D&D (2024) Fighters and Tools

[Yaarel]

Extra tool proficiencies for fighters and potentially other martial classes would make sense, but I'm not sure of how much effect this change would have, given that tool proficiencies tend to be a very niche feature.

I might actually go further and tweak the number of skill proficiencies that different classes get. Wizards having fewer skill proficiencies would make thematic sense, as their spellcasting is flavored as being dependant on intensive study, and it would make game balance sense, as wizards are the class with the biggest toolkit for solving out of combat challenges magically. The same could be true to a lesser degree of other spellcasters. Conversely, a fighter hasn't had to spend time studying magic and may have picked up an extra skill as a result.

The casters, including the Wizard, tend to use spells to overcome noncombat challenges. They dont really depend on skills and tools, the way noncasters do. Heh, the Bard that enjoys both spells and proficiencies is an embarrassment of riches, but thematically this feels appropriate for the Bard concept (both the Celtic mythological accuracy that is a blend of shaman and scholar, and the D&D tradition that emphasizes versatility).


In 5e, the DM has almost complete control over when and how to use a skill or tool. (Even the few hard rules that exist, such as how many feet a character can jump, the DM can decide that this is the minimum that is automatic, and then to roll Athletics to see how much further one can jump.) So the DM decides how good a skill or tool is.

When I DM, my style is to adjudicate everything narratively, depending on how much sense something makes within the context of the story. Many player efforts either work or dont (autosuccesses or autofailures). Only when the effort seems like it could go either way, do I roll dice. Normally, skills and tools determine the success or failure. A combat encounter is often a last resort. So for my DM style, skills and tools are central to the D&D experience.

For me, the difference between a "skill" and a "tool" is almost like the difference between a theoretical science and an applied science.

A "skill" represents a broad category of knowledge, like an area of education.

By contrast, a "tool" is a narrow specialization.

For example, say the player chooses the tool to be a "vehicle", and that vehicle to be a horse with or without a chariot or wagon. The resulting character knows everything there is to know relating to a horse, how to ride it, where to buy and sell it, how to haggle for it, how to armor them in barding, how to make the barding, how to look after them, how to race them, how to make a wagon or chariot or saddle, how worthy a military chariot is, and so on. The tool expert wont necessarily know much about other kinds of animals, like the Animal Handling skill will. But the tool pro knows horse − and knows many things associating with a horse that Animal Handling wont know.

So the Fighter would have two skills for breadth of knowledge, plus two tools for depth of knowledge.

Moreover, flavorwise, tools tend to associate hands-on knowledge, and the same kinds of intelligence that master tools including weapons, extends to other kinds of tools as well.

 

[Umbran]

Tools are a Fighter thing.

The Artificer might have a few things to say about that, but sure.

 

[dave2008]

Extra tool proficiencies for fighters and potentially other martial classes would make sense, but I'm not sure of how much effect this change would have, given that tool proficiencies tend to be a very niche feature.

That is also why you can add them without really changing the balance. I believe the OP's idea is to find ways to give fighter-types more options out of combat. I think the idea has merit, but I would like to push it feather with special class related tool features, not just tool proficiency and expertise

 

[Minigiant]

The Artificer might have a few things to say about that, but sure.

Artificer for Tools that run on Magic
Fighter for Tools that run on Science?
Rogue for Tools hat run on Skullduggery?

 

[Umbran]

Artificer for Tools that run on Magic
Fighter for Tools that run on Science?
Rogue for Tools hat run on Skullduggery?

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.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Pretty sure the saying “if a hammer doesn’t fix it, you need a bigger hammer” was first said by a fighter.

 

[Horwath]

Pretty sure the saying “if a hammer doesn’t fix it, you need a bigger hammer” was first said by a fighter.

that's not a hammer, that is a warhammer.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm having a hard time figuring out the correlation between Smith's Tools / Leatherworker's Tools and the Exploration / Social pillars. Tools are good to have when you are back in the city and have Downtime to just futz around in the shop and build stuff... but when you are actually out adventuring and engaging with the Exploration and Social pillars? What exactly are all these Tools doing for you on a day-to-day basis?

Personally I think Tools are the useless vestigial organ of the D&D equipment and skill system. In fact I remove Tools from the game altogether and just amend the Skill list to take most of that into account.

 

[Horwath]

I'm having a hard time figuring out the correlation between Smith's Tools / Leatherworker's Tools and the Exploration / Social pillars. Tools are good to have when you are back in the city and have Downtime to just futz around in the shop and build stuff... but when you are actually out adventuring and engaging with the Exploration and Social pillars? What exactly are all these Tools doing for you on a day-to-day basis?

Personally I think Tools are the useless vestigial organ of the D&D equipment and skill system. In fact I remove Tools from the game altogether and just amend the Skill list to take most of that into account.

when you have tools proficiency, per Xanatar's, you can get advantage on certain skill checks that apply to that tool category.

I.E. investigation, history.
also if you are pretending to be someone else, like castle smith for your secret identity, an advantage to your deception check is very nice as you can spat out facts about metalworking and making your lies more believable when mixed with lots of truth.

 

[DEFCON 1]

when you have tools proficiency, per Xanatar's, you can get advantage on certain skill checks that apply to that tool category.

I.E. investigation, history.
also if you are pretending to be someone else, like castle smith for your secret identity, an advantage to your deception check is very nice as you can spat out facts about metalworking and making your lies more believable when mixed with lots of truth.

Heh... yeah, Xanathar's had to create a whole bunch of extra stuff after the fact because they realized how useless Tools were otherwise.

And while I agree that you could give out Advantage for having Tools that matched skills you were using... how often does that really come up in any campaign? Pretending to be a smith? Maybe once in the entire campaign? So is adding more Tools really any kind of actual bonus? Especially considering this was all about giving the Fighter some out-of-combat utility... so how often is this character who probably has a lower CHA and no Deception proficiency ever going to pretend to be anyone?

I am more than willing to admit that there will be isolated incidents of certain Tools being fantastic to have in certain situations... but I don't think those situations come up nearly frequently enough to make anyone think that a class that now gets a Tool or two actually has any sort of true foot in the Exploration and Social pillars. At least not mechanically.

You want the Fighter to be more active in the Social pillar... you as the DM just let the players roleplay and react off of what they talk to you about-- and not overturn the reactions of what their characters say to you by forcing them to tack on a Persuasion check on top of the conversation. At least, that's my opinion on the matter.