|
Quoting myself on another thread
How many people honestly take wizard at level 1 when they decide play a 10/10 rogue/wizard? I bet almost none! The 8x4 skill points as a first level rogue and 6 hit points over 4 are far to huge a bonus to ignore.
This idea suddenly popped into my head while i wrote this and I have done my best to develop it now.
The choice of 1st level abilities is dependent on race instead of class. Racial Hit Dice
The racial variant of starting hit points was a good idea from the alpha document.
Racial: Maximum hit points for 1st level plus your Constitution modifier and any other bonuses. In addition, you get a number of bonus hit points based off your race.
The frail races (elf, gnome, and halfling) receive 4 hit points.
Standard races (half-elves and humans) receive 6 hit points.
The hearty races (dwarf and half-orc) receive 8 hit points.
So using these as the default 1st level hit points:
Frail races get 4Standard races 6
Hearty races 8
Class Hit Dice bonus
Instead of maximum the class simply provides a small bonus.
Wizards and sorcerers get +1 hit point at 1st level
Bards, clerics, druids, monks, and rogues get +2
Fighters, paladins, and rangers get +4
Barbarians get +5
Result: a 1st level dwarven wizard with a constitution of 16 (+3) would have 12 hit points at 1st level. An Elven cleric with 10 Con would have 6 hit points. Maximum possible: Dwarven Barbarian with 20 Con would have 18 hit points.
Racial skills
I liked the idea of providing a fixed progression to skills so i will go with that in my rules presented here (it wouldn’t be too hard to back process anyhow, just say each race gets the indicated amount in skill points x4). Skills are assigned based on race. Instead of providing a bonus to skills races provide a default skill list.
Skill level (whether the skill is a class or cross-class skill) is still determined by class.
Dwarves: All dwarves begin play knowing any 3 of the following skills
Appraise, Craft, Disable Device, Intimidate, Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Engineering), Perception, Profession.
Elves: All elves begin play knowing any 3 of the following skills
Acrobatics, Appraise, Climb, Craft, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Nature), Perception, Profession.
Gnomes: All gnomes begin play knowing any 3 of the following skills
Appraise, Craft, Handle Animal, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Nature), Perception, Perform, Profession.
Halflings: All halflings begin play knowing any 3 of the following skills
Acrobatics, Climb, Craft, Knowledge (local), Knowledge (history), Perception, Profession, Stealth
Half-Elves: All half-elves begin play knowing any 3 of the following skills; they may select any one of these to be a class skill
Acrobatics, Craft, Deception, Knowledge (Any), Linguistics , Perception, Profession
Half Orcs: All gnomes begin play knowing any 3 of the following skills
Climb, Craft, Deception, Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Nature), Perception, Profession, Survival
Humans: All gnomes begin play knowing any 4 of the following skills; they may select any one of these to be a class skill
Acrobatics, Appraise, Craft, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Any), Linguistics, Perception, Profession, Survival
Class and Bonus Skills
In addition, all classes get 1 skill + 1 skill per point of intelligence bonus chosen from their class list. In addition characters gain 1 bonus skill from their class list if that class is the characters favoured class (humans and half-elves get this bonus skill point by default). A negative intelligence modifier cannot bring this below 1 and has no effect on skills gained from race.
Note these rules only apply to 1st level, future levels still use the existing rules. i.e. a 1st level Halfling rogue would get 8 hit points (plus con modifer) but a 1st level wizard who took 1 level in rogue at 2nd gains 1d6 hit points. (or 1d8 if you use the alpha document).
I like the idea, but can't we go much simpler?
All 1st-level characters have 3+INT modifier skills (+1 for humans).
The difference is in what are class skills.
******
Here's what I'd actually prefer for PFRPG:
All 1st-level characters have a base of 3+INT skills (+1 for humans).
The first level a character takes in Barbarian, Druid, or Monk adds one skill.
The first level a character takes in Bard or Ranger adds two.
The first level a character takes in Rogue adds three.
Everyone gets new skills for level advancement per the chart.
The extra skills for taking a skilled class must be class skills for the new class, unless the character is out of such options.
The 1st-level fighter thus starts with 3, and the 1st-level rogue with 6, collapsing the current discrepancy, but it removes the incentive for always frontloading by taking first in Rogue.
This does open the door for a human Ftr1/Brb1/Dru1/Mon1/Brd1/Rgr1/Rog1 with 18INT with 21 skills at 7th level, but I can live with that.
I rather like the idea of starting race determining such things however i do feel the poor gnomes get a rough deal being in the fragile group.
My only other point would be to stop Pat's level 7 character with 21 skills would be to say gaining a new class with a higher number of starting skills than yours adds enough skills to bring your skills known to the maximum possible for your most highly skilled class so for instance that level 7 character would have 6 skills due to his rogue level. Alternately Each class would add 1 skill to a max of 6 which would prevent a single level dip into rogue to max out your skills
Just for the record: I want skill points back.
But back on topic. I like the idea of fixed skill points at first level (no racial stuff).
But after that, the new skills you get depend on class levels. Say rogues get one every two levels, fighters only every four. The numbers have all to be figured out, tested, tweaked, argued over, and so on, but that's the general idea.
|
so your saying make rogues useless in parties starting out. remember the rogue has to use most of his skills for doing the things a thief is to do. restricting this is more of a hamper on him than anything else. Considering there are no percentile thieving abilities in 3.0~3.5 edition.
There will always be a min maxing of any game. It is up to the DM to keep that under control.
|
|
so your saying make rogues useless in parties starting out. remember the rogue has to use most of his skills for doing the things a thief is to do. restricting this is more of a hamper on him than anything else. Considering there are no percentile thieving abilities in 3.0~3.5 edition.
Not exactly, rogues have the broadest list of class skills in the game and under the pazio system they are getting maximum ranks effectively in all their skills. Although I agree to some extent that rogues should have a quicker access to skills than other classes by combining skills the number of skills a rogue particularly wants has been reduced.
Under 3.5 a rogue has 26 class skills not including craft, knowledge or perform skills. In PRPG that number has dropped to 17. Given that characters gain 1 skill at every even numbered level all rogues with no intelligence modifier are going to have all the key skills a rogue needs by 18th level!
Giving them more at 1st just nullifies the intent of this rule change and having skills valued by class/cross-class/untrained the bonus of taking one skill is far greater, for example a 11th level fighter taking
survival as his new feat would technically be gaining the equivalent of 14 skill points!
Also as a side note the Pathfinder system actually makes multi-classing rogues even more powerful at 1st level since the skill choices are only effective at 1st level.
A 5th level cleric/1st level rogue will have 4 skills (+int)
A 1st level rogue/5th level cleric will have 10 skills (+ int)
A 5th level rogue/1st level cleric will have 10 skills (+ int)
A 1st level cleric/5th level rogue will have 4 skills (+ int)
Besides I kind of like the idea that a rogue will generally have a "style" relating to his choice of skills at low levels. A rogue taking Acrobatics will thus be different to a rogue who took stealth.
What I would have suggested is give rogues the +1 skill at every even level and slower progression for the other classes but this can get messy when dealing with multi-classing.
Instead I would suggest a slightly different approach; (this is in addition to the rules in my first post)
Skill Training
All characters must choose which skills they can be trained in at 1st level. They gain a number of trained skills equal to their intelligence modifier plus a number based on the following table. The choice is restricted by the class/cross-class list for your chosen class, for example a 1st level rogue could choose to select acrobatics as a skill that he can be trained in but could not select Handle Animal.
TABLE--------------------------
Class Skill Choices
* Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, or Wizard 2
* Barbarian, Druid, or Monk 4
* Bard or Ranger 6
* Rogue 8
-------------------------------
Gaining Skills Beyond 1st
At every even level a character gains an additional skill. The character may select either a class or cross-class skill.
Gaining Skill Training Beyond 1st
At every odd level beyond 1st the character gains an additional skill he can be trained in adding it to his total list of trained class skills, this skill can be selected from all classes available. When a character gains first level in a new class they gain a number of skills equal to the above table and add them to the characters total list of skills they can be trained in.
For example a 1st rogue/4th druid would be able to train in Handle animal at 5th level but a 5th rogue could not.
Trained, Untrained, Class, and Cross-Class
Skills come in two categories, Class and Cross-Class.
When you take trained in a Class skill the check result for that skill is equal to your character level +3 plus any modifiers for ability scores and race.
If you take training in a Cross-class skill the check result for that skill is equal to half your character level +2 (rounded down) plus any modifiers.
Skills you’re untrained in have a check result of 0 + any modifiers. Note that some skills cannot be attempted untrained.
Example 1
A 1st level elven rogue with 14 Int gains 10 skills he can be considered trained in, this is his characters class list.
He chooses the following from the rogue class list.
Acrobatics, Climb, Deception, Escape Artist, Knowledge (local), Linguistics, Perception, Stealth, Survival, and Use Magic Device.
Next he determines what skills he is actually trained in. Being an elf he gains 3 from the elf list taking Acrobatics, Knowledge (Arcana), and Perception.
Next he chooses his Class and bonus skills, which he also gets 3 of, choosing Deception, Linguistics, and Stealth.
So his skill selection is as follows.
(C) Acrobatics 4 + mods
(C) Deception 4 + mods
(cc) Knowledge (Arcana) 2 + mods
(C) Liguistics 4 + ability mods
(C) Perception 4 + ability mods
(C) Stealth 4 + ability mods
At 2nd level he chooses to add a level of rogue and gains training in Escape Artist.
(C) Acrobatics 5 + mods
(C) Deception 5 + mods
(C) Escape Artist 5 + mods
(cc) Knowledge (Arcana) 3 + mods
(C) Liguistics 5 + ability mods
(C) Perception 5 + ability mods
(C) Stealth 5 + ability mods
At 3rd level he chooses to add another rogue level and may now add another skill from the rogue list to his class list, choosing Disguise.
