D&D 5E Tool Use

[Caliban]

That's really my only goal with it, to discourage people from being unskilled.

This is 5e, people really don't have a choice in that. Most characters only have 4 or 5 skills, plus they have a limited list to choose from that is determined by their class and background.

Now you are just punishing them for not being able to be as skilled as you think they should be.

Generally, people take skills that go with their best abilities scores, which give them a significant bonus over someone who is non-proficient. (The other option is taking a skill to overcome a low ability score so that you can be at least average in that area.)

My group has a rule that you can't assist someone on a skill check unless you are both proficient in that skill/tool. This serves to make being proficient more attractive without artificially inflating the proficiency bonus.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Another easy house-rule is to just decide that for certain tools and/or skills... people who do not have proficiency in a particular skill can only attempt checks with that skill up to a certain DC. So for instance for lockpicking... anyone can attempt to open locks that have a DC of 15 or less. Any higher locks require a character to be proficient with thieve's tools use because those locks are not only just harder to unlock, but also harder to understand how they lock... thus you need experience in actually using the tools required. Survival for tracking creatures might be run the same way-- anyone can follow tracks that have a DC of 15 or less... over 15 and the character needs to be proficient to even try (unless of course the PC is a ranger, which I personally would say gets to try and track regardless of having the Survival skill-- not that I'd expect any ranger out there to NOT have Survival of course.)

 

[Saeviomagy]

Preventing rolls or penalizing rolls on unproficient skills just encourages people even more to stick with the limited pool of skills they have, and encourages them to optimize their skill choices. It will stifle creativity. It encourages murder hoboizm.

And it's solving a non issue. People are getting hung up comparing a high stat against a first level proficiency bonus, which is a largely irrelevant comparison.

Besides, that time the moron barbarian successfully forged a dinner invitation with the duke is something that will be remembered and have stories told about. "No, don't even roll" is something you hope will be forgotten.

 

[Springheel]

Preventing rolls or penalizing rolls on unproficient skills just encourages people even more to stick with the limited pool of skills they have,

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that it allows people who are proficient with tools to actually feel like they have useful skills. "Yes, I know I've been picking locks since I was a kid, and you come from a tribe that doesn't even have doors, but you're really nimble so you'll have a much better chance at this than I will."

Besides, that time the moron barbarian successfully forged a dinner invitation with the duke is something that will be remembered and have stories told about. "No, don't even roll" is something you hope will be forgotten.

That exact same logic could be used to allow rolling whether you have the tools or not. Imagine the story about the time that barbarian picked the lock with a twig and his toenail clippings!

 

[Caliban]

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that it allows people who are proficient with tools to actually feel like they have useful skills. "Yes, I know I've been picking locks since I was a kid, and you come from a tribe that doesn't even have doors, but you're really nimble so you'll have a much better chance at this than I will."

Exactly how would that happen? Generally, if your character is proficient with thieves tools it's because you chose to be...and thus are likely to be at least somewhat dexterous.

Most people don't create a character and go "My character has been picking locks since he was a kid. Normally you'd think this would indicate some level of natural ability, but I'm going to put my 8 in dexterity because I'm a roleplayer."

It's just common sense - if you want your PC to be known as a lock picker, you give them a decent dexterity to go along with the proficiency. Just like if you want your PC to be known as a smooth talker you give them a decent charisma to go along with proficiency in persuasion. You don't put your 8 in charisma and then complain you aren't as persuasive as the sorcerer with the 18 charisma.

 

[Springheel]

Exactly how would that happen? Generally, if your character is proficient with thieves tools it's because you chose to be...and thus are likely to be at least somewhat dexterous.

Would you consider 13 "somewhat dexterous"? Bringing up stats of 8 is misleading; the point still holds even if the lockpicker has a 13 dex and the barbarian has 18.

However, you can replace lock-picking with any other tool-based skill from the list if you prefer: "Yes, I know I'm a halfling that has been building furniture since I was a kid, and you come from a barbarian tribe that doesn't even have chairs, but you're really strong so you'll have a much better chance at building something from this hard wood than I will."

 

[Caliban]

I generally play with people who care more about role-playing than stat-maxing, so it doesn't strike me as unusual that a character that can pick locks might have an average dexterity. And I don't know why you're bringing up stats of 8. The point still holds even if the lockpicking has a 13 dex and the barbarian has 18.

