Advanced Class Guide Preview: Warpriest

2 skill points per level on the fighter and to a lesser extent on the Cleric was a mistake design choice I disagree with.

Fixed that for you.

As much as I wanted extra skills on my Fighter/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, I found that placing a 12 into my intelligence and putting the few favored class bonuses I got into skill points was a decent enough solution to my lower skill ranks. I also invested in upping my intelligence via a headband around level 10 when I wanted ranks into the fly skill. The difference between a starting intelligence of 7 and 10, or 8 and 12 is only 4 points on the point buy scale, but those 4 points grant 2 skill ranks per level... If you play a character with only 2 skill ranks per level, and you'd like some capability to contribute outside of combat, don't dump your intelligence! The Warpriest now has no need for Charisma, so swinging a 12 intelligence shouldn't be a major issue. The Warpriest also gets enough bonus feats that you can afford to grab Toughness somewhere along the way and then place some favored class bonuses into skill points. And if you're REALlY concerned about skill ranks, there's always the idea of playing a Human with the Fast Learner feat.

"Mistake" and "design choice I disagree with" aren't mutually exclusive.

yeah, It was a design choise and a Mistake.

However, as the designers noted, friendlier phrasing makes it much more likely that your post will be considered wholeheartedly. Insulting the developers about design choices will either put them on the defensive when trying to respond or give them a reason to ignore the input outright.

And I agree with MechE_; it'd be strange to give the Warpriest 4+ SP per level when both of the parent classes do not. The Magus, with a wizard/fighter combo, is also at 2+ SP. If you're going to compare it to the Inquisitor, I see that class as a bit of a ranger/cleric combo, so 4+ or 6+ SP would be appropriate.

Personally, I think the Warpriest will be good. The lack of needing Charisma means you only have 1 mental stat to focus on for class abilities, leaving either Str or Dex for martial abilities a touch of Con so you can take the hits.

I can see giving Fighters a break and giving them more skills to represent their training. What I fail to see is in what sane world does it make sense to give Clerics(Arguably the 2nd strongest class in the system) more skill points?

Blehuie, I'm getting off topic. From what I've read so far, I'm really excited for Warpriests. Can't wait to see what kind of divine gun platform I can make it into.

I can see giving Fighters a break and giving them more skills to represent their training. What I fail to see is in what sane world does it make sense to give Clerics(Arguably the 2nd strongest class in the system) more skill points?

Blehuie, I'm getting off topic. From what I've read so far, I'm really excited for Warpriests. Can't wait to see what kind of divine gun platform I can make it into.

I wonder. If you pick a blessing that results in a glowing weapon, do the bullets also glow when you fire them and not the gun? Or just the gun?

Jeez it'd be like playing paintball...except the balls are lead and glowing, and also lethal.

Because they cant really do the basic things they need to. Because a lot of people hate 2+Int skill points in general. Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.

Because they cant really do the basic things they need to. Because a lot of people hate 2+Int skill points in general. Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.

Still one of 3 strongest classes in the game. Giving Clerics 4+Int skill points is like kicking in the groin everybody except for Wizards.

Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.

Since when are dump stats a good thing?

Huh?

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Because they cant really do the basic things they need to. Because a lot of people hate 2+Int skill points in general. Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.

Still one of 3 strongest classes in the game. Giving Clerics 4+Int skill points is like kicking in the groin everybody except for Wizards.

Who would also get 4+Int with that groin kick. . .

Gorbacz wrote:

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Because they cant really do the basic things they need to. Because a lot of people hate 2+Int skill points in general. Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.

Still one of 3 strongest classes in the game. Giving Clerics 4+Int skill points is like kicking in the groin everybody except for Wizards.

Who would also get 4+Int with that groin kick. . .

And helps them nothing, because Cleric is a full caster. 2+Int is there because Clerics can do so much crazy batcrap using their ever-exapnding-with-every-splatbook spell list, that non-caster classes need at least some consolation of having more skill points and more non-magical utility than full casters. Of course this somewhat shafts Fighters, but at least they can claim to have the biggest non-conditional damage output for bragging rights.

So many ninjas. Didn't realize the class was that popular.

It might not be now that it's not as powered up it was in the second playtest version. The Full BAB effect of sacred weapon has been removed.

