Gentlegolems,
Regardless of whether or not you use your new Pathfinder skill system, which I like, or continue with the old 3E skill point system, 2 Skills or 2 Skill points per level is just too damned few skill points.
Why do the classes have to have gaps of "2"?
Consider the following:
4 = Wizard
5 = Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorceror
6 = Barbarian, Druid, Monk
7 = Ranger
8 = Bard
9 = Rogue
man plenty of thread for this but my take is
4 = Wizard
4 = Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorceror
4 = Barbarian, Druid, Monk
6 = Ranger
6 = Bard
6 = Rogue
if the combined skills are kept
man plenty of thread for this but my take is
4 = Wizard
4 = Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorceror
4 = Barbarian, Druid, Monk
6 = Ranger
6 = Bard
6 = Rogueif the combined skills are kept
I can respect that.
yeah I never use that 2 skill point junk.it just dont make any sence .
I don't see why Wizards, who spend all their time LEARNING always have such low skill points. They have a lot of knowledges to add to there.
They've got high Int bonuses, or they'd be lousy wizards. That means (a) more skills, and (b) higher bonus on Knowledge skills they do have.
Wizards tend to be alright with their high Int scores.
I wouldn't mind adding some skill points - if skill points are used, but I'd say the gaps are the right size. If you want to do something, give anyone 2 extra skill points. Together with the Great Skill Consolidation of '08, everyone should be fine.
Let's see what they'll do with skills - there's a big overhaul going on. The skill point problem is not unknown, so I guess that should they go back to skill points, the numbers might go up (unless they think that with the consolidations, everything's fine now).
And in current PRPG, the extra skills you get every other level should mean that sooner or later, you'll have all you need. (The problem's just that class doesn't matter at all after 1st level)