Community

Jun 26, 2012 -- 11:58AM, Emerikol wrote:

I think that you are right in your criticisms of some of the skills.  I like a long list but I want a list with good skills.  I disagree on craft/profession but thats the only thing.  Those skills may not get taken much and may exist for NPCs as much as any PC but it's still there for those wanting to do it.

See: 

-Knowledge and Profession Skills are tracked separately from other skills. Intelligence mod gives extra points to spend on knowledge/profession skills, not to the skill groups.

I didn't say remove them entirely, just that they're not as useful as most other skills, and thus shouldn't be priced in the same category. You should be able to take knowledge/profession skills without cost to skills that will be used for Combat/Exploration/Interraction. 

Jun 26, 2012 -- 12:44PM, bwoodfield wrote:

I have to agree with Emerikol regarding the Craft and Profession skills.  In our campaigns we use them extensively.  Infact much of the non-magical gear my rogue wears he made himself.  As well if the PC has ranks in a profession that matches something they are doing a knowledge check about they would get a synergy bonus.

Congratulations, you spent a bunch of skill points to save yourself a few gold, and gain some flavor.

Why are you opposed to making the craft/proffession skills something that you can buy into separately without having to trade off more useful abilities to get it?

I wholly dissagree with this comment:

Spot/Listen and Hide/Move Silently are both pairs that should be combined even if you don't like the Athletics combination

If a PC has an effect on him that inhibits one of his senses, a generic perception roll would negate it.  As well someone wearing heavy full plate still has the ability to hide (if they aren't moving) but if they attempt to move silently they can't help but clank and squeak. Now if you have a good hiding ability that helps move silently and thus the synergy bonus in 3.5.

1) If a PC has an effect on him that inhibits one of his senses, that is a status effect that has its own effects. For example if you're blind, you gain a 50% miss chance, and can't tell where people are. A perception check might let you locate what square someone is in, to negate that part, but you will still have the 50% miss chance. This is no different whether you have Spot/Listen or Perception.

2) Armor Check penalty DOES apply to hide checks though, not just move silently. Your example gives no justification for keeping them separate.

3) Referring once again to the solution at the end of the post you were responding to, would you be offended by these skills being grouped together, but being given the option to improve them independently?

Just because you can do one thing really well don't mean you can do another with equal ability.  A street urchin growing up in a major city would live by pick-pocketing, that doesn't mean that he would have the ability to pick a complex lock. When I was 10 I had an accident that f'd up my right leg causing me to not be able to run or jump very well, but I can bench 180lbs.  By the 4th ed. rules it's all lumped into together as athletics so because I'm strong I should be able to also jump, climb and swim without any trouble.

I don't remember weight lifting being rolled into athletics. And if your leg was that messed up you wouldn't be able to run, jump, climb, or swim. Once again pointing to a good reason to have these grouped together. Also pointing once again to the suggestion to make them a group, with an option to buy independently.

If I'm playing a video game, fine lump them all together so the engine doesn't have to make as many calculations and it's easier for the casual gamer to understand.   If I'm playing D&D I want full control over how my player is created.  Maybe I want a fighter who doesn't use swords or a shield, his primary weapon are throwing weapons and he can pick-pocket a Drow Divine Mind.   In 3/3.5 you could create a character like that. In 4, between the class boxing and skill condensing, it was near impossible. 
 

1) This is a non-sequitor. It has almost nothing to do with the rest of the post.

2) You have things backwards, in video games you can afford more complex mechanics because most of the mechanics are handled behind the scenes, and the players don't need to know about them. In a tabletop RPG, the players have to resolve everything, which means keeping mechanics streamlined and simple is much more important.

3) You COULD make a fighter in 4e that did that, he would just be a really crappy fighter. Similarly, you could make a fighter in 3.5 that did that, he'd just also be a really crappy fighter. In both cases, the rogue is more likely to better fit your concept. In fact, I'd bet that the 4e Fighter would be better at filling that concept than a 3.5 fighter, because 4e's condensed skills makes it easier for a Fighter to pick up skill training in thievery or whatever pickpicket falls under there. In 3.5, the Fighter has between 2 and 4 skill points per level, and he's paying double for any skills that you actually want, with a cap half as high as the rogue. You want a pickpocketing fighter, 4e is probably going to be better for it than 3e.

here's what i did when GMing a blacksmith character in 4th ed: I simply let the blacksmith character succeed with no chance of failure if he had no pressing stress. the guy was a blacksmith before being an adventurer... he was a craftsman by trade. i wouldn't call anyone a tradesman if their chance of failure could be easily reproduced in almost any fashion by rolling a d20. 

if he was, however, trying to do the task under duress i would have him try to roll against the stress.

-Speed up the process by safely working overnight : endurance 
-Speed up the process by safely working fast during the day: athletics
-make the weapon look particularly nice/detailed : theivery
-trying to find materials in an area where they are scarce : streetwise
-trying to borrow/rent a forge : diplomacy
-trying to carve a particular scene/symbolic reference : appropriate knowledge skill if it's not something the character would reasonably know. a dwarven cleric of moradin wouldn't need to make religion checks to put religious symbology of moradin and dwarven lettering on a warhammer he's working on

so rather then simply saying "no, your career blacksmith failed to make a sword because you rolled a 4" it would be "yes, your career blacksmith, working through the night, was able to make a sword but because he was working so late he ended up burning himself, lose a surge for the next day or so."

or

"yes, your career blacksmith was able to make a sword, but as you lacked the proper references the elven lettering is kinda off. shoulda asked the elven rogue for help with that." 

or

"yes, your career blacksmith was able to make the sword, but while the blade's ornate details came out fine, the bear head on the pommel kinda looks like cat or pig. maybe both."  

just my 2cp on the subject.

as for skill lists, i prefer broad strokes over fine details.

as a DM it's simply easier fo me to create situations that allow for characters with a skillset that covers a broad list of associated subjects in each skill to attempt things then have to shoehorn in a section in my adventures that require a rather indepth knowlege of cobbling or the unique ability to hide yet not move silently. i find it allows for the character to find more organic uses for their skills. 

as for the "but the fighter will only spam athletics! it's his best skill!" yes, he will. guess what? same thing happens in every skill based game: your character will first try looking at a situation with what he's good at. if he's a muscle head, he'll try to use his muscle. if that fails, then he'll start looking at other avenues.

the main difference is Athletics will probably allow for a more open use of the character's strenght then simply having a laundry list of str-based skills to go through. 

in essence i want more Athletics & Stealth over Jump/Climb/Swim & Hide/Move Silently.