|
Just curious, what's your reaction to getting rid of x4 at 1st level?If the max rank stays at level+3, I think you should still get x4 at 1st level. That way, the number of skill points you gain on any given level is directly proportional to your max rank increase
Makes sense. I was actually starting to wonder about that myself. Just to follow this line of thought, if one were to eliminate the x4 at 1st level and go with a faster skill point progression instead (DeadDMWalking suggested 12/level for rogues down to 6/level for fighters), where would the new max ranks cap be?
Options-
a) Max ranks in a skill = character level. Yuck. A 1st-level rogue would have one rank in 12 skills and wouldn't be any better at one thing than another, except by ability bonus.
z) No max ranks. Again, yuck. That same rogue would take 12 ranks in Sneak and you'd never see her again.
So a somewhat arbitrary middle ground is desirable - level+1, level+2, or level+3. Anything higher just doesn't make any sense.
* Level+1. 1st-level rogue has max ranks = 2, so between 6 and 12 skills with ranks of 1 or 2. Still not enough variation in ability for my taste.
* Level+2. 1st-level rogue has max ranks = 3, so between 4 and 12 skills with ranks between 1 and 3. Okay, this works for me. Especially if other classes who try to take rogue skills take a -4 CC skill penalty. The rogue has a chance to be special.
* Level+3. 1st-level rogue has max ranks = 4, so between 3 and 12 skills with ranks between 1 and 4. Not a lot different than level+2 but a character can be a little better at her best skills. Interestingly, a character could overcome the CC skill penalty by maxing out a CC skill; next level he could actually start getting good at it. Finally, compatibility; we've all used level+3 for a while and existing OGL products assume level+3.
So for me, even without 1st level x4, I think keeping max ranks = level+3 makes sense.
|
|
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.?
Heck, if the player wants to keep track of two sets of skill ranks, one with the headband and one without, I say let'em. As long as she knows that the ranks without the headband bump are the "real" ones and she looses all those extra ranks anytime she takes off the headband.
Everyone seems to be throwing out skill system ideas, so here's one without skill ranks (though if we go with skill ranks, I'd like to see Epic Meepo's system used):
At 1st level you choose a number of skills (as presented in the Pathfinder RPG) plus your intelligence modifier as trained skills. Your skill checks for these skills are equal to your character level plus the relevant ability modifier. For any skill which is not a class skill you suffer a -3 penalty.
Every even level you can choose an additional skill to train in OR
You can upgrade a cross class skill to a class skill OR
You can upgrade a class skill to a mastered skill.
Mastered skills gain a +3 bonus to the skill check.
Skill checks
Trained Cross-Class Skill: level - 3
Trained Class Skill: level
Mastered Skill: level + 3
|
|
My english is terrible, and perhaps this is irrelevant, but I think that a bonus by age in the skills system might be interesting...
This kind of happens already when you add +1 to Int at middle, old and venerable ages. Especially if Pathfinder goes with retroactive Int bonuses to skill points, getting older will mean you get better at a lot of skills.
|
Using Alpha's skills
Untrained Skill
1d20 + Ability Mod + Bonuses - Penalties(Like ACP)
Trained Skill Cross-Class
1d20 + Ability Mod + 1/2(Level + 3) + Bonuses - Penalties
Trained Skill Class
1d20 + Ability Mod + Level + 3 + Bonuses - Penalties
Mastery gives you a +3 to your skill check. This skill must be a Trained Class skill.
If this system is used, take away the Skill Focus feat or Keep it to make characters more skillful.
|
|
So to combine in one post.
Untrained Skill
1d20 + Ability Mod + Bonuses - Penalties(Like ACP)
Trained Skill Cross-Class
1d20 + Ability Mod + 1/2(Level + 3) + Bonuses - Penalties
Trained Skill Class
1d20 + Ability Mod + Level + 3 + Bonuses - Penalties
Every even level you can choose an additional skill to train in OR
You can upgrade a cross class skill to a class skill OR
You can upgrade a class skill to a mastered skill.
Mastered skills gain a +3 bonus to the skill check. Can only be applied to Trained Class skills. Cannot be used with Skill Focus.
As for taking out the Rogue aspect of the system, I haven't a clue yet.
As for taking out the Rogue aspect of the system, I haven't a clue yet.
You'd have to use a scaled approach like Jason suggested to start the thread.
|
|
I actually could live with Scaled. Fighter's and Wizards wouldn't really gain many new skills throughout an adventure while a Rogue would have to stay on top of his game. Skill acquisition is important to a rogue and less important to a fighter. I can also see how this scaled system works with a multiclass character. Fighter/Rogues would have more skills but would not gain skills accordin to their other levels.
