As I tpked my party of players we have to create new and for the first we have no idea where to take the skill pints from to cover all the needed skills. Ok there have been times when a bard or something had to go without some skills simply reflecting his background or something, but it was almost always at the cost of roleplaying. There are simply some skills a party should have like Gather Information for example. It is not necessary to survive most of the encounters but it is an important tool to mediate background information to the pcs. Same or at least similiar thing with knowledge skills. Can a party make it without Diplomacy? Ok there is Intimidate or even bluff, but if the party doesn't want to play the kick-in-the-door style too heavily they have to use at least one of them sometime.
So I was thinking about to increase the skill points of every character class by 2. Is this totally unbalanced or just fine? Any comments? Thanks in advance. :)
|
I also think that 2 skill points is low.
Imagine a dwarf fighter with an intelligence of 10, it's like he may boost intimidate and climb, that's it !!
I decided for my STAP campaign, to give 2 more skill points to every class with 2 points per level, and for every class with more than 2 points/level to give a bonus of 1 skill point.
I didn't want to have too many skill points involved for classes like scout or rogue...
A human rogue with an intelligence of 12 would have 11 skill points per level. It seems not too unbalanced to me !
But even with rogues we saw, more seldomly, but still saw simiiar problems.
|
|
Also, eradicate class skills. They were a bad idea from the start. Why can't a fighter be diplomatic or a rogue know about history [...]
True, but keeping cross-class skills seems logical to me for most of the skills involved :
- a mage having studied so long may not have time to learn to be a good rider / swimmer,
- a barbarian shouldn't be able to take "use magic device" as a class skill, as most of other classes,
- sleight of hand / lock picking needs A LOT of practice (see how long it takes to master a single magic trick !), as well as many other "rogue tricks".
I guess the only twist I would do is about professionnal skills, according to the background. A PC who has been a professionnal soldier, who was a sailor... may take "profession : soldier" or "profession : sailor" as a class skill.
However, it depends on the BG my player has created for his PC.
True, but keeping cross-class skills seems logical to me for most of the skills involved :
- a mage having studied so long may not have time to learn to be a good rider / swimmer,
Surely, though, a mage from a plains tribe, who has spent his entire life around horses, would have had time to learn to be a good rider? Surely a mage who spends his life aboard ship would be as likely as any of his shipmates to learn how to swim well?
Of course, not every mage would have time to pick up these skills, but then, not every player of a mage would assign ranks to those skills, so it works out.
- a barbarian shouldn't be able to take "use magic device" as a class skill, as most of other classes,
Are you sure that's not a holdover from the 1e "barbarians hate magic" thinking? Other than that, I actually agree with you, mostly. It still strikes me as odd that Use Magic Device is not a class skill for Sorcerers (at least).
- sleight of hand / lock picking needs A LOT of practice (see how long it takes to master a single magic trick !), as well as many other "rogue tricks".
The same can be said to be true about learning to play almost any musical instrument well, learning to ride (well), learning to program computers, or many other skills. To get good, you have to devote the time.
What doesn't necessarily follow is that being a Fighter somehow makes it easier for you to learn how to Ride (even if your background is that you've never even seen a horse before in your life). I can understand that some people are just naturally better at some things than others... but that's already reflected by the ability score modifiers to skills.
The compromise I was considering for class skills was to add some core skills to every list (Craft and Profession, and there may have been one other), having a small set of fixed class skills for each class, and then allowing the player to choose some more class skills from a wider list, to bring his character up to the number of class skills listed in the PHB. If the player really wanted a skill that wasn't on his class' expanded list, he could still choose it, but it would count as two of his choices (so, a Fighter could have Tumble as a class skill, but would therefore have one fewer class skill than normal).
However, in the end I decided not to use that system. It added a bit of complexity to the game (although not too much, really), but it didn't gain anything. What would happen is the player would always choose the one or two skills he really wanted (never mind the cost in terms of other class skills), and thereafter only ever spend skill points on those few skills. So, in effect, it was exactly the same as just ditching class skills entirely.
But there's another, better, compromise: In Iron Heroes, related skills are grouped, and each class has a list of skill groups. If the player spends skill points on one of his class groups, one point gives a rank in every skill in the group. If he spends outside the groups, one point gives him a rank in one skill.
Also, eradicate class skills. They were a bad idea from the start. Why can't a fighter be diplomatic or a rogue know about history without enduring horrendous penalties?
Gary
Sorry but i say HELL no to eradicating class skills, don't get me wrong i know where your coming from but thats just asking for power gaming dude.
Fighter gets feats - Rogue gets skills.I think the powers that be have done a very good job getting it fair and if you think 2 skill points is to low, have a higher INT or just tough it out and cross class if you really want your fighter to be diplomatic.
Increasing skill points by two will just stop players puting a higher stat into INT, god whats the point in a Rogue having anything more than 12 INT when he/she is going to get 10 skill point already and i might aswell spend more on my CON since my fighter is going to 4 skills points anyway.
This just sounds like gamers trying to take the easy way out.
Peace
|
|
Increasing skill points by two will just stop players puting a higher stat into INT, god whats the point in a Rogue having anything more than 12 INT when he/she is going to get 10 skill point already and i might aswell spend more on my CON since my fighter is going to 4 skills points anyway.
This just sounds like gamers trying to take the easy way out.
Peace
I don't totally agree with you. When I built my PC for SCAP (I joined the group during 4th instalment, and we use a special point-buy system), I thought that being a human scout 4 / ranger 3 didn't give me enough skill points, since I was the only roguish PC. I am closing level 9, I put a 12 in INT when I created my PC, but I still think I could easily do with at least 1 (or 2) more skill point per level :
- I am not too good at survival 4-5 ranks (i.e. tracking also),
- I was not able to have a high ranking in knowledges (I think I have 2 ranks in dungeoneering / nature / religion !!)
