A 10 Int Fighter has exactly the same number of skill points as a 7 Int Fighter with 4+INT. A 12 Int Fighter has exactly the same number of skill points as a 8 Int Fighter with 4+INT. Both are only 4 build points apart in a point buy. Hell, even a 14 Int Fighter is only 5 build points up from a 10 Int Fighter with 4+INT
An extra 5 points in the point buy, or dropping Str from 16 to 14 (compensated by +1 hit +1.5 dam) gives a PC all that and a likely point to spare and both are better methods for extra skills than a flat +2 because they allow the skills to be given to the characters who need it most, i.e. characters who have dumped their Int and get only 1 skill point per level.
A 2+Int class that's pumped Int to 16 has a minimum 5 skill points per level, and shouldn't be hurting for skills in the slightest. Those characters don't need and shouldn't receive extra skill points any more than a Wizard or Bard.
Humans: Improvisation
First of all, with Int13 you are getting 3 skill points per level. And with fast learner, that goes up to 4. Then with improvisation, all untrained skills are at +2 and can be made untrained. That completely gets around not having anything to do. You can even upgrade it to +4.
For elves, dwarves and gnomes: breadth of experience. No Int or feat tax to get it, and it gives +2 to all knowledge skills and +2 to all profession skills. Can make all untrained. So even if you are only getting 1 skill point a level due to Int8, you still get to make all knowledge checks at +1, and you could likely find some use for profession skills with some creativity. If nothing else, profession (perform) does come in handy.
For humans, this "costs" Int 3 (so 3 points) and 2 feats. That is 'ouch', but it isn't a character breaker. Especially as you get this at lvl 1 due to your free feat and lvl1 feat. Play a fighter and you still get power attack! More than you need at lvl 1.
For elves, dwarves, and gnomes, it takes up your lvl 1 feat. That hurts, but again, it doesn't break a character.
And for whichever race you pick, grab the Any Tool. http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/wondrous-items/wondrous-items/r-z/trave ler-s-any-tool
"The any-tool counts as a set of masterwork artisan's tools for most Craft or Profession skills (although very specialist crafts such as alchemy still require their own unique toolset)."
For a mere 250gc, you get a further +2 to all of those profession skills. Assuming that you have Wis10 and get +2 via either of those feats, this doubles your bonus to +4.
Gold very well spent so you can do something outside of combat.
I have to say, after playing a Paladin with 1 skill rank a level, it sucks. The paladin is suppose to be a face with high Cha, but without skills to back it up, the Rogue or the Wizard would easily make better party faces.
I wanted to try and make some sort of homebrew that gave fighters, paladin, and the like of 2 + negative int score classes something to do outside of combat. I was thinking dividing skill points, classes would get Str and Dex skills (something the fighter would get a ton of) and other classes would get Int/Wis/Cha skill points, but that seems way too complicated and too much work.
So, I thought about what about changing the class feature. Every class gets an additional 2-4 "class only" skill points, that must be class skills. Additionally, class skill bonus of +3 doubles once 10 or more ranks are put into the skill and the bonus from score modifier is at least +1. Rogues would likely get 0 bonus skill points, High int characters would likely get 1-2, low int low base classes would get 4.
Would this unbalance the game too much, throwing fighters, paladins, and more a couple extra skill points, limited to their class skills?
'
here's what I do, I let anyone pick their stats between 3-20 for every stat, and ignore racials...
there now the paladin can have 14 int and not feel bad.
Playing a "dumb" fighter is player choice.Dumb isn't about having a low score in an ability that allegedly represents intelligence. Dumb is about being incapable of learning to perform skilled tasks. A 13 int fighter is as dumb as an 8 int barbarian and dumber than a 7 int ranger.
Class skill points per level represents the idea of how much time, energy, and opportunity a character of a given class spends on learning skills. INT-bonus skill points per level represents how easily a character learns. So an above-average INT Fighter who spends little time or focus on skills will learn as much as a below-average INT Barbarian who has more time and opportunity for learning. You can disagree with the ratios, but the rationale is pretty obvious.
Personally I'd have no problem with a house-rule that grants every character +1 skills/level. But when I hear "I want to be an INT-dumped Paladin and not suffer badly with skills", all I can think is "yeah, and I want to be a WIS-dumped Rogue and not suffer badly with Will... too bad for me."
It's not like 4+int skills incentivizes dumping. In fact for me it discourages it. I don't want any less than 5 skill points per level and my FCB is always in HP or spell (unless I'm playing a skill class) so if I want my skills I either need a 12 in int or I gotta be human.
