Appraise

[Vibius]

Appraise is a really useful skill to those who want dedicate themselves to trades be it making jewels or smithing weapons, but some classes/races wouldn't be able of appraise some of the items that would be very icly to them, and if you are able to create something eventually you would be able to discern its price and quality, like a warrior of garl jeweler or cleric of tempus or moradin weaponsmither.

My idea would be that appraise-like quests instead of checking class, checked skills; this is a example of what would require these quests to be triggered.

Scrolls, potions, staffs, wands and pills: Journeyman at spellcraft.
Armor and Weapons: Adept at second attack.
Instruments, Treasure and Trash: Apprentice or Journeyman at spellcraft.

Of course, this only idea another might be creating a feat that might allow you to appraise items outside of your class, allow certain faiths to appraise additional types of items or just apply for that (although I don't know if this could be possible the way classes are coded).

Feel free to discuss.

[EDIT]

-A last minute idea, it also might be possible that the mob that starts the quest checked if the character had ranks in that trade and if he has in it allowed the character to start the quest.

[Selveem]

Personally, I like this idea. Really, I think it's quite annoying that a class is limited to only specific items. Most definately I would think a Cleric of Tempus would be able to at least give a rough estimate as to what the armor was really worth. I mean, maybe they wouldn't be able to know what exotic materials did for it.. But then again neither would a lot of warriors.

I would suggest that this be opened a bit more and wisdom pay a higher role when appraising something of exotic material.

[Kregor]

I am personally all for having the appraise skill rethought to allow more flexibility as to WHAT you can appraise.

But then, I'm also of the idea that you shouldn't limit a person's trade they can learn based on class either. Anyone should be able to learn to fletch if they want, not just rangers and elves, etc. Trades would not logically or rationally be restricted to people of certain adventuring professions... most craftsmen would have NO adventuring profession at all. But I digress.

Yes, I'm all for opening up for what a given character can appraise, and I would think the best way to determine what someone can appraise is to look directly at their trades known, since the items being appraised are things crafted and sold by a specific trade.

For example: Appraising potions and scrolls from the brew and scribe skills, specifically, spellcraft for wands and staves, armormaking for armor, weaponsmithing for weapons, lapidary for treasure, etc.

[Horace]

problem is, you can use that reasoning for any skill/trade/weapon. since we don't currently have a trade cap, i think there needs to be some kind of restriction...doesn't there?

[Vibius]

Actually there are race/class combinations that can learn nearly all the trades in FK and just for having a collection of trades doesn't mean that you are necessarily good at them, which is the main point of a trade, produce something of quality. For those who want to focus in one or two trades being able to appraise what they produce is really useful, for those who did the quest and then they forgot that they have that trade it really means little.

[Horace]

Actually there are race/class combinations that can learn nearly all the trades in FK

See, I see that as a bad thing...and if I was an Imm i'd probably be a lil cheesed if I saw someone using that combination just to do that.

And I realize that yes, just because you can learn every single trade doesn't mean you master them all. But on that same token, just because I as a player wouldn't steal from horses and sell to NPC merchants...that doesn't mean that other players won't.

We don't have skill points to spend every level...there has to be some factor that keeps PC's from being good at everything. My simple point is that real life examples don't hold any water against a rule with a mechanical balance focus. Wal-mart wouldn't be good for the mom and pop stores of faerun

[Nedylene]

I was under the impression that alot of the trades were restricted by the quests that were allowed in game.

For example (And we know I love using personal examples cause they're all I got) My druidess can learn to appraise just about everything. The only thing I have not found an appraise quest is for weapons. And yet... there is no trade for her to learn how to tan hides, fletch arrows or make leather armors. Peculiar and a bit frustrating but, if and probably when I have the time I am sure the imms would not mind the suggestion of a well written quest that would teach druids trades such as these.

So... Perhaps then things like appraise should be restricted by the quests which are done. Instead of expanding the appraise trade itself, perhaps include a new feat which is gained through a quest which allows them to appriase exotic items etc. Then we would only be restricted by the work we are willing to put into our character to make our own trade better.

