Rope should be a tool proficiency

[Greywander]

Everyone knows how to tie basic knots. Not everyone knows how to tie really complex knots. Not everyone knows how to throw a lasso. There are many ways a rope can be used that aren't accessible to the lay person, only someone who has been properly trained can use such advanced techniques to their fullest. At the same time, Use Rope isn't quite so important as to merit being its own skill, as it was in previous editions. I think it fits best as a tool proficiency. In general, tool proficiencies work great for anything should have an associated proficiency, but isn't quite important or broad enough to be its own skill (though it can get awkward if there isn't an associated physical tool, but in this case we have the rope itself as the tool).

Thoughts?

[elyktsorb]

This just gunna make people use ropes less.

[Rynjin]

Speaking from personal experience, you can learn how to throw a lasso pretty good with about 5 minutes of practice, so I doubt it's complex enough to justify a proficiency. Unless I happen to be some kind of lasso tossing savant, which I sincerely doubt.

[Greywander]

This just gunna make people use ropes less.
And why would that be? If you don't take proficiency with ropes, then nothing's changed. If you do take rope proficiency, and your DM calls for an ability check when you use a rope for a particularly complex task, now you get to add your proficiency bonus, instead of just making a raw ability check.

[Toadkiller]

Sure. Sub it in for a skill proficiency from a background. No problem. If I was running the game I’d keep it mind to try to create some space for it to be worthwhile even.

[Jerrykhor]

Rope is too simple to be a tool. Most of the time, adventurers use rope to rappel, tie up hostiles, or bundle up things. Anything that requires more complex tying techniques should be a Survival roll.

Otherwise, i dont think anyone is interested in whether you are using a Fishermans knot or Figure 8 knot, that kind of minute detail is not important.

[OldTrees1]

And why would that be? If you don't take proficiency with ropes, then nothing's changed. If you do take rope proficiency, and your DM calls for an ability check when you use a rope for a particularly complex task, now you get to add your proficiency bonus, instead of just making a raw ability check.

The players might think something changed even if nothing changed. The check went from 1d20+Dex to 1d20+c*Proficiency+Dex. Extra bonus implies higher DCs and discouraging non proficient use (even if you explicitly state and explicitly intend otherwise. Their pattern matching is working against you.).

Alternative:
Using rope is a Proficient Dexterity check (aka everyone has Rope proficiency) but is now a valid option for Expertise / Tool Expertise.

[Kane0]

Okay.

But only if you grant it retroactively to other tools, skills and backgrounds where it makes sense (outlander [trapper], survival/animal handling, water/land vehicles, etc)
Edit: oh and probably anyone starting with a dungeoneer's pack.

[Garfunion]

I would roll the use of rope proficiency into the climbers kit. So instead of being proficient with a rope you’re proficient with a climbers kit, which of course does include rope and other climbing accessories.

[Chronos]

Lots of tool proficiencies already include rope as well as other things. And even though they use rope for very specific purposes, you can apply that knowledge to other applications

(Example: Way back when I was in Boy Scouts, in preparation for a rock-climbing activity, we learned what knot to use to join two pieces of nylon mesh. Decades later, I was out walking a dog, and his leash snapped... and I knew what knot to use to put it back together to get him home.)

[Imbalance]

Everyone knows how to tie basic knots. Not everyone knows how to tie really complex knots. Not everyone knows how to throw a lasso. There are many ways a rope can be used that aren't accessible to the lay person, only someone who has been properly trained can use such advanced techniques to their fullest. At the same time, Use Rope isn't quite so important as to merit being its own skill, as it was in previous editions. I think it fits best as a tool proficiency. In general, tool proficiencies work great for anything should have an associated proficiency, but isn't quite important or broad enough to be its own skill (though it can get awkward if there isn't an associated physical tool, but in this case we have the rope itself as the tool).

Thoughts?

If you're getting your "not everyone" assessment from modern society, you are quite correct. It's not difficult to imagine, however, that in a pseudo-medieval magical fantasy setting, "not everyone" is a much smaller portion of the population and that what we consider advanced techniques are more common to them.

[Unoriginal]

Everyone knows how to tie basic knots. Not everyone knows how to tie really complex knots. Not everyone knows how to throw a lasso. There are many ways a rope can be used that aren't accessible to the lay person, only someone who has been properly trained can use such advanced techniques to their fullest. At the same time, Use Rope isn't quite so important as to merit being its own skill, as it was in previous editions. I think it fits best as a tool proficiency. In general, tool proficiencies work great for anything should have an associated proficiency, but isn't quite important or broad enough to be its own skill (though it can get awkward if there isn't an associated physical tool, but in this case we have the rope itself as the tool).

Thoughts?

The Xanathar's has an optional rule about how if a check is needed to tie knots, it is an Intelligence check with Sleight of Hand proficiency applying.

Do you think it is not appropriate?

[Mastikator]

I think it should depend on what you're using the rope for. Tying a rope on a ship should go under Vehicles (water), tying someone's hands behind their back should go under slight of hand or maybe survival. Fastening a rope for climbing? Survival. Lassoing is athletics (maybe dex mod + athletics if you want to be fancy)

Tool proficiency should be a whole category of crafting, like Smith's Tools or Carpenter's Tools.

[Bobthewizard]

I just always use sleight of hand. It's an underused skill anyway so this makes it more worthwhile. I like the Xanathar's rule of it being a sleight of hand INT check. I hadn't seen that before.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rope is too simple to be a tool. Most of the time, adventurers use rope to rappel, tie up hostiles, or bundle up things. Anything that requires more complex tying techniques should be a Survival roll.

