Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Wicht]

Aren't you handwaving it? Where did you get that 100-300+ gp income figure from?

I asked for input over at Paizo for rules on running an inn. It was suggested that the DMGII had rules and though I don't have the book, someone else summarized and we came up with a system using what was supplied.

It doesn't really solve the problem, it just alleviates it slightly. A real solution would involve a better costing of the various skills, with some being "expensive" and other nearly "free". Of course, this would be more cumbersome, and frankly, not worth the effort. I prefer to make do with a simplified skill list and some handwaving.

I'm not sure why it doesn't solve the problem. It worked for us.

Still I'm happy that you are happy with a simplified skill list and some handwaving. I on the other hand am happy with a broader skill list and more dice rolling.

 

[Rallek]

As an aside, would anyone allow this in the game, Profession (Circus/Carnival Performer or Court Jester). Circus performers are one of the oldest professions in medieval life and also one that I think is actually more common to appear as background fluff in modules than say Sailors.

Even before we had many other professions, theee were travelling carnivals so does this mean that I get to "cheat" out by not spending points on the skills like Tumble and Balance?

I would indeed allow you to take this profession in game. You could use it to cut many a-caper, take some pratfalls, and even to do some flips and/or stand on your head to earn a laugh and some coin from the crowd. As per my previous post, however, this would not allow you to use circus performer to perform a discreet application of another skill in a venue not directly related to performing for a crowd circus style.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well I put forward that there's no need to have a mechanic to determine if he rolled a 1 or not when trying to put it together.

I say just announce "Okay, you make it. Pay x gold." X may be 1/2 market price or whatever you want.

There's no need to have a "Roll to see if you do it. Oh, sorry, all your gold and time is forfeit."

He either does (because you want him to) or he doesn't.

Using that logic, why do you need any rules at all?

 

[Mallus]

Skills in general were a great opportunity in 3e that I generally feel was underplayed.

Agreed.

Generating your own tasks/DC is just something that is so obviously in the GM purview to me I never really looked for rules affirmation in 3e.

Oh sure... but I'm not talking about looking for or even needing rules affirmation for skill uses. I was talking about Profession being useless and/or problematic (in that it often works like a bundle of context-related skills rather than a single skill) as written.

I don't have any trouble using skills in 3e... I just wish the system was better designed.

 

[Mallus]

I asked for input over at Paizo for rules on running an inn. It was suggested that the DMGII had rules and though I don't have the book, someone else summarized and we came up with a system using what was supplied.

Ah... okay. My comments where meant for Profession in the RAW.

I'm not sure why it doesn't solve the problem. It worked for us.

Cool. Come to think of it, I did much the same, giving out more skill points and adding certain skills to all class lists. Still, I can't help but feel that the 3e RAW essentially penalizes someone for trying to give their character a fuller, more colorful background.

 

[Mallus]

No need for snark, please.

Sorry.

I simply do not think diplomacy and intimidate should be able to replace a talent for art.

Fair enough... I was happy with a simple, workable solution. Plus, in this case, the lacuna in the rules led me to a fun bit of characterization; that Dragonborn love poetry is full of threats.

 

[Wicht]

Ah... okay. My comments where meant for Profession in the RAW.

Well you did ask how we arrived at the amount we did without 'handwaving' and I explained it.

I'll admit that 3e profession by the SRD core rules is a bit... subject to quirky happenings. Its odd that a sailor can earn the same amount of money in a week as an innkeeper running the most successful inn in town. The DMG II however does seem to address this somewhat.

I think that profession is a spot in the 3e rules that could use a real face-lift and I was heartened when James Jacobs told me he would like better rules in PFRPG for running businesses.

 

[Dausuul]

Why? In any decent group, people will know what comes up. Just as the DM tells the ranger that taking favored foe: Goblin won't be of much use in the campaign he can tell people that profession: Sailor might be a good or bad choice. In a long.running group, people know what to expect, more or less,a nd can spend their points accordingly. A system therefore can be balanced with offering different skills, the players adjust to the different specific campaigns by picking different skills for each campaign.

This completely misses the point. You have to pay X amount of character resources (in this case, skill points/trained skills) to learn a given skill. If you're paying for adventuring skills and non-adventuring skills out of the same pool of resources, then the game designers must set the relative value of adventuring and non-adventuring skills; in essence, deciding what the "standard" ratio of adventuring to non-adventuring should be.

Any DM who deviates from that standard ratio is going to end up with a situation in which players are punished for picking the "wrong" skills, and pretty much depend on the DM to tell them how to make their characters. That's a lousy way to design a system.

Sorry, but I disagree. As I said, I consider those skills as important, so just as a character needs to decide whether to be a striker/defender/whaever, they need to decide how effective they will be in other aspects - they can't be good in all aspects.

You know, bringing up the striker/defender/controller/leader roles is an interesting angle here... because the goal of defining those roles was to ensure that everyone had something effective to do in a fight. You have the choice to be a heavy melee brute, a nimble archer, or a pyromaniac spellslinger, but regardless of which you choose, you're going to have something effective to do when a fight breaks out. The choice you specifically do not have is whether to be good at combat. There is no "noncombatant" role.

I see it the same way with separating out adventuring from non-adventuring skills. You have the choice to be a blacksmith or a sailor or a minstrel or a soldier (that last one being defined by knowledge of military tactics, siege weaponry, logistics, and so forth). What you do not have is the choice to trade out having a more well-rounded character for being a more effective adventurer... or vice versa.

 

[Wicht]

The choice you specifically do not have is whether to be good at combat. There is no "noncombatant" role.

Which is another nonselling point with me. But thats a tangent from the real topic.

Doesn't it make sense that the guy who practices all his life swinging a blade and picking locks is not going to be as good at cooking as the guy who trained for little else.

I like the fact that if a character wants to sacrifice lock picking skills for cooking skills that option is available to them.

 

[Storm Raven]

Good stuff. My main quibble would be that the practice of tying knots on ship actually makes one very good at tying knots offship. My Grandfather was in the merchant marines and his knot tying skills were always excellent, even if it was cows he was tying up.

I came up with a collection of synergy bonuses that various craft, knowledge, and profession skills would apply to other skills - on the theory that a sailor was probably going to be really good at knots and so on. So having ranks in Knowledge: Law gave you a bonus to Profession: Barrister and things like that.