Why is the Handle Animal skill based off Charisma instead of Wisdom?


Homebrew and House Rules


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I think know the answer, and it's "laziness". I'm guessing some game designer back in the day figured "well, it's basically like Diplomacy for critters, so, hurrdur, let's make it like the other Cha skills". And then nobody bothered to fix it in the years hence (I know it's actually not "Diplomacy for animals", that's a common misconception).

My reason for contesting this is that I've worked with animals for years (not just household pets - everything from large livestock to poultry), and even won several champion-level awards for such, and the skill as mechanically represented in the game doesn't seem to match my IRL experience at all. Just like "swinging a sword", I'm guessing "raising/training an animal" is something that whatever designer originally made the skill had no first-hand experience in before taking a wild, stabbing guess in the dark and pulling an arbitrary rule out of their butt that in no way mirrors reality.

Now let's back up a sec and refresh what the ability scores we're discussing actually mean. Because while this is not a strictly simulation game, the numbers still have to represent something in the game-world. We're not shuffling numbers around for the sake of shuffling numbers around - this isn't "Accountants & Agony: the Board Game".

pfsrd wrote:
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition.
pfsrd wrote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Now in my own time spent working with animals, training them, etc., my "willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition" were a lot more crucial to that process than my "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead (people), and appearance."

Animals don't care how much social graces amongst sentient beings you have - they care if you're paying attention to their signals, which is something entirely different. Just earlier this evening, my cat started making noises like he was upset at something. I deduced from the context of the situation that he might have been too warm, so I put an ice-cube in his water-dish, and he happily lapped up the water. It was my taking notice of the surrounding factors and intuitively deciding on a course of action (Wisdom), not dazzling him with my magnificent oratory and subtle glibness (Charisma) that resolved the issue.

Keep in mind, Handle Animal is about a sentient being (human, elf, etc) working w/ an animal, not "showmanship", like a circus performer presenting in front of an audience (which would probably be better handled w/ a Perform skill).

How would this change (making the skill based off of Wisdom insead) play out back in the mechanics? Consider that the core "natury" classes (Barbarians, Druids, & Rangers) are archetypical loners often living far away from civilization, in the company of beasts, and they like it just fine, thank you very much. The casters have high Wis, since it's their casting attribute, and all 3 can probably afford to dump Cha, since it doesn't do much for them. So there's zero reason why characters whose whole shtick revolves around "protector of nature" should be penalized when dealing with the very animals whom they work with and protect every day. Instead they'll enjoy better Handle Animal modifiers.

Likewise, Fighters and Cavaliers, who are also likely to have higher Wis than Cha will be better able to handle warhorses and guard dogs. I'm not too worried about Paladins, since their Wis tends to be nearly as high as their Cha anyway, and now Pallys have an option to not be saddled w/ a mount.

Who are the stereotypically high-Cha core classes that I haven't mentioned? Bards, maybe Clerics, sometimes Rogues, and Sorcerers? Is there any particular thematic reason for them to be inherently good at Handle Animal, let alone better than nature/survival-themed classes? I think not.

This isn't a huge issue (like class balance disparity), just something that kinda bugged me for a while. And also because of that, the change would be simple, painless, and unintrusive to implement. Paizo's done a lot of great things for smoothing the rough edges of the 3.X system - I'm just pointing out one I think they missed.

p.s. - haven't started a thread for a while, hope I'm posting this in the right place.


A small nitpick. Paladins have no incentive keep their wisdom nearly as high as their charisma. It's too hard to keep up 3-4 ability scores, do I don't think that most of them do do. The skill uses Cha because it facilitates interactions with a creature. That's the logic: I don't think it was just laziness. All of your other points sound pretty good though. Making it a Cha skill does no harm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because charisma also represents your abstract likableness as a person, which animals definitely pick up on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:

A small nitpick. Paladins have no incentive keep their wisdom nearly as high as their charisma. It's too hard to keep up 3-4 ability scores, do I don't think that most of them do do.

Okay, you're probably right there, but a Paladin's main shtick is still holy warrior, not nature warrior. Why should they get better Handle Animal than the Ranger who spends all their time in the wild around animals?

Ciaran Barnes wrote:
The skill uses Cha because it facilitates interactions with a creature.
Goddity wrote:
Because charisma also represents your abstract likableness as a person...

