We know from Tashas, the 5e designers describe a hierarchy of proficiencies.
martial weapon > simple weapon
simple weapon = tool
Meanwhile, the value of a skill proficiency is mysterious, and seems to be alone in its category. One can exchange one skill for an other skill. But one cannot exchange a skill for any other kind of proficiency, or viceversa.
Now. At DMsGuild, the creator and main 5e designer for Eberron (Kieth Baker) published a new supplement for the Eberron setting, called Eberron Confidential. In it is a kind of addon to ones background called a "secret", something in the background that is embarrassing or dangerous thus kept secret. It grants to the character an extra proficiecy relating to the nature of the secret. Most of the secrets give a skill proficiency, such as Acrobatics, Slight of Hand, Survival, and so on.
But one secret is called "Arcanix Dropout", where your character comes from a family of powerful Wizards but sucks at magic and got kicked out magic school. Basically your character is a disgrace to your family who keeps the shame hidden from other Wizards. Instead of a skill proficiency, and only if the class has no spell slots, your character gains TWO (!) cantrips. One of the cantrips is Prestidigitation (a noncombat but narratively powerful cantrip that optimizers like), and the other cantrip is your choice from the Wizard spell list.
Of interest here is how valuable the skill proficiency seems to be! Two cantrip proficiencies! Albeit with a prerequisite.
Now even tho this product is unofficial − and even then is only for the Eberron setting − the designer who wrote it is official and is aware of the views of the other 5e designers who he works with.
Thus the hierarchy of proficiencies seems to be as follows.
skill › cantrip › martial weapon › simple weapon
Also worth mentioning. The Earworm secret is, you are the one who created a popular song that an other musician stole. It isnt a secret per se, but is something you cant prove and that few believe. This secret grants the Performance skill plus a musical instrument proficiency. This suggests a musical instrument proficiency has a negligible worth − or if it is possible to play an instrument rolling it like a tool proficiency check, without training in the Performance skill, then its value overlaps with the Performance skill.
Not relating Eberron Confidential, language proficiency is weird. Normally it is worthless (almost everyone speaks Common). But in some settings, and according to the preferences of some DMs, a language might be situationally very valuable. Note, the Players Handbook officially allows a player to customize ones own background, granting two skills plus two tools, but allowing to swap tools for languages. Thus the language seems less than or equal to a tool. In my eyes, the language is obviously worth less than the tool.
My own assessment of armors is: proficiency with shield and light armor, and medium and heavy armor, altogether is worth one feat. In other words, each proficiency seems about a fourth of feat. Meanwhile, half of a feat is worth about four skills. In other words, each armor type proficiency including shield proficiency seems worth about two skills.
My own general takeaway from all of this is the following hierarchy of proficiencies, from armor being most valuable and language being least valuable.
Final note. The Fighter and other classes have proficiency with "All Martial Weapons". In my view, if you already have proficiency with three martial weapons, then a fourth proficiency grants you ALL martial weapons. Notice, Tashas will allow a level 3 Wizard to swap out one cantrip for an other after any long rest. This is roughly equivalent to proficiency with all cantrips. Thus, if having "proficiency" (sotospeak) with three cantrips, a fourth proficiency allows access to all other cantrips.
1 feat = 3 skills or tools in any combo = 2 cantrips + 1 first level spell = +1 to Str or Dex + 4 weapon proficiencies
I guess it’s not an exact science. ;-)
Personally though, I value skill proficiencies quite a bit. Adding three to the handful you normally get to be proficient in can really improve a character’s overall usefulness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1 feat = 3 skills or tools in any combo = 2 cantrips + 1 first level spell = +1 to Str or Dex + 4 weapon proficiencies
I guess it’s not an exact science. ;-)
Personally though, I value skill proficiencies quite a bit. Adding three to the handful you normally get to be proficient in can really improve a character’s overall usefulness.
Heh, I feel a feat is worth 8 (!) skills. Albeit, normally, it would be a half feat for 4 skills, plus a +1 ability score improvement.
Meanwhile, expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) is worth 5 skills.
Notice the Xanathars Human Prodigy feat grants 3 skills (trading two down) plus expertise. Thus expertise is worth roughly 5 skills. Altogether a feat is worth 8 skills.
1 feat = 3 skills or tools in any combo = 2 cantrips + 1 first level spell = +1 to Str or Dex + 4 weapon proficiencies
I guess it’s not an exact science. ;-)
Personally though, I value skill proficiencies quite a bit. Adding three to the handful you normally get to be proficient in can really improve a character’s overall usefulness.
