DeadDMWalking's page

Ok Dead, using your stance, how about something like this.

4/5/6/7?

Characters are overall more skillful but each class still functions within it's amount of skills.

There are some advantages to a system like this. But, I don't favor it. The reason I like the 'all 2 skill classes get 4 skill points' is that it involves the least amount of change. Nothing to do if you were in a class that had 4, 6 or 8 skill points before. No reduction in skills to worry about for the rogue, etc. Less concern about 'well, the fighter was a 2 skill class, but they should really be a 6 skill class, and the monk was a 4, and they should stay a 4.

Simple is always better if it is as realistic as a complex system.

The conversation is going fast - hard to keep up. Start one reply and there are 5 others before you finish.

Having a racial pool of skills is just more complicated than it needs to be.

Adding 'something' to the 4 skill classes is unnecessary since they're already getting something. The cleric and the Fighter do not have any 'combined skills'. The barbarian does. In the current Pathfinder Alpha 2 he gets Tumble when he takes Jump. Even if that is not the case, many classes that had more skill points are getting a better HD (rogue, bard, ranger).

Taking a weak class and balancing it against 'better' classes does not mean that the better classes need to be improved again. This defeats the purpose of making weak classes stronger. Now, the cleric may not fit in here with the other 2/skill classes, but the extra 2 skills aren't going to make the cleric better, either.

There are a lot of considerations to make. Giving some classes 4 skill points instead of 2 won't appreciably change the power level of the game. There are a number of other posters who's playtesting experience bears this out. The Pathfinder is a chance to fix things, not leave the broeken things alone. So, the Ranger got a bigger HD. I don't see anyone saying 'Rangers got better. Now there is no reason to play anything else'. There is no call to 'bump' the other classes that didn't get an increased HD.

I guess I would say, forget about 3.5 for a second, and imagine what you would do if there were no rules. If you had to start from the beginning, how skilled would you want each class to be? If you're like me, you'd want each class to be able to do a few different things. You wouldn't want them to be 'locked into' a choice. I like fighters that can learn about nobility. I think there are a lot of reasons that makes sense. I know it isn't on the 'class list'. I don't think EVERY FIGHTER should know about nobility, but some should. I think the rules should support allowing me to create a character where this is true.

The mechanics should support the flavor. The flavor should not be a straight-jacket. There should be multiple ways to create the base classes. So, not every barbarians should be from the wilderness. The Viking Raider was a very 'civilized' person in his homeland, but he seemed pretty barbaric when he was killing all the monks and taking their gold. His industry was as or more advanced than that of many of the people he fought. So, the earlier examples of barbarians from 'civilized' groups SHOULD be something that the game supports. Not every barbarian should be from a tribe. Some might just be creepy kids who grew up in the back alleys and go crazy if you look at them funny.

My opinion. And I do know that Jason will give both sides of the debate consideration. Personally, I don't think this debate would be happening if the 4 had been the minimum in the Alpha 2. I think most people would have thought 'gee, that's great'. I think that because it is other posters proposing it, there is a lot more inclination to 'resist' the change. Sure, the Alpha 2 is pretty good. If every suggested change were made, it wouldn't be. So, 'defending' certain decisions makes sense. I'm in that boat as well. But considering changes, trying changes, evaluating proposed changes - those also need consideration.

When two different people sit down and look at the change and one says 'I tried this and it works' and the other says 'I think giving one class something and not giving every other class something is bad for balance', I think the first group is a little more reasonable. Unless you consider all the classes perfectly balanced with the release of 3.5? Of course, if that's the case, than Alpha can't be balanced because there are changes across the board and some classes have changed more than others. And to assume that they're all balanced against each other - well, that's just not going to be true. If Paizo were wise enough to do that, well, there wouldn't be a need for Playtesting. I think they're wise enough to know that there are going to be thigns that need to be improved.

And for me, this is one of those things. Four skills per level as a minimum addresses enough problems without getting excessively complicated that I support it. There might be a couple of concerns with it, but none of them are significant enough that they need to be specifically addressed in my opinion. Since most of the concerns seem to be 'this class isn't as good in a relative way' my answer would be 'will this change make anyone who was considering the class less likley to play it?'. If the answer is no (and I do believe the answer is no) then it is not sufficient reason to not make the change that does have a lot of advantages.

Other classes have gained.

The rogue went from a d6 to a d8 HD. So did the bard. The ranger went to a d10 HD. The way rage works is different now, and it can be argued that the barbarian gained for customability.

The 'flavor' in the PHB is somewhere between 'completely wrong' and 'completely boring'. I want the rules to allow my creative players to build their character concepts. I do want the characters to be balanced against each other, and that's what I count on the PHB to provide.

So, if you think that the balance is upset, show me how a fighter with 4 skill points/level is better than a barbarian with 4 skill points/level, and how the barbarian is equal to the fighter with 2 skill points/level.

I don't see it.

Skill points aren't likely to change the balance of the characters. Skill points are an important way to allow you to create a character capable of interacting with the world in a manner other than combat. There are a certain minimum number of skills required to function in any society, whether real or fantasy fiction. In the modern world it doesn't really matter if you spent a skill rank on learning to ride the bus or learning to drive a car (and you don't have to max out ranks learning every route in the country for buses or how to drive in F-1 racing) to function - but you do need a variety of skills. Fighters and barbarians both need skills to 'fit in' to the fictional world. The barbarian gets skills like Survival - they allow him to interact with his environment in a meaningful way. The fighter has no skills that allow him to interact with his environment. He isn't good at talking to people, and he isn't good at knowing who the people who might hire him are or what they're doing in terms of politics. But, if he comes to a cliff, he can climb it. WTF? Does it make sense that fighters who live in an Urban environment can climb but not Gather Information? I think the Alpha 2 is very close to the perfect system. It certainly allows flexibility in choice. Now, to make that meaningful, it has to give a few more skill points to a few more classes.

I'd like to use the Cleric with the Trickery domain as an example. I've seldom been able to play a smart cleric. It is a lot of work to get a 12 in that score since I really do need a high Wisdom and Strength, and Con and Cha are both important too. I can dump Dex (but I hate having a penalty) and then my second lowest score is pretty much saved for Int. But let's say I'm a Cleric with the Trickery Domain and I have a 12 Intelligence. With 3 skill points/level (concentration, knowledge religion and heal or spellcraft) I'm never going to take Move Silently or Bluff. Pathfinder has adjusted that with different Domain abilities. Personally, I'm not entirely sold on a spell list without a granted power, but whatever. In 3.5 the 2 skills didn't work. The combination of skills in Pathfinder 2 isn't enough to fix that.

Four skill points needs to be a minimum because that's what it really takes to make a 'real' character. Sure, different classes may not choose to spend those skills in the same place, but they're going to use them to define the character and make sure that he 'fits in' in the world. That's important, and a whole bunch of classes lack that ability. I'm for giving it to them. Now, I don't think that the classes who already were getting enough skill points need more. They don't. I don't think they need 'something else' either, but if they do, I'd rather see them get it than continue to see the fighter to get screwed through another decimal of an edition.

4 Skill Points/level needs to be a minimum. With that in place, I'm very happy not allowing characters to gain more skill points without a feat (which I think should work like Improved Toughness - +1 Skill Point/level).

Actually, condensing skills takes less work than uncondensing them does. You see, if you condense skills, eveyone effectively gets more skill points, so you just add it in.

If you uncondense skills, the bad guy spent too many skill points, and you have to suddenly take away Jump if you want him to keep Tumble.

I'm with Set. I like some combined skills, and I dislike others. I think some people are getting overboard, and are trying to cut the Alpha 1 list down further. The Alpha 2 list is much better in my estimation, but I think it can use some tweaking. I like Stealth, and I like Perception (without Search). I like Disable Device and Open Lock being combined together.

Now, I can leave everything else like 3.5, but I think that there could be some 'consolidation' that makes sense. I don't have a problem with Tumble and Balance being put together (but I do object to Jump being included). I do object to Concentration being combined into Spellcraft (seriously - I hate it. More than I hate wicker furniture, which is to say, a lot.) but I think that there can be some consolidation that hasn't been done in regard to knowledge skills.

I think 1/4 of the knowledge skills can be removed without changing the game at all. I think another 1/4 of them can be 'shifted around' so we can end up with 5 knowledge skills instead of 10 and get more use out of them in game. I think each knowledge should provide information about at least 1 creature type. But, I just explained all of that in another thread I just started.

But, I certainly don't want to see a reduction in the total number of skills in the game. I think about 35 works better than about 45, but I favor some different combinations.

Through several threads there are two discussions that have been occurring regarding the skill system in Alpha. The first is regarding the nature of the skill point system, which most people seem to feel is very good, and needs just a little tweaking. At the same time, there are conversations about what the skill list SHOULD look like. The two are interrelated, so a change in one necessitates a change in the other. If you have a perfect ‘skill point allocation system’ but then combine skills so there are only half as many skills, it is necessary and prudent to also revise that skill allocation system to provide fewer skill points.

With that in mind, in order to have a meaningful discussion of what the skill list should look like, it is necessary to presume a skill allocation system so everyone is discussing the same thing. This thread is not a place to discuss what the skill allocation system should be, only what the skill list should be to match the ‘presumed’ skill system. For the purpose of this thread, I’d like to presume that the skill system is as Alpha, but classes that get 2 skills per level instead get 4 skills per level. That change seems to have a lot of support (though of course there are some who do not favor that, or instead favor a 3/4/5/6 progression) so if we can agree on that for the purpose of this discussion we can move forward on the skill list. Once a skill list is ‘finalized’ or ‘perfected’ for the 4/6/8 progression, we can look at what changes should occur to that skill list if we made a change to the skill allocation system (like to a 3/4/5/6), or how those other systems would interact with the balanced system.

