Profession Houserule

[AnimeTheCat]

In an effort to help some newer players "get into character" I thought of a little houserule and I was wondering what other opinions on it were.

Profession is always a class skill for all classes. Every Class is granted 1 bonus skill point per level (4 at level 1). This bonus skill point can only be used for the Profession Skill. The Profession Skill can be used in place of a very narrow set of knowledge skill, only those the DM deems would be researched by those in that profession. For example, a character with Profession (Mason) would be able to make Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) checks when dealing with masonry, but not with carpendry, seige machines, other other targets of the Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) skill. Additionally, the character can use this profession skill in place of a normal craft skill, with penalties being applied as the item desired to be crafted deviates from the profession skill. For example, the Character with Profession (Mason) could make a Profession (Mason) check in place of a Craft (Stoneworking) check to build a wall or other stone structure without penalty. The same character could make a Profession (Mason) check to craft a trap made primarily of stone, but at a -2 penalty. The further from the Profession the desired item is, the greater the penalty. If the desired item has no relation the the character's profession check, there profession skill can't be used. If the character also has the knowledge or craft skill that would be replaced by the Profession skill, the character gains a +2 synergy bonus to those checks that could be replaced by the Profession skill. If a Profession check would take any penalty while being used to replace a craft or knowledge skill, do not add this synergy bonus. Lastly, by the DM's descretion, the profession skill can be use to qualify for the requisite Knowledge or Craft skill ranks for any given prestige class or feat, at a -2 penalty. If a prestige class required Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) 10 ranks, the character with Profession (Mason) would qualify if they had 12 ranks in Profession (Mason).

Other examples of correlated Professions/Knoweldge/Crafts could be:
- Profession (Cook)/Knowledge (nature - for edible plants/poisonous animals)/Craft (Alchemy - consumable items w/o penalty)
- Profession (Blacksmith)/Knowledge (geography - rocks, stone, ore), Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering - Metalwork)/Craft (Any Metalworking)


This is supposed to be pretty open ended and is designed to allow a player and the DM talk about backstory and figure out just what other skills the Profession skill would synergize with. How do you all feel about this as a houserule? Do you think it would give a new player something to stand on in terms of fluff meeting crunch and would provide them with a more immersive experience? Any thoughts or ideas are welcome.

[DeTess]

It looks nice, but personally I'd allow the player to sue these free skill points for either a profession or a craft skill. If the player was for example a blacksmith, than having the corresponding craft skill would make more sense than having the profession (blacksmith) skill. A rule of thumb I've seen for when to sue craft and when to sue profession is whether the thing someone does is more focused on the making or the business aspect. So merchant would be a profession, and carpenter would be a craft.

[Crake]

pathfinder already beat you to the punch with this with background skills (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/background-skills/).

[Fizban]

I'd say make it less mechanical and more "you can use profession for anything that involves your profession." Letting people make up their own synergy bonuses is rife for abuse, and some things are worth a lot more than a -2 or simply shouldn't be do-able without specialized knowledge. I am also in serious disagreement with the fixing strategy of "no one takes this, so I'm going to give it out for free and make it apply to whatever they want," which comes up all the time with skills.

Trapbuilding for example, is much more of its own art than masonry: just because you know how to build things of stone doesn't mean you know anything about building traps. Using profession: mason for the roll to craft a booby trap made of stone would be appropriate, or to more easily craft something you designed with an untrained trapbuilding check- but just taking a -2 means you can essentially build anything as long as its out of your chosen material, which makes no sense. And there's a huge difference in specialties between the many types of metalworking.

The main problem with both craft and profession (aside from the game being about adventurers who fight monsters in dungeons) is the lack of definition: there's no set list of professions, and the few given crafts range from realistically specific to overly broad to overlapping. Tweaking the profession/craft system into profession for planning and craft for construction is a possibility (you'd roll profession to see if you can craft it, then the appropriate craft to see how long it takes or if you screw up). Use the common synergy bonus from profession on craft checks for things you have enough profession in, and allow feats and features that boost a profession check to apply on craft checks unless your craft check is already higher (but you don't use your ranks, else there's no reason to ever take craft, since most realistically narrow crafts will always fall under a "profession"). You'd negotiate with the players to make sure everyone's professions are of roughly equal broadness in scope, somehow. Since profession alone doesn't make you a master crafter, spending points on craft skills still matters, and since fabrication isn't the same as invention, profession still matters. The true master would have both, with their combination of design and fabrication skills clearly defining what they can make.

Knowledge rolls are trickier, since they depend highly on what value knowledge is in your game anyway (RAW its basically good for identifying monsters, already grouped, and what knowledge you get is still up to the DM [aside from later books that start writing knowledge results for their monsters, of dubious quality]). The knowledge skills could be differentiated by a research system, but since they're already pretty broad its fine for profession to equal them with broad checks at full ranks (and then have profession not able to research things if it comes up).

Of course this system doesn't make it super easy to use a single line of skill points to do a whole bunch of things, which is what you really want. But consider also that the craft DCs of most items aren't actually that high, nor are the "standard" knowledge DCs for anything that doesn't have monster hit dice. Synergy, ability score, borrowed feat bonuses, and maybe a skill rank or two will get you to a decent enough roll to call yourself broadly applicable in crafts under your profession. If profession is required to make or do things you haven't been told how to before (and note that profession is trained only), then it has its place as long as you make that important by not letting people talk or magic their way out of it.

