PDA

View Full Version : Trade skills in 4e?



Christopher K.
2010-12-23, 08:52 PM
Has anybody ever come up with rules for creating items(magical OR mundane, but ignoring alchemy) for fourth edition? I know there's a background benefit for it and a martial practice, but those are only for armor and weapons.

KillianHawkeye
2010-12-23, 10:29 PM
PCs are supposed to be out adventuring. They are not meant to be at home weaving baskets.

DragonBaneDM
2010-12-23, 10:41 PM
Hm...

Well here's an idea. Why not forgo a bonus language to pick up training in such a skill? This would allow you to customize either a more university educated or home-taught PC. Who learns a secondary language when they're stuck at home working with the family business?

You could make it Wis oriented, and apply to one category, such as carpentry, blacksmithing, and yes, even basketweaving can make a comeback.

Nosferocktu
2010-12-23, 10:51 PM
The possibilities could be endless...

*DING* You've weaved a +1 Wicker Basket
"What does it do?"
You can put it on a bike!!!!

AAAAMAAAZIIING!!!

AtopTheMountain
2010-12-23, 10:56 PM
PCs are supposed to be out adventuring. They are not meant to be at home weaving baskets.

+1. If you want to have some sort of element like this in your background, roleplay it with your background. There's no reason to spend any mechanical resources on it.

There is a ritual to enchant items, though.

Cealocanth
2010-12-23, 11:15 PM
As far as I know, crafting works off of DM interpretation and background. If your character learned how to use a hammer by growing up as a blacksmith, it's just assumed that to make a mundane item in this area is knowledge you know and you can craft it if you have the right materials. If you grew up being the servant for a wizard, it's assumed you know how to cook, clean, and otherwise cater to someone well enough.

This is the system I'm aware of, but I have a feeling that there's one with some dice rolling involved.

Christopher K.
2010-12-23, 11:47 PM
What if it's not an actual set-in-stone thing that's in the character's background? For instance, at one point, my adventuring party was considering building a wall around a small village to protect it from an approaching horde of monsters. Or constructs, for that matter. Is there a ritual or something I'm missing for them?

Mando Knight
2010-12-24, 12:04 AM
For magic items, you have Enchant Magic Item. Level 5 Creation ritual, found in the Rituals section of the PHB1. Potions are available with the lower-level Brew Potion ritual in the same book.

Creating mundane not-martial items lies out of the purview of D&D 4E's rules. It's not Butchers & Bakeries, after all. If the players want to make a stone wall, let them. Estimate the labor time (a couple man-hours for each 5' section of wall sounds about right) and cost (if it's coming out of the PCs' budget. Depending on the wall, it could be a couple dozen gp to a hundred or more per 5' section), and skip over the rest.

A Construct would be different. It could be treated as a monster/NPC of a given level, then created using Enchant Magic Item as if it were an item a few levels higher than the Construct.

Dr.Gunsforhands
2010-12-24, 12:22 AM
You might get away with using nature or dungeoneering, since it's really all about using the terrain to your advantage and making a solid encampment. Some small chest-high walls for cover, a crow's nest on someone's roof, that sort of thing.

Even without any skill check, there are some things that you can just do if you explain well enough - you can make adobe bricks out of mud and straw, or maybe a really cheap wood-and-rope fence to slow down the baddies a bit.

Diplomacy can get villagers in on the action and help hurry things along, but usually, I would think that building an actual stone-and-mortar wall sans magic takes more time than an adventuring party is going to get.

Also, who said that adventurers shouldn't be tinkering while they're adventuring? What if you just want to play a cheeky MacGyver sort of character? What if your wagon or ship suddenly comes in dire need of repair, as they often do? What if you're all stripped of your clothes and possessions and dumped alone in the wilderness and not everyone is as comfortable with this as the Druid is?

Trade skills can come in useful sometimes, you just have to be creative. And if it's something that doesn't come in useful, well, there's always the option of just saying it's something your character does but not bothering to train a skill for it, AKA "Putting it in the character's background."

tcrudisi
2010-12-24, 12:39 AM
1.) Also, who said that adventurers shouldn't be tinkering while they're adventuring?

2.) What if you just want to play a cheeky MacGyver sort of character?

3.) What if your wagon or ship suddenly comes in dire need of repair, as they often do?

4.) What if you're all stripped of your clothes and possessions and dumped alone in the wilderness and not everyone is as comfortable with this as the Druid is?

1.) Wizards of the Coast did, basically. (OK, a more serious answer is that nobody did. They can still tinker. Why do you need a rules system in place for that? It's really unimportant to, well, everything, as it is just flavor.)

2.) Anyone capable of training in multiple skills (Bard, I'm especially looking at you) would do wonderfully.

3.) Sounds like a great skill challenge. I'd start with nature (to know how to fix it), perception (to search for the right materials) and athletics/acrobatics (to perform the actual repairs). In fact, that seems a lot smoother to me than requiring that the players have... oh, ship-building as a skill, especially since it's easy to replicate, as I just gave an example of.

4.) Endurance? Heck, that skill is underused in my circles, so I'm glad to see an example where it's perfect. Oh, sure, you can also use Perception/Nature to find/skin some animals for clothing. Actually, that could be an interesting small skill challenge as well, I suppose.

My point? It's easy to replicate under the current system. Even your McGyver character can be made.

Ozreth
2010-12-24, 03:10 AM
PCs are supposed to be out adventuring. They are not meant to be at home weaving baskets.

The crafting that comes with 4e is the ability to craft excuses for all of the things people miss from 3.5 : p

DragonBaneDM
2010-12-24, 05:10 AM
1.) Wizards of the Coast did, basically. (OK, a more serious answer is that nobody did. They can still tinker. Why do you need a rules system in place for that? It's really unimportant to, well, everything, as it is just flavor.)

2.) Anyone capable of training in multiple skills (Bard, I'm especially looking at you) would do wonderfully.

3.) Sounds like a great skill challenge. I'd start with nature (to know how to fix it), perception (to search for the right materials) and athletics/acrobatics (to perform the actual repairs). In fact, that seems a lot smoother to me than requiring that the players have... oh, ship-building as a skill, especially since it's easy to replicate, as I just gave an example of.

4.) Endurance? Heck, that skill is underused in my circles, so I'm glad to see an example where it's perfect. Oh, sure, you can also use Perception/Nature to find/skin some animals for clothing. Actually, that could be an interesting small skill challenge as well, I suppose.

My point? It's easy to replicate under the current system. Even your McGyver character can be made.

My mind has totally been changed.

Badgerish
2010-12-24, 05:18 AM
The answer to 'crafting in 4e' is similar to most things in 4e
Is it important?

NO: Either you can or you can't. DM fiat based on feasibility, doesn't matter too much in the end.

If a bunch of low-level adventurers have a month of downtime and:
the Fighter wants to work at the blacksmith
the Cleric wants to preach at and convert the locals
the Ranger wants to hunt and sell their catch
the Wizard wants to act as a sage or cast spells/rituals for profit

... then let them. They get enough money to cover their food and board, a pocket full of silver for buying more/better food/drink in the future and some extra benefit.

the Fighter could get a nonmagical weapon/armour (or magical one, paying the cost)
the Cleric could get a temporary ally and better reputation in the town
the Ranger could have discovered something hidden in the wilds
the Wizard could have earned a couple of favours or learned some local secrets

YES: skill challenge!

Work out what the PCs want to gain, what the consequences for failure are, what skills can be used for what and what non-skill options are there (rituals, throwing money at it, etc)

Grogmir
2010-12-24, 05:39 AM
As others have said - its either so small you should be just hand waving it along.

'You want to make a simple sword? - Okay 50gp for hiring the blacksmith and materials - you'll spend the whole day doing this.

Or Potential breaking it down into the component parts, using the current skills.

You want to make a new magically sword? - Then you need streetwise to find out the places of local magical materialls. Diplomacy, Bluff to get that material off the mean wizard, Endurance & Arcana as he works the sword over the day.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-24, 05:45 AM
1.) Wizards of the Coast did, basically. (OK, a more serious answer is that nobody did. They can still tinker. Why do you need a rules system in place for that? It's really unimportant to, well, everything, as it is just flavor.)
I disagree that tinkering is just flavor. I've had several campaigns where fixing things, performance, and even cooking have made an important impression on the plot.

"You can wing it using existing skills" is a cop out; the bottom line is that a character who wants to be mechanically better at crafting than other characters, can't. Incidentally it's also an oberoni fallacy.

For example, I disagree that nature, perception, and athletics have anything whatsoever to do with fixing a ship. You might as well have chosen religion, endurance, and dungeoneering; that's as arbitrary as your choice.

Of course, the solution is very simple, and this also answers the OP's question: simply add Craft (dex) and Perform (cha) to the skill list; then spend five minutes thinking of which classes get it as a class skill. Now all players who want it can take it; and all players who don't want it can ignore it. Off the top of my head, from the PHB1/2, rogues get both; bards and clerics get perform; and druids, fighters, rangers and wizards get craft.

FelixG
2010-12-24, 05:54 AM
A lot of RPGs offer the players chance to build their own items, you just picked up on one of 4e's failings.

The above option is the best, just add Crafting(stat) to the skill list, dont make them pick a specialty, if you have the skill you are just good at making things, if you roll craft, GM picks DC, you make the item for 1/3 cost like in 3.5

Grogmir
2010-12-24, 05:57 AM
Disagree on the Fallacy. you're not changing rules - you're using the rules imo

simply add Craft (dex) and Perform (cha) to the skill list; Thereby meaning you'll have less to spend elsewhere on more important stuff. Taking us back to 3.5 where if you want to fluff your character you ended up weaker in combat because of it.


the bottom line is that a character who wants to be mechanically better at crafting than other characters, can't.

You can be better at mechanically making magical objects - but little things like this should be covered in background traits - forexample one of my players wanted to be a well known chef, she gets a bonus to Diplomacy rules when she's had the time to make pie's. Do I make her roll to see how nice the pie actual is? Of course not, it just takes time, money and perhaps a streetwise check to find out the mayors favorite type for another +2.

Saph
2010-12-24, 06:00 AM
The way I dealt with this when I was DMing 4e was to let every character create one skill of their own at character creation, and pick an appropriate stat. It could be anything they liked, so long as it wasn't covered by one of the existing skills. I think the players picked things like Singing (Cha), Woodworking (Dex), and Cooking (Wis). It was then treated as a bonus trained skill which they got for free. It worked very well - much better than the extremes of "just ignore it, it's not important" or "make it into a skill challenge".

FelixG
2010-12-24, 06:00 AM
You can be better at mechanically making magical objects - but little things like this should be covered in background traits - forexample one of my players wanted to be a well known chef, she gets a bonus to Diplomacy rules when she's had the time to make pie's. Do I make her roll to see how nice the pie actual is? Of course not, it just takes time, money and perhaps a streetwise check to find out the mayors favorite type for another +2.

/falls over laughing

I love it!

I can just imagine a mayor saying "Well, I suppose I will go along, but only because you brought my favorite pie young lady!"

Reminds me of adam west! :smallbiggrin:

Grogmir
2010-12-24, 06:06 AM
Glad you like - it works well for us. TBH I think we are taking the same approach.

Saph has just expanded on the Background traits to be more customable, (giving free skills which is good).

As always with 4e - expand, rewrite, tear up, it really can handle it and is part of the fun (imo).

Saph
2010-12-24, 06:11 AM
Saph has just expanded on the Background traits to be more customable, (giving free skills which is good).

Well, the 4e Backgrounds I've seen have all along the lines of "get +1 to skill X" or "learn another language". This is more a matter of letting players make up their own skills, and getting one for free - that way they don't have to spend one of their limited skill slots to learn it.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-24, 06:30 AM
Thereby meaning you'll have less to spend elsewhere on more important stuff. Taking us back to 3.5 where if you want to fluff your character you ended up weaker in combat because of it.
You're absolutely not going to be weaker in combat by picking the "Perform" skill instead of "Religion". Game balance is not nearly as fragile as that.

But if it bothers you, give characters an extra skill. Heck, some classes (notably fighters) could really use one.

Grogmir
2010-12-24, 06:50 AM
Oh indeed, not going to effect it. I would rather give free 'background' bonuses rather than moving around current skill selection - though

I just mean't in a more general sense - 4e tried to move away from 'fluffy' stuff having to use 'character building' methods, which could have gone elsewhere.

tcrudisi
2010-12-24, 08:09 PM
"You can wing it using existing skills" is a cop out; the bottom line is that a character who wants to be mechanically better at crafting than other characters, can't. Incidentally it's also an oberoni fallacy.

For example, I disagree that nature, perception, and athletics have anything whatsoever to do with fixing a ship. You might as well have chosen religion, endurance, and dungeoneering; that's as arbitrary as your choice.

Really? I'd think that finding the materials necessary to fix the ship (perception) is kind of important. Knowing what materials will be needed, knowing how to properly handle the wood, and being able to prepare it for a life at sea (nature) is also very important. I'm very certain that some woods would hold up better than others, though I have no idea which ones those are. I have no idea how to properly cut each wood, to bend it, or what materials are needed to water-proof that wood. That's all nature. Finally, having the skills necessary to repair the rigging at the top (acrobatics/athletics) is extremely important.

