Geron Raveneye's page

A problem I have with this is one of bookkeeping. What if one has five or six classes? -- and there is nothing under the rules to say you should not. Sucks to have to track five or six xp totals.

No system in this world exists that can't be overtaxed by the human mind creating more than enough work for itself. Trying to track five or six classes is no less bookkeeping under 3E rules, where you deal with e.g. one list of class skills for each class.

But a larger problem I have is that this is inelegant.

See, the elegance of 3E D&D is the central idea that the quantum unit of character building is the level. By piling level upon level, you can create a wide array of different characters. To make this work, a fundamental idea is that All Levels Are Equal. A single common xp total, a single common base attack bonus, a single common set of saving throws, and -- in one of my proposals -- a single common caster level unite these building block levels, and each level makes a contribution to the total.

Your suggestion reminds me of first edition. A magic-user 5 / cleric 5 would use whatever was better of the two class's saves and attacks. I think the 3E way is better.

That's what I thought, too, for some years. But you only need to take a little deeper look to see that this cute idea of all levels being equal simply doesn't work in 3E, and never really did, and more so if you are have a caster class in the mix. A fighter/wizard 5/5 simply isn't comparable to a 10th level single class character in power, and hence will get sacked by monsters of adequate CRs even easier.

And yes, astute observation about the source of the inspiration for the idea, although I said something about 2nd Edition in my post, since I never played AD&D 1E.

Since you asked...this is something I've been mulling over for a while, and posted in the 3.5/OGL forum here as well.

I've been pondering on something that came up during a discussion about the problem of seeming level-equivalence with the current 3.X multiclassing system. It was inspired by the attempt to mix 2E and 3E multiclassing systems. Since I wouldn't be surprised if something like that has been done (and published) already, I'd appreciate pointers in the right direction by those in the know. :)

Of course, simple feedback is also welcome. ;)

The idea is as follows: XP gained are split between the classes of a multiclass character, and recorded separately in order to level up the character in each class separately. This determines the class level in each class the character trains in. The character level is calculated by the total XP the character gained, and is determined from the Level/XP chart as well.

Benefits are gained either by class level or by character level. Class level basically only grants you the special abilities of the class (bonus feats, sneak attack, spells, turning, etc) and the class skill list. Character level grants you hit points, BAB, Base Save, skill points etc. You use the best BAB and Base Save progression of the classes your character has trained in, hit points (or rather HD) are averaged between the classes, as are skill points. He gains all abilities (proficiencies with weapons and armor), but also suffers all limits of each class (weapon restrictions, alignments, casting in armor, etc).

Example: A multiclass fighter/wizard 5/5 who has split his XP 50/50 between both classes has gained 20000 XP during his career. He has 3 figher bonus feats, Summon Familiar, Scribe Scroll, a wizard bonus feat and the spell selection and casting ability of a 5th level wizard.
With 20000 XP, he is at 6th character level. His HD are the average of d10 and d4 (in this case, the d7, or d8-1 reroll 1s), so he got to roll that 6 times, adding Con modifiers as usual. He has 2 skill points + Int bonus per level (both classes only offer 2 + Int bonus), and his max skill ranks are +9/+4.5. He combines the class skill lists of both classes. He has Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +4 as his saves. He has all abilities of both classes, and abides by all restrictions of each.

The system would work with later multiclassing, too. Simply set a year of training time before the 1st level in a new class can be gained, and recalculate all character level dependent benefits. What is lacking gets filled up, and what is too much already gets frozen until the new values would overtake the old. A fighter 5th taking 1st level of rogue would gain a LOT of new class skills, and the difference in skill points between 2/level and 5/level (average of both classes) would be available as new skill points. On the other hand, his HP wouldn't rise until the new HD (d8 instead of d10) would overtake the difference.

So, is there something like that already out there? People using it? And if yes, what's the experience? I realize it is a bit more complicated, but I think it beats the problem of levels, since that way, a multiclass character with equal levels will stay only a few levels behind his group mates (5/5 = 6th, 8/8 = 11th, 14/14 = 19th), and will be able to contribute a lot better to any adventure while not being too overpowered (I think).

As I said, feedback appreciated. :)

I simply allow for a "Defense Bonus" = half the BAB rounded down, reduced by the Armor Check Penalty of any armor (NOT shields, those are used to parry attacks away) worn by the character. Add feats (or class features for the Fighter) to reduce armor check penalties bit by bit, and you have an integrated "Parry" feature that grows with the character's combat prowess and complements armor even at high levels. Makes the lightly-armored fighter with rapier & buckler as viable as the heavyly armored tank. :)

All I have to say to this is that I dropped the thought of playing 4E when they revealed that orthogonals and diagonals will be of equal length. If Pathfinder goes the same way, it will drop into the "Houserule Mine" category completely. At least, it'd be mostly compatible to my D20 games, in contrast to 4E.

Lich-Loved wrote:

Exactly, though I would like to add (and this is important for the overall point of this thread): since CR is undefined

Dude, no. It's not undefined. We pick up an Ogre. He doesn't have an undefined CR. He doesn't have a variable CR. He has a CR of three.

If it's Wednesday, his CR is 3. If he's fighting a 17th level Archmage his CR is 3. If he's fighting two dozen 1st level commoners his CR is 3. In fact, if he isn't fighting anyone at all, his CR is still three.

And if he is defeated by a larger party, they get less total XP. His CR doesn't go down, the XP just gets divided up. If he faces a smaller party, they get more XP. His CR again doesn't change, they just get more according to the formula in the DMG.

The Ogre's CR is always 3. It's not undefined. It's a number. It's a constant. It's three.

-Frank

I think LL's point is that, since the Challenge Rating of 3 was arrived at by testing the monster in question against a specific set of classes, it becomes less dependable (and hence less defined) when the same monster is set against a group of different composure.

And Ogre's CR 3 is defined by a group of a fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard of 3rd level each. The more you deviate from this defining baseline of combat potential, the more hazy the CR gets. Or, in other words, the CR of an ogre facing a group of a 3rd level fighter, cleric, rogue and wizard is 3. For any other composure of that group, the CR is approximately 3, with the approximation getting bigger the more the group deviates from the baseline.

