Let it be known that, from this day forth, all NPC's that serve in, on or around a boat are now like the milkmen from Psychonauts!Google is not helping me with that reference. Are the milkmen lazy?
No, but they are all liars. Imagine a world where your DM is vindictive so he makes you paranoid to the point where even simple boat crews are seen as liars who are willing to put their own life on the line to fool you. Now change DM to 'government', the area to a modern suburb, and the boaters are milkmen.
|
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc.
That was inculcated by other DMs who used boats as "isolate the players and get them" vehicles. I gave them one "easy boat trip" pass which would give them an easy uneventful trip in any campaign.
They never used it because they were too afraid of boats.
Just like PCs are murderous hobos; boats in D&D and Pathfinder are apparently all deathtraps.
Sounds like they are from Divers in LG.
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc.
That was inculcated by other DMs who used boats as "isolate the players and get them" vehicles. I gave them one "easy boat trip" pass which would give them an easy uneventful trip in any campaign.
They never used it because they were too afraid of boats.
Just like PCs are murderous hobos; boats in D&D and Pathfinder are apparently all deathtraps.
Heh the DMs these days ;).
But I fail to see how sailing for yourself circumvents the deathtrap Sailingship :)
|
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc.
That was inculcated by other DMs who used boats as "isolate the players and get them" vehicles. I gave them one "easy boat trip" pass which would give them an easy uneventful trip in any campaign.
They never used it because they were too afraid of boats.
Just like PCs are murderous hobos; boats in D&D and Pathfinder are apparently all deathtraps.
Heh the DMs these days ;).
But I fail to see how sailing for yourself circumvents the deathtrap Sailingship :)
I was just giving support for why they would want to interview potential boat crews. Boats always seem to be deathtraps when they have murderous hobos aboard. Must be a co-ink-a-dink.
I was just giving support for why they would want to interview potential boat crews. Boats always seem to be deathtraps when they have murderous hobos aboard. Must be a co-ink-a-dink.So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc.
That was inculcated by other DMs who used boats as "isolate the players and get them" vehicles. I gave them one "easy boat trip" pass which would give them an easy uneventful trip in any campaign.
They never used it because they were too afraid of boats.
Just like PCs are murderous hobos; boats in D&D and Pathfinder are apparently all deathtraps.
Heh the DMs these days ;).
But I fail to see how sailing for yourself circumvents the deathtrap Sailingship :)
But they meant the interview for the level of the captains Profession(Sailor) skill...
|
|
But they meant the interview for the level of the captains Profession(Sailor) skill...I was just giving support for why they would want to interview potential boat crews. Boats always seem to be deathtraps when they have murderous hobos aboard. Must be a co-ink-a-dink.So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc.
That was inculcated by other DMs who used boats as "isolate the players and get them" vehicles. I gave them one "easy boat trip" pass which would give them an easy uneventful trip in any campaign.
They never used it because they were too afraid of boats.
Just like PCs are murderous hobos; boats in D&D and Pathfinder are apparently all deathtraps.
Heh the DMs these days ;).
But I fail to see how sailing for yourself circumvents the deathtrap Sailingship :)
Fine, support for why they might want to check that the captain and ship are not deathtraps. But as we already know that is foolish because every ship is a deathtrap once PCs get on it.
Fine, support for why they might want to check that the captain and ship are not deathtraps. But as we already know that is foolish because every ship is a deathtrap once PCs get on it.But they meant the interview for the level of the captains Profession(Sailor) skill...I was just giving support for why they would want to interview potential boat crews. Boats always seem to be deathtraps when they have murderous hobos aboard. Must be a co-ink-a-dink.So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc.
That was inculcated by other DMs who used boats as "isolate the players and get them" vehicles. I gave them one "easy boat trip" pass which would give them an easy uneventful trip in any campaign.
They never used it because they were too afraid of boats.
Just like PCs are murderous hobos; boats in D&D and Pathfinder are apparently all deathtraps.
Heh the DMs these days ;).
But I fail to see how sailing for yourself circumvents the deathtrap Sailingship :)
That was my point. If you have a DM who wants to bash you dearly while you are on a ship it doesn't matter whether you sail it or another one does it. He will just insist on insane DCs or have other forces appear through... whatever...
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?
It depends. I'm still largely relying on the layers of bureaucratic processes that produce safer environments and vet drivers - the requirement for drivers' education in schools, tests for licenses, the likelihood that someone is driving with a valid license because he hasn't been busted too many times with moving violations or other criminal driving behavior, seat belts and airbags in the car, other safety features that may have been absent from older models like decent crumple zones and not being either Pintos or Corvairs, and so on.
My trust for riding with someone I don't know well are going to be much higher here in south central Wisconsin than if I were visiting Boston, Mexico, looking for bus transportation in China, or the tribal areas of Pakistan where I have either witnessed widespread terrible driving or know that bureaucratic regulatory practices of the government are notoriously weak.
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?It depends. I'm still largely relying on the layers of bureaucratic processes that produce safer environments and vet drivers - the requirement for drivers' education in schools, tests for licenses, the likelihood that someone is driving with a valid license because he hasn't been busted too many times with moving violations or other criminal driving behavior, seat belts and airbags in the car, other safety features that may have been absent from older models like decent crumple zones and not being either Pintos or Corvairs, and so on.
My trust for riding with someone I don't know well are going to be much higher here in south central Wisconsin than if I were visiting Boston, Mexico, looking for bus transportation in China, or the tribal areas of Pakistan where I have either witnessed widespread terrible driving or know that bureaucratic regulatory practices of the government are notoriously weak.
So if someone has a 20,000 GP ship and sailed around for years with it... I would say he knows how to sail.
Now its up to your DM to be an jerk and play with your lives, of course. But as I pointed out earlier this is the same no matter who actually sails the ship.
There's plenty of history of people being given the captaincy of ships who had minimal qualifications, usually as politial rewards, or nepotism. That persists to today, but it was a lot more likely to happen when you didn't have to prove you knew what you were doing.
And all that aside, there's nothing saying that people who would make the occasional passenger vanish and take their stuff (especially, you know, rich idiots with more gear than common sense) can't sail good.
|
|
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?It depends. I'm still largely relying on the layers of bureaucratic processes that produce safer environments and vet drivers - the requirement for drivers' education in schools, tests for licenses, the likelihood that someone is driving with a valid license because he hasn't been busted too many times with moving violations or other criminal driving behavior, seat belts and airbags in the car, other safety features that may have been absent from older models like decent crumple zones and not being either Pintos or Corvairs, and so on.
My trust for riding with someone I don't know well are going to be much higher here in south central Wisconsin than if I were visiting Boston, Mexico, looking for bus transportation in China, or the tribal areas of Pakistan where I have either witnessed widespread terrible driving or know that bureaucratic regulatory practices of the government are notoriously weak.
So if someone has a 20,000 GP ship and sailed around for years with it... I would say he knows how to sail.
Now its up to your DM to be an jerk and play with your lives, of course. But as I pointed out earlier this is the same no matter who actually sails the ship.
I have been in games where DMs offered several ships and left it up to us to decide which ship best met our needs. Usually, 2 ships were fine if mediocre. 1 ship was outstanding and got us there more quickly. 1 ship was poor run and slowed our journey. 1 ship was dooooooooooooooooooooooo.....breathe in....ooooooooom.
Different games have different priorities. The game in which I currently play the DM does not require anything and the last time we needed a boat we just hired a local to take us out in his fishing vessel. The trip was uneventful. We did not even thing of interviewing or anything.
