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

[Saeviomagy]

Basically it goes like this:

In 3.5 if your players were using the crafting skills as written, then they were doing it either
a) Purely for roleplaying reasons: there really wasn't any benefit to crafting something yourself. The money you saved was simply not worth the time.
b) Because the wizard had mandatory downtime, and you had nothing else to do with your time.
c) Because you wanted to get something that the DM wouldn't let you get out of the shops
d) Because you were cheesing out fabricate

a) isn't a good reason to have detailed craft mechanics. In fact, it's probably a reason to NOT have detailed mechanics, because nothing ruins a "I crafted this bow myself" story like someone saying "that's impossible - you can't possibly make those at level X without..."

b) isn't a good reason to have detailed craft mechanics because it would be better for all involved if the wizard didn't have mandatory downtime OR everyone had something worthwhile to do.

d) is a good reason to avoid having a detailed craft mechanic, because if it has mechanics it can probably be abused by someone.

So that leaves us with c) - the DM wants you to work for the item in question.

Personally I can think of more interesting things to make a player do than to roll their craft skill 238 times if they want something crafted.

The ride skill is a bit similar: players wanted a good ride skill because of
a) roleplaying reasons - being able to ride fits their character's image
b) riding is, for some reason, a campaign necessity
c) they're a halfling paladin on a riding dog with a rack of charge-related feats who one-shots equivalent level monsters

a and b are good reasons against having a mechanical cost to being able to ride (ie - it's bad to force people to make their character worse to roleplay, and it's also bad to have a campaign force people to spend character resources that are supposed to differentiate characters). In either case "just let them be able to ride" works just fine.

c is a good reason against it, because again: it takes a lot of effort to make and maintain mechanics that cannot be exploited.

Profession skills are a little bit like riding - it tends to be either a roleplaying choice or a campaign necessity, and personally I don't think it's a great idea to charge someone for either.

That said, if you can come up with a feat that is purely beneficial to the character that ALSO helps with flavour, that's a totally different kettle of fish.

Finally - you mentioned that you allowed craft checks to produce magical items from magical components - well, that's pretty much what the enchant item ritual does. If you're willing to tinker with it a bit (ie - if you require that the PCs get specific items to perform enchantments), then there's no reason that you can't remove it's level restriction and use it to fuel quests (as I presume you're doing when you send the PCs to get components). I think the default level restriction on it is there simply to make players appreciate the magic items they find more in the first few levels of play.

 

[Neil Bishop]

You could always do what Savage Worlds does. SW has a "catch-all" skill called Common Knowledge. You can use this for anything related to your character's background.

This would be easy to implement in 4E because there are no skill points. Just give everyone a Common Knowledge skill with the +5 bonus for being trained. Another name might be Background Knowledge or Background Skills.

 

[seusomon]

ride: 4e DMG has rules for mounted combat. I use those, and find there is no need for any additional detail.

craft: it's part of character background, with no need for mechanical trappings. If a characters wants to be able to make something that's reasonable, they can.

 

[Stalker0]

For appraise my group uses streetwise. Afterall, an object is only worth as much as what people will pay for.

We use dungeoneering for architecture/engineering, as that seemed the most appropriate.

 

[DM_Blake]

With the Mounted Combat feat, your mount can use your Athletics, Acrobatics, etc. for itself. This is a close approximation to riding skill.

So when the princess wants to hop on her silver charger and go galloping through the clover fields, she needs the mounted combat feat?

 

[DM_Blake]

Yeah, riding in my opinion falls under Nature ( Handle Animal ), and then once you have Mounted Combat, you can apply other skills as needed, as per the feat like Dalzig said.

Hey, don't let that guy who trains lions, tigers, bears (oh my) for the circus know that if he dies in an unfortunate circus accident, they can replace him with any coachman, teamster, charioteer or stableboy.

 

[DM_Blake]

For craft, if they have a background that makes the crafty, I'll just let them do it, and judge the end results on their level.

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?

 

[FadedC]

So when the princess wants to hop on her silver charger and go galloping through the clover fields, she needs the mounted combat feat?

Only if the princess wants the horse to be able to use her athletics score instead of it's own. I have a hunch that the horse's might be higher anyway

 

[DM_Blake]

Hmm, another use for the Jack of trades feat.

That is counter-intuitive to what Jack-of-all-Trades generally means.

A JoaT is someone who is naturally good at anything he tries. Today he tries carpentry for the first time, and he's pretty good at it. Tomorrow he tries blacksmithing, and he's good at that too. Next week he might try scuplting, or picking pockets, or healing the sick - he'll be good at those, too.

It doesn't necessarily mean he's an expert at any of those things, just that he's naturally competent at the stuff he tries.

Applying that to crafting skills, it suddenly means that every baker can also forge armor, every carpenter can also carve marble scuptures, every wagonwright can also whip up serviceable swords and bows and other weapons of war.

Extending that, it means all those guys might also be able to pick pockets, heal the sick, and sneak/bluff/diplomat their way into the king's private parties on a moment's notice, too.

 

[DM_Blake]

Craft was a terrible skill. You spent valuable skill points to take a discount on a limited subset of mundane equipment. It's easier to make that part of your character's background detail.

You're right.

What should have been done in 3.x, and probably also in 4e, was to have a set of craft/profession skills into which you put a certain number of points in character creation, and for which you get a small number of points as you level up.

These points would be separate from other skill points and could not be used to learn adventuring/survival skills - you couldn't spend your crafting points to learn stealth or thievery or any other primary skill, but you could, if you wanted to, spend your regular skill points on the crafting skills (which of course was what you had to do in 3.x anyway).

This way, crafting is available for those who want it, and they would be able to use it without depleting their valuable skill points.