Are the people at Paizo also having a debate over the use of skill points or is it just here on the messageboard?
My guess is that they are letting us have it out before stepping in and cleaning up the mess.
Regardless, whatever Paizo decides to go with, not everyone will be happy. They should make sure to include optional rules for both sides.
yeah im in for side bars I love the new system and am gonna use it.
My two cents...
Most of the players I played with chose their skills at first level and increased them every level. Some took 5 ranks in some skills just to get the synergy bonus. Some chose new skills when earlier events required a skill they didn't have.
The way I see it, the "new" skill system is doing more or less the same. Your skills increase at the same time as you level up, and you learn new ones once in a while.
I believe it's a good alternative.
- Zorg
P.S. Although I plan to swith to 4E, my gaming crew and I agreed to test those new rules for the next two months. :P
Yeah, I treat the whole skills thing as a game. It's just a practice in mental gymnastics without a clear-cut answer. Based on the number of different opinions shown here, I don't think you can come up with a system that will please everyone. It's a system that will always invite much house-ruling.
When all said and done, I trust Mr. Buhlman and will most likely go with whatever he comes up with.
|
Are the people at Paizo also having a debate over the use of skill points or is it just here on the messageboard?
My guess is that they are letting us have it out before stepping in and cleaning up the mess.
Regardless, whatever Paizo decides to go with, not everyone will be happy. They should make sure to include optional rules for both sides.
I think the current rule system (SRD 3.5) will always be considered alternate rules in this system
we can only hope oger .
Okay seeker, FINALLY! We can finally disagree on something... snicker!
I'm still all for the rank system. I want a buy skill ranks still.
|
I think that the skill system in 3.5 is somewhat complicated. It is difficult to assign ranks for monsters that have skills from multiple sources. And running a monster as a major NPC or a PC is even worse. Take a Rakshasa and give him a decent intelligence. What are you going to do with all those racial skill points? You have to spend them on cross-class skills.
In any case, while I certainly have my view on how skills should be done, I'm definitely interested in seeing other takes. I hope that the final version is something that I can live with. If they left it just like it was in 3.5 I could live with it, but I wouldn't be happy. The proposed skill system in Pathfinder Alpha? No thanks.
Of course, I don't like the combat feats at all, either, and I'm avoiding starting anything on that because it just seems poorly conceived (no offense intended).
For example, why is it that I must use mobility before I can use Spring Attack? I must provoke an attack of opportunity before I can use the ability that negates an attack of opportunity?
I do hope that there will be more 'official guidance' of the discussions and debates. I'm certainly one that will happily keep beating a dead horse as long as it keeps making noise, unless I realize that there is no longer any purpose. So, when things are 'finalized', I think it would be great if we knew. Or even if there was a 'new version' that is to be considered, and the previous one has been abandoned.
And next week I'll start the more serious play testing.
yay we can disagree WOOHOO .anyhow I thought i would hate it but i dont i really have grown fond of the alpha skill system odd that.when i seen it in saga i thought cool just not for d&d .yep i have gone to the dark side...we have cookies and a good denial plan though.
For example, why is it that I must use mobility before I can use Spring Attack? I must provoke an attack of opportunity before I can use the ability that negates an attack of opportunity?
What? No. Mobility no longer provokes an AoO according to these rules.
The great problem I see to the 3.5 skill system is that it punish to the player that decide to get new skills after level 1. You can only maximize the skills that you select at first level.
Some of us think that's a feature, not a bug.
I think it's appropriate that if you don't start studying a skill until later in life, you aren't as good at it as someone who has worked it diligently their whole career.
I just have a real issue with high level characters *suddenly* becoming one of the world's premier experts in something that they only trained in for the first time last week during their most recent level-up.
I also have an issue with the gaming style where only maxed skills are important and useful. In my game lots of skills "top out" their usefulness somewhere betweeen 5 and 10 ranks. At whatever level where further development of the skill is pointless, that's a good place to begin developing another skill. It leads to broad competencies in many skills, while preverving the "expert" level of some skills for the people who actually need to routinely hit DC 25 and 30 checks.
Gene P. <alcore@uurth.com>
Slidell LA
I would rather see skill ranks & purchasing them with points as the system that is used. It works already, and it seems that changing too much takes away from the bakwards compatibility issue.
But, I do like the changes to a lot of the skills.
So why not keep both? Change some of the skills around, such as Perception and the others, but keep the rank system.
|
And running a monster as a major NPC or a PC is even worse. Take a Rakshasa and give him a decent intelligence. What are you going to do with all those racial skill points? You have to spend them on cross-class skills.
Just as clerics, Fighters, Wizards and Sorcerers have, IMO, too few skill points (all PC classes should have a minimum of 4+Int Mod), some of the monsters have ridiculously too many skill points.
Outsiders with their 8 / HD are a prime example, although I'm not sure that Fey or Dragons really need 6 / HD. Every 'Monster' could have 4 / HD (or 2 / HD for the especially numb ones, like Oozes), and I'd be fine with that.
For those who don't like the idea of suddenly becoming an expert in something (which is possible with skill points since you could go from 0 ranks to +10 in one level depending on what class you leveled in and where you spent your ranks) I have a suggestion.
When the character recieves a new skill at later levels (every even level under the Pathfinder system) it is always applied as a cross-class skill, even if you buy a class skill with it. When you go up another level if it is a class skill it advances to the full bonus. If it is a cross-class skill it remains unchanged.
So if a rogue picked up Escape Artist at 6th level he wouldn't have max ranks in it until 7th level.
Director of Games
|
Truth be told, I have read so many posts on skills at this point, I am starting to get dizzy. It is obvious to me that the system needs adjustment, and I am still exploring options at this point.
I am hoping to include it in one of the errata files soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer going Skill-Crazy
Personally, if you want to simplify it, I would think you would drop the whole +3 thing.
Trained Class skills = d20 + hd + abil mod + other mods
Trained Cross-Class skills = d20 + 1/2hd + abil mod + other mods
That seems alot simplier.
I would also suggest dropping the extra skill every other level. Instead make a feat that allows you to train an additional skill. Then at every third level give an extra feat that can be used to train another skill or you can "focus" in a skill (get a bonus to a skill, maybe +3?). That would probably help to reduce the number of people pointing towards power creep with the skills being handed out left and right.
|
|
I guess my direct question to you, Jason, is whether or not the debate so far on skills has been at all useful, or if it is too much in too many places to make any sense of?
I think it is obvious that your extremely excited and engaged community wants to help. And I think we're willing to do whatever you'd like to make our contributions as beneficial as possible.
My suggestion for you is to think of a question that you want answered that can be done in some form of 'poll'. While the actual answers will certainly have more use, the poll will also give you a sense of what the community likes and what we don't.
For me personally, I'm hoping that skills get worked out into something of a 'beta form' before putting too much effort into talking about things like feats (the combat feats you have - I don't like. 3.5 feats are generally better).
Awaiting your orders, Captain Bulmahn!
Okay seeker, FINALLY! We can finally disagree on something... snicker!
I'm still all for the rank system. I want a buy skill ranks still.
I have to agree, I was always a great fan of the Traveller system from the start (early 1980's) and was estatic when AD&D went to a skill based system for resolving actions that weren't available in 2nd ed.
I will always support this sytem, and to streamline it is a good thing, (to a point) but be careful to include as many aspects in a skill set that are related as possible, hence: your acrobatics, rolling the balance and jump skills together. And why not add climb to this group? Jump,... Climb, both are strength and somewhat dex skills as is balance.
My opinion and suggestions again.
For those who don't like the idea of suddenly becoming an expert in something (which is possible with skill points since you could go from 0 ranks to +10 in one level depending on what class you leveled in and where you spent your ranks) I have a suggestion.
When the character recieves a new skill at later levels (every even level under the Pathfinder system) it is always applied as a cross-class skill, even if you buy a class skill with it. When you go up another level if it is a class skill it advances to the full bonus. If it is a cross-class skill it remains unchanged.
So if a rogue picked up Escape Artist at 6th level he wouldn't have max ranks in it until 7th level.
One thing that happened between the interpetation of 3.0 and 3.5 for my group relating to skills was the misinterpeteation (this might have been a good thing) of how to apply skill points.
We all thought the way to apply skill points was this: Whatever class you had just acquired the skill points in was the class that wasn't penalized as cross class skills. ALL other classes (whether you were multi-classed or not) were cross class skills and would cost double the points to raise a point.
I guess we only considered class skills, skills that were bought when you advanced in that class at that level. All others were cross class. It made for a difficult time keeping track of how many points were spent when but also kept your ranks in check.
|
|
One thing that happened between the interpetation of 3.0 and 3.5 for my group relating to skills was the misinterpeteation (this might have been a good thing) of how to apply skill points.
We all thought the way to apply skill points was this: Whatever class you had just acquired the skill points in was the class that wasn't penalized as cross class skills. ALL other classes (whether you were multi-classed or not) were cross class skills and would cost double the points to raise a point.
I guess we only considered class skills, skills that were bought when you advanced in that class at that level. All others were cross class. It made for a difficult time keeping track of how many points were spent when but also kept your ranks in check.
That is the rule. If I take rogue 1 followed by fighter 1 and I want to raise disable device by one rank, it costs me 2 skill points. The reason this is bad is that the order of levels matter. Any rogue multiclass wants to take their first level in rogue (duh) and last level in rogue (so they could raise any class skill to level +3 without paying for cross-class skills.
|
|
I'm not much of a powergamer. I mean, I do try to make effective characters, but I always try to create fun and interesting characters to roleplay.
But I frequently use the term 'punish'. When I use the term punish, I use it to refer to a function of the rules that creates a situation it was not really designed to do.
I also use the term 'reward' to talk about something the rules make attractive, even if there would be no other reason to do it.
For example, a character is 'punished' at low levels for taking 2 or more classes with a BAB progression lower than +1/level. A 2nd level wizard would have a +1 BAB and a 2nd level rogue would have a +1 BAB, but a Rogue1/Wiz1 has a BAB of +0. That may be intentional, but it seems that it is the accidental result of the rule - that the designers couldn't think of a way to fix it, but it seems reasonable that it would be equivalent to a +1.
Likewise, the system 'rewards' characters who take the first level of several prestige classes with higher saves. If you have no other purpose for taking a level of Kensai other than a +2 Fort and +2 Will save (iirc) the rules are not working the way they're intended to.
So, while I certainly understand that you would be frustrated by people 'whining', please don't take the word choice too much to heart. If options are intended to be equivalent, but are not, the system 'punishes' a choice, since it is not really an 'equal' choice.
In any case, I do want a system that rewards players spending their skill points on things that seem appropriate. If the rogue dies in the middle of the trap infested secret pirate sea cave of Captain Black Dog the Rabid Butcher and the barbarian does his best to lead the group to safely through the warren, I think it would make sense for this character to later pick up some ranks in Disable Device (and maybe Trapfinding should be a feat, like Track). Thus, the system REWARDS the player by allowing him to place skills where they make sense from a story perspective, rather than PUNISHING him by making him place the skills in something like Survival.
And to my mind, paying 2 skill points for a skill when you have the option of paying 1 for a different skill - well, the system is providing an incentive to make one choice over another. While it may be good for the mechanics, if it isn't good for the story, I have a problem with that. Especially since it isn't like the barbarian hunted any animals or gathered any lichen to help the others 'survive' in the wilderness.
Any rogue multiclass wants to take their first level in rogue (duh) and last level in rogue (so they could raise any class skill to level +3 without paying for cross-class skills.
Any? No, I doubt that. If a player was going to go Barb/Rog, I would probably wager that at least 1/2 the time, they take Barb for those extra 6 hps over taking rogue for the extra skills. Even the extra 4 for fighter or paladin would be enticing for some. Also the last level of rogue helps for rogue skills, but it might not overly help for those skills that the rogue does not get.
|
|
Any rogue multiclass wants to take their first level in rogue (duh) and last level in rogue (so they could raise any class skill to level +3 without paying for cross-class skills.Any? No, I doubt that. If a player was going to go Barb/Rog, I would probably wager that at least 1/2 the time, they take Barb for those extra 6 hps over taking rogue for the extra skills. Even the extra 4 for fighter or paladin would be enticing for some. Also the last level of rogue helps for rogue skills, but it might not overly help for those skills that the rogue does not get.
It's a little off the subject, but even if rogue is not the first choice, the order of skills matter.
Let's say I play a rogue 2/fighter 2.
