Here is a secondary skill system for 4th edition. It is designed to be used with the skill challenges section in your DMG. This is offered as public domain, I am the author. Feel free to use, not use, add to, etc. Enjoy or not.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/the-true-dreamers/wikis/4th-ed-secondary-skills
For my own game I will discontinue its use when or if a better substitute gets officially released for 4thed from WotC.
- Michael Tenery
In another lengthy discussion on this forum the lack of secondary skills in 4th edition or even need of secondary skills has been debated. I decided to be proactive.
Here is a secondary skill system for 4th edition. It is designed to be used with the skill challenges section in your DMG. This is offered as public domain, I am the author. Feel free to use, not use, add to, etc. Enjoy or not.
- Michael Tenery
IMO, there is no need for secondary skills. Player's need to write backgrounds.
The classes aren't really balanced with each other, are they? For example, the human perk and the gnome perk are nearly identical, except that the gnome's is clearly worse. Maybe allow gnomes to have 4 skills at a +3, rather than 3 at +3.
And dwarves vs teiflings. Dwarves always get +3 to a selected skill, but tieflings can only do that once per day, and they take 1d6 damage for the luxury. How about giving tieflings a +10 once per day instead.
Alternatively, tieflings could get 3 skills (like humans, since they once were human) but only get +4 in each for being trained. Also, they can take 1d6 for a +3 once per day.
We need Underwater Basketweaving!
I believe that's just a "hard" check with the basketweaving skill.
Also, Leichenreiter makes an important point. A problem you're going to run into with something like is that no matter how comprehensive your list, it will never be comprehensive enough for everybody.
That looks preeeee-eeeeeety comprehensive.
I'm sure some people want to use that.
The worse problem is that if you have 100's of skills then each one becomes so narrow that it is almost always useless and worst of all you end up with the ridiculosity of the guy that can find his direction anywhere, but can't hunt, fish, track, or any of the other things he could logically do (unless of course he spends his entire allotment of 3 or however many secondary skills on just those things, which sensibly go together).
Now, that example really equates to Nature skill, but there is a perfectly good argument for background "life" skills. But can we make the list MUCH shorter and more general? Like keep it to a dozen or so. That won't cover everything possible by any means but if you REALLY want basketry, then add it in! I would just like a more general skill like "domestic craft" and then let the player just note that they are specifically good at spinning in their character background if they want.
Which of course brings up that these should all be included in character backgrounds sort of like regular skills are for classes. OTOH why even put in those sorts of limits? I'm undecided.
But definitely would favor a shorter and more general list.
And of course, this guy is being sent to buy everything, so the PCs are going to be kitted out with equipment for +2 thier level AT LEAST.
Anyway, to each his own. I would also personally prefer a shorter and more general list, with character backgrounds that provide conditional bonuses to certain skills under certain circumstances. So having "rowing" as a skill could be represented as having an additional +3 bonus to athletics, but only when making a skill check that involves rowing. "Harlotry" could be represented as a conditional bonus to... er... diplomacy?
It amuses me that it includes things like "ventriloquism," "taxidermy," and (my favorite) "harlotry." Yet doesn't include "sailing," for instance. :P
What do you define as Sailing?
Arcana(Navigation by the stars)? Nature (weather prediction)? Athletics (running around the rigging)? Endurance (Even more running around in the rigging)? Diplomacy(Preventing mutiny)?
I'm sure I could think of several others, and that's just with the base 4E skills.
In another lengthy discussion on this forum the lack of secondary skills in 4th edition or even need of secondary skills has been debated. I decided to be proactive.
Here is a secondary skill system for 4th edition. It is designed to be used with the skill challenges section in your DMG. This is offered as public domain, I am the author. Feel free to use, not use, add to, etc. Enjoy or not.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/the-true-dreamers/wikis/4th-ed-secondary-skills
For my own game I will discontinue its use when or if a better substitute gets officially released for 4thed from WotC.
- Michael Tenery
Seems kind of like a joke...
You're really going to make me roll to see if I can make a bar of soap, take a message, or write a poem?
"Do not speak unless it will improve on silence."
Terrific.
There are (at least) two skills on the list related to being a filthy *****.
Terrific.
Yes, Politics and Juggling are the bane of men.
Yes, Politics and Juggling are the bane of men.
Aren't some of these "secondary skills" stepping on the toes of the primary skills? I'm sure about half of those skills would be better handled by diplomacy...
Don't forget "Translation". Comprehend Language for free at-will FTW!
Otherwise, that list is insane. It's over-comprehensive, and a little bit too much. And it re-creates the problem that 4E skills solved, which is:
Why can you be incredible at Sword Making and not be trained in Metellurgy? Or a hundred other such examples? It's the classic "He can't jump for ****, but he can climb a glass tower with one hand" problem. Also known as the "He can pick pockets, but sleight of hand is another story, and forget lock-picking" problem.
There's just no need. It's too much.
As others have already said, it's over-specific, needlessly duplicate both primary skills (I count three that would be sub-uses of Heal, another five that are sub-uses of Diplomacy before touching the "perform" skills, and honestly, I lost both count and interest when trying to count the number that are simply sub-uses of Nature) and each other (what exactly is the difference between metallurgy, smithy, and weaponmaking/armoring? ::shudder:: Courtisan and harlotry?)
Other peeves are:
- The prostitution thing. Really, we've come way too far with this game to drop it back into that cesspit of sexism and immaturity. Honestly, as prejudicial and unfair as FATAL references often are (I honestly do thing there should be an RPG-equivalent to Godwin's law WRT it, truth be told), if there was ever a place where that "game" is an appropriate comparison, you just steered us into the middle of it.
