Please remove the INT bonus to how many skills are known and increase the skills known for each class by 2.
This will fix a great deal of strangeness but there are two things in particular I'd like to point out as it fixing
1.) Assume you have a Barbarian with 10 int with the skills climb, jump, listen, and survival. Compare it to a Barbarian with 12 int who has picked up the additional skill ride. Why is the character better able to pick up skills which have nothing to do with int just because he has a higher int?
You know, this is a good point, and it's never occured to me before.
I know back in 2e, you got an Int-based bonus to the number of Proficiencies you got, but you were limited to taking Int- and Wis-based skills; at the time, the mental ones, essentially. Maybe a similar change could be made here, say that your Int bonus can only apply to Int-based skills?
Of course, then there's the problem of why Int gets that bonus and no other stat, so maybe it would make more sense to drop the Int bonus entirely.
Please remove the INT bonus to how many skills are known and increase the skills known for each class by 2.This will fix a great deal of strangeness but there are two things in particular I'd like to point out as it fixing
1.) Assume you have a Barbarian with 10 int with the skills climb, jump, listen, and survival. Compare it to a Barbarian with 12 int who has picked up the additional skill ride. Why is the character better able to pick up skills which have nothing to do with int just because he has a higher int?
2.) Under the current system, a Wizard who maxed out his primary stat has 8 skills. A Sorcerer who has maxed out his primary stat has 2 skills, or 1/4th as many. This leads to cries that the Sorcerer (and the same thing applies to the Fighter) get too few skills. If you change the system to what I've suggested, the Wizard gets 6 skills and the Sorcerer gets 4 - a much more equitable comparison.
Intelligence in D&D is a measure of how well you can learn. Even if a skill has nothing to do with intelligence, per se, the act of learning that skill in the first place does take intelligence. This is also why creatures with no intelligence scores don't have skills.
Plus, from the game mechanics side, no class outside of wizard would ever need to worry about intelligence if it didn't have some bearing on something other than spellcasting. It doesn't modify any saves, so the only bonus anyone other than a wizard has from a high intelligence in this situation is a bonus to intelligence based skills.
* Explain to me what being more intelligent has to do with being able to jump further (that is, what being intelligent has to do with whether or not you can put skill points in skills which have nothing to do with intelligence)
Intelligence has nothing to do with being able to jump farther. But that is not what we are trying to explain to you.
Right or wrong, Intelligence is used as a measure of capacity to learn.
For a thought exercise (no pun intended) on this, imagine five skill sets you know you don't have. Now imagine trying to learn them all at once.
Now try and imagine learning them all at once if you were half as Intelligent as you are.
The Intelligence bonus to skills is supposed to represent that ease, or difficulty, of acquisition.
Those are separate skills. Generally speaking, high school basketball teams are not built up of kids from the chess club and computer club.
You seem to be trying to mix the apples and oranges together and asking what they have to do with each other.
While I agree with your generalization of the High School basketball teams, the reason the Chess and Computer club members aren't on them is usually they don't have the physical attributes to be useful.
But they would likely have an easier time picking up the skills, along with all the other skills they have and are learnihng. They just won't be as good with them.
Intelligence doesn't govern how good you are with physical skills. It governs how much you can learn.
Intelligence bonuses to skill points mean that you learn a given skill more rapidly. Because you learn skills more rapidly, you have the ability to learn more skills in a given time. Thus you can have two characters of identical age, same race, 1st level in the same class that have different numbers of skills mastered. Why? One has a greater ability to learn, reflected in Intelligence, and thus spent less time gaining proficiency in a given skill.
As for the basketball example, you're right in that the game requires a variety of skills. In D&D, certain skills are lumped together. Look at Survival. We call it one skill, but you need that one skill to determine which way is north (orienteering), find food in the wild (foraging, trapping, hunting), and find shelter in the wild against the elements too.
What I think is causing a break here is hidden in the basketball example. Some people are naturally good at physical skills and pick them up easily. Other people learn academic skills just as easily. Another person might be incredibly dextrous and as a result pick up another set of skills easily. I've had friends who could learn any sport you like easily but not grasp more than the movement of the ball and whatnot--no grasp of strategy, only a partial grasp of tactics. They then do average on their classwork and show no great talents toward social skills outside of their own cliques.
