|
Yes I am, actually. Some part of your background should be there at least.
Now, what YOU are saying is as far fetched as saying that a Fighter shouldn't have any fighting in his background.PS.: First time I disagre with you on something, I like it :)
Score! XD
I don't think you're wrong. I just don't agree with not giving Profession to this one class.
I'm sure you remember my many other posts on similar subjects, so I won't rehash it all. Just that what your class is should have minimal impact on your character backstory. You DO need to justify what your class abilities represent, but that representation can be wildly different from the fluff of the class. (This is not to say you can claim 'my Evasion works because I suck all of the attack into my indestructible belly!' Things have to be reasonable within the scope of the game, for certain.)
Fighter without fighting in his background. Hmm.
'Toth had always been larger and stronger than any other boy in the village. When the plague fell on them, killing man and beast indiscriminately, Toth survived, but his plowhorse did not. When it was time to do the planting, he harnessed himself to the plow, and prepared the fields by himself. When the harvest turned poor, and the harsh winter fell, much more of the village perished. Unable to support themselves on the land with so few, Toth led them from their home with only his woodcutting axe to defend himself with.'
Just because a class has something doesn't mean you need to use it for what everyone else does. Toth doesn't have armor, he just uses a handaxe, and his feats were spent on Endurance and Great Fortitude.
Just because a Barbarian has a class skill in Knowledge (Nature) doesn't mean he HAS to take it when it goes against his concept of a street urchin that learned to used his rage to overcome the dangers of the street.
|
Barbarians were big men (with various degrees of honor ranging from deep ancestral traditions to "my mullet is longer than yours so shut up") who went from town to town to kill, rape, and pillage. Why craft when you can take?
A typical barbarian clan probably had a few shamans, oracles, witches (whatever) with profession herbalist, astrologer and such, and probably had a lot of women proficient with profession cook, leatherworking, and such. Throw in a few basic craft skills and you're ok.... 'cause the rest (fancy pots and pans, meat carving knives, and such) can be brought home by the big barbaric males when they come back from their next town raid (i.e. the wives give the barbarian warriors a shopping list... :) )
|
|
But a Barbarian is about chaos, unpredictability, conquest, taking whatever they are able from whomever they want. They strive to survive on their terms, no one else's. It doesn't matter if they're from a hill tribe of Cimmerians or Viking clan from Trondheim - a Barbarian is an anarchistic rugged individualist, which is the opposite of holding a steady job. A Barbarian is essentially a wild beast that cannot be fettered without destroying who they are.
I disagree, obviously. :)
Barbarian is a collection of rules for interacting with the game. A 'barbarian' is a stereotype of other cultures that has become, in our minds, a naked savage who lives in tribes and attacks with berserker fury in battle, an unlearned man of the wild.
Your character does not need to be a barbarian to have levels in Barbarian, and you do not need levels in Barbarian to play a barbarian.
|
|
Yes I am, actually. Some part of your background should be there at least.
Now, what YOU are saying is as far fetched as saying that a Fighter shouldn't have any fighting in his background.PS.: First time I disagre with you on something, I like it :)
Just to mention, I've *never* made a rogue (and I've played quite a few in my day) as part of a thieves guild.
Most recent rogue was an Pathfinder'd Eberron archeologist/college graduate from Sharn University. Every rogue ability can be justified by a college class.
Sneak Attack: Fencing lessons or basic anatomy
Trapfinding: Study in architecture
Evasion: Phys Ed or whatever
Rogue Talents are personal tricks you pick up along the way
Ect, to keep the threadjack brief.
My point is you don't have to have a point to have a poi- Er I mean, have a class to be a class.
Barbarians were big men (with various degrees of honor ranging from deep ancestral traditions to "my mullet is longer than yours so shut up") who went from town to town to kill, rape, and pillage. Why craft when you can take?
