missing skills

[roguerouge]

It'd be a real loss, in my mind, if these skills get left by the wayside. There ought to be core skills for life outside of the adventurers. For one thing, NPCs, followers, and cohorts need them. For another thing, virtually all of my campaigns have had PCs use them. It's part of creating three-dimensional characters, rather than maximized ones.

 

[Scrollreader]

It'd be a real loss, in my mind, if these skills get left by the wayside. There ought to be core skills for life outside of the adventurers. For one thing, NPCs, followers, and cohorts need them. For another thing, virtually all of my campaigns have had PCs use them. It's part of creating three-dimensional characters, rather than maximized ones.

I, on the other hand, see this as a huge plus. if I want my rogue/fighter to be a pirate in 3.X, I have to take: use rope, profession: Sailor, survival and more. Otherwise I make a really crappy pirate, that doesn't know one end of the boat from another. If I want to make a 4e pirate, I say "He was a pirate" if a situation comes up that requires a roll, for boathandling, or predicting a storm at sea, I can still roll at half, or if the DM sees fit, trained level. 4e is no longer punishing people who want interesting, well realized backgrounds by making them /less/ good at adventuring.

Edit: This is really one of my pet peeves, by the way. I'm not sure where the idea started, that a PC played and built smart is a less valid roleplay choice than one that is played poorly, from a mechanical perspective. Not to imply the previous poster said this, but it's pretty endemic. PCs are in a dangerous business, where their life in on the line /all the time/. Spending half your time keeping your beekeeping skills up to date, rather than focusing all your efforts on things that will keep you alive doesn't make you a better roleplayer. Hell, the majority of the time, it would make me think your character is crazy. I support a system that doesn't make me choose between a character who is an adventurer, and one with an interesting set of hobbies/backgrrounds.

 

[Keenath]

It'd be a real loss, in my mind, if these skills get left by the wayside. There ought to be core skills for life outside of the adventurers. For one thing, NPCs, followers, and cohorts need them. For another thing, virtually all of my campaigns have had PCs use them. It's part of creating three-dimensional characters, rather than maximized ones.

The thing is, I think the opposite for the same reason! All these non-adventuring skills are legitimate uses of your ability, but they can't stand up in a real character creation scenario. You're having to have Craft Beer and Profession: Basket Weaver stand in the same room with Athletics and Stealth, and there's just no comparison.

That argues for making them totally separate from "real" skills -- If you have an NPC who is a farmer, he can just HAVE farmer skills. He doesn't need to have it all defined and laid out as far as what that skill does.

It's not about rounded versus maximized -- that's verging on the stormwind fallacy (the idea that character optimization and role play ability are inversely proportional). It's about making two things mechanically equal that are clearly not mechanically equal.

I like the idea of just giving the +5 Trained bonus to checks related to background skills. If you really want to make it more codified, then give each player 3 slots for "background skills" that don't apply to adventuring. It might be a good RP touchstone, in fact, to have each person figure out three craft, profession, or performance skills that reflect what they were doing before they started adventuring, or what they do in their off time.

Just don't put them up against the real skills.

This is even more true now than it was in 3.x; you're going to be getting only a few skill selections per character for 'trained' skills, and the rest will be simple ability checks with the same 1/2 level bonus. Picking out three 'non combat' trained skills should be a good way to do what you want to do without making people pick between effectiveness and flavor.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think that characters should get a number of "hobbies" in addition to their normal skills. These skills would include things like crafts, professions, farming, cooking, gambling, etc. In other words, all of those skills that add character but have little in-game use and aren't worth sacrificing a "good" skill for.

 

[MaelStorm]

It'd be a real loss, in my mind, if these skills get left by the wayside. There ought to be core skills for life outside of the adventurers. It's part of creating three-dimensional characters, rather than maximized ones.

Yes I agree, fleshing out a character shouldn't be just made up stuff. Background knowledge and skills are very important. You were not born an adventurer, those things must be reflected in the character sheet as well. Psychology and personality should be accounted too. Not just as notes in a character sheet. This is one aspect I always loved, and I find D&D was always subpar when compared with other games systems

 

[keterys]

In an RPG I was toying around with designing, you had two completely separate facets to your character... one was Combat, which was heavily regimented by level and balance-driven and had... I want to say it was like 6 skills.

And the other had almost no rules restricting or balancing, but only had guidelines - like encouraging the DM to give RP skill bumps during the session for people who get involved.

I'm a big fan of silo-ing combat vs. roleplay abilities. Or just saying you can have them and moving on. No longer shall I feel that the game is prejudiced against me playing brewers, carpenters, farmers, gamblers, or sailors.