Ex. Fighter 2/Rogue 4 would have 4+Int(Initial) +2(From Rogue Levels) skills. The fighter won't gain a Skill until 4th level.
|
|
At 1st level you choose a number of skills ... plus your intelligence modifier as trained skills. Your skill checks for these skills are equal to your character level plus the relevant ability modifier. For any skill which is not a class skill you suffer a -3 penalty.
Every even level you can choose an additional skill to train in OR
You can upgrade a cross class skill to a class skill OR
You can upgrade a class skill to a mastered skill.Mastered skills gain a +3 bonus to the skill check.
Skill checks
Trained Cross-Class Skill: level - 3
Trained Class Skill: level
Mastered Skill: level + 3
I'm still massively in favor of a skill point system like Epic Meepo's, but if we were to use a system more like the alpha doc's, I like yours a lot Eric. The -3 to cross-class skills keeps the distinction between class and cross-class alive, and the +3 for mastered skills means that, when taking a new skill, you're not automatically the best at it.
It's also really simple.
What about (just to round out your list) Untrained Class Skills and Untrained Cross-Class Skills? Is there an untrained penalty somewhere else? How would this stack with your -3?
|
|
Trained Skill Cross-Class
1d20 + Ability Mod + 1/2(Level + 3) + Bonuses - PenaltiesTrained Skill Class
1d20 + Ability Mod + Level + 3 + Bonuses - Penalties
I would prefer a system without the x1/2. The more I see it, the more I like systems that handle cross-class skills with penalties rather than using a different formula.
I saw you said you liked Eric's idea; do you feel his -3 cross-class penalty isn't enough, or maybe just a personal preference?
I'm still massively in favor of a skill point system like Epic Meepo's, but if we were to use a system more like the alpha doc's, I like yours a lot Eric. The -3 to cross-class skills keeps the distinction between class and cross-class alive, and the +3 for mastered skills means that, when taking a new skill, you're not automatically the best at it.
It's also really simple.
What about (just to round out your list) Untrained Class Skills and Untrained Cross-Class Skills? Is there an untrained penalty somewhere else? How would this stack with your -3?
While trying to simplify my system, I let the untrained skills slip. It should probably look like this:
Untrained Skill (Class or Cross-class): -3 penalty
Trained Cross-Class Skill: level - 3
Trained Class Skill: level
Mastered skill: level + 3
This is penalizing skill checks compared to 3.5, but in a way allows for even more customization than the OGL method because you can pick up cross-class skills by 'training' them as you level.
Also, this could easily be changed so there's not a penalty compared to the OGL (untrained: no penalty, trained cross-class: level, trained class: level + 3, mastered: level + 6).
|
|
Well the only thing I can think of to remove that Half and still make it compatible with 3.5 Cross-class is this:
1d20 + Ability Mod. + Level + 1 + Bonuses - Penalties
A 1st level Character will have this(Assume all abilities mods are +1, no bonuses or penalties):
Untrained 1d20 + 1 for mod
Trained Cross 1d20 + 2 for ranks + 1 for mod
Trained Class 1d20 + 4 for ranks + 1 for mod
Mastery 1d20 + 7 for ranks + 1 for mod
But the problem with any system that scales with level and doesn't include the half is that cross class is not backwards compatable. Your cross-class ranks are much higher than they should be for a given level. By 10th level of my fix, you have 11 cross Class while with just level you have 10 making cross-class much better than it should be. If you add in half, 6 which is the correct amount of Cross-class ranks you should have.
|
In games I run, I usually rule that only base Intelligence matters. (Base Intelligence includes modifications for race, level advancement, and inherent bonuses.) Enhancement bonuses, Intelligence drain, and feeblemind can all be removed, and thus don't reflect the character's underlying cleverness.(That ruling can sometimes stretch logic, though, so I'll concede that the opposite position also has merit.)
<nods> That is about what I thought and that is how I would rule it as well. Just curious to see where you drew the line. Makes the retroactive skill points gained from an intellect increase make more sense and generally easier to handle when it comes time to reconfigure skills.
I like it all. I hope that Jason is taking a good, close look at your skills system. Not only is it different enough to fix some of the issues with skills but is fairly backwards compatible. I think it deserves some serious consideration for the PRPG.
I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but here's an idea that I'll just toss out there -
How about giving Rogues the ability to pick which skills are class skills? That would truly make them jacks of all trades. Maybe give bards the same ability.
Well besides Munchkinism, why would you just take rogue for skills when you truly wanted to play a fighter? Are skills really that important? I mean, I like what Alpha has done to make skills simpler, but why does it have to be abused?
YES, skills are that important. In 2e they weren't, but 3e went to a skill based system. No matter what you play, skills are critical. If they weren't, you would be right that using Rogue 1 would be abusive, as it is, that particular min/max is a correction for a game artifact.
|
YES, skills are that important. In 2e they weren't, but 3e went to a skill based system. No matter what you play, skills are critical. If they weren't, you would be right that using Rogue 1 would be abusive, as it is, that particular min/max is a correction for a game artifact.
