Except the Fighter more so than -anyone- is mitigated the most with his combat options. Period. Anything over large sized it's pretty much gg no re fighter attack options in 3e.
Heh. It's a good thing that the facts of the situation don't back up this statement. There are so many ways to safely reach something big that it isn't even funny.
Heh. It's a good thing that the facts of the situation don't back up this statement. There are so many ways to safely reach something big that it isn't even funny.
Greatfrito, so what's your point here? Does 4th ed resolve Sophie's choice here? Read page 176 to 189 of PHB... C'mon...that's unfair to Kursk
Actually it does. Read page 24 of the PHB and pages 10-11 of the DMG. Skills that have constant adventuring use have costs attached. Skills that will never see the light of day are covereed there.
Actually it does. Read page 24 of the PHB and pages 10-11 of the DMG. Skills that have constant adventuring use have costs attached. Skills that will never see the light of day are covereed there.
I know! If I spent my life practicing the most hazardous profession in existence I certainly wouldn't be spending my time and effort gardening. I'd spend it honing skills that enabled me to stay alive.
See my sig for more insight. :D
Then you are saying that all adventurers should be min-maxed killing machines with no time devoted to any normal pursuits. All PCs somehow plan on being living dangerous lives. They are trained from childhood for adventuring.
I find that sort of game terribly constraining. How does that character know that he's an adventurer? He thinks he's the son of a goat-herder and that he happened to have an unusual talent for magic that got him apprenticed to a local wizard. He thinks that the wizard's tower was destroyed in an earthquake (possibly of supernatural origin- who knows), leaving him suddenly homeless and jobless in a war-torn land. He doesn't think that he has chosen the world's most dangerous profession, precisely because he *hasn't* made such a choice and *doesn't* plan on getting pulled into intrigues and conflicts. He thought he was lucky to spend his days pursuing the arcane arts as a scholar, not as a killer. The fact that he will go on adventures should be in my mind, not his. But that fact shouldn't dominate every choice I make for him, since that would mean I'm not playing a role-playing game anymore.
Then you are saying that all adventurers should be min-maxed killing machines with no time devoted to any normal pursuits. All PCs somehow plan on being living dangerous lives. They are trained from childhood for adventuring.I find that sort of game
And what if you - before learning the most hazardous job - you did learn something else? Like maybe.. I dunno... playing Tennis or growing flowers?
I don't have a problem with that. Characters usually start 1st level at a young age and had spent the vast majority of their youth learning that "profession".
If someone wants to start the game being an expert at gardening I just advance their age an appropriate amount. How much time does it take for a commoner to have high skill ranks? ...
I don't have a problem with that. Characters usually start 1st level at a young age and had spent the vast majority of their youth learning that "profession". If someone wants to start the game being an expert at gardening I just advance their age a
Greatfrito, so what's your point here? Does 4th ed resolve Sophie's choice here? Read page 176 to 189 of PHB... C'mon...that's unfair to Kursk
The skills chapter? Yeah, it really does resolve it.
You do not have to trade mechanical resources in order to implement a fully realized background. The dichotomy doesn't even come up in 4th Edition - there are no background skills.
I don't know about "unfair" (though I do think I may have accidentally invoked Godwin-by-association - oops) - He's saying that you should have to choose between a character who is fully realized mechanically, and one who is fully realized in a role-playing aspect.
I disagree. I want both. Wanting it all, in this case, is not a bad thing.
The skills chapter? Yeah, it really does resolve it.You do not have to trade mechanical resources in order to implement a fully realized background. The dichotomy doesn't even come up in 4th Edition - there are no background skills.I don't know abo
Simple if you wanted any kind of background you had to have the proper skill then it means you do not have that background it was impossible to properly model your concept, and if you did spend the points to do so you wasted your skills on useless crap, unless the dm was really good and came up with some totally arbitrary use for those skills. Especially since RAW only has how much money you gained from those skills.
And this mentality is why you failed. It isn't just the job of the DM to make skills useful, it's mostly the players job to be inventive and use them to oversome a situation. It's easy as pie to do, and it usually gets the GM pumped up that the players are being that creative.
3.5 did more to hamper real role playing then it did to help.
In your opinion. Obviously in the opinions of many of us, this was not true.
And this mentality is why you failed. It isn't just the job of the DM to make skills useful, it's mostly the players job to be inventive and use them to oversome a situation. It's easy as pie to do, and it usually gets the GM pumped up that the pla
IIRC that was around the starting age for elves. So that elf was born and... fell into coma for 100 years. And after being re-awakened he immediately began learning about adventuring only.
Basically you say "No character can be older than 16 years or so, because we don't have enough skill points to give them a background. So sorry, JOhn , your character is not viable. Take out that background and fluff skills!"
PRetty lame if you ask me. I want my characters with background and background skills.
So you consider 120 years young?IIRC that was around the starting age for elves. So that elf was born and... fell into coma for 100 years. And after being re-awakened he immediately began learning about adventuring only.Basically you say "No characte
Then you are saying that all adventurers should be min-maxed killing machines with no time devoted to any normal pursuits. All PCs somehow plan on being living dangerous lives. They are trained from childhood for adventuring.
Exactly. They have had little time for normal pursuits. If they want to live a normal existence like the poor peasants that is a choice to make, isn't it?
If you want to be an Olympic gold medalist you WILL give up MANY normal mundane pursuits that the average person engages in. IF you are going to succeed...
I think what you want is to bend logic. Within the framework of the fantasy rules I don't run a nonsensical, illogical game world. There is clear cause and effect. It allows players to predict what their actions will cause.
Exactly. They have had little time for normal pursuits. If they want to live a normal existence like the poor peasants that is a choice to make, isn't it?If you want to be an Olympic gold medalist you WILL give up MANY normal mundane pursuits that
1 - I specifically said one could do so. 2 - Only if the system says so. 3.5 said you needed skill points for your backgrounds. 4th ED doesn't. The mechanical representation of the same character is different then. 3 - Because I wanted to play a character with an intresting background, and didn't know how badly the system penalized for that. 3.5 says having a background should be a penalty. I have to choose between enjoying my character in combat or out of combat.
It's not an RP choice it's a mechanical choice. In 4th ED I can choose to be a gardener AND learn Arcana without penalty. And before someone trys to go there neither system is more realistic because character building systems are always unrealistic. One punishes you by giving a fixed resource pool for combat and RP, the other doesn't. One encourages multidimensional characters, the other encourages minmaxed warmachines. I like multidimensional characters more thanks.
Then a few more questions: (1) So someone who is skilled in nature knowledge (but only level 1 thus only can make a 1 + WIS mod + 5 + 1D20 to give a minimum of 7) but has incredible knowledge in gardening (won the gardening championship in dalelands 7 times!) will fail to realize that the plant her companion is chewing is poison ivy (DC 10)? Does this hurt the mechanical choice or really no choice? (2) So we're to believe that WoTC will not showcase more skill types? (3) Normal character starts out at a young age (or a late bloomer) and unless you're playing a child prodigy, a human at the age of 16-17 will have possible few opportunities to learn many things (medieval may not have our type of education systems). Why will it hinder your character development and fleshing? (4) Multidimension characters are good. I like them too otherwise the character becomes boring (but challenging to play). Raistlin is multidimensional. He's bitter and angry but very ambitious. He's strong in arcane but weak in health. He's selfish but has a soft spot of the underdogs. He doesn't go around claiming that he's good in gardening but knows much about herb lore and knows nothing about blacksmith...
Why is there so much harping about this profession skill? There are people who are good at arguing but isn't a lawyer as a profession. Read carefully again on page 80 of 3.5 PHB and then you'll know what this skill means.
So who says that you cannot have 1 skill point in gardening profession but keeps a superb garden?