Because it may sound heavy-handed, but that's the only way to make skills really matter: make skills required. The desire to let people do whatever they want, particularly with out-of-game knowledge or because magic, is what makes skills that represent in-game practical knowledge superfluous. You can try to compensate by having less-savvy players and pro-actively giving them information based on their skills, but that only goes so far. If people don't need skills to get creative, they won't need to make creative use of skills. Giving out skills and making them broader doesn't actually make those skills matter more- it makes them matter less, since its just something everyone gets now. And lets be honest- is anyone actually going to take Profession: Baker even with these rules? Free profession and craft just means that the muderhobos are also all coincidentally masters of a profession or craft that most likely has some tangential relation to murderhoboing.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'd say make it less mechanical and more "you can use profession for anything that involves your profession." Letting people make up their own synergy bonuses is rife for abuse, and some things are worth a lot more than a -2 or simply shouldn't be do-able without specialized knowledge. I am also in serious disagreement with the fixing strategy of "no one takes this, so I'm going to give it out for free and make it apply to whatever they want," which comes up all the time with skills.

I must not have been clear, but this is something to be discussed between the DM and the player prior to the game even starting. This isn't something where a player shows up to the table and says "My profession skill is Bartender and my correlated craft skill is craft (alchemy) for drinks and Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) because this is where all the bigwigs drink." The concept is that, while building the character and fleshing out the backstory of the character, the player and DM come to an accord on what skills the profession check can apply to. Again, they should be incredibly narrow. In some cases they may not apply to anything, such as Profession (librarian). That could apply to one or all knowledge skills, but only grant a synergy bonus to history since that is the field that character most read in their free time. Then, since the character took the time to learn how to mend the covers of books, you can use your Profession (Librarian) skill to make Craft (Bookmaking) or something. It has absolutely no place in the normal game, but it could allow a smart or crafty player additional agency. "Oh no, the Wizard's spellbook got damaged, that's ok! I used to be a librarian so I know a thing or two about mending books". There shouldn't really ever be a circumstance where the player springs one on the DM because the skill check replacements are narrow and the synergy bonuses are even narrower.


Trapbuilding for example, is much more of its own art than masonry: just because you know how to build things of stone doesn't mean you know anything about building traps. Using profession: mason for the roll to craft a booby trap made of stone would be appropriate, or to more easily craft something you designed with an untrained trapbuilding check- but just taking a -2 means you can essentially build anything as long as its out of your chosen material, which makes no sense. And there's a huge difference in specialties between the many types of metalworking.

I know that an aqueduct is completely different from a trap... I'm not dense. But, knowing how stone interacts with itself, and knowing general ideas or architecture certainly help with engineering on a smaller scale, such as that in traps. Knowing what needs additional weight to function as a hair trigger in a trap based on what you know of keystones, mortarless structures, and other applications of masonry can certainly lead you to create a pressure plate that, when triggered, causes the very delicate friction holding the ceiling together to break, thus causing a collapse of the brick ceiling. You've created a trap using your knowledge of masonry. If you wanted to make a mini catapult, well you'll have to make a normal craft check. Crossbow trap? Normal craft check. Collapsing stone floor with spikes at the bottom of the pit? Profession (Mason) -2 check. See the difference? It's not applicable to all traps, just traps that are within the character's field of study. Also, even with craf (trapmaking) the character wouldn't receive any sort of synergy bonus, because it is an esoteric application of the profession, and likely not something that the character trained in while learning how to be a mason.


The main problem with both craft and profession (aside from the game being about adventurers who fight monsters in dungeons) is the lack of definition: there's no set list of professions, and the few given crafts range from realistically specific to overly broad to overlapping. Tweaking the profession/craft system into profession for planning and craft for construction is a possibility (you'd roll profession to see if you can craft it, then the appropriate craft to see how long it takes or if you screw up). Use the common synergy bonus from profession on craft checks for things you have enough profession in, and allow feats and features that boost a profession check to apply on craft checks unless your craft check is already higher (but you don't use your ranks, else there's no reason to ever take craft, since most realistically narrow crafts will always fall under a "profession"). You'd negotiate with the players to make sure everyone's professions are of roughly equal broadness in scope, somehow. Since profession alone doesn't make you a master crafter, spending points on craft skills still matters, and since fabrication isn't the same as invention, profession still matters. The true master would have both, with their combination of design and fabrication skills clearly defining what they can make.

Knowledge rolls are trickier, since they depend highly on what value knowledge is in your game anyway (RAW its basically good for identifying monsters, already grouped, and what knowledge you get is still up to the DM [aside from later books that start writing knowledge results for their monsters, of dubious quality]). The knowledge skills could be differentiated by a research system, but since they're already pretty broad its fine for profession to equal them with broad checks at full ranks (and then have profession not able to research things if it comes up).

Right, you're absolutely right. A true master would have both. Therefore, a "True Master" example would be Profession (Huntsman) which would apply to knowledge (Natute) for the purposes of identifying animals (of the Animal type only), animal tracks/habitats, and animal diets which they use to locate optimal postions and bait for snares made with Craft (Trapmaking) to create snares, as you don't want to harm the fur so that you can get top coin out of the pelt. The Profession (Huntsman) would provide a +2 synergy bonus to both Knowledge (Nature) for the purposes of identifying animals (only of the Animal type) and their tracks/habitats/diets, and to Craft (Trapmaking) for creating snares that grapple the animal as opposed to puncturing the hide, thereby allowing them to use their Profession (Huntsman) skill to sell the pelts/meat for the greatest value. All of the skills work in tandem with each other, but only in their very narrow field. Again, this isn't a flat bonus to all Craft (Trapmaking) or Knowledge (Nature) checks, this is similar to the unique and narrow synergy bonus provided by Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (The Planes), Knowledge (Nature) to various applications of the Survival Skill.


Of course this system doesn't make it super easy to use a single line of skill points to do a whole bunch of things, which is what you really want. But consider also that the craft DCs of most items aren't actually that high, nor are the "standard" knowledge DCs for anything that doesn't have monster hit dice. Synergy, ability score, borrowed feat bonuses, and maybe a skill rank or two will get you to a decent enough roll to call yourself broadly applicable in crafts under your profession. If profession is required to make or do things you haven't been told how to before (and note that profession is trained only), then it has its place as long as you make that important by not letting people talk or magic their way out of it.

