Nice fighter build pres man. does prove the point that you can be a sneaky fighter with out becoming useless.
Without resorting to new feats or new skills or what have you, even.
|
The costs to get him there were well worth it. The fighter could now sneak as well, if not better, than the rogue or ranger and it may fit the fighter's story better than him just making himself combat focused. Heck, in a party with a rogue, the rogue no longer would have to remain in the front by himself. That extra defense would make the rogue feel safer and allow him to concentrate better on what his was sent to do. Taking the feat and the extra skill choices, well worth the effort. That fighter could still be effective since he would have 4 other feats to focus on combat and such. Way to go Pres man. Now if we could only find a way to get that same effect with the Alpha system. I like the Alpha system for ease of use, but it lacks that type of detail.
Without resorting to new feats or new skills or what have you, even.
yep I never said 3.5 was a bad system love it myself just like the alpha skill set up much better.Thats one of the strengths of the d20 system you can do so much with it . I did forget to add my +1 to dex at level 4 .
one of the issue I have and alot of problem most folks get into is allowing splat books in sight unseen. thats just asking for a hurting.
|
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.
I disagree. There is an opportunity cost here. In the character's mind, he would like to be good at everything. At some point he is going to wish that he can swim, that he can ride, that he has acrobatics, that he has the heal skill. The fact is, by being forced to choose he is giving up the possibility of having the wide variety of other skills. Now, if he makes a choice, it shouldn't matter what choice that is - when that situation comes up he'll shine, when it doesn't he won't. If the skills are essentially equal, it doesn't matter if fighter A chooses stealth, fighter B chooses heal, and fighter c chooses ride (and some other skills).
Further, since the fighter is the one who should have the choice, it doesn't have any effect on his companions. His rogue friend (who has far more skill points) can still choose to be stealthy, too. This doesn't take anything away from the rogue, just allows the fighter to sneak along with him so the rogue isn't always forced to 'scout ahead of the party'. The rogue may very well like the fact that someone with more hit points (and maybe more AC) can take point now and again.
I still fail to see how the fighter being able to choose stealth (or some other skill) would have negative effects on any game.
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.
I don't understand why that is the case. Of course I'm just making up an example and I'm not referring to my games at all. But if the group wants to focus on a stealthy group that is overwhelmed in direct conflict, but has to set up situations like ambushes where they negate the opponents advantages there can still be a wide variety of challenges. Besides the sneaking, there is also the puzzle solving and tactical options combat of choosing when and where to fight (and trying to get the enemy to agree with you). Since the game would be much more difficult than a standard D&D game (in which PCs often expect to win simply by outslugging the opponent, and if you're too hurt after a fight, you just go to sleep). So, I can see how it wouldn't be for everyone - most people like a strong dose of heroism in their game, where their character can kick some serious butt. The thing is, there are a wide variety of games. And if we have rules that keep the feel of D&D but allow the feel of grittier games or what ever subcategory of fantasy you can think of, the rules are clearly an improvement. I think that an improvement for everyone who plays D&D is possible, and offering the flexibility to make it fit their game is also possible. So, when we're willing to accept a step away from 3.5 compatability, we should be looking toward universal adaptability - making it better for as many groups as possible. Including ones that don't play the same way we do.
|
...my group has a theme of running themes. Theme based adventures where the players have some common traits. One of our favorites is a rogue-based campaign. 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 thief. 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.
But, again, I have to ask; what is the objection to multi-classing as a rogue or ranger?
There seems to some kind of snobbery about multi-classing (not picking on you, personally, but it does certainly exist, and your post was available), as though it's something only power-gaming cheesy munchkins do, who have no idea how to properly play within the spirit of the game.
The suggestion that any player would be tempted to take a first level dip as Rogue (either in 3.5 or even more tempting, in Pathfinder, where a class' skill point value has been made absolutely irrelevant after level 1) is met with howls of protest, that it is only something the most heinous of min/maxers would do.
It seems as though staying single-classed has been elevated to some Holy Grail, to beat other players over the head with the superiority of one's playing skill. ("I went from level 1 to 20 in one class, therefore I am a superior roleplayer to you, who built an organic character, taking pick and mix levels to fit the needs of the adventures, or reflect the events you experienced. I obviously prefer to 'role-play', whereas your bastard-mongrel PC is only suited to 'roll-playing'.")
If stealth is the theme of the campaign, then shouldn't the players work within those expectations, and create a character to fit, rather than stick to their guns, declare "I'm not going to spend any time on skills, I'm going to play the class that trains in heavy armour and gets loads of combat feats", and then act all surprised when they can't perform a night raid? And demand extra skill points, or a broader skill list, to make themselves succeed?
Rogues pay for their long skill list and high skill points, by losing out on BAB, hp and feats.
If you allow the Fighter to keep all of these, then give him more skill points and extended skills list, then what is the point of the Rogue?
As to the comments about the 'treehugging ranger' and 'backstabbing thief'; I'm assuming those are intended as derogatory comments about those classes, based on some cliched play you've witnessed?
Since when does a ranger have to be played that way? If you take less than 4 levels, they are a purely martial character, a warrior with skills. And they can be any alignment, any outlook they like. They are a practical, skilled warrior, who sneaks into the enemy camp, and guts the guards. Is that not exactly what you are asking the Fighter to be altered to?
Even after acquiring spells, there's no need to transform into some prancing fey New-Age crystal healing, knit your own food and grow your own socks, dippy hippy pot-head. At least I've never played one that way.
You don't even need to acquire spells, if that would hamper your enjoyment of the class. There's a fine non-caster variant in the DMG, if you prefer, as well as the Urban Ranger. You don't need to go anywhere near a tree. You can give him hay-fever, if you like, and it wouldn't alter the utility of the class in any way for a Dirty Urban Scoundrels campaign.
As for the 'backstabbing thief'; again; that's exactly what you seem to be asking for. Any character who's ever crept up to an oblivious guard, ever won a surprise round, or ever flanked an enemy is a 'backstabber', and any character who ever made a single gp from adventuring spoils is a 'thief', in the same way as any PC who ever met an orc in a 10' by 10' room, and bashed his brains in, for no better reason than to see what's in his chest, is, by definition, an 'assassin', regardless of what classes or alignment are written on his character sheet.
If you create a PC who bellows out challenges to single combat, refuses to take advantage of flanking bonuses, and refuses all wealth over the gear he started with at first level, then good for you, you've managed to avoid being labelled as a 'backstabbing thief', but if so, then that is what is hampering the ability to maintain a 'stealth-themed' campaign, not the PC-advancement rules. And don't be surprised if no-one wants you tagging along on their next job.
I don't understand why that is the case.
NPC with PC class levels equal to the party level is a CR/EL of the party level. 4 NPCs of that type are an EL of the party level + 4. Thus what you are suggesting is that the party should be able to sneak by/up on 4 NPCs of equal ability as them, on a regular basis. No NPCs have spot/listen/awareness? None have pets, mounts, animal companions, or familiars with scent? Tremorsense? Dragons with their senses? That is why I say the challenges are not diverse enough. If they were, the party would be running into situations on a fairly regular basis (not every encounter mind you, but occasionally) where their opponents would have the skills/abilities to detect them. If that is not happening the DM is playing with kiddy gloves.
Please retain skill points! As has been pointed out earlier, the previous system allowed for customization of characters without excessive tweaking or resorting to 8 optional rule books. It also allowed for differentiation between characters, rather than everyone having virtually the same amount of skill in key skills. Please go back to something more
like the original 3.5 system.
we'll my last die hard skill point player has came to the darkside and likes alpha way better.After makeing a few char's he found that the new system didnt make em cookie cutter like he thought. so that 6 players who are done with skill points.
|
|
we'll my last die hard skill point player has came to the darkside and likes alpha way better.After makeing a few char's he found that the new system didnt make em cookie cutter like he thought. so that 6 players who are done with skill points.
Same with my group. We're using my own variant, but everyone seems to be on board for some flavor of the new system. That's another group of 7 converts.
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.Agreed. I think the alpha 1.0 skills are a little too far on the simple side, but calculating skill synergies for groups of NPCs makes the baby Jesus cry.
If you don't include the synergy bonuses in your NPCs, I don't think anyone is going to come to your house and beat you.
If you don't include the synergy bonuses in your NPCs, I don't think anyone is going to come to your house and beat you.
thats just what they want ya to think...then they get ya
...my group has a theme of running themes. Theme based adventures where the players have some common traits. One of our favorites is a rogue-based campaign. 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 thief. 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.
But, again, I have to ask; what is the objection to multi-classing as a rogue or ranger?
There seems to some kind of snobbery about multi-classing (not picking on you, personally, but it does certainly exist, and your post was available), as though it's something only power-gaming cheesy munchkins do, who have no idea how to properly play within the spirit of the game.
The suggestion that any player would be tempted to take a first level dip as Rogue (either in 3.5 or even more tempting, in Pathfinder, where a class' skill point value has been made absolutely irrelevant after level 1) is met with howls of protest, that it is only something the most heinous of min/maxers would do.
It seems as though staying single-classed has been elevated to some Holy Grail, to beat other players over the head with the superiority of one's playing skill. ("I went from level 1 to 20 in one class, therefore I am a superior roleplayer to you, who built an organic character, taking pick and mix levels to fit the needs of the adventures, or reflect the events you experienced. I obviously prefer to 'role-play', whereas your bastard-mongrel PC is only suited to 'roll-playing'.")If...
It has little to do with powergaming and much more to do with flavor.
The problem with the sneaky fighters is you can only take the focus once, which means the only real way to booost is then to devote almost all your points to that class at higher level...so what happens is you have your fun, "sneaky" fighter until about 12th level and then the sneakyness starts to fade and by the time your at 17th you either need to multiclass or have your character function poorly. A fighter being sneaky is actually more powerful if he takes the fighter/rogue-then possibly assasin route...that's a more powerful build, not less powerful. A sneaky fighter isn't more powerful and it has little to do with snobbery rather than the flavor you want around your character.
And in reference to the derogatory comments...come on man, I'm just having fun here, I'm not fighting! In reference, I talked it over with my buddy about these questions and how his character, the fighter in our rogue campain would answer them.
1) Why not sneak attack?
I don't stab people in the back. I stab them in the face like decent members of society are prone to do.
2) Have you ever thought about being a ranger?
1) Do I look like I wanna go camping? And I don't like pets. Humans domesticated animals for a purpose. I see no sense in going backwards in these regards.
1) Would you enjoy the ability to use sleight of hand?
Do I look like David Copperfield to you? When I want to start dressing like a magician, I might as well be a bard and wear tights all day, singing silly songs. Futhermore I don't steal...if I wanted to I would just mug people. It's more honest.
Why do you want stealth?
Just because your not stealing stuff or stabbing people in the back doesn't mean that clanging around in fullplate within earshot of an enemy encampment is a bright idea. If I wanted to be stupidly heroic I would have become a paladin and if I thought getting shot with arrows is a good time I would quit the merc band and join a barbarian tribe. See a holy symbol on my chest? Didn't think so. Oh and I can READ...thank you very much.
What about disable device?
Yea... how about YOU die...I watch. Sounds like a more solid plan. If I wanted to leap over vats of acid and dodge poison spikes shot out of hidden holes in the wall I would have joined the circus.
What about gathering information?
If you don't know why you are hiring me, then don't hire me please...or better yet pay me up front and I will tell you what you didn't know you wanted done is done...it will probably be right after you hand me the gold.
Ummm... ok what about use magical device? You must want that, right?
The last time the rogue tried that his hair caught fire and he got mocked by the wizard for a week. Thanks but no thanks...I like my hair, and I don't feel like killing the wizard...yet.
It has little to do with powergaming and much more to do with flavor.
Flavor is infinitely mutable.
The problem with the sneaky fighters is you can only take the focus once, which means the only real way to booost is then to devote almost all your points to that class at higher level...so what happens is you have your fun, "sneaky" fighter until about 12th level and then the sneakyness starts to fade and by the time your at 17th you either need to multiclass or have your character function poorly.
If the goal of being "sneaky" is merely to not make alot of noise, then at that point who cares if he is not as good as a rogue of equal level. He is certainly better than alot of lower level rogues, isn't he? Frankly, why should it be expected that everything must have to maxed out as much as possible to be viable at higher levels?
1) Why not sneak attack?
I don't stab people in the back. I stab them in the face like decent members of society are prone to do.
But you sneak around in the dark? Ok. And you don't work with your allies and try to exploit the weaknesses of your foes? Do you purposefully use less efficient weapons as well (prefering lower crit and damage weapons over higher crit and damage weapons)?
2) Have you ever thought about being a ranger?
1) Do I look like I wanna go camping? And I don't like pets. Humans domesticated animals for a purpose. I see no sense in going backwards in these regards.
Camping? I take it you don't want to be an adventurer then? I mean, I guess you could limit yourself to only being within the boundaries of a city where you could always afford sometime of housing, but it does seem to be a limited way to be an adventurer. Now assuming you did intent to travel outside of your home town, would you want to mount? Why that would be a "pet" now wouldn't it? Yes humans domesticated animals, so why are you so turned off by using them?
Ranger is one of the most versatile classes from a possible reflavoring standpoint.
**p.s. I notice I stiffed the ranger and rogue builds, on the previous page, their extra human feat. Oh well.
|
|
Apologies to David if I sounded snarky earlier, and thanks for replying with a humourous post.
We just seem to be having endless threads about redesigning the martial classes to make Fighters more like Rogues, and then someone else will pipe up to say Rogues should be more useful in combat, so lets give them more hp, and make them more like Fighters, etc.
It just seems so pointless.
Before we know it, we'll be knee-deep in variants, sub-classes and 'character kits' (always hated that term, btw), all of which are some fixed blend of fighting, rangering and rogueing, when the rules already allow all players to take a bit of this and a bit of that, and create a PC with the amount of balance they want between BAB, hp, skills, feats and abilities.
Heh...thank you for realizing it was meant to be humorous...I don't always seem to get that lucky.
|
|
I think there are a lot of reasons to multiclass, and a lot of reasons to avoid doing so. The important point is that the purpose of base classes is to provide the building blocks for all the 'arcehtypes' you see in film, literature, and your own imagination. Now, that may be impossible, and there are certainly some visions that aren't 'appropriate' no matter what the campaign.
Certainly you wouldn't want people to make a character based on Dr. Doom at first level - it wouldn't work with the other characters. But if you can keep the classes balanced but allow for the broad spectrum of abilities, that is good.
The point regarding allowing a fighter to choose his skills is that nobody really loses anything. It is possible that some fighters would be 'better' in that they're more optimized for the player's chosen role in the party. That is a good thing for everyone. It's only bad to make your players happy if you have to do it by making them more powerful than the other players. Then one player being happy means other players being upset.
Saying a fighter can't learn stealth, or that a rogue can't master the intricacies of religion is absolutely arbitrary and makes no sense. Skills should be dependent on the story, not a mechanic designed to put a straightjacket on a character concept.
Let's use an example. I want to make a character that is in essence a rogue. From a young age he has infiltrated the temple of Heironeous. The temple offers a lot of advantages for the rogue. He can steal from the offerings, and if he can slip away, have a great time in town. Of course, to have the trust of the prelate he's going to have to work hard to fit in. He's going to have to try to master the religious tenets of the priests. He has to be the 'model student' to impress the Paladins that hang out in the Temple. Now, it wouldn't make sense for this character to take levels of cleric - especially not of the wrong god to take care of alignment restrictions. He's a rogue. He steals and sneaks. But he isn't the 'traditional rogue' who grew up on the streets. Now, any DM worth his salt is going to allow the player with this backstory have Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill. Should he give up another skill to 'pay' for it? I wouldn't think so. I'd just let the player assign his skill points in a way that makes sense for him.
It should be no different for another character. Let the player decide where he should assign the skills, and let the player explain why he has any 'unusual' skill choices. As long as it makes sense, there is no problem with the game or game balance. As long as the player isn't getting more skills like another class, there is no power 'creep'.
I fail to understand why anyone would not recognize this as self-evident. Imagine, for a moment, that you allow a fighter or a ranger, or a wizard to CHOOSE what their class skills are, just like the Expert does. I'd bet you'd find that most of the time they'll choose the 'traditional' skills for their class. There is a reason that they're traditional - they're usually the most useful. But that is no reason to punish a player for 'breaking the mold'. In fact, there are a lot of good reasons to encourage it.
Since skills are widely accepted as having the 'least impact' on the class or its abilities, this is a very minor 'gain' for the classes. Practically insignificant except to the player who has more options. In point of fact, a change like this is a win for everybody involved in the game.
Regarding the rogue who 'gives up' Base Attack and Bonus feats for his abilities, that isn't really true at all. Unearthed Arcana offers a character the option for fighters to reject bonus feats for sneak attack and rogues to reject sneak attack for fighter bonus feats. There are still differences both ways. Rogues have more skills and additional abilities (evasion, for instance), fighters have a better BAB and more hit points. I'm not trying to combine the two classes. I think they'll have two distinct roles and there will be little 'toe stepping'. But I do think that every now and then you'll see a smart fighter that chose to have the high intelligence to allow for a freedom of skill choice. Smart fighters don't exist because characters with high intelligence choose classes with better options for class skills [note - this is a general statement - there are exceptions, but they are so infrequent as to serve as the proverbial exception to prove the rule].
@ores man - If the party only fights PCs of the same level, there certainly are not a wide variety of encounters. As one example of a game that should work, I'll let someone else find the 20+ encounters that allow the party to 'sneak' without the kid gloves that you seem to require. But a smart party that uses divinations and other 'smart' tactics might be able to avoid enemies that are much more powerful than they are and accomplish their objective, whatever it is. Some people would like a game where they must be canny and careful and avoid fights at all costs in order to succeed. There's nothing wrong with that, just as hack and slash is fine if that's your thing, or sessions where the entire night passes in 'real time' in a room with a single NPC. Whatever. Again, I think the rules SHOULD be able to allow a creative and energetic DM to find a way to please his group, no matter how 'bizarre' we might find it.
What if we let a fighter cast spells as if he was a sorcerer of 1/2 his level, that also doesn't take anything away from anyone. I mean full casters will still be better than him won't they.
Or does it take something away from what it means to be a fighter, to lose that archtype? Does the uniqueness of the fighter lose something when he can be a "sneaky guy" like the rogue with as much ease as the rogue? At some point, why even have classes, why not just have a list of abilities that you can choose from at each level?
And as I demonstrated with the build on the previous page, a fighter can work against type and succeed, but it is darn hard. For some people that is not a bad thing. "You're too big to be a thief."
And they would want to play a fighter in such a game because ...
Let's use an example. I want to make a character that is in essence a rogue. From a young age he has infiltrated the temple of Heironeous. The temple offers a lot of advantages for the rogue. He can steal from the offerings, and if he can slip away, have a great time in town. Of course, to have the trust of the prelate he's going to have to work hard to fit in. He's going to have to try to master the religious tenets of the priests. He has to be the 'model student' to impress the Paladins that hang out in the Temple. Now, it wouldn't make sense for this character to take levels of cleric - especially not of the wrong god to take care of alignment restrictions. He's a rogue. He steals and sneaks. But he isn't the 'traditional rogue' who grew up on the streets. Now, any DM worth his salt is going to allow the player with this backstory have Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill. Should he give up another skill to 'pay' for it? I wouldn't think so. I'd just let the player assign his skill points in a way that makes sense for him.
Nice backstory. Swap Knowledge (Local) for Knowledge (Religion) and you are done. Reason? Our rogue has spent more time on temple grounds than scrounging in the streets, and had to ty and sneak around the temple guards in order to manage to have a good time in town. Also, the fact that he'll be known (or seen) as a student at the temple will cut off a lot of potential contacts on the street. He'll be getting around more than the other students who want to have some fun now and then, because he is a lot better at the whole stealth thing, but if he slips once, it costs him his cushy place, so he won't do it so often.
Any reason why the character should NOT exchange those two class skills? :) Another way is to have the rogue take one of the countless feats floating around that allow him to pick up skills as additional class skills. Those things are there for a reason. ;)
Well in relation, we aren't talking about 10 levels of spell progression, or full BaB's for wizards or having all 3 saves high with no penalty, or for that matter we aren't talking about giving all the rogues skills away.
We are talking about a skill. ONE skill, at the cost of a feat or with the humans ability to make a cross-classed one class. One skill not the entire skill set or even half the rogues skill set much less half of the rogues abilities. If their was a feat then I would suggest it requires taking it as a cross-class skill first and then making it class...and I don't think that's a bad idea for the humans ability either. This isn't without cost.
A better example would be the rogues new ability to learn a spell spell with the minor/major magic ability along with taking the UMD skill. If he takes this he takes it at it's cost for something else, and no I don't think it's warping what the rogue is all about. It's certainly a better example than comparing 10 levels of spell progression for a character that isn't a spell caster to one skill I suggest you need to take as a cross class and then use up a feat to make it class.
|
|
What if we let a fighter cast spells as if he was a sorcerer of 1/2 his level, that also doesn't take anything away from anyone. I mean full casters will still be better than him won't they.
That would be completely different, and this form of 'slippery slope' is a known logical fallacy. I'm not arguing for giving spell casting to fighters. This also fails to 'reduce my argument to absurdity' since that is not what I'm arguing. A fighter is not a spell caster and should not be. Spell casting is a class ability, just like sneak attack or an animal companion.
If one wants particular class abilities, one should choose that class, and that should be a major reason to multiclass. If you want sneak attack and bonus feats, you should play a fighter/rogue. If you want an animal companion and you want smite evil, you should probably play a Paladin/Ranger.
Every class has access to skills. I'm not arguing that any class should even be given access to more total skills. I'm saying that the restrictiveness of the rules is unnecessary. Since there are easily doznes of backstories that make sense for a character to have learned a 'non-traditional skill', we shouldn't require the DM to approve or disapprove of every skill selection. Let's empower the players. Let's recognize that there are dozens of in-character reasons that someone would be good at something that they don't have on their normal skill list and trust the players to make the decision that makes sense.
It is true that you may see a little more 'variety' in characters if there is less difference between class skills and cross-class skills. You might see a fighter that has a high Intelligence and recognizes the various monsters that the party fights. Maybe he knows all their tactical weaknesses and tells the party how to defeat them. Right now that is usually the 'wizard's job', but it isn't a core part of his duties. His job is to cast spells, and he should be allowed to choose skills that make sense for him. So, if I'm making a wizard based on Skeeve from Myth Conceptions, having some rogue skills for a 1st level wizard makes sense, rather than a rogue/wizard.
It is certainly true that if we gave a fighter spellcasting as a wizard of sorcerer of 1/2 his level that we would be 'taking something away' from the other classes. The fighter might suddenly become the 'best class', meaning able to do far more than a regular rogue or a regular wizard or even a cleric. If fighter is the 'best class' than it makes everyone who doesn't play one resent them. As much as possible the various classes should be balanced. Right now, fighters are much 'weaker' than other classes, and there are a lot of reasons. One of the big reasons is that they have a ridiculously restrictive skill list, and are therefore difficult to customize without multiclassing - and multiclassing comes with 'additional benefits' that don't fit the character concept. Although it is most true with classes with very few class skills, it is even true with classes with very broad access to class skills (rogue) since there are still some skills that are considered cross-class, and there are still reasons that it doesn't make sense for them.
So, my argument is not to just give fighters more access to skills. My argument is to allow every class more access to skills. The fighter may gain relatively more since they had the smallest class skill list, but the rogue also gains. And the fighter may not use the additional access to skills, but if the player wants to and it is a choice, this would be a good thing.
As an aside, I'm unfamiliar with any feat that makes a skill a class skill, though I've seen that proposed.
Besides the benefit to the player, there are many other benefits to the DM and to the publisher of Pathfinder RPG. The whole block of 'class skills' can be removed from the class description. You as a DM never need to look at what are class skills or cross class skills when creating monsters or NPCs. All skills would have the same formula and there is no complicated math (even dividing by two). There would be no need to indicate a difference between class skills and cross class skills. If a suggested NPC had a +15 bonus to one skill, but you think they should have another, you can subtract 10 from that skill and put it in the other, and you'll know the math works.
So, why have cross-class skills at all? Why is it necessary? What function does it serve? How does it make the game better? If the purpose is to indicate what skills classes most often have is it working? What are it's unintended effects? Is there a better way?
After looking at those questions, I do think it is unnecessary, and a better way involves eliminating the distinction completely.
As an aside, I'm unfamiliar with any feat that makes a skill a class skill, though I've seen that proposed.
The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has two of them. Cosmopolitan grants you one non-exclusive skill as a class skill and gives you a +2 bonus on it. Educated (also in Eberron CS) grants you all Knowledge skills as class skills and a +1 bonus to two of them. The Rokugan Campaign Setting has Versatile, which grants you two non-class skills as class skills. And basically, feats are the main D&D tool to break a character "out of his mold" if that is what the player wants. They are not all about teh cool combat powerz. :)
That would be completely different, and this form of 'slippery slope' is a known logical fallacy. I'm not arguing for giving spell casting to fighters. This also fails to 'reduce my argument to absurdity' since that is not what I'm arguing. A fighter is not a spell caster and should not be. Spell casting is a class ability, just like sneak attack or an animal companion.
Not a slippery slope argument, I wasn't saying if we allow A to occur than a more dramatic B will follow. I guess "reductio ad absurdum", might be close to what I was getting at, but not really (I didn't have any particular type of argument in mind). Instead what I was trying to suggest is that there is a subjective scale with respect to class FEATURES, so are more important to some people and some are more important to others. You views the class FEATURE of class skills as extremely low but find spells very high. Someone else may feel differently (like say the producers of Alpha that keep class skills but give rogues access to spells at higher levels).
Every class has access to skills. I'm not arguing that any class should even be given access to more total skills. I'm saying that the restrictiveness of the rules is unnecessary.
Every class has weapon proficiencies, does that mean the distinction between what classes are proficient to what weapons is something that should also be tossed? You are focused on what you call "class abilities" while I am concerned with what I call "class features" which include (but might not be limited to): hd, saves, skill points, spells, class skills, weapon and armor proficiencies, base attack bonus, and spell class abilities (flurry, turning, sneak attack, ...).
Since there are easily doznes of backstories that make sense for a character to have learned a 'non-traditional skill', we shouldn't require the DM to approve or disapprove of every skill selection. Let's empower the players. Let's recognize that there are dozens of in-character reasons that someone would be good at something that they don't have on their normal skill list and trust the players to make the decision that makes sense.
And that is why a fighter (or whatever class), can train in cross-class skills to show that they can match their back story. If the character only has 2 ranks instead of 4, does that mean it does not match the back story? Why not give the character a skill focus feat for skill that really fits their back story? Let me point something out, the character does not know what is on the sheet. They don't know whether they are a Fighter{tm} or a Rogue{tm}, they don't know what feats they have or not, so as a player, the player should be making class/skill/ability score choices to best fit their concept. And yes, you can work really hard at something to be good at it, and see someone else who it comes to much easier. That's life, not everybody can be perfect at what they want. Also if it is about backstory, then no limit on the number of skills should be set as well. I mean what if I had a backstory of my elf fighter being raised by humans for the last 120 years? Maybe over that time he has apprenticed to everyone of every kind of occupation in the village? Why shouldn't he have alot more skill points from a purely background perspective?
It is true that you may see a little more 'variety' in characters if there is less difference between class skills and cross-class skills.
Or you might see less variety. There may be some skills that everyone would take because it just has superior game mechanics. Now instead of having other classes fill the gaps that an individual class has, now everyone is overlapping to a much greater extent.
It is certainly true that if we gave a fighter spellcasting as a wizard of sorcerer of 1/2 his level that we would be 'taking something away' from the other classes. The fighter might suddenly become the 'best class', meaning able to do far more than a regular rogue or a regular wizard or even a cleric. If fighter is the 'best class' than it makes everyone who doesn't play one resent them. As much as possible the various classes should be balanced.
And a fighter that can sneak around just as well as anyone else is taking away the role of the ranger. Now maybe you don't really like the ranger class, and don't mind it being pushed even farther down the line, but some people do. Rangers were THE scouting martial fighter in the Core rules, they were able to back up or replace some of the rogues, but hey now we have a Fighter that can do that, who needs the Ranger? What about their animal companion? By the time they get one it is a much weaker version and gets even farther behind, might as well use a wizard's familiar for all the good a ranger's animal companion will do in a fight. The best thing an animal can be used for is a free mount. Spells? Please.
Right now, fighters are much 'weaker' than other classes, and there are a lot of reasons. One of the big reasons is that they have a ridiculously restrictive skill list, and are therefore difficult to customize without multiclassing - and multiclassing comes with 'additional benefits' that don't fit the character concept. Although it is most true with classes with very few class skills, it is even true with classes with very broad access to class skills (rogue) since there are still some skills that are considered cross-class, and there are still reasons that it doesn't make sense for them.
Actually, despite what people claim about the fighter being so much weaker, I found them to be at least as effective as the other classes, all the way up the scale. I've seen fighters win the iniative (thanks Imp Init feat) and power attack (yeah feat) a foe and drop it in one hit with a well placed critical (thanks to Imp Crit feat as well). Also I find that rogues get dumber characters more often than fighters do, since they have the skill points to spare. With really smart rogues, often times it gets to the point of, "Gee I have to put these last 2 skill points some where, I mean I already have everything I'm going to use covered. How about Prof(cardplayer) and Craft(yo-yo). There we go."
After looking at those questions, I do think it is unnecessary, and a better way involves eliminating the distinction completely.
Great, why not house rule it in your game then. This is a subjective issue, what feels the best choice. For some maintaining a fundamental core "ideal" of a class (through weapon and armor proficiencies, number of skills, distinct class skills, bab, hp, saves, spells, other special class features) is more desireable.
|
Nice backstory. Swap Knowledge (Local) for Knowledge (Religion) and you are done. Reason? Our rogue has spent more time on temple grounds than scrounging in the streets, and had to ty and sneak around the temple guards in order to manage to have a good time in town. Also, the fact that he'll be known (or seen) as a student at the temple will cut off a lot of potential contacts on the street. He'll be getting around more than the other students who want to have some fun now and then, because he is a lot better at the whole stealth thing, but if he slips once, it costs him his cushy place, so he won't do it so often.
Any reason why the character should NOT exchange those two class skills? :) Another way is to have the rogue take one of the countless feats floating around that allow him to pick up skills as additional class skills. Those things are there for a reason. ;)
I would tend to agree. He did miss out on something while in the temple. Or if he was trying to both, he couldn't have done as well as someone dedicate to just one. That's what cross-class skills represent to me - working out of your area of expertise, divided attention, etc. I see no problem at all with a swap. but additional skills isn't a good idea, IMHO. Knowledge (religion) isn't a big problem, but what about the player who says his Fighter PC grew up poor and had to steal food so he wants Sleight of Hand as a free class skill or his Wizard PC who grew up by a river so he wants Swim as a free class skill? Lame examples, but my point is it starts a slippery slope. If you don't like cross-class skills, have them exchange skills or take a feat.
|
|
I am arguing for the next step in the evolution of skills, as I see it. In 1st edition the simply didn't exist. In 2nd edition many skills were part of what only certain characters could do with any ability at all (climb walls) or non-weapon proficiencies - minor abilities you either could or could not do.
3.0 brought skill points. It introduced the idea of class skills, cross class skills, and exclusive skills. In general, the 3.0 class system was better than the others before it.
3.5 eliminated exclusive skills completely. It made the radical argument that anyone could learn anything. Nothing was exclusive, but it did retain the cross-class skill distinction.
Since we've seen a progression of less restrictive and more flexible skill systems, I do want to continue that trend. I think there are a lot of good reasons to do so. I've heard some people say that it will somehow cause the choice of class to become insignificant. I fail to see how. Let me lay out all the reasons such a change can be good, and please let one or more among you lay out the reasons why it is bad. Then please try to address each of the points that I raise and let me know why it fails to achieve the objective I have made claim to.
1) In the current 3.5 system, determining whether a skill is a class skill or a cross-class skill at the time the skill point was available to spend on it is the single most time consuming aspect of skill allocation. In complicated characters it must be known what order classes were taken and at what level each skill was spent. This is essentially impossible to do without advancing level by level (or at least class by class) at a time. Eliminating the distinction elminates this level of complexity. Even if no other changes were made to skills (Pathfinder system, Hybrid system, etc) this would be the case. While some of the other systems are easier than 3.5 but do retain the difference between class and cross-class, these skill systems would also be easier if there is only one 'formula' for skills. So, no matter which system, eliminating the class-skill/cross-class-skill distinction DOES make it easier and less complicated than any system that distinguishes between them.
2) A cross-class skill makes it difficult or impossible to create some character concepts with the base classes. Allowing more access to skills empowers the player to create their concept without significantly increasing power. While it may allow for unusual parties in which everyone has the same skills, this will not usually be the case, since most parties want to have a wide variety of skills. More player choice should equate to happier players, and should work well for the DM as well. Having a powerful wizard able to lie well (bluff as a class skill) can serve story purposes as well. Especially at low levels where most characters have only 1 or 2 feats, it may be impossible to create a character to fulfill this function under the rules as written.
3) As much as possible, the DM and Players should play by the same rules. Monsters and NPCs should follow the same guidelines as PCs. A situation where class/cross-class is eliminated can help avoid situations where the DM has to grant arbitrary bonuses to create a character or creature. This is particularly true when trying to modify an existing monster to fit a new role. DMs may frequently treat necessary skills as class skills using the logic 'if he uses this skill but not this skill, it works out in the end'. Since the PC must ask for that consideration and some may not even be aware that it is an option, or have been disabused of the notion by a less than reasonable DM, having this a stated option in the rules is a good thing. This helps DMs as well, when creating intelligent outsiders who have far more skills available than class skills available, forcing them to spend the vast majority of skills on a cross-class basis, which makes for much more difficult accounting.
4) As much as possible, stat blocks should provide all the necessary information about the creature, and should be easy to double-check for accuracy. Under the current rules for cross-class skills, you cannot know if a skill modifier was purchased at class or cross-class. Totalling the number of skill points spent does not always equal the total number of skill points the creature was originally allocated. By making all skills 'equal' in point cost, it is very apparent whether the proper number of skills were allocated. Even the Epic Meepo system has a flaw where by dividing by two creates a situation where the skill point total will not reflect the total number of skill points spent in the stat block.
5) The game is supposed to be fun. This does not mean that everyone should be able to do everything. It does mean that every player should get a choice about what kinds of things they should be good at. Allowing skills to be chosen to fit the character type allows a player to have more fun without increasing his overall power level. This is not true with other class abilities like BAB, bonus feats, weapon proficiencies, etc. A mace is clearly not as good a weapon as a longsword (1d8/20x2 vs 1d8/19-20x2) and is therefore a simple weapon, not a martial weapon. It is well established that gaining access to a better weapon is worth a feat. Whether knowledge (religion) or knowledge (local) is clearly better than the other is not as easily determined. For the most part, skills are essentially equal in power. Some offer great benefits, but are restrictive (Tumble), so are not useful to characters who wear armor even if made available as a class skill. Others are useful, but only in some situations (Ride is good if you have a mount, but not if you walk). Some might argue that some skills are 'clearly better', but I think that argument is shaky at best. If it is true though, better to balance the skills against each other to gain the other benefits discussed above. Allowing a player to choose what he or she will be good at increases their fun, so, whenever possible, the player should have the choice when it doesn't alter the power level of the game in any major way.
6) Many of the class skill restrictions don't make sense. Certainly not every fighter should have knowledge (local), but some certainly should. For some reason, some classes (rogue particularly) have wide access to skills, but are not expected to take maximum ranks in all of them (a rogue could be a face, a trap smith, a sneak, a jack-of-all-trades or maybe two or three, but not all) while others have no choice and cannot excel in anything that not all members of their class are expected to know. There is no reason that every class should not have access to Listen/Spot or Knowledge (local). Every class has some time to spend outside of their 'core' responsibilities - the only difference should be the amount of time. Wizards spend more hours studying than other classes, and most of their skills are expected to be picked up in their study time. That makes sense. But fighters and rogues both pick up skills in their 'down time' as they go to the same taverns, talk to the same people, and play the same games. For skills like diplomacy, sense motive, etc these characters should have about the same chance to work on those skills in the proper setting. The only difference is that the rogue (who isn't busy working at beating the straw dummy everyday from 9-5) has a chance to also spend his days learning to pick pockets in the market. Essentially, no person should be more or less able to learn than another person with the same native ability if it is completely unrelated to their day job. A rogue with no ranks in Disable Device who begins to learn it at 10th level is no different than a Fighter who has never spent time on Disable Device until 10th level. He has no prior learning that should apply to disable device. Since the rules should support realism whenever it does not needlessly complicate the game, this makes sense.
I think those are the big ones.
I'll also repeat my question from earlier:
So, why have cross-class skills at all? Why is it necessary? What function does it serve? How does it make the game better? If the purpose is to indicate what skills classes most often have is it working? What are it's unintended effects? Is there a better way?
Any answers to those questions either? The more we discuss the issue the more I am convinced that there is no reason to keep class skills other than that is the system we had in 3.5, and some people don't feel comfortable with change even if it is clearly better. Am I wrong? Explain why.
1) In the current 3.5 system, determining whether a skill is a class skill or a cross-class skill at the time the skill point was available to spend on it is the single most time consuming aspect of skill allocation. In complicated characters it must be known what order classes were taken and at what level each skill was spent. This is essentially impossible to do without advancing level by level (or at least class by class) at a time. Eliminating the distinction elminates this level of complexity.
It’s not the notion of cross-class skill that his complicated but more the game mechanic of skill allocation for those skills.
I offer this alternative to resolve the problem: Why not replacing the current game mechanic by simply adding a class bonus (+2) to all your Class-Skills instead (skills that your character should have a better affinity with them as they are core class skill )? This way it’s pretty easy to calculated your total skill points pool to distribute as you want. You only have to add the +2 bonus on all your class skills. This bonus is a simple incitative to choose appropriate skills for your class and roles but do not penalize you for choosing other skills. In fact, this bonus replace the synergy bonus you could have gain with 3.5 OGL (and it's a lot simpler to remember). You can also rules that you can only apply this bonus to skills that have at least 4 ranks.
I'll also repeat my question from earlier:
So, why have cross-class skills at all? Why is it necessary? What function does it serve? How does it make the game better? If the purpose is to indicate what skills classes most often have is it working? What are it's unintended effects? Is there a better way?Any answers to those questions either? The more we discuss the issue the more I am convinced that there is no reason to keep class skills other than that is the system we had in 3.5, and some people don't feel comfortable with change even if it is clearly better. Am I wrong? Explain why.
You know, the more you ask, the less people will be interested in answering. There's been a heap of posts that tried to adress your questions, but you basically don't put any importance on the arguments presented in them, or simply choose not to believe them at all. The point is, you have your opinion about the skill system, just as anybody does, and I doubt there will be anything which can be brought forward that hasn't been already done so that will convince you in any other direction. This is like one of those discussions where people try to explain Vancian Magic to somebody who simply doesn't really like it.
On the other hand...nobody needs to convince you, unless you're part of the design team on Pathfinder RPG. :) For any other answers to your questions, I'll gladly point you to all those posts where people have already tried to answer them...I doubt you'll get many different ones at this point. This is a simple difference in opinion and values, and it won't get much further by beating the dead horse to a pulp.
For any other answers to your questions, I'll gladly point you to all those posts where people have already tried to answer them...I doubt you'll get many different ones at this point.
Of course that is probably just because those people are deathly afraid of change, any change.
|
|
You know, the more you ask, the less people will be interested in answering. There's been a heap of posts that tried to adress your questions, but you basically don't put any importance on the arguments presented in them, or simply choose not to believe them at all. The point is, you have your opinion about the skill system, just as anybody does, and I doubt there will be anything which can be brought forward that hasn't been already done so that will convince you in any other direction. This is like one of those discussions where people try to explain Vancian Magic to somebody who simply doesn't really like it.
On the other hand...nobody needs to convince you, unless you're part of the design team on Pathfinder RPG. :) For any other answers to your questions, I'll gladly point you to all those posts where people have already tried to answer them...I doubt you'll get many different ones at this point. This is a simple difference in opinion and values, and it won't get much further by beating the dead horse to a pulp.
I'll happily take the posts that point to the answers to these questions. I have read a lot of posts, and I take all of them very seriously. I have not really seen much to directly answer my question. I have noticed that some people feel that if there is no distinction between class and cross-class, all people will always choose the same skills. And I have heard that some people think that all classes will have the same 'flavor'.
I want to make sure that those are the only points that have been raised in defense of class skills. I would be happy to focus on those points and discuss them in more depth, but I would like to know if there are any other reasons first. I have not discarded those arguments, but I have brought up some counter-points to them that have yet to be addressed.
I guess what I'm hoping for here is a real discussion. I actually am open to the idea of class skills and cross-class skills. That has been the system I've used for years, and of all of them proposed I think the Epic Meepo system makes the most sense (but it does have a problem with determining the skills from the stat blocks quickly without a special notation). That said, the whole point of the Alpha is to throw some ideas on the wall and see what sticks.
If class skills belong in the D&D game, somebody should be able to come up with some strong arguments for them, or at least refute all or part of the major points that I've laid out in support of them. If that is not the case, well, then I expect that reasonable people will take up the cause.
My general point, in case anyone missed it, is that the distinction between class skills and cross class skills in any system creates more complexity. While not all complexity is bad, in this case there seems little reason to retain the added complexity. It contributes little to the fun of the gaming experience and removing it actually has very little affect for most people. Those who are affected are only affected in a positive way (as far as I've been able to tell).
Edit - And certainly we should all agree that 3.5 is a fun game, but that when possible, it should be improved. And the best way to do that is to participate in the Playtest, and discuss the various parts of the rules as thoroughly as possible and come to consensus.
From wikipedia - Achieving consensus requires serious treatment of every group member's considered opinion. Once a decision is made it is important to trust in members' discretion in follow-up action. In the ideal case, those who wish to take up some action want to hear those who oppose it, because they count on the fact that the ensuing debate will improve the consensus. In theory, action without resolution of considered opposition will be rare and done with attention to minimize damage to relationships.
So, hopefully I and others that have suggested removing the class skill distinction will 'win over' everyone else, or the points we made will be seen as incorrect and everyone will more strongly agree that they are necessary. No matter which way the debate turns, both sides win by having one side 'prove' itself through well-reasoned arguments. No side wins when one side accuses the other of being unreasonable or unwilling to consider their arguments and 'walks away'. That would be a real shame.
No side wins when one side accuses the other of being unreasonable or unwilling to consider their arguments and 'walks away'.
Interesting.
The more we discuss the issue the more I am convinced that there is no reason to keep class skills other than that is the system we had in 3.5, and some people don't feel comfortable with change even if it is clearly better.
Sounds like someone calling the other side unreasonable to me. As the Bard said, I think that you "doth protest too much".
I have got to the point were I pretty sure there gonna keep skill points even if there not as loved as some people here make it seem.I have consigned myself to the fact, however if they at lest put a side bar up for the 50% that are done with skill points I would be ok with that.lest that way we dont have to keep using a system we have used and found lacking. after using the alpha I have found it much better and even if pathfinder goes back to skill points my group is not.
So I would like to ask Mr. Bulmahn please find try to find the space for thous that like your system and find the 3.5 unwieldy and cumbersome.The system mepo suggested is just not a fix to me its still 3.5 skill points with paint trying unsuccessfully to cover it's issues. A little over half of the people I have polled liked your system better and I would really like to see it given a real test and kept .
|
|
No side wins when one side accuses the other of being unreasonable or unwilling to consider their arguments and 'walks away'.Interesting.
The more we discuss the issue the more I am convinced that there is no reason to keep class skills other than that is the system we had in 3.5, and some people don't feel comfortable with change even if it is clearly better.Sounds like someone calling the other side unreasonable to me. As the Bard said, I think that you "doth protest too much".
I say that because nobody seems willing to repeat what their argument against removing class skills is. I tried to post a statement of my understanding of the opposition. Essentially, I am asking for clarity. Someone has offered to post links to show where different arguments that I have ignored are. That's fine.