Because they cant really do the basic things they need to. Because a lot of people hate 2+Int skill points in general. Because, arguably the Cleric has even less dump stats than the Fighter.

A couple of decades of people managing "to do the basic things" seem to disagree with you. It's not the job of the 2 skill classes to be the skill monkeys, nor is it true that you either max out a skill or not take any points in it at all.

You want to be skillful you've got options.

1. Don't dump your int... consider taking it to at least a 12.

2. No matter what race you are, taking a skill point is always an option for favored class bonus.

Ralanr wrote:

So many ninjas. Didn't realize the class was that popular.

It might not be now that it's not as powered up it was in the second playtest version. The Full BAB effect of sacred weapon has been removed.

He meant the ninja class. =P

Skills are useful for representing your character's background, experience and degree of competence - for example if a character used to be a blacksmith, many players would put a rank in Profession (Blacksmith) or in craft (metalworking). If you only get two skill points per level, that's not a great option since you really want to put those skill ranks where it does some good.

For instance I would expect a cleric of Sarenrae to be trained in Heal, Knowledge (Religion) and Spellcraft. The average first level cleric is only able to put ranks in two of those skills, and clerics of Sarenrae get off easy.
Erastil covers farmers, hunters, trade, family, community... So I'd expect a cleric of Erastil to be trained in Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (Local), Knowledge (Nature), Survival, and ideally also Spellcraft.

Paradoxically 2 skillpoints/level is actually a solid motivation for dumping intelligence. If you only get 1 skill point per level with 8 int you might as well go all the way and dump it to 7, or 5 if you play a race with an intelligence modifier - mechanically there's minimal difference between having an int of 8 and 5 if you play a class with 2 skill ranks/level.

Generally speaking I'd like every class that doesn't rely on intelligence to have at least 4 skill points per level, especially classes that have an either direct or indirect skill tax - ride for cavaliers, kn: Religion for clerics and so on. The affected classes would be cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, summoner, and the sorcerer. In my opinion two more skill ranks for these classes won't adversely affect the internal power balance between classes, but it will make life a great deal easier for many players.

Since we're on the topic, it's worth noting that the majority of the new Paizo classes actually do get 4 skill points per level. Apart from the Summoner (which isn't exactly lacking in skill options), all the new classes Paizo have made (alchemist, cavalier, gunslinger, oracle) that do not rely on intelligence (magus, witch) have had 4 or more skill ranks.

Glossing over the ACG revised play test I count 8 out of 10 classes get 4 skill ranks or more. The exceptions are the Arcanist (who is INT-focused) and the Warpriest. It's interesting that classes that have a parent class that gets 2 skill ranks (bloodrager, brawler, hunter, shaman, swashbuckler) are always bumped up to the next tier.

Aside for it now not having pseude full BAB (a thing that would very likely make that class too good compared to a fighter), I really like every change I heard so far (between Playtest v2 and final).

If a class does not look too good compared to a fighter it's likely poorly designed.

Even the fighter's companion class Barbarian makes fighter look like a commoner by comparison.

Fighter is literally the worst class in the entire game. Honestly there are ways to fix it but people would shout OP.

Fighter is literally the worst class in the entire game.

It's saying things like this that makes people not take you seriously.

Generally speaking I'd like every class that doesn't rely on intelligence to have at least 4 skill points per level, especially classes that have an either direct or indirect skill tax - ride for cavaliers, kn: Religion for clerics and so on. The affected classes would be cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, summoner, and the sorcerer. In my opinion two more skill ranks for these classes won't adversely affect the internal power balance between classes, but it will make life a great deal easier for many players.

I would not. Classes that aren't meant to be skilled do not need more skill ranks just because.

Players get greedy. This whole: "I expect you to have ranks in..." mentality is different from: "I expect you to have max ranks in..." and it is a significant difference. Max ranks are not the same thing as putting in one or two ranks, or up to 5 for prestige class qualifications, etc.

Point being, certain classes simply don't even have a use for those skills other than "it's nice to have" like with classes like fighters and paladins. For other classes who actually use those skill ranks for their class abilities like rangers and bards, sure, givem more skills per level.

That being said, and not that I agree universally about bumping the skills on all characters, I do want 4+ ranks on the cleric.