Really? That's the complete opposite of my experience. IME, skills, other than a core few like Spot, Listen, and Tumble, almost never come up. Maybe a Concentration every once and a while when someone wants to cast defensively. Honestly, I don't remember the last time that we made a skill check for something other than those. Most everything (other than combat) that we encounter is resolved by roleplaying or through magic, neither of which requires skill use.
I am gonna say Epic Meepo system isn't bad but I still had to do a lot more math then alphas system.I want a skill system where I DO NOT NEED A CALCULATOR.To me its simple twik alpha a bit if ya must but skill points are just a headache for me as a DM.To day I made 14 stat blocks for saterday using pathfinder and the skills were so much easier for me to use I didn't need paper,I didn't need a pen and I did not need a calculator . made it so much easier for me and one hell of a lot faster.
Thats what It comes down to how much user friendly is it alot of you guys are great with math.Some of us are not with meepo's system its a bit faster but nothing like as fast as pathfinders system was for me.
Now I know skill points seem to be 3e's sacred cow and I enjoyed it but years of DMing has made me loath it at times.Even when making pc's i love to have a much faster system . Pathfinders is simple and keeps the ability's to choose skills.
This is one thing I want to see stay No skill points I would be ok with scaling system something like
trained 1 skill choice +3
skilled 2 skill choice +5
expert 3 skill choice +7
mastery 4 skill choice +9
That keeps just the points but allows you to improve with out having skill points you just pay for it with another skill choice
now I just pulled this out of my ass as i was writing this so not 100% on the pluses but lets try it
rouge 1 human gets 9 skills
so that 9 at +4 or 4 skills at +6 or 1 skill at +6 and 6 at +4
or 3 skills at +8 or 2 skills at +10 and 1 at +4
you can do alot with such a system
lets say you took 9 trained skills at 2nd level you get one one skill so you can take another or bump one skill up to +5.
humm I may try this system and see how it works out but it has the skill point feel without them.it is very close to the hybrid of jasons which i like as well but this one uses the alphas skill number without increasing them
I am gonna say Epic Meepo system isn't bad but I still had to do a lot more math then alphas system.I want a skill system where I DO NOT NEED A CALCULATOR.
Now this is geting a little silly. If the simple math of ((Class Level)x(skill points per level))+((Class Level)x(skill points per level))... requires a calculator, then (Character Level)+(2 or 4) on (variable number of skills) is at least as math intensive...plus it loses backward compatability.
trained 1 skill choice +3
skilled 2 skill choice +5
expert 3 skill choice +7
mastery 4 skill choice +9
Unless you plan on handing out a LOT more skills to somehome do this, the skaling bit doesn't work. The slow skill characters will never master anything and the high skill characters will not have nearly as many skills. Consider a Rogue 10...thats 11 skills, so 2 mastered skills (and that's +9, not +13) and 3 trained skills. When's the last time you saw a published Rogue 10 with 5 skills, 3 of which only had a +3?
I may be missing what you intend with this one. If so, please explain it better.
I am gonna say Epic Meepo system isn't bad but I still had to do a lot more math then alphas system.I want a skill system where I DO NOT NEED A CALCULATOR.
Now this is geting a little silly. If the simple math of ((Class Level)x(skill points per level))+((Class Level)x(skill points per level))... requires a calculator, then (Character Level)+(2 or 4) on (variable number of skills) is at least as math intensive...plus it loses backward compatability.
trained 1 skill choice +3
skilled 2 skill choice +5
expert 3 skill choice +7
mastery 4 skill choice +9
Unless you plan on handing out a LOT more skills to somehome do this, the skaling bit doesn't work. The slow skill characters will never master anything and the high skill characters will not have nearly as many skills. Consider a Rogue 10...thats 11 skills, so 2 mastered skills (and that's +9, not +13) and 3 trained skills. When's the last time you saw a published Rogue 10 with 5 skills, 3 of which only had a +3?
I may be missing what you intend with this one. If so, please explain it better.
Let me explain I have a form of dyslexia that involves numbers.so yes math like 4 /6 or 8 x4 I can not do in my head at all. math like 15th level rogue is a massive headache for me.So 8 +int mod is really easy for me then 15th level you get 7 more easy and done. I know most of yall can do max skill points easy in your head I can not .So I really liked a system I could finally use with out the massive math work on paper.I know I'm not like most folks but I'm sure I'm not the only one enuff DM's thought it was a prob to get some looking at.
2nd point. On the skill thing I did say I was pretty much pulling it out of my head as I was writing that so had put no real thought into it.now in my home game all classes have at lest 4 skill points.2 just never made since your good at a few things yay thats it.
