D&D 5E Tool Use

[Springheel]

I'm a bit unclear on the use of tools in 5e.

Does proficiency with tools just allow you to add your proficiency bonus, or do you need to be proficient to use the tools at all? The rules seem to suggest that anyone can use tools, but that seems odd to me.

Proficiency bonuses aren't that significant, especially at lower levels, so that means the difference between a trained and untrained person is only 10%? 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?

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Have I missed something?

 

[I'm A Banana]

You can use tools without proficiency. Indeed, you might be BETTER at it, depending on which ability score is being asked for, than someone proficient in it.

In the fiction, this is mostly explained by indicating that proficiency isn't the knowledge of how to use something, but a kind of specialization - anyone can make an ability check, a proficient character is just a bit better. Tools aren't any different. Anyone in the world can use thieves' tools. Someone proficient in it is just a bit better than most people. The rules don't capture the granularity of "do you even know HOW to do this?" They assume anyone who wants to know how knows how. Proficient characters are just BETTER.

For gameplay, the reason is basically to democratize your class selection. You don't NEED a thief to pick locks. You just pick up a pair of lock picks and give them to any DEX monkey and voila!, the lock puts up no little struggle. You don't NEED to be proficient at a disguise kit to paint some makeup on your face and change your outfit - a sufficiently charismatic character can pull off even an inexpert disguise.

That said, there are things that proficient characters can do with certain tools that nonproficient characters just can't - chart a ship's course, or make potions of healing, for instance. This is an exception to the general rule. If any old barbarian picking up lockpicks and being able to jigger a lock bothers you, you can always expand that group of exclusive things (maybe proficiency in thieves' tools allows you to pick complex locks that those who aren't proficient just can't do).

Personally, I like it, because character over-specialization is a hurdle to innovative play and reducing the list of things you "have to have" in the party is a Good Thing, overall. But that's me.

 

[Springheel]

If any old barbarian picking up lockpicks and being able to jigger a lock bothers you, you can always expand that group of exclusive things (maybe proficiency in thieves' tools allows you to pick complex locks that those who aren't proficient just can't do).

Well, good to know I didn't miss something in the rules.

I think that's something I'd probably want to change...there's no way someone who hasn't spent time studying and practicing could just pick up a set of lockpicks and open a lock, or forge someone's handwriting, or build a nice wardrobe.

My first inclination would be to just give a blanket disadvantage to anyone using tools they aren't proficient in. Is that going to create obvious problems that anyone can think of?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Does proficiency with tools just allow you to add your proficiency bonus

Yes. They're essentially just like skills, that way.

or do you need to be proficient to use the tools at all?

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.
Proficient characters will typically start with the appropriate tools, especially tools from their background, while non-proficient ones typically won't.

Proficiency bonuses aren't that significant, especially at lower levels, so that means the difference between a trained and untrained person is only 10%? Someone who has never used thieves' tools before can have a decent chance of picking the same locks a professional could?

Yes. The DM can always just narrate success or failure without calling for a roll, however. So if an untrained character tries something the DM feels is not possible without training, the attempt fails.

That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Put it down to abstraction.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, good to know I didn't miss something in the rules.

I think that's something I'd probably want to change...there's no way someone who hasn't spent time studying and practicing could just pick up a set of lockpicks and open a lock, or forge someone's handwriting, or build a nice wardrobe.

My first inclination would be to just give a blanket disadvantage to anyone using tools they aren't proficient in. Is that going to create obvious problems that anyone can think of?

Biggest thing there is that it won't stack with disadvantage granted by other sources. Adv/Disadv is typically better in a more focused, time-limited way. Not the biggest of downsides.

 

[77IM]

The DM is the arbiter of what exactly success and failure mean for any given check. I think a really good technique for proficiency in general is to let the proficient character succeed better than a non-proficient character. For example, maybe someone proficient in thieves' tools picks a lock in just 1 round; but for someone who is not proficient it takes 1d4 rounds. That's a minor difference, but it's enough to make the proficient character feel a little bit more special than the measly +2 bonus does.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes. potentially an untrained person with a higher mod could be better at certain tools than a trained person.