Otherwise, i dont think anyone is interested in whether you are using a Fishermans knot or Figure 8 knot, that kind of minute detail is not important. In our games, anyone with a sailor background is good with rope and knots.

[loki_ragnarock]

A DM I had a while back answered it like this when I asked if I should roll for tying up and unconscious villain:

"Your typical D&D adventurer should be as proficient with rope as you are with an iPhone. Don't roll."

I think it's a pretty sound assessment.

[Catullus64]

I'll not lie, I opened this thread expecting the argument to be about a hypothetical proficiency in Rope-maker's tools.

I do think there is something to the argument, already pointed to by other posters, that attaching a tool proficiency to something creates the implication that proficiency is required. After all, there are uses of other tools that I wouldn't allow without proficiency.

[Unoriginal]

A DM I had a while back answered it like this when I asked if I should roll for tying up and unconscious villain:

"Your typical D&D adventurer should be as proficient with rope as you are with an iPhone. Don't roll."

I think it's a pretty sound assessment.

A sound assessment, and one 5e supports.

The rule in the Xanathar's is explicit about how most knots being auto-successes is the expectation, and that the INT (Sleight of Hand) check is mostly for when the DM wants to see how difficult it'd be to escape from/untie those ropes.

[Willie the Duck]

Everyone knows how to tie basic knots. Not everyone knows how to tie really complex knots. Not everyone knows how to throw a lasso. There are many ways a rope can be used that aren't accessible to the lay person, only someone who has been properly trained can use such advanced techniques to their fullest. At the same time, Use Rope isn't quite so important as to merit being its own skill, as it was in previous editions. I think it fits best as a tool proficiency. In general, tool proficiencies work great for anything should have an associated proficiency, but isn't quite important or broad enough to be its own skill (though it can get awkward if there isn't an associated physical tool, but in this case we have the rope itself as the tool).

Thoughts?

I think this was the mentality that went into whether something should be a non-weapon proficiency in AD&D's Dungeoneer Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide, which became the system for 2nd edition AD&D, and influenced the skill list for 3e D&D. I know in the AD&D 1&2 days it was pretty frustrating in that it took about 2 non-weapon proficiency slots to be a good scribe, courtier, cobbler, or wizard, but 10-12 slots to be a good 'survival guy' and you'd often end up with someone who knew everything about plants, tracking, mountaineering, and survival, but who couldn't tie a knot or make a bow-drill fire because they'd run out of slots.

To me, it seems clear that this isn't the mindset for 5e. Skills are incredibly broad and mono-focused on traditional PC activity (seeing the approaching enemy, climbing the wall, sneaking past the guard, lying to the person; no skills like profession: butcher, baker, or candlestickmaker). Tool proficiencies are more broad and cover some more 'doesn't come up frequently in adventures' options like smith and mason. These tend to focus on specific roles rather than specific competencies. A Brewer brews, a Potter makes pots. Who ties rope (outside of adventurers)? Sailors and Herders, sure, but between Water Vehicle proficiency and Handle Animal, I like to think that their roles already have a apply-proficiency-modifier toggle. It just doesn't seem to me that 'this is a discrete skillset that wouldn't be accessible to everyone' is the guideline for what qualifies for either skill or tool proficiencies in this edition, so much as 'is it useful to a PC?' and 'is it a specific background role someone might have?'

None of this is to say that I think the game would break if you made said change, although as others have mentioned it might convince the players that the DC checks will now be balanced as skills are, instead of the DCs one tends to give to checks where only attribute mods ever apply, disinclining them to attempt rope-tying activities.

[Sigreid]

I don't quite agree. I think all this stuff falls under different tool proficiencies and skills based on the knots that are useful. Survival, water vehicles, animal handling, etc. all have specialized knots that aid in the tasks involved and some knots overlap but not all knots are shared.

[KorvinStarmast]

A DM I had a while back answered it like this when I asked if I should roll for tying up and unconscious villain:

"Your typical D&D adventurer should be as proficient with rope as you are with an iPhone. Don't roll."

I think it's a pretty sound assessment. Works for me.

A sound assessment, and one 5e supports.

The rule in the Xanathar's is explicit about how most knots being auto-successes is the expectation, and that the INT (Sleight of Hand) check is mostly for when the DM wants to see how difficult it'd be to escape from/untie those ropes. Good point on "how to get out of being tied up" as a unique application of the knots and ropes skill area.

[DigitalCharlie]

Learning to use ropes to safely rappel down ravines from places without pre-established anchors is a real, meaningful skill that takes time to learn. Using pitons even more so. There are a lot of tool proficiencies in D&D. To compare ropes to, say, brewer's tools... I would trust someone's homemade ale before I'd trust their anchors. It certainly took me longer to learn how to properly distribute weight between anchors than it took me to learn to brew. Knots are whatever — but that's not usually what I see people using ropes for.

That said, I don't think ropes should require separate proficiency because it'd be another party-level proficiency tax similar to how thieves tools feel to me.

[Greywander]

Lots of tool proficiencies already include rope as well as other things. And even though they use rope for very specific purposes, you can apply that knowledge to other applications

(Example: Way back when I was in Boy Scouts, in preparation for a rock-climbing activity, we learned what knot to use to join two pieces of nylon mesh. Decades later, I was out walking a dog, and his leash snapped... and I knew what knot to use to put it back together to get him home.)
I think it's fine for different proficiencies to overlap somewhat. Skills are fairly broad (tools less so), so even when they overlap it's usually minimal compared to how much each skill covers. Being able to apply one skill in a different situation is a feature, and not having the relevant proficiency means you're more limited in what you can do. The overlap at least gives you a few options.


The Xanathar's has an optional rule about how if a check is needed to tie knots, it is an Intelligence check with Sleight of Hand proficiency applying.

