Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Psion]

Ubiquitous? Really? How many protagonists from fantasy stories have craft or profession skills? NPC's, sure. But, then, with NPC's we don't need the rules in the first place.

We are not in agreement on that point, as I state in the post you have quoted. But continuing...

But protagonists?

The first one that flashes to mind is Taran from the Prydain chronicles.
Thence Durnik who is part of the "party" in the Belgariad.

Fantasy stories aside (which I could wield effectively to dismiss a lot of what goes on in 4e... but then I've long held that some things work well for books that don't work well for games and vice versa, so I'll decline using the IMO flawed argument of strict literary emulation), over the years I have had many players play characters who desired the ability to craft items or have unique professions. At least one per party in most parties.

What crafting/profession skills did Aragorn or Gandalf have? Conan? Harry Potter? Merlin? Arthur? Odysseus? Captain Kirk?

Now you are treading dangerous water. The party is more than one person and the #2 on Star Trek is... Spock. What has spock ever crafted? Can you honestly have to gall to invoke Star Trek and not immediately think of what is perhaps the most famed episode of the series, The City on the Edge of Forever, wherein spock crafts an electronic device to determine the flow of history?

Crafting is something the sidekick, at best, does. Usually it's some unimportant side character who does it.

I'm glad my players don't have you to tell them what a proper "non-side" character should have for their skills.

 

[Hussar]

Now you are treading dangerous water. The party is more than one person and the #2 on Star Trek is... Spock. What has spock ever crafted? Can you honestly have to gall to invoke Star Trek and not immediately think of what is perhaps the most famed episode of the series, The City on the Edge of Forever, wherein spock crafts an electronic device to determine the flow of history?

But, is Spock's main role, or even a fairly minor role, one of building electronic devices? It's perfectly reasonable that the Science Officer would have a pretty decent working knowledge of electronics. So, his class "Science Officer" should include some abilities in that direction. I'll agree with that. But, do you really need an entire subset of skills and rules to govern this?

And, do you honestly think that the craft skills in D20 would allow you to do this?

I'm glad my players don't have you to tell them what a proper "non-side" character should have for their skills.

The words that I type and the way people take them continually amaze me.

Where did I say anything about "proper"? What I said was that much of fantasy fiction, it's the side characters who have any major crafting/profession skills. Now, there are exceptions, Taran from the Prydain Chronicles spends some time as a potter and various other crafts. That makes sense from the narrative.

But, you bring up Durnik, who is a side character, certainly not the main. Pretty much going with what I said.

And, really, yes, I agree. There's a guy in just about every group who wants to craft something. It was usually me. I'm the one who would spend three NWP's to get Weaponsmithing or Armorer in 2e. I'm the one who would spend skill points on Profession skills.

But, I also realize that I was the ONLY one who was doing it. There's five or six people at the table. Should the rules cater to the four or five or the one? Why force the DM to do extra work to make that one guy happy?

 

[Goumindong]

Can you honestly have to gall to invoke Star Trek and not immediately think of what is perhaps the most famed episode of the series, The City on the Edge of Forever, wherein spock crafts an electronic device to determine the flow of history?

quoted for posterity.

Look there is a fundamental disconnect here. You and KB simply cannot understand, for some unknown reason, that the rules you want are useless. They don't need to be defined because they don't come up, they're too specialized to be valuable and comparable to another skill, and when they do come up they are only to "justify" a useless option, something a DM can do just as well for a background description. Just like there is no skill "connections" whereby you have connections because you built them up earlier, but if they are in your background the DM can decide to reward you by incorporating it.[or people take them in order to break the game]

The real kicker is that they are easily done using the current mechanics. You want to make something? Great, its a skill challenge, you gain commensurate XP and reward for an encounter of your level. You lose time in the process. Its likely to use athletics, perception, insight, and endurance.[for a craft]

The challenge becomes a series of rolls that are defined by how your character completes the task rather than a single roll to determine whether or not you succeed.

