That's too big a benefit for a single level of rogue.
thats all to true as i was trying to cover this in my own post.
First, my preference would be to leave the skill points in place. It really differentiates one class type from another of the same class type. The new method will also mean that a character with an 12 Int will have the same chance of success in the same skill as a character with an 18 Int.
Second, looking at the new skill method, it doesn’t bode well for classes with a low number of skill selections at first level (2 +INT) as those would also be lacking in the INT bonus department. Ex. Cleric and Wiz could start off with 4 +INT
Third, if PF is going the combining skills route, then they’ll likely need to do the same with the other skills and will need to look into changing a few of the current mergers. Two examples being Open Locks and Sleight of Hand associated with Theft. While yes, one could see where these could be seen as such, and it does help with game balance so as not to have to many skills tied to any one particular grouping, Open Locks IMO sounds like a better fit with Disable Device and Sleight of Hand could easily fit with Stealth.
So as i stated please leave the skill point system as it was
|
The new method will also mean that a character with an 12 Int will have the same chance of success in the same skill as a character with an 18 Int.
I am not sure what you mean. First, how is that different than 3.5 and second you still get your ability bonus to your skill check in the new system.
Second, looking at the new skill method, it doesn’t bode well for classes with a low number of skill selections at first level (2 +INT) as those would also be lacking in the INT bonus department. Ex. Cleric and Wiz could start off with 4 +INT
There is not much difference in 3.5. Those classes get less skill points. Also, remember less skills choose from meaning less skills you will not get.
|
|
I am in favor of simplifying skills, however I have a number of concerns with the alpha skill system.
I'm going to limit myself with the big one: Multiclassing.
While I will kinda agree with your example it was a similar problem in 3.5, but probably more prononuced in the Pathfinder version.
Maybe a system that would have your skills fluctuate between class skill & cross class skill based on the class you have the most levels in. Or something to that effect.
I believe that you should keep skill points for two reasons:
1. They are almost essential to character customization. They allow you to give your charcter a very distinct feel.
I disagree, I think that in most cases people will not notice that you took ranks from one skill and put a few in another unless you showed them your character sheet.
I don't think point by point skill allocation is necessary to customize characters. I think feats can just as easily give you the options to have a character somewhat good at something without having as a class skill.
I don't see the skill points in 3.x as a lot of record keeping. Our group played Champions, and then Powers and Perils (you leveled up skills and spells with separate xp for each skill and spell...excel was my friend for that game) before hitting 3rd edition.
I do think that the classes need more skill points per level (2 + int is terrible), and there should be an easy way for DM's to create quick NPC's with a skill template. I like the idea of gaining extra class skills, either at creation or at certain levels in game. So my vote is for skill points.
|
|
Maybe a system that would have your skills fluctuate between class skill & cross class skill based on the class you have the most levels in. Or something to that effect.
Or maybe you only get to roll 1d20 plus your class level (+ ability modifier), but only for the class you took the skill in. So if you took rogue for first level and got all of those skills, but you are still only a 1st level rogue and now also have 14 levels in fighter you only get +1 to that skill check for class level for the skills you took as a first level rogue.
This would make your first level class choice much more important and be the one you are mainly going to stick with even if you multi-class.
I think I am getting somewhere with this idea, but I am not completely there yet.
|
Please keep skill points. I like being able to "dabble" as a player*, I like synergy bonuses, and even though Paizo won't be able to release new ones, I like the idea of this being compatible with the skill tricks in Complete Scoundrel (just because I'm less-than-thrilled with WotC at the moment doesn't mean I'm going to throw the proverbial baby out with the equally proverbial bathwater).
*Sometimes it's also nice to give a character enough proficiency to do something important, like stabilizing a companion with the heal skill, with a reasonable chance of success, but you don't need to have it maxed. There are a lot more people trained in first aid than surgeons in the world. The same goes for enough ranks in alchemy to safely make a few vials of alchemist's fire by taking 20 during downtime, but not enough to run an alchemy shop.
