|
While I am personally indifferent to skill points vs. skill training, I see one critical reason for keeping skill points - i.e., all the classes and prestige classes that aren't going to be in the PRPG.
Because Pathfinder is being developed so that our 3.5 books remain viable, I'd rather not have to strain my brain too much on adapting each book to fit the PRPG. Granted, I anticipate having to do so with condensed skills, and I'm fine with this, but unless there's a nice standard rule of thumb for the amount of skills trained, simply sticking with points will probably be easier.
Also, as an aside, I'd really like Paizo to include in its final edition a cheat sheet for re-fitting all my 3.5's. You know, some general rules of thumb that I can flip to . . . and in time, memorize.
Man hide +8 is just stealth +8 .then 6 ranks in knowledge bookbinder is a +6 . just say base. so to get a +6 you would be level 3 . for a +8 you would be level 5 just where you are with skill points.This is not an issue.
No offense to the OP but this thread could've been posted in a number of other skill points discussions.
No offense to Paizo and other posters but there is an awful lot of clog in the forums with x number of threads all about the same topics.
There is a nice rule about how many skills you have: At 1st level, you get whatever's in your class description (so a rogue who used to get 8+int skill points per level starts with 8+int skills) and then you get one every other level.
PrC's don't figure into it at all, since you never start with them. And even if they did, you'd just use the number of skill points the class gets.