Wasting skill points on 'background' skills

[Merova]

Currency & Passive Narrative Control

Hi all!

Skill points represent a form of "currency" by which you delineate those tasks where your character has a certain degree of expertise. Like any other form of currency, they may be wasted by ill-considered investments. So, you may want to consider the following questions:


How is the campaign designed?


If you are in a game where the GM is implementing strict narrative control, and if you spend any "currency" in a manner that does not fit with the GMs preplanned adventure "itinerary," then you are "wasting" your resources. Of course, clever game play and fluid task delineation may allow you opportunities to use these skills, but, overall, they'll see very little utilization in the game.

OTOH, if your GM bases the campaign on the Player Characters, then you're "buying" narrative "spotlight." By placing points in these skills, you're telling the GM to implement certain types of challenges or stories. Let's look at this concept in one of its earliest game text expressions, from the Amber Diceless RPG.

"First, inventory all the points expended by your players. Take a look at what they've spent for Attributes, Powers and all the other things that go into making up their characters.

Look at these points as money. The players are your customers, and they spend their points on your campaign.

. . .

A pair of players who invest over one hundred points in Warfare are buying a campaign where Warfare is important. Neglect Warfare, by setting up a campaign where the real villains only fight with Powers and Psyche, and you've chaeted this pair of customers.

One way of figuring out if a campaign is properly balanced is to total up all the characters' points and compare it to the threats they'll be facing. If the proportions work out, it should be a well-balanced campaign."


(Amber Diceless, p.136-137)

So, in a player based campaign, these points are an investment in story type, a form of passive narrative control. Therefore, they are never "wasted." However, there's something else to consider.


What are the player interests?


I notice that you refer to these skill points expenditures as "background." This tells me that you don't intend to use the skills in game play. If so, then these are extremely wasteful allocations. Only buy those things that you want to see in play. Would you, IRL, go out an spend a bunch of money on good that you never intend to use? Then why would you purchase such things for your character, especially given the limited degree of "currency" that you have available?

Moreover, you need to consider how your allocation of your currency works in conjunction with the group. If you're spending "currency" in a way that marginalizes your "spot light" from the overall interests of the group, then you're doing everybody a disservice. If the group "purchases" a combat-heavy dungeon crawl, then maybe "buying" spotlight as a combat-inept Harem Girl wasn't the best investment.


In conclusion, you need to design your character within the context of your interests, your fellow players' interests, and the GM's interests. When ever you stray from any of these desires, you're minimalizing the return on your skill point investment.

Thanks for reading!

---Merova

 

[Maerdwyn]

In a new PbP for d20 CoC (to which I'm a newb), I'm wondering whether I spent points wisely.

I had a bunch (INT 18), but since the character concept was a professor of comparative religions, I felt he needed to be able to do research in a variety of languages. It wouldn't, IMHO make sense for a professor of religion not to know, for example, at least some Greek and some Latin, as well as possibly one or two other dead languages.

So, for better or for worse, I put one or two skill points into several languages. Now, I know it's inconvceivable that the campaign will feature all of those languages during the lifetime of this character, but there's a good shot that at least a couple of them will be encountered, and we won't know which ones until faced with a undecipherable work. Since speak language is "Trained Only," putting even one point into a language means that the party's chance for deceiphering a text in that language goes from 0% to about 50% (higher if I can get my hands on a dictionary).

My other skills include hide and Sense Motive, and some other "more useful" skills, but did I waste/use too many points by putting 9 points in Speak Other Language (of which two were spent on a pretty necessary ability to speak English)?

 

[Mallus]

It really depends on the campaign...

...but I encourage my players to spend some points on 'flavor' skills that refelct a well fleshed out character background, as opposed to creating purely game-mechanics monsters.

I see it as a way for the players to give the DM "hooks". Its my job as DM to engineer situations where just about any skill/knowledge will be useful. I like that. I think it makes for more creative characters, plus it makes designing challenges more fun.

 

[Henry]

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.

Not really; spend 3 points on jump, 2 points on handle animal, 2 points on climb, and 1 point left for milking the cow. Alternatively, just spend 3 each on climb and jump, leave the animal handling to the druid or the ranger, and use those 2 points for weaponsmithing or armorsmithing, or another trade.

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?

The fighter already is probably getting a +2 or +3 bonus from his strength, so I've rarely found a situation where failing by 1 on a skill cost me dearly, so little so that it's worth the extra range given to me by taking skill points in something non-active. Ideally you could spend all your points on one or two skills, but I've never had an experience where it was the death of my character that we didn't.

