If you have Proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any ability check you make that uses that tool. If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This functionality means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same ability check.
Now, the most attentive players might retort that this is nothing new, and they will be right. This is what was introduced in Xanathar's Guide to Everything:
"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. This simple benefit can go a long way toward encouraging players to pick up tool proficiencies. In the tool descriptions that follow, this benefit is often expressed as additional insight (or something similar), which translates into an increased chance that the check will be a success."
Note the wording. Like with the new Inspiration rules, this benefit is now mechanically solidified; it's not up for DM's consideration, you just do have advantage now, period. I see it as another move to make tool proficiencies more attractive. This might even lead to some actual use for musical instruments. *pictures a bard playing bagpipes menacingly to help intimidation check*
With the new Crafter feat this might mean that we'd see crafting rules up front and center, rather than tucked away somewhere in DMG or XGtE. Did you even know there were rules for crafting magic items in DnD? How often was this even a thing in your campaigns?
What are your thoughts on this subtle change and its implications? What do we do with sleight of hand and thieves' tools proficiency working together? How do you feel about the alternative idea - if tool proficiencies are rolled into corresponding skills (like disguise kit into perform, cook's utensils into survival, forgery kit into sleight of hand, etc.)?
I prefer the wording from Xanathar's. They seem to be forgetting with some of this solidifying of potential options into hard rules that their intention is to be going multiverse; which should mean different worlds can have different rules: some may be gritty and realistic while others are fantasticly surreal. They should just print multiple variants of some of these rules and designate them as for low vs high power/fantasy/magic/etc. campaign settings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Do all tools have corresponding skills? Do all tools need corresponding skills? Is advantage the best way to do this? Are questions for the designers, GMs and players.
I am looking forward to the class playtest material to see how it will interact with everything else.
In general I try and minimize rolling so I might prefer a flat bonus or a min value if you have both and options if 1 or both are expert.
A side note: I also hope it is easier for PC's to get to be expert at tools besides taking a feat or maybe PC's get a tool or language at specific levels (maybe even assigned by the GM based on what the PC's have done to prevent any strangeness)
it's not up for DM's consideration, you just do have advantage now, period.
Well that's just not true at all. It's entirely up to the DM whether or not both a skill and a tool proficiency apply to a character's check. Remember, players (should) never say "I make a [whatever] check." The player describes their character's action, and the DM decides what kind of check is appropriate, if any.
it's not up for DM's consideration, you just do have advantage now, period.
Well that's just not true at all. It's entirely up to the DM whether or not both a skill and a tool proficiency apply to a character's check. Remember, players (should) never say "I make a [whatever] check." The player describes their character's action, and the DM decides what kind of check is appropriate, if any.
Right, the difference here is that where certain skills and tools used to be redundant (such as Perform and a musical instrument), the default assumption is synergy. That's all.
I honestly don't get it. Like, for me, I look at thief tools that replace the lockpicking skill. Crafting tools that have elminiated the need for Artisan and Profession skills. Healer kits replacing medicine.
Like, I get there's overlap between performance and instrument proficency, and perhaps deception and disguise kits. But... wouldn't the best thing in this case be to just merge instruments back into performance, and maybe the same with disguises?
So.... are there any other skill overlaps other than just those two? There's a lot of tools that just don't seem to have a skill association, so isn'tthis just giving performance a persistant advantage? And maybe deception if disguised?
Is it really worth it for two skills?
And what about the odd situation where the bard is performing using Minor Illusion instead of instruments, or the rogue has a Hat of Disguises. They're not using their tools, so would the advantage come into play?
Performance/Instruments is just the easy example. The idea is that any time a skill and a tool overlap, you don't just ignore one or the other, you allow them to roll both skills at once and take the best result, i.e. Advantage. If you're not using your tool, you don't get advantage.
Frankly, gaining advantage for being able to effectively leverage a tool is a good thing. Tools are what elevated humanity to the status of Apex Critter on this planet, it's kind of dumb that D&D traditionally offers absolutely no reason whatsoever to train with any tool that isn't a sword. Players searching for creative ways to apply their tool proficiencies should be part of the fun, not a weird hang-up.
I generally like the idea behind this change but I guess I'd be curious to see how many tool/skill synergies are baked in before just saying yes its good. You are effectively double investing in something so advantage as a perk from it makes sense. But it could potentially go to far where 80% of rolls end up with advantage. So the idea i like but until we see more of the execution I can't say if its a good change or not.
And yes the DM has the final say etc, but once they are sort of baked in you'd end up looking like a jerk DM when you deny a dude his advantage on a performance test with his lute he is trained in.
