Profession skills and 4th ed

[Piratecat]

I think that's endurance.

For a house-ruled profession skill, you'd use 10 + 1/2 lvl + abil mod. If it's an integral part of their background and can't particularly affect combat, I wouldn't hesitate to give them the +5 bonus for trained.

 

[DarkKestral]

Call me crazy (yeah, just do it!) but I would love to see a skill called Manual Labor. See, manual labor isn't as easy as it sounds and it makes a great skill to have and to use. If you are trying to convince an old crone living in a cottage to help out, you can chop her wood. If you need to bypass a cave-in, you just roll up the sleeves and get to work.

Now, some might say manual labor isn't really much of a "skill" but I beg to differ. I have the hands of a priest and it's evident that I haven't done an honest day's work in my life (although I actually have). Pit me against a real blue collar worker in a race to carry bags of flour up to the mouth of a mill, and I wouldn't stand a chance.

Or is this Endurance?

Not all professions are equal. Is being a doctor equivalent to having lots of Endurance? Almost assuredly not. There's quite a bit of knowledge and required practical skills, but it's also useful in a game context enough that we decide that what doctors do is it's own skill. It's called Heal. So there's a bit of reason to break out skills and have them do their own thing if it proves applicable enough and they are dissimilar enough to other skills that they don't cross the dramatic streams too often. I'd say sailing, as a professional skill, is far enough away from other skills in general use and has enough applicability to a large enough set of campaigns that it deserves being broken out ala Heal or Thievery into it's own skill.

There's quite a bit of knowledge and practical skills to learn as part of being a sailor; the average person would never be able to come in and know how to operate a sailing ship that doesn't use a motor. It requires several things which so far haven't really been shown to be covered by a skill in 4e, like sea navigation, some types of rope use (frankly, it sucked as a solo skill, but when a part of more generally useful skills, or as a weaker alternate to the "right" skill that can be used on occasion when appropriate and the right one isn't held by anyone in the party, it is OK IMO), knowledge of ship design, and some skill at repairing ships. Also, it might have a use for finding food at sea.

I suppose you could use a combination of some random stuff to approximate it, but it seems to me to be something that is appropriate for consolidation into a skill under my earlier criteria. Think of it as a Dungeoneering for the sea. Without Dungeoneering, you go into a maze of twisty passages that are all alike underground and you have no clue where to go or how to survive once you are inevitably lost, and die an ignoble death from starvation. With it, you may be able to figure out that one of the passages has a distinctly "fresher" smell than the others, which is an indication that it leads close to the surface, and manage to survive by eating only the right stuff till you eventually break free. The Sailing equivalent situation is when you are out in the middle of the ocean, sun's beating down, and you're out of dried rations, but there's a small wind in one direction. Will that wind take you to shore? a non-sailor probably wouldn't know, but a sailor who knows how to read would probably be able to guess which way to go if he has access to a map. In the meantime, a sailor might be able to catch fish when the non-sailors can't, if only because he knows what seems to draw them, being around them all the time. Plus, the average amateur sailor won't know how to survive in a bad storm, however the pro sailor would probably recognize the best way to approach the waves to keep the ship intact and do so.

If Dungeoneering is a skill in 4e even though it probably doesn't get used a lot in campaigns not focused around going into dungeons and coming out with loot, which is something I think is likely to be the case, I think Sailing is equally viable for campaigns with a significant portion of time spent on the water, but it is also clearly not viable for campaigns not spent on the water, so it's not a dummy's choice, as long as the GM isn't a total jerk and says "I'm not planning to have many nautical segments" if someone asks about taking it when the issue comes up. Would it be terribly useful in all campaigns? Not hardly. And we've already seen that Streetwise is a skill, and it will likely prove to be the equivalent to the other two (Dungeoneering and what will likely prove to be Nature) for cities. So I'd round out them out with a sea-based equivalent in a heartbeat, should my guesses be right.

I would hesitate somewhat to consider a "planar" survival equivalent to the Dungeoneering/Nature/Streetwise/Sailing quad, but that's mostly because by the time the harsher areas of the planes show up in a game, players have been likely to have spells, and in 4e will likely have rituals, to counteract the effects of those planes plus have teleport and other abilities allowing them to skip to the areas they want to actually be, which kind of negates the primary uses of many of those skills. Plus, most of the areas players visit on the planes would be covered by those four anyway, and unfamiliarity could be easily emulated by penalties or increased complexity.

