crafting items of aesthetic value
Leif Ericson
DM how this would work and he referred me to the Craft skill in the
player handbook and all the detail that goes with it.
After analyzing the details of the craft skill, it does not seem to
work for items of aesthetic value. The detail says to look up the
items value in the equipment section. Obviously this is geared toward
making items of usefulness like swords and bows and such. I did not
find a listing for painting. So right off the bat, you have a problem
with this system.
The book assumes that the value of the item you are crafting is fixed
(what is listed in the book). So what happens if one week I want to
paint a quick portrait of a local lady for a few gold and the next I
want to paint a masterpiece (that may actually take months).
Is the DM to assign values to these painting just as if they were
swords and bows on the equipment list? A portrait is 5 gold and a
masterpiece 1000 gold. Maybe all paints should be set at a beginning
price, say 100 gold, and then the value of the painting adjusted after
it is done due to exposure to the market. This would be similar to a
bard's roll for a performance. "Why is sings so well he is world
famous!" Maybe the painting should get it's own performance roll a
few months after completion for how well its views receive it.
Then there is the problem of a DC. What is the DC for a 5 gold
picture and then the DC for a 1000 gold picture? Maybe all paintings
should have the same DC (say 15 for High Quality Item found in the
book) and the 1000 gold part simply takes a very long time to
accomplish. Or should the 1000 gold painting have an equally lofty DC
(of say 30 in which case I would never be able to finish it until I
add more ranks).
DougL
> Upon levelling recently, I put ranks in Craft - painting. I asked my
> DM how this would work and he referred me to the Craft skill in the
> player handbook and all the detail that goes with it.
>
> After analyzing the details of the craft skill, it does not seem to
> work for items of aesthetic value. The detail says to look up the
> items value in the equipment section. Obviously this is geared
toward
> making items of usefulness like swords and bows and such. I did not
> find a listing for painting. So right off the bat, you have a
problem
> with this system.
But you can easily know the value you are working toward. Treasure
listings include values for artwork.
> The book assumes that the value of the item you are crafting is fixed
> (what is listed in the book). So what happens if one week I want to
> paint a quick portrait of a local lady for a few gold and the next I
> want to paint a masterpiece (that may actually take months).
The the first painting has a value of a few gold, and the second has
a value of many hundreds of gold. How is this hard?
> Is the DM to assign values to these painting just as if they were
> swords and bows on the equipment list? A portrait is 5 gold and a
> masterpiece 1000 gold. Maybe all paints should be set at a beginning
> price, say 100 gold, and then the value of the painting adjusted
after
> it is done due to exposure to the market. This would be similar to a
> bard's roll for a performance. "Why is sings so well he is world
> famous!" Maybe the painting should get it's own performance roll a
> few months after completion for how well its views receive it.
Why complicate things, pick a value, pick a DC to represent quality
of the work, work on the painting. Simple.
> Then there is the problem of a DC. What is the DC for a 5 gold
> picture and then the DC for a 1000 gold picture? Maybe all paintings
> should have the same DC (say 15 for High Quality Item found in the
> book) and the 1000 gold part simply takes a very long time to
> accomplish. Or should the 1000 gold painting have an equally lofty
DC
> (of say 30 in which case I would never be able to finish it until I
> add more ranks).
Why should all paintings of the same value have the same DC? In any
case you can voluntarily raise the DC by 10 to work faster, so just
assume all paintings have a DC of 10 and adjust upward as you like.
The craft rules work fine, this is no worse than crafting any item
without a specific DC listed.
DougL
infinull
Painting is an art, and i think that it would fall under the perform
skill, though not technically performing, i think that it fits better,
otherwise use DougLs suggestions
Aaron F. Bourque
>Painting is an art, and i think that it would fall under the
>perform skill
. . .
Painting is not a performance.
Perform is for getting in front of some people and making a
fool of yourself to make the audience like you.
Painting is creating something from material components.
That's Craft.
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Women supposedly mature at a faster rate than men
If that is true, how come they live so much longer then . . ?
"We're nothing like God. Not only do we have limited powers,
but sometimes we're driven to become the devil himself."-ndw
Marshall
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
news:20040822225319...@mb-m20.aol.com...
> From: infi...@yahoo.com (infinull)
>
> >Painting is an art, and i think that it would fall under the
> >perform skill
>
> . . .
>
> Painting is not a performance.
>
> Perform is for getting in front of some people and making a
> fool of yourself to make the audience like you.
>
> Painting is creating something from material components.
> That's Craft.
>
Actually, in this case, its Profession.
Leif Ericson
> > Upon levelling recently, I put ranks in Craft - painting. I asked my
> > DM how this would work and he referred me to the Craft skill in the
> > player handbook and all the detail that goes with it.
> >
>
> of the work, work on the painting. Simple.
>
I am not complicating things. The book is complicated to begin with.
I guess the issue is the cost of raw materials and the price of
failing a check. The cost of raw materials is one third the items
price when completed. The cost of failure is have the raw materials
price.
First thing, I don't agree that a 10,000 gold painting is going to use
any more paint, canvas, etc than a 100 gold piece painting. And yet
if you fail a check for a 10,000 gold painting, your penalty is 1,667
gold. But failing a check for a 100 gold painting is only 17 gold.
This does not make sense.
My last character was a jeweller (this was 2nd edition). He got hold
of some raw rubies and cut them. Jeweller would be a craft. If the
jeweller were cutting a raw ruby that could become a 10,000 gold cut
ruby, why would the cost of failure be any different than if he were
cutting araw ruby that could only be worth 100 gold when cut. The
jeweller has the tools to cut the stones. It doesn't make sense that
the cost of failing the 10,000 gold ruby is greater than failing a
check for a 100 gold ruby. All you need is some cutting tools and a
rock. You aren't building a house.
Second thing after deciding the price of failure isn't working because
the raw material cost does not escalate for the creation of aesthetic
crafts is that if you are going to raise the DC based on the price of
the item, it becomes more and more impossible to complete the item
under the price the item will have when it is finished. If you say
that a 10,000 gold painting has a DC of say 40 and the price of
failing your skill check by more than 5 is 1,667 gold, then you have
to roll skill checks over 34 for a very long time. Once you miss the
skill check 6 times, the price of creating the item as escalated to
the price of the item to begin with (1,667 x 6 = 10,002).
If you are making a sword, the sword price is set by the equipment
guide in the book. The cost of raw materials is reasonable. The
price of failure is reasonable. But with an aesthetic peice of art,
the price varies wildly. And the cost of failing a skill check gets
so ridiculous that no one would even try a high priced item. The true
cost of the item would be all the failed skill checks added together.
If I miss a skill check of 34 say 27 times, then the price of the
painting is going to be more like 45,000 gold (1667 gold x 27). And
who is going to pay 45,000 gold of a 10,000 gold paiting?
Now if a paiting was always 100 gold to make and then it gained in
value after it was done as people begin to appreciate it, that makes
more sense. But then there is the gem cutting scenario where a 10,000
gold gem should be appraise right away at 10,000 gold after it is cut.
Basically the system doesn't work for aesthetic peices.
Wyrin
> From: infi...@yahoo.com (infinull)
>
> >Painting is an art, and i think that it would fall under the
> >perform skill
>
> . . .
>
> Painting is not a performance.
Tell that to Rolf Harris
Ken Andrews
PHB, page 70:
Craft (Int)
You are trained in a craft, trade, or art, such as alchemy, armoursmithing,
basketweaving, bookbinding, bowmaking, blacksmithing, calligraphy,
carpentry, cobbling, gemcutting, leatherworking, locksmithing, painting,
pottery, sculpting, shipmaking, stonemasonry, trapmaking, weaponsmithing, or
weaving.
PHB, page 80:
Profession (Wis)
You are trained in a livelihood or a professional role, such as apothecary,
boater, bookkeeper, brewer, cook, driver, farmer, fisher, guide, herbalist,
herder, hunter, innkeeper, lumberjack, miller, miner, porter, rancher,
sailor, scribe, siege engineer, stablehand, tanner, teamster, woodcutter, or
the like.
You're saying the book is wrong, then?
Housepainting *might* be a service skill, and thus a profession, but
portrait painting is definitely a creation skill, and thus a craft.
Keith Davies
>
> I am not complicating things. The book is complicated to begin with.
>
> I guess the issue is the cost of raw materials and the price of
> failing a check. The cost of raw materials is one third the items
> price when completed. The cost of failure is have the raw materials
> price.
>
> First thing, I don't agree that a 10,000 gold painting is going to use
> any more paint, canvas, etc than a 100 gold piece painting. And yet
> if you fail a check for a 10,000 gold painting, your penalty is 1,667
> gold. But failing a check for a 100 gold painting is only 17 gold.
> This does not make sense.
>
> My last character was a jeweller (this was 2nd edition). He got hold
> of some raw rubies and cut them. Jeweller would be a craft. If the
> jeweller were cutting a raw ruby that could become a 10,000 gold cut
> ruby, why would the cost of failure be any different than if he were
> cutting araw ruby that could only be worth 100 gold when cut. The
> jeweller has the tools to cut the stones. It doesn't make sense that
> the cost of failing the 10,000 gold ruby is greater than failing a
> check for a 100 gold ruby. All you need is some cutting tools and a
> rock. You aren't building a house.
No, but you are cutting a better ruby; on a failure you could well
destroy it.
I don't see how you can get a 10,000 gp stone out of one that's only
worth 100 gp. That is, the two stones are inherently different -- the
10k ruby is bigger, has a better color, fewer inclusions, or something
else that makes it a better specimen.
> Second thing after deciding the price of failure isn't working because
> the raw material cost does not escalate for the creation of aesthetic
> crafts is that if you are going to raise the DC based on the price of
> the item, it becomes more and more impossible to complete the item
> under the price the item will have when it is finished. If you say
> that a 10,000 gold painting has a DC of say 40 and the price of
> failing your skill check by more than 5 is 1,667 gold, then you have
> to roll skill checks over 34 for a very long time. Once you miss the
> skill check 6 times, the price of creating the item as escalated to
> the price of the item to begin with (1,667 x 6 = 10,002).
>
> If you are making a sword, the sword price is set by the equipment
> guide in the book. The cost of raw materials is reasonable. The
> price of failure is reasonable. But with an aesthetic peice of art,
> the price varies wildly. And the cost of failing a skill check gets
> so ridiculous that no one would even try a high priced item. The true
> cost of the item would be all the failed skill checks added together.
> If I miss a skill check of 34 say 27 times, then the price of the
> painting is going to be more like 45,000 gold (1667 gold x 27). And
> who is going to pay 45,000 gold of a 10,000 gold paiting?
You'd be amazed; pricing art is a bizarre task.
However, if you're going to fail 27 times (with attendant waste) before
creating this it, that suggests that this item is beyond your practical
ability -- it simply isn't cost-effective for you to make it.
It's not uncommon that finding someone good at a task is cheaper than
hiring someone not as good. Fixing a car, for example; I don't do my
own repairs because it's too likely that I'll not do them right...
leading to either having to pay someone to fix what what wrong in the
first place *and* what I did wrong, or potentially to an accident.
> Now if a paiting was always 100 gold to make and then it gained in
> value after it was done as people begin to appreciate it, that makes
> more sense. But then there is the gem cutting scenario where a 10,000
> gold gem should be appraise right away at 10,000 gold after it is cut.
> Basically the system doesn't work for aesthetic peices.
For paintings, perhaps not. However, I think the unreasonable thing
here is that you expect to be able to paint a 10,000gp painting. At
best, I'd consider a single check. The DC is set by the quality of the
painting attempted, and the final 'value' is set by DC x roll (if
successful).
So, an exquisite (and very valuable) painting might have a DC of 30.
You roll a 32, you end up with painting 'worth' 960 sp -- 96 gp. You've
spent a week on the painting. If you blow the roll (25 or less), you've
ruined half the materials (used up paint, have to scrape it off the
canvas, etc.... might have to scrap what you've done already altogether
and start over, in fact, but still have the unused paint).
A *1000gp* painting would take two and a half months, at this rate, with
no failures at all.
Keith
--
Keith Davies
keith....@kjdavies.org
"Some do and some don't. I *hate* that kind of problem."
"Understandable. Consistency is important with fuck ups."
JB
"Leif Ericson" <leife...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d096bc3e.04082...@posting.google.com...
> "DougL" <doug.l...@tdytsi.com> wrote in message
news:<cgb4em$t...@odak26.prod.google.com>...
> > Leif Ericson wrote:
> > > Upon levelling recently, I put ranks in Craft - painting. I asked
my
> > > DM how this would work and he referred me to the Craft skill in the
> > > player handbook and all the detail that goes with it.
> > >
> >
> > Why complicate things, pick a value, pick a DC to represent quality
> > of the work, work on the painting. Simple.
> >
>
> I am not complicating things. The book is complicated to begin with.
>
> I guess the issue is the cost of raw materials and the price of
> failing a check. The cost of raw materials is one third the items
> price when completed. The cost of failure is have the raw materials
> price.
>
> First thing, I don't agree that a 10,000 gold painting is going to use
> any more paint, canvas, etc than a 100 gold piece painting. And yet
> if you fail a check for a 10,000 gold painting, your penalty is 1,667
> gold. But failing a check for a 100 gold painting is only 17 gold.
> This does not make sense.
[snip]
> Basically the system doesn't work for aesthetic peices.
The only problem is the raw material cost. That is not a problem and there
are two very simple ways of approaching this.
1) Ignore elevated raw material costs for all items of aesthetic value.
Easy to do and could be perhaps balanced by ruling that any check failure
results in ruined raw material rather than failures by a margin of 5 or
greater.
2) Formally readdress the way the such items are priced.
Slightly more complex. Give items a raw value which sets their crafting
cost and a "merit" value based on the reputation of the craftsman and
various related factors (which total sets the market price). You could
develop this mechanic to your hearts content if it's important to your
campaign and you could end up with talented but unknown painters
struggling to sell their works (just like real life) until they develop a
measure of fame.
