Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DiegoNegro 06-26-07, 03:27 PM	If I am reading the CS2.0 correctly, Expansion slots are not retoolable, ever. However, all classes beyond first and feats are retoolable at level bumps. How about if your expansion slots are used to unlock a base class, prestige class, or feat from an alternate source and you wish to retool these items later? Are you stuck with the expansion slot choices even if the item they unlocked is no longer being used? I didn't see any errata on this issue, or discussion of this topic so far on the boards. Thoughts?:confused:
smerwin29 06-26-07, 03:53 PM	Expansion slots are not retoolable.
lordtiberiusfoxx 06-26-07, 09:01 PM	Expansion slots are not retoolable. The sole exception being if an item suddenly becomes restricted, right?
pedr 06-26-07, 09:11 PM	And, as it seems appropriate, I'll re-iterate my suggestion/request that players be allowed to change expansion-slot choices if rules items are reprinted in later books (whether the player wants to change the slot choice because the new version is less suitable for the character, or because the player does not wish to buy the new book). (e.g. certain feats from, I think CAr are reprinted in Races of the Dragon, a far less common book, and of course many magic items are reprinted and significantly changed in MIC. According the the XECS, only the latest version is used in the campaign which means that you can no-longer use the CAd version - even if it is the same - and have to own Races of the Dragon to use that feat. It doesn't seem right for a character to have two 'dead' expansion slots if the player doesn't want to (or can't) buy a copy of Races of the Dragon - after all, he owns a copy of CAr with the feat in!)
Skerrit 06-27-07, 04:01 PM	The sole exception being if an item suddenly becomes restricted, right? That is correct.
lordtiberiusfoxx 06-28-07, 12:39 PM	That is correct. I'm really hoping that this would include expansions that become superfluous because they are based upon items that become restricted. The example being my Crimson Codex character's toxic tooth, whose hole purpose is to hold poison (I figured if my character is like a spy, he'd better have a cyanide tooth. ;) ) If poisons were to become restricted, as is being discussed, then the tooth would become useless. I'm sure that this would apply to other things as well, like feats down a feat tree, or other things with prereqs.
Timlagor 06-28-07, 09:12 PM	I'd like them just to make them retoolable at level bumps myself ;) They're already very restrictive and making them completely unretoolable just makes them even more of a b**** to choose. Given the amound you can retool it seems perverse to me not to allow retooing of ESlots.
Harliquinn 06-29-07, 09:22 AM	I can understand the desire to balance 'retooling' options as the campaign progresses so that characters can continue to adapt to new rules with the desire not to have every character completely new at the next level bump. I am very glad for the factionmasters' allowance of all manner of new choices for the campaign. However, like others, I find myself wishing I had done some things differently along the way (For instance my Covenant character would definitely have been a Factotum if that had been around when I started). On the other hand, I'm not willing to lose all my hard earned story objects for that choice. Hmm, as I replied, I realized I don't have a good suggestion for this. Perhaps at each level bump a single expansion choice could be retooled. For instance if your choices had been: 1st-2nd: Feat 3rd: Spell 4th-6th: Class 7th: Equipment And at the level bump you decide, I really didn't get much use of that feat and then you could change your 1st two expansion slots to 2 spells, 2 items, a skill trick, etc. Not sure this would really help anyone though as it's still rather restrictive. Oh well just some rambling... Harliquinn
smerwin29 06-29-07, 09:56 AM	We are listening. Just because we don't post doesn't mean we don't read these posts.
lseelba 06-29-07, 12:18 PM	I sit on both sides of the screen and my opinion is that allowing retooling of expansion slots (at the level bumps obviously) would be perfectly fine. It should be the same as everything else: the first level expansion slot can never be retooled, but all subsequent ones can.
Timlagor 07-02-07, 02:16 PM	There's this really weird dichotomy between the retooling encouraging people to use some of the interesting 'low level' items and the ESlots making it essentially impossible to do so. One other option would be to simply Unlock MIC and Spell Compendium globally -it wouldn't let anythign extra problematic in because those are already available ...and most likely to be used from those book.
