I would suggest all the classes that get 4 or less skill choices get 4 choices at 1st level. 2 is 2 too few, for me. Wizards maybe should get 6 instead of 4. The closer the skill-gap the better imo, precisely to prevent "1st level rogue is l33t" syndrome.
I've seen players take ranks in skills - even 1 - almost exclusively for the purpose of meeting prestige class requirements, otherwise the ranks are almost always dumped into what they wanted to be best at at full tilt. The synergy bonuses siphon off tons of skill points (especially for Diplomacy) that could have been used for other things. 15 points to gain a +6 synergy bonus is fairly steep - and has been known now and again to be a direct contributor of character deaths. There are not enough skill points to genuinely flesh out a character's backstory without almost completely compromising simple survivability at the higher levels of play.
How about taking Sense Motive from Perception and folding it into Diplomacy? (Part and parcel of any diplomacizing is what the sense motive skill represented, a better fit imo than lumping it in with Listen, Search and Spot.)
Fly - uh, mkay ... I'll leave that one be for now, although it sounds more like an athletics kind of thing.
Streamline skills list a bit further (unless seriously beefing up the skill choices available):
Disguise into Deception. Ride into Handle Animal.
Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, and Swim into an Athletics skill.
I'd prefer to see the 'survival' skill choices made at the beginning of play with the 'backstory' and 'as my character developes' skills acquired with level advancement - the craft, knowledge, linguistics, perform, profession and ride skills are prime examples of this. Having enough choices so as to be less likely to die horribly early is a key moment. Lenny the Fighter isn't going to do the group a whole lot of good if he can't help out on guard duty while the spell casters are sleeping...
Stipulate that INT bonus items do nothing to add skill choices to one's character, ever.
Just preliminary thought bubbles...
I'm torn on this one. I use Heroforge so figuring out skill point allocation for even a high level character with 3 or 4 different classes is pretty easy, but I can see the benefits of going with a trained on/off method. If the rules stay with just trained or un-trained, I definitely like Thraxus' suggestion of all character classes gaining new trained skills at different rates to keep from cherry picking the rogue, bard, or ranger.
|
I would suggest all the classes that get 4 or less skill choices get 4 choices at 1st level. 2 is 2 too few, for me. Wizards maybe should get 6 instead of 4. The closer the skill-gap the better imo, precisely to prevent "1st level rogue is l33t" syndrome.
Why does a Wizard need more? Unlike all the other classes, a Wizard is going to have a high intelligence and will get more. I'd argue that a sorcerer if anyone needs more then 2 + Int at first level, specifically because Sorcerers like fighters and paladins, don't "use" Int.
Rogues get so many because they depend on skills in combat.
Everyone else, no.
|
|
I'm a bit befuddled at all the love for skill points.
Does one rank here or there in a skill really "define" your character all that much?
When you make a skill roll with that 1-rank skill and fail, don't you wish you had just a few more ranks to make that roll?
Why wouldn't you max out a skill if you had the opportunity?
Because you don't necessarily want to.
Fr instance, if I'm playing a cleric, paladin, ranger, or druid, the most ranks I'll ever put into the heal skill is about 10. Why? Because my WIS modifier will make up the rest of the difference between those 10 ranks and the DC to stabilize a fallen comrade and that's all I want ranks in heal for. I don't need to be a surgeon, I've got healing magic, but at the same time, I don't want a fallen ally to die because I'm casted out for the day. Is that min-maxing? Maybe, but no more so than my real-world possession of first responder emergency aid training and lack of a medical degree.
Another example: alchemy. Alchemist fire and acid have a myriad of tactical applications, but when was the last time you rolled a craft (alchemy) check in combat? Never? Yeah, thought so. It's nice to be able to brew up some acid flasks or alchemist fire between adventures for battlefield control or dissolving locks, but I really don't need or want the skill to run an alchemy shop. I'm an adventurer with useful skills, not a merchant! All I need is enough ranks to reliably make a few simple alchemical items when taking 10.
Still yet another example: survival. I don't need enough ranks to track an ant across the Sahara in the middle of a sandstorm, but it's nice to know where to look for an oasis. The tracker can do that, but I'm not the tracker.