3 backward compatibility means you can pretty much make it work with little work not that it is 100% prefect fit.skills will take some work but its not hard I just used alpha to redo 14 monsters there skills were really easy took less then 20 secs.
4 random off the head system
trained 1 skill choice +3
skilled 2 skill choice +5
expert 3 skill choice +7
mastery 4 skill choice +9
yeah it needs a bit of work I do like it because it allowed me to not go max and go above max without the hard math. And yes to me its hard.
Now I like the alpha but know most of you do not so its prob gone . and if it is I still want something core thats easy for me and other like me to use . I DM for 7 people and a group of 2 only 2 out of 9 people didnt love the alpha as soon as it was seen.I am not saying to not have skill points as a said bare even though yall who love them know em by heart. But I do want to see something I can use with ease as well.
|
|
Just curious, what's your reaction to getting rid of x4 at 1st level?If the max rank stays at level+3, I think you should still get x4 at 1st level. That way, the number of skill points you gain on any given level is directly proportional to your max rank increaseMakes sense. I was actually starting to wonder about that myself. Just to follow this line of thought, if one were to eliminate the x4 at 1st level and go with a faster skill point progression instead (DeadDMWalking suggested 12/level for rogues down to 6/level for fighters), where would the new max ranks cap be?
Options-
a) Max ranks in a skill = character level. Yuck. A 1st-level rogue would have one rank in 12 skills and wouldn't be any better at one thing than another, except by ability bonus.
z) No max ranks. Again, yuck. That same rogue would take 12 ranks in Sneak and you'd never see her again.
With the system I propose of taking away the x4 multiplication at 1st level, the rogue has three choices. For myself, I like the idea of level +5.
OPTION 1) Assuming no intelligence modifier, I could choose 12 skills, and every level add one rank in that skill. My modifier would always equal my class level. This is the option for the person who wants to be good at many things, and usually a bonus equal to your class level will be sufficient to succeed at tasks appropriate for your level, though some would be difficult. This option is also best for people who don't want to track skill points - all they need to know is what skills they spent ranks on. Call this jack of all-trades.
Option 2) I can choose to spend my skills evenly over a small number of skills. In this case I pick the four skills that are most important to me, and I put in 3 ranks each. At 2nd level I do this again, for a total of 6 ranks in each of the four abilities that I consider most important. At 3rd level I only add 1 rank to each of those four skills to keep them maximized. I now have 8 skill points to spend on new skills. I choose two new skills and put 4 ranks in each. At 4th level I keep the previous four skills at max (costing 4 ranks) and spend my 8 remaining skill points on my 2 new skills.
At this point my skills are A+9 B+9 C+9 D+9 E+8 F+8. At next level I will max out all of my skills and have four ranks to begin learning a new skill with. Because this character maxes out skills as often as possible, this one specializes in every skill (or masters it), and therefore doesn't have quite as many skills as the jack-of-all-trades.
Option 3) I can advance skills evenly, but not bother to maximize any skills (not mastering them). In this example I would choose 8 skills, I would buy 2 ranks in four and 1 rank in 4. I would increase these skills to the point where I reached level +3, then start picking up new skills to keep at that point. At 5th level (12x5 skill points = 60) and ranks of 8 (level +3) I would have 4 skills at +8, and 4 skill at +7.
The advantages of this system area as follows:
1) Every player gets the widest variety of choice. They can master a skill if they want (more ranks than 3.5) or dabble. They can customize their character as much as they like with as much or as little bookkeeping as they want. The bookkeeping is simple at any level since you just need to know how many skill points you gain at each level and how many levels you have.
2) Everybody gets to pick up more skills as they advance. In the 3.5 system, you determine how many skills you are eligible for, and usually you just max those out. Under this system, even with the extra 2 ranks allowed before maxing out a skill, you quickly will master your normal number of class skills (usually by about 5th level) and have extra skill points to further round out your character.
3) If you make a mistake about a particular skill - choosing it at 1st level but finding it doesn't suit your character or your campaign, you can stop putting ranks into that skill, and the extra skill points will mean that you will soon have a 'replacement skill' at maximum or whatever rank you wanted.
4) Racial HD do not make it extremely difficult to play skill intesive classes. Although you have skill points that may be 'disadvantgeous', without the multiplication by 4 at 1st level, you don't get stuck with a bunch of skill points that are only good for one skill that is unimportant to you for your chosen class.
As far as backwards compatability, there are a few choices. Since this system does give fewer skill points at levels 1-3 low level adversaries may have too many skill points. You can either allow them to be used as written, or simply take their level and multiply by their skill ranks per level, and assign them evenly over the skills they have in their stat block. This works for high level characters as well (or you can assume skills = level and they have as many skills as their class + Int bonus provides). For the most part, it is compatible with 3.5, but it does involve a small reduction in 'power' for low-level characters. However, it also helps create a more 'even' power curve. The increase between first and second and second and third are much more in line with each other.
I'd be very pleased if anyone here would have their group try this system. While some players might object becasue of the loss of power at low levels, the faster pace of skill gains makes up for it quickly, so without comparison to the 3.5 system, most players will find that this one is quickly better and more fun. And you won't have all your fighter/rogues starting out with rogue as their first level.
|
To play devil's advocate myself:
Why do we need skill progression anyway? We're looking at how to simplify the game system when it comes to skills and it seems to me the progression of skills and skill points seems to be the biggest problem in the game. The 3.5 skill system has since been modified by a few other companies and even WotC or we wouldn't be seeing the various tweaking from what's presented in Star Wars Saga and various other OGL, including what Pathfinder presents.
A one time skill purchase with no adjustments other than allowed by class training and ability modifiers seems an easy choice and it reduces the math associated with DCs as well as simplifies the skill system. This makes the skill system similar to the new saving throw system presented by WotC, simple and quick. Extra skill points can be reduced but still distributed out across the levels with the purpose of adding more skills. Reduce misc bonuses to one feat and one synergy bonus only and have them calculated into into the skill so it doesn't have to be figured out on the fly. In real life it always comes down to two possible outcomes anyway, either you can or you can't, so why do we need a DC 35 or even 55 when a DC 30 gives the same result.
Skill= Trained/Untrained + Ability Mod + Random Feat + Synergy
Difficulties
Easy 10
Average 15
Hard 20
Difficult 25
Near Impossible 30
So if you're 1st level and trained, having an 18 ability with a feat and another feat giving a synergy bonus you have (assuming trained is 5):
Skill = 5+4+2+2=13 + 20 from roll = 33
You have a small chance of doing the near impossible if you're trained at first and have the feats to help you. Someone trained can do quite a bit compared to someone not trained. While it is easy for someone trained to do easy to hard things the same can't be said for someone who isn't trained as even if they take their time they will only be able to do something easy and maybe even hard, but they could never do anything difficult or near impossible for a given skill. As for impossible, that's the point of it being impossible, it can't be done. If it can be done then it wasn't impossible.
As for level advancement, it would see an increase possibly in the related ability if the player character put all of their points in the related ability to which the most they would gain is another 2 points for the modifier by level 16.
The bonus currently given from level advancement at every level is suppose to represent continued learning through the skill when that is just as easily represented by the difficulty of the action. You can be the greatest chef in the world and still have a bad day, burning your eggs, but under the level advancement you'd never burn them as you would eventually be able to pass the easy without trying. So why even bother with level adjustments when training does the same thing and cuts out the delay.
If you stick with the original suggestions but are still thinking of using a hybrid keep the standard skill progression for active skills and go with the Pathfinder or another simple skill system for non-active skills when working with difficulties. By active I am referring to skills which require extreme movement combined with skill and concentration. So tumbling or tracking (wilderness lore) would be active skills where cooking or local history would be non-active.
I do like the idea of at least keeping the simpler method of skill generation for the NPCs if you abandon what you have completely for PCs.
Regardless what you choose keep it simple, keep it safe.
Let me explain I have a form of dyslexia that involves numbers.so yes math like 4 /6 or 8 x4 I can not do in my head at all.
Let me preface this by stating that I mean no disrespect to you personally.
Sorry, but the game should not be designed to accomodate every person's disabilities. It should be designed around what is reasonable for a "normal" person to do. Is it reasonable for someone to divide your ranks by 2 before adding it to your other bonuses? Absolutely.
Take an 8th level character with max ranks in a cross class skill, a +2 ability mod, and a +2 miscellaneous bonus:
(cc) 2+11+2 = 9
That took me a grand total of 2 seconds to compute.
If you have trouble doing the whole thing in your head, use a piece of scratch paper (which has always been suggested during character creation anyways...)
2 + 5 + 2 = 9
No calculator needed.
It's not like you are dividing by unwieldy numbers; you are dividing (or multiplying, at first level) by two, and two only. (Psst - Multiplying by 4 is the same as multiplying by 2 twice...)
PS - Another vote for the "Epic Meepo System" (TM).
Let me preface this by stating that I mean no disrespect to you personally.
Sorry, but the game should not be designed to accomodate every person's disabilities.
It's not like you are dividing by unwieldy numbers; you are dividing (or multiplying, at first level) by two, and two only. (Psst - Multiplying by 4 is the same as multiplying by 2 twice...)
PS - Another vote for the "Epic Meepo System" (TM).