A typical barbarian clan probably had a few shamans, oracles, witches (whatever) with profession herbalist, astrologer and such, and probably had a lot of women proficient with profession cook, leatherworking, and such. Throw in a few basic craft skills and you're ok.... 'cause the rest (fancy pots and pans, meat carving knives, and such) can be brought home by the big barbaric males when they come back from their next town raid (i.e. the wives give the barbarian warriors a shopping list... :) )
The other thing is that not every member of a primitive culture is going to be a Barbarian. They may be considered to be such, but the Barbarian is the Berserker Warrior. So while there might be shamans, etc, and experts, and commoners in a "Barbarian" tribe, none of them would be Barbarian class. As for crafts, there's plenty of evidence of jewelry and other crafts among 'barbaric' cultures. Vikings in particular not only made swords, they made pattern-welded blades of great strength and beauty. That's advanced crafting right there. And there would be craftsmen who did earn their living that way. But the 'Barbarians' that qualify for the class would be the raiders, those who earn their keep and worth by going out and wreaking havoc. They're the people who drank too much and got in bloody fights when they were stuck home for too long, or follow game animal through the wild until they make a trophy kill worthy of repute - not the people who mended nets, and sheared goats, and carved wood until it was raiding season again.
|
|
Street urchins are not Barbarians
You are a horrible DM for restricting my character concept. :)
(despite what others may think) they might be rogues, fighters, warriors, or urban rangers, but they are growing up in the context of a civilised society. (If the area you grew up in has streets, it's not Barbaric)
In a Barbaric society which typically would not have a monetary system, most Barbarian occupations would fall either in the areas of Craft, and Survival. If you're upset at the possible lost of amoney making Profession roll in PFS, note that Craft skills can be used as well.
What is a barbaric society? Back in the day, it was anyone who didn't match up to the image of your own society. I would rather not maintain this stereotype in my games.
Edit: To be serious, I think you missed what I was saying. My street urchin is not a barbarian, he is a Barbarian. One is a story tag, one is a mechanic tag.
Barbarians as per RAW:
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.
Barbarians are not simply people who grew up outside of civilization. In Pathfinder, Barbarians are a class that is defined by relying on their instincts, and drawing upon near superhuman power by giving into a primal RAGE. Barbarians are berzerkers, pure and simple.
That said, Barbarians can still have ANY Profession that they desire to suit any backstory that you may come up with. They do take a -3 hit to any profession for one thing, and one thing only in my mind- a lack of discipline.
TriOmegaZero, you said that Barbarians should definitely be able to take Profession (solider), for instance. But while I certainly agree they have great prowess at fighting- there is more to soldiering than that. Marching in uniform, following strict procedures, and listening to the orders of higher ranking officers is all a must for being a good soldier. And while a Barbarian CAN become a soldier, don't you think it will be a little difficult for a Raging warrior drawing upon primal instincts to follow such regimental discipline?
If they can come from all walks of life, civilized or savage, why do they intrinsically have Knowledge (Nature)?
If they can be a civilized-origin, why can't they have learned something from anyone (parents, neighbor, uncle, someone) that amounts to a profession?
If they're fishing, what precludes their knowledge of the value of that fish? They probably know better than anyone the rarity of the fish, what it's used for, how and when to find it, etc. Even if you're going "barter" system for a savage-only barbarian concept, they would know full well the value of that fish (ie: Profession - Fisherman), and how to get a good trade for their efforts.
Honestly, the longer this discussion gets, the more at odds little design elements spring out in the Barbarian's overall PF adaptation.
They're already a weak melee class (various threads out there for that - no need to rehash) after the upgrades the other melees take home, so what's left in this thread is a few more odd design elements that manage to just add a bit more aggravation to injury.
:shrugs:
It doesn't seem like anyone's really willing to give ground here, and I'm w/Omega in thinking it's wrong to over-stereotype the class to one single interpretation (ie: savage, uneducated culture). However, that's what house-rules are for. ;-)
Not every Barbarian is a barbarian. Right.
