There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times.I can see where you are coming from. However, I also understand why many people would like to see the OGL skill point system retained in Pathfinder.
Perhaps there's a way to have your cake and eat it, too. Building on some good ideas posted upthread (particularly those by Dorje Sylas):
Use OGL skill points, but...
Cost per rank in any skill = 1 skill point
Maximum rank any skill = character level +3Skill check (class skill only) = 1d20 + ability modifier + rank
Skill check (cross-class skill) = 1d20 + ability modifier + rank/2Notice that, for single-classed characters, this produces the exact same results as standard 3.5. The characters have twice as many ranks in cross-class skills, but these ranks add half as much to skill checks.
For multi-class characters, adding new class skills doesn't change the rate at which ranks are purchased in any skill. Also, a multiclass character never needs to "catch up" former cross-class skills. His ranks remain the same; they now just add more to his skill checks, since he uses them to make class skill checks instead of cross-class skill checks.
(Is it fair for a fighter taking a single rogue level to suddenly do better with rogue skills in which he already has ranks? I would argue that it is, since a rogue taking a single fighter level suddenly does better with martial weapons, armor, and even tower shields!)
In addition to the above, also implement the following change:
Changes to Intelligence are applied retroactively upon gaining a level.
In addition to making the GM's life easier, this allows high-level PCs to max out previously untrained skills by upping their Intelligence scores (as an added benefit for honing one's intellect).
So, this proposal keeps OGL skill points largely unchanged. As for making the GM's job easier:
I'm assuming this the system in question, I have to admit that does simplify things pretty well. Though I'm not a fan of retro Int because either you have to skew retroactive considerably to make it work or you get a terrible headache from it.
You either make it only "permanent" increases that are retroactive (which means only increases from abilty boosts and inherent boosts count, as there is no "permanent" descrease to hit Intelligence, which doesn't really make Intelligence retroactive now does it). This choice also creates a double standard between retro Con and retro Int.
Or you make it actually retroactive and then have to track all the pluses and minuses to the stat and try to keep track of a fluxating total rank count.
Plus it doesn't make sense that Int would be retro in skill rank gain, suddenly because your more bright you also gained more training at the same time? Well I was pretty sure that was representative of the skill ranks you gain at every level, and that your brighter is actually reflected in the increase of the Int modifier affecting the skills it is key for.
Some have argued that such an increase should be regarded as you suddenly gain greater insight into your skills, an epiphany. But skill ranks aren't representative of natural insight of a skill, they are represent training in the skill. A characters ability modifiers are what represent epiphanies and natural ability in any given skill. And this is already represented in key ability modifiers already being added as a part of the total skill modifier.
|
A vote to keep skill points. While in char generation the Alpha method is fast it does feel a little cookie cutter. I like the freedom of skill points over 'skill feats'. Skill points were really only a hassle for the DM or for campaigns starting at high levels. (Then you go for the suite of max skills)
I do very much like the folding of skills. (Though I do like Concentration as a separate skill but having Spellcraft and KNowledge arcana together makes sense).
Two thoughts. If skill points are kept add 2 points to each class. Even fighters should know more than Jump, Swim and Climb!
Second I'd like to see cross-class skills jettisoned or the 2:1 point buy eradicated (in the latter your max ranks in cross-class skills are still lower than level +3)
A vote to keep skill points. While in char generation the Alpha method is fast it does feel a little cookie cutter. I like the freedom of skill points over 'skill feats'. Skill points were really only a hassle for the DM or for campaigns starting at high levels. (Then you go for the suite of max skills)
I do very much like the folding of skills. (Though I do like Concentration as a separate skill but having Spellcraft and KNowledge arcana together makes sense).
Two thoughts. If skill points are kept add 2 points to each class. Even fighters should know more than Jump, Swim and Climb!
Second I'd like to see cross-class skills jettisoned or the 2:1 point buy eradicated (in the latter your max ranks in cross-class skills are still lower than level +3)
You should check out EpicMeepo's suggestion
Which I quoted above, no?
