The part I'm the most confused by is the perception that not having a class skill = you can NEVER take ranks in that skill.
One of the major changes to how skills work in Pathfinder is that we killed the concept of a cross-class skill being something that you always suck at.
Nevermind the fact that barbarians in 3.5 have NEVER had the Profession skill as a class skill. Hell, in 3.5, neither did fighters. I guess I'm just a bit weirded out by the fact that this is suddenly such a big deal, 10 years or so after it first showed up.
I'm beginning to think that if you decided to not give it to a couple more classes when writing the rules, this issue wouldn't have cropped up :)
Creative Director
|
I'm beginning to think that if you decided to not give it to a couple more classes when writing the rules, this issue wouldn't have cropped up :)The part I'm the most confused by is the perception that not having a class skill = you can NEVER take ranks in that skill.
One of the major changes to how skills work in Pathfinder is that we killed the concept of a cross-class skill being something that you always suck at.
Nevermind the fact that barbarians in 3.5 have NEVER had the Profession skill as a class skill. Hell, in 3.5, neither did fighters. I guess I'm just a bit weirded out by the fact that this is suddenly such a big deal, 10 years or so after it first showed up.
Well... I didn't write the rules, for one thing. Jason revised and wrote them. He might have his own unspoken reasons for making the changes he did, I suppose.
In any event, it's not changing. So I guess my work here is done! :P
Is "frenzy berserker" a PrC?
I really -really- think the problem is that some people think "Barbarian" , in the game, refers to a culture or cultures of complex agriculturalists.
Rather, a culture has Barbarians. But it -also- can have farmers, fishers, etc.
Yes, and some people here seem to be equating the class Barbarian with a culture referred to as barbarian, and using that as grounds for why Barbarians do not get Profession. I could be wrong, but that's what I've been arguing against.
As for the confusion about the difference of my previous statements, I state that 'the Barbarian class does not only represent savage berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path, therefore the Barbarian class should get Profession as a class skill'.
As I said before, it seems some people seem to believe 'the Barbarian class represents berserkers who tap into primal rage to destroy all in their path, therefore the Barbarian class should NOT get Profession as a class skill'.
This is what I argue against, along with 'barbarian society does not allow for Profession'.
+10! This is exactly what I was getting at before. "racist" may have taken it far, but the idea is better articulated and exactly what I was drawing attention to in the first place.
@James: for the 10 years thing - I'd have given WotC hell for it, too ... had I noticed. ;-) I guess with PF's improvements in general, especially on fighter skills, when I went back and looked at all skills the barbarian got flagged immediately.
@anthony: Honestly, if that skill *was* missing from a few classes (say of the more "savage" sort - as seemed to be the design intent) I'd likely have said nothing at all - truly. I'd have looked to the unifying theme of "why" it's not there. As it stands, when EVERY class but one has it, I think it's odd - thus I created this thread.
Unfortunately, the whole concept of 'playing' a character and choosing a class is adopting the role that class serves.
While people are encouraged to come up with their own spin on the idea, it still has to suit the theme of the class and explain how they came to be possessed of these Barbarian traits...
...which brings me onto my points. Barbarians thematically by the very description given in the Core Rulebook tend to be outsiders to civilisation that prefer to stay away from it, who live violent, glorious lives and who wonder when their death with come...
...Now while this concept seems much like the Dwarven Troll Slayers of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplayer (Dwarven beskerker warriors who fought glorious battles till their inevitable deaths) NOTHING stops a Barbarian from taking the Profession skill...
...And this brings me onto the next point, while it may not always be right that Barbarians are assumed to be from tribal/primitive cultures by civilisation standards, thats how the class is portrayed in the core rulebook, if anyone wanted to play a character who spends alot of time in the wild but strays into civilisation once in a while, then Ranger would be more appropiate.
Barbarians themeatically by their name may be misappropiately named, but the class itself describes in its entry that they tend to be violent, gravitate outside of society and they live for the moment.
