3. tools are not skills. All skills have bonuses. Tools and languages are separate and not rolls for use in themselves, but are to aid in performing a skill check. Bonuses should only apply to the rolls. skills need to be reworked in general because with stat bonuses, a +3 in a stat means EVEN WITHOUT PROFICIENCY, a normal DC10 skill check is going to have a 70% chance of success. That's way too easy to succeed on something you shouldn't be good at. I haven't a solution to this, but without even trying you're more than likely going to succeed a check if you got a decent base stat, and no one character is in a part alone. SOMEONE is going to have the stat.
The proficiency bonus is added to whatever it needs to be added to. There are no skill checks. You roll an ability check and add the relevant proficiency. That could be a skill, but it could also be with a tool. We already have checks with tools in the current rules. Under the current rules, proficiency with...
Thieves' tools grants a general knowledge about locks and traps, and you can use the tools to disarm or set traps.
Calligrapher's supplies is added to an Intelligence check to determine a map’s age, whether a map includes any hidden messages, or similar facts.
A forgery kit lets you, as part of a Long Rest, roll an Intelligence check to produce a forged document up to four pages long; with the total of your check setting the DC to discover it's a fake.
A poisoner's kit applies to any check to craft or use poisons, including extracting them from creatures, in lieu of an Intelligence (Nature) check, and even lets you handle poisons without risk of adverse effects.
The DM is free to decide how your proficiencies apply. One of the suggestions in XGE is to grant advantage or some other bonus on a success, and it lists all sorts of skills each tool can synergize with. There's also no reason we should stop with just tools. Proficiency with a language might mean advantage on a Wisdom (Insight) check as you pick up on subtle cues a non-speaker wouldn't notice, or on a Charisma (Persuasion) as you speak to them in their native tongue.
Whether you use a given proficiency or not can vary wildly from table to table. I don't think you should make generalizations, and rather than throw out things you aren't using, we should be looking for ways to include them and make them relevant to our games.
3. tools are not skills. All skills have bonuses. Tools and languages are separate and not rolls for use in themselves, but are to aid in performing a skill check. Bonuses should only apply to the rolls. skills need to be reworked in general because with stat bonuses, a +3 in a stat means EVEN WITHOUT PROFICIENCY, a normal DC10 skill check is going to have a 70% chance of success. That's way too easy to succeed on something you shouldn't be good at. I haven't a solution to this, but without even trying you're more than likely going to succeed a check if you got a decent base stat, and no one character is in a part alone. SOMEONE is going to have the stat.
The DM is free to decide how your proficiencies apply. One of the suggestions in XGE is to grant advantage or some other bonus on a success, and it lists all sorts of skills each tool can synergize with. There's also no reason we should stop with just tools. Proficiency with a language might mean advantage on a Wisdom (Insight) check as you pick up on subtle cues a non-speaker wouldn't notice, or on a Charisma (Persuasion) as you speak to them in their native tongue.
Whether you use a given proficiency or not can vary wildly from table to table. I don't think you should make generalizations, and rather than throw out things you aren't using, we should be looking for ways to include them and make them relevant to our games.
I'm not trying to "get rid" of tools. I'm actually advocating more of them and incorporating them more.
But aside from that clarification, I also want to point out languages are a weird thing because generally they're treated as you know them or you don't, and if you do, you know both written and spoken versions fluently...
Which I feel is less than accurate? But I'm open to ideas there. Using skill checks might be an interesting way to go about it. You can understand some heiroglyphs as ancient Abyssian, but you still need an arcana check to see what they're referencing, for example.
3. tools are not skills. All skills have bonuses. Tools and languages are separate and not rolls for use in themselves, but are to aid in performing a skill check. Bonuses should only apply to the rolls. skills need to be reworked in general because with stat bonuses, a +3 in a stat means EVEN WITHOUT PROFICIENCY, a normal DC10 skill check is going to have a 70% chance of success. That's way too easy to succeed on something you shouldn't be good at. I haven't a solution to this, but without even trying you're more than likely going to succeed a check if you got a decent base stat, and no one character is in a part alone. SOMEONE is going to have the stat.
The DM is free to decide how your proficiencies apply. One of the suggestions in XGE is to grant advantage or some other bonus on a success, and it lists all sorts of skills each tool can synergize with. There's also no reason we should stop with just tools. Proficiency with a language might mean advantage on a Wisdom (Insight) check as you pick up on subtle cues a non-speaker wouldn't notice, or on a Charisma (Persuasion) as you speak to them in their native tongue.
