D&D 5E The Wonkiness of Tool Proficiency

[TDarien]

I dont think its wonky at all, your slight of hand is what is used for Thieves tools. So for example if your going to remove a trap, pick a lock your going to use slight of hand and your proficiency mods to apply to the DC.

Scott

This is misleading. Dexterity(Sleight of hand) has nothing to do do with thieves' tools. You use Dexterity(sleight of hand) to pickpocket someone or palm a coin.

Thieves' tools are required to attempt to pick a lock or disarm a trap and that is a Dexterity check, and if (and only if) you're proficient with the tools you can add your proficiency bonus to the check.

 

[77IM]

Tool proficiencies are not analogous to skill proficiencies: they are analogous to weapon proficiencies and armor proficiencies.

The more I think about it, the more it seems that skills are the odd man out for not requiring an object. Then this makes me wonder if unarmed strike is a weapon proficiency or a skill proficiency...

 

[pemerton]

I think of skills in 5e as something like "subability scores" form the old 2e Skills and Powers -- particular aspects of an ability score that you're good at or not, more granularity than "It's just a DEX check!"

I think this is largely the 4e approach too.

But p 59 of the Basic Rules has this heading: "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities". With that variant in use, skills aren't "subability scores anymore".

 

[pepticburrito]

Basically, "tool proficiency" is a skill by another name, why not just put it in the skill list?

Because tool proficiency is not actually a skill. It's a proficiency in a tool. You add your proficiency bonus to the roll, along with any relevant ability the GM calls for. A single tool set could be used with several different ability checks. For example, Jewels tools could use Dex for cutting gems. It could also grant an advantage for valuing them gems with an Int check because you're using a jeweler's lens to look at it.

You get the same kind of thing with a Poison Kit. Applying a poison would require something like Dex, crafting a poison would require something like Int. The GM could even rule that if you're not proficient with a poison kit, then you're just going to end up poisoning yourself if you play with poisons.

If a trap is disarmed by literally pulling out a trigger that's held in tightly, then it could require a Str and/or Dex check to complete the task.

The skill, tool, and kit proficiency system is pretty bare bones. It's like that so each GM can do whatever the hell they want.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think this is largely the 4e approach too.

But p 59 of the Basic Rules has this heading: "Variant: Skills with Different Abilities". With that variant in use, skills aren't "subability scores anymore".

I'd basically agree on both points. Though I'd say the fact that the default is "an ability score corresponds to some skills, and a tool proficiency requires an object and does not" highlights that difference more than 4e did for me. 4e certainly had its share of ability-bonus-neutral skills at various levels (including basic attack rolls!), and I think that pioneered the idea that it adds a lot of character flexibility when that happens -- certainly went against 4e's trend of "you must have X ability score to be considered good enough." 5e just pushes it a bit farther (including, with the variant, complete "DM determines what ability scores everyone uses all the time"). It weakens dependency on a narrow band of ability scores, which is a positive thing for a game that expects anyone to be able to contribute in a large swath of ways.

 

[Uchawi]

My problem with skills versus tools is what came first, the chicken or the egg, and how do you determine ad-hoc skill or tool use? If tools enhance skill use, then you can use other tools based on how good your skill is.

 

[Umbran]

As far as niche protection goes that is blown out of the water if any character can just pick up a level in any class.

Not in terms of skills and proficiencies, it doesn't. When you pick up a new class, you don't get all the proficieincies, only some. Only a couple of them, if I recall, even give access to skills at all, much less the full sweep.

I think I'm going to bring everything into a uniform line for my upcoming campaign. Skills, languages, tools AND other classes can all be learned after play begins but they ALL require 250 gp and 250 game days. That makes the field even. Those who want to dedicate to learning new things can put the time in and get them.

You are, of course, free to do what you like in your game. But, I don't think the rules as written are all that insensible.

What you say above makes some sense, when comparing Skills to the various artisan's tools. Becoming an expert on Religion might be seen as roughly equivalent to becoming an expert stonemason. I mean, the logic breaks down eventually - it takes more than 250 days to become a really expert in either, but there are simplifications to be made for the sake of playability and genre.

For the more adventuring-appropriate tools, though, the tools seem to be much narrower in scope than the skills. It seems reasonable to me that skills be harder to pick up than tools. The tools allow us a space to broaden character abilities somewhat, but keeps us from going hog wild on the matter, and making some of the choices at character creations somewhat more meaningful as a result.

Noting that the DMG preview lied in a subtle way, there may be a skill system variant or two in there that may give us something that we might both be happy with.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not in terms of skills and proficiencies, it doesn't. When you pick up a new class, you don't get all the proficieincies, only some. Only a couple of them, if I recall, even give access to skills at all, much less the full sweep.



You are, of course, free to do what you like in your game. But, I don't think the rules as written are all that insensible.

What you say above makes some sense, when comparing Skills to the various artisan's tools. Becoming an expert on Religion might be seen as roughly equivalent to becoming an expert stonemason. I mean, the logic breaks down eventually - it takes more than 250 days to become a really expert in either, but there are simplifications to be made for the sake of playability and genre.

For the more adventuring-appropriate tools, though, the tools seem to be much narrower in scope than the skills. It seems reasonable to me that skills be harder to pick up than tools. The tools allow us a space to broaden character abilities somewhat, but keeps us from going hog wild on the matter, and making some of the choices at character creations somewhat more meaningful as a result.

Noting that the DMG preview lied in a subtle way, there may be a skill system variant or two in there that may give us something that we might both be happy with.

The skill vs tool learning curve is close enough to being the same for govt. work. The real disparity is the instantaneous acquisition of core class abilities, not the skills & proficiencies that come with a class. When Fytor the fighter goes to bed after a long adventuring day, wakes up, and is suddenly a trained 1st level wizard complete with internalized cantrips and spellbook, the lack of a couple class skills as a nod to reality is kind of a joke.

 

[Tormyr]

If you have feats in your game, you can always pick up the Skilled feat if more skills is that important to you.

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you have feats in your game, you can always pick up the Skilled feat if more skills is that important to you.

The issue isn't really about more (or less) skills really. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the justification for the restriction on learning them given that you can sprout a whole new class overnight without a problem.

I have already fixed it so its more a curiosity than anything else.