# The Profession skill?



## Quantum (Feb 13, 2010)

I've never understood the Profession skill. What is its use and effect in the game? I often wonder if it's one of the most useless skills in the d20 game.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Feb 13, 2010)

Quantum said:


> I've never understood the Profession skill. What is its use and effect in the game? I often wonder if it's one of the most useless skills in the d20 game.




The profession skill is only used to gauge how well your character is at working in any occupation or their ability to make money by working.  It's main use to determine how much wealth you gain at every level.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 14, 2010)

It depends greatly on the style of game (i.e., of DMing and, to a lesser extent, playing,) the setting; that kind of thing.

As well as a fall-back for income (that's pretty unlikely to come up, for most campaigns, granted) it covers all those little things you'd know and be able to do if you were, say, a soldier, sailor, tinker or tailor. Or whatever else. Or, more to the point, if you had that training. After all, most adventurers are of the profession, um, 'adventurer', no?

Make for excellent background skills, if you're not likely to use them in the campaign proper. In that context, I'd recommend giving out free ranks to each PC, to be placed *only* in a Profession -- or perhaps at least half there, and the rest, if any, in Craft or Knowledge (but not adventuring type ones!)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2010)

Consider *Pirates of the Carribean*.  Orlando Bloom's character is a blacksmith.  When he fights Captain Jack Sparrow in the smithy, his Profession [Blacksmith] skill gives him an edge.  Later, when he needs to break Jack free from the gaol, he again relies upon his Profession [Blacksmith] skill.

Like most things, how useful a skill is depends largely upon the imagination(s) of the user(s).


RC


----------



## Aurumvorax (Feb 14, 2010)

Mechanically, though, it's useless except for the rare prerequisite (I can't recall any prestige classes that actually do require it).  After Gygax left, designers started adding more and more mechanics.  It wasn't until 4th Edition that the designers finally realized "Hey, nobody's going to put limited resources in a non-combat area while playing a game heavily revolving around combat."  For flavor purposes I usually give away free skill points equal to 1 + int mod (minimum one) to a profession of the player's choice provided it isn't being used as a prereq.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2010)

Mechanically, anything is useless unless the players and GM seek out ways to make it mechanically useful.  A skill required for a prestige class is mechanically useless (in that respect) if one has no desire to take that class.  Certainly, the uses of Profession are less obvious than, say, Climb, but that does not make the skill mechanically useless.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 15, 2010)

My issue with the Profession skill has always been that it overlaps with other skills. If all it gets you is a +2 synergy bonus, it is awesome for powergamer to squeeze his extra bonus out of it, but actually using the skill itself is difficult.

The standard case is "Profession (Sailor)". Shouldn't I know stuff about knots and hence have some benefit with Use Rope?
On the other hand, if I have Use Rope, Swim, Knowledge (Nature) and Balance, shouldn't I be decent sailor material? 

I think it would make more sense to create a list of Profession and list skills that might be linked to it. You can then create a feat that gives bonus ranks or skill bonuses to the skills of a Profession. In d20 Modern, you can directly use the rules for occupation. Of course, profession works differently there anyway. 

A 3.x compatible write-up might be: 
*Professions*
A profession consists of a list of linked skills and an ability score representing your general ability in the profession.
You can use any of the skills listed for the profession or any of the  abilities listed for it to earn money. The result equals the number of  silver pieces you earn each week. 

*Profession - Sailor*: 
Ability Score: Dexterity
- Balance
- Knowledge (Nature)
- Use Rope
- Swim

*Profession (Baker)*
Ability Score: Wisdom
- Alchemy (if we assume it's not just magical application of chemicals)
- Diplomacy
- Knowledge (Nature)
*
Profession (Blacksmith)*
Ability Score: Strength
- Diplomacy
- Handle Animal
- Knowledge (Architecture and Engineering)

Feat: 
*Professional Training*
Benefit: You gain 6 skill points to distribute among the skills of one of your chosen professions, and a +2 bonus to all checks made to determine how much money you earn when working in that profession.


In 4E (which lacks Craft and Profession skills), I tend to approach it using existing skills and explain how they apply to it. Blacksmithing for example could involve: 
- Athletics (or generally strength, having the strength and controlling it well enough)
- Endurance (for doing it all day)
- History (the techniques you use have been developed in the past. Crafting an axe according to the ancient traditions taught to the first Dwarves by Moradin himself.)


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Consider *Pirates of the Carribean*.  Orlando Bloom's character is a blacksmith.  When he fights Captain Jack Sparrow in the smithy, his Profession [Blacksmith] skill gives him an edge.  Later, when he needs to break Jack free from the gaol, he again relies upon his Profession [Blacksmith] skill.
> 
> Like most things, how useful a skill is depends largely upon the imagination(s) of the user(s).
> 
> ...