Performance / instruments might be the easy answer, but I'm wondering if it's the ONLY answer.
I mean, deception and disguise kinda overlap, but the examples given suggest that you need to roll both separately (deception v insight, disguise v investigation). But let's say that they do mix and it's all Insight from here on out. Or disguise gives advantage to Stealth instead.
If that's the case.... Then we fall into the territory where you effectively always have advantage on those two skills and all the other interactions might as well be so niche as to be meaningless.
If you want Persuasion or perhaps Arcane, checks to benefit, we shall need things like Cosmetics / Outfit and Textbook Proficiency. Athletics would need, what, running shoes or weight sets? But we don't have them. We have primarily crafting tools with a small handful of rogue tricks and bard instruments.
Tools were originally fundentally meant to replace skills so we don't end up with the sheet bloated by useless skills. They generally lack overlap because, by design, they were originally skills that lacked overlap in the first place.
So we are left with lopsidedness in terms of skills where the few tools with overlap get picked as a matter of course and the rest remain languishing.
And, honestly ... We just need crafting rules for them to work. Something 5e was allergic to.
The idea isn't "every skill gets its own special tool." The idea is "some checks rely on both a skill and a tool, and having proficiency in both benefits the check."
Want advantage on Athletics? Get it some way other than having a tool. But when Investigating a stone wall for signs of a secret passage, it sure seems like it'd be useful to have trained knowledge of masonry via Mason's Tools, wouldn't it? When haggling for prices on your party's looted gemstones, having knowledge of jewels, gemstones, and how to work with them via Jeweler's Tools would sure help in getting the best price, ne? When field-stripping that dragon you just killed for its super valuable hide so you can make awesome badass Dragonscale or Dragonleather armor, it'd really help to have the proper knowledge and leatherworker's tools to do so instead of just Survival and a tomahawk, right?
Some checks will benefit from dual skill/tool proficiency more often, yes. Instrument proficiency is knowing how to play the instrument well and finely; Performance proficiency is knowing how to put on a show for an audience. If you're putting on a show for an audience by using your instrument, it makes sense to use both - and that also reinforces the Musical Dandyman class fantasy of The Bard. Someone who sings for their supper, creates and plays stirring music, and whose instrument is their weapon of choice.
But when Investigating a stone wall for signs of a secret passage, it sure seems like it'd be useful to have trained knowledge of masonry via Mason's Tools, wouldn't it? When haggling for prices on your party's looted gemstones, having knowledge of jewels, gemstones, and how to work with them via Jeweler's Tools would sure help in getting the best price, ne?
It's worth pointing out these particular examples are fundamentally not how the rules work. Tool proficiencies only apply when actually using the tool; they don't apply to background knowledge of the trade that uses the tool. The playtest rules don't change that. They also only let skill proficiency grant advantage on a tool check, not the other way around.
I can imagine history proficiency granting advantage on a check with jeweler's tools to evaluate the authenticity of a famous gemstone, for example, but jeweler's tools proficiency granting advantage on a persuasion check to negotiate a price, while a reasonable house rule within this paradigm, is definitely a house rule.
"Some things tasks benefit if you have a tool and a skill": I agree but is there areas when you do not have a tool/equipment and you get a penalty. ie can you use athletics to climb a sheer cliff or do you need climbing kit/tools and use athletics? Or I have woodworking do I need also to have flute to carve a good flute? Or if I have flute can I carve a good flute out of wood?
Having thought more about tools since replying to the thread I think that slight of hand should be a tool and not a skill.
It's worth pointing out these particular examples are fundamentally not how the rules work. Tool proficiencies only apply when actually using the tool; they don't apply to background knowledge of the trade that uses the tool.
Maybe in the PHB, but in Xanatar's it pretty clearly does.
"Some things tasks benefit if you have a tool and a skill": I agree but is there areas when you do not have a tool/equipment and you get a penalty. ie can you use athletics to climb a sheer cliff or do you need climbing kit/tools and use athletics? Or I have woodworking do I need also to have flute to carve a good flute? Or if I have flute can I carve a good flute out of wood?
Having thought more about tools since replying to the thread I think that slight of hand should be a tool and not a skill.
"roll to see if the brass piece is successfully pulled from behind the orc's ear." "performance? sleight of hand?" "tool check, please." "oh, good! i have proficiency in currency and i happen to be holding a box of coin dies in my other hand." "isn't that the hand you were going to use for picking the orc's pocket?" "yeah, but i have a needle and thread in my other other hand. because pockets. and tool check." "err, that's the hand that's busy making a coin appear, right?" "yeah, and i rolled really high so narratively i'd like to say that i left some rude embroidery on the way out."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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: providefeedback!