In Conan d20, Barbarians also were encouraged to adopt a Barbarian Code of conduct that helped guide their mentality (and gave save bonuses against compulsions that cause them to act against them) and this encouraged them to act in very distinct ways (which by the writeup of the Barbarian class seems to be very similar in certain areas).
The very concept of Barbarians are characters who are quick to promote action over words (this doesnt neccisarily mean violence but it means to act on impulse or instinct), who tend to dwell outside of civilisation, that by their very class wear limited forms of armor and whose training/upbringing in the class promotes features associated with being animal like (fast movement, rage, etc) especially with the new rage powers.
Characters who multiclass into Barbarians or from Barbarians can STILL have Professions, its just not something Barbarians usually have the temperment for (since they live day to day, living on impulse and instict like it is given in the class writeup) but multiclass Barbarian characters can mesh both backgrounds together to show they can be more civilised, but their barbaric tendancies should still show through (Conan as an example became a Rogue, Pirate and so forth but throughout his career/life he still lived as a Barbarian, and swore fealty to noone since Barbarians recognise no soverign but their God, and who responded to situations through action rather than words, etc.)
The fact that this relatively inconsequential disagreement on game design has gone on for four pages so far is proof enough to me that BOTH options are equally valid. But we had to choose one of those for print.
James, I feel for you. This was completely unconsequential. And you made the right description on not giving this class, if any, the profession class skill.
Racism? Discrimination? Wow. Just...wow. I can not imagine a better example of taking things too seriously.
Just...wow.
I think calling racism in this thread is sufficient to qualify for meeting either Goodwin's Law or some corollary thereof.
...which brings me onto my points. Barbarians thematically by the very description given in the Core Rulebook tend to be outsiders to civilisation that prefer to stay away from it, who live violent, glorious lives and who wonder when their death with come...
So barbarians are more of outsiders of civilization than say druids (you know, a class with profession)? Also what are you meaning by "civilization". Barbarians can be part of tribes, I assume that is not enough to be considered "civilized"?
...And this brings me onto the next point, while it may not always be right that Barbarians are assumed to be from tribal/primitive cultures by civilisation standards, thats how the class is portrayed in the core rulebook, if anyone wanted to play a character who spends alot of time in the wild but strays into civilisation once in a while, then Ranger would be more appropiate.
So it is due to the culture the barbarian is part of, that is the reason that professions are so hard for them? And yet there are others in the same tribe that find profession easy (anyone with any class other than barbarian). Sorry, unless you hold every single other person in the tribe to the same standard, I have to believe that it is not the society that is causing the problems for barbarians and profession.
...Barbarians themeatically by their name may be misappropiately named, but the class itself describes in its entry that they tend to be violent, gravitate outside of society and they live for the moment.
So because they are violent (note the difference between the barbarian's rage ability and the wolverine's), they have difficultly with professions?
And also, we are back to the hermit status of barbarians. Seriously if barbarians are so unwilling to deal with civilization, how do druids get profession, they are even less likely to deal with civilization.
Reasons for barbarians not getting profession that need to be dropped:
I think calling racism in this thread is sufficient to qualify for meeting either Goodwin's Law or some corollary thereof.Racism? Discrimination? Wow. Just...wow. I can not imagine a better example of taking things too seriously.
Just...wow.
Well, limiting options based upon some sort of cultural belief seems to be exactly this - imposing one's own ideas of what others are "capable of" as it's been presented by posters (not designers) in here is really dancing around the edge of this.
It's a small step to make once you've already completely pigeon-holed a CULTURE so narrowly.
Since many posters defended the choice with cultural references and the like - I was drawing attention to the wrong-headed approach there-in.
@PoC: you keep rehashing "as they're described" but you know what? Those descriptions key to their style of combat - and little else. They're unruly, angry-based fighters - that's it.
"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." - PSRD
--caps for emphasis is mine.
