I have an Artificer in my current campaign who is focused on knowledge of things outside of combat. As a result, the player has decided to take as many Tool proficiencies as possible, basing the reasoning around RP style, as well as the Xanathar's description on "Tools and Skills Together" (p.78). This section advocates to give the player advantage and benefits on all rolls that relate to an acquired tool proficiency.

My issue is that by stacking many Tool proficiencies, the player effectively knows something about nearly everything, or can make a reason to relate to a tool kit. This would result in the player rolling nearly all of their non-combat checks with advantage, which seems like an imbalance.

I understand that granting advantage/benefits is optional for the DM, but I don't want to discourage other players from referencing tool kits in RP, nor encourage them to follow the Artificer's methods.

I've resolved to telling players Xanathar's Tool Descriptions are a means to encourage great RP, not to grant a player with a guarantied source of advantages, which is what is happening as the Artificer continues to acquire more.

My question is how do I prevent the Artificer from taking the lion's share of the group's non-combat checks(because advantage), so my players feel they are contributing in a balanced way. Or, am I reading into the rules/description incorrectly?

This is tricky, like with any build you want to give the player the opportunity to use the cool things they want to specialize in, but not to the detriment of the other players. The word in Xanathar's certainly makes it sound like it's not expected that they always get to have advantage ( If the use of a tool and the use of a skill both apply to a check, and a character is proficient with the tool and the skill, consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage), but that it's a bonus for especially apt times. 

Also, do you have some more examples of how this works in your game? I can imagine the obvious of them picking a lock with their thieves tools, but what else are they using to such great effect? Is it a lot of traps and puzzles they're disarming, or are they somehow using them in their social interactions with NPCs too? 

The key phrase is "consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage". My advice would be to become well-versed with with this optional tool metric in XGtE, let your player know you are well versed in it, and then let them know that ultimately you will be deciding when they roll with advantage when it makes the most sense. To help remind you, they can come up with one single way in which they are combining skills, and then it's a simple yes or no.

I had a player that did this as well, though not to the extent that you're dealing with it. Ultimately, if you have a well-rounded party you'll have a lot of advantage rolls anyway if the characters are using the "help" action on most skill checks, so it's not really throwing off much in that regard. My concern would be that this one player is turning every skill check into a solo endeavor vs thinking about how they can team up with other players. Same outcome (advantage) but keeps others engaged and fosters teamwork.

Many of those checks require the character to have the tools on hand.  Are they keeping all of their tool sets with them and available at all times?  Don't forget that they will still need to purchase the tool sets if starting gear did not provide them.

Hey guys. I'm the offending player in the original post. I acknowledged the wording implies DM's discretion (as most does everything in D&D). My approach was more so that Xanathar's examples of ways in which tools can provide bonuses to players outside of just formally using the tools provides a great stepping off point of how to encourage tool proficiency.

As far as party balance goes I brought that up in the sense that even though I'm proficient with Thieves Tools (lvl 1 Artificer, no choice), I don't even have the intention of purchasing or using them because we have a Rogue in our party. However, if for some reason the rogue was either not with us (we split the party god help us) or a situation where two checks would be needed my proficiency "could" come into play.

I am currently proficient in 5 tools (Thieves, Alchemical, Tinker, Calligraphy, Cartography) at level 1 and own 3 of said tool sets (Alchemical, Tinker, Calligraphy). One of the examples given in Xanathar's (Arcana - Proficiency with alchemist's supplies allows you to unlock more information on Arcana checks involving potions and similar materials). The key take away I wanted to confirm was if I took all these different tools and their proficiencies could I expect to gain the benefits listed in Xanathar's if they apply. I'm not asking for Advantage on every roll under the sun (though the DM and I have a different view point of the power scale of Advantage) but wanted to confirm that I could gain benefits from using my proficiencies in unique ways (outside of just making a potion) even if I have 10 of them by level 10 and carry 10 tool kits. Because if not, I would probably be better off directing my energy and gold into other character development more useful to the party.

