I know its late, for those of us in the western hemisphere and I do appreciate Mr. Bulmahn getting on at this time of night.
Unfortunately I am now slightly concerned about the ability of Alpha 2 system to allow for a Total and Divide quick skill assignment. I will double check my test builds when I'm awake — again — but I am having my doubts. A pre-investment option may still be needed.
So, while I invite discussion. The skill system is pretty firm in my eyes and I do not foresee a drastic redesign in the near future.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason - Just to give you a bit of playtest feedback. After 3-4 sessions under Alpha 1 rules (we started CotCT with Alpha 1.1, so level 1-4). My weeknight group (without my involvement) decided that they preferred the Alpha 1 skill system to the ranks system of 3.5 or the new rank system of Alpha 2.
How is this a problem? If Sho Kosugi (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0467563/)is in my game, and he wants to sneak past 50 mook-level guards, they probably DON'T have any chance to spot him. Moreover, they shouldn't.
Sorry, I don't get this move towards mediocrity thing that people seem to want out of skills. If I invested 20 levels in stealth, I think the least I can expect is that the 10th level guy who didn't specialize in Perception has basically no chance to spot me.
Hm, I might have particularly chosen Stealth vs. Perception as my target. As you know, a whisper gnome from 3.5's Races of Stone can acquire a Hide bonus of +16 at 1st level. Some skills are simply just too easy to boost. And hiding with all kinds of dumb tricks, like XPH's Cloak Dance which gives you concealment, thus you are able to hide... practically in plain sight.
Now that I think of it, Stealth itself should get some sledging. I admit that being a superior sneaker is something one would likely to seek for. At the current time it's just too easy with certain builds.
On another point, diplomacy is a constant DC, yet a lot better than it was in 3.5. Since synergies were taking out, it balanced the skill somewhat. I might still see those Marshal/Warlock's roaming around with their +19 diplomacy.
Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now, my bad. You're more into limiting some of the more egregious tack-on synergy things, not nerfing someone who got their ranks the old fashioned way; earning them.
Yeah, I'm on board with that, and after a Sho Kosugi and a John Houseman reference, I'll return you to your regularly scheduled program, "The Facts of Life." (Wow I'm old....)
|
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).
Honestly, this is a problem - but only at 1st level. Taking your example, for instance: you appear to be getting 6 skill points per level. At 1st level, you cannot, in fact, get all 12 (10, in Pathfinder) of your skills trained. You have to pick six of them. So you go with, say, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (architecture), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (the planes), Linguistics, and Spellcraft. This still leaves you with 4 of your listed Knowledges untrained. However, at 2nd level, after spending 2 ranks on Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft to keep those maxed, you can then buy a rank in all four of the remaining Knowledges, and have a much better total modifier in those Knowledges than you would have had before...
As said in another post:
The skill list and the number of skill points per class aren't fixed at all!
If the skills merge further you might see that even 2 skill points per level might be well enough!
So I REALLY don't know why on earth some of you NEED extra skill points at every other level?!
You get skill points on EVERY level! Isn't that enough or what?
|
Personally, I think the potential bonus of up to 45 skill bonus points for that Wizard with 1 level of Rogue (were he to put 1 point into each skill) is a bit excessive.
I don't think this is correct.
By adding 1 level of rogue, you should be adding 8-12 ranks at the most - 8 skill points per level of rogue + up to a +4 bonus with an Int of 18. Can you explain where the 45 comes from?
Now, if you wizard were high enough level and had bought ranks in a bunch of non-class skills that were on the rogue's class skill list, those skills would suddenly receive a +3 bonus when the wizard takes a level of rogue, because now they would be class skills. (Back in the Alpha 1 Design Focus thread, we were referring to this as "popping." In the big scheme of things a pop of +3 or +4 isn't bad compared to jumps of 12 or 15 points we were seeing in some of the other CC skill models.)
I think where some folks are getting mixed up is in the difference between 'ranks' and the +3 'class skill bonuses.' Class skill bonuses aren't ranks, they are an extra factor added into the skill check formula (d20 + ability mods + ranks + 3 class skill bonus). The calculation of ranks has been simplified to the extreme - 1 point = 1 ranks, and that's it - to make calculating the ranks of high-level NPCs easier on GMs. All the other stuff like cross-class skills and synergy bonus have been stripped out of calculating ranks and put into the skill check formula.
Now, back to Samurai's original hypothetical. If that 18 Int wizard had previously bought ranks in 12 rogue-not-wizard skills, then took a level of rogue, and then put 1 of 12 new skill points into each of those now class skills ... he would gain 12 new ranks and a grand total (ranks + bonus) of +48. Seems like a lot, BUT, that's how many ranks and total bonus a 1st level rogue w/ 18 Int gets anyway in Pathfinder and 3.5. That's just the way rogues are. They're skill monkeys and need a bunch of points to do their stuff. A wizard who takes a level of rogue gets a bunch of points ... but gives up a level of spellcasting, so all those points aren't exactly a freebe.