(C) Acrobatics 6 + mods
(C) Deception 6 + mods
(cc) Knowledge (Arcana) 3 + mods
(C) Liguistics 6 + ability mods
(C) Perception 6 + ability mods
(C) Stealth 6 + ability mods
At 4th level he chooses to add a level of wizard and gains 2 new skills from the wizards list to add to his class list, taking Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft. In addition he also gains training in a new skill choosing Spellcraft.
(C) Acrobatics 7 + mods
(C) Deception 7 + mods
(C) Knowledge (Arcana) 7 + mods
(C) Liguistics 7 + ability mods
(C) Perception 7 + ability mods
(C) Spellcraft 7 + mods
(C) Stealth 7 + ability mods
Example 2
A 1st level dwarven cleric with 10 int gains 2 skills he can be considered trained in, this is his characters class list.
He chooses the following from the cleric class list.
Heal and Spellcraft.
Next he determines what skills he actually is trained in. Being a dwarf he gains 3 from the dwarf list taking Appraise, Knowledge (Dungeoneering), and Perception.
Next he chooses his Class and bonus skills, which he only gets 1, choosing Heal
So his skill selection is as follows.
(cc) Appraise 2 + mods
(cc) Knowledge (Dungeoneering) 2 + mods
(C) Heal 4 + mods
(cc) Perception 2 + ability mods
At 2nd level he chooses to add a level of cleric and gains training in Spellcraft.
(cc) Appraise 3 + mods
(cc) Knowledge (Dungeoneering) 3 + mods
(C) Heal 5 + mods
(cc) Perception 3 + ability mods
(C) Spellcraft 5 + mods
At 3rd level he chooses to add fighter level and may now add 2 skills from the fighter list, choosing Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Survival, and 1 from either the fighter or cleric list to his class list, choosing Appraise.
(C) Appraise 6 + mods
(C) Knowledge (Dungeoneering) 6 + mods
(C) Heal 6 + mods
(cc) Perception 3 + ability mods
(C) Spellcraft 6 + mods
At 4th level he chooses to add a level of cleric and gains training in a new skill choosing Survival.
(C) Appraise 7 + mods
(C) Knowledge (Dungeoneering) 7 + mods
(C) Heal 7 + mods
(cc) Perception 4 + ability mods
(C) Spellcraft 7 + mods
(C) Survival 7 + mods
With this system what differentiates a rogue from a cleric is the fact that a rogue has far more chances of getting all his skills at maximum efficiency when he takes them while the cleric is considered less skilful and spends much of his levels improving skills he already has.
At a push however, if you wanted more skillful characters it wouldn’t hurt to give a bard and ranger +1 and a rogue +2 skills at 1st class level. making this a bonus from the class makes it less of a necessity to take at 1st level and reduces the high int requirement a bit too.
remember the rogue has to use most of his skills for doing the things a thief is to do.
If the rogue's sole right to exist would be to be a thief, you might be right. But it isn't. And that's not only because he's no thief.
Besides, he will not get no skills at all, he just won't get as many up front. He will start out with some of the things a rogue is to do, skill-wise. Specialise a bit at first before he can move out onto other areas. He'll start with, say, only stealth and deception, perception and disable device, and at first be only a combat-, trapfinder- and recon-rogue.
He can become cat-burgler-, pickpocket-, and conman-rogue later.
And don't forget he gets other stuff, too. Like sneak attack.
I want to mention that all classes have certain roles they're good at, but usually they can't fill out all these roles right away.
There will always be a min maxing of any game. It is up to the DM to keep that under control.
I agree. But I also think that it doesn't hurt for the game system to help out if it can. Don't swamp the DM with crowd-control so he finds the time to take care of the other things people consider his job.
I don't say they should go through the rules with a fine-toothed comb, or to take care of every thing that has even the slightest chance to be exploited, no matter how rare it is, but we're talking about something quite obvious, and something that is very general.
|
|
SO you are all saying to just screw the rogue. I think that rogues need all those skills in order to do their 'thing' as the party thief. If you say that the thief has no place make a character then have him used without the player knowing the party is heading into a trap filled area. I love to watch him survive THAT. You build a thief (Rogue is the Politicaly correct term) to do most the things that and 'iconic' thief is to do. considering he is suppose to do all the things listed in the thieving scores that got turned into skills. Also lock picking is a whole lot different than disabling devices.
I think that the rogue should still be the skill monkey of the party, but I would like to reduce the min/max potential of the current version of the class. At the moment everyone gets a new trained skill every even level. I think that this is way too much, at 20th level everyone is a skill monkey. Another way to do this is to make every class even in trained skills at 1st level, for example giving them 3 + Int modifier trained skills. Then the rogue would get a new trained skill every even level; the bard and ranger every third level from 2nd; the barbarian, druid, and monk every fourth level from 2nd; and the rest every fifth level from 2nd. This way there's no min/maxing with skills at 1st level, but the rogue will still be the skill monkey in the party.
|
|
SO you are all saying to just screw the rogue. I think that rogues need all those skills in order to do their 'thing' as the party thief. If you say that the thief has no place make a character then have him used without the player knowing the party is heading into a trap filled area. I love to watch him survive THAT. You build a thief (Rogue is the Politicaly correct term) to do most the things that and 'iconic' thief is to do. considering he is suppose to do all the things listed in the thieving scores that got turned into skills. Also lock picking is a whole lot different than disabling devices.
I agree that rogues should be better at skills than others but with a reduced skill list rogues now all become the same, even at low levels. My system presented above still provides that flexability although I admit it requires a little bit of tweaking (which I'm working on right now).
Having said that though i have tried a number of character builds up to 5th level and the results are very promising, low skill characters still have a fair number of skills but many are at cross-class level (unless they restrict themselves to their class skills), those that have more skills I have found have nearly all their skills at max level. While theres a large difference between a cleric with 10 int and a rogue with 18 int the difference between rogues and rangers or high int characters becomes more blurred.
One thing though, skills used to be only available to a rogue. People wanted skills for all classes so the skill system was devised. rogues got more but this introduced the min-max. now by making the skills more balanced rogues loose their luster a little...
Heres my solution: Rogues need a range of talents that enhance their favorite skills beyond that of a non-rogue and I think the talent system in the Alpha 1 is the best place to put these, it would maintain the elimination of the level one min-max while providing skill based rogues with a lot more options and flavor.
SO you are all saying to just screw the rogue.
Have you seen her? Class-A Elven Hottie.
I think that rogues need all those skills in order to do their 'thing' as the party thief.
Rogues aren't thieves. Some might be. Others never did anything illegal in their life.
You build a thief (Rogue is the Politicaly correct term)
Cut the "politicall".
Renaming the class was one of the greatest things 3e did. They never were all played as thieves, but a lot of those who weren't are treated as thieves because the class is called thief.
And beyond jerks using names as an excuse to be prejudiced, they really weren't all thieves. Rogue fits much better.
to do most the things that and 'iconic' thief is to do.
No I don't. I've played rogues who didn't regularly steal (that's what a thief basically todes: He steals stuff).
I had some who were diplomats. I had assassins and infiltrators, I had con men.
In fact, I rarely play thieves.
I don't even regularly play rogues who deal with locks and traps.
considering he is suppose to do all the things listed in the thieving scores that got turned into skills.
No, he isn't.
Also lock picking is a whole lot different than disabling devices.
Spotting things and listening to things - and searching for things - are also quite different. Same for trying to stay on your feet and avoid getting whacked when you go past some guy. Or hiding a knife on your person or taking someone's purse without him noticing and lock picking.
Since we're talking about people being supposed to do things:
Wizards are supposed to fry enemies wholesale, a dozen at a time. They're supposed to take down the enemies' magical defenses. They're supposed to get you places. They're supposed to find out stuff. They're supposed to get muscle.
Do you say we should give them teleport, dispel magic, fireball, scrying and planar binding, all at 1st-level, lest we screw him for not being able to do all the magey things at once?
A system where everyone gets the same amount of skills at once (with Pathfinder's way of treating skills) at first levels, but then gets extra skills depending on the class would solve the min-maxing part where everyone and thair aunt hillery starts as rogue, would give an additional perk for sticking to rogue, and I say it makes a lot more sense than everyone starting with a different amount of skills but then getting, when they progress in their class, all the same amount of extra skills.
In 3e, you don't get the same amount of skill points after level 1, so it's consistent as well.
|
|
You obviously never played any edition before 3e as how you are ranting. I liked when thieves had a backstab multiplier, and percentile scores for 'thier' skills. Back when weapon proficiencies and non weapon proficiencies where optional, but everyone used them. I think gimping the skills will hurt the thief and takes alot of power compared to the other classes away.
If you want to reduce the skills, reduce the feats fighters get, remove domains from clerics, reduce the bard's song abilities, Reduce the unarmed damage a monk gets, reduce the holy effects a paladin has, reduce ranger combat abilities, reduce the rage potential for barbarians, and take familiar away from sorcerers and wizards.
Also from the sounds of things people are saying, I am the only one defending rogue to leave as is.
What I would like to see for skills:
1) Consolidating some of the skills as Alpha already proposes
2) Keeping some sort of skill point system (not choosing skills)
3) Characters may have max ranks in a particular skill = to their level. As a class feature, at first level, Rogues may have max ranks in a skill = to their level +3.
|
|
Also from the sounds of things people are saying, I am the only one defending rogue to leave as is.
to Quote the Alpha Document...
Skills represent some of the more mundane abilities your character possesses.
This is the intent of skills in 3.5 and although rogues make the most use of these skills it does not define the class. On the other hand you could uite easily apply more pluses to skills as a rogue levels in the same way fighters have gained more attack and damage without affecting the game too much.
Skills are still a major part of the game though but what I would like to see is people abandoning the 1 level dip into rogue just for 8 x 4 skill points at 1st level.
I must stress I do agree with you that rogues should have iconic skills but it would be better to see those skills as features of the class instead of a representation of more available skill points than anyone else. I'll give you an example of one particular skill I think fits rogue over all other classes, Free Running (yup inspired by the new urban free running sweeping the globe *Google it* ), effectively it gives rogues the same effect of woodland stride but within an urban environment.
You obviously never played any edition before 3e
I started playing with 2w.
I think gimping the skills will hurt the thief and takes alot of power compared to the other classes away.
Now who's ranting? You even keep using the wrong name.
Plus, I'm not saying that the rogue's emphasis on skills should be reduced.
In the new system, they'd still be the best skill users around. But the difference would show up over time instead of being front-loaded.
It might actually help the rogue's popularity: Instead of starting with rogue for the skills and then going somewhere else, it would encourage people to stick to the class.
If you want to reduce the skills, reduce the feats fighters get
Yeah, that will help.
To repeat my post, since you obviously (yeah, I don't know that, but I think that I get to make assumptions like this, too.) didn't read it the first time:
The system should be as follows.
Starting skills are the same across the board. 4+Int or something.
But the additional skills depend on class. Classes that used to get more points will get them faster, and those with less points more slowly.
Rogues would get one every other level, or maybe even every level (or something in between - no reason to make it an arithmetic thing. Make it 12 for rogues from levels 1 to 20, spread as evenly as possible.).
Fighters would get one every 3 or 4 levels.
The other classes would be somewhere between.
Also from the sounds of things people are saying, I am the only one defending rogue to leave as is.
Now what does that tell you?
This is the intent of skills in 3.5 and although rogues make the most use of these skills it does not define the class.
I think that it actually is one of the things that define the rogue: call it skillmonkey, or jack-of-all-trades, or whatever floats your boat, but one thing that defines rogues is having lots of skills.
The thing is that one of the things is that he keeps getting a lot of skill points.
I think he should keep that. I think it should stay an advantage past 1st-level. A character with rogue levels should have more skills than one without, and the character with more rogue levels should have more skill than one with less.
It should not matter, or at least not that much, whether he started as a rogue or got into it later.
By the current system, a rogue1/fighter19 (in that order) will have more skills than a fighter1/rogue19. That's not right.
I must stress I do agree with you that rogues should have iconic skills but it would be better to see those skills as features of the class instead of a representation of more available skill points than anyone else.
I more or less agree:
The rogue should have iconic abilities, and they should be treated as abilities, not skills.But of the skills we have in 3.5, none should be turned into rogue abilities. Let them remain skills. Give the rogue something else. I think the new rogue talents do a nice job.
I also think that the rogue should be more versatile with skills, both in the choices and in how many he gets - he just shouldn't be front-loaded.
I'll give you an example of one particular skill I think fits rogue over all other classes, Free Running (yup inspired by the new urban free running sweeping the globe *Google it* ), effectively it gives rogues the same effect of woodland stride but within an urban environment.
Just a minor nitpick: Call it ability if you are talking about a class feature. Call it only skill if you mean one of those things that will show up in the skills section, will be bought with skill points (or their replacement),who will have skill ranks (even if it's an applied max-out like in Alpha 1) and will be available to everyone (even if it's a cross-class skill).
I know that in general English, the terms are somewhat interchangeable, but it's a good idea to make clear distinctions when we talk about rules features.
|
|
Sorry but rogues having lots of skills does not make sense as a defining class feature. what does make sense is the number skills a rogue is GOOD AT compared to other classes. Thats kind of what my system tries to do by reducing the margin of skills to a handful while restricting the level of training. A rogue character has only a few more skills that a fighter or wizard but will be better at using all of his skills.
I'm currently working on the system some more and will post my newer version once completed but as it currently stands even by saying a rogue gets +1 more skill results in a level 1 min-max. Your definition of the fighter 19/ rogue 1, vs the rogue 19/fighter 1 is a perfect example of the flaw and currently the only way to "FIX" it is to provide rogues with bonus skills based on his class level.
Agreed skills should not be removed just to fill out the rogues abilities. and my apologies for calling free running a skill :)
I'd prefer to see something similar to the Variant Psychic Rogue which is limited to 6 skill points a level. Give the class some "psionics/spellcasting" similar mechanically to a Bard for some skill points and a few feats and a slightly delayed class special progression.
Give the class some "psionics/spellcasting"
I have no problem with some wild talents, like the 1st-level spells they get in Alpha 1, but they should remain mostly magic-free. Some hedge magic, some fooling magic items into thinking they're great archmages who can spank Mordenkainen, Raistlin and Elminster all at once without breaking a sweat, but no full-time or even remotely full-time spellcasting please.
Rogue's do their stuff almost completely with their own mundane skills. They don't use magic, they use magic.
Also from the sounds of things people are saying, I am the only one defending rogue to leave as is.
First off I agree with you. I think the Rogue is well balanced with regard to other classes and needs the skill variety to be a Rogue. I do recognize the "I need to start as a Rogue at level 1 before doing anything else" problem needs to be addressed as well. The 1.0.1 notes say that Paizo is rebuilding skills. I am kind of waiting to see what they have decided before getting worked up again.