Theologians or Linguists? Okay, maybe still prejudiced

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Is there an official word for non-adventuring skills?
How will you handle them?

Two things: first, there's already a mechanic in place for doing things that aren't listed under skills and that have a chance of failure. It's an ability check, and it's a wonderfully versatile tool. Second, you don't have to roll for everything. You should only roll dice when two conditions are met: 1) there is a reasonable chance of failure 2) the outcome will make for an interesting story, whether it's a success or a failure. If the outcome will be "Sorry, Bill, but Garamonde the Galant fails at his interesting and completely reasonable attempt at doing something most people can do," then you shouldn't have rolled for it.

1. Craft -- I've heard unsubstantiated rumor that it's handled by ritual rules. Any confirmation?

I believe this was removed as a skill. Skills in 4e are meant to be of use in adventuring, with the idea that the game won't force you to give up adventuring ability to be a good blacksmith. You can still be a blacksmith, you just don't roll dice.

2. Engineering -- How to model a PC exploiting a weakness in a mechanical system like a mill or an aqueduct?

Intelligence check.

3. Farmwork -- Things like beekeeping, brewing, cheesemaking, farming, herding, teamstering, and winemaking were common skills. How do PCs control a herd of rampaging cattle?

The PC succeeds. Seriously. There's no reason to have a chance of failure on something like cheesemaking. Just say the PC succeeds and move on. All you get by having the PCs fail at this kind of stuff is a bloated rulebook and a boring story.

4. Culture -- Besides language, there's etiquette, heraldry, and folklore. Are these covered by Diplomacy and History? How do PCs identify a coat of arms?

Etiquette: Charisma check. Identify a coat of arms: Intelligence check.

5. Gaming -- I'm thinking of cards, chess, dice, riddles, and puzzles. How will games of chance/strategy be handled in 4e? How about puzzle/riddle hints?

Pure chance: unmodified d20 roll. For a game like poker, Charisma. Puzzles/riddles: Intelligence for a hint.

6. Letters -- How about business, calligraphy, cartography, composition, civics, linguistics, literature, mathematics, painting, and philosophy? How does a PC covertly fund rebels fighting the tyrannical king? How does a PC recognize a book or language?

Intelligence check. If it's really important to the story, the PC just knows the answer.

7. Perform -- What about acting, comedy, dance, oratory, percussion, poetry, stringed, and wind instruments? Are these subsumed by Diplomacy or Intimidate and class powers?

Charisma check.

8. Seamanship -- How will navigation and boating be handled?

Dexterity check to steer, Wisdom to plot a course.

9. Science -- I realize these are out of place in a traditional fantasy game, but what about a more historically based one? How would a PC perform an amazing feat of chemistry?

Intelligence check.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

there have to be crafting rules though...

and the best thing for OOC skills i could imagine is:

you can just learn it. If you use your free time to learn gambling: you get a +1 bonus on your check... and if you practise more, that increases to +2 and so on...

 

[dirkformica]

This thread caused me to dust off my old 2nd Edition PHB. It reminded me how my group used weapon and non-weapon proficiencies for the mechanical stuff and Secondary Skills for the character background skills. Sure it meant most everyone's parents were smiths, fletchers, hunters and the like, but we still had something to fill those RP gaps without reducing our combat and skill options.

I like a lot of what has happened in Dungeons and Dragons since 2nd edition, but I think I'll always love it best (and yes, a ton of that sentiment is pure nostalgia, but what's life without fond memories.)

 

[GoLu]

It'd be a real loss, in my mind, if these skills get left by the wayside. There ought to be core skills for life outside of the adventurers. For one thing, NPCs, followers, and cohorts need them. For another thing, virtually all of my campaigns have had PCs use them. It's part of creating three-dimensional characters, rather than maximized ones.

Interesting. Maybe this is a style thing. I personally don't think these skills are needed for NPCs at all. Farmer Hamhaft can be a poor farmer, able to feed his family now but worried that the harvest might not be big enough to see them through the winter. And he can do it whether or not the game has rules for farming, and whether or not I even write up stats for the guy.

Plus, I think flavor skills discourage three-dimensional characters. In two ways, actually. First, the flavor skills compete with real skills, and while the flavor skills are sometimes convenient, the real skills are just generally more important. Second, it encourages people to think that having Profession: Fisherman +6 on their character sheet somehow means that they deserve credit for roleplaying, regardless of how the character is actually played.

In my experience, the sense of a character being three-dimensional comes from the way the character is played rather than the way the character sheet is written.