For reference my top 3 of Warhammer fantasy roleplay careers where:
1) Seaman
2) Peasant
3) Muleskinner
I can't really say with past editions, I am not as well versed with those as I am with 4th.
However, you gain a couple of levels -- and a peasant is nothing to you but a ... peasant. You're knights and wizards.
You can certainly begin your life as having been a peasant, a sailor or whatever, but I think you'll then need to figure out why you then became an adventurer.
I think a Ranger or Rogue would be a natural progression from "sailor." You can be athletic, wield cutlasses and such -- like a pirate. Rangers would probably fit as skinners, though I'm not sure how many mules are going to have skin worth taking.
A peasant could become nearly anything, but maybe you're good at farming so you go with plant-based Druid or a Cleric of an Agricultural deity or the like.
If you simply mean flavour-wise, I think the idea of the classes are that they are architypes, not always hard and fast job descriptions. Nothing stops a plain and simple blacksmith from having had to do work and get the feel for weapons he has building, to the point he has proficiency. Nothing says that combat challenge is a learned skill - it almost coming from the nature of the fighter that they are simply tough and intimidating and they will not back down. IT's focus as much as training.
You can use your skill choice, feat choice, and power choice (plus the more flexible nature of armour versus dexterity/intelligence bonus) to create a fighter who flavour-wise would feel like a common men pressed into action instead of a tank, while still having the D&D label of 'fighter'.
I built a control wizard once to join a game if a second PC was needed, and until the firts spell would be cast, he would have seemed like a rogue/thief. Very much an everyman who had stolen books and studied spells, but his focus was always on exploration. His rituals for very much utility for that purpose, etc.
it's the same reason why me (a TechSupportGuy) doesn't grab a hockey mask & baseball bat and start roaming the night a-la Casey Jones screaming "Goongola!" on every rowdy frat bro i meet.
somethings are best left to the professionals: the guys with PC classes.
D&D assumes your character is skilled, competant, trained or whatnot. you've spent a several years as a guard and done training under a proper master, you've graduaded from mageschool and mageacademy and spent a few years doing research and you're ready to field test it, or you're a newbie who happens to be naturally skilled with a weapon.
you can be a blacksmith or whatnot, and the DMGs encourage GMs to say yes to these "pre-adventurer" professions and even have a few written down, mostly you get bonuses to a few skills, or have some added to your skill list, and you're assumed to know the trade: a tanner can skin and prepare animal hides, a blacksmith can make weapons, a chef can cook good food, ect...
In 4th ed(and 3.5 or Pathfinder)
A seaman could be Fighter, rogue or even a bard but in 4th ed you are assumed to be elevated from the common dross due to your ability to do the exceptional.
A peasant\muleskinner fighter or rogue would have an encounter and a daily but could begin his career using a simple club and leather armour.
So in short with 4th edition you build the character background and equipment representing the characters start.
I don't know which edition you're playing, but in the 3.5 edition the DMG has "NPC classes" that are not typically as strong as PC classes, but can be good for flavoring your character. The NPC classes are Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, and Warrior. I don't think 4th edition has these available, but you can talk to your DM about it.
4th edition.
mostly because your average Seaman, Peasant or Muleskinner have no place in a dungeon. there's a reason my dad (a common fisherman in his mid-50s) doesn't grab his hunting rifle and goes travelling the world to shoot down terrorists, pirates and random criminals: it's too dangerous.
That has never been a problem in warhammer fantasy roleplay, one thinks up a reason for adventuring (can be as simple as having to get money to survive, losing his ship or just stumble into adventure by being at the wrong place at the wrong time).
I quess these classes aren't avaiable then.....oh well...I'll probobly manage without them. I might finish the peasant class I started to homebrew a while ago though (uses weapons and peasant superstition to fight the scary monsters of the world).
What you said about warhammer roleplay is equal true in DnD. I have a shapeshifter warlock who was a con-man/drifter. He made a pact with a dark entity so he could travel into the underdark and find his lost fiancee (no, she didnt fall in love with a drifter. He was disguised as a rich human merchant! We'll see how his real identity goes over when he gets her back). No prior experience with combat or magic, just an overwhelming desire to get back the one person who means something to him.
The thing about 4th edition is that there really isn't any reason for your traveling companions to haul your butt around if you can't offer something more than any other random peasant. You don't even have to be great at combat. Some characters thrive because of their high non-combat skills. But you do have to have some kind of special talent that can play anywhere. Not sure there are a lot of mules in the Astral Sea.
I think the point being made here is that peasantfolk, ordinary people, hell even ordinary warriors aren't typically given stats or a class, especially if it's to tell the backstory of a particular player character, particularly because he is an ordinary character.
There is no mechanical support for the backstory, specifically because it IS the backstory -- the story behind the story. This is the player trying to give life to his character, putting him beyond just a bunch of stats and equipment.
Now if you want your backstory to be your main story, then it can easily be waived by the DM (see my suggestion above).
- - - - -
Just to show you what I'm talking about, here's my Dwarf Monk's backstory: he was once a battlerager of his clan - he never says what his clan name is - who sent him and his comrades into orc tribes to destroy them. There was this one particular raid, however, that nearly obliterated both sides... nearly because he was the sole survivor. Instead of being showered with praise and glory, several clansmen, jealous of his status, accused him of surviving by running away from battle at the last minute, and created fictional evidence to support their claims. He left in shame, and decided to abandon the ways of the hammer and axe, and soon learned the way of the fist instead (from his long travels, meditation and self-training). He still craves for battle from time to time, however, so the moment his services were needed -- regardless of the reason or the target -- he would go there... perhaps in part to try and kill himself, and ease his sorrows.
[ Background: Brother in Battle, Orc Slayer (Forgeborn Dwarf background) ]
If I was to mechanically put in his stats before he became a monk, should I put him as Battlerage Vigor Fighter at level 0? What would be the amount of XP he got before he became a Monk? What is the mechanical procedure he would have to undertake before becoming a Monk? What would happen to the stats he would have been trained in as a fighter?
Simply put, because it is the player who makes the story and not the DM, the player has as much control as he wants over what his character did and who his character interacted with before he set out into the DM's story... and the DM would then have the material he could use to weave the character's backstory into his story. For instance, for my dwarf monk, perhaps several of his former clansmen would bump into him, or he might find that Orcs either fear him because of his reputation -- in which the DM might have minions intentionally avoiding him at all costs, regardless of numbers -- or the stronger Orc warriors might want to have his head as their trophy, to show that they have killed the fearsome Orc Slayer (so in this case even if my monk was down and normally they would ignore him, they would automatically attempt to behead him [killing him]).
- - - - -
Unless the DM really wants you guys to play as minions (regular folk) until a certain point in his story, I really don't see why you couldn't just reflavor the classes and roleplay them as "class X" until you decide that he's better called as his class.
Heck, I still roleplay my Fighter to be a skulking [somewhat money-grubbing] rogue who happens to sideline as a bartender from time to time in Baldur's Gate, whenever there isn't any adventure to be had. I still argue with my DM from time to time on his alignment (he sometimes question why I placed "Good" instead of "Unaligned", and I usually tell him I'm "Chaotic Good", so while I have ideals geared towards helping others, I have no second thoughts on doing what is questionable by some).
I have a character who's backstory is that he is a half-orc chef, he thinks of himself as a culianary genious , but his abrasive manners has gotten him fired from every Inn and tavern around. So he's constantly searching the world for new flavors. If he sees trolls eating corpses he'll ask them what kind of spices they use before fighting them. For a class I chose warlords (anyone who's worked in a kitchen will know why) He basically spends much of his time bossing around his companions (his at-wills allow other characters to make attacks), encouraging them with his words (his healing abilities), and trying to control the battlefield. When he fights he uses a giant cleaver (reflavored greatsword). I tried to make his powers seem as mundane as those of any head chef and for now it works.
But as far as staying a peasant, these classes will soon become much more powerful than your average joe. And that's how it has to be, the average commoner won't last a minute against the kind of dangers this game was set up for. If you decided to make a peasant class, it would only appear like other commoners for the first few levels, then it would just be another heroic class. I don't want to discourage you from doing so, because I think a lot of people, myself included, are interested in playing these kinds of characters.
I've been considering that the next time I start a new campaign to begin with the characters as commoners and graduate them to heroic classes by the end of the first session. I was thinking they'd start with HP equal to thier CON and have 1 or 2 skills trained. Then as they progressed they'd gain more of thier powers until they finished by earning a daily power. I haven't really worked out all the details but it seems like a good way to make players appreciate that their characters are more than just some guy off the street.
That has never been a problem in warhammer fantasy roleplay, one thinks up a reason for adventuring (can be as simple as having to get money to survive, losing his ship or just stumble into adventure by being at the wrong place at the wrong time).
a muleskinner is a job, not a class in D&D. a class is nothing more then a grouping of thematic abilities and has only as much bearing on your backstory as you want it to.
a Fighter can be a cleric
a Cleric can be a theif
a Barbarian can be a muleskinner
a Rogue a potential fisherman
i don't know how tied to your backstory a class is in WH, but in D&D not so much. a farmboy can very well be a Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Assassin.
D&D generally assumes "stuff happened, now you're adventuring" . "stuff happened" is usually your background up until you became an adventurer, which includes your past jobs (if any), and usually up to the GM to decide what benefits, if any, that gives you.
what benefits would a commoner, muleskinner, fisherman, ect... have that fighter, ranger & barbarian don't?
what benefits would a commoner, muleskinner, fisherman, ect... have that fighter, ranger & barbarian don't?
commoner differs depending on type, muleskinner are good at skinning and heabutting mules, fishermen at fishing and peasants at farming.
heabutting mules
Why do I get the feeling we're being trolled? And I know a couple things about trolls...
Continuing to give you the benefit of the doubt: none of the things you listed have any relevant mechanical impact in a game of 4E. It's all behind the scenes and ultimately irrelevant to the class you've chosen. You say "I'm a muleskinner, I'm good at skinning mules," the DM responds "Okay," and then your Warlock goes back to saving the town from undead marauders via curses and eldritch flame.
If skinning mules is something your party really gets into, the DM is free to set the DC and pick the skill or check, but it doesn't have any direct bearing on class or statistics.
You can get away with just being Joe Schmoe for most of Heroic Tier, but once you step into Paragon, you're pretty much assumed to be on par with kings and renowned heroes. Your DM is, again, free to play that a completely different way, but any official modules you acquire will have that baseline assumption.
In 4e you start out as a badass and just become more badass as time goes on. =/
This was one of my biggest beefs with 4e early on. I liked the feel you got in 3.5 and earlier editions at low levels that you weren't much better than the commonfolk around you. I like the story of the common soldier/lay priest/hedge wizard rising above his beginnings and growing into a powerful hero.
In 4e you start out as a badass and just become more badass as time goes on. =/
Not really anything wrong with that in most campaigns. If you're out to save the world, getting your ass kicked by rats in a barn is not exactly a good sign of your ability to do so.
This was one of my biggest beefs with 4e early on. I liked the feel you got in 3.5 and earlier editions at low levels that you weren't much better than the commonfolk around you. I like the story of the common soldier/lay priest/hedge wizard rising above his beginnings and growing into a powerful hero.
In 4e you start out as a badass and just become more badass as time goes on. =/
Couldn't 1st level Wizards be one shotted by housecats in earlier editions or am I mistaken?
EDIT: TOTALLY got my joke one-shotted by MusicOfCreation.
This was one of my biggest beefs with 4e early on. I liked the feel you got in 3.5 and earlier editions at low levels that you weren't much better than the commonfolk around you. I like the story of the common soldier/lay priest/hedge wizard rising above his beginnings and growing into a powerful hero.In 4e you start out as a badass and just become more badass as time goes on. =/
I dunno, when playing Icewind Dale & Icewind Dale 2 -- which I'm sure was built around the 2nd ed rules, at least -- I never felt I "wasn't much better than the commonfolk around me"; I still felt I was an adventurer, and not just any Joe Shmuck trying to make a living. Neverwinter Nights (especially NWN2, which I think was more 3.xx) was the one that made me feel like half the time I was a carpenter, a blacksmith, or a tanner, because of those crafting skills...
... now that I think about it, it felt rather stupid that for me to be an excellent blacksmith, I had to be a mass murderer...
Anyway, if you want the same feel of being not-cut-above-the-rest, start at level 1, and face off a mob of level 4+ non-minion opponents... like maybe 20+ kobolds. I doubt you wouldn't start running like the rest of the townsfolk after a few rounds...
Oh, and have the DM rule that you weren't able to complete an extended rest, so at best you start off with half your healing surges and only at-wills & encounter powers (no dailies).
It does sort of seem like you are fighting the system if you want to play that sort of game in 4th ed. I think there are better games for capturing the feel of not being all that powerful, where you have to beware of the housecats and such.