I have to admit that the more I'm examining the new system the more I like it. Initially I was very against the return of any sort of rank system, but this one does have some significant benefits to it. I consider the +3 'pop' to be a benefit because it means that taking a bunch of new class skills when multi-classing actually gives you a decent shot at making some of those skill useful. It also allows multi-class characters to maintain high bonuses in a few skills from their secondary class. So a wizard with one level of rogue can keep his Stealth and Acrobatics maxed since all ranks cost the same amount.
The Class Bonus, though, will add to that even more. That 1 skill point investment will give you both the Attribute bonus and an additional +3 Class bonus, meaning for 1 point, it's quite possible you can have a +8 bonus on your roll... not bad at all! And even if you can use the skill untrained (meaning you already get your Attribute bonus), the 4 additional points for 1 skill point are mighty tempting to me.
For wizards, sorcerers, and clerics, he's trading a whole level of spell progression in exchange for what amounts to a bunch of Skill Focus feats in skills where he'll only have one rank. That really doesn't strike me as a balance problem; it's a pretty straight trade of power for versatility.
Really, the paradigmatic problem would be the temptation for fighters to take a one-level dip in ranger, but I don't think that's likely to actually be more tempting now than it was under the old skill rules.
|
|
Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now, my bad. You're more into limiting some of the more egregious tack-on synergy things, not nerfing someone who got their ranks the old fashioned way; earning them.
Yeah, I'm on board with that, and after a Sho Kosugi and a John Houseman reference, I'll return you to your regularly scheduled program, "The Facts of Life." (Wow I'm old....)
I might have been exceptionally unclear with this matter. I've been posting the same thing on multiple threads and can't really keep a track of it anymore.
|
I am a big fan of skill points, as I see it part of the "customization" process that makes 3.x superior to it's predecessors.
For those looking for more skill points, the "open-minded" feat from Expanded Psionics (it is not a psionic feat) provides 5 bonus skill points, which is a useful idea. If spending a feat for more hit points works, why not for skill points too, right?
On a different thread ("Race Problems"), there was a suggestion to provide a bonus skill point per level for taking your favoured class, rather than having a bonus hit point per level. Thought I'd toss that idea out in this thread also, since some feel they are a couple skill points short.
|
|
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.
Because those of us that hated the sgafied skill system outnumbered those of you who liked it something like 2-1?
Hey now buddy, no need to start rolling Intimidate checks over this! ;)
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
Except it didn't; most PCs in games I've played in had max ranks in one or two skills and a broad spread in a number of others. Those of us who do games heavy on variety and, to a lesser extent, urban games, tend to see a lot more diversification in skills than traditional dungeon/wilderness games. As I mentioned a couple of times when the shoe was on the other proverbial foot, skills like craft skills, heal, and acrobatics have certain "break points" where being able to meet a certain DC reliably with a roll of 1 or even by taking 10 is handy, but no more munchkin than (for instance) getting certified in CPR and first aid but not becoming a surgeon in real life.
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.
So my wizard with 15 Int increases to 16 at 4th level and gains 7 skill ranks. Respectable. At 12th level he increases it to 18 and gains 15 skill points. Very respectable. At 20th level he increases it to 20 and gains 23 skill points. Yikes! That is a lot of skill points to be gaining at once.
|
|
So my wizard with 15 Int increases to 16 at 4th level and gains 7 skill ranks. Respectable. At 12th level he increases it to 18 and gains 15 skill points. Very respectable. At 20th level he increases it to 20 and gains 23 skill points. Yikes! That is a lot of skill points to be gaining at once.
Almost.
At 4th he'd gain 5 new skill points (2 for wizard + 3 for Int) and 3 retroactive skill points (1 each for 1st, 2nd and 3rd level; remember, there's no x4 at 1st level anymore). So altogether he'd actually pick up 8. His max rank in any skill is 4 so he could max out 2 new skills or spread them around. One other thing, even though his max rank is currently 4, if it's a class skill, his bonus would bring it up to +7.
At 12th he'd gain 6 new skill points (2 wizard + 4 Int) and 11 retro, 17 total, max rank is 12.
At 20 he'd gain 7 new skill points (2 wiz + 5 Int) and 19 retro, 26 total, max rank is 20.
I think. At least that's the way I understand the math.
In any case, your point is well taken. By 20th level, that's quite a jump. Me, I'd probably spread the points out. But if someone put 20 points into one brand new skill, they could instantly become great at it (kinda' like in Alpha 1). You can rationalize it as follows:
* It won't happen very often.
* It's only going to happen at most once per character.
* By 20th level, these are some pretty impressive people and someone with a 20 Int is already in the super-genius Einsein/Hawkings range.