[Raona]

Is there any code or rule currently in place that would prevent one from, say, creating an appraise weapons quest open to anyone meeting criteria of the quest-creator's choosing?

Perhaps this is already possible, and is just waiting for the aforementioned well-crafted quests to be written?

Or did you mean to bring the balance question up for discussion, Vibius?

[Japcil]

Creating a quest to allow say a priest appraise some armour would be a hard code change. The appraise code checks your class and decides what items you can appraise.

[Kelemvor]

I spent an hour this morning writing an in-depth post about all things trades related and just as I was nearing the end an injudicious keystroke wiped it all out.

I'll try to recount as much as I can here, but it won't be as good as the original alas.

----------------------------------------

Trades are like marmite or brussel sprouts - you either love them or loathe them. I tend to look upon them with a certain fondness I have to admit and it always strikes me as odd the number of misconceptions players have about them.

Scrolls, potions, staffs, wands and pills: Journeyman at spellcraft.
Armor and Weapons: Adept at second attack.
Instruments, Treasure and Trash: Apprentice or Journeyman at spellcraft.

This would effectively mean that every class could learn to appraise every item, save for Wizards who get no second attack.

I agree that appraise would be better not limited by class, but I'd like to see some variety to encourage player interaction.

But then, I'm also of the idea that you shouldn't limit a person's trade they can learn based on class either. Anyone should be able to learn to fletch if they want, not just rangers and elves, etc. Trades would not logically or rationally be restricted to people of certain adventuring professions... most craftsmen would have NO adventuring profession at all. But I digress.

Digress away when you're suggesting trades
I'm very much of the opinion that players should be able to learn and use as many trades as they feel is useful or fun for their character.

problem is, you can use that reasoning for any skill/trade/weapon. since we don't currently have a trade cap, i think there needs to be some kind of restriction...doesn't there?

I was more flowery in the first version, but this time I'll simply ask 'why'?
Why do we need to limit what players can learn when the way trades work already does that. Any smith will tell you that in order to craft weapons and armour they really need to have mining and smelting also. Likewise, a leatherworker needs to be able to tan and probably slice also.

In the early days of trades the impetus in deciding where trades could be learned and who would have them was driven by the goal of promoting roleplay. The raw materials necessary to master a trade would most often come from another trade source and to become acomplished in a trade meant working with other players.

This remains true today and is limit enough I think.

Yes, realistically a person shouldn't/wouldn't be able to become a master in half a dozen trades, but PCs are outside those norms in IC terms.

Actually there are race/class combinations that can learn nearly all the trades in FK

There are some combinations of race/class and faith which allow better access to quests to learn trades, but I'd query the notion of 'nearly all'.

Having said that, this should not be a concern since the new teach set up will allow all players the same opportunity to learn a trade as those who can access the quests.

there has to be some factor that keeps PC's from being good at everything.

Again, why? Given the work required to master even one trade, I do not believe that further restrictions need to be added. And if someone puts in that effort and masters several trades, well then.. they're ideally placed to teach all the folk who can not access a trade elsewhere.

I was under the impression that alot of the trades were restricted by the quests that were allowed in game.

And yet... there is no trade for her to learn how to tan hides, fletch arrows or make leather armors

armoursmithing
one quest restricted to dwarves of Mithril Hall
fletching
two quests, one restricted to rangers one to elves
lapidary
several quests, one restricted by class, one by faith and one by race
leatherworking
two quests, one restricted to rangers, but one open to all.
mining
several quests, one for the dwarves in Mithril Hall, one for a certain faith and one for a certain race
smelting
one for dwarves of Mithril Hall, one for gnomes, one for all other characters with a certain level of strength and constitution
tanning
two quests, one restricted to rangers, but one open to all.
weaponsmithing
several quests, one restricted to dwarves, one open to all but wizards and one for the rogue class
woodworking
one quest recently added, open to all classes.

I had more to say the first time around, but I think the list above gets my point across equally well

There are few trades which are totally limited to one race or class and many which are open to as many races and classes as we can manage.

