They may have intended it to be done via the 3rd Level Thief Feature “Fast Hands” — using your thieves tools via Sleight of Hand, and you could then have Expertise with Sleight of Hand to have the double proficiency.
Also, reading the rule for Expertise on playtest document 6, it appears that Expertise can only be applied to Skills now. No one can apply it directly to Tools.
They may have intended it to be done via the 3rd Level Thief Feature “Fast Hands” — using your thieves tools via Sleight of Hand, and you could then have Expertise with Sleight of Hand to have the double proficiency.
Noticed that, like something reserved for the Thief that gets Sleight of Hand expertise.
The issue is that with the sole intention to "fix" that, it affects ALL the tools. So now cannot expertise on artisan or any other, cannot exist professional carpenters?
Also, reading the rule for Expertise on playtest document 6, it appears that Expertise can only be applied to Skills now. No one can apply it directly to Tools.
Kind of dumb really. I've been playing 5e since it released, and I don't think my table's ever used the tools proficiency for anything. It's a useless ribbon as far as I am concerned.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
yeah. If I had noticed this before, I would have included it in my feedback about the Rogue and Expertise.
I get that they want to make "lock pick expertise" be a special thing for Thieves over anyone else who happens to pick up the tool use and gets an expertise pick ... but ... I think it has too many side effects to be worth it.
If anything, I would make it a special rule as part of the Theives Tools: only Thieves can get Expertise for them. It's ham-fisted, but at least it only affects this one thing, instead of affecting every artisan tool for every artisan, expert, etc.
It kind of annoys me that I can use a background and get some tool proficiency that I will literally never use, but there's no way short of spending a precious feat to get a weapon that I might actually use and appreciate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
1 I wish tool proficiency out side of thieves did something useful.
2. I wish you could get expertise in them even if 1 did not happen. Some times you want to make bad choices for character reasons. If you are playing Frank the worlds greatest alchemist who goes on wild adventures in order to find rare reagents let the dude take expertise in alchemy.
Also, reading the rule for Expertise on playtest document 6, it appears that Expertise can only be applied to Skills now. No one can apply it directly to Tools.
Kind of dumb really. I've been playing 5e since it released, and I don't think my table's ever used the tools proficiency for anything. It's a useless ribbon as far as I am concerned.
In my case the tools get plenty of use. Aside from the required Thieves' tools, improved much collecting and using materials for crafting as way to prepare for adventures, not delegating everything to a shopping system where they have anything you need converting the money in resources automatically. It is so nice to try to purchase formulae instead, or using own Investigation to discover by your own how to create the giant Str, invisibility, or greater healing potions, and use your collected materials (using the Xanathar table) to create them at half cost.
Also, adding some more than killing, killing and killing to adventures, disguise and forgery tools can be nice. On the first adventure (mines of Phandelver) already used the disguise (using attackers suits) to enter the enemy base and attack from inside at advantageous position and preserving the stealth.
In any case the rule is strictly related to limit the Thieves' Tools Expertise to Thief subclass. So I am not going to apply and allow tools expertise, and in the case of Thief, compensate it allowing to change its Thieves' Tools proficiency by another tool at level 3, as the tool proficiency will become a waste now that can use a skill.
Can the new rogue apply his expertise to Thieve’s Tools? I could not find it anywhere in the latest iteration of the One DnD rogue.
Doesn’t look like it. Could be an oversight or They are deciding on not allowing that with the One D&D rogue.
Thanks, hopefully is a oversight.
I thought that earlier on in the One D&D UAs that proficiency with a tool basically gave advantage on a check to use the appropriate skill. I was under the impression in the case of picking locks that it would be a Slight of Hand (dex) check (which you could have expertise in) and proficiency in Thieves' Tools would provide advantage.
Some tools don’t have the corresponding skill to stack. I.e. artisan ones don’t have skill related for crafting, then cannot be professional artisans getting neither expertise nor advantage for their work.
you could probably handwaive that... artistic endeavors (like a decorative carved item) might leverage Performance skill (since that's kind of the closest thing to an "art" skill; though Insight can also work). Artisan creations that require fine detail work could use slight of hand. Utilitarian creations/repairs/etc. could require some other skill (I hesitate to say Survival, but it's not exactly wrong for some situations). Pick the skill that most closely matches your task and desired outcome.
