Craft/Profession

[hong]

Rod of seven parts just doesn't go together, you have to weld it together.

Which is done via cutscene. Wasn't that simple?

 

[GnomeWorks]

Give it 6 months.

...what, are you new around here? My sig hasn't significantly changed in ages, hong. Get with the times.

Hell, I still reference garyh. I mean, come on.

Okay, now this is getting funny.

...aha, Australian.

... but free expression of opinion has never been about such minor details.

What constitutes a "minor detail" is a matter of perception and personal preference.

But I like whinging people!

Then go find one.

 

[Toras]

Smithing a sword of legend can be nice, but then it will happen off screen or as a dramatic passage. Rolling five Craft-rolls in a row is out. Getting the materials? That's OK, it's standard adventuring-stuff. The smithing itself? Off screen.

If the PCs want to build a catapult it comes down to a skill challenge. Military tactics and stuff, in the case they came up, would be a matter of untrained skill checks. This is so that any PC could bring up a bunch of armed men and lead them to battle without the player going "but I don't have the skills for this!" Same thing with building defenses, if the players have good ideas, let them go at it. Maybe a warlord would be automatically considered trained in those cases.

The problem with having the smithing happen off screen is the assumption that you forged the sword perfectly. Perhaps you missed the most minor of flaws, that will cause it shatter in battle or allow the mind of the mad elemental to fight you for control. The swords power is necessary and functions, but it now carries some complication. Or perhaps you will perform the task with sublime skill and what you have accomplished is a work beyond even a masters art and perhaps it will grant you an advantage at a crucial moment.

Perhaps that is playing into luck, but so's a critical hit and we kept them.

As for the military manuvering and building, I guess skills checks would match but I think having something to account for background would sort of make sense. If the fighter or the warlord has spent years studying the art of war, it might make sense that they can confer some manner of bonus to the men that they lead. Though I suspect that is as much a mass combat rule need as it is a background boosting thing.

Having a knight (read fighter/paladin) leading a cavalry charge should be better than strapping a wizard to a horse and throwing him in instead.


As for the PC's as special. I suppose I am of two minds on this. I don't mind them being special so long as A) they are not the only special people B) A reason for the specialness is given C)This specialness is precievable by those with sufficent insight

 

[hong]

...what, are you new around here? My sig hasn't significantly changed in ages, hong. Get with the times.

Yes. 6 months.

Hell, I still reference garyh. I mean, come on.

Crusaders are like that. 6 months.

...aha, Australian.

You can thank me for contribution to your edumification later, just like with the quote from that Danish d00d.

What constitutes a "minor detail" is a matter of perception and personal preference.

Yes, minor details like reality.

Then go find one.

I've found me a real live whinger right here!

 

[hong]

The problem with having the smithing happen off screen is the assumption that you forged the sword perfectly.

What's wrong with that?

 

[Toras]

What's wrong with that?

Because sometimes its much more interesting if you don't get everything quite right. A minor curse, a flaw to be exploited, perhaps the power of the sword is greater but caries dire consequences.

 

[hong]

Because sometimes its much more interesting if you don't get everything quite right. A minor curse, a flaw to be exploited, perhaps the power of the sword is greater but caries dire consequences.

I think this is good for some items, but when you get to the pointy end of a story arc, it could be perceived as opening the door to anticlimax.

 

[Toras]

Only if the flaw would prevent the sword from serving its originial purpose. Say it has a flaw, a minute physical one. Having the sword that is supposed to vanquish the demon lord shatter during the climatic battle might indeed seem like an anticlimax. But if it the fighter is then driven to his knees by the crushing blows of the lord, who loudly gloats about how that last hope is gone.

The fighter is wounded, unarmed, but gathers up the remains of his strength and picks up the broken piece of the sword, and in an act of grand heroism and unending defiance of fate, he thrusts the shard of metal in the creatures black heart as he rises to his feet. Batter, but unbowed.

It isn't anti-climax...its is a crescendo. A victory made all the sweeter for the difficulty.

 

[hong]

Only if the flaw would prevent the sword from serving its originial purpose. Say it has a flaw, a minute physical one. Having the sword that is supposed to vanquish the demon lord shatter during the climatic battle might indeed seem like an anticlimax. But if it the fighter is then driven to his knees by the crushing blows of the lord, who loudly gloats about how that last hope is gone.

The fighter is wounded, unarmed, but gathers up the remains of his strength and picks up the broken piece of the sword, and in an act of grand heroism and unending defiance of fate, he thrusts the shard of metal in the creatures black heart as he rises to his feet. Batter, but unbowed.