Um..no.

From word on high, Orlando Bloom's character is the BEST swordsmen in the world (he just also happens to be a blacksmith). That's why he was able to beat Jack.

Jack is only the 3rd best swordsman in the world (with Barbossa and Norrington tied for 2nd).

Furthermore, the definition of the profession skill just says that the ranks define how well you can make money at that skill and not how well you ARE at that skill. That, if anything, would be defined by CRAFT.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 15, 2010)

Quantum said:


> I've never understood the Profession skill. What is its use and effect in the game? I often wonder if it's one of the most useless skills in the d20 game.




I struggled heavily with the profession skill through all of 3.0.  My biggest problem with it wasn't that it was useless.  The biggest problem I had with the profession skill was that it seemed that for most tasks it was redundant.  For example, just what did Profession (Lawyer) cover that wasn't covered by other skills like Diplomacy and Knowledge (Law), and why did Profession (Lawyer) determine your income if the actual practice of being a lawyer was determined by a combination of success in more concrete and general skills.  

Other cases just seemed like bad editting.  For example, Profession (Cook) clearly should have been Craft (Cooking), as cooking produced a tangible good.  Of course, the Craft rules also sucked, but that's a different topic.  Craft at least had clear uses.

What I had ruled through pretty much all of 3rd edition was that Profession could be used in place of any skill provided that it was used in the narrow advancement of your profession.  For example, you could use Diplomacy to argue a case in court, but you could also use Profession (Lawyer) in place of diplomacy to argue a case in court.   That solved Profession's lack of usefulness, but it never felt particularly elegant. 

Through much of 3.0, whenever someone claimed that the solution to the profession skill was to simply drop it, I would point out that there were some things that the Profession skill covered that weren't covered by any other skill.  The classic example of this was the ability to paddle a canoe or handle a ship.  Profession (Boating), Profession (Sailor), Profession (Navigator), and Profession (Astrologer) seemed to cover skill sets no other skill covered, in some cases in part and in some cases in whole.   However, when it was leaked that 4e would drop the profession skill, I reevaluated my position (back when I was somewhat hopeful about 4e and assumed that the changes would be ones I would welcome).  I set about listing all the skills that I didn't think were covered elsewhere and were applicable to an action hero, and to my surprise came up with basically only the above short list.  I then decided that the best solution was to make the few skill sets not covered elsewhere there own explicit skills.  So, Profession (Boating) became Boating, Profession (Navigator) was folded into Intuit Direction and became the Navigation skill, and so forth.  

That would be my recommended path at present.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2010)

Yes, Orlando Bloom's character is a great swordsman.  But he also knows when to use a makeshift weapon, and he also knows how to use the smithy to his advantage.  One can easily imagine a game where the following exchange occurs:

OB:  OK, I know this smithy like the back of my hand.  If Jack thinks he's going to escape, he's got another thing coming.  Is there any way I can prevent him from going out the door, from where I am?

GM:  You know where a pin would hold the door shut, but you'd have to be at the door to do it.

OB:  What if I throw my sword?

GM:  Not a standard useage, so your sword would become a makeshift, say, spear.  And you don't have any ranks in Spear Throwing.  Let's call it AC 15.

OB:  That's okay, because I'm Skilled at Arms, I don't take a penalty, either.  Can I gamble that I know well enough where I need to hit to increase my accuracy?  I'm willing to try for a DC 20 Profession [Blacksmith] check, to increase my attack roll by +4.

GM:  That sounds fair; roll 'em!

OB:  (Rolls dice).  26!  Dang.  I should have gambled for another +2!  (Rolls attack roll) A 10.  But with my +4, and with my Dexterity bonus, I make it easily.

GM:  Right.  Jack can't get through the door.  But, now, you have no weapon, as he is swift to point out.  And, once again, you are between him and his way out.

OB:  I look around.  Can I reach the hot poker?  Yes?  Good.  I grab it as a Reaction, using it as a makeshift sword to fight fully defensively, using my Fencing skill.

GM:  The hot poker gives Jack a moment's pause....

OB:  Good.  Maybe I can Intimidate him with it.

GM:  ......but he sighs, and grins, and comes at you with his sword.  New round; roll initiative.

etc.​
Watching that scene, there is no way that his knowledge of the smithy didn't directly contribute to the fight.  Just as Jack's knowledge of ships directly contributed to their next fight, when he swung the boom and knocked Orlando Bloom off the deck.  I'm fairly certain that this was intentional, or do you think that such a parallel came about by accident?