- I am a "zero" psychologist / ambassador (charisma 8 / wisdom 10 with no rank in charisma based skills & sense motive),
- I almost don't swim (maybe 1-2 ranks, I don't ride, don't handle animals, don't pick locks (too bad, it's not a scout class skill).
However, I am a good or very good at :
- search / spot / listen / languages known
- disable device
- move silently / hide / tumble / jump / climb
However, with 10 skills points per level, I am WAY ahead a dwarf fighter with INT 10 (2 points), and even quite ahead of a human mage with INT 18 (7 points).
IMHO, skill points are a bit low !
|
|
Additionally, the organic growth of a BRP or Runequest percentile based skill system is also a great model to follow. Using the skill substantially in play causes a check that can lead to the skill getting better. A D20 adaptation of that sort of system could be very cool.
Gary
I played "Runequest", "Stormbringer" & "Hawkmoon", all Chaosium games, and I happen to sometimes play "Call of Ctuhlu" (former ed.), all based on percentile skills. It's great, you improve, and the more you improve your skills (i.e. have a high percentage), the more it becomes difficult to improve that particular skill.
However, I've seen big differences according to the players' luck : ok, both PCs began with 40% "first aid" (CoC) or 35% "axe fighting" (StormB), and after 3 sessions, you have :
- player A : 1st aid 54% / axe fighting 52% (lucky)
- player B : 1st aid 42% / axe fighting 39% (unlucky)
At least, YOU choose which skill to improve !!
I have no serious problem with the skill system of 3.5, it is simple and pcs are relatively simple to create. A game without class skills would make bards and rogues (scouts, ninjas, spellthieves etc.) or even rangers by far less attractive character classes. Ok they have more skill points, but if a human fighter could pick disable device, open lock and search as class skills, why would someone play a rogue? Sneak attack? Let the wizard or sorcerer take hide, move silently and such things and you get your damage dealer. Ok evasion and the dodge stuff is nice but it is not enough to convince me playing a rogue or such if anybody else could do the job just as fine.
No I think class skills are good. A mage simply hasn't the class skill swim because he prefered studying his books when his friends went swimming, but he may accompanied them sometimes and that's why it is a cross class skill.
The low skill points are IMHO just a barrier for power gamers.
|
|
Aureus, I've encountered a similar problem in some of my games, where well rounded characters (ones who put points in a lot of skills) can't make the DC's appropriate to their level but the ones who specialize in certain skills by maximizing their ranks in a few skills are pretty much one trick ponies. I'm currently employing a couple of house rules that seem to have helped my PC's
1. Increasing your Int allows you to retroactively gain new skill points that you "missed" as well as gaining you extra ones in the future. So far this seems to have encouraged my PC's to put points in Int and thus allowed for skills like Gather Information, Bluff, and Sense Motive. The only problem so far has been with wizard characters and their desire to boost the Int into the atmoshpere. My PC wizard has been willing to take more Knowledge skills and start on some cross class skils, and as a result he hasn't been a problem.
As for where I got this idea, have you ever tried to make a great wyrm dragon of any type from scratch, chosing your own feats and skills? Have you ever noticed that if the dragon followed the same rules for skills as the PC's they would have a lot less skills at that level than the people at WOTC have published? Finally look in the monster manual, all of the descriptions for determining skill points have something to the effect of "(#+Int Mod)xHD". I realize this is intended to be more for the DM's benefit than for the PC's, but when you're creating a high level PC it simplifies the whole process as well as allowing for more adaptive PC's.
2. I've also used a "once a class skill, always a class skill" approach. I know that under the rules for multiclassing, once you take a level in a new class you determine what skills are class skills based on that class. "Sorry Bob, I know you're already a 17th level wizard, but you can't spend any rogue skill points on spellcraft!" Again this has helped simplify the character creation process for my PC's and it might help your group squeeze out a few extra skill points.
Just make sure you give your NPC's and monsters the same advantages and it should work out.
|
|
2. I've also used a "once a class skill, always a class skill" approach. I know that under the rules for multiclassing, once you take a level in a new class you determine what skills are class skills based on that class. "Sorry Bob, I know you're already a 17th level wizard, but you can't spend any rogue skill points on spellcraft!" Again this has helped simplify the character creation process for my PC's and it might help your group squeeze out a few...
I think this is a good idea, more powerful for mage PCs taking a level or too in classes like rogue / scout / bard ...
However, it's tricky to say :
- "yes, you're great in picking locks & disabling devices, but right now, you get asleep every night with big books about geography, history, arcana mysteries, and you can not improve your other talents".
I think you're idea is great, but maybe a DM could tell his player to put AT LEAST half of his new points in a new skill..., so as not to have a wizard taking only one level of rogue, just to be the new trapfinder / unlocker / jack'o all trades.
|
2. I've also used a "once a class skill, always a class skill" approach. I know that under the rules for multiclassing, once you take a level in a new class you determine what skills are class skills based on that class. "Sorry Bob, I know you're already a 17th level wizard, but you can't spend any rogue skill points on spellcraft!" Again this has helped simplify the character creation process for my PC's and it might help your group squeeze out a few...
I have also ruled that if a character takes a feat granting a bonus in a skill that is not a class skill (such as a fighter taking Negotiator), it becomes a class skill. My thinking is that if you want to invest a feat you should get a bigger bang for your buck.
There are simply some skills a party should have like Gather Information for example. It is not necessary to survive most of the encounters but it is an important tool to mediate background information to the pcs. Same or at least similiar thing with knowledge skills. Can a party make it without Diplomacy?