The best solution I ever saw was a set of feats from the Scarred Lands books--I think it was the Player's Guide to Rangers and Rogues. There were six feats, one attached to each ability score. When you took the feat, you got a number of skill points on the spot equal to the ability modifier you possessed for that skill. And then every level you got a bonus skill point that could only be spent on a skill with that ability as its basis. You could take Brawny for example and gain skill points equal to your Str bonus, then gain a bonus point each level to put into a Str-based skill. For Pathfinder, maybe the way to go is to say each class gets X number of skills base, then a bonus equal to their modifier in Y, where Y is an assigned ability score. Give each class a couple scores so as to not limit them to always being tank fighters. Maybe make the note they can only take skills with this bonus based off of the same ability score. If you're a rogue and you chose Dex, you can only choose Dex-based skills for these skills. Your base number of skills are unaffected.
Int has to stay generally useful; the design of the game relies on keeping "dump stats" to a minimum. Without the int bonus to skills, nearly every class would be able to dump intelligence with virtually no consequences. Since there is a logical reason for intelligence to generate more skill points (like it or not, it is logical), there's really no reason to remove it only to have to invent some other way to keep int from being a dump stat.
I like the INT plus to skills.it shows how important intelligence can be and how useful.I do however change any class with 2 skills to 4 skills.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Keeping the Int bonus makes Int too important. We run a very skill-intense game. It is very rare to see a PC around here not have Int as one of their three highest stats, regardless of class. But removing the Int bonus to skills would make Int a dump stats for almost everyone.
I think the answer is to give more skill points/picks, thus diminishing the importance of the Int bonus. +2 skills is a lot less if you start have 6 improved to 8 than if you have 2 improved to four.
I've been giving all classes +2 skill point/level for quite some time now.
I just hate seeing every fighter class being moderately brilliant just because they dont have enough skill points otherwise. if you had a 16 and a 12 to build a charisma character, you would probably be better off putting the 16 into intelligence because you didnt have enough skill points to even put half ranks into your social skills, okay you bonus cap is lower,but you are more likely to have a much higher bonus at mid and high levels just because you can put a rank every level. yay im two points higher now, the smart guy over there will have max ranks in bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate at 15th level, being +19 to all those rolls, where Ill be spread thin or missing out being +9 to all those rolls, or +21 to just one, who is the better charisma character now?
I've been giving all classes +2 skill point/level for quite some time now.
We do the same thing, actually. It just seems rather silly when high level characters have abysmally low skill bonuses. High Int is still invaluable in a skill heavy game...as it should be, IMHO.
I think the pathfinder system partially addresses that - however I think that there should be some kind of scaling bonus to untrained skills as well.
|
I also think that an Intelligence bonus should be retained to skills. It is obvious to me that some people pick up skills faster because they learn faster. Since that is assumed to be part of 'D&D Intelligence' that makes sense.
In addition, the people most likely to play basketball or pick it up as a skill in the real world would be people who already have a good 'ability modifier'. Most people will gravitate toward skills that they feel they have a natural advantage - that is to say, most people do things that make them feel good about themselves. So, while a 'brainiac' might be able to master basketball if he put his full effort on it, when he puts his first rank, he'd be at -3 or so relative to everyone else (in D&D terms). If they keep 'max ranks' and he does as well, they'll always be a little better than he is, due to that ability modifier.
At the same time, he'll probably be able to learn some unrelated things. He might learn more about coaching than his companions do, from observing and analyzing the coaches he is with.
|
Plus, from the game mechanics side, no class outside of wizard would ever need to worry about intelligence if it didn't have some bearing on something other than spellcasting. It doesn't modify any saves, so the only bonus anyone other than a wizard has from a high intelligence in this situation is a bonus to intelligence based skills.
That's not totally true. There are a number of INT based skills (Knowledge, Search and so on) that are very dependant on the INT modifier for the Skill Roll itself. The problem is the current implementation and potential misuse of the INT modifier.
I've suggested possibly divorcing INT bonus from Skill Points in the Design Focus thread. I doubt it will get much traction as people love their INT bonus for Skill points/picks (as a number have already chimed in). I think keeping it will always be problamatic, due to calls of wanting retroactive calculation of Skill Points (or Skill Picks under the new system).
For example using the Pathfinder skill method, if a character's INT goes down by 4 points (loss of 2 bonus points) becuase of a long term curse, are you going to tell that player that he has to pick two skills that can only be used untrained? Under v3.5 the loss would be 2*(Character Level+3) of Skill Points.
