I know that the crew behind Pathfinder is working very hard to please everybody, but I don't feel the new system comes even close to compromising between the two sides of the skill debate. yes, it cuts down on the first level math headache, but it still isn't player friendly.
I want to be able to pick up new skills without my old skills suffering. There is no way to do that using ranks. If my wizard skulks through dungeons all the time, I should be able to get a little stealth without getting worse at my spellcraft skills.
This system feels like a step in the wrong direction...very very far in the wrong direction. If people don't want to go with the simplified system from the Alpha 1 release, then please come up with a better compromise than this. I saw numerous hybrid systems on the discussion boards before that, while not preferable to the simplified system, were a lot better than ranks.
Agreed. I think that the hybrid system outlined--the one where skill ranks indicate a level of training--is the best compromise for everyone. Those of us who like the simpler math of the new system get simpler math; people who want to generalize and play around with skill points can generalize and play around with skill points.
well i like the new system but pleas 4 skill should really be the min not 2
|
I know that the crew behind Pathfinder is working very hard to please everybody, but I don't feel the new system comes even close to compromising between the two sides of the skill debate. yes, it cuts down on the first level math headache, but it still isn't player friendly.
I want to be able to pick up new skills without my old skills suffering. There is no way to do that using ranks. If my wizard skulks through dungeons all the time, I should be able to get a little stealth without getting worse at my spellcraft skills.
I disagree.
If you want to add a skill at a higher level, you can just not add a point to each of the other skills you're taking. Your character will gain a pretty decent bonus to stealth, and lose only one point from the other skills -- at higher levels, that can get pretty insignificant.
Also, you don't get worse at the other skills; you just don't get better.
add if ya take a class skill it add an extra +3 to it.
I know that the crew behind Pathfinder is working very hard to please everybody, but I don't feel the new system comes even close to compromising between the two sides of the skill debate. yes, it cuts down on the first level math headache, but it still isn't player friendly.
I want to be able to pick up new skills without my old skills suffering. There is no way to do that using ranks. If my wizard skulks through dungeons all the time, I should be able to get a little stealth without getting worse at my spellcraft skills.
This system feels like a step in the wrong direction...very very far in the wrong direction. If people don't want to go with the simplified system from the Alpha 1 release, then please come up with a better compromise than this. I saw numerous hybrid systems on the discussion boards before that, while not preferable to the simplified system, were a lot better than ranks.
Yeh, this is a step backwards. Now I have to recalculate my skills every time I level or gain permanent Int.
The Alpha 1 system worked. Why the caving?
Not adding skill points to skill is effectively making it worse; when you're dealing with trying to better a skill other than that one. I would have been very happy with the hybrid system that was being hashed out; right now I'm going to stick with Alpha 1.1 skill system. Basically with skill ranks, everyone ends up have 1 to 2 skills (the rogue will have more) that are maxed, and they're laughable at everything else.
The Alpha 1 system worked. Why the caving?
Backwards compatibility. Which is still apparently a major goal of the system, and one for which I both applaud and salute them.
I am happy about the return of skill points. The AR2 system is not a bad compromise though i would have prefered to see a tiered system (untrained, novice, apprentice, journeyman, expert etc) granting something on par with +2 per tier. I like the control over what my character can and cannot do, which was lacking to a serious degree in the AR1 system. I would however like to see a sidebar that included the AR1 as an optional rule as this would be nice for quick NPC generation but I find it too restrictive for characters. I also like seeing the cross-class skill limit vanish but still reward characters for having class skills.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
Not adding skill points to skill is effectively making it worse; when you're dealing with trying to better a skill other than that one. I would have been very happy with the hybrid system that was being hashed out; right now I'm going to stick with Alpha 1.1 skill system. Basically with skill ranks, everyone ends up have 1 to 2 skills (the rogue will have more) that are maxed, and they're laughable at everything else.
but the hybrid system effectively gives a maximum to your skill ranks. Once you've got so many ranks (I think it was 5), you're forced to switch to another skill.
|
|
I know that the crew behind Pathfinder is working very hard to please everybody, but I don't feel the new system comes even close to compromising between the two sides of the skill debate. yes, it cuts down on the first level math headache, but it still isn't player friendly.
I want to be able to pick up new skills without my old skills suffering. There is no way to do that using ranks. If my wizard skulks through dungeons all the time, I should be able to get a little stealth without getting worse at my spellcraft skills.
