Shoanti Tribeswoman

Arachnofiend's page

Organized Play Member. 4,076 posts (4,693 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters. 8 aliases.


1 to 50 of 4,076 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Fuzzypaws wrote:
Can I please have a cleric / etc who can heal as a single action while still getting to attack and cast other real spells with the rest of their actions? This was one thing 4E did right, "Healing Word" and similar abilities that let a cleric still play the game while also getting to heal on the side. You only ever had to spend your full turn healing if the party was /really/ messed up.

Heal costs 1, 2, or 3 actions depending on what you're doing with it. The 1 action version is the touch spell we're used to, so you can slap your buddy's wounded ass for one action, move, then hit the enemy with your mace as your turn.

thflame wrote:

I still don't like having to spend an action (or reaction) to raise a shield.

That isn't how sword and board fighting works IRL. It is BASIC level training to keep a shield raised while you fight.

Arms do this cool thing where they can work independently of each other simultaneously.

Is it just that it is too unbalanced to allow fighters to constantly have their shields raised?

Yeah, I can only imagine that S&B fighters were doing too much damage for how much defense they get without penalizing them an action. The rule doesn't make any sense otherwise.

coxey292 wrote:
Deranged Stabby-Man wrote:
coxey292 wrote:
I don't understand how giving the fighter +1 to initiative to make him fast, when the variance on this is a d20 roll, helps that much. It doesn't even really feel that good. A cleric who is untrained will make up that spread if perception is still wisdom based. With the current maximum possible spread beyond attributes is 6, I'm not sure any of the numbers actually matter.
He might not necessarily be FIRST, but now there's less chance of being dead last. Keep in mind, that's +1 on top of moving from Expert to Master, so +2. That's a 10% increase. And while Charisma and Intelligence might be a dump stat for Fighters, Wisdom isn't for the sole purpose of Perception.
It is still a maximum spread of 6, meaning that no character is truly better than anybody else at anything. If the other guy just rolls 6 better than me, he too can be legendary.

What if being Master at Perception means you can take a skill feat that ensures you always act before non-masters?

4 people marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:

I think a lot of people were hoping that the fighter class would basically include Swashbuckler, Cavalier, Brawler, and Gunslinger under one umbrella. It looks now like that's not the case?

Could we at least get Dex-to-damage at level 1? It's such a prevalent concept in fiction (Arya Stark!) that it's really disappointing to have to tell people, "You can do that by level 5, but the first four levels you'll be basically dead weight..."

I really prefer the "1/2 level to damage if using different stats" approach. No dexterous melee hero is walking around with 7 strength.

Trimalchio wrote:

What can fighters do off the battlefield to contribute to the narrative?

Fighters never had an especially difficult time hitting the needed dpr, most high level complaints are what do fighters do when the wizard is creating demiplanes and binding devils to their will.

Do they naturally attract followers, have some advantage when leading armies, can class features grant them ways to handle challenges involving flight, underwater, extra planar locations, invisibility, damage immunity to weapons?

I suspect that most narrative control is going to come from your Ancestry and Skill feats, at least for the martial classes. Certain classes will be pushed towards certain skills (I like how the Fighter is apparently a Master at perception!) and hopefully the full casters will have weaker access than the martials.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the biggest revelation in this blog is that Power Attack as a feat that literally everyone who uses a melee weapon takes is no longer a thing; the new Power Attack seems like something you'd want to enable a 2-hander build while TWF and sword and board builds would put their feats elsewhere.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's worth mentioning that you can't really find a 20th level wizard in most fiction, either. D&D wizards are bizarrely powerful and can do things that the gods of many settings would cry OP at.

necromental wrote:
This debate has gone so many rounds in circle that I cannot wait for Paizo to publish the blog about next thing people will hate.

From what I've heard today's blog is going to be about Fighters, and we all know how controversial of a topic that can be...