Heh, I feel a feat is worth 8 (!) skills. Albeit, normally, it would be a half feat for 4 skills, plus a +1 ability score improvement.
Meanwhile, expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) is worth 5 skills.
Notice the Xanathars Human Prodigy feat grants 3 skills (trading two down) plus expertise. Thus expertise is worth roughly 5 skills. Altogether a feat is worth 8 skills.
A feat is not worth 8 skills. I understand the math and how you’re trying to rationalize it, and the how you’re getting down to this. I do. I have always felt, seemingly like you that Skilled is a great feat, but it’s not underpowered. You just have to be in the right campaign that proper utilizes them. To have 8 skills means you essentially make all the other party members feel not unique.
1 feat = 3 skills or tools in any combo = 2 cantrips + 1 first level spell = +1 to Str or Dex + 4 weapon proficiencies
I guess it’s not an exact science. ;-)
Personally though, I value skill proficiencies quite a bit. Adding three to the handful you normally get to be proficient in can really improve a character’s overall usefulness.
Heh, I feel a feat is worth 8 (!) skills. Albeit, normally, it would be a half feat for 4 skills, plus a +1 ability score improvement.
Meanwhile, expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) is worth 5 skills.
Notice the Xanathars Human Prodigy feat grants 3 skills (trading two down) plus expertise. Thus expertise is worth roughly 5 skills. Altogether a feat is worth 8 skills.
A feat is not worth 8 skills. I understand the math and how you’re trying to rationalize it, and the how you’re getting down to this. I do. I have always felt, seemingly like you that Skilled is a great feat, but it’s not underpowered. You just have to be in the right campaign that proper utilizes them. To have 8 skills means you essentially make all the other party members feel not unique.
A feat is very valuable! If a player wants to spend their feat to gain 8 skills, they are welcome to do so.
Personally, I would not, because there are diminishing returns. To gain 2 skills is very powerful, and a third or fourth on top of that is nice. But after that each addition has less impact on overall gameplay.
Compare weapon proficiencies. Gain a martial weapon is very powerful, gaining two is likewise powerful, especially if one melee weapon and one ranged weapon. Even a backup third martial weapon is nice, maybe to take advantage of more magic weapons if any. But a fifth weapon and after that doesnt feel that much improvement, since the main one or two martial weapons are doing most of the heavy lifting, and a character can only optimize the other features available around one or two weapons.
Using Keith Baker's privately-published product as any kind of bellwether for the balance considerations of actual WotC design staff is fallacious. Meanwhile, the existence of the Skilled feat indicates that the value you place on feats is unbelievably out-of-step with the explicit considerations of actual WotC design staff. A feat is worth three skills, obviously.
Also musical instruments are tools; separating them and valuing them less than other tools is weird.
No way in all hell is being able to swap out one cantrip on a long rest even "roughly equivalent" to knowing all cantrips.
I would not put tools on the same level as simple weapons. Every class gets at least 5 simple weapon proficiencies (and most classes get all of them), but you have to go out of your way to get 5 tools unless you're an artificer. They also just generally represent a higher level of training - learning to swing a club is not equivalent to learning carpentry.
Now it's true that they are essentially useless at many tables, but based on the difficulty of acquiring them I'd put the "intended" value of tools to be closer to martial weapons.
Using Keith Baker's privately-published product as any kind of bellwether for the balance considerations of actual WotC design staff is fallacious. Meanwhile, the existence of the Skilled feat indicates that the value you place on feats is unbelievably out-of-step with the explicit considerations of actual WotC design staff. A feat is worth three skills, obviously.
Also musical instruments are tools; separating them and valuing them less than other tools is weird.
No way in all hell is being able to swap out one cantrip on a long rest even "roughly equivalent" to knowing all cantrips.
The Skilled feat is wildly underpowered, while the Prodigy feat is correctly balanced for a feat.
The consideration of Kieth Baker is evidence, and suggestive, even if not mathematical proof.
D&DBeyond separates musical instruments from tools. For example, my Bard character has three musical instrument proficiencies, and I cannot replace them with tools, which I would love to do. I would happily trade two musical instruments for one tool!
At level 3, the Wizard already has four cantrips at will, which already cover most situations, and then swapping out a cantrip to prepare for a situational circumstance where a specific cantrip will be valuable (such as Light underground), is accessing all cantrips, and roughly equivalent to casting any of them.
