|
You are correct Diplomacy would have worked just as well. He chose to use the profession instead and I allowed it, but used the Diplomacy skill to set the DC. The other players used Diplomacy to help him.
I use the closest skill to set the DC or once I see the Profession I set about crafting DCs using the other skills as a guideline so they remain standard. I hate randomly creating DCs on the spot or uses at the table.
As I stated it comes down to player choice in my opinion to using the profession skill. If they want to take it, then generally I will find a use it for it if they take one that fits the campaign. Otherwise its just a flavor skill for me.
|
|
Let us suppose that you approach a blacksmith's apprentice. He has an average intelligence (10 - 11) and 4 ranks in Craft (arms and armor). You ask the young man "Could you craft a chain shirt for me?" To which, he replies "Why yes, my master has taught me enough that I could fashion an effective chain shirt for you."
Now let us suppose that you approach another apprentice at another place and another time. He has an average intelligence (10 - 11) but has been less than diligent. Much to the dismay of his master, he has no ranks in Craft (arms and armor). You ask the young man "Could you craft a chain shirt for me?" To which, he replies "Certainly. I haven't studied particularly hard but I'm smart enough to understand the basics. It might take me a bit longer but I could do it if I wanted to. But I don't want to."
Apprentice A tried hard to do what he thought he should, only later as he made the transition into adulthood did he realize that you can't please everyone all the time. He leaves his master behind and becomes an adventurer. A player character with this background has a logical reason for having ranks in a craft skill.
Apprentice B was always a daydreamer. It was clear to him, even at a young age, that he was meant for more. He was strong, skilled with a sword, athletic, and brave. Over time those around him begin to see it too. His destiny clearly lay elsewhere. As he enters into adulthood he becomes an adventurer. A player character with this background has a logical reason for NOT having ranks in a craft skill.
The OP has expressed a desire for players to take sub-optimal choices in order to better fit into society. My question would be then, why does Apprentice B not fit into your world? Why does being sub-optimal make you somehow fit in better?
That is a great deal of what I mean. If it fits the background/concept you have for the character then by all means take it. If it doesn't then please don't take it at all.
Both characters fit the world. Its just one did not want to fit the mold others expected from childhood. To me that is perfectly logical and common even in real life.
I think WPharolin that your point that what is sub-optimal to one is not to another is very good. It is truly related to how a player envisions the character.
If you want your PCs to fit in you might consider them to only pick from a list of local traits you wrote up or grant an additional trait from that list.
Traits might give them some a skilled in local skills, allow them to start with superior equipment appropriate for the region or even allow the benefits of a feat that is perceived as sub-optimal, my point being that it might be better to entice them to fit into the campaign a bit more if that is what you desire.
Everyone seems to be covering this well, so I'll just add one thing. It seems odd to me to see Ride listed as the same type of skill as Profession. Most PCs will have horses at some point and most DMs (and modules) will attack the PCs while traveling eventually. Even one rank can be the difference in starting combat on the ground or on your horse.
Also, there are first level spells to summon mounts and higher level spells that give players access to flying mounts. I've seen many players who never spend a point on a profession skills. I haven't seen many who don't at least spend point one point in Ride.
Also, there seems to be an assumption that PCs start out as working class people in the thread. I find that odd since there's no reason you can't start out from a wealthy family. There's even a trait for it (though it is suboptimal).
I've always enjoyed making settings that I feel make sense. Sometimes NPCs will be very similar. Most fighters I write up, who make up the majority of classed NPCs, are all of just a couple types depending on how the military operates.
A lot of them will be horsemen, shield users, sailors, or archers. In some settings / areas, all men will be proficient in horsemanship or sailing.
Then come the player characters - the murderous hobos - who can't perform any task or job a normal member of the society can be expected to. It's funny, because no matter how into the setting players seem to be, you can't get them to make the sub-optimal choices of taking on the settings style. At least when it comes to the people I play with.