Yes, to other sentient beings. Notice how the Diplomacy skill does not work on animals because they have an Int score of less than 3?

Alright, so say you wanted to keep the Cha mod around (your game, after all), why not make it variable? It would look like "Handle Animal (Cha/Wis)", and you pick your modifier at the start of the game (choice is permanent).

I've house-ruled some other variable-mod skills into my games, including Climb (Str/Dex) (representing a character who “clambers like a monkey”, rather than pulling themselves up by sheer muscle power), Heal (Wis/Int) (representing a character who is a “book-trained” physician, rather than having apprenticed to the village shaman or whatever) and Intimidate (Cha/Str) (not a perfect solution, but a workable one to make it so some prissy little bard isn't more intimidating than Krognar the Skull-Crusher w/o re-writing the whole thing).


Voin_AFOL wrote:


Alright, so say you wanted to keep the Cha mod around (your game, after all), why not make it variable? It would look like "Handle Animal (Cha/Wis)", and you pick your modifier at the start of the game (choice is permanent).

I've house-ruled some other variable-mod skills into my games, including Climb (Str/Dex) (representing a character who “clambers like a monkey”, rather than pulling themselves up by sheer muscle power), Heal (Wis/Int) (representing a character who is a “book-trained” physician, rather than having apprenticed to the village shaman or whatever) and Intimidate (Cha/Str) (not a perfect solution, but a workable one to make it so some prissy little bard isn't more intimidating than Krognar the Skull-Crusher w/o re-writing the whole thing).

I like that idea of applying some different stats. I think some of this is the result of compiling to reduce the number of skills, which invariably means you could end up with some applications that don't make as much sense.

On your house-rule, they pick the alternate stat to apply to those skills at character creation?

I was thinking CHA for UMD also seemed a little "off". figuring out how to use the device sounds a lot more like INT - IE solving a Rubik cube, than force of personality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
Yes, to other sentient beings. Notice how the Diplomacy skill does not work on animals because they have an Int score of less than 3?

Nah, you're conflating Diplomacy (skill) with Charisma (Attribute). The Attribute is about force of personality. The Diplomacy skill is the aspect of that specifically aimed at social grace towards sentients. The Charisma driven force of personality in the game is definitely not just limited to playing nice in court. Hell it can also let you use a wand!

Drawing a real life parallel there are plenty of 'animal people' who aren't what you would consider wise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM 1990 wrote:


I was thinking CHA for UMD also seemed a little "off". figuring out how to use the device sounds a lot more like INT - IE solving a Rubik cube, than force of personality.

As for UMD, it's not figuring out how to make an item work, but rather making it work through force of will. You do have to make the check each time you go to use the wand/item/etc, and a natural 1 is always a failure, which isn't in keeping with having it all figured out. Further, the reason you can't use spellcraft to 'fake out' a wand or staff is because spellcraft is "getting" the item and understanding whether or not you have the power to legitimately use the item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Making it a Cha skill does no harm.

A critical typo on my part. That is supposed to say "Making it a Wis skill does no harm."

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Communication with and among animals is very strongly based on emotions. CHA not WIS


However, Raven, understanding and reading those emotions is wisdom. So?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By that logic Diplomacy should be a WIS skill too RMD42.


Yeah, with the UMD thing, if it was emulating "figuring out unfamiliar tech", then logically, once you do it the once, you shouldn't have to make the check again for that device. Imagine a friend hands you an unfamiliar smartphone, and you mess around with it until you figure out how to get it to play music or whatever - once you've done that, you know how to do it from that point on.

A common theme for manipulating supernatural powers from across many genres - Harry Potter to Star Wars is that telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up takes force of will. Whether you do it through forceful commanding (Cha), diligent study (Int) or being at harmony with it (Wis), (or something in-between) is a matter of philosophy, but you generally don't see someone make reality bend over if they themselves are a weak-willed wuss unsure of their own place in the world.

Now, I have to ask - all my fellow Pathfinders defending the original, D&D 3e design decision of Handle Animal being modified with Charisma because "something, something, you have to be a likable people person to communicate with animals"... how many of you have actually worked with raising and training animals extensively as I have? I'm not saying that my own experience and educated opinion resulting from it are necessarily the be-all-end-all here, I'd just like it if some other people who actually had real-life experience with the skill (maybe some dog or horse -trainers) would weigh in.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
Now let's back up a sec and refresh what the ability scores we're discussing actually mean.