Then a few more questions:(1) So someone who is skilled in nature knowledge (but only level 1 thus only can make a 1 + WIS mod + 5 + 1D20 to give a minimum of 7) but has incredible knowledge in gardening (won the gardening championship in dalelands 7
My first 3.0 character ever. Sorcerer with maxed ranks in Profession: Gardener. You can imagine how often that came up in our quest to save the world. Sadly that meant I had to split ranks between Arcana and Spellcraft. Which means in battle I failed the roll I needed to make to know a spell being cast at my friend, so I had to try to counter with dispell magic. Failed the opposed check. Phantasmal Killer hit. One dead friend. We got routed too so no rez.
Why on earth would you max out a profession like that? You only need a few ranks to be a competent gardener. Hell, I don't even max out most of what you call "useful" skills, and I still do great.
Why on earth would you max out a profession like that? You only need a few ranks to be a competent gardener. Hell, I don't even max out most of what you call "useful" skills, and I still do great.
It's the player who makes them suck. Most classes were fine. And exactly what penalties are you getting from multiclassing unless you're cherrypicking a dozen classes? Sounds like power gamer syndrom to me....
No. What it is, is that he and most others can't fathom how not being the absolute best is okay. See, if wizards get the gold medal, and clerics get the silver, the fighter and the others tying for the bronze must mean that they SUCK! Nevermind that even being there in the first place means that they are among the best in the world, even for those who finish in last and get no medal. Their world views just don't allow them to understand.
No. What it is, is that he and most others can't fathom how not being the absolute best is okay. See, if wizards get the gold medal, and clerics get the silver, the fighter and the others tying for the bronze must mean that they SUCK! Nevermind th
The skills chapter? Yeah, it really does resolve it.
You do not have to trade mechanical resources in order to implement a fully realized background. The dichotomy doesn't even come up in 4th Edition - there are no background skills.
I don't know about "unfair" (though I do think I may have accidentally invoked Godwin-by-association - oops) - He's saying that you should have to choose between a character who is fully realized mechanically, and one who is fully realized in a role-playing aspect.
I disagree. I want both. Wanting it all, in this case, is not a bad thing.
The profession skill (one skill out of so many) is intended if the players want their character to be able to make an elking out of that skill.
In 4th ed, I can assume to be the best weapon maker...so what's to stop my character from making and selling it? I can claim to be the best singer (remember the bard class is not out yet) and then demand to the DM why no one is turning out at my performance.
Lastly, what's to stop you from having it all in 3.5 too if you can also do it in 4th?
The profession skill (one skill out of so many) is intended if the players want their character to be able to make an elking out of that skill.In 4th ed, I can assume to be the best weapon maker...so what's to stop my character from making and sellin
Exactly. They have had little time for normal pursuits. If they want to live a normal existence like the poor peasants that is a choice to make, isn't it?
If you want to be an Olympic gold medalist you WILL give up MANY normal mundane pursuits that the average person engages in. IF you are going to succeed...
I think what you want is to bend logic. Within the framework of the fantasy rules I don't run a nonsensical, illogical game world. There is clear cause and effect. It allows players to predict what their actions will cause.
So let me get this straight. Adventurers in your campaigns are not lucky, they don't have fate pushing them into the fray, and they don't want to have normal lives. You're saying that adventurers all choose to be adventurers, that they train from a young age like Olympic athletes for their chosen path. They all want to venture into dungeons, ruins, swamps, haunted mansions, trackless wastes and so on, perhaps even one day aspiring to travel to other planes of existence to confront the living embodiments of evil.
Do they even plan things out? Do they expect to fight progressively more powerful enemies, gaining new abilities and items that will help them fight tougher and tougher enemies until they at last achieve their lifelong goals of killing some ultimate evil?
So let me get this straight. Adventurers in your campaigns are not lucky, they don't have fate pushing them into the fray, and they don't want to have normal lives. You're saying that adventurers all choose to be adventurers, that they train from a y
Why on earth would you max out a profession like that? You only need a few ranks to be a competent gardener. Hell, I don't even max out most of what you call "useful" skills, and I still do great.
We have already had this discussion the fact of the matter is that if your dm actually scales the dcs for the pcs level then you will fail any skill check that is not maxed out.
We have already had this discussion the fact of the matter is that if your dm actually scales the dcs for the pcs level then you will fail any skill check that is not maxed out.
Probably because of unfamiliarity with the rules system, or having a DM who doesn't know them...
And yet a lot of people did it. Personally Ive never had a dm who did not scale challenges to be level apropriate so that if you did not have maxed ranks youd have a much higher chance of failing.
Then again the entire skills point based system of 3.5 sucks except for in an entirley point based game.
4es style of making crafts and proffession backgrounds is a much better way of doing it especially from an rp stand point.
And yet a lot of people did it. Personally Ive never had a dm who did not scale challenges to be level apropriate so that if you did not have maxed ranks youd have a much higher chance of failing.Then again the entire skills point based system of 3.
"I want to be a great gardener." "That's great. You have two ways you can do this: #1 - You can actually be a great gardener, but you'll suck at other things that are important or essential to the game. You will likely be weaker than any other character who doesn't pick one of these things, and you will be weaker than a character of your level should be, so the game will be more difficult, in general; OR
This is incorrect. You won't suck at it, you just won't be perfect at it. You will sometimes miss rolls, which is perfectly okay. Characters don't have to be perfect to be good and fun.
This is incorrect. You won't suck at it, you just won't be perfect at it. You will sometimes miss rolls, which is perfectly okay. Characters don't have to be perfect to be good and fun.
Actually it does. Read page 24 of the PHB and pages 10-11 of the DMG. Skills that have constant adventuring use have costs attached. Skills that will never see the light of day are covereed there.
Now I'm getting to see the light from other posters here regarding certain aspects of the people we're discussing with...
I've read those pages...so what does it say about the skill point system in 4th ed? Does it resolve your gardening+failing another skill roll+dying companions syndrome?
Won't a failed role in 4th ed also cause the same results? Regardless if your character is good at gardening or not...
What will you say if later releases of WoTC for 4th Ed includes a profession skill...will you throw all 4th Ed out of your window?
My character can argue the squirrels into giving up their nuts but his not a lawyer by profession....get the point?
In real life, I'm an IT manager and I have a swell garden but I'm no gardener by profession...
Now I'm getting to see the light from other posters here regarding certain aspects of the people we're discussing with...I've read those pages...so what does it say about the skill point system in 4th ed? Does it resolve your gardening+failing anothe
We have already had this discussion the fact of the matter is that if your dm actually scales the dcs for the pcs level then you will fail any skill check that is not maxed out.
And we've already been over how little sense that makes, and that if you have a DM who makes an adventure the way it SHOULD be, there will be very few maxed out DCs.
And we've already been over how little sense that makes, and that if you have a DM who makes an adventure the way it SHOULD be, there will be very few maxed out DCs.
And we've already been over how little sense that makes, and that if you have a DM who makes an adventure the way it SHOULD be, there will be very few maxed out DCs.
Maybe williamhm75's DM hadn't read the DMG either...?
Maybe williamhm75's DM hadn't read the DMG either...?
Now I'm getting to see the light from other posters here regarding certain aspects of the people we're discussing with...
I've read those pages...so what does it say about the skill point system in 4th ed? Does it resolve your gardening+failing another skill roll+dying companions syndrome?
Won't a failed role in 4th ed also cause the same results? Regardless if your character is good at gardening or not...
What will you say if later releases of WoTC for 4th Ed includes a profession skill...will you throw all 4th Ed out of your window?
My character can argue the squirrels into giving up their nuts but his not a lawyer by profession....get the point?
In real life, I'm an IT manager and I have a swell garden but I'm no gardener by profession...
Depends on how they are implemented, but if they are given the same priority as other skills Ill convince my group to use the current 4e system.
Depends on how they are implemented, but if they are given the same priority as other skills Ill convince my group to use the current 4e system.
And we've already been over how little sense that makes, and that if you have a DM who makes an adventure the way it SHOULD be, there will be very few maxed out DCs.
no thats just how the book is I hate the fixed dcs in 3.5 it was a horrible idea, hence most dms Ive had do not use it.
no thats just how the book is I hate the fixed dcs in 3.5 it was a horrible idea, hence most dms Ive had do not use it.
no thats just how the book is I hate the fixed dcs in 3.5 it was a horrible idea, hence most dms Ive had do not use it.
ROFL It was a horrible idea, so instead, your DMs forced you to make out a very few skills. THAT makes a lot of sense Then, after your DMs create the problem, you come here and whine about how bad the skill system in 3ed was. Get real.
ROFL It was a horrible idea, so instead, your DMs forced you to make out a very few skills. THAT makes a lot of sense :rolleyes: Then, after your DMs create the problem, you come here and whine about how bad the skill system in 3ed was. Get real
In 4th ed, I can assume to be the best weapon maker...so what's to stop my character from making and selling it? I can claim to be the best singer (remember the bard class is not out yet) and then demand to the DM why no one is turning out at my performance.
The exact same mechanic that exists to solve things like "I'm the heir to the richest kingdom in the universe, and the king, my father, dotes on me and will get me whatever I want" - the DM.
A DM is there to stop you from making and selling it, or rather to facilitate that or not, as is appropriate for the game.
Do you seriously want to have to pay, mechanically, in order to build a character's story? I mean, it's necessitated to a degree by the very conceits of the level-based RPG, but why would we stretch this beyond what we have to?
Even if you do have the ability to take, and maximize, a Craft skill (for example), there is only one thing that will tell you whether or not you're the best in the world:
The DM. Again.
Lastly, what's to stop you from having it all in 3.5 too if you can also do it in 4th?
A lot of us did, either by handing out "Background Skill Points" (which I did on occasion, if players asked - "Hey, yeah, you can have max skill points in one profession or craft - they won't come up often, so here ya go) or by ignoring other restrictions on them.
The exact same mechanic that exists to solve things like "I'm the heir to the richest kingdom in the universe, and the king, my father, dotes on me and will get me whatever I want" - the DM.A DM is there to stop you from making and selling it, or rat
We have already had this discussion the fact of the matter is that if your dm actually scales the dcs for the pcs level then you will fail any skill check that is not maxed out.
That's because you think that DMs running the 3.5 is insane or torturing themselves...
PS: Go read any published adventures (goodman, necromancer, wotc,...). I've never seen anything like it.
That's because you think that DMs running the 3.5 is insane or torturing themselves...PS: Go read any published adventures (goodman, necromancer, wotc,...). I've never seen anything like it.
ROFL It was a horrible idea, so instead, your DMs forced you to make out a very few skills. THAT makes a lot of sense Then, after your DMs create the problem, you come here and whine about how bad the skill system in 3ed was. Get real.
No the problem is that the static system makes skill challenges too easy. I mean a level 6 with maxed ranks can reliably make a difficult dc. So whats the point? At least with 4e the die rolls for skills required, or more meaningful.
No the problem is that the static system makes skill challenges too easy. I mean a level 6 with maxed ranks can reliably make a difficult dc. So whats the point? At least with 4e the die rolls for skills required, or more meaningful.
So, your DM changed the skill system and it didn't work? Makes sense to me...
Um no he changed so that it would work, the fixed dcs in 3.5 make things far too easy, also the craft proffession skills are worthless to players unless you change the system.
Um no he changed so that it would work, the fixed dcs in 3.5 make things far too easy, also the craft proffession skills are worthless to players unless you change the system.
No the problem is that the static system makes skill challenges too easy. I mean a level 6 with maxed ranks can reliably make a difficult dc. So whats the point? At least with 4e the die rolls for skills required, or more meaningful.
So instead, you want a system where it's a DC 10 to grow a rose at 1st level, but DC 40 to grow that same rose at 30th level. Niiiiice.
So instead, you want a system where it's a DC 10 to grow a rose at 1st level, but DC 40 to grow that same rose at 30th level. Niiiiice.
Which means you can spend less skill points so that you can be a gardener and STILL be good. But, that's bad.
Especially when by rules as written that skill is pointless. By raw all you can do with that skill is make money and a person with proffession gardener and proffession doctor make same amount of money if they have same skill rank does that make any sense whatso ever? No it does not much better to limit such things to background.
Also you just said it there is no reason to get better in a skill in 3.5 because after a certain point it is meaningless.
Especially when by rules as written that skill is pointless. By raw all you can do with that skill is make money and a person with proffession gardener and proffession doctor make same amount of money if they have same skill rank does that make any
Which means you can spend less skill points so that you can be a gardener and STILL be good. But, that's bad.
Exactly. You can spread out your points to have some options AND background skills AND still be decent to good at them. God forbid that actually happen.
Exactly. You can spread out your points to have some options AND background skills AND still be decent to good at them. God forbid that actually happen. :rolleyes:
Especially when by rules as written that skill is pointless. By raw all you can do with that skill is make money and a person with proffession gardener and proffession doctor make same amount of money if they have same skill rank does that make any sense whatso ever? No it does not much better to limit such things to background.
RAW doesn't exist, and never did. It has been SAW(suggestions as written) from 1ed on. It has ALWAYS been up to the DM which "rules" he wants, if he wants them changed, or if he wants to add new "rules" to the game. But again, some people just seem to have a lot of trouble grasping that simple concept.
Also you just said it there is no reason to get better in a skill in 3.5 because after a certain point it is meaningless.
Bzzzzt! Wrong again. There will be the occasional harder DC that you encounter.
Bzzzzt! Wrong again. There will be the occasional harder DC that you encounter.
Especially when by rules as written that skill is pointless. By raw all you can do with that skill is make money and a person with proffession gardener and proffession doctor make same amount of money if they have same skill rank does that make any sense whatso ever?
So, two equally skilled persons in the medical field can make the same amount of money healing. That makes sense. How does it NOT make sense?
So, two equally skilled persons in the medical field can make the same amount of money healing. That makes sense. How does it NOT make sense?
RAW doesn't exist, and never did. It has been SAW(suggestions as written) from 1ed on. It has ALWAYS been up to the DM which "rules" he wants, if he wants them changed, or if he wants to add new "rules" to the game. But again, some people just seem to have a lot of trouble grasping that simple concept.
True, however as written those skills are worthless.
Bzzzzt! Wrong again. There will be the occasional harder DC that you encounter.
yup and as you get higher in level those occasional dcs should become much more comon.
True, however as written those skills are worthless.Bzzzzt! Wrong again. There will be the occasional harder DC that you encounter.yup and as you get higher in level those occasional dcs should become much more comon.
The exact same mechanic that exists to solve things like "I'm the heir to the richest kingdom in the universe, and the king, my father, dotes on me and will get me whatever I want" - the DM.
A DM is there to stop you from making and selling it, or rather to facilitate that or not, as is appropriate for the game.
Do you seriously want to have to pay, mechanically, in order to build a character's story? I mean, it's necessitated to a degree by the very conceits of the level-based RPG, but why would we stretch this beyond what we have to?
Even if you do have the ability to take, and maximize, a Craft skill (for example), there is only one thing that will tell you whether or not you're the best in the world:
The DM. Again.
A lot of us did, either by handing out "Background Skill Points" (which I did on occasion, if players asked - "Hey, yeah, you can have max skill points in one profession or craft - they won't come up often, so here ya go) or by ignoring other restrictions on them.
Haha...then why will you need the rules if the DM decides everthing? Gosh...
The profession skill is there for the 3.5 system to arbitrage on it. Read the profession skill again please.