It's funny because sometimes it becomes a problem, like when the party is on a boat or fighting alongside a greek phalanx or find themselves on the run from men on horseback when none of them can ride. I mean, they are always great in one on one arena DPS competitions against single other player characters, but that isn't ever what the game is about and that capacity doesn't really help.
Anyone else have this problem?
No. Or at least, only for a few minutes.
First of all, it sounds like you haven't spelled out to your characters what skills should be taken by everyone. Then again, if you only have a few skill points (like fighters or low INT characters), why waste them on skills that don't fit YOUR character concept.
Second, it sounds like your players want to paly a different setting than you are running. You need to come to a compromise. Most of the groups I've run for would hate a campaign about military groups. They want more roleplaying options.
For example, I ran a Mekton Empire Campaign years ago and most of the players built well-balanced characters with detailed backgrounds and personality.
But only one out of the six had any skills in piloting a giant robot. And she only spent enough points to get the basics. So, over the course of a 4 year campaign, they did everyting BUT piloting Meks. (They did a few times, but only out of necessity). Other than tha however, they dove into the campaign and the hooks behind it whole-heartedly. So we compromised. As a GM, I didn't make it a requirement that they ahd to be Mek Jox because they designed good characters who could still play the game.
If your players don't want to ride horses or fight in military groups, why make them?
Let us suppose that you approach a blacksmith's apprentice. He has an average intelligence (10 - 11) and 4 ranks in Craft (arms and armor). You ask the young man "Could you craft a chain shirt for me?" To which, he replies "Why yes, my master has taught me enough that I could fashion an effective chain shirt for you."Now let us suppose that you approach another apprentice at another place and another time. He has an average intelligence (10 - 11) but has been less than diligent. Much to the dismay of his master, he has no ranks in Craft (arms and armor). You ask the young man "Could you craft a chain shirt for me?" To which, he replies "Certainly. I haven't studied particularly hard but I'm smart enough to understand the basics. It might take me a bit longer but I could do it if I wanted to. But I don't want to."
Apprentice A tried hard to do what he thought he should, only later as he made the transition into adulthood did he realize that you can't please everyone all the time. He leaves his master behind and becomes an adventurer. A player character with this background has a logical reason for having ranks in a craft skill.
Apprentice B was always a daydreamer. It was clear to him, even at a young age, that he was meant for more. He was strong, skilled with a sword, athletic, and brave. Over time those around him begin to see it too. His destiny clearly lay elsewhere. As he enters into adulthood he becomes an adventurer. A player character with this background has a logical reason for NOT having ranks in a craft skill.
The OP has expressed a desire for players to take sub-optimal choices in order to better fit into society. My question would be then, why does Apprentice B not fit into your world? Why does being sub-optimal make you somehow fit in better?
Then come the player characters - the murderous hobos - who can't perform any task or job a normal member of the society can be expected to.
Another point related to WPharolin's post that addresses cranewings' complaint: the PCs, provided they don't have negative modifiers for Intelligence or Wisdom, are generally capable of execution of tasks of average difficulty or challenge (DC 10) or crafting tasks of almost any difficulty (up to DC 20) given sufficient time. The acquisition of one or more ranks in any parenthetically subcategorized skill is the mark, not of a character able to perform "any task or job a normal member of society" could, but rather of an individual with specialized training or experience pertaining to the specific subcategory. Generally speaking, any PC without a negative Wisdom modifier can take 10 to cook food that won't kill the people who eat it - cooking a tasty meal (DC 15?) might require multiple participants (Aid Another bonuses ftw!), but can still be done by cooperative PCs. For other mundane tasks that take place outside of stressful situations (as would be expected to pertain in the performance of the task by a normal member of the society), PCs should be similarly capable.
