D&D 5E Tool Use

[77IM]

Wow, this devolved quickly. Back on topic...

The downtime rules for Crafting (PHB p.187) state that "You must be proficient with the tools related to the object you are trying to create (typically artisan's tools)."

Now, Crafting as a downtime activity doesn't involve any ability check at all. But there is at least a precedent in the system for an action that a character can only perform if they have a certain proficiency. I'd recommend to use this option sparingly during adventures since it's usually more fun to let players try stuff and have a decent chance of success.

 

[77IM]

Someone who has never used thieves' tools before can have a decent chance of picking the same locks a professional could? Someone completely untrained can pick up a flute and play it nearly as well as someone who is trained?

Maybe in a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting everyone does have a little bit of experience with thieves' tools and playing the flute. Your PC may not have "proficiency" with carpenter's tools, but she used to help Uncle Jeb mend furniture back on the farm. My PC may not have "proficiency" with navigator's tools, but he's been on enough sea voyages to have picked up the basics. Some other player's PC may not have "proficiency" with a poisoner's kit, but it's similar to the herbalism kits that his neighbor growing up used to make and sell.

By analogy, in the modern real world, most people know how to drive a car, use a computer, cook a meal, etc. But I wouldn't give them "proficiency" (in the game-mechanical sense) with those things. A race-car driver, computer hacker, or chef would have "proficiency."

If a character truly has had zero exposure to some tool or kit, like a barbarian who's never seen locks or lockpicks before, then you could rule it Alien Technology and use the Figuring Out Alien Technology rules in the DMG.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I apologize for being pedantic, but technically the Skilled feat gives 3 proficiencies, not 4.

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.

While it's true that most backgrounds give some kind of tool proficiency, the vast majority are effectively useless: instruments, gaming set, or artisan's tools, none of which have any practical application to most adventurers' lives. (Anecdotal, but, I can say I've had *one* situation where a gaming set prof might be useful...IF it's the appropriate game, which is highly unlikely; I've never had a situation an artisan's tool would be a "make or break" difference.) Others are going to be campaign-specific; not much use to Navigator's Tools or Vehicles (Water), as they won't make much of a difference if you adventure on land. Disguise Kit, Thieves' Tools, Herbalism Kit, Poisoner's Kit, or Forgery Kit would all be useful a plausible amount of the time...but not one of them is an Artisan's Tool, so the vast majority of backgrounds can't get them unless specified.

As for getting half the skills covered? Well, I guess. There are 18 skills. If you're willing to blow your first feat on skills, and willing to restrict yourself to a single race choice, then sure, you can get 2 (class) + 2 (bg) + 2 (race) + 3 (feat) = 9 skills, which is exactly half. I dunno where you get that race "usually" brings in another skill--only Variant Human, Half-Elf, Elf, and Half-Orc get any bonus proficiencies, and given how many DMs I've seen who don't allow Variant Human because they consider it broken/overpowered/etc., that's really only 3 out of 9 races. Certainly not a "usual" thing to get AN extra skill, let alone two.

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.

Unfortunately, you're characterizing "wants to play something that isn't some kind of Elf or a Variant Human" and "wants to play something that isn't a Rogue or a Bard" as "wanting" to not be skilled, which...well, okay you can do that, but it comes across kind of rude. E.g., someone who wants to play a Dragonborn Paladin, and who thinks trading ASIs for feats is a raw deal (in most cases), "wants" to be unskilled? Uh...no. I'm keenly aware that that limits you to a narrow set of skills in 5e, and I find it a little frustrating. (To be honest, I find it a little frustrating in 4e as well, and it doesn't even have the "Proficiency is hardly noticeable at level 1" problem, nor the "give up precious ASIs for feats" problem.)

