We've been looking at this skill and don't really see any in-game use for it.
One of my players would also like to know what is the in-game benefit of craft: jewelry?
|
We've been looking at this skill and don't really see any in-game use for it.
One of my players would also like to know what is the in-game benefit of craft: jewelry?
Its vestigial from 3.0, where it gave a +2 synergy to Heal checks. It obviously no longer does this :P
Edit: Craft Jewelry can be used (GMs prerogative) instead of spellcraft checks for making certain items. Something along the lines of bracers, bracelets, rings, necklaces, earings, and crowns could potentially be made with this instead of spellcraft... though I don't think its likely that any character would have a higher craft check on these except a dwarf.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We've been looking at this skill and don't really see any in-game use for it.
One of my players would also like to know what is the in-game benefit of craft: jewelry?
You might want to check out Pathfinder Society Scenario #43: The Pallid Plague. Unless something changed in development, this skill has the potential to greatly effect the outcome of the scenario.
You might want to check out Pathfinder Society Scenario #43: The Pallid Plague. Unless something changed in development, this skill has the potential to greatly effect the outcome of the scenario.
The adventure paths seem to like adding things like "The players can make a Profession(X) check to learn some useful but not critical bit of information if they have ranks in the skill"
We've been looking at this skill and don't really see any in-game use for it.
One of my players would also like to know what is the in-game benefit of craft: jewelry?
Like all crafts and professions, the primary purpose is the ability to generate a small income and to add flavor to a character. Beyond that, the usefulness (or lack thereof) of a profession skill is determined by how creative the player is and how generous the Storyteller is willing to be. Even then, their usefulness is very situational.
It would have been nice if crafts and professions were considered "background" skills that don't cost normal skill points, since they are nowhere near as useful as normal skills even in the most favorable circumstances.
We've been looking at this skill and don't really see any in-game use for it.
One of my players would also like to know what is the in-game benefit of craft: jewelry?Like all crafts and professions, the primary purpose is the ability to generate a small income and to add flavor to a character. Beyond that, the usefulness (or lack thereof) of a profession skill is determined by how creative the player is and how generous the Storyteller is willing to be. Even then, their usefulness is very situational.
It would have been nice if crafts and professions were considered "background" skills that don't cost normal skill points, since they are nowhere near as useful as normal skills even in the most favorable circumstances.
I entirely disagree with this sentament. I find that craft, profession, and knowledge skills are some of the most useful skills in the game. They allow players to try new things and come up with wierd ideas. The problem people seem to have with them is that they are vague about what they do. The answer is, whatever you want them to do.
|
|
A DM can always come up with useful, on-the-fly reasons to have ranks in a profession or craft skill. Just a few examples:
Craft: Jewelry could replace Appraise in relation to gems and jewelled items. A jeweler should be able to look at a diamond-studded headband and tell you its worth.
Profession: Herbalist could be used to determine if the packet of twigs and leaves the goblin shaman just handed you is headache medicine or deadly poison.
Profession: Miner could be used instead of Knowledge: Dungeoneering in relation to checks dealing with subterranean environments. It might not allow you to make checks to identify monsters, but you should be able to judge whether a tunnel is in danger of collapsing.
It would have been nice if crafts and professions were considered "background" skills that don't cost normal skill points, since they are nowhere near as useful as normal skills even in the most favorable circumstances.
A good GM takes note of the players' skills and adds elements to a campaign that reward that. So an herbalist should be able to spot and harvest rare herbs within a dungeon (for sale or use in magic item crafting), a miner should be able to spot promising signs of ore (to sell info about back in town), a taxidermist should be able to collect interesting animal bits, and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my own homebrew campaigns, I give every character 2 extra skill points that can only be assigned to "background" skills (knowledges, crafts, professions, performances). I also have house rule/homebrew systems to take advantage of them, like this one.
In my own homebrew campaigns, I give every character 2 extra skill points that can only be assigned to "background" skills (knowledges, crafts, professions, performances). I also have house rule/homebrew systems to take advantage of them, like this one.
I really like this system of handling the skills.
|
|
I would also rule that a non spellcasting character that had 5 ranks in something like Craft (jewelry) could take the feat that lets you create magic armor and weapons...only for jewelry. Same for something like craft (herbalist)...they can use the herbs to create healing salves and whatnot that function as a cure X wounds pot.