Now, how can we use Religion, endurance, and dungeoneering? Let's come up with ways! Religion (combined with Bluff or Diplomacy if I'm telling the truth): I convince a local church that I'm a follower of their god and I'm on a critical top-secret mission. If they do not assist me in repairing my ship, really horrible side effect will occur, to the complete and total detriment of our church. (As a DM, I'd give this a +2 bonus on the next check. A bunch of untrained NPC priests aren't likely to be very good at this, but more hands are always helpful as go-fers.) Endurance? That one is easy. Ship-building is very tough work, endurance checks almost seem appropriate, especially if time is a factor (so breaks are not possible).

Sure, you could just add in new skills, but why bother when the current skills are adequate? Furthermore, I'm not arguing that the "rules can be changed" as is the oberoni fallacy, but that the rules don't have to be changed as they cover this situation just fine.

Gavinfoxx
2010-12-24, 08:17 PM
Well, basically, 4e basically SAYS that it is specifically tuned to rules for stuff Adventurers do While Adventuring. They didn't put craft skills in it, because they intended that the player can just say that "Hey, I know how to do blacksmithing", and that the DM is supposed to, you know, let them. 4e rules are for describing HEROES doing HEROIC stuff.

WitchSlayer
2010-12-24, 09:50 PM
The way I dealt with this when I was DMing 4e was to let every character create one skill of their own at character creation, and pick an appropriate stat. It could be anything they liked, so long as it wasn't covered by one of the existing skills. I think the players picked things like Singing (Cha), Woodworking (Dex), and Cooking (Wis). It was then treated as a bonus trained skill which they got for free. It worked very well - much better than the extremes of "just ignore it, it's not important" or "make it into a skill challenge".

Stolen for my Dark Sun game

erikun
2010-12-25, 12:44 AM
"You can wing it using existing skills" is a cop out; the bottom line is that a character who wants to be mechanically better at crafting than other characters, can't. Incidentally it's also an oberoni fallacy.
I disagree with this on principle. There is nothing stopping a character from using the skills they have to attempt to create whatever they want. Indeed, the idea that a generic "Craft (Weaponmaking)" skill can cover everything from swords to bows is just as rediculous.

You want to craft a sword? Then you'll want a quick Streetwise to buy the materials (or just buy them from the merchant square), a History check if you're not familiar with swordcraft to look up how, some Athletics checks for hammering out the sword and Endurance checks for withstanding the furnace. The previous Streetwise check can also determine what quality materials you can locate to make it. Crafting a bow instead? Then you'll want Nature, both for locating good wood and treating it properly. Acrobatics (poorly named in this case) would include manual dexterity for shaping the bow with a knife, and Thievery (also poorly named) would represent fine work and details. You'd also need Handle Animal, or a short hunt with Perception and some attack rolls, to get the string needed for the bow.


And to be fair, 3.e D&D was hardly immune to this problem itself. Suppose your character wanted to make a catapult, or just a general "transport this large mass to that location without concern for its safety" contraption. They would need Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering) to determine how it should be build, and Craft (Siege Weaponry) or something similar to actually assemble the device... and then they would be unable to use it properly without a Profession (Siege Operator) roll. Even though they knew exactly how it worked, and even if they'd just invented siege weaponry with this invention!

Of course, you could just ignore the Profession check and allow the character to operate their catapult anyways without the skill ranks, under the assumption that they would obviously know how it works - but isn't this identical to a 4e character putting together a sword with their own skills rather than a specific Swordcrafting skills?

Kurald Galain
2010-12-25, 05:18 AM
Now, how can we use Religion, endurance, and dungeoneering? Let's come up with ways!
Actually, this strikes me as a problem: since it's generally possible to find an excuse for any skill to apply to any task, that means that players have no reason to ever use anything other than their best skill. This means that, since everybody can do everything anyway, there's no point in specializing. I know several players who have figured out that the most effective way to pass a skill challenge is, yes, to use only your best skill all the time.


Well, basically, 4e basically SAYS that it is specifically tuned to rules for stuff Adventurers do While Adventuring.
Yes, but I disagree with the assertion that e.g. repair and perform skills have no use in adventuring.


You want to craft a sword? Then you'll want a quick Streetwise to buy the materials (or just buy them from the merchant square), a History check if you're not familiar with swordcraft to look up how, some Athletics checks for hammering out the sword
Same thing as above: the result is that everybody, from the wimpy wizard to the clueless cleric, is as good as making swords as the blacksmith-turned-warrior. There is way to specialize, no way to become better at a task than the other party members, and this I consider a shortcoming in the system.

DeltaEmil
2010-12-25, 08:06 AM
Same thing as above: the result is that everybody, from the wimpy wizard to the clueless cleric, is as good as making swords as the blacksmith-turned-warrior. There is way to specialize, no way to become better at a task than the other party members, and this I consider a shortcoming in the system. Theoretically, it would make most sense for the wizard and the cleric to create superior swords to whatever mundane blacksmith-turned-warrior can churn out, just by virtue of having magick and eldritch lore of the gods.

erikun
2010-12-25, 09:13 AM
Same thing as above: the result is that everybody, from the wimpy wizard to the clueless cleric, is as good as making swords as the blacksmith-turned-warrior. There is way to specialize, no way to become better at a task than the other party members, and this I consider a shortcoming in the system.
Why should blacksmiths-turned-warriors be better at making swords than blacksmiths-turned-clerics or blacksmiths-turned-wizards? What part of the blacksmithing process would be impossible for a blacksmith-turned-wizard to complete simply because he's a wizard? Why must every blacksmith turn to the warrior path, and be unable to use magic?

I had presented roughly four steps involved in making a sword: acquiring the materials, knowledge of how it is done, working the metal and resisting the heat. A character who is trained in these areas should be able to make a sword, and I would find it rather odd that a character with the proper strength, endurance, knowledge and materials is somehow not able to make swords just because of their adventuring class.

Isn't the point of the discussion to allow any character who should reasonably be able to forge a sword to be able to? Certainly, a Fighter or Barbarian will have the appropriate stats and training to be good at the forge - but why should a Wizard, who made sure to give himself good values in the appropriate stats and took the appropriate training, be told that forging is beyond him?

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 12:56 PM
The crafting that comes with 4e is the ability to craft excuses for all of the things people miss from 3.5 : p

lol, this is so true.

Also, this is one of the reasons why I gave up on 4e as well. My main complaint is how much you have to handwave stuff. Why are there Warlocks? Why do people make pacts with distant forces to do stuff you can already do by training with a sword? Why should the heroes be afraid of swords if they know the toen guard just can't kill them? Trade skills are part of it. If you wanted to be a sailor in 3.5, you had mechanical support for it. In 4e, you get 'just write it in your background'.
It's the differece between role-playing game and role-playing game, IMHO. One has rules for a functional world. The other has rules for a functional game.

DeltaEmil
2010-12-25, 01:16 PM
If you wanted to be a sailor in 3.5, you had mechanical support for it.Of course, wizards and clerics were always superior sailor to fighters, just by virtue of having more skill-points, and profession and craft being tied to either wisdom or intelligence, which the drooling fighter can't put into, lest he drowns...
Whatever profession or trading skill a fighter would pursue, a caster would be better in every way. Either through more skill-points and/or by having the relevant key attribute higher than those dirt-eating commoners would ever have. For additional insult, the wizard summons Phantom Steed Dolphin to ride the waves like Aquaman.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 01:31 PM
Of course, wizards and clerics were always superior sailor to fighters, just by virtue of having more skill-points, and profession and craft being tied to either wisdom or intelligence, which the drooling fighter can't put into, lest he drowns...
Whatever profession or trading skill a fighter would pursue, a caster would be better in every way. Either through more skill-points and/or by having the relevant key attribute higher than those dirt-eating commoners would ever have. For additional insult, the wizard summons Phantom Steed Dolphin to ride the waves like Aquaman.
...and? Are you suggesting Fighters should be better sailors than Wizards or Clerics? Because I really don't know why they should.

Suedars
2010-12-25, 03:24 PM
lol, this is so true.

Also, this is one of the reasons why I gave up on 4e as well. My main complaint is how much you have to handwave stuff. Why are there Warlocks? Why do people make pacts with distant forces to do stuff you can already do by training with a sword? Why should the heroes be afraid of swords if they know the toen guard just can't kill them?

...Because making one pact is a lot easier than training for hours every day for years.

Why should a Druid be afraid of swords when they know their animal companion alone is a match for the town guard?

DeltaEmil
2010-12-25, 03:24 PM
Nope, just pointing out that being a sailor completely sucks and makes your character even more worthless, if you have to sacrifice valuable skill-points to do something that other classes can do better by virtue of not having invested skill points in it in the first place.

These rules in D&D 3.x for non-adventuring stuff aren't options, they're traps. Investing points in being a blacksmith or being a sailor is like taking the dodge, toughness or mobility feat.

Investing points for being a "competent" sailor means that you become worse at essential skills like swimming, climbing, spotting, listening, tumbling, balancing, initimidating and/or riding dolphins. Or using ropes, for that matter.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 03:32 PM
...Because making one pact is a lot easier than training for hours every day for years.
Is it? You think people wake up one day and decide 'dunno, I wanna make a pact, give up my immortal soul and become a Warlock' and then poof they get their powers? That's not what the fluff (even the 4e fluff) suggests.


Why should a Druid be afraid of swords when they know their animal companion alone is a match for the town guard?
Because he has one animal companion and there are more than two town guards?



Nope, just pointing out that being a sailor completely sucks and makes your character even more worthless, if you have to sacrifice valuable skill-points to do something that other classes can do better by virtue of not having invested skill points in it in the first place.

These rules in D&D 3.x for non-adventuring stuff aren't options, they're traps. Investing points in being a blacksmith or being a sailor is like taking the dodge, toughness or mobility feat.

Investing points for being a "competent" sailor means that you become worse at essential skills like swimming, climbing, spotting, listening, tumbling, balancing, initimidating and/or riding dolphins. Or using ropes, for that matter.
It's a "trap" if you think about D&D as combat and combat only. If you want to be a sailor, hell yeah, be a sailor. It even influences ship combat.
Also, there are concepts where you don't want more skills. If your concept is 'tough as nails sailor' you might have Intimidate, Profession (sailor) and Swimming. All maxed while being a human and you don't even need to max Profession. Yes, Use Magical Device is more powerful, but you don't have to take it if it doesn't fir your concept.
Also, dodge, toughness and mobility are gateway feats. Sometimes, taking them is the best thing for a build. :smallwink:

Suedars
2010-12-25, 03:38 PM
Is it? You think people wake up one day and decide 'dunno, I wanna make a pact, give up my immortal soul and become a Warlock' and then poof they get their powers? That's not what the fluff (even the 4e fluff) suggests.

No, they go "The Evil Baron has run my family off of our ancestral land, taken my sisters for his harem, and forced my parents to beg in the streets. I could train for the next 10 years in order to enact my revenge, or I could pledge a favor to a summoned being in order to get power now. I'm sure whatever that favor is it can't be too bad, and it's not collectible for 10 years..."


Because he has one animal companion and there are more than two town guards?


At level one, yes. At level five the companion could probably take out a dozen guards with ease. Which is about what you see in 4e as well. At first level a run-in with the town guard would be a difficult, but winnable combat. Halfway through Heroic Tier, not so much.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 03:43 PM
No, they go "The Evil Baron has run my family off of our ancestral land, taken my sisters for his harem, and forced my parents to beg in the streets. I could train for the next 10 years in order to enact my revenge, or I could pledge a favor to a summoned being in order to get power now. I'm sure whatever that favor is it can't be too bad, and it's not collectible for 10 years..."
That's against 2/3 of the 4e Warlock fluff.


At level one, yes. At level five the companion could probably take out a dozen guards with ease. Which is about what you see in 4e as well. At first level a run-in with the town guard would be a difficult, but winnable combat. Halfway through Heroic Tier, not so much.
A first level run-in with guards is difficult in 4e? Guys that die with a single strike and deal 4 points of damage? Excuse me, that's just not true.

Anyway, I'm sorry for derrailing this thread with edition wars. Some people love 4e even with all it's flaws the same way as I love 3.5 with all it's flaws.

Suedars
2010-12-25, 03:47 PM
That's against 2/3 of the 4e Warlock fluff.

Yes, because PHB fluff is complete canon and anyone who does anything differently is having BADWRONGFUN! Class fluff in 4e is clearly a set of suggestions, and various books acknowledge this, offering minor variations on fluff for classes, encouraging players to change things to suit their character.


A first level run-in with guards is difficult in 4e? Guys that die with a single strike and deal 4 points of damage? Excuse me, that's just not true.

What town is this that doesn't have any veterans or captains in their town watch?

Coidzor
2010-12-25, 03:51 PM
To be fair, half the point of warlocks is to have badwrongfun. :smallamused:

Reluctance
2010-12-25, 03:52 PM
4e warlock fluff merely says "pact". Your immortal soul needn't be the only currency you can use. It's a little off that somebody would enter into a pact with inhuman entities for power, but not much more so than anybody in 3.5 choosing to be a class that can't do everything. Or anybody choosing to be a commoner.

On topic, the catch to trade skills is that 4e characters get better at everything as they go up in level. (Which has up and downsides, but that's a well-trodden issue.) By the time they're a little ways into heroic, anybody should be able to make a mundane sword without too much hassle. As you raise in tiers, specialist characters are expected to do things like make magic weapons or pilot astral islands. The sorts of things that are covered by rituals/practices. So outside of the lowest heroic levels, I'm wondering what trade skills could help with that doesn't already have something to cover those levels of superhuman skill.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 03:56 PM
Yes, because PHB fluff is complete canon and anyone who does anything differently is having BADWRONGFUN! Class fluff in 4e is clearly a set of suggestions, and various books acknowledge this, offering minor variations on fluff for classes, encouraging players to change things to suit their character.
That's a strawman argument, I never said straying from the fluff is wrong. I just asked if within what we know about Warlocks, there was a reason to sell your immortal soul for minor benefits a dude with a sword could get anyway.
If you need to stray from the printed fluff for this to work, you're basically acknolwedging my points: warlocks in 4e make little to no sense.