Certainly I can't make anyone carry on the discussion. I do think it would be to everyone's benefit if the conversation were continued, and/or someone stood up to be the 'champion' for keeping class skills. I sincerely would like a summation of the argument for keeping them. Once I fully understand what that argument is, I want to explore alternatives and options - skill systems that achieve the same goal but also include some of the benefits I see in a 'universal system'. There are certainly quite a few 'compromise' solutions that could work. For example, class skills from classes could only be spent on class skills, but skill points from Intelligence could be spent on any skill. That would achieve the flexibility I desire with only requiring the player to make sure his character is 'smarter than average'. But it is not as simple or elegant as a simple elimination of cross-class skills.
Regardless of what you think my goal or motivation or my relative reasonableness, I'm only interested in making sure that the Pathfinder Game is better than 3.5, and I think that will involve a lot of work. 3.5 is good for a lot of reasons. Making things the same fails to make it better. Many changes could make it worse. So, care and consideration must be used when making a change, but opposition to that change should be explored as well. I haven't argued for changing Vancian casting, but I'm sure there are a lot of good arguments for doing so. If it can be done and keep the 'feel' of D&D, and it makes the system easier and better, it is probably a good change. People that don't think so should explain why they don't think so.
Now, it is enough to say 'I don't like change'. That is a valid reason. If someone isn't changing to 4th edition for that reason, than a change along these lines might be unacceptable as well. What I'd hate to see, though, is when Pathfinder comes out the developers saying 'What we learned is that we could have and should have gone farther. We'd really like to release a Pathinder 1.5 but we don't know that it would go over well'.
So, please assume that I'm an idiot. Somehow in reading over the entire thread I've overlooked arguments, and I need to have them pointed out to me or restated.
I know that nobody has addressed the advantages as I see them and explained why they either aren't advantages, or the advantages are outweighed by other disadvantages. Surely someone who feels that the system should retain class skills is willing and able to point out the flaws that I am blind to. I can only assume that failure to do so means that there are no flaws. Which certainly is one possibility. But I would hate to see a system not used if it is clearly better without at least addressing what the opposition is (and I'm not saying it is clearly better, just that it appears to be to me per my previous explanations, and that someone else with a different viewpoint can show me how or why). At least, that is my hope.
|
|
Actually, I just read through the entire thread again. I think that I made some good points, and I continually, throughout the thread asked ofr clarification from the opposition.
When the opposition did make a point (usually after completely disregarding my question and argument) I addressed those points, and usually countered them. For example, a question about 'giving fighters 1/2 spellcasting of a sorcerer' or 'giving other classes their choice of weapon proficiency'. If everyone else reads through the entire thread, starting with David Jackson 60's comments on page 1, I think you'll see that this is true.
I think there are two clearly defined sides. One side feels that what choice of skills a character makes has no bearing on the power of the character, only the total number of skills does. The other side appears to think that access to particular skills makes a bigger difference in the power of each class compared to the number of skills received.
Does that sound correct?
If class skills belong in the D&D game, somebody should be able to come up with some strong arguments for them, or at least refute all or part of the major points that I've laid out in support of them. If that is not the case, well, then I expect that reasonable people will take up the cause.
There is nothing to refute, sorry...we're mostly talking opinions here, not facts. The only facts that everybody probably can agree on is that the current 3.5 skill system makes work hard - for the DM when creating complex and high-level characters - and that some of the solutions (like the one Epic Meepo suggested) are simply there to solve that one problem.
Beyond that, it's all opinion. As far as I get it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you feel that
- skills are not as important as other class features like BAB, hit points, spells or special abilities, and that a different accessibility and availability (through # of class skills and # of skill points) doesn't serve to differentiate one class from another, or at least not enough to make a difference when eliminated.
- that the current system (along with some of the options given in the PHB and DMG) doesn't work in realizing some character concepts.
- that it is more fun for more people to have a more liberated access to class skills.
There's no fact in all of that, nothing that can be refuted with more than a "I don't think so" and some anecdotal evidence. The first point is pure opinion, and as such not refutable. The second cannot fully be refuted, because even though the examples you brought up (e.g. sneaky fighter) have been created with the current system (e.g. by pres man), there can always be some weird character concept that can't be fully realized, and the undertone in your posts of building character types around skills simply doesn't mesh with the class system of D&D as it is. The third point is pure opinion again.
If there are more points that I didn't mention here, or misrepresented any of your points, I'm open to correction/addition. But as far as I see it, you're asking for a discussion about tastes right now, and that simply doesn't work, in my opinion. :)
|
|
I'll also repeat my question from earlier:
So, why have cross-class skills at all?
DeadDM, I have tremendous respect for your opinions and think at least one of your ideas - no x4 skill points at 1st level - is one of the best that's been posted. I do, however, disagree with you about class and cross-class skills, which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and preferences. But there is a big difference between not agreeing with someone and not understanding their argument. I think the arguments presented by folks in the 'keep class and cross-class skills separate' camp are straight forward enough. Let me quote myself from higher up on this same page ...
That's what cross-class skills represent to me - working out of your area of expertise, divided attention, etc.
In my mind, each class has certain niches that it fills and certain things that they are good at, Knowledge (arcana) for wizards, Open Locks and Disable Device for rogues and so on. Sure, anyone can learn to do these things, but there is a price. It should be harder for my fighter to learn Spellcraft that my wizard. Why? Because he is a fighter and he needs to be doing fighter things. And he can't just stop doing fighter things. Even if he's studying Spellcraft, he's got to be practicing being a fighter too. If he weren't, he'd be taking a level of wizard instead. So, as a fighter, his ability to focus on learning Spellcraft is diminished. He has to spend twice as much time just to gain the same level of proficiency. He has to spend 2 skill points to get one rank (or, in a system like Epic Meepo's, his 2 skill points buy 2 ranks, but his ranks are only 1/2 as effective).
If you're not satisfied with that, you could maybe swap one class skill for another to create an urban ranger or a wilderness rogue, or you can take a feat that makes something that isn't normally a class skill for you into one. There are options, but they all have a cost, as I believe they should.
Why is it necessary? What function does it serve? How does it make the game better?
It isn't strictly necessary, but it helps to keep classes from bleeding into one another and makes sure that each class stays special. I don't want fighters who can pick locks as well as rogues, not unless they've got a damn good reason and have sacrificed a feat or something to show their dedication to learning an unusual skill. And for me, clearly defined class roles and skill sets make the game better. If one has a problem with the mechanics, fair enough, a lot of people are offering suggestions to simplify the situation, e.g., getting rid of the 2-for-1 cost in favor of a system like Epic Meepo's or just giving flat bonuses or penalties to each class in certain skills. These would both simplify the mechanics greatly while preserving the barriers around certain skill sets.
If the purpose is to indicate what skills classes most often have is it working? What are it's unintended effects? Is there a better way?
I can only answer for myself, but it seems to be working for me and the kids I play with. It forces players to make choices about what is important to them. They can't have it all. Unintended effects? People might take more levels of rogue or even expert to gain access to broader skill sets, they might multiclass more, or they might just pass on an interesting skill and leave it to someone what can do it better. None of those strikes me as bad.
So again, agree or disagree, it's your prerogative. But there is a non-trivial argument for maintaining the distinction between class skills and cross-class skills.
|
|
I certainly want any discussion on these boards to go beyond just opinion, but I think that opinion has a place as well. Opinions of liking or disliking something for any reason are very important since eventually every individual will have to mkae the choice to play Pathfinder or not to play Pathfinder. Paizo must care very deeply for the opinion of every member of this community, and as much as possible, we should try to determine what people's opinions are, make them clear to Paizo, work towards a consensus as fellow members of a gaming community, and present clear options and feedbacks on how those options are working around the table.
The only facts that everybody probably can agree on is that the current 3.5 skill system makes work hard
Okay. With a given that the 3.5 system needs improvement, I want to try to focus on a solution. There have been several options discussed. My question is this: does eliminating cross-class skills make skills easier? I think it is a fact that it does. Any proposed system so far would be less complicated with the removal of a distinction between class and cross class skills. This should be a clearly evident fact, but can be tested by simply testing it for yourself. If nothing else, one simply does not have to refer to the class skill lists when assigning skills.
The foundation of my argument rests on the following points:
1) When two systems are otherwise equal, the simpler one is preferred. This does not mean that simplicity should be favored over realism, or that everything must be simplified - simply that if there are two ways of doing something that in actuality are the same - the simple one is better. For example, please compare THAC0 to the new Armor Class rules. Essentially, they work the same way, but one is simply easier.
2) All classes already have access to all skills. There are two limiting factors that prevent a class from mastering all skills. The first is number of skill points available, and the second is the number of class skills versus cross class skills that the character would like to master. Therefore, while all classes have access, not all classes have equal access.
This point divides into two other related arguments.
2a) If all classes CAN achieve the same mastery of a skill through use of judicious cross-class skills and feats, than it seems unnecessary to create extra work to achieve an effect that is already supported under the rules. If fighters CAN be stealthy, why not make it easy to make them stealthy (or any other combination).
2b) If all classes CANNOT achieve the same mastery of a skill, than some skills truly are 'exclusive' even though they are not intended to be (exclusive skills were removed in the change from 3.0 to 3.5). Since D&D is a game of fanstasy escapism, it seems helping to allow the classes to better create various archetypes is a good thing.
The final point regarding #2 - with restrictions from the number of skill points and the access to class and cross-class skills, I do think that the number of skill points is the single largest limiting factor. A rogue will nearly always have more skills than a fighter, even if the fighter always chooses class skills and the rogue chooses cross-class skills. This is built into the rules, and I personally believe that it is a sufficient limitation to prevent abuse of an open system by any single character class (admittedly this is an opinion, but is supported by game testing).
3) Skills may be an important part of defining a character, just as feats are. Because they are selectable by the PC, they help to make a character distinct from a character with the same class and levels. Having unique characters is widely considered good. Most people use the term 'cookie-cutter' as derogatory. (While there is an opinion here, I think it is a fact that the opinion is generally accepted as the most popular and widely accepted). If a member of a class always has the exact same skill selection as every other member of the class, this would not be a good thing.
4) If variety is important within and between classes, it is also important that classes have commonalities between their members. If they do not, there would be reason to have a system that includes classes in the first place. Each class must have a defining characteristic that distinguishes it from other classes. Some have argued that access to type of skill rather than access to number of skills is the defining characteristic of one or more classes. I disagree. Class abilities are unique to each class, while skills are not (as described above). Since skills are not the defining characteristic compared to other class abilities (spell casting, turning, animal companion, wild shape, bonus feats, sneak attack) a change in this regard will have little effect. It cannot be argued that having disable device is a defining characteristic of a rogue, since not all rogues invest in this skill. It cannot be argued that stealth is a distinguishing feature of Rangers in the martial class because there are rangers that do not use stealth. Essentially, the skills are a poor definition of the classes because already there is no exclusive access, and classes are not defined by their skill selection since it can (and does vary) from one member of a class to another.
Variation of skill selections between Rogue A and Rogue B or Fighter A and Fighter B is not an opinion. It is a fact that can be verified quickly by going to just a small number of gaming groups.
- skills are not as important as other class features like BAB, hit points, spells or special abilities, and that a different accessibility and availability (through # of class skills and # of skill points) doesn't serve to differentiate one class from another, or at least not enough to make a difference when eliminated.
- that the current system (along with some of the options given in the PHB and DMG) doesn't work in realizing some character concepts.
- that it is more fun for more people to have a more liberated access to class skills.
There's no fact in all of that, nothing that can be refuted with more than a "I don't think so" and some anecdotal evidence.
I'm actually okay with that. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. I don't expect to have access to a library of data on the activities of gamers either singularly or in a group. But we all have a table where we can test these things.
Now, these foundations that I've laid out can be disagreed with. They have a strongly factual basis for laying them out, but they do lead me to the following opinions:
Eliminating the distinction between class and cross-class skills will
1) make the game easier in some ways.
2) empower players to make decisions for what skills are appropriate for their characters.
3) increase the flexibility of skills allowing a wider variety of both antagonists and protagonists to be possible under the rules as written
4) More closely model 'real life'. The equivalent of a rogue (professional con man) and a fighter (WWE) can both learn to lie equally well. Even accountants who don't spend their time talking to people can learn to lie extremely well. Essentially, many skills can be mastered by anyone who puts effort into their mastery without suffering in regard to the skills their job requires and mastering them to an equal degree of someone who's regular job employs the use of the skill all the time. (This one, and the following ones are more opinion than the first three, which I think can qualify as factual).
5) allow players to have more fun. Giving more options usually results in people feeling that they can make the character they want to play. More fun is a good thing.
6) NOT imbalance the game. The major restriction on skills still remains with the number of skills each class has available, and access to even high level skill use is often less impressive than the abilities granted by a feat or class ability. A high level rogue may be able to open the most complicated lock imaginable, but so can a wizard with 2nd level spells. Most skills become less important as the game progresses as magic and magic items replace skills that involve movement (balance, climb, swim, jump) and interpersonal relations (diplomacy, sense motive, etc). A party that is flying doesn't worry about much movement, being able to turn ethereal negates many physical traps, and dominate person is very effective at forcing interrogations. While not every game will make use of the magic that is available, since this type of magic is 'core', it hardly seems that worries about breaking the game when many of these skills are nearly useless at even mid-levels is a problem.
7) NOT lead to every player choosing the same skills because some are clearly superior. Most wizards will choose skills like Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge skills since they really are useful for what most wizards will WANT to do. A wizard that is based on a different concept might not, but this will tend to be the exception, not the rule. Most rogues will still learn stealth, open lock, gather information, etc since they'll have the skill points to spend on these things, and classes like the fighter will have to make some tough choices (Perception and Tumble OR Stealth and Tumble OR Perception and Stealth) and be unable to master many different skills the way a 'skill monkey' class can.
Now, I do admit that much of this is opinion. As I said, I don't have a problem with that, and I do have playtesting to support my opinion (though I have not tried it with your group, certainly). If you have the opinion that cross-class skills are an important aspect of the rules, you must certainly have an opinion for why that is. That is what I'm looking for.
If the opinion is 'cross-class skills are good because they help define the character' that's fine. I have made it plain I disagree with it and I've given numerous and clearly explicated reasons why that is the case, but I can certainly still respect that as an opinion. If there are other reasons, though, I have yet to realize what they are. And they may very well be ones that I would and could consider more valid than all of the explanation and outlines I've laid out so far.
Someone else said that you don't have to convince me. You don't. Jason's opinion is the one that is going to matter in the end. And I don't know that I've convinced him (or anyone else for that matter), but I would think that if you think something is important, you'd want to share why you think it is important so it can find its way into the game so that Pathfinder is the game that YOU want to play.
Right now, the game I want to play doesn't involve cross-class-skills, and my opinion since trying it is that it is better.
|
|
I do, however, disagree with you about class and cross-class skills, which is fine.
You must have posted this while I was posting my last post.
Thank you.
This is exactly what I was hoping for. While my opinion differs from yours, I respect the reason you have that opinion.
And I'm particularly glad that you were able to express it without calling me a powergamer, a montyhaul DM or a metagamer (even through implication).
I do hope that for those that have class skills 'because that's the rule' my posts will at least challenge that assumption, and work to a system that most people actually 'believe' in, rather than just accepting. And whether that involves a distinction between class and cross-class or not is not the most important thing by far.
|
|
1) When two systems are otherwise equal, the simpler one is preferred.An now you're over simplifying. Ease of use (which is different than simplicity!) is one factor in deciding on a system. Another is realism. Another is the "cool" factor. Another is game balance. If you ignore any one of those things, I don't think you'll come up with a good rule set. I'm in favour of increasing ease of use, but it simply doesn't logically follow that we need to eliminate cross-class to achieve that. The two options you offered (keep cross-class as is or remove it entirely) are not the only two available to us. That's a false dilemma.
Actually, I said
1) When two systems are otherwise equal, the simpler one is preferred. This does not mean that simplicity should be favored over realism, or that everything must be simplified - simply that if there are two ways of doing something that in actuality are the same - the simple one is better. For example, please compare THAC0 to the new Armor Class rules. Essentially, they work the same way, but one is simply easier.
For example, take the following system. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, take x, add 2 and subtract 4. On Tuesday and Thursday, take x, add 3 and subtract 5. On Saturday and Sunday, take x, subtract 2. This yields y, the number you're looking for.
Now, this system can be simplified by taking the 'weekend function' and applying to the rest of the week. The math keeps the relationship between x and y the same on each day. Using a system where you add and then subtract when you could simply just subtract is silly, as is using a different system that has the same result based on the day of the week.
So, when equally realistic, the simple one is better. If they are not equally realistic, than they are not 'otherwise equal'. Regarding realism and functionality, I think you have to walk a fine line. I can do complex physics equations. I cannot do them quickly and I do not do them for fun.
2b) If all classes CANNOT achieve the same mastery of a skill, than some skills truly are 'exclusive' even though they are not intended to beThis is a different kind of false dilemma. You're talking about skills as if they're all-or-nothing. This is also not true. Lots of people take skills at lower ranks in order to, for example, have access to something that's trained-only, to flesh out a character, or to get a synergy bonus. There are lots of options between "not at all" and "mastered."
Granted. Simply put, since DCs usually scale evenly with level, having half the effectiveness of another character usually means that you either always succeed or always fail, with little middle ground. There are some skills with a flat DC (tumble) where even as cross-class some classes will be as expert as they need for their purposes (avoid attack of opportunity), but opposed checks and such that likely is not an option. And of course this is a sub point regarding whether all classes can achieve the same results or not. The main point is that if they can, it is unnecessary, and if they cannot but are supposed to be able to, then putting barriers to the accomplishment of the goal is counterproductive.