Dave Butler
>Upon levelling recently, I put ranks in Craft - painting. I asked my
>DM how this would work and he referred me to the Craft skill in the
>player handbook and all the detail that goes with it.
>After analyzing the details of the craft skill, it does not seem to
>work for items of aesthetic value. The detail says to look up the
>items value in the equipment section. Obviously this is geared toward
>making items of usefulness like swords and bows and such. I did not
>find a listing for painting. So right off the bat, you have a problem
>with this system.
That's hardly a problem; just pick a finishing value and go. However,
your next point is more of a problem:
>The book assumes that the value of the item you are crafting is fixed
>(what is listed in the book). So what happens if one week I want to
>paint a quick portrait of a local lady for a few gold and the next I
>want to paint a masterpiece (that may actually take months).
Worse, how do you know that the "masterpiece" won't be valued less than
the quick portrait? (People can be strange in deciding what art they
consider valuable.)
>Is the DM to assign values to these painting just as if they were
>swords and bows on the equipment list?
By the rules, yes. Artwork has constant value, at least at the time
scale D&D usually represents.
> A portrait is 5 gold and a
>masterpiece 1000 gold. Maybe all paints should be set at a beginning
>price, say 100 gold, and then the value of the painting adjusted after
>it is done due to exposure to the market. This would be similar to a
>bard's roll for a performance. "Why is sings so well he is world
>famous!" Maybe the painting should get it's own performance roll a
>few months after completion for how well its views receive it.
Quite probably, it should be purchased through use of the appraise
skill (so people will have varying ideas of its value).
>Then there is the problem of a DC. What is the DC for a 5 gold
>picture and then the DC for a 1000 gold picture? Maybe all paintings
>should have the same DC (say 15 for High Quality Item found in the
>book) and the 1000 gold part simply takes a very long time to
>accomplish. Or should the 1000 gold painting have an equally lofty DC
>(of say 30 in which case I would never be able to finish it until I
>add more ranks).
The DC should be variable, based on the difficulty of the techniques
involved (which get abstracted back into the DC; if it was high, you
were doing more demanding work, which might be valued more).
I started working on a system to cover some of these problems, but
never got around to finishing it. I don't recall posting it before,
so here's the basics (note that this is for 3.0; some things might
not fit the 3.5 rules, I haven't checked):
===begin file
Since there are no explicit rules for crafting items with value beyond
their material cost or utility (e.g., artwork), here's a first draft of
rules for such.
The crafter can set the DC to be any value he wishes. The finished art
has a value of ((DC - 5 + 2d4) * 10% + margin of success * 5%) * value of
raw materials.
So, for a artist with a +7 skill, the following are the value ranges
for a given DC, assuming he takes ten:
DC low avg high
9 100% 130% 160%
10 105% 135% 165%
11 110% 140% 170%
12 115% 145% 175%
13 120% 150% 180%
14 125% 155% 185%
15 130% 160% 190%
16 135% 165% 195%
17 140% 170% 200%
18 135% 165% 195%
In addition, a crafter can choose to add "masterwork components" to his
work. Each increases the final value by 50gp, and follows the normal
craft rules (needs raw materials equal to 1/3 value, etc.).
As with normal crafting, failure by more than 5 points results in half
the raw materials being destroyed.
Time to create is based on a market value of (DC * 10% * raw materials)
for the base object; masterwork components follow the normal craft rules.
The DC and number of masterwork components must be set at the time of
creation and can't be increased once work has begun.
Concerns with this system:
- Margin of success fairly meaningless if multiple rolls are involved.
Simplest route would be requiring an additional roll; recording and
averaging results over working time probably too much work.
- Might be too easy to add multiple MW components. Consider starting
DC of 20 for one MW component, modify by +2 (+5?) for subsequent?
Limit to one per character level? Skill rank?
- Should there be lesser degrees of "MW components" to reduce the
'steps' in value at the low end? Currently not possible to make
10 gp carving out of common wood, for example.
- A true master can routinely achive a 450% value multiplier meaning
small starting values can be quickly inflated. Money usually not
a problem at these levels (20th), but is this too much?
===end file
--
--DcB
Marshall
"Ken Andrews" <gob...@degook.com> wrote in message
news:_gmWc.38330$S55.13030@clgrps12...
And the cheap portrait painter is practicing a profession while the "Artist"
creating the Mona Lisa is "crafting". Or do you think "Photography" is a
Craft?
Ken Andrews
> > > "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
No, the cheap portrait painter is crafting, and the "Artist" as you call him
creating the Mona Lisas (there are 2 of them) is also crafting. Photography
is also Craft, most likely. If it's a service industry, it's Profession.
If it's a creative industry, it's Craft.
Again, are you saying the book is wrong? The book *specifically* states
that painting is Craft. You say it's Profession.
Douglas Bailey
> Marshall wrote:
>> And the cheap portrait painter is practicing a profession while the
>> "Artist" creating the Mona Lisa is "crafting".
>
> No, the cheap portrait painter is crafting, and the "Artist" as you call
> him creating the Mona Lisas (there are 2 of them) is also crafting.
>
> ...are you saying the book is wrong?
You haven't met Marshall before, have you? :-)
doug
--
"Ah, but I have secrets; and there's a story in me -- it starts..."
--Wire
Aaron F. Bourque
Aaron F. Bourque
>And the cheap portrait painter is practicing a profession
Firstly, "practicing a profession" isn't covered in the Profession
skill. Otherwise a carpenter would have 0 ranks in any Craft
skill.
Secondly, a cheap portrait painter is merely *CRAFTING* a
low DC--and low gp value--painting.
>while the "Artist" creating the Mona Lisa is "crafting".
No, it's still crafting, it's just that the artist crafting the Mona
Lisa obviously has many ranks in Craft (visual arts).
>Or do you think "Photography" is a Craft
Old timey photography *IS* a craft. It's just that nowadays,
the material components are already taken care of in the
store-bought film and camera.
Here's a hint: in D20 Modern, writing is pne of the Craft skills,
and doesn't recuire a material cost.
Aaron F. Bourque
. . .
Performance Art is performance, and part of the Perform skill.
Painting--on its own--is not a performance. Most painters paint
in seclusion.
Aaron F. Bourque
>First thing, I don't agree that a 10,000 gold painting is going to use
>any more paint, canvas, etc than a 100 gold piece painting.
A) size of canvas/painting dictates cost of canvas and number
of pigments needed to cover said canvas.
B) different canvases can have different quality. Wool vs silk.
C) quality of paints and pigments, quality of mixed colors, etc.
D) quality of brushes, number of brushes and such.
E) per diem.
There are all sorts of ways to pad the bill.
>And yet if you fail a check for a 10,000 gold painting, your
>penalty is 1,667 gold. But failing a check for a 100 gold
>painting is only 17 gold. This does not make sense.
Then you are stupid.
>My last character was a jeweller (this was 2nd edition). He
>got hold of some raw rubies and cut them. Jeweller would
>be a craft.
Jeweller is a profession. Gemcutting is the craft.
>If the jeweller were cutting a raw ruby that could become a
>10,000 gold cut ruby, why would the cost of failure be any
>different than if he were cutting araw ruby that could only be
>worth 100 gold when cut.
. . .
Because the raw jewel would then be ruined? Because it
requires better tools and such to cut a ruby so that it's of
more worth after the cut? Because it can take several hours
to days to properly cut the jewel properly, and the living
expenses are factored into the cost of the cut jewel?
Naw.
>The jeweller has the tools to cut the stones.
But does the gemcutter have the jewel to begin with? Does
the gemcutter have the food required to survive whilst
measuring and cutting the jewel instead of farming/gardening?
Does he have the rent at the place he is cutting the jewel
paid up? Has he paid his taxes?
>It doesn't make sense that the cost of failing the 10,000 gold
>ruby is greater than failing a check for a 100 gold ruby.
. . .
>Second thing after deciding the price of failure isn't working
>because the raw material cost does not escalate for the
>creation of aesthetic crafts is that if you are going to raise
>the DC based on the price of the item, it becomes more and
>more impossible to complete the item under the price the
>item will have when it is finished. If you say that a 10,000
>gold painting has a DC of say 40 and the price of failing your
>skill check by more than 5 is 1,667 gold, then you have
>to roll skill checks over 34 for a very long time. Once you
>miss the skill check 6 times, the price of creating the item
>as escalated to the price of the item to begin with (1,667 x 6
>= 10,002).
Then you are not as skilled as your ambition and dreams.
Marshall
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>
> >And the cheap portrait painter is practicing a profession
>
> Firstly, "practicing a profession" isn't covered in the Profession
> skill. Otherwise a carpenter would have 0 ranks in any Craft
> skill.
>
Sure it is. You are doing your job and earning X amount per day/week by
making portraits.
> Secondly, a cheap portrait painter is merely *CRAFTING* a
> low DC--and low gp value--painting.
>
Not really. Hes just like the caricature sketch artists in theme parks. Its
just what he does to earn money.
> >while the "Artist" creating the Mona Lisa is "crafting".
>
> No, it's still crafting, it's just that the artist crafting the Mona
> Lisa obviously has many ranks in Craft (visual arts).
>
Isnt that what I said? I thought that part was pretty clear.
> >Or do you think "Photography" is a Craft
>
> Old timey photography *IS* a craft. It's just that nowadays,
> the material components are already taken care of in the
> store-bought film and camera.
>
> Here's a hint: in D20 Modern, writing is pne of the Craft skills,
> and doesn't recuire a material cost.
>
And in D&D "Scribe" is a Profession. Looks to me its a matter of
"Creativity", if its making something that requires you to make imaginative
decisions its a craft. If its repetitive or copying from blueprints, its a
Profession.
IOW someone with Craft(Painting) could make their very own Mona Lisa.
Someone with Profession(Artist) could make infinite copies of the Mona Lisa.
Aaron F. Bourque
>"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote
>in message
>news:20040823170058...@mb-m21.aol.com...
>> From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>>
>> >And the cheap portrait painter is practicing a profession
>>
>> Firstly, "practicing a profession" isn't covered in the
>> Profession skill. Otherwise a carpenter would have 0 ranks
>> in any Craft skill.
>
>Sure it is.
No it's not. Craft is essentially for unskilled labor and/or the
manufacturing industry (for those that require skills, like
smithing). Even Craft (visual arts) is unskilled labor--e.i.
housepainting, mural painting, etc. Profession is skilled labor
and/or service industry--i.e. herbalists/apothecaries, lawyers/
barristers, hunters/trappers.
If you make or produce something, you are Crafting. If you
provide a service, you are Professioning.
RTFM.
>You are doing your job and earning X amount per day/week
>by making portraits.
Marshall: "Making" something IS "Craft."
>> Secondly, a cheap portrait painter is merely *CRAFTING*
>> a low DC--and low gp value--painting.
>>
>
>Not really. Hes just like the caricature sketch artists in
>theme parks. Its just what he does to earn money.
. . .
What about carpenters? Smiths?
>> >while the "Artist" creating the Mona Lisa is "crafting".
>>
>> No, it's still crafting, it's just that the artist crafting the
>> Mona Lisa obviously has many ranks in Craft (visual arts).
>
>Isnt that what I said? I thought that part was pretty clear.
First of all, no, and secondly, good-bye, context. You are
arguing that "low skilled" artists use the Professional skill,
while a highly skilled artist is using the Craft skill.
This is stupid because it divides the same skill set between
two different skills (that are, incidentally, goverened by
different ability scores).
Oh, and also, from the SRD, under the Craft Skill: "You can
practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about
half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated
work."
Hmm.
>> >Or do you think "Photography" is a Craft
>>
>> Old timey photography *IS* a craft. It's just that
>> nowadays, the material components are already taken
>> care of in the store-bought film and camera.
>>
>> Here's a hint: in D20 Modern, writing is one of the Craft
>> skills, and doesn't recure a material cost.
>
>And in D&D "Scribe" is a Profession.
Writing is different from Scribing. Scribing is just copying
text, and maybe a little accountancy (which is also covered
by Profession, by the by, before you start arguing that
Accountants create, too). Writing is--usually--creating
something completely new.
>Looks to me its a matter of "Creativity",
. . . You don't know what a Scribe does.
According to Dictionary.com, while "to scribe" (the verb) can
be a synonym for "to write," but "a scribe" (the noun) is:
scribe (n.)
1. A public clerk or secretary, especially in ancient times.
2. A professional copyist of manuscripts and documents.
3. A writer or journalist.
Only the last definition (which means that when most people
use the word "scribe" as a noun, they are probably not
referring to a writer or journalist, and are instead referring to a
public clerk or secretary, usually from ancient times, which
were basically professional copyists of manuscripts and
documents anyway . . .) agrees with your ignorance.
>if its making something that requires you to make
>imaginative decisions its a craft. If its repetitive or copying
>from blueprints, its a Profession.
No, dumbfuck. Drafting the blueprints might be "Profession
(architect)" but "Craft (structural)"--as D20 Modern calls it--is
"copying from the blueprints" in a three dimensional form.
>IOW someone with Craft(Painting) could make their very
>own Mona Lisa.
Or ANY OTHER PAINTING THEY WANT.
>Someone with Profession(Artist) could make infinite copies
>of the Mona Lisa.
There is no Profession (artist) skill, and the above would be
FORGERY, wadwipe.
Do you really need to be spanked in yet another aspect of the
actual rules before you learn?
Nova Heaton
Races of Stone has something that covers this sort of that you might use.
It is a WOTC product and everything after all.
CRAFT (INT)
" Use of the Craft skills is intended to represent trades and arts ranging
from alchemy to gemcutting, PAINTING to weaponsmithing. Anything you make
or use has its basis in the Craft skill. In addition to concrete goods,
Craft covers artistic endeavors such as writing and musical composition."