* It's a divine gift.
* Don't bother; weird things happen in games with a lot of numbers.
Or, you could house rule that you can't put more than (level+3)/2 ranks into any one skill in one level. (I've been dying to squeeze that formula back in somewhere!)
|
|
Personally, I think the potential bonus of up to 45 skill bonus points for that Wizard with 1 level of Rogue (were he to put 1 point into each skill) is a bit excessive.I don't think this is correct.
By adding 1 level of rogue, you should be adding 8-12 ranks at the most - 8 skill points per level of rogue + up to a +4 bonus with an Int of 18. Can you explain where the 45 comes from?
Now, if you wizard were high enough level and had bought ranks in a bunch of non-class skills that were on the rogue's class skill list, those skills would suddenly receive a +3 bonus when the wizard takes a level of rogue, because now they would be class skills. (Back in the Alpha 1 Design Focus thread, we were referring to this as "popping." In the big scheme of things a pop of +3 or +4 isn't bad compared to jumps of 12 or 15 points we were seeing in some of the other CC skill models.)
I think where some folks are getting mixed up is in the difference between 'ranks' and the +3 'class skill bonuses.' Class skill bonuses aren't ranks, they are an extra factor added into the skill check formula (d20 + ability mods + ranks + 3 class skill bonus). The calculation of ranks has been simplified to the extreme - 1 point = 1 ranks, and that's it - to make calculating the ranks of high-level NPCs easier on GMs. All the other stuff like cross-class skills and synergy bonus have been stripped out of calculating ranks and put into the skill check formula.
Now, back to Samurai's original hypothetical. If that 18 Int wizard had previously bought ranks in 12 rogue-not-wizard skills, then took a level of rogue, and then put 1 of 12 new skill points into each of those now class skills ... he would gain 12 new ranks and a grand total (ranks + bonus) of +48. Seems like a lot, BUT, that's how many ranks and total bonus a 1st level rogue w/ 18 Int gets anyway in Pathfinder and 3.5. That's just the way rogues are. They're skill monkeys and need a bunch of points to do...
You don't seem to be fully understanding the concept because you are talking about the Wizard having to previously buy Rogue skills in order to benefit. I already confirmed with Jason that that isn't the case. Whether you already bought the skill on a previous level, or you buy it the current level, or even buy it at some later level, it doesn't matter. ALL Rogue skills are now permanently class skills for you, and if 10 levels later, while advancing in your main class, you decide to finally put 1 rank into a Rogue skill, you'll instantly gain that +3 bonus.
And Wizard was just a class I mentioned randomly, you're right that a Fighter, Ranger, or other class is far more likely to take a Rogue multiclass due to the spell caster level being lost by a Wizard, but that wasn't the point at all, I was just trying to clarify what the rule was and point out the massive benefit gained from dipping into 1 level of Rogue under this system.
And it is far more pronounced than under current 3.5. Here's how it works currently: You'll get 8 skill points (plus Int bonus) to put toward Rogue skills. The Rogue skills only count as Class Skills for this level... if at any other point before or after that multiclass level, when advancing in your main class you wished to put points into a Rogue skill, it counts as being Cross Class, meaning it costs 2 points per rank and can't be raised beyond the Cross Class limit. This means that in order to raise 2 Rogue skills to +4 (not counting attribute bonuses), it will take all 8 of your Rogue skill points for that level.
Under Pathfinder, though, it would take only 2 skill points to gain a +4 in 2 Rogue skills, and those 2 points could come at any point in the character's entire life. The 8 skill points gained when taking the Rogue level can, if put into 8 new Rogue skills, can become 32 total points of bonuses. That's 4x the potential bonus under 3.5.
|
|
I don't see the problem.
Now the x4 is whenever you take a level that gives you more class skills.
Lets say I start rogue w/ 10 Int and advance as fighter.
I get 8 skills with a +4 bonus. Now, with my 2 fighter skill points I can either get 2 fighter skills at 4 ranks, or advance 2 of my 'rogue skills.
Either way, I don't end up with a 'broken' bonus to skill points like in Alpha 1 for the rogue dip. +23/+23/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4 or +22/+22/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4/+4 - not a huge difference - effectively 6 more skill points if I advance 2 fighter skills, but the two best skills remain at a '-1' versus my max level.
if at any other point before or after that multiclass level, when advancing in your main class you wished to put points into a Rogue skill, it counts as being Cross Class, meaning it costs 2 points per rank and can't be raised beyond the Cross Class limit.
Er, no, the part I put in italics there is incorrect. In the standard 3e and 3.5 rules, once you have a skill as a class skill, your ranks limit in that skill is character level +3, whether you buy it up with class skill points at one-per-rank or with cross-class skill points at two-per-rank.
