|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I'd like to second to the 5th power removing the XP costs from the game where possible. Besides the removal from class abilities, if there is an easier way to handle the XP cost of dying and the XP cost of negative levels, I'm all for it. For me as a DM, life is easy when everyone stays more-or-less the same level.
It was funny. After you first posted, it wouldn't let me start a reply. It was some kind of board hiccup. The problem with it (if it were allowed) is that a character could be 1st level with 50 feats (HD, BAB etc, etc, etc). Now, without regard to the XP cost, would it be appropriate for this character to travel with other 1st level characters? How about 5th level characters? 20th level characters? More importantly, is this character fairly challenged by CR 1 creatures, CR 5 creatures, or some other CR? Once level /= CR, you're opening up a whole can of balance issues. XP is essentially a 'limitless resource' - you can always get more. But feats are somewhat special because they're limited. I'd hate to see a group decide not to advance by levels but go find monsters to slaughter for the whole purpose of buying feats. And I know groups that would do it, too. They'd play 5 different 5th level adventures to be a little more 'uber' at the end as still 5th level characters. I'd hate to be the DM that has to figure out what it all means.
I think that would be awesome. Negative levels kind of work this way anyway. You get a neg level and you lose 5 hp. Doesn't matter if your HD is a d10 or a d4. That makes it pretty mean in some ways. Likewise you take a -1 on all attack rolls and saving throws per level drained, even if you BAB is 3/4 or 1/2, and nobody gets a save equal to +20 at 20th level (1/1). So, the penalties for a negative level are significantly harsher than the bonus for gaining said level. Likewise, a penalty on all skill checks after taking Intelligence damage would be quite interesting. It would actually make Intelligence damage interesting, and a monster that had it would be a totally new type of threat (in a totally awesome, story enhancing way). So, yes, I'm for it.
Is there any longer any concept of classes beyond their abilities. What I mean is, does Rogue any longer mean anything more than "someone that has the sneak attack ability"? Yes. Skills can still serve to differentiate characters. What all rogues will have in common is their class abilities. Currently, not all rogues have the same skill selections. The only thing that makes them similar is that they have access to the same pool of skills. If I remember correctly, rogues have access to 29 different skills as class skills. Assuming 9 skill points per level (from Int +1 or human) you can have three different rogues that don't have a single skill in common with each other under the 3.5 rules. Skills have never been the great distinguishing feature for a class. What this change would do is allow the rogue to retain their dominance in skills by sheer number of skill points. Learning (or learning the Pathfinder equivalent) of Search, Open Lock and Disable Device (whether that is two skills or a different number) is still a major investment for any class. The bard and ranger could probably pull it off without missing out on TOO many other skills that are important to them. The other classes probably cannot. If a player really wants to have a fighter that can handle traps, this system supports it, and it remains balanced because of the skill points allocated to each class. If skills are generally equal (which is a debate, but lets assume it is the case right now) than a fighter that puts all his skill points into Tumble in 3.5 is weaker than a rogue that puts all of his skill points into Tumble - the 2 for 1 exchange basically means that the fighter gets fewer skill points per level than he is 'supposed to' for balance reasons, resulting in a weaker fighter. Thus, nobody (or practically nobody) purchases cross-class skills. Thus, the rules so effectively discourage the selection that many classic archetypes are impossible to build in D&D. Opening up skills is a very small way to do so without giving fighters all the wizard's spells, or giving rogues all of a fighter's weapon choices. Between more flexible skills and more feats, more character types can be created. And while the feats may increase the power level, the skills certainly won't. And the rogue still has trapfinding (which no one else does, unless it is made available as a feat) and even if someone else takes on that role, that means the rogue has more 'spare' skill points to devote to other things that the player finds more fun. For most people (even the players of rogues) this should be a good thing. There will be somewhat more diversity from one rogue to another, but not appreciably more (instead of the equivalent of 29 skills they'll have 45 to choose from).
Is this a response to a particular person? Since my system doesn't require homogenized characters or feats, I assume it was regarding someone else. My system allows a character unrestrained by the imagination limitations of someone who worked at WotC in 1999 and allows the full range of figures from literature. At least, I think it does.
Honestly a Rogue's skills don't give them much of an edge any way, especially considering spells like Invisibility and the like. In my opinion the Rogue aught to have only a slight advantage in skills and then have feats and class features that give them capabilities other classes do not. I do agree with this. After a wizard gets second level spells (or enough money for some 2nd level wands), the rogue begins losing out. Invisibility, and Silence allow any character to sneak as well as a rogue (or better) and Knock makes short work of even the most complicated locks. The ability to find and remove traps can still be useful, but it seems like most traps are thrown in to give the rogue something to do, anyways. There's a good chance the rogue wasn't looking, or didn't find it and the trap went off. If the rogue did find it and disable it, it actually seems to be less fun. Imagine, if you would, Inidiana Jones and the temple of Doom. After looking at the pedestal with the golden idol, Indy determines there is a trap. Taking a metal spike out of his bag and a hammer he pounds it into the side of the pedestal, making it impossible for it to 'sink' into the table. He grabs the idol, and he cautiously and slowly walks out of the Temple. It is fortunate that the rogue has a lot of other things that they can do. Finding and removing traps could be their least interesting skill choice from the beginning. But allowing others to choose it won't likely take anything from the rogue since nobody will WANT to do it (especially if it also takes a feat to do it well).
Well, it might still be a term used by Italians to refer to a particular ethnicity in a negative way. But that doesn't mean that's the definition of the word. I call all useless characters bards as a derogatory term. Doesn't mean that the word bard means 'useless person'. Just that I use a personal definition that way.
I guess that's where you lose me, then. I think a 1st level evocation spell that does 15d6 points of damage isn't balanced agains a 1st level enchantment spell that can put a 4HD creature to sleep as an all or nothing will save. Combining the range and the radius of a fireball, that can add up to a lot of damage quickly. I really think that wizards are powerful, and I agree that Evokers are the weakest, but giving them the ability to launch a spell farther than a fighter with a composite long bow and deal 15d6 compared to his 1d8+8 or whatever is not balanced well. It might be less backward compatible, but maybe put a lower cap on some of the low level spells. 1st level up to 5d6, etc, etc, etc. This prevents the evocation spells from being 'out of sight' compared to the transmutation and other spells that don't get real useful at higher levels. Of course, perhaps the spell DC should be based on caster level and not spell level - that would make low level enchantments viable at higher levels, but it would be a mark against compatability.
I love anime. I have a lot of it. I have 57 titles on DVD (far more disks since many are 5-10). As much as I love anime, I really do want to encourage what I think of as 'classic' art in Pathfinder. More 2nd edition than 1st edition. This would be pictues like the Elmore cover used for the Races of Ansalon (it was in the 2nd edition PHB - Dragon Slayers and Proud of It). I really do like art where I feel like there is a story there. Ketih Parkinson has a painting where dwarves are either putting treasure in the ground or taking it out - great piece of art. One of my favorites was an Elmore (I think) where a woman was in the snow using a bow, while a hecuva erupted from nearby with a giant axe. That was a picture of a strong and attractive woman without recourse to a chainmail bikini or what have you. The art for races is not what I'd like to see in Pathfinder. I don't like how angular it is, and the appearance of so many random lines. It looks to me that they're going marbled like blue cheese. I think when others refer to the 'anime' style, it is the hair. Since so much anime uses the manga conventions, of which one is a tendency to use 'spiky hair'. The hair could easily fit in Vision of Escaflowne, though the noses would not. The male noses are more detailed than in most anime, but the women's noses (and the male gnome's) are understated, again, as you would frequently find in anime. So, I think that the criticism that the art looks like something you'd see in anime isn't quite right. But to say that it has strong anime influences seems to be correct. But the art style probably has the biggest single 'feel' of the game. When everyone is looking at the same artwork, the mood that it projects helps reinforce the mood. That's why art direction is so important in movies. One of the problems with Pathfinder is that you're going to have to use a lot of different artists. I understand that. But I want the style to tend to be as consistent and support the story you want to tell. Now, I think you've got most of that taken care of. The artwork look has been somewhat more consistent of late, and I haven't seen any more 'Justice Ironbriar' art, which I didn't care much for. While I'm not asking for you to use the 'masters' either exclusively, or even at all, I would like to see a consistent art style as much as possible - something that depicts people similarly to the last Dragon cover (Elmore of course) - people look 'real', but it also fits the classic 'fantasy' milieu.