None taken man at all.and that last dont help lol still is hard for me. I was just mostly venting thats not the first time me needing a calculator has been thrown up in my face.
anyhow back to the point I am not the only one that finds skill points faster it seems if 90% wanted to keep them I would dropped it. but i say its about 60/40 it may look higher here but ask elsewhere .the system was a great ideal but if more people didn't think like me would it even be in there?
I actually could live with Scaled. Fighter's and Wizards wouldn't really gain many new skills throughout an adventure while a Rogue would have to stay on top of his game. Skill acquisition is important to a rogue and less important to a fighter. I can also see how this scaled system works with a multiclass character. Fighter/Rogues would have more skills but would not gain skills accordin to their other levels.
Ex. Fighter 2/Rogue 4 would have 4+Int(Initial) +2(From Rogue Levels) skills. The fighter won't gain a Skill until 4th level.
My players have adopted the Scaled system for skills and we're play testing it tonight. In converting their characters its been the closest match to their existing stats (at 6th level), it was a breeze to convert, and seems to eliminate the 1st level rogue munchkin problem. Each of them (including the bard, we don't have a rogue) got a boost in skill capability despite a lower number of skill choices due to the combining of skills. The only modification we made was the addition of minor class skills. That is spending one skill choice to purchase two class skills at cross-class levels. Two minor class skills can be upgraded to full class skills later on by spending another skill choice to upgrade them.
I'll be posting a playtest report here later this weekend after we play. I'll include time estimates for conversion of the PCs and NPCs used in the game.
Everyone seems to be throwing out skill system ideas, so here's one without skill ranks (though if we go with skill ranks, I'd like to see Epic Meepo's system used):
At 1st level you choose a number of skills (as presented in the Pathfinder RPG) plus your intelligence modifier as trained skills. Your skill checks for these skills are equal to your character level plus the relevant ability modifier. For any skill which is not a class skill you suffer a -3 penalty.
Every even level you can choose an additional skill to train in OR
You can upgrade a cross class skill to a class skill OR
You can upgrade a class skill to a mastered skill.Mastered skills gain a +3 bonus to the skill check.
Skill checks
Trained Cross-Class Skill: level - 3
Trained Class Skill: level
Mastered Skill: level + 3
I have been playing around with something similar.
Untrained = ability + mod
Proficient = 1/2 level + ability + mod.
Trained = level + 3 + ability + mod.
Class skills picked at 1st level were trained. Cross class skills and skills picked with advancement started at proficient. A proficient skill could be increased to trained.
While trying to simplify my system, I let the untrained skills slip. It should probably look like this:
Untrained Skill (Class or Cross-class): -3 penalty
Trained Cross-Class Skill: level - 3
Trained Class Skill: level
Mastered skill: level + 3This is penalizing skill checks compared to 3.5, but in a way allows for even more customization than the OGL method because you can pick up cross-class skills by 'training' them as you level.
Also, this could easily be changed so there's not a penalty compared to the OGL (untrained: no penalty, trained cross-class: level, trained class: level + 3, mastered: level + 6).
I like your idea of mastered skills. However, IMHO a -3 penalty or a +3 bonus makes little difference at high levels. A 15th level character would be at 12 "ranks" in cross class, 15 "ranks" in class, and 18 "ranks" in mastered. The difference is noticable between mastered and trained cross class, but not much between a trained skill and a mastered skill. What if the Skill Focus feat was dropped and the penalty increased to -5 and the bonus to +5? This would make the ranks 10/15/20 for the 15th level character above.
I like your idea of mastered skills. However, IMHO a -3 penalty or a +3 bonus makes little difference at high levels. A 15th level character would be at 12 "ranks" in cross class, 15 "ranks" in class, and 18 "ranks" in mastered. The difference is noticable between mastered and trained cross class, but not much between a trained skill and a mastered skill. What if the Skill Focus feat was dropped and the penalty increased to -5 and the bonus to +5? This would make the ranks 10/15/20 for the 15th level character above.
I was using +3 mainly because with the 3.5 rules the max ranks are level + 3 and everyone is used to that, so it would be easy to remember and work with.
I think +5/-5 would work, but I do think a +3 bonus is significant. If a skill check succeeds 50% of the time, an additional +3 raises that success to 65%, so you're failing 1 out of 3 times instead of half of the time. I prefer smaller differences in this case so players don't feel they HAVE to try and be Mastered in every skill.
OPTION 4, OPTION 4!!!!!
Or the PathfinderRPG version, which is also simple.
I like this option! it means less work, and more focus on what the skill does to make it interesting. Although, I'd say don't limit it to class skills/cross class skills. Let my paladin take Stealth if I want it, and be a master if I spend the points. That covers customization needs, while cutting down on number crunching.
It's also simple. I could potentially memorize every skill my players have, which means faster gameplay.
This would work with 3.5 modules and info I've got, as the PCs typically max out their skills anyway.