Using Keith Baker's privately-published product as any kind of bellwether for the balance considerations of actual WotC design staff is fallacious. Meanwhile, the existence of the Skilled feat indicates that the value you place on feats is unbelievably out-of-step with the explicit considerations of actual WotC design staff. A feat is worth three skills, obviously.
Also musical instruments are tools; separating them and valuing them less than other tools is weird.
No way in all hell is being able to swap out one cantrip on a long rest even "roughly equivalent" to knowing all cantrips.
The Skilled feat is wildly underpowered, while the Prodigy feat is correctly balanced for a feat.
The consideration of Kieth Baker is evidence, and suggestive, even if not mathematical proof.
Do you not see how wildly contradictory these two statements are?
D&DBeyond separates musical instruments from tools. For example, my Bard character has three musical instrument proficiencies, and I cannot replace them with tools, which I would love to do.
D&D Beyond does not separate musical instruments from tools. The bard class specifically gives musical instrument proficiencies. That's a bard thing. Because it's the bard.
At level 3, the Wizard already has four cantrips at will, which already cover most situations, and then swapping out a cantrip to prepare for a situational circumstance where a specific cantrip will be valuable (such as Light underground), is accessing all cantrips, and roughly equivalent to casting any of them.
You're just restating the thing you already said. You've provided zero justification for the idea that getting one arbitrary cantrip per day is even remotely equivalent to getting all cantrips all the time. Anyone can see the massive gulf between these two things.
1 feat = 3 skills or tools in any combo = 2 cantrips + 1 first level spell = +1 to Str or Dex + 4 weapon proficiencies
I guess it’s not an exact science. ;-)
Personally though, I value skill proficiencies quite a bit. Adding three to the handful you normally get to be proficient in can really improve a character’s overall usefulness.
Heh, I feel a feat is worth 8 (!) skills. Albeit, normally, it would be a half feat for 4 skills, plus a +1 ability score improvement.
Meanwhile, expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) is worth 5 skills.
Notice the Xanathars Human Prodigy feat grants 3 skills (trading two down) plus expertise. Thus expertise is worth roughly 5 skills. Altogether a feat is worth 8 skills.
How is expertise worth 5 skills? You appear to state this as fact and then two steps further in your logic conclude it from somewhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
1 feat = 3 skills or tools in any combo = 2 cantrips + 1 first level spell = +1 to Str or Dex + 4 weapon proficiencies
I guess it’s not an exact science. ;-)
Personally though, I value skill proficiencies quite a bit. Adding three to the handful you normally get to be proficient in can really improve a character’s overall usefulness.
Heh, I feel a feat is worth 8 (!) skills. Albeit, normally, it would be a half feat for 4 skills, plus a +1 ability score improvement.
Meanwhile, expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) is worth 5 skills.
Notice the Xanathars Human Prodigy feat grants 3 skills (trading two down) plus expertise. Thus expertise is worth roughly 5 skills. Altogether a feat is worth 8 skills.
A feat is not worth 8 skills. I understand the math and how you’re trying to rationalize it, and the how you’re getting down to this. I do. I have always felt, seemingly like you that Skilled is a great feat, but it’s not underpowered. You just have to be in the right campaign that proper utilizes them. To have 8 skills means you essentially make all the other party members feel not unique.
A feat is very valuable! If a player wants to spend their feat to gain 8 skills, they are welcome to do so.
No, they aren't. It would be a homebrew discussion at a table between the player and DM. If they want to spend their feat to gain 3 skills, they are welcome to do so.
I think trying to compare these things is so campaign dependent you can not really say anything.
If you are in a campaign set in say the underdark where very few people speak common, undercommon would be hugely powerful, especially if NPCs are going to be suspicious of the party and are unsure whether the wizard is casting comprehend languages, charm person or fireball.
Crafting magic items requires a formula and probably materials, that the DM might make impossible to obtain, alternatively the campaign might have little downtime for crafting, the benefit of something like proficiency in jeweller;'s tools is extremely limited unless you are going to be able to use it for crafting. If you have the time and opportunity to make multiple magic items in a campaign it becomes huge (unless it just reduces means you find formula for magic items instead of the items themselves)
Things like weapon proficiencies and skill proficiencies give diminishing returs as you already have the ones you use most often.
