D&D (2024) What medievalesque skill name do you prefer, for machinery, architecture, math, physics?

[jgsugden]

why? as you say a fantasy science isnt that different to a magic so why would the Archimedes death ray be any more disruptive than a staff of fire?...

Magic is made up. Technology is not. We can set rules for magic, but technology with limitations that don't make sense in the real world feels disingenuous in an RPG. Being told, you can only fire your gun once per combat because it is an encounter power, not at-will, gives a bad taste to most players. Ammo and time should be the limits on guns - not arbitrary rule settings ... but we allow ourselves to limit spells by spell slots.

Further, mixing magic and technology results in problems as well, even when the DM tries to keep them separate. Being able to use magic to craft technology and mass produce weapons that allow for massive destruction ... can be problematic. In general, each technological innovation is a new Pandora's box.

Yes, you can limit technology with lore. "The God of Technology will not allow new inventions to be made". However, as noted, that feels disingenuous. It gives the players the feeling that they can't do what seems reasonable because the DM wants to limit their options so that the players have to play his game ... which means they don't really control anything. Everything happens just because the DM allows it. The players are not so much playing the game as they are watching the DM tell it to them. They feel about as in control of it as people riding the Millennium Falcon ride at Disneyland.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I use Engineering for the building of (seige) engines, construction, and water management. It also gives some intuition about geomancy. The construction of fantastic machines, automatons, flame lances, &c., are Gearwrights, although Artifex and Wrightcraft are appealing words to use.

 

[LordEntrails]

I've always used the modern terms (engineering, etc) but I don't like that at all. I voted clockwork, wrightcraft and artifex. I think I like artifex best.

 

[LordEntrails]

Magic is made up. Technology is not. We can set rules for magic, but technology with limitations that don't make sense in the real world feels disingenuous in an RPG. Being told, you can only fire your gun once per combat because it is an encounter power, not at-will, gives a bad taste to most players. Ammo and time should be the limits on guns - not arbitrary rule settings ... but we allow ourselves to limit spells by spell slots.

Further, mixing magic and technology results in problems as well, even when the DM tries to keep them separate. Being able to use magic to craft technology and mass produce weapons that allow for massive destruction ... can be problematic. In general, each technological innovation is a new Pandora's box.

Yes, you can limit technology with lore. "The God of Technology will not allow new inventions to be made". However, as noted, that feels disingenuous. It gives the players the feeling that they can't do what seems reasonable because the DM wants to limit their options so that the players have to play his game ... which means they don't really control anything. Everything happens just because the DM allows it. The players are not so much playing the game as they are watching the DM tell it to them. They feel about as in control of it as people riding the Millennium Falcon ride at Disneyland.

I don't know if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any of this. Perhaps this is only a related observation...

Engineering and technology exists in D&D. Building and bridges are more times than not built with technology. Fairly basic technology, but basic mechanics and physics, even if the equations are not known. Keystone arches are something we see all the time in D&D.

So I think the difficult question is, where is the line drawn? I don't allow atomic level technology in my D&D. Chemistry is basic and mostly alchemical. But even that is... dubious. Sovereign glue, is that magic or SuperGlue (tm)? Cure Disease magic or antibiotics? (And no, I don't mean to start a detailed debate on why or why not)

I think we already have problems in D&D with dealing with magic and technology.

 

[Yaarel]

There was a vacuum of darkness. Then within it a single point of Positive Energy exploded forming all things within the Divination spacetime fabric.

Everything of the Material Plane − matter itself − with its Earth solid state, Water liquid state, Air gas state, and Radiant Fire plasma state − is ultimately made out of immateriality: Telekinetic gravity, Lightning electromagnetism, and the Ethereal subatomic forces.

 

[GrimCo]

I use Mechanics. I have no idea when the term 'engineering' entered the English vernacular, but it feels too modern to me for a typical medieval fantasy-era setting (acknowledging that indeed, standard D&D is itself more modern than the typical medieval era.)

It entered middle english circa 1300s. It's english version of old french engigneor which is french version of latin ingeniator. Ingeniator was used way back in Roman Empire. Roman army had their own Corps of engineers, specialized units of engineers or ingeniatores responsible for construction of siege engines, forts, roads and bridges. Other term they used is machinator.

Personally, i'm sticking with engineering. It covers basic hard science (math, physics, chemistry) and practical application of scientific principles in creation of machines and buildings.

 

[jgsugden]

I don't know if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with any of this. Perhaps this is only a related observation...

Engineering and technology exists in D&D. Building and bridges are more times than not built with technology. Fairly basic technology, but basic mechanics and physics, even if the equations are not known. Keystone arches are something we see all the time in D&D.

So I think the difficult question is, where is the line drawn? I don't allow atomic level technology in my D&D. Chemistry is basic and mostly alchemical. But even that is... dubious. Sovereign glue, is that magic or SuperGlue (tm)? Cure Disease magic or antibiotics? (And no, I don't mean to start a detailed debate on why or why not)

I think we already have problems in D&D with dealing with magic and technology.

What did you describe that you consider to be a problem? Technology and magic seem to work together in your examples.

The problems arise when we attempt to allow technology (and specifically combat related technology) that can rival the powers of magic. We allow touches of it with explosives - but even that can be problematic in large amounts (which is why they are reserved for the DMG instead of being included in the PHB). The problems arise when PCs can mass produce powerful effects that rival high level magic - and can distribute those to many troops.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So I think the difficult question is, where is the line drawn

The wizard summons a spirit: “oh spirit, can you explain to me how the Higgs boson confers mass?”

 

[Yaarel]

Thanks to everyone doing the survey. The results are clear to go with "Engineering" for the name of the skill.

My takeaway from this survey, generally: for D&D players, it is important that options do what they say on the tin.

 

[Yaarel]

It entered middle english circa 1300s. It's english version of old french engigneor which is french version of latin ingeniator. Ingeniator was used way back in Roman Empire. Roman army had their own Corps of engineers, specialized units of engineers or ingeniatores responsible for construction of siege engines, forts, roads and bridges. Other term they used is machinator.

Personally, i'm sticking with engineering. It covers basic hard science (math, physics, chemistry) and practical application of scientific principles in creation of machines and buildings.

It is cool that term "engineer" relates to the same word as "ingenious" and "ingenuity".