So Frank, I'm with you in principal, but I want to know how you respond to the fact that 1st level spells will do 15d6 points of damage at 15th level. At 15th level I should have about 12 slots for 1st and 2nd level spells. That is a lot of damage, and it is a lot of damage quickly. While I don't see a problem with a 1st level wizard doing a d6 to a number of targets, I'm worried that high level wizards will be using their first level spells because it remains their best option at every level.
I actually would support this change. The example of fighting the shadows isn't even a particularly good one, since undead don't have a Con bonus to hit points. The best evocation spells can't hold a candle to the best enchantment spells, for example. I think that Frank's system is about right. Since damage scales with level, it doesn't matter that classes are getting some abilities very early. I do think that the problem is that at high levels, the first level spell slots are 'too good'. If the first level spell does 15d6 points of damage at 15th level, there is a bit of a problem. Compare that to sleep (caps out at 4 HD). In a spell-point system, though, this would not be a problem. I wouldn't mind seeing a system like that, but I think that's been taken off the table. I don't have a solution at the moment. I'm thinking, though, that some of the metamagic feats might give us a clue. A 1st level spell that does 1d6/level to 1 target isn't bad. Raising the level by 2 but making it an Area of Effect spell might work. Raising the level by 3 but making it 3d6/2 levels (like empower) might work. Just a thought.
But since you're working at home, we can send you any type of bribe or incentive, without worrying about whether it is work appropriate. So, what do you want? Is your shipping/delivery address listed in the phone book?
I'm saying a lot of things, but I don't think this is one of them. The 3.5 system is a problem. I'm a DM. I use skills far more often than my players do. For every PC, I make something on the order of 20 'bad-guys'. Maybe more. When I make a high level (or mid-level) NPC, there are two things that are very time consuming to do correctly - the first is skill points and the second is spell selection. Any system should not require the DM to 'handwave skills'. As a DM I want to make sure I build my monsters with the same rules that the PCs use. If I were a company like Paizo, I would want my editors to quickly ascertain that the writers allocated skill points correctly. Some people don't think skills matter, or the correct number of skill ranks matter. I'm not one of those people. Whenever I make an NPC, I want it to be correct. A system that makes it easy to be correct would be a great boon. I also fail how to see it would be 'more expensive' to learn 'Disable Device'. I tried to provide a number of reasons why it doesn't make logical sense, but in order to more fully respond to your point, I'd like to know why you feel it does. Let me explore knowledge (arcane) for a druid. What do ranks represent? To me they represent training, and not the kinds of things you just 'pick up' during adventuring. Why? Because the druid probably does spend a lot of time with nature while adventuring. Does he automatically pick up knowledge (nature)? No. He must choose to actually learn something about it. There are two possible situations when this druid levels. In situation A he has spent a lot of time before leveling exposed to nature. In situation B he is not exposed to nature at all. Let's say he spends his entire adventure in a lifeless metal dungeon on an alien plane fighting robots. In Situation A the druid could choose NOT to learn about nature, even though he was exposed to it. In situation B, the druid could choose to learn about nature even though he was NOT exposed to it. Obviously the skill ranks don't come from what you were 'naturally doing' the previous level. Therefore ranks must represent training and study. Of course the system 'abstracts' training. The druid doesn't have to say that he is studying with the wizard every night around the campfire to gain ranks in knoweldge (arcana) anymore than he has to do that to take his first level of wizard after 5 levels of druid. If skill ranks do represent an actual effort to learn, and people have the same capacity for learning, they should gain equal benefit from the same amount of training. The things that make this untrue and not well represented by cross-class skills. If a rogue is better able to learn disable device because he has ranks in open lock, that would best be represented by a synergy bonus. If the rogue is better able to learn to open locks because he is more nimble than the druid, that is best represented by the ability modifier. And if it is a lack of time to study, that is best represented by the number of skill points given to the class. At least, in my humble opinion. My opinion is that characters should count skills from all classes they have as class skills (if you gain a new class you gain skill points back retroactively if you have skills that used to be cross-class) and cross-class skills would have the same cap as class skills but would still cost 2x as much as much. It seems pretty simple and also backwards compatible to me. This, at least, should be a requirement of a new system that uses skill ranks. We're calling this the Epic Meepo system. You buy ranks at a 1 for 1, but you divide your ranks by 2 as long as it is a cross-class skill. If it becomes a class skill you stop dividing by two (basically doubling the number of 'effective ranks' the moment it becomes a class skill. The fact that this causes skill points to 'pop' is not a problem for me. The problem for me is that under this system, there is no quick or easy way to list the skills in the stat block to denote if the bonus is based on class or cross-class ranks. Rather than figure out a way to change the notation of stat blocks to clearly determine how they're coming up with the bonus, a system that eliminates cross-class skills also eliminates 'hidden ranks'. If you have 10 ranks in a cross class skill giving you an effective bonus of +5, the 5 other ranks can't be seen in a normal stat block until you take the skill that provides it as a cross-class and then the 10 ranks are readily apparent. For the sanity of the Paizo editors, I think consideration of a fully transparent system should be a must.
It is simply my explanation that is complex. I tend to over-explain. To put it simply: 1) Every character gets skill points each level based on their character class. They get the same number of skill points each level, no multiplication at 1st.
Nothing else to it. And since I can't help but overexplain, take the following example: Rogue 1/Ranger 1/Barbarian 1/Druid 1/Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Wizard 1. Assume an Int of 11 (no bonus). I get 12 skill points for rogue, 10 for ranger, 16 for Barbarian/Druid and 18 total for the other 3 classes. That's 40 skill points for a level 7 character. At level +5 I can have 12 ranks in any skill. 40/12 = 3 remainder 4. I can choose 3 skills to have 12 ranks in and have a 4th 'hobby skill'. I could also choose some number of skills that I think are important (say 8) and put equal ranks in them (5). This means I have ultimate flexibility and at high levels it is very easy to assign skill points. As a player, my options are slightly easier than 3.5, but basically the same. At 1st level I have 12 skill points to spend. At each additional level I add skill points to increase whichever skills I choose. I can 'auto-max' the same three skills each time, but I don't have to. The accounting is easier though, since I never have to worry about spending 2 ranks for 1 skill (let's say that I buy concentration with all of my classes - in 3.5 I'd have to know which classes have it as a class skill and which don't, which means sometimes I buy it at 2 for 1, sometimes at 1 for 1). Essentially, there is no concern for how I'm paying for each skill - ultimately I have a skill point pool and I buy whatever skills I want as long as I don't exceed my max.
Picking up where I left off, I want to offer my personal opinion. While a number of systems that retain the CSS distinction have been proposed, any CSS system appears to have problems created by the CSS distinction. Any system so far proposed is less complicated when the CSS distinction is removed. Sometimes, though, simplicity is not better. An important part of the game for me is ‘realism’ or ‘simulationism’. Obviously skills are something of an abstraction already. As a modern human, you have a large number of skills that aren’t necessarily related. You might have unsurpassed knowledge of using Excel and Word, but know nothing about programming languages. Most skills assume if you know anything about the field, you know a lot about the field. If you’re good with computers, you’d be good with every aspect of computers from assembling hardware, installing software, using computers, and even writing programs. The point is, most of the skills aren’t skills as we traditionally think of them. Most of them are ‘skill suites’ – a number of related abilities that make you good at one class of thing. So, for example, a profession skill includes basic business management, knowledge of exchange rates, how to obtain and distribute your good or service, etc. A skill like Ride is more than just how to stay on a horse. It includes riding griffons and giant lizards, and performing difficult riding stunts like standing in your saddle and keeping the horse moving while you leap away. This level of abstraction is useful, and since it has already been built into 3.0 and 3.5, I’m not suggesting abandoning it in favor of a new system that is more realistic, but involves more work. For example, I don’t want to see Ride (horses) and Ride (griffons) and Ride (Gelatinous Oozes) as various skills – certainly the techniques might be very different (if even possible), but once you accept that that some abstraction is for the best, I think the rest of my argument makes more sense.