Let me begin by laying out the original 3.5 system:
Appraise (Int)
Balance (Dex)
Bluff (Cha)
Climb (Str)
Concentration (Con)
Craft (Int)
Decipher Script (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Int)
Disguise (Cha)
Escape Artist (Dex)
Forgery (Int)
Gather Information (Cha)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Heal (Wis)
Hide (Dex)
Intimidate (Cha)
Jump (Str)
Knowledge (Int): All skills taken individually.
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (architecture & engineering)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility & royalty)
Knowledge (religion)
Knowledge (the planes)
Listen (Wis)
Move Silently (Dex)
Open Lock (Dex)
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Ride (Dex)
Search (Int)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Speak Language (N/A)
Spellcraft (Int)
Spot (Wis)
Survival (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Tumble (Dex)
Use Magic Device (Cha)
Use Rope (Dex)
You may have also included Control Shape Change (from the Monster Manual) and Autohypnosis (Expanded Psionics Handbook). There are also a few more that might have popped up in a third party supplement or a Dragon magazine, since adding skills was done with some frequency.

For the purpose of comparison, in the 3.5 Player’s Handbook there are 45 skills.

There are three Strength based skills (Climb, Jump, Swim). There are nine Dexterity based skills (Balance, Escape Artist, Hide, Move Silently, Ride, Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, Use Rope). There is one Constitution based skill (Concentration). There are seven distinct skills that use Intelligence (Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Search, Spellcraft) as well as Knowledge (10 of which are listed). Considering the Knowledge skills as separate skills, that yields 17 skills with Intelligence as the key ability. There are four Wisdom based skills (Heal, Listen, Spot, Sense Motive), and eight Charisma based skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device).

Pathfinder Alpha 2 takes the 45 skills present in 3.5 and reduces it to 35 skills (22% reduction in number of skills). It does this by combining several skills, but adding at least one more.

They are:
Acrobatics (Dex) [combination of Balance, Tumble, Jump]
Appriase (Int) [expanded uses from 3.5 including Identifying items]
Bluff (Cha) [expanded uses from 3.5 including the old Innuendo (3.0), Feint, lie]
Climb (Str) [unchanged from 3.5]
Craft (Int) [unchanged from 3.5]
Diplomacy (Cha) [combines Diplomacy and Gather Information]
Disable Device (Int) [combines Disable Device and Open Lock]
Disguise (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]
Escape Artist (Dex) [unchanged from 3.5]
Fly (Dex) [brand new skill for Pathfinder]
Handle Animal (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]
Heal (Wis) [expanded use - treat deadly wound]
Intimidate (Cha) [demoralize or force someone to act friendly for a short time]
Knowledge (arcana) (Int) [as 3.5 but includes part of Spellcraft – identifying spell targeting you]
All other knowledges unchanged from 3.5
Knowledge (architecture & engineering)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility & royalty)
Knowledge (religion)
Knowledge (the planes)
Linguisitcs (Int) [Decipher Script, Forgery, Speak Language]
Perception (Wis) [Spot, Listen, Search, plus use other senses to ‘notice’ things]
Perform (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]
Profession (Wis) [unchanged from 3.5]
Ride (Dex)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex) [unchanged from 3.5]
Spellcraft (Int) [All spell-casting uses of 3.5 Concentration, plus identify a spell as it is being cast or learn a spell from a spell book]
Stealth (Dex)
Survival (Wis) [Mostly as 3.5]
Swim (Str) [Unchanged from 3.5]
Use Magic Device (Cha) [unchanged from 3.5]

This gives us two Strength based skills (climb, swim), seven Dexterity based skills (Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, Stealth), zero Constitution based skills, 14 Intelligence based skills (Appraise, Craft, 10 knowledge skills, Linguistics, Spellcraft), four Wisdom based skills (Heal, Perception, Sense Motive, Survival), and seven Charisma based skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device).

Comparing the two systems, it is obvious that there are fewer skills in the Alpha. Some skills remained unchanged, some skills now include two old uses, and some include three or more. This has created a situation where some skills are clearly better than other skills. Acrobatics and Perception are the two skills that suffer from this the most, they become desirable not from a character conception point of view, but simply from a benefit-to-cost ratio. They expand your options the most for the least amount of input. It should also be noted that the rogue, particularly, has more skill points than necessary with the Alpha system. The 3.5 rogue has 29 class skills, the Alpah 2 has 21 skills. As an example, a rogue with 11 skill points per level in 3.5 has 37% of their class skills maxed, and 24% of the total skills. The Pathfinder Rogue has all those abilities and more, with 52% of class skills and 31% of the total skills available. Basically, it means that the rogue is getting a significant boost in the ‘spending power’ of each rank they have. Now, I personally don’t favor reducing the rogue’s skill point assignment. But I do think that the skills may be too far combined to make them truly useful.

My Proposal
Acrobatics (Dex)
Appraise (Int)
Bluff (Cha)
Climb (Str)
Concentration (Con)
Craft (Int)
Decipher Script (Int)
Diplomacy (Cha)
Disable Device (Int)
Disguise (Cha)
Escape Artist (Dex)
Fly (Dex)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Heal (Wis)
Intimidate (Cha)
Jump (Str)
Knowledge (Int): All skills taken individually
Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering)
Knowledge (History)
Knowledge (Nature)
Knowledge (Regional)
Knowledge (Religion)
Perception (Wis)
Perform (Cha)
Profession (Wis)
Ride (Wis)
Search (Int)
Sense Motive (Wis)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Speak Language (N/A)
Stealth (Dex)
Spellcraft (Int)
Survival (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Use Magic Device (Cha)

Expanation
Acrobatics (Dex) [Balance + Tumble]
Tumble is a good skill. Balance is not a very useful skill. Putting Balance in with Tumble ends up with a good skill, and the two benefits are certainly related (moving through dangerous terrain). I’d rather ‘give Balance away free’ with the purchase of a skill than see it stand alone and never be used.

Appraise (Int)
I have a problem with this skill as written in Alpha 2. I don’t think that it should allow the players to identify a magical item. I certainly don’t think it should allow an NPC to do so. I’d rather see Appraise help in getting a good price for an item. Usually DMs have someone make a Diplomacy check, but when money is involved, people don’t want to pay you more than something is worth, even if they like you. However, if you can point out all the things that make the item valuable, you should be able to get a good price for it. As a DM the most annoying thing I deal with regularly is saying ‘You find 15 malachite chips’ and then 3 sessions later, they’re trying to buy something and they’re like ‘hey, how much are these malachite chips worth that we found?’. At that point, I don’t know. So, I’d really like it if the appraise skill allowed them to know the ‘value’ of the item, so they could write it down when we talk about treasure or art pieces, but reason to take the skill is to get a significant portion of that value when they sell it. So, if an art piece is worth 20,000 gp, they might get 5,000 if they sell it, but with a DC 15 check, they’ll get 50%, and if they beat a DC 30, they get the ‘real value’. With a skill like that built into the system, I won’t be worried about treasure being ‘unbalanced’.

Bluff (Cha)
I like this one as is.

Climb (Str)
I like this one as is. With Fly and Swim being their own skills, I think this makes sense being its own skill as well.

Concentration (Con)
Every spell caster needs to be able to concentrate. I think this one can stand on its own. I understand removing the ‘skill tax’ from spell casters, but I propose doing that in a slightly different way. By keeping concentration, we keep the key ability as something that is important to every spell casting class without giving Intelligence based casters (wizards) a significant advantage. This will also provide a home for the ‘non PHB skills’ mentioned above – Autohypnosis and Control Shapechange. Adding in a new skill when a character suddenly contracts lycanthropy is a pain. Having it as a function of another skill (that most characters won’t keep ranks in) is good. I also like allowing a Concentration check to allow the use of another skill that normally provokes an attack of opportunity without that normal attack. For example, the battlefield medic will take Concentration to use the Heal skill in a threatened square without provoking an attack himself. In this sense, it would not be about ‘focusing on the task at hand’ but splitting your focus – doing what is necessary without dropping your attention from the rest of the battlefield. I’ve seen plenty of examples in movies – the medic is working, but seeing movement drops down, fires a couple of rifle rounds, then resumes work.

Craft (Int)
No problem for me. I like craft skills. The only thing I would suggest is fixing the way the time takes. Some things (like a house) just take way too long to build. If the Amish can raise a barn in a week, the craft rules ought to cover that kind of situation as well. Aid another doesn’t really do it, and maybe trying to break down a complex structure into multiple simple pieces (beam, door, stall) might, I think the system could be reworked so the time it takes to build an object is more true to ‘real life’.

Decipher Script (Int)
I think this one can stand on its own. The thing is, I understand that it is difficult to decipher something if you don’t speak the language. Giving free languages with mastering this skill, though, just seems wrong. If you show someone a language that they’re unfamiliar with, if they’re really good, they’ll be able to figure some of it out. For example, I don’t know French, but my wife does. When I ‘read’ in French, I look for proper nouns and try to understand who the script is talking about. I look for cognates, and try to determine if that works for figuring out the verb. I can decipher some French even though I speak only about 30 words. Not much, but I don’t think I’ve put a lot of work into decipher script, like certain archaeologists might. So, leave it as a stand alone skill.

Diplomacy (Cha) [Diplomacy + Gather Information]
I’m good with this as written. I like the combination of Gather Information into Diplomacy. It makes sense that people will be more likely to tell you things if you can make them feel comfortable with you.

Disable Device (Int) [Open Lock + Disable Device]
I like the Alpha 2 version, but I’d prefer to see Intelligence in place of Dexterity.

Disguise (Cha)
I’m good with this as well.

Escape Artist (Dex)
There is a major problem with Escape Artist in 3.5. It is really unclear when it should be used when dealing with creatures of different size. Paizo is guilty of this. Frequently there are modules where there is a chimney that a small character can move through, but a medium creature must make an escape artist check, DC 25. I’d really like to see Escape Artist as a good way for small and tiny characters with a poor BAB to escape a grapple. I was just using Dire Bears yesterday in Fortress of the Stone Giants, and whether we use the new or old grapple rules, the Barbarian at 10th level if okay, the gnome wizard at 10th level is not. I’d like to see a size bonus for Escape Artist checks that is the ‘reverse’ of the size bonuses for Grapple checks. If you’ve ever had a small pet (like a lizard) you’ll know what I mean. It isn’t that you aren’t strong enough to easily control them, it is that if you make even a small opening they ‘dart right out’. Then, when something requires an escape artist check, it will require it for everyone, small characters will just have a significant bonus over medium creatures. So, small creatures would get a +4 on Escape Artist checks, and Large creatures would get a -4. The rule would be simple, easy to adjudicate, and make small characters a more viable choice.

Fly (Dex)
I like this as a skill. It won’t affect that many PCs, but it will help define what a character can and cannot do in various flying situations. I like that.