My group bumped up all classes by +2 skill points/level. Hasn't broken anything and everyone seems very happy with the arrangement.

My 2cp, for what it's worth.

My group bumped up all classes by +2 skill points/level. Hasn't broken anything and everyone seems very happy with the arrangement.

My 2cp, for what it's worth.

We did this as well, so far I haven't heard any complaints.

That being said, and not that I agree universally about bumping the skills on all characters, I do want 4+ ranks on the cleric.

Out of the classes I listed (cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, summoner, and the sorcerer), which do you feel should have 4+ skill ranks?

master_marshmallow wrote:

That being said, and not that I agree universally about bumping the skills on all characters, I do want 4+ ranks on the cleric.

Out of the classes I listed (cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, summoner, and the sorcerer), which do you feel should have 4+ skill ranks?

If I had to pick just one, I'd go with Paladin or Cleric - it's a tossup because they need them (IMO) for the same reasons. Both of them need quite a bit to do what's expected of them (at the very least Heal, Knowledge: Religion, and Spellcraft; social skills for the Paladin are typically expected, and the cleric is generally assumed to have another Knowledge or two), usually can't spare much for stats for Intelligence if they want to be functional, and unless you're okay with "Every cleric/paladin must either be Human or expect to be deficient in a skill set or two" (which I am not, I'm all for encouraging people away from Humans =) ) they're going to lag behind on something.

Undone wrote:

Fighter is literally the worst class in the entire game.

It's saying things like this that makes people not take you seriously.

And what class would you put into that category? Rogue? Monk? The monk at least has redeeming archetypes.

Ross Byers wrote:

Undone wrote:

Fighter is literally the worst class in the entire game.

It's saying things like this that makes people not take you seriously.

And what class would you put into that category? Rogue? Monk? The monk at least has redeeming archetypes.

Much as I've disagreed with Undone about a bunch of stuff...Fighter's in the bottom two or three as Classes go. It may or may not be the worst (I'd argue that it's tied with Rogue), but saying it's worst is a reasonable and defensible position.

Undone wrote:

Fighter is literally the worst class in the entire game.

It's saying things like this that makes people not take you seriously.

I agree. The worst class is the rogue.

What's the general opinion of Gunslingers these days? I know a few fantasy purists still rage at the notion of Firearms in their pristine medieval mancrushes.

About on par with most other ranged/archery based classes, maybe a little better thanks to the whole touch-attack thing.

About on par with most other ranged/archery based classes, maybe a little better thanks to the whole touch-attack thing.

Yup. This.

Misfires are unfortunate, and it's Feat intensive, but touch attacks are wonderful.

It's probably on par with an archery Ranger, with a fair bit more damage and a bit less utility. Or an archer Paladin, with more damage against the non-Evil and somewhat better utility, but no spells, less durability and less damage against Evil stuff (as compared to Smiting).

Orthos wrote:

My group bumped up all classes by +2 skill points/level. Hasn't broken anything and everyone seems very happy with the arrangement.

My 2cp, for what it's worth.

We did this as well, so far I haven't heard any complaints.

master_marshmallow wrote:

That being said, and not that I agree universally about bumping the skills on all characters, I do want 4+ ranks on the cleric.

Out of the classes I listed (cleric, druid, fighter, paladin, summoner, and the sorcerer), which do you feel should have 4+ skill ranks?

Cleric, and only cleric. Design flaws with the point buy system prevent someone using it from playing a cleric with a positive INT modifer without sacrificing the use of class abilities.

Paladins can (and usually do in my experience) invest in a positive INT (13) and benefit from having additional skill ranks. Plus they have very little need for them outside of diplomacy being maxed and a few ranks into sense motive, barring an unusual build.

Druids already get 4.

Summoners share skill utility with their Eidolons, so I do not fear for them.

Sorcerers have the best case for it, but being a SAD class much unlike the cleric, they can afford to invest in INT and still have an effective character.

Good catch on the druid! That's what I get for not double checking my numbers.

I'm not sure if I agree with your paladin description, I typically find that paladins want, at a minimum: Diplomacy, Knowledge (Religion), Perception and Sense Motive. Ride and Handle Animal might be needed depending on how your GM rules on the Divine Bond mount, I'd probably add Heal, but it's not crucial since they have Diagnose Disease on their spell list. Spellcraft would be nice, but not obligatory. So... 4 skills, with a friendly GM.