I sincerely regret starting another NEW THREAD, but in the proliferation of skill threads, one subject has come up numerous times, and it does not have a home. Rather than continue to allow it to crop up all over the boards, I hope by putting it in one place and making it the clear topic of conversation we can beat it to death and make sure we come to a solution. To wit, the division between class skills and cross-class skills needs to be addressed.
This is exactly the problem. The old system never let you learn anything new. In the new system, I can pick up a new skill without sacrificing the things I was already working on. There's flexibility and people have a more realistic range of skills. I'm sorry, if I've been adventuring for the past 5 years, I'm learned to spot an ambush and sneak past a clumsy orc. I don't care what class I am. So you don't like the fact that Alpha is an 'auto-max' system. You like that you pick up a new skill every couple or few levels. This can be done, and be done easily, with a skill point system that awards more skill points. Please examine the following system: A fighter gets 6 skill points per level, with no multiplication at 1st (plus intelligence modifier if applicable, but assume it is not). All skills can be raised to level +5 (max ranks=6 at 1st level). There is no difference between class and cross class skills. In 3.5, this fighter could have 2 fighter skills or 1 cross class skill with 4 ranks at 1st level. Assuming he stuck with fighter skills, he would always have max ranks in those skills and never learn anything new. Now, back to the example. With six skill points, the player puts 3 each in 2 skills (note that this is one less than the 3.5 equivalent). At 2nd level he gains 6 more skill points, spending it on his two existing skills, giving him +6 in each (in 3.5 he would have a +5 in these two skills). At 3rd level he gains 6 more skill points. Since his max rank is 8 (3+5) he spends 4 skill points in his initial skills, leaving him with 2 extra skill points. He spends the two remaining skill points to pick up a new skill, with 2 ranks (he is gaining a new skill, which is very different from the 3.5 system). At 4th level he gains another six skill points, putting 1 in each of his first two skills and the remaining four in his 3rd skill. At 5th level he does the same, ending with 10 ranks in all 3 of his skills (max ranks). At 6th level he spends 3 skill points to keep them at max, and begins working on a 4th 'new skill'. This avoids the 'auto-max', but it makes assigning skill points for a high level character quick and easy, and is very easy for a player to continue advancing one level at a time. It is bad for a player that never wants another skill and only wants max ranks in whatever skills they had at 1st level. More skills, but not drastically more skill points than Pathfinder. And if you want to see 'drastic', convert the 'bonus' for a rogue1/fighter 19 in the Pathfinder system, and compare to the 3.5 equivalent.
Assigning skill points isn't hard if the actual points you get are easy to assign. There is very little difficulty for a player saying 'I got 6 skills this level, and I increase the 6 skills I already have ranks in by 1'. This is exactly as easy as saying 'I gained a level, and since I'm using Pathfinder Alpha I increase all of my skills by +1'. The thing is, it is even easier for a DM. For a 20th level character, no matter the breakdown, he figures out how many skill points he has. He divides them up over the skills he thinks is appropriate. 2 Minutes - done. In Alpha he has to know the initial class (always the one with the most skills) and he figures out how often he got a new skill. In that sense, the Alpha is just a bit longer for the DM, and it creates a situation that most DMs aren't comfortable with - once you've chosen your class at 1st level, you will always continue to develop in those skills just like another full member of the class. So, it doesn't matter if you go from a high skill class to a low skill class - you get the benefit of skills as though you remained in the high skill class. The high skill classes don't need access to more class skills to be special - but there is a reason they have more skill points than other classes. Under the Alpha as written, they might as well just give every class 4 skills, and then give the rogue something else to make up for the fact that there is no longer a 'skill class'. Maybe a good BAB.
@Vexer - The boards ate my long post, but here is a quick summation. I'm familiar with other examples of readying being an interrupt. The normal rule is that the readied action occurs before the action that triggers it. If the action that triggers it is in the middle of another character's turn, the action interrupts. On page 160 of the PHB it explains exactly how it works, incuding readying a charge and interrupting spells. If you're adding text to the ready action, that's fine, but it doesn't change the rule as it appears in the Player's Handbook. Regarding declaring actions. That would be a pretty significant rule. Since the rules don't say you have to, you don't. When the rules are silent, that to which they are silent does not exist. Thus, undead (usually) don't have life-sense becauce the rules don't say they do. The fact that they don't say that they DON'T have the ability doesn't matter. So, there are several places in Combat Chapter where it talks about what you can and can't do, and it never says you have to declare everything in advance. It does say you can end a move action early to take a standard action (or rather, it says you can take a standard action at any point during a move, ending your move). It talks about movement penalties, but never mentions change of direction, but it does mention obstacles. But whatever. You play by your rules and I'll play by my understanding of the 'real' rules. Even if your rules were 'correct', and I used them, it wouldn't change the fact that the fighter still sucks under them. Being a speed-bump is not fun for me. Sure, I want to stand toe to toe, but I don't want to take a feat just so that I get an attack when I'm constantly readying a move action. And the fighter doesn't need aggro or knight's challenge. The fighter needs level appropriate abilities at high levels. The problem is that there are no high level feats to choose from. A fighter's feats don't have to be equivalent of 9th level wizard spells. A fighter does have some advantages over the wizard (BAB, HP). If he had 9th level spells, too, then the wizard would need more. The fighter needs abilities that fit with his other abilities that give him more options and some level appropriate action choices beyond 'full attack every round'. And of course, you're free to disagree, and disagree about whether your houserules are RAW or not. If we can build a better fighter, we should - then we can discuss whether or not it really is better or even necessary - or if it means all the other classes are now too weak in comparison. At least, that's my take.
The thing is, it is only the Alpha. For the people who say 'Pathfinder is not for me' (and there are a few of them), I'm really surprised. How can you judge a game that is clearly 'not finished'. This isn't even like D&D 4.0 where they were mostly finished with the playtest and didn't have enough time to change anything. I do think that the Pathfinder Beta is going to have to be in a near final form in the near future. Probably 6 weeks or so. But then there will be another 8-10 months to change anything and everything in it before Pathfinder is officially released. Pathfinder is very obviously a work in progress. It is very obviously open to comment and criticism, and playtesting report.
Psychic Robot - Do you not accept that there can be a skill based system that gives more skills than 3.5 in a variety of ways without granting the 'auto-max' Pathfinder system that also grants additional skills at higher level? The Pathfinder system is more skills for everybody - and a lot more skills. Now, there have been a number of accusations of powercreep and a failure to consider backwards compatiability. In the initial skill offering, this was the case. My particular favored system is: Every class 4 more skill points per level than in 3.5 (rogue=12, fighter =6)+ Intelligence modifier, with no multiplication at 1st level. All skills cost 1 point for 1 rank (no class skills or cross-class skills). Max ranks = level +5. Skill focus feats grant a +5 bonus. This does result in fewer skill points at some levels for most characters. All characters eventually have more skills than their 3.5 counterpoints, and can max out ranks and pick up 'new skills' as they adventure. Because of the higher cap, and no change to DCs, some characters will not feel compelled to keep their skills maxed since the 'extra' skill points will work well toward learning another skill without feeling that they're 'losing' the skills that they had been working on - that once you stop maxing it you can't ever catch up. Try it with your players. See how it works.
Two weapon fighting has a AC edge over two handed fighting. There are atleast two feats by WOTC that increase AC for having 2 weapons and both feats "stack" by offering a dodge and armor bonus. :) Actually, this only appears to be true on the surface. To be truly effective with two-weapon fighting, you want your weapons to be 'powerful'. The incentive is to get two powerful weapons. Since weapons are more expensive than armor. If the 2-weapon fighter has his choice, his AC will fall behind because a greater proportion of his wealth will go toward improving the two weapons - enough that the 2-weapon fighter will probably have a +1 armor when his 2-handed compatriot has +5. I'm not saying that two-weapon fighting is totally worthless. It's a popular choice and has been - it is just that it stops being exciting after you take the first feat. For 'high level feats' you'd think they would do more.