Because it may sound heavy-handed, but that's the only way to make skills really matter: make skills required. The desire to let people do whatever they want, particularly with out-of-game knowledge or because magic, is what makes skills that represent in-game practical knowledge superfluous. You can try to compensate by having less-savvy players and pro-actively giving them information based on their skills, but that only goes so far. If people don't need skills to get creative, they won't need to make creative use of skills. Giving out skills and making them broader doesn't actually make those skills matter more- it makes them matter less, since its just something everyone gets now. And lets be honest- is anyone actually going to take Profession: Baker even with these rules? Free profession and craft just means that the muderhobos are also all coincidentally masters of a profession or craft that most likely has some tangential relation to murderhoboing.

What I really want is some way to 1) help new players feel more "at home" in a character, and give them the tools to do so, and 2) give classes such as fighter the chance to do more out of combat simply by giving them a real story. I'm not trying to re-engineer the skill system or anything crazy like that, but I do think that by giving the players a profession, they will feel empowered to think like a person of that profession. Even if they ask, mid session, "Hey, my profession is X. Do you think that would apply to Y skill?" DM: "well, based on your backstory, you probably were trained in that field, but not extensively. Make the check, but take a Z penalty to it."

Can you see how that would allow any character to more organically be developed and serve as a mechanical way to implement "my backstory says I do/did this"?

EDIT:

pathfinder already beat you to the punch with this with background skills (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/background-skills/).

Whoops... I hardly look at pathfinder tbh... I'm still learning things about 3.5 and I still relatively commonly make simple mistakes so I tend to just avoid muddying my brain waters with Pathfinder stuff, even though it does relatively easily port over. I'll look in to those though, to see if I can improve my houserule/system.

[Fizban]

Sure, I get the point, I just don't think it necessarily works. The very phrase "give the fighter something to do outside of combat" assumes that "something to do outside of combat" is a thing that's needed, when according to the game its not. If you want a system of non-combat roles, you need to make a system of non-combat abilities spread over the various classes and then (most importantly) write encounters that use that system. Simply giving everyone free profession doesn't do the job. If the PCs are adventurers, there are going to be some professions that could be forced into being useful all the time, and some that won't, so unless you specifically build encounters to include everyone's profession skills those free points don't matter.

You say you aren't trying to re-engineer the skill system, but all those words about working things out with players and making profession apply to some things but not other things and more or less narrowly are design goals for re-engineering that haven't been committed to yet, with the plan to design each new profession package individually for each character and come up with applications on the fly.

The only major difference between my rough system and your design goals, is that you seem to be really set on profession being able to replace craft checks with full ranks and a penalty made up on the fly, while I'm saying that devalues already narrow craft skills and isn't necessary to begin with- if a certain craft goal is far enough off that it provides a significant penalty, you might as well just throw an unranked skill with an automatic synergy bonus (with a special limit of no more than one profession granting synergy at a time). We've also jumped past the part where craft: masonry is actually one of the given craft skills. Basically, any time you can make a case that making something is so in line with a profession skill that it should use their ranks, it's not actually a profession skill.

So you've actually got a bunch of design goals for rebuilding this part of the skill system, just without a stated plan to make them important. Compare this to the Factotum, which is meant to be able to leverage skills and outside the box thinking. In order to do so it has an ability that literally just lets it roll every skill it wants at full enough bonus 1/day, so that no matter what it can come up with some idea and roll a skill. Obviously giving out free profession ranks isn't supposed to equal this, but again- how often is someone who took a non-adventuring applicable profession in their background actually going to be able to leverage that for anything but fluff? The only difference between a trained baker and a person who decides they feel like baking a cake for fluff, is that if the DM specifically builds an adventure where a cake needs to be baked, the trained baker will have an advantage. Putting the onus on the DM to make things relevant is perfectly fine, its in the DMG, but that needs to be stated alongside the allotting of free skills or they still don't matter.

The game of course already has a way of letting you do things based on your backstory: by assigning skill points that match your backstory. Free skill points in a variable sill are just free skill points in a variable skill, making every character good at a skill from within the allowed assignments of those free points.

If your primary design goal is to "get into character," you could do that by requiring backstories and profession skills because the characters all had day jobs before they became adventurers. You want to give out free points because you consider than an undue restriction, which is fine, and want to allow special synergies, which is fine, but that's still not guaranteed to make the horse drink. If you want the horse to drink, you give them xp and loot for drinking and dehydration penalties if they don't, while touring them through a series of interesting and varied troughs.

[AnimeTheCat]

Sure, I get the point, I just don't think it necessarily works. The very phrase "give the fighter something to do outside of combat" assumes that "something to do outside of combat" is a thing that's needed, when according to the game its not. If you want a system of non-combat roles, you need to make a system of non-combat abilities spread over the various classes and then (most importantly) write encounters that use that system. Simply giving everyone free profession doesn't do the job. If the PCs are adventurers, there are going to be some professions that could be forced into being useful all the time, and some that won't, so unless you specifically build encounters to include everyone's profession skills those free points don't matter.

You say you aren't trying to re-engineer the skill system, but all those words about working things out with players and making profession apply to some things but not other things and more or less narrowly are design goals for re-engineering that haven't been committed to yet, with the plan to design each new profession package individually for each character and come up with applications on the fly.

The only major difference between my rough system and your design goals, is that you seem to be really set on profession being able to replace craft checks with full ranks and a penalty made up on the fly, while I'm saying that devalues already narrow craft skills and isn't necessary to begin with- if a certain craft goal is far enough off that it provides a significant penalty, you might as well just throw an unranked skill with an automatic synergy bonus (with a special limit of no more than one profession granting synergy at a time). We've also jumped past the part where craft: masonry is actually one of the given craft skills. Basically, any time you can make a case that making something is so in line with a profession skill that it should use their ranks, it's not actually a profession skill.