If, on the other hand, the setting for a game has a non-standard definition of a "normal member" of society that includes the ability of a normal member of society to perform certain tasks under stress or extreme stress, it seems to me that the appropriate method to address the inclusion of this cultural trait for PCs originating in that culture would be to include, above and beyond the usual skill points or traits available to PCs, the features necessary for a PC to appropriately fit in with a culture without restricting the options available to the PC in terms of the creation of a unique and interesting character. If a GM really wants all of his players to be from a seafaring culture where even the most incompetent member of society can belay a line, the GM should not present Profession(Sailor) as a skill in which ranks out of the PCs class-derived skill points are a requirement for fitting into society, but should rather recognize the alteration of the local notion of "normal" and make additional skill points or traits available to Players to allow them to construct appropriately normal characters while still retaining the unique and individual potential that the Pathfinder game assumes is invested in each PC. This is the counterpoint to WPharolin's point that not every reasonably capable character needs to have skill points in a parenthetical subcategory.
Just my 2 cents.
An anecdote from my last game. Most of my players avoid profession and craft like the plague. The magical crafters simply buy the items they need and then use spell-craft, and as for profession no one seems to really have any use for it with only two exceptions we have found.
1: In a previous game one played took Profession (sailor) to represent the fact that he grew up at sea and was a pirate. This came up when they had to navigate a raft along a fast moving treacherous river through a jungle during enemy attacks.
This did end up being very minimally useful however due to the fact this raft chase only lasted 5 or 6 game sessions so a very small section of a years long game.
He only rolled the profession skill about 4 times.
2: A player asked me how he could ID the fighting abilities of various individuals, i.e. he wanted to know how good people were with their obvious weapon and rough level of skill.
Being in a permissive mood I decided to let him roll for such but informed him that this would be a Profession (Soldier) roll.
He was happy with this as it let him know the difference between a fighter and a ranger.
I am curious if anyone else has had a different way to deal with requests like situation two?
If so I would love to hear it.
Thanks all.
Anyway my main point is that craft, profession and any of the less used skills such as appraise will only be taken if your campaign has a specific call for them and you make them rewarding in a non-standard way or penalizing if not taken.
That is just my 2 cents.
Why would a PC want to be less than he is? Around lv10, any given PC is in super-hero area, and can take on an average army of normal people.
At 13+, they can SINGLEHANDEDLY wipe out an army.
Why would they want to be PART of something less than themselves? They are like master Jedi; one alone is enough to turn the tide of a war.
Stop thinking "Game of Thrones" or "Rome" and when the system quite clearly is intended for "Immortals" or "God of War"
|
I'd like to see maybe the creation of a Level-0 into the game for PCs, essentially a smattering of minor bonuses taken before the PCs start out as adventurers. I don't really know how you'd implement it, but its something i've always kind of kicked around and would like to see fleshed out and put into an optional rules part of a book.
Speaking as a longtime DM - it's the DM's job to make sure these skills players invest "RP" skill points into are occasionally useful. No, you don't need to rewrite your plot or drastically reshape your game world to do it.
But it takes next to no energy to throw in a library search for the librarian - trying to find an obscure map or reference within a large city library to get to the next dungeon, or to make the PCs pilot a rowboat across a rocky, whitewater river with Profession (Sailor), or visible gold veins in the cavern complex to encourage the player with profession (miner). It's the same thing with any other PC ability. If the anti-undead focused cleric never gets to fight any undead, the enchanter only ever comes across mindless creatures, or the mobility focused monk never has the chance to climb, balance, and/or tumble in combat...
...if you don't provide individuals PCs the opportunity to shine - at least occasionally - you're doing something wrong as DM.
I agree with you (quite vehemently actually) that players should be given opportunities to show off each of their abilities. Especially if those abilities required an investment on their part. But most professions can be covered by other skills. And even if they cannot you can still easily tie yourself to the setting without effort. When creating a character from a nation of sea fairers a PC could easily say "I used to be a navigator on a frigate. I have ranks in knowledge (geography), survival, and swim." or "I used to be a pirate, I don't know much about sailing but the captain had an eye for talent and he knew that a sorcerer like me can be an invaluable asset."
