NSTR's page

The below option might be overkill for taking rogue at first level delema just to get skills, it will help with other things as well.

In True20 they have a mechanic called conviction that works similar to action points, but allows you to do more things with. Each role has a specific ability that only they can use with conviction. You only get the ability for the role you pick at first level, so if you multi-role you do not get the abilities for conviction from every role you go into.

Could we do something similar to that with each class? Each class have a core ability or two that can only be gained by taking that class at first level. If you multi-class into that class you do not get it, but of course you would get all the other abilities of that class except the core ones. So when you take rogue at first level and then take other classes later, at the core you are a rogue who happens to have a few abilities of other classes.

The core abilities would have to be fairly powerful/useful for this to work and not detract to much from the others abilities you could gain from multi-classing into. Enough so that your first level choice is important and not because you are trying to min/max or make some certain build that is optimal.

What does everyone think about that? Of course the reasoning for this delves into to issues not related to skills as well.

I agree with some of the posts about the Pathfinder system is not completely worknig perfectly yet. There are some issues with the way it currently is but I like the basic premise that you pick and max those skills. Less recordkeeping is great from my GM and player presepective. If I am worrying about ranks for my character then I am not fully involved with the game at hand. (As a side note I only have one player in my gaming circle out of about 12 that regularly has the correct info readily available about what ranks he has during the middle of a game. There is always some adding going on during the game and making sure they have it right with the other players.)

Now you have to see my general observation about D&D and how it relates to skills. D&D is a cooperative "team" game. It is also a class based game and all the characters have their role or class. Each class fits into the game in a certain way. However 3.5 skills do not necessarily seem to embrace this concept. I have seen many posts here about "customization" using skill points for their characters. It is like you want your character to do a little bit of everything and only be really good in a couple of things. This kind of thinking appears to defeat the purpose of each character on your "team" is specialized and great at certain things and you need them to succeed. Instead you are just overlapping what other characters can do on your team and at the same time not do it as well.

That brings me to the other thing about D&D. You play Heroes. They do heroic stuff. They are not mediocore at doing various things, they are great at things. I think this system achieves this for D&D. You hero will be very a good at a few skills (depending on class)and not worrying about the 2 ranks they might have in another skill. Especially with the reduction of actual skills available.

D&D 3.5 is what some call a hybrid system. It uses classes and skills + feats. The 3.5 skill system is trying to hurdle between a completely skill based game and making it work for a class based game. I think people who love skill ranks would enjoy a skill based game even more. You can really "customize" your character then. The Pathfinder system appears to get the skills more in line with the concept of a class based system. [By the way, that is why I do not like the idea of keeping skill ranks and also giving classes even more skills ranks to distribute. It just seems that some want their characters to be able to do everything. There are actually going to be some things your character can not do. Nobodys perfect. ;)]

One more general observation. Simplifying this system may bring more roleplaying creativity out for players. Instead of thinking (Wait, is there a skill for what I want to do? Do I have any ranks in it? Man, I don't have a rank in it. I wish I had a rank in it because now I can not do what I wanted to do. NO!) you can instead tell the GM what you want to do and use one of your few skills to figure out how you are going to accomplish your goal. hey, you might not even need to use one of your skills.

These are some general observations. I will try to comment on some of the more specific things in various posts later.

The fact is, love it or hate it, Backward Compatability means skill points have to stay.

A couple of people have mentioned this, but just because it is different does not mean it is not backward compatabile. Many things are going to change.

What if they remove a spell in the Pathfinder version and there is not something to replace it. Do you then say you can not remove that spell because it is not backward compatible? I know the skill system is a big thing compared to a spell (really depends on the spell though), but you can convert any 3.5 skills over to the new system.

If they remove a feat and do not replace it, the same thing. Your 3.5 character may have the feat and then they would have to choose a different one to convert too. Is that not backward compatible?

Backward compatiblity may mean something else to me. There are still classes, skills, and feats and as long as there IS a way to reasonably convert from 3.5 without getting a headache it is backward compatible to me. Otherwise the Pathfinder RPG would not need a year and half to develop because they would not be able to change much given the criteria that I have seen some mention.

The one big thing for me when I think about these things is whether it is fun or not. The general D&D system for 3.5 is great, but some of details were not fun during game play. Skills are one of those things for me. While I like skills, how they are calculated and used was more frustrating than fun. When I roleplay I am not looking at my stats to back up the reasons why I am roleplaying my character in a certain way.

If you really wanted to keep the skill points system I would like one that does not arbitrialy give you skill points when you level up whether your character was using or practicing those skills. Maybe skill points as a reward instead. Using a skill effectively in game could reward you skill points when you level specifically for that skill.

The issue that Rambling Scribe pointed out is a perfect example of how alpha testing will be able to fix without changing the general way of how Pathfinder RPG is currently handling skills. Paizo will come up with a solution if one of us does not first.

Enough rambling from me now.:)

EDIT:
Also I am trying to say something like this as well, but Kreulaid said it a little better than I.

I think the point of this is that even after Pathfinder RPG is released everyone should still be able to use their 3.5 SRD and 3.5 house mods with it with DMs mostly converting on the fly.

Those who want to use the Pathfinder RPG can. Those who use 3.5 and all it entails for them also can.

I made up a character with the new rules and now I have changed my mind.

I like losing skill points.

Thanks for that Kruelaid. I think everyone should try it out first.

I have played without the skill points and I like it a lot.

Maybe a system that would have your skills fluctuate between class skill & cross class skill based on the class you have the most levels in. Or something to that effect.

Or maybe you only get to roll 1d20 plus your class level (+ ability modifier), but only for the class you took the skill in. So if you took rogue for first level and got all of those skills, but you are still only a 1st level rogue and now also have 14 levels in fighter you only get +1 to that skill check for class level for the skills you took as a first level rogue.

This would make your first level class choice much more important and be the one you are mainly going to stick with even if you multi-class.

I think I am getting somewhere with this idea, but I am not completely there yet.

I am in favor of simplifying skills, however I have a number of concerns with the alpha skill system.

I'm going to limit myself with the big one: Multiclassing.

While I will kinda agree with your example it was a similar problem in 3.5, but probably more prononuced in the Pathfinder version.

Maybe a system that would have your skills fluctuate between class skill & cross class skill based on the class you have the most levels in. Or something to that effect.

The new method will also mean that a character with an 12 Int will have the same chance of success in the same skill as a character with an 18 Int.

I am not sure what you mean. First, how is that different than 3.5 and second you still get your ability bonus to your skill check in the new system.

Second, looking at the new skill method, it doesn’t bode well for classes with a low number of skill selections at first level (2 +INT) as those would also be lacking in the INT bonus department. Ex. Cleric and Wiz could start off with 4 +INT

There is not much difference in 3.5. Those classes get less skill points. Also, remember less skills choose from meaning less skills you will not get.

I am not seeing the LARGE difference in customization between the Pathfinder system and the 3.5 system. It is actually a small difference especially since there is decrease in the amount of skills. There are 34 skills (not including the Knowledge skills) in the 3.5 system vs. 24 skills (not including the Knowledge skills) in the Pathfinder system. On top of that most characters will not be using Fly. So, all of those customizations of putting a 1 or 2 skill points here or there becuase it is fun will not be the same with less skills. There will not be the need. This is a more streamlined and generalized system.

I am not seeing the emotional attachment to skill points. I recommend people try this system out and see how the feel about it then. You might not miss your skill points after that. ;)

Also do not forget that you will still get more skills if you look at the experience chart.

For those that like to roleplay having a couple of points of skill points here and there (meaning the ones you do not have maxed out) you can still do that by creating a background and having your GM agree to a small bonus to those types of checks even though you are not fully trained. There are many other options that would be easy to implement as well if you want to have minor customizations of skills. :)

Maybe I am biased against skill points because I have never had fun during a game trying to record keep and figure the skill points out. Also never had fun or roleplayed that some character has one or two more skill points in a skill then another character. Skill bonuses will still be differenet because of different abiltiy modifiers too. Also skill feats as well. :)

I love the way PathfinderRPG does skills. It is similar to the SIEGE system in Castles & Crusades, but Pathfinder gives more specific uses in the form of skills instead of just ability checks in C&C.

If you want your character to have a hobby skill you can just do it in game instead of having intense recordkeeping for all skills so that you can have hobby skills. In the campaign the character just starts doing their hobby skill and the GM decides what type of bonus to that skill the character gets.

The 3.5 skill system is good, but overly complicated in number crunching and recordkeeping for what you get in return.

This is much more streamlined system that is easy to work with and add to for the people who wanted the skills tracking to be more involved.

That is the problem with a hybrid system like D&D currently is where it is class based and skill based (feats too). It is hard to find the right balance to make the game feel right.

I think getting rid of skill synergies is a good idea as well. In fact our groups rarely remembered to use them. Since Alpha 1 is taking way all the skill point counting stuff why keep the synergies in.

I also mentioned something like this in the Rouge Talents (Minor Magic; Major Magic) thread. (I know I spelled rogue wrong, it was late.)

What do you guys think about rogues being able to get arcane abilities?

This can be found on p.14.

I do like the rouge talents, but I do not like the rouges getting access to spells even a couple minor ones. I do not think the Rouge class should have available to it some innate magical abilities like the Sorcerer or Gnome.

While this might be too powerful of a rouge talent maybe something along the lines of a rouge being able to get an automatic check if they come within 5 ft. of a trap; something like Elves get for secret doors.

You can include my dislike of the advanced talent, dispelling attack, for the rouge as well.

Just... AWESOME!!! Thank You!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! This is awesome!

I did start a thread exactly like this in the Pathfinder Chronicles section.

Guide to Korvosa (GM Reference/Errata)

Cintra Bristol wrote:

1) Exactly where are the ward boundaries? Knowing the costs of housing in different wards made the absence of ward boundary lines on the maps very noticeable. (Some of them I can mostly figure out, but some are too vague. For example, Old Korvosa - how far west and east does Bridgefront run, and what districts do Merciless Way (at the left) and Fiddleback Way belong to? I'd be happy with a list of ward-border street-corner references, unless you happen to have a map that shows ward boundaries as dotted lines...)

Ah drat. The ward boundaries are nowhere to be seen. :( Ward boundaries follow major thoroughfares for the most part. Sometimes they connect one landmark to another, when appropriate.

Bridgefront runs from the Narrows to Waydon Street, IIRC (and certainly, that's close enough for me). It follows Waydon Street until it starts to curve and turn into Merciless Way, at which point it runs to that last tower on the wall there. It ends in the NE at Fort Korvosa Boulevard. Old Dock takes up the NE end of the island, with the boundary following Fort Korvosa Boulevard until it turns, at which point the boundary follows that little unnamed street that connects with Siegebreaker Circle and then up to the shore. Fort Korvosa ward is everything inside the walls in the N-NW chunk of the island. Garrison Hill ward is everything else.

Cintra Bristol wrote:
2) Which 5 families are the nobles for the "Peerage Review"? The noble families on pages 40-43 include Arkona, Bromathan, Endrin, Jeggare, Leroung, Ornelos, and Zenderholm. Which two don't count? (I'm guessing Bromathan is one, and maybe Endrin for the other?)

The Great Families are those with coats of arms illustrated (Arkona, Jeggare, Leroung, Ornelos, and Zenderholm).

Cintra Bristol wrote:
Okay, one more question: I assume the reference to "Longriver Bridge" (p.24, "Northgate:") actually refers to the North Bridge - if so, I've got that ward figured out, but if not, I need to know which bridge that is, too.

Oops. Yes, that's correct. :)

Did a quick look on the other districts of the fold out map.

North Point district missing N1 and N2.

Midland district has M2 and M8 listed as M12 & M18.

Old Korvosa district is missing O5 and O13.

South Shore district is missing S1, S2, S3 and S4.

I just started taking a deeper look at this book. I like what I have read so far.

I have got to the Heights district and have a couple of issues with the map. I see two H15 on the map and can not seem to find H3 or H5. I may be blind though. ;)

That is all for now. There will probably be more, but I hope not.

EDIT: I am talking about the big fold out map not the small maps in the book. While the maps in the book are very useful you can get more detailed information about exactly where things are on the fold out map.

If someone has not mentioned it earlier in the thread I might have figured out the problem. Pathfinder #6 is listed as coming out in January still. Maybe the hold-up was it was waiting for the other January subscription item before it shipped. Maybe...

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/pathfinder/runelords/burntOfferingsCla rificationsGMReference

Most of Shoanti is Chelaxian. If someone's Varisian or Shoanti, we mention it. I'd hazard a guess that the ethnicity breaks down something like 65% Chelaxian, 30% Varisian, and 5% Shoanti, though.

1. Have you purchased a Planet Stories novel or anthology yet? If so, which one(s)?

Anubis Murders

2. What author in the Planet Stories line most interests you?

I am excited about all of them to tell you the truth.

3. Please list the following genres in the order you would prefer that we focus on in late 2008 and beyond:

Sword & Sorcery
Horror/Gothic Fantasy
"Weird" Fiction

4. What can I do to get you to buy more Planet Stories books?

As long as the stories are good I will continue to buy. I know it is subjective, but I plan on buying them into the near future and enjoyed Anubis Murders.

5. If we offer a monthly subscription with, say, a 30% discount off the cover price, would you consider subscribing?

Yes, as long as there was at least a 20%-30% discount price.

NSTR,

We're sending a replacement out. You should have received a response from Corey yesterday...

Yes I did get the email. Thank You.

Got a copy of this book from Amazon a few days ago.

This order shipped either 8/2 or 8/3 and I have still not received it. Sent an email on 9/1 and 9/7, but I have not received an email response back.

I suspect Eberron is going to be their baby for the next year.

Actually I think WotC mentioned that Forgotten Realms was going to be the first to get the 4th edition treatment. Eberron later on after that.

I just learned about True20, went to the web pages and found it intriguing. Can someone try to sell me on this system?

Here's a few specific questions about the system...

* My players have a lot of support material from WotC, including all the Complete Series. Would these be easy to convert? I know my players will never go for anything if they can't use their catalog of prestige classes, feats, etc.
* Does one just need the core book for fantasy roleplaying, or do you need books with classes, spells, etc?
* How different is it exactly from the "world's most popular roleplaying game"?
* Does the system do as it says - speed up play?

It would probably be best to go to the True20 forums for that information. All of your questions have been answered on their boards many times. There are a ton of threads about converting from D&D and D&D vs. True20. This is one of the most recent ones.

http://true20.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1746

Erik Mona wrote:

Pathfinder currently plans to support officially sanctioned conversions for... True 20

I find this news very intriguing. When / if you can tell us more, please do.

I second this request.

Official conversion for C&C and True20 are more exciting news to me than the announcement of 4th edition. Especially True20 because I planned on converting it anyway. Please let us know more.

Is this adventure still on schedule to hit newstands on July 17th. If so then it should be shipping to subscribers shortly I would think. :)

I will probably not upgrade to 4th edition if it is a general ruleset like 3rd edition is. My guess is that WotC will not do another general ruleset again for 4th edition. My guess is that it if and when 4th edition comes out they may make it more setting specific. A Forgotten Realms players handbook, Eberron players handbook, etc. I believe this partially because I do not think many people (at least not the numbers 3rd edition had) will fall into buying all the splat books again. People (including myself) appear to be tired of these especially with all the money involved. This model allows them to make you want to get the next book for your favorite campaign setting instead of the next general splat book that may or may not break the balance of the game. They will probably sell licenses that are worth something and not make 4th edition OGL, hence no flooding of the market and more purchases to go to them.

Now if they do something similar to what I said above I might want to buy some 4th edition books because it is a campaign world I would be interested in and would be more focused on what I wanted in that regard, but another set of general rules to play D&D, no. D&D 3.5 is great in that regard and we already have endless options on changing it. We also already have all these others companies making great things for it.

I will continue to support 3.5 and besides, like everyone else has said, I have a fortune invested in 3rd edition. Can not afford to ever do that again.

BTW, the Rules Compendium is coming out in October. For those who were talking about 3.5 rules update and such you may find that in the not so distant future.

I downloaded the module and I do not see a map of the town. Am I missing something?

Unless . . . you guys have already downloaded D1 and there is a map in there.

The Book of Fiends is a good book.

I particularly like Whore's Curse (p. 80, only CR2, so a good fit in the first installment) for the players (you know who your are) that think their are no consequences to their characters sleeping around with anyone they meet.