Subjects like this are brought up all the time on these boards and in other forums. There is an easy answer to any stat block related question - there's no need to fiddle with any of the core or ancillary rules at all. As the GM, you should be either creating or modifying an adventure where the challenges stretch the limits of the party's capabilities. If nobody in the party can swim, it would be foolish for the GM to force a party to make swim DC checks that are unreasonable to make. It makes no sense. In short, buck up as a GM and spend some time and effort in creating or modding an adventure so the entire group can collectively create a story and enjoy the game without fearing the dreaded forced swim check or tpk.
The game rules and stat blocks are there to serve the needs of the players and the GM...the players and GM should never feel like they have to "cover all the bases" or some such nonsense to have a shot at being successful in all possible scinarios. That mode of thinking serves the video gamer or mineature gamer well, but it is an injustice to a collaborative game experience.
As ever,
ACE
One thing you might try is this: leave the cross-class skill lists as is, but reduce all skill costs to one point/rank. Your max number of ranks in a cross-class skill remains the same, it's just cheaper for your character to get there. A couple of feats in Heroes of Battle do this: Guerrilla Scout and Guerilla Warrior. They modify Spot/Listen and Hide/Move Silently (respectively) in the manner I just described. In a skill-intensive campaign, I might apply the same process to the whole skill list, or maybe develop a similar feat that affected more skills.
I like Amal Ulric's suggestion. Also, I don't really think adding 2 points to every class's skill alotments is anything bad at all. Everyone gets them (including NPCs if you care to take the time, or just assume they put the ranks in non-combat things, like Profession: Hunter for orcs, or something), so everyone's still balanced. It doesn't affect the DCs that can be hit in any given skill; it just expands them out.
However, I agree with Ace, too, to some extent. Don't throw situations requiring Gather Information at your party unless you consciously want them to have a hard time of it. Develop some other means for the party to get the info if they don't have the skill. It can be a little harder or take a little longer than just making the check would, thus taking the skill still has value, but otherwise, don't penalize the party on something so important for not choosing that ability.
I think the solution is the roleplaying skills. Allow everyone a pool of skill points only available at 1st level that they can distribute into "role playing skills," which are those mentioned in the character's background. You can make it a function of Intelligence or something if you want, or just leave it up to DM's discretion. In effect, you get 4 ranks in skills relating to your background that you otherwise might not get. It's not enough to do anything fancy, but it reflects your heritage.
Also, implement that rule on buying all skills at 1 rank per point spent.
I don't know if a wholesale change to the entire system is truly necessary. Sure, an extra couple of points at first level would be nice - it'd be nice to have a few points in Merchant if my character's background is a merchant, but needs all his points to actually do the things he'll NEED to do in-game.
The one place the groups I play with where we've found as a group there should be at least one extra point/level is Cleric. Why do Clerics get the same number of points as a Fighter?? Sure, they get spells, but if you look at history, the clerics of the world were the smartest people around during the middle ages, well-studied and rounded.
Not on 2 points/level, you're not... And Int isn't really worth it to a Cleric unless you're looking specifically to get that extra skill pt/level and have a 12. Even if you do, 3 pts/level into a class that has something like 6 Class Skills is ridiculous. Hmm... Knowledge: Religion, Spellcraft, or Heal... I dunno... What if we need to talk to someone and the Rogue isn't there? Diplomacy might be nice...
We just added a single point to Cleric/level (including the multiplication at 1st) and things work out nicely from there.
I understand the idea to allow a Fighter to be quick-fingered, or the Wizard to know how to swim (I personally think Swim, Climb and Jump should be all-around everyman skills, but that's just me), but if you really want a quick-fingered Fighter, take a decent Dex and a level of Rogue. *shrug*
Syrinx
|
Subjects like this are brought up all the time on these boards and in other forums. There is an easy answer to any stat block related question - there's no need to fiddle with any of the core or ancillary rules at all. As the GM, you should be either creating or modifying an adventure where the challenges stretch the limits of the party's capabilities. If nobody in the party can swim, it would be foolish for the GM to force a party to make swim DC checks that are unreasonable to make. It makes no sense. In short, buck up as a GM and spend some time and effort in creating or modding an adventure so the entire group can collectively create a story and enjoy the game without fearing the dreaded forced swim check or tpk.
The game rules and stat blocks are there to serve the needs of the players and the GM...the players and GM should never feel like they have to "cover all the bases" or some such nonsense to have a shot at being successful in all possible scinarios. That mode of thinking serves the video gamer or mineature gamer well, but it is an injustice to a collaborative game experience.
As ever,
ACE
Amen.
Don't change the rules.
In addition to what Ace said here, give the players other opportunities to shine in areas that they may be lacking in. If they need to exceed on a gather information check, let them do adequate research and give them an appropriate bonus on their check. If they are going to be having an adventure involving a lot of swimming, allow them to purchase (or have available) swimming gear that will give the group a bonus on their swim check.
The point is that if skills are going to be a large part of the adventure, allow circumstances that will allow them to succeed regardless of their ranks in the given skill.
For the pest couple years we've played with 2 extra skill points per level for everyone. These 2 skill points are multiplied by 4 at first level. Sure sometiems a rogue can have a ton of skill points, but if you are trying to build a rogue who focuses more on skills than combat than why not. In my opinion, a couple extra skill points per level doesn't throw off the balance of the game, especially since there are skill rank caps, and cross class skill costs. This actually in all of my games have helped players be more lenient with their skills and spend skillpoints on less useful roleplaying skills.