What if you give your character that "common man" feel by changing the starting equipment and money? [...] But at the start of the game all you have is some ratty old hide armor, a pointy stick and 12 copper pieces.
To be fair, that's pretty much what you actually get at first level.
what benefits would a commoner, muleskinner, fisherman, ect... have that fighter, ranger & barbarian don't?
commoner differs depending on type, muleskinner are good at skinning and heabutting mules, fishermen at fishing and peasants at farming.
skinning, fishing & farming aren't things you should be rolling for. they are best served through backgrounds where your character has all information and skill needed to succeed at those tasks without rolling, barring extreme situations (skinning an alien creature from elemental chaos, having to set your lines & nets in the midst of a storm, trying to grow crops in infertile soil).
even then you probably shouldn't roll for your skill, you'd roll for the distraction. a skinner would roll his arcana check to see if he can identify the anatonomy of the creature, the fisherman would probably roll athletics to steady his boat in the storm and the farmer would roll nature to try to find how to make the land more hospitable for seeding.
a skinner knows how to skin animals, a fisherman how to set his nets & traps and a farmer knows how to handle his animals & sow seeds. if your skill is so low that your chance of failure can be properly expressed on a d20 roll... you shouldn't be calling yourself someone of that profession.
as for headbutting mules... what?
what benefits would a commoner, muleskinner, fisherman, ect... have that fighter, ranger & barbarian don't?
commoner differs depending on type, muleskinner are good at skinning and heabutting mules, fishermen at fishing and peasants at farming.
skinning, fishing & farming aren't things you should be rolling for. they are best served through backgrounds where your character has all information and skill needed to succeed at those tasks without rolling, barring extreme situations (skinning an alien creature from elemental chaos, having to set your lines & nets in the midst of a storm, trying to grow crops in infertile soil).
even then you probably shouldn't roll for your skill, you'd roll for the distraction. a skinner would roll his arcana check to see if he can identify the anatonomy of the creature, the fisherman would probably roll athletics to steady his boat in the storm and the farmer would roll nature to try to find how to make the land more hospitable for seeding.
a skinner knows how to skin animals, a fisherman how to set his nets & traps and a farmer knows how to handle his animals & sow seeds. if your skill is so low that your chance of failure can be properly expressed on a d20 roll... you shouldn't be calling yourself someone of that profession.
as for headbutting mules... what?
Why aren't there rules for heroic farming, fishing and skinning? Allright it would take alot of room for something that wouldn't be too popular so I quess I understand it (though fishing for Krakens and making cloths of them would be quite cool).
But I think I got it, might try out a Muleskinner/Fighter in the next game I will play (though striker classes might fit better for people that can skin live mules in 5 minutes so it might be ranger or rouge). A skill specialisation in nature might do for skinner or if the DM allows it I might customise a +5 skinning feat.
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.
As for headbutting mules, sometimes it's faster and cooler then reaching for your knife and that is important when you try to get the best time on skinning mules in the area.
But I think the point, which you've already sort of stated, is that 4e just isn't that kind of game. It's not really a pity that 4e doesn't have these rules, any more than if you said "you know, it's really a pity that chess doesn't have boobs." There are games that have that, but chess isn't one of them.
There aren't rules for farming, fishing, or skinning because it would make the game needlessly complicated to have rules for every mundane task the characters want to undertake. The skills listed in 4e pretty much encapsulate anything you might want to do. As already pointed out, regular old farming, fishing, etc. can be accomplished without any need for a skill check assuming you already stated that you were a fisher, farmer, whatever in your old life. Performing a task under difficult conditions can be assessed using an appropriate skill check, in this case probably nature for all three of the examples given.
But I think the point, which you've already sort of stated, is that 4e just isn't that kind of game. It's not really a pity that 4e doesn't have these rules, any more than if you said "you know, it's really a pity that chess doesn't have boobs." There are games that have that, but chess isn't one of them.
And why not? Boobs are good! I say, put boobs on chess, even on the King and Rooks!
[/hijack]
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.
This is, actually, one of those games.
Why aren't there rules for heroic farming, fishing and skinning? Allright it would take alot of room for something that wouldn't be too popular so I quess I understand it (though fishing for Krakens and making cloths of them would be quite cool).
But I think I got it, might try out a Muleskinner/Fighter in the next game I will play (though striker classes might fit better for people that can skin live mules in 5 minutes so it might be ranger or rouge). A skill specialisation in nature might do for skinner or if the DM allows it I might customise a +5 skinning feat.
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.
As for headbutting mules, sometimes it's faster and cooler then reaching for your knife and that is important when you try to get the best time on skinning mules in the area.
you want to know what's truly frightening... GURPS (at least the Basic Set: Characters book) doesn't have a rule for skinning.
it has a farming skill... that essentially says "this is used to earn a living (doesn't go into any details on this). also: answer agricultural questions (doesn't go into details)". fishing is "you can catch fish (this is a success/fail check, with no other details). also: make improvised fishing gear" both take up less then 5 lines on 3 column page at a font maybe 1 point smaller then your average D&D book's.
rules are made to cover conflicts you can interact with. farming, fishing & skinning are pretty much "passive" skills. it's VERY difficult to actually fail at those tasks once you know how to do them (especially well enough that you can call it your profession), and the main reason people fail is due to outside reasons (the weather becomes cold faster this year, destroying the crops before they could be harvested properly, the weather is horrible so you can't go out to sea/the area was over-fished and now there is none there/pollution, ect...). the chance of failure due to the "professional's" ability can probably not be properly expressed by a d20 roll.
combat is a conflict you interact with on several levels in a short amount of time. haggling for purchases/services is a conflict you interact with on several levels in. gathering intel off a captured enemy is a conflict you interadct with on several levels.
farming's conflicts are a result due to farming itself. it's an outside force imposing itself on your farm (weather, insects, theifs, ect...). farming isn't the only one here either: craftsmen, fisherman, skinners, carpenters, boatbuilders, ect... unless you're actually incompetent (IE: doing something you're not trained to do) it's damned hard to screw up these jobs. it just takes a prolonged time to do, is all, but it's actually quite hard to "fail" at them.
headbutting/punching/kicking, in D&D terms, is an unarmed attack and anyone can do it. as for "best skinning times in the area", now you're in the territory of "corner cases", which NO RPG should try to cover all of. i would rather D&D stick to it's genres and tropes rather then try to be a "catch all".
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.
I'm still curious what commoner classes would bring to the game. I can see the appeal of starting out a little weaker, but what is the appeal of playing even five encounters as a serf, except to live through it and take a "real" class.
What weapons would a serf know how to use? Or a fisherman? Or a tanner? A serf knows how to use a ho to till a field, but if their laird discovered that the serf was attempting to learn how to fight with it, he would be arrested for sedition in a heartbeat. I suppose fishermen get into fights with their fists. The knife a tanner uses for his profession would be ill suited for combat.
While a lot of fantasy fiction has heroes with humble beginnings, they don't rely on those humble skills for long. They develop new skills to help them survive in the wider world they find themselves in, and they develop them quickly or they die.
The Wheel of Time series is a great example of "commoner" heroes. Rand al'Thor may have been raised as a farmer, but it was the sword forms his father taught him that enabled him to live long enough to become Dragon Reborn (I guess in 4e, he would be a Swordmage). Mat Cauthon was also raised as a farmer, but his quick wit served him well in the attack on Two Rivers, and his quick hand with a dagger served him well afterwards, until he became the hero he is now (probably a Hybrid Rogue / Warlord). Perrin Aybara was brought up to be a blacksmith, but it wasn't his ability to shoe a horse that let him survive the attack on Two Rivers, but his prodigious strength. Under the tutlage of others, he quickly turned this strength into skill at arms (probably as a Hybrid Fighter / Ranger). Granted Nynaeve and Egene probably wouldn't have suvived without the help of Rand, Mat and Perrrin with their skills as midwife and apprentice midwife, respectively, but they took to their training as Aes Sedai like fish to water, very quickly surpassing all expectations of them, Egwene rising to the Amyrlin Seat before she even became a full Aes Sedai.
They all came from common backgrounds, but there is nothing common about any of them. How interesting would it have been to read about any of them if they were just carried on by events, never growing in power or ability, only sitting on the sidelines while those with the power and training shook the world and they mutely watched.
There is nothing inherently interesting about playing a commoner who remains common. In the world the players will be thrust into, you become a hero, or you become dead.
All that being said, if you think players start out too powerful, I think there is a very good way to simulate level 0 characters now. Have each player pick the class they want to become, and assign them the Hybrid of that class from PHB3 and let them pick no powers beyond the class features of the Hybrid class. They will be less than half as effective. Do as many encounters of this as you can stand, then promote them to level 1, at which point they gain all the benefits of being level 1 characters.
"Commoner" classes would be NPCs. It could be easily built, or you could use a background for the benefit if you wanted to be a hero who has transcended past it. I agree with the above poster, though: why do you want to do this? It's fine and good if you want to work it out with your DM, but this isn't Cthulhu, you aren't a normal person in virtually an version of D&D, you're a larger than life hero.
This was one of my biggest beefs with 4e early on. I liked the feel you got in 3.5 and earlier editions at low levels that you weren't much better than the commonfolk around you. I like the story of the common soldier/lay priest/hedge wizard rising above his beginnings and growing into a powerful hero.
In 4e you start out as a badass and just become more badass as time goes on. =/
Couldn't 1st level Wizards be one shotted by housecats in earlier editions or am I mistaken?
Not "one" shotted. But a housecat would deliver more than one attack, and so a housecat would ALWAYS kill an L1 wizard before the wizard could act.
The Wheel of Time series is a great example of "commoner" heroes. Rand al'Thor may have been raised as a farmer, but it was the sword forms his father taught him that enabled him to live long enough to become Dragon Reborn (I guess in 4e, he would be a Swordmage).
Yeah, no, he was ALWAYS The Dragon. His preternatural skill with the sword is a consequence, not an antecedent.
Mat Cauthon was also raised as a farmer, but his quick wit served him well in the attack on Two Rivers, and his quick hand with a dagger served him well afterwards, until he became the hero he is now (probably a Hybrid Rogue / Warlord).
And also his deal with the psycho "elves" to become History's Most Perfect General. Mat is, in 4E terms, a hybrid Warlord/Bard, but with extra bonus luck-based powers.
Perrin Aybara was brought up to be a blacksmith, but it wasn't his ability to shoe a horse that let him survive the attack on Two Rivers, but his prodigious strength. Under the tutlage of others, he quickly turned this strength into skill at arms (probably as a Hybrid Fighter / Ranger).
Yeah, no. More than anyone else, Perrin would be a pure Warlord.
He's got mad skillz as a personal fighter, but his REAL trick is convincing other people to fight on his behalf and to save his useless brain-dead pointless page-wasting "wife".
Granted Nynaeve and Egene probably wouldn't have suvived without the help of Rand, Mat and Perrrin with their skills as midwife and apprentice midwife, respectively, but they took to their training as Aes Sedai like fish to water, very quickly surpassing all expectations of them, Egwene rising to the Amyrlin Seat before she even became a full Aes Sedai.
Not "before". the Seat accompanied full membership in the order. And also Nynaeve was the single strongest ever channeler in history - raising her to membership was inevitable.
There is nothing inherently interesting about playing a commoner who remains common. In the world the players will be thrust into, you become a hero, or you become dead.
And yet this, I agree with you.
All that being said, if you think players start out too powerful, I think there is a very good way to simulate level 0 characters now. Have each player pick the class they want to become, and assign them the Hybrid of that class from PHB3 and let them pick no powers beyond the class features of the Hybrid class. They will be less than half as effective. Do as many encounters of this as you can stand, then promote them to level 1, at which point they gain all the benefits of being level 1 characters.
Yeah, no, BOOORING.
PCs should not *have* to start out as useless nobodies. It's not only okay but *encouraged* for PCs to jump straight to "I have something useful I can contribute".
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.
This is, actually, one of those games.
Now you are just confusing me. People have explained how DnD deals with it and why it doesn't have these classes and rules. And now you say that it does?
Why aren't there rules for heroic farming, fishing and skinning? Allright it would take alot of room for something that wouldn't be too popular so I quess I understand it (though fishing for Krakens and making cloths of them would be quite cool).
But I think I got it, might try out a Muleskinner/Fighter in the next game I will play (though striker classes might fit better for people that can skin live mules in 5 minutes so it might be ranger or rouge). A skill specialisation in nature might do for skinner or if the DM allows it I might customise a +5 skinning feat.
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.
