PDA

View Full Version : Rethinking Craft, Knowledge, Perform, and Profession [PEACH]



tarkisflux
2013-05-23, 11:29 PM
One of the recurring concerns regarding my skills rewrite is the lack of a real system to handle the removed skills, namely craft, knowledge (sort of), perform, and profession. When I wrote the "just handwave those things" section a few years ago, I wasn't really worried about them. The original audience was already not using those skills as written (if at all), so the section and basic structure worked. But as more people read it and liked the skills part of it, they started asking for something more robust to cover how well characters could craft objects or play the flute and for determining if they had read something or not without resorting to "arguing with the DM". And also something that translates between games and DM styles more easily than "make something up". And really, those are pretty reasonable things to want so I went a wrote a setup that deals with those things in a level and (mostly) skill point independent way.

But the setup doesn't actually need my skills thing at all; it works just fine in regular 3.x, 4e, pathfinder, and any game along those lines. I thought it a cool idea, so I figured I'd drop the basics here for some general commentary and see how it was received. I'm going to skip the details and design premises unless asked though (or you can read the more complete alpha version here (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/User:Tarkisflux/sandbox/%22profession%22_revision)).

Background Abilities
Each of the previously individual craft, knowledge, perform, and profession skills are now individual background abilities. For example, weaponsmithing, planar knowledge, cooking, and flutist are all individual background abilities. These background abilities may be grouped into types (studies, artisanal, occupational [names intentionally different from old skills to prevent term confusion]) with similar secondary rules, but otherwise follow all the same general rules.

Background abilities that you possess are given a grade from 1 to 4. Grade 1 is about well trained apprentice level and allows you to make checks in the field, grade 2 is roughly journeyman level and gives you a +10 bonus, grade 3 is roughly master level and gives a +20 bonus, and grade 4 is grand master with a +30 bonus. You may take 10 on your checks, so the grades mostly serve to let you auto-succeed at appropriate tasks and attempt higher grade tasks. They are also structured so that a master never loses to an apprentice (or a grand master to a journeyman).

You can acquire a background ability or advance it to a higher grade through the investment of downtime alone and making a successful ability check with the relevant ability score. There are no level or class prereqs, no skill points or other character resources to invest other than time. Each higher grade requires substantially more time than the last and has a higher DC check. If the check is failed you can invest more time and make 1 retry roll, but a second failure means you can't advance the background ability in this fashion. I'm aware that this means that some people won't get to be master cooks or smiths or flutists, but 1) I look on these potential failures as character development opportunities rather than something straightforwardly bad since they don't detract from character power at any given level, and 2) we're about to get to rules on fixing failed checks so it's not a permanent setback.

You can still invest skill points in these abilities in a limited way though. Based on your level, a skill point would allow you to advance a background ability from grade 1 to grade 2 instantly (at level 3), or grade 3 to grade 4 instantly (at level 5), or from not having it to grade 4 instantly (at level 11). There are other advancement bits in there, but we'll skip them since I think the idea is clear. There is a cap on the number of points you can invest in this way at any given time, and any points so invested are refunded to you when the time to acquire it normally has passed or you gain 2 levels (whichever comes first). You can even hold one of your skill points in reserve to drop on a background ability mid adventure ("guys, I should have told you earlier, but I've been working on...").

Expected Game Impact
There are some tweaks that need to be made (racial and feat bonuses to these things need to be tweaked into advancement check bonuses or removed, bardic music needs to be class level instead of perform ranks, some knowledge based builds need tweaks), but nothing that seems unworkable.

This is potentially a lot more fiddly on a character sheet than the skill based version, but I don't think it's problematically so. These background rules allow characters to have fun and interesting hobbies in their downtime without sacrificing character resources to do so, and I'll take that. I also like the worldbuilding fluff and impact of having grand master smiths and sages who are also level 1 and might need your help and protection (or to be kidnapped).

Other stuff... the longer lived races also have time to be better at everything than the shorter lived races, so the fluff there remains supported. The bonuses largely work with the existing DCs in the game, so there's no conversion to worry about.

Additional Options
Languages, proficiencies, and even rituals could be handled with the same rules, where each is given a grade at which it is acquired. So exotic weapon proficiencies or planar languages are all grade 3 things, and require more time and checks than a martial weapon or local language to learn to use properly. Rituals (assuming you had a system where they existed) could be given grades based on their difficulty and work the same way.

