Theories regaurding the change in rules of D&D.

[fuindordm]

So I'm basically happy just stating that all farmers are commoners 1-3 or something. I also think (and have demonstrated) that the profession skill is pretty good for modelling and adventurers previous life - given that it didn't include black belt in MA, a long stint as a circus performer, being Sauron, or any other scam that would include smooching more bonuses to the character. This is nothing new though; there's always been limitations on a characters background.

Well, I've certainly learned a little more about the Profession skill in this thread. I'm still not wholly comfortable with the fuzzy overlap between "typical tasks" and other skills, though.

For example:

Can Profession (Farmer) sometimes default to Knowledge (Nature)?
Can Profession (Courtier) default to Diplomacy or Knowledge (Nobility)?
Can Profession (Hunter) default to Survival?
Can Profession (Merchant) default to Appraise?

If so, then some professions are clearly more useful than others.

d20 modern adds a third element: the character's Occupation. This gives them more class skills (or a +1 bonus if something is already a class skill), a wealth bonus, and sometimes an extra feat.

Maybe 3e D&D would look more like I want it to with the following house rules:
1. choose an occupation and define associated skills
2. spend a flat 8 ranks on those skills and Profession (occupation)
3. Profession (occupation) can default to other skills at half ranks, if appropriate
4. Add one level of a PC class as usual.

That's perhaps heavy-handed, but I think it would lead to the kind of characters I
want.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Perhaps you could say that D&D has evolved so that there is greater fluctuation in a PC's power, depending on whether they're "charged up and ready to go"? Many of my finer memories are of PC's being ambushed, and fighting it off. If PC's come to expect always being buffed to the gills, however, they might come to feel that the ambush is the GM's way of "cheating."

This is worthy of a whole separate discussion!

Wayne - great post and analysis. Nothing further to add. Thank you. Oh, and kudos to SHARK for listening to the other side of the discussion so well. Here's where I would have expected an entrenched position. Instead we see <gasp> rational thought and analysis! WTF? Is this ENWorld?

 

[fuindordm]

I also think (and have demonstrated) that the profession skill is pretty good for modelling and adventurers previous life - given that it didn't include black belt in MA, a long stint as a circus performer, being Sauron, or any other scam that would include smooching more bonuses to the character. This is nothing new though; there's always been limitations on a characters background.

Here's my new character!

Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 13 Cha 15
HP 6, Attack -1 dagger 1d4-1

Profession (Sauron) (4) +5
Craft (jewelry) (4) +5
Spellcraft (4) +5
Bluff (4) +6

 

[Hussar]

Well, I've certainly learned a little more about the Profession skill in this thread. I'm still not wholly comfortable with the fuzzy overlap between "typical tasks" and other skills, though.

For example:

Can Profession (Farmer) sometimes default to Knowledge (Nature)?
Can Profession (Courtier) default to Diplomacy or Knowledge (Nobility)?
Can Profession (Hunter) default to Survival?
Can Profession (Merchant) default to Appraise?

If so, then some professions are clearly more useful than others. /snip

To answer the last first - I would say of course. That's true in the real world as well. Some professions are more useful than others. However, within their own niche, they do better. A Sailor might have some overlap with Use Rope, for example, but, in a desert, he's not too useful.

For the specific examples you gave:

Profession Farmer could possibly default to Kn Nature in things like seasons and weather. Not so much with Fey or giants.

Profession Courtier is possibly stretching the definition of profession a bit. I'm not really sure if Courtier is a profession. Courtiers are just hangers on who happen to be in various levels of favour at court. You don't make a wage being a courtier so I would tend to disallow it as a profession. Now courtesan is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Profession Hunter is a good example of a profession, although I think it needs to be defined a bit further - are you a hunter for food or a fur trapper? Hunter for food is simply the Survival skill and you wouldn't even need Profession Hunter as a skill. Fur Trapper, OTOH, would likely know how to skin an animal and that sort of thing, so I'm not sure if Survival would even come up. Anyone can track DC 10 or less tracks untrained, so, that's not necessary and nothing else in the Survival skill would be likely to come up for the Trapper. Again, like the Farmer though, I could see some Kn Nature checks being covered here.

Profession Merchant could easily default to appraise IMO, but, only for whatever kind of merchant you happen to have Profession skill for. Thus, if you're a Profession Merchant (silks and fabrics) you could probably judge the value of clothing and the like in front of you. However, you'd have no idea what a diamond ring might be worth.

 

[Numion]

Can Profession (Farmer) sometimes default to Knowledge (Nature)?

In matters relating to plants that have something to do with farming. It would also help in fixing plowshares, planting seed, etc..

Can Profession (Courtier) default to Diplomacy or Knowledge (Nobility)?

Diplomacy and bluff as it pertains to opposite sex unless they just think you a ho, or maybe only in 1 to 1 situations. Knowledge (nobility) is a bit so-so. Hard to adjudicate, but then again, I'd think twice before allowing someone to make a ex-ho PC.