My little sister is realy obsessive about skill points. She agonizes over them for hours, and spends one or two points to get half a rank of a cross-class skill she'll never use. Kids I've DM'd for in camps also do the same thing. Lots of ranks and numbers means checking math and hassle. Just keep it simple, please!!!
really I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said, but I think the pathfinder version and Option 4 cover my needs: varying levels of proficiency in skills. If we can have a sidebar for 3.5 skill rules, that's great for players and using modules. However, a faster system for NPCs is a must. (as has been said)
I don't know. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like there is a lot more theoretical arguement and lobbying here than there is trying to see if the game will run better or worse. I'd hate to see a system get dropped or modified before people even gave it a chance to work. I know Paizo wants to do what its fans want, but I also think we are starting to get into a wave of wish lists here instead of actually looking at what would make 3.5 run smoother.
I don't know. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like there is a lot more theoretical arguement and lobbying here than there is trying to see if the game will run better or worse. I'd hate to see a system get dropped or modified before people even gave it a chance to work. I know Paizo wants to do what its fans want, but I also think we are starting to get into a wave of wish lists here instead of actually looking at what would make 3.5 run smoother.
Agreed. But I was thinking that back on page 2...
Agreed. But I was thinking that back on page 2...
So . . . you're saying I'm slow? ;)
So . . . you're saying I'm slow? ;)Agreed. But I was thinking that back on page 2...
Hah! No. Not at all. :-) I'm saying that I have been through these "rules alteration discussions" (almost always unofficial) before. I see the same things over and over again. Hopefully Jason Bulhman isn't as weary of them as I am.
I don't know. To be honest, I'm starting to feel like there is a lot more theoretical arguement and lobbying here than there is trying to see if the game will run better or worse. I'd hate to see a system get dropped or modified before people even gave it a chance to work. I know Paizo wants to do what its fans want, but I also think we are starting to get into a wave of wish lists here instead of actually looking at what would make 3.5 run smoother.
I agree, but it is hard to playtest something when your players take a look at it and go "Uh, no thanks, we playtested something like that with 2E for years, only we got the FULL max rank as soon as we took a proficiency". And basically this "skill choice" system is similar to the proficiency system, with minor differences.
|
|
I am in favor of keeping the 3.5 skill system mostly in tact for players with the following changes:
1. Get rid of cross-class skill distinctions.
I've been playing in a game for over 2 years where we have no cross-class skill restrictions. It has not broken the game, nor taken away anyone's "niche" - my druid is still the expert at knowledge: nature, but she's also competant at climb, jump, move silently, hide, and tumble, because she's an active sort of person who likes to climb trees and observe nature without disturbing it. It leads to more rounded characters, and a fighter with a bit of diplomacy or knowledge: history is more interesting than one that can only jump, climb, intimidate, swim, and ride.
2. Consolodate skills as presented in the Alpha document.
This gives the low-SP pcs more bang for the buck, and allows the rogue to do more interesting things than pick locks, disable devices, and spot/listen/search with their skill points.
3. Let the max-rank-system as presented in the alpha release be an optional rule for NPCs to be created quickly and easily. I don't think NPCs have to have the same creation rules as PCs.
/ali
|
|
I've been lurking for a while now and just made it through this thread. My initial reaction to the Pathfinder skill mechanic was mostly neutral. I think I didn't like it enough to replace skill points completely. I can see its utility and ease of use, but lacks the finer customization that you can get with the skill points system.
As far as Epic Meepo's suggestion, I'm completely loving it (and elegantly fixes one of my house rulings on cross class skills) and plan on trying it with my other fix for dealing with the x4 at first level skill problem. Also as far as the math, you can pre-calculate the modifiers for cross class skill ahead of time anyway. Since you know what skills are class vs cross class (the obvious assumption is once you have a levels in a class it always remains a class skill), there shouldn't be a reason to calculate them on the fly. Unless of course you level in the middle of an adventure.
Dealing with x4 at first level. My current house rule for v3.5 is to give all characters, NPCs and monsters 2xINT (note this is not INT bonus but the straight INT score) Skill Points instead of x4 for first level. The characters still get skill points based on their class for first level as well. Summarized as follows:
1st: (INTx2)+(Class Skill Points + INT Modifier)
2nd+: Class Skill Points + INT Modifier
I mostly attribute this to Call of Cthulhu where characters get background skills during character creation based on Intelligence. This allows the rogues to get nearly the same (if not more for high INT) and the other classes/NPCs get the bump for their background skills. Since a number of groups that I run/play with enjoy skill based games, this has worked well for me. This also cuts down on the metagaming for multiclassing and doesn't penalize the players as much that like to multiclass either.
I do like the consolidated skill list and need to consider if I want to drop the starting skill points to just INT instead of INTx2. For now I'm going to try it with INTx2 with the reduced skill list and see if characters have too many skills or too much similarity with each other.
