New skill system - why?


Skills & Feats


I have finally finished reading the alpha pdf. I have to say I'm a bit puzzled about the new skill system. It feels like the rationale of such a massive overhaul was not explained in the document. I know this is still work in progress and I'm sure that the authors have very good reasons that I'm not simply aware of.

So I would be eager to know what are the problems in 3.5 that the new skill rules are trying to fix? I don't remember our group ever bumping into major snags with the old rules, apart from a few silly things such as the separation of Spot and Search for instance.

Note that I haven't decided yet whether I like the new system or not, although it feels like the new rules are trying to fix something that isn't broken.


MANY people have been extremely vehement about how assigning skill ranks is "too much work." I'll admit that if you have some monsters with class levels, figuring out cross-class skills ranks is a real chore; Jason Bulmahn gave some excellent examples. SO it worked great for players, but was a headache for people writing adventures.

Simply changing x-class skills rules to 1 rank per point, but keeping the max = 1/2 (level+3) would have simplified the 3.5e process considerably. Combining skills as shown makes it easier still. But the logic of a total paradigm shift to the Saga system with very limited if any backward compatibility, while puzzling to me, must have seemed like a good idea at the time.


Man try to explain the 3.5 skills to new players . that is the hardiest thing to do I swear. and the Dming headache yep its damned hard on me. the alpha system solved both issues . my group loves it.Hell even the diehard skill point junky loved it after using it. great improvement in my book.


Ok, I'm mostly using published adventures so I haven't seen the problem of setting up skill points for monsters and NPCs to be too much manual work. But if I were in the position of writing adventures I would certainly use a spreadsheet (or perhaps try to find or write a custom program) to track the skill points. With decent automation I wonder how hard that really is...

Anyway, I believe that monsters don't need to follow skill rules exactly as written. The skills are mostly geared towards human like creatures anyways (e.g. consider Profession, Craft, Knowledge). A fish is a good swimmer, a horse not a particularly good climber. So why not assign skill points for monsters based on common sense? However, I can see how this might affect game balance and make judging CRs more difficult.

I'm not particularly fond of monsters with classes and/or cross-class skills either.

For NPCs the situation is different of course and should follow the rules.

And I don't have difficulties explaining the skill rules to new players :-)


I have 4 new player . and I mean new to any kind of RPG they just had a really hard time getting it. Dont know why they just really stuggled with it. The new system I showed em one time and they got it. maybe its just my players IDk but it was a really big issue. max points per level and all .


Krovenko wrote:
But if I were in the position of writing adventures I would certainly use a spreadsheet to track the skill points.

That makes it a lot easier. I've got a spreadsheet that does skills, hp (handy for when HD change, elite array or size changes the Con score, etc.), and attack bonuses. Statting complex examples -- even monsters with levels in multiple classes -- is a breeze. But then again, I kind of like building monsters. For people who view it as a chore, I can understand how even with a spreadsheet, they wouldn't want to do it. Then again, for those people, there's always Pathfinder and Game Mastery modules.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Krovenko wrote:
But if I were in the position of writing adventures I would certainly use a spreadsheet to track the skill points.
That makes it a lot easier. I've got a spreadsheet that does skills, hp (handy for when HD change, elite array or size changes the Con score, etc.), and attack bonuses. Statting complex examples -- even monsters with levels in multiple classes -- is a breeze. But then again, I kind of like building monsters. For people who view it as a chore, I can understand how even with a spreadsheet, they wouldn't want to do it. Then again, for those people, there's always Pathfinder and Game Mastery modules.

First, IMO, no tabletop RPG should have any ruleset so complex that it forces people to use a computer program.

Second, just because there are those who don't want to use a spreadsheet to do all the math for them, doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing it for themselves, hence using pathfinder or other modules.

I stat out most of the NPCs for my games and, though it was always a pain, used no spreadsheets for the skills. According to your generalization because I view it as a chore and don't use a spreadsheet to help, I should only be capable of using pre-made adventures.

Actually, as you are on these boards, it would make sense that you also use pre-made adventures, so obviously there is some part of the game that must be too much of a chore for you to do yourself... That makes sense doesn't it?

In the future, I'd ask that you keep your snide remarks to yourself.


Lance Schroeder wrote:
Second, just because there are those who don't want to use a spreadsheet to do all the math for them, doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing it for themselves, hence using pathfinder or other modules. In the future, I'd ask that you keep your snide remarks to yourself.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
For people who view it as a chore, I can understand how even with a spreadsheet, they wouldn't want to do it. Then again, for those people, there's always Pathfinder and Game Mastery modules.

You'll see that I said "wouldn't want to do it", not "are incapable of doing it." I offered a suggestion for making 3.5 skills assigment easier, offered the caveat that it may still be a chore, and followed up my caveat with a sales pitch for Paizo (whose boards these are). I have nothing at all against premade adventures when they're good (and Paizo's most often are), and I enjoy writing my own as well. If I didn't, I'd stick with Paizo's.

There was nothing snide in my remarks, only in the way you misread them.


Good people, let's not fight over this :-)

My remark for using a spreadsheet was mainly intended so that the pros who do this type of work all the time are probably already doing this to speed up their work.

But if cross-class skills is the problem why not simply ditch them like Kirth explained? 1 point / rank regardless of cross-class or not but retaining the max ranks sounds like a reasonable idea to me.

Somehow I feel this alone could not have been the reason for the complete overhaul though...

Liberty's Edge

The 3.5 has two major 'problems' that caused the Alpha to be proposed. The Alpha is not the final system, and it has been said that Paizo was willing to go MUCH further with the Alpha to see how far players are willing to go, and generate more debate than 'minor tweaks' might initially.

So, the Alpha system will be changed. That much has already been revealed. What form that will take remains a mystery.

The major problems with the 3.5 skill system is that you have to know all about a creature when assigining skills. You need to know what their first HD was (whether it was a class or racial), and you need to know the order of their levels. This is not true when you're dealing with a single classed creature without racial HD. But take a human fighter 1/Rogue 2. It makes a big difference whether the fighter level or the rogue level was first. It also matters what order subsequent levels were taken. For example, if the rogue level was first and second, and the fighter level was 3rd, you'd expect the rogue to have 5 ranks in the skills that most matter (purchased as class skills). But if the rogue takes rogue/fighter/rogue the most important skills can have 6 ranks (all purchased as class skills).

The hardest thing and the biggest problem, however, is in checking someone else's stat block. The number of skill points spent is 'invisible' when some are spent on cross-class skills. If you're an editor for a monthly adventure book that includes 15+ stat blocks, you better bet you'd want a system where you can quickly ascertain whether your writers did it correctly.

There are certainly a number of solutions that are floating around. Among them are eliminating the x4 at 1st level, allowing cross class skills to be purchased for a single rank but retaining the cross-class skill cap, eliminating cross class skills completely, using the Alpha as written, and a few combinations of various ideas.


Thank you, DeadDMWalking. This was very helpful.


DeadDMWalking wrote:
The hardest thing and the biggest problem, however, is in checking someone else's stat block. The number of skill points spent is 'invisible' when some are spent on cross-class skills. If you're an editor for a monthly adventure book that includes 15+ stat blocks, you better bet you'd want a system where you can quickly ascertain whether your writers did it correctly.

Yeah, someone once proposed putting the skill points in parenthesis as a quick fix for this issue: Balance (0) +4, Knowledge (religion) (4) +2, Tumble (5) +7, etc. Doing so doesn't help any of the other issues, though, so I can see why Paizo didn't go that route. Also, it would extend the length of some of your bigger skill blocks (like for high HD outsiders).


Is it really that complex? you gain these many points this level and you can spend them on these things, if you want anything else it cost double.

Done.

The only time this becomes a problem is when you are the DM making monsters but hoestly in my time as a DM I have maybe planned and built 3 monsters/villians. I come fo the school of DMing where you make it up as you go along, yeah I think about things ahead of time but I rarely use it or its more of a big picture thing.

Skills arnt that bad rarely do monsters need to use them anyway, most DMs knows whats fair for a monster to know.


himwhoscallediam wrote:
The only time this becomes a problem is when you are the DM making monsters but hoestly in my time as a DM I have maybe planned and built 3 monsters/villians. I come fo the school of DMing where you make it up as you go along, yeah I think about things ahead of time but I rarely use it or its more of a big picture thing. Skills arnt that bad rarely do monsters need to use them anyway, most DMs knows whats fair for a monster to know.