Istaran 07-02-07, 10:04 PM	One other option would be to simply Unlock MIC and Spell Compendium globally -it wouldn't let anythign extra problematic in because those are already available ...and most likely to be used from those book. Globally unlocking Spell compendium would go a long way to make expansion slots superfluous.. the need to buy into those nifty spells has basically required my Codex character to give up on non PHB feats entirely. It would certainly be a pretty radical change. For all manner of caster this makes you pick and choose non-standard spells carefully, and balance between special spells and special feats. I would imagine the results would be fairly similar for some players' characters that make good use of the MIC. (I don't own a copy, but have been exposed to it's world of magical insanity by a friend.) A fighter, for example, needs all his expansion slots (and then some) to unlock the awesome feats from the various source books, leaving few if any slots available to grab the nifty weapons and other items from the MIC and elsewhere; simply unlocking the whole giant treasure chest of goodies is likely to have a strong influence on the balance of the game. I don't necessarily object to the books being wholly unlocked, but it would be a radical change, make no mistake about that. As far as I can tell the point of the Expansion slots is to let players have anything they want (almost) but not everything they want. It's a balancing act that took me a while to appreciate.
Timlagor 07-03-07, 06:11 AM	Yeah.. and the stuff that goes by the wayside is likely to be the interesting but not particularly powerful stuff. Casters end up casting the same spells over and opver again. Everyone goes for the same DMG equipment. Now sure you can (and many will) make 'deliberately suboptimal' choices ..but I can't see a problem with raising people who do so being raised to the level of those who don't.
Madfox11 07-03-07, 11:11 AM	I have to agree with Timlagor on this one. The current rules allow the campaign to keep certain incredibly powerful spells and feats open, but at the same time they block anything suboptimal. Right now I am looking at spells for my druid from Crimson Codex, and while spells like swim are cool spells, they are too specialized to ever pick. I probably have to stick to generic powerful choices, and see whether I can steer away for the stuff I think is too powerful anyway. The real irony is that there is absolutely no way to check the expension slots, so people who don't mind a bit of minor cheating could do so easily with nobody knowing for the better...
Harliquinn 07-03-07, 12:12 PM	I have to agree with Timlagor on this one. The current rules allow the campaign to keep certain incredibly powerful spells and feats open, but at the same time they block anything suboptimal. Right now I am looking at spells for my druid from Crimson Codex, and while spells like swim are cool spells, they are too specialized to ever pick. I probably have to stick to generic powerful choices, and see whether I can steer away for the stuff I think is too powerful anyway. The real irony is that there is absolutely no way to check the expension slots, so people who don't mind a bit of minor cheating could do so easily with nobody knowing for the better... Technically you are suppose to record your Expansion Slot Choice on your Adventure Journal when you level up :) Not saying everyone does...
lordtiberiusfoxx 07-03-07, 12:46 PM	I have to agree with Timlagor on this one. The current rules allow the campaign to keep certain incredibly powerful spells and feats open, but at the same time they block anything suboptimal. Right now I am looking at spells for my druid from Crimson Codex, and while spells like swim are cool spells, they are too specialized to ever pick. I probably have to stick to generic powerful choices, and see whether I can steer away for the stuff I think is too powerful anyway. The real irony is that there is absolutely no way to check the expension slots, so people who don't mind a bit of minor cheating could do so easily with nobody knowing for the better... Believe me when I say your arguement is sound, and well thought out. However, my Crimson Codex character is full of sub-optimal choices and is doing just fine. While yes, the limit of expansion slots would seem to encourage this sort of thing, they aren't really needed in a campaign with good writing and action points. The options that are flavorful can be solved with story objects pretty easily, by expansion slot cards, or by a campaign standards update. CC should have waterproof books (Complete Arcane) on tap, for example. If we want to look at a model that I would say encourages twinking (my opinion only, feel free to disagree with me), I would look at Undermountain. It has no limits and no action points to act as a buffer. Undermountain has a long history of being deadly, and with no action point stabilize, what is being encouraged? I would say parties of warlocks, dragon shamen, beguilers, and clerics. Could I be wrong on this? Absolutely. We'll see what the unforseen consequences are. Yes, the expansion slot system can be cumbersome on characters and can hedge out cute things like the swim spell. On the other hand, it also prevents me from getting a migrane running games from players having five items with rules text a column long each from books I don't own. Now if the expansion slot system could be modified in some ingenious way, which I wouldn't put past the posters here, who are very bright people, I'm sure the factionmasters would listen. :cool:
Harliquinn 07-03-07, 01:23 PM	Undermountain has a long history of being deadly, and with no action point stabilize, what is being encouraged? I would say parties of warlocks, dragon shamen, beguilers, and clerics. Could I be wrong on this? Absolutely. We'll see what the unforseen consequences are. And Crusaders :)
lseelba 07-03-07, 05:55 PM	And Crusaders :) And my twinked kineticist XD
Timlagor 07-03-07, 07:21 PM	ToB being unavailable in anything else RPGA I'd certainly expect to see a lot of it in Undermountain (even if Crusaders weren't as potent and resilient as I think they are). Warlocks are extremely powerful at low levels, unavailable in LG and one faction only in XE so there will probably be several of them played ..they also have a certain 'coolness factor'. I think the cheesy race choices may be more interesting. The low level of the Undermountain stuff puts a pretty strong restriction on it -most of the really abusable stuff requires a higher level. Action points are certainly very powerful. So far the Story objects have mostly unlocked stuff that was completely useless to my characters. This is hardly surprising given how few sotry objects there are.
