Jack of all Tools

[druidevo]

Multiclassing question (because I refuse to be bound by classes)

Jack of all Trades (lvl 2, Bard) "... you can add half your Proficiency Bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your Proficiency Bonus.'

Tool use is an ability check. A Bard 2 can pick up thieves' tool and get a +1 and Dex bonus

Tool Expertise (lvl 6, Artificer)"... your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool."

These stack right, or am I missing something?

Assume a proficiency of +5 and character has a tool set. Does that mean if said character is not proficient in the tool they get a +4 (5/2 rounded down, then doubled)?

[loki_ragnarock]

It's going to vary from DM to DM.

Some people interpret Jack of all trades as adding a number that is equal to your 1/2 your proficiency bonus, but that the number in question isn't your proficiency bonus. Some will say it's half your proficiency bonus, which is then your proficiency bonus, so you get to double that.

But honestly, you've picked a pair of non-synergistic classes to get there and put alot of investment into the build at that point with substantial opportunity costs, so I'd be inclined to give it to you.

[elyktsorb]

Multiclassing question (because I refuse to be bound by classes)

Tool Expertise (lvl 6, Artificer)"... your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool."


You'd need proficiency in the tool for the Artificier's lvl 6 ability to double it.

If you have proficiency in the tool you don't get Jack of all Trades with it.

Jack of All Trades giving a skill 1/2 your proficiency bonus isn't being proficient with it, which is the whole thematic point of Jack of All Trades.

[KorvinStarmast]

Multiclassing question (because I refuse to be bound by classes)
But that's Abserd! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZCIh_3b5K8)

If you have proficiency in the tool you don't get Jack of all Trades with it.

Jack of All Trades giving a skill 1/2 your proficiency bonus isn't being proficient with it, which is the whole thematic point of Jack of All Trades.
Yeah;
For the OP: to apply jack of all trades, first check and see if you are already proficient.

If yes, JoaT does not apply.
If no, then apply half of character proficiency bonus, rounded down.

The roll20 implementation on the 5e SRD character sheet auto calculates it for you when you check off Jack of All Trades. At bard level 6 it is +1 to any skill not checked off as proficient.

In other words, they don't stack.

[Christew]

Multiclassing question (because I refuse to be bound by classes)

Jack of all Trades (lvl 2, Bard) "... you can add half your Proficiency Bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your Proficiency Bonus.'

Tool use is an ability check. A Bard 2 can pick up thieves' tool and get a +1 and Dex bonus

Tool Expertise (lvl 6, Artificer)"... your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool."

These stack right, or am I missing something?

Assume a proficiency of +5 and character has a tool set. Does that mean if said character is not proficient in the tool they get a +4 (5/2 rounded down, then doubled)?
RAW, I don't think the language allows them to stack. You either have proficiency with a given tool or you don't. If you have proficiency, Tool Expertise applies. If you don't have proficiency Jack of all Trades applies.

That said, as mentioned above, you'd have to be Bard 2/ Artificer 6 to get this and it amounts to universal tool proficiency. I'd probably allow it at my table of a player really wanted it.

[Unoriginal]

Multiclassing question (because I refuse to be bound by classes)

Jack of all Trades (lvl 2, Bard) "... you can add half your Proficiency Bonus, rounded down, to any ability check you make that doesn't already include your Proficiency Bonus.'

Tool use is an ability check. A Bard 2 can pick up thieves' tool and get a +1 and Dex bonus

Tool Expertise (lvl 6, Artificer)"... your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool."

These stack right, or am I missing something?

Assume a proficiency of +5 and character has a tool set. Does that mean if said character is not proficient in the tool they get a +4 (5/2 rounded down, then doubled)?

Jack-of-All-Trades applies to ability checks where the Bard's proficiencies don't.

Tool Expertise only applies where the Artificier's proficiencies in tools do.

Knowing how to use a tool is a proficiency.

In other words, Jack-of-All-Trades ability will only work with the tools the character is not proficient in, while Tool Expertise only work with the tools the character is proficient in, making the bonuses mutually exclusive.

[loki_ragnarock]

So... not to open up a can of worms, but isn't there an official ruling about how jack of all trades and reliable talent do and are intended to both apply, enabling such shenanigans as reliable talent initiative checks?
Or was that just a Crawford tweet?