+1 ability score and a saving throw proficiency (resilient)
Two cantrips and a 1st level spell (magic initiate) can be any spell
A cantrip, 1st and 2nd level spell (wood elf magic) note that its any druid cantrip but a specific 1st and 2nd level spell
A ribbon 2nd level spell at will, two 2nd level spells, and a 1st level spell (svirfneblin magic) note that they are all specific spells
From the above we can work out:
A single +1 is worth the following in proficiencies (spells later):
4 martial weapons
1.5 skills
1.5 tools
3 languages
1 armor type
1 saving throw
For spells, cantrips are weighted significantly more than 1st level spells. It looks like WotC treats a cantrip for feat/ASI purposes as worth a 1/long rest 2nd level spell. If you throw in the Aberrant Dragonmark feat, its +1 ability score, one cantrip, and one 1st level spell, but limited to sorcerer, one of the weaker spell lists.
So I would say for trading an ASI for spells its:
+1 gets you any cantrip OR any second level spell once per day
+2: two cantrips or 1/day 2nd level spells plus a 1st level 1/day, but the DM gets input.
A single +1 is worth the following in proficiencies:
4 martial weapons
1.5 tools
Back then, when D&D 5e was a new experimental gaming engine, the designers were still unsure how the mechanics would perform "out in the wild".
According to copyright dates, the inaugural Players Handbook came out in 2014. Since then designers have gotten a better feel for the mechanical values. About three years later Xanathars came out in 2017. You can see the shift in evaluation in the later Prodigy feat. Now in 2020, Tashas is coming out.
Consider. Look at the feats in the early Players Handbook.
A half feat equals: 4 martial weapons
A half feat equals: 1.5 tools
So according to the original guess in the Players Handbook, a tool is 2.67 times MORE valuable than a martial weapon.
However, now years later in Tashas, a tool is more accurately understood to be LESS valuable than a martial weapon. So a martial weapon can trade down, but a tool cannot trade up.
The change across the years, reflects how the 5e designers have drastically reconsidered the worth of a tool.
I am going to withhold judgement on Tasha's content until it comes out.
Personally, I don't think a tool is worth less than a martial weapon prof. Realistically, they seem about equal.
In a campaign more about "Roleplay" than "Roll-play" a tool proficiency can be worth more than being trained in using a battle axe. So, your mileage may vary.
The proficiencies of skill, cantrip, martial weapon, simple weapon, and tool seem close to each other.
Obviously, a martial weapon is better than a simple weapon, but not by much, only by one or two points on average or else requiring the opportunity cost of investing two hands.
If the designers feel the noncombat tool is more appropriate to link to the less combat-useful simple weapon, that is fine. To some degree, the organization in Tashas seems to silo the noncombat resources, so players will be less tempted to give up their outofcombat features.
And, skills vary greatly in value. The general consensus among optimizers is, the Perception skill is the most frequent and most useful skill, whose value is head and shoulders above the other skills. Probably, it is fair to say Perception is worth two skills (at least!). I view Perception as equivalent to an ability score, and its defensive use versus hiding, disguise, and illusion, and so on, as one of the four main saving throws: Reflex, Fortitude, Will, and Perception.
The value of the other skills has more to do with the DMs style, than the setting itself. For example, as DM I strongly prefer narrative adjudication to resolve player intentions. So the outcome is normally "yes" or "no", depending on whether the players plan makes sense or not in the particular circumstance. Only if an outcome could go either way does a skill check happen. In this way, skill checks can be used for almost anything that could conceivably happen in an adventure story. What do we know about Castle So-and-So? Essentially uses the History skill as if a Legend Lore spell. Does it look safe to eat? Essentially uses the Medicine skill as if a Detect Poison or Disease spell. At times, a caster has used the Arcana skill to modify a spell effect on the fly. It hasnt come up in my games, but Animal Handling is potentially powerful, if the DM applies it as if an Animal Friendship spell, and to communicate with animals according to the nature of each animal, and even to gain a battle companion or a war steed.
Skills are an aspect of gameplay that 5e officially puts entirely in the hands of the DMs opinion. In my games, skills matter alot.
What is true for skills is also true for tools. I see much use of tools, especially because Xanathars emphasizes that players use tool proficiencies in the same way as skill proficiencies. So for example, Navigator tools assume some kind of training in astronomy and oceanography, which can come up in other contexts too. Some skills and tools are more useful in combat, such as Perception and Athletics, and Poisoner, Alchemist, and Smith. Generally, skills and tools are close in value. Skills tend to be more general, and tools tend to be more specific. But it all depends on the DM.
So, if a player wants to swap a skill for a cantrip, weapon, or tool proficiency, there is no problem.
Even if a player wants to swap a tool for a cantrip or martial weapon, the DM doesnt need to worry about balance. Just focus on appropriate flavor and ensure the character is competent enough outofcombat. If a player wants to trade proficiency with all martial weapons, to instead have only two martial weapons plus two skills, the DM can allow this slight upgrade without worrying about balance.