Do you think it is not appropriate?
I actually didn't know about this. TBH, I don't see how Sleight of Hand relates to tying knots (sleight of hand is more about pick pocketing and stage magic, basically "hand stealth"), but I can see how it might get filed under there for lack of a better option. Mechanically, I think it works fine, but there's going to be an awful lot of sailors and outdoorsmen and other people you'd expect to be good with ropes who won't have Sleight of Hand proficiency. It might make sense to broaden this to include other proficiencies that you would expect to include rope use, such as Survival, Animal Handling, or Vehicles (water).


Tool proficiency should be a whole category of crafting, like Smith's Tools or Carpenter's Tools.
What does one craft using Thieves' Tools, a Lute, a Navigator's Set, or a Dice Set? Artisan tools are the broadest category of tools, but there are other types of tools that have nothing to do with crafting.


If you're getting your "not everyone" assessment from modern society, you are quite correct. It's not difficult to imagine, however, that in a pseudo-medieval magical fantasy setting, "not everyone" is a much smaller portion of the population and that what we consider advanced techniques are more common to them.

A DM I had a while back answered it like this when I asked if I should roll for tying up and unconscious villain:

"Your typical D&D adventurer should be as proficient with rope as you are with an iPhone. Don't roll."

I think it's a pretty sound assessment.
This does make sense. But, does this mean a rope proficiency shouldn't exist, or that it should exist and everyone gets free proficiency?


None of this is to say that I think the game would break if you made said change, although as others have mentioned it might convince the players that the DC checks will now be balanced as skills are, instead of the DCs one tends to give to checks where only attribute mods ever apply, disinclining them to attempt rope-tying activities.
I understand that expectations are a factor here; if you can be proficient, then DCs can be higher. This isn't really how I view this, though. A DC number represents how difficult a task is, independent of whether a proficiency for that task exists or not. DCs should be the same regardless of whether a proficiency exists, and if a proficiency doesn't exist, it means that players are never allowed to be "good" at that task.

And I realize not everyone sees it this way, and not every DM will run it this way. So I suppose in the end YMMV.

I think one thing that could help is giving out extra proficiencies at character creation. Particularly if you're adding more skills or tools. If there are more proficiencies to choose from, it would make sense to start with a few extra. This could also be an alternative to getting free proficiency, as mentioned above; you can use your extra proficiency to grab this one, or you can grab something else if rope use isn't important to your character concept.

[Unoriginal]

I actually didn't know about this. TBH, I don't see how Sleight of Hand relates to tying knots (sleight of hand is more about pick pocketing and stage magic, basically "hand stealth")

Sleight of Hand is all kind of manual tricks, not just stealth.

Also many stage magic tricks involve tying people up in specific ways or escaping bonds.



It might make sense to broaden this to include other proficiencies that you would expect to include rope use, such as Survival, Animal Handling, or Vehicles (water).

Sure, the proficiency applies when X thing is relevant, it's not excluding the other potential proficiencies.

[Mastikator]

What does one craft using Thieves' Tools, a Lute, a Navigator's Set, or a Dice Set? Artisan tools are the broadest category of tools, but there are other types of tools that have nothing to do with crafting.

What does one craft with Thieves' Tools? Larceny
Navigator's set? A destination.
A lute? Music
A dice set? Dungeons and Dragons

[KorvinStarmast]

The overlap at least gives you a few options. I prefer some overlap.

But, does this mean a rope proficiency shouldn't exist, or that it should exist and everyone gets free proficiency?
If it doesn't exist there's less overhead for a DM.

Sleight of Hand is all kind of manual tricks, not just stealth.

Also many stage magic tricks involve tying people up in specific ways or escaping bonds.
Sleight of hand for a quick tie of a know also makes intuitive sense, given what I learned in Boy Scouts during knot tying competitions.

What does one craft with Thieves' Tools? Larceny
Navigator's set? A destination.
A lute? Music
A dice set? Dungeons and Dragons *golf clap*

[Eric Diaz]

"Securely tie up a prisoner" and "Wriggle free of bonds" are Dexterity checks in the PHB.

I'm glad XGtE made knots Int-based instead. Dexterity is good enough already.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/04/dexterity-god-stat-that-failed.html

I wouldn't mind making ropes a tool if you are not using any other proficiency. I think at least SOME skill or tool should be available for almost ALL checks, IMO.

[Dork_Forge]

I don't think it should be a proficiency at all, adventurers in a pseudo medieval setting would have a high, near daily reliance on a variety of different knots for different reasons. Even commoners would have a reliance on knots a fair bit, the only kind of NPC I can see justifiably not being at least proficient in knot tying are maybe nobles that have servants to do that kind of thing.

It's worth keeping in mind, you don't need to know every knot under the sun, knowing maybe five knots will cover the majority, if not all, of a person's needs.

Heck I've never been to boy scouts or really learned knots for any particular purpose, but general life has taught me several knots in the modern day urban(ish) environment.

[Willie the Duck]

This does make sense. But, does this mean a rope proficiency shouldn't exist, or that it should exist and everyone gets free proficiency?

Personally, If there is a list of things all PCs should be able to do (and to rope use we could perhaps add 'use flint and steel', 'ride a horse', and a few others), it should be a simple list, not a list of proficiencies.

[DigitalCharlie]

"Securely tie up a prisoner" and "Wriggle free of bonds" are Dexterity checks in the PHB.

I'm glad XGtE made knots Int-based instead. Dexterity is good enough already.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/04/dexterity-god-stat-that-failed.html

I wouldn't mind making ropes a tool if you are not using any other proficiency. I think at least SOME skill or tool should be available for almost ALL checks, IMO.

