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?!
yep would run that without an issue.
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.Okay. With a given that the 3.5 system needs improvement, I want to try to focus on a solution.
Don't mind me, I'm just completing that quote in order to put it into the correct context again, and to again offer the solution that was brought up for the "problem" mentioned in it as well (apart from a few other, similar, solutions that were brought up by other posters). :) This is the only problem I see in the skill system ver. 3.5, and the solutions offered for it are a lot easier, more compatible, and retain the functionality of the current skill system as well in all its functions.
Although I was initially on the "bring back skill points" bandwagon, I am now a convert to the new system. I really like it, particularly the ease with which it can be used and the fact that 2 skill fighters earn more skills later on.
As a DM who wastes a lot of time making NPC stat blocks, I find the new systems simplicity refreshing.
Man I pointed out you can run it as is. If you really really wanna convert some one thats gonna be around a long time do so . but as a whole It runs as is just fine. I have done that and as yet dont have an issue.There is no need to go though every beasti and rework em. use them as is .
Although I was initially on the "bring back skill points" bandwagon, I am now a convert to the new system. I really like it, particularly the ease with which it can be used and the fact that 2 skill fighters earn more skills later on.
As a DM who wastes a lot of time making NPC stat blocks, I find the new systems simplicity refreshing.
YAy a convert .I'm with ya there man very nice simple system and after I used it I just cant see useing clunky skill points again.
As for the math being way easier, yes it is. But so is just eliminating the cost of purchasing cross-class ranks of 2:1... By merely eliminating the 2:1, you know right away that the character will have 30 ranks (barring bonus skill points). Remember that the maximum ranks allowed will remain unchanged. If it was ever a class skill, the maximum ranks is level+3. If it was never a class skill, then half that amount.
That makes it almost as easy as the Alpha system, but with better compatibility and customization. Allow retroactive Int bonuses for NPC wizards, and if you max out NPCs' skills, you've got a system that I daresay is just as simple as the Alpha one, but that allows customization and retains the same number of skill ranks (instead of handing out extra ranks hand over fist as levels increase).
|
As for the math being way easier, yes it is. But so is just eliminating the cost of purchasing cross-class ranks of 2:1... By merely eliminating the 2:1, you know right away that the character will have 30 ranks (barring bonus skill points). Remember that the maximum ranks allowed will remain unchanged. If it was ever a class skill, the maximum ranks is level+3. If it was never a class skill, then half that amount.That makes it almost as easy as the Alpha system, but with better compatibility and customization. Allow retroactive Int bonuses for NPC wizards, and if you max out NPCs' skills, you've got a system that I daresay is just as simple as the Alpha one, but that allows customization and retains the same number of skill ranks (instead of handing out extra ranks hand over fist as levels increase).
Since cross-class skills seem to be a sacred cow (and I do respect the idea of them - I want magic missiles in the game) I think that this is a better solution than the Epic Meepo one. It solves the problem of figuring out if the stat block shows the right number of ranks.
So, skills cost the same for everyone, but if it is a cross class skill you still have the maximum rank limit. I'd actually be fine with that.
So, skills cost the same for everyone, but if it is a cross class skill you still have the maximum rank limit. I'd actually be fine with that.
Our group has been doing that since 3.0, and it's worked out great - it really helps the fighter take a few ranks in something without having to spend all of his limited skill points on it. I know that a number of other posters on these boards have a similar houserule for their campaigns, or at least have suggested the same thing.
So, the 'backward compatibility' in this instance is to redo every monster and NPC from all previous works? And to grant them all much larger bonuses, or expand their skills into areas where they had nothing previously?
Sorry, that's a huge failure on the 'backward compatibility' issue.
Sure, it may be simpler to create them at the cost of more dynamic and varied characters, but it's certainly not backward compatible in the sense that I imagine the term is meant to imply.
As for the math being way easier, yes it is. But so is just eliminating the cost of purchasing cross-class ranks of 2:1.
I'll do up a quick example...
v3.5...
See, I was looking at this the same way until I realized something...you don't really need to do that at all if you don't want to, or can make a pretty easy on-the-fly conversion just by looking at the monster stat-block if you want to adjust.
You can simply consolidate the skills a monster has into the new skills, keeping the highest out of the consolidated and the monster functions against your skills exactly the same way as it did before.