With a group of 1 character, the deviation might be big enough to simply negate the defining baseline assumptions of Challenge Ratings, and hence throw all calculations off. Incidentally, that's why I mostly agree with the point I think LL is trying to make, although not with the general tone the discussion has taken.

While sleep deprived yesterday I messed with this a bit. The at will powers are a good ideal also why not give em Eschew Materials at 1st.

Some thought I had that I'll look back over now that I've had some sleep.

Bloodline spells: an extra spell maybe every 2 levels or so chosen from a list they get a +1 or +2 DC to this spell.

Eschew Materials Give it to em at 1st and make it improve as they level maybe at 5/10/15/20 or/6/12/18

Sacrifice the flesh Allow them to burn HP for extra spell's when they run out or to add metamagic without the level incress may something like 3x1, 2x1 and 1x1 progression at 6,14,18 maybe

Heh, this board always makes me grin when I see how often different people come to similar ideas. Parallel developments and all that. For example, I gave the sorcerer

- Bloodline abilities (basically cribbed the stuff from Unearthed Arcana)

- Bloodline bonus spells levels 1-9, trying to fit the selection to the theme of the bloodline.

- Eschew Material ability at 1st level, but requiring costly components to be replaced with XP = 1/25th of the GP price

- Overchannelling from the Wheel of Time D20 Channeler class, which basically allows casting a spell either without a slot, or a few slots higher than the lowest available spell, with a Concentration check and the risk of serious harm or permanent burn-out.

Gave the sorcerer a lot more flavour, I believe. I'll wait and see how Pathfinder continues with this class, I've half a mind to steal the bloodline abilities for my version already.

I've been pondering on something that came up during a discussion about the problem of seeming level-equivalence with the current 3.X multiclassing system. It was inspired by the attempt to mix 2E and 3E multiclassing systems. Since I wouldn't be surprised if something like that has been done (and published) already, I'd appreciate pointers in the right direction by those in the know. :)

Of course, simple feedback is also welcome. ;)

The idea is as follows: XP gained are split between the classes of a multiclass character, and recorded separately in order to level up the character in each class separately. This determines the class level in each class the character trains in. The character level is calculated by the total XP the character gained, and is determined from the Level/XP chart as well.

Benefits are gained either by class level or by character level. Class level basically only grants you the special abilities of the class (bonus feats, sneak attack, spells, turning, etc) and the class skill list. Character level grants you hit points, BAB, Base Save, skill points etc. You use the best BAB and Base Save progression of the classes your character has trained in, hit points (or rather HD) are averaged between the classes, as are skill points. He gains all abilities (proficiencies with weapons and armor), but also suffers all limits of each class (weapon restrictions, alignments, casting in armor, etc).

Example: A multiclass fighter/wizard 5/5 who has split his XP 50/50 between both classes has gained 20000 XP during his career. He has 3 figher bonus feats, Summon Familiar, Scribe Scroll, a wizard bonus feat and the spell selection and casting ability of a 5th level wizard.
With 20000 XP, he is at 6th character level. His HD are the average of d10 and d4 (in this case, the d7, or d8-1 reroll 1s), so he got to roll that 6 times, adding Con modifiers as usual. He has 2 skill points + Int bonus per level (both classes only offer 2 + Int bonus), and his max skill ranks are +9/+4.5. He combines the class skill lists of both classes. He has Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +4 as his saves. He has all abilities of both classes, and abides by all restrictions of each.

The system would work with later multiclassing, too. Simply set a year of training time before the 1st level in a new class can be gained, and recalculate all character level dependent benefits. What is lacking gets filled up, and what is too much already gets frozen until the new values would overtake the old. A fighter 5th taking 1st level of rogue would gain a LOT of new class skills, and the difference in skill points between 2/level and 5/level (average of both classes) would be available as new skill points. On the other hand, his HP wouldn't rise until the new HD (d8 instead of d10) would overtake the difference.

So, is there something like that already out there? People using it? And if yes, what's the experience? I realize it is a bit more complicated, but I think it beats the problem of levels, since that way, a multiclass character with equal levels will stay only a few levels behind his group mates (5/5 = 6th, 8/8 = 11th, 14/14 = 19th), and will be able to contribute a lot better to any adventure while not being too overpowered (I think).

As I said, feedback appreciated. :)

I'm a dinosaur. It's pretty well-known by now that I really dislike the huge donkey ears, the "arms race" of ever-more-gigantic weapons, the random spikes everywhere, etc. It all looks like Manga to me, and, no, I'm not an expert, and no, I don't read the stuff -- and if to a comics connoisseur it looks more like some obscure Korean form I've never heard of, well, OK, I'm willing to concede the point, but I still don't like it much.

But none of that matters, really. I absolutely love the work that the adventure writers do, and I love the fact that Mssrs. Jacobs & co. can edit and produce the stuff as fast as they do, and I like enough of the art (especially the GameMastery modules art) that I can handle the rest. And, judging from these threads, lots of people like donkey-eared elves and 260-pound warhammers, or whatever. If that's what it takes for Paizo to sell adventure paths, well, so be it!

You know, for this show of tolerance and sufferance for the sake of good adventures and great products, you got a tad more of my respect as a fellow roleplaying gamer. :)

I have a question, actually...

For all the sound and wind blasting about floppy elf ears... can you indicate what illustrations are causing the problems? The only two that come to mind off the top of my head are the illustration of Shalelu in Pathfinder 1 and the elf in the races lineup that first appeared in Pathfinder 3. Both of those were commissioned before we had our "look" for elves all the way dialed in.

Are there other illustrations of elves that are riling the ear-hating crowd up? Is this really an uproar over two illustrations?

Just to answer your question, for me it's only the racial line-up, and since I guess that the final product will have new art produced for it, I don't mind that much. The other illustrations of "long-ears" ;D are perfectly fine with me. One glance at my old "Elfquest" collection clears that up nicely. :)

The thing is, the elf in that line-up didn't simply have "long ears", he had the kind of long ears that you see VERY often in fantasy anime/manga on elves, the kind Deedlit of Lodoss War fame had, only a bit more angular. Very long ears, at a flat angle to the skull, often not really pointy but more like wedges...I think you get what I mean.