As for headbutting mules, sometimes it's faster and cooler then reaching for your knife and that is important when you try to get the best time on skinning mules in the area.
you want to know what's truly frightening... GURPS (at least the Basic Set: Characters book) doesn't have a rule for skinning.
it has a farming skill... that essentially says "this is used to earn a living (doesn't go into any details on this). also: answer agricultural questions (doesn't go into details)". fishing is "you can catch fish (this is a success/fail check, with no other details). also: make improvised fishing gear" both take up less then 5 lines on 3 column page at a font maybe 1 point smaller then your average D&D book's.
rules are made to cover conflicts you can interact with. farming, fishing & skinning are pretty much "passive" skills. it's VERY difficult to actually fail at those tasks once you know how to do them (especially well enough that you can call it your profession), and the main reason people fail is due to outside reasons (the weather becomes cold faster this year, destroying the crops before they could be harvested properly, the weather is horrible so you can't go out to sea/the area was over-fished and now there is none there/pollution, ect...). the chance of failure due to the "professional's" ability can probably not be properly expressed by a d20 roll.
combat is a conflict you interact with on several levels in a short amount of time. haggling for purchases/services is a conflict you interact with on several levels in. gathering intel off a captured enemy is a conflict you interadct with on several levels.
farming's conflicts are a result due to farming itself. it's an outside force imposing itself on your farm (weather, insects, theifs, ect...). farming isn't the only one here either: craftsmen, fisherman, skinners, carpenters, boatbuilders, ect... unless you're actually incompetent (IE: doing something you're not trained to do) it's damned hard to screw up these jobs. it just takes a prolonged time to do, is all, but it's actually quite hard to "fail" at them.
headbutting/punching/kicking, in D&D terms, is an unarmed attack and anyone can do it. as for "best skinning times in the area", now you're in the territory of "corner cases", which NO RPG should try to cover all of. i would rather D&D stick to it's genres and tropes rather then try to be a "catch all".
The skill tests for these kinds of skills more often decide how long time it takes to do rather than if you suceed or don't (though critical failures might mean that you fail). I can understand why they don't include the rules even though I personally don't like it.
A fisherman could presumably use a trident, and likely simple weapons. A farmer could use a scythe and sickles. Nothing too fancy.
"Commoner" classes would be NPCs. It could be easily built, or you could use a background for the benefit if you wanted to be a hero who has transcended past it. I agree with the above poster, though: why do you want to do this? It's fine and good if you want to work it out with your DM, but this isn't Cthulhu, you aren't a normal person in virtually an version of D&D, you're a larger than life hero.
Epic farming, epic fishing or epic craftsmanship can be intresting abilities as well can't they? I can understand why they aren't part of this game, people have given good reasons (and a few bad reasons as well) here, I like to play those kinds of characters so I wondered if I could do so in DnD, the answer was a no.
I'm not certain how epic farming differs from normal farming... and furthermore, how it differs in any way from a standard Nature check? Perhaps that's where your confusion lies. Fishing, farming, and muleskinning are all technically covered under a standard Nature check, at a DC determined by DM. Craftsmanship is all done through rituals, and can be suitably epic. What do these types of characters and specifically their supporting rules, in other games, actually accomplish, that you cannot do within the ruleset before you?
What do you want to do, that you cannot do?
(Now, "epic fishing" as a colloquialism for taking down the demogorgon and mounting it on your wall, I fully support.)
I still feel like we're all being secretly trolled.
Having referred to the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Career Compendium, the Muleskinner has no special rules pertaining to skinning mules. They are ranged-oriented and quick on their feet. They have a wide range of knowledges, specifically built around travel, animals, and social skills.
Muleskinner: A suitable hero in D&D4 would be a Nature-oriented Bard heavy on bardic knowledge support, any Charisma-based skill monkey character, any sort of Ranger, a character focused on mounted combat feats, or any character with Nature skill support. Possibly all of the above.
Other careers you've mentioned...
Seaman: Any lightly-armored melee class, probably a Rogue, possibly a Barbarian.
Peasant: Actually, there's nothing in this profession that doesn't qualify as a Background selection.
Fisherman: Rogue, possibly Ranger, but mostly just an appropriate Background selection.
Incidentally, I figured out why D&D doesn't have these classes. Because they have nothing to them. The book is designed for building NPCs or adding flavor to PCs, in the same way that your Background and Feat selections do for your standard D&D hero. D&D abstracts the minutiaeto the same degree that WHFRP embraces it. You can either just roll with the abstraction (a Nature skill challenge for farming or fishing or beast taming or muleskinning), or add in levels of detail at your DM's discretion.
What I mean to say, Leogun, is that there is absolutely nothing in D&D that prevents you from playing those sorts of characters, because what you're asking for has no relevant effect on character class. There are no rules because none are required to do the things you're asking to do.
I'm not certain how epic farming differs from normal farming... and furthermore, how it differs in any way from a standard Nature check? Perhaps that's where your confusion lies. Fishing, farming, and muleskinning are all technically covered under a standard Nature check, at a DC determined by DM. Craftsmanship is all done through rituals, and can be suitably epic. What do these types of characters and specifically their supporting rules, in other games, actually accomplish, that you cannot do within the ruleset before you?
They are better at their respective things then others (ie peasants at farming, fishermen at fishing etc) this is followed up by other things they are good at as well (like maybe cooking, haggling and drinking). In this game where it just becomes a thing written in the background it fully depends on the GM if it holds any relevance at all beacouse rulewise that fighter that has been working as a farmer his whole life won't be better at farming then the random ranger specialised in nature. The thing that other rulesets accomplish is that it actually makes a difference in the rules as well as in the background.
(Now, "epic fishing" as a colloquialism for taking down the demogorgon and mounting it on your wall, I fully support.)
Still my fisherman won't get any benefit from being a fisherman in this quest.
I still feel like we're all being secretly trolled.
I don't mean to troll and I'm sorry if you find my post trollish. I have understood why the rules aren't included even though I would like them to be. However when someone asks a question in a post I have made I normally answer it as it is a little bit rude to ignore them.
Double post because events occurred between now and 16 minutes ago.
Having referred to the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Career Compendium, the Muleskinner has no special rules pertaining to skinning mules. They are ranged-oriented and quick on their feet. They have a wide range of knowledges, specifically built around travel, animals, and social skills.
It was a while since I played them but I thought they had trade tanner.
Muleskinner:A suitable hero in D&D4 would be a Nature-oriented Bard heavy on bardic knowledge support, any Charisma-based skill monkey character, any sort of Ranger, a character focused on mounted combat feats, or any character with Nature skill support. Possibly all of the above.
Possibly, though Bards wouldn't have the right feel.
Other careers you've mentioned...
Seaman: Any lightly-armored melee class, probably a Rogue, possibly a Barbarian.
Peasant: Actually, there's nothing in this profession that doesn't qualify as a Background selection.
Fisherman: Rogue, possibly Ranger, but mostly just an appropriate Background selection.
Incidentally, I figured out why D&D doesn't have these classes. Because they have nothing to them. The book is designed for building NPCs or adding flavor to PCs, in the same way that your Background and Feat selections do for your standard D&D hero. D&D abstracts the minutiaeto the same degree that WHFRP embraces it. You can either just roll with the abstraction (a Nature skill challenge for farming or fishing or beast taming or muleskinning), or add in levels of detail at your DM's discretion.
That book is not ment for building NPCs, those are the classes that you play in the game. You are a peasant, muleskinner, Fisherman, Initiate, Militiaman, Ratcatcher or Dung Collector (or one of the others, there are hundreds of careers), these aren't flavors for the PCs either, that is what your PC is.
This differs from DnD but both systems work well and both are fun, different people prefer different systems and I have players in my group prefering different games, personally I prefer WFRP but everyone has his favorite. The games are very, very different though.
a class in D&D has no relevance on your profession. any given guard could very well be: a fighter, a wizard, a rogue, a swordmage, a barbarian, a warden, ect... some classes take to the "armor, sword & sheild" better then others but it's VERY had to gauge what a person's class, and thus abilities, are based solely on what they do for a living.
a class, in D&D terms, is a collection of thematic abilities: in the fighter's case "heavy armor, sticks to enemies, denies movement, controls the areas adjacent to him" his powers allow him to either deny/slow enemy movement, interpose himself between his enemies & allies or drop a mountain of hurt (a disabled enemy cannot threaten your allies, right?)
the books come with some light fluff attached, but fully endorse skinning the fluff away from the class and inserting your own.
Having referred to the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Career Compendium, the Muleskinner has no special rules pertaining to skinning mules.
That's because a "muleskinner" is a teamster who specializes in mules. "Skin" is a slang term from the late 19th century meaning "drive a draft animal", so a mule-skinner is someone who drives a team of mules. It has nothing to do with removing hide.
It's entirely possible that the OP knows this and is having a bit of fun, but I suspect several other posters are unaware of the meaning of the word...
Other careers you've mentioned...
As you and others have pointed out to the OP, these kinds of jobs--basic careers, in Warhammer fantasy--are intended to indicate what a PC did before he or she started adventuring. Once you start swinging a sword at your enemies, you've deviated significantly from the lives of your peers, and you have the opportunity to become something else--maybe a Scout, or a Highwayman, in Warhammer; in D&D, you might graduate from Seaman to rogue, or brawling fighter.
Which is to say, the situation is exactly as others have described it: basic classes in Warhammer are the equivalent of backgrounds in D&D. You want your PC to have been a fisherman? Fine! He's the fishierest fisherman that ever fished.
I know if one of my players came to me with a character backstory of being a talented chef, or sailor, or even farmer, I'd go out of my way to insert at least a couple of times in the campaign where those skills would be directly applicable and that would position that PC above the others in terms of what's going on then.
Some things are easier than others to work in though.
If one PC is a Chef, aside from the other party members roleplaying a bit during camp time ... I wouldn't be too surprised if the PCs were invited to a grand ball in which the head chef suddenly becomes indisposed and somebody has to take over.
If a PC is a Sailor, guess which adventuring party is going to wind up with their own ship and a necessary destination?
There are still a lot of jobs that are easily integrated into normal play.
You could be a circus performer, and you are good with Acrobatics. When you pass through a town, you often stop to entertain young'uns with handstands and juggling.
You could be a magic tutor (at least in your past) able to consult with people on matters of Arcana. Perhaps you're an Alchemist and brew potions.
As a day-laborer you got a lot of work in with Athletics, and are always willing to take on physically demanding work like splitting the firewood, helping out at the docks, and so on.
Bluff, you're a gambler. Or a politician.
Diplomacy: Merchant background or negotiator from high-powered dealings.
You can use Nature to skin animals, and general woodsman stuff, but also fishing, weather prediction, agriculture.
Religion you're a traveling evangelist/do-gooder.
You can find something from all the skills and also pick other aspects of your character around the theme.
Yes, if another PC in the group has the same exact skill modifier as your PC, he could likely do the same kinds of things. But usually people won't have equal scores, and also won't spend the time to roleplay particular aspects of their skills that someone else is already doing. If you want to be the group chef, it's highly unlikely anybody else is going to want to displace you; thus, you're the world's best itinerant chef (because the other characters have decided to not be chefs).
Show
Why aren't there rules for heroic farming, fishing and skinning? Allright it would take alot of room for something that wouldn't be too popular so I quess I understand it (though fishing for Krakens and making cloths of them would be quite cool).
But I think I got it, might try out a Muleskinner/Fighter in the next game I will play (though striker classes might fit better for people that can skin live mules in 5 minutes so it might be ranger or rouge). A skill specialisation in nature might do for skinner or if the DM allows it I might customise a +5 skinning feat.
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.As for headbutting mules, sometimes it's faster and cooler then reaching for your knife and that is important when you try to get the best time on skinning mules in the area.
ShowWhy aren't there rules for heroic farming, fishing and skinning? Allright it would take alot of room for something that wouldn't be too popular so I quess I understand it (though fishing for Krakens and making cloths of them would be quite cool).
But I think I got it, might try out a Muleskinner/Fighter in the next game I will play (though striker classes might fit better for people that can skin live mules in 5 minutes so it might be ranger or rouge). A skill specialisation in nature might do for skinner or if the DM allows it I might customise a +5 skinning feat.
I still think it's a pity that there aren't any commoner classes but I'll live with it, there are other games where I can get to play my favorite kinds of characters so this won't be too much of a deal.As for headbutting mules, sometimes it's faster and cooler then reaching for your knife and that is important when you try to get the best time on skinning mules in the area.
In previous roleplaying I have experienced that I much prefer to play the commoner style classes. So I would wonder if there are any options to play that kind of characters in DnD, how heroic does it have to be. Are there any fanmade classes for non-actionheroes, if not, how do I make a character like that or is it no idea.
For reference my top 3 of Warhammer fantasy roleplay careers where:
1) Seaman
2) Peasant3) Muleskinner
First off, WFRP characters may start out as a members of any of a wide array of profession, but their actual function is that of an adventurer. Even back in WFRP 1st edition the careers were grouped in to four broad categories: Warriors, Rangers, Rogues and Academics, a distinction that had no effect on game mechanics and only moderately influenced character development.
So if you think back: did you actually play a peasant that occasionally went on an adventure, or did you play an adventurer that occasionally did some farm-work?