I also generally like the consolidated skill list (stealth and perception in particular are great ideas, particularly perception which now covers ALL of a character's senses rather than just two) but lumping bluff & sense motive into a single skill (and then pulling that skill out of the paladin list) bugs me. I liked that paladins had sense motive but not bluff. You can be bad at lying and good at telling if you're being lied to and vice versa.
Furthermore, doing the saga approach with skills is going to absolutely slaughter backwards compatibility on thousands of prestige classes and feats, because ranks in skills are one of the more common prerequisites for said classes and feats. Consolidating the list won't hurt nearly as badly as saga-fying the skill system. Still, important as this is to me, it's not enough for me to write the product off on. I'll just houserule it back in my games.
And then there's this, which I QFT:
I am in favor of simplifying skills, however I have a number of concerns with the alpha skill system.
I'm going to limit myself with the big one: Multiclassing.
I create a character, and make him a Rogue at level 1. He gets 8+ Int bonus skills, all maxed.
Next level, I take a level of fighter (or any other class). I now have 9+ Int skills all maxed out. I never go back to rogue, and my single level dip into rogue gives me six extra maxed out skills for the rest of my career. And, guess what, one of them is Acrobatics (tumble was already better than most skills). Now I'm a super-tumbling fighter with skills out my butt.
That's too big a benefit for a single level of rogue.
In a system where you keep skill points, I'd recommend dumping the whole "class/cross-class" issue, institute a max skill ranks cap of "character level + 3", and just let all skills come from the same pool. Skill-based classes get lots of skill points, other classes get very few.
If the "But then your class doesn't really matter!" thing annoys you, give each class a "+x/level" bonus to its iconic skills on top of ranks. Personally, I think it's a strange idea -- even if a wizard puts all his skill ranks into Endurance, he's still able to cast magic missile when the fighter isn't. But it always comes up in these discussions anyway!
Whenever you muck around with class/cross-class plus points, you go right back to the "building high-level NPCs level-by-level" thing which is one of the aspects of 3.5 widely regarded as a flaw that needs fixing.
-The Gneech
I made up a character with the new rules and now I have changed my mind.
I like losing skill points.
|
|
The fact is, love it or hate it, Backward Compatability means skill points have to stay. Rambling Scribe pointed out the biggest problem with the alpha alternative. I would be happy tinkering with the number of points classes get (2/level is too few) and I like bundling some together, but tumble was already the best skill around and should not be pimped up at all. My group tried capping cross classed at half the class level without requiring the 2 for 1 buy. That worked. Yes synergy can be a pain, but most skills (except tumble) don't have such a huge effect that winging 'em for NPC's is a major issue.
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...
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I also like skill points and want to see them stay. I've not only had characters dabble for one or two ranks in a few skills, but also had some who either spread the skills out a bit more and have slightly lower ranks, but in more skills, and also gotten skills to certain levels and then switched to other skills, once the first one was at a point where I was competant and didn't feel the need to become a master (often so I could take 10 and hit a DC 20).
I think that the PF RPG system is a great short cut to present for quick NPCs and PCs when the player or DM doesn't want to do anything special or creative with their skill points, but forcing it on everyone limits options.
I also like the skill focus on feats chosen at first level, that should stay, but in combination with skill points.
|
|
The fact is, love it or hate it, Backward Compatability means skill points have to stay.
A couple of people have mentioned this, but just because it is different does not mean it is not backward compatabile. Many things are going to change.
What if they remove a spell in the Pathfinder version and there is not something to replace it. Do you then say you can not remove that spell because it is not backward compatible? I know the skill system is a big thing compared to a spell (really depends on the spell though), but you can convert any 3.5 skills over to the new system.
If they remove a feat and do not replace it, the same thing. Your 3.5 character may have the feat and then they would have to choose a different one to convert too. Is that not backward compatible?
Backward compatiblity may mean something else to me. There are still classes, skills, and feats and as long as there IS a way to reasonably convert from 3.5 without getting a headache it is backward compatible to me. Otherwise the Pathfinder RPG would not need a year and half to develop because they would not be able to change much given the criteria that I have seen some mention.
The one big thing for me when I think about these things is whether it is fun or not. The general D&D system for 3.5 is great, but some of details were not fun during game play. Skills are one of those things for me. While I like skills, how they are calculated and used was more frustrating than fun. When I roleplay I am not looking at my stats to back up the reasons why I am roleplaying my character in a certain way.