"Some things tasks benefit if you have a tool and a skill": I agree but is there areas when you do not have a tool/equipment and you get a penalty. ie can you use athletics to climb a sheer cliff or do you need climbing kit/tools and use athletics? Or I have woodworking do I need also to have flute to carve a good flute? Or if I have flute can I carve a good flute out of wood?
Having thought more about tools since replying to the thread I think that slight of hand should be a tool and not a skill.
"roll to see if the brass piece is successfully pulled from behind the orc's ear." "performance? sleight of hand?" "tool check, please." "oh, good! i have proficiency in currency and i happen to be holding a box of coin dies in my other hand." "isn't that the hand you were going to use for picking the orc's pocket?" "yeah, but i have a needle and thread in my other other hand. because pockets. and tool check." "err, that's the hand that's busy making a coin appear, right?" "yeah, and i rolled really high so narratively i'd like to say that i left some rude embroidery on the way out."
IMHO a lot of those can be simple dex checks and if Slight of Hand (SoH) is a tool it is how you do the thing. For example remove a coin from behind a persons ear is by definition a magic trick (unless the creature has some means to keep coins behind their ear then it might be more of a pick pocked type event). You use your dex to accomplish the task and SoH to do it better and provide some flourish.
"Some things tasks benefit if you have a tool and a skill": I agree but is there areas when you do not have a tool/equipment and you get a penalty. ie can you use athletics to climb a sheer cliff or do you need climbing kit/tools and use athletics? Or I have woodworking do I need also to have flute to carve a good flute? Or if I have flute can I carve a good flute out of wood?
Having thought more about tools since replying to the thread I think that slight of hand should be a tool and not a skill.
There's essentially two ways of looking at tool proficiencies:
1) They should work in conjunction with skills, providing an advantage. It's how it is now. I'd say it still doesn't solve the problem with tools being very situational and narrowly specialized.
2) Some tools should be merged with skills. Performance giving you proficiency with disguise kit, survival - with cooking utensils, sleight of hand - with thieves' tools and forgery kit, medicine - with herbalism and poisoner's kit. That would make some rarely used skills so much more attractive. I'm all for this approach.
There's a third approach. Keep the tools as-is and let them function in their original intent. For the most part, these tools do have a definitive use in the game. Xanathar's noticed that tools were rarely used, so it made this rule to make them relevant. The problem isn't that tools are useless, its that the activites to make use of them lack rules or are rare. Which leads us to the point where perform/instruments are paired up, but the rest... really stand alone.
*Artisan tools to do crafts; so, actually provide rules and gold amounts for magic items and how to make them.
*Rogue tools need uses in game, so that's actually kinda, well, up to the DM. Disguise kit, forgery kit, thief tools. All primarily used in intrigue or infiltration style games, which isn't the standard, but they all have obvious uses. These kits actually represent the whole point of tools - little used skills, but relevant when they come up.
Honorable mention to poison kit... which is a rogue-crafting kinda kit, but poisons kinda suck in D&D. Making them not suck would be awesome; using poison kit proficency to add to the poison DC would be a neat use too. Another honorable mention goes to the Sleight of Hand skill, which is just as campaign dependent as the rest of the rogue stuff; if it was possible to make it a tool, I'm sure it would have been, but its all about using your hands, not tools.
*Gaming sets... well, much like rogue tools, these would probably see more use in a more social setting as opposed to dungeon crawling. The big thing is that, well, D&D primarily is about dungeon delving and combat, not socializing, despite being one of the three pillars. Social would really need to expand before social activities really start to matter in the game. These I can kinda see using the new rules - getting advantage when gathering information, for instance, especially since that's just a plain CHA check now.
*Instruments... back in 3e, Perform was a category skill, and you picked singing, or harp or whatever. Now, perform is a stand alone skill that simultaneously covers playing with instruments as well as not; the whole point was to have one or the other. We really should eliminate Perform or the Instrument category and just have one or the other. Heck, perform is kind of a useless skill in the first place, for the same reason that gaming sets have issues. I'm fairly sure it only exists as a skill simply because they couldn't fit singing and dancing into a tool. So, we got halfway converting before we got stuck and left with a bunch of redundant tools. As it is... when do you roll Perform? Social skill when social fu is....
*Riding tact replaces riding skill. Which is... working as intended. Same with navigator kits. It'd be nice to have better mount and vehical rules / feats, though. Especially with paladin mounts, ranger companions, warlock familiars and artificer magitek vehicals. But again less useful because dungeon crawling is main part of game.