1. tools rarely get use or play. Some atons simply shoudn't be possible without possessing the tools. You cannot, CANNOT pick a lock withut lockpicks. Cannot. you need a thin bit of metal to maneuver pins and rotate tumblers. Even on older style "skeleton key" locks in most houses, they work by having pins with the key bypasses as it turns and pins on a tumbler that it connects with and pushes into an unlocked state. You cannot fit a dagger in there, and if you use a bobby pin or a thin wire, you need to properly bend them and "make" lockpicks, which, if they're poor quality, still may not work.
this should apply to other actions like disguising yourself or so on. Sorry, you need a makeup kit. If you want to appraise jewels, you need a loupe and you need an acid kit to test gold fineness .
2. They should reward proficiency and punish you if you're inept. Just because you have nimble fingers doesn't mean you have a specific talent with picking locks. You may be good at performance, but that's not a makeup specialist. You may be perceptive, but if you have no clue what reactions you are looking for with an acid test, it means jack.
You should have an advantage and disadvantage based on proficiency for the tools. NOT a proficiency bonus.. because....
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.
if you succeed without the check proficiency, what the hell does tool proficiency even matter?
4. get rid of the three instrument bard, and add 2 extra languages, a tool and then either ANOTHER musical instrument, language or tool. Trust me, this will do much good for giving the bard its jack of all trades role and increase usage and prevalence of tools. Backgrounds are dull as hell now since they give random +2/+1's and that's about it. Flavor them with more skills and tools usage...In fact, I hate the +2/+1 because I like using backgrounds to flavor characters with non-class specific skills and tools. Now the backgrounds, though they are better than species, still force characters. Rogues are all the edgier as the urchin or criminal/spy backgrounds are your go to for the class... It doesn't add RP value, in fact, it detracts. Just have part of character creation be a +2/+1.
5. Write more adventures and modules to incorporate tool usage checks. It sounds silly, but most people start out with precons. If you start actually making halfway decent precons that demonstrate the need for the ruling, then chances are people will use it more in their homebrew, since they'll remember how it worked. (puzzles and survival style precons need to exist too. Not just a couple puzzles at the end of Tasha's to say you tried...)
Well that is an issue in this edition by the lack of detail in the skill part. I proposed to allow getting Expertise to anyone by stacking proficiencies with the Background ones, for defining your specialization. Some people argued that must be an exception reserved for Expertise classes, but I am not agree, because then, cannot exists professionals, like Doctors, Carpenters, etc.? Or all them must be Rogue/Ranger/Bard? If you were a Wizard (studying character) and Sage (the same), why cannot stack some lore skill from both and get Expertise on it to show your specialization?.
In a skill development system this is easy as skills move in a large range of values. But here a character can only "develop" the ability score, so between a novice 1st level and a veteran level 7th character the difference is only of 2 for ability checks (the +1 proficiency and +1 ASI). This only implies to be a bit better to succeed but for the same difficulty level, as checks difficulty increases 5 by 5 (easy 10, medium 15, hard 20...), at the moment we increase it we are even worse with lesser chance. If you were a dedicated to something and got Expertise (sacrificing a proficiency if we remember) at least that difference is larger because getting the PB dubled.
So we need all the 3 options to have Expertise plus advantage to really show specialization, to be able to face harder checks with the same chance of success than when newer.
As mentioned I was thinking about always try to associate a skill to an action, but sometimes is not easy at all. Maybe splitting the whole in 2: working/material and purpose, the working part uses the tool, and the purpose the skill. I.e. if you want to create an outfit, what is the purpose? For a good looking one could be Performance (because is for people to admire it), if was for disguise then Deception. This could represent that you have the proficiency to work the material with the tool, and the skill is the knowledge for how to use it for the purpose, as you need to know how the people think to impress them (Performance), or how to deceive them (Deception), in the combination to fulfill the final result.
It is a bit weird because makeup artists don't have to be good at Performance (usually will be the actor), but I see few other options.