Whether you use a given proficiency or not can vary wildly from table to table. I don't think you should make generalizations, and rather than throw out things you aren't using, we should be looking for ways to include them and make them relevant to our games.
I'm not trying to "get rid" of tools. I'm actually advocating more of them and incorporating them more.
But aside from that clarification, I also want to point out languages are a weird thing because generally they're treated as you know them or you don't, and if you do, you know both written and spoken versions fluently...
Which I feel is less than accurate? But I'm open to ideas there. Using skill checks might be an interesting way to go about it. You can understand some heiroglyphs as ancient Abyssian, but you still need an arcana check to see what they're referencing, for example.
Languages are kept simple so players know where they're at. "Is this X language I know? If yes, then I can understand what is being said/written down". If a DM wants to toss a check in there, they can just say this is an obscure/ancient dialect or whatever, but hard codifying degrees of language proficiency just sounds like it would be one of those things that gets ignored as too much hassle that just bogs down play.
Half-proficiencies does not bogs down, it's just another degree. But it's clear from sometime that D&D is targeted for new players and simplified, delegating on each table and DM all the remaining.
Half-proficiencies does not bogs down, it's just another degree. But it's clear from sometime that D&D is targeted for new players and simplified, delegating on each table and DM all the remaining.
Not in theory, but in practice determining how much a player understands on a “half proficiency” of a language would probably either be “most of it” or “nearly none of it”, which handily is already covered by either knowing the language or not knowing it.
Half-proficiencies does not bogs down, it's just another degree. But it's clear from sometime that D&D is targeted for new players and simplified, delegating on each table and DM all the remaining.
Not in theory, but in practice determining how much a player understands on a “half proficiency” of a language would probably either be “most of it” or “nearly none of it”, which handily is already covered by either knowing the language or not knowing it.
levels of proficiency would be useful in insight and deception checks. do you sound like a farmer, a foreigner, or did you only learn travel phrases? did the merchant just insult you? is the noble testing your education? can you tell the difference between the "gents," "ladies," and "monty hall" door plaques at the bathhouse?
That’s what the skills themselves are for. Hypothetically you could have layers of modifiers, but 5e has very deliberately avoided getting that crunchy, especially with skills
But at least in skills thanks to “DMG” manuals guidelines we have the proficiency, Expertise and tools to make a mixture for different levels of proficiency. Miss some kind of range for language, as communicating is a core part of any RPG where socials are essential, if you play like that.
if you add finer grain to any proficiencies (Languages included), then you have to give more of them, and then you get into how many more, etc.
What you could do, though, is have Expertise for Languages, and everyone gets that with their native (common or background) language. And any time you can freely pick a language, you could use that extra pick to gain Expertise in a language you already know instead of learning a new language (If a class feature grants a language you already know, instead of a free pick you get Expertise ... if you also already had Expertise with that language, THEN you get a free pick). I would probably grant it as 1 extra language pick at 1st Character level (but after you've gotten all of your other lineage/background/class features), which you can use as an extra language or for Expertise in one of the languages you already know.
What does Expertise with a Language mean? You understand regional dialects, older dialects (but maybe not ancient ones), linguistic nuances and idioms, full "native speaker" type fluency, full understanding of homonyms and homophones, that kind of thing.
Proficient but not Expertise means you have basic literacy for common conversation and common reading/writing, but may not get nuances, idioms, some pronunciations, regional-isms, anachronisms, obscure terms/words, etc. And, in general, those with Expertise can probably tell you're not a native speaker (especially with prolonged observation and/or a perception check), or can tell what regional dialect you initially learned, even though you can get by and communicate competently.
if you add finer grain to any proficiencies (Languages included), then you have to give more of them, and then you get into how many more, etc.
What you could do, though, is have Expertise for Languages, and everyone gets that with their native (common or background) language. And any time you can freely pick a language, you could use that extra pick to gain Expertise in a language you already know instead of learning a new language (If a class feature grants a language you already know, instead of a free pick you get Expertise ... if you also already had Expertise with that language, THEN you get a free pick). I would probably grant it as 1 extra language pick at 1st Character level (but after you've gotten all of your other lineage/background/class features), which you can use as an extra language or for Expertise in one of the languages you already know.
What does Expertise with a Language mean? You understand regional dialects, older dialects (but maybe not ancient ones), linguistic nuances and idioms, full "native speaker" type fluency, full understanding of homonyms and homophones, that kind of thing.