If you really wanted to keep the skill points system I would like one that does not arbitrialy give you skill points when you level up whether your character was using or practicing those skills. Maybe skill points as a reward instead. Using a skill effectively in game could reward you skill points when you level specifically for that skill.
The issue that Rambling Scribe pointed out is a perfect example of how alpha testing will be able to fix without changing the general way of how Pathfinder RPG is currently handling skills. Paizo will come up with a solution if one of us does not first.
Enough rambling from me now.:)
EDIT:
Also I am trying to say something like this as well, but Kreulaid said it a little better than I.
I think the point of this is that even after Pathfinder RPG is released everyone should still be able to use their 3.5 SRD and 3.5 house mods with it with DMs mostly converting on the fly.
Those who want to use the Pathfinder RPG can. Those who use 3.5 and all it entails for them also can.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I didn't see anyone bring this up, so I thought I'd chime in. The thing that worries me about this skill system is the fact that you gain extra trained skills as you level. So most high-level characters are going to have almost all of the skills -- that'll reduce diversity quite a bit once you get past low levels.
On the other hand, if you *don't* allow characters to learn new skills as they level, there's no opportunity for a character to learn something new. I can't think of a way around this, unfortunately.
I'm also slightly worried about classes with lots of skill choices (particularly Rogues), since many of the skills are being folded together. Just a thought.
One other remark: Thanks for getting rid of skill synergies. Those things were nicely flavorful, but took way too much effort to remember; a system without them is much more elegant.
My not so humble opinion:
I like skill points, I also am intrigued by the Saga-esque rules presented in the Alpha. However I believe both need some serious tweaking.
If I had to choose between the two I'd jump on skill points in a heartbeat. Honestly I think if there's a few adjustments it could be great. Consolidating certain skills (I.e. perception and stealth) is great provided it doesn't hurt a class two much (i.e. combining bluff and sense motive and then pulling it from the Paladin, for a pair of skills that are often in opposition I think that would be more detrimental rather than helpful). I also like the idea of boosting the minimum, I'm not sure about other campaigns but no one plays a fighter in my group, they take a couple levels and then level in something else so they can get abilities and skills. Now it seems you guys have tweaked with the abilities but their skills are seriously lacking. Assuming a fighter doesn't bother putting a high stat into intelligence they get two skills, only two, skills are neat and flesh out characters a bit better and honest I think that it wouldn't damage the game at all to boost the minimum to 4+int. At least it hasn't harmed mine.
I also, however, see the benefits in sticking with these fixed rules. Sure they are as flexible and customizable as iron but they do make things easier. Especially for me, the DM of my group, who might try and throw a bunch of high level rogue NPC's at them or need to make one on the fly that might later turn into a more fleshed out character.
So why not try and find a middle ground. Something that gives the flexibility of skill points and dispersing them(almost every character I have played would get a few ranks in heal if only so they could save a friend from death if necessary)but keeping it simple. Perhaps primary skills and secondary skills or something? I also think the minimum skills should be increased, if not to 4 than to 3, 2+Int is just far too small.
Anyway, that's my take. If I had to say toss skill points or keep 'em I'd choose keep, however, why choose left or right when you can go down the middle and possibly get something better?
Consolidate skill list, if your must.
By all means knock out cross-class skills.
But beyond that, my real feeling is that you should keep skill points. Let players customize their characters as they wish.
Certainly, the skill list system in Alpha could be used as an "option" by DMs, or in some campaigns -- probably those free-wheeling quick'n dirty or beer'n pretzel games -- where players want something simplified. But leave it at that, an option.
I think players deserve the chance to make their characters as detailed as they wish. They certainly have their choice of feats -- why make skills any different?
I'm going to limit myself with the big one: Multiclassing.
<. . . explanation of why taking a level of rogue can be abused under the current Alpha skill system . . .>
That's too big a benefit for a single level of rogue.
I totally agree. This also devalues the rogue, as it means a person with one level in the class can basically do all the things a Rogue is expected to do regarding traps and whatnot without actually buying into the class.
