One of the thing I think was the best about 3.x was the skill points...so why are you dumping them?
|
One of the thing I think was the best about 3.x was the skill points...so why are you dumping them?
Have you ever statted out a 20th level Rogue? Or a Rogue 5/Assassin 10/Invisible Blade 5 with a 26 Int? That's why I'm happy to kiss them goodbye.
OK, maybe you should read that as throw them out the window and laugh as they fall all the way to the ground. They have uses at lower levels, but by the time you get above level 12 or so, it's just waaaaaay too much to keep track of, even with Excel.
One of the thing I think was the best about 3.x was the skill points...so why are you dumping them?
I agree.
There are some folks who like the saga way of doing things. I, for one, do not.
The saga-fied skill system works for shortcuts for quick statting of NPCs. But I find the lack of flexibility for PCs unacceptable.
I actually overlooked that part of the skills, I personally think it's a very good move. In my experience distributing skill points was always a process that resulted in a lot of wasted time, frustration, and errors. While I agree with Psion that there isn't as much flexibility in PC development as with the 3.5 rules, it is a very small price to pay for streamlined play.
Pros:
- Streamlined generation/leveling.
- Easier DMing, players either have the skill or they don't. Making creating adventures that much easier and generating DCs on the fly less challenging.
- Gaining a new skill every two levels.
Cons:
- Less flexibility for PCs.
- The possibility of having certain classes knowing to many skills at higher levels (does the dumb barbarian that's afraid of horses really need 10+ skills).
Question for Psion:
What kind of situations do you imagine for PCs that make these new skill rules inflexible?
As a DM, I'd like the quick way this allows you to throw skills together. But, Paizo does all my skill blocks for me so I don't much care how this works out for the DM.
As a player, I'd hate this. Skill points help define a character. "Either your 10th level character is an Olympic level swimmer or can't swim at all, take your pick." Yuck.
This seems really broken for the multiclass. I take Wiz at level 1 and Spellcraft, then Fighter from there on out. At level 15, my fighter is a master of Spellcraft by these system?
Or it makes the "take Rogue at first level for skill points" trick of the min-maxer even worse.
Um, where's Tumble? Am I blind?
I too am very fond of skill points the way 3.x does them, I can see making changes to some skills, folding some together and what have you, but I much prefer skill points to spend on those skills.
I also prefer skill points to binary skills. The idea of going from terrible at something to great at it is lame. I shouldn't become the best Underwater Basketweaver overnight just because I have a high dex and took the skill last level.
|
|
There are some folks who like the saga way of doing things. I, for one, do not.The saga-fied skill system works for shortcuts for quick statting of NPCs. But I find the lack of flexibility for PCs unacceptable.
I am one of those who really liked the saga skill method. Mind you that is the only thing I liked from saga. My group used it for a campaign and it worked great.
The 15th level wizard who rode the same horse everywhere actually became a decent rider by the end of her career, instead of not knowing how to ride at all after all that time on horseback.
I understand your concern though. If you wanted a character with a little bit of skill in this and little in that, especially trained only skills, there wasn't really a way to do that. Even with that downside, I still prefer it.
Now for PF skills, the method outlined is just a shorthand method of the current 3.5 skill system, with the added trained skills at even levels. Still digesting it and undecided about it...
|
|
I like the idea of a briefer skill list and an overall simplification of the skill system (I never liked synergies, for instance). But I'm not fond of the on/off skill system that seems so popular in d20-based rpgs in recent times.
This said, the way it's done in PF seems quite OK, altough I still have some gripes, being the main one that it puts too much on 1st level class selection. Being skills more useful (as they seem to be), what would be the point of not choosing rogue as your 1st-level class? In SWSE, True20 and (it seems so) D&D4, that question is answered with a "Because the class you choose at 1st level is the class you're goint to be, period". But in D&D3.X, you can (and are encouraged to) multiclass more or less freely.
So, how is the skill system going to manage multiclassing?
|
I will kind of side here with everyone else. The skills seem to be the only thing I really dislike about this, otherwise I love it.
It's already been pointed out, but multi-classing is terribly broken this way. Take your rogue, give him a decent int (+2) and by 20th level, he has every class skill maxed. Take the same rogue, toss in a single level of fighter here or there, and he still has his same rogue skills maxed, but now he can add fighter skills too.
Doesn't seem to have any penalty for multi-classing skillwise, which doesn't make senses. If you spend time studying another field, your skills from the prior one should suffer.
