Craft, one class skill or many?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Spinoff from simple Q&A.

Willpell asked if an expert had to choose each iteration of the craft skill as one of his ten class skills.

Andrezzar said that he did, meaning that an expert with ten different craft skills can have no other class skills.

I said that craft is one skill and the various iterations were all sub-sets of craft, meaning that an expert that picked craft for one of his ten could put ranks in as many different crafts as he pleased.

Let's discuss.

[prufock]

Like Knowledge, Perform, and Profession, Craft is actually a number of separate skills. You could have several Craft skills, each with its own ranks, each purchased as a separate skill.

Not much more to say, really. It's right there in the SRD. Similarly buying knowledge doesn't mean you have all knowledge skills and buying profession doesn't mean you have all profession skills.

[nyjastul69]

The craft skill itself states that each craft is a separate skill that is purchased as such. Craft (Basketweaving) is as different from Craft (Bookbinding) as it is from any other skill. Would you allow an expert to take a knowledge skill as one of his 10 class skills and put ranks in all knowledges without them being purchased separately?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The craft skill itself states that each craft is a separate skill that is purchased as such. Craft (Basketweaving) is as different from Craft (Bookbinding) as it is from any other skill. Would you allow an expert to take a knowledge skill as one of his 10 class skills and put ranks in all knowlrdges without them being purchased separately?

Of course not, but the knowledges are always listed as seperate skills. Craft and profession are not, and craft in particular is a class skill for literally every PC class and nearly every NPC class as a single skill.

I'm inclined to think that in the craft skill description their use of the sentence "like knowledge, perform, and profession, craft is actually a number of seperate skills." was meant to be the english usage of the word "skills" rather than the game key-word.

It just doesn't make any sense that the one class that's supposed to be the most flexible in its class skills (before the introduction of dungeonscape) would be singled out like that on craft, or perform and profession for that matter. All three skills are Always listed in the singular in a class skill list.

[qwertyu63]

Per RAW, you do. They are separate skills and are to be chosen separately. Personally, if I were DMing it, I'd tell that rule to (self censored) right off.


The craft skill itself states that each craft is a separate skill that is purchased as such. Craft (Basketweaving) is as different from Craft (Bookbinding) as it is from any other skill. Would you allow an expert to take a knowledge skill as one of his 10 class skills and put ranks in all knowlrdges without them being purchased separately?

Yes, I would let them pick Knowledge as a class skill. You would have to spend skill ranks on each, but no harm in having them.

[nyjastul69]

Of course not, but the knowledges are always listed as seperate skills. Craft and profession are not, and craft in particular is a class skill for literally every PC class and nearly every NPC class as a single skill.

I'm inclined to think that in the craft skill description their use of the sentence "like knowledge, perform, and profession, craft is actually a number of seperate skills." was meant to be the english usage of the word "skills" rather than the game key-word.

It just doesn't make any sense that the one class that's supposed to be the most flexible in its class skills (before the introduction of dungeonscape) would be singled out like that on craft, or perform and profession for that matter. All three skills are Always listed in the singular in a class skill list.

What you say makes sense of course. It's the way I handle it as a DM. It may even be how WotC intended it to work. It's just not written that way.

[umbergod]

craft, while it has it sub specializations, is a single skill for purpose of purchasing expert skill sets. yes you put points in them separately, but for all intents and purposes, its a single skill, with specializations, much like profession.

[Andezzar]

craft, while it has it sub specializations, is a single skill for purpose of purchasing expert skill sets. yes you put points in them separately, but for all intents and purposes, its a single skill, with specializations, much like profession.Care to prove it by a quote from one of the books? The line prufock quoted here and I did in the RAW thread is pretty clear cut that this is not the case.

As to why the craft, perform and profession skills are listed differently than the knowledge skills I don't know. It may be because there is no class that has a restricted choice among those skills. Knowledge however is restricted to only a few for most classes.

[Eldonauran]

Craft() skills have to be taken independantly of other Craft() skills.

As far as I handle the multiple Craft() skills, if a character is going to have many of a similar kind, I allow them to instead to take a Profession() skill that would include as many of those skills in their normal duties. Then, I allow the character to use that Profession() skill in place of the normal Craft checks needed to make specific items, although at a higher DC or the item takes a bit longer to make.

For example, a character that is going to take Craft(weapons) and Craft (Armor) can instead take Profession(blacksmith), or similar, and use it in place of his crafting checks. He saves skill points and can choose to take skill focus to help offset the higher DC if he wishes.

I use the same method in reverse. A character that has Craft(weapons) can seek to work under a Blacksmith for a time and make wages as if he had the Profession(Blacksmith), though at a somewhat smaller wage, since he isnt quite skilled at everything a blacksmith is.