In any event, any rendition of the scene as game play, wherein the rendition is faithful to what happens on screen, is going to include a good many skill checks.  Some of them should be Profession skill checks, IMHO, just as Jack Sparrow ("That's *Captain* Jack Sparrow") makes use of his Profession [Sailor] to deal with Orlando Bloom once they have stolen a ship.

Profession skills (in 3.5) include "You know how to use the tools of your trade, how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems."  So long as a task involves common problems, daily tasks, or the tools of your profession, the skill is appropriate. 

Craft specifically allows the creation of items.

To run a successful business should require both the Craft and Profession skills.  Certainly, Orlando Bloom has both of these skills in PotC, whereas Captain Jack has only Profession AFAICT.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Feb 15, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The standard case is "Profession (Sailor)". Shouldn't I know stuff about knots and hence have some benefit with Use Rope?




I tend to look at it the other way around. Rope Use produces synergy bonuses for profession (something that uses knots a lot like hangman or sailor).



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> On the other hand, if I have Use Rope, Swim, Knowledge (Nature) and Balance, shouldn't I be decent sailor material?




Possibly. But the whole point of Profession is to give someone a way to become competent in a profession without having to spend skill ranks on all of the potential included skills. 
Ultimately, someone with those skills may be a good deckhand, but without profession (sailor), he's never shown any competence at the big picture of operating a ship.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Feb 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Mechanically, anything is useless unless the players and GM seek out ways to make it mechanically useful.  A skill required for a prestige class is mechanically useless (in that respect) if one has no desire to take that class.  Certainly, the uses of Profession are less obvious than, say, Climb, but that does not make the skill mechanically useless.




No, profession is _literally_ useless by game mechanics.  When I review a system, I take into account what the rules-as-written states. By RAW profession does absolutely nothing except make money for a week's worth of labor.

Obviously no GM worth his salt plays RPG systems by-the-book entirely but the fewer personal changes I make to a system, the better.  I'm not spending $40 on a book so I can add a plethora of sticky notes.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 15, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> I'm not spending $40 on a book so I can add a plethora of sticky notes.




Good luck with that.  You are going to need it, especially considering that the first thing that companies do after releasing a book is start releasing a plethora of sticky notes that are supposed to correct errors and oversights in the book.

It's somewhere between rare and unheard of that an RPG rules system doesn't need some maintenance.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 15, 2010)

The problem with profession is that it is too broad of a skill given the granularity of the rest of the skills.

If for example, there were no other skills other than Craft, Profession works (and I've seen this in other RPGs where you just list one superskill and it's the player's that have to say how thy use said skill in an encounter).

In a system that actually went and had minor skills like Use Rope and took the trouble to separate Handle Animal from Ride (again other RPGS simply have this under 1 skill), Profession is way too broad.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> No, profession is _literally_ useless by game mechanics.  When I review a system, I take into account what the rules-as-written states. By RAW profession does absolutely nothing except make money for a week's worth of labor.




It is funny that you would say, one one hand, that it has no mechanical value, and then in the same paragraph you include the most upfront mechanical value per 3.5 RAW.  The upfront mechanical value is that it makes money.

However, the 3.5 RAW also allows you to "use the tools of your trade, [know] how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems."  So, while these things may not be of obvious and immediate mechanical value, it is incorrect to imagine that they are without mechanical value whenever such a task applies.  By RAW, Profession does something besides make money for a week's worth of labour.

It may be easier to see when Climb or Ride might apply; I assure you that many games have made Profession apply per RAW.

Here's another way to look at it.  Your argument is, essentially, that Profession is too narrow a skillset to be valuable in game, meanwhile



AllisterH said:


> The problem with profession is that it is too broad of a skill given the granularity of the rest of the skills.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Profession is way too broad.




Too narrow for some, too broad for others, and just right for still others.  I hope you can see that this is very much a playstyle issue.  Like, for that matter, so many other RPG issues.


RC


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Watching that scene, there is no way that his knowledge of the smithy didn't directly contribute to the fight.




I don't see how that has anything to do with his Profession skill.  If Jack worked in the smithy sweeping up and doing odd jobs - or if he was a clerk - he'd still have the same knowledge that he gains with the skill checks in your example.

I don't see why being a blacksmith would help you know where to throw your sword to pin doors shut, or to use a hot poker as a weapon.

Maybe profession would be better off if it were named "Background".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> I don't see how that has anything to do with his Profession skill.  If Jack worked in the smithy sweeping up and doing odd jobs - or if he was a clerk - he'd still have the same knowledge that he gains with the skill checks in your example.