The WFRP careers certainly allow for characters to develop skill-sets outside the focus of D&D, which is primarily confrontational: combat and limited social interaction. WFRP allows for a wide array of mundane tasks, often achieved by simply naming the task as a skill. And that's fine since you can fully develop your "Farming" skill with a single "level-increase".
Seriously, though: I can't see 4e being in anyway suited for "epic farming".
-DF
Creating farmlands that feed thousands of starving, fishing for that massive sea monster who plagued the coastline or making that powerful leather armor can be suitably epic. And fighting exotic flora that attacks or killing goblins isn't very heroic unless you make it heroic just as anything else. I do however understand that the game developers have chosen to ignore these aspects as they would take up a lot of space for things few would use.
Making the Sahara Desert arable would require a lot more than the Farming Skill. Feeding thousands of starving people by raising crops would require a massive undertaking that would pull your character away from adventuring for years. You would need to determine why crops were not growing, hire and supervise the people who will be working the land with you, and then you need to teach the people whom you have just fed how to do the same thing you just did, and to do it sustainably, or they are just going to have the same problem next harvest. In fact, if the soil is deficient, it will take more than one harvest to to reach sustainablility, which means that the character will also need to arrange for food to be carted in from elsewhere while he is nursing the land back to health. The undertaking is heroic, I will grant you that. It would also be boring as hell to actually play through it.
You are going to defeat a Kraken with a rod & reel?
Everything you want out of 4E's "deficeint class & skill system" can be done with the help of narrative collaboration. Have your players submit background stories to you. When that player runs into a situation where the elements in their background might come into play, assign a general skill to the action, and then give the player a bonus to their roll. If the narrative element is mainly flavor, and not critical to the story, then have them automatically succeed. You want to capture that sea monster, and one of your players was a fisherman before responding to the call of adventure? Great, allow them to know approximately where a creature of that size would need to lair. Give tham a bonus to the nature check to notice that one quadrant of the lake seems to be devoid of aquatic life. Allow your players to add to the narrative through their own storytelling. Don't make them choose between having flavorful characters and effective characters (all too often in previous editions of D&D with more detailed skill systems, I was forced to choose between spending skill points on background elements and skills I would make extensive use of. I wanted my rogue to play the flute to entertain herself and her companions, but every skill point I spent in Perform: Flute was a skill point that was not being spent on my adventuring skills).
I don't see the value of bogging down the flow of an adventure by getting lost in minutiae. With a DM who is willing to allow the players to aid in creating the narrative, a more "robust" (read: complicated) class and skill system is completely unnecessary.
Making the Sahara Desert arable would require a lot more than the Farming Skill. Feeding thousands of starving people by raising crops would require a massive undertaking that would pull your character away from adventuring for years. You would need to determine why crops were not growing, hire and supervise the people who will be working the land with you, and then you need to teach the people whom you have just fed how to do the same thing you just did, and to do it sustainably, or they are just going to have the same problem next harvest. In fact, if the soil is deficient, it will take more than one harvest to to reach sustainablility, which means that the character will also need to arrange for food to be carted in from elsewhere while he is nursing the land back to health. The undertaking is heroic, I will grant you that. It would also be boring as hell to actually play through it.
I think you could make a great campaign out of all this.
The main star of the adventure would not, however, be a farmer. More likely he'd be a Druid, using his Primal Juju to help fertilize the land or something. A simple farmer wouldn't be able to oversee this undertaking, because he knows about farming, not about leading the people and overseeing the operation.
If you want to pull this thing off on your own, you'd be a Ritual caster, not a farmer, because it's impossible to do as one man and the mundane way.
Creating farmlands that feed thousands of starving, fishing for that massive sea monster who plagued the coastline or making that powerful leather armor can be suitably epic. And fighting exotic flora that attacks or killing goblins isn't very heroic unless you make it heroic just as anything else. I do however understand that the game developers have chosen to ignore these aspects as they would take up a lot of space for things few would use.
"Creating farmlands that feed thousands of starving." Given the fantasy medieval setting, that would be the employment of thousands of workers, purchasing of large hectares of land (perhaps dealing with the local landlords in the process), and tilling of the land. Now, if you're going to do all the tilling and farming by yourself, and without any Diplomacy or adventuring attempts to get more land than you could typically acquire, that would result in a relatively small farmland -- maybe a bit larger if you could "tame" the wilderness by gathering hundreds of loggers and having them clear land for you -- then after years of toil and suffering, feed thousands of starving... eventually.
Long story short, it could be a plot hook, but not an ends to itself. There's hardly anything "heroic" about the farming livelihood, unless you do it for free and "for heroism", whatever in farming language that means.
"Fishing for that massive sea monster who plagued the coastline". You don't fish for that massive sea monster, you DEFEAT that massive sea monster; if only a master fisherman could catch the sea monster, and you had to catch -- and not kill -- the said sea monster, then your example might be valid... but still, that is already teethering on the brink of absurdity.
Because frankly, expert fishermen tend to catch hard-to-find and hard-to-capture *prize* fish, not monstrous ****ed up monsters that come out from bodies of water.
[i]"Making that powerful leather armor can be suitably epic"[/i]. Already doable with existing rules, especially with the DMG2: the obtaining of materials can be a series of quests, and the actual forging could be a skill challenge (that could be circumvented by the Craft Armor/Weapon Martial Practice). Also, note that legendary blacksmiths are usually legendary for their works, not for the fact that smithing is anything close to heroic or epic.
Fighting exotic flora is only heroic when the said flora is endangering the lives of others, or is pivotal in the quest at hand -- like if the said flora is a prime ingredient for alchemy, or such such -- but goblin-slaughter is generally accepted as heroic because of the destructive nature of goblins [although it is still within reasonable grasp to have goblins as the victim rather than as the perpetrator in certain campaigns].
Could you give anything, ANYTHING that is NOT a set of isolated cases, where you have [i]exciting[/i], worthwhile, and practical adventuring within farming, fishing, or crafting? Or are they simply means to an end, or something that can easily be relegated as 'something done in passing'?
Because as far as I can tell, it's only in the most corner of corner cases that you'd actually want to give significant mechanical benefits that go well beyond the background + situational bonuses to skills that are readily given by both the game and the DM.
- - - - -
So, what would heroic farming do to benefit the adventurers? How is farming "heroic"? [Your example presented charity, not heroism, as far as I could tell... please enlighten me if my interpretation is erroneous.]
What adventure can be found in fishing, aside from that rather absurd example (that screams "HEROES NEEDED", not "FISHERMEN NEEDED"... because otherwise, why the heck would YOU be called upon? Why couldn't REGULAR fishermen deal with the problem if the solution is to FISH the monster out?)?
What sort of mechanical benefits should these occupations give you, outside of situational bonuses -- like discounts to components or equipment while in your home town, freebies, and bonuses to knowledge checks, since you're much more familiar with fishing or crafting than the regular adventurer -- that haven't been covered already by martial practices or skill-based utility powers?
Making the Sahara Desert arable would require a lot more than the Farming Skill. Feeding thousands of starving people by raising crops would require a massive undertaking that would pull your character away from adventuring for years. You would need to determine why crops were not growing, hire and supervise the people who will be working the land with you, and then you need to teach the people whom you have just fed how to do the same thing you just did, and to do it sustainably, or they are just going to have the same problem next harvest. In fact, if the soil is deficient, it will take more than one harvest to to reach sustainablility, which means that the character will also need to arrange for food to be carted in from elsewhere while he is nursing the land back to health. The undertaking is heroic, I will grant you that. It would also be boring as hell to actually play through it.
Not neccesarily no, there can be alot of investigation work, deals with gods, guarding caravans with food, resource management and social interactions with the workers.
You are going to defeat a Kraken with a rod & reel?
Don't tell me that it isn't heroic, cool and entertaining.
Making the Sahara Desert arable would require a lot more than the Farming Skill. Feeding thousands of starving people by raising crops would require a massive undertaking that would pull your character away from adventuring for years. You would need to determine why crops were not growing, hire and supervise the people who will be working the land with you, and then you need to teach the people whom you have just fed how to do the same thing you just did, and to do it sustainably, or they are just going to have the same problem next harvest. In fact, if the soil is deficient, it will take more than one harvest to to reach sustainablility, which means that the character will also need to arrange for food to be carted in from elsewhere while he is nursing the land back to health. The undertaking is heroic, I will grant you that. It would also be boring as hell to actually play through it.
I think you could make a great campaign out of all this.
The main star of the adventure would not, however, be a farmer. More likely he'd be a Druid, using his Primal Juju to help fertilize the land or something. A simple farmer wouldn't be able to oversee this undertaking, because he knows about farming, not about leading the people and overseeing the operation.
If you want to pull this thing off on your own, you'd be a Ritual caster, not a farmer, because it's impossible to do as one man and the mundane way.
DnD focuses on teamwork, the farmer has alot of knowledge which will help with this, the druid has magic that adds to it and other classes have other uses. And you might notice that many of the DnD classes does things that wouldn't really be possible.
"Creating farmlands that feed thousands of starving." Given the fantasy medieval setting, that would be the employment of thousands of workers, purchasing of large hectares of land (perhaps dealing with the local landlords in the process), and tilling of the land. Now, if you're going to do all the tilling and farming by yourself, and without any Diplomacy or adventuring attempts to get more land than you could typically acquire, that would result in a relatively small farmland -- maybe a bit larger if you could "tame" the wilderness by gathering hundreds of loggers and having them clear land for you -- then after years of toil and suffering, feed thousands of starving... eventually.Long story short, it could be a plot hook, but not an ends to itself. There's hardly anything "heroic" about the farming livelihood, unless you do it for free and "for heroism", whatever in farming language that means.
You spend years of toil and suffering to eventually feed thousands of starving. That is very heroic, if it didn't require alot of toiling and suffering it wouldn't be heroic, snapping your fingers to make food appear might be cool and useful but hardly heroic.
And the for free or for charity parts makes anything more heroic, not even killing a dragon is very heroic if you just do it for egoistic reasons.
"Fishing for that massive sea monster who plagued the coastline". You don't fish for that massive sea monster, you DEFEAT that massive sea monster; if only a master fisherman could catch the sea monster, and you had to catch -- and not kill -- the said sea monster, then your example might be valid... but still, that is already teethering on the brink of absurdity.
Because frankly, expert fishermen tend to catch hard-to-find and hard-to-capture *prize* fish, not monstrous ****ed up monsters that come out from bodies of water.
bluemako.customer.netspace.net.au/
People do this and it's not new, it just so happends to be that these are the biggest things we can fish for (giant squids live too deep), in a fantasy world there are bigger fishes.
What adventure can be found in fishing, aside from that rather absurd example (that screams "HEROES NEEDED", not "FISHERMEN NEEDED"... because otherwise, why the heck would YOU be called upon? Why couldn't REGULAR fishermen deal with the problem if the solution is to FISH the monster out?)?
Well PCs in DnD are heroes and if I should send a hero to find and kill a seamonster I'd rather have a legendary fisherman who has braved the X seas (fantasy worlds have various numbers of seas) then a famous bard that plays his flute better then anyone else.
What sort of mechanical benefits should these occupations give you, outside of situational bonuses -- like discounts to components or equipment while in your home town, freebies, and bonuses to knowledge checks, since you're much more familiar with fishing or crafting than the regular adventurer -- that haven't been covered already by martial practices or skill-based utility powers?
I quess a few feats and "proffesion based utility powers" would be enough. Maybe a farmer feat that gives +5 to farming and allows farm based utility powers to be chosen and simmilar ones for fishing, crafting etc.
The skillbased utility are really a huge step in the right direction.
Making the Sahara Desert arable would require a lot more than the Farming Skill. Feeding thousands of starving people by raising crops would require a massive undertaking that would pull your character away from adventuring for years. You would need to determine why crops were not growing, hire and supervise the people who will be working the land with you, and then you need to teach the people whom you have just fed how to do the same thing you just did, and to do it sustainably, or they are just going to have the same problem next harvest. In fact, if the soil is deficient, it will take more than one harvest to to reach sustainablility, which means that the character will also need to arrange for food to be carted in from elsewhere while he is nursing the land back to health. The undertaking is heroic, I will grant you that. It would also be boring as hell to actually play through it.
Not neccesarily no, there can be alot of investigation work, deals with gods, guarding caravans with food, resource management and social interactions with the workers.
Except that none of these require or would best be handled by a farmer. With the exception of the last two, these things are the province of heroes, which you have said that you don't want the players to be.
Restoring land to feed thousands is a heroic act. Doing so by tilling the land and harvesting crops, as a farmer would do it, would be an exercise in boredom. Unearthing an ancient curse on the land, discovering why it was hexed in the first place, appealing to the gods to lift the curse, doing the favor that the gods demand in order to have the curse lifted, securing and guarding supplies for the locals while they plant and grow crops for their next harvest, and then protecting the same village from retirbution by the entity that cursed the land. That's heroic and exciting, possibly the stuff of legend. None of which requires a farmer to be in the party. In fact, farming would be totally unnecessary except to discover that the problem with the land wasn't natural.
