So, with the vast number of feats and Prestige Classes that have skill rank requirements, how do they interact with the new rank-less system for skills? "Minimum level = (skill rank requirement - 3) + trained in <skill>"? That seems pretty clunky, IMO.
seems to me the requirements are the same not a big issue feel free to juggle em around though.
I think its, Class Level+3 for Class and .5(Class Level+3) for Cross class, as its basically max allowed ranks in the skill, and if your not trained in it, you don't have ranks.
seems to me the requirements are the same not a big issue feel free to juggle em around though.
Not really. The major difference is that a level 1 character can easily have a +11 to a trained class skill (level 1 + 5 from stat + 2 from dual-skill feat + 3 from skill focus). With the old system, you had ranks to determine how trained in a skill you were, and skill ranks were by far the most sacrosanct element of the game - there is NO way in official WotC D&D books to have more than level+3 ranks in a single skill. In the new system, the point is to just keep track of a single modifier. Unfortunately, that single modifier starts off MUCH higher than before, and gives early access to feats and PRCs that were only available much later before.
Yes, you COULD keep track of the "level + 3" or "1/2 (level + 3)" separately, but that kinda defeats the purpose of making it a unified modifier.
You'll probably need to do some kind of reverse engineering.
I'd go with changing the requirement to read:
Skill name as trained skill, level (original skill ranks for PrC -3) [edit] and also list what level you would need if its cross-classed.
So, for example, the Assassin:
Skills: Trained in Disguise level 1(CC level 5), Stealth (Hide and Move Silently) at level 5 (CC level 13).
The major difference is that a level 1 character can easily have a +11 to a trained class skill (level 1 + 5 from stat + 2 from dual-skill feat + 3 from skill focus). With the old system, you had ranks to determine how trained in a skill you were, and skill ranks were by far the most sacrosanct element of the game - there is NO way in official WotC D&D books to have more than level+3 ranks in a single skill. In the new system, the point is to just keep track of a single modifier. Unfortunately, that single modifier starts off MUCH higher than before, and gives early access to feats and PRCs that were only available much later before.
Yes, you COULD keep track of the "level + 3" or "1/2 (level + 3)" separately, but that kinda defeats the purpose of making it a unified modifier.
If a player wanted to sink two feats into getting a +11 skill at first level, I say let them. If that means they get access to feats and prestige classes earlier, then so be it, as they are sacrificing a lot of resources to get there.
However, I agree that this needs to be looked at to make sure nothing too weird or wonky gets let in.
Hey, wait a second, can't you stack those two feat modifiers in 3.5 already? So that means Alpha is exactly the same way it is treated in 3.5, right? The only difference is that you are automatically maxed in any skill you choose, right?
That doesn't seem significant enough to worry about. Most of my players already max out in their desired skills or if interested in meeting a prerequisite, sink only the minimum necessary anyway.
|
Hey, wait a second, can't you stack those two feat modifiers in 3.5 already? So that means Alpha is exactly the same way it is treated in 3.5, right? The only difference is that you are automatically maxed in any skill you choose, right?
Right it is exactly the same. You can still get the same exact skill score in either system. Plus I do not know what the dual-class skill feat is.
Zurai wrote:
"there is NO way in official WotC D&D books to have more than level+3 ranks in a single skill"
There is not in Pathfinder either. You can increase your skill bonus in both systems, but not skill ranks.
Hey, wait a second, can't you stack those two feat modifiers in 3.5 already? So that means Alpha is exactly the same way it is treated in 3.5, right? The only difference is that you are automatically maxed in any skill you choose, right?Right it is exactly the same. You can still get the same exact skill score in either system. Plus I do not know what the dual-class skill feat is.
Zurai wrote:
"there is NO way in official WotC D&D books to have more than level+3 ranks in a single skill"There is not in Pathfinder either. You can increase your skill bonus in both systems, but not skill ranks.
However, you can train in cross-class skills, which would require you to be near twice the level as if it were a class skill. The difference needs to be noted, otherwise you'd be allowing a fighter Trained in Disguise and Stealth to meet the Assassin class's skill requirements at 5th level, when he wouldn't be able to qualify until at least 13th.
Hey, wait a second, can't you stack those two feat modifiers in 3.5 already? So that means Alpha is exactly the same way it is treated in 3.5, right? The only difference is that you are automatically maxed in any skill you choose, right?Right it is exactly the same. You can still get the same exact skill score in either system.
There is not in Pathfinder either. You can increase your skill bonus in both systems, but not skill ranks.
No, you're wrong. There ARE no ranks in the Pathfinder RPG system. You have exactly one measurement of your ability with a skill: your total modifier. In 3.5, you have two: your skill ranks and your total modifier. Total modifier is only ever used for making actual rolls; ranks are used for determining qualifications. Without the ranks to serve as a qualifier, PRPG cannot be truly backwards compatible with skill-rank-required feats/PrCs from 3.5. You MUST convert them on some level. The example of a fighter getting into Assassin at 5th level is an apt one.
|
|
No, you're wrong. There ARE no ranks in the Pathfinder RPG system. You have exactly one measurement of your ability with a skill: your total modifier. In 3.5, you have two: your skill ranks and your total modifier. Total modifier is only ever used for making actual rolls; ranks are used for determining qualifications. Without the ranks to serve as a qualifier, PRPG cannot be truly backwards compatible with skill-rank-required feats/PrCs from 3.5. You MUST convert them on some level. The example of a fighter getting into Assassin at 5th level is an apt one.
Just because you are using different words does not mean it is not the same. You have your skill level which is 3 + level in pathfinder or to say another way you have 3 + level ranks in a given skill.(When maxing out your ranks and most are usually doing this to qualify for a prestige classes anyway. If they are not it doesnt matter. You do not have to take the prestige class right when you get enough skill ranks) After that in both systems you add ability bonuses, feat bonuses, etc.
No, you're wrong. There ARE no ranks in the Pathfinder RPG system. You have exactly one measurement of your ability with a skill: your total modifier. In 3.5, you have two: your skill ranks and your total modifier. Total modifier is only ever used for making actual rolls; ranks are used for determining qualifications. Without the ranks to serve as a qualifier, PRPG cannot be truly backwards compatible with skill-rank-required feats/PrCs from 3.5. You MUST convert them on some level. The example of a fighter getting into Assassin at 5th level is an apt one.Just because you are using different words does not mean it is not the same. You have your skill level which is 3 + level in pathfinder or to say another way you have 3 + level ranks in a given skill.(When maxing out your ranks and most are usually doing this to qualify for a prestige classes anyway. If they are not it doesnt matter. You do not have to take the prestige class right when you get enough skill ranks) After that in both systems you add ability bonuses, feat bonuses, etc.
Where do you keep track of that, though? Answer: you don't. There is no "skill level" in the rules at all. There is exactly one number for skills in the rules, the skill modifier, which is (level + 3 + ability + racial + feats) for trained class skills. There is no rules support for separating out the (level + 3). Without rules support, backwards compatibility is broken, because the systems at their face are totally different.
|
|
Trying not to be rude, but it is not hard to add 3 to your class level at any time. Nothing to track there. 5th level cleric 8 skill ranks. 2nd level rogue, 3rd level fighter; 8 skill ranks. See what I mean? It so insignificant that it does need to be written down anywhere.
I am sure you know every time you play 3.5 that you can not have more than 3 + your level in skill ranks. If you can remember that you should be able to remember above.
Trying not to be rude, but it is not hard to add 3 to your class level at any time. Nothing to track there. 5th level cleric 8 skill ranks. 2nd level rogue, 3rd level fighter; 8 skill ranks. See what I mean? It so insignificant that it does need to be written down anywhere.
I am sure you know every time you play 3.5 that you can not have more than 3 + your level in skill ranks. If you can remember that you should be able to remember above.
No, it's not hard. But it's not supported by the rules, either. That's my point: there is no backwards compatibility supported by the rules as written. Since the stated goal of PRPG is to be as near to 100% backwards compatible with 3.5 as possible, something needs to change in the rules.
|
|
No, it's not hard. But it's not supported by the rules, either. That's my point: there is no backwards compatibility supported by the rules as written. Since the stated goal of PRPG is to be as near to 100% backwards compatible with 3.5 as possible, something needs to change in the rules.
All I can say to that is to be patient. These rules are very far from done. The mechanic does work like that, but just because they have not specifically stated how to exactly do backward compatibility with it yet I would not worry. They will. We are not even at beta yet.
By the way they have not explained how to do any backward compatibility for much of any of the changes. They had a brief sidebar on what skills got condensed into others skills though.
This is a feedback forum, is it not? I'm giving feedback. You're trying to tell me not to give feedback and that feedback isn't necessary because any idiot can see what to do.