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?It depends. I'm still largely relying on the layers of bureaucratic processes that produce safer environments and vet drivers - the requirement for drivers' education in schools, tests for licenses, the likelihood that someone is driving with a valid license because he hasn't been busted too many times with moving violations or other criminal driving behavior, seat belts and airbags in the car, other safety features that may have been absent from older models like decent crumple zones and not being either Pintos or Corvairs, and so on.
My trust for riding with someone I don't know well are going to be much higher here in south central Wisconsin than if I were visiting Boston, Mexico, looking for bus transportation in China, or the tribal areas of Pakistan where I have either witnessed widespread terrible driving or know that bureaucratic regulatory practices of the government are notoriously weak.
So if someone has a 20,000 GP ship and sailed around for years with it... I would say he knows how to sail.
Now its up to your DM to be an jerk and play with your lives, of course. But as I pointed out earlier this is the same no matter who actually sails the ship.
I have been in games where DMs offered several ships and left it up to us to decide which ship best met our needs. Usually, 2 ships were fine if mediocre. 1 ship was outstanding and got us there more quickly. 1 ship was poor run and slowed our journey. 1 ship was dooooooooooooooooooooooo.....breathe in....ooooooooom.
Different games have different priorities. The game in which I currently play the DM does not require anything and the last time we needed a boat we just hired a local to take us out in his fishing vessel. The trip was uneventful. We did not even thing of interviewing or anything.
Yes but if the ship is an important plot device (happened in campaigns I DMed) you will end up there anyway :P.
But its a nice turn to have different choices worked out and have the players decide.
I still see one major problem with Profession(sailor). You need your own ship. And have you seen the ship prices in PF? ^^
|
|
Yes but if the ship is an important plot device (happened in campaigns I DMed) you will end up there anyway :P.
But its a nice turn to have different choices worked out and have the players decide.
I still see one major problem with Profession(sailor). You need your own ship. And have you seen the ship prices in PF? ^^.
Like I said. Different games have different priorities.
I have played in games where I was provided a ship by a patron. Every character had a profession to help crew the ship: navigator, captain (also used for other officers), sailor. I think there were a couple others. We had a guy who was the cook and a fellow who repaired breaks (shipwright).
If I ran a game I would require professions or crafts if it worked for the game I planned to run. I am also stealing the Trade skill idea above to simplify it somewhat.
I still see one major problem with Profession(sailor). You need your own ship. And have you seen the ship prices in PF? ^^
Psst. They don't cost anything when you steal . . . uh, borrow . . . someone else's!
Master Arminas
|
any time the PCs contract travel assistance, whether by plane, caravan or ship. it's fair to assume that it is a deathtrap.
downsides of asking others to transport you
a massive gold tax and having to divide the treasure with the crew, who want a minimum of half the treasure earned.
the crew could betray you and try to kill you, and there is enough of them, that they could either drastically weaken, or kill the party. expect them to use dirty tactics PCs would never consider such as frequent use of consumables to deplete party treasure.
if there are powerful threats targetting the party as they travel, expect the crew to be drastically weaker than the PCs and prove ineffective as the challenge is beefed up to accomodate the new APL that didn't really change at all. because a CR6 captain does nothing but miss when assisting an APL13 party. and when he does hit, expect his damage to be sub par. those CR 1/3 crewmembers are even less effective.
I love when my players take skills and options that aren't focused solely on combat. There isn't much need to max out most of the skills so they can dip a little if they want. I also don't mind if they don't dip. It's not my character.
I do want to quickly address the "murdering hobos." The PCs are not like everyone else. Adventuring is a rarity. Those who choose (or have thrust upon them) adventuring are a different breed. Most people in the world aren't going to travel very far from their homes. Adventurers are very likely to travel around the world. Not investing their time in skills that don't help them makes perfect sense.
One thing I like for my players to do is tell me how they want to use their skills to deal with the problems. I ask them to get creative. Just because someone has ranks in Profession (miller) doesn't mean they can't figure out how to use it in their adventuring life. I think it adds to their character. It makes the character seem more realistic. However, I don't require nor ask anyone to take "background skills." It's their choice.
I do want to quickly address the "murdering hobos." The PCs are not like everyone else. Adventuring is a rarity.Not according to the adventure paths I've read. Shackled City had at least three such groups of people.
Even if there are 100 adventurers in a city, what is the percentage of people who are adventurers? It's not that high. Sure, they are more likely to bump into each other because of their professions, but they are still rare. The very high majority of a population are not adventurers.
|
|
Even if there are 100 adventurers in a city, what is the percentage of people who are adventurers? It's not that high. Sure, they are more likely to bump into each other because of their professions, but they are still rare. The very high majority of a population are not adventurers.I do want to quickly address the "murdering hobos." The PCs are not like everyone else. Adventuring is a rarity.Not according to the adventure paths I've read. Shackled City had at least three such groups of people.
So they are not murderous hobos? Because I am really starting to like that term.
Actually, in my experience, if you don't remind people of their alignment, they tend to degenerate into playing 'Murderous Hobos'.
I had that with my current PF game at first, the Players were rather insistent on slitting the throats of every enemy they took down. I finally got them to realize that leaving wounded to be tended by their fellows had two positive things to it. The first, their friends would have to stop and take care of the wounded, thus giving them a better head start or possibly avoiding reprisal attacks while they got out of dodge. The second, that occasionally they might re-encounter those enemies and enemy allies, and that having shown a bit of mercy might, just might, get them some talking room with some of them.
That, and I pointed out that if they had a reputation for never giving quarter and killing anyone that faced them, they'd run into a lot more people willing to fight to the death rather than retreat or runaway when things looked bad.
Actually, in my experience, if you don't remind people of their alignment, they tend to degenerate into playing 'Murderous Hobos'.I had that with my current PF game at first, the Players were rather insistent on slitting the throats of every enemy they took down. I finally got them to realize that leaving wounded to be tended by their fellows had two positive things to it. The first, their friends would have to stop and take care of the wounded, thus giving them a better head start or possibly avoiding reprisal attacks while they got out of dodge. The second, that occasionally they might re-encounter those enemies and enemy allies, and that having shown a bit of mercy might, just might, get them some talking room with some of them.
That, and I pointed out that if they had a reputation for never giving quarter and killing anyone that faced them, they'd run into a lot more people willing to fight to the death rather than retreat or runaway when things looked bad.
I've had pretty good luck with my PCs not behaving like brutal thugs (except when they're really ticked about something). They tend to act like they are dealing with real people. I've had them go on a seriously dangerous adventure to avenge an NPC friend's death. No other reason and it involved facing a vampire / necromancer. I've seen them sweat wedding gifts and the fates of orphans. Nothing odder than a bunch of hardened adventurers trying to figure out what to bring to someones wedding :) I've been pretty succesful at making the NPCs and their lives "real". They're involved in the world around them and the NPCs in it. I'm a lucky DM I guess.
Actually, in my experience, if you don't remind people of their alignment, they tend to degenerate into playing 'Murderous Hobos'.
I had that with my current PF game at first, the Players were rather insistent on slitting the throats of every enemy they took down. I finally got them to realize that leaving wounded to be tended by their fellows had two positive things to it. The first, their friends would have to stop and take care of the wounded, thus giving them a better head start or possibly avoiding reprisal attacks while they got out of dodge. The second, that occasionally they might re-encounter those enemies and enemy allies, and that having shown a bit of mercy might, just might, get them some talking room with some of them.