So, for example, if you're a fourth-level fighter, take one level of rogue, and then take fifteen levels of fighter, it's perfectly legal in straight 3.5 for you to have 23 ranks in Move Silently.
If every one in your group is playing at with mastered levels of their skills, then your DM will have been setting DC's appropreate to that, which is why it will not have worked well, try getting your entire group to spread their skills a little thinner, while asking you DM to take this into account by putting in more skill checks at lower DC's.
Maybe. I don't want to disparage someone's DM skills, but it's a known fact that, in his game, Spot skills are a MUST. You use that skill 5 times more than any other.
My biggest complaint is, the way my game experience went, the only time you could get a new skill was when you raised your INT. That's it. With the Rankless system, even classes with low skill points would still have a chance to have an expansive skill base. But, no sense crying over spilled milk...
DogBone
|
|
You don't seem to be fully understanding the concept ...
Which concept? Once a class skill, always a class skill? Sure I do. I've been a proponent of that since Alpha 1. It makes calculating things a whole lot easier.
... because you are talking about the Wizard having to previously buy Rogue skills in order to benefit.
Not to benefit, anybody can use non-class skills, but to get the pop when he becomes a rogue and his non-class skill suddenly become class skills, yeah, he would've needed to buy some of those rogue skills back when he was just a wizard. Otherwise the rogue skills are just new skills that he buys and is good at (no pop).
Whether you already bought the skill on a previous level, or you buy it the current level, or even buy it at some later level, it doesn't matter. ALL Rogue skills are now permanently class skills for you, and if 10 levels later, while advancing in your main class, you decide to finally put 1 rank into a Rogue skill, you'll instantly gain that +3 bonus.
Agreed.
And it is far more pronounced than under current 3.5. Here's how it works currently: You'll get 8 skill points (plus Int bonus) to put toward Rogue skills. The Rogue skills only count as Class Skills for this level... if at any other point before or after that multiclass level, when advancing in your main class you wished to put points into a Rogue skill, it counts as being Cross Class, meaning it costs 2 points per rank and can't be raised beyond the Cross Class limit. This means that in order to raise 2 Rogue skills to +4 (not counting attribute bonuses), it will take all 8 of your Rogue skill points for that level.
Under Pathfinder, though, it would take only 2 skill points to gain a +4 in 2 Rogue skills, and those 2 points could come at any point in the character's entire life. The 8 skill points gained when taking the Rogue level can, if put into 8 new Rogue skills, can become 32 total points of bonuses. That's 4x the potential bonus under 3.5.
So now, what you only got when you took a level of rogue first, now you can get any time you take a level of rogue (or thereafter). i.e., 32 points of bonus, maybe more with Int bonuses. It has always been possible to get 32 points out of a level of rogue, it just used to be restricted to when you took that level first.
What you're objecting to - I believe - is all those points coming in at once, and that 8 new ranks can turn into a +32 if they're spread out enough. Fair enough. (Just remember that the extra +24, the 8 x +3, can't be further spread out because it is a bonus to the original 8 skills.)
While the idea of limiting the number of newly class skills you can take the +3 on has merit, I think it would be a pain to try to remember which class skills you had the +3 on and which you didn't. Further, it would get away from making high-level multiclassed NPCs easier to create because you couldn't just assume anymore that they got +3 on all class skills. You have to think about when they took them again and if they'd earned the +3 yet.
In the end, I think we just have to accept that multiclassing in Pathfinder is going to open up a bunch of class skills to people and there will be lots of little +3 pops. This effect will be most pronounced when people take rogue levels because rogues get more skill points and have more class skills. This is mostly balanced out IMO by the fact that people aren't getting x4 skill points at 1st level anymore and won't have as many skill points to spread around.
My biggest complaint is, the way my game experience went, the only time you could get a new skill was when you raised your INT. That's it. With the Rankless system, even classes with low skill points would still have a chance to have an expansive skill base. But, no sense crying over spilled milk...
The milk is neither spilled nor spooled. At the very least under this system characters who increase their intelligence will get plenty of additional skill points for expanding their base. Seriously, am I the only one commenting who thinks that a Feat is a good way to increase a character's number of available skill points? Toughness is there for HP, why not one of Skill Points/Ranks?
On a different note I'm now fairly sure that the "Banking" from the prior Design Focus needs to be added to these rules. Tuck it way in the DM section on creating NPCs for all I care, but it will need to be there. In order to justify some of the "it doesn't matter the order" NPC building.
|
|
Seriously, am I the only one commenting who thinks that a Feat is a good way to increase a character's number of available skill points?
No, I think it's a fine idea. It's just that 2 points/level for folks like clerics, fighters and wizards doesn't even allow them to max out 1/4 of their class skills. A feat is great for someone who want to be more skillful than other fighters or other wizards, but for some classes the baseline seems to be unreasonably low.