I will kind of side here with everyone else. The skills seem to be the only thing I really dislike about this, otherwise I love it.
It's already been pointed out, but multi-classing is terribly broken this way. Take your rogue, give him a decent int (+2) and by 20th level, he has every class skill maxed. Take the same rogue, toss in a single level of fighter here or there, and he still has his same rogue skills maxed, but now he can add fighter skills too.
Doesn't seem to have any penalty for multi-classing skillwise, which doesn't make senses. If you spend time studying another field, your skills from the prior one should suffer.
Probably the easiest solution to the Multi-classing problem is making trained skill level based on class level instead of base level. This would mean that prestige classes would require a new choice of trained skills, but it basically solves that part of it.
Im on both sides of the fence outside of that, as I am one of thoes players that usually "sets it and forgets it", so removal of skill points is cool. However, I do understand the other side, as I have one dude in which part of his background is lived out in his skills. In the end, probably the best way is to find a skill set that either works points in, or sets up "hobby skills"
|
This would make it complicated to do Prestige Class entry requirements.
In general I'm split on it, I don't think any class should have 2+, 4+ should be the minimum, Clerics should be able to be skilled in a few knowledges and so should Sorc/Wiz
I also like to have my wizards have a couple ranks in tumble =p
Gotta say the Saga skill system, simplified though it is, just pushes credibility too far for me.
Say two people train, in their youth, as black smiths. One joins the military and spends years away at war, never picking up a hammer that didn't end up in an orc's skull. The other stayed at home and continued honing his skills at the forge. Five years on, the soldier returns home and, ability boosts the exception, is equally skilled at smithing to the professional smith. Yeah, it's all a game, but that pushes suspension of disbelief beyond credible limits.
I like the idea that the cleric who spends his time in the infirmary will be a skilled surgeon, while his fellow who tends the garden almost exclusively might be skilled, at best, at first aid. Yeah, it's a bit of math involved, but there are many programs out there that can handle that for you with ease.
|
I much prefer the way Iron Heros does skills with a slight modification.
Here is my suggestion and I will use a Fighter as an example.
First, Choose 5 skills to be class skills. The allows for different types of fighters. These skills are always ranked at Class Level + 3. Thus a 10th level fighter has 7 skills chosen by the Player all ranked at 13.
Second, at each level choose 2+(Int Modifier) number of skills to be cross-classed skills. These can change each level. Each skill gets 1 rank. So if a player chose Listen and Search for 10 levels, reflecting he is good a guard duty, he would have +10 in each. Not quite as good as if they had been class-skills. But it also let's the player customize useful skills for the character.
|
|
Skill Points v. Skill Training? I can work pretty much with either. I do admit that the shift to training is nice. (I also like that in Star Wars Saga Edition.)
However, what has me most interested is the condensation of skills to a much more manageable number. Don't think Paizo's there yet . . . but that's just my opinion.
(If anyone's interested, check out my own set of house rules and what I've done with skills: Lost in Translation.
I vote to keep skill points.
I'll have a go at the new skill system, but a planned progression like this seems to be sacrificing customization for speed.
Customization is good, I think.
This would make it complicated to do Prestige Class entry requirements.
In general I'm split on it, I don't think any class should have 2+, 4+ should be the minimum, Clerics should be able to be skilled in a few knowledges and so should Sorc/Wiz
I also like to have my wizards have a couple ranks in tumble =p
I also want to concur with this, especially the 4 point minimum. This is on my list of house rules.
I want to reiterate my vote for skill points, with the added 4 point minimum.
As a player, I'd hate this. Skill points help define a character. "Either your 10th level character is an Olympic level swimmer or can't swim at all, take your pick." Yuck.
Kruelaid does not like losing skill points.
gwwwWWWAAAAAAAAAAaaaaa!
|
|
I to dislike the saga style of skills. Now I will admit the 3.x skill system needed work. Some skills needed to be condensed, I mean really is their a need for hide and move silent to be different skills?
One of the house rules my group used was to break skills up into groups.
General skills - swimming, riding, ect any skill anyone could know regardless of what they do for a living.
Profession skills - Hide, Open Lock, Knowledge lores ect. Thing typically only those of certain professions would know.
Then everyone got 4 general skill points per level and X number of profession skills based on class per level(what was or was not a profession skill was different from class to class)
This allowed fighters or other skill classes to actually be able to have a more complete character like take swimming, riding and blacksmithing and a couple of others and keep them maxed. While not making rogues and other skill classes over powering. just made everyone a bit more well rounded. General skills could only be used on general skills never profession skills. That and we dropped the double cost of cross class skills, being limited on how high it could go we thought was enough to balance it.