Here's a possible solution:
Instead of having multiclassing "promote" all cross-class skills from the new class into class skills, allow a character to promote two cross-class skills to class skills at the cost of one skill pick.
For example, Tolly the Wizard takes Appraise (C), Craft (C), Spellcraft (C), Acrobatics (cc) and Stealth (cc) as his starting skills. At second level, he chooses to multiclass into Rogue, and can either choose to take a new Rogue skill or to "promote" Acrobatics and Stealth into class skills.
I feel this more accurately emulates the process of re-maxing class skills after a multiclass in 3.5 than the current system.
the more I look at this, the more im going to agree. Keep the points. Maybe make and adjusted version of the Trained Skill system as a Altenative, but use points.
Yes, this was something else that I meant to mention earlier but forgot to... I want also to see Skill Points instead of a forced Max. I liked starting weak and building up. If you wanted to one thing, however, I would suggest this... keep skill points but remove the class level+3 rank cap... thus, if you wanted to place 5 or 6 ranks into a first level character's Craft:blacksmith skill, you could do so. If you wanted to have a 2nd level rogue that was really, really good at picking locks (already had 15 ranks in it), you could do so if that was where you wanted to put your points.
This would work really well with NPCS that you would like to keep low in level but make master craftsmen or for PCs that concentrate on only a small number of skills.
|
I am a bit torn here. Something should be done with skills. I really like the Folding together of the skills i.e. stealth, theft, perception, etc. The "Force Max" as it is being called is great for npcs and players who want nice and quick. I don't think it fits as well for people who like to dabble obviously. I am leaning to the offer it as an option crowd. I do think those classes on the low end of the skill spectrum (2+int) need a boost in points. It never made sense to me why a Wizard had so few skill points. Maybe a boost like you did with hit dice except with skill points.
for example Skilled characters SP:8 Rogue, Bard, Ranger, Educated Characters SP:6 Wizard, Cleric, Monk, Paladin, Barbarian Self Taught SP:4 Druid, Fighter, Sorcerer. Some may say the Barbarian doesn't belong in the educated group, but he is an educated character just not in the same style as we traditionally think of scholastically wise. Just an idea to throw out there. I will be play testing the alpha rules so I will have more feedback later.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Instead of having multiclassing "promote" all cross-class skills from the new class into class skills, allow a character to promote two cross-class skills to class skills at the cost of one skill pick.
For example, Tolly the Wizard takes Appraise (C), Craft (C), Spellcraft (C), Acrobatics (cc) and Stealth (cc) as his starting skills. At second level, he chooses to multiclass into Rogue, and can either choose to take a new Rogue skill or to "promote" Acrobatics and Stealth into class skills.
Heck, for that matter, why don't we do this with all skills? If you *really* want to build that Acrobatic fighter, spend two of your skill picks. One pick gets you the (cc) version of Acrobatics, and the second gives it to you as a class skill.
Owner - Game Knight
|
I feel the need to weigh in, here. Keep skill points. Or, perhaps, and this is just me: Make it optional. There may be a variant rule for this already, I'm not even sure, but if you want to satisfy both crowds, it seems an option.
I mean, I see some people lauding the idea of the newer system...when you can already do that. Take your # of class skills, + your INT bonus, viola. That many maxed skills. Whee.
But it loses versatility. I often put half ranks in all kinds of stuff. A few points in a few knowledges--what adventurer hasn't learned odds and ends about zombies and devils, after all? Even if they're not an expert on the matter. And aren't those professions and crafts tempting--even fi you don't wanna spend 23 skill points on Profession: Barrister by level 20.
The idea of 'all or nothing' has a poor feel to it from the player's standpoint. People do dabble, and experiment, and you can be just OK at something. And thats a great deal of the fun.
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.
The standard 3e skills system is far too fiddly, requires far too much book-keeping and yields too few benefits in return for the work involved.
I agree to a point with this statement, but I prefer skill points vice known skills as currently portrayed.
I think that we could get better use of the skill point system by:
Combining skills, as presented in the Alpha 1 release
Giving more skill points, especially to the 2+Int crowd
The rogue might not actually need more skill points because of the combined skill selection, but more skill points to fighter, clerics and wizards would be a boon.