Edit: Presuming a DM allows a player to take the Skilled feat more than once, and allows multiclassing, it is actually possible to get proficiency in all skills (and Thieves' Tools, too). Half-Elf Lore Bard/Knowledge Cleric 1/Rogue 1 with two applications of the Skilled feat gets 6 (feats) + 3 (Bard) + 3 (College of Lore) + 2 (bg) + 2 (race) + 2 (Knowledge domain) + 1 (Rogue MC) = 19 skills, meaning you can pick up a useful Tool proficiency you didn't get from BG/Rogue MC (presumably Herbalism Kit, but Disguise or Poisoner's Kit wouldn't be bad either), and you get Medium armor prof and Shields to boot. If you max out the rest of your levels as a Lore Bard, you'll also end up with 8 skills, or 7 and Thieves' Tools, Expertised (4 from Bard, 2 from Knowledge domain, 2 from Rogue), meaning you're proficient with every skill AND an "expert" in nearly half of them. Since you do end up with 1 "excess" skill/tool prof, you could play an Elf, Half-Orc, or Variant Human, the last of which having the substantial benefit of making up for the ASI you lose for not reaching Bard 19--but, contrariwise, you pay for it up front since the Half-Elf gets +2 Cha *and* +1 to two stats of choice, meaning in the end the Half-Elf is arguably more "efficient" (starts out 1 skill behind but with better stats, ends with same stats but 1 tool prof ahead).

Yes, I have seriously thought about playing this character, should I ever find myself invited to a new 5e game. This is not a likely event, mind, since I don't much care for 5e as a system, but I figure it's best to have a character concept ready should the opportunity arise (much like how I want to play a Dragonborn Dragonic/Dragonspawn Monk, should I ever get invited to a 13A game).

 

[Tony Vargas]

*I never cease to get a grim chuckle out of all the places where 5e's "natural language" frankly isn't.

It's absolutely both language and natural. It's just imprecise and ambiguous compared to specialized jargon - like all natural language.

 

[Jediking]

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.

And that's why the Human (non-variant) gets the short stick. Specific tends to beat general. Hell, they even put that at the start of the PHB

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's absolutely both language and natural. It's just imprecise and ambiguous compared to specialized jargon - like all natural language.

I don't know about you, but the commonplace meaning of "proficient" does not match with how it is used in 5e. For example, I expect someone who claims to be "proficient" with a human language to be "fluent" in it--there may be rare instances of misunderstanding, but in the vast majority of situations they should be as good with that language as a "native" speaker. "Proficient" in 5e means "you succeed a little more often than someone who has no idea what they're doing, but isn't completely terrible at tasks of that general category (e.g. memory, socialization, fine motor movements/reflexes, etc.)." I don't mind that that is what "proficient" means in 5e, in a mechanical sense--that's how they chose to design it. I just find it funny that the commitment to using words as they are used in everyday speech has, in a notable number of places, failed to actually pan out. It's supposed to be simple, to be clear WITHOUT jargon--and it just flat isn't.

 

[Sunseeker]

I apologize for being pedantic, but technically the Skilled feat gives 3 proficiencies, not 4.

No that's fine thanks for the correction.

While it's true that most backgrounds give some kind of tool proficiency, the vast majority are effectively useless: instruments, gaming set, or artisan's tools, none of which have any practical application to most adventurers' lives. (Anecdotal, but, I can say I've had *one* situation where a gaming set prof might be useful...IF it's the appropriate game, which is highly unlikely; I've never had a situation an artisan's tool would be a "make or break" difference.) Others are going to be campaign-specific; not much use to Navigator's Tools or Vehicles (Water), as they won't make much of a difference if you adventure on land. Disguise Kit, Thieves' Tools, Herbalism Kit, Poisoner's Kit, or Forgery Kit would all be useful a plausible amount of the time...but not one of them is an Artisan's Tool, so the vast majority of backgrounds can't get them unless specified.

You're right in that tools really only see as much use as the DM lets them. I've got a couple of players who really want to put their tools to use and a couple players who don't in my current game, so I tend to find myself somewhere in the middle. If a person has a creative answer to a problem that involves certain tools, I'm happy to make some space for them to make the attempt.

As for getting half the skills covered? Well, I guess. There are 18 skills. If you're willing to blow your first feat on skills, and willing to restrict yourself to a single race choice, then sure, you can get 2 (class) + 2 (bg) + 2 (race) + 3 (feat) = 9 skills, which is exactly half. I dunno where you get that race "usually" brings in another skill--only Variant Human, Half-Elf, Elf, and Half-Orc get any bonus proficiencies, and given how many DMs I've seen who don't allow Variant Human because they consider it broken/overpowered/etc., that's really only 3 out of 9 races. Certainly not a "usual" thing to get AN extra skill, let alone two.