- The Did Not Do The Research aspect that Vaal mentioned. Yes, I'm looking at you, beekeeping, brewing, psychology, philosophy, writing, acting, baking, administration... you get the idea.
First of all, I don't think we give the OP enough credit.
I just think that it means that some people don't feel obligated to preface their problems with his proposed system by patting him on the back and giving him a gold star for effort. It's very obvious that he put at least 10 to 20 minutes of solid work into this, but that doesn't somehow mean that he should be praised as some sort of visionary.
Just a quick thought before I turn in for the night... I see this list more as a specification of skills, not a replacement. I.E. A way for number crunchers to further specify in what realms of "nature" or such that they most excel. It seems more useful to me as a bevy of things from which to choose a +1 bonus. In this way, I can see it as a potentially fun and interesting supplement.
That's the thing though. All of this could be represented by giving a +X to appropriate skill or ability checks (which, if I remember correctly, is exactly what the backgrounds in the current rules are like) when it is related to the background skill you chose.
But then he throws a bunch of arbitrary charts on top of it that don't actually mean anything, and needlessly codifies everything. His chart is based completely on "Easy, Moderate, Hard", so apparently the DC to perform the same task increases as you level.
It's just so... redundant.
Added; Cartography, Navigate and Sail.
Gnome perk changed to 3 or 4 skills with reduced chance.
Tiefling bonus upped to +10 for daily.
Translate was never intended to allow some free languages merely to translate for others between them. That was noted.
As far as why someone would take certain skills, careful perusal will not some skills act as benefits for other skills. Artisan is a benefit to all good producing skills. Metallurgy is a benefit to all skills that use metals, etc., etc.
I knew the basket weaving would get a chuckle. But people have it and it is amazing what some people can do with it.
As far the harlotry/courtesan deal. I didn't specify sex of the individual so it is hardly sexism. And let's face it. It happens.
Thanks for your feedback.
Really nice work. I was thinking to make one for my own but you saved me the effort But the racial bonuses are not really needed. Just drop them. Let the secondary skills be something independent.
As far the harlotry/courtesan deal. I didn't specify sex of the individual so it is hardly sexism. And let's face it. It happens.
a) Both of those words actually are gendered, so actually, no, you kinda did. But, yes. The designers of FATAL used that argument, as well.
b) You never addressed the first issue I had, which is, how are they different? One of them is classier? Maybe we should add an extra stat for high-end basket-weaving, so nobody gets the two confused?
c) It happens, that doesn't mean that having a stat for it improves the game.
In this particular case, quite the opposite, in fact. "It exists, therefore we need a stat for it" is, again, the operative philosophy that lead to FATAL. And, for that matter, often with a particular emphasis on crap like this.
Again, I really don't like invoking FATAL, it's really the Hitler of RPG debating. In this particular case, though, we're comparing the dictator of some small country who, y'know, only did a little ethnic cleansing to Hitler. In other words, the FATAL reference is at least a little apt. Even without the "We need game mechanics for hookers! Twice!" angle, these skills make 2e NWPs look non-redundant, succinct, and unlikely to result in ridiculous characters that lack critical skills, by comparison.
An easier system would be:
1. It takes this much effort by a player to advance a single skill.
2. Player suggests he wants to be good at something or know something not covered by 4e skills.
3. DM suggests to player how many skills it might take to fully meet that concept. In some cases DM may say that what the player is wanting is trivial enough it doesn't need its own skill.
As the campaign progresses the player does whatever the DM lays out to improve his characters skill(s). At the appropriate time those skills come into play and the player is rewarded.
1. Military Generalship - command armies.
In my world occasionally you might have to have your army defend your castle.
2. Languages - I removed this from the in game feat system.
I find instantaneous understanding of new languages kinda versimilitude sapping. Also I like different levels of language understanding. Fluent to lousy.
3. Crafting - typically weapons.
Many characters want to make the ultimate whatever. Forge a mighty weapon of power. I usually make this a full length campaign goal.
4. Art/Performance - poet, singer, musical instrument player, baker
They want to be known socially as a great whatever. This may affect the DC when dealing with nobles and other socialites of the city.
5. Business - they can open and operate some kind of business that makes money. These make for fun adventure hooks when the business is threatened. Some groups open a shop to sell their lower level magic items.
6. Architecture/Engineering - some characters want to design and build it themselves.
7. Gambler - some players want to win when they play poker in the local tavern.
Some people will say I should just give them one of these skills. I believe though that not all these need to be in their background. A player could decide at 8th level he wants to be a poet. I think something they spend some effort to acquire will be valued far more than something just given.
a) Both of those words actually are gendered, so actually, no, you kinda did. But, yes. The designers of FATAL used that argument, as well.
b) You never addressed the first issue I had, which is, how are they different? One of them is classier? Maybe we should add an extra stat for high-end basket-weaving, so nobody gets the two confused?
c) It happens, that doesn't mean that having a stat for it improves the game.
In this particular case, quite the opposite, in fact. "It exists, therefore we need a stat for it" is, again, the operative philosophy that lead to FATAL. And, for that matter, often with a particular emphasis on crap like this.
Again, I really don't like invoking FATAL, it's really the Hitler of RPG debating. In this particular case, though, we're comparing the dictator of some small country who, y'know, only did a little ethnic cleansing to Hitler. In other words, the FATAL reference is at least a little apt. Even without the "We need game mechanics for hookers! Twice!" angle, these skills make 2e NWPs look non-redundant, succinct, and unlikely to result in ridiculous characters that lack critical skills, by comparison.