I am intrigued by the suggestions for a Untrained, Trained and Master selection for skills and reminds of some older games that did something similar. I need to mull it over though and maybe create some sample characters using it.
I agree if we can keep the customization and minimize the DM's prep work it would be a win-win.
(This post is referring to my main proposal, which other posters have been kindly referring to as "Epic Meepo's system" for the last page or two.)
(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.?In games I run, I usually rule that only base Intelligence matters. (Base Intelligence includes modifications for race, level advancement, and inherent bonuses.) Enhancement bonuses, Intelligence drain, and feeblemind can all be removed, and thus don't reflect the character's underlying cleverness.
(That ruling can sometimes stretch logic, though, so I'll concede that the opposite position also has merit.)
Except that's not how retro-active works though. Any changes to a character Intelligence are going make a difference. Much like the retro-active Constitution is effected no matter whether it is permanent or not. This is why retro-intelligence is such a headache.
It doesn't seem like anyone is really complaining that the old skill system was broken just that it had a long involved prep time for DM's.
Allow me to be the first then! The OGL skill system is cumbersome and hard to navigate even for players. I keep a copy of my player's character sheets at every level and our fighter 2/bard 4 still doesn't have the right ranks. And one of my players is an accountant! The bard has so many synergies, feats boosting skills, racial skill bonuses, ability bonuses, mwk equipment bonuses, and magic item bonuses (both directly to skills and to abilities) that we've lost track of what her actual ranks ever were. We just did an audit of her skills two weeks ago and we were still off by two skill points afterwards. The problem comes from adding and subtracting in mid game when they gain or lose a modifying item. She has had at one time or another boots of elvenkind, cloak of elvenkind, a ring of jumping, a ring of swimming, gloves of dexterity, gauntlets of ogre power, boots of striding and springing, a climbing kit, a mwk instrument, a silk rope, etc. (She's never had all of these at once). Adding and subtracting all of these bonuses and figuring out what she spent as cross-class ranks rather than skill-ranks has made tracking her actual ranks a complete nightmare.
My players love the new system (though I have them using Jason's Scaled variant from the OP). At every level you never have to worry about calculating any of that and adding and subtracting for new or lost items is a lot less of a headache.
|
|
I am right now on the fence with Alpha's system and Skill Points. I like how you can customize a character with Skill Points, but as a whole, it turns out to be a pain in the neck to figure out at later levels what is what and if I spent enough points, and what bonuses my gear gives, and wadda wadda wadda. With Alpha, I don't have to worry about it anymore and it takes away the focus Skill Points requires. With a consolidated skill list, I don't think Alpha's approach is such a bad one and it doesn't limit choice as much as skill points did. I'm probably going to playtest Alpha during my next session with the scaled method and be able to report my exact thoughts on it then.
|
|
Except that's not how retro-active works though. Any changes to a character Intelligence are going make a difference. Much like the retro-active Constitution is effected no matter whether it is permanent or not. This is why retro-intelligence is such a headache.(This post is referring to my main proposal, which other posters have been kindly referring to as "Epic Meepo's system" for the last page or two.)
(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.?In games I run, I usually rule that only base Intelligence matters. (Base Intelligence includes modifications for race, level advancement, and inherent bonuses.) Enhancement bonuses, Intelligence drain, and feeblemind can all be removed, and thus don't reflect the character's underlying cleverness.
(That ruling can sometimes stretch logic, though, so I'll concede that the opposite position also has merit.)
That's a fair assessment, but I don't think the current version of v3.5 handled reduction of Intelligence and its affect on skills either. If I'm wrong I've obviously house ruled it long ago for expediency. I'm pretty sure many DMs hand wave it currently and don't force their players "Oh, Hey! your Int went down by four so you need to knock off 2*Level skill points"
The same can be said of the current suggestion for the Pathfinder skill system. The number of skill picks is dependant on the Intelligence modifier. If the modifier goes down, are you going to penalize a player/character and force them to reduce one or more of their skills to Trained Cross-Class (for Trained skills) or Untrained (for Trained Cross-Class).
And yes it's easier to do on the fly with the latter method than the former, but the problem will still arise. I guess the ultimate question is keeping the Int modifier for skill calculation/picks worth the headache it imposes when Int fluctuates? Maybe it's time to divorce Int mod from skill selection and up the flat rate of Skill Points by class (much like DeadDMWalking suggests).
For the record in my games, when characters Int goes down I don't force them to recalculate Skill Points/Skill Ranks. They get what they get when they level. Alas this has the potential of not maximizing a character's skill points by a few points (possibly much more if Int isn't corrected over a number of levels). But that just makes me a mean old DM I guess, who doesn't mind letting the numbers slide a bit ;)