Well, to be honest, I'm not coming at it from a DM's perspective. I'm more wondering how, as a player, I would create a character who was a Master at her craft (the capitalized sense is Morgensternian -- meant to evoke the Wizardry of Inigo Montoya).
One who wishes to create a character thoroughly mastered at swordplay and proficient in the use of swords in virtually every situation can do so under the rules as written. One who wishes to do the same for an acrobat can as well. Or a diplomat. But one who wishes to do the same for an artisan or artist cannot.
What makes a great artist isn't just the work, it is how the work affects his audience. For example, when painting the Last Supper, Michaelangelo probably did some research into the event. If he painted the scene with 27 disciples, 3 Christs (two fat ones to balance out the skinny one in the middle), a kangaroo and a mariachi band, he probably would have never worked in Rome again. It wouldn't have mattered how perfect the painting was from a technical standpoint. In D&D terms, Michaelangelo has a background which details about how he is a master painter. In order to paint the Last Supper, he rolls Religion, and gets a bonus to the roll, determined by the DM, to reflect the fact that he is a master painter.
This strikes me as an odd assymetry. You have all mentioned good workarounds, but I don't understand why an athlete or a thief is treated so much differently from a musician or a dancer in fourth edition. Athletics and Thievery can be put to multiple purposes, too, but there is still a way to measure characters' training in those skills.
Or, take it from the other side: how is it that a character that wishes to be an outstanding tightrope walker must spend feats and skills on Acrobatics, while a character that wishes to be an outstanding woodworker need only have that information in his background and can spend his feats and skills on other things?
How good a character is at woodworking or dancing is not something that could conceivably come up every sesssion, unlike Acrobatics or Thievery. If a character's limited resources had be spent on these things when they will, at best, come up once every ten sessions or so, isn't the character sacrificing his effectiveness for something that has little bearing on the game. This is the flaw inherent in a detailed skill system where resources must be spent in order to advance in the skills. When you take a skill in order to develop your character and give them depth, there is a skill that you would use far more often that is being neglected. You have fallen into the trap that creates a wide gap between min/maxers and roleplayers. For example, if I have a character who likes to play the flute in a detailed skill system, some other skill needs to suffer in order to reflect my skill with the flute, some other skill which will likely come up and require a roll far more often in game.
I have only seen one detailed skill system that I think works without sacrificing a character's effectiveness in other areas (Runequest, 2E, IIRC). In this system, every time you successfully used a skill, there was a small chance (1%? 5%? sliding scale dependant on current skill level? It was almost two decasdes ago, and I wasn't the GM) that the skill would increase. As long as you were using the skill, you could develop the skill without taking away from your other advancement in any other area.
All this being said, apparently the next PHB, coming in September 2011, will have details on professions and how to work them into the game. What form these professions will take is, as yet, unknown.
While it may take many years of practice to become a good painter, it won't do much against a beholder (unless you flavor your powers as paintings come to life or something), cause, well, beauty is in the eye of the... umm.. viewer.
Well, there are other non-combat skills. Diplomacy, for instance. Or Streetwise. They don't do much against a beholder, either.
For example, if I have a character who likes to play the flute in a detailed skill system, some other skill needs to suffer in order to reflect my skill with the flute, some other skill which will likely come up and require a roll far more often in game.
I guess I don't see that as a problem, unless it's really something that would never ever actually be used.
It seems 4e has made it very hard to design a character that's really good at something unless that something has some built-in mechanical function. That's a shame.
4E has made it harder to RESTRICT character abilities-not harder to grant character abilities. When it comes to combat mechanics, the game is permissive-anything the game doesn't say you can't do, you can't do. But the general rules for character play aren't restrictive. There's not rules for how many puzzles your character is allowed to solve by virtue of your intelligence-there's rules for making knowledge checks, or diplomacy checks.
Not everything that your character can do needs to be measurable in the game system. That doesn't mean you can't build a character with those traits-just that those traits will not have any mechanical impact on the game.
Of course, if your DM says "There's no painting skill, so no-you cannot spend 5 days to paint a picture of any value" well, then, he's just being kind of a dick.