Not every barbarian is a Barbarian. Also right.
But every Barbarian who hasn't lost his class abilities OR multiclassed is a raging thunderstorm of chaotic fury just waiting to be unleashed.
So your Barbarian has calmed down somewhat and learned to restrain his anger to march in unisono with comrades in arms and stuff? Well, he almost certainly picked up some level of Fighter or somesuch, or he'd still be stuck with his non-class -3 to Profession (Soldier).
It has been said before in this thread: the Barbarian is the one to pillage and destroy and possibly speak with a funny germanic accent.
The rest of his tribe was filled with barbarians who werde adepts, warriors, monks or anything else, if they were good at jobs different from the day-to-day raging.
I thought it nice to leave the Barbarian out there without Profession, for exactly the reasons other posters before me put down (some of them just MMD ^^).
You're a Barbarian. You abhor authority, crush your obnoxious McDonalds boss, drive him before you with your cleaning equipment and hear the cheers of your coworkers. No matter what, keeping it real is bad for business. ;-)
|
|
And while a Barbarian CAN become a soldier, don't you think it will be a little difficult for a Raging warrior drawing upon primal instincts to follow such regimental discipline?
It can be, if they player wants to play a character like that. And they can represent that by not investing in the skill. But if a player wants to play a character that CAN follow regimental discipline while drawing upon his primal fury in combat, why must he be limited, however minutely?
Character class need not be tied to character concept, and vice versa.
On the subject of RAW and the barbarian quote, my view is, the class descriptions are NOT rules. It is written in the rules, but unlike attack rolls and attacks of opportunity and racial abilities, it is not 'how it must be'. Otherwise you end up with eleven and only eleven characters you can play.
But every Barbarian who hasn't lost his class abilities OR multiclassed is a raging thunderstorm of chaotic fury just waiting to be unleashed.
So your Barbarian has calmed down somewhat and learned to restrain his anger to march in unisono with comrades in arms and stuff? Well, he almost certainly picked up some level of Fighter or somesuch, or he'd still be stuck with his non-class -3 to Profession (Soldier).
It has been said before in this thread: the Barbarian is the one to pillage and destroy and possibly speak with a funny germanic accent.
So that Fighter who wants to be a herbalist should take a level of Druid to get that +3 class skill bonus? What about a Rogue who wants to do scribing on the side? Better take that level of Wizard to be the best you can be. And that Paladin who wants to support his family trapping for furs better multiclass Ranger or they might not make it through a bad winter!
Because after all, the Fighter is the big dumb bodyguard, and that Rogue is the untrustworthy thief who barely knows his letters! And the gods frown on a Paladin who doesn't live in a castle jousting fellow knights.
So that Fighter who wants to be a herbalist should take a level of Druid to get that +3 class skill bonus? What about a Rogue who wants to do scribing on the side? Better take that level of Wizard to be the best you can be. And that Paladin who wants to support his family trapping for furs better multiclass Ranger or they might not make it through a bad winter!
Because after all, the Fighter is the big dumb bodyguard, and that Rogue is the untrustworthy thief who barely knows his letters! And the gods frown on a Paladin who doesn't live in a castle jousting fellow...
That's neither what I said nor what I meant. ;-)
But consider this: would you allow a Paladin to take Profession: Torturer? And if you did, would he gain his +3 class skill bonus to it?
It's at times like this when I wish the class had been named Berserker instead of Barbarian.
Regardless, in reference to the Vikings' sailing skills, let's not forget that their longships (while sturdy and highly seaworthy), were nowhere near as large or complex as a galleon or caravel. While the pilot would need skill in Profession (sailor), and the navigator would need ranks in Knowledge (geography), pretty much everything else is going to be not falling overboard, operating that one sail at the direction of the pilot, and (here's where the Barbarians will excel with all their strength and endurance) rowing.