That's the issue right there, and it goes far beyond just the Handle Animal skill. Wisdom and Charisma are both horribly-defined mishmashes of stuff, in some cases overlapping between the two stats, and in other cases internally contradictory within the same stat. So there's really no rhyme or reason to anything that has to do with them.

If we replaced them with something like Awareness and Force of Personality, and re-distributed what their modifiers apply to accordingly, then quite a number of aspects of the game would make a lot more sense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Voin_AFOL Pathfinder is a fantasy game and there are a million ways it doesn't reflect real life very well at all (Fighting at full strength while being at death's door anyone?) It's not supposed to accurately represent reality. It's supposed to let you be Conan, or Merlin, or Aragaorn, or whatever.

And ability score bonuses being a fairly small part of a skill roll does a pretty good job of making this a pretty minor matter. No matter what the ability scores are any character can be good at any skill by investing the skill ranks, having an appropriate class bonus, class features, maybe even spending a Skill Focus Feat on it, picking up an appropriate Trait etc.

But your home brew makes good sense as well and I wouldn't blink at a game that swapped in Wis for Cha here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rangers and Druids get Wild Empathy:

PRD wrote:
A ranger (or druid) can improve the initial attitude of an animal. This ability functions just like a Diplomacy check to improve the attitude of a person (see Using Skills). The ranger rolls 1d20 and adds his ranger level and his Charisma bonus to determine the wild empathy check result. The typical domestic animal has a starting attitude of indifferent, while wild animals are usually unfriendly.

The rules explicitly call out that a Druid or Ranger influencing an animal is just like using Diplomacy (another Cha skill) to influence a person. Why would Handle Animal be any different? It's force of personality against force of instinct; strongest force wins.

Moreover, Handle Animal is more about taming and training animals. Rangers and Druids are nature-themed classes, but wild nature. They don't "tame" animals, they get diplomatic with them. A Paladin might tame a dog as a companion, but a Ranger has a natural bond with a wolf for whom he gets a significant bonus in Handle Animal, but he doesn't just go up to any wolf he meets in the forest and treat it like a close personal friend; unless he's a Cha-based Ranger who Wild Empathies all up in there.


Azih wrote:
By that logic Diplomacy should be a WIS skill too RMD42.

However, that is a rule argument, just pointing out there is logic behind the other position. And the post I was responding to wasn't using rules to make an argument.

"Communication with animals is strongly based on emotion'
could invoke either Wis or Cha.


"Fighting at full strength while being at death's door" was addressed by the Wound Thresholds optional rule from Unchained.

As far as the more esoteric abilities of Rangers and Druids, well, they get magics - at that point, any semblance of real-world explanations or parallels stop applying and we are fully into "make up arbitrary stuff for the game" territory.

I get that this is a minor point, but that alone does not negate the reason to bring it up - if we were to really take a long, hard look at some of the major issues of the system (many of which were inherited from D&D 3.X), we'd have to do a "pull out the foundations" re-write (like completely overhauling the Fighter class or getting rid of it entirely in favor of more flavorful specialists) or play a whole different game system.

But, that ship has already sailed, so we make little stop-gap solutions that are "good enough for now" to plug up the leaks because we don't feel like jumping to a different ship or building a new one from scratch.


Goddity wrote:
Because charisma also represents your abstract likableness as a person, which animals definitely pick up on.

I've usually found people that are good with people seem bad with animals and vice versa. I don't know if its because people that are good with people don't spend nearly as much time making friends with random critters outside their species or if they're just different if not opposing skillsets...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Handling Animals is pretty much the same force of personality as Intimidate and Diplomacy. Charisma is the appropriate attribute.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Communication with and among animals is very strongly based on emotions. CHA not WIS

Or not showing them. Animals tend not to show emotion overtly to cover up weaknesses. To them even moderate displays of emotion seem like someone flipping their lid. So if you flip out, they'll flip out. Prey runs away from you, predators think you're weak and injured, and that makes you look delicious.

I suppose different people have different methods that work for them depending on the interaction between the individual, the species, and the individual of the other species. I've had deer use me for a salt lick, had deer decide i was warm enough to sleep next to, pet a wild porcupine wild holding some branches for him, and was good enough with donkeys to have locals ask me to teach them english so they could talk to the donkey. I don't know if thats traits, trained skill, skill ranks but its definitely NOT charisma...