I don't think so; certainly his "master" didn't have the same knowledge.  And, obviously, I didn't transcribe the entire scene into gameplay.  Moreover, your argument ignores the second fight; when Jack uses the spar to knock Orlando off the deck.



> Maybe profession would be better off if it were named "Background".




Maybe, but that wouldn't cover the money-making aspects IMHO.  Of course, as I said, tastes vary.



RC


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 15, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Of course, as I said, tastes vary.




Personal taste does vary, but I think the people who don't use profession skills outnumber the ones who do.  Some people prefer a Vegan diet over eating burgers, but its not like there are restaurant chains out there for vegans while there's are few places to get a burger.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2010)

You are probably right.  That's why I said, at first, that you get out of them what you put into them.  Perhaps few people want to put enough into them to make them worthwhile; that doesn't make them _*not worthwhile*_ however.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Moreover, your argument ignores the second fight; when Jack uses the spar to knock Orlando off the deck.




That is a good example of using a Profession skill to make an attack - because he's actually working with the rigging.  Maybe if Jack had Depp's head on the anvil and started beating him with a hammer...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2010)

LostSoul said:


> That is a good example of using a Profession skill to make an attack - because he's actually working with the rigging.  Maybe if Jack had Depp's head on the anvil and started beating him with a hammer...




We have to wait for PotC 4.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Feb 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is funny that you would say, one one hand, that it has no mechanical value, and then in the same paragraph you include the most upfront mechanical value per 3.5 RAW.  The upfront mechanical value is that it makes money.
> 
> However, the 3.5 RAW also allows you to "use the tools of your trade, [know] how to perform the profession’s daily tasks, how to supervise helpers, and how to handle common problems."  So, while these things may not be of obvious and immediate mechanical value, it is incorrect to imagine that they are without mechanical value whenever such a task applies.  By RAW, Profession does something besides make money for a week's worth of labour.
> 
> ...




And being that D&D assumes you're an adventurer and you're expected make X amount of money per level, profession has the worst skill point to actual value in the entire game.  "Mechanically" appraisal can make you more money than profession.  So can craft.  The other skills keep you alive which lead you to even more money.  The value of profession is trumped by every single other skill.

3E's vague descriptions are trumped by its hard rules.  You know how to use the tools of your trade: that doesn't mean you're suddenly proficient in wielding (using your example) a hot poker in a fight.  It's still an improvised weapon that anyone could see and pick up.  Profession doesn't trump spot or listen: anyone fighting in the workplace can see obvious items they can put to use and profession has nothing to do with someone's knowledge of where a hidden item might be (I can't use profession: blacksmith to know every blacksmith in the world keeps their bellows in a specific spot).  You know how to supervise people in the workplace but profession doesn't cover actual leadership.  

Here's the thing, D&D is a game focused on combat.  It evolved from one, always has been, and always will be.  The basic assumption is that you're an adventurer, you get your money by robbing tombs, and you kill monsters.  This is, by no means, set in stone obviously but those are the assumptions the game is designed around.  Unless you're playing a game where the PCs have a lot of downtime and aren't constantly on the move (as the game assumes you are), profession is a waste of time and in D&D time is money.  

Profession doesn't cover anything else but making a small pittance which is easily trumped by a day's adventure.  I'd like to see someone who spent all their skill points in profession deal with an angry ogre hovering a club above them.  You might have profession: lumberjack but that certainly isn't going to tell you how to dodge that club or where to stick your axe.


----------



## N0Man (Feb 16, 2010)

Professions are necessary to roleplay.  This is why roleplaying doesn't exist in 4E.

(I kid, i kid, and completely disagree with such a statement... but I've seen it implied before.)


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 16, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> And being that D&D assumes you're an adventurer and you're expected make X amount of money per level, profession has the worst skill point to actual value in the entire game.  "Mechanically" appraisal can make you more money than profession.  So can craft.  The other skills keep you alive which lead you to even more money.  The value of profession is trumped by every single other skill.



No. _Or_ yes. But only as campaign, DMing and/or play styles dictate.



> 3E's vague descriptions are trumped by its hard rules.



For you, that might be the case. Also, not all non-rule descriptions are 'vague', whether that would suit your theories or preferred play style better or not.



> Here's the thing, D&D is a game focused on combat.



No. _Or_ yes. But only if/when it is.



> Unless you're playing a game where the PCs have a lot of downtime and aren't constantly on the move (as the game assumes you are), profession is a waste of time and in D&D time is money.



No. _Or_ yes. But only if campaign _up_time is of one rather narrow kind.



> Profession doesn't cover anything else but making a small pittance which is easily trumped by a day's adventure.