Point being, I like long, points ears on elves, as long as they don't look like mecha-antennae, steering fins for in-flight maneuvers, or extra paddles. ;)

Maybe this puts a lid on this little and unnecessary side discussion, and points people to the directions of where they might find some more information on the word "mook". What I found on www.word-detective.com is the following:

"One dictionary that does deal with "mook" is the recently published Volume Two of the excellent Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (which I will call "HDAS" to save space). According to HDAS, "mook" means "an ineffectual, foolish, or contemptible person," so your definition is certainly in the ballpark. The earliest citation HDAS lists is from 1930.

As to the origin of "mook," HDAS ventures that it is probably a variation on "moke," a slang term dating back to the middle of the 19th century. "Moke" means several things: originally, it was a slang and dialect term in England for a donkey, but it has also been used as a term of contempt for a Black person or any dark-skinned person. But "moke" has also been used since at least 1855 to mean "a foolish or inconsequential person," which certainly ties it to "mook." Unfortunately, no one has any clear idea of where "moke" came from. So I guess we'll both just have to keep digging."

So hopefully this clears things up a bit. Back to skill points vs. skill slots. ;)

You did catch that part about Pathfinder being as backwards compatible as possible while ironing out the kinks of 3.X, right? Just asking. :)

Normally I would have lurked a bit longer, but I watched CONAN the barbarian with my wife last night...image that, a fighter/barbarian actually successfully playing the thief!

Imagine that...the guy who'd most likely be a multiclassed fighter/thief in D&D...who'd have thought? ;) His "barbarian" was a cultural reference, not a RPG class description, after all.

A wizard with pathetic actual magic powers wielding a spear! Talk about genre smashing!

Never would have thought the sorcerer class being genre smashing. Who'da thought.

So why cant my fighter learn to be stealthy and quiet without having an anheurism? Why can't he have been trained to spot and recognize magic? I realize cross clsaa skills were meant to do this, but it actually omes off as punishing players for wanting to break the mold and play a "unique" character...isn't that what the game is about?

Maybe take another look at the multi-classing rules before trying to make a deeply rooted class-based system into a more skill-based system. Breaking the mold is easily possible in D&D as well without rewriting the rules. :) It never was meant to have characters being played as totally skill-based, with the possible exception of the Rogue.

To that end, one of the differences between 2nd and 3rd that I've been thinking about recently is XP rewards. in 2nd Ed., you got an XP reward for using one of your class abilities, Thieving Skills for thieves and bards, spells wizards and clerics, killin' thangs for fighters and other warriors. Instead of calibrating he whole game to the characters' ability to Kill Thangs, 2nd Ed. calibrated the to whatever your character is good at. Makes more sense, don't it?

I guess you are talking about the completely optional rule for "Individual Experience Awards" on page 48 in the 2E DMG? Yeah, that one was damn nice...no idea how often you saw it used, but I remember it wasn't that often at all. Still, it was a nice idea. :)

I am deeply saddened by the number of people who don't like the Pathfinder skill system. Normally, I'm not one who is all like, "Blaah, we need progress, you guys are just holding other players back, blaah!" but I really feel that way on this issue. Pathfinder's method is simple and elegant, and it lets the fighter and other low-skillpoint classes be able to do things with skills.

I can't really fathom ever playing with 3.5 skills again, to be honest. The way that 3e does skills is so clunky and time-consuming that it makes me want to cry a lot to think that people would want to keep it. I realize that some people are more into micromanagement of characters, but it just seems that Pathfinder is doing so many things right with the skill system that a small sacrifice of realism is totally worth it.

No offense PR, but all this post does is make me want to pat you on the head and go "Awww, poor Psychich Robot, have a cookie and all gets better again." In other words, you manage to get my pity...but not much understanding, because where you see simple and elegant, others like me see oversimplification and missing detail.

The Alpha 1 skill system is not "better" or "more evolved" or even "progress" in any way. It'a actually a step backwards towards older editions, if you want to talk development of skills in D&D history (not that this is a bad thing, mind you). It simply is a different way to do skills, that's all. It takes an option inherent in the current system (auto-maxing skills) and makes it the default, chucking the other options the current system offers out the window for the sake of simplification while adding its own problems. Not everybody likes that.

I actually hope we'll get a skill system that includes the streamlining to the 3.5 system that has been brought up in various threads by now AND an acceptable auto-max system for those players and DMs who like to have simple skill allocation. Either/Or is never the way to go when both sides are so strongly represented.

Good point. One which points to the incredibly short list of feats a 20th level ANYTHING but fighter, wizard, or ranger has. That is 6. Spend it on combat or magic schtick? Or boost skill powers. Currently, if a party has a ranger or rogue (preferrably the latter) there is no reason for skills management.

That means that you can make INT a dump stat for all but rogue and wizard. That's lame. Punishing anyone who wants to have a decent fighter with half a brain cell. Anyone know of any FR/Eberron/Greyhawk novels that had a warrior type main character with an IQ of 72? 60? NO. They are all smart, good looking, tough, and strong. USually quick too, but I digress.

Bump DC's up a smidge, give players more skill points (loved idea above - only 2+INT becoming 4+INT), allow more flexibility in "class" skill choices that can evolve over time.

I feel a number of skills = to class skill mod + INT bonus at first level is appropriate. Then allow a new one to be aquired every 4 levels. Simple, elegant, and stereotype destructive. Why can't a rogue disdain lockpicking and trapspringing and be a lorestealer? I'll tell...

The point is that skill don't define the archetype, except for the high-skill classes...the archetype defines the class skills, at least in D&D. And from that frame class->class skills, the player is supposed to build his character, with feats, multi-classing and prestige classes being the tools to break out of the base class definition. Separating class skills and cross-class skills is rooted in the class system of D&D, not the other way around.

And the fact that it costs a feat to add to your list of class skills should be a telling point how valuable that concept of a class skill was seen. It's comparable to learning to use a martial weapon, or a combat maneuver. Also, it will actually mean something when you spend one of your feats to acquire two more class skills (or even ALL Knowledge skills). The question of how useful it is inside the game is more a question for the DM and the player, and less for the system. If you want a clever, skilled fighter, invest a good stat in INT, and maybe one of your feats in some class skills, or Skill Focus. The tools to build a character "off the beaten track" are there, you just don't get it for free.

