Seriously, Paizo. That just isn't enough to cover the things your class is expected to do and still have any kind of individuality. Two more skill points isn't going to overpower any class, and it will make Fighters, Sorcerers, and Paladins so much easier to personalize with a few roleplaying choices without falling behind in their core skills. The problem is especially made harder by the reduction of skill points at level one, and lack of any increase over levels like in Alpha 1.
Director of Game Design
|
Seriously, Paizo. That just isn't enough to cover the things your class is expected to do and still have any kind of individuality. Two more skill points isn't going to overpower any class, and it will make Fighters, Sorcerers, and Paladins so much easier to personalize with a few roleplaying choices without falling behind in their core skills. The problem is especially made harder by the reduction of skill points at level one, and lack of any increase over levels like in Alpha 1.
You are right, it is not going to overpower any class. It does, however, force a fair amount of conversion work on anyone using 3.5 sources, which is what we are trying to avoid.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Seriously, Paizo. That just isn't enough to cover the things your class is expected to do and still have any kind of individuality. Two more skill points isn't going to overpower any class, and it will make Fighters, Sorcerers, and Paladins so much easier to personalize with a few roleplaying choices without falling behind in their core skills. The problem is especially made harder by the reduction of skill points at level one, and lack of any increase over levels like in Alpha 1.You are right, it is not going to overpower any class. It does, however, force a fair amount of conversion work on anyone using 3.5 sources, which is what we are trying to avoid.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I tentatively disagree Jason.
while not posting extensively on the previous alphas, i have downloaded and studied each one as i am very interested in the Pathfinder.
From what i can see, a DM would already be going over skills due to the consolidation/new class skill method. Changing a class from 2 to 4 skill points would end up with an extra 1-2 minutes of work if that much, really. So i see the conversion work being there to do already.
Now, personally, i don't view 'backwards compatibility' as being usable without minor updating, so i am not bothered by changes at all. I don't see how raising to 4 skill points would add any extra work in the big picture.
ps, i do very much like a lot of the conceptual reworkings i have seen, and the evolution from alpha 1 to 3. thank you for your hard work.
;)
No more so than sorcerer Bloodlines, fighter Weapon training, or all the new paladin Auras you've added. Picking two extra skills takes less than a minute for existing characters, man and it will make those classes so much more fun to play. I was actually disappointed to not see it on them.
|
Personally I feel that 2 extra skill points per class would make me feel...satisfied with just about every class having enough skills to be useful in multiple enough situations and fulfill my idea for a character.
A Fighter with 4 Skills can be adequately Athletic, Ride a Horse, and know something about Heraldry. As a Human, they can perhaps also be Intimidating, and with an Int Bonus, pick up a trade or craft.
That's not really an unreasonable expectation for a Man-At-Arms to have.
Same with Wizards, I'd no longer feel crippled, and I'm sure that considering the tweaking already needed to adapt adventures to Pathfinder adding an extra check for the party here or there wouldn't be that crazy.
Hear hear! I am completely in favor of this, and I don't see it causing too much trouble with NPC conversion, either. Please, Jason, give all the classes 4 skill points... it would only be a minor tweak/update yet which would make a lot of people happy -- players and DMs alike! :)
I agree with this at least for Fighters and Sorcerers. And give Fighters more class skills as well.
As with the last alpha .I was hopeing for this fix. It's 8 years over do.
|
|
It does, however, force a fair amount of conversion work on anyone using 3.5 sources, which is what we are trying to avoid.
This argument doesn't set right with me. You re-did feat progression and have added a whole bunch of new abilities to several classes (ranger, bard, sorcerer, paladin) but adding 2 more skills to Fighter or Sorcerer NPCs is too much conversion work?
With fewer skills and a huge limit on how many skill points you can spend, I don't see the need for more skill points.
If you want your character to be really skilled in something, there are plenty of feats to spare that you can take Skill Focus and the related +2/+2 feat.
That's not the point at all. The idea of giving more skill points is to have points in a larger number of different skills, not more points in one. Skill Focus and the pathetic +2/+2 feats do nothing to help with that.
I too heartily agree that bumping those 2 skill classes up to 4 is one of the better things that can be done to the classes.
there is really no reason for them to be stuck at such a low amount, other than that was the decision WotC made back in 2000. also, with the changes to races and classes already made, conversion will take some time, so adding in another few skills won't kill us.
With fewer skills and a huge limit on how many skill points you can spend, I don't see the need for more skill points.
If you want your character to be really skilled in something, there are plenty of feats to spare that you can take Skill Focus and the related +2/+2 feat.
Agreed.
|
That's not the point at all. The idea of giving more skill points is to have points in a larger number of different skills, not more points in one. Skill Focus and the pathetic +2/+2 feats do nothing to help with that.
Sure they do. While you're spending points in non-class skills, you can keep your class skills from "falling behind" with feats.
Though I never felt that skills were a contest and that I'd fall behind by taking something else. As a matter of fact I felt that if you want to be skilled at a NON-class skill, you SHOULD have to giving up class skills.
It's called balance.
If Paladin A is good at sneaking around, I'd be interested in knowing what he stopped training at to be good at sneaking around. After all, if Paladin A can sneak around without giving something up, then all paladins should be able to sneak around.
BTW, there's nothing pathetic about the +2/+2 feats. A Rogue can start with a +9 Stealth at level 1. 1 rank +3 class +3 focus +2 Sneaky.
|
Before certain of the skills were combined, I would have agreed that More skill points were needed. Even then though, I wanted the extras only for craft or Knowledges. Now having made up several characters over the last couple of days I think it works out fine.
I do have to wonder though, how many want intelligence as a dump stat without the sacrifice that comes with making it that way. Maybe its just the way we play in our group but most of our PCs almost always have an intelligent bonus, which does help with the skill points.
Before certain of the skills were combined, I would have agreed that More skill points were needed. Even then though, I wanted the extras only for craft or Knowledges. Now having made up several characters over the last couple of days I think it works out fine.
I do have to wonder though, how many want intelligence as a dump stat without the sacrifice that comes with making it that way. Maybe its just the way we play in our group but most of our PCs almost always have an intelligent bonus, which does help with the skill points.
A decent concern/consideration Witch. However my observations are basically the flip side of that. I have seen my players in many different groups actually use wisdom as a dump stat even when int would be better for their concept citing that doing without the skill points just hurts too much. Poor will saves and skill penalties associated are acceptible, but not having at least a +1 skill bonus isn't. Its actually pretty rare (almost unheard of in my groups) to see a character with a 10 int, let alone an 8. Half orc? 12 minimum, more often then not a 13, and wis 8. yep, and they're a 'dumb brute' played, really...
Now, i understand that my statement is only in the circle of my own experience and others have had different ones, but its been a long standing and consistant trend so i wanted to speak up about it.
Before certain of the skills were combined, I would have agreed that More skill points were needed. Even then though, I wanted the extras only for craft or Knowledges. Now having made up several characters over the last couple of days I think it works out fine.
I do have to wonder though, how many want intelligence as a dump stat without the sacrifice that comes with making it that way. Maybe its just the way we play in our group but most of our PCs almost always have an intelligent bonus, which does help with the skill points.
Even with Intelligence at 12, 14, 16, I still find myself wanting more skill points. I find myself thinking "hey, this character should know how to do such and such, but I don't have the points for it."
|
|
I'm not pleased.
I'm interested in a Pathfinder that fixes the problems with 3.5. Classes that get 2 skill points (that don't normally have high Intelligence modifiers) is a problem. The skill system is a major improvement over 3.5. Don't leave it half done.
Give each class the number of skills it needs to work.
That is the single most important thing that needs to be changed in the Alpha 3 (right ahead of eliminating Combat Feats).
I really do hope that Pathfinder is the game I want to play. I still have high hopes, but as easy as it is to houserule more skill points, I think it is a critical issue from every aspect of design, and the reason that I have focused most of my energy and discussion on the skill section. So, I'd like to see it addressed. It is not an issue of backward compatability. If that were the case, the skill list would look more like 3.5.
Or at least, it should.
I don't think Pathfinder should go too far (*cough*Combat Feats*cough*) but adding a couple skill points isn't a big change, but I'd hate to think that 2 years down the road you didn't think it went far enough. Just a smidge more, please.
|
|
By eliminating the X4 multiplier for first level skill selection, Wizards lost the ability to drop 1 pt in several knowledge skills so that they could at least get to roll a check.
That's one of the things that bother me, if a Wizard is spending all this time studying about creatures, planes, nobility, etc. then he's not focusing on Spellcraft or learning to ride a horse. He's got his nose buried even deeper in the books then unusual... especially when you consider all those knowledge skills get +3 now.
The multiplier was there because of the like skills and the ability to put multiple ranks in the same skill at level 1, not so you could put 1 rank in 10 different skills.
|
Given how long it took to redo skills when the alpha 2 system came in, (previously we had been running 3.5 with condensed list.) I think that increaseing the skill points to 4 is a non issue, TBH it takes longer to convert in the new spellcasting systems for one mid range character than the skills for an entire adventure. Plus if the DM really wants they can just not convert and be a few skill points down. I'm basing this on the conversion work I'm doing on Seven Days to the Grave which should I go ahead with the conversions on spell casting require a complete re write of tactics as well as spell lists and what have you.
|
|
By eliminating the X4 multiplier for first level skill selection, Wizards lost the ability to drop 1 pt in several knowledge skills so that they could at least get to roll a check.That's one of the things that bother me, if a Wizard is spending all this time studying about creatures, planes, nobility, etc. then he's not focusing on Spellcraft or learning to ride a horse. He's got his nose buried even deeper in the books then unusual... especially when you consider all those knowledge skills get +3 now.
The multiplier was there because of the like skills and the ability to put multiple ranks in the same skill at level 1, not so you could put 1 rank in 10 different skills.
TBH I'd like to see Knowledge skills move to being able to be used untrained, after all anyone could have had a conversation with some one in a bar who mentioned a little tidbit of info, or remembered it from one of grannies stories, plus it would give an interesting chance of it going horribly wrong if you screw up.
|
|
TBH I'd like to see Knowledge skills move to being able to be used untrained, after all anyone could have had a conversation with some one in a bar who mentioned a little tidbit of info, or remembered it from one of grannies stories, plus it would give an interesting chance of it going horribly wrong if you screw up.
It's called an intelligence check. :P
Open Minded is still OGL. As far as I noticed, Pathfinder didn't even mention this skill. Burn a feat, get 5 skill points. Under Pathfinder, 5 class skills equals five +4 skills . . . I think this all works out fine.
I understand that people like to have a wide range of skills available, but I also thing that there is almost a knee jerk reaction to seeing 2/level under skills, even if it doesn't quite mean what it used to mean.
|
|
For the rogue, having a reduction in 2 skills would still yield more effective skill points.
For a fighter, the skill list hasn't really been consolidated. And this is true for many of the 2 skill point classes.
The sorcerer gets Concentration and Spellcraft combined into a single skill (good, right?) except that the Wizard gets the same advantage, and Intelligence is the important attribute for that skill. Otherwise, we're basically looking at the same list for 3.5. The Cleric as well.
So, the Alpha 3 gives high skill classes more benefit by combining at least some of their skills, and nothing for the low skill classes.
I'd like to avoid being vulgar, but in the words of one of my co-workers, 'that's crap'.
Using the gazeteer version of the fighter skill list (without giving up a feat) would be awesome. Other classes could use some similar love.
Another vote here for 4+Int skills as the minimum number.
For me, the bottom line is whether, as a GM, I'd be tempted to simply houserule this in if it weren't included in the final product. The answer is a definite yes.
|
|
Assuming a human fighter with a 12 intelligence, he will have four skills at 1st level. For the sake of arguement we will say Climb, Craft (woodcarving), Handle Animal and Swim.
Now that he has adventured some he has four more skill points to spend. He has seen some of the world and realizes he needs to expand his abilities. So he picks four new skills, Ride, Intimidate, Survival, and Knowledge Dungeoneering. He now knows eight skills, all class skills.
Ability bonuses aside, he is almost as good at 2nd level, skill wise as a typical 1st level rogue. Each of these class skills gets a +3 class bonus. That's really not all that bad.
Seriously, Paizo. That just isn't enough to cover the things your class is expected to do and still have any kind of individuality. Two more skill points isn't going to overpower any class, and it will make Fighters, Sorcerers, and Paladins so much easier to personalize with a few roleplaying choices without falling behind in their core skills. The problem is especially made harder by the reduction of skill points at level one, and lack of any increase over levels like in Alpha 1.You are right, it is not going to overpower any class. It does, however, force a fair amount of conversion work on anyone using 3.5 sources, which is what we are trying to avoid.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Wait wait wait wait wait, you mean all the other changes aren't much compared to giving a class two more skill points? Thats what pushes it over the line? I mean I'm not trying to seem rude here but that just doesn't make any sense.
|
|
And if he decides to advance those skills?
Saying he's 'pretty good' when he takes advantage of his +3 is one thing. But how does he compare at 5th level, 8th level, 10th level, 15th, or 20th?
Not well.
At 20th level he could have a +13 bonus on 8 skills if he has an intelligence of 12 (difficult when you really need to work on having a high Str and Con, and if you want to be a king you should think about Cha, and of course, your will save sucks so having a high wisdom is good, etc) and was human. I'm not saying that a Fighter is a MAD class, but they have a lot of weaknesses that having the high ability score helps with. So, usually, Intelligence is considered a dump stat only second to Charisma as far as 'uselessness'.
That's the equivalent of 104 skill points in 3.5
In 3.5 a human with a +1 Intelligence modifier would have had 92 skill points, and if they spread their skills evenly over 8 skills they would have a +12 (4 skills) and +11 (4 skills).
Certainly the +3 skill bonus bump helps, but it doesn't go that far. In 3.5 fighters (for example) didn't have enough skills. Now in Pathfinder Alpha 3 the Fighter STILL doesn't have enough skills.
I really want to stay positive. I've really loved a lot of things that Paizo has done. I may very well be at an emotional low for completely unrelated reasons to anything that Paizo has done, but I'm saddened that there aren't more improvements between the Alpha 2 and Alpha 3.
I didn't expect many changes between the Alpha 3 and the Beta, and I still don't. But I know that Pathfinder isn't the game that I want to play right now.
This is the single biggest reason. Concentration being subsumed by Spellcraft (and to a lesser extent other combined skills) is the second. The Combat Feats (as a class, and the specific differences between 3.5 feats) is a third. And the fact that barbarians still get a bonus to Constitution (meaning they lose the hit points when the rage ends, and they don't even get a bonus to their rage points) is a fourth. And the loss of domain powers (a fun goody for me) is a telling blow (I'll take the 3.5 trickery domain over the Pathfinder Trickery domain every day of the week).
I really want Pathfinder to be the version of D&D that I wanted 3.5 to be. I want it to be the game that 4th edition should have been. I want it to be a version 3.75 - instead I feel like we're getting version 3.985 - As close to 4.0 as you can get without buying from WotC... Now, that may be an unfair characterization, but I'm in kind of a bad mood, so I don't feel like being fair. But even if I did, this is not, at least in the current form, the game for me.
I do understand the purpose of an Alpha (and a Beta). At this point, though, I'm going to have to more carefully manage my expectations.
|
|
I've done the tests with the current skill points and changing them and I came to the realization that the skills could change but it wouldn't need to be a major overhall. Alpha has aready done a good job of making skills easier to choose. Your points go farther now then they did before. But sadly, the fighter is the only class that did not really get an improvement. If anyone really needs the skill ranks per level changed, it would be this class. But in the same light, if we are changing skill ranks per level, the rogue would have to be dropped down to 6+Int to keep his skills in line. At level 10, he has too much to really deal with because lets face it, some skills at higher levels are useless. Dabbling in them for a few levels seems like their true purpose. But I agree with Jason and SirUrza on this, leave it as is. The system works fine and better than the 3.5 system. That Fighter can do a lot more than it's 3.5 counterpart with skills. If you want to have Int has you dump stat and still be skillful, why did you make Int your dump stat? Is Str, Dex, and Con so much more imporatant for gameplay than having a chance for more skills and opening up your combat expertise feat tree?
You are right, it is not going to overpower any class. It does, however, force a fair amount of conversion work on anyone using 3.5 sources, which is what we are trying to avoid.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
That's funny, because I convert on the fly behind the screen. In doing so I don't worry that an NPC is point by point perfect according to the rules. Instead I make them as they are needed. They're NPCs....
|
|
It does, however, force a fair amount of conversion work on anyone using 3.5 sources, which is what we are trying to avoid.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
2 points more per level means a maximum of 40 skill points for that 20th level fighter/paladin etc to assign. With the other changes to the classes that's going to take a minute or two extra as other people have said and will add greater depth to both PC's and NPC's. please at least consider including it as it as an optional rule.
You could still house-rule.
On the other hand PCs get more bang for their buck with the merger of skills - Perception is now one useful skill instead of two, same holds true for acrobatics, linguistics, spellcraft and stealth.
