Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7537701" data-attributes="member: 6919838">So, for specific responses to the ideas presented...First, again, its not clear what your goal is other than more tracking related to tools.#1 - Ok so first off you can already buy tools from the equipment list in PHB. You can also train during downtime to acquire more tool proficiencies iirc  (DMG or was it XGtE) So "a thing you can buy" exists in the rule right now RAW. As for advantage and disadvantage, thats already pretty standard RAW now - does some part of the approach or circumstance make success more or less likely - sure the presence of a lack of needed tools or exceptional tools covers that. Numerous examples with the Ap etc of needing tools to make a check at all - thieve's tools often listed.2 - Ten uses flat out - thats some crappy tools. I would suggest by RAW you consider "setbacks" on failed tries. PHB ability checks defines as a baseline core rule that a failure can be no progress *or* also some progress with a setback. So, its perfectly RAW right now to say "Ok so it started off bad but you managed to get the lock picked but in doing so your key picks got broken and stuck so from now on until you get replacement your tools use is at disadvantage to checks." etc etc etc. make failure meaningful instead of just adding tracking is IMo a better direction.3 - Not sure for the purpose you are after there but - and allowing things for easy checks that are not normal for harder checks - no problem. (Suggest you look at DMG under roll of the dice where iirc proficiency and DC 10 can be ruled an auto-success for just one example where they do this.) Most tools proficiencies come thru backgrounds (and often the equipment toolkit as well it seems.) I basically have seen tools (as referenced in XGtE later on) as "a sign of professional training" and the rules seem to support that view right now as is.But, i often look at my proposed changes in terms of where i am trying to go from where things are now - North (more powerful) vs South (Less powerful)East (more detailed and crunchy) vs West (less detailed, crunchy, more streamlined or narrative)So if i wanted to make abc more potent and also remove the crunch and detail to a bit - make it narrative - I put that in my mind as MorthWest and choose options that go those directions. With yours, i do not see it clearly what direction you are wanting to take "Tools" in your game by these changes. it seems like almost circular.But as an example, i added to favored terrain for rangers a "lay of the land" feature where after a day in an area they get to know it well enough to qualify. That makes it more powerful (more often in play) but also simpler and more narrative in play (for both the player and the Gm.) North-West. Did not add to it any elements that weaken it or make it more crunchy to muddle the trek - so to speak.</blockquote>

Verification