The concept of the BSF doesn't refer to the int stat at all. It refers to how the fighter isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. A 13 int fighter still isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. It takes around 7 skill points per level to be "the scholar" or 3-4 and a lot more charisma than a fighter can justify to be "the face". It requires class features the fighter can't get to be "the trap guy" and spells he doesn't get to be "the healer" or "the utility guy". So, unable to do anything else he's stuck being "the big, stupid fighter" even if he has the highest int in the party.
I want the 12-14 int fighter to not suffer from low skill points. I'd also like there to be a difference between the 3 int fighter and the 9 int fighter.
I've seen a Fighter used as a face and a mostly-Fighter used as a 'scholar' before. They may not have been pure optimization incarnate, but they were quite effective at an alt-role as well as fighting. The face used a Silver Tongued Human with Bred for War and took Persuasive; eventually he added a Skill Focus and used a Dead Man's Headband and a Circlet of Persuasion just to ensure that he would continue to crush any social challenge. It wasn't much of a drain on his combat role, other than the shocking fact that he didn't start with 18 STR.
I'm not sure how a Fighter would be still be stuck being 'the big stupid fighter' if he had a really high INT score. Assuming that 'he has the highest INT in the party' means at least a 16 INT, he can easily have 6/level skill points, and Fighter is a prime candidate for being able to afford Skill Focus and other skill feats if they want them. It seems like people often end up going "I must totally optimize every inch of combat ability! ... Hey, no fair! I can't do anything but fight!"
The concept of the BSF doesn't refer to the int stat at all. It refers to how the fighter isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. A 13 int fighter still isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. It takes around 7 skill points per level to be "the scholar" or 3-4 and a lot more charisma than a fighter can justify to be "the face". It requires class features the fighter can't get to be "the trap guy" and spells he doesn't get to be "the healer" or "the utility guy". So, unable to do anything else he's stuck being "the big, stupid fighter" even if he has the highest int in the party.
I want the 12-14 int fighter to not suffer from low skill points. I'd also like there to be a difference between the 3 int fighter and the 9 int fighter.
I've seen a Fighter used as a face and a mostly-Fighter used as a 'scholar' before. They may not have been pure optimization incarnate, but they were quite effective at an alt-role as well as fighting. The face used a Silver Tongued Human with Bred for War and took Persuasive; eventually he added a Skill Focus and used a Dead Man's Headband and a Circlet of Persuasion just to ensure that he would continue to crush any social challenge. It wasn't much of a drain on his combat role, other than the shocking fact that he didn't start with 18 STR.
I'm not sure how a Fighter would be still be stuck being 'the big stupid fighter' if he had a really high INT score. Assuming that 'he has the highest INT in the party' means at least a 16 INT, he can easily have 6/level skill points, and Fighter is a prime candidate for being able to afford Skill Focus and other skill feats if they want them. It seems like people often end up going "I must totally optimize every inch of combat ability! ... Hey, no fair! I can't do anything but fight!"
What did your fighter get out of not being a slayer instead?
If the answer is "basically nothing", then all we can take away from that is "yeah, a fighter can fake being an inferior version of another class kind of OKish, that's good enough, right?".
Personally I'd have no problem with a house-rule that grants every character +1 skills/level. But when I hear "I want to be an INT-dumped Paladin and not suffer badly with skills", all I can think is "yeah, and I want to be a WIS-dumped Rogue and not suffer badly with Will... too bad for me."
Not sure if that's a great example, because god stats everyone needs vs universal dump stats is another good conversation to have.
What did your fighter get out of not being a slayer instead?
If the answer is "basically nothing", then all we can take away from that is "yeah, a fighter can fake being an inferior version of another class kind of OKish, that's good enough, right?".
I didn't say anything about 'my' Fighter, but if we're talking hypothetically: Fighter Feats + Weapon Training + Gloves of Dueling to rack up larger combat bonuses than Study Target that are always active instead of requiring activation; Armor Training + Heavy Armor to move at full speed and reduce ACP in the heaviest armors; and a much larger and more diverse pool of bonus feats that doesn't restrict armor choice. Slayer is a great class, but the idea that it's just the same as a Fighter but better is a little absurd, isn't it?
Because the devs drastically overvalued full BAB and Feats, with the result that we get Fighters who couldn't get through an obstacle course (acrobatics, climb, swim), set up a camp or travel without getting lost (survival), keep their gear in good shape (craft), or keep watch (perception).Coolness.