Handle Animal (Cha)
I like this skill. I oppose the combination of this skill with Ride. However, I don’t like the druid’s wild empathy ability. If you’re a druid, what is the point of putting ranks into this skill? You can use your animal empathy ability instead. Your bonus won’t be quite as good, but you can do more with it. I think the animal empathy ability should allow you to use your Handle Animal check instead of a modified level check. Then someone with even a few levels of druid can make use of wild empathy (a la Beastmaster movie).

Heal (Wis)
No complaints, noble leader.

Intimidate (Cha)
The big debate with Intimidate is whether or not it should really use Charisma. I’m going to just go on the side that says, yes, it should. Sure, I understand that there are a lot of intimidating people that don’t have a good charisma. But I do think that it is more of a presence than anything else, so the fact that there are ‘goons’ with a lot of ranks, but a low key ability modifier doesn’t bother me that much. Combined with the Alpha 2 system of giving you a +3 if it is a class skill, I think it works just fine.

Jump (Str)
I think this skill can stand on its own. Since I’ve had monk characters with ridiculous jump checks, I know that you can do a lot with this skill. If it stands on its own, there should be more about allowing you to use it to bypass rough terrain. Jump really should be your skill to allow a charge when you might not otherwise be able to. If you can jump enough to avoid the obstacles, you should be able to get your attack. You might also be able to use jump to (as a move action) to gain a +1 height advantage for your attack. These kinds of uses would make the skill better, and it could stand on its own even against the Acrobatics skill.

Knowledge (Int)
There are 10 knowledge skills in the game, and this is the one category most often expanded (followed by profession). Just about anything can be a knowledge skill. Astronomy, Navigation, harrow readings. At some point it has to be pretty clear that we need a system that is expandable (adding more abilities into existing skills) or we have to make sure that it is defined what types of knowledge you can include in a Profession roll (probably astronomy and navigation could go in profession: sailor) pretty easily. Since there are 10 skills in this category, this is going to be a several paragraph explanation.

I propose cutting the 10 knowledge skills down to 5:
Knowledge (architecture & engineering)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (religion)

Knowledge (arcana). This skill should be eliminated. Spellcraft already allows for a character to identify a spell as it is being cast. Rather than retain this skill so we have a place to put in a ‘mysterious magical fountain’, let’s just roll that into Spellcraft too. Spellcraft should be the skill for recognizing any magical effects. Your friend is dominated – spellcraft. Magical fountain in the forest – spellcraft to determine what it does. You find a magical sword in the dragon’s hoard – spellcraft to determine what type of magical sword. I’d take the ‘identify magical items’ out of Appraise and put it in Spellcraft, and the identify spellcasting out of knowledge (arcana) and put that in Spellcraft. What do we have left? Identifying constructs, dragons and magical beasts? Well, we can put magical beasts into (nature) easily, and dragons into (history) without stretching believability. The constructs is a tough one because they’re created by arcane magic, but (engineering) needs a creature type. So there we go. Nothing left for Knowledge (arcana) so we eliminate it.

Knowledge (architecture and engineering) can be kept as long as we give it a creature (like constructs) to identify weaknesses in. All the other uses don’t really help much in terms of ‘mechanics’, so the only time I see this taken is for strictly flavor reasons.

Knowledge (dungeoneering) doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, there are oozes and some aberrations in Dungeons. There are also some in the underdark, and some above ground. Not all aberrations reside underground. Since I want to keep the identifying monster skills as ‘knowledge’ skills, aberrations and oozes need to go somewhere. I think oozes can go to (nature), and aberrations can go to (religion).

Knowledge (geography) doesn’t have any creatures to worry about. I know my geography pretty well. I also know my fantasy geography, and I know a lot about topography. I think that most of the uses of the skills are going to be part of survival (terrain, climate) and anything that is about a place can go into (local). If you have knowledge (local) Varisia, you’d expect to have a sense of what towns are where and and what the general geography is. So, I do think knowledge (local) to have a function should be regional, rather than specifically one town or one city. Since seldom does an adventurer stay in one place that long, having a single place you know a lot about isn’t usually very useful. It can be assumed that locals actually know about their locality without spending ranks on the knowledge (skill). Since most NPCs don’t have ranks in this anyway, but they can find the blacksmith just fine, I don’t think that would be a problem.

Knowledge (history) is an important skill. Throw in identifying dragons and you’ve got a complete skill. Since it already has ‘royalty’ as part of what it does, we can also eliminate (nobility & royalty).

Knowledge (Local) can do a lot. I’ve changed to Knowledge (regional) as per my discussion of knowledge (geography). And of course, it includes identifying humanoids, so let’s throw in monstrous humanoids as well.

Knowledge (Nature) will cover animals, fey, giants, magical beasts, plants and vermin as far as identifying creatures. This makes it a ‘big hitter’ in the identifying creatures category, but it certainly isn’t complete. I’m okay with that since most of the creatures that you fight are ‘natural’ creatures anyways. I pulled the monstrous humanoids and put them in with the Knowledge (regional) to avoid some of that ‘lumping’.

Knowledge (Religion) can safely cover everything that was in knowledge (planes) and in knowledge (religion). Identifying devils and demons seems more in line with religion, and since cosmology can and does vary from game to game, figuring anything that comes from ‘beyond’ is a religious matter is easy for me. What I really like about this is that it helps make the game more ‘flexible’ since there isn’t an inherent presumption that there are multiple ‘planes’. If there is a ‘river of fire’ and all the ‘native fire outsiders’ come from it in your game world, it would work to have this under (religion) or if you have a complicated system of multi-fire planes with conjunctions and cross-over points, it works as well. It becomes an abstraction I’m happy with.

And we already covered why we’d eliminate (nobility & royalty) and (planes). So, I think we’re good.

Perception (Wis) [spot+listen]
I like it without Search. I like the other perception senses being included as well. I don’t want a 6th sense here, since I think this is more about noticing surroundings – your actual ability to sense what is around you, not necessarily to interpret all the data.

Perform (Cha)
I like this as is.

Profession (Wis)
If we want to make some better economics rules, this is a good place to do so, but I’m okay with it as is.

Ride (Wis)
I like this standing alone, but I don’t really like armor check penalty. The research shows that armor doesn’t really get in your way that much. Sure, it is heavy, but it is designed to give you your full range of motion. So, I think we can put this skill with Wisdom, sort of an ability to understand what your horse is thinking – when to duck in your saddle as a low branch approaches, and things along that line. Sure, I admit it is an abstraction, but it clears up the whole armor check penalty without keeping it as an exception to the general rule.

Search (Int)
Here’s the deal with Search. You search for something when your senses tell you that it isn’t there. It isn’t like Spot, where you notice someone hiding in the shadows. If you pass by a secret door that is well manufactured, there should be no clue to its presence. Even the ‘line’ that defines the door might be set to follow the brick pattern, which every other brick might have as well. So, when you reach a dead end and see no sign of a secret door, you start looking for it systematically. I do the same thing with my watch. There are a lot of places I might take it off and leave it (unlike my wallet). I look in the rooms I usually leave it in, and hope to spot it. If that fails, then I actually have to search each room. It is a much more ‘thorough and organized’ endeavor. I like this on its own.

Sense Motive (Wis)
I’m glad to see it back. No changes.

Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Also glad to see it is back on its own. No changes.

Speak Language (N/A)
For a long time, people have gotten ‘free’ languages for their intelligence modifier. I am a very intelligent person, and though I’ve had Spanish and Japanese classes, I don’t speak either language fluently. I’ve known people who are much smarter than me who also only speak 1 language. Learning a language is a function of learning. Skill ranks best represent that. I don’t think that someone who does the CryptoQuote in the Daily Paper should automatically learn a new language every month, either. So, I think that Speak Lanaguage should lose the ‘exception’ for gaining automatic ranks equal to your intelligence modifier, and let everyone learn a language for the use of a skill point. If everyone speaks their native language only, they’re going to have a 1 skill point tax to learn common. I’m fine with that.

Stealth (Dex) [hide+move silently]
I like this.

Spellcraft (Int)
I don’t like Spellcraft taking over Concentration’s functions. I do like the skill as the one for identifying any spell being cast or any magical effect the party encounters.

Survival (Wis)
Throw Use Rope in here, and we’re good. Tying knots is part of trapping and hunting and every other type of survival skill. It needs a home, might as well be here.

Swim (Str)
Just like Fly and Climb, I like this one as a stand-alone skill.

Use Magic Device (Cha)
I like this one as is.

Analysis
Under my proposed system, there are only 34 skills, 1 less than Alpha. The major difference is that no skill includes more than 2 skills that were once 3.5, and most of the consolidation occurred in the knowledge skill department.

There are three Strength based skills (Climb, Jump, Swim), five Dexterity based skills (Acrobatics, Escape Artist, Fly, Sleight of Hand, Stealth), one Constitution based skill (Concentration), 11 Intelligence based skills (Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, 5 Knowledge skills, Search, Spellcraft), six Wisdom based skills (Heal, Perception, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Survival,) ,seven Charisma based skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, Use Magic Device) and one with no key ability modifier (Speak Language).

Let me look at the Wizard as the example to most likely break the system. If we give the wizard 4 skill points + Intelligence modifier, we can certainly expect to see a wizard begin with 9 skills. By 20th level, having a permanent 30 Intelligence score is not unlikely, meaning 15 class skills. With 5 Knowledge skills, Spellcraft and Concentration, at 1st level our wizard is going to use 7 of his skills, but this isn’t too much different than 3.5. Instead of ‘spreading’ in knowledge skills, he can max them all. The other two skill points might go to a skill like Search or Acrobatics to give him some extra capability. If we stop giving away 5 languages for free at 1st level, though, he’ll likely save those skill points for languages. If he really wants to be a master of languages, he might even devote 1 point per level. With 15 skills/level (at 20th level) there won’t be much he can’t do. He’ll have the five knowledge skills, tumble and search, 20 languages, and still have seven skills left to max out. Of course, Knowledge (regional) is one that he can take multiple times, each time with a different region . It is probably going to be tempting to have a few of those. This really means that he isn’t greatly increasing his effectiveness. He’ll probably pick up some swim/climb/jump, etc. But even a ‘weak’ wizard who does a lot of adventuring should be able to learn these things. I really don’t see this as broken.