This system feels like a step in the wrong direction...very very far in the wrong direction. If people don't want to go with the simplified system from the Alpha 1 release, then please come up with a better compromise than this. I saw numerous hybrid systems on the discussion boards before that, while not preferable to the simplified system, were a lot better than ranks.
Yeh, this is a step backwards. Now I have to recalculate my skills every time I level or gain permanent Int.
The Alpha 1 system worked. Why the caving?
Because those of us that hated the sgafied skill system outnumbered those of you who liked it something like 2-1?
|
|
I would like to jump in this thread since it seems that the people that liked the Alpha system are going to be the 'loudest' here. I'd like to say that this system is much more acceptable to me than the Alpha.
I don't think this system is perfect, but I think that I could live with it.
It certainly is easy to use and is extremely compatible with the 3.5 system. Those are both marks in its favor.
Although 3.5 never allowed it, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing a system where an adventurer picks up more skills later in their adventuring career. It breaks my heart to see any class with 2 class skills per level. I do think 4 should be the minimum. But there is another thread for that.
All in all, I think this is quite good.
The Prestige Requirement is wonky. That's a nod to backwards compatability that doesn't make sense. I think that they'll eliminate that when they think it through a little more fully.
I'd also like to see a system that allows you to put more skill ranks in than HD.
Just to restate my perfect skill system is:
Every class gets +4 skill points over the normal in 3.5 (12 for rogues, 6 for fighters, etc). No multiplication at 1st level. Maximum ranks of level +5.
This results in classes gaining additional skills later in their career, but being slightly better than 3.5 for most of the time (a little worse until usually 3rd level).
With the Hybrid System, it gave a chance at not being laughable at everything but like 3 or 4 skills. It also allowed you pick up new skills, at a rate where your old skills didn't lose out any more viability. Cause if you wanted to be decent at anything, especially for classes that didn't get many skill points, you basically could only do two skills total? everything else was lucky hit, and more often an abysmal miss. And Being a jack of all trades is a terrible idea when at best you could only get 2 + int per level in skill points (at least for cleric/wizard/fighter/paladin/sorcerer), at that point, you're better at running into walls as a skill choice. I'd really like to just stick to one base class, get a nice bunch of skills to flesh out a character concept, but that can't be done with almost a third of the classes, due to the lack of skill points or the way it's handled due to the skill points. That's why I don't like it.
Edit: Reading over the lack of cross class... it's made me (substantially) less angry about the re-addition of skill points, but it's still going to be problematic for at least a third of the base classes not getting enough skill points to not be considered a little higher than a goon. It still doesn't sit well with me.
Just going on initial impressions, I really like the Alpha 2 skill system. My group wasn't willing to adopt the Alpha 1 version because of its lack of versatility. I'm pretty confident they'll like this one though.
I don't mind this one... it's better than originally designed, but I wouldn't mind a sidebar optional for the Alpha 1 plan for those who want to use it if the space can be spared.
I really did not like the binary structure of the AR1 system. Skills are not the place for "on-off" mechanics in my opinion. Skills are were you really need several levels of training. Be it skill points or tiers that grant set bonus. The game Immortal had a tiered system that went up +2 for each tier of training. It worked fairly well without juggling as many points as the skill point system while still allowing veratility that AR1 did not have.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I was noticing that during the debate over Ranks vs Slots(Alpha 1.1) I kept reading that one of the things the people really like (aside for from what some saw as simplicity) was the increased number of skill points that characters gained over 3.5 characters. That included the ability to learn totally new skills without sacrificing currently Maxed out skills.
This is addressable with a Feat, whose base is already in the OGL. Open Minded grants 5 skill points (instant mastery). It is not inconceivable to redress this mediocre feat so that it provides that aspect of Alpha 1.1's skill system. And Pathfinder does offer 3 more feats then 3.5 does. As a basic assumption lets stay this hypothetical skill feat provides enough ranks for 1 new fully trained skill, and the point to maintain it. Would that be a problem?
I can't seem to find any mention about retroactive bonus skill ranks for increased intelligence.