GeneMemeScene wrote:

I don't really know the flavor trappings that would go with it, but I would like a class based on a resource that by design is supposed to ebb and flow, and is based on alternating between situational or tactical actions that gain you points and direct actions that cash out points to for higher effect.

The kineticist has a small instance of this with Elemental Overflow, where having some amount of burn gives you attack and damage bonuses, but doesn't work for what I have in mind because it doesn't fall (only rises) and there is no reason not to fill up Overflow at the beginning of the day (especially since you have Internal Buffer to do that with).

Imagine if the Swashbuckler's stuff like Superior Feint and Targeted Strike, instead of costing panache, had you gain panache? So you would be pressured to use your more stylish but lesser abilities frequently in order to more frequently fuel your better abilities like Parry and Riposte or Precise Strike. And on top of that, it might also have heightened defenses when panache is higher, so there is a deliberate tradeoff to cashing out that panache.

You might want to take a look at Spheres of Might; the Striker and Prodigy classes both have mechanics very similar to what you're describing.

JoelF847 wrote:
As for some of the near superhuman abilities a Legendary training non-magical character can do, I saw someone mention upstream stage magicians. After seeing the Illusionists show last night, that was top of mind for me as well. The guy who did the Houdini upside down straight jacket escape in 60 seconds clearly was legendary in escape artist, and the guy who seemed to create cards for about 5 minutes straight was legendary at slight of hand (or thievery now - I'd think he'd be pretty good with locks if he's that much a master of fine tuned manipulations.)

I think those guys are Masters at best. Someone who's Legendary at Escape Artist is escaping a Maze spell, or basically has always on, [Ex] freedom of movement.

BryonD wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A regular rope is a 1st level challenge. If you don't care about the wizard being able to beat a 1st level fighter with a stick then why should you care about him being able to climb a 1st level rope?

How did we get from a +18 (assuming an 8 STR and untrained) to only caring about a "1st level rope"? (What is a 1st level rope?)

Seriously, how many people in this thread can climb a rope up a wall?

If untrained athletics just allows ladders and steepish hills, then cool.

But if we are talking about appropriate challenges for 1 1st level character then we don't come close to needing +level bonuses.

How many people in this thread are a level 20 wizard? The design paradigm of PF2 is that a level 6 character is a world record holder in their field. Past that you're beyond the bounds of realism.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TolkienBard wrote:
Likewise, in over 30 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns on one hand where the party didn't have a strong melee fighter or two. Why? Because it WAS REQUIRED. No muscle in the party tends to make parties too squishy to survive. Yet I don't see anyone looking for eliminating fighters from parties.

Classes in PF1 that can fulfill the role of a frontline DPR: Cleric, Bard, Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Rogue, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Shifter, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Cavalier, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Vigilante, Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai, Hunter, Investigator, Warpriest, Brawler, Bloodrager, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Kineticist, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist.

Classes in PF1 that can remove status effects on an appropriate curve: Cleric, Oracle, Druid, and Witch.

I hope this illustrates why there's a problem with healing being so exclusive.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Dave2 wrote:

No one has seemed to mention that in PF1 that a 20th level Wizard has a BAB 10/5. This means that without ever picking up a sword they clearly out class a 5th level fighter who has trained with their weapon extensively. If you have a problem with PF2 proficiencies why is the above example ok in PF1? Even with the -4 penalty for not being proficient the are still at 6/1. So picking up the very unwieldy great sword for the first time, they are still better than the 5th level fighter who has trained with the great sword their whole career. Seems like same issue to me.

Without seeing the guidelines for when something can be done untrained or not or what role class has thee proficiencies and the level of proficiencies, I will not make to many comments. I do like what I have seen from PF2.


FWIW, I've had this long time wish for a 0 BAB wizard progression. Just tie all the attack bonuses into the mechanics of a spell if the spell requires an attack roll.

But, it really never comes up in play, so it doesn't make any difference.
I've never seen a 20th level wizard going melee beat down. If they were attacking a level appropriate monster, then they would still miss. If they are fighting a monster fitting for a 5th level fighter, then meh, who cares?