On a different note I'm now fairly sure that the "Banking" from the prior Design Focus needs to be added to these rules... In order to justify some of the "it doesn't matter the order" NPC building.
Does order matter now? I thought getting rid of the 1st level x4 and the extra cost of CC skills would do the trick.
|
|
Ok, I finally understand what you were saying. I'm new here and didn't know the definition of "pop" the way you used it.
I've never liked the massive benefit in skill points of taking Rogue at first and then moving to another class. And I don't like it any better when you can do it at any level, not just 1st. That makes things worse, not better. The problem should be dealt with not expanded.
I don't see why it would be hard to track class skills at all. Most of the character sheets I've used (such as the official sheets from the 3.5 PHB, have a column of boxes in front of each skill that you color in if it is a class skill for your character. Take a look here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/charactersheets
It is incredibly easy to just color in 3 more skills from your new class when you take a level in it, rather than each and every skill.
As for a DM's NPC, it too is simple... just choose 3 new class skills for every level in a multiclass the character has. It doesn't matter what level each was acquired, just choose 3/lvl.
|
|
I've never liked the massive benefit in skill points of taking Rogue at first and then moving to another class. And I don't like it any better when you can do it at any level, not just 1st. That makes things worse, not better. The problem should be dealt with not expanded.
But it has clear benefits:
-- Makes higher level PC-NPC creating far more easy, because you don't have to wonder when did a character picked the level.-- To be a first level rogue is not a huge advantage with this system. (3.5 and alpha 1 big problem)
-- We need backwards compatibility so, we need a skill system that can give a way to have the same amount of skill points as in 3.5 or we will invalidate most of PrCs prerequisites. This system is ok for this.
-- Conversion of 3.5 NPCs is easier. Backwards compatibility again.
-- I quit the double points tax for cross-class skills, so makes sense to select skills that aren't class skills. More freedom, now a warrior can take ranks in perception, bluff, or diplomacy.
Multiclassing with a rogue gives +3, but stick with your class has a better progression in Pathfinder RPG (including 20th level trait).
So you can have huge benefits with both choices. This is the way, multiclassers are happy, non-multiclassers too. (At least with rogue multiclassing)
I come from a Rolemaster background, so skills are considered a quintessential part of my (and our group's) gaming. AD&D aside, pretty much every other game system I've played is partially or entirely skill based. Thus I found Saga's (and from what I can gather 4e's) skill system to be a complete athema to me (I hate it with the white-hot fires of a thousands suns).
I found the lack of ability to dabble in a few skills (as much as anything as a roleplaying element) to be very disheartening. (I say this as by-and-large, a fairly heavy optimiser, by the way). A quick check of my last, what three 3.5 characters shows that I have a few core skills I keep up every level (e.g. concentration or other skills essential to the class), and a few I dabble in or pick up later on (my current 11th level Pale Master only picked up the knowledge skills aside from Religion and Arcana a level or so ago, for example). Heck, the PC Fighter/Ranger I've adopted from one of my friends who's now in Russia wouldn't be the same without those couple of ranks in Perform (Funk). (Don't ask. Just. Don't. Ask. You really don't want to know...)
Thus, while I thought Alpha 1 was a vast improvement over Saga/4E (that's not saying anything, mind as I think AD&D's nonweapon proficiencies were nearly an improvement), I think Alpha 2 is much better. It might even be one of the few bits of Pathfinder I might swipe (mainly because I've spent so much work up-rating 3.5 with my own houserules that I just don't want the effort of doing more.)
It does sacrifice a bit of my vaunted flexibility, but it is simpler. (But on the other hand, with combined skills, your skills do go further anyway). The fact I'm seriously considering trying it out next time I start a game is an achievement (as generally, I find 3.5's skill system to be a piece of cake. Again, I've played Rolemaster though...)
Things like class verses cross-class and extra skills at high level are of low concern to me; I'll take it or leave; that itself (like combining the skills) is not something I'm going to lose sleep about either way.
The only niggle left, then, I think is the Int bonus increase issue. That's the only reason I dislike having to generate high-level Int based characters; having to chase through and ramp the Int bonus up every so often. Trouble is, I've yet to see an elegant way around it. The simple solution, of course, is to make it like hit points and retroactively increase the number of skills when Int bonuses increase (and vise versa when it drops but permenant Int loss is not all that common). But that's perhaps not the best solution.
Other than that, though, I think Alpha 2 is far better than what I'm gathering 4E's system is going to be. (And I'm not ever going to be using that even if in the highly unlikely event I consider 4E to be the greatest work of genious in the history of time otherwise.)
|
|
The only niggle left, then, I think is the Int bonus increase issue. That's the only reason I dislike having to generate high-level Int based characters; having to chase through and ramp the Int bonus up every so often. Trouble is, I've yet to see an elegant way around it. The simple solution, of course, is to make it like hit points and retroactively increase the number of skills when Int bonuses increase (and vise versa when it drops but permenant Int loss is not all that common). But that's perhaps not the best solution.
