I'm for getting rid of skill points. I've been GM'ing Saga for the past 4 months and my players and I love it. It lets you devote more time to picking powers and abilities then micro-managing points. Also it makes for a more diverse group of characters. Players are more inclined to specialize in diffrent areas of expertise. Its not "everyone roll and hope some one gets a 20" it's more like "ah a mechanical problem Joe this is your area of expertise." Each player has a skill situation they they can shine in, insted of random luck.
The Pathfinder skill system is even better than saga because characters to have to sacrifice feats to get new skills. For those of you agianst this system I say give it a try first.
I would keep Skill Points, and Rezdave is right, if Player's want to max-out, then they can but if they want to become "jacks of all trades", they can.
I would keep cross-class because not every class can do everything.
I think that the skill list has to be shrinked for some skills (use rope...) but not all. I'm a better listener (listen) than an observator (Spot) and I don't believe everybody as good at listening than looking !! Sense motive could be merged with spot since it rely on observation.
I liked the "acrobatic" skill of Pathfinder, which merge balance and jump. But makes a long skill entry...
I prefer Skill Points to the Pathfinder "Force Max" system. This is somewhat like reverting to 1st Ed. when Thieves had specifics skill-table percentages.
If people want to max then the extant Skill Point system lets them. However, for those who want to max a couple key Skills and then have a broader base of abilities to get them by in most day-to-day circumstances in other areas the new Force-Max does not give them any flexibility.
Since Pathfinder is about role-playing and "telling the kinds of stories we want to tell" rather than WotC's evolving delve hack-n-slash MMO-on-paper-and-tabletop system, I think retaining the flexibility of Skill Points is critical.
IMH(but strongly felt)O,
Rez
|
Please keep skill points, because...
- Virtually all my PCs would be impossible to create under the new system,
- the 3.5 system allows players to max skills if they want,
- Alpha reduces the options available,
- all players in Alpha will cherry-pick one level of rogue,
- I want to use third-party classes, and the 'skill points/level' is actually a major element of a class write-up, which would be meaningless for any class taken after level 1,
- not all skills need to be maxed; they have an optimum number of ranks to achieve a certain DC, and that's all one should be forced to spend,
- in Alpha, a PC goes from unskilled to Master, making it a throwback to 1st/2nd Edition NWPs,
- it requires re-calculating NPCs in published adventures.
There's more, but that's good for starters.
As a player I would rather have skill points then Trained/Untrained skills. I also agree their is a bit of a weird filling when a 12th level PC takes a new trained skill and has 15 ranks in the skill. On the other hand I don't see it much different than a level 19 fighter taking Improved Toughness(or toughness from pRPG) and suddenly gaining 19 hit points. Or worse a barbarian taking a level of wizard and gain spellcasting and a spellbook. To me suddenly learning a spellcasting class abilities is worst than suddenly being really good at climbing.
With that said I rarely ever get to be a player and have DMed for over 4 years now with multiple groups. As a DM I like the new system in pRPG better. Over these many years(and groups) I have seen way too many inexperience players put one or two points into many skills. Trying to be a 'jack of all trades' character. The problem comes soon after level 2 as they simply can't get anywhere near the DCs. So those skill ranks just became useless and have no real value on their character sheets anymore.
The worst areas are search, open locks, disable device, spot, and stealth. As a DM I either have to adjust DCs way down or I have to listen to players complain about how they can't ever do anything as the DCs are way too high. Even if the real problem is how they built their characters.
I have tried many times to explain that 99% of skills should simply be maxed out every level and to NOT put one point into a skill. Yet time after time players put one point into a skill and by level 3 can't ever get the skill to work. They usually at this point have one or two points in a dozen skills and none of those skills seem to work. This tends in some players to build frustration and a constant asking to change their characters. Which if allowed to change they build the same mistake again in to their next character.
With this in mind I actually have decided that I do like the Pathfinder skill system as it protects players from their own inexperience. Creating a NPC just became simple in this new system. I can look at a DC listed in a module and know by my players level if this DC will be easy, hard, challenging or impossible to hit. When having to come up with a DC on the fly I can simply decide how hard I want the DC to be and then easily come to the correct DC value without worry or having to look up a character's bonus.
I also think with the ability to learn new skills every even level that the problem with low skill point classes(fighter or cleric) also gets solved nicely. The other issue I have seen is we often have one player forced to take rogue so the party can find and remove traps. In this new system a player could just take one level of rogue and then say the rest fighter. This way he could play out a slightly different build, but still fill the role of trap finder and remover. Which in my book is another win to the system.
To sum up I think I am at a stage where I think the game system should protect players from their own inexperience. While at the same time this makes my job as DM a little easier and I am ALWAYS up for that.
With this in mind I actually have decided that I do like the Pathfinder skill system as it protects players from their own inexperience. Creating a...
I can see where you're coming from, and I don't mean any offense with my remark, but this sounds too much like "Hey, no need to LEARN how to ride a bike if we simply keep the support wheels on" to my ears to really be an attractive alternative. My job as DM includes trying to teach new players how their character can achieve the goals they set for them by a slightly more intelligent allocation of skill points. Or would you prefer a vast simplification of the spell system as well to protect new players of clerics and wizards from their inexperience? :)
Before 3E, D&D tried to get along without skills (worked fine) and with proficiencies (worked but was a bit wonky). At the same time, plenty of RPG systems that used skill point systems flourished, and I think it was that reason we have the 3E skill point system. I doubt returning to something like a proficiency system would be a successful move in the eyes of the majority of players. A simplified skill point system would fulfill all the requirements and offer auto-maximization as well. In order to "protect" your players, you can simply tell them to "choose that number of skills and put 4 ranks in each, and every time you level up, add 1 rank to each skill". Easy as that. :)
... My job as DM includes trying to teach new players how their character can achieve the goals they set for them by a slightly more intelligent allocation of skill points. Or would you prefer a vast simplification of the spell system as well to protect new players of clerics and wizards from their inexperience? :)
...
Why its a very noble goal to want to teach players about the game. The reality is very few want this or are going to learn it. More than likely you will frustrate people instead. Very few adults want to be told that how they do something is anything other than perfect. By having the system simply prevent the mistake in the first place my job no longer includes 'teaching', but instead presenting a fun game session to players.
I argued your very point that players should simply learn more about the game or I should spend more time teaching. Maybe I am just not qualified to 'teach' correctly as I rarely change a players mind about such things as skills. So for those of us that don't have adnvanced degrees in 'teaching' I prefer a system that simply does the job for me.
No offense taken by the way as I know others will disagree with me, but I wanted to put my view point into the discussion.
|
|
As a DM I like the new system in pRPG better. Over these many years(and groups) I have seen way too many inexperience players put one or two points into many skills. Trying to be a 'jack of all trades' character. The problem comes soon after level 2 as they simply can't get anywhere near the DCs. So those skill ranks just became useless and have no real value on their character sheets anymore.
The worst areas are search, open locks, disable device, spot, and stealth. As a DM I either have to adjust DCs way down or I have to listen to players complain about how they can't ever do anything as the DCs are way too high. Even if the real problem is how they built their characters.
I have tried many times to explain that 99% of skills should simply be maxed out every level and to NOT put one point into a skill. Yet time after time players put one point into a skill and by level 3 can't ever get the skill to work. They usually at this point have one or two points in a dozen skills and none of those skills seem to work. This tends in some players to build frustration and a constant asking to change their characters. Which if allowed to change they build the same mistake again in to their next character.
As one of these types of player, I appreciate what you are saying; ie that there are definitely some skills that need to be high, in order to be useful (Use Magic Device?).
However, 'needing to be high' doesn't always equate with 'needing to be maxed'. There comes a point at which one can hit the relevant DCs with ease, maybe not even needing to roll. At that point, I would like the option to be able to halt my progression, and focus on something else.
And there are plenty of skills which really don't need to be high to make a difference. For 2 skill points (1 rank), my current character can automatically provide a +2 assist to the party trapsmith. A fact that paid off this week, when the pair of us scored the exact DC44, to bypass a door with twin Disintegrate rays. OK, so I was immune anyway, but he wasn't. That 1 rank I bought, way, way back when I was a 1st-level wizard, saved my ally's life, and has been consistently doing so (albeit, I needed a roll of 4+ at first level) at least once per level for the last 2+ years of play.
My 1 rank of Decipher script has meant the difference between cracking the codes in the villain's diaries, and being forewarned about their plans.
My low ranks of Knowledge (the planes) have allowed me to correctly identify many enemies, and use the correct tactics (Ahah! It's a demon, but it's not a tanar'ri! Lightning Bolt!).
My 1 rank of Sleight of Hand has made the difference between catching opponents flat-footed with a wand, or being able to retrieve spell components while grappled.
My ranks of Tumble, an automatic purchase for every light-armoured character I have ever played, has prevented me having my skull split open on so many occasions, that it's not even an optional skill choice for me. The ability to raise one's AC by 6, or choose to not even be in melee at all, is vital to anyone of any class without heavy armour or d10s for hp.
If the average low-level town guard has a Spot or Sense Motive of +0, then a bonus of a few points makes a huge difference. A +5 bonus means 75% success, before allowing any circumstance bonus, such as a plausible alibi, forged papers, a disguise, or poor light. I actually like those odds, and they're achievable for many PCs at low/mid-level, even as cross-class skills. OK, so I might never fool the Lord High Inquisitor, but so what? My skill is good enough to get me by in normal life, and that's all I require.
And if I am being told "No, you can't spread your points around. You have to have a small number of skills, fully-maxed.", then I cannot create the kind of characters I want to play, and I will play some other game entirely.
I like the new skill system that has been outlined. Just seems much easier to me. At first level pick a few skills, then every few levels you get a new one and the skill modifier is based on your level and other modifiers. It works for me.
DJ
I like the new skill system, much easier to build a NPC quickly
Please keep skill points.
Here seems to be the key problem.
Maybe it should say this?
*Acquiring Skills*
At first level, your character gains a number of skills point dependent upon your class (table 5-1), plus any racial bonuses (such as humans), plus your Intelligence modifier times 4 (x4). If you acquire a level in a new class you do not gain the x4 bonus, as this bonus only applies to first level characters. These points are spent into training with a specific skill. At every level of a class you gain skill points equal to you intelligence modifier, plus our classes bonus, plus any racial bonuses.
At every even character level after that (At 2nd level, another at 4th, etc.), you gain additional skill points equal to 3 plus your character level.
At level 3 and every odd character level after that (1 at 3rd level, another at 5th, etc.), you gain additional skill points every time you increase in level from then on. If you gain a different class these bonus skill point progress normally but are applied to your different skill list.
These skills can be divided into two categories, class skills and cross-class skills. Class skills are those favored by your chosen class (or classes). Your character is most proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. Your character can be knowledgeable in cross-class skills, but you will never be as skilled with them as you will be in those favored by your class. Class skills cost 1 point per rank. Cross class skills cost 2 points per rank. A character may put 1 point into a cross class skill to gain 1/2 a rank, but they do not gain any bonuses till they reach a full rank. A character can not save their skill points for later levels.
If you acquire a new class, you gain an additional skill points equal to skills point dependent upon your class (table 5-1), plus any racial bonuses (such as +1 for humans), plus your Intelligence modifier plus additional skill ranks gain by leveling. All skill points must be spent as class and cross-class skills of this new class.
At every level the minimum skill points a character can gain is 1.
___________________
What do you guys think?
I got some ideas on how to word it better, but this should work.
I've had second thoughts on this since I last posted. I just want to keep skill points now. Put in the max ranks system in the DMing section of the book as a shortcut for NPCs.
I've had second thoughts on this since I last posted. I just want to keep skill points now. Put in the max ranks system in the DMing section of the book as a shortcut for NPCs.
Great idea.
Skill Point system for P-RPG v1.1
*Acquiring Skill Ranks*
At first level, your character gains a number of skills point dependent upon your class (table 5-1), plus your Intelligence modifier times 4 (x4), +4 if you are human. If you acquire a level in a new class you do not gain the x4 bonus, as this bonus only applies to your first character level. These points are spent into training with a specific skill. At every level of a class you gain skill points equal to your intelligence modifier, plus our classes bonus, plus any racial bonuses.
