Whenever I try to select either Tinker's Tools or Thieves' Tools with the Tireless Precision racial feature, DDB forces me to choose a different racial tool proficiency. I want to be able to add 1d4 to my Thieves' Tools checks via my racial ability. Is there something in the rules that prevents this or is this a bug in the way that DDB prioritizes where the tool proficiency is coming from?
Reviving this thread, as it is an issue for me too. I am unable to take Tinker tools on my Vedalken, and I definitely want to apply my Tireless Precision to it.
I too would like to resurrect this thread. Perfectly happy to lose a tool proficiency to attach this to tinkerers tools for the shenanigans we have planned. It seems like RAI would allow an additional non-precision tool proficiency too, but that is obviously another and more complex step.
We're going to roll this manually for y next campaign, but it would be awfully nice for this electronic resource to accommodate in the future.
The problem lies in how the system is coded to prioritize stuff based on the wording used by WotC. Some class granted tool proficiencies are written by WotC as absolutes. For example, Artificers straight up just get proficiency with both Tinker's Tools, and Thieves' Tools, no “if”s “and”s or “but”s:
Whenever you make an ability check with the chosen skill or tool, roll a d4, and add the number rolled to the check’s total.
Accomplished in DDB using the following modifiers (respectively):
Proficiency->Subtype: Choose a Vedalkin Skill
Proficiency->Subtype: Choose a Tool
Technically speaking, it is RAW that if a character is granted the same proficiency from two separate sources that the player can replace one of them with a different proficiency of the same type. So the system is set up to automate thing as much as possible for us so we don't miss something and accidentally cheat ourselves of an opportunity, such as making sure we get all the proficiencies to which we are entitled. Since one is an absolute, and the other is not… well you get the idea.
If those class proficiencies used the same phrasing that subclasses use then it would be a whole different story. Take the Alchemist for example:
You gain proficiency with alchemist's supplies. If you already have this proficiency, you gain proficiency with one other type of artisan’s tools of your choice.
Accomplished using: Modifier: Proficiency->Subtype: Choose an Artisan Tool->Choose a Default Choice: Alchemist’s Supplies
The system is designed to prioritize them by degree of choice:
Specific
General (with default)
General (no default)
I agree that clearly RAI is that it shouldn’t matter which source grants what, and that the Vedalken should most definitely be able to select Tinker’s/Thieves’ Tools and replace the proficiency granted by the Artificer class. (I mean, they been Vedalken their whole lives “reaching maturity around age 40,” and as a 1st-level PC they only been an Artificer for about 5 minutes. 🤷♂️) However, one of DDB’s favorite, go to defensive statements has always been some variation of:
“We endeavor to strictly follow RAW as faithfully as possible blahblahblah….” 🙄
Whenever I try to select either Tinker's Tools or Thieves' Tools with the Tireless Precision racial feature, DDB forces me to choose a different racial tool proficiency. I want to be able to add 1d4 to my Thieves' Tools checks via my racial ability. Is there something in the rules that prevents this or is this a bug in the way that DDB prioritizes where the tool proficiency is coming from?
Yeah, DDB doesn't let you choose to gain a proficiency you already have.
If you really want to give up a proficiency in order to apply that bonus to one you already have (that you can't replace), just leave it blank.
Reviving this thread, as it is an issue for me too. I am unable to take Tinker tools on my Vedalken, and I definitely want to apply my Tireless Precision to it.
I too would like to resurrect this thread. Perfectly happy to lose a tool proficiency to attach this to tinkerers tools for the shenanigans we have planned. It seems like RAI would allow an additional non-precision tool proficiency too, but that is obviously another and more complex step.
We're going to roll this manually for y next campaign, but it would be awfully nice for this electronic resource to accommodate in the future.
The problem lies in how the system is coded to prioritize stuff based on the wording used by WotC. Some class granted tool proficiencies are written by WotC as absolutes. For example, Artificers straight up just get proficiency with both Tinker's Tools, and Thieves' Tools, no “if”s “and”s or “but”s:
Whereas the Vedalken trait was written:
Technically speaking, it is RAW that if a character is granted the same proficiency from two separate sources that the player can replace one of them with a different proficiency of the same type. So the system is set up to automate thing as much as possible for us so we don't miss something and accidentally cheat ourselves of an opportunity, such as making sure we get all the proficiencies to which we are entitled. Since one is an absolute, and the other is not… well you get the idea.
If those class proficiencies used the same phrasing that subclasses use then it would be a whole different story. Take the Alchemist for example:
The system is designed to prioritize them by degree of choice:
I agree that clearly RAI is that it shouldn’t matter which source grants what, and that the Vedalken should most definitely be able to select Tinker’s/Thieves’ Tools and replace the proficiency granted by the Artificer class. (I mean, they been Vedalken their whole lives “reaching maturity around age 40,” and as a 1st-level PC they only been an Artificer for about 5 minutes. 🤷♂️) However, one of DDB’s favorite, go to defensive statements has always been some variation of:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting