I don't like the flat-rate of bonus for skill points because someone who takes a single skill now has more ability based purely on level. A 12th-level adventurer automatically is better at blacksmithing than a career blacksmith because she took one skill? Makes no sense.
That said, I understand the impetuous to make the system simpler. Here's my, admittedly quite conservative, suggestion: make skill points worth more individually. Halve the number classes get per level and make each point worth +2 to a Class skill and +1 to a Cross Class skill. That way, no more fractions and you're literally doing half the work to distribute your skill points.
I really think skill points should be kept. I liked the variaty they added to a character. Having the choice of where you spent them was useful.
I would also like to have seen a two pool system for them.
Where a character get a number of class skill points AND cross class
skill points at each level, to help flesh out a character.
Amen.
I like being able to be a jack of all trades by building up a bunch of skills to 5 ranks each and getting all the synergy bonuses. It allows for more interesting customization.
I wouldn't be averse to some minor alterations as were done between 3 and 3.5, say for example merging listen/spot as perception. But I think the major overhaul done in the alpha will be a significant problem for backward compatibility, which is supposed to be a major goal here.
|
I agree skill points allow for deeper customization, and while I think to new system is a little too far for standard customization, skill points are just too messy.
As a player and DM one thing that has brought me the most grief is making sure skills are right. I try to audit my own character sheets at least two to three times a month and while it's usually really quick sometimes you get accidental erasures and marks and you have to recheck numbers. When you are not sure exactly how many skill points you have at each level or if you took a cross-class skill here or there, it gets really cumbersome.
As a DM I look over my players sheets about once a month just to a) make sure I know their characters and b) do a traditional audit. With new players in the group that don't understand class and cross-class I sometimes have something like a third level fighter with six ranks in spot and listen and such and numbers don't always add up.
After looking at the design focus threads I have liked the in-between ideas for skills, particularly the idea that x number of ranks means one thing and y means something different with a semi-constant adder.
Anyways, my two cents,
Andrew
Did we need another thread for this? Or is there a post limit on threads, and the other "Skill point discussion" threads already reached it? Just wondering...
Did we need another thread for this? Or is there a post limit on threads, and the other "Skill point discussion" threads already reached it? Just wondering...
This one had the name that seemed to express what i was interested in saying. it was already around, what ya gunna do?
I say out fit em there a mess and a headache for alot of DM'S .I like the fast simple system in alpha pleas keep it.
I call for a HYBRID (works for cars) I spend skill point to describe the events that shape my character, it very important that this be still an option. I have no problem if the static growth is an option as well. (its simple to place in a sidebar)maybe a simple system of subtracting from one skill (on a level where all skills get a bump) and placing it in a non favored skill. you keep the "ranks" in the first skill and the other skill bumps up by "two" maka-da-sensa? prolly not
I also would like to see skill points kept for PCs. Simplifying skills for NPCs would be great for DMs and even a sidebar or appendix for using this new system would be fine.
But, definitely keep skill points as the standard option for PCs. I would like to see cross-class skills go away and more skill points all around, but that's about all the revision I want to see for skills.
As a player and DM one thing that has brought me the most grief is making sure skills are right. I try to audit my own character sheets at least two to three times a month and while it's usually really quick sometimes you get accidental erasures and marks and you have to recheck numbers. When you are not sure exactly how many skill points you have at each level or if you took a cross-class skill here or there, it gets really cumbersome.As a DM I look over my players sheets about once a month just to a) make sure I know their characters and b) do a traditional audit. With new players in the group that don't understand class and cross-class I sometimes have something like a third level fighter with six ranks in spot and listen and such and numbers don't always add up.
You know, I'd like to do this myself, since I'm sure I've made an arithmetic error here and there on some characters, but I've always run into trouble with multiclassing. How do you handle things there?
...Or have I been doing skills wrong for years? The way I've been doing it, a skill only counts as class in terms of points spent per rank if it's a class skill for the class you're leveling at the time. Is this wrong?
I don't like the flat-rate of bonus for skill points because someone who takes a single skill now has more ability based purely on level. A 12th-level adventurer automatically is better at blacksmithing than a career blacksmith because she took one skill? Makes no sense.
That said, I understand the impetuous to make the system simpler. Here's my, admittedly quite conservative, suggestion: make skill points worth more individually. Halve the number classes get per level and make each point worth +2 to a Class skill and +1 to a Cross Class skill. That way, no more fractions and you're literally doing half the work to distribute your skill points.
I don't see the link exactly because you can max out multiple skills now with the current system depending on what class you are and what your intelligence modifier is.
Thru the course of a game a wizard could max out the knowledge skills giving him more expertise on enough topic to out-expert several esteemed professors and a panel of professional engineers. A smart rogue can excel enough to out-do a professional locksmith, a navy seal team, an FBI bomb-squad, an actors guild, a CIA operative, a street magician, numerous different appraisal jobs, and an Olympic gymnast.
I guess I fail to see how blacksmithing takes more focus.
I might suggest if you are going back and figuring out how skill points were spent, you might want to use a sheet like this:
skill list pdf
You can put the class for that level and the number of skill points, and then use them to buy ranks. Just list the bought ranks for that level in the column, afterwards total the row. Of course it doesn't help a lot with knowing what is and is not a cross class skill (maybe using a high lighter and color coding them), but it should help to keep them organized and you can keep the sheet and update it every level or so.
|
There are a lot f things I like and a lot of things I dislike in Pathfinder. The handling of skills is one I certainly dislike. My games (since 1979) have always emphasized Role Playing over Roll Playing, 4e's trend towards what I see as the latter is one reason I am not excited about it.
The revamp of skills presented here effectively deprived PCs and NPC of one very easy route of true customization. The allocation of skill points in the original SRD gives versatility and character that the reboot lacks. Even if I like the final Pathfinder product enough to purchase, which I really hope I do, I will be keeping skills.
This is another symptom of why I worry about the touted "backwards compatibility" which was my main reason for downloading the Alpha.
Come on guys, this is a fantastic move and could be really wonderful, but please do not reboot so that you invalidate the compatibility you espouse. How could I use skill tricks from Complete Adventurer, a favorite rule of mine, under this framework?
Simply Put: Please keep skill points!
PS- Love the perception skill btw!
...Or have I been doing skills wrong for years? The way I've been doing it, a skill only counts as class in terms of points spent per rank if it's a class skill for the class you're leveling at the time. Is this wrong?Nope, that's right according to the rules.
Okay, good, I was worried for a second.
Well then, with this in mind, is there any easy way to do that sort of skill point audit for a multiclassed character besides just keeping track of what points you spent under what class as you leveled up?
I hope they keep the alpha or something close to it as an option at lest. seems like at lest half isnt gonna be happy either way now.
Actually after building a few characters at random levels and comparing them to some already played characters I've made... I gotta say I like this change. I REALLY like this change for the characters I've made that get the 2+INT progression (except for the wizard because hit INT is through the roof anyway, and it's still better).
I was a bit iffy on this but I'm sold.
I like it.
No skill points for me. Considering how the skills a character chooses are already maximized, having a few more skills with negligible bonuses does not help in creating a character, and it is just a mess to deal with when creating high level characters. Bean-counting with skill points is tedious and error-prone.
Actually after building a few characters at random levels and comparing them to some already played characters I've made... I gotta say I like this change. I REALLY like this change for the characters I've made that get the 2+INT progression (except for the wizard because hit INT is through the roof anyway, and it's still better).
I was a bit iffy on this but I'm sold.
I like it.
which system or vairent system did you use.
Yeah I was iffy on the alpha system myself till i used it a bit now i love the thing .I will not be useing skill points any more.
I guess I don't see the problem with compatibility. Rank = class level+3 or 1/2(class level+3)...plus any feat add-ons, then add the bonuses.
We know all the numbers, so I guess I have trouble seeing where the conversion is, and given the fact their are a few more feats to be had, increasing some of these skills seems easier. I do think their should be feats to make a cross-classed skill a class skill.
Not only that, but this makes certain character options easier (which is another reason I would argue for the feat). Take a human fighter at first level you want to be sneaky. Lets say he has a 14 DEX and 10 INT. Use the human's additional skill and extra feat for skill focus...1st level fighter with 9 stealth plus 2 additional skills.
To do that with the original skill system you would need 2 feats (one for move silently + Hide) and need to be 2nd level and have no other skill ranks at all. With skill points, even with the new consolidated feats he would have to spend half of what he gets in skillpoints for stealth, giving him exactly two skills for the entire game that progress with solid worth.
At 10th a Human fighter with the stated INT would have 8 skills in comparison to the Human rogues 14 with many more of them likely to be game-saving class feats...so the Rogue is still the best and only real skill-monkey in the game. The other characters just aren't useless. The only thing I think is overpowering perhaps is the human ability along with the fact they get an extra feat. It might be enough that they treat it as a class skill without giving automatic proficiency.
It gives you a solid ability to build a specific style of character without making it cost an absurd amount for a medium game ability in comparison to another class and doesn't tax as much in resources.
Not only do I not see the problem, I wouldn't even see the problem running with points and skill-buys in the same game...One is whatever the character using the older system puts down on his character sheet and the other is Character Level+3 or 1/2 of that for cross-class for whatever he takes when ranks are required for a prereq. The total for checks is just as easy.
Take a human fighter at first level you want to be sneaky. ...
To do that with the original skill system you would need 2 feats (one for move silently + Hide) and need to be 2nd level and have no other skill ranks at all. With skill points, even with the new consolidated feats he would have to spend half of what he gets in skillpoints for stealth, giving him exactly two skills for the entire game that progress with solid worth.
And I would ask, does picking an obviously poorly optimized choice prove the system is bad? If you want to be a sneaky "fighter", don't take the fighter class (or not exclusively it), take something more logical for that choice, like ranger. You seem to be suggesting that people should be able to make bad character design choices and not run into problems for it. Next thing we'll hear is that fighters should be good at casting spells also, I mean heaven forbid that someone actually take a class for the characteristics of that class (like skills for rogues and rangers or spellcasting for clerics and wizards).
Why can't I play a sneaky fighter.I dont wanna multi class into something. I dont wanna be a rogue I dont wanna be a ranger.I want to run around in light armor being sneaky and having my fighter ability's why cant I? Sure rogue will be better but why cant I use my skills and be a sneaky fighter.And I know some of you hate the alpha skills I love em love the set up love I can have a fighter with 12 skills .I can play that sneaky fighter with a dozen skills without having to not be a fighter.
I'll prob get torn apart for that but its true.
And I would ask, does picking an obviously poorly optimized choice prove the system is bad? If you want to be a sneaky "fighter", don't take the fighter class (or not exclusively it), take something more logical for that choice, like ranger. You seem to be suggesting that people should be able to make bad character design choices and not run into problems for it. Next thing we'll hear is that fighters should be good at casting spells also, I mean heaven forbid that someone actually take a class for the characteristics of that class (like skills for rogues and rangers or spellcasting for clerics and wizards).Take a human fighter at first level you want to be sneaky. ...
To do that with the original skill system you would need 2 feats (one for move silently + Hide) and need to be 2nd level and have no other skill ranks at all. With skill points, even with the new consolidated feats he would have to spend half of what he gets in skillpoints for stealth, giving him exactly two skills for the entire game that progress with solid worth.
Well why take the entire class for one skill you want without all the stuff you don't...especially if you are the only strong fighting combatant in the group or there is already a ranger or rogue?
If the rogue can focus in combat with nobody complaining, I fail to see the harm in letting the fighter have a single skill from his basket, without diving into the trap of cherrypicking his class.
|
|
Why can't I play a sneaky fighter.I dont wanna multi class into something. I dont wanna be a rogue I dont wanna be a ranger.I want to run around in light armor being sneaky and having my fighter ability's why cant I? Sure rogue will be better but why cant I use my skills and be a sneaky fighter.And I know some of you hate the alpha skills I love em love the set up love I can have a fighter with 12 skills .I can play that sneaky fighter with a dozen skills without having to not be a fighter.
You can play that.
It's called a Ranger.
Or a Swashbuckler.
I don't get the distaste for multi-classing.
The 3E multi-classing rules brought me back to D&D.
Sure, multi-classing totally messes with progressing as a spellcaster, but for the martial classes, it makes absolute sense.
If you want some skills, take a Rogue level, if you need a feat, take a Fighter level.
And you can do this in whatever proportion you choose.
That level of customisation actually does away with the need for the countless variant classes, sub-classes and kits that sprung up in 1st/2nd Edition.
I think it would solve a lot of issues if the Fighter were to be re-named the "Feat Monkey", and the Rogue were "Skill Guy", so as to get people away from the idea that either one should fill every possible role as a single-classed character.
I have no problem with multiclassing, but what's the harm in the option?
What's so much worse about taking 5 levels of ranger or rogue and 10 of fighter...or just taking 15 levels of fighter and finding a way to be sneaky?
Why can't I play a sneaky fighter.I dont wanna multi class into something. I dont wanna be a rogue I dont wanna be a ranger.I want to run around in light armor being sneaky and having my fighter ability's why cant I? Sure rogue will be better but why cant I use my skills and be a sneaky fighter.And I know some of you hate the alpha skills I love em love the set up love I can have a fighter with 12 skills .I can play that sneaky fighter with a dozen skills without having to not be a fighter.
I'll prob get torn apart for that but its true.
Why can't you? Well you still can't in the Alpha system. So the Alpha system does not fix that wish.
Let me ask you this, let's say you want to play a "sneaky fighter", ok, well what are you willing to give up to make that happen? Your class's BAB? Your class's hp? What are you willing to sacrifice to make that happen. Nothing? Then I say that is a problem with balance. It sounds too much like munchkinism and power creep. The Fighter class is not built around the sneaky concept, while other classes are much better at it, rogue, ranger, even monk.
Why not ask, "why can't I play a wizard but have full bab and d10 hp?" Why not? It is the same issue, game balance.
Instead of complaining that sub-optimal choices that are ... sub-optimal, why not look at actually optimizing within the parameters of the system?
|
Why can't you? Well you still can't in the Alpha system. So the Alpha system does not fix that wish.
Let me ask you this, let's say you want to play a "sneaky fighter", ok, well what are you willing to give up to make that happen? Your class's BAB? Your class's hp? What are you willing to sacrifice to make that happen. Nothing? Then I say that is a problem with balance. It sounds too much like munchkinism and power creep. The Fighter class is not built around the sneaky concept, while other classes are much better at it, rogue, ranger, even monk.
Gonna take a moment to disagree with you here. But first, please keep skill points. Make them easy, fix them, but keep them.
In any case, why not a fighter who can sneak? Even without giving up any other 'ability' the fighter has given up a valuable commodity - skill points (or equivalent). A fighter who spends his time learning how to be sneaky if a fighter who isn't practicing climbing, or jumping, or riding, or some other skill that may also be useful. Even if that doesn't count (and it should) the fighter is probably giving up his option to utilize heavy armor (and maybe medium) due to the armor check penalty. While he still has the 'feat' on his character sheet, it doesn't really count if he never uses it, right? That'd be a cost right there.
And let's think about the party for a moment. What if the group wants to play a 'sneaky adventuring band'? The rules should support that. It shouldn't be the fighter that forces the group to alert every monster to their presence, or the wizard. They should both be able to learn to be stealthy at the expense of something else. If everyone in the group does it, it creates much more interesting situations. The group might go on adventures that are 4+ levels above what they are supposed to, where being discovered is certain death. Not the game for everyone, but I bet there are people who would really dig that kind of affair. If the rules can support that play style and the 'traditional game' without variations, that'd be awesome.
It doesn't make a rogue less useful or less sneaky if the fighter can do it too. It doesn't make sense to 'punish' a player by making him play a class that doesn't fit his vision - and there are differences between a rogue/fighter and a straight fighter. How do you explain sneak attack?
As a player, I never want to be given an ability as a class feature that I don't want my character to have. If I want to be an honorable fighter (swashbuckler) and I don't use non-core, I have to figure out a way to get tumble as a class skill but still be a fighter. That's tough. If I take rouge levels I get sneak attack (which is frankly too tempting not to use), if I take bard I get magical abilities - neither is what I want for my character, so they're a poor fit. The point of all of these examples is that what is a good fit is the fighter EXCEPT for his skill selection. Since that is probably one of the least important class features AND the skills are already a limited commodity (to choose one, you must not choose a different one) we avoid powercreep nicely.
Having fighters that can tumble or fighters that can sneak doesn't affect game balance. Having fighters that can sneak, can tumble, can ride, can climb, can swim, can use diplomacy, can use magic device, can disable device, can search and spot would interrupt game balance. It's just a matter of number of skills, not what the skill selections are.
And if it does matter what those skill selections are, there is a problem with the fact that they're 'worth more'. All skill ranks should be as close to equivalent as possible. Some may be generally useful, and others only useful in limited situations, but in those situations they should really shine. At least, that's my take.
The group might go on adventures that are 4+ levels above what they are supposed to, where being discovered is certain death. Not the game for everyone, but I bet there are people who would really dig that kind of affair.
Monty Haul games are not a very good reason to toss class skills.
Why can't you? Well you still can't in the Alpha system. So the Alpha system does not fix that wish.
Let me ask you this, let's say you want to play a "sneaky fighter", ok, well what are you willing to give up to make that happen? Your class's BAB? Your class's hp? What are you willing to sacrifice to make that happen. Nothing? Then I say that is a problem with balance. It sounds too much like munchkinism and power creep. The Fighter class is not built around the sneaky concept, while other classes are much better at it, rogue, ranger, even monk.
Sure I can lets see 25 point buy lets make him 5th level
S 10 D 17 C 14 I 13 W 10 C 10 ...+2 To dex for human it was 15skills
5+1 for human
acrobatics +8,climb+8,stealth+13,theft+8,ride+11,swim+8[stealth being my human skill]
feats 3 fighter +4
FF-Weapon Finesse,weapon focus [rapier].weapon specialization[rapier]
NFF-Agile Maneuvers,Stealthy,Lightning Reflexes,Improved Initiative
F +6 R+6 W+1
CBM+8
INITV:+7
BAB+5/RAPIER +10[DMG 1d6+3]
AC.STUDDED LEATHER Buckler, 10+3+1+3+1=+18 flat footed+15 touch+13
ARMOR TRAINING +1,
WEAPON TRAINING LIGHT BLADES+1
looks kinda sneaky to me.
Why can't I play a sneaky fighter.I dont wanna multi class into something. I dont wanna be a rogue I dont wanna be a ranger.I want to run around in light armor being sneaky and having my fighter ability's why cant I? Sure rogue will be better but why cant I use my skills and be a sneaky fighter.And I know some of you hate the alpha skills I love em love the set up love I can have a fighter with 12 skills .I can play that sneaky fighter with a dozen skills without having to not be a fighter.
I'll prob get torn apart for that but its true.Why can't you? Well you still can't in the Alpha system. So the Alpha system does not fix that wish.
Let me ask you this, let's say you want to play a "sneaky fighter", ok, well what are you willing to give up to make that happen? Your class's BAB? Your class's hp? What are you willing to sacrifice to make that happen. Nothing? Then I say that is a problem with balance. It sounds too much like munchkinism and power creep. The Fighter class is not built around the sneaky concept, while other classes are much better at it, rogue, ranger, even monk.
Why not ask, "why can't I play a wizard but have full bab and d10 hp?" Why not? It is the same issue, game balance.
Instead of complaining that sub-optimal choices that are ... sub-optimal, why not look at actually optimizing within the parameters of the system?
Except not...and that's why I brought up the concept of a feat.
You can do this with the current Pathfinder setup as a human, what you give up is your ability to make a skill a class skill...and it is one skill not dozens of skills.
If you could do the same thing with feats then you could do it with an elf by taking the skill and then making it a class skill...still paying for the skill and spending a feat on it. I really don't think this is too much more powerful than adding +3 to a skill you already have as a class skill tied to a good attribute.
This certainly isn't more powerful than cherrypicking classes, it's not more powerful than feats like quicken spell, greater cleave (new and old version), power attack (same), Rapid shot, Improved critical, and more than a handful of others.
|
Keeping skill points is the primary reason I want to stick with 3.5, if I don't get skillpoints, I don't really have any reason not to convert to 4E. Please keep skill points and merge the skills as you have done, also I think the best way to simplify it is to simply say that cross class skills are 1 for 1 also, but you can only have half the ranks in a cross class skill.
|
|
It doesn't make a rogue less useful or less sneaky if the fighter can do it too. It doesn't make sense to 'punish' a player by making him play a class that doesn't fit his vision - and there are differences between a rogue/fighter and a straight fighter. How do you explain sneak attack?
As a player, I never want to be given an ability as a class feature that I don't want my character to have.
I'm confused.
Why would you want to play 'a sneaky fighter', and not have Sneak Attack?Creeping into the enemies' lair and doing over the guards would seem to be the a major aim of playing such a character concept.
I've played plenty of martial PCs or NPCs.
Some are pure Fighters, some are pure Rogues, some are pure Rangers.
Some are Fighter/Rogues, some are Fighter/Rangers, some are Ranger/Rogues.
Some are Fighter/Ranger/Rogues.
RE the multiclassers;
Some keep their levels even, some take just a taste.
Some abandon a class after they start multi-classing, some come back for a level here or there.
This gives an amazing amount of freedom to customise a PC in whatever way one likes. What is the objection to creating a character in this way?
As for 'how do I explain Sneak Attack'?
Again, I don't understand.
If you mean how do I explain how it works, it works the way it's described in the RAW.
If you mean how do I explain why the character has it, he has it because he has practiced doing it.
He practiced doing it instead of gaining a Fighter bonus feat; or, essentially, he learned Sneak Attack as his feat. And while he practiced it, he gained 8 skill points, to spend on sneaking up to people, so he can use his new feat. But he spent less time down the gym, or the sparring court, so he didn't gain the +1BAB, and only got d6 hp, instead of d10.
C'est la vie.
Is it a good trade-off? Only the player can decide. If he thinks it is, he'll do it. If he doesn't think it is, he won't.
If he thinks "I want to keep my BAB and hp high, but be a bit better at sneaking, and do a bit of extra damage", then take a level of Ranger.
6 skill points instead of 8, less bonus damage vs less enemies, but hey, you get Track, and can slip past guard animals. If that's a good trade, you'll do it. If it's not, you won't.
Why?...well plenty of reasons. For one, my group has a theme of running ....well themes. Theme based adventures where the players have some common traits. One of our favorites is a rogue-based campain. The ranger does great, the wizard does great, the rogue does great, the bard does great, the monk does ok, the barbarian does mildly ok, the cleric does ok if his domain is trickery, paladins are outright banned due to moral constraints... and the fighter is slightly less conspicuous and helpful than a busted chainsaw on fire.
This basically requires them to multiclass, and it's nice to play a fighter that can sneak without being a treehugging ranger or backstabbing theif. It certainly helps when you would rather not wake the 200 orcs in the encampment you snuck into that decided to camp in front of a dungeon you need a special item from. Such
As for 'how do I explain Sneak Attack'?
Again, I don't understand.
I agree, it just seems as if some people can't step out of the game mechanics standpoint and step into what it looks like to the characters. Rogue characters don't think, "I'll flank with my buddy so I can get Sneak Attack (TM)!" No, they think, "I'll get to the other side and my buddy will distract them, and when they do I'll get in a good shot." A "fighter" is incapable of thinking that way? Maybe, if he only thinks in terms of game mechanics (metagames).
|
|
I dont see whats the problem whit the new skill sistem even the f#%$& PHB recomend to do that whit skills, paizo only make it the norm or the rule, but is fine to me, a not a 12 lv player is not better in smithing just because he get a bonus skill, is better because qhen he decides to lear smithing he discovers he was good at it, did that never happen to yuo... that you discover been good at something you never tried????
As a player, I never want to be given an ability as a class feature that I don't want my character to have. If I want to be an honorable fighter (swashbuckler) and I don't use non-core, I have to figure out a way to get tumble as a class skill but still be a fighter. That's tough. If I take rouge levels I get sneak attack (which is frankly too tempting not to use), if I take bard I get magical abilities - neither is what I want for my character, so they're a poor fit. The point of all of these examples is that what is a good fit is the fighter EXCEPT for his skill selection. Since that is probably one of the least important class features AND the skills are already a limited commodity (to choose one, you must not choose a different one) we avoid powercreep nicely.
Having fighters that can tumble or fighters that can sneak doesn't affect game balance. Having fighters that can sneak, can tumble, can ride, can climb, can swim, can use diplomacy, can use magic device, can disable device, can search and spot would interrupt game balance. It's just a matter of number of skills, not what the skill selections are.
Let me say two things here :)
First...I agree with you. Yep, you're seeing correctly. ;)
Second...I wouldn't want to see this in the PHB (or the Player's part of the Pathfinder RPG core book). In there, I'd like to see the "traditional" archetypes, and some rules for multiclassing that take care of the more popular combinations. Where I WANT to see rule suggestions for that kind of character building is in the DMG (or DM's part of the Pathfinder RPG core book). For example, the sections in the 3.0 or the 3.5 DMG (page 25 or 174 respectively, if I remember correctly) describe what to do if the DM wants to modify classes to fulfill some need or player wishes. This would be the part I'd point a new DM to if he wonders if he can simply switch one class skill on the fighter's list for another (Say Ride for Stealth). Basically, the answer should be a resounding "Yes", and the text should encourage the DM to ponder it as well as caution him about possible risks and pitfalls.
That's all from me about this point. I'm back to watching Farscape. :)
Sure I can lets see 25 point buy lets make him 5th level
S 10 D 17 C 14 I 13 W 10 C 10 ...+2 To dex for human it was 15skills
5+1 for human
acrobatics +8,climb+8,stealth+13,theft+8,ride+11,swim+8[stealth being my human skill]feats 3 fighter +4
FF-Weapon Finesse,weapon focus [rapier].weapon specialization[rapier]
NFF-Agile Maneuvers,Stealthy,Lightning Reflexes,Improved InitiativeF +6 R+6 W+1
CBM+8
INITV:+7
BAB+5/RAPIER +10[DMG 1d6+3]
AC.STUDDED LEATHER Buckler, 10+3+1+3+1=+18 flat footed+15 touch+13ARMOR TRAINING +1,
WEAPON TRAINING LIGHT BLADES+1looks kinda sneaky to me.
Ok, now my turn.
3.5 Human 5th level fighter “sneaky”
Skills 3 + 1 (human)
Climb +7 (8 ranks, 1 Str, -2 ACP)
Hide +10 (4 ranks, 3 Dex, 3 focus, 2 stealthy, -2 ACP)
Jump +7 (8 ranks, 1 Str, -2 ACP)
Move Silently +10 (4 ranks, 3 Dex, 3 focus, 2 stealthy, -2 ACP)
Feats: 1st level: Skill focus (Hide), Skill focus (Move Silently), Weapon Finesse; 2nd level: Weapon Focus (Rapier); 3rd level: Stealthy; 4th level: Weapon Specialization (Rapier)
Fort +6, Ref +4, Will +1
Init: +3
BA/Grapple: +5/+6
Melee Rapier +9 (1d6+3)
AC 17 (+3 studded leather, +1 buckler, +3 Dex) FF 14, T 13
3.5 Human 5th level ranger
Skills 7 + 1 (human)
Climb +7 (8 ranks, 1 Str, -2 ACP)
Hide +9 (8 ranks, 3 Dex, -2 ACP)
Jump +7 (8 ranks, 1 Str, -2 ACP)
Listen +8 (8 ranks)
Move Silently +9 (8 ranks, 3 Dex, -2 ACP)
Search +9 (8 ranks, 1 Int)
Spot +8 (8 ranks)
Survival +10 (8 ranks, 2 synergy)
Feats: 1st level: Weapon Finesse, Track; 2nd level: Two-Weapon Fighting; 3rd level: Improved Shield Bash, Endurance
Fort +6, Ref +7, Will +1
Init: +3
BA/Grapple: +5/+6
Melee Rapier +8 (1d6+1) or Melee Rapier +6 (1d6+1) and Light Shield +6 (1d3)
Special: +4 Damage versus enemy type 1, +2 Damage versus enemy type 2
AC 17 (+3 studded leather, +1 light shield, +3 Dex) FF 14, T 13
3.5 Human 5th level rogue
Skills 9 + 1 (human)
Climb +7 (8 ranks, 1 Str, -2 ACP)
Escape Artist +9 (8 ranks, 3 Dex, -2 ACP)
Hide +9 (8 ranks, 3 Dex, -2 ACP)
Jump +9 (8 ranks, 1 Str, -2 ACP, +2 synergy)
Listen +8 (8 ranks)
Move Silently +9 (8 ranks, 3 Dex, -2 ACP)
Search +9 (8 ranks, 1 Int)
Sense Motive +8 (8 ranks)
Spot +8 (8 ranks)
Tumble +11 (8 ranks, 3 Dex, -2 ACP, +2 synergy)
Feats: 1st level: Combat Expertise; 3rd level: Weapon Finesse
Fort +3, Ref +7, Will +1
Init: +3
BA/Grapple: +3/+4
Melee Rapier +6 (1d6+1) or Melee Sneak Attack Rapier +6 (1d6+1+2d6)
AC 16 (+3 studded leather, +3 Dex) FF 13, T 13
Seems like all those choices do pretty well themselves. Of course they are less than the Alpha version, but we all know that is because Alpha is full of power creep, so that is to be expected. The question is whether that power creep is necessary, and from what I see, I don't think so (heck I wouldn't even claim my builds were the most optimized).
My 1st post, just because I like my old-fashioned skill points!
I like my characters to be reasonably good at a number of things and perhaps world-class in a couple (at most). That allows me to reflect where they've been and what they've done - a natural progression. I just can't envision a character super-specialised in a small number of skills but utterly clueless in everything else, unless they spent their entire lives in one place and never went adventuring.
The current system isn't perfect, so my suggestion would be:
1) Give all characters 6 skill points per level regardless of class.
2) All skills are 'class skills', although the term becomes redundant now.
3) Provide additional synergy bonuses (another +2 perhaps) every 5 ranks to justify specialisation.
That should give people lots of choice to make whatever character they want without significantly changing the power levels. If Rogues feel put-upon give them full BAB; most of the critters they fight (in LG at least) are immune to sneak attack anyway...
Then we can have fighters who actually know what they're fighting and how to take it down, rather than just Power Attacking all the time (ban that feat!) In fact the extended synergy bonuses on knowledge skills could grant bonuses to fighting associated creatures - for example overcoming DR without carrying around an arsenal of cold iron/silver/adamantine/magic/kherferu weapons, or overcoming SR for spellcasters. In other words every 5 ranks of the appropriate knowledge grants -2 to DR, so a 12th level fighter with max ranks in the right knowledge overcomes DR5/magic completely with a normal weapon, or drops DR10/- to DR4/- with any weapon he wields. Get rid of Power Attack and you could even make it -3 to DR. SR could drop in the same way for spellcasters.
We could also have wizards who were competent in Gather Information or Intimidate, as they don't all have to act like Gandalf (or Rincewind). It still takes Charisma to win people over, but a wizard could have grown up in the slums and knows who to talk to (or how to talk to somebody) to get their way. Gaining power in Wizardry might require guile and deception to stay alive and master the political landscape just as much as spellcasting. The same would be true of clerics in less than totally pure churches. Skills really define a character and IMHO are extremely important.
I'm not going to get into a long discussion on which skills should be grouped into which (I happen to think they're fine as they are in 3.5), but Sense Motive isn't about Deception, it's about Honesty (well, it's about both really). More importantly, if we went with the 6 skill points option mentioned above a high level of grouping really would change power levels; there needs to be a fair degree of separation for it to work.
Sadly I'm only likely to get to play the 'Living' equivalent of Pathfinder, so the core rules are all I really care about; house rules are of no use to me. Hence the reason for my post :-)
I love skill points, I've just always thought we needed more "core" skills. Oh! and a +1 or 2 bonus to ALL character classes. 2+ INT is pathetic and insulting to a "professional" dungeon diver.
|
|
The group might go on adventures that are 4+ levels above what they are supposed to, where being discovered is certain death. Not the game for everyone, but I bet there are people who would really dig that kind of affair.Monty Haul games are not a very good reason to toss class skills.
Excuse me?
Monty Haul is an adventure where you get massive amounts of treasure for very little risk. I'm talking about the exact opposite. You face challenges that are MORE than you can handle, so if you get caught in a straight fight, you're dead. This also tends to mean the rewards are LESS than standard. Sure, it would be nice to have a +2 flaming greatsword at 3rd level. Unfortunately, the guy wielding it would kick your ass if you tried to take him, since he's 9th level and the commander of the garrison.
The point of the adventure isn't 'let's kill everyone and take their stuff', it is 'let's sneak by and see if we can accomplish our goal'. For example, let's take the cliche 'save the princess example'. The PCs (all 1st level) learn that Princess Pea has been caputred by the evil Warlord Drak. The pigherders and such have to find a way to get past the death squads in his kingdom, get to his castle, get into his castle, find the Princess, free the princess, and escape. In this entire adventure, if they are discovered or fight the guards, they'll be slaughtered. What's the reward? They save the princess if they're lucky, and they're not dead.
That is not Monty Haul. Sure, it may not be for you. I personally like a little more traditional D&D where the PCs are going to fight their way into the castle, kill everyone, take theri stuff, and carry the princess off without fear of opposition (since everyone is already dead). The point is, to each their own. If the rules can support both play styles, all the better. There should be no 'right way' to do D&D. Some people like a 'gritty, realistic' game, where facing off against 20-1 odds is death, even if you're a high level fighter and you're fighting goblins. It is certainly not something that D&D supports well, but if we can find a way to do it without changing the major structure, I'm for it.
And, pres man, you've completely ignored my points about the cost the fighter pays for the Stealth ability. Do you disagree with my assessment? Would you consider the loss of another skill not a price? Do you think some skills are clearly superior than others and that is the way it should be? I'd really like to hear more on that.
And, pres man, you've completely ignored my points about the cost the fighter pays for the Stealth ability. Do you disagree with my assessment? Would you consider the loss of another skill not a price? Do you think some skills are clearly superior than others and that is the way it should be? I'd really like to hear more on that.
The sacrifice of not getting to choose a skill that you had no interest or intention of choosing in the first place isn't really a loss.
Also if you able to sneak past opponents that are 4 levels higher than you on a regular basis, then the DM isn't doing a good job providing a wide array of challenges.
Nice fighter build pres man. does prove the point that you can be a sneaky fighter with out becoming useless.