Now the point is already answered by you...the DM can do it whether in 3.5 or 4th editions...so why is 3.5 killing your rp?
You're still not understanding or is it not the place to back down?
Let me shell an example of a character:
Level 1 cleric who used to be a womanizer and alcoholic. Yet after he repented, he followed the teachings of Pelor and led several years tending a small chapel in a remote mountainous area whereby the nearest village is a few miles away. He has a small yet wonderful garden in his backyard of the chapel that has seem the fruits of his labour as travellers will always stop by and stare for hours at his labour of love. Whenever questioned by merchants if he is willing to do the same for their mansions, he will politely decline as his reply is always a lack of gardening knowledge. Aghast, these petitioners will raise a sweeping hand at his handiwork in disbelief. His reply is always the same, "I have never been schooled in plant lore and I don't know one plant from another (4th ed - nature knowledge untrained or 3.5 ed - low or not skill points) but whatever I find in the backyard, I tend to them in the loving care as what Pelor will care for us"
Cleric level 1 Name: Ash Dillow STR: 14, INT: 12, WIS: 16, DEX: 15, CON: 13, CHA: 17 Total Skills points: 12 Concentration (his dedication at tending his garden had honed it) 3 Heal 2 Knowledge (religion) 4 Knowledge (arcana) 1 {used to date a female wizard and inadventently led to her death} Spellcraft 1 Profession (gardening) 1 {rudimentary skills to water, remove bugs, loosen soil,...etc}
Haha...then why will you need the rules if the DM decides everthing? :) Gosh...The profession skill is there for the 3.5 system to arbitrage on it. Read the profession skill again please. Now the point is already answered by you...the DM can do it wh
So, two equally skilled persons in the medical field can make the same amount of money healing. That makes sense. How does it NOT make sense?
He was speaking to the fact that the "money made" was based on skill check, not on which Profession.
So, for example, a skilled person in the medical field makes just as much money as a skilled person in the ditch-digging field, so long as their checks were the same (though at that point, I'd assume a high rank in Profession: Ditch Digger was probably more indicative of your ability to get out of digging ditches).
Just clarifying his point, not weighing in on any side.
He was speaking to the fact that the "money made" was based on skill check, not on which Profession.So, for example, a skilled person in the medical field makes just as much money as a skilled person in the ditch-digging field, so long as their check
I don't dislike 4E, it's just that I started playing DnD when 3.0 came out. By the time I started there were a wide variety of supplements out which gave me more options to make the character I wanted. 4E doesn't have much in the way of customization yet but I know it will soon change.
Many of my friends disliked 3.0 when it came out for the same reason.
I don't dislike 4E, it's just that I started playing DnD when 3.0 came out. By the time I started there were a wide variety of supplements out which gave me more options to make the character I wanted. 4E doesn't have much in the way of customization
He was speaking to the fact that the "money made" was based on skill check, not on which Profession.
So, for example, a skilled person in the medical field makes just as much money as a skilled person in the ditch-digging field, so long as their checks were the same (though at that point, I'd assume a high rank in Profession: Ditch Digger was probably more indicative of your ability to get out of digging ditches).
Just clarifying his point, not weighing in on any side.
I really do not think he is reading all my posts I even gave an example in an earlier post of a man with proffession gardening getting equal money to a man with proffession doctor if they had equal ranks in proffession.
The same could be said for someone with proffession bartender and proffession lawyer.
I really do not think he is reading all my posts I even gave an example in an earlier post of a man with proffession gardening getting equal money to a man with proffession doctor if they had equal ranks in proffession. The same could be said for so
Depends on how they are implemented, but if they are given the same priority as other skills Ill convince my group to use the current 4e system.
Then in this case, it isn't the 4th ed rule system that you're impressed..its because certain skills are not there to disrupt it.
Then like what Greatfrito said, the DM can remove it if it bothers that much.
See my earlier posts. I've given examples of what the skill system in 3.5 and 4 is alike and also what is not.
Remember, 3.5 has been played out many many times and people had also hit max level but 4 is still very new...look at the errata now...
PS: I have also bought all copies of 4th ed including even the adventures...I'm a sucker for rpg games since age 11. To clarify, its not that I don't like 4th ed, it's merely just a different game altogether. Most of us old timers just don't like WoTC taking a nostalgic name as D&D and change it into something that we recognise anymore...old dogs, old habits...
PPS: And of course I enter into the fray cos of your irresponsible post of DMs running 3.5
Then in this case, it isn't the 4th ed rule system that you're impressed..its because certain skills are not there to disrupt it.Then like what Greatfrito said, the DM can remove it if it bothers that much.See my earlier posts. I've given examples of
Then in this case, it isn't the 4th ed rule system that you're impressed..its because certain skills are not there to disrupt it.
Then like what Greatfrito said, the DM can remove it if it bothers that much.
See my earlier posts. I've given examples of what the skill system in 3.5 and 4 is alike and also what is not.
Remember, 3.5 has been played out many many times and people had also hit max level but 4 is still very new...look at the errata now...
PS: I have also bought all copies of 4th ed including even the adventures...I'm a sucker for rpg games since age 11. To clarify, its not that I don't like 4th ed, it's merely just a different game altogether. Most of us old timers just don't like WoTC taking a nostalgic name as D&D and change it into something that we recognise anymore...old dogs, old habits...
PPS: And of course I enter into the fray cos of your irresponsible post of DMs running 3.5
The reason why I wont run 3.5 is that it takes way too much work to dm, I respect the people who can do it well, however I would not be one of those people.
Its not just what 4e did to skills the greatest thing is that 4e is actually balanced.
Also I like the fact that they changed it. In fact I would have been ****** if they had not changed it. Sacred cows like Vancian casting and great wheel needed to be shot in the head.
The reason why I wont run 3.5 is that it takes way too much work to dm, I respect the people who can do it well, however I would not be one of those people.Its not just what 4e did to skills the greatest thing is that 4e is actually balanced.Also I l
The reason why I wont run 3.5 is that it takes way too much work to dm, I respect the people who can do it well, however I would not be one of those people.
Really, how would you know? You don't know the rules of running 3.5. How could you judge?
Really, how would you know? You don't know the rules of running 3.5. How could you judge?
I really do not think he is reading all my posts I even gave an example in an earlier post of a man with proffession gardening getting equal money to a man with proffession doctor if they had equal ranks in proffession.
The same could be said for someone with proffession bartender and proffession lawyer.
It's really not relevant. In any game where the DM was even halfway decent, he wouldn't allow this to happen. See, common sense is what needs to "rule" this game, not blindly following a bunch of words in a book when following those words results in absurdity.
It's really not relevant. In any game where the DM was even halfway decent, he wouldn't allow this to happen. See, common sense is what needs to "rule" this game, not blindly following a bunch of words in a book when following those words results i
The reason why I wont run 3.5 is that it takes way too much work to dm, I respect the people who can do it well, however I would not be one of those people.
It really doesn't. All it requires is some common sense and the ability to change "rules" when they contradict that common sense.
It really doesn't. All it requires is some common sense and the ability to change "rules" when they contradict that common sense.
It's really not relevant. In any game where the DM was even halfway decent, he wouldn't allow this to happen. See, common sense is what needs to "rule" this game, not blindly following a bunch of words in a book when following those words results in absurdity.
It helps when the rules at least follow comon sense. And I have seen far too many games where the DM was not halfway decent. I used to really like 3.5 then I ran into a couple of dms who ran the game by exactly how the rules were written, so no not all dms will follow comon sense.
It helps when the rules at least follow comon sense. And I have seen far too many games where the DM was not halfway decent. I used to really like 3.5 then I ran into a couple of dms who ran the game by exactly how the rules were written, so no not
It really doesn't. All it requires is some common sense and the ability to change "rules" when they contradict that common sense.
