Skill Points Per Level Too Low?


Homebrew and House Rules

301 to 350 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I don't think that has borne out in the DPS Olympics, I don't think there's any argument that confirms Fighters are 'last' at all.
If anything they are one of the most flexible classes, that can also dominate at a specialty if they choose.


Oh, sure, +1 or 2 to hit and +2 or 4 to damage. *Yawn.*

I should go find and link to one of Ashiel's Fighter vs Barbarian comparison posts...


Shifty wrote:

I don't think that has borne out in the DPS Olympics, I don't think there's any argument that confirms Fighters are 'last' at all.

If anything they are one of the most flexible classes, that can also dominate at a specialty if they choose.

In the DPR olympics Fighters compete pretty well with Barbarians. In options (aka flexibility) they fail hard


OK Kyrt, now you are connfusing me.

kyrt-ryder wrote:


In the DPR olympics Fighters compete pretty well with Barbarians. In options (aka flexibility) they fail hard

Yet minutes ago you made a very different claim suggesting Fighters were significantly inferior.

kyrt-ryder wrote:


You and I must be playing entirely different games Craig. In the Pathfinder I'm familiar with, Paladins vs Evil > Barbarians > Paladins vs Nonevil = Rangers > Fighters

Are you now suggesting that Fighters only come second in DPS to Paladins battling Evil foes? (Which in fairness, is what Paladins are supposed to do best).


DPR is FAR from everything in combat Shifty. I tend to value options.


That doesn't change that the claims are conflicting.


How is it conflicting? I said Fighters tend to compete well with Barbarians in terms of raw Damage Per Round.

I also said that Barbarians FAR exceed a Fighter in terms of options.

Damage /= Power

Same reason the fact that Evocation sucks doesn't change the fact that mages tend to dominate the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

@kyrt-ryder: And all those bonus feats won't give you options?
That miserable +2 to hit and +4 damage that no one else gets (and the weapon training too), doesn't help?

You want flexability? Play the Barbarian then, or the Ranger, and go to town! (Oh wait, they both have to spend a feat to get heavy armor training that the Fighter gets for free!)


Yes, Heavy Armor that the Fighter gets for free, the good choice of which costs WAY more than light armors (which is a big deal at levels 1-3), and whose special material versions cost WAY more than light armors (which I tend to find relevant at all levels), and whose Adamantine version doesn't even stack with Armor Mastery if you get that far.

I won't say Armor Training isn't an advantage, it is, but I just don't see all that much value to it.


So what are you then implying with:

"Paladins vs Evil > Barbarians > Paladins vs Nonevil = Rangers > Fighters"

That statement has nothing to do with flexibility.


Of course it does Shifty. Flexibility is a huge portion of what goes into my calculation of that.

If you feel flexibility has nothing to do with that statement, then we aren't going to see eye to eye on the list, because I didn't make that list based on DPR.


But that appears to be exactly what you said, then apparently went and conflicted yourself.

kyrt-ryder wrote:


*Chokes* you think the Fighter is supreme in combat compared to Barbarians?

"Paladins vs Evil > Barbarians > Paladins vs Nonevil = Rangers > Fighters"

Then you said that Fighters DPS on par with Barbarians.

What does 'supreme in combat' mean OTHER than killing the Enemy?

Are you suggesting that not only do you expect Fighters to be in the top tier of damage (situation or otherwise) but yuo alsoe expect some other extra and undefined 'flexibility' to allow them to do even more things as well?

Please explain how your statements aren't at odds.

What DID you make that list based on? That Paladins vs Evil are the most 'flexible' melee class?

What do you mean 'Flexible'?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Yes, Heavy Armor that the Fighter gets for free, the good choice of which costs WAY more than light armors (which is a big deal at levels 1-3), and whose special material versions cost WAY more than light armors (which I tend to find relevant at all levels), and whose Adamantine version doesn't even stack with Armor Mastery if you get that far.

I won't say Armor Training isn't an advantage, it is, but I just don't see all that much value to it.

Yes, I always sneer at the 3 more AC than you have. And the smaller armor check penalty and better dex permited than your armor permits (because of armor training). Those things are really small, aren't they?

And then I see I have almost twice as many feats than you have.

Yes, I am sure a poor, poor fighter.

Once again, why don't you just play the by-far superior Barbarian, and leave that poor, poor fighter in the dust?


DPR was one facet Shifty, but far from the only one.

I don't think I'm expressing my point very well, so I'm going to stop trying and quit wasting free time that should be spent working on homebrew to fix the problems I perceive that you want kept in the game.

Have a good day Shifty (and everyone else in this thread.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I can see now that kyrt-ryder does not understand trade-offs.
You want "flexibility"? Play a Barbarian or Ranger.
You want killing ability (DPR), play a Fighter.

You want "flexibility" and DPR? You want the Supernaught? The character who can solo every mission? Try another game.


Thanks Craig, but I think I'll keep GMing this one and retooling it as I see fit. ^_^


Yep no worries KR, I just don't see these problems as being actual problems.

In seven pages of posts not once have I been provided with clear example scenarios of the shortfalls in actual play with these highly problematic DC's. I posted DC's and explanations of what can be done with surprisingly little skill investment, yet nothing came back the other way.

In order for there to be informed discussion, there needs to be evience, not just opinions, and especially not ones that simply smack of wanting to be able to do everything everyone else can do, and also be better at them in combat.

Happy Homebrewing :)


Just to set the record straight Shifty (yeah, I really can't stop watching this thread between paragraphs, even if I managed to stop myself from an endless debate) I don't want Fighters to be able to do 'everything everyone else can do.' I just want them to be able to choose a limited set of skills in a size I feel comfortable with.

To me, 4+Int is a good set. It means Fighters who aren't stupid get 4 skill points per level before other factors. If they particularly value skills, they can acquire more by being human, spending FC bonus, buying more Int, or some combination thereof. If they're stupid and dump Int, they pay for it at both tiers (-1 mod and -2 mod) and that's their problem.


mdt wrote:

One thing I did as a houserule in the past (and it worked pretty well) was this :

Halve the # of skill points each class get's per level. So, Fighters/Wizards get 1, Rogues get 4, Bards get 3, etc.

Grant everyone skill points equal to their stat bonuses that can only be spent on skills associated with that stat.

So, someone playing a fighter with the following stats :

Str : 16 (+3)
Dex : 14 (+2)
Con : 16 (+3)
Int : 10 (+0)
Wis : 12 (+1)
Cha : 8 (-1)

Would have the following skill points to distribute :

Class : 1
Str : 3
Dex : 2
Wis : 1
Cha : -1

So they'd be very good at physical stuff, not so good at mental, and awful at charisma things.

You were allowed to trade 2 of one stat skill points to get 1 of another (so 2 str's to get one cha for example) to indicate concentrating more on diplomacy than on climbing or swimming.

Finally, if you had a negative stat, and you wanted to spend points on it, you had to spend enough that level to 'overcome' the negative. So from our example, if you wanted to put a point into diplomacy, you had to put spend your class point (1) to negate the -1 charisma skill level, then trade in two attribute skill points (1 str/1 dex, 2 str, 1 dex/1 wis, etc) to get another Cha skill point.

This worked really well, it gave people more skill ranks overall, but it also meant they usually ended up with skill curves that fit their stats, those who were smart ended up with lots of INT based skills, those who were really strong but not so bright (18 str/8 int) usually ended up with lots of climb and swim and not so many Knowledge skill.

EDIT : Note class skill points were 'unaligned' and could be spent on any skill.

Nifty idea, mdt. I might use it some time. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something needs to be said here:

The fighter is a balanced class, IF your campaign includes as much fighting as the average AP. The balance of the fighter is predicated on having less skills, trading that for being better in combat. There are many threads talking about skills/how bad the fighter is/etc., and I can't recall one where it was mentioned that a fighter is underpowered/perfectly fine depending entirely on the campaign/world. In a campaign that revolves mostly, or entirely around combat the fighter is a good choice to play, as written. In a campaign/world that doesn't, I discourage players from playing a fighter, as that character trades skills (needed) for better combat abilities (not needed in this campaign). The rules are balanced for a specific playstyle, because it wouldn't be possible to balance them for ALL campaigns. If you think the fighter is well-balanced then you are probably within the area it was balanced for, if you don't, some adjustment may be in order. I have GMd campaigns where a nearly identical fighter was just fine (if not a little OP), and where she was vastly underpowered. This isn't based on comparison with who she was running around with, it's simply skillset (combat vs. skill focused) being more or less important to that campaign.

(Edited for grammar)


Yeah I do think the skill system needs some tinkering around, well not need but it would definetly benefit from it.

That being said, I would try to approuch the problem from a different angle. Now this is from the hip so it is rough around the edges. What if at first level you got more skillpoints?

My reasoning is that not all skills need maxing out, but to be belivable a few ranks here and there would go a long way. Now on how much more well that is little hard, my first reaction would be double the ranks that you get from class but other bonuses stay the same.

So let's take a fighter with int 10 and is not a human and not using FB to skillpoints. 4 Skillpoints. Perception, Survival, and then choose two from intimidate/climb/swim/ride. Now in the future the character will only get 2 skillpoints. Well let's say the fighter keeps perception maxed. If the character is not a mounted character they have no need for handle animal or ride. Then let's look what a experienced professional would need. DC 15 met with taking 10 on swim. Same with climb(can move around rough terrain). Let's say one rank in craft to help with repairing their own stuff. Some ranks in intimidate so you can at least get inexperienced folk to fall back in line. Now let's take a 5th level fighter certainly a veteran of more than few fights but not the toughest BMF in the city.

So let's say the fighter has masterwork full plate and with armor training 1 ACP is -4. 20 STR is not unreasonable expectation if the race in question gets a +2 there.(the character has only 10 int those points went somewhere and 4th level attribute increase) So to meet the Climb and Swim DC 15 the character only needs 1 rank each. Take the 1 rank to craft and that is a total of 3 so far. Perception is 5 ranks since it's maxed. Now survival is a bit tricky to determine what DC is needed 10 for sure but let's say it's 15 since the slightly more complex stuff comes at that. So assuming wis 10 it's 2 ranks there. So far we are at 10 ranks. We only have 2 ranks left so let's put those in to intimidate with cha 10 for +5(assuming 10 they could succesfully intimidate same level targets without positive modifiers.). and since we can meet all the basic DCs allready this means that it will be 3 from maxed for the rest of their career, or opt to branch out for some other skills.

I think it is rather reasonable that at 5th level you can meet your basic criteria for functioning properly while investing nothing in to skills and without dumping. That said some people would probably disagree with my criteria on what the fighter should meet.

I wrote it as it came to me so sorry for bad formating.


RadiantSophia wrote:

Something needs to be said here:

The fighter is a balanced class, IF your campaign includes as much fighting as the average AP. The balance of the fighter is predicated on having less skills, trading that for being better in combat. There are many threads talking about skills/how bad the fighter is/etc., and I can't recall one where it was mentioned that a fighter is underpowered/perfectly fine depending entirely on the campaign/world. In a campaign that revolves mostly, or entirely around combat the fighter is a good choice to play, as written. In a campaign/world that doesn't, I discourage players from playing a fighter, as that character trades skills (needed) for better combat abilities (not needed in this campaign). The rules are balanced for a specific playstyle, because it wouldn't be possible to balance them for ALL campaigns. If you think the fighter is well-balanced then you are probably within the area it was balanced for, if you don't, some adjustment may be in order. I have GMd campaigns where a nearly identical fighter was just fine (if not a little OP), and where she was vastly underpowered. This isn't based on comparison with who she was running around with, it's simply skillset (combat vs. skill focused) being more or less important to that campaign.

(Edited for grammar)

The fighter is "balanced" in fighting but he's not overpowered by any means. The problem isn't combat it's out of combat. If you look at the other martial classes the fighter quickly begins to look lackluster. The Paladin is better against evil, almost as good against non evil has comparable AC, far better non AC defenses and the ability to heal himself. Outside of the combat he has spells and more skill points to contribute...

The Ranger is slightly behind the fighter in combat unless it's against a favored enemy but they get better saves, an animal companion to break action economy, spells some flavorful class features... and 3 times the skill points as the fighter...

The barbarian can do comparable damage to the fighter but has less defense. this is offset by his increase hit points so we'll call it a wash. On top of that twice as many skill points...

The fighter is not "broken" but it's certainly on the low end of the martial classes. A few extra skill points doesn't change the power level much at all, it doesn't make the class better than any other class, it won't break anyone's game. What it does is provide a cheap easy fix that makes the fighter more interesting and fun to play.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Once again, the Fighter gets more 'feats' than anyone else.
How about spending those feats on Skill Focuses or Awareness and Athletics?
How about using Traits to get a start on background skills?
Yes, the poor Fighter is sooooo downtrodden. But it isn't his lack of skills that makes him less interesting and fun to play. Its the fact that people design him to be less interesting by focusing only on his combat, and that is what makes him less interesting to play.


Wally the Wizard wrote:

The fighter is "balanced" in fighting but he's not overpowered by any means. The problem isn't combat it's out of combat. If you look at the other martial classes the fighter quickly begins to look lackluster. The Paladin is better against evil, almost as good against non evil has comparable AC, far better non AC defenses and the ability to heal himself. Outside of the combat he has spells and more skill points to contribute...

The Ranger is slightly behind the fighter in combat unless it's against a favored enemy but they get better saves, an animal companion to break action economy, spells some flavorful class features... and 3 times the skill points as the fighter...

The barbarian can do comparable damage to the fighter but has less defense. this is offset by his increase hit points so we'll call it a wash. On top of that twice as many skill points...

The fighter is not "broken" but it's certainly on the low end of the martial classes. A few extra skill points doesn't change the power level much at all, it doesn't make the class better than any other class, it won't break anyone's game. What it does is provide a cheap easy fix that makes the fighter more interesting and fun to play.

I never said the fighter is overpowered, I said THAT fighter was overpowered in THAT campaign. AS I SAID: everything you are saying is true... in SOME campaigns, but not in others.


Craig Mercer wrote:

Once again, the Fighter gets more 'feats' than anyone else.

How about spending those feats on Skill Focuses or Awareness and Athletics?
How about using Traits to get a start on background skills?
Yes, the poor Fighter is sooooo downtrodden. But it isn't his lack of skills that makes him less interesting and fun to play. Its the fact that people design him to be less interesting by focusing only on his combat, and that is what makes him less interesting to play.

The less a Fighter focuses on combat and tries to patch his skill deficiency with poor bandages by sacrificing his already limited combat ability, the more mediocre he becomes in all fields.

Seriously? you expect a +3 bonus to make up for not being able to properly train a skill?

Now if Skill Focus treated a skill as having ranks equal to hit dice OR granted a +3 bonus if the character already had ranks equal to hit dice, then it might actually accomplish something in the long run. As it is now, Skill Focus is there to help characters further focus on a skill they already max. You'd never catch me buying Skill Focus for a skill I don't max.


Craig Mercer wrote:

Once again, the Fighter gets more 'feats' than anyone else.

How about spending those feats on Skill Focuses or Awareness and Athletics?
How about using Traits to get a start on background skills?
Yes, the poor Fighter is sooooo downtrodden. But it isn't his lack of skills that makes him less interesting and fun to play. Its the fact that people design him to be less interesting by focusing only on his combat, and that is what makes him less interesting to play.

That is a trade-off. The fighter still gets less skill points, and no feat can make up for that (unless I've missed a feat that gives skill points). It still comes down to a fighter is going to be VERY good in a campaign the are good in, and VERY bad in a campaign they are ill-suited to.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Kyrt-ryder, I thought you "gave up" this whole discussion. Nice to see you back.

Yes, +3 to a skill equals those 3 skill points, as does the +2 to two skills. You wanted higher skill number, correct? And you have to admit that the Fighter has more feats than anyone else, which means out of everyone else they can afford to spend a few in these feats. And we are talking about skills that you don't need to max out (even if you feel the need to do so). 1 skill point, and a skill focus, and you have something.

But, once again, I notice a problem that is never really spoken about.
It is the fact that everyone wants their Fighter to be totally aimed at combat, but then complains that they have nothing to do outside of the one thing they chose to concentrate on.
And yet, suggesting that they might not build optimally for combat but more for roleplaying gets shot down as "hurting the Fighter's combat abilities".
So if a Fighter were to start with a Str less than 18, he's automatically worthless. And we have to sack the stats that help with roleplay and skills, and then complain that there aren't enough skills for us to do anything.


I don't like skill ranks, so maybe I'm not the best one to consult on the matter, but since you asked the boards, I'll chime in:

I'd prefer something similar to Star Wars / D&D 4th-Edition. Rather than ranks, you get "trained" and "untrained" skills. You'd also have automatic class skills, plus a list of options. Humans get one additional trained skill, rather than +1 skill rank per level.

I think that handles the "but I can't do anything but swing a sword!" problem fairly well.


Craig Mercer wrote:

Once again, the Fighter gets more 'feats' than anyone else.

How about spending those feats on Skill Focuses or Awareness and Athletics?
How about using Traits to get a start on background skills?
Yes, the poor Fighter is sooooo downtrodden. But it isn't his lack of skills that makes him less interesting and fun to play. Its the fact that people design him to be less interesting by focusing only on his combat, and that is what makes him less interesting to play.