If what everyone is raving about is something else, I would like to see it.
This choice also creates a double standard between retro Con and retro Int.
That was never the point behind the 'Retro' Int increase.
That system was not developed to service normal character advancement (which was working just fine). It was intend to address the legitimate problem of low high level character design. The most difficult cases being multiclassed (any monster with PC class levels) characters with slowly increasing intelligence scores.
It works for that purpose and it still works quite well for normal play. The only discontinuity is with the 'bonus' skill points gained from increasing a character's intelligence during actual play. This a fairly minor flaw that most Wizard players will be more then happy exists. A small 'flaw' in exchange for major gains to DMs (and players) in exactly the area of complaint.
I'm sorry if it doesn't seem to make much sense from a real world perspective. However there are very few case in the real world of people getting significantly smarter past their mid-20s. This runs totally counter to 3e D&D where character's actually can get smarter, and many are already in their 20s (for the race).
Real world comparison aside it still doesn't match up against the retroaction of Constitution inregards to Intelligence and skill ranks. The retro-active intelligence is all positive gain, and has no negative. And therefore lacks balance.
Well one possible solution would be to eliminate the bonus skill points via IN, and replace it into additional Class skills.
This is true, though I believe if that were the case there would probably have to be an increase in the base gain of skill ranks.
I'm starting to worry a bit about how often changes will come up versus how often I (or anyone) can playtest them. My players realize they will have to do some reworking when a class that hasn't been converted is converted over, but if they have to rework their class one week and their skills the next, especially if they are varying greatly from "expert" to "barely trained" to somewhere in the middle at any given time.
I'm not saying that the system shouldn't change if people don't like it, but honestly, its seems like there is a lot of "gut feeling" involved in this and not a lot of playtesting, or consideration of people that are trying to playtest the rules as written.
I know other groups play probably at least once a week, but my group only gets together every other week. If every session I'm revising their skills, they probably will tell me to go back to 3.5 and never bring a Pathfinder book to the table again, because its taking too much time and effort to do this.
So far, I have two players that really like the system (that have played it), one that is okay with it, another one that has some concerns, but overall likes it, and another that is neutral and willing to give it more of a chance. If we keep up the "try another system" every few weeks with this, with little time to playtest, my players are going to wonder why I even bothered them with this.
Again, if this changed after, say, all of the initial Alpha releases came out, and more actual playtests were "on record," I could understand, but I'm just worried that too much fine tuning too fast is going to really throw my ability to playtest, or run my campaign, off the wheels.
I'm starting to worry a bit about how often changes will come up versus how often I (or anyone) can playtest them. My players realize they will have to do some reworking when a class that hasn't been converted is converted over, but if they have to rework their class one week and their skills the next, especially if they are varying greatly from "expert" to "barely trained" to somewhere in the middle at any given time.
I'm not saying that the system shouldn't change if people don't like it, but honestly, its seems like there is a lot of "gut feeling" involved in this and not a lot of playtesting, or consideration of people that are trying to playtest the rules as written.
I know other groups play probably at least once a week, but my group only gets together every other week. If every session I'm revising their skills, they probably will tell me to go back to 3.5 and never bring a Pathfinder book to the table again, because its taking too much time and effort to do this.
So far, I have two players that really like the system (that have played it), one that is okay with it, another one that has some concerns, but overall likes it, and another that is neutral and willing to give it more of a chance. If we keep up the "try another system" every few weeks with this, with little time to playtest, my players are going to wonder why I even bothered them with this.
Again, if this changed after, say, all of the initial Alpha releases came out, and more actual playtests were "on record," I could understand, but I'm just worried that too much fine tuning too fast is going to really throw my ability to playtest, or run my campaign, off the wheels.
