Does anyone else have problems with the current skill point system? Lets use a fighter as an example. If you build a fighter using the 28 point ability score generation system you will probably have a 16 strength, 12 dex, 14 con, 10 wis, 10 int and a 12 cha.
Now this fighter will (2 + int x 4) 8 skill points a 1st level (+4 for being a human) for a total of 12 skill points at 1st level and 3 each additional level.
So a fighter will be able to put a point in to climb, swim and 1 point in intimidate each level and maybe spreading them around at the 1st level.
Same thing with a cleric. Most likely he will not have a high Int forcing him, as a human, to spread out a paltry 3 points per level.
Does anyone else find this system deeply flawed? It makes a fighter nearly useless in skill based situations giving credit to the old saying "Im just a typical fighter"
Has anyone edited the rules for character creation for skills? Ive considered making the skill point system, across the board, 2 + Primary Attribute per level, except for rogues and the other classes that have higher skill points per level.
Any suggestions? Am I crazy? Can I really run 2 miles in under 12 minutes?
Any suggestions? Am I crazy? Can I really run 2 miles in under 12 minutes?
I think the fighter can use his many feats to "augment" his skill if he chooses to do so. That's my suggestion.
Yes, you're crazy.
It takes me a little under 12 seconds to run 2 miles ('cause I'm a SUPERHERO) so, yes, it's possible.
Ultradan
Haha...that was the response I figured I would get. However, what about the cleric? Feats dont come as often to him but he is still in the same boat.
By the way, the 12 minute 2 mile thing was meant to be, "Do you really believe I can run 2 miles in 12 minutes?" My best time from the army was 13:27....but Im lazy :[
I agree with you about the skill point system. In my current campaign, I gave everyone 2 more skill points per level than normal for their class (multiplied by 4 at first level). I also only charge 1 point per rank for cross-class skills (but they're still limited to half the max ranks of a class skill). This means that everyone is able to justify the occasional purchase of Knowledge skills or even an extra language every once in a while.
I don't have a problem with the skills a person can have. Fighters aren't meant to be "skillful" in this sense of the word. Nor are clerics, wizards, sorcerers, paladins, or anything else with only 2 + Int skills per level. Wizards remedy this somewhat with their high Int, but otherwise, it's just part of the class.
Skills are powerful. They quickly seem to turn into super powers, as others have said before. However, that's only if you have the skill points to put in them. Rogues rely heavily on their skills. It's about the key feature of the class. So do bards, and wilderness-oriented classes are handy, too. To give a class more skills than they already have, or to take away from those that have more than 2 + Int, would change the balance of the game significantly, and should not be done lightly.
Fighters are meant to be good climbers, swimmers, jumpers, etc., not good diplomats and such. They can train to be, but not they won't (easily) be as good as a rogue or bard or paladin, and certainly they're not meant to be a good diplomat AND climber. It's just part of the class. I think that it is very well done as is.
If you change the skills, but want to avoid an overall change in power level, go for it, you will need a balancing factor.
However, what about the cleric? Feats dont come as often to him but he is still in the same boat.
Yeah, but he has spells.
Ultradan
I don't have a problem with the skills a person can have. Fighters aren't meant to be "skillful" in this sense of the word. Nor are clerics, wizards, sorcerers, paladins, or anything else with only 2 + Int skills per level. Wizards remedy this somewhat with their high Int, but otherwise, it's just part of the class.
Skills are powerful. They quickly seem to turn into super powers, as others have said before. However, that's only if you have the skill points to put in them. Rogues rely heavily on their skills. It's about the key feature of the class. So do bards, and wilderness-oriented classes are handy, too. To give a class more skills than they already have, or to take away from those that have more than 2 + Int, would change the balance of the game significantly, and should not be done lightly.
Fighters are meant to be good climbers, swimmers, jumpers, etc., not good diplomats and such. They can train to be, but not they won't (easily) be as good as a rogue or bard or paladin, and certainly they're not meant to be a good diplomat AND climber. It's just part of the class. I think that it is very well done as is.
If you change the skills, but want to avoid an overall change in power level, go for it, you will need a balancing factor.
Thats just it. A fighter is never a good climber nor a good swimmer. He can never appraise a weapon's quality nor even learn the basics of care for the weapons he uses. He can never learn to be an effective communicator nor an effective leader. He can never learn to be a stealthy combatant. Not every fighter is Conan battling on the front lines. He can never learn history's great lessons about preceding wars nor of the very creatures he has been trained to defeat.
The same thing for a cleric: he can never have a great understanding of the very church he serves. Same for a paladin.
While we are on the subject of skills, lets delve in to feats. The Simple and Martial weapons feats. In the army I was trained on the M16 and M249. Granted, this was nearly 8 years ago, but my point will stand. Just because I knew how to use those 2 weapons does not mean I was skilled in every single rifle or machine gun out there. How does a fighter have training with all weapons? I think the feats should be more like 2-handed blades, 2-handed axes, blades, axes, polearms etc. That makes more historic, accurate sense.
