Somebody might have already said this, but I don't feel like reading through the whole page.
I think you just have to roll the dice to represent the randomness of making money in professions. For example, say you took Profession: Lemonade Stand Worker. This week you roll awesome. Business is booming, everybody wants your lemonade and you're rolling in bank. Next week you roll a 1. You're having a slow week because it's been kind of cold and nobody needs a nice refreshing lemonade to beat the heat (or something like that).
See what I mean?
And way back in the day, there weren't a whole lot of jobs with a fixed income, and everyone's understanding of economics were quite primitive. Your boss could just come in and say you just got a pay cut (which is how a lot of jobs still work today, lol).
nosig wrote: I was just wondering if anyone KNEW You are not going to like this answer, but that is the way the original designers wanted it.
You may not agree with their methods, but the intent was to create a simulated way to grant a tangible benefit for skills that would otherwise go largely ignored.
At this point, Mike/Mark are left to answer a question regarding material that was written long before they became employees of Paizo, and perhaps they were even involved in the society. I think it would be nearly impossible for them to speculate as to what Nick, Josh, or even Hyrum was thinking regarding most of the existing campaign-specific rules.
Bob Jonquet wrote: nosig wrote: I was just wondering if anyone KNEW You are not going to like this answer, but that is the way the original designers wanted it.
You may not agree with their methods, but the intent was to create a simulated way to grant a tangible benefit for skills that would otherwise go largely ignored.
At this point, Mike/Mark are left to answer a question regarding material that was written long before they became employees of Paizo, and perhaps they were even involved in the society. I think it would be nearly impossible for them to speculate as to what Nick, Josh, or even Hyrum was thinking regarding most of the existing campaign-specific rules. Actually this answer is fine with me, and IMHO much better than CylonDorados'. I have been playing long enough to learn that there are things that DMs do that just don't have to make sense - they just are. LOL! there are things like that in RL!
My question was mainly for the persons that might have been there during the decision making process - or if there had been a thread posted a long time ago on the "why it's being done like this". If there isn't, that's ok with me. I wasn't looking for a justification (I'm a good enough DM myself to come up with several), just for some history.
Anyway people! Thanks for all your HelP!
CylonDorado wrote: Somebody might have already said this, but I don't feel like reading through the whole page.
I think you just have to roll the dice to represent the randomness of making money in professions. For example, say you took Profession: Lemonade Stand Worker. This week you roll awesome. Business is booming, everybody wants your lemonade and you're rolling in bank. Next week you roll a 1. You're having a slow week because it's been kind of cold and nobody needs a nice refreshing lemonade to beat the heat (or something like that).
See what I mean?
And way back in the day, there weren't a whole lot of jobs with a fixed income, and everyone's understanding of economics were quite primitive. Your boss could just come in and say you just got a pay cut (which is how a lot of jobs still work today, lol).
Being a bit of a historian, I had to chime in with this. Actually, "way back in the day" there often were jobs with a fixed income. For example - Minoan Crete, 2500 BC to 1500 BC, (as far as we can tell) everyone was paid a fixed income in food stuffs (they appear not to have had money or merchants, everyone worked for the Palace, though they were great traders). Fixed incomes, a "living wage" if you will, have often been the norm (Anchient Egypt, Pre-Columbian Inca, you pick the era, there was normally someone pulling a "living wage" even if it was just the kings soldiers).
CylonDorado wrote:
I think you just have to roll the dice to represent the randomness of making money in professions.
You mean a skill under the core rules that allows you to take 10?
Forgetting for the moment the special nature of the day job roll and just looking at core rules if a PC/NPC in a home campaign wanted to earn some small amounts of money with a profession check they certain could take 10 on the skill roll or their player could elect to roll the d20 instead.
-James
As long as there are players who refuse to accept that the "intent" of the Day Job is that it is not a "normal" skill check, but an abstract, campaign-specific, mechanic that uses much of the skill system as a resolution, we will never agree. Perhaps the language could be written better, dunno.
We can agree to disagree RAW vs. RAI, whether or not you feel the reasons for the rule are good vs. bad, whatever. But in the end, the campaign director seems to be in favor of keeping the Day Job rules largely as they are. He recently changed some of the qualifiers as to what can be applied to the check, which is to the player's benefit, but if he was inclined to change the methodology so it followed, exactly, the skill system (allow T10, etc), he would have done it then.
We are not saying anything that hasn't been hashed over, ad nauseum, for the better part of three plus years.
Bob Jonquet wrote: As long as there are players who refuse to accept that the "intent" of the Day Job is that it is not a "normal" skill check, but an abstract, campaign-specific, mechanic that uses much of the skill system as a resolution, we will never agree. Perhaps the language could be written better, dunno.
We can agree to disagree RAW vs. RAI, whether or not you feel the reasons for the rule are good vs. bad, whatever. But in the end, the campaign director seems to be in favor of keeping the Day Job rules largely as they are. He recently changed some of the qualifiers as to what can be applied to the check, which is to the player's benefit, but if he was inclined to change the methodology so it followed, exactly, the skill system (allow T10, etc), he would have done it then.
We are not saying anything that hasn't been hashed over, ad nauseum, for the better part of three plus years.
Agreed - and the part of hashed over, well, that's what these boards are for right?
anyway - maybe if we keep questioning the parts we don't understand, it will effect the campaign rules. Kind of like why Gnomes can use thier bonus now when they couldn't before. (sometimes they change the rules if we ask...).
But the OP was answered - no one who knows is answering, everthing else is just guesses and rationalizations.
Bob Jonquet wrote: As long as there are players who refuse to accept that the "intent" of the Day Job is that it is not a "normal" skill check, but an abstract, campaign-specific, mechanic that uses much of the skill system as a resolution, we will never agree. Perhaps the language could be written better, dunno.
That's one of the interesting facets about organized play in D&D... there's a very different view that's propagated via word of mouth and at the game table as what appears in printed text.
From the text in the campaign guide, black and white.. it's a skill check. It uses exactly those words.
Honestly I don't see what's served by requiring a d20 roll rather than allowing the player to choose a 10 if they don't wish to roll. Likely it's more of a hold-over and is kept 'because it's always been that way' more than for any real reason.
Personally I think having extra exceptions and special hoops to jump through is not a good thing in organized play. As you've seen the take 10 rules are a place where there is already confusion for many players and judges alike... adding to it rather than mitigating it is not in the best interests of everyone.
-James
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
|