Apart from that, I'd agree that the fighter class skill list could use some additions, but that's personal taste, and easily houserule-able. :)

Now, some tweaking of the 3.5 skill points system could be useful. For example, raising the number of skill points some classes have, allowing some method of gaining other class skills (a feat, perhaps), and much of the skill combining you have already done are all good, and have the added benefit of not breaking compatibility nearly as badly.

It's funny...there's 8 years of D20/OGL development behind us, with heaps of additional systems and ideas. Is it such a strange idea to have "regional class skills/feats"? Do skills such as "Educated" or "Versatile" see so little use in 3.X? I simply wonder throughout a lot of these discussions, really...there's already plenty of ways and ideas on how to gain additional class skills that Pathfinder only has to integrate some of the better OGL stuff into its rules. :)

no skill points need gone there bulky and really unneeded . keep the alpha . rework it if ya most but for the love of the gods please no repainted complex skillpoint system.

You know, nobody is going to keep you from using it anyway, no matter what will appear in the final product. You have the Alpha version, you can work it into any other class easily...no need to panic. :) By the way, you do remember how to do "auto-max" with 3.5 skill points, right? Same thing, except characters will have fewer skills than with the Alpha version. Easily adjustable, no math needed. Really, relax. :)

Geron Raveneye wrote:

The only facts that everybody probably can agree on is that the current 3.5 skill system makes work hard - for the DM when creating complex and high-level characters - and that some of the solutions (like the one Epic Meepo suggested) are simply there to solve that one problem.

Okay. With a given that the 3.5 system needs improvement, I want to try to focus on a solution.

Don't mind me, I'm just completing that quote in order to put it into the correct context again, and to again offer the solution that was brought up for the "problem" mentioned in it as well (apart from a few other, similar, solutions that were brought up by other posters). :) This is the only problem I see in the skill system ver. 3.5, and the solutions offered for it are a lot easier, more compatible, and retain the functionality of the current skill system as well in all its functions.

If class skills belong in the D&D game, somebody should be able to come up with some strong arguments for them, or at least refute all or part of the major points that I've laid out in support of them. If that is not the case, well, then I expect that reasonable people will take up the cause.

There is nothing to refute, sorry...we're mostly talking opinions here, not facts. The only facts that everybody probably can agree on is that the current 3.5 skill system makes work hard - for the DM when creating complex and high-level characters - and that some of the solutions (like the one Epic Meepo suggested) are simply there to solve that one problem.

Beyond that, it's all opinion. As far as I get it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you feel that

- skills are not as important as other class features like BAB, hit points, spells or special abilities, and that a different accessibility and availability (through # of class skills and # of skill points) doesn't serve to differentiate one class from another, or at least not enough to make a difference when eliminated.
- that the current system (along with some of the options given in the PHB and DMG) doesn't work in realizing some character concepts.
- that it is more fun for more people to have a more liberated access to class skills.

There's no fact in all of that, nothing that can be refuted with more than a "I don't think so" and some anecdotal evidence. The first point is pure opinion, and as such not refutable. The second cannot fully be refuted, because even though the examples you brought up (e.g. sneaky fighter) have been created with the current system (e.g. by pres man), there can always be some weird character concept that can't be fully realized, and the undertone in your posts of building character types around skills simply doesn't mesh with the class system of D&D as it is. The third point is pure opinion again.

If there are more points that I didn't mention here, or misrepresented any of your points, I'm open to correction/addition. But as far as I see it, you're asking for a discussion about tastes right now, and that simply doesn't work, in my opinion. :)

I'll also repeat my question from earlier:

So, why have cross-class skills at all? Why is it necessary? What function does it serve? How does it make the game better? If the purpose is to indicate what skills classes most often have is it working? What are it's unintended effects? Is there a better way?

Any answers to those questions either? The more we discuss the issue the more I am convinced that there is no reason to keep class skills other than that is the system we had in 3.5, and some people don't feel comfortable with change even if it is clearly better. Am I wrong? Explain why.

You know, the more you ask, the less people will be interested in answering. There's been a heap of posts that tried to adress your questions, but you basically don't put any importance on the arguments presented in them, or simply choose not to believe them at all. The point is, you have your opinion about the skill system, just as anybody does, and I doubt there will be anything which can be brought forward that hasn't been already done so that will convince you in any other direction. This is like one of those discussions where people try to explain Vancian Magic to somebody who simply doesn't really like it.

On the other hand...nobody needs to convince you, unless you're part of the design team on Pathfinder RPG. :) For any other answers to your questions, I'll gladly point you to all those posts where people have already tried to answer them...I doubt you'll get many different ones at this point. This is a simple difference in opinion and values, and it won't get much further by beating the dead horse to a pulp.

I was about to wonder since when the [Design Focus] tag has been cleared for people to spread their houserules around. O_o

As an aside, I'm unfamiliar with any feat that makes a skill a class skill, though I've seen that proposed.

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has two of them. Cosmopolitan grants you one non-exclusive skill as a class skill and gives you a +2 bonus on it. Educated (also in Eberron CS) grants you all Knowledge skills as class skills and a +1 bonus to two of them. The Rokugan Campaign Setting has Versatile, which grants you two non-class skills as class skills. And basically, feats are the main D&D tool to break a character "out of his mold" if that is what the player wants. They are not all about teh cool combat powerz. :)

Let's use an example. I want to make a character that is in essence a rogue. From a young age he has infiltrated the temple of Heironeous. The temple offers a lot of advantages for the rogue. He can steal from the offerings, and if he can slip away, have a great time in town. Of course, to have the trust of the prelate he's going to have to work hard to fit in. He's going to have to try to master the religious tenets of the priests. He has to be the 'model student' to impress the Paladins that hang out in the Temple. Now, it wouldn't make sense for this character to take levels of cleric - especially not of the wrong god to take care of alignment restrictions. He's a rogue. He steals and sneaks. But he isn't the 'traditional rogue' who grew up on the streets. Now, any DM worth his salt is going to allow the player with this backstory have Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill. Should he give up another skill to 'pay' for it? I wouldn't think so. I'd just let the player assign his skill points in a way that makes sense for him.