Sure you can spend feats to get some more skills. Lets do a quick comparison Ranger vs Fighter:

Fighter 1-20: Total base skill points= 40 +10 class skills=30 points
Ranger 1-20: Total Base skill points= 120 +15 class skills=45 points

Fighter: Total Bonus Feats:10
Ranger: Total Bonus Feats: 5 (ignore prereqs)

If a fighter spends a 5 of his feats on skill focus he ends up with an extra 24 skill points.... so 102 to 165 and an even number of bonus feats.

The fighter is still better in combat most of the time due to weapon training and has a slightly higher AC due to armor training but the ranger gets a whole host of additional class features, an AC, spells (and ability to use wands), favored enemy (which gives additional skill bonuses), favored terrain (which gives additional skill bonuses), tracking (which gives additional skill bonuses), better saves etc...

The Fighter is playable sure and if you have a high level of system mastery you can build a decent well rounded fighter but you'd almost always be able to do better with another class.

edit: miscounted ranger bonus feats, fixed math


Craig Mercer wrote:

Kyrt-ryder, I thought you "gave up" this whole discussion. Nice to see you back.

Yes, +3 to a skill equals those 3 skill points, as does the +2 to two skills. You wanted higher skill number, correct? And you have to admit that the Fighter has more feats than anyone else, which means out of everyone else they can afford to spend a few in these feats. And we are talking about skills that you don't need to max out (even if you feel the need to do so). 1 skill point, and a skill focus, and you have something.

But, once again, I notice a problem that is never really spoken about.
It is the fact that everyone wants their Fighter to be totally aimed at combat, but then complains that they have nothing to do outside of the one thing they chose to concentrate on.
And yet, suggesting that they might not build optimally for combat but more for roleplaying gets shot down as "hurting the Fighter's combat abilities".
So if a Fighter were to start with a Str less than 18, he's automatically worthless. And we have to sack the stats that help with roleplay and skills, and then complain that there aren't enough skills for us to do anything.

No, skill focus is NOT equal to +3 skill points. What you are saying would be true, IF there was a feat to add actual skill points.


The only ways to net skill ranks that I know of are Fast Learner and Human Spirit.


Detect Magic wrote:
The only ways to net skill ranks that I know of are Fast Learner and Human Spirit.

Fast Learner doesn't net skill points if you are already using your favored class bonus to get more skill points. Human spirit is Half-Elf only. :(


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

@Wally the Wizard: The problem you haven't looked at is that the Fighter isn't supposed to be the Ranger. They have two different styles of play.
The Fighter doesn't need all the skills the Ranger needs. (And let's not forget that the Ranger has to spend a feat to get the Fighter's heavy armor training). That alone acounts for the difference in skills.
But the Fighter has enough feats to boost his few skills up to the point where they are usable (look at the skills Climb and Swim to see that you only need so much to be good enough).

In short, if you want to play a Ranger, play the Ranger, don't try to make the Fighter a Ranger. But if you want to play a Fighter with a few skills, there are ways to do it.

@RadiantSophia: Yes, those Feats don't give real skill levels. You are going to have to spend one skill point to get your class skill bonus. But after that? What is the difference between having a 7 Climb because you spent 4 skill points in a class skill and having a 7 Climb because you spent 1 skill point in a class skill and took a Skill Focus Feat? Nothing, as far as I can tell.

And the question is still out there; Would it kill you to play a non-optimized Fighter to get a few skills? As people have pointed out way back in the beginning of the thread, a Human Fighter build to use Combat Expertise has an Int of 13, and if he doesn't take that hit point but a skill point, he has 5 skill points a level to play with. True, it isn't optimal, but it does solve the problem of having skill points doesn't it?

Edit: RadiantSophia: Yes, but to hear most people speak of it, Fighters are using their Favored Class Bonus for hit points, because they never count those Favored Class Bonuses as skill points.
Somehow taking skill points instead of hit points in non-optimal.


I just built a human fighter (lore warden) with Int 14. I ended up with 7 skill ranks per level without using my favored class bonus (2 for being a fighter, 2 for my Intelligence, 1 for being human, and 2 which must be spent on Int-based skills from the lore warden archetype). Then I grabbed the "Extra Traits" feat and nabbed a bunch of class skills. Suffice to say, I built a fighter that can do a lot of stuff. He can't dish out 2-handed power attack damage... but, he can still contribute.


