The Illusion of Powergaming

[el-remmen]

But that is only of any use to a professional anyway.... Adventurers don't need professionals! They just kill things and take their stuff! As the number of actual professionals decrease (we remove the skill, and decimate the rest of the professionals with errant adventurers) the cost of each indiviual item increases, therefore, the DM doesn't have to give out more treasure, as the adventurers basic kit increases in value! This in turn allows those sucky adventurer types that actual spent a skill point or two on Profession before its ban to actually earn even more gp! Its a win-win scenario!

Can you clarify this? You lost me.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Can you clarify this? You lost me.

Sounds like he wants to create scarcity by killing off all NPCs with profession skills, thus allowing adventurers to get a higher asking price for their use of profession...

Damn economics...

 

[green slime]

Sounds like he wants to create scarcity by killing off all NPCs with profession skills, thus allowing adventurers to get a higher asking price for their use of profession...

Damn economics...

Yes, and by simultaneously preventing new characters (both NP-type and P-type) from spending skill points on such a useless, pointless skill, the Profession skill.

Why is it cluttering up a page in the PHB? That is a whole page that could be used explaining how to kill things and take their stuff!

 

[Sound of Azure]

Yes, and by simultaneously preventing new characters (both NP-type and P-type) from spending skill points on such a useless, pointless skill, the Profession skill.

Why is it cluttering up a page in the PHB? That is a whole page that could be used explaining how to kill things and take their stuff!

What would we call such a group?

The Professionals!

 

[wayne62682]

I personally would rather D&D have "action skills" and "background skills" like 3rd edition Shadowrun. You had a seperate pool of skill points for both; action skills are the ones that are actually useful in game (in D&D terms skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, Tumble, etc would fall under this) and background skills gave you free reign to make things up (as there were no lists, only examples) your character would know as part of his background. So a cleric could have as background skills Church Procedures (Pelor), or Church Knowledge, and the fighter who grew up on a farm until it was destroyed by orcs could have Farming Techniques as a background skill. A rogue might have Thieves Guild Connections, or whatnot. It let you customize the "flavor" skills to suit your character's theme, but very rarely were they useful in game unless you were specifically looking for something in your area and then they let your PC shine since he'd be the "go-to guy" on that stuff in the group.

I would prefer that system far more over D&D's system and it would hopefully put an end to the elitist way of thinking that you should waste skill points in worthless skills because it's from your background.

 

[marune]

To make it fun for you! Plenty of people find it fun without any mechanical benefits.

Well... you can always find people having fun with a game for other reasons than the game is about (kids can have great fun with D&D miniatures without any rules).

The goal of the D&D game is to overcome enough challenges to get to the 20th level (that's what the rules are supporting). "Character's traits/background/goals" doesn't help (and often make it harder) to overcome those challenges. If only some of the players are doing it, the other ones will surely not have fun. (E.g. the cleric that doesn't want to heal X because "his character" doesn't like X).

Of course if all players agree to do it, and the DM make the appropriate adjustments (lowering CR, etc.) it can works for a particular group. If it was included in the design of the game, it could work, without adjustments, for the majority of them.

 

[green slime]

I would prefer that system far more over D&D's system and it would hopefully put an end to the elitist way of thinking that you should waste skill points in worthless skills because it's from your background.

I don't think people are saying you should "waste" skill points in "worthless" skills because of your background. I agree, that the current system doesn't do enough (anything?) to encourage background detail.

 

[Pbartender]

Yes. Especially since I was talking about Handle Animal, a far more appropriate skill than Profession:Farmer for an adventurer type.

Huh... You never specified that. I was still referring to el-remmen's original Rogue with ranks in Profession (farmer) example.

My point was that there are ways to have a character background matter mechanically if one is so inclined, and it is just as easy to have a background that doesn't matter one whit, mechanically speaking, but still be part of the character.

I'm not disagreeing with that sentiment necessarily. But...

There are DMs that would require this sort of thing. And when nothing else better presents itself, Profession is the fallback skill that gets used.

Consider the following character concept: A boy who grew up on a turnip farm, always dreamed he was destined for something greater, became increasing bored and restless with agrarian life, so he packed up his things and headed off to find adventure.

So, I can still make him a Rogue, because he was a lazy bum who was good at avoiding work and could talk his way out of trouble. But if I wanted to add some mechanical features to represent the time he spent planting turnips, here's what I've got at my disposal: Profession (farmer), Knowledge (nature), perhaps Handle Animal and Use Rope (you need an ox to plow those fields, after all), Skill Focus, and maybe Animal Affinity.

The point is, and I think you'll agree, for a background that lies outside of professional adventuring (such being a soldier, a thief, an apprentice wizard, etc...), there aren't many useful skills or feats to represent that.

 

[green slime]

Swim? Because the farm had a nearby lake, and the kid skivved off to the lake everyday?

Jump? Because there wasn't much else to do?

Ride? Because they had a big farm, and the horse had to serve multiple functions, not just drag the plow?

Knowledge (Religion)? because the old man was a religious nut and made the family attend services?

 

[el-remmen]

Skills are only as useless as a player's imagination (or lack thereof) and/or as the DM allows them to be.

If a player in my game puts ranks into Profession (farmer) I will try to work that into the campaign at some point or another if at all possible, examples might include:

* Actually planting and growing something
* Having a general knowledge of the tenancy laws of where they come from
* Synergy in gathering info from farmers because of a common ground of professions parlance
* Understanding how a grain mill or similar technology works (which would make a great scene for a combat)
* Catching someone in a lie because of false detail regarding the process of farming.

Etc. . .Etc. . .