One of the points I brought up wasn't even really about my character but about the aforementioned rogue in the party and that in my opinion unless the trap warrants it (is unique or magical in nature that the rogue would have no knowledge of it), in most every other circumstance if I were running a campaign I would give him advantage roll in searching for traps because he is proficient in the thieves tools. Just to reiterate, that's if I were running, not that the current DM can't do what he wants I just have a different viewpoint of how much Advantage (or added benefit) can break the game especially Advantage that doesn't even apply to combat power scaling. Also for context, we haven't started playing yet, this was just a question that spawned from myself and the rogue asking how tools will be viewed within this campaign.

Thanks.

With the added info from illandhil, it sounds like this is much more of a theoretical problem than something that is actively making a game un-fun for people playing. I've had that same sort of "oh no, this player can do way too much damage now" problem, and only realized later that having the player that likes combat the most be good at it doesn't really ruin anything unless the players voice that they dislike it.

I could see a scenario where in a really-socially focused game, the one player in the party with high-charisma was getting all of the spotlight time being the face of the party. In this scenario though, I don't think there is that much of a danger of the player taking "nearly all" of the group's non-combat rolls with advantage — how do any of these tools help them identify a magical herb, persuade a guard to let them through, remove the ancient sword's curse, spot the lurking bugbears, deceive the pursuing inquisitor or dash across the rooftops? If there is a compelling way that the player uses their calligraphy kit to forge a writ of passage and get past the guard, then that's a good thing, assuming it moves the plot along and gets them where they needed to go anyhow! Speaking as a sometimes player, I enjoy it when my party members get to use their specialties to advance the goals of the group, and this doesn't sound like it's ripe for abuse. Maybe play 2-3 sessions as is, and if there is a problem you can come back through and nerf those darned cartographer's tools.

Quote from illandhil >>

 

One of the points I brought up wasn't even really about my character but about the aforementioned rogue in the party and that in my opinion unless the trap warrants it (is unique or magical in nature that the rogue would have no knowledge of it), in most every other circumstance if I were running a campaign

 I'm gonna stop you right there.

Let me tell you from experience that this is a poisonous way to approach being a player at a D&D table. The minute you start saying "This is how I would do it if I were DM," you start to run into trouble. The fact that you and your DM are here posting about this issue shows I'm already right. By starting a sentence with the phrase, "If I were the DM" (= "if I were running the campaign," same thing), it means you are second-guessing your DM. This is a really effective way to destroy any fun you can have at the table and to potentially ruin fun for other people (and almost certainly your DM). 

I know, it is hard. I have DMed/GMed probably more than I have gotten to just play (even though most of the time I'd much rather just play), and it is very hard to take off the DM hat and NOT second-guess another DM. But you have got to try, because you are not the DM, so the decisions are not yours, and you only make things worse if you start making them in your head and then comparing, and finding fault with, the decisions your DM reaches that you would not.

So I urge you to stop trying to think of how you would run things, and instead, just go with how your DM is running things. Or if you can't, then politely leave the game (without making a fuss about it). But don't Monday morning QB the DM. That way lies only trouble.

Also, regarding this...

I would give him advantage roll in searching for traps because he is proficient in the thieves tools.

Then if we are going by the rulebook, you would be incorrect (although you would be welcome to house-rule this in your own game, if you wish). According to the Player's Handbook section on tools, the Thief Tools do not provide any bonus to finding traps (searching for). They provide bonus, and I quote: "to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks". Disarm, not find. They don't help you find a trap. They only help you disarm it after you found it. And to quote the effect of these tools, "Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus" -- proficiency bonus, not advantage.

Xanathar's suggests advantage, as I understand things, if, and only if, both a tool proficiency and a skill proficiency apply. I am not aware of any skill that applies to disarming traps or picking locks. Therefore, I don't see a double-proficiency that would warrant an advantage on the roll here. The DM might, perhaps, rule that lockpicking and trap disarming require some manual dexterity and that "sleight of hands" skill applies, but that skill specifically says it applies to acts of "legerdemain or manual trickery," which does not really fit the act of simple lockpicking (although, trying to pick a lock behind your back while no one is looking might make this apply).