One of the wonderful things about doing something for free is you can do what you want. There is zero chance you will use this anyway. But I'll bite.
Ever see the movie "Dangerous Beauty"? There is a huge difference between a courtesan and a harlot of whatever sex.
Some of us are older than puberty. Some of us like to model the world as we see it. I doubt Amsterdam, Canada or other such countries were prostitution is legal would find your Hitler comparison apt. Regardless, you went there.
Here is a suggestion. Don't use it. Problem solved.
BTW I have to admit I added basket weaving just so folks would laugh. I think humor is an important part of role playing. In an equipment table hidden deep in one of my games is an electric torch, you know, a flashlight. You can't get batteries but it is there to see if people are reading.
Profession
Benefit: Choose a profession (examples include blacksmith, merchant, miner, cook, etc). When making ability checks, skill checks, or participating in skill challenges related to your chosen profession, you receive a +3 feat bonus to d20 rolls. You can take this feat multiple times, and each time you do, you may select a new profession.
Improved Profession
Benefit: Choose a profession (examples include blacksmith, merchant, miner, cook, etc) for which you have the Profession feat. Once per day, When making ability checks, skill checks, or participating in skill challenges related to your chosen profession, you can reroll a single d20 roll related to that profession. You must take the second result, even if it's lower.
That way, you can cut down on the long chart, and the real limit is what the Player and DM can agree is appropriate for their game.
As far the harlotry/courtesan deal. I didn't specify sex of the individual so it is hardly sexism. And let's face it. It happens.
I wasn't pointing it out because it was "sexist", I was pointing it out because of how absolutly silly it was that not only was "prostitue" seen as a valuable enough "secondary skill" for you to mention on your list, but it was mentioned twice. If you wanted, you could be a double hooker.
As for "it happens", yes, it does. I readily admit that a character having "was a prostitue" in their backstory might be a neat angle, I just can't help but feel that the motives for including it in purchasable skill lists is just so that males with juvenile minds can go "hur hur lol a prostitute let's have sexy!"
Back before I had a realy think about this situation, I made this... thing. It's fair, balanced, and doens't attempt to make an strange assumptions about the natures of bees or the arts.
As for "it happens", yes, it does. I readily admit that a character having "was a prostitue" in their backstory might be a neat angle, I just can't help but feel that the motives for including it in purchasable skill lists is just so that males with juvenile minds can go "hur hur lol a prostitute let's have sexy!"
That was my reaction, too; After all, each one of those skills is pretty narrowly defined, so it's difficult to see the relevance for any purpose other than RPing out sex scenes, and the "examples" certainly seem to compound the more FATAListic assumption that it's there for the reasons you mention.
Certainly, one can have a character like Firefly's Inara, or a sacred prostitute of a particular deity, or some such; but one could just as easily have the same character without rolling the dice to see how good they are at making the whoopie, and frankly, I could see that approach as rather detracting from the seriousness and maturity on the whole group's part that is necessary for such a character to work. 99.9% of the time once you've crossed the line to a BoEF-or-FATAL-esque "roll to see how good you are at it", you're not talking about a mature treatment of the topic.
I should start out by specifying what I would and would not want such a system to do. As I stated previously, I think the combination of overly narrow overspecificity and a list that overlaps significantly is kinda problematic. I further believe that such a system should lie largely orthogonal to the primary skill system. What I would like to see is something that provides a synergistic effect in some cases, but I'd also like to avoid a situation where skills fall more cleanly into the pre-existing system.
Further, I want organic combinations of skills to be viable. Again, if my woodsman can track and predict the weather, but not know what direction he's walking, there's a problem. If my trapper can't afford to hunt, track, build traps, and skin animals, once more, there's a problem. I personally am okay with this leading to fairly broad applications: I don't know of any cases that have called for a character who can specifically only make any sort of weapon at all, but not any armor or horseshoes. At least for my set of priorities, I'd rather have organic characters, and rule out some of the more bizarre autistic savant sorts of ideas.
So, let's get to it:
First, I do actually think the "specify a background and get a bonus to rolls related to it" is a fairly good system for handling this, so even of others don't like it, that's going to be my base. This may not work for everyone, but I'm going to try to craft it in such a way that it takes potential abuse into account, while still leaving an organic amount of flexibility.
Just to digress for a moment...
Just to digress for a moment, but even before 4e came out, I was an advocate of this approach. The reason for this was the manner in which the CraPPer skills actually get used. With very few exceptions, they are seldom used strictly as-written to gain a meagre income. Rather, the DM invents novel uses for them from whole cloth. Generally, I've seen those fall into two categories: duplicating the effects of a pre-existing skill, or a direct competition.
For example, let's take Profession (baker), an example from a discussion I had a year and a half ago, or so. Obviously, you could have a baking competition, but that just boils down to an opposed d20 roll, with an arbitrary net modifier based on whatever the DM wants it to be. In essence, a coin flip: not a terribly compelling rationale for a new subsystem, and also not a terribly common occurence. What's more likely is that the guy with Profession (baking) might want to try sneaking into the castle by pretending to be part of the cooking staff. In my experience, a DM will either call for a Profession check in addition to a disguise check (if he does not understand probability) or in lieu of one (if he's somewhat cannier about it). The problem arises that if you're adding an additional roll with either failure being attempt-ending, then your poor actual baker is more likely to get turned away than the con-man who knows nothing whatsoever about baking. That's clearly not our intent here, as this is a case of the skill making things more difficult. Now, if we're cannier about it, we might replace the disguise check with a Profession check to prove authenticity, but here, the problem we run into is that it still is unlikely to be good enough; not all skills are created equal, and whereas a Disguise check, which is used in opposed rolls vs Spot, needs to be constantly maintained through a career to be effective, the background relevance of a baking profession is easily represented by five ranks or fewer. Our poor con man who actually knows how to bake will never succeed in being more bakerlike, all things considered, than someone with no baking background trying to make the same lie.