Proficient but not Expertise means you have basic literacy for common conversation and common reading/writing, but may not get nuances, idioms, some pronunciations, regional-isms, anachronisms, obscure terms/words, etc. And, in general, those with Expertise can probably tell you're not a native speaker (especially with prolonged observation and/or a perception check), or can tell what regional dialect you initially learned, even though you can get by and communicate competently.
I think linguistics can be used like I suggested for the tools with "Do you know it" and then a check. Expertise and such don't apply to them, but proficiency is like checking off a box saying, "yeah I can at least attempt this"
I’d been pondering language proficiency too. I think the simplest way to introduce a little more granularity would be to have two degrees of language proficiency: basic and fluent. Basic proficiency allows you to communicate, but gives you disadvantage on ability checks that depend upon your language proficiency, such as some insight, investigation, deception or performance checks. A DM could also introduce some concepts of language relatedness into their campaign: a character fluent in one language might have basic comprehension of a related language (or of an ancient precursor).
I like the idea of it as an attribute check, complete with a counterpart to "Passive Perception" reflecting your basic fluency, and then only needing to make rolls for how obscure or ancient a bit of language usage might be. It could also be something where Intelligence vs WIsdom (or maybe even Charisma) play different roles for what you're trying to understand (the emotional intent vs the literal words, that kind of thing).
Giving it more thought, I like unskilled (flat -2 PB), novice (0 PB), half proficiency( half PB), proficiency (PB), and expertise (double PB) as a way of applying PB to a skills.
You are unskilled in the stuff your class doesn't have access to, novice for what you can have but don't, and half prof. is an option to get your PB to apply to more skills but you have to split it in half between two. If you want expertise to a half PB, you just get reg PB in two skills.
Giving it more thought, I like unskilled (flat -2 PB), novice (0 PB), half proficiency( half PB), proficiency (PB), and expertise (double PB) as a way of applying PB to a skills.
You are unskilled in the stuff your class doesn't have access to, novice for what you can have but don't, and half prof. is an option to get your PB to apply to more skills but you have to split it in half between two. If you want expertise to a half PB, you just get reg PB in two skills.
If I wanted the ability checks that bogged down, I'd go back to playing earlier Warhammer editions.
Don't get me wrong, I love them, but that doesn't work here.
Well at least for skills we don’t lack of degrees: ability score bonus as innate, proficiency as knowledge, expertise as specialization, advantage for improving chances. The remaining can be adjusted by DC value.
Then just be flexible about character learning, i.e. I allow to get expertise joining class and background proficiencies (less areas but more specialization) instead something reserved only for some classes (something I really cannot see the meaning at all), in addition with the stack of multiple proficiencies for advantage it opens many possibilities to players and gameplay.
But the PHB way is too strict and few interesting, for most classes you have or not proficiency, setting at 0 or adding a small value to the checks, and that’s all.
The proficiency bonus is added to whatever it needs to be added to. There are no skill checks. You roll an ability check and add the relevant proficiency. That could be a skill, but it could also be with a tool. We already have checks with tools in the current rules. Under the current rules, proficiency with...
The DM is free to decide how your proficiencies apply. One of the suggestions in XGE is to grant advantage or some other bonus on a success, and it lists all sorts of skills each tool can synergize with. There's also no reason we should stop with just tools. Proficiency with a language might mean advantage on a Wisdom (Insight) check as you pick up on subtle cues a non-speaker wouldn't notice, or on a Charisma (Persuasion) as you speak to them in their native tongue.
Whether you use a given proficiency or not can vary wildly from table to table. I don't think you should make generalizations, and rather than throw out things you aren't using, we should be looking for ways to include them and make them relevant to our games.
I'm not trying to "get rid" of tools. I'm actually advocating more of them and incorporating them more.
But aside from that clarification, I also want to point out languages are a weird thing because generally they're treated as you know them or you don't, and if you do, you know both written and spoken versions fluently...
Which I feel is less than accurate? But I'm open to ideas there. Using skill checks might be an interesting way to go about it. You can understand some heiroglyphs as ancient Abyssian, but you still need an arcana check to see what they're referencing, for example.
Anyhow, Carry on. :P
I'm not trying to "get rid" of tools. I'm actually advocating more of them and incorporating them more.
But aside from that clarification, I also want to point out languages are a weird thing because generally they're treated as you know them or you don't, and if you do, you know both written and spoken versions fluently...
Which I feel is less than accurate? But I'm open to ideas there. Using skill checks might be an interesting way to go about it. You can understand some heiroglyphs as ancient Abyssian, but you still need an arcana check to see what they're referencing, for example.