I like the idea of more skills, but have no problems to stay with the 'old' system.
|
|
In 3.5 you had to have an Intelligence of 13 to qualify for Combat Expertise, which allowed you to take feats like Improved Disarm and such.
Such fighters are usually the ones with a 13 Intelligence, and rare does the fighter go higher.
In my games, Intelligence, while highly desired, is often not a high score since if scores aren't very high overall, you want to put the high scores where they are most likely to keep you alive.
While it is easy to houserule, I really want to say that it shouldn't be a houserule. Everything can be houserule. If we all play the game significantly differently than the standard rules, there isn't much point in having standard rules. The point of a standard is to have something to compare everything else against. A minimum of 4 skills each level should be the standard.
That is opinion, the reasons for it follow:
1) Other classes that received 4 or more skill points per level have had some skills combined. The more skills the class originally granted, the more this is true. So rogues (the class with the most skills) benefits the most from the combinations, giving them far more effective skill points than in 3.5. For the 2 skill classes, this is generally not the case, meaning while the 4, 6 and 8 skill classes got a bump, the 2 skill classes did not (or if they're lucky they may get one combined skill).
2) Without the x4 at 1st level (which is a good thing) there are fewer skill points to spread around at the beginning. Giving a couple more skill poitns eliminates the problem of 'hyperfocus' and allows a 1st level character to be a little more rounded considering that he can't 'throw away' skill points into 'background skills'.
3) The requirement of adding 2 skills to certain classes is easy to do on the fly. It is easier than figuring out the converted skills on the fly. In my case, to do it exactly correctly is something I don't need to prepare in advance, so backward compatability is far less of an issue that one might think.
4) Adding two skill points to the classes with the fewest skills is not overpowering. Because it is not game breaking, but does solve perceived problems with the game, it is a good thing. Playing a Fighter with 4 base skill points is more fun than playing a Fighter with 2 base skill points. But it isn't worth a feat.
I agree with increasing 2 skills to 4 skills. The DM already has to redo skills if he wants to convert 3.5 material to by-the-book Pathfinder (and can always ignore the skills if he doesn't care).
|
I tried to warn about what the response would be if skill system would not be modified .. oh well.
I heartily support the increase in 2+int to something higher, e.g. in Fighter's case to 4+int. But I feel there must be distinction between the classes more than "Rangers, bards and rogues get more".
Like the last time, I support the 3/4/5/6 setup (and fighters getting 4+int instead of 3+int) which I proposed last time as well. It reduces the amount of roguedipping at least on some level! Everyone wins.
While I'd prefer the 2+ Int classes to be bumped up to 4+ Int, I'm not adamant about all of them getting the boost.
Wizards in particular can handle 2+ Int skill points, due to their inevitably high Int. Clerics and sorcerers I could probably accept as 2+ Int, but the fighter really should have 4+ Int.
Particularly in Pathfinder, where unlike classes that have had their class skill list dropped by the consolidation, the fighter now has more skills to choose from with the same paltry number of skill points.
Although the issue is mitigated somewhat at higher levels, because some skills (like Craft, Handle Animal, Profession, and Ride) will function just fine with a spread of 10-16 ranks. In skills like those, there's not much benefit to putting the maximum number of ranks in the skill (15 ranks in Craft [armorsmithing] for a fighter with a 12 Int means he can craft Full-Plate armor on a d20 roll of 2 or higher, making it masterwork with a d20 roll of, again, 2 or higher).
Skill points below 10th level though, don't have that benefit, because every skill counts then.
|
|
There is virtually no conversion work required for upping the number of skill points per level, because you can always declare that every existing NPC has extra ranks in Craft (not relevant to this adventure) and Profession (anything really).
Not really. If I'm designing a rogue NPC maybe I gave up 2 or 3 ranks in Stealth to give Ride a boost because after the PCs find him (he's stealthing about) the PCs are going to have to chase him on horseback... but the Rogue doesn't know he's being followed, so he needs a decent Perception score too.
If I had more skill points I wouldn't have had to give up any ranks in stealth, it'd be maximized and I may even have more ranks in ride. Such a NPC shouldn't have a dump skill because he's an encounter NPC.
This logic falls into the same trap Monsters suffer in 3e. The design method Wizards came up with made it that if they boosted one thing, the monster had to have a bunch of other things along with it... even if the monster would never use it.. or worse.. shouldn't have it.