I would also rule that a non spellcasting character that had 5 ranks in something like Craft (jewelry) could take the feat that lets you create magic armor and weapons...only for jewelry. Same for something like craft (herbalist)...they can use the herbs to create healing salves and whatnot that function as a cure X wounds pot.
You can use appropriate craft skills in place of spellcraft when making magic items, if you still have the feats. Non-spellcasters can get the feats, but there is a feat prerequisite that makes it practically worthless IMO.
A good GM takes note of the players' skills and adds elements to a campaign that reward that. So an herbalist should be able to spot and harvest rare herbs within a dungeon (for sale or use in magic item crafting), a miner should be able to spot promising signs of ore (to sell info about back in town), a taxidermist should be able to collect interesting animal bits, and so on.
Most skills are useful enough in their own right that the DM doesn't have to go to extraordinary lengths to make them seem useful. I enjoy taking craft, knowledge and profession skills for roleplaying reasons, it's just painful to spend precious skill points on being a Scribe or Cook when I could have got something extremely useful like Stealth or Perception instead.
Most skills are useful enough in their own right that the DM doesn't have to go to extraordinary lengths to make them seem useful. I enjoy taking craft, knowledge and profession skills for roleplaying reasons, it's just painful to spend precious skill points on being a Scribe or Cook when I could have got something extremely useful like Stealth or Perception instead.
A good GM takes note of the players' skills and adds elements to a campaign that reward that. So an herbalist should be able to spot and harvest rare herbs within a dungeon (for sale or use in magic item crafting), a miner should be able to spot promising signs of ore (to sell info about back in town), a taxidermist should be able to collect interesting animal bits, and so on.
And depending on the game, Scribe or Cook could be rolled more frequently than perception or stealth. I've knowledge(Batorian Pastry) and Knowledge(chocolate) rolls made to game changing effect. And the DCs are so low for most of the tasks, that 1-2 points is all you really need.
|
|
I would also rule that a non spellcasting character that had 5 ranks in something like Craft (jewelry) could take the feat that lets you create magic armor and weapons...only for jewelry. Same for something like craft (herbalist)...they can use the herbs to create healing salves and whatnot that function as a cure X wounds pot.You can use appropriate craft skills in place of spellcraft when making magic items, if you still have the feats. Non-spellcasters can get the feats, but there is a feat prerequisite that makes it practically worthless IMO.
No, i meant for non-casters...there's a feat that lets non casters create magical arms and armor as i recall. It has a prereq of 5 ranks in craft armor or craft weapons IIRC. I was under the understanding that you had to be a caster to take "normal" magical item crafting feats.
some of you are very rules lawyery.
get together, role dice, drink beer.
some of you are very rules lawyery.
get together, role dice, drink beer.
All of my players are either wargamers or Rolemaster refugees. So yes, they're very rules lawyery. :-)
As a result characters almost never have the sort of skills that ordinarily would be quite practical to them in their ordinary life between adventures -- skills that they really should have. White Wolf style separate pools of points for background things averts such gaminess nicely.
You don't necessarily need points in something to do it. You can cook without ranks in craft(cook) and you can farm without ranks in profession(farmer)... most people do their jobs with little to no need for a roll generally.
White wolf has its own problems with "gaminess" issues too though and their current skill system... well between that and their merits... yeah I'll leave it alone now.
Already said in other threads: I'd like rules for jobs and careers (including levels of proficiency), rather than a relatively useless skill. Generic careers for all game worlds, and specific careers if the setting requires them.
And depending on the game, Scribe or Cook could be rolled more frequently than perception or stealth. I've knowledge(Batorian Pastry) and Knowledge(chocolate) rolls made to game changing effect. And the DCs are so low for most of the tasks, that 1-2 points is all you really need.Oh come on, how often do you see players put more than a point into such Flavor Skills, when they could instead put them into skills like Perception? This holds especially true for Fighters, who have so few skills.
I'll waste several points of Flavor skills, e.g. for Rise of the Runelords I took Profession (soldier) and Profession (farmer), even though I expect zero use out of them. My experience as a GM is that players /rarely/ even take that much.
As a result characters almost never have the sort of skills that ordinarily would be quite practical to them in their ordinary life between adventures -- skills that they really should have. White Wolf style separate pools of points for background things averts such gaminess nicely.