I even allow a slight synergy for having a Profession() and a Craft() skill that are related in a meaningful way. In the above example, a character with both Craft(weapons) and Profession(Blacksmith) would get a bonus depending on which skill was used.

Both would get a +2 to their rolls vs the DC checks when crafting weapons. If using the Craft(weapons) skill, they would get a reduced crafting time and if using the Profession(Blacksmith), they would make more money.

I've only had feedback from my players on the above method and haven't had any complaints as of yet. Any thoughts?

[Kelb_Panthera]

What you say makes sense of course. It's the way I handle it as a DM. It may even be how WotC intended it to work. It's just not written that way.

Sure it is. You just have to read the word "skills" in that one sentence in the description for craft the same way you would read it in the following:

Profesion (barrister) is actually a number of seperate skills. It requires expertise in research, debate, and extensive knowledge of the kingdom's legal code.

Pretending that "skills" can only ever be interpreted as the game key-word leads to madness.

[Medic!]

I think the confusion is coming in because unlike Craft (Whatever), not just any class would be expected to have access to any knowledge skill as their class skill.

When an entry says "Knowledge (any seperately listed)" it's saying that for that class, any of the knowledge areas would be appropriate.

But when it lists "Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion)" it's saying that for that class, those are the two knowledge skills that wouldn't be outside their class area of expertise to study in, but something like Knowledge (Nature) or (Dungeoneering) would be a stretch for them to put significant time into learning.

For Craft or Profession, it only says "Craft" because there's no class restriction on what kind of crafting they could take up without undue deviation (read: Cross-classing).

I hope that makes sense, I'm not sure if my brain-to-keyboard translator's awake yet.

[nyjastul69]

Sure it is. You just have to read the word "skills" in that one sentence in the description for craft the same way you would read it in the following: Profesion (barrister) is actually a number of seperate skills. It requires expertise in research, debate, and extensive knowledge of the kingdom's legal code. Pretending that "skills" can only ever be interpreted as the game key-word leads to madness.
If 'skills' is used generically within the skill description, you're correct. I just don't think it's used generically. If they used 'skills' generically rather than as a key word within the description of that key word, I find that much more maddening.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If 'skills' is used generically within the skill description, you're correct. I just don't think it's used generically. If they used 'skills' generically rather than as a key word within the description of that key word, I find that much more maddening.

The generic usage is the most logical and most consistent interpretation, IMO.

It -is- aggravating that they made such a greivously poor choice of words there.

[Andezzar]

If the generic use actually were the intention of the authors, how would the part "each with its own rank" make any sense?

I'd also like to point out that only those Skills (game term) that require separate ranks in each "subskill" have this introduction despite there being other Skills that allow varied activities.

Look at the Survival Skill for example. Nobody doubts that to use survival you a)need only purchase ranks for one skill an b) if Survival is a Class Skill it is one for all activities allowed by the Skill. Still you would need different skills (generic usage) to predict the weather or to avoid quicksand or to find food.

While it may be preferable to allow the Expert/Human Paragon access to all craft skills at the expense of one Class Skill choice, it simply is not in the rules.

[INoKnowNames]

If Craft is just one skill... does that mean someone who can Craft (Food) can also Craft (Disturbing Mental Images)? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0249.html) Yes, it's a feat, but it's the first joke with Craft in it I could think of.

Craft is, without going into Prestige Classes or items and feats that specifically need them, like Profession, one of the "backstory/roleplay/spare npc" skills to help fill out a character. Since one person can't obviously be skilled in every single job in existance, being skilled at every single type of Craft in existance seems odd. So in both the Rules and in a reasonable case of fluff, it doesn't seem like it would work with many skills.

A Bard with Bardic Knack, on the other hand, is good at -everything-, at least a little. This gets amusing when you pull out some of the other book sources to figure out what random tricks the bard might be able to pull out of it's sleeve.

[Ashtagon]

Personally, I found the lack of definition and potential for accidental over-specialisation a weak spot in 3e design. I decided that while making it a single skill was too broad, making too many skills resulted in unheroic overspecialisation. Taking inspiration from from d20 Modern and Iron Heroes, I did the following:

The following Craft skills cover the whole gamut of human endeavour:


Craft (wood) (includes moulding and carving plastics and fibre glass in modern settings)
Craft (stone) (includes bone)
Craft (metal) (includes both hard and soft metals)
Craft (leather) (includes cloth, feathers, weaving, and paper folding)
Craft (alchemy)
Craft (poisons)


(I also add C/guns, C/mechanic, C/electronic, C/atomic, and C/superscience, for sufficiently high-tech settings).

Weapon and armour crafting are keyed to the primary component material. Bows use C/wood, while swords use C/metal.

Also, if a ranger PC chooses archery specialisation, he gets free maxed ranks in Craft, but only for making bows and arrows.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If Craft is just one skill... does that mean someone who can Craft (Food) can also Craft (Disturbing Mental Images)? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0249.html) Yes, it's a feat, but it's the first joke with Craft in it I could think of.