I'm also not quite sure how you see the paladin as less MAD than the cleric? Both classes want three high ability scores: Con, Wis, Cha for the cleric and Str, Con, Cha for the paladin.

I always felt like if there is one class that really deserved 4 skills per level it's the sorcerer. They've always come across as the wizard's dumber kid brother to me, and the horrible lack of skill ranks doesn't help. If they had some extra skills it would also ease the pressure on their spells known since they don't have the luxury the wizards do when it comes to things like Spider Climb or Touch of the Sea.

Summoners I agree with you on, it's probably the one class I listed that I don't mind remains at 2/level. Eidolons have plenty of options for skills if you so choose.

I noticed you skipped the fighter in your breakdown - was there a particular reason for that?

Players get greedy. This whole: "I expect you to have ranks in..." mentality is different from: "I expect you to have max ranks in..." and it is a significant difference. Max ranks are not the same thing as putting in one or two ranks, or up to 5 for prestige class qualifications, etc.

The problem with this is at level 1, "I have ranks in this skill" does equate to "I have maximum ranks in this skill." And if I have skills I'd like my character to be trained in for roleplaying reasons, level 1 is generally when I'd want to have them, to reflect the skills that my character would have picked up in their background.

Good catch on the druid! That's what I get for not double checking my numbers.

I'm not sure if I agree with your paladin description, I typically find that paladins want, at a minimum: Diplomacy, Knowledge (Religion), Perception and Sense Motive. Ride and Handle Animal might be needed depending on how your GM rules on the Divine Bond mount, I'd probably add Heal, but it's not crucial since they have Diagnose Disease on their spell list. Spellcraft would be nice, but not obligatory. So... 4 skills, with a friendly GM.

I'm also not quite sure how you see the paladin as less MAD than the cleric? Both classes want three high ability scores: Con, Wis, Cha for the cleric and Str, Con, Cha for the paladin.

I always felt like if there is one class that really deserved 4 skills per level it's the sorcerer. They've always come across as the wizard's dumber kid brother to me, and the horrible lack of skill ranks doesn't help. If they had some extra skills it would also ease the pressure on their spells known since they don't have the luxury the wizards do when it comes to things like Spider Climb or Touch of the Sea.

Summoners I agree with you on, it's probably the one class I listed that I don't mind remains at 2/level. Eidolons have plenty of options for skills if you so choose.

I noticed you skipped the fighter in your breakdown - was there a particular reason for that?

There's an entire thread for that but my main reason is that fighters really don't have that big of a role outside of combat, so unless you are using new supplements and want to max out profession (soldier) then he really has no use for so many skills other than you just want them without having to invest in INT.

Also, you act as if all of these skills have to be maxed out, which they do not to be able to use them. A paladin can max diplomacy and spread his skills around his other skills and be pretty effective in my experience.

YMMV

Also I blame the point buy system, because it is the devil.

my main reason is that fighters really don't have that big of a role outside of combat

Which is largely because they have nothing they can do outside combat. Which could be rectified if they had more skills to spend.

Big ol' circular problem.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Players get greedy. This whole: "I expect you to have ranks in..." mentality is different from: "I expect you to have max ranks in..." and it is a significant difference. Max ranks are not the same thing as putting in one or two ranks, or up to 5 for prestige class qualifications, etc.

The problem with this is at level 1, "I have ranks in this skill" does equate to "I have maximum ranks in this skill." And if I have skills I'd like my character to be trained in for roleplaying reasons, level 1 is generally when I'd want to have them, to reflect the skills that my character would have picked up in their background.

Really though, how long does levels 1-3 last?

EDIT: you also should consider the fact that this is mainly an issue because of the way PFRPG streamlined skill points/ranks and stopped giving 4(INT+ranks) at first level so you could spread your skills around like you say you want to.

It is something to consider.

Sevus wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Players get greedy. This whole: "I expect you to have ranks in..." mentality is different from: "I expect you to have max ranks in..." and it is a significant difference. Max ranks are not the same thing as putting in one or two ranks, or up to 5 for prestige class qualifications, etc.

