D&D (2024) Fighters and Tools

[Li Shenron]

The Fighter base class is currently defective out-of-combat

I think this is just a long-standing clichè.

For tools specifically, there is absolutely no need to give more tool proficiencies for free to the Fighter, as you can already have 2 tools proficiencies from the background, plus 1 more tool proficiency at 3rd level if you're a Battlemaster. If even that is not enough, you have more feats than anyone so you could spend obe on Skilled and get 3 tools.

But the bottom line is that I don't really think a Fighter is one bit more meant to be a gadget man than other classes, no.

 

[Yaarel]

I think this is just a long-standing clichè.

For tools specifically, there is absolutely no need to give more tool proficiencies for free to the Fighter, as you can already have 2 tools proficiencies from the background, plus 1 more tool proficiency at 3rd level if you're a Battlemaster. If even that is not enough, you have more feats than anyone so you could spend obe on Skilled and get 3 tools.

But the bottom line is that I don't really think a Fighter is one bit more meant to be a gadget man than other classes, no.

Every character has a background. Like a feat, the background "should be nice, not required".

It is unfair to force Fighter players to depend on the background, while players of other classes can enjoy the background and utilize the background as part of the character concept.

The Fighter class needs to stand on its own to be competent in noncombat pillars.

Meanwhile, a Fighter can be gadget guy. Or can be a ship guy, a horse guy, a weapon maker, a wall sapper, a trapper, a mess hall cook, a bagpiper, a drummer, a trumpet signaler, a samurai calligrapher, a navigator, and so on.

A reallife warrior is normally some kind of tool guy.

 

[dave2008]

Something like:

The Wizard gets two skills. The Rogue gets four skills, plus Thieves Tools.

Currently, the Fighter gets two skills and no tools.

The Fighter class can easily have two skills and any two tools, at level 1. Plus, "Tool Expertise" granting double proficiency to one tool, at level 1.

At level 3, an additional tool. And at level 7, an additional Tool Expertise.

At level 11, additionally grant advantage to one Tool Expertise.

At levels 15 and 19, the Fighter needs features that can create magical tools (and weapons) and use tools magically. This is "martial magic", relating to ki, in the sense of personal presence, intention, and fate. At the moment, I am unsure what the mechanics should be, but it definitely includes the creation of a magic item that has noncombat magic, and probably some combat benefit too.



The thing is, tools can − and should − be a full-on Fighter thing.

I like the general idea and maybe for 5e proficiencies and expertise are enough (though I am not interested in fighters being able to make magical tools as a class feature (feat would be better for me) as I like to play in low to no magic settings. What I would really like to see is features that allow fighters to use tools in interesting ways beyond just gaining proficiency and expertise. Not sure what those would be, class design really isn't my thing, but that would be more interesting to me.

 

[Li Shenron]

The Fighter class needs to stand on its own to be competent in noncombat pillars.

No. There's no need for the class mechanics alone to provide something for out-combat for every single fighter just because YOU want ALL your fighters to have more out-of-combat tricks. You don't only have a class but also a race and a background. The class itself by the way does provide two skill proficiencies from a list of 8, if you waste the first on Athletics by assuming you "must" have it and then not even use it (which is what I see happen in 80% of fighters build online) and the second on Perception because it's too good to live without, then it's your problem. If you think not having a proficiency makes you incompetent, again it's your problem. You're confusing competence with competition. Every Fighter can very much "stand on its own" out of combat if they want, but there are also some players who don't want, they just want to focus on fighting and nothing else, and the Fighter class is also meant for them.

Meanwhile, a Fighter can be gadget guy. Or can be a ship guy, a horse guy, a weapon maker, a wall sapper, a trapper, a mess hall cook, a bagpiper, a drummer, a trumpet signaler, a samurai calligrapher, a navigator, and so on.

A reallife warrior is normally some kind of tool guy.

Sure it CAN, but not necessarily, not all Fighters need to have tool proficiencies and certainly not more than another class.

 

[Scott Christian]

Got it - I completely missed that this was tagged as a 5.5e thread. Any ideas on how you would like to see tools integrated into the fighter class?

Personally, I would like tools to either be directly tied to:

• class
• race
• background

I think, if tables began to make tools more effective, then they need to be partitioned so each player can share in the spotlight.

Adding a unique tool to classes seems logical. Racial tools would be nice because it wouldn't spark any controversies regarding innate versus learned. It would just be a cultural thing. And background is just intuitive.

For example, if you had a forest gnome fighter with a noble background. The gnome might get proficiency with a paint set that allows them to camouflage; thus, adding advantage to stealth checks when a short rest is taken to paint oneself or another player to match the present environment. The fighter gets a weapon/armor care/repair kit. This might give them an option to not take a critical fumble or to repair any damage one of the DM's creatures did. It will also give them a niche during any roleplaying time. The noble might have a drink kit that allows them to whip up fancy cocktails or teas with the right ingredients.

That's just off the top of my head. But it seems the tools don't have to be as open ended as what they are and can fill more finite roles. This way each player gets a combination of three, which makes the combination factor interesting for those that like that part of the game.

 

[bedir than]

For tools specifically, there is absolutely no need to give more tool proficiencies for free to the Fighter, as you can already have 2 tools proficiencies from the background,

You don't only have a class but also a race and a background

Pointing out that EVERYONE gets a Race and a Background is irrelevant. This doesn't help a Fighter be balanced in the Social and/or Exploration pillars.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m oppose to bring down a ballista into a dungeon!

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

 

[Horwath]

problem with 5E(and other edition) is that all class resources are in a single pool.
That especially goes for ASI and feats.

If ASI, combat feats and roleplay/exploration feats had their own little resource pool, things would look better for fighter.
Look to A5E. still not perfect but much better. It could have been more, but it's nearly impossible if you want to keep yourself compatible and in power level of 5E.

If all classes got certain amount of ASI's, certain amount of combat feats(PAM, HAM, GWM, SS, CE, etc...) and certain number of roleplay/exploration feats(skilled, skill expert, prodigy, actor, keen mind, linguist, etc...), characters would be so much better.
Also there can be small pool of "general" slots that can be for all, so characters can chose to specialize a little in certain direction.

Lets say that we make all feats "half-feats" and try to "balance" them that they are similar in worth.

Fighter gets 7 ASI's across 19 levels. that is equal to 14 +1 bonuses or 14 half feats. most classes get 10, rogue gets 12.
let's take 12 as some default, classes can get more or less. does not matter for now.

some generic character or class that has no special focus could get:

3 +1 ASI's
3 combat feats(half-feats in current power level)
3 exploration/social feats
3 generic boosts(can be +1 to ability, combat or exploration/social feat)

fighter that gets 14 or whatever, can get those 2 extra points in combat feats. So fighter gets 5 of them and 3 more optionally.

rogue might get 2 ASIs, 2 combat feats, 3 exploration/social feats and 5 generic slots to represent rogues versatility.

we might have slots for racial and or magic feats.

Fey touched, Shadow touched, Telekinetic, Telepathic, Magic initiate, Elemental adept, might be in separate "magic" category.

So full casters might get zero or only 1 combat feat slot, so they would have to spend their "general" slots for combat feats and have 2 or 3 dedicated "magic" feat slots.

 

[Amrûnril]

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.