Tradeskills are your friends.
Actually there is something that I didn't never liked of trades, but I think that for now is a necessary evil otherwise player-made items would be even more scarce.
Is the fact that an expert weaponsmither is likely to be an expert miner and smelter as well, which really doesn't do good for player interaction, one thing is certain, a player's time belongs to himself and if he wants to max all three trades it's up to him but I thinking that promoting somehow specialization would be better.
Alternatively in the future could be considered than a player could learn only two trades in a particular group of tradeskills.
Metal group: mining, smelting, weaponsmithing, armorsmithing, lapidary
Leather group: skinning, tanning, leathermaking.
Long lived races are able to master two or three professions in their whole life, so I think that this would make justice to it.
Is the fact that an expert weaponsmither is likely to be an expert miner and smelter as well, which really doesn't do good for player interaction, one thing is certain, a player's time belongs to himself and if he wants to max all three trades it's up to him but I thinking that promoting somehow specialization would be better.
Alternatively in the future could be considered than a player could learn only two trades in a particular group of tradeskills.
Metal group: mining, smelting, weaponsmithing, armorsmithing, lapidary
Leather group: skinning, tanning, leathermaking.
Long lived races are able to master two or three professions in their whole life, so I think that this would make justice to it.
Actually in case of elvs when you look at them. Most take a trade as a flight of fancy for a period in thier lives then move on to something else. Master than and repeat. They grow and learn. Most of the longer lived elves are masters at many trades but do not devote thier whole lives to them. If you limit trades they will be even more scarce than they are now though. Just finding metal to work one's trade now is a pain in the bum for most.
I am but a tree te da lee lee
Getting trades is hard already. IF we limit trades to only specializing in "one" thing what will happen to those who wish to play armourers who make both leather and metal armor? And what if new trades are added in the future and players have already used their three trades to make armour, jewelry, etc?
Steel armor and leather armor are quite different, and a compromise might be that you would be able to completly forget a trade to being able to learn another one if you wanted.
Lorewise even dwarves are not able to become the best miners/smelters/smithers, they are specialized in one or two trades at most.
Lorewise even dwarves are not able to become the best miners/smelters/smithers, they are specialized in one or two trades at most.
I fail to see the point of limiting Player Characters to the number of trades that they can Grandmaster? If a character is willing to work toward that goal, who is to stop them?
"My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to survive."
perhaps but how many people out there do you see taking on a tradeing rp. Not that often so it would be quite discouraging to limit anythign at this time until the traders as a whole are more out thier. Until then it would be good to keep it so people can be self sufficient enough to supply thier own things.
I am but a tree te da lee lee
My, my this took a turn for the ugly. Limit trades a character can learn? Yea, maybe I could see that in some races like humans where they are short lived. But some races are born and breed to practice multiple trades at the same time, dwarves with smelting/mining as well as armorsmith and weaponsmith for example. Such an idea, if implemented, should seriously have different 'limits' depending on race and class.
-Gilain- -Trilev- -Siros-
You do not need to change the world, merely leave it a little better than how you found it.
You do not need to change the world, merely leave it a little better than how you found it.
Actually I don't see any problem in a character learning several trades the problem that I see is when a character learns all trades associated to another tradeskill and no longer needs another players.
[EDIT]
You are right most of them are trained in several different trades at the same time but they will shine in one or two trades AS MOST.
Perhaps could be done what suggests Dalvyn but with some rework you can have only a trade at GM, another at expert, another one at adept and the rest you learn at apprentice or novice as maximum.
[EDIT]
You are right most of them are trained in several different trades at the same time but they will shine in one or two trades AS MOST.
Perhaps could be done what suggests Dalvyn but with some rework you can have only a trade at GM, another at expert, another one at adept and the rest you learn at apprentice or novice as maximum.
Last edited by Vibius on Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The truth is, even if a player has access to every trade..without other players his efforts are fruitless. Who would he sell them to, if not other players? Is selling to Mobs really worth all the time? Who would they show off their skills to? Certainly not mobs?
While I see you may have a valid point, I just think it is not worth pursuing on a mud where Fun is one of the primary reasons for playing. Not to mention a somewhat limited player base.
While I see you may have a valid point, I just think it is not worth pursuing on a mud where Fun is one of the primary reasons for playing. Not to mention a somewhat limited player base.
"My pain is constant and sharp, and I do not hope for a better world. In fact, I want my pain to be inflicted on others. I want no one to survive."
Aye. I think when the new learning system comes in alot of this will be alleviated. You have so much potential master apprentice rp it won't even be funny. And if you can teach some even while not gmed but at a decent skill lvl. This could even lead to pc run guilds where they break down each part and assign someone assignments and trade off to diversify this. I think limited them code wise would just strangle it for now.