The problem with this is at level 1, "I have ranks in this skill" does equate to "I have maximum ranks in this skill." And if I have skills I'd like my character to be trained in for roleplaying reasons, level 1 is generally when I'd want to have them, to reflect the skills that my character would have picked up in their background.

Really though, how long does levels 1-3 last?

EDIT: you also should consider the fact that this is mainly an issue because of the way PFRPG streamlined skill points/ranks and stopped giving 4(INT+ranks) at first level so you could spread your skills around like you say you want to.

It is something to consider.

Considering it takes 20 CR=APL encounters to level up, quite a bit. My group usually gets through 2-3 encounters in a session, so 1st level can represent over a month of real time.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Sevus wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Players get greedy. This whole: "I expect you to have ranks in..." mentality is different from: "I expect you to have max ranks in..." and it is a significant difference. Max ranks are not the same thing as putting in one or two ranks, or up to 5 for prestige class qualifications, etc.

The problem with this is at level 1, "I have ranks in this skill" does equate to "I have maximum ranks in this skill." And if I have skills I'd like my character to be trained in for roleplaying reasons, level 1 is generally when I'd want to have them, to reflect the skills that my character would have picked up in their background.

Really though, how long does levels 1-3 last?

EDIT: you also should consider the fact that this is mainly an issue because of the way PFRPG streamlined skill points/ranks and stopped giving 4(INT+ranks) at first level so you could spread your skills around like you say you want to.

It is something to consider.

Considering it takes 20 CR=APL encounters to level up, quite a bit. My group usually gets through 2-3 encounters in a session, so 1st level can represent over a month of real time.

And I gues that's where the saying YMMV comes from.

Well, the game is built with that expectation of 20 CR=APL encounters being a level. You'll deal with some encounters above your APL and some encounters below your APL, but they're expected to average out.

I suppose most of the variation you'll see comes from:
1) GMs who use lots of CR > APL or CR < APL encounters
2) Groups that play more quickly or more slowly than others

If you play with lots of higher CR encounters the game will progress much more quickly.

I suspect an average time per level for a group that plays relatively quickly would be around 5 sessions, assuming they get through 4 encounters each session. If you meet once a week, this works out to a level a little over every month. Those are just rough guesses based on game details though (4 encounters a day during adventure time), and not really substantiated by any research.

From my baseline opinion most classes should be 4+int skill points per level and only a few, very specific classes should have more.

My primary reason for thinking that all classes should have more skills is that Witches, Wizards, specific Sorcerors, Alchemists, and soon Arcanists all become better "skill guys" than most "skill guy" classes, baring Bard, because they have tons of skill points and spells to supplement their high skill bonuses. Those classes get to have their cake, eat it, and then laugh at all the fighters/Paladins/rogues/ect that don't.

Druids, Gunslingers, Barbarians, Oracles, Monks, ect all have 4 skill points a level and when's the last time you ever said "Man, wtf this Barbarian is just way too good at too many skills!" 4 skill ranks per level just allows a character to be competent at a few things and allows them to live and breathe in a world outside combat. Their is a reason my party calls fighters the "combat mongrel" and it's not because they're gods of combat I assure you.

Wanting Warpriests to have 2+ skill ranks per level is just asking Paizo to continue a negative design decision because of past mistakes.

Well, the game is built with that expectation of 20 CR=APL encounters being a level. You'll deal with some encounters above your APL and some encounters below your APL, but they're expected to average out.

I suppose most of the variation you'll see comes from:
1) GMs who use lots of CR > APL or CR < APL encounters
2) Groups that play more quickly or more slowly than others

If you play with lots of higher CR encounters the game will progress much more quickly.

I suspect an average time per level for a group that plays relatively quickly would be around 5 sessions, assuming they get through 4 encounters each session. If you meet once a week, this works out to a level a little over every month. Those are just rough guesses based on game details though (4 encounters a day during adventure time), and not really substantiated by any research.

Don't forget that Paizo encourages the GM to give XP for non-combat challenges or intelligent ways of doing things. Not only that, but XP is awarded for combat encounters that are solved out of combat (smart use of diplomacy, making foes retreat before combat, RP to defeat them without combat). It's entirely possible to get more XP than 4 encounters worth in a session.