Another thing I've tried in a couple of my games, but I am still on the fence about, is combing some skills, the only skills I have ever combined are hide and move silently into the skill sneak, and spot and listen into the skill notice. This has left alot of characters with a few extra skill points and in my opinion simplified alot of rolling, instead of having characters roll a hide and a move silently just have them roll a sneak check. Also notice includes smelling, tasting and feeling.
Our house rule gives +2 skill points per level to all characters. Also, cross-class skills only cost 1 point per rank (but are still limited to half the max ranks of class skills). We've been running this way for a long time with no problems.
In fact, making this change to cross-class skills has encouraged more creative skill selection (fighters taking Knowledge skills, etc.)
And by the way, since this is a game and thus primarily intended to be fun, I am very much into 'taking the easy way out'. Gary
Yeah but theres a thin red line between having fun and just plain old cheating.
We have rules for a reason in d&d and when you have groups just go and change things because some guy wants his fighter to be able to tumble but doesn't want to lower his to hit by taking a level in rogue, it just ruins the game.
There are class skills for a reason, there are max ranks for a reason and fighters get 2 skill points a level because guess what....thats what they are, a fighter.
D&D is very black and white if people havn't noticed.
Rogues sneak and steal from you, Fighters are at the front line 'fighting', Bards are everyone's friend, Paliden's are mighty and fight good, all Drow are evil and so on and it all represents the skills they have.
This isn't ment for you though Gary, ive just used a line from your post to reply by so this isn't a personal attack on ya group or anything=)
Peace
For the pest couple years we've played with 2 extra skill points per level for everyone. These 2 skill points are multiplied by 4 at first level. Sure sometiems a rogue can have a ton of skill points, but if you are trying to build a rogue who focuses more on skills than combat than why not. In my opinion, a couple extra skill points per level doesn't throw off the balance of the game, especially since there are skill rank caps, and cross class skill costs. This actually in all of my games have helped players be more lenient with their skills and spend skillpoints on less useful roleplaying skills.
Another thing I've tried in a couple of my games, but I am still on the fence about, is combing some skills, the only skills I have ever combined are hide and move silently into the skill sneak, and spot and listen into the skill notice. This has left alot of characters with a few extra skill points and in my opinion simplified alot of rolling, instead of having characters roll a hide and a move silently just have them roll a sneak check. Also notice includes smelling, tasting and feeling.
Sexi Golem and I subsumed Open Lock into Disable Device because it just made sense. Otherwise, I don't like the idea of combining skills to much. When you look at the level of specialization that exists in reality in areas covered by certain skills, (Heal is all things non-magically medical, but a brain surgeon and heart doctor are very different; I can't even begin to decide how many separate Knowledge skills would be needed to reflect the various fields of academic study and focus that exist) the skills seem too vague if anything.
Director of Narrative
|
I give my player's extra skill points in one or more skills depending on how good and realistic a character background they provide when show up to play the first time. (I also give bonus XP if they show up with a painted miniature of their character.)
About adding points per level and eliminating cross-class penalties, I would have to agree with the tiny minoirty here that have advised to leave the system alone. There are reasons that Use Magic Device is a limited skill, although sorcs should have it. Climbing is not an ordinary skill set. Climbing a tree is already an easy DC, that brick wall is another story altogether.
DMs need to set their adventure to the pace of the PCs, and PCs need to use time and resources to their greatest advantage. The skill system and d20 system as a whole has a plethora of ways to boost skill checks. Use them. Skillful characters suffer many other weaknesses, and their strength in that arena would be diminished greatly. And just thinking about modified systems with my current R3/M1 I could hit 30's regularly in about five skills. Sheesh.
So I was thinking about to increase the skill points of every character class by 2. Is this totally unbalanced or just fine? Any comments? Thanks in advance. :)I have made a few changes to how skills work in my games.
- Open Locks has been merged into Disable Device.
- Merge Hide and Move Silently into Stealth.
- Merge Listen and Spot into Notice. This is used for all passive sensing. Notice can detect a trap, but the DC is +10 compared to a Search check or +20 if double moving. There is no chance of spotting a trap while running.
- Search is used for all active sensing.
- Merge Spellcraft into Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (religion). Knowledge (arcana) covers arcane spells and Knowledge (religion) covers divine spells.
- Domains and Feats that grant additional class skills also grant free skill ranks with the skills. 1 free skill rank at 1st level and one additional rank every two levels thereafter.
- Increase class skill points by 2 per level.
- No bonus skills points from Intelligence.
- Give all characters 5 bonus skill points at 1st level only. These points must be spent on 'background skills'. Background skills are dependant on the character's background but are usually Craft or Profession skills.
|
|
For the pest couple years we've played with 2 extra skill points per level for everyone. These 2 skill points are multiplied by 4 at first level. Sure sometiems a rogue can have a ton of skill points, but if you are trying to build a rogue who focuses more on skills than combat than why not. In my opinion, a couple extra skill points per level doesn't throw off the balance of the game, especially since there are skill rank caps, and cross class skill costs. This actually in all of my games have helped players be more lenient with their skills and spend skillpoints on less useful roleplaying skills.
Another thing I've tried in a couple of my games, but I am still on the fence about, is combing some skills, the only skills I have ever combined are hide and move silently into the skill sneak, and spot and listen into the skill notice. This has left alot of characters with a few extra skill points and in my opinion simplified alot of rolling, instead of having characters roll a hide and a move silently just have them roll a sneak check. Also notice includes smelling, tasting and feeling.
This whole discussion I find very interesting. I never felt that the skill system was broken and needed fixing.
Everybody wants a "better" character. Why stop at only +2 skill points? Why not +3? +4? Why +2 and not +1? Why not give everyone an additional feat at 1st level? I think that overall none of the above scenarios will really throw off the balance of the game that much. It's only a little bit different and will allow the characters to do a little bit more. At what point is it no longer balancing with skills?