I think this is one reason why currently under v3.5 they don't have retroactive bonuses for INT. It makes recalculating Skills even more tedious. This has the added side affect that when Skills are bought during Level Advancement with the current INT modifier in mind, it's nearly impossible to say with certainty what a character's absolute maximum number skill points he should have. I've just checked the PHB and page 58 (sub heading Skill Points) it specifically says that Skill Point from INT bonus are gained "at each level" and "does not count temporary adjustments." The problem is I've had power gamers retroactively "up" their skill points, but if their INT goes down, they don't adjust accordingly. So Skill inflation occurs to people not properly following the rules. It becomes nearly impossible to know whether a player has been following the rules as well. The best I can do is to make sure the skill points don't exceed the potential maximum calculation. Unfortantely players don't keep a history of the permanant attribute changes so I can't tell if he should actually have less.
The only way to make v3.5 Skill Points work so that a derivable maximum number is known at any given time is to have standard progressions ala DeadDMWalking (12/8/4 depending on class) and probably a 1st level Kicker. For my games instead of the x4 at first level, characters get INT Score x 2 points kicker. It's still dependant on INT but you would only get the points at first level thereby reducing the impact of a per Level calculation.
And though I still prefer the Skill Point method (I am warming to the new mechanic), being a DM I sympathize with the people that want to move to the Pathfinder Skill mechanic as it will make traking skills easier for the DM. Under the current Pathfinder rules then INT bonus only comes into play at first level when picking skills and doesn't affect future picks.
Ultimately the question becomes how do we minimize the impact of INT bonus on the per Level calculation of skills that doesn't cause DMs to pull the rest of their hair out.
* Explain to me what being more intelligent has to do with being able to jump further (that is, what being intelligent has to do with whether or not you can put skill points in skills which have nothing to do with intelligence)
I'm probably joining this conversation late... but here are my thoughts on this.
How many basketball stars do you see in Advanced courses in highschool/college. Answer: Only the really smart ones. Why? Because with a 8 Int., you can only learn so many skills... and if you choose running, jumping and shooting hoops, then you don't have the time or mental resources to pick up other skills like Knowledge (History).
Let's look at jumping... there's a rather long wiki article on long jumps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Jump), including a detailed discussion of specific aspects of how to make the long jump. It seems to me that the difference between someone like me (untrained in jumping) and someone like Jesse Owens (Long Jump world record holder) is that while I can run, jump, and see where I land, he had the technique down and knew what to do on approach, those last two steps, the take off, what to do while in the air and how to land. In short, he had spent time thinking about HOW TO make the long jump, and then he spent time putting the theory to practice.
Every skill... whether it be Knowledge (History) or Swimming is going to have a component based upon how well the individual understands the area and their degree of practice with it. Someone on the Chess Team is likely trained in Knowledge (Tactics)... they are also likely to be smart enough to have done well in a number of other areas as well. Each skill takes some mental energy and dedication to learn, and time to practice. If you're particularly Intelligent, you can pick up the theory faster... and if you're really smart, you can probably get by with less practice to become good at it.
I guess from my perspective, a question like "What does Int. have to do with learning skills?" doesn't make a lot of sense... it has everything to do with learning skills!!!
Take away Int. and there will be less of a difference between two characters of the same class. And, why would a Rogue want a high Int? They get just as many skills as any other Rogue. The only character that wants a high Int. is a Wizard... for everyone else, it becomes a dump stat.
I don't see that as a good change to the game. In fact, this was the first thing from 4e that really had me cringing.
Keep it. Do want!
Mike
I'd much rather have characters who have "too many" skills than characters with too few.
This is one of my player's pet peeves about 3E, too. It's really a hangover from the way the skills system developed in D&D through the different editions. Ideally, perhaps, you'd get bonus skill points from each ability that could only be spent on skills tied to that ability - so that high Int only enhances Int-based skills, etc. However, I couldn't see an easy way to adjust the current skills system to allow that.
|
|
This is one of my player's pet peeves about 3E, too. It's really a hangover from the way the skills system developed in D&D through the different editions. Ideally, perhaps, you'd get bonus skill points from each ability that could only be spent on skills tied to that ability - so that high Int only enhances Int-based skills, etc. However, I couldn't see an easy way to adjust the current skills system to allow that.
INT indicates how well the character learns things, plain and simple.
The stat mod bonus to skills indicates inate talent at certain types; thus DEX adding to many athletic skills.
The current setup for using INT on skills is good; anything else would get as hokey and complex as 3.0 psionics and how they related to stats.
No, I understand what you are saying. What I'm trying to point out to you is that it doesn't make sense.
Consider, you are learning to play basketball. You've got to learn to dribble, shoot, pass, fake, and keep track of the other players. Those are separate skills. Generally speaking, high school basketball teams are not built up of kids from the chess club and computer club.