I like the idea of using Advantage over the idea of stacking Proficiency Bonus. If you have the same skill or tool through more than one proficiency pick (awarded in your background, then taking as a class proficiency ... or some combination of either of those with awarded in a class feature, or by having proficiency with both a tool and a skill that matches the task), then you have Advantage with that skill or tool (lets call that "Multi-Proficient" since "double proficient" is already a thing that some class/subclass features award).
Expertise/double-Proficiency is separate from that ... and you could have both Multi-Proficient and Expertise, letting you have Advantage on the roll via Multi-Proficient, and double PB via Expertise.
Edit: and it would also establish the idea of a character who is an expert in their skill without them being an Expert with Expertise. They're better than someone who only had one proficiency, but not as good as someone who is a true skill specialist... and neither of them are as good as someone who has more than one proficiency AND is a true skill specialist.
Well that is an issue in this edition by the lack of detail in the skill part. I proposed to allow getting Expertise to anyone by stacking proficiencies with the Background ones, for defining your specialization. Some people argued that must be an exception reserved for Expertise classes, but I am not agree, because then, cannot exists professionals, like Doctors, Carpenters, etc.? Or all them must be Rogue/Ranger/Bard? If you were a Wizard (studying character) and Sage (the same), why cannot stack some lore skill from both and get Expertise on it to show your specialization?.
In a skill development system this is easy as skills move in a large range of values. But here a character can only "develop" the ability score, so between a novice 1st level and a veteran level 7th character the difference is only of 2 for ability checks (the +1 proficiency and +1 ASI). This only implies to be a bit better to succeed but for the same difficulty level, as checks difficulty increases 5 by 5 (easy 10, medium 15, hard 20...), at the moment we increase it we are even worse with lesser chance. If you were a dedicated to something and got Expertise (sacrificing a proficiency if we remember) at least that difference is larger because getting the PB dubled.
So we need all the 3 options to have Expertise plus advantage to really show specialization, to be able to face harder checks with the same chance of success than when newer.
As mentioned I was thinking about always try to associate a skill to an action, but sometimes is not easy at all. Maybe splitting the whole in 2: working/material and purpose, the working part uses the tool, and the purpose the skill. I.e. if you want to create an outfit, what is the purpose? For a good looking one could be Performance (because is for people to admire it), if was for disguise then Deception. This could represent that you have the proficiency to work the material with the tool, and the skill is the knowledge for how to use it for the purpose, as you need to know how the people think to impress them (Performance), or how to deceive them (Deception), in the combination to fulfill the final result.
It is a bit weird because makeup artists don't have to be good at Performance (usually will be the actor), but I see few other options.
I agree. The problem lies within the bounds set by the D20 system as it is, and that for skills in particular, it replaces percentage rolls of previous editions. Previously, you also had to put points into skills, although it's 20+ years back, so my memory isn't the greatest.
I don't want to go back to those days, but I think the bar to succeed a skill check is set too low, and there needs to be a wider range in general on skill checks, but especially checks with tool usage.
And they don't need to be save or suck rolls. Perception/investigation rolls aren't, and these don't really need to be either. If you roll perception/investigation while looking over a body and fail completely, you basically only know that it's a body in front of you. If you fail but get close to the DC, then typically you learn something, or maybe you find his wallet. A success will tell you that you can see that this guy doesn't seem to have any serious injuries that would cause death, and a complete success would tell you that he probably died of poisoning as you can smell almonds as you lean in to get a closer look.
In previous editions, using thieves tools for the example, a complete failure could be breaking the tools and setting off a trap or the lock itself is now completely jammed. A mild failure could be that you simply cannot figure out how to open it. I think a regular success meant you opened the lock, and I don't recall a critical success.
Another angle with the expertise is that proficiencies go up. A bard at 5th level has a prof bonus of +3. With a 16 stat (+4), and expertise (double prof), they're looking at +10 before they even roll a die.
and this is a problem across all the expertise gaining classes. It's just too damned powerful, not because the expertise or proficiency bonuses are bad, but because the bounded limits are just too damned close. By level 9 that same example for the bard (or rogue), means that they have a +12 before they roll which is essentially a pass at all but epic/god level DC's (30) which they theoretically have a 10-15% chance ofstill beating.