The difficulty hasn't really changed, and in relation the characters now how have more skills that are more useful. The monsters have skills that are now a bit more useful as well, but their skill rating is already set and can be used "as-is". The skills make creating new NPC's and monsters a bit more tricky, and if you want to convert class-based NPC's I can see some trouble if you really want to go thru with it, but it's also not overtly necessary.
Let's take an easy one like the Minotaur. +7 spot, +7 listen, +2 search, +2 intimidate.
1) If you wanted to do the quickest conversion I can think of you could just make this +2 Intimidate, +7 perception and it changes the funtion of the minotaur very little. As a CR 4 monster, he's got a good chance to spot or hear 3-5th level characters sneaking about unless they have a really high Dex...in which case they should probably be able to sneak by. Works well, quick and painless...but I prefer the second method that is pretty much just as simple.
2) You could take the skills present and use them on an HD = level basis to get where you want. In this case, you would have +9 Perception and +8 intimidate making it a bit tougher but still not radically out of bounds given it's CR rating. The numbers for skills are fixed so figuring out what the number is really isn't a chore at all. For the minotaur 6HD = 6+3+mod...it will always be HD+3+mod. You make more on the fly adjustments running a first level game than that. This also works great, and is easy...even for on the fly conversions that you didn't write out. Give me a monsters HD and I will tell you what it's skill level is if I also know it's ability scores.
3) You could shoot for full conversion which is a bit messy for the core creatures but you could do it. I've done this with a few. It still works but like the character you end up with considerably more skilled monsters. Not only that, but there isn't a class/cross-class list for monsters, so when you add new skills they will be class unless Paizo comes out with some kind of crossclass list. You could mesh it out, but I'm not sure why you would want to, given the fact that what the monster can do functions quite admirably without this change in almost every case I've tried so far. If you do want to do this, only a handful of creatures have skills other than 2+Int. I don't recommend this, finding it both cumbersome and pointless for monsters. I would save this at best for the "boss" type creatures you set up and little else because I don't see the point.
Lets say you wanted to do this for the "head" minotaur in a pack of 5. Ok then you will add in all cases but 3 monster types (I think) 2+int+(1/2HD rounded down) skills. For the Minotaur that would be 5. Pretty much a fighter and I doubt you would give him Knowledge (nobility) so lets go with Theft, Linguistics, and fly!.... ok I'm kidding lets go with Swim, Survival, and Climb. Survival is a given seeing they have Sent and track. They will all be HD +3+mod, which once again isn't hard to figure out. 13, 9, 13.
IN conclusion, figuring out the skills isn't any harder than an on the fly conversion for a damage roll, which happens constantly at every level of the game. You can make a full conversion if you want, but I don't recommend it, seeing is it won't radically change the intended encounter if you don't...unless of course that is your goal, but then it would have required change anyway.
For monsters with just racial Hit Dice their class skills are the skills listed in their stat block. All other skills are cross class.
For monsters with just racial Hit Dice their class skills are the skills listed in their stat block. All other skills are cross class.
Seriously?
I didn't know that.
**fails Knowledge (conversion & Dev-notes) roll**
How embarrassing.
Well either way, that doesn't make it harder.
yep thats how I converted a riding dog for a familer in are planescape game here.listed skills are class skills
|
There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.
Take the following examples...
1 - Add 8 levels of ranger to a troll. Make sure to account for the upgrade to the elite array (which might affect Int).
2 - Build the skills for the following character: Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Fighter 2/Arcane Archer 4. Remember that the character's Int score increased from 14 to 15 at 4th, and to 16 at 8th.
3 - Build a party of rival 9th level adventurers to challenge the PCs. Aside from equipment (which I will get to in a later release), the skills are going to be the time consuming component.
Remember that a GM might have to tackle these problems once a week during game prep. If we can change the system to one that takes even half the time to work out, we will allow GMs to spend a lot more time coming up with fun games and a lot less time doing tedious math.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
- I too, like the flexibility of skill points as a player. From a GMs perspective though, they can be a bit of a nightmare, especially at higher levels. This was the primary reason the ranks were pulled.- We also changed to the selection system to give some of the "lower skill progression" classes a bit of a boost. 20th level fighters tend to be great at just two skills, and completely untrained in all the rest. Although this eats into the rogue role a bit, we added to its role in other ways to balance.
- There was a thought in earlier notes of allowing you to "split a selection" to get two skills at a lower bonus (1/2 level + ability mod or 1/4 for cross class) to represent a sort of Hobby skills.
- There was also a variant that gave you a pair of Hobby skills directly that had to be chosen from a set list (craft, profession, perform, etc) that represented training and dabbling in non-adventuring skills.
- In the end there was one other problem I want to bring up that led to the change. If you wanted to be truly good at specific skills, you pretty much had to max ranks, meaning that this system and the old were pretty similar (in the end). If you split up your points, it took quite some time to have any real proficiency (this is a thin arguement, I know, but it is true for a number of skills, not all though). In the end, it seemed simpler just to assume max and give you more skills to play with.
Thoughts? I am not set on this decision, but I do like it right now. I just wanted to give you all a few extra nuggets to chew on. Please continue...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
The VAST MAJORITY of opinions on the skill ranks vs. other can be found in the [Design Focus] Skills thread and Keep Skill Points thread. Also there is still room to voice your opinions as well! :)
See, I was looking at this the same way until I realized something...you don't really need to do that at all if you don't want to, or can make a pretty easy on-the-fly conversion just by looking at the monster stat-block if you want to adjust.Sure, you can guesstimate the monster's/mook NPC's skills on the fly without worrying about making it exact. But then why take away the ability of the players to more finely customize their characters' skill expenditure?
In fact, if you're fine with guesstimating the monster/mook skill bonuses for conversion to pathfinder, you can totally do that while using skill points ala v3.5.
But it's not guessing though, it's exact on the skill.
Those crossclass skills would be (6+3)/2+mod = 4+mod for any new skills and was right for the old ones. The estimation would come if you wanted to add more skills or not, but not the number. The number will always be set.
The number can be 100% accurate by glancing at the character sheet and doing math that's easier than figuring out the bonuses of a bless and bulls strength spell and how they effect damage for the next few rounds..that's if you didn't change them beforehand
Well to be honest, I think the consolidation was good...not to mention I don't really consider the skill change to be "like 4th". 4th is like (or obviously based on) others and most are based off the original 2nd Ed concepts to begin with, just variant ways.
I don't really mind this for a variety of reasons. One, I won't have a problem converting and I don't think it's much of a guess. You get a strait numerical, and like I said adding skills that are crossclass if you want to do a full conversion isn't tricky, and many are obvious. The first choice for a creature like the minotaur would obviously be survival given his other abilities would it not? Seems like climb, acrobatics, or swim would be fairly solid choices given what terrain he was in.
Second, I don't see a problem running either, even at the same time. For a cost of skill number you could have numerical versatility if you wanted it. I find the new one more convenient and probably plan on houseruling it if it's not added.
Third, neither would make me not like the new system in turn for the old. If they go with scaling, something like epic meepo came up with, the same with a minor boost due to consolidation, or the new version...I'm still probably gonna be happy with the comparison because I think all are better than what was and don't divert from the original concepts in some kind of far-fetched manner.
Psst! "Mook" is an old Italian derogatory term for Black people. Just sayin'.
My understanding was that "mook" is a corruption of "moke" ("a dull or boring person," or "a broken-down horse"). A similar term like you're thinking (and one that I used to hear disturbingly often as a kid in NY) is "moolie" (sp?). I should note that I don't speak Italian, so I may be way off on this, but the usage of the term at the time seemed pretty clear (someone told me it came from shortening the word for eggplant, but again I can't verify that).
Psst! "Mook" is an old Italian derogatory term for Black people. You might want to change to "goons" or something. Just sayin'.
Psst! Mook has a specific meaning within gaming that maybe totally different than any other meaning it might have in other contexts. When in doubt look at the context. Besides looking at the definition:
Main Entry: mook
Pronunciation: \ˈmük\
Function: noun
Etymology: perhaps alteration of moke
Date: 1930
slang : a foolish, insignificant, or contemptible personMain Entry: moke
Pronunciation: \ˈmôk\
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: circa 1839
1slang British : donkey
2slang Australian : 1nag
It doesn't appear as if you might be right. Seems like a case of someone ignorant of the meaning of a word trying to enforce that ingorance on others.
|
|
Well, it might still be a term used by Italians to refer to a particular ethnicity in a negative way. But that doesn't mean that's the definition of the word.
I call all useless characters bards as a derogatory term. Doesn't mean that the word bard means 'useless person'. Just that I use a personal definition that way.