What town is this that doesn't have any veterans or captains in their town watch?
4e probably has no rules for this, but 3.5 actually has rules for the highest level characters in each town/city/settlement. Also, high level characters will most likely do more interesting (and/or profitable; say, starting a business - 3.5 has rules for that) stuff than being town guards anyway.

Suedars
2010-12-25, 04:09 PM
That's a strawman argument, I never said straying from the fluff is wrong. I just asked if within what we know about Warlocks, there was a reason to sell your immortal soul for minor benefits a dude with a sword could get anyway.
If you need to stray from the printed fluff for this to work, you're basically acknolwedging my points: warlocks in 4e make little to no sense.

1) You aren't selling your immortal soul. You're making a pact. Big difference.
2) It's not straying from the printed fluff when the printed fluff acknowledges that it's just a suggestion, and recommends you do so if you prefer.
3) You're bypassing hours of training each day for 5-10 years, or about 10,000 hours of work.
4) Even if you ignore all the above points, you're ignoring people's capacity to make poor decisions for immediate payoffs. Look at people who sign off on bad contracts, pile up credit card debt, or fall for Nigerian Prince scams. There's also the fact that Wis is the dump stat for Warlocks...



4e probably has no rules for this, but 3.5 actually has rules for the highest level characters in each town/city/settlement. Also, high level characters will most likely do more interesting (and/or profitable; say, starting a business - 3.5 has rules for that) stuff than being town guards anyway.

In 3.5 leveling up doesn't really benefit you much outside of your area of expertise. So why would someone who has been a guard for 15 years give up a promotion to open up a business despite having absolutely zero experience in that field?

And I really don't need a table telling me how many guards, watch captains, and bakers a town will have per 1000 people when that table is basically a set of arbitrary numbers that makes absolutely no sense when you look at actual demography or economics.

Nor do I need to know exactly how much damage a stone bridge can take (which most likely ignores any actual physical properties (let alone the fact that "stone" varies wildly depending on what type of stone it is), aside from the vague notion that stone is tougher than wood but weaker than iron), when the book space that table takes up could be used for something I could actually use.

I'd much rather use 4e's approach of "Yeah, one captain and one thief-taker per 8 ordinary watchmen sounds about right, and the two special characters are probably roughly equivalent to first level characters." Nor do I need to know exactly how many guards a town will have, since after killing the first group the rest will probably be handled by a skill challenge to slip town.

DeltaEmil
2010-12-25, 04:09 PM
It's a "trap" if you think about D&D as combat and combat only. If you want to be a sailor, hell yeah, be a sailor. It even influences ship combat.I could be jumping or swimming to the enemy ship and killing the enemy crew instead of being a "sailor". Or riding a jedi of the sea (narwhales).

Also, there are concepts where you don't want more skills. If your concept is 'tough as nails sailor' you might have Intimidate, Profession (sailor) and Swimming. All maxed while being a human and you don't even need to max Profession.And then you fall over board, because even a slight wave tips you over the reeling and you can't climb up...

Then again, I did hear rather far-fetched stories about sailors in ancient time who never knew how to swim in the first place and drowned quickly, so there might be a precedence in the real world for being a "competent sailor" who is actually just a worthless pile of flesh in the water.

Yes, Use Magical Device is more powerful, but you don't have to take it if it doesn't fir your concept.I didn't even mention that skill, because it's always the correct choice to invest "spare skill points".

Also, dodge, toughness and mobility are gateway feats. Sometimes, taking them is the best thing for a build. :smallwink:Only spellcasters could afford feat taxes as an entry into a prestige class that grants full-casting levels. Of course, these spellcasting dudes and dudettes do summon unicorns and celestial narwhales which are also all better sailor than the human dude or dudette.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 04:27 PM
I'd much rather use 4e's approach of "Yeah, one captain and one thief-taker per 8 ordinary watchmen sounds about right, and the two special characters are probably roughly equivalent to first level characters." Nor do I need to know exactly how many guards a town will have, since after killing the first group the rest will probably be handled by a skill challenge to slip town.
It all boils down to preference in the end, like I said before. I believe 4e's lack of rules for anything but killing stuff is bad. Others say 3.5's lack of balance is bad. YMMV.


I could be jumping or swimming to the enemy ship and killing the enemy crew instead of being a "sailor". Or riding a jedi of the sea (narwhales).

...and so what? I'm not talking about killing anything, I'm talking about sailing.

randomhero00
2010-12-25, 04:30 PM
I can't think of how to weigh in on how to handle it (besides roleplay, I mean mechanically) but I do believe in adventurers having "jobs" stuff they can work on as time goes by. As I believe in long term (in game long time passes) campaign worlds.

edit this is really just another downfall of 4e. All videogamish without roleplay.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 04:32 PM
this is really just another downfall of 4e. All videogamish without roleplay.
Amen, brother.

Suedars
2010-12-25, 04:39 PM
4e's lack of rules for anything but killing stuff is bad.

Apparently you missed out on Rituals, Backgrounds, Character Themes, Martial Practices, Skills, Skill Challenges, Roleplaying and Quest XP rewards, and non-combat Utility Powers.

{scrubbed}

DeltaEmil
2010-12-25, 05:37 PM
...and so what? I'm not talking about killing anything, I'm talking about sailing.I'm sailing like a sailor by being able to swim, balance, use ropes, ride a shark, tame giant squids, jump around, knowing where north lies with my survival skills, dance and sing merry songs with my fellow crewmen, understand the nature of the spirits of the sea and winds, negotiate with the merfolk, spot a far-away island, and still being able to do other adventure-stuff that is cool and more worthwhile than having ranks in profession sailor.

tl;dr
I have more opportunities in combat AND social scenes and get more fun out of it than just rolling once on an useless skill like sailor*.

*substitute sailor with blacksmith, carpenter, servant and other useless skill-sets that are a pure waste of skill-points.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 05:42 PM
I have more opportunities in combat AND social scenes and get more fun out of it than just rolling once on an useless skill like sailor
Good for you, it does nothing against my point, though. Can you have a mechanical impact of being a sailor in 4e? The answer is no, period. I don't like this. If you do, knock yourself out with 4e, hope you enjoy it.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-25, 05:44 PM
Nope, just pointing out that being a sailor completely sucks and makes your character even more worthless,
That depends highly on the campaign.

At any rate, it is your decision as a player. Even in 4E, if you pick Precise Shot instead of Twin Strike, or Linguist instead of Weapon Expertise, or even (heh) Seeker instead of Wizard, then you are obviously making your character less powerful than it could be. I don't have a problem with that because it's your choice.

What I do have a problem with is that the character with the whole backstory as a sailor has absolutely no way of being better at sailing than any other character.

One of the fun parts of a Team Game is that there are things that you aren't good at, for which you have to rely on your teammate. For example, if you have to convince the duke, you turn to the party "face" to do it. Except in 4E, because the party face is not any better at doing that. Your wizard can convince the duke with an arcana check, the barbarian can do it with athletics, and the cleric can do it with religion. This means you don't need teamwork since everyone can do anything.

jseah
2010-12-25, 05:52 PM
You want to craft a sword? Then you'll want a quick Streetwise to buy the materials (or just buy them from the merchant square), a History check if you're not familiar with swordcraft to look up how, some Athletics checks for hammering out the sword and Endurance checks for withstanding the furnace. The previous Streetwise check can also determine what quality materials you can locate to make it. Crafting a bow instead? Then you'll want Nature, both for locating good wood and treating it properly. Acrobatics (poorly named in this case) would include manual dexterity for shaping the bow with a knife, and Thievery (also poorly named) would represent fine work and details. You'd also need Handle Animal, or a short hunt with Perception and some attack rolls, to get the string needed for the bow.
Just a nitpicky point:
General skills != specific skills.
Reading how to make a sword in a book != making a sword in practice.

Just because I know how to do calculus and statistics (to a moderate level) does not mean I can derive quantum mechanics.
Or even mean that I can look at a book and understand it. At least not without months of revision and working very hard at it. Which more or less translates to gaining a new skill because I certainly will have by the time I learn quantum mechanics.

I didn't do materials science, but even if I did, and could calculate the angle to hit a block of metal at to get the shape I want, I cannot do it without at least months of practice. (no, not even if I work out at the gym so that my flimsy arms can lift a hammer at all)

People spend years learning how to do a trade well. Those years are not the same as those spent becoming better at killing things.
While there might be some transferrable skill from swinging a sword to making one (knowing what weight distribution to get for example), trades are trades because it takes a long time to get good at it.
You do not get very much better at making swords by running track and pumping iron past a certain very low point.


Note: even if I dislike 4e, this is not solely against 4e.
3.5 is also massively guilty of this. Just that the idea of breaking skills into widely applicable areas that have no penalty to individual specialized tasks is ridiculous.
IMO, there should be subskills and stuff. Like craft woodworking -> Bowmaking, woodcraft, wood carving
Every 4 points in bowmaking, you get one for free to woodworking. You add woodworking to every single subskill under it (representing general skill in handling wood) but just because you are good at making bows does not mean you are good at carving wooden art objects. But you are still better than mr wizard who hasn't touched a knife in the last ten years.

Then again, this is a houserule. Consider it an idea for slightly more realistic skills.

Coidzor
2010-12-25, 06:12 PM
Then again, this is a houserule. Consider it an idea for slightly more realistic skills.

That's no houserule, that's an entirely new skill system.

jseah
2010-12-25, 06:19 PM
Sure it is. And putting it into a game is a houserule. Right?

=P

Just one that's a bit... bigger than others. ^^

DeltaEmil
2010-12-25, 07:12 PM
Good for you, it does nothing against my point, though. Can you have a mechanical impact of being a sailor in 4e? The answer is no, period. I don't like this. If you do, knock yourself out with 4e, hope you enjoy it.You have a better impact on the game in any way by not having invested in profession sailor*, the same in 3rd edition just like in 4th edition. Traps are traps. Profession skill are traps. Options that are traps and punish inexperienced players by taking away limited ressources like skill points in 3rd edition D&D are bad, wrong, and not fun.
And thank you, I do indeed enjoy 4th edition a little bit more than 3rd edition.

*substitute sailor with blacksmith and other useless profession skills that are also badwrongandnotfun

At any rate, it is your decision as a player. Even in 4E, if you pick Precise Shot instead of Twin Strike, or Linguist instead of Weapon Expertise, or even (heh) Seeker instead of Wizard, then you are obviously making your character less powerful than it could be. I don't have a problem with that because it's your choice.Bad choices done so are the fault of the game makers, but I'll be giving Wizards of the Coast some leeway, as they're trying to make sure that balancing is achieved with the classes and feats, what with all those hundreds of erratas. It still sucks, of course, but eh, only in a perfect world is there a perfect game with no need for constant corrections.
What I do have a problem with is that the character with the whole backstory as a sailor has absolutely no way of being better at sailing than any other character.The player character does so by being trained in several skills that are pertinent to the sailor background.
Or the actual player (not the character) explains why his character gets modifiers on several skills, and then uses these adventure-relevant skills together with his adventuring pals to have a worthwile adventure-encounter. Like finding the starmetal in the lawless forest guarded by king giants is relevant, not bashing it into a pointy sword. For additional lulz, the wizard bashes the starmetal into a pointy sword with arcana in one day, just because he can (and he has a spiffy ritual just for that), and that way, the wizard player can say that yeah, his character is also a "blacksmith". That would be a good explanation why he'd have such a situational ritual in the first place, hah...
At least, if having down-time with sword-making is really that important and needs to be played out or even rolled for whatever contrived reason...

One of the fun parts of a Team Game is that there are things that you aren't good at, for which you have to rely on your teammate. For example, if you have to convince the duke, you turn to the party "face" to do it. Except in 4E, because the party face is not any better at doing that. Your wizard can convince the duke with an arcana check, the barbarian can do it with athletics, and the cleric can do it with religion. This means you don't need teamwork since everyone can do anything. And that's actually good that everyone gets to have a somewhat good chance to succeed on a task and can be involved. If the gm can be convinced that rolling athletics here is crucial for social encounter x, then rock and roll. However, unless the barbarian has some nifty utility power or weird class ability that lets him substitute diplomacy with athletics, I doubt that rolling athletics at all is going to count towards the necessary numbers of successes needed for skill challenges. Not that I do use skill challenges, or pay any attention to that.
There is nothing worse than only having one guy rolling the social checks. In fact, the bumbling barbarian who puts his foot in his mouth (sometimes literally, it seems) and adds some complication to the social encounter is a classic that enriches those scenes. And I believe that the idea behind the failures in those weird skill challenge set-up is that they shouldn't lead to being stucked or total party wipe, only add some more difficulties, which can be more fun... like the duke deciding to marry his fair (and equally cunning) daughter to the "heroic and noble" leader (said barbarian who appearently is easy to manipulate) to the surprise of everybody involved, therefore getting a bride price out of the adventuring group (or at least reduce the reward for rescuing her by a significant amount), and leading to more comical scenes. And assassins who might try to kill the barbarian later on...

