|
Just an idea popping here...
You get to choose for your character 1 Interest at the beginning of the game (level 1).
An Interest is like a skill. It is associated with an Ability score, and to make checks with it, you use the 1/2 level + modifier equation.
An interest is a hobby, something that your character does/knows/is interested in besides adventuring. Any craft, any particular knowledge not covered by the existing skills can be covered by an Interest.
Interest (politics) INT
Interest (painting) DEX
Interest (singing) DEX (or WIS?)
And so on.
You can buy Skill Training as normal to acquire a new Interest.
If you spend a Skill Training in an interest you already have, it becomes an Expertise, adding +5 to the check equation.
Expert (heraldry) INT
For instance.
What do you guys think? Problem solved, for those who wanted more skills to play with?
In your average D&D game, I cant imagine many people are going to waste a trained skill on something that is often so minor. In 3rd Edition the existence of Craft/Profession skills essentially required you to waste a one or two skill points to justify your background, especially if it was a Profession skill: if you wanted your character to be a sailor, you had to have that one measly rank in order to back up your claim.
It also makes it very difficult to have a skill like that be usable in an adventure. If Profession (sailor) is a big help, if not necessary, then you either have to tell one or more players to take it, have a NPC handle it, or hope that out of all the skills that someone just so happens to pick the "right" skill.
I think that by removing the skills you can actually increase roleplaying potential. A character can now say that they grew up as a farmer without having to have Profession (farming) or spontaneously forgetting how to do it.
I'd rather just let each player build their past how they want it without having to worry about rules, ranks, and skill checks. If, somehow, being able to build a raft becomes crucial to the campaign, then they can make a roll of some sort (which would be just how it works in 3rd Edition). Likewise, if knowing how to shelve books or run a tavern is pivotal to the success of a campaign, then they were no worse off than in 3rd Edition, though I'd let them make a roll if rules really became an issue.
Hmm, not a bad start. One problem would be no defining way on how broad/narrow an interest should/has to be. Also, you'd have to watch for people trying to double-dip, something like Interest (Religion) then Religion, or Interest (Doctor) and Heal, trying to get two skill checks when only one is allowed.
On ENWorld, a similar project suggested creating some kind of Craft Ritual that anyone could do, even without the Ritual Feat. ie, take the rules for Rituals and morph it into a crafting system. Seemed like an interesting idea, but I don't think they took it further than concept.
Cheers! :)
In your average D&D game, I cant imagine many people are going to waste a trained skill on something that is often so minor. In 3rd Edition the existence of Craft/Profession skills essentially required you to waste a one or two skill points to justify your background, especially if it was a Profession skill: if you wanted your character to be a sailor, you had to have that one measly rank in order to back up your claim.
It also makes it very difficult to have a skill like that be usable in an adventure. If Profession (sailor) is a big help, if not necessary, then you either have to tell one or more players to take it, have a NPC handle it, or hope that out of all the skills that someone just so happens to pick the "right" skill.I think that by removing the skills you can actually increase roleplaying potential. A character can now say that they grew up as a farmer without having to have Profession (farming) or spontaneously forgetting how to do it.
I'd rather just let each player build their past how they want it without having to worry about rules, ranks, and skill checks. If, somehow, being able to build a raft becomes crucial to the campaign, then they can make a roll of some sort (which would be just how it works in 3rd Edition). Likewise, if knowing how to shelve books or run a tavern is pivotal to the success of a campaign, then they were no worse off than in 3rd Edition, though I'd let them make a roll if rules really became an issue.
I will most likely use this method.
I kind of like a Crafting style of system similar to the Ritual system. Perhaps use a feat to gain access to Crafting Rituals of a specific type...
Interesting.
As for things like performances, I'll wait until the Companion books come out to see how they are going to handle bards. I am sure they will have all your performance styled powers there.
Oh, and singing is a CHA based power, if anything <(^_^)>
I kind of like a Crafting style of system similar to the Ritual system. Perhaps use a feat to gain access to Crafting Rituals of a specific type...
Interesting.
As for things like performances, I'll wait until the Companion books come out to see how they are going to handle bards. I am sure they will have all your performance styled powers there.
Oh, and singing is a CHA based power, if anything <(^_^)>
I definitely agree. Expect the PHB2's Skill chapter to have a nice big whopping load of Perform, for our Bardly friends.