Take a look at the Iron Heroes system. Skills are grouped and any points put towards the group raise the level of each skill in that group. So for example you might put 1 point into the social skills group (and I'm going from memory here, but you'll get the idea) which would include Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate, etc. That 1 point would give you a rank of 1 in each skill. Of course you'd still have to allocate 2 points for cross-class skills, and they are on a 1-for-1 basis, no groups. It's a pretty good system. I have to agree with you that it's a little odd to be a cleric and have almost no knowledge of religion, especially if you spend your points in Concentration, Heal, and maybe Spellcrat. Doesn't leave much for anything else.
Thats just it. A fighter is never a good climber nor a good swimmer.
I'm sorry? Did the fighter lose Climb and Swim as class skills when I wasn't looking?
He can never ... learn the basics of care for the weapons he uses.
Huh? He knows that already *without* any ranks in a skill.
He can never learn to be an effective communicator nor an effective leader.
I would say the Leadership feat makes one an effective leader, not any skill. There are feats that open up new class skills for characters as well.
The same thing for a cleric: he can never have a great understanding of the very church he serves. Same for a paladin.
They lost Knowledge (religion) all of a sudden? Wow.
Cheers!
While we are on the subject of skills, lets delve in to feats. The Simple and Martial weapons feats. In the army I was trained on the M16 and M249. Granted, this...
Check out Unearthed Arcana and the variant rules there. (Also for skills).
Cheers!
I'm sorry? Did the fighter lose Climb and Swim as class skills when I wasn't looking?"He can never ... learn the basics of care for the weapons he uses"
Huh? He knows that already *without* any ranks in a skill.
"He can never learn to be an effective communicator nor an effective leader."
I would say the Leadership feat makes one an effective leader, not any skill. There are feats that open up new class skills for characters as well.
"The same thing for a cleric: he can never have a great understanding of the very church he serves. Same for a paladin."
They lost Knowledge (religion) all of a sudden? Wow.
Cheers!
*edited, sorry* I will be blunt: 3 skill points (supposing the fighter in question is a human) is NOT enough to make him a good swimmer nor climber. And, if he focuses on those he will not become an effective leader. No where in my post did I say he didnt have swim or climb. One could argue that care of weapons would fall under basic knowledge but I make no such presumptions. Crafting skills would cover that.
Also, since that same human is now a cleric, his paltry 3 points are supposed to ALL go in to knowledge religion? Now that Ive set you straight I think you understand. A paladin, as well as being a warrior, is supposed to be a diplomat. Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Knowledge: religion, history, local, nobility and royalty. You tell me how he is supposed to be effective at any of of those, much less all of them combined, with 3 points.
Thats just it. A fighter is never a good climber nor a good swimmer.I'm sorry? Did the fighter lose Climb and Swim as class skills when I wasn't looking?
He can never ... learn the basics of care for the weapons he uses.
Huh? He knows that already *without* any ranks in a skill.
He can never learn to be an effective communicator nor an effective leader.
I would say the Leadership feat makes one an effective leader, not any skill. There are feats that open up new class skills for characters as well.
The same thing for a cleric: he can never have a great understanding of the very church he serves. Same for a paladin.
They lost Knowledge (religion) all of a sudden? Wow.
Cheers!
Well said!
A fighter IS good for running/jumping/climbing/riding/taking care of weapon.A cleric/druid knows about their religion and spells.
A wizard knows some stuff from books and spells.
A paladin knows about their religion, diplomacy and riding.
A rogue and bard know how to do a little of everything.
All these things are reflected in their class skills. If you want a sneaky fighter then have them learn to be rogueish or take some other class like Scout. If you want a 'knowledgable' cleric that is booksmart then crank up the INT. Etc.
Just me opinion is all,
EDIT - Savaun I think you miss the point. With 3 skill points per level you can have three skills at max, if you put all three into the same skills at every level. therefore a fighter can have max climb, jump and ride and is therefore very good at those skills - although they might suck at others. I mean a fighter only has 7 skills to choose from, so 3 every level means they have almost 50% of theire skills at max - not too shabby.
I think your issue is with people spreading their points around and not concentrating them. A rogue has the issue with 8 skills per level as they have a huge number of class skills. The rogue is forced to specialise if they want to be really good, just like the fighters must specialise if they want to be really good.
igi
Not true, ignimbrite78. Most players in my campaign spread them so they can be diverse and, consequently, are not very good at anything.
3.5 is very skills driven. I may look in to the Arcana, or whatever, the other person mentioned, for the skill group alternative.
Thank you for the observations. I have not really seen an valid arguments for the current skill system, but thank you.