I am with you 100% my group is once every 2 weeks too and we have used the new system. one of my players a diehard skills man thought they all be cookie cutter. he now likes the new system.many here just say gods no skill points yuck cant play that way . why dont we try.... Play the system guys give it a real shot not a hey i want my skill points not this cookie cutter garbage .I wasnt sure I would like it but after useing it for a week on a few things i love it as A DM and a player. give it a shot we dont need a new skill system every release. funny thing is a posted a few polls and on every one of them but here the new system was perfed at lest 60/40 .I think more folks would like it if they really tried using it .and if not then at lest you gave it a good run though . how many of you who hate the new system have used it?
The new releases are coming too quickly, since the original release there has only be one other update and it didn't touch the skill system revisement. From what Jason has indicated we will be seeing the revisement in the next one.
I've playtested the original presented system in character creation. No one in my group was "Grab your pitchforks and torches" when they worked with it. They found the new system very simple to use, but customizeability was in question.
In the second adventure I intend for my group I intend playtesting the Hybrid system, I figured that I needed to give them the basis of the original Alpha system first before I tried to explain the hybrid though. I may not even get a chance to playtest the hybrid currently if an updated revisement comes out this week. Either way next weekend I intended on trying out a different skill system, so no harm no foul.
The new releases are coming too quickly, since the original release there has only be one other update and it didn't touch the skill system revisement. From what Jason has indicated we will be seeing the revisement in the next one.
I've playtested the original presented system in character creation. No one in my group was "Grab your pitchforks and torches" when they worked with it. They found the new system very simple to use, but customizeability was in question.
In the second adventure I intend for my group I intend playtesting the Hybrid system, I figured that I needed to give them the basis of the original Alpha system first before I tried to explain the hybrid though. I may not even get a chance to playtest the hybrid currently if an updated revisement comes out this week. Either way next weekend I intended on trying out a different skill system, so no harm no foul.
Let me clarify a bit. I liked the changes in 1.1, but at the same time, had I had a few players that had built their characters on the "chain feats" to try them out, they would have been upset. Similarly, I know there have been no changes to skills yet, but there will be in the next release.
My point, I guess, is not so much that there have been too many changes, so far, but that I don't want the changes to come so fast that there isn't time to try things out before they change. I could, obviously, keep the group using the first version of skills, but then that is one less, current, thing that I'm testing.
Don't get me wrong, I really like that Paizo is adapting to what people say, and I want them to continue to do so, but I was kind of hoping for more than a month (which for my group is two sessions) before something fairly major like a whole subsystem changed.
I am with you 100% my group is once every 2 weeks too and we have used the new system. one of my players a diehard skills man thought they all be cookie cutter. he now likes the new system.many here just say gods no skill points yuck cant play that way . why dont we try.... Play the system guys give it a real shot not a hey...
Well, my group isn't 100% on board with it, but their comments were that they wanted to see if there was a way to have skills that weren't "fully trained" but weren't untrained, to show some minor formal training, for example, and that there should be a way to use "trained" skills other than just to gain new skills (to swap out for skill focus, for example).
There are tweaks based on using the system, and tweaks wouldn't have been a big deal. Taking the system "back to formula" this early is what's kind of nagging at me.
We were going about every other week too for my groups, mainly due to university, exams and such. We had intended on actually running agian this weekend but unfortunately due to some miscommunication and prior obiligations I'm going out with family instead.
But otherwise my groups intend to switching to weekly now that classes are out of the way.
I was really trying more to reassure you that you'll hopefully have time to give it a good run.
I'd be prepared for the change that's probably coming though.
If the next update doesn't come before I start the second adventure though I will be switching to hybrid for it, and I don't intend to switch in the middle even if the new system comes out in the midst of it.
Then again I have 4 adventures planned. So I'll still have 3 and 4 to try out an updated Alpha skill list.
