D&D 4E Handling things like Riding and Craft with 4E Skills.

[DracoSuave]

I hope this doesn't mean that a level 10 warlock who, at one time, 2 decades ago, used to practice carpentry in his father's workshop, is better at crafting furniture than a carpenter who has been working the trade for the last 20 years, just because the warlock is level 10?

And, another decade later, when that warlock is level 20, is he now 2x as good at crafting furniture, even if he never touched a woodworking or carpentry tool in that entire decade?

It's totally plausible:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxdJzXEpxM]TOTALLY PLAUSIBLE[/ame]

In all seriousness tho, the warlock has access to magical techniques the carpentry student does not. This is a guy who deals with supernatural forces to attain power. There's no reason to think he couldn't tap those forces to become better at building.

Not to mention, the warlock has seen more. He's seen architecture and building techniques that you simply don't get with making houses and milk stools. He's seen materials the carpenter has never dreamed of.

Oh, and he can cheat too.

 

[Skyscraper]

For riding, I've used the Nature skill to control the mount when necessary. And by "when necessary", I mean when the PCs ended up in a chase against NPCs in a skill challenge-like scene. Acrobatics or Athlectics of the mount would be used when the control skill of the rider doesn't kick in.

I like the idea of being able to susbstitute the Athletics or Acrobatics for the mount's with Mounted Combat. The question never came up before since no one has Mounted Combat in a game I play in.

*****

This being said:

1) To those who suggest that riding a horse in a medieval setting doesn't require a skill roll, I think everyone agrees including the OP (and his grandmother). No need to waste your time stating the obvious.

2) I don't care about the Craft skill myself, so I won't post about it. For those that don't care about making things with the craft skill: why are you posting that? The OP's question is how to handle craft through skills, I don't think you're being really helpful when you're saying that players should either not craft stuff or not use skills to craft stuff.

With all due respect, of course

 

[Euberon]

IMHO I don't think there is a way to be all that helpful beyond what has been stated because that part of the system is simply missing. As I mentioned, I am warming to 4E's simplicity and you certainly can substitute "close enough" skills if you'd like, but its really because you have to, isn't it? There is no rule base for having "actual" skills. Make do how you have to, be that role playing, subbing Athletics, creating home brew, etc., but Wizards has offered no help in that regard.

I am kind of surprised that Wizards has not created a skill / crafting / profession / perform supplement. We all agree they are in this to make money and MMO mind sets love crafting. The 3.xers miss skills, crafts, professions and perform. Even the critics of 4E would have to agree a Skills and Craft supplement would fulfill those three requirements, so do they stand on principle and say all non combat skills should stay in the background? I'm a little confused.

 

[DracoSuave]

IMHO I don't think there is a way to be all that helpful beyond what has been stated because that part of the system is simply missing. As I mentioned, I am warming to 4E's simplicity and you certainly can substitute "close enough" skills if you'd like, but its really because you have to, isn't it? There is no rule base for having "actual" skills. Make do how you have to, be that role playing, subbing Athletics, creating home brew, etc., but Wizards has offered to help in that regard.

The difference is opportunity cost. A skill choice in D&D4 is a lot more of a cost than a skill point was in 3.5. So, 3.5 could afford to have players spending one of their points in crafting, and the rest in other skills, or not. Particularily because classes weren't based on the skills choices in how they got across their abilities.

In 4.0 tho, skill choice is important to the class, and each skill has wider rangers of use. It's not as balanced to simply 'have a crafting skill.'

I am kind of surprised that Wizards has not created a skill / crafting / profession / perform supplement. We all agree they are in this to make money and MMO mind sets love crafting. The 3.xers miss skills, crafts, professions and perform. Even the critics of 4E would have to agree a Skills and Craft supplement would fulfill those three requirements, so do they stand on principle and say all non combat skills should stay in the background? I'm a little confused.

A system is not necessary. 'Your off-adventure work gives you a treasure parcel' doesn't need a lot of die-rolls. If the goal is simply to gather money, then that's simply done. If the goal is to have a pillar to roleplay on, it can be handled through roleplay.

In order for a crafting skill to be valuable in a gaming system, it needs to have a means to -exceed- the limits imposed by mundane equipment. This is why the 3.x system failed. You could have all the skill you wanted, but you could never do anything cool with it. That's why it was a waste of time? Who cares if you have a system to determine how long it takes to make a bow? It was a lost opportunity.

Contrast with the crafting system of... say... Deadlands, where the crafting abilities were used to make superpowerful things that made them righteous character selections in their own right.

 

[Euberon]

[In order for a crafting skill to be valuable in a gaming system, it needs to have a means to -exceed- the limits imposed by mundane equipment.] Hmmmm. I might suggest this is not THE reason crafting and skills are important in a gaming system.