"Check: The basic function of the Craft skill is to allow you to create
items of the type appropriate to that skill. The DC for this check depends
on the complexity of the item created. As with the standard use of the
Craft skill, the DC, your check results, and the value of the composition
determine how long it takes to compose a musical or written work. The table
below summarizes DCs and values for common types of compositions. All the
values are expressed as ranges. You can choose your target value for your
composition."
"Raw Materials: The only raw materials required for a written composition
are pen, ink, and parchment. In the course of one week's work, you spend
about 2 gp on materials. Use this cost rather than the cost of the normal
materials (a total of one-third of the item's price). If you are making
checks by the day, you spend about 3 sp per day."
"
Composition Type Value
Craft DC
Poem 5sp-2gp
12
Novel 5gp-15gp
15
Reference Book 25gp-100gp 18
Epic 50gp-500gp
20
Song 5sp-5gp
12
Quartet or quintet composition 5gp-15gp 15
Symphony 25gp-100gp
20
Dramatic monologue 1gp-5gp
15
Comedic Play 10gp-30gp
15
Dramatic Play 15gp-50gp
15
"
-----Noonan, David, Decker, Jesse and Lyons, Michelle. _Races_of_Stone_.
Renton: Wizards of the Coast, 2004. [p. 131].
It should be too much of a jump to go from writing and musical composition
to painting or other artistic expressions.
David HB
Marshall
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
>
> What about carpenters? Smiths?
>
What about Profession(Seige Engineer) Profession(Tanner)
Hell Profession(*Porter*)
Oh yeah, thats skilled labor.
> >> >while the "Artist" creating the Mona Lisa is "crafting".
> >>
> >> No, it's still crafting, it's just that the artist crafting the
> >> Mona Lisa obviously has many ranks in Craft (visual arts).
> >
> >Isnt that what I said? I thought that part was pretty clear.
>
> First of all, no, and secondly, good-bye, context. You are
> arguing that "low skilled" artists use the Professional skill,
> while a highly skilled artist is using the Craft skill.
>
> This is stupid because it divides the same skill set between
> two different skills (that are, incidentally, goverened by
> different ability scores).
>
Just like everything else in the Craft/Profession line of skills.
Dont look to close, because they dont make any sense.
> Oh, and also, from the SRD, under the Craft Skill: "You can
> practice your trade and make a decent living, earning about
> half your check result in gold pieces per week of dedicated
> work."
>
> Hmm.
>
Point.
> >> >Or do you think "Photography" is a Craft
> >>
> >> Old timey photography *IS* a craft. It's just that
> >> nowadays, the material components are already taken
> >> care of in the store-bought film and camera.
> >>
> >> Here's a hint: in D20 Modern, writing is one of the Craft
> >> skills, and doesn't recure a material cost.
> >
> >And in D&D "Scribe" is a Profession.
>
> Writing is different from Scribing. Scribing is just copying
> text, and maybe a little accountancy (which is also covered
> by Profession, by the by, before you start arguing that
> Accountants create, too). Writing is--usually--creating
> something completely new.
>
Congratulations. You just proved that Craft(writing) is a Sub-skill of
Profession(Scribe). So why bother with the Craft skill since you get so much
more out of the Profession?
>
> Only the last definition (which means that when most people
> use the word "scribe" as a noun, they are probably not
> referring to a writer or journalist, and are instead referring to a
> public clerk or secretary, usually from ancient times, which
> were basically professional copyists of manuscripts and
> documents anyway . . .) agrees with your ignorance.
>
Read what I wrote again and note that I said Craft = Creative, Profession =
Repetitive.
> >if its making something that requires you to make
> >imaginative decisions its a craft. If its repetitive or copying
> >from blueprints, its a Profession.
>
> No, dumbfuck. Drafting the blueprints might be "Profession
> (architect)" but "Craft (structural)"--as D20 Modern calls it--is
> "copying from the blueprints" in a three dimensional form.
>
And we get back to the same point, most craft skills are a subset of a
Profession.
For that matter, What IS the difference between Profession(Siege Engineer) -
Build and operate seige weapons, and Craft(shipmaking) - build ships.
> >IOW someone with Craft(Painting) could make their very
> >own Mona Lisa.
>
> Or ANY OTHER PAINTING THEY WANT.
>
Yes, thats what I said.
> >Someone with Profession(Artist) could make infinite copies
> >of the Mona Lisa.
>
> There is no Profession (artist) skill, and the above would be
> FORGERY, wadwipe.
>
So mass production is Forgery? Nonsense.
Aaron F. Bourque
>What about Profession(Seige Engineer)
. . .
Craft (seige engines)
>Profession(Tanner)
Craft (tanning)
>Hell Profession(*Porter*)
Service industry.
>Oh yeah, thats skilled labor.
. . .
Designing seige engines isn't skilled labor, in your idiotic
universe?
>> >> >while the "Artist" creating the Mona Lisa is "crafting".
>> >>
>> >> No, it's still crafting, it's just that the artist crafting the
>> >> Mona Lisa obviously has many ranks in Craft (visual
>> >> arts).
>> >
>> >Isnt that what I said? I thought that part was pretty clear.
>>
>> First of all, no, and secondly, good-bye, context. You are
>> arguing that "low skilled" artists use the Professional skill,
>> while a highly skilled artist is using the Craft skill.
>>
>> This is stupid because it divides the same skill set
>> between two different skills (that are, incidentally,
>> goverened by different ability scores).
>>
>
>Just like everything else in the Craft/Profession line of skills.
>Dont look to close, because they dont make any sense.
. . .
They make sense, because they don't work the stupid-ass way you think they do.
Jesus CHRIST, Marshall, is there anything in the rules you do
get right?
Craft has two parts, it's making something, or making a living
making something.
Profession has one part: making a living by providing a
service.
Dipwad!
>> Oh, and also, from the SRD, under the Craft Skill: "You
>> can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning
>> about half your check result in gold pieces per week of
>> dedicated work."
>>
>> Hmm.
>
>Point.
!!! You surprise me. Barely. Even a stopped watch is right
twice a day.
>Congratulations. You just proved that Craft(writing) is a Sub
>-skill of Profession(Scribe). So why bother with the Craft skill
>since you get so much more out of the Profession?
NO!
Craft is making something new. Profession is providing a
service. Craft (writing) is the former. Profession (scribe) is the
latter.
>Read what I wrote again and note that I said Craft = Creative, Profession =
>Repetitive.
Then how in the world is Craft (writing) a part of Profession
(scribe)?
>> >if its making something that requires you to make
>> >imaginative decisions its a craft. If its repetitive or
>> >copying from blueprints, its a Profession.
>>
>> No, dumbfuck. Drafting the blueprints might be "Profession
>> (architect)" but "Craft (structural)"--as D20 Modern calls it
>>--is "copying from the blueprints" in a three dimensional
>> form.
>
>And we get back to the same point, most craft skills are a
>subset of a Profession.
NO!!!!!
No Craft skill is a subset of Profession. Some Profession
skills *might*--I repeat *MIGHT*; not *ARE*--related to Craft
skills, but so what?
>For that matter, What IS the difference between Profession(Siege Engineer) -
>Build and operate seige weapons, and Craft(shipmaking) - build ships.
Profession (Siege Engineer) doesn't let you build siege
engines, you daft sod!
Where in the Profession skill does it say you get to create
something?
>> >IOW someone with Craft(Painting) could make their very
>> >own Mona Lisa.
>>
>> Or ANY OTHER PAINTING THEY WANT.
>>
>
>Yes, thats what I said.
. . .
In other words, to paint is Craft. Not what you were
saying earlier. Thank you for conceding.
>> >Someone with Profession(Artist) could make infinite
>> >copies of the Mona Lisa.
>>
>> There is no Profession (artist) skill, and the above would be
>> FORGERY, wadwipe.
>
>So mass production is Forgery? Nonsense.
Mass production? THAT'S CRAFT TOO. But copying an
existing work with the intention of selling it or passing it off as
the original IS FORGERY!
RTFM!
Senator Blutarsky
>
> Jesus CHRIST, Marshall, is there anything in the rules you do
> get right?
All available evidence indicates that the answer
to your question is a resounding NO.
Don't waste your time even *trying* to educate
him. Seriously.
-Bluto
Kremlin KOA
>
> "Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> news:20040824080036...@mb-m07.aol.com...
> And we get back to the same point, most craft skills are a subset of a
> Profession.
> For that matter, What IS the difference between Profession(Siege
Engineer) -
> Build and operate seige weapons, and Craft(shipmaking) - build ships.
>
Remind me to NEVER hire you to build me a catapult... or a boat.
> > >IOW someone with Craft(Painting) could make their very
> > >own Mona Lisa.
> >
> > Or ANY OTHER PAINTING THEY WANT.
> >
>
> Yes, thats what I said.
>
> > >Someone with Profession(Artist) could make infinite copies
> > >of the Mona Lisa.
> >
> > There is no Profession (artist) skill, and the above would be
> > FORGERY, wadwipe.
> >
>
> So mass production is Forgery? Nonsense.
Mass production of the mona lisa is...
--
Kremlin K.O.A.
--
I deny the allegations.
My goal is not world domination.
World domination is just a means to an end.
Marshall
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> >From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>
> >What about Profession(Seige Engineer)
>
> . . .
>
> Craft (seige engines)
>
> >Profession(Tanner)
>
> Craft (tanning)
>
> >Hell Profession(*Porter*)
>
> Service industry.
>
> >Oh yeah, thats skilled labor.
>
> . . .
>
> Designing seige engines isn't skilled labor, in your idiotic
> universe?
Geez, You'd think that the ** would be a clue to you.
But, Thank you for making my point. Since Profession(SE) and
Profession(Tanner) already encompass **ALL** of the craft skills you are
attributing to them- or do you really believe that there are two skills that
accomplish the same thing? -and quite a few others, you have just
demonstrated where the system breaks.
> >
> >Just like everything else in the Craft/Profession line of skills.
> >Dont look to close, because they dont make any sense.
>
> . . .
>
> They make sense, because they don't work the stupid-ass way you think they
do.
>
How do I think they are working? Its pretty apparent that
Profession(Gemcutter) would work just as well as Craft(Gemcutting), better
in fact since you are taking raw material worth X and getting finisher
product worth about X.
>
> >Congratulations. You just proved that Craft(writing) is a Sub
> >-skill of Profession(Scribe). So why bother with the Craft skill
> >since you get so much more out of the Profession?
>
> NO!
>
> Craft is making something new. Profession is providing a
> service. Craft (writing) is the former. Profession (scribe) is the
> latter.
>
And someone with Profession(Scribe) **BY DEFINITION** has just as many ranks
in the C(W) as P(S) because its necessary to perform his Profession.
Wheres the line? Where does writing a short story become a different
function than writing a letter for Joe the Uneducated?
> >Read what I wrote again and note that I said Craft = Creative, Profession
=
> >Repetitive.
>
> Then how in the world is Craft (writing) a part of Profession
> (scribe)?
>
Because you have to have skill in one to do the other? Thats exactly where
the system breaks.
> >
> >And we get back to the same point, most craft skills are a
> >subset of a Profession.
>
> NO!!!!!
>
> No Craft skill is a subset of Profession. Some Profession
> skills *might*--I repeat *MIGHT*; not *ARE*--related to Craft
> skills, but so what?
>
Gee, so I get *FREE* ranks in a craft skill by taking ranks in this
profession? Oh, thank you!
See that line? Notice how its all blurry?
> >For that matter, What IS the difference between Profession(Siege
Engineer) -
> >Build and operate seige weapons, and Craft(shipmaking) - build ships.
>
> Profession (Siege Engineer) doesn't let you build siege
> engines, you daft sod!
>
> Where in the Profession skill does it say you get to create
> something?
>
Where its listed as a subset of the Profession skill and not of the Craft
skill?
If Shipmaking wasn't listed under Craft, you could just draw the line at
Professions being specialized applications of a subset of crafts and crafts
being more general, but instead they put in Profession(Tanner) and
Craft(Leatherworking). So now we have a Profession that is a subset of a
Craft. Oh yeah, this a well thought out system.
>
> In other words, to paint is Craft. Not what you were
> saying earlier. Thank you for conceding.
>
No, Profession(Artist) contains the Craft(Painting) skill.
> >> >Someone with Profession(Artist) could make infinite
> >> >copies of the Mona Lisa.
> >>
> >> There is no Profession (artist) skill, and the above would be
> >> FORGERY, wadwipe.
> >
> >So mass production is Forgery? Nonsense.
>
> Mass production? THAT'S CRAFT TOO.
Not according to the "rules" you just pointed too, Making copies and selling
them as originals is Forgery....
> But copying an
> existing work with the intention of selling it or passing it off as
> the original IS FORGERY!
>
> RTFM!
>
So Forgery lets you do EVERYTHING?
I want to replicate the Santa Maria and pass it off as Columbus' ship. Make
a Forgery check....
I want to replicate that Catapult and make the General think the SE's
actually built it. Make a Forgery check....
I want to....Kinda demonstrates why Forgery is a wasted skill....
Marshall
Guess WotC thought I was right, too. Since they came up with a new system to
patch their existing ruleset.
Nova Heaton
WotC seems to agree that it needs fixing. FWIW, they DO say that painting
is a craft, but to it shouldn't require 1/3 of the final value in material
components. However, the logical implication here is that artists are going
to make much more money than blacksmiths (Not having to worry about material
costs). This may not be historically accurate, but since when was dnd
historically accurate.
Here is my beef with the Craft skill. Let me state a disclaimer that I do
not allow this to hinder my enjoyment of the game at all and it has never
occurred to my players. With that said though, this newsgroup is for
griping about small points after all, so here we go...
1) Unlike Profession, Craft is useable unskilled. (PHB p. 70)
2) An unskilled laborer such as a ditchdigger, plower or maid (no offense
intended to any ditchdiggers, plowers or maid who may be reading this, I am
just going by the DMG) makes 1 sp a day, or 7 sp a week. (DMG p. 105)
3) You can earn your Craft result/2 gp per week with the Craft skill. (PHB
p.70)
So why don't these unskilled laborers just pick a craft and start making
things. The average Craft roll is going to be 10 (10 on a d20 +0 for ranks
+0 for INT) so these people could be making 5 gp a week as unskilled
craftsmen instead of unskilled laborers. I know what the first objection to
my logic is going to be. Ditchdiggers and plowers and other unskilled
laborers don't have a 10 Intelligence. Even if they had a 3 intelligence
their average Craft result would be 6, granting them 3 gp a week.