So you've actually got a bunch of design goals for rebuilding this part of the skill system, just without a stated plan to make them important. Compare this to the Factotum, which is meant to be able to leverage skills and outside the box thinking. In order to do so it has an ability that literally just lets it roll every skill it wants at full enough bonus 1/day, so that no matter what it can come up with some idea and roll a skill. Obviously giving out free profession ranks isn't supposed to equal this, but again- how often is someone who took a non-adventuring applicable profession in their background actually going to be able to leverage that for anything but fluff? The only difference between a trained baker and a person who decides they feel like baking a cake for fluff, is that if the DM specifically builds an adventure where a cake needs to be baked, the trained baker will have an advantage. Putting the onus on the DM to make things relevant is perfectly fine, its in the DMG, but that needs to be stated alongside the allotting of free skills or they still don't matter.

The game of course already has a way of letting you do things based on your backstory: by assigning skill points that match your backstory. Free skill points in a variable sill are just free skill points in a variable skill, making every character good at a skill from within the allowed assignments of those free points.

If your primary design goal is to "get into character," you could do that by requiring backstories and profession skills because the characters all had day jobs before they became adventurers. You want to give out free points because you consider than an undue restriction, which is fine, and want to allow special synergies, which is fine, but that's still not guaranteed to make the horse drink. If you want the horse to drink, you give them xp and loot for drinking and dehydration penalties if they don't, while touring them through a series of interesting and varied troughs.

So, to make sure I understand your position clearly, you don't think that this would work based on:
1) The perception that you feel that i'm using profession to replace knowledge and craft skills.
2) The perception that I'm rebuilding the skill system to fit some predetermined set of perameters that haven't been fully laid out.
3) You feel as though this system devalues Craft and Knowledge skills to the point of them being useless or degraded in usefulness.
4) The idea that there is already a class with mechanical abilities to make the skill system meet the desire.
5) You feel that the skill system adequately allows for a character's backstory to be fully reflected in fluff and crunch and that free skill points are pointless or hold no value.
6) You feel that this fails to assist a player "get into character" because it is not a reward based system in and of itself.

Let me know if those point accurately reflect your position. I want to make sure I'm clear on your position before I prepare a rebuttal so as to not go down a rabbit hole only to find we agree on something.

[Fizban]

1) The fact that you're making an example of profession: mason as replacing a trapbuilding check (and noting that craft: masonry is already a skill).
-And if you want to replace craft skills go ahead, that would also be a more coherent version of the system, just don't have multiple superior/inferior version of the same thing in the base skill system.
2) The perception that you're rebuilding the skill system to fit parameters that you've deliberately left undefined so they can be customized to fit individual characters.

3) You feel as though this system devalues Craft and Knowledge skills to the point of them being useless or degraded in usefulness.
-Craft only, knowledge skills can already be read as having broad applications on par with broad profession readings, and unless you allow "profession: monster knower," they're not gonna remove the primary knowledge use.

4) The idea that there is already a class with mechanical abilities to make the skill system meet the desire.
-The Factotum won't meet your needs at all, its just an example of the extreme required to actually make non-adventuring skills into a working shtick without building specific encounters.

5) You feel that the skill system adequately allows for a character's backstory to be fully reflected in fluff and crunch and that free skill points are pointless or hold no value.
-The skill and feat system does adequately allow a character to reflect their backstory, unless you deliberately choose a backstory that conflicts with it (I bet the example of this would be "I want this skill to have made me better at this other skill," which would be reflected mechanically by bothering to put points in both, rather than demanding new synergy bonuses- but the DM can always assign favorable bonuses without putting it in writing if they agree with something). Free skill points are free skill points, nothing more and nothing less.

6) You feel that this fails to assist a player "get into character" because it is not a reward based system in and of itself.
-"Get into character" doesn't actually mean anything, so there's nothing to assist. If characters with profession skills somehow make people act more in character, it doesn't matter how you get the profession skills on there, give them away or make them a required cost. Rewards are only a part of gameplay, if you want profession skills to matter then they need to matter because they regularly impact gameplay (which then happens to grant rewards). Profession skills that regularly impact gameplay would encourage roleplay by getting people to use them.

[AnimeTheCat]

1) The fact that you're making an example of profession: mason as replacing a trapbuilding check (and noting that craft: masonry is already a skill).
-And if you want to replace craft skills go ahead, that would also be a more coherent version of the system, just don't have multiple superior/inferior version of the same thing in the base skill system.

Most crafting skills will directly correlate with a profession skill because most professionals craft goods, those that don't provide a service. I'm not making Profession (Mason) a replacement for Craft (Trapmaking). I'm making Profession (Mason) a substitute for Craft (Trapmaking) when dealing with traps that are either entirely or predominantly dealing with or made of stone. In a sense, yes the Profession skill replaces the Craft skill, but only for an incredibly narrow field. Any other desired trap would need a normal craft check. I'm not replacing anything, but simply expanding upon synergy bonuses and allowing for some skills to cover the blind spots of others. This causes some overlap, but it's hardly a craft skill replacement. More of a Craft skill augment.


2) The perception that you're rebuilding the skill system to fit parameters that you've deliberately left undefined so they can be customized to fit individual characters.

The parameters are simple really. Create a character's backstory. Discuss with the DM what that character most likely does in the time where they are not adventuring. This leads you to that character's Profession. While discussing the backstory the natural focuses will develop. Those become the bonuses. The only parameter is that the DM signs off on it to enhance the RP aspect of the RPG. I'm not actually rebuilding anything at all, for I have not removed anything nor have I replaced anything. I would agree that I'm Expanding the skill system, but I deny rebuilding it.


3) You feel as though this system devalues Craft and Knowledge skills to the point of them being useless or degraded in usefulness.
-Craft only, knowledge skills can already be read as having broad applications on par with broad profession readings, and unless you allow "profession: monster knower," they're not gonna remove the primary knowledge use.

