To Craft and Profess...

[That One Guy]

Soo... I was reading that Craft/Profession thread over in rules when I read

Cool.

You decide to brew a special beer to impress the Dwarf King when you next visit him. How does it turn out?

Your fighter pal, who has no such background (but, we will say, identical attributes and level to you) wants to make some beer, too. How does his turn out?

You both roll a 10 on a D20.

A completely valid scenario. My answer is the dwarf. If one must place a mechanical sense upon one's background allow them to choose various background nongamey skills and rate them in the following ranks...

Layman, apprentice, journeyman, expert, and master.
(Or, if we want three tiers; untrained, trained, and master.)

Thus, the fighter is a layman. He makes an alcoholic drink that is 10 on the layman scale (Add in one half his level, because that's the 4e mechanic) and we've got a slightly above average drink from an untrained person. An untrained person may find it enjoyable, but it is two ranks (or a tier) below the trained/journeyman dwarf. Thus, the dwarf's beverage is above average for a skilled craftsmen.

How does this system sit w/ people? It's not totally 'the dm makes it up as appropriate', nor is it skill points w/out story aspects. I think the dm and PC'd have to figure out one skill to be journeyman and one to be apprentice (at most) at level one (if the PC desires). Every time they tier up they go up on the five rank scale.

Similarly, I think a poorly brewed beer by a master or an expert would probably be better than a layman's nat 20, but an apprentice or journeyman could possibly catch up to a higher rank. (Would this need to be more heavily codified?)

Thoughts? Complaints? Love? Hate? Dance? Do you like rats as pets? If you would put a crafting/profession system into 4e, how?

 

[FireLance]

It would depend entirely upon the answers to two questions:

1. What do I want Craft and Profession skills for?
2. How useful do I expect the Craft and Profession skills to be in the campaign?

If I just want the Craft and Profession skills for background flavor, and they are hardly ever going to matter in the campaign, then I would treat them no differently from the player telling me that his PC's hair is black and his eyes are blue. The player can write whatever background skill he wants on his character sheet, and on the rare occasions that it could be useful, I'll give him a bonus to a d20 roll ranging from +2 (slightly relevant) to +5 (directly relevant).

If the Craft and Profession skills are going to be a major part of the campaign (say, it is a seafaring campaign and the PCs are regularly faced with skill challenges to navigate their ship to the right destination, keep it afloat in storms, jury-rig it to meet specific needs or make ongoing repairs, etc.) then I will make the relevant skills available as choices for trained skills.

 

[That One Guy]

So... do I have it that if the skills will be specifically used, you will make a skill for it, but if there is not guarantee that it will affect the outcome of the game then the mechanics (or pseudo-mechanics like the ones I presented) are of no major concern to you (beyond a houserule bonus to rolls)?

 

[BendBars/LiftGates]

You both make skill checks. That means that you roll 1d20 and add some relevant ability modifier, adjusted for level. For beer brewing, that might be Intelligence.

They're untrained skill checks, by default assumption. If your DM wants a dwarf to be immediately better at brewing beer than his friend the [human] fighter, he should say "the dwarf will be considered trained for skill checks to brew beer." Easy. Same goes for a halfling rogue who specifically says that he grew up in a family of Shire-dwelling beer-brewers.

This is actually the best solution to skills that I've ever seen in D&D. It allows the game to handle occasional instances of skills being used for purposes that the system didn't initially account for (in this case, by not including a Brew Beer skill or a Craft (beer) skill). But, it also doesn't set up a punitive situation where you're 14th level and can't hope to accomplish anything in a field in which you haven't been investing skill points since level 1.

 

[That One Guy]

You both make skill checks. That means that you roll 1d20 and add some relevant ability modifier, adjusted for level. For beer brewing, that might be Intelligence.

They're untrained skill checks, by default assumption. If your DM wants a dwarf to be immediately better at brewing beer than his friend the [human] fighter, he should say "the dwarf will be considered trained for skill checks to brew beer." Easy. Same goes for a halfling rogue who specifically says that he grew up in a family of Shire-dwelling beer-brewers.