Oh yeah, absolutely. When I say encounter, I don't necessarily mean a fight. I mean any sort of challenge or problem that's worth experience.

yeah :) some campaigns can power you through low levels pretty quickly. Particularly one like Kingmaker which can get your party to level 2-3 within 4 sessions if your party acts like explorers instead of making a beeline to Stag Fort.

There's an entire thread for that but my main reason is that fighters really don't have that big of a role outside of combat, so unless you are using new supplements and want to max out profession (soldier) then he really has no use for so many skills other than you just want them without having to invest in INT.

As Orthos pointed out, the fighter doesn't have a big role outside of combat because he has a horrible skill list and only two skill ranks, because he doesn't have a big role outside of combat, because he only has two skill ranks. This strikes me as a case of circular reasoning.

I also find it a bit of a paradox that the gunslinger, the barbarian, the brawler, and the swashbuckler all get more skill points than the fighter. They all exist in more or less the same design space as "classes that focuses heavily on combat", yet they're all get better class skill lists and mechanically twice as "skilled" as the fighter.

Also, you act as if all of these skills have to be maxed out, which they do not to be able to use them. A paladin can max diplomacy and spread his skills around his other skills and be pretty effective in my experience.

Note that all of the skills I listed are opposed checks and frequently have very high DCs - Knowledge checks v monster CR, Perception v Stealth never caps, Sense Motive v Bluff never caps, Heal v Disase DC can reach some gnarly DCs and so on. These are not skills you want to dabble in. You could also make the same argument for the cleric in that they don't need to max their skills - I still don't understand why the cleric should get 4 skill ranks but, for example the paladin shouldn't.

Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, at level 1, 1 rank equals max ranks. Using the paladin as an example, I would expect a level 1 paladin to be diplomatic, be perceptive and have a decent chance to discern lies, and have a decent chance of recognizing his deity's holy symbol. YMMV, of course.

Let's attack this from a different angle - you think the cleric should have 4 skill ranks since the class mechanics require it to put ability scores in many different stats. The druid is less MAD than the cleric and has an animal companion with its own skills. Should the druid have four skill ranks per level? Why/why not?

Also I blame the point buy system, because it is the devil.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

I think PB is imperfect for a number of reasons, but I find it vastly better than any other stat generation system I've tried or seen so far. Discussing PB or the 3.5 skill system seems like a bit of a sidetrack to the current topic though.

Wanting Warpriests to have 2+ skill ranks per level is just asking Paizo to continue a negative design decision because of past mistakes.

This is very good description.

I also find it a bit of a paradox that the gunslinger, the barbarian, the brawler, and the swashbuckler all get more skill points than the fighter.

Some people asked for less skill for the brawler, weird I know.

With the removal of the full BAB with sacred weapon, I worry that the Warpriest will become a throw away class with below average damage and poor utility. If the class is inferior to the paladin or cleric, I doubt the class will see much playtime. I will reserve judgment until I see the book thou.

Discussing PB or the 3.5 skill system seems like a bit of a sidetrack to the current topic though.

It is relevant, though, because it informs why those things are the way they are now (and because Pathfinder is 'backward compatible', it is stuck with the legacy problems even if we know better now.)

The 3.X system of getting four times as many ranks at first level let you make a character with 2 skill points per level that actually invested in four skills at first level. Maybe not maxed out, but enough to roll on 'trained only' skills and to be better than the unskilled guy.

In Pathfinder, you can achieve the result at higher level by splitting your investment, but there is no way to do that at first level.

Similarly, a lot of the deflating of the rogue has to do with the way Pathfinder handles cross-class skills. In 3.X, cross-class skills advanced at half rate (or required investing in related skills to work, like Open Lock and Disable Device, or Listen and Spot) were de facto Rogue class features. A character trying to dabble outside their class skills couldn't keep up with DCs, so rogues were more valuable purely for their ability to make skill checks. In Pathfinder, any class can be at least decent at any skill, and a trait (to make it a class skill) or a feat (for Skill Focus) is enough to make them just as good as the matching class. And that's a good thing. But it makes the rogue, and skills like UMD, less special.

The Pathfinder skill system is easier to use, especially when making multiclass or higher-level characters. It is a net positive. But we've had five years to figure out problems with it.

Point buy is also relevant, because when we hear people talking about MAD vs. SAD and dump-stats, or just lamenting they can't have an 18 in all the stats they deem relevant to their class, it reflects the history of the game.