Read page 116 of Alpha 2, about temporary and permanent ability boosts/loses. I'm pretty sure Int bonus to skills are retroactive.
The only niggle left, then, I think is the Int bonus increase issue. That's the only reason I dislike having to generate high-level Int based characters; having to chase through and ramp the Int bonus up every so often. Trouble is, I've yet to see an elegant way around it. The simple solution, of course, is to make it like hit points and retroactively increase the number of skills when Int bonuses increase (and vise versa when it drops but permenant Int loss is not all that common). But that's perhaps not the best solution.Read page 116 of Alpha 2, about temporary and permanent ability boosts/loses. I'm pretty sure Int bonus to skills are retroactive.
*Reads*
So it seems.
Solves that problem neatly then.
I want to cast another vote for skill ranks.
The new system works great. It gets rid of problems with multiclassed characters as well as the 1st-level-dilemma.
If you want more skill points than before, raise your int (in Alpha 2, you get extra skill points retroactively for high int) or take the Open Minded feat.
Anyway, granting more skill points depending on activity shouldn't be a rule. You'd get people arguing over everything they did, or spend their downtime doing weird things just to get every skill imaginable.
|
|
Then again I plead, can we get bonus skill points at levels we don't get feats? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top?No need to plead. This is a fair idea and one that I have thought of. When I said that the skills system is firm. What I meant was that it will not recieve another complete redesign. Tweaking, however, is still quite possible (and probably likely).
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingI think the bonus skill ranks every few levels idea is cool. I can say personally, that if we must have ranks, that kind of thing would stop a lot of my griping (as it'd let players pick up new skills w/o sacrificing the old).
Is it possible to get the 2/4/6/8 changed to a straight 4/6/8? I know the HP streamlining was popular, and I assume that would be as well. Plus, again, it would allow fighters and clerics to do things.
Agreed.
Is it possible to get the 2/4/6/8 changed to a straight 4/6/8? I know the HP streamlining was popular, and I assume that would be as well. Plus, again, it would allow fighters and clerics to do things.
Heh. Why not standardize at 2/4/8? The rogue remains a skill monkey, and clerics still have 1/4 his skills (instead of 1/2, per a 4-point proposal). Bards and rangers, at 8 skill points, get a small bump with respect to the cleric. On the other hand, clerics do NOT, in my opinion, need a boost with respect to bards and rogues.
|
|
I want to cast another vote for skill ranks.
The new system works great. It gets rid of problems with multiclassed characters as well as the 1st-level-dilemma.
With all respect, this does not solve the multiclassing problem, it makes it worse. It effectively changes the "x4 skill points at 1st level" (due to your entire life experience, learning, training, and natural aptitude) into "x4 skill points each time you take a new class and gain new class skills".
With all respect, this does not solve the multiclassing problem, it makes it worse. It effectively changes the "x4 skill points at 1st level" (due to your entire life experience, learning, training, and natural aptitude) into "x4 skill points each time you take a new class and gain new class skills".I want to cast another vote for skill ranks.
The new system works great. It gets rid of problems with multiclassed characters as well as the 1st-level-dilemma.
To be clear, it is not just when you take a new class, but any time you place a rank in a class skill that you haven't trained before. For example, say a fighter only gets 2 skill points. 1st level he trains 2 class skills. 2nd level he trains a different 2 class skills, and at 3rd level he trains still another 2 class skills. Now he has 6 class skills with +4 in each (+1 skill rank, +3 for class).
|
|
To be clear, it is not just when you take a new class, but any time you place a rank in a class skill that you haven't trained before. For example, say a fighter only gets 2 skill points. 1st level he trains 2 class skills. 2nd level he trains a different 2 class skills, and at 3rd level he trains still another 2 class skills. Now he has 6 class skills with +4 in each (+1 skill rank, +3 for class).With all respect, this does not solve the multiclassing problem, it makes it worse. It effectively changes the "x4 skill points at 1st level" (due to your entire life experience, learning, training, and natural aptitude) into "x4 skill points each time you take a new class and gain new class skills".I want to cast another vote for skill ranks.
The new system works great. It gets rid of problems with multiclassed characters as well as the 1st-level-dilemma.
Yes, that's true. But for me, it's easier to reconcile getting such bonuses with your base class's skills because you've been training in that class for a long time, it's your main focus, etc. It's a lot harder for me to reconcile getting such boosts for a 1 level dip in another class, long after you've returned to advancing in your main class. I could see picking up a few of the dipped classes's skills like that, but not all of them.
As said in another post:
The skill list and the number of skill points per class aren't fixed at all!
If the skills merge further you might see that even 2 skill points per level might be well enough!So I REALLY don't know why on earth some of you NEED extra skill points at every other level?!