Now this piece, right there innately makes things like Knowledge (Nature) and Survival come into question. If they're coming from "all walks of like" and can be "civilized" how are they nature-walkers suddenly? It doesn't fit. Denying something that can come from "all walks of life" and is likewise granted to every other class raises questions - designers have since answered, and I disagree w/the choice, but whatever.
The thing I'm absolutely against is the sort of cultural bias that keeps popping up in here about how they should not have it because of how stupid, or angry, or primal they are - none of that fits if the class can have origins of "civilized" society. Even the natural-based skills come into question a bit at that point if the class's fluff is to be believed - that you can actually find Barbarians in a class of civilized people as a native of the populace (ie: not some "wandering savage" but more like the local bouncer or something).
Reasons for barbarians not getting profession that need to be dropped:
# Primative society (every other class in the society gets profession so this is not reason enough to deny the barbarian it)
# Outsider of civilization (druids are even more outsiders than barbarians and yet get profession thus this is also not the reason for barbarians not getting it)
# Barbarians can't control themselves (barbarians are not wolverines, they don't have to go into a rage even if they get hurt, i.e. they have control over their rage, they are not an uncontrolled engine of destruction)
+1!
For the simple and direct layout of the problems I have been attempting to explain w/the counter-arguments that keep flying out. Nicely laid out, pres man!
|
"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." - PSRD
--caps for emphasis is mine.Now this piece, right there innately makes things like Knowledge (Nature) and Survival come into question. If they're coming from "all walks of like" and can be "civilized" how are they nature-walkers suddenly? It doesn't fit.
So.. knowing what plants you can eat in the city and where to find them doesn't fit? Knowing where you can find animals to hunt in the city? How to grow the plants you eat?
I agree that Barbarians should get Profession, but saying Knowledge(nature) and Survival aren't needed if you come from a civilized walk of life(and are "barbaric", heck, you don't even need to be "barbaric", just less fortunate) is something I can't agree with you on.
The best approach I have seen to resolve this type of issue in other games is implement technology levels, so you could all be experts in a profession/skill (ship building, merchant, etc.), you just used different methods and tools.
Obviously a fantasy setting is very specific, so this probably won't work, as this concept typically shows up in modern games, or ones that span mulitple genres like GURPS.
Now this piece, right there innately makes things like Knowledge (Nature) and Survival come into question. If they're coming from "all walks of like" and can be "civilized" how are they nature-walkers suddenly? It doesn't fit.
So.. knowing what plants you can eat in the city and where to find them doesn't fit? Knowing where you can find animals to hunt in the city? How to grow the plants you eat?
I agree that Barbarians should get Profession, but saying Knowledge(nature) and Survival aren't needed if you come from a civilized walk of life(and are "barbaric", heck, you don't even need to be "barbaric", just less fortunate) is something I can't agree with you on.
Keep it in context here - this is just a counter-point to "they're all savage! They can't have a 'job' at all!"
If the idea is always savage, then fine - those skills fly just fine. Why, in "civilization" then (if you subscribe to the above) are there vegetation experts of archaic things (ie: more than farming I'd imagine) in nature to be found right in the city? Isn't this a "savage" thing (again - if you buy into that line of thought)?
Essentially, it was pointing to something at odds with that notion of "too savage/unatamed to be civilized" and then finding particularly "savage" skills verified and acceptable to the class.
For the rest - hunting animals in a city? Wouldnt' that be profession: exterminator or something? ;-)
Seriously, though - hunting more outdoors/non-city isn't it?
Tracking down "safe" plants to eat in the city ... isn't this just taking a trip to the town square/market? Point being, if you're in a "civilized" area, you're not likely to find some random, edible vegetables hangin' around - unless it belongs to your neighbors.
I opened a new clothing store.
I hire only barbarians.
Its called "All the Rage"
Each barbarian has a different profession.
Profession manager
professions retail sales
profession accounting
profession merchandiser
profession logistics
profession buyer/pillagerEvery barbarian I know has a profession so I find the whole thing confusing....