I think part of the problem is that people equate maxed ranks with basic competence, rather than extreme ability. A Ranger should be, in general, a lot better at keeping watch and surviving and climbing and swimming and so on; it's more integral to what they are. A Fighter who isn't an imbecile can be competent at many things, and/or very good at some select things. Should a character who's barely smarter than the Paladin's horse and spends pretty much all his time and energy training with weapons expect to possess a broad set of competent-to-advanced skills?
Should a character who's barely smarter than the Paladin's horse and spends pretty much all his time and energy training with weapons expect to possess a broad set of competent-to-advanced skills?
Should a person of completely normal intelligence who spends pretty much all of his time as a professional mercenary or soldier not be able to functionally keep up at any of the basic tasks someone in that profession should be able to do?
I don't think it's nearly as insane as you make it out to be to say "Hey why can't my hardened mercenary warrior know about the types of enemies he'll be fighting, be able to spot trouble AND be scary all at once?" That's not exactly an exhaustive or absurd laundry list of capabilities, yet you can't do it without some specific investment of some kind. If you also want to be good at swimming or know about another extremely common type of enemy or be able to ride a horse effectively you need even more investment.
Should a character who's barely smarter than the Paladin's horse and spends pretty much all his time and energy training with weapons expect to possess a broad set of competent-to-advanced skills?Should a person of completely normal intelligence who spends pretty much all of his time as a professional mercenary or soldier not be able to functionally keep up at any of the basic tasks someone in that profession should be able to do?
I don't think it's nearly as insane as you make it out to be to say "Hey why can't my hardened mercenary warrior know about the types of enemies he'll be fighting, be able to spot trouble AND be scary all at once?" That's not exactly an exhaustive or absurd laundry list of capabilities, yet you can't do it without some specific investment of some kind. If you also want to be good at swimming or know about another extremely common type of enemy or be able to ride a horse effectively you need even more investment.
That's why you get 2+INT+FCB skill points every single level. A level 2 Fighter who didn't dump Int can have a single point (and therefore the class bonus) in 6 skills. He can pick up two additional class skills with traits and two more with Extra Traits and still have a 2 combat feats. Next level he can pick up Skill Focus for the skill he wants to be really good at.
Not to mention that most of the skills you just named have set DCs in the 10-15 range for basic tasks. A single point is more than enough for basic competence in a skill. Max skill points aren't needed to swim, climb, ride a horse, survive in the wild, identify most low level enemies, etc.
The concept of the BSF doesn't refer to the int stat at all. It refers to how the fighter isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. A 13 int fighter still isn't good for anything except hitting people with sticks. It takes around 7 skill points per level to be "the scholar" or 3-4 and a lot more charisma than a fighter can justify to be "the face". It requires class features the fighter can't get to be "the trap guy" and spells he doesn't get to be "the healer" or "the utility guy". So, unable to do anything else he's stuck being "the big, stupid fighter" even if he has the highest int in the party.
I want the 12-14 int fighter to not suffer from low skill points. I'd also like there to be a difference between the 3 int fighter and the 9 int fighter.
I've seen a Fighter used as a face and a mostly-Fighter used as a 'scholar' before. They may not have been pure optimization incarnate, but they were quite effective at an alt-role as well as fighting. The face used a Silver Tongued Human with Bred for War and took Persuasive; eventually he added a Skill Focus and used a Dead Man's Headband and a Circlet of Persuasion just to ensure that he would continue to crush any social challenge. It wasn't much of a drain on his combat role, other than the shocking fact that he didn't start with 18 STR.
I'm not sure how a Fighter would be still be stuck being 'the big stupid fighter' if he had a really high INT score. Assuming that 'he has the highest INT in the party' means at least a 16 INT, he can easily have 6/level skill points, and Fighter is a prime candidate for being able to afford Skill Focus and other skill feats if they want them. It seems like people often end up going "I must totally optimize every inch of combat ability! ... Hey, no fair! I can't do anything but fight!"
What did your fighter get out of not being a slayer instead?
If the answer is "basically nothing", then all we can take away from that is "yeah, a...
he didn't have to worry about potentially gaining the monstrosity called the rogue talent.
Because the devs drastically overvalued full BAB and Feats, with the result that we get Fighters who couldn't get through an obstacle course (acrobatics, climb, swim), set up a camp or travel without getting lost (survival), keep their gear in good shape (craft), or keep watch (perception).Coolness.
