Craft/Profession

[Fallen Seraph]

Their not supposed to represent specifically, "I know how to make things", they represent the process of making those things. You have your teachings of ancient methods of blacksmithing (history), your actual ability to handle the hammer correctly and hammer it hard enough (athletics) and being able to keep this up to complete a weapon (endurance).

I find it in many regards a quite elegant way to do it, since it shows the process and not simply. I know blacksmithing, so I can make a great sword, even though the Skills that actually play a roll in this aren't considered (hell they could very well be crap, but hey! you got that specific Skill).

This is the difference between Craft and Profession and other Skills. They are a end to a means, the other Skills are a mean to an end.

And about arcana, nature, history. There is a big difference, those are each part of a specific means, Arcana covers magical means, Nature covers natural means and history covers historical means. They aren't a end to a means like Craft and Profession and other Skills don't fit within what they do.

 

[GnomeWorks]

a.) I really agree with Mearls I don't want them in core because I don't want game writers using such overly specific features in their products. It should be a part of the DM to table contract not the WotC to Players and Writers contract.

I don't want dragonborn or tieflings in the core, but I have to put up with that crap.

b.) I do think Craft and Profession skills are stupid swingy. They're spotlights when I'm trying to make an ensemble chorus. If someone takes Trained Blacksmithing it's either worth everything or nothing depending on his proximity to the forge and I'm supposed to reward this character for something that essentially works as an exploit.

I don't get this, for a couple reasons.

A player who makes a character focusing on non-combat things is most likely not expecting the game to revolve around their abilities to make a sweet horseshoe (and if they do, well, your game has more issues than are being discussed here). But there's nothing wrong with a little spotlight here and there; as a player, it's interesting to see, sometimes, where other players are taking their characters, and as a DM, it's nice to see that each PC has their own goals aside from whatever world-ending plot is going on at the moment.

Second, I'm not sure that rewarding the character for picking such a skill is necessary. If the player does it, they should expect reasonable opportunities to use their skill: that is, they need to specifically seek out excuses to use them, and hopefully those venues would be open. The idea that you have to ensure that every character is rewarded for every mechanical decision they make seems ridiculous.

Subtler effects are fine. Circumstance bonuses seem like a way to handle this that reflects a flavorful amount of investment rather than a selfish and permanent investment.

I didn't realize that PCs were meant to only have skills that complemented the group and played well with each other. Is that inborn subconscious telepathy with future group members a PC-only thing?

 

[vagabundo]

snippidy snip great minds think alike snip

Totally agree, profession craft skill should not be in core, but are easily added back in by those that really care. There is a lot of cross compatible stuff that could be taken 3e, the games are similar enough that some of the mechanical systems can be transfered, in both directions. (I can see a game with the core 4e mechanics using the 3e/pathfinder class system)

I think most DM viewed them as skill point sinks, a waste really. And the crafting rules needed an overhaul.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Their not supposed to represent specifically, "I know how to make things", they represent the process of making those things. You have your teachings of ancient methods of blacksmithing (history), your actual ability to handle the hammer correctly and hammer it hard enough (athletics) and being able to keep this up to complete a weapon (endurance).

Any physical skill can be described as such: history for method, athletics for ability, endurance to keep it up. Why have any physical skills other than these, then?

This is the difference between Craft and Profession and other Skills. They are a end to a means, the other Skills are a mean to an end.

It's 3 in the morning here, and I'm having difficulty parsing that. Rephrase? Example?

Unless you feel I'm being too obtuse to warrant it. In which case, cool, but let me know, so I'm not up until the sun rises, waiting patiently for your response.

And about arcana, nature, history. There is a big difference, those are each part of a specific means, Arcana covers magical means, Nature covers natural means and history covers historical means. They aren't a end to a means like Craft and Profession and other Skills don't fit within what they do.

...darn it, I was hoping I could respond to this, but again with the terminology I can't quite wrap my head around! Revisit this if you rephrase the above?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

We heard this argument about fireball and phantom steed. That issue was fixed, was it not?

Power Attack : Skill Training :: Fireball : Phantom Steed. I mean, seriously.

Not if you put craft skills into the game. Now I have to decide whether or not I want to be able to detect magic using Arcana and be able to make knowledge rolls about dragons to gain some insight into how to fight them when I come across them in an adventure...OR I can brew alcohol. 95% of players will choose the first option given that they are playing D&D and fighting dragons is likely happening more often than brewing alcohol. However, the 5% who don't are just decreasing the power of their characters in most games. I'd prefer not to give players to option to make really bad choices like that.

Oh, wait, or is that needless symmetry? Ha, silly me and wanting a rules system that covers more than stabbing things and stealing their phat lewtz.

No. Needless symmetry that they are talking about is any time you feel the need to fill in a list of something just to "make sense" to the detriment of the game.