Yes it does. By the book, even. What's more, it's written as being open to interpretation, on top of that. So, it's very much up to the DM and players.


----------



## Woas (Feb 16, 2010)

It depends on the game. I've played a number of RPGs now that use 'profession', 'background' or 'job' skills with more importance than on personal combat skills.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 16, 2010)

The problem is had with the Profession rules in 3e was simple: there effectively were no Profession rules, at least no meaningful rules support. 

While there was a broad Skill category labeled 'Profession' and all it did was generate a small amount of income for the PC, regardless of what Profession the character practices: pig sty cleaner, doctor, gigolo, etc. 

There was no list of common Professions, and, more importantly, corresponding lists of tasks related to the profession and their DC's. So basically what you had was Professional <insert name here> and everything else was made up by the DM.

Like I said, no meaningful rules support. Which is why I found it pretty amusing when people started missing the Profession skill in 4e. It was like people getting upset over the loss of their imaginary friend.

Now I'd _like_ a better attempt at support for professional skills. 4e's solution -- only include support for common adventuring skill tasks-- is adequate, but not ideal.

edit: I seem to recall Champions 4th edition had nice simple rules for professional, well really background skills. Each background gave you a small set of skills at average ability rank.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2010)

"The rulebook must present the DCs for everything" is a WotC-D&D meme that should die.  IMHO, at least.

The biggest gripe I had about Profession, in the 3.x sense (and when I thought I wanted to go in the direction 3.x led) is that there is no difference, either in terms of training cost or pay benefits, between Profession [Doctor] and Profession [Swineherd].  


RC


----------



## Mallus (Feb 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "The rulebook must present the DCs for everything" is a WotC-D&D meme that should die.  IMHO, at least.



In the case of Profession, RC, it would have been nice for the rulebook to present DC's for a _few_ things. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the skill? 

I mean, there is a middle ground between "DC's for everything" and "DC's for nothing" right? 

All I'm looking for from the rules are some simple guidelines for resolving actions. I don't need an exact match or exhaustive detail. But I need something. All 3e Profession offered was a label and a value associated w/it. Some practical examples of how to use them would have helped.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> Mechanically, anything is useless unless the players and GM seek out ways to make it mechanically useful.




Bingo!

In my high-ish level 3.5 game, my rogue/fighter/invisible blade/bard/evangelist of Pelor has used Profession (boating) a couple of times. The first was to oppose the Strength check made by a sea hag to upset the rowboat he and other party members were in. The second time was successfully navigate the gullet of a pseudoleviathan after a different craft and the same party were swallowed whole.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2010)

Mallus said:


> In the case of Profession, RC, it would have been nice for the rulebook to present DC's for a _few_ things. Otherwise, what's the purpose of the skill?
> 
> I mean, there is a middle ground between "DC's for everything" and "DC's for nothing" right?
> 
> All I'm looking for from the rules are some simple guidelines for resolving actions.





A system where DCs have a static value based off of an "average man" standard, IMHO, are a better bet.  Thus, one can call herding swine an "average" task, and lawyering a "difficult" one, while fully understanding that a lawyer may find herding swine to be more work than he is cut out for.

IMHO, a basic scale of difficulty is better than lists of what can be done with a given skill (and DCs therefore).

In the case of the Profession skill, a base scale for all skills, plus the advice to "make it up" is better than including a few DCs for every skill.  IMHO.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Aurumvorax (Feb 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> "The rulebook must present the DCs for everything" is a WotC-D&D meme that should die.  IMHO, at least.
> 
> The biggest gripe I had about Profession, in the 3.x sense (and when I thought I wanted to go in the direction 3.x led) is that there is no difference, either in terms of training cost or pay benefits, between Profession [Doctor] and Profession [Swineherd].
> 
> ...




But that's the point!  The rulebook _must_ present DCs for everything because *3E created the concept of a static difficulty!*  In prior editions, you always checked against your ability score.  A proficiency check was made by rolling a d20 +/- modifiers; if you were equal to or less than your ability score, you succeeded.  The more naturally talented you were, the better you were at doing your job.  The more training you had (I.E. the more points you put in a proficiency) the better you were allowing you to circumvent having an average ability score.

3E shoehorned itself by attaching a static value to everything.  A 10 is an average task.  A 15 is a slightly difficult task to a trained person.  A 20 is expert territory.  By setting a static difficulty for the average person, 3E didn't take into account that PCs *aren't average people.*  In 3E's terms, there is no difference between a doctor and a muckraker because the incremental skill point system and static DCs don't allow it.