Essentially, the skills are a poor definition of the classes because already there is no exclusive access, and classes are not defined by their skill selection since it can (and does vary) from one member of a class to another.Many class features, like spell-casting or Uncanny Dodge, or Sneak Attack, are also common to more than one class. Therefore, it's not that some class abilities define the class and others don't. It's that the totality of all of them in a unique combination defines the class. Therefore they're all important. They all contribute.
And some more than others. Obviously a wizard and a sorcerer are both spell casters. If someone asks you what the difference is, you probably say 'a wizard must prepare their spells in advance, but they can choose to prepare nearly any spell. A sorcerer chooses only a few spells, but they can cast each many more times per day'. This statement encapsulates the 'nature' of the class, and skills don't really come into it. Some classes might refer to skills briefly, but usually only by inference. 'A ranger is a fighter that does a lot of forest stuff, like tracking'. It may not be the best description, but it gets the point across, and skills are only inferred as thinks that are 'forest stuff'.
Regarding real life and people learning, all I can say is that there is a lot of stuff that D&D doesn't model real well. Since we can't measure 'ability scores' on real people, it is hard to assume we're starting with two 'equal' people - all ability scores the same. If that is not the case, in terms of D&D, the one with a better ability score modifier will outshine the other, even with equal training. But two equal people with equal ability scores (let's say identical twins) decide that they want to go into an adventuring business together. Since they both have similar desires, but they want to be a 'team' one chooses 'fighter' as his class and one chooses 'rogue'. It does seem obvious that the fighter is going to be spending a lot of time learning to hit things better (better BAB) giving the rogue more time to work on skills. It does not seem obvious that the rogue will automatically be better at diplomacy than the fighter. In fact, I think it is ridiculous. A prediliction for opening locks does not always correspond to a prediliction for talking to people. This is where the rule seems unnecessarily restrictive. Why is the fighter not able to communicate well with others as a result of his focusing on his physical training? Where does that stereotype come from? One too many game designers had sand kicked on them by a brawny man at Muscle Beach? The fact is, I don't know why that is a streotype, and because I don't understand the reasoning, it does bother me.
The D&D rules are saying 'you can be good at opening lock or you can be good at raising animals, but you can't be good at both of them'. That doesn't make sense to me. Sure, they're different skills. I get that. So is diplomacy. So if you're a rogue you can be good at interacting with people, but not animals. That doesn't make sense to me. Now, maybe this is supposed to be about balance? If that's the case, I still don't understand why the fighter gets so few 'good' skill choices. Being a fighter choosing between whether he can climb or swim is not nearly as interesting a choice as between talking well to others or the ability to survive on his own in the wilderness.
I certainly hope no one gets the impression I'm beating a dead horse. I don want to try to establish where the line is in 'bleeding into another classes abilities'. Certainly there must be a level where it is acceptable and one where it is not. Some have said 'take a feat'. I think that might not be a bad way to go, but if that is the case, should each skill cost one feat to be able to add to your skill list? Should that feat also equate to an extra skill rank per level (which is what Alpha 1.1 assumes when you add it as trained). I don't want any class to lose anything that makes it special, and I don't feel that eliminating cross-class skills does in any meaningful way. The possibility might be there, but it seems mitigated by a number of other factors.
|
|
I like cross-class skills but absolutely agree that the 3.5 system of spending 2 points to buy 1 rank creates a record keeping nightmare. As far as I can tell, three distinct methods have been proposed for retaining the idea of cross-class skills but easing the record keeping burden and making the creation of high-level NPCs easier.
1) 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
MUCH easier to keep track of because if a skill ever becomes a class skill for you, you just switch formulas and no recalculation is needed.
2) 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.
Again, MUCH easier to keep track of because ranks are ranks and always calculated the same way, regardless of class. Class/cross-class is a bonus/penalty applied on top of ranks. This system has potential but may be flawed in that the bonuses/penalties don't scale with increasing levels. -4 at 1st level is going to be huge, but by 10th level, maybe not so much. It does, however, fulfill the basic purpose of cross-class skills - keeping certain classes better at certain skills than others.
3) 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+1 for cross-class skills. Dorje Sylas suggested keeping the 3.5 (level+3)/2 cap on cross-class skills so the 'penalty' will scale up with as levels increase.
Potential here too, although as I look at it, isn't that just, effectively, a -2 penalty? Maybe not; you'd only feel the level cap if you try to max out your ranks, whereas you'd feel the penalty anytime you tried to use skill, regardless of your ranks. In any case, it maintains the superiority of certain classes in certain skills.
So we have at least three new ways of dealing with cross-class skills. All of them are simpler than 3.5 because they allow you to buy skill ranks at a cost of 1 point per rank. This makes the math and book keeping MUCH easier. Creating high-level NPCs too. And maybe best of all (DeadDMWalking, I'm looking at you), you can just ignore them. If Paizo were to go with an Epic Meepo-like system, just use the class-skills formula for all skills. If they were to go with cross-class penalties or levels caps, just don't use them. All three systems grant full ranks so you wouldn't even need to re-calculate anything, just don't apply the modifiers. [note: I've said elsewhere that I think stat blocks should include both ranks in a skill and the final modifiers so that anyone who wants to tinker doesn't have to back calculate from modifiers to determine ranks.]
At this point I'm not really trying to convince anyone that 'my way' is the best way. What I really hope is that the final Pathfinder system is flexible enough to allow DMs to add and subtract components as they see fit, kinda' like Unearthed Arcana did. I have some preferences that will be really easy for me to house rule in (like Defensive bonuses or a skill called Gamble), so I'm not even going to bother trying to convince James to squeeze them in. Cross-class skills, on the other hand, I think are easier to ignore as a house rule than they would be to insert. Bottom line, that's why I think they should be included in Pathfinder, but ideally in such a way as too accommodate those who don't want to use them.
Having now played in an actual session with the new skill rules from Paizo, I don't mind them and I retract my former post about retaining skill points. The new rules work fine and it is simpler to create a character.
Nice fighter build pres man. does prove the point that you can be a sneaky fighter with out becoming useless.
You think that build is useful? Really? REALLY?!
I really hope they keep the new skill system.
If you haven't tried it playing and DMing I suggest you give it a whirl. I really like it much better.
What I really don't understand -- and I hope someone can explain it without all the anger that I'm beginning to see expressed -- is what about the alpha skill system follows the design goal of Backward Compatibility?
If you really want backward compatibility, then skill points are the way to go. Remember, there are certainly things about 3.5 that are super-broken. However, skill points really wasn't one of them.
Also, it seems to me it's been shown that the alpha skill system really ramps up the skill bonuses a character gets compared to skill points.
The biggest legitimate complaint about the skill system is figuring out where and when your cross-class skill points got spent. I understand that can be problematic for some people/groups. No problem. Just get rid of the 2:1 cross-class purchase and you're good to go. The cross-class cap remains in place (level+3/2). If a character has a single level of a class where a skill was a class skill, the cap matches all class skill caps (level+3).
As for backward compatibility, it really don't affect characters or NPC nearly so much as the SWSE/Alpha system. Simply add up the total skill points your PC should have, and that's the number of ranks you should have. And, IME, most PCs have either spent no cross-class skill points or very few. You won't suddenly have some character become very good at some skill he barely used previously.
Well I too hope everybody can avoid anger on the issue...it's certainly not something worth getting worked up over.
As for the skill system, after using it, I liked it very much for both class and cross-class skills. If one of my players wanted to use the old system and pick, and the others wanted to use the new way, I would see little problem running both in the same game (other than that single player now has skills a bit harder for me to keep track of, but I'm already used to that and so is everybody else).
Either way, I think I will be using this new system regardless if Paizo goes the other way for my games. Neither will make me "not buy" the system, given how easy the change is to make now that the skills are consolidated.
What I really don't understand -- and I hope someone can explain it without all the anger that I'm beginning to see expressed -- is what about the alpha skill system follows the design goal of Backward Compatibility?
I keep hearing this and having used the system to make an adventurer for my group . and converting everyone over.I will say it does not affect it at all.its really easy to use the new system lets look at the ECS I have it laying right here.P.252 Demise 4th art2.necro 2 skills are appraise+3,alchemy +9,concentration+7,intimidate +4,know-arcana+5 know-history+5, spellcraft+9,use magic device+4
now you can use it just as it is sept concentration goes . now if you really wanted to do a full work up here we go here int+3 she gets 5 skills +2 thats 7 skills she has 7 skills lets run em down arti is the first class were work from there.I would eyeball em at 9 and have done with it myself but lets see
appraise 3+4+3=9
intimidate3+2+2=9
alchemy 3+3+4=10
know-arcana+3+3+4=10
know-history+3+3+4=10
spellcraft3+3+4=10
use magic device+3+2+4=9
see it really isnt and issue on that front.and yes the math is way easier . most states will not need adjusting or more then take the highest one and go across the board with it.only long term villains would i even bother doing a full write up.
Either way, I think I will be using this new system regardless if Paizo goes...
I'm with you there I have 3 of 5 players now that will not go back much less me and the other 2 still like the alpha system better.