I find the scenario attached most interesting -- you want to give everyone more skill points AND reduce the number of skills allowing their inflated number of skill points to go farther still?
I guess -- more to the point -- is that why did you feel that the RAW regarding skill points truly disrupted game play or the flow of the game? Or did people just complain that their character couldn't do what they wanted their character to be able to do? Maybe their character shouldn't do what they want their character to do.
(I half agree about the cleric class, however. The only change that I might make is to give them a few more class skills -- maybe an additional one depending on their domain(s). I wouldn't improve their number of skill points, though.)
(This might be a little pointed -- I have just spent all day with people whining about how X isn't good enough -- I need to give the Y as well.)
I think that instead of getting rid of class skills entirely, make it so that all classes get all the skills except for a couple.
perform: a barbarian wouldn't need
UMD: a sorcerer or a wizard wouldnt need
disable device and pick lock: barbarian wouldn't use
There are other various crafts and such that certain classes wouldn't get (a druid with craft: armorsmithing, its just redundant).
But yea...thats my 2 cents
EDIT: Not redundant but...something i can't think of it right now but you all know what i mean
A note on Wizards having 2+Int skill points: Most Wizzies have a 16-18 Int, meaning that most end up with 5 x 4 or 6 x 4 skill spoints at first level.
Thats not bad at all. And how much time do you have to learn how to pick locks while learning to stretch reality?
And fighters get a bucketload of extra feats to make up for it. They could have a higher Int if they want more skills, or take rogue levels.
You can also buy cross-class skills.
This is just a comment on not having enough skill points, of course. It's debatable.
Anyways, with that in mind, I think the merging of skills is a better idea than extra skill points. Some skills seem a little reduntant, so this works, and you could spread it around a little more.
|
|
A couple of points:
First, I disagree with The AC Emu's* position. If you make a choice to avoid certain skills, it is either because you want to play a character without them (with the attendant disadvantages) or because you are playing power games. If the former, I'll happily give you the chance to explore your limitations. If the latter, I'm happy to play the power game too.
That said, I'm strongly considering increasing the number of skill points by 50% for all classes, increasing the number of general and bonus feats, and reducing both experience and treasure by 50%. I don't want to break the balance too much, but I'd like to see more skills for everybody, feats are fun, and spending a bit more time in each level fits my conception of appropriate pace better.
For those interested in a much more skill-based game, I'll commend to your attention the Game of Thrones d20 RPG. It has a very interesting feel.
* Other word-division points are probably possible. 8-)
We leave skill points as normal, but make cross class skills still limited to 1/2 the ranks of class skills (level +3), and only cost 1 point per rank. This encourages skill points in other areas but prevents people from stealing the spotlight from those with class skills.
I think the solution to most skill related problems is in ditching the "trained only" paradigm. I have no ranks of open lock myself, but I could try to jimmy a lock, especially if I had theives tools. I couldn't ever get a complex lock open, but given time I could probably open a crappy or simple lock.
Also, I think when a "unexpected" use of a skill comes up, DMs set higher than neccessary DCs, which then make players want higher modifiers, and by proxy more skill points. Remember, DC 10 is most everyday tasks, which most people take 10 on. Trying to use survival to light a fire? Its not DC 20, its DC 10. Doing during a thunderstorm? Maybe a +2 to the DC for bad circumstance, and you are distracted, so you have to roll, but at its core, its still DC 10.
This has been a fantastic thread. The broad variety of suggestions is heartening in one sense and a little disconcerting in another.
Let's see what suggestions have been lauded in this thread:
1. 2 extra skill points for all characters per level. With some suggesting multiplying beginning skill points by 8.
2. Getting rid of all cross-class skills and all skills now costing 1 point per rank.
3. Combining some skills together into single skills (such as Hide and Move Silently into Sneak)
4. All skills being available to all classes.
I have a few questions regarding these suggestions:
1. When DMs and groups have used these alternate rules what has been the motivation behind it? Were people complaining that they were failing skill checks (how horrendous), or was it because the DCs for skill checks were too high (DMs fault there)? I have to agree with the previous person that most DCs are around the DC 10 to 20 mark, so why the fixation on skills?
2. Combining skills is fine (I do it myself with a few games), but should it really be used in conjunction with more skill points? That seems like overkill.
3. When people complain that skills should be available to everyone, they inevitably bring up examples of a person's native environment/culture. If that's the case, skills should be completely regional in nature (FF and Greyhawk does this to a limited extent). Thus characters living next to an ocean should have Swim as a class skill, while those living in a highly mercantile society should have Diplomacy. Does this seem unfair?
4. What about humans? Their extra 1 skill point now seems trivial in games where everyone gets 2 extra skill points per level. Why play a human anymore?
5. Improving skills based on usage is an interesting idea, as is skill groupings. The first seems somewhat difficult in a D&D game, though. How have people applied these ideas to their games?
6. What about multiclassing? Do any of these rules hamper choice of multiclassing? Doesn't multiclassing also solve some of the problems people have with skills?
7. Has anyone applied the rules for the expert class to the base/PC classes? An expert gets to choose 10 skills as class skills and gets 6 skill points per level. Has anyone come up with a variation of the expert class for use as a base/PC class?
Everybody wants a "better" character. Why stop at only +2 skill points? Why not +3? +4? Why +2 and not +1? Why not give everyone an additional feat at 1st level? I think that overall none of the above scenarios will really throw off the balance of the game that much. It's only a little bit different and will allow the characters to do a little bit more.