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 07:19 PM
You have a better impact on the game in any way by not having invested in profession sailor*, the same in 3rd edition just like in 4th edition. Traps are traps. Profession skill are traps. Options that are traps and punish inexperienced players by taking away limited ressources like skill points in 3rd edition D&D are bad, wrong, and not fun.
Like Kurald said, if you only think about winning the game, lots of things are 'traps'. By your reasoning, any non Ranger Striker is a trap, since they have the higher DPR, isn't it? You will have a 'better impact' on the game with a Ranger than with an Avenger or Assassin.
Of course, many people, including myself, don't care that much about about 'being punished' by making choices that make sense to their characters. Mainly, for some people story > game than the other way around. As usual, YMMV.

What you are doing here, by saying repeatedly 'badwrongnotfun' is that anyone that does not subscribe to your style of gaming is 'doing it wrong' and I take offense at that.

Reverent-One
2010-12-25, 07:35 PM
Good for you, it does nothing against my point, though. Can you have a mechanical impact of being a sailor in 4e? The answer is no, period. I don't like this.

On the other hand, the "mechanical impact of being a sailor" in 3.5 is being able to make a check to make a few gold pieces per week off-screen, and it will be the same amount of money if you say you're a sailor, tailor, fisherman, bodyguard, or rat catcher. How serious is the loss of such an unrealistic skill that is generally only used when the players have copious amounts of downtime?

WitchSlayer
2010-12-25, 07:35 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't human guards non minion characters?

Ah, I was right, both town guard AND human guards are level 3 soldier monsters, a decent amount of them could take down a level 1 party without too much trouble.

Edit: Also interesting factoid, human insane nobles are LEVEL 23 monsters, while sane ones are level 5.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-25, 07:47 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't human guards non minion characters?

Ah, I was right, both town guard AND human guards are level 3 soldier monsters, a decent amount of them could take down a level 1 party without too much trouble.

Edit: Also interesting factoid, human insane nobles are LEVEL 23 monsters, while sane ones are level 5.

Well, it's common knowledge that power corrupts, and absolute power IS SWEET. I guess you just substitute 'corruption' for 'drives you crazy'.

WitchSlayer
2010-12-25, 07:49 PM
Well, it's common knowledge that power corrupts, and absolute power IS SWEET. I guess you just substitute 'corruption' for 'drives you crazy'.

Maybe "Insane" is synonymous for "Former adventurer"

jseah
2010-12-25, 07:51 PM
On the other hand, the "mechanical impact of being a sailor" in 3.5 is being able to make a check to make a few gold pieces per week off-screen, and it will be the same amount of money if you say you're a sailor, tailor, fisherman, bodyguard, or rat catcher. How serious is the loss of such an unrealistic skill that is generally only used when the players have copious amounts of downtime?
IIRC, Stormwrack has rather alot to say about profession sailor and ship vs ship combat.

Something about fleet initiative? Not too familiar but it does play a rather major part in naval battles.

EDIT:
Now, stoneworking (the art one, not the masonry one) is rather more useless. Would be a better example for your point.

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 07:54 PM
IIRC, Stormwrack has rather alot to say about profession sailor and ship vs ship combat.
I even mentioned this before in this thread.

Reverent-One
2010-12-25, 08:06 PM
I even mentioned this before in this thread.

I apologize, I missed the one sentence in which you said "It even influences ship combat." without mentioning Stormwrack.

Of course, even though some supplement books give a boost in usefulness to certain instances of the Profession (x) skill, I'm willing to bet there's far more Professions one could take that my statement still applies to.

jseah
2010-12-25, 08:14 PM
Of course, even though some supplement books give a boost in usefulness to certain instances of the Profession (x) skill, I'm willing to bet there's far more Professions one could take that my statement still applies to.
Mhm. Like craft painting.

As far as I know, there's only one magic item that uses it to create a drawing that turns into a real object.
And one spell that could conceivably use it, Fabricate, if for whatever reason you need a painting and you need it now.

Anyone got anything else? Love to see a char focused around painting things.

(Yes, I know Marvelous Pigments can break WBL with crafting cost reducers. Generally not gonna fly. And DC 15 doesn't need specialization)

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 08:28 PM
Of course, even though some supplement books give a boost in usefulness to certain instances of the Profession (x) skill, I'm willing to bet there's far more Professions one could take that my statement still applies to.
Considering you can have Profession (anything), you're correct. But the fact it is even there is already something good.
For example, I have a custom magical item in my game, created by the Stargazers. It's a telescope. You use it at night to look at the sky, make a Profession (astrologer) test and then you roll a augury spell. Caster level = your skill check. I just couldn't do something like this in 4e. The closest I can think of is 'you gain X bonus when you use this item if it says in your background you are an Y' and that sounds really silly.
It also helps me say that this lawyer is better than that one. Then when I have a trial or something, I just need a bit of roleplay, circumstance bonuses and checks of Profession (lawyer). Again, you can't do it in 4e.



Anyone got anything else? Love to see a char focused around painting things.

Craft Magic Tattoo springs to mind.

Reverent-One
2010-12-25, 08:38 PM
For example, I have a custom magical item in my game, created by the Stargazers. It's a telecsope. You use it at night to look at the sky, make a Profession (astrologer) test and then you roll a augury spell. Caster level = your skill check. I just couldn't do something like this in 4e. The closest I can think of is 'you gain X bonus when you use this item if it says in your background you are an Y' and that sounds really silly.

Saying that a magic item lets "characters trained in astrology can use this item to do X" sounds silly to you? Of course, in this case "trained in astrology" does not mean the OOC concept of having a +5 bonus in the "astrology" skill, but means that character has been taught or studied astrology IC.


It also helps me say that this lawyer is better than that one. Then when I have a trial or something, I just need a bit of roleplay, circumstance bonuses and checks of Profession (lawyer). Again, you can't do it in 4e.

Given that you're willing to houserule the issue in 3.5, you should be willing to do the same in 4e, in which case something like Saph's suggestion on the first page of this thread would work for that just fine.

Yahzi
2010-12-25, 08:44 PM
What you are doing here, by saying repeatedly 'badwrongnotfun' is that anyone that does not subscribe to your style of gaming is 'doing it wrong' and I take offense at that.
You shouldn't, because he is right. If one plays the game to defeat the monsters, then one should be doing it his way.

You (and I), however, are playing a different game.

4E is clearly aimed at a different style of play; just as 3E was different from 2E, which was different from 1E. Instead of complaining about this diversity, we should rejoice that we have 4 different games to play.

Except, of course, I think all the other ways suck. :smallbiggrin:

true_shinken
2010-12-25, 08:45 PM
Saying that a magic item lets "characters trained in astrology can use this item to do X" sounds silly to you? Of course, in this case "trained in astrology" does not mean the OOC concept of having a +5 bonus in the "astrology" skill, but means that character has been taught or studied astrology IC.
Do you have a way to say if someone is trained in astrology or not? Having stuff like that, simple backgrounds having effects toward the game, has munchkins providing backgrounds such as 'She was a dancer, she learned basket weaving from her mother, she lived in a ship so she knows how to sail very well, her father was a baker so she obviously is very good at baking and cooking and she studied in an astrology school or something. She also invented gunpowder.'
Of course it's an extreme example, but do you see my point? That's a reason I like how 3.5 handles skill, though I'm aware it's not a perfect aproach and many people don't aprove it. I just like it.


Given that you're willing to houserule the issue in 3.5, you should be willing to do the same in 4e in which case something like Saph's suggestion on the first page of this thread would work for that just fine.
But I'm not houseruling the issue.

(...)Profession skill represents an aptitude in a vocation requiring a broader range of less specific knowledge.(...) An attempt to accomplish some specific task can usually be retried.
I'm just using the rules as written.

Reverent-One
2010-12-25, 08:55 PM
Do you have a way to say if someone is trained in astrology or not? Having stuff like that, simple backgrounds having effects toward the game, has munchkins providing backgrounds such as 'She was a dancer, she learned basket weaving from her mother, she lived in a ship so she knows how to sail very well, her father was a baker so she obviously is very good at baking and cooking and she studied in an astrology school or something. She also invented gunpowder.'
Of course it's an extreme example, but do you see my point? That's a reason I like how 3.5 handles skill, though I'm aware it's not a perfect aproach and many people don't aprove it. I just like it.

Again, see Saph's example at the start of the thread. If you're going to create custom magic items or scenarios that require use of Profession-like checks, it's simple to prepare for them by using a set of rules like that. Since profession based checks are pretty much non-existent in 4e, it is highly unlikely a player is going to try to plan for every possible profession type check the DM could throw at you over the course of the game at character creation. Because of this, if you decide to introduce some item/scenario that required a profession-like skill mid-game, too late to use Saph's background professions, then you can just go by their established background.


But I'm not houseruling the issue.

I'm just using the rules as written.

There's nothing about opposed checks for Professions skills. By RAW, you can use it to work for a week and earn X amount of gold. That's it (except if there's a supplement like Stormwrack that expands the use of the skill).

EDIT: Also, that specific lawyer example is the sort of thing that's pretty explicitly covered by diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rules.


In negotiations, participants roll opposed Diplomacy checks, and the winner gains the advantage. Opposed checks also resolve situations when two advocates or diplomats plead opposite cases in a hearing before a third party.

true_shinken
2010-12-26, 12:23 AM
There's nothing about opposed checks for Professions skills. By RAW, you can use it to work for a week and earn X amount of gold. That's it (except if there's a supplement like Stormwrack that expands the use of the skill).
Not really, as I quoted the SRD states you can use profession skill to determine how good you are in the chosen field.


Also, that specific lawyer example is the sort of thing that's pretty explicitly covered by diplomacy/bluff/intimidate rules.
While you have a point, a lawyer is not only someone who is good at influencing/lying/intimidating - a lawyer is someone who knows the law.
Anyway, Stormwrack already proved my point anyway, also Fabricate, Create Magic Tattoo and other magical items. That Craft/Profession has an in-game impact, however little (and possibly very big in a naval campaign) in 3.5 is a fact. Does this happen in 4e? No, it doesn't. Can you houserule it? Of course you can, you can houserule anything. Doesn't mean it's not an issue (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Limitations_of_a_System#The_Oberoni_Fallacy).
Can I create extra material for my 3.5 game that emphasized Profession/Craft skills? Of course I can. Does it change the fact said skills already have a mechanical impact? No, it doesn't.

WitchSlayer
2010-12-26, 12:39 AM
Okay, we get it, you don't like 4e, we get it, but the discussion isn't 3.5 vs 4e, it's about 4e trade skills or, more specifically, are there rules and if not, how do you houserule them in?

Ozreth
2010-12-26, 12:51 AM
I know I slipped a little joke about 4e earlier, but I do think its a good system. My only problem is the contrived excuses for things that were taken out of the game. They were taken out for a reason and if your excuse is "because it can be easily stated, home brewed, assumed, imagined, or quickened" and you believe the dev's when they same the same crap then you gotta wake up.

The game simply went in a different direction. It wasn't meant to have this sort of stuff and caters to a newer generation of gamers who could care less about that kind of stuff.

Now, whether this is a good or bad thing is completely up to the group playing. In some cases I think its great, but more often than not I think i'd rather play something else.

Just don't say things like "Why do you need rules and numbers for your dwarf to be a blacksmith when you can just say he is one?".

Reverent-One
2010-12-26, 01:03 AM
Not really, as I quoted the SRD states you can use profession skill to determine how good you are in the chosen field.

No, the quote says that's what it represents, mechanically all you can what you can do with it is make a check to make money over the course of a week (with a small number of exceptions made in supplementary material). Reading that line to mean you can use Profession to make whatever sort of checks you want is like reading the line in the Rope Trick that "It is hazardous to create an extradimensional space within an existing extradimensional space or to take an extradimensional space into an existing one." to mean explosions happen whenever you take a bag of holding into one. It's a fluff line that implies things that are not mechanically carried out.


While you have a point, a lawyer is not only someone who is good at influencing/lying/intimidating - a lawyer is someone who knows the law.

And most commonly, a lawyer will be arguing his/her case against an opposing case before a third party.


Anyway, Stormwrack already proved my point anyway, also Fabricate, Create Magic Tattoo and other magical items. That Craft/Profession has an in-game impact, however little (and possibly very big in a naval campaign) in 3.5 is a fact. Does this happen in 4e? No, it doesn't. Can you houserule it? Of course you can, you can houserule anything. Doesn't mean it's not an issue (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Limitations_of_a_System#The_Oberoni_Fallacy).
Can I create extra material for my 3.5 game that emphasized Profession/Craft skills? Of course I can. Does it change the fact said skills already have a mechanical impact? No, it doesn't.

Which returns us to my original point, which is while Profession does have a mechanical impact in 3.5, that impact is so minuscule and poorly implemented in nearly all instances, that it's not much of a gain for the system.

Blackfang108
2010-12-26, 01:24 AM
Just don't say things like "Why do you need rules and numbers for your dwarf to be a blacksmith when you can just say he is one?".

But, um... no one's ever been able to say WHY they need rules for their Dwarf Blacksmith/Sailor/lawyer/etc., other than "I want those rules to exist."

In 4e; a longsword is a longsword is a longsword. The worst made and best made nonmagical weapons are exactly alike, statistically.

So why does it matter that you're a better Sword-smith? Is there an ACTUAL reason for this to exist? because if someone can't be a blacksmith/sailor/lawyer/etc without rules for it, he or she doesn't know how to roleplay. The profession skills were crutches at the very best, and terribly written rules at worst.

Suedars
2010-12-26, 01:24 AM
Not really, as I quoted the SRD states you can use profession skill to determine how good you are in the chosen field.


