Goblin_Priest wrote: If you really, really feel this is an issue, then... don't play pathfinder? 4E scrapped the min-maxing of skills, I think 5E did too? "trained/untrained" and leave it at that. Yet again, a simple straightforward rule is called complicated and the alternative is: a far more complicated solution like not only re-learning a whole new rules system but convincing everyone else to use a whole new rules system.
What's easier, throw out ALL the pathfinder material and familiarity they have or a one sentence homebrew errata?
SO:
1 new rule vs an entire bible of new rules
"Because sure, having more charisma doesn't really in itself make you better at jumping... But you could see it the other way too, your athletic skills could be a component of your charisma. If you train in jumping to show off, then yea, your charisma can be tied to your jumping skills. It won't in itself make you better at jumping than anyone else who trained just as much and has equal or better strength, though."
This is yet another huge misapprehension that charisma is physical attractiveness.
Listen to footballers speak, compared to a particularly manipulative politician or lawyer who may be physically inadequate in every possible way. That's Charisma, it's not what you've got it's how you use it. Trees may be beautiful but by definition they have zero charisma.
But wisdom. It is WISE to dedicate yourself to having a wider breadth and depth of skills, not all fighters are skilled... but a Wise Fighter, they would be more skilled. A cloak of intelligence tells you the answers in a test, a cloak of wisdom tells you to study for a test.
"As for your claim that summing all of their modifiers would actually grant them less skill points... what kind of characters does your group create...? Fighters with 7 int, 7 wis, and 7 cha?"
Obviously not Wis 7. Int and Cha are 7 because Wis needs to be as high as DexMod. Because Fighter's Reflex and Will saves are not accelerated and they BOTH need to be high so generally dex and wis are pumped up. Charisma and Int cannot compete. Wisdom for things like perception, that make such a huge difference on whether they act in the surprise round or not.
"Please, if their characters' combined int, wis, and cha modifiers are lower than their int modifiers, they reek of cheese. And the solution to cheese isn't changing the rules..."
No, it's just int and cha combine wipe out Wis-mod. Also it's needlessly complicated and has too many dependant factors.
PS: cheese is a meaningless pejorative, it has zero discussion value. It is impossible to discuss a matter that is framed in a way that is purposefully and designed to shut down discussion.
I'm calling you out Goblin_Priest, you and everyone who use "cheese" use words that you know can be refuted if you are wrong.
Every-time you say cheese, the only possible conclusion from that is you have no reason why it's a problem.
"And if your beef doesn't even have to do with dump stats, but are all about martials getting less skill points per level... homebrew it? Give them more skill points per level?"
I am homebrewing it, this is the most straightforward rule to give them more Skill Ranks per level. Instead of going through every class and making sure everyone has properly applied the change to each class.
Since this is a suggestion thread I will throw an idea I was working on for my AD&D True 3rd ed as an anti-dump stat system, and focusing of giving everyone a little more points for what they needed and a slight dip in areas not focused on with their core class
Everyone gets at least 1 point in each at level 1:
Body (modified by Str, Dex or Con) (physical training based, strength based, coordination/agility based and endurance based)
Awareness (modified by Wis) (perception or willpower based, connectivity to nature - so Know: Nature & Religion)
Personal (modified Cha) (appeal and interaction based, Know: Local)
Academics (modified by Int) (research and hard knowledge based skills - all the remaining ones not taken by Awareness or Personal)
The overlap on Body modifiers was deliberate, covering front line and secondary martial characters.
So a level 1 Fighter would have something like this in base starting points:
Body: 2
Awareness: 1
Personal: 2
Academics: 1
Humans would get to add one point per level anywhere.
This of course raises the high average for most classes when you total up each area with their respective modifier bonuses, but it also breaks down where you can allocate your points and what skills you can use them on.
Being AD&D I was experimenting with alternating point allocations, 2nd level Fighter, 0 Awareness & Academics, etc.
I jettisoned the system when I gave up on revising 3rd ed.
My idea was to have three separate lists of skill with separate skill points, based on different attributes.
Con would give you skill points to use on all Str, Dex and Con-based skills (except Disable Device) plus Perception and Survival.
Int would give you skill points to be spent on all Int and Wis-based skills (except Perception, Survival and Sense Motive) and UMD.
Cha would give you skill points for Sense Motive and all Cha-based skills (except UMD).
No matter your attribute, you get at least 1 skill point in each category. The exception being mindless creatures, who get no Int-based skill points.
Skill points from other sources (race, feat, FCB, etc) can be used in any category.
I just couldn't figure out a proper number of skill points... Characters ended up with either too many or too few. :/
Lemmy wrote: My idea was to have three separate lists of skill with separate skill points, based on different attributes.
Con would give you skill points to use on all Str, Dex and Con-based skills (except Disable Device) plus Perception and Survival.
Int would give you skill points to be spent on all Int and Wis-based skills (except Perception, Survival and Sense Motive) and UMD.
Cha would give you skill points for Sense Motive and all Cha-based skills (except UMD).
Skill points from other sources (race, feat, FCB, etc) can h used in any category.
I just couldn't figure out a proper number of skill points... Characters ended up with either too many or too few. :/
Ooo, how'd you come up with aligning Con and Perception?
Rysky wrote: Ooo, how'd you come up with aligning Con and Perception? Con-based skill points are for things you learn by going outside and training. I expect people who go out and make exercises to be better at scouting and following tracks.
I also wanted mindless creatures to be able to have ranks in Perception (see the EDITing of my last post). Although I suppose it could be based on Int and mindless creatures still get that one minimum skill point.
Lemmy wrote: Rysky wrote: Ooo, how'd you come up with aligning Con and Perception? Con-based skill points are for things you learn by going outside and training. I expect people who go out and make exercises to be better at scouting and following tracks.
I also wanted mindless creatures to be able to have ranks in Perception (see the EDITing of my last post). Although I suppose it could be based on Int and mindless creatures still get that one minimum skill point. I would like my homunculus to see things, though
Lemmy wrote: Rysky wrote: Ooo, how'd you come up with aligning Con and Perception? Con-based skill points are for things you learn by going outside and training. I expect people who go out and make exercises to be better at scouting and following tracks.
I also wanted mindless creatures to be able to have ranks in Perception (see the EDITing of my last post). Although I suppose it could be based on Int and mindless creatures still get that one minimum skill point. Ah, interesting points.
The Sideromancer wrote: Lemmy wrote: Rysky wrote: Ooo, how'd you come up with aligning Con and Perception? Con-based skill points are for things you learn by going outside and training. I expect people who go out and make exercises to be better at scouting and following tracks.