Other professions are so mundane that even asking for a single skill point just seems silly to me. For instance, profession (miner). What does having extra ranks in this even do? Do you mine more ore? "I have a +28 in Profession (miner). Me and my trusty +5 pick axe have hollowed entire mountain ranges!!" We already have rules for sundering walls of rock and pick axes can just ignore a bit of hardness. Mining is grunt work with no real skill involved. All other cave, mineral, ore, mine, etc. related skills are covered in other skills.
So if taking ranks in Profession (cobbler), Profession (chicken sexer), Profession (miner), and Profession (minstrel)(try and work that one out) don't do anything aside from 'make negligible amounts of money' without a DM creating circumstances for it to do something more significant (even if doing so is considerably easy) than why is it even an option?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Level zero? Like this?
Thank you.
For instance, profession (miner). What does having extra ranks in this even do?
Avoid "rocks fall, everyone die" while working in the mines, get some minerals without damaging them (too much), etc...?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm a wierd GM. I use profession skills if they're taken. if they're not, I do allow people to use other skills, but I usually up the DC of the checks.
For example, if someone has Profession (Farmer), then they know how to rotate crops, plow fields, what crops grow best in a given area, etc. They can also pick up on when things are weird (like the fact that it's harvest time but nobody is in the fields in the daytime), and things like that. If someone wants to say they grew up on a farm, but puts nothing into that profession, then I usually allow an INT check instead, but the DC is higher (they are the lazy kid that spent more time avoiding work than doing it growing up, and actively avoided learning).
If someone has Profession (Soldier), they understand military ranks, red-tape when dealing with military and militia, understand how soldiers/militia think, and generally can pick out well trained soldiers vs thugs in uniform at a glance. This can come in VERY handy when you enter a new city you've never been, or encounter military on the road (Hmm, are those actually King's soldiers, or just bandits or spies in disguise? Did they execute the salutes properly? Are the rank badges where they are expected to be?). Some of this can be handled by other skills (knowledge local, but only for places they know well, or knowledge royalty but only to identify the symbols on armor). Or you fall back to the INT check with a higher DC (the farther they are from 'home' the higher the DC). This gives they fighter who dumped Charisma a way to shine when it's time to deal with Military people. Yeah, his diplomacy sucks, but he's a professional soldier and knows how to deal with other soldiers, and probably has a better chance than the fancy dancy bard with his lute who's too full of frippery to get any real respect from battle hardened soldiers.
It seems weird to have a character who is a great sailor according to the backstory, but with no ranks in any sailing check.
Or a scribe, with no ranks in Profession(Scribe).
Avoid "rocks fall, everyone die" while working in the mines, get some minerals without damaging them (too much), etc...?
If your DM is summoning game ending rocks on you I don't think mining skills are gonna help. But wouldn't that be awesome.
DM: "Uh...I'm sick of this game guys I want to start a new campaign so...uh...rocks fall, everyone dies."
Player: "Nope! The rules specifically say that if I can make a DC 20 Profession (miner) check that I can destroy said rocks and keep the campaign alive. Well I've got a +19 to it. I can't fail! Take that b*!$@!!"
It seems weird to have a character who is a great sailor according to the backstory, but with no ranks in any sailing check.Or a scribe, with no ranks in Profession(Scribe).
It wasn't uncommon for ships to have quite a few crew members who didn't know how to sail a ship. In fact that is still the case. However, like TOZ pointed out, nothing was said about being a great sailor.
As for a character who was a scribe I would find it strange if he DID have ranks in Profession (scribe). Everything that job does is handled with Linguistics.
|
|
I know the money one can earn with perform, craft, and profession is negligible, but in my games, it can be useful because I don't count it towards a character's total wealth per level.
You know that section that gives the rough amount of wealth a PC should have before hitting the next level? I keep track of that for my players, strictly, and what it ends up doing is creating a limit to treasure the party will encounter, but gradual so it's not blatant. The money earned with profession, craft, and perform skills exist outside of this in my games, meaning using these a PC can surpass the level of wealth he should have at a given level. My player's don't know this of course.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stop thinking "Game of Thrones" or "Rome" and when the system quite clearly is intended for "Immortals" or "God of War"
It's perfectly fine to think of 'Game of Thrones'.