But if you're running on that precedent, then the two abilities the op mentions should stack, yes? The wording ain't too far off. Not as cut and dry as all that, I should think.

I mean, I think the jack of all trades reliable talent combo is an absurd ruling, but I can see DMs going that way.

[KorvinStarmast]

So... not to open up a can of worms, but isn't there an official ruling about how jack of all trades and reliable talent do and are intended to both apply, enabling such shenanigans as reliable talent initiative checks? Or was that just a Crawford tweet? For a multiclass Rogue and Bard? I think I know where to find an answer on that.

Here's an answer (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/88877/22566), and the Sage Advice Compendium seems to indicate that they do not stack.


[NEW] Can the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature be used in conjunction with Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades?
No. Each of these features has a precondition for its use; Reliable Talent activates when you make an ability check that uses your proficiency bonus, whereas the other two features activate when you make an ability check that doesn’t use your proficiency bonus.
In other words, a check that qualifies for Reliable Talent doesn’t qualify for Remarkable Athlete or Jack of All Trades. And Remarkable Athlete and Jack of All Trades don’t work with each other, since you can add your proficiency bonus, or any portion thereof, only once to a roll

[loki_ragnarock]

For a multiclass Rogue and Bard? I think I know where to find an answer on that.

Here's an answer (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/88877/22566), and the Sage Advice Compendium seems to indicate that they do not stack.

Well, thank the maker.

Looking at that thread indicates that the 2017 sage advice had endorsed it. I, for one, am glad of the reversal.

Sorry, OP. Loophole has been closed.

[druidevo]

....

But honestly, you've picked a pair of non-synergistic classes to get there and put a lot of investment into the build at that point with substantial opportunity costs, so I'd be inclined to give it to you.

loki_ragnarock, are you familiar with Master of None: Multiclassing Variants and Roleplay Suggestions? it breaks down level advancement into a point buy system so it wouldn't necessarily be as high an opportunity cost as you think, although I will admit I started life via World of Darkness and reading a lot of Heinlein as well, so I instinctively think that prescriptive advancement is for insects.

[Ashrym]

For a multiclass Rogue and Bard? I think I know where to find an answer on that.

Here's an answer (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/88877/22566), and the Sage Advice Compendium seems to indicate that they do not stack.

The funny thing about that ruling is it contradicts itself.

For example, jack-of-all-trades is considered not proficiency for the purpose of activating reliable talent, and then is considered a smaller proficiency bonus in order to disqualify remarkable athlete. It's also counter to the tweet previously given supporting applying reliable talent to jack-of-all-trades.

It's like jack-of-all-trades is both a proficiency bonus and not a proficiency bonus at the same time. Although I can see that fine line between proficient and proficiency bonus.

It's awkward.

[Elbeyon]

Yes, it works. Half and doubled proficiency sounds like straight up proficiency to me. I don't see a need to round down halfway through the math.

[Ashrym]

Reliable talent doesn't say it applies to an ability in which the rogue is proficient It says an ability the rogue adds proficiency bonus. Jack-of-all-trades and remarkable athlete add proficiency bonus. The RAI in the SAC clarifies the intent is a proficient check instead of just a proficiency bonus.

Expertise doubles the proficiency bonus while jack-of-all-trades is a proficiency bonus. It looks like it should work, but... the issue here is

"Starting at 6th level, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses your proficiency with a tool."

Tool expertise does specifically require proficiency instead of proficiency bonus. I would say that doesn't get applied, especially with the SAC response regarding reliable talent.

Nice idea, but jack-of-all-trades and tool expertise don't work together.

[Greywander]

For a multiclass Rogue and Bard? I think I know where to find an answer on that.

Here's an answer (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/88877/22566), and the Sage Advice Compendium seems to indicate that they do not stack.

Well, thank the maker.

Looking at that thread indicates that the 2017 sage advice had endorsed it. I, for one, am glad of the reversal.