So, two things here. One, you need to be asking around ICly if you dont know where a trainer is located; and two, there is nothing to prevent you asking a master of a trade if they will teach you. But please dont say that you can't learn a quest unless you know it for a certainty Almost as bad as claiming that only certain race and class combinations can learn trades

Granted, for some trades there are probably only a handful, sometimes only one or two, player characters who've mastered them. But if you cant access a quest to learn, interacting with other players to learn those trades is not an impossibility. In fact, the new teach system will probably make it infinitely easier.

It might even encourage those rare few grandmasters to start taking on apprentices and spreading the knowledge.

[Horace]

I was more flowery in the first version, but this time I'll simply ask 'why'?

Three main reasons.

One - Allowing pc's to learn all trades take away many instances where PC's would otherwise need each other. Removing that necessity distances ourselves from a PC driven economy, and removes any reason for trades men to interact with each other - especially if they can now get all they need to by themselves.

Two - Allowing a PC to learn so many trades breaks the mold of a feasible canon DND character...or any character anyone has made in tabletop. You just don't have the skill points to do it, even with sacrificing all other facets of your character to make yours the super monopoly machine of trades, you wouldn't have the points for it. Have you really ever seen a character sheet with ten "professions"? Worse yet, ten professions that are kept up at the max?

Three - It makes no sense in the parameters the world of Faerun has set before us. Grand Mastering any trade should show significant qualities of your PC and the life your PC has led. You are what you do...and if you're allowed to do everything, I think many people would be at serious risk of losing their characters identity and just becoming an obsession driven GM'ing machine who someday will be GM in everything and will have so much platinum...and then when you get there you realize your character is just a character sheet, and has no substance. But you won't quit and make a new character without making the same mistake because you have 2000 hours in this one, darnit!

[Vibius]

Two - Allowing a PC to learn so many trades breaks the mold of a feasible canon DND character...or any character anyone has made in tabletop. You just don't have the skill points to do it, even with sacrificing all other facets of your character to make yours the super monopoly machine of trades, you wouldn't have the points for it. Have you really ever seen a character sheet with ten "professions"? Worse yet, ten professions that are kept up at the max?

The problem is that in order to produce anything useful for the consumer, aside from the final trade you need skinning/mining and tanning/smelting, since it is very hard find supply of intermediate products most people eventually (if they can) learn all trades associated with the final trade, a character from FR quite often only spends points in the craft trade (the final stage of transformation), barely never in "intermediate stages" since he could buy the intermediate products like smelted metal or tanned hides in most large settlements, but in FK is really hard get those intermediate products thereof the necessity of learning more trades.

[Horace]

I think that sounds like a good niche that someone could fill in our player driven economy.

I know I'm coming across as confrontational on this, and I am a bit - I just dislike seeing some players go out of their way to not take trades for IC reasons...and then some PC's try to GM every trade they come across without any regard to how it would effect the PC's personality, availability, attributes, or health in general.

Not that one way is inherently correct over the other, it's just player styles and preferences. And while I'm all for the freedom to play your character as you choose to, I'm against the idea that every PC should inherently have a right to GM every possible trade in the game. That seems silly to me.

I personally, think it'd be awesome to have all trades be on an application basis - but you'd likely need an Imm/Admin with that sort of free time to deal with all the apps. Which, I imagine, is far more than what I'd think they would be...and probably not something that could be a reality.

[Travis]

My opinions on appraise:

It makes no sense that my main character Travis, who has been playing with knives since he spawned, doesn't have a damn idea how much the dagger he uses is worth, despite that he knows IC how to check the balance, scan for magical properties, and even forge his own weapons.
I do not think it's a bad idea that what can be appraised is limited by class, but I think it would make more sense IC if the items that the classes could appraise were expanded. I do like Vibius' idea of having it tie into skills, if I'm a grandmaster of spellcraft and use magic device, I'd probably know how to appraise what I'm using.

on trades:

I think there should be a cap on trades like there is for languages.