No reason to get all defensive! I'm just pointing out that the word you're using in this particular context has, according to information that I've dug up on the subject, a nasty history. Do whatever you like with that information.
Could you provide links to that evidence so that we could see it and judge for ourselves? Because everything I've seen by looking suggest you are wrong. So please, provide some evidence to support your claim.
Maybe this puts a lid on this little and unnecessary side discussion, and points people to the directions of where they might find some more information on the word "mook". What I found on www.word-detective.com is the following:
"One dictionary that does deal with "mook" is the recently published Volume Two of the excellent Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang (which I will call "HDAS" to save space). According to HDAS, "mook" means "an ineffectual, foolish, or contemptible person," so your definition is certainly in the ballpark. The earliest citation HDAS lists is from 1930.
As to the origin of "mook," HDAS ventures that it is probably a variation on "moke," a slang term dating back to the middle of the 19th century. "Moke" means several things: originally, it was a slang and dialect term in England for a donkey, but it has also been used as a term of contempt for a Black person or any dark-skinned person. But "moke" has also been used since at least 1855 to mean "a foolish or inconsequential person," which certainly ties it to "mook." Unfortunately, no one has any clear idea of where "moke" came from. So I guess we'll both just have to keep digging."
So hopefully this clears things up a bit. Back to skill points vs. skill slots. ;)
Sign me up! Keep skill points please! There must be a way to improve the system without removing skill flexibility entirely.
There is, go check the last few pages of the [Design Focus] Skills. It took about a month of on and off back and forth, but it seems to be one of the better fixes for skill points so far (that keeps Cross-class skills).
I can like with skill points for PCs. What I like about the new rule in Alpha v.1.1 is the ease with which it would allow for the creation of NPCs. A lot easier than assigning ranks. As such, why not keep both?
NPC and pc's should not use different rules that simple.But this is a dead subject until alpha 2 comes out anyhow lets just wait and see what jason and co have done shall we.
|
|
I can like with skill points for PCs. What I like about the new rule in Alpha v.1.1 is the ease with which it would allow for the creation of NPCs. A lot easier than assigning ranks. As such, why not keep both?NPC and pc's should not use different rules that simple.But this is a dead subject until alpha 2 comes out anyhow lets just wait and see what jason and co have done shall we.
I disagree if the NPC rules are simply a streamlined implementation of the PC rules. (Because PC creation could just as easily adopt this streamlined implementation, should it so choose.) That said, I agree that we should wait and see what Paizo intends to do with this matter.
The real problem is that Alpha 1.1 was not a streamlined version of skill points. The closets Skill Slot style streamline to 3.5 skill points was the variant system in Unearthed Arcana.
Also NPCs should not use different rules from PCs, come to that Monsters shouldn't use different rules from PCs. It is a very different design point, saying that PCs are special not because of the rules but because they are the players' characters.
As was hashed out in the [Design Focus] thread is very possible to have a skill point system in OGL that is easy to DMs to make high level characters quickly and still works for generic PC play.
|
|
None of the hybrid systems maintain the simplicity of the Pathfinder system, or even of a strictly skill point system.
I admit the Alpha is easy, but it has a lot of problems. The hybrids aren't easier. Trying to remember whether one point gets you your level in a skill, or your level +3 or some other crazy number IS MORE COMPLICATED.
Whether class skills are kept or not, a system using skill ranks with a 1 for 1 purchase (1 point buys 1 rank) is extremely easy to keep track of. Nearly as easy as the Pathfinder Alpha, and much easier than any hybrid system.
|
|
I agree with you DeadDM, it is a bit more complicated...
So, if Pathfinder Alpha is the easiest, modified skill points is the next easiest, and a hybrid is the hardest, I don't know why anyone would be considering a hybrid system in the first place.
I don't want to use the Pathfinder Alpha System. It has problems. Major problems. I find it completely unacceptable. But it is very easy to use.
A hybrid system sacrifices ease of use to make the Alpha system not 'broken' in some ways.
As soon as ease of use is abandoned as a design principle, the hybrid system is not worth considering.
I think that skill points are the answer because they do offer a simple system that is easy to track. It just requires a little modification from 3.5. The biggest problem is eliminating the confusion between class and cross-class skills (and there are several options for that, but of course, I favor eliminating them completely).