You just have to realize that after a certain level, the game changes to 'God of War'. And if you want to keep playing 'Game of Thrones', you have to stop leveling.
Stop thinking "Game of Thrones" or "Rome" and when the system quite clearly is intended for "Immortals" or "God of War"It's perfectly fine to think of 'Game of Thrones'.
You just have to realize that after a certain level, the game changes to 'God of War'. And if you want to keep playing 'Game of Thrones', you have to stop leveling.
GoT is a fairly bad example. GoT is full of overhuman characters performing feats out of their reach.
Also GoT is made by an 1d1ot as writer... so... don't ever use it in an comparison ;)
Stop thinking "Game of Thrones" or "Rome" and when the system quite clearly is intended for "Immortals" or "God of War"It's perfectly fine to think of 'Game of Thrones'.
You just have to realize that after a certain level, the game changes to 'God of War'. And if you want to keep playing 'Game of Thrones', you have to stop leveling.
I was thinking that soon after I hit Submit. If you want the rest of the world to be relevant in the lives of PCs, they sorta need to be playing E5-7, stopping at a point where enough mooks actually has an effect.
Personally, I like to have a rank or two in a few professions. They are rarely my first choice when faced with a difficulty in game, but the very fact that they are kind of vague and broadly-described gives me a chance to pitch all kinds of ideas at the DM if my character is in a bind.
A favorite is profession (carpenter). If I have a character who's tight on skill points, I'm trying to use this one skill to try to break out of jail, brace a door so a monster can't get through, repair damage to a boat, notice hidden doors, recognize from the quality of workmanship how wealthy the owners of a building are, etc.
Another one I mentioned up thread is profession (herbalist). Tons of uses.
Stuff like this is especially nice if you're playing a class like a fighter that isn't always that useful out of combat.
I don't think Martin is great but I am curious as to why you think that. The fact that he wears stupid captain's hats does not count.
Also GoT is made by an 1d1ot as writer... so... don't ever use it in an comparison ;)
He took his perfectly fine series and smelled a fanboy train approaching and wanted to cash cow it as much as possible.
His series is now about nothing happening, people being mainly stupid and not using things they have and about t##% of a certain female he seems to really like to describe. About 100 times a book.Not even to mention that he sees himself as a great artist and his wife is worshiping every square inch he ever touched. And while he is at endlessly expanding the series he tries everything in his power to kill himself before finishing his story (of course while having in his testament that noone may ever finish his story if he dies). Just look at him... he looks like an 80 year old and his heart is all snuggly inside a 20cm fat cocoon. He always reminds me of Wheel of Time. Great potential. Lots of wasted potential. Crap Series.
But hey... crap sells :P. He now is even gearing his books towards making good TV series rather than good books (he said so) because it gives him loads of $$$ and who wants a good story if you can have $$$. And never buy his latest book. I am not sure if I have ever bought such an boring book before. And I own quite some books and a lot of them are of scientific nature ;)
Avoid "rocks fall, everyone die" while working in the mines, get some minerals without damaging them (too much), etc...?
If your DM is summoning game ending rocks on you I don't think mining skills are gonna help. But wouldn't that be awesome.
DM: "Uh...I'm sick of this game guys I want to start a new campaign so...uh...rocks fall, everyone dies."
Player: "Nope! The rules specifically say that if I can make a DC 20 Profession (miner) check that I can destroy said rocks and keep the campaign alive. Well I've got a +19 to it. I can't fail! Take that b****!!"
I meant it as avoiding cave in and such from happening because of newbie/noob mistakes.
Until that situation where the PCs find themselves on a ship out to sea and need someone with Profession(sailor) to get them back to port in one piece...I hate it when people suggest a good rolepay character has to have ranks in Profession. It's a stupid skill with only one mechanical use - making money.
The only problem with this kind of thinking is if the player with the skill blows their roll, everyone dies anyway.
If you want to get people to role-play, let them get invested in characters they want to build. If they're spending points in skills they don't want or don't see a point in, they aren't building the character the way they wanted and their attachment isn't there. If you kill off the characters they like because they don't have the kind of selections you want, they won't get attached to the characters because you've killed off their favorites before. It's a vicious lose-lose cycle stemming from what is essentially your decision that the characters presented aren't acceptable for the game world.
If the characters seem bland, ask them how they fit into the game world. Get their character sheets a few days in advance, and think about where they might have come from, and take 5 minutes to talk with each person one-on-one about fitting them into the game world. Hint that a personal quest from their backstory might be important to the plot. Maybe offer a name for a character that was involved in their past and "accidentally" hint that they might be an ally or cohort possibility (if you're into cohorts). If they get a feel for what you're trying to do, then I'll bet dollars to doughnuts they'll try to meet you halfway. Usually, if they get a whiff that elements of their backstory might reward them, they will trip over themselves to develop it.
Just saying an ambiguous "I want your characters to fit in with the game world" is psychologically on par with "Thanks for shopping with us today." It's a rote motion that is kind of expected, and terribly impersonal. Nowadays, we are practically trained to filter this sort of stuff out for whatever reason. Actually talking to them about their character as if it were an important story element, even for just an hour or so, can elevate it from the DM'ing equivalent of a bored fast-food server to "Ron, the waiter who not only remembers my order every week but drew a puppy on my take-out box because he knows I like dogs." It makes them feel special, different and important, and is a mental reward just for them.
|
This is why I don't bother with detailed backstories for my characters.
My group rewards people that make backgrounds. I am currently running and of the players they got this.
1 - did nothing(he is new, but knows we award for background. Just didn't care.)
2 - gave a couple of paragraphs - choice of extra trait, 2 skill points or 2 spells known(one of them was a wizard)
1 - Gave about a page - He got either 4 skill points or a feat.
1 - gave over 2 pages - he got a trait and the same choice as the one above.
Plus ones that turn in backgrounds tend to have adventures tied into their history and background. It is a group thing when the others GM they do the same thing.
|
This is why I don't bother with detailed backstories for my characters.My group rewards people that make backgrounds. I am currently running and of the players they got this.
1 - did nothing(he is new, but knows we award for background. Just didn't care.)
2 - gave a couple of paragraphs - choice of extra trait, 2 skill points or 2 spells known(one of them was a wizard)
1 - Gave about a page - He got either 4 skill points or a feat.
1 - gave over 2 pages - he got a trait and the same choice as the one above.Plus ones that turn in backgrounds tend to have adventures tied into their history and background. It is a group thing when the others GM they do the same thing.
I do the same thing but generally only half of a group tends to get that into it. Sometimes I get lucky and everyone feels especially invested in a certain campaign.
I don't have a problem getting my players to invest in professions, crafts, and so on. I make use of them. In Shacked City, the half-ogre barbarian with ranks in cooking got into a bake off for the Flood Festival. In Council of Thieves, one PC is a witch with ranks in fortune teller. We make use of it. I find ways to do so. But we also play a game that's not generally limited in scope to combat. Having that style of play is a plus when getting players to incorporate non-combat stuff.
I meant it as avoiding cave in and such from happening because of newbie/noob mistakes.
Ah...my mistake then, I apologize. By putting "Rocks fall, Everyone Dies" in quotations you made me think you were talking about this .
In that case I say avoiding cave ins is a reflex save. Predicting cave ins is Know (Dungeons) or Know (Arch.) or possibly even Survival (maybe) depending on the circumstance.
I meant it as avoiding cave in and such from happening because of newbie/noob mistakes.
Ah...my mistake then, I apologize. By putting "Rocks fall, Everyone Dies" in quotations you made me think you were talking about this .
In that case I say avoiding cave ins is a reflex save. Predicting cave ins is Know (Dungeons) or Know (Arch.) or possibly even Survival (maybe) depending on the circumstance.
.
PC 1: "It's cold in here, lets make a fire"
PC 2: "But we don't have wood."
PC 3: "Lets use the useless one around the walls and ceilings of the mine."
I assume that pc also has a 7int if he is too dumb to know what support beams are.
Considering thats a basic knowledge question he can take ten and be reasonable sure unless he has a penalty on wis and int (both k eng and prof miner could be rolled.) And if all three have penalties in both then they have more issues than a lack of skills.
PC 1: "It's cold in here, lets make a fire"
PC 2: "But we don't have wood."
PC 3: "Lets use the useless one around the walls and ceilings of the mine."
Well ignoring the fact that identifying load bearing support beams would likely be Know (arch), and ignoring that PC 3 is an idiot, that now leaves us a skill with such a narrow use that it will see less use than 3.0's innuendo skill. Awesome.
All the PCs in my game get a free Profession, Craft or Perform* skill rank per level. That solves this issue nicely and also means the PCs are very good at what they do.
For example, my current character was a farmhand who joined a caravan. The caravan was damaged and he helped the wainwright fix it and decided to learn how himself. At the current time, he's 3 ranks Profession (farmer), 2 ranks Profession (wainwright).
Another PC in Curse of the Crimson Throne had full ranks in Profession (lawyer) which he used once or twice to remember criminal law and to get past red tape in a Temple of Abadar.
Another character in Serpent's Skull had Profession (bounty hunter) which he would use as a joke ("DC 35 to bounty-hunt this guy? roll ... Got him."). Another character had Craft for weaponsmithing or armorsmithing, I can't remember, but he used it to repair armor and weapons and such for us in the jungle. My character? A shipwrecked sailor who began to catalog all of the strange things he saw on his adventures by drawing the cultures, places and monsters in his journal. 2 ranks Profession (sailor), 2 ranks Profession (castaway) and the rest in Craft (illustration).
It works. Sometimes isn't that strong, but sometimes it works well to help build a better idea of the character.
*No one has abused this rule for Versatile Performance as of yet.
Next time I run, I might let everyone pick a profession. No ranks. No rolls. You automatically have something useful to say regarding your profession if it becomes relevant. Making it reliant on rolls is not fun for anyone.
It's been a trend so far to see a character sheet with ranks in a profession skill and suspect you've got a player that believes numbers on a sheet make them a better roleplayer than someone that put the numbers somewhere else.
Take away the numbers, take away the problem. At least somewhat.
While that is true, I personally see nothing wrong with a bit of skill functionality overlap, approaching a problem from different angles. For example: The PCs try to pass a frothing torrent of a stream. Do they try to swim across via Swim skill or cross by jumping from rock to rock via Acrobatics? Some skills might be better for certain problems than others...maybe the Acrobatics DC to jump from rock to rock is only DC:15 whereas swimming requires a DC: 20 check to strive against the current. (By way of non-profession skill parallel)
Swim and Acrobatics are both skills that can easily be used to effect the plot on multiple occasions. You might create a character who doesn't swim and that's fine. But a character who has ranks in swim will see repeated use of this skill. Every time there is water he will have a chance to use this skill. It would be disingenuous to claim that profession skills have many opportunities to make meaningful impacts on the game world. Often the PC and the DM have to resort to world bending to create obscure opportunities for these skills to find use and even then invent their own rules for how that should work. That's because these skills don't suit adventure stories.
Some things I might personally consider allowing with a Profession (miner) check:1) Yeah, successfully excavating more ore. Or digging that gem out without leaving half of it behind. I might, for instance, say there's 500gp worth of ore in a given deposit. With a DC: 15 check, a PC might be able to obtain half of it (the other bits being lost in debris, etc). With a DC:20 check, three quarters. And so on...
If you create a rule that makes Profession (miner) more appealing will you then make a rule to make profession (lumberjack) more appealing? How about profession (barrister)? Profession (cobbler)?
Is there any reason this couldn't simply be handled by another skill entirely?
If Profession (miner) doesn't have the potential to turn me into Yukon Cornelius (with an uncanny ability to tell where silver and gold is by licking my pick axe) than why does it exist at all?
2) Noticing unsafe ceilings/walls. Yeah, they could probably do this with a Perception or Knowledge (Dungeoneering) check as well.
Which sounds more likely to you? That miners use Profession (miner) to avoid cave ins or that miners use Know (Dungeons) and Perception to avoid cave ins? We don't need overlap like this. This isn't the same as choosing to swim across a river and choosing to jump across. To highlight my point I will change the names of the skills and ask the same question a second time.
Which sounds more likely to you? That pearl divers use Profession (pearl diver) to swim or that they use the swim skill to swim. Maybe I'm being presumptuous but I think it's safe to say that you would not let a player get away with trying to make a profession check to swim. Why then is the miner aloud to make a profession check as a replacement for things covered by other skills?
And, yeah, some professions are going to be more useful then others. No, I'm not going to go out of my way to find uses for the skill if a player sinks 10 ranks into Profession (chicken sexer). But if something presents itself as a reasonable parallel though...say a question of poultry farming...or determining whether a particular Roc is actually a female just protecting her eggs...I'd certainly consider finding ways to let a PC use the skill.
It's fine for skills to have varying levels of usefulness, but if the total sum of all skill checks made in an entire campaign by all players (DM included) can be counted on your fingers than that skill serves no purpose. The reason people invest in these sorts of skills is for role-playing purposes which, ironically, is their least useful function.
This is the iconic example for the profession skill being used in this way. Sailing has been heralded as an example of an adventure-useful profession, but there are also no set DCs, so really it's a matter of setting the DCs based on the 5 (easy), 10 (fair), 15 (hard), 20 (very hard), 25 (near impossible), and 30 (impossible) markers; and most sailing DCs are probably only going to be about DC 5-15, with only stuff like successfully navigating a giant whirlpool in the middle of a hurricane while dodging tornadoes being somewhere about 30-40.
Most adventurers aren't going to buy their own ship unless they already are sailors, or will rely on a trusty NPC sailor, or will buy passage to somewhere.
How are you going to decide an NPC is trustworthy and knows his profession?
Sure, you can do a lengthy discussion and use the social skills to determine if he's trustworthy and then assume a trustworthy man isn't going to lie about his ability to sail a boat.
Though if you happen to meet a charismatic pirate, you are going to end up dead anyway.
A profession sailor check based on the observations of the captain and the ship can tell you more in less time. A good sailor knows his captains and his ships.
So you don't enter planes and fly with them you only fly them yourself because the Pilot could probably be incompetent?
So you don't enter planes and fly with them you only fly them yourself because the Pilot could probably be incompetent?
I'm going to go with "totally different context" here. A world with all sorts of bureaucratic processes for vetting pilots for commercial (or even charter) airliners eases a lot of the individual traveler's concerns compared to hiring a ship all on your lonesome in an unregulated world.
I'm going to go with "totally different context" here. A world with all sorts of bureaucratic processes for vetting pilots for commercial (or even charter) airliners eases a lot of the individual traveler's concerns compared to hiring a ship all on your lonesome in an unregulated world.
So you don't enter planes and fly with them you only fly them yourself because the Pilot could probably be incompetent?
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?
Let it be known that, from this day forth, all NPC's that serve in, on or around a boat are now like the milkmen from Psychonauts!
|
|
So you don't enter anyones car and only drive yourself or after checking their driving skills throughfully in hours of conversation?
In my games players refused to go on boats. They said bad things always happen on boats. The boat sinks, the crew is pirates, the crew is ghosts, the crew is pirate ghosts, the kraken attacks, a reef attacks, etc.
That was inculcated by other DMs who used boats as "isolate the players and get them" vehicles. I gave them one "easy boat trip" pass which would give them an easy uneventful trip in any campaign.
They never used it because they were too afraid of boats.
Just like PCs are murderous hobos; boats in D&D and Pathfinder are apparently all deathtraps.