This is part of the expertise class's problem of kinda topping out around that level. (totally unrealated, but it's not too log after this that wizards and spellcasters get the truly broken spells, and games just end).
And I still feel like these three things should have a factor in success, but the bounds need to be opened up a bit more of bonuses need to be reigned in more. If we instead gave a +1 or -1 to stats for every 3 instead of every 2 with a stat cap at 21, it might also help, though I'm not sure... and part of this is why the original push away from ASI's, though I'd rather slower progression than no progression at all.
As for performance vs. deception... ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL the skill checks overlap with at least one other skill. Or at least they should. And it's a feature, not a bug. Investigation and perception often can be applicable to the same task, but just require the character (and DM) to accomodate for it by approaching from a different angle. Perception would mean you notice more, investigation means you may be able to infer more without noticing as much. Deception may be your jam and you pull off being an exact replica of someone but with enough charisma you can sell someone on how you performed a role.
Its even baked into the combat with dex fighters and strength fighters, Wisdom and intelligence being the fuzzy two (and the origin of the int/wis caster divide).
Indeed DMG shows rules about total failure and near/partial success, which I apply for checks.
- If failed by 5 or more is a total failure, cannot repeat and extra consequences.
- If failed by less than 5 is a single failure, cannot repeat.
- If failed by 1 of 2 near/partial success, can apply as the same or not. If not very important and/or in checks of all-or-nothing (like lock picks), usually allow to repeat the next turn until failure or success.
What it doesn't show is a total success, but I suppose could be succeeding by 5 or more, then give extra reward.
About skills, I am fine with characters quick progression if they invest the points. In other skill development systems, if you invest the max points possible into a skill, it does not take long until you can face hard and very hard skill checks. In fact want to encourage players to get the Skilled or Prodigy feat kinds, instead all those combat ones, as the skills are the RPG core, and not all that combat numbers stuff, only requiring to be balanced but not creating that obsession around it. Beating a Dragon with a sword is pure fantasy, then let's allow to fantasize too with the skills part making "miracles", let each one to bright with what elected, some players could enjoy by picking any lock and disarming any trap, or convincing anyone, allow them to enjoy if they invest the character resources on it.
And about skills overlap, it is true that it's there, but sometimes can be not easy. I.e. is Deception + Disguise kit equal to Deception + Weaver's tools while using clothes? And extending then Deception + Disguise kit equal to Deception + Smith's tools if want to disguise as a soldier (metal armor and weapons)?. If want to emphasize the use of skill and tools proficiencies probably yes, allowing to use it for ANY thing related, that "touches" the thing it want to do.
We have other cases to apply, like hiding, on nature could use Dex (Stealth) as typical, but also Wis (Survival) for hiding while you are still as know how to blend with the environment (could require some preparation using the environment materials and some tools).
Indeed DMG shows rules about total failure and near/partial success, which I apply for checks.
- If failed by 5 or more is a total failure, cannot repeat and extra consequences.
- If failed by less than 5 is a single failure, cannot repeat.
- If failed by 1 of 2 near/partial success, can apply as the same or not. If not very important and/or in checks of all-or-nothing (like lock picks), usually allow to repeat the next turn until failure or success.
What it doesn't show is a total success, but I suppose could be succeeding by 5 or more, then give extra reward.
About skills, I am fine with characters quick progression if they invest the points. In other skill development systems, if you invest the max points possible into a skill, it does not take long until you can face hard and very hard skill checks. In fact want to encourage players to get the Skilled or Prodigy feat kinds, instead all those combat ones, as the skills are the RPG core, and not all that combat numbers stuff, only requiring to be balanced but not creating that obsession around it. Beating a Dragon with a sword is pure fantasy, then let's allow to fantasize too with the skills part making "miracles", let each one to bright with what elected, some players could enjoy by picking any lock and disarming any trap, or convincing anyone, allow them to enjoy if they invest the character resources on it.