We're basically saying the same thing here - most of the game is about dungeon crawling, and even when it's not tools still see very, very little use as they're highly situational. That's the thing I'm trying to address - proficiencies in skills and tools compete, and the competition is very unequal. Currently, you can gain proficiency in tools through background, class (artificer, rogue, and bard), subclass, or feat. While in the case of the first three, tools come as a bonus that you don't choose deliberately, but when it comes to feats, you face a choice. Would you pick glassblower's tools, or perception? Chef or tough? Which is why I find the idea of baking some tools into skills attractive. Nobody would deliberately pick tools over skills. But if a skill offers more than just diagnosing a sickness (which is pointless because a 2nd level spell cures any disease) and stabilizing a creature (a cantrip can do that with 100% efficiency), that would make more people consider such enriched skills and create more variety in builds.
Artisan's tools - there are, in fact, rules for crafting magic items in the DMG, under "downtime activities" section. However, even there, hard requirements only include ability to cast spells, minimum level, money, and time. It's up to DM's consideration whether artisan's tools have to be involved. Frankly, I'd make a single "crafting" skill for character's general craftsmanship and understanding of physics, how things function and how they're made; the greater the skill, the more specialized tools you can use.
Rogue's tools - while thieves's tools are given to all rogues automatically and they see some use in dungeon delving, tools of intrigue are, as you've noted, only see use in intrigue/detective scenarios. Even then, charisma and wisdom skills play a much bigger role, the rest being covered by spells. Why bother with disguise kit, when a 2nd level spell completely alters your appearance, together with clothes? Which is why I want skills to have more uses. As for sleight of hand, it's a trap skill. No one would really want to use it but rogues, because if you fail the check, you're in serious trouble - it's a quite criminal skill in itself. If thieves's tools and, say, forgery kit were integrated into it, more people would consider taking it.
Gaming sets - frankly, I'd cut these out. I'd just make it a simple charisma or intelligence contest between players.
Musical instruments - how it's done right now is frankly quite silly. If you can play musical instruments, it doesn't mean you can perform with them, because perform is a separate skill. And without proficiency in musical instruments, perform sklll basically makes you a stand-up comedian. Which is... not something an adventurer would often use. Compare it with stealth, arcana, or perception. No competition.
Mounts - this begs the question, what's animal handling skill for? If it's only ever used to probably pacify a beast, then it's pretty useless. Beasts are usually weaker monsters, and neither DM, nor players would always bother with social aspects in a forest encounter. As for navigator's tools, isn't navigating in the wilds already a part of survival skill?
But tool proficencies and skill proficencies do not compete - you can see this in the way that 1dnd backgrounds are designed. Two skills, one tool, one language. In 5e you could also learn languages and tool proficencies during downtime, and could swap tools / languages in 5e backgrounds, so I'm assuming its kind of the same now.
With 1dnd feats, its also notable that the only feat that grants skills (Skilled) only grants three skills, whereas Crafter and Musician grant three tool proficencies on top of other, far more relevant and impactful abilities. Its pretty clear that even feats treat tool proficencies and skill proficencies as unequal. Weapon, armor, language, tool and skill proficencies are all different and have different values, and the game treats them as such.
With the exception of Perform / Instruments, there's a definitive use for everything. And, with how easy it is to learn a tool proficency during downtime, its not a bad idea to have them around.
-----------------------------------
The rules for crafting are so half-arsed and terrible that I can't bring myself to call them actual, complete rules; its mostly DM houserules to fill in massive gaps. Sorry. Doesn't help that later books contradict the DMG.
The funny thing about rogue tool skills is that, yeah, they're completely rendured redundant by spells. Or worse. I'm planning on running some peeps through Beyond the Witchlight story with the playtest material. There's an instance of a faerie dragon locked in a cage. The book flat out says "You cannot pick this lock or break the cage. Period. Oh, the Knock spell works." Like, thanks D&D writers, way to spit in the face of non-magical characters. So funny I could cry.
That said, it is worth noting that Knock and Disguise Self are actually worse than thief tools and a disguise kit in some ways. Mainly, the noise from the former and the latter fails at touch, making them limited in use. There was some attempt at that in the core book. Depends on how much the DM wants to play it up or not.
Navigation tools are more of a sailor thing than wilderness, where Survival doesn't really apply, iirc. You can use them for land, especially for cartography and mapping, but there's plenty of reasons to to have them for sea or Astral travel too. Niche but worth including in the game should it become relevant.
Gaming sets ... I mean, Strategist and Gambler are fairly popular archetypes, so it makes sense to have rules for the occasional time that opposing commanders meet for chess or the Lucky one takes a seat at the card table in the tavern.