In my eyes, a proficiency is a proficiency is a proficiency. The DM can swap them fungibly, focusing on the wellbeing of the overall character. The hierarchy of proficiencies (in the original post) is a useful guide, and is safe for players to utilize. But the DM can override this hierarchy for the sake of flavor.
Some proficiencies are super-good, like Perception and armor upgrades, but the DM can adjudicate these separately.
And some proficiencies seem negligible in the context of 5e mechanics, like language and instrument. The DM might give these away for free, depending on flavor, character concept, background, and region. If a player wants to swap a musical instrument for some other kind of proficiency, the DM needs to be cautious to replace it with something mechanically minor, if anything. Maybe the character can be a coin collector or something like that?
In sum, when it comes to balance, swapping proficiencies seems safe enough, albeit certain proficiencies are super-good or negligible, so require caution. The main concern for a DM is to ensure that a character is competent in combat and out of combat, and is interesting. The hierarchy of proficiencies can help the DM to have a sense of what is what. But the DM can knowingly let a swap override the hierarchy to achieve an appealing character concept.
It is important for a DM to have a good feel for what a proficiency is worth.
Proficiencies are significant factors for defining a character concept.
For example, in a Norse setting, there are different kinds of vikings. The Swashbuckler Rogue is actually pretty good to represent a certain kind of viking archetype. A difficulty is, vikings rarely use armor, and almost always use a shield. (A chain shirt became more common toward the end of the Viking Period, but depends on wealth.) The viking shield is very thin and light, so its metal hub can punch weapons out of the way, thus is also a decent offhand bludgeoning weapon.
So a DM who knows this, can make the Swashbuckler even more like a historical viking by finetuning the class proficiencies. Look at the hierarchy of proficiencies. Thus swap out the light armor proficiency of the Rogue, and instead gain proficiency with a shield, which the Rogue class typically lacks. The viking shield functions as a normal shield, granting +2 AC. But it can also function as a weapon, if with training. Because it both deals damage and adds AC, the viking shield probably counts as a kind of martial weapon with a special property.
Thus the viking shield is useful for two-weapon combat styles.
For the viking Swashbuckler to use the viking shield effectively as an offhand weapon, swap out the rapier proficiency for the proficiency with a viking shield.
The viking sword is a D&D "longsword" that lacks the versatile property but gains the finesse property.
Meanwhile, swap out the Rogue martial hand crossbow, to gain a martial longbow instead.
These three proficiency swaps to get: viking shield, viking sword, and longbow, allow the DM to craft the Swashbuckler into an excellent viking character concept.
We know from Tashas, the 5e designers describe a hierarchy of proficiencies.
martial weapon > simple weapon
simple weapon = tool
Meanwhile, the value of a skill proficiency is mysterious, and seems to be alone in its category. One can exchange one skill for an other skill. But one cannot exchange a skill for any other kind of proficiency, or viceversa.
Now. At DMsGuild, the creator and main 5e designer for Eberron (Kieth Baker) published a new supplement for the Eberron setting, called Eberron Confidential. In it is a kind of addon to ones background called a "secret", something in the background that is embarrassing or dangerous thus kept secret. It grants to the character an extra proficiecy relating to the nature of the secret. Most of the secrets give a skill proficiency, such as Acrobatics, Slight of Hand, Survival, and so on.
But one secret is called "Arcanix Dropout", where your character comes from a family of powerful Wizards but sucks at magic and got kicked out magic school. Basically your character is a disgrace to your family who keeps the shame hidden from other Wizards. Instead of a skill proficiency, and only if the class has no spell slots, your character gains TWO (!) cantrips. One of the cantrips is Prestidigitation (a noncombat but narratively powerful cantrip that optimizers like), and the other cantrip is your choice from the Wizard spell list.
Of interest here is how valuable the skill proficiency seems to be! Two cantrip proficiencies! Albeit with a prerequisite.
Now even tho this product is unofficial − and even then is only for the Eberron setting − the designer who wrote it is official and is aware of the views of the other 5e designers who he works with.
Thus the hierarchy of proficiencies seems to be as follows.
skill › cantrip › martial weapon › simple weapon
Also worth mentioning. The Earworm secret is, you are the one who created a popular song that an other musician stole. It isnt a secret per se, but is something you cant prove and that few believe. This secret grants the Performance skill plus a musical instrument proficiency. This suggests a musical instrument proficiency has a negligible worth − or if it is possible to play an instrument rolling it like a tool proficiency check, without training in the Performance skill, then its value overlaps with the Performance skill.