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Bingo!
> 
> In my high-ish level 3.5 game, my rogue/fighter/invisible blade/bard/evangelist of Pelor has used Profession (boating) a couple of times. The first was to oppose the Strength check made by a sea hag to upset the rowboat he and other party members were in. The second time was successfully navigate the gullet of a pseudoleviathan after a different craft and the same party were swallowed whole.




There's a reason why later supplements took profession and attached mechanics to it like Stormwrack did with sailing.  As I said, 3E is very succinct in its rulings.  A strength check would have done the same thing in your example.  A wisdom check would have done the same thing in your second example.

4E made the right decision in removing mechanics from unnecessary aspects of the game.  I shouldn't have to spend limited resources, especially ones that determine how well I do in the assumed world of adventuring and plunder, to determine how well I can cook, herd, or sew.  If I roleplay my character as a brewer his whole life then the GM should consider my character a proficient brewer.  If I compete against a master brewer, the GM should decide based on our ingredients who makes the better brew or even use the event to create an entire new adventure.  When hard rules are used for such a narrative event, one side can _cheat_ through magic or cheap enhancements and break the entire flow of play.

If anything, the profession skill is proof of moving away from role-playing to roll-playing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> But that's the point!  The rulebook _must_ present DCs for everything because *3E created the concept of a static difficulty!*






If you say so.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Feb 16, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> If you say so.




Addendum: By "created the concept of a static difficulty" I mean within the game of Dungeons & Dragons.  In AD&D, everything is tied into your ability scores.  Want to swing across a chasm?  Roll for dex.  Swim the raging rapids?  Roll for strength.  3E, within the D&D game, created the static difficulty based on the common man but I reiterate that PCs are far from common.  It's very easy to hit the upper teens by level 5 at which point you're practically a master at your profession and can safely retire living a comfortable life.  How boring is that?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2010)

I can tell you what the "common man" is in 1e; the DMG is explicit.  What is the "common man" in 3e?  A "commoner", but of what level?  How many hit points?  What level of skill?

If the requirement to leap a chasm is "roll under your Dex", that is a static difficulty, because an "average man" score of 9 to 10 is set.  If you exceed that score, the difficult is more easy for you.  If you are below that score, the difficult is harder.  A bonus or penalty to your roll, for easier or harder tasks, keeps the actual level of difficulty static; the only variable is how good the character is.

Likewise, the base difficulty of picking a lock is static in 1e.  A thief has a % chance based upon that static difficulty.  A bonus or penalty indicates an easier, or harder, than average lock.

I could go on, but I think (I hope) the point is made.



RC


----------



## billd91 (Feb 17, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> But that's the point!  The rulebook _must_ present DCs for everything because *3E created the concept of a static difficulty!*




I'm increasingly convinced that people never read their rulebooks very thoroughly. The 3e DMG has a section on setting DCs for skill checks and provides plenty of examples.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Feb 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> I can tell you what the "common man" is in 1e; the DMG is explicit.  What is the "common man" in 3e?  A "commoner", but of what level?  How many hit points?  What level of skill?
> 
> If the requirement to leap a chasm is "roll under your Dex", that is a static difficulty, because an "average man" score of 9 to 10 is set.  If you exceed that score, the difficult is more easy for you.  If you are below that score, the difficult is harder.  A bonus or penalty to your roll, for easier or harder tasks, keeps the actual level of difficulty static; the only variable is how good the character is.
> 
> ...




No, it's not a static difficulty because you have to rely on the d20 which generates a random result.  A person with 10 is slightly above average while a person with an 18 is almost an expert.  There is no take 10, therefor there's no automatic or instant success.  

A level 1 wizard with 16 intelligence in AD&D has a small but recognizable chance to fail copying a level 1 scroll.  After all, being a wizard is about replicating exacting documents and reciting arcane words of power perfectly.  To expect him to be 100% perfect, something only demigods and paragons can achieve, is ridiculous.  The level 1 3E wizard with 16 intelligence and 3 ranks in spellcraft can _never_ fail in copying a 1st level scroll.  He could copy 20 such scrolls perfectly in a calm environment, meanwhile the level 20 fighter has a 1-in-20 chance of missing a training dummy simply because that's how 3E changed the rules for rolling a d20.

That's a static difficulty.  All characters of the same level, ability scores, and skills are always equal in capability.  Mechanically there is no difference between a fighter with 10 ranks in profession: clergy and a priest with 10 ranks in profession: military.  



> I'm increasingly convinced that people never read their rulebooks very thoroughly. The 3e DMG has a section on setting DCs for skill checks and provides plenty of examples.




