|
Although I like Meepo's ideas on many levels, I don't care much for the cross-class reduction of a previous rank when you are multiclassing... if, that is, something that he put into this (I'm still going over these rules a bit). I'm like one of the preivous posters above... when you learn something, you learn it and know it... so if I gained Climb as a fighter and go on to be a wizard, I shouldn't have forgotten how to climb as effectively.
I think you have it backwards.
As I understand it, once you have taken a Skill as a Class Skill, you always roll for it as a Class Skill, regardless of Multi-classing. If you Multi-class, any previous ranks in Class Skills of the new class are now treated (mathematically) as Class Skill ranks.
So with your character above, your Fighter/Wizard climbs just as well, and can still improve his climbing. He also will find his previous Arcane Knowledge to be more effective now.
I still firmly believe Jason's Scaled modification of the alpha system is the best one offered yet.
The only revision I made to it for my game was that I allowed players to buy 2 class skills at cross-class levels for 1 skill choice. This may sound like it could get confusing, but its really not bad since it will be the only cross-class bonus they have for an existing class skill. These would not upgrade if they multi-classed into another class with that skill as a class-skill since it is already a class-skill.
This system very closely mimiced their skill totals at 1st and 6th levels (it was actually still an improvement due to the combining of skills). It also resolved the rogue front-loading issue. A rogue 1st level/fighter 19 winds up with 10 class skills (4 of which are rogue). A fighter 1st level/rogue 19 winds up with 11 class skills (9 of which are rogue).
While many posters here don't like the idea of instant mastery of a new skill at high levels, skill points cause the opposite problem which is that most classes cannot acquire a new skill at high levels in a quantity that makes success likely. Even if a rogue spends all of their skill points on Perception at 15th level they're still going up against opponents that have 18 pts in Stealth. They have to let all of their skills slip for better than two levels to master this single class skill and are virtually incapable of catching back up. For any other class the problem is infinitely worse.
The Scaled system also makes cross-class truly worth buying for non-multi-class characters. A fighter with a Perception bonus of 1/2 level +3 is much harder to sneak up on and didn't have to sacrifice all of his other skills to achieve this. Epic Meepo's system only benefits multi-class characters in this regard.
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.
Aftrer more consideration, I really like option 3. It seems to be the best (or worst) of both worlds. Instead of combination, it should be considered a compromise.
|
Doesn't that just bring us back to the multiclassing rogue munchkin at first level?
Taking a rogue level is always a good idea under this system. The drawback hurts spellcasters most as they miss out on one level of spell progression at 20th level. Most martial classes only loose out on 1 BAB point.
But if a player wants to skill optimize his PC he will find a way.Not to be a naysayer, but this does not seem to be an improvement over the OGL for me. Dividing by two was never very hard. Retroactive intelligence bonuses make things somewhat easier though.
It is not the dividing by two, but to keep track when a skill changed from CC to Class Skill can be a chore.
This is easy for players as PCs level up slowly, but can be confusing for DM if the stat out NPCs.
Doesn't that just bring us back to the multiclassing rogue munchkin at first level?
. . .
Not to be a naysayer, but this does not seem to be an improvement over the OGL for me.
Yup, this brings said Rogue back for revenge . . . though the effect isn't quite as profound. A prospective wizard can still take Rogue at 1st, load up on Wizard skills, and then cross-class to have those skills magically improved to maximum effectiveness.
Because the skills aren't auto-maxed at each subsequent level, there's no way the Wizard is going to be able to maintain them all at their max, but this does dramatically increase her skill options through low levels.
I kindof feel that the SRD may have been set up the way it was for a reason, and that this suggestion opens it up to being gamed.
If nothing else, this will require extensive playtesting. Frankly, I'm still hoping for a "fixed" alpha system, and I still think the solution lies in finding a better way to represent class-typical skills than the somewhat cumbersome "class vs. cross-class" distinction.
|
|
How about removing the x4 Skill Points on the first level, instead granting a +1 or +3 Bonus on all learned skills? This would not only reduce the frontloadedness of the Rogue, but also the pain of Racial Hit Dice. It would also accentuate the difference between a trained and an untrained skill. +3 would be the most compatible with the OGL system, also it might encourage distributing skill points on lots of different skills on the first few levels.
It is not the dividing by two, but to keep track when a skill changed from CC to Class Skill can be a chore.
This is easy for players as PCs level up slowly, but can be confusing for DM if the stat out NPCs.
It really shouldn't. When making a high level NPC it only really matters what skills are class skills. Which is all of the skills on all of the character's class lists. The minor difficulty in seeing that requirements for PrCs and Feats are meet when they need to be. Anyone who hung around the Wizard's Character Optimization boards know a particularly nasty/rigorous 20th level build I could crib as a trial. I don't want to know when classes were taken (aside from which one was first), what order feats were taken, or the skill totals. Just a list of the classes, feats, and stats used.
That brings me to another question, backwards 3.5 issue. Should we use the Ranks or the 'Rank' Bonus when using older 3.5 3e PrCs and feats, under Epic's system. For direct compatibly with supposed power levels I'd say use the Bonus instead of the Ranks.