I always make sure to put at least 1 point in a non-core skill by lvl 2. You never know when they come can come up, and when they do it can be a life saver.
For what its worth...
The following link will send you to a a document about herbology that I made quite some time ago. So here it is
It should be Pathfinder-compatible, but some things (like poison effects) and some home-brew conditions like overwhelmed may not make sense.
Overall, It's a system that allow you to use the profession (herbalism) skill as an alternative to magic potions. Keep in mind that this was created in a low-magic setting in mind but still, prices and effects should be in line with existing potions.
'findel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most skills are useful enough in their own right that the DM doesn't have to go to extraordinary lengths to make them seem useful. I enjoy taking craft, knowledge and profession skills for roleplaying reasons, it's just painful to spend precious skill points on being a Scribe or Cook when I could have got something extremely useful like Stealth or Perception instead.
Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Sense Motive, and Sleight of Hand can all be useless point-sinks if the GM doesn't incorporate those things into a campaign. So can Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. And darkvision. And smite evil.
Just because Craft and Profession don't have combat applications doesn't make them useless. It's the GM's job to let the characters use their abilities, whether that's the ability to see in the dark, cleave foes, sense lies, or pick herbs. If Bob spends skill ranks on Profession (herbalist) for his character, that choice is important to Bob and the GM should incorporate it.
Oh come on, how often do you see players put more than a point into such Flavor Skills, when they could instead put them into skills like Perception?
My fighter/rogue put multiple points into Craft (calligraphy) so he could write beautiful love letters. He even spent 2x the normal cost when making scrolls because he wanted his scrolls to look awesome rather than utilitarian.
This holds especially true for Fighters, who have so few skills.
Only if you make Int your dump stat.
If you play an RPG to maximize your damage, you may as well play a video game. It is a ROLEplaying game, and sometimes that means your character is playing a ROLE that detracts from their combat ability.
Sean K Reynolds is still my hero.
CJ
Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Sense Motive, and Sleight of Hand can all be useless point-sinks if the GM doesn't incorporate those things into a campaign. So can Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. And darkvision. And smite evil.
Just because Craft and Profession don't have combat applications doesn't make them useless. It's the GM's job to let the characters use their abilities, whether that's the ability to see in the dark, cleave foes, sense lies, or pick herbs. If Bob spends skill ranks on Profession (herbalist) for his character, that choice is important to Bob and the GM should incorporate it.
This is one of the core tenants of my GMing philosophy. The players will tell you what's important to them via their skill choice and the questions they ask during the game. A good GM builds on these hints to give the players the sense that their choices and actions are the driving force behind the campaign. The players don't need to know that the man they're pursuing was a two-line throwaway NPC last session or that the city's herb market only came up because of the skill points invested by one of them.
I make it a point to include some situation every few sessions where the less-used skills can provide crucial information or otherwise make the PCs lives easier. Makes the players feel better about investing the points in them. Likewise, if a PC upgrades her armor and foes are now missing, I like to emphasize the difference the armor is making. Might seem like useless flavor to some, but the players enjoy it.
|
|
I incorporate appraise a lot in the campaigns I run. They have started to have at least one person who can get accurate values or they get the 500 gold necklace selling for 75 gold due to a bad roll. It can go both ways too with a great roll and great negotiating netting some profit.
I like that special skill pool at creation for background skills(craft/profession). I will definitely do that the next game I start! I need to also scan their skills over and give some opportunities to use the less used ones.
Most recently I play a fighter with Int 14, with points in Farming, Soldiering, and Painting. /Clearly/ I am all about maximizing my damage! I should what, put 18 in Int? :-P
All I have to go on is what you say in your posts, which was "Oh come on, how often do you see players put more than a point into such Flavor Skills, when they could instead put them into skills like Perception? This holds especially true for Fighters, who have so few skills."
Now, given, PF gives you fewer skills at 1st-level, and I think Jason is going to address that in the APG with a variant.
Anyway, my point still stands. D&D heavily penalizes you for making believable characters -- which most systems don't.