While you have a point, a lawyer is not only someone who is good at influencing/lying/intimidating - a lawyer is someone who knows the law.
Anyway, Stormwrack already proved my point anyway, also Fabricate, Create Magic Tattoo and other magical items. That Craft/Profession has an in-game impact, however little (and possibly very big in a naval campaign) in 3.5 is a fact. Does this happen in 4e? No, it doesn't. Can you houserule it? Of course you can, you can houserule anything. Doesn't mean it's not an issue (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Limitations_of_a_System#The_Oberoni_Fallacy).
Can I create extra material for my 3.5 game that emphasized Profession/Craft skills? Of course I can. Does it change the fact said skills already have a mechanical impact? No, it doesn't.

And according to 4E, how well one knows the law is determined by their scores in History and Streetwise (and possibly Religion in a theocracy). A trial in 4E actually makes for a very interesting skill challenge. History and Streetwise to know the law. Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate to sway the jury (with failures on the latter two probably coming with penalties). Insight to read the jury and preempt the arguments of the opposition. I'd much rather have that than simply two opposed rolls of Profession (Lawyer) (especially since that will probably just be done by two hired NPCs).

Look, you can come up with all sorts of corner cases where Craft and Profession are useful skills in 3.X, but the reality is that 99% of the material utterly ignores their existence. It's hard to say that the system really supports them at all or provides the least bit of material for a band of wandering artisans when they receive a paragraph or two in the PHB and an occasional nod in one in a minor supplement here and there (and how does being a run of the mill sailor make me a better naval tactician anyways). I mean, I can write Profession (Jedi) on my character sheet and put points in it, and even earn a bit of gold off of it, but nobody would suggest that D&D makes for a compelling Star Wars game because of that.

*edit* Blackfang said it far more convincingly and concisely than I could have.

true_shinken
2010-12-26, 08:11 AM
Okay, we get it, you don't like 4e, we get it, but the discussion isn't 3.5 vs 4e, it's about 4e trade skills or, more specifically, are there rules and if not, how do you houserule them in?

Indeed, I seem to have derailed the thread. I'll apologize and excuse myself.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-26, 08:52 AM
You have a better impact on the game in any way by not having invested in profession sailor*, the same in 3rd edition just like in 4th edition. Traps are traps. Profession skill are traps.
No, they're not traps. They're options that cater to a different playstyle than yours.


There is nothing worse than only having one guy rolling the social checks.
Nothing wrong with that. If you need to talk to the local mage guild, the wizard does the talking. If you want information from the clergy, ask your party cleric. If you need to convince the duke, the bard's your go-to guy. Every party member can have his specialty, which is why they're a party in the first place.


IIRC, Stormwrack has rather alot to say about profession sailor and ship vs ship combat.
Yes. We're not talking about "profession checks to make money between adventures". We're talking about things that have an impact on the actual story.

If the campaign plays on a group of islands, then it makes perfect sense for a character to invest points in being able to sail well. And this is something that 4E arbitrarily disallows.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-26, 12:10 PM
Kurald - You seem to be under the understand that, because there is nothing to measure things like blacksmithing talent, or nautical knowledge specifically, that a character whose backstory involves no trace of forges or watery boat things, would still be equally capable of Swordsmithing or navigating by sea as Forgy McPirate, the sea-going blacksmith.

Given that both of those people are exactly as good at those tasks as the DM says, is it not the case that the DM and circumstancial bonuses etc feature rather heavily in this here, if there is even a point to rolling?

I don't think you need mechanics to back up such a thing, it's just a DM style issue, surely? I'd have thought the whole point of such interactions would be that if it's part of the character's backstory that they would have learned it, then they can do it. If it's not part of their backstory, they either can't, or will have a more difficult time (needing to roll well where you'd just auto-succeed a 'trained' character, for example).

4e does disallow you to spend resources on 'specifically being able to sail' that would otherwise be spent on the core parts of the character, but that doesn't mean that you can't sail, or that anyone can sail equally well, as far as I see.

Have you found it to be otherwise? I understand you play in a lot of Living-whatever style games, perhaps this has a bearing on your viewpoint. I would be interested to know.

Christopher K.
2010-12-26, 12:27 PM
The main reason I ask because it feels more rewarding for a player to make a roll and add some tension to the game - If the player botches a roll to build a wall, there could be weak points that would have to be defended. If a player successfully smithed a unique sword, it may prove more valuable to a character than a sword they happen to find in their adventures. If a player needs to repair an important artifact which has been physically damaged, should they simply be able to say "Alright, I repaired the artifact." And leave it at that?

Kylarra
2010-12-26, 12:32 PM
Given the arbitrarily low number of skill points vs useful skills in 3.5 though, I think I'd fall under the side that says it's not really much "better" in 3.5, despite some codifying vs fiat.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-26, 12:33 PM
The main reason I ask because it feels more rewarding for a player to make a roll and add some tension to the game - If the player botches a roll to build a wall, there could be weak points that would have to be defended. If a player successfully smithed a unique sword, it may prove more valuable to a character than a sword they happen to find in their adventures. If a player needs to repair an important artifact which has been physically damaged, should they simply be able to say "Alright, I repaired the artifact." And leave it at that?

Artifact repairing would be easy enough to key off of existing skills at least, (Arcane, Relgion etc depending on the flavour of the artifact). If you just want them to have something to roll, you could also go for just rolling straight-ability checks, too.

If you'd rather have specific trade-related skills involved, I'd second the suggestion of everyone getting a free extra skill of their choice (provided it isn't already covered by existing skills too closely), or perhaps just of profession/craft nature.

true_shinken
2010-12-26, 12:34 PM
I was trying to refrain from posting in this thread again and this was specifically adressed to Kurald, but I think I'll just add my 2 copper pieces here.

Kurald - You seem to be under the understand that, because there is nothing to measure things like blacksmithing talent, or nautical knowledge specifically, that a character whose backstory involves no trace of forges or watery boat things, would still be equally capable of Swordsmithing or navigating by sea as Forgy McPirate, the sea-going blacksmith.

Given that both of those people are exactly as good at those tasks as the DM says, is it not the case that the DM and circumstancial bonuses etc feature rather heavily in this here, if there is even a point to rolling?
Just consider this. Because there is nothing to measure things like swordswinging talent specifically, a character whose backstory involves no trace of sword things would still be equally capable of swordfighting as Fighter McSwordy, the fighter who likes swords.
You'd end up with a problem, because combat is a rather large part of the subset rules of 4e (or any version of D&D, even), isn't it? [And let's not even touch the fact that Sorcerers are better with melee basic attacks than Avengers]
That's what we mean here. It is a problem. It is something the rules don't adress. It's a different playstyle that 4e does not support at all.


I don't think you need mechanics to back up such a thing, it's just a DM style issue, surely? I'd have thought the whole point of such interactions would be that if it's part of the character's backstory that they would have learned it, then they can do it. If it's not part of their backstory, they either can't, or will have a more difficult time (needing to roll well where you'd just auto-succeed a 'trained' character, for example).
This is, also, a different aproach to storytelling. Thinking that any given situation needs a 'point' is not part of the organic nature of lots of D&D games. Sometimes you will fight a winter wolf, not because you need X encounters a day or to meet a 'xp quota' but because there are winter wolves in the mountains. Sometimes you will be sailing and you will have to make a sailing check (or hire a professional sailor) to avoid capsizing a ship or something. It's not to showcase anything or to tie into a backstory, it's there because it makes sense. Again, that's just a different playstyle, one that I don't particularly subscribe to.


4e does disallow you to spend resources on 'specifically being able to sail' that would otherwise be spent on the core parts of the character, but that doesn't mean that you can't sail, or that anyone can sail equally well, as far as I see.
This is major part. In D&D, you can have a character who is mechanically a very good sailor and a fighter instead of a very good fighter and a sailor. The core is not being a fighter - it's being a very good sailor. These characters are actually pretty common as NPCs in fantasy stories, and in 3.5 you had rules to actually create their game statistics. In 4e, they are very good sailors because you say so. Again, it might be enough for some people. It's not for me and I believe it isn't for Kurald even.
Side rant:
This kind of non-flexibility really hit me when I decided to ditch my Bard in the 4e game I was in, since I wasn't really the skillmonkey I thought I would be. So instead, I wanted to play a Paladin. But I wanted a switch to it - I wanted a guerrila paladin, light armored, with high Dex, darting through the battlefield to heal foes. Making this is ridiculously easy in 3.5 - I just need high Dex, maybe take Weapon Finesse if I don't roll well/don't have enough points and Improved Initiative later. Maybe some skill tricks. In 4e? It can't be done. Period. I really tried, I asked in this forum, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165846) - but a Paladin with high Dex is basically unplayable, it seems.

Blackfang108
2010-12-26, 12:37 PM
If a player successfully smithed a unique sword, it may prove more valuable to a character than a sword they happen to find in their adventures.

Again, (outside of Dark Sun), a halberd is a Halberd is a halberd. it doesn't matter how well or poorly the weapon was smithed, they all have the same non-magical stats. Reach, d10 damage, and 2 handed. There are no rules for weapons that were made better or worse than average ones.

If you're talking about Magic properties, the PHB I has a ritual for creating Magic items. For generic Magic =X, the Martial Practice also works.

But without adding houserules to the game, there is absolutely no way or need to know how well the weapon was forged. And it doesn't add any more tension to the game.

For building the wall, you could use History or Nature or Streetwise depending on how the wall is being built.

Example: my group was preparing for a large undead horde. we built a large wall of stakes along the main front and to the sides. Nature checks for finding and cutting the logs, history checks for placement (tactics).

in 3.x, my group does this the same way. A mix of skills we're actually trained in, and the profession and perform skills are ignored except for our Bard.

Kylarra
2010-12-26, 12:41 PM
This is major part. In D&D, you can have a character who is mechanically a very good sailor and a fighter instead of a very good fighter and a sailor. The core is not being a fighter - it's being a very good sailor.Of course, he can barely do anything skillwise other than swim and profession (cc), potentially balancing.

true_shinken
2010-12-26, 12:44 PM
Of course, he can barely do anything skillwise other than swim and profession (cc), potentially balancing.
...and what's the problem with that?

tcrudisi
2010-12-26, 01:18 PM
Because there is nothing to measure things like swordswinging talent specifically, a character whose backstory involves no trace of sword things would still be equally capable of swordfighting as Fighter McSwordy, the fighter who likes swords.
You'd end up with a problem, because combat is a rather large part of the subset rules of 4e (or any version of D&D, even), isn't it? [And let's not even touch the fact that Sorcerers are better with melee basic attacks than Avengers].

There are 2 problems with this. In 3.5, what is the difference between a class that specializes in a longsword and an equal-BAB class that specializes in daggers? Well, they might both have a +1 to hit over the other (Weapon Focus). That's... it. In 4e, what is the difference? Either a +1, +2, or +3 (weapon expertise). So let's use 3.5 as an example: a Rogue who has spent his life mastering the art of throwing a dagger is worse than the Fighter who spent his entire life practicing with everything other than a dagger.

Secondly, you chose poorly with your example. I'll assume you meant a str-secondary sorc (only half of the sorcs). If so, most str-secondary sorcs will start with a 16 or 18. That's a +3 or +4 to hit over the Avenger... except the Avenger gets to roll twice, which is considered to be the equivalent of a +5 to hit. By the time the Sorc may match him, the Avenger will have already taken a feat to make MBA's with Wisdom, meaning he'll never miss with a MBA and the Sorc will still be hitting for 1d4+very little damage.


... Sometimes you will be sailing and you will have to make a sailing check (or hire a professional sailor) to avoid capsizing a ship or something. It's not to showcase anything or to tie into a backstory, it's there because it makes sense. Again, that's just a different playstyle, one that I don't particularly subscribe to.

Okay - here's how I understand 4e skills. They have all been combined to make the skill list smaller. This doesn't mean that the skills aren't as all-encompassing as GURPS or 3.5, however. It means that they are still there, just buried. You want to stop the ship from capsizing? Well, the fun in 4e skills is the fact that it's not "pass or die" like 3.5 was so popular for. In 3.5, if you fail that profession check, you all go into the ocean. In 4e, it's a skill challenge, or if your DM doesn't do skill challenges, it's still a couple of skills that need to be rolled.

Nature to understand the forces that are pushing and pulling the boat and how to figure out when it will be at its strongest.
Athletics to get up that rigging and to turn the boat the right way to avoid capsizing.
Acrobatics to keep your balance during the whole thing.
Endurance because I'm betting those waves hurt like the dickens, and you need to be able to keep working.
History or Nature to better understand the logistics of sailing.

In the above examples, I would make Acrobatics and Endurance minor skills and, on success, award a +2 for the next major skill rolled.

In your example, one person makes a check that determines quite possibly whether the entire party lives without DM fiat. In my example, the entire party makes checks to determine whether the entire party lives without DM fiat. Furthermore, in my example, someone who wanted to build a sailor would be trained in those skills and would still be able to take the lead (captain), but all of his party members (untrained sailors) would still be making checks to determine if the boat capsizes or not. Or, basically... dare I say it: more realistic? One sailor will not stop a boat from capsizing.