The learning time could be reduced for characters who meet certain prerequisites. So BAB could reduce weapon learning time, bard levels reduce instrument learning time, etc. Bonuses to advancement checks could also be added, though both seems unnecessary with the skill point work around.

Feats could be added to break into the fantastic where appropriate. For example, a feat with "grade 4 artisanal background ability, character level 6" as a prereq that let you create magic items at a CL equal to your character level from the things that you craft doesn't seem inappropriate. Similarly, magic music options for grade 4 instrument players or divination options for divining new/obscure knowledge in your grade 4 fields.

----

Anyway, that's what I've been thinking about in brief. If that sounds interesting and you have ideas for expansions or terrible and you have reasons why this is wrongheaded, I'd be interested in hearing them. And if you want to see the larger version with more details, here's the link again (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/User:Tarkisflux/sandbox/%22profession%22_revision).

DMMike
2013-05-25, 12:18 AM
removed skills, namely craft, knowledge (sort of), perform, and profession. When I wrote the "just handwave those things" section a few years ago, I wasn't really worried about them. The original audience was already not using those skills as written (if at all),

The horror! Each of those skills have some very important uses:

Craft: easy downtime income, making and repairing weapons and armor in the absence of a decent smith (they're not everywhere, you know), and most epic: making a very important quest item that simply cannot be trusted to a non-hero.

Knowledge: easy downtime income (as a consultant/sage), proper behavior in -roleplaying- situations (like masquerading as a noble), and most epic: getting clues from the DM to solve the dragon's or demon's puzzle(s).

Perform: you mentioned it. See Bard.

Profession: Stormwrack makes excellent use of Profession (sailor). Not to mention all the downtime income...

So, the background implementation is fine, and saves "character resources," but why not just create some in-game situations where they players think, "gee, I shoulda taken a non-combat skill, huh?" See what skills they take at next level.

Further, I think those bonuses for each level of background are way too high. Because the poor NPCs who take those skills are gonna be jealous. Realistically, a pro NPC, you know, someone whose "skill" is his life, is gonna have lots of bonuses to that skill through standard means (re: 3.5):

-Max skill points
-Skill focus
-Highest relevant ability score (probably about 13-14)
-Masterwork gear

At just 3rd level, this guy is taking 10 and getting 23s on his skill checks. And possibly rolling for higher. This is what I consider expert-level work, or in terms of your background skills, master level. So if you make any immediate changes, I'd say change the level bonuses to this:

Apprenctice: +4
Journeyman: +8
Master: +12
Grand Master: +16
Epic Master: +20

tarkisflux
2013-05-26, 03:04 AM
Thanks for your response and comments DMMike :-). Couple of general questions for you and then on to some more direct responses.

The craft one seems a bit odd, since it's an explicitly non-magical ability. What sort of craft would have to be entrusted to heroes to complete instead of simply guarded / enabled by heroes (perhaps by applying fire resistance to a master smith and guarding him while he worked in the center of a volcano)? That's not a rhetorical question, because it sounds like it could be an interesting story (and I like supporting those), I'm just not sure what it would be.

The dragon situation seems like a specialized version of the lack of background skill point below. But it also seems it falls into one of three categories: 1) it's a non-immediate challenge because they don't lose out on anything by waiting and researching; 2) it's an immediate challenge where failure doesn't matter to the plot because they just miss a reward, trigger a fight, or have to go the long path by failing; or 3) it's immediate challenge where failure blocks that plot path entirely. The first is just a "come back when you're ready" gate, the second is an optional shortcut or bonus at best, and the third just means they go on a different adventure and potentially. In none of those cases do I think the ability to succeed on that knowledge check is necessary to the continuation of the game or even necessarily more interesting than failing the check. Am I missing something there?


So, the background implementation is fine, and saves "character resources," but why not just create some in-game situations where they players think, "gee, I shoulda taken a non-combat skill, huh?" See what skills they take at next level.

I've actually done this before (back before I was using my revised skills), like giving the PCs a challenge for which they needed know(engineering) specifically, and the PC's solution each time was to find and hire an NPC with that skill. And given that there are a lot of possible craft/knowledge/perform/profession skills to choose from and they didn't regularly need the same skill, I think this was actually the appropriate response to such a situation.