The rogue had the most skill points before. Assuming a relatively good Intelligence, let’s assume 11 skill points/level. Disable Device, Stealth, and Acrobatics are ‘must haves’. Search would be another ‘required skill’. Perception would be a smart choice. After filling out the core functions, our theoretical rogue has 5 more skills to use. Bluff would be a good choice, so would knowledge (regional) and Diplomacy. Two more skills left. These can be used to round out the character or give some extra mobility (jump or profession). This seems to work in my mind. Characters getting a few more skills to expand their options, but nothing game breaking.

The fighter with four skills a level will certainly not break it. The barbarian with four skills a level doesn’t seem to suffer in comparison. I like that the number of skills per attribute is more equal. I guess in the final analysis, moving Disable Device to (Dex) makes sense from that point of view. While I haven’t changed it, I could certainly support it after this analysis.

Assuming the 4/6/8 skill system, what would you like to see for the skill list?

I would agree that 8 may be too many with the current status of combined skills. My hope is that when it is playtested, it is found that we can 'uncombine' some skills and keep the ranks at 4/6/8 and have it work out nicely.

Adding skills is easy, taking them away is harder. With some of them combined, there may already be a lot of work. I sort of feel that we're trying to work on two different things - the arrangement of skills per level and the list of skills.

Doing one without the other is kinda hard. I guess I'll make a new thread for it.

There are two issues. Good summary of the 'fiddling' with the numbers, which I think is the first category. The second issue, and much harder to easily discuss is 'what should the final skill list look like'.

I think combining spot and listen is a good idea. The whole point of rolling two checks to sneak past someone and two checks to notice them is a little silly. And as long as you're rolling the two that were actually skills together, might as well throw in other 'senses'. I get that, and I like that. So, while there is the complexity of the racial bonus to one or two types of perception, I can allow that as a nod toward some realism.

Search, I think, can stand on its own. I agree just from a balance point of view that perception is too good. Every class would be silly not to take it, since more often than anything else, it may determine the difference between life and death for the party.

I have two thoughts on the general situation.

1) Separating search and other perceptions is good. There are other reasons for it above, and I'm more comfortable keeping an Int based skill separate from a Wis based skill.

2) The simple fact that every person in the party (or may) does make it a little hard to set DCs appropriately. I hate having everyone roll for a Spot check. If I have 5 players, surely I get one with a 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 (or similar). Now, if they all have the max ranks, this means whatever is going to be spotted always gets spotted (right now this isn't as much the case, but with the new system it will be more likely). So, I'd really like to see a good rule for 'party checks' instead of 'individual checks'. I think it would be 'faster and easier' to ask for a 'party stealth check' opposed by the enemy 'party perception check'. Thus, rather than having the cleric, rogue, fighter, and barbarian all make stealth checks, you would have one of the players roll one check. Something like 'd20 roll+best modifier-worst Armor Check - 1 per person'. So, the above party is 8th level, the roll would be 1d20+16(lvl+3+ability)-9 (AC -5, 4 people). Effectively the party's stealth would be 1d20+5. Not as good as the barbarians 1d20+16, but much better than the clerics 1d20-5.

As a DM this will also be very helpful if I have large numbers of people opposing the PCs. Sneaking past 200 guards (if it happens) should be harder even though most of them aren't very observant. While some of them could never spot the rogue, with that many someone might 'get lucky'. Some kind of bonus for having lots of people actively on guard would be nice. Just a thought.

In your scenario with the climb, have all players forgotten that they could have taken a 20. Add in some rope climbing and the party can succeed on any check that you throw at them. That's just as quick as the party actually having ranks with the skill. That's why their is rope in the equipment section and the ability to take 20. SO you don't have to have the ranks in something to do it. As for the Trickery domain, just because you have 2+Int for skills doesn't mean you couldn't spread your points out enough to make use of those skills.

I'm looking forward to your full analysis of the differences between Pathfinder Alpha 2 w/ 2 and 4 skills per level. But I did have to comment on this.

You cannot take 20 when failure has a penalty. For example, falling. When you take 20 you presume you rolled every other possible roll once. So, you rolled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. until you finally roll 20 2 minutes later (20 rounds). So, that is not an option.

Taking 10 MIGHT be an option, presuming that they could be successful on a 10 or better. With no ranks, that is unlikely since most climbs have a DC of 15 or so (and some are much higher). If there are a few more skill points to spread around, it is more likely that the PCs won't treat every 40+ foot climb as a major hurdle, involving a major engineering marvel to get them over it.

From a Rise of the Runelords campaign I'm running

I also don't think the skill list is 'perfect' yet. I don't want more combinations. If you go that way, it almost seems like you might as well make the skill 'dex skills' and 'strength skills' and 'intelligence skills' and you'd just get a bonus on anything that has that ability as the key ability.

I wouldn't like that.

I'm very concerned that the flavor of skills is being lost. In general, I think Pathfider has combined too many skills. There are a lot of changes that I like for ease of play and streamlining. There are some that I do object to regarding backwards compatability. For skills I think there are a lot of good changes and a few that aren't so good. Too many combinations is one that I'm not fond of.

Velderan wrote:

DracoDruid wrote:

With the new classes there is NEVER a dead level!

All non casters get a special every level and spellcaster get their additional spells!

I agree, there's rarely a dead level. But you still can't keep skills maxed AND pick up somethng new, so a mechanic like that is a way to compromise with the people who liked the last system.

Make a feat, Improved Learning, each time you take it, you get another skill point per level (like improved toughness).

This is something pres man and I agree on.

The Cleric I must agree isn't as cloistered as the monk but the monk is being trained both mentally and phsyically while the cleric is only learning about his god what how he can enact his god's will in the land. It depends on the domains and such but to get to the point. Give a cleric a 4+Int, he decides to not make his Int a dump stat and he ends up a lot more powerful than he should be. He gains a lot of...

This is funny to me. Have you ever played a cleric with the knowledge domain? How about the trickery domain? Any domain that grants you more class skills. Did you ever put any ranks into those skills?

That's what I thought.

It is impossible.

The thing is, skills don't make a character more powerful. Really. I understand concerns about raising the power level, but esentially skills don't really let you do anything you couldn't do anyway. They just make it faster and easier, and they allow the party to take more risks.

If nobody in the party has ranks in climb, the party won't willingly climb down the cliff. They will spend hours working out an elaborate rope system that allows the DC to become 0 so nobody risks failing by 5 or more, even if threatened or distracted. If the party thinks that they can make the climb, they'll try it, and unleashing the yrthak or whatever while they're on the cliff actually gets interesting.

There are a few exceptions. Some skills really help in combat. Tumble and Concentration come to mind (no matter where they're located). Still, not every class will take those skills because for some it is useless and some the armor check make it essentially useless.

Barbarians will do fine with 4 skills. Fighters will do fine with 4. Nobody loses. I wouldn't think of not playing a barbarian because the fighter gets the same number of skills as I do. That isn't the reason one plays a barbarian. If you like a big HD, and you like rage, you play a barbarian. I wouldn't feel like I 'lose' because the fighter can use survival like I can.

Going to a 4/6 system, on the other hand (as many people seem to be advocating) has the following important side effects:

But most people are not advocating reducing the rogue's skill points, just adding two to the 2+Int skill classes.

1. The rogue no longer has the skill thing going for him, compared to the others. All he's got (that they don't) is a sneak attack. So he's no longer a rogue, he's a lightly-armored fighter. Rename the class; the old rogue is gone.

The rogue still has more skill points than anyone else. The rogue is no worse than he was before. Other classes are somewhat better than they were. But the rogue is better too. The rogue now has a d8 HD. The rogue now has more special abilities. The thing is, whether you're measuring relative power you have to include other changes, not just skills. Without regard to relative power, the rogue is still good. On an absolute level the rogue did not lose any skill points, and those skill points go farther, since many of the 'condensed' skills most favor the rogue. So, the Pathfinder Rogue is going to be Stealthy, be able to Find Traps and Perceive enemies, Remove Traps and Open Locks, dodge Acrobatically through combat, and only have used half of their base skill points. That gives them 4+Int to still do other things and let them really be different from every other rogue. I don't see the problem.

2. A bard with 6 skill points/level is unbelievably lame compared to a cleric with 4 skill points/level (he's gone from 3x the skills to 1.5x). The bard therefore sucks a lot worse than he does now, and is essentially a lost cause. The bard is gone.

Nobody wants to play a bard now. So, if your argument is that bards suck and clerics rule, yeah, that's true in 3.5. But this doesn't make the bard any worse. It just makes the cleric a little bit better. Clerics are already arguably the 'best' class, but I've never had a group that all played one. I've wanted to do that. So, I guess clerics aren't that cool. But if bards suck before other classes get more skill points, they'd still suck after. Since Pathfinder is fixing all the problems with 3.5, that means the bard will be fixed as well. And that means that the bard won't suck. So, don't worry about that.

3. Compared to a ranger with 6 skill points/level, a fighter with 4 skill points/level is now vastly superior -- more feats, weapon training, etc. The ranger's abilities don't come close to bridging that gap, without the 3:1 skill ratio (again, instead of 1.5:1) backing it up. The ranger is gone.

Again, false. There are people that will still want to play a ranger. Besides getting more skills than the fighter, the ranger has other advantages, like the ability to focus on two-weapon fighting without a high dexterity. Some people say that the ranger gets more skills because of the things that they 'gave up'. But the Pathfinder Ranger is getting some of those things back. Since the Ranger is getting a d10 like a fighter, and the Ranger gave up a d10 for those skill points, it only seems like it is fair to the fighter to give him a couple more skills when you bump the Ranger's HD. To maintain 'relative' power.

Jason has implied that ALL the core classes will be retained in Pathfinder. A 4/6 skill system makes this impossible unless the high-skill classes are re-done from the ground up, and made vastly more powerful in other areas. Any hope of backward compatibility is lost.

I don't want to see a 4/6 system. I do want to see a 4/6/8 system. This fixes the 2+Int classes regarding skills without anyone else 'losing anything', certainly not on an absolute level and not really on a 'relative' level.

I'm strongly in favor of more skill points for the 2 skill point classes. 4 skill points seems emminently reasonable.