Madfox11 07-04-07, 04:03 AM	I loved the Crimson Codex story object that allows the character to unlock two spells in one slot. Those kind of objects are more useful in general than those that unlock specific items, spells and objects. Note that I never said that people do not go for personality choices instead of game mechanical ones (although the two are not mutual exclusive). I have taken my fair share of weak stuff (Able Learner and the Vestment of Many Styles are not particularly powerful). I said that it favors game mechanical choices, especially in regards to magical items and spells. It is also rather harsh if you make a mistake and realize it afterwards.
lordtiberiusfoxx 07-04-07, 01:06 PM	I loved the Crimson Codex story object that allows the character to unlock two spells in one slot. Those kind of objects are more useful in general than those that unlock specific items, spells and objects. Note that I never said that people do not go for personality choices instead of game mechanical ones (although the two are not mutual exclusive). I have taken my fair share of weak stuff (Able Learner and the Vestment of Many Styles are not particularly powerful). I said that it favors game mechanical choices, especially in regards to magical items and spells. It is also rather harsh if you make a mistake and realize it afterwards. Agreed. There just isn't a system that doesn't favor twinking in one way or another. Even the two for one spell slot has to make players wonder, "why should I grab Guiding Light or Cheat when I can grab Arrow Mind or Benign Transposition?" These things just can't be hedged out. Even if you do a Greyhawk style several page restricted list that makes me go blind, certain things will still be encouraged, because they will seem "more powerful." Action points do create a buffer. They give you that all-important free stabilize, and give you saves you otherwise you would fail. Well built encounters and challenges that use lesser used talents *should* work, but in my experience all they end up doing is making twinks whine. "How dare they want me to have ranks in profession! Who wrote this mod?"
lseelba 07-04-07, 02:02 PM	Action points do create a buffer. They give you that all-important free stabilize, and give you saves you otherwise you would fail. Well built encounters and challenges that use lesser used talents *should* work, but in my experience all they end up doing is making twinks whine. "How dare they want me to have ranks in profession! Who wrote this mod?" lol at Profession. Next DM's mark I run, I'm going to put in an NPC who refuses to speak to the unemployed. If not one PC has a single rank in a single Profession, the NPC won't talk to them :D I know all my PC's would fail that encounter. I do have someone with some craft, but thats only to qualify for a PrC.
Timlagor 07-05-07, 12:01 PM	Calling adventurers "unemployed" is far from reasonable ..you'd have to call aristocrats unemployed too. "unproductive" might work though...
Madfox11 07-09-07, 11:36 AM	Define unemployed? Craft and Profession skill ranks do not define skill in jobs such as upperclass body guard (my Blackwheel character) or wilderness guide/trail blazer/expedition guard/hunter (my Crimson Codex character). Or even a more civilized job such as a healer? I really refuse to put precisious skill points into something that only grants a couple of gold pieces and has nothing what so ever to do with making the character more effective in their profession. I am not talking about D&D mechanically effective skills either, just purely for the profession, my bodyguard character has a high Sense Motive even though that is a pretty useless skill either.
lseelba 07-09-07, 12:27 PM	Define unemployed? Craft and Profession skill ranks do not define skill in jobs such as upperclass body guard (my Blackwheel character) or wilderness guide/trail blazer/expedition guard/hunter (my Crimson Codex character). Or even a more civilized job such as a healer? I really refuse to put precisious skill points into something that only grants a couple of gold pieces and has nothing what so ever to do with making the character more effective in their profession. I am not talking about D&D mechanically effective skills either, just purely for the profession, my bodyguard character has a high Sense Motive even though that is a pretty useless skill either. It was a joke. My point was that almost no one puts skill points in Profession because they value min-maxing over back story.
