Cicciograna
2020-12-28, 10:12 AM
I am about to start a Curse of Strahd campaign, and the DM announced that he was tinkering with the rules for gaining tools (and possibly skill) proficiencies based on repeated uses: his rationale is that players should be able to pick up a skill after taking N rolls "that count" (I guess he means non-training rolls, thus differentiating the amount of experience one would get, say, picking a lock during an adventure or during downtime). He is aware that there's an optional rule for this (spend 250 days in game and 1gp per day), but he doesn't like it because he feels it's too slow.
His intentions are good: he is doing this because he is genunely willing to have a good game, and thinks this will improve the quality of our sessions. He hasn't set anything in stone, and is still weighing the pros and cons of this, and is willing to hear other opinions. He is backed by another player who is very fond of the idea of "superhero" characters that can do everything and are the coolest, the meanest, the baddest around.
I voiced against this. My arguments were the following:
1) first of all, I asked him what he wants to accomplish with this rule, and if he really felt that it was necessary to fix what is not really broken. His argument on this was that "a Fighter can beat things but doesn't know what to do with a disguise kit": the general interpretation of this is that he feels that some classes are one-dimensional, and constrained to a specific role, being unable to perform outside it. My reply was that backgrounds and feat insure that, why yes, with the right choice of either, the Fighter can actually know what to do with a disguise kit, so that base is covered. At the same time, proficiency with a tool means that a character is very good at using it (AKA add their proficiency bonus), but that nothing prevents them from using the tool in the first place. A Fighter CAN use a disguise kit, if he doesn't have proficiency he still gets a straight ability check and can definitely put together the disguise. Likewise, any character with Thieves' Tools can try to unlock a door: they just don't get to add the proficiency, if they're not trained.
2) I noted that tool (and skill) proficiencies are, after all, a game resource, of which each character receives a certain allotment. Being able to pick up new tool proficiencies in an easy way defeats the need for spending resources towards the acquisition of said proficiencies. In other words, if I wanted my character to be a skill monkey, I'd probably splurge for the Skilled feat, just to name something. In the balance of the total number of feats allotment, that's a pretty big use of game resources. This way, instead, no resources have to be spent. It is even worse for those classes that make of being skill monkeys one of their selling points, namely Rogues or Bards: all of a sudden, Jack Of All Trades, for example, has way less value, because in time everybody can learn every skill.
3) My final argument was that D&D is, after all, a teamwork game: where my character falls short, another will instead shine. If my character can't pick a lock, it will be the Rogue's turn to be in the spotlight and save the day. If the Rogue has been poisoned, it will be my turn to whip out the Herbalism Kit and concoct an antitoxin. If we have to seduce the duchess, the Bard will play her lute and fascinate and charm the beautiful ruler. In short, in having everybody be able to do everything, the teamwork part is lost: the Rogue failed to pick the lock? No problem, instead of looking for another, interesting way to bypass the door, the Wizard can try. And he fails, the Barbarian can try. And if he fails, the Paladin can try.
What are your thoughts on this? In the end, I'll stick with whatever the DM will rule, but am I just being too nitpicky here?
His intentions are good: he is doing this because he is genunely willing to have a good game, and thinks this will improve the quality of our sessions. He hasn't set anything in stone, and is still weighing the pros and cons of this, and is willing to hear other opinions. He is backed by another player who is very fond of the idea of "superhero" characters that can do everything and are the coolest, the meanest, the baddest around.
I voiced against this. My arguments were the following:
1) first of all, I asked him what he wants to accomplish with this rule, and if he really felt that it was necessary to fix what is not really broken. His argument on this was that "a Fighter can beat things but doesn't know what to do with a disguise kit": the general interpretation of this is that he feels that some classes are one-dimensional, and constrained to a specific role, being unable to perform outside it. My reply was that backgrounds and feat insure that, why yes, with the right choice of either, the Fighter can actually know what to do with a disguise kit, so that base is covered. At the same time, proficiency with a tool means that a character is very good at using it (AKA add their proficiency bonus), but that nothing prevents them from using the tool in the first place. A Fighter CAN use a disguise kit, if he doesn't have proficiency he still gets a straight ability check and can definitely put together the disguise. Likewise, any character with Thieves' Tools can try to unlock a door: they just don't get to add the proficiency, if they're not trained.
2) I noted that tool (and skill) proficiencies are, after all, a game resource, of which each character receives a certain allotment. Being able to pick up new tool proficiencies in an easy way defeats the need for spending resources towards the acquisition of said proficiencies. In other words, if I wanted my character to be a skill monkey, I'd probably splurge for the Skilled feat, just to name something. In the balance of the total number of feats allotment, that's a pretty big use of game resources. This way, instead, no resources have to be spent. It is even worse for those classes that make of being skill monkeys one of their selling points, namely Rogues or Bards: all of a sudden, Jack Of All Trades, for example, has way less value, because in time everybody can learn every skill.
3) My final argument was that D&D is, after all, a teamwork game: where my character falls short, another will instead shine. If my character can't pick a lock, it will be the Rogue's turn to be in the spotlight and save the day. If the Rogue has been poisoned, it will be my turn to whip out the Herbalism Kit and concoct an antitoxin. If we have to seduce the duchess, the Bard will play her lute and fascinate and charm the beautiful ruler. In short, in having everybody be able to do everything, the teamwork part is lost: the Rogue failed to pick the lock? No problem, instead of looking for another, interesting way to bypass the door, the Wizard can try. And he fails, the Barbarian can try. And if he fails, the Paladin can try.
What are your thoughts on this? In the end, I'll stick with whatever the DM will rule, but am I just being too nitpicky here?