[/sblock]In the design of 4e, we tried to eliminate skills that promised a lot, but didn't necessarily deliver. The craft and profession skills fell into this category.
First, they require more rules than we wanted to devote to them. It's hard to make sensible rules for all the various types of crafting you can attempt. For example, what stat should a craft (blacksmithing) depend on? Dwarves are supposed to be great smiths, so should it be Wisdom or Con? On the other hand, logic dictates that Strength should likely play a role in it. Profession skills that cover things like sailing also make things hard. What does a check actually cover? If I'm on a ship caught in a storm, can I use Profession (sailor) or Acrobatics to stay on my feet?
Second, a skill like Profession is hard to use in the game from the the designer's point of view. In a home campaign, you know what the PCs took, but in writing modules it's impossible to use the skills without relying on blind luck that someone took Profession or Craft, and then happened to pick the right specialty.
Stuff like sailor and blacksmithing is now treated as a character background, something a player includes in his character's backstory. Page 11 of the DMG talks about how to work those into an adventure.
IMC, I use them as the basis for ability checks. So, a character trained as a blacksmith might notice how a lead war maul was made with an Intelligence check, and he can hammer a bent key back into working shape with a forge and a Strength check.
The design intent is to push backgrounds into the DM's hands, letting him make them as useful or as invisible as he wants. We prefered that approach rather than trying to come up with comprehensive mechanics to cover them. In the end, we judged that the added complexity wasn't worth it.
[/sblock]Ninja'd!
To go a little more into what I talked about before, three of the past six sessions in my current lunch time campaign have had zero combat.
One was a puzzle the PCs had to solve to pass through a forest warded by powerful fey magic.
In the other two, the PCs had to talk their way past their patron and his eeeevil boss (they didn't know they guy was evil with 4 e's bad when they took a job from him.
In the next session, the PCs talk to the commander of the town guard, won his trust, and even earned a comission as captain of the guard for one PC.
In the dungeon the PCs are currently exploring, I've sketched out an encounter with an undead bard and an audience of ghosts. If the PCs beat the bard in an insult contest, the audience and the bard can help them figure out what happened in the dungeon decades ago (it was once a wizards' stronghold; the mages are all dead, and no one knows what happened to them.)
As DM, I'm using a combo of a skill challenge (social skills and such) and my own judgment of the insults the players can come up with. If a PC had a background as a performer, I'd give them a bonus or some other advantage in working the crowd.
[/sblock]There are a few examples, such as a character with a blacksmith background figuring out how a lock was made, or using his knowledge to help a Diplomacy check when dealing with a weaponsmith.
keterys said:As far as I know, you are free to give yourself the ability to craft or profess* anything you want. I think my dwarf fighter will be a brewer and no lack of skill points will stop me.
*
According to the post by Mearls in the link above, the answer is:Lizard said:You decide to brew a special beer to impress the Dwarf King when you next visit him. How does it turn out?
Lizard said:Cool.
You decide to brew a special beer to impress the Dwarf King when you next visit him. How does it turn out?
Your fighter pal, who has no such background (but, we will say, identical attributes and level to you) wants to make some beer, too. How does his turn out?
You both roll a 10 on a D20.
Tenebras said:And I look at those d20 rolls and say "Um... Spent a lot of money on those dice and wanted to make sure they worked?"
.
Lizard said:And how IS your Amber game going?