I also wanted mindless creatures to be able to have ranks in Perception (see the EDITing of my last post). Although I suppose it could be based on Int and mindless creatures still get that one minimum skill point. I would like my homunculus to see things, though Go to Wisdom for them and Undead?
Sissyl wrote: The way I see it, wizards need a number of skills. Knowledge arcana, Spellcraft, Knowledge planes, Fly, Linguistics at least. These are all things people rightfully expect a wizard to be good at, or things they need to function. That is five skills. With 2+Int mod per level, that is more or less all their points. I don't really see the big fuss about how they have skill points to spare. Sure, at higher levels, it gets easier, but at low levels, where skills are most useful, it isn't all that generous. Note also that the guy who spent a decade learning all sorts of things and being cooped up in a library gets only 2+Int mod per level "because he is so smart". Let's address this in more detail.
Background Skills variant rules will likely be used which covers for Linguistics and Knowledge engineering/geography/history/nobility. Though Wizard can actually leave Linguistics alone and just have a few scrolls of comprehend language. Though linguistics is most useful for EVERYONE in a party, particularly to learn a common language that others are unlikely to know.
Spellcraft generally needs to be topped up every other level to keep up with how spell level generally increases every other level and has huge overlap with Knowledge Arcana. Knowledge Planes will probably do fine untrained (able to know the names of the planes) till the super high levels (where you might go to other planes and it' ever useful to know what plane other creatures came from). Spellcraft does not need to be high to fulfil the pre-requisites such as learning a spell from a scroll to put it in your spellbook, it's DC15 + spell level, so dropping one rank in there so even if you've only got int 17 then you can copy scrolls with spell levels 2 by just taking a 10. If you increase your Int to just 18 then you can with only ONE RANK in spellcraft take a ten for:
Spellcraft check = 10 (take a ten as not rushed) + 4(int) +1(rank) +3(class skill) = 18 = DC15 + spell level (3)
So it's not until you get to wizard level 7 that you actually need to put even a single more rank into spellcraft and then again every odd level to still be able to transfer spells to your spellbook. Won't be relevant till Wizard 9 if you have Int20.
The cantrip "Read Magic" covers deciphering scrolls, which you can also just have as a scroll.
Fly ranks only seem relevant in one place and that is for Air Step as getting 5 ranks hugely increases the versatility of the spell so you can move over water as if it was land. Extremely useful and something I'd love to allow my Wizards to do and Skill ranks = 2 + wis they are still more than capable of doing that. I'd expect them to actually get air step at around level 5 (rather than ASAP at level 3). As for the spell Fly, the spell itself gives such great bonuses and along with how they usually buff dex they are totally set from level 5 pumping fly up to 5 ranks and probably not needing to put any more ranks into it.
"With 2+Int mod per level, that is more or less all their points."
Only if they are trying to max out all of them as soon as possible which is completely unnecessary, it doesn't even benefit them.
They don't need to put any ranks in fly till they have anything which lets them do anything to do with the fly skill! So around level 4 they can use Air step fairly well over water and by level 5 they have a truly liberating ability to continuously move over land and water for only the costs of a 75gp scroll.
They don't need to maximise Stealth skill not with how easily they can turn invisible.
Wizards more than contribute to the party's perception needs without simply putting ranks into perception but by spells like Dancing Lights. Oh. My. God. What a fantastically good spell, it seems like nothing at first till you really start to break down the realities of perception challenges in a dark environment. Even when you have Sunrods, even when you have Darkvision. Darkvision is nice, 60ft can see as well as you'd need to see in all darkness but the range is 60ft and if anyone in the party doesn't have darkvision then it's going to be totally undermined by the need for them to have illumination. So something like a torch or a sunrod, except a torch or a sunrod does far more to illuminate yourself than those further away.
This is where dancing lights is amazing and why caster classes are so valuable, as a cantrip although it has a 1 minute duration it can be kept up indefinitely and most vitally, it can keep the illumination where you want it, way WAY ahead of you in the pitch black dungeon, mines, cave system or windowless castle. And because it's 4 torch-equivalent lights and the dim light or torches stack with other torches only up to normal light it bathes an 50ft diameter area in normal light.
Ride is fine even with zero ranks just from dex bonus and military saddle. Swim is covered by Air Step if you have the time to whoop the scroll out. Probably don't need to bother with Intimidate or Diplomacy or Bluff with the spells that they have. Appraise and Craft are under Background Skills so quite protected.
Yeah, sure. There are other ways to do what you need skills for. Who needs Perception, when you can just cast Alarm to cover every new area you move into. Yes, short adventuring day, but hey, you could get further if you have a wand of Alarm! Voila! No more need for Perception. By the same token, sure, there are other ways to do things, but you didn't even consider what I wrote. For example, take your wizard with one (1) rank in Spellcraft. Faced with an opponent casting a spell, that is DC 15+spell level on 1d20+7 to identify. I suppose you could ask the enemy to calm down so as not to stress you. Similarly, if you intend to give commands to summoned creatures, taking the time to first dig out a scroll, then reading it, and it has to be tongues and not comprehend languages, well, that isn't going to be very useful. Also, knowing just the names of the planes your outsider enemies come from is another recipe for being called a useless wizard. I suppose you can always sulk and quit playing if the evil GM puts you up against Outsiders before "super high levels where it is ever useful to know which plane creatures come from" As for Fly, you are going to need the points there if you want to, say, hover in midair. In short, your so-called solutions don't help. And hey, why does the rogue get more than 2+Int mod? He just needs to get UMD, and use scrolls for invisibility, spider climb, etc etc etc.
Rysky wrote: The Sideromancer wrote: Lemmy wrote: Rysky wrote: Ooo, how'd you come up with aligning Con and Perception? Con-based skill points are for things you learn by going outside and training. I expect people who go out and make exercises to be better at scouting and following tracks.
I also wanted mindless creatures to be able to have ranks in Perception (see the EDITing of my last post). Although I suppose it could be based on Int and mindless creatures still get that one minimum skill point. I would like my homunculus to see things, though Go to Wisdom for them and Undead? Don't undead use Cha for anything based on Con, anyway?
But there's still the issue of constructs... I suppose they could use Wis or Int instead. I kinda like Int more, as that represents their "programming" better, but I could go either way.
There are two different possibilities, depending on how complex and how many skill points you want your characters to have:
1- A "null" attribute counts as 0 for the purpose of defining how many skill points you get (you still get a minimum of 1, as usual).
2- If you don't have Con or Cha (is there even any creature without a Cha modifier?), it skills based on the missing attribute default to Int. If you don't have Int, Int-based skills (including those gained from not having another attribute) default to Wis (maybe Cha, for undead. But I think Wis is better).
No. All creatures have Wis and Cha. Otherwise, they are objects.
Linguistics is underrated...
1- Being able to communicate with any creature without spending spell slots is nice.
2- Using someone's native's language sends a good message to the listener (you could reasonably expect a bonus to Diplomacy checks if you speak in the native language of someone who doesn't expect you to do it. I'd be willing to give the players a +2 to their Diplomacy/Bluff check if they speak Orc language without the aid of magic when negotiating with the warlord of the neighboring Orc tribe).
3- More distrustful NPCs may not like having you casting spell around them. And not all NPCs can identify the spell as "Tongues" to be sure it's harmless. Some of them don't even trust magic in general.
4- Being able to create/detect forgeries is awesome! It can give you a really good bonus to Bluff checks. How many guards have enough skill ranks in Linguistics to notice your invitation to the Baron's party is a fake?
It's one of those skills that need creativity to make useful, but when you do it, it's surprisingly good.
Riuken wrote: If the core issue is "I don't like skill imbalance among the classes", then just pick a number of skill ranks per level, say 4, and every character gets that many, regardless of class or stats. I know many folks don't like rogues here, but is it really necessary to strip them of one of the things they do excel at, being the skill monkey?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: Riuken wrote: If the core issue is "I don't like skill imbalance among the classes", then just pick a number of skill ranks per level, say 4, and every character gets that many, regardless of class or stats. I know many folks don't like rogues here, but is it really necessary to strip them of one of the things they do excel at, being the skill monkey? Very few people dislike Rogues... In fact, they are one of the most popular character concepts. People are just disappointed with the mechanics of the class... although Unchained did help them a great deal.
But putting that aside. I agree that skilled classes should keep their advantage on skills. That's a part of class balance and distinction.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote: Riuken wrote: If the core issue is "I don't like skill imbalance among the classes", then just pick a number of skill ranks per level, say 4, and every character gets that many, regardless of class or stats. I know many folks don't like rogues here, but is it really necessary to strip them of one of the things they do excel at, being the skill monkey? I wouldn't actually do this. This is an example I am presenting to the OP of a simpler way to achieve what I believe to be his goal, instead of arbitrarily shifting the attributes that affect skill ranks. I prefaced it with "If the core issue is 'I don't like skill imbalance among the classes'", which is where this suggestion comes from. I believe rogues should have more skills, and int-based characters as well, but that doesn't seem to be his perception. He wants his fighters to have more skill points than wizards, without trying.
Sissyl wrote: Yeah, sure. There are other ways to do what you need skills for. Who needs Perception, when you can just cast Alarm to cover every new area you move into. Yes, short adventuring day, but hey, you could get further if you have a wand of Alarm! Voila! No more need for Perception. By the same token, sure, there are other ways to do things, but you didn't even consider what I wrote. For example, take your wizard with one (1) rank in Spellcraft. Faced with an opponent casting a spell, that is DC 15+spell level on 1d20+7 to identify. I suppose you could ask the enemy to calm down so as not to stress you. Similarly, if you intend to give commands to summoned creatures, taking the time to first dig out a scroll, then reading it, and it has to be tongues and not comprehend languages, well, that isn't going to be very useful. Also, knowing just the names of the planes your outsider enemies come from is another recipe for being called a useless wizard. I suppose you can always sulk and quit playing if the evil GM puts you up against Outsiders before "super high levels where it is ever useful to know which plane creatures come from" As for Fly, you are going to need the points there if you want to, say, hover in midair. In short, your so-called solutions don't help. And hey, why does the rogue get more than 2+Int mod? He just needs to get UMD, and use scrolls for invisibility, spider climb, etc etc etc. What? Is this in reply to my comment? It doesn't seem to relate to anything I said.
Why are you talking about spamming 1st levels spells like Alarm when and not Cantrips like Dancing lights? I shouldn't have to explain this but when they are bathed in normal light then they cannot use darkness for concealment, they cannot stealth. It is a DC0 perception check to notice a visible creature. Even at maximum range of 100ft the perception modifier only bumps it up to a DC10 which you can still make by taking a ten which you can do out of combat. If you perceive them, and they don't perceive you, you can get a surprise round in on them. That will start initiative and they may still have no idea where you are.
But since you brought up Alarm, you won't need a 750gp wand, you just need to scribe a few scrolls for 12.5gp that will be more than enough for a few choke-points where you know pursuers will likely pass through.
"For example, take your wizard with one (1) rank in Spellcraft. Faced with an opponent casting a spell, that is DC 15+spell level on 1d20+7 to identify"
I didn't cover that because it's a check that is almost totally worthless even if you did make the check.
It's only ever useful for a particular form of Counterspell, a targeted counterspell, which is ridiculously unlikely to work.
(1) You have to be ahead of them in initiative in order to Ready Action Counterspell
(2) You have to actually think it would be better to counterspell than just cast one of your offensive spells or if they aren't visible yet, ready a spell which directly damages the caster you are up against
(3) You have to make the Spellcraft check which includes ALL the penalties that modify perception
(4) Once you have identified their spell, you must actually have either that spell or one of the diametrically opposing spells, with all the possible spells in pathfinder this is more than just a low probability, it is an UNKNOWN probability
And after ALL THAT it's just status quo. Now if you'd hit them with a directly attacking spell, that would have disrupted their spell or made it definitively impossible to cast such as by making them nauseated. It will at least have damaged them.
But okay, let say you REALLY wanted to counterspell for whatever reason. Just counterspell with Dispel Magic.
As a GM, I'd WAY prefer you to do that, as it's really damn straightforward, rather than you pouring over your spellbook trying to know if you can spontaneously cast through your bonded item any equal spell or equivalent counter. Plus all the variables on a spellcraft check you'd struggle so much to beat compared to the Dispel Check (1d20 + Caster level + 1 from Cold-Iron or Mhyrr) vs DC11 + Caster Level).
And you'd going to be better off with Dispel Magic as if you didn't end up ahead of them in the initiative order then you can use dispel magic on whatever ongoing magical effects the spell cast has made.
Counterspelling by spellcraft to have juuuust the right spell has so many problems.
Lets just say you maxed out ranks in spellcraft at level 5 and had Int20 (very favourable) for a +13 and you've got to beat a DC15 + spell level except it's not going to be very close, it's going to be around 60ft away so out of easy charging range so +6 to the DC. Also it's unfavourable conditions because it's combat to a further +2 to the DC. So you've got to beat a DC26 with a +13 bonus. Against a level 3 spell you've got a 60% failure chance! That's even if you had the right spell.
Now the exact same scenario, only with dispel magic, it doesn't matter what spells you have if they are CL5 and you are also CL5 (the right sort of 3rd level spells) you only need to roll a 10 on dispel check you're now onto a 55% success rate! And this increases by another 5% every time you level up automatically. With spellcraft you have to keep pouring skill ranks into it.
"Similarly, if you intend to give commands to summoned creatures, taking the time to first dig out a scroll, then reading it, and it has to be tongues and not comprehend languages, well, that isn't going to be very useful."
yet earlier you said:
"you didn't even consider what I wrote"
Well, linguistics is a protected skill under Background Skills, which is what I wrote earlier and you didn't consider.
Though you're still fighting an uphill battle as you're STILL limited by 1 rank in linguistics per level yet even for the summoned monsters which can understand any language there is such a disparate range of languages. I'd imagine most GMs would allow you to direct them like you'd direct a companion to do any of the tricks under Handle Animal skill but you wouldn't need a check, it would just be a free action that cuts into your two sentences per round.
Even without any of that, summoned creatures will still appear exactly where you direct them and they'll attack an enemy of yours to the best of their ability. It's not like you NEED tongues.
"Also, knowing just the names of the planes your outsider enemies come from is another recipe for being called a useless wizard."
Wait, is this about the Monster Lore check.
Well if goblinoids are a DC = 5 + CR then so are the likes of trolls, so it's a DC10 for Trolls, pick up one of the dungeon guides and take a 10 to find out Troll have regeneration vulnerable to fire/acid. Ditto for knowing Cyclops can auto-hit.
Frankly I usually don't leave this up to wizard's knowledge rolls as some wizards are total jerks and refuse to do the knowledge checks, or they make the checks and get unlucky. Yet the players have fought these same creatures before but with different characters and know their weaknesses, thought somehow have to play dumb to them. I'd much rather have ROLE play than ROLL play, that players can learn about more unusual creature's strengths and weaknesses through non-combat interaction, they might actually talk to some of the NPCs and it'll come up why they might want some silver weapon blanch or arrows with Primal Iron arrowheads.
But I have to say you're being quite unfair to the point of manipulative to over state a wizard not being amazing at EVERY knowledge check as worthy of being called useless.
"As for Fly, you are going to need the points there if you want to, say, hover in midair."
Oh really?
1 (natural 1 on fly check) +5 (ranks) +3(class skill) +2(half of caster level) +4(from the spell granting "good manoeuvrability") +4 (dexMod)
= 19
Hover only needs a fly check of DC15 and normally a natural 1 isn't an auto fail for skill checks, even if it was, no amount of ranks could save you.
In fact with just 5 ranks and a moderate Dex score you can ALWAYS be able to hover even in the worst conditions, even in "severe" winds of up to 50mph! They could still hover!
"In short, your so-called solutions don't help. "
In short is the right way of putting it.
you didn't do the math
Why not add Int to Wis, divide by 2, and find the modifier from the result and use that? Int is academic knowledge while Wis is practical knowledge. Thus way they both come to bear on the subject.
No, it was a suggestion for a way nobody would ever need Perception when they can spam spells instead that was about as helpful as your suggestions earlier. I.e. Not very. It costs lots and it is far more complicated than GETTING THE SKILL. Suggesting that nobody needs skills because hey, magic items, spells and other stuff is better anyway is disingenious at best.
It is noted that you don't like counterspelling. And that you find dancing lights so good that yet again, nobody needs skills. Your preferences are not really relevant in this discussion. There are other reasons you might like to know what spell is coming. You could have a choice between interrupting two different casters, for example. You could know that your pal is acting strangely because a caster just cast dominate person. And so on.
To do useful things with summons, you need to communicate with the creatures. It is not necessarily just a charge you want from them. Many of the creatures require different languages, and limiting yourself to those that understand all languages is needlessly limiting. Depending on houserules is not a good way to argue either.
You said it best yourself: "Some wizards are total jerks and refuse to do the knowledge checks". How you reconcile this with "But I have to say you're being quite unfair to the point of manipulative to over state a wizard not being amazing at EVERY knowledge check as worthy of being called useless." is beyond me, but I couldn't have said it better. It is also, again, useless to argue that you prefer not to use the monster knowledge checks and usually sidestep them.
Ah, next up is your detailing of bonuses to flying. It would perhaps interest you to know that the maneuverability bonus of +4 only applies to creatures with a NATURAL fly speed. You also add in an 18 Dex. Without those, you have a different situation. No ranks would put you at +2 on the d20 to beat 15. With the ranks, you have a +10. Enough to beat the DC most of the time and be assured you will not fall, something that will happen to the guy without ranks with rolls of 8 or below. Ergo, PUTTING IN THE RANKS JUST BECAME PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT, wouldn't you say?
I am not the one who didn't do the maths.
I've always wanted to try some variation of this houserule by mdt, but have never really had the chance:
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.
Riuken wrote:
I wouldn't actually do this. This is an example I am presenting to the OP of a simpler way to achieve what I believe to be his goal, instead of arbitrarily shifting the attributes that affect skill ranks. I prefaced it with "If the core issue is 'I don't like skill imbalance among the classes'", which is where this suggestion comes from. I believe rogues should have more skills, and int-based characters as well, but that doesn't seem to be his perception. He wants his fighters to have more skill points than wizards, without trying.
Well from my point of your it is YOU who is arbitrarily shifting attributes that affect skill ranks, you're going half as far as me in how it isn't int-based but setting it as an arbitrary 4 skill points base for everyone.
To clarify, while skill imbalance is the concern it is not an ABSOLUTE, it is not that there should be exact parity, that's the really important distinction. Classes are not going to be the same, they shouldn't be, there should be a certain dynamic variance but neither to one extreme (everyone only gets 4) nor the opposite extreme (those who most need skill ranks cannot effectively get them, and those who don't need them have so many).
No extremes.
"He wants his fighters to have more skill points than wizards, without trying."
It's not a matter of "try", you can't just clench your teeth harder to make the numbers add up differently, they simply won't.
it's no damn good telling Fighter to use the same point buy as a Wizard when you have to be able to see that's worse than a zero sum game.
Lemmy wrote: Rysky wrote: The Sideromancer wrote: Lemmy wrote: Rysky wrote: Ooo, how'd you come up with aligning Con and Perception? Con-based skill points are for things you learn by going outside and training. I expect people who go out and make exercises to be better at scouting and following tracks.
I also wanted mindless creatures to be able to have ranks in Perception (see the EDITing of my last post). Although I suppose it could be based on Int and mindless creatures still get that one minimum skill point. I would like my homunculus to see things, though Go to Wisdom for them and Undead? Don't undead use Cha for anything based on Con, anyway?
But there's still the issue of constructs... I suppose they could use Wis or Int instead. I kinda like Int more, as that represents their "programming" better, but I could go either way.
There are two different possibilities, depending on how complex and how many skill points you want your characters to have:
1- A "null" attribute counts as 0 for the purpose of defining how many skill points you get (you still get a minimum of 1, as usual).
2- If you don't have Con or Cha (is there even any creature without a Cha modifier?), it skills based on the missing attribute default to Int. If you don't have Int, Int-based skills (including those gained from not having another attribute) default to Wis (maybe Cha, for undead. But I think Wis is better).
Yeah, my bad, was thinking of Mindless creatures.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: Riuken wrote:
I wouldn't actually do this. This is an example I am presenting to the OP of a simpler way to achieve what I believe to be his goal, instead of arbitrarily shifting the attributes that affect skill ranks. I prefaced it with "If the core issue is 'I don't like skill imbalance among the classes'", which is where this suggestion comes from. I believe rogues should have more skills, and int-based characters as well, but that doesn't seem to be his perception. He wants his fighters to have more skill points than wizards, without trying.
Well from my point of your it is YOU who is arbitrarily shifting attributes that affect skill ranks, you're going half as far as me in how it isn't int-based but setting it as an arbitrary 4 skill points base for everyone.
To clarify, while skill imbalance is the concern it is not an ABSOLUTE, it is not that there should be exact parity, that's the really important distinction. Classes are not going to be the same, they shouldn't be, there should be a certain dynamic variance but neither to one extreme (everyone only gets 4) nor the opposite extreme (those who most need skill ranks cannot effectively get them, and those who don't need them have so many).
No extremes.
"He wants his fighters to have more skill points than wizards, without trying."
It's not a matter of "try", you can't just clench your teeth harder to make the numbers add up differently, they simply won't.
it's no damn good telling Fighter to use the same point buy as a Wizard when you have to be able to see that's worse than a zero sum game. First, you will have to define the skill point "need" basis for each class. As far as I can tell, and it seems some other posters here agree, wizards do, in fact, need more skills than most, as they are expected to keep a fair number of knowledges high, as well as spellcraft and linguistics. A fighter needs, what, acrobatics, climb, and swim? Maybe a knowledge or survival if they're feeling like being a skill guy for the group. There's not much that's really expected of them.
When I say try, I mean actually increasing Int to a 12 minimum (come on, it's 2 point-buy), considering human as a race, considering some archetypes that increase it, and actually putting your FCB into it. There is a difference between "my 7 int orc fighter has no skills" and "I made a 12 Int human lore warden with FCB in skills, but I still feel like it isn't enough".
4 base for everyone is an example. I further suggest a clean plus/minus 1 skill point based on Int benchmarks. Some classes (rogue) could add 1 more due to a class focus on skills. The point is to first level the field, then rebalance to what you want.
Sissyl wrote: No, it was a suggestion for a way nobody would ever need Perception when they can spam spells instead that was about as helpful as your suggestions earlier. I.e. Not very. It costs lots and it is far more complicated than GETTING THE SKILL. No it doesn't cost a lot, Dancing Lights a cantrip, it has infinite uses. And it can tell you exactly where an enemy is and move with you, being used continuously through a dungeon.
Alarm is going to use up a 750gp wand in about an hour as you try to cast it every 40ft and doesn't actually help you get in a surprise round on them as it's no good simply to know that a creature of size tiny or larger is within any of the many 20ft radius areas you cast Alarm. You need to actually succeed perception checks to identify them and where they are to get a surprise round on them.
It seems you don't care about any of this.
These vital details you repeatedly reject only focusing on how Alarm and Dancing Lights are both spells to help notice the enemy but not the critical details.
"Suggesting that nobody needs skills because hey, magic items, spells and other stuff is better anyway is disingenious at best."
I didn't say that.
I said you don't need that many skill ranks and you should know it.
Perhaps that's why you are making things up about what I said?
"It is noted that you don't like counterspelling."
This isn't personal, all of the reasons I outlined are objective reasons.
"And that you find dancing lights so good that yet again, nobody needs skills."
You should know damn well that's not what I said. Or did you somehow miss something as fundamental as the futility of trying to lean on perception skill when peering into pitch darkness? I shouldn't have to spell that out. Or how you only need to take-a-10 when you take away their cover of darkness.
"Your preferences are not really relevant in this discussion."
EXACTLY.
I didn't bring them up. You did. I gave objective reasons not based on personal preferences and YOU started imagining what my preferences are.
"There are other reasons you might like to know what spell is coming. You could have a choice between interrupting two different casters, for example. You could know that your pal is acting strangely because a caster just cast dominate person. And so on."
Uhh, spellcraft isn't for that. Spellcraft is to identify a spell AS IT IS BEING CAST, to identify a spell after it has been cast is common sense, it's something the GM will just tell you if you can see it at all. If a spell creates a 10ft radius of glittering particles which blinds many of the people caught in the area and may highlight the invisible if you can't instantly recognise that as Glitterdust you can just ask the GM and they should tell you.
Some spells are specifically obfuscated and have specific ways of identifying them, for example glamer and illusions are very specific on when they allow a save and what sort of save, usually a will save. This is not something that Wizard has a monopoly over. And the same for the likes of Dominate Person, that's a DC15 sense motive, that's not a bad roll even without bonuses and you can get the whole party in on it.
"To do useful things with summons, you need to communicate with the creatures. It is not necessarily just a charge you want from them. Many of the creatures require different languages, and limiting yourself to those that understand all languages is needlessly limiting. Depending on houserules is not a good way to argue either."
And as I said, it's protected under Background Skills.
Next.
"You said it best yourself: "Some wizards are total jerks and refuse to do the knowledge checks". How you reconcile this with "But I have to say you're being quite unfair to the point of manipulative to over state a wizard not being amazing at EVERY knowledge check as worthy of being called useless." is beyond me, but I couldn't have said it better."
There's a difference between refusing to do the check and being unable to. And they are unable to even with ranks because they didn't happen to put them in the right place or got bad rolls.
"It is also, again, useless to argue that you prefer not to use the monster knowledge checks and usually sidestep them."
It may be a preference but it's quite a reasonable, what with it being a ROLE playing game, that more things come out in roleplay interactions than flat exposition from the GM predicated on the capriciousness of the D20.
"Ah, next up is your detailing of bonuses to flying. It would perhaps interest you to know that the maneuverability bonus of +4 only applies to creatures with a NATURAL fly speed. You also add in an 18 Dex. Without those, you have a different situation."
No it wouldn't, even on Dex 16 by level 5 and even with an extremely unfavourable ruling that the spell Fly would bother mentioning the "maneuverability is good" if it was completely worthless... it is almost exactly the same, they only need a 2 or higher to maintain a hover. By only Caster level 6 they cannot fail a hover check. For 5th level they can either move at least 30ft per round (not a bad idea) or move less than 30ft to need only a DC10 fly check. They only have to suffer this terribly till level 6 where their caster level bumps their bonus up enough that they can NEVER fail a hover check.
"No ranks would put you at +2 on the d20 to beat 15. With the ranks, you have a +10. Enough to beat the DC most of the time and be assured you will not fall, something that will happen to the guy without ranks with rolls of 8 or below. Ergo, PUTTING IN THE RANKS JUST BECAME PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT, wouldn't you say?
I am not the one who didn't do the maths."
Yes you are, how the hell does a 5th level wizard only have a DexMod of only +2? Why are you even contemplating putting no ranks in there when iwas very explicit that 5 ranks was all you could possibly need? Not that no ranks were needed! Why are you ignoring the bonus to fly equal to half the caster level? Why are you ignoring the bonus from Fly being a Wizard class skill?
How the hell is 8 + 10 less than 15?!!?!? Because that's what you said:
"With the ranks, you have a +10. Enough to beat the DC most of the time and be assured you will not fall, something that will happen to the guy without ranks with rolls of 8 or below."
Or did you forget we're talking about a DC15 fly check? Actually, don't answer this, your conclusion it's a +10 with ranks is wrong anyway.
Remember, even by the most unfavourable circumstance of only DexMod +3 and not allowing Good Manoeuvrability to count for anything (which is a BS ruling if you ask me) they still only need to get a 2 or higher, when:
(1) They are below Caster Level 6 (they can only get the spell at CL5)
(2) When they literally won't move even 5ft, that's all they need as that's "less than half speed" to make a DC10 fly check
(3) anything else gives them any bonus to skill checks such as fly
You didn't do the math. I did. Then you rejected it and pulled numbers out of nowhere and combined them in incomprehensible ways.
All this to make it seem like Wizard NEEDs vast the overflowing skill ranks when it doesn't, Wizard got them seemingly by accident.
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: That's circular reasoning, it's like saying if a man doesn't pay for a car he chooses not to have a car.
Non-int based classes like Fighter don't take int not because they think it's a great option they don't have the skill points, it's just that they need the points to go into the areas that save them from devastating attacks.
People are NOT going to waste Point Buy 20 on a paltry improvement to Skill Ranks but buff their stats which stop them dying and which they use far more often. Dex and Wis.
Ah, here's your problem. False statments and cheesing players (or are they just playing your game?). You do know that it is you, as the DM, who controll these things, right? If they seriously NEED to dump Int to survive in your game, you are the cause of it. I'm not saying that it's wrong, I'm saying that this is the result of it.
It's not at all like a man who can't afford a car. It's a man that owns a car, a house, a boat and a pool. And he sells his pool to afford a bigger car, a bigger house and a bigger boat. Now he complains that he only has a bathtub.
JosMartigan wrote: Why not add Int to Wis, divide by 2, and find the modifier from the result and use that? Int is academic knowledge while Wis is practical knowledge. Thus way they both come to bear on the subject. Nice idea, if you also make will saves based on charisma and give fighters extra skill points then I am sold.
All the OP's perceived problems with his players and their resulting playstyle are entirely his doing. He broke his campaign by altering key assumptions of the game without bothering to consider the implications such changes would naturally bring.
This (as well as the Dual Talent human "issue" in his other thread that no one else has seen in any of their games) problem is entirely due to the combination of 10 point buy characters coupled with permadeath.
Rather than backing away from these changes (which would fix all these issues), the OP is trying to houserule in even more heavy-handed changes to try and fix what he broke.
Riuken wrote: First, you will have to define the skill point "need" basis for each class. As far as I can tell, and it seems some other posters here agree, wizards do, in fact, need more skills than most, If you are referring to Sissyl I have answers for literally every single sentence they said, their math literally does not add up.
"as they are expected to keep a fair number of knowledges high"
Actually people except ROLE PLAY in a ROLE PLAYING game, they don't expect the flat exposition of everyone waiting on the wizard's whim to take knowledge rolls in their own sweet damn time (if ever) only to be rewarded with GM left with no choice but to flatly exposit to the wizard's player and only them. And to cap it all off, after the GM has patiently told all this THE WIZARD DOESN'T EVEN SHARE THIS! All he has to say is "I pass this on" but he won't. The number of times I've seen a wizard ignore or change the subject when another player asks what they know (from their knowledge check) only to much later second guess their decision as "I never told you that" MAXIMUM OVER RUSTLE!!!
Even then, how much do they need?
One rank in knowledge arcana can give them a bonus as high as +9 to +10. They can take-a-10 and reliably identify magic auras in Detect Magic.
"as well as spellcraft"
A single rank fulfils almost all possible needs and they don't need to put the ranks in right away.
"and linguistics"
Protected under Background Skills.
"A fighter needs, what, acrobatics, climb, and swim? Maybe a knowledge or survival if they're feeling like being a skill guy for the group. There's not much that's really expected of them."
There's only one reason not much is expected of them: there's not much they can do! Because they don't have the skill ranks! We're back around on the circular reasoning, classes without many skill ranks don't have skill ranks so they shouldn't have skill ranks!
The DCs they have to beat go up continuously, for example
-Acrobatics to jump over things they cannot walk over such as holes, difficult terrain and traps. They rarely have much in the way of dex to make even a single rank got far.Acrobatics to move through threatened square; so damn important as it's against their CMD which can become HUGE/ So many things impose falls of up to 20ft onto fighters such as pits and Air Geyser, the fall alone can inflict 2d6 damage and leave them prone but a DC15 climb check can mean they land on their feet taking only 1d6 non-lethal
-Climb checks can get really high especially if you're trying to compete with how a wizard can fly over, well, anything.
-Escape artist is so important for Dex based characters as grappling so so deeply shut them down and so many creatures have grab. You've got to have the ranks to leverage that Dex to wriggle free.
-Alchemical and Wondrous items can make HEAL checks fairly redundant except they can be expensive to use all the time, also there is no cheap way to quickly repair ability damage except through heal unchained which you need a lot of ranks to make viable
-Intimidate isn't so much a thing for Fighters but is a thing for their cousins the Paladins who are similarly extremely short on skill points so that all these intimidate based builds just aren't viable. Shake Morale is only really worth it if you can do it with an attack.