This is unlike the issues with things like needing to climb or sneak. (Or diplomacy for a non focused fighter, knowledge checks, etc etc varying for class).

That said, you are right about the "what can be done untrained". That could save the whole thing right there.

If the 20th level wizard is trying to climb something that's a challenge to a 20th level character then he's going to fail miserably at it.

A regular rope is a 1st level challenge. If you don't care about the wizard being able to beat a 1st level fighter with a stick then why should you care about him being able to climb a 1st level rope?

I've seen those archetypes on Archives of Nethys; they're pretty cool, though it's a bit of a shame the unarmored bits don't come online immediately.

11 people marked this as a favorite.

So this is an aesthetic thing I really like-you can largely blame fire emblem myrmidons for it. I'd be quite happy if you could, say, buy expert proficiency in unarmored fighting even if you're not a monk.

Oops, sorry about that. I swear I read the blog before posting!

Level 7 is probably fair, and reflects the usual opinion that 6th level is the limit you play to if you want your game to stay fairly gritty and mundane.

Mark Seifter wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Want your fighter to leap 20 feet straight up and smash a chimera down to the ground? You can do that (eventually)!.
Pleeeease tell me this level of agility isn't gated behind Legendary. This is Expert territory.
I think that one comes early in the master levels, actually. Don't expect trained or expert (and all characters start with at least something at expert at 1st level, even if certain categories are much harder to reach expert) to be drastically breaking real world records; these are characters at their earliest levels in the game. The world record for even a running high jump is about 8 feet up.

Could you tell us the earliest one could expect to pick up a Master level skill?

2 people marked this as a favorite.
edduardco wrote:
How does proficiency interacts with spells? are by school? I really hope not that would kill the generalist wizard.

The generalist wizard needs a nerf, to be quite fair. It's too easy to just be good at everything as a wizard in PF1, to the point it makes not being a generalist a poor idea.

Is it confirmed that bows require an action to reload? I've only seen talk of crossbows requiring an action, which is already the case in PF1.

Doktor Weasel wrote:
Some of the exotics are just simply better than the non-exotics, but should be just as easy to use (falcata I'm looking at you!) If they were available to any martial character, nobody would use a longsword or a battle axe, because the falcata has the advantages of both with no downsides (1d8 damge and the 19-20 crit range of a longsword but the x3 crit multiplier of a battleaxe). It's just exotic to make it not the default one-handed weapon. So yeah, exotic should be for weapons that are fundamentally weird to use like the spiked-chain. Not just a better sword. And then just don't make super-weapons like the falcata, they're cool swords but not superior lot later medieval ones.

I'm of the opposite opinion; the only weapons that should be exotic are ones that are straight up better than martial options and therefore worth considering a feat on, such as the falcata, fauchard, or butchering axe.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

Antiseptic Barbarian rage froth.

"Is he...spitting on the wound?"

"More of a drool if you ask me."

The Fighter gets a healing ability that's just "Rub Some Dirt On It".

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

You just made my day, Mark. Not having a good way to heal the really dangerous inflictions without 9th level divine progression was one of my biggest pet peeves with PF1.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?

Planpanther wrote:
How about a sidebar that says play vanilla fighter if you cant handle the load?

What about those of us who want the Fighter to be as compelling and deep as a caster?

It sounds like you think the paradigm of "martials need to pretend to be casters to compete" that PF1 suffered from will continue to be the case in PF2. If that's true then Paizo has already failed to address the C/M disparity issue, resonance or no.

I'm going to put the martial classes through the grinder and see how much Cool Stuff I can do with them. The Barbarian is my pet class in 1E so I might start with that.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Dasrak wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
I believe it already got confirmed that Harsk is now a TWF based ranger (to the rejoicing of all). I think Paizo was rebuilding a few of them to fit less...shall we say esoteric niches and act as more common builds for newbies.