I don't mind progression showing, and I don't want to sound like I want to go back to the days of percentages and slow progression, but I do feel the bounds are a bit too tight and just opening it up a bit would help. It's too bad there's not a D30 or a D50 (or even a D40). Honestly, I haven't much of a solution
And about skills overlap, it is true that it's there, but sometimes can be not easy. I.e. is Deception + Disguise kit equal to Deception + Weaver's tools while using clothes? And extending then Deception + Disguise kit equal to Deception + Smith's tools if want to disguise as a soldier (metal armor and weapons)?. If want to emphasize the use of skill and tools proficiencies probably yes, allowing to use it for ANY thing related, that "touches" the thing it want to do.
We have other cases to apply, like hiding, on nature could use Dex (Stealth) as typical, but also Wis (Survival) for hiding while you are still as know how to blend with the environment (could require some preparation using the environment materials and some tools).
It easier than you think. The problem is the DMG and DM's take a very literal by the book approach to rolls like this, and sometimes are even a bit antagonistic. (hence why I am not a fan of "Mother may I" checks. Unfortunately, if you get rid of MMI, you pretty much eliminate a DM, in which case, you aren't playing a TTRPG, you're just playing a video game. (It's actually the DM/GM that makes it unique from all other forms of games, bringing in an open setting, the ability to improv, etc... the game rules are there to give structure to combat, randomness through dice rolls, and help to "referee" whether or not somebody can do something based on the results of those rolls).
I mean I'm not really a crunch person, and that much should be obvious, but I also know that if you just let it all be imaginative or if roles are defined and therefore stating explicitly strengths and weakness that the character has to overcome or rely on others for, and there's no challenge presented, you really don't have a game.
But then you need a way to open things when you don't have a thief. You need to figure out a way to lift yourself out of a pit if you have very weak strength, and maybe you don't brute force your way out of the hole but acrobatically kick off the sides and manage to get yourself out. And maybe you pry the door carefully off its hinges, by applying brute force in a precise fashion (TBH, as a teenager, I've done both).
There's always more than one way to skin a cat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Can the new rogue apply his expertise to Thieve’s Tools? I could not find it anywhere in the latest iteration of the One DnD rogue.
Doesn’t look like it. Could be an oversight or They are deciding on not allowing that with the One D&D rogue.
Thanks, hopefully is a oversight.
They may have intended it to be done via the 3rd Level Thief Feature “Fast Hands” — using your thieves tools via Sleight of Hand, and you could then have Expertise with Sleight of Hand to have the double proficiency.
Also, reading the rule for Expertise on playtest document 6, it appears that Expertise can only be applied to Skills now. No one can apply it directly to Tools.
Noticed that, like something reserved for the Thief that gets Sleight of Hand expertise.
The issue is that with the sole intention to "fix" that, it affects ALL the tools. So now cannot expertise on artisan or any other, cannot exist professional carpenters?
Kind of dumb really. I've been playing 5e since it released, and I don't think my table's ever used the tools proficiency for anything. It's a useless ribbon as far as I am concerned.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
yeah. If I had noticed this before, I would have included it in my feedback about the Rogue and Expertise.
I get that they want to make "lock pick expertise" be a special thing for Thieves over anyone else who happens to pick up the tool use and gets an expertise pick ... but ... I think it has too many side effects to be worth it.
If anything, I would make it a special rule as part of the Theives Tools: only Thieves can get Expertise for them. It's ham-fisted, but at least it only affects this one thing, instead of affecting every artisan tool for every artisan, expert, etc.
It kind of annoys me that I can use a background and get some tool proficiency that I will literally never use, but there's no way short of spending a precious feat to get a weapon that I might actually use and appreciate.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
1 I wish tool proficiency out side of thieves did something useful.
2. I wish you could get expertise in them even if 1 did not happen. Some times you want to make bad choices for character reasons. If you are playing Frank the worlds greatest alchemist who goes on wild adventures in order to find rare reagents let the dude take expertise in alchemy.