See thats the problem 3.5 has way too many rules and rule subsets, and how do you make the game fun for everyone in 3.5 with properly balanced encounters. Also Ill never dm it because I refuse to even play it anymore. 4E is a huge improvement over 3.5 in every single way possible.
See thats the problem 3.5 has way too many rules and rule subsets, and how do you make the game fun for everyone in 3.5 with properly balanced encounters. Also Ill never dm it because I refuse to even play it anymore. 4E is a huge improvement over
I really do not think he is reading all my posts I even gave an example in an earlier post of a man with proffession gardening getting equal money to a man with proffession doctor if they had equal ranks in proffession.
The same could be said for someone with proffession bartender and proffession lawyer.
Wrong williamhm75. The description on the profession skill in 3.5 states that you can practice your trade and make a decent living earning about half your profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. In earlier sentences, profession is actually a number of separate skills and should be segregated based on that.
Hence, you can have a profession in sailor and as a herbalist and both will earn different amount even if both characters of each skill have the same skill points.
Eg. A person with profession in cleaning has 6 skill points and another person with profession in herbal lore has also 6 skill points. To clean a house well, the DM set DC check is 10 (eg only) whereas to be a good herbalist for specialized ailments, the DM set DC check as 30. So, no matter what person 2 try, he cannot make a decent living as a herbalist (20+6 < 30). However, person 1 can of course make that living (20+6 > 10) hence person 1 earns 13 gp per week.
I think you're forgetting the DC check that the DM places for earning that keep
Wrong williamhm75. The description on the profession skill in 3.5 states that you can practice your trade and make a decent living earning about half your profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. In earlier sentences, profes
willam, change it to "4E is a huge improvement over 3.5 in every single ways possible to me.", which would be better. Even though I agree with you 100%, others will not and we should always speak for us not commonly for others.
You know otherwise e'll jsut get drawn into another tirade...
willam, change it to "4E is a huge improvement over 3.5 in every single ways possible to me.", which would be better. Even though I agree with you 100%, others will not and we should always speak for us not commonly for others.You know otherwise e'll
For me 3/3.5 definitely took too much prep time. Far too much.
Prep time for me with 3e. Two days.
Prep time with 4e. Four hours.
That's for an entire dungeon, or an entire non combat encounter scene.
Anytime a system needs you to change the rules and how they function all together (looking at 3e especially) equals a system failure.
Period.
I shouldn't have to sit there and either strike so called options out of existence (any craft or profession) because they gimp characters far too much, or anytime I feel I have to find a use for something totally worthless like craft and profession on a scale where they have to be equal to say, perception, stealth or social encounter skills there's an epic fail going on.
3e was full of that kind of crap.
And that's why kids 3e had to die.
Prep time for me with 3e. Two days.Prep time with 4e. Four hours.That's for an entire dungeon, or an entire non combat encounter scene.Anytime a system needs you to change the rules and how they function all together (looking at 3e especially) equals
I think you're forgetting the DC check that the DM places for earning that keep
The DC plays less into it as you think. By the rules as written you earn about half the check, not half the amount you beat the DC, which means if you roll a 30 in house-keeping you get as much as if you had a 30 in goldsmith.
The DC plays less into it as you think. By the rules as written you earn about half the check, not half the amount you beat the DC, which means if you roll a 30 in house-keeping you get as much as if you had a 30 in goldsmith.
It helps when the rules at least follow comon sense. And I have seen far too many games where the DM was not halfway decent. I used to really like 3.5 then I ran into a couple of dms who ran the game by exactly how the rules were written, so no not all dms will follow comon sense.
williamhm75, maxperson and kursk is right here.
From your postings, you don't know much of the rules of 3.5.
Your case started with skill affecting rp and shelling the character affecting gameplay cos of 3.5 game system but read my short story in earlier post...is this character single dimensional?
I play DDM and whenever there's a rule dispute (due to new set releases), the letter of the words always win over common sense and these people are normally representatives of WoTC. Let me tell you, I believe in general all DMs out there follow common sense and have more common sense than the rules as it only provide a guidance to play. Even the 4th Ed DMG mentions the same thing (so what's the diff?) that common sense and fun should prevail against rules.
3.5 don't stiffle RP.
williamhm75, maxperson and kursk is right here. From your postings, you don't know much of the rules of 3.5. Your case started with skill affecting rp and shelling the character affecting gameplay cos of 3.5 game system but read my short story in ear
The DC plays less into it as you think. By the rules as written you earn about half the check, not half the amount you beat the DC, which means if you roll a 30 in house-keeping you get as much as if you had a 30 in goldsmith.
I don't dispute that but if you fail?
Eg.
housekeeping - DC 10 - roll 30 - keep 15 gp (about so the DM can arbitrage) goldsmithing - DC 40 - roll 30 - keep none as you failed.
Get it?
Age must be catching up with me...hit submit before completing. Last one before i sleep.
Anyway, assuming you rolled 30 for housekeeping and succeeded, then you're suppose to get 30 gp for doing housekeeping but then the DM who is roleplaying the mansion owner will cripe at your price and flatly refuse to pay you...cos you're just an overexpensive and over-qualified housekeeper!! :D
Goodnight everyone.
PS: I guess both Kursk and Maxperson either are experienced players or experienced DMs. Listen to them.
I don't dispute that but if you fail? :)Eg.housekeeping - DC 10 - roll 30 - keep 15 gp (about so the DM can arbitrage)goldsmithing - DC 40 - roll 30 - keep none as you failed.Get it?Age must be catching up with me...hit submit before completing. Last
housekeeping - DC 10 - roll 30 - keep 15 gp (about so the DM can arbitrage) goldsmithing - DC 40 - roll 30 - keep none as you failed.
Get it?
Except now you're dictating that housekeeping earns -more- than -skilled labor- which a goldsmith that's worth calling a goldsmith in the first place isn't going to be effing up his goods even five percent of the time.
I can actually quote this from the phb.
Skill ranks do not necessarily mean ability. Skill ranks are for 'heroic tasks' Says that right in the beginning of the old game's skills. Aka why were those skills even in the game to start with.
Except now you're dictating that housekeeping earns -more- than -skilled labor- which a goldsmith that's worth calling a goldsmith in the first place isn't going to be effing up his goods even five percent of the time.I can actually quote this from t
Wrong williamhm75. The description on the profession skill in 3.5 states that you can practice your trade and make a decent living earning about half your profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work. In earlier sentences, profession is actually a number of separate skills and should be segregated based on that.
Hence, you can have a profession in sailor and as a herbalist and both will earn different amount even if both characters of each skill have the same skill points.
Eg. A person with profession in cleaning has 6 skill points and another person with profession in herbal lore has also 6 skill points. To clean a house well, the DM set DC check is 10 (eg only) whereas to be a good herbalist for specialized ailments, the DM set DC check as 30. So, no matter what person 2 try, he cannot make a decent living as a herbalist (20+6 < 30). However, person 1 can of course make that living (20+6 > 10) hence person 1 earns 13 gp per week.
I think you're forgetting the DC check that the DM places for earning that keep
A DC is only used for specialized task (last sentence of the check section in the profession skill). Otherwise, profession checks to make money are open rolls... there is no DC, and the money you make is solely based on the roll plus any modifiers.
Besides, it wouldn't make sense the other way... if you have to meet a DC, how the hell would people start off in jobs? They don't start with skill in a profession, they start at the bottom... which isn't possible if you have to meet a specific DC every check to make a weekly wage.
A DC is only used for specialized task (last sentence of the check section in the profession skill). Otherwise, profession checks to make money are open rolls... there is no DC, and the money you make is solely based on the roll plus any modifiers.Be
Ergo Rich Idiot McGoldsmith makes as much money as Filthy McHousekeep. Both roll a 20, both make the same money. Which makes the profession skill a headshot for the claimed realism of the 3.5 Skill System.