3E monsters are balanced against the 3E iconic characters, which are sub-optimal characters. We knew we couldn't expect every player to be a master of minmaxing, so the iconics were built to not be minmaxed so we'd know that a party of 4 sub-optimal characters could handle a threat of CR X. They have skill points spent on non-combat skills. Most have at least one feat spent on a non-combat feat. In other words, the game expects your characters to be able to do something other than combat, and still be able to survive level-appropriate encounters. The game doesn't expect you to maximize your attack bonus, or your damage, or your saves, or your skill ranks to be viable at every level. Thus, the game isn't penalizing you for making believable characters--it's expecting that you're making believable characters.
Putting 2 points in Calligraphy and spending more money for pretty scrolls makes for a nice bit of color, but what about all the background skills that you should have simply as a matter of growing up in society?
You mean all those skills you can do untrained, and which you're better at than a typical commoner because your average commoner has 10s or 11s in all stats and an adventurer has an average of 12? And probably has a 15, which means they're twice as good as a person with a 10?
A full time warrior should presumably have maxed out something like Profession (Soldier) -- how many D&D characters do you see do something like this?
Most D&D characters aren't full-time warriors growing up to be professional soldiers--if they were, they would have levels in warrior, worse stats than a typical adventurer, and they'd be NPCs.
Conan isn't a typical warrior.
Elric isn't a typical aristocrat/fighter/wizard.
John McClane isn't a typical police officer.
I'd bet a pint of bitter your Calligraphy Fighter/Rogue ROLE-play character didn't either -- and that's even with the extra skill points from being a Rogue. And why? Because the system penalizes you for making believable characters.
No, because he grew up in a fishing village and as a young boy discovered a box of his grandfather's adventuring gear and decided to become an adventurer like his grandfather. So rather than training to be a fisherman (a skill you can do untrained) or a professional soldier (ditto), he learned adventurer-focused skills. Because he didn't want to be a fisherman. Because he didn't want to be a soldier. He wanted to be a swashbuckler.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It really does work wonders. You end up with things like all character putting substantial points into Knowledge (Local) for places they've lived in, rather than the default -- where you're lucky if players put even a point into it unless they get the +3 in class bonus.
Jasper, just a note: if you're playing Pathfinder, you don't need to specify a location for Knowledge (local), as you would if you were playing 3rd Edition D&D. In Pathfinder, it's the skill of picking up all the scuttlebutt about your current community, no matter how long you've been there.
Most skills are useful enough in their own right that the DM doesn't have to go to extraordinary lengths to make them seem useful. I enjoy taking craft, knowledge and profession skills for roleplaying reasons, it's just painful to spend precious skill points on being a Scribe or Cook when I could have got something extremely useful like Stealth or Perception instead.Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Sense Motive, and Sleight of Hand can all be useless point-sinks if the GM doesn't incorporate those things into a campaign. So can Whirlwind Attack and Great Cleave. And darkvision. And smite evil.
Just because Craft and Profession don't have combat applications doesn't make them useless. It's the GM's job to let the characters use their abilities, whether that's the ability to see in the dark, cleave foes, sense lies, or pick herbs. If Bob spends skill ranks on Profession (herbalist) for his character, that choice is important to Bob and the GM should incorporate it.
Oh come on, how often do you see players put more than a point into such Flavor Skills, when they could instead put them into skills like Perception?My fighter/rogue put multiple points into Craft (calligraphy) so he could write beautiful love letters. He even spent 2x the normal cost when making scrolls because he wanted his scrolls to look awesome rather than utilitarian.
This holds especially true for Fighters, who have so few skills.Only if you make Int your dump stat.
If you play an RPG to maximize your damage, you may as well play a video game. It is a ROLEplaying game, and sometimes that means your character is playing a ROLE that detracts from their combat ability.
This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen anyone post on the boards. I wish I could give back as much as you gave here. I haven't had a firstborn yet. Do you want that? I have lots of dice... name your price.
3E monsters are balanced against the 3E iconic characters, which are sub-optimal characters. We knew we couldn't expect every player to be a master of minmaxing, so the iconics were built to not be minmaxed so we'd know that a party of 4 sub-optimal characters could handle a threat of CR X. They have skill points spent on non-combat skills. Most have at least one feat spent on a non-combat feat. In other words, the game expects your characters to be able to do something other than combat, and still be able to survive level-appropriate encounters. The game doesn't expect you to maximize your attack bonus, or your damage, or your saves, or your skill ranks to be viable at every level. Thus, the game isn't penalizing you for making believable characters--it's expecting that you're making believable characters.