Worst customer service EVER!!!
But awesome! ;-)
It can be argued either way, and who is right or who is wrong, but the game design stands as intended by the developers, at least for this specific subject.
Describing a culture as not having professions isn't an insult. It's just an appreciation for diversity and, frankly, I'm -glad- when the game designers try to show cultural diversity - I just wish they'd try to show it more often.
Well, since EVERY culture has "jobs" I do see a problem. It's such a minor thing to the game framework as a whole, however that it's largely irrelevant to everything else in the game.
BUT, to mechanically imply that some sort of culture has no jobs is simply ignorant. Skills in this system are either a "specialized" skill, or an "everyman" skill - generally speaking. So, to have one "everyman" skill denied to exactly one class is odd. It's somehow implying the class is not "everyman" enough to qualify for everyman - it's weird.
:shrugs:
I'm pretty sure that short of being called/addressed directly I'm through with this. The designer's observation on the length of discussion is enough of a validation for me. The "solution" is the easiest thing in the world, and I need not convince anyone they're having "bad wrong fun" for such a thing - nor has it been an intent. I stand behind my assertions and those who've articulated it much more elegantly that I have.
Really, though - this is looking like a very, very, VERY dead horse at this point as I see very little "new" points to be made, or being made - it's all circular at this point.
I think that none of the PC classes should have it as a class skill. Taking a profession isn't really a PC kinda thing. Being an adventurer is what they are about. Sure they can take up a profession if they want, but it is really a skill for the NPC classes. They are the ones that should be really good at it as they are the day to day people that are really going to be using a skill like that.
Remember not having it as a class skill doesn't mean being barred from it. Making it a class skill says that this class is better at it than another class. I really feel that this means NPCs, in general, will be better at it than any pc.
I think that none of the PC classes should have it as a class skill. Taking a profession isn't really a PC kinda thing. Being an adventurer is what they are about. Sure they can take up a profession if they want, but it is really a skill for the NPC classes. They are the ones that should be really good at it as they are the day to day people that are really going to be using a skill like that.
Remember not having it as a class skill doesn't mean being barred from it. Making it a class skill says that this class is better at it than another class. I really feel that this means NPCs, in general, will be better at it than any pc.
I said I was done, but I can totally get behind that, too. It's the singling out that started my observations in the first place.
Reading other peoples replies one thing comes across to me...
...People dont like the fact "Barbarians" are stereotyped as savages.
Problem is, I dont see how a character brought up in civilisation, who comes to understand society's laws and expectations could spontaneously 'learn' the ability to Rage, Fast Movement, and have emphisis on skills like Survival and so on. Those kind of abilities are best suited to have been learned out in the wild, and most archetype/generic Barbarians you'll ever meet in the Pathfinder game are going to be savages (excluding Multiclassed Barbarians who may be somewhat better at blending in but they might very well still stand out).
As for 'Druids' and 'Rangers', consider that in particular Druids form circles or orders, and understand the principle of commerce/economy, and working for a days wage if need be and so forth if it mean they can buy what they need. Druids usually dont like civilisation, but consider that in the old DMG frequently, in small towns and settlements the odds of finding a higher level NPC Ranger or Druid (note NO Barbarian) is very likely. Because they like to fit in, just in a limited and rural way. Barbarians dont 'want' to fit in, they are proud warriors who honed their skills fighting beasts in the wild and surviving by their wits....otherwise an URBAN Barbarian who learned everything they needed without ever having to leave town would be an entirely different beast altogether with different powers.
Barbarians make what they need for then and there, which is why the class emphisises the "live for the moment" philosiphy that all Barbarians should share.
The whole arguement seems to stem from the fact people dont like the label of Barbarian stigmatising them as savages or beserkers....