That, and I pointed out that if they had a reputation for never giving quarter and killing anyone that faced them, they'd run into a lot more people willing to fight to the death rather than retreat or runaway when things looked bad.
So they fight the same guys all over again and hope that they might talk with them?
I fail to see the advantage here. If they are dead you don't have to hope that you might be able to talk out of it...
That, too, depends on the setting and DM. You've gently herded your players in the direction you want to go (mercy good), and I commend you for it. I started playing D&D in the Bandit Kingdoms of Living Greyhawk, and not killing enemies meant the local assassin's guild would go after you for beating up on their operative. Killing defeated enemies might or might not forestall this vengeance, but not-killing was guaranteed to start people or epic level red dragons hunting for you. By the time LG ended, my 15th level rogue had three assassin's guilds hunting her, could never go near Morginstaler because she'd made the mistake of leaving his half-dragon bulette son alive to ID her for Daddy, and was one of the top 20 most-wanted people by the Church of Iuz. It didn't take long before any defeated enemy was immediately killed, beheaded, and de-tongued (with head and tongue buried in different places from the body) in order to prevent speak with dead, easy resurrection, and future retribution. Because that...Actually, in my experience, if you don't remind people of their alignment, they tend to degenerate into playing 'Murderous Hobos'.
I had that with my current PF game at first, the Players were rather insistent on slitting the throats of every enemy they took down. I finally got them to realize that leaving wounded to be tended by their fellows had two positive things to it. The first, their friends would have to stop and take care of the wounded, thus giving them a better head start or possibly avoiding reprisal attacks while they got out of dodge. The second, that occasionally they might re-encounter those enemies and enemy allies, and that having shown a bit of mercy might, just might, get them some talking room with some of them.
That, and I pointed out that if they had a reputation for never giving quarter and killing anyone that faced them, they'd run into a lot more people willing to fight to the death rather than retreat or runaway when things looked bad.
You have a good point here... dead people don't speak. Always kill everyone and hide their corpses so that they can't use "speak with dead" and such on them.
Otherwise everyone will know who you are, what your tactics are, what you are capable of and what special abilities you have.Not killing enemies is a mistake.
Yeah, Pathfinder isn't Hackmaster, where everyone has the equivalent of Skill Focus--digging, as well as a missing finger, bad B.O., a limp, a wart on their nose, bad breath, bad hair, are ugly, and dressed funny by their mother....just to get a single +1 stat.
Pathfinder is about heroic PCs. While everyone else in society was learning their job, PCs were learning how to be heroes. They usually have high enough ability scores that their un-trained bonus is equivalent to a commoner or expert's trained skill. Or at least enough to get by.
That said, I think Pathfinder kind of dropped the ball by getting rid of Constitution-based skills. Endurance could have been a Constitution based skill instead of a feat, as could stuff like Athletics (throwing, catching, running, blocking, etc.), Laborer (ditch-digging, farming, porter, etc.), Marching/Hiking (checks made to reduce non-lethal damage, hustle quicker and longer, etc.), Regenerate (basically self-Heal checks through sheer toughness) etc. etc.
Heroism is not a function of effectiveness
The paraplegic book collector in call of cthulhu is every bit as, perhapes even more heroic than, the pathfinder God-Wizard.
Heroism is a function of willingness face great risk for the benefit of others.
Destroying a goblin empire doesn't make you a hero, it just makes you powerful.
While sacrificing your life and sanity to ensure that humanity can live on in blessed ignorance for another month or two can be the hight of heroism, even if the PC has no special combat or eldrich ability.
Its the same in real life. A normal person can come to the rescue of a crime victim, and be a hero, while the soldiers of "Charlie" Company of 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the Americal Division, would certainly be described as powerful, but I doubt anyone would call them heroes for their actions at Mỹ Lai and My Khe.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a longtime DM - it's the DM's job to make sure these skills players invest "RP" skill points into are occasionally useful. No, you don't need to rewrite your plot or drastically reshape your game world to do it.
But it takes next to no energy to throw in a library search for the librarian - trying to find an obscure map or reference within a large city library to get to the next dungeon, or to make the PCs pilot a rowboat across a rocky, whitewater river with Profession (Sailor), or visible gold veins in the cavern complex to encourage the player with profession (miner). It's the same thing with any other PC ability. If the anti-undead focused cleric never gets to fight any undead, the enchanter only ever comes across mindless creatures, or the mobility focused monk never has the chance to climb, balance, and/or tumble in combat...
...if you don't provide individuals PCs the opportunity to shine - at least occasionally - you're doing something wrong as DM.
I agree with you (quite vehemently actually) that players should be given opportunities to show off each of their abilities. Especially if those abilities required an investment on their part. But most professions can be covered by other skills. And even if they cannot you can still easily tie yourself to the setting without effort. When creating a character from a nation of sea fairers a PC could easily say "I used to be a navigator on a frigate. I have ranks in knowledge (geography), survival, and swim." or "I used to be a pirate, I don't know much about sailing but the captain had an eye for talent and he knew that a sorcerer like me can be an invaluable asset."
Other professions are so mundane that even asking for a single skill point just seems silly to me. For instance, profession (miner). What does having extra ranks in this even do? Do you mine more ore? "I have a +28 in Profession (miner). Me and my trusty +5 pick axe have hollowed entire mountain ranges!!" We already have rules for sundering...
The advantage of the profession or craft skills is that they roll several specific skills in one package for the sue in that profession.
Let's consider profession (engineer):
- it allow you to plan and construct buildings, bridges, dams, roads
- it give you a the equivalent of the Knowledge (local) skill for things related to your profession
- if give you the equivalent of appraise for things related to your profession
- it allow you to direct people building a structure
- it allow you to know where you should attack a structure to destroy it faster
and so on.
Now let's look what you will need to do that with other skills:
- actually there are no other skills that allow you to build complex buildings, you can build ramshackle refuges with the survival skill
- Knowledge (local) to know other engineers, architects, master builders, ecc.
- Knowledge (history) to know about historically important buildings
- Appraise to appraise buildings
- Diplomacy? to direct a crew of workers
- noting to recognize the weak point of a structure
and so on.
The character should not need monstrous bonuses to do all the above. A exceptionally good engineer would have something like a +10 to his skill and he would know practically anything about constructing stuff, included the use of magic during the construction to speed it up or make the building stronger.
So a few point (or even 1) will place most characters in the above average competence level for someone in that profession. I see that as a good investment for the return. Barring some very specific skill like perception, how often most of your character skills are used?
The impression I get reading most of the naysayers is that they want to mix/max their character to an insane extent and then, when they meet some problem outside their skill set they pretend to reduce it to the use of the skills they have.
"A alchemy check to recognize those liquids? I have +15 perception, I should be capable to recognize them without trouble."
I guess I'm a wierd GM. I use profession skills if they're taken. if they're not, I do allow people to use other skills, but I usually up the DC of the checks.
Exactly this. Or you can go the other way if you prefer:
Perception DC 15 to notice that the mine supports seem to be unsafe.
Profession (miner) DC 7 or so to notice the same thing.
DC 10 to be capable to evaluate how much stain will collapse them and what can be done to reinforce them.
DC 15 rig them as a trap.
Naturally you can use Knowledge (architecture) or (dungeoneering) or plenty of other skills for the same tasks, but the DC for some of them would change.
With disable device rigging the trap would be DC 10, but only after you have used another skill to evaluate how sound is the structure.