But I fear that Alpha will be where the fastest paces changes are going to occur. As indicated in the plans, Beta is going to be the most stable the hopes being that the largest rough spots will have been taken care by Alpha and then it will come to fine tuning. (I'm not even sure if that makes entire sense, but I hope it did)
(smurf)
~Anry
I am with you 100% my group is once every 2 weeks too and we have used the new system. one of my players a diehard skills man thought they all be cookie cutter. he now likes the new system.many here just say gods no skill points yuck cant play that way . why dont we try.... Play the system guys give it a real shot not a hey...
Well, my group isn't 100% on board with it, but their comments were that they wanted to see if there was a way to have skills that weren't "fully trained" but weren't untrained, to show some minor formal training, for example, and that there should be a way to use "trained" skills other than just to gain new skills (to swap out for skill focus, for example).
There are tweaks based on using the system, and tweaks wouldn't have been a big deal. Taking the system "back to formula" this early is what's kind of nagging at me.
Offer up the hybrid to them, it may appeal to them greatly. Its basically what you were saying. And won't take too much conversion from the skill selection to impliment.
Nope, made sense to me. I think though, for my player's sanity, I might limit how many changes I ask them to make at one time, even if I don't have as many useful "playtests" because of it.
I just kind of wish there had been more "I tried it, and this is how I'd do it," or "I didn't like it when I read it, so I'll sit this change out," or "yeah, Jason, I like Option X," instead of "I read it, and all of your options, and here is my alternate houserule system, avoiding both the Alpha rules and the options at the beginning of the thread."
I just kind of felt like if I didn't have my own theory, or if I didn't want to sit down with a calculator and run a few math tests on other people's systems, I wasn't going to have much say in how the system developed, even if I had given it a shot in my group.
Offer up the hybrid to them, it may appeal to them greatly. Its basically what you were saying. And won't take too much conversion from the skill selection to impliment.I am with you 100% my group is once every 2 weeks too and we have used the new system. one of my players a diehard skills man thought they all be cookie cutter. he now likes the new system.many here just say gods no skill points yuck cant play that way . why dont we try.... Play the system guys give it a real shot not a hey...
Well, my group isn't 100% on board with it, but their comments were that they wanted to see if there was a way to have skills that weren't "fully trained" but weren't untrained, to show some minor formal training, for example, and that there should be a way to use "trained" skills other than just to gain new skills (to swap out for skill focus, for example).
There are tweaks based on using the system, and tweaks wouldn't have been a big deal. Taking the system "back to formula" this early is what's kind of nagging at me.
Yeah, of the options presented, I liked that one the best, at least as far as giving it a shot.
*nods* That's understandable. I keep track of my playtest sessions in the general discussion. I wasn't the fan of the offered-up additional alternatives either.
Jason indicated early on that he was being pushed towards the hybrid system in this thread. So its a good chance that we'll see something like that in the new release. But there has also be a have outcry for the return of skill ranks, so just have it prepared in your mind that they may return.
If you do switch, I'd still say hybrid will end up being the least amount of changes to come.
Anyways, I was speaking of a miscommunication earlier and prior obilgations and now I must go and do those things that ended up being tonight.
Bbl tonight.
(smurf)
|
My group is currently in a Rise of the Runelords campaign. We talked about trying the Alpha 1 which would involve reworking characters.
TEhe skills and chained feats were the major reason we did not. My players felt it was too much work and did nothing to improve the game.
With Alpha 2 we'll probably try again - but maybe I'll alternate modules...
While I'm very interested in other playtests, I'm also interested in other house rules. I wish more of those had been tried since some are loony. But all in all, I feel progress is on the march.
For information on design focus threads, please read this thread.
It has become apparent that there are a great number of opinions on the new skill system. I would like to spend a moment to talk about some alternatives that we might explore to help address some of the problems. Here are the options:
1. Pathfinder: The system presented in Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG.
2. 3.5 OGL:The system presented in the 3.5 OGL.
3. Combination: Using the system in the 3.5 OGL for characters, and using the system in the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG for NPCs and monsters (noting that they would not get additional skill choices at higher levels). This system gives NPCs and monster that multiclass a slight edge (depending on the class), but makes them quite a bit easier to create.
4. Hybrid System: In this system, characters would get a number of skill ranks equal to the number of skill choices granted by the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. Skill ranks granted by the first level of your class must be spent on class skills. Skill ranks granted after first level and those granted by a high Intelligence score at first level could be spent on any skill. Instead of the class skill/cross-class skill distinction, your bonus in a skill would be determined in the following method.
0 ranks – Untrained: Bonus = ability modifier + racial modifiers (or modifiers)
1 ranks – Trained: Bonus = 1/2 your character level + modifiers
2 ranks – Skilled: Bonus = your character level + modifiers
3 ranks – Expert: Bonus = your character level + 3 + modifiers
4 ranks – Master: Bonus = your character level +6 + modifiersThere are a few additional rules to go with this. At first level, you can have no skill higher than 2 ranks (or the skilled level). Many of the prestige...
Opyion #4: Hybrid seems to have the best balance between granularity and simplicity. And with it, you can get rid of Skill Focus and the endless +2/+2 feats. You could, if desired, keep in a "Skill Rank" feat, allowing you to add 1 rank to a skill of your choice. And as the character advances, he can bump new skills to Mastery level, or keep them merely Trained.
And you could have more powerful uses of several skills available only to Experts and Masters. Imagine a Master Weaponsmith creating masterwork weapons with bonus greater than +1 (essentially, nonmagical "magical" weapons).
|
|
Since I see a lot of people saying 'of the 4 options presented' I like this one most. My question is will a real '5th alternative' get official consideration and posting in the 'options'. The current 3.5 system is not what the people who favor skill points want, but none of the other 3 systems show a simplified skill system using skill points. There are several versions of such a system discussed on this thread and others. Many of them do a good job of creating a single 'skill pool' so there is no 'bookkeeping' involved in skill use.
Since it has the most 'backward compatability' and seems simpler than option 4, I would like to see some version of the 'Simple Skill Points' included in the 'official' discussion of options for the Pathfinder RPG. Is that possible?
Well, its not like opinions being voiced upon haven't already been done within this thread anyways. And the option was presented originally on Page 3 for reference.
I find it simple, I'm still more preferrable to Hybrid myself.
But I'm vehemently opposed to retro Intelligence. ^^ As I'm sure is plainly obvious by now.
(smurf)
Anry
Nice idea(s) but for my POV still (a bit) to complicate.
I once had a similar idea of granting all classes a specific number/set of "Core Skills" which would improve automaticly.
I would suggest you post your stuff in here again
Archon, I like your system a lot -- it's one of the few workable hybrids that allows near-infinite customization as well. Unfortunately, I suspect it's complex enough that the Saga skill system proponents probably won't voice much support for it.
OK a suggestion for thous who like the alpha system. Upping the DC'S
DC 10 easy
DC 15 average
DC 20 Tough
DC 25 challenging
DC 30 Formidable
DC 40 heroic
DC 50 Nearly impossible
I bring this up after hearing a few times that the alpha makes it to easy to do things this brings it in more line with 3.5 skill limits very easily
Archon, I like your system a lot -- it's one of the few workable hybrids that allows near-infinite customization as well. Unfortunately, I suspect it's complex enough that the Saga skill system proponents probably won't voice much support for it.
I suspect I'm in that camp. To me it seems both overly complicated and not terribly backwards compatible...
Again with a thread that said there was a new post and yet a new post I cannot see...hrm...
[url=smurf][/url]
Let me see if I can simplify it for you...
Ok, let me re-phrase.
It's not that I think this system is particularly complicated or non-backwards compatible. It's more that to me (and maybe I'm just particularly thick or something) it is clearly more complicated and less backwards compatible than my current preferred system (the "Epic Meepo" system).
And I don't see what benefits it provides over that system that make the additional complication and lesser backwards compatibility worth it. Maybe if you could give me a bullet-point summary of what you're trying to do differently with this system (and why, in your opinion, those differences make for a better skill system)?
