Thats really all I have to say. 2 skills per level is bad lest give em 4
In my home games no class get 2. If it was 2 they get 4
I agree.
I would not really want to see classes getting more skill points. Skills are already getting combined, so that there are fewer of them, so there is no need to add more skill points to classes too.
would personally like to see the skill points more closely mirror the BAB to Hit Die comparison (with the exeception of the barbarian). Just as there are now three tiers in BAB and Hit Die, make it three tiers in skill points...4,6,8. That still keeps the rogue head and shoulders above the rest.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
would personally like to see the skill points more closely mirror the BAB to Hit Die comparison (with the exeception of the barbarian). Just as there are now three tiers in BAB and Hit Die, make it three tiers in skill points...4,6,8. That still keeps the rogue head and shoulders above the rest.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Yes. That appears to be the best solution.
I am good with 4/6/8 or just 4/6. rogues really no longer need 8
|
|
I agree with the combining of skills rogues probably do not need 8, but I'd just as soon stick with that.
I do favor giving every class at least 4 skill choices each level. The sad truth is that skills can't be an important part of the game for many characters because they simply lack enough skill choices to be meaningful.
I do favor giving every class at least 4 skill choices each level. The sad truth is that skills can't be an important part of the game for many characters because they simply lack enough skill choices to be meaningful.
QFT right there.
Classes with fewer skills don't rely on them so much, and most of the skills they would normally take can be used untrained anyhow. And for fighters, they get so many bonus feats that they can afford to use their standard feat every 3rd level to gain Skill Focus to boost their proficiency in a particular skill... there's your added customization.
|
|
Classes with fewer skills don't rely on them so much, and most of the skills they would normally take can be used untrained anyhow. And for fighters, they get so many bonus feats that they can afford to use their standard feat every 3rd level to gain Skill Focus to boost their proficiency in a particular skill... there's your added customization.
And I disagree.
If I say classes that get fewer skills don't rely on them, that isn't to say that they shouldn't be able to.
A fighter that can Ride and Climb doesn't bring any additional benefit to the group. Sometimes he can climb a cliff without having someone carry him. Yippee!
Seriously, if each class has several skills, they have a chance of contributing something to the group. I think that 4 skills is a minimum.
Classes with fewer skills don't rely on them so much, and most of the skills they would normally take can be used untrained anyhow. And for fighters, they get so many bonus feats that they can afford to use their standard feat every 3rd level to gain Skill Focus to boost their proficiency in a particular skill... there's your added customization.And I disagree.
If I say classes that get fewer skills don't rely on them, that isn't to say that they shouldn't be able to.
A fighter that can Ride and Climb doesn't bring any additional benefit to the group. Sometimes he can climb a cliff without having someone carry him. Yippee!
Seriously, if each class has several skills, they have a chance of contributing something to the group. I think that 4 skills is a minimum.
I agree, DeadDM. The situation is not that classes that dont rely on skills get lower skill points. It is inverted, class that dont get many skill points dont rely on skill. Because they cant. It just is not an option for them and it should be an option.
As for requiring a player to burn one of his character's feats simply to give him what is in my opinion the basic competency in skