|
I'm for keeping skill points, but I can see one advantage to the forced max ranks notion.
Standardization is the friend of module writers, as it can be assumed that every single Rogue of X level is absolutely going to have X+3 ranks in Open Locks (or whatever), assuming that he has it at all. That number will be modified a couple of points, based on attribute score, masterwork tools bonus and / or racial bonuses, but the mod writer will be able to 'assume' that all Rogues of the appropriate level to be in the adventure are going to be able to handle traps / locks / etc. of the appropriate DC.
That being said, I don't write adventures professionally, so I don't need this. I very much enjoy writing up some 'flavor skills' into my PCs and NPCs alike, and when a Rogue has access to 20 skills, it's just insanely lame, IMO, to say that he'll never be able to learn more than half of them *at all,* because his entire focus is devoted to being the very best ever at the 8 or so skills he is allowed to learn.
I'm a big fan of some skill consolidation (Listen + Spot = Notice, Hide + Move Silently = Stealth, Disable Device + Open Lock = Disable Device, Balance + Tumble = Acrobatics, specifically, but not some others...), and of doing *something* about the whole cross-class thing. Nuking it entirely comes to mind, but possibly some sort of tweak could be made to encourage choosing skills that are 'more class appropriate.' Right now, it's a stick, and one that beats the role-player who wants to have a Cleric of the earth god who's a nut for Knowledge (architecture & engineering) or the nimble Fighter who wants to Tumble around like Errol Flynn. I think I'd rather it be a carrot, than a stick, and give a +1 bonus to class skills that you have at least 1 rank in, or something.
And those 2+Int Mod SP classes just have to be bumped up to 4+Int Mod skill points!
Skills also, ideally, should be just a little more useful. Using Intimidate to spook someone, for instance, is a colossal waste of time without some special feats to make it last longer / affect more people / send them screaming into the night. Having the Shaken affect last a few more rounds (or, ideally, the entire encounter, with the Shaken person getting rolls to snap free) would be a nice step.
|
|
I agree with some of the posts about the Pathfinder system is not completely worknig perfectly yet. There are some issues with the way it currently is but I like the basic premise that you pick and max those skills. Less recordkeeping is great from my GM and player presepective. If I am worrying about ranks for my character then I am not fully involved with the game at hand. (As a side note I only have one player in my gaming circle out of about 12 that regularly has the correct info readily available about what ranks he has during the middle of a game. There is always some adding going on during the game and making sure they have it right with the other players.)
Now you have to see my general observation about D&D and how it relates to skills. D&D is a cooperative "team" game. It is also a class based game and all the characters have their role or class. Each class fits into the game in a certain way. However 3.5 skills do not necessarily seem to embrace this concept. I have seen many posts here about "customization" using skill points for their characters. It is like you want your character to do a little bit of everything and only be really good in a couple of things. This kind of thinking appears to defeat the purpose of each character on your "team" is specialized and great at certain things and you need them to succeed. Instead you are just overlapping what other characters can do on your team and at the same time not do it as well.
That brings me to the other thing about D&D. You play Heroes. They do heroic stuff. They are not mediocore at doing various things, they are great at things. I think this system achieves this for D&D. You hero will be very a good at a few skills (depending on class)and not worrying about the 2 ranks they might have in another skill. Especially with the reduction of actual skills available.
D&D 3.5 is what some call a hybrid system. It uses classes and skills + feats. The 3.5 skill system is trying to hurdle between a completely skill based game and making it work for a class based game. I think people who love skill ranks would enjoy a skill based game even more. You can really "customize" your character then. The Pathfinder system appears to get the skills more in line with the concept of a class based system. [By the way, that is why I do not like the idea of keeping skill ranks and also giving classes even more skills ranks to distribute. It just seems that some want their characters to be able to do everything. There are actually going to be some things your character can not do. Nobodys perfect. ;)]
One more general observation. Simplifying this system may bring more roleplaying creativity out for players. Instead of thinking (Wait, is there a skill for what I want to do? Do I have any ranks in it? Man, I don't have a rank in it. I wish I had a rank in it because now I can not do what I wanted to do. NO!) you can instead tell the GM what you want to do and use one of your few skills to figure out how you are going to accomplish your goal. hey, you might not even need to use one of your skills.
These are some general observations. I will try to comment on some of the more specific things in various posts later.
An idea I just got: Instead of giving a bonus equal to character level for skills, why not use something similar to the Base Attack Bonus (low, medium, high progression)?
For exemple, Rogue could get +1 Base Skill progression every level(High).
A fighter should get the lower progression instead (equivalent to the BAB of Wizard, +1 per two level)... At least, this way a Rogue should keep its edge with skills over other class..
And like Starwars SAGA, your character should not have access to Cross-Class skills. Instead all character know a little bit of everything as they gain experience. You could use something like this:
Untrained skill = 1d20 + ability modifier + Skill base progression
Trained Class skill = 1d20 + ability modifier + Skill base progression + 5 (and if you want to be very good at a skill, you can buy Skill Focus for another +5)
For exemple, A level 10 Fighter with a low base skill progression (+5), should roll 1d20+5+ability for every untrained skills and 1d20+10+ability for every trained skills
A level 10 rogue should roll 1d20+10+ability for untrained skills and 1d20+15+ability for trained skills...