What adventure can be found in fishing, aside from that rather absurd example (that screams "HEROES NEEDED", not "FISHERMEN NEEDED"... because otherwise, why the heck would YOU be called upon? Why couldn't REGULAR fishermen deal with the problem if the solution is to FISH the monster out?)?
Well PCs in DnD are heroes and if I should send a hero to find and kill a seamonster I'd rather have a legendary fisherman who has braved the X seas (fantasy worlds have various numbers of seas) then a famous bard that plays his flute better then anyone else.
I think a community beset by a Grendel will take whatever help they can get. The knowledge of a fisherman might be useful to discover the monster's lair, but it wouldn't be their skills with the rod and reel that slays the monster.
As for the bard example, why not? One would not think that a flautist would be the ideal pest control expert, but the Pied Piper removed every single rat infesting that village.
What sort of mechanical benefits should these occupations give you, outside of situational bonuses -- like discounts to components or equipment while in your home town, freebies, and bonuses to knowledge checks, since you're much more familiar with fishing or crafting than the regular adventurer -- that haven't been covered already by martial practices or skill-based utility powers?
I quess a few feats and "proffesion based utility powers" would be enough. Maybe a farmer feat that gives +5 to farming and allows farm based utility powers to be chosen and simmilar ones for fishing, crafting etc.
The skillbased utility are really a huge step in the right direction.
You still have yet to explain what a Farming Skill brings to the game? Woo Hoo! +5 Farming! Now it takes me 18 hours to put up a fence instead of 22?!?
And I can't even conceive of what a "farming based Utility Power" would be, or that it would be worth it for anyone to take.
Collaborative narrative and situational modifiers are still the way to go. What you have presented is a solution depserately looking for a problem where none exists. What it sounds like is that you want more depth, but are afraid to put the power of creating that depth into the hands of your players (or you have a DM who is afraid of the same, but I seem to recall you mentioning that you were running a game in a different thread).
Every single one of my players have been blessed with story and plot hooks based upon the backgrounds they have given me, and they have all received situational modifiers at various times based on the character's history. My players are a valuable part of my game world and are as important to the telling of the stories of the world as I am.
You spend years of toil and suffering to eventually feed thousands of starving. That is very heroic, if it didn't require alot of toiling and suffering it wouldn't be heroic, snapping your fingers to make food appear might be cool and useful but hardly heroic.And the for free or for charity parts makes anything more heroic, not even killing a dragon is very heroic if you just do it for egoistic reasons.
Heroic in the real life sense? Perhaps... but where's the action? Where's the adventure? It's heroism in the self-sacrificing sense, but from the looks of it, it makes for a game that's less interesting than Farmville.
True, snapping your fingers to have food appear doesn't have a 'heroic' feel, but if the 'feeding of the multitude' is a footnote rather than the focus of the adventure, it's totally acceptable to have it over with at the snap of your fingers... because frankly, rolling dice and having it resolved by the DM saying "You take X years to produce the food to feed the thousands. Done." is just about the same thing; it might be a heroic effort, but it's boring.
If you want to incorporate magic and food production into adventuring, you could have an adventure where the multitude of starving people -- who NEED to be fed NOW (and seriously, that would make even "heroic" farming useless, because by the time the plants are ready to be harvested, most if not all the starving people are dead from hunger [unless you had plants that produced lots of food and takes just days/weeks to grow from seed to produce]) -- would approach you, then you search for a magical incantation that could cause a single piece of bread to multiply a thousandfold (just cast the ritual several times, and they'd be set for the several months, until the crops you planted grow to fruition).
THAT is the adventurous sort of heroism we'd be looking for.
bluemako.customer.netspace.net.au/
People do this and it's not new, it just so happends to be that these are the biggest things we can fish for (giant squids live too deep), in a fantasy world there are bigger fishes.
Except the sharks being caught aren't because they are threatening, they are caught because they're FOOD. It's not heroism in the least, it's livelihood, it's REGULAR fishing of an EXOTIC food supply.
Now you could have a character who travels the world in search of sea monsters in an attempt to make new seafood dishes... but that's the exception, not the norm. Because if every other fisherman did that, it wouldn't make for a good storyline, since it IS normal. And boring.
Well PCs in DnD are heroes and if I should send a hero to find and kill a seamonster I'd rather have a legendary fisherman who has braved the X seas (fantasy worlds have various numbers of seas) then a famous bard that plays his flute better then anyone else.
Aside from the Pied Piper mentioned above, when I need a threat to be eliminated, I'd rather have ruthless, disposable mercenaries (who later turns out to be the heroes of a larger story), who might not even survive long enough to get paid, than a fisherman who could easily cost triple the standard fare and get to use the slain sea monster for personal gain.
And of course, what happened when the Pied Piper wasn't paid for getting rid of the rats, could also happen when the townsfolk 'forgets' to repay the Legendary Fisherman for his deeds.
I quess a few feats and "proffesion based utility powers" would be enough. Maybe a farmer feat that gives +5 to farming and allows farm based utility powers to be chosen and simmilar ones for fishing, crafting etc.
The skillbased utility are really a huge step in the right direction.
Except the bonus to farming and abilities for farming (and other occupations) are already covered by the rules: DM situational bonuses.
It's called situational because only in the more isolated forms of roleplaying in D&D would farming-related stuff actually have ANY impact in the game... because we're not playing your occupation, we're playing as Tom Sawyer-like adventurers, willing to put our lives on the line for the same things conquerors, missionaries, mercenaries, and heroes alike have lived and died for:
God [Faith]
Gold [Quick Wealth/Fortune]
Glory [Fame, Divine Favor, "Legendary" status, Power]
That is why 'commoners' and 'regular occupations' need not apply in the D&D universe (even if it was supported by D&D 3.xx).
3rd ed had "profession" wich amounted to "roll dice, sit out the game for a week, make a pittance of GP. also know the basics of the job". 2nd ed had Non-weapon proficiencies but effectively did nothing past "you know the basics of the job, roll if you succeed".
I guess if you really wanted to do it you could play it as a minion who followed the Pc's around and could make a skillcheck in their chosen area of specilization. It just doesn't seem likely that a farmer or fishermen or whatever would ever be doing anything besides their craft and on the off chance their farm or whatever got attacked they'd likely die if they tried to stop them...especially if you consider that they wouldn't really own more then a basic weapon, probably something along the lines of a hatchet.
As for the bard example, why not? One would not think that a flautist would be the ideal pest control expert, but the Pied Piper removed every single rat infesting that village.
But if I get a choice I'll trust he who has actually been on a boat before, a soldier can be as good as he wants on fighting but if he can't sail and can't find the sea monster my best use of him would be to sacrifice him in a vain hope that the monster settles for him and swims away and the same would be true for the flutist (though he could raise the morale of the starving people who are to afraid to fish.
You still have yet to explain what a Farming Skill brings to the game? Woo Hoo! +5 Farming! Now it takes me 18 hours to put up a fence instead of 22?!?
And I can't even conceive of what a "farming based Utility Power" would be, or that it would be worth it for anyone to take.
A farming based utility would probobly be about getting food, taking care of animals or identifying plants but many others are possible, it shouldn't be too hard to make a few such powers. +5 to farming adds to that time when your players help the villagers work while wainting for the bandits (they are extra impressed and job might be finished earlier so that they and the players can rest before the bandits attack) or does some work between quests, or digs up a canal that you cover with leaves to make a trap before the bandits arive. The player can often think of ways to use it.
Collaborative narrative and situational modifiers are still the way to go. What you have presented is a solution depserately looking for a problem where none exists. What it sounds like is that you want more depth, but are afraid to put the power of creating that depth into the hands of your players (or you have a DM who is afraid of the same, but I seem to recall you mentioning that you were running a game in a different thread).
Every single one of my players have been blessed with story and plot hooks based upon the backgrounds they have given me, and they have all received situational modifiers at various times based on the character's history. My players are a valuable part of my game world and are as important to the telling of the stories of the world as I am.
I am a player as well (or will be, the campaign is about to start) and it is basically therefore that I wish for these rules, my players are quite fine with the current ones (though the feats usually becomes too much) and the fact that we try this game in earnest makes such complains unnesecary at the moment, for the next campaign we will surely talk about what mayor houserules we might want if any.
As for the bard example, why not? One would not think that a flautist would be the ideal pest control expert, but the Pied Piper removed every single rat infesting that village.
But if I get a choice I'll trust he who has actually been on a boat before, a soldier can be as good as he wants on fighting but if he can't sail and can't find the sea monster my best use of him would be to sacrifice him in a vain hope that the monster settles for him and swims away and the same would be true for the flutist (though he could raise the morale of the starving people who are to afraid to fish.
You still haven't explained how being a fisherman is going to help you defeat the monster. You need heroes for that. Assuming this is a coastal town, and that there are people who make a living off the waters now being terrorinzed. You don't need a hero with the Fishing skill, there should be any number of local fisherman who have theories on where the beast lairs who are simply too frightened to brave the beast themselves.
You still have yet to explain what a Farming Skill brings to the game? Woo Hoo! +5 Farming! Now it takes me 18 hours to put up a fence instead of 22?!?
And I can't even conceive of what a "farming based Utility Power" would be, or that it would be worth it for anyone to take.
A farming based utility would probobly be about getting food, taking care of animals or identifying plants but many others are possible, it shouldn't be too hard to make a few such powers. +5 to farming adds to that time when your players help the villagers work while wainting for the bandits (they are extra impressed and job might be finished earlier so that they and the players can rest before the bandits attack) or does some work between quests, or digs up a canal that you cover with leaves to make a trap before the bandits arive. The player can often think of ways to use it.
Among other things, the Nature Skill already does the bolded examples. A character with farming as part of their history could and should receive a bonus to this use of their skills as it relates to a farm.
Collaborative narrative and situational modifiers are still the way to go. What you have presented is a solution depserately looking for a problem where none exists. What it sounds like is that you want more depth, but are afraid to put the power of creating that depth into the hands of your players (or you have a DM who is afraid of the same, but I seem to recall you mentioning that you were running a game in a different thread).
Every single one of my players have been blessed with story and plot hooks based upon the backgrounds they have given me, and they have all received situational modifiers at various times based on the character's history. My players are a valuable part of my game world and are as important to the telling of the stories of the world as I am.
I am a player as well (or will be, the campaign is about to start) and it is basically therefore that I wish for these rules, my players are quite fine with the current ones (though the feats usually becomes too much) and the fact that we try this game in earnest makes such complains unnesecary at the moment, for the next campaign we will surely talk about what mayor houserules we might want if any.
That is a healthy way to look at things. Run the idea of collaborative narrative past your upcoming DM, and see how they feel. If they go for it, then you may not need to make any houserules at all, and that would be fantastic. Every houserule adds a layer of complication to your game and runs the risk of breaking it.
Some, like banning race X or feat Y may not be that risky, but adding a slew of new skills can be a trap for your players. There are no professional skills necessary to the profession of adventurer, so the player who uses up one of their three of four skill selections on one is sacrificing effectiveness in the game for flavor. They are using a resource on the hope that the GM will validate the choice by presenting them with, sometimes odd, corner case situations where they will use their "haberdashery" skill on a somewhat regular basis. The Skills presented in the Players Handbook are designed that your players who are trained in those skills should have the opportunity to use them, if not once a session, then at least once per adventure.
In order for the "haberdasher" skill to be useful once per adventure, the DM will need to do some serious mental and plot gymnastics, and this is why those skills can be traps for the people you really want to encourage to help you in your narrative, the roleplayers.
By introducing skills that are largely useless for adventuring, you are actually penalizing your roleplayers for enriching your game. Those who aren't as into RP, or who munchkin, will see the trap, and ignore the professional skills altogether, making themselves into much more effective adventurers, while your roleplayers fall behind. Unless, of course, you force all of the people around the table to take a professional skill. The munchkins will find a way around it, but you can try.
For example, You tell the munchkin he must take a professional skill in line with his background. Logically, he can still take one of the broad, useful for adventuring skills, by saying that he comes from a long line of soldiers, wizards, noblemen, or constables, and it has been expected since he was born that he would follow in the "family business." The soldier will take Endurance as his "professional skill", the Wizard will take Aracana, the nobleman will take Diplomacy, and the constable will take Insight, Perception or Streetwise. Not only does this neatly sidestep your new rule to encourage roleplaying, but it gives them a leg up on the players who took Fishing, Farming, Blacksmithing or Haberdashery.
The tl;dr version: Be careful of needlessly complicating your game with things that should be part of the narrative.
That is a healthy way to look at things. Run the idea of collaborative narrative past your upcoming DM, and see how they feel. If they go for it, then you may not need to make any houserules at all, and that would be fantastic. Every houserule adds a layer of complication to your game and runs the risk of breaking it.