The monkey in the works was always with Multiclassed characters (Classed Monsters). The variance in skill points is disruptive to creating a system that can be both maxed out and variable (and be equal). However I think this variance can be overlooked to provide an alliterative 'player friendly' option. While I don't recommend adding a side bar for the Alpha 1.1 skill system (way to many bonus skill points), I do think an accepted (for Pathfinder Society play) skill slot (max rank) system based on the Alpha 2 rank system would be a good idea.
Like a synergy bonus to class skills of level/2, but no more than half the ranks in a skill? I'm not sure I like that idea, exactly because it's negligible at low levels and too high at higher levels. OTOH, if you want the Farmboy to Jedi Knight effect in your games, this may be the mechanic for you.
I agree with the OP. Down with skill ranks.
I found the alpha 1 version almost perfect. Previously I used the unearthed arcana optional skill rule for maximum ranks, limited choices which was almost identical to alpha 1 skill bonus calculation anyway. I liked that they allowed you to add an extra skill at each even level though. The only flaw to the system, as I saw it, was that there was a big incentive to multiclass, specifically when starting with a high skill class and then progressing to a low-skill class. I don't think there is a way to correct that by fixing the skill system though. I think there need to be other incentives for taking a class at character creation so that not everyone chooses rogue as their first level. Hit dice is one incentive, but only for some characters. Weapon/armor proficiencies is another, but then again, only for some characters. Mainly what is needed is an incentive for spellcasters, other than the fact that they are watering down their caster level.
I'm sorry, but I haven't been a fan of 3.5 skill ranks for a long time. I'm not about to start liking them now.
|
Ah, the skill system. This debate will *never* be over. Both sides have their own loud defenders. I, although not obnoxiously loud, am siding the skill point system.
The current Alpha release 2 version is a definite improvement over the original 3.5 system. I won't go on over and over about how awesome it is, but mention some of the small flukes still presented.
The skill point amounts given by different classes are a bit too great. If instead of 2+int, 4+int, 6+int and 8+int we'd have 3+int, 4+int, 5+int, 6+int, it'd be more stable, and would correspond to the decreased amount of skills taken away (from 36 skills to 26 skills, a ~28% decrease.)
One thing the 4th edition fixes in a moderate way is the ridiculous gap between a trained stealth user and a normal dude. There's very little or no chance for the normal dude to spot the stealth user. A quick fix would be to decrease the ridiculous amount of synergies and other bonuses received from here and there.
well I liked the alpha 1 system. However this is a good system as well and takes alot of the 3.5 issues out. One thing I want to see done is death of 2 skills per level. go 4/6 or 4/6/8 on skills do that and it will be a very usable system.
Much to my surprise, and after an initial shock reaction, I liked the skill system in Alpha 1... After creating some playtest characters of the four Alpha 1 classes and advancing them to 5, 15 and 20 level, I found that they are really fleshed out skill-wise, much more than in the previous 3.5 system... A fighter could become a commanding lordly figure, learning at higher levels diplomacy and other social skills without having to sacrifice ride, intimidate and other previous skill choices... You could even learn new cross-class skills that reflected some of the events of a character's career. It was not perfect, and sure it had its conceptual flaws, but I liked it.
Now we're back to skill ranks, and again to my surprise, I find the previous system better suited to my tastes.
The Alpha 2 system is more backwards compatible, and is easier to use than the 3.5 system, and as both are really important design goals, I guess it hits the mark. I think it's a somewhat good compromise. But I prefer the previous system, even when it could use some tweaks.
Something along the lines of the hybrid system presented could be my thing, a system where each rank in a skill means a different level of learning and specialization (from the 1 rank novice to the 5 rank master, or something like that).
Well, just my 2 cents.
Yea, like I said I still think this idea is better than the original design, but I like the alpha 1 better.
An optional sidebar would do wonders, given the level of dispute on this issue I think.
I certainly don't mind the small amount of extra work to re-task the skills, but I know others don't like the idea.
I disagree.
If you want to add a skill at a higher level, you can just not add a point to each of the other skills you're taking. Your character will gain a pretty decent bonus to stealth, and lose only one point from the other skills -- at higher levels, that can get pretty insignificant.
Also, you don't get worse at the other skills; you just don't get better.
Okay, let's suppose that the wizard wants to pick up Stealth. Throughout his career, he's been adding a total of 6 skill points/level. By your suggestion, he can get a total of 6 points in Stealth by completely sacrificing all skill advancement for a level.