At lest this way, no character should be able to get from complete novice to master just by taking a skill at higher level...
What do you think?
|
|
The below option might be overkill for taking rogue at first level delema just to get skills, it will help with other things as well.
In True20 they have a mechanic called conviction that works similar to action points, but allows you to do more things with. Each role has a specific ability that only they can use with conviction. You only get the ability for the role you pick at first level, so if you multi-role you do not get the abilities for conviction from every role you go into.
Could we do something similar to that with each class? Each class have a core ability or two that can only be gained by taking that class at first level. If you multi-class into that class you do not get it, but of course you would get all the other abilities of that class except the core ones. So when you take rogue at first level and then take other classes later, at the core you are a rogue who happens to have a few abilities of other classes.
The core abilities would have to be fairly powerful/useful for this to work and not detract to much from the others abilities you could gain from multi-classing into. Enough so that your first level choice is important and not because you are trying to min/max or make some certain build that is optimal.
What does everyone think about that? Of course the reasoning for this delves into to issues not related to skills as well.
I like the PRPG skills as presented. It is going to make statting NPCs a LOT easier.
I used to like dealing with the skill points, loved the detail. Now...not so much. It's that time thing you know.
D&D is a cooperative "team" game. It is also a class based game and all the characters have their role or class. Each class fits into the game in a certain way. However 3.5 skills do not necessarily seem to embrace this concept. I have seen many posts here about "customization" using skill points for their characters. It is like you want your character to do a little bit of everything and only be really good in a couple of things. This kind of thinking appears to defeat the purpose of each character on your "team" is specialized and great at certain things and you need them to succeed. Instead you are just overlapping what other characters can do on your team and at the same time not do it as well.
That brings me to the other thing about D&D. You play Heroes. They do heroic stuff. They are not mediocore at doing various things, they are great at things. I think this system achieves this for D&D. You hero will be very a good at a few skills (depending on class) and not worrying about the 2 ranks they might have in another skill.
And if people choose to play it differently than the "optimized heroic team-building" excercize you describe, then those people are wrong and do not deserve any chance of playing differently? IT'S VERY POSSIBLE to have a system with the flexibility and robustness that you can do your thing, and other people can do theirs. Ignoring that and simply railing at everyone else that they're playing the wrong way is EXTREMELY counterproductive.
Seems like we have a lot of repeats of 2 posts:
(1) I hate assigning skills. Everyone should automatically have a maxed out set to make my life easier.
(2) I love assigning skills. Please don't take away my ability to do that.
I seem to be alone in stating that an optimal solution is easily possible whereby:
(3) The "default" is to have a maxed-out set, requiring no extra work, but that there is a mechanism available by which people who want to custom-assign ranks would be able to do so.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ALL OR NOTHING. So can we PLEASE stop telling eaach other that we're too lazy to customize, or too anal to simply max-out, or whatever? The skill system concept is robust enough to have it both ways.
Is there ANYONE else on the boards who agrees with me on that point? Anyone at all?
Seems like we have a lot of repeats of 2 posts:
(1) I hate assigning skills. Everyone should automatically have a maxed out set to make my life easier.
(2) I love assigning skills. Please don't take away my ability to do that.
I seem to be alone in stating that an optimal solution is easily possible whereby:
(3) The "default" is to have a maxed-out set, requiring no extra work, but that there is a mechanism available by which people who want to custom-assign ranks would be able to do so.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ALL OR NOTHING. So can we PLEASE stop telling eaach other that we're too lazy to customize, or too anal to simply max-out, or whatever? The skill system concept is robust enough to have it both ways.
Is there ANYONE else on the boards who agrees with me on that point? Anyone at all?
fully agreed, and I for one *like* gaining new skills now and then, rather than just getting 5% better at old ones.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ALL OR NOTHING. So can we PLEASE stop telling eaach other that we're too lazy to customize, or too anal to simply max-out, or whatever? The skill system concept is robust enough to have it both ways.Is there ANYONE else on the boards who agrees with me on that point? Anyone at all?
I'll agree with you to a point.
But that's really beside the point. After all, it's not really about skills at all.....we all just want a credit when the book comes out!!
|
|
And if people choose to play it differently than the "optimized heroic team-building" excercize you describe, then those people are wrong and do not deserve any chance of playing differently? IT'S VERY POSSIBLE to have a system with the flexibility and robustness that you can do your thing, and other people can do theirs. Ignoring that and simply railing at everyone else that they're playing the wrong way is EXTREMELY counterproductive.
First of all I am not trying to rail anyone and I am sorry if I came off that way. I was merely explaining my observations of the D&D game. Also, what many people are describing about their enjoyment of skill points was for roleplaying reasons. I do not believe, in general, you need extra skills and skill points to be distributed to be able to roleplay something you want your characer to be able to do. You just do it. I do not think there needs to be an extensive rules system and tracking system for this. That is why I mentioned a skill based game because that is exactly what they are good at. Anything your character knows or does not know how to do has a skill associated with it.
On the other hand I believe the rules for classes and feats really defines one character from another more than skills do. With skills you have a random chance of success and just about any character can have any specific skill while character class and feat abilities really define what you can do (and they are usually not random).
What it really boils down to for me is I do not think you will miss the skill points if you try it out for a while. I think it might open up roleplaying opportunites.
In my observation above I was not suggesting that you should or could not roleplay (which I think you should roleplay by the way), but I do not think the 3.5 skill system is a good way to do it. I do not think you need one 1 or 2 ranks in a skill to back up your roleplaying.
Hey, if you do not want to have heroic characters you can use the NPC classes when you play. When you have all the abilities that you do in 3.5 or the Pathfinder system how could your character be anything but heroic unless you give all the adversaries twice has many abilities then they currently have against the characters.
The truth of the matter is, I really liked the skill points. I thought that was one of the best things about 3.5. If you wanted a hobby, you could get one.
I don't like it when characters are suddenly the best in the world at their hobby skill which they just threw a couple of ranks into. That's what this feels likel
As a DM, I find it really tedious to calculate all those skill points. Also, they slow leveling up to a crawl. Down with the skill points
|
|
Is there ANYONE else on the boards who agrees with me on that point? Anyone at all?
I personally do not think has to be one way or the other. There could be a middle ground, but the point is that there is going to be a Pathfinder RPG and 3.5. My understanding is that some things are going to be different in Pathfinder, but you will still be able to use the 3.5 version of skills (backward compatiblity). So, I think we are close to the middle ground already. The Pathfinder version just needs to be fine tuned now. We have a starting point and now we can make the Pathfinder version better.
I do not believe, in general, you need extra skills and skill points to be distributed to be able to roleplay something you want your characer to be able to do. You just do it. I do not think there needs to be an extensive rules system and tracking system for this. That is why I mentioned a skill based game because that is exactly what they are good at. Anything your character knows or does not know how to do has a skill associated with it.
What it really boils down to for me is I do not think you will miss the skill points if you try it out for a while. I think it might open up roleplaying opportunites.
I've played 1st edition (no skill rules at all, you just said what you wanted to do); 2nd edition (skills were more or less "all or nothing": you picked one or you didn't); 3rd edition and 3.5 (assign ranks); Victory Games 007 (there are no classes/abilities/feats, just skills); and a host of others at all ends of the spectrum, and in between. I know what I'm talking about here: BELIEVE me when I tell you that yes, I would miss being able to assign skills. A LOT. I've missed it in every one of the 15 or so games I've tried that didn't let me.
For the people I play with, there DOES need to be a tracking system, because we actually like to do things like compete with one another on Appraise (connoisseur) checks when at the Inn of the Welcome Wench or wherever, between fights. Tracking skills is FUN for us. I know that sounds perverse, and it might be, but my wizard character enjoys trying to become the best winemaker in the kingdom. Now, it would be easy to tell me, "well, that's not D&D. Go play "Ontologist RPG." But that's not the point. In D&D, I can go adventuring as a wizard, AND have a "home-life" of careful gains in the art of winemaking. If you don't want to, no sweat, you don't have to. No one is forcing you.
So, yes, we would miss that ability, A LOT. And I've pointed out repeatedly that there's no problem with NOT using a customization option. (1) Make the all-or-nothing deal the default for skills; and (2) give me the flexibility I'm asking for as an option. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
My understanding is that some things are going to be different in Pathfinder, but you will still be able to use the 3.5 version of skills (backward compatiblity).
Evidently we're looking at different rules; the Pathfinder skill system does not seem to be 3.5e compatible. If I choose to go 3.5, I get shafted every way there is in terms of skills, because the Pathfinder system automatically maxes them out and then gives you more, and the 3.5 system doesn't. There needs to be a "release valve" to bridge the two, I think. But I also believe that mechanism would be easy to add, in the form of a couple of sentences.
|
The "default" is to have a maxed-out set, requiring no extra work, but that there is a mechanism available by which people who want to custom-assign ranks would be able to do so.
Is there ANYONE else on the boards who agrees with me on that point? Anyone at all?
I totally agree with you. Simplicity is good, but options are also good. I know which version I'd choose, but I have no problem with one of my players getting all twiddley on points if they want to.
|
I am alright with loosing the ranks but there are some changes that need to be made.
I know several people have mentioned all of this but here is my two cents.
Skills need to be based on their core class levels not character level and any class skills that over lap stack.
Lets assume ability and racial modifiers are 0.
This way for a rogue3/fighter4 Stealth would be 1d20 + 3(class level) + 3 + ability + racial = 1d20 + 6
But Intimidate would be 1d20 + 7(both class levels) +3 = 1d20 + 10
It makes sense that a character that is taking levels in rogue would improve their rogue specific skill and when they take a level in fighter they would improve their fight skills not both unless they are shared skills.
Second I think Skills need to have a focus option other than a feat. There was another thread on this that I could not find that had a good option that I will try to repeat.
So trained Skills get 1d20 + class level + 3 + ability + racial
Second level the character uses another skill point on the same skill and you get 1d20 + 1.5 X class level + 3 + ability + racial
So with the example above the rogue takes another skill in stealth second level we have 1d20 + 4 (1.5 X class level) + 3 = 1d20 + 7
4th level use another for
1d20 + 1.5 X class level + 3 + ability + racial and get to reroll the skill 3/day (I think 3 is to many but haven't tested it)
So with above he takes another skill in intimidate
1d20 + 10 (1.5 X both class levels) + 3 = 13
Even go as far as one more level with
1d20 + 2 X class level + 3 + ability + racial and get to reroll the skill 3/day
This way if a rogue wants to be really sneaky they can be. Give a little more variety between equal level characters with the same race and abilities.
Any thoughts on the idea's.
I am still watching this discussion closely. I just wanted to post to make sure this stays civil. Remember, we are all working toward the same purpose here.
Right you are. (I feel strongly about skill options, but not to the point of actually flaming anyone.) Some of my posts may be strongly-worded, but they're certainly not meant as ad hominem attacks of any kind.
|
First, let me say that allowing us to actually comment on these rules and have a real hand in the final rule set is just ... amazing! Thank you!
I have to say I absolutely want some sort of Skill Point system! I really like what you have done as far as combining skills (listen spot etc into perception for instance) but removing the customization of skill points simplifies skills too much in my opinion. As it is now, it feels too much like we are going backward toward earlier D&D skill systems, which is NOT a good thing.
I don't need to keep the 3.5 skill points system verbatim, but I think we HAVE to have some kind of skill points put back in, PLEASE!!!!
Overall, though, I am LOVING what I see in the PDF. Great job!
|
|
I am still watching this discussion closely. I just wanted to post to make sure this stays civil. Remember, we are all working toward the same purpose here.Right you are. (I feel strongly about skill options, but not to the point of actually flaming anyone.) Some of my posts may be strongly-worded, but they're certainly not meant as ad hominem attacks of any kind.
Me too about feeling strongly and not wanting to flame anyone, except I am for seriously simplfying skills like Pathfinder Alpha has done.
I think options are still there in Pathfinder, but the character will be more proficient in any skills they choose. It is not like this version does not allow you to choose which skills you take.
I am sure we will come up with a way to make it work better though.
|
|
I really would like to better understand where the skill point camp is coming from. Can some people explain it to me to get it through my dense head. Maybe more examples and reasoning why skill points let you customize you character so much more and how taking them away will make your character not customized.
Many of the posts have been general feelings about skill points and less about the need for the skill points to have a better game. Or maybe I am just not understanding them in the right light.;)
|
|
I think what I don't like (and what feels like we are going backward) is that if you and I are both Human Fighters, for instance and we both pick a certain skill (we both choose Perception for instance) then we both are equally good at at (unless one of us has a higher relevant skill that is).
Being able to use skill points allows us to quantify exactly how good we are.
The system as it stands now just seems to over simplified for me.
Is there ANYONE else on the boards who agrees with me on that point? Anyone at all?
Yep *waves*
I've been trying to point out that the two systems can go hand in hand...the one thing that would need would be a "skill point kicker" at every even level, something like "your level + Int bonus" in skill points on top of what you'd get for a level already. That way, you roughly keep the ability to keep your 1st level skills maxed out while being able to choose a new skill at every even level at (nearly) maxed-out level...that is, if you want to simulate the Alpha system with skill points. Otherwise, distribute as you like. That way, you can keep both systems side by side, one for greater customization, the other for faster skill management.
|
|
Being able to use skill points allows us to quantify exactly how good we are.
I see that, but unless you are taking 10 or 20 that does not usually effect the game that much in my opinion. It is still a random roll. On average maybe a character who has a couple of ranks lower or higher than another character might have a couple d20 rolls skills checks that might go the other way over the span of a campaign or a few game sessions, but when there is a random roll involved it does not seem to make a huge difference to me.
What I might be saying is that yes on your sheet you have a slightly different number listed there then another character, but in general that difference does not seem to play out in the game significantly. This is without going into statistics much because I know there is a difference.
Being able to use skill points allows us to quantify exactly how good we are.I see that, but unless you are taking 10 or 20 that does not usually effect the game that much in my opinion. It is still a random roll. On average maybe a character who has a couple of ranks lower or higher than another character might have a couple d20 rolls skills checks that might go the other way over the span of a campaign or a few game sessions, but when there is a random roll involved it does not seem to make a huge difference to me.
What I might be saying is that yes on your sheet you have a slightly different number listed there then another character, but in general that difference does not seem to play out in the game significantly. This is without going into statistics much because I know there is a difference.
Maybe I'm going at it all wrong, but in my impression, people who argue for greater character customization rarely put the top priority of their skill choices on "optimum efficiency" or "maximum mechanical effect". They like the fact they can put 2 skill ranks into a "Trained Only" skill and back their "studied Spellcraft a little" rogue up with them. It's the fact that you can make interesting, and sometimes eccentric, characters with a few skill ranks in strange skills that you simply can't when you have skill choices that auto-max with character level. If you want to get behind the "skill points camp" point of view, drop the thoughts about statistical difference, maximum efficiency and similar thoughts down a notch. :)
|
|
I really would like to better understand where the skill point camp is coming from. Can some people explain it to me to get it through my dense head. Maybe more examples and reasoning why skill points let you customize you character so much more and how taking them away will make your character not customized.
Many of the posts have been general feelings about skill points and less about the need for the skill points to have a better game. Or maybe I am just not understanding them in the right light.;)
Using a forced ranks scenario, ten 8th level Rogues get together for a lock-pick-a-thon challenge of the champions. All of them have the exact same ranks in Open Locks (modified by quality of lockpicks, any racial bonuses and attribute scores).
How is this 'more customized' by your interpretation than a group of 3rd edition 8th level Rogues who have varying ranks in Open Locks (some maxed, some middle of the road, some barely proficient), depending on how much their players cared about that sort of thing?
It's all or nothing. If Rogues get, say, eight skills, all of them at max ranks, the *vast majority* of Rogues are going to end up choosing the eight 'most important' skills to have maxed, and barely any Rogues at all, the 'suboptimal ones,' are going to have any of the other 12 skills *at all!* It will be revenge of the clones, only with darker colored uniforms.
This happens in 3rd edition all the time. One skill, feat, class option, spell, whatever is deemed 'optimal,' and other choices vanish by the wayside. By ensuring that a character can't be proficient in anything without devoting himself 100% to that skill (and using up one of his limited skill choices in it's entirety, and gauranteeing that he'll be unable to have *any* ranks in a dozen other skills), it pigeonholes characters. Every Cleric will have Heal at the same ranks. Every Rogue will have Stealth and Open Locks at the same ranks. Every Wizard will have Spellcraft at the same rank. Their total numbers will fluctuate slightly based on gear, racial mods and ability mods, but ultimately the savage self-taught witch doctor is going to have the same ranks in Spellcraft as the guild-trained journeyman, unless the character chooses to play his concept witch doctor with ZERO ranks of Spellcraft, which would be a potent handicap.
The character can't just be 'not as good' or a dabbler or self-taught or catching up or deliberately spreading his focus to be a jack-of-all-trades, but not a master of anything. He's an expert or clueless. There is no in-between. You're the best for your level, or you are completely unable to function. Your mage grew up on a horse farm and learned to ride a horse as a child, but has since lost interest in that, because he hasn't been to the farm for years and uses a Fly spell to get around? No couple ranks in Ride skill and / or Handle Animal for you. Your either a *master* equestrian, maxed out for your level, or a bumbler who can't sit a saddle without getting a sore bum.
It's a straightjacket to designing individual characters who are more than the sum of their class abilities and pigeonholes them into picking only the most relevant skills for their class, making most characters, save those who are deliberately short-changing themselves, into cookie-cutter clones, IMO.
The funny thing is, this forced ranks thing is absolutely doable using skill points. If I was uninterested in fleshing out my character, or in a hurry, or could give a rat's butt about skills in general, I could just say, 'Huh, Barbarian, 4 SP / level. Fine, max out Intimidate, Climb, Jump and Survival. Done. On to Feats.' And that desire to do nothing with skills other than max out four of them would not prevent me from deciding at level 2 that I really, really need to be able to Ride a horse, or Handle Animals, since I've decided to train a really butch wardog to accompany me into battle, or Craft my own leather armor from the critters I'm killing. Or not, I could just keep adding my 4 SP a level to the four skills I picked at 4th level.
One option, skill ranks, allows the player to spend them *exactly* like forced ranks, or as he pleases. The other option, forced ranks, requires house ruling to match that flexibility.
|
|
Maybe I'm going at it all wrong, but in my impression, people who argue for greater character customization rarely put the top priority of their skill choices on "optimum efficiency" or "maximum mechanical effect". They like the fact they can put 2 skill ranks into a "Trained Only" skill and back their "studied Spellcraft a little" rogue up with them. It's the fact that you can make interesting, and sometimes eccentric, characters with a few skill ranks in strange skills that you simply can't when you have skill choices that auto-max with character level. If you want to get behind the "skill points camp" point of view, drop the thoughts about statistical difference, maximum efficiency and similar thoughts down a notch. :)
Okay, this might make a little more sense from that point of view. When I come at it from that angle I just do not see the need for rules at all for that. To me it feels more like a roleplaying thing that you want the rules to back up for you. I do not think even the current 3.5 skill system can fulfill all the little things on how you may want your character to be different.
Maybe we can have feats fulfill this need for cutomization. The Pathfinder system gives characters access to a lot more feats. Skill dabbler feats or something. If customization is important maybe someone will not feel bad about doing that by taking a feat.
Just had one more thought. Why is it bad that when a character picks a skill it is "optomized"? There are definetly going to be differences because of ability scores. You can roleplay that you only dabble in whatever skill you choose because your character is eccentric. ;)
I think I will give this new skill system a chance before discarding it!
Jason, you write yourself in the introduction of the new rules, that many people just take a few levels of rougue or fighter before branching into something else.
A reason for this (in 3.5), is that you get a bundle of skill points from the rouge. So if you play a fighter or wizard - but want to put some points in spot, listen and search (to name a few) you just need that one rouge level.
I am sure you are aware of this. As you also note thate the rogues skill allotment is trimmed down just a pinch.
So far I think it looks good!
Say I've got a 7th-level fighter, and I want him to constantly be smoking fancy cigars. I even spend valuable gp on them, it's just his thing. OK, with skill points, for the price of one (1) maxed out cross-class skill, I can instead take 3 ranks in Appraise, and another rank in Profession (cigar merchant), and a rank in Knowledge (geography) so he can talk about the Blue Mountains of Khorajova or whatever where his different cigars are from. Note that the Knowledge skill, in particular, cannot be used untrained, so zero ranks don't help there at all. Under the proposed Pathfinder system, he would be REQUIRED to select one, and only one, of as those cross-class skills, and would lose the rest completely.
Or say I want a 10-Int elf cleric who was raised near the sea. Currently, at 1st level I could put 2 skill ranks into Concentrate (which, let's face it, is pretty much mandatory for clerics), 2 into Knowledge (religion), and 1 ranks (2 x-class points) each into Profession (sailing) and Swim. He makes sense now. In the Pathfinder system, I'm forced to choose EITHER his class-related skills OR his cross-class ones; there's no way to get them all -- unless I wait and pick them up at higher levels (at which point they're not really part of his backstory, are they?)
Now, one popular point of view is to eliminate ALL "junk" skills such as Knowledge, Profession, etc. This seems to be implicit in 4e, for example. But some of us like to know how good a sailor we actually are, and not just say "well, it's part of my backstory, I can do it." I know that sounds silly to people who look at D&D as a tactical wargame, but how would they feel if I declared, "BAB is silly. If I want to know if I hit someone, I'll just roleplay it." That doesn't work, for obvious reasons. For people who use a lot of skills in play (not just in combat), the same logic holds. being told "just roleplay it" is basically telling me I should be playing Amber Diceless, not D&D. Telling me that I have no choice in how I allocate my skills is, in essence, telling me those skills are really not important to the game, and that if I enjoy using them, I'm playing "wrongly."
|
|
But some of us like to know how good a sailor we actually are, and not just say "well, it's part of my backstory, I can do it." I know that sounds silly to people who look at D&D as a tactical wargame, but how would they feel if I declared, "BAB is silly. If I want to know if I hit someone, I'll just roleplay it."
That comparison is hot.
I very much agree.
|
|
Again I am definetly not telling anyone that they are playing wrongly.
Just so I am clear I love both a bunch of roleplaying in my games and I love the tatical aspect of it, but in general I do not look for rules to help me describe some of my roleplaying actions (like smoking cigars). There obviously has to be general rules for how to fight and various other abilities characters can do. I believe the Pathfinder rules by simplfying skills brings them more in line with the rest of the game. Not that the game is simply, but because the skill rules were trying to hard to be everything else.
The other thing is when do you stop adding things to you character that you want him to be able to do backstory wise? In 3.5 you personally like where the boundary is with skill points. Some might want more customization and are asking for more skill points then in 3.5 because they can not customize enough. On the other end of the spectrum the people who are only into the tatical aspect of the game are going to completely take advantage of extra skill points and only put them in tatically advantageous skills. Not profession or knowlege geography.
The 3.5 skills do not fill all roleplaying issues. While you do have good examples that I appreciate and that fit into the existing 3.5 version of skills; I am sure we can come up with backgrounds that do not fit into that skill system either. I think that using Pathfinder system with tweaks, you could figure out ways to fit a background into that system as well.
How do you feel about having feats that give you access to some of these dabbling skills? Maybe at first level each class can pick up one of the feats in addition to what is already offered.
|
|
How do you feel about having feats that give you access to some of these dabbling skills? Maybe at first level each class can pick up one of the feats in addition to what is already offered.
I'm even more opposed to the notion of having to waste feats to buy back what I can already do with 3.5. [Velma] Jenkies! [/Velma]
I seem to be alone in stating that an optimal solution is easily possible whereby:(3) The "default" is to have a maxed-out set, requiring no extra work, but that there is a mechanism available by which people who want to custom-assign ranks would be able to do so.
...
Is there ANYONE else on the boards who agrees with me on that point? Anyone at all?
Absolutely. Isn't this (effectively) much the same place the 3 / 3.5 PHB 'starting packages' (sorry, can't remember exactly what it calls them) for each class, with suitable skills maxed out?
I don't mind if it's presented as:
- Skill points - but if you want to do it quickly, here's the all-or-nothing option, and what you'd typically get for class X, level Y.
- All-or-nothing, but if you want to tweak it, here's how you trade one skill for another
although my personal leaning is towards the former, but I think having both possibilities presented is important. That said, I haven't actually tried playing the Alpha way yet...
|
|
Say I've got a 7th-level fighter, and I want him to constantly be smoking fancy cigars. I even spend valuable gp on them, it's just his thing. OK, with skill points, for the price of one (1) maxed out cross-class skill, I can instead take 3 ranks in Appraise, and another rank in Profession (cigar merchant), and a rank in Knowledge (geography) so he can talk about the Blue Mountains of Khorajova or whatever where his different cigars are from. Note that the Knowledge skill, in particular, cannot be used untrained, so zero ranks don't help there at all. Under the proposed Pathfinder system, he would be REQUIRED to select one, and only one, of as those cross-class skills, and would lose the rest completely.
First off, you should be able to talk about the "Blue Mountains" or whatever without a rank in Knowledge (geography). Roleplaying would apply here. Because 1 rank in Knowledge (geography) doesn't give you knowledge about one place, but a little knowledge of all places.
I don't know why you would need Appraise to smoke cigars, but if you want it and don't have enough skill choices to get it, you only have to wait 2 levels, and then you get it at max. With your L7 Fighter example, he can pick up Appraise at L8, and if he really, really needs Knowledge (geography), he can get it L10. Sure, he has to wait a little while, but is that such a deal-breaker? Especially if he'll end up with all three skills at max?
Or say I want a 10-Int elf cleric who was raised near the sea. Currently, at 1st level I could put 2 skill ranks into Concentrate (which, let's face it, is pretty much mandatory for clerics), 2 into Knowledge (religion), and 1 ranks (2 x-class points) each into Profession (sailing) and Swim. He makes sense now. In the Pathfinder system, I'm forced to choose EITHER his class-related skills OR his cross-class ones; there's no way to get them all -- unless I wait and pick them up at higher levels (at which point they're not really part of his backstory, are they?)
I'd say the same thing applies. What is more important - a good background (reflected by skill choices) or being able to do everything all at once? If the background is important, that's what you focus on. If it's his training as a cleric, focus on those skills. In any case, you'll have them all by 4th level. Background is background, and the rest is cleric training over those 4 levels.
As for "there's no way to get them all" - he's 1st level with 10 Intelligence. You shouldn't "get them all."
|
I'd like to weigh in on the side of keeping skill points. Both my wife and I thought that skill points were one of the best things about 3rd Edition when it came out. It allows for so much more character customization. If you want to, you can put skill points in different skills every level, or just max out a few skills as you go. This new "saga" or "trained skill" system is almost like going back to AD&D "Nonweapon Proficiencies". (All characters of the same level with the same relevant ability score will have exactly the same chance of success with a skill, no matter if it's just something they would just be dabbling in or focusing on.)
We don't find skill points to be too complicated at all. Like I said, you can just max out a few skills if you want, which is pretty much what the "trained skills" system does for you automatically. But at least with the skill point system, you have the choice of keeping it simple, or delving in and making it more complex.
Now, if you want to simplify things like synergy bonuses and other things that clutter up the skills system, I would be all for that. I do like how the Pathfinder RPG has cleaned up the skill list.
I do not think, however, that "easier to use" is worth the sacrifice of options, in this case.
My vote (and my wife's): Keep skill points.
|
|
I also agree with SargonX more specific post in addition to my more theoritical post about the examples.
Okay, less theory, more middle ground. Customization/background is not important enough to devot feats too (is this true?).
How do we make it possible to customize skills with out making it just as complicated as skill points?
Classes get more skills, but not all of them are maxed out? Or, for every one skill you are able to get you can take two at half max or something?
Also remember if most people like the condensed skills (which appears so) if we were to stick with skill points they would probably have to be less for each class. Lots less skills that you need to add ranks into. Also with less skills we probably do not need to add many more skills to classes in the Pathfinder system.
I have some concerns regarding your new skill system as well. I appreciate the replacement system's purpose of making tracking skills much less complicated than bookkeeping with all the skill points. I've run into issues with this myself with statting NPCs or doing character self-audits.
The problem is this new method loses the ability to specialize one's skilled training outside of through feats (Skill Focus & +2/+2 Feats.) Also... it has a weird sense of... player characters improving their skill at something for no good reason. My roommate & I sat down to throw together a character for him to test the system out a bit. One of the first things he said was, "So... if I start the game off as a trapper, with Proffession: Trapper/Furrier, & Survival skills, but then I move to the city before I hit 2nd level, and for the rest of the adventure I don't leave the urban environment, by the time I'm 10th level, I'm The Best Animal Trapper in the country, despite not doing anything woodsmanly for most of my career."
It feels like the only explanation for that phenomenon is that he's a PC, and heroes are supposed to become awesome. I'm not especially satisfied with that. It also means that in general, characters of the same class and level are likely to turn into straight roll offs a lot of the time, without anything to show that one of them is better at this or that than the other one.