Here's an idea:
1. Create a feat that allows a character to become trained in a number of skills equal to 1 + his permanent Int bonus.
2. If a character wishes to do so, he may choose to exchange a new trained skill from leveling up for a +2 bonus on one already-trained skill. He may do this multiple times.
Here's an idea:
1. Create a feat that allows a character to become trained in a number of skills equal to 1 + his permanent Int bonus.
2. If a character wishes to do so, he may choose to exchange a new trained skill from leveling up for a +2 bonus on one already-trained skill. He may do this multiple times.
Good ideals I done started using the 2nd one myself but made it a +3
|
|
Let me see if I can simplify it for you...Ok, let me re-phrase.
It's not that I think this system is particularly complicated or non-backwards compatible. It's more that to me (and maybe I'm just particularly thick or something) it is clearly more complicated and less backwards compatible than my current preferred system (the "Epic Meepo" system).
And I don't see what benefits it provides over that system that make the additional complication and lesser backwards compatibility worth it. Maybe if you could give me a bullet-point summary of what you're trying to do differently with this system (and why, in your opinion, those differences make for a better skill system)?
I just wanted to point out that the 'new system' that everyone is talking about doesn't have a name. I'll call it the Otto the Bugbear system since I think he is the first to propose it.
Unlike the Epic Meepo system, there is no division by two. Class skills cost one point and cross class skills cost one point. In the Epic Meepo system you divide your cross-class bonus by two. In the Otto the Bugbear system you do not. You still have a cross-class max. Thus, purchasing cross class skills is less expensive, but you can't be any better than you were in 3.5. And the math is easy.
Unlike the Epic Meepo system, there is no division by two. Class skills cost one point and cross class skills cost one point. In the Epic Meepo system you divide your cross-class bonus by two. In the Otto the Bugbear system you do not. You still have a cross-class max. Thus, purchasing cross class skills is less expensive, but you can't be any better than you were in 3.5. And the math is easy.
What you're describing doesn't tally with what archon of light has explained above (even when you assume that preferred = class skills/primary = trained class skills/secondary = trained cross-class skills).
Ok this one might be a bit too easy, but since half of the posts complain about cross-class-skills, etc.
Why not just use the 3.5 Skill point system and make every skill work as class skill for every class (Thus, eliminating the complete class/cross-class skill mechanic)?
Is this to much interference with the skill monkeys?
Oh, one thing still: Maybe we should restart this "discussion" someway.
I would like to start with the 3.5 System and summarize the flaws and glitches you see in it.
I'll make a start:
1) Cross-class skill mechanic too complicate.
2) x4 Skill point at 1st level bad with multiclassing (rogue cherrypick and the like)
Are there any other real problems with this system despite(!) the need to allocate skill points?
Ok this one might be a bit too easy, but since half of the posts complain about cross-class-skills, etc.
Why not just use the 3.5 Skill point system and make every skill work as class skill for every class (Thus, eliminating the complete class/cross-class skill mechanic)?
Is this to much interference with the skill monkeys?
I think revisiting the 3.x cross-class skill mechanic is something that should be done. It works fairly well to simulate "core" and "non-core" fields of study for the various classes, but could it work better? Is the problem with the mechanic or with the too few skill points most classes receive; or perhaps some of both? Should the class skill lists be revised so that there are fewer cross-class skills?
Oh, one thing still: Maybe we should restart this "discussion" someway.
I would like to start with the 3.5 System and summarize the flaws and glitches you see in it.
I'll make a start:1) Cross-class skill mechanic too complicate.
2) x4 Skill point at 1st level bad with multiclassing (rogue cherrypick and the like)Are there any other real problems with this system despite(!) the need to allocate skill points?
1) I never found it too complicated, but could it work better?
One solution is to eliminate the 2 for 1 cost of purchasing cross-class skills but keep the lower maximum rank limit. Another could be to keep the 2 for 1 cost but eliminate the lower rank limit (allowing anyone to master any skill without multiclassing, although it's easier for certain classes to master certain skills).