Multiclassing is the elephant in the room when dealing with the skill system. If there was no multiclassing it would be very easy to create a simple skill system that captures a class' skill set. .... That doesn't mean we should remove multiclassing.
|
I strongly dislike the idea of different rule systems for npcs and pcs. I'd prefer to see it avoided.
I once thought as you do. But taking this into consideration:
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.
I am warming up to allowing NPCs and monsters to have this alternate creation and number use.
My players all love their skill points, and do NOT want to see them taken away by PRPG. But as a DM I could easily see making this work. That's my vote.
-DM Jeff
I've been reading the Pathfinder Alpha booklet and, for the most part, am quite pleased with what I see. There are some really good ideas, here - decent fixes to some of 3.5's problems, without warping the game beyond recognition. I do have some serious reservations with the change to the skill system, however. Here are just the high points of what is, frankly, a pretty long list of potential trouble spots:
1) A logic problem: Because ranks have been replaced by a flat level-based bonus (effectively, level+3 or half that, as appropriate), modifiers will regularly jump from +0 to +X (fill in any large number you like), on a regular basis. For example, say that I have a fighter who does not take Survival at 1st level but takes it later, at 6th level. The level-based part of the bonus will jump from +0 to +9, over night, which makes no sense at all. And that's small potatoes compared to what happens when you multiclass and a *lots* of level-based modifiers suddenly double...
2) Another logic problem: A skill that a character never uses still improves, if it has *ever* been taken (substantially, if it is a class skill). For example, let's say that I make a blacksmith-turned-fighter, who, quite sensibly, takes Craft at first level (level-based portion of the bonus = +4). Over the next few months or even years, he is much too busy adventuring to ever touch an anvil. Yet, by 9th level, say, the level-based portion of his Craft modifier has risen to +12, automatically. As a DM, I'm actually kind of picky about players adding ranks to skills that they never use, and this system will not only encourage that sort of silliness but actually enforce it.
3) A character creation problem: It is completely impossible to make a character who "dabbles" in a skill or one who is familiar with many skills but a master of none. In fact, if you're a fighter or other "two-skill" character, you can't even be familiar with an low-average-sort-of-number of skills and master of none. And heaven help the fighter or other "two-skill" character with an Intelligence score below 10. One skill at first level? That's just absurd... (Actually, I'm making an assumption, here, that you always get at least one skill, regardless of Intelligence. If this isn't true - and a literal interpretation of the rules indicates that might be the case - then things are even worse. And either way, note that a human's extra skill can effectively be removed by a really poor Intelligence modifier, although this is, thankfully, only true in extreme cases.)
4) Another character creation problem: Any bonus you get for Intelligence or being human effectively applies only to your beginning skills. In other words, a +1 bonus gives you an extra skill, but only that skill improves, along with the other handful you get for your class, thereafter (and it does so automatically, whether it makes sense or not). You can't "spread" the bonus around, by applying it to different skills, as time goes by. I call this a character creation problem, because I have seen a lot of players use the Intelligence or human bonus to round out their characters, "dabbling" in skills, as described above, especially when their classes are "skill-weak". This also begs the question: what happens when your Intelligence score improves? Do you instantly pick up a new skill, causing the level-based portion of the bonus to jump from +0 to level+3 (or half that, as appropriate)? If so, see #1, above.
5) Yet another character creation problem: Some skills just don't work right, this way. For example, a typical bard will probably have several "versions" of Perform - say, Dance, Oratory, Singing, and an instrument group - but this will leave her with only a couple of "slots" left for adventuring skills (in standard 3.5, she would probably vary the ranks a bit, making some less that maximum, to free up some points). It also means that her effective expertise with every one of these versions will be *exactly* the same, which seems rather coincidental, to say the least, and probably will not work, at all, with the player's picture of the character. And Linguistics... Ugh. If I take it at first level, I get no extra languages, but, thereafter, I gain a new language every time I get a skill choice, even if no opportunity to learn such a tongue presents itself? Or, better still, if I take it at, say, 8th level, I suddenly learn four languages? (And, yes, the DM will have to be just that illogically generous, or the most common use of the skill will be lost, and no one will ever take it.) Am I reading this right? If so, then it seems pretty clear that the change was made to fix the shortcomings in the skill system (otherwise, if it was left as Language skill, from 3.5, you would start with two or four languages and get a language every level or two, depending on whether Linguistics was a class or cross-class skill - which would be at least as bizarre). So how do I make a character who just knows *one* extra language, without being a linguistic expert (a condition which, by the way, is the norm throughout much of the real world)?
6) And yet another character creation problem: Because you gain a new skill choice, at the equivalent of maximum possible rank, every couple of levels, it is fairly easy for some classes to simply run out of class skills, long before they run out of skill choices (look at a level 14 human fighter with a 12 Intelligence, for example, or a even a level 2+ human wizard with an 18 Intelligence, who does not really want to take every Knowledge specialization under the sun or who has no interest in Craft or Profession). Yes, you can make up the difference with cross-class skills, but that is going to be small consolation for a player who gets half-value for his skill choices. It will just be one more reason for characters to take single-level multiclasses, to open up a whole lot of new class skills, or waste specializations on things they really have no interest in.