So, and keep in mind that this is back in 3.5 that I'm talking about, I suggested what seemed to be the obvious solution: synergy bonuses. Make a disguise check, with a +2 bonus for having a relevant background skill. If you feel absolutely compelled to make the player roll, have the Profession roll determine by success or failure whether or not they gain the +2, but do not penalize them for trying to apply a relevant background skill and failing.
For example, let's take Profession (baker), an example from a discussion I had a year and a half ago, or so. Obviously, you could have a baking competition, but that just boils down to an opposed d20 roll, with an arbitrary net modifier based on whatever the DM wants it to be. In essence, a coin flip: not a terribly compelling rationale for a new subsystem, and also not a terribly common occurence. What's more likely is that the guy with Profession (baking) might want to try sneaking into the castle by pretending to be part of the cooking staff. In my experience, a DM will either call for a Profession check in addition to a disguise check (if he does not understand probability) or in lieu of one (if he's somewhat cannier about it). The problem arises that if you're adding an additional roll with either failure being attempt-ending, then your poor actual baker is more likely to get turned away than the con-man who knows nothing whatsoever about baking. That's clearly not our intent here, as this is a case of the skill making things more difficult. Now, if we're cannier about it, we might replace the disguise check with a Profession check to prove authenticity, but here, the problem we run into is that it still is unlikely to be good enough; not all skills are created equal, and whereas a Disguise check, which is used in opposed rolls vs Spot, needs to be constantly maintained through a career to be effective, the background relevance of a baking profession is easily represented by five ranks or fewer. Our poor con man who actually knows how to bake will never succeed in being more bakerlike, all things considered, than someone with no baking background trying to make the same lie.
So, and keep in mind that this is back in 3.5 that I'm talking about, I suggested what seemed to be the obvious solution: synergy bonuses. Make a disguise check, with a +2 bonus for having a relevant background skill. If you feel absolutely compelled to make the player roll, have the Profession roll determine by success or failure whether or not they gain the +2, but do not penalize them for trying to apply a relevant background skill and failing.
I do very much like the system you propose as well. And generic would be fine with me as well. The only thing is I tend to get very specific when I do design. For D&D I'd much rather use something WotC developed. I am hoping they do so eventually, that's all.
Just as an aside. In the system I supplied. All the most basic aspects were non check. I.e a Weaponmaking making basic weapons. The first easy roll began at the fix basic weapons. they all basically work that way. The easiest things that are done are automatic, the harder ones start off easy and work there way to hard.
Sometimes, sometimes not. See below.
I do very much like the system you propose as well. And generic would be fine with me as well. The only thing is I tend to get very specific when I do design. For D&D I'd much rather use something WotC developed. I am hoping they do so eventually, that's all.
Well, I used the word broad versus specific, rather than generic, for some rather intentional implications. The more finely detailed a system you come up with, particularly when you state that some form of "verisimilitude" is your goal, the more pressure you put on the system you develop to communicate strong knowledge on a subject. By contrast, in my system, all that needs to happen is DM and player agree on whether a particular thing is a job, and whether a particular action falls under that umbrella. There's a reason why no d20 supplement discusses psychology in more detail than a copypasta of the DSM-IV and a handwavy mechanic referring to weeks: if they went into any more detail, it would doubtless reveal a lack-of-knowledge on the subject. This means that people who cared enough about it to want finely-detailed information on psychology in their RPG would be disappointed, and those who don't would just be irked by the detail bloat. It's lose-lose.
This is actually why Vaal and I pointed out the Did Not Do The Research element. Just as a small set of examples, Writing engaging historical non-fiction is not actually any easier than writing stock fiction. Improv is a staple of acting school as an introduction to more advanced stage techniques, making your rankings of acting difficulty... odd, to say the least. Kink, or lack thereof, is by no means a skill-based quality, beyond a basic "do I know this exists" factor (an annoying take on sex that both FATAL and BoEF suffer from, btw, which is part of why I'm convinced that nobody who actually wants to treat sexuality with the maturity and consideration it deserves is actually using these sorts of roleplaying "rules"). Wet cooperage is a fundamental part of the craft, making your listings for that one bizarre. For that matter, if one is devoting a specific skill entry to it, and trying to make everything as quasi-archaic-sounding as possible (as you obviously were, e.g. 'harlotry'), one should at least be familiar enough with the profession to actually call it cooperage. There's a bunch more like this, too.
Royal Jelly isn't what you tihnk it is. Basically, failing that Hard DC makes that entry 'all the larve in your hive starve to death. Your hive will be dead by fall.
I will suggest 'transplant queen' as a replacement.
Again, I really don't like invoking FATAL, it's really the Hitler of RPG debating. In this particular case, though, we're comparing the dictator of some small country who, y'know, only did a little ethnic cleansing to Hitler. In other words, the FATAL reference is at least a little apt. Even without the "We need game mechanics for hookers! Twice!" angle, these skills make 2e NWPs look non-redundant, succinct, and unlikely to result in ridiculous characters that lack critical skills, by comparison.
calm down now, lets not get blown out of proportion. this list covers a lot of stuff, and its not like theres any imperative for someone to use those skills if they dont want to. Likewise, were talking about a fictional fantasy game where people can do whatever they want: its not like this is condoning any actual female degradation. If your not of the mind to even support that as an option, just dont use the list. and remember also that even if you feel your opinion on the matter is the right one, you arent going to persuade anyone by directing a hitler analogy at them.