Rock gnome provides prof in tinkers tools, as well as double-bonuses to certain history checks if you're prof in history.
Dwarves get artisans tools of either smiths, brewers, or masons
As you mentioned:
Elves all get proficiency in Perception.
Half elves of course get two proficiencies of their choice.
Variant Humans could take a feat to gain 3 proficiencies.
and half-orcs get intimidation.

So, 6/10 races get some kind of proficiency, two of those races has 3 subraces (elves, dwarves) making them somewhat of a disproportionate sample of the available races. So yeah, I'd still say that more often than not, your race is bringing at least one proficiency to the table. As for what races are allowed at the table, in my case I allow everything, when I don't, everything is "under the hood" so you all look like members of the same race but can use different racial traits to represent different societies, cultures and biological variation.

I don't expect everyone to have 1/2 the skills. But as I said, people can reasonably achieve 1/3rd of the skills without too much limitation. Plus fighters, a low-skill class, gets extra feats! And if you're not ultra-combat focused, that's plenty of room to burn a feat on extra skills.

Unfortunately, you're characterizing "wants to play something that isn't some kind of Elf or a Variant Human" and "wants to play something that isn't a Rogue or a Bard" as "wanting" to not be skilled, which...well, okay you can do that, but it comes across kind of rude. E.g., someone who wants to play a Dragonborn Paladin, and who thinks trading ASIs for feats is a raw deal (in most cases), "wants" to be unskilled? Uh...no. I'm keenly aware that that limits you to a narrow set of skills in 5e, and I find it a little frustrating. (To be honest, I find it a little frustrating in 4e as well, and it doesn't even have the "Proficiency is hardly noticeable at level 1" problem, nor the "give up precious ASIs for feats" problem.)

Dragonborn are severely limited and woefully underpowered compared to almost all the other races, but that's a different problem.

There are solutions to gaining more skills. If you pick classes that lack skills. Races that lack skills. Backgrounds that lack skills, and don't take feats to gain more; then while I understand your frustration, those were your choices. When combat comes around, you'll probably do great. When it comes to negotiating for a peace treaty, your presence and worthy deeds might speak for you, but your diplomacy check certainly won't.

It's VERY easy to beat people up in D&D and resolve everything with violence and that IME inexorably leads to murderhobing, which is not something I enjoy participating in nor running games for. It's one reason I run fewer, more dangerous combats. I slaughtered a player last week who was annoyed with some forest spirits that were monitoring their presence, and decided to run out and engage them. They eviscerated him and the party backed down, when they did, the spirits left. Violence is easy. Sometimes, yeah, you gotta take your second-favorite pick for a race or class to get ahead in my games. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. I'm open about your freedom to choose, and I'm open about how those choices can affect your play experience.

Sure, saying you want to be unskilled may be rude. But lets face it: you had the freedom to choose and you used that freedom to choose a result that has a lower amount of skills. If you WANT to get more skills, there ARE options available for you to do so.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@shidaku : Well, you specifically said "That's 4-5 skills for the 'low skill' classes," which is somewhat disingenuous. Yes, 6/10 races *can* get some kind of thing that affects proficiencies in general, sure, though (as stated) only four of those are actual skill proficiencies, which was clearly how your post was oriented. I was ignoring the Gnome subrace's Tinker's Tools/Artificer's Lore and the Dwarf basal Artisan Tool (and Stonecunning, which is equivalent to Artificer's Lore) for the reasons I had already outlined, and because they weren't skills which is what I thought you were specifically talking about. (The Dwarf thing is also sort of a crappy selection, with smith's tools being the only one I could see getting any significant use, and even then.)

I admit, the thing I was reacting to--"usually 1-2 more"--technically came after you spoke of skill OR tool proficiencies...but the way it was worded strongly indicated you were talking about skills, at least to me. That's why I focused on skills, and *actual* bonus skills are not at all "usual." Bonus artisan tool proficiencies are, frankly, THE most underwhelming bonus in all of 5e, in part because they require mutual DM *and* player buy-in in order to amount to anything at all, and I have an extremely low opinion of features that absolutely positively MUST have DM buy-in in order to have any more weight than that of the ink on the page. (It's part of why I don't, generally, care much for 5e as a system.)