This is major part. In D&D, you can have a character who is mechanically a very good sailor and a fighter instead of a very good fighter and a sailor. The core is not being a fighter - it's being a very good sailor. These characters are actually pretty common as NPCs in fantasy stories, and in 3.5 you had rules to actually create their game statistics. In 4e, they are very good sailors because you say so. Again, it might be enough for some people. It's not for me and I believe it isn't for Kurald even.[/QUOTE]

Ummhh - so you are arguing that because a typical NPC in a story can be better at a profession than fighting, the system should handle it? It does. Just like in 3.5, I wave my little DM hand and suddenly there's a whole boat filled with sailors who can barely fight. Oh sure, in 3.5 I suppose I could stat out all 50 sailors with different stats to make it more realistic. But - no. Oh no. Many no's. If I needed to create that in 4e, I'd simply make one and use it for all the sailors: minions (1hp) that use a dagger (+5 to hit, 4 damage) and I'd give them stats and skills. So they would be better at sailing than fighting, that's for sure.

nightwyrm
2010-12-26, 03:44 PM
There are 2 problems with this. In 3.5, what is the difference between a class that specializes in a longsword and an equal-BAB class that specializes in daggers? Well, they might both have a +1 to hit over the other (Weapon Focus). That's... it. In 4e, what is the difference? Either a +1, +2, or +3 (weapon expertise).



I must disagree with that statement. The major difference between weapons in 4e has little to do with BABs or "to hit" numbers. The difference between weapon groups is mainly due to how they interact with powers and feats and the stat requirements for those feats. A fighter who focuses on daggers will have a much higher dex and lower con than one who focuses on hammers and probably uses a different fighter style.

As for MBAs, I wish people would just stop using them to compare classes. Nobody except defenders uses MBAs much anyways and lots of classes have "use as basic attack" powers anyways.

jseah
2010-12-26, 04:59 PM
I see Knowledge History checks pop up rather alot recently in the thread. wrt 4E skill challenges.

Is knowledge history the only way to know things outside the purview of the other knowledges?
Makes it a rather important skill then.

I mean, seriously, it shows up as an example skill to use in blacksmithing and sailing? What?

****************************************

Hmm, perhaps we're thinking of different things. In 4E, you bend the skills to make up the skill challenge.
In 3.5, you have the skill, or fail.

IIRC, there was a puzzle thingy in a splatbook called Traps and Treachery II that introduced me to D&D. At the end, there was a puzzle where part of the solution involved the players recognizing that the bunch of floating spheres was actually a model of the starmap.
Cue Profession Sailor at DC20 or Astrology at DC 15. IIRC, there was another alternate skill check for recognizing it involving a made-up knowledge skill.

No skill, you don't recognize it, and have very little chance of figuring out that you're supposed to cast Light on where the sun should be.
And no, knowledge history doesn't help. =P


^That kind of thing you never see in 4E. It's probably a style difference.

Suedars
2010-12-26, 05:15 PM
So you either pass your obscure skill check or stall out in the adventure? Seems like poor design to me. Anyways, in 4E that'd be an Arcana check to recognize the Star Map, given that the Far Realm is now connected to the stars.

jseah
2010-12-26, 05:48 PM
That one was a standalone puzzle for DMs to drop into an adventure. Traps and Treachery isn't a module, it's a book... of traps. That's it. Just weird and creatively horrible traps.

Presumably the DM would have another way around it.

Then again, if you went exactly by it, all solving the puzzle did was turn off the wall of force blocking the corridor. So all that does is use a cantrip instead of a 5th level disintegrate.

Kylarra
2010-12-26, 06:04 PM
...and what's the problem with that?I guess there is no problem if you don't expect your sailor to need to climb, balance, use rope, or spot things.

Ozreth
2010-12-26, 06:10 PM
But, um... no one's ever been able to say WHY they need rules for their Dwarf Blacksmith/Sailor/lawyer/etc., other than "I want those rules to exist."

In 4e; a longsword is a longsword is a longsword. The worst made and best made nonmagical weapons are exactly alike, statistically.

So why does it matter that you're a better Sword-smith? Is there an ACTUAL reason for this to exist? because if someone can't be a blacksmith/sailor/lawyer/etc without rules for it, he or she doesn't know how to roleplay. The profession skills were crutches at the very best, and terribly written rules at worst.

For the same reasons we use the rules for the rest of the stuff in the books, whatever edition it may be. They make things in the game feel much more tangible and attainable and give fun goals to work towards.

Giving guides for creation and outcomes and whatnot make the game feel like you are doing more than simply playing make believe.

Suedars
2010-12-26, 06:14 PM
For the same reasons we use the rules for the rest of the stuff in the books, whatever edition it may be. They make things in the game feel much more tangible and attainable and give fun goals to work towards.

Giving guides for creation and outcomes and whatnot make the game feel like you are doing more than simply playing make believe.

But the point is there aren't really any rules for crafting and professions in 3.5. All you get is a table telling you how many silver pieces you can make a week as a cobbler based on your role, and rules for making mundane items at a discount that you could just normally purchase after just one or two sessions as a first level character.

If you ever do become a master blacksmith in 3.5 it's going to basically amount to GM fiat, given that the only "reward" the book gives you is a 10GP/week income.

Blackfang108
2010-12-26, 08:14 PM
For the same reasons we use the rules for the rest of the stuff in the books, whatever edition it may be. They make things in the game feel much more tangible and attainable and give fun goals to work towards.

Giving guides for creation and outcomes and whatnot make the game feel like you are doing more than simply playing make believe.

Wait, huh?

Again, all I'm seeing is: "trade skills should exist because I want them."

none of what you just said should make Profesion(whatever the F) or Craft(something else) an important, let alone Core skill.

Guidelines for creation DO EXIST in 4e. The Martial Practice (forgot name), or the Create Magic Item Ritual. There are created items.

For mundane items, as no one has even tried to answer this question, despite the entirety of 3.x trade skills focusing on mundane items and abilities: WHY DOES IT MATTER HOW WELL YOU MADE IT, WHEN THERE ARE NO RULES FOR MUNDANE ITEM QUALITY VARIANCE IN 4E???

Again, a spear is a spear is a spear. a Climber's kit is a Climber's kit is a Climber's kit. there are no rules for quality variance amongst these mundane items. In CORE 4e, the best made, top of the line, super awesome quality thieves tools offer the same bonuses, and cost the same, as the shoddiest made, just passed standards inspection, thieves tools.

So how would the Craft(something stupid) or profession(something worse) or Perform (Something that might as well be Streetwise, Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate) add to your experience?

Because, honestly, even my 3e groups have looked at those skills and eschewed them, because their inclusion was poorly thought out at the very best.

Wizards must have failed their Craft(stupid RPG Rules) checks when they made them.

(Side note: apparently RPG is misspelled.)

jseah
2010-12-26, 08:44 PM
Blackfang108:
Pretty much yes. We want trade skills... because well, we want to make them part of the game.

Yeah?

It got rather important when I had a player involved in an intrigue plot, who rather than save the kidnapped blacksmith to make an admantine gear shaft (first of it's kind) for the gnomes, said, "Hey, I have profession (smith). What's the DC to work admantine?"

Of course, making it himself didn't let him escape the inter-House clash and the ensuing trade war that followed. But it did give him a significantly larger role in the conflict.


EDIT: his check controlled how long it took him to make the thing. Which was rather important with regards to what happened to the other players in the mean time.

Ozreth
2010-12-26, 10:08 PM
Again, I'm not saying 4e needs it, and I don't act like it does, but I also don't make up excuses as to why it dosen't. It just dosen't. There is no greater reasoning behind it other than the devs didn't care to put it in.

I like 4e.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 09:45 AM
All you get is a table telling you how many silver pieces you can make a week as a cobbler based on your role, and rules for making mundane items at a discount that you could just normally purchase after just one or two sessions as a first level character.

If you ever do become a master blacksmith in 3.5 it's going to basically amount to GM fiat, given that the only "reward" the book gives you is a 10GP/week income.
Suedars, I think you're simply not familiar enough with 3.5 to discuss this. For some archetypes, Craft skills are essential. If you use the Fabricate or Craft Magic Tattoo spells a lot, they are important. If you are a dedicated poisoner, Craft (poison) is the most important skill in your build bar none.
Also, you might be surprised that you can't always buy what you want with DMs who care at least a little about consistence. "I go into the weapon shop in the backwater village and buy a new boomerang, a spiked chain, dwarvencraft scale mail and a feycraft buckler" won't fly in my games and I'm guessing won't fly in most games as well. So knowing how to craft means you can actually get what you want, not just a discount.


Again, I'm not saying 4e needs it, and I don't act like it does, but I also don't make up excuses as to why it dosen't. It just dosen't. There is no greater reasoning behind it other than the devs didn't care to put it in.

I like 4e.
See, this is very reasonable and that's actually what I've been saying all along in the thread. 4e doesn't have it, it doesn't need it for it's intended playstyle and that's fine. But when people say it's 'badwrongnotfun' to not play they way they do, it usually gets complicated. Thanks for being a reasonable guy, Ozreth.

Tiki Snakes
2010-12-27, 10:28 AM
Suedars, I think you're simply not familiar enough with 3.5 to discuss this. For some archetypes, Craft skills are essential. If you use the Fabricate or Craft Magic Tattoo spells a lot, they are important. If you are a dedicated poisoner, Craft (poison) is the most important skill in your build bar none.
Also, you might be surprised that you can't always buy what you want with DMs who care at least a little about consistence. "I go into the weapon shop in the backwater village and buy a new boomerang, a spiked chain, dwarvencraft scale mail and a feycraft buckler" won't fly in my games and I'm guessing won't fly in most games as well. So knowing how to craft means you can actually get what you want, not just a discount.


See, this is very reasonable and that's actually what I've been saying all along in the thread. 4e doesn't have it, it doesn't need it for it's intended playstyle and that's fine. But when people say it's 'badwrongnotfun' to not play they way they do, it usually gets complicated. Thanks for being a reasonable guy, Ozreth.

As I understand it, if you are a poisoner, you are pretty much boned anyway. Something about the main ingredient of most non-homebrew poisons being 'weak-sauce', apparently.

I'd hardly call 'wizard with one of two particular spells' archetypes, either. I won't call Fabricate obscure, but craft magic tattoo? That come up much, does it?

I think I lose the intended message of your post somewhere along the way, because you seem to be arguing along the lines of blacksmithing items being the only reliable way to obtain magic items, but that's just as possible in 4e anyway, so I must be missing something.


Also; "The DC to work adamantium, you say? Well, you've not done it before, but their engineer probably left his equipment and workshop around and they really need this thing quickly, if you're going to try making it yourself you have a shot as you are trained in that kind of thing. Roll high on your Int check, though."
[Alternatively, Arcane could be supplemented if you are not treating Adamantium as a worldy mineral, or Endurance if the main difficulty is the physical effort required]
Though, I believe the point that was being made was that according to RAW, Profession (Smith) can't even be used to make things. Craft can, admittedly. Comparing the SRD entry for the two, there is a fair bit of difference in article size.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 10:55 AM
Given that both of those people are exactly as good at those tasks as the DM says, is it not the case that the DM and circumstancial bonuses etc feature rather heavily in this here, if there is even a point to rolling?
Yes, it does depend on the DM, but this is simply because there are no rules for it. This means that with a good DM it's not a problem (because he'll make up something that works), but with a bad DM it is (because he'll either make up something that doesn't work, or forbid it outright). In LFR, or a campaign with rotating DMs, the added complication is that two DMs may handle the situation very differently.

Consider two tasks: performing, and repair. These are not obscure things that will take away from your character's effectivity. These are common tasks that come up all the time in RPGs - and not just for making money between sessions, but during the adventure where it makes a difference (you're in a hurry and the wagon breaks down, what do you do?)

So suppose I want to make a character that's good at one of these, because I know they'll come up. In pretty much every RPG I can think of, they are three skills. For example, in Whitewolf, this is as easy as putting dots in Perform and Repair, respectively. Any reasonable DM will, when I'm trying to perform, ask for a perform check; and as a result, my character, who claims to be good at this, is in fact good at this.

Not so in 4E. There aren't actually any rules for this, so a DM will have to make something up. That's not the problem. The problem is, if I want to make a character who's good at this, that I need to play the guessing game.

Suppose I want a character who's good with tools. Is the DM going to ask for a nature check, or a dungeoneering check, or a thievery check? Or will he, as suggested earlier in this thread, allow a check on any of those? Or is he perhaps expecting me to use the Repair Object ritual (even when I'm not a caster), or some artificer utility power from a splatbook somewhere? If I write it in my backstory, will he remember that during play? Will he give me a check but give the same to the ranger because that's what rangers do, regardless of backstory? Will he give me a token +1 bonus that doesn't make any difference in practice?

I don't know in advance. And the point is that in almost all of these cases, my character that claims to be good at repairing is, in actual gameplay, not. And that's a shortcoming, because in pretty much every other RPG it's trivially easy to consistently make a character like this. I really don't believe it's in any way gamebreaking (nor crippling) to make a character who's good with tools.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 11:30 AM
I don't know in advance. And the point is that in almost all of these cases, my character that claims to be good at repairing is, in actual gameplay, not. And that's a shortcoming, because in pretty much every other RPG it's trivially easy to consistently make a character like this. I really don't believe it's in any way gamebreaking (nor crippling) to make a character who's good with tools.

Fair enough. I think I see where you're coming from in this instance. (Granted, I've seen the same issue in 3.x multiple times because of either A. not enough skillpoints for the class itself, or B. profession/craft/whatever was cross class and other skills ate into the skill budget.)

And, while it's not a perfect solution (but perhaps the best solution sans homebrewing skills like Saph's idea.), couldn't you, you know, ASK your DM what skills are important for something?
I recall reading the Serenity RPG where it said to ask you DM what the combination of die rolls will be used for your specialty so that you aren't useless at it from the get go. (the example was Flying a ship, and having (StatA+Pilot) or (StatB+Pilot) as valid choices.)