Nice backstory. Swap Knowledge (Local) for Knowledge (Religion) and you are done. Reason? Our rogue has spent more time on temple grounds than scrounging in the streets, and had to ty and sneak around the temple guards in order to manage to have a good time in town. Also, the fact that he'll be known (or seen) as a student at the temple will cut off a lot of potential contacts on the street. He'll be getting around more than the other students who want to have some fun now and then, because he is a lot better at the whole stealth thing, but if he slips once, it costs him his cushy place, so he won't do it so often.

Any reason why the character should NOT exchange those two class skills? :) Another way is to have the rogue take one of the countless feats floating around that allow him to pick up skills as additional class skills. Those things are there for a reason. ;)

Is kinda a pet topic of mine, necromancers. I always loved to view them as the kind of wizards that meddle with the energies of Life and Death (Positive and Negative, respectively), two poles that are completely different from the Elements. Allowing them to shift life around from themselves to others and back, or between others, using it to bring corpses to unlife and manipulate the living tissues as well, scaring living creatures by the aura of Death they spread, not by creating artificial emotions. I always put some arcane healing (shifting life around) on a necromancer's list of spells. And I think it only takes some different reasoning and background for this branch of magic to actually feel different, not just be a collection of weird snippets of other schools. :)

As a player, I never want to be given an ability as a class feature that I don't want my character to have. If I want to be an honorable fighter (swashbuckler) and I don't use non-core, I have to figure out a way to get tumble as a class skill but still be a fighter. That's tough. If I take rouge levels I get sneak attack (which is frankly too tempting not to use), if I take bard I get magical abilities - neither is what I want for my character, so they're a poor fit. The point of all of these examples is that what is a good fit is the fighter EXCEPT for his skill selection. Since that is probably one of the least important class features AND the skills are already a limited commodity (to choose one, you must not choose a different one) we avoid powercreep nicely.

Having fighters that can tumble or fighters that can sneak doesn't affect game balance. Having fighters that can sneak, can tumble, can ride, can climb, can swim, can use diplomacy, can use magic device, can disable device, can search and spot would interrupt game balance. It's just a matter of number of skills, not what the skill selections are.

Let me say two things here :)

First...I agree with you. Yep, you're seeing correctly. ;)

Second...I wouldn't want to see this in the PHB (or the Player's part of the Pathfinder RPG core book). In there, I'd like to see the "traditional" archetypes, and some rules for multiclassing that take care of the more popular combinations. Where I WANT to see rule suggestions for that kind of character building is in the DMG (or DM's part of the Pathfinder RPG core book). For example, the sections in the 3.0 or the 3.5 DMG (page 25 or 174 respectively, if I remember correctly) describe what to do if the DM wants to modify classes to fulfill some need or player wishes. This would be the part I'd point a new DM to if he wonders if he can simply switch one class skill on the fighter's list for another (Say Ride for Stealth). Basically, the answer should be a resounding "Yes", and the text should encourage the DM to ponder it as well as caution him about possible risks and pitfalls.

That's all from me about this point. I'm back to watching Farscape. :)

This is a good system. It is a simple system. Other than the fact that there are some levels with fewer skill points than 3.5, I don't really see a problem. That one 'problem' isn't really a problem in my mind, but more of a solution to an existing problem with 3.5. So, I'm curious what other objections people have to it.

Looks good, really, and is mechanically sound.

Only problem I have with it, and I'm honestly not doing this to be contrary, is that it screws with my images of how people arrive at 1st level. Basically, characters learn as much after reaching 2nd level as they have reached 1st...and the same goes for every levely after 2nd. So basically, reaching 1st level couldn't have taken that long either. That's already all. Not much, to be honest, and I could either live with it, or adapt back to the old system. Just wanted to answer your question. :)

And yeah, in case this gets asked...I've offered Downtime skill training since I found good rules for that in the Iron Kingdoms World Guide. ;) For those characters who want to invest some more time and money into studying.

To retirate what has already been said a few times...there are no "rights" to the XP progression table, because it's a system based on very simple math. XP(next level) = Sum(last levels)x1000. Example: For 6th level, you need Sum(5+4+3+2+1)x1000 = 15000 XP.

This mathematic formula cannot be copyrighted. The only thing that CAN be protected is the presentation and layout. So all Paizo would have to do is create their own design around the progression table, and voila. Instant XP progression table. Covered under the OGL.

If you check any of the "core books" for an OGL game (with an OGL logo, as opposed to a D20 logo), you will see that they all include their own character creation and XP progression rules that are a "copy" of the 3.5 rules because those are all based on extremely simple math.

I think we're in the "wild idea stage" right now...Alpha versions. Usually, that means wild ideas by the designers only (as witnessed by Alpha 1). Only now they have asked all their fans and customers to weigh in...which means asking thousands of tinker-happy RPG players about their opinions on the designers' wild ideas, and about their own!

Asking one tinker-happy RPG player about his wild ideas for his favorite game invites hours of discussion.

They asked thousands. Literally.

I'd say wait for the Beta version to come out before seriously starting to look around the forum for stuff that shouldn't be left alone. Alpha is...well...wild growth. I trust Jason Bulmahn's mental filter enough to pick out the signals from all the noise. :)

Gotta go. Good talking.

Definitely. :)

It's funny, I have the impression we'd be mostly on the same track a lot faster if we could talk face to face. Stupid typed conversation lag. ;)

So, think we agree on simplification of cross-class skills when multiclassing, and maybe an easier way to get some class abilities without multi-classing? :)

A few years ago, I started puzzling together some feats that incorporated class abilities so far not covered by existing feats, taking the idea from the fact that most of the fighter's class abilities are feats anyway. I even built a feat that gave a character spellcasting levels one per feat starting at 3.0 "apprentice" level.

Thing is, I basically agree with you, but I'd like to see all these "optional variants" to be collected in an Unearthed Arcana style book, and leave the core rules as close to D&D as possible. I love variant rules...half of the D20/OGL core games I got for cribbing variant rules from them. For some reason, I just prefer the baseline of D&D to be where it is, and give people all the alternatives after they digested the baseline.