Harliquinn 07-09-07, 01:39 PM	Well considering A) that they give most classes too few skill points, and B) there are usually 'key' skills every class already needs, that leaves rangers, bards, rogues, and perhaps wizards with extra skill points for superfluous skills. That said, my dragon shaman (2 skills / level) did put a point into Craft (Tattooing) so he could justify his tattoos. My bard put points into Profession (Sailor) purely for backstory and Profession (Astrologer) for a PrC. My duskblade has Decipher Script maxxed. I think points into Knowledges is equivalent to Profession/Craft in many cases as well. Considering some of the 'checks' required in Xen'drik modules, I don't think neglecting profession/craft skills necessarily means min-maxing. Consider a paladin or cleric with 2 points / level and likely no INT bonus. They need Concentration, Knowledge (Religion), and possibly Spellcraft. Most sorcerers need Concentration, Spellcraft, and possibly Knowledge (Arcana). Face characters typically need Diplomacy/Bluff maxed out as well as Sense Motive along with their core skills for their class (Perform for bards, traps/locks for rogues, spellcraft/concentration for Beguilers, etc). Harliquinn
Lilinthra 07-09-07, 02:04 PM	My scout has a few ranks in Craft(sculpting), and has had much more role-playing use of the skill in practice than mechanical benefit. :D
lseelba 07-09-07, 02:09 PM	I'm a big fan of knowledge skills personally. I'll put as many spare points as I have in class knowledge skills, and even consider getting one rank cross-class if I have extra skill points available. That said, the last time I put skill points in Profession was probably with the first character I ever made in 3.0. Mechanically speaking, it really is an NPC skill mostly.
Harliquinn 07-09-07, 02:20 PM	Knowledges are very important in Xen'drik from what I've seen. A few of my characters plan to unlock the "Collector of Stories" trick from Complete Adventurer.
Marcus Majarra 07-09-07, 10:46 PM	Knowledges are very important in Xen'drik from what I've seen. A few of my characters plan to unlock the "Collector of Stories" trick from Complete Adventurer. Knowledge is my main XE character's most promising feature (kudos for educated changeling rogues). For the Crimson Codex, having all this knowledge is a godsend. Collector of Stories and Master of Knowledge (Heroes of Horror) are among my main considerations.
Madfox11 07-10-07, 05:04 AM	It was a joke. My point was that almost no one puts skill points in Profession because they value min-maxing over back story. And my point was that Craft and Profession are so weak as skills and so not necessarily associated with potential professions that not taking skill points in them has little to nothing to do with min-maxing.
Diablo05 07-10-07, 10:22 PM	I've really never understood the point behind taking profession skills. Not just in a min-max sense, but the very concept itself. What ability is the profession skill supposed to be imparting? Presumeably, ranks in profession should make you more skilled at whatever your profession is, but I really dont see this as the case. Profession(weaponsmith) would not make a blacksmith any more skilled at his trade, that would be covered by craft(weaponsmith). A character who is a professional merchant would require skills like Diplomacy and Apraise, not Profession(merchant). God help us if Profession(mercenary) gave combat bonus's... I can see some cases where profession would denote a unique skill (profession(sailor) for instance), but these seem few and far between. I mean... isn't your entire character sheet a summary of how good you are at what you do? What are profession skills supposed to accomplish?
Marcus Majarra 07-10-07, 11:00 PM	Profession skills cover actual jobs that don't fall under the purview of a craft skill. Basically, it's a job that doesn't involve a particular craft, but requires some level of skill not already covered in existing skills or other abilities. Unless they're introduced elsewhere, the only profession skills are listed in the PHB. They are: Apothecary, boater, bookkeeper, brewer, cook, driver, farmer, fisher, guide, herbalist, herder, hunter, innkeeper, lumberjack, miller, miner, porter, rancher, sailor, scribe, siege engineer, stablehand, tanner, teamster, and woodcutter. Basically, these are professional roles and the profession skill is used to earn a living, as described on PHB80. You cannot substitute profession checks for other skills. For example, a character with ranks in Profession (sailor) knows how to make basic knots, but has no particular aptitude with the Use Rope skill. All these skills do for you is earn you a weekly wage.