Can Profession (Hunter) default to Survival?

In places where there's something substantial to hunt, but at a penalty compared to survival since gathering is usually more easy. I would also allow it to make traps outdoors.

[/QUOTE]

Can Profession (Merchant) default to Appraise?

That's a tough one. I'd say the merchant has to choose what type of merchant he is in (grain, jewels, weapons or what) and it would work with those items. Additionally he'd get something so the skill wouldn't be less useful than appraise.

If so, then some professions are clearly more useful than others.

And we have a winner! That's why Profession (McDonalds Cook) get's paid less than Profession (Lawyer).

 

[Slife]

A couple more points, just to muddy the waters:

In the real world, people lose skill points as well as gain them. I used to play the guitar pretty well, but it's been years since I picked it up. I think if a background is far enough in the past, it need not have a mechanical counterpart.

A 40 point-buy character gets along just fine with one rank per background skill, but a 28 point-buy character will have a lot of trouble.

Retraining rules and circumstance bonuses and penalties cover this.

 

[Slife]

Here's my new character!

Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 13 Cha 15
HP 6, Attack -1 dagger 1d4-1

Profession (Sauron) (4) +5
Craft (jewelry) (4) +5
Spellcraft (4) +5
Bluff (4) +6

You didn't take skill focus in Sauron?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But the real problem, IMHO, is that there has been a general trend in the hobby to roll dice more often.

Which is why 3E has the Take 10 and Take 20 mechanics.

Let your players use them.

 

[Numion]

Here's my new character!

Str 8 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 12 Wis 13 Cha 15
HP 6, Attack -1 dagger 1d4-1

Profession (Sauron) (4) +5
Craft (jewelry) (4) +5
Spellcraft (4) +5
Bluff (4) +6

That's weak, mayne!

No wonder the lousy hobbits did him in.

 

[pemerton]

The fact that two such contradictory opinions about the relationship between character background and character level can be so confidently asserted suggests that the D&D rules are far from clear on the matter.QUOTE]

I don't see Hussar's view and mine as contradictory. A sailor could have 20 years of sea adventure and be a 7th level rogue. Another sailor could have had the exact same experiences and still be a 1st level commoner.

The contradiction is this: Hussar says that "background" equals levels, and 1st level characters are wet-behind-the-ears 18-year olds. You say that a sailor, sailing for 20 years, is typically a 1st-level Commoner or Expert. I take it as obvious that a sailor of 20 years has some background. Thus, you are saying that most NPCs with background are 1st level NPC classes.

Irda Ranger pegs the issue very clearly in this post:

I expect that the discontinuity that SHARK is now trying to deal with is (1) the assumed distribution of class levels within society, and (2) the assumed level of skill that a 1st level character has.

SHARK's problem is that he knows a lot of highly capable, well-rounded Marines. They can kick ass, take names, and dance with the ladies. In fact, this well-rounded, highly skilled warrior is the norm. And yet, the DMG says that 90% of the NPC's wandering around are 1st level. Points #1 and #2 above directly contradict each other.

How can this be resolved? Either (a) 1st level characters need more Skill Points, (b) we need a more bell-shaped distribution of character levels, or (c) we de-couple Skill Points and Class Level entirely.

Option (a) is reasonable and simple for book-keeping. I also like (c), because it "makes sense", but I know that's subjective. I think option (b) is a bad idea, because higher levels should be rare, and reserved for extraordinary individuals.

I personally prefer option (b), but with levels decoupled from adventuring/fighting skill. But that would lead to a game very different from D&D.

Within the framework of D&D, I think option (c) works OK - as per the examples of sages, sailors, mercenaries, 0-level characters in 1st Ed.

Sometimes people just don't learn.

I don't see D&D XP as representing learning. They certainly didn't in 1st Ed - no one learns just by garnering up vast piles of loot, and the DMG made it clear that training and education happen off-screen during downtime. And in 3rd Ed, I don't see how a mage learns to memorise more spells by casting fireballs at Orcs, let alone how this approves skill in Knowledge (Arcane) - and why, to study the latter, does one need to kill Orcs at all?

I think that D&D XP do not represent anything in-game. They are obviously a metagame device - players who succeed in the goals of the game (that is, succeeding at adventuring) are rewarded by having their PCs go up levels. The disconnect between XP and the in-game process of character learning becomes even more obvious once goal, story or roleplaying XP are rewarded - for these are purely meta-game devices on their face.

I would go so far as to say that the metagame character of XP is one respect in which D&D has not changed across editions. But 3rd Ed does introduce some changes which create tensions within the mechanics - the use of XP as an in-game measure of "spiritual power", for purposes of spell casting and magic item creation, is at odds with their overall metagame character. For why is the only way to generate "spiritual power" adventuring? As far as I know, the game rules give no coherent answer to this question.