Furthermore, the DMG (p. 105 again) stats that a craftsman makes 3 sp a day
(2.1 gp a week). Assuming that a craftsman has at least one rank in Craft,
the average craftsman must have the intelligence of a sap.
It doesn't take a ton of work to find other inaccuracies in the economics
laid out in the DMG, but it is still fun. I don't let it affect my
campaign. If it started to affect my campaign, I would invoke the following
fixes. Change Craft to trained only. This I will do anyway. I am a high
school math teacher and yet as it stands I have a 30% chance of forging a
longsword on my first try. (I didn't even give myself an intelligence
bonus) Secondly, I would think about changing the default money/week for
Craft into something that matched up better with Perform (a job where an
unskilled worker would make more on average as a ditchdigger).
David
JB
Hey look! New rules that had bugger all to do with what you were saying.
Aaron F. Bourque
>Since Profession(SE) and Profession(Tanner) already
>encompass **ALL** of the craft skills you are attributing to
>them- or do you really believe that there are two skills that
>accomplish the same thing? -and quite a few others, you
>have just demonstrated where the system breaks.
A) Tanning would just be oiling the leather. Leatherworking is
more like sewing with leather . . .
2) there is no Profession (seige engineer).
iii) No I didn't.
>How do I think they are working? Its pretty apparent that
>Profession(Gemcutter) would work just as well as Craft
>(Gemcutting),
No it wouldn't, because Profession skills do not allow you to
Craft things, so there is no skill Profession (Gemcutter).
>better in fact since you are taking raw material worth X and
>getting finisher product worth about X.
. . .
That's not how it works. With Gemcutting, or any Craft skill,
you are taking raw materials worth X and getting a finished
product worth three times more than X.
>And someone with Profession(Scribe) **BY DEFINITION**
>has just as many ranks in the C(W) as P(S) because its
>necessary to perform his Profession.
No.
Craft (writing) is about writing books, stories or articles, or
poems.
Profession (scribe) is about keeping notes, filing them
correctly, maybe light accountancy . . .
Someone with ranks in Profession (scribe) *may* have ranks in Craft
(writing)--historically, many writers started out as scribes. But a Scribe does
not need ranks in Craft (writing).
It is only necessary to be literate in a language to function
as a scribe, and all characters (except Barbarians) are automatically literate
in all starting languages they know.
>Wheres the line? Where does writing a short story become
>a different function than writing a letter for Joe the
>Uneducated?
. . .
You don't make your living by writing letters?
>> >Read what I wrote again and note that I said Craft =
>> >Creative, Profession
>=
>> >Repetitive.
>>
>> Then how in the world is Craft (writing) a part of Profession
>> (scribe)?
>>
>
>Because you have to have skill in one to do the other?
You merely have to be literate to be a scribe. ALL
CHARACTERS ARE LITERATE (except for Barbarians).
>> >And we get back to the same point, most craft skills are >> >a subset of a
Profession.
>>
>> NO!!!!!
>>
>> No Craft skill is a subset of Profession. Some Profession
>> skills *might*--I repeat *MIGHT*; not *ARE*--related to
>> Craft skills, but so what?
>
>Gee, so I get *FREE* ranks in a craft skill by taking ranks in
>this profession?
. . .
Reading comprehension, much?
How does "being related to skill [X]l" grant you free ranks in a
skill? At most, it would give you a +2 circumstance bonus to
performing skill [X].
If you want to have ranks in two skills, you put skill points into
those skills.
>Oh, thank you! See that line? Notice how its all blurry?
Not at all.
>> >For that matter, What IS the difference between
>> >Profession(Siege Engineer) - Build and operate seige
>> > weapons, and Craft(shipmaking) - build ships.
>>
>> Profession (Siege Engineer) doesn't let you build siege
>> engines, you daft sod!
>>
>> Where in the Profession skill does it say you get to create
>> something?
>>
>
>Where its listed as a subset of the Profession skill and not
>of the Craft skill?
Oh. My. God.
CRAFT IS MAKING STUFF.
PROFESSION IS PROVIDING A SERVICE!
These are what the skills means. Thus, the application of
INTELLIGENCE and COMMON SENSE proves that Siege
Engineering (where you create something) would be part
of the Craft skill, not the Profession skill.
>If Shipmaking wasn't listed under Craft,
Think about whether Ship*making* is a part of *making stuff*
or providing a service.
>you could just draw the line at Professions being specialized
>applications of a subset of crafts
But it's not because PROFESSION DOESN'T LET YOU
MAKE STUFF!
>and crafts being more general, but instead they put in
>Profession(Tanner) and Craft(Leatherworking). So now we
>have a Profession that is a subset of a Craft.
It's not a subset. They're two different things.
> Oh yeah, this a well thought out system.
The way *you* work it, no, it isn't.
>> In other words, to paint is Craft. Not what you were
>> saying earlier. Thank you for conceding.
>>
>
>No, Profession(Artist) contains the Craft(Painting) skill.
No Profession skill contains any Craft skill.
>> >> >Someone with Profession(Artist) could make infinite
>> >> >copies of the Mona Lisa.
>> >>
>> >> There is no Profession (artist) skill, and the above would be
>> >> FORGERY, wadwipe.
>> >
>> >So mass production is Forgery? Nonsense.
>>
>> Mass production? THAT'S CRAFT TOO.
>
>Not according to the "rules" you just pointed too, Making
>copies and selling them as originals is Forgery....
. . .
Dear lord God in heaven give me strength to survive the
moronicy I am faced with . . .
Mass production is Craft.
Creating a copy of a work and passing it off as the original IS
FORGERY!!!!
>> But copying an existing work with the intention of selling it
>> or passing it off as the original IS FORGERY!
>>
>> RTFM!
>
>So Forgery lets you do EVERYTHING?
Forgery lets you COPY as though it's the original work. It's
related to both Craft and Bluff, but actually isn't either.
>I want to replicate the Santa Maria and pass it off as
>Columbus' ship. Make a Forgery check.
Yes, and it wouldn't actually work (unlike a real ship).
>I want to replicate that Catapult and make the General think
>the SE's actually built it. Make a Forgery check....
Yes, and it wouldn't actually work (unlike a real catapult).
>I want to....Kinda demonstrates why Forgery is a wasted
>skill....
Hardly. It more demonstrates that you are a daft cum-sodden
bloody rag of dumb.
Aaron F. Bourque
>1) Unlike Profession, Craft is useable unskilled. (PHB p. 70)
>
>2) An unskilled laborer such as a ditchdigger, plower or
>maid (no offense intended to any ditchdiggers, plowers or
>maid who may be reading this, I am just going by the DMG)
>makes 1 sp a day, or 7 sp a week. (DMG p. 105)
Maid would be part of the Profession skill . . .
>3) You can earn your Craft result/2 gp per week with the
>Craft skill. (PHB p.70)
>
>So why don't these unskilled laborers just pick a craft and
>start making things
Because they're commoners, and don't have all that many
skill points to put in whatever they want?
Also, because they tend not to have the resources required to
just make stuff?
Also, since they aren't trained, they don't realize they can
make money on their own?
Also, they're working for those who are trained, and get
shafted in wages?
>I know what the first objection to my logic is going to be.
>Ditchdiggers and plowers and other unskilled laborers don't
>have a 10 Intelligence.
?
Yes they do.
>Assuming that a craftsman has at least one rank in Craft,
>the average craftsman must have the intelligence of a sap.
The average craftsman *is* an unskilled laborer.
>Change Craft to trained only. This I will do anyway.
Then hammering a nail becomes harder.
>Secondly, I would think about changing the default money/
>week for Craft into something that matched up better with
>Perform (a job where an unskilled worker would make more
>on average as a ditchdigger).
This makes sense.
Nova Heaton
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> From: "Nova Heaton" n...@lbs-inc.com
>
> >1) Unlike Profession, Craft is useable unskilled. (PHB p. 70)
> >
> >2) An unskilled laborer such as a ditchdigger, plower or
> >maid (no offense intended to any ditchdiggers, plowers or
> >maid who may be reading this, I am just going by the DMG)
> >makes 1 sp a day, or 7 sp a week. (DMG p. 105)
>
> Maid would be part of the Profession skill . . .
I didn't say practicing the maid profession is a Craft, I only said they
could make more money crafting something. Read on.
> >3) You can earn your Craft result/2 gp per week with the
> >Craft skill. (PHB p.70)
> >
> >So why don't these unskilled laborers just pick a craft and
> >start making things
>
> Because they're commoners, and don't have all that many
> skill points to put in whatever they want?
They don't need skill points to craft. It is an skill that is usable
untrained. See point (1). You don't have to have ranks to use craft. You
can just use it as an intelligence check. Plus, the lifestyle abstract
optional rule [in DMG although I don't have a page number] implies, or even
states, that a 1 sp a day worker is going to have to make/mend some of their
own clothing, so they must be capable.
> Also, because they tend not to have the resources required to
> just make stuff?
This is perhaps your most valid point. However, there are cheap enough
items in the PHB that a laborer could start off their crafting career by
making using a part of their 1 sp a day to pay for materials.
> Also, since they aren't trained, they don't realize they can
> make money on their own?
Perhaps not, but it is a standard economics assumption to assume that people
behave rationally in any model. That is given enough time, so laborer will
figure this out and eventually they all will as word gets around. Of
course, not everyone can make money crafting things. Someone has to dig the
ditches, etc..., but that is a different point. The fact that they can make
more money this way means that eventually they will.
> Also, they're working for those who are trained, and get
> shafted in wages?
All the more reason to go own their own 3-5 gp a week instead of getting
screwed by working their asses off to get 1 sp a day.
> >I know what the first objection to my logic is going to be.
> >Ditchdiggers and plowers and other unskilled laborers don't
> >have a 10 Intelligence.
>
> ?
>
> Yes they do.
Most of them probably do. I was just addressing a potential objection
before it was brought up. The full logical objection being that 10 is the
average intelligence for a human. There are humans with more intelligence
and there are humans with less intelligence. The humans with less
intelligence are more likely to find themselves digging ditches and plowing
fields, because they don't have the skill points to do anything else.
However, my whole argument is that you can make a decent living with the
Craft skill even without a single rank in it.
> >Assuming that a craftsman has at least one rank in Craft,
> >the average craftsman must have the intelligence of a sap.
>
> The average craftsman *is* an unskilled laborer.
No, a craftsperson is a commoner or expert who has ranks in (practices) a
Craft skill. You pay the 3 sp a day to keep them on retainer, or you pay
them by purchasing the item. DMG page 105 again.
> >Change Craft to trained only. This I will do anyway.
>
> Then hammering a nail becomes harder.
No, I can hammer a nail. This doesn't mean that I have Craft(carpentry). I
cut a piece of cloth but I don't have Craft(tailor). Craft encompases all
the little skills and the experience to know how to do things right the
first time (thus not wasting materials). Hammering a nail should require a
Craft skills check, the same as carrying your equipment doesn't require a
Profession (porter) roll. I could help a skilled carpenter or tailor by
performing these skills for them, but without their expertise I will not
create a worthwile item. If I am just helping them lift, pound and cut,
then I am an unskilled laborer and should be paid 1 sp a day as per the DMG.
> >Secondly, I would think about changing the default money/
> >week for Craft into something that matched up better with
> >Perform (a job where an unskilled worker would make more
> >on average as a ditchdigger).
>
> This makes sense.
>
Thank you.
David HB
Aaron F. Bourque
>They don't need skill points to craft. It is an skill that is >usable
untrained.
> You don't have to have ranks to use craft.
Yes, so that unskilled laborers can repair minor damage to their houses or
clothing . . .
>Plus, the lifestyle abstract optional rule [in DMG although I
>don't have a page number] implies, or even states, that a 1
>sp a day worker is going to have to make/mend some of
>their own clothing, so they must be capable.
. . .
Can make skill checks untrained . . .
>> Also, because they tend not to have the resources
>> required to just make stuff?
>
>This is perhaps your most valid point. However, there are
>cheap enough items in the PHB that a laborer could start off
>their crafting career by making using a part of their 1 sp a
>day to pay for materials.
But, because they are untrained, that's not what they would
think to do with them. They would instead craft their own
tools for their toolshed, or farming implements for their farm,
or their own clothing for wearing . . .
>> Also, since they aren't trained, they don't realize they can
>> make money on their own?
>
>Perhaps not, but it is a standard economics assumption to
>assume that people behave rationally in any model.
. . .
It is rational to assume that untrained individuals without
natural aptitude (ability modifier +0 or less) would not think to
make a living plying a service or trade they are untrained in
and have no natural aptitude in . . .
>That is given enough time, so laborer will figure this out and
>eventually they all will as word gets around.
But if so, the economic model would change . . .
>> Also, they're working for those who are trained, and get
>> shafted in wages?
>
>All the more reason to go own their own 3-5 gp a week
>instead of getting screwed by working their asses off to get
>1 sp a day.
This is not a historical philosophy.
>> >Assuming that a craftsman has at least one rank in
>> >Craft, the average craftsman must have the intelligence
>> >of a sap.
>>
>> The average craftsman *is* an unskilled laborer.
>
>No, a craftsperson is a commoner or expert who has ranks
>in (practices) a Craft skill.
. . .
No, the average craftsman is a Commoner, and an underling
of someone with ranks in and practices the Craft skill (who is
usually an Expert).
>> >Change Craft to trained only. This I will do anyway.
>>
>> Then hammering a nail becomes harder.
>
>No, I can hammer a nail. This doesn't mean that I have Craft(carpentry).
. . .
Hammering is part of Craft (carpenter).