Not relating Eberron Confidential, language proficiency is weird. Normally it is worthless (almost everyone speaks Common). But in some settings, and according to the preferences of some DMs, a language might be situationally very valuable. Note, the Players Handbook officially allows a player to customize ones own background, granting two skills plus two tools, but allowing to swap tools for languages. Thus the language seems less than or equal to a tool. In my eyes, the language is obviously worth less than the tool.
My own assessment of armors is: proficiency with shield and light armor, and medium and heavy armor, altogether is worth one feat. In other words, each proficiency seems about a fourth of feat. Meanwhile, half of a feat is worth about four skills. In other words, each armor type proficiency including shield proficiency seems worth about two skills.
My own general takeaway from all of this is the following hierarchy of proficiencies, from armor being most valuable and language being least valuable.
• Shield = Light Armor = Medium Armor (Prereq Light) = Heavy Armor (Prereq Medium)
• Skill
• Martial Weapon = Cantrip
• Simple Weapon = Tool
• Language = Musical Instrument
So you can always trade down or laterally.
Final note. The Fighter and other classes have proficiency with "All Martial Weapons". In my view, if you already have proficiency with three martial weapons, then a fourth proficiency grants you ALL martial weapons. Notice, Tashas will allow a level 3 Wizard to swap out one cantrip for an other after any long rest. This is roughly equivalent to proficiency with all cantrips. Thus, if having "proficiency" (sotospeak) with three cantrips, a fourth proficiency allows access to all other cantrips.
he / him
Alternatively:
1 feat = 3 skills or tools in any combo = 2 cantrips + 1 first level spell = +1 to Str or Dex + 4 weapon proficiencies
I guess it’s not an exact science. ;-)
Personally though, I value skill proficiencies quite a bit. Adding three to the handful you normally get to be proficient in can really improve a character’s overall usefulness.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Heh, I feel a feat is worth 8 (!) skills. Albeit, normally, it would be a half feat for 4 skills, plus a +1 ability score improvement.
Meanwhile, expertise (doubling the proficiency bonus) is worth 5 skills.
Notice the Xanathars Human Prodigy feat grants 3 skills (trading two down) plus expertise. Thus expertise is worth roughly 5 skills. Altogether a feat is worth 8 skills.
he / him
A feat is not worth 8 skills. I understand the math and how you’re trying to rationalize it, and the how you’re getting down to this. I do. I have always felt, seemingly like you that Skilled is a great feat, but it’s not underpowered. You just have to be in the right campaign that proper utilizes them. To have 8 skills means you essentially make all the other party members feel not unique.
A feat is very valuable! If a player wants to spend their feat to gain 8 skills, they are welcome to do so.
Personally, I would not, because there are diminishing returns. To gain 2 skills is very powerful, and a third or fourth on top of that is nice. But after that each addition has less impact on overall gameplay.
Compare weapon proficiencies. Gain a martial weapon is very powerful, gaining two is likewise powerful, especially if one melee weapon and one ranged weapon. Even a backup third martial weapon is nice, maybe to take advantage of more magic weapons if any. But a fifth weapon and after that doesnt feel that much improvement, since the main one or two martial weapons are doing most of the heavy lifting, and a character can only optimize the other features available around one or two weapons.
he / him
Note, I feel tools are excellent, especially because one uses a tool proficiency to CRAFT (!) items.
So the distance between ... skill › cantrip/martial weapon › tool/simple weapon ... isnt too far from each other.
he / him
Using Keith Baker's privately-published product as any kind of bellwether for the balance considerations of actual WotC design staff is fallacious. Meanwhile, the existence of the Skilled feat indicates that the value you place on feats is unbelievably out-of-step with the explicit considerations of actual WotC design staff. A feat is worth three skills, obviously.
Also musical instruments are tools; separating them and valuing them less than other tools is weird.
No way in all hell is being able to swap out one cantrip on a long rest even "roughly equivalent" to knowing all cantrips.
I would not put tools on the same level as simple weapons. Every class gets at least 5 simple weapon proficiencies (and most classes get all of them), but you have to go out of your way to get 5 tools unless you're an artificer. They also just generally represent a higher level of training - learning to swing a club is not equivalent to learning carpentry.
Now it's true that they are essentially useless at many tables, but based on the difficulty of acquiring them I'd put the "intended" value of tools to be closer to martial weapons.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The Skilled feat is wildly underpowered, while the Prodigy feat is correctly balanced for a feat.