A crew full of Barbarians, would only need one or two members with a level in Druid or Ranger to make for a highly capable crew given their sailing vessel of choice.
|
|
So that Fighter who wants to be a herbalist should take a level of Druid to get that +3 class skill bonus? What about a Rogue who wants to do scribing on the side? Better take that level of Wizard to be the best you can be. And that Paladin who wants to support his family trapping for furs better multiclass Ranger or they might not make it through a bad winter!
Because after all, the Fighter is the big dumb bodyguard, and that Rogue is the untrustworthy thief who barely knows his letters! And the gods frown on a Paladin who doesn't live in a castle jousting fellow...
That's neither what I said nor what I meant. ;-)
But consider this: would you allow a Paladin to take Profession: Torturer? And if you did, would he gain his +3 class skill bonus to it?
Yes, I would. I'd ask the player why his Paladin was versed in torture, of course, but he could take the skill and gain the +3 bonus to it. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
(FYI, the paladin is a convert from the nation of Thay where he was a professional torturer for the wizards there. :)
So that Fighter who wants to be a herbalist should take a level of Druid to get that +3 class skill bonus? What about a Rogue who wants to do scribing on the side? Better take that level of Wizard to be the best you can be. And that Paladin who wants to support his family trapping for furs better multiclass Ranger or they might not make it through a bad winter!
Because after all, the Fighter is the big dumb bodyguard, and that Rogue is the untrustworthy thief who barely knows his letters! And the gods frown on a Paladin who doesn't live in a castle jousting fellow...
That's neither what I said nor what I meant. ;-)
But consider this: would you allow a Paladin to take Profession: Torturer? And if you did, would he gain his +3 class skill bonus to it?
Yes, I would. I'd ask the player why his Paladin was versed in torture, of course, but he could take the skill and gain the +3 bonus to it. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
(FYI, the paladin is a convert from the nation of Thay where he was a professional torturer for the wizards there. :)
Or, the paladin could be specifically tasked with rooting out non-believers (ala: Inquisition) and this is, literally, part of his "holy duty" to carry out questioning of the suspected to verify their religious allegiance.
Edit: as an aside, they'd probably be really good at it, too. Reasonable Wis score would matter, and then detect evil at will can help some more. Toss on some Owl's wisdom for more bonuses, and then Zone of Truth so they actually end up being VERY accurate, and humane "torturers" all said and done.
Hell, with Break Enchantment, they can even help "possessed" persons and those cursed to do "evil" as well under a close scrutiny "torture" session.
In most discussions about the Craft and Profession skills (and to a lesser extent, the Perform skill), I realized that people have different opinion about what the profession skill represents; mainly is the profession skill about "knowing how to do something" or "knowing how to make money while doing the thing".
It seems that many DMs encourage players to invest in Craft/Profession skills to 'round their character out', give them a sense of what they can accomplish outside the battlefield, which tends more on the "knowing how to do something".
In this regard, I don't understand why the barbarian shouldn't have Profession as a class skill like the others. Surely, few Barbarian should take Librarian as their profession. Similarly, I'm sure that very few Wizards invest in Profession (lumberjack). If it is true that not all professions are appropriate for the barbarian class, it shouldn't mean that profession as a skill be cross-classed.
The example of the sailing-Viking is probably the most obvious, as we (mostly) imagine the archetypical viking to be a Barbarian and that the profession (sailor) is the only way to determine how good a sailor the character is.
Yet perhaps the Profession skill is mostly about "turning know-how into money", in which case this skill isn't really appropriate to 'round characters out'.
Personally, I think that in the abstraction of the game, the Profession skill should represent both know-how and the business aspect of it, and I wish that every character class, including barbarian, had it on its skill list. That being said, it is also true that:
1) cross-class skills are not so much a big deal anymore.
2) adding the Profession skill for barbarians is a VERY unobtrusive houserule to add.