Ergo Rich Idiot McGoldsmith makes as much money as Filthy McHousekeep. Both roll a 20, both make the same money. Which makes the profession skill a headshot for the claimed realism of the 3.5 Skill System.
Ergo Rich Idiot McGoldsmith makes as much money as Filthy McHousekeep. Both roll a 20, both make the same money. Which makes the profession skill a headshot for the claimed realism of the 3.5 Skill System.
I was thinking more of a suicide bomber for the so vaunted realism of 3.5 skills.
I was thinking more of a suicide bomber for the so vaunted realism of 3.5 skills.
Except now you're dictating that housekeeping earns -more- than -skilled labor- which a goldsmith that's worth calling a goldsmith in the first place isn't going to be effing up his goods even five percent of the time.
I can actually quote this from the phb.
Skill ranks do not necessarily mean ability. Skill ranks are for 'heroic tasks' Says that right in the beginning of the old game's skills. Aka why were those skills even in the game to start with.
Cpt_Micha, i didn't finish my post earlier...read back and understand.
Eg. I can charge you US$200 for answering a single question on PHB as I'm a sanctified DM. (to answer your question, the DC is most likely 15 but my skill rank is already 12, -2 as I'm sleepy, I have to roll a 5 or more on a d20 to succeed) Will you pay me?
If not, then you have your answer. Who will pay 15 gp for a housekeeping service unless that person is the king/emperor and you're very famous housekeeper? A normal merchant will not be able to afford it.
Remember that in a game, a skill check cannot be taken unless the DM says so.
Player: "I want to take a sense motive!" DM: "Nope" Player: "I have skill 10 on sense motive....ha! I roll a 20 and that makes 30. Sure ok!!" DM: "Nope" Player [aghast]: "WHY!!??!" DM: "Duh! He is already dead!"
Cpt_Micha, i didn't finish my post earlier...read back and understand.Eg. I can charge you US$200 for answering a single question on PHB as I'm a sanctified DM. (to answer your question, the DC is most likely 15 but my skill rank is already 12, -2 as
Cpt_Micha, i didn't finish my post earlier...read back and understand.
Eg. I can charge you US$200 for answering a single question on PHB as I'm a sanctified DM. (to answer your question, the DC is most likely 15 but my skill rank is already 12, -2 as I'm sleepy, I have to roll a 5 or more on a d20 to succeed) Will you pay me?
If not, then you have your answer. Who will pay 15 gp for a housekeeping service unless that person is the king/emperor and you're very famous housekeeper? A normal merchant will not be able to afford it.
Remember that in a game, a skill check cannot be taken unless the DM says so.
Player: "I want to take a sense motive!" DM: "Nope" Player: "I have skill 10 on sense motive....ha! I roll a 20 and that makes 30. Sure ok!!" DM: "Nope" Player [aghast]: "WHY!!??!" DM: "Duh! He is already dead!"
Easy one. Cleaning of multiple houses. All profession is, is what you earn in a day's work. Same with Perform.
Easy one. Cleaning of multiple houses. All profession is, is what you earn in a day's work. Same with Perform.
A DC is only used for specialized task (last sentence of the check section in the profession skill). Otherwise, profession checks to make money are open rolls... there is no DC, and the money you make is solely based on the roll plus any modifiers.
Besides, it wouldn't make sense the other way... if you have to meet a DC, how the hell would people start off in jobs? They don't start with skill in a profession, they start at the bottom... which isn't possible if you have to meet a specific DC every check to make a weekly wage.
Then you have to read the entire section. If you failed, you don't get paid. Moreover, unskilled is 1 silver piece.
Like I said, the rule isn't foolproof and yet in its simplified form, people are already complaining that 3.5 is over laden with rules!
To Leichenreiter, how can your McHousekeep make that money (she's very skilled definitely) when no one wants to hire her?? hahaha...sad.
And to mr capt, its a week for profession skill and now you're adding multiple houses...did you read the PHB? sad again.
Then you have to read the entire section. If you failed, you don't get paid. Moreover, unskilled is 1 silver piece.Like I said, the rule isn't foolproof and yet in its simplified form, people are already complaining that 3.5 is over laden with rules!
Then you have to read the entire section. If you failed, you don't get paid. Moreover, unskilled is 1 silver piece.
Like I said, the rule isn't foolproof and yet in its simplified form, people are already complaining that 3.5 is over laden with rules!
To Leichenreiter, how can your McHousekeep make that money (she's very skilled definitely) when no one wants to hire her?? hahaha...sad.
And to mr capt, its a week for profession skill and now you're adding multiple houses...did you read the PHB? sad again.
I don't think -you- have read the phb very well. Go read the beginning of the skill section where it talks about skills being there for things beyond the mundane and tell me why mundane -crap- is even present to start with. Their existence within their own handbook is hypocrisy at it's finest.
Nor does it say how many houses you clean how many times you perform etc.
I don't think -you- have read the phb very well. Go read the beginning of the skill section where it talks about skills being there for things beyond the mundane and tell me why mundane -crap- is even present to start with. Their existence within the
Then you have to read the entire section. If you failed, you don't get paid. Moreover, unskilled is 1 silver piece.
Like I said, the rule isn't foolproof and yet in its simplified form, people are already complaining that 3.5 is over laden with rules!
To Leichenreiter, how can your McHousekeep make that money (she's very skilled definitely) when no one wants to hire her?? hahaha...sad.
And to mr capt, its a week for profession skill and now you're adding multiple houses...did you read the PHB? sad again.
All proffession says is that its what you make per week doing the task, says nothing about how many houses you garden in that week, or how many houses you clean.
All proffession says is that its what you make per week doing the task, says nothing about how many houses you garden in that week, or how many houses you clean.
williamhm75 - Which is not wrong...i didn't bring in the houses...or multiple houses...somebody else wanted to start something and didn't know well enough to finish it
Skill checks can only be made when the DM permits in situation (DMG).
If that incredible housekeeper professional (and who says housekeeping is not a specialized skill?) wants to clean houses and rolls 20 + 6 in her skill rank equating 26 and can charge 13 gp.
However, she's in icewind dale and no one wants to hire her (according to the DM). So she travels to Waterdeep and the DM also said that others are only charging for 2 gp per week of dedicated work. She gets no work again.
Anyway, I believe those people get the point except that their pride refuses to see it.
The point is: 3.5 rule system doesn't hinder RP as fleshing a character doesn't mean sacrificing on your crucial skill checks required for adventure or combat (see my example earlier).
4th gears toward more power play (feat gives 2[W] and push enemy 1 square and such) and this deviates from what people know about the old school of D&D - that's one of the reasons why there're people disliking it.
I'm out of here. Those other people can go on doing what they want...it speaks much of themselves.
williamhm75 - Which is not wrong...i didn't bring in the houses...or multiple houses...somebody else wanted to start something and didn't know well enough to finish it :)Skill checks can only be made when the DM permits in situation (DMG).If that inc
williamhm75 - Which is not wrong...i didn't bring in the houses...or multiple houses...somebody else wanted to start something and didn't know well enough to finish it
Skill checks can only be made when the DM permits in situation (DMG).
If that incredible housekeeper professional (and who says housekeeping is not a specialized skill?) wants to clean houses and rolls 20 + 6 in her skill rank equating 26 and can charge 13 gp.
However, she's in icewind dale and no one wants to hire her (according to the DM). So she travels to Waterdeep and the DM also said that others are only charging for 2 gp per week of dedicated work. She gets no work again.
Anyway, I believe those people get the point except that their pride refuses to see it.
The point is: 3.5 rule system doesn't hinder RP as fleshing a character doesn't mean sacrificing on your crucial skill checks required for adventure or combat (see my example earlier).