You get skill points on EVERY level! Isn't that enough or what?
Well, i know it feels like a bit of silly extra math, but in the games I've played, people like to keep their skills maxed out, so it's mostly to allow them to pick something else up. Plus, i think one thing people really liked about alpha 1 was that there were absolutely no dead levels, regardless of class.
With the new classes there is NEVER a dead level!
All non casters get a special every level and spellcaster get their additional spells!
With the new classes there is NEVER a dead level!
All non casters get a special every level and spellcaster get their additional spells!
I agree, there's rarely a dead level. But you still can't keep skills maxed AND pick up somethng new, so a mechanic like that is a way to compromise with the people who liked the last system.
I agree, there's rarely a dead level. But you still can't keep skills maxed AND pick up somethng new, so a mechanic like that is a way to compromise with the people who liked the last system.With the new classes there is NEVER a dead level!
All non casters get a special every level and spellcaster get their additional spells!
Make a feat, Improved Learning, each time you take it, you get another skill point per level (like improved toughness).
|
|
Make a feat, Improved Learning, each time you take it, you get another skill point per level (like improved toughness).I agree, there's rarely a dead level. But you still can't keep skills maxed AND pick up somethng new, so a mechanic like that is a way to compromise with the people who liked the last system.With the new classes there is NEVER a dead level!
All non casters get a special every level and spellcaster get their additional spells!
This is something pres man and I agree on.
The milk is neither spilled nor spooled. At the very least under this system characters who increase their intelligence will get plenty of additional skill points for expanding their base. Seriously, am I the only one commenting who thinks that a Feat is a good way to increase a character's number of available skill points? Toughness is there for HP, why not one of Skill Points/Ranks?
On a different note I'm now fairly sure that the "Banking" from the prior Design Focus needs to be added to these rules. Tuck it way in the DM section on creating NPCs for all I care, but it will need to be there. In order to justify some of the "it doesn't matter the order" NPC building.
I have always thought the "Open Minded" feat was a great idea. The only problem was getting the DMs to allow it (neither of the DMs I played with liked or allowed Psionics in their game, so...). However, there is a part of me that rankles with the thought of spending a valuable feat just to get extra skill points, but I suppose that'd be just another trade-off you'd have to take in stride.
The idea of "banking" skill points sounds good. But I'd think that's best left up to the individual DM.
By the way, I don't think you can "spool" milk. I may be wrong, so you're free to try. Let me know if it works (hahaha).
DogBone
|
|
I've never liked the massive benefit in skill points of taking Rogue at first and then moving to another class. And I don't like it any better when you can do it at any level, not just 1st. That makes things worse, not better. The problem should be dealt with not expanded.
Ideally this notion would be taken out back and shot, to be replaced with something like 'normal skill points for your class at 1st level, with bonus skill ranks equal to your Intelligence score, which can be taken in any skills.'
So a 1st level Human Rogue with an Int 12 would get 10 skill points in Rogue class skills (Rogue 1 + Int mod + Human bonus) *and* 12 skill points in whatever the heck he wants to represent 'previous learning.'
A 1st level Dwarven Fighter with an Int 10 would get 2 skill points in Fighter class skills (Fighter 1) *and* 10 skill points in whatever the heck he learned back in dwarfland (probably some metalworking crafts and possibly appraise and maybe knowledge (history) and / or (dungeoneering) so that he can recite his lineage to the elders satisfaction and / or function underground).
The 'x4 sp at 1st level / 1 HD' thing from 3.0 just radically rewards classes that gets heaps o' skills (and critters, like Outsiders and Dragons, who have way more skills than they would ever need), while being a drop in a bucket to that Int 2 housecat or Int 8 half-orc who gets *3* whole skill points out of it...
|
Just throwing another suggestion out on the floor here but I will keep it as close to the Alpha 2 as possible.
One of the biggest issues with skills is the retroactive effect intelligence has on the number of ranks. While the A2 system makes the paperwork a little easier (gain +1 skill and you effectively get +1 skill per character level) the fact is its still unnecessary paperwork.
My suggestion would be to go with a system that uses Intelligence as a bonus to skill ranks instead of assigning bonus skill ranks each level, I'm not sure how best to handle this while retaining backwards compatibility and flexibility within the skill system but it would sure help reduce the book keeping.
thoughts?
|
|
I've had thoughts parallelling that.
What I don't want is the skill bonus from a Headband of Intellect to make a difference on Skill Points. The reason that is hard is you'd have to keep track of separate skill 'pools'. If you take off the headband of intellect and lose 'spellcraft' one day, what's to stop you from losing 'knowledge (religion)' the next day?