Oh wait, nope. This is.
I despise the fact that people kvetch that Pathfinder penalizes people for making non-combat choices because OTHERS choose to min/max.
It really does work wonders. You end up with things like all character putting substantial points into Knowledge (Local) for places they've lived in, rather than the default -- where you're lucky if players put even a point into it unless they get the +3 in class bonus.Jasper, just a note: if you're playing Pathfinder, you don't need to specify a location for Knowledge (local), as you would if you were playing 3rd Edition D&D. In Pathfinder, it's the skill of picking up all the scuttlebutt about your current community, no matter how long you've been there.
If your using a bonus skill system, like the one mentioned above, it is not a bad thing to change know(local) to area/group specific skills. Personally, I really dislike that it is all grouped into 1 huge, amasing skill.
All I have to go on is what you say in your posts, which was "Oh come on, how often do you see players put more than a point into such Flavor Skills, when they could instead put them into skills like Perception? This holds especially true for Fighters, who have so few skills."Maybe you could consider reading the rest of what I wrote, rather than pulling choice bits out of context? I don't think you'll find anything to hang your assertion that I'm some sort of anti-role-playing power-gaming munchkin on. It's /especially/ edifying when you largely ignore the rest of what I wrote and jump straight to the ad hominems.
Thus, the game isn't penalizing you for making believable characters--it's expecting that you're making believable characters.The characters you're calling "non-optimal" and "believable" I'm specifically calling gamey and not believable card board caricatures. I mean, they're pretty good given the limitations of the system -- but that's it. Oooh! They took a non-combat feat! Such characterization!
D&D in general is just weak at this sort of thing, near the bottom of the pile of the scores of RPGs I've played over the past 30 years, let alone the hundred or so I've read through. That you're trying to argue that D&D is some sort of paradise of role-playing, what with all the campaigns where you're level 1 one month and level 10 the next is, well, it's amusing.
D&D is and always has been Munchkin Utopia, and very clearly the Crunchy Bits are the main draw. Pathfinder /is/ a good step up from 3.5 (and certainly better than 4th edition), e.g. with the addition of things like background traits, and it is /great/ in its crunchy niche, but let's not get carried away and proclaim it to be more than it is.
So yes, the way Pathfinder handles things like Profession (Herbalism) is /decidedly/ weak. Other systems do better, and Pathfinder would /be/ better if it adapted. Simple things, like giving bonus skill points for background...
Of course slagging off D&D on a (essentially) D&D forum is going to win friends and influence people. And make people take you seriously.
Like I'm not.
Stand down guys, please.
|
Some stuff about Professions
I'm confused why Pathfinder needs to do Profession better again? Sure it's great for flavor, but the vast majority of people playing this game (yes, an assumption) are making guys that go out on adventures. I can't say what you're doing in your own games, but from my own experience it's pretty rare that the adventurers want to stop and focus on learning how to manage a shop or dig around for herbs. Usually people only put a rank or two in them because it's what their character did before becoming an adventurer, which ends up being their job.
Think of all their ranks in other skills like Perception, the Knowledges, Climb, Swim, etc. as ranks in "Profession (Hero)" and just call it good.
Yeah, whatever. Walk back up the tree and you'll find that I merely suggested a house rule adding more skills to all characters, but limited to often-skipped skills, and some ways to make them more appealing to players. All as a way to encourage players to actually take them, and hopefully make more interesting characters.
Yea you did mention just adding a few skill points to spend on professions after this:
"The characters you're calling "non-optimal" and "believable" I'm specifically calling gamey and not believable card board caricatures. I mean, they're pretty good given the limitations of the system -- but that's it. Oooh! They took a non-combat feat! Such characterization!
D&D in general is just weak at this sort of thing, near the bottom of the pile of the scores of RPGs I've played over the past 30 years, let alone the hundred or so I've read through. That you're trying to argue that D&D is some sort of paradise of role-playing, what with all the campaigns where you're level 1 one month and level 10 the next is, well, it's amusing.
D&D is and always has been Munchkin Utopia, and very clearly the Crunchy Bits are the main draw. Pathfinder /is/ a good step up from 3.5 (and certainly better than 4th edition), e.g. with the addition of things like background traits, and it is /great/ in its crunchy niche, but let's not get carried away and proclaim it to be more than it is."
