Profession/Crafting skills: Why?

[Fallen Seraph]

some of us aren't seeing characters involved in boat races, examining the account ledgers of a noble withholding the king's taxes, taking over the running of an inn and trying to keep it profitable while the local thieves' guild is trying to pressure the owners into paying protection money, etc.

The thing is though, why are Profession/Craft needed for these when the actual skills required to do them are already there. That for me is the main issue, why should the actual skills mentally or physically required to do said tasks simply not matter since you magically have high-skills in a Profession even if you don't have the necessary points in the actual skills involved.

This is why I personally prefer the concept of background-bonuses or feats that work like the Corsair PP, but only specifically tailored for the skills-part. Since it actually makes SENSE!

 

[Imp]

The thing is though, why are Profession/Craft needed for these when the actual skills required to do them are already there. That for me is the main issue, why should the actual skills mentally or physically required to do

Mentally? Having skills in Balance/ Jump/ Swim/ Use Rope imply fairly little about someone's ability to, say, tack into the wind on a caravel or when to use what knot for the sails or any other skills specific to sailing, since we're using that function as an example. And it just makes it more complicated to make the checks so I don't think it's much of a win.

More generally I think having options in the books that you may or may not use is a good thing, up to a point, much as many around here are all about purge purge purge purge wahoo purge. I have not seen an implementation of professions that has really satisfied me however. Sailing, I'd as soon treat like the Ride skill. In other words, a skill fairly relevant to at least some kind of adventures. Lets adventurers go into worse and worse places with their boats and all that.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

My problem is though, if you had absolutely ZERO skills in those things but high skills in Profession: Sailor you could do all your examples easily. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Why should the actual abilities used in the profession not matter??

Which is why, I prefer the methods like the PP it makes sense that since your knowledgeable of how to use said skills on a boat that you would gain a higher proficiency when doing so.

 

[Simon Atavax]

I'm with you, Rechan.

You don't need a 3e style skill system unless success and failure are both options, those two outcomes are reasonably definable, and unless you need a fine gradient of 5% increments to differentiate between various levels of skill.

I wouldn't mind some semblance of a skill or profession system, even if all it read was, "Non Adventuring Skills and Professions- Discuss these with your DM. With your DMs permission, you can know how to craft certain types of items, or how to perform certain professions. It is recommended that no character have more than one of these abilities."

I think I read this in the back of the AD&D 1e DMG. Ah, the more things change . . .

 

[Skaven_13]

The question then becomes: where does that end?

I know it's not perfect, which is why I asked the question.

Can my sorcerer take Profession: Thief and get access to stealth and lockpicking skills?

Can a wizard take Profession: Solider and get training in weapons (or a reduced penalty?)

Can a fighter take Profession: Trapper and get access to trapmaking and woodland survival?

Can a barbarian take Profession: Witch Doctor and gain access to alchemy, healing, and nature skills?

You get my point. At some point, you could come up with any "profession" to justify free ranks in plenty of useful skills.

I agree that the profession skill could be taken too far if you are going to allow full access to another skill, so you really need to define what those are. The point of the profession skill is to be able to perform minor tasks that are involved with a profession. If I were looking at some of the professions you provided above as a dm:

Thief: Casing a place for a theft (search/spot), finding a fence (gather info)
Soldier: find mercenary work (gather info), knowledge of mercenary guilds or ranking officers in an army.
Trapper: set small game traps...etc

The trick would be to look at a broad range of skills, but only at a limited capacity. You don't want the profession skill to overshadow the actual skill. And it's not a feat (or even a half feat) so I wouldn't use it to reduce non-proficiency penalties in combat.

Skaven13

 

[billd91]

The trick would be to look at a broad range of skills, but only at a limited capacity. You don't want the profession skill to overshadow the actual skill. And it's not a feat (or even a half feat) so I wouldn't use it to reduce non-proficiency penalties in combat.

Plus it means you can have a character be demonstrably competent at a profession and the tasks involved in that profession without having to have a rogue's skill points to invest in everything.

 

[Rechan]

I see no need for psionics, but I don't begrudge their fans the existence of psionics rules, because I noticed at some point that I'm not the only person who plays D&D.

Other people like stuff I don't. Good for them. I'm not going to petition for every rule that I don't use to get axed from the game, nor post long-winded explanations for why something that *other people like* is better off removed from the game, because *I'm* not using it.