Of course, I haven't actually playtested anything like the new rules indicate, so my thoughts on the matter may change wildly.
I personally like how Iron Heroes did their skill system. One thing I think should occur is make Jump/climb/swim athletics. Just makes more sense to me. I laughed when I saw the 'Athletics' feat, fly and swim?! I mean swim and climb I can understand but fly and swim seems.... a bit odd.
Director of Games
|
Hello everybody,
Quite the interesting discussion going on here. Keep it up. I just wanted to add a couple of notes.
- I too, like the flexibility of skill points as a player. From a GMs perspective though, they can be a bit of a nightmare, especially at higher levels. This was the primary reason the ranks were pulled.
- We also changed to the selection system to give some of the "lower skill progression" classes a bit of a boost. 20th level fighters tend to be great at just two skills, and completely untrained in all the rest. Although this eats into the rogue role a bit, we added to its role in other ways to balance.
- There was a thought in earlier notes of allowing you to "split a selection" to get two skills at a lower bonus (1/2 level + ability mod or 1/4 for cross class) to represent a sort of Hobby skills.
- There was also a variant that gave you a pair of Hobby skills directly that had to be chosen from a set list (craft, profession, perform, etc) that represented training and dabbling in non-adventuring skills.
- In the end there was one other problem I want to bring up that led to the change. If you wanted to be truly good at specific skills, you pretty much had to max ranks, meaning that this system and the old were pretty similar (in the end). If you split up your points, it took quite some time to have any real proficiency (this is a thin arguement, I know, but it is true for a number of skills, not all though). In the end, it seemed simpler just to assume max and give you more skills to play with.
Thoughts? I am not set on this decision, but I do like it right now. I just wanted to give you all a few extra nuggets to chew on. Please continue...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Thanks for dropping in jason i would like to hear more about the hobby variants u guys are working on that would go along way to makeing this more to my likening
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
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.
I agree completely. I would split it up to 4 ranks, though, to allow for nice math when dealing with cross-class skills.
1 rank = "tourist-level" familiarity, can generally get ideas across while gesturing wildly. Can't read/write.2 ranks = decent speaker, can hold simple conversations. Has a heavy accent but can be understood relatively easily by natives. Can read/write, but often makes mistakes or grammatical errors.
3 ranks = good speaker, knows lots of technical terms and slang. Could discuss philosophy, for example. Can read and write almost perfectly, with just a few errors.
4 ranks = fluent speaker, almost no accent. Can read and write perfectly.
This would allow characters with Speak Language to pick up a language for practical use with 1 rank, or be really good for 2. Cross-class speakers would get to choose how fluent they want to be.
My problem with the alpha system is that it doesnt fix the problem of the haves & have not.
Lets compare it to combat - a 10th level wizard has the same BAB as a 5th level fighter, even though he may never have drawn a dagger in anger. Yet a 10th level fighter who hasnt chosen a skill is totally uselss in it.
IMO untrained should still go up per level. I personally would have.
Untrained 1/2 level + racial + stat
Trained level + racial + stat
AND if it is a class skill you get +3 to the final amount
at 4th level
you get untrained 2 (cc) or 5 (c),
you get trained 4 (cc) 7 (c)
At 10th level
you get untrained 5 (cc) 8 (c)
or trained 10 (cc) 13 (c)
Plus when at 10th level the character takes a skill for the first time they dont go from being unable to dogpaddle to being an olympic swimmer- they already had some skill.
The downside is that it means everyone has some skill in everything- I think that for most skills this is OK. So what if my 12th level barbarian has never grunted a word in his life- if I want to try to use diplomacy to convice someone of something I have at least been around long enough to have some clue---certainly that is how the sorcerer keeps justifying his increasing skill with the shortspear!
I'm weighing in favor of retaining skill points. I really like the skill compressions (acrobatics, perception, etc.), but I greatly prefer customization and flexibilty - even if it means more work.
Just as important to me: 3.5/Pathfinder transparency. I don't want using the Pathfinder RPG with my existing 3.5 products to be a big conversion pain in the ass.