I suspect that Paizo's prestige would suffer if, for the skills section on stat blocks, every monster said

Skills whatever you think is fair


Kirth Gersen wrote:

I suspect that Paizo's prestige would suffer if, for the skills section on stat blocks, every monster said

Skills whatever you think is fair

Is it better to select appropriate skills for monster/creature base on your common sense or distributing a number of skills pts based on Hit Dice because the rules say so? So a squirrel get least skills pts to distribute than a grizzly bear only because he got less Hit Dice.... brilliant game design...


yes. There needs to be a solid system.It should be the same system for players and villains.I love the simple ease of the alpha system. My players loved it . I like how you gain skills based on level ,skills that grow with you it needs some polish yes but it is I believe the better system.

Liberty's Edge

etrigan wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

I suspect that Paizo's prestige would suffer if, for the skills section on stat blocks, every monster said

Skills whatever you think is fair

Is it better to select appropriate skills for monster/creature base on your common sense or distributing a number of skills pts based on Hit Dice because the rules say so? So a squirrel get least skills pts to distribute than a grizzly bear only because he got less Hit Dice.... brilliant game design...

I agree that the skill system needs to work the same way for Monsters and PCs. And the fact that some people make few villians or NPCs using complete stat blocks does not mean that others don't. In order to be fair I want to know what skills the villain COULD have. They might not come up, but if the villain ends up in a situation that I don't expect, I think it is a little unfair to decide at that moment whether he has ranks in jump or not.

If I do it in advance, I know that I'm not 'altering' the monster or villain to make things easier or harder on my group. I think that most players like to know that the abilities and hit points of the monster they fight are determined ahead of time, not 'as many as it takes to make the story interesting'.

Regarding squirrels and bears - bears do have more skills. They live a lot longer than the average squirrel, and as predators they tend to be more intelligent. Squirrels don't even have a good memory (they can't find most of the nuts they hide) but a bear does. While Hit Dice may not always be the most appropriate measure for how skilled someone can be, to be useful in game they need to abstract a very complex system, and for the most part the skills do a good job. Once ever skill point spent becomes 'visible' on the stat block, I think that will go a long way toward fixing the problem. If cross class skills cost the same as class skills, but you have a lower maximum, the problem is solved. And classes that really couldn't afford to buy a cross-class skill might (even though they won't get as many ranks in it - it won't cost them 2x the skill points).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I think the biggest reason for the change (especially the new skill every even level) is that most classes in 3.x are starved for skill points. Except for the bard (6 + Int mod), ranger (6 + Int mod), rogue (8 + Int mod), and possibly barbarian (4 + Int mod) and druid (4 + Int mod), the classes mostly lack the skill points to do what they should be able to do. The wizard may come close, but only because it needs a high Int anyway.

If the skill points for cleric, fighter, paladin, sorcerer, and wizard are raised from 2 + Int to 4 + Int and the skill points for monk are raised from 4 + Int to 6 + Int, along with skill consolidation similar to the Alpha Release and possibly reducing the number of or eliminating the half-cost mechanic while keeping the lowered max (or perhaps keeping the half-cost while eliminating the lowered max) for cross-class skills, then most of the problem would dissapear, IMO. You'd have one class with 8 + Int mod skills, three classes with 6 + Int mod skills, and everyone else has 4 + Int mod skills, instead of one 8+, two 6+, three 4+, and five 2+. The optional OGL/SRD Maximum Ranks, Limited Choices system for assigning skill ranks could be referenced for those who don't wish to bother with tracking each skill point.

Liberty's Edge

I'm really looking forward to the Alpha 2 Document due out soon.

From the teaser given on the Blog, we have the following information about skills:

6th level
Str 18, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 12
Feats: Intimidating Prowess,
Skills Acrobatics +4, Climb +7, Intimidate +12, Perception +9, Stealth +1, Survival +7

Just taking out the ability modifiers we have skills as follows:

Acrobatics +4, Climb +3, Intimidate +8 (assuming Intimidating Prowess allows Str instead of Chr), Perception +9, Stealth +0, Survival +7.

Now, there were armor check penalties, presumably. She's wearing Hide Armor, so adding +3 (the AC check penalty to the above) we should have:

Acrobatics +7, Climb +6, Intimidate +8, Perception +9, Stealth +3, Survival +7.

Totalling the ranks, that gives us the equivalent of 40 ranks. This does not divide evenly by 6 or by 9 - but there was a discrepancy on the Perception check between the skills section and the 'senses' section - reducing the skill by 2 points. Same problem with 38 ranks. Not easily divisible. I'll assume that I made a mistake and that there are supposed to be 42 ranks - that would imply 7 ranks per level w/ no multiplication at 1st level.