Such as:

"If we have a plane where there is one alignment of creature only...shouldn't there be a plane for EVERY alignment then?"

"If there are creatures who live in the LG plane that are unique to there, shouldn't there be creatures who are unique to every OTHER plane."

I guess you could look at it like this...if you see a list of skills and feel the need to "complete" it with a bunch of skills that aren't going to be used 99% of the time, then yes...it is needless symmetry.

But, yes...if you want a game that handles something other than killing things and taking their stuff from D&D, you ARE rather silly. That's what the game does.

Athletics isn't necessary. Insight isn't necessary.

Athletics is used to climb the wall to get to the treasure and Insight is used to figure out if that guy who told you there was nothing dangerous in the forest was lying.

Where is Craft(Basketweaving) needed in the Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, Labyrinth of Madness, The Forge of Fury(despite the name) or Keep on the Shadowfell?

You could do away with those two skills and do exactly what you just mentioned. So why do they get to exist, and Craft doesn't?

Because the game focuses on adventuring. In an average campaign, you may make 5 Athletics rolls a session as you jump over traps, climb up trees to get a better vantage point, and so on. In the same campaign, you are likely to never need a basketweaving skill at all, nor ANY craft skill at all.

You play the game one way, I play it another. There's no reason both those particular methods cannot make use of the same system.

Yes there is. For the same reason you don't like the fact that there is no Craft skills, is the same reason I'd really hate it if they replaced combat with one skill roll. The rules help determine the focus of the game.

If a game was focusing on turning lumps of metal into weapons. I'd get bored and want to quit the game. On the other hand, this has never happened to me, because everyone I've met and played D&D with has had the same opinion of Weaponsmithing as a game: We'd rather be killing things and taking their stuff.

If the game implied that Weaponsmithing was just as valid an adventure as the Dungeon of Dread...I'd have to change my opinion from "I like D&D" to "I like some D&D games as long as they are combat based." Luckily, I haven't found the need to do that yet.

I'm just not sure where everyone got the opinion that D&D should support all playstyles from. It's been repeated over and over again on these boards, but I've never seen any reason to believe that needs to be true.

You can't tell me that that is an invalid approach, nor that that is not D&D. Also, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't use the "that's not D&D" argument, because that'll lead us to a bad place of philosophical meanderings and discussions of just what, precisely, D&D is, and the nature of the game is such that pretty much everyone's definition is going to differ. I'm not trying to belittle you here, it's just that that discussion is going to be long, tedious, and probably not get us anywhere.

Is combat the focus of each edition? I would argue that it's the primary mechanical focus, due to the history of the game, as well as the nature of combat. And again, there's nothing wrong with having a heavy mechanical focus on combat - but the system can support other things, and there really is no reason to not support those other perfectly valid approaches to the game.

Sure there is. In the same way that you don't expect hockey to appeal to people who like racket sports or golf to appeal to speed freaks. Sure, either one COULD be made to support the other. You could give players in hockey the choice of a racket or stick and you could always have golfers play the game while in Indy cars. You don't, because that's not what the game is about. And the option to broaden the sports to new audiences might make the people who already liked the game stop watching.

Having a skill called Brewing in the game implies that it might be useful in the game and that someone should probably take it as a skill. It will cause DMs to add brewing challenges to the game because that's what they expect the game should be. It might be a useless choice for the player to take in some games. In other games, players who are bored out of their mind might still be forced into Brewing challenge #12 because the DM figures the skill should be useful.

And I personally thought that they ruled combat to death, since it can be relegated to opposed skill checks. I mean, seriously, who wants to sit in combat for three hours? How droll. Just roll opposed checks and be done with it. We've got things to craft and drinks to brew! I don't need to know how many times you poke the orc with a pointy stick!

And that's your choice. You don't like combat. But when I first learned about D&D, back when I was 12, I was told that it was a game where you get to have cool powers and kill monsters. I thought it was awesome and I still do. However, everyone I've played D&D with, ever, has enjoyed combat to some extent. That's the reason the vast majority of them show up to play at all.

I don't want to have to sit down at my next D&D game and have the DM tell me that his session is going to be all about crafting birdhouses because that's what the new version of the game tells him it should be about. After all, it MUST be, look at that 20 page list of craft skills with detailed rules on the types of things you can make and how long it takes!

 

[jedrious]

If you really want crafts and professions, model them after the Ritual System

[feat]Crafter
Benefit: You can master Schemas of your level and lower and create the equipment described therein.[/feat]

[Schema]
Career

[b]Level:[/b] 1                       [b]Component Cost:[/b] 1 gp
[b]Category:[/b] Profession           [b]Market Price:[/b] 150 gp
[b]Time:[/b] 1 week                   [b]Key Ability:[/b] Wisdom
[b]Duration:[/b] Instantaneous

You work at a job, for one week you slave and toil to make your 
clients happy, at the end of the week, you made some money.