...problem is within the game, that Barbarians are demonstratably shown over and over again as powerful warriors that live for the moment and who show little regard for society and their laws (hence why Barbarians cannot be Lawful), thats not to say they get arrested frequently (but they are more likely than most classes to be arrested for drunken lewdness, assault and so forth) but they do tend to respond to stimuli through action (thats what the class encourages) over words.
I agree sympathetically that no class should 'pidgeon hole' a character in all reason, but the 'class' system is designed to make characters fit A ROLE, and characters typically dont learn their trades/class in a week (which to me should be the case if characters can jump class to class if it suits them), but usually, characters who start as 'rogue/fighter/wizard' etc all began life at a young enough age and lived as that class to that moment before jumping out to another class. In my own opinion, characters wanting to change their class usually have to demonstrate some desire in-character to do so, such as a Ranger who wishes he could take down his foes better from hiding and sneak better (so he takes a level of Rogue). While characters could learn their new class from a party member, there is NO other class in the core rules beside the Sorceror that 'spontaneously' gains their power - all the other classes have expectations within roleplay that characters use downtime to change their career.
Mutliclass Barbarians tend to have a different flavor though, they arent stopped from taking Fighter or Rogue or whatever, but the fact they cannot pursue Paladin/Monk shows to a limited degree a lack of discipline. And frequently, Barbarians are shown to swear fealty to no lord or noble by 'their' title alone, but are impressed by feats of courage or strength that might cause a Barbarian to be impressed enough to said individual that they put weight on their words and deeds.
They can still take Profession, but the fact remains Barbarians dont have the temperment (this is not due to their alignment or rage ability, but simply the mindset the class promotes) to work for a wage but they can very well make what they need then and there. They COULD take Profession and try and fit into society by doing a dayjob, but their mentality reflects in their work and thats why its obviously not been given to them as a class skill. A 'day job' is a tedious, repetitive thing that DOES NOT fit into a Barbarians 'live for the moment' philosiphy that they should all share to some extent (otherwise why would they be driven to be Barbarians in the first place?, they'd have been better off as Rangers or Druids instead)
|
|
Keep it in context here - this is just a counter-point to "they're all savage! They can't have a 'job' at all!"If the idea is always savage, then fine - those skills fly just fine. Why, in "civilization" then (if you subscribe to the above) are there vegetation experts of archaic things (ie: more than farming I'd imagine) in nature to be found right in the city? Isn't this a "savage" thing (again - if you buy into that line of thought)?
Essentially, it was pointing to something at odds with that notion of "too savage/unatamed to be civilized" and then finding particularly "savage" skills verified and acceptable to the class.
For the rest - hunting animals in a city? Wouldnt' that be profession: exterminator or something? ;-)
Seriously, though - hunting more outdoors/non-city isn't it?
Tracking down "safe" plants to eat in the city ... isn't this just taking a trip to the town square/market? Point being, if you're in a "civilized" area, you're not likely to find some random, edible vegetables hangin' around - unless it belongs to your neighbors.
Going to the market for food is fine and dandy.. if you can afford it.
I guess I was going with "Guttersnipe turned Barbarian" with my example. I can see a less fortunate kid needing to know where to get free food and being strong enough to keep it, even flying into a hunger-fueled frenzy to do so.
Reading other peoples replies one thing comes across to me...
...People dont like the fact "Barbarians" are stereotyped as savages.
I have no problem with them stereotyped as savages. I do have a problem with them being held to a different standard than every other single savage (any savage with a class other than barbarian). If every other savage, with a class other than barbarian, can somehow find it not too difficult to have a profession, then how is it that these particular savages can't? How mentally pathetic are they that everybody else has no problem with having a profession but these do?
/thread
I have no problem with them stereotyped as savages. I do have a problem with them being held to a different standard than every other single savage (any savage with a class other than barbarian). If every other savage, with a class other than barbarian, can somehow find it not too difficult to have a profession, then how is it that these particular savages can't? How mentally pathetic are they that everybody else has no problem with having a profession but these do?Reading other peoples replies one thing comes across to me...
...People dont like the fact "Barbarians" are stereotyped as savages.