In my case the tools get plenty of use. Aside from the required Thieves' tools, improved much collecting and using materials for crafting as way to prepare for adventures, not delegating everything to a shopping system where they have anything you need converting the money in resources automatically. It is so nice to try to purchase formulae instead, or using own Investigation to discover by your own how to create the giant Str, invisibility, or greater healing potions, and use your collected materials (using the Xanathar table) to create them at half cost.
Also, adding some more than killing, killing and killing to adventures, disguise and forgery tools can be nice. On the first adventure (mines of Phandelver) already used the disguise (using attackers suits) to enter the enemy base and attack from inside at advantageous position and preserving the stealth.
In any case the rule is strictly related to limit the Thieves' Tools Expertise to Thief subclass. So I am not going to apply and allow tools expertise, and in the case of Thief, compensate it allowing to change its Thieves' Tools proficiency by another tool at level 3, as the tool proficiency will become a waste now that can use a skill.
I thought that earlier on in the One D&D UAs that proficiency with a tool basically gave advantage on a check to use the appropriate skill. I was under the impression in the case of picking locks that it would be a Slight of Hand (dex) check (which you could have expertise in) and proficiency in Thieves' Tools would provide advantage.
Some tools don’t have the corresponding skill to stack. I.e. artisan ones don’t have skill related for crafting, then cannot be professional artisans getting neither expertise nor advantage for their work.
you could probably handwaive that... artistic endeavors (like a decorative carved item) might leverage Performance skill (since that's kind of the closest thing to an "art" skill; though Insight can also work). Artisan creations that require fine detail work could use slight of hand. Utilitarian creations/repairs/etc. could require some other skill (I hesitate to say Survival, but it's not exactly wrong for some situations). Pick the skill that most closely matches your task and desired outcome.
The tools issue is actually quite huge.
1. tools rarely get use or play. Some atons simply shoudn't be possible without possessing the tools. You cannot, CANNOT pick a lock withut lockpicks. Cannot. you need a thin bit of metal to maneuver pins and rotate tumblers. Even on older style "skeleton key" locks in most houses, they work by having pins with the key bypasses as it turns and pins on a tumbler that it connects with and pushes into an unlocked state. You cannot fit a dagger in there, and if you use a bobby pin or a thin wire, you need to properly bend them and "make" lockpicks, which, if they're poor quality, still may not work.
this should apply to other actions like disguising yourself or so on. Sorry, you need a makeup kit. If you want to appraise jewels, you need a loupe and you need an acid kit to test gold fineness .
2. They should reward proficiency and punish you if you're inept. Just because you have nimble fingers doesn't mean you have a specific talent with picking locks. You may be good at performance, but that's not a makeup specialist. You may be perceptive, but if you have no clue what reactions you are looking for with an acid test, it means jack.
You should have an advantage and disadvantage based on proficiency for the tools. NOT a proficiency bonus.. because....
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.
if you succeed without the check proficiency, what the hell does tool proficiency even matter?
4. get rid of the three instrument bard, and add 2 extra languages, a tool and then either ANOTHER musical instrument, language or tool. Trust me, this will do much good for giving the bard its jack of all trades role and increase usage and prevalence of tools. Backgrounds are dull as hell now since they give random +2/+1's and that's about it. Flavor them with more skills and tools usage...In fact, I hate the +2/+1 because I like using backgrounds to flavor characters with non-class specific skills and tools. Now the backgrounds, though they are better than species, still force characters. Rogues are all the edgier as the urchin or criminal/spy backgrounds are your go to for the class... It doesn't add RP value, in fact, it detracts. Just have part of character creation be a +2/+1.
5. Write more adventures and modules to incorporate tool usage checks. It sounds silly, but most people start out with precons. If you start actually making halfway decent precons that demonstrate the need for the ruling, then chances are people will use it more in their homebrew, since they'll remember how it worked. (puzzles and survival style precons need to exist too. Not just a couple puzzles at the end of Tasha's to say you tried...)
Well that is an issue in this edition by the lack of detail in the skill part. I proposed to allow getting Expertise to anyone by stacking proficiencies with the Background ones, for defining your specialization. Some people argued that must be an exception reserved for Expertise classes, but I am not agree, because then, cannot exists professionals, like Doctors, Carpenters, etc.? Or all them must be Rogue/Ranger/Bard? If you were a Wizard (studying character) and Sage (the same), why cannot stack some lore skill from both and get Expertise on it to show your specialization?.