And please keep in mind that these are only the obvious, general, fairly serious problems. We came up with several more obscure, character-specific, minor problems, as well, but I haven't bothered to get into these (this message is long enough, as is).
We intend to try out Pathfinder soon, but we have already decided to skip its skill system and stick will 3.5's skill ranks. Yes, that isn't perfect playtesting, but it seems pretty clear, even without actual game play, that there is a serious problem here. The bottom line is that the minimal reduction in bookkeeping effort (the reason for the change, I presume) does not even begin to balance the many problems that crop up with actual implementation of the replacement system.
Since I don't want to end on a negative note, though, let me again say that everything else looks pretty cool. Soon we'll see how cool, in actual play.
|
|
I guess that everyone just skipped over my suggestion. It actually solved a good number of problems that people have.
It does have good points but for a few reasons I'm having a hard time fully letting go of the system we already use, 3.5's core, which my group has no problems with.
Do away with Skill Points as they are and, well, there's this one book written by a pair of folks with names like Mike McArtor and F. Wesley Schneider called Complete Scoundrel. Half my group uses the skill tricks in here that cost...ta da, Skill Points. Two players in two different campaigns of mine also have Weapons of Legacy on their person, at various levels costing them, ta da...Skill Points.
I'm not here to argue the usefulness of these books. Suffice to say my group uses them both regularly, and my players and I would like as much done to keep this backwards compatibility in mind when fiddling.
-DM Jeff
|
|
I still firmly believe Jason's Scaled modification of the alpha system is the best one offered yet.
The only revision I made to it for my game was that I allowed players to buy 2 class skills at cross-class levels for 1 skill choice.
I just brought up this idea in the "Profession" skill thread; great minds think alike :D
This would still leave true cross class skills still costing 1 skill slot, but gives a bit more versatility and broader selection for characters so that "flavor" skills don't get completely neglected.
|
|
I guess that everyone just skipped over my suggestion. It actually solved a good number of problems that people have.It does have good points but for a few reasons I'm having a hard time fully letting go of the system we already use, 3.5's core, which my group has no problems with.
Do away with Skill Points as they are and, well, there's this one book written by a pair of folks with names like Mike McArtor and F. Wesley Schneider called Complete Scoundrel. Half my group uses the skill tricks in here that cost...ta da, Skill Points. Two players in two different campaigns of mine also have Weapons of Legacy on their person, at various levels costing them, ta da...Skill Points.
I'm not here to argue the usefulness of these books. Suffice to say my group uses them both regularly, and my players and I would like as much done to keep this backwards compatibility in mind when fiddling.
-DM Jeff
My group is also in love with skill tricks for whatever reason.
So far in our discussions we're settling on the idea that a single skill selection can be used to purchase a class skill, or two class skills at cross class levels.
In addition, each skill trick would count as one of those "half" skill slot selections. That makes them cost a bit more overall, but it's the best fix we have so far.
|
Well I did mention in my fix a way to use skill points as well. It works and makes creation easier. If you remove the cross-class only able to be half of you max ranks, it removes that complexity of creating higher level characters.
Ex. I want to make a 5th level Fighter.
First I need to figure out how many points he has. He has an Int of 10 and is dwarven. Even if he upped his int, it would have no change. So his skill points are 16. With the consolidation of skills and the removal of the the half ranks, this is easy.
Acrobatics 8 Ranks
Tumble 4 Ranks(and it cost me 8)
Lets say after the players deal with him enough, he levels. Now he is sixth level. 2 more skill points
Acrobatics 8 Ranks
Tumble 5 Ranks(and it cost me 10)
If we limit skills only to the max but have them still cost double, it doesn't get confusing at higher levels.
Well met Plognark!
Skill tricks are an interesting challenge. After I read Complete Scoundrel I liked the idea, but I hated the implementation of them. It seemed to me that someone with high skill levels should be able to pull off these tricks by virtue of being highly skilled alone, not by specializing in the trick itself. So I went through the whole list and decided on prerequisites for each of them and altered DCs and incorporated the whole list into normal skill use. Basically I gave them away for free to anyone who had the appropriate skill ranks.
Using the Pathfinder system I would remove the rank prerequisites and require that they be trained in the appropriate skill (perhaps trained at class levels for some tricks, some tricks require training in multiple skills, etc). I would then use a set DC so that as they get higher level the tricks become easier.
So with your character above, your Fighter/Wizard climbs just as well, and can still improve his climbing. He also will find his previous Arcane Knowledge to be more effective now.
So I have just to invest a single point in a skill to always treat it as a class skill ? It seems open to abuse...
Once mor e I wonder while we always want to "punish" cross-class skills instead of "rewarding" class skills. For example give a +2 expertise bonus to a single class skill every 3 character level that can be taken multiple time or a Class level bonus to a single class skill every 4 character levels.|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
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
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.
1) It looks like Saga/4e and is too simple. As a result, it breaks most of the classes in other books when used in PRPG.
2) The existing 3.5 OGL system is too complicated and needs simplification.
3) Of your 3 choices, the best. But I prefer #5 or #6 (my two suggestions.)
4) Breaks a lot of Prestige Class entry requirements.
Here are two of my choices:
5) Make all skills like they are if you take Able Learner. All skill ranks cost 1 (except Speak Lang) whether a class skill or cross class skill. Max ranks is like 3.5 OGL system. Make Intelligence that isn't temporary provide skill ranks (for example from +1 INT from leveling or +2 INT headband.) When you suffer a permanent INT loss (like removing an item) remove skill ranks from the skills with the highest ranks first. So if you have 5 ranks in one skill and 4 in another then lose 2 INT with 2 HD you lose 1(INT mod)*2(HD) = 2 skill ranks. You must choose to lower the 5 rank to 4, then you can choose between the two 4 rank skills to lose another rank.
6) For example: A class with four class skills and 2+INT skill ranks would choose 2 skills to be trained skills. This choice can't change. You get 1 rank per trained skill per level of a class with that skill as a trained skill. Your INT bonus can be used to buy ranks in any skill at 1 point each so long as any class has that skill as a class skill. When you get +1 INT bonus from a permanent (inherent or 4th level up ability change) you a rank per HD you can use to buy any skill for 1 point each.
My goal is to retain a great deal of compatibility between the systems (3.5 OGL and PRPG), but at the same time make building a character a much simpler process. From my perspective, the majority of the time making a character is spent on skill progression.
I could have sworn I had posted here none too long ago.
Anyways, Retro-Intelligence on skills = headache no matter how its sliced. Most definitely not needed.
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'?
This is how I feel - it's important for the PCs to be able to do whatever they want with their points/characters and the alpha system takes this away from them.
The first thing my players said was; "But we rarely keep all of our skills maxed out once we can hit the base DCs! By mid-level we like to start playing around with our points and put them where the story takes us."
For example our Paladin was a good friend of an Epic Bard NPC who died in our last game. As a result she decided to take some (2) ranks in Perform (Story telling) in his honor, telling tales he shared with her and a few of her own. This was brilliant roleplaying, backed up by the mechanics.
We all agreed it just would not have felt right using the alpha rules as the Paladin would have magically been as good as she possibly could've been at story telling - despite only just starting down this road.
Design Focus: Skills
Here are the options:
1. Pathfinder
2. 3.5 OGL
3. Combination
4. Hybrid System
5. Scaled Skills
6. Scaled Hybrid
Thoughts.. discussion.. GO!
(SNIP'D TO PREVENT ENTIRE RE-POSTING!)
3 is the best option by far - I think that most DMs already do this. So as to not spend hours working out how many ranks in (Basket Weaving) your NPC has, work out how many skills the NPC can keep maxed out, then choose that many skills for them based on what they should know and what they will use for the encounter they're in.
The only NPCs that need a full write up are the ones who'll be used regularly and any DM who works out every skill for every-single-12th-level-worm infesting the zombie's corpse is really making work for themselves. And that is not a problem with the system.
Any of the other changes are perhaps a little too major with regard to backward compatibility. Sure the straight-up skill for skill math can be worked out easily, but not so for all of the other 3.5 stuff out there - e.g. prestige classes, NPCs, monster entries, weapons of legacy etc. etc.
Again - talking about my group - what we feel is the problem with skills as they stand in 3.5 is that there is no way to get all the ones you want without multiclassing. In response to the alpha this is what we came up with, and will be using in our next couple of games to help with the playtest (I'll type it up on the boards when we're done!):
At every other level, when you don't get a feat, you can choose either to gain 4 bonus skill points or to make any one cross-class skill a class skill.
We're happy with how that plays out so far.
Thanks again for giving us, the players, a chance to participate!
Peace
tfad
|
|
If we limit skills only to the max but have them still cost double, it doesn't get confusing at higher levels.
I personally disagree with this. If they cost double when you take them as a cross-class skill, but cost single when you take it as a class skill, you have to know when each skill was purchased. That means if you take a 15th level character (say rogue 5/fighter 5/wizard 5) you need to know if he used his fighter skills to buy fighter skills or wizard cross-class skills.
Here's the thing about spending two skill points for one rank. You can't just check your math. If you come up with a total for ranks, but some of them MIGHT be cross-class, it's really hard to know you did it correct.
If class skills and cross-class skills cost the same number of points (even if they give you a different benefit), by looking at the ranks on the sheet, you know how many skill points were used. That means that if I come to the boards and decide to use your creation, I can just total the ranks, see if it matches the total number of skill points by level, and as long as the total matches, I know you did skills correctly, so I don't have to worry about reassigning skills to make sure it is 'right' before putting it in my game.
1 rank = 1 point is easy. It is quickly discernible. And even if you don't get the full benefit of that one point, you can at least see where it was spent quickly and easily.
Thinking about how the Alpha rules have kind of sold me on simplicity in all of this, I have a few more thoughts.
Skills, then feats, rinse, repeat
I really like that there is a pattern of Feat/skill/feat in level progression under the alpha rules. Also, especially for the low skill point classes, getting a handful of skill points every level is kind of anti climactic, while getting them every other level is a bit more of a boon, something to look forward to.
What about keeping the "every other" progression for skills and feats. I already know that this could be abused if someone wanted to take rogue for all of their "alternate" levels, but then they must want skill points pretty badly, eh? That doesn't really bother me all that much.
Retroactive intelligence bonus
Not only is it a pain to figure out when someone got their int bonus raised and how it affects skills, given time those extra smarts should eventually yield some new insights into old skills. I say as soon as its a permanent int bump, let the new total come into play.
Less hassle with cross class skills
Instead of fiddling too much with this or that class not having enough skill points, why not cut to the heart of the problem a bit more directly. All ranks of a given skill cost one point to buy, but cross class skills can only be brought up to (level+3)/2.
Its simpler than jumping back and forth between what is and isn't a class skill and remembering how many half ranks you purchased and the like. And it still does what its suppose to, i.e. says its not the main thing your class is good at.
Mind you, I'm still fond of the really simple way skills work under the Alpha rules, but it seems like it doesn't work for everyone, and I completely get that, but the above are the things that really dawned on me about why I liked the Alpha rules so much.
Retroactive intelligence bonus
Not only is it a pain to figure out when someone got their int bonus raised and how it affects skills, given time those extra smarts should eventually yield some new insights into old skills. I say as soon as its a permanent int bump, let the new total come into play.
I have used rectroactive Intelligence bonus to skill points ever since 3rd edition came out. It was one of the very first things I houseruled. It simplifies designing high-level NPC wizards immensely, and the players love it. There's nothing like getting a whole bunch of new skill points to go wild with!
|
Alright, Epic Meepo's system seems to be gaining traction here. Excellent. The description was way back on page 3 and included a lot of explaining so - if I may - let me try to summarize it here briefly. PLEASE correct anything I misstate!!
[Attempting to paraphrase Epic Meepo]
Use the current 3.5/OGL skill-point system with the following changes:
1) Cost per rank in any skill = 1 skill point
2) Maximum ranks in any skill = character level +3
3) Skill checks
* (for class skills) = 1d20 + ability modifier + rank
* (for cross-class skills) = 1d20 + ability modifier + rank/2
By shifting the distinction between class and cross-class skills away from cost-per-rank and to how skill checks are calculated, old cross-class skills are automatically upgraded when the skill becomes a class skill.
4) Once a skill becomes a class skill for a character (due to multi-classing or maybe a feat), it remains a class skill even if it is not on the 'class skills' list for the characters current class; i.e., once a class skill, always a class skill
5) Increases in skill points due to changes in Intelligence are applied retroactively
6) I didn't see this mentioned, but I assume a consolidated skills list is used
7) I didn't see this mentioned either, but I assume skill synergies are gone
[/Attempting to Paraphrase Epic Meepo]
|
|
2. A feat that increases one class skill's maximum ranks to be level + 10, likely limited to Craft and Profession skills (for blacksmiths and similar experts, or someone who really really wants to specialize).
I suggested the following a while back...
Feats like Skill Mastery could allow characters to bypass the level+3 cap by +3 (= level+6) and Improved Skill Mastery by another +3 (= level+9), so you could create a one-skill genius, but it would cost you several feats.
|
|
A few posts ago I tried to restate Epic Meepo's system for the record without biases or comments. Now I'd like to share my thoughts.
First off, great system. It makes statting up high-level NPCs much easier (as you demonstrated) yet is very compatible with 3.5/OGL rules. If this is where we end up, I will be content. Nice job.
Second, while switching back and forth between a class-skills formula and a cross-class-skills formula is much easier than recalculating ranks (as in 3.5/OGL), it still involves two different formulas and some folks will call that complicated.
What if instead of two formulas, you went with just one (1d20 + ability mod. + rank) but assign a +2 bonus all the skills on character's 'class skills' list? No more sometimes dividing by two, just add-add-add.
* You could use the same class/cross-class lists as in the alpha doc.
* It would give characters a little something in their class skills even if they didn't put any points there.
* It would make sure somebody who max'ed out a cross-class skill still couldn't be as good as somebody else who had it max'ed as a class skill.
* You could still keep Meepo's once a class skill, always a class skill rule to make statting multi-classed NPCs easier.
Meepo's example's are great but they don't show anyone with cross-class skills.
"Build the skills for the following character: Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Fighter 2/Arcane Archer 4."
The character has a final Int of 16, and this applies retroactively...
That's a total of 55+30+10+28 = 123 skill points ... max rank in any skill = 17...
123 skill points / 17 ranks per skill = seven skills at 17 ranks and one skill at 4 ranks.
The NPC takes:
17 ranks in Appraise (class skill [rogue], base +17 on skill checks)
17 ranks in Disable Device (class skill [rogue], base +17 on skill checks)
17 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) (class skill [wizard], base +17 on skill checks)
17 ranks in Perception (class skill [rogue], base +17 on skill checks)
17 ranks in Spellcraft (class skill [wizard], base +17 on skill checks)
17 ranks in Stealth (class skill [rogue], base +17 on skill checks)
4 ranks in Survival (class skill [arcane archer], base +4 on skill checks)
What if he took 17 ranks in Heal (a cross-class skill for all four classes)? 17 ranks ÷ 2 = 8.5, round down = 8, so base +8 on skill checks. No, it's not really hard math, but anytime you've got to divide or round, some folks will say it's too complicated.
If one were to get rid of the cross-class skills formula and just give +2 to all class skills instead, you'd get:
17 ranks in Heal (cross-class skill, base +17 on skill checks)
17 ranks in Disable Device (class skill [rogue], base +19 (17+2) on skill checks)
17 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) (class skill [wizard], base +19 (17+2) on skill checks)
17 ranks in Perception (class skill [rogue], base +19 (17+2) on skill checks)
17 ranks in Spellcraft (class skill [wizard], base +19 (17+2) on skill checks)
17 ranks in Stealth (class skill [rogue], base +19 (17+2) on skill checks)
4 ranks in Survival (class skill [arcane archer], base +6 (4+2) on skill checks)
Practically the same thing, skill totals end up being a tad bit higher, more noticeably so at low levels, less spread between class and cross-class skills (-2 vs 50%), but only one formula and even less math. Me? I'm okay with either system. Heck, I'm okay with 3.5/OGL. I'm just trying to simplify even more to make the math-phobes happy.
|
|
I do think that there are a couple of additional changes that should be considered. The x4 skill points at 1st level is also a little more confusing.
I also want to pitch this idea one more time.
Eliminate the x4 skill points at 1st level in favor of a slightly faster progression overall. DeadDMWalking suggested:
Rogue 12+Int
Ranger/Bard 10+Int
Barbarain, Druid, Monk 8+Int
Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard 6+Int
Skill points start lower but catch up between levels 5-10 and end up higher.**
The magic trick that this accomplishes is it means, when looking at an NPC you're going to stat up, it doesn't matter which level they took first!
Going back to that Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Fighter 2/Arcane Archer 4, under 3.5/OGL and most of the alternative systems presented thus far, it REALLY matters a lot whether she was a Rogue first or a Wizard or a Fighter. That complicates calculating her total skill points. Get rid of x4 at 1st level and it doesn't matter anymore.
In effect you've got one big pool of skill points to max out or spend however you want, no worries, no restrictions, especially if you go with Epic Meepo's all ranks cost 1 point system or the class skills as a +2 bonus system I suggested above.
** Note, if you use my class skills as a +2 bonus system (which has a bigger impact at low levels and less at high levels), these two effects would tend to neutralize each other.
I stated out the Rogue/Wizard/Fighter/Arcane Archer to see the difference.
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.
Her final Int of 16 applies to all levels retroactively, so +3 to each level...
She gets (12+3)x2 = 30 skill points for 2 levels of rogue.
She gets (6+3)x6 = 54 skill points for 6 levels of wizard.
She gets (6+3)x2 = 18 skill points for 2 levels of fighter.
She gets (6+3)x4 = 36 skill points for 4 levels of arcane archer (I assume arcane archers would 6 skill points/level, like a wizard).
30+54+18+36 = a total of 138 skill points. With the max rank in any skill still level+3: 2+6+2+4+3 = 17. In her quickest, most max'ed out form 138 skill points ÷ 17 ranks per skill = 8 skills at 17 ranks and 1 skill at 2 ranks.
She takes:
17 ranks in Acrobatics = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for rogue)
17 ranks in Deception = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for rogue)
17 ranks in Disable Device = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for rogue)
17 ranks in Heal = base +17 on skill checks (just 17, no +2 because it isn't a class skill for any of her classes)
17 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for wizard)
17 ranks in Perception = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for rogue)
17 ranks in Spellcraft = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for wizard)
17 ranks in Stealth = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for rogue)
2 ranks in Survival = base +19 on skill checks (17 +2 because it is a class skill for arcane archer)
That took me about 6 minutes and includes both class and cross class skills, and lots of double checking
|
|
I suggest considering two feats, or feat-like effects to go along with the Epic Meepo system:
1. A feat that turns a cross-class skill into a class skill.
2. A feat that increases one class skill's maximum ranks to be level + 10, likely limited to Craft and Profession skills (for blacksmiths and similar experts, or someone who really really wants to specialize).Does anyone see a possible abuse of 2? My concern is that it might be used to qualify for prestige classes before the usual time, although I can't think of any right off that have Profession as a prereq. But Craft might be dangerous. Is there a way to ameliorate this?
I'd rather see the feat 'skill focus' retained, with one addition. The feat would grant a +3 bonus on the skill check, but it would also make it a class skill for you (for all your classes).
So, if you play a straight fighter, but you take skill focus Use Magic Device, you would get a +3 and could use the skill as a class skill.
As for skill limits, I'd like to suggest a level +5 limit. This shouldn't effect backward compatability at all - characters from a 3.5 module can simply have +2 added to all of their skills (and with more skill points, that's a quick and dirty adjustment that may not be exactly right but would do the job admirably).
This also means that if synergy bonuses are retained (and I like them) you could qualify at 1st level. It also goes just a little more toward allowing a character to specaialize a bit (NPC Blacksmith) without a high level.
|
|
What if instead of two formulas, you went with just one (1d20 + ability mod. + rank) but assign a +2 bonus all the skills on character's 'class skills' list? No more sometimes dividing by two, just add-add-add.
Earlier post eaten by Board Monster.
I think that your goal is a good one here (simplification), but for me the math presented doesn't work. You are giving a minimum +2 bonus to Skills across the board, on top of increases already given (eg retro-Int). In the example you used, the character's Heal Skill increases by +9.
I prefer using the divide by 2, but if you wish to pursue your idea, I would suggest using a subtraction for CC skills instead.
|
|
I like the idea of eliminating the x4 at 1st level for simplification and to help limit min/maxing.
Questions to look at:
Would it significantly decrease the effectiveness of already weak 1st level characters?
How would it impact Human characters?
Could we instead come up with a flat racial build for 1st level skills that does some of what the x4 was originally intended for?
I'll go do some work now.
|
|
After all, shouldn't we start by defining the problem, before coming up with alternatives?
Absolutely. I assume that most of us have defined what we see the problems to be, and see these alternatives addressing those problems. Sometimes the nice thing about looking at solutions is you can see why you don't like them, and use them to retroactively determine problems that you overlooked before.
Using your questions, I would like to evaluate the following proposed system. With minor modifications, the combined skills in Pathfinder Alpha are used (open lock is put in Disable Device instead of theft, for instance). There is no distinction between class and cross class skills. There is no x4 for skill points at 1st level, but every class gets +4 additional skill points each level over the 3.5 baseline (rogues get 12 instead of 8, fighters get 6 instead of 2). Intelligence bonuses are applied retroactively.
1) How "balanced" should the skills be?
This is obviously a hard one. Every skill should be useful. Since the above system doesn't address what the skills are, for the most part, we can let this one slide for now.
2) How "flexibile" should the skill system be?
Extremely. The above system allows any character to use skills to excel in the ways that they think their character should. This means that there will be less use of skills to define character roles, but even the skill monkey (rogue) has many options in combat, etc, so even with the loss of 'disabling device' as his exclusive domain, he remains a fun class to play, but other classes can be more fun. If the skill system lets every character develop as they want, but 'balances' them against other classes, that is good. Classes with more time to work on skills simply get more skill points - they don't just get better at the same skills others are working on.
3) How "compatible" should the new system be compared to 3.X?
Fairly compatible. With changes to skills, we're already abandoning 100% compatability. The goal should be to be able to convert (at least roughly) any character in 3.5 'on the fly'. This means that it should never take more than 2 minutes to assign skill points fully if you want to check your math, and it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds to 'guestimate' what character should have if you're familiar with the skill system.
4) How much work will the new system be for the DM? Should it be easy for the DM, or is it okay for the DM to do a lot of work?
It should be very easy. The DM shouldn't have to worry about the order classes were taken, or what was a class skill or a cross-class skill at any point. Skills should not take more than 2 minutes for complicated creatures.
5) How would skills differentiate themselves from Feats, Spells, or Attack Rolls? Is a strong differentiation even needed, or should skills have a clearly defined role that's not covered by other systems?
Skills should have a clear role that works differently than other systems. Since this does not change their basic function, this system retains the difference they had in 3.5
6) How "realistic" or "believable" should the skill system be?
As believable or realistic as possible, while still making them fun and easy. This retains the 'realism' of 3.5 for the most part, and improves it in some ways.
7) Should the new system be easy to learn and master?
Yes. More options does not mean it is difficult to master. As long as options are easy to understand and utilize.
So, using your design questions, I'm very satisfied that the proposed solution addresses the problems - most of which have to do with the difficulty of creating high level characters quickly - the most difficult aspect being skill choice and (typically) spell selection. This deals with one of those issues quickly, cleanly, esaily, and retains compatability with 3.5 largely.
I'm still very opposed to the idea of retroactive Intelligence the headache that would cause later in games is just not worth it. And that's speaking as both a player and DM.
But I feel that Search should remain separate.#1 - It is based on Int, not Wis like Spot and Listen.
So, what about Listen+Spot = Perception and Search+SenseMotive = Awareness (?). So my starting list would be:
Acrobatics: Balance, Tumble
Athletics: Climb, Jump, Swim*
Awareness: Search, Sense Motive
Diplomacy: Diplomacy, Ride*
Knowledge (speciality):
- Arcane : Knowledge (arcane, Spellcraft)
- Nature : Knowledge (nature, Survival)
- Divine : Knowledge (religion, Spellcraft)
- Warfare: Knowledge (military, Heal)
Influence: Bluff, Intimidate
Legerdemain: Sleight of Hands, Use Rope
Linguistics: Decipher Script, Speak Language
Perception: Listen, Spot
Sabotage: Disable Device, Forgery, Open Lock
Stealth: Hide, Move Silently
Streetwise: Gather Information, Knowledge (local)
Trade (speciality): Appraise**, Craft, Profession* perhaps requires a feat to activate that skill use
** appraise only items in which you have a trade
After some more thoughts (and not being able to edit my own post) i would put Forgery into Linguistics and Appraise could also be put into some Knowledge Skills in addition to Trade.