Note though that, no matter how you get it, XP and Character Wealth should be connected to eachother. If your character does something that acquires wealth, he should probably have had to gone through some kind of skill challenge (or more likely, ability score based challenge) that awards XP.
Well, there are other non-combat skills. Diplomacy, for instance. Or Streetwise. They don't do much against a beholder, either.
But they do against other enemies. Streetwise lets you know stuff about gangs and manipulate black markets and whatnot, which can have mechanical effects. Diplomacy can turn a fight into "not a fight," which is about as good as killing them all.
It seems 4e has made it very hard to design a character that's really good at something unless that something has some built-in mechanical function. That's a shame.
Actually, they made it really easy, since all you have to do is say, "I'm really good at this" and then you are.
How good a character is at woodworking or dancing is not something that could conceivably come up every sesssion, unlike Acrobatics or Thievery.
It could, and arguably should, if you are a Bard or (going back to 3rd-E) a Sworddancer.
And how often did that Sworddancer actually use Perform: Dance? Did your ranks in the Perform: Dance skill replace your BAB? It came up exactly as often as your DM allowed you to use Perform: Dance to influence NPC actions, just like everyone else who took Perform: Dance.
And if your DM allowed you to use Profession: Carpenter every session, either you were really reaching, or he was, and no one commented on how ridiculous that was.
For example, if I have a character who likes to play the flute in a detailed skill system, some other skill needs to suffer in order to reflect my skill with the flute, some other skill which will likely come up and require a roll far more often in game.
I guess I don't see that as a problem, unless it's really something that would never ever actually be used.
It seems 4e has made it very hard to design a character that's really good at something unless that something has some built-in mechanical function. That's a shame.
Powers &8^]
I beg to differ. In 4E, it is ridiculously easy to make a character a character that is really good at something that doesn't have a built in mechanical function. All you need to do is sit down with your DM and talk to him about your character. Have whatever it is be a roleplaying hook. When you describe your character's actions during downtime, talk about the art he is working on, or the tavern you told stories in last night. In this way, your DM knows your character is keeping up with his mundane skills, and when the time comes when that mundance skill becomes relevant, he can give you an appropriate bonus to whatever roll he has you make.
If it turns out that your skill as a carpenter never becomes relevant except as roleplaying hook that the character does during downtime, you haven't lost anything.
The complaint you're having is "versimillitude" which is what a lot of people who prefer 3E complain about. It's not something that's going to change though-I recommend using Pathfinder if it's really that bothersome to you to have certain elements of the campaign world simply not be covered by hard and fast rules.
You seem to be stuck in a simulationist mindset... you should really either get rid of it or play a simulationist system, or you'll keep running into these issues. You are making this far harder then it needs to be.
Epic Dungeon Master
Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!
It seems 4e has made it very hard to design a character that's really good at something unless that something has some built-in mechanical function. That's a shame.
Actually, they made it really easy, since all you have to do is say, "I'm really good at this" and then you are.
This.
Though i agree with the others, if it's really bothering you, 4e might not be your system. It's called Dungeons and Dragons, and it's generally build around going into going into scary places to stop/kill scary things.
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
It seems 4e has made it very hard to design a character that's really good at something unless that something has some built-in mechanical function. That's a shame.
Actually, they made it really easy, since all you have to do is say, "I'm really good at this" and then you are.
This.
Though i agree with the others, if it's really bothering you, 4e might not be your system. It's called Dungeons and Dragons, and it's generally build around going into going into scary places to stop/kill scary things.
Most of you guys are really missing the point here. Creating a great work of art isn't a guaranteed success, it's a feat equivelant to critting an ancient dragon in combat =p I'd represent it as a series of difficult Dex + 1/2 character level and Cha + 1/2 character level skill checks as outlined on page 42 (unless your DM just decides to guarantee success, which I can understand the OP not liking). It makes no sense to say "I want to paint the Sistine Chapel" and the DM says, "Ok you did it, good job."
Like I said earlier though, this is no different than any other untrained skill check though. Homebrew a reason that you're trained in the skill and you're golden.