Apparently I was wrong about the bit and bridle. I thought they were another tool, but turns out they're not. Got them mixed up with Vehical Proficency and mentally categorized them together. So driving a wagon is a tool proficency, riding a horse is not.
"Some things tasks benefit if you have a tool and a skill": I agree but is there areas when you do not have a tool/equipment and you get a penalty. ie can you use athletics to climb a sheer cliff or do you need climbing kit/tools and use athletics? Or I have woodworking do I need also to have flute to carve a good flute? Or if I have flute can I carve a good flute out of wood?
Having thought more about tools since replying to the thread I think that slight of hand should be a tool and not a skill.
There's essentially two ways of looking at tool proficiencies:
1) They should work in conjunction with skills, providing an advantage. It's how it is now. I'd say it still doesn't solve the problem with tools being very situational and narrowly specialized.
2) Some tools should be merged with skills. Performance giving you proficiency with disguise kit, survival - with cooking utensils, sleight of hand - with thieves' tools and forgery kit, medicine - with herbalism and poisoner's kit. That would make some rarely used skills so much more attractive. I'm all for this approach.
I understand in 1D&D tools provide advantage (in 5e I have played as a skill, ie thieves tools are used to pick locks, disable traps, etc and is not related to Slight of Hand or Mining Tools (provides some knowledge of underground) allows a PC to have a better chance of survival underground if they do not have the survival skill. So how I have played ******** provide a focus area of proficiency. I am not a fan of SoH being used for picking locks, setting traps, disabling traps etc.
Edit: In 1D&D I think the default to skill and provide advantage if you have a tool is not a good idea.
So, the Character Origins UA has this paragraph:
Tool Proficiency:
If you have Proficiency with a tool, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to any ability check you make that uses that tool. If you have Proficiency in the Skill that’s also used with that check, you have Advantage on the check too. This functionality means you can benefit from both Skill Proficiency and Tool Proficiency on the same ability check.
Now, the most attentive players might retort that this is nothing new, and they will be right. This is what was introduced in Xanathar's Guide to Everything:
"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. This simple benefit can go a long way toward encouraging players to pick up tool proficiencies. In the tool descriptions that follow, this benefit is often expressed as additional insight (or something similar), which translates into an increased chance that the check will be a success."
Note the wording. Like with the new Inspiration rules, this benefit is now mechanically solidified; it's not up for DM's consideration, you just do have advantage now, period. I see it as another move to make tool proficiencies more attractive. This might even lead to some actual use for musical instruments. *pictures a bard playing bagpipes menacingly to help intimidation check*
With the new Crafter feat this might mean that we'd see crafting rules up front and center, rather than tucked away somewhere in DMG or XGtE. Did you even know there were rules for crafting magic items in DnD? How often was this even a thing in your campaigns?
What are your thoughts on this subtle change and its implications? What do we do with sleight of hand and thieves' tools proficiency working together? How do you feel about the alternative idea - if tool proficiencies are rolled into corresponding skills (like disguise kit into perform, cook's utensils into survival, forgery kit into sleight of hand, etc.)?
I prefer the wording from Xanathar's. They seem to be forgetting with some of this solidifying of potential options into hard rules that their intention is to be going multiverse; which should mean different worlds can have different rules: some may be gritty and realistic while others are fantasticly surreal. They should just print multiple variants of some of these rules and designate them as for low vs high power/fantasy/magic/etc. campaign settings.
Thank you for your time and please have a very pleasant day.
Do all tools have corresponding skills? Do all tools need corresponding skills? Is advantage the best way to do this? Are questions for the designers, GMs and players.
I am looking forward to the class playtest material to see how it will interact with everything else.
In general I try and minimize rolling so I might prefer a flat bonus or a min value if you have both and options if 1 or both are expert.
A side note: I also hope it is easier for PC's to get to be expert at tools besides taking a feat or maybe PC's get a tool or language at specific levels (maybe even assigned by the GM based on what the PC's have done to prevent any strangeness)
Well that's just not true at all. It's entirely up to the DM whether or not both a skill and a tool proficiency apply to a character's check. Remember, players (should) never say "I make a [whatever] check." The player describes their character's action, and the DM decides what kind of check is appropriate, if any.
Right, the difference here is that where certain skills and tools used to be redundant (such as Perform and a musical instrument), the default assumption is synergy. That's all.
I honestly don't get it. Like, for me, I look at thief tools that replace the lockpicking skill. Crafting tools that have elminiated the need for Artisan and Profession skills. Healer kits replacing medicine.
Like, I get there's overlap between performance and instrument proficency, and perhaps deception and disguise kits. But... wouldn't the best thing in this case be to just merge instruments back into performance, and maybe the same with disguises?