Madfox11 07-11-07, 12:55 PM	Marcus, we know what the text books say about the Profession skill, we just don't think the text books are correct. Just take a look at Profession (hunter). What exactly does the Profession skill covers that Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (geography), Survival and perhaps Craft (skinning) does not cover? Why would a skill determine how much somebody earns even if that skill is about as unrelated to the profession in question as possible. A hunter with a high Survival and Diplomacy skill should earn a lot more gold than a similar hunter with Profession (hunter) and no Survival what so ever. Note that we admit there are a couple of exceptions, but to be honest, that is more because there are some basic skills missing. For example, if there was a skill Piloting and a Knowledge (navigation) than there would be no point in Profession (sailor) either. Adding a skill Accounting, or better yet, include it with Appraise so that that skill actually means something, would make a whole other set of professions redundant. Profession as a skill is IMO poorly thought out and not very representative of a character's actual skill in said profession, especially not if you do not allow the profession skill check to replace an existing skill check. .... which of course has nothing what so ever to do with Xen'drik ;)
Starfox_SFX 07-31-07, 09:37 PM	In a home campaign, we considered a house rule giving synergy bonuses to a package of skills for every 5 ranks in a profession. e.g. every 5 ranks in profession sailor would give +1 or 2 to swim, use rope and balance, profession merchant gave diplomacy, bluff and appraise etc. It did encourage players to take ranks in a profession to begin with and sometimes even continue putting ranks into a profession as they leveled.
Marcus Majarra 08-01-07, 10:03 AM	Just take a look at Profession (hunter). What exactly does the Profession skill covers that Knowledge (nature), Knowledge (geography), Survival and perhaps Craft (skinning) does not cover? For starters, Knowledge skills represent just that: knowledge. It imparts no particular skill. While you might be able to recognize a fox and tell some of its characteristics, you still have no knowledge of how to capture one in a way that you can turn a profit. Survival isn't a primary skill for hunting either. While it allows you to forage for food, this food is by no means limited to animals. You could be gathering fruit, just like you could be taking down animal prey. Furthermore, using Survival to forage for animal food has no compunctions about the condition of the animal. When you're looking for food, you don't have to make sure your mark remains in a sufficiently good condition to harvest its pelt, or other body parts that you could use to turn a profit. This is why you can keep advancing at half-speed when foraging for food. This is where Profession (hunter) kicks in. This skill is dedicated to successfully capturing live or dead creatures for sales purposes. A hunter is trained to take down his mark with the least possible amount of physical damage to it. This requires training in fields that encompass more than just creature knowledge and survival, although these skills will be useful to him. You should also take note that the hunter will typically not be the one making the skinning. That job is left for the tanner.
Marcia_S 08-01-07, 08:18 PM	None of my characters really qualify as "unemployed", despite not having any craft or profession skills. My CoL wizard is a sage and librarian at the Radiant Hold and you can find her there any time she's not sent on a mission. (Lots of ranks in knowledge skills.) Using expansion slots for spells. My BwC psychic warrior is a body guard for hire. (Big half giant with lots of psionic feats.) Haven't found much use for expansion slots for this one, yet, maybe just items. My CC rogue is a private investigator between assignments for the faction (having the Investigate, Investigator, and Urban Tracking feats). Expansion slots are all items. And my CoS evil cleric is, well, just evil and takes what she needs when she needs it. She's as close as I get to "unemployed", but is any priest, minister, or other clergyman ever really "unproductive"? Her expansion slots are all turning feats. Without lots and lots of skill points and demand/use for them within mods, no one's going to take professions or crafts. Marcia
lseelba 08-01-07, 11:34 PM	My BwC psychic warrior is a body guard for hire. (Big half giant with lots of psionic feats.) Haven't found much use for expansion slots for this one, yet, maybe just items. Pick up Primal Fear (the Races of Eberron version, not the Complete Psionic version). It is SO good for a 1st level power. -Lou
Madfox11 08-02-07, 04:59 AM	For starters, Knowledge skills represent just that: knowledge. It imparts no particular skill. While you might be able to recognize a fox and tell some of its characteristics, you still have no knowledge of how to capture one in a way that you can turn a profit. Survival isn't a primary skill for hunting either. While it allows you to forage for food, this food is by no means limited to animals. You could be gathering fruit, just like you could be taking down animal prey. Furthermore, using Survival to forage for animal food has no compunctions about the condition of the animal. When you're looking for food, you don't have to make sure your mark remains in a sufficiently good condition to harvest its pelt, or other body parts that you could use to turn a profit. This is why you can keep advancing at half-speed when foraging for food. This is where Profession (hunter) kicks in. This skill is dedicated to successfully capturing live or dead creatures for sales purposes. A hunter is trained to take down his mark with the least possible amount of physical damage to it. This requires training in fields that encompass more than just creature knowledge and survival, although these skills will