D&D 5E (2014) Tool Use

[Springheel]

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.

Yes, that's a reasonable concern too. It's just a question of how much is "too much" for any particular group.

 

[Azzy]

Personally, I dislike tools being split from skills in 5e. It just seems entirely unnecessary.

That aside, I'm not really seeing the big deal here. There are times that natural aptitude can out-perform training. And, really, this is a "problem" that tends to affect low-level characters rather than across the board.

Let's use an extreme example: A 1st-level character ("Bobby") that has no proficiency in a certain tool, but has a 20 in the attribute most likely linked to using said tool. He has a +5 to rolls using that tool (unless the particular use of the tool requires a different attribute—which is entirely possible). A second 1st-level character ("Bobbi") is proficient with the tool, but has 10 in the same attribute that is most likely linked to using the tool. She has a +2 bonus to rolls using said tool. Bobby's natural aptitude outshines Bobbi's training with the tool by all of 15%. This probably irks Bobbi quite a bit. However, she knows that Bobby's natural aptitude will only take him so far—unless Bobby takes the Skilled feat or multiclasses (which may or may not be a viable option in the campaign they're in), he'll never be proficient in the tool. Conversely, as Bobbi goes up in levels, her proficiency bonus automatically goes up. additionally, she also has the opportunity to increase her relevant attribute beyond 10 (whereas Bobby is maxed-out).

Now, for another extreme example, like a barbarian from a culture that has no locks trying to pick a lock when he's never seen one before... No roll necessary—he's not even passingly familiar with what a lock is, so why would you even let the character roll? There are times when it's appropriate for a DM to say, "you're character wouldn't even know where to begin". Now, as this barbarian spends more time around locks and becomes familiar with them, he'll eventually get to roll—maybe with disadvantage at first, and then normally as his familiarity grows.... Assuming he doesn't use the barbarian's innate lock picking ability: "brute force".

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

G'ha, sorry, mate, should be fixed now.

 

[Al2O3]

In the published adventure I run I think I've seen things along the lines of "a character proficient with lock picking tools may attempt to unlock this door with a DC15." So some tools (typically) require proficiency to even try (but it's written at the same place as the DC, not under the description of the tool).

Other, such as cook's utensils, cartography, games etc make sense that anyone can try to use. Even smith's tools might be usable for some tasks without proficiency.

 

[Saeviomagy]

In the published adventure I run I think I've seen things along the lines of "a character proficient with lock picking tools may attempt to unlock this door with a DC15." So some tools (typically) require proficiency to even try (but it's written at the same place as the DC, not under the description of the tool).

No, adventures are badly written and go against the rules all the time, usually to the detriment of the game. I would heartily suggest that you parse out anything approaching a rule that appears in an adventure and apply what the rules actually are instead.

That means:
decide whether or not a roll is possible/needed
decide what stat is needed
decide the DC
ask for a check
decide whether players get to add proficiency bonuses if they ask

Other, such as cook's utensils, cartography, games etc make sense that anyone can try to use. Even smith's tools might be usable for some tasks without proficiency.

Actually someone pointed out to me that there aren't proficency checks in this edition. There are just ability checks, and proficiencies give a bonus to them. Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency to ability checks that use the tool, it doesn't allow you to use a tool.

Since we seem to have gotten mired in lockpicking, bear in mind that:
1. Medieval locks tend to be "if you can make an object that can reach this point through the keyhole, the lock is opened". The most complex might actually require more than 2 bent nails to achieve this.

2. Most modern locks, despite being much more advanced are trivially pickable by someone with a vague idea of what to do and enough time. I wouldn't consider myself dextrous, and I've definitely not spent 200 days training with lockpicks, and I've successfully picked a modern lock with a couple of home made tools. ie - bent bits of stiff wire. That puts the DC for a typical modern lock at ~20, possible with no bonus, but will take a while.

So in short: I would say that trying to pick a lock with zero tools is impossible. However the tools required are pretty minimal, and certainly something improvised should suffice for most locks. Finally, the level of expertise to pick all but the most advanced and expensive locks is pretty low.

Where an expert lock picker comes in is the speed with which he can pick a lock and the stealth with which he can do it.

In short - an unattended lock should be no more than a minor speedbump even to a party with no dedicated lock picker. The dedicated lock picker shines when you pair a locked door with a dangerous guard creature or timed event.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is where I liked the 3e take 10 and take 20 rules. Modeled that time thing quite well.
The locks in 5e actually state that you need to be proficient in thief's tools to unlock them (if I don't misremember).
I would let you try with improvised tools at disadvantage and I would let you try with thief's tools if you are not proficient, but I would just make you take more tine to figure out how the lock works. Maybe with an investigation check before the dexterity roll. It has to be useful for something.