As for the player who never plays trap finding rogues, in the groups I play in and/or run, the only way that flys is if there is another rogue that is a trapfinder. That is, the character must be extranious anyway or the party couldn't live with him...or the DM is doing a lot of work to avoid using traps. The game fundamentally assumes that the rogue is a stealthy trapfinder first and everything else second. The Trapfinding ability is the give-a-way. With that in mind, not frontloading makes for very generic rogues with little customization at low level.
As for the player who never plays trap finding rogues, in the groups I play in and/or run, the only way that flys is if there is another rogue that is a trapfinder. That is, the character must be extranious anyway or the party couldn't live with him...or the DM is doing a lot of work to avoid using traps. The game fundamentally assumes that the rogue is a stealthy trapfinder first and everything else second. The Trapfinding ability is the give-a-way. With that in mind, not frontloading makes for very generic rogues with little customization at low level.
I find that sneak-attack is much more important to a rogue than trapfinding. Granted, sneak-attack doesn't work against all monsters or all situations, but if the party rogue can get flanking against a vulnerable opponent, they can really lay on the extra dice.
The opportunity for sneak damage just seems to come up more often than traps. Unless you're DM is a trap-loving kook, you will probably see more fights than traps.
The problem with trapfinding is that is that it often comes down to a one or two rolls (at most) per session, and the targets are usually high relative to your CR. So if you blow a roll or two, you look like an idiot.
The "trapfinding rogue" in our party has 10+ levels of rogue and a maxed disable device skill but hasn't managed to disarm more than 1 or 2 traps out of the many that we've encountered. The guy just can't manage the d20 roll under pressure.
But the same character has really hammered on a couple of big bads because they felt more threatened by the armored fighter on the other side of the flank from the rogue. So the big bad keeps trying to hit the fighter while the rogue keeps sneaking in the damage.
As for the player who never plays trap finding rogues, in the groups I play in and/or run, the only way that flys is if there is another rogue that is a trapfinder. That is, the character must be extranious anyway or the party couldn't live with him...or the DM is doing a lot of work to avoid using traps. The game fundamentally assumes that the rogue is a stealthy trapfinder first and everything else second.
"Player who never plays trap finding rogues" - that's my birth name. Around here, I only use "KaeYoss".
The game doesn't assume it. I have played in many campaigns where there was no trap-rogue in there. In fact, several campaigns didn't have *any* rogue in there. We never had problems. So it can't be the game.
And even if it was, the goal should be to change the game that characters aren't forced into pigeon-holes rather than reinforcing the forcing.
Also as a side note the Pathfinder system actually makes multi-classing rogues even more powerful at 1st level since the skill choices are only effective at 1st level.
A 5th level cleric/1st level rogue will have 4 skills (+int)
A 1st level rogue/5th level cleric will have 10 skills (+ int)
A 5th level rogue/1st level cleric will have 10 skills (+ int)
A 1st level cleric/5th level rogue will have 4 skills (+ int)
I assume they are working on something to correct this, as it stands that's serious design problem.
I like what they are trying to do with skills but I think some sort of compromise between automatically maxing the skills and putting points into them would work better. Perhaps all skills are auto cross-classed max ranks (half CL + ranks purchased + ability score) and every level you get X number of points and every 3rd level you get one more skill?
Something needs to change either way.
|
|
I started playing with 2w.
What version is that I never heard of 2w. I heard of basic, advanced, core rules basic (2ed DnD), advanced 1e, and advanced 2e. so what version is that?
I have the feeling that the number of skills a rogue has is fine. I defend the rogue (which is thief from previous editions) because they have had so much taken from them in the first place. Considering the sneak attack is useless against certain creatures (undead, plants, etc) and there are spells to out right deny it (heavy fortification). SO take the skill points away what are you going to give for compensation?
Also If you want jack of all trades play an advanced dungeons and dragons bard. (pre 1e)
Also the reason bards have 6+int instead of 8+int is that they pay for their ability to limited casting of spells and their music abilities plus the bardic knowledge.
What version is that I never heard of 2w. I heard of basic, advanced, core rules basic (2ed DnD), advanced 1e, and advanced 2e. so what version is that?
The "w" is right next to the "e" on the standard keyboard. I'm sure it was a typo and Kae Yoss meant "second edition".
Settle down.
What version is that I never heard of 2w.
I started playing with 2w.
I'll just consider it an attempt to lighten the mood with humour. Didn't work, but the attempt is appreciated.
I defend the rogue (which is thief from previous editions)
Tell me something I don't know.
But as I said, renaming the class was one of the best changes they made.
Considering the sneak attack is useless against certain creatures (undead, plants, etc)
Not any more. See Page 14, Alpha 1.1.
And compare sneak attack with 2e's backstab: It's a lot easier to use sneak attack, and you can use it a lot more often. It was actually a boost in 3e.
and there are spells to out right deny it (heavy fortification).
That's not a spell, but an enhancement for armour.