[Kelemvor]

One - Allowing pc's to learn all trades take away many instances where PC's would otherwise need each other. Removing that necessity distances ourselves from a PC driven economy, and removes any reason for trades men to interact with each other - especially if they can now get all they need to by themselves.

As I stated above, forcing PC interaction was the main driver for the original way in which trades were made accessible. From the point of view of the player, that starting point was too heavy handed resulting in very few characters learning or using trades.

I take your point on the extremes of the 'self-sufficient' character but I would say that any character learning more than one trade will spend considerable time in becoming anything more than adequate in them.

More crucially, the means to improve and expand your trade ability is still to a great extent dependent upon player to player interaction.
-Even were the dwarves and gnomes to teach everyone to mine, a ready supply of the desired metal will always be a limiter.
-Only certain classes and faiths can use the Slice skill to take skins from animals so this remains a limiter.
-Many characters will not touch trades with a bargepole (the marmite effect I alluded to previously) but may wish to have a trade for the roleplay aspect.

Two - Allowing a PC to learn so many trades breaks the mold of a feasible canon DND character...or any character anyone has made in tabletop. You just don't have the skill points to do it, even with sacrificing all other facets of your character to make yours the super monopoly machine of trades, you wouldn't have the points for it. Have you really ever seen a character sheet with ten "professions"? Worse yet, ten professions that are kept up at the max?

We are not a table-top game or slaves to canon though are we. And thank goodness for that with all the horrific effects of 4th edition to come.

I do not disagree that learning all of the trades would be a little outrageous, though I stand by my comments earlier that although it might be possible I doubt it is likely.
However, what is appropriate in a limited table-top world is not always going to work in a MUD environment.

Let's say that we limited trades in a skill point system. You would have players who could mine a bit, players who could smith a bit and players who could forge armour a bit.

Currently that's not feasible because ability depends on skill and player interaction depends on matching times. Limiting players to a low skill (until they presumably allocate more skill points) and forcing players to wait around for someone who's put points into a companion trade are not fun.

There's no denying that in tabletop in a closed environment where you carefully craft every facet of your characer's background and life the fun is in the interaction (I still have my character sheet for my half-orc barbarian gravedigger who's favored weapon was a shovel and who's NWP skills included burial customs of the Netherese)

But in a multiplayer world where everyone has their own style, aims and amibitions and DM involvement can never be the 100% of table-top... some allowances have to be made to ensure the fun is there in a form that players will respond to.

Three - It makes no sense in the parameters the world of Faerun has set before us. Grand Mastering any trade should show significant qualities of your PC and the life your PC has led. You are what you do...and if you're allowed to do everything, I think many people would be at serious risk of losing their characters identity and just becoming an obsession driven GM'ing machine who someday will be GM in everything and will have so much platinum...

I think by now you know that I'm not advocating everyone able to do everything, merely that they should have the option of picking and choosing and if they so chose, then fair play to them.

But it's odd that Trades get this response where weapon skills, spells and the other lengthy lists of GM'able aspects in the game do not.

In tabletop there is no need to train each weapon individually as here, but I do not see anyone asking that players should be prevented from GM'ing two, three, four even ten weapontypes if they so choose.
And yet, this is an area of totally solo improvement, with no overt restrictions or need for player interaction at all.

and then when you get there you realize your character is just a character sheet, and has no substance. But you won't quit and make a new character without making the same mistake because you have 2000 hours in this one, darnit

This a game, it is for players to join and have fun with. Whether someone derives pleasure from GMing their skills, roleplaying a love triangle, sitting at a forge all day or battling dragons with a knitting needle... it's all relative. Just because you or I might not like it or might think it shallow or unfulfilling, does not mean that everyone else should be forced to act and think likewise.

For the record though, when I look over the characters that are highly-skilled in several trades I fail to find any that are one-dimensional or lacking in background and roleplay ability. So (and I know this might be considered heresy by some players) perhaps its possible to do both, enjoy both and contribute to the MUD doing both.