Craft is, without going into Prestige Classes or items and feats that specifically need them, like Profession, one of the "backstory/roleplay/spare npc" skills to help fill out a character. Since one person can't obviously be skilled in every single job in existance, being skilled at every single type of Craft in existance seems odd. So in both the Rules and in a reasonable case of fluff, it doesn't seem like it would work with many skills.

A Bard with Bardic Knack, on the other hand, is good at -everything-, at least a little. This gets amusing when you pull out some of the other book sources to figure out what random tricks the bard might be able to pull out of it's sleeve.

I'm not saying that craft is or should be only one skill. Just that if craft is listed (or in the expert's case chosen) as a class-skill then all iterations of craft are class skills.

It makes sense, and doesn't conflict with RAW unless you take the word "skills" to only be a game-keyword in any context its found. In the craft skill's description the designers made the agregious error of mixing the generic and key-word uses under the assumption that their meaning was clear.

As this thread's very existence points out, they made a poor assumption.

[Deepbluediver]

The following Craft skills cover the whole gamut of human endeavour:


Craft (wood) (includes moulding and carving plastics and fibre glass in modern settings)
Craft (stone) (includes bone)
Craft (metal) (includes both hard and soft metals)
Craft (leather) (includes cloth, feathers, weaving, and paper folding)
Craft (alchemy)
Craft (poisons)


I'm curious as to why poisons are seperate from alchemy?

Personally, I would like to homebrew a new crafting (and profession) system that was significantly seperated from PC adventuring classes, because I don't think they work very well together.
I've got other projects on my plate at the moment, but when/if I ever get around to it I would likely cut down the crafting skills even further:

Craft (magic) - wands, staffs, scrolls, maybe weapon enchantments, etc.
Craft (arms and armor) - weapons and stuff
Craft (alchemy) - poisons, potions, oils, etc.
Craft (mundane) - everything else

[INoKnowNames]

I'm not saying that craft is or should be only one skill. Just that if craft is listed (or in the expert's case chosen) as a class-skill then all iterations of craft are class skills.

It makes sense, and doesn't conflict with RAW unless you take the word "skills" to only be a game-keyword in any context its found. In the craft skill's description the designers made the agregious error of mixing the generic and key-word uses under the assumption that their meaning was clear.

As this thread's very existence points out, they made a poor assumption.

Oh, I thought you were doing a "If an Expert gets Craft as a Class Skill, they can invest in Craft alone to Craft -everything-". You're saying "An Expert with the Base Craft skill gets All Craft Skills as Class Skills", which would mean he could just put 1 point into each of them without needing them individually as class skills.

In that case, since the Factotum specifically does it all better, I personally wouldn't rule against it. Though I'd still be firm on the "you'd have to spend on each individual type of craft", just to be fair for those with Perform or Knowledge or Profession for their various reasons.


Personally, I would like to homebrew a new crafting (and profession) system that was significantly seperated from PC adventuring classes, because I don't think they work very well together.
I've got other projects on my plate at the moment, but when/if I ever get around to it I would likely cut down the crafting skills even further:

Craft (magic) - wands, staffs, scrolls, maybe weapon enchantments, etc.
Craft (arms and armor) - weapons and stuff
Craft (alchemy) - poisons, potions, oils, etc.
Craft (mundane) - everything else


If you make it so that the Craft X Item Feat require ranks in crafting rather than the magic item feats, then I'd support the heck out of that.

[Andezzar]

You're saying "An Expert with the Base Craft skill gets All Craft Skills as Class Skills", which would mean he could just put 1 point into each of them without needing them individually as class skills.Anbd this makes no sense in my opinion. Either those are separate skills in all respects or the are not. The rules tell us that they are, so the Expert/Human Paragon has to select each individual craft skill unless he wants them cross class. Yes, it sucks to be an NPC.

[Ashtagon]

@Deepbluediver: The only reason I made poisons and alchemy separate from each other was because those are the only two Craft skills that have any legacy at all of being developed as skills in their own right. Plus, I don't like the idea of poison manufacture being easy, so separating that out raises the opportunity cost for those who want it.

I'd advise against dividing the crafting skills out the way you suggest. As you've divided it, no one would ever have any reason to take C/mundane, and C/magic isn't meaningful given the way that the magic item creation rules totally ignore the need for any skill-based crafting at all. The way I've divided it up, each is intrinsically useful in some manner, and each also helps a player to visualise the character in RP terms.

If you follow INoKnowNames's suggestion for C/magic, all you've done is add a skill point tax to magic item crafting. I don't think wizards are particularly hurting for skill points anyway. But that still doesn't get around the fact that there's nothing you could reasonably be expected to make a skill check for using that skill. It fails the "why does it exist" test.