And outright is one word, by the way (never pays to be pedantic, other people might do the same)
SO take the skill points away what are you going to give for compensation?
You mean, beyond the better HD, the rogue talents, the new and improved sneak attack that works against almost everything now, and the fact that several skills that are both on the rogue class list and quite popular for rogues have been consolidated, so he gets more skill-bang for his skillpoint-buck?
Well, I'd give them skill points - or, to be more precise, skills, since the system doesn't use skill points any more.
I already explained it, but I'll just repeat my suggestion so you won't have to look through my posts again (though you might want to, anway - I'm sure there's a typo or two in there, which you can make fun of for hilarious effect!)
Instead of every class having a different amount of starting skills but gaining the same amount of extra skills later, it grants the same amount of starting skills - or virtually the same amount - to everyone, but the extra skills are varied.
For example, everyone could start with 4+int skills at first level (+1 for humans), but instead of getting an extra one at every even character level, grant different amounts of extra skills depending on class and class level.
Rogues could get one at first and then every even class level (maybe with extra ones at 5 and 15), while bards/rangers only get one every even class level, druids, barbarians and so on only one every 3 levels, and fighters only one every 4.
The numbers are just a suggestion, I'm not married to them or anything.
This would mean that while rogues start with only one extra skill over everyone else, he quickly outdistances others.
It also means that a rogue1/fighter19 (starting with the rogue level) wouldn't have more skills than a fighter1/rogue19 (starting with the fighter level). You'd be rewarded for sticking to the rogue.
Also If you want jack of all trades play an advanced dungeons and dragons bard. (pre 1e)
Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but wasn't anything "pre 1e" just Dungeons and Dragons? I don't think there was another AD&D edition before AD&D 1e.
And why would I want to play an ages-old game? I want to play 3e, where rogues aren't just thieves.
There are 3 classes in 3.5 core I'd call "jack-of-all-trades".
Rogues, because they have a huge class skill list and get more skill points than everyone else. Add to that their class abilities and they can fill a ton of roles. They're even half-decent warriors, though not the tank-type, more the swash-buckler (I avoid the term "striker" on purpose)
Bards, because they have a decent skill list and also get a lot of skill points. They're not useless with with weapons, either, and can even do some magic (which includes basic healing, something no other arcanist can do).
Rangers: They can fight, they have lots of skill points, they even have a little bit of magic.
The problem with skills as I see it in 3E/3.5 is that as a DM, it is a major inconvenience to create NPC's accurately while accounting for cross-class skills and, most importantly, increases in Intelligence after 1st level.
The Int part is true - I personally grant skill points retroactively just to avoid headaches like this.
And I never have any inhibitions to create NPCs inaccurately - if their skill point total isn't 100% correct, it won't break the game, and the players don't have to know.
Besides, unless you use multiclassing, it's not that much of a hassle.
I've seen the non-skill point variants proposed in SW:Saga edition and as suggested in the previews of 4E, and I'm not thrilled with the effect it has on (in)ability to customize a character build.
I also like the "hobby effect", when a character only gets a couple of skill points in a certain skill, and while I do max out my skills most of the time, I sometimes split one of my "skill stacks" on two skills, if they aren't that important but I'd rather have both at some level than do without one or the other (so instead of 10 ranks in spot OR listen I have 5 ranks in spot AND 5 ranks in listen - not that this is an issue any more)
Maximum skill points in a class skill are equal to your level.Maximum skill points in a cross-class skill are equal half your level (round up).
That could cause problems, since DCs assume that you have level+3 ranks in your skills.
I commented on the "level+3" formula for skills as they are in alpha1, too, since it's a holdover.
It costs 1 skill point to buy 1 rank of a skill, whether it's a class skill or a cross-class skill.When multi-classed, all class skills of one class are condsiered class skills of ALL classes when determining skill maximums.
The first wouldn't be that bad an Idea, actually. Certainly would decrease the amount of headache.
The latter is already how it's done in 3e.
Each class get's a class feature that gives a class bonus to skills on that class's skill list, and that bonus increases with class level (+1 per three or four levels or so). These bonuses don't stack, so a multiclass rogue/monk doesn't get the class bonus to Tumble twice - only the highest class bonus applies.
Now here it gets complicated, and unnecessarily so, if you ask me. It seems redundant to have this AND skill points.
The more differentiation between races, the better
I have to disagree on that one. Classes shouldn't have too many features. Makes it too hard to change the racial flavour.
So if you decide that your elves aren't PFRPG's smart and agile but frail spellcasters with keen senses, but, say, highly charismatic but weak aristocrats that embody civilisation, or to go the other way, wild souls of nature, cleaving to druidic traditions and stealth, very strong and agile, but awkward in conversations and not very bright, it's easy to do in 3e.
But if every race's abilities take up 3 pages, you'll have a lot of stuff to rewrite (and not just when you rewrite the class, but also when you have modules with NPCs in them).
It's one of the big turnoffs of 4e for me.