I don't think that any other classes need more skill points to feel special. The rogue would still have twice as many skill points as the cleric before accounting for the likeihood of the rogue having a higher intelligence. In addition, the skill combinations mostly favor the rogue - it takes fewer skill ranks to be good at more rogue skills. Thus, an increase 'across the board' would not be necessary.

Arguments for 3/4/5/6 for skill points mean nothing to me. I don't like it for aesthetic reasons if nothing else. And of course, reducing skills is more work than adding skills when doing conversion.

The 4 skill points per level instead of 2 skill points per level has been extensively tested as this thread can attest. It sounds like of all the people who have tried it, only one didn't enjoy it as much because monsters were never a surprise. The system works. Four skill points per level adds more fun and versatility to the game, doesn't severely impact backward compatability, and doesn't appreciably 'power up' the game.

I am not in favor of reducing the list of class skills for any of the classes. Even though the Patfhinder Alpha 2 rules are much better regarding the distinction between cross- and cross-class skills, increasing the distinction discourages unusual character concepts or thinking outside the box. I'd prefer to avoid that when possible.

As for seeing it as an optional rule, I would like to avoid that. This is the game. I hope that we're mostly going to all use the same rules. And I hope that the various modules that come out to support the game support the game that I'm playing. The closer to perfect the game can be the less likely there will be people that play. If 90% of the Pathfinder DMs are changing the 2+Int classes to 4+Int skills, I'd hope that the Pathfinder game includes that rule as the default.

Once everyone is on the same page and knows what the rules are supposed to be, I'd be more comfortable with a proliferation of 'alternate' rules. I like books of Alternate Rules, but I don't like core books that are full of them. Already as the DM I can change what I don't like, but each alternate rule can have far reaching conceptual consequences. For that reason, I want the designers to consider the 'real rule' and worry about optional rules later.

Again, the 4/6/8 skill progression will be something that my games continue to see this system (or something equivalent that does allow more skills). And since I want Pathfinder to be the 3.5 game with the good houserules that make it better (fixing grapple, fixing sorcerers, fixing skills), I want this.

The current skill list isn't 'final'. While there may be no major revision to skills, there can be tweaking. Altering the skill list may happen. Personally, I'd like to see it a little more like the 3.5 list.

My personal hope:
Hide & Move Silently remain combined into Stealth.
Spot & Listen are combined into Perception.
Open Lock & Disable Device remain combined into Disable Device.
Tumble and Balance are combined into Acrobatics.
Concentration is combined with Autohypnosis and Control shapechange in Concentration.
Knowledge (Arcana) is eliminated. All functions are combined into Knowledge (history) and Spellcraft.
Knowledge (nobility) is eliminated. All functions are combined into Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (local).

Certainly I understand that some people want to see more combinations, but I'm in favor of fewer. I don't want to see any skills combined that have different ability attributes (except Open Lock/Disable Device).

If there are fewer combinations, the argument for 4 skill points per class.

I don't see the problem.

Now the x4 is whenever you take a level that gives you more class skills.

Lets say I start rogue w/ 10 Int and advance as fighter.

I get 8 skills with a +4 bonus. Now, with my 2 fighter skill points I can either get 2 fighter skills at 4 ranks, or advance 2 of my 'rogue skills.

Either way, I don't end up with a 'broken' bonus to skill points like in Alpha 1 for the rogue dip. +23/+23/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4 or +22/+22/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4 - not a huge difference - effectively 6 more skill points if I advance 2 fighter skills, but the two best skills remain at a '-1' versus my max level.

At the core, I think you and I just have differnet financial philosophies. For example, I don't use credit cards.

Ah, you see, the thing about credit cards (besides the inherent danger) is that if you don't carry a balance, they cost nothing. And the cards I have are reward cards. So, when I use my credit card for my everyday purchases, I get Amazon.com gift certificates (from Visa) or straight cash (from Discover Card).

I put my regular purchases on the credit card, and pay it off with my checking account, so I am paid to use the cards.

Which is a good thing. I buy most of my DVDs from the 'extra money' I get for spending my money on my card first. Of course, the merchants pay a fee when I use the card, but very few of them seem to mind...

It would defeat the purpose of being "quicker and easier." My personal feeling is that most people would operate this way.

Just some random thoughts. I don't mean to poo-poo your idea; I just don't think it'd be worth the work to implement.

-Skeld

The times when I would have free cash to put into the account - May and November (three pay checks in those months), March (annual bonus).

When you buy a McDonalds gift card, you can't redeem it for cash. So they don't have to give me my money back when I pay them for it. They just have to give me that value in product. If I decide that there is nothing that I want to buy from them, I certainly shouldn't have paid that much in advance. However, the way things are, I'm relatively certain that I can spend money like that in the next few years. And really, whether it is $3k now or $200 now, it works the same way - not having to constantly pay off a charge on my credit card that makes my budgeting harder.

I want to use my credit cards for important things. My Paizo purchases are not important things. So far I've been able to do buy these things on credit, and pay my credit card off. If I have to carry a balance on my credit card, I will not be allowed to charge anything on them (this is how my wife and I make our money work for us). So, if six months from now I need a washer, dryer and refrigerator, but I don't have the money, I'll carry a balance for a couple months (unless I can get a 0% financing offer). That will mean I'll have to cancel my Paizo subscriptions.

That is not what I want.

Allowing me to buy a Paizo gift card when I'm flush means Paizo is guaranteed to get the sale at some future date. Under the current system they are guaranteed to not get the sale at some future point - just a question of when life happens.

Today I am expecting an order from Noble Knight games to be delivered (they advertised in Kobold Quarterly) and they have a lot of out of print and slightly used gaming books. My order is $886.

I know Paizo does the best it can for all their customers. Making it easy for the 5% that buy the most isn't a bad idea. "I'm not asking for an Admiral's Club or gift rewards, just an easy way for me to 'plan ahead' for some lean months where the recurring credit-card payment won't work for me.

Allowing the XP to be spent still creates a problem with the PC falling behind the other PCs on the XP chart. That's not something I want as a DM or as a player.

I'm not worried about every NPC caster creating magic items. Even though they know that an item is 'worth' twice what they spent to create it, there just isn't that kind of market. The money has to come from somewhere, and it isn't Joe Schmoe Farmer. It is gonna be the PCs that have the cash from killing the dragon and taking his hoard.

To claim that an academy of wizards will produce x number of scrolls and sell x number of scrolls per day, increasing their 'endowment' by y gp per day is ridiculous. Sure, a scroll is worth a certain amount of money on the open market. But who's buying these scrolls? Only wizards and sorcerers can cast the spells (and a few rogues). The only ones that will want to buy it are the ones that are worried about being out of spells or don't have the particular spell known. For example, I could imagine a lot of sorcerers picking up scrolls of knock (2nd level spell) because they'd rather learn Scorching Ray in a 2nd level slot. This same sorcerer won't buy scrolls of Scorching Ray because he can cast it himself and it gets better at higher levels.

So, the 'abstraction' is in what the NPC can get from selling the item. Surely it is enough to live on, having occassional purchases for an expenisve item. But it doesn't mean that magic items will become any more common.

So, it is an issue where the 3.0 and 3.5 designers opted to try for balance at the expense of 'realism'.

Counting on a wizard to have a +4 bonus to Intelligence so that they would have 6 skills seems strange. Depending on the ability score generation method, an 18 can be very hard to come by. With Pathfinder it will be easier, I believe with Int as a bonus for some races. In any case, once a wizard buys Spellcraft (which still has concentration in it, which is bad) and Knowledge Arcana, yes, he has more skill points to spend. He's probably going to pick up a lot of knowledge skills. Usually, I see the wizard taking a couple ranks in a few because they can't 'support' them at future levels. This means they don't get to take fun abilities like Decipher Script (linguistics).

More skills = more fun. As long as the skill uses don't go crazy, where climb lets you walk on ceilings without penalty. The skills is the one area of the game where we're least likely to accidentally make a 'super hero' even with more points.

Personally, I'm not looking for a lot more skill points (as in Alpha 1) - but I do like the idea of having a few extra every now and then so you can begin learning a new skill. Of course, I do have a system that generates that, but it does involve fewer skill points for levels 1-3.

I don't think that skills should be consolidated more.

I think it is a path of diminishing returns. There are a couple of combinations that I think should be reworked, but mostly, I think it has a good balance in terms of number and type of skills.

Further condensing skills would not improve the game in my opinion.

Obviously you have a lot of good reasons to avoid the prepaid subscription model.

When I buy a prepaid subscription I 'lock in' the price, and if it changes, you are the one who loses out. Rather than agreeing to provide us with a number of issues, can you revisit the idea of 'money on account'?

Rather than put $3000 on a prepaid Visa to cover all my Paizo purchases for the year, I'd rather be able to give you the money. I'm sure you'd get more use out of it, and it saves me the step of stopping at a merchant that sells them, and also helps me avoid other fees.

If I have $3000 on account, rather than bill my credit card, you can hit the 'pre-paid' money first. So, with a Pathfinder Module, the AP, maybe a couple of Planet Stories, you would hit $80 on that $3000, leaving me a balance of $2120 to cover next month's order.

I personally don't carry a balance on my credit card. When paid off, I hate putting charges on them that I don't need to. I'd hate even more to put it on my bank card and have to make sure to balance the check book. Anyways, it is something I really hope you can implement.

Vigil wrote:

Then again I plead, can we get bonus skill points at levels we don't get feats? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?

No need to plead. This is a fair idea and one that I have thought of. When I said that the skills system is firm. What I meant was that it will not recieve another complete redesign. Tweaking, however, is still quite possible (and probably likely).

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'm glad to hear it. If classes aren't getting more skill points to start, this actually would be a good way to do it. I really am in favor of people gaining new skills as they adventure, though I don't want to see them 'pop' to instant mastery. I'm curious to see what form this will take, but I'm glad you're going to see about trying it.

Any ideas for how ti could work?

Hey there all,

I can certainly understand the desire to give more skill points. I
think this will be an optional rule in the final system. I would prefer to keep the base numbers close for backwards compatibility reasons.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Understood. I disagree.

There's a fine line to walk here. You're trying to make the game better and to keep it backward compatible. As you said at the Alpha 1 release, it is easier to add something into the game than to take it away. Adding more feats hasn't worried you about backward compatability.