This is why ropes feel too broad of a category to me. Knots? Sure, most people will know how to tie some basic ones. Ropes to be safe climbing or rappelling on? That feels like something that does require a specialized skillset that isn't universal to adventurers.

[Chronic]

Sure, had another proficiency, magic users will still not care whike plebs will be even less efficient.

[Eric Diaz]

I think there is a certain disconnect in this thread. This is how tools work:

Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your Proficiency Bonus to any ability check you make using that tool.

So, if saying "ropes shouldn't be tools because they should be easy to use" makes no sense. Unless you're saying everyone gets proficiency - which is not a thing that exists in 5e AFAICT - or that it should be included under other skill or tool - in which case you should at least be saying which one you think fits better.


This is why ropes feel too broad of a category to me. Knots? Sure, most people will know how to tie some basic ones. Ropes to be safe climbing or rappelling on? That feels like something that does require a specialized skillset that isn't universal to adventurers.

Fair enough; for me, climbing and rappelling is athletics (although rappelling doesn't require that much str, so not sure, maybe this one should be Int and knots etc... ).

I was thinking of tying people down (I hope that doesn't sound wrong...).

[Unoriginal]

This is why ropes feel too broad of a category to me. Knots? Sure, most people will know how to tie some basic ones. Ropes to be safe climbing or rappelling on? That feels like something that does require a specialized skillset that isn't universal to adventurers.

If you don't have at least the basics of safe climbing, you aren't going to be an adventurer long.

[Greywander]

If you don't have at least the basics of safe climbing, you aren't going to be an adventurer long.
You know, I'm not sure I agree with this mentality. Not every adventurer is good at every aspect of adventuring. You're a team of specialists, each trained in a different field. It's the same thing as bringing someone along with proficiency in Thieves' Tools. I'd expect a ranger or rogue to be trained in getting the most out of a rope, but a wizard? Not really.

It's not like every PC went to an "Adventurer School" to learn the basics of adventuring. Sometimes, you're just a random joe who gets swept up in something. I mean, think about most fantasy books or movies or TV shows. Do you really think that every character is proficient in a common set of adventuring skills, including rope use? Of course not. Often, much like in D&D, a specific cast is assembled because collectively they have all the skills needed, not because each individual has all those skills.

Not every PC was a career adventurer before the campaign started. In fact, if you're starting at 1st level, you're probably taking your first quest ever, fresh out of whatever training you took for your class. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but a 1st level character is the very definition of inexperienced. There shouldn't really be any expectations that a 1st level character knows critical skills, and if they don't then it might end up cutting their career short. But if they're part of a competent team, then it might never be necessary for them, personally, to learn those skills.

[Dork_Forge]

You know, I'm not sure I agree with this mentality. Not every adventurer is good at every aspect of adventuring. You're a team of specialists, each trained in a different field. It's the same thing as bringing someone along with proficiency in Thieves' Tools. I'd expect a ranger or rogue to be trained in getting the most out of a rope, but a wizard? Not really.

It's not like every PC went to an "Adventurer School" to learn the basics of adventuring. Sometimes, you're just a random joe who gets swept up in something. I mean, think about most fantasy books or movies or TV shows. Do you really think that every character is proficient in a common set of adventuring skills, including rope use? Of course not. Often, much like in D&D, a specific cast is assembled because collectively they have all the skills needed, not because each individual has all those skills.

Not every PC was a career adventurer before the campaign started. In fact, if you're starting at 1st level, you're probably taking your first quest ever, fresh out of whatever training you took for your class. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but a 1st level character is the very definition of inexperienced. There shouldn't really be any expectations that a 1st level character knows critical skills, and if they don't then it might end up cutting their career short. But if they're part of a competent team, then it might never be necessary for them, personally, to learn those skills.

I think your premise of a 1st level adventurer doesn't really have experience is flawed from a world view.

From your background you can be a veteran soldier or sailor, among other things, there's plenty of time and reason in life to learn skills before 1st level is ever 'achieved.'

That said, if someone didn't have the basics of climbing, that person is a liability unless they have a specific reason to not know it. There's a difference between one person knows how to pick locks and one person has to harnass and baby everyone else down mild rappels. There is also a dissonance in world knowledge, I imagine there's many people that wouldn't have an idea about how to build and light a fire irl, that's an every day chore in most D&D settings.

[greenstone]

Rope is too simple to be a tool. Most of the time, adventurers use rope to rappel, tie up hostiles, or bundle up things. Anything that requires more complex tying techniques should be a Survival roll.
Agreed. It could also be covered by Vehicles (Land), Sleight of Hand, and Animal Handling.

[Greywander]

From your background you can be a veteran soldier or sailor, among other things, there's plenty of time and reason in life to learn skills before 1st level is ever 'achieved.'
Yes, which is why some 1st level characters would have such skills. Why/how does someone with a Sage or Noble background learn how to tie complex knots or climb safely? Each person brings a different background with a different set of skills to the table.


That said, if someone didn't have the basics of climbing, that person is a liability unless they have a specific reason to not know it. There's a difference between one person knows how to pick locks and one person has to harnass and baby everyone else down mild rappels. There is also a dissonance in world knowledge, I imagine there's many people that wouldn't have an idea about how to build and light a fire irl, that's an every day chore in most D&D settings.
You have the basics. It's not like I'm asking for breathing checks. Basic tasks generally don't require rolls to begin with, it's only when you're doing something complex or risky, something that would have a reasonable chance to fail, that you would be called on to make a check. Until you're called on to make a check, proficiency or lack thereof has no effect.