Y'know, there's an interesting thing about skill points...they represent something very specific which a character has trained for. Class abilities (such as the FTR base atk progression) represent fairly general things; the FTR BAP, for example, represents a certain knowledge of basic weapon care, basic weapon use, and basic military strategy (such as the weak locations in plate mail). The skill, Craft (Specific Weapon), represents something far more specific, namely, constructing and forging a specific weapon type. So a fighter doesn't need high (or any, really) ranks in that Craft skill just to take care of his armory.
Yes, the fighter has very few ranks each level. He's only able to max out two (or three, if he's human) skills, assuming an INT mod of +0. But, even in the army, you have tank pilots who are very good at what they do (with maxed out ranks in Handle Animal/machine, Ride/drive, and Craft (Engine)), yet are only moderate swimmers. Your navy Seals, on the other hand, are arguably also members of the Fighter class, and likely have maxed out ranks in Swim, Climb, and Jump (or Intimidate). Just because the Ranger has no ranks in Ride, doesn't mean he's incapable of driving a jeep or Tank; he just probably can't do it very well, as it's not his area of expertise.
Throw in the fact that a fighter probably spends most of his eight hours of training a day swinging a weapon, not reading books or talking to diplomats. Rogues, on the other hand, with their plethora of skill points, spend very little time training with a weapon, instead choosing to translate (Decipher Script), copy (Forgery), and pass off (Bluff or Diplomacy) that foreign passport he lifted (Sleight of Hand) during that Royal Ball (Disguise) he found out about (Gather Information) from Gorant the Herald (Knowledge Local) last week.
Really, it all balances out. Each class has its customizable options, its own intended niche, and its own strengths and weaknesses. If a fighter suddenly has as many skill points as a rogue, what's the point in playing a rogue? Why not take a class with more combat power, if you're going to get all the social power anyway, right?
Not true, ignimbrite78. Most players in my campaign spread them so they can be diverse and, consequently, are not very good at anything.
3.5 is very skills driven. I may look in to the Arcana, or whatever, the other person mentioned, for the skill group alternative.
Thank you for the observations. I have not really seen an valid arguments for the current skill system, but thank you.
That is the problem with spreading them out. Even a rogue would suck if they had to spread out all of their skills to cover the bases. They get 8 ranks and have 30 class skills. A fighter receives 2 ranks and has 7 class skills. So what I imply here is that the fighter is actually better off than a lot of other classes (if you look at class skills only).
IMO skills and class skills are there to balance things out, the bard and rogue don't receive extra feats or fancy mounts (the rogue doesn't even get a bad spell selection) therefore they are compensated with higher skill ranks.
If you want everyone to have access to all skills and have good ranks in the skills then you have to break D&D completely and give high skill classes some other sort of bonus.
Also look at the DCs, most stuff is like a 10-20 DC. Most PCs attempting things they should be attempting should be able to do it 40-50% of the time, i.e. taking 10.
As a suggestion I have sometimes removed the 'cross-class' status of all skills so that anyone can take anything if they want to spend the points. So a fighter could take Diplomacy at the expense of Ride if they so choose.
anyway this rambles
igi
Basic weapon care is general know how for a fighter. Skills are used to represent a measure of heavy training, not basic abilities. You do not have to make assumptions at all, it says in the players handook that a character with no ranks does not mean there are no good. They can do things and perhaps do them well but they do not have the adeptness of someone who has taken the time to practice and hone there talents.
A fighter with a high str would be considered a good climber and swimmer with that alone. Can he match the underwater prowess of a pirate that spends his life at sea fending off waterborne foes? No, nor should he. The typicall climbing wall for a rockclimber "a rough hewn stone wall" has a climb DC of 10.
A fighter with no ranks can tackle that wall with ease, and this is a danger to a standard human. A fighter with ranks in climb can quickly turn into spider man as he starts hitting DC 20 skill checks. DC 20 checks represent extreamly difficult tasks. And once you get beyond that (It doesn't take long) you enter the world of super human feats.
Plus If a fighter want to be a stealthy combatant he can, but he has to spend more time practicing stealth manuvers and less time in weapons practice. This is called multiclassing.
I will be blunt: 3 skill points (supposing the fighter in question is a human) is NOT enough to make him a good swimmer nor climber.
I'm not following you. A 1st-level human fighter with 10 Int gets 12 skill points to spend. He can put 4 of those into Swim, 4 into Climb, and 4 into say, Craft (weaponsmithing). That's the exact same number a 1st-level rogue can put in the same skills. So how is the fighter not a good swimmer or climber? He's as good as anyone can be ranks-wise, and probably better than most given how both skills are Str-based.
At each level after 1st, the fighter gets 3 skill points to spend. If he spends 1 on Swim, 1 on Climb, and 1 on Craft, he'll remain as good as anyone can be (ranks-wise). So where's the problem?
Also, since that same human is now a cleric, his paltry 3 points are supposed to ALL go in to knowledge religion?
Again, no...but expecting one-third of his skill points to go into Knowledge (religion) is hardly unreasonable.
Now that Ive set you straight I think you understand.
I'm afraid I don't.
How far out do you want to go? I give every starting character a number of skill pts equal to their stat to spend on skills in that stat. Max is Level + Stat/3 at start. A fighter with an 18 Str could have 1 + 6 = 7 ranks in swim at start.
|
First, I'd like to agree with Vegepygmy breakdown of skill point use. If having max ranks for the character level is not good enough, what is?
Second, let's look at your example:
Does anyone else have problems with the current skill point system? Lets use a fighter as an example. If you build a fighter using the 28 point ability score generation system you will probably have a 16 strength, 12 dex, 14 con, 10 wis, 10 int and a 12 cha.
By putting a 10 in INT, this says "I'm not concerned with skill points, I'm concerned with melee combat and hit points with a minor nod to AC and looks." A minor concern with skill points could be achieved by swapping the scores for INT and CHA, providing 4 skill points per turn. If you want a fighter with good melee and skills, but also some hit points, put the 14 in INT, the 12 in CON, and the 10 in CHA. Want a lot of skill points? Pick up a level of Rogue (for max skill points) or Ranger (if you want to keep your BAB up).
All of which boils down to:
"If you want to play a character with lots of skill point, build that character, not one designed to minimize their skill points."
-quoth Me
No, I don't think "max" ranks is the real issue here. The problem is once AD&D became a skill inclusive system, it bombed the whole concept for starting characters. Using a flat D20 means needing THE ABILITY to get a starting character to about +10, +11 with stat mods for a class skill. If it's a fighter, that means HAVING the skill points, and not being restricted to level plus 3.
Strength 16, max ranks in Str skills is 5, +1 for lvl, +3 for stat mod = +9. Much better. You have used 5 of 16 Str skill points to be a decent swimmer at start. You still have 11 points to spend on Str related skills.
I tend to agree with Patrick Walsh. A fighter with 10 INT, no matter his other attributes, is only as smart as an average human commoner. Said commoner has only a few class skills and will likely put them all in a craft and/or profession to thus eke out a living. He can do a FEW THINGS well, and so can our example fighter. A rogue of comparable level and intelligence can do a few MORE things well. If you want to play a brainy sort of character, you must invest in the appropriate attribute. A DM should be able to present the players with appropriate skill-based challenges, i.e. ones that require a character with max ranks to roll in the 10-15 range in order to succeed.
That said, I think wizards should get 4 skill points/level in order to cover all of the Knowledge skills and make Decipher Script worthwhile. Just my $0.02.
That's cool, but imho your still thinking inside the box, and that box is dead. Has been since AD&D went skill based, and clung (unwisely) to a D20. To each their own.
No, I don't think "max" ranks is the real issue here. The problem is once AD&D became a skill inclusive system, it bombed the whole concept for starting characters. Using a flat D20 means needing THE ABILITY to get a starting character to about +10, +11 with stat mods for a class skill. If it's a fighter, that means HAVING the skill points, and not being restricted to level plus 3.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
IMHO Fighters are skilled primarily in one area: combat. Leave all the fiddling about to rogues and bards who actually GET the skill points. Personally I much prefer the skill point system the way it is now. Besides with the ability to take 10 and 20, most characters aren't completely screwed out of using the most basic of skills (such as Climb, Swim, Jump etc).
The only thing I don't like about the skill system is the half ranks in cross class skills. I roll a d20 get X number + cross class skill ranks + ability score = X.5. Come on you even round down the number. It never came up in any of my games but it always kind of sticks out in my mine and seems kind of slopy. Other then that I think if you have a problem with the skill system. If the person who started this thread doesent like the system change it. Its your game if your the DM. Not the DM you have two option one in my oppion the best is to stop belly acking and have fun. The other is to work with your DM to creat a mutual fix to the skills system. Like one of the thread posters said earlyer about the iron hero skill system. It might be worth checking out.
No, I don't think "max" ranks is the real issue here. The problem is once AD&D became a skill inclusive system, it bombed the whole concept for starting characters. Using a flat D20 means needing THE ABILITY to get a starting character to about +10, +11 with stat mods for a class skill. If it's a fighter, that means HAVING the skill points, and not being restricted to level plus 3.
Strength 16, max ranks in Str skills is 5, +1 for lvl, +3 for stat mod = +9. Much better. You have used 5 of 16 Str skill points to be a decent swimmer at start. You still have 11 points to spend on Str related skills.
I agree with Vegepygmy - what are you saying here?
And my d20 is round, not flat! :-)
|
|
Take a look at the Iron Heroes system. Skills are grouped and any points put towards the group raise the level of each skill in that group. So for example you might put 1 point into the social skills group (and I'm going from memory here, but you'll get the idea) which would include Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Intimidate, etc. That 1 point would give you a rank of 1 in each skill. Of course you'd still have to allocate 2 points for cross-class skills, and they are on a 1-for-1 basis, no groups. It's a pretty good system. I have to agree with you that it's a little odd to be a cleric and have almost no knowledge of religion, especially if you spend your points in Concentration, Heal, and maybe Spellcrat. Doesn't leave much for anything else.
