|
Many classes have skills which are basically required.
For example, a wizard just isn't a wizard without the tangy zip of spellcraft.
How about defining 2 skills for each class that at first level are obligate skills are freebies. Continusing with the wizard example, the obligate skills may be Spellcraft and Know: Arcane.
A character who takes the wizard class at level 1 gets the obligate skills as freebies, but a character who takes wizard later as a multiclass dip needs to spend skill selections to pick them up.
As an added bonnus, favored class can add a +2 on the obligate skills.
just a thought
Sounds good to me.
I like it. A wizard without Spellcraft, a cleric without Knowledge: Religion, a ranger without Survival, a rogue without Search; these are all recipes for an inadequately prepared PC. And the "first class only" thing reminds me of that thing in Spycraft I always liked so well.
Of course, the issue is that not all classes have such a skill. What would fighters get? Paladins? Monks? Some of these you can fudge easily enough - barbarians and Intimidate would be an easy fit, for example, even if it's not a required skill - but others might be kind of mysterious.
A possible addition to this thought is to eliminate class skills. Each class has 2-3 skills in which it is automatically trained, but it can select any others with its skill slots. To represent the areas in which a class excels, the skills can be free, but anyone can be competent in anything.
Absolutely not. Designers have no business building the player's character for them, or forcing them to conform to some 'vision' of how the class is supposed to be.
On the other hand, this skill system needs work. The range of initial skills is far too large, particularly with the 'instant mastery' as you level up.
All the classes should default to X (4-6) initial skills. I'd rather not see a huge horde of ranger 1 -> fighter/barb 19 because the skill gain is so much better.
Voss has a good point just give at lest 4 skills at 1st level and that would solve alot of issues.
Agreed, 2+ int skills is not enough, Id also like some half way between Class and cross class skills (which would pair up with Bab in a way, full, 3/4 and 1/2 BaB, Class, Peripheral and cross class skills, but thats a different matter)
I never understood why sorcerers got 2 skill points, and had 2 required skills (Concentration and Spellcraft). I mean, in theory you could choose to take something else, but then you're hobbled in terms of your class abilities. That's just silly.
|
|
Designers already told players how some classes should be. For example, try to learn a new spell with a wizard without spellcraft. It is even worse when you notice that to be really effective, a wizard needs spellcraft, know arcane, and concentration. So of their 2+int, 3 skills are already spent.
As an added bonus, this may encourage people to take some craft or profession skills, since they will now have some free points.
My suggest skills for each base class::
Barbarian: Survival, know nature
Bard: perform, know local
Cleric: know religion, spellcraft
Druid: know nature, handle animal
Fighter: intimidate, perception (anyone notice a fighter who could very well be a guard can't take spot as a class skill in 3.5)
Monk: know religion, escape artist
Paladin: know religion, know royalty and nobility
Ranger: survival, handle animal
Rogue: Stealth, Theft
Sorcerer: Spellcraft, Use Magic Device
Wizard: know arcane, spellcraft
The flip side of just giving everyone more points requires that everyone have roughly the same numbe of worth while skills. So if a wizard has the big 3, then every class needs to have a big 3. Otherwise you are gonna break the high skill classes by cutting them down fro 6 or 8.
To offer possible free skills for each class:
Barbarian: Intimidate and Survival
Bard: Perform and Disguise
Cleric: Knowledge (Religion) and Heal
Druid: Knowledge (Nature) and Handle Animal
Fighter: Acrobatics and Perception
Monk: Acrobatics and Knowledge (Religion)
Paladin: Knowledge (Religion) and Ride
Ranger: Knowledge (Nature) and Survival
Rogue: Perception and Theft
Sorcerer: Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft
Wizard: Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft
|
Did any of you notice that the Pathfinder skill system is broken?
Take a level of Rogue and you get eight skills that will always be maxed out (when compaired to 3.5)
I think the system need work.
The skill points from 3.5 would be better to manage with the few skills from combining.
You could also give rouges fewer points to start with (since it is x4 at 1st) and a larger amount at each level increas to stop the front loading and min-maxing that happens now (i.e. take rogue at 1st to glom skill points then go off on you main class).
Just some observations and thoughts
|
|
Fixing the break in the skills is fairly easy. Use class level instead of character level.
Untrained skills at Abil+Racial
Trained Skills at Abil+Racial+level in class for which it is class+level/2 for CC
A level 1 rogue, level 19 fighter gets:
Untrained Know Religion at Abil+crap
Trained Spellcraft at Abil+(1+19)/2 = Abil+10
Trained Theft at Abil+1+(19/2)= Abil+11
Trained Trained Ride at Abil+(1/2)+19=Abil+20
A bit more complex, but you only calculate it at level up, not for every roll. And I noticed to late that I ignored the +3 offset, so pretend I didn't.
Not to discount your comments, but they really aren't relevant to this thread. Your comment that the skill system is broken does not affect whether or not certain skills should be given for free, as far as I can tell. Perhaps you should post those ideas in one of the threads discussing the nature of skill acquisition?
I'd rather not see a huge horde of ranger 1 -> fighter/barb 19 because the skill gain is so much better.
I don't think you could ever completely eliminate that as a motivation for multiclassing. Under the current rules, folks take a few levels of rogue for the same reason.
Someone who takes 1 level of ranger and then switches to fighter just for some extra skills will probably be short-changing themselves down the road. You will probably end up giving up some combat power as you will be one level behind a straight fighter in picking up bonus feats and other powers.
Hard to say until they publish the ranger stats, but you might also "strand" some ranger abilities acquired at 1st level that don't improve if you stop taking ranger levels.
Also, any time you multi-class, your class skill list becomes the sum of the class skills of ecah class you have. So it only takes one level of another class to instantly increase the bonuses you have with a skill that used to be cross-class.
I don't think increasing the amount of skill options that players have is a bad thing. The more competent they are with skills, the more flexible the PCs can be in handling encounters. It could poetentially encourage more role-playing and less combat grind.
Fighter: intimidate, perception (anyone notice a fighter who could very well be a guard can't take spot as a class skill in 3.5)
Perception is cross-class for fighters so that rogues, rangers and bards and monks can sneak past the fighter-guards.
But it's much harder to sneak into the barbarian camp, bard college, thieves' guild, monestary, or the druid's grove.
Fixing the break in the skills is fairly easy. Use class level instead of character level.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they do something like this in the end.
If you start life as a rogue, it's fine that you're good at sneaking, theft etc. And if you learned these things as a youngster (1st level), it's not like you would ever compeltely forget. Riding bicycles and all that.
A rogue who straps on armor and takes a bunch of fighter levels is going to be sneakier than the average fighter of the same character level.
But I suppose you could argue that a straight rogue should be a bit sneakier than a fighter/rogue.
In any case, the fighter/rogue is going to have at least one point less BAB than the the straight fighter.
In a different thread I tossed out the idea of reducing all starting skills to 2+Int and then giving each class bonus skills at different levels (in addition to normal trained skill increases). It evened out in the long run but did not make rogues front loaded.
Still, the idea of certain classes automatically being trained in a skill or two might work well if the starting skills were balanced out some.
Put me in the camp for calculating skills based on class level, not character level.
Back to the OP: I am strongly against the idea of forced skills. In my game at the moment we have a cleric with no ranks in knowledge religion, (and an Intelligence of 7), and that provides a great roleplaying hook. Especially when the other PCs ask him about his faith. I wouldn't want to lose things like that due to a mandatory skill taking.
(Although I still have never seen a wizard without spellcraft)
If cleric must have Know : Religion, and wizard must have Spellcraft and Know : Arcana, I don't think the other class must have obligate skill.
In fact, a rogue can be an assassin, a swindler, a scout, a thief ... and this roles don't need the same skill.
So some classes ( cleric, wizard, druid ... ) could have obligate skill, but the other ( fighter, barbarian, ... ) could be free.
|
Absolutely not. Designers have no business building the player's character for them, or forcing them to conform to some 'vision' of how the class is supposed to be.
This I agree with.
A Cleric of the god of artifice or death is much less likely to consider Heal a 'must-have' than a Cleric of the goddess of sun, mercy and healing.
A lawful Dwarven locksmith who functions as a security specialist, trapfinder, spelunker, etc. might not have or want a single rank of any sort of Stealth skill. He's not a common low-life burgler. He's a professional, respected in his community!
Flat out against it.
One of the biggest reasons I hate the 4e rogue (probably all classes): They have to get "thievery and stealth".
Not all clerics are religion buffs. They may need the stuff from their own religion (which I would rule they don't even need knowledge(religion) for), but they don't have to tell Gorum and Gozreh apart.
A wizard could work without spellcraft. He knows the stuff from books, and from his own practise, but if someone else casts something, he might be too much of a bookworm (medieval version of the typical geek with no social life whatsoever ;-)) to identify that spell.
If you want more skill points, give them more skill points. I'll gladly second that notion.
But none of this forced character options things if they can't be avoided.
|
|
A wizard could theoretically work without spellcraft, but since they need it to add spells to their spellbook and to use counterspell, the are tossing class abilities if they don't take it.
Similarly a rogue without search is tossing trapfinding out the window.
Following along with some of the arguements, why does the dwarven locksmith able to select vital areas of his opponent to get extra damage?
I think a better fix for these arguments is not hobbling the NPC classes, and make expert a viable character. Let the rogue be a rogue, and let the skill monkey be an expert.
|
|
Following along with some of the arguements, why does the dwarven locksmith able to select vital areas of his opponent to get extra damage?
That has nothing to do with the argument though. Just because Class Ability X doesn't necessarily work with the players concept doesn't mean that the game should *make it harder* for him to play the character he wants to play.
The rules shouldn't be fighting me, or locking me into a particular flavor that may not suit the game I'm running, or playing in. It's not GURPS and never will be, I can't do *anything,* but it shouldn't be inflexible and hamper character design.
|
|
And how does getting two bonus skills that are associated with class abilities make it more difficult?
At no point was it suggested to reduce skill points. Or restrict options. In fact it opens options up because you don't have to spend precious skill points just to be able to do what your class can do.
Absolutely not. Designers have no business building the player's character for them, or forcing them to conform to some 'vision' of how the class is supposed to be.This I agree with.
A Cleric of the god of artifice or death is much less likely to consider Heal a 'must-have' than a Cleric of the goddess of sun, mercy and healing.
A lawful Dwarven locksmith who functions as a security specialist, trapfinder, spelunker, etc. might not have or want a single rank of any sort of Stealth skill. He's not a common low-life burgler. He's a professional, respected in his community!
Brilliant! While we're at it, why should fighters have high base attack bonuses? What right do developers have to give barbarians d12 hd? What if I want to play a weak-minded cleric? Why should bards have to perform? What's up with rogues having trapfinding? Why should paladins be able to smite evil? How dare those developers give character classes abilities in line with what that class is supposed to do! Just because I want my fighter to cast spells doesn't mean I should have to take levels in wizard, I should be able to do it as a fighter!
A wizard could theoretically work without spellcraft, but since they need it to add spells to their spellbook and to use counterspell, the are tossing class abilities if they don't take it.
Counterspell isn't a class ability (unless they changed that in alpha)
As for adding spells: His choice. If he doesn't plan on adding spells, he doesn't need spellcraft. Or maybe they'll change it so it works with a caster level check or something like this.
Similarly a rogue without search is tossing trapfinding out the window.
Again, the rogue's choice. If he doesn't want to work with traps, he doesn't need perception or disable device.
Following along with some of the arguements, why does the dwarven locksmith able to select vital areas of his opponent to get extra damage?
Because it's a class ability.
I say that if they want to give something to all members of a class, make it a class ability.
But if it is something they can choose to get, make it a skill. Don't make skills class abilities - or class abilities skills.
They made a good start in 3.5 with wild empathy: Only druids and rangers are supposed to have it, so it's a class ability (I personally like the version where wild empathy just lets them use diplomacy on animals. It's from Monte's Book of Experimental Might)
So I think that adding spells to a spellbook should be some kind of caster level check for wizards. It's something about spellcraft that only wizards use, and all wizards have to use it. It doesn't necessarily mean that the wizard has to be good at knowing spells as they're cast.
So, the design philosophy should be this: If it's something that is unique for the class, and everyone should have it, make it a class ability.