[INoKnowNames]

Anbd this makes no sense in my opinion. Either those are separate skills in all respects or the are not. The rules tell us that they are, so the Expert/Human Paragon has to select each individual craft skill unless he wants them cross class. Yes, it sucks to be an NPC.

Does anyone have to be specifically proficient in each individual Perform skill to put points into each perform skill? Or is someone proficient in Perform allowed to put 1 rank into each at will? I was, and have been playing, under the assumption of the latter.


If you follow INoKnowNames's suggestion for C/magic, all you've done is add a skill point tax to magic item crafting. I don't think wizards are particularly hurting for skill points anyway. But that still doesn't get around the fact that there's nothing you could reasonably be expected to make a skill check for using that skill. It fails the "why does it exist" test.

I'd have substituted the Skill Point Tax for the Spell Tax, letting that Swordsmith be a Dwarven Figther and still be capable of crafting the most marevlous weapons in existance... Then again, I'd also intentionally make all casters MAD, but that's just me.

As for why does it exist, it could be used in the apprasal part of the item, helping figure out how or where or with what it is made. Not to mention it could adjust the price and exp spent into making such items up and down during the crafting process, depening on checks made.

[Andezzar]

Does anyone have to be specifically proficient in each individual Perform skill to put points into each perform skill? Or is someone proficient in Perform allowed to put 1 rank into each at will? I was, and have been playing, under the assumption of the latter.You are right. However, all PC classes either get all Perform skill as class skills or they don't. So all of them can take any Perform skill either as class skill or cross class skill. If a class lets you pick class skills (like Expert or Human Paragon) you would have to take them separately as they are separate skills just like with craft knowledge and profession.

[TuggyNE]

You are right. However, all PC classes either get all Perform skill as class skills or they don't. So all of them can take any Perform skill either as class skill or cross class skill. If a class lets you pick class skills (like Expert or Human Paragon) you would have to take them separately as they are separate skills just like with craft knowledge and profession.

I'm inclined to disagree with this; with the exception of Knowledge skills, the four grouped skills are either class skills as a group, or cross-class skills as a group. I don't have any problems saying that all the Craft skills as a bundle can be selected for one of the ten Expert class skills, despite needing skill points spent separately on the subskills; the selectable class skill mechanism isn't the same as the skill rank mechanism.

Certainly, it isn't going to break anything, nor is it particularly counter-intuitive in its results, only a little subtle to figure out the rules for.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm inclined to disagree with this; with the exception of Knowledge skills, the four grouped skills are either class skills as a group, or cross-class skills as a group. I don't have any problems saying that all the Craft skills as a bundle can be selected for one of the ten Expert class skills, despite needing skill points spent separately on the subskills; the selectable class skill mechanism isn't the same as the skill rank mechanism.

Certainly, it isn't going to break anything, nor is it particularly counter-intuitive in its results, only a little subtle to figure out the rules for.

I think Water Bear's quote in your sig is applicable here.

[Deepbluediver]

@ INoKnowNames, Ashtagon
As I alluded to earlier, any plans I have for a new crafting system are still in the brainstorming stage, so please keep that in mind before you pounce on anything.


I'd have substituted the Skill Point Tax for the Spell Tax, letting that Swordsmith be a Dwarven Figther and still be capable of crafting the most marevlous weapons in existance... Then again, I'd also intentionally make all casters MAD, but that's just me.
Like I said, my opinion is that the current version does not work well at all, so I wouldn't want adventurers to have either a feat or skill point tax for crafting.

In all likeliehood all the PC classes would lose the Craft/Profession skills, and I would replace them with something generic like "Repair" which WOULD cover all bases.

All the Craft/Profession skills would be limited to the realm of an NPC class, possibly called "Artisan" or something similar, and the method for earning Exp. for progression would be different from normal adventuring.


@Deepbluediver: The only reason I made poisons and alchemy separate from each other was because those are the only two Craft skills that have any legacy at all of being developed as skills in their own right. Plus, I don't like the idea of poison manufacture being easy, so separating that out raises the opportunity cost for those who want it.
That reminds me, I want to redo poisons as well. I know there are some issues with poison use in D&D; but overall I think the opportunity cost might be too high for having to learn just one or the other. Craft (poison) is FAR more specific than any other the other generic material-based crafting skills you listed.

Maybe I just want to mix a little mercury into the BBEG's food, what skill does that fall under?


I'd advise against dividing the crafting skills out the way you suggest. As you've divided it, no one would ever have any reason to take C/mundane,
I have absolutely no problem with this. The people in the games are supposed to be P-mother-frelling-C's; they don't need to worry about making things like beds and fishing nets and spoons.


and C/magic isn't meaningful given the way that the magic item creation rules totally ignore the need for any skill-based crafting at all.
Just one more reason to redo the ENTIRE crafting system, including for magic items. That's why I included it in the first place.
Crafting magic items wouldn't require knowing magic spells, and knowing magic spells wouldn't add any advantage.


