
Stephen Klauk |

I posted this in another thread, but think it might be worth its own discussion.
A thought has hit me. Several of the skills are being folded together, such as Perception, Stealth and the like. What if we keep the subskills, and have it that if you have one of at least one of the subskills as a class skill, you are treated as being cross-class in all the others?
For example, a rogue could take Acrobatics (Jump) as a class skill. He would be considered cross-classed automatically in Acrobatics (Tumble) and Acrobatics (Balance). If he wanted to, he could take one of the other Acrobatics (say Balance) and tune it up to a class skill.
This would give a benefit to some PCs with the grouping of certain skills, and still retain a high degree of backwards compatability (NPCs, who for example, have lots of ranks of Hide and Move Silently can be considered to have invested in Stealth (Hide) and Stealth (Move Silently)).
This could "incorporate" a type of synergy back into the game that might be far easier to track.
The Knowledges, Crafts, and Professions could be singled out to not have cross-over, or allowed to cross over depending on how sentiment blows. I could see it going either way - perhaps enforcing no automatic crossover for "trained only" skills.
It would also allow us to divide Spellcasting into Spellcasting (Divine) and Spellcasting (Arcane) and still allow some cross-through with the two groups able to somewhat identify each other's spells.

Anglachel |

A thought has hit me. Several of the skills are being folded together, such as Perception, Stealth and the like. What if we keep the subskills, and have it that if you have one of at least one of the subskills as a class skill, you are treated as being cross-class in all the others?
It seems to me that the whole point of removing the points system was for the sake of simplicity.
On the other hand, it will be quite simple to convert NPC to the new system, just forget the pluses.

Kirth Gersen |

We played for years using a point-buy system with combined skills, and then you could purchase "specialization" in a sub-skill (equivalent to an individual 3.5e skill) for a lower cost than improving the entire overall (Pathfinder) skill. It worked out great for us, but then again, we enjoy using skills. For all the people who hate skill points already, it would drive them to apoplexy.
So, if you're like we are, I'd recommend making that an optional houserule and see if your characters dig it. I'll be working on some mechanics for that as well, and will post them once we've tried them out, if you're interested.

Stephen Klauk |

I'm not advocating skill points, just the ability to specialize in a skill, and it giving you some bonus to the related skills.
A detailed example:
A 1st level rogue decides to "buy" the skills Acrobatic (Tumble), Deception (Bluff), Escape Artist, Knowledge (Local), Linguistics (Forgery), Perception (Search), Stealth (Hide) and Stealth (Move Silently).
Discounting ability modifiers and racial modifiers, his skills would look like:
Acrobatics (Climb) +2
Acrobatics (Jump) +2
Acrobatics (Tumble) +4
Deception (Bluff) +4
Deception (Sense Motive) +2
Escape Artist +4
Knowledge (Local) +4
Knowledges are "trained only", so he would not get +2 to all other knowledges.
Linguistics (Decipher Script) is "trained only", so he would not get +2 to this*
Linguistics (Forgery) +4
Perception (Listen) +2
Perception (Search) +4
Perception (Smell) +2
Perception (Spot) +2
Perception (Touch) +2
Stealth (Hide) +4
Stealth (Move Silently) +4
* Though, personally I have some contention with this, especially if the skills are folded, having these two drop the "trained only" so the example rogue would have +2 to Decipher Script.
-----------
When the rogue hits 2nd level, he could, for example pick Acrobatics (Jump) to make a class skill, bumping it up to a +5 instead of it being at +2.
This gives some boost to PCs, but retains more compatibility with the old system than the suggested system. If you have an NPC, for example who had ranks in Hide and Move Silently, rather than reallocate those skill points, you could just rule he took the two subskills. Also means that some of those feats that were going to be dropped (Alertness, Stealthy, etc.) can actually be retained - which means less conversion is required for existing monsters/NPCs.

![]() |

A thought has hit me. Several of the skills are being folded together, such as Perception, Stealth and the like. What if we keep the subskills, and have it that if you have one of at least one of the subskills as a class skill, you are treated as being cross-class in all the others?
The simulationist rules monkey in me perked right up on reading your post! ;)
I think it would, at the very least, be good to include as an optional rule for Pathfinder RPG. The only reason I'd hesitate to support this for core is the extra book-keeping concerning which sub-skill is the one you bought, as well as later updates to sub-skills formerly considered cross-class by benefiting from another having ranks in it. Also, as DM, there's some extra overhead adjudicating all the sub-skills in-game based on which one most applies; e.g., one character best perceiving something by sight whereas someone else might hear it first and tracking conditional modifiers for each, etc.
Not that this one thing by itself would really be too much extra work, but several little things can add up to a lot of stuff to track and for my group of new-ish players (also as a new-ish DM) I'm always looking for as many tiny ways as I can to smooth out the bumps during play.

Stephen Klauk |

I think it would, at the very least, be good to include as an optional rule for Pathfinder RPG. The only reason I'd hesitate to support this for core is the extra book-keeping concerning which sub-skill is the one you bought, as well as later updates to sub-skills formerly considered cross-class by benefiting from another having ranks in it.
This could be tracked with a "Trained" checkbox by the skills :)
Also, as DM, there's some extra overhead adjudicating all the sub-skills in-game based on which one most applies; e.g., one character best perceiving something by sight whereas someone else might hear it first and tracking conditional modifiers for each, etc.
Quote:Ouch...though I don't think that will be much different than with the current system - i.e., if its a DC 30 to See an invisible target, the PC might try an easier DC 10 to Hear him, or the case where one PC fails and the other make it, tracking seperate modifiers to combat. "I can see him!" *Shoots arrow* "Where?" *Wild Swing*.