Since she has an intelligence penalty, can we assume that this means a default of 8 skill points a level for the Barbarian? \

If this 'teaser' means what I think it means on skills, I'm pretty happy.


Im not saying that my appoarch to skills should be canon but that monster skills arnt really the important issue. Player skills matter most, and I think they should get points that they can spread out.

Dark Archive

I wanted to also mention that for many people skill points did not make the game more fun. I do know for some like Girth skill points does make the game more fun. If an involved skill system does not make the system more fun then change it to making it easier and then more playing and less tracking is the result.

I think it is also very IMPORTANT to remember that you do not have use the new skill system. If you like 3.5 skill points you already have everything you need for it. I am positive there will be conversion notes between the old and new version. Paizo can not change your 3.5 books. If you do not mind the math and tracking of 3.5 skills then I doubt any conversion would bother you at all. (This only applies to published adventures. If you do not use published adventures then nothing would change for you.) Doubt it will be any more difficult to convert then using the 3.5 skill system as is.

All my opinions of course. :)


after seeing the blog it seems skill points are back in.Pitty but I'll give it a fair shake like I did the alpha system and see.

Dark Archive

Design Focus Skills Thread

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.

Take the following examples...

1 - Add 8 levels of ranger to a troll. Make sure to account for the upgrade to the elite array (which might affect Int).

2 - Build the skills for the following character: Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Fighter 2/Arcane Archer 4. Remember that the character's Int score increased from 14 to 15 at 4th, and to 16 at 8th.

3 - Build a party of rival 9th level adventurers to challenge the PCs. Aside from equipment (which I will get to in a later release), the skills are going to be the time consuming component.

Remember that a GM might have to tackle these problems once a week during game prep. If we can change the system to one that takes even half the time to work out, we will allow GMs to spend a lot more time coming up with fun games and a lot less time doing tedious math.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Keep Skill Points Thread

Jason Bulmahn wrote:


- I too, like the flexibility of skill points as a player. From a GMs perspective though, they can be a bit of a nightmare, especially at higher levels. This was the primary reason the ranks were pulled.

- We also changed to the selection system to give some of the "lower skill progression" classes a bit of a boost. 20th level fighters tend to be great at just two skills, and completely untrained in all the rest. Although this eats into the rogue role a bit, we added to its role in other ways to balance.

- There was a thought in earlier notes of allowing you to "split a selection" to get two skills at a lower bonus (1/2 level + ability mod or 1/4 for cross class) to represent a sort of Hobby skills.

- There was also a variant that gave you a pair of Hobby skills directly that had to be chosen from a set list (craft, profession, perform, etc) that represented training and dabbling in non-adventuring skills.

- In the end there was one other problem I want to bring up that led to the change. If you wanted to be truly good at specific skills, you pretty much had to max ranks, meaning that this system and the old were pretty similar (in the end). If you split up your points, it took quite some time to have any real proficiency (this is a thin arguement, I know, but it is true for a number of skills, not all though). In the end, it seemed simpler just to assume max and give you more skills to play with.

Thoughts? I am not set on this decision, but I do like it right now. I just wanted to give you all a few extra nuggets to chew on. Please continue...

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer


I agree 100% that there are some areas in which the system desperately needs streamlining, especially for DMs. 2:1 cross-class skills, synergy bonuses, and (often) back-figuring original Int bonuses are an absolute pain in the neck.

The problem with the "each player picks Alpha or 3.5" solution is that the 3.5 people get seriously hosed in terms of skills -- not only do they not get extra "freebies" as they rise in level, but their early skill picks continue to improve regardless of whether they multiclass into a fewer-skills class. Add that to the fact that skill consolidation in Alpha makes a few skill "points" potentially count for more. If everyone in a campaign sticks with 3.5, but Paizo goes with the Alpha 1 system, then NPCs will always seriously outclass the PCs in terms of skills, forcing people running those adventures to either spend a lot of time converting or to increase/decrease skill ranks on the fly arbitrarily, which seriously calls into question game balance.

If the Alpha were downgraded a bit and the multiclassing rules fixed, and the 3.5 allowed to use the combined skills, then maybe some sort of parity could be approached.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 1 / Skills & Feats / New skill system - why? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Skills & Feats