My first level obviously matters. Whether I take fighter or rogue is irrelevant. I'm going to get either 8x4 or 2x4 skill points, and I can only buy class skills with them. [Edit - I could buy a cross-class skill but at the 2 for 1 rank, it is an unattractive option, so even though I could, I'm not willing to consider it seriously] Let's say I take fighter first (I want to use my human bonus feat for Weapon Focus right away, and I like the +4 hit points.
I have a 10 Intelligence, but I'm a human, so I have 3 skills with 4 ranks each. I take climb, ride and swim.
Now, at 2nd level I take rogue. I have 9 skill points (8 from rogue and 1 from human). My maximum rank in class skills is now 5. I want max ranks in Tumble, so I spend 5 points there. I spend my other 4 on Disable Device.
Now, again, my 3rd level matters. If I take rogue again (9 skill points) I can add 1 to tumble (6 ranks) 2 on disable device (6 ranks) and I can max one other skill (search 6 ranks).
When I take my fighter level, I have 3 skill points and my class skill maximum is now 7. I have enough to max one of my fighter skills.
If I took fighter at 3rd level (max ranks 6) I could have raised Ride to 6 and put the remaining skill rank into Climb. (Climb +5, Ride +6, Swim +4).
Then, when I take my 4th level (rogue) I have 9 skill points and a max of 7. Remember for this example I am at Tumble 5 and Disable Device 4. I spend two points on Tumble, and three on Disable Device. I have four left over, so I put 4 into search.
You can see that the order of levels matter. Fighter/Rogue/Fighter/Rogue is different that Fighter/Rogue/Rogue/Fighter
That is why multiclassing in 3.5 is difficult to figure out. You can't just figure out how many skill points you have, you have to figure out when you spent them.
Even if you just figure out the first level (12 skill point from fighter) and the other levels (18 rogue skill points and 3 fighter skill points) you can't just assign them since you have to know what your max ranks was at the time you assigned it. If I assigned my rogue skills at 4th level, my max is +7 on those skills. If I assigned my rogue skills at 3rd level, my max is +6 on those skills.
That is why (in a complicated nutshell) multiclassing and skills in 3.5 are a pain to figure out. Especially for a complicated character like a Mindflayer Rogue 2/Wizard 2 Prestige Class of the Day 2. Especially if he took any levels out of order.
[Edit - So, basically, skills in 3.5 can be a lot of work, if you're a stickler for the rules and you do anything other than a single class character]
What class you take at first level in Pathfinder still matters, so this is not a problem with skill points or 3.5. You want to avoid it, it is simple:
All classes get the same number of skill points/trained skills at each level including first. Done and done.
|
|
What class you take at first level in Pathfinder still matters, so this is not a problem with skill points or 3.5. You want to avoid it, it is simple:
All classes get the same number of skill points/trained skills at each level including first. Done and done.
There are numerous solutions to the problem, and I don't favor one that gives all classes the same number of skills.
The point regarding 3.5 is that skills are complicated to assign not because skill points are particularly difficult, but because of the way they interact with the level +3 system. When you create a PC in 3.5 this usually never matter. No matter how many classes/prestige classes you take, you will almost always advance one level at a time.
As the DM, I frequently make high level multi-class characters. If I start a character at 10th level, I basically have to assign skills at 1st level, than 2nd level, then 3rd level, etc, to ensure that they don't spend more skill points than they are allowed to when they buy the skill.
Even if the first level is the same in two examples, if the order of other levels is different, it affects the skill maximums.
A fighter/rogue/rogue/fighter (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th level) and a fighter/rogue/fighter/rogue come out very differently under the skill system (and not because of a difference in skills at 1st level). This is the aspect that is complicated and needs changing.
|
|
Multi-classing grants a lot of versatility. One of the drawbacks is that a 5/5 character isn't supposed to be a strong/effective as a 10 character. The math is a big part of that. So it's actually entirely intentional. But it's still not "punishment." It's just the consequence of a certain choice that the system offers: versatility vs. sheer power (even though I would argue that versatility is a kind of power).
I've taken some time to think about how to answer your contention here. I agree that a 5/5 character is not as powerful as a 10 character. Let's use a concrete example, for a moment: a Ranger 5/Wizard 5 is not as powerful as a Ranger 10 or a Wizard 10. It makes snese that he isn't as good as the wizard at casting spells, or as good as the ranger at fighting.