And as far as favored classes go, a +1 skill point per favored class level is more enticing to me than a +1 HP per favor3ed class level, but your mileage may vary.
Great idea. Provided we get skill points back, this is a way better choice than the hit points, and makes more sense: While the "you do what you're expected to do, so you're harder to kill" philosophy of +1 HP doesn't sit well with me, "you do what your race does best, so you don't have to swim upstream in your studies, and in fact have plenty of role models and teachers around" hits it on the nail.
I might even consider putting favoured classes back in my rules with this!
As to the rogue skill question I believe that Theft should be a 1st level class ability for rogues. Their should be no reason why anyone other then a rogue or bard should even have access to this ability. This skill respresents a specialized ability that takes extensive training that you can not just learn to do without having a specialized tutor. If this is the case why do they not have Spell Casting as a skill since it is mostley learning an arcane language and some rituals not much more then learing religous rites. You could also have heavy armor as a skill as all that entails is wearing it around a while to get comfortable in it. How about martial weapons as a skill since all it requires is some one to train you in it.
Before it is brought up I know it is a class skill for Rogues and a cross class skill for other classes. I simple believe it should be an exclusive skill for Rogues like what they did with animal empathy in 3.0 to 3.5.
BTW
I like a lot of the changes and I am very interested in seeing what they are planning to do with the other classes.
A 5th level cleric/1st level rogue will have 4 skills (+int)
A 1st level rogue/5th level cleric will have 10 skills (+ int)
A 5th level rogue/1st level cleric will have 10 skills (+ int)
A 1st level cleric/5th level rogue will have 4 skills (+ int)
This is very different under the Scaled System presented by Jason in the [Design Focus] Skills thread.
Instead it would look like this:
A 5th level cleric/1st level rogue will have 3 skills (+int)
A 1st level rogue/5th level cleric will have 5 skills (+ int)
A 5th level rogue/1st level cleric will have 6 skills (+ int)
A 1st level cleric/5th level rogue will have 4 skills (+ int)
See how much less overpowering the 1st level is and how much more later levels in high skill classes matter? With one more level of rogue the 1st cleric/5th rogue will catch up to the 1st rogue/5th cleric, shortly thereafter he'll pull ahead.
My players also added the ability to purchase minor class skills. For 1 skill choice you can purchase two class skills at cross class levels. Two minor class skills can be upgraded to class skill levels by spending an additional skill choice on them. This was to allow greater options and more dabbling in other skills.
I know that in general English, the terms are somewhat interchangeable, but it's a good idea to make clear distinctions when we talk about rules features.
I know that gets annoying. I just argued the other day with people who were interchanging Barbarian (the class) with barbarian (as in a people). It made my head spin.
|
Ok only got half way through this thread, so forgive me if its been said...
I think the problem isent that the rouge gets too many skill point, but rather that no other class get a 1st level boost of equivlent sweetness.
so maybe the frontline fighters should get a first level hp boost, and the spell casters should get a number of spells boost..
i know the hp boost steps on other sugestions, but at least you see where im going with this.
Check this out.
The post above this one has good ideas as well.
|
|
Check this out.
I totally did! And I left my thoughts over there, but thought they'd go pretty good here too:
What if the rogue got a "favored skill" bonus system that worked like the ranger's favored enemy feature? You'd have fewer skill points to start; every other level you could take a +2 bonus to any new skill, with an additional +2 to any "favored" skill, etc.
Other Edit: Or could that even be number of skills equal to INT bonus? If you don't have to pick new skills each time, you could stack them up however you like.
You'd need to math it out to see how that compares to the current 8+INT, but something along these lines could stay close the original feel while eliminating the issue of rogues being a great 1st-level dip for skills.
Edit: that could actually work for any class, really; just give everybody the same skill points at 1st and change how often you get a new "favored" skill by class.
And Later: if you give everybody INT modifier in skill points each level (x4 at 1st), then allow at every even level a "favored skill" selection from their class skill list at their current skill point level by class (e.g., 8 for rogues), it works out more or less the same except for the bump at 1st level. You could still settle some things by what character has the most total ranks in a skill (ties on opposed Deception checks, for example), so having actual ranks would still matter for some things.
I noticed that taking 1st level in rogue is WAY too good also-- so I have a solution to the problem:
That's what I've been saying: Make starting skills equal for everyone and change the rate they get new skills, instead of the other way around. That way, it would be more important to take many levels in rogue, as opposed to taking 1 level of rogue and then doing anything else.
I know that gets annoying. I just argued the other day with people who were interchanging Barbarian (the class) with barbarian (as in a people). It made my head spin.I know that in general English, the terms are somewhat interchangeable, but it's a good idea to make clear distinctions when we talk about rules features.
I'd say that the barbarian could have been named more aptly. Berserker would have been a better fit.
Barbarian (which is a kind of people in addition to the class) is a bit too Old DSA for me (In DSA - which has been translated into English with the most recent version and is known as Dark Eye - you only had "hero types". That was a mix of race, class, and culture. You'd have "Elf", "Vagrant", or "Thorwalian").