I've always enjoyed making settings that I feel make sense. Sometimes NPCs will be very similar. Most fighters I write up, who make up the majority of classed NPCs, are all of just a couple types depending on how the military operates.
A lot of them will be horsemen, shield users, sailors, or archers. In some settings / areas, all men will be proficient in horsemanship or sailing.
Then come the player characters - the murderous hobos - who can't perform any task or job a normal member of the society can be expected to. It's funny, because no matter how into the setting players seem to be, you can't get them to make the sub-optimal choices of taking on the settings style. At least when it comes to the people I play with.
It's funny because sometimes it becomes a problem, like when the party is on a boat or fighting alongside a greek phalanx or find themselves on the run from men on horseback when none of them can ride. I mean, they are always great in one on one arena DPS competitions against single other player characters, but that isn't ever what the game is about and that capacity doesn't really help.
Anyone else have this problem?
Crane, I have encountered some similar positions to this, but being clear of your opinion, you will undoubtedly attract some scorn thrown back.
So if I read you right, yeah, some parties keep away from professions and the tasks of normal folk and focus on combat or class skills. Ask them to do something simple like swim, row, plot a course, and sometimes the players just can't do it--they have become ultra specialists to party life.
I like that you are characterising the world with different types of soldiers, mercs, filling out the cultures. All good.
I have had players really complain when facing skirmishers or members from a people that have truly specialised in one area. There is no build that counters all others. If you can't catch the horse archer or take them down, you will lose over time.
Players can fight as a group, when their teamwork is down pat, but against veteran larger groups with good tactics, they get screwed. I've seen a pirate captain try to take a galley full of boarding pike marines. It went terribly.
I have encouraged my players to take some professions, and it has always turned out to be beneficial. Some sailing etc. At the moment, my scout has profession: bandit, and I am milking it for all it is worth. It can be really useful for an adventurer to have. Find hide-aways, determine how long ago raiders attacked, where would the fleeing people go, that sort of thing.
In shogun 2, sometimes players will think simplistically and act like some adventuring parties. Maximise the up close damage or the range. Go katanano dachi armies or ranged spam armies. The problem with that, is that horse archers can move and kill the choppers, and archers trying to sit in one place and waiting to shoot those coming at them, to pour out the damage, can be encircled and forced into a drawn out melee situation. A little group of heroes can be great, but I am happy for larger groups of well organised troops/mercs/tribesmen/demihumans to have superior military power. :)
I have encouraged my players to take some professions, and it has always turned out to be beneficial. Some sailing etc. At the moment, my scout has profession: bandit, and I am milking it for all it is worth. It can be really useful for an adventurer to have. Find hide-aways, determine how long ago raiders attacked, where would the fleeing people go, that sort of thing.I generally give my players one free rank in a profession skill to represent the road they turned away from. That's generally enough, they do have the option to purchase further ranks at 2nd level or above if they so desire.
Bravo! Good idea.
In my current game, all players actually started as level 1 commoners, so their background was quite clear, and their background also determined their starting equipment. It was pretty quaint actually, and as they got xp, they left their old lives behind. One player hated it though, but he, as a butcher, actually started with a lot of bladed weapons (can't please them all).It sounds like crane has a world with a lot of large battles, different military units and military tech. Interesting, more real world history than fantasy. Settings like skyrim actually have such low populations that there isn't large battles, it is all squad based. I like the idea of large armies being around, substantial garrisons. Can keep players in check, provide real hard opponents if they want to go that way, lead up to great end-game battles. 5 heroes versus 200 Chelaxian halberdiers on a battlfield, and then, the knights!
For all those who supported synergy bonuses...I recall that Pathfinder differed from 3.5e in that it discourages granting synergy bonuses from similar skills, which never really made sense to me but has since gotten stuck into the minds of most DMs that I know. Anyway, the problem is that as a Skill itself, Profession is supposed to be limited. If I read the RAW right, then it SHOULD only give bonuses OUTSIDE combat, and by that virtue not give anything else than a reason to spend points on RPing, which I of course disagree with.
Anyway, make of this what you will, because I dunno what else to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
he impression I get reading most of the naysayers is that they want to mix/max their character to an insane extent and then, when they meet some problem outside their skill set they pretend to reduce it to the use of the skills they have.
"A alchemy check to recognize those liquids? I have +15 perception, I should be capable to recognize them without trouble."
Actually, Diego, your post sounds more like min/maxing to an insane extent more-so than any of the so called "naysayers" have. Those of us who have pointed out the problems with the skills aren't doing so because of some desire for powergaming (that's just stupid), but because they have legitimate problems.
Look at what you have suggested...
Let's consider profession (engineer):
- it allow you to plan and construct buildings, bridges, dams, roads
- it give you a the equivalent of the Knowledge (local) skill for things related to your profession
- if give you the equivalent of appraise for things related to your profession
- it allow you to direct people building a structure
- it allow you to know where you should attack a structure to destroy it faster
and so on.Now let's look what you will need to do that with other skills:
- actually there are no other skills that allow you to build complex buildings, you can build ramshackle refuges with the survival skill
- Knowledge (local) to know other engineers, architects, master builders, ecc.
- Knowledge (history) to know about historically important buildings
- Appraise to appraise buildings
- Diplomacy? to direct a crew of workers
- noting to recognize the weak point of a structure
and so on.
Firstly, you forget the Craft skill, which by definition allows you to build or create things, including complex buildings; but thank you for pointing out that Survival is more useful in general adventuring conditions.
So let's apply this logic that you're presenting across the board; and take it to its logical conclusion. Since Profession is a class skill for everyone, my character is a Jack of all Trades, and I have the following skills.
Profession (Merchant) for haggling (without Diplomacy), appraising general goods (without the appraise skill), knowing where to get goods (so no need for Diplomacy to find sweet deals on things).
Profession (Jeweler) to create my own art objects to trade as currency, while also appraising them without the appraise skill, and of course it is used to notice unusual qualities in most anything that is a trinket (rings, circlets, amulets, gems, statuettes, etc), all without the Perception skill.
Profession (Diplomat) which I use to roll Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty), Diplomacy, and Bluff into a single Wisdom-focused class skill, while also knowing enough about social nuances to know where I have Diplomatic immunity and when I should keep my mouth shut (ala Knowledge Local).
Profession (Mason) which by your accounts should allow me to notice unusual stone work (Perception), have an innate knowledge of structural integrity (Knowledge Architecture & Engineering, Perception), and so forth.
Profession (Hunter) which I insist on rolling instead of Perception or Survival for tracking, noticing incoming creatures, or finding food in the wild; while also insisting that I roll it for Stealth checks as well, since it also covers stalking your prey. Also I use this for setting traps and making traps, because that's a common tool for hunters and many learn to make their own traps (some even capable of taking out polar bears, according to my SAS survival guide). Let's not forget training animals to hunt and attack things they normally wouldn't, since hunting dogs are frequently trained to attack BEARS; so that's Handle Animal.
So that's like, what, 5 skills which I've picked out and put 1 rank in. For those five skills, I'm getting most, if not all of, the benefits for
1) Appraise
2) Perception
3) Survival
4) Knowledge Architecture & Engineering
5) Knowledge Local
6) Craft Trapmaking
7) Stealth
8) Bluff
9) Diplomacy
10) Knowledge Nobility & Royalty
11) Handle Animal
All as class-skills, and all are Wisdom based, making it really, really easy for me to max out a lot of skills without trouble (a Fighter who can't afford to lower his Wisdom for his saves but dumps Charisma benefits highly, and druids and clerics are instant skill-monkies).