I am but a tree te da lee lee
When I looked at the "limits on trades" idea, what I was thinking of was something similar to the mages vs. specialist wizards system.
Everyone agrees that currently, it takes an unnecessary amount of time and grinding to learn trades. What if you could pick, say, two trades to be your specialties, and learn them much more quickly? In exchange for this, you would either have your skill level in other trades capped, or be limited to learning them slowly.
Everyone agrees that currently, it takes an unnecessary amount of time and grinding to learn trades. What if you could pick, say, two trades to be your specialties, and learn them much more quickly? In exchange for this, you would either have your skill level in other trades capped, or be limited to learning them slowly.
-
Dalvyn
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 4708
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:26 pm
- Location: House of Wonder, Waterdeep
The limitation idea is to promote interaction, as Vibius said. You can't really oppose this suggestion with "See what's currently happening... there are next to no trade specialists" when there are several other suggested changes at the same time to make trades more interesting.
I'll agree that the restrictions on the current learning quests are one of the reasons why we don't see that many people work on trades. But I also believe that another - and quite major - reason is that trades are currently deeply boring and unrewarding (i.e., you have to spend hours and hours doing boring things before you can get something interesting out of them). If that changes, the limitations start making more sense in my opinion.
I'll agree that the restrictions on the current learning quests are one of the reasons why we don't see that many people work on trades. But I also believe that another - and quite major - reason is that trades are currently deeply boring and unrewarding (i.e., you have to spend hours and hours doing boring things before you can get something interesting out of them). If that changes, the limitations start making more sense in my opinion.
I am somewhat in favour with limiting certain trades to certain classes.
ICly I think some trades are more suited and IC for certain classes/guilds, like leathermaking and fletching for rangers, weapon- and armoursmithing for fighters and warrior-like types.
I'm not sure if it's completely true but as I gather it from various posts, every character can learn every trade atm.
I personally would not see the need for a warrior to learn how to brew or a mage learning how to mine/smelt/weaponsmith/armoursmith/leathermaking. But then, that's just me and my oppinion.
ICly I think some trades are more suited and IC for certain classes/guilds, like leathermaking and fletching for rangers, weapon- and armoursmithing for fighters and warrior-like types.
I'm not sure if it's completely true but as I gather it from various posts, every character can learn every trade atm.
I personally would not see the need for a warrior to learn how to brew or a mage learning how to mine/smelt/weaponsmith/armoursmith/leathermaking. But then, that's just me and my oppinion.
Weit in der Champagne im Mittsommergrün,
dort, wo zwischen Grabkreuzen Mohnblumen blühn,
da flüstern die Gräser und wiegen sich leicht
im Wind, der sanft über das Gräberfeld streicht.
dort, wo zwischen Grabkreuzen Mohnblumen blühn,
da flüstern die Gräser und wiegen sich leicht
im Wind, der sanft über das Gräberfeld streicht.
I love this ideaSindri wrote:When I looked at the "limits on trades" idea, what I was thinking of was something similar to the mages vs. specialist wizards system.
Everyone agrees that currently, it takes an unnecessary amount of time and grinding to learn trades. What if you could pick, say, two trades to be your specialties, and learn them much more quickly? In exchange for this, you would either have your skill level in other trades capped, or be limited to learning them slowly.
------------------------------
Other than that, It'd be nice if there were a lot more NPCs around to hand out trade quests. Maybe even new guilds that sponsor tradeskills...?
Jysrak Armgo of House Barrison Del'Armgo -MENZO-
Jys/rak: Jys = Hard, steel, unyielding, /rak = Chaos, storm, tempest
Jys/rak: Jys = Hard, steel, unyielding, /rak = Chaos, storm, tempest
I agree limitations has merit. I also have concerns regarding how it might be implimented. I see no problem, for instance, in a dwarf player mastering several metal related trades since it is in dwarf nature, especially those from MH, to learn such skills.Dalvyn wrote:The limitation idea is to promote interaction, as Vibius said. You can't really oppose this suggestion with "See what's currently happening... there are next to no trade specialists" when there are several other suggested changes at the same time to make trades more interesting.
I'll agree that the restrictions on the current learning quests are one of the reasons why we don't see that many people work on trades. But I also believe that another - and quite major - reason is that trades are currently deeply boring and unrewarding (i.e., you have to spend hours and hours doing boring things before you can get something interesting out of them). If that changes, the limitations start making more sense in my opinion.