So.... are there any other skill overlaps other than just those two? There's a lot of tools that just don't seem to have a skill association, so isn'tthis just giving performance a persistant advantage? And maybe deception if disguised?
Is it really worth it for two skills?
And what about the odd situation where the bard is performing using Minor Illusion instead of instruments, or the rogue has a Hat of Disguises. They're not using their tools, so would the advantage come into play?
Performance/Instruments is just the easy example. The idea is that any time a skill and a tool overlap, you don't just ignore one or the other, you allow them to roll both skills at once and take the best result, i.e. Advantage. If you're not using your tool, you don't get advantage.
Frankly, gaining advantage for being able to effectively leverage a tool is a good thing. Tools are what elevated humanity to the status of Apex Critter on this planet, it's kind of dumb that D&D traditionally offers absolutely no reason whatsoever to train with any tool that isn't a sword. Players searching for creative ways to apply their tool proficiencies should be part of the fun, not a weird hang-up.
Please do not contact or message me.
I generally like the idea behind this change but I guess I'd be curious to see how many tool/skill synergies are baked in before just saying yes its good. You are effectively double investing in something so advantage as a perk from it makes sense. But it could potentially go to far where 80% of rolls end up with advantage. So the idea i like but until we see more of the execution I can't say if its a good change or not.
And yes the DM has the final say etc, but once they are sort of baked in you'd end up looking like a jerk DM when you deny a dude his advantage on a performance test with his lute he is trained in.
Performance / instruments might be the easy answer, but I'm wondering if it's the ONLY answer.
I mean, deception and disguise kinda overlap, but the examples given suggest that you need to roll both separately (deception v insight, disguise v investigation). But let's say that they do mix and it's all Insight from here on out. Or disguise gives advantage to Stealth instead.
If that's the case.... Then we fall into the territory where you effectively always have advantage on those two skills and all the other interactions might as well be so niche as to be meaningless.
If you want Persuasion or perhaps Arcane, checks to benefit, we shall need things like Cosmetics / Outfit and Textbook Proficiency. Athletics would need, what, running shoes or weight sets? But we don't have them. We have primarily crafting tools with a small handful of rogue tricks and bard instruments.
Tools were originally fundentally meant to replace skills so we don't end up with the sheet bloated by useless skills. They generally lack overlap because, by design, they were originally skills that lacked overlap in the first place.
So we are left with lopsidedness in terms of skills where the few tools with overlap get picked as a matter of course and the rest remain languishing.
And, honestly ... We just need crafting rules for them to work. Something 5e was allergic to.
The idea isn't "every skill gets its own special tool." The idea is "some checks rely on both a skill and a tool, and having proficiency in both benefits the check."
Want advantage on Athletics? Get it some way other than having a tool. But when Investigating a stone wall for signs of a secret passage, it sure seems like it'd be useful to have trained knowledge of masonry via Mason's Tools, wouldn't it? When haggling for prices on your party's looted gemstones, having knowledge of jewels, gemstones, and how to work with them via Jeweler's Tools would sure help in getting the best price, ne? When field-stripping that dragon you just killed for its super valuable hide so you can make awesome badass Dragonscale or Dragonleather armor, it'd really help to have the proper knowledge and leatherworker's tools to do so instead of just Survival and a tomahawk, right?
Some checks will benefit from dual skill/tool proficiency more often, yes. Instrument proficiency is knowing how to play the instrument well and finely; Performance proficiency is knowing how to put on a show for an audience. If you're putting on a show for an audience by using your instrument, it makes sense to use both - and that also reinforces the Musical Dandyman class fantasy of The Bard. Someone who sings for their supper, creates and plays stirring music, and whose instrument is their weapon of choice.
Please do not contact or message me.
It's worth pointing out these particular examples are fundamentally not how the rules work. Tool proficiencies only apply when actually using the tool; they don't apply to background knowledge of the trade that uses the tool. The playtest rules don't change that. They also only let skill proficiency grant advantage on a tool check, not the other way around.
I can imagine history proficiency granting advantage on a check with jeweler's tools to evaluate the authenticity of a famous gemstone, for example, but jeweler's tools proficiency granting advantage on a persuasion check to negotiate a price, while a reasonable house rule within this paradigm, is definitely a house rule.
"Some things tasks benefit if you have a tool and a skill": I agree but is there areas when you do not have a tool/equipment and you get a penalty. ie can you use athletics to climb a sheer cliff or do you need climbing kit/tools and use athletics? Or I have woodworking do I need also to have flute to carve a good flute? Or if I have flute can I carve a good flute out of wood?
