Wasting skill points on 'background' skills

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think there's room for adventures dealing with mystery, intrigue, and exploration. (I've played Call of Cthulu D20--however, even in Call of Cthulu, I wouldn't spend all my skill points on craft: underwater basketweaving and profession: newsboy. Nor would I spend my feats on skill focus (Profession: newsboy). Because when you find what you're looking for, point blank shot and the 10 guage double-barrelled shotgun make the difference between losing 12 san and you (and most of your gaming buddies) moving to backup characters. Even in games based on mystery, intrigue, and exploration, combat ability is usually necessary).

The CoC example is appropriate though. The game system differs significantly from D&D. The non class-based system in CoC allows all the characters in the party the skills to be effective in a game of mystery, intrigue, and exploration. The D&D class system encourages a stronger emphasis on combat and threatening environments than CoC or other intrigue/exploration/mystery based games. Any game where an expert with no combat ability is a viable PC (not that I would class most intrigue/exploration games in that category--as I said before, it's not really a viable option in CoC) is a game where a single classed fighter or barbarian probably isn't a viable PC. And that's a highly unusual D&D game. (To make such a game work well, the mechanics from other D20 games--such as CoC D20--would probably work much better than D&D).

It's not that all adventures are romps through the dungeon killing things and dealing with traps. It's that in D&D, you usually have to do one or the other at least every other session (sometimes two or three times per session) and it makes no sense from either an in-character or an out of character perspective to be in that situation regularly unless you can handle yourself in it. (If I were tossed into that kind of enviroment, either I'd spend a heck of a lot more time practicing martial arts and I'd learn how to use a gun/sword/whatever I could get or find a way to get back to being an ordinary grad student ASAP).

--Edit--I think the mechanics also work out such that noncombat and non-trap related skills are usually unnecessary to take skill focus in as well. If I want to construct a persuasive character, I can do so quite well without skill focus--the DCs rarely exceed 25 and I can usually take 10 and/or get assists from other party members. (Or maybe, I've just never been in a situation where I started thinking, "you know, +10 diplomacy just isn't enough for my 7th level cleric" but I've been in quite a few situations where I've said, "+17 concentration isn't quite enough for my 11th level fighter/wizard/spellsword") Disable Device, DCs, OTOH, start at 20 or 25 and go up past 34 with astounding rapidity--and only a rogue can assist. Sense motive, bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate are great skills (although sense motive generally does little good unless it's maxed considering that IME most of the time, NPCs are either really good at lying (non-maxed ranks won't help) or really poor at lying (non-maxed skills aren't necessary))--edit--

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.

 

[Cor Azer]

Re: Re: Re: Wasting skill points on 'background' skills

Ahem. The cleric of Mayaheine would like his blacksmithing skills to be more important.

I just realised that I put 4 ranks in Blacksmithing and 3 ranks into Weaponsmithing. I'm glad I did it, but by the same token I probably should have put more into concentration and a Knowledge skill.

I'm glad that more characters are doing that in the Aerlis game. I'm not sure why it didn't happen more in the in-person games, though. I only took a (cross-class) rank in Wilderness lore because we had 2 wilderness types who were teaching my cleric.

It's one of the better things about the campaign--more choices that make sense for the character as opposed to mechanical benefits. Extra points would be nice, but would lessen the impact of those choices.

Didn't Oren forge a new greatsword for his paladin brother-in-arms? And a pretty fine one at that... true it's more weaponsmithing than blacksmithing, but the game is still ongoing, so you never know what'll crop up.

 

[DMScott]

Was it a mistake to waste four skills points in farming? (especially since wizards only get 2+int for skills)

A mistake? Not really. Wizards don't get a lot of skill points, but they don't really need a lot, either. In 3.0, you need Concentration and Spellcraft, and Scry is nice - everything else is discretionary spending. In 3.5, Scry is gone. So you've got a lot of points to work with, and if you want to put some of them in background skills - hey, more power to you, and there may well be an adventure or two where it comes in handy.

Of course, I speak as someone playing a mid-level Wizard with about 30 ranks total in two knowledge skills and three craft skills, most of which have yet to see a roll over the course of the campaign, so I may not be the best advocate for efficiency...

 

[Rel]

I don't consider it a waste but I agree that this is campaign specific.

In our games, we've taken to giving every character 2 extra skill points per level to use for "flavor skills". We also use an XP system that is fairly roleplay focused, so those background skills can help to advance your character that way too.

 

[BVB]

The resources PCs have available are too meager to spend any of them on pure flavor ...

I manage my diet the same way: Protein, fat and carbohydrates in their purest forms, with precisely the nutrients I need to keep my body running. No more, no less. Garnishments, spices, presentation, flavor and extras are a waste. Heck, I don't even use plates and silverware!