Sorry, OP. Loophole has been closed.
If, hypothetically, there was an ability that let you "cast a spell as a bonus action", and Sage Advice said "actually, it only lets you cast a cantrip", and yet the actual text in the book was never updated, which is the true rule? Of course, DMs can rule however they want, and both the PHB and SAC are considered "official", but in the event of a conflict I would say that RAW is PHB > SAC. The Compendium says Reliable Talent and Jack of All Trades don't work together, but not only does this contradict an earlier Sage Advice, it contradicts the PHB. Reliable Talent only requires you to add your proficiency bonus to the roll, not to actually be proficient. Jack of All Trades adds your proficiency bonus to the roll, not all of it, but enough to make it count. As Ashrym mentioned, either (a) Jack of All Trades and Reliable Talent work together, or (b) Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete work together. All three of these features mention "using", "adding", or "including" your "proficiency bonus" when determining if that feature will affect that ability check or not. None of them hinge on being proficient or not, only whether or not you "add" your "proficiency bonus".

I'm fine with Reliable Talent and Jack of All Trades working together, because you need a pretty deep level investment to pull it off. It does make a 2 level dip into bard a good choice for what would otherwise be a straight classed rogue, but being the best at skills is one of the rogue's (and, to a lesser degree, bard's) main gimmicks. The only reason I think people get uppity about this is because initiative is an ability check, making this synergy a nice combat buff. I say, "Why not let people have nice things, especially if they go through the effort to earn them?"

As for Tool Expertise, sadly it uses the phrasing "proficiency with a tool", rather than using your proficiency bonus. I would interpret this as meaning you actually need proficiency. Even if it did stack with Jack of All Trades, you still wouldn't be proficient with all tools, and at least for thieves' tools there are some things you can only attempt if you have proficiency. The good news is that tool proficiencies are trainable during downtime, and artificers are an INT class so training time/cost is reduced. There's also the Knowledge cleric's Knowledge of the Ages, which will give you any skill or tool proficiency you need for 10 minutes (which pairs nicely with the Fabricate spell, by the way).

[sophontteks]

Half of your profeciency bonus is not your profeciency bonus at all. Thats just bad math.. Maybe if it said "a portion of" or better yet "at least half."

Just like half of 4 is not 4 (its 2), or how paying half your rent won't keep a roof on your head, your not meeting the requisite and very specific number.

I'm sorry but if your profeciency bonus is 4 then 4 it must be.

[Greywander]

Half of your profeciency bonus is not your profeciency bonus at all.
Then Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete stack? If not, please explain.

[loki_ragnarock]

Then Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete stack? If not, please explain.

By my reckoning it should, but I clearly ascribe to the "Jack of All Trades simply adds a bonus equal to half your proficiency bonus but is not your proficiency bonus" camp.

It really does look like a they have eaten a cake they intend to keep with the reasoning.

[Greywander]

I mean, I'll be honest, it's a really weird issue. You are adding part of your proficiency bonus, so should that count as "adding your proficiency bonus" or not? Personally, I think it might be better design to say that yes, it does count as adding your proficiency bonus, and precisely because this prevents stacking.

Right now, Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete are the only such traits, but imagine that years down the road there are a lot more races, classes, subclasses, feats, and possibly entirely new systems that are introduced that add half your proficiency bonus to certain ability checks, as long as you're not already adding your proficiency bonus. (Granted, they could fix this by changing the wording, but they haven't done so yet with JoAT or RA, indicating that they probably won't.) You could, in theory, create some kind of esoteric build that stacks a bunch of these effects, giving you more than twice your proficiency bonus on certain checks. While it might be clever to stack one or two, it starts getting just plain broken if we go further than that.

In order to prevent stacking effects like this, we have to conclude that it makes more sense not to allow stacking. But if JoAT and RA don't stack, then that implies that they do count as adding your proficiency bonus, which is why they don't stack. That is, after all, the only condition given. Thus, if it counts as adding your proficiency bonus, then it should also qualify for Reliable Talent. I get that this makes a bard 2/rogue 11 beyond amazing with regard to ability checks, but... what's wrong with that? D&D has always been built around combat, and even a straight classed rogue will trivialize any ability check they have expertise in (and, to a lesser degree, plain proficiency). Ultimately, without proficiency, the rogue still won't be able to roll as high the wizard on INT skills, or the ranger on WIS skill, or the bard on CHA skills.