Your Wisdom check result determines how much money you make.

Wisdom Check Result          Money Made
5 or lower                         1d6 Silver Pieces
6-13                               1d6 Gold Pieces
14-19                              2d6 Gold Pieces
20-25                              4d6 Gold Pieces
26-33                              1d6 Platinum Pieces
34-39                              2d6 Platinum Pieces
40-44                              4d6 Platinum Pieces
45 or higher                       1d6 Astral Diamonds
[/Schema]

Now all you have to do is make a Schema[ritual] for each type of item


is it any wonder this minutia was left out of the core rules?

 

[med stud]

Your 300 pages of combat rules are useless to me, since it should just be opposed rolls, anyway.

??

D&D is very focused on combat and has always been that way. That's why I went to D&D from Runequest (explanation: all those non-combat skills looked nice but in the end of the day, violence was the solution). So if you want a game that focuses on brewing, crafting and professions, most likely you will never be satisfied with D&D.

That's one part. The other part is that it's very hard to design generic adventures for a skill that is as broad as profession. If you design adventures for your group, that's one thing. Then you know that Gamlo the Dwarf brews good ale, Logelas the Elf is a teamster of reputation and Bolbi the Halfling is a reknowned smith. In that case, you can add elements of brewing, smithing and driving wagons. The problem I find with that approach is that it feels stupid to add uses for skills because the PCs got them.

If you are to publish an adventure it is hard to add, say, a brewing contest because the odds aren't good that someone has profession (brewing). Most parties will fail that challenge due to noone having the skill. Contrast that with Religion or Dungeoneering, where the odds are good that someone has the skill.

I think it's a combination of D&D traditionally being combat heavy and that it is hard to make generic adventures and campaigns involving those skills.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My approach to non-combat or non-adventuring "skills" to combat and adventuring skills would be to "silo" them.

Never force a player to make a choice between a non-combat ability and a combat ability.

So, if there are Craft and Professions in the game, they shouldn't be accessible via skills or feats. You need a different subcategory or subsystem for them.
This means that everyone will have a Craft or Profession, and everyone gets his combat powers and adventuring skills. (other, off course, by not having them or providing tons of character build options for the part if focuses on.)

The only problem occurs if DMs and players have different assumptions on the combat/non-combat ratios. And that's a problem a system that provides both abilities can't address itself.

I really am not interested in black-smithing a lot in my D&D adventuring career. I like to have "Blacksmithing" listed on my character sheet or in his background description. But I want to use it maybe once or twice in the campaign. It's just not what's fun for me. (And I don't understand those people in MMORPGs that actually enjoy just crafting all-day. It sounds immensely boring. But everyone has his preferences... I don't like German "Volksmusik", either...)

 

[Fallen Seraph]

What I am trying to get at (which is probably also hampered by it being almost 5 am here ) is that the Skills in 4e are ones that actually cover certain aspects of what a person can do.

So one skill represents a persons ability to be acrobatic, another to tune into nature, to remember history and use it, to be able to figure out the workings of magic, etc.

With Professions and Crafts though, it isn't so much that it represents a specific thing the person can do, as much as a conglomerate of how these different things a person can do fit together.

A person can be good at athletics, endurance and through history understand the workings of blacksmithing then apply all these abilities he has to blacksmith.

Thus why the Skills we have are a means to an end. While Blacksmithing itself only represents a conclusion to all those Skills working together to create a end.

In actuality, it is somewhat more realistic then before. Since now you have to be actually good at the Skills that tie into a certain craft or profession to be good at it, and not simply magically be good at it from having that profession or craft skill.

For example using once more the Blacksmith example, someone with horrible athletics be a horrible Blacksmith for not being able to handle the hammer correctly/swing it hard enough.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Not if you put craft skills into the game. Now I have to decide whether or not I want to be able to detect magic using Arcana and be able to make knowledge rolls about dragons to gain some insight into how to fight them when I come across them in an adventure...OR I can brew alcohol. 95% of players will choose the first option given that they are playing D&D and fighting dragons is likely happening more often than brewing alcohol. However, the 5% who don't are just decreasing the power of their characters in most games. I'd prefer not to give players to option to make really bad choices like that.

You missed the point.

Split them up. You have two separate pools from which to take fireball and phantom steed. Do the same with "know stuff" and brewing.

No. Needless symmetry that they are talking about is any time you feel the need to fill in a list of something just to "make sense" to the detriment of the game.

My understanding of the 4e understanding of needless symmetry is that it's needless if it isn't awesomesauce and/or related to combat.