Under the proposed houserule, should a character want to use the Craft skill for all applicable uses, one would still need to take and use the craft skill. No one profession would be all encampassing for all craft skills. In this sense, a wizard with Profession (Alchemist) could absolutely use the Profession (Alchemist) skill as a replacement for Craft (Alchemy), but not for Craft (Armorsmithing) or Craft (Leatherworking) or Craft (Weaponsmithing). If such a wizard wants to create custom masterwork items, said wizard will still need to make the appropriate Craft check. No one profession will replace all craft skills, much less cevalue them. Indeed, craft skills maintain their value and could possibly be more valuable to certain characters. While you might be able to use your profession skill to replace some small facet of the craft skill, the greatest benefit from your profession skill would be the synergy bonus to the craft skill you're most proficient in.


4) The idea that there is already a class with mechanical abilities to make the skill system meet the desire.
-The Factotum won't meet your needs at all, its just an example of the extreme required to actually make non-adventuring skills into a working shtick without building specific encounters.

I'm not trying to make a non-adventuring skill into a working adventuring skill. It is a profession. Something done in the character's downtime. Something that gives mechanical depth to player fluff. Under this system there is a functional framework for which a DM and player can expand and grow. Which leads me to:


5) You feel that the skill system adequately allows for a character's backstory to be fully reflected in fluff and crunch and that free skill points are pointless or hold no value.
-The skill and feat system does adequately allow a character to reflect their backstory, unless you deliberately choose a backstory that conflicts with it (I bet the example of this would be "I want this skill to have made me better at this other skill," which would be reflected mechanically by bothering to put points in both, rather than demanding new synergy bonuses- but the DM can always assign favorable bonuses without putting it in writing if they agree with something). Free skill points are free skill points, nothing more and nothing less.

The skill and feat system does not adequately allow for a character's backstory to relfect mechanically in gameplay. For example:

Fredrick the Fighter grew up the son of a Mason. He learned how to swing a hammer, hew stone, and identify key parts of stone structure all from his father. When he turned 13, a knight was passing through town and saw Fredrick swinging his hammer and shaping large chunks of stone into workable bricks. Impressed by the power that the young boy had, the Knight offered the boy and his father a chance to be his squire and train under him in the art of warfare. Under the guidance of the Knight the Fredrick trained his body to the highest degree, was introduced to war on horseback (and took to it quickly), learned how to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies, and learned how to turn the hammer he loved to split stone with into a fierce weapon of destruction. When the boy turned 15 he wa ready to go out on his own, never forgetting what his father or the knight taught him.

Under the present skill and feat system, the fighter could select Intimidate, Craft (Masonry), Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Jump, Climb, and Ride and take the feats Mounted Combat and Weapon Focus (Warhammer). But, that's 6 skills... To make the fluff of the character's backstory meet the crunch of the character's mechanics, something has to give, all just so that the character can play out knowing how to spot the weak spots in a building's foundation and how to hew stone. Even a human with 14 Int wouldn't have enough skill points to adequately reflect this.

Under this houserule the character would be granted Profession (Mason) and be able to apply this Profession skill to those things that his character would specifically know without needing to invest precious skill points into it. This is purely an improvement for the Fighter, and would be the same for literally any character.


6) You feel that this fails to assist a player "get into character" because it is not a reward based system in and of itself.
-"Get into character" doesn't actually mean anything, so there's nothing to assist. If characters with profession skills somehow make people act more in character, it doesn't matter how you get the profession skills on there, give them away or make them a required cost. Rewards are only a part of gameplay, if you want profession skills to matter then they need to matter because they regularly impact gameplay (which then happens to grant rewards). Profession skills that regularly impact gameplay would encourage roleplay by getting people to use them.

"Get into Character" is literally half the game. Its the "RP" in "RPG". I've encountered quite a few new players (and even experienced ones) that don't feel like you can do something unless you can roll for it. While this is not true, rolling the dice to do something that you feel your character should be able to adquately do will enable a person's mind to make the connection from desire to action in game and will help the player feel empowered to do so. Anecdotal Evidence:

Session number 1 with a brand new player - prior to testing the houserule - very quite, not asking many questions aside from "what do I roll for this"...
Session number 2 with band new player - after discussing the character's backstory and adding the framework of this rule - Lots of questions, asking if they can do things that are "in character", getting involved in more party roleplaying, using their backstory as a means to start conversation and even find solutions to problems.

There was a massive difference between giving the character something tangeble to work with versus just saying "roleplay it". They started doing in character things, which they were consequently rewarded for. I applied this same framework to all of the other players in session 3 and the difference was incredibly noticable (and those players had been playing for quite some time). By giving the players a mechanic to work with, they used it and had a more enjoyable time.

[Fizban]

In a sense, yes the Profession skill replaces the Craft skill, but only for an incredibly narrow field. . . it's hardly a craft skill replacement. More of a Craft skill augment.

In this sense, a wizard with Profession (Alchemist) could absolutely use the Profession (Alchemist) skill as a replacement for Craft (Alchemy), but not for Craft (Armorsmithing) or Craft (Leatherworking) or Craft (Weaponsmithing).
These two statements do not match. (And Alchemy is a pretty broad crafting skill as well).

I would agree that I'm Expanding the skill system, but I deny rebuilding it.
Expanding, rebuilding, augmenting, reconstructing, same thing.

Fredrick the Fighter grew up the son of a Mason. He learned how to swing a hammer, hew stone, and identify key parts of stone structure all from his father. When he turned 13, a knight was passing through town and saw Fredrick swinging his hammer and shaping large chunks of stone into workable bricks. Impressed by the power that the young boy had, the Knight offered the boy and his father a chance to be his squire and train under him in the art of warfare. Under the guidance of the Knight the Fredrick trained his body to the highest degree, was introduced to war on horseback (and took to it quickly), learned how to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies, and learned how to turn the hammer he loved to split stone with into a fierce weapon of destruction. When the boy turned 15 he wa ready to go out on his own, never forgetting what his father or the knight taught him.