Kurald Galain
2010-12-27, 11:37 AM
Fair enough. I think I see where you're coming from in this instance.
Thanks.


(Granted, I've seen the same issue in 3.x multiple times
I agree that the 3E skill system also has its share of problems. For example, 3.0 has a few obvious-in-hindsight issues that 3.5 fixes.


couldn't you, you know, ASK your DM what skills are important for something?
In a campaign, yes, I would ask the DM how he rules it, and build my char accordingly. In LFR, however, that's not going to work because I'll have any number of different DMs.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 01:25 PM
As I understand it, if you are a poisoner, you are pretty much boned anyway. Something about the main ingredient of most non-homebrew poisons being 'weak-sauce', apparently.
You, sir, are mistaken. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4854.0)


I'd hardly call 'wizard with one of two particular spells' archetypes, either. I won't call Fabricate obscure, but craft magic tattoo? That come up much, does it?
Craft Magic Tattoo is one of the Red Wizard's signature spells. Fabricate is very popular, frequently used and extremely versatile. So that's a very fair niche for a skill, I believe.


I think I lose the intended message of your post somewhere along the way, because you seem to be arguing along the lines of blacksmithing items being the only reliable way to obtain magic items, but that's just as possible in 4e anyway, so I must be missing something.
You are missing something, probably like I said before, because you don't seem to know much about 3.5. All I mentioned in my post were mundane modifications and exotic weapons. Nothing to do with magic.



Also; "The DC to work adamantium, you say? Well, you've not done it before, but their engineer probably left his equipment and workshop around and they really need this thing quickly, if you're going to try making it yourself you have a shot as you are trained in that kind of thing. Roll high on your Int check, though."
[Alternatively, Arcane could be supplemented if you are not treating Adamantium as a worldy mineral, or Endurance if the main difficulty is the physical effort required]
Though, I believe the point that was being made was that according to RAW, Profession (Smith) can't even be used to make things. Craft can, admittedly. Comparing the SRD entry for the two, there is a fair bit of difference in article size.
Profession (smith) makes no sense, I don't see your point.
Also, no adamantium in D&D.
Also, you just presented a houserule. Nice. Still doesn't adress the point and you have no in-game way to know ifthe guy was trained or not (except for Saph's houserule).

Suedars
2010-12-27, 04:10 PM
You, sir, are mistaken. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4854.0)

Looking at that, it looks like it's a build that's decent at low levels, mediocre at mid levels and outclassed at high levels. Sounds a lot like the Fighter, and nobody would suggest that the Fighter is anything but weak sauce.


Craft Magic Tattoo is one of the Red Wizard's signature spells. Fabricate is very popular, frequently used and extremely versatile. So that's a very fair niche for a skill, I believe.

Fabricate only requires a skill check when you're using it to make jewelry or something advanced like that. When it's used for raw materials (which is the main use I've seen), it doesn't require a check. And Craft Magic Tattoo is one spell used by one prestige class in one supplement. Two spells out of the hundreds in 3.5 doesn't exactly count as great support for the skill.



Profession (smith) makes no sense, I don't see your point.
Also, no adamantium in D&D.
Also, you just presented a houserule. Nice. Still doesn't adress the point and you have no in-game way to know ifthe guy was trained or not (except for Saph's houserule).

How does Profession (smith) not make sense. Is blacksmithing not a profession? What is it about blacksmithing that makes it impossible to imagine a smith earning a steady income for his work?

And seriously? Adamantium, Adamantine, Adamantite, they're all the same thing. You know what he meant.

And no, that's not a houserule. 4e (and 3.5e for that matter too) recommends using ability checks for miscellaneous tests. And how is ruling "Roll Endurance to see if you're hardy enough for the work" a houserule? Is "Roll Perception to see if you see the guys hiding in the bush" also a houserule?

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 04:57 PM
Looking at that, it looks like it's a build that's decent at low levels, mediocre at mid levels and outclassed at high levels. Sounds a lot like the Fighter, and nobody would suggest that the Fighter is anything but weak sauce.
Poisoners are devastating at low levels. Game breakingly devastating, period. Good poisons can one-shot most stuff below CR 5 or so. And it's not they are 'weak' later on, it's that going through immunities requires so much resource investment that you're usually better off doing something else.


Fabricate only requires a skill check when you're using it to make jewelry or something advanced like that. When it's used for raw materials (which is the main use I've seen), it doesn't require a check. And Craft Magic Tattoo is one spell used by one prestige class in one supplement. Two spells out of the hundreds in 3.5 doesn't exactly count as great support for the skill.
Did I ever say 'great support'? Oh, wait, right. I didn't. I said niche.


How does Profession (smith) not make sense. Is blacksmithing not a profession? What is it about blacksmithing that makes it impossible to imagine a smith earning a steady income for his work?
Because you have Craft (weaponsmithing) for that and smiths get monkey by selling what they craft.


And no, that's not a houserule. 4e (and 3.5e for that matter too) recommends using ability checks for miscellaneous tests. And how is ruling "Roll Endurance to see if you're hardy enough for the work" a houserule? Is "Roll Perception to see if you see the guys hiding in the bush" also a houserule?
So you're saying 4e actually has rules for crafting? Terrific.

Suedars
2010-12-27, 05:29 PM
Poisoners are devastating at low levels. Game breakingly devastating, period. Good poisons can one-shot most stuff below CR 5 or so. And it's not they are 'weak' later on, it's that going through immunities requires so much resource investment that you're usually better off doing something else.

Congratulations, you found one build where craft is relevant. It's still irrelevant to your claim that 4e doesn't support roleplaying as well since it doesn't have craft skills. Roleplaying is almost completely divorced from character build.



Did I ever say 'great support'? Oh, wait, right. I didn't. I said niche.

So 4e completely isn't a real roleplaying game (or rather is a roleplaying game) because it doesn't have a couple paragraphs on professions and crafting and doesn't toss those skills a bone once every ten books?


Because you have Craft (weaponsmithing) for that and smiths get monkey by selling what they craft.

Why is farming a profession and smithing a craft? Both aim at producing goods. Or is the Craft/Profession distinction an utterly meaningless one?


So you're saying 4e actually has rules for crafting? Terrific.

Yes, the rules are essentially: This is a Heroic Fantasy Game. Why do you want extensive rules for how many horseshoes your character can make in an hour? If it really matters, roll intelligence.

Ultimately though, we aren't even arguing about your initial claim, which is that 4e is a lesser roleplaying system because it doesn't have rules for crafting. Do you really want me to believe that you regularly make impassioned in-character speeches about your skill as a blacksmith? How does the ability to have 3 ranks in Profession (Blacksmith) affect your ability to roleplay your character at all? Sure, there might be a character concept or two that 3.x supports that 4e doesn't, but I can point to several that 4e supports that 3.x doesn't. And if we're measuring systems by how many characters they support, well then both 3.x and 4e are terrible systems since I can't play a Jedi, or Spiderman, or a Space Marine. We really should all be playing GURPS then.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 05:50 PM
Congratulations, you found one build where craft is relevant. It's still irrelevant to your claim that 4e doesn't support roleplaying as well since it doesn't have craft skills. Roleplaying is almost completely divorced from character build.
What?! I never said anything of the sort. Stop throwing strawmen at me.


So 4e completely isn't a real roleplaying game (or rather is a roleplaying game) because it doesn't have a couple paragraphs on professions and crafting and doesn't toss those skills a bone once every ten books?
Dude, 4e is focused on combat and combat only. Other aspects of the game world are usually mentioned as 'roleplaying' by many people as do I.
4e is a good game. Really, it is. It's a good game if you want to play a hero in a party with other rangersthree guys in different roles to wander around killing small groups of monsters. It basically says 'for any other stuff, improvise'. And that's fine for me, but it's too restricted. I really don't think a role-playing game should be this narrow. I know board games with more flexibility (say, Last Night on Earth).
I never said it's 'badwrongnotfun' to play 4e, I just said it's not what I consider a good role-playing game. Savvy?




Why is farming a profession and smithing a craft? Both aim at producing goods. Or is the Craft/Profession distinction an utterly meaningless one?
A farmer doesn't produce food, ya know. He grows food.



Yes, the rules are essentially: This is a Heroic Fantasy Game. Why do you want extensive rules for how many horseshoes your character can make in an hour? If it really matters, roll intelligence.
Yes, and that is my problem. I just don't like. What's your problem with what I like or don't like?


Ultimately though, we aren't even arguing about your initial claim, which is that 4e is a lesser roleplaying system because it doesn't have rules for crafting.
That wasn't my claim. Someone said that and I answered 'amen brother' as a joke.


Do you really want me to believe that you regularly make impassioned in-character speeches about your skill as a blacksmith?
I don't, but I have a character in my game who prides himself in being 'the kingdom's best blacksmith'. My last player character was a dancer; I had Perform maxed and took sub levels in darksong Knight to get it as a class skill for my Fighter.
Is it too weird that I was completely horrified when my 4e Bard didn't even use instruments as implements?

How does the ability to have 3 ranks in Profession (Blacksmith) affect your ability to roleplay your character at all?
It doesn't. But it means gamedesigners though 'screw anything other than combat, it doesn't matter'. And again, I'm not saying this is wrong (like some people said about different playstyles than their own). I'm just saying it's not what I want.

Sure, there might be a character concept or two that 3.x supports that 4e doesn't, but I can point to several that 4e supports that 3.x doesn't.
I seriously doubt that.

And if we're measuring systems by how many characters they support, well then both 3.x and 4e are terrible systems since I can't play a Jedi, or Spiderman, or a Space Marine. We really should all be playing GURPS then.
You can make a Jedi and Spiderman very easily in 3.5 (actually, the Warlock class alone should get you both concepts done). Dunno about Space Marines, never heard of it.
And again, I'm not measuring anything. I'm just saying I don't like 4e. I said again and again that some people have different playstyles than mine and they enjoy. Some people simply don't care that you can't make an agile paladin, that bards are not better at music than anyone else, that bards don't even have any reason to use instruments, that armies of minions die in a sandstorm in a single round, that all mundane items have exact the same quality, that only PCs have classes and so on and so forth. That's fine for them. Those things simply get in my nerves. If it works for you, hey, knock yourself out.

jseah
2010-12-27, 05:58 PM
Now now, it's getting a bit heated.

It's just different styles of play no? 3.5 was more concerned about "having the right mechanics for the right situations" than 4e, which went for a "here's a situation, justify how your skills apply".

A different playstyle that some people don't like and some people do.

It's like how I won't be able to tolerate playing Window or any other rules-lite RPG without a DM who lays down massive amounts of groundrules. (akin to building his own system)
Some of us like to have a baseline that we can fall back to, instead of having to make up stuff on the fly. Or watch our DM make up stuff on the fly.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 06:06 PM
Now now, it's getting a bit heated.

It's just different styles of play no? 3.5 was more concerned about "having the right mechanics for the right situations" than 4e, which went for a "here's a situation, justify how your skills apply".

A different playstyle that some people don't like and some people do.

It's like how I won't be able to tolerate playing Window or any other rules-lite RPG without a DM who lays down massive amounts of groundrules. (akin to building his own system)
Some of us like to have a baseline that we can fall back to, instead of having to make up stuff on the fly. Or watch our DM make up stuff on the fly.

That's what I've been saying for three pages, thanks.

Suedars
2010-12-27, 06:21 PM
What?! I never said anything of the sort. Stop throwing strawmen at me.

Yes you did:


Also, this is one of the reasons why I gave up on 4e as well. My main complaint is how much you have to handwave stuff. Why are there Warlocks? Why do people make pacts with distant forces to do stuff you can already do by training with a sword? Why should the heroes be afraid of swords if they know the toen guard just can't kill them? Trade skills are part of it. If you wanted to be a sailor in 3.5, you had mechanical support for it. In 4e, you get 'just write it in your background'.
It's the differece between role-playing game and role-playing game, IMHO. One has rules for a functional world. The other has rules for a functional game.

You even do it in this very post:


Dude, 4e is focused on combat and combat only. Other aspects of the game world are usually mentioned as 'roleplaying' by many people as do I.
4e is a good game. Really, it is. It's a good game if you want to play a hero in a party with other rangersthree guys in different roles to wander around killing small groups of monsters. It basically says 'for any other stuff, improvise'. And that's fine for me, but it's too restricted. I really don't think a role-playing game should be this narrow. I know board games with more flexibility (say, Last Night on Earth).
I never said it's 'badwrongnotfun' to play 4e, I just said it's not what I consider a good role-playing game. Savvy?

No, it really isn't. Skills, skill challenges, rituals, martial practices, quest exp, roleplaying exp, and many utilities would like to have a word with you. And the improvisation is the same as every other edition of D&D save 3rd. Did D&D suddenly become a roleplaying game in 2000? And there are entire roleplaying game rulesets that have a higher level of improvisation than 4e's non-combat areas (the entire rules-light genre). There's nothing wrong with not liking 4e, but there is something wrong with mischaracterizing it and attacking it for imagined faults it doesn't even have.

You can't throw out crap like "D&D 4e is focused on combat and combat only" then get outraged when I call you out for saying it doesn't support roleplaying as a system.


A farmer doesn't produce food, ya know. He grows food.

Which is a form of production. You still haven't shown how the Craft/Profession divide makes any sense.


Yes, and that is my problem. I just don't like. What's your problem with what I like or don't like?

See above. Dislike it if you wish, but at least dislike it for the correct reasons.