IMHO, in order for a craft of skill to be valuable in a gaming system, it needs to illustrate actions that the character uses in their world to make a difference, just as powers do. Exceeding the limits of stuff you can buy, or making that stuff cheaper, is not what skill, craft, or perform was for in our games. We used them as character moments and part of the fabric of the game, just as you would any power (of which there are a multitude, so I can't really buy the simplicity argument here either, unfortunately).

Role playing skills and crafts is, as I said, making do, but it lacks the in game wow factor (not WoW, but wow!) that the rest of the game captures, ie, "Cool, I rolled a 20! on my bardic performance!" Role playing also does not impose limits to flex against, as does the rest of the game. I'm as good as I wanna be isn't really the spirit of any version of D&D.

I'm not suggesting cannibalization of the skill system, but rather building a non combat partner to it (ala Unearthed Arcana optional rules style) to give the skill and craft people back a part of D&D that WAS an important part of the game to them. And Wizards could make another book out of it. A requirement for most anything they do, it seems. Everyone kind of wins.

Hey, I fully understand that some people want to play "character-less" D&D Miniatures and some people want to play diceless story telling Amber and everything in between and under the dark sun. It's alllll good, but in moving a "particular" system forward, the elements of that system should be addressed and refined, not discarded IF a large portion of the demographic used them. I can dig most of 4E but the reason of skill and craft exclusions as 'it was irrelevant' doesn't hold true when they actually were relevant to a large majority of the players.

I, like many people, liked skills and their absence is creating this and a multitude of more threads. There omission is the reason for this dialogue and us "pro-skill/craft" people just aren't buying the cobbled power gamer logic of they weren't powerful enough to include. Fine, they weren't included. Admit there is a large call for them, stop this apologist rhetoric and make a supplement, Wizards. You are really, really good at supplements. It'll be a hit, i promise.

Or think about it this way: Is there any stronger evidence that they are missed than the loads of conversations people are having about them?

 

[DracoSuave]

[In order for a crafting skill to be valuable in a gaming system, it needs to have a means to -exceed- the limits imposed by mundane equipment.] Hmmmm. I might suggest this is not THE reason crafting and skills are important in a gaming system.

When said gaming system is about gaining power so you can tackle other things to game more power, yes, having skills that get you power is essential to the maintenance of that central tone.

IMHO, in order for a craft of skill to be valuable in a gaming system, it needs to illustrate actions that the character uses in their world to make a difference, just as powers do. Exceeding the limits of stuff you can buy, or making that stuff cheaper, is not what skill, craft, or perform was for in our games. We used them as character moments and part of the fabric of the game, just as you would any power (of which there are a multitude, so I can't really buy the simplicity argument here either, unfortunately).

Except that powers represent things you can do above and beyond the normal. Not how you tackle the normal.

Role playing skills and crafts is, as I said, making do, but it lacks the in game wow factor (not WoW, but wow!) that the rest of the game captures, ie, "Cool, I rolled a 20! on my bardic performance!" Role playing also does not impose limits to flex against, as does the rest of the game. I'm as good as I wanna be isn't really the spirit of any version of D&D.

But what is that perform skill check trying to accomplish? What is its in game context? And how does a Perform skill check reflect that in game context better than, say, a Diplomacy check to use a performance to communicate to a warring tribe, or a Bluff check to distract guards with your fast juggling while humming Flight of the Bumblebees? Or by using one of your spells to ensorcell an enemy? Performance is not an effect... it's a means to attain effects that are already well covered in game.

What value does adding "Perform' to your skill set have, when you can fluff your performance as tempering your Diplomatic and Bluffing skills?

I'm not suggesting cannibalization the skill system, but rather building a non combat partner to it (ala Unearthed Arcana optional rules style) to give the skill and craft people back a part of D&D that WAS an important part of the game to them. And Wizards could make another book out of it. A requirement for most anything they do, it seems. Everyone kind of wins.

But why was it important? What -exact- signifigance and experience did it create? The skills itself are just a means to an end, look at the -end- itself? And is that end something that a game of power fantasy should be trying to accomplish?

Hey, I fully understand that some people want to play "character-less" D&D Miniatures and some people want to play diceless story telling Amber and everything in between and under the dark sun. It's alllll good, but in moving a "particular" system forward, the elements of that system should be addressed and refined, not discarded IF a large portion of the demographic used them.

Craft, and Profession was not used by a large demographic. At best, it sat there on the sheet as a means to justify background and got little actual play.

Contrast to Star Wars, where the crafting system was actually inherent to a lot of the crunch. D&D does it wrong, Star Wars does it right.

The way to make crafting matter is to Make. Crafting. Matter. Simply having the skill exist is not enough.

I can dig most of 4E but the reason of skill and craft exclusions as 'it was irrelevant' doesn't hold true when they actually were relevant to a large majority of the players.