But that still doesn't get around the fact that there's nothing you could reasonably be expected to make a skill check for using that skill. It fails the "why does it exist" test.
Again, the ENTIRE system is riddled with problems, and I would need to address all of them. If you want, list out all the issues you can think of and we'll discuss them one by one.

[Ashtagon]

Maybe I just want to mix a little mercury into the BBEG's food, what skill does that fall under?

Pouring the mercury into the food from the vial is just an ordinary action. Th real question is where did you get it from?

* If you got it from a shop, you spent money on it. (or in d20 Modern, made a Wealth check. Or maybe made a Sleight of Hand check).
* If you found a natural pool of mercury, you found it. Depending on whether you have that class feature/feat that lets you handle poisons, you might have a chance of accidentally poisoning yourself in the process of gathering it.
* If you made it yourself from ore, unprocessed plant/animal parts, or whatever (something obviously not food, and obviously not smearable over a weapon), then that's a C/poison check.
* If you've got something that is obviously not food and you want to blend it into something that is food (ie. hide one thing inside another), you risk poisoning yourself (as for found poisons), and depending on your interpretation of which skill is "correct" (opinions vary), one of Hide, Sleight of Hand, or Disguise is the relevant check.
* If you've got a poison in a vial that is not visibly a non-food item, you just pour it on.

For game definition purposes, a "prepared poison" should be distinguished from a "poisonous substance". Both induce Fortitude saves as for poisons, but poisonous substances are obviously not for consumption (eg. bleach that has been mixed with dyes to indicate the fact).

Marginally, faeces over a sword blade (the original "poisoned" weapon) would be a way to force disease checks, but not poison checks. And yeah, handling your own faeces (or anyone's, really) is good or upping the chance you catch a disease.

[willpell]

I should point out that this whole discussion is really about the Human Paragon rather than the Expert, as the latter is pretty much unuseable in any campaign where Factotum is allowed. The Human Paragon at least has a few exclusive bennies (for instance the +2 to any attribute at third level seems like one of the best ways you could hope to build a character like O-Chul, whom Rich has explicitly said has a Constitution in "the mid-20s", something that's damn near impossible to do without being a dwarf or the like). One of my pet NPCs is a Human Paragon who has Perform: Dance and Profession: Seamstress among her ten selections; I was unclear as to whether other Perform and Profession skills would also be included.

Per RAW the answer seems to be "no", but I think this is kind of unfair, given that EVERY other class who gets any Perform, Craft, or Profession skills in-class gets all of them in-class. (That they need separate Ranks for each is not in debate; it is just the question of whether they count as one skill for class-skill-status selections.) Knowledge is the exception, since several classes have only certain Knowledge in-class, and I'd probably require an Expert or Human Paragon to take every Knowledge as a separate class skill (there are classes that get all Knowledges, but they tend to be specificaly concepted as know-it-alls, while the Expert and Human Paragon are both described as specialists so it seems appropriate). However, for the other three, not one published class (at least short of third-party books) has ever specified only a single skill as being in-class while the rest of the category is not. As an example, the Ranger could sensibly claim Profession (Guide) as in-class while not extending the same status to Profession (Accountant), yet this is not done.

Providing a more detailed and exclusionary list of skills for every class might be one way to bring noncombat aspects of the game into sharper focus, but if doing that significant a revision, it'd make sense just to change the Human Paragon's selection rules.

[Ashtagon]

...

Per RAW the answer seems to be "no", but I think this is kind of unfair, given that EVERY other class who gets any Perform, Craft, or Profession skills in-class gets all of them in-class. ...


Scarlet Corsair (Stormwrack) only gets Profession (sailor).

Although I do agree with your main point. That class probably go restricted by proofreading oversight rather than by intention.

[Narren]

Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm a little confused here.

Is it being suggested that taking points in the Craft skill gives you a bonus to crafting anything? As in, I have 4 ranks in Craft, so I have a +4 bonus to making a sword, and a +4 bonus to making a basket?

[dascarletm]

Maybe I'm just tired, but I'm a little confused here.

Is it being suggested that taking points in the Craft skill gives you a bonus to crafting anything? As in, I have 4 ranks in Craft, so I have a +4 bonus to making a sword, and a +4 bonus to making a basket?

no.

He is suggesting that when you pick class skills for an expert (or if there is another class that does it) Craft counts as one skill

Thus: You are an expert you get 10 class skills chosen by you. You pick craft so you can put points into every type of craft you want, but you still get to pick 9 more skills as class skills.

If he wants...
1. Craft (Alchemy)
2. Craft (Poison)
3. Appraise
4. Profession (Butt Tickler)
5. Spot
6. Listen
7. Ride
8. Jump
9. Climb
10. Search
11. Sense Motive
...as class skills does he have to drop one as an Expert since they only pick 10. Would Craft count as one skill in that effect or do you need to pick each one out?