Compared to everyone else who has been putting points into Spot/Listen, the wizard doesn't have a chance of sneaking at all. He's always going to be behind, and his other skills are going to get pooped on for another level or two while he spends more time adjusting his skill ranks than he does balancing his checkbook in real life.
This is addressable with a Feat, whose base is already in the OGL. Open Minded grants 5 skill points (instant mastery). It is not inconceivable to redress this mediocre feat so that it provides that aspect of Alpha 1.1's skill system. And Pathfinder does offer 3 more feats then 3.5 does. As a basic assumption lets stay this hypothetical skill feat provides enough ranks for 1 new fully trained skill, and the point to maintain it. Would that be a problem?</QUOTE>
.
.
.
.
.
.Yes, as a feat is a feat and skills are skills. (Damn forums aren't letting my post show correctly.)
The compromise is Seems on first read like and excilent choice.
It gives back choice to the player. It is once again possible to be a jack of all trades. something criticial missing from the release one system.
Its just a pitty they couldnt' see their ways to finding a few more skill points for some of the classes, but if this is what we end up with, i will be very happy.
Form my first look, i'd say that their is now nothing stopping people form playing a social fighter or barbarian who is a good singer.
Congrats guys.
Just to point, the new system does not allow any more versatility at first level than the alpha 1.1 system.
Take a 1st level human INT 12 fighter with the A1.1 system, they could train 4 skills.
With A1.2, they could train 4 skills.
With 3.5 they would have 16 skill points to divide between as many as 16 skills.
So while this version may allow better flexibility as you go along, it doesn't at first level when background details would be most meaningful. As with most compromises, nobody is going to be 100% happy.
Because those of us that hated the sgafied skill system outnumbered those of you who liked it something like 2-1?
Actually, it's because people complain about things that they don't like and stay silent about things they do like. So now we're going to have a round where we complain and you shut up.
The Alpha 1 Skill System had wonky bits, but it was user friendly, it worked, and it generated the numbers that PCs had in D&D anyway. The Alpha 2 system is a step backwards from a better system to a worse system.
-Frank
Just to point, the new system does not allow any more versatility at first level than the alpha 1.1 system.
Take a 1st level human INT 12 fighter with the A1.1 system, they could train 4 skills.
With A1.2, they could train 4 skills.
With 3.5 they would have 16 skill points to divide between as many as 16 skills.
So while this version may allow better flexibility as you go along, it doesn't at first level when background details would be most meaningful. As with most compromises, nobody is going to be 100% happy.
In that respect you are right, i personally will be giving my player the x4 at first level.
Because those of us that hated the sgafied skill system outnumbered those of you who liked it something like 2-1?
Actually, it's because people complain about things that they don't like and stay silent about things they do like. So now we're going to have a round where we complain and you shut up.
The Alpha 1 Skill System had wonky bits, but it was user friendly, it worked, and it generated the numbers that PCs had in D&D anyway. The Alpha 2 system is a step backwards from a better system to a worse system.
-Frank
It may have generated the number you have in your game, but it provented the numbers that i see in my game.
I have always favoured a wide spread of low level skills based on concept, something that is completely impossible under Alpha 1.1.
I also don't think that you will see us shutting up.
|
I prefer the Alpha 2 skill system over Alpha 1, and wouldn't mind seeing overall ranks-by-class increased so that over time you can make up for not getting the big boost of extra ranks at 1st level. I'd also like to see the bonus for class skills scale with HD, so there can be a greater difference between class and cross-class skills as you level up.
Because those of us that hated the sgafied skill system outnumbered those of you who liked it something like 2-1?
Yeh, this is a step backwards. Now I have to recalculate my skills every time I level or gain permanent Int.The Alpha 1 system worked. Why the caving?
I don't know where you pulled that statistic out of(though I can make a couple of guesses), but even if it were true, no one wants 1/3 of the players to be unhappy. I'm sure better compromises can be made.
It may have generated the number you have in your game, but it provented the numbers that i see in my game.I have always favoured a wide spread of low level skills based on concept, something that is completely impossible under Alpha 1.1.
I also don't think that you will see us shutting up.
Here's the thing: the 'lots of low level skills' thing might work in your games, but overall, I don't think it works past the first few levels. Those two ranks in perception or stealth really don't mean anything at level 20, when everyone else has 20 in said skills.
