Post by donosaur on Jun 10, 2016 17:19:02 GMT
I feel like this has been asked, but I can't find a thread, so here goes:
Tool proficiency: you have it or you don't. The SRD says "Proficiency with a tool allows you to
add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you
make using that tool." In this respect, tools are exactly like weapons. Anyone can pick one up and put them to use, but without proficiency you're only as good as your natural abilities allow you to be. Additionally, it's a physical object that exists separate from you. You can buy, find, steal or lose tools or weapons, and furthermore you cannot use them unless you physically have them with you. Being proficient with doesn't let you pick a lock with thumb anymore than being proficient with a sword lets you stab a dude with your arm (however, improvised tools could work, just like an improvised weapon).
However; numerous lines in the SRD contradict the idea that a non-proficient PC could use tools for a task at all. Let's just look at all the time "thieves' tools" are mentioned:
So, if we assume RAW, it looks like any PC can use tools regardless of proficiency, except for the instances listed above which are discrete exceptions??? That is terrible. What does that leave for us, a non-proficient character can buy thieves' tools and use them against dungeon traps but not locks? In this case, tool proficiency looks more like a spellcasting ability tied to an arcane focus or something, you either have the ability to make the object work or you don't.
I wish the rules didn't contradict themselves here, but honestly I don't know which interpretatoin is better. If literally anyone can use tools and all proficiency does is grant a small bonus, it means an expert rogue could biff a lock-picking check and the ham-fisted barbarian could say "let me try!" and presto. On the other hand, if tools are restricted to those with proficiency, then what does the barbarian see when he looks at those thieves' tools? Are they intangible to him? He has a 50% chance of picking the right end to stick in the lock, any character could realistically try to use a tool without training.
So in light of there not being a clear ruling from RAW and even if there were neither are satisfying, we're left to houserule it. A third and more intuitive option is to treat tool proficiency like armor proficiency:
Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however...If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.
Substitute "tool" or "kit" for "armor," and swap out "strength or dexterity" for whatever ability you are applying the tool check to. Having proficiency not only lets you add your bonus, but allows you to make checks using the tools without disadvantage. Thus, barbarian could attempt to use the tools on the door with a flat dexterity check with disadvantage, while the rogue gets their bonus and a fair roll. This places meaningful distance between trained tool users and regular chumps.
What do you folks think? Have you all already houseruled this thing, or do you opt for one of the interpretations of the RAW?
Tool proficiency: you have it or you don't. The SRD says "Proficiency with a tool allows you to
add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you
make using that tool." In this respect, tools are exactly like weapons. Anyone can pick one up and put them to use, but without proficiency you're only as good as your natural abilities allow you to be. Additionally, it's a physical object that exists separate from you. You can buy, find, steal or lose tools or weapons, and furthermore you cannot use them unless you physically have them with you. Being proficient with doesn't let you pick a lock with thumb anymore than being proficient with a sword lets you stab a dude with your arm (however, improvised tools could work, just like an improvised weapon).
However; numerous lines in the SRD contradict the idea that a non-proficient PC could use tools for a task at all. Let's just look at all the time "thieves' tools" are mentioned:
- Proficiency with these tools lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to disarm traps or open locks. So far so good. Proficiency just lets you add your bonus, but isn't a requirement.
- Helping: For example, trying to open a lock requires proficiency with thieves’ tools, so a character who lacks that
proficiency can’t help another character in that task. Wait, now it "requires" proficiency? - Lock. A key is provided with the lock. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves’ tools can pick this lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. This implies that proficiency is required to even try.
- Manacles. Without the key, a creature proficient with thieves’ tools can pick the manacles’ lock with a successful DC 15 Dexterity check. Same as above, prof is required.
- (Every trap listed in the SRD): A successful DC 15 Dexterity check using thieves’ tools disables the trip wire harmlessly. Doesn't imply proficiency as a requirement, only the presence of the tools.
So, if we assume RAW, it looks like any PC can use tools regardless of proficiency, except for the instances listed above which are discrete exceptions??? That is terrible. What does that leave for us, a non-proficient character can buy thieves' tools and use them against dungeon traps but not locks? In this case, tool proficiency looks more like a spellcasting ability tied to an arcane focus or something, you either have the ability to make the object work or you don't.
I wish the rules didn't contradict themselves here, but honestly I don't know which interpretatoin is better. If literally anyone can use tools and all proficiency does is grant a small bonus, it means an expert rogue could biff a lock-picking check and the ham-fisted barbarian could say "let me try!" and presto. On the other hand, if tools are restricted to those with proficiency, then what does the barbarian see when he looks at those thieves' tools? Are they intangible to him? He has a 50% chance of picking the right end to stick in the lock, any character could realistically try to use a tool without training.
So in light of there not being a clear ruling from RAW and even if there were neither are satisfying, we're left to houserule it. A third and more intuitive option is to treat tool proficiency like armor proficiency:
Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however...If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast spells.
Substitute "tool" or "kit" for "armor," and swap out "strength or dexterity" for whatever ability you are applying the tool check to. Having proficiency not only lets you add your bonus, but allows you to make checks using the tools without disadvantage. Thus, barbarian could attempt to use the tools on the door with a flat dexterity check with disadvantage, while the rogue gets their bonus and a fair roll. This places meaningful distance between trained tool users and regular chumps.
What do you folks think? Have you all already houseruled this thing, or do you opt for one of the interpretations of the RAW?