It is more likely an untrained check than a skilled check.
>I cut a piece of cloth but I don't have Craft(tailor).
Also part of Craft (tailor).
It is more likely an untrained check than a skilled check.
>Craft encompases all the little skills and the experience to
>know how to do things right the first time (thus not wasting
>materials).
Yes, precisely.
>Hammering a nail should require a Craft skills check, the
>same as carrying your equipment doesn't require a
>Profession (porter) roll.
Profession (porter) doesn't help you carry things.
>I could help a skilled carpenter or tailor by performing these
>skills for them, but without their expertise I will not
>create a worthwile item.
Hmm. I was under the impression that you cannot Aid
Another with a Trained Only skill unless you have skill ranks
in the skill, but the SRD says nothing about this, so I guess I
was working with a house rule.
>If I am just helping them lift, pound and cut, then I am an
>unskilled laborer and should be paid 1 sp a day as per the
>DMG.
Yeah . . .
Nova Heaton
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> From: "Nova Heaton" n...@lbs-inc.com
>
> >They don't need skill points to craft. It is an skill that is >usable
> untrained.
>
> > You don't have to have ranks to use craft.
>
> Yes, so that unskilled laborers can repair minor damage to their houses or
> clothing . . .
>
> >Plus, the lifestyle abstract optional rule [in DMG although I
> >don't have a page number] implies, or even states, that a 1
> >sp a day worker is going to have to make/mend some of
> >their own clothing, so they must be capable.
> Can make skill checks untrained . . .
Good point. Recommended Fix: an untrained person can make Craft checks for
DCs 10 or under (citing Track, Knowledge, Searching for Traps, etc.).
Surely, repairing simple clothing could be considered a DC 10 tailor check.
> >> Also, because they tend not to have the resources
> >> required to just make stuff?
> >
> >This is perhaps your most valid point. However, there are
> >cheap enough items in the PHB that a laborer could start off
> >their crafting career by making using a part of their 1 sp a
> >day to pay for materials.
>
> But, because they are untrained, that's not what they would
> think to do with them. They would instead craft their own
> tools for their toolshed, or farming implements for their farm,
> or their own clothing for wearing . . .
Again, they aren't trained to Craft, that doesn't mean that they won't
figure out that they could make more money doing it anyway. They can make
more money crafting, so they will make more money crafting. Rational
Expectations again. You can't assume that since they haven't been trained
to do this, then they are too stupid to realize they should.
> >> Also, since they aren't trained, they don't realize they can
> >> make money on their own?
> >
> >Perhaps not, but it is a standard economics assumption to
> >assume that people behave rationally in any model.
>
> . . .
>
> It is rational to assume that untrained individuals without
> natural aptitude (ability modifier +0 or less) would not think to
> make a living plying a service or trade they are untrained in
> and have no natural aptitude in . . .
If they would make more money doing it, yes, it is rational. You are
arguing the same point I am in essence. You are saying that since they
aren't trained Craftsmen, then they wouldn't think to try to make a living
crafting. I am saying that no one will try to make a living as a
craftsperson unless they are trained to do so. Therefore, it should be a
Trained Only skill. If it isn't a Trained Only skill, then unskilled
laborers can do it untrained and will because they stand to earn more.
> >That is given enough time, so laborer will figure this out and
> >eventually they all will as word gets around.
>
> But if so, the economic model would change . .
Right. The problem here is that the dnd economic model doesn't match up
with the Craft skill. You can change the skill, so that unskilled laborers
can't make more as craftsmen by requiring training, OR you can change the
model, so that unskilled laborers make more than 1 sp a day. I am choosing
to argue changing to skill. It is the simpler and more concrete fix. Two
people can argue indefinitely on economics and both be correct. It is not
an exact science, with the possible exception of game theory and
econometrics.
> >> Also, they're working for those who are trained, and get
> >> shafted in wages?
> >
> >All the more reason to go own their own 3-5 gp a week
> >instead of getting screwed by working their asses off to get
> >1 sp a day.
>
> This is not a historical philosophy.
My point exactly, because in the real world, making a living by practicing a
Craft requires some TRAINING.
> >> >Assuming that a craftsman has at least one rank in
> >> >Craft, the average craftsman must have the intelligence
> >> >of a sap.
> >>
> >> The average craftsman *is* an unskilled laborer.
> >
> >No, a craftsperson is a commoner or expert who has ranks
> >in (practices) a Craft skill.
>
> . . .
>
> No, the average craftsman is a Commoner, and an underling
> of someone with ranks in and practices the Craft skill (who is
> usually an Expert).
I think there is a fundamental difference in how we interpret the NPC
classes. I have seen other threads that seem to imply that 95% of the
people in the real world are experts. I don't agree with this. This is my
interpretation of the NPC classes: By the DMG page 139, 91% of the
population is composed of commoners. By the description of the commoner NPC
class, "Commoners are skilled in their own vocations and make up the
majority of the population." Plus, Craft is a class skill for Commoners.
There for commoners do make up a decent percentage of the crafting
population. Experts are just that. They are the experts. The best at what
they do. They are not the only people that do it for a living. From the
Expert NPC class description: "The skilled blacksmith, the astute barrister,
the canny merchant, the educated sage, and the master shipwright are all
experts." Note the adjectives, these are not common blacksmiths,
barristers, merchants, sages and shipwrights. There are the creme of the
crop and make up 3% of the population (DMG p. 139 again). 3% of the
population is not performing all the manufactoring and service industries
for the entire population. The Commoners have to be doing some of this.
What makes the experts better is that they have more skill points, so that
they can easily have their Craft or Profession skills maxed out and they can
take any other skills that might provide synergy bonuses. As an example. A
commoner blacksmith might have ranks Craft (blacksmith). An expert
blacksmith has ranks in Craft(blacksmith), Knowledge(metallurgy),
Craft(woodworking) (for decorative handles and such), Appraise (to avoid
getting ripped when buying materials) etc. He is a much better all around
blacksmith. I realize that the rules are ambiguous on this and contain
evidence of other interpretations. This is just how I choose to interpret
what I read.
> >> >Change Craft to trained only. This I will do anyway.
> >>
> >> Then hammering a nail becomes harder.
> >
> >No, I can hammer a nail. This doesn't mean that I have Craft(carpentry).
>
> . . .
>
> Hammering is part of Craft (carpenter).
>
> It is more likely an untrained check than a skilled check.
>
> >I cut a piece of cloth but I don't have Craft(tailor).
>
> Also part of Craft (tailor).
>
> It is more likely an untrained check than a skilled check.
>
> >Craft encompases all the little skills and the experience to
> >know how to do things right the first time (thus not wasting
> >materials).
>
> Yes, precisely.
>
> >Hammering a nail should require a Craft skills check, the
> >same as carrying your equipment doesn't require a
> >Profession (porter) roll.
>
> Profession (porter) doesn't help you carry things.
Right, because any idiot can do it. Craft (carpenter) doesn't cover
hammering a nail. Anyone can do that too. It covers measuring,
trigonometry, wood knowledge, etc.
> >I could help a skilled carpenter or tailor by performing these
> >skills for them, but without their expertise I will not
> >create a worthwile item.
>
> Hmm. I was under the impression that you cannot Aid
> Another with a Trained Only skill unless you have skill ranks
> in the skill, but the SRD says nothing about this, so I guess I
> was working with a house rule.
I was not thinking of helping the carpenter in terms of Aid Another
(granting the +2 bonus and all). I was thinking more out of game context
here. Helping the carpenter would involve doing all the shit jobs that he
didn't want to do, such as cleaning, sanding and hammering in thousands of
nails. It would not increase the value of or likelihood of success in
making the item as Aid Another would.
FWIW, I don't think you should be able to Aid Another in a trained skills
you don't have ranks in either. Having unskilled helpers would not increase
the chance of success in this system. It is just always nice to have help.
[snip]
David HB
Aaron F. Bourque
>> It is rational to assume that untrained individuals without
>> natural aptitude (ability modifier +0 or less) would not think
>> to make a living plying a service or trade they are
>> untrained in and have no natural aptitude in . . .
>
>If they would make more money doing it, yes, it is rational.
But *they* *don't* *know* that. They are ignorant commoners.
They know that people who have apprenticed since they were
little to a "master craftsperson" could make a living at it, but
someone who grew up on the farm? Not bloody likely.
A choice few might make a stab at it, but since they are
untrained, they'd have a hard time a) putting their name out
there and, b) making specific objects for adventurers/nobles
(arguably where the real money is).
>You are saying that since they aren't trained Craftsmen,
>then they wouldn't think to try to make a living crafting. I am
>saying that no one will try to make a living as a craftsperson
>unless they are trained to do so.
Making that portion of Craft trained only, like Knowledge
checks, while keeping Making Stuff untrained, like
Intelligence Checks, is a perfectly valid house rule.
>The problem here is that the dnd economic model doesn't
>match up with the Craft skill.
. . . yes it does . . .
>> >> Also, they're working for those who are trained, and get
>> >> shafted in wages?
>> >
>> >All the more reason to go own their own 3-5 gp a week
>> >instead of getting screwed by working their asses off to
>> >get 1 sp a day.
>>
>> This is not a historical philosophy.
>
>My point exactly, because in the real world, making a living
>by practicing a Craft requires some TRAINING.
Not entirely.
> I have seen other threads that seem to imply that 95% of
> the people in the real world are experts.
If so, it would be only because nowadays, the ratio of
unschooled individuals vs. shooled individuals is vastly
different.
Still think that percentage is high by at least 40%.
To my mind, experts are people who have completed trade
school or a four year college.
Warriors are meant to be people who have trained in a paramilitary facility.
Aristocrats are people who have a bit of theoretical teaching,
but not much practical teaching.
Commoners are the uneducated, unwashed masses.
>By the DMG page 139, 91% of the population is composed
>of commoners.
Yes, in a pseudo-medieval fantasy world. Even in a pseudo-
medieval realistic world, it would probably work out this way.
In a modern setting, things change.
>By the description of the commoner NPC class,
>"Commoners are skilled in their own vocations and make up
>the majority of the population." Plus, Craft is a class skill for
>Commoners. There for commoners do make up a decent
>percentage of the crafting population.
But they also make up a decent percentage of the unskilled
labor force.
>Experts are just that. They are the experts. The best at
>what they do.
Well, not the *best*, but they do model the non-adventuring
individuals who take in a certain number of apprentices and
run a successful business intended to be left either to the
best apprentice, or the eldest child.
>They are not the only people that do it for a living. From the
>Expert NPC class description: "The skilled blacksmith, the
>astute barrister, the canny merchant, the educated sage,
>and the master shipwright are all experts." Note the
>adjectives, these are not common blacksmiths, barristers,
>merchants, sages and shipwrights.
Right, the others either run the village smithy or are
employees of some sort under the Expert-classed
craftsperson.
>The Commoners have to be doing some of this.
I agree. These are the commoners who put 33.33..% (human
commoners)-100% (races with Intelligence penalties) of their
skill points in Craft.
BUT, there are also those commoners who put skill points in Survival (commoner
woodsman/hunters), Speak Language
(border/settler commoners), Listen and Spot (fringe
commoners), etc., etc.
The percentage of Commoners who put skill points in Craft
is, IMO, at most, 30% of all commoners. And these would
be either laborers for an Expert or, at best, the village smith
or shipwright or whatever their village's economy needs . . .
the rest fill ALL OF THE OTHER NICHES OF THEIR
VILLAGE. All those farmers? At most, ranks in Profession
(farmer) ad Knowledge (gardening). The gossipy goodwife?
Skill ranks in Listen and Knowledge (local). The local
Drunk? Ranks in Bluff and Intimdate. The local hedge doctor?
If not an expert, Profession (apothecary) and Heal/Treat
Injury/whatever they're callin' it these days . . . . the list goes
on and on.
>> >Hammering a nail should require a Craft skills check, the
>> >same as carrying your equipment doesn't require a
>> >Profession (porter) roll.
>>
>> Profession (porter) doesn't help you carry things.
>
>Right, because any idiot can do it. Craft (carpenter) doesn't
>cover hammering a nail. Anyone can do that too.
. . .
Not as well. In fact, if Craft were Trained Only, you'd have to
keep track of how often unskilled laborers bang their thumb
with the hammer . . .
>It covers measuring, trigonometry, wood knowledge, etc.
. . .
It also covers eye-balling distance/level and getting it as good
as possible.
>> >I could help a skilled carpenter or tailor by performing
>> >these skills for them, but without their expertise I will not
>> >create a worthwile item.
>>
>> Hmm. I was under the impression that you cannot Aid
>> Another with a Trained Only skill unless you have skill
>> ranks in the skill, but the SRD says nothing about this, so
>> I guess I was working with a house rule.
>
>I was not thinking of helping the carpenter in terms of Aid
>Another (granting the +2 bonus and all). I was thinking more
>out of game context here. Helping the carpenter would
>involve doing all the shit jobs that he didn't want to do, such
>as cleaning, sanding and hammering in thousands of nails.
>It would not increase the value of or likelihood of success in
>making the item as Aid Another would.
That's what apprentices and unskilled laborers are for . . .
>FWIW, I don't think you should be able to Aid Another in a
>trained skills you don't have ranks in either. Having unskilled
>helpers would not increase the chance of success in this
>system.
It should. Or at least, shorten time . . .
Nova Heaton
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> From: "Nova Heaton" n...@lbs-inc.com
>
> Making that portion of Craft trained only, like Knowledge
> checks, while keeping Making Stuff untrained, like
> Intelligence Checks, is a perfectly valid house rule.
In the interest of our lives moving on from this impass, I will say two
things and leave the conversation for you to have the last word if you wish.
First off, all house rules are valid if the players and GM can come to a
reasonable agreement. Secondly, your above fix works for me and were you in
my campaign, that is probably the house rule we would settle on. As I said
in my initial post, this issue has never come up in my campaign so this
conversation was purely an intellectual discussion. Thanks for you input.