It isn't just that 5s are easier to work with (sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't). They're a more appealing number for many reasons. Certainly some people might disagree, but they're certainly larger than a +3. And that makes them more significant. A feat should be significant, and a +5 shows that pretty clearly. That is true whether we're talking about hit points, skill adjustments, or any other number. That's the maximum bonus for a magical weapon. The number os aesthetically pleasing. Some people obviously disagree. But those that think that it could be a good idea should have their idea considered. Any good reason not to do this other than the fact that 3.5 did something different.
I was hoping to come around to having a class and cross-class skill distinction, but I just don't think it is necessary. The simple distinction between whether a class is 'naturally good' at something or 'naturally inept' is a theoretical concept that was shaky from the beginning. Logically, what will change if the idea of class/cross-class skills are eliminated? Will you have rogues that only take knowledge and handle animal? Will you have fighters that learn disable device, acrobactics, diplomacy, knowledge (arcane), spellcraft and survival? I doubt it. Rogues will mostly take rogue skills. Since they'll have more skills they can 'waste' them on being able to find and remove traps (and have trapfinding as a class ability anyways) and still be able to do 'important things' with their skills (like Tumble). The wizard won't want the 'rogue skills' because he will be busy taking skills that make him a better wizard - skills like concentration, spell craft, and probably knowledge skills. Even if they weren't required for to do his job well, he might take them because they're the most 'economical' since they'll tie into his high ability score (Intelligence). In those odd situations where a character concept makes sense to have access to skills that aren't normally considered class skills, it will work better. If a rogue is from a Mongolian style tribe, he might have ride and handle animal. Those skills aren't so powerful that he should be punished for taking them. They really are just 'flavor'. That should be rewarded and encouraged, not penalized. Finally, if some skills are 'so good' that 'everyone' will take them, they can be adjusted. Sure, tumble sounds pretty good. Walk around the battlefield at half speed and don't provoke an attack of opportunity. Maybe it is too powerful of an ability, even with an Armor Check penalty. But just because that is what it did in 3.5 with a static DC 15 check doesn't mean that is how it has to work now. The DC could be the Combat Manuever bonus of your opponent. Or it could be that when you tumble you provoke an attack of opportunity, but your AC is your normal AC or your tumble check, whichever is better. That would make the skill useful, but not 'so good'. I think that if we can get a plurality of people agreeing to do away with the distinction of skills, we could then make the system work out in a way that is awesome for everyone - quick for DMs, versatile for players, easy to teach to new players... I think there have been a lot of interesting solutions to remove the 'problems' associated with cross-class skills. They negate many of the problems, but removing them completely is simply the easiest way to eliminate the problem. The only 'problem' it creates is debatable - and that is the loss of 'distinction' that certain classes might suffer. If that is the only problem, that can be solved in other ways.
My point is that if you take 2-weapon fighting as a feat, you increase your options. When you take Improved, Greater, Perfect, whatever, you're not really adding more options to your character at that point. In addition, the feats should get BETTER the more prerequisites. If you have to have four other feats and a host of other requirements (like BAB and Dex) it ought to be AMAZING. A player should be like 'I finally qualified for the cool feat at 18th level. It took a long time, but it was so worth it'. Instead, you get players saying 'Well, I took Greater-Two Weapon Fighting. I had a feat, and it is an extra attack'. The feeling your character has when getting a feat at 3rd or 6th level should be the same feeling he has at 15th or 18th. It isn't. You simply don't have the options for 'really good' feats at the higher level. You are either taking a feat to give you an additional benefit to a feat you already have (and it is a very minor change at that point) or you're taking a new feat that you never really needed, but figure it might be useful. If you've ever taken Iron Will after 10th level, you know what I'm talking about. Feats that are good at 1st and 3rd level aren't very important later. Feats that force you to continue to buy in are also not very good. To be honest - I've played a pretty effective character with two-weapon fighting. One of the most feat intesive characters ever. I used the parry feats from Dragon 301 and was very good at stopping people from attacking me. But it stopped being fun even though I was able to parry a dragon's bite. The feat expenditure to keep doing what I was already doing was just a drag. I bought the high level two-weapon fighting feats, but I didn't feel they were giving me anything I didn't already have (cause they weren't). And I'm not just bagging on those feats. Let's say you pick Archery as a style. What do you have - 4 feats and then you're done? It seems that they could make feats that have significant prerequisites and it will be okay that they're 'good'. I mean, Whirlwind Attack is a pretty decent feat. It is probably better than Dodge. But it takes more than 1 feat to get there. So, imagine qualifying for Whirlwind Attack and taking four more feats in the chain PAST that. What would that look like? That's what feats SHOULD look like.
I am absolutely against skill points. Pathfinder's system is such a huge step forward that it would be a horrible loss to change it to something else. The simplicity of the system and the way it makes multiclass skillmonkey characters viable completely negates any issues that I would have with realism. You mean where a Rogue 1/Fighter 19 has the same skills as a Rogue 20. That's a bit of a problem for me. How about the fact that in 20 levels every class has so many more skills than their 3.5 equivalent that we're not even talking about skills in the same way - basically every class will have every skill they care about and a bunch that they don't. What about the fact that it doesn't let a player who is multi-classing really get the 'feel' for his character from the beginning. I like skill points. I don't think that the 3.5 system is easy or quick, but skill points can be. A few more skills is good. A lot more skills is bad. There have been suggestions for skill points that lets a player continue to assign them quickly and for a DM to stat high level character's skills nigh instantaneously. I'm on board for that. I'm only curious about whether cross-class skills SHOULD be eliminated since they cause a little trouble with every system that includes them. Personally, I don't think taking them out would have any 'noticeable' effect on the game or the power-level, but I'd like to see more widespread playtesting to see for sure.
I'm approaching the same point as Frank, but in a different way. I chose to use two-weapon fighting as an example because that is a 'feat tree' that after you take the first feat it can near3y be assumed you will take the rest. ?Now this particular feat tree requires you to maintain an insanely high Dexterity, so fighters with their many feats aren't as likely to follow this chain as a Ranger (no Dex requirement). In any case, comparing Two-Weapon Fighting to Greater Two-Weapon Fighting. On the surface, they're very similar. The both give you one extra attack over what you would normally have. Greater requires you have a +11 BAB because it grants a third ititerative attack. So, if you have 2 weapon fighting, and counting no other bonuses (1st level) you will have an attack routine of -1/-1. At 11th level you'll have +9/+6/+1 and +9. With Greater Two-Weapon Fighting at 11th level you'll have an attack of +9/+6/+1 and +9/+6/+1. What is Greater Two-Weapon fighting giving you? Effectively it is giving you an attack with a +1 bonus. At 11th level that attack isn't that likely to hit ANYTHING, even with a good Strength bonus (or Dex and Weapon Finesse). Let's say +8. Let's say the weapon has a +3 enhancement. Let's say you found the feats for Weapon Focus (but since you're not a fighter, Greater Weapon Focus). The attack could be at +13. That's fine if you hit a 19-20. But most of the time you're just rolling extra dice that do nothing for you. The feat isn't very good because even though it gives you another attack, at the level you qualify for it, that extra attack isn't going to hit very often. The first time you take 2 weapon fighting it gives you an attack at your full normal bonus. Every other time you take the next feat in the chain, it gives you another attack but at -5 from your normal bonus (like all ititerative attacks). My point is why not just take the feat once, and every time you get another attack from a high BAB you get another attack with your off-hand weapon. The feat won't be that much better as a result, and the player who normally takes 2-weapon, improved, greater, etc, can now take other feats that are 'more fun'. Feats that actually do something DIFFERENT from the feat they took at 1st level. Like 2-weapon defense. Or Prone Attack.
