D&D 5E Tool Use

[Tony Vargas]

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 see a big disconnect there. Natural language just isn't that precise. If you're proficient in a weapon, for instance, you know how to use it. Someone who is much faster or stronger than you and/or a more experienced fighter who's never even seen the weapon might still be able to beat you down with it, in spite of having no knowledge of it, and could probably do so with a different weapon, an improvised weapon, or his bare hands, too.

Sure, proficiency bonuses and bounded accuracy miss the full range of nuance but they're not entirely outside that range, either.

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.

Natural language is approachable and easy to read. It's also ambiguous and easy to misinterpret.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Natural language is approachable and easy to read. It's also ambiguous and easy to misinterpret.

Whereas, at least from all the design blogs and such, I had thought the intent (note the word) was that it wouldn't be easy to misinterpret. That the intended meaning would flow naturally and obviously from the words, without meaningful room for error or confusion because the words were exactly what everyday people would say in everyday situations. Instead, it's "sometimes these words mean what they mean in common speech, and sometimes they don't, and figuring out which is which is your job."

In other words, the intent was always and consistently sold as "all the clarity of jargon, without the effort of memorizing anything!" When the actual fact is very little of the clarity, and still having to memorize all the places where things don't mean what their "natural" (i.e. common-use) meaning would indicate.

Perhaps we're having an issue of it here. It seems that you're taking "natural" to mean something...very different from what I am. I see "natural language" as meaning...well, what I said above. No memorization, no lack of clarity: (almost) everyone consistently understands exactly what is being expressed, because it is being expressed in words everyone uses just by communicating in the real world. It sounds like you're saying "natural" (in this context) means...well, more or less, "homegrown." Which may have nothing at all to do with the way people speak in general...and may, therefore, be distinctly unnatural (as I have been using the word).

Edit:
I'd also say that something which is ambiguous and easy to misinterpret is not "easy to read." It may be approachable, but if you read something and fail to understand--if an error of communication has occurred, be it pragmatic, syntactic, or semantic--then it is in practice *difficult* to read.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Whereas, at least from all the design blogs and such, I had thought the intent (note the word) was that it wouldn't be easy to misinterpret.

Not what I ever took away from any claims of intent about natural language. More accessible or intuitive, perhaps, 'easier to understand' in the sense of not needing to learn jargon first, I suppose.

That the intended meaning would flow naturally and obviously from the words, without meaningful room for error or confusion because the words were exactly what everyday people would say in everyday situations. Instead, it's "sometimes these words mean what they mean in common speech, and sometimes they don't, and figuring out which is which is your job."

Words don't have terribly precise & consistent meanings in natural language, their meanings even drift. That's why some disciplines use technical jargons. Well, not the only reason.

What words mean in common speech can be different from one speaker or listener to another. Using natural language means accepting and working with that. 5e accepts it, and the DM's role includes working with it - interpreting the rule wherever they're unclear or players don't agree on what they mean.

In other words, the intent was always and consistently sold as "all the clarity of jargon, without the effort of memorizing anything!"

I don't believe that particular impossible thing was among the various impossible things 5e promised.

I'd also say that something which is ambiguous and easy to misinterpret is not "easy to read." It may be approachable, but if you read something and fail to understand--if an error of communication has occurred, be it pragmatic, syntactic, or semantic--then it is in practice *difficult* to read.

That assumes, of course, that there was a definite intent to communicate something specific. Just like art can find meaning in the eyes of the beholder, or be created to provoke questions rather than send a message, a passage could be meant to get a general idea across, and leave open precise interpretation to whatever works for the reader.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't believe that particular impossible thing was among the various impossible things 5e promised.

Well, 5e's development cycle was full of various pipe dreams, so one more can't really hurt.

That assumes, of course, that there was a definite intent to communicate something specific. Just like art can find meaning in the eyes of the beholder, or be created to provoke questions rather than send a message, a passage could be meant to get a general idea across, and leave open precise interpretation to whatever works for the reader.

If the rules aren't meaning to communicate something specific...I don't see what purpose they could possibly be for.

But, then again, perhaps this is just another representation of my fundamental problem with 5e. If it is all meant to be a Jackson Pollock, that would explain my never-ending frustration with expecting it to be, you know, a Handbook, Guide, or Manual.

 

[Springheel]

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."

Hmm, I'm not sure thinking of it that way changes very much for me. Using your examples, I, as someone who knows how to drive a car and make lunch, have a pretty decent chance of out-driving a professional race-car driver or out-cooking a professional chef. I find that hard to swallow.