[Kane0]

It may be beneficial for you to give us a list of backgrounds, skills and tools that come with Rope proficiency bundled in, that might clear things up some.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, which is why some 1st level characters would have such skills. Why/how does someone with a Sage or Noble background learn how to tie complex knots or climb safely? Each person brings a different background with a different set of skills to the table.

Every PC knows how to swim.

They aren't all amazing at it, sure, but they're all on the "won't drown in calm circumstances and can go at a decent speed" level of capacity.

Would you argue that no, some PCs shouldn't be able to swim because they don't have a background for it?



If you don't have at least the basics of safe climbing, you aren't going to be an adventurer long.
You know, I'm not sure I agree with this mentality.



You have the basics.


You're contradicting yourself.

[Greywander]

Every PC knows how to swim.

They aren't all amazing at it, sure, but they're all on the "won't drown in calm circumstances and can go at a decent speed" level of capacity.

Would you argue that no, some PCs shouldn't be able to swim because they don't have a background for it?
Every PC knows how to use a rope.

They aren't all amazing at it, sure, but they're all on the "can tie a knot and shimmy up a rope at a decent speed" level of capacity.

Would you argue that no, some PCs shouldn't be able to climb ropes because they don't have a background for it?


You're contradicting yourself.
I may have had a poor choice of words there. Just because every adventurer (and really, every adult) knows a basic set of skills doesn't mean we shouldn't still have a proficiency for more advanced tasks. Basic climbing, yes. But does this mean everyone is equally proficient? No.

You don't call for an Athletics check to swim in calm water. You do call for an Athletics check to swim across raging rapids, and you better believe the lack or presence of proficiency will be felt in that situation. You don't call for a Rope check to tie off a rope to rappel down. You do call for a Rope check to secure a rope to a piton for horizontal climbing under a waterfall with dire vampiric salmon swimming up it inside a windstorm and the goliath keeps tugging on the rope.

You don't even roll for basic tasks. Proficiency only matters if you're rolling.

Also, climbing falls under Athletics; a Rope tool proficiency would relate more to securing the rope to be climbed on, which could give a bonus (or penalty) to your party members as they attempt to climb that rope. Generally, if you're using rope and pitons and other climbing gear, you're actually trying to eliminate the need for an Athletics check at all by using tools that won't let you fall if you slip. Instead of the whole party making Athletics checks to climb in difficult circumstances, one PC makes a single Rope check to secure the party's climbing gear, allowing them all to get safely up/down/across without any other rolls.

[Eric Diaz]

The main issue is not if they know how to swim or use a rope... it is whether they add their proficiency bonus or not.

(TBH I think giving everyone proficiency in everything is not a terrible idea).

[Jerrykhor]

You could make a case for anything to be a tool proficiency, and you may not be wrong. I could argue that an Abacus should be a tool proficiency, because there are academic classes for mental arithmetic and abacus usage. It does require skill to use. But would i WANT it to happen? Not really, because it won't matter 99% of the time. When was the last time you saw a PC use Glassblower tools or Weaver tools?

A DM assuming every PC is decent with a rope is just being nice. But DM, what if i want to suck at it? My background is a sheltered princess who could barely tie her shoe laces.

You sure could suck at it if you so choose.

[Mastikator]

The main issue is not if they know how to swim or use a rope... it is whether they add their proficiency bonus or not.

(TBH I think giving everyone proficiency in everything is not a terrible idea).

Add proficiency bonus if you're proficient with the task/situation you're using it. :smallwink:

[Asmotherion]

I'm not against it, but what prevents you from choosing it as a tool proficiency in the first place? I always thought tool proficiency to be an abstruct thing you can get on almost anything you want.

[Chronos]

I had a player use their glassblowing proficiency in a game I ran. They found a shop with a bunch of oddly purple items, a few of which were magical. The shopkeeper made it clear that he would only part with one of those for a price in gold and another item in trade. So one of the PCs made a trinket of purple glass.

And yes, it's easy to learn the basics of rope use, but not everything is basic. As an example, every Boy Scout knows how to tie a bowline knot: It's an easy, simple knot with a lot of uses. Some Boy Scouts also learn to tie a one-handed bowline, putting themselves inside of the loop as part of the process of quickly tying the knot. But that definitely takes skill; not everyone can do it. And based on my experiences, who could and couldn't do it was more related to dexterity than intelligence.

[Unoriginal]

I had a player use their glassblowing proficiency in a game I ran. They found a shop with a bunch of oddly purple items, a few of which were magical. The shopkeeper made it clear that he would only part with one of those for a price in gold and another item in trade. So one of the PCs made a trinket of purple glass.

Was it the shop in the Dragon Heist module?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Use Rope was once a skill in D&D. And it was fairly pointless. Making it a tool in 5e doesn’t make it any-less pointless.

Lassoing someone would be an attack roll. So that tool use is out the window. Tying people up is also pretty pointless as you could alternatively carry manacles

It’s not broad enough to be its own tool and it has no flavor attached to it.

[Eric Diaz]

Add proficiency bonus if you're proficient with the task/situation you're using it. :smallwink:

I agree, it makes perfect sense. However, it is not a thing that EXISTS in the game IIRC. You can be proficient with skills, tools but usually not with tasks. In the rare case you can be proficient with a task (stonecunning etc.), it is always explicit; you never have to judge on a case-by-case basis.

[deljzc]

I like the house rule that the Sailor Background automatically succeeds on knot checks (when DM calls for it). You might want to include other backgrounds as well depending on how many backgrounds you have in your group.

Otherwise, I like either straight Intelligence check or a Survival (Wisdom) check, whichever the DM thinks is more appropriate.

[Eric Diaz]

Tying people up is also pretty pointless as you could alternatively carry manacles

Well, you could, but you won't always have manacles available.

