Talk:Skills

Unverified

If anyone wants to help update this, please feel free.--Ricky (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2016 (EDT)

• Silkfarming may be needed for Druidic Rite, as the latter affects silk filaments. --Turtlesir (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2015 (EST)
• Gardening may be required for Forestry. --Turtlesir (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2016 (EST)

The skill tree image

Hey kitsune, that's one sexy skill tree. Did you use any specific program to make that, or did you make it by hand? Either way it looks great.

As a side note: if that skill tree is 100% accurate, I'll go through later and ensure the skill pages match the image.

--Ricky (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2018 (EST)

Just Adobe Illustrator by hands - same for cheeses.

We use that 'Skill Tree' to share info about skill tree(you can change it if find some mistake) - can't sure it's 100% accurate.

--Kitsuneg (talk) 17 December 2018 (EST)

Farming is not required for Deep Artifice. --(Turtlesir 26 February 2019) (moved from image talk)

Starting Skills, Required By.

The starting skills, "Oral Tradition", "Primitive Tools" & "Wilderness Survival", have "Required By" items. Although it seem logical for some of those items to be there (some other items do not look logical). The issue with this is that: 1) this is somewhat of a judgement call, and 2) if maintained it seems kinda inconsistent to also have items that are flagged as not requiring any skills(None). --.MvGulik. 18:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Setting those to "None" until some alternative better idea comes along. --.MvGulik. 20:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential "required Skill" issue.

I'm starting to see to meany items that, to be activated, seem to require a skill (foraging in this case) that's way lower than the minimal skill one might expect.
For example the Wooden Roadsign, which needs wooden blocks, can be build while only having the foraging skill. (The foraging skill might not be needed either - to be checked)
While the need for wooden blocks suggest that it would at least need the lumberjacking skill.
Its of course the discovery-teaching features in the game that allow for discovering items, while bypassing the skill that "normally" would be needed to generate/discover said items.
So issue-1 would be. What minimal skill to use in the items infobox. The "technical minimal" skill, or the "hermit-path minimal" that would exclude/ignore the discovery-teaching feature.
And potential issue-2. Is the technical minimal skill currently needed (in related cases), not a result of "no skill adjustment on already existed items" after the discovery-teaching features where added.
The most informational option would be to add both of them (in related cases). ... But that's also the most expensive(work load) option, which I'm currently not entertaining.
... more data needed.
--.MvGulik. 21:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Other example:
Although to find(?:unchecked) or pickup stinging nettle in the wild one needs the foraging skill. Getting the Stinging Nettle discovery by other means (learning or garden Pot) enables the crafting of: (for a hearthling with the basic 3 skills only)

• Nettle Pants (Stinging Nettle)
• Nettle Shirt (Stinging Nettle)

Potentially also:

• Bark Reinforcement (bark, string)
• Sprucecap (Spruce Bough x2, String)

The required Foraging skill on those 4 items is as such a derived skill. The real requirement here would be the Stinging Nettle discovery.
(a derived skill would be needed: if your the only hearthling in a otherwise unpopulated world)
I figure a lot of specified required skills are actual derived skills. Which would make it the current RoB default.
--.MvGulik. 08:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

... Those derived, non mandatory, skills could potentially be specified as "(advisory)" skills. Without the "required::" part. And would be related, and limited, to skills needed in relation to the needed materials. ... First things first. Collection some data (low priority though) ... --.MvGulik. 22:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Not 100% sure yet, but it seems logical. For build items that truly require a particular skill (other than just the discovery of the related materials). Those structures also can't be repaired without that skill. ie: Alternative backwards skill checking method. --.MvGulik. 16:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Skill Table

Here's dump of assorted thoughts on List of Skills table improvement(?). I feel like TOC can be omitted completely. Skill text takes to much space and could be replaced with a basic skill description. And so on.

The result could look like this.

Will give them some though.

On the 'no TOC' part. Do note that without a normal TOC there is currently no way to jump to an other section in the skill page, as the current image-map-links go to the related skill pages. If that would be changed/fixed any new image-map will also need to come with a updated image-mapping to keep its TOC function alive. One implementation problem is that the text in the image is currently to small to be used as alternative TOC for the skill a page.

(The TOC, collapsed or not, state is remembered per user.)

--.MvGulik. 19:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

As for 'no TOC': it seems to me that with the suggested compacted table there is no need for TOC in the page header. You see, a wiki user who needs detailed info on a certain skill would rather use wiki search. And a user who is just browsing can scroll the table. Right now we have to scroll through TOC anyway. Also, as suggested, the prerequisites tree-view (table's last column) can be use to navigate the table in a quick jump manner.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts MvGulik. Better to find any flaws in suggestions now, before any changes applied, at the mock-up stage  --Tmp0340 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, now I see no point of removing TOC from the "page header" as it was made collapse-able. It may stay :D

>"You see, ... quick jump manner." Really, whatever. Just to clear something up. Over time you lost just about any credibility you initially had with me. How you like to proceed is up to you. But to me you do seem to have some second underlying, non-positive, reason for being on RoB-wiki. Which in my case is not really a reversible point of view. (and that's about it for me on that subject) --.MvGulik. 12:05, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. If you would like to provide details on harm I've done to wiki or wiki users, my user page seems like a right place  --Tmp0340 (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Now I can see some issues with my message above:

1. >" no point of removing TOC from the "page header" as it was made collapse-able" - the incorrect statement, as TOC was collapse-able for a while (like always?)
2. Tone of the message itself can be considered informal and even rude I guess.

What other issues have I missed?  --Tmp0340 (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"details" No, not really. Key part is not even related to your actions on RoB-wiki itself. But that did put your actions/behavior on RoB in a more critical light. RoB's history with disgruntle trolls plays a roll here too. Fair or unfair you kinda ended up on the wrong side of that spectrum. (And yes. The collapsible TOC is a default MW feature) --.MvGulik. 19:29, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

>"Right now we have to scroll through TOC anyway."

Lets take this minor one as example. It made no sense to me because if I extend the TOC the only other thing that changes in the page layout is the width of the skill- table, to make room on the right-side for the long TOC. So the same scrolling applied with the TOC open or closed (nobody says you have to read it). The only way it would make sense if in your browser the TOC would push the skill-table down. But that not the intended, or observed by me, behavior. Now the "we have" is definitely not helping here, as your trying to make it sound like you speak for 'all' but me. Learning to not do that would be at least one tip from me. --.MvGulik. 20:04, 12 January 2026 (UTC)