The hybrid system they talked about before would have given you half your level in a new skill. You could generalize AND pick up new skills. I didn't like the added complexity, but I accepted that people wanted a change from the alpha 1 system. If you want lots of low level skills, you're quite able to do so.
Why not adopt something similar to that hybrid system, only, instead of that last +6 tier, a +3 bonus for taking a class skill?
Those two ranks in perception or stealth really don't mean anything at level 20, when everyone else has 20 in said skills.
Maybe that is part of the issue. Some don't necessarily feel as if EVERYONE else should have 20 in those skills.
Personally, I like going back to the skill ranks. Something about the Alpha 1.1 rules just didn't sit right with me. It was the "once you know a skill, you are always at max" premise. Personally, I enjoy tinkering with my character and trying to decide how important it is to add another point to Concentration (when I haven't had to cast defensively once in two character levels) and Spellcraft (which I haven't failed a check for in two levels), or add two points to Move Silently (which the character has attempted to do multiple times in the last two levels).
However, I would have been happy with the Alpha 1.1 rules and played them if they had broken the skills out into minor and major skills. The new system is better IMO looking at a "going forward" point (I have more flexibility each time the character levels), but there is still an issue with the 1st level skills. Take my current 3.5 character...
My wizard had the following skills at 1st level;
Concentration - 4 ranks
Decipher Script - 1 rank
Kn Arcana - 4 ranks
Kn Architecture - 1 rank
Kn Dungeoneering - 1 rank
Kn History - 1 rank
Kn Nature - 1 rank
Kn Nobility - 1 rank
Kn Planes - 4 ranks
Spellcraft - 4 ranks
Speak Languages - 2 ranks (house rule)
In neither Alpha 1.1 or Alpha 2 can I create the same character. I guess the one caveat is that you can now make "untrained" checks, so I guess the 1 rank skills don't make much difference. However, at 2nd level, I added 2 points to Dungeoneering, which I could do with Alpha 2 rules, but with the Alpha 1.1 I couldn't, thus my preference for the new options (though I would be happy sticking with the original skill point implementation since I have never ran into issues with it, other than needing to bump all 2 point classes to 4).
|
|
Come on guys ... seriously everyone ...
Let's keep in mind that, at the end of the day, what we have here (meaning this new version of D&D that Paizo is giving us) is fantastic and unprecedented. That fact that we are being asked to contribute by taking part in commenting etc is an amazing honor and is something we all need to keep in mind when we post. It shows a great deal of how much Paizo values us as loyal customers (compare and contrast with what WOTC is doing ...)
I've read some pretty nasty posts from a handful of people on these boards over the last few weeks and months and, really, it has to stop. Please. Make a point, certainly, but these attacks ... telling people to shut up ... insulting people because they don't like or agree with you ... it is doing no good and actually could end up doing damage. Jason and company are obviously pouring their blood, sweat, tears and, let's face it, passion and love for the game into these new rules. The more this very vocal minority act like little kids, the more likely Jason and company will stop listening or worse, lose some of that love and passion for these rules and us as loyal customers.
Sorry for the rant, but it's really been bothering me lately.
As for the new skill system ... I like it a lot! Well done Paizo! Any rational person knows that you can NEVER please everyone 100% of the time, especially when a subject has this many people on different sides of the issue. I think this new skill system is just about the best we can hope for if we want as many of us happy as possible.
The skills, along with everything we've seen so far is, overall is pretty darn awesome and should be applauded.
It may have generated the number you have in your game, but it provented the numbers that i see in my game.I have always favoured a wide spread of low level skills based on concept, something that is completely impossible under Alpha 1.1.
I also don't think that you will see us shutting up.
Here's the thing: the 'lots of low level skills' thing might work in your games, but overall, I don't think it works past the first few levels. Those two ranks in perception or stealth really don't mean anything at level 20, when everyone else has 20 in said skills.
Well for a start, a person who has at level 20 a variaty of skills at around 10, probably isn't playing in a group with people who have 20's in their skills at this level. His play style probably does not conform with theirs and he has either been pushed out by the lime lighting of the optimisers or gotten bored of playing through dungoen crawls ;)
Traditionally, for a warrior to have a twenty in some of his skills, it means he has almost certainly has spent his points exclusively in his class skills.
What does that mean in a dynamic world.