And the PHB has a section on what profession does and how to handle it.  " earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work."  One might call into question the "about" as a vague word, something the 3E PHB is filled with (especially the terrible section on alignment) but there it is set in stone.  Doctors and pig farmers earn the same amount of coin in a week's worth of work.

I'm just not in the boat that role-playing elements should be tied to mechanics.  I should be able to create a solid plan of how I want to run a business with the GM who decides behind the screen if its a good plan.  The GM can determine the results in private but relegating such a thing to "Roll d20... okay, you make 10 gold coins that week" is terrible.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 17, 2010)

The best way that I can think to describe it is:
Profession is useful in the games where it is used.

In my pirates campaign Profession [Merchant] was how they won their bread - selling goods to other merchants, haggling and bartering. They made their moneys looting, pillaging, and, on more occasions than you might expect, honest trade. Also useful in my very first 3.0 campaign, where the PCs spent a few levels as Merchant Adventurers. (Finding new goods, new markets, and doing battle with the inevitable pirates. The PCs ended up taking the place of Marco Polo.)

My Iron Kingdoms game featured the PCs as private agents, with Profession [Agent] determining reputation and how lucrative the cases presented to them were. How well known they might be to potential clients. It as also used to handwave the minor cases that happened between adventures - not every case got played at the table, so a simple '15 GP for rescuing Madame Cottingham's cat' could be used. 

The assumption being that not every bit of coin was gained by adventuring - so I twiddled the rules so that about 25% of their income was handled offscreen, but that 25% used up about 75% of their time. The remaining 25% of the time would be the adventures - higher risk, higher reward. The low risk 75% took a matter of minutes between adventures.

My Pathfinder game (average player age around 14) has not used Profession once. If I were running the Eberron game that I have been converting then [Agent] would likely come back into play.

The Auld Grump


----------



## billd91 (Feb 17, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> And the PHB has a section on what profession does and how to handle it.  " earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated work."  One might call into question the "about" as a vague word, something the 3E PHB is filled with (especially the terrible section on alignment) but there it is set in stone.  Doctors and pig farmers earn the same amount of coin in a week's worth of work.
> 
> I'm just not in the boat that role-playing elements should be tied to mechanics.  I should be able to create a solid plan of how I want to run a business with the GM who decides behind the screen if its a good plan.  The GM can determine the results in private but relegating such a thing to "Roll d20... okay, you make 10 gold coins that week" is terrible.




Nothing wrong with having fairly vague words in an RPG. You know, rules as guidelines not laws and all that. This isn't exactly Advanced Squad Leader we're playing where "adjacent" and "ADJACENT" may be different. 

But what exactly about having a profession skill and using it to determine a certain amount of income prevents the DM from requiring the player to present a basic business plan? How is rolling a profession check any more arbitrary than the DM deciding privately how well the PC did, particularly since the profession check includes the assets the player decided to invest in the character's business acumen and can include any modifiers the DM sees fit to add for a decent (or poor) business plan?


----------



## Aurumvorax (Feb 17, 2010)

billd91 said:


> Nothing wrong with having fairly vague words in an RPG. You know, rules as guidelines not laws and all that. This isn't exactly Advanced Squad Leader we're playing where "adjacent" and "ADJACENT" may be different.
> 
> But what exactly about having a profession skill and using it to determine a certain amount of income prevents the DM from requiring the player to present a basic business plan? How is rolling a profession check any more arbitrary than the DM deciding privately how well the PC did, particularly since the profession check includes the assets the player decided to invest in the character's business acumen and can include any modifiers the DM sees fit to add for a decent (or poor) business plan?




It's wrong because 3E shifted away from the "leave it up to DM!" play style to "everything works like X."  Talk to anyone who hates diplomacy and intimidate and they'll tell you something along the lines of "You shouldn't blur role-play with roll-play."  If in real life I'm an introvert but my character is Sir Princely the Handsomest Man in the World, I'm going to be mad when I fumble over basic sentences but my rolls come up 30+.  Likewise, if Mr. Bumbleton has no ranks in profession but gets a massive bonus because he created a bullet proof business plan, I'm going to be mad that I pumped 10 ranks in this useless skill.  

At least Pathfinder attached a quality to profession by allowing it to act as a catch-all knowledge skill for your work.

It's something that GMs shouldn't have to adjudicate and I can't think of many RPGs that tie mechanics to professions.  In every other RPG you have skills that help you in your profession (which is what craft should be doing) but not an actual skill that says "Hey, this is how good you actually are at your job."  Games that do include it (BattleTech RPG comes to mind) will have a mechanical attribute attached to it or specifically say what it does.  "Administration: How well you can run a business.  Multiply your success by 1,000 to find out your income."