Personally when I call for tool checks, I only accept them from those who are proficient. People who are not proficient may attempt, but they face a higher DC (basically, the DC+whatever proficiency is at the level of the person who is not proficient; to represent how the same task is more difficult for them because they aren't proficient).

As an aside, this is an extension of a running complaint I have with 5E's language. "Proficient" doesn't really mean anything, it just means "good with" or "skilled with" which doesn't, IMO denote any special training on the subject, as again IMO, it should. I vastly preferred the word choice in 4E of "trained", and that's how I treat proficiency now, as a form of specialized training.

 

[CrusaderX]

Proficiency bonuses aren't that significant, especially at lower levels, so that means the difference between a trained and untrained person is only 10%? 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?

The best way around this in 5e, IMO, is to customize the difficulty class based on the background and/or class of the character trying the task.

A Cleric with the Acolyte background may try to track a goblin in the woods. Based on the character's class and background, the DC for this ability check may be Hard (DC 20).

If a Ranger with the Outlander background tries to track a goblin in the woods, that character may find the task to be Medium in difficulty (DC 15). Or even Easy (DC 10).

This is all up to the DM's judgement, of course. And tool use can be treated the same way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yes. potentially an untrained person with a higher mod could be better at certain tools than a trained person.

Personally when I call for tool checks, I only accept them from those who are proficient. People who are not proficient may attempt, but they face a higher DC (basically, the DC+whatever proficiency is at the level of the person who is not proficient; to represent how the same task is more difficult for them because they aren't proficient).

Which is effectively equivalent to doubling all proficiency bonuses for tools (and turns Expertise in a tool into a "triple" bonus, in total, rather than double). As much as I understand wanting to make something called "Proficiency" mean what the word means in natural language*, is this really appropriate? Especially since it has the rather unfortunate problem of making higher-level characters get worse over time--the higher your level, the deeper your Non-Proficiency Penalty. Picking a lock at first level means you're only -2 effective penalty; picking the exact same lock at 16th level means you've got triple the penalty, a whopping 20 percentage-point reduction in your ability to accomplish a tool-based task. Even if you get +4 to the relevant stat by that point, that's still a 10 percentage-point reduction.

As an aside, this is an extension of a running complaint I have with 5E's language. "Proficient" doesn't really mean anything, it just means "good with" or "skilled with" which doesn't, IMO denote any special training on the subject, as again IMO, it should. I vastly preferred the word choice in 4E of "trained", and that's how I treat proficiency now, as a form of specialized training.

Though at the same time, 4e was fairly light on skill checks that required Training. Training was absolutely useful, but isn't typically necessary for trying things. Some of the knowledge-like skills (History, Heal, Arcana, etc.) do, but otherwise you could do just about anything. Thievery, for example, does not require Training to perform any of its associated actions (though, admittedly, the text notes that a DM may require Training for particular Thievery checks).

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

 

[Sunseeker]

Which is effectively equivalent to doubling all proficiency bonuses for tools (and turns Expertise in a tool into a "triple" bonus, in total, rather than double). As much as I understand wanting to make something called "Proficiency" mean what the word means in natural language*, is this really appropriate? Especially since it has the rather unfortunate problem of making higher-level characters get worse over time--the higher your level, the deeper your Non-Proficiency Penalty. Picking a lock at first level means you're only -2 effective penalty; picking the exact same lock at 16th level means you've got triple the penalty, a whopping 20 percentage-point reduction in your ability to accomplish a tool-based task. Even if you get +4 to the relevant stat by that point, that's still a 10 percentage-point reduction.

The goal is to encourage people to take a variety of tool and skill proficiency. Taking the "Skilled" feat isn't by any means wasted in my games. Ideally your party will all be proficient in the "expected" skills such as Proficiency and others, but overall the whole group will cover all the skills and cover a majority of the common tool proficiency.

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

Though at the same time, 4e was fairly light on skill checks that required Training. Training was absolutely useful, but isn't typically necessary for trying things. Some of the knowledge-like skills (History, Heal, Arcana, etc.) do, but otherwise you could do just about anything. Thievery, for example, does not require Training to perform any of its associated actions (though, admittedly, the text notes that a DM may require Training for particular Thievery checks).

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

True, it was something I made an effort to enforce in 4E as well. But it was easier IME to enforce because I could say "If someone is trained in *thing*." and people understood what I was asking for.