Another change could be to increase the skill points for clerics, fighters, paladins, sorcerers, and wizards from 2 + Int to 4 + Int. Monks could similarly be increased from 4 + Int to 6 + Int. This would give everyone enough skill options, with consolidations similar to the Alpha Release, IMO.
2) With the 3.x system, the x4 skill points at 1st character level mostly made sense (supposedly representing everything you learned "growing up" and not just one class level of training).
While you could gain a lot of skills at 4 ranks by starting as a 3.x rogue, this quickly became less and less important as levels increased without taking more rogue levels because of cross-class costs and other skill requirements. The Alpha Release skill system, however, makes taking your first level as a rogue much better by having trained skills increase automatically (as others have pointed out, there's almost no downside to starting as a rogue at 1st level and switching to a different class for the next 19 levels).
|
|
What you're describing doesn't tally with what archon of light has explained above (even when you assume that preferred = class skills/primary = trained class skills/secondary = trained cross-class skills).
Right. On a number of threads there are discussions of different skill systems. I wanted to bring up the Otto the Bugbear system here. It deals with cross-class skills by allowing you to purchase one rank for one point (like the Epic Meepo system), but you do not divide your rank in the skill by 2. In the Epic Meepo system it costs 10 points to get a +5 rank modifier in a cross class skill. In the Otto the Bugbear system it costs 5 ranks to get a +5 in a cross-class skill. The Otto the Bugbear system means you get more out of your skill points (cross-class skills no longer cost 2-for-1 but you still keep the cross-class max.
@Archon - There are no overzealous moderators. Long posts are usually eaten. Usually I control+a and control+c to make sure if it gets eaten I can repost immediately.
|
There seem to be about 3 new ways of dealing with cross-class skills floating around in various threads. This is an attempt to summarize them:
1) Cross-class skills check = 1d20 + ability modifier + ranks/2
Epic Meepo has all skills costing the same, meaning that you'd have similar ranks in class and cross-class skills, but the formulas you use to determine the success of skill checks are different:
class = 1d20 + ability modifier + ranks
cross-class = 1d20 + ability modifier + ranks/2
2) +2 to all class skills, or -4 to all cross-class skills
Etrigan and others have suggested using the same formula for both class and cross-class skill checks but awarding a flat bonus of +2 if you have a particular skill on your class list. Another version of this would be to apply a -4 penalty to all cross-class skill checks.
3) Cap for cross-class skills: (level+3)/2
Otto the Bugbear, Dorje Sylas, EL, The Real Orion and others have suggested a system that caps ranks in a cross-class skill at a lower level than skills on your class list. If your cap is level+3 for class skills, it might be (level+3)/2 cap on cross-class skills. (This is, by the way, the way 3.5 caps cross-class skills.)
Note: All these systems have ranks in skills costing 1 skill point regardless of whether it is a class skill or a cross-class skill; nobody likes buying cross-class ranks at 2-for-1.
1) I don't like this version since you still have to calculate how many ranks you actually got. Besides, if you by all skills the same but can only use rank/2 with cc-skills its the same as buying them 2for1.
So this one's actually no good. Sorry.
2) That one would be some kind of my suggestion from above, but giving a +3 on class skills and +/-0 on cc-skills.
3) So if we realy want to keep the x4 at first level, I think thats the best way to go!
I would suggest now, for the sake of getting this discussion to an end, lets drop the first one and concentrate on those last two... please!
Feedback from one of my players on the options presented above, the player of the bard in my campaign, and one that is quite invested in using skills:
His first preference would be option number 3 from the original post, a combination of 3.5 for players and modified Pathfinder for NPCs/Monsters.
His second preference would be to stay with the Pathfinder system of things. This method, while less "realistic" to him, works fairly simply, and doesn't get in the way of playing, and isn't that hard to work with for backwards compatibility.