In a skill development system this is easy as skills move in a large range of values. But here a character can only "develop" the ability score, so between a novice 1st level and a veteran level 7th character the difference is only of 2 for ability checks (the +1 proficiency and +1 ASI). This only implies to be a bit better to succeed but for the same difficulty level, as checks difficulty increases 5 by 5 (easy 10, medium 15, hard 20...), at the moment we increase it we are even worse with lesser chance. If you were a dedicated to something and got Expertise (sacrificing a proficiency if we remember) at least that difference is larger because getting the PB dubled.
So we need all the 3 options to have Expertise plus advantage to really show specialization, to be able to face harder checks with the same chance of success than when newer.
As mentioned I was thinking about always try to associate a skill to an action, but sometimes is not easy at all. Maybe splitting the whole in 2: working/material and purpose, the working part uses the tool, and the purpose the skill. I.e. if you want to create an outfit, what is the purpose? For a good looking one could be Performance (because is for people to admire it), if was for disguise then Deception. This could represent that you have the proficiency to work the material with the tool, and the skill is the knowledge for how to use it for the purpose, as you need to know how the people think to impress them (Performance), or how to deceive them (Deception), in the combination to fulfill the final result.
It is a bit weird because makeup artists don't have to be good at Performance (usually will be the actor), but I see few other options.
I like the idea of using Advantage over the idea of stacking Proficiency Bonus. If you have the same skill or tool through more than one proficiency pick (awarded in your background, then taking as a class proficiency ... or some combination of either of those with awarded in a class feature, or by having proficiency with both a tool and a skill that matches the task), then you have Advantage with that skill or tool (lets call that "Multi-Proficient" since "double proficient" is already a thing that some class/subclass features award).
Expertise/double-Proficiency is separate from that ... and you could have both Multi-Proficient and Expertise, letting you have Advantage on the roll via Multi-Proficient, and double PB via Expertise.
Edit: and it would also establish the idea of a character who is an expert in their skill without them being an Expert with Expertise. They're better than someone who only had one proficiency, but not as good as someone who is a true skill specialist... and neither of them are as good as someone who has more than one proficiency AND is a true skill specialist.
I agree. The problem lies within the bounds set by the D20 system as it is, and that for skills in particular, it replaces percentage rolls of previous editions. Previously, you also had to put points into skills, although it's 20+ years back, so my memory isn't the greatest.
I don't want to go back to those days, but I think the bar to succeed a skill check is set too low, and there needs to be a wider range in general on skill checks, but especially checks with tool usage.
And they don't need to be save or suck rolls. Perception/investigation rolls aren't, and these don't really need to be either. If you roll perception/investigation while looking over a body and fail completely, you basically only know that it's a body in front of you. If you fail but get close to the DC, then typically you learn something, or maybe you find his wallet. A success will tell you that you can see that this guy doesn't seem to have any serious injuries that would cause death, and a complete success would tell you that he probably died of poisoning as you can smell almonds as you lean in to get a closer look.
In previous editions, using thieves tools for the example, a complete failure could be breaking the tools and setting off a trap or the lock itself is now completely jammed. A mild failure could be that you simply cannot figure out how to open it. I think a regular success meant you opened the lock, and I don't recall a critical success.
Another angle with the expertise is that proficiencies go up. A bard at 5th level has a prof bonus of +3. With a 16 stat (+4), and expertise (double prof), they're looking at +10 before they even roll a die.
and this is a problem across all the expertise gaining classes. It's just too damned powerful, not because the expertise or proficiency bonuses are bad, but because the bounded limits are just too damned close. By level 9 that same example for the bard (or rogue), means that they have a +12 before they roll which is essentially a pass at all but epic/god level DC's (30) which they theoretically have a 10-15% chance of still beating.
This is part of the expertise class's problem of kinda topping out around that level. (totally unrealated, but it's not too log after this that wizards and spellcasters get the truly broken spells, and games just end).