Also, smelting and mining are tied together. I find it rather odd that anyone would suggest allowing one to be GMed and keeping the other limited. I can go out on a limb and understand the reasoning behind not allowing one character to GM armorsmith, weaponsmith, and jewelcrafting. But mining and smelting are, in my eyes at least, two parts of the same trade; preparing of ore and gems for crafting. Same respect as slicing and tanning work together to make materials for LW. (I realize slicing is not a trade, but feeds tanning much like mining feeds smelting.) Doesn't make sense to me...
-Gilain- -Trilev- -Siros-
You do not need to change the world, merely leave it a little better than how you found it.
You do not need to change the world, merely leave it a little better than how you found it.
OMG... a breakdown of the d20 crafting system into workable MUD stages. I love it!
Basically, as I see it, it could involve adding an item type that would represent an item in progress... the object values could specify things like what the finished item type would be (ITEM_ARMOR, ITEM_WEAPON, etc) the relevant subtypes (ARMOR_PLATE_MAIL, WEAPON_LONG_SWORD, etc) and perhaps the number of "progress points" so to speak put into the piece (more or less depending on the skill level). Once enough progress is put into the piece, it becomes the item type and subtype it is supposed to be.
I am assuming by critical successes, you are meaning enough high skill rolls made during the progress of the item that it would end up being a masterwork item, rather than requiring it to be made at a certain skill level w/ guaranteed success... more akin to d20, in other words
All for one, I think it's workable... and a kewl adaptation.
Re: limiting of trades. IMHO, since this is a divergent from standard D&D or D20 as far as skills go, I can see the same logic to limiting the trades a person can GM for the same reason we don't allow cross-class skills for characters: There's no limit to how high you can train them, so if we opened all skills to everyone, someone could conceivably become the all-in-one character that never needed anyone else in order to adventure. Same logic that would make sense if trades were reworked to make the skills useable from the start. Someone could be useable in mining, smelting, woodworking, weaponsmithing and armor smithing, and pretty much never need anyone else's contribution for a craft. If I understand it, the reason we broke the crafts down into SO many components in the first place, was to necessitate interaction between different craftsmen for the final product?
Mind you, this could open up the possibility for more racial advantages, like: Elves could be all three master weaponsmiths, fletchers, and woodworkers (bows, swords, and arrows are their focus weapons), dwarves could be masters of all metal trades: mining, smelting, armorsmithing, and weaponsmithing. Gnomes would be masters of the jeweling trades: mining, smelting, lapidary, and appraisal. Could think up more based on the culture of different player character races, and more of a benefit for playing a particular race that didn't involve darkvision or resistances.
Basically, as I see it, it could involve adding an item type that would represent an item in progress... the object values could specify things like what the finished item type would be (ITEM_ARMOR, ITEM_WEAPON, etc) the relevant subtypes (ARMOR_PLATE_MAIL, WEAPON_LONG_SWORD, etc) and perhaps the number of "progress points" so to speak put into the piece (more or less depending on the skill level). Once enough progress is put into the piece, it becomes the item type and subtype it is supposed to be.
I am assuming by critical successes, you are meaning enough high skill rolls made during the progress of the item that it would end up being a masterwork item, rather than requiring it to be made at a certain skill level w/ guaranteed success... more akin to d20, in other words
All for one, I think it's workable... and a kewl adaptation.
Re: limiting of trades. IMHO, since this is a divergent from standard D&D or D20 as far as skills go, I can see the same logic to limiting the trades a person can GM for the same reason we don't allow cross-class skills for characters: There's no limit to how high you can train them, so if we opened all skills to everyone, someone could conceivably become the all-in-one character that never needed anyone else in order to adventure. Same logic that would make sense if trades were reworked to make the skills useable from the start. Someone could be useable in mining, smelting, woodworking, weaponsmithing and armor smithing, and pretty much never need anyone else's contribution for a craft. If I understand it, the reason we broke the crafts down into SO many components in the first place, was to necessitate interaction between different craftsmen for the final product?
Mind you, this could open up the possibility for more racial advantages, like: Elves could be all three master weaponsmiths, fletchers, and woodworkers (bows, swords, and arrows are their focus weapons), dwarves could be masters of all metal trades: mining, smelting, armorsmithing, and weaponsmithing. Gnomes would be masters of the jeweling trades: mining, smelting, lapidary, and appraisal. Could think up more based on the culture of different player character races, and more of a benefit for playing a particular race that didn't involve darkvision or resistances.
"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."
Kregor - Ranger of Tangled Trees
Rozor - Lady Luck's Duelist
Tygen - Ranger-Bard of Mielikki
Kregor - Ranger of Tangled Trees
Rozor - Lady Luck's Duelist
Tygen - Ranger-Bard of Mielikki