In another lengthy discussion on this forum the lack of secondary skills in 4th edition or even need of secondary skills has been debated. I decided to be proactive.
Here is a secondary skill system for 4th edition. It is designed to be used with the skill challenges section in your DMG. This is offered as public domain, I am the author. Feel free to use, not use, add to, etc. Enjoy or not.
- Michael Tenery
IMO, there is no need for secondary skills. Player's need to write backgrounds.
The classes aren't really balanced with each other, are they? For example, the human perk and the gnome perk are nearly identical, except that the gnome's is clearly worse. Maybe allow gnomes to have 4 skills at a +3, rather than 3 at +3.
And dwarves vs teiflings. Dwarves always get +3 to a selected skill, but tieflings can only do that once per day, and they take 1d6 damage for the luxury. How about giving tieflings a +10 once per day instead.
Alternatively, tieflings could get 3 skills (like humans, since they once were human) but only get +4 in each for being trained. Also, they can take 1d6 for a +3 once per day.
We need Underwater Basketweaving!
I believe that's just a "hard" check with the basketweaving skill.
Also, Leichenreiter makes an important point. A problem you're going to run into with something like is that no matter how comprehensive your list, it will never be comprehensive enough for everybody.
That looks preeeee-eeeeeety comprehensive.
I'm sure some people want to use that.
The worse problem is that if you have 100's of skills then each one becomes so narrow that it is almost always useless and worst of all you end up with the ridiculosity of the guy that can find his direction anywhere, but can't hunt, fish, track, or any of the other things he could logically do (unless of course he spends his entire allotment of 3 or however many secondary skills on just those things, which sensibly go together).
Now, that example really equates to Nature skill, but there is a perfectly good argument for background "life" skills. But can we make the list MUCH shorter and more general? Like keep it to a dozen or so. That won't cover everything possible by any means but if you REALLY want basketry, then add it in! I would just like a more general skill like "domestic craft" and then let the player just note that they are specifically good at spinning in their character background if they want.
Which of course brings up that these should all be included in character backgrounds sort of like regular skills are for classes. OTOH why even put in those sorts of limits? I'm undecided.
But definitely would favor a shorter and more general list.
And of course, this guy is being sent to buy everything, so the PCs are going to be kitted out with equipment for +2 thier level AT LEAST.
Anyway, to each his own. I would also personally prefer a shorter and more general list, with character backgrounds that provide conditional bonuses to certain skills under certain circumstances. So having "rowing" as a skill could be represented as having an additional +3 bonus to athletics, but only when making a skill check that involves rowing. "Harlotry" could be represented as a conditional bonus to... er... diplomacy?
It amuses me that it includes things like "ventriloquism," "taxidermy," and (my favorite) "harlotry." Yet doesn't include "sailing," for instance. :P
What do you define as Sailing?
Arcana(Navigation by the stars)? Nature (weather prediction)? Athletics (running around the rigging)? Endurance (Even more running around in the rigging)? Diplomacy(Preventing mutiny)?
I'm sure I could think of several others, and that's just with the base 4E skills.
In another lengthy discussion on this forum the lack of secondary skills in 4th edition or even need of secondary skills has been debated. I decided to be proactive.
Here is a secondary skill system for 4th edition. It is designed to be used with the skill challenges section in your DMG. This is offered as public domain, I am the author. Feel free to use, not use, add to, etc. Enjoy or not.
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/the-true-dreamers/wikis/4th-ed-secondary-skills
For my own game I will discontinue its use when or if a better substitute gets officially released for 4thed from WotC.
- Michael Tenery
Seems kind of like a joke...
You're really going to make me roll to see if I can make a bar of soap, take a message, or write a poem?
"Do not speak unless it will improve on silence."
Terrific.
There are (at least) two skills on the list related to being a filthy *****.
Terrific.
Yes, Politics and Juggling are the bane of men.
Yes, Politics and Juggling are the bane of men.
Aren't some of these "secondary skills" stepping on the toes of the primary skills? I'm sure about half of those skills would be better handled by diplomacy...
Don't forget "Translation". Comprehend Language for free at-will FTW!
Otherwise, that list is insane. It's over-comprehensive, and a little bit too much. And it re-creates the problem that 4E skills solved, which is:
Why can you be incredible at Sword Making and not be trained in Metellurgy? Or a hundred other such examples? It's the classic "He can't jump for ****, but he can climb a glass tower with one hand" problem. Also known as the "He can pick pockets, but sleight of hand is another story, and forget lock-picking" problem.
There's just no need. It's too much.
As others have already said, it's over-specific, needlessly duplicate both primary skills (I count three that would be sub-uses of Heal, another five that are sub-uses of Diplomacy before touching the "perform" skills, and honestly, I lost both count and interest when trying to count the number that are simply sub-uses of Nature) and each other (what exactly is the difference between metallurgy, smithy, and weaponmaking/armoring? ::shudder:: Courtisan and harlotry?)
Other peeves are:
- The prostitution thing. Really, we've come way too far with this game to drop it back into that cesspit of sexism and immaturity. Honestly, as prejudicial and unfair as FATAL references often are (I honestly do thing there should be an RPG-equivalent to Godwin's law WRT it, truth be told), if there was ever a place where that "game" is an appropriate comparison, you just steered us into the middle of it.
- The Did Not Do The Research aspect that Vaal mentioned. Yes, I'm looking at you, beekeeping, brewing, psychology, philosophy, writing, acting, baking, administration... you get the idea.
