ~30 of them". In other words, you have ONE attempt, if you fail it means this lock is not one of those 30 locks you can pick.

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.

Definitely a good point... a D&D character would stubbornly repeat the attempt 20 times, only because the player knows that she will succeed. In a sense it's an instance of metagaming.

 

[Kobold Stew]

This is a really interesting conversation -- thanks.

I do not like the keep-trying-till-you-make-it solution, and (for myself as a player) I want one person to make one attempt at a roll that is affecting the whole party, that either succeeds or doesn't. This is true even of perception rolls -- if it's simply a matter of six people rolling to see who gets told they hear goblins in the next room, it just feels the stakes are so low: someone is going to pass, and that's that. A bad roll means other solutions need to be found.

When things become narratively interesting is when failure affects individuals and not the party: swimming a river, and the two in heavy armour start to drown; climbing a rock face, and one person slips. There, everyone making a roll makes sense, and (again) teamwork should have its rewards.

The question of time is another matter. The solution used in FATE is the best I have seen in play:

there's a time track (e.g. seconds-half a minute-minutes-15 minutes-an hour-hours-a day-days-a week-weeks--a month-months-a year-years-decades-a lifetime). The ref sets the target number and the expected time to accomplish an action. If the layer beats it with the roll, it can be done quicker by that many shifts; if they fail, they can succeed by taking the extra time.

So picking a lock might take a thief minutes, but beating it (let's say for each +2) can reduce that time. Researching a new spell might normally take years, but a successful roll might reduce that to a few months. It's a very clean system in play, but it would obviously need some tweaking to fit D&D.

 

[PinkRose]

But I have often "taken 20" in Real Life.
If I'm looking for my sunglasses and I spend 20 minutes turning over every couch cushion and going through every pocket, I will eventually find them.
If I'm in a hurry, and I just look in my coat and on the table, I may not see them sitting by the TV, and I leave without them.
In that example, I take 20 on the first try and the second I gambled and rolled the dice and missed the DC for perception.

There are many times when taking 20 makes complete sense in the game. Opening a lock (as long as the DC is attainable) would be one. Jumping over a chasm is not one of them.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think tool proficiencies should just be removed and replaced with skills. Instead of having proficiency with a mount, have a ride skill. Instead of proficiency with thieves tools, have a thievery skill. Instead of prof. with healing kits, have a heal skill. Etc. I just don't see any compelling reason to treat these things differently from other skills.

 

[PinkRose]

Not a bad idea, but I think they did this so that some classes or backgrounds wouldn't end up with many more skills than others.

 

[ren1999]

A skill roll could be weighed like this.

10
+ability score(10% of the total bonus)
+skill kit(10% of the total bonus)
+skill bonus(80% of the total bonus)

The Mage can figure out how things work and watched the Rogue unlock many doors.
The Mage took the thief's tools(skill kit) from the dead Rogue.
But he has fat fingers and really doesn't understand how locks work. He has never opened a lock himself.

The same would go for a climber's kit, but in that instance, everyone in the party would get training.
They would learn to tie ropes.
Learn to balance their weight.
I would say that everyone in the party that climbs will get a skill bonus of +1 each time they climb as long as there is an experienced climber to guide them.

 

[Li Shenron]

But I have often "taken 20" in Real Life.
If I'm looking for my sunglasses and I spend 20 minutes turning over every couch cushion and going through every pocket, I will eventually find them.

(Emphasis mine) and that's precisely the problem in the game.

If you will eventually succeed at the task, there is no randomness: the task is either automatic or impossible.

Such tasks exist in the game, and don't require a check at all (in fact, don't even require to precisely specify a DC). But if you have a rule like Take20, then a huge swath of tasks become non-random, and that's not for everybody's tastes, especially since this tends to include tasks that are more interesting if sometimes you succeed and sometimes you don't (forcing the party to come up with an alternative idea). Take20 on lockpicking or trapfinding could make locks and traps devastatingly boring in the campaign.

If you have a fast-paced adventure where characters don't have time to sit and try 20 times (but for a task that can be done in combat and takes 1 round, 20 times is still only 2 minutes) then of course you can't Take20, but in a sense this sounds like saying Take20 is a great rule because it works so good when you can't use it

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Take20 on lockpicking or trapfinding could make locks and traps devastatingly boring in the campaign.

It would depend on the specific implementation of the rule. Under the 3E ruleset, you couldn't take 20 on any check that had a penalty for failure, and most traps would go off if you failed the check by five or more. I think your lockpick would break if you failed by five in picking a lock.

The purpose of the rule was just to formalize, with game mechanics, the situation where something was automatic. The third editions were big on making formal game mechanics for situations that other editions would cover with DM adjudication.

 

[Li Shenron]

It would depend on the specific implementation of the rule. Under the 3E ruleset, you couldn't take 20 on any check that had a penalty for failure, and most traps would go off if you failed the check by five or more. I think your lockpick would break if you failed by five in picking a lock.

Yes but once again this "fixes" Take20 by not using it