Some, like banning race X or feat Y may not be that risky, but adding a slew of new skills can be a trap for your players. There are no professional skills necessary to the profession of adventurer, so the player who uses up one of their three of four skill selections on one is sacrificing effectiveness in the game for flavor. They are using a resource on the hope that the GM will validate the choice by presenting them with, sometimes odd, corner case situations where they will use their "haberdashery" skill on a somewhat regular basis. The Skills presented in the Players Handbook are designed that your players who are trained in those skills should have the opportunity to use them, if not once a session, then at least once per adventure.
In order for the "haberdasher" skill to be useful once per adventure, the DM will need to do some serious mental and plot gymnastics, and this is why those skills can be traps for the people you really want to encourage to help you in your narrative, the roleplayers.
By introducing skills that are largely useless for adventuring, you are actually penalizing your roleplayers for enriching your game. Those who aren't as into RP, or who munchkin, will see the trap, and ignore the professional skills altogether, making themselves into much more effective adventurers, while your roleplayers fall behind. Unless, of course, you force all of the people around the table to take a professional skill. The munchkins will find a way around it, but you can try.
For example, You tell the munchkin he must take a professional skill in line with his background. Logically, he can still take one of the broad, useful for adventuring skills, by saying that he comes from a long line of soldiers, wizards, noblemen, or constables, and it has been expected since he was born that he would follow in the "family business." The soldier will take Endurance as his "professional skill", the Wizard will take Aracana, the nobleman will take Diplomacy, and the constable will take Insight, Perception or Streetwise. Not only does this neatly sidestep your new rule to encourage roleplaying, but it gives them a leg up on the players who took Fishing, Farming, Blacksmithing or Haberdashery.
The tl;dr version: Be careful of needlessly complicating your game with things that should be part of the narrative.
As he is a new GM I probobly won't complicate things for him yet, the base rules will do for his first sessions and it's more important that he learns how to lead a game then how to use the rules right now, in the next game I might bring it up though, it is always good to be prepared beforehand, if classes, feats or utility powers where to be created that can take a while.
I'm not worried about munchkining, the player who is most into playing a combat monster isn't in to searching for broken combos anyways and just does what he finds is cool and the player who is into searching for broken combos isn't into munchkinning and just points them out to me laughing a little bit at the miss of the developers (or alot if its a big one).
I might do some proffesion based utility powers and maybe replace the current background system to getting a feat simmilar to +5 to farming but not much more, anything else would complicate the game and I still have WFRP 2nd when I wish to play a commoner. Though I'm thinking of making a fisherman class (though more along the lines of harpoonfishing) and maybe a sealore skill or simmilar (covering sailing, fishing, knowledge of the ocean and other things associated with the sea) a sealore skill is very useful in adventuring after all.
But if I get a choice I'll trust he who has actually been on a boat before, a soldier can be as good as he wants on fighting but if he can't sail and can't find the sea monster my best use of him would be to sacrifice him in a vain hope that the monster settles for him and swims away and the same would be true for the flutist (though he could raise the morale of the starving people who are to afraid to fish.
Fain 'nuff. Although we're talking about "heroes" and "mercenaries", rather than regular soldiers or what not. Regular soldiers wouldn't take unnecessary risks especially if they weren't ordered by their captain, while self-proclaimed heroes and unknown mercenaries/adventurers are expendable and could die well before getting paid by the townsfolk for their aid, so at worst they'll be losing more fishing boats (but not more fishermen).
Although you could have the entire roleplay as a sort of "special operations team" (kinda like Commandoes) with the leader as Captain and the other members as squad members [long range guy is Sniper, controller is Crowd Control, artillery could be Demolitions Expert, and the melee guy could be the lead in Forced Entry... or something like that], taking orders from some king that included taking on the sea monster... and you know they'd have to be trained in various environments and skills, including seafaring, aquatic combat and even aerial combat (like when being dropped off from a dropship and you have all sorts of flying opponents attacking you before you deploy your chute or something to that effect).
A farming based utility would probobly be about getting food, taking care of animals or identifying plants but many others are possible, it shouldn't be too hard to make a few such powers. +5 to farming adds to that time when your players help the villagers work while wainting for the bandits (they are extra impressed and job might be finished earlier so that they and the players can rest before the bandits attack) or does some work between quests, or digs up a canal that you cover with leaves to make a trap before the bandits arive. The player can often think of ways to use it.
That Farming-based Utility is, as mentioned, Nature (when in the wilderness), and Dungeoneering (when underground). There's no skill power needed, because it's inherently a skill.
That +5 to farming helping in reducing time needed to help with village work? That's probably more on Athletics + Endurance, which are far more generic -- with Athletics doing the hauling and sprinting, and Endurance keeping the pace -- since "Farming" would have to be related to farming stuff... and villagers aren't just about farming (there's carpentry, blacksmithing, fishing, delivering of materials; only farmer villagers would be able to appreciate the help).
Digging up a canal would be Athletics, and trap-setting is (wow, of all things) Thievery. Guess it takes a thief to know a thief.
Can you think of tasks that are related to farming that isn't covered by the regular skills? The basic background bonuses would likely be the most general benefits -- Nature for the long years you spent with both wild and local flora, Endurance for the years toiling under rain and shine -- while most other things would likely be situational bonuses; you don't *often* dig deep holes unless you used to be the province's well-digger [which is a different occupation altogether], you don't set traps unless you lived in a region where trap-setting was the only way to keep safe at night [which needs coordination with the DM], and going into excessively into minute details can lead to boring or frustrating games (if not both), unless you're in a group that loves that sort of thing.
As he is a new GM I probobly won't complicate things for him yet, the base rules will do for his first sessions and it's more important that he learns how to lead a game then how to use the rules right now, in the next game I might bring it up though, it is always good to be prepared beforehand, if classes, feats or utility powers where to be created that can take a while.
I highly discourage you from introducing it to him too soon; not everybody goes from newbie to rules/DMing master in one sitting. In fact, it could take him the entire campaign to master DMing, because he has to face various situations that would help him learn what rules apply and what rulings he could apply.
I might do some proffesion based utility powers and maybe replace the current background system to getting a feat simmilar to +5 to farming but not much more, anything else would complicate the game and I still have WFRP 2nd when I wish to play a commoner. Though I'm thinking of making a fisherman class (though more along the lines of harpoonfishing) and maybe a sealore skill or simmilar (covering sailing, fishing, knowledge of the ocean and other things associated with the sea) a sealore skill is very useful in adventuring after all.
Profession-based utility powers are excessively specific; there's a reason why skill-based utility powers are *skill*-based... and I do believe it's because aside from the fact that it frees players from having to take two feats to take hold of another class' utility powers, it is a more generic set of utility powers that is unlocked by your specific training in such skills... the "fluff" of let's say a Nature utility power could be that you're so skilled as a farm boy (with all the animals and horses and what not), that riding a mount is far easier for you than most other folk, since you've lived with horses your whole life, and your current mount would come from your hometown. Or something to that degree, depending on how you'd want to fluff your training or bonus to Nature.
[ If one was limited by professions than the more overlapping and fluffable skills -- which could represent the general or specific skills learned from a given profession -- not only would you have to create an ever-increasing number of skill powers for each new occupation that comes out**, but you'd have to make sure that each power is both useful and appropriate for level. And to think, in spite of the manpower WotC could have placed in Skill Powers, why the limited number of powers? ]
The best thing you could do as a commoner class is roleplay (or rollplay) your background, when your life was still that of any other minion. Once you hit level 1, it's off to hero-land, with your commoner 'heritage' relegated to the background (as memories of past experiences or skills you've grown accustomed to before you began your heroic adventures)... where it ought to be.
** what skill powers could you give to a mountain guide? A garbage collector? A portable potty? A forest guide? A fisherman? A pearl diver? A regular teacher? A teacher of the arcane arts? A preacher/clergy member [that isn't a Cleric]? A town crier? A page? A squire? A landlord? A tax collector? A thug? A merchant guildmaster? A thieves' guildmaster? A port master? A blacksmith? A king? A snake-charmer? A merchant? A tinkerer of arcane devices? A thief (that isn't a Rogue)? A mercenary?
And mind you, this is just a sample list; there's also the guy that makes sea salt for a living, as well as accountant and banker, and while it might take awhile, there's a whole lot of (medieval or fantasy) occupations that could come up as well, such as Dragon Slayer, Orc Slayer, and bodyguard. What skill powers would come from THEM?
Having referred to the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Career Compendium, the Muleskinner has no special rules pertaining to skinning mules.
That's because a "muleskinner" is a teamster who specializes in mules. "Skin" is a slang term from the late 19th century meaning "drive a draft animal", so a mule-skinner is someone who drives a team of mules. It has nothing to do with removing hide.
It's entirely possible that the OP knows this and is having a bit of fun, but I suspect several other posters are unaware of the meaning of the word...
Thank you! It was driving me nuts and I am horrified at the state of education implied by the fact that this got to page 4 before anyone appeared to know the real meaning of the word.
Having referred to the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Career Compendium, the Muleskinner has no special rules pertaining to skinning mules.
That's because a "muleskinner" is a teamster who specializes in mules. "Skin" is a slang term from the late 19th century meaning "drive a draft animal", so a mule-skinner is someone who drives a team of mules. It has nothing to do with removing hide.
It's entirely possible that the OP knows this and is having a bit of fun, but I suspect several other posters are unaware of the meaning of the word...
Thank you! It was driving me nuts and I am horrified at the state of education implied by the fact that this got to page 4 before anyone appeared to know the real meaning of the word.
You were horrified because no one knew about an obscure slang word from over a century ago, pertaining to an occupation that basically doesn't even exist in the western world at this point in time? That seems like an overreaction.
The only thing left to be said to the OP is: look to the skills. If you ever think, "how will we roll to decide how this situation plays out?" Look to the skills. Animals, plants, farming? Nature. Running, Jumping, Climbing? Athletics. Just look at the list and say "what skill applies in this situation?" If you look and the answer is "none" then have the player roll a D20 and give him a situational modifier you think is appropriate to what they are trying to do. Done. You don't need any special farming utility powers, and you don't need rules for profession-specific skill bonuses.
That Farming-based Utility is, as mentioned, Nature (when in the wilderness), and Dungeoneering (when underground). There's no skill power needed, because it's inherently a skill.That +5 to farming helping in reducing time needed to help with village work? That's probably more on Athletics + Endurance, which are far more generic -- with Athletics doing the hauling and sprinting, and Endurance keeping the pace -- since "Farming" would have to be related to farming stuff... and villagers aren't just about farming (there's carpentry, blacksmithing, fishing, delivering of materials; only farmer villagers would be able to appreciate the help).
Digging up a canal would be Athletics, and trap-setting is (wow, of all things) Thievery. Guess it takes a thief to know a thief.
See, there are lots of skills that could use the bonus to farming. You get a +5 to farming which uses whatever skill is best suited for the farming work you are doing. A new skill isn't a good idea and I never suggested one.
I highly discourage you from introducing it to him too soon; not everybody goes from newbie to rules/DMing master in one sitting. In fact, it could take him the entire campaign to master DMing, because he has to face various situations that would help him learn what rules apply and what rulings he could apply.
With the next game I didn't mean the next session, I was unclear about that but I was quite tired at the moment. No, any such changes will first be introduced in one of my campaigns and if he likes how it is played out it might be carried forward into his.
Profession-based utility powers are excessively specific; there's a reason why skill-based utility powers are *skill*-based... and I do believe it's because aside from the fact that it frees players from having to take two feats to take hold of another class' utility powers, it is a more generic set of utility powers that is unlocked by your specific training in such skills... the "fluff" of let's say a Nature utility power could be that you're so skilled as a farm boy (with all the animals and horses and what not), that riding a mount is far easier for you than most other folk, since you've lived with horses your whole life, and your current mount would come from your hometown. Or something to that degree, depending on how you'd want to fluff your training or bonus to Nature.[ If one was limited by professions than the more overlapping and fluffable skills -- which could represent the general or specific skills learned from a given profession -- not only would you have to create an ever-increasing number of skill powers for each new occupation that comes out**, but you'd have to make sure that each power is both useful and appropriate for level. And to think, in spite of the manpower WotC could have placed in Skill Powers, why the limited number of powers? ]
Not neccesarily, farmer based would be fairly varied as there are many different kinds of farms and works at farms. Then noble powers would have some uses, seaman powers some and Servant powers some. One should take fairly broad proffesions in this so it doesn't become too specific and allows the player to specify by the powers he chose.
** what skill powers could you give to a mountain guide? A garbage collector? A portable potty? A forest guide? A fisherman? A pearl diver? A regular teacher? A teacher of the arcane arts? A preacher/clergy member [that isn't a Cleric]? A town crier? A page? A squire? A landlord? A tax collector? A thug? A merchant guildmaster? A thieves' guildmaster? A port master? A blacksmith? A king? A snake-charmer? A merchant? A tinkerer of arcane devices? A thief (that isn't a Rogue)? A mercenary?