This doesn't bother me in the slightest. It would bother me greatly if intelligence suddenly became a dump stat for every class other than wizard which is what would happen if everyone were getting +2 more skills than they already are and the Int bonus to skills was eliminated. Int bonus to skills may not make sense where the physical skills are concerned, but it makes great sense for game balance.
None of the classes need more skills than they have especially under Pathfinder Alpha where so many of the skills have been combined. It only takes 4 skills to master Search, Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Disable Device, Open Locks, and Sleight of Hand.
Please DO NOT get rid of Int based bonuses to skills because it causes intelligence not to be a dump-stat for all the characters minus the wizard. Being able to pick 2 extra skills due to high intelligence makes it of value for other classes. I like this feature very much and it makes sense to me... the smarter you are, the more you learn, and it also shows that intelligence effects things that don't just have to do with booksmarts.
A smart barbarian has been able to learn the better parts of trusting his perception and the care and training of animals quicker than the rest of his tribe, even though he has no idea how to read. A clever young fighter is better at learning techniques that deal with muscle memory and has learned to jump and climb quicker than most of the other warriors he's trained with, along with picking up some skills like keeping an eye on his surroundings to be wary of attack. This deems intelligence and intelligence should have some kind of significant advantage besides casting wizardly spells.
Please do not remove the INT bonus from skills, thus making it near-worthless for well over half the classes as long as the wizard or bard is around to make the knowledge checks.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
I like INT bonus to skill points for humanoids and creatures who are expected to have some kind of "society."
For monsters, it stinks. It forces a glut of "racial bonuses" just to keep animals, vermin, magical beasts, etc competetive in their own natural environments. Most of them don't even have "survival" as class skills because to stay matched with PC's they need to dump all available skill points into spot/listen.
There needs to be some kind of "natural cunning" bonus feat for such creatures that allows them to use WIS as a skill modifier. Or something that makes them good at surviving/flourishing in their own habitats.
No, I understand what you are saying. What I'm trying to point out to you is that it doesn't make sense.
Consider, you are learning to play basketball. You've got to learn to dribble, shoot, pass, fake, and keep track of the other players. Those are separate skills. Generally speaking, high school basketball teams are not built up of kids from the chess club and computer club.
If you want some realism, you need to make stats matter far more in skills than mere training. You'd have to do something like add twice (or thrice) your stat bonus to your skill.
* Explain to me what being more intelligent has to do with being able to jump further (that is, what being intelligent has to do with whether or not you can put skill points in skills which have nothing to do with intelligence)Intelligence has nothing to do with being able to jump farther. But that is not what we are trying to explain to you.
Right or wrong, Intelligence is used as a measure of capacity to learn.
For a thought exercise (no pun intended) on this, imagine five skill sets you know you don't have. Now imagine trying to learn them all at once.
Now try and imagine learning them all at once if you were half as Intelligent as you are.
The Intelligence bonus to skills is supposed to represent that ease, or difficulty, of acquisition.
No, I understand what you are saying. What I'm trying to point out to you is that it doesn't make sense.
Consider, you are learning to play basketball. You've got to learn to dribble, shoot, pass, fake, and keep track of the other players. Those are separate skills. Generally speaking, high school basketball teams are not built up of kids from the chess club and computer club.
As a guy who lettered in 3 sports in high school 2 years in a row, was in 2 sports in college, has competed professionally in a sport and now teaches people a sport...not to mention a member of the chess club in high school, I would say that your assumption is completely wrong... though perhaps you just haven't had that much contact with athletes.
Physical skills take their own kind of intelligence, and the best athletes learn these where people just as strong and fast cannot. Their is physical and mechanical intelligence required in almost every sport. I teach and for some people learning technique is a long difficult process and for some it's like teaching a fish to swim. These techniques aren't just based on physical strength or speed, but hand-eye coordination, being aware of your opponents position even if you cannot see it, physical mechanics of both involved, and the process of doing it in a dynamic situation where both people are moving. This is VERY difficult for some people to learn even if they are more than physically capable of the act. Simply put, being quicker or stronger is in no way a substitute for quality technique and quick critical thinking skills in most sports...even ones like boxing, grappling, MMA, and wrestling (or perhaps I should say especially...these are what I currently teach).
While we're here discussing the Int bonus to skills, might I make a humble suggestion:
Make Int increases retroactive in skill point bonuses.
In other words, if my rogue goes from a 15 int to a 16 int at level 8, I want him to get 8 new skill points.
Because statting up higher level characters is a major pain in the butt in this regard, since you have to keep track of skill points prior to an int boost, and skill points after an int boost.