And another: tumble. I'd like to be able to land like something other than a rock, and occasionally slip past an enemy without provoking AoOs, but I don't need to be a circus performer. It's just combat footwork, not Olympic-level gymnastics.
These are all things I could see a professional adventurer logically training to the level of and stopping. And darn it, when I play an adventurer, I play a professional. I don't like dying. I don't like my friends dying. And I sure as hell don't like the thousands of innocent people depending on the success of my venture meeting whatever fate they'll meet without our help because one of us didn't know enough basic first aid to keep his friend, the cleric, from bleeding out.
Keep. The. Skill. Points. In. Please!
|
I think that skill points should be kept, primarily for player characters and customizable NPCs, should the DM be so inclined.
For NPCs, lazy players, or DM's that don't want to get into this, I would offer the following *Optional Rule*:
Instead of spending skill points, give give them a number of skill choices (ie, a 10th level Rogue would get 8 + Int Modifier), and *not* have it go up at future levels. Instead they get in each class skill a modifier equal to (3+HD/Level) + modifier. So the 10th level Rogue above would have a Stealth skill of +16 (let's say he has a 16 Dex, for +3 built in there).
Cross-Class skills would have (3+HD/Level)/2 + modifier, rounded down, so the 10th level Rogue would have a +8 in Knowledge (religion) assuming he had a +2 to Intelligence.
Please, Jason, keep skill points!
I don't mind the new trained/untrained but getting a new skills at every even level is too much. The other RPG that use that kind of skills system is SAGA Starwars... But you gain no skills after those you choose at character creation unless you use a Feat (Skill Training) to gain a new skills (from the skills available to all your class).
Another problem is that if you get a new skill a higher level you know it at the same level of your other trained skills (you start from not knowing a skill at all to be an expert instantaneously).
For exemple, A fighter level 10 with Str 16 decide to take the Climb Skill... He goes from 1d20+3 (untrained) to 1d20+16 (Trained) just by taking the new skill... That's the equivalent of 13 skills ranks !!
At level 20, taking the same skill, he goes to 1d20+26 (23 instantaneous skills ranks!)... This is kind of strange and hard to explain/believe from a roleplaying perspective...
I agree that skill points shoud be kept, my players all like to distribute their points they way they want, sometimes a bit here, a bit there. This general "trainning" idea is good enough for npcs, makes it a lot easier; bur for pcs, skill points was a good original rule that I, personally, would like to see in Pathfinder.
The grouping of some skills is also very good, they are doing this on 4th ed too; but some groups I disagree. My thoughts on them are:
1) Bluff & Sense Motive: Definetely not nice, they are very distinct "techniques" and in game terms they are the opposite skills; it would be like grouping Move Silently with Listen, you are good on both sides of the skill: Doing it and noticing it.
1.1) I, personally, would suggest that Disguise could merge with Bluff.
2) Decipher Script & Forgery: Its original, though we haven´t had a chance to explore it very well. I believe it´s ok nonetheless.
Speak Language should be kept aside though; it works differently enough. Could keep the original rule or change to some "degree of learning" maybe something like, 1 point = Speaks simple words with heavy accent, can read and write enough for people to get the idea. 2 points = Can have a normal conversation although with some accent, does not know very technical words and slangs. 3 points = Fluent speaker (not Native).
Just some thoughts; but Speak Language really does not group well with the other two.
3) Listen & Spot; Move Silently & Hide: Perfect. Simplifies the game, reduces the rolling of dice without the loss of realism.
4) Balance & Jump: I don´t think one is tied to the other, but since almost no one ever picks any of those two, it should work to at least motivate people.
5) Sleight of Hand & Open Lock: They are very distinct skills, I know I could steal a candy or two from a store or a person given some careful planning (not that I do those things, please), I definetely cannot pick a lock. I once bought a commong lock just for curiosity, wanted to know how hard it could be... for weeks I tried with no success. But again, they both have to do with Thieving, stealing in some way... so I believe it´s ok to group them.
6) Use Rope: Just group them with anything, even... Listen.. just so the poor fighter could tie his horse and go to sleep without worring it will run off in the middle of the night
7) Suggestion. Climb + Swim = Athletics... Why not..? Different, yes, but again, it picks those skills up from the bottom of the priority group.