The consideration of Kieth Baker is evidence, and suggestive, even if not mathematical proof.
D&DBeyond separates musical instruments from tools. For example, my Bard character has three musical instrument proficiencies, and I cannot replace them with tools, which I would love to do. I would happily trade two musical instruments for one tool!
At level 3, the Wizard already has four cantrips at will, which already cover most situations, and then swapping out a cantrip to prepare for a situational circumstance where a specific cantrip will be valuable (such as Light underground), is accessing all cantrips, and roughly equivalent to casting any of them.
he / him
Do you not see how wildly contradictory these two statements are?
D&D Beyond does not separate musical instruments from tools. The bard class specifically gives musical instrument proficiencies. That's a bard thing. Because it's the bard.
You're just restating the thing you already said. You've provided zero justification for the idea that getting one arbitrary cantrip per day is even remotely equivalent to getting all cantrips all the time. Anyone can see the massive gulf between these two things.
How is expertise worth 5 skills? You appear to state this as fact and then two steps further in your logic conclude it from somewhere.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No, they aren't. It would be a homebrew discussion at a table between the player and DM. If they want to spend their feat to gain 3 skills, they are welcome to do so.
My drunken monk did this with his pan flute. Googled bad recorder music and played it at the table. One of my prouder D&D moments.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think trying to compare these things is so campaign dependent you can not really say anything.
If you are in a campaign set in say the underdark where very few people speak common, undercommon would be hugely powerful, especially if NPCs are going to be suspicious of the party and are unsure whether the wizard is casting comprehend languages, charm person or fireball.
Crafting magic items requires a formula and probably materials, that the DM might make impossible to obtain, alternatively the campaign might have little downtime for crafting, the benefit of something like proficiency in jeweller;'s tools is extremely limited unless you are going to be able to use it for crafting. If you have the time and opportunity to make multiple magic items in a campaign it becomes huge (unless it just reduces means you find formula for magic items instead of the items themselves)
Things like weapon proficiencies and skill proficiencies give diminishing returs as you already have the ones you use most often.
Just look at the official feats:
An ASI (feat) is worth
From the above we can work out:
A single +1 is worth the following in proficiencies (spells later):
For spells, cantrips are weighted significantly more than 1st level spells. It looks like WotC treats a cantrip for feat/ASI purposes as worth a 1/long rest 2nd level spell.
If you throw in the Aberrant Dragonmark feat, its +1 ability score, one cantrip, and one 1st level spell, but limited to sorcerer, one of the weaker spell lists.
So I would say for trading an ASI for spells its:
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Back then, when D&D 5e was a new experimental gaming engine, the designers were still unsure how the mechanics would perform "out in the wild".
According to copyright dates, the inaugural Players Handbook came out in 2014. Since then designers have gotten a better feel for the mechanical values. About three years later Xanathars came out in 2017. You can see the shift in evaluation in the later Prodigy feat. Now in 2020, Tashas is coming out.
Consider. Look at the feats in the early Players Handbook.
A half feat equals: 4 martial weapons
A half feat equals: 1.5 tools
So according to the original guess in the Players Handbook, a tool is 2.67 times MORE valuable than a martial weapon.
However, now years later in Tashas, a tool is more accurately understood to be LESS valuable than a martial weapon. So a martial weapon can trade down, but a tool cannot trade up.
The change across the years, reflects how the 5e designers have drastically reconsidered the worth of a tool.
he / him
I am going to withhold judgement on Tasha's content until it comes out.
Personally, I don't think a tool is worth less than a martial weapon prof. Realistically, they seem about equal.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
In a campaign more about "Roleplay" than "Roll-play" a tool proficiency can be worth more than being trained in using a battle axe.
So, your mileage may vary.
The proficiencies of skill, cantrip, martial weapon, simple weapon, and tool seem close to each other.
Obviously, a martial weapon is better than a simple weapon, but not by much, only by one or two points on average or else requiring the opportunity cost of investing two hands.
If the designers feel the noncombat tool is more appropriate to link to the less combat-useful simple weapon, that is fine. To some degree, the organization in Tashas seems to silo the noncombat resources, so players will be less tempted to give up their outofcombat features.
And, skills vary greatly in value. The general consensus among optimizers is, the Perception skill is the most frequent and most useful skill, whose value is head and shoulders above the other skills. Probably, it is fair to say Perception is worth two skills (at least!). I view Perception as equivalent to an ability score, and its defensive use versus hiding, disguise, and illusion, and so on, as one of the four main saving throws: Reflex, Fortitude, Will, and Perception.