The alternatives seem to be for them to try to cover all of those possibilities (a poor proposition in my mind) or for me to tailor the challenges to their background skill investments. Aside from the fact that they already weren't investing in these things, the latter doesn't work for me or the groups that I've played in because we tend to play with a "here's a world, it exists independent of you, try to play it according to your strengths" style. I know it works for a lot of other groups and styles, just not mine and I build to my particular biases ;-).


Further, I think those bonuses for each level of background are way too high. Because the poor NPCs who take those skills are gonna be jealous. Realistically, a pro NPC, you know, someone whose "skill" is his life, is gonna have lots of bonuses to that skill through standard means (re: 3.5):

-Max skill points
-Skill focus


Why would he be jealous and still have level limited rank based things? I intended this to be used by both PCs and NPCs, so they'd have the same +0, +10, +20, or +30 bonuses as everyone else.

But even then the bonuses could still be too high perhaps. If you still think so, what odds would you give an apprentice beating an epic master, assuming equivalent feats, gear, and attribute bonuses? Your numbers give a 1.5% chance of the apprentice winning, assuming ties go to the epic master, and I'm not really happy with those odds personally. They also give an apprentice a decent chance at crafting masterwork or answering specialized questions, and I'm not happy with that possibility either.

DMMike
2013-05-27, 12:22 AM
Epic crafting:
not all heroes are combatants. Cid from Final Fantasy. Samwise Gamgee. The old guy from Conan. If the Watcher of the Pass demands the "perfect" eyeglass before allowing the heroes to pass, it would take them forever to find the world's best lensmaker. But if one of the party members is a glazier, (say, a master) he could head off to perform some skill challenges to learn lensmaking really fast. After all, he has a hero-high intelligence, and the party's bard can boost some results...

Solving the dragon's puzzle:

this is the best outcome:
" 2) it's an immediate challenge where failure doesn't matter to the plot because they just miss a reward, trigger a fight, or have to go the long path by failing"

Failure matters because it means the adventure takes a different turn. Adventures are all about options. A puzzle should be an obstacle, like any other, that the characters can choose to take on, or avoid. However, if you want solving the puzzle to be the final encounter of the adventure, then failure might just mean immolation.

Not having/needing a specific skill:
Make an entire adventure that revolves around one character's background skill. Easy example is Profession (sailor): several outcomes in the adventure depend on one PC's ability to command the ship. The next adventure isn't on water, but needing sailing knowledge might come up once or twice, and that character might also have to masquerade as a different famous sailor, or sell his future services to gather gold in the present...

Can the apprentice outperform the master:
If the master has the +13 I mentioned earlier, then if the master takes 10, the apprentice has about 15% odds of outperforming the master. Should that be the case? This depends on what's being produced. Poetry: yes. Kung-fu: sure. Military doctrine: nah. Clockwork robots: nope.

Does the apprentice have a chance to craft masterwork products? Well, the DM has the liberty of applying penalties whenever necessary!

tarkisflux
2013-05-28, 11:02 PM
Not having/needing a specific skill:
Make an entire adventure that revolves around one character's background skill. Easy example is Profession (sailor): several outcomes in the adventure depend on one PC's ability to command the ship. The next adventure isn't on water, but needing sailing knowledge might come up once or twice, and that character might also have to masquerade as a different famous sailor, or sell his future services to gather gold in the present...

Like I tried to say in the last post, the players choose the adventure and path in the games that I play in (whether I run them or otherwise). So making an entire adventure about one of the professions wasn't really on the table, because they could just elect to not do that. It might have happened on the player side of course, particularly if we were running a sea campaign and people had an expectation of acquiring or starting with a boat, but that seems like an edge case to me. If they didn't invest in it and wanted to do boat stuff anyway they would just hire a crew or gather information on their disguise target, both of which they did at various points.


Can the apprentice outperform the master:
If the master has the +13 I mentioned earlier, then if the master takes 10, the apprentice has about 15% odds of outperforming the master. Should that be the case? This depends on what's being produced. Poetry: yes. Kung-fu: sure. Military doctrine: nah. Clockwork robots: nope.

Does the apprentice have a chance to craft masterwork products? Well, the DM has the liberty of applying penalties whenever necessary!

I was using your suggested +4 increment numbers for the apprentice and master, because I don't want one group of creatures using ranks and another using the proposed alternate system. So the +13 you mentioned earlier wouldn't be a thing.

Technicalities aside, I'm not keen on the idea of the apprentice potentially beating the master without DM intervention. I'd much rather default the other way, with the apprentice losing to the master without DM intervention.