Well, big post, but these are my thoughts. In short, I would like to see skill points back, i thought they worked fine. Most of the groupings are ok until now, except for one or two, and there are some new that could be arranged.
I'm a bit befuddled at all the love for skill points.
Yeah, I agree. The new system seems easier, and more powerful in the final analysis.
Does one rank here or there in a skill really "define" your character all that much? When you make a skill roll with that 1-rank skill and fail, don't you wish you had just a few more ranks to make that roll? Why wouldn't you max out a skill if you had the opportunity?
Yeah, when you scatter-shot your skill points, you end up almost competent at a bunch of stuff. In the end, you're success is more dependent on your dice rolling than your skill point choices.
Because you don't necessarily want to. Fr instance, if I'm playing a cleric, paladin, ranger, or druid, the most ranks I'll ever put into the heal skill is about 10. Why? Because my WIS modifier will make up the rest of the difference between those 10 ranks and the DC to stabilize a fallen comrade and that's all I want ranks in heal for. I don't need to be a surgeon, I've got healing magic, but at the same time, I don't want a fallen ally to die because I'm casted out for the day. Is that min-maxing? Maybe, but no more so than my real-world possession of first responder emergency aid training and lack of a medical degree.
But if it doesn't really cost you anything to take healing once and keep getting better at it, why not? As you see bigger and nastier wounds left by bigger and nastier monsters, you keep getting better.
Still yet another example: survival. I don't need enough ranks to track an ant across the Sahara in the middle of a sandstorm, but it's nice to know where to look for an oasis. The tracker can do that, but I'm not the tracker. And another: tumble. I'd like to be able to land like something other than a rock, and occasionally slip past an enemy without provoking AoOs, but I don't need to be a circus performer. It's just combat footwork, not Olympic-level gymnastics.
The problem with spending only a few skill points on skills like these is that the utility is very short-lived. It only helps you at low to mid levels.
As you go up in level, the challenges are greater. If you have a skill with a +4 from a stat and a few points, it won't matter if you're facing a 10th level challenge. Your skill is not likely to be up to the task. You'll just have to use your hit points to suck up the falling damage. Your survival skill won't be enough to help you through whatever bizzare environment you find yourself in, so you'll need to use magic or something.
Honestly, but the time your up for the challenge of saving the world, your "Hobby Skills" are going to be mostly useless. You'll almost never roll the +4 check and just pull out whatever "big guns" you have to get the job done.
|
A lot of good stuff.
What he said.
Another example: alchemy. Alchemist fire and acid have a myriad of tactical applications, but when was the last time you rolled a craft (alchemy) check in combat? Never? Yeah, thought so. It's nice to be able to brew up some acid flasks or alchemist fire between adventures for battlefield control or dissolving locks, but I really don't need or want the skill to run an alchemy shop. I'm an adventurer with useful skills, not a merchant! All I need is enough ranks to reliably make a few simple alchemical items when taking 10.
First of all taking 10 with just a few ranks in Craft (alchemy) is not going to make you alchemist's fire (DC 20). Even with an Int of 18, putting 1 rank in every level, you'd be 7th level before you could do this reliably, whereas you could do it at 4th level with the PF ALpha system.
And if one of your adventuring buddies asks you to make a thunderstone (DC 25), do you say, "Sorry pal, I can't. I just wanted to make acid."? Yeah, that sounds like an amateur, not a professional (as you state below):
These are all things I could see a professional adventurer logically training to the level of and stopping. And darn it, when I play an adventurer, I play a professional. I don't like dying. I don't like my friends dying. And I sure as hell don't like the thousands of innocent people depending on the success of my venture meeting whatever fate they'll meet without our help because one of us didn't know enough basic first aid to keep his friend, the cleric, from bleeding out.
The point is, when you stop studying something, you don't automatically stop improving. If you know how to heal, and you continue using that skill, you're going to get better at it. It's not professional to stay at the same low level of skill or knowledge over an entire career. I don't actively study history now like I did in college, but my level of knowledge has still increased, through reading, documentaries, etc.
