Wasting skill points on 'background' skills

[Elder-Basilisk]

It's an assertion rather than an assumption.

Note that I specified a "combat ineffective" merchant type rogue. The role you're suggesting is appropriate to a PC who can handle himself. If he can't handle himself, that will either place him in the role of the PCs' employer or the meat-sack they have to guard--both of which are (IMO) not very good party dynamics. (It's also, I would imagine, quite boring for the player of the merchant if there's any significant amount of combat in the game). In either event, unless the entire campaign revolves around merchantry (note that I also specified a "typical" D&D campaign) there seems little reason for said flunkie to accompany the party when, upon arriving at their destination, they decide to explore the catacombs of the old city. That's not the merchant's line of work.

If the merchant in question is the kind that doesn't mind getting his hands dirty, is competent with his rapier/dagger/crossbow, and/or is an expert trap and secret door finder, it's another matter entirely. Then, he's not ineffectual in the environment of the ordinary adventure. The difference is between being a rogue modelled off the merchant framework and being a merchant who, for some inexplicable reason, has levels of rogue instead of expert (and/or commoner).

BTW, "harem girl" or "dirt-farmer" are inappropriate character concepts for most D&D games as well. . . unless the concepts are modified to enable the character to function effectively (and thereby justify their participation in) the majority of an adventure. A Harem girl who plotted her own escape, stole the Vizier's scepter, smashed a vase over the back of her eunuch guard's head, picked the lock to escape the womens' quarters, climbed down the walls of the palace with a rope fashioned from silk sheets, and impersonated a noble-woman to escape from the capitol of the Calormen empire would work as a PC if she had the appropriate skills. A "harem girl" who was helpless simpering eye-candy wouldn't be--no matter how many ranks in dubious perform skills she had. The dirt farmer who learned how to wield a spear in the militia and fought the orcs off when they came to destroy his family is a good PC concept. The cowardly dirt farmer who cowers in the corner and says "not in the face" every time he's threatened isn't.

I have to disagree with Elder Basilisk's assumption that a certain type of character (in this case, a merchant-type rogue) is an inappropriate character for a D&D game.

What about a merchant-rogue who owns or works for a big overland import/export company and becomes the leader of the party traveling through a foreign land to open a new trade market? Lots of ranks of Knowledge (geography), Speak Language, Diplomacy, Appraise, etc. The other party members might be guards (fighters), scouts or guides (rangers), healers (clerics), people to help control the weather for pleasant travel conditions (druids) and seers to help divine the best routes (wizards and/or sorcerers).

Those are just examples off the top of my head, but I don't see why a rogue modeled off of a merchant framework couldn't work in that type of situation. Party spokesman, negotiating the party's way through dangerous social interactions with foreign people and even humanoids, etc.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

In the campaign I just started, I allowed each player to have four ranks (not points) in any Knowledge or Craft (you could use Profession as well--I've house ruled profession out of my game, like d20 CoC or Arcana Unearthed) assuming that they could make it fit their background.

Monte:

Do you mean any one knowledge or craft skill or do you allow for more than one?

 

[med stud]

Wow, seems people are about evenly split on the issue.

Just for a little more in-depth background, he was a farmer for about 35 years (ages 5-40), so 4 ranks sounds about riight. He's also not core gnome - as he was raised by humans, he doesn't have any of the training bonusus they get, such as +4 dodge vsgiants. He did get a bonus feat, however.

I don't feel he needs more situations where farming is appropriate, I just wonder if the point wouldn't have been better spent somewhere else. True he only has 2 ranks on cencentration, but until we convert to 3.5 he has a 22 con (and the most hp's in the party, not bad for a straight-class wizard).

Beyond that, was just wondering if people do what I do when I make characters. In hindsight, should've split the ranks in farmer and herbalist, but, as Cor would say... meh.

I missed that part about having an opinion ~~

I think it's a waste of skill points, and I dont place skill points in background skills. One of the reasons is that Im always playing humans, and their starting age is so low that they wouldnt have time being professionals at both the character class and a second profession; by age 16-21, to reach the level of skill a Fighter 1 has (compared to commoners and warriors), he would have to train his entire life to reach that amount of skill.

Thats a justification, and a valible justification at that. The "real" reason (why I bother to come up with justifications) is that skill points is an asset for making a PC usable in many adventurous situations, and I dont burn such an asset if there's a reason not to.

 

[BVB]

I usually "waste" at least five skill points per character on a single background skill. It brings the character to life for me (power gaming be damned!). It's a nod to who he was before the call of adenture. Respect to his parents or childhood circumstances. He may have left his home behind on his way to slay the dragon, but he can at least bring those memories and skills with him.

Why five, though? Five ranks seems to be the magic number to gain synergies to other skills. Of course it's up to the player to put himself in situations that can legitimately link skills that way. For example, in the case of a farming background, I'd use that skill to boost diplomatic attempts whenever we were on the road and needed a favor from the locals -- mosey on over to the farmer, chat up his crop or livestock, compliment his homestead, observe the weather ... and by the way, could we bunk out in your barn tonight?

Another player may roll his eyes at such a minor detail, but to heck with him. You're in the game to have fun, not earn someone else's approval.

 

[Azure Trance]

I like Montes idea of giving free beginning ranks away to mold your character. Though I wonder - does anyone ever take use of the skill enhancing feats? Do you think a +3 Crafting bonus or +2/+2 Stonecraft/Stonecarving is worth it?

