D&D 5E The Wonkiness of Tool Proficiency

[77IM]

This is not entirely true. You do not learn long sword proficiency or chain mail proficiency. You learn Heavy Armor proficiency a whole class of armors and you learn martial weapon proficiency again a large class of items.

Actually, you can get long sword proficiency, for example by being an elf. Right now armor proficiency is only done by category, but nothing prevents them from giving out proficiency in individual types of armor. That was kind of my point about tools -- they are very specific and visible things that you can be proficient in, just like individual weapons.

I do like your your "weapon groups as skills" proficiencies idea. That's how a lot of other RPGs work and it makes a lot of sense. For D&D, you could also go the other way and make skills more granular and specific, more in line with tools. This becomes a problem keeping track of what skill you might be using since there's usually no visible object to remind you. Also some skills would be way better than others (Perception, for example).

I really like the Microlite20 skills; there are only 4 skills (Athletics, Communication, Knowledge, and Subterfuge) but they can be used with any ability. For 5e I'd probably alter the grouping slightly, maybe Athletics, Influence, Lore, Perception, Subterfuge, Survival.

 

[Sadrik]

I do like your your "weapon groups as skills" proficiencies idea. That's how a lot of other RPGs work and it makes a lot of sense. For D&D, you could also go the other way and make skills more granular and specific, more in line with tools. This becomes a problem keeping track of what skill you might be using since there's usually no visible object to remind you. Also some skills would be way better than others (Perception, for example).

In a scenario like that you could break up all the different instances you might call for a perception check and make them different skills. For instance, you might have ambush detection skill, and secret door detection skill. For me making the skill system that granular adds no real gameplay value other than the DM being able to do a gotchya moment where they call for a skill that the PCs do not have. This is not the style of game I like to play in or DM.

I really like the Microlite20 skills; there are only 4 skills (Athletics, Communication, Knowledge, and Subterfuge) but they can be used with any ability. For 5e I'd probably alter the grouping slightly, maybe Athletics, Influence, Lore, Perception, Subterfuge, Survival.

Agreed, I like this simple skill list. Yours even better. Though maybe History and Nature rather than Survival and Lore. Lore seems too broad and survival seems too niche. I think you also get rid of perception... Subterfuge + WIS = looking for traps, Nature + WIS = looking for pits and snares. Perhaps in lieu of perception you add Magic or Supernatural or Arcana. This would be specialized knowledge.

This would be an easy sub into 5e. It would also incorporate tool use into these 6 skills, allowing the rogue to use thieves tools because they have subterfuge skill.

 

[howandwhy99]

How to open a lock:

1. Find some way to pick it. Maybe a bent fishhook will serve? Who knows? Try something and tell the DM. Then learn what happens. Maybe you have pins you need to press back? Maybe you need multiple items to do that? The game is making makeshift tools until you succeed automatically or succeed enough to qualify for a roll.

2. You use your lockpicks which give you a chance and perhaps even a bonus to unlock the lock with a roll.

3. You try your keys. Maybe one works? No roll needed. FYI: Keys were not created to gimp the Thief (rogue) class. They just work.

4. You break it down with your weapon like any sane barbarian would do.

...Or anything else you care to try. Only trained people really could Open Locks with any kind of quick reliability and Tool Proficiency sort of brings that back. Except it separates it from the class/role played. Which has become de rigeur

 

[bert1000]

Not having been part of the playtest, when I first read the PHB, I thought the purpose of tools were

1. A separate skill system for things that aren’t ‘worth’ a full skill and shouldn’t be competing with adventuring skills (e.g., woodworking)
2. A way to give backgrounds/races/classes access to a subset of a skill without having to give them the whole broad skill (e.g., only the disguise aspect of Deception)

This made a ton of sense to me and I thought it was a pretty cool idea. I thought it was a game mechanics choice for the reasons above and had little to do with actually deciding that some actions need actual ‘tools’ to be effective. That was just the trappings they decided to use.

Then I took a closer look at the skill and tool list. The execution is not that great (or I’m totally wrong about the intent).

When it comes down to it, it’s pretty messy when it didn’t have to be.

For instance, from the examples under skills, it appears that you can get proficiency bonus for some things that fall under tools from skills. So Deception for disguise.

But I guess you can’t play an instrument with Performance, you need the Tool proficiency? Or do you? Read the Performance and Musical Instrument sections and it’s not clear.

Can you create an herbal salve with Medicine if you have a Herbalism Kit but don’t have the Herbalism kit proficiency?

Personally, I’m going to rule that skills are very broad, so for example:

Deception – includes disguise, forgery, cheating at games
Medicine – includes poison making, herbalism

If you have the Tool proficiency as well as skill you get an extra +2.

 

[SilverfireSage]

Not having been part of the playtest, when I first read the PHB, I thought the purpose of tools were

1. A separate skill system for things that aren’t ‘worth’ a full skill and shouldn’t be competing with adventuring skills (e.g., woodworking)
2. A way to give backgrounds/races/classes access to a subset of a skill without having to give them the whole broad skill (e.g., only the disguise aspect of Deception)

Well it is kind of those things, but not at the same time. By RAW, you can't gain proficiency in new skills, but you can in tools. That's one big difference.