First of all, I don't think we give the OP enough credit.
I just think that it means that some people don't feel obligated to preface their problems with his proposed system by patting him on the back and giving him a gold star for effort. It's very obvious that he put at least 10 to 20 minutes of solid work into this, but that doesn't somehow mean that he should be praised as some sort of visionary.
Just a quick thought before I turn in for the night... I see this list more as a specification of skills, not a replacement. I.E. A way for number crunchers to further specify in what realms of "nature" or such that they most excel. It seems more useful to me as a bevy of things from which to choose a +1 bonus. In this way, I can see it as a potentially fun and interesting supplement.
That's the thing though. All of this could be represented by giving a +X to appropriate skill or ability checks (which, if I remember correctly, is exactly what the backgrounds in the current rules are like) when it is related to the background skill you chose.
But then he throws a bunch of arbitrary charts on top of it that don't actually mean anything, and needlessly codifies everything. His chart is based completely on "Easy, Moderate, Hard", so apparently the DC to perform the same task increases as you level.
It's just so... redundant.
Added; Cartography, Navigate and Sail.
Gnome perk changed to 3 or 4 skills with reduced chance.
Tiefling bonus upped to +10 for daily.
Translate was never intended to allow some free languages merely to translate for others between them. That was noted.
As far as why someone would take certain skills, careful perusal will not some skills act as benefits for other skills. Artisan is a benefit to all good producing skills. Metallurgy is a benefit to all skills that use metals, etc., etc.
I knew the basket weaving would get a chuckle. But people have it and it is amazing what some people can do with it.
As far the harlotry/courtesan deal. I didn't specify sex of the individual so it is hardly sexism. And let's face it. It happens.
Thanks for your feedback.
Really nice work. I was thinking to make one for my own but you saved me the effort But the racial bonuses are not really needed. Just drop them. Let the secondary skills be something independent.
As far the harlotry/courtesan deal. I didn't specify sex of the individual so it is hardly sexism. And let's face it. It happens.
a) Both of those words actually are gendered, so actually, no, you kinda did. But, yes. The designers of FATAL used that argument, as well.
b) You never addressed the first issue I had, which is, how are they different? One of them is classier? Maybe we should add an extra stat for high-end basket-weaving, so nobody gets the two confused?
c) It happens, that doesn't mean that having a stat for it improves the game.
In this particular case, quite the opposite, in fact. "It exists, therefore we need a stat for it" is, again, the operative philosophy that lead to FATAL. And, for that matter, often with a particular emphasis on crap like this.
Again, I really don't like invoking FATAL, it's really the Hitler of RPG debating. In this particular case, though, we're comparing the dictator of some small country who, y'know, only did a little ethnic cleansing to Hitler. In other words, the FATAL reference is at least a little apt. Even without the "We need game mechanics for hookers! Twice!" angle, these skills make 2e NWPs look non-redundant, succinct, and unlikely to result in ridiculous characters that lack critical skills, by comparison.
An easier system would be:
1. It takes this much effort by a player to advance a single skill.
2. Player suggests he wants to be good at something or know something not covered by 4e skills.
3. DM suggests to player how many skills it might take to fully meet that concept. In some cases DM may say that what the player is wanting is trivial enough it doesn't need its own skill.
As the campaign progresses the player does whatever the DM lays out to improve his characters skill(s). At the appropriate time those skills come into play and the player is rewarded.
1. Military Generalship - command armies.
In my world occasionally you might have to have your army defend your castle.
2. Languages - I removed this from the in game feat system.
I find instantaneous understanding of new languages kinda versimilitude sapping. Also I like different levels of language understanding. Fluent to lousy.
3. Crafting - typically weapons.
Many characters want to make the ultimate whatever. Forge a mighty weapon of power. I usually make this a full length campaign goal.
4. Art/Performance - poet, singer, musical instrument player, baker
They want to be known socially as a great whatever. This may affect the DC when dealing with nobles and other socialites of the city.
5. Business - they can open and operate some kind of business that makes money. These make for fun adventure hooks when the business is threatened. Some groups open a shop to sell their lower level magic items.
6. Architecture/Engineering - some characters want to design and build it themselves.
7. Gambler - some players want to win when they play poker in the local tavern.
Some people will say I should just give them one of these skills. I believe though that not all these need to be in their background. A player could decide at 8th level he wants to be a poet. I think something they spend some effort to acquire will be valued far more than something just given.
a) Both of those words actually are gendered, so actually, no, you kinda did. But, yes. The designers of FATAL used that argument, as well.
b) You never addressed the first issue I had, which is, how are they different? One of them is classier? Maybe we should add an extra stat for high-end basket-weaving, so nobody gets the two confused?
c) It happens, that doesn't mean that having a stat for it improves the game.
In this particular case, quite the opposite, in fact. "It exists, therefore we need a stat for it" is, again, the operative philosophy that lead to FATAL. And, for that matter, often with a particular emphasis on crap like this.
Again, I really don't like invoking FATAL, it's really the Hitler of RPG debating. In this particular case, though, we're comparing the dictator of some small country who, y'know, only did a little ethnic cleansing to Hitler. In other words, the FATAL reference is at least a little apt. Even without the "We need game mechanics for hookers! Twice!" angle, these skills make 2e NWPs look non-redundant, succinct, and unlikely to result in ridiculous characters that lack critical skills, by comparison.
One of the wonderful things about doing something for free is you can do what you want. There is zero chance you will use this anyway. But I'll bite.
Ever see the movie "Dangerous Beauty"? There is a huge difference between a courtesan and a harlot of whatever sex.