 

[Celebrim]

The profession skill has always been problimatic. On the one hand, it is occasionally useful for filling a hole in the list of standard skills. That's how you've been using it.

But on the other hand, for most uses of the professional skill, there is often a standard skill which would seem to overlap. For example, take the idea of 'Profession(Lawyer)'. What does skill in 'Profession(Lawyer)' really entail that isn't coverable by Knowledge(Law) and some sort of social skill like 'Diplomacy'? How skillful of a lawyer can you be without Knowledge(Law) and how much knowledge of law does high skill in Profession(Lawyer) really entail?

That's always bugged me to distraction. And yet, I didn't want to get rid of Profession because of corner cases like Profession(Boating) where nothing else seemed to fill the idea of 'Capable of rowing or paddling a small craft'. Likewise, I've previously been involved in campaigns that heavily revolved around the use of tall sailing ships, so I like you I didn't want to get rid of 'Profession(Sailor)' or 'Profession(Navigator)' even though I saw some problimatic overlaps between Profession(Sailor) and the actual skills used by a sailor like climb, balance, and use rope. After all, there is more to being a good sailor than things like being able to climb, maintain your balance, tie knots, maintain your direction, read the tides and weather, and so forth - even though its pretty impossible to imagine a good sailor that doesn't also have these skills.

I am rather unhappy with the 4E skill list, but one thing that it did do for me is force me to question my own 3.X derived skill list and the upshot of that is that it convinced me to bite the bullet and get rid of the profession skill.

After really looking at the list of professions, there are only a few that have some essential skill which isn't covered by some other skill. The list of what isn't covered is so small, that I think it is much better to do away with the profession skill and have specific skills for the corner cases.

4E is designed really only with core gameplay in mind. If you play the game differently than the core rules assume, you are going to find holes in the rules. Fortunately, I think it is designed to be easy to patch.

In your case, I think the idea solution is to add something like 'Sailing' or 'Handle Craft' or whatever you think broad or narrow enough to fit the skill as you want to define it to the list of available skills, and then add it to the class skill list of those classes you think deserve a chance to begin trained in the skill. Everyone will have some skill in this as they advance in level, and they can spend a feat to become trained in it.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

I would imagine that the core rulebooks will address ‘ad hoc’ skills. If it were my game, I’d determine if each PC had ‘sailing merit’ based on the background information of his character. If he did, he would be able to use his STR, DEX, CON et al. vs. the DC of a sailing related challenge. And if it were a sailing central campaign, I’d probably assume that all the characters had such a ‘skill’. A drawback to this is that the method of determining if a PC has ‘merit’ could be construed as unfair by some – however an advantage is that it highlights the importance of developed backgrounds. Cutting my teeth on ODD, I have no problem with ad hoc solutions.

To make another point – I’m disappointed to see rope use/ use rope fall out of favor with the designers. As a DM and a player I found many uses for this skill and I always thought it was an important one.

To make, yet another point – I dislike the skill ‘dungeoneering’ what has passed for player ingenuity and note-taking has been simplified into a very vague meta-game mechanic. How does a first-level character justify dungeoneering as a skill? He can ‘forage for food in the Underdark’ …because as a 1st level character he has spent so much time there. Or did he take a community-interest course at the annex?

 

[Celebrim]

A drawback to this is that the method of determining if a PC has ‘merit’ could be construed as unfair by some

No, the drawback is that once you open that can of worms you have to listen to continual stupid complaints like, "Well according to my background my father was a ninja master, so why can't I get a bonus to move silently?"

 

[2eBladeSinger]

No, the drawback is that once you open that can of worms you have to listen to continual stupid complaints like, "Well according to my background my father was a ninja master, so why can't I get a bonus to move silently?"

I don't really see that as a potential problem, it's a bit of a straw man IMO. If I did decide to game with bunch of munchkins, I'd simply say 'no, if your father was a ninja master, then that's good justification for taking the sneak skill - the background driven sytem is meant to address talents not covered by the rules'

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I could see Professions covered using a Ritual-esque system. You take a Profession Feat and gain "Rituals" that deal with that Profession.

By having it as a feat shows a initial level of training, and staggered rituals afterwards show them learning new talents in that Profession.