Craig Mercer wrote:


And the question is still out there; Would it kill you to play a non-optimized Fighter to get a few skills? As people have pointed out way back in the beginning of the thread, a Human Fighter build to use Combat Expertise has an Int of 13, and if he doesn't take that hit point but a skill point, he has 5 skill points a level to play with. True, it isn't optimal, but it does solve the problem of having skill points doesn't it?

WHOA. Hold it. I don't have a problem with fighters having 2+ skill points, so no, It wouldn't "Kill me" to play a non-optimized fighter. Actually I usually GM, so my players are usually the ones playing a fighter. I do, however, think that there should be a feat to add actual skill points.


How about a feat for +3 skill ranks, +1 per HD above 3rd (to mirror Toughness)? Not a bad idea, I think I might add that to my list of house rules. Perhaps I'll call it "Talented" or some such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Detect Magic wrote:
How about a feat for +3 skill ranks, +1 per HD above 3rd (to mirror Toughness)? Not a bad idea, I think I might add that to my list of house rules. Perhaps I'll call it "Talented" or some such.

I'd play that. I'd play that so hard.

(sorry, couldn't resist)


There was a feat, Open Minded, in 3.5, it simply gave you 5 skill points.


And in Pathfinder, Open Minded grants 1 skill point per hit die


kyrt-ryder wrote:
And in Pathfinder, Open Minded grants 1 skill point per hit die

The existence of Human Spirit suggests that feat is Overly.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
And in Pathfinder, Open Minded grants 1 skill point per hit die

A shame it's 3rd party, and, thus, will not be allowed in many games.


Craig Mercer wrote:

@Wally the Wizard: The problem you haven't looked at is that the Fighter isn't supposed to be the Ranger. They have two different styles of play.

Both classes are martial classes that primarily are expected to deal damage in combat. The ranger is more of a skirmisher or archer rather than a tank but fighters are versatile and many are not built to be tanks. almost all of the non tank builds would be better served by going ranger. The tank builds could switch out a barb or pally and would almost always be better off.

Craig Mercer wrote:
The Fighter doesn't need all the skills the Ranger needs. (And let's not forget that the Ranger has to spend a feat to get the Fighter's heavy armor training). That alone acounts for the difference in skills.

Skill focus sets the feat to skill ratio at 1 feat=6 skill points. the Ranger has 63 more skill points. one extra feat does not even that out at all. Also Heavy armor is only useful if you plan on using it and for many builds it's not worth it. max AC with dex bonus and armor bonus of a breastplate and full plate are only 1 different.

Craig Mercer wrote:


But the Fighter has enough feats to boost his few skills up to the point where they are usable (look at the skills Climb and Swim to see that you only need so much to be good enough).

In short, if you want to play a Ranger, play the Ranger, don't try to make the Fighter a Ranger. But if you want to play a Fighter with a few skills, there are ways to do it.

I agree that you CAN burn a few feats and make an okay fighter. Once again, I think the fighter is a playable class. I just think that whatever type of warrior you are trying to create can almost always be done better with a different class.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
And in Pathfinder, Open Minded grants 1 skill point per hit die
A shame it's 3rd party, and, thus, will not be allowed in many games.

A shame 3rd party is not allowed in many games.


Everyone is underselling Skill Focus. When you initially take it, you gain 3 skill points in the skill. But once you have 10 ranks in that skill, the bonus goes to +6. So, basically +6 skill for one feat. I think the fighter can afford that, and is getting a bargain.


Dakota_Strider wrote:
Everyone is underselling Skill Focus. When you initially take it, you gain 3 skill points in the skill. But once you have 10 ranks in that skill, the bonus goes to +6. So, basically +6 skill for one feat. I think the fighter can afford that, and is getting a bargain.

The +6 is great for when you're maxing out a skill, but it doesn't help when you're trying to become decent at a bunch of skills.

People were talking about putting 1 rank into a class skill and taking skill focus to get a +7 total.

The theory is using feats to overcome a lack of skill points, rather than using them to get really good at one thing.


Dakota_Strider wrote:
Everyone is underselling Skill Focus. When you initially take it, you gain 3 skill points in the skill. But once you have 10 ranks in that skill, the bonus goes to +6. So, basically +6 skill for one feat. I think the fighter can afford that, and is getting a bargain.