If it is something everyone should be able to pick up, make it a skill. And no forced skills.
I think a better fix for these arguments is not hobbling the NPC classes, and make expert a viable character. Let the rogue be a rogue, and let the skill monkey be an expert.
It's rogue. Not thief. There is no typical rogue. Some are spies. Some are infiltrators. Scouts. Assassins. Con men. Dungeon creepers. Thugs. Diplomats. Pickpockets. Burglers. Acrobats. So many other things. Often they're more than one of these things, but there really isn't anything there they all should be capable of, skill-wise.
Not all of them creep around. Not all of them backstab people (they don't have to use their sneak attack. If you want to give them a bonus feat instead, be my guest.), not all of them deal with traps (they don't have to use their trapfinding).
After all, there's no rule that a righter should have 10 times the usual carrying capacity because he's supposed to carry all the weapons he gets thanks to his all martial weapons proficiency.
What is the advantage of giving obligatory skills, rather than simply giving additional skill slots?
The only one I can see is that it prevents an inexperienced player from missing an essential skill (Spellcraft for wizards is a good example).
I disagree that Theft or K/Religion or K/Arcane are essential skills. I think it's quite possible to have a character conception that doesn't require them. A player with such a conception would prefer to use that skill slot for something else, not receive a skill he doesn't want.
If Spellcraft is really essential for a wizard to work mechanically (I'm not positive of this yet--we need to see more of the rules) I'd argue that rather than being an obligatory skill, it should be a class ability for the spellcaster classes. I think skills should represent a choice.
Mary
So what you are arguing, in essence, is that you can ignore class abilities for the sake of concept, but you can't ignore bonus skills.
I'm agruing that skills should be optional, period. If it's something that isn't optional, it isn't a skill. Don't muddy the water.
If it's something every class member needs, make it a class ability. If there aren't enough skill points to go around, give them more skill points.
Then why not just give them 4+Int skills and let the player decide?
Can't think of any reason, either.
But 4+Int skills (for an Intelligence based class) could end up being a lot of skills... possibly rivaling the rogue
If the raise is for everyone, the rogue would get 10+, so the gap wouldn't get wider or more narrow than before.
I say keep the paternalism out of game design. Let the players create their characters and leave skill choice an option. If I want to play a lvl 1 Wizard that becomes a Fighter, do I really need Spellcraft or knowledge arcana?
No. Same goes for a wizard period. If they need parts of spellcraft (like learning new spells), take those things out of spellcraft (other characters with spellcraft can't use them, anyway) and make them a class ability.
Class abilities: Stuff everyone needs, everyone gets.
Skills: Absolutely optional.
|
|
How would this idea work in practice.
My original intent had been that when a class is chosen at character level 1, each class would have 2 skills associated with it that are granted as a bonus.
Character who multiclass would not get these extra skills for any class after their first.
So if you start off as a wizard, you would pick up skill A, skill B, and 2 + int skills of choice.
If you start off as a fighter, than pick up wizard later, you only get 2 + int, but you get some suggested skills.
This is in no way to suggest that all classes shouldn't get the same number of skills, or some other balancing twists to characters.
So yeah, it dumbs down character generation a bit, but it also keeps people off evolutionary dead ends.
It imposes a bit of a pedigree into various classes too, which will make it easier on developers who eventually have to populate a world with not only characters and archetypes, but with new classes, new Prestige Classes, and all manner of other widgets and artifacts that prove this is, in fact a game.
So when a writer is developing an adventure, he can safely assume that a rogue may actually decide that finding and removing traps is a good idea... Especially since with only the base classes no other character can do it anyway.
So yeah, it dumbs down character generation a bit, but it also keeps people off evolutionary dead ends.
Where does that line of thinking end? People might pick less than optimal feats, so we should require that they take certain ones? They might pick less than optimal spells... so we should pre-generate the spell list. They might pick less than optimal stats, so let's pre-gen those as well.
I think the game should trust the players to figure it out. In the phb, there were example starting characters for each class... there's your template for newbies or the clueless. But why on earth would you need to go so far as impose hard rules on everyone just because a few might have a problem!?! This makes no sense at all to me.