Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lackhand" data-source="post: 4039417" data-attributes="member: 36160">This is cool stuff.One warning for those who think that this is descriptive: Do not be fooled! Any and every ranked descriptive system can be turned trivially into a math heavy crunchy system. Beware! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I had fooled around with the thought (I like it when my players take noncombat skills, but it is definitely a disadvantage to spend resources which could be used on combat skills (hide, move silently, spot; balance and swim if the DM is an environment-using bastard) on noncombat skills because D&amp;D discourages general characters and rewards specialists.I think I've blabbed about this before; I proposed treating crafts and professions and perform skills like languages; free ones based on int bonus, and instant competence for 2 skill points. Each race gives, much as bonus languages, a single bonus craft, profession, or performance (humans get 2 extra). Intelligence penalty applies to these. Voila, brewers and bakers to one's heart's content.In 3.x, you may add your (full) level to any craft or profession which you have; in 4th ed, consider it trained. This roll should come up fairly rarely anyway. (in your system: it buys you competence).Another buy-in might purchase mastery (level + 5, as full-ranks + skill focus, or 4th ed &quot;as trained as it gets&quot;). A final buy-in might purchase grand mastery, as above but you may always roll twice and take the greater value.I like this marginally more than my class idea, because it's simple. I see the allure that xechnao sees in out-of-combat classes, but I agree with other posters that it's a bit... un-D&amp;D-y.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lackhand, post: 4039417, member: 36160"] This is cool stuff. One warning for those who think that this is descriptive: Do not be fooled! Any and every ranked descriptive system can be turned trivially into a math heavy crunchy system. Beware! :) I had fooled around with the thought (I like it when my players take noncombat skills, but it is definitely a disadvantage to spend resources which could be used on combat skills (hide, move silently, spot; balance and swim if the DM is an environment-using bastard) on noncombat skills because D&D discourages general characters and rewards specialists. I think I've blabbed about this before; I proposed treating crafts and professions and perform skills like languages; free ones based on int bonus, and instant competence for 2 skill points. Each race gives, much as bonus languages, a single bonus craft, profession, or performance (humans get 2 extra). Intelligence penalty applies to these. Voila, brewers and bakers to one's heart's content. In 3.x, you may add your (full) level to any craft or profession which you have; in 4th ed, consider it trained. This roll should come up fairly rarely anyway. (in your system: it buys you competence). Another buy-in might purchase mastery (level + 5, as full-ranks + skill focus, or 4th ed "as trained as it gets"). A final buy-in might purchase grand mastery, as above but you may always roll twice and take the greater value. I like this marginally more than my class idea, because it's simple. I see the allure that [b]xechnao[/b] sees in out-of-combat classes, but I agree with other posters that it's a bit... un-D&D-y. [/QUOTE]

Verification