I counted it as 6 in my math. Which to be honest is generous. The Fighter only has 2 skill points per level so he would have to invest 25% of his total skill ranks to get that extra bonus. That's a pretty hefty investment for someone who is so skill starved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wally the Wizard wrote:
I counted it as 6 in my math. Which to be honest is generous. The Fighter only has 2 skill points per level so he would have to invest 25% of his total skill ranks to get that extra bonus. That's a pretty hefty investment for someone who is so skill starved.

I do not mean to sound hard-hearted, but I have little sympathy for any build that only has a 10 int (or less) and then wants more skill points. Obviously the priorities were for wanting different than skills when you allocated the stat points.

I hate to sound like a broken record, and I know this is not the last time I will say it, but this is a game of choices. If you have a 10 int or less, you made a choice to be much better in something else than skills. If someone thinks that a barbarian or ranger has it so much better than a fighter, than play a barbarian or a ranger, and just roleplay them like a fighter. Nothing in the rules to prevent someone from doing that.


Dakota_Strider wrote:
Wally the Wizard wrote:
I counted it as 6 in my math. Which to be honest is generous. The Fighter only has 2 skill points per level so he would have to invest 25% of his total skill ranks to get that extra bonus. That's a pretty hefty investment for someone who is so skill starved.

I do not mean to sound hard-hearted, but I have little sympathy for any build that only has a 10 int (or less) and then wants more skill points. Obviously the priorities were for wanting different than skills when you allocated the stat points.

I hate to sound like a broken record, and I know this is not the last time I will say it, but this is a game of choices. If you have a 10 int or less, you made a choice to be much better in something else than skills. If someone thinks that a barbarian or ranger has it so much better than a fighter, than play a barbarian or a ranger, and just roleplay them like a fighter. Nothing in the rules to prevent someone from doing that.

Exactly. I am about to play a 10 Int Two-Handed Weapon Fighter who I plan to take some levels of Armoured Hulk Barbarian. This is to a. Make him more mobile, and b. To enable him to be much better at Perception.

Even if the Hulk isn't my favoured class, for 5 levels of it I lose: 3 feats and in theory the level 20 power (Never had a 20th+ level character so won't miss that), gain 2 rage powers (and assorted A.H./rage abilities) and also 4 skill points (no loss of hit points either).

At some point I am certain I will use a feat to improve perception also.
But the point is I have built what I feel is a Fighter who will have sufficient skills to adventure with.


Dakota_Strider wrote:


I hate to sound like a broken record, and I know this is not the last time I will say it, but this is a game of choices. If you have a 10 int or less, you made a choice to be much better in something else than skills.

I don't have a problem making choices, the problem is that's it's not much of a choice. If you're giving up the ability to shine outside of combat you'd really better shine inside of it. The fighter does well in combat but not "much better" than the other warrior classes and they don't have to give up their out of combat utility.

Dakota_Strider wrote:
If someone thinks that a barbarian or ranger has it so much better than a fighter, than play a barbarian or a ranger, and just roleplay them like a fighter. Nothing in the rules to prevent someone from doing that.

This is the problem! The fighter can be easily replaced or bettered by other classes. Giving the fighter extra skill points at least makes it a little harder choice.

strayshift wrote:

Exactly. I am about to play a 10 Int Two-Handed Weapon Fighter who I plan to take some levels of Armoured Hulk Barbarian. This is to a. Make him more mobile, and b. To enable him to be much better at Perception.

Even if the Hulk isn't my favoured class, for 5 levels of it I lose: 3 feats and in theory the level 20 power (Never had a 20th+ level character so won't miss that), gain 2 rage powers (and assorted A.H./rage abilities) and also 4 skill points (no loss of hit points either).

At some point I am certain I will use a feat to improve perception also.
But the point is I have built what I feel is a Fighter who will have sufficient skills to adventure with.

You are proving my point! You want to play a fighter but you can't build what you think he should be without using another warrior class. If the Fighter had perception as a class skill and some extra skill points you might have just stuck with the class instead of feeling like you had to branch out.


I knew I should have written: "the point is I have built what I feel is a Fighter-TYPE that will have sufficient skills to adventure with."

The principle attraction was the greater mobility but the perception was an additional benefit. Will hold my hand up to that.

Hypothetically the build would only give an extra 5 or 10 skill points as it is a non-favoured class, the big difference being that I have a clear skill I want to develop.

301 to 350 of 489 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Skill Points Per Level Too Low? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.