I've just skimmed through the document, but it seems to me that the new skills system lacks something.
If a rogue takes 'Pick Lock' at first level, at Level 10 he will have the same modifier to his d20 roll as if he'd picked it at Level 10. This seems wrong.
My modifier: note at which level the Skill was taken, and deduct that number from the modifier.
So, a L10 Rogue with pick lock would be:
1d20 + 3 (class skill bonus) + 9 (class level-level picked) + DEX bonus + racial bonus if it was taken at first level
1d20 + 3 (class skill bonus) + 0 (class level - level picked) + DEX bonus + racial bonus if it was taken at tenth level
In other words: picking things up later in your career means you aren't as good at them.
Does it make the book-keeping trickier? Yes, a bit. But it means that your initial skill choices become more important over time at defining your character. If you think you'll use it, pick it early!
The suggested system definitely works nicely to stat out NPCs and important monsters, in my experience. For Player Characters, it will probably result in less flexible character concepts, and some of the wonky effects described above already.
Personally, I'd prefer a more detailed skill point system for Player Characters only, and leave the suggested system for quick-statting the NPCs. Also, I'd say that the skill list could be shortened a little still.
- Athletics instead of Climb, Jump and Swim
- Fold Disguis, Forgery and Bluff into Deception (or Subterfuge, if you prefer)
- Fold Intimidate and Diplomacy into Persuasion
- Fold Escape Artist into Acrobatics, and leave Use Rope separately (simply so every sailor or mountaineer doesn't instantly turn into Houdini in order to know knots and ropes)
With a shorter skill list and the usual number of skill points for classes, the distribution will go faster and lead to more skilled characters.
I'd also argue for the inclusion of some skills into the Fighter Class Skill list..stuff like Athletics and Persuasion/Sense Motive. If you've ever tried to build a feinting fencer with the base fighter, and you'll see why. :)
If you ask me, the greatest bonus of how Paizo is writing their stuff is that it takes ZERO imagination to "convert" from "Trained Skills" to "Skill Points per level". A little notice in the Pathfinder RPG book about using "Alternate Skill Points" can just point out that you get 4 times your normal alotment of skill points at first level. Voila - people can use BOTH system, almost interchangeably.
|
|
My group was just about to start trying some house rules to streamline things in 3.5; the Pathfinder RPG is a godsend as it does what I was trying to do as I was trying to do it!
Here was my first pass at skills. We haven't actually tried this yet so no guarantees:
Skill points are not gained automatically at every level. A character may take a feat to gain the normal per-level amount of skill points for her character class. Humans gain the benefit of this feat for free at first level.
On reaching third level, a character gains a +1 synergy bonus that is applied to all skill checks for any of her class skills. Every third level thereafter (6th, 9th, etc.), this synergy bonus increases by +1. This synergy bonus stacks with the synergy bonus granted on reaching five ranks in some skills as noted in the individual skill descriptions.
So, to recap:
Class skills = ability mod + ranks (if any) + 1/three class levels + other modifiers
Cross-Class skills = ability mod + ranks (if any) + other modifiers
And skills marked as Trained Only must have ranks purchased for the character to use them. Basically, for class skills, you'd still technically get the level-based synergy bonus but could only use the skill if you had also purchased ranks.
Skill Training [General]
You spend time improving your skills through training.
Benefit: You gain a number of skill points equal to the base skill points listed for your class.
Normal: You do not gain skill points at first level or on gaining a new class level.
Special: This feat may be selected as a bonus feat for any class. Humans gain the benefit of this feat for free at first level.
IMO the main problems with the 3.5 skills system are (in order of game hurting problem)
1. You are virtually required to Max out a skill which means at high level you either have the skill or dont. A 10th level 'spotter' will spot at over +15, a 10th level nonspotter will spot at +2.
2. those classes without many skill points are doubly penalised by not having many class skills thus they dare not spend too much on outside skills
3. The system is very unfriendly for GMs (& especially) Publishers statting out monsters.
This system is directed entireley to solving the third issue which IMO is not that big a deal- for me. As a DM I dont bother allocating all the skill points for my bad guys I just wing it. I suspect that the reason for this is becasue the designers are, well, publishers so are more acutely aware of this problem
My system, which I admit completely ignores the 3rd issue is:
1. Cross class skills do not cost double- though the maximum remains in place, and it depends what class you are going up as to whether you can allocate skill ponts to a skill (ie a rogue who has maxed out spot and takes a level of fighter cant put a point into it because it is already above fighter point of allocation)- this generally results in non skill monkey classes getting a few ranks of spot.