I personally think it would suck if you wanted like 7 crafts as an expert to only get 3 more class skills. That's just me.

[Narren]

no.

He is suggesting that when you pick class skills for an expert (or if there is another class that does it) Craft counts as one skill

Thus: You are an expert you get 10 class skills chosen by you. You pick craft so you can put points into every type of craft you want, but you still get to pick 9 more skills as class skills.

If he wants...
1. Craft (Alchemy)
2. Craft (Poison)
3. Appraise
4. Profession (Butt Tickler)
5. Spot
6. Listen
7. Ride
8. Jump
9. Climb
10. Search
11. Sense Motive
...as class skills does he have to drop one as an Expert since they only pick 10. Would Craft count as one skill in that effect or do you need to pick each one out?

I personally think it would suck if you wanted like 7 crafts as an expert to only get 3 more class skills. That's just me.


Ah, I see. And the original post actually makes perfect sense when I read it after getting some sleep.

I agree with you, though. It's an NPC class...throw em a bone.

One thing my buddy does when he is the DM (and I'm still on the fence as whether or not I like this) is give all skills to all characters as class skills. He has trouble with the fact that just because you learned to swing a sword and wear armor, you're allowed to know how to build a table, but not allowed to know anything about history or even how to treat a battlefield wound.

[willpell]

I agree with you, though. It's an NPC class...throw em a bone.

Expert is an NPC class. Human Paragon is not. Given that fighters and barbarians only get seven class skills, is it fair for the Paragon to have not just ten, but seven single skills plus all the Crafts, Professions and Performs he can invest a rank in? I'm not saying it's not fair, mind, I'm just posing the question. I don't care very much, since it's not like there's a lot of reason to have multiples of any of these; I'm just curious mostly.


One thing my buddy does when he is the DM (and I'm still on the fence as whether or not I like this) is give all skills to all characters as class skills.

Oooh, yeah, that's going way overboard IMO. Some of the classes ought to get way more than they do (glares at the Cleric, who'll never Sense Motive to know that I'm doing it), but in general I really frown on the idea of, say, Barbarians being able to Move Silently, or Dragon Shamans with max ranks in Profession: Cocktail Waitress


He has trouble with the fact that just because you learned to swing a sword and wear armor, you're allowed to know how to build a table, but not allowed to know anything about history or even how to treat a battlefield wound.

Every PHB class gets Craft, not sure why. It is probably reasonable for fighters to be able to administer first aid, but you can do that with a Skill Focus: Heal, which you can afford to spend a normal feat on because you have all those bonus fighter feats. On the other hand, if Heal is a class skill, you can put max ranks into it and qualify for the Fleshwarper prestige class, which lets you sew pieces of monsters onto yourself, and that doesn't really strike me as something a single-classed Fighter should be able to do. As for Knowledge: History, I'm not sure why anyone wants that given that I don't think it has any real game utility, save perhaps again in PrC qualifications. If the GM requires you to roll before you learn the history of his campaign world, he probably just doesn't have enough of the plot worked out, or else he'd be begging for the chance to dazzle you with his worldbuilding and background.

[Ashtagon]

We seem to be forgetting something. The expert NPC class has ten skills, true. But he has 8 + Intelligence modifier skill points. Unless he was for some reason generated with 16+ Intelligence, he isn't going to be able to spend points in every skill he has, let alone maximise every skill he has.

In practical terms, it doesn't actually matter whether the expert has "all skills" or "any 10 skills he chooses". The actual effect is the same.

[Andezzar]

Every PHB class gets Craft, not sure why. It is probably reasonable for fighters to be able to administer first aid, but you can do that with a Skill Focus: Heal, which you can afford to spend a normal feat on because you have all those bonus fighter feats.Interesting that you can administer first aid without training but cannot palm a small object (Sleight of hand)


On the other hand, if Heal is a class skill, you can put max ranks into it and qualify for the Fleshwarper prestige class, which lets you sew pieces of monsters onto yourself, and that doesn't really strike me as something a single-classed Fighter should be able to do.You are probably right that a single-class fighter should not be able to enter into that PrC (I don't know that one), but a fighter should be good at situational awareness, which he is not (neither spot nor hide as a class skill, not likely to have high WIS).

I see nothing wrong with sneaky barbarians. They are not known to fight particularly honorable and raiding does require a certain amount of stealth as well as speed.

BTW, why does the Barbarian get Listen as class skill but not spot? Are they all nearsighted?

So either you have to go over all the classes to give them a more reasonable choice of class skills or do the simple thing and give everyone all skills as class skills. It is a power-up and you could probably abuse that system, but it does not sound too unreasonable to make all skills equally hard/easy to learn for everyone. For multiclass characters the normal system gets even more ridiculous.