I could find a few more professions to drop ranks into which would allow me to cover swimming, jumping, climbing, linguistics, knowledge arcana, knowledge religion, and so forth. Hell, Profession (Sage) would, by your demonstration, negate my need for Knowledge skills at all, as I could just take Profession (Sage) and make a single wisdom-based check whenever I needed to see if I know something.
Min/maxers indeed. Pfft.
No, we were pointing out that there's no reason to whine about profession skills because they are a niche skill which exist primarily for filling in the odd gap, making some extra cash (a meager amount at that), and generally for NPC-use; while being mostly ignored by PCs because they don't apply to an adventuring lifestyle and often are redundant next to existing skills.
I wonder why Experts posses 6 + Int modifier skill points and can choose their own class skills as desired...oh yeah, because it allows them to branch out into different fields as appropriate for their expertise. An NPC expert can sport all of those skills you rolled into Profession (Engineer) as class skills, and afford all of them; putting him way higher on the professional totem pole than any commoner who dropped 1 skill point in Profession (General Knowledge of a Trade).
Wanna know what a Sage is in my games? Generally an Expert who has used his 6 + Int modifier ranks per level to invest in tons of Knowledge skills. An excellent hunter? Expert or even Commoner who has invested in Survival and possibly Perception, and maybe Handle Animal for his hunting dogs.
A skilled and savvy diplomat? Has ranks in Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and probably a bachelors in Knowledge Nobility & Royalty, Local, Linguistics, and History, to round out his or her skill arsenal that sets him or her apart from the peasants.
How about a gifted athlete who is expected to win this year's Tri-Athalon / Obstacle course? Probably an Expert with a solid Strength and Dexterity score, sporting Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim, which he can entirely support despite having dumped his Intelligence hard due to all that extra time spent at the gym instead of studying his books.
So let's not point fingers and talk about min/maxing here, because that's not what this is about, what it was about, or what it has or ever will be about.
So they fight the same guys all over again and hope that they might talk with them?I fail to see the advantage here. If they are dead you don't have to hope that you might be able to talk out of it...
Here's an example where it made a difference.
There was a bandit group hitting trade in the plains where they were. The first time they encountered the bandits, they pretty much slaughtered them (as in, won overwhelmingly fast). Two got away, and one was left to live or die, and one was taken prisoner and questioned. They later released the one that was questioned, since he told them everything they wanted to know in exchange for his life. They found out there was about 100 bandits, and 3 bandit leaders.
The three survivors told the rest about them. Later, they got ambushed by the same bandits, this time a better ambush force, and it nearly got 2 of them killed, but they managed to rally. The survivors of the ambush fled, then came back later to get the fallen, and took them back to camp to heal up. One of these was a bandit leader, who managed to get the drop on a PC and negotiated a cease fire in exchange for not coup-de-grasing the PC.
The final ambush occurred about a month later, and this one had all 3 leaders involved. They also had a dozen grunts with them. This fight was nearly a TPK, as the group split up and tried to take out the grunts first, which was a mistake, as that left 2 people fighting the 3 leaders, who ripped through them at 3 on 2 odds. By the time the PCs learned their mistake, their two best fighters were down.
In the end, it was one guy with high AC (a magus) fighting a large lizardfolk. Neither could get much done to the other. There were 5-6 grunts left, but they had all been told about how nasty these guys were (and how the Magus had made people explode in one hit, and he'd done so in this battle). So the grunts were scared of him, and of their boss, so as the two fought, they would withdraw 30 feet and shoot arrows. Or, if they thought they could get away with it, they'd withdraw 60 feet diagonally 'getting into a better position'. That way, they had maximum run time if the boss lost.
If the PCs had a reputation for killing everyone, then the grunts would have stuck to their guns, feeling like any attempt at escape would be doomed to failure, and the last PC would have died and it would have been a TPK. As it was, as soon as he dropped the main bandit leader, the rest took off and fled. The magus had, if I remember right, 5 hp left.
You have a good point here... dead people don't speak. Always kill everyone and hide their corpses so that they can't use "speak with dead" and such on them.
Otherwise everyone will know who you are, what your tactics are, what you are capable of and what special abilities you have.Not killing enemies is a mistake.
Wrong. You're not going to be able to keep that secret unless you can kill 100% of your enemies, plus every witness. Do you plan on killing the street urchin that see's you fight off the assassins in the alley? Also, you have to block every attempt to scry in your area, can you stop the boss of the assassins from scrying them as they fight you? You also have to stop them from ever resurrecting anyone you fought, not just speaking with dead, are you going to soul trap everyone you fight and kill?
Trying to hide what your capabilities are and tactics by slaughtering every enemy is pointless, and completely misses the fact that you will fail at that eventually. Someone is going to run away and get away. For that matter, they may attack and then scatter just to get information on you. The best you can hope for is to keep it on the down low for a level. And that's assuming you don't have allies that blab about it during a drunken bar trawl to impress a hooker into giving a discount. Heck, that's assuming your own fellow PCs don't do the same.
No, in every game I've ever played in or ran, trying to slaughter everyone you end up in a fight against is a bad situation to be in. If the GM is playing them realistically, then having a reputation for this is a bad thing. If the GM is playing all enemies as 'We will fight unto death' then I grant you it makes no difference, but then again, do you really want to play with a GM that has decided that every animal and humanoid in the universe is a suicide bomber?
In the end, it was one guy with high AC (a magus) fighting a large lizardfolk. Neither could get much done to the other. There were 5-6 grunts left, but they had all been told about how nasty these guys were (and how the Magus had made people explode in one hit, and he'd done so in this battle). So the grunts were scared of him, and of their boss, so as the two fought, they would withdraw 30 feet and shoot arrows. Or, if they thought they could get away with it, they'd withdraw 60 feet diagonally 'getting into a better position'. That way, they had maximum run time if the boss lost.
If the PCs had a reputation for killing everyone, then the grunts would have stuck to their guns, feeling like any attempt at escape would be doomed to failure, and the last PC would have died and it would have been a TPK. As it was, as soon as he dropped the main bandit leader, the rest took off and fled. The magus had, if I remember right, 5 hp left.
So they were scared because he can make people explode with one hit and then, because he doesn't kill everyone, they were like really scared and fled?
What? So he got his reputation not by being merciful but by RIPPING PEOPLE APART.
And any DM who says that people don't flee from things they fear is not a good DM. Ever seen unarmed people fight against Tigers? No? They run away because it WILL KILL THEM if they stay there.
The possibility of surviving rather makes you fighter better. If you stand no chance and have a good chance to flee and no special loyalty (if they do it doesn't matter anyway) you will do so to save your hide.
Wrong. You're not going to be able to keep that secret unless you can kill 100% of your enemies, plus every witness. Do you plan on killing the street urchin that see's you fight off the assassins in the alley? Also, you have to block every attempt to scry in your area, can you stop the boss of the assassins from scrying them as they fight you? You also have to stop them from ever resurrecting anyone you fought, not just speaking with dead, are you going to soul trap everyone you fight and kill?
Scry means he knows EXACTLY when the fight is gonna happen. Its one hour casting time and only 1 min/lvl duration. Unless he has a perfect trap set up it will be REALLY difficult to time that one.
And its prohibitable. Not to mention he sees 10ft around the enemy so barely knows what is going on there.Witnesses means that you fight inside a city. Thats not going to happen all the time. And high level parties fighting in cities? Ouch... that city district is going to get flatted. 100 DMG AoE spells will flatten any buildings in its path...