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not endeared by an argument that begins with "the designer is lazy" when the said argument boils down to a personal disagreement over the interpretation of ability scores.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cyrad wrote:
I am not endeared by an argument that begins with "the designer is lazy"

It's the truth so often I'm not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt anymore. One can argue that it was just lack of access to research before the Internet took off, but companies other than TSR and WotC managed to get things less horribly wrong even if it sometimes involved including aspects of realism* the customer base didn't really want.

* like a degree of mortality at odds with the heroic fantasy


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Might I recommend using the Unchained consolidated skill list?


KujakuDM wrote:

Might I recommend using the Unchained consolidated skill list?

Kill it with fire and nuke the remains until they glow.


I would definitely be in favor of changing both Handle Animal and Wild Empathy to key off Wis rather than Cha. I mean, the latter even has the word 'empathy' in the title, which is surely a function of Wis (being able to intuit a creature's mental state) rather than Cha.

I totally think there are good arguments to be made for keying animal-handling off either Cha or Wis (and I like the idea of getting to choose which at character creation as well), but I think the "flavor" of handling animals vs. handling people being more distinct, to the point of basing these two activities off different stats, is far more interesting than just lumping it all under Cha. I also like how it helps rangers, monks and probably a lot of spell-less martials (fighters tend to prioritize Wis over Cha, etc.). The fact that it's a small boost to already powerful classes like the druid is a very reasonable price to pay for this, and won't unbalance the game.

Cheers,
- Gears


RDM42 wrote:
KujakuDM wrote:

Might I recommend using the Unchained consolidated skill list?

Kill it with fire and nuke the remains until they glow.

That sure is a post that shows you are a reasonable person.

I have a side game using them and they seem to work fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always had the impression that Charisma was a more proactive ability score (actively making things happen), while Wisdom was a more reactive ability score (acting in response to something).

The skills they are applied to seem to fit this theme as well; Charisma is used to activate magic items or change a person's mind (longterm or temporarily), while Wisdom lets you see things or feel what needs to be done (healing and god connection).

Handle Animal is primarily an active skill, rather than a reactive one (as to what the game effects are).
So while there may be a case for either ability score to be used in some way with the skill, Charisma fits better for what the main thrust of the skill is used for: proactively making something happen.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

My WIS let's me sense what my horse wants to do (Sense Motive) but it definitely does not help me get it to do what I want :-)


Its ironic that people raised by wolves are worse at getting along with them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its ironic that people raised by wolves are worse at getting along with them.

Not necessarily. Having a high wisdom and sense motive and knowing things like when to back off will still let you get along with them. It just won't give you the ability to socially manipulate them.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Because wisdom is already an very good stat. Leave poor charisma alone.


Oh, there are a few wisdom based things I'd be inclined to push over to charisma too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Voin_AFOL wrote:
Well, I think know the answer, and it's "laziness". I'm guessing some game designer back in the day figured "well, it's basically like Diplomacy for critters, so, hurrdur, let's make it like the other Cha skills". And then nobody bothered to fix it in the years hence (I know it's actually not "Diplomacy for animals", that's a common misconception).

Definitely not this. 3.0 had "Animal Empathy" as a skill, which was (as wild empathy later) diplomacy for animals. Handle Animals was separately defined.

Reading queues/signs off people or animals and knowing how to respond, that's Charisma.

And you've got it in buckets BNW, you old coot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:
Well, I think know the answer, and it's "laziness". I'm guessing some game designer back in the day figured "well, it's basically like Diplomacy for critters, so, hurrdur, let's make it like the other Cha skills". And then nobody bothered to fix it in the years hence (I know it's actually not "Diplomacy for animals", that's a common misconception).

Definitely not this. 3.0 had "Animal Empathy" as a skill, which was (as wild empathy later) diplomacy for animals. Handle Animals was separately defined.

Reading queues/signs off people or animals and knowing how to respond, that's Charisma.

And you've got it in buckets BNW, you old coot.

Reading cues and signs off of people is somewhat explicitly sense motive? Someone with a high charisma and diplomacy will be very glib and smooth but prone to misreading situations and sometimes putting himself in places he HAS to talk his way out of instead of easy checks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In real life, I would say it's very hard to be great at Diplomacy while being horrible at Sense Motive. You can be very suave, but you need some basic grasp of empathy and reading people, otherwise you'll at best be able to superficially charm them, but not able to fundamentally alter their attitude towards you as the Diplomacy skill seems to suggest.