HEhe...
Charisma is the oft touted 'dump stat', so it's easy to forget I suppose.
I like the OP idea. It still has some problems, like David Marks pointed out, but it's far better than the 3.5E idea that you need to sacrifice your adventuring capabilities in order to have a cool background.
To avoid the problems mentioned by David Marks, "interests" should just not overlap with skills. No Interest (Doctor), for instance (if a wizard wants to be a doctor he takes the Skill Training (Heal) feat).
I like the OP idea. It still has some problems, like David Marks pointed out, but it's far better than the 3.5E idea that you need to sacrifice your adventuring capabilities in order to have a cool background.
To avoid the problems mentioned by David Marks, "interests" should just not overlap with skills. No Interest (Doctor), for instance (if a wizard wants to be a doctor he takes the Skill Training (Heal) feat).
The problem people have with this I think is that there are no skills that overlap with your uncanny ability to sing, or make swords, or sail a ship, or make wine, etc...
I think if you really needed a numerical value attached to a "background" skill such as this, I would grant a bonus feat to everyone at character creation such as described above (I had this same idea and I would do it through feats if necessary as well).
That feat is a "background" feat that can apply to anything you desire. You get a straight +5 bonus and apply an ability modifier (determined by you and your DM), and can improve such a skill training with other feats (like skill focus) for example - if you really want to.
I think ultimately these skills will RARELY be used. In most cases, a defined background and some called ability checks would suffice. How many times is your blacksmith skill going to be useful in a campaign? Afterall, you are a professional adventurer. Sure you could make your own horseshoes, but why would you? You can pay other people to do it while you are out doing what you do - ADVENTURE.
It'd be akin to a professional basketball player washing his own uniform... Why would he do that when he can throw it in a basket and have a commoner do it for him?
I think that's one thing people are overlooking with 4th Edition. In 4E, the game assumes you are a professional hero. That's what you do and that's what you are good at.
|
|
Sure you could make your own horseshoes, but why would you? You can pay other people to do it while you are out doing what you do - ADVENTURE.
That's a very modern way of thinking. Not to take this too far, but I know many players I know, including myself, would think of that statement as misplace when talking about medieval fantasy.
Why does a cavalier make horseshoes? To understand and master everything that is part of horseriding. To be one with the specialty and develop true mastery. To learn and connect with the subject of study the way each subject of study tap into the each other. The same reason why a weapon master would forge his own weapon. And so on.
There's also the question of isolation, in a "PoL" setting where basically you will be totally secluded sooner or later. Would be a bummer then to not know how to fix a horseshoe or repair a bow, wouldn't you think?
I'm not saying you're "wrong". You are totally entitled to your opinion. I'm just trying to explain how many players could disagree with this.
_______
BTW, I too am unhappy with the potential expenditure of Skill Training to get more Interests/Expertise. Anyone would have an alternate advancement to propose, besides spending valuable feats on this?
What about...
You start with one Interest at level 1.
At each odd level of the heroic tier after level 1 (level 3, 5, 7 and 9), you may take another Interest or upgrade an Interest to an Expertise.
You can later choose to retrain these Interests/Expertises, at a rhythm of one Interest per level. Example: a fighter with Expert (heraldry) and Interest (metalwork) may choose to later retrain has Interest (heraldry) and Expert (metalwork), or Interest (heraldry), Interest (metalwork), Interest (painting), etc.
You basically can swich an Interest to another or downgrade an Expertise to an Interest to gain another Interest or upgrade one you already have to an Expertise, once per level.
Simpler, and completely independent of Skills.
Why does a cavalier make horseshoes? To understand and master everything that is part of horseriding. To be one with the specialty and develop true mastery. To learn and connect with the subject of study the way each subject of study tap into the each other. The same reason why a weapon master would forge his own weapon. And so on.
I guess my counterpoint to that would be that no, I don't see a cavalier making horseshoes. I see him mastering the art of combat on horse and letting his squire/surf/cohort/blacksmith tend to crafting his horse's equipment. I always imagine/read fantasy as the brave cavalier riding into town after defeating the evil bad guys out in the dangerous parts of the world. He dismounts his horse and a stable-boy (who someday wants to be a cavalier) runs over to take his horse. The cavalier hands the reins to the kid and flips him a gold coin - "Take good care of that steed. He is worth more to me than most people I know." The kid blushes, nods frantically and runs off. The cavalier heads into the tavern and orders himself a bath and someone to scrub him.
