Director of Games
|
For information on design focus threads, please read this thread.
It has become apparent that there are a great number of opinions on the new skill system. I would like to spend a moment to talk about some alternatives that we might explore to help address some of the problems. Here are the options:
1. Pathfinder: The system presented in Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG.
2. 3.5 OGL:The system presented in the 3.5 OGL.
3. Combination: Using the system in the 3.5 OGL for characters, and using the system in the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG for NPCs and monsters (noting that they would not get additional skill choices at higher levels). This system gives NPCs and monster that multiclass a slight edge (depending on the class), but makes them quite a bit easier to create.
4. Hybrid System: In this system, characters would get a number of skill ranks equal to the number of skill choices granted by the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. Skill ranks granted by the first level of your class must be spent on class skills. Skill ranks granted after first level and those granted by a high Intelligence score at first level could be spent on any skill. Instead of the class skill/cross-class skill distinction, your bonus in a skill would be determined in the following method.
0 ranks – Untrained: Bonus = ability modifier + racial modifiers (or modifiers)
1 ranks – Trained: Bonus = 1/2 your character level + modifiers
2 ranks – Skilled: Bonus = your character level + modifiers
3 ranks – Expert: Bonus = your character level + 3 + modifiers
4 ranks – Master: Bonus = your character level +6 + modifiers
There are a few additional rules to go with this. At first level, you can have no skill higher than 2 ranks (or the skilled level). Many of the prestige class requirements would need an alteration to require expert or even master standing in some skills.
5. Scaled Skills: At first level, this system works like the system presented in the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. The only difference is that the number of skill choices is changed (classes with 2 choices still get 2, classes with 4 choices get 3, classes with 6 or more choices get 4). From this point onward, characters gain skill choices based on their class levels. In other words, additional skills are class dependent benefits. Classes with 4 initial choices (in this system) get a new skill every other level. Classes with 3 initial choices (in this system) get a new skill every 3 levels. Classes with 2 initial choices (in this system) get a new skill every 4 levels.
6. Scaled Hybrid: This is a blend of options 4 and 5, where the rate by which you get new skills depends on your class, but the bonuses derived from these skills is like in the hybrid.
Alright, those are the options I am currently considering. I want your thoughts and opinions, but what I would really like to see is some playtest feedback. Use these rules to make up a bunch of characters (or just their skill selections). Which one feels the simplest? Which one gives you the most options? Which one is the easiest to convert?
Thoughts.. discussion.. GO!
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
While it is a little harder to make up on the fly, I find that the 3.5 OGL version offers the most customization potential.
However, The Pathfinder RPG version does have its benefits (ease of use, etc.) and offers quite an interesting twist. One of the problems is compatability, though. When using 3.5 material, skills wouldn't quite click.
I think that either of those two should be used in the final version.
|
Director of Games
|
While it is a little harder to make up on the fly, I find that the 3.5 OGL version offers the most customization potential.
However, The Pathfinder RPG version does have its benefits (ease of use, etc.) and offers quite an interesting twist. One of the problems is compatability, though. When using 3.5 material, skills wouldn't quite click.
I think that either of those two should be used in the final version.
Compatability is an issue, however, the skill system is going to undergo some changes one way or the other (simply due to the fact that there was some reduction in the number of skills). In the end, I would like the numbers and DCs to come out to be roughly the same so that conversion is largely unnecessary.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
|
Compatability is an issue, however, the skill system is going to undergo some changes one way or the other (simply due to the fact that there was some reduction in the number of skills). In the end, I would like the numbers and DCs to come out to be roughly the same so that conversion is largely unnecessary.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
True. The way it is in the Alpha Document also makes it less of a hassle to determine "Maximum Ranks per Level".
Oh, and thank you for taking out Use Rope: the most utterly useless skill on the planet.
cant we just use the OGL 3,5 for the skill ponts
(if you like to simplify you can always put 4 pints i9n one skill)
But what I greatly like is the way you can choose your own skills.
maybe these two can be somewhat interlaced/combined
I Jason,
The hybrid system you propose don't seem to work if you compare it to the 3.5 OGL..
It's like your character only gain 1 rank per skill instead of 4 rank with the OGL.
A OGL fighter can choose Climb 4 and Riding 4 at level 1.
With the hybrid system, the most that fighter could have is climb 1 or riding 1...
not good option at all...
You should add +3 to the rank 1,2,3 and 4 to make it equivalent to the OGL.
The Pathfinder skill system have 2 flaws:
1) Gaining a new skill at maximum rank when you are at higher level is absolutly not the equivalent of the OGL system... This is not a small edge but a big one:
A OGL fighter 10 who decide to maximize is skills will have (from the above exemple) Climb 13 and Riding 13.
With the Pathfinder system the same fighter could have the equivalent of (as he gain a new skills at every even level):
Climb 13
Riding 13
Craft 13
Handle Animal 13
Intimidate 13
Knowledge (Dungeonnering) 13
Survival 13
This is the equivalent of 65 more skills points than with the OGL.. And the difference increase as he gain new level...
Seriously, if you want to adopt this system, the character should not gain new trained skills after level 1 unless he buy them with a Skill Training Feat (Like Starwars SAGA).
2) The other problem is since the level of training is not related to the class but to the character level, everyone will want to begin their carrer as a first level rogue.
I am all the way for simplicty, but if you want to adopt a simpler system, you should really take a look a the Starwars SAGA skill system:
Untrained: 1d20 + 1/2 character level + modifiers
Trained: 1d20 + 1/2 character level + 5 + modifiers (and skill focus give +5 instead of +3)
So every adventurer gain a bit every skill (untrained) and trained skills represent his real expertise. Simple and elegant.
I myself would like to see you keep the skill system from alpha really.
my pet peav is 2 skills at level one would like to see at lest 4 being the minimum but If you have the space skill points as a side bar would be cool. so my vote is keep the alpha system.
The Pathfinder way is the OGL system but with the skills automatically maxed out, with skill bonuses tossed in every even character level.
They are not. They could be the same if your character didn't gain new skill after level 1... See my post above.
Am I the only one who see this? Is there something I don't understand?
The Pathfinder way is the OGL system but with the skills automatically maxed out, with skill bonuses tossed in every even character level.They are not. They could be the same if your character didn't gain new skill after level 1... See my post above.
This really isn't a compatibility issue . most state blocks will have one maxed out skill. just on the fly make all skills the max .works out easy and wouldn't be hard .Any one could do that in less then a sec just eyeball and adjust. no fuss and done.
1. Pathfinder: The system presented in Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG.
2. 3.5 OGL:The system presented in the 3.5 OGL.
I say combine the two: leave skill points and use pathfinder's "reduced" skill list. This not only solves the problem of too few skill points and too many less usefull skills, but also retains 3.5 compatibility, because you can average old skill's ranks to get the skill rank in the new (folded) skill...
Still, the problem here is the 1st level character taking rogue to gain his 8+ skillpoints and then later muticlasses (some would say)...or is it really a problem at all? since a character gives up some other benefit, i don't think so...
|
|
Brief opinions before I go and playtest. Do not like options 1, 2, or 5.
3. Combination: Using the system in the 3.5 OGL for characters, and using the system in the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG for NPCs and monsters (noting that they would not get additional skill choices at higher levels). This system gives NPCs and monster that multiclass a slight edge (depending on the class), but makes them quite a bit easier to create.
As long as skill ranks for classes are changed because of the condensed skill list and that synergies are still gone, I could live with this option.
4. Hybrid System: In this system, characters would get a number of skill ranks equal to the number of skill choices granted by the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. Skill ranks granted by the first level of your class must be spent on class skills. Skill ranks granted after first level and those granted by a high Intelligence score at first level could be spent on any skill. Instead of the class skill/cross-class skill distinction, your bonus in a skill would be determined in the following method.
0 ranks – Untrained: Bonus = ability modifier + racial modifiers (or modifiers)
1 ranks – Trained: Bonus = 1/2 your character level + modifiers
2 ranks – Skilled: Bonus = your character level + modifiers
3 ranks – Expert: Bonus = your character level + 3 + modifiers
4 ranks – Master: Bonus = your character level +6 + modifiersThere are a few additional rules to go with this. At first level, you can have no skill higher than 2 ranks (or the skilled level). Many of the prestige...
I think the is the best of the options given, but I will have to playtest to make sure that the 5 different levels of ranks will also be too much recordkeeping or difficult to remember at a moments notice. And so I get this right, class/cross-class skills only apply at first level, correct?
EDIT: Oh, and I think at first level you should be able to get up to the the expert level (3 ranks). They are class skill after all.
This really isn't a compatibility issue
No, this is not a compatibility issue but it's the equivalent of giving almost 10 times (depending of class) the skills points a OGL character could have... So if you don't mind having a level 10 pathfinder character with 5 more skill at full rank than with his OGL equivalent it's fine...
Oh, and I think at first level you should be able to get up to the the expert level (3 ranks). They are class skill after all.
With the hybrid system, a level 1 fighter with only 2 skills allocation won't even be able to take expert level with one skill.. He will be stuck with one skills equivalent to rank 1... WoW!
So one system (The Pathfinder Alpha) give the equivalent of a lot more skills points and the other (The Hybrid) give less than half the equivalent with a OGL character...
I figured out the problem with the Hyrbid.
For the Hyrbrid to calculate properly, you would have to do Entrigren's adjustment And move the first skill promotion to 3rd level...else you will have Climb 16, Riding 13 for a fighter at 10th level(unless thats intended)
|
|
The more I think about it the Hybrid system would be perfect if Rank 1 was removed or something like that. Four rank levels seems like one to many. If there were a way to reduce it to 3 rank levels not including the 0 rank it would feel better.
Yes, yes, I will go playtest now. I have get my group together. I know they downloaded it, but I do not know if they have read it yet.
EDIT: Or maybe it something else. Maybe the classes will need more skill ranks then currently indicated in Pathfinder. Mabye this is the better solution. There will not be enough customization at first level then. Most classes will only have a couple of skills and they will not be very good at those skills either.
|
I agree that the Hybrid system is the best option up there. As it stands, not really a great fix, but a good one. I think that this kind of reminds me of the 2nd edition skill system. You get a certain number of skills proficiencies to distribute and at every so many levels, you had new ones to distribute. The system didn't work because some classes ended up with way more and others didn't really benefit. The one thing I did like about the system was how it divided skills. Some skills were general while others were based off your class. Maybe that could be a good fix. Divide the skills up into different categories. Anyone can pick a general skills while certain classes have access to different ones.
With the Hybrid system
A fighter level 1 could have (for exemple):
Climb (2 ranks Skilled) = rank 1 + ability modifier
A fighter level 10 could have (with 2 skills rank per level):
Climb (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Riding (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Intimidate (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Survival (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Knowledge (Dungeoneering) (4 ranks Master)= rank 16 + ability modifier
This is the equivalent of 54 more skills pts than it's OGL equivalent. This system seem unbalanced (compare to the OGL) at low level and unbalanced at higher level too...
So I really don't understand the goal of the news skills systems proposal... I first think it was for simplicity but it's seem the goal is to boost skills ranks for every character...
EDIT: I suppose wrongly that character obtain their number of skill choice in rank every level.
So a level 10 Fighter could have (5 more skills rank):
Climb (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Riding (3 ranks Master) = rank 13 + ability modifier
So really low skills ranks at lower level and about the same thing than OGL at higher level...
With the Hybrid system
A fighter level 1 could have (for exemple):
Climb (2 ranks Skilled) = rank 1 + ability modifierA fighter level 10 could have (with 2 skills rank per level):
Climb (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Riding (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Intimidate (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Survival (4 ranks Master) = rank 16 + ability modifier
Knowledge (Dungeoneering) (4 ranks Master)= rank 16 + ability modifierThis is the equivalent of 54 more skills pts than it's OGL equivalent. This system seem unbalanced (compare to the OGL) at low level and unbalanced at higher level too...
So I really don't understand the goal of the news skills systems proposal... I first think it was for simplicity but it's seem the goal is to boost skills ranks for every character...
Thats incorrect Enttigren...its 2 Ranks at the first, then another rank at 2nd and every level other after.
edit:The other thing, is there may be a need for a 1/2 Rank to allow the splitting of a rank for two lesser skills.
Thoughts.. discussion.. GO!
If I had my way, I'd stick with the 3.5 OGL version. I like it better, and compatibility is greater.
Although I am aware this isn't very popular. So in that regard, I would say the current Pathfinder version, but you have to keep an eye on multi-classing imbalances.
|
1. Pathfinder: The system presented in Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG.
2. 3.5 OGL:The system presented in the 3.5 OGL.
Of the two, I prefer the flexibility of 3.5, and the simplicity of PF. I think a compromise is needed that incorporates flexibility and simplicity. The nice thing about the PF system is that it could quite simply refer back to the 3.5 OGL with a sidebar about skill points. the rub comes in when comparing the additional skills gained every other level.
3. Combination: Using the system in the 3.5 OGL for characters, and using the system in the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG for NPCs and monsters (noting that they would not get additional skill choices at higher levels). This system gives NPCs and monster that multiclass a slight edge (depending on the class), but makes them quite a bit easier to create.
I strongly dislike the idea of different rule systems for npcs and pcs. I'd prefer to see it avoided.
4. Hybrid System: In this system, characters would get a number of skill ranks equal to the number of skill choices granted by the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. Skill ranks granted by the first level of your class must be spent on class skills. Skill ranks granted after first level and those granted by a high Intelligence score at first level could be spent on any skill. Instead of the class skill/cross-class skill distinction, your bonus in a skill would be determined in the following method.
0 ranks – Untrained: Bonus = ability modifier + racial modifiers (or modifiers)
1 ranks – Trained: Bonus = 1/2 your character level + modifiers
2 ranks – Skilled: Bonus = your character level + modifiers
3 ranks – Expert: Bonus = your character level + 3 + modifiers
4 ranks – Master: Bonus = your character level +6 + modifiersThere are a few additional rules to go with this. At first level, you can have no skill higher than 2 ranks (or the skilled level). Many of the prestige...
This system would result in much lower skill bonuses, as it would require three times the resources to gain the same benefit as either 3.5 or PF. You would need to drastically increase the starting ranks to make it remotely compatable.
Please also consider the system I've put forward here I believe it is a good compromise between 3.5 and PF.
|
|
I also think that some people have lost the idea that most skills are meant to be something that the character has trained himself to do far beyond the normal person and that most people complete tasks by taking a 10 or a 20 for their check. So the Hybrid system works well but just needs some tweeking to get it to work right. Skilled should be the highest at 1st level while experts would be at about 7th. Master could be something that comes into play around 12th. So if a fighter is skilled in climbing, he would get his character level + str mod + other mods to climb and he could take a 10 or 20 on the check.
|
|
[4. Hybrid System: In this system, characters would get a number of skill ranks equal to the number of skill choices granted by the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. Skill ranks granted by the first level of your class must be spent on class skills. Skill ranks granted after first level and those granted by a high Intelligence score at first level could be spent on any skill. Instead of the class skill/cross-class skill distinction, your bonus in a skill would be determined in the following method.
0 ranks – Untrained: Bonus = ability modifier + racial modifiers (or modifiers)
1 ranks – Trained: Bonus = 1/2 your character level + modifiers
2 ranks – Skilled: Bonus = your character level + modifiers
3 ranks – Expert: Bonus = your character level + 3 + modifiers
4 ranks – Master: Bonus = your character level +6 + modifiersThere are a few additional rules to go with this. At first level, you can have no skill higher than 2 ranks (or the skilled level). Many of the prestige...
Okay, one last thing I promise. Why did Skilled and Master have to be added? Why not just 2 ranks which are Trained equalling 1/2 character level + 3 + modifiers and Expert equalling your character level + 3 + modifiers.
I mean we jumped from each skill you pick is maxed with the same amount of skills choices to now in this option there being 4 different levels. In this hybrid system you now have to spend 3 ranks instead of one to have it maxed.
Do you plan on changing the amount of skill ranks/choices that the current Alpha 1 has, is that why?
Just curious why the elimination of skill points seems such a large point in Pathfinder? The 3.5 system basically offers both options, after all. Customization for those who like to spread skill points according to their vision of what their character is interested in, and easy "auto-maxing" for those to whom efficient and fast skill choice takes precedence. Especially with the condensed skill list, a player has it pretty easy to work with those skill points he gets, no matter which way he leans. So how come you're trying to get rid of them and replace them with, in my opinion, a more limited system?
As a pointer where I'm coming from, the 3.5E skill system offers an option for both extremes of the current debate...customization AND auto-max, and something for everybody inbetween. With any of the other proposed systems, those who really like to spread their skill points will have to houserule, and my personal bet is that many will simply houserule the 3.5E system back in as far as possible. Which, to me, means they eliminate one option that the current system offers...and for no real big gain of simplicity (except if you stay with the Alpha system, but then you have to rule away a lot of other difficulties that have been mentioned in other threads already).
Just am curious, no offense. :) Isn't often one gets to ask a game designer about his reasons for something he designs while he does so.
|
Director of Games
|
Just curious why the elimination of skill points seems such a large point in Pathfinder? The 3.5 system basically offers both options, after all. Customization for those who like to spread skill points according to their vision of what their character is interested in, and easy "auto-maxing" for those to whom efficient and fast skill choice takes precedence. Especially with the condensed skill list, a player has it pretty easy to work with those skill points he gets, no matter which way he leans. So how come you're trying to get rid of them and replace them with, in my opinion, a more limited system?
There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.
Take the following examples...
1 - Add 8 levels of ranger to a troll. Make sure to account for the upgrade to the elite array (which might affect Int).
2 - Build the skills for the following character: Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Fighter 2/Arcane Archer 4. Remember that the character's Int score increased from 14 to 15 at 4th, and to 16 at 8th.
3 - Build a party of rival 9th level adventurers to challenge the PCs. Aside from equipment (which I will get to in a later release), the skills are going to be the time consuming component.
Remember that a GM might have to tackle these problems once a week during game prep. If we can change the system to one that takes even half the time to work out, we will allow GMs to spend a lot more time coming up with fun games and a lot less time doing tedious math.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I’ve done the following conversion from 3.5 OGL to the Pathfinder skill system version for Valeros, a human Fighter 12 (From Sins of the Saviors):
He got the following skills total:
Climb +16
Intimidate +15
Ride +20
Swim +13
With the Pathfinder skills system he could have instead:
Acrobatics +14
Climb +19
Handle animal +14
Intimidate +15
Knowledge (Dungeonnering) +16
Perception +8
Ride +20
Stealth +14
Survival +14
Swim +19
A lot of skills…! In fact the equivalent of more skill ranks than Merisiel (a level 12 Rogue)…
It's really easy to allocate skills with this new system if you don't mind the idea of boosting skills for every character...
My only other concern is the way those skills are learned...
At level 14, Valeros could choose a new skills he don't have...
Let say he choose Knowledge (engineering) between Sin of the Savior and Spires of Xin-Shalast... He will then go from an untrained (+1 skill checks) to trained (+16 skill checks) instantaneously... This is the equivalent of 15 skills ranks in OGL... In OGL he would need 8 level to obtain that much skills points... For a fighter he master skill pretty fast...! :-)
I see no way to explain this from a roleplaying persepective...
There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.
Those concerns are legitimate, and are clearly echoed by many of the posters here. Clearly, some simplifying mechanic is needed.
My concerns with respect to the system proposed is that:
(a) Backward compatibility has been almost completely dispensed with; PFRPG characters have many times the equivalent skill ranks of 3.5e characters; and
(b) The system has been intentionally designed to prevent fine-tuning of skill ranks, so that allowing that capacity is difficult without resorting to an overly-complex hybrid or combination model.
If there were only some way of making the proposed system easy, but yield more or less the same number of ranks as the 3.5e system, then people could freely choose which one to use without being unable to use characters/NPCs constructed using the other. As it is, if the PCs use the 3.5 rules and Paizo publishes with the proposed rules, all NPCs will be many, many times more effective than the PCs, in terms of skills. Which means, ultimately, that the "easier" system requires a lot of tedious conversion work. If the PCs and Paizo use the new system, then all the old Dungeon adventures are non-compliant, and need a lot of conversion work. Only if the net total ranks is similar can the two systems work together without increasing prep time.
|
Director of Games
|
At level 14, Valeros could choose a new skills he don't have...
Let say he choose Knowledge (engineering) between Sin of the Savior and Spires of Xin-Shalast... He will then go from an untrained (+1 skill checks) to trained (+16 skill checks) instantaneously... This is the equivalent of 15 skills ranks in OGL... In OGL he would need 8 level to obtain that much skills points... For a fighter he master skill pretty fast...! :-)
I see no way to explain this from a roleplaying persepective...
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment. Is this really any different than an 8th level human rogue with a 14 Int picking up 11 ranks in Perform (wind instruments) at level 9.
The only difference is that it happens a bit more often in the new system.
Truth be told, these reasons are leading me to lean toward some version of the hybrid system right now. Although I am still quite open to discussion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
On monday I'll be testing the Alpha Skill rules as presented (seeing how easy it will be for my players to generate characters, and gauging how happy they'll be with their level of customisation).
My gut tells me that using the hybrid system where Characters get skill points as normal and NPCs get skill choices is the best option.
1) Characters always have more time with their character sheets than the DM ever has with an NPC, so they should feel free to customise as they see fit. If you want your Ranger to be a bit diplomatic, go for it.
2) NPC generation is one of the most TIME CONSUMING aspects of being a DM. I love Dungeon Mastering, but every time I create an adventure I dread making NPCs, especially considering the only time their stats are really used is when a PC is coming to murder them. By giving NPCs skill choices I cut the work out of NPC generation by a large degree.
Something that might be considered is getting rid of all the feats that give +2 skill/+2 other skill, or skill focus. Instead make max ranks Level +5. (I think this was done in M&M). It allows characters to focus more deeply on skills if they like, or spread their skills out more, plus it partially negates the problem generated by the folding of different skill types.
Just my $0.02
Jason, you are right concerning the rogue, but usually a player will increase all his 'Thief' skills (hide, move silently, disable device, lock picking, search) by one rank instead and put a few ranks in other skills... unless he really want to be the best flute player in town!:-)
I think the difference between OGL and the Pathfinder system is more important for class that don't have a lot of skill points in OGL...
What do you think of the Saga Starwars skill System as another alternative? It's as simple and keep the number of trained skills ranks almost the same as the OGL version...
There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.
Take the following examples...
1 - Add 8 levels of ranger to a troll. Make sure to account for the upgrade to the elite array (which might affect Int).
2 - Build the skills for the following character: Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Fighter 2/Arcane Archer 4. Remember that the character's Int score increased from 14 to 15 at 4th, and to 16 at 8th.
3 - Build a party of rival 9th level adventurers to challenge the PCs. Aside from equipment (which I will get to in a later release), the skills are going to be the time consuming component.
Remember that a GM might have to tackle these problems once a week during game prep. If we can change the system to one that takes even half the time to work out, we will allow GMs to spend a lot more time coming up with fun games and a lot less time doing tedious math.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
So, if I understand you correctly, it would be fair to say that the same target could be reached by creating a system, or method, that helps the DM in dealing with this kind of preparation? Because otherwise you simplify it for the DM, and in turn take away something from a lot of players. And I think there are actually some DMs out there who enjoy the skill point allocation game while creating NPCs. :)
Another question is how important are NPC skills *really*?
I mean outside of the Interaction Skills, Stealth and Perception, do the players ever see if the Lichlord was a master at Craft (Woodcarving)?
Skills, as far as they are useful are really a Player toy, not a DM tool.
The 3.5 skill rules weren't really broke, as far as PCs go. Do they need fixin'?
I favor characters having more skills. I say this based on two things. The first is how my AOW players speak ill of their second trip to the Whispering Cairn. The number times the PCs were injured from falls due to them having low Climb skills and armor check penalties alone nearly resulted in a TPK.
The second comes from my d20 Modern campaign. D20 Modern favors skill use, so players have more skill points and skills are more important. I would like to see characters with more skills and skills becoming a way to really define a character.
Jason my group is split over this 3 to 2 really with me that makes it for who like the new system 2 that dont right now. we are converting and will be trying it next week. also a hybrid may not be two bad so it lest the GM use the system they want to use .
I'm actually liking very much the Hybrid system presented. And I'm going to use that one in my play test. It adds back a bit of customizability into the system which I like greatly, and which I found were some of the louder complaints about the Pathfinder RPG proposed skill system.
What would be the progression of new skill ranks gained in the hybrid?
Edit: Seems I forgot to hit Submit before I headed out several hours ago. Well going back through the thread with its multitude of posts that weren't here when it was orginally posted.
There were a few concerns that the hybrid would work out to fewer ranks than the standard OGL skills, in the opposition of PRPG which ends up with an equivilant of many many more.
In response to the importance of skills of the lichlord, Craft (woodcarving) is hardly an appropiate example to make your point. And the fact is that their are a number of skills that are equally important to NPCs as they are to PCs and are not just background fluff.
Anyways, still going to give the hybrid the whirl and see how it looks and works out.
|
3. Combination: Using the system in the 3.5 OGL for characters, and using the system in the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG for NPCs and monsters (noting that they would not get additional skill choices at higher levels). This system gives NPCs and monster that multiclass a slight edge (depending on the class), but makes them quite a bit easier to create.
I personally have no problem with this system, since it solves a lot of the problems. My only problem is I like the new system for giving out new skills to players, and wish there was a simple way to give them the chance every even level to gain a large bonus skills into one new skill.
My vote, non the less, is for the above, as it allows players to have all the backwards computability while changing NPC's very little due to the ease of the new system. PCs and Monsters/NPCs wouldn't be that different since both still use the same skill DC's, and would rather always be experts in certain areas.
I think I’ve got a fine alternative:
Character begin with twice the number of skill points of
table 5.1 at level 1 (including +2 skills points for each
Intelligence pt bonus):
Skill Pts Class Skill
1 Hobby 1d20+1/2(Character level + 3)+ modifiers
2 Trained 1d20+Character level + 3 + modifiers
3 Expert 1d20+Character level + 6 + modifiers (equivalent to skill focus)
Skill Pts Cross-Class Skill
1 Hobby 1d20+1/2(Character level) + modifiers
2 Trained 1d20+1/2 (Character level + 3) + modifiers
3 Expert 1d20+1/2 (Character level + 3) + 3 + modifiers (
They could choose a maximum of Trained level at level 1 (2 skill Pts)
At every even character level after that, you gain another skill pick.
This give the flexibility of choosing hobby skills, keep the difference of skill pts between this system and the OGL to a minimum, and you can’t gain more than half-level equivalent of skill pts when you choose a new skills.
What do you think?
One thing I would ask is pleas not to make it to complex for some players skill points in 3.5 where a headache and making it even more complex will make it harder for new players to easily pick up the system . that I think is a pluses to the alpha system.
I think I’ve got a fine alternative:
Character begin with twice the number of skill points of
table 5.1 at level 1 (including +2 skills points for each
Intelligence pt bonus):Skill Pts Class Skill
1 Hobby 1d20+1/2(Character level + 3)+ modifiers
2 Trained 1d20+Character level + 3 + modifiers
3 Expert 1d20+Character level + 6 + modifiers (equivalent to skill focus)Skill Pts Cross-Class Skill
1 Hobby 1d20+1/2(Character level) + modifiers
2 Trained 1d20+1/2 (Character level + 3) + modifiers
3 Expert 1d20+1/2 (Character level + 3) + 3 + modifiers (They could choose a maximum of Trained level at level 1 (2 skill Pts)
At every even character level after that, you gain another skill pick.This give the flexibility of choosing hobby skills, keep the difference of skill pts between this system and the OGL to a minimum, and you can’t gain more than half-level equivalent of skill pts when you choose a new skills.
What do you think?
I like that system...But why .5(Level+3)+3 and not .5(level+6)?
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/feedback/alpha1/skillsFeats/alternateSkillSystem92021
I like this system.
So, we need a system that fulfills three (3) goals, in descending order of importance:
(1) Makes it MUCH easier to stat NPCs;
(2) Is workable, game-wise; and
(3) Is backward-compatible with 3.5.
As an optional extra goal, some customization ability would be good.
How about this:
* Take 3.5 system. Roll together skills with synergy bonuses, as proposed in the Pathfinder system. Synergy bonuses go the way of the dodo.
* Allow retroactive Int bonuses, so you don't have to back-subtract. Geron is dead-on with that suggestion; it'll save a lot of difficulty when statting NPC wizards.
* Ignore class vs. cross-class skills.
* Then all you need to do is pick 'em and max 'em out.
Now, in terms of our original goals:
(1) We are left with a streamlined process for DM prep, equivalent in simplicity to the Pathfinder one. Just pick skills (any, ignore cross-class and all that) and max them.
(2) Yes; exactly equivalent to 3.5 e ranks.
(3) Absolutely yes. Characters retain the same equivalent skill ranks as they would in 3.5e. If your campaign adds 2 more per class or whatver, that's fine, but some sort of backward compatability is "hard-wired" in. In the proposed systems, there is no equivalence, so that the NPCs in Paizo adventures would suddenly have many more equivalent ranks than their 3.5e predecessors (requiring prep time to convert 3.5e adventures).
(4) Customization works the same as in 3.5, for PCs, if they want it to. Therefore all the skill point people stop complaining about not being able to.
And, as an added bonus:
(5) Rogues remain a viable class past 1st level.
|
|
I like this system.
Thanks. I Linked it for those looking to discuss it.
The basics go like this:
In addition to the trained skills gained for the character's class, he gains 2 "Knacks" at first level. Instead of the trained skills gained every other level, the character gains another Knack.
Knack
The character has a talent, hobby, or interest that he maintains without fully developing the skill.
The character gains a +2 Bonus to the skill and may use the skill as if he is trained in it. A Character may not choose a skill he is fully trained in as a Knack skill.
2 Options for advancing skills:
#1:
A character may choose the same skill more than once. Knack bonuses stack.
AND
Skill Training {General Feat}
The character has spent time developing a skill to the fullest of his abilities.
Choose a skill a character has chosen as a "knack" skill. The character becomes fully trained in that skill. If it is a class skill, the character's bonus is equal to his character level+3. If it is cross-classed, the character bonus is equal to 1/2 (character level+3)
Or #2
Taking a "Knack" in a skill twice fully develops the skill into a "trained skill" with the bonus being lvl+3 for class skills and [lvl+3]/2 for cross-class skills.
I like that system...But why .5(Level+3)+3 and not .5(level+6)?
Because it's the equivalent of Skill Focus (and you gain +3 even on a cross-class skill)
I like that system...But why .5(Level+3)+3 and not .5(level+6)?
Because they aren't the same mathematically.
Etrigans way is .5level + 4.5 + attribute, and your way is .5level + 3 + attribute.
There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.
I will try very hard to be polite here. I have been playing D&D starting with no skills, moving to skills as feats and now using skill points. Never have I had that much of a problem with preping, not with weekly games and not with by-weekly games. Your examples are, frankly, straw men. It I am using an advanced anything, its not something meant to be killed in one session and taking a little extra time is only going to benefit me as I use the recurring villian. As for an anti party, I most certainly am not doing that on the fly and will spend at least as much time on it as the players do on the real party. Acting like these are on-the-fly activities is ridiculous. Acting like I don't want maximum flexibility for such major components of my stories is ignorent.
Changing the skill system, which is the fundamental mechanic of 3.5, means that the PFRPG is no longer using 3.5 at all. I will have to spend FAR more time rebuilding every creature in Pathfinder than I have ever spent in just using standard monsters with their default skills modified for special purposes if I expect to be able to use both new Pathfinder adventures and all the older 3.5 adventures I have with the same PCs, which gives the lie to the whole "it should be compatable" company line.
I know how harsh this sounds, and I apologize for that, but I find the explainations somewhat condescending (which I know you didn't intend) and feel bluntness is required in response.