So this is pretty much it. These skills, profession, perform, and craft, serve no function in the typical game, can easily be replaced when necessary, and are only valuable to the game when the DM pulls them out of your back story to be used just like he or she would pull anything else out of your back story to use. They provide no benefit to a DM in helping him describe a world, since all interactions of entities that are not in direct conflict with the PC's occur at a value as determined by the DM anyway. Therefore, the only value that these skills have is to make your character worse at doing other stuff. It penalizes you for having a background that is defined in that certain way[in the case of perform it was a penalty to everyone but bards, which it was a similar penalty, except one required to use their class features, which is even more dumb] while offering no penalties for other backgrounds or backgrounds defined within the context of the useful skills as listed.

 

[Psion]

But, is Spock's main role, or even a fairly minor role, one of building electronic devices?

I never said it was his main role. But as I amplified in an earlier post, I don't expect a single skill to cover the same importance to the character's role as the class does, and it's disingenuous to suggest that's what I am saying or have said since.

It's perfectly reasonable that the Science Officer would have a pretty decent working knowledge of electronics. So, his class "Science Officer" should include some abilities in that direction.

Sure: class skills.

I'll agree with that. But, do you really need an entire subset of skills and rules to govern this?

I've made it pretty plain that I believe so, yes.

And, do you honestly think that the craft skills in D20 would allow you to do this?

Within the realms of technology considered permissible in the setting, why not? Spycraft would let you. It would be a gadget, and you can build it with science (which is for all intents and purposes Spycraft's "craft" skill.)

The words that I type and the way people take them continually amaze me.

Where did I say anything about "proper"? What I said was that much of fantasy fiction, it's the side characters who have any major crafting/profession skills.

In case it's not clear: yes, I think you are coming across as telling me (and anyone else who plays the game) that taking profession/craft skills is only fit for "sidekicks" (I guess NPCs in your lexicon.) I can't muster any other way to take it. It seems to be pretty much "what you are saying". What am I missing? You don't like the use of the term "proper"?

And, really, yes, I agree. There's a guy in just about every group who wants to craft something. It was usually me. I'm the one who would spend three NWP's to get Weaponsmithing or Armorer in 2e. I'm the one who would spend skill points on Profession skills.

But, I also realize that I was the ONLY one who was doing it. There's five or six people at the table. Should the rules cater to the four or five or the one? Why force the DM to do extra work to make that one guy happy?

There are 8 core classes in the 4e PHB and 11 in the 3e PHB. Yes, I think that one player out of 4-6 is worth catering. Especially considering that rule does double duty as being a basic system for handling common NPC capabilities.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you're using the Profession skill to judge a "devil vs guy fiddle contest", what the hell is the PERFORM skill then for?

Profession: Musician Type X or Craft: Musician Type X would be the skills involved in getting a gig, keeping your instrument in good shape or knowing the people who can, knowing the market for your skills, knowing whom you have to pay, who has to pay you what, or letting you judge the competence of another player.

Perform: Musician Type X is the skill you have to deliver a quality musical performance- Talent + Practice + Willingness to get up on stage and play.

Can you honestly have to gall to invoke Star Trek and not immediately think of what is perhaps the most famed episode of the series, The City on the Edge of Forever, wherein spock crafts an electronic device to determine the flow of history?

Or how nearly every Engineer or "egghead" in the series has at one point or another kluged together something to save everyone's bacon?

Besides, I know someone mentioned him before, but MacGyver is a quintessential crafting main protagonist. Like him, John Doe tread similar paths. Dr Who is another infamous gadgeteer and improviser. Detective Goren is a veritable font of information regarding all kinds of arcane modern knowledge, especially languages, symbology and the like...much like Sherlock Holmes before him. Other heroes who used their brains as much as or more than their brawn abound.

In addition, sometimes it makes the players feel good if THEY actually provide the critical insight that breaks open a particular mystery or conundrum with their background skills rather than having the DM reveal/solve it via some NPC ex Machina.

There are countless sequences in detective stories in which the protagonist seeks out a particularly skilled supporting character- typically a psychologist, coroner or computer specialist in modern dramas. Why shouldn't the PCs themselves be able to feel the rush of advancing the plot?

...even if its by doing something as minor as recognizing that the pottery in the campsite didn't come from the local economy, but from far across the sea...revealing that perhaps someone is executing a sophisticated ruse.