This is incorrect, it's because prior to pathfinder, 3.5 the system this is based upon had separate skills for spot and listen over perception(think a few others were merged as well). they were merged in pathfinder however, classes like the ranger didn't get their skill points reduced even though they weren't spending them too widely anymore. So now the system feels like it's overly pressuring paladins and fighters.
so yeah, this is one of the ghosts of the 3.5 system...
Should a character who's barely smarter than the Paladin's horse and spends pretty much all his time and energy training with weapons expect to possess a broad set of competent-to-advanced skills?Should a person of completely normal intelligence who spends pretty much all of his time as a professional mercenary or soldier not be able to functionally keep up at any of the basic tasks someone in that profession should be able to do?
I don't think it's nearly as insane as you make it out to be to say "Hey why can't my hardened mercenary warrior know about the types of enemies he'll be fighting, be able to spot trouble AND be scary all at once?" That's not exactly an exhaustive or absurd laundry list of capabilities, yet you can't do it without some specific investment of some kind. If you also want to be good at swimming or know about another extremely common type of enemy or be able to ride a horse effectively you need even more investment.
Again though, the question comes down to what reflects 'able', and whether you need maxed-ranks or near that to be competent at something. This is a system where the 'keen senses' and 'Elven Magic' of an Elf is worth a +2 to perception and some spellcraft, and where being a class that's expected to be familiar with a skill is a +3. Basic mounted tasks like guiding a horse with your knees or not getting knocked off are DC 5, which means one rank is enough for perfect basic riding ability. Passing a Knowledge check on common and/or low CR enemies is another very easy DC, which has a pretty low chance of failure even if you have to come up with it on the spot. Even managing to 'get along' in the wild with survival is only a 10, while a Fighter with no wisdom and 1 rank is already a 4. Add to all this the fact that you can take 10 on many mundane tasks, and being 'able' requires an awful lot less than maxed ranks.
I find that background skills are a great idea. To be honest, I think every non-Int dependent classes need at least 4+, background skills at least put a band-aid on the issue.
There are many ways to more skill ranks:
* higher Int (also improves Int based skill checks)
* be a human
* favored class bonus (with Fast Learner you don't even have to give up the extra HP)
* a single level of an expert class (rogue, bard etc.), also gives you a ton of new class skills
* Improvisation & Improved Improvisation feats gives you effective skill ranks
* etc. etc.
So I don't know whether people are not aware of those options or just not willing to sacrifice anything. A martial is a martial and not an expert - you can make it more of an expert, but then it's less of a martial.
And finally, you don't have to cover everything because you are a member of a group. If you don't trust your fellow players to get a job done, the core issue is social, not mechanical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are many ways to more skill ranks:
* higher Int (also improves Int based skill checks)
* be a human
* favored class bonus (with Fast Learner you don't even have to give up the extra HP)
* a single level of an expert class (rogue, bard etc.), also gives you a ton of new class skills
* Improvisation & Improved Improvisation feats gives you effective skill ranks
* etc. etc.
You forgot the best one, be a barbarian.
Dumb isn't about having a low score in an ability that allegedly represents intelligence. Dumb is about being incapable of learning to perform skilled tasks.
And the options presented demonstrate how easy it is for said fighter to gain additional skill points outside just raising intelligence.
The skill points are there, and it takes only a modest investment to access them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not a modest investment.
Doable if you want it badly enough, but the price is high.
What amount of skills must the fighter possess to say it is a modest or a high investment? Has that ever been determined?
4+int baseline is a nice starting point.
I'm kind of surprised at how many people are so vehemently against the idea, like it's somehow morally objectionable.
4+int baseline is a nice starting point.
I'm kind of surprised at how many people are so vehemently against the idea, like it's somehow morally objectionable.
I'm not surprised, just disappointed.
Its only objectionable because there are rules that exist within the game that can give characters more skills. As stated above its not very challenging to gain more skills.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its only objectionable because there are rules that exist within the game that can give characters more skills. As stated above its not very challenging to gain more skills.
Like being a barbarian!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you're missing is those don't have that as a baseline they sacrifice things to achieve it.Building any character involves opportunity costs.
The good news is that fighters can be skillful and good in combat. They are not mutually exclusive.
And barbarians can be better on both fronts!
And barbarians can be better on both fronts!What you're missing is those don't have that as a baseline they sacrifice things to achieve it.Building any character involves opportunity costs.
The good news is that fighters can be skillful and good in combat. They are not mutually exclusive.
And Druids!
And Magi!
And...really everyone but the rogue.
I said better at combat as a general statement, not better at all combat styles.