|
This just isn't true. A bugbear Rogue1 is going to be as good, if not better, than a human or elf Rogue1.
Thank you, but I realize that. I don't think that a bugbear Rogue 1 is equivalent to an elf rogue 5.
I think that a lizardman is even more laughable. I picked the bugbear to show a 'good fit' for the class. The bugbear's favored class IS rouge, so you would think they'd be somewhat good at it.
Thank you, Pres Man for the comparisons between them.
Regarding skill points, I think it is imperative that they are kept. I personally favor a skill system that allows one rank to be purchased for one point, regardless of the class skill or class skill divide. I like epic meepo's elegant solution to only give cross-class skills 1/2 the rank bonus, but if you take any class that offers it as a class skill you get full ranks in it. I don't think that is necessary, and while that is certainly an improvement, I'd get rid of the distinction between class and cross-class. It is more trouble than it is worth, it limits people's choices and does little to add realism or fun to the game.
So, I favor replacing the x4 skill points at 1st level with a different progression. 12 skill points/level for the rougue, 10 for the 6 skill point classes (bard, ranger), 8 for the 4 skill point classes (barbarian, druid, monk) and 6 for the 2 skill point classes (fighter, paladin, cleric, wizard, sorcerer).
With retroactive intelligence bonuses you can quickly determine how many ranks a creature should have from its classes and determine if it does or not have the proper number from its stat block.
With this system I can in less than 2 minutes assign skill points for any class combination, no matter how strange. What's more, I don't even need to know what the first level was.
I'm not sure getting rid of cross-class skills is an idea tha's going to get much traction. It's probably not as much of a sacred thing as skill points, but I don't think it's likely to go. The list of class skills is one of the things that makes each class unique.
Rogues are meant to be more sneaky, social and versatile than fighters. But fighters are better at dishing and taking damage in a stand-up fight, because that's what they focus on.
Getting rid of cross-class skills would simplify things, but if you want to simplify things, I prefer the original Alpha release skill system.
Thank you, Pres Man for the comparisons between them.
I might also point out, if we focus just on skills, the bugbear can start to close the gap with the elf if he focuses on maintaining the skills he has and tried to max out one additional one at a time.
Assuming no change in INT for either rogue we have:
5th level: B has 4 maxed, 1 not; E has 10 maxed
6th level: B has 5 maxed, 1 not; E has 10 maxed
7th level: B has 6 maxed; E has 10 maxed
8th,9th levels: B has 6 maxed, 1 not; E has 10 maxed
10th: B has 7 maxed; E has 10 maxed
11-15th: B has 7 maxed, 1 not; E has 10 maxed
16th: B has 8 maxed; E has 10 maxed
I stopped there because the bugbear isn't going to get another maxed before he hits 20th level (ECL). But he went from having 40%+ skills relative to the elf to 80%+. Given the boost to str and con, that seems like a fair trade. Also if I wanted to try to even the skills better, I could always take 2 skill points from the STR based skills and use those to boost another skill (because the bugbear has +4 STR more than the elf).
As for being behind for other rogue abilities like sneak attack, well if we look at the price of +3 Nat Armor amulet, that is the same price as a +1 flaming frost weapon (1d6+1d6), so again I would say a fair trade there for the natural armor. Given that bugbear's have darkvision, more preferable when sneaking around than low-light, the bugbear has the advantage there as well.
So I don't think bugbears make bad rogues, especially in the long run.
|
|
I'd get rid of the distinction between class and cross-class. It is more trouble than it is worth, it limits people's choices and does little to add realism or fun to the game.Respectfully, I disagree. I think it's part of what makes classes unique. Some people are simply better at some things than others. A Fighter is someone who thinks a certain way, picks up certain abilities better than others.
Why? Wouldn't you expect that if two people of equal intelligence started learning how to pick a lock, they would master the ability in almost equal time? I would.
Why do some classes get certain skills as class skills. The only reason that makes sense to me is that there is an assumption that these classes are working on these skills in their 'off-time'. I can't see it that way.
Certainly if the fighter is learning how to hit better and learning to Great Cleave through his enemies, the rogue has more time to work on skills. I get that, and I agree the rogue should have more skills than the fighter. More time to work on skills should mean more skill points - but access to more skills?
Really, I think the problem is that there is a stereotype about what a rogue should be able to do and what a fighter should be able to do. In 2nd edition only a rogue could climb walls with any real chance of success. Why? Can't anyone learn to climb? Skills, more than feats, represent knowledge that anyone can master. I'm not a rogue, but I can learn how to open locks. I'm not a bard, but I can learn how to play a musical instrument. With time and effort, anyone can learn anything.
So what is a skill check. It is training (skill ranks) + natural ability (ability modifier) and smart people who learn quickly usually learn more skills (high Int, more spare time = more skill ranks). The only thing that class skills do is say that some people are inherently better at learning some things than other people, and that interferes with my imagination.
How is saying 'rogues are better at learning to disarm traps' any different than saying 'boys are better at learning biology' - given an equal chance to learn, you'd expect everyone to be as good as the next person.
BUT, you wouldn't expect most fighters to care about opening locks. Why bother when you can smash them open with a sword? But, if you're the kind of fighter who wants to do that - if that is your vision of a fighter, I'd like to help you realize it. I don't want the shackles of my imagination to hold down someone else' brilliant character concept.
If there were a single 'in-game' justification for the class skill distinction, I'd love to hear it. But some rogues don't have any more familiarity with mechanical devices than non-rogues. Someone please explain it to me so it makes sense.
So, I favor replacing the x4 skill points at 1st level with a different progression. 12 skill points/level for the rougue, 10 for the 6 skill point classes (bard, ranger), 8 for the 4 skill point classes (barbarian, druid, monk) and 6 for the 2 skill point classes (fighter, paladin, cleric, wizard, sorcerer).So you get those at every level and eliminate the x4? That'd make sense. Eliminates the character-creation problem but evens out the totals. Makes sense to me.
Thank you. I really would like to see the x4 at first level done away with, so I'm glad that you think it can work. I'd really like to get this recognized as a major point of the design (and it doesn't ruin backwards compatability since skill points can be assigned in under a minute for any class combination with a few of the variants presented.
So I don't think bugbears make bad rogues, especially in the long run.
I actually agree with this. Of all the races with racial HD, bugbears probably make the best rogues. I still don't think they're as good as a normal rogue, though certainly there are people that would feel the trade-off for more traditional 'fighter' abilities are worthwhile.
The fact that the bugbear is arguably the best such creature though shows that the system doesn't work well. Bugbears are supposed to be good rogues, which is why it is their favored class.
Please consider the lizardfolk, which starts with the severe disadvantage of not starting with 3 rogue class skills on the skill list. Simply put, the x4 at first level is something that you can never make up for, no matter how well you use your skills.
And while you can choose to slowly max them out one at a time, if you choose that, for a long time there are certain skills that may be extremely useful that you'll never have ranks in at the appropriate time.
|
I personally favor a skill system that allows one rank to be purchased for one point, regardless of the class skill or class skill divide... I'd get rid of the distinction between class and cross-class. It is more trouble than it is worth, it limits people's choices and does little to add realism or fun to the game.
So, I favor replacing the x4 skill points at 1st level with a different progression. 12 skill points/level for the rougue, 10 for the 6 skill point classes (bard, ranger), 8 for the 4 skill point classes (barbarian, druid, monk) and 6 for the 2 skill point classes (fighter, paladin, cleric, wizard, sorcerer).
With retroactive intelligence bonuses you can quickly determine how many ranks a creature should have from its classes and determine if it does or not have the proper number from its stat block.
With this system I can in less than 2 minutes assign skill points for any class combination, no matter how strange. What's more, I don't even need to know what the first level was.
I like.
Thank you, but I realize that. I don't think that a bugbear Rogue 1 is equivalent to an elf rogue 5.
Sorry, but ever since you brought the Bugbear up a few days ago, this question really bothers me, so I'll simply ask it here.
Why are you comparing a bugbear rogue with 3 racial levels and 1 level of rogue to a 5th level elf rogue?
|
|
This just isn't true. A bugbear Rogue1 is going to be as good, if not better, than a human or elf Rogue1.Thank you, but I realize that. I don't think that a bugbear Rogue 1 is equivalent to an elf rogue 5.
I think that a lizardman is even more laughable. I picked the bugbear to show a 'good fit' for the class. The bugbear's favored class IS rouge, so you would think they'd be somewhat good at it.
Thank you, Pres Man for the comparisons between them.
Regarding skill points, I think it is imperative that they are kept. I personally favor a skill system that allows one rank to be purchased for one point, regardless of the class skill or class skill divide. I like epic meepo's elegant solution to only give cross-class skills 1/2 the rank bonus, but if you take any class that offers it as a class skill you get full ranks in it. I don't think that is necessary, and while that is certainly an improvement, I'd get rid of the distinction between class and cross-class. It is more trouble than it is worth, it limits people's choices and does little to add realism or fun to the game.
So, I favor replacing the x4 skill points at 1st level with a different progression. 12 skill points/level for the rougue, 10 for the 6 skill point classes (bard, ranger), 8 for the 4 skill point classes (barbarian, druid, monk) and 6 for the 2 skill point classes (fighter, paladin, cleric, wizard, sorcerer).
With retroactive intelligence bonuses you can quickly determine how many ranks a creature should have from its classes and determine if it does or not have the proper number from its stat block.
With this system I can in less than 2 minutes assign skill points for any class combination, no matter how strange. What's more, I don't even need to know what the first level was.
Way to many points, especially with a condensed list.
If you're going to get rid of some kind of class-based skill system, you might as well go play gurps or some other point build system.
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just saying this ain't the best idea I've seen, ya know?
|
Why do some classes get certain skills as class skills.
The Meta-Game reason is balance. If everyone gets equal access to all Skills, it decreases the value of Rogues ("thief" skills) and Bards (Knowledges and languages).
For an in-game reason: Skills are based on more than Ability scores. There is also aptitude and background. A 1st level Rogue learns the Skills he has a knack for. It's not that an intelligent, dextrous Fighter can't learn to Open Locks, but it is not one of his natural aptitudes, so he has to train harder to be the equal of the Rogue (Cross-Class cost).
I prefer changing the skill mechanic (a la Epic Meepo), to eliminating CC Skills entirely. But I agree the x4 at 1st should be looked at.
I suggest people on this thread read the [Design Focus] Skills thread if they haven't already.
My suggestion is to keep it simple.
If it's on your class list, your base rank is 1/2 HD (rounded down). If it's not, you have no base rank. Every level you choose to increase a skill; either from 0 ranks to 1/2 HD or from 1/2 HD to HD. If you multiclass, you add the new class's skill list as 1/2 HD.
If you wanted to it could be HD +4 or (HD +4)/2, but that just adds complications.
No synergy bonuses. No 4 x skills at first level. No extra skills for a high intelligence that confuses everything when your Int goes up to 18 at 4th level. No keeping track of the stupid extra skill points that humans get. You can easily keep racial bonuses (and maybe they'll even be useful). Humans can get a bonus skill knowledge at 1st level.
Just pick a skill at every level to get better in. Easy.
I am personally of the view that Rogues do not need more skill points. This is especially true with many of their bread and butter skills being absorbed into single skills in the new unified skill list. The 10 points they already have will go much much further now than they did in 3.5.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I actually agree with this. Of all the races with racial HD, bugbears probably make the best rogues. I still don't think they're as good as a normal rogue, though certainly there are people that would feel the trade-off for more traditional 'fighter' abilities are worthwhile.
Yes, some people would feel that what they get in racial benefits makes up for falling behind in some of the class features (NA, Str, Dex, Con bonuses, scent)
The fact that the bugbear is arguably the best such creature though shows that the system doesn't work well. Bugbears are supposed to be good rogues, which is why it is their favored class.
Huh? They are good rogues, so how does that show that the system doesn't work well? It does show that they are different than a PHB race pure rogue. What is wrong with being different?
Please consider the lizardfolk, which starts with the severe disadvantage of not starting with 3 rogue class skills on the skill list. Simply put, the x4 at first level is something that you can never make up for, no matter how well you use your skills.
So because a race doesn't synergies well with a particular class, that must mean the system is broken? Next you'll be saying because dwarves and half-orcs in 3.5 take charisma penalties and thus make weaker sorcerers that is also proof the system is broken. Or maybe, not every race and every character is suppose to be exact duplicate of each other. Some are better at somethings than others. Nobody wants a "Harrison Bergeron" dystopian type of game. Likewise, most don't want a game where everyone excels at everything (Mary Sues), "When everyone is special, nobody is."
And while you can choose to slowly max them out one at a time, if you choose that, for a long time there are certain skills that may be extremely useful that you'll never have ranks in at the appropriate time.
Yes, there are cost and benefits to all decisions, that is not a bad thing. When there are only benefits and no costs, the game loses its fun.
|
|
Why are you comparing a bugbear rogue with 3 racial levels and 1 level of rogue to a 5th level elf rogue?
A bugbear has 3 HD, and a Level Adjustment of +1. With a level of rogue, the character is equivalent to a 5 HD character. Essentially, if you are a player and you are asked to create a 5th level character you are permitted to begin play as a Dwarf Rogue 5 or an Elf Rogue 5 or a Halfling Rogue 5 or a Bugbear Rogue 1. They are considered 'equivalent'.
As for the contention that some races make good rogues and some make extremely bad rogues - I would counter that every race should be able to have 'serviceable' members of each of the major classes. I certainly don't expect a lot of players to choose to make a dwarf sorcerer (since most players want to make a caster with high spell DCs). But, a dwarf can certainly make a serviceable sorcerer, with a beginning score of 16. This is particularly true if the dwarf focuses on spells that don't allow a saving throw (or benefit his allies).
A rogue NEEDS skills. A lot of skills. To be a rogue effectively, you need to be good at more things than most people outside of combat. I'm not saying that any other class should be good at more things than the rogue. I am saying that having a system where a group of three players doesn't NEED a rogue, if they're willing to share the burden between themselves is a good thing. I'd also like to see a little bit of healing spread out, in an ideal universe.
The thing is, even with every class having access to every skill, there are certainly going to be more common selections. If you are a fighter and you have a few skills that you can really excel in, will you put ranks in disable device? Not if you have a rogue in the party. You'd be better off focusing on things that the rougue doesn't have covered - like intimidate, perhaps, or climb. A party with a well-rounded group of skills is a good party.
While I'm fine with Epic Meepo's suggestion of skill ranks/2 + relevant modifiers for skills, and I expect that is what we'll see in the final release, I think if you try a system without class/cross-class distinction you'll find it works just fine.
I know 'funner' is not a word, but my point is based on the idea of increasing the fun for more people. Now, the game needs challenges, so it shouldn't be easy, but every person who plays D&D should have an opportunity to feel that they're doing something useful. And telling someone 'no, you can't do that, you're a fighter' is somewhat simplistic and does nothing to increase the amount of fun in the game. And this makes the least amount of sense when characters do multi-class. The fighter is an archetype, and the rogue is an archetype, and the class abilities help to define them. Skills should not.
The skills should be there to help 'distinguish' your character from the others. They should help players realize their character conception - not stand as a barrier to it. What I'd really like to see are rules that lets a player take a concept and make it work - not put up restrictions to it's success.
For example, imagine I want to create a Dwarf character. He comes from a very religious background involved in the worship of a clockwork god. Of course he preaches about how to shape oneself to fit the design of the master plan, and he shows the perfection of a mechanically organized universe by creating clockwork automatons and traps. How should I make this character in D&D? As a servant of the clockwork god should I make him a cleric? As someone who works with traps should I make him a rogue? Should I multiclass?
The thing is, if I take rogue levels, I also get sneak attack. That certainly doesn't fit in with my concept for this character. With his emphasis on the perfection of machines, he may not care too much about the anatomy of the 'imperfect flesh creatures'. In seeking to become a machine he likely wouldn't focus on precision damage. So, to get the skills that represent the character concept, I'm forced to accept a bunch of useful abilities that don't fit into my concept. As a player that puts me in a dilemna - I could just pretend I don't have the ability and never use it - but wouldn't it be better if I could build a character that fits my concept easily? A cleric that has access to the proper skills? Probably I could get a good DM to allow some variation, but why make it an extra step. I think more DMs are comfortable with creating limitations, not removing them.
So, while I see some value to cross class skills, I don't see them as valuable enough to keep. Simply put, I can see them limiting the fun of others, and they do little to increase my fun, so that makes them expendable, at least in my opinion.
|
|
Yes, there are cost and benefits to all decisions, that is not a bad thing. When there are only benefits and no costs, the game loses its fun.
I do believe that every decision should have a cost and a benefit. And generally speaking, the cost and the benefit should have a fairly obvious relationship. If you pay a minor cost and gain a great benefit, that is not a good ability because it is 'too good'. Likewise, taking a major penalty for a minor bonus is not good because it isn't a fair trade.
If I created a class that took a -1 to each ability score at every level but gained a +1 divine bonus to all saves at each level, it would not be used. Anyone taking the class would die soon, and therefore the negative cost of the ability would be far too steep.
Certainly the example is a caricature, but there should be obvious 'choices' that aren't really choices because nobody makes the 'wrong choice'. If anybody COULD do something but nobody DOES, it probably isn't balanced correctly.
I think that in a system without a class/cross-class distinction, there is a cost. If I'm a fighter and I put ranks into Disable Device, I've made a choice that I can't put those same ranks into another skill that may also prove valuable.
Under my proposed system, where the fighter has 6 skill points per level, a maximum of any skill of level +5 and no multiplication of skills at 1st level, you bet there is a cost for spending those ranks on disable device. I could put all of my skill points there, and at 2nd level keep it maxed out and start buying other skills - but that means I'm not very adept at spotting at 1st level. I might choose to spread the ranks more evenly, 3 in disable device and 3 in spot, and at 2nd level do that again. And at 3rd level I'd finally max them both out and I could pick up another skill. This is the type of choice I favor - I give up one potential for a different potential - and you bet the cost is real. You can't be good at EVERYTHING, but you can be good at ANYTHING - that's a huge and important distinction. That's the difference between a hero and Mary Sue.
So, yeah, I think that everyone on the boards should be able to make a fighter that can find and remove traps if that is what they want - but there is a cost for the fighter of not being good at many other things - there is still an incentive for the rogue to use his skills on some of the important 'one person needs to do this' type of stuff... And everyone can be the character they want to be, but still have limitations, and still be balanced for the challenges that they face.
Why? Wouldn't you expect that if two people of equal intelligence started learning how to pick a lock, they would master the ability in almost equal time? I would.
But that isn't what cross class is about. I know managers who are every bit as intelligent as me. I'm a database admin, if we both start learning a new database, or even programming language, at the same time, in all likelihood I will master is considerably faster. Its in an area my pre-existing training predisposes me to. Similarly, if a new method for project planning comes out, I will have more difficulty mastering it, my focus is simply elsewhere. This is all that cross class skills do.
Also, remember that D&D assumes class skills to BE class abilities in that they are the "ares of expertise" that a class offers its members. In other words, a fighter has a few skills that he is predisposed to training and focussing on more, and hence getting more out of than a wizard. It's an attempt to combine the flexibility of a pure skill system with the rigid niche protection of a pure class system, and on principle, I think the attempt is a valid one.
And if you want to switch viewpoints, everybody with the same INT bonus has the same potential to learn skills, and your class simply gives you a bonus to that and some preselected "advantage" skills, with the reasoning that different classes put different importance on training "mundane" skills instead of specialized combat skills, spellcasting or miracle-working. From the "classic four", that is the rogue. He's got the most time to focus on skills, so he gets the broadest selection and the most "bonus skill points" from his class. The fighter trains mostly with all weapons and armor, the wizard trains heavily on complex arcane spells, and the cleric trains his martial arts alongside his praying, which is why they all only get 2 bonus skill points from their class.
Sometimes I wonder if the whole skill problem would look different if WotC had stated "All skills cost 2 skill points per rank to purchase, those on your class skill list cost half that amount" instead of making 1/1 the "default" assumption and "penalizing" cross-class skill training.
Oh, and as for the bugbear...well, for his race he's definitely a good rogue. Compared to the elf, he's more of a thug. Better as brutal shock trooper with his sneak attack, STR bonus and natural armor, and good as a third-row artillery, but not quite as good with all the fiddly traps and locks. :)
|
|
Its in an area my pre-existing training predisposes me to. This is all that cross class skills do.
If a skill were in an area that your previous training helped you understand, that would be represented by a synergy bonus. If you were training more intensely in something you already knew, that would be represented by having more ranks to begin with. Both of those represent previous training helping you to master a new set of related abilities fairly well.
The cross-class skill system does not do that. It may be designed to encourage that with some kind of intellectual short-hand, but it doesn't make sense.
If I create a rogue that NEVER does anything with locks, picks, traps, or mechanical devices and focuses solely on interpersonal skills, he does not have 'preexisting training' that helps him to understand locks and traps when he begins studying.
So, lets say I have this rouge, and a fighter, and both reach 15th level, and neither one has done anything with the mechanical skills. Let's say they both have equal intelligence. From this point, since there is no preexisting expertise, they should both learn the skill at the same speed (but the rogue probably has more time to devote to the practice - represented by more skill points). At this point, the cross-class distinction for the fighter makes no sense at all. He never chose to focus on learning how to pick locks, but neither did the rogue.
At this point, the only thing the cross-class skill restriction is doing is allowing the rogue to learn a skill faster than someone else who is committing equal effort and resources to that study. That promotes stereotypes about what a rogue should do and what a fighter should not do. In some way, this shackles the imagination. Skills are not so useful that we need to restrict access to them for some groups. I am certain that if Disable Device were a class skill for everyone, you'd still see more rogues taking it because they have more skill points and can afford to take it. Rogues would still be the best at things like disabling devices because they have more skill points (more time to practice learning) than any other class unless the other class really wanted to make that their focus.
I understand that in some ways it is easier to 'pigeon-hole' classes into a particular role, and 4th edition is going further this way. While I like class defined abilities, I don't think class defined skills make much sense when one takes a critical look at it. And of course it is just a game, but if the final answer is that 'we had to do something that doesn't make sense for the purpose of game balance', I would respond, 'is there another way?'. Can we preserve game balance but still increase options for players. Can we allow people to make character concepts that are a little 'odd' but perfectly valid, and can we make the rules support that concept.
In my cleric of a clockwork god example, I have to take at least one level of rogue to eliminate my cross-class cap, and my 2 skill points become effectively one skill point. So, I can only learn to disable device (at maximum) and cannot also learn about my religion.
My contention is that the cleric should be able to master disabling device just as the rogue can, with the committment of equal study and effort. Since the rogue has more time to work on skills, if he wanted to partner with the cleric they would both learn equal amounts of knowledge (religion) and disable device. But all the time the cleric spends praying, the rogue is going to just wander around. That's where he spends his other six skill ranks. Practicing walking around the temple silently, putting on cleric vestments and trying to pretend to be an acolyte, etc.
Assuming there are no previous skill ranks in the category, if you took any two people that had never used a particular skill, and they had equal natural ability, wouldn't you expect them to master the ability in similar time? So, if I take a CEO and an ice cream man, and I try to teach them to do somersaults, don't you think they would master it in the same amount of time? I do.
If I create a rogue that NEVER does anything with locks, picks, traps, or mechanical devices and focuses solely on interpersonal skills, he does not have 'preexisting training' that helps him to understand locks and traps when he begins studying.
But he does. Trapsense and trapfinding, these are intimitately related to traps, thus one would figure they give a rogue a better understanding of traps and their functions than a typical fighter has.
And what if it was a cross class skill for both, then wouldn't that still make them equally effective at learning it? Now let's change it to learning to fill out TPS reports, well the CEO probably has seen things similiar (it being an untrained class skill for him) while the ice cream man might not have (not a class skill for him), then it wouldn't be surprising that the CEO picks up on it faster.
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.
I agree. Iron Heroes does something similar with their villain classes (which are upgraded NPC classes). PCs use skill points and villain classes has a number of standard skills (though the GM can pick different skills) at CR+3. This make creating an orc warleader quick and easy.
As to the x4 at first level: If you get rid of it, how does this affect the backward compatibility?
Cross-class- Why not have them buy ranks on a one-for-one basis, but limit the max ranks of cross class skills?
|
|
But he does. Trapsense and trapfinding, these are intimitately related to traps, thus one would figure they give a rogue a better understanding of traps and their functions than a typical fighter has.
To my mind, you're ignoring my main point.
I am arguing against the default assumption that a rogue, by nature of the fact that it says 'rogue' on his character sheet, should know anything about traps. A rogue should have the choice to learn about traps, but should not be required to.
To say that rogues should get one skill that another class does not have available as a class skill is to make the argument that they either ARE more familiar with that subject, or SHOULD be. I disagree with both.
Since D&D is about creating a character that represents your ideal, there should be few things that limit the creation of that character. If you want to play a character that has 'typical rogue abilities' like sneak attack, you should choose to play a rogue. That type of rogue, however, may have more of the mad surgeon than the trap smith. This is a valid character concept and should be represented by the rules. Just as I feel that a fighter shouldn't HAVE to have Heavy Armor Proficiency, I feel that a rogue shouldn't HAVE to have Trapfinding.
Personally, I think Trapfinding should be a feat, just like track is. I would make it part of the class abilites of the rogue, but I wouldn't feel bad about another class learning to find and disarm traps.
Let me turn the question around. Even if we assume that all rogues are naturally gifted and quickly and easily learn how to master locks, why is it that no fighter, no bard, no monk, no cleric, no wizard, etc, has the same gifted intuition to master locks as quickly or completely? Shouldn't at least one of them have that same natural inclination?
Regarding removing the x4 from beginning characters, it is certainly true that it makes the system LESS compatible with 3.5. Generally, I like compatability as a major goal, but I'm willing to accept some incompatability for the sake of improvement. Personally, if Pathfinder doesn't have skill points, I doubt that it will have any interest for me. There COULD be a better system that doesn't involve skill points, but I have yet to see it. If it isn't obvious from my posts, I'm a big proponent of things that make the system MORE flexible for the players (and easy for the DM if possible). In this case, I'm willing to accept the part where at levels 1-3 most classes have fewer skill points for the reasons I laid out. I really like the fact that it will make it easier to play monstrous races (not that we do that often in our campaign, but I like options like that to be easily available).
Now, certainly I don't expect everyone to agree that my proposed system if the best. I certainly would like people to review the system and try it, and determine if it does offer any advantages, and if those advantages outweigh the drawbacks. I certainly think they do.
Even if my ideas don't get serious consideration from the Pathfinder Team, it has been at least useful to me in allowing me to set up my thoughts and critically evaluate them (and open them up for evaluation from others).
sorry. its late and i have to work tomarow so no time to read the many threads. we just had our first very small play test and the only complaint so far was there werent enough skill points at first level. we ended up using #+intx2. did we miss something?
Since D&D is about creating a character that represents your ideal, there should be few things that limit the creation of that character.
This is an interesting point to make. There have been several character concepts that I have just not been able to pull off, often because of skill points and cross class skills.
Cross class skills make it difficult for certain classes to attain certain PrC. Now, I'm pretty sure that was intentional, but every once in a while I find a PrC interesting but beyond the means of the character I'm playing, only because of a prerequiste skill points of 8 in a cross-class skill.
Certainly you could eventually do it, but while one class can do it after 5th level, another would have to wait until after 13th level (if my math is right). By that time, the benefits of the 1st level of the PrC often just aren't good enough for a 14th level character.
Neither system (skill points or none) address this issue as long as there are class skills and cross-class skills.
You know... ex-NFL football player Rosie Grier does needle work. (I realize that's a craft skill, but still, it doesn't seem to fit what most people would think a football player would want to do.)
|
|
sorry. its late and i have to work tomarow so no time to read the many threads. we just had our first very small play test and the only complaint so far was there werent enough skill points at first level. we ended up using #+intx2. did we miss something?
Which system was this in regard to? Was this in avoiding the x4 at 1st level?
The simple and unavoidable fact is that for people used to making 1st level characters in 3.5 it WILL feel like you have too few points. Until you try it a couple of times. I think it suffers in a direct comparison because at 1st level you say 'I had more skill points in 3.5' - but it isn't about the number of skill points - it is about having fun with those skill points.
I think it is hard to keep the feeling that more is better in check. More isn't always better. Too much is bad, too. This is a compromise between too much and too little (thus giving less at one end and more at the other) that works better for organic characters.
With the level +5 cap, players don't have to max out skills. If they keep it at level +3 they should be well prepared for challenges for their level. The level +5 is good for people who really want to focus on something (like the expert blacksmith). If players usually max their skills, they'll periodically pick up a new skill as well. So you're not simply locked into maximizing the same skills you picked at 1st level to hope to be useful.
All they really did was eliminate the max rank of cross class, and completely gimped those who actually get an increase mid level.
Sorry, but if you can't handle a simple little thing like skill points, then yeah this system is fine for you. I keep forgetting that this is not ADnD, but DnD. Maybe they should make an APRPG to make things good.
What about letting each class select X amount of class skills at creation, with the possibility of selecting more?
The NPC expert class allows the player to select the skills that will be class skills. That allows a huge amount of customization without breaking the mechanics of skills.
Even using skill points per 3.5 rules, you could allow each player to select X amount of class skills, then follow some pattern that allows each class to select a new class skill, possible even an extra skill point.
Something like:
Starting Fighter
Skill points: 2 + INT modifier + bonuses
Class Skills: Select 7 skills as class skills
Then at 3rd level and every 4 levels after:
Skill points: +1 skill point each level
Class skills: select an additional skill as a class skill.
Of course, I realize that some people don't want cross-class skills at all, but I think there is a place for them.
What about letting each class select X amount of class skills at creation, with the possibility of selecting more?
The NPC expert class allows the player to select the skills that will be class skills. That allows a huge amount of customization without breaking the mechanics of skills.
I actually like the idea of you being able to pick the "class" skills but prefer that eacjh of the classes have some iconic class skills. For example a wizard should (IMHO)always have Know(any) and spellcraft. He should then get to pick two or so other skills of his choice as class skills. (Yup, i like cross class skills... you shouldn't have aptitude in all skills). A rogue (IMHO) doesnt need iconic class skills (because there are extremely divergent rogue choices)and should be able to pick about 10+Int Bonus number of skills at first level to be his class skills.
This way if the fighter wants to be a trap monkey and the rogue wants to be the face, they can be. I can just see the crazy dwarf cleric that needs to examine all them mechanical traps himself.
To my mind, you're ignoring my main point.
I am arguing against the default assumption that a rogue, by nature of the fact that it says 'rogue' on his character sheet, should know anything about traps. A rogue should have the choice to learn about traps, but should not be required to.
To say that rogues should get one skill that another class does not have available as a class skill is to make the argument that they either ARE more familiar with that subject, or SHOULD be. I disagree with both.
Since D&D is about creating a character that represents your ideal, there should be few things that limit the creation of that character. If you want to play a character that has 'typical rogue abilities' like sneak attack, you should choose to play a rogue. That type of rogue, however, may have more of the mad surgeon than the trap smith. This is a valid character concept and should be represented by the rules. Just as I feel that a fighter shouldn't HAVE to have Heavy Armor Proficiency, I feel that a rogue shouldn't HAVE to have Trapfinding.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from here it looks like you are arguing against Pathfinder/D&D being a class-driven game with characters that are shaped by an archetype, and for it becoming a feat/skill-driven game where characters are shaped by the player and may or may not conform to an archetype.
If that is the case, I sincerely hope it won't happen. There's a dozen game systems out there that do this, and I really see no reason to cozy up to them with D&D, which has always retained its flavour of archetypes in the core books. I don't want to see it turn into something like Shadowrun, which had archetypes as orientation only examples, or GURPS or Rolemaster, with dozens of "prepackaged bundles" instead of classes.
I don't care how people houserule D&D to their satisfaction, I'm guilty of as much houseruling as anybody...but I'd prefer the core to stay close to its roots. The 3E skill system was an attempt to patch a skill system into the class system of D&D, and it wasn't a bad attempt. A few streamlining efforts for DMs might be in order, as has been noted plenty of times already, but I don't see the call to go to more extremes at all..in either direction.
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from here it looks like you are arguing against Pathfinder/D&D being a class-driven game with characters that are shaped by an archetype, and for it becoming a feat/skill-driven game where characters are shaped by the player and may or may not conform to an archetype.
I am not.
I certainly am in favor of retaining classes. I like more classes, rather than fewer. What makes a class special and worth playing for me, however, are the class abilities. I would choose a rogue for sneak attack, a fighter for feats, and a wizard for spells. While skills are an important part of the character, they're the 'least important' mechanic. Each rank of a skill is insignificant when compared to the power of a feat or the power of a high level spell.
Because they are worth so much less than other abilities, I don't think it makes the rogue stronger to have sole access to certain skills. Even if every class had equal access, the rogue is a strong choice because of abilities like Sneak Attack, and the fact that the rogue has MORE skills (not just better access to a few skills) is more valuable.
Since the primary use of skills, in my mind, is not to significantly increase the power level of the game, but instead to customize and 'round out' the character that you envision, I support more flexibility. The most important point for me in the class/cross-class debate is that restricting what people can choose for class skills is not more fun - not for the rogue and not for the fighter. And to support that main point I try to illustrate character concepts that don't work well under the skill rules in 3.5, and to point out the inherent absurdity of the fact that two people who have no 'penchant' for a particular learning should master it faster because they are expected to be good at that particular thing. I think it creates stereotypes (which are anathema to unique characters) and is no more valid in regard to D&D than it is when discussing real groups and their ability to master skills (female Asians and driving, or girls and biology - who would say those are cross-class skills? If I could use a real world example of 'class' I would, but since they don't exist...).
If that is the case, I sincerely hope it won't happen. There's a dozen game systems out there that do this, and I really see no reason to cozy up to them with D&D, which has always retained its flavour of archetypes in the core books. I don't want to see it turn into something like Shadowrun, which had archetypes as orientation only examples, or GURPS or Rolemaster, with dozens of "prepackaged bundles" instead of classes.
Agreed. But do you think that the classes NEED the 'exclusive access' to some skills to retain their identity? Obviously giving a fighter sneak attack progression would steal the identity of the rogue, but would giving him the choice to learn how to disable traps?
I don't care how people houserule D&D to their satisfaction, I'm guilty of as much houseruling as anybody...but I'd prefer the core to stay close to its roots. The 3E skill system was an attempt to patch a skill system into the class system of D&D, and it wasn't a bad attempt. A few streamlining efforts for DMs might be in order, as has been noted plenty of times already, but I don't see the call to go to more extremes at all..in either direction,
I'm also in favor of trying to retain compatability as a major goal. The two areas that I'm willing to accept incompatability are for ease of use and increasing flexibility.
I certainly see reluctance to abandon the idea of 'cross-class skills'. I'm hoping that a member of the opposition is willing to investigate the proposition of cross-class skills with intellectual honesty and insight and help explain why the system is better than a system that does not use cross-class skills. If the only reason is that it is 'traditional', I think that is telling.
That is to say, that would be admitting that a system without cross-class skills would be better, but still may not be worth it (for reasons of compatability). I believe that Paizo can make changes when they're clearly better and will receive support from most of their fans, and certainly from me.
Hope you won't mind me dissecting your post, I don't intend to quote anything out of context...just feels more like a conversation if I can add my comments to parts of what you way instead of bundling them up at the end. :)
I am not.
Yay! Glad I got you wrong then. :)
I certainly am in favor of retaining classes. I like more classes, rather than fewer. What makes a class special and worth playing for me, however, are the class abilities. I would choose a rogue for sneak attack, a fighter for feats, and a wizard for spells. While skills are an important part of the character, they're the 'least important' mechanic. Each rank of a skill is insignificant when compared to the power of a feat or the power of a high level spell.Because they are worth so much less than other abilities, I don't think it makes the rogue stronger to have sole access to certain skills. Even if every class had equal access, the rogue is a strong choice because of abilities like Sneak Attack, and the fact that the rogue has MORE skills (not just better access to a few skills) is more valuable.
I'd disagree with that for the rogue, especially because it was, from its conception 30 years ago, a class that relied on having skills other classes couldn't emulate, or only very badly. Each edition tried to keep this up through different systems. 3E actually tried to open up a lot of the rogue skills to the other classes with the skill system, while trying to preserve the niche of the rogue as ultimate specialist for things like trapfinding, locks, etc.
Cross-class training and different number of skill points were some of the tools for that, additional class abilities that exclusively allowed rogues to find complex traps and disarm them were others. The problem was that, as usual, the assumptions behind those rules were not really communicated, so a lot of times, people try to apply their understnding of skill systems from other games to D&D, which doesn't always work. In a game where skills are the MAIN shapers of a character, equal access to them is a lot more important than it is in D&D 3E, where skills supplement a class with additional abilities.
Since the primary use of skills, in my mind, is not to significantly increase the power level of the game, but instead to customize and 'round out' the character that you envision, I support more flexibility. The most important point for me in the class/cross-class debate is that restricting what people can choose for class skills is not more fun - not for the rogue and not for the fighter. And to support that main point I try to illustrate character concepts that don't work well under the skill rules in 3.5, and to point out the inherent absurdity of the fact that two people who have no 'penchant' for a particular learning should master it faster because they are expected to be good at that particular thing. I think it creates stereotypes (which are anathema to unique characters) and is no more valid in regard to D&D than it is when discussing real groups and their ability to master skills (female Asians and driving, or girls and biology - who would say those are cross-class skills? If I could use a real world example of 'class' I would, but since they don't exist...).
I have to disagree here, at least with your assumption that you can put the label "Rogue" on somebody and still have him completely disconnected to the basic rogue/thief functions, namely trapfinding and disarming, opening locks, pocketpicking, etc. The rogue in 3E is definitely an expansion of the more narrow thief classes of older editions, but the basic functions are all firmly entrenched in the class. A rogue at 1st level had enough contact with all facets of life that he will have a basic affinity for that kind of stuff, an inherent advantage in learning it and training it further.
The difference in opinion is probably because to me, on the metagame level, class skills for the rogue are a replacement of the older editions' "thief skills"...so basically the rogue's class skills are class abilities in another guise, and as such are of a lot more importance than "just skills" would be. :)
This is done in order to preserve archetypes in D&D...stereotypes only arise if those archetypes are played uncreatively. :)
Agreed. But do you think that the classes NEED the 'exclusive access' to some skills to retain their identity? Obviously giving a fighter sneak attack progression would steal the identity of the rogue, but would giving him the choice to learn how to disable traps?
Yep, it would. See above for my reasoning on this...I'm one of those D&D players who likes the thief/rogue in the game as a distinct role/archetype, and I'd hate to see him being reduced to an expert with sneak attack ability and some extra talents.
The other classes do pretty well without exclusive access to certain skill results (okay, the Ranger would be in a similar boat if you give others the ability to track), but for the rogue, class skills make up a lot of his identity.I'm also in favor of trying to retain compatability as a major goal. The two areas that I'm willing to accept incompatability are for ease of use and increasing flexibility.
I certainly see reluctance to abandon the idea of 'cross-class skills'. I'm hoping that a member of the opposition is willing to investigate the proposition of cross-class skills with intellectual honesty and insight and help explain why the system is better than a system that does not use cross-class skills. If the only reason is that it is 'traditional', I think that is telling.
That is to say, that would be admitting that a system without cross-class skills would be better, but still may not be worth it (for reasons of compatability). I believe that Paizo can make changes when they're clearly better and will receive support from most of their fans, and certainly from me.
Well, "traditional" in that the only reason why it is done that way is because "it was always done like this" would be a bad reason, I agree. But usually, that answer means "there WAS a good reason for doing it like that, and we simply forgot the reason, so we stick to the tradition". Still not really good. But in the case of the 3E skill system, we KNOW the reasons why it was done that way, we can see it in the development from earlier editions to now.
I'm also for flexibility and streamlining. I'm one of the guys who suggested dropping cross-class skill costs (I'd keep the max ranks, but Meepo's system is not bad either, and more popular right now ;D), and retroactive INT skill point bonuses. But the rogue needs some exclusive abilities to keep the identity of its archetype, and I'd prefer that to be included in Pathfinder.
Of course, I can live with all kinds of systems...houseruling Pathfinder is no more difficult than houseruling any other kind of game, once it's out and in my hands. ;D
And by the way, thanks for the thought-provoking and interesting conversation. :)
|
If you like x4, but it is too front-loaded, perhaps it should be x2 at each of the first 3 levels. This would allow multiclassed chars who start early to get a better blend. A Rogue/Fighter/Fighter/Rogue and a Fighter/Rogue/Rogue/Fighter would still be different, but not as much.
There is already a temptation in 3.5 to pick a level of Rogue at first level, due to the x4 skill multiplier.
What if, instead of multiplying the skill points for one's first class level (or racial HD), one gained one level's worth (or one HD worth) of skill points, plus 12, or plus 18 (ie 3 times 4, or 3 times 6, depending on your desired power level)? (modified by race and INT)
That way,
- the order you take your classes/racial HD would make less difference,
- it would give a one-off aid to those classes with a traditionally poor skill points,
- it would make calculating total skill points for multi-classed or high-level NPCs easier
Rogues would still be ahead of the pack, but not to the same extent, and if the combined skills are being used, they may still be ahead, since rolling several skills together means they are getting a 2-for-1 deal on many of their traditional skills, so being granted 6 or 12 less at character creation would not be as penalising.
I actually like the idea of you being able to pick the "class" skills but prefer that eacjh of the classes have some iconic class skills. For example a wizard should (IMHO)always have Know(any) and spellcraft. He should then get to pick two or so other skills of his choice as class skills.
Hmm... all of a sudden, the 4e previews are starting to make sense.
Let a class have a couple "mandataroy" class skills, but allow them to choose some others.
I like it.
(Well, I like this idea for skills. I'm still up in the air about 4e.)
|
|
Hope you won't mind me dissecting your post...
Not at all.
I'd disagree with that for the rogue, especially because it was, from its conception 30 years ago, a class that relied on having skills other classes couldn't emulate, or only very badly. Each edition tried to keep this up through different systems. 3E actually tried to open up a lot of the rogue skills to the other classes with the skill system, while trying to preserve the niche of the rogue as ultimate specialist for things like trapfinding, locks, etc.
Having played since 1st edition, I'm well aware that the rogue was conceived to have access to certain abilities that other classes did not. As we've moved from 1st edition to 2nd edition and particularly to third edition, we've seen the gradual loosening of restrictions. 3.5 has been the most complete expression of that design philosophy. I think the next ititeration of D&D (under the Pathfinder label) should go one step further.
Cross-class training and different number of skill points were some of the tools for that, additional class abilities that exclusively allowed rogues to find complex traps and disarm them were others. The problem was that, as usual, the assumptions behind those rules were not really communicated, so a lot of times, people try to apply their understnding of skill systems from other games to D&D, which doesn't always work. In a game where skills are the MAIN shapers of a character, equal access to them is a lot more important than it is in D&D 3E, where skills supplement a class with additional abilities.
In all honesty, I'm not applying knowledge of other systems to D&D. While I have knowledge of other systems, I exclusively play D&D. I do buy other game systems and read the rule books, and I do evaluate rules and try to weigh them against stated goal and accomplishment of that goal. I think that is the litmus test for every rule in a game. What is this rule for, and does it work?
Now, under the system that I propose, rogues would remain the 'best' with things like disarming traps. They could commit skill points to it and still do things that are important for that character. A fighter could master disarming traps, but they would really have to specialize, and would not be able to learn any other skills (unless they have a really high intelligence modifier). This allows us to retain the 'special status' the rogue has in relation to specialized rogue skills, but doesn't unduly penalize the character concept of a dwarven cleric with a focus on traps. I think it is a valid character concept, so I want the rules to support it.
I have to disagree here, at least with your assumption that you can put the label "Rogue" on somebody and still have him completely disconnected to the basic rogue/thief functions, namely trapfinding and disarming, opening locks, pocketpicking, etc. The rogue in 3E is definitely an expansion of the more narrow thief classes of older editions, but the basic functions are all firmly entrenched in the class. A rogue at 1st level had enough contact with all facets of life that he will have a basic affinity for that kind of stuff, an inherent advantage in learning it and training it further.
Why limit the rogue to that? One 'explanation' for the rogue to have disable device as a class skill is the inherent familiarity with the task due to the other duties of his occupation. Under the 3.5 rules, the problem comes up with the rogue who takes levels of fighter. For the same amount of training (skill points) he can't keep his mastery of these abilities. Obviously he is not unfamiliar with them, but the 3.5 rules penalize him for the fighter 'studies' by retarding his growth in skills he had previously mastered. Obviously there are systems that have been described on the boards that address that issue, but I do want to point out that there is a logical problem with the 3.5 ruleset, and addressing the most overt symptom does not indicate that the root cause has been addressed.
The difference in opinion is probably because to me, on the metagame level, class skills for the rogue are a replacement of the older editions' "thief skills"...so basically the rogue's class skills are class abilities in another guise, and as such are of a lot more importance than "just skills" would be. :)
I actually have a lot of respect for this idea. I also think the rogue should be the best at rogue abilities. I've played D&D a long time, and there are few characters I haven't played. In order of frequency I would play fighters the most, quickly followed by cleric and rogue, and wizard last (always we have someone who wants to be the wizard, and I usually fill the 'unfulfilled' role). I don't want to take anything from the rogue. I want to give some extra abilities to everyone else that allow them to do some of the things that the rogue does, but not as well. The rogue will always be the best because he has the skill points to spend on Disable Device and also do other things. The fighter in my system COULD disable device, but basically at the expense of all the 'traditional fighter' skills.
Besides offering an advantage for a player of a class other than a rogue, it also offers a major advantage to the D&D group. If a group has people that all want to be something, but they need a rogue, it usually is decided that someone will have to play it, regardless of their personal preference for another class. This allows the person who plays the fighter (or the wizard, or whatever) that insists that they need a rogue for the ability to disable devices to function without that specific class, but still retain the 'required' element of the role.
This is done in order to preserve archetypes in D&D...stereotypes only arise if those archetypes are played uncreatively. :)
But there are 'archetypes' that can't be created well with the 3.5 rules, mostly due to the nature of a cross-class skill. Before the creation of a swashbuckler (Complete Warrior) it was impossible to create a 'weapons master' (fighter) that was trained as an acrobat (tumble) from an early age. With maximum cross-class skills the character couldn't achieve the vision, so a level of rogue was REQUIRED. I don't want to see that be the case. I want someone to say 'My vision for a character is mostly this, but I need these skills to pull it off' and be able to do that. Not 'My vision is this, but I have to take a level of this which comes with these abilities I don't need, but then I can mostly be the character I'm trying to create. At least it is close'.
Yep, it would. See above for my reasoning on this...I'm one of those D&D players who likes the thief/rogue in the game as a distinct role/archetype, and I'd hate to see him being reduced to an expert with sneak attack ability and some extra talents.
The other classes do pretty well without exclusive access to certain skill results (okay, the Ranger would be in a similar boat if you give others the ability to track), but for the rogue, class skills make up a lot of his identity.
You know, every character can track. They need to take the feat, but anyone can. The thing is, the system isn't only about other groups getting access to rogue skills (just that the rogue has the most class skills, so it is an easy shorthand to say rogue when you mean any class skill your class doesn't already have) - it is about the rogue having access to 'non-traditional rogue skills'. If you want to make a rogue that is an expert on the planes, why should that be cross-class for you? Why is riding a horse? Can't a thief (or rogue) come from a Mongolian style tribe of plains horsemen? [Someone stole my dagger! I can't search for it since I know the rogue will be better at hiding it than I am at finding it. Only one solution - everyone get on a horse. We're going to see who's a fighter and who's a rogue!] By opening up the skills to everyone, you allow everyone to make the character they envision. What's more, nobody loses anything that really makes them special. Any trapfinder that is not a rogue won't be as good, because they have to give up all the other things that a rogue is also good at. But it does remove the 'exclusivity' from the rogue class for a generally accepted 'critical skill'. If it is important for every group to have trapfinding, than more than one class should have access to it.
Gotta go. Good talking.
If you like x4, but it is too front-loaded, perhaps it should be x2 at each of the first 3 levels. This would allow multiclassed chars who start early to get a better blend. A Rogue/Fighter/Fighter/Rogue and a Fighter/Rogue/Rogue/Fighter would still be different, but not as much.
Class skills for the low-level multi-classed PC is an interesting mechanic to talk about.
In the case of a Fighter/Rogue Rogue/Fighter, I'd be hard-pressed to find someone to say you should take your first level as a fighter. The mechanical benefits of the rogue's skills outweigh the BAB and bonus feat you're going to get anyways.
But when you want to be a rogue spellcaster, many players want to get that first level of spellcasting first. But they want the skills. But the party needs the spells. But it's impossible to make up the number of skills you'd get. But magic missile could save the party's life. But those skills.... and so on.
But actually, x2 for the first two levels would leave you a levels' worth of skills short. You'd need to do x2 for three levels.
Math:
Fighters get 2 + Int + bonus. For sake of ease, lets just say he get only 2 each level.
RAW: (skills are cumulative)
Level 1: 8
Level 2: 10
Level 3: 12
Level 4: 14
Level 5: 16
With the x2 for first three levels:
Level 1: 4
Level 2: 8 (This is where you'd be a level short)
Level 3: 12
Level 4: 14
Level 5: 16
|
|
I took care of the x4 at first level long ago in my games. Instead of being based on the Class Skill progression, I gave new characters their INT Score x 2 points to spend plus their first level allotment of Skill Points. This gave all characters a bump of skills at first level without hurting the Rogue. Might not be for everyone, but this has worked well for me and my players enjoy the extra points to spend on background. Also it reduces the metagaming impact of wanting to take the Rogue at first level.
I mentioned this in the Design Focus thread as well, but for now I'm going to use Intx2 for points with the reduced Skill list to see if it's too many points or not.
Now I'm curious about the comparison of the Rogue/Fighter/Rogue/Fighter
and a Fighter/Rogue/Fighter/Rogue using the x2 for three levels variant.
Rogue/Fighter/Rogue/Fighter:
Variant....RAW
1: 16......1: 32
2: 20......2: 34
3: 36......3: 42
4: 38......4: 44
Fighter/Rogue/Fighter/Rogue:
1: 4.......1: 8
2: 20......2: 16
3: 24......3: 18
4: 32......4: 26
Yeah... that's quite a difference.
I guess one setback from the variant is that the DCs in published adventures are set with the mindset that skills will probably be maxed out at each level, so the skills might be a little low for the first two levels.
But, interesting.
Gotta go. Good talking.
Definitely. :)
It's funny, I have the impression we'd be mostly on the same track a lot faster if we could talk face to face. Stupid typed conversation lag. ;)
So, think we agree on simplification of cross-class skills when multiclassing, and maybe an easier way to get some class abilities without multi-classing? :)
A few years ago, I started puzzling together some feats that incorporated class abilities so far not covered by existing feats, taking the idea from the fact that most of the fighter's class abilities are feats anyway. I even built a feat that gave a character spellcasting levels one per feat starting at 3.0 "apprentice" level.
Thing is, I basically agree with you, but I'd like to see all these "optional variants" to be collected in an Unearthed Arcana style book, and leave the core rules as close to D&D as possible. I love variant rules...half of the D20/OGL core games I got for cribbing variant rules from them. For some reason, I just prefer the baseline of D&D to be where it is, and give people all the alternatives after they digested the baseline.
|
|
Also, to address the Cross Class skills. I understand where DeadDMWalking is coming from but I like the mechanism that training outside your Class Skills bring. I've also tweeked my games since d20 Call of Cthulhu came out, to allow characters to swap Class Skills on a one for one basis. This allows characters to trade something that goes against their characters concept for something that better matches.
So no, I don't believe we need to get rid of Cross Class skills (I do agree on getting rid of the 2 points per rank cost and move to adding Rank/2) and allow classes to pick N Class Skill picks, where N is based on Class to allow players to better customize their character.
|
|
I can certainly see some of the skill variations people have come up with in an 'alternate rules' book. I really like Unearthed Arcana, and we've used a number of rules from it in various campaigns, and have usually enjoyed the 'alternate flavor'.
For the Pathfinder Alpha, there is going to be only one 'primary system'. That's important because that is what everything else is going to be based on. And while a 'force max' system is pretty easy to use as a default, or restricting classes from certain skills as a houserule, the default assumptions are going to be used in most games and in the modules themselves.
So, I do see forming a consensus on what the skill system should be as a vitally important task. Now, I don't think that consensus means we all need to agree. I think it does mean that everyone has a chance to be heard and have their ideas evaluated and discussed. Unfortunately, it seems that this is not really going to be entirely possible, and I'm as much to blame as any other single person, I suppose. For the most part I've tried to limit myself to threads that do not duplicate another topic, but there are even more threads that have the exact same point as three other threads that started before, and a number of people are starting threads to put out their idea for the 'Final Solution' on skill points. I did that too, but I at least attempted to make it a complete proposal rather than a couple senteces on 'this is what should be done'.
Jason Bulmahn's 'choices' don't seem to be very complete. Since it has been said that the skill system is being worked on, though, I'm sure that more possibilities are probably being discussed than we're privy to without going through each thread and looking at the pro's and con's.
I personally would like to see some kind of poll thread (or multiple threads) to really get a sense for what people like and don't like. Unfortunately, some people are refusing to look over other proposals in favor of lobbying for their own pet project (not too guilty of that, myself, having at lesat read the other options).
I don't remember who said we should look at what the design objective is with skills. I do agree. I've seen a lot of proposals, and I don't like very many of them. While I know the Pathfinder Alpha system is 'easy', I hate it with the burning passion of a thousand quasars. I know I'm not alone. I think a significant majority want to see a skill point system in some form or other. I think that there are some willing to accept 3.5 again, and some that require more drastic change.
What I think is a system that can have broad support:
1) A skill point system that has a slight reduction in the number of skills. Certain knowledge skills can be eliminated (combined), certain 'stand-alone skills' can be rolled together and some functions of skills might be split between one or more existing skills. The exact 'skill list' has not had much comprehensive debate, though there certainly seems to be strong support for Disable Device and Open Lock being combined, and Sleight of Hand retained (without calling the skill Theft). Essentially, a skill point system with some variant of the Pathfinder Alpha Skill List.
2) Retention of the class/cross-class distinction. Using what is commonly referred to as the Epic Meepo formula where cross-class skills cost 1 point to buy, but as long as it is a cross-class skill for all of your classes, you divide your ranks by 2 when rolling a check.
3) Retroactive Intelligence bonuses.
I think that element 2 has a problem - a normal stat block won't show if the skill is class or cross-class. This can make it harder for a DM to reverse engineer or modify a stat block. The answer to this may be as simple as listing the ranks and bonus for each skill [Example Perception (3)+6, +8 for spot, Survival (4) +2, etc]. This would make stat blocks somewhat longer.
I think that we can go just a bit further, and while it may not have broad support yet, there is growing support. So, again, I summarize what I think we could have.
1) We could have a system where each skill rank costs one point and shows up on the stat block the same way - no distinction between cross-class skills and class skills. This has the advantage of allowing any player (or DM) of any class to choose skills to customize their character, allowing them to choose any rank. Some have raised the spectre of some classes becoming useless under this system. This is a spectre that I can't seem to see. No class needs only one of their skills to define their role in the party. Since the skill point system doesn't provide the 'force max' that the Pathfinder Alpha does, skills won't be able to choose that many skills. As a fighter, I'm unlikely to choose Disable Device as a skill choice unless the party does not have a rogue, and I have enough ranks to also purchase Acrobatics (since I want to Tumble) or some other skill (like Perception). With only a small handful of skill points, choosing a 'point sink' like Disable Device is not worthwhile.
2) We can alter the level +3 skill cap. I personally support a level +5. Simply put, it lets people be a little more specialized, but at the expense of another skill. While a character can simply total their skill points and choose four or six or eight skills and divide the ranks evenly. They will tend to average level +3, but they could choose a little higher or a little lower quickly and easily.
3) We can alter the x4 skill points at 1st level. This causes unintended problems for characters that multiclass and characters that begin with racial levels. Every other 'class benefit' scales up at an even progression, from 1 to 20. Skills break the rule by starting high and then progressing at an even progression. Could you imagine if we started fighters with a BAB of 4, clerics and rogues with +2 and wizards a +1 - why do we do something similar with skills.
4) If we eliminate the x4 bonus, to keep things balanced we must give a slightly faster progression. This means that at 1st-3rd level the number of skills will be just a little lower than 3.5 (no multiplication) but will quickly even out and exceed the levels of other characters.
Just a quick example. I decide to create a human with an intelligence of 15. I'm beginning at 5th level. I want to play a 'thug' fighter, and I decide to start as fighter 4/rogue 1. Since I'm assuming +4 skill points for each class, fighter is 6, rogue is 12. +2 for Int and +1 for human. I have 9x4(36) + (15) = 51. My max ranks would be 10 (5th level +5). Under my system I can quickly choose 5 skills to have max ranks in (with 1 rank left over). My level +3 is 8, so dividing by 8 I could have 6 skills with 8 ranks (3 left over). I decide I want to go with that choice.
To be a 'thug', I think that some traditional rogue skills are in order. I choose Disable Device and Sleight of Hand. I also choose Intimidate and Acrobatics. Perception would be good (since it includes Search, I'm off the hook on another skill sink). So, for the 6th important skill I'm going to choose Stealth (nothing like jumping out of an alley). Now, what to do with those 3 extra skill points? I'm going to use them to describe my character background. I'm putting them in craft (painting). Turns out that my character has a secret that he doesn't tell his thug friends. He likes to paint. And he's getting pretty good at it. Mostly he paints scenes of people being beaten with brass knuckles and the like, and it is pretty graphic and cathartic for him.
Now, why did I take the level of rogue? Well, besides giving me a few more skill points, it gave me something else I really wanted, +1d6 sneak attack. I really liked that concept for my thug, so I wanted to multi-class a bit. I'll probably take another couple of rogue levels so I can get it up to +2d6.
That seems to me to be a pretty easy system that gives pretty good results at all levels of play (accepting, of course, that 1st level characters can't be good at a lot of things to start with).
I like the new list of skills (especially Search, Listen, and Spot all being rolled into Perception plus Move Silently and Hide being rolled into Stealth), but as a player, my slight gripe is that the loss of skill points has reduced fine motor control of skills.
For example, in D&D 3.5, I often spent skill points on Knowledge skills so that I had 1 rank in things like Knowledge: Dungeoneering, regardless of my actual class. Just the 1 rank, but it meant I had a d20 check, a chance to recognise things like oozes. Saved a PCs life more than once, and in one case, saved the whole party of PCs.
Under the new system, I can't do that. It's all or nothing. SO, I'd prefer to keep the new list of skills, but have skill points to spend on them in the old way...
Conan d20 had a good idea, too, in that it allowed you to spend bonus points from high Intelligence or being human on any skill you liked, regardless of class.
I for one really like the Paizo skill system from an ease of play point... but I also feel that for PCs at least that a skill point buy should still exist as a side bar because enough people like that fine of control. Of course if you keep skill points, you have to also tweak it to keep in the same power range as the Paizo system...possibly +1permant skill point/level at the levels that Paizo indicates you get a new skill...
And, IMHO, regardless of whatever is done, cross class skills need to stay otherwise you have tinker with the classes even more to keep them balanced with each other....
|
|
3) We can alter the x4 skill points at 1st level. This causes unintended problems for characters that multiclass and characters that begin with racial levels. Every other 'class benefit' scales up at an even progression, from 1 to 20. Skills break the rule by starting high and then progressing at an even progression. Could you imagine if we started fighters with a BAB of 4, clerics and rogues with +2 and wizards a +1 - why do we do something similar with skills.
4) If we eliminate the x4 bonus, to keep things balanced we must give a slightly faster progression. This means that at 1st-3rd level the number of skills will be just a little lower than 3.5 (no multiplication) but will quickly even out and exceed the levels of other characters.
I don't think we would need to raise the skill points/level for any class, since the fact that several skills are being rolled together means that the PCs are getting effective discounts each level.
My previous post suggested that, instead of giving beginning characters '4 levels of class skill points', we give 'one level of class points', plus '3 levels of 'adolescence' or 'racial' skill points', which could be 4/level, or 6/level, for absolutely everyone (except mindless creatures obviously!), depending on what power level you believe is required.
So, if we were to grant, say one level's worth of skill points +18 at level 1, rogues would still effectively be at the same skill level, despite apparently losing 6 skill points. Everyone else would be slightly better off, from the initial boost, and the combining of skills, so would also have no cause to complain.
|
|
Conan d20 had a good idea, too, in that it allowed you to spend bonus points from high Intelligence or being human on any skill you liked, regardless of class.
I liked that idea too; your Int bonus reflects your hobbies and interests that you have opportunity to keep up with in your spare time, and are totally independent of your day job. As such, they do not have to follow the class/cross-class model.
|
|
"Class" isn't the same as "job." Class isn't just what you do, it's how you think, the way you approach the world. Rogues don't have mad skillz because they work harder at it. They're just of a mind-set that picks up bits and pieces of stuff, everywhere they go. They're also of a mind to sneak up behind people and bonk them on the head (Sneak Attack) instead of challenging them in straight-up combat (Base Attack).
I have to disagree with this. A lot of class is 'job' and some of it might be 'world-view', but the idea behind the class is to provide a 'general' group of abilities that help to define a character concept. That is to say, being a rogue doesn't define the character - the character defines what being a rogue is to them. So, from the character that sneaks around in the shadows and stabs anyone they meet in the back to the dour dwarven locksmith who focuses on traps and precisely calibrating his attacks to do maximum damage - but are represented as members of the rogue class, but both are very different takes on it. The same is true for the other classes. A fighter that takes power attack/cleave/great cleave and wears heavy armor will feel very different from a character that takes dodge, mobility, shot on the run, etc. They will both have 'fighter' on the character sheet, but neither will be defined by that.
And of course, multi-class characters by definition break the mold.
Frankly, most of the "fixes" I see for skills really seem like an excuse to make characters more powerful (although Alpha isn't generally guilty of this, except for rolling skills together, of course).
Alpha isn't guilty of this? I must have misunderstood the rules? Didn't they plan on giving every character max ranks in the number of skills they had at 1st level, and then giving them one additional skill with max ranks every 3 levels or so? So wouldn't every class have 6 more skills than 3.5 at max ranks? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of an extra (6x23) 138 skill points? That sounds like a power up to me.
Long story short, I think that people will accept a system that makes more sense if it doesn't severely weaken characters compared to the current system. That might mean a couple less skill points with consolidated skills for some classes (particularly rogue since many of the rogue skills are in consideration for combination), but for the most part, most people will be more comfortable with a system that is either exactly equivalent or gives a few more skills.
One thing I like about the system I've been proposing and expounding is that the 'power-up' is somewhat limited since it doesn't occur at lower levels. By the time it does come into play, the rest of the system is so influenced by magic that is probably doesn't matter much. A system that works out to be more powerful after 10th level isn't really much more powerful. In addition, the 'benefit' of skills is so much less than for feats or class abilities, that if you're going to make a change to something but don't want to power things up, skills is the place to make that change.