Also I said that you should hide all the dead. So he will need a 9th lvl spell and 50.000 gp to ressurect one of his underlings. Sounds like a fair deal to me. Then another 1.000 gp for his negative level and you just did cost the BBEG his new fancy +5 weapon he would have given his lieutenant.
That of course means they didn't end up in your chambers of skeletons. Animate Dead pretty much kills every chance for them to ressurect them. Without destroying the skeleton first. And that is gonna be hard if only you know where it is (and its inside a lead lined room, for example ;) ).
In my group every important enemy is taken with them as he dies and animated later. Only if many enemies are there and they are not worth casting a ressurection on them (lvl 1 warrior, yay) its getting left behind. If you can carry all of their corpses just take them with you, burn them in the night and hide their ashes. Will take 51.000 gp to get them back. Important ones are explained in the first sentence.
Trying to hide what your capabilities are and tactics by slaughtering every enemy is pointless, and completely misses the fact that you will fail at that eventually. Someone is going to run away and get away. For that matter, they may attack and then scatter just to get information on you. The best you can hope for is to keep it on the down low for a level. And that's assuming you don't have allies that blab about it during a drunken bar trawl to impress a hooker into giving a discount. Heck, that's assuming your own fellow PCs don't do the same.
If someone gets away that is bad and should be avoided at all circumstances.
If he only attacks for some informations he either does it with a serious firepower and will lose valuable assets just to get some informations or he will throw mooks at them and they won't go Nova for a handful of lvl 1 enemies... so he won't get his info.
And that still means he knows exactly who you are and where you are. If you are good you can often avoid that until very late.
No, in every game I've ever played in or ran, trying to slaughter everyone you end up in a fight against is a bad situation to be in. If the GM is playing them realistically, then having a reputation for this is a bad thing. If the GM is playing all enemies as 'We will fight unto death' then I grant you it makes no difference, but then again, do you really want to play with a GM that has decided that every animal and humanoid in the universe is a suicide bomber?
A bad reputation would mean that people know you did something. And it means that oyu did it to the wrong person.
Slaughtering every single peon of the BBEG? The area terrorized by him will love you.For "Fight to Death" refer to above. If you have a scary reputation with your enemies and its like "everyone who faced them died and we couldn't even retrieve their bodies" I doubt people are as motivated to fight you as if it were "yeah they pack a wicked punch but johnny last time got away to tell the tale and he said that they have x and y as weakness we can exploit to kill them".
So...murderous hobos?
Adventurers don't murder people... tstststs... they "overcome" them.
lol. Yes murderous hobos indeed ;)
It boils down to two factions... I can say that of course the world isn't black and white but in gaming I have seen these two factions before. Some people blend a little here and there but many people typically fall into one or the other (and before I get fragged, I'm not saying one is right or wrong)
* The mechanical person. Rules support mechanics. Roleplay is left to the individual outside of the mechanics. This person sees the character sheet as a set of numbers and modifiers which may have nothing to do with the personal interests, tickings, and goings on inside the character. If I am a blacksmith, I don't need a character sheet telling me that I am a blacksmith. I just say that I'm a blacksmith. Wasting slots on silly craft skills like this is pointless when other skills are more important and I can gain mechanically the same basic thing from choosing a more superior mathematical mechanical build / skillset.
Definitely see this in D&D 4e as they got rid of many skills that were deemed unneccessary mechanically and this argument / debate has been done many times over there.
* The character sheet as an RP guide person - Mechanics are secondary. If my character is a blacksmith, I want a rule on the character sheet to show that. If my character makes jewelry, I want a rule on the character sheet to show that. Yes, there are skills that can be used that mechanically do the same thing, but mechanics are secondary, and I am more comfortable seeing a character sheet with this on it.
As to murdering etc... again... two different factions lol. One side will see enemies as game pieces to be defeated. Another side sees things more like real-world, and therefore sees killing as murder.
And in betwixt the two shall never meet lol.
lol. Yes murderous hobos indeed ;)
It boils down to two factions... I can say that of course the world isn't black and white but in gaming I have seen these two factions before. Some people blend a little here and there but many people typically fall into one or the other (and before I get fragged, I'm not saying one is right or wrong)
* The mechanical person. Rules support mechanics. Roleplay is left to the individual outside of the mechanics. This person sees the character sheet as a set of numbers and modifiers which may have nothing to do with the personal interests, tickings, and goings on inside the character. If I am a blacksmith, I don't need a character sheet telling me that I am a blacksmith. I just say that I'm a blacksmith. Wasting slots on silly craft skills like this is pointless when other skills are more important and I can gain mechanically the same basic thing from choosing a more superior mathematical mechanical build / skillset.
Definitely see this in D&D 4e as they got rid of many skills that were deemed unneccessary mechanically and this argument / debate has been done many times over there.
* The character sheet as an RP guide person - Mechanics are secondary. If my character is a blacksmith, I want a rule on the character sheet to show that. If my character makes jewelry, I want a rule on the character sheet to show that. Yes, there are skills that can be used that mechanically do the same thing, but mechanics are secondary, and I am more comfortable seeing a character sheet with this on it.
As to murdering etc... again... two different factions lol. One side will see enemies as game pieces to be defeated. Another side sees things more like real-world, and therefore sees killing as murder.
And in betwixt the two shall never meet lol.
They are people. But a bandit that tries to kill you from behind and which you just let run away will try so again with his buddies next time.
Its not like in former times people did see other people as "pieces" but still they killed them for being the "bad guys".
The point where this splits is 1st world armchair generals who say what is right & just and projecting that onto a fantasy world.
The truth of the matter is that profession (and craft) skills will only be taken by players if they are playing with a GM who makes those skills worthwhile.
That is essentially the same exact thing as saying "Players will only take craft and profession skills if they play with a GM who will make things up in order to justify their choices for them." You shouldn't need the DM to create custom tailored rules or situations just to justify your choices.
The next part is a wall of text so I'm gonna sweep it under the rug...
I'm currently running a character who has the following skills:
Let's take a look at some of them.
-Craft (Calligraphy) - Why have a skill for this? And if anything couldn't you just use linguistics?
-Craft (Origami) - Origami doesn't make money, has no bearing on adventuring, and doesn't greatly effect the world. So why should you even need skill points at all?
-Craft (Trapmaking)- It's a legit skill.
-Profession (Blacksmith) and (Tanner)- Covered by craft skills.
-Profession (Bookie) - Do you really need skill points to do this? Math isn't something that requires a skill check so you just need at least an average intelligence and to be literate. You could add Sleight of Hand and Bluff to be a dishonest bookie.
-Profession (Drover) - Handle Animal
-Profession (Notary) - Knowledge (local)
-Profession (Surveyor) - Knowledge (geography)
So, to be clear, I grabbed these skills for reasons of characterization, fully expecting them to be sub-par.
I'm not even sure which angle to approach this from because this concept is so foreign to me. I'm not joking, I'm seriously dumbfounded. So perhaps you could clarify things for me. What makes you think that adding points to a profession skill adds ANY characterization at all? Or maybe that's the wrong question. Maybe I should ask why you think adding ranks in Stealth doesn't add to characterization? Or perhaps you think it just doesn't add as much? Or maybe I should be asking why characterization comes with the expectation of being sub-par?
I'm not trying to sound rude, I'm just not following your line of reasoning.