4th gears toward more power play (feat gives 2[W] and push enemy 1 square and such) and this deviates from what people know about the old school of D&D - that's one of the reasons why there're people disliking it.
I'm out of here. Those other people can go on doing what they want...it speaks much of themselves.
What feat gives that first off. There's no "Deviation from old school rping " here other than "We decided we effing hate roll play. And we bet you do too" Guess what, that's what it is. Roll Play. And yes yes I did hate it.
Actually 3.5 -does- hinder rp by placing a mechanical restriction upon character background by making random artificial rules in a vain attempt to quantify what a character is through numeric representation rather than actual character development. It -does- hinder it by more or less forcing you (RAW) to take up ranks that could have gone to more relevant and much more needed skills just so you can say "My character was a house keeper, or a blacksmith" Ranks with for most classes were too few to spend those points on in nonsensical skills to start with. All the while the actually important skills get sacrificed along the way. (And every point counted with the old system on the important skills) So yes you are screwing yourself for taking up ranks in craft, profession or even perform.
Rules don't help roleplaying but they can hurt them and the old system certainly does this.
You're relying on DM fiat and making a skill even more useless than it was to start with for a character to not be able to use their skill at a proper time in the first place.
You act like there aren't any form of non combat options in the game at all.
What feat gives that first off. There's no "Deviation from old school rping " here other than "We decided we effing hate roll play. And we bet you do too" Guess what, that's what it is. Roll Play. And yes yes I did hate it. Actually 3.5 -does- hinder
4th gears toward more power play (feat gives 2[W] and push enemy 1 square and such) and this deviates from what people know about the old school of D&D - that's one of the reasons why there're people disliking it.
If you are still around:
How is 2[W] + push more PowerGaming than "Do your Full-Attack with 4 attack rolls" ? Heck that is just pulling statements out of nowhere.
Also how does 4E deviate from "old school of D&D" ?
(Old School D&D was a Miniatures game more than an RPG btw, see Chainmail)
If you are still around:How is 2[W] + push more PowerGaming than "Do your Full-Attack with 4 attack rolls" ? Heck that is just pulling statements out of nowhere.Also how does 4E deviate from "old school of D&D" ?(Old School D&D was a Miniatures game
Then you have to read the entire section. If you failed, you don't get paid. Moreover, unskilled is 1 silver piece.
Like I said, the rule isn't foolproof and yet in its simplified form, people are already complaining that 3.5 is over laden with rules!
To Leichenreiter, how can your McHousekeep make that money (she's very skilled definitely) when no one wants to hire her?? hahaha...sad.
And to mr capt, its a week for profession skill and now you're adding multiple houses...did you read the PHB? sad again.
I did read the entire section, and the only reference I could find to the possibility of failure was this:
"Try Again: Varies. An attempt to use a Profession skill to earn an income cannot be retried. You are stuck with whatever weekly wage your check result brought you. Another check may be made after a week to determine a new income for the next period of time. An attempt to accomplish some specific task can ususally be retried." I bolded a part because it seems to hint that your roll always grants you a weekly wage.
My query is why these sorts of mechanics are necessary to the game. If the player wants to have a weekend job doing something, couldn't he talk with the DM about what his wages might be in this job, and why he continues to do it? Does there really have to be some sort of roll to determine these things?
I did read the entire section, and the only reference I could find to the possibility of failure was this:"Try Again: Varies. An attempt to use a Profession skill to earn an income cannot be retried. You are stuck with whatever weekly wage your check
It helps when the rules at least follow comon sense.
This is true, but 4ed fails here far more than 3ed did. 4ed sacrifices common sense for speed and ease.
And I have seen far too many games where the DM was not halfway decent. I used to really like 3.5 then I ran into a couple of dms who ran the game by exactly how the rules were written, so no not all dms will follow comon sense.
That's when you find a new DM.
This is true, but 4ed fails here far more than 3ed did. 4ed sacrifices common sense for speed and ease.That's when you find a new DM.
See thats the problem 3.5 has way too many rules and rule subsets, and how do you make the game fun for everyone in 3.5 with properly balanced encounters. Also Ill never dm it because I refuse to even play it anymore. 4E is a huge improvement over 3.5 in every single way possible.
It really wasn't hard if you knew the system, and DMs SHOULD know the system. 3ed's big failure was as you noted, balance. However, while 4ed might be improved on the balance front, it is NOT anywhere close to being improved on the common sense front. So it is not a huge improvement over 3ed in every way.
It really wasn't hard if you knew the system, and DMs SHOULD know the system. 3ed's big failure was as you noted, balance. However, while 4ed might be improved on the balance front, it is NOT anywhere close to being improved on the common sense fro
It really wasn't hard if you knew the system, and DMs SHOULD know the system. 3ed's big failure was as you noted, balance. However, while 4ed might be improved on the balance front, it is NOT anywhere close to being improved on the common sense front. So it is not a huge improvement over 3ed in every way.
Redundant wording, and redundant rules actually were it's biggest failing.
Old Grapple.
Redundant wording, and redundant rules actually were it's biggest failing. Old Grapple.
A person with profession in cleaning has 6 skill points and another person with profession in herbal lore has also 6 skill points. To clean a house well, the DM set DC check is 10 (eg only) whereas to be a good herbalist for specialized ailments, the DM set DC check as 30. So, no matter what person 2 try, he cannot make a decent living as a herbalist (20+6 < 30). However, person 1 can of course make that living (20+6 > 10) hence person 1 earns 13 gp per week.
The problem with this is that no cleaner should be earning 13gp a week. A good cleaner, working for a Lord, might make 1g a week. That's where DM discretion is really needed.
The problem with this is that no cleaner should be earning 13gp a week. A good cleaner, working for a Lord, might make 1g a week. That's where DM discretion is really needed.
Anytime a system needs you to change the rules and how they function all together (looking at 3e especially) equals a system failure.
4ed fails on this front as well. It may be simpler, but in order for it to make sense, I NEED to change the rules and how they function together. All 4ed changes over 3ed in this regard, is WHY I need to change the rules.
4ed fails on this front as well. It may be simpler, but in order for it to make sense, I NEED to change the rules and how they function together. All 4ed changes over 3ed in this regard, is WHY I need to change the rules.
4ed fails on this front as well. It may be simpler, but in order for it to make sense, I NEED to change the rules and how they function together. All 4ed changes over 3ed in this regard, is WHY I need to change the rules.
Then why do you constantly come here expecting them to go "Sorry here's your 3e back" Just leave already. It doesn't suit you. Gotcha. Everyone knows that. We don't need to be reminded of it. Time and time again.
Then why do you constantly come here expecting them to go "Sorry here's your 3e back" Just leave already. It doesn't suit you. Gotcha. Everyone knows that. We don't need to be reminded of it. Time and time again.
Hey that's aquatic not urban! Don't go changing things up on me now! :P
bah! Okay, suppose the urban setting had seasonal festivals. The autumn festival involved a massive burning man effigy. Someone's gotta weave the thing! Running an Inn is easier; it involves a business sense that would serve a person well in urban settings, as well as a general "people person" skill that would work in cities and dungeons.
bah! ;) Okay, suppose the urban setting had seasonal festivals. The autumn festival involved a massive burning man effigy. Someone's gotta weave the thing! Running an Inn is easier; it involves a business sense that would serve a person well in urb
The problem with this is that no cleaner should be earning 13gp a week. A good cleaner, working for a Lord, might make 1g a week. That's where DM discretion is really needed.
And how much would a gardener make? Or a minstrel? Or a brickmaker? Or a builder? Or a butler? Or a goldsmith? Or a mine worker? Or a weaponsmith?