The value of the other skills has more to do with the DMs style, than the setting itself. For example, as DM I strongly prefer narrative adjudication to resolve player intentions. So the outcome is normally "yes" or "no", depending on whether the players plan makes sense or not in the particular circumstance. Only if an outcome could go either way does a skill check happen. In this way, skill checks can be used for almost anything that could conceivably happen in an adventure story. What do we know about Castle So-and-So? Essentially uses the History skill as if a Legend Lore spell. Does it look safe to eat? Essentially uses the Medicine skill as if a Detect Poison or Disease spell. At times, a caster has used the Arcana skill to modify a spell effect on the fly. It hasnt come up in my games, but Animal Handling is potentially powerful, if the DM applies it as if an Animal Friendship spell, and to communicate with animals according to the nature of each animal, and even to gain a battle companion or a war steed.
Skills are an aspect of gameplay that 5e officially puts entirely in the hands of the DMs opinion. In my games, skills matter alot.
What is true for skills is also true for tools. I see much use of tools, especially because Xanathars emphasizes that players use tool proficiencies in the same way as skill proficiencies. So for example, Navigator tools assume some kind of training in astronomy and oceanography, which can come up in other contexts too. Some skills and tools are more useful in combat, such as Perception and Athletics, and Poisoner, Alchemist, and Smith. Generally, skills and tools are close in value. Skills tend to be more general, and tools tend to be more specific. But it all depends on the DM.
So, if a player wants to swap a skill for a cantrip, weapon, or tool proficiency, there is no problem.
Even if a player wants to swap a tool for a cantrip or martial weapon, the DM doesnt need to worry about balance. Just focus on appropriate flavor and ensure the character is competent enough outofcombat. If a player wants to trade proficiency with all martial weapons, to instead have only two martial weapons plus two skills, the DM can allow this slight upgrade without worrying about balance.
In my eyes, a proficiency is a proficiency is a proficiency. The DM can swap them fungibly, focusing on the wellbeing of the overall character. The hierarchy of proficiencies (in the original post) is a useful guide, and is safe for players to utilize. But the DM can override this hierarchy for the sake of flavor.
Some proficiencies are super-good, like Perception and armor upgrades, but the DM can adjudicate these separately.
And some proficiencies seem negligible in the context of 5e mechanics, like language and instrument. The DM might give these away for free, depending on flavor, character concept, background, and region. If a player wants to swap a musical instrument for some other kind of proficiency, the DM needs to be cautious to replace it with something mechanically minor, if anything. Maybe the character can be a coin collector or something like that?
In sum, when it comes to balance, swapping proficiencies seems safe enough, albeit certain proficiencies are super-good or negligible, so require caution. The main concern for a DM is to ensure that a character is competent in combat and out of combat, and is interesting. The hierarchy of proficiencies can help the DM to have a sense of what is what. But the DM can knowingly let a swap override the hierarchy to achieve an appealing character concept.
he / him
It is important for a DM to have a good feel for what a proficiency is worth.
Proficiencies are significant factors for defining a character concept.
For example, in a Norse setting, there are different kinds of vikings. The Swashbuckler Rogue is actually pretty good to represent a certain kind of viking archetype. A difficulty is, vikings rarely use armor, and almost always use a shield. (A chain shirt became more common toward the end of the Viking Period, but depends on wealth.) The viking shield is very thin and light, so its metal hub can punch weapons out of the way, thus is also a decent offhand bludgeoning weapon.
So a DM who knows this, can make the Swashbuckler even more like a historical viking by finetuning the class proficiencies. Look at the hierarchy of proficiencies. Thus swap out the light armor proficiency of the Rogue, and instead gain proficiency with a shield, which the Rogue class typically lacks. The viking shield functions as a normal shield, granting +2 AC. But it can also function as a weapon, if with training. Because it both deals damage and adds AC, the viking shield probably counts as a kind of martial weapon with a special property.
Martial Weapon
viking shield 1d4 bludgeoning, finesse, light, special (+2 AC, requires shield proficiency)
Thus the viking shield is useful for two-weapon combat styles.
For the viking Swashbuckler to use the viking shield effectively as an offhand weapon, swap out the rapier proficiency for the proficiency with a viking shield.
The viking sword is a D&D "longsword" that lacks the versatile property but gains the finesse property.
Meanwhile, swap out the Rogue martial hand crossbow, to gain a martial longbow instead.
These three proficiency swaps to get: viking shield, viking sword, and longbow, allow the DM to craft the Swashbuckler into an excellent viking character concept.
he / him