This is at the crux of my arguement as well...think, if you will, what the net effect of piling up extra stat block bonuses does in principle. Heh, all it does is potentially force the DM to raise the ante to compensate for these extra plusses. It goes back to my first point here...the DM needs to set the challenges at whatever level the PCs stat blocks are nerfed up to be regardless if a PC has a +0 or a +30 to the dice roll. If DCs are too high to attain...deaths or worse, tpks can occur. If they are too easy, its not a challenge for the PCs or, more importantly, for the players around the table. Once it is understood that challenging an individual PC and/or a group of them is necessarily a relitive quantity, you'll find that there is absolutely no need at all to tweak any stat block related mechanic of a game.
As ever,
ACE
A couple of points:
First, I disagree with The AC Emu's* position. If you make a choice to avoid certain skills, it is either because you want to play a character without them (with the attendant disadvantages) or because you are playing power games. If the former, I'll happily give you the chance to explore your limitations. If the latter, I'm happy to play the power game too.
* Other word-division points are probably possible. 8-)
Heh...fair enough about the name...
I don't quite understand the point though. If all the PCs in a party have a +0 in swimming (using the above example), the DM should never make that skill mission critical to attain a goal or conquer a feat. This is both a limitation of the characters AND a constraint on the GM. So be it.Another way to approach this whole discussion is thus:
If nobody in a party has skill points allocated in swimming (continuing with this example), the toughest challenge that they should expect to encounter that will REQUIRE a swim check for success should never be more than a 10-15 DC.
On the other hand, if one or several members of the party max out on that skill and already have a +10 to the check, the exact same encounter should be raised to a DC of 20...or whatever is reasonable to have a chance of both success and failure.
Both of these scinarios serve the exact same purpose...just on different scales. As i mentioned before, this requires that challenges be tailored to the individual player or party by the GM, so you can't just pick up temple of elemental evil and off we go! Don't be confused here, though, most canned adventures cater to the mineatures portion of the game which encourages power gaming where extra plusses anywhere you can get them actually DO mean something...because the scale is set by WoTC or Paizo and the goal is to beat that scale. Anyway, that's a different subject, but it's tied in to this philosophy of gaming so it's worth mentioning.
As ever,
ACE
Me and a friend have been toying with the idea of implementing skill points and knowledge points. Every class keeps the same skill points they had, but I give them knowledge points that only serve to buy knowledge skils. We tought of keeping them low: 1 knowledge point for the martial classes (fighter, barbarian, ranger), 3 for erudite classes (bard, wizard, cleric) and 2 for other classes (rogue, monk, druid).
That way a fighter can know the regional legends or the history of warfare and such.
I don't think that out-balances the game at all.
|
|
I have a few questions regarding these suggestions:
1. When DMs and groups have used these alternate rules what has been the motivation behind it?
I, as a DM going to start STAP, am complaining !!
I would like my players to be able to pick a few diplomacy-based and intelligence-based skills.
Alright, my Wiz has 18 Int, he is human, I guess he will pick spellcraft / concentration, as well as a few knowledge skills.
But what about my human fighter, the human cleric (and they're lucky to be humans) :
- intimidate, jump, hide
- first aid, concentration, knowledge (religion) OR spellcraft.
and that's it !!
I don't want ALL of my PCs to be great & powerful in every skill.
I want them to be able, yes, JUST BE ABLE, to have a few ranks in social (diplomacy, gather info, bluff, intimidate...), craft/profession or knowledgde skills : maybe 1 rank in dungeoneering or nobility/royalty or local, for the fighter.
Maybe 1-2 rank in the planes for the cleric.
that's all I need, folks ...
I add 2 skill points, take it as "my 2 cents" !!
Excellent thread, I defenitely plan on implementing some of the suggestions here.
One thing I'd like to contribute is making any skill that a particular race receives a natural bonus in, a class skill for that race (this does not include bonuses due to size).
For example, diplomacy, gather info, etc. would be class skills for half-evles regardless of their class. I think this makes sense, reflecting the race's natural knack for certain abilities.
I also really like the idea of getting rid of the one point buys half a rank rule, one point should equal one rank, and keeping the cross class cap.
|
|
One thing that really hasn't been answered is "Why?"
I have heard many times in this thread that none of the classes have enough skill points -- Why?
I have heard many times that people have gotten rid of the class skill/cross class skill issues all together -- Why?
The only decent explanation I have seen here as a reason to change the current skill system was one person mentioned that they combine some skills (Sneak and Notice instead of Hide/Move Silently and Spot/Listen) and the reason was to help game play more efficient and to alleviate some of the confusion regarding which one(s) to use when.
Many people seem to be saying that because they have made these changes and there doesn't seem to be any change in "balance" it must be ok.
As far as "balance" is concerned, I have also noticed that pretty much no one has mentioned whether or not they give the NPCs the same benefits. So now that all the PCs have a "Sneak" of 15, do all the NPCs have a "Notice" of 17? If that is true, then it is just as "balanced" as it was before the change -- So why make the change? If it isn't true, then how is it "balanced"?
As an aside -- One person did say that (I am paraphrasing) he/she gives out extra feats and extra skill points simply because it is sometimes fun to play uber-powerful characters. I can live with that answer. Saying that it is "balanced" is not a good answer.
|
|
I want them to be able, yes, JUST BE ABLE, to have a few ranks in social (diplomacy, gather info, bluff, intimidate...), craft/profession or knowledgde skills : maybe 1 rank in dungeoneering or nobility/royalty or local, for the fighter.
Maybe 1-2 rank in the planes for the cleric.
THAT is a reason.
Although, I would modify it to be more like giving the PCs a few "regional skills" and give them 1 bonus skill point each that must be placed in one of the regional skills.