And would you petition to have Psionics not be in the Core rule books? How would you feel if they were? How about cat-people? Or guns?

Would that get the same "Game and let game"?

Because I say in the last paragraph:

Finally, I ask another question. I am willing to hypothesize that only a small subset of players and DMs would emphasize or strongly use the craft/profession skills. If that is the case (and remember, the question hinges on IF it is), then should they be in the core rules of an RPG?

If they're a minor rule that only a subset of gamers are looking for, then why should they be in the core rules, which has all the stuff that the most people care the most about?

Those that love craft/profession skills will want them, opening up the opportunity for them to be sold an expansion with the craft/profession stuff attached to it.

I can see if you play an all combat all the time sort of game, why you might not use them.

Except that I don't just play in all combat all the time sort of games.

I've ran detective games, super hero games, and played in survival horror games, nation building games, and "you're small fish in a big pond"/Slice of Life Werewolf games.

But I've never come across a situation where the result of a craft or profession type check was important or pivotal. I've never come across a situation where the skill was appropriate.

Is this a serious point or a jab? Has anyone ever suggested an "orphan" skill?

It's serious, because I have seen many background-reflecting feats or traits that give bonuses because you're an orphan, or an outcast, or a rich boy, or you pick yournose or whatever.

I expect the "greatest swordsmith in the world" to have a good enough craft skill he could take 10.

Either way, you don't bother rolling, you just say "It's a success".

I find the concept that "the only vector that PCs should be using to solve their problems should be combat" to be somewhat wanting. I can create challenges around a great variety of skills.

I hope you got the impression that "the only vector that PCs should be using to solve their problems should be combat" somewhere else, because I certainly didn't say that.

I love the insinuation that because I see no point in craft/profession, all I care about is Monty Haul hack'n'slash.

You know what's important to me? Story. And I believe there is a moat and stone wall between Story and Mechanics.

Only a small subset of people play RPGs in the first place. Why have RPGs?

Because people will buy them. Supply and demand. See my response above about selling expansion packs. If you were talking about RPGs

Stuck on an island and need a canoe or raft to get off? Hope you've got a carpenter.

Or your DM handwaves all that.

Making a pointy stick or a raft is not rocket science. I would never, ever make my players roll for things like that.

But let's just say I'll take you seriously. You're on the island. No one has the craft (make primitive crap). Then what? "Sorry you couldn't successfully sharpen a rock, so you are overrun by a flock of persistent seagulls and are killed." If no one has the appropriate nature skills, they can't figure out what's edible, and end up eating poisonous plants? "No one has profession (hunter) or (Fisher), so you can't find adequate food. You all starve."

To me, it (and Crafting/Profession as a whole) is the equivalent of in a modern-era game, forcing a player to roll a driving skill every time he gasses the car up, or make him roll to change the oil, with the possibility of harming the engine by fumbling at pouring something from a bottle into the hole.

But to a more general point, I don't believe that the player should have to roll the craft/profession stuff at all. An example on the first page was the "Macguyver" juryrigging guy. Which is a fine concept, but there's never any question "Can MacGuyver put that device together?" No! Because he's freakin' MacGuyver! He has the knowledge, it's a simple insert tab A into slot B simple, so there's no need to worry about it. The question is, "Once he has it together, does it work?" This is, to me, the "to-hit" roll, not the craft roll. There's no difference, story wise, between "I start the game with it in my inventory" and "I make it on the fly", because you have it, and you use it.

It feels like, to me, the equivalent of "Okay we're going to do some surveillance on this guy's house. But first, we have to roll our Profession: Cop skill to make sure that we 1) can actually see the window from our location, and 2) turned on the phone tap correctly." "Sorry guys, Joe rolled a 2 on his check; he falls asleep on watch, and you have a six hour gap in your stake out information."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are still requests for Crafting and profession-related skills, now that 4e has taken them out, and as I try to think about them... I can't come up with why they should be there.

And I mean that for any rpg.

Unless you're playing Hammer and Chisel: Craftsman Adventures, I can't see a purpose for having any sort of profession or craft skill.

Why would you spend the time to make mundane items?

Because it makes sense for the PC to do so, either because of roleplay or campaign situations- the PC may wish to fabricate something that is not otherwise readily available. Example- in a recent campaign, I wanted my PC to use a Dire Pick, but he could never find a craftsman capable of making one. Had he had the skill points, he could have made one and eventually enchanted it.