And I still feel like these three things should have a factor in success, but the bounds need to be opened up a bit more of bonuses need to be reigned in more. If we instead gave a +1 or -1 to stats for every 3 instead of every 2 with a stat cap at 21, it might also help, though I'm not sure... and part of this is why the original push away from ASI's, though I'd rather slower progression than no progression at all.
As for performance vs. deception... ALLLLLLLLLLLLLL the skill checks overlap with at least one other skill. Or at least they should. And it's a feature, not a bug. Investigation and perception often can be applicable to the same task, but just require the character (and DM) to accomodate for it by approaching from a different angle. Perception would mean you notice more, investigation means you may be able to infer more without noticing as much. Deception may be your jam and you pull off being an exact replica of someone but with enough charisma you can sell someone on how you performed a role.
Its even baked into the combat with dex fighters and strength fighters, Wisdom and intelligence being the fuzzy two (and the origin of the int/wis caster divide).
Indeed DMG shows rules about total failure and near/partial success, which I apply for checks.
- If failed by 5 or more is a total failure, cannot repeat and extra consequences.
- If failed by less than 5 is a single failure, cannot repeat.
- If failed by 1 of 2 near/partial success, can apply as the same or not. If not very important and/or in checks of all-or-nothing (like lock picks), usually allow to repeat the next turn until failure or success.
What it doesn't show is a total success, but I suppose could be succeeding by 5 or more, then give extra reward.
About skills, I am fine with characters quick progression if they invest the points. In other skill development systems, if you invest the max points possible into a skill, it does not take long until you can face hard and very hard skill checks. In fact want to encourage players to get the Skilled or Prodigy feat kinds, instead all those combat ones, as the skills are the RPG core, and not all that combat numbers stuff, only requiring to be balanced but not creating that obsession around it. Beating a Dragon with a sword is pure fantasy, then let's allow to fantasize too with the skills part making "miracles", let each one to bright with what elected, some players could enjoy by picking any lock and disarming any trap, or convincing anyone, allow them to enjoy if they invest the character resources on it.
And about skills overlap, it is true that it's there, but sometimes can be not easy. I.e. is Deception + Disguise kit equal to Deception + Weaver's tools while using clothes? And extending then Deception + Disguise kit equal to Deception + Smith's tools if want to disguise as a soldier (metal armor and weapons)?. If want to emphasize the use of skill and tools proficiencies probably yes, allowing to use it for ANY thing related, that "touches" the thing it want to do.
We have other cases to apply, like hiding, on nature could use Dex (Stealth) as typical, but also Wis (Survival) for hiding while you are still as know how to blend with the environment (could require some preparation using the environment materials and some tools).
I don't mind progression showing, and I don't want to sound like I want to go back to the days of percentages and slow progression, but I do feel the bounds are a bit too tight and just opening it up a bit would help. It's too bad there's not a D30 or a D50 (or even a D40). Honestly, I haven't much of a solution
It easier than you think. The problem is the DMG and DM's take a very literal by the book approach to rolls like this, and sometimes are even a bit antagonistic. (hence why I am not a fan of "Mother may I" checks. Unfortunately, if you get rid of MMI, you pretty much eliminate a DM, in which case, you aren't playing a TTRPG, you're just playing a video game. (It's actually the DM/GM that makes it unique from all other forms of games, bringing in an open setting, the ability to improv, etc... the game rules are there to give structure to combat, randomness through dice rolls, and help to "referee" whether or not somebody can do something based on the results of those rolls).
I mean I'm not really a crunch person, and that much should be obvious, but I also know that if you just let it all be imaginative or if roles are defined and therefore stating explicitly strengths and weakness that the character has to overcome or rely on others for, and there's no challenge presented, you really don't have a game.
But then you need a way to open things when you don't have a thief. You need to figure out a way to lift yourself out of a pit if you have very weak strength, and maybe you don't brute force your way out of the hole but acrobatically kick off the sides and manage to get yourself out. And maybe you pry the door carefully off its hinges, by applying brute force in a precise fashion (TBH, as a teenager, I've done both).
There's always more than one way to skin a cat.