David HB
Helpful GM
leife...@kc.rr.com (Leif Ericson) wrote:
> Upon levelling recently, I put ranks in Craft - painting. I asked my
> DM how this would work and he referred me to the Craft skill in the
> player handbook and all the detail that goes with it.
[...]
> The book assumes that the value of the item you are crafting is fixed
> (what is listed in the book). So what happens if one week I want to
> paint a quick portrait of a local lady for a few gold and the next I
> want to paint a masterpiece (that may actually take months).
You probably want to take ranks of *PROFESSION*:painter. See PHB.
Short version: you can earn money with your paintings.
> Is the DM to assign values to these painting just as if they were
> swords and bows on the equipment list?
...Or quick portraits or masterpieces of art, yes.
> A portrait is 5 gold and a
> masterpiece 1000 gold. Maybe all paints should be set at a beginning
> price, say 100 gold, and then the value of the painting adjusted after
> it is done due to exposure to the market.
Why would a portrait ever get 100gp? Why would you ever sell a
masterpiece for 100gp? This makes no sense.
> This would be similar to a
> bard's roll for a performance. "Why is sings so well he is world
> famous!" Maybe the painting should get it's own performance roll a
> few months after completion for how well its views receive it.
Then put ranks into Perform:painting, and roll it.
(Consult with DM first)
> Then there is the problem of a DC. What is the DC for a 5 gold
> picture and then the DC for a 1000 gold picture? Maybe all paintings
> should have the same DC (say 15 for High Quality Item found in the
> book) and the 1000 gold part simply takes a very long time to
> accomplish. Or should the 1000 gold painting have an equally lofty DC
> (of say 30 in which case I would never be able to finish it until I
> add more ranks).
That later thing.
--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.
"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael
Helpful GM
"Nova Heaton" <n...@lbs-inc.com> wrote:
> Here is my beef with the Craft skill.[...]
> 1) Unlike Profession, Craft is useable unskilled. (PHB p. 70)
>
> 2) An unskilled laborer such as a ditchdigger, plower or maid (no offense
> intended to any ditchdiggers, plowers or maid who may be reading this, I am
> just going by the DMG) makes 1 sp a day, or 7 sp a week. (DMG p. 105)
>
> 3) You can earn your Craft result/2 gp per week with the Craft skill. (PHB
> p.70)
>
> So why don't these unskilled laborers just pick a craft and start making
> things.
Craft:Ditchmaking ;^D
Craft:Plowedfield
Craft:Cleanroom
Aaron F. Bourque
>You probably want to take ranks of *PROFESSION*:painter.
There is no Profession (Painter). Read the thread.
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
>news:20040826140625...@mb-m03.aol.com...
<Snip>
>> But, because they are untrained, that's not what they would
>> think to do with them. They would instead craft their own
>> tools for their toolshed, or farming implements for their farm,
>> or their own clothing for wearing . . .
>
>
>Again, they aren't trained to Craft, that doesn't mean that they won't
>figure out that they could make more money doing it anyway.
Being untrained and lacking natural talent, they will work slower,
waste more material, and lack the reputation to draw customers in a
period where 'word of mouth' was the only form of advertising
available.
The end result is that they won't be able to compete with those who
are skilled, and thus won't actually make *any* money in the long run.
Given time, they will be able to Craft things when there are no
trained craftspersons available; given a dearth of competition,
they'll be able to pull a few extra coins making shit for whoever
would rather pay an unskilled labourer than engage in unskilled
crafting themselves. But in the long run, digging ditches will be
more consistently successful.
>They can make
>more money crafting, so they will make more money crafting. Rational
>Expectations again.
Feh. I could have made more money by studying Law and becoming a
lawyer, but I absolutely hated it so I chose another, less lucrative
path. It's not rational economics, but economics are not the only
consideration in this world.
>You can't assume that since they haven't been trained
>to do this, then they are too stupid to realize they should.
No, but we can assume that there are other factors involved that make
the option less appealing.
>Therefore, it should be a
>Trained Only skill. If it isn't a Trained Only skill, then unskilled
>laborers can do it untrained and will because they stand to earn more.
You're making the Knutsen mistake of confusing simplified rules with
world physics. The 'economic model' given in the rules for making
money off craft skills is a gross simplification, not intended to be
an actual model for finer nitpickiness like whether or not an average
labourer can make a living off untrained craft skills. It does not
even touch issues like competition, supply-and-demand or capital.
>> >That is given enough time, so laborer will figure this out and
>> >eventually they all will as word gets around.
>>
>> But if so, the economic model would change . .
>
>Right. The problem here is that the dnd economic model doesn't match up
>with the Craft skill. You can change the skill, so that unskilled laborers
>can't make more as craftsmen by requiring training, OR you can change the
>model, so that unskilled laborers make more than 1 sp a day.
Or you can realize that the 'model' implied by the rules is a
simplification that is not intended to be stretched this far. The
earning rate listed in the skill works a short-term quickie when
you've got some downtime to kill (and likely is based on certain
assumptions regarding where a PC would likely be invoking the rate,)
but falls flat when extended to a full-scale economic model. It is
not intended to be such.
>> This is not a historical philosophy.
>
>My point exactly, because in the real world, making a living by practicing a
>Craft requires some TRAINING.
Aye, making a *living* does. Making a few extra coins every once in a
while to supplement one's real job does not; but one cannot make a
long-term living with that.
>> Profession (porter) doesn't help you carry things.
I'm not even certain porter would be a profession; would it not be
just another example of unskilled labour?
>Right, because any idiot can do it. Craft (carpenter) doesn't cover
>hammering a nail. Anyone can do that too.
Although a trained Carpenter will likely:
1) Ruin far less nails with those missed strokes that bend the nail.
2) Pound the nail in straight, when mine goes off at a less efficient
angle.
3) Drive in 8 nails in the time it's taken me to drive 2.
Things that are beneath the scope of the mechanics, much like the
considerations that keep 'unskilled labourers' from making more money
off untrained Craft rolls and that keep true craftsmen averaging 3sp a
week, rather than making the kind of money implied in the Crafting
mechanics.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Helpful GM
aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat (Aaron F. Bourque) wrote:
> From: Helpful GM HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.com
> >You probably want to take ranks of *PROFESSION*:painter.
> There is no Profession (Painter).
Of course there is! Whoever told you such a silly thing?!
Furthermore, it's the correct skill for a fine-artist, IMO. To quote
the PHB: "if an occupation is a service industry, it's probably a
Profession skill. If it's in the manufacturing sector, it's probably a
Craft skill." While an argument can be made that the artist
"manufactures" art, I maintain that fine-art is more of a service.
It also fits nicely with the question asked. "You can make a decent
living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces
per week of dedicated work... The DM sets DCs for specialized tasks."
Marshall
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>
> >Since Profession(SE) and Profession(Tanner) already
> >encompass **ALL** of the craft skills you are attributing to
> >them- or do you really believe that there are two skills that
> >accomplish the same thing? -and quite a few others, you
> >have just demonstrated where the system breaks.
>
> A) Tanning would just be oiling the leather. Leatherworking is
> more like sewing with leather . . .
>
Which is PRODUCING the finsihed product of workable leather....That shoots
down your whole line between the two skills right there.
> 2) there is no Profession (seige engineer).
>
Phb 3.5 Pg 80 1st paragraph under the "Profession" skill.
> iii) No I didn't.
>
Its a false distinction. Or two different skills to accomplish the same
function, "Broke" is pretty obvious.
> >How do I think they are working? Its pretty apparent that
> >Profession(Gemcutter) would work just as well as Craft
> >(Gemcutting),
>
> No it wouldn't, because Profession skills do not allow you to
> Craft things, so there is no skill Profession (Gemcutter).
>
BZZZT! Profession(Tanner) allows you to take raw hide and produce finished
leather....
Pofession(Gemcutter) allows you take raw precious gem and make finished
stones, that Profession(Jeweler) than lets you place into a setting and make
jewelery....
>
> >Wheres the line? Where does writing a short story become
> >a different function than writing a letter for Joe the
> >Uneducated?
>
> . . .
>
> You don't make your living by writing letters?
>
Thats a good chunk of what the classic scribe DID for a living.
> >Because you have to have skill in one to do the other?
>
> You merely have to be literate to be a scribe. ALL
> CHARACTERS ARE LITERATE (except for Barbarians).
>
The same can be said of Craft(Writing). The fact is that the training to be
a Scribe would entail the same training to be a Writer....
> >
> >Gee, so I get *FREE* ranks in a craft skill by taking ranks in
> >this profession?
>
> . . .
>
> Reading comprehension, much?
>
> How does "being related to skill [X]" grant you free ranks in a
> skill? At most, it would give you a +2 circumstance bonus to
> performing skill [X].
>
> If you want to have ranks in two skills, you put skill points into
> those skills.
>
When skill[X] and skill[Y] do the same thing, having ranks in one = ranks in
the second.
> >
> >Where its listed as a subset of the Profession skill and not
> >of the Craft skill?
>
> Oh. My. God.
>
> CRAFT IS MAKING STUFF.
>
> PROFESSION IS PROVIDING A SERVICE!
>
> These are what the skills means. Thus, the application of
> INTELLIGENCE and COMMON SENSE proves that Siege
> Engineering (where you create something) would be part
> of the Craft skill, not the Profession skill.
>
See above. Since you just proved that your entire argument is based on a
FALSE point, are you willing to concede the system needs help yet?
>
> >you could just draw the line at Professions being specialized
> >applications of a subset of crafts
>
> But it's not because PROFESSION DOESN'T LET YOU
> MAKE STUFF!
>
See the list of professions in the PHB, notice how a long list of them allow
you to create stuff?
> >and crafts being more general, but instead they put in
> >Profession(Tanner) and Craft(Leatherworking). So now we
> >have a Profession that is a subset of a Craft.
>
> It's not a subset. They're two different things.
>
Are you serious? A trained Leatherworker wouldn't know how to take care of
leather? BWAHAHAHA!
>
> >I want to replicate the Santa Maria and pass it off as
> >Columbus' ship. Make a Forgery check.
>
> Yes, and it wouldn't actually work (unlike a real ship).
>
BS! Make a Craft(Shipbuilding) check to make the ship. While making a
Forgery check to see how good it is. If you blow the Craft check, the
forgery check is irrelevant.
> >I want to replicate that Catapult and make the General think
> >the SE's actually built it. Make a Forgery check....
>
> Yes, and it wouldn't actually work (unlike a real catapult).
>
See above, but substitute Prof(SE)
> >I want to....Kinda demonstrates why Forgery is a wasted
> >skill....
>
> Hardly. It more demonstrates that you are a daft cum-sodden
> bloody rag of dumb.
>
Why do I need another skill to imitate what I need a
Craft/Prof/Perform/Disguise/Bluff check to do anyway?
Nikolas Landauer
> Aaron F. Bourque wrote:
> > Helpful GM wrote:
> > >
> > > You probably want to take ranks of *PROFESSION*:painter.
>
> > There is no Profession (Painter).
>
> Of course there is! Whoever told you such a silly thing?!
No, there isn't. Read the book. Painting is a Craft, not a Profession.
> It also fits nicely with the question asked. "You can make a decent
> living, earning about half your Profession check result in gold pieces
> per week of dedicated work...
You can make money performing your craft skills, representing the
person who is using their creative painting talents to simply pay the
bills. Read the first paragraph after "Check" under the Craft skill,
and stop putting that into Profession when it doesn't belong there.
"You can practice your trade and make a decent living..."
--
Nik
Aaron F. Bourque
>In article <20040827173315...@mb-m06.aol
>com>,
> aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat (Aaron F. Bourque) wrote:
>
>> From: Helpful GM HelpfulGM@*NO-SPAM*PlayNaked.
>> com
>>
>> You probably want to take ranks of *PROFESSION*:
>> painter.
>
>> There is no Profession (Painter).
>
>Of course there is! Whoever told you such a silly thing?!
>
. . .
Common sense and a reading of the rules.
>Furthermore, it's the correct skill for a fine-artist, IMO.
Your opinion notwithstanding, the rules disagree. Read the
whole thread, I dislike making the same argument over and
over again.
>To quote the PHB: "if an occupation is a service industry,
>it's probably a Profession skill. If it's in the manufacturing
>sector, it's probably a Craft skill."
And the Craft skill is *USED* to . . . craft stuff. A fine-artist
would still be *CRAFTING* a painting.
Again, read the whole thread.
>While an argument can be made that the artist
>"manufactures" art, I maintain that fine-art is more of a
>service.
. . .
Argh.
The amount of dumb is going to kill me. Between you, Zenobia, and that damn
Metagame Experiences thread . . .
I swear to god, if you don't ever see me post again, it's because my brain shut
down, from all the dumb.
DUMB!
Ken Andrews
>"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
>news:20040825191334...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>> From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>
>> >Profession(Gemcutter) would work just as well as Craft
>> >(Gemcutting),
>>
>> No it wouldn't, because Profession skills do not allow you to
>> Craft things, so there is no skill Profession (Gemcutter).
>
>BZZZT! Profession(Tanner) allows you to take raw hide and produce finished
>leather....
Personally, I use a *much* simpler solution. They misplaced Tanner.
It should be a Craft.
>Pofession(Gemcutter) allows you take raw precious gem and make finished
>stones, that Profession(Jeweler) than lets you place into a setting and make
>jewelery....
Use Craft(Gemcutter) to cut the gems, then Craft(Silversmith or
Goldsmith) to create rings, then Profession(Jeweler) to sell the
results.
Jewelers sell jewelery. Goldsmiths and Silversmiths *make* jewelery.
Apothecary - Craft
Boater - Profession
Bookkeeper - Profession
Brewer - Craft
Cook - Craft
Driver - Profession
Farmer - Profession
Fisher - Profession
Guide - Profession
Herbalist - Craft
Herder - Profession
Hunter - Profession
Innkeeper - Profession
Lumberjack - Profession
Miller - Craft
Miner - Profession
Porter - Profession
Rancher - Profession
Sailor - Profession
Scribe - Profession
Siege Engineer - Profession
Stablehand - Profession
Tanner - Craft
Teamster - Profession
Woodcutter - Profession
The ones that make things are crafts, and are therefore misplaced.