If we go down this rabbit hole, we might find curious things.

A normal (non-adventuring) person can break or escape from manacles 5% of the time or more.

Assuming tying someone up with a rope is a contested roll, it would be even easier to escape. If you add proficiency, things get a bit better, but not much (unless you're a rogue etc.).

Anyway, it never happened in my 5e games (it DID happen in other D&D games occasionally), I'm just wondering.

[Joe the Rat]

Int for basis I like - it represents a knowledge of rope, knots, materials and tensions, and such. Personally, I'd accept any proficiencies that the player can make a reasonable case as being relevant for knotwork. Vehicles (Land, Water), Masonry or Carpentry for securing and maneuvering heavy things, Survival, Athletics, and Acrobatics if I absolutely insisted on having a roll for setting belaying ropes for climbing rather than just give you Advantage or a DC reduction for using rope in that situation, Animal Handling for lassoing or hobbling, or simply having an appropriate background - Bounty Hunter for example.


The main issue is not if they know how to swim or use a rope... it is whether they add their proficiency bonus or not.

(TBH I think giving everyone proficiency in everything is not a terrible idea).

5e operates on the Omnicompetent Hero principle - everybody is reasonably capable at anything. This is why we have ability checks instead of skill checks, and "proficient only" is not a thing. Proficiency means that you have added focus or training above the broad set of abilities and capabilities represented by your base stat. And this is where inherited nomenclature does them in. You are already "in normal terms" proficient in just about everything. Proficiency is specialization for skills, tools, and weapons (Armor and languages have their own thing going).

If someone specifically wants to be a specialist with ropes, and have proficiency in all things rope and knot related, then yeah, give them a tool proficiency. I'd even extend that to proficiency in making ropes and cords, should the need come up.

[Eric Diaz]

Int for basis I like - it represents a knowledge of rope, knots, materials and tensions, and such. Personally, I'd accept any proficiencies that the player can make a reasonable case as being relevant for knotwork. Vehicles (Land, Water), Masonry or Carpentry for securing and maneuvering heavy things, Survival, Athletics, and Acrobatics if I absolutely insisted on having a roll for setting belaying ropes for climbing rather than just give you Advantage or a DC reduction for using rope in that situation, Animal Handling for lassoing or hobbling, or simply having an appropriate background - Bounty Hunter for example.

I completely agree with this approach. This is not how backgrounds work, IIRC, but I think it makes sense.


5e operates on the Omnicompetent Hero principle - everybody is reasonably capable at anything. This is why we have ability checks instead of skill checks, and "proficient only" is not a thing. Proficiency means that you have added focus or training above the broad set of abilities and capabilities represented by your base stat. And this is where inherited nomenclature does them in. You are already "in normal terms" proficient in just about everything. Proficiency is specialization for skills, tools, and weapons (Armor and languages have their own thing going).

Yeah, that's an interesting discussion. TBH it bothers me that the 20th level fighter knows the same about arcana as the 1st level fighter. But that's a matter of taste.


If someone specifically wants to be a specialist with ropes, and have proficiency in all things rope and knot related, then yeah, give them a tool proficiency. I'd even extend that to proficiency in making ropes and cords, should the need come up.

Agreed again.

[Mastikator]

I agree, it makes perfect sense. However, it is not a thing that EXISTS in the game IIRC. You can be proficient with skills, tools but usually not with tasks. In the rare case you can be proficient with a task (stonecunning etc.), it is always explicit; you never have to judge on a case-by-case basis.

Player: "I want to tie this incapacitated guy's hands behind his back"
DM: "OK give me a wisdom ability check, add proficiency bonus if you're proficient with survival or thieves tools"

Player: "I want to secure this rope so that my team mates can climb this tall sheer cliff"
DM: "OK give me a wisdom ability check, add proficiency bonus if you're proficient with survival"

Player: "I want to lasso this horse"
DM: "Ok give me a dexterity ability check, add proficiency if you're proficient with survival or handle animals"
Player: "I have expertise in handle animals"
DM: "Then apply double proficiency bonus"

Is that not how DM's are supposed to handle "I want to do X thing"?

[Eric Diaz]

Player: "I want to tie this incapacitated guy's hands behind his back"
DM: "OK give me a wisdom ability check, add proficiency bonus if you're proficient with survival or thieves tools"

Player: "I want to secure this rope so that my team mates can climb this tall sheer cliff"
DM: "OK give me a wisdom ability check, add proficiency bonus if you're proficient with survival"

Player: "I want to lasso this horse"
DM: "Ok give me a dexterity ability check, add proficiency if you're proficient with survival or handle animals"
Player: "I have expertise in handle animals"
DM: "Then apply double proficiency bonus"

Is that not how DM's are supposed to handle "I want to do X thing"?

Ah, yes, you're bundling ropes with existing skills and tools, I completely agree.

[loki_ragnarock]

Yes, which is why some 1st level characters would have such skills. Why/how does someone with a Sage or Noble background learn how to tie complex knots or climb safely? Each person brings a different background with a different set of skills to the table.

Why is everyone apart from the Acolyte, Sage, and (maybe) Noble coming out of their past literate in multiple languages?

Should we make literacy a tool proficiency?


It makes sense if you're going for a very specific vibe, sure. But PC adventurers are generally pretty exceptional. Being diversely lettered, tying many knots; it's all part of the package.

[PhantomSoul]

Why is everyone apart from the Acolyte, Sage, and (maybe) Noble coming out of their past literate in multiple languages?

Should we make literacy a tool proficiency?


It makes sense if you're going for a very specific vibe, sure. But PC adventurers are generally pretty exceptional. Being diversely lettered, tying many knots; it's all part of the package.