And mind you, this is just a sample list; there's also the guy that makes sea salt for a living, as well as accountant and banker, and while it might take awhile, there's a whole lot of (medieval or fantasy) occupations that could come up as well, such as Dragon Slayer, Orc Slayer, and bodyguard. What skill powers would come from THEM?
Oh dear...you couldn't settled for a few to make an example?
a mountain guide, A forest guide, Dragon Slayer, Orc Slayer. Uses the wildman/hunter/insert a good name proffesion feat (that may or may not be environment based in which case it's as simple as chosing an environment to which you get the bonus). Utility powers depends on whenever they are environment based or not and will probobly overlap a little with nature powers (though it allows a player not trained in nature to find mountain paths as he used to be a mountain guide).
A garbage collector, A portable potty, A town crier. These uses the commoner feat that gives them a bonus to their specific work as well as to talking to commoners (as they know them better). The utility powers will be based of some of these proffesions, a garbadge collector might get one that adds to looting, a towncrier or village idiot may get one to attract attention, each will have a small fluff text that suggest some proffesions that may use it.
A fisherman? A pearl diver? A port master?. Uses the Naval/Seaman feat, utility powers are waterbased and can be about swimming/diving, sailing, fishing and knowing about the sea.
A regular teacher? A teacher of the arcane arts?. Academics, gain a feat bonus to knowledge of their particular field of intrest (or a smaller bonus on all knowledge for those that chose the Dillettant bonus). Powers are almost all knowledge based.
A preacher/clergy member [that isn't a Cleric]? A religious class can often fit into another class (some are more academic some are more like commoners as they work togheter with the people but a Holy man feat could be created. Religion covers them a little bit too well though.
A page. Takes the servant feat, servant powers helps to serve people and to impress people with how humble and polite they are.
A squire, A mercenary, bodyguard. Takes the military feat giving them a bonus to talk to military personel (knowing the slang terms). Powers include making improvised defenses and training people to fight.
A landlord, A port master, A king, A merchant guildmaster, A thieves' guildmaster. Takes the leader feat, giving a bonus to commanding. Powers play on their natural authority.
A tax collector. Depends on his power, merchant, leader or commoner might all fit.
A thug, A thieves' guildmaster, A thief. Uses the criminal feat giving a bonus to certain criminal acts (might need to be specified beforehand) utility powers risk overlapping with thievery and streetwise but not neccesarily.
A merchant guildmaster, A merchant. The merchant feat, gives a bonus to trading/haggling and powers based on it.
A blacksmith. Takes crafter feat, gives a bonus to a chosen craft and uses powers based on creating stuff.
A snake-charmer. Entertainer feat, gives a bonus to entertaining and powers focus on entertaining people.
A tinkerer of arcane devices. Academic or Crafter, maybe both.
So, there I covered them, some fit in more then one but that doesn't matter as you chose what kind of portmaster you where (the sailng one who tended a port or the one who tended the port but didn't really sail), portmaster was an example.
a mountain guide, A forest guide, Dragon Slayer, Orc Slayer. Uses the wildman/hunter/insert a good name proffesion feat (that may or may not be environment based in which case it's as simple as chosing an environment to which you get the bonus). Utility powers depends on whenever they are environment based or not and will probobly overlap a little with nature powers (though it allows a player not trained in nature to find mountain paths as he used to be a mountain guide).
Background, bonus to Nature, done.
A garbage collector, A portable potty, A town crier. These uses the commoner feat that gives them a bonus to their specific work as well as to talking to commoners (as they know them better). The utility powers will be based of some of these proffesions, a garbadge collector might get one that adds to looting, a towncrier or village idiot may get one to attract attention, each will have a small fluff text that suggest some proffesions that may use it.
Background, bonus to Streetwise, done.
A fisherman? A pearl diver? A port master?. Uses the Naval/Seaman feat, utility powers are waterbased and can be about swimming/diving, sailing, fishing and knowing about the sea.
Background, bonus to Nature, Athletics or Perception, done.
A regular teacher? A teacher of the arcane arts?. Academics, gain a feat bonus to knowledge of their particular field of intrest (or a smaller bonus on all knowledge for those that chose the Dillettant bonus). Powers are almost all knowledge based.
Background, bonus to Arcana or History, done.
A preacher/clergy member [that isn't a Cleric]? A religious class can often fit into another class (some are more academic some are more like commoners as they work togheter with the people but a Holy man feat could be created. Religion covers them a little bit too well though.
Background, bonus to Religion, done.
A page. Takes the servant feat, servant powers helps to serve people and to impress people with how humble and polite they are.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, done.
A squire, A mercenary, bodyguard. Takes the military feat giving them a bonus to talk to military personel (knowing the slang terms). Powers include making improvised defenses and training people to fight.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, History, or Streetwise, done.
A landlord, A port master, A king, A merchant guildmaster, A thieves' guildmaster. Takes the leader feat, giving a bonus to commanding. Powers play on their natural authority.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, done.
A tax collector. Depends on his power, merchant, leader or commoner might all fit.
Background, bonus to Intimidate, done.
A thug, A thieves' guildmaster, A thief. Uses the criminal feat giving a bonus to certain criminal acts (might need to be specified beforehand) utility powers risk overlapping with thievery and streetwise but not neccesarily.
Background, bonus to Bluff, Intimidate, or Streetwise, done.
A merchant guildmaster, A merchant. The merchant feat, gives a bonus to trading/haggling and powers based on it.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, done.
A blacksmith. Takes crafter feat, gives a bonus to a chosen craft and uses powers based on creating stuff.
There are no "powers" based on crafting stuff, or "crafting" feats, nor should there be. That's a terrible idea in all ways.
If you must: Background, "Martial Practice user" for free, done.
A snake-charmer. Entertainer feat, gives a bonus to entertaining and powers focus on entertaining people.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy or Bluff, done.
A tinkerer of arcane devices. Academic or Crafter, maybe both.
Background, bonus to Arcana or History, done.
So, there I covered them
By adding expensive ideas that are bad when there are pre-existing non-bad mechanics (the "Background") to do everything you want, only better.
One thing we do at our gaming table to help differentiate between the rather bland skills without descending into a reality-imitating stance with hundreds of different skills is this: We all assign specialisations to our trained skills, and when the situation to which applies the character's specialisations come up, the player gets a small circumstance bonus (we go with a simple +1 per tier, but the amount isn't that important, what matters is that it gives depth to a character's background and interests by mechanically recognizing them) to the check to represent his expanded expertise in the specific domain.
So, in my previous woodland-bred druid vs ex-peasant ranger example, the druid could have a specialisation in "exploration rituals" (his skill in Nature is more magical and he's better at controlling primal spirits to get them to create some fancy effects than other character's trained in Nature), while the ranger is specialised in "farming" (so he's good at doing eveything the Nature skill can do, but when it comes to farming, he's even better)...
I hope this helps. Of course, this is a very optional rule and it adds a somewhat unecessary level of complexity to character building, but I for one know that it's what some kind of players expect from a RPG...
Although, I fully endorse the idea that a fisherman or seaman can't be a character class in the 4e sense of the word, and that it is in fact a background in 4e. There is one thing I recognize in the OPs critique: 4e makes it pretty difficult to differentiate between a woodland-bred druid's Nature skill and an ex-peasant ranger's Nature skill...
One thing we do at our gaming table to help differentiate between the rather bland skills without descending into a reality-imitating stance with hundreds of different skills is this: We all assign specialisations to our trained skills, and when the situation to which applies the character's specialisations come up, the player gets a small circumstance bonus (we go with a simple +1 per tier, but the amount isn't that important, what matters is that it gives depth to a character's background and interests by mechanically recognizing them) to the check to represent his expanded expertise in the specific domain.
So, in my previous woodland-bred druid vs ex-peasant ranger example, the druid could have a specialisation in "exploration rituals" (his skill in Nature is more magical and he's better at controlling primal spirits to get them to create some fancy effects than other character's trained in Nature), while the ranger is specialised in "farming" (so he's good at doing eveything the Nature skill can do, but when it comes to farming, he's even better)...
I hope this helps. Of course, this is a very optional rule and it adds a somewhat unecessary level of complexity to character building, but I for one know that it's what some kind of players expect from a RPG...
That's a great idea, I will probobly use that.
These are all TERRIBLE ideas, none of which rise to the level of needing or wanting a Feat.
A feat that gives a bonus to certain situations isn't useful? A player won't wish to get such bonuses? I think we know different players.
a mountain guide, A forest guide, Dragon Slayer, Orc Slayer. Uses the wildman/hunter/insert a good name proffesion feat (that may or may not be environment based in which case it's as simple as chosing an environment to which you get the bonus). Utility powers depends on whenever they are environment based or not and will probobly overlap a little with nature powers (though it allows a player not trained in nature to find mountain paths as he used to be a mountain guide).
Background, bonus to Nature, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A garbage collector, A portable potty, A town crier. These uses the commoner feat that gives them a bonus to their specific work as well as to talking to commoners (as they know them better). The utility powers will be based of some of these proffesions, a garbadge collector might get one that adds to looting, a towncrier or village idiot may get one to attract attention, each will have a small fluff text that suggest some proffesions that may use it.
Background, bonus to Streetwise, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A fisherman? A pearl diver? A port master?. Uses the Naval/Seaman feat, utility powers are waterbased and can be about swimming/diving, sailing, fishing and knowing about the sea.
Background, bonus to Nature, Athletics or Perception, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously. And DnD is actually lacking in the sea department. A sealore skill would actually be useful.
A regular teacher? A teacher of the arcane arts?. Academics, gain a feat bonus to knowledge of their particular field of intrest (or a smaller bonus on all knowledge for those that chose the Dillettant bonus). Powers are almost all knowledge based.
Background, bonus to Arcana or History, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A preacher/clergy member [that isn't a Cleric]? A religious class can often fit into another class (some are more academic some are more like commoners as they work togheter with the people but a Holy man feat could be created. Religion covers them a little bit too well though.
Background, bonus to Religion, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A page. Takes the servant feat, servant powers helps to serve people and to impress people with how humble and polite they are.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A squire, A mercenary, bodyguard. Takes the military feat giving them a bonus to talk to military personel (knowing the slang terms). Powers include making improvised defenses and training people to fight.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, History, or Streetwise, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A landlord, A port master, A king, A merchant guildmaster, A thieves' guildmaster. Takes the leader feat, giving a bonus to commanding. Powers play on their natural authority.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A tax collector. Depends on his power, merchant, leader or commoner might all fit.
Background, bonus to Intimidate, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A thug, A thieves' guildmaster, A thief. Uses the criminal feat giving a bonus to certain criminal acts (might need to be specified beforehand) utility powers risk overlapping with thievery and streetwise but not neccesarily.
Background, bonus to Bluff, Intimidate, or Streetwise, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A merchant guildmaster, A merchant. The merchant feat, gives a bonus to trading/haggling and powers based on it.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A blacksmith. Takes crafter feat, gives a bonus to a chosen craft and uses powers based on creating stuff.
There are no "powers" based on crafting stuff, or "crafting" feats, nor should there be. That's a terrible idea in all ways.
If you must: Background, "Martial Practice user" for free, done.
This is just ignorance, many favorite characters in my games have been crafters and people have enjoyed playing them, I can't at all understand why they are so horrible, if they where it would surely have shown in the games where PCs have played them, and then I have had players play characters who where just crafters as well as characters that where crafters and other things.
A snake-charmer. Entertainer feat, gives a bonus to entertaining and powers focus on entertaining people.
Background, bonus to Diplomacy or Bluff, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
A tinkerer of arcane devices. Academic or Crafter, maybe both.
Background, bonus to Arcana or History, done.
It works, but so does this and they can exist simultaneously.
[
quote author=69272605 post=452434369]So, there I covered them
By adding expensive ideas that are bad when there are pre-existing non-bad mechanics (the "Background") to do everything you want, only better.
Expensive? Compared to what? Skill training or skill specialisation?A small combat feat that is mainly ignored? An extra utility? And as I said this may be given as a background.
To put it simply again, professions are just flavor -- fluff, dressing, make-up, aesthetics, whatever you want to call it -- to the mechanics. As a Rogue, you can be as much a preacher as a thug, as much a scholar as an idiot, as much a devotee as a damned. Creating mechanical benefits for backgrounds beyond what has already been suggested countless times -- bonus to one skill, maybe learning a language -- would, no matter how much you'd insist, end up either wasted or excessively used.
You: "I start out as a farmer."
DM: "Great. What does your background do?"
You: "I get +5 to farming-related stuff and a farming-related power."
DM: "So, what does your farming-related power do?
You: "Oh it lets me be more farmer-y."
DM: "How?"
You: *pauses for 5 minutes* "Alright, I'll start out as a soldier instead and get +1 to attack rolls until the end of my next turn on an action point."