But he is a 10th level character. The CR system assumes that every 10th level character is as powerful as every other 10th level character. It is true that some will do better in some situations than other (rogues aren't best against undead, but clerics are) - but the overall concept is that a 10th level character of any combination is supposed to be equivalent to any other 10th level character.
Obviously this isn't true, and this is where my contention that punishment comes in. The rules indicate that a 10th level character is a 10th level character is a 10th level character is a 10th level character. The versatility IS an advantage, but is it equivalent to what the other classes pick up?
It is not. Since most class abilities depend on level in that class, a high level character that multi-classes, for the most part, picks up abilities that aren't level appropriate.
This is an unintentional result of the way multi-classing works. It is a difficult problem to address and fix, and so I can see the designers just letting it go by, figuring that this version of multi-classing is better than any so far (and it is) - but that doesn't mean that the system is perfect. And so, a player is punished for multi-classing in that they have a character that is less powerful than a single class character in every situation (this is particularly true with multi-classed spell casters). For a system that is based on CR and CR equaling the total of all class levels, there is a problem. The rules don't function the way the design intent says they were supposed to. Thus, the rules 'punish' a choice that they say is a 'valid' choice.
The same is true for some races. The rules say a half-orc is equivalent to a dwarf. Comparing them, they are not equal in terms of power. They're not even close. Now, certainly the half-orc is different, and so in some situations it might be a better choice, but overall, the power difference between them is noticeable, especially at 1st level. It seems that the rules are to make a number of balanced races that are all of LA +0, but in this case it is possible that they fail.
I'm not trying to argue for power-gaming. I am saying that the function of the rules should support the intent of the rules. And the intent of the rules shouldn't be to screw half-orcs or elven wizard/fighters (an iconic build that just doesn't work).
|
|
I'm still all for the rank system. I want a buy skill ranks still.
I am also in favor of a "buy skill ranks" system.
I would like to be able to be "heavy specialized" or a "jack-o'-all-trades" kind of character.
I think that if you receive a number of skill points almost equivalent to 3.5, and there are less skills, the PCs will be more versatile.
Personally, I've found that either increasing the number of skill points (say +2 per class) or adopting skill groups (ala Iron Heroes) addresses the skill-point-shortage issue.
I don't like the SAGA-like skill system presented in the Alpha doc, AT ALL. (Just my 2 cents.)
As for NPCs and monsters, I would rather the rules support for giving them the appropriate # of skill points and CHOOSING to simplify my life by guessing, maxing prime skills, or hand-waving it away. I need the system to support the detail IF I DESIRE IT. I don't need the system to tell me how to simplify things - I can do that on my own.
I want a BETTER 3.x/Pathfinder. Not a SIMPLER 3.x/Pathfinder.
YMMV.
I might also point out that if you are approaching a wizard 5-ranger 5 build as basically trying to build two separate characters into one character, it is going to be self defeating. Instead you should be looking a synergizing the class choices. Decide if the character is primarily about spellcasting or about ... ranging. Then use the other class to emphasize this.
For example, if the focus is mainly on being a wizard, then you will probably take the 1st level in wizard and then use your (more numerous) ranger skills to cross class train keeping those wizard skills that you value maxed out. If the focus is more on being a ranger, then you'd probably take your first level in ranger and then cross-train a couple of the more important skill(s) during your wizard levels.
You have to have an end goal in mind when cross-classing so that they work together. If instead you treat them as separate entities, "Well now it is a wizard level, so only train wizard skills, oh look they still suck. Last level I only trained ranger skills they were sucky too." of course it is going to be disappointing.
I'm not a fan of the new skill system...for player characters. I like skill points - I like to decide which ones I want to fiddle with and which ones I'll hope I can get by with an untrained roll.
However, as a DM, I don't want to fiddle unless I'm making an important figure in the adventure. The new skill system would be great for quickly creating NPCs and monsters with class levels.
|
|
No. The word "punishment" implies something deliberate. I'm sorry. You are using the wrong word.
No, it doesn't.
The definition: To inflict a penalty for (an offense).
The rules inflict a penalty for (choosing a suboptimal choice).
Whether it is deliberate or not is irrelevant. Since the rules CAN'T deliberately do anything (since they are an object). In any case, even if it wasn't punishment, the point is, it FEELS like punishment.