Because some groups actually ROLE play their characters, not ROLL play them. ROLE play is giving your characters some form of feet of clay, some things that they aren't as good at as others of their profession, skills that don't improve with age if you don't actually belong to a class anymore and don't use them (Elminster was once a thief in the Forgotten Realms, his rogue skills on his character sheet are NOT that lovely. Under PRPG's system, for the few levels of rogue he took, he would still be a grandmaster thief at those skills after leaving the profession and spending most of his life as an arcane spellcaster. That's, in a word, stupid character development.)
How does max ranks in skills force you to ROLLplay instead of ROLEplay? Couldn't you just as easily roleplay the fact that you suck at being a thief by not taking them at all (using them untrained) or taking them as cross-class skills (giving them half the level of your class skills)? In fact, that would be even better for your Elminster example - you can have the ROLEplaying background of being a thief (take thief skills as cross-class skills) without having to ROLLplay by actually taking rogue levels.
Lots of people have posted ideas for "hobby" or "background" skills to reflect this, and these could be easily house-ruled in by any DM. I'm just not sure it needs to be hard-wired into the system with skill points when the PF ALpha system is much simpler and more elegant.
I'm a bit befuddled at all the love for skill points.Yeah, I agree. The new system seems easier, and more powerful in the final analysis.
Your opinion lacks weight with the people who like them. Just because you can't grasp their preference doesn't make it "wrong," "invalid," "worse," or "less powerful." It just makes it "different." Imagine if I prefer chocolate ice cream, and you like vanilla. Each has its own merits.
I can explain to you for hours why chocolate is "better" (richer tasting, containing more anti-oxidants, etc.), but at the end of the day you'll still prefer vanilla. That's why people are ususally provided with the OPTION to select which one they prefer.
PFRPG should provide the option for you to use the Saga system, and an equivalent skill points option for those who want to use it. Skills are robust enough that there's no reason the two equivalent mechanics cannot both be presented as choices.
I'm just not sure it needs to be hard-wired into the system with skill points when the PF ALpha system is much simpler and more elegant.
I'm still extremely curious as to this insistence that the skill system has to accommodate ONLY one style of play, when it is robust enough to have an optional skill point mechanic? A short sidebar providing that option is easy enough to add, allowing you to use the Saga rules as a default. Why can that not be permitted, if I might ask?
I'm a bit befuddled at all the love for skill points.
Does one rank here or there in a skill really "define" your character all that much?
When you make a skill roll with that 1-rank skill and fail, don't you wish you had just a few more ranks to make that roll?
Why wouldn't you max out a skill if you had the opportunity?
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who likes dichotomous skills defends them with a dichotomy. ;)
Nope, for me it rarely comes down to 1 rank in a skill.
What it DOES come down to is having some ability in 3 skills or 4 if having some skill in that 4th skill defines my character. So if I have 12 points to split between those skills, its not so important to me that I max them all out at 4; I'm happy to put points in all the skills I think define my character (like 3 each).
It's not like having skill ranks those who have the "all maxed out" philosophy still can't max them out. But making that the default does crimp the style for those who don't always max them out.
|
|
I'm just not sure it needs to be hard-wired into the system with skill points when the PF ALpha system is much simpler and more elegant.I'm still extremely curious as to this insistence that the skill system has to accommodate ONLY one style of play, when it is robust enough to have an optional skill point mechanic? A short sidebar providing that option is easy enough to add, allowing you to use the Saga rules as a default. Why can that not be permitted, if I might ask?
I have never insisted that the skills have to accommodate one style of play. Of course, I use skill points in 3.5 and I even scatter them about. But that's because I'm playing 3.5 RAW. If a new system comes out that I like better, I'll support that system. And the simplicity of the Pathfinder system (especially for creating monsters and NPCs) in enough for me to outweigh the flexibility that skill points give you.
But an optional sidebar would of course be a good idea. I don't consider optional rules to be hard-wired. Keep the Pathfinder system default hard-wired, and add some notes about optional skill points. Sounds good to me. (And I even suggested a similar thing for hit points on another thread.)
I'm with sargon here hard-wire the alpha skill system sidebar skill points.
|
|
I'm a bit befuddled at all the love for skill points.
Does one rank here or there in a skill really "define" your character all that much?
When you make a skill roll with that 1-rank skill and fail, don't you wish you had just a few more ranks to make that roll?