Now, if we add 6 levels of artificer to the mix, we get something interesting, though maybe not optimized. With some cash and downtime, we can grind out tool proficiencies, which will then be doubled, and we can't roll less than 10. Combine this with rogue and/or bard expertise, and we're looking at a character who is optimized almost exclusively for ability checks.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I mean, I'll be honest, it's a really weird issue. You are adding part of your proficiency bonus, so should that count as "adding your proficiency bonus" or not? Personally, I think it might be better design to say that yes, it does count as adding your proficiency bonus, and precisely because this prevents stacking.

Right now, Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete are the only such traits, but imagine that years down the road there are a lot more races, classes, subclasses, feats, and possibly entirely new systems that are introduced that add half your proficiency bonus to certain ability checks, as long as you're not already adding your proficiency bonus. (Granted, they could fix this by changing the wording, but they haven't done so yet with JoAT or RA, indicating that they probably won't.) You could, in theory, create some kind of esoteric build that stacks a bunch of these effects, giving you more than twice your proficiency bonus on certain checks. While it might be clever to stack one or two, it starts getting just plain broken if we go further than that.

In order to prevent stacking effects like this, we have to conclude that it makes more sense not to allow stacking. But if JoAT and RA don't stack, then that implies that they do count as adding your proficiency bonus, which is why they don't stack. That is, after all, the only condition given. Thus, if it counts as adding your proficiency bonus, then it should also qualify for Reliable Talent. I get that this makes a bard 2/rogue 11 beyond amazing with regard to ability checks, but... what's wrong with that? D&D has always been built around combat, and even a straight classed rogue will trivialize any ability check they have expertise in (and, to a lesser degree, plain proficiency). Ultimately, without proficiency, the rogue still won't be able to roll as high the wizard on INT skills, or the ranger on WIS skill, or the bard on CHA skills.

Now, if we add 6 levels of artificer to the mix, we get something interesting, though maybe not optimized. With some cash and downtime, we can grind out tool proficiencies, which will then be doubled, and we can't roll less than 10. Combine this with rogue and/or bard expertise, and we're looking at a character who is optimized almost exclusively for ability checks.
I agree, but I have to say that the tools thing is really effective in exploration campaign or sea campaign. But an artificer can already get the relevant tool proficiency to do it so ot is not too strong.

[elyktsorb]

The funny thing about that ruling is it contradicts itself.

For example, jack-of-all-trades is considered not proficiency for the purpose of activating reliable talent, and then is considered a smaller proficiency bonus in order to disqualify remarkable athlete. It's also counter to the tweet previously given supporting applying reliable talent to jack-of-all-trades.

It's like jack-of-all-trades is both a proficiency bonus and not a proficiency bonus at the same time. Although I can see that fine line between proficient and proficiency bonus.

It's awkward.

In this instance I would call Sage Advice stupid and ignore his call entirely and go with it working with remarkable athlete. Because as written it works and if you bothered to have both Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete on the same character, I'm not sure anyone in the world would even care that you were basically getting what amounts to standard proficiency bonus in Athletics, Stealth, Slight of Hand and Acrobatics.

Which if you got to lvl 9 without having Proficiency in any of those skills. (which would already be an odd multiclass number imo) is the only way it would pay off.

[loki_ragnarock]

In this instance I would call Sage Advice stupid and ignore his call entirely and go with it working with remarkable athlete. Because as written it works and if you bothered to have both Jack of All Trades and Remarkable Athlete on the same character, I'm not sure anyone in the world would even care that you were basically getting what amounts to standard proficiency bonus in Athletics, Stealth, Slight of Hand and Acrobatics.

Which if you got to lvl 9 without having Proficiency in any of those skills. (which would already be an odd multiclass number imo) is the only way it would pay off.

Agreed. It's an extremely niche build with a fairly limited pay off.

And I don't find the argument that it shouldn't be combined for fear of features that don't yet exist to be particularly compelling. Especially not when doing so opens up a combination of features that is powerful enough to derail normal rogue progression; there is nothing in the post rogue 11 levels that is as compelling as a 2 level bard dip at that point.
"Literally good at everything" is way different than "I can benefit from this maximally if I build exactly one awkward way" on the scale of mechanical evils.