These skills can be divided into two categories, class skills and cross-class skills. Class skills are those favored by your chosen class (or classes). Your character is most proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. Your character can be knowledgeable in cross-class skills, but you will never be as skilled with them as you will be in those favored by your class. Class skills cost 1 point per rank. Cross class skills cost 2 points per rank. A character may put 1 point into a cross class skill to gain 1/2 a rank, but they do not gain any bonuses till they reach a full rank. A character can not save their skill points for later levels. At every level the minimum skill points a character can gain is 1.
*Advancement Points*
Advancement points are skill points gained by all characters as the advance in character level. At every even character level (At 2nd level, another at 4th, etc.), you gain additional skill points equal to 3 plus your character level. At level 3 and every odd character level after that (1 at 3rd level, another at 5th, etc.), you gain 1 additional skill point every time you increase in character level from then on. So a fighter which at level 2 got 3 skill points for leveling would now gain 4 at level 3, 5 at level 5, etc. If you gain a different class these bonus skill point progress normally but are applied to your different skill list.
*New Class Levels*
As stated above, if you acquire a level in a new class you do not gain the x4 bonus, as this bonus only applies to your first character level. If you acquire a new class, you gain an additional skill points equal to skills point dependent upon your class (table 5-1), plus any racial bonuses (such as +1 for humans), plus your Intelligence modifier, plus additional advancment points (see above). All skill points must be spent as class and cross-class skills of this new class.
my "fix" that has worked VERY well in my in-house games has been to allow the players to choose a number of class skills ANY class skills equal to their base skill point mods. With the +2 bonus I bumped all classes up with, that lets the fighter pick between 5-9(18 int of fighter? yeah right!) class skills. Every 4th, they get another one. I was convinced it would wreck the game, but my players LOVE the flavor and customization it allows. Also makes a few PrC's easier to get into without the dreaded one level multiclass.
Thoughts? Ideas? Fiery criticism?
my "fix" that has worked VERY well in my in-house games has been to allow the players to choose a number of class skills ANY class skills equal to their base skill point mods. With the +2 bonus I bumped all classes up with, that lets the fighter pick between 5-9(18 int of fighter? yeah right!) class skills. Every 4th, they get another one. I was convinced it would wreck the game, but my players LOVE the flavor and customization it allows. Also makes a few PrC's easier to get into without the dreaded one level multiclass.
Thoughts? Ideas? Fiery criticism?
Actually, I like it. It solves a bit of annoyance that isn't really that big of a deal, but can be irritating and lead to unnecessary multiclassing. Good idea.
|
I love it when people tell me that if I don't have ranks in something, I won't be able to do that thing. I know that I couldn't tumble but why would I put ranks in Climb or Swim besides for flavor? But looking at the low amount of skills the classes get, I am always drawn to a little thing at the bottom of Pg. 62 in the PHB. It's titled: "Character Skills" I don't know how many people have read this but it explains a lot about why skill acquisition is set up the way it is. You can take a 10/20 on just about any check and most people do. Yeah there are somethings outside of this number but you would recognize that and would find other ways of overcoming this proplem. DnD shouldn't be math. Having points in a skill should not be the only way to overcome an obsticle. Keeping skill points or using Alpha, either is a good method when you look at what they are supposed to represent.
well thank you sirs, it was a compromise, but it works and helps my players play the characters they want instead of compromising with what their stuck with.
Haven't had a single Paladin1/fighter2/rogue3/Wizard2 yet since we started doing it two years ago.
As I stated in the [Design Focus] Skills thread:
Just increase the number of skill points for Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, and Wizard from 2 + Int mod to 4 + Int mod, and the monk from 4 + Int mod to 6 + Int mod, and call it done. Rogues remain the skill-monkeys with 8 + Int mod skill points; bards, monks, and rangers are highly skilled individuals with 6 + Int mod skill points; everyone else gets 4 + Int mod skill points. With the skill consolodations, this should be enough, IMO. For people who don't want to deal with skill points, just use the Maximum Ranks, Limited Choices variant from the SRD.
The general collective opinion from the "ditch skill points" camp is that it's easier to use the SAGA system. I agree, it is easier. NWPs were also easy back in 2nd ed. The problem is, easier does not always mean better - it's a worse system. It blocks choices to players, it kills backwards compatibility, and it returns to systems that players argued out of the system to begin with.
I completely agree. This, to me, is one of those times when easier is not necessarily better. What you do and do not know how to do can both fill books. It IS who you are. Personally, I feel there should be many more skills to choose from, but limited access. I like my houserule, it has served me very well these years. Won't work for PFRPG though, unless they back away from the consolidation idea.
|
Please keep skill points.Now, some tweaking of the 3.5 skill points system could be useful. For example, raising the number of skill points some classes have, allowing some method of gaining other class skills (a feat, perhaps), and much of the skill combining you have already done are all good, and have the added benefit of not breaking compatibility nearly as badly.
It might be interesting for Humans, being all adaptable and stuff, to be able to choose one skill and count it as a class skill for any class they take. All of the riders of cheap-Rohan-knockoff learn to ride as children, so cheap-Eowyn-knockoff has Ride as a class-skill, whether she chooses to be a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard or Rogue (or a little of each).
Please keep skill points.Now, some tweaking of the 3.5 skill points system could be useful. For example, raising the number of skill points some classes have, allowing some method of gaining other class skills (a feat, perhaps), and much of the skill combining you have already done are all good, and have the added benefit of not breaking compatibility nearly as badly.
It might be interesting for Humans, being all adaptable and stuff, to be able to choose one skill and count it as a class skill for any class they take. All of the riders of cheap-Rohan-knockoff learn to ride as children, so cheap-Eowyn-knockoff has Ride as a class-skill, whether she chooses to be a Fighter, Cleric, Wizard or Rogue (or a little of each).
Why stop there? Elves move silently and quietly, or know all kinds of odd stuff (different depending on location), Dwarves have crafting and battle in their blood, half orcs and half elves could be seen as either survivalistic types or chameleonic with either parent race.
Mainly it's just a matter of scope just as much as style. The flavor creates itself - or doesn't, in the case of the latter, they just like killin stuff anyway.
Now, some tweaking of the 3.5 skill points system could be useful. For example, raising the number of skill points some classes have, allowing some method of gaining other class skills (a feat, perhaps), and much of the skill combining you have already done are all good, and have the added benefit of not breaking compatibility nearly as badly.
It's funny...there's 8 years of D20/OGL development behind us, with heaps of additional systems and ideas. Is it such a strange idea to have "regional class skills/feats"? Do skills such as "Educated" or "Versatile" see so little use in 3.X? I simply wonder throughout a lot of these discussions, really...there's already plenty of ways and ideas on how to gain additional class skills that Pathfinder only has to integrate some of the better OGL stuff into its rules. :)
It's funny...there's 8 years of D20/OGL development behind us, with heaps of additional systems and ideas. Is it such a strange idea to have "regional class skills/feats"? Do skills such as "Educated" or "Versatile" see so little use in 3.X? I simply wonder throughout a lot of these discussions, really...there's already plenty of ways and ideas on how to gain additional class skills that Pathfinder only has to integrate some of the better OGL stuff into its rules. :)
Now, some tweaking of the 3.5 skill points system could be useful. For example, raising the number of skill points some classes have, allowing some method of gaining other class skills (a feat, perhaps), and much of the skill combining you have already done are all good, and have the added benefit of not breaking compatibility nearly as badly.
Good point. One which points to the incredibly short list of feats a 20th level ANYTHING but fighter, wizard, or ranger has. That is 6. Spend it on combat or magic schtick? Or boost skill powers. Currently, if a party has a ranger or rogue (preferrably the latter) there is no reason for skills management.
That means that you can make INT a dump stat for all but rogue and wizard. That's lame. Punishing anyone who wants to have a decent fighter with half a brain cell. Anyone know of any FR/Eberron/Greyhawk novels that had a warrior type main character with an IQ of 72? 60? NO. They are all smart, good looking, tough, and strong. USually quick too, but I digress.
Bump DC's up a smidge, give players more skill points (loved idea above - only 2+INT becoming 4+INT), allow more flexibility in "class" skill choices that can evolve over time.
I feel a number of skills = to class skill mod + INT bonus at first level is appropriate. Then allow a new one to be aquired every 4 levels. Simple, elegant, and stereotype destructive. Why can't a rogue disdain lockpicking and trapspringing and be a lorestealer? I'll tell you why, because an arbitrary rule says it is twice as hard for them to sit down in front of a book and learn...oh, say religion? NAture? insert any cross class skill here. The same goes for almost all classes. Knowledge skills are the worst in this regard, but many others suffer fron the "why" syndrome.
Skills define a character. Currently they define an archtype. This is fine except the current rules stifle any real character growtrh through anything other than the one size fits all approach to what your character should be doing.
Sorry to whup up on this poor horse, but it makes so much sense that I remain mystified as to why it never made it into 3.5.
Thanks!
Good point. One which points to the incredibly short list of feats a 20th level ANYTHING but fighter, wizard, or ranger has. That is 6. Spend it on combat or magic schtick? Or boost skill powers. Currently, if a party has a ranger or rogue (preferrably the latter) there is no reason for skills management.That means that you can make INT a dump stat for all but rogue and wizard. That's lame. Punishing anyone who wants to have a decent fighter with half a brain cell. Anyone know of any FR/Eberron/Greyhawk novels that had a warrior type main character with an IQ of 72? 60? NO. They are all smart, good looking, tough, and strong. USually quick too, but I digress.
Bump DC's up a smidge, give players more skill points (loved idea above - only 2+INT becoming 4+INT), allow more flexibility in "class" skill choices that can evolve over time.
I feel a number of skills = to class skill mod + INT bonus at first level is appropriate. Then allow a new one to be aquired every 4 levels. Simple, elegant, and stereotype destructive. Why can't a rogue disdain lockpicking and trapspringing and be a lorestealer? I'll tell...
The point is that skill don't define the archetype, except for the high-skill classes...the archetype defines the class skills, at least in D&D. And from that frame class->class skills, the player is supposed to build his character, with feats, multi-classing and prestige classes being the tools to break out of the base class definition. Separating class skills and cross-class skills is rooted in the class system of D&D, not the other way around.
And the fact that it costs a feat to add to your list of class skills should be a telling point how valuable that concept of a class skill was seen. It's comparable to learning to use a martial weapon, or a combat maneuver. Also, it will actually mean something when you spend one of your feats to acquire two more class skills (or even ALL Knowledge skills). The question of how useful it is inside the game is more a question for the DM and the player, and less for the system. If you want a clever, skilled fighter, invest a good stat in INT, and maybe one of your feats in some class skills, or Skill Focus. The tools to build a character "off the beaten track" are there, you just don't get it for free.
Apart from that, I'd agree that the fighter class skill list could use some additions, but that's personal taste, and easily houserule-able. :)
|
Of course I agree with Donovan Vig - the skill choice shouldn't lock the player into an archetype. Class already has a lot of 'archetype' without restricting the skills - doing so is just overkill.
That said, I haven't found a lot of people willing to give up the idea of class skills (or cross-class skills) as outmoded. I hold out hope for the future, but I don't expect it to make it into the Pathfinder RPG. That said, if the base system is pretty good, it is easy enough to houserule them away. I just feel back for the pages of material they could save by eliminating it.
Skills are not equivalent of a new weapon choice. Having a rank in spot may or may not make a difference in spotting an enemy. The extra +1 damage on a d8 weapon instead of a d6 will make a big difference over time - you use it every encounter, not just situationally.
It seems there staying I really hope that got a massive over haul at at the lest done away with the 2 skill per level garbage.first thing I did in 2000 was fix that mess no LESS THEN 4 I mean gods above lest let a fighter and such have enuff skills to do his job.
I am absolutely against skill points. Pathfinder's system is such a huge step forward that it would be a horrible loss to change it to something else. The simplicity of the system and the way it makes multiclass skillmonkey characters viable completely negates any issues that I would have with realism.
|
|
I am absolutely against skill points. Pathfinder's system is such a huge step forward that it would be a horrible loss to change it to something else. The simplicity of the system and the way it makes multiclass skillmonkey characters viable completely negates any issues that I would have with realism.
You mean where a Rogue 1/Fighter 19 has the same skills as a Rogue 20.
That's a bit of a problem for me.
How about the fact that in 20 levels every class has so many more skills than their 3.5 equivalent that we're not even talking about skills in the same way - basically every class will have every skill they care about and a bunch that they don't.
What about the fact that it doesn't let a player who is multi-classing really get the 'feel' for his character from the beginning.
I like skill points. I don't think that the 3.5 system is easy or quick, but skill points can be. A few more skills is good. A lot more skills is bad. There have been suggestions for skill points that lets a player continue to assign them quickly and for a DM to stat high level character's skills nigh instantaneously. I'm on board for that.
I'm only curious about whether cross-class skills SHOULD be eliminated since they cause a little trouble with every system that includes them. Personally, I don't think taking them out would have any 'noticeable' effect on the game or the power-level, but I'd like to see more widespread playtesting to see for sure.
Or where the fighter 10/rogue 10 can actually do some rogue-like things. I would rather suffer the rogue 1/fighter 19 (hah, an odd level in fighter) for the sake of the fighter 10/rogue 10.
Or where the fighter 10/rogue 10 can actually do some rogue-like things. I would rather suffer the rogue 1/fighter 19 (hah, an odd level in fighter) for the sake of the fighter 10/rogue 10.
"some rogue-like things", sure, but be as good as a full rogue at them?
I have to say, I really hated skill points. It was too much record keeping.
I think a combination of a new feat that lets you gain a free skill and the existing skill focus feat will allow players to specialize and generalize sufficiently.
I feel that wanting to keep skillpoints is a tad selfish--with the current system, you're getting your starting skills and ten more. By nerfing the current system into 3e skills, you're essentially denying the fighter the chance to do anything but climb. Overall, the boost to the low-skillpoint classes is well worth any inability to "generalize" (read: gimp your character).
|
|
Psychic Robot -
Do you not accept that there can be a skill based system that gives more skills than 3.5 in a variety of ways without granting the 'auto-max' Pathfinder system that also grants additional skills at higher level?
The Pathfinder system is more skills for everybody - and a lot more skills. Now, there have been a number of accusations of powercreep and a failure to consider backwards compatiability. In the initial skill offering, this was the case.
My particular favored system is:
Every class 4 more skill points per level than in 3.5 (rogue=12, fighter =6)+ Intelligence modifier, with no multiplication at 1st level. All skills cost 1 point for 1 rank (no class skills or cross-class skills). Max ranks = level +5. Skill focus feats grant a +5 bonus.
This does result in fewer skill points at some levels for most characters. All characters eventually have more skills than their 3.5 counterpoints, and can max out ranks and pick up 'new skills' as they adventure. Because of the higher cap, and no change to DCs, some characters will not feel compelled to keep their skills maxed since the 'extra' skill points will work well toward learning another skill without feeling that they're 'losing' the skills that they had been working on - that once you stop maxing it you can't ever catch up.
Try it with your players. See how it works.
I don't like that system because one still has to distribute the skill points. For me, Pathfinder is simple and good.
yeah I like slots much better then skill points.All the systems people keep posting don't fix the skill point issue. And if half the folks think there is something that needs fixed it's a safe bet it does indeed need fixed.
|
|
Assigning skill points isn't hard if the actual points you get are easy to assign.
There is very little difficulty for a player saying 'I got 6 skills this level, and I increase the 6 skills I already have ranks in by 1'.
This is exactly as easy as saying 'I gained a level, and since I'm using Pathfinder Alpha I increase all of my skills by +1'.
The thing is, it is even easier for a DM. For a 20th level character, no matter the breakdown, he figures out how many skill points he has. He divides them up over the skills he thinks is appropriate. 2 Minutes - done. In Alpha he has to know the initial class (always the one with the most skills) and he figures out how often he got a new skill. In that sense, the Alpha is just a bit longer for the DM, and it creates a situation that most DMs aren't comfortable with - once you've chosen your class at 1st level, you will always continue to develop in those skills just like another full member of the class. So, it doesn't matter if you go from a high skill class to a low skill class - you get the benefit of skills as though you remained in the high skill class.