I think that the system can get rid of the feeling of being punished WITHOUT giving power-gamers every toy they ever wanted and starting as epic characters at 1st level. A little powercreep doesn't bother me since the monsters can be powered up as well. As long as the same rules are used for all characters, I think it will tend to work out just fine.
And I do admit that my argument is based on little evidence. I don't know of any research on the subject, nor do I care to. If it is NOT true, it is sufficient to say that some people (as you have indicated) feel it to be true. And whether they are wholly or partially wrong is irrelevant to the fact that they are responding EMOTIONALLY to something they perceive to be 'unfair', 'unjust' or 'punishment'.
Just saying.
Why not use both the new Pathfinder skill system and skill points. In the main rules use skill points, include the new system as a sidebar or alternate rule. I personally like the skill points but think some classes need a boot in the number of skill points they receive. From a gamemaster point of view it would be easier to use the new system for monsters and quick NPCs. Several systems use a different system for NPC skills than PC skills. I personally like more detail when playing but more streamlined when running.
|
|
Well, you certainly are responding emotionally.
Perhaps it is my study of Japanese, but many things act without an agent, and we usually frown upon that in English - the closest equivalent is the passive voice.
In Japanese a sentence like 'the door closed' is perfectly acceptable, and as far as the structure of the sentence, the format clearly indicates that the door performed the action on itself.
Now, I accept that the rules 'just are', but they are there for a reason, and that reason is to create a game that is fun and balanced at all levels of play. It fails. But at least it makes a good attempt.
One prima facta element of the rules is that any character with class levels from any source is equivalent to any other character with equal class levels. CR = class level (assuming no racial HD or LA). While there are certainly good aspects to multi-classing, it isn't perfect. And as much as the rules try to create a balanced game, some things simply don't work that way.
A bugbear rogue, for instance, is punished under the rules. That is to say, they can never be as effective as a rogue that did not begin with racial HD. Does that seem to be the intent of the rules? Since the rules can't DO anything it may be inappropriate to ascribe desires and motivations, but do the rules WANT to discourage a player from playing a monstrous race? My opinion is that the rules should not encourage or discourage any particular option by making one clearly superior and another clearly inferior. A bugbear rogue will never be as good as a human rogue or an elven rogue. Perhaps instead of saying the rules 'punish' a bugbear rogue, it may be more correct to say that the rules do not reward that particular choice. It certainly is a question of semantics, but my point is and continues to be that when someone says 'I feel like I'm being punished for this choice' they're simply trying to communicate their frustration with something that appears either arbitrary or wrong-headed - a short hand. Of course, if it bothers you to hear the comment, no matter how well-intended, that is not something I can do anything about, but when I hear it, I simply translate 'this doesn't seem right to me' and I'm okay with that. Then I evaluate what they're complaining about and try to determine if their accusation of 'punishment' has any merit whatsoever.
|
|
Since I can no longer edit - I thought I would add in another example, where the rules 'punish' one choice, but 'reward' another.
Take the example of a rogue 1/fighter 1 versus a fighter 1/rogue 1.
You would think that mechanically, they should be the same.
Character A started out as a street urchin, but was recruited into the army at a young age.
Character B never did anything exciting but was forced to go to war. He spent most of his time sneaking around and breaking into places he should never have been.
Now, it is possible that the rules are designed to represent the fact that Character A started out as a rogue, but in reality he may not have had any more opportunity to practice thieiving skills than Character B. Maybe Character A successfully picked a dozen pockets and once broke into a house. Maybe Character B managed to pick a few hundred pockets (more opportunity) and break into a dozen houses (stealing chicken eggs and what have you).
The fact is that one is mechanically superior to the other, largely due to the multiplication of skills at 1st level. Since the rules encourage one choice over another (presumably inadverdently) I think it is fair to say a player is punished for choosing to start as a fighter (and maybe the +4 hit points make up for the 24 skill points, but I think that most people would disagree.
It is impossible to argue what the design intent in, but we can certainly see the design result. Ideally a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 should be identical to a Wizard 10/Fighter 10...
|
|
I don't think it's semantic at all (and I have no idea how studying Japanese comes into it, unless Japanese is your first language). I think, consciously or not, people choose to use the word "punishment" to make themselves look like victims. It's a rhetorical strategy, whether they know it or not.