That wasn't my claim. Someone said that and I answered 'amen brother' as a joke.

No, you specifically said that 4e doesn't support roleplaying as well as 3.x because it lacks simulationist rules.


I don't, but I have a character in my game who prides himself in being 'the kingdom's best blacksmith'. My last player character was a dancer; I had Perform maxed and took sub levels in darksong Knight to get it as a class skill for my Fighter.
Is it too weird that I was completely horrified when my 4e Bard didn't even use instruments as implements?

Bards still get magical instruments as magical items.


It doesn't. But it means gamedesigners though 'screw anything other than combat, it doesn't matter'. And again, I'm not saying this is wrong (like some people said about different playstyles than their own). I'm just saying it's not what I want.

No, they didn't. The "4e doesn't do anything but combat meme" has been disproven time and time again and needs to die out. Yes, all 4e characters are assumed to be capable in combat. But there's quite a bit outside of combat for them to do in the system.



You can make a Jedi and Spiderman very easily in 3.5 (actually, the Warlock class alone should get you both concepts done). Dunno about Space Marines, never heard of it.
And again, I'm not measuring anything. I'm just saying I don't like 4e. I said again and again that some people have different playstyles than mine and they enjoy. Some people simply don't care that you can't make an agile paladin, that bards are not better at music than anyone else, that bards don't even have any reason to use instruments, that armies of minions die in a sandstorm in a single round, that all mundane items have exact the same quality, that only PCs have classes and so on and so forth. That's fine for them. Those things simply get in my nerves. If it works for you, hey, knock yourself out.

There's nothing wrong with not liking 4e. There is something wrong with saying that 4e is a worse system for roleplaying on arbitrary lines that aren't even correct.

And half these things you're listing aren't even correct. Agile Paladin? Put points into dex (which is what you want to be doing anyways for a couple paladin builds). Train Athletics. Take a background that supports Acrobatics and train that too.

Bards are better at music than others given that half their powers involve magical music that bewilders your foes and encourages your allies to fight on. They've also got access to several bard only magic instruments.

Mundane sandstorms won't kill minions. All they'll do is drain a healing surge (which minions don't even have) or give some penalties to rolls on a failed Endurance check. Magical sandstorms on the other hand? Yeah, I'd be pretty disappointed if my 15th level Druid couldn't wipe out an army of mooks through a magical sandstorm (which is equally true in 3.x).

Dark Sun has rules for inferior weapons and weapon breakage (or superior weapons resistant to breakage if you're counting inferior as the norm as Dark Sun does).

Saying "I don't like 4e because I can't play a village blacksmith" is fine. Saying "4e won't let me roleplay or do anything that isn't fighting because I can't play a village blacksmith" isn't.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 06:36 PM
You even do it in this very post
You missed 'IMHO' there, didn't you? It just means I don't like it, I'm not saying you're doing it wrong.


No, it really isn't. Skills, skill challenges, rituals, martial practices, quest exp, roleplaying exp, and many utilities would like to have a word with you.
There is roleplaying XP built in 4e? Good to know, never heard of it. My DM specifically called it a houserule of his.


And the improvisation is the same as every other edition of D&D save 3rd.
AD&D went into even more depth about most of this stuff than 3.5 ever did.


You can't throw out crap like "D&D 4e is focused on combat and combat only" then get outraged when I call you out for saying it doesn't support roleplaying as a system.
But 4e is focused on combat. Heck, the one supplement not about killing things in any way whatsover seems to be cancelled, which makes me very sad.


Which is a form of production. You still haven't shown how the Craft/Profession divide makes any sense.
Craft requires you to craft, not to produce. There.



No, you specifically said that 4e doesn't support roleplaying as well as 3.x because it lacks simulationist rules.
I said 'IMHO it doesn't'. Am I not entitled to have my own opinion just because you like 4e while someone said Craft skills are 'badwrongnotfun' in the very same thread?


Bards still get magical instruments as magical items.
So I need to be 4th level to have a lute? :smallamused:


No, they didn't. The "4e doesn't do anything but combat meme" has been disproven time and time again and needs to die out. Yes, all 4e characters are assumed to be capable in combat. But there's quite a bit outside of combat for them to do in the system.
Please enlighten me, then.


And half these things you're listing aren't even correct. Agile Paladin? Put points into dex (which is what you want to be doing anyways for a couple paladin builds). Train Athletics. Take a background that supports Acrobatics and train that too.
Well, this thread disagrees with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165846)


Bards are better at music than others given that half their powers involve magical music that bewilders your foes and encourages your allies to fight on. They've also got access to several bard only magic instruments.
'magical music' is just fluff for doing stuff that any leader can do. It doesn't even feel like something music related. Most of my 4e experience was as a Bard and I completely despised it.


Mundane sandstorms won't kill minions. All they'll do is drain a healing surge (which minions don't even have)
or give some penalties to rolls on a failed Endurance check. Magical sandstorms on the other hand? Yeah, I'd be pretty disappointed if my 15th level Druid couldn't wipe out an army of mooks through a magical sandstorm (which is equally true in 3.x).
I believe all NPCs have 1 healing surge, IIRC. So you mean no one ever dies in sandstorms in 4e? Interesting.


Dark Sun has rules for inferior weapons and weapon breakage (or superior weapons resistant to breakage if you're counting inferior as the norm as Dark Sun does).
That's about the material, not the crafter, and you know it.


Saying "I don't like 4e because I can't play a village blacksmith" is fine. Saying "4e won't let me roleplay or do anything that isn't fighting because I can't play a village blacksmith" isn't.
Oh, look, hello mr. strawman, how are you doing?

Suedars
2010-12-27, 06:55 PM
I said 'IMHO it doesn't'. Am I not entitled to have my own opinion just because you like 4e while someone said Craft skills are 'badwrongnotfun' in the very same thread?

Adding "IMHO" to a sentence doesn't retract your claim. If I say "IMHO the sky is green", you'd be right to correct me. The same applies when you say "IMHO 4e doesn't support non-combat and doesn't allow for roleplaying".


Please enlighten me, then.

I've mentioned all the non-combat aspects of the game repeatedly, but you seem keen on ignoring me. Anyways, here's a link to a character and what he can do not related to combat: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=12983204&postcount=229

That should put just about any 3.x skill monkey to shame in out-of-combat usefulness.


Well, this thread disagrees with you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165846)

In that thread you want to play a defender, but also be a striker and a leader. Are you really surprised you can't do all that? You can do 2 of the 3 quite easily though. Pick up magical plate that either transforms into clothes, or that can reduce armor checks at a slight penalty to AC. Focus on Str primarily, and Dex and Cha secondarily. Use a 2h weapon and focus on the Str based high damage powers. Train athletics and pick up stealth from a background.


I believe all NPCs have 1 healing surge, IIRC. So you mean no one ever dies in sandstorms in 4e? Interesting.

Stop deliberately twisting my words. Individuals might die, but entire armies generally won't be wiped out by mundane sandstorms.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 07:09 PM
Adding "IMHO" to a sentence doesn't retract your claim. If I say "IMHO the sky is green", you'd be right to correct me. The same applies when you say "IMHO 4e doesn't support non-combat and doesn't allow for roleplaying".
I'd be right to correct you by saying 'No, dude, I think you're mistaken'. You're basically repeating 'Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about'.


I've mentioned all the non-combat aspects of the game repeatedly, but you seem keen on ignoring me. Anyways, here's a link to a character and what he can do not related to combat: http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=12983204&postcount=229
Oh, let me see.


That should put just about any 3.x skill monkey to shame in out-of-combat usefulness.
Sorry, but that almost sounds like a joke. Everything your dude does, a level 1 changeling Bard with high Int does. Other races just need to be, what, 2 or 3 levels higher.
The one thing you can't do (teleport an ally beside you) a wizard could do. At first level. So, no, I don't think it has better out-of-combat usefulness, specially when a first level 3rd edition bard could, say, befriend a king/the tarrasque with a single die roll and a full-round action.
That's not exactly a good thing, mind you. Diplomacy is too powerful in 3.5. But Diplomacy alone already defines that any 3.5 socially focused character is more useful than a 4e socially focused character.


In that thread you want to play a defender, but also be a striker and a leader. Are you really surprised you can't do all that?
I am. I can do it quite well in 3.5.


You can do 2 of the 3 quite easily though.
And here comes another 4e issue: roles. Since I came last, I simply had to be a healer or a defender, something I didn't want to. I wanted to play an Avenger, I just couldn't 'because the party wouldn't survive' (DM's wording). Things escalated awfully after that; we had terrible party dynamics and everyone ignored them when combat started, because the game system basically forced it onto us. I tried going solo with my bard once and I was trashed by a mook because leaders can't do anything alone. I have a lot of issues with 4e because of my experience with it.


Pick up magical plate that either transforms into clothes, or that can reduce armor checks at a slight penalty to AC.
Can't start with it, can I?

Focus on Str primarily, and Dex and Cha secondarily. Use a 2h weapon and focus on the Str based high damage powers. Train athletics and pick up stealth from a background.
That misses on marking power, doesn't it? Or healing power?


Stop deliberately twisting my words. Individuals might die, but entire armies generally won't be wiped out by mundane sandstorms.
I'm not twisting your words, it seems I really misunderstood. You said sandstorms just take healing surges, right? You don't die when you're out of healing surges, right? So no one dies in sandstorms.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 07:11 PM
I am. I can do it quite well in 3.5.

There's the crux of your problem.

THIS ISN'T 3.5, NOR SHOULD IT BE TREATED AS SUCH.

true_shinken
2010-12-27, 07:16 PM
There's the crux of your problem.

THIS ISN'T 3.5, NOR SHOULD IT BE TREATED AS SUCH.
The problem is not that it isn't 3.5, the problem is that I find it too narrow. I just don't like the fact that I can't do most of the concepts I think of.
Also, please tune down the caps. It's rude.

Blackfang108
2010-12-27, 07:25 PM
The problem is not that it isn't 3.5, the problem is that I find it too narrow. I just don't like the fact that I can't do most of the concepts I think of.
Also, please tune down the caps. It's rude.

It is not rude, it is emphasis.

I'm not saying that disliking 4e is a problem. But you seem to have based your decision on the fact that 4e isn't 3.5, and those of us who defend it on its own merits are wrong, because we don't agree with you.

If you had said the above post say, two pages ago, we wouldn't have even had half of this discussion.

Suedars
2010-12-27, 07:35 PM
I'd be right to correct you by saying 'No, dude, I think you're mistaken'. You're basically repeating 'Shut up, you don't know what you're talking about'.

Because I've been repeating the non-combat aspects of 4e over and over again in this thread, but you're clinging to the dead horse of "4e only does combat".


Sorry, but that almost sounds like a joke. Everything your dude does, a level 1 changeling Bard with high Int does. Other races just need to be, what, 2 or 3 levels higher.
The one thing you can't do (teleport an ally beside you) a wizard could do. At first level. So, no, I don't think it has better out-of-combat usefulness, specially when a first level 3rd edition bard could, say, befriend a king/the tarrasque with a single die roll and a full-round action.
That's not exactly a good thing, mind you. Diplomacy is too powerful in 3.5. But Diplomacy alone already defines that any 3.5 socially focused character is more useful than a 4e socially focused character.

Let's look just at trained skills. The character has excellent scores in Knowledge (Arcana, The Planes, Nature, Local, and Geography), and competitive scores in all the other Knowledges. He also has excellent scores in Balance, Bluff, Climb, Craft (everything), Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Hide, Intimidate, Jump, Move Silently, Open Lock, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Survival, Swim, Tumble, and Use Rope. He's also got competitive scores in just about every other skill. How is your character getting anywhere near that level of skill points (28 trained skills for the record)? You're also not getting the numerous rerolls and miscellaneous bonuses to checks.

Though I guess you do get spells, but Bards get a limited number of spells known, so there's not too much you can do there, especially not if you want to be able to have in-combat spells. That's also not even listing all the rituals (spells) the character can have, which would probably easily be 20-30 or so. You could probably match that with a Wizard, but the fact that Wizards can do just about anything in 3.x isn't really a mark in favor of it as a non-combat system. You'd be hard-pressed to do 1/10th of that as a fighter (meanwhile a properly built 4e fighter could still do a decent sized chunk of that list).




And here comes another 4e issue: roles. Since I came last, I simply had to be a healer or a defender, something I didn't want to. I wanted to play an Avenger, I just couldn't 'because the party wouldn't survive' (DM's wording). Things escalated awfully after that; we had terrible party dynamics and everyone ignored them when combat started, because the game system basically forced it onto us. I tried going solo with my bard once and I was trashed by a mook because leaders can't do anything alone. I have a lot of issues with 4e because of my experience with it.

Honestly a lot of this sounds like bad group communication, which will be problematic in any system. Usually when we have a problem with roles being over/underfilled the DM either adjusts encounters, or people compromise on roles.


Can't start with it, can I?

No, but it's attainable at first level.


That misses on marking power, doesn't it? Or healing power?

It gives up some healing power for straight up damage. You're not going to be able to


I'm not twisting your words, it seems I really misunderstood. You said sandstorms just take healing surges, right? You don't die when you're out of healing surges, right? So no one dies in sandstorms.

Just marching through a sandstorm won't kill you unless you're already extremely weakened (I forget the rules for what happens if you're out of surges and lose a surge due to environment, but I think you lose surge value in hp). Being stuck in one for quite some time, especially without supplies can though.

The Glyphstone
2010-12-27, 07:37 PM
Great Modthulhu: Locked for review.