The high skill classes don't need access to more class skills to be special - but there is a reason they have more skill points than other classes. Under the Alpha as written, they might as well just give every class 4 skills, and then give the rogue something else to make up for the fact that there is no longer a 'skill class'. Maybe a good BAB.
Assigning skill points isn't hard if the actual points you get are easy to assign.
There is very little difficulty for a player saying 'I got 6 skills this level, and I increase the 6 skills I already have ranks in by 1'.
This is exactly the problem. The old system never let you learn anything new. In the new system, I can pick up a new skill without sacrificing the things I was already working on. There's flexibility and people have a more realistic range of skills. I'm sorry, if I've been adventuring for the past 5 years, I'm learned to spot an ambush and sneak past a clumsy orc. I don't care what class I am.
This is exactly the problem. The old system never let you learn anything new. In the new system, I can pick up a new skill without sacrificing the things I was already working on. There's flexibility and people have a more realistic range of skills. I'm sorry, if I've been adventuring for the past 5 years, I'm learned to spot an ambush and sneak past a clumsy orc. I don't care what class I am.
Ok, but then your spot and sneak skills don't need to continue getting better. You have already mastered the ability to get by clumsy orcs, you just might not be able to master the ability to get by very skilled demons. You don't lose your skills that you already have, you just don't continue to get better at them, because you are not practicing on enhancing them better.
This is exactly the problem. The old system never let you learn anything new. In the new system, I can pick up a new skill without sacrificing the things I was already working on. There's flexibility and people have a more realistic range of skills. I'm sorry, if I've been adventuring for the past 5 years, I'm learned to spot an ambush and sneak past a clumsy orc. I don't care what class I am.Ok, but then your spot and sneak skills don't need to continue getting better. You have already mastered the ability to get by clumsy orcs, you just might not be able to master the ability to get by very skilled demons. You don't lose your skills that you already have, you just don't continue to get better at them, because you are not practicing on enhancing them better.
Right, but the ability to not get past really powerful foes is adequately represented by having it be a cross-class skill. I think it's silly that I have to choose between getting better at the skills I use all the time and picking up something new.
Is that a failing of the 3.5 skill points or the fact that the Pathfinder system over skills characters compared to 3.5? Give characters the equivalent number of skill points compared to what they get out of Pathfinder Alpha 1.1 and your complaint about not being able to learn new skills is blow out of the water. Remove that element from Pathfinder and suddenly the system looks much less attractive.
It would perhaps be a good addition to the game to have a Feat that grants more skill points (or an extra skill slot). Open Minded in the XPH/SRD already grants you 5 skill points per feat. This is not as good as it perhaps should be but it's already there in 3.5.
If pathfinder keeps the feats every other level progression then you could take 3 Open Minded feats for 15 extra skill points and skill have the normal 7 3.5 feats available.
|
|
I don't like that system because one still has to distribute the skill points.
People keep saying this, but it still isn't true.
If I'm playing a Sorcerer or Cleric, I can pick 2+Int Mod skills and max them. I go up to 2nd level, I get +1 to (say) Knowledge (religion) and Heal, and never have to worry about skill points, since I chose all on my own to just dedicate them to keeping Knowledge (religion) and Heal maxed.
It's the easiest darn thing ever. And if, at 4th level, I decide that I want to spend some ranks in Craft (alchemy), I can do that. Or not, I can just keep adding +1 to Knowledge (religion) and Heal every level until I get to 20th level and have 23 ranks of Knowledge (religion) and Heal.
With a skill rank system, *you can do max ranks.*
With a max ranks system, *you can't do skill ranks.*
It's clear cut. One system, skill ranks, allows you to do *both options,* while the other system limits your choices to 'my way or the highway.'
Less choices is fine for a quickplay game for people who have never gamed before, but this is a grown-up game, so the *choice* to assign skill ranks *or* to just max out X number of class skills, should be in the hands of the player.
Keep skill points.
Add +2 per level per class.
No one's holding a gun to someone's head to allocate skill points to an NPC. If you don't care about distributing skill points beyond a few key skills, more power to you.
For those of us who do wish to fully stat out those characters and in order to avoid sacrificing customization, let the rules support that method.