Essentially the rule as it is written in the PHB is a headshot for itself. You simply cannot make Profession into a skill and say "yeah well anybody earns half his check in gp - done"
And how much would a gardener make? Or a minstrel? Or a brickmaker? Or a builder? Or a butler? Or a goldsmith? Or a mine worker? Or a weaponsmith?Essentially the rule as it is written in the PHB is a headshot for itself. You simply cannot make Profes
My query is why these sorts of mechanics are necessary to the game. If the player wants to have a weekend job doing something, couldn't he talk with the DM about what his wages might be in this job, and why he continues to do it? Does there really have to be some sort of roll to determine these things?
It's mix, Decivre. In MOST circumstances, I would not require a roll for a PC who wanted to make some coin cleaning houses. There would be no DC involved, and they would make what the house(or whatever) owner decided, influenced POSSIBLY by roleplay and/or a die roll. That said, if the person they got a job with had a very large or complex place AND was a stickler for "not a spec of dust" or other such perfection, a roll would likely be required with a DC to see if the room was cleaned to the level needed.
It's mix, Decivre. In MOST circumstances, I would not require a roll for a PC who wanted to make some coin cleaning houses. There would be no DC involved, and they would make what the house(or whatever) owner decided, influenced POSSIBLY by rolepla
bah! Okay, suppose the urban setting had seasonal festivals. The autumn festival involved a massive burning man effigy. Someone's gotta weave the thing! Running an Inn is easier; it involves a business sense that would serve a person well in urban settings, as well as a general "people person" skill that would work in cities and dungeons.
Haha, it works, it works.
However, the emphasized part, I want to make a quick comment about.
It is my opinion that "mundane/non-combat/social/etc" skills (such as Craft or Perform) should not be allowed to bypass existing skills or mechanics. For example, Profession: Innkeeper should not allow one to bypass the existing Diplomacy skill. If a DM insists on injecting these types of skills into the game, they need to define them in such a way that they don't obsolete or walk-over existing skills. (That said, instead of adding skills I advocate a form of the old "Non-Weapon Proficiencies" which would simply allow appropriate ability-score checks, perhaps with a bonus to said checks, or even to other, associated, skills.)
Haha, it works, it works.However, the emphasized part, I want to make a quick comment about.It is my opinion that "mundane/non-combat/social/etc" skills (such as Craft or Perform) should not be allowed to bypass existing skills or mechanics. For exa
Hit points, healing surges, skills, powers(daily, encounter, etc.), magic item use limitations, probably more, but that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Hit points, healing surges, skills, powers(daily, encounter, etc.), magic item use limitations, probably more, but that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Then why do you constantly come here expecting them to go "Sorry here's your 3e back" Just leave already. It doesn't suit you. Gotcha. Everyone knows that. We don't need to be reminded of it. Time and time again.
I don't, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. Nor do I care.
I don't, but I wouldn't expect you to know that. Nor do I care.
And how much would a gardener make? Or a minstrel? Or a brickmaker? Or a builder? Or a butler? Or a goldsmith? Or a mine worker? Or a weaponsmith?
Essentially the rule as it is written in the PHB is a headshot for itself. You simply cannot make Profession into a skill and say "yeah well anybody earns half his check in gp - done"
Yes. I know. It was written badly, but that doesn't make the skill itself bad.
Yes. I know. It was written badly, but that doesn't make the skill itself bad.
Hit points, healing surges, skills, powers(daily, encounter, etc.), magic item use limitations, probably more, but that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
You do realize hp was never "how many sword whacks to the face" you take right? Powers same thing as hp, it's narrative control and mechanical balance. At no point are they "special moves you can only do once per day" save for perhaps the true casters.
You do realize hp was never "how many sword whacks to the face" you take right? Powers same thing as hp, it's narrative control and mechanical balance. At no point are they "special moves you can only do once per day" save for perhaps the true caster
Essentially you need no rules for Profession. You should def. not spend some skillpoints on it.
It should be as easy as checking with your DM
"Joe, you know I gave you my backstory - you remember my character being a cook before his town was slaughtered?" "Oh yes, thanks for reminding, take a +2 to the Int check."
Essentially you need no rules for Profession. You should def. not spend some skillpoints on it.It should be as easy as checking with your DM"Joe, you know I gave you my backstory - you remember my character being a cook before his town was slaughtere
You do realize hp was never "how many sword whacks to the face" you take right?
Yep, but 4ed takes it the "I take zero damage at all until I go negative, and then suddenly I'm dying.", even if that last hit was caused by a poodle bite to the big toe. Hit points are necessarily not all physical damage, but 4ed takes that to a ludicrious extreme.
Powers same thing as hp, it's narrative control and mechanical balance. At no point are they "special moves you can only do once per day"
Yes, yes they are. There is zero reason why someone who can shoot two arrows at once, couldn't do it multiple times. Same with tripping and what have you. Calling it "narrative" or "cinimatic" is just a weak justification for something that makes no sense.
Yep, but 4ed takes it the "I take zero damage at all until I go negative, and then suddenly I'm dying.", even if that last hit was caused by a poodle bite to the big toe. Hit points are necessarily not all physical damage, but 4ed takes that to a lu
Essentially you need no rules for Profession. You should def. not spend some skillpoints on it.
It should be as easy as checking with your DM
"Joe, you know I gave you my backstory - you remember my character being a cook before his town was slaughtered?" "Oh yes, thanks for reminding, take a +2 to the Int check."
Profession is definately weaker than crafts. At least crafts can be used proactively a lot more by the players.
Profession is definately weaker than crafts. At least crafts can be used proactively a lot more by the players.
Yes, yes they are. There is zero reason why someone who can shoot two arrows at once, couldn't do it multiple times. Same with tripping and what have you. Calling it "narrative" or "cinimatic" is just a weak justification for something that makes no sense.
Yep, but 4ed takes it the "I take zero damage at all until I go negative, and then suddenly I'm dying.", even if that last hit was caused by a poodle bite to the big toe. Hit points are necessarily not all physical damage, but 4ed takes that to a ludicrious extreme.
Yes, yes they are. There is zero reason why someone who can shoot two arrows at once, couldn't do it multiple times. Same with tripping and what have you. Calling it "narrative" or "cinimatic" is just a weak justification for something that makes no sense.
Realism is not something you should ever apply to D&D in the first place. Also bloodied means somewhere on you there's been blood drawn which leads the impression you are steadily becoming more and more damaged as the hp dwindles. Anytime your at - hps you've been -badly- damaged and there's quite a large amount of lee way there from -1 to -60 for example. I don't see any "ludicrous extreme"
I'm assuming you mean Split the Tree here, so I'll use it for my example. I call it "I kill two birds with one arrow" not "I fire two shots at once" It's not weak at all, it's called effing heroic. Maybe the timing doesn't quite work out to do something multiple times in an encounter, maybe each time a per encounter, or daily kicks off is that one unique moment the precise circumstance that enables the purely impossible or fantasical to become possible. The reason the player's get to pick that moment is because otherwise it's kind of lame to have it occur at a random time once every six hours. Combat is chaotic and very fluid. It's the difference between a martial artist who in theory can kill a man in one move versus the likely hood of him actually getting to pull it off in a real fight against real combatants.
The only lacking of making sense is you and your unreasoning nature. I don't see any issue with making sense.
Realism is not something you should ever apply to D&D in the first place. Also bloodied means somewhere on you there's been blood drawn which leads the impression you are steadily becoming more and more damaged as the hp dwindles. Anytime your at - h
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The Community Management team has been alerted to take a look at it and determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in it’s place.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The Community Management team has been alerted to take a look at it and determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in it’s place.
Then, after your DMs create the problem, you come here and whine about how bad the skill system in 3ed was. Get real.
Okay, suppose the urban setting had seasonal festivals. The autumn festival involved a massive burning man effigy. Someone's gotta weave the thing! Running an Inn is easier; it involves a business sense that would serve a person well in urban settings, as well as a general "people person" skill that would work in cities and dungeons.