I am strongly in favor of scaling feats. I'm absolutely fine with Dodge granting a +1/4 levels. If someone didn't take it until 20th level, no big deal. A +5 at that level is appropriate. If the character thinks that kind of ability is important, though, they'll probably take it much earlier. So, in the rare situation that someone waits to take the feat until the last possible moment, sure, it gives a lot of benefit. But, hopefully, there will be some 'high end feats' that they'd be comparing against anyway. A feat that grants a +5 dodge bonus at 20th level (+1/4 levels) is a good feat, but so is one that requires Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Weapon Focus, Power Critical, Improved Critical, BAB +15 and grants you an increase on the multiplier of your crit, and forces a target to make a saving throw or die when you roll a nat 20 on your attack roll (a la Vorpal). Sure, that's a powerful ability. It has a lot of requirements. And it's just off the top of my head as an example. But if lets a character choose a feat that is GOOD at the level that it is available. That's the problem with most of the feats - they aren't any good by the time they're available. So, I'm definitely in favor of some feats scaling, and some feats that are not epic but are available to high level characters that actually take a lot of work to qualify for. In the PHB right now, the most 'expensive' feat has what, 4 prerequisites? I'll also point out that certain 'feat sinks' suck. Greater Two Weapon Fighting is my favorite. If you take Two-Weapon Fighting you get an extra attack at -2. Sounds good. If you take Improved Two-weapon Fighting you get an extra attack at -7 (you already have one attack, so this one is at a lower bonus). If you take Greater Two-Weapon Fighting you get an extra attack at -12. That means that the 'better' feats (the ones that require you to be higher level) aren't better at all. They cost the same as the first feat, but the benefit is worse and worse. By the time you've got an attack at -12 from your normal base attack (with a weapon that does less damage anyway), you're probably just hoping that one rolls a 20, since it's near impossible to hit any other time. Feats are absolutely my favorite feature of 3.5. I love them to death. But I wish that feats remained as awesome at 15th level as they do at 6th. The sad fact is that they don't. And that's a crying shame. PS - If the feat required skills for the benefit, I'm cool with that. Dodge could be +1 and an additional +1 for every 5 ranks in Acrobatics - cool. More bookkeeping, but it would still be a form of scaling that isn't 'auto-adjusted' by level.
The proposed Alpha Rogue has a lot more than sneak attack going for it. The Alpha system that allows a character to take 1 level of rogue and then 19 levels of something else and continue gaining skills as a rogue is *not happening*. It was a suggestion, and Jason has said on these boards that he intends to move it to something more similar to 3.5. The final form (or not quite final form, but new form for our consideration anyway) has not been announced yet. The rogue should have more skill points than the other class. The rogue won't need 'exclusive skills' to remain a viable choice. In fact, even with other classes having 'full access' to skills that the rogue has traditionally had exclusive claim to, I don't forsee the rogue becoming any less popular. The fact is that the rogue is a compelling archetype for a lot of people. There are going to be people playing rogues and ALWAYS playing rogues, just as their will be people always willing to be a fighter, or even ALWAYS play a fighter. Some people just grock that class. Now, the rogue should be designed as a compelling and versatile class. Skills should be a big part of that. But we're not in the final stage of anything yet. So it isn't 'fair' to say 'don't give these to other classes, that takes too much from the rogue and now they suck'. We still have a chance to do just that and then find a new way not to make the rogues suck. I'd argue that rather than keeping the rogue's stock artificially high by giving them the only access to some skills is unnecessary - in fact, if that is the only reason to be a rogue (so you can find and disarm traps) the class needs something else. Now, I personally think that the class has it. I would be quite happy to play a rogue in a party that has a monk that disarms traps (or a cleric, whatever, I don't care). I would be really surprised to see it happen that often since all classes are going to want to spend their skills on their 'pet skills', and any left over they're going to want to spend on the skills that are likely to save their own life. I think if all the skills were available to everyone equally (no class and cross-class skills) you'd probably see a lot more people taking tumble, but that's about the only one that would suddenly become popular among classes that didn't normally have access. Seriously. Maybe more characters would take a knowledge skill, so that the party has a wide variety, but that doesn't strike me as a bad thing. The 'doom and gloom' over giving other classes any type of rogue skills doesn't seem to be based on more than unfounded worry. Now, if that is the case, don't worry. If the change is made it will be playtested. If it doesn't work, that will be revealed. So, for that reason, I hope the next playtest gets rid of cross-class skills completely. I think a lot of people who think they're important will change their mind when they try a skill system that doesn't include them. Of course, that has little foundation other than the experience I've had with my players - but I'm willing to see it playtested to test the validity. As for Theft - the name is silly. Sleight of Hand can stand on it's own. Open Lock should be rolled into Disable Device. Intelligence should be the primary attribute. Trapfinding should be a feat, given to rogue's as a bonus feat at 1st level just like Ranger's get track. Few characters are going to take Disable Device if they don't take Trapfinding, and since the feat sets a high 'entrace fee', few other than the rogue (who gets it for free) would bother. The flavor of the rogue is safe, but the ability of other classes to build a 'variant rogue' is enhanced. Wins for everyone. Yippee.
Yeah, I tried the skill point spread at a few levels and the final modifiers got pretty big. Class skill were always better the CC skills, but after a while both got pretty high - higher than in 3.5/OGL and too high for my liking. But like the flat bonus system DracoDruid tried earlier today, if you're looking for high skills at high levels, then it might work for you. I would like to point out that for characters buying class skills, the only 'increase' is a maximum of 2 ranks. At 1st level normally you could have 4 ranks, in this system you could start with 6, but a difference of 2 ranks isn't very much at any point in the spectrum. For characters buying cross-class skills, there certainly is the possibility to get a higher total modifier. Assuming a 17th level character, under the 3.5 system, the maximum ranks for a cross class skill is 10 (17+3/2=10). Under 3.5 rules the maxium ranks for a class skill is 20. At 17th level the character is significantly worse at the cross-class skill than their 'in-class' opponent. Even assuming that it should be the case, this may be a bit of an extreme difference. Under the new proposed system, the cross-class character will have up to 17 ranks, the class-skill character can have up to 22. In this case the difference is only 5, not 10. I will point out that it really only has an effect on increaseing cross-class skill points, not much change in the class skills (max change 2 points). Assuming no restructuring of the skill DCs, not every character will automatically 'force max' on ranks. Let me go over a quick example with a rogue. Example 0
At 1st level he would have 4 ranks in each skill, at 2nd he would have 5, at 3rd 6, so on and so forth. Under a system where the rogue gets 12 skills per level (no multiplication at 1st) the rogue has to make some choices. This does make it impossible to just 'choose which skills to max', but it does make it very easy to assign them quickly from a general pool, and advancing by level is very quick and easily customized. Example A
At 5th level he will 'pull ahead' of the 3.5 rogue in skill points, but he had already become better at more skills. At 5th level with 60 skill points and max rank of 10, he could have 6 skills with 10 ranks each - Disable Device, Stealth, Search, Sleight of Hand, Acrobatics, Perception. He is the equivalent of the 3.5 as far as breadth of skills, but he is just a little better. Example B
What should be obvious is that whether one maxes out particular skills (even with the new limit) or not, the number of skills in a class rank aren't much different, but the options for customization abound. Further, while people can attain a higher modifier in their cross class skill, it doesn't change the power level much since they are still below the 3.5 equivalent of class skills - it just makes them not 'totally useless'. Many people feel that if you don't have max ranks in the skill it doesn't provide any benefit to your character because of the way DCs scale. Some do believe that a few ranks in a key skill could make a major difference (succeeding at a Knowledge check). This allows a player to choose their own approach, but still keeps a difference between a class and cross-class. If the character wants to get to the equivalent of ranks +5 they will either have to multiclass to a class that allows it as a class skill (once a class skill, always a class skill) or take skill focus (proposed +5 to one single skill check).
Of course I agree with Donovan Vig - the skill choice shouldn't lock the player into an archetype. Class already has a lot of 'archetype' without restricting the skills - doing so is just overkill. That said, I haven't found a lot of people willing to give up the idea of class skills (or cross-class skills) as outmoded. I hold out hope for the future, but I don't expect it to make it into the Pathfinder RPG. That said, if the base system is pretty good, it is easy enough to houserule them away. I just feel back for the pages of material they could save by eliminating it. Skills are not equivalent of a new weapon choice. Having a rank in spot may or may not make a difference in spotting an enemy. The extra +1 damage on a d8 weapon instead of a d6 will make a big difference over time - you use it every encounter, not just situationally.
That's an interesting idea, and may work. What about when you want to make a move, but don't have enough MP? Example, move diagonal 3 squares, straight 1 square (9+2=11). You have 1 MP left. Can you use it to move 1 diagonal? 1 straight? Just stop? Example, move straight 5 squares (10). Can you move 1 diagonal? Assume 12 MP.