He doesn't like the hybrid system, because he feels that, while it may not be quite as complex as the regular 3.5 system, he still feels that there is no point in introducing an entirely new system that is still somewhat complicated, when you could just streamline existing systems.
His preference for staying with the 3.5 system is that it could be made so that cross class skills only have a cap on how many skill points you spend on that skill, not that you have to pay double for the skill (i.e. cross class only means that you can't excede (level +3)/2 in ranks). Also, his feeling is that to further simplify this, permanent intelligence bonuses should be retroactive, and once a skill is a class skill, it should remain a class skill. In this manner, it would be fairly easy to assign skill points at higher levels, but without radically altering the skill system into something it currently isn't.
Still waiting for feedback from my other players, although I know two of them have expressed a liking for the pathfinder system.
That's exactly what I was thinking about! (the last one about the 3.5 simplification).
1) no cross-class extra cost.
2) cross-class rank cap at (level+3)/2
3) Multiclass characters tread ALL class skills as class skills
And the system is improved without the need of big changes!
|
To keep skill points, I would have to agree with Dracodruid. Those are the simpliest ways to change it and make it viable. But if you can fix up Alpha, you get all that and then some. So to add to the list of changes, I submit this.
4) Get rid of the micromanagment of skill ranks.
5) Make skill DCs a little more accessible to those that have untrained mondifiers. This would greatly help the system as it is now.
DracoDruid's got it dead on. As a DM who stats up a lot of NPC wizards, allowing retroactive Int bonuses is a help, too, but I can always houserule that.
Getting rid of micromanaging skill ranks puts us back into the Alpha system, if I understand it correctly. In DracoDruid's system, there's absolutely no requirement that points be assigned one or two at a time -- you're free to just max everything out within the limits, if that's what you prefer. Everyone gets what they want.
That's a nice list of goals Archon. However it doesn't directly target what I saw as the primary complaint about the 3.5 system (particularly from a DMs point of view). The main goal I'm focused on was making multiclassed(monsters with PC classes) high level character creation faster, while staying as backwards compatible as possible.
When I first suggested the keeping the Cross-class rank cap, I also suggested that player/NPCs/Monsters be allowed to save skill points. I like Epic's take with the (Cross-class ranks)/2 as it almost totally eliminated my concern about player's having to do odd leap advancement with cross-class skills.
— although now working with it — I have a new suggestion about the cap. Instead of (Character Level +3)/ round down, I say Round Up instead. I need to work with Crazy Human and see if totaling up skill points and dividing gets the same results as normal leveling. After all the easiest way to create a high level character with skill points would be to total up the skill points then divide by (Character Level +3) for max ranks, any remainder goes into a single extra skill.
I still favor Epic's (Cross-class ranks)/2 = Check Modifier at this point.
I don't want to make things more complicated that they are now, but in another thread ("Thought on starting hit dice *and* starting skill points") there was a suggestion to remove the x4 at 1st level (or equivalent).
The proposition was to leave only x1 at 1st class level. The x3 skill points missing comes from the race.
I don't know how this would work with all skill options (with points or not or hybrid).
The big advantage I see with this, is to help calculate skill points for multiclass caracter. Like this Fighter 1/Rogue 2. Which level comes first doesn't matter. And it removes the HUGE amount of skill points a rogue receive at first level. Rogues should be skill-monkeys.. but THAT much?
...skill points from race... Wouldn't that leads to class-skills, cross-class skills and... RACIAL skills?
A quick example: A dwarven fighter don't have balance in his class skills, but dwarves are exceptionnaly stable on their feet. This dwarf should be allowed to be more stable than another race. And by more stable, I mean more than +4. He should be allowed to become an EXPERT, whichever class he chooses.
A final note. Skills represent training. The final option in PFRPG should not allow for instant uber-knowledge (like a 17th-level caracter instantly having the equivalent of 20ranks just by picking a new skill)
...STOP MESSAGING AND GO ROLEPLAYING NOW!...