Profession or role-playing elements are not something I want handled by dice and if they are I shouldn't know what modifiers I have and the GM should make the roll.  It ruins the suspense of the game when players point out on their sheet how they're world class businessmen and the result of their next die roll will make them richer than average nobility within a week's time.


----------



## Votan (Feb 17, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> Profession or role-playing elements are not something I want handled by dice and if they are I shouldn't know what modifiers I have and the GM should make the roll.  It ruins the suspense of the game when players point out on their sheet how they're world class businessmen and the result of their next die roll will make them richer than average nobility within a week's time.




I think that this is a worse problem for Diplomacy than for Profession.

I am generally sympathetic to issues of skills like profession.  I tend to buy into the paradigm that it makes sense to segregate these skills; in this sense the secondary skills approach of AD&D worked fine to add these elements to characters without needing to divert resources from dungeoneering abilities.  

I also like the idea of decoupling level and professional skill.  Otherwise many professionals need to be of a surprisingly high level to compete with mid-campaign player characters (who do not necessarily spend their days in a smithy refinign their ability to smith swords).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2010)

Aurumvorax said:


> No, it's not a static difficulty because you have to rely on the d20 which generates a random result.  A person with 10 is slightly above average while a person with an 18 is almost an expert.  There is no take 10, therefor there's no automatic or instant success.






I fear that you and I are talking two different languages here.  Let me assure you that, when I say a "static difficulty" I mean that _*the level of difficulty does not change*_.  That is, the numbers represent the inherent difficulty of a proposition, not the ease with which certain characters may approach that inherent difficulty.

Usually, this is simulationist in nature.  A monster whose hide is equivalent to plate and shield in AD&D 1e is AC 2.  It is AC 2 if the PCs are 1st level; it is AC 2 if the PCs are 15th level.  Likewise, a basic lock needs no description; the "DC" is the baseline thief's chance to pick locks.  All the DM need do is define harder challenges (say, -10% to pick locks) or easier ones (say, +15% chance to find traps).

The converse of this is a system in which the difficulty of picking a lock is not based on static chance, but is based on an ideal idea of how often any given PC should be able to do it.  So, if the goal is to have you find 50% of all traps, the DC of locating traps should be 10 + the searcher's bonus to the task.  Or, for example, the AC of creatures should depend upon their CR rather than their description.....try to make the description match the CR!



> All characters of the same level, ability scores, and skills are always equal in capability.




All characters that are exactly the same are exactly the same.  This, at least, we agree on.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2010)

It occurs to me that WotC didn't invent the yes/no switch that Take 10 and Take 20 all too often are used for.  "I walk across the room" has always been a yes/no switch.  What WotC did was give a gloss of illusion over the yes/no switch, extending it farther than it had previously existed, and giving it the illusion of being related to chance.

The problem, esp. with Take 20, is it becomes a "DM May I?" switch.  Does the DM want you to be able to unlock the door?  No?  Then the DC is outside your Take 20 range.  Does he want you to?  Then it is within your Take 20 range.  All too often, Take 20 is a cop-out, utilized to preplan in-game events down the route the DM envisions.  The less actual chance is involved in the game, the more the DM can plan ahead, the more heavily plotted the series of events is likely to be, and consequently fewer meaningful choices will be available to the players.


RC


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 17, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> All too often, Take 20 is a cop-out, utilized to preplan in-game events down the route the DM envisions.




That's how I use it. If success at Task X is either absolutely essential or just par for the course, then I generally hand wave skill checks, saving them for more dramatic situations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 18, 2010)

Mark Chance said:


> That's how I use it. If success at Task X is either absolutely essential or just par for the course, then I generally hand wave skill checks, saving them for more dramatic situations.




There is a difference between faking the involvement of chance, and saying upfront that chance is not involved.  IMHO, anyway.


----------



## Mark Chance (Feb 18, 2010)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is a difference between faking the involvement of chance, and saying upfront that chance is not involved.  IMHO, anyway.




Oh, I agree. I've played in games before where I had the suspicion that DCs had been deliberately set to make even taking 20 impossible. If the story requires failure, then that's one thing, but it makes me wonder: Why include that element at all if that's the case?

For example, why stick in a secret door if DM fiat is going to rule that the PCs can't find said door? What is the story function for such a feature?

The more I DM (and the more I work on material I'd like to publish) the more sensitive I become to making things deliberately impossible. For another example, in an adventure I'm currently working on, I've stuck in sidebars about PC knowledge based on the idea that a PC with X knowledge skill ought to know such-and-such facts because those facts help drive the adventure forward without worrying about skill checks.


----------