[willpell]

But he has 8 + Intelligence modifier skill points.

6 actually. The only classes that get 8, as far as I recall, are the Rogue and the Scout. Expert, Factotum, Spellthief, Bard, Ranger, Ninja...all 6.


Unless he was for some reason generated with 16+ Intelligence, he isn't going to be able to spend points in every skill he has, let alone maximise every skill he has.

Once again, Human Paragon, so automatically +1 to the skill modifier, and there's totally a reason to take 16 INT if you're not playing a class that needs some other stat that high. INT is clearly the best stat for a Skills-based character because...wait for it...it gives you more skill points! And if you're not building a Skills-based character then you're probably not taking one of these two classes.


In practical terms, it doesn't actually matter whether the expert has "all skills" or "any 10 skills he chooses". The actual effect is the same.

It matters rather a lot, especially for an Illumian (if the GM allows him to take Human Paragon, or if Factotum is off the table so he actually might have a reason to resort to Expert), since they get +2 each to two entire sets of skills (so you can pick Intelligence and get all Knowledges and all Crafts, plus either of Wisdom or Charisma if you're so inclined). With that much of a bonus to all those skills, you can afford to spread those skill points out and develop rather a lot of skills, if you're not forced to pay 2x as much for cross-classing.

[Ashtagon]

...

I was talking about the expert class. The expert class is not the human paragon class. But you threw me a ball, so let's run with it.

Seeing as how the human paragon gets 4 + Int bonus skill pints per level (and another +1 for being human), that's a potential 10 skill points per level At Intelligence 20.

Again, it doesn't really matter whether the human paragon gets all skills or any ten skills. The game effect is the same.

Okay, technically it is better to get all skills if you have Int 22+. But if you are playing a non-caster with that much Intelligence, it's a fair bet you aren't in it for the optimisation.

I don't much care to consider the charops abuse possible from an illumian taking levels in human paragon, since it is obviously not RAW.

Finally, if the biggest shenanigans you are trying to pull is getting lots of extra +2s on skills, you aren't in it for the charops.

[Narren]

We seem to be forgetting something. The expert NPC class has ten skills, true. But he has 8 + Intelligence modifier skill points. Unless he was for some reason generated with 16+ Intelligence, he isn't going to be able to spend points in every skill he has, let alone maximise every skill he has.

In practical terms, it doesn't actually matter whether the expert has "all skills" or "any 10 skills he chooses". The actual effect is the same.

There's no reason he has to max out every skill he takes. We are talking about the craft skill, after all.

[Ashtagon]

There's no reason he has to max out every skill he takes. We are talking about the craft skill, after all.

My point is, whether he has ten skills or all as class skills, the result is the same. So rather than waste time trying to pick which ten skills are to be his class skills, just say they're all class skills and be done with it. He can't put ranks in all of them anyway, because he won't have enough skill points.

Oh sure, he could choose not to max out a couple in order to spread himself thin, but that's ridiculously sub-optimal.

[Narren]

Expert is an NPC class. Human Paragon is not. Given that fighters and barbarians only get seven class skills, is it fair for the Paragon to have not just ten, but seven single skills plus all the Crafts, Professions and Performs he can invest a rank in? I'm not saying it's not fair, mind, I'm just posing the question. I don't care very much, since it's not like there's a lot of reason to have multiples of any of these; I'm just curious mostly.

From a game balance point of view, I don't think Craft, Profession, or Perform are going to break anything.



Oooh, yeah, that's going way overboard IMO. Some of the classes ought to get way more than they do (glares at the Cleric, who'll never Sense Motive to know that I'm doing it), but in general I really frown on the idea of, say, Barbarians being able to Move Silently, or Dragon Shamans with max ranks in Profession: Cocktail Waitress

From a role playing perspective, I disagree. Why can a wizard have Profession (Innkeeper) but not survival? Maybe my wizard likes to go hiking? Why can't the Paladin climb or swim as well as the Fighter?

People are people. Think of all the people you work with. Think of the relevant skills they possess to do the job. Now think of ALL the other stuff that they can do. It's not stuff they NEED to know how to do, but their life experiences (on and off the job) have built a certain set of skills and knowledge.



Every PHB class gets Craft, not sure why. It is probably reasonable for fighters to be able to administer first aid, but you can do that with a Skill Focus: Heal, which you can afford to spend a normal feat on because you have all those bonus fighter feats. On the other hand, if Heal is a class skill, you can put max ranks into it and qualify for the Fleshwarper prestige class, which lets you sew pieces of monsters onto yourself, and that doesn't really strike me as something a single-classed Fighter should be able to do.

Why not? What would it hurt to let a Fighter be able to branch out and be a little different than the other Fighters?