This whole discussion I find very interesting. I never felt that the skill system was broken and needed fixing.
Everybody wants a "better" character. Why stop at only +2 skill points? Why not +3? +4? Why +2 and not +1? Why not give everyone an additional feat at 1st level? I think that overall none of the above scenarios will really throw off the balance of the game that much. It's only a little bit different and will allow the characters to do a little bit more. At what point is it no longer balancing with skills?
I'm for leaving the skill system the way it is, with the occasional class skill modification. (Mainly for things that have good reasons or presidence, like look up the Revised Urban Ranger online, it provides a better variant on the Ranger/Urban Ranger than Unearthed Arcana Does, but I'm still of the opinion that a ranger should have Knowledge Nature...especially in my case where he's more of a Suburban ranger)
but here's what I DID do for my game, I gave my Players bonus feats at 1st level, straight out of Ghostwalk. (albeit one or two characters actually have to earn their bonus feats, all have to qualify, or have them count at higher levels, but I think I started those guys off at 3rd anyway). There are feats in ghostwalk that are based on where you come from, so I didn't see any need to blow away a feat even on something as cool as Education, when I could just let the characters have it if they wanted it. So far there hasn't been a major imbalance aside from the Dwarf Barbarain/Druid with the insane survival check due to his Thurkasian feat. I do need to give a feat to my Ranger/Rogue though, perhaps I'll give him Urban Tracking *shrugs* or something else out of Ghostwalk, or Libris Mortis for that matter since I'm using those books to define the world and at least one of my NPCs is getting a bonus feat out of Libris Mortis to compete with the bonus feat the players get (though strangely enough, I haven't done this with every NPC, maybe I will from now on).
But skills? The cleric in the game I play in is one of the most skilled characters- it's him versus me (Fighter/Revised Urban Ranger), a Fighter and a Rogue, Sure the rogue wins as far as skills go, but the cleric has the knowledge and the diplomacy- as well as intimidate- covered. I don't see a huge gap there though I would be in the camp that would allow them an extra skill point, but that's only because I would like it for my Cleric, but I hardly agree to changing the rules in such a matter. Allow class skills as you see fit for the character and maybe do as has been suggested and make it "once known, always known" so once a skill is a class skill, it is always a class skill- but instead encouraging the player to up the ranks in the new class vs the old class.
I want them to be able, yes, JUST BE ABLE, to have a few ranks in social (diplomacy, gather info, bluff, intimidate...), craft/profession or knowledgde skills : maybe 1 rank in dungeoneering or nobility/royalty or local, for the fighter.
Maybe 1-2 rank in the planes for the cleric.THAT is a reason.
Although, I would modify it to be more like giving the PCs a few "regional skills" and give them 1 bonus skill point each that must be placed in one of the regional skills.
that's what I'm doing with feats, I'm also making it easier, on a regional basis to know or obtain certain information...Luckily for EVERYONE (once the party gets together anyway) there is a Bard in the group, so anything someone doesn't know, including him, bardic knowledge. I think that just the presence of a bard balances out the otherwise weakness of the party as far as gather info and knowledge skills are concerned. Same with a highly diplomatic character (including the bard).
Some parties just develop a mouthpiece, like the party I'm playing in, the cleric is the mouthpiece though the official leader of the party was meant to be the fighter Lucien. Who has the higher diplomacy and intimidate and bluff? the cleric, even the rogue usually defers to him. Do we have extra skill points, no, but we have other in game tweaks...but I believe the skill system is intact.
|
|
One thing that really hasn't been answered is "Why?"
Why Not?
Its kind of a style of play question, like "do you use a home brew or published campaign?" or "do you have epic only, non-epic only or both campaigns?" Ultimately, it comes down to whether you (as in the entire group) are having fun.
If you're happy with the current skill point assignments, then there's no problem. If you want your characters to be able to do more "heroic" things or want them to take skills that reflect their background (like requiring a craft/profession skill, which I've done before) without penalyzing them then you modify it. Problems only seem to really arise when there is no corresponding balance, and I've discovered that you can only really enjoy a one sided "we always win" game so much.
So far, I haven't had a problem with the house rules I've implemented (retroactive skill points and "once a class skill...") because I've done the EXACT same thing with my NPC's/Monsters. Once you start allowing for inherent bonuses to Int, it becomes a nightmare to keep track of skill points for higher level characters without a spreadsheet. Then there's the unintentional torment a PC inflicted on me when we reworked characters and he couldn't remember WHEN he improved his Int and took what class levels.
As for other changes, I've liked a lot of stuff I've seen here, and I might be incorporating a few suggestions. You might go see what some of the people at WOTC have done to alter their games, there was a design and development article (I think) talking about house rules a while back, and some of them were pretty drastic...
Heh...fair enough about the name...
I don't quite understand the point though. If all the PCs in a party have a +0 in swimming (using the above example), the DM should never make that skill mission critical to attain a goal or conquer a feat. This is both a limitation of the characters AND a constraint on the GM. So be it.Another way to approach this whole discussion is thus:
If nobody in a party has skill points allocated in swimming (continuing with this example), the toughest challenge that they should expect to encounter that will REQUIRE a swim check for success should never be more than a 10-15 DC.On the other hand, if one or several members of the party max out on that skill and already have a +10 to the check, the exact same encounter should be raised to a DC of 20...or whatever is reasonable to have a chance of both success and failure.
As ever,
ACE
Or you could put a torrent of water in the path of a group of PC's that have no ranks in swim. Then allow them to think their way around the problem by using the surprizing inginuity and determination that most parties posses. Thus leading to an interesting solution to a problem rather than "I rolled a 17 whats next?".