Add Performance (no change here). Disguise could be put into Performance (Acting) or into Influence or put the various Performance subskills into other skills (example: Performance (Orator/Poems/Speech) into Linguistics and Performance (Acting) into Influence). Not sure about this.
Add Performance (no change here). Disguise could be put into Performance (Acting) or into Influence or put the various Performance subskills into other skills (example: Performance (Orator/Poems/Speech) into Linguistics and Performance (Acting) into Influence). Not sure about this.
Speak Additional Language - possibly remove it from the skill list and grant every X character level 1 additonal language a character knows how to speak (or perhaps as a replacement-option for gaining a new skill under current Pathfinder rules)...
|
|
Your paraphrase was spot on, though I should comment on the point quoted above:
In the system I proposed, Intelligence changes are only applied retroactively when you level (i.e. at the time you gain new skill points). If you take Intelligence damage during a fight, or gain a temporary enhancement bonus to Intelligence, your skill ranks remain completely unchanged.
Glad to hear it and thanks for the clarification. And, BTW, I just want to say again that I have the utmost respect for your work. Please don't take my continued fiddling as anything other than that. As I said before, I'd be completely satisfied if we end up with your system.
|
|
What if instead of two formulas, you went with just one (1d20 + ability mod. + rank) but assign a +2 bonus all the skills on character's 'class skills' list?I think that your goal is a good one here (simplification), but for me the math presented doesn't work. You are giving a minimum +2 bonus to Skills across the board, on top of increases already given (eg retro-Int)...
I prefer using the divide by 2, but if you wish to pursue your idea, I would suggest using a subtraction for CC skills instead.
I considered that, to avoid ever higher numbers. Two things made me stick with +2 for class-skills rather than -2 for cross-class skills:
1) I read a couple of posts somewhere were people said they liked keeping numbers positive and preferred working with bonuses rather than penalties.
2) Overall, there are a lot more cross-class skills, so I figured one would end up doing calculations more often. However, now that I think about it, even though there are more cross-class skills, you use them less often, so maybe an across the board -2 to all cross-class skill uses might be less work than adding +2 to skills on your class list. And it would avoid skill numbers creeping up.
Either way works for me. I agree with you, however, dividing doesn't bother me. Actually, I try to use PCGen, which does my calculations for me!
|
|
Wow
The Skill Proficiency skill point system:
*All skills have max rank of level+3.
*All skills cost 1 skill point per rank.
*All skill checks are 1d20 + rank + other modifiers.
So far, very similar to 3.5/OGL
*All checks with cross-class skills take a -4 non-proficiency penalty.
Ouch, but I bet that ends up being closer to the 50% penalty in 3.5/OGL
*Every two character levels, you gain one additional class skill.
Similar to the new-skills progression in Pathfinder alpha, nice
And optionally:
*You do not add your Int modifier to your skill points, but
*You choose a number of additional class skills equal to your Int mod
Hmmm, I think I like adding the Int bonus to skill points - a la 3.5/OGL - rather than the number of class skills, but you're right, I would REALLY streamline things and soften the -4 in cross-class skills by giving you more class skills
*You get max rank in these additional class skills, free of charge.
For me, this is too close to the way Pathfinder alpha makes people instant experts.
Question -
Would this system use max ranks for everything or would characters still gain a number of skill points at each level?
Overall, an interesting alternative. I think it's a good exercise to come up with a stripped-down, minimal-math version of a skill point system. It might help everyone figure what is really essential.
Just curious, what's your reaction to getting rid of x4 at 1st level?
|
|
(I didn't say it before, but only permanent Intelligence changes should apply retroactively. Things like an Intelligence increase for gaining 4th level, for example.)
Would you consider a headband of intellect a permanent buff? Or would that be considered a temporary buff since it can be lost, destroyed, etc.?
I think I know the answer, but I thought I would ask.
|
|
I wasn't sold on the Alpha system at first but after using it I found I really liked. That said, I can see my players not being overly fond of the system. They like their skill points.
In the end I think Epic Meepo's system is the best I have seen so far. It is clean and clear. It's easy to compute on the fly and gets rid of all that silly multiclassing skill issues that came in under 3.5.
I like the two formulas for class skills and cross-class skills but I can see mistakes being made when the skill checks start rolling. In which case I prefer the -4 proficiency penalty that will simply go away if the cross-class skill ever becomes a class skill. It is easier to apply ahead of time on a character's sheet.
I don't mind the retroactive Int. bump on permanent increases.
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.
This is what I would prefer. With a minor boost to the skill starvered classes (ie fighter, Sorcerer, and Cleric)