Under the present skill and feat system, the fighter could select Intimidate, Craft (Masonry), Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering), Jump, Climb, and Ride and take the feats Mounted Combat and Weapon Focus (Warhammer). But, that's 6 skills... To make the fluff of the character's backstory meet the crunch of the character's mechanics, something has to give, all just so that the character can play out knowing how to spot the weak spots in a building's foundation and how to hew stone. Even a human with 14 Int wouldn't have enough skill points to adequately reflect this.
Yeah, you've tried to craft a backstory that is explicitly in conflict with the skill and feat system. Except a 10 int human fighter starts with 12 skill points, enough that they could put two points each into those 6 skills they apparently need (not that I saw any mention of climb or jump up there), which would actually reflect them splitting their skill training between the initial crafting and the later warfare.

This is purely an improvement for the Fighter, and would be the same for literally any character.
Free stuff is free, doesn't necessarily mean it does anything.

"Get into Character" is literally half the game. Its the "RP" in "RPG". I've encountered quite a few new players (and even experienced ones) that don't feel like you can do something unless you can roll for it. While this is not true, rolling the dice to do something that you feel your character should be able to adquately do will enable a person's mind to make the connection from desire to action in game and will help the player feel empowered to do so.
Which is when you point out that most skills can be used untrained, and make good use of the DM's knowledge of skill DCs to set tasks they can do untrained if that's what they want to do. You can even tell them the DC before they roll so they know how hard it is. The problem is that they (and presumably you) believe that you can't "roll for it" without max ranks in something, which is the problem. The solution is to not do that.


Session number 1 with a brand new player - prior to testing the houserule - very quite, not asking many questions aside from "what do I roll for this"...
Session number 2 with band new player - after discussing the character's backstory and adding the framework of this rule - Lots of questions, asking if they can do things that are "in character", getting involved in more party roleplaying, using their backstory as a means to start conversation and even find solutions to problems.
That. . . has nothing to do with professions. That is literally just teaching a player how to make a character that has a backstory and does what they want, while throwing in free skill ranks because you don't think their base class had enough skill points.

This whole exchange I'm basically getting two things: you're trying to lay down profession bonuses from backstory as a rule without actually deciding on them beforehand- which would necessitate a big table of everything you can think of and would still fail when someone wanted something you hadn't thought of, so you're not doing that- this reasonable, but its just "The rule is that we'll make custom rules," not much of a rule. And you don't think some classes have enough skill points to support characters with professions in their backstory, so you're giving out free points- which is also reasonable, but a matter of opinion.

The only problems I have are claiming the system doesn't work when you're not trying to make it work, and claiming that a houserule is needed to teach people to make characters that mechanically reflect their backstories. It looks to me like the only reason you needed to give out free skill points is because you didn't start on good character building until after the character was built and had assigned all their skill points, so adding backstory would have "hurt" them and free points were needed to get them to add some fluffier skills.

[Doctor Awkward]

In an effort to help some newer players "get into character" I thought of a little houserule and I was wondering what other opinions on it were.

As a player character, your profession is "Adventurer". There are much more surefire ways to encourage roleplaying in new players than this approach.

If you really want to help newer players create a more fleshed out character to get into during the game, I'd recommend you send them to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhkYSLOMmTs


It poses a list of six questions, and explores the process for how they can create an interesting character.

If you cannot view videos currently, the questions are as follows:

Where was the character born?
Who are their parents?

2a. Are the parents/family still alive?
What was your character doing before the adventuring life?
Why did your character leave their previous life?
What did your character leave behind? (friends, family, enemies, etc.)
What does your character want? (where do they hope adventuring will take them?)


As is demonstrated in the video, each of these questions spawn more and more specific questions, which can either be explored before play or left as a mystery within the game space for the DM and fellow players to discover together. If the player gets invested enough in their characters history, they might choose to spend skill points in a Profession of their own volition.

In my opinion, this approach will be much more beneficial to your players in the long run. It would also be far more simple than trying to introduce a subsystem of skill points that could be ripe for abuse.

[AnimeTheCat]

These two statements do not match. (And Alchemy is a pretty broad crafting skill as well).

My point was that Craft, as in the overall skill of crafting anything, is not replaced by Profession. Profession can be used in place of a specific craft skill or subset of a specific craft skill. The broadest possible application is something like Profession (Weaponsmith) or Profession (Alchemist), but in doing so, you've limited what spreading bonuses you get from your profession. You can't use your profession as a skill check with a penalty and it doesn't really provide much in the way of knowledge skill enhancement.


Expanding, rebuilding, augmenting, reconstructing, same thing.

Without trying to be pedantic, those do not at all mean the same thing. Rebuilding and reconstructing, sure I'll give it to you. They mean the same. Expanding and Augmenting are pretty close, but the interaction of those words end there. Rebuilding something is absolutely not the same as expanding something. Would you say that a building getting an annex added to it is being rebuilt or would you say it's being expanded? All I'm doing is adding an annex to the skill system, clearly one that you don't like and your insight is appreciated.


Yeah, you've tried to craft a backstory that is explicitly in conflict with the skill and feat system. Except a 10 int human fighter starts with 12 skill points, enough that they could put two points each into those 6 skills they apparently need (not that I saw any mention of climb or jump up there), which would actually reflect them splitting their skill training between the initial crafting and the later warfare.

with 12 skill points across 6 skills you can put 2 ranks in every class skill and 1 rank in the knowledge skill. Youre trained, but by the skill DC system you're highly unlikely to succeed in anything more than a really easy question. That doesn't mark much of any training at all. The mention of climbing and jumping was in the "Training his body to the higest degree" part. I didn't reference the skill exactly because I didn't think it was necessary. If this were your character, would you be satisfied with 2 skill points in all those skills and one in knolwedge (architecture and engineering)? Genuine question because personally I wouldn't be. I don't think that one rank in a skill adequately reflects growing up in the environment and learning about it by exposure and experience.