These skills, profession, perform, and craft, serve no function in the typical game, can easily be replaced when necessary, and are only valuable to the game when the DM pulls them out of your back story to be used just like he or she would pull anything else out of your back story to use.<snip>

Your experience obviously varies greatly from mine. I'm hard pressed to think of a single campaign in 30+ years in which at least one player- not necessarily myself- made a serious contribution to the game with one of the skills you deem useless.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The problem becomes, where do you stop KM? How small of a niche do you have to cater to before it becomes too small?

I couldn't possibly answer that question. You're shooting the moon, here.

All I'm concerned with is stating that some people like craft/profession systems, and those who do won't like that 4e doesn't have any. If it's important enough for them or combo'd with other things, it might turn them off 4e entirely. Certainly, it's one of the reasons I'm turned off of 4e.

I am in no position to tell WotC what it should do. I am in a position to mention if I don't like something they do. As some shlub with an internet connection, like rest of us here, I can mention it up and down and no one can stop me. Watch this:

"I don't like that 4e doesn't have a profession/crafting system.""

Of course, I don't think anyone in this thread is in a position to tell WotC what it should do, so when someone defends ignoring some niche group with "Well MOST people don't like it!" then I need to point out at least one of the many, many flaws with the idea that what most people like should be the only thing made.

So I did.

4e hates crafting. It's a fair cop. FWIW, I don't think this is a permanent situation, because every edition has had SOME kind of crafting system in it sooner or later, and 4e has the better part of a decade ahead of it. It hasn't even BEGUN to try catering to random niches.

It doesn't matter that most people don't like it. We'll still have it. It'll still eat up precious pagecount. People might even use it. I do hope that anyone reading this thread will understand why that may be.

 

[Psion]

quoted for posterity.

Look there is a fundamental disconnect here.

You and KB simply cannot understand, for some unknown reason, that the rules you want are useless. They don't need to be defined because they don't come up,

If there's a fundamental disconnect here, it is this:
The rules that you are telling me never come up, come up, with regularity in my games. Not amount of telling me it's not so will make it not so.

The real kicker is that they are easily done using the current mechanics. You want to make something? Great, its a skill challenge, you gain commensurate XP and reward for an encounter of your level. You lose time in the process. Its likely to use athletics, perception, insight, and endurance.[for a craft]

The challenge becomes a series of rolls that are defined by how your character completes the task rather than a single roll to determine whether or not you succeed.

So this is pretty much it. These skills, profession, perform, and craft, serve no function in the typical game, can easily be replaced when necessary, and are only valuable to the game when the DM pulls them out of your back story to be used just like he or she would pull anything else out of your back story to use.

I consider that a totally inadequate solution that fails to model differences in character crafting capability in anything resembling a sufficient manner. The same character who is good at crafting pottery under this system is also good at crafting swords.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You and KB simply cannot understand, for some unknown reason, that the rules you want are useless. They don't need to be defined because they don't come up, they're too specialized to be valuable and comparable to another skill, and when they do come up they are only to "justify" a useless option, something a DM can do just as well for a background description. Just like there is no skill "connections" whereby you have connections because you built them up earlier, but if they are in your background the DM can decide to reward you by incorporating it.[or people take them in order to break the game]

And, apparently, you can't understand that the game you play isn't the game everyone plays.

Have fun in your little backyard, I've got the whole world to play in.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Someone in another thread stated that the biggest thing missing in 4e was inclusiveness - it knows exactly what it wants to be and have, and to hell with anything or anyone else - neither the game nor its fans want their support or patronage. This thread really, really helps hammer that home.

 

[Fenes]

Craft and Profession skills were core, dude. There is absolutely no reason, no possible justification, for believing that 3e was designed with the intent that you would throw out core skills. Certainly you don't give one. Those skills were carefully worked into the entire rest of the product line.

There's a fine line between "throwing out" and "not using". You could play 3E without any craft skill taken by any PC, or any craft check made by an NPC. You were not forced to take those skills.

But you could take them, and use them, if you wanted.

And that's one of the most important differences between 4E and 3E.