My group just started playing with the Iron Heroes system and I have to agree. The whole skill group idea makes perfect sense. Of course, this is done in Iron Heores for a specific reason - to help make up for a distinctive lack of the usually overabundant magic and magic items. So to adopt this system for WotC's system might tend to overbalance things.
I've experimented with a number of house rules in this area. One is that I never allow a class to have less than 6 + Int mod for skill points.
Second, the class skills list is merely a suggestion on common skills employed by that class. Using that list, I allow my players to tailor their class skills based on the character's background. Obviously, the resume of a fighter from a noble background is going to be very different than a fighter who was once a professional soldier; this should be reflected in the skill list.
Third, and most successful, eliminate class skills/cross-class skills altogether. I've always found it odd that according to the rules as written, adventurers can spend their lives traveling the wilderness, engaging in combat and encountering exotic cultures, yet Survive, Heal and Speak Language are outside most classes' sphere of abilities. Makes no sense...
Fighters fight. That's why we call'em Fighters.
You want your fighter to learn survival skills? Take a level of Ranger.
You want your fighter to have more skills? Give him a higher intelligence. Or spend that +1 ability point at fourth level on intelligence. One way or the other you have to give up something of the fighter to have something of an other class.
Bottom line: You can make any character great in whatever style you want, but you can't have the perfect fighter that's perfect in everything. Invent the 'Ultradan' class for that.
Ultradan
|
My DM awards 3 skill pts each time we complete an "adventure". He gives choices of 6 different skills in which to place these points. For example, we traveled for 2 weeks on horseback, fought orcs primarily, my character did alot of rope use, we fought the elements on the trip back, and did alot of sneaking around at the orc citadel. Ride, Speak orc, Use rope, Survival, and Move silently is the skills I would be allowed to distribute my 3 pts into. Depending on how I want to play my character, I get to choose those most usable by me, or that make the most sense to me. I like the system and it rewards actions that are taken during the game instead of "wow, hacking through those orcs really helped me to focus on my knowledge of the planes.".
hope it helps someone,
FH
Does anyone else have problems with the current skill point system? Lets use a fighter as an example. If you build a fighter using the 28 point ability score generation system you will probably have a 16 strength, 12 dex, 14 con, 10 wis, 10 int and a 12 cha.
Now this fighter will (2 + int x 4) 8 skill points a 1st level (+4 for being a human) for a total of 12 skill points at 1st level and 3 each additional level.
So a fighter will be able to put a point in to climb, swim and 1 point in intimidate each level and maybe spreading them around at the 1st level.
Does anyone else find this system deeply flawed? It makes a fighter nearly useless in skill based situations giving credit to the old saying "Im just a typical fighter"
Any suggestions? Am I crazy? Can I really run 2 miles in under 12 minutes?
Yes you're crazy.
The goal of the system is to creat BALANCED classes.Fighters get feats - given the game especially for a fighter is so combat oriented that the bonus more than offset the lower skill points - 10 sided die, best BAB, automatic proficiency with all martial weapons, automatic proficiency with all types of armor, all types of shields, AND more bonus feats than any other class including one at first and second level.
Now most people don't take skill based feats - thats a choice, but a feat is basically worth 4 skill point so if you wanted to eliminae the bonus feats you could give your fighter 4 skill points per level (just basics no race intelligence adjustments) or take the feats and use you other feats to enhance combat. Alternately you could reduce the hit die to an 8 and fairly award 4 skill points per level. If that did work for you you could take a couple of rougue levels and rather than class specific abilities you could give 5 or 6 skill points (the class abilitis are generally more potent than feats - thus 5 or 6 instead of four.
Lastly - just because you a fighter why would you put your lowest ability in intelligence, especially if skills are important to you? If you put you just blindly put your highest score in strength and your lowest in intelligence becaue you are playing a fighter, well that makes you a min/maxer - nothting wrong with that. But if you do that then thats your choice, not a flaw in the game.
And running a 12 minute mile is highly achieveable - marathoners even those in there 40s do it all the time for more than 26 miles in a row, its more a function of discipline and training not even natural ability. My best time in the army was like 12:30 and I didn't really start getting fit till after I finished my time.
|
|
Not wishing to state the bleedin' obvious, but the skills/feats/class features issue is all about game balance. The reason that fighter have limited skills is because they are great at killing things - it is what they are for. Change the skill points and you upset the balance - so what do you want to change - lower BAB? No, I didn't think so.....
Also, the comment that a fighter with INT 10 isn't actually too bright seems fair (probably less intelligent that the average RPG-er - let's face it, we are all Einsteins, just modest with it). So a mastery of social graces, stealth and a profound knowledge of history and geography is probably a bit steep to expect. The system is flexible with multi-classing and feat options. There seems an issue of wanting cake and eating it.