2 skills per level is not much fun. Making the game more fun without seriously overpowering any classes is good. Skills is a good place to allow more flexibility and more 'power' because it doesn't really change the game.

For myself, as a consumer, I'll likely buy the Pathfinder stuff as long as I have money to do so. But I buy a lot of game systems that I don't use. I have Deadlands, Star Gate, BESM, some GURPs, and some systems that I have no idea what they're supposed to be. The point is, I think Pathfinder has the potential to be THE GAME that I play, the way 3.5 D&D is now. But to be the game, it must be significantly better than the game I'm playing now.

There's a lot of people on this thread that agree with me here. The 3.5 skill point allotment makes some classes less fun to play. Making them more fun is better. It is hardly a sacrifice to backward compatability if you can add two skills as class skills and make no other changes and you're done. Most NPCs it won't matter anyways, since the things that make skill use fun tend to be outside of combat anyway.

An important final consideration is design - as an adventure writer do you include information for what the dragon's frosty breath will do to the ground the fight takes place on? Having a battle in an ice rink is almost certain to be memorable - but most people wouldn't include it as a major terrain feature because there isn't an expectation that the PCs will have any real chance to 'succeed'. Opening up skill choices, even a little, makes it so a designer can expect certain things from a group. Sure, not everyone will have balance, or climb, or whatever, but you can feel more confident throwing a number of such encounters out and know that it won't just be the rogue who can handle those situations.

Whenever a prestige class calls for a number of skill ranks...If you do
not have the skill as a class skill, you must possess double that number of ranks.

I read that to mean that if a prestige class has an 8 rank requirement, if none of your classes have that as a class skill, you must have 16 ranks, not 8-3x2=10.

In order to have 8 ranks in 3.5 with a skill as a cross-class for all classes, you must be 13th level (13+3/2). This means that in the rare situation you don't have a required skill as a class skill for any class, you must take it 3 levels later than in 3.5 for Pathfinder Alpha. If you have it as a class-skill for at least 1 class, you can't take it any earlier.

The Gnome Giant-Slayer was an example to show that even a class that requires fewer than 8 ranks requires a BAB that makes it impossible to qualify for before 5th level (taking the first level of the PrC at 6th).

If a Prestige Class has a requirement of 8 ranks, under the Pathfinder Alpha system you will finish qualifying at 5th (5 ranks +3 bonus) just as in 3.5. If it is a cross-class skill for all of your classes, you will need to be 16th level (8x2=16), instead of 13th level in 3.5 (max ranks = 13+3/2).

Of course, it is being changed, so I'm not too worried. I'm happy to have the Alpha a little sooner rather than have this set up perfectly two weeks later.

XP as a cost is a poor mechanic. Eliminating it is something I support very strongly.

I don't see much item creation going on, but with this kind of rule, as a DM I'm much happier making fewer items available for 'purchase'. I never liked it anyway, so having a few 'common items' is fine, but having a weaponshop with a holy avenger next to a luck blade is silly. This will let PCs get what they actually want more easily. This is good.

And I'm not worried about it being a 'wealth generator'. In Rise of the Runelords the PCs have had multiple +1 Ogre Hooks and +1 Hid Shirts. They can't get diddlysquat for them. Though the items have a high value based on the rules, they can't be used by normal people. With such a small market, nobody in Magnimar is willing to buy them. This makes sense and my players accept it. So, no worries for me about the PCs selling everything they make.

And of course they might learn the 'hard way'. You sell a bunch of items and see them used by the NPC bad guys... You gotta be careful when you're letting magic go like that.

I am also a bit worried that the distinction between class/cross is going to go away though. Look at 20th level. Difference between 2 class and 2 cross: +23/+23/+20/+20. Not really enough of a difference to matter. :P

The distinction is going away - or at least in a major way.

That distinction, though, made work much harder for a DM, and any player starting above 1st level.

If the DM said 'start your characters at 8th level' it would be real tricky to figure out when you had to take each level to qualify for your prestige class without 'illegally purchasing' more skills than you could at any point.

For example, if you needed 8 ranks in tumble and you started as rogue1/fighter 4 - you couldn't have the 8 ranks from rogue even though you had 48 rogue skill points - you couldn't have used more than 4 at 1st level - those other ranks have to come from the fighter level, unless you take another rogue level. But it would have to be at least 5th level to raise the bonus to eight.

Long story short - it was hard. There are a lot of good reasons to erode the difference between them. I think they could go farther without losing anything, but this is a good compromise to actually keep any distinction at all.

Guys,

I am going to admit that for the time being this is a band-aid to allow pclasses to be used as written. I have not tackled pclasses yet, and when I do, I hope to deal with this issue directly.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I know it is earlier on the coast than here in Iowa, but I want to take a moment to thank you, Jason, for everything so far.

As easy as it is to be critical trying to pick apart the rules, I love the fact that you are clearly listening to us. The feeling that we're really contributing (even if sometimes we get too far off the track) is a powerful incentive.

I know that Pathfinder will be your baby, but it will be sort of like my experience with my baby born in July 07. At the time of delivery there were more than 12 people in the room. There was my wife, myself, the midwife that was overseeing the delivery, the nurse that had been assisting, the doctor that was required to 'take over', her 'boss' or something that watched, the other 'intern' or whatever - and then at leats 6 other medical school students - and a couple other nurses that brought in extra equipment.

It was crazy, it was scary, but it all worked out in the end. And while I couldn't tell you who those people were, (and most of them didn't really contribute anything) it was kind of reassuring to know that I had a whole lot of medical knowledge in case things went badly.

Not so.

First of all, the Pathinder has a side bar stating:

Designer Notes: Prestige Skills
With the changes to the skill system, the requirements
to enter various prestige classes must change as well.
Whenever a prestige class calls for a number of skill ranks,
you can qualify for the prestige class if you meet that number
of ranks –3 if you also have the skill as a class skill. If you do
not have the skill as a class skill, you must possess double
that number of ranks. For example, a 3.5 prestige class might
require eight ranks in Move Silently. In the Pathfinder RPG, it
instead requires five ranks of the Stealth skill if Stealth is one
of your class skills and ten ranks if it is not.

Let's say a prestige class in 3.5 requires 8 ranks in Spellcraft. If that is the case, you need 5 ranks if the skill is a class skill for you (giving you an effective rank bonus of +8). If the class is not a class skill for any or your classes, you must have 10 ranks in it (effective reank bonus of +10). This is clearly done to make things more like 3.5 - even though you have more ranks in Pathfinder Alpha 2, you can't qualify for the prestige class earlier because of the fact.

I personally feel that this is unnecessary and needlessly complicated. The only people that will understand this requirement are the ones who already played 3.5. Basically, it is going to be an obscure rule, easily overlooked and often ignored - so why include it anyway.

In 3.5 to prevent anyone from taking a class early, even if the class had 'cross-class' requirements, it usually had a 'class skill' requirement or something else that made it impossible to qualify earlier.

For example, the Gnome Giant Slayer (Complete Warrior) has a skill requirement of 3 ranks in Escape Artist and 3 ranks in Tumble. A rogue could qualify at 1st level for those skills, but a fighter could not qualify until 6th level (cross-class). The prestige class also requires a BAB of +5 - even with earlier access to the 3 ranks of Tumble (fighter 3rd under Pathfinder Alpha 2 without the sidebar) the player can't take it early. The only thing is that he wouldn't have to continue buying ranks in Tumble and Escape Artist (with the sidebar he'd have to buy 6 ranks).

I simply cannot find a Prestige Class that doesn't have at least 1 skill with a minimum of 8 ranks or a minimum BAB. Even the ones that have UMPTEEN BILLION feats usually have a requirement of skill ranks (8 minimum) or a BAB (+5 minimum) to make sure the prestige class can't be taken before 6th level.

Since Pathfinder is giving more feats, some prestige classes will be easier to qualify for than in 3.5 - but the special rule on skills is unnecssary since there was no danger of people qualifying for the prestige class earlier than 5th level (allowing them to take it at 6th) anyway.

Worse - if you take the skills as cross-class you have to be better than someone who doesn't. Take the gnome giant slayer. He must put only 1 rank into both skills (+4 bonus) to qualify, while the fighter must take 6 ranks (+6 bonus). Not only does he spend more ranks, but he has a +2 advantage - the required ranks should be the same for everyone taking the class.

What I like
I like that cross-class skills cost 1 skill point for 1 rank in the skill. I like that there is no multiplication of skill points at 1st level.

What I'm ambivalent about
+3 to 'class skills'. Down with +3s and up with +5s. Acutally, the whole level +3 is a little 'random'. Sure, I understand that the system started with a x4 at 1st level, and this keeps that up, but I just don't really care about it.

What I don't like
{restige Skills - I get a skill and it counts as a full rank for the purpose of the skill check, but not for qualifying for a prestige class? Sure, I understand trying to keep a class from qualifying earlier than necessary, but that's why every class should have a minimum of 8 ranks in a skill (or other restriction that keeps it to 5th level or above). To require 2 skills that aren't class skills for any 'core' classes doesn't consider the possibility of a non-core class. So, if a class had move silently and spellcraft as 'required' skills, that might work in the core rules, but you add a spell-thief and suddenly it doesn't. So, this is unnecessary since either there is an 8 skill rank requirement, and even if a 'straight fighter' or 'straight' something else could qualify for the class slightly earlier than in 3.5, I doubt it will break any games. Before making a needlessly complex rule like this, I'd like to see an example of a prestige class that requires this.

Classes that only get 2 skill points (+ Int). Even with combined skills, it was a joke in 3.5 and it is a joke now. If you want to make skills important in the game, you need to have characters that have skill points. If a Cleric has 4 ranks instead of 2, what do you get? Besides knowledge (religion) and Diplomacy, probably not much. I'd rather see them get Heal, and Knowledge (planes), and maybe Concentration... Maybe Spellcraft. Sure, they should have to make choices, but a few more skills will allow them to do things that are actually IMPORTANT. I've never known a cleric to take more ranks in Heal than are required for a Prestige Class since spells are more effective. That seems strange to me. A few more skill ranks and that might happen.