That aside, now you're making sense! The character-creation bonus for skill points is a good example of a clearly imbalanced game design. The Alpha system eliminates the problem, by not multiplying skills at character creation, but it does make sense that a character would start with a life-time's worth of skills, not just a level's worth.
There's a complicated, pain-in-the-ass solution to this: every time you take a new class, you "top up" your character-creation skill points. Let's say you are Fighter 1. You got (2+int skills) x4 when you made the character. Then you take Rogue 1, you would have gotten (8+int skills) x4. So you take the Rogue total and subtract the Fighter total, and add that's how many skills you get as a first-level Rogue. Pain in the ass, like I said, but solves the problem.
You have any better ideas? Seriously. I'd love to hear them.
Having every player in my group multiclass with Rogue from that is already giving me a headache. Even worse, it would let low-skill class characters who go rogue select a bunch of non-rogue skills as class skills and get max value.
Of course, I freely admit I got nothing for a solution, this may be something that's unavoidable...
A bugbear rogue, for instance, is punished under the rules. That is to say, they can never be as effective as a rogue that did not begin with racial HD. Does that seem to be the intent of the rules? Since the rules can't DO anything it may be inappropriate to ascribe desires and motivations, but do the rules WANT to discourage a player from playing a monstrous race? My opinion is that the rules should not encourage or discourage any particular option by making one clearly superior and another clearly inferior. A bugbear rogue will never be as good as a human rogue or an elven rogue. Perhaps instead of saying the rules 'punish' a bugbear rogue, it may be more correct to say that the rules do not reward that particular choice. It certainly is a question of semantics, but my point is and continues to be that when someone says 'I feel like I'm being punished for this choice' they're simply trying to communicate their frustration with something that appears either arbitrary or...
This just isn't true. A bugbear Rogue1 is going to be as good, if not better, than a human or elf Rogue1. The reason bugbear has a level adjustment is because they get:
+4 Strength, +2 Dexterity, +2 Constitution, -2 Charisma.
Medium size. A bugbear’s base land speed is 30 feet.
Racial Hit Dice: A bugbear begins with three levels of humanoid, which provide 3d8 Hit Dice, a base attack bonus of +2, and base saving throw bonuses of Fort +1, Ref +3, and Will +1.
Racial Skills: A bugbear’s humanoid levels give it skill points equal to 6 × (2 + Int modifier). Its class skills are Climb, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Search, and Spot.
Racial Feats: A bugbear’s humanoid levels give it two feats.
+3 natural armor bonus.
+4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.
Special Qualities: Darkvision 60 ft., scent.
Automatic Languages: Common, Goblin. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Elven, Giant, Gnoll, Orc.
Favored Class: Rogue.
Level adjustment +1.
Considering all these things a bugbear gets, it would be far more powerful than any Rogue1 with no level adjustment. Even considering the racial adjustment, it is still far better than a Rogue2 because of the Racial Hit Dice.
The choice is not punished, its just different than a +0 LA race. If you want to make it the same, rewrite bugbears with no LA, take away the Racial Hit Dice and Racial Skills and Racial Feats. It would be a viable +0 LA race that way (a little STR/DEX/CON heavy, but viable).
-Reapairman Jack
|
I mentioned in another thread a way to effectively use either system without headache. If you are using skill points, remove one of Cross-class double negatives. I suggest that you take out the Cross-Class cap for skills but keep the 2 for 1. The only limit then would be the same limit that Class skills get, Level+3. This greatly makes character building easier for both player and DM.
Example: I want to build a Thug type character for a party of 4 3rd level characters. He won't be alone so I decide to make him a CR 2 character. He will have 1 level of Fighter and 1 Level of Rogue. He is a Human and not as bright as most. He has Int of 8. So his Starting amount of skill points are 8(4 for his class and 4 for human)
The skills that I think he will use in the encounter would be this
Jump
Climb
Tumble
Move Silently
Hide
(I am just using 3.5 OGL for skills to show my system)
Looking at that list, I have 2 Class skills and 3 Cross-Class Until I level up to the Rogue. So at this point, I choose to arrange my points like so.
Jump 2
Climb 2
Tumble 4
So I now have 2 Ranks in Jump, 2 Ranks in Climb, and 2 Ranks in Tumble. That's about what a normal fighter would have at this level. Now I add in my Rogue level. He would get 7 skill points. I spend them like this.