I guess you could look at it like this...if you see a list of skills and feel the need to "complete" it with a bunch of skills that aren't going to be used 99% of the time, then yes...it is needless symmetry.

If you use all of the material in all the books 99% of the time, you impress me, good sir.

When was the last time you used an athach? An achaierai? An allip? An assassin vine?

But, yes...if you want a game that handles something other than killing things and taking their stuff from D&D, you ARE rather silly. That's what the game does.

Now you're being silly. Because if I want to play a game where I kill things and take their stuff, and that's the be-all end-all, I might as well go play gauntlet.

Athletics is used to climb the wall to get to the treasure and Insight is used to figure out if that guy who told you there was nothing dangerous in the forest was lying.

And brewing is used for celebrating after the fact. And craft (blacksmithing) for making the weapons you use to kill the dudes guarding the treasure.

Where is Craft(Basketweaving) needed in the Temple of Elemental Evil, Against the Giants, Tomb of Horrors, Labyrinth of Madness, The Forge of Fury(despite the name) or Keep on the Shadowfell?

Whenever you need a basket, of course. And who doesn't need a basket?

Because the game focuses on adventuring. In an average campaign, you may make 5 Athletics rolls a session as you jump over traps, climb up trees to get a better vantage point, and so on. In the same campaign, you are likely to never need a basketweaving skill at all, nor ANY craft skill at all.

Why does climbing a tree require a check?

Yes there is. For the same reason you don't like the fact that there is no Craft skills, is the same reason I'd really hate it if they replaced combat with one skill roll. The rules help determine the focus of the game.

If the system adequately covers several areas of gameplay - combat, social encounters, crafting - and covers each of them in roughly the same level of detail, with each afforded the same level of options, then the focus of the game can be any of them or all of them. Having crafting rules at all doesn't detract from your 300 pages of teh combat.

If a game was focusing on turning lumps of metal into weapons. I'd get bored and want to quit the game. On the other hand, this has never happened to me, because everyone I've met and played D&D with has had the same opinion of Weaponsmithing as a game: We'd rather be killing things and taking their stuff.

Only because weaponsmithing has thus far been presented as a rather boring mechanic. If it were more involved, perhaps your opinion would be different.

I'm just not sure where everyone got the opinion that D&D should support all playstyles from. It's been repeated over and over again on these boards, but I've never seen any reason to believe that needs to be true.

Because it can.

You can't tell me that that is an invalid approach, nor that that is not D&D. Also, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't use the "that's not D&D" argument, because that'll lead us to a bad place of philosophical meanderings and discussions of just what, precisely, D&D is, and the nature of the game is such that pretty much everyone's definition is going to differ. I'm not trying to belittle you here, it's just that that discussion is going to be long, tedious, and probably not get us anywhere.

Hey, what do you know! We said the same thing, and even worded it exactly the same!

Sure there is. In the same way that you don't expect hockey to appeal to people who like racket sports or golf to appeal to speed freaks. Sure, either one COULD be made to support the other. You could give players in hockey the choice of a racket or stick and you could always have golfers play the game while in Indy cars. You don't, because that's not what the game is about. And the option to broaden the sports to new audiences might make the people who already liked the game stop watching.

D&D doesn't have to be a specific sport. It can be the whole of the field of sports, and you could pick the specific sports you like and only pay attention to them. You don't have to exclude the racing fans just because you hate it. Their likes are just as valid as yours.

Having a skill called Brewing in the game implies that it might be useful in the game and that someone should probably take it as a skill. It will cause DMs to add brewing challenges to the game because that's what they expect the game should be. It might be a useless choice for the player to take in some games. In other games, players who are bored out of their mind might still be forced into Brewing challenge #12 because the DM figures the skill should be useful.

So, every encounter you run has an athach in it, right?

And that's your choice. You don't like combat. But when I first learned about D&D, back when I was 12, I was told that it was a game where you get to have cool powers and kill monsters. I thought it was awesome and I still do. However, everyone I've played D&D with, ever, has enjoyed combat to some extent. That's the reason the vast majority of them show up to play at all.

As I read this, I said to myself, "Self, he threw that one right over the plate. You could totally win the game with that one." And I responded, "Self, that's probably a bad idea." So I decided to just let this one go.

I don't want to have to sit down at my next D&D game and have the DM tell me that his session is going to be all about crafting birdhouses because that's what the new version of the game tells him it should be about. After all, it MUST be, look at that 20 page list of craft skills with detailed rules on the types of things you can make and how long it takes!

I don't want to sit down at my next D&D game and have the DM tell me that his session is going to be all about killing dudes and taking their stuff, and that we can't go and do any non-killing character-related stuff because there aren't rules for it, so we can't do them.

Oh, and there's going to be an athach, because it's in the book, and there's no reason not to use it.