The rule in XGE is there because you only make one roll, and if you have 2 proficiencies that apply, you're kind of losing one if you only make the one roll (you can't apply your proficiency more than once at a time, as far as I am aware). So for example if you are trying to cheat at a game which you have proficiency with the set (say, a dice set) and you are proficient in deception, the DM might give you advantage to do deception with gaming dice, because you are really good at dice. But you don't get advantage every time you use a tool -- only when both the toolset AND the skill BOTH apply to the same roll.

Actually Biowizard this is similar to the agreement we came to in that the case where both the skill and proficiency aligned it made sense for Advantage. However, your point brings up the issue of the rule not being fulling written out in the sense of what if any skill applies to "finding" a trap, I made no mention of actually disarming the trap, but I believe if the player were proficient in the perception skill and thieves tools they'd get Advantage on locating said traps, disarming is a whole other thing in my opinion.

In addition to your note about stopping me from second guessing the DM I really don't think that's what was happening as this was mostly a theoretical discussion and I stated many times to my DM that I'm fine with whatever he decides as he's running the game. The idea that disagreement means silence or stop playing is baffling to me, I have ran plenty of games where the player has never DM'd but has taken the time to read much of the source material (which many do not), and was fully capable of bringing up something they disagreed with me on and was either able to persuade me or I just simple told them in this scenario that doesn't apply.  He and I came to an understanding of how we see the rules (we almost always do, we've known each other for a long time) and we've moved on. I also very well know that if I didn't like it, it ultimately wouldn't matter or I would just direct my character in a way that was more toward how the DM was going to run things. That is ultimately why the discussion began in the first place, me trying to understanding how I should approach Artificer as I've never played one before.

I do like itnige's comment about playing it out and seeing where things go. I think its important to always evaluate what is working, both about the character's everyone is playing and weather or not they are enjoying them both from a DM perspective and player perspective. It is always amazing to me (in a good way) when a DM takes a moment to ask a player if they are enjoying playing the character they made and if they'd like to remake or tie in a story reason why that character leaves the party if the player wanted to change characters.  As we are all in it to have fun.

 believe if the player were proficient in the perception skill and thieves tools they'd get Advantage on locating said traps

Why? The Thief Tools make no mention of finding traps, only disarming them. Where in the rules does it say these tools can also be used to search for traps?

Xanathar's specifically references it. As always, up for interpretation.

Investigation and Perception - You gain additional insight when looking for traps, because you have learned a variety of common signs that betray their presence.

Edit: All those listings and me reading them is basically what started this train wreck of a topic. I basically asked if he would using these examples in his campaign and referencing this source material. He said yes but it wasn't until later that we noticed the Advantage section at the beginning. That is what threw this into a spiral.

But as I said, I think we came  to an agreement, though of course that may change throughout play (which I may see myself as being too broken) or he will just decide he changed his mind. Which is fine as well.

Edit: Also a secondary note, he added  the stipulation that these instances need to have an RP explanation for Advantage to occur, not just given out because you have the associated Tools and Skill Proficiency. Which I thought was a great idea.

Quote from illandhil >>

 

In addition to your note about stopping me from second guessing the DM I really don't think that's what was happening as this was mostly a theoretical discussion and I stated many times to my DM that I'm fine with whatever he decides as he's running the game. The idea that disagreement means silence or stop playing is baffling to me

 Don't take it personally. There's a small but vocal section of the forums that jump down the throats of anyone that dares question the DM, ask questions on rulings, etc. 

Quote from Sigvard_Vigrid >>

Quote from illandhil >>

 

In addition to your note about stopping me from second guessing the DM I really don't think that's what was happening as this was mostly a theoretical discussion and I stated many times to my DM that I'm fine with whatever he decides as he's running the game. The idea that disagreement means silence or stop playing is baffling to me

 Don't take it personally. There's a small but vocal section of the forums that jump down the throats of anyone that dares question the DM, ask questions on rulings, etc. 