Then I took a closer look at the skill and tool list. The execution is not that great (or I’m totally wrong about the intent).

When it comes down to it, it’s pretty messy when it didn’t have to be.

For instance, from the examples under skills, it appears that you can get proficiency bonus for some things that fall under tools from skills. So Deception for disguise.

What do you mean by this? You don't use skills for tools, you use ability checks. Someone else already said this in the thread, and it's stated under all of the tools as well. "Proficiency with _____ lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make using the tools."

But I guess you can’t play an instrument with Performance, you need the Tool proficiency? Or do you? Read the Performance and Musical Instrument sections and it’s not clear.

You don't ever "need" proficiency to do anything. Proficiency simply lets you add your bonus to it. Just as you can use armor without proficiency or weapons without proficiency, you just aren't as good as with the things you are proficient with. When you use Perform, you are doing something that you can do inherently with only your body. With Musical Instrument, you and the DM decide which ability score uses it, and you go with that, adding your proficiency bonus if you are proficient in Musical Instruments.

Can you create an herbal salve with Medicine if you have a Herbalism Kit but don’t have the Herbalism kit proficiency?

"Proficiency with this kit is required to create antitoxin and potions of healing." It's right there in the text.

Personally, I’m going to rule that skills are very broad, so for example:

Deception – includes disguise, forgery, cheating at games
Medicine – includes poison making, herbalism

If you have the Tool proficiency as well as skill you get an extra +2.

You kinda just broke why they even decided to separate all those.

 

[bert1000]

You don't ever "need" proficiency to do anything. Proficiency simply lets you add your bonus to it. Just as you can use armor without proficiency or weapons without proficiency, you just aren't as good as with the things you are proficient with. When you use Perform, you are doing something that you can do inherently with only your body. With Musical Instrument, you and the DM decide which ability score uses it, and you go with that, adding your proficiency bonus if you are proficient in Musical Instruments.

I get it. It's just shorthand. More precisely, assuming you had appropriate material or a Disguise kit would you allow a Dex (Deception) check to create a disguise? Adding your proficiency bonus due to Deception to the check. Or would Deception be limited things that don't require materials or props?

 

[Tormyr]

I get it. It's just shorthand. More precisely, assuming you had appropriate material or a Disguise kit would you allow a Dex (Deception) check to create a disguise? Adding your proficiency bonus due to Deception to the check. Or would Deception be limited things that don't require materials or props?

Deception is for the stuff that does not require materials. Creating the disguise is using your Disguise Kit proficiency (or lack thereof). Deception is what is done afterward, and how good your disguise is will play a factor. A bad disguise could give disadvantage on the Charisma (Deception) checks.

 

[bert1000]

Deception is for the stuff that does not require materials. Creating the disguise is using your Disguise Kit proficiency (or lack thereof). Deception is what is done afterward, and how good your disguise is will play a factor. A bad disguise could give disadvantage on the Charisma (Deception) checks.

Ok that makes sense in terms of overlap. So the intent is for the Tool Proficiencies to carve out certain activities (e.g., making a disguise). The only way you get a proficiency bonus for those activities (e.g., herbalism, forgery, cheating at games, playing an instrument, etc.) is with Tool Proficiency.

Maybe my issue is more with the skill list then. I tend to like chunky skills that give the character broad abilities in a theme.

Not really a big deal. I guess you can always spend the 250 days and get your Tool Proficiencies to round out Deception, Medicine, and Performance even if you don't pick backgrounds that give it to you.

 

[Tormyr]

Ok that makes sense in terms of overlap. So the intent is for the Tool Proficiencies to carve out certain activities (e.g., making a disguise). The only way you get a proficiency bonus for those activities (e.g., herbalism, forgery, cheating at games, playing an instrument, etc.) is with Tool Proficiency.

Maybe my issue is more with the skill list then. I tend to like chunky skills that give the character broad abilities in a theme.

Not really a big deal. I guess you can always spend the 250 days and get your Tool Proficiencies to round out Deception, Medicine, and Performance even if you don't pick backgrounds that give it to you.

More like the tool proficiencies are for your aptitude with something physical. The skills are what you can do on your own.
So :
Charisma (Deception) to talk your way past a guard
Dexterity (Disguise Kit) to make a disguise to help with that

Intelligence (Medicine) to determine someone's ailment and the correct potion to heal them
Intelligence (Herbalism Kit) to make it.

Charisma (Deception) to bluff in cards
Dexterity (Cards) to swap out cards to improve your hand through cheating

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It is really worth noting that there is no such thing as a skill check in 5E.

There are ability checks, saving throws and attack rolls.

Skill and tool proficiencies are used with ability checks.

Cheers!

Well, if you're going to simplify like that, then everything is an ability check. Attack rolls are just STR or DEX ability checks with the DC = AC, and proficiency dependent upon your weapon proficiency. Saving throws are just ability checks too.

But the fact is, you can have proficiency in some skills, but not others. So to me that makes it more of a 'skill check' than an 'ability check.'

Does the terminology really matter? Probably not, but I think skill check indicates something different in the mind of many players than ability check.

Ilbranteloth