Free stuff is free, doesn't necessarily mean it does anything.

Right, free stuff doesn't innately do anything, but it can be used to do things. Just because it's free doesn't mean it can't do anything. One does not preclude the other.


Which is when you point out that most skills can be used untrained, and make good use of the DM's knowledge of skill DCs to set tasks they can do untrained if that's what they want to do. You can even tell them the DC before they roll so they know how hard it is. The problem is that they (and presumably you) believe that you can't "roll for it" without max ranks in something, which is the problem. The solution is to not do that.

That. . . has nothing to do with professions. That is literally just teaching a player how to make a character that has a backstory and does what they want, while throwing in free skill ranks because you don't think their base class had enough skill points.

Many skills can be made untrained true. The DM doesn't set the task though, the player sets out to accomplish a task, the DM simply calculates the DC. Unless you're promoting the DM handwaving the DC of skill checks, the DCs are already set. You can "Roll for it" without max ranks. I don't see any problem with this. The problem comes from a player saying "I want my character to be good at this set of things because of his/her upbringing really shaping them in this way" to which your response would clearly be "Well put one skill point in it and you'll be good at it". That's not even close to how the skill system in 3.5 works. As opposed to adjusting DCs to accomodate this and rebuilding the skill system (since, you know, i'm taking things apart and putting them back together in a different way) I'm just adding to them.

Being "Good" at a task means that you regularly succeed at most basic tasks. A human with 10 int and one skill point in Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering) would regularly fail at anythinge except the most simple of questions (DC 10). Identifying weak spots in foundations and such are not the most basic of questions... If a character wants to be "Good" at anything in D&D they are expected to be able to regularly (50% of the time or better) succeed at Basic tasks (DC 15) which means having at least a modifier of 5 or better in the corresponding skill.


This whole exchange I'm basically getting two things: you're trying to lay down profession bonuses from backstory as a rule without actually deciding on them beforehand- which would necessitate a big table of everything you can think of and would still fail when someone wanted something you hadn't thought of, so you're not doing that- this reasonable, but its just "The rule is that we'll make custom rules," not much of a rule. And you don't think some classes have enough skill points to support characters with professions in their backstory, so you're giving out free points- which is also reasonable, but a matter of opinion.

The only problems I have are claiming the system doesn't work when you're not trying to make it work, and claiming that a houserule is needed to teach people to make characters that mechanically reflect their backstories. It looks to me like the only reason you needed to give out free skill points is because you didn't start on good character building until after the character was built and had assigned all their skill points, so adding backstory would have "hurt" them and free points were needed to get them to add some fluffier skills.

I suppose you're not a fan of something free form like this, and that's fine. I really think that's the root of your issue to this concept is that it is free form in a system that is so rules dense that it's rules regularly contradict each other. The rule is that the majority of correlating skills and synergies are determined prior to the game when conversation can occur, and that creative use of the skill is encouraged (shockingly, just like any other system, skill, or ability in 3.5...). And i'm sure why youre surprised that this is open ended and not finite when, in the OP, I literally said "This is supposed to be pretty open ended and is designed to allow a player and the DM talk about backstory and figure out just what other skills the Profession skill would synergize with." but hey, I tried to make sure the intent was fully out there.

The system doesn't work when you look at the DCs, understand the being "good" at something means regular success of basic tasks (DC 15), and existing skill points per class level. There are just too many skills and not enough skill points for a solid portion of classes. As opposed to going down the rabbit hole of reworking/rebuilding every class's list of class skills and skill points I decided to try to add to cover weaknesses.

If you think that i'm so awful at building good characters, tell me how you would allocate the skill points of the fighter in my example to ensure that the player felt confident they could be considered "Good" at tasks involving masonry and stone architecture as well as capable in battlefield maneuvering and phsyical tasks. Use only the system as written and show me how you can expect to handle Basic tasks with regular success while also showing that you've been well trained in mounted combat and the use of the Warhammer. Since you claim the system is great and it doesn't need any adjustment, augmentation, or changing... Show me.

[Gnaeus]

My group gives an extra skill point for craft or profession. It doesn’t need an extra synergy bonus.

Common uses from my team:
Craft is a prereq for some item crafting and (if POW is in play) some martial disciplines
Profession astronomer came in handy on a quest
Profession mathematician helped in some puzzle rooms
Profession noble helped for things like the logistics of running a castle
Craft alchemy is decent, especially if you use better crafting rules

[Fizban]

1 rank in the knowledge skill. Youre trained, but by the skill DC system you're highly unlikely to succeed in anything more than a really easy question. That doesn't mark much of any training at all.
The ability to roll knowledge at all is significant. Without that rank, you have 0% chance of answering anything more than "common knowledge," and keep in mind that common knowledge is still only 50% common by most skill checks, not 100%, the roll cuts both ways. With that rank, you have a chance of knowing literally anything in that field of DC 20 or lower. Its the difference between having gone to school and learned some stuff beyond what you'd hear on the street, or spending all that time dirt farming- pretty huge if the DM's putting in reasons for that knowledge to work. And the 3 point difference is all of +15%.

If this were your character, would you be satisfied with 2 skill points in all those skills and one in knolwedge (architecture and engineering)? Genuine question because personally I wouldn't be. I don't think that one rank in a skill adequately reflects growing up in the environment and learning about it by exposure and experience.
The problem is I wouldn't build this character in the first place, but- I would take "training my body" as the reflection of putting elite ability scores into physical stats, then I'd max out ride because it has the greatest mechanical need and use, and check the craft DCs on masonry stuff to see how many ranks I'd need to take 10. Most likely I'd max ride and masonry, then decide how much knowledge I'd need after figuring out what know: engineering actually does in the DM's game and how hard it is to do (I really don't care about "finding weak spots," I think its a dumb rule). If I didn't max knowledge, I'd consider a cross-class rank of tumble at least, but further skill optimization strays outside the given backstory.

