Curry's page

Thanks to you all.

Example: Under the current Beta rules, a rogue starts with 8 skill points. Because of the max ranks = level rule, she MUST spend them on 8 different skills, and ends up being 1 rank good at 8 things. With my house rule, she can be 1 rank good at 8 things, or 2 ranks good at 4 things, or 1 rank good at 4 things and 2 ranks good at 2 things, etc.

Mosaic, as you described it, the characters will have even less skills they are trained in, and that's what I try to avoid. I think that's a really good idea if you want to create highly trained specialists, but not "Jack-of-all-Trades".

Yes your character might seem like a specialist starting out, but when you level up your not limited to what skills you put your skill points into, you don't have to put that rank in the same skill as you did last level, you can choose to diversify over specialize every Level up, not just level 1. And in Pathfinder you can even put ranks in cross-class skills without penalty, allowing you to diversify even more.

I think it is important to mirror the experiences the characters made before starting adventuring. We tend to improve only skills where any experiences were made in or which have been used between two levels. Otherwise the characters need to find a teacher, which may be difficult in the midst of wilderness. So why should they show their versatility not until second level?

It also makes the standard level 1 npc less interesting...

Then again a 1st level character, isn't meant to be a specialist in anything, they have just been trained with no experience, only when they have gained experience and leveled up, should they be allowed to specialize.

Ok, unless I got you wrong, that’s nearly what I mean.

Being restricted to put skill points in max 8 skills the rogue (or the cleric with 2) inevitably specializes. Why shouldn’t they have trained more skills? Does a fighter only need Ride and Swim? If they have been schooled in an academy they for sure also where trained in Handle Animal and Acrobatics. And they know how to care for their weapons, what would be mirrored in a rank in craft (weaponsmithing) or (bowery) or or or.. If a fighter chooses craft (weaponsmithing), what differentiates him from a smith (or expert, if you want so) at first level?

And most of the smiths won’t ever be better than first level. So why should the above mentioned fighter ask for the help of any smith in his life if he can do it at the same level?

One of the GMs at my table started giving all classes +2 skill points/level, it hasn't broken the game so far so I started doing the same, characters seem a lot more interesting and 3D now, but then our games make use of skills a lot more often than your BaB.

That’s the same with our group. But in general I try to keep the number of house rules as low as possible and to go with the standard rules. Seems as would it have been necessary for more than our group to improve the number of choosable skills at first level. That’s not to create munchkins or super-characters, just to create broader skilled characters. Why improve the special abilities, but restrict the general abilities in the form of skills?

Maybe I am to narrow-minded, I just wanted to improve the skill options at first level, so I didn’t thought of improving the skill points at higher levels, but that’s also seems worth to think about.

Don't forget, you get to add a +3 bonus to all class skills with a rank, and with the condensed skill lists, your skill points stretch farther than they used to.

I Know - but that's exactly what I mean - you put one rank in eight/six/four/two class skills and this results in an specialized, but not very broad skilled character.

Thinking about it, double skill points may be too much for a rogue, but not the other classes. One and a half?

Ok, to be honest, I haven't worked through all the threads, so maybe this is doubled anywhere.

To say that, the system has seen some great improvements through the Pathfinder Rules. There's one thing I really have my concerns with.

The skill points at first level.

The thing I (and my players) really like about the 3.5 rogue, bard and ranger are their high skill points. That is because it was possible to create some versatile, broad based characters. We usually don't put 4 points into a skill at 1st level, but 1 to 2, only sometimes 4. Thus it is able to give a rogue ALL necessary skills plus additional flair-based enhancements like craft, profession or perform. And it let's him support the party in every case, not only the ones he is specialized in. This makes him a little bit weaker, but nevertheless useful.

By allowing only the basis skill point amount of the character class at first level, you enforce more specialized, but less versatile characters. Let's say, we have a rogue with an intelligence rating of 14, giving him an additionally 2 skill points, resulting in 10 at first level. With that he can choose not even half of the rogues class skills. Sure, he has still his 4 points in Stealth and Perception, but maybe he had to drop Acrobatics and Bluff, because he didn't want to relinquish Diplomacy and Craft and thought he would need Climb, Escape Artist, Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Sleight of Hand and Knowledge (Dungeoneering).

With the somehow condensed skill set and being only able to put 1 point per level in a skill it may not be necessary to recieve the quadruple amount of skill points. But what about the double? This would allow even the all-time skill point-low fighter to get about half the class skills he is able to choose from. Not to speak about the cleric, wizard, paladin, sorcerer - choose one. Do you really think it is satisfying to play a cleric with Int 10 who is only proficient with Knowledge (religion) - which should definitely have every cleric - and ONE other skill?

Ok, this is only something to discuss and think about. And maybe I got something wrong, as a not-native English Speaker?