Leogun, you gave lots of flavorful concepts earlier, but have yet to detail any particular useful occupation-related feat or utility power that doesn't step in the toes of certain already-existing material. Please explain to us why the innovative use of skills and DM-granted situational bonuses from your selected background has to be replaced by feats and background-related utility powers.
EDIT: I just remembered something... regarding the aquatic thing... in Forgotten Realms' Player's Guide, I do believe there's a Paragon Path dedicated to being a seafarer. I suppose you could get one aspect of that, tone it down to become Background-esque in benefit, and use it especially when having fun in the high seas... but the said Paragon Path isn't available to all classes and has even less utility than Dragonslayers and giant slayers, which is why you hardly hear of it in any of the guides.
If this was intended for your own group, you probably should have put it under "homebrew" rather than "what is a player to do?" Because you would likely get more support there, as it would be more appropriate as homebrew material than officially supported material (due to lack of flexibility and likelihood that most of it would be useless, while a tiny portion would be overpowered).
So, where's that farmer power that makes you more farmer-y, and how does it make you more of a farmer?
EDIT (again): That portable potty guy, by the way? I'd love to know what sort of improvements you could give to his job, given that all his job entails is standing there with a black cloak to keep people from looking at 'clients' who are pooping into that bowl he carries around. I'd also love to know what powers improve the salt collector occupation -- wait, you mean you'd get to manipulate the sun and let it dry sea water more quickly?! That's an awesome way to dish out radiant and fire damage... oh wait, it works only in the daytime, and only 1/day, and probably for the whole day... and it works only outdoors, near the sea. /sad /sarcasm
If someone took that background, then they'd either need to insist that the DM give them circumstances that would allow them to make use of their feat and, uh, port-a-potty skills; or the DM would have to already cater to such backgrounds, putting more emphasis on that then the player who decided to be an ex-soldier turned pacifist cleric, which sends favoritism flags springing up; or the player would get to barely use his/her skill throughout 30 levels of play, and would likely feel unfulfilled in having taken a background and spent feats on something that might occur once every, what, 5-10 levels if you're lucky?
Honestly, D&D is indeed about being heroic, but you can still start off as a commoner. If you want to be the Frodo of your group (who killed exactly 0 creatures through the entire LotR trilogy), then go ahead, but don't expect to be treated like the plucky main character in an actual game that's not driven by author's whim. You won't get a sudden deus ex machina when your farming or fishing skill (and all the feats you sunk into that amazing skill) fail you and the monster is breathing down your neck, because your allies can still protect themselves but might not be able to save you as well.
You need to be able to contribute meaningfully to your group, and burning feats to show how good of a mule herder or street sweeper you are isn't going to make you an asset to your team often enough to be a credible help.
Actually, it's kind of common sense. If I'm assembling a team to go slay the dread Black Dragon Garmystriex, I'm going to want the best warriors, spellcasters, healers, and commanders I can find. Someone's talent with growing crops, preternaturally gifted as they may be, is not going to make me want to take them along to stab a flying monster in the face.
Leogun, you gave lots of flavorful concepts earlier, but have yet to detail any particular useful occupation-related feat or utility power that doesn't step in the toes of certain already-existing material. Please explain to us why the innovative use of skills and DM-granted situational bonuses from your selected background has to be replaced by feats and background-related utility powers.
The feats give the player more control of it, then the player will choose to use farmery things to get the bonus, he may choose to work at a farm when they stop by a town and might try to milk that strange mountainbeast knowing that they get +5 to doing so. By giving control of the bonus to the player adds a bonus.
If this was intended for your own group, you probably should have put it under "homebrew" rather than "what is a player to do?" Because you would likely get more support there, as it would be more appropriate as homebrew material than officially supported material (due to lack of flexibility and likelihood that most of it would be useless, while a tiny portion would be overpowered).
Well when I began the topic I didn't have these thoughts, I just wanted to know if there where any commoner classes anywhere. Then the topic has evolved.
EDIT (again): That portable potty guy, by the way? I'd love to know what sort of improvements you could give to his job, given that all his job entails is standing there with a black cloak to keep people from looking at 'clients' who are pooping into that bowl he carries around. I'd also love to know what powers improve the salt collector occupation -- wait, you mean you'd get to manipulate the sun and let it dry sea water more quickly?! That's an awesome way to dish out radiant and fire damage... oh wait, it works only in the daytime, and only 1/day, and probably for the whole day... and it works only outdoors, near the sea. /sad /sarcasm
Yes, some are harder then others, I don't know what bonus to give a portable potty either (except the normal commoner bonus).
I think it's probably best for everyone to agree to disagree here.
True words of wisdom
The feats give the player more control of it, then the player will choose to use farmery things to get the bonus, he may choose to work at a farm when they stop by a town and might try to milk that strange mountainbeast knowing that they get +5 to doing so. By giving control of the bonus to the player adds a bonus.
1. That's metagaming there and then, because the player knows he gets +5 for doing so, but the character, who is used to being in a farm, would only get to be able to milk the "strange mountainbeast" better than anyone else if they have that beast in their farm... which would make them NOT normal. He could *guess* how to milk the beast, and he could *try* to figure out if the beast is male or female, but as natural animal knowledge is a Nature check, the attempt to know if he could milk the beast is a normal Nature check (with either the +2 from background or +5 from being trained in it, if not both), while the attempt to milk might be granted a +2 ~ +5 situational bonus for an ability check (likely Dexterity).
2. If this is all in off-camera time, then why should the DM be given the unnecessary headache of trying to figure out what mechanical benefit the player should have for working in a farm or trying to milk a strange beast that he had likely never encountered before?
3. Are we playing dashing heroes who only have to deal with milking strange cows once a century, or are magical lactating beasts the Panacea of your world, so much so that you have to dedicate entire encounters to just milking the said beasts?
4. If the DM can hand out situational bonuses and the player is given access to such bonuses, something has to give: either the DM raises the difficulty overall, or would blatantly deny the player situational bonuses from his side because the player has it always enabled on his side.
Well when I began the topic I didn't have these thoughts, I just wanted to know if there where any commoner classes anywhere. Then the topic has evolved.
Not in D&D apparently. Commoners yes, as NPC with no stats whatsoever (except in certain editions of D&D, where you had to mechanically list down everything including quirks, age, level, and even XP and items of each NPC... which can be neatly summed up into unneccessary DM paperwork)... but commoner classes, where you have powers and abilities where you have the "legendary" Joe the Plumber fighting the forces of darkness with his "magical pipe of doom"?
No, I don't think you'll find those classes any time soon. Maybe in a completely different game...
Yes, some are harder then others, I don't know what bonus to give a portable potty either (except the normal commoner bonus).
Which is exactly the point here. You could have situational bonuses, or feat-based bonuses to situational non-combat events -- although I'd rather have combat options that seem to have situational benefits, since combat is a constant in the game, than non-combat options that would only see the light of day when the DM goes all out in trying to support them (I mean you could optimize yourself for non-combat skill challenges and contribute very much to your party and to yourself... but how do -- or more appropriately, why should -- you optimize a farmer for farming when you would spend long nights on the open road, or in urban settlements, or in the high seas, or in dragon lairs, or what not?) -- but to go out and beyond the default benefits of each background and put in so many unnecessary things?
- - - - -
JUST to see how your group would fare, ask your group to do a trial run -- even just a one-shot game -- and see how it turns out.
The game designers made a very conscious decision to not use detailed mechanics for non-combat, not challenging events like farming and fishing. The game does have rules for them -- you use appropriate skills and skill challenges where there is a meaningful chance and consequence for failure, and role-playing alone for other non-combat situations.
If you are interested in a RPG focused on non-challenging work activities like tanning hides and baling hay, then a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" may not be the right choice for you. I would suggest F&F (Fishing and Farming) or S&S (Sleeping and Snoring) or one of the many other non-combat, non-challenging RPGs which crowd the shelves at your friendly local gaming store.
That book is not ment for building NPCs, those are the classes that you play in the game. You are a peasant, muleskinner, Fisherman, Initiate, Militiaman, Ratcatcher or Dung Collector (or one of the others, there are hundreds of careers), these aren't flavors for the PCs either, that is what your PC is.
For the record, the intro to the book seems to say differently.
Mule-Skinning sounds pretty hard-core. I get images of epic tier super fiery mules that are super hard to find, kill and skin.
Mule Skinning isnt for sissies.
Mule-Skinning sounds pretty hard-core. I get images of epic tier super fiery mules that are super hard to find, kill and skin.
Mule Skinning isnt for sissies.
Maybe THESE are epic tier creatures you are able to skin as a mule skinner?
That's because a "muleskinner" is a teamster who specializes in mules. "Skin" is a slang term from the late 19th century meaning "drive a draft animal", so a mule-skinner is someone who drives a team of mules. It has nothing to do with removing hide.
Thank goodness someone finally mentioned this - I was waiting to post till I saw if anyone had. More on muleskinning. LOL headbutting might be useful for dealing with the ornery critters though.
As for housecats, anyone who has tangled with a ticked off housecat knows you don't get out of that battle uscathed. I've had to bathe my cats a few times, and the results (to me, not the cat) were not pretty.
This was one of my biggest beefs with 4e early on. I liked the feel you got in 3.5 and earlier editions at low levels that you weren't much better than the commonfolk around you. I like the story of the common soldier/lay priest/hedge wizard rising above his beginnings and growing into a powerful hero.
In 4e you start out as a badass and just become more badass as time goes on. =/
Couldn't 1st level Wizards be one shotted by housecats in earlier editions or am I mistaken?
Yes. My first character was a wizard, his first adventure was [B2] Keep on the Borderlands, he had 1 hit point.
As folks have tried to point out, having to spend a valuable feat slot on something like farming or fishing or BEING A SERVANT???? probably won't go over well. If I have the choice between my rogue getting Feat: Backstabber or Feat: Porta Potty, guess which one I'm taking?
Don't get me wrong, I always try to create characters with an interesting background, and when I'm DMing I reward my players with small scenarios that highlight their background as well. So that former servant who lit off to go adventuring might receive a small situational bonus (Streetwise) when he's questioning the servants at the castle. The ex soldier would get a bonus (Streetwise or Diplomacy) when questioning the guys at the barracks - probably after he suggested a few new exercises to the drill sergeant. The farmer who became a Warlord might get a situational Streetwise benefit to talking with the farmers at the tavern about the recent crop problems.
And yes, if the ex-farmer Warlord REALLY needed to do some actual farming (and had invested his background bonus in Nature) then he'd get a plus on that.
But forcing players to take FEATS in a profession when they have no clue if it'll ever be useful...that's a no go. What happens when one player takes Feat: Farming, and then the next three levels have the PCs adventuring on shipboard? Maybe the farmer can take care of the pigs and chickens that are on board for food, but how exciting is that? Another player takes Feat: Sailor, and then the party ends up in the desert, hundreds of miles from a water source larger than a small spring here and there. That'll make him feel heroic and useful all right!
About the only way to do this would be to add an extra feat which the PCs could ONLY take in a particular profession, and then make up your list of professions they could take them from. Even so, it seems far more unwieldy than just letting them create a background and getting a bonus to the appropriate skill when and if it seems right.
It feels like the reason you're lobbying for this is because you're wanting a +5 bonus rather than the usual +1 or +2 that would normally be considered a fair situational bonus.
The other problem with this is that some professions would pretty much penalize players for not taking "really useful" professions. Farmer is a profession that could be useful in a lot of situations, whether the character was milking a yak, planting a garden, talking shop with other farmers, identifying a strange mold on the crops. Sailor is helpful in any seafaring campaign. In a land-based or dungeon one, much less so, though I'd be inclined to give benefits to rope-tying and weather prediction (but only in coastal regions). When you get to professions like servant, that would be pretty much useless for anything other than an occasional diplomacy or streetwise benefit, or a +2 to polishing the silverware. Wow! How heroic! Or maybe you should have a Feat: Laundress - my character is expert at removing stains from cloth. Weee! I can't imagine what Feat: Porta Potty would give someone. Maybe a +2 at not noticing someone in an uncomfortable and compromising position? Then there's Feat: Prostitute - I'm just not going to go there!
The nice thing with 4e is that the player can write up their background as fluff and then IF it should matter, the DM can give bonuses without the players feeling like they wasted important development points on something that might well turn out to be useless to game mechanics. Meanwhile that background can still be useful in explaining the PC's outlook on life and their motivations. AND since the DMG2 suggests having up to 5 different background items, as a DM I might give an occasional situational bonus to something that was part of the character's backstory but didn't receive the benefit of the main bonus. So if the PC chose to be a muleskinner (skinning LIVE mules in that game? that's freaking barbaric!) I'd give them the + 2 to Nature as their main benefit, but if they'd also worked as a basketweaver, I might let them get a bonus to fixing a basket if it for some reason became important.