Hide 3
Move Silently 3
Tumble 1
So the total number of Ranks I have is Climb 2 Jump 2 Tumble 3 Hide 3 Move Silently 3. What do you think?
So here is a quick comparison between a bugbear and a elf. I'm ignoring equipment since they both will have the same ECL, so will have the same wealth and it will even out.
Bugbear(B) Rogue 1 versus Elf(E) Rogue 5
Abilities:
B: Str 17, Dex 18, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 6
E: Str 13, Dex 18, Con 10, Int 14, Wis 10, Cha 8
Winner: B (+4 Str and +4 Con at a loss of -2 Cha)
Hit Dice/Hit Points:
B: 3d8+1d6+8 (28 hp)
E: 5d6 (20 hp)
Winner: B
Saves:
B: Fort 3, Ref 9, Will 1
E: Fort 1, Ref 8, Will 1
Winner: B for fort and ref, E for will (due to bonus vs. enchantment, see below)
AC:
B: 17 (10 + 4 Dex + 3 Nat)
E: 14 (10 + 4 Dex)
Winner: B
BAB/Grapple:
B: +2/+5
E: +3/+4
Winner: B for grapple, E for BAB
Melee, Range:
B: Melee Att +5 (+6 for finessable) Dam +3, Range Att +6
E: Melee Att +4 (+7 for finessable) Dam +1, Range Att +7
Winner: E
Skills:
B: Hide 12, Listen 8, Move Silently 16, Search 10, Tumble 10
E: Climb 9, Disable Device 12, Hide 12, Listen 10, Move Silently 12, Open Lock 12, Search 12, Spot 10, Tumble 12, Use Magic Device 7
Winner: E
Feats:
B: Dodge, Weapon Finesse
E: Dodge, Weapon Finesse
Winner: E (he'll hit 6 HD first and get the next feat first)
Class Features:
B: Sneak Attack +1d6, Trapfinding
E: Sneak Attack +3d6, Trapfinding, Evasion, Trap Sense +1, Uncanny Dodge
Winner: E
Racial Stuff:
B: Darkvision 60 ft, Scent, Language: Common, Goblin, Draconic, Elven
E: Low-Light, Immune to Sleep, +2 Save vs Enchantment, MWP(longsword, rapier, longbow, shortbow), Languages: Common, Elven, Draconic, Goblin.
Winner: E (though I would say having scent is pretty darn powerful)
Overall, it is a mixed bag. Each race dominates in some cases, clearly the elf is the better rogue in the general sense. Though I would say it is arguable if it is the better character. Clearly if you want to be the best rogue you can be, you should not be playing a bugbear, a goblin would be a much better choice, though an elf is ok. ;)
|
It is impossible to argue what the design intent in, but we can certainly see the design result. Ideally a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 should be identical to a Wizard 10/Fighter 10...
Actually I disagree with you here, I think that a wizard 10/fighter 10 should be mechanically disparate from a fighter 10/wizard 10. These are people who have different backgrounds and trained differently.
I do however agree that there is a mechanical advantage to starting out a rogue to a fighter at second level than vise versa when you multiclass, but that first level plays differently doesn't it, in the long run yes you are "punished" but the short term benefits are where the issue arises.
As to skills, skill points are my favorite function of 3.5 I agree that as a DM skill points are annoying, but as a player I love them and the simplest thing to do would just be create a different system that applies to NPCs and shorten the skill list as they have already begun to do. Personally keeping skillpoints would be the only real draw to switch to pathfinder, if they got rid of them, I would if I don't switch to 4E just stay with 3.5 and incorporate the rules i like.
I like skill points and would like to see them stay. Here's my suggestion on skill system:
keep the new skill list with the combined skills.
add +2 skill points/L to all classes, including the x4 at first level.
keep the new system for monsters and NPCs.
I like skill points and would like to see them stay. Here's my suggestion on skill system:
keep the new skill list with the combined skills.
add +2 skill points/L to all classes, including the x4 at first level.
keep the new system for monsters and NPCs.
Agreed, this would give the players the flexibility they want, and keep the Dm's from having head-hake when they want to make their own 'bad guy'. Many classes are skill starved, like the fighter for instance, and could use this boost. Rouges on the other hand do not need this bonus, seeing as they already have such a vast pool of skill ranks to begin with.