Houserule: Non Adventuring Skills

[I'm A Banana]

If at any time he needs to cook something, it's automatically good. I mean, why bother rolling?

It's pretty fun.

I mean, I'd go with the whole "Taking 10" rules for this. You can automatically, given enough time and no stressful situations, do pretty decent at it (take 10). If you come to a stressful do-or-die situation, though, you've gotta roll.

Because it's really nifty seeing the expert cook roll a 1 and then thinking of an explanation for why it's not up to par ("In your rush to prepare the cake, you forgot to steady it properly, and it fell on the floor. Not having time to bake another one, you added another layer of frosting, and sent it out anyway. The King doesn't really buy your story about 'Hair Cake.'"), or, alternately, seeing them roll a 20 and thinking of the superlative awesomeness that can result ("The dinner is interrupted as an avatar of Pelor comes in, thinking he smelled Ambrosia. Wrong, but intrigued, the Sun God lingers for the banquet and blesses the house as he leaves. The King knights you the following day.")

Little flavorful rewards or punishments for success or failure is part of the fun of D&D in general, not just in combat.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Get rid of the normal skills. Make things that 'every adventurer would be trained in' (things that help you avoid getting eaten by a grue) automatic.

Then, use a Profession rule reflecting a few broad sectors of profession.

Make these VERY useful.

Just seconding the other poster who thought this was really interesting. But, like him/her, I probably wouldn't implement it into D&D.

It is a rockin' idea though.

[edit: I also enjoy your later post mentioning the Avatar of Pelor, maybe that's simply because I'd never have something so high fantasy in one of my games. ]

 

[Vayden]

If it's somehow vitally important- like he's been kidnapped by some faerie lord who demands a single meal of superlative quality or he'll imprison him in a thorn tree for all eternity...all it takes is an action point. You could work it so that if he refuses to spend it and survives the ensuing consequences, he gets some kind of benefit for doing things the hard way.

Another option - "You want to make a superlative meal for the faerie lord? Roll 1d20 + Wis, DC 15" - if the player has actually roleplayed being a good cook in previous non-stressful situations, give them a +2 or +5. That's the sort of thing you just roll on the fly.

 

[Professor Phobos]

Yeah, straight-up attribute check works fine. If the character doesn't know how to do it, the player won't try to roll it and there's really no point clogging up chargen just to get it all detailed.

 

[AZRogue]

My 3E House Rule to simplify my NPCs and encounters (I make a LOT of NPCs and had to take shortcuts) was to simply give them generic "skills" when they were non-encounter types.

A noble might have listed his Ride and Climb and Jump normally, and then I would have something like "Social +5, Noble Pursuits +2, Knowledge +2"

Whenever a situation arose that required the use of a non-encounter skill (not often, let me tell you, unless I planned on roleplaying by myself) I would set a DC of 10 - average difficulty, 15 - difficult, 20 - very difficult and then apply the appropriate modifier to the roll.

If that particular noble mentioned above went hawking, for instance, which he does often so is common, I would have rolled a d20 and added +2 to hit a DC 10.

I think I did it out of guilt more than anything, since so many skills were available and I knew it was expected. In the past I would have thought nothing of making a decision based upon what was best for the adventure at the time but in 3E it made me feel a little "dirty" to not roll ANYTHING. It worked well.

If it becomes an issue I may just do the same thing again. I won't know until I see a lot more of 4E.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It is a rockin' idea though.

It might see the light of day in the Zero System, or, like was mentioned, I might just let it be it's own thing ("Commoner Heroes!"). Though videogames in general take 4e's "it's irrelevant" consideration to heart, I do have a softspot for tailors who can sew the wings of dragons together and priests who convert devils and wilderness guides who can navigate the Inifinate Planes with a compass and a thumb to the wind.

 

[xechnao]

1)Assign to each class a minimum starting wealth value.

2)Assign to skills a wealth value. The more irrelevant a skill with adventuring is the more wealth value it has. For example spot has value 0, diplomacy value 1, etiquette value 2, gambling also value 2 and trial lawyer value 3.

3)Each rank in each skill counts as a factor to the value system. For exampe 3 ranks in diplomacy have a value of 1+2+3=6 while two ranks in trial lawyer have 3+6=9

If characters with these builds surpass their minimum starting wealth they gain cool stuff such as minor magical items they can use right away at level 1. Note that they have to at least take skills with enough wealth value to equal their class minimum starting wealth value.

What do you think??

 

[Irda Ranger]

From what we know rituals can be learned without spending any character-based resources (perhaps just gold and time?), so flavor skills could use the same mechanic as well.

I'd also use it for languages.

+++

This is what I do. There's no reason a PC can't take a month or two (plus room & board) to learn the basics of carpentry, or whatever.

 

[AZRogue]

1)Assign to each class a minimum starting wealth value.

2)Assign to skills a wealth value. The more irrelevant a skill with adventuring is the more wealth value it has. For example spot has value 0, diplomacy value 1, etiquette value 2, gambling also value 2 and trial lawyer value 3.

3)Each rank in each skill counts as a factor to the value system. For exampe 3 ranks in diplomacy have a value of 1+2+3=6 while two ranks in trial lawyer have 3+6=9

If characters with these builds surpass their minimum starting wealth they gain cool stuff such as minor magical items they can use right away at level 1. Note that they have to at least take skills with enough wealth value to equal their class minimum starting wealth value.

What do you think??

You lost me at "Assign to each class a minimum starting wealth value." Sorry, it could easily work, but I personally don't see the reward as worth that much extra work tacked on to the process.

 

[dystmesis]

Do we even know if 4e has skill points?