There seems to be two different philosophical approaches to this issue...one wants to avoid specialization and encourage generalization so that players don't feel compelled to fill certain gaps in their party's skillset. This is the argument that everyone should be able to heal or pick locks so no one is forced to play a cleric or thief. It's a valid perspective, and I do like the fact that no one is forced to take a role they don't want to take. On the other hand, there is the perspective that characters should have strengths AND weaknesses--there should be places where individual characters can shine (hard to do in a group of generalists) and places where they need to rely on others. I feel like D&D has really swung towards generalization (virtually all classes get magic, everyone can heal, all classes can stealth and open locks, etc) since AD&D.

 

[EdL]

Yes. They're essentially just like skills, that way. Not exactly. You need tools to perform the task they're designed for. You can't work metal without a forge or sew without some needles & thread, or pick a lock without a lock pick - that kind of thing.

You've obviously never seen someone without any special training 'pick a lock' with a credit card. Or even a comb! I have. And female characters in old movies were always doing so with a hair- or bobby- pin. (And, AFAIK, that's a real thing as well.) So, no specialized tools needed. Not in my games (if I ever get to run 5E) anyway.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Hey [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION], if you're going to quote me, can you make it something *I* said rather than something [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] said?

 

[Tony Vargas]

You've obviously never seen someone without any special training 'pick a lock' with a credit card.

Actually, I've seen a few people try, but I've never actually witnessed one succeeding, myself. But that's beside the point.

They're still using a tool, just an improvised one. Part of the idea of tool proficiency as opposed to skill proficiency is that there's a tool involved, without which you can't perform the task. (Of course, another part of it is that tool proficiencies are apparently open-ended, there's a set number of skills, but there might always be more tools. You encounter a warp-drive repair kit, you might be able to invest enough downtime to become proficient with it.)

Well, 5e's development cycle was full of various pipe dreams, so one more can't really hurt.

That works too.

If the rules aren't meaning to communicate something specific...I don't see what purpose they could possibly be for.

They're a common ground for players who happen to read them and come to the same conclusion about what they mean - otherwise place to start for the DM.

But, then again, perhaps this is just another representation of my fundamental problem with 5e. If it is all meant to be a Jackson Pollock, that would explain my never-ending frustration with expecting it to be, you know, a Handbook, Guide, or Manual.

It's definitely not written as a technical manual or user's guide. But you can read through it and get a feel for the game and some inspiration for the kind of character you might want to play or campaign you might want to run. And the rules provide a framework to do most of that, up to the point that there's any uncertainty or disagreement - at which point it's the DM's job to resolve it.

 

[77IM]

I feel like D&D has really swung towards generalization (virtually all classes get magic, everyone can heal, all classes can stealth and open locks, etc) since AD&D.

I feel like D&D has really swung towards participation since AD&D. The fighter now has a chance to move silently; the wizard now has a chance to open locks; lots of classes can fill in for the healer in a pinch; etc.

With too much niche protection, a player can come up with a good idea, but then has to watch some other member of the party carry it out because their skill rating is just so much higher. That leads to players not even bothering to try. "Oh, a stealthy/talky/wildernessy/searchy/lockpicky encounter. I'll just sit this one out and let the stealthy/talky/wildernessy/searchy/lockpicky guy have all the fun." This sounds like tag-team role-playing: when a PC's niche comes up, they get to shine, but at the cost of staying in the background much of the rest of the time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Actually, I've seen a few people try, but I've never actually witnessed one succeeding, myself. But that's beside the point.

Well, again, anecdote but I can say I've succeeded at it in the past. My high school classroom doors never posed much of an impediment, if I wanted to enter--but, seeing as how I didn't much care for high school, I didn't want to except to help a teacher or fellow student do something actually important.

They're a common ground for players who happen to read them and come to the same conclusion about what they mean - otherwise place to start for the DM.

I didn't think something could be "common ground" if, by definition, everyone is going to read them and get different meanings. And the number of times people have advised "do whatever you want, you're the DM!" makes me...well, skeptical that the rules ARE actually meant to be a starting point for the DM. -__-

It's definitely not written as a technical manual or user's guide.

Sort of sucks, then, that the books are quite literally named a Manual, a Handbook, and a Guide. (Two Guides now, actually, with SCAG.)

But you can read through it and get a feel for the game and some inspiration for the kind of character you might want to play or campaign you might want to run. And the rules provide a framework to do most of that, up to the point that there's any uncertainty or disagreement - at which point it's the DM's job to resolve it.

I don't mean offense, but..."a framework up to the point of a disagreement or uncertainty" sounds like a fence that provides protection up to the point of an intrusion or escape. That is: not actually much of a fence at all, if it stops having a function exactly at the point where a fence is meant to keep intruders out and escapees in! If we all already agree on how things should be done, we don't need the framework to tell us what to do (no one wants to intrude/escape), and if we don't agree on what is to be done, the framework intentionally doesn't help us resolve it. Which, sort of ironically, leads us back to the "you can have any color you want, as long as the color you want is black." You can rely on any amount of framework you want, as long as the amount you want to rely on is zero!