Wasting skill points on 'background' skills
- Thread starter Wippit Guud
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
Like Diaglo said - but I'll amend they're only a waste if you OR the DM let them be.
Anyone read Piratecat's story hour? Remember the Dwarven Dancing Trap?
How many times have you ever been in a situation where your FIGHTER or CLERIC was gonna get squished to a bloody paste because he didn't have enough ranks in Perform?
Perhaps your PC's are posted a riddle by a sphinx - but the riddle has something to do with a subject your character saw on the farm every day of the adolescent life? Riddles have described trees, rivers, sunrise, nature - why not a riddle whose answer is in the proper steps for milking a cow? How about a riddle whose answer is in the proper methods of fallow field rotation?
It's all in whether or not a DM makes it useless, and also about how you make it useless, by inaction.
Anyone read Piratecat's story hour? Remember the Dwarven Dancing Trap?
How many times have you ever been in a situation where your FIGHTER or CLERIC was gonna get squished to a bloody paste because he didn't have enough ranks in Perform?
Perhaps your PC's are posted a riddle by a sphinx - but the riddle has something to do with a subject your character saw on the farm every day of the adolescent life? Riddles have described trees, rivers, sunrise, nature - why not a riddle whose answer is in the proper steps for milking a cow? How about a riddle whose answer is in the proper methods of fallow field rotation?
It's all in whether or not a DM makes it useless, and also about how you make it useless, by inaction.
buzz
Adventurer
I'll add my vote: yes, it's a waste of skill points.
Two tenets of D&D are involved here: 1) skill points are more precious than gold, 2) D&D PCs work best when they specialize.
Ergo, skill points need to be spent on skills relevant to your class, as well as spent on maxing out key skills your PC chooses to focus on. Spreading ranks across too many skills, or spending a lot of ranks on a skill that's there purely for flavor, is a waste, and it makes your PC less effective at what they do.
Roleplaying flavor is fine, but you don't need to waste skill points for roleplaying flavor. If you want to have your PC's background as a farmer matter, all that PC needs to do (mechanically) is be able to beat a DC10 (average) P:Farming check. Since I can probably guarantee you that any situation involving a P:farming check will be one in which you can Take 10, at most you need *1* rank or, even better, to have your DM allow you to use the skill untrained. Unless you have a negative Wis mod, you'll be able to handle average farming-related tasks, no skill points wasted.
The idea of getting other useful skills (e.g., Handle Animal, Knowledge(nature), etc.) as part of your background is also not a bad idea.
I tend to be vehement about this because one of my current groups has at least half the players spending a lot skill points on "flavor" skills. E.g., our dwarf cleric has ranks in Craft (stonecraft) and Craft(stonecarving)... even though there's no reason, in D&D, to differentiate between the two. It drives me nuts because our DM is running a pretty combat-heavy, rp-light campaign, and having key spellcasters with *no* ranks in Concentration or Spellcraft because they spent all their ranks on flavor skills and Craft, which have yet to come up in about six momths of gaming, is pretty frustrating.
This is all reminiscient of the thread on disadvantages in d20. If you want your PC to have a background as a farmer, write "Background: farmer" on their character sheet. Any DM worth their salt will let you make use of it without you blowing skill ranks on useless skills.
Two tenets of D&D are involved here: 1) skill points are more precious than gold, 2) D&D PCs work best when they specialize.
Ergo, skill points need to be spent on skills relevant to your class, as well as spent on maxing out key skills your PC chooses to focus on. Spreading ranks across too many skills, or spending a lot of ranks on a skill that's there purely for flavor, is a waste, and it makes your PC less effective at what they do.
Roleplaying flavor is fine, but you don't need to waste skill points for roleplaying flavor. If you want to have your PC's background as a farmer matter, all that PC needs to do (mechanically) is be able to beat a DC10 (average) P:Farming check. Since I can probably guarantee you that any situation involving a P:farming check will be one in which you can Take 10, at most you need *1* rank or, even better, to have your DM allow you to use the skill untrained. Unless you have a negative Wis mod, you'll be able to handle average farming-related tasks, no skill points wasted.
The idea of getting other useful skills (e.g., Handle Animal, Knowledge(nature), etc.) as part of your background is also not a bad idea.