Hope you won't mind me dissecting your post, I don't intend to quote anything out of context...just feels more like a conversation if I can add my comments to parts of what you way instead of bundling them up at the end. :)

I am not.

Yay! Glad I got you wrong then. :)

I certainly am in favor of retaining classes. I like more classes, rather than fewer. What makes a class special and worth playing for me, however, are the class abilities. I would choose a rogue for sneak attack, a fighter for feats, and a wizard for spells. While skills are an important part of the character, they're the 'least important' mechanic. Each rank of a skill is insignificant when compared to the power of a feat or the power of a high level spell.

Because they are worth so much less than other abilities, I don't think it makes the rogue stronger to have sole access to certain skills. Even if every class had equal access, the rogue is a strong choice because of abilities like Sneak Attack, and the fact that the rogue has MORE skills (not just better access to a few skills) is more valuable.

I'd disagree with that for the rogue, especially because it was, from its conception 30 years ago, a class that relied on having skills other classes couldn't emulate, or only very badly. Each edition tried to keep this up through different systems. 3E actually tried to open up a lot of the rogue skills to the other classes with the skill system, while trying to preserve the niche of the rogue as ultimate specialist for things like trapfinding, locks, etc.

Cross-class training and different number of skill points were some of the tools for that, additional class abilities that exclusively allowed rogues to find complex traps and disarm them were others. The problem was that, as usual, the assumptions behind those rules were not really communicated, so a lot of times, people try to apply their understnding of skill systems from other games to D&D, which doesn't always work. In a game where skills are the MAIN shapers of a character, equal access to them is a lot more important than it is in D&D 3E, where skills supplement a class with additional abilities.

Since the primary use of skills, in my mind, is not to significantly increase the power level of the game, but instead to customize and 'round out' the character that you envision, I support more flexibility. The most important point for me in the class/cross-class debate is that restricting what people can choose for class skills is not more fun - not for the rogue and not for the fighter. And to support that main point I try to illustrate character concepts that don't work well under the skill rules in 3.5, and to point out the inherent absurdity of the fact that two people who have no 'penchant' for a particular learning should master it faster because they are expected to be good at that particular thing. I think it creates stereotypes (which are anathema to unique characters) and is no more valid in regard to D&D than it is when discussing real groups and their ability to master skills (female Asians and driving, or girls and biology - who would say those are cross-class skills? If I could use a real world example of 'class' I would, but since they don't exist...).

I have to disagree here, at least with your assumption that you can put the label "Rogue" on somebody and still have him completely disconnected to the basic rogue/thief functions, namely trapfinding and disarming, opening locks, pocketpicking, etc. The rogue in 3E is definitely an expansion of the more narrow thief classes of older editions, but the basic functions are all firmly entrenched in the class. A rogue at 1st level had enough contact with all facets of life that he will have a basic affinity for that kind of stuff, an inherent advantage in learning it and training it further.

The difference in opinion is probably because to me, on the metagame level, class skills for the rogue are a replacement of the older editions' "thief skills"...so basically the rogue's class skills are class abilities in another guise, and as such are of a lot more importance than "just skills" would be. :)

This is done in order to preserve archetypes in D&D...stereotypes only arise if those archetypes are played uncreatively. :)

Agreed. But do you think that the classes NEED the 'exclusive access' to some skills to retain their identity? Obviously giving a fighter sneak attack progression would steal the identity of the rogue, but would giving him the choice to learn how to disable traps?

Yep, it would. See above for my reasoning on this...I'm one of those D&D players who likes the thief/rogue in the game as a distinct role/archetype, and I'd hate to see him being reduced to an expert with sneak attack ability and some extra talents.

I'm also in favor of trying to retain compatability as a major goal. The two areas that I'm willing to accept incompatability are for ease of use and increasing flexibility.

I certainly see reluctance to abandon the idea of 'cross-class skills'. I'm hoping that a member of the opposition is willing to investigate the proposition of cross-class skills with intellectual honesty and insight and help explain why the system is better than a system that does not use cross-class skills. If the only reason is that it is 'traditional', I think that is telling.

That is to say, that would be admitting that a system without cross-class skills would be better, but still may not be worth it (for reasons of compatability). I believe that Paizo can make changes when they're clearly better and will receive support from most of their fans, and certainly from me.

Well, "traditional" in that the only reason why it is done that way is because "it was always done like this" would be a bad reason, I agree. But usually, that answer means "there WAS a good reason for doing it like that, and we simply forgot the reason, so we stick to the tradition". Still not really good. But in the case of the 3E skill system, we KNOW the reasons why it was done that way, we can see it in the development from earlier editions to now.

I'm also for flexibility and streamlining. I'm one of the guys who suggested dropping cross-class skill costs (I'd keep the max ranks, but Meepo's system is not bad either, and more popular right now ;D), and retroactive INT skill point bonuses. But the rogue needs some exclusive abilities to keep the identity of its archetype, and I'd prefer that to be included in Pathfinder.

Of course, I can live with all kinds of systems...houseruling Pathfinder is no more difficult than houseruling any other kind of game, once it's out and in my hands. ;D

And by the way, thanks for the thought-provoking and interesting conversation. :)

To my mind, you're ignoring my main point.

I am arguing against the default assumption that a rogue, by nature of the fact that it says 'rogue' on his character sheet, should know anything about traps. A rogue should have the choice to learn about traps, but should not be required to.

To say that rogues should get one skill that another class does not have available as a class skill is to make the argument that they either ARE more familiar with that subject, or SHOULD be. I disagree with both.

Since D&D is about creating a character that represents your ideal, there should be few things that limit the creation of that character. If you want to play a character that has 'typical rogue abilities' like sneak attack, you should choose to play a rogue. That type of rogue, however, may have more of the mad surgeon than the trap smith. This is a valid character concept and should be represented by the rules. Just as I feel that a fighter shouldn't HAVE to have Heavy Armor Proficiency, I feel that a rogue shouldn't HAVE to have Trapfinding.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from here it looks like you are arguing against Pathfinder/D&D being a class-driven game with characters that are shaped by an archetype, and for it becoming a feat/skill-driven game where characters are shaped by the player and may or may not conform to an archetype.