Some of the combinations. I won't dwell on it now, but keep it in mind. Really, the only things that REALLY need to be combined are the ones where you were rolling multiple skill checks in the same situation (hide/move silently) and (spot/listen). Any other skill combinations should be done carefully, based on whether they really make the game better. My personal preference - as above, but also keep Disable Device (disable device/open lock). Eliminate Knowledge (arcana) and put part of it in Knowledge (History) and part of it in Spellcraft. Eliminate Knowlege (nobility) and make it part of (local) and (history) (seriously - those skills need a boost anyway). Keep Concentration (this is a big one) but roll a few other skill uses into it (control shape, autohypnosis). I would be very reluctant to see any other combinations unless there was a very good reason for it in game.

What I propose
The one thing that I really did like about the Alpha, even though I didn't like the way it was done is that a class would learn a new skill periodically. I do like the idea of keeping all of your skills maxed, but every now and again finding you have enough skill points 'extra' to start learning a new skill.

So...

There is no multiplication of skills at 1st level. There is no bonus to class skills. Every class gets a certain number of skills at each level. Maximum Ranks = HD +5. Every class gets the Alpha 2 number of skills +4. All skills cost 1 point for 1 rank.

Example, a rogue gets 12 skills + Int modifier. A fighter gets 6 skills + Int modifier.

Effect - At low levels characters actually have fewer skill points than in 3.5. At higher levels they have more skill points at higher levels. If you max your ranks (meaning you have 2 more skill points than a 3.5 character could) you can still pick up an extra skill periodically.

Example - a 10th level fighter with Int 10 (non-human) would have 60 (6x10=60) skill points). At max ranks (10 HD +5=15) He could have 4 skills with max ranks. At 11th level he can keep all 4 skills maxed (4 skill points) and has 2 skill points to start a new skill.

Essentially, at 11th level he begins mastering a new skill. Take the same fighter at 20th level (6x20=120 skill points, max ranks =25) - he would have 4 skills at max ranks and the skill he started at 11th level would have 20 ranks.

Essentially you pick up new skills less frequently than in the Pathfinder Alpha 1, but you have to 'buy ranks' from the beginning, so there isn't the 'automatic pop'.

We've been playtesting this system, and it works very well. The real question is number of skill points based on how many skills are combined and how quickly you want to 'equal or exceed' 3.5 skill points.

If you would like any further clarification on this system, please let me know.

Classes with fewer skills don't rely on them so much, and most of the skills they would normally take can be used untrained anyhow. And for fighters, they get so many bonus feats that they can afford to use their standard feat every 3rd level to gain Skill Focus to boost their proficiency in a particular skill... there's your added customization.

And I disagree.

If I say classes that get fewer skills don't rely on them, that isn't to say that they shouldn't be able to.

A fighter that can Ride and Climb doesn't bring any additional benefit to the group. Sometimes he can climb a cliff without having someone carry him. Yippee!

Seriously, if each class has several skills, they have a chance of contributing something to the group. I think that 4 skills is a minimum.

Mostly I like it.

I think that there are some things that could be better. But without regard to what I think would make a better houserule, I do have two issues that I think are problems.

1) The Prestige Class requirements. Forget about different ranks for whether it is a class skill or not. Needlessly complicated. The skill system is moving away from cross-class skills because they are lame. Don't keep this artifact.

2) Concentration isn't in the new system. That I'll save for the houserules section.

I agree with the combining of skills rogues probably do not need 8, but I'd just as soon stick with that.

I do favor giving every class at least 4 skill choices each level. The sad truth is that skills can't be an important part of the game for many characters because they simply lack enough skill choices to be meaningful.

I would like to jump in this thread since it seems that the people that liked the Alpha system are going to be the 'loudest' here. I'd like to say that this system is much more acceptable to me than the Alpha.

I don't think this system is perfect, but I think that I could live with it.

It certainly is easy to use and is extremely compatible with the 3.5 system. Those are both marks in its favor.

Although 3.5 never allowed it, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a system where an adventurer picks up more skills later in their adventuring career. It breaks my heart to see any class with 2 class skills per level. I do think 4 should be the minimum. But there is another thread for that.

All in all, I think this is quite good.

The Prestige Requirement is wonky. That's a nod to backwards compatability that doesn't make sense. I think that they'll eliminate that when they think it through a little more fully.

I'd also like to see a system that allows you to put more skill ranks in than HD.

Just to restate my perfect skill system is:

Every class gets +4 skill points over the normal in 3.5 (12 for rogues, 6 for fighters, etc). No multiplication at 1st level. Maximum ranks of level +5.

This results in classes gaining additional skills later in their career, but being slightly better than 3.5 for most of the time (a little worse until usually 3rd level).

I guess I'm not seeing the problem.

Because overrun allows the target to avoid, the 'thought experiments' are just that - most of the time the creature is going to get the heck out of the way. Since overrun is just about moving past their square, if they choose to avoid, that's good for you. If they don't choose to avoid, you still have the chance to slip past them.

I guess I'm thinking of the defensive line in Football. They'd love to knock the offensive line (the offensive line defends the quarterback, while the defensive line attacks the quarterback - crazy, I know) on their keisters, but that isn't what happens. Instead they often 'windmill' their arm to 'slip around' the O-Line and hit the quarterback.

Now, overrunning big monsters is going to be quite hard. I guess the idea of overrunning a creature that is 8 feet tall at the shoulder, has four legs, and a breath weapon that turns people to stone isn't the kind of thing I would usually think about doing. If I did, it was probably cause I was pretty confident in my ability to do so - and not so much knock the creature down as 'slip past'.

Or maybe the class Ranger, might just be a better choice overall for that character? Crazy talk I know.

Maybe. But necessarily? No.

If you are a ranger, you either get two-weapon fighting or ranged feats for 'free'. If you want to be sort of like a Ranger but fight with a Halberd - well, the character concept doesn't really have anything wrong with it, but it just doesn't work under the rules. If you use a halberd, the feats you get for your Ranger levels don't make sense. The skills you get from your fighter levels don't make sense.

In this case, letting the character take fighter levels, but using his relatively few skill points on stealth isn't that game breaking. The Ranger would get the bow/two-weapon feats and have far more skills than the fighter - stealth, survival, perception, acrobatics, and whatever other couple of skills the ranger character thinks most important to his concept...

The idea behind removing cross-class skills is to make a lot of good character concepts that SHOULD work but DON'T work under the rules.

The retroactive Intelligence has been addressed in what I think is a pretty quick and easy way.

For every modifier you lose for Intelligence, all skills suffer a -1 penalty until healed. Example - Bob has a 14 Intelligence. He loses 4 Intelligence after eating a fungus he should not have. He went from +2 to +0, and so suffers a -2 on all skill checks until he is healed.

If the Intelligence loss is permanent, he must 'pay off' his penalty with new skill points.

For example, Bob finds his brain is permanently fried. He was 6th level, so losing his Intelligence cost him 18 skill points (or 12 if there is no multiplication at 1st). Let's say he gets 6 skill points. Too bad. He 'pays' all 6 for the Int penalty, and doesn't get any new skill points. Worse, he keeps his skill check penalty. After two more levels he has 'paid off' his Intelligence penalty. He resumes gaining skill points as normal when he levels and no longer suffers a penalty on skill checks.

Kind of mean, but not as bad as level loss. And since very seldom is Intelligence loss PERMANENT, it shouldn't come up much - a simple restoration and he gets those lost skill points back 'instantaneously'.

I get that you want a Fighter that can fly or turn invisible or dispel magic or do all sorts of magical things, but I know that isn't what I want. Book of Nine Swords was built for the 'Fighter' that you want.

I think you mischaracterize his argument.

He wants 'non-magical abilities' that are appropriate for the fighter's level. Or at least, that's what he said. He used the example of 'blindness'.

In D&D, the only way to blind someone is to cast a 2nd level spell on them. This doesn't really make sense, because we have people in the real world who are blinded without recourse to magic. Using RAW, placing a burning poker in a helpless characters eyes will do hit point damage, but it won't affect their ability to see. Common sense, of course, can be applied instead, but I'd like to see the rules make common sense unnecessary because there are a lot of people who have little.

If a fighter throws dirt in an opponent's eye, if a fighter cuts the opponents forehead so blood runs into the opponent's eye, if the fighter stabs the opponent in the eye - these are all situations where a fighter could legitimately 'blind' an opponent without using magic. This is not 'magical', but it does something similar to a spell that does exist. Right now the wizard has a choice - hit the opponent for 4d6 damage with a scorching ray or hit him with blindness. If the wizard chooses damage, it may not drop the opponent, but it will do damage. If the wizard chooses blindness, it may completely remove a healthy opponent from combat (effectively) or it may do nothing. The wizard gets a tactical choice - do something that will have SOME EFFECT, or something that MAY have a POWERFUL EFFECT. The fighter does need choices like that. I'm not asking for the fighter to have such high damage output that he can one-shot Pit Fiends - I'm hoping the fighter gets choices so full attack for maximum damage ins't the only choice he is faced with.

Once you accept that the game is not going to change as much as some think it might, applying a bit of common sense to the decision making process becomes very handy.

As much as possible, broken things should be fixed. Sure, they can't all be addressed, but allowing something to continue to be broken and hoping that the groups that use it will use 'common sense' takes too much on faith. Common sense isn't that common.

I certainly agree that there are a lot of posters that are talking about things that are far outside the necessity of the core-rules, but I don't think that the object of 'backward compatability' should be the axe that kills all the good changes that have been considered.

I don't want Pathfinder to be just 3.5. I've been very happy with the game, but I already have all of those books. I don't know how easy they would be to get for 'new players', but if Pathfinder is just the rules we've been using, it would fail to deliver the promise. Pathfinder RPG should be 'Bionic 3.5'. We can make it faster, stronger, better. And if a change makes the game less compatible with 3.5 but it makes the game faster, easier and better, that change really should be made.

Now, sure, some people are 'out there'. Most of that stuff will fail to gain traction and you'll see a thread that has 5 posts, but the stuff that is really being talked about will have 100+ posts. I agree with you that there are people that are just plain wrong and are fighting to 'win converts'. But, I expect the Paizo staff won't be swayed by foolish arguments. I guess that instead of hoping the rules allow us to use some common sense (which would be bad) I expect that Paizo can use some common sense and figure out what makes sense to consider changing, and what doesn't.