be useful to him. You should also take note that the hunter will typically not be the one making the skinning. That job is left for the tanner. If a DM wants to he can make the Profession skill more worthwhile by comming up with arguments like these and even make it somewhat logical. The fact is that the Survival skill check already includes the rules to deal with all the stuff a hunter needs (finding food). All you have done is explain why one might not grant gold and the other does. It sounds more like a justification on retrospect and it really doesn't make the Profession skill more worthwhile to players. Lets just agree to disagree. I think the Profession skills are worthless and superfluous (except in those few cases where there is no other skill that can replace it such as Profession (sailor)). As for the tanner bit, that all depends on the degrees of speciality. You could just as easily have said butcher (which is much more likely). A hunter needs to know how to clean his prey and that includes removing the skin. Although that might be considered a Craft ;)
Marcus Majarra 08-02-07, 01:03 PM	The fact is that the Survival skill check already includes the rules to deal with all the stuff a hunter needs (finding food). And where do you get the idea that all the stuff a hunter needs is finding food? First off, hunters don't necessarily hunt for food. They also hunt for skins, bones, and other reusable or consumable animal parts (including trophies). Second, he hunts for specific game; that which will turn him a profit. Survival merely covers foraging for food, which may or may not come in animal form and completely disregards any other use you might have for your game's carcass, something which the hunter cannot do. A hunter needs to know how to clean his prey and that includes removing the skin. Although that might be considered a Craft I faily doubt it's a Craft. Craft skills involve professions that deal with creating something. Skinning an animal in no way is creative (unless you make the skinning into an art form; but then again you would sell the skin as a finished product, not as a byproduct).
Istaran 08-02-07, 01:41 PM	I faily doubt it's a Craft. Craft skills involve professions that deal with creating something. Skinning an animal in no way is creative (unless you make the skinning into an art form; but then again you would sell the skin as a finished product, not as a byproduct). Your jump from "creating something" to "creative" is rather random and arbitrary. Weaponsmithing, armorsmithing, alchemy.. which of these strike you as "creative". If anything, truly "creative" things probably fall more under perform. Certainly all of the performance arts do; a case could be made that painting and such belong there too. Craft(skinning) (or perhaps Craft(tanning)?) is a perfectly reasonable craft skill, as it is creating a commercially sellable object from raw materials. Craft skills are not typically creative in nature. They do all consist of taking raw materials and turning them into finished products.
Marcus Majarra 08-02-07, 07:02 PM	Your jump from "creating something" to "creative" is rather random and arbitrary. Since when are dictionary definitions arbitrary? From dictionary.com, the definition of creative: 1. having the quality or power of creating. 2. resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative: creative writing. 3. originative; productive Craft skills must create something. Otherwise, it falls under the purview of a Profession skill, as stated in the PHB under Craft. Skinning and tanning aren't crafts, but leatherworking is.
Istaran 08-03-07, 01:43 AM	When you said "unless you make the skinning into an art form" I took you to be using the 2nd definition in your list, which is, in my experience with the English language, by far the most common definition. So much so that I am rather confused when any other definition of creative is used without some kind of context to disambiguate it and make it clear another meaning is intended. And I still hold that jumping from "creating something" which skinning does do to "resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative: creative writing" would be rather arbitrary. I would be happy to grant that skinning could be part of craft(leatherworking), though there's no reason to assume that is true. The chain could certainly be longer: that someone with craft(skinning) needs to correctly cut the skin to make a usable pelt, then someone with craft(tanning) needs to properly treat and dry the pelt to make leather then someone with craft(leatherworking) needs to work the leather into armor or other leather products. These are all very different tasks that could justifiably be concidered different skills, as their only relationship is that the outputs for one are the inputs for the next. Of course, seperating it out like that makes it an obnoxious waste of skill points in my opinion, and makes it perhaps unreasonably difficult for a single character to be able to make their own leather gear from the corpses of their fallen prey... oh well, it all happens behind the scenes as the labor of countless NPCs doing stuff that we don't need to track.
Marcus Majarra 08-03-07, 10:37 AM	The chain could certainly be longer: that someone with craft(skinning) needs to correctly cut the skin to make a usable pelt, then someone with craft(tanning) needs to properly treat and dry the pelt to make leather then someone with craft(leatherworking) needs to work the leather into armor or other leather products. This is where you're not making the logic correctly. Skinning and tanning doesn't involve creating a finished product, as opposed to leatherworking, which results in finished leather products. This is why you have Profession (tanner) in the first place. They most likely included skinning as part of either Profession (hunter) or Profession (tanner), since these are the professional roles most likely to be involved with skinning the animal.