TBH, it seems more like it's because they couldn't be bothered to do otherwise when their audience is presumed to come from a background where people are typically literate.

[Slipjig]

I think making it a separate proficiency doesn't make sense, because then you would have to give up a different tool to gain access to it (unless you added it to certain backgrounds). Any time you are telling players, "Something that you should logically be able to do is gated behind a skill requirement", that's a bad design choice. A certain minimum level of skill with knots is a requirement in many professions, and should be taken for granted.

Most of the likely uses of rope that are sufficiently complicated to require a check could be covered by either a Survival or Athletics check. Or if they are doing something where a rope would help but isn't strictly neccessary, just rule that using the rope lowers the difficulty or gives advantage on the check.

[Slipjig]

Why is everyone apart from the Acolyte, Sage, and (maybe) Noble coming out of their past literate in multiple languages?
Because the default D&D worlds are places where people who speak many different languages live in close proximity, so you'd expect most people to know at the basics of their neighbor's languages?

[PhantomSoul]

Because the default D&D worlds are places where people who speak many different languages live in close proximity, so you'd expect most people to know at the basics of their neighbor's languages?

That's fluency, not literacy :)

[Joe the Rat]

On Literacy: D&D is default cosmopolitan - You are familiar with other cultures, and quite likely have some exposure to those languages - being multilingual is the default of the world. Additionally, literacy is assumed - if you know a language, you can read the language.

This is one of those places where D&D has always been a little rough. I would love to see some sort of proficiency gradation for language (which could relate to progress in tool/language learning). MERP (and I think Rolemaster) used a 5-point scale, from Essential Phrases to Rich and Esoteric Vocabulary (most native speakers getting by just fine at 4). Having a Crude/Passable/Fluent rating would suffice. Where you put being able to read the language is probably more of a setting choice or related to how the language is learned.

But that's a side point to rope, unless we are discussing Inca.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Tools say something about the character. They can represent some kind of profession.
Cart driver, musician, locksmith, cook, musician and rope guy…..


Well, you could, but you won't always have manacles available.

If we go down this rabbit hole, we might find curious things.

A normal (non-adventuring) person can break or escape from manacles 5% of the time or more.


And they can burst ropes 20% of the time.
If you’re going to take proficiency rope because it can help with tying someone up. Then you can use that same foresight to carry manacles.

[Ganryu]

My DM makes me do a survival check. Knots and restraining people comes up often.

Of course... I may have been that bugger that chose expertise survival, but that's neither here nor there...

[DwarfFighter]

I have reflected upon my rope skills, and concluded that I would be a poor knotsmith.

But in a setting where rope is ubiquitous, requiring a Tool proficiency is going to exclude a huge section of the populace from performing otherwise common tasks. Rope is the DnD equivalent of ductape...

[PhantomSoul]

But in a setting where rope is ubiquitous, requiring a Tool proficiency is going to exclude a huge section of the populace from performing otherwise common tasks. Rope is the DnD equivalent of ductape...

Or suggests many have some ability to have rope (potentially rope has trained and untrained benefits, or instead people often get trained in at least one usage). It's like literacy or using computers now: it's a non-trivial capability, but it's widespread from explicit instruction (literacy) and/or from need+access (computers for younger generations, for basics functionality and general intuitions).

In other words, it doesn't necessarily exclude much of the population at all! (And might correctly separate "basic" [untrained] usage from trained usages.)

With that said, I fold it into skills and other tools, which has the same general effect. (It's still not a given that a random person can do just anything with it.)

[Greywander]

But in a setting where rope is ubiquitous, requiring a Tool proficiency is going to exclude a huge section of the populace from performing otherwise common tasks. Rope is the DnD equivalent of ductape...
Where is this coming from? You don't roll for basic, common tasks. Proficiency only matters if you have to roll for it. I keep seeing this sentiment repeated, and I don't understand why it isn't clear that this isn't what I'm advocating for. A tool proficiency isn't required, proficiency is only helpful if you need to make a roll, and even then you might still roll high enough without proficiency.

Is it because it's specifically a tool proficiency? Because I believe Thieves' Tools are the only tool that actually requires proficiency to do certain things. Any other tool can be used by anyone without proficiency to do what that tool is made for, it's just that without proficiency you won't be able to use that tool very effectively for anything beyond basic, common tasks, aka any time a roll is called for.

[DwarfFighter]

Where is this coming from? You don't roll for basic, common tasks.

I'm not sure we agree or disagree. I'm not concerned about rolling dice for mundane tasks, but I am concerned with Rope Use being introduced as a tool: Doing so implies that all use of rope requires dedicated training and experience, which jars with my own idea of the DnD setting where rope is being used by basically everyone, to the point where it is impossible to grow up an not know ropes.

If anything, not knowing ropes is a more noteworthy character trait.

If you are looking to place advance rope use behind some sort of "skill wall", consider a homebrew feat that makes the character an outstanding rope expert: knots that never come loose, but he can untie with a shake of his hand, increase load limits on his ropes, cool lassoing tricks, rope crafting and repairs, stuff that actually requires dedicated training and experience.

-DF

[Kane0]

Next character i make is going to have the Flaw 'cant tie a knot to save their life'

[Chronos]

Quoth Unoriginal:

Was it the shop in the Dragon Heist module?
Yes, except by the book, it contained only worthless trinkets. I decided that the adventure didn't have enough magic items (at least, not enough that the party could be reasonably expected to get and keep), and so that was one of the places I added a few more. The party ended up getting an Alchemy Jug out of the deal; I can't recall exactly what other items I made available there.