Sure, I hope that more posters follow the 'rules' of the boards with the Alpha 2 release. I'd be willing to see some real 'restrictions' on new threads, for instance. I think that having every new thread go through a 'moderator' for approval would be good. Thus, if you propose a new thread topic, the moderators will reject it if you don't include a page reference, or if there is another thread on the same subject already available. The reason I would support that is that it does reduce the ratio of 'noise' on the boards, and I'd rather that 'good ideas' get the consideration they deserve, and don't get lost in the multitudes of shouts. But because Paizo has always been so active on the boards, I expect that they will at least get an overview of anything that they should see. Maybe they'll miss some of the finer points of the 'argument', but they do mostly really good work. I don't expect that to change.

PS - Paizo Staff - It is my birthday today. I'd like an Alpha 2 Document. It's the only thing on my list. If you have an Alpha 2 Document, say, ready for release, it would be awesome to get it today.

I'd prefer if a lot of the wizard spells were brought back to normal mechanics instead of the weird exception based design that they employ now.

I think you may be right about a major problem with the game, and it does seem to effect fighters more than others. For example, Black Tentacles is a major 'problem' for a fighter in the area of effect. And other than leave, he has no recourse. He can't begin chopping tentacles, which you might expect from reading Planet Stories.

I think the reason that is wasn't done in 3.5 is that spell design is just a little more complicated. Having something that can't be destroyed by any means is easier to describe than saying 'this spell creates 2d6+1 / 2 caster level tentacles, each with DR 50/- and energy resistance (all types) 50, and hit points equal to caster level.'

It might be easier if it did. Then a high level fighter would know that if they can cut the 15 tentacles that make up the black tentacles, they would effectively 'dispel' the magic. This would help give fighters some ability to stand up to a wizard (but they still wouldn't have level appropriate abilities at high levels). I would like to see this if possible because it does make the game more interesting, and not really more complicated, just requiring a couple lines of description...

I know this came up in another thread. I like it.

The 'problem' is that a high level caster will be able to use low level spells on low-level opponents and they won't have a chance. Of course, this isn't really a problem because that is already the case (a +10 modifier isn't that hard to come up with to the the DC between ability scores and spell focus). And high level casters should be able to be very effective against low level opponents. That's why they don't fight much....

Three issues that I think sometimes come up when discussing class (and cross-class) skills, should be separated from the discussion.

1. Some/All classes don't have enough skill points. That issue has nothing to do with class skills, and can be addressed by giving some/all classes more skill points.

2. Some skills should be combined. Again, this is not a class skill issue and thus can be fixed without getting rid of the class skill concept.

3. Some skills that are not class skills for certain classes should be. Now this one superficially seems to be about class skills but isn't really. You can add tumble to the fighter class skills* without getting rid of the class skill concept whole clothe.

Agreed. There are more issues than just whether or not the CSS distinction is necessary. Regarding point 3, however, trying to forge agreement on whether each skill should or should not be a class skill will be more difficult than discussing whether or whether or not there should be class skills. Every class could have a situation where the skill SEEMS appropriate. How unusual and infrequent these situations are will make this decision tricky.

I do want to have the Pathfinder system be easier to use than 3.5, so I certainly don't support just keeping skills the way they were. I also think there were significant problems with the Alpha release. I'm eagerly awaiting the Alpha 2 release. The three separate issues, though, have gotten quite a bit of play in other threads. So while there can be decisions considered on some of those points you bring up, that doesn't mean consideration for whether there should or should not be a CSS distinction should be abandoned. Quite the contrary - it supports a thread to discuss the specific 4th issue - whether any of those other changes are even necessary if there are no cross-class skills anymore.

*** spoiler omitted **

Just finished reading my Kobold Quarterly #4 today. In the 'Ask the Kobold' Skip Williams discusses the 3.0 design philosophy regarding armor. He admits that the team was aware of recent scholarship that shows armor has little impact on how quickly one can move, which is why armor didn't change Initiative or Reflex saves. But the armor check penalty and max dex bonus were included to help keep the iconic image of a 'fighter in full plate' and not have every other class just putting on the heaviest armor they could find.

I personally object more to monks and wizards wearing full plate than to fighters and bards having access to open lock - not that they can't learn to use it, but I'm pretty happy with it requiring a feat. I guess I'd be okay with eliminating the spell-faiure in regard to spell-casting (it doesn't make a WHOLE lot of sense). But that is also not part of the immediate discussion.

The article from 4/17 on the WOTC website doesn't say anything about the choice between OGL (3.5) and GSL (4.0). Where is the actual GSL available to review?

Where does the confirmation about an either/or situation come from?

Thanks for the reply, Cosmo, even if it isn't what I was hoping to hear.

When it is released, do you know where I will look for an announcement? I fear not noticing and never going back and buying items that I would like to combine with my regular orders.

I agree with you DeadDM, it is a bit more complicated...

So, if Pathfinder Alpha is the easiest, modified skill points is the next easiest, and a hybrid is the hardest, I don't know why anyone would be considering a hybrid system in the first place.

I don't want to use the Pathfinder Alpha System. It has problems. Major problems. I find it completely unacceptable. But it is very easy to use.

A hybrid system sacrifices ease of use to make the Alpha system not 'broken' in some ways.

As soon as ease of use is abandoned as a design principle, the hybrid system is not worth considering.

I think that skill points are the answer because they do offer a simple system that is easy to track. It just requires a little modification from 3.5. The biggest problem is eliminating the confusion between class and cross-class skills (and there are several options for that, but of course, I favor eliminating them completely).

None of the hybrid systems maintain the simplicity of the Pathfinder system, or even of a strictly skill point system.

I admit the Alpha is easy, but it has a lot of problems. The hybrids aren't easier. Trying to remember whether one point gets you your level in a skill, or your level +3 or some other crazy number IS MORE COMPLICATED.

Whether class skills are kept or not, a system using skill ranks with a 1 for 1 purchase (1 point buys 1 rank) is extremely easy to keep track of. Nearly as easy as the Pathfinder Alpha, and much easier than any hybrid system.

Is this feature available yet? If not, is there an expected release date?

If it is available, how will it interact with 'backordered items'? I'd like to order a bunch of the Pathfinder minis, but I'd like them to be shipped with my Pathfinder AP as they become avaialable, not holding up an order for x months while the order is completed. And I certainly wouldn't want them to ship one by one.

I'd also look to add missing item cards if this feature is available.

[Also, I wonder why you keep insisting on skills not being class features.

I'm trying very hard not to be verbose. I had a very long response that wandered onto several tangents, but I have decided reign myself in.

I have only used the word 'class feature' when quoting someone else on this thread, so I have not indicated that skills are not a 'class feature'. They are a very important one. 'Special Abilities' are probably more important - skills are like BAB and save progressions - everyone gets them and they're important - but a lot of the good stuff is in the 'special' column. That's why they call it 'special'.

While I think that skills are an important class feature, I believe that the number of skills granted per level is a more important aspect than the class skills and cross-class skills list. A comparison: a wizard gets a BAB of +1/2, and a Fighter gets a +1/1. A wizard is proficient with simple weapons and the fighter is proficient with simple and martial weapons. Which is a more important feature? I think the BAB is more important than the weapon selection. Even if you give a wizard a greatsword, he isn't going to be able to do much with it compared to a fighter.

Opeing up skill points is similar (but different) from letting any class use any weapon. Even if you open up the choices to everyone, some people won't really be able to effectively utilize the newer options. Not every wizard would use a greatsword because they could, and not every fighter will choose disable device if that's an option.

DeadDMWalking wrote:

pres man wrote:

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.

So being a rogue means ... you can sneak attack and you have alot of skills? A smart bard can easily have more skills than a stupid rogue, does that make a smart bard a "rogue" or does the lack of sneak attack mean it is not. What is a "rogue" beyond the specific abilities listed in the PC class?

Besides Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, and Master Strike, a rogue gets Rogue Talents and Advanced Talents.

I certainly appreciate your desire to keep the rogue a 'special class'. I want all the classes to be special. I don't want other classes taking over the druids wild shape, or everybody getting full access to a wizard's spell book.

I've explained above why the rogue doesn't 'need' this ability to feel special. Obviously we disagree on that. Perhaps you can explain why it is necessary and we can find a solution that eliminates cross-class skills but still makes the rogue special in your opinion.

However, disable device is not a required skill for a rogue. It is an available skill. Since not all rogues have the skill, it can't be considered a 'core concept' of the class. If that were the case, it would be 'built in' like Sneak Attack. And if bards get disable device, THAT'S GREAT. Bards absolutely suck. That would be such a small way to make them more useful since they COULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING USEFUL if a group were missing one of the 'four standard classes'. In that case the bard might be able to disarm traps and open locks, but they probably wouldn't be able to sneak as well as a rogue, not if they want to keep up their Diplomacy (and other Interpersonal skills) and their perform skills. And since Diplomacy only works if you can communicate, speak language. And they might want to represent their esoteric knowledge with a whole bunch of knowledge skills....

A system where XP is used to purchase feats can't help but be a little clunky. There are a whole lot of questions that need to be answered, and that's a heck of a lot of work.

1) How much should a 'basic' feat cost?
2) How many feats can be purchased?
3) Should 'better' feats cost more than 'basic' feats?
4) How do we determine what are basic and what are better?

And a host of others that aren't very good for backward compatability. What works better is either giving more feats, allowing a 'limited resource' to be traded for feats, and increasing the general effect of feats.

For example, Pathfinder is giving 10 feats for level progression instead of 6 (more feats). A limited resource that can be traded for feats might be skill points (skill tricks). I believe that skill tricks may be proprietary, but if not, 'minor feats' especially those that are related to a skill use can be purchased as a skill trick instead. For example, brachiation (the one that lets you swing through tree branches) might make a better skill trick than a feat (I've never known anyone who took that feat). Increasing the effect of feats would be like making Two-Weapon Fighting automatically become Improved and Greater after attaining the appropriate BAB.

This is one of those ideas where it is good theoretically, but it doesn't work well with existing systems. In a system that uses 'building points' where every feature costs you a number of points, it works out pretty well. But you have to keep track of how many building points you've spent, so you know if you're approximately equal (or should be) in power level to another creature. Since XP is already 'buying' level progression which includes BAB, saves, skills, feats (sometimes) etc, allowing it to be used to buy something else 'on the side' gets 'fiddly'. The same is true, though, of magic item creation rules, but I'm firmly in favor of getting rid of the XP cost there, as well.