Having thought more about tools since replying to the thread I think that slight of hand should be a tool and not a skill.
Maybe in the PHB, but in Xanatar's it pretty clearly does.
"roll to see if the brass piece is successfully pulled from behind the orc's ear."
"performance? sleight of hand?"
"tool check, please."
"oh, good! i have proficiency in currency and i happen to be holding a box of coin dies in my other hand."
"isn't that the hand you were going to use for picking the orc's pocket?"
"yeah, but i have a needle and thread in my other other hand. because pockets. and tool check."
"err, that's the hand that's busy making a coin appear, right?"
"yeah, and i rolled really high so narratively i'd like to say that i left some rude embroidery on the way out."
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!
IMHO a lot of those can be simple dex checks and if Slight of Hand (SoH) is a tool it is how you do the thing. For example remove a coin from behind a persons ear is by definition a magic trick (unless the creature has some means to keep coins behind their ear then it might be more of a pick pocked type event). You use your dex to accomplish the task and SoH to do it better and provide some flourish.
There's essentially two ways of looking at tool proficiencies:
1) They should work in conjunction with skills, providing an advantage. It's how it is now. I'd say it still doesn't solve the problem with tools being very situational and narrowly specialized.
2) Some tools should be merged with skills. Performance giving you proficiency with disguise kit, survival - with cooking utensils, sleight of hand - with thieves' tools and forgery kit, medicine - with herbalism and poisoner's kit. That would make some rarely used skills so much more attractive. I'm all for this approach.
There's a third approach. Keep the tools as-is and let them function in their original intent. For the most part, these tools do have a definitive use in the game. Xanathar's noticed that tools were rarely used, so it made this rule to make them relevant. The problem isn't that tools are useless, its that the activites to make use of them lack rules or are rare. Which leads us to the point where perform/instruments are paired up, but the rest... really stand alone.
*Artisan tools to do crafts; so, actually provide rules and gold amounts for magic items and how to make them.
*Rogue tools need uses in game, so that's actually kinda, well, up to the DM. Disguise kit, forgery kit, thief tools. All primarily used in intrigue or infiltration style games, which isn't the standard, but they all have obvious uses. These kits actually represent the whole point of tools - little used skills, but relevant when they come up.
Honorable mention to poison kit... which is a rogue-crafting kinda kit, but poisons kinda suck in D&D. Making them not suck would be awesome; using poison kit proficency to add to the poison DC would be a neat use too. Another honorable mention goes to the Sleight of Hand skill, which is just as campaign dependent as the rest of the rogue stuff; if it was possible to make it a tool, I'm sure it would have been, but its all about using your hands, not tools.
*Gaming sets... well, much like rogue tools, these would probably see more use in a more social setting as opposed to dungeon crawling. The big thing is that, well, D&D primarily is about dungeon delving and combat, not socializing, despite being one of the three pillars. Social would really need to expand before social activities really start to matter in the game. These I can kinda see using the new rules - getting advantage when gathering information, for instance, especially since that's just a plain CHA check now.
*Instruments... back in 3e, Perform was a category skill, and you picked singing, or harp or whatever. Now, perform is a stand alone skill that simultaneously covers playing with instruments as well as not; the whole point was to have one or the other. We really should eliminate Perform or the Instrument category and just have one or the other. Heck, perform is kind of a useless skill in the first place, for the same reason that gaming sets have issues. I'm fairly sure it only exists as a skill simply because they couldn't fit singing and dancing into a tool. So, we got halfway converting before we got stuck and left with a bunch of redundant tools. As it is... when do you roll Perform? Social skill when social fu is....
*Riding tact replaces riding skill. Which is... working as intended. Same with navigator kits. It'd be nice to have better mount and vehical rules / feats, though. Especially with paladin mounts, ranger companions, warlock familiars and artificer magitek vehicals. But again less useful because dungeon crawling is main part of game.
We're basically saying the same thing here - most of the game is about dungeon crawling, and even when it's not tools still see very, very little use as they're highly situational. That's the thing I'm trying to address - proficiencies in skills and tools compete, and the competition is very unequal. Currently, you can gain proficiency in tools through background, class (artificer, rogue, and bard), subclass, or feat. While in the case of the first three, tools come as a bonus that you don't choose deliberately, but when it comes to feats, you face a choice. Would you pick glassblower's tools, or perception? Chef or tough? Which is why I find the idea of baking some tools into skills attractive. Nobody would deliberately pick tools over skills. But if a skill offers more than just diagnosing a sickness (which is pointless because a 2nd level spell cures any disease) and stabilizing a creature (a cantrip can do that with 100% efficiency), that would make more people consider such enriched skills and create more variety in builds.