 

[77IM]

The more I think about this, the more it sounds like a failure of bounded accuracy with regards to skills and tools.

It sounds like people want to differentiate characters. But the game doesn't give very many ways to differentiate characters in the exploration and social pillars, so people expect bonus numbers and success rates to do it for them (plus, that's our expectation based on previous editions and other RPGs).

Ask yourself this: why aren't people upset that the wizard, rogue, and fighter all have pretty much the same attack bonus? "Shouldn't the fighter have the much higher bonus?" one might ask. But those characters don't need to differentiate by bonus because the effect of success varies for them. The fighter is attacking multiple times in a round with a heavy-hitting weapon; the rogue is attacking just once, but for massive sneak attack damage; the wizard gets to burn people for moderate damage, except when he pops off a spell slot.

A few class and racial features and feats grant mild benefits to skill or tool use, but not enough to differentiate characters. That's why we're discussing hypothetical "barbarian who has never seen a door before." The game's hack to solve this is Expertise, which I hate because it throws bounded accuracy all out of whack. I really wish, instead, that there were more abilities that made skill or tool use faster or better or gave some characters unique benefits or let them overcome unusual restrictions.

 

[GX.Sigma]

In the published adventure I run I think I've seen things along the lines of "a character proficient with lock picking tools may attempt to unlock this door with a DC15." So some tools (typically) require proficiency to even try (but it's written at the same place as the DC, not under the description of the tool).

No, adventures are badly written and go against the rules all the time, usually to the detriment of the game. I would heartily suggest that you parse out anything approaching a rule that appears in an adventure and apply what the rules actually are instead.

Here's what the rules actually are:

"Lock. A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves’ tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Your GM may decide that better locks are available for higher prices."

So the adventure and the core rules say the same thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The more I think about this, the more it sounds like a failure of bounded accuracy with regards to skills and tools.

It sounds like people want to differentiate characters. But the game doesn't give very many ways to differentiate characters in the exploration and social pillars, so people expect bonus numbers and success rates to do it for them (plus, that's our expectation based on previous editions and other RPGs).

Ask yourself this: why aren't people upset that the wizard, rogue, and fighter all have pretty much the same attack bonus? "Shouldn't the fighter have the much higher bonus?" one might ask. But those characters don't need to differentiate by bonus because the effect of success varies for them. The fighter is attacking multiple times in a round with a heavy-hitting weapon; the rogue is attacking just once, but for massive sneak attack damage; the wizard gets to burn people for moderate damage, except when he pops off a spell slot.

Well, there are additional layers to the differentiation, as well. Fighters don't attack better than Wizards, when everyone is using a weapon they're Proficient with...but Fighters have far greater selection. One aspect of that "greater selection" is heavier-hitting, sure, but you also have secondary weapon effects (reach, for example), the ability to do as-good-or-better damage than a Wizard while carrying a shield, etc. Then there's weapon style bonuses, and you're of course right that the extra attacks matter, too. So we are content that the Fighter is "better" than the Wizard at fighting, because the Fighter gets variety, extensibility, and consistency that the Wizard fundamentally cannot.

A few class and racial features and feats grant mild benefits to skill or tool use, but not enough to differentiate characters. That's why we're discussing hypothetical "barbarian who has never seen a door before." The game's hack to solve this is Expertise, which I hate because it throws bounded accuracy all out of whack. I really wish, instead, that there were more abilities that made skill or tool use faster or better or gave some characters unique benefits or let them overcome unusual restrictions.

Indeed, such features are exactly what people expected of 5e; one of the early design goals, as I recall, was that gaining levels would...for lack of a better term, make your capabilities grow "wider" rather than "taller." Upward growth would be slow and constrained, but variety, extensibility, consistency, etc. would all be avenues of advancement, so that you would FEEL like you were advancing even though, technically speaking, you weren't much more powerful than you were before.

Unfortunately, I think they kinda failed to actually meet that goal in any meaningful capacity outside of combat...unless, of course, you use magic, Which Can Do Everything.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Here's what the rules actually are:

"Lock. A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves’ tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Your GM may decide that better locks are available for higher prices."

So the adventure and the core rules say the same thing.

Wow. I love that an entry in the equipment section is the place where you find that for this one activity, the rules for action resolution are completely different to how everything else works. That's some quality editing.