Harsk and Valeros definitely had a lot of problems in that regard. To an extent, I am disappointed since this seems to indicate that Paizo has given up on the longsword/shortsword fighting style. It never got any noteworthy support in PF1E and over the course of the system's lifespan went from being bad to completely unviable. Valeros changing his fighting style will make for a more usable pregen for newbies - which is definitely a positive - but it looks to me like Paizo isn't even going to try to make longsword/shortsword work.

Still an improvement; if we are going to get a dysfunctional fighting style, at least the iconics won't be using it.

Longsword/shortsword is actually pretty solid now, or at least, I've seen that build putting out good damage. The switch to have Valeros also carry a shield, as I've heard it explained, is more to allow the iconic character to have access to the iconic sword and board style. But he still has his short sword, and there's no reason you couldn't build for two-weapon fighting with longsword and shield and then switch in a short sword for better damage and lower defense on occasion.

Hmm... Could stuff like "Weapon Focus" that locks you into using one kind of weapon be going away/modified to be more flexible? That's one of the problems with the longsword/shortsword style, you were seriously doing TWF wrong if you weren't dual-wielding two of the same weapon so all your bonuses affect both weapons.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

If they are including goblins...why not witches. It will be a few more page counts I suppose, but if they are adding an additional race...why not an additional class.

Of course, it WOULD add to the complexity of the playtest (perhaps races are easier to playtest than a class).

Then, what about the Cavalier? Or other classes from various books?

To a degree it makes sense, Alchemist is very different in the way it does things, fills a core archetype, and as they are also including a new core race, can show how a goblin can also be an adventurer, even one that's based on having formulae and other aspects.

I mean... they definitely did add an additional class to go with the additional race. It's the Alchemist. They made a new iconic for the pairing and everything

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Since archetypes will be in the core rulebook from day one this time, I would definitely prefer the "core" monk to actually be a much less mystical brawler, with the super mystical weird versions from D&D of old being given over to archetypes. Like, I assume even the less mystical version would still have some sort of Ki, even if the character "in context" doesn't "grok" it as such or follow a mystical philosophy. But you can push it more towards Tifa from FF7 and away from having the default be a "philosophical ascetic" who for some reason is immune to poison and eating and breathing.

The problem is the less mystical you make the Monk the more of a Fighter archetype it becomes. The Monk really needs its (Su) abilities to maintain any sort of identity that isn't it's playstyle as an unarmed unarmored fighter. IMO classes that are defined wholly by unlocking a playstyle like the Swashbuckler should be avoided and there should just be options to make that playstyle valid with existing classes in the first place.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I kinda like Monk as a hyper-supernatural martial, that does a lot of things that are magic but are not spells. By the same vein I'd like to see the Fighter (and possibly other martial classes) able to pick up options to be played unarmed and unarmored so the Pugilist-type character is properly supported.

One of the best things about the kineticist (and later the vigilante) is how "your job" talents and utility/out of combat talents don't compete with each other. I'd love to see this expanded to the new feat system so that you can always pick up fluff stuff that expands your character's overall design and options without hurting your main focus.

Martials are being brought up to the casters' level in terms of being able to do Amazing Things so I think "low magic" is going to be difficult to achieve even without a wizard in the party. Which is good for me, frankly.

Matthew Downie wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Burning a spell of that level at that level to heal a mere 80% of high average damage is 'works just fine'?

Sounds about right to me.

If you're healing 80% of the damage taken, then you've reduced the enemy to 20% effectiveness (with a 100% success rate, unlike save-negate spells and attacks).

It's an expensive use of spell slots, but reducing the enemy to 20% effectiveness is basically auto-win (unless the enemy was five times as powerful as the group in the first place) so it shouldn't be something a cleric can do all day.

If you're reducing the enemy to 20% effectiveness then you've reduced yourself to 0% effectiveness. You've done nothing to help beat the enemy, you've just made the fight last longer. Prolonging the fight can be a useful tool in some circumstances but it's certainly nothing to build around.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather the game be designed with the ability to do mythical things as a baseline assumption rather than lock it behind a side system.