I tend to be vehement about this because one of my current groups has at least half the players spending a lot skill points on "flavor" skills. E.g., our dwarf cleric has ranks in Craft (stonecraft) and Craft(stonecarving)... even though there's no reason, in D&D, to differentiate between the two. It drives me nuts because our DM is running a pretty combat-heavy, rp-light campaign, and having key spellcasters with *no* ranks in Concentration or Spellcraft because they spent all their ranks on flavor skills and Craft, which have yet to come up in about six momths of gaming, is pretty frustrating.
This is all reminiscient of the thread on disadvantages in d20. If you want your PC to have a background as a farmer, write "Background: farmer" on their character sheet. Any DM worth their salt will let you make use of it without you blowing skill ranks on useless skills.
That Genie Is Pissed
First Post
I'm in the "it's not a waste" camp I guess. I had a character named Teilos the Fisher King. So, yeah, he was a cleric of shandakul that was really into fishing. Each level i put a few of his paultry cleric skill points into profession: fisher.
The useful thing I found was that it was a constant reminder/helper for roleplaying. It's easy to keep his obsession with fishing in mind when you glance at the character sheet and think "why the heck do I have so many ranks in profession?"
So he's worse at concentration than clerics should be, and he's a better fisher than most fishermen...but it helps fit with his personality and really makes the character more fun to play than a stricktly powerhouse character. Assuming he survives...
The useful thing I found was that it was a constant reminder/helper for roleplaying. It's easy to keep his obsession with fishing in mind when you glance at the character sheet and think "why the heck do I have so many ranks in profession?"
So he's worse at concentration than clerics should be, and he's a better fisher than most fishermen...but it helps fit with his personality and really makes the character more fun to play than a stricktly powerhouse character. Assuming he survives...
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
My current PC is a human sorcerer 6, and has 5 ranks in Profession (Cook) because she used to be a cook. In fact, she still describes herself as a Cook (not as a sorcerer!) and her main melee weapon is a cold iron frying pan.
Snipehunt
First Post
I applaud your choice, but IMO 1 or 2 ranks is enough for background. 4 ranks seems like overkill, skill points are too precious to go overboard to make a RP point.
I disagree somewhat with the idea that background shouldn't be reflected in skill points. A farmer w/o skill in farming is a different character than a farmer w/ skill in farming. If you just want a "farmland" background, then don't put the points in. If your character actually learned how to farm w/ some ability, then a point or two is called for, IMO.
I disagree somewhat with the idea that background shouldn't be reflected in skill points. A farmer w/o skill in farming is a different character than a farmer w/ skill in farming. If you just want a "farmland" background, then don't put the points in. If your character actually learned how to farm w/ some ability, then a point or two is called for, IMO.
Monte At Home
Explorer
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. It seemed to be a popular choice, and made the players--who wanted to spend points to reflect their backgrounds but didn't want to "waste" them--feel good about their characters while not unbalancing the game at all.
In fact, the ranks of Knowledge (local) one character took, for example, is going to make my job as DM easier as well, because now I can feed him adventure and story hooks. So the campaign as a whole benefits as well.
In fact, the ranks of Knowledge (local) one character took, for example, is going to make my job as DM easier as well, because now I can feed him adventure and story hooks. So the campaign as a whole benefits as well.
Monte At Home said:
Oddly enough, that's exactly what one of my current DMs did as well. Depending on the area of the campaign world you grew up in, you would gain what he refered to as "cultural points."
I'd say it's all fine to put those ranks into farming...until you blow a Concentration check by 1 or 2. Then you can at least RP a dead farmer.
BSF
Explorer
It depends on the style of the game you are playing in. Combat heavy/RP light? Then that was a suboptimal choice.
RP heavy? Great choice! Especially if you get your DM to give you benefits for it.
For my game, I would probably dissuade you from spending that many points on that skill. After all, you are at least as good as your average 1st level commoner with the skill. You probably didn't spend as much time on the farm as that commoner did. I would have encouraged 1-2 points for "flavor" and then the other points on Handle Animal, or Ride, or other skills that would fit in with your background, but might have more utility in day-to-day adventuring. Unless you are playing a sorceror that was a farmer for many years ...
RP heavy? Great choice! Especially if you get your DM to give you benefits for it.
For my game, I would probably dissuade you from spending that many points on that skill. After all, you are at least as good as your average 1st level commoner with the skill. You probably didn't spend as much time on the farm as that commoner did. I would have encouraged 1-2 points for "flavor" and then the other points on Handle Animal, or Ride, or other skills that would fit in with your background, but might have more utility in day-to-day adventuring. Unless you are playing a sorceror that was a farmer for many years ...