Though I do partially agree with you when it comes to game balance. Allowing all skills to all classes could have unforeseen consequences, and it also gives the Rogues and other skill monkeys a little less pizazz.


As for Knowledge: History, I'm not sure why anyone wants that given that I don't think it has any real game utility, save perhaps again in PrC qualifications. If the GM requires you to roll before you learn the history of his campaign world, he probably just doesn't have enough of the plot worked out, or else he'd be begging for the chance to dazzle you with his worldbuilding and background.

The Knowledge (History) was just an example. Though I have many players take "useless" skills only because it is relevant to their character concept, and they know I'll find some way to work it into the game at some point. And the details of history can get pretty minute. I'm sure everyone knows who started WWII. But not everyone knows who started WWI. Most people probably couldn't tell you when the War of the Roses occurred. Little things like this could come up in a campaign.

[Narren]

My point is, whether he has ten skills or all as class skills, the result is the same. So rather than waste time trying to pick which ten skills are to be his class skills, just say they're all class skills and be done with it. He can't put ranks in all of them anyway, because he won't have enough skill points.

Oh sure, he could choose not to max out a couple in order to spread himself thin, but that's ridiculously sub-optimal.

Eh, I guess it's a question of what's better in hypothetical situations. Should a hunter have a +4 Spot and +0 Listen, +4 Listen and +0 Spot, or +2 to both? Ideally everyone will max out every skill they need, but some of my players like to be able to do at least a little bit of numerous skills. Of course, no one has ever accused me of being optimized, and my players don't even understand the concept the way the internet does. They enjoy blasty wizards and heal-bot clerics.

[Kelb_Panthera]

For those asking why a <class> can do this skill but not that one, do recall that most skills can be used untrained, and having a skill as a cc skill doesn't mean you can't put ranks in it, just that you can't put as many ranks in it as a class skill.

If your wizard like to hike, that's fine, put a few cc ranks into survival. At the same time, why should a wizard with an attraction to the outdoors be just as good as a ranger or barbarian at foraging for food or predicting the weather? I don't have a problem with cc skills.

It makes sense that a character focused on the skillset required by his class (e.g. spellcasting for a wizard, or bladework for a fighter) would have less opportunity, and probably less interest, in honing certain skills that have little-to-nothing to do with his primary skillset than a character whose class skillset intersects with those skills.

[Andezzar]

Not being as good as someone with a class focusing in that skill makes sense, but it does not make sense IMHO, that someone doing something outside his field has to invest twice as many skill points to be half as good.

[TuggyNE]

Not being as good as someone with a class focusing in that skill makes sense, but it does not make sense IMHO, that someone doing something outside his field has to invest twice as many skill points to be half as good.

That's a misleading calculation. You spend just as many skill points to be half as good, or up to twice as many skill points to be up to equally good. There is no "twice as many skill points to be half as good".

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not being as good as someone with a class focusing in that skill makes sense, but it does not make sense IMHO, that someone doing something outside his field has to invest twice as many skill points to be half as good.

Flubbed your arithmetic check there fella. It's the same number of skill-points to be half as good. It's twice as many to match, and only if it was a class skill at some point and you didn't put ranks in it on the level-ups that it was.

Example: A 5th level cleric and a 5th level fighter both put 8 points in heal. The cleric's points are exchanged 1:1 for ranks in the skill and he now has 8 ranks in heal giving him a +8 modifier before wis and equipment. The fighter pays 2:1 on his points and only gets 4 ranks, but that's okay, because he's at his cap now anyway.

[Andezzar]

You are right of course.

[Narren]

For those asking why a <class> can do this skill but not that one, do recall that most skills can be used untrained, and having a skill as a cc skill doesn't mean you can't put ranks in it, just that you can't put as many ranks in it as a class skill.

If your wizard like to hike, that's fine, put a few cc ranks into survival. At the same time, why should a wizard with an attraction to the outdoors be just as good as a ranger or barbarian at foraging for food or predicting the weather? I don't have a problem with cc skills.

It makes sense that a character focused on the skillset required by his class (e.g. spellcasting for a wizard, or bladework for a fighter) would have less opportunity, and probably less interest, in honing certain skills that have little-to-nothing to do with his primary skillset than a character whose class skillset intersects with those skills.


Not to sound like a parrot, but I also agree that you're right. I was sort of on the fence with it anyways.

Though I'm still not sure how I feel about it in d20 Modern, which is where this argument originated with us. There are potential balance issues there, as well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Not to sound like a parrot, but I also agree that you're right. I was sort of on the fence with it anyways.

Though I'm still not sure how I feel about it in d20 Modern, which is where this argument originated with us. There are potential balance issues there, as well.

Skills are a much, much bigger part of D20 modern than they'll likely ever be in D&D. I could see how the class/ cross-class system could be more of a headache than is easily explainable in that system, especially given the fact that the skill-list is something like 15-20 skills longer, IIRC.