But yes, if you meant to cast the net wide, including all forms of anything vaguely related to non-combat proficiency, sure, you're right. I'd just argue that you're right in a way that is not meaningful to most players.

Edit:
As for the "that's the way the cookie crumbles" argument, well....I guess I just fundamentally disagree with the assertion being made when you say "you WANTED to not be skilled." It's the same as the problem with, "You can have any color you want, as long as the color you want is black." You're painting something as a TOTALLY FREE CHOICE when it really isn't nearly as "free" as you're implying--in fact, it's actually pretty limited, and as you noted, some options are just unfairly crapped upon for no reason other than the designers said so.

(As for not resorting to violence, well, I just flat choose not to play characters that are murderhobos. IRL, I believe harm done to others is always a tragedy, regardless of the motives or situation--but because we live in a flawed, broken world, some tragedies can't be avoided. In a game, though, I can (almost) always TRY non-violent solutions. You typically can't back down once the gauntlet of violence has been thrown down, but you can always escalate when non-violence critically fails to achieve your goals.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

He was being condescending. I was being gracious.
...
Yes, clearly you aren't trying to be condescending.

You've been here long enough to know that you don't reply to moderation in the thread. If there's more to say, PM me. It is EVERYONE's responsibility to interpret posts charitably, and I expect that to happen going forward here.

 

[I'm A Banana]

And that's why the Human (non-variant) gets the short stick. Specific tends to beat general. Hell, they even put that at the start of the PHB

5e in general requires less specialization to get the job done, enabling and rewarding characters who are a bit more general. Basic humans don't specialize, but that doesn't make them underpowered, necessarily - everyone's gotta make a dump stat roll on occasion, and Humans won't suck as bad as others there.

One of the ways 5e gets away with this is by doing things like making proficiency less of a potent boost - proficiency isn't required to do adequately in most things.

Sometimes, yeah, you gotta take your second-favorite pick for a race or class to get ahead in my games. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. I'm open about your freedom to choose, and I'm open about how those choices can affect your play experience.

Sure, saying you want to be unskilled may be rude. But lets face it: you had the freedom to choose and you used that freedom to choose a result that has a lower amount of skills. If you WANT to get more skills, there ARE options available for you to do so.

The tension that I'm personally not happy with there is between "I can be this awesome character in my head!" or "I can be maximally mechanically effective."

In 5e generally, there's not much tension there. The awesome character in your head will be decently mechanically effective whatever it is. You don't have to max out your abilities and min/max to the gills to simply keep pace with the game. If you DO min/max, you'll be great at certain mechanical elements, but lousy at others, and a diverse challenge set will lure that out, but it's clearly opt-in. In general, "I suck at Persuasion checks" isn't the same as "I can't do well on Persuasion checks," because even if the PC has an 8 Cha and no proficiency, that's just a -10% penalty, at the worst. They can still do well. A 15+ is a good result at any level.

Making the gulf between the proficient and nonproficient wider reintroduces that tension. Now, "I suck at picking locks" is closer to "I can't do well at picking locks," because with an 8 Dex and no proficiency, you just can't do well. No matter how high you roll, there is a ceiling that you will never be able to pass through.

Now, you have to weigh being the character you want to be vs. being the character that will be mechanically sufficient, because it's possible to make a character that isn't mechanically sufficient. There are "trap" options ("Why did I take proficiency in bagpipes when I could've taken something useful?"), there are FOO strategies (like the Skilled feat). Character-building becomes a sort of meta-game about the campaign (what's the DM like? What challenges does he use? Does he prefer Perception checks or Investigation checks? Does he let dice achieve big results when RPing or can I afford to dump that and just be really personally persuasive and that'll be fine?).

None of these will be especially new to folks who played 3e or 4e (though 4e significantly mitigated this in the realm of skills specifically), and it's not like that ruins games, but they're an aspect of those systems that I personally didn't like much, so I'm happy to run a game that allows for someone who wants to play the "I hit someone in the face" character to still contribute significantly to a scenario where everyone needs to roll Persuasion checks or something.