3.0 was playtested with elite arrays (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8), across the board. It's not actually a terrible stat array for a fighter, but it's sub-optimal on a wizard (for instance). The result is that a wizard was supposed to be as impressive as a fighter with that array. But what really happened is that a wizard who got an 18 kicked many kinds of ass, even if all his other scores were 10s, while the fighter could not get a similar upgrade by specializing.

When rolled stats were considered standard, MAD vs. SAD mostly took care of itself. The guy who rolled straight 14s would make a MAD character, the guy who rolled an 18 and 5 10's would make a spellcaster.

Point buy makes things a lot more fair in a general sense: you don't have one person who barely beat the automatic reroll rule, and another with straight 16s in the same game. It even provides some support for MAD characters, because you can buy a 15 and a 16 for the same points as an 18 and a 10. But at the same time, it lets the SAD character focus all their points into a single stat, reliably, in a way the game wasn't really built to accommodate: an 18 is no longer special, it's just what you buy if you're playing a SAD class.

PB is not wrong: it's better and more fair than dice. SAD vs. MAD isn't wrong, either, because point buy enforces a bell curve to an extent. But the way the two interact with one another exposes problems in the underlying system that were somewhere between 'hidden' and 'not actually a problem' when using dice.

An analogy: Since Pathfinder is based on 3.5, which in turn was based on 3.0, which in turn inherited a bunch of vague legacy stuff from even earlier editions of the game, it's a lot like an old house that has been renovated several times. And sometimes when you replace stuff in a house, you find old problems that were not originally problems. For instance, I just bought a new gas dryer, and found out I had to have the gas plumbing in my laundry room redone. There wasn't anything wrong with the old plumbing: it worked fine. But the valve was the wrong size and didn't deliver enough gas for the new, modern dryer. It worked great for the old dryer the previous owners had, even if that old dryer didn't work as well as the new one does.

TL:DR; Sometimes modernizing part of a system exposes problems in the rest of the system, and this is not always obvious immediately.

Also I blame the point buy system, because it is the devil.

My group and I prefer to use the random rolls approach. But my DM has a houserule that allows a player one score of 18 if they have no 18's or all there scores are below 13. Granted a lot of us were new and we've only played for about two years, but we've kept the same rule.

I've found myself most fond of having all the players roll arrays, then choosing one or two from the available options and letting people arrange those as they see fit. Everyone ends up with the same basic stats, so you don't have the one guy who rolled nothing below 15 versus the guy who rolled all 8-11.

Kudaku wrote:

Discussing PB or the 3.5 skill system seems like a bit of a sidetrack to the current topic though.

It is relevant, though, because it informs why those things are the way they are now (and because Pathfinder is 'backward compatible', it is stuck with the legacy problems even if we know better now.)

I understand the premise of the argument and I agree with many of your points - I too see the PF skill system as a net gain, and I appreciate the downsides of the PB system for SAD v MAD classes. Please note that I didn't call the discussion points irrelevant but rather a sidetrack, since I think hashing out the full "3.5 skill system v PF skill system" argument is unnecessary for discussing if the Warpriest should have 2 or 4 skill points per level.

That said, if the fighter and the cleric only gain 2 skill points per level because of legacy problems, and the warpriest gains 2 skill points per level because his parent classes gain 2 skill points, wouldn't that just be a repetition of old mistakes?

I find it encouraging that the vast majority of the classes Paizo have designed and published have had a baseline of at least four skill points, including classes that occupy similar design space as fighters (gunslingers, swashbucklers, brawlers etc) and clerics (oracles, shamans). I hope Paizo will continue that paradigm by giving the class 4 skill ranks per level.

Edit: And though I realize it is unlikely, I hope to see more fighter options like Lore warden that give the class four skill points per level.

That said, if the fighter and the cleric only gain 2 skill points per level because of legacy problems, and the warpriest gains 2 skill points per level because his parent classes gain 2 skill points, wouldn't that just be a repetition of old mistakes?

Maybe it would. But sometimes part of legacy design is choosing between two mistakes: obsolescing classes in the core book could also be considered a mistake.

And we don't know from this preview how many skill points the final Warpriest has. I won't really be too surprised one way or the other.