optional rules for professions and craft skills

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
ok, i understand that most combat/action-oriented players don't want to spend their skill points on professions and crafts. in a way, i don't either. however, i still miss it, so this is what i suggest:

in one of the later editions of Shadowrun (a dif rpg) they gave you two separate sets of skill points. some were for combat/action stuff; the others were for non-combat/non-action stuff, like chess, foreign film, psychology, etc.

so anyway, there needs to be an option in the next dmg (or maybe even the next phb) where players (for no cost at all) get a few extra skill points that they have to spend on backround type skills. these skills then need to be described in full detail and restricted to certain classes.

any thoughts?
This is what I am planning for my upcoming campaign. It is basically the Craft and Profession skills from 3.5, with some other skills that don't seem to really fit the 4.0 skills. It also makes Intelligence more useful as an ability score. I'll also be adding some background or regional feats (ala Forgotten Realms 3.5 and Savage Tide Adventure Path), and perhaps the astrological signs from "The Stars are Right", Dragon 340.

Non-weapon Proficiencies
Making a check related to a non-weapon proficiency you are trained in is a d20 roll + 5 + relevant ability modifier + ½ level + other bonuses (circumstance, equipment, aid, etc.). DCs are determined by the DM (use DMG pg 42 as a guide). Some skills uses may require a skill challenge to use (training an animal over a period of time, making a sword or a suit of armor, building a ship, etc.). The DM sets the complexity based on the task attempted.
Choose a number of non-weapon proficiencies equal to your intelligence modifier (minimum 1) at first level. Additional non-weapon proficiencies can be acquired by spending a feat.
To use a non-weapon proficiency, a character must have any tools and material needed to do the job, and enough time to complete the task. The amount of time and cost required is up to the DM’s discretion.
• Animal Trainer
• Appraisal, gemcutting
• Craft
[INDENT]o Alchemy
o Armorsmithing
o Basketweaving, weaving
o Bookbinding, caligraphy
o Bowyer/Fletcher
o Blacksmithing
o Carpentry
o Cobbling
o Leatherworking
o Locksmithing
o Painting
o Pottery
o Sculpting
o Shipbuilding
o Stonemasonry
o Trapmaking
o Weaponsmithing[/INDENT]
• Etiquette
• Gaming
• Performer (act, comedy, dance, juggling, keyboard instrument, oratory, percussion instrument, string instrument, wind instrument, sing)
• Profession
o [INDENT]Apothecary
o Astrologer
o Boater
o Bookkeeper
o Brewer
o Cook
o Driver
o Engineer
o Farmer
o Fisher
o Guide
o Herbalist
o Herder
o Hunter
o Innkeeper
o Lumberjack
o Miller
o Miner
o Mountaineer
o Porter
o Rancher
o Sailor
o Scribe
o Seamstress/Tailor
o Siege Engineer
o Stablehand
o Tanner
o Teamster
o Woodcutter[/INDENT]

I was just planning on using the Skill Challenge system for profession and craft skills. I ran a test with a player who was traveling in a wagon had one of the wheel spokes shatter. I had them do a level 1 skill challenge to collect the wood and carve the replacement piece. I allowed the following skills:

Nature checks - Finding the appropriate wood as well as the act of carving the spoke
Perception - To notice any defects or issues that could arise as they were carving
History - To remember anything they may have read or seen that would help, such as historic techniques and such (Limit : 1 attempt)

I also allowed any skill checks that they could logically convince me would be appropriate, but use of that skill only once. (Limit : 1 attempt per skill)

Worked out pretty well for me.
For my craft trap checks I'm going to use thievery and for my alchemy checks I'm going to use arcana and for my Apothecary (craft poison) I'm going to use medicine.

The only thing that sucks is that with a large group of a dozen players we had a lot of specialization going on and we have to house rule it ALOT to get that same level of customization.
Sign In to post comments