What would be the prerequisites for the Ultradan prestige class? 10 ranks in Knowledge:Beer, the Friendly Sarcasm feat, BAB of "hitting the nail right on the head", what else am I missing?
:)FH
I don't know about that. But I could imagine a "Fake Healer" prestige class, complete with "Placebo Healing Spells".
The fighter, down to 2 hit points, crawls to the back row of the party: "I need healing!!"
The 'Fake Healer' waves his hands and englobes the fighter with a warm blue light: "Ok, your fine now. Now go back and kill that dragon!"
The fighter heads back towards the dragon with a mighty warcry, still at 2 hit points!!!
Ultradan
I don't have a problem with the skills a person can have. Fighters aren't meant to be "skillful" in this sense of the word. Nor are clerics, wizards, sorcerers, paladins, or anything else with only 2 + Int skills per level. Wizards remedy this somewhat with their high Int, but otherwise, it's just part of the class.
Skills are powerful. They quickly seem to turn into super powers, as others have said before. However, that's only if you have the skill points to put in them. Rogues rely heavily on their skills. It's about the key feature of the class. So do bards, and wilderness-oriented classes are handy, too. To give a class more skills than they already have, or to take away from those that have more than 2 + Int, would change the balance of the game significantly, and should not be done lightly.
Fighters are meant to be good climbers, swimmers, jumpers, etc., not good diplomats and such. They can train to be, but not they won't (easily) be as good as a rogue or bard or paladin, and certainly they're not meant to be a good diplomat AND climber. It's just part of the class. I think that it is very well done as is.
If you change the skills, but want to avoid an overall change in power level, go for it, you will need a balancing factor.
I agree RE; the balancing factor, but have had some challenges like this as well. In the campaign I DM, I address it as follows and it seems to work (we have a Fighter, Bard, Sorceror, Ranger and inconsistently Rogues and Clerics).
1st, at first level, every character gets 3-5 free skill points (depending upon how good their back story is) to spend on knowledge or profession to sort of flesh out the character and what they may have been before becoming an adventurer. Doesn't seem to imbalance anything and allows for a very minor boost in areas that are otherwise neglected, creating more well rounded and actually thought out characters with history, motivation etc.
Next, going back to very back issue of Dragon for inspiration, if a fighter wants more skills, or a cleric, they need to customize - most notably by dropping heavy armor (feat equivalent) in exchange for a bigger class skills list, usually in three's such as hide, move silently and survival, and maybe one extra skill point per level.
Note: Fighter in this configuration becomes a woodsman. Not a scout, not a ranger, just a guy (or girl) who grew up in the woods w/ skill at woods fighting, no spiritual connection to nature and not extremely stealthy, but not a plate mail wearin', greatsword wielding tank either. This is my model of clerics of a nature diety as well.
NOTE II: No, the Woodsman (Fighter modified) can NOT take Heavy armor prof. as a bonus feat either. If he wants this, he can take a level in Fighter and not get the skill points and have to pay cross class. Ditto the cleric.
For what it's worth.
|
|
What would be the prerequisites for the Ultradan prestige class? 10 ranks in Knowledge:Beer, the Friendly Sarcasm feat, BAB of "hitting the nail right on the head", what else am I missing?
:)FH
I don't know about that. But I could imagine a "Fake Healer" prestige class, complete with "Placebo Healing Spells".
The fighter, down to 2 hit points, crawls to the back row of the party: "I need healing!!"
The 'Fake Healer' waves his hands and englobes the fighter with a warm blue light: "Ok, your fine now. Now go back and kill that dragon!"
The fighter heads back towards the dragon with a mighty warcry, still at 2 hit points!!!
Ultradan
Skill focus: kissing da Boo-boo!
FH
And don't forget that a great number of skills can be used untrained......
The current edition is about maxing out a few skills or capacities to be very useful, if you spread too much you'll not be able to overcome some challenges.
You cannot be too good at everything, if you give too much skill points that's the way you go.
Contributor
|
I agree with several other comments to this effect: the classes are generally balanced and skill points is one aspect of that. If you want a skill based fighter, play a ranger, or use your non-bonus feats to take "open mind" which gives you five skill points (CAd), or give yourself a high intelligence.
Clerics' low skill points bother me aesthetically, but remember that the cleric was just voted in a landslide the most powerful class. I think the problem is that there isn't a high skill point cleric equivelant (in the way that the ranger is for the fighter). At the same time clerics should not be the general clergy IMO. Although Eberron was the first palce to specify this, I think that most 'priests' should be experts (the npc class). Also, why on earth would a cleric ever take the healing skill? All they really need is knowledge (religion) and concentration.
Wizards generally have a high intelligence and this mitigates their low skill points. My one beef is that later intelligence increases don't give retroactive skill points. I think they should.
As to the comments about needing a +10 or 11 because of the d20, I do get this (I think), so I will give my explanation.