20th levekl characters are world shaking individuals. They have the power to shape entire cultures. This means that they are a threat to people with politicial influence.
How does a character with no diplomancy fend of the attention of nations propaganda mill?
How does a character with no performance, survive a formal court event, where they would be expected to sing, after all music(both performing and listening to) is a primary form of entertainment in fantasy settings.
The list can go on with numerous examples for each of the hobby/profession and social skills.
Not adding skill points to skill is effectively making it worseThat's totally illogical. It's just like saying that because your company didn't increase profit this year, that it "lost" money. Just because you think that the skill should have improved by X margin, doesn't mean that if it doesn't, it's been made "worse."
Except unlike the company in the normal world, the D&D analog is having its absolute taxes go up every year. If you don't post higher profits, you literally are falling behind.
Every level the DCs you are faced with increase. If your bonuses don't also increase, you have fallen behind.
-Frank
|
|
I can't seem to find any mention about retroactive bonus skill ranks for increased intelligence.
Ability Bonuses (from p. 116)
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores.Ability score increases whose duration is one day or less
give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of
increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills
and statistics listed with the relevant ability…
Ability bonuses with a duration greater than one day
actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours.
Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This
might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other
bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case
they are removed.
I think this is it, and as I read it, yes, Int bonuses are retroactive. That includes those from ability increases and - kind of - from magic items.
Not adding skill points to skill is effectively making it worseThat's totally illogical. It's just like saying that because your company didn't increase profit this year, that it "lost" money. Just because you think that the skill should have improved by X margin, doesn't mean that if it doesn't, it's been made "worse."Except unlike the company in the normal world, the D&D analog is having its absolute taxes go up every year. If you don't post higher profits, you literally are falling behind.
Every level the DCs you are faced with increase. If your bonuses don't also increase, you have fallen behind.
-Frank
This is something entirely at the discression of the DM.
While it may be true amongst the optimisers, it is much less the case with roleplay focused groups.
Last night I went about the task of converting my level 3 wizard from Alpha 1 to Alpha 2.
Some observations.
Diplomacy is a cross-class skill that I had trained in at level 2 under the old system. This gave me 3 (1/2 of Class level +3) + -1 (Cha) + 2 (circ. bonus from Korvosa medallion) = 4. Not great. At level 4, and after conversion, I have 2 ranks in Diplomacy, leaving me with a total of 3, one less than I was under alpha 1 (due to the lack of skill points).
Knowledge (Dungeoneering) went down, because I didn't have the ranks to keep it at the level it once was. But this is where things got confusing for me. Knowledge is a class skill. So I wrote "4" in the ranks column and moved on to the next skill. Going back later I looked at that and had to scratch my head... was that 4 ranks, or was that 1 rank +3?
In 3.5 I tend to rearrange my skill ranks some as I make (or level my character). Put a rank or two in one skill then get down the list and realize I'd forgotten to put a rank in spellcraft or something else. So I go back through, change a few numbers, liberate a rank or two and bump up the appropriate skill.
Now it's much harder for me to do that, because of that +3. Sure, I could just not add the +3 until I'm all done. But that means subtracting 3 from all my class skills each time I level, adding new ranks, then adding the +3 again.
Alternatively, One could come up with a character sheet that has the +3 separate. For the time being, however, this is not "User Friendly" in my view (as I really don't know if I've shorted myself 3 ranks in about 3 knowledge skills or not at the moment).
My other concern is synergy. This was taken out in Alpha 1, because that system didn't need it. Every skill was getting a major boost. This go around, we lose 3x our starting skill points, gain +3 on class skills... but synergy was a way of encouraging people to put ranks in various skills to get boosts to others.
I'm not sure that the Alpha 2 system does away with the need for synergy.
For what it's worth... I'm all for going to something a lot closer to the Alpha 1 setup.
|
|
... was that 4 ranks, or was that 1 rank +3?
Sorry to hear it's not "user friendly" for you. I think the way to look at it is 1 rank +3. And I would never add the +3 to your ranks; keep it separate. The way it is presented it's more part of the skill-check formula. For non-class skills (AKA cross-class skills) it's d20 + ability mods + ranks, and for class skills it's d20 + ability mods + ranks +3. The +3 is a "rank bonus" but it's not ranks. Looks like ranks, acts like ranks, but it's calculated differently.
