Professional skill (Spy)

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Yes, a journalist needs to know not to libel people, but isn't that just an aspect of Writing?

Not at all. Why would it be? Lots of people write stuff that could never libel anyone.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

... A character with +2 in professional skill (spy) should get at least a +2 bonus to their acting roll in situations that apply. "Yes, you've done this before, same ol same ol, you'll use your Dmitri cover you've grown accustomed too."

On that particular, I call such practiced roles techniques under the acting skill.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

To be fair, although I misinterpreted the Hobby/Professional/Expert skills like a lot of other people, re-reading them in light of Kromm's post does seem to bear out his explained intention behind them.

I dissent. As I noted above, Expert skills have substantial characteristics that differentiate them from being generic placeholders. So too, Hobby skills are specified as 'little to do with adventuring'. Professional skills are defined as: more useful for making a living than adventuring, and encompassing a body of knowledge. These are not consonant with a 'generic' characterization. I'm not sure why Kromm appears to be abandoning the RAW on this -- the descriptions always made perfect sense to me as they were. And there is already a discussion elsewhere in the book for how to make up new skills IIRC.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

I dissent.

*shrug* I don't follow your argument. The rules, as explained by Kromm, make sense to me... others are always free to rule however they like for their own games.

[pawsplay]

Simply because they are placeholder skills does not mean they are placeholders for any skills, only ones unlikely to be pertinent to adventuring. Kromm and the RAW do not seem to disagree.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Not at all. Why would it be? Lots of people write stuff that could never libel anyone.

That was a quote, not me.

[sir_pudding]

I'd be inclined to allow Profession (Spy) even in the light of what Kromm said. None of those other skills cover several of specific sorts of techniques that 20th century spies call "tradecraft".

[Professor Phobos]

"Tradecraft" might be a fun skill in and of itself.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Not another shrubbery

*shrug* I don't follow your argument. The rules, as explained by Kromm, make sense to me... others are always free to rule however they like for their own games.

You understand how 'cannot be used for practical purposes' fits with a broadly usable generic skill-placeholder?? *Shrug* It boggles my mind.

[nerdvana]

Originally Posted by Kromm

The rules as written and as I've interpreted them seem the same to me. If you see a difference, then by all means follow somebody else's input . . . because I'm not seeing it.

I'm including the above as it pertains to what I see below...

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Wait, let's be careful here. The RAW lays on various prescriptions around Expert Skills that distinguish them from being assimilited willy-nilly into a generic placeholder role.

For one thing, they are IQ based, without a comparable DX based skill. Further expert skills have the following listed characteristics: cross-disciplinary, single narrow theme, must specialize by theme, never provide the ability to do practical tasks. These don't sound all that place-holdery to me.

That's exactly my point. The two views seem contradictory and I want to resolve where the contradiction lies...