If you just mentioned just the skill points you wouldn't come over as a troll.
[Q
I'm confused why Pathfinder needs to do Profession better again? Sure it's great for flavor, but the vast majority of people playing this game (yes, an assumption) are making guys that go out on adventures. I can't say what you're doing in your own games, but from my own experience it's pretty rare that the adventurers want to stop and focus on learning how to manage a shop or dig around for herbs. Usually people only put a rank or two in them because it's what their character did before becoming an adventurer, which ends up being their job.Think of all their ranks in other skills like Perception, the Knowledges, Climb, Swim, etc. as ranks in "Profession (Hero)" and just call it good.
This is a really good point, though we should not generalize. The system is pretty fantastic for skill acquisition (like how fast you can pick languages with the Linguistics skill) in terms of speed and, in many campaigns, available downtime for practicing non-adventuring abilities. You can apply the same objections to Craft, and some Crafts are damn useful for an adventurer's life, think Alchemy or Carpentry.
On the other hand, some Professions can be improved while adventuring: if you are a Wizard, you could gain ranks and ranks as Scribe or Calligrapher, as your adventuring life does involve writing, copying and recovering written sources. A Healer-type in the wilderness can certainly improve Herbalist skills just by taking a stroll and mixing some plants day after day while the party rests. Hey, he'll probably know more exotic plant habitats and have more "field experience" than the average town herbalist!
Major one: being strict, producing a map of a dungeon would require a character to have some Craft-Drawing / Profession-Cartographer.
My house rule is that, besides some obvious social usages (like passing for a professional, impressing a noble or befriending a town), Professions can substitute appropriate Knowledge skills with a bonus when relating to the particular trade (like Profession-Herbalist instead of Nature when trying to identify a herbal poison used by a particular sect of assassins). Of course, as characters grow in level (and, mostly, gain access to powerful magic), this kind of benefit tends to become smaller, but that's also true of more popular skills. Climb becomes quite useless when the whole party can levitate, fly, wind walk or wild shape into a bird a few times a day.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm amused you think your /marginally/ less munchkin D&D characters are much better than optimized D&D characters, simply because you put a few points into a random skill and took a non-combat feat.
From the viewpoint of other systems they're both still munchkin.
Jasper, my friend, I, too, have spent a lot of time in a variety of game systems, and I can't see where you're going with this.
3rd Edition D&D (and for the purposes of this post, I'll include Pathfinder in that design chain) has complex combat mechanics as one of its strengths. (I've watched D&D fans struggle with this when they move to other systems, like, say, West End Games' d6. They're used to setting up sneak attacks and flanking, and clearing paths for bull-rushing opponents, and suddenly they're playing a game system where combat consists of little more than abstract dice-rolling.)
So, if you construct a character who's supposed to be good at, say, detective work, and I create that character's lunk-headed bruiser of an assistant, how much better in combat should my character be, than yours?
The 4th Edition D&D designers decided that the answer should be "not much at all," because every character ought to be able to contribute to combat at all levels, even those who are also detectives. (That's also the answer for AD&D games, since the only way to make "non-optima;" choices in AD&D is to keep magic items that provide more flavor than combat effectiveness.)
The folks who wrote, say, 7th Sea over at AEG decided that the answer ought to be "somewhat". All your character's attributes are useful in combat, but a skilled combattant will be able to roll more unkept dice, and so will be more consistent in his fighting abilities than a colleague with similar attributes but heavy investments in non-combat skill suites.
That's also the answer for 3rd Edition D&D.
And there are some games, like HERO or Shadowrun where the answer is "substantial." Characters need to either focus on optimizing combat statistics, or on avoiding combat entirely.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like you are trying to take 3rd Edition D&D to task for providing opportunities for "token" role-playing. But what options are there?
You seem unhappy that, for example, "herbalism" is a weaker skill than "perception". Why do you see this as a problem? Herbalism is a much cooler skill than perception, too.
A player who puts points into Craft(herbalism) --or a ranger choosing gnomes as a favored enemy, or a Werewolf character buying a Sanctum, or a Traveller player learning what he can about Interstellar Law-- is voting for adventures where that's going to come into play. A GM might decide to ignore those votes, particularly if the group has agreed to play through a pre-written Adventure Path, but a good GM will do what she can to give her players the adventure they're voting for.