I would hate to see a consistent rule for it equalling 1 or 2 squares. It just stretches believability too far. If you're using 5 foot squares, the diagonal should be just over 7 feet. Roughly 14 feet for moving two squares, which works fine for me. Rather than trying to figure whether it is 5 or 10 each square, we try to figure out what direction we're moving. If we move two squares diagonal, we count both toghther as 15 (rather than 5 then 10). If you move any number of diagonal squares, you figure it out at the end. Let's say I move 8 squares diagonally. 4x15=60 feet. Cool. Let's say I move 15 squares. For every 2 squares is 15 feet, so I know I have an extra 5. I take 7 (1/2 of 15) x 15 = 105 + 5 = 110. This only becomes difficult if I try to move farther than I'm allowed, but once you do it a few times you'll know your limit pretty easily. You can also look at a 'straight' move and try to estimate if you're within that (or a ruler works as well, particularly when the angle isn't straight).
I vote for Charisma. I absolutely do not vote for +Int and + Chr. These are not supposed to be the 'best' powers of the wizard. These are supposed to be a flavorful alternative to using up precious spells. They should not be the best ability, otherwise there would be little use in actually using the spells available, which should be the primary attraction of the wizard class. 1) Not all of the specialist abilities require a saving throw. This just makes evokers more powerful at the expense of transmuters, etc. It is unnecssary. 2) Charisma is the rule for spell-like abilities. No reason to change it for one thing. 3) This does make sense. I don't know if any of you have trained in something to the point where it becomes 'automatic'. Your body knows what to do and you do it without any conscious thought? Essentially you are performing something you've mastered without regard to actually thinking - thus intelligence is not the best stat. Since Charisma has something to do with how much power you can draw from yourself, this is doubly appropriate, since there is nothing currently representing a wizard's ability to 'pull magic from himself'. Under the 3.5 rules, magic is almost like a completely external force, and the wizard is able to direct it - requiring nothing from the wizard himself but knowledge of the gestures, etc. The real problem with that is that if it just requires the right gestures and words, anyone should be able to memorize a 9th level spell even if they don't understand it or learn any other spells - they just go through the motions and it works. Tying some aspect of spell-casting to personal power is EXTREMELY appropriate.
Proposed modification of the DracoDruid System. the DracoDruid system
Proposed Modification
Explanation - If class skills and cross-class skills should be different, we're not limited in consideration of a level+3/2 cap. Running some quick numbers assuming max ranks in a cross-class skill: Number of Ranks in maxed cross-class skill 3.5 versus proposed
Effect: Cross-class skills are more effective at higher levels than they currently are in 3.5. As DCs often scale to the extreme of the spectrum, this makes it more likely that a character who has been purchasing a cross-class skill will have sufficient ranks to have a chance, but against a character with max ranks as a class skill, he will suffer a marked disadvantage. Under the proposed system after 5th level is where the change becomes most pronounced. Skills tend to become less important for many classes after 8th level due to the frequency of magic use negating their importance. By allowing a higher cap, some skills are more likely to see use because they remain useful at higher levels, even when purchased on a cross-class basis. This takes all division out of the equation. As simple as it is to divide by 2, making the math easier is a good thing. If we can generally limit ourselves to addition and subtraction (and maybe simple multiplication) we're certainly making things easier. Note: This system works particularly well with the 'DeadDMWalking Corollary' - eliminate the x4 skill points at 1st level, but grant each class an additional 4 skill points per level over their 3.5 counterparts (12 for rogues, 10 for rangers, 8 for barbarians, 6 for fighters and wizards). Even with a higher cap, most classes will have fewer skill points at 1-3rd level (and with a high Int modifier perhaps as late as 10th level), but each player or DM will have more flexibility in assigning skills. Fewer characters will 'auto max' since that will tend to leave skill points left over, but it is very easy to add skill points at each level (requiring under a minute - seriously) or to assign them at high levels (calculate total skills, divide as you see fit). This helps to retain the distinction between class and cross-class skills, makes the math easier still, and has one other important effect. In 3.5 there was little difference between a class and cross-class at low levels, but they were very obviously different at high levels. This 'balances' their use at all levels since the gap between class and cross-class remains constant, and does not grow larger over time.
After thinking on things a little more, I think there are a lot of good ideas, but I'd like to throw a couple of new ones into the mix. Right now I like the Draco Druid system for the most part. Class skills and cross class skills each cost 1 point.
Rather than class skills max rank = level +3 and cross-class max rank = level+3 divided by 2 (rounded up or down), how about the following. Class skill: Maximum ranks = Level +5
This works particularly well with some other ideas running around, including eliminating the x4 at 1st level and also allowing characters of lower level to 'master' a skill earlier. There isn't much difference between having a +15 and a +13 in a skill, and since I'm happily in the Up with +5 down with +3 camp, I think this is a good idea.
I'm really looking forward to the Alpha 2 Document due out soon. From the teaser given on the Blog, we have the following information about skills: 6th level
Just taking out the ability modifiers we have skills as follows: Acrobatics +4, Climb +3, Intimidate +8 (assuming Intimidating Prowess allows Str instead of Chr), Perception +9, Stealth +0, Survival +7. Now, there were armor check penalties, presumably. She's wearing Hide Armor, so adding +3 (the AC check penalty to the above) we should have: Acrobatics +7, Climb +6, Intimidate +8, Perception +9, Stealth +3, Survival +7. Totalling the ranks, that gives us the equivalent of 40 ranks. This does not divide evenly by 6 or by 9 - but there was a discrepancy on the Perception check between the skills section and the 'senses' section - reducing the skill by 2 points. Same problem with 38 ranks. Not easily divisible. I'll assume that I made a mistake and that there are supposed to be 42 ranks - that would imply 7 ranks per level w/ no multiplication at 1st level. Since she has an intelligence penalty, can we assume that this means a default of 8 skill points a level for the Barbarian? \ If this 'teaser' means what I think it means on skills, I'm pretty happy.
What you're describing doesn't tally with what archon of light has explained above (even when you assume that preferred = class skills/primary = trained class skills/secondary = trained cross-class skills). Right. On a number of threads there are discussions of different skill systems. I wanted to bring up the Otto the Bugbear system here. It deals with cross-class skills by allowing you to purchase one rank for one point (like the Epic Meepo system), but you do not divide your rank in the skill by 2. In the Epic Meepo system it costs 10 points to get a +5 rank modifier in a cross class skill. In the Otto the Bugbear system it costs 5 ranks to get a +5 in a cross-class skill. The Otto the Bugbear system means you get more out of your skill points (cross-class skills no longer cost 2-for-1 but you still keep the cross-class max. @Archon - There are no overzealous moderators. Long posts are usually eaten. Usually I control+a and control+c to make sure if it gets eaten I can repost immediately.
Let me see if I can simplify it for you... I just wanted to point out that the 'new system' that everyone is talking about doesn't have a name. I'll call it the Otto the Bugbear system since I think he is the first to propose it. Unlike the Epic Meepo system, there is no division by two. Class skills cost one point and cross class skills cost one point. In the Epic Meepo system you divide your cross-class bonus by two. In the Otto the Bugbear system you do not. You still have a cross-class max. Thus, purchasing cross class skills is less expensive, but you can't be any better than you were in 3.5. And the math is easy.
I agree that the skill system needs to work the same way for Monsters and PCs. And the fact that some people make few villians or NPCs using complete stat blocks does not mean that others don't. In order to be fair I want to know what skills the villain COULD have. They might not come up, but if the villain ends up in a situation that I don't expect, I think it is a little unfair to decide at that moment whether he has ranks in jump or not. If I do it in advance, I know that I'm not 'altering' the monster or villain to make things easier or harder on my group. I think that most players like to know that the abilities and hit points of the monster they fight are determined ahead of time, not 'as many as it takes to make the story interesting'. Regarding squirrels and bears - bears do have more skills. They live a lot longer than the average squirrel, and as predators they tend to be more intelligent. Squirrels don't even have a good memory (they can't find most of the nuts they hide) but a bear does. While Hit Dice may not always be the most appropriate measure for how skilled someone can be, to be useful in game they need to abstract a very complex system, and for the most part the skills do a good job. Once ever skill point spent becomes 'visible' on the stat block, I think that will go a long way toward fixing the problem. If cross class skills cost the same as class skills, but you have a lower maximum, the problem is solved. And classes that really couldn't afford to buy a cross-class skill might (even though they won't get as many ranks in it - it won't cost them 2x the skill points).