-Perception is a huge one, if you're a reach fighter it's so important you aren't caught out in surprise round and you're the party deflector shield.
-Ride need at least one rank to reliably fight using a mount, don't need any ranks if you just need it for extra mobility
-Sense Motive has such myriad uses, particularity it involves the more wisdom based players into role play. Yes, touch of truthtelling is a nice option but it can't be the go to option to resort to mind-affecting spells with everyone you merely suspect.
-Stealth is of such a huge importance, for everyone, as party can only move as stealthily as their loudest member, and it very often makes more sense to have the fighter scout ahead for their general resistances, were it not for how they usually cannot make stealth work at all.
-Survival is either necessary without Tracking powder, redundant with Perception of tracking powder or if tracking powder and training in perception is combined it can have amazing effects of tracking creatures who would otherwise be impossible to track such as through a dungeon. A
-Swim may or may not be important, depends on environment and whether things like Touch of The Sea are available.
So about 5 really benefit from a rank per level, few more need at least 1 rank to work.
It's not enough to smatter a few skill ranks as you go, too many skills are all about maximising the ranks every level.
"When I say try, I mean actually increasing Int to a 12 minimum"
Going from int 7 that's 6 points that are direly needed elsewhere for an uphill struggle.
The only "try" is to try to convince yourself this isn't a poor investment of points.
"(come on, it's 20 point-buy[you meant 20 right-Alec]), considering human as a race, considering some archetypes that increase it, and actually putting your FCB into it."
Yet again, give up more valuable things for less valuable things.
That's only trying hard to pretend I'm making myself worse off while Wizards don't have to make such a choice, they can always put their FCB into HP, this is putting Wizard at 4.5hp per level and Fighter at 5.5hp per level/
"There is a difference between "my 7 int orc fighter has no skills" and "I made a 12 Int human lore warden with FCB in skills, but I still feel like it isn't enough"."
Oh Lore Warden, the one everyone had heard recommended but why is it almost never heard of, of wait:
Lore Warden wrote:
Lore wardens gain 2 additional skill ranks each level. These ranks must be spent on Intelligence-based skills. All Intelligence-based skills are class skills for lore wardens.
This ability replaces the lore warden’s proficiency with medium armor, heavy armor, and shields.
They also lose all their armour training.
No wonder you feel like it isn't enough, It's a TERRIBLE archetype.
It's unreasonable that an Orc has to have the same intelligence as as a Wizard to be good at climbing, acrobatics and perception.
"4 base for everyone is an example. I further suggest a clean plus/minus 1 skill point based on Int benchmarks. Some classes (rogue) could add 1 more due to a class focus on skills. The point is to first level the field, then rebalance to what you want."
No. That's extra complication for little return clearly to favour casters like Wizard which use Int.
I think it would be more interesting for Wizards to consider occasionally giving up their FCB for a skill point rather than a hit point. Something like at level 5 where they may need that last skill rank to max out fly for Air Step.
Also maybe not neglect Wisdom score quite so much just because they have an awesome will save. It wouldn't even mean dumping their core stat, but something like starting with Int20 and Wis11 and at level 4 put their inherent bonus into wis rather than Int. Wizards shouldn't be 80% as good in HP as a fighter.
It is truly amazing how when you start messing with a system as complex as Pathfinder you can end up breaking it to the point where the only real fix is to undo your own "fixes".
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Once again, all of your argument is centered on "but they need the other stuff more!" That is a direct result of the games you run. In most games I've run, played in, seen run, or even heard about, dropping a fighter's str from 20 to 18 to get 7 more points of point-buy is not crippling. That is enough to get your int from 7 to 12, with another to spare.
RE: lore warden, the difference from heavy armor to light is not typically a big deal, unless the attack bonuses were already higher than expected for opponents. It is an option to increase skill points. You take these options when you are "trying" to get more skill points.
You complain that they don't have enough skill points, then degrade skill points to "why would you trade anything else for them?" If skills are so bad as to be literally the last thing you consider when making a character, maybe they aren't all that necessary after all. It's hard to complain that "that guy has more skill points than me!" when you place no value in them.
TLDR:
"I'm mad that guy has more useless widgets than I do!"
"But they're not worthless."
"I think they are."
"They why do you care that he has more?"
"Because I want more!"
Alex Trebek's Stunt Double wrote: I think it would be more interesting for Wizards to consider occasionally giving up their FCB for a skill point rather than a hit point.
Also maybe not neglect Wisdom score quite so much just because they have an awesome will save. It wouldn't even mean dumping their core stat, but something like starting with Int20 and Wis11 and at level 4 put their inherent bonus into wis rather than Int. Wizards shouldn't be 80% as good in HP as a fighter.
Talk to your players about this.
I've played Wizards that were around 110% "as good in HP" as the party Fighter. Because I invested in Con, Toughness, my FCB and money into it. Why "shouldn't" I be better? When I build my character, I do it expecting it to matter. Just how I don't dump Int with my Monk/Fighter/Bloodrager, because I don't want to play a stupid character with 2 or less skill ranks per level.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Ah, here's your problem. False statments
Accusations of lying but conveniently vague, brilliant way to shut down someone you know it right but want to undermine.
"and cheesing players (or are they just playing your game?)."
And don't forget to throw in meaningless perjoratives. What does cheesing mean? Nothing. It never will mean anything, it's designed to be purposefully vague. Many will come forward with definitions, but agreement, heck no. I don't thing you're saying that for lack of vocabulary but a calculated manipulation.
"You do know that it is you, as the DM, who controll these things, right? If they seriously NEED to dump Int to survive in your game, you are the cause of it."
So you want me to re-write ALL THE WILL SAVES AND REFLEX SAVES IN ALL THE RULE BOOKS?
I'm going to look pretty stupid when they ask what the will save is and it's only DC8. And of course this again favours classes like Wizard, they cannot fail. They don't even have to care. And sorry, it's everywhere, it's endless, I'm going to need to change all dex rolls for initiative checks, stealth rolls vs perception.
"I'm not saying that it's wrong, I'm saying that this is the result of it."
It sure sound like you're saying it's wrong.
"It's not at all like a man who can't afford a car. It's a man that owns a car, a house, a boat and a pool. And he sells his pool to afford a bigger car, a bigger house and a bigger boat. Now he complains that he only has a bathtub. "
Ahh analogy abuse.
this is classic manipulative reasoning, it's highly dishonest and fundamentally works by refusing to follow the normal human societal rules of how analogies work which is to use an example of one thing how IN ONE LIMITED WAY is an example of how something works. The breathtakingly arrogant dishonesty is just to extend the analogy in a way they know is not representative.