Basically when you roll a d20 and add a modifier of say, +5, the modifier is fairly insignificant compared to the variable. The die roll determines more than the modifier. As 1st level characters often have +5 as a good skill modifier, their skills have little impact on their success.
So, the options to fix this are to use a different variable or give more skill points. Unearthed Aracana has a variant for using 3d6 instead of a d20 and I'd like to try it sometime. This way the range of results is similar, but the frequency of extreme results is greatly reduced.
If you want to increase skill points, I think you should just start the PCs at a higher level. Why? because the same problem affects attack rolls, saving throws etc. Also, messing with starting skill points messes with class balance and probably creates more skew than it fixes.
Also, there are lots of ways for characters to boost their skills at first level within the rules. Higher stats, special tools, skill focus and all the +2 to two skills feats. At second level, synergy bonuses kick in too. I can easilly build a second level character with +12 or even 15 in some skills.
On a related note, the reverse problem comes up with higher level characters. Eventually, the die roll is meaningless compared to the skill bonus, especially with skill boosting magic items etc.
This is the main reason I most enjoy playing at levels 3-8 as a general rule. That's when you can be good at stuff, but luck still has some effect
|
Contributor
|
And don't forget that a great number of skills can be used untrained......
The current edition is about maxing out a few skills or capacities to be very useful, if you spread too much you'll not be able to overcome some challenges.
You cannot be too good at everything, if you give too much skill points that's the way you go.
Right, this is important too. Your PARTY needs to be good at everything. Your CHARACTER doesn't. Speacialize your character to balance your party.
|
Basically when you roll a d20 and add a modifier of say, +5, the modifier is fairly insignificant compared to the variable. The die roll determines more than the modifier. As 1st level characters often have +5 as a good skill modifier, their skills have little impact on their success.So, the options to fix this are to use a different variable or give more skill points. Unearthed Aracana has a variant for using 3d6 instead of a d20 and I'd like to try it sometime. This way the range of results is similar, but the frequency of extreme results is greatly reduced.
Well, I agree that d20 is a flat system, but I think there is another way to look at this. The average roll of a d20 is 10.5. This means that over the long run, the average roll of a number of d20's will be 10 or 11. Given this, the DM can set appropriate challenges. As an example, if the DM wants to place a climbing obstacle in front of the group, he can set the DC at 10 (which ensures just about anyone can climb it by "Taking 10" except those weaker than the average man) or he can set it to 15, so that any first level character that can climb well (5 ranks) makes it up without issue but everyone else has to struggle to make it. He can also set the DC to 20, implying that only a skilled and lucky climber will make it over the obstacle at first level. All of this is done without rolling the d20 - by relying on the Take 10 rule.
IMO, this "average desirable result" is why the Take 10 rule is in place. Assuming the character is not harried in his attempt at something and assuming he gives it his "average effort", he will be able to accomplish most tasks in which he either has talent (ability) or training (skill points). This means the character can "take a 10 on the die" (the average result/effort) and complete the task at hand. This rule lets the nominally flat d20 roll hit the average result without fail (don't forget that the average of 3d6 is 10-11 as well) under normal conditions while also allowing a wide variability in outcomes when a character must rely on luck/training or is put under pressure to perform.
As a final thought, pull open the Monster Manual and look at the relationship between Spell Resistance (SR) and Challenge Rating (CR). I think you will find that monsters with SR tend to have an SR that is 10 higher than their challenge rating. Why is this? The SR mechanic is to have the player roll d20+ his caster level. If this roll meets or exceeds the SR, the spell lands, otherwise the spell is destroyed by the innate magic resistance of the creature. Since the average roll of a d20 is 10.5 (call it 10), then an SR that is equal to CR plus 10 means that spells will fail roughly half the time against a party of the appropriate level. This "half failure rate" is enough to remind the party that magic will not always work against the foe while still allowing some magic spells to land; it is, in a word, balanced. This underlying design principle is used in a number of places to adequately set challenges for characters of all skills and levels.
Edit: spelling
My DM awards 3 skill pts each time we complete an "adventure". He gives choices of 6 different skills in which to place these points.
I like this, I think that it should be used more often. I am going to start using it again.
igi
Bottom line: You can make any character great in whatever style you want, but you can't have the perfect fighter that's perfect in everything. Invent the 'Ultradan' class for that.
Ultradan
But Ultradan is a 10-level Prestige class that I can't get until 7th level.
Does anyone else find this system deeply flawed? It makes a fighter nearly useless in skill based situations giving credit to the old saying "Im just a typical fighter"
As has been mentioned here previously, it is a matter of game balance. There are a few considerations you need to give before adjusting the skill points.
Several classes get 2 skill points per level: Cleric, Fighter, Sorceror, Wizard. None of these classes are defined by their skillset: Fighters get Feats until it seems like they pour out of their ears; Clerics get spontaneous healing, primary access to divine spells, and the ability to turn undead; Sorcerors and Wizards have primary access to arcane spells; Paladins get numerous benefits (lay on hands, aura of courage, remove disease, immunity to 'yes').