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Young 800 wrote:
Mark Young 800 wrote:

Assuming Paizo truly has a desire to break with 1st edition entirely to try to create a better game system in 2nd edition ...

1. Another question I have is whether Paizo should have D&D 5e compatibility in 2nd editon? If they did, it would make it easier to pull D&D 5e players over to Pathfinder. Honestly, we're seeing a lot more of these locally in the venues where we play -- it would be nice to be able to pull them into our games (and Paizo might do well to sell D&D 5e DMs and players Paizo materials).

2. If neither pulling over D&D 5e players nor 1st edition compatibility is a Paizo goal, why not go all out and replace the d20 with something like a d60 (which can be found online)?

Taking #2 further ... An issue in our campaign is that some characters have a +20 or +17, for example, for skill checks. Similarly, we have high bonuses to attack. This turns those die rolls into almost sure success -- except when rolling a 1.

What might be better is turn those bonuses , themselves, into die rolls. Also, it might be good to have characters up to and including, say, level 9 roll a d20 as we do now -- but when characters reach level 10, maybe they start using a d40 for some things like to attack and saves -- rather than having enormous bonuses. At level 15, maybe this becomes a d60.

This type of system says that even very experienced characters can screw up some of the time -- takes away almost guaranteed success.

The fact that it is actually possible to get good at what you do rather than be beholden to the dice forever is one of the reasons why pathfinder is better than 5e.

The Big Six is dead, so hunting for that next +1 should be largely impossible. No more must take cloak of resistance to improve your saves.

Mark Seifter wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Especially things related to movement, Skills [balance, acrobatics, athletics, etc etc etc] and massive physical power should not be gated behind magic but rather Martial Prowess.
It's a fundamental design goal that someone with enough martial prowess, especially if they're legendary (but not precluding those who are not) can do unbelievable and completely unrealistic-in-the-real-world things. So much so that down the line we've gotten questions back about some of the more powerful skill feats "Can you really do Extreme-Thing-X just because you're that good at the skill?" Yes. Yes you can.

If you guys follow through on this then you've already earned me as a customer. This may be the most exciting news I've heard thus far.

GM Wageslave wrote:

I know folks want to whip out the old tables from RoleMaster, for all the critical failures and hits, but could we please not do this thing and keep it a bit more homogenized?

Otherwise, as currently depicted (with very little information showing) it is a race to push the 'to hit' as high as possible at the cost of all else, and changes the 'rocket tag' to an entirely different and obscene level.

The other side of it is, it would (as currently depicted) remove the 5% chance that anyone has of hitting something -- it seems like a good idea until you have a whole table going "Welp, we can't hit the BBEG, I guess we all just die, then?" or the GM going (without fudging) "Welp, my mooks can't hit you, so I guess rather than rolling out this fight you just win, congratulations."

It's already basically an instant lose if you can only hit an enemy on a 20. Making it official wouldn't change that.

Posts from Mark seem to indicate that to-hit is going to be on the higher end of things in general rather than lower. You should expect your -10 attack to be worth using against cheap mooks, which obviously can't be the case if the chances of your first attack hitting are average.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

I'm pretty sure you can. Just tell your GM that, and give yourself a big negative to it.

It's like in Starfinder point buy, You start with all abilities at 10. Can you start with something lower, if you want to roleplay, say, a weakened person with few strength? Yes, you can. Lower STR as much as you want. You don't get points for it, tho. But youc can lower it if you need /want it.

We're also increasing the accessibility to play, for instance, deaf characters. But as with Starfinder, this is a choice you (and possibly your group/GM) make for RP reasons.

Hmm... Could this, perhaps, be a feature of the new ancestry system?

LuZeke wrote:
Yeah, this sounds more and more like people are going to just stop using shields.