Simple, really. I don't know why you're arguing about it.
Siege Engineer does not allow you to make a siege engine; it allows
you to use one, to direct it's fire to best effect. You employ people
with Craft(Siege Engines) to make one.
>> >and crafts being more general, but instead they put in
>> >Profession(Tanner) and Craft(Leatherworking). So now we
>> >have a Profession that is a subset of a Craft.
>>
>> It's not a subset. They're two different things.
One of them being a misidentified thing.
>Are you serious? A trained Leatherworker wouldn't know how to take care of
>leather? BWAHAHAHA!
No, but a trained Leatherworker may well not know how to make leather;
he may not know the best way to process urine to get it ready to in
turn use to process raw hides.
>> >I want to replicate the Santa Maria and pass it off as
>> >Columbus' ship. Make a Forgery check.
>>
>> Yes, and it wouldn't actually work (unlike a real ship).
>>
>
>BS! Make a Craft(Shipbuilding) check to make the ship. While making a
>Forgery check to see how good it is. If you blow the Craft check, the
>forgery check is irrelevant.
>
>> >I want to replicate that Catapult and make the General think
>> >the SE's actually built it. Make a Forgery check....
>>
>> Yes, and it wouldn't actually work (unlike a real catapult).
>
>See above, but substitute Prof(SE)
Which won't work because Siege Engineers don't build siege engines. A
Siege Engine Craftsman makes them, but can't use them effectively. A
Siege Engineer uses them, but can't make them.
>> >I want to....Kinda demonstrates why Forgery is a wasted
>> >skill....
>>
>> Hardly. It more demonstrates that you are a daft cum-sodden
>> bloody rag of dumb.
>
>Why do I need another skill to imitate what I need a
>Craft/Prof/Perform/Disguise/Bluff check to do anyway?
Because you already admitted up above that you don't use Forgery to
*make* the ship. You yourself said "Make a Craft(Shipbuilding) check
to make the ship. While making a Forgery check to see how good it is."
You use Forgery to see how close you made it to the original. You use
Shipbuilding to make it in the first place. By the way, your Forgery
check is going to be something phenomenal, on the order of 100.
There's a *lot* of fiddly details in duplicating a ship.
Aaron F. Bourque
>"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat>
>wrote in message
>news:20040825191334...@mb-m16.aol.com...
>> From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>>
>> >Since Profession(SE) and Profession(Tanner) already
>> >encompass **ALL** of the craft skills you are attributing
>> >to them- or do you really believe that there are two skills
>> >that accomplish the same thing? -and quite a few others,
>> >you have just demonstrated where the system breaks.
>>
>> A) Tanning would just be oiling the leather. Leatherworking
>> is more like sewing with leather . . .
>>
>
>Which is PRODUCING the finsihed product of workable
>leather....That shoots down your whole line between the two
>skills right there.
. . .
Firstly, massages oil the flesh of the body, are a Profession,
and produces a finished product of a relax person.
Also: micing Kool-aid is not a craft.
Blows you're logic outta the water.
>> 2) there is no Profession (seige engineer).
>>
>
>Phb 3.5 Pg 80 1st paragraph under the "Profession" skill.
All right. Fine. There is a Profession (siege engineer). He still
doesn't build siege engines.
>Or two different skills to accomplish the same
>function, "Broke" is pretty obvious.
. . .
Spot and Search.
. . .
>BZZZT! Profession(Tanner) allows you to take raw hide and
>produce finished leather....
See above, poindexter.
>Pofession(Gemcutter) allows you take raw precious gem and
>make finished stones,
No it doesn't, since Profession doesn't allow you to make
stuff.
>that Profession(Jeweler) than lets you place into a setting
>and make jewelery....
No, Profession (jeweler) means you own a jewelry store that
does a decent business.
>> >Wheres the line? Where does writing a short story
>> >become a different function than writing a letter for Joe
>> >the Uneducated?
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> You don't make your living by writing letters?
Oh, and if you make your living writing letters, it's a
SERVICE!
>Thats a good chunk of what the classic scribe DID for a
>living.
Funny. My dictionary doesn't say that.
And also, if true, it would be because, historically, scribes
were literate and just about nobody else was.
In D&D, just about everybody *IS* literate, and would only
need someone to write letters if they just don't have the time.
IWO, A SERVICE.
>> >Because you have to have skill in one to do the other?
>>
>> You merely have to be literate to be a scribe. ALL
>> CHARACTERS ARE LITERATE (except for Barbarians).
>>
>
>The same can be said of Craft(Writing). The fact is that the
>training to be a Scribe would entail the same training to be
>a Writer....
So?
The training to be a Ranger would entail the same training to
be a Fighter and a Rogue who focused on outdoorsey skills.
If a character wanted to be good at writing original texts AND
working as a scribe . . . he would take ranks in both Craft
(writing) and Profession (scribe).
>> >Gee, so I get *FREE* ranks in a craft skill by taking
>> >ranks in this profession?
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> Reading comprehension, much?
>>
>> How does "being related to skill [X]" grant you free ranks
>> in a skill? At most, it would give you a +2 circumstance
>> bonus to performing skill [X].
>>
>> If you want to have ranks in two skills, you put skill points
>> into those skills.
>>
>
>When skill[X] and skill[Y] do the same thing, having ranks in
>one = ranks in the second.
. . .
Actually, at most, it would provide a circumstance bonus.
But there are no skills that do this, despite your idiocy.
>> >Where its listed as a subset of the Profession skill and
>> >not of the Craft skill?
>>
>> Oh. My. God.
>>
>> CRAFT IS MAKING STUFF.
>>
>> PROFESSION IS PROVIDING A SERVICE!
>>
>> These are what the skills means. Thus, the application of
>> INTELLIGENCE and COMMON SENSE proves that Siege
>> Engineering (where you create something) would be part
>> of the Craft skill, not the Profession skill.
>>
>
>See above. Since you just proved that your entire argument
>is based on a FALSE point, are you willing to concede the
>system needs help yet?
As above, if 3.5 does indeed a Profession (siege engineer)
skill, it still doesn't let you build anything. A siege engineer
who only has ranks in Profession (siege engineer) would
only be a theoreticist.
>> >you could just draw the line at Professions being specialized
>> >applications of a subset of crafts
>>
>> But it's not because PROFESSION DOESN'T LET YOU
>> MAKE STUFF!
>>
>
>See the list of professions in the PHB, notice how a long list of them allow
>you to create stuff?
Notice how the description of the Profession skill doesn't
include rules for building stuff, and that for such rules, you
need the Craft skill.
Durrr.
>> >and crafts being more general, but instead they put in
>> >Profession(Tanner) and Craft(Leatherworking). So now
>> >we have a Profession that is a subset of a Craft.
>>
>> It's not a subset. They're two different things.
>>
>
>Are you serious? A trained Leatherworker wouldn't know
>how to take care of leather? BWAHAHAHA!
If he didn't have ranks in Profession (tanner), then guess
what?
Nope! (As long as it has nothing to do with the daily running
of his job).
Just as a someone who is a "professional laywer" without
ranks in Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, or even Knowledge (The
Law) would likely not be the best lawyer around.
>> >I want to replicate the Santa Maria and pass it off as
>> >Columbus' ship. Make a Forgery check.
>>
>> Yes, and it wouldn't actually work (unlike a real ship).
>
>BS! Make a Craft(Shipbuilding) check to make the ship.
>While making a Forgery check to see how good it is.
. . .
That's one way of doing it, to ensure that a close inspection
would reveal little things like . . . it sails/floats.
>If you blow the Craft check, the forgery check is irrelevant.
Not necessarily. The forged ship doesn't *need* to float,
unless that's a major part of the con. Then, you would indeed
make a craft check to build a ship, and a forgery check to
make your ship LOOK LIKE THE SHIP YOU INTEND TO
FAKE!
>Why do I need another skill to imitate what I need a
>Craft/Prof/Perform/Disguise/Bluff check to do anyway?
Why do you need Bluff to fake Knowledge?
Aaron F. Bourque
>Apothecary - Craft
No, Apothecary is Profession. Likely, they would have Craft
(Alchemy) or (Chemicals) or whatever. But that's different.
>Brewer - Craft
>Cook - Craft
These should probably be Craft, yes. Or would have ranks in
Craft (alchohol) or (chemicals) or, for the latter, (food).
Or both.
>Herbalist - Craft
Hmm. Most likely would have Knowledge (plants) and Craft
(alchemy).
>Miller - Craft
>Tanner - Craft
I still don't think that Tanner *is* a craft, but Miller might be.
Hmm . . .
Marshall
"Ken Andrews" <gob...@degook.com> wrote in message
news:4132a757.643345281@shawnews...
> >Why do I need another skill to imitate what I need a
> >Craft/Prof/Perform/Disguise/Bluff check to do anyway?
>
> Because you already admitted up above that you don't use Forgery to
> *make* the ship. You yourself said "Make a Craft(Shipbuilding) check
> to make the ship. While making a Forgery check to see how good it is."
>
> You use Forgery to see how close you made it to the original. You use
> Shipbuilding to make it in the first place. By the way, your Forgery
> check is going to be something phenomenal, on the order of 100.
> There's a *lot* of fiddly details in duplicating a ship.
Which kinda negates the need for the Forgery roll, Just up the DC of the
Craft/yada roll.
Aaron F. Bourque
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marshall
"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat> wrote in message
> From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>
>
> Also: micing Kool-aid is not a craft.
>
> Blows you're logic outta the water.
>
You've never had Kool-Aid when the roll was blown, have you?
> >> 2) there is no Profession (seige engineer).
> >>
> >
> >Phb 3.5 Pg 80 1st paragraph under the "Profession" skill.
>
> All right. Fine. There is a Profession (siege engineer). He still
> doesn't build siege engines.
>
Who does then?
Carpenter?
Rope-use?
Alchemist?
Metalworker?
Stonecutter?
> >Or two different skills to accomplish the same
> >function, "Broke" is pretty obvious.
>
> . . .
>
> Spot and Search.
>
If you dont know the difference between those two, then what are you doing
in this debate?
> . . .
>
> >BZZZT! Profession(Tanner) allows you to take raw hide and
> >produce finished leather....
>
> See above, poindexter.
>
Theres nothing above to see?
> >Pofession(Gemcutter) allows you take raw precious gem and
> >make finished stones,
>
> No it doesn't, since Profession doesn't allow you to make
> stuff.
>
Read the list of professions again
> >> >Wheres the line? Where does writing a short story
> >> >become a different function than writing a letter for Joe
> >> >the Uneducated?
> >>
> >> . . .
> >>
> >> You don't make your living by writing letters?
>
> Oh, and if you make your living writing letters, it's a
> SERVICE!
>
While you are MAKING something...
> >Thats a good chunk of what the classic scribe DID for a
> >living.
>
> Funny. My dictionary doesn't say that.
>
> And also, if true, it would be because, historically, scribes
> were literate and just about nobody else was.
>
> In D&D, just about everybody *IS* literate, and would only
> need someone to write letters if they just don't have the time.
>
> IWO, A SERVICE.
>
IOW, you are PRODUCING letters. Or books, or.....
> >
> >The same can be said of Craft(Writing). The fact is that the
> >training to be a Scribe would entail the same training to be
> >a Writer....
>
> So?
>
Two skills, equal outcome.
> >
> >When skill[X] and skill[Y] do the same thing, having ranks in
> >one = ranks in the second.
>
> . . .
>
> Actually, at most, it would provide a circumstance bonus.
>
> But there are no skills that do this, despite your idiocy.
>
>
Profession and Craft and to a lesser extent Perform.
I'm getting stuck on what the difference is between a Lumberjack and a
Woodcutter...
> >See above. Since you just proved that your entire argument
> >is based on a FALSE point, are you willing to concede the
> >system needs help yet?
>
> As above, if 3.5 does indeed a Profession (siege engineer)
> skill, it still doesn't let you build anything. A siege engineer
> who only has ranks in Profession (siege engineer) would
> only be a theoreticist.
>
At the least, He's the guy that PRODUCES the plans that the
carpenters/metalworkers/yada use to make the seige engines.
> >See the list of professions in the PHB, notice how a long list of them
allow
> >you to create stuff?
>
> Notice how the description of the Profession skill doesn't
> include rules for building stuff, and that for such rules, you
> need the Craft skill.
>
> Durrr.
>
Sure they do. You get paid x gp a day for making various goods.
> >
> >Are you serious? A trained Leatherworker wouldn't know
> >how to take care of leather? BWAHAHAHA!
>
> If he didn't have ranks in Profession (tanner), then guess
> what?
>
> Nope! (As long as it has nothing to do with the daily running
> of his job).
>
Nice caveat. So what youre saying is, I'm right.
> Just as a someone who is a "professional laywer" without
> ranks in Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, or even Knowledge (The
> Law) would likely not be the best lawyer around.
>
Except someone with 12 ranks in profession lawyer is going to make bookoo
more money than one that has ranks in D/I/B/K and 2 ranks in
Prof(lawyer).....
>
> That's one way of doing it, to ensure that a close inspection
> would reveal little things like . . . it sails/floats.
>
> >If you blow the Craft check, the forgery check is irrelevant.
>
> Not necessarily. The forged ship doesn't *need* to float,
> unless that's a major part of the con. Then, you would indeed
> make a craft check to build a ship, and a forgery check to
> make your ship LOOK LIKE THE SHIP YOU INTEND TO
> FAKE!
>
Or better yet, Increase the DC of the Craft(Ship) check and get rid of the
extra skill, since those little details are going to be stuff that it would
take a trained shipbuilder to notice...
> >Why do I need another skill to imitate what I need a
> >Craft/Prof/Perform/Disguise/Bluff check to do anyway?