However, you can replace lock-picking with any other tool-based skill from the list if you prefer: "Yes, I know I'm a halfling that has been building furniture since I was a kid, and you come from a barbarian tribe that doesn't even have chairs, but you're really strong so you'll have a much better chance at building something from this hard wood than I will."

Better?

Not really. Why would you use strength for carpentry? That's more of a dex or int based task.

Seriously, this is a non-issue. If you are using a standard array, the highest starting stat will be a 16 or 17, for a +3 ability bonus. Proficiency gives you a +2 at levels 1-4.

So if they have a 10 stat, the proficient person is only 5% less likely to succeed than the person who has the best possible natural ability in that area. Same thing goes for your example of a 13 stat + proficiency and a character with an 18 stat and no profiency. A difference of +1. That is not a "much better chance". That's the smallest possible difference in skill you can have in D&D.

If the proficient person has 12 stat, then they are equal to Mr. Natural Ability. 14 or higher and they are better than anyone relying on stats alone.

If you have people starting off with 18 or higher stats due to rolling or higher point buy, then that's your own fault. (Rolling for stats is just another way of saying "I want the PC"s to have highly disparate levels of natural ability when they start the game." Complaining about it after you set it up that way is just silly.)

 

[iserith]

Would you consider 13 "somewhat dexterous"? Bringing up stats of 8 is misleading; the point still holds even if the lockpicker has a 13 dex and the barbarian has 18.

However, you can replace lock-picking with any other tool-based skill from the list if you prefer: "Yes, I know I'm a halfling that has been building furniture since I was a kid, and you come from a barbarian tribe that doesn't even have chairs, but you're really strong so you'll have a much better chance at building something from this hard wood than I will."

I think you're overlooking the role of the DM in this adjudication. For any action declaration, the DM decides whether it succeeds (no roll), fails (no roll), or has an uncertain outcome. It's only in the latter case that there is a roll. Players don't get to decide they are making a check - that is the role of the DM. If you don't think the barbarian whose people don't even have chairs fails at building chairs, then that's what happens. See Basic Rules page 3 for the basic conversation of the game, page 58 for ability checks, and DMG page 237 "Using Ability Scores."

 

[Springheel]

Not really. Why would you use strength for carpentry? That's more of a dex or int based task.

I pulled that example straight from the PH.

That's the smallest possible difference in skill you can have in D&D.

That example was to counter your earlier claim that it's only a problem when you have an 8. Clearly that's not the case.

Now you're saying that a +1 bonus doesn't matter, which is an odd argument in a game built on small bonuses (that's half the value proficiency gives you at the start, remember). Regardless, the basic point remains that someone with zero training or knowledge in a skill still has a better chance at success than someone who has, theoretically, been practicing it their whole lives. If that's a "non-issue" for you, that's fine; I'm not trying to convince you to care about it.

 

[Caliban]

I pulled that example straight from the PH.

Well, that's just dumb. Strength only matters when chopping wood. If you are making a cabinet or a chair, dexterity or intelligence would be much more appropriate. In 3rd edition crafting skills (like carpentry) were Int based. But that's neither here nor there. If you think it makes sense for brute strength to be the primary ability required for building a cabinet or a house, then go with it. (I'm going with the 'designers didn't really care enough about carpentry to think it through'.)

That example was to counter your earlier claim that it's only a problem when you have an 8. Clearly that's not the case.

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "clearly". It's not clear at all, or we wouldn't be debating the point.

Now you're saying that a +1 bonus doesn't matter, which is an odd argument in a game built on small bonuses.

It's the smallest possible difference in skill you can have. If you are going to get this wound up about a +1 difference in a non-combat situation, then I think we are done. The game just isn't as granular as you want it to be. House rule to your hearts content, because "clearly" this is particular issue much more important to you than it is to me.

I do want to note that I'm not saying there should be no difference between someone proficient with a tool/skill and someone who isn't. I'm just saying that the differences for most adventuring purposes are negligible. The non-proficient person picking the lock probably makes more noise and leaves obvious scratches on the lock, and it may take longer (depending on the DM - I would make it take longer) - but the end result would still be same. The lock would be picked.

The non-proficient carpenter may make a stool that looks ugly, with rough edges and a few irregularly shaped bits, but they will still end up with a thing with 4 legs and a seat that can support their weight.

The game simulates killing monsters and taking their stuff, it's not so good at simulating everyday life activities. It's just too abstracted.