With this in mind, I would say it's fair to let Diplomacy "include" the Wis-based aspects of being diplomatic and, conversely, to let a Wis-based version of Handle Animal "include" the Cha-based things (personal magnetism, etc.) that you need in order to charm any creature, animal or otherwise. In effect, neither is a realistic simulation, since both Diplomacy and Handle Animal arguably require a bit of both Cha and Wis, but the design decision would be to focus on the most important of the two ability scores for each skill. I.e., handling animals probably is more Wis-dependent than handling people, while handling people probably is more Cha-dependent.

Also, some people have been saying that UMD is Cha-based because it's about willpower but, of course, if that were truly the case the skill would be Wis-based, just like your Will saves. I always thought UMD was just what the Fonz did when he made the jukebox start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ethereal Gears wrote:
I always thought UMD was just what the Fonz did when he made the jukebox start.

"We're all gonna be little Fonzies here! And what's Fonzie like?!"

"Um... he's cool?"
"That's right. He's cool."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ethereal Gears wrote:

In real life, I would say it's very hard to be great at Diplomacy while being horrible at Sense Motive. You can be very suave, but you need some basic grasp of empathy and reading people, otherwise you'll at best be able to superficially charm them, but not able to fundamentally alter their attitude towards you as the Diplomacy skill seems to suggest.

With this in mind, I would say it's fair to let Diplomacy "include" the Wis-based aspects of being diplomatic and, conversely, to let a Wis-based version of Handle Animal "include" the Cha-based things (personal magnetism, etc.) that you need in order to charm any creature, animal or otherwise. In effect, neither is a realistic simulation, since both Diplomacy and Handle Animal arguably require a bit of both Cha and Wis, but the design decision would be to focus on the most important of the two ability scores for each skill. I.e., handling animals probably is more Wis-dependent than handling people, while handling people probably is more Cha-dependent.

Also, some people have been saying that UMD is Cha-based because it's about willpower but, of course, if that were truly the case the skill would be Wis-based, just like your Will saves. I always thought UMD was just what the Fonz did when he made the jukebox start.

Not at all. I have met plenty of people who have the diplomacy skill in spades but lack sense motive - and the other way around. Who can charm the pants off someone but often can't tell that they started with the wrong target. Many expert manipulators are themselves manipulable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, but Diplomacy isn't exactly about manipulating people. It's about actually changing someone's attitude of you. "Manipulation" is actually a combination of Diplomacy and Bluff, as per the Suggest Course of Action rules. If you think I'm a basically decent guy and I ask you to provide me with simple aid via a Diplomacy check and you assent, that's not manipulation. Manipulation would be if I somehow deceived you as part of the interaction, which would require an attendant Bluff check. At least that's how I use the word "manipulation". If one defines it as simply any social interaction involving give-and-take, I think the term becomes too broad to be definitionally useful.

I've always felt like Diplomacy is a skill that feels much more Machiavellian from the player's point of view than it actually necessarily is in-game. The fact that a social interaction is mechanized via rules makes you unconsciously think of the creature whose attitude you're changing as a "target" or "victim", which is probably not how your character thinks about the person they're talking to, unless of course your character is evil or something.

That being said, I fully agree Cha is far more important than Wis for Diplomacy, which is why it makes sense as a Cha-based skill. By the same token, I think Wis is (perhaps not to the same degree) more important than Cha when handling an animal, and that's why I think it's more suitable to have Handle Animal be Wis-based.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of exactly how you define it you can have the ability to influence people, and change their mind or convince them without neccisarily being all that good at really reading them at any deep level. Charismatic and diplomatic skill can be shallow and one sided.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Right, and that's my point. I'm not saying you should suffer a penalty on Diplomacy checks equal to how many fewer ranks you have invested in Sense Motive. I'm just saying that if the game were designed with multiple ability scores applying to some skills by definition, I don't think it would be unreasonable for both Diplomacy and Handle Animal to be Cha/Wis. If one then changed from such a system into one where each skill only has one ability score tied to it (as is currently the case), then making Diplomacy Cha-based and Handle Animal Wis-based makes the most sense.