Some of us are older than puberty. Some of us like to model the world as we see it. I doubt Amsterdam, Canada or other such countries were prostitution is legal would find your Hitler comparison apt. Regardless, you went there.
Here is a suggestion. Don't use it. Problem solved.
BTW I have to admit I added basket weaving just so folks would laugh. I think humor is an important part of role playing. In an equipment table hidden deep in one of my games is an electric torch, you know, a flashlight. You can't get batteries but it is there to see if people are reading.
Profession
Benefit: Choose a profession (examples include blacksmith, merchant, miner, cook, etc). When making ability checks, skill checks, or participating in skill challenges related to your chosen profession, you receive a +3 feat bonus to d20 rolls. You can take this feat multiple times, and each time you do, you may select a new profession.
Improved Profession
Benefit: Choose a profession (examples include blacksmith, merchant, miner, cook, etc) for which you have the Profession feat. Once per day, When making ability checks, skill checks, or participating in skill challenges related to your chosen profession, you can reroll a single d20 roll related to that profession. You must take the second result, even if it's lower.
That way, you can cut down on the long chart, and the real limit is what the Player and DM can agree is appropriate for their game.
As far the harlotry/courtesan deal. I didn't specify sex of the individual so it is hardly sexism. And let's face it. It happens.
I wasn't pointing it out because it was "sexist", I was pointing it out because of how absolutly silly it was that not only was "prostitue" seen as a valuable enough "secondary skill" for you to mention on your list, but it was mentioned twice. If you wanted, you could be a double hooker.
As for "it happens", yes, it does. I readily admit that a character having "was a prostitue" in their backstory might be a neat angle, I just can't help but feel that the motives for including it in purchasable skill lists is just so that males with juvenile minds can go "hur hur lol a prostitute let's have sexy!"
Back before I had a realy think about this situation, I made this... thing. It's fair, balanced, and doens't attempt to make an strange assumptions about the natures of bees or the arts.
As for "it happens", yes, it does. I readily admit that a character having "was a prostitue" in their backstory might be a neat angle, I just can't help but feel that the motives for including it in purchasable skill lists is just so that males with juvenile minds can go "hur hur lol a prostitute let's have sexy!"
That was my reaction, too; After all, each one of those skills is pretty narrowly defined, so it's difficult to see the relevance for any purpose other than RPing out sex scenes, and the "examples" certainly seem to compound the more FATAListic assumption that it's there for the reasons you mention.
Certainly, one can have a character like Firefly's Inara, or a sacred prostitute of a particular deity, or some such; but one could just as easily have the same character without rolling the dice to see how good they are at making the whoopie, and frankly, I could see that approach as rather detracting from the seriousness and maturity on the whole group's part that is necessary for such a character to work. 99.9% of the time once you've crossed the line to a BoEF-or-FATAL-esque "roll to see how good you are at it", you're not talking about a mature treatment of the topic.
I should start out by specifying what I would and would not want such a system to do. As I stated previously, I think the combination of overly narrow overspecificity and a list that overlaps significantly is kinda problematic. I further believe that such a system should lie largely orthogonal to the primary skill system. What I would like to see is something that provides a synergistic effect in some cases, but I'd also like to avoid a situation where skills fall more cleanly into the pre-existing system.
Further, I want organic combinations of skills to be viable. Again, if my woodsman can track and predict the weather, but not know what direction he's walking, there's a problem. If my trapper can't afford to hunt, track, build traps, and skin animals, once more, there's a problem. I personally am okay with this leading to fairly broad applications: I don't know of any cases that have called for a character who can specifically only make any sort of weapon at all, but not any armor or horseshoes. At least for my set of priorities, I'd rather have organic characters, and rule out some of the more bizarre autistic savant sorts of ideas.
So, let's get to it:
First, I do actually think the "specify a background and get a bonus to rolls related to it" is a fairly good system for handling this, so even of others don't like it, that's going to be my base. This may not work for everyone, but I'm going to try to craft it in such a way that it takes potential abuse into account, while still leaving an organic amount of flexibility.
Just to digress for a moment...
Just to digress for a moment, but even before 4e came out, I was an advocate of this approach. The reason for this was the manner in which the CraPPer skills actually get used. With very few exceptions, they are seldom used strictly as-written to gain a meagre income. Rather, the DM invents novel uses for them from whole cloth. Generally, I've seen those fall into two categories: duplicating the effects of a pre-existing skill, or a direct competition.
For example, let's take Profession (baker), an example from a discussion I had a year and a half ago, or so. Obviously, you could have a baking competition, but that just boils down to an opposed d20 roll, with an arbitrary net modifier based on whatever the DM wants it to be. In essence, a coin flip: not a terribly compelling rationale for a new subsystem, and also not a terribly common occurence. What's more likely is that the guy with Profession (baking) might want to try sneaking into the castle by pretending to be part of the cooking staff. In my experience, a DM will either call for a Profession check in addition to a disguise check (if he does not understand probability) or in lieu of one (if he's somewhat cannier about it). The problem arises that if you're adding an additional roll with either failure being attempt-ending, then your poor actual baker is more likely to get turned away than the con-man who knows nothing whatsoever about baking. That's clearly not our intent here, as this is a case of the skill making things more difficult. Now, if we're cannier about it, we might replace the disguise check with a Profession check to prove authenticity, but here, the problem we run into is that it still is unlikely to be good enough; not all skills are created equal, and whereas a Disguise check, which is used in opposed rolls vs Spot, needs to be constantly maintained through a career to be effective, the background relevance of a baking profession is easily represented by five ranks or fewer. Our poor con man who actually knows how to bake will never succeed in being more bakerlike, all things considered, than someone with no baking background trying to make the same lie.