This is actually the best solution to skills that I've ever seen in D&D. It allows the game to handle occasional instances of skills being used for purposes that the system didn't initially account for (in this case, by not including a Brew Beer skill or a Craft (beer) skill). But, it also doesn't set up a punitive situation where you're 14th level and can't hope to accomplish anything in a field in which you haven't been investing skill points since level 1.

I totally agree (I don't think I posted Lizard's full original question thing. The implication was that the dwarf in the scenario had serious BG crafting booze). I think the 4e skill system is good and that it works. I think I agree w/ Firelance's way of doing things too. My pseudo-mechanics are for giving people a little bit to go off of if they dislike the idea of letting the dm add in trained or other bonuses for backgrounds. Like...

Say both the human fighter and the dwarven brewmaster have background brewing. They're same level, and pretty much the same stats. The brewmaster has been brewing for a hundred+ years and is exceptionally well studied. The fighter can make a good ale, and has brewed county-winning barrels of wine. They're both experienced, but the dwarf has more. What is the bonus to the dwarf's roll vs. the fighter's? Is it the handy dm's +2 or more? Would the fighter get a different and lower bonus?

Am I asking questions that sound somewhat silly? The (to me obvious) answer is give them both a trained bonus and something extra to the dwarf. Easy. But, some people want a more codified form. Thus, the above pseudo-mechanics.

 

[Kzach]

It's adding unnecessary complexity to a system that is simple and abstract.

If that's your thing, cool, but then why are you playing 4e instead of 3.x?

Personally, I'd just use the secondary skills concept from 2e. Choose a couple of skills that you've got some competency in and leave it at that.

If it comes down to a skill contest, you already have the mechanism in place to resolve it: ability checks.

And simply set DC's for the task. 15 for the layman, 10 for the dwarf.

 

[That One Guy]

It's adding unnecessary complexity to a system that is simple and abstract.

If that's your thing, cool, but then why are you playing 4e instead of 3.x?

Personally, I'd just use the secondary skills concept from 2e. Choose a couple of skills that you've got some competency in and leave it at that.

If it comes down to a skill contest, you already have the mechanism in place to resolve it: ability checks.

And simply set DC's for the task. 15 for the layman, 10 for the dwarf.

Fair enough. I won't be putting in the thing I offered... I just like helping people if I can. Devil's advocate? The person in question may like 4e, but wants a system or codification for skills beyond what is set. It seems like multiple people want this. Soap, I gave it a whirl. I like the suggestion of a lowered DC for better training, but I think varied amount of success based on one's skill is better (Yeah yeah, me and my WoD habits). I think I remember how secondary skills worked in 2e, but my pre-3.x experience was very brief. If you'd be willing to summarize, I'd be grateful.

I'm not trying to fix something that isn't broken, but offer options for people who may want that extra level of depth, or dislike 4e's method for crafting/profession skills.

 

[keterys]

I dunno, I think it's probably fine to have
Untrained (+0) - Apprentice (+2) - Journeyman (+5) - Master (+8)
to match the untrained, jack of trades or racial bonus, trained, trained and focused rules for other skills. You could have the 4th tier as you say, and make it +10 I suppose (racial or path +2 plus trained plus focus, to match the rest of the system)

The trick is determining how 'many' and to what extent you can have the background skills. To that, I think it varies wildly by game. I'd cheerfully allow folks to just pick a few and just write them down and never call for rolls, but that's not other's cup of tea.

So, the DM should pick a number of background points for people to have, from 0 to 10, and people should put 1-3 in each skill. So in a campaign where people are teenagers just going off on their naming quest, they can have 1. In a campaign about ex-war veterans turned upstanding citizens coming out of retirement to save the kingdom it can be 6, etc.

 

[Khaalis]

I am "Hoping" (see this Orcus?) that Necromancer plans to include a set of rules for "Background Skills" in their overall release of Zero Level Characters that they said they are planning. If they don't, I will be.

 

[FireLance]

So... do I have it that if the skills will be specifically used, you will make a skill for it, but if there is not guarantee that it will affect the outcome of the game then the mechanics (or pseudo-mechanics like the ones I presented) are of no major concern to you (beyond a houserule bonus to rolls)?

Yes, pretty much.