However, what do your players want? If they want their wizard to be saavy then throw some skill ponts away in diplomacy. Once their modifier gets to around +5 they should be considered really pursuasive. They wont be averting any wars with flowery speech but if thats the character you want then play a bard instead. I fail to see any concept of a skillful character the RAW can't accomidate. Full ranks in a skill doesn't mean make a character good at a skill. It makes them superhuman in that skill normally in a very short time. That and skill increasing magic items are relatively cheap. Allowing characters with little to no prociciency in a skill to become an expert with only a modest amount of their income.
|
|
One thing that really hasn't been answered is "Why?"Why Not?
Kind of a Middle School answer, but ok. And the short answer to "Why Not?" is simply because it isn't in the rules. Now, before I get flamed for that, I am all for modifying the rules and making home-brew systems and what have you. But I also feel that there should be a reason for the change in rules. "Why Not?" isn't a reason -- it's another question.
If you want your characters to be able to do more "heroic" things ...
"That was a heroic Appraise check."
"That was a heroic Gather Information check.""That was a heroic Spot."
First of all, I am not really seeing how getting more skill points makes someone more "heroic". All it really does it makes them more able to do more things. To me, "heroism" has much more to do with being able to do things when the odds are against you. Bonus skill points for no reason seems to take away from heroism -- not add to it.
Secondly, the real reason for increasing the number of skill points (according to a great number of people here) is simply to make more powerful characters. Again, as I said before, if this is your reason, then that is great. If that is what is fun for you then great. But don't hide behind inuendos about how "balanced" your changes are or other similar excuses when it all comes down to "I want a more powerful character".
Excellent thread, I defenitely plan on implementing some of the suggestions here.
One thing I'd like to contribute is making any skill that a particular race receives a natural bonus in, a class skill for that race (this does not include bonuses due to size).For example, diplomacy, gather info, etc. would be class skills for half-evles regardless of their class. I think this makes sense, reflecting the race's natural knack for certain abilities.
I also really like the idea of getting rid of the one point buys half a rank rule, one point should equal one rank, and keeping the cross class cap.
I'd like to note that some of the racial substitution levels (a concept I was always fond of) do the exact same thing. For example if you're playing a dwarf, and take a racial substitution level, not only do you get a larger-than-normal hit die, but also Knowledge: Dungeoneering as a class skill. I do like the idea of giving Search, Spot, and Listen as class skills to all elves. Hmmm, I think you're on to something.
|
|
I don't quite understand the point though. If all the PCs in a party have a +0 in swimming (using the above example), the DM should never make that skill mission critical to attain a goal or conquer a feat. This is both a limitation of the characters AND a constraint on the GM. So be it.Another way to approach this whole discussion is thus:
If nobody in a party has skill points allocated in swimming (continuing with this example), the toughest challenge that they should expect to encounter that will REQUIRE a swim check for success should never be more than a 10-15 DC.On the other hand, if one or several members of the party max out on that skill and already have a +10 to the check, the exact same encounter should be raised to a DC of 20...or whatever is reasonable to have a chance of both success and failure.
ACE
As noted, this is a bit of a philosophical difference. I try not to allow only one path to success ever, so I might well allow a swim check, or water breathing and walking on the bottom, or flying, or a boat (improvised or otherwise) to pass a challenge. The other side of that is that I'm OK with making a challenge trivial if one or more players has made surmounting such challenges a major focus of his character.
For example, if a Rogue has a +22 to his Climb skill, there might be obstacles with a Climb DC of 15 or 20 designed into the adventure. "While most people would find climbing that wall a perilous challenge, Kanella has no problem. Her climbing looks almost like a dance as she traverses from handhold to handhold."
I will often consider allowing new options for characters with very high skills, though. For that same character, I might add a sheer glass wall with a Climb DC of 30 or 35, the climbing of which would allow the party to bypass some other obstacle of similar difficulty. If the best Climb bonus in the group is +5, I'm unlikely to bother creating the option.
As to why I think a few more skill points might be useful for all characters, I don't think the current numbers capture the diversity of skills that feels right. Even a rather dim bouncer-type might be good at several non-fighting things, and 1 or 2 skill points per level doesn't capture that well, IMO. Perhaps I play differently, but my characters and those of my players when I'm DMing tend not to spend all their points buying a few skills to max. Rather, perhaps half of the points go into maxed skills, while the remainder go into a bit of this and a bit of that, including some cross-class skills. I'm not too worried about balance issues, as long as the balance between classes is maintained acceptably.
|
|
You cannot play a barbarian whose shaman brother taught him much about magic before he went into the world.
You cannot play a fighter who is also a skilled diplomat.
You cannot play a wizard who isn't brilliant but who has managed to learn by rote a lot of what other wizards know.
You cannot play a monk who has wandered so far and wide that he is a master of geographical lore.
The Barbarian -- How much magic is an Int 8 character going to really understand.
The Fighter -- Yes you can, but it would probably involve having a higher Charisma and some specific feats rather than a ton of skill points.The Wizard -- What? If you are not a brilliant wizard then you should probably start cross-classing anyway.
The Monk -- a little more difficult, but see below...
Many of these have much more to do with character creation rather than giving out bonus skill points at each level. Many of them -- the Barbarian, Monk and maybe even the Fighter -- can be easily solved by modifying the DC. Because the Monk is well traveled (and as long as it fits into his background), his DC is 10 instead of 15. I do this kind of thing all the time. If an elf grew up in a forest environment, then they would most likely have some bonuses to identify certain plants found in a forest. If you have a noble person who has grown up in that kind of environment their whole life, then they would probably have an easier time talking to the king than many others would. This is far different than giving out bonus skill points just because "I like it".