>
> Why do you need Bluff to fake Knowledge?
>
Notice the "fake" in there. You actually have to HAVE something to Forge,
and you need a craft skill to make the right mods...
Aaron F. Bourque
>"Aaron F. Bourque" <aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat>
>wrote in message
>news:20040830005937...@mb-m13.aol.com...
>> From: "Marshall" destroyr@.BRAKES.iquest.net
>>
>> Also: micing Kool-aid is not a craft.
>>
>> Blows you're logic outta the water.
>
>You've never had Kool-Aid when the roll was blown, have
>you?
If you're so stupid you fuck up Kool-Aid, there's just no helping
you.
>> >> 2) there is no Profession (seige engineer).
>> >
>> >Phb 3.5 Pg 80 1st paragraph under the "Profession" skill.
>>
>> All right. Fine. There is a Profession (siege engineer). He
>> still doesn't build siege engines.
>
>Who does then?
>Carpenter?
>Rope-use?
>Alchemist?
>Metalworker?
>Stonecutter?
Magician.
>> >Or two different skills to accomplish the same
>> >function, "Broke" is pretty obvious.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> Spot and Search.
>
>If you dont know the difference between those two, then
>what are you doing in this debate?
Both are used for noticing stuff you wouldn't otherwise,
usually with your eyes. Use for fucking brain, or borrow
someone else's if you don't have one.
>> >BZZZT! Profession(Tanner) allows you to take raw hide
>> >and produce finished leather....
>>
>> See above, poindexter.
>
>Theres nothing above to see?
Mixing Kool-aid is not a Craft.
>> >Pofession(Gemcutter) allows you take raw precious gem and
>> >make finished stones,
>>
>> No it doesn't, since Profession doesn't allow you to make
>> stuff.
>>
>
>Read the list of professions again
READ THE FUCKING SKILL DESCRIPTION YOU
ABSOLUTE FUCKING ASSHAT!
>> >> >Wheres the line? Where does writing a short story
>> >> >become a different function than writing a letter for
>> >> >Joe the Uneducated?
>> >>
>> >> . . .
>> >>
>> >> You don't make your living by writing letters?
>>
>> Oh, and if you make your living writing letters, it's a
>> SERVICE!
>
>While you are MAKING something...
. . .
You aren't making a letter. Such is part of the Read/Write
[Language] skill-that-is-not-a-skill. However, READING OR
WRITING FOR SOMEONE ELSE . . . is a service.
cref the amount of spelling/grammatical errors even literate
people made back in the day.
>IOW, you are PRODUCING letters. Or books, or.....
Producing BOOKS is Craft (writing). *Writing* *letters* is
Read/Write [Language].
>> >The same can be said of Craft(Writing). The fact is that
>> >the training to be a Scribe would entail the same training
>> >to be a Writer....
>>
>> So?
>
>Two skills, equal outcome.
No, you moron. Not all Scribes are Poets. Not all Scribes are
Novelists. Not all Scribes are writing reference/instructional
manuals.
*Some* are, yes. Those who are, are using the Craft (writing)
skill.
>Profession and Craft and to a lesser extent Perform.
Idiot.
>At the least, He's the guy that PRODUCES the plans that
>the carpenters/metalworkers/yada use to make the seige
>engines.
But there's nothing in the Craft skill that says you produce
blueprints. That might be part of a craft check, that might be
part of the material costs, the cost of producing a set of
plans. But "producing" something isn't quite the same thing
as "making" something, by the rules.
Or are you saying that in the modern world, Television/Movie/
Music/Theater Producers are using a skill that is based on
Intelligence rather than having ranks in a skill that doesn't
mean you have any particular talent?
>> >See the list of professions in the PHB, notice how a long list of them
>allow
>> >you to create stuff?
>>
>> Notice how the description of the Profession skill doesn't
>> include rules for building stuff, and that for such rules, you
>> need the Craft skill.
>>
>> Durrr.
>>
>
>Sure they do. You get paid x gp a day for making various goods.
. . .
There are NO rules under Profession for making things.
There are rules under CRAFT for making things.
Profession is not used to MAKE THINGS.
CRAFT IS USED TO MAKE THINGS!
It.
Is.
Just.
That.
Easy.
>> >Are you serious? A trained Leatherworker wouldn't know
>> >how to take care of leather? BWAHAHAHA!
>>
>> If he didn't have ranks in Profession (tanner), then guess
>> what?
>>
>> Nope! (As long as it has nothing to do with the daily
>> running of his job).
>
>Nice caveat. So what youre saying is, I'm right.
That's what it says in the rules, asshat. If ever the
leatherworker without ranks in Profession (tanner) has to
do someone with leather not related to his profession, the
rules say Tough Shit.
>> Just as a someone who is a "professional laywer" without
>> ranks in Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, or even Knowledge
>> (The Law) would likely not be the best lawyer around.
>>
>
>Except someone with 12 ranks in profession lawyer is going
>to make bookoo more money than one that has ranks in D/
>I/B/K and 2 ranks in Prof(lawyer).....
So? That just means he's on retainer to a drug lord, or a multi
-national corporation, or some other mega-bucks outfit where
he doesn't really practice much law after all, but still gets paid
beaucoup bucks.
>Or better yet, Increase the DC of the Craft(Ship) check and
>get rid of the extra skill, since those little details are going to
>be stuff that it would take a trained shipbuilder to notice...
You don't know anything.
Or are you suggesting getting rid of the Bluff skill, too, since
that would just be a Knowledge check with a higher DC?
Idiot.
>> >Why do I need another skill to imitate what I need a
>> >Craft/Prof/Perform/Disguise/Bluff check to do anyway?
>>
>> Why do you need Bluff to fake Knowledge?
>>
>
>Notice the "fake" in there.
. . .
Notice what Forgery is all about, you imbecile.
Ken Andrews
Bourque) wrote:
>From: gob...@degook.com (Ken Andrews)
>
>>Apothecary - Craft
>
>No, Apothecary is Profession. Likely, they would have Craft
>(Alchemy) or (Chemicals) or whatever. But that's different.
Admitted, this is one I wasn't certain of either. I was thinking that
Alchemy might simply subsume it.
>>Brewer - Craft
>>Cook - Craft
>
>These should probably be Craft, yes. Or would have ranks in
>Craft (alchohol) or (chemicals) or, for the latter, (food).
Which are you, an Alcohol Craftsman or a Brewer?
Craft (Brewer)
Craft (Vintner)
Craft (Distiller)
>Or both.
>
>>Herbalist - Craft
>
>Hmm. Most likely would have Knowledge (plants) and Craft
>(alchemy).
>
>>Miller - Craft
>>Tanner - Craft
>
>I still don't think that Tanner *is* a craft, but Miller might be.
Millers turn grain into flour.
Tanners turn raw hides into leather.
Ken Andrews
Incorrect. Ships are "one-off" items; no two ships are identical. If
you're trying to make one ship look exactly like another, then it's
Forgery.
Ken Andrews
Bourque) wrote:
>Also: micing Kool-aid is not a craft.
I'm sorry, but putting mice in Kool-aid is also not a profession. At
least, not one I'd ever admit to doing for money.
Ken Andrews
>
> >BZZZT! Profession(Tanner) allows you to take raw hide and
> >produce finished leather....
>
> See above, poindexter.
There's a lot more to creating leather than just "oiling" it as you
described above. To start with, there's stretching, cleaning, scraping...
lots of things. I did a quick search and found a flowchart of the process.
In modern tanning there's no less than 19 steps involved to convert hide to
leather. I would assume that even back in D&D's level of tech that 10 or so
of those steps are involved.
Despite the book, Tanning is definitely a Craft, not a Profession.
Check http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch09/final/c9s15.pdf for further
information.
> As above, if 3.5 does indeed a Profession (siege engineer)
> skill, it still doesn't let you build anything. A siege engineer
> who only has ranks in Profession (siege engineer) would
> only be a theoreticist.
Actually, no. That's like saying that a Lieutenant who says where and when
to fire the mortar is only a theoretician.
A Siege Engineer doesn't make siege engines. He also doesn't dig trenches,
he doesn't lay support beams, and he doesn't emplace gunpowder charges.
A Siege Engineer is the guy who examines the enemy fort. He examines the
lay of the ground under the fort. He examines the water in the area and how
it affects the ground. He then says "Put your siege engines here, aiming
for that spot there". He says "Dig a trench here, then dig a tunnel to that
spot there, under that piece of wall".
Craft (Siege Engines) to make 'em.
Profession (Gunner) (or maybe Skill Gunnery) to lay 'em and fire 'em.
Profession (Miner) to dig tunnels fast.
Profession (Sapper) to do the final digging and emplace the explosives.
Profession (Siege Engineer) to say where and when.
> >Are you serious? A trained Leatherworker wouldn't know
> >how to take care of leather? BWAHAHAHA!
>
> If he didn't have ranks in Profession (tanner), then guess
> what?
>
> Nope! (As long as it has nothing to do with the daily running
> of his job).
Actually, I think you're breaking the KISS rule here. By that logic, an
armoursmith would also have to take Tanner in order to care for the cuir
bouli armour he just finished making, and a cowboy who bought a leather
saddle would need Tanner in order to take care of his saddle. No. Simple
care for the material should not require points in the craft. If nothing
else, he should always be able to succeed in simple maintenance just by
taking 10.
Ken Andrews
> > >Craft/Prof/Perform/Disguise/Bluff check to do anyway?
> >
> > Because you already admitted up above that you don't use Forgery to
> > *make* the ship. You yourself said "Make a Craft(Shipbuilding) check
> > to make the ship. While making a Forgery check to see how good it is."
> >
> > You use Forgery to see how close you made it to the original. You use
> > Shipbuilding to make it in the first place. By the way, your Forgery
> > check is going to be something phenomenal, on the order of 100.
> > There's a *lot* of fiddly details in duplicating a ship.
>
> Which kinda negates the need for the Forgery roll, Just up the DC of the
> Craft/yada roll.
No.
Upping the DC of the Craft roll is aiming to make a ship that floats / sails
*really* well. It is *not* aiming to make a ship that looks like another
one.
Ken Andrews
> >
> > >> 2) there is no Profession (seige engineer).
> > >
> > >Phb 3.5 Pg 80 1st paragraph under the "Profession" skill.
> >
> > All right. Fine. There is a Profession (siege engineer). He still
> > doesn't build siege engines.
>
> Who does then?
> Carpenter?
> Rope-use?
> Alchemist?
> Metalworker?
> Stonecutter?
Craft (Siege Engines).
> Read the list of professions again
The list is wrong.
> > Oh, and if you make your living writing letters, it's a
> > SERVICE!
>
> While you are MAKING something...
Lawyers write letters, too. That doesn't make them a subfield of Scribes.
> I'm getting stuck on what the difference is between a Lumberjack and a
> Woodcutter...
About 20 feet.
Actually, what was a Woodcutter then is a Lumberjack now. However,
Lumberjack is a much more demanding profession than Woodcutter.
Woodcutters (middle ages) could only do a few basic things. They could chop
a tree down (hazardous) by whacking the base with axes, they could girdle
the tree to kill it, or they could bring it down with smoldering fires.
After that, they'd chop the tree into relatively small pieces, then haul the
pieces out on man- or mule-back. Lumberjacks do things that Woodcutters
couldn't even conceive of, such as topping the trees before bringing them
down. Being a Lumberjack involves dropping a tree, yes. It also involves a
bunch of other skills. Lumberjacks are the guys who haul entire trees out,
drop them into the river, then ride the logs (boom-running and birling)
downriver to the sawmills.
In a mideval tech world such as D&D, Profession (Lumberjack) doesn't exist.
> At the least, He's the guy that PRODUCES the plans that the
> carpenters/metalworkers/yada use to make the seige engines.
No. Siege Engineers produce no plans for siege engines. He knows how best
to use them; he doesn't know how to make them. See other response for
details.
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2004 05:05:12 GMT, aaronb...@aol.comdotaolat (Aaron F.
>Bourque) wrote:
>
>>From: gob...@degook.com (Ken Andrews)
>>
>>>Apothecary - Craft
>>
>>No, Apothecary is Profession. Likely, they would have Craft
>>(Alchemy) or (Chemicals) or whatever. But that's different.
>
>Admitted, this is one I wasn't certain of either. I was thinking that
>Alchemy might simply subsume it.
>
>
>>>Brewer - Craft
>>>Cook - Craft
>>
>>These should probably be Craft, yes. Or would have ranks in
>>Craft (alchohol) or (chemicals) or, for the latter, (food).
>
>Which are you, an Alcohol Craftsman or a Brewer?
>
>Craft (Brewer)
>Craft (Vintner)
>Craft (Distiller)
A system that made use of specializations or similar structures might
have a fine enough grain to distinguish between the three, but in D&D
it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Marshall
>
> No.
>
> Upping the DC of the Craft roll is aiming to make a ship that floats /
sails
> *really* well. It is *not* aiming to make a ship that looks like another
> one.
>
>
Not really. Once you add in the MW component, there is nothing else you can
do to make a ship(or random item) better. And since its going to take the
use of your Craft skill to notice what to change and to make the changes
necessary to duplicate another item, Why not just use the craft skill to
accomplish it?
Aaron F. Bourque
>"Ken Andrews" <gob...@degook.com> wrote in message
>news:RSGYc.56045$S55.42085@clgrps12...
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Upping the DC of the Craft roll is aiming to make a ship
>> that floats / sails *really* well. It is *not* aiming to make a
>> ship that looks like another one.
>>
>
>Not really. Once you add in the MW component, there is
>nothing else you can do to make a ship(or random item)
>better.
Armor that won't sink the boat?
More storage?
More speed?
Decoration?
>And since its going to take the use of your Craft skill to
>notice what to change and to make the changes necessary
>to duplicate another item, Why not just use the craft skill to
>accomplish it?
It's not going to take a Craft check to notice the change. Pull
your head out of your ass.
Making the "changes necessary to duplicate another item" is
a Forgery check.
RTFM.