Now look at the rest of the classes: Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Rogue. Each of these classes (with the exception of Rogue) subsets of the other classes. Barbarians, Druids and Rangers have some advantages, but their focus is surviving in the wilderness and away from civilization. Bards focus on Rogue skills tied in with Perform and the social skills (Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc.) Rogues have been defined by their skills since 1st edition. Monks are similar to Rogues in that many of their class abilities are defined by skills (Balance, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, and Tumble).
"But," some mutter, "What if I want to play a Fighter who is good at moving around in the woods?"
Simple enough. Have a fighter who puts points into Survival. The Fighter class is designed to represent a character that spends an inordinate amount of time focusing on Killing Things With Pointy, Sharp or Blunt Objects.
"But," they continue, "That sucks. It's a cross-class skill and I only get 2 points a level plus my Int modifier."
This is true. Survival is a Wisdom-based skill, however. Wisdom in 3.5 is more than just a connection to your deity; it's also representative of your ability to cull information from your environement. Make Wisdom an ability of high importance to your rural Fighter, and you'll get that nifty Ability score modifier, which more than makes up for a few levels of cross-class skillage.
"But," They proclaim, "I don't wanna! I need those precious ability points for Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution."
Indeed. A light-armored fighter does desperately need the physical trifecta. One rarely has both the cake and the utensils to convey it to one's mouth. Take one of your seven (eight if you are human) general feats and buy Skill Focus: Survival. That's worth an entire level of skill points for a Fighter, and makes you an instant adept at the Survival skill.
Alternatively, take Profession: Hunter, Profession: Woodcarver, or Profession: I want to be have a cool backstory/theme and I don't want to use the rules that are provided to create it; Profession (any) is a class skill for the Fighter.
Right, this is important too. Your PARTY needs to be good at everything. Your CHARACTER doesn't. Speacialize your character to balance your party.
Not to pick on you Scribe, but this a good example of the kind of thinking that is problematic for tabletop group play in general. This quote is perfect for munchkinizing or beating a video game, but discounts one of the core principles of tabletop gaming; chiefly, the role of the GM. It is the GM's job to tailor make challenges from the top down: Campaign, Group, and Individual. A group of gamers who all want to play halfling illusionists should be able to do so with the same rate of success as a traditional power party.
In fact, I find it difficult to understand why most of the issues found in this thread are considered problematic. Weather a PC has 0 skill points or 30 devoted to a skill, they are only numbers by which the DM must create an encounter around. If the goal is to challenge a group or an individual, it shouldn't matter how many plusses (because that's all stat blocks are) any given PC or the group have.
As ever,
ACE
I must go with the crowd, it's about game balance.
As a DM, I'm personally sick of seeing the steady stream of low-intelligence, high-strength fighters. (I love the fact that 3rd edition "penalizes" low-intelligence via skill point loss; assigning ability points is better, I feel, if the decisions are hard ones.)
Want more skill points? Assign another point to intelligence instead of Dex. or Con. Bonus feats give fighters some outrageous abilities and feats also allow raising skill bonuses -- that is enough. No one is forcing a player to take Cleave or Weapon Focus; you can always go with a skill-increasing feat instead. At worst, multiclassing as a Rogue for a level should help things if all else fails.
If you want a 'knowledgable' cleric that is booksmart then crank up the INT. Etc.
This is one of the best points of the current skill system. A high intelligence and a high appropriate attribute means you can get some good rolls on even cross class skills. My (currently) 1st level dwarf in Ravenloft is a fighter, yet with a high int. score and some well placed skill points I'm cleaning up in place of the rogue we don't have. I have modifiers of like +5 or so for some of the skills, which equates into 25% success rate (aiming for that DC20). For first level that's ace, before counting taking 10, 20, synergy, aid another etc.
In ADnD only the thief got to attempt such things and I feel that a lot of players in 3.x forget how spoiled they are! ;) Also some people are not happy unless they can do *everything*. You can't. To carry on the example of my dwarf - if I multiclass into rogue then my skills will get higher, but not my combat ability. Plus I'll have to stop wearing all that armour to make the most of sneaking (I'm mostly going for the technical skills; disable device etc.).You can't be good at everything so choose - either specialise or become a 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Or a Bard! ;P
Peace,
tfad
Perhaps the alternative you seek would be to scrap the skill ranks system and adopt level-based skill checks, as described in Unearthed Arcana.
Class skills would be d20 + character level + ability modifier.
Cross class skills would be d20 + ability modifier.
That puts the emphasis back on abilities as a determining factor. It is less dynamic than the ranks system, but it maintains balance.
Wow! This post is generating quite a buzz. Thanks for the ideas everyone has thrown out. I have a lot to look in to.
And, to the poster above about the topical cream; that gave me a laugh.