"But my character should repair his own items!" Seeing as I've never seen a mechanic for wear and tear of items, then you don't need a mechanical representation of repairing your items.

It may not exist in all campaigns, but it can and does happen. Sometimes, its even crucial to the plot.

"But it's part of my background/personality!" Still doesn't explain the necessity for a mechanic.

Sure it does, if the PC makes use of it enough times. Someone who is playing the role of a super-scientist will probably load up on KSs, why shouldn't someone who is playing the role of a mason turned warrior (like a Paladin I once played) have some knowledge of architecture and engineering? Such skills may even prove useful in an actual game situation in the hands of a top-notch player and an open-minded DM.

Besides, if you think about it, some non-craft/profession skills are still profession skills without the name attached. Things like "Appraisal," "Carousing," "Gather Info," "Sleight of Hand," "Streetwise" and so forth are generally the bailywick of certain "professions" and have just been broken out of those jobs for game purposes.

You must be thinking, "But Rechan! What if my players want to make magical items!" Okay, let me ask you something. Your party has spent the last three sessions hunting down the necessary materials to make a magical widget. They put everything together, and ... roll a 1. Do you honestly plan to say "Sorry, your efforts were in vain. No item." The same question applies if you journey far and wide to the greatest swordsmith in the world, do you expect to have him roll a craft skill to make the weapon?

I would and have done so. Yes there were groans of disappointment if there was a skill failure, but when the goal was achieved later, there was much rejoicing.

To me, such a failure is no more disruptive than a greatly skilled warrior rolling a 1 in combat and accidentally skewering his ally, or a dex-monster PC who makes a critical failure on an acrobatics roll.

The answer may be "To make traps/poisons!" Although there has never been adequate rules for either (1,000GP for a pit!?), unless you scrounge around the 3rd party materials in the first place, so that can't be the answer.

Again, something like this may vary from game to game and campaign to campaign. A thief finding himself in a tightly controlled LG theocracy not his homeland might have better odds of making his own poisons than buying them.

My ultimate point is, if the purpose is story and fleshing out your character, then why shouldn't the DM just say, "Okay, what you just wanted, you do it."

Fairness would be the first concern. Having rules in place at least gives a guideline beyond arbitrary "Yes" or "No" answers to players' requests.

The wear and tear of items is a good example. Most DMs I would say would just hand-wave the fighter fixing his stuff because he brought it up. ("Well, that fight tore my armor, I'm going to fix it." "Hold on there champ, until you do, you get a -2 to AC.")

OTOH, game effects that can cause breakage or degradation of equipment aren't uncommon- Sunders from 3.X, or Drains/Suppress/Transforms from HERO just to name a couple. Having the skillset to be self-sufficient in the area of repairs can be invaluable. Ditto being able to craft one's own ammo.

I am willing to hypothesize that only a small subset of players and DMs would emphasize or strongly use the craft/profession skills. If that is the case (and remember, the question hinges on IF it is), then should they be in the core rules of an RPG?

Sure. Just because something won't be used by the majority of players doesn't mean it won't add to the quality of the game. In addition, their inclusion is probably a trivial expense in terms of production costs.

So why not?

 

[billd91]

And would you petition to have Psionics not be in the Core rule books? How would you feel if they were? How about cat-people? Or guns?

Would that get the same "Game and let game"?

It's a question of playing to the genre. How many people really think of psionics as a core fantasy element? Guns? Cat people?

Now how many times have you seen, in a fantasy book, people involved in mundane professions? How many times have you seen the main characters working in a mundane profession when they aren't adventuring?

I think I can say, without much fear of being wrong, that you see a lot more mundane profession work and crafting than you do psionics, guns, or cat people in both fantasy movies and literature. While there may be occasional elements of psionics, guns, and cat people in the genre, you're really trying to compare outliers with elements MUCH more common and mainstream. It's almost like asking someone why they wouldn't want UFOs in the core of a WWII RPG when they're asking for some consideration for military logistical skills.

 

[Rechan]

It's a question of playing to the genre. How many people really think of psionics as a core fantasy element? Guns? Cat people?

Animal-humans are huge in fantasy. Practically every fantasy game has had some sort of race of that fashion. Sci fi too. Flying ships are part of the genre; why aren't they in core? Talking animals?

There are tons of things in the Genre which aren't in the core rules of many games.

It comes down to what the most people find the most useful.