Might as well do 4E or just stick with what I already got (and spent a lot of money to get).
Jason, here's some of my thoughts:
Keeping skill points is always an option, but I think the alpha skill rules deserve exploring. Since the game is OGL based, skill points can easily be kept for those who want them.
I agree with Rambling Scribe about the 1st level rogue problem, but I think there's some room for fixing. What about giving the rogue fewer skills to start, but giving them more as they progress in levels.
Would it be too complicated to have different skill progressions? The current progression as it stands across the board seems a little too generous.
Anyway, I'll be applying many of these rules soon, and I'll get back to you on how things play.
- In the end there was one other problem I want to bring up that led to the change. If you wanted to be truly good at specific skills, you pretty much had to max ranks, meaning that this system and the old were pretty similar (in the end). If you split up your points, it took quite some time to have any real proficiency (this is a thin arguement, I know, but it is true for a number of skills, not all though). In the end, it seemed simpler just to assume max and give you more skills to play with.
I like fiddly bits in rules, but I think you made the right call on this one, Jason. I stopped giving any thought to a point here or there and started just counting up how many skills I could max at X level of Y class back in 2002. If I wanted a small investment in some kind of hobby, I sliced it off the top of the least important skill that was maxed.
But I can see the argument for wanting a rules representation of a hobby, or a youth spent at sea as a semi-naked halfling pirate with bad breath, or whatever. It's a good role-playing token. See, it says there on my sheet that I have some skill with halfling halitosis, even if it's something I haven't practiced in a while.
Maybe we can have a compromise? Say the max ranks system stays, but one could write a proviso that a player can designate one skill to get a +4 modifier, or two to gain a +2 representing hobbies, minor background details or something like that. They don't become trained skills, so you don't have the problem of getting automatically better at basket-weaving by rolling guano in your hands and braiding your fingers, but they are demonstrably better than things you've never done before.
A rank's equivalent or two is going to cover most incidental hobbies and avoid questions about why a PC whittles all the time but has no ranks in it on his character sheet without requiring sacrifices in more mission-critical skills like intimidate for a thuggish sort or acrobatics for the rogue. If it's more important to the concept than a +4 or +2 on a d20 roll, then it warrants investment as a maxed skill anyway.
I think something like that could preserve much of the role-playing and fiddly desire to have a few points here and there without bringing back all the skill point accounting.
Hello,
Firstly, I've got to say that I am really pleased to see the PathfinderRPG. I wanted to re-create 3.5 this summer and had a lot of input discussions with friends about this. It could be that the PathfinderRPG saves me a lot of time and writing work.
Secondly, the following two comments should address the concerns raised by Jason:
- The problem for a GM at higher levels would be easily solved if one would release simple skill progressions for each class. Although it is a lot of work, it would help to get a rough outline for high level NPC and would not kill of the flexibility of skill points.
- One can fix the problem of too few skill points with a few changes to the skill point system, although the problem for the GM would have to be solved as mentioned above.
Thirdly, this whole skill point debate has an underlying problem that is the nature of the 3.5 rule system which mixes elements of detailed rule systems with elements of abstract rule systems.* On the one hand, the skill point system is clearly part of detailed rule systems that allow the player to focus on whatever he wants with his character. On the other hand, base attack bonus is clearly something that would be encountered in abstract rule systems. A character gets better in fighting no matter what the character does for the sake of an easy balance. But being able to fight with a weapon is as much a skill as open lock is or acrobatics is.
Now, if one wants to fix the 3.5 rule system, one should basically decide whether it should be of a more abstract and inflexible nature or a more flexible nature. If one wants to have a more abstract rule system, one should probably go ahead and buy the new 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons as it seems to go this way.
So far, the PathfinderRPG seems to go the same way by ditching the skill points in favor of a more abstract system (some have already pointed out the abstract nature of getting a new skill at a higher level). If you intend to go this way, you would have to streamline the skill system with the “base x bonus”-system (x as a variable for saves or attacks). Therefore, each class would have a progression for untrained cross-class skills and for class skills, like the base attack bonus. Moreover, the jump from cross-class skill to class skill would not be that extreme at higher levels (see Werecorpse's post for an outline of such a system).
