D&D 5E What tools would you choose?

[NaturalZero]

7 tool proficiencies... I would have to rethink a lot of things before I allowed a player to do something like that. Just makes me think Tasha's is not a good addition

Outside of theives tools, my experience is that 99% of tool profs are fluff or roleplaying opportunities that are heavily mediated by how the DM runs a table. Getting calligraphy and stone mason's knowledge on top of your existing build is hardly going to unbalance anything, but might add a few plot point opportunities.

I'd highly recommend the new character building options in Tasha's. The entire table is using character races for classes that wouldn't have otherwise matched up because now they can just choose flavor that seems cool without chasing the mechanical bonuses of the "right" racial ability score mods.

 

[Flamestrike]

Outside of theives tools, my experience is that 99% of tool profs are fluff or roleplaying opportunities that are heavily mediated by how the DM runs a table. Getting calligraphy and stone mason's knowledge on top of your existing build is hardly going to unbalance anything, but might add a few plot point opportunities.

I'd highly recommend the new character building options in Tasha's. The entire table is using character races for classes that wouldn't have otherwise matched up because now they can just choose flavor that seems cool without chasing the mechanical bonuses of the "right" racial ability score mods.

I think the pushback is because you're kind of bending a rule to switch out 4 (redundant due to class) weapon proficiencies for 4 tool proficiencies.

The racial rules proficiency swaps arent really meant for that. They're meant to reflect an upbringing divergent from the stereotype of your race, not 'swapping out redundant proficiencies due to class.'

It's not broken, and it is RAW, and there is nothing stopping you, but it its not really what the rules are there for.

 

[GMMichael]

I think the pushback is because you're kind of bending a rule to switch out 4 (redundant due to class) weapon proficiencies for 4 tool proficiencies.
. . .
It's not broken, and it is RAW, and there is nothing stopping you, but it its not really what the rules are there for.

Maybe s/he comes from a peaceful upbringing - less dependent on weapons and more interested in...tooling things?

Anyway, a weapon proficiency is a tool proficiency (which are both skill proficiencies), so I wouldn't throw a flag on the play.

 

[LordEntrails]

Outside of theives tools, my experience is that 99% of tool profs are fluff or roleplaying opportunities that are heavily mediated by how the DM runs a table. Getting calligraphy and stone mason's knowledge on top of your existing build is hardly going to unbalance anything, but might add a few plot point opportunities.

I'd highly recommend the new character building options in Tasha's. The entire table is using character races for classes that wouldn't have otherwise matched up because now they can just choose flavor that seems cool without chasing the mechanical bonuses of the "right" racial ability score mods.

Thieves' tools for everyone is certainly a concern. But since you can already build custom backgrounds that grant it I'm not so concerned.

And, as I said, it's not something I would just say no to outright, but something I would have to think about.

For me, choices have consequences, meaningful ones. There should be trade-offs, pros and cons for each decision made. If those don't exist, then for me the rules don't work.

 

[Flamestrike]

Maybe s/he comes from a peaceful upbringing - less dependent on weapons and more interested in...tooling things?

Im sure you could justify it however you wanted.

Point stands though. This is just swapping out redundant (due to class) proficiencies with weapons with tools, which wasnt really the point of the rule.

 

[NaturalZero]

For me, choices have consequences, meaningful ones. There should be trade-offs, pros and cons for each decision made. If those don't exist, then for me the rules don't work.

The races still get different amounts of proficiencies and completely different racial features. There are still trade-offs, it's just that what they are is qualitatively different after Tasha's. For example, people claim that the mountain dwarf is the best because of the sheer number of proficiencies and combos, but I chose duergar for the concept but also because they get innate magic tricks that the mountain dwarf doesn't. The choice still has meaning, but it isn't just about higher ability score numbers and math now.

Im sure you could justify it however you wanted.

Point stands though. This is just swapping out redundant (due to class) proficiencies with weapons with tools, which wasnt really the point of the rule.

I don't think the developers are naive enough to think players aren't going to just take extra proficiencies when they're specifically handed the option. This isn't some weird corner case - it's just using the option they directly presented us with in the book.

What you're saying is like claiming that people just use the greatsword because the damage dice are higher and it wasn't intended to be used for higher damage, just for flavor.

 

[Flamestrike]

What you're saying is like claiming that people just use the greatsword because the damage dice are higher and it wasn't intended to be used for higher damage, just for flavor.

No, Im not saying the rules exist for flavour. They exist for players who want to deviate from the racial stereotypes of the PHB when creating a character from that race.

You're just doing it because the weapon proficiencies are obsolete due to your class and then trying to justify it after the fact.

Like I said, it all good RAW and all, but hence the pushback.

 

[Delazar]

Guess we're going into OT land, but I kinda agree with Flamestrike.

Personally, in my games I'll allow only "equal" switches - tool for tool, weapon for weapon, but not weapon for tool.