Also, I bet rituals use skills, as such each new talent in your profession could be tied to something that makes sense, for example:

Sailor:

Knot Tying - Acrobatics/Thievery (being dexterous with your hands)
Spotter - Perception
Rowing - Athletics

 

[Saeviomagy]

My question is this:

What is the sailoring (or whatever) skill used for that is actually interesting?

"Roll sailoring or you forgot to buy enough water"?

"Roll sailoring or you failed to tie a knot"?

"Roll sailoring or you crash the boat"?

"Roll sailoring or you get lost at sea"?

"Roll sailoring or you fail to climb the rigging"?

These all seem like silly events to base on a single skill check in sailoring. Some would be more appropriate as multiple checks. Some are more appropriate as just DM or player fiat (you're not likely to forget to buy water unless your character is totally unaccostomed to travel for instance), while others are obviously covered by existing skills or combinations of existing skills.

I understand that the spelljammer rules have some sort of ship-to-ship combat though? Mind you, even then it's not the best design choice to have "being the ship's pilot" any sort of restricted activity that might cost a character. Doing so just kind of guarantees that some characters are restricting themselves from being able to participate in large chunks of the game, which isn't a good thing IMO.

Also - I'd not agree with manufacturing a "sailoring" skill - perhaps it's better just to implement a sailoring feat? Say we just give +2 to any skill check that involves a familiar ship?

Specifically it's a "familiar ship" to stop complaints of "If I can get +2 for being on a ship, why can't I get +2 for being in a dungeon".

Actually it works pretty well as a general feat - +2 for skill checks involving a familiar locale. Lawyers would choose the local court, street rats could choose specific alleyways etc.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

My question is this:

What is the sailoring (or whatever) skill used for that is actually interesting?

"Roll sailoring or you forgot to buy enough water"?

"Roll sailoring or you failed to tie a knot"?

"Roll sailoring or you crash the boat"?

"Roll sailoring or you get lost at sea"?

"Roll sailoring or you fail to climb the rigging"?

These all seem like silly events to base on a single skill check in sailoring. Some would be more appropriate as multiple checks. Some are more appropriate as just DM or player fiat (you're not likely to forget to buy water unless your character is totally unaccostomed to travel for instance), while others are obviously covered by existing skills or combinations of existing skills.

I understand that the spelljammer rules have some sort of ship-to-ship combat though? Mind you, even then it's not the best design choice to have "being the ship's pilot" any sort of restricted activity that might cost a character. Doing so just kind of guarantees that some characters are restricting themselves from being able to participate in large chunks of the game, which isn't a good thing IMO.

Also - I'd not agree with manufacturing a "sailoring" skill - perhaps it's better just to implement a sailoring feat? Say we just give +2 to any skill check that involves a familiar ship?

Specifically it's a "familiar ship" to stop complaints of "If I can get +2 for being on a ship, why can't I get +2 for being in a dungeon".

Actually it works pretty well as a general feat - +2 for skill checks involving a familiar locale. Lawyers would choose the local court, street rats could choose specific alleyways etc.

The OP concern was that if he had a campaign based on sailing and he needed a system to make sure characters could: keep the ship on course in a storm, tie down battered wrigging, navigate to the lost isle, etc. and how to separate characters who can from those who can't.

DM has to be careful not to unbalance and underpower his characters by making them spend their resources on house rules. Not saying it can't be done - but it's not a simple add on.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The OP concern was that if he had a campaign based on sailing and he needed a system to make sure characters could: keep the ship on course in a storm, tie down battered rigging, navigate to the lost isle, etc. and how to separate characters who can from those who can't.

The problem with this is that seperating characters who can from characters who can't means that as soon as you start one of the above scenarios, you've cut half your players out of the game.

Further - what's the penalty for failing to do these things? If the rigging is destroyed, does that actually help the campaign? If the players don't navigate to the lost isle - is there anything added to the game through that? If the players DO keep the ship on course during the storm, how does that actually help your story (or if they don't, depending on scenario)?

Even if these things are going to make a difference, is it a big enough difference to justify adding new mechanics?

DM has to be careful not to unbalance and underpower his characters by making them spend their resources on house rules. Not saying it can't be done - but it's not a simple add on.

Agreed - this is something that could heavily affect the game and the enjoyment of it's participants, so I think that the goal of the house rules should be carefully scrutinized before even trying.