missing skills

[Halivar]

I would rather see simple non-combat proficiencies. Something you don't need ranks in, and you don't have to roll. If you take a non-combat proficiency in farming, then you know how to farm. You don't have a roll a skill-check for it. Ditto bar-tending. Ditto construction. Ditto metal-working.

As it is (in 3.5), no one I know spends precious skill points on skills that are not directly useful in combat or social encounters.

 

[Andur]

Without requoting everything:

If it requires smarts (a la engineering) Intelligence

If it requires "art" (a la painting) Charisma

If it requires "feel" (a la farming) Wisdom

If it requires brute strength Strength

If it requires Endurance Constitution

And if it requires "hand" Dexterity

Now some things require more than one of those, multiple skill check time.

Things like brewing would require an Intelligence check for a new recipe, and then two Wisdom checks for brewing correctly. If they want to make more complicated beers can add additional checks either of type or quantity. If they choose all "simple" checks they get a product like mass produced U.S. beer, if they choose all "medium" they get mass produced European beer, if they choose all "hard" they get limited run European beer. If they mix and match they will get microbrewery quality either U.S. or Euro depending on their rolls and difficulties.

 

[EATherrian]

I just have to mention to the OP how much I agree with him. I loved filling my characters with various crafts, professions, and knowledge skills. It made them feel more 3 dimensional to me. The idea now I think is that the PCs are Big Dang Heroes and they don't need concern themselves with the mundane experiences of life, like Greek heroes.

 

[Keenath]

I just have to mention to the OP how much I agree with him. I loved filling my characters with various crafts, professions, and knowledge skills. It made them feel more 3 dimensional to me. The idea now I think is that the PCs are Big Dang Heroes and they don't need concern themselves with the mundane experiences of life, like Greek heroes.

Not exactly; it's just that those mundane skills don't have to be represented. If I want to put in my background that my dwarf is well known for his brewing skills, that doesn't have to attach to some number on my sheet; the DM can just say yes, fine, I make good beer when I spend time making beer.

My buddy the rogue could just as well have listed that he grew up on a farm and knows how to deal with domesticated animals, and the DM can say yes, fine, he knows how to take care of a foundered horse.

The DM can equally say that the rogue's attempt at beer-making results in a sticky, salty brown paste that's only good for canning and selling to australians.

There's no need to have a number on your character sheet to "prove" that you're good at something that isn't going to matter in an adventure. If you really MUST have some sort of check, a simple ability check is probably the best answer -- it's better to handle those situations on a case-by-case basis than make up skills that are just a waste of a skill point.

 

[EATherrian]

There's no need to have a number on your character sheet to "prove" that you're good at something that isn't going to matter in an adventure.

Actually many of those crafts and knowledge skills found ways to be used in game. Even the ones people wouldn't think were useful. I'm not saying that everyone will find them useful, I do. I will put them back into the game when I run 4E.

 

[Wolv0rine]

I don't know about anyone else's experience, but My past experience with older version of the game (primarily BD&D and 1E) were that the fact that the lack of what we now call Profession and Craft skills (and the even Knowledge skills, really) were an actual bone of contention with gamers. Saying "It doesn't need to be quantified on the character sheet" is actually a very 1E kind of way to approach it, very retro and all. And in my experience it lead to a lot of problems and people bitching that the game should have some rules for these kinds of thing. Which I presume is one of the reasons they cropped up in 3E. I know for my part, I remember a lot of times where a stat roll ended up being made in older editions when someone's character background said or implied that they had skill or training or knowledge or this-or-that, but the rules didn't cover that sort of thing. And that level of presumed DM-fiat tended to irk most of the people I gamed with, at least.

 

[wgreen]

I think if you're going to keep skills like that in the game, it's definitely one of those areas that needs siloing. Don't make me pass up Climb or Tumble just so I can have ranks in Craft (basket weaving). Also, don't make Craft cross-class, or anything dumb like that.

-Will!

 

[Quickleaf]

With the standard modifier (1/2 level + ability score) it would be easy to make a spontaneous check for a non-listed skill. If the PC's background indicates they would have that skill, then give them a +5 bonus for training.

DM: The rampaging herd of cattle, spooked by the prairie fires set by the goblins, turn course and charge back toward the village! Fear blazes in their eyes and wide nostrils, sweating hell for leather to escape the flames.
Cleric: I want to Channel Divinity to remove their fear.
Wizard: I cast Sleep.
Rogue: Save yourselves! I ready my Tumble power.
Fighter: Uh guys, I used to be a farmhand remember? Why don't you aid my attempt instead? I want to use my skill with farm animals to calm the cattle down. I'll ride out to meet the bull leading the charge, rope him, then slow him down in a circle to pacify the herd.
DM: Ride? Rope Use? Handle Animal? Uh... Make a trained skill check with Dexterity as your modifier, DC 20.

 

[arscott]

*Nods* Yeah we really don't know enough, hell I am pretty sure we don't have any clue what "Endurance" does.

It replaces all those Con checks that the Endurance feat gave a bonus to in 3e, if it's anything like the SWSE version.

On another note: I have a feeling we'll see Perform (or at the very least, Art). I think it's too central to Bards to leave out. (Yeah, I know. But they'll be there eventually).

 

[Remathilis]

IIRC, all skill checks (including ability checks) will be +1/2 level. So it shouldn't be hard to make all of those things mentioned simple ability checks. NPCs don't need scores for checks (DM determines a bonus based around some guideline on how skilled the NPC should be) so a lot of those background skills don't require full write-ups. The only holes I've seen are seamanship/piloting, perform (though that might make itself part of diplomacy or bluff), and crafting.

As an aside, did you notice WotC deleted the "gp for nothing" skills? (craft, perform, profession)? I hope that means it will be more profitable for PCs to go out dungeoneering at low levels than make massive skill checks for gold.

Then again, the only skills I've ever seen used from that list is perform(any/bardsong), craft (weaponsmith/armorsmith/Traps/Alchemy/Poisons, you get the idea) and profession (innkeeper, one PC). So not much loss, IMHO.