Ethereal Gears wrote:
Right, and that's my point. I'm not saying you should suffer a penalty on Diplomacy checks equal to how many fewer ranks you have invested in Sense Motive. I'm just saying that if the game were designed with multiple ability scores applying to some skills by definition, I don't think it would be unreasonable for both Diplomacy and Handle Animal to be Cha/Wis. If one then changed from such a system into one where each skill only has one ability score tied to it (as is currently the case), then making Diplomacy Cha-based and Handle Animal Wis-based makes the most sense.

I've seen this mirrored in play where if you say X thing you get a + while if you say - thing you get a penalty, with a sense motive check to figure out which is which


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Anonymous Warrior wrote:
GM 1990 wrote:


I was thinking CHA for UMD also seemed a little "off". figuring out how to use the device sounds a lot more like INT - IE solving a Rubik cube, than force of personality.
As for UMD, it's not figuring out how to make an item work, but rather making it work through force of will. You do have to make the check each time you go to use the wand/item/etc, and a natural 1 is always a failure, which isn't in keeping with having it all figured out. Further, the reason you can't use spellcraft to 'fake out' a wand or staff is because spellcraft is "getting" the item and understanding whether or not you have the power to legitimately use the item.

(Emphasis mine).

Just a quick clarification: a natural 1 isn't auto-fail for any skill checks, including UMD. There are just penalties if you roll a 1 on UMD and fail (if you succeed on a 1 you're in the clear).

On topic, I personally like the idea of subbing in different attributes for skills in specific situations. I thought there were other systems that called this out (D&D 4 or 5e, maybe?). I think L5R was another system that had 'typical' attributes for skills, but allowed switching them if the situation called for it.


KujakuDM wrote:

Might I recommend using the Unchained consolidated skill list?

I was actually considering that until I saw they included no Craft skills, which is an unjustifiable travesty. Henceforth, I prefer to use the Background Skills optional rule.


Skills if anything need to be expanded not consolidated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Voin_AFOL wrote:
KujakuDM wrote:

Might I recommend using the Unchained consolidated skill list?

I was actually considering that until I saw they included no Craft skills, which is an unjustifiable travesty. Henceforth, I prefer to use the Background Skills optional rule.

I actually am using both.

RDM42 wrote:
Skills if anything need to be expanded not consolidated.

That's, like, just your opinion, man.

And having come directly from 3rd, no they don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KujakuDM wrote:


RDM42 wrote:
Skills if anything need to be expanded not consolidated.

That's, like, just your opinion, man.

And having come directly from 3rd, no they don't.

It really depends on what you want to focus on in your gaming. If it's mostly kick-in-the-door bad-assery, then you could actually possibly improve your gaming by reducing the skills down to some automatic advancement in skills divided by ability score or somesuch.

However, if you are playing in a primarily political or stealth game, where problem resolution may focus more on series of skill checks that cap off your roleplaying action and decisions.. well, a robust skill system, with complex skill check resolution and a side-system that boosts or alters your skill's effects would serve you better.

Currently, this game delivers in the medium range.. a little something for everyone. It's easy to take away (Fighter: automatic increase to Str/Dex/Con skills, and 1x increase to a mental skill... there's your consolidation).
What could use lots of discussion and ideas and theory would be a way to expand things to allow non-combat focused problem resolution a bigger spotlight.


KujakuDM wrote:
Voin_AFOL wrote:
KujakuDM wrote:

Might I recommend using the Unchained consolidated skill list?

I was actually considering that until I saw they included no Craft skills, which is an unjustifiable travesty. Henceforth, I prefer to use the Background Skills optional rule.

I actually am using both.

RDM42 wrote:
Skills if anything need to be expanded not consolidated.

That's, like, just your opinion, man.

And having come directly from 3rd, no they don't.

Condense them any more, and they may as well not even be there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm personally of the opinion that the three mental attributes are an oversimplified attempt at codifying the human mind and soul for gaming purposes. I think sound arguments can be made for any of the three mental attributes regarding Handle Animal.

Under the assumption that any of the three attributes work, it would make the game mechanics flow together best by tying it to the main attribute of the classes most likely to use the skill, which is Wisdom (Druids, Rangers, Hunters). Thus, I agree that Handle Animal being Wisdom based would make a better game.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Why is the Handle Animal skill based off Charisma instead of Wisdom? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules