I was very excited to see the improvements pathfinder made to the skill system (which was, honestly, kind of a clusterfrakk before). I was blown away at the simplicity and elegance of the system. It allows players to pick up new skills without sacrificing their old skills, something the old system never did. Not to mention, it actually makes a character capable of having a number of skills (an average intellegence warrior should be able to jump, climb, sneak a little, and spot an ambush without being completely incompetent at every skill).
I'm aware some players complain that the system is oversimplified, but I think it was done quite well. Honestly, those players can just take skill focus if they want to specialize.
Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.
Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.
If you look at the blog post about the barbarian, it looks like she is using skill points.
Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.If you look at the blog post about the barbarian, it looks like she is using skill points.
real pity that.
|
real pity that.Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.If you look at the blog post about the barbarian, it looks like she is using skill points.
The new skills were my favorite part as well.
I would like to see a hybrid of the two systems (allocating skill points really didnt trouble any of my games, but i do like the raising base skill bonus)
real pity that.
Indeed. I was really looking forward to seeing skill points go.
|
|
Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.If you look at the blog post about the barbarian, it looks like she is using skill points.
I do not know why you think it is skill points that have created those stats. A hybrid system could just as easily create those skills. The only thing it could not be is the current alpha system.
I do not know why you think it is skill points that have created those stats. A hybrid system could just as easily create those skills. The only thing it could not be is the current alpha system.Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.If you look at the blog post about the barbarian, it looks like she is using skill points.
I haven't run the numbers for the hybrid system, but its exactly the number of skill points she would have as a 6th level barbarian with her intelligence . . . 27. I'd be amazed if skill points and the hybrid system are this similar in results.
Edit: I just tried to use the hybrid system, as proposed in the Design Focus thread, and I couldn't get those numbers to come out.
I do not know why you think it is skill points that have created those stats. A hybrid system could just as easily create those skills. The only thing it could not be is the current alpha system.Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.If you look at the blog post about the barbarian, it looks like she is using skill points.
Perhaps, but most likely it would have to a system at least as "complex" as using skill points to do it. Which defeats the purpose of not using skill points. So I think the easier explanation is that they are actually using skill points. Of course I could be wrong, that is why I said, "..., it looks like ...".
I liked the new system I just wasn't in the mood to battle for it.. the 4E hate clouds a lot of judgment to good mechanics.
Bad thing is most of the biggest complainers it seemed didn't even try to use it.I have loved it .I'll give the new system a shot but skill points with paint covering the flaws doesn't fix anything.
|
Bad thing is most of the biggest complainers it seemed didn't even try to use it.I have loved it .I'll give the new system a shot but skill points with paint covering the flaws doesn't fix anything.
Yeah I noticed that very early on. A lot of people are too busy offering up their "fix" for the game instead of giving feedback on if Paizo's fix works or not in their game. Hence two lengthy 15 minute adventuring day threads.
Well, once again, making up another gang of rogues it took no time at all to figure up the NPCs. However, I did notice that, for what I wanted these guys to be (more or less thugs), they seem a bit "overskilled" for what I envisioned.
But seriously, no time at all on the skills.
Well, once again, making up another gang of rogues it took no time at all to figure up the NPCs. However, I did notice that, for what I wanted these guys to be (more or less thugs), they seem a bit "overskilled" for what I envisioned.
But seriously, no time at all on the skills.
AN easy way to fix that is 1 level of warrior then go rogue.Better armor and weapons very little skills.
AN easy way to fix that is 1 level of warrior then go rogue.Better armor and weapons very little skills.Well, once again, making up another gang of rogues it took no time at all to figure up the NPCs. However, I did notice that, for what I wanted these guys to be (more or less thugs), they seem a bit "overskilled" for what I envisioned.
But seriously, no time at all on the skills.
Yeah, but I specifically wanted just a "challenging" encounter, with the PCs outnumbered, and a higher level leader, which meant I had to go with rogue and only rogue for their class, since the whole band except the leader is 1st level.
I wanted them to have a decent chance to sneak, and cross classing that skill at first level wouldn't have done much for them.
Its a good point for higher level characters though.
Best hold your accolades until next release; we've been told the skill system has been changed, but there as been no elaboration as to what extent.If you look at the blog post about the barbarian, it looks like she is using skill points.
Yeah, if this happens bye bye Pathfinder for me.
Yeah, if this happens bye bye Pathfinder for me.
Seriously? You have your entire investment in the system in skill ranks/skill points? That seems a bit heavily weighted toward one aspect of a rather large game.
I suppose I can see the complaint that chars may end up overskilled, but I'd err on the side of too many over too few. There were too few in 3.5 and things honestly just ended up being silly. Personally, I think most people should gain a familiarity (about the level of maxed cross class) with at least half those skills. Everyone should have at least a small chance to disbelieve a really talented liar, not just those who focused half their career on sensing his motives.
Let him go.Seriously? You have your entire investment in the system in skill ranks/skill points? That seems a bit heavily weighted toward one aspect of a rather large game.Yeah, if this happens bye bye Pathfinder for me.
Well, I wouldn't say I feel that strongy about it. But I can understand his feeling. Frankly, it's annoying to see player feedback destroy something good.
It is a shame this as the one thing that all my players liked, hands down from the new system
|
|
I won't try to defend my point of view on skil points vs. skill system. I liked the combining of most of the skills, some not so much. The only complaint my players had was that the new system made everyone the same. Every rogue with the same base skills and the same ability score were exactly the same. With the old skill point system, a new skill didn't automatically jump to be equal (minus ability score modifier) to an older more established skill. Other than that, I liked what I saw. My players just decided that the old system worked better, even after adjusting the Rogue skill points down to 6 + INT modifer (because of the consolidated skills.)
|
|
A) You like to customize your skills and hate the alpha system because it takes that away from you.
Except we haven't seen skill focus or any other skill related feats, so how do you know skills aren't customizable further.. it's alpha.
B) You don't want to mess with your skill and want a system that is fire and forget. You don't want to deal figuring where to put out skill points, and hate the 3.5 system.
I'm all for customizing skills and honestly without seeing the rest of 3P how can you say there's no customization for sure? But we'll never see that because people didn't even give it a chance, just posted hate when they weren't even playing with the rules (and in the case of many, didn't even looks like PF customers.)
I don't think the 2 are incompatible with each other, because even 3.5 allows both, it just does not state it explicitly. The best solution would be to have a skill point system with a side bar that gives the option of auto maxing class base skills+int(or, the alpha system). The effect is the same, and gives the best of both world.
No it's not the best solution. Side bars are side bars, nothing more. You can't have a party with people using skill points AND alpha system. A game with a DM wanting to use rules his players don't want to use is an unhappy game. It's one uniform system in the Core book or it's not a system that works at all. "Options" belong is secondary books, not core books.
In any case, we'll probably never see what the next step was for skills since so many think skill points are so much better.. when they're not actually more limiting since you can't get all the skill you want.
Seriously? You have your entire investment in the system in skill ranks/skill points? That seems a bit heavily weighted toward one aspect of a rather large game.Yeah, if this happens bye bye Pathfinder for me.
The skills was one of about three things PRPG did that I liked (The other two being the Races and the Rogue). I sounded a bit more doomist than I wanted but that is a blow against PRPG for me.
I hope that the skill system does not change or does not change much. I like it a lot more than the old 3.5 system. I may use it even though Pathfinder moves on from it.
I second. Mister B. came out with a list of good reasons why to drop the point system. I hope he will stick to his first idea.
I hope the new skill system will be kept. Works well with a level based system and is streamlined. I know I will be using skill focus as a way to give my characters a little extra something for the skills I want to make a defining point.
Can't wait.
Voice of dissent here. I detested the skill system that was proposed in Alpha Release 1...actually I detested it when I first saw it in Star Wars Saga. It reminded me way too much of the old non-weapon proficienies from 2nd edition.
I much prefer the skill point system as player. I prefer the ability to customize my skills (it has a more organic and realistic feel to me)I think the max-out option should be kept as a sidebar though. Especially since it can make the game easier for the game master and for new players and new game masters.
The problems I had with the system presented in AR1 was how much it straightjacketed options and I found the skill aquisition at higher level deeply flawed ("I get a new skill at 8th level and i start with a bonus of +11 or +5"). The sudden surge of proficiency bothers me and I like the option to play a character who dabbles in several skills instead of focusing on a specific set and maxing them out.
The skill point system was a large part of why I started playing D&D again after walking away from 2nd edition in favor of more skill-based game systems. I would not like to see them go.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
The Pathfinder skill system is not the Saga system. Furthermore, while the sudden surge in skill ability is unrealistic, it also happens to solve more problems than it creates, methinks. I'd rather sacrifice a little realism to accomodate the players. I would also argue that the Pathfinder system is more realistic than the 3e system because a character can't learn anything new without weakening his current skills (unless he gets a permanent intelligence boost or wastes a feat on one of those bad skillpoint feats).
thats true a 3.5 fighter with an int of 10 has 2 skills he can do well or 4 he can do kinda ok with 2 of em still being better.the 3.5 is a strightjacket just a pretty one that you think looks nice so you don't notice your hands behind your back.
|
|
Exactly what PsychicRobot & Seeker said and I would add that there is nothing realistic about getting a few skill ranks to put into whatever you like when 99% of the games I have played in or ones I have watched, the characters did not do any in game things to earn greater ability in the skills they put those ranks into. To me there is not much difference then between placing skill points at each level and getting a maxed out skill at various levels.
I will point out though that I have liked the Hybrid system the best so far that was in the [Design Focus] Skills thread. Maybe some slight variations would be it better too.
4. Hybrid System: In this system, characters would get a number of skill ranks equal to the number of skill choices granted by the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. Skill ranks granted by the first level of your class must be spent on class skills. Skill ranks granted after first level and those granted by a high Intelligence score at first level could be spent on any skill. Instead of the class skill/cross-class skill distinction, your bonus in a skill would be determined in the following method.
0 ranks – Untrained: Bonus = ability modifier + racial modifiers (or modifiers)
1 ranks – Trained: Bonus = 1/2 your character level + modifiers
2 ranks – Skilled: Bonus = your character level + modifiers
3 ranks – Expert: Bonus = your character level + 3 + modifiers
4 ranks – Master: Bonus = your character level +6 + modifiersThere are a few additional rules to go with this. At first level, you can have no skill higher than 2 ranks (or the skilled level).
Exactly what PsychicRobot & Seeker said and I would add that there is nothing realistic about getting a few skill ranks to put into whatever you like when 99% of the games I have played in or ones I have watched, the characters did not do any in game things to earn greater ability in the skills they put those ranks into. To me there is not much difference then between placing skill points at each level and getting a maxed out skill at various levels.
I will point out though that I have liked the Hybrid system the best so far that was in the [Design Focus] Skills thread. Maybe some slight variations would be it better too.
4. Hybrid System: In this system, characters would get a number of skill ranks equal to the number of skill choices granted by the Skills chapter of the Pathfinder RPG. Skill ranks granted by the first level of your class must be spent on class skills. Skill ranks granted after first level and those granted by a high Intelligence score at first level could be spent on any skill. Instead of the class skill/cross-class skill distinction, your bonus in a skill would be determined in the following method.
0 ranks – Untrained: Bonus = ability modifier + racial modifiers (or modifiers)
1 ranks – Trained: Bonus = 1/2 your character level + modifiers
2 ranks – Skilled: Bonus = your character level + modifiers
3 ranks – Expert: Bonus = your character level + 3 + modifiers
4 ranks – Master: Bonus = your character level +6 + modifiersThere are a few additional rules to go with this. At first level, you can have no skill higher than 2 ranks (or the skilled level).
Acutally kind of like this, if they went with this for the Skill System, big ups Pathfinder.
Director of Games
|
Well, I am not going to spoil the new system here just yet, but I can indeed confirm that we are going back to a rank system... sort of. Lets just say that you can still have the ease of assigning your skills as you did with the release 1 system, and you can have the versatility in the system that you did with the 3.5 rules set. It was a hard line to walk, but I think we pulled it off.
Simple, yet complex.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, I am not going to spoil the new system here just yet, but I can indeed confirm that we are going back to a rank system... sort of. Lets just say that you can still have the ease of assigning your skills as you did with the release 1 system, and you can have the versatility in the system that you did with the 3.5 rules set. It was a hard line to walk, but I think we pulled it off.
Simple, yet complex.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Now you really have me intrigued
Don't hate it until after you've seen it.
man most folks hated alpha and never used it.I have faith in jason and company to do great work.
man most folks hated alpha and never used it.I have faith in jason and company to do great work.
Show me this most. If anything it seemed more like it was more of a even split.
The paltry 2 points that fighters and a few others received was the main problem I had with the 3.5 system. I would have liked to see more skill points at the low end. Bump fighter up to 4 points per level. As I said, I am a supporter of more skill-based and skill rank systems in general and in D&D/Pathfinder in specific. I dont like "on-off" skill systems which is what the AR1 system was only with a middle ground added.
As for characters suddenly developing levels in a skil they have not studied that is a problem in just about every game that includes skills. The only way to hold it in check is to require DM permission before raising any skill. Which is what my group does in all of our games. Any skill, attributes, power, feat etc that does not come automatically with level increase has to be approved by the game master.
I still find the original AR1 system to be the worst of the options Jason proposed and am ecstatic to see it is going away in favor of a more rank based system.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
man most folks hated alpha and never used it.I have faith in jason and company to do great work.Show me this most. If anything it seemed more like it was more of a even split.
bad wording on my part. I ment most of the people who hated the system never even tryed it.
I thought the scaled system proposed in the Design Focus [skills] thread was the best one and that's what we've been using.
But if the new skill system is at least that good and at least that easy to use then we'll definitely give it a try as well.
I have to admit though I was glad to see ranks and synergy bonuses go the way of the Dodo. If the new rank system has the same hiccups (hard to track, hard to craft high-levels, impossible to gain decent bonuses at high levels for low-skill classes) then I'll keep using the Scaled system.
bad wording on my part. I ment most of the people who hated the system never even tryed it.man most folks hated alpha and never used it.I have faith in jason and company to do great work.Show me this most. If anything it seemed more like it was more of a even split.
Like above, many people have played very similiar systems, such as the SAGA system, and thus don't necessarily have to run this one to see the "flaws" (personal dislikes). Though I might point out that the argument that you can't critize something without first using it is a bit flawed. I mean under that kind of requirement, you couldn't say using crack is bad unless you first became a crackhead (to make a flippant analogy). People can look at a system and draw logical conclusions from it, for example the Rogue 1st level problem with the Alpha1 rules. You don't have to run every possible set up to see that picking rogue for first level from a skill viewpoint is always the best.