 Yeah, when I was younger I used to argue wtih DMs because they wouldn't even consider what I was saying. I've gotten over it as I've gotten older, who has time for it. No offense taken from BioWizard. I'm sure his experience has taught him some hard lessons and I know it came from a place of well meaning.

I have second-guessed DMs and GMs before and ruined games for myself (usually not others, just been miserable myself) because of it. I was giving friendly advice, not jumping down anyone's throat.

As for the tool thing, I am not as familiar with XGE so I stand corrected.

Yeah BioWizard neither was I, I had not read it until this campaign all kinds of stuff in there to either be useful or cause contention I suppose. Thanks for your insight.

Not to revive this unnecessarily but I see the points that Biowizard was trying to make.

for one the OP has not returned to the thread since you started replying Illandhil. Now that could be that they got the answer they needed and didn’t feel they had to reply, I am not going to put words in their mouth or thoughts in their head, but take into account the purpose of this area of the forums.

there is no shortage of places here you can go in depth about rules and mechanics, this is “Dungeon Masters Only” it is specifically intended as a place for DM’s to talk about ideas and player interactions, even sometimes complain about their players ;)

this is the first thread I have seen here where a player has responded to their DM

reading the OP it doesn’t come across as a question about mechanics or XGTE vs PHB vs DMG it reads like a concern about handling a player.

i don’t know you, I don’t know the OP and I don’t know anything more about your game than what I can see here but I think what is needed isn’t to clarify who is right about the rules but for you and your DM to have a conversation directly outside of the game.

I would also say the next time you are browsing DM only and see a post from your DM, skip it. It’s not meant for you.

Quote from sardonicmonkey >>

Not to revive this unnecessarily but I see the points that Biowizard was trying to make.

for one the OP has not returned to the thread since you started replying Illandhil. Now that could be that they got the answer they needed and didn’t feel they had to reply, I am not going to put words in their mouth or thoughts in their head, but take into account the purpose of this area of the forums.

there is no shortage of places here you can go in depth about rules and mechanics, this is “Dungeon Masters Only” it is specifically intended as a place for DM’s to talk about ideas and player interactions, even sometimes complain about their players ;)

this is the first thread I have seen here where a player has responded to their DM

reading the OP it doesn’t come across as a question about mechanics or XGTE vs PHB vs DMG it reads like a concern about handling a player.

i don’t know you, I don’t know the OP and I don’t know anything more about your game than what I can see here but I think what is needed isn’t to clarify who is right about the rules but for you and your DM to have a conversation directly outside of the game.

I would also say the next time you are browsing DM only and see a post from your DM, skip it. It’s not meant for you.

 Ironically I wasn't browsing DM only, have never used these forums (as you can see by my post count). The dndbeyond automated system thought it would be a good idea to tell me to come check out this thread because I "Follow" my DM in the settings. I didn't even know what section of the forums he even posted it under. I also didn't realize at first that it was an automated message from the dndbeyond system. I thought he was sending it to me to let me know that he had posted it as a question, and when I read it, I decided to add additional information for context. I've talked to him since these have all been posted. He knows what I've posted. Not sure if he doesn't wants to discuss it more (since we came to a resolution) or if he agrees with someone here and doesn't want to say anything because he doesn't want to argue with either me or someone else. No clue, can't read his mind. I'm sure if he wants to reply he will. I'm not his keeper. But like I said, I would have never even known this was a question he posted had the dndbeyond system not emailed me letting me know. So just to be clear, I wasn't looking to argue about it. Just thought the conversation could benefit from both perspectives.

And when I say I thought he sent it to me I thought maybe he had flagged it or there was a feature to send a thread notification to someone, like I said, I have never used these forums until this thread. I thought maybe he had sent it to me so I can read someone else having a definitive understanding of Xanathar's backing him up. By the time the system even notified me of the thread he had already came to a decision about how he wanted to use the source material and I told him it was fine. Also the notification just says he commented on a thread with this title. I didn't even know he started it until I read it. Thanks.