So, and keep in mind that this is back in 3.5 that I'm talking about, I suggested what seemed to be the obvious solution: synergy bonuses. Make a disguise check, with a +2 bonus for having a relevant background skill. If you feel absolutely compelled to make the player roll, have the Profession roll determine by success or failure whether or not they gain the +2, but do not penalize them for trying to apply a relevant background skill and failing.
For example, let's take Profession (baker), an example from a discussion I had a year and a half ago, or so. Obviously, you could have a baking competition, but that just boils down to an opposed d20 roll, with an arbitrary net modifier based on whatever the DM wants it to be. In essence, a coin flip: not a terribly compelling rationale for a new subsystem, and also not a terribly common occurence. What's more likely is that the guy with Profession (baking) might want to try sneaking into the castle by pretending to be part of the cooking staff. In my experience, a DM will either call for a Profession check in addition to a disguise check (if he does not understand probability) or in lieu of one (if he's somewhat cannier about it). The problem arises that if you're adding an additional roll with either failure being attempt-ending, then your poor actual baker is more likely to get turned away than the con-man who knows nothing whatsoever about baking. That's clearly not our intent here, as this is a case of the skill making things more difficult. Now, if we're cannier about it, we might replace the disguise check with a Profession check to prove authenticity, but here, the problem we run into is that it still is unlikely to be good enough; not all skills are created equal, and whereas a Disguise check, which is used in opposed rolls vs Spot, needs to be constantly maintained through a career to be effective, the background relevance of a baking profession is easily represented by five ranks or fewer. Our poor con man who actually knows how to bake will never succeed in being more bakerlike, all things considered, than someone with no baking background trying to make the same lie.
So, and keep in mind that this is back in 3.5 that I'm talking about, I suggested what seemed to be the obvious solution: synergy bonuses. Make a disguise check, with a +2 bonus for having a relevant background skill. If you feel absolutely compelled to make the player roll, have the Profession roll determine by success or failure whether or not they gain the +2, but do not penalize them for trying to apply a relevant background skill and failing.
I do very much like the system you propose as well. And generic would be fine with me as well. The only thing is I tend to get very specific when I do design. For D&D I'd much rather use something WotC developed. I am hoping they do so eventually, that's all.
Just as an aside. In the system I supplied. All the most basic aspects were non check. I.e a Weaponmaking making basic weapons. The first easy roll began at the fix basic weapons. they all basically work that way. The easiest things that are done are automatic, the harder ones start off easy and work there way to hard.
Sometimes, sometimes not. See below.
I do very much like the system you propose as well. And generic would be fine with me as well. The only thing is I tend to get very specific when I do design. For D&D I'd much rather use something WotC developed. I am hoping they do so eventually, that's all.
Well, I used the word broad versus specific, rather than generic, for some rather intentional implications. The more finely detailed a system you come up with, particularly when you state that some form of "verisimilitude" is your goal, the more pressure you put on the system you develop to communicate strong knowledge on a subject. By contrast, in my system, all that needs to happen is DM and player agree on whether a particular thing is a job, and whether a particular action falls under that umbrella. There's a reason why no d20 supplement discusses psychology in more detail than a copypasta of the DSM-IV and a handwavy mechanic referring to weeks: if they went into any more detail, it would doubtless reveal a lack-of-knowledge on the subject. This means that people who cared enough about it to want finely-detailed information on psychology in their RPG would be disappointed, and those who don't would just be irked by the detail bloat. It's lose-lose.
This is actually why Vaal and I pointed out the Did Not Do The Research element. Just as a small set of examples, Writing engaging historical non-fiction is not actually any easier than writing stock fiction. Improv is a staple of acting school as an introduction to more advanced stage techniques, making your rankings of acting difficulty... odd, to say the least. Kink, or lack thereof, is by no means a skill-based quality, beyond a basic "do I know this exists" factor (an annoying take on sex that both FATAL and BoEF suffer from, btw, which is part of why I'm convinced that nobody who actually wants to treat sexuality with the maturity and consideration it deserves is actually using these sorts of roleplaying "rules"). Wet cooperage is a fundamental part of the craft, making your listings for that one bizarre. For that matter, if one is devoting a specific skill entry to it, and trying to make everything as quasi-archaic-sounding as possible (as you obviously were, e.g. 'harlotry'), one should at least be familiar enough with the profession to actually call it cooperage. There's a bunch more like this, too.
Royal Jelly isn't what you tihnk it is. Basically, failing that Hard DC makes that entry 'all the larve in your hive starve to death. Your hive will be dead by fall.
I will suggest 'transplant queen' as a replacement.
Again, I really don't like invoking FATAL, it's really the Hitler of RPG debating. In this particular case, though, we're comparing the dictator of some small country who, y'know, only did a little ethnic cleansing to Hitler. In other words, the FATAL reference is at least a little apt. Even without the "We need game mechanics for hookers! Twice!" angle, these skills make 2e NWPs look non-redundant, succinct, and unlikely to result in ridiculous characters that lack critical skills, by comparison.
calm down now, lets not get blown out of proportion. this list covers a lot of stuff, and its not like theres any imperative for someone to use those skills if they dont want to. Likewise, were talking about a fictional fantasy game where people can do whatever they want: its not like this is condoning any actual female degradation. If your not of the mind to even support that as an option, just dont use the list. and remember also that even if you feel your opinion on the matter is the right one, you arent going to persuade anyone by directing a hitler analogy at them.