It isn't anti-climax...its is a crescendo. A victory made all the sweeter for the difficulty.

You sound almost as if you're trying to choreograph a desired outcome.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

That's the sort of situation I want to avoid, though: if you don't want to deal with it, then - at least in D&D - you shouldn't have to.

Why would you like to avoid it? What benefit do we gain by having a complex set of rules for crafting? Or were you referring to the part where the check would never come up in game?

...and yet you have no issue with classes being shoehorned into one of four roles. Ahuh.

No, I believe that limitations actually end up helping. Left to their own devices players will do all sorts of stupid things. You can guide them to better choices while making them think it was their choice all along.

The roles are one of the ways you do that. I rather like the idea of Fighter as a Defender. I don't like the idea that the Fighter's only power is roll a d20, see if you hit, then role damage. One says "You are going to be useful in combat in a way that helps your allies. If everyone does their jobs, in whatever way they have available, then you will survive." The other says "Just shut up and role your dice."

Bad examples, then. I'm sure you can think of at least a few monsters which you haven't used.

Sure...there are. However, I can see a time when I might need those monsters. Plus, one of the stated goals of the new monster manual WAS to get rid of a lot of the monsters no one had need of and to change the background of monsters so they were more useful as enemies and more likely to appear in adventures.

Part of the idea of 4e IS to get rid of the stuff that wasn't as useful in D&D. I just don't see a time where I'll need detailed rules for any crafting checks. If I need a simple rule, it is already there in the DMG: "Roll an ability check based on whatever stat I feel is appropriate for the craft." However, I don't see a time where any of my players would say "Boy, I wish that blacksmithing check had been expanded into a series of checks so that it took up a larger portion of our playing time."

The PCs don't have to be all heroic, all the time. They can do other things, you know.

They can. But I don't want them to. And my players don't want them to either. The last time I started a discussion between an NPC and them about what type of enemies they might encounter on the road, one of them interrupted me and said "Don't worry about it...you are paying us? Right, we'll be leaving now to go slay the people who kidnapped your daughter."

...I'll be honest, I don't even remember what the point of what you're responding to was.

When you'd need to climb a tree.

One-dimensional characters, who have but one shtick? Are you sure you don't want to be playing Gauntlet?

Well, it's one shtick, but its different every time. One week you're crawling through the Underdark on your hands and knees fighting off Mind Flayers who are trying to mind control you. The next you are digging through the ruins of an ancient city while being attacked by ghosts who are draining your soul.

One time you are pushing Elves off of cliffs, the next time you are standing up to a Cyclops and knocking it down. It's only the same if you consider combat so boring that it all ends up as "attacking enemies." The details matter to me.

The characters are only one dimensional in that they are all people of action who accomplish great things.

I don't think it would have to be that way.

Every time the game concentrates on something that only involves 1 or 2 members of the group it is bad for everyone else. You want everyone to be involved. That's the idea of skill challenges, to remove the "I wait until the one guy who actually has the skill finishes and then go back to playing the game" factor.

It certainly would be possible to concentrate a game on crafting if you could find an entire group of people who were interested in it. I find this unlikely. If I need a crafting check, it will be one, maybe 2 rolls in order to keep it short.

And reforging Narsil wasn't a heroic, exciting, dramatic, prestigious, and so on, thing? Or could have been made that way, at least?

Nope. I don't think it was any of those things.

Heroic: "Yep, you sure braved all sorts of dangers to put that sword together, the forge was awfully hot, you might have been killed at any moment."
Exciting: "Umm, it's putting a sword back together...watching someone bang a hammer against metal for hours has all the excitement of watching construction....or paint dry."
Dramatic: "Will the sword stay together? Maybe it'll fall apart suddenly? Maybe you'll miss the sword and accidentally hurt your hand...that would be surprising..."
Prestigious: "I put a sword back together!" "Oh? Don't hundreds of smiths do that every day?" "But, it was a special sword!" "Did you do anything different than with every other sword?" "No..." "Oh...well, that's exciting. Did I mention the other week we killed the dragon that has been terrorizing everyone in the world for 1000 years and was considered invincible?"

Could it have been made any of those things? Maybe a LITTLE. I could see hyping up the smith that put the shards together as having impressive skill. I doubt that it could be made Exciting or Heroic. Dramatic maybe if there was a good chance of failing. But Drama without excitement isn't worthwhile.