Artisan's tools - there are, in fact, rules for crafting magic items in the DMG, under "downtime activities" section. However, even there, hard requirements only include ability to cast spells, minimum level, money, and time. It's up to DM's consideration whether artisan's tools have to be involved. Frankly, I'd make a single "crafting" skill for character's general craftsmanship and understanding of physics, how things function and how they're made; the greater the skill, the more specialized tools you can use.
Rogue's tools - while thieves's tools are given to all rogues automatically and they see some use in dungeon delving, tools of intrigue are, as you've noted, only see use in intrigue/detective scenarios. Even then, charisma and wisdom skills play a much bigger role, the rest being covered by spells. Why bother with disguise kit, when a 2nd level spell completely alters your appearance, together with clothes? Which is why I want skills to have more uses. As for sleight of hand, it's a trap skill. No one would really want to use it but rogues, because if you fail the check, you're in serious trouble - it's a quite criminal skill in itself. If thieves's tools and, say, forgery kit were integrated into it, more people would consider taking it.
Gaming sets - frankly, I'd cut these out. I'd just make it a simple charisma or intelligence contest between players.
Musical instruments - how it's done right now is frankly quite silly. If you can play musical instruments, it doesn't mean you can perform with them, because perform is a separate skill. And without proficiency in musical instruments, perform sklll basically makes you a stand-up comedian. Which is... not something an adventurer would often use. Compare it with stealth, arcana, or perception. No competition.
Mounts - this begs the question, what's animal handling skill for? If it's only ever used to probably pacify a beast, then it's pretty useless. Beasts are usually weaker monsters, and neither DM, nor players would always bother with social aspects in a forest encounter. As for navigator's tools, isn't navigating in the wilds already a part of survival skill?
But tool proficencies and skill proficencies do not compete - you can see this in the way that 1dnd backgrounds are designed. Two skills, one tool, one language. In 5e you could also learn languages and tool proficencies during downtime, and could swap tools / languages in 5e backgrounds, so I'm assuming its kind of the same now.
With 1dnd feats, its also notable that the only feat that grants skills (Skilled) only grants three skills, whereas Crafter and Musician grant three tool proficencies on top of other, far more relevant and impactful abilities. Its pretty clear that even feats treat tool proficencies and skill proficencies as unequal. Weapon, armor, language, tool and skill proficencies are all different and have different values, and the game treats them as such.
With the exception of Perform / Instruments, there's a definitive use for everything. And, with how easy it is to learn a tool proficency during downtime, its not a bad idea to have them around.
-----------------------------------
The rules for crafting are so half-arsed and terrible that I can't bring myself to call them actual, complete rules; its mostly DM houserules to fill in massive gaps. Sorry. Doesn't help that later books contradict the DMG.
The funny thing about rogue tool skills is that, yeah, they're completely rendured redundant by spells. Or worse. I'm planning on running some peeps through Beyond the Witchlight story with the playtest material. There's an instance of a faerie dragon locked in a cage. The book flat out says "You cannot pick this lock or break the cage. Period. Oh, the Knock spell works." Like, thanks D&D writers, way to spit in the face of non-magical characters. So funny I could cry.
That said, it is worth noting that Knock and Disguise Self are actually worse than thief tools and a disguise kit in some ways. Mainly, the noise from the former and the latter fails at touch, making them limited in use. There was some attempt at that in the core book. Depends on how much the DM wants to play it up or not.
Navigation tools are more of a sailor thing than wilderness, where Survival doesn't really apply, iirc. You can use them for land, especially for cartography and mapping, but there's plenty of reasons to to have them for sea or Astral travel too. Niche but worth including in the game should it become relevant.
Gaming sets ... I mean, Strategist and Gambler are fairly popular archetypes, so it makes sense to have rules for the occasional time that opposing commanders meet for chess or the Lucky one takes a seat at the card table in the tavern.
Apparently I was wrong about the bit and bridle. I thought they were another tool, but turns out they're not. Got them mixed up with Vehical Proficency and mentally categorized them together. So driving a wagon is a tool proficency, riding a horse is not.
I understand in 1D&D tools provide advantage (in 5e I have played as a skill, ie thieves tools are used to pick locks, disable traps, etc and is not related to Slight of Hand or Mining Tools (provides some knowledge of underground) allows a PC to have a better chance of survival underground if they do not have the survival skill. So how I have played ******** provide a focus area of proficiency. I am not a fan of SoH being used for picking locks, setting traps, disabling traps etc.
Edit: In 1D&D I think the default to skill and provide advantage if you have a tool is not a good idea.