Anyhow, Carry on. :P
Languages are kept simple so players know where they're at. "Is this X language I know? If yes, then I can understand what is being said/written down". If a DM wants to toss a check in there, they can just say this is an obscure/ancient dialect or whatever, but hard codifying degrees of language proficiency just sounds like it would be one of those things that gets ignored as too much hassle that just bogs down play.
Half-proficiencies does not bogs down, it's just another degree. But it's clear from sometime that D&D is targeted for new players and simplified, delegating on each table and DM all the remaining.
Not in theory, but in practice determining how much a player understands on a “half proficiency” of a language would probably either be “most of it” or “nearly none of it”, which handily is already covered by either knowing the language or not knowing it.
levels of proficiency would be useful in insight and deception checks. do you sound like a farmer, a foreigner, or did you only learn travel phrases? did the merchant just insult you? is the noble testing your education? can you tell the difference between the "gents," "ladies," and "monty hall" door plaques at the bathhouse?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
That’s what the skills themselves are for. Hypothetically you could have layers of modifiers, but 5e has very deliberately avoided getting that crunchy, especially with skills
But at least in skills thanks to “DMG” manuals guidelines we have the proficiency, Expertise and tools to make a mixture for different levels of proficiency. Miss some kind of range for language, as communicating is a core part of any RPG where socials are essential, if you play like that.
if you add finer grain to any proficiencies (Languages included), then you have to give more of them, and then you get into how many more, etc.
What you could do, though, is have Expertise for Languages, and everyone gets that with their native (common or background) language. And any time you can freely pick a language, you could use that extra pick to gain Expertise in a language you already know instead of learning a new language (If a class feature grants a language you already know, instead of a free pick you get Expertise ... if you also already had Expertise with that language, THEN you get a free pick). I would probably grant it as 1 extra language pick at 1st Character level (but after you've gotten all of your other lineage/background/class features), which you can use as an extra language or for Expertise in one of the languages you already know.
What does Expertise with a Language mean? You understand regional dialects, older dialects (but maybe not ancient ones), linguistic nuances and idioms, full "native speaker" type fluency, full understanding of homonyms and homophones, that kind of thing.
Proficient but not Expertise means you have basic literacy for common conversation and common reading/writing, but may not get nuances, idioms, some pronunciations, regional-isms, anachronisms, obscure terms/words, etc. And, in general, those with Expertise can probably tell you're not a native speaker (especially with prolonged observation and/or a perception check), or can tell what regional dialect you initially learned, even though you can get by and communicate competently.
I think linguistics can be used like I suggested for the tools with "Do you know it" and then a check. Expertise and such don't apply to them, but proficiency is like checking off a box saying, "yeah I can at least attempt this"
I’d been pondering language proficiency too. I think the simplest way to introduce a little more granularity would be to have two degrees of language proficiency: basic and fluent. Basic proficiency allows you to communicate, but gives you disadvantage on ability checks that depend upon your language proficiency, such as some insight, investigation, deception or performance checks. A DM could also introduce some concepts of language relatedness into their campaign: a character fluent in one language might have basic comprehension of a related language (or of an ancient precursor).
I like the idea of it as an attribute check, complete with a counterpart to "Passive Perception" reflecting your basic fluency, and then only needing to make rolls for how obscure or ancient a bit of language usage might be. It could also be something where Intelligence vs WIsdom (or maybe even Charisma) play different roles for what you're trying to understand (the emotional intent vs the literal words, that kind of thing).
Giving it more thought, I like unskilled (flat -2 PB), novice (0 PB), half proficiency( half PB), proficiency (PB), and expertise (double PB) as a way of applying PB to a skills.
You are unskilled in the stuff your class doesn't have access to, novice for what you can have but don't, and half prof. is an option to get your PB to apply to more skills but you have to split it in half between two. If you want expertise to a half PB, you just get reg PB in two skills.
If I wanted the ability checks that bogged down, I'd go back to playing earlier Warhammer editions.
Don't get me wrong, I love them, but that doesn't work here.
Well at least for skills we don’t lack of degrees: ability score bonus as innate, proficiency as knowledge, expertise as specialization, advantage for improving chances. The remaining can be adjusted by DC value.
Then just be flexible about character learning, i.e. I allow to get expertise joining class and background proficiencies (less areas but more specialization) instead something reserved only for some classes (something I really cannot see the meaning at all), in addition with the stack of multiple proficiencies for advantage it opens many possibilities to players and gameplay.
But the PHB way is too strict and few interesting, for most classes you have or not proficiency, setting at 0 or adding a small value to the checks, and that’s all.