 

[buzz]

Though I wonder - does anyone ever take use of the skill enhancing feats? Do you think a +3 Crafting bonus or +2/+2 Stonecraft/Stonecarving is worth it?

No surprise here, but, I'd consider it an even bigger waste than skill points. A non-fighter PC only gets 6-7 over a 20-level career.

AFAIC, if it's purely a role-playing thing, leave t to the realm of role-playing.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Sure, they're great feats. . . for NPCs. The way I look at it, feats define what a character wants to be really good at. For most PCs, that's their role in the adventuring party.

(That said, I'd consider skill-focus: concentration--it's a superior alternative to combat casting, Nimble Fingers--disabling devices is risky business for rogues, stealthy--there's nothing like being able to charge a foe without being seen or heard, athletic--tumble checks can get difficult, extra help may be in order, and Skill Focus: disable device/search/open lock/hide/move silently/tumble).

I like Montes idea of giving free beginning ranks away to mold your character. Though I wonder - does anyone ever take use of the skill enhancing feats? Do you think a +3 Crafting bonus or +2/+2 Stonecraft/Stonecarving is worth it?

 

[bret]

Elder Basilisk,

Although you didn't say it, you make it sound as if the only type of game (you call it typical campaign) is a romp through the dungeon killing things and dealing with traps.

Shouldn't there be room for a campaign based on intrigue, mystery, or exploration? In those types of campaign, other skills can take on a new importance within the campaign.

Although there are sterotypical campaigns, once you break out of that in my experience there aren't that many typical campaigns.

 

[buzz]

Shouldn't there be room for a campaign based on intrigue, mystery, or exploration? In those types of campaign, other skills can take on a new importance within the campaign.

I don't think this discussion has anything to do with "hack n' slash" versus "roleplaying" at all. The issue is whether background flavor needs to be represented in the mechanical aspects of the PC, and to what degree.

My argument is that:

a) the resources PCs have available are too meager to spend any of them on pure flavor (i.e., the need to spend them on abilities that represent what the PC can do *right now* as opposed to way back when they still lived on the farm)

b) D&D is a game based on strong archetypes; characters perform within these archetypes best when they focus their resources

c) even if you do want to spend these resources on flavor, d20 is abstracted enough that you don't have to spend a lot of them to represent said flavor.

I'm going to go ahead and use the fact that Big Man Monte gives his players freebie background points as evidence that, if your campaign cares about these background elements, bring them into play, but don't penalize the PCs ability to do their "real job" in the process. Give them freebies, or leave it to the realm of rp'ing.

Granted, if these "background" skills are indeed the focus of your campaign, e.g., a game where Expert is a viable PC class and the PCs are not expected to work within the CR system, then by all means spend the points on whatever you want. But if you're just "flavoring" a PC who's going to spend most of their time slinging spells and swinging swords (or even seducing succubi or savoring the knowledge of sages), then it's a waste, big time.

Really, I guess it all boils down to "ask your DM." If the DM tells you ahead of time that your bg skills may never come into play, then forget about them... and vice versa.

 

[Norfleet]

Personally, I think that the entire Craft/Knowledge/Profession skillset is a misfit when considered in the light of the way 3E works.

Consider: Humans are the race which gets an extra skill (+4, +1/lvl). Humans also have relatively short lifespans compared to the typical player (Only HalfOrc is shorter).

The interesting thing is that an Elf character begins life at age 100. Now, this brings up an interesting quandary that comes to mind: An elf begins play with more than a typical human's lifespan already under his belt. In literature, they're typically perceived as knowledgeable and wise as a result. Yet he knows less than the human does. Are elves retarded or mentally deficient? The character SHOULD have a LOT of background skills, most of which are probably totally useless from an adventuring perspective, and would be things such as craft, knowledge, profession, and perform....but the character isn't actually given points to spend like that. He COULD choose to spend his skillpoints this way, but that would hurt even *MORE*, since he doesn't *HAVE* as many points to spend in the first place!

Personally, having done a career as a soldier and a mercenary, an "adventurer", so to speak, and since become retired, I'd say I've picked up a few random things here and there that had little or no relevance to my work in the field, both in childhood, at work, and after retirement. I don't really feel that these things came at some sort of expense to my ability in the field, as it clearly would if a character "spent points" on them: Rather, they were simply things that I became unavoidably exposed to, and simply picked up early in life. You'd have to intentionally blind yourself to the world NOT to learn a thing or two simply from exposure.

As a result, I'm forced to conclude that the D&D skillsystem really only adequately covers work-related skills, the points being designed to balance it out so you can't have everything. They really don't adequately account at all for the random "background" things that somebody might have learned. The idea that the gnome's background as a farmer has so significantly hampered his ability as a mage simply doesn't make much sense: His ability as a farmer shouldn't have come at the expense of his ability to concentrate, the fact that he knows more than the typical non-farmer about farming, reflected in the 1-4 point category, simply came about from exposure to farming. A soldier who comes from a farming background isn't any less of a soldier because of it. In fact, everyone should have some sort of background, and should be penalized for NOT having one: People don't spend their childhood delving into dungeons for monsters to slay, or else they'd have a very short one.

As much as this is poking into house rules territory, I'd say I'd give a player 1 bonus skillpoint per significant portion of a decade of being alive, both prior to the start of the game, and during time elapsed, to be spent on a background-related craft/knowledge/profession/perform, bounded by the standard level restriction, and that particular skill will then permanently treated as a class skill should the character later choose to continue its pursuit at the expense of his work.

Anyone who tries to abuse this will have his character sheet set on fire, and be pelted with dice.