 

[buzz]

I manage my diet the same way: Protein, fat and carbohydrates in their purest forms, with precisely the nutrients I need to keep my body running. No more, no less. Garnishments, spices, presentation, flavor and extras are a waste. Heck, I don't even use plates and silverware!

If D&D were as granular as real life, you might have a point. The more D&D-aapropriate metaphor would be:

You have $5 a day you can spend on food. You can either buy basic igredients for a simple stew that will nourish you throughout the day, or you can buy one jar of oregano. If you care about living to see tomorrow, you'll choose the former.

 

[Henry]

You have $5 a day you can spend on food. You can either buy basic igredients for a simple stew that will nourish you throughout the day, or you can buy one jar of oregano. If you care about living to see tomorrow, you'll choose the former.

Yes, but I don't see most D&D characters as being that "poor." Even fighters, unless they are of below average intellgence, will have the points to spend at least one or two on the profession or craft they practiced before they started their martial training. The beginning average intelligence fighter has 8 skill points; spending some on climb, jump, and handle animal (and only two of these see use often) leaves you with 1 to 2 points to put in a craft. Other characters (rangers, barbarians, druids, etc.) are in noticeably better shape to put one or two points into something non-combative, and in most cases can afford to be VERY good at something besides the skills directly related to their calling.

 

[buzz]

The beginning average intelligence fighter has 8 skill points; spending some on climb, jump, and handle animal (and only two of these see use often) leaves you with 1 to 2 points to put in a craft.

But this sounds like you're spreading those meager 8 points over a bunch of skills, so that you only have a couple of ranks in each, thereby making the fighter not particularly good at anything. Ideally, that fighter should be using those 8 points to max out two skills at 4 ranks each. The same would go for a high-skill class like bard or rogue; why waste points on Craft(pastry chef) when they need to max out skills like Perform and Search just to make use of their class abilities? And this doesn't even take into consideration that vital skills like Spot, Search, and Listen are cross-class for half or more of the classes, thereby requiring a heavier investment of skill points.

D&D PCs simply work better this way; the package deals in the PHB seem to echo this sentiment.

And take a look at this from p.62 of the PHB:

Your character may have solid familiarity with many skills, without having the acutal training that grants skill ranks. Knowing how to strum a few chords on a lute or clamber over a low fence doesn't really mean you have ranks in Perform or Climb. Ranks in those skills represent training beyond everyday use...

...

You're always welcome to assume that your character is familiar with--even good at, as far as everyday tasks go--many skills beyond those for which you actually gain ranks. The skills you gain ranks in, however, are those with which you have truly heroic potential.

Unless you want your character to have "heroic farmer potential", I still see anything more than 1 or 2 points (if any) as a big waste. Handle it with roleplaying instead of hampering a PCs ability to function as a member of their class (even if that class is expert or someting else non-combat focused).

 

[Wippit Guud]

Unless you want your character to have "heroic farmer potential", I still see anything more than 1 or 2 points (if any) as a big waste. Handle it with roleplaying instead of hampering a PCs ability to function as a member of their class (even if that class is expert or someting else non-combat focused).

Hercules.... as your 5th task, you must now grow enough corn to feed 10,000 people in 4 months!



To somewhat direct the conversation, what about taking a nealy useless skill as the background? All you people denouncing taking profession(farmer), would you have said the same for taking knowledge(nature)? And everyone advocating taking background skill, does that include the really obscure ones? Or background skills which might be useful, like tanner or blacksmith

 

[buzz]

To somewhat direct the conversation, what about taking a nealy useless skill as the background? All you people denouncing taking profession(farmer), would you have said the same for taking knowledge(nature)? And everyone advocating taking background skill, does that include the really obscure ones? Or background skills which might be useful, like tanner or blacksmith

Well, Knowledge (nature) isn't useless, imho, as it provides the PC with knowledge about "animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, season and cycles, weather, and vermin." That's a LOT of possible encounter types.

As for tanner or blacksmith, I echo what I've been saying. PCs generally have so much gold at their command after even a handful of levels that it's much more sensible to pay an expert to do these things than invest skill points. E.g., one of my groups right now is just hitting 5th level, and we have more loot than we know what to do with. For some reason, this hasn't stopped our no-ranks-in-Concentration wizard from maxing out Craft(bowmaking); he keeps going on about making arrows, and I'm just like, "Dude, we can buy them for 1gp per 20... why the heck would we want to hang out for a week or two in town while you make ones from scratch?" It simply makes no sense to me.

Skill points are far more precious than gold. If it's a choice between spending skill points and spending gold, you spend the gold.