I like the idea for some sort of choice-based improvement mechanism for a given skill... such as, say... when you reach 4th level, you can choose to add another +3 to a skill you're profficient with instead of choosing a new skill profficiency. Call it "Acrobatics," then "Improved Acrobatics," for example. There could also be "Acrobatics Mastery" on the next tier up, so forth.
First off, you should be able to talk about the "Blue Mountains" or whatever without a rank in Knowledge (geography). Roleplaying would apply here. Background is background, and the rest is cleric training over those 4 levels.
Obviously, the point of my earlier posts has been lost. But anyway, no one is trying to prevent you from using the all-or-nothing max out rules currently proposed. All I'm asking is an optional way for me to customize, too, if that's what I want.
What I don't understand at all is why is it so important to the "I don't like allocating skill points" people that NO ONE must be allowed to do so, under any circumstances. An ideal system would be for maxed out sets (such as PFRPG) as a default, but then providing an option for the people who don't want to. EVERYONE gets what they want that way. Coming up with more and more reasons why allocating skill points "isn't the way D&D should be played" is taking us nowhere.
Maybe someone already said this but I don't have time to read through 140 posts.
I like the skill points, but I also like more customization. I don't like set class-skills. I would like to be able to pick your own class skills. And then place your points. Perhaps you could gain a set number of class skills at first level depending on class, and then gain one more class skill att every three levels or something like that.
just a thought.
Okay, less theory, more middle ground. Customization/background is not important enough to devot feats too (is this true?).
The way things are set up, if you spend feats on skills, you hamstring your character's effectiveness in combat. No way around it. Feats are too valuable to use for background, so background goes out the window if that's the only option.
How do we make it possible to customize skills with out making it just as complicated as skill points?
The proposed (non-point) system becomes the default standard. Then a paragraph is added to the rules saying the following:
"Instead of all class skills being (lvl + 3) ranks, and all cross-class skills being half that, a character can instead choose to convert all ranks into "skill points" and allocate them at will among class skills (1 point per rank) or cross-class skills (2 points per rank), to the maximum number of ranks listed. Note that this option should only be chosen by players who enjoy allocating skill points. Everyone else should stick to the default."
And it's done. Everyone is happy that way, and this whole thread can be put to rest.
|
|
What I don't understand at all is why is it so important to the "I don't like allocating skill points" people is this attitude that NO ONE must be allowed to do so, under any circumstances.
And this is a complete stumper for me.
Using the standard skill points system, I don't need to house-rule nuffin' to say, 'Fine, my Barbarian has 4x level SP, I max out Intimidate, Climb, Jump and Survival. Next I pick Feats.'
Woot! The people who want to just take max ranks in a set number of skills *can already do that.*
Using forced max, we need a house rule that allows a player to rip those max ranks apart and spend them *just like they could already do in 3.X.*
It's a pointless rule, IMO, as it only takes options away, and forces a single option *that was already available.*
|
|
Woot! The people who want to just take max ranks in a set number of skills *can already do that.*
It is not so much only an issue at 1st level, but you get skill ranks every level after that too. Once you are at 5 ranks for some skill then synergys come in. Do not forget the ability modifiers as well that change. Recordkeeping can be involved just at that point. There are other things that affect skills as well.
That is mainly the reason. On top of that once the DM gets involved he is not just doing that for one character. Also many DM's like to keep track of what their players are doing as well (for various reaons, some because they have difficulty with, some not good at math, some not good at tracking, some can not be bothered by being accurate with it.)
I like the skill proposed by the alpha rules, except I'm concerned about people cherry picking classes at 1st level for skills (rogue for sure). I'd say lower the number of initial skills to a flat number for all classes, say 4+int and then have each class have a different rate of learning new skills:
every 2 levels for a rogue
every 3 for bard and ranger
every 4 for druids, barbarians, monks, and sorcerers
every 5 levels for fighters, paladins, clerics, and wizards
|
|
The proposed (non-point) system becomes the default standard. Then a paragraph is added to the rules saying the following:
"Instead of all class skills being (lvl + 3) ranks, and all cross-class skills being half that, a character can instead choose to convert all ranks into "skill points" and allocate them at will among class skills (1 point per rank) or cross-class skills (2 points per rank), to the maximum number of ranks listed. Note that this option should only be chosen by players who enjoy allocating skill points. Everyone else should stick to the default."
And it's done. Everyone is happy that way, and this whole thread can be put to rest.
I think I might like this. I have to mull it over a little more.
As mentioned earlier, I would like to add in the "standard" system that you can take two skills at half max in place of taking one at full.
I really like the skill consolidation too. It was needed.
I really like the skill consolidation too. It was needed.
Me, too! Desperately needed. It always irked me to have to buy Move Silently and Hide separately. The other one that gets me is Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft being separate -- especially with wizards and sorcerers only getting 2 skills.
I much prefer the Pathfinder system to skill ranks. It was the first thing that jumped out to me as an improvement on 3.5.