But they -are- irrelevant. They don't DO anything.

I, like many people, liked skills and their absence is creating this and a multitude of more threads. There omission is the reason for this dialogue and us "pro-skill/craft" people just aren't buying the cobbled power gamer logic of they weren't powerful enough to include. Fine, they weren't included. Admit there is a large call for them, stop this apologist rhetoric and make a supplement, Wizards. You are really, really good at supplements. It'll be a hit, i promise.

So long as the supplement is -relevant- and actually creates capability for adventure, then I'd be for it.

If it's a 'Here's a more complicated way to accomplish the same thing as a minor transaction' deal, then there's no point.

Or think about it this way: Is there any stronger evidence that they are missed than the loads of conversations people are having about them?

The other thing to realise about 4th edition is that your stuff is not as important as it was in 3rd edition. Powers are the centerpiece, not equipment or magic items or what not... all that is for is supplementing powers.

Which means that crafting abilities, to be relevent in fourth edition, have to deal within that frame work. That's kinda important.

Having a spot on your character sheet that says 'Herp, I can make normal bows' doesn't require an entire book. All you need is the stats for a normal bow... and a place on your character sheet to write you can make them.

In 4th edition, the section is called 'Notes'.

 

[Euberon]

I guess we can go with examples and see what we see.

So, under your premise that the game system is about amassing power (no argument here), a character's ability to (let's go with bardic performance but it could be painting a portrait, whittling a sculpture, making a sword, etc.) sing a ballad is irrelevant in the world of D&D, if I don't misunderstand.

In a social/political game, might it be very relevant? Or do you think those games don't exist or shouldn't exist, just as you insist no one really used crafts or professions?

Are you saying that specific skills such as mandolin playing by a bard, crafting jewelry for a countess, hunting for food in a endless forest, and other such examples are not important to any game or just to yours?

Are you saying that individual skills are so secondary to D&D without exception that a Warlord and a Bard with the same Diplomacy score should have the same chance to calm a dragon through song, if so desired?

Does an athletic fighter who never rode a horse have an equal chance to winning a horse race as a trained cavalryman?

These questions are not to be a smart ass but to explore the elementary uses of skills and crafts in games that are clearly different from the one's I assume you experience or prefer based upon your all inclusive generalizations.

 

[DracoSuave]

I guess we can go with examples and see what we see.

So, under your premise that the game system is about amassing power (no argument here), a character's ability to (let's go with bardic performance but it could be painting a portrait, whittling a sculpture, making a sword, etc.) sing a ballad is irrelevant in the world of D&D, if I don't misunderstand.

Not quite. The ability to paint a simple portrait, create a simple idol, craft a normal sword... is irrelevant.

The ability to compose a masterpiece, complete with the implications a masterpiece would have in a magically rich world, would not be.

3rd edition skills allowed for the former, and ignored the latter.

Ergo... irrelevent.

In a social/political game, might it be very relevant? Or do you think those games don't exist or shouldn't exist, just as you insist no one really used crafts or professions?

How do they make themselves relevent? That's a question that needs answered, and most answers are already addressed with existing mechanics.

Are you saying that specific skills such as mandolin playing by a bard, crafting jewelry for a countess, hunting for food in a endless forest, and other such examples are not important to any game or just to yours?

Mandolin playing to do -what-? Crafting jewelry for a countess is a diplomacy check that would have an inherent bonus based on the player's background. Hunting food is already a nature check.

It's not about the how, it's about what you plan to do with it.

Are you saying that individual skills are so secondary to D&D without exception that a Warlord and a Bard with the same Diplomacy score should have the same chance to calm a dragon through song, if so desired?

No, they would use different methods to accomplish the same effect. An inspirational warlord might appeal to the dragon's majesty, imploring how its presence would cause great fear in the hearts of its enemies. A bard might sing magics that tell the dragon of the tales of its grandeur and awesome draconic might and magnificant plumage.

At the end tho, they're both doing the same thing: Attempting to appeal to the dragon. The only difference is the narrative used to start it. It's no more of a problem than two characters using a power to hit and then push a character... the fighter's shield bashing, and the battlemind is using kinetic force. It's still the same result of 1[W] + mods + push 1 square.

Does an athletic fighter who never rode a horse have an equal chance to winning a horse race as a trained cavalryman?

Of course not, reflected in the fact the trained cavalryman has better Nature, and Mounted Combat so he's not stuck using the horse's inferior rolls.

I mean, you'd be doing a skill challenge here, amirite? And not just a single skill ya?

These questions are not to be a smart ass but to explore the elementary uses of skills and crafts in games that are clearly different from the one's I assume you experience or prefer based upon your all inclusive generalizations?

I'm saying that the desired effects are usually too mundane for skill checks, or are actually other skills.

