The new system's nice and easy, but I'd say that the final book should definetly have the old way in it as an optional rule.
I also don't quite know about the formula: "Characterlevel +3 +Ability bonus."
The +3 is a holdover, and I'd say it makes things needlessly difficult. On the other hand, You might need the +3 or change the DCs.
Maybe there's something more organic there. Double the ability mod maybe? Though that could get out of hand quickly.
Synergies:
Good riddance.
Consolidated skills:
You forgot to mention that tumble is part of acrobatics now, by the way.
There's some things I'd do differently.
Acrobatics: One of mine, too, but I put in different stuff:
Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble. Jump doesn't fit, because it's more a strength thing.
I'd also add Athletics, for the strength-based stuff: Climb, Jump, Swim. Makes people finally be able to swim ;-) Also, I think Jump fits in here better than in acrobatics, and those skills deserve consolidation as much as the acrobatics stuff.
Concentration/Spellcraft: I don't know about that one. They're really different things. Concentration could even be expanded for other concentration/meditation stuff.
Theft: Bad name. The implications. Not all of it is stealing. You can use sleight of hand to conceil stuff you bought.
Personally, I combine Use Rope into Sleight of Hand - though after thinking about it, use rope isn't that useful - you sould be able to knot a rope without needing a check and a skill. The tying people up might need a check, but for that, you can use the sleight of hand then.
I also combined open lock into disable device. I could see combining disable device and sleight of hand, but I wouldn't call it theft. Sleight of Hand would fit (you don't disable those traps by whacking them with the big hammer).
Linguistics: Interesting, though I know people who would make every language a separate skill you have to put skill points into or something. Might be a great optional rule.
Concentration and Tumble:
I'd say that both could need a bit of an overhaul. I'm not too much a friend of the static DCs. Tumbling past a first level commoner should be easier than tumbling past the best swordsman on Golarion. Same about concentration.
The enemy's BAB (or CMB maybe) could be figured into the DC, or it could be opposed rolls.
Diplomacy:
I like it. Might need some more fine-tuning, but it certainly is a great start.
What about opposed rolls to negotiate?
There's also one thing to consider with this system where you get X + Int modifier trained skills at 1st level. Why shouldn't all non-spellcasters select to start with one level rogue? I think that it would probably be better to have the same number of trained skills for every class at first level, either 6 or 8. The Int modifier should still apply, though.
|
I also don't quite know about the formula: "Characterlevel +3 +Ability bonus."
The +3 is a holdover, and I'd say it makes things needlessly difficult. On the other hand, You might need the +3 or change the DCs.
I think the +3 has to stay to simulate the 3.5 "maxed out" skill. So it is easier to use 3.5 DCs (in adventures say, Rise of the Runelords for example) for PF3.5 rulesets.
Changing this formula would complicate upgrading 3.5 Stuff a lot.
One idea I have toyed with is along the idea of customized characters. Allow a PC to pick a number of extra skills equal to their INT bonus to add to their list of class skills. 'Background skills', if you like. The only problem I haven't solved is that with Rogues, you may not have enough cross-class skills to choose for that to work.
I've only just glanced briefly at the new skill list, so take this with a grain of salt of course ;P
Your Friendly Neighborhood Dalesman
"Bringing Big D**n Justice to the Bad Guys Since 1369 DR"
I will admit now that I've only paged through a little bit of the alpha game book so far. I'm at work, and just dl'd it, and haven't had a lot of time to peruse, so forgive my ignorant opinions, but I'm not sure I like this version of the skill system at all, to be honest. Am I right in thinking that there's no skill ranks at all? That would seem to imply that, for example, as long as they are roughly equally dexterous, there's no such thing as one carpenter who is better than another carpenter. Or musician, or artist, or blacksmith, or whatever. This almost seems like call back to the days of non-weapon proficiencies...
I think the +3 has to stay to simulate the 3.5 "maxed out" skill. So it is easier to use 3.5 DCs (in adventures say, Rise of the Runelords for example) for PF3.5 rulesets.Changing this formula would complicate upgrading 3.5 Stuff a lot.
I guess you're right.
There's also one thing to consider with this system where you get X + Int modifier trained skills at 1st level. Why shouldn't all non-spellcasters select to start with one level rogue? I think that it would probably be better to have the same number of trained skills for every class at first level, either 6 or 8. The Int modifier should still apply, though.
The wizards don't start with rogue because they are wizards :P
And there's the part where you lag behind on your spell progression.
In such a system, it probably would be better to have a static number of trained skills. Which is when I think about it, I'd rather have skill points. As long as you don't multiclass, it's basically the same, anyway - unless you don't max out.
Allow a PC to pick a number of extra skills equal to their INT bonus to add to their list of class skills.
This often works out to all they ever need, so you can get rid of class lists altogether. Less work, virtually same outcome.
Am I right in thinking that there's no skill ranks at all?
Yes. You basically max out all the time, and get more skill points over time.
I'm not a fan of a skill system without skill points, but that's for every group to decide.
A problem I see with the skills as presented is, that you end up with A LOT of skills at level 20. Ommiting the knowledge, craft, and profession skills, a level 20 rogue will have perfected every skill there is in the game. Effectively, that's no form of customization anymore. Either there have to be more skills, or a lower number of skills learned.
Why shouldn't all non-spellcasters select to start with one level rogue?The wizards don't start with rogue because they are wizards :P
He said NON-spellcasters.
Yes, the use of many instant-maxed out skills will be a benifit, but it would put off all of the level-dependent abilities of the class you "really" want to play.
Of course, depending on your style of roleplaying, having extra skills greatly outweigh getting level-dependent abilities one level later.
He said NON-spellcasters.Why shouldn't all non-spellcasters select to start with one level rogue?The wizards don't start with rogue because they are wizards :P
I gotta learn to read one of these days.
For non-spellcasters, it's indeed a tougher choice. Lagging behind in your class abilities and BAB (including extra attacks) is probably not that big a thing for fighters, monks and barbarians (and who knows whether rangers and paladins retain their spellcasting), and you don't lose that many HP over it (especially with the new d8 for rogues).
You could still say that it's pure powergaming, that if you want to play a fighter, play a fighter, and there's the part about missing out on weapon and armour proficiencies on first level, but it's a definite problem.
I don't see that any non-full-caster would EVER start as anything but a 1st level rogue, the way the rules are written. The rogue's main strength in 3/3.5 is his number of skills. If you can take 1 level of rogue and keep max ranks forever, then why can't you also take 1 level of wizard and get infinite spellcasting progression forever? Or 1 level of fighter and always get full BAB? Why does only the rogue have his main class feature auctioned off like this?
Come to think of it, this REALLY bothers me. I used to like playing single-classed rogues. Now you're just stupid if you do, because a rogue 1/wizard 19 is just as good as a 3.5e rogue 20 with 19 levels of spellcasting ability.
I mentioned this in the Skills? thread.
This was mentioned in a few other threads, but I have not seen it mentioned here. One problem with the trained skill method is Skills at 1st level.Simply put the rogue gets 8+Int tained skills. A charcater with an Intelligence of 10 can cherry pick one level of rogue at 1st level and then become a fighter, gaining 8 trained skills that will always be at level+3 ranks.
This is worse than cherrypicking one level of ranger in 3.0.
If the trained skill method is used, I would suggest all classes get 2+Int trained skills, with bonus trained skills (in addition to those allowed by level advancement) granted at different class levels. Clerics, Fighters, and Wizards might get one at levels 8 and 16. Rogues might get them at 1st, 4th, 7th, 10th, 13th, 16th, and 19th level. Rangers and Bards would gain one at levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. Barbarians and Monks would gain a trained skill at 6th, 12th, and 18th levels. I am not sure where to stick Sorcerers as I feel they should get more skills.
This method lets the classes still master roughly the same number of skills, but prevents them from being so front loaded. A 20th level human rogue with a 10 Intelligence would have 20 trained skills instead of 19 under the method listed in Alpha Playtest 1.
I mentioned this in the Skills? thread.
Yes, and I liked your solution when I saw it there. But with 18,000 posts, it's important to keep getting that message out there. Maybe Jason will see it one of these days and give us the rogue back as a 20-level class, instead of a 1-level dip?
|
|
Concentration and Tumble:
I'd say that both could need a bit of an overhaul. I'm not too much a friend of the static DCs. Tumbling past a first level commoner should be easier than tumbling past the best swordsman on Golarion. Same about concentration.
I believe Monte Cook originally introduced this rule in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved.
You still take an attack of opportunity (why WOULDN'T you still swing?) against a tumbling character and yes, your attack roll vs. their tumble skill check to see if you hit. (unless your AC is higher than you're check. In which case use your AC)
Never really considered the same thing for Concentration...