D&D (2024) Fighters and Tools

[tetrasodium]

When I read this I immediately thought about The Mandalorian. PC Fighters are not average yokels who are proficient with a longsword. They're highly trained and exceptionally skilled. It would be great if they had tool proficiencies to show for it. A class feature like Indomitable but usable with tool proficiency only. Is it minor? Yes, which makes it easier to implement.

I'd also like to see a "custom modification" class feature for Fighters. It could be a proficiency bonus they can apply once on armor, weapons or tools and it recharges on a short rest. They pick the modification on a short rest, tinkering with their equipment.

No pc is an "average yokel", that does not mean that 5.5 should ignore how strong fighters are in combat and give them a part of the artificer's package because too much of fighter is devoted exclusively to fighting when every choice made available to them is chosen for maximum combat output with such visceral results in so many cases I'm surprised that it took till post 22 before artificer was even mentioned

 

[Yaarel]

You want the Fighter to be more active in the Social pillar... you as the DM just let the players roleplay and ... not ... forcing them to tack on a Persuasion check on.

Heh, so for you, the only way to help the Fighter in the social pillar is by completely removing the mechanics of the social pillar?

That solution ... seems extreme.

It characterizes the plight and the desperation of the Fighter in the social pillar.

 

[Yaarel]

I'm having a hard time figuring out the correlation between Smith's Tools / Leatherworker's Tools and the Exploration / Social pillars.

There are tools that are more explicitly social, like a disguise kit. A gaming or gambling set, a musical instrument, or a brewer, can be an ice breaker to get to know an NPC.

In the context of crafting, like metalwork and leatherwork, the social aspect corresponds to knowing what one is talking about on the topic, and this familiarity and credibility has weight.

I agree a feature must be frequently useful, at least once per session. A tool is something that a character can lean into.

Regarding the exploration pillar, many tools pertain to it, including vehicles, navigation, mining, etcetera. I would use masonry for examining structures and installations.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Heh, so for you, the only way to help the Fighter in the social pillar is by completely removing the mechanics of the social pillar?

That solution ... seems extreme.

It characterizes the plight and the desperation of the Fighter in the social pillar.

What's more Social... the player of the Fighter character talking to the NPCs/DM and discussing things (in first-person, third-person, or whatever)... or the Fighter player just saying one thing like "I want to know X" and then rolling a Persuasion check? Even if they got to roll with Advantage because they had Herbalism tools, or whatever extra tools you want to give the Fighter class?

The fact of the matter is... the Combat Pillar in the only one that has all the game mechanics at hand to run entire scenes in that Pillar using just the mechanics. The game is built and designed for it, being an offshoot of a miniatures combat game. But the Exploration and Social have the barest amount of actual dice mechanics and dice formats to play with-- it's like a Survival check or an Intimidate check or whatever in like one to three rolls or thereabouts. And why is this? Because way back when at the time of the game was made back in the 70s, they didn't have skills at all, there were no "checks" for the Exploration and Social Pillars... because the Exploration and Social Pillars were part and parcel with the players themselves engaging with the world as their characters.

And that's why the game doesn't have and never did have the same huge mechanical engines for Exploration and Social like it does for Combat-- because both those pillars are meant to be engaged with differently than Combat. The Exploration Pillar is all about the players describing where they are going, what they are looking for, where they are going, what they are exploring, and making choices with their player brains based off of what the DM narrates back to them. There's no gameification or ruleset for "exploring" the D&D world... no dice system to use... it's just the DM narrating what is out there and the players responding with what they want to look and do. Sure, maybe the DM might throw in a skill check or two just to get some levels of success or whatnot to flavor the info the DM gives out to the players... but NONE of the mechanics are a system unto themselves for "Exploration". It's A die roll. Maybe three. Maybe seven if the DM decided to make it a so-called "Skill Challenge". But the Exploration is not actually about those dice rolls, it's all about the players reacting as their characters to what the DM gives them. And the same is true (if not even doubly so) for the Social Pillar. The entire game is based around players inhabiting their characters and making choices as their characters while interacting with other characters in the game. Again maybe the DM might add in a Persuasion check after the conversations the PCs and NPCs have... but at no point do I think the Persuasion check is the engine for anyone's game. It's at best an add-in to the actual vocal conversations between players and DM.

I mean heck... we all understand this in the very first statement almost any DM makes when presenting things for players in all three pillars.

Exploration: "What do you do?"

Social: "What do you say?"

Combat: "Roll for Initiative."

One's about the dice... the other two are about the players' choices. So while I can appreciate the desire to gameify Exploration and Social more greatly... and believe you me people have been trying to do that for years in every edition of the game... to my mind that's always like trying to make a lake out of a puddle by pouring a cup of water into it. The puddle ain't a lake, it wasn't designed to be a lake, you can't magically turn it into a lake, and your attempts to create a lake out of it will just end up with disappointment. So instead... accept the puddle for what it is, and if you as your Fighter character needs a Social Pillar lake, just go to the actual lake by Socializing with your DM. Talk as your character with the DM and you can get more Social stuff out of that interaction than you'll ever get by rolling a die. And I think everyone would be much happier if they did that.

 

[Yaarel]

What's more Social... the player of the Fighter character talking to the NPCs/DM and discussing things (in first-person, third-person, or whatever)... or the Fighter player just saying one thing like "I want to know X" and then rolling a Persuasion check?

I do both. Storytelling and dice checks. The player must interact with the world narratively, including roleplaying the interaction. Often, the effort autosucceeds if it makes sense that it would. The skill check only comes into play if the result of the effort seems like it can go either way. I have seen others describe this DM style as: "Yes, No, Maybe".

For example, no one ever says, "I use Intimidate to ...." One instead might say something like, "If you dont do that, your kid is going to end up marrying that scoundrel that you dont like," thus playing on the concerns and fears of the parent. If the parent is torn about what to do, this effort might resolve by an Intimidation check.

The fact of the matter is... the Combat Pillar in the only one that has all the game mechanics at hand to run entire scenes in that Pillar using just the mechanics.

The origin of D&D is a wargame. The combat mechanics are first, historically.

Since then, D&D has been quantifying and mechanizing the "social combat" aspects as well. D&D introduced Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, as metrics, whose numbers determined things like researching or happening to know something, or interacting with hirelings and their morale.

Since then the game accumulates other successful mechanics, like knowledge skills, and social skills to deceive or even to frighten into a forced surrender.

The Cortex gaming engine has made several breakthrus for social mechanics. It is probably one of the influences for the 5e "bond". Come to think of it, I should probably grant proficiency to any check relating to a bond, such as a loved one or a spiritual community.

 

[HammerMan]

There are no tools that run on magic - a hammer is still a hammer. There is no "science" per se. There's just tools.

I was just noting that there's already a class that gets a lot of tool proficiencies.

and they get cantrips and 1st-6th level spells too and a bunch of free magic items and extra attunements.

 

[Umbran]

and they get cantrips and 1st-6th level spells too and a bunch of free magic items and extra attunements.

If you want to ignore why I said what I did, and go off into an argument of your own construction that has little to do with me... well, that is what it seems to me you are doing.

 

[HammerMan]

If you want to ignore why I said what I did, and go off into an argument of your own construction that has little to do with me... well, that is what it seems to me you are doing.

I'm responding to you (and what I think you are saying) about niche protection, that there is a class that is good with and gets tools. I am pointing out they still have LOTs of other features that the fighter doesn't, so if you made the fighter better with tools it still would not be a carbon copy of the artificer.

if it helps I think the rogue is a better counter argument. Rogues are in mostly the same boat as fighters but with some cool skill/tool tricks.