I stand by the statement: You want crafting to mean a damn, Make. Crafting. Mean. A damn.

Look, I'm pro-crafting systems. I'm anti-boring crafting systems. The 3rd edition system was boring and had absolutely no room for personal creativity.

A boring crafting system allows you to make a sword. A good crafting system allows you to become good enough to make a unique sword that no one else can use, while not unbalancing the rest of the system.

That's the difference in what you and I are talking about... you're talking about mundane uses. I'm talking about uses worth picking up dice for, that aren't covered by existing skills.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So, under your premise that the game system is about amassing power (no argument here), a character's ability to (let's go with bardic performance but it could be painting a portrait, whittling a sculpture, making a sword, etc.) sing a ballad is irrelevant in the world of D&D, if I don't misunderstand.

There are different definitions of "relevant" being used in this topic:

1. Relevant to the story at hand. A character that wants to play a musical instrument is relevant in this way precisely as much as playing a musical instrument arises in the story. There are any number of ways for the players to express this relevance, and not all of them are mechanical.

2. Mechanically relevant to the challenge of gaining power for your character, in ways that could be balanced via opportunity costs through some other ability you didn't take instead. A character that plays a musical instrument--even in ways that matter in the story--does not necessarily qualify here. The assumption that the distinction does not matter fuels a lot of the "if you want to play miniatures" talk.

3. Mechanically relevant in some other way--exploration, simulation, aid to characterization, background warm and fuzzys, etc. 4E as currently written is pretty light on these. I think "backgrounds" might be the only place they show up at all, and the mechanic footprint there is very light. This gets back to, "if you want to make it matter, then really make it matter" talk that some of us have been saying. If this one bothers you immensely, then there is a good chance that D&D, of any version, is not your optimum game.

The way to get #3 is to quit trying to tack something onto #2, and thinking that it works because it is called "Perform" or "Feat of Flute Playing" or whatever. That is, either fish or cut bait. Alternately, you can decide to expand the rules space of #2 such that these kind of things are mechanically meaningful to gain power. There has been some talk of that, too. But again, if you go this route, then the things you add have to be mechanically meaningful--at least if you want to be coherent. This mean, necessarily, somewhat of a change to the default assumptions about what "crafting" or "perform" really mean.

Trying to mix those three categories is a sign that someone hasn't thought this through, or that they don't really care about the mechanics but want their warm and fuzzies from pseudo mechanical heft--that is, having an entry on the sheet, any entry, is suitable to give them that warm feeling. To them, I say, what you want is to expand the Background option to have more choices, perhaps of narrower scope. Make a list, add it as a house rule, and you'll be happy! I'm sure WotC could do this for you, and make you even happier, but it won't take more than an hour or two to make such a list, and you can always change it later if you find something missing.

OTOH, if someone thinks that their warm and fuzzies not being satisified here is a sign of their (superior?) roleplaying chops, I suggest cultivating a wider RPG experience.

Edit: Somewhat ninja'd by Draco

 

[Pentius]

IMHO I don't think there is a way to be all that helpful beyond what has been stated because that part of the system is simply missing. As I mentioned, I am warming to 4E's simplicity and you certainly can substitute "close enough" skills if you'd like, but its really because you have to, isn't it? There is no rule base for having "actual" skills. Make do how you have to, be that role playing, subbing Athletics, creating home brew, etc., but Wizards has offered no help in that regard.

I am kind of surprised that Wizards has not created a skill / crafting / profession / perform supplement. We all agree they are in this to make money and MMO mind sets love crafting. The 3.xers miss skills, crafts, professions and perform. Even the critics of 4E would have to agree a Skills and Craft supplement would fulfill those three requirements, so do they stand on principle and say all non combat skills should stay in the background? I'm a little confused.

I wouldn't say that crafting should be always in the background or always in the fore. I think the system can handle instances of crafting just fine as is, if you look at crafting not as its own beast, but as a piece of the story.

If your Ranger wants to craft his own arrows because that sounds cool, no roll should be needed. Same if your Paladin wants to paint a bit should you have downtime. If all the player wants is a cool, flavorful character moment, there's no real need to bring dice or charts or skills into it. Just let them have it.

If they want to do something cool but with a mechanical effect, like craft a magic item, they can take ritual caster and the enchant magic item ritual.

If they want to do something with a mechanical effect like sway a dragon via song, they can use diplomacy. A Bard and a Warlord with the same diplomacy score might have the same chance to sway the dragon via song...if the Bard is ignoring all of his many methods of using arcane magic to reinforce his song. This also assumes the DM does not see fit to apply The DM's Best Friend(a +2 circumstantial bonus) to the Bard. I'd say a Warlord doing his best and a Bard half-assing could conceivably have the same chance at success.