As for the weaponmaster, again - no. I see this weaponmaster traveling to far reaches to find the GREATEST weaponsmith in the world to get his weapon made. :)
There's also the question of isolation, in a "PoL" setting where basically you will be totally secluded sooner or later. Would be a bummer then to not know how to fix a horseshoe or repair a bow, wouldn't you think?
This is a valid point, but really don't see the necessity of it. Afterall, that's what those PoL are for! To reequip, rest, and repair.
I'm not saying you're "wrong". You are totally entitled to your opinion. I'm just trying to explain how many players could disagree with this.
And, I'm just saying... Let the commoners do common work. And let the heros do the heroics.
What if, instead of using Training, a DM just tells players they can choose 5 Interests each, for which they can get a +8 to ability modifiers when those interests come into play. That way no Feats or Training choices are "wasted" on factors that may not come into play too often, there's limits to one's interests, and balance is preserved.
EDIT - BTW, this is my 500th post, if you include alias posts. I feel so proud. I'm out of preschool and will be starting kindergarten!
|
|
What if, instead of using Training, a DM just tells players they can choose 5 Interests each, for which they can get a +8 to ability modifiers when those interests come into play. That way no Feats or Training choices are "wasted" on factors that may not come into play too often, there's limits to one's interests, and balance is preserved.
EDIT - BTW, this is my 500th post, if you include alias posts. I feel so proud. I'm out of preschool and will be starting kindergarten!
You mean like keywords, and if that keyword comes into play in a particular check, a particular bonus applies to the check?
Like this. Painting +3, Singing +2, Metallurgy +3
If I'm trying to ease the crowd by singing a song in a tavern, I could do a Diplomacy+2 check.
That way? That's an interesting take on it.
What if, instead of using Training, a DM just tells players they can choose 5 Interests each, for which they can get a +8 to ability modifiers when those interests come into play. That way no Feats or Training choices are "wasted" on factors that may not come into play too often, there's limits to one's interests, and balance is preserved.
EDIT - BTW, this is my 500th post, if you include alias posts. I feel so proud. I'm out of preschool and will be starting kindergarten!
You mean like keywords, and if that keyword comes into play in a particular check, a particular bonus applies to the check?
Like this. Painting +3, Singing +2, Metallurgy +3
If I'm trying to ease the crowd by singing a song in a tavern, I could do a Diplomacy+2 check.
That way? That's an interesting take on it.
No, I was thinking more along the line of...I choose Painting, Singing, Metallurgy, Whittling, Sailing (5 Interests). Whenever those factors come into play, then the DM chooses the appropriate ability and adds +8 for the role. For example, a character wants to wow the crowd with her singing. The DM determines a Charisma check with a DC 25 to get a standing ovation. The character happens to have an Interest in Singing and can add an additional +8 to her Charisma modifier.
Of course a DM can always determine that characters should only know 3 Interests and the modifier should only be +5, but the general gist is there.
I was actually thinking of just including this type of thing in the character background section.
Maybe allow a 1st level PC to pick a background profession, or maybe 2 that he used while growing up, before becoming an adventurer.
Usually, they will pick something that relates to their higher ability scores. Profession type backgrounds would use Wisdom, Perform would use Charisma, and Craft would use Intelligence probably.
This would be purely fluff though, and would not grant any type of game benefit. So crafters would not be able to create weapons for less than the price of a new one, but they could "customize" it to make it their own. So zero crunch benefit but unlimited fluff benefits. Performers might decide to sing along with the local bard, or sing on their own to earn a few coppers, but nothing significant that would give them a noticeable edge over the other PC's.
The distinction that I am making is that these types of skills are best left to roleplaying only, and should not need hard and fast rules as they will never be used in actualy gameplay, but rather, during downtime or to further advance the roleplaying in your campaign.
I'm also not allowing any PC's to pickup new types of professions or skills like this "on-the-fly" while adventuring. They'd probably be better off retiring from adventuring and doing it full-time in that case. Exceptions may happen of course, but I always found this aspect of 3.5 kinda hard to swallow. Not really sure how levelling up while fighting monsters makes you a better blacksmith :P just because you sank 1 or 2 skill points into it.