As in all things, you can take a concept too far extreme; I have had players who played rogues who had 1 rank in THIRTY-TWO skills, and then couldn't understand why they never succeeded at anything; alternately, I've had players who only maxxed out skills they took, and then complained that they were too limited in their choices. I encourage new players to just take max ranks in skills, but once they are familiar with the system, they seem to find it more fun to spread out the points - make your skills 3/4ths full, instead of all the way, and add an extra skill into the mix.

As I said, there are exceptions - if a PC has below-average INT, they have no business wasting skill points; and if they have a higher INT, then the question is moot - they have the latitude to spend a few extra points on extra skills.

But even the most skill poor class of all, the fighter, does not risk himself if he spends 1 or two points on something that ISN'T climb/jump/intimidate - and the risk that is there is worth the roleplay fun - that's my point.

 

[buzz]

Re: Currency & Passive Narrative Control

I notice that you refer to these skill points expenditures as "background." This tells me that you don't intend to use the skills in game play. If so, then these are extremely wasteful allocations. Only buy those things that you want to see in play. Would you, IRL, go out an spend a bunch of money on good that you never intend to use? Then why would you purchase such things for your character, especially given the limited degree of "currency" that you have available?

Exactamundo.

If your campaign resembles something like Agricolae! The d20 Game of Heroic Farming, it's just as much of a waste to have your heroic farmer spend skill points on Spellcraft to reflect that she was raised by wizards. If that skill has no relevance to what said PC's role in the campaign is, then it's a waste.

 

[Voadam]

I have a 6th level gnome illusionist in a PBEM campaign, who was raised by human farmers. And to show that fact, he has 4 ranks in Profession (farming).

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

Skills are not that important in D&D in general.

As a wizard many consider spellcraft and concentration "must have skills" but even if you max those out and you have a 12 int you can still max out a random profession or flavor skill and be fine.

It is possible to put them into marginally more useful dungeon delving or other types of skills, but it is not a big deal either way.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This is a little OT, but I don't buying the languages was a bad idea. (Although if English is your native tongue, you shouldn't have had to spend skill points on it).

Especially since in CoC, the languages are actually likely to come up. If you find an ancient text written by medieval monks describing the horrors of the far realm, odds are good it will be written in latin. And if you find an account from the ancient world, odds are good that it'll be written in Greek. Of course, it's also possible that you might need some knowledge of Egyptian Heiroglyphics and Chinese or Sanskrit so it might be worth investing a skill point or two there. Or you might just want to invest a number of skill points in decipher script so that you have a shot at deciphering Mayan seals and Inca curses as well.

In a new PbP for d20 CoC (to which I'm a newb), I'm wondering whether I spent points wisely.

I had a bunch (INT 18), but since the character concept was a professor of comparative religions, I felt he needed to be able to do research in a variety of languages. It wouldn't, IMHO make sense for a professor of religion not to know, for example, at least some Greek and some Latin, as well as possibly one or two other dead languages.

So, for better or for worse, I put one or two skill points into several languages. Now, I know it's inconvceivable that the campaign will feature all of those languages during the lifetime of this character, but there's a good shot that at least a couple of them will be encountered, and we won't know which ones until faced with a undecipherable work. Since speak language is "Trained Only," putting even one point into a language means that the party's chance for deceiphering a text in that language goes from 0% to about 50% (higher if I can get my hands on a dictionary).

My other skills include hide and Sense Motive, and some other "more useful" skills, but did I waste/use too many points by putting 9 points in Speak Other Language (of which two were spent on a pretty necessary ability to speak English)?

 

[buzz]

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

Skills are not that important in D&D in general.

 

[Aeolius]

As a DM, I can see many opportunities to appease the adventuring farmer. Magic beans are a given. Then there is the matter of the magical talking hoe ("Who you callin' a hoe?!?). I'd also give a bonus, when conversing with farmer's daughters. I can hear his battle cry, now. "Ha ha! Who bought the farm!?!"

I am reminded of my first 3e PC, Nok, the half-orc bard who had skills as a taxidermist and chef.

 

[tetsujin28]

I agree in general with the principle that skill points are more valuable than money in a campaign that follows most of the D&D conventions. In the Planescape campaign I'm in, my ranger would never waste points on a profession. What's the point? When asked what my character was before she became a ranger, I answered, "A ranger in training".

However, in a money-poor campaign (or a no-money one, such as Midnight), craft/knowledge/performance/profession skills become very important. Since Midnight doesn't use coinage, and barter is the rule, being able to make a craft check to make something useful for someone is incredibly valuable. Those skills that might make you 5 gp per day are literally lifesavers.