If I wanted a highly skillful melee guy, I wouldn't start as a Fighter.


The DM doesn't set the task though, the player sets out to accomplish a task, the DM simply calculates the DC. Unless you're promoting the DM handwaving the DC of skill checks, the DCs are already set.
In a sandbox where the DM's thinking on the fly, sure. Climb? The DM calculates the DC, based on the walls that the DM described, which should have been placed with the knowledge of what DC they would be to climb. Or the distance of the chasm, or the trap, or whatever DC they have in mind for facts that would be relevant to the adventure. The only DCs that are "out" of the DMs hands are those defined by stock monsters- assuming the DM can't be bothered to change them. In short, all DCs are pre-determined by the DM.


The problem comes from a player saying "I want my character to be good at this set of things because of his/her upbringing really shaping them in this way" to which your response would clearly be "Well put one skill point in it and you'll be good at it". That's not even close to how the skill system in 3.5 works. As opposed to adjusting DCs to accomodate this and rebuilding the skill system (since, you know, i'm taking things apart and putting them back together in a different way) I'm just adding to them.
No, my response would be "then make a characters who's good at it." Just because someone wants a character with maximum fighting ability who also has a bunch of skills because backstory, doesn't mean they get to ignore the fact that maximum fighting comes at the cost of skills. Again, the problem here is pretty much just that you think some classes don't have enough skill points.

The rule is that the majority of correlating skills and synergies are determined prior to the game when conversation can occur, and that creative use of the skill is encouraged (shockingly, just like any other system, skill, or ability in 3.5...). And i'm sure why youre surprised that this is open ended and not finite when, in the OP, I literally said "This is supposed to be pretty open ended and is designed to allow a player and the DM talk about backstory and figure out just what other skills the Profession skill would synergize with." but hey, I tried to make sure the intent was fully out there.
And you'll notice that my very first words were, "I'd say make it less mechanical." My main gripe isn't that it's partially free-form, it's that it's not free form enough. Its a free-form DM assurance that's trying to masquerade as a rule by being written down just prior to play, but which due to its hasty nature, will almost certainly prove insufficient and require changes later on. If its not going to be a full menu rule, better to leave it a list of possibilities that only come up when they come up (the DMG has these already in the +2/-2 and general advice on making stuff up sections). If they players require bonuses to bother rolling, then pre-determining what bonuses they can get still limits what they can try to use profession on, rather than simply saying "sell it to me and I'll make it worth your while."


The system doesn't work when you look at the DCs, understand the being "good" at something means regular success of basic tasks (DC 15), and existing skill points per class level.
Incidentally, you keep saying "basic task"- what basic tasks? Most skills allow retries, and most situations are not life-threatening, so even without the ability to take 10 you can just roll a couple times (and sometimes you can take 20): for a trained only skill, being trained at all is the requirement. For some skills, failing by less than 5 is sufficient to prevent disaster even if you don't succeed: a small bonus can greatly reduce disaster. For other skills, the "basic task" is actually DC 10, or 12, or 5, or an opposed roll where your adversary has a penalty. And for people with starting gold or income, masterwork tools apply to most skills and cost around 50gp (MW Thief's Tools are 100gp 'cause they do two sills).

But most importantly, you're focused on needing a +5, when that's literally achievable at 1st level. Any 1st level character with max ranks qualifies as "good" at something. So what you're really annoyed with, is-

There are just too many skills and not enough skill points for a solid portion of classes. As opposed to going down the rabbit hole of reworking/rebuilding every class's list of class skills and skill points I decided to try to add to cover weaknesses.
Not enough skill points in certain classes to meet your desire for many skills at max ranks. And I still dispute the claim that free profession ranks will cover any weaknesses, not least of all because the game never requires profession so there's no weakness to cover -Your fighter example hinges on an esoteric knowledge skill with a splatbook mechanical use that you wish to overlap by giving out both free profession and replacing the knowledge with profession. Come to think of it, yeah that's an unstated dispute: knowledge being restricted when people like to write backstories that say they're knowledgeable. If it actually makes sense in the setting for anyone to have knowledge if they want, make it an unrestricted skill.


If you think that i'm so awful at building good characters, tell me how you would allocate the skill points of the fighter in my example to ensure that the player felt confident they could be considered "Good" at tasks involving masonry and stone architecture as well as capable in battlefield maneuvering and phsyical tasks. Use only the system as written and show me how you can expect to handle Basic tasks with regular success while also showing that you've been well trained in mounted combat and the use of the Warhammer. Since you claim the system is great and it doesn't need any adjustment, augmentation, or changing... Show me.
Leaving aside the fact that this is a rigged backstory meant to demand more skills than the low-skilled Fighter class has and a specific knowledge that almost no classes have (because in a faux-medieval setting book learning is for scholars only), same as before: put points in strength, max ride and masonry and get trained in architecture, and throw in a rank of tumble for chance to roll (which is actual battlefield maneuvering- climb is too slow for combat and jump is just a crapshoot). With Mounted Combat and Focus: Warhammer, I note that you've forgotten the Human bonus feat, so dump a skill focus or Educated on the knowledge skill if its really that important. I can't be held accountable for the fact that knowledge never allows retries though- that's a problem with people's idea of what knowledge is what DC and what "common" means, not skill points.


Better yet, I'd not force it as a 1st level Fighter. I'd make this character with two distinct layers of training that happened in sequence a character with two levels, with 2nd in Fighter and 1st in something else. Expert for core, Human Paragon would work for splat, Feat Rogue if they really wanted to be greedy. If it absolutely must be played at 1st level, I'd pull out my 3.0 DMG and make them a 1st level multiclass character.