I've been thinking about the turning rules for a while. I didn't want to get too much into them, since I'm really more interested in seeing how skills develop, but I think that is coming along nicely, and will probably be in a near final form in the very near future. Maybe in time for the Paladin and Barbarian classes to be released. I've talked to my group about converting over to Pathfinder Alpha, and it just isn't a go. The first document has things that just don't work for us and things that are missing. While I'd really like to get some serious playtesting feedback in, that just won't really happen until we finish Rise of the Runelords. Regarding the Turn as damage - I don't like it. Adam Howat is right. Undead are already among the weakest creatures. Even though they get a d12 hd, with no con modifier, just about every creature above CR 4 is weaker when turned to an undead form. I'd love to see that issue addressed separately (I think giving Chr bonus to hit points is absolutely appropriate for all undead and should not require a feat - since their 'force of personality' is all that holds them together anyway). But whether a change is made to make undead tougher or not, the turn as damage clearly will result in a situation where clerics are 'fireballing' undead - dealing a massive amount of damage to all undead in the area for however many rounds it takes to eliminate them. I don't really like that visual. Having thought about it, without regard to how I've seen Turn Undead work before, I think I do have a solution that would make turning 'better'. Before explaining the idea, let me explain the 'why' of the idea. First, I think that turning should have a chance to affect a large number of weak undead, or the chance to affect a small number of powerful undead. I think that the player should get a choice about what undead is targeted. I think that the turn attempt should either have an effect, or have no effect (not a partial effect, at least not on intelligent undead). I think that Turn Undead should work a little like destruction. The player picks one undead within the area as the 'target'. The target makes a saving throw. If the target has 1/2 the HD or fewer he is destroyed. If he has more than 1/2, he takes damage. Let's say 1d8 per two cleric levels. If the target is destroyed, the target moves to another creature. It can chain from one creature to another as none are more than 30' away from each other. The way I visualize this is as a bolt of divine energy moving from the cleric to his chosen undead, then shooting to another, etc, etc. I like this because it allows the player to choose who to try to affect, and if the cleric 'turns' a powerful undead it does have an effect, even if he can't destroy them. This has nothing to do with the turning as healing, of course. If that is considered important, the beam could be used to target allies, but in that case I suggest that the total number of targets cannot exceed the cleric's level + charisma modifier... And of course, no creature could be targeted more than once by a single turn attempt. I do hope that further revision of this idea is made, since I just don't care for it the way it is now. PS - Rebuke could work similarly, though it might 'dominate' undead instead of acting a little like 'destruction'. If the undead has more HD than the caster but fails it's save, perhaps it can be 'charmed' instead.. .
The 3.5 has two major 'problems' that caused the Alpha to be proposed. The Alpha is not the final system, and it has been said that Paizo was willing to go MUCH further with the Alpha to see how far players are willing to go, and generate more debate than 'minor tweaks' might initially. So, the Alpha system will be changed. That much has already been revealed. What form that will take remains a mystery. The major problems with the 3.5 skill system is that you have to know all about a creature when assigining skills. You need to know what their first HD was (whether it was a class or racial), and you need to know the order of their levels. This is not true when you're dealing with a single classed creature without racial HD. But take a human fighter 1/Rogue 2. It makes a big difference whether the fighter level or the rogue level was first. It also matters what order subsequent levels were taken. For example, if the rogue level was first and second, and the fighter level was 3rd, you'd expect the rogue to have 5 ranks in the skills that most matter (purchased as class skills). But if the rogue takes rogue/fighter/rogue the most important skills can have 6 ranks (all purchased as class skills). The hardest thing and the biggest problem, however, is in checking someone else's stat block. The number of skill points spent is 'invisible' when some are spent on cross-class skills. If you're an editor for a monthly adventure book that includes 15+ stat blocks, you better bet you'd want a system where you can quickly ascertain whether your writers did it correctly. There are certainly a number of solutions that are floating around. Among them are eliminating the x4 at 1st level, allowing cross class skills to be purchased for a single rank but retaining the cross-class skill cap, eliminating cross class skills completely, using the Alpha as written, and a few combinations of various ideas.
As for the math being way easier, yes it is. But so is just eliminating the cost of purchasing cross-class ranks of 2:1... By merely eliminating the 2:1, you know right away that the character will have 30 ranks (barring bonus skill points). Remember that the maximum ranks allowed will remain unchanged. If it was ever a class skill, the maximum ranks is level+3. If it was never a class skill, then half that amount.That makes it almost as easy as the Alpha system, but with better compatibility and customization. Allow retroactive Int bonuses for NPC wizards, and if you max out NPCs' skills, you've got a system that I daresay is just as simple as the Alpha one, but that allows customization and retains the same number of skill ranks (instead of handing out extra ranks hand over fist as levels increase). Since cross-class skills seem to be a sacred cow (and I do respect the idea of them - I want magic missiles in the game) I think that this is a better solution than the Epic Meepo one. It solves the problem of figuring out if the stat block shows the right number of ranks. So, skills cost the same for everyone, but if it is a cross class skill you still have the maximum rank limit. I'd actually be fine with that.
1) When two systems are otherwise equal, the simpler one is preferred.An now you're over simplifying. Ease of use (which is different than simplicity!) is one factor in deciding on a system. Another is realism. Another is the "cool" factor. Another is game balance. If you ignore any one of those things, I don't think you'll come up with a good rule set. I'm in favour of increasing ease of use, but it simply doesn't logically follow that we need to eliminate cross-class to achieve that. The two options you offered (keep cross-class as is or remove it entirely) are not the only two available to us. That's a false dilemma. Actually, I said
For example, take the following system. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, take x, add 2 and subtract 4. On Tuesday and Thursday, take x, add 3 and subtract 5. On Saturday and Sunday, take x, subtract 2. This yields y, the number you're looking for. Now, this system can be simplified by taking the 'weekend function' and applying to the rest of the week. The math keeps the relationship between x and y the same on each day. Using a system where you add and then subtract when you could simply just subtract is silly, as is using a different system that has the same result based on the day of the week. So, when equally realistic, the simple one is better. If they are not equally realistic, than they are not 'otherwise equal'. Regarding realism and functionality, I think you have to walk a fine line. I can do complex physics equations. I cannot do them quickly and I do not do them for fun.
Granted. Simply put, since DCs usually scale evenly with level, having half the effectiveness of another character usually means that you either always succeed or always fail, with little middle ground. There are some skills with a flat DC (tumble) where even as cross-class some classes will be as expert as they need for their purposes (avoid attack of opportunity), but opposed checks and such that likely is not an option. And of course this is a sub point regarding whether all classes can achieve the same results or not. The main point is that if they can, it is unnecessary, and if they cannot but are supposed to be able to, then putting barriers to the accomplishment of the goal is counterproductive.
