Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
tool proficiencies: what's the point?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6198903" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Eh. It's really six on one hand / half-a-dozen on the other... but I generally prefer Advantage only because the risk of failure still exists (which is not a guarantee if any 1-9s are considered 10s in your version.) In that case, it comes down to who likes/doesn't like the Advantage mechanic versus the "floor" mechanic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, six on one hand / half-a-dozen on the other. You either force every PC to make all climbing checks with Disadvantage except for the select few that have proficiency in the Climber's Kit... or everyone can make climbing checks normally except for the select few that have proficiency in the Climber's Kit who get to make the check with Advantage.</p><p></p><p>And in this case... I can think of many more situations where (as DM) I'd want Disadvantage available to assign to climb checks in adverse conditions, than situations where I'd want Advantage available for really good conditions (because having a climber's kit is the most often, if not only, good condition you'll actually ever see.) </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with you here to a certain extent. But if this is the case... then the designers would basically need to make sure to not design any class or background that grants a Tool prof that covers the same check that they already get due to Skill prof. Because that Tool prof is no longer a benefit to the class/background. It's a waste.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6198903, member: 7006"] Eh. It's really six on one hand / half-a-dozen on the other... but I generally prefer Advantage only because the risk of failure still exists (which is not a guarantee if any 1-9s are considered 10s in your version.) In that case, it comes down to who likes/doesn't like the Advantage mechanic versus the "floor" mechanic. Again, six on one hand / half-a-dozen on the other. You either force every PC to make all climbing checks with Disadvantage except for the select few that have proficiency in the Climber's Kit... or everyone can make climbing checks normally except for the select few that have proficiency in the Climber's Kit who get to make the check with Advantage. And in this case... I can think of many more situations where (as DM) I'd want Disadvantage available to assign to climb checks in adverse conditions, than situations where I'd want Advantage available for really good conditions (because having a climber's kit is the most often, if not only, good condition you'll actually ever see.) I agree with you here to a certain extent. But if this is the case... then the designers would basically need to make sure to not design any class or background that grants a Tool prof that covers the same check that they already get due to Skill prof. Because that Tool prof is no longer a benefit to the class/background. It's a waste. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
tool proficiencies: what's the point?
Top