If that is the case, I sincerely hope it won't happen. There's a dozen game systems out there that do this, and I really see no reason to cozy up to them with D&D, which has always retained its flavour of archetypes in the core books. I don't want to see it turn into something like Shadowrun, which had archetypes as orientation only examples, or GURPS or Rolemaster, with dozens of "prepackaged bundles" instead of classes.

I don't care how people houserule D&D to their satisfaction, I'm guilty of as much houseruling as anybody...but I'd prefer the core to stay close to its roots. The 3E skill system was an attempt to patch a skill system into the class system of D&D, and it wasn't a bad attempt. A few streamlining efforts for DMs might be in order, as has been noted plenty of times already, but I don't see the call to go to more extremes at all..in either direction.

Keep skill points (personally, I'd not mind simplifications as posted on many threads by now).

I don't know. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like there is a lot more theoretical arguement and lobbying here than there is trying to see if the game will run better or worse. I'd hate to see a system get dropped or modified before people even gave it a chance to work. I know Paizo wants to do what its fans want, but I also think we are starting to get into a wave of wish lists here instead of actually looking at what would make 3.5 run smoother.

I agree, but it is hard to playtest something when your players take a look at it and go "Uh, no thanks, we playtested something like that with 2E for years, only we got the FULL max rank as soon as we took a proficiency". And basically this "skill choice" system is similar to the proficiency system, with minor differences.

Also, remember that D&D assumes class skills to BE class abilities in that they are the "ares of expertise" that a class offers its members. In other words, a fighter has a few skills that he is predisposed to training and focussing on more, and hence getting more out of than a wizard. It's an attempt to combine the flexibility of a pure skill system with the rigid niche protection of a pure class system, and on principle, I think the attempt is a valid one.

And if you want to switch viewpoints, everybody with the same INT bonus has the same potential to learn skills, and your class simply gives you a bonus to that and some preselected "advantage" skills, with the reasoning that different classes put different importance on training "mundane" skills instead of specialized combat skills, spellcasting or miracle-working. From the "classic four", that is the rogue. He's got the most time to focus on skills, so he gets the broadest selection and the most "bonus skill points" from his class. The fighter trains mostly with all weapons and armor, the wizard trains heavily on complex arcane spells, and the cleric trains his martial arts alongside his praying, which is why they all only get 2 bonus skill points from their class.

Sometimes I wonder if the whole skill problem would look different if WotC had stated "All skills cost 2 skill points per rank to purchase, those on your class skill list cost half that amount" instead of making 1/1 the "default" assumption and "penalizing" cross-class skill training.

Oh, and as for the bugbear...well, for his race he's definitely a good rogue. Compared to the elf, he's more of a thug. Better as brutal shock trooper with his sneak attack, STR bonus and natural armor, and good as a third-row artillery, but not quite as good with all the fiddly traps and locks. :)

With this in mind I actually have decided that I do like the Pathfinder skill system as it protects players from their own inexperience. Creating a...

I can see where you're coming from, and I don't mean any offense with my remark, but this sounds too much like "Hey, no need to LEARN how to ride a bike if we simply keep the support wheels on" to my ears to really be an attractive alternative. My job as DM includes trying to teach new players how their character can achieve the goals they set for them by a slightly more intelligent allocation of skill points. Or would you prefer a vast simplification of the spell system as well to protect new players of clerics and wizards from their inexperience? :)

Before 3E, D&D tried to get along without skills (worked fine) and with proficiencies (worked but was a bit wonky). At the same time, plenty of RPG systems that used skill point systems flourished, and I think it was that reason we have the 3E skill point system. I doubt returning to something like a proficiency system would be a successful move in the eyes of the majority of players. A simplified skill point system would fulfill all the requirements and offer auto-maximization as well. In order to "protect" your players, you can simply tell them to "choose that number of skills and put 4 ranks in each, and every time you level up, add 1 rank to each skill". Easy as that. :)

Thank you, but I realize that. I don't think that a bugbear Rogue 1 is equivalent to an elf rogue 5.

Sorry, but ever since you brought the Bugbear up a few days ago, this question really bothers me, so I'll simply ask it here.

Why are you comparing a bugbear rogue with 3 racial levels and 1 level of rogue to a 5th level elf rogue?

Did we need another thread for this? Or is there a post limit on threads, and the other "Skill point discussion" threads already reached it? Just wondering...

DG, you hit the spot with your comments...and I love the fact you brought up the cartoon angle. I agree a 100%, people need to be reminded that D&D is not just there for tactical mini-clubbing, but that it can be a lot of silly fun and should be that now and then.

Although I'd prefer some Nodwick strips, to be honest...Nodwick and his friends are a sort of "iconic D&D comedy" for me, and would look less out of place in a Paizo publication than Rich's OotS figures, who I love just as much. But think of the Nodwick strips in the Dungeon Magazine, keyed to the advetures. Perfect. :D

Anyway, seconded!

Hmmmkay, I see where you're coming from. Looking at the Bugbear in the d20srd, I'd probably distribute skill points a bit differently (also, a bugbear is a 3rd level creature before class levels are applied, LA only influences XP progression), and definitely view a bugbear rogue as the more frontline-active kind of rogue who happens to be good with locks and traps as well. But tastes differ for sure. Thanks for the pointer, though. :D

Okay, I'm probably being too slow, too simple-minded or something inbetween again, but why does the x4 at 1st level make most monsters unplayable as PCs?

Apart from the fact that I think D&D is not meant to support "most monsters" as PC races, but that's a different kettle of fish. :)

Well, it certainly looks like the kind of fixes that are proposed by Meepo and Kirth and others are getting serious consideration, so with some luck, we'll get a simplified 3.5 skill point system in one of the next updates...let's cross fingers. :D

Well, as I found out yesterday night, the whole Wish problem is a symptom of 3.5...check the wording of the 3.0 version of wish if you're interested to see how it differs on the creation of items. :)

Is always funny to see where the whole 3.5 update went wrong. In that respect, I agree with the original poster...the best chance not to create such loopholes is to make sure your wording is clear and correct, and spells out what you want the rule in question to do.

