The Profession skill?

[Raven Crowking]

That is a good example of using a Profession skill to make an attack - because he's actually working with the rigging. Maybe if Jack had Depp's head on the anvil and started beating him with a hammer...

We have to wait for PotC 4.

 

[Aurumvorax]

It is funny that you would say, one one hand, that it has no mechanical value, and then in the same paragraph you include the most upfront mechanical value per 3.5 RAW. The upfront mechanical value is that it makes money.

However, the 3.5 RAW also allows you to "use the tools of your trade, [know] how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems." So, while these things may not be of obvious and immediate mechanical value, it is incorrect to imagine that they are without mechanical value whenever such a task applies. By RAW, Profession does something besides make money for a week's worth of labour.

It may be easier to see when Climb or Ride might apply; I assure you that many games have made Profession apply per RAW.

Here's another way to look at it. Your argument is, essentially, that Profession is too narrow a skillset to be valuable in game, meanwhile



Too narrow for some, too broad for others, and just right for still others. I hope you can see that this is very much a playstyle issue. Like, for that matter, so many other RPG issues.


RC

And being that D&D assumes you're an adventurer and you're expected make X amount of money per level, profession has the worst skill point to actual value in the entire game. "Mechanically" appraisal can make you more money than profession. So can craft. The other skills keep you alive which lead you to even more money. The value of profession is trumped by every single other skill.

3E's vague descriptions are trumped by its hard rules. You know how to use the tools of your trade: that doesn't mean you're suddenly proficient in wielding (using your example) a hot poker in a fight. It's still an improvised weapon that anyone could see and pick up. Profession doesn't trump spot or listen: anyone fighting in the workplace can see obvious items they can put to use and profession has nothing to do with someone's knowledge of where a hidden item might be (I can't use profession: blacksmith to know every blacksmith in the world keeps their bellows in a specific spot). You know how to supervise people in the workplace but profession doesn't cover actual leadership.

Here's the thing, D&D is a game focused on combat. It evolved from one, always has been, and always will be. The basic assumption is that you're an adventurer, you get your money by robbing tombs, and you kill monsters. This is, by no means, set in stone obviously but those are the assumptions the game is designed around. Unless you're playing a game where the PCs have a lot of downtime and aren't constantly on the move (as the game assumes you are), profession is a waste of time and in D&D time is money.

Profession doesn't cover anything else but making a small pittance which is easily trumped by a day's adventure. I'd like to see someone who spent all their skill points in profession deal with an angry ogre hovering a club above them. You might have profession: lumberjack but that certainly isn't going to tell you how to dodge that club or where to stick your axe.

 

[N0Man]

Professions are necessary to roleplay. This is why roleplaying doesn't exist in 4E.

(I kid, i kid, and completely disagree with such a statement... but I've seen it implied before.)

 

[Aus_Snow]

And being that D&D assumes you're an adventurer and you're expected make X amount of money per level, profession has the worst skill point to actual value in the entire game. "Mechanically" appraisal can make you more money than profession. So can craft. The other skills keep you alive which lead you to even more money. The value of profession is trumped by every single other skill.

No. Or yes. But only as campaign, DMing and/or play styles dictate.

3E's vague descriptions are trumped by its hard rules.

For you, that might be the case. Also, not all non-rule descriptions are 'vague', whether that would suit your theories or preferred play style better or not.

Here's the thing, D&D is a game focused on combat.

No. Or yes. But only if/when it is.

Unless you're playing a game where the PCs have a lot of downtime and aren't constantly on the move (as the game assumes you are), profession is a waste of time and in D&D time is money.

No. Or yes. But only if campaign uptime is of one rather narrow kind.

Profession doesn't cover anything else but making a small pittance which is easily trumped by a day's adventure.

Yes it does. By the book, even. What's more, it's written as being open to interpretation, on top of that. So, it's very much up to the DM and players.

 

[Woas]

It depends on the game. I've played a number of RPGs now that use 'profession', 'background' or 'job' skills with more importance than on personal combat skills.

 

[Mallus]

The problem is had with the Profession rules in 3e was simple: there effectively were no Profession rules, at least no meaningful rules support.

While there was a broad Skill category labeled 'Profession' and all it did was generate a small amount of income for the PC, regardless of what Profession the character practices: pig sty cleaner, doctor, gigolo, etc.

There was no list of common Professions, and, more importantly, corresponding lists of tasks related to the profession and their DC's. So basically what you had was Professional <insert name here> and everything else was made up by the DM.

Like I said, no meaningful rules support. Which is why I found it pretty amusing when people started missing the Profession skill in 4e. It was like people getting upset over the loss of their imaginary friend.

Now I'd like a better attempt at support for professional skills. 4e's solution -- only include support for common adventuring skill tasks-- is adequate, but not ideal.

edit: I seem to recall Champions 4th edition had nice simple rules for professional, well really background skills. Each background gave you a small set of skills at average ability rank.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"The rulebook must present the DCs for everything" is a WotC-D&D meme that should die. IMHO, at least.

The biggest gripe I had about Profession, in the 3.x sense (and when I thought I wanted to go in the direction 3.x led) is that there is no difference, either in terms of training cost or pay benefits, between Profession [Doctor] and Profession [Swineherd].


RC

 

[Mallus]

"The rulebook must present the DCs for everything" is a WotC-D&D meme that should die. IMHO, at least.

In the case of Profession, RC, it would have been nice for the rulebook to present DC's for a few things. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the skill?

I mean, there is a middle ground between "DC's for everything" and "DC's for nothing" right?

All I'm looking for from the rules are some simple guidelines for resolving actions. I don't need an exact match or exhaustive detail. But I need something. All 3e Profession offered was a label and a value associated w/it. Some practical examples of how to use them would have helped.

 

[Mark Chance]

Mechanically, anything is useless unless the players and GM seek out ways to make it mechanically useful.

Bingo!

In my high-ish level 3.5 game, my rogue/fighter/invisible blade/bard/evangelist of Pelor has used Profession (boating) a couple of times. The first was to oppose the Strength check made by a sea hag to upset the rowboat he and other party members were in. The second time was successfully navigate the gullet of a pseudoleviathan after a different craft and the same party were swallowed whole.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the case of Profession, RC, it would have been nice for the rulebook to present DC's for a few things. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the skill?

I mean, there is a middle ground between "DC's for everything" and "DC's for nothing" right?

All I'm looking for from the rules are some simple guidelines for resolving actions.

A system where DCs have a static value based off of an "average man" standard, IMHO, are a better bet. Thus, one can call herding swine an "average" task, and lawyering a "difficult" one, while fully understanding that a lawyer may find herding swine to be more work than he is cut out for.

IMHO, a basic scale of difficulty is better than lists of what can be done with a given skill (and DCs therefore).

In the case of the Profession skill, a base scale for all skills, plus the advice to "make it up" is better than including a few DCs for every skill. IMHO. YMMV.


RC