[Selveem]

In tabletop there is no need to train each weapon individually as here, but I do not see anyone asking that players should be prevented from GM'ing two, three, four even ten weapontypes if they so choose.

I agree here, Kelemvor. Personally, I find killing dummies for 600+ hours OOC annoying to GM dual wield which I feel would be in character for Selveem. It can also be frustrating to hear of others GMing it before you even though you've been working at it for so long. I feel that if anyone is willing to put forth all of that effort into a skill or trade they damn well deserve the fruits of their labor.

To me, this applies to trades. So, your little Dwarf decides to learn how to make weapons and armor, but would like to make something shiny too? Why the hell not? If you're going to put that much time into the trade, which will benefit others in this game, you deserve the notoriety and riches that come from the time you've invested.

Does this mean that I think all of your characters should be striving to GM everything (or even just every trade)? I don't feel everyone should. I know out of all my characters Selveem is the one that I actually tried to GM all the appropriate combat-related skills. I feel it is very much IC for him to be doing so. All of my other characters have far less in the way of skills. Actually, I think he has higher skills than all of my other characters combined.

In any case, I am one of such people that Kelemvor mentioned. I won't touch trades with a 10 foot pole. I tried it. I had to do it for my Moradin faithing quest. I didn't enjoy it. I never have and thus after its necessity wore, I stopped. I think the player base will find this is the case with many players, as well. This is the primary reason I support allowing trades be opened up.

While my post primarily pertains to trades as a whole, I feel this also goes for appraise. I think any class if skilled enough should be able to appraise other items, as well. In D&D, appraise is one check. There is no 'Appraise Swords' or the like..

[Kregor]

As I stated above, forcing PC interaction was the main driver for the original way in which trades were made accessible. From the point of view of the player, that starting point was too heavy handed resulting in very few characters learning or using trades.

Goes back to something I've said before... you can't code the organic, in some cases my target has been obedience, in this case the organic is roleplay enforcement. As a graduate of a subjective, organic, curriculum in Fine Arts, I say that there's no way to mechanically grade and regulate some things. IMO, efforts like artificial restriction of trades and appraisal, the kismet system, etc that have been attempts to codally regulate the organic of roleplay have failed in their intent, and only caused complications, like the situation above.

Only certain classes and faiths can use the Slice skill to take skins from animals so this remains a limiter.

Sore spot to me from early on, and I still say less logical than some of the trade restrictions. Why is it that a wild elf wizard wouldn't know how to kill, skin and eat his own kill? It's a survival skill taught as rote. Not to mention that most any middle to lower class person from the sort of era Forgotten Realms comes from would know how to do basic hunting with a weapon and field dressing, and even the upper crust hunted for sport and recreation. I'd say this is probably my third or forth digression onto this particular skill.

We are not a table-top game or slaves to canon though are we. And thank goodness for that with all the horrific effects of 4th edition to come.

This is why we can thank god for 3E, and your inevitable assimilating

[Horace]

Then why have class restrictions at all? Why not just have class determine your spellcasting, your saves, your attack bonus (which directly correlates to # of attacks), and your hitpoints?

The reasons that class restrictions exist is because DND is a linear game system - that doesn't imply that you aren't able to make unique characters (especially because your character is a personality much more than a character sheet), but it does imply that if you want to play a character in one class, and also gain the benefits of other classes, you'll need to sacrifice more than you gain (mechanically).

Where as with what you guys are suggesting, is that the sacrifice is now "time", a penalty taxed on the player as opposed to the character sheet. If the determining factor of what you're allowed to have on your character sheet, in regards to trades/weapons/skills, is the length of time you invest into having them - I think it sends the wrong message.

If you can't appraise a weapon, ask a fighter. By the definition of the fighter class the PC has dedicated himself completely to the martial persuasion. A rogue, who very well may be a skilled knife fighter - doesn't have that class inherent given of living a warrior lifestyle. GM'ing a weapon type only means that you're incredibly skilled at wielding it, it shouldn't also imply a "fighter's" understanding of the weapon.