'findel
OBJECTION Your honour! He is clearly using suggestive questioning. He is impugning on my client's honour. By law, this requires a fight to the death!
Sustained!
But a Barbarian is about chaos, unpredictability, conquest, taking whatever they are able from whomever they want. They strive to survive on their terms, no one else's. It doesn't matter if they're from a hill tribe of Cimmerians or Viking clan from Trondheim - a Barbarian is an anarchistic rugged individualist, which is the opposite of holding a steady job. A Barbarian is essentially a wild beast that cannot be fettered without destroying who they are.I disagree, obviously. :)
Barbarian is a collection of rules for interacting with the game. A 'barbarian' is a stereotype of other cultures that has become, in our minds, a naked savage who lives in tribes and attacks with berserker fury in battle, an unlearned man of the wild.
Your character does not need to be a barbarian to have levels in Barbarian, and you do not need levels in Barbarian to play a barbarian.
Do you really expect many people to be better at understanding your point than Elan?
I do find it humorous with the argument against profession for barbarians that they don't use money in barbarian tribes. According to the prd, a goat is worth 1 gp (I guess we could rename it gp = goat payment). So a person with profession that earns 3 gp, would not necessarily be paid in gold coins, but perhaps instead in 3 goat payments. A barter system does not necessarily mean that professions can't exist.
Maybe it should have it, why not? I'd houserule it in if my player wanted his barbarian to have Profession...except maybe Librarian, unless he had a darned good reason. "You. Owe. Garn. LATE FEE!!!"
ROFLCOPTER
Barbarians in general dont require to have Profession as a class skill, they could take Profession if they wanted (as long as it fit their character type) as long as it made sense, sure they dont get the Class Skill modifier.
Barbarians tend to get angry quickly, and are largely undisciplined (due to the Chaotic nature and tendancy to gravitate to or come from primitive backgrounds).
Its not to say Barbarians are stupid, of course not. But they do have a tendancy to get mad at the drop of a hat (their culture encourages action over words, as demonstrated with their whole Rage ability). I dont see anything wrong with Profession (Hunter) and so on being a eligable profession, but still Barbarians largely tend to gravitate outside of and away from civilisation given their tendancy to ill fit into lawful society.
According to the prd, barbarians are required to be non-lawful, but it does not appear as if they are required to be chaotic. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that 50% of all barbarians are non-chaotic as well as being non-lawful.
Barbarians hunt for survival or excitement. They do not hunt as a business, though they might trade the excess meat or pelts. Let's take an example of a professional hunter: William Cody. He worked for the train companies to acquire bison tongues. He would methodically work a herd with a Sharp's .50 buffalo rifle, make a bill, collect the tongue, repeat until he had his quota, then trade them in. There's nothing chaotic or furious about that. He wasn't interested in the best, most powerful, or most challening buffalo - it was business.
Compare this to a barbarian hunter who would scream and chase his prey with spear in hand, channeling his fury and rage to keep him going as his prey slowed for its wounds, his power letting him finish it in a furious melee.
Just because you know how to do something, doesn't mean you know how to make it a paying job.
I am wondering how this barbarian hunter survives if he can't stalk his prey silently. The stereotype is driving me crazy.
I wonder if PF barbarians can rage constantly without limit. For it seems as if it is never not raging and thus cannot act without shouting all the time.
|
|
I am wondering how this barbarian hunter survives if he can't stalk his prey silently. The stereotype is driving me crazy.I wonder if PF barbarians can rage constantly without limit. For it seems as if it is never not raging and thus cannot act without shouting all the time.
They're training for the Extra Rage feat. The more they scream the longer their rage lasts.
They're training for the Extra Rage feat. The more they scream the longer their rage lasts.
Ha! The Viking shield maiden I'm playing right now (gestalt Bard/Oracle) starts screaming bloody murder in Celestial whenever she gets pissed off. Maybe she's training for extra performance, huh?