2. I have also combined a lot of class skills to lessen the load.
|
So far, the new skill system looks good to me. I don't think it takes away flexibility. It just basically means you're putting max ranks in any skill you choose, class or cross-class, which I imagine most people try to do anyways. Yes, I sometimes put a point or two in 1 skill, but I always want more. With this system, I can decide if I want that skill now, or pick it up in a few levels at its max rank.
And to the argument that a L10 rogue who picks up Theft (for example) at L10 has the same chance as a rogue who's had it since L1, that's true, BUT...
The L10 rogue has been unable to use Theft for the previous 9 levels, while the L1 rogue gets to use it every level. That's the advantage for taking something early - it actually lets you use it.
If you're just creating a L10 rogue from scratch, it makes it much simpler to create the character, and comparing it to a L1 rogue doesn't matter, because you never played those previous 9 levels. And what game is going to have a L1 and L10 rogue competing with each other on opening locks? The two don't compare, because the two don't mix.
If you ask me, the greatest bonus of how Paizo is writing their stuff is that it takes ZERO imagination to "convert" from "Trained Skills" to "Skill Points per level". A little notice in the Pathfinder RPG book about using "Alternate Skill Points" can just point out that you get 4 times your normal alotment of skill points at first level. Voila - people can use BOTH system, almost interchangeably.
True...this would be a great sidebar in the DM's Section of the rules. :)
|
|
This would make it complicated to do Prestige Class entry requirements.
I don't see how. Rather than Must have X ranks of Y Skill (which really means If you max out this skill you can take the PrC at Z level), you just change it to Must have Y Skill, Must be Z level. The actual entry requirements wouldn't change at all.
|
3. The system is very unfriendly for GMs (& especially) Publishers statting out monsters.
My thought was that this makes skills for NPCs and monsters much easier. One of the things I hate about 3.5 and monsters is having to do their skills. It doesn't even matter most of the time. So at least with this system you just choose the skills and the numbers take care of themselves without having to work out hown many skill ranks they have.
|
|
Um, where's Tumble? Am I blind?
I think they rolled Tumble up in to Acrobatics, but forgot to mention it.
As for the skill point argument - until I, hopefully, get a chance to playtest the rules, I can't say for sure whether I like this new way or not. Both sides have good points. I guess only time will tell.
I like the idea of a briefer skill list and an overall simplification of the skill system (I never liked synergies, for instance). But I'm not fond of the on/off skill system that seems so popular in d20-based rpgs in recent times.
Just to be clear, this is the boat I am in. The shorter skill list is a good thing, in my experience. Spycraft uses a similar "rolling together" of skills. It has a positive impact on character design; whereas you rarely see many players put many skill points in jump or climb, the somewhat broader acrobatics and athletics see more love by players and more application in play.
It's the lack of ability to finely hone PC skill levels that is a dealbreaker for me.
1. You are virtually required to Max out a skill which means at high level you either have the skill or dont.
2. those classes without many skill points are doubly penalised by not having many class skills thus they dare not spend too much on outside skills
3. The system is very unfriendly for GMs (& especially) Publishers statting out monsters.
1. I've heard this asserted before, but never seen it pan out that way in play. Certainly, you want your recon specialist to max their spot out, but all players? No.
2. This, I'll agree with. I think that there has to be a better method to allow access to cross-class skills. Grim Tales lets you build your own class skill list; spycraft has many options that let you expand your skill list.
3. I use the "max out" shortcut; that's almost identical to the proposed rule in alpha, the exception being I don't HAVE TO use it.
Put me in the "Me likey skill points" camp. Either way, I will keep skill points for my game.
I also feel the need to keep skill points in place but in addition to stop the generalization of skills as well, just because you have balance does not mean you can jump. Perhaps for a short adventure with throw away characters it doesn't matter but for a long term campaign skills help define not just players but also the critical or common npcs encountered.
I like skill points -- as a player.
I hate skill points -- as a dm.
I don't know which way to turn. :)
|
|
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?
There are still plenty of things that set off one character from another: actual skill choices (especially cross-class skills), feats, spells, ability adjustments, etc.