Uhm, you know, this is supposed to be one of those threads that try to excise the fiddly bits from the skill system without turning it into an Alpha variant...so far, the other threads are pretty cluttered up with variations on Alpha 1 systems, and different point calculations and lots of math. ;) I guess a thread on other fiddly DM bits of 3.5 would be better served in its own thread anyway, since it would get more attention there instead of in a thread on fiddly 3.5 skill point bits. :)

What is too fiddly for me when DMing?

Synergy bonuses.

Check

Non-retroactive Int increases.

Check

Huge scale of results. d20 plus modifiers gives a scale of results between 1 and 40+. Don't need such a massive scale.

Scale of results is less important than scale of target DCs, since greater check results doesn't equate greater successes.

Assigning dozens of skill points across dozens of skills - it's a hassle and too easy to miss points here and there.

What's keeping you from auto-maxing class skills for NPCs? :)

Armour penalties - like them, but I always forget them!

Agree to a point...would be nice if they were easier to list. Armor on/off is always a situational question, no idea how to simplify them without taking them out.

Human bonus skill points - I always forget these!

Well..play more humans? ;) Seriously, I tend to forget what I use only rarely. Maybe that can help. Otherwise, ditch all races except humans and add 1 point to class skill points/level. ;)

Overly granular skill system - it increases in single point increments, yet results are determined in 5 or 10-point increments (or higher.)

Depends on the skill, but in general, yes. Except if the DM makes liberal use of the +2/-2 modifiers. I guess the simplification of an easy to remember +5 for next difficulty level counted more than having a finer grained DC system.

Wildly varying skill levels between characters make skill-based encounter planning a hassle.

You could say the same about combat planning...or magical planning...or nasty traps...I guess D&D simply used to be a game about a group of specialists instead of a group of generalists so far.

These are just the first few that sprang immediately to mind. Any one or two of these could easily be ignored. Taken together, they are a monument to fiddly. Fiddly=bad.

Well, more food for thought, so thanks for the post. :D In the end, I'm hoping for a system that we both can use with equal ease and fun. :)

Well, there's a few posts and threads about simplifying the skill point system for the DM, and I'm quite sure Mr. Bulmahn keeps an eye on those too.

Also...compatibility and convertibility are not the same thing. and a lot of suggestions and "solutions" simply drive Pathfinder away from being compatible with 3.5, and into being convertible into 3.5, which is something a lot of people simply don't want.

And the second problem I have is that I can't playtest a system that most of players (all 3.5 DMs in their own games from time to time) take a look at and go "Nah, thanks, that's what we left behind with 2E proficiencies for good". :/ And worst is that I have to agree...the skill system was one of the nice parts of 3E back when I switched. So...yeah...from a DM's point of view...keep skill points. Simplify, sure. But please don't make me houserule them back in. :)

Well, I guess I'll have to see what feedback I get from houseruling this into my games then. ;D One nice thing coming from all these discussions around Pathfinder...lots of inspiration and insight into the current D&D system. :)

oh and ya was off by 1 skill point.

Uhm, no he wasn't. That +1 he added to Disable Device comes from the fact that the skill works with INT, which he raised to 12 before, so the ability bonus goes from +0 to +1. :)

I got to respectfully disagree here, really. :) It's not the fact that an Efreet possesses the ability to cast Wish for the one who controls him...it's the wording of the spell itself. Add the old and traditional clause that a Wish cannot be used to gain more wishes, from whatever source, and that any attempt will end badly for the one who wished such, and you're finished with that particular problem. Clarify that "magical item" does NOT mean artifact or relic, and you're done with that as well.

The whole spawning problem can be dealt with in one line. "Spawns cannot create spawns themselves before they are not free from their creator's control." A popular and widely found modern myth about vampires.

The worst problems can be dealt with "at the source", so to speak, since Wish is an ability a high-level wizard will have as well, or a mid-level group in a Ring of Three Wishes or similar.

Polymorphing was actually pretty harmless in its 3.0 incarnation, and never needed the whole mutation-mess it was put through over time. One line would have cured all those "But the player can use ANY monster supplement as source, it's BROKEN!!" complaints. "The caster can only polymorph the target into a creature he has seen before, or knows intimately from theory. A successful Knowledge (relevant field) check (DC 15 + CR of the monsters) is necessary to remember enough details about any creature to polymorph into it." Have fun watching the habitual polymorpher sink skill points into diverse Knowledge skills to be able to keep his portfolio up.

The summoning spells need one part eliminated. The "...or to perform other actions." part should go. That turns the spell into pure combat support, which it was supposed to be in the first place, and leaves such scams as creating everburning torches to spells as Gate, Lesser Planar Ally and similar spells, where you need to haggle with the creature you called to do you a service.

My point is that these are the "smaller changes" that are in the details. Rewordings, clarifications, and a line here and there to stop a loophole. The 3.5 system is based on the fact that monster abilities are (more or less) consistent with what PCs can do at some point, through spells or magical items or class abilities. Taking that away from monsters would be hurting that more than it helps.

All in my opinion, of course. :)

Um... and soon as you look it up and write/type it on your character sheet the complication ends. Someone could just as easily say that spellcasting and feats are unnecessary complications to the game.

Yeah, sure, would be nice and easy with a flat +2 bonus to another skill. I don't know what kind of character sheet you use, but mine doesn't have another big column in the skills part to write down the circumstances under which this +2 is granted for many skills. :)

Is why I keep saying, simplify synergy bonuses. I would love to keep them, even the stacking variant, for the simple reason that it keeps people from trying to buy skill enhancers for all and sundry.

So, from those discussions that actually still deal with the original 3.5 skilly point system here, I've gleaned the following points:

- Fold skills together in a reasonable way. This will shorten the skill list, and eliminate a lot of synergy bonuses outright (Persuasion instead of Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate for example).

- Eliminate the cross-class distinction to simplify skill point expenditure, or leave it only for max ranks. In second case, allow all skills from classes in a multiclass to be class skills for the purpose of raising.

- Allow retroactive INT bonus for skill points. Details up to be determined (personally, I'd allow them only to raise already trained skills).

- Synergy bonuses should either be heavily simplified, or eliminated (personally, I'd simply like to see them simplified and better organized in a table).

What do you think? Would this make the 3.5 skill point system less complicated to deal with? Just talking about the system itself here, not about which class could use more skill points or more class skills (poor poor fighter).