And some more than others. Obviously a wizard and a sorcerer are both spell casters. If someone asks you what the difference is, you probably say 'a wizard must prepare their spells in advance, but they can choose to prepare nearly any spell. A sorcerer chooses only a few spells, but they can cast each many more times per day'. This statement encapsulates the 'nature' of the class, and skills don't really come into it. Some classes might refer to skills briefly, but usually only by inference. 'A ranger is a fighter that does a lot of forest stuff, like tracking'. It may not be the best description, but it gets the point across, and skills are only inferred as thinks that are 'forest stuff'. Regarding real life and people learning, all I can say is that there is a lot of stuff that D&D doesn't model real well. Since we can't measure 'ability scores' on real people, it is hard to assume we're starting with two 'equal' people - all ability scores the same. If that is not the case, in terms of D&D, the one with a better ability score modifier will outshine the other, even with equal training. But two equal people with equal ability scores (let's say identical twins) decide that they want to go into an adventuring business together. Since they both have similar desires, but they want to be a 'team' one chooses 'fighter' as his class and one chooses 'rogue'. It does seem obvious that the fighter is going to be spending a lot of time learning to hit things better (better BAB) giving the rogue more time to work on skills. It does not seem obvious that the rogue will automatically be better at diplomacy than the fighter. In fact, I think it is ridiculous. A prediliction for opening locks does not always correspond to a prediliction for talking to people. This is where the rule seems unnecessarily restrictive. Why is the fighter not able to communicate well with others as a result of his focusing on his physical training? Where does that stereotype come from? One too many game designers had sand kicked on them by a brawny man at Muscle Beach? The fact is, I don't know why that is a streotype, and because I don't understand the reasoning, it does bother me. The D&D rules are saying 'you can be good at opening lock or you can be good at raising animals, but you can't be good at both of them'. That doesn't make sense to me. Sure, they're different skills. I get that. So is diplomacy. So if you're a rogue you can be good at interacting with people, but not animals. That doesn't make sense to me. Now, maybe this is supposed to be about balance? If that's the case, I still don't understand why the fighter gets so few 'good' skill choices. Being a fighter choosing between whether he can climb or swim is not nearly as interesting a choice as between talking well to others or the ability to survive on his own in the wilderness. I certainly hope no one gets the impression I'm beating a dead horse. I don want to try to establish where the line is in 'bleeding into another classes abilities'. Certainly there must be a level where it is acceptable and one where it is not. Some have said 'take a feat'. I think that might not be a bad way to go, but if that is the case, should each skill cost one feat to be able to add to your skill list? Should that feat also equate to an extra skill rank per level (which is what Alpha 1.1 assumes when you add it as trained). I don't want any class to lose anything that makes it special, and I don't feel that eliminating cross-class skills does in any meaningful way. The possibility might be there, but it seems mitigated by a number of other factors.
I do, however, disagree with you about class and cross-class skills, which is fine. You must have posted this while I was posting my last post. Thank you. This is exactly what I was hoping for. While my opinion differs from yours, I respect the reason you have that opinion. And I'm particularly glad that you were able to express it without calling me a powergamer, a montyhaul DM or a metagamer (even through implication). I do hope that for those that have class skills 'because that's the rule' my posts will at least challenge that assumption, and work to a system that most people actually 'believe' in, rather than just accepting. And whether that involves a distinction between class and cross-class or not is not the most important thing by far.
I certainly want any discussion on these boards to go beyond just opinion, but I think that opinion has a place as well. Opinions of liking or disliking something for any reason are very important since eventually every individual will have to mkae the choice to play Pathfinder or not to play Pathfinder. Paizo must care very deeply for the opinion of every member of this community, and as much as possible, we should try to determine what people's opinions are, make them clear to Paizo, work towards a consensus as fellow members of a gaming community, and present clear options and feedbacks on how those options are working around the table. The only facts that everybody probably can agree on is that the current 3.5 skill system makes work hard Okay. With a given that the 3.5 system needs improvement, I want to try to focus on a solution. There have been several options discussed. My question is this: does eliminating cross-class skills make skills easier? I think it is a fact that it does. Any proposed system so far would be less complicated with the removal of a distinction between class and cross class skills. This should be a clearly evident fact, but can be tested by simply testing it for yourself. If nothing else, one simply does not have to refer to the class skill lists when assigning skills. The foundation of my argument rests on the following points: 1) When two systems are otherwise equal, the simpler one is preferred. This does not mean that simplicity should be favored over realism, or that everything must be simplified - simply that if there are two ways of doing something that in actuality are the same - the simple one is better. For example, please compare THAC0 to the new Armor Class rules. Essentially, they work the same way, but one is simply easier. 2) All classes already have access to all skills. There are two limiting factors that prevent a class from mastering all skills. The first is number of skill points available, and the second is the number of class skills versus cross class skills that the character would like to master. Therefore, while all classes have access, not all classes have equal access. This point divides into two other related arguments. 2a) If all classes CAN achieve the same mastery of a skill through use of judicious cross-class skills and feats, than it seems unnecessary to create extra work to achieve an effect that is already supported under the rules. If fighters CAN be stealthy, why not make it easy to make them stealthy (or any other combination). 2b) If all classes CANNOT achieve the same mastery of a skill, than some skills truly are 'exclusive' even though they are not intended to be (exclusive skills were removed in the change from 3.0 to 3.5). Since D&D is a game of fanstasy escapism, it seems helping to allow the classes to better create various archetypes is a good thing. The final point regarding #2 - with restrictions from the number of skill points and the access to class and cross-class skills, I do think that the number of skill points is the single largest limiting factor. A rogue will nearly always have more skills than a fighter, even if the fighter always chooses class skills and the rogue chooses cross-class skills. This is built into the rules, and I personally believe that it is a sufficient limitation to prevent abuse of an open system by any single character class (admittedly this is an opinion, but is supported by game testing). 3) Skills may be an important part of defining a character, just as feats are. Because they are selectable by the PC, they help to make a character distinct from a character with the same class and levels. Having unique characters is widely considered good. Most people use the term 'cookie-cutter' as derogatory. (While there is an opinion here, I think it is a fact that the opinion is generally accepted as the most popular and widely accepted). If a member of a class always has the exact same skill selection as every other member of the class, this would not be a good thing. 4) If variety is important within and between classes, it is also important that classes have commonalities between their members. If they do not, there would be reason to have a system that includes classes in the first place. Each class must have a defining characteristic that distinguishes it from other classes. Some have argued that access to type of skill rather than access to number of skills is the defining characteristic of one or more classes. I disagree. Class abilities are unique to each class, while skills are not (as described above). Since skills are not the defining characteristic compared to other class abilities (spell casting, turning, animal companion, wild shape, bonus feats, sneak attack) a change in this regard will have little effect. It cannot be argued that having disable device is a defining characteristic of a rogue, since not all rogues invest in this skill. It cannot be argued that stealth is a distinguishing feature of Rangers in the martial class because there are rangers that do not use stealth. Essentially, the skills are a poor definition of the classes because already there is no exclusive access, and classes are not defined by their skill selection since it can (and does vary) from one member of a class to another. Variation of skill selections between Rogue A and Rogue B or Fighter A and Fighter B is not an opinion. It is a fact that can be verified quickly by going to just a small number of gaming groups.
There's no fact in all of that, nothing that can be refuted with more than a "I don't think so" and some anecdotal evidence. I'm actually okay with that. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. I don't expect to have access to a library of data on the activities of gamers either singularly or in a group. But we all have a table where we can test these things. Now, these foundations that I've laid out can be disagreed with. They have a strongly factual basis for laying them out, but they do lead me to the following opinions: Eliminating the distinction between class and cross-class skills will
Now, I do admit that much of this is opinion. As I said, I don't have a problem with that, and I do have playtesting to support my opinion (though I have not tried it with your group, certainly). If you have the opinion that cross-class skills are an important aspect of the rules, you must certainly have an opinion for why that is. That is what I'm looking for. If the opinion is 'cross-class skills are good because they help define the character' that's fine. I have made it plain I disagree with it and I've given numerous and clearly explicated reasons why that is the case, but I can certainly still respect that as an opinion. If there are other reasons, though, I have yet to realize what they are. And they may very well be ones that I would and could consider more valid than all of the explanation and outlines I've laid out so far. Someone else said that you don't have to convince me. You don't. Jason's opinion is the one that is going to matter in the end. And I don't know that I've convinced him (or anyone else for that matter), but I would think that if you think something is important, you'd want to share why you think it is important so it can find its way into the game so that Pathfinder is the game that YOU want to play. Right now, the game I want to play doesn't involve cross-class-skills, and my opinion since trying it is that it is better.
Actually, I just read through the entire thread again. I think that I made some good points, and I continually, throughout the thread asked ofr clarification from the opposition. When the opposition did make a point (usually after completely disregarding my question and argument) I addressed those points, and usually countered them. For example, a question about 'giving fighters 1/2 spellcasting of a sorcerer' or 'giving other classes their choice of weapon proficiency'. If everyone else reads through the entire thread, starting with David Jackson 60's comments on page 1, I think you'll see that this is true. I think there are two clearly defined sides. One side feels that what choice of skills a character makes has no bearing on the power of the character, only the total number of skills does. The other side appears to think that access to particular skills makes a bigger difference in the power of each class compared to the number of skills received. Does that sound correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