I just have trouble why seeing why skill points are so necessary for distinguishing one character from another. (That could be the grognard in me talking: all previous additions of D&D didn't have skill points, IRC.)
I like the new skill system in many ways, but I can see the desire for a measure of "not automatically max skilled" as well.
What if the number of Skill Choices were doubled, and instead of having Cross-Class and Class levels of ability, those same values were used for Trained and Mastery.
Spend 1 Skill Choice, and you have skill bonuses at Trained level (the Cross-Class bonus now). Spend a second Skill Choice on the same skill, and you get it at Mastery level (the Class bonus now).
Instead of the level of the skill being based on whether it is a Class Skill or not, the *cost* of the skill is based on that. The basic cost (1 Skill Choice) above is for Class Skills; Cross Class Skills cost double (2 Skill Choices for Trained and 2 more for Mastery).
It would make it possible for a character to master a Cross Class Skill, but it would cost 4 Skill Choices to pull that off (or optionally, no more than 2 Skill Choices could be spent in any one skill, so a Cross Class Skill can never be mastered).
Then at the current Skill Levels, characters get 2 more Skill Choices, but maybe they can't raise any skill more than one increase. So a character can go from Untrained to Trained or Trained to Mastery in one level, but they can't go from straight from Untrained to Mastery in that same time.
This way the characters can be pretty much equally skilled as they are now, but the option is there to split up Skill Choices and have up to twice as many skills that the character is Trained in, but not automatically a Master of.
While I don't particularly like the idea of folding skills in together (at least not to the degree the Alpha currently has) the purposed Max-Rank plus additional skill points is decent, especially since it's easy enough to convert to skill points. Every even level a character gets a number of skill points equal to his level and +1 additional per level there after. This also is a good excuse to bring down some classes skill point count. 2, 4, and 6 (although the only reason they are even is to allow for the double cross class cost).
The big problems really come down to multiclassing. Considering an new (relatively) the full multiclassing is to D&D it still has various flaws, which show up things like the Skill system.
Inclusion of professions or rebirth of the kit. d20 Modern uses profession to add both additional feats and skills to a character. The idea of starting kits for PE that modify a character's skill list (some races are already getting bonus class skills) could be one idea.
I agree with Werecorpse on the #2 point. I would also like to suggest raising the cap on Cross-Class skills. Or perhaps do the reverse, keep the double cost but remove the cap (or set it to character level). Again Multiclassing needs to be looked at seriously.
That said, open lock should be rolled into disable device.
that's better imo too.
Keep the skill points|
|
I wonder if maybe doing something similar to Shadowrun 3rd would work, that is using what JB has already done for normal skills that are useful in combat/interaction/PCvNPC tests and general gameplay, versus skills that define a character's background.
Maybe giving a number of craft, profession, or knowledge skills* as a separate entity. Maybe giving two of these options to characters at the start and maybe having a feat to add two more or something.
Thus, you get that background hobby, downtime, cool knowledge skill to help round out a character and this won't take from the 'adventuring'
skills.
*knowledge skills could be a strange problem since many adventures nowadays require a knowledge (x) for some obscure thing to move on or solve the puzzle in the adventure.
In one of my games, I gave 2 free skill ranks for a Profession of the PCs choice and 2 ranks of Knowledge (local [home region]) to help with the background.
This was mentioned in a few other threads, but I have not seen it mentioned here. One problem with the trained skill method is Skills at 1st level.
Simply put the rogue gets 8+Int tained skills. A charcater with an Intelligence of 10 can cherry pick one level of rogue at 1st level and then become a fighter, gaining 8 trained skills that will always be at level+3 ranks.
This is worse than cherrypicking one level of ranger in 3.0.
If the trained skill method is used, I would suggest all classes get 2+Int trained skills, with bonus trained skills (about those allowed by level advancement) granted at different class levels. Clerics, Fighters, and Wizards might get one at levels 8 and 16. Rogues might get them at 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, and 19th level. Rangers and Bards would gain one at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. Barbarians and Monks would gain a trained skill at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels.
I am not sure where to stick Sorcerers as I feel they should get more skills.
This method lets the classes still master roughly the same number of skills, but prevents them from being so front loaded. A 20th level human rogue with a 10 Intelligence would have 20 trained skills instead of 19 under the method listed in Alpha Playtest 1.
Keep the old skill point system. It works just fine, and at higher levels becomes unimportant. Look, I love the skill point system and the class and cross class skills. Dont change that. Oh....lose the fly skill!!