Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

Those trades are limited to certain classes in game (or am I wrong ??)

Would it be possible, for everyone else, to learn those trades, with the limitation that they will never be able to improve them higher than inept?
So everyone can go in the forest to gather some wood to start a fire, but it's a worthless piece of wood that will never be usable to make a good weapon.
Everyone can try and slice a worthless piece of hide for a component, even if it's not good enough for an armour.
Everyone can also try to gather some meat from an animal he just killed. He will spoil a lot of meat but will still be able to get some from time to time to cook.

It seems IC to me that everyone could have access to the basics (inept level) of those trade. The quality of the gathered items won't be good for high craft but only for everyday use

El

Trades shouldn't be limited to classes, though.. I thought I just hadn't found them yet.

My Wemic was hoping to learn slice. :/

Isn't slice a ranger skill and not a trade?

Well I don't have a ranger so

But it would be the same to me. Even as a skill, I would love to see it trainable by everyone to inept.

In fact, in D&D, there are class restricted skills (a minority of them), and others are either class or cross-class skill for your specific class.
It would be great to have most skills trainable by everyone, cross-class skills being limited maybe to apprentice, only class skills could be GMed.

A few skills would still be restricted to some classes (like steal for rogues...)

El

Eltsac wrote:A few skills would still be restricted to some classes (like steal for rogues...)

Why should Steal be any more class specific than any other skill? Just as a clumsy wizard is capable of chopping a useless piece of wood off of a tree or making a complete mess of a dead animal, a pious cleric or gauntleted knight should be able to fumble around in someone's pocket until they wind up jailed.

Your idea has potential, but it seems to me that arguing to make only the skills that you want into publicly-available skills is just silly. Also, I too feel that there are a few that might be wise to restrict, but I'd suggest doing this to the ones that are based on class-specific features (Backstab emulates Sneak Attack, for example) since they're ones that could not be "cross-classed" in D&D. There are a few skills in D&D that cannot be used "untrained," such as Sleight of Hand, but characters can still attempt ability checks if they want to make a really pitiful attempt at it (note that such ability checks are very similar to using the skill untrained, but there is a difference).

I also really like your suggestion of allowing them to be trained, but they cannot be raised past inept. It allows characters of all classes to make the attempt at a skill without ever coming even close to outshining the people who have dedicated their lives to doing it well. Honestly, any higher than inept and it would sort of defeat the purpose of having a class at all. Ever play Gauntlet Legends? The wizard got the best attacks, but started with lower stats than the other classes (the others each had one high stat as their class-defining feature). By the end, you'd max out each stat to 999, then just play wizard forever since he could do everything the other classes could and then some.

Some other ideas to go with your suggestion: how about marking which skills are considered "cross-class" in the Skills sheet by putting them in a different color? Perhaps have it read as inept? That would help people understand why some of their skills never seem to improve past inept and keep them from reporting them as bugged.

Also, I would recommend not using the D&D class skill lists as written; definitely stick with how FK has been doing it but use D&D's system as a guide if needed. I think a lot of clerics, fighters, paladins, and wizards would take issue with having Listen made into cross-class skills for them (add bard to that list, and you've got the crossed-classes for Spot).