I guess I don't understand the benefit of opening it up, other than to allow PC's to become more powerful and influential without the aid of others. Plus, as far as my understanding goes, you always have the option of applying for a trade that typically isn't open for you. Which, with proper reasoning, I'm sure can be given.

[Selveem]

In D&D appraise is one skill, as I previously stated. It doesn't matter what your class is. I don't care if a rogue is a knife fighter or crossbow wielder. If they're a rogue, they're likely very decent at determining an items worth and what they'll be able to hawk it for. It's just good business practice.

FK is fantasy-based. D&D is fantasy-based. But that doesn't mean there aren't any real-life applications imbedded. Why is appraise one skill? Because it's hard to judge 'what a person would know.' Have you ever watched 'It Takes a Thief' on Discovery Channel? (Or, at least I think it's still on Discovery Channel). He steals the expensive things and leaves the inexpensive junk. He goes through a bunch of boxes of rings and takes the expensive ones, leaving the cheap one there (this was a recent episode). How does he know that the grade of gold isn't as good as the other rings? That this diamond isn't worth nearly as much? It's not like he sits there studying it with a jeweler's lens while stealing things..

At some point, you have to think 'Does this make sense?' It makes no sense for a Wizard to only be able to appraise wands. It makes no sense for a warrior to only be able to appraise weapons and armor. Especially with a high wisdom score.

Have you ever seen 'The Price is Right?' Yeah, sometimes people are wrong but most of the time they can guess fairly accurately as to what the cost of items are. They aren't trained rogues, either. They're just 'commoners.' If a 'commoner' can guess fairly accurately, why can't a well-traveled individual who has been about most of the continent? To me, that makes no sense and makes the 'world' seem less plausible.

[Dalvyn]

Re: quests

With the addition of the new teach system, players will now become able to learn trades from other PCs. That means that, practically, all the restrictions on quests will be removed, since anybody would be able to learn any trade.

Hopefully, this will be supported with roleplay and we won't see people just giving away trades to everybody for a handful of coins or a service without backing it up with extensive roleplay (note that, if we see that, we still have the option to take away the teaching feats from those players).

Teaching feats will require Scholar-1 (which can only be gained through an application).

Re: variety and limitations

I'm with Horace on the part that "you shouldn't be able to be good at everything". The "choosing" challenge, where you have to decide whether your character will be good at A and suck at B, or be good at B and suck at A, is in my opinion (1) interesting, because it forces you to develop your character : what does (s)he prefer? what is (s)he good at?, (2) necessary, because it forces you to rely on other characters to achieve grander things, and (3) more interesting than the challenge "you have to spend 200 hours online". That is, in other words, I would rather limit how good you can be overall than have a system where, for each 500 hours spent online, you can pick up a new skill that you can GM (*).

(*) That being said, we also need to make sure that there is always "something more" that you can get, even for old level 50 characters. Once there's nothing more on the horizon, the game becomes boring.

I'm with other posters like Kelemvor about the choice option. I think it's all fine to allow all characters to access all trades instead of restricting access by class/race/alignment/whatever.

A good system in my opinion would, for example, allow all characters to know the basic of all trades, but be GM in only a few of them (that is, 2 or so). And there too, there are several possible variations.

A simple variation would be to set limits that can't be bypassed. For example, you can become GM in 1 trade, master+ in 3 trades, expert+ in 5 trades, and so on. You would have the option to select which trade is your most favoured trade (where you can GM), which other 2 trades are your favoured trades (where you can become master), and so on.

Another variation would use the restrictions cited above not as strict limits but as "regulation limits". That means that, through uses/practices, you might still go beyond those limits, but each day, your character would "forget" the trades (s)he hasn't practiced recently. Those unpracticed trades would see their skill level drop down till they are under the limits.

For example, if you choose smelting as your GM trade and armourmaking as a Master trade, you could still become GM in both by using them. Then, as days go by and you stop using your armourmaking regularly, the associated skill level would slowly drop down till it is down to Master. At this point, it would stop dropping down. At any time, if you start practicing it again, the drop would be stopped or slowed down.