But lets try to go the other way and fix the main problem with a skill point system which is the fact that most classes have too few skill points and thus, are not really allowed to choose skills that are not really important for the class, especially cross-class skills as one has to use two skill points for one skill rank. This problem is really easy to fix, give all classes more skill points and erase the ½ skill point rule for cross-class skills. Classes like the rogue would still be more apt in more skills than the other classes.
By eliminating the ½ skill point rule for the cross-class skills one has to ask why are there cross-class skills and class skills. Why are only certain classes allowed to get maximum ranks (character level +3) in skills like spot or listen (now perception)? It seems to be an artificial distinction. One can remove the class and cross-class skill distinction without any problems. The two groups remaining are trained skills and untrained skills. These groups are enough to create a meaningful skill system. All classes can improve in the untrained skills but one can only improve trained skills if one has learned it in some way or another (taking a level in a class which trains this skill, taking a feat, etc.). Therefore, the former replace the cross-class skills and the latter replace the class skills. This change does not weaken classes like the rogue, it merely gives other classes access to more skills and not to more skill ranks in these skills. The rogue still has the most skill points and is thus able to have a broader spectrum of skills with a decent amount of skill ranks.
One could go even further (which I would do) by eliminating the base attack bonus and create a fighting skill (or several fighting skills) and force the players to actually chose whether a character can fight or not. This would not render the system incompatible with other 3.5 materials.
I will try to give a more detailed account on other parts of the system.
* Abstract rule system do not try to simulate a world. They merely give the players a set of rule that is able to describe important things like combat. Detailed systems do try to simulate a world. They try to use rules that are able to describe the things in the world as they are.
Up with skill points.
Alright... perhaps I'm being a touch wishy washy but I've finally had the chance to give the skill system a good once over and it doesn't seem as bad as I originally thought it to be. If I read it correctly every even level you get an additional skill, correct? These can be cross class skills or class skills effectively allowing you to be a little more flexible. It's pretty potent (again, if I read correctly) as a 20th's level human fighter with no intelligence bonus would now have 12 class and cross-class skills completely maxed out. Seems a bit extreme to me so I think I'm going to go over it again and make sure I got all of that. Regardless I'm going to rescind my negative vote. This has caught my interest and I believe it deserves real exploring, actually play testing, rather than just reading and judging without trying.
That being said I still think some of the skill combos are a bit odd. Athletic (a feat) just doesn't strike me as a '+2 bonus to Fly and Swim' perhaps make it optional to choose any two of a list of swim, climb, jump, fly to apply that bonus to. I guess that's a little off topic but that's the thing that's been getting me about skills now. I like the compiling of two similar skills into one skill but some of it seems like they're reaching, and if I'm correct about the bonus skill actually being added to ones list then having a couple extra wouldn't be too terrible. I don't know, I'll see how it all plays out first.
Keep skill points. Either increase amount given and / or reduce skill list...
|
|
Here's my take on a compromise on the PF vs 3.5 skill system:
Replace the additional trained skills gained every other level with "Knack" Allow all characters to choose 2 "Knacks" at first level.
Make "Skill Training" a feat.
Knack
The character has a talent, hobby, or interest that he maintains without fully developing the skill.
The character gains a +2 Bonus to the skill if it is a class skill, and may use the skill as if he is trained in it. If the skill is cross-classed, the bonus is +1 and he may use the skill as if he is trained in it. A Character may choose the same skill more than once and the bonuses stack. A Character may not choose a skill he is fully trained in as a Knack skill.
Skill Training
The character has spent time developing a skill to the fullest of his abilities.
Choose a skill. The character becomes trained in that skill. If it is a class skill, the character's bonus is equal to his character level+3. If it is cross-classes, the character's bonus is equal to 1/2 (character level+3)
The advantage to this is that characters gains more depth, continues to grow, but has to spend a Feat to get the full-blown advantages of a trained skill.
|
|
When I saw PF had got rid of skill points, at first I was disappointed. I wanted my customization back, and thought it was a bit odd that a fighter could go from Intimidate -2 to Intimidate +21 in a whim at 20th level.