[Greywander]

I'm not sure we agree or disagree. I'm not concerned about rolling dice for mundane tasks, but I am concerned with Rope Use being introduced as a tool: Doing so implies that all use of rope requires dedicated training and experience, which jars with my own idea of the DnD setting where rope is being used by basically everyone, to the point where it is impossible to grow up an not know ropes.
This only applies to Thieves' Tools, and even then only to specific applications. Anyone can use a tool, even without proficiency. Some good examples of this would be using a Forgery Kit as a writing kit (it contains pretty much everything you'd need for writing), or a Disguise Kit to make costumes. In a pinch, you could try to forge a document, or create a convincing disguise, but without proficiency it will be more difficult.

It's not as though any of these tools are so technical that someone without training can't use them at all. A hammer is pretty straightforward, for example. You could use Blacksmith's Tools to bang out the dents in your armor without needing much skill, but anything beyond basic repairs and certainly crafting items from scratch would require an ability check, and hence lack of proficiency would make it more difficult.

Although I will say that as a DM I might be inclined to limit what someone without proficiency could do with a tool, but as far as I'm aware there's nothing of the sort in the rules (aside from Thieves' Tools). Even then, though, that would only pertain to more advanced things, basic tasks would always be fine.

The reason I originally went with a tool proficiency for rope was because tool proficiencies are generally less broad and less valued compared to skill proficiencies. Use Rope as a skill would be a waste, as noted by another poster here. As a tool, however, it would be both easier to get and you'd be sacrificing less to get it. It's a little strange to think of rope as a "tool", but it's the closest option there was.


If you are looking to place advance rope use behind some sort of "skill wall", consider a homebrew feat that makes the character an outstanding rope expert: knots that never come loose, but he can untie with a shake of his hand, increase load limits on his ropes, cool lassoing tricks, rope crafting and repairs, stuff that actually requires dedicated training and experience.

-DF
Proficiencies are for making ability checks. Feats can add cool new features like the ones you're suggesting, but they generally don't interact with ability checks, and never in the same way as proficiency. Even with a feat, you'd still need a proficiency for when an ability check must be rolled. Maybe it isn't a tool proficiency. Maybe you just use another relevant proficiency (Survival, etc.). But you still need a proficiency.

[DwarfFighter]

What tool would you remove to make room for Rope Use?

[Chronos]

Why would you need to remove any? There's no limit on the number of proficiencies possible in the game.

[Greywander]

What tool would you remove to make room for Rope Use?
There's no need to have a fixed number of proficiencies in any category. You can add new skills, tools, weapons, armors, and even saving throws/ability scores without needing to "make room". Examples of this already exist, with the DMG having optional ability scores (and presumably associated saving throws) for Honor and Sanity, and I think SCAG has additional musical instruments (which are tools), and somewhere there was the double-bladed scimitar.

[DwarfFighter]

I don't follow. If we presume that all tools proficiencies are valuable in the game, adding Rope Use in will squeeze other valuable profs out by the simple fact that characters can't select their normal allowance of profs AND get character-appropriate Rope Use. So either something else has to go, or you need to allow characters to somehow gain more profs to cover the stretch.

Of course, you could let all characters have Rope Use for free, but then what point is it to the proficiency? Characters are ultimately measured against each other, not the environment which just keeps scaling as they advance. If everyone has the prof it's adding the same value on both sides of the compared, which is the same as adding nothing.

[PhantomSoul]

I don't follow. If we presume that all tools proficiencies are valuable in the game, adding Rope Use in will squeeze other valuable profs out by the simple fact that characters can't select their normal allowance of profs AND get character-appropriate Rope Use. So either something else has to go, or you need to allow characters to somehow gain more profs to cover the stretch.

Of course, you could let all characters have Rope Use for free, but then what point is it to the proficiency? Characters are ultimately measured against each other, not the environment which just keeps scaling as they advance. If everyone has the prof it's adding the same value on both sides of the compared, which is the same as adding nothing.

I don't think it will squeeze valuable tool proficiencies out... because I don't think there actually are enough of them!
(Really only half-blue)

With how often people seem to end up with a tool proficiency that (a) doesn't fit their character and/or (b) doesn't get used much or ever, I wouldn't be worried about adding one tool to the list of options. That obviously doesn't scale perfectly to infinity, of course! (Or instead it should implicitly scale to infinity by asking players to decide which tool(s) their character is proficient with from their background directly, potentially without a list to go from.)

[DwarfFighter]

I don't think it will squeeze valuable tool proficiencies out... because I don't think there actually are enough of them!
(Really only half-blue)

With how often people seem to end up with a tool proficiency that (a) doesn't fit their character and/or (b) doesn't get used much or ever, I wouldn't be worried about adding one tool to the list of options. That obviously doesn't scale perfectly to infinity, of course! (Or instead it should implicitly scale to infinity by asking players to decide which tool(s) their character is proficient with from their background directly, potentially without a list to go from.)

You should probably first solve a) and b), by letting the players select a suitable/desired tool instead of being stuck with what the character generation process allows them.

Ironically, that actually increases the squeeze, since Rope Use will then only compete with real-value profs.

[PhantomSoul]

You should probably first solve a) and b), by letting the players select a suitable/desired tool instead of being stuck with what the character generation process allows them.

Ironically, that actually increases the squeeze, since Rope Use will then only compete with real-value profs.

Agreed; we tend to hot-swap in many of my groups and it helps. (Or makes it really clear just how much tools are essentially relegated to fluff/narration in so many cases...)
(Tool proficiencies really do feel like a shame in the game design; so much great potential that more or less feels wasted)

------

EDIT: In a current game, it came up that swimming could be treated like a tool proficiency (it's assumed for that group if you're trained in athletics, but this as another source).