Why wouldn't you max out a skill if you had the opportunity?I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who likes dichotomous skills defends them with a dichotomy. ;)
Nope, for me it rarely comes down to 1 rank in a skill.
What it DOES come down to is having some ability in 3 skills or 4 if having some skill in that 4th skill defines my character. So if I have 12 points to split between those skills, its not so important to me that I max them all out at 4; I'm happy to put points in all the skills I think define my character (like 3 each).
Not sure where the "dichotomy" is, but:
Everyone defending skill points makes the point that if they can't put a rank or two into that fourth skill, suddenly their character isn't defined. And under 3.5 skill points, that might be true. But remember that in Pathfinder you actually get more skills. If you don't have enough skill choices to get that one skill, you'll get a new skill choice in 2 levels.
If you just want to be crappy at a skill and never improve it, don't choose that skill and use it untrained. You can't get any crappier than that!
It's not like having skill ranks those who have the "all maxed out" philosophy still can't max them out. But making that the default does crimp the style for those who don't always max them out.
Just like having a "maxed out" skill system doesn't mean those who have the skill point philosophy still can't have skill points. But making that the default does crimp the style for those who want the ease and simplicity of maxing them out.
Just like having a "maxed out" skill system doesn't mean those who have the skill point philosophy still can't have skill points. But making that the default does crimp the style for those who want the ease and simplicity of maxing them out.
Speaking as someone who just maxes out NPCs all the time, this is not true. Just pick your skill points per level in skills and assume they are maxed out. Done. That's nearly identical to the pathfinder system as presented, but doesn't hold me back in cases where I want to create a character with a broader, lower skill base.
Just like having a "maxed out" skill system doesn't mean those who have the skill point philosophy still can't have skill points. But making that the default does crimp the style for those who want the ease and simplicity of maxing them out.Speaking as someone who just maxes out NPCs all the time, this is not true. Just pick your skill points per level in skills and assume they are maxed out. Done. That's nearly identical to the pathfinder system as presented, but doesn't hold me back in cases where I want to create a character with a broader, lower skill base.
What Psion said...skill points as in 3.5 doesn't really hold back anybody who simply wants to max out his skills. And with a few little modifications, it works just as easy for complex high-level NPCs..at least if you're not into using software for character generation, like me. ;)
One good thing to these discussions..it makes one look more creatively at the problems oneself has with D&D. :)
Not sure where the "dichotomy" is, but:Everyone defending skill points makes the point that if they can't put a rank or two into that fourth skill, suddenly their character isn't defined. And under 3.5 skill points, that might be true. But remember that in Pathfinder you actually get more skills. If you don't have enough skill choices to get that one skill, you'll get a new skill choice in 2 levels.
If you just want to be crappy at a skill and never improve it, don't choose that skill and use it untrained. You can't get any crappier than that!
Was on my way out the door last post, but just wanted to address the rest of this.
I'll tackle the first and last paragraphs first. Because to answer the first paragraph, you need look no further than the last. Putting less than full ranks in a skill is not the same as putting no ranks in it. That's a textbook case of "excluding the middle", the middle in this case being putting somewhere between 0 and max ranks.
Now, to the second paragraph. There are two problems I see here. First, I am held off in defining some level of skill in that last skill until 2nd level. It's a short wait, I guess I can live with it. But then, at 2nd level, another player who might have a character of the same class that I am gets a new skill whether he wants it or not. He takes the same skill just because he needs to add one, not because he was interested in crafting his character the same way I am, and he picks the same skill.
Further, considering that many of the skills are collected into other skills, the menu of skills is shorter. You add skills every X levels, pretty soon all characters look the same as they become so bloated with skill they all begin to overlap as they all have bloated skill lists that are a bigger chunk of the full skill list, compounding the problem.
In essence, this change takes away one of the main tools I used to distinguish different characters of the same class. I consider the result insufficiently nuanced for my gaming purposes.
You want a compromise that would work for me if you MUST ditch skill points (and I'm seeing I'm not alone in this sentiment), you can create different skill advancements just like you have different save advancements. Call "full advancement" 3+level ranks, call "half advancement" half of full. Now, let any character trade 1 "full skill" for 2 "half skills". Give characters a HALF skill every few levels instead of a full skill, and you start to address your problem of "skill bloat" as well.