At the same rate the paladin has a Code of Conduct that grants him divine powers over time, the barbarian has a lust for fighting, and adventures to find his match and overcome it. He gains his ability to rage because he values proving his worth in battle over everything else. It's not that they don't have the mental ability to have a profession... it's because they don't care about being a pawnshop clerk; it is not in their heart to spend whole weeks of wasted time helping others marketing pottery.
On the other hand, things might be different if he crafted weapons or armor, or any war-oriented gear. Hammering all day will remind him his fighting spirits, and the fact that soon, the toy he now builds will help him survive the next fight. (And this counts not only for savage barbarians, but more civilized ones also)
Now, for the barbarian society; savages are not all ragers like the guy who placed a level in Barbarian. Women in the tribe could be mostly crafters and cooks, while a big proportion of men could be rangers, maybe some with secondary profession skills; but then again, most savage communities work on communism, so they more likely only tend the store, but do no get any gold for it. Oh yes, the shaman could be a cleric (Nature oriented) or a druid. There could be bards; legends of brave ancestors are always good for building up morale and for passing on tribe folklore. The warchief can be a dragonhide-fullplate fighter with Leadership, while his elite team of raiders are barbarians.
Very little of the above technically needs the profession skill to live on, for a previously said reason : Tribes of the wild dislike the habits of citydwellers, and don't rely on gold or economic balance; they are communists.
Now, I agree with Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus. Let's finish this.
/Thread
This barbarian has a Profession (drummer). But usually unemployed, so I have to loot and pillage.
Very little of the above technically needs the profession skill to live on, for a previously said reason : Tribes of the wild dislike the habits of citydwellers, and don't rely on gold or economic balance; they are communists.
1 goat = 1 gold piece.
You don't need to use coins to have an economic system.
I think calling racism in this thread is sufficient to qualify for meeting either Goodwin's Law or some corollary thereof.Racism? Discrimination? Wow. Just...wow. I can not imagine a better example of taking things too seriously.
Just...wow.
Well, limiting options based upon some sort of cultural belief seems to be exactly this - imposing one's own ideas of what others are "capable of" as it's been presented by posters (not designers) in here is really dancing around the edge of this.
It's a small step to make once you've already completely pigeon-holed a CULTURE so narrowly.
Your children go hungry because minorities are hired last, if at all. That's discrimination.
You get hung from a tree and burned because you looked at a white woman. That's racism.
Your children receive an inferior education because of the color of your, or their, skin. That's racism and discrimination.
Your Barbarian character in a fantasy role playing game doesn't get a +3 to his chosen profession skill? You should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to make such a correlation.
Very little of the above technically needs the profession skill to live on, for a previously said reason : Tribes of the wild dislike the habits of citydwellers, and don't rely on gold or economic balance; they are communists.1 goat = 1 gold piece.
You don't need to use coins to have an economic system.
Yet they did not work a week for the goat, they traded it. That is not covered through profession at all.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to make such a correlation.
And ... yet I'm not the one who brought cultural identity into this argument in the first place.
I made an observation, asked a question, and suddenly defenders of the status quo start spouting off at the mouth about such things.
No - I've brought attention to something that borderlines upon ignorance at the least. Shame is reserved for those things you regret doing. There is none here. Attempting to defend such things, even in the guise of "a game" is shameful.
As an aside, you could not have taken that statement more out of the intended context in the first place, so clearly you've an agenda or point to try and prove. It'll not be proven to me, as the fact that you either blatently disregarded my point, or have failed to understand it just indicates you're beyond seeing it. :shrugs: Shame, however doesn't enter it. At all ...
You know, now that I think of it, the rogue gets slight of hand, escape artist, and disguise. It just screams out that a rogue will do things that are underhanded and duplicitous.
If you were to associate one particular race with rogues, and then extrapolate that all members of the race that you associate with the rogue are, indeed, rogues, then suddenly you are implying that all members of that race are shady and underhanded.