I think that the best system is that permanent intelligence gain (such as from inherent bonuses) gives you extra skill points. Temporary intelligence damage gives you a -1 to all skill points for every point your intelligence modifier is reduced. I think 'Drain' should count as temporary, so you really do want to get it healed quickly, otherwise you keep a -1 to your skills even though you've been adventuring for seven levels down 2 points of Int.
|
|
I've had thoughts parallelling that.
What I don't want is the skill bonus from a Headband of Intellect to make a difference on Skill Points. The reason that is hard is you'd have to keep track of separate skill 'pools'. If you take off the headband of intellect and lose 'spellcraft' one day, what's to stop you from losing 'knowledge (religion)' the next day?
I think I'd prefer that non-permanant Intelligence modifiers (enhancements or penalties or damage) should just give a plus or minus to Int-based skill checks, but not affect skill ranks at all.
I certainly have never liked the idea that taking off or putting on a Headband of Intellect (or receiving the benefit's of Fox's Cunning, or taking Int damage from a poison) would actually add or subtract *ranks* of skills, since, as you said, who is to say where those ranks come from (or go to)? A can of worms best left un-opened, IMO.
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.
I for one WILL NOT play a table top RPG that doesnt have skill ranks. thats EXACTLY why i hate 4th ed.
|
|
I think the example I use of finding my watch each morning is a good example of the difference between Spot and Search.
Now, just to explain, I never lose my wallet or my keys. I always know where they are every morning. My watch, on the other hand, I sometimes take off before I'm ready to call it a night. That means it might end up by the kitchen sink if I was doing dishes. It might end up on my desk in the basement if I took it off while I was reading the Paizo boards. It might end up on my coffee table if I took it off while having my laptop upstairs. It might be on top of the microwave if I took it off right when I came in from work. It might be where I put the mail if I came in with the mail and took it off then. It might be on a shelf right next to my bedroom door if I took it off as I went into the bedroom. It might be on my nightstand if I took it off when I changed for the night. Those are the most common places, but there are a few others, like sometimes I've set it on top of the TV, or dropped it on the ground, or what have you.
Now, since I frequently can't remember where I put my watch, the whole time I'm getting ready in the morning, getting my cereal, etc, I'm always keeping an eye out for it. Hopefully I notice it, and I'll go back there and put my watch on when I'm ready to get going. If I fail to notice it throughout the day I go and I look in each of the spots I detailed above. Hopefully that means I've found it.
In the situations where I have not, it becomes a real 'search'. Now, this only works when I know it has to be somewhere, but I can't 'see it'. This might be because someone moved it, or someone put something on top of it, or I put it into a place that I wouldn't expect. The process of searching is much more methodical than the process of 'spotting'. Since I know I can't see it, I have to do other things. I go through the clothes in my laundry hamper in case I dropped it there and it fell down. I look behind and around the furniture it might be on. I move objects out of the way. I try to go room by room to make sure that I don't forget to check any place. Now, usually I'll find it in a place I 'looked' but didn't 'search'.
That's why I think there is a difference. While I think it is sufficiently strong reason to keep them separate, I also have concerns about how the skills work in game. Making search Int based tended to favor the rogue who needs the skill in the first place. I like that. Making it wisdom based does not. Having a 'super skill' is something I oppose. I think that having more than 2 skills rolled together in any situation is bad. In fact, I'm joining a growing group of people that think skills should be the way they were in 3.5 with just a couple of changes - perception (spot & listen) and stealth (hide & move silently) since they involved two rolls when used.
|
|
See, this isn't really based in anything like cognitive science as far as I know.
As I am not a cognitive scientist (more of a Skinnerian behaviorist, really, since I grew up on a farm breaking horses to ride, and very much got the notion that animals brains are little machines), I'll bow to your superior knowledge here.
As for the housecat, boy, I guess you've never tried to hide something from a cat, LOL.
Housecats in D&D are crazy broken anyway. :)
And in real-life, they are terribly over-rated. I love the little beasties, but I have never seen an animal with such vastly superior senses that is so freaking easy to sneak up on and startle...
In their favor, they aren't as easy to trick as dogs, who you can fool with the same 'did he throw the stick?' stunt fifty times in a row.
|
|
I'm kind of disappointed at the new skill system -- unless every class will get bonuses on all their class skills (as Jason has suggested might be the case in the final product), it's harder to create a character that has any non-class skills. I see fighters taking a hit in this system -- maybe not human fighters with INT 14+, but how to create a Half-Orc fighter with INT 10 who had more than two skills at LVL+3? It's possible, but not recommendable. What if I wanted to play a fighter with average INT and who puts most of his ranks in Acrobatics, Perception and Diplomacy?
I like the Alpha 1 system far better, because once you picked those cross-class skills, they upgraded with your level automatically. You could, indeed, take some cross-class skills and still have "maxed out" class skills -- even fighters.
Anyway, if this system is going to stay, I suggest that *every* class gets at least 4 ranks/level.