Yeeaaah... "barbarians" just have short tempers regardless of class. Either that, or dealing with "civilized" folk just gets under their skin. ;D
|
|
Yeeaaah... "barbarians" just have short tempers regardless of class. Either that, or dealing with "civilized" folk just gets under their skin. ;D
I know, right? Especially when those 'civilized' folk think you don't understand plain Common, or that you can't be a successful merchant. I mean really, it's just insulting to offer a barbarian a string of beads for the deed to his village... ;3
Barbarian is a collection of rules for interacting with the game. A 'barbarian' is a stereotype of other cultures that has become, in our minds, a naked savage who lives in tribes and attacks with berserker fury in battle, an unlearned man of the wild.
Your character does not need to be a barbarian to have levels in Barbarian, and you do not need levels in Barbarian to play a barbarian.
This is a good way to put things. Indeed, dipping into the barbarian class a level or two gives a good technical boost, and may develop a concept for a multiclassed character. At the same time, a primal warrior could be a ranger, because he excels at hunting animals.
But on a different note, I don't think the initial game was designed this way. Class skills were given to classes according to their class abilities and their general backgrounding. Single class barbarians, whatever their origins, became barbarians because they embraced their wild (violent and/or natural, your pick) inner self, and learned how to survive from it. They probably need money, but will get it according to the lives they live, be it under mercenary jobs (Which requires adventuring, not Profession skills) or the like.
Which means, every class has an array of skills their main class is more likely to make use of, and thus gets a bonus from it because the skill somehow "fits" in the rest of the class abilities.
Such a "non-bonus" (Cause it ain't a penalty) gives advantages to some classes. Profession ain't a big deal, but what if I wanted my barbarian leader (STR and CHA based) to use magic devices? Either I play the concept outright with no class skill bonus... or I invest a level in rogue to better technically fit my concept, sounds simple enough.
Your character does not need to be a barbarian to have levels in Barbarian, and you do not need levels in Barbarian to play a barbarian.
I wish more people could understand this...
But on a different note, I don't think the initial game was designed this way. Class skills were given to classes according to their class abilities and their general backgrounding. Single class barbarians, whatever their origins, became barbarians because they embraced their wild (violent and/or natural, your pick) inner self, and learned how to survive from it. They probably need money, but will get it according to the lives they live, be it under mercenary jobs (Which requires adventuring, not Profession skills) or the like.
What initial game might you be referring to? The original D&D stuffs? Perhaps. But it was always my understanding that 3E/3.5 (which is what Pathfinder is based off of) presented a buffet from which to pick things that were fun/cool/whatever. If that means my 3-piece-suit-wearing-mild-mannered-boardroom-executive has a couple levels in Barbarian, cool beans.
I mean - Conan is the Governor of California. Seems like a Barbarian is doing just fine...
But on a different note, I don't think the initial game was designed this way. Class skills were given to classes according to their class abilities and their general backgrounding. Single class barbarians, whatever their origins, became barbarians because they embraced their wild (violent and/or natural, your pick) inner self, and learned how to survive from it. They probably need money, but will get it according to the lives they live, be it under mercenary jobs (Which requires adventuring, not Profession skills) or the like.What initial game might you be referring to? The original D&D stuffs? Perhaps. But it was always my understanding that 3E/3.5 (which is what Pathfinder is based off of) presented a buffet from which to pick things that were fun/cool/whatever. If that means my 3-piece-suit-wearing-mild-mannered-boardroom-executive has a couple levels in Barbarian, cool beans.
I mean - Conan is the Governor of California. Seems like a Barbarian is doing just fine...
If so, there would never have been alignment restrictions, class backgrounding, or class skills to begin with.
By the way, Arnold ain't a barbarian, he only acted one.
|
|
Which means, every class has an array of skills their main class is more likely to make use of, and thus gets a bonus from it because the skill somehow "fits" in the rest of the class abilities.
Such a "non-bonus" (Cause it ain't a penalty) gives advantages to some classes. Profession ain't a big deal, but what if I wanted my barbarian leader (STR and CHA based) to use magic devices? Either I play the concept outright with no class skill bonus... or I invest a level in rogue to better technically fit my concept, sounds simple enough.
I agree, but the comparison fails when we move from Use Magic Device (a highly specialized skill) to Profession (a very broad, all encompassing skill). While not everyone can pick up the knack to jerryrig a wand, everyone should be equally able to pick up a job. If you want to be an unskilled laborer, you just don't put ranks into it.
Personally, I'd just toss Profession and Craft out and make it a level check, rather than having people spend resources on it.
I agree, but the comparison fails when we move from Use Magic Device (a highly specialized skill) to Profession (a very broad, all encompassing skill). While not everyone can pick up the knack to jerryrig a wand, everyone should be equally able to pick up a job. If you want to be an unskilled laborer, you just don't put ranks into it.
Mind if I borrow your words?
But if a player wants to play a character that CAN follow regimental discipline while drawing upon his primal fury in combat, why must he be limited, however minutely?
But if a player wants to play a Barbarian that CAN pick up the knack to jerryrig a wand, why must he be limited, however minutely?
And if they don't want to play a Barbarian with the knack for magic wands, they can represent that by not investing in the skill.
|
|
But if a player wants to play a Barbarian that CAN pick up the knack to jerryrig a wand, why must he be limited, however minutely?
And if they don't want to play a Barbarian with the knack for magic wands, they can represent that by not investing in the skill.
Absolutely correct. That's also the reason I'm not opposed to adjusting class skill lists. It just doesn't come up often enough. Precisely the same reason I haven't just dumped class skill lists completely, because I don't have players asking for it.
However, the comparison falls flat when you have Profession given to every class but one while Use Magic Device is only given to three.
I must back him up on that. UMD is perfectly reasonable to the classes that do get it - it fits, thematically.
However, profession, being present on all class skill lists (but one) and it being mostly about a job doesn't fit the same way UMD does. UMD is exclusive - only certain types really "learn" about it.
But when everyone can have this broad, universally applicable skill but one class, it's tantamount to calling the one who can't get it "mentally deficient" to say the least.
It's just weird.
But when everyone can have this broad, universally applicable skill but one class, it's tantamount to calling the one who can't get it "mentally deficient" to say the least.
...or you could call him an unclean barbarian. ;-)
But when everyone can have this broad, universally applicable skill but one class, it's tantamount to calling the one who can't get it "mentally deficient" to say the least....or you could call him an unclean barbarian. ;-)
And ... it's still weird. ;-)
While not everyone can pick up the knack to jerryrig a wand, everyone should be equally able to pick up a job.Adventurers by definition are the folks who decided to go out and rob other people's treasure chests instead of holding down honest work. :) Maybe no one should get Profession as a class skill. :)
That's sort of my take as well. It would be better if none of the classes got Profession or Craft as a class skill. In the end, it's only a 3 point difference on a skill most players don't choose, and of which the majority of the time is applied to a roll of little consequence.
Would we be having this debate if the class was called "Berserker"?
Ultimately, you can still put ranks in it, even though it's not a class skill. So it is not a skill denied to barbarians, it is just not a skill that barbarians will normally receive training in as part of their class. I don't see the issue. This only means that they aren't as good at it as other classes. The way people are talking, it's like they can't even put ranks in it. It could be as it was in previous editions, they could still be illeterate and not good at the profession skill.
Also remember that cross class skills aren't a bad investment/point sink like they used to be. After putting ranks in a cross class skill for 10 levels you now have a +10 as opposed to the +5 you had in 3.5. The same person putting maximum ranks into a class skill for 10 levels in 3.5, had a +13 bonus as they do now. It's still not as good of an investment to put a couple ranks in cross class skill, but over time with continual investment it's not a huge factor.