All you have to do is:
1. Associate a race with a particular class
and
2. Decide that every member of that race now must take the class that you have associated with the race.
It makes perfect sense.
Wait, no, it doesn't. It takes several leaps of logic to make it work.
You know, now that I think of it, the rogue gets slight of hand, escape artist, and disguise. It just screams out that a rogue will do things that are underhanded and duplicitous.
If you were to associate one particular race with rogues, and then extrapolate that all members of the race that you associate with the rogue are, indeed, rogues, then suddenly you are implying that all members of that race are shady and underhanded.
All you have to do is:
1. Associate a race with a particular class
and
2. Decide that every member of that race now must take the class that you have associated with the race.
It makes perfect sense.
Wait, no, it doesn't. It takes several leaps of logic to make it work.
Right, right. And if we put profession on the barbarian's class skill list, that would force every single barbarian character to take profession(scribe). Because giving additionally options always forces people to have to take them.
That's pretty good logic too.
Right, right. And if we put profession on the barbarian's class skill list, that would force every single barbarian character to take profession(scribe). Because giving additionally options always forces people to have to take them.
That's pretty good logic too.
Whatever. I wasn't even commenting on that. I was commenting on the fact that some people started arguing that barbarians should be able to have profession as a class skill. People can agree or disagree on this. Then this whole thing went off on some kind of sociological extrapolation of how game rules imply racial prejudices.
That having been said, does anyone even f@#%ing enjoy their hobbies anymore, or do people just adopt hobbies now so that they can be the first one to b%@~@ about something?
Its like when everything calms down, and people start to discuss actually playing the game, everyone that has to win the internet sends each other an e-mail and rounds everyone to remind the world that Pathfinder has some fatal flaw that everyone is missing, and while its better than a lot of games, its a far cry from the mythical One True Game that Paizo failed to create.
Games suck, gaming sucks, fatal flaws abound. Hooray.
I don't have a dog in the "barbarian's profession" fight. I use Berserker's who get Prof: Sailor as a class skill. I'm simply offended by the use of the terms "racism" and "discrimination" in such a wildly inappropriate manner. Racism is a scourge on human society. It has been used to justify everything from war to slavery to lynchings and mass murder. To claim that your barbarian not getting Profession as a class skill is somehow even vaguely related to "racism" is so far beyond the pale as to be completely indefensible. Read a history book and reacquaint yourself with reality.
You know, now that I think of it, the rogue gets slight of hand, escape artist, and disguise. It just screams out that a rogue will do things that are underhanded and duplicitous.
If you were to associate one particular race with rogues, and then extrapolate that all members of the race that you associate with the rogue are, indeed, rogues, then suddenly you are implying that all members of that race are shady and underhanded.
All you have to do is:
1. Associate a race with a particular class
and
2. Decide that every member of that race now must take the class that you have associated with the race.
It makes perfect sense.
Wait, no, it doesn't. It takes several leaps of logic to make it work.
Right, right. And if we put profession on the barbarian's class skill list, that would force every single barbarian character to take profession(scribe). Because giving additionally options always forces people to have to take them.
That's pretty good logic too.Good point. Let's give every class full BAB, full casting from the entire spell list, and all the skills. We can also give them all shapechanging, sneak attack, and all the other class abilities.
Then players can decide which of those they want.
You want to make the skill profession for barbarians a game balance issue. You think it is going to "break" barbarians to have that as a class skill.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
*dude, can't breathe, stop it, you're killing me*
Curiously, I don't remember calling it a "game balance issue".
You want to make the skill profession for barbarians a game balance issue. You think it is going to "break" barbarians to have that as a class skill. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Well you evidently think it is on the same level as "Let's give every class full BAB, full casting from the entire spell list, and all the skills. We can also give them all shapechanging, sneak attack, and all the other class abilities."
Dude, you are cracking me up.
Profession ... such a broken skill for a class ... lol ... hilarious.