To be fair, at very worst people will continue to do exactly what they do in PF1 and not use shields lol.

I think that making the reaction break your shield is a terrible design for sure.

RumpinRufus wrote:
I like the idea of saves vs charms, fear, and compulsions being Cha saving throws instead of Wis saving throws.

I agree with this notion; charisma should protect against compulsion and fear effects while wisdom protects against illusions.

An AoO is a reaction so they don't compete.

From what I've heard shields still provide the passive, always-on shield bonus so this is nothing but a buff to your ability to crank up your defenses.

Jiggy wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Currently I see 5e as the Disney version of d&d, it's designed to be accessible for all ages, like g-pg rated film. Pathfinder is the pg13-r rated category, it uses more advanced ideas to be more engaging/interesting to an older audience. Each fills a different niche, and that is great. I hope pf2e remains a more advanced game. We don't need two versions of d&d made for kids.

There you go again. Pathfinder is more complicated to use than 5E (and it is absolutely okay to prefer that!) but that does not make it more "advanced".

An old wall-mounted crank phone is more complicated to make a call on than my smartphone, but my smartphone is the more advanced of the two.

Sometimes, simplicity of use is a direct result of "advanced" design.

The problem with this analogy is that, in reality, Pathfinder is the smart phone. The more you know about the device, the more possibilities open up; you're rewarded for your system mastery with tons of extra stuff you can do beyond just "I make calls".

For a crank phone, or 5e... It's been stripped to the bone until you have exactly one option of what to do with it. There is no customization, there are no extra features, just the one exact purpose the device is built for.

I mean, losing an attack you would take at a -10 penalty for DR 6/- sounds pretty good to me.

My bigger issue is the issue there always is with builds that focus heavily on defense: what's stopping the monster from just hitting the guy who DOESN'T have a shield?

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Kain Gallant wrote:
However, taking that 3rd swing still needs to be appealing enough to be useful, because with the penalties as-is I just don't see the practicality of even having the option to attack more than once a turn. Those extra actions are better off doing anything else, even nothing.

Attacks don’t have crit fumbles, so it’s only worse-than-nothing against duelist-type enemies with reactions against terrible attack rolls.

I can see sword-and-board being very popular at low levels for something to do with the third action once engaged in melee.

Given the emphasis they're putting on reactions, I'm guessing those types of enemies won't be all that rare.

Best make sure you have a knowledge monkey in the party to watch out for those types of enemies, then!

Tamago wrote:

I love the potential for this to apply to archer characters. For example, you could do a "Rapid Shot" type turn where you make 3 attacks at increasing penalties. Or you could have an "Aim" action that gives, say, +2 to attack.

So the same character could let fly a volley of arrows at, say, +2/-3/-8, or spend two actions lining up a single, precise shot at +6!

(All numbers are made up, but you get the idea.)

Even better, your aimed shot that took 3 actions to perform would have a MUCH higher chance to crit than your rapid fire shots because of the new crit system. Line it up for that headshot!

It's been mentioned in another thread (I think it was Mark but could have been another dev) that crit failures on attack rolls don't have any effect by default but may trigger an enemy's abilities (theoretical example, maybe monks have a reaction where they get a free trip attempt on you if you critically fail your attack). So we don't have to worry about the worst possible iteration of critical failures being the case.

As long as the math of the system accounts for it, that's fine. Static bonuses like that are largely irrelevant to the "feel" of the game.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
I'm a little surprised by the concern over level = skill; I've only been playing for a little over a year, so bear that in mind, but most people I play with choose the same skills to rank up every level, essentially leaving their skill ranks be equal to their level. Is this not commonplace?

There are a lot of skills where it can be useful to just dip a few points in rather than invest wholly; a rank or two in climb/swim can be the difference between breezing past simple environmental encounters or making yourself look silly. Knowledge skills are another one, I usually try to put at least one point in every knowledge skill I have as a class skill unless I happen to be dumping Int with this character.

1 to 50 of 4,076 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>