It's not "a man that owns a car, a house, a boat and a pool"
It's a man who needs Strength because he can't cast spells which are entirely independent of strength to do damage.
It's a man who needs Wisdom because unlike a Wizard he doesn't have a super high Will save.
You know damn well a Wizard can dump the hell out of those.
And Wizard get SO MUCH from Int.
Gulthor wrote: All the OP's perceived problems with his players and their resulting playstyle are entirely his doing. A purposefully vague attack that cannot be defended or refuted. Designed to shut down discussion.
"He broke his campaign by altering key assumptions of the game without bothering to consider the implications such changes would naturally bring."
More vague attacks, something went wrong... somewhere... somehow...
But never actually saying WHAT. Because there is nothing, there is no reason. You have no explanatory power on your side.
"This (as well as the Dual Talent human "issue" in his other thread that no one else has seen in any of their games) problem is entirely due to the combination of 10 point buy characters coupled with permadeath."
You've either got very bad memory, didn't actually care to read in the first place or are straight up lying. Point buy 10? What an obvious falsehood. It was and still is Standard point buy. And permadeath is also standard, read your rule book when a character is dead, they are dead.
"Rather than backing away from these changes (which would fix all these issues)"
The only "issue" is you being unreasoned in your objections, you are only stating the obvious that if everyone gives into your demands then that issue is wrong
"the OP is trying to houserule in even more heavy-handed changes to try and fix what he broke."
I didn't set the will saves.
I didn't set what was standard point buy.
I didn't set the allocation of skill points.
All I need to do is:
(1) change all the saves for all the save-or-die effects in all pathfinder publications,
(2) somehow change this so that it doesn't make it auto-win for Wizard
(3) change basic arithmetic to change how point buy adds up
Also accept personal responsibility for all the spells, creatures and items that Paizo has made by Pathfinder.
Or you can, you know, just use 20PB and solve all the issues without any ridiculous houserules. Most people outside PFS use 20PB anyway as it's the most comfortable option.
Riuken wrote: Once again, all of your argument is centered on "but they need the other stuff more!" No it isn't. Frankly I take that as really crooked.
You have just taken ALL of my reasoning and summised it as that and now you are just moving on. Well I am not moving on till I let you know I think you are being very disingenuous here. You aren't tackling with my reasoning you are hand waving it to move on with no acknowledgement of it.
"That is a direct result of the games you run."
Yes. Pathfinder.
"In most games I've run, played in, seen run, or even heard about, dropping a fighter's str from 20 to 18 to get 7 more points of point-buy is not crippling."
That is NOT comparable. For one, 18 strength is very ideal level for Fighter, it is efficient with two handed weapons as it leads to 1.5x strength damage which is 6. But Str20 that's +5 strength, x1.5 with two handed weapon that is only 7.5 which must be rounded down. So at Strength 18 your strength is more efficiently applied with two handed weapons. It's not worth it trying to go to Strength 20 for only +1 bonus to hit and damage.
Just like how it's not worth going from int 7 to int 12 for that small number of skill points.
"RE: lore warden, the difference from heavy armor to light is not typically a big deal, unless the attack bonuses were already higher than expected for opponents."
My expectations are not too high, YOURS are far too low.
"It is an option to increase skill points. You take these options when you are "trying" to get more skill points."
Back in circles. Is this a purposeful manipulation, to just go over the same things as if I never said anything in an attempt to make it seem like I didn't say anything?
"You complain that they don't have enough skill points, then degrade skill points to "why would you trade anything else for them?" "
This is a catch 22 and it's so obvious what you are trying to pull.
You aren't actually dealing with my arguments, you are trying to contrive a contradiction of values which does not exist, I've been very clear that skill ranks are important, just not THAT important. The disingenuousness of your little trap is trying to work in absolutes and extremes, everything is either incredibly valuable or if less than anything else then therefore worthless.
No.
Get better bait.
I'm very clear on this that skill points would be nice to make games more varied and more interesting but I cannot nerf the game. Even if I did the players wouldn't believe me.
"If skills are so bad as to be literally the last thing you consider when making a character, maybe they aren't all that necessary after all."
Or maybe that's obviously spurious reasoning.
Because priority os obviously relative, they will need dex all the damn time, Will saves are what save them from absolutely hellishly bad attacks!
"It's hard to complain that "that guy has more skill points than me!" when you place no value in them."
Again, more dishonest reasoning of fear of being hit by Hold Person and Coup De Grace'd proves they NEVER want to be good at acrobatics.
Quote: TLDR:
"I'm mad that guy has more useless widgets than I do!"
"But they're not worthless."
"I think they are."
"They why do you care that he has more?"
"Because I want more!"
TLDR: "I can't actually refute their logic so I'll ignore it make this straw man of them. There! Now I can make this straw man alex say stupid things that aren't related to the reasons he gave. Like I'm going to make him say something really stupid like he thinks skill points are worthless"
"But that's so obviously the exact opposite of everything he has said. He started this thread based on the importance of skill ranks."
"But he said skill points are less valuable... therefore I'll exaggerate it to the point where it doesn't make any sense"
"Then you won't be making any sense"
"NO! The straw man said the nonsense! Not me!"
If skill points are less valuable, but not in a league to be traded for on a favorable scale (str 20->18 for int 7->12), then just give people more, since they aren't a big enough deal to really worry about anyway. You say the game (Pathfinder) is made this way, yet you are proposing a decent sized houserule to change it. You are in control of your game and willing to change it, so change the source of the problem. Lower saves, lower attacks, increase base skill ranks, give more stat points, etc. Change what is making dumping stats so favorable and you will see more balanced characters.
I've thought of trying just giving every character max ranks in every skill except background skills. Your class skill list and bonuses from attributes are what make you better or worse than another character. Might give it a try? This leans more towards a "proficiency/non-proficiency" system based on class skills, which goes over well in several other RPGs.
I'm not trying to attack you, I'm trying to help you. I honestly think if you step back from this issue and address your game as a whole, and what specifically troubles you about how skills are currently handled, you will find a simpler solution to not only this issue, but others as well. I don't fear that with the change you are proposing you won't fix the skill point issue; I fear that it will create a different issue that will require another houserule to fix.
Sometimes something as simple as "core only, no wizards" can fix more than you'd expect.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Locking. This really reads as arguing for the sake of arguing and we really don't need that on our forums.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