The distinction that I am making is that these types of skills are best left to roleplaying only, and should not need hard and fast rules as they will never be used in actualy gameplay, but rather, during downtime or to further advance the roleplaying in your campaign.
YES.
I think this is my only problem with 4e.
I have a player who is a swashbuckler type. He also likes to cook, and in 3.5, spend a few ranks in profession (cook). My problem is that, now that we simply RP away his cooking skills, I have no way of comparing him to another cook. I, as the DM, have to do something arbitrary, like opposed wisdom checks or some such that does not properly portray his cooking skill.
To be honest, I think free "secondary skills" would be a good idea. Skills that did not hinge of character level, but RP development. The whole idea of spending ranks from levels to be a better sailor or cook was a little silly anyway.
Yup, this is essentially what I'd do. Maybe have each character pick one or two background skills they did growing up, kinda like a summer job type of thing.
If you want to roleplay a competition between cooks, for example a baking competition, you could do skill challenges using half you level plus an ability modifier. Usually the PC will win in these cases, as most NPC's are lower level, but there is nothing to say that baker "X" is so good, he has a +10 in cooking checks.
|
|
The distinction that I am making is that these types of skills are best left to roleplaying only, and should not need hard and fast rules as they will never be used in actualy gameplay, but rather, during downtime or to further advance the roleplaying in your campaign.
That's one way to look at it. Not the only way, though. While I was playing games like Magna Veritas (where you play Angels incarnated in modern-day human bodies), I was allowing the players to come up with whatever wacky skill they wanted their characters to have, totally for free. This was in part because the tone of the game was humorous, and I wanted to emphasize that. So the players would come up with stuff like "Drinking Beer +3, Sleazy Soccer Jokes +2" and so on. This often made the characters more real, more alive, perhaps paradoxically, given the out-of-whack nature of what the players were coming up with. LOL
Now, D&D certainly isn't, in most campaigns at least, as humorous as this, but the value of having some mechanical elements to describe things that do not come up often in actual game play, but give volume to the character's concept and personality, is still there for me and the players I play with.
The mechanics aren't only valuable if/when used for a die roll. There is a descriptive element to them, that may just be as valuable (if not more, honestly) in influencing the role-playing that takes place around the table.
There are players/DMs who prefer to leave this totally out of game mechanics. There are others who are happy to have some mechanical elements describe and flesh-out their characters in more ways than just what they do during conflicts.
Besides, certainly some DMs will never use these Skills in actual play. Others will, however. I would, in the context of Skill Challenges that directly relate to such a secondary skill a character would possess, for instance. Even if it happens rarely, it makes it valuable for a player, because it gives him/her an additional occasion to have the character shine. I see nothing wrong with that.
I see nothing wrong with that.
I don't think any person here has said otherwise. I think the consensus seems to be that it's not necessary for these rules, but if you do happen to want to add that flair to your campaign, it's easily done with a simple set of background skills or feats.
Easy.
I remember playing a character that had constantly maxed out ranks in Profession (cooking) because I wanted to have an extra bit of character depth on that side. It was neat, at first, rolling 23s and what-not for various dishes that I made and served, but it got old really fast.
"Hmm, a 25? Okay, its good, etc etc."
After awhile I kinda kicked myself for doing that. Would it have really made a difference if it was mentioned in the character background and touched upon during various parts in the game? Would it have made it feel tacked on, less important, or "unofficial"?
I dont think so. I think a lot of groups kind of gloss over everyday things or minor details (like going to the bathroom). As a warforged character, I dont think I need to tell the DM that I'm sharpening my sword at night, roll a check for it, or something like that. Its just a bit of character flavor and I got no problem just kind of passing over it after a point.
I'm totally fine with a player pitching me a background profession or hobby as part of the character creation process, as long as I dont think they are trying to/going to abuse the game in some way. If a character wants to be a masterful cook, that sort of thing can get emphasized during the start of the game. Like rolling checks every time, it'll gradually get hedged out of the game, but if the mention of what the characters eat/how good is it comes up again I can just let the character roll a check with the level bonus.
Whiiich is basically the same thing they would be doing in 3rd Edition, they just arent hampering themselves or constraining their concepts to mechanics that likely wont crop up often, if ever.