there is done like 4 or 5 threads on this. there starting to grow on me though
One: Eliminate the class/cross-class distinction. Skills are skills.
Two: Keep skill points. Allow characters to be different at the same level -- even when they are the same class. Allow them to specialize or generalize as they choose.
You realize this is almost the HERO system, right? Although HERO doesn't have levels and classes.
I'm not sure that I will miss skill points if they don't make the cut. As a player, it gives you a lot of flexibiltiy. But as a DM, it's a pain to figure out if everyone in your group is calculating things correctly.
However, if they do keep the skill points, I think the ability to advance "faster than normal" if you're willing to narrow your skill selection is a decent idea. A super sneaky rogue who's not very good at picking locks. A hyper-observant ranger who doesn't like to handle animals. etc.
|
One: Eliminate the class/cross-class distinction. Skills are skills.
While I understand why there is a distinction, eliminating this aspect will make things much easier as far as calculating skill ranks. I like it. It gives ultimate flexibility in your character. For example, I have a barbarian character in my Rise of the Runelords game, and he is playing an 'eternal character'. He doesn't know how old he is, and he has a bad memory. I discussed it with the player and we've reached the conclusion that he is really ageless and has flashes of memory from up to 10,000 years ago. I allowed humans to choose 4 skills to make class skills and he chose knowledge (engineering) and knowledge (history) - not the kinds of things that you expect from a barbarian. But the fact is that the class works and having a unique story and unusual skill selection makes him distinct. The easiest way to achieve this is to eliminate the class/cross-class distinction.
Two: Keep skill points. Allow characters to be different at the same level -- even when they are the same class. Allow them to specialize or generalize as they choose.
Agreed. Sometimes skill selection doesn't matter, but in a good game, it does. And using skills to really define your character works pretty well. There is a big difference between a fighter that learns to ride and a fighter that learns to intimidate. Skills help to define and explore the differences in a character.
Three: Eliminate the IQ mod to skill points. Some people arequite talented at a given skill or even set of skills without being highly intellectual. Allow for this.
I disagree with this point. Intelligence provides one benefit in the game to people who are not wizards - skill points. Compared to the abilities provided by Strength or Dex, or even Wisdom, having Intelligence modify skills is useful and makes the ability valuable, even for classes that don't use intelligence for any class abilities.
Four: The "level + 3" thing has often seemed odd to me. I would say allow for a "non-adventuring skill expert" by making the number of ranks in a skill max out at 5+level (ie: at 20th level, the max skill ranks are 25, not 23).
I agree here as well. Half the problem with determining how many skills a character has is figuring how how many he had at 1st level, then how many for the rest of his levels. Particularly if he multi-classes. If the system was simply you received x + Int modifier number of skills per level, you could simply figure out the total number of skill points. If there is no class/cross-class distinction, you can just spend them all. As long as you don't go past level +5 you're good. This would allow me to create NPCs extremely quickly. Even if the x4 skill points at 1st level is retained, assinging skills would be fairly quick.
Five: Limit any given skill to no more than (say...) +3 ranks per level when advancing skill ranks after initial character creation. In other words, I do not want to see a Rogue go from "knows nothing at all" about Skill "X" at level 12, to having 8 ranks in it at level 13, and 16 ranks in it at level 14...
I don't see a problem with something like that. Though it could be represented by a houserule if necessary. If a character takes 2 1/2 weeks (game time) to level, but the entire time they spent in an underwater adventure, they migh put a lot of ranks into swim appropriately... I'm good with this one either way.
Good points overall, though. I hope they'll be considered.
Just my thoughts on skills
There is also the political reason for keeping skill points:
4e dropped them.
And the people who like that, are more likely to go play 4e anyway.
Seriously: This is a fork in the road. I do not oppose all change, but this one is one of the reasons I hate 4e...
Good changes:
Some skills really should combine: The various Perception skills have needed combining for years now. Athleticism is a good thing, I think...
But nuking skill points has a more profound change in the character of the game. It is very Min/Maxed when not all of us like that. 4e is very min/maxed...
Pathfinder will not succeed if it treads *too closely* to 4e. The 800 lb Gorilla that is Hasbro will crush Pathfinder unless Pathfinder is sufficiently different from 4e to crystallize a separate "brand loyalty".
It will be a long time before Pathfinder is the default. Until then it should strive specifically to support the people 4e is ignoring.
Saga-style skills is one of the major areas where 4e is annoying the installed base... Pathfinder might do well to cater to this lost market.
Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Slidell LA
|
Two: Keep skill points. Allow characters to be different at the same level -- even when they are the same class. Allow them to specialize or generalize as they choose.
Is a fighter with 7 ranks in ride and 9 ranks in intimidate all that different from one with 9 in ride and 7 in intimidate? Will the other players and DM notice this difference during the game?
IMHO, no. The only differences ever noticed are the extreme ones.
Will they notice a difference between a fighter who is trained in ride and not in intimidate as opposed to one who is trained in intimidate and not in ride.
IMHO, yes.
Is a fighter with 7 ranks in ride and 9 ranks in intimidate all that different from one with 9 in ride and 7 in intimidate? Will the other players and DM notice this difference during the game? IMHO, no. The only differences ever noticed are the extreme ones.
Your argument is clear and well-stated, and I can see that at your table it is most likely 100% correct. At my table, though, we have a lot of skill-focused expoits (much like the horse race around Alhaster in "Prince of Redhand"), and a few ranks can make a big difference. Skills are a BIG deal in our games, as important as BAB or spellcating level in many ways. We'd like the option to keep them.
If the Saga-like system were default, and points a sidebar option, would you still argue that skill points are unnecessary and should be done away with for the greater good of all mankind? Or would you be willing to let us keep them, provided that you could use the simpler rules? I'm really curious on this point.
I could get behind skill points if the class/cross-class distinction was lost. Let people buy skills freely but with a max cap (say level+3), and make the number of skill points awarded a way to distinguish classes (rogues get lots, fighters get very few, wizards and clerics get something in the middle).
The net result will probably end up pretty similar most of the time (what wizard isn't going to max out Spellcraft, for instance), keeps the relative simplicity (your high level character has 34 skill points, who cares what class they came from, just spend 'em where you want), and lets the Mad Customizers have their fun.
FWIW, I used to be a Mad Customizer myself, and I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint. The problem is that these days I'm a Harried Gamemaster, and don't want to spend 45 minutes on every stat block I build for my 9th level campaign.
-The Gneech
|
|
Your argument is clear and well-stated, and I can see that at your table it is most likely 100% correct. At my table, though, we have a lot of skill-focused expoits (much like the horse race around Alhaster in "Prince of Redhand"), and a few ranks can make a big difference. Skills are a BIG deal in our games, as important as BAB or spellcating level in many ways. We'd like the option to keep them.
I understand your view but disagree. If the system used a die with a small spread like a d6, I would agree that a few ranks makes a difference. BUT the game uses a d20, which is a huge spread, so a few ranks difference isn't really noticable, and IMHO not worth the effort of counting skill points. The ability scores bonus is enough for the odd tie-breaker.
If the Saga-like system were default, and points a sidebar option, would you still argue that skill points are unnecessary and should be done away with for the greater good of all mankind? Or would you be willing to let us keep them, provided that you could use the simpler rules? I'm really curious on this point.
Argue that they are unnecessary? Yes. ;)
Argue that an optional method using skill points shouldn't be in the book in a sidebar? No, not at all.
|
|
Interesting point, and I fully understand what you are saying. I really do. But I could not disagree more.
WHAT? How dare you. :)
Consider this:
If a 9th level Fighter with DEX 16 all that different from one with a DEX 18? Will the other players and DM notice this difference during the game.
By your logic, no. The only differences ever noticed are the extreme ones.
Without looking at their character sheet would I see a difference? No I wouldn't. Would you?
So why keep ability scores? Why not have "Trained in STR and CON" and leave it at that?
==
I realize that this is an extreme example of what I am trying desperately to say here... but I think it makes my point rather nicely.
Because they are easy and useful. They aren't bookkeeping heavy, hardly change over a game and are a simple tie-breaker in opposed skill checks.
I understand your view but disagree. If the system used a die with a small spread like a d6, I would agree that a few ranks makes a difference. BUT the game uses a d20, which is a huge spread, so a few ranks difference isn't really noticable, and IMHO not worth the effort of counting skill points. The ability scores bonus is enough for the odd tie-breaker.
Disagree as you like, but I've seen players spy on each other to make sure they didn't get outdone by 1 rank in some obscure skill like Connoisseur. It's FUN for us. Not for you, I understand that. But your dislike or incredulity shouldn't automatically have to trump our enjoyment. And it doesn't, if a sidebar option is avaliable.
Argue that an optional method using skill points shouldn't be in the book in a sidebar? No, not at all.
That's all I'm after. Pathfinder can use Saga rules as a default, as long as there's also an option for customization. If there's not, a large base of the population simply won't play. BUT THERE'S NO REASON THAT THE SYSTEM CANNOT ACCOMMODATE BOTH. Arguing against skill points until you're blue in the face will NOT sway the people who like them; it will only instill a persecution complex. Don't try to convince them they're "wrong;" that's like a Sunni telling a Shi'ite he's "wrong." In this case, it's a matter of personal preference. Please allow the option in a sidebar and let it go.
|
|
BUT THERE'S NO REASON THAT THE SYSTEM CANNOT ACCOMMODATE BOTH.
OK. :S
Arguing against skill points until you're blue in the face will NOT sway the people who like them; it will only instill a persecution complex. Don't try to convince them they're "wrong;" that's like a Sunni telling a Shi'ite he's "wrong." In this case, it's a matter of personal preference.
Who's trying to sway them? Paizo is who people are trying to sway not each other.
Please allow the option in a sidebar
I already threw my support behind this idea.
and let it go.
Why? In my opinion skills is the part of the alpha that still needs the most work. Why should we stop discussing them?
And in order to brainstorm effectively we must understand each others points of view. If you have a clear understanding, cool move on to other threads, but why should the rest of stop because your done?
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what your trying to say but your post rubbed me the wrong way.
I already threw my support behind this idea.
You did, and one other person did, and I give great thanks to you both. But outside of you two, we're still left with a very remarkable anti-skill-point pogrom.
Why? In my opinion skills is the part of the alpha that still needs the most work. Why should we stop discussing them?
No need to stop discussing them; my rant was that there's a need to stop trying to convince everyone that skill points are "wrong."
And in order to brainstorm effectively we must understand each others points of view. If you have a clear understanding, cool move on to other threads, but why should the rest of stop because your done?
Because I really, really would like that sidebar. The more Paizo hears from people who would like one, the more likely it is to appear. As soon as I've stopped mentioning it in the past, another dozen posts appear from other people explaining that skill points are "wrong" and cannot be tolerated.
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what your trying to say but your post rubbed me the wrong way.
You're on-track, except that my sidebar request was not directed specifically at you, nor at the one (1) other pro-Saga person (NSTR) who supported it. My continued rants are directed to the other people who are still trying to convince me that skill points cannot be allowed in a civilized RPG, and that my failure to accept that can only be due to willful ignorance -- rather than being due to a difference of taste.