Then I (with my gaming group) tested the rules. We created 4th-level characters and found the new system a speed boost we loved, and during play I found myself (as a GM) figuring NPCs skills on the spot very easily. Now we welcome our on/off skill overlords :D
That said, I think maybe there's some space to improving the proposed system:
* Open Locks goes, instinctively, with Disable Device. I'd put them together and add Sleigh of Hand to Stealth.
* If we are merging skills, why not merge Climb and Swim into Athletics? This way we'd have a skill we could also use to running attemps and general physical actions.
* It seems to me that characters get too many skills with time. Instead of actual progression, I'd use "feat/skill/feat/stat/feat/skill/feat/stat".
* There should be a system to represent a character's hobby. Something as "level/3 + stat mod". Maybe use 1 skill option to get 2 hobbies. To upgrade a hobby to a full trained skill, you'd have to spend 1 full skill point on it. While untrained/trained still seems too little granularity, untrained/dabbler/trained may hit the bullseye.
I like the new system, I like the steady accumulation of new skills (As opposed to keeping the same ones Maxed)but from past experience it will make qualifying for existing PRCs harder, where skills out side the main classes that will take a PRC are used as a balancer. Its certainly been my habit to spend the minimum on such and move on (and for wizards to try and envengle a rank in each knolage skill) and this system, while faster, will make such harder to achieve.
Could do with:
A Feat to gain additional class skills, similar to the human and Half elf racial trait.
I am, personally, a big fan of the new system. I have been trying to fix skills in my own campaign and had already started some of the skill simplification that is detailed here.
I like the simplicity of this system, both for me as the DM, but also for the players (mine frequently "lose" skill points here and there, because there's just so darn many of them).
I also really like the idea that every class will end up being competent at a large number of skills at high level, as this seems to fit the "heroic fantasy" genre a bit more. A 15th level fighter, for example, should be competent in more than just 2 skills.
For those of you worried about min/maxers grabbing a level of rogue, just for the skills (just like 3.5 encourages you to grab a level of fighter, just for the feat), I argue that the new system punishes you for doing so by making you lose out on cool features in your other class, now that you essentially gain something every level in every class. If that still bothers you, then I suggest making the number of starting skills the same for ALL classes. Say something like: 4 + Int modifier. This makes it totally pointless to grab another class (other than to adjust class skills) and makes Intelligence a much more important stat in the process of learning skills, which makes sense to me. The smaller number of skills to choose from should allow this change while keeping the rogue a playable class.
As for retrofitting prestige classes, it seems pretty simple to adjust to the new system (as someone mentioned above), by just changing to the requirement to "trained in skill; certain character level."
O
I'm in the camp of keeping skill points.
But I think that some of the skills as in the Alpha ruleset should be merged...spot, listen, search into perception etc.
As for class/cross-class skills, think some changes needed to be made, mostly along the lines of skill point cap and numbers available to each class.
I'm comfortable with the new skill system (I like it), but I would like to bring up how this new interacts with prestige classes. I think that some prestige classes get one of their bonuses from their high skill point total, which does nothing in this system. It doesn't matter if the PrC has 2 + Int or 8 + Int (Although the class skills might actually matter).
Hello everybody,
Quite the interesting discussion going on here. Keep it up. I just wanted to add a couple of notes.
(snip lots of interesting insight)
Thoughts? I am not set on this decision, but I do like it right now. I just wanted to give you all a few extra nuggets to chew on. Please continue...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
My thought is that you can have both easily...skill points for those who like them, auto-maxed skills for the DM and those players who prefer speed over flexibility in the skill department. I like the idea of "splitting" up a skill choice for two half-value choices though...would be a nice mid-point between both systems, maybe. In any case, throw those players a bone that would love to have their character "a little proficient" in some skill to show past interest, hobbies or similar roleplaying reasons. :)
All in all, even a little proficiency can make a player roll for that skill now and then (actually, it does so more often in my group because players have put a rank or two into something and it is "the exotic" on their list), and I think that's not the worst thing to happen. Too often, untrained skill use gets overlooked in favour of purely trained skill use.