D&D 5E Tool Use

[Sunseeker]

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.

The Skilled feat lets you take 4 Skill or Tool proficiency, regardless of if they're on your class list or not. Sorry I don't run hackfests. Players know that going in and if they build themselves a severely skill-limited character, they'll find themselves having difficult participating in a number of situations. It's not like they didn't know when we started the game. Want more proficiency? Roll a Variant Human and take the Skilled feat. Or make a half-elf.

People have TONS of choice in 5E. Class+Background is typically 4 skills and at least one tool proficiency. Race usually beings one to two more. That's 4-5 skills for the "low skill" classes, usually two more for the "high skill" classes which roughly covers 1/3rd of the skills available on the sheet. Take the Skilled feat and now you've got nearly half the skills available covered.

Sorry but there is MORE than enough choice and plenty of ways to go about getting more skills. Noone has any excuse for being unskilled beyond A: they want to be, B: they don't know how. I'm happy to educate the latter and I've got no problem with a person who wants to be unskilled, provided they're not making that choice in ignorance.

 

[Caliban]

The Skilled feat lets you take 4 Skill or Tool proficiency, regardless of if they're on your class list or not. Sorry I don't run hackfests. Players know that going in and if they build themselves a severely skill-limited character, they'll find themselves having difficult participating in a number of situations. It's not like they didn't know when we started the game. Want more proficiency? Roll a Variant Human and take the Skilled feat. Or make a half-elf.

People have TONS of choice in 5E. Class+Background is typically 4 skills and at least one tool proficiency. Race usually beings one to two more. That's 4-5 skills for the "low skill" classes, usually two more for the "high skill" classes which roughly covers 1/3rd of the skills available on the sheet. Take the Skilled feat and now you've got nearly half the skills available covered.

Sorry but there is MORE than enough choice and plenty of ways to go about getting more skills. Noone has any excuse for being unskilled beyond A: they want to be, B: they don't know how. I'm happy to educate the latter and I've got no problem with a person who wants to be unskilled, provided they're not making that choice in ignorance.

I will graciously accept your apology for your playing style.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I dunno about murderhoboism, but yeah - I basically agree with what you say here. In general, the bigger difference there is between being proficient and being non-proficient, the more the party is encouraged to min/max, to pump up their most significant skills and not even bother with their other ones.

If a DM uses a diversity of skill and tool checks, this creates a situation where someone in the party has to be proficient in any particular skill or tool.

"Oh, I seen none of you took proficiency in land vehicles, so I suppose the wagon careens into the ravine. The best way you could've avoided that was by being proficient."

It doesn't matter if operating land vehicles isn't really important to any of the PC's, the high divide between proficient and nonproficient means that it has to be important to someone, or else the party is going to get boned the next time they're driving a wagon on an unsteady mountain road.

When creating (or leveling up) characters, this creates a lesser version of the "you gotta have a cleric" conversation - "Look, someone's going to have to bite the bullet and take a skill/tool they're not really interested in For The Sake Of The Team." And now someone whose heart was really set on being a Spy has to be a Folk Hero instead, because coverage trumps character concept here. You can play a Spy who dies in the first cart chase, or you can be a Folk Hero who lives.

It's not inevitable that this happens to every group, but it's a tendency of putting a bigger gulf between what a proficient character and a non-proficient character can accomplish. The 5e assumption is you don't need proficiency to be pretty good, because then you can be whatever character you want to be and you can still survive a cart chase over a rugged mountain path. Changing that assumption is fine, but one of the prices you pay is that you encourage party optimization at the cost of interesting character choices. That might be an acceptable price to pay for some! I don't think it is for me personally. I really like creative characters, so much so that I don't want anyone to ever feel like they "have to" play anything.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I will graciously accept your apology for your playing style.

We can do this without the condescension, I think.

 

[Springheel]

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.

Are we still debating the point that it only affects characters who have an 8 in the relevant stat? I thought you backed off that point, because it "clearly" isn't true.

If you are going to get this wound up about a +1 difference in a non-combat situation...

...this is particular issue much more important to you than it is to me.

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

So we agree then. As I already said, I have no interest in trying to make people care about something they don't care about. On the other hand, you seemed to be saying I shouldn't care about something because you don't care about it. I like to turn stories that are more than "killing monsters and taking their stuff", so attempting to have rules that make some logical sense matters to me. You're right, the fact that someone who has never played an instrument before can pick up a flute and play it as well or better than someone who knows how to use it doesn't make any difference in combat. But it also doesn't make any sense. In some cases, nonsensical rules are necessary for gameplay, balance, abstraction, etc. But in cases where the rules CAN make more sense, without losing anything, then I think they should. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Caliban]

We can do this without the condescension, I think.

He was being condescending. I was being gracious.

 

[Springheel]

It's not inevitable that this happens to every group, but it's a tendency of putting a bigger gulf between what a proficient character and a non-proficient character can accomplish. The 5e assumption is you don't need proficiency to be pretty good,

That's a valid point, and I think it makes sense for a lot of proficiencies, like acrobatics or persuasion (or cart driving). My issue was specifically with tools, like lockpicks, metal-smithing tools, musical instruments, etc. You can't try those things without the tools (according to the rules), but assuming that all characters know how to use the tools by default seems silly to me.

Keep in mind I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be able to use them AT ALL, just that disadvantage should apply. So the possibility for story-telling successes are still there, but there's no way you can expect to consistently compete with someone who is actually proficient with the tools.

 

[Caliban]

Are we still debating the point that it only affects characters who have an 8 in the relevant stat? I thought you backed off that point, because it "clearly" isn't true.

Strawman argument - I never said that it "only affects characters who have an 8 in the relevant stat". Since you insist on putting words in my mouth, we truly are done. Good day sir.

 

[Sunseeker]

He was being condescending. I was being gracious.

Well, that wasn't my intention. I was trying to be honest. I tell my players "hey, there are going to be a lot of non-fighting encounters in this game, it's up to you to be prepared for that." during Session Zero. There are plenty of options in 5E to ensure you are not unskilled. Backgrounds, classes, feats, races, etc... I made my own character for a different game using these same fundamentals. Half-Elf rogue charlatan. I have 4 skills from my class. 2 from my background and 2 from my race, in addition to 3 tool proficiencies (disguise kit, forgery kit, thieves tools). Making me proficient at just shy of one half of (8/18)the skills and covering most of the rogue-related toolsets.

If I tell you this and you, my player, choose to be unskilled well okay, you had fair warning. The game is harder for people who are unskilled. LIFE is harder when you lack skills. If you don't know how to make a skilled character, I will happily give you some pointers.

What I don't buy is your claim that characters are unskilled by design. Even "low skill" classes can still reach 1/4th or 1/3rd of available skills in the game with ease. I'm assuming that when told "hey, there's a lot of skill challenges" in my game, players will avoid low-skill classes, favoring Rogues, Bards, Wizards, Clerics and other more utility-centric classes. If 1/4 people decides to roll a very combat focused Barbarian, Fighter or Blaster Sorcerer; or 2/5 people do this, that's not a problem. The utility folks will shine during skill challenges and the combat folks will shine during combat. If I tell everyone we're going to experience a lot of skill challenges and everyone rolls up the most combat-centric, low-utility, unskilled characters they can, I'll question if what I'm offering is what they're interested in playing.

This shouldn't be taken as condescension, this is honesty. I may be blunt about it okay I'll give you that. But it's not condescending at all to say that you are wrong about making a skilled character.

 

[Caliban]

Well, that wasn't my intention. .... If you don't know how to make a skilled character, I will happily give you some pointers.

Yes, clearly you aren't trying to be condescending.