-Profession (Knacker) and Profession (Tanner) were used when we fought a particular type of entity that hasn't been seen in close to four millenia on the game world. They have the unfortunate habit of dissolving within hours of being killed, and are particularly nasty to fight. Thanks to the skills, I was able to isolate and treat enough of the creatures hide that we could take trophies before dissolution was complete. Having trophies has gotten us allies among the long lived races who recognized what they came from almost as soon as the trophies were shown (which the DM openly has admitted he was not expecting us to do or manage in the game).
You used a profession skill to make a survival check to skin it.
-Profession (Drover) Useful when the party and their accumulated loot from 8 levels of adventuring (including siege weapons) had to make and abrupt switch from sea based adventures to land based adventures, as the game moved from us being marauding pirates looking to free ourselves from a geas to us trying to unite a resistance against three separate impending invasions. The DM has allowed this to be rolled as a means of choosing ideal routes for our travel times and minimizing our chances of random encounters.
You made a survival check to avoid getting lost? And a know (geo) check to have a general understanding of the local topography? Skills you picked up during your time spent as a Drover? Gotcha.
-Profession (Notary) Our group has mercantile inclinations (More than half the characters have "found merchant empire" as a goal), so this has actually seen more in-game use than any other skill at this point, and to less overall effect. Though it, combined with Craft Calligraphy did allow us to draw up "legitimate" papers saying we owned the ship when we went to sell it.
Does your DM make you roll Notary checks all the time to do this stuff or does he allow you to because you chose a skill that he didn't want you to feel was a waste? Or is there another explanation?
-Profession (Bookie) Unused currently. The group frowns on gambling, after it got them into the trouble that started the campaign (bets with diviner wizards are bad ideas). The character hides the fact that he knows anything about that for fear of losing his life.
So you have an unused skill. Let me repeat my earlier question because I'm genuinely more mystified than I was before...In what way does this add to your characterization if it is unused? How does having this skill make your character more interesting?
This is the skill that baffles me the most. As a DM I would never require a skill check to count, do simple math problems, and write.
-Profession (Chef) Used once, to determine ...poison...
No problems hear except for how rarerly this is going to matter.
-Profession (Surveyor) has been used to make up for our party's lack of a rogue when on dungeon crawls, as a way of determining where secret rooms might be. Once allowed us to bypass a very large portion of a trap filled dungeon by determining that if we just went through a wall, we could avoid the labyrinth portion of it. DM was displeased.
Survival to navigate, search to find secrets, and common sense to know that going through things can sometimes be faster than going around things...plus knowledge (arch) to know what part of which wall.
-Craft (Trapmaking)...
A legit skill. I'll just move on.
All of your examples could have been replicated by a character with these skills instead.
Craft (Scrimshaw)
Craft (traps)
Craft (arms and armor) (blacksmith)
Craft (leather working) (tanner)
Craft (cooking)
Handle Animal
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (Geography)
Knowledge (architecture and engineering)
Linguistics
Perception
Survival
That's only 11 skills. Freeing up another skill for you to invest in.
Anyways, the point that I'm making isn't that these were superb choices for professions on my part... but that our DM has allowed them to have an impact. Of consequence, last level up virtually all the characters picked up a craft or profession skill, because they realized that, at least in his game, the skill points weren't going to be wasted.
Emphasis mine. The important part here is that your DM is what made your decisions have impact and, if your examples are any indicator, he will be the reason your party members profession and craft skills have any impact too. If your choices come with a DM guarantee then you diminish your ability to make any meaningful decisions by putting the responsibility of making those choices mater in the hands of god (the DM).
I dislike the notion that an adventuring party needs to hunt down and kill everything that lives that dares oppose them.
If you want to be feared by everyone, that's fine.
I believe that there are plenty of reasons to not engage in mass murder every time there is combat. If your group establishes a reputation for being goal oriented and not murder oriented, then opposing forces don't feel the need to fight with everything they have all the time.
If your group establishes that they will fight and defeat anything that comes between them and their goal and not a man more, then opposition forces can make 'business decisions' on just how much of their blood they feel they need to risk to stop the PCs from destroying that bridge, stealing those scrolls, killing the wizard, or whatever it is the PCs are here to do. NPC soldiers are people too, and not every one of them is a fanatic bag of HP that will die to a man to keep the PCs from winning.
Heck, once soldiers have been on the losing (but surviving) end of the stick, they're more likely to put up a token resistance because they know that their chances of success against the PCs is negligible, and they draw a paycheck whether they win or lose, but definitely not if they die.
I know it isn't a style that gets a lot of support, but I think Hogan's Heroes did a ton of good without a hint of murder.
The truth of the matter is that profession (and craft) skills will only be taken by players if they are playing with a GM who makes those skills worthwhile.That is essentially the same exact thing as saying "Players will only take craft and profession skills if they play with a GM who will make things up in order to justify their choices for them." You shouldn't need the DM to create custom tailored rules or situations just to justify your choices.
The next part is a wall of text so I'm gonna sweep it under the rug...
** spoiler omitted **...
The same holds true for every other skill in the game.
If your GM doesn't emphasize perception checks for initiative and traps, players wont focus on it. But in a game layden with hidden traps and ambushes everyone will likely keep it maxed.
If your GM doesn't use water hazards your players are unlikely to invest in swim. Center the game on a boat though, and aftert the first few levels everyone will have at least a small investment in it.
If your GM doesn't make you keep track of food or orientation in the wilderness, you wont have much invested in survival. But in a game where you can harvest crafting materials off of enemies you can bet someone will invest in it.
If your GM doesn't make you roll for what you know about monsters, most knowledge skills are much weaker. But in a game where you spend more time in libraries than hunting monsters, people will likely have high ranks.
If your GM gives you face value on things you find, appraise is practically worthless. But when you give your players time limits on looting, suddenly it becomes valuable and investment worthy.
In the end, it is the player's responcibility to come up with uses for their abilities, and the GM's job to set realistic limits on them. Im my games, craft(torture) and proffession(sailor) have had major impacts, despite them not having much to do with the campaign, because the players realized they could apply them to situations to get an advantage. Similarly, I have seen Proffession(baker) and Knowledge(Chocolate) completely throw the GM through a loop for their creative use.
I dislike the notion that an adventuring party needs to hunt down and kill everything that lives that dares oppose them.
If you want to be feared by everyone, that's fine.
I believe that there are plenty of reasons to not engage in mass murder every time there is combat. If your group establishes a reputation for being goal oriented and not murder oriented, then opposing forces don't feel the need to fight with everything they have all the time.
If your group establishes that they will fight and defeat anything that comes between them and their goal and not a man more, then opposition forces can make 'business decisions' on just how much of their blood they feel they need to risk to stop the PCs from destroying that bridge, stealing those scrolls, killing the wizard, or whatever it is the PCs are here to do. NPC soldiers are people too, and not every one of them is a fanatic bag of HP that will die to a man to keep the PCs from winning.
Heck, once soldiers have been on the losing (but surviving) end of the stick, they're more likely to put up a token resistance because they know that their chances of success against the PCs is negligible, and they draw a paycheck whether they win or lose, but definitely not if they die.
I know it isn't a style that gets a lot of support, but I think Hogan's Heroes did a ton of good without a hint of murder.
I would appreciate when everyone would stop that eristic dialectic and stop tossing around the word "murder" when they mean "killing" or "executing". Thanks.
And why does everyone assume that GOAL ORIENTED contradicts KILLING EVERYONE. If you do nothing but kill everyone every time he gets in your way people might think its a bad idea to get in your way (way = goals for adventurers). There is no logical reason at all one should fight someone who executes everyone that attacks him more than one that lets those live. Its the other way around actually! You are less fearsome if you rescue everyone you fight and thus people are more willing to fight you.
I would appreciate when everyone would stop that eristic dialectic and stop tossing around the word "murder" when they mean "killing" or "executing". Thanks.
I would prefer that people quit perpetuating the myth that every combat has to end in dead opponents who are then turned into skeletons and then released with anchors around their pelvis's so that nobody can ask any ask dead questions and can't resurrect them without a level 9 spell, all so the PCs can try to be invisible to the world as they run around doing these things.
I would prefer that people call killing the town guards that caught them doing something suspicious murder rather than the 'I want to feel like a hero as I slaughter guards doing their jobs' name of 'killing' or 'executing' the guards for interfering. Oh, and then doing the whole anchored skeletons thing to keep the city/country from using magic to find out who is murdering city guards.
I would prefer that people who play good characters not act like ravening blood thirsty monsters who kill everything in sight with the slightest provocation, including 'He tried to arrest me! What else was I supposed to do but rip his guts out and make him eat them?' (yes, I have heard that statement).
Unfortunately, the world is cruel, and we don't get what we want.
I would appreciate when everyone would stop that eristic dialectic and stop tossing around the word "murder" when they mean "killing" or "executing". Thanks.I would prefer that people quit perpetuating the myth that every combat has to end in dead opponents who are then turned into skeletons and then released with anchors around their pelvis's so that nobody can ask any ask dead questions and can't resurrect them without a level 9 spell, all so the PCs can try to be invisible to the world as they run around doing these things.
I would prefer that people call killing the town guards that caught them doing something suspicious murder rather than the 'I want to feel like a hero as I slaughter guards doing their jobs' name of 'killing' or 'executing' the guards for interfering. Oh, and then doing the whole anchored skeletons thing to keep the city/country from using magic to find out who is murdering city guards.
I would prefer that people who play good characters not act like ravening blood thirsty monsters who kill everything in sight with the slightest provocation, including 'He tried to arrest me! What else was I supposed to do but rip his guts out and make him eat them?' (yes, I have heard that statement).
Unfortunately, the world is cruel, and we don't get what we want.
1. No 9th level spell helps them once they are skeletons. Once they are destroyed they can be ressurected.
2. Who said that I would murder all guards of a city? Erastic Dialectic at its best. If the guards attack the party, of course they should kill them all. This sounds alot like an argument you jsut pulled out out of any context just to prove ITS MURDER OMG ALL ARE EVILAnd as I pointed out earlier any fight of a high level party in a city is gonna lead to destruction of whole blocks of buildings and thus is no real option anyway for someone who isn't willing to kill everything.
3. Why should a good character not resist arrest? Are you confusing lawful and good?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Killing someone just because they are an inconvenience is evil. It's the very essence of evil. In fact, if you look up evil in the book, as defined in the rules, it says a cavalier regard for life.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient.
Sounds like your description of a party above, people who kill without qualm if it's more convenient. You show no regard for killing city guard, and say it's ok if you're not lawful. It's ok if you're evil. Because it's more convenient than being arrested on suspicion (and yes, I did put that in up above, that they were arresting you for acting suspicious, most groups of PCs I have ever run have done suspicious things at times). I would say that coming across 4 or 5 guys, standing over corpses, as one of them chants and raises them into undead skeletons counts as 'suspicious'. In fact, I would bet $10 that if you came across that scene described by the GM, you would just slaughter them out of hand without finding out what was going on.
3) If you resist arrest and kill the guards because you don't feel like being arrested, then you are EVIL. See quote above about Evil. Evil kills out of convenience.
No one says PCs have to kill everything in sight.
Sorry, Alienfreak and I are continuing an ongoing argument across multiple threads, so you're only getting part of it. AF's stance is, if you get in a fight with someone, you have to kill every one of them, and then raise the bodies as skeletons so nobody can cast detect undead or ressurrect the downed enemies.
EDIT : SPeak with undead, not detect, duh..
Craft (Calligraphy) - Why have a skill for this? And if anything couldn't you just use linguistics?
-Craft (Origami) - Origami doesn't make money, has no bearing on adventuring, and doesn't greatly effect the world. So why should you even need skill points at all?
-Craft (Trapmaking)- It's a legit skill.
-Profession (Blacksmith) and (Tanner)- Covered by craft skills.
-Profession (Bookie) - Do you really need skill points to do this? Math isn't something that requires a skill check so you just need at least an average intelligence and to be literate. You could add Sleight of Hand and Bluff to be a dishonest bookie.
-Profession (Drover) - Handle Animal
-Profession (Notary) - Knowledge (local)
-Profession (Surveyor) - Knowledge (geography)
Craft (Calligraphy) - Its not about writing. Its about making art. It has lots of overlap with linguistics, such as being able to identify personality types of the person writing it (handwriting analysis), or figuring out the meaning to a lost word (symbolic derivation), but it could also be used for mediation.
-Craft (Origami) - I want to woo the waitress by leaving her a gift, so I make a crane out of her tip (requires paper money, but I see it all the time). I want to leave a calling card for a friend, so I leave an oragami animal in a predefined location, with a different message based off of the animal. Its a mundane object that wont carry significance to most casual observers but can cary meaning. Its a simple skill check, but not something I can do untrained. Just because something doesn't grant you strict mechanical advantage doesn't mean you can't find uses for it.
Profession (Blacksmith) and (Tanner)- Not really the same as the craft (though I think there should be skill consolodation here). The profession is how to run the buisness, while the craft is how to make the object. The profession check will give you things like how often a horse will need to be reshod, or how many pelts the average hunter will bring in from a trip. What chemicals do you need to do your job, and who sells them (hint, some very nasty chemicals are used in tanning and can combine with craft(alchemy))? What is the general markup on your product (why is it off in a given region)? These can all be useful bits of information at the right time, and require very low skill checks.
-Profession (Bookie) - this one is really useful. It combines all sorts of knowledge(local) and sense motive checks into one useful place. Who are the players in town who can get away with stuff? How much can you extort people before they start looking for ways to evade? How much does hired muscle cost, and when is it worth while to send it in? When is someone better as an example, and when are they better being written off as a loss? When is something too hot to fence? How do you avoid the local authorities with an event? Who are the corrupt people you can extort for the right price?
-Profession (Drover) -What route is best at rush hour? What is the easiest path to your destination for pack animals? Is a road passable in winter? How do you fix a broken wagon wheel? Where do the high tippers hang out and when? What major events are coming up where your skills would be in demand (Gala, ball)? How do you make the cart ride more enjoyable: are you skilled enough to make it smooth so the elderly passenger can drink tea confidently?
-Profession (Notary) -combination of linguistics and local, with an emphasis on laws. Want to navigate a legal system, this can be useful. Want to make something look legitamet - useful. You may not need to forge something if you can do it legally, or it could give bonuses to your forgery check. It can give you access to less public areas of government buildings.
-Profession (Surveyor) - its about making maps not knowing where things are. This can give you knowledge of how to identify and interpret old maps where details have been lost. It would help you make new, detailed maps. You would know how long recording good details takes, and how to plan a journey accordingly. Its a combination of linguistics, local, geography, and survival.
The point of these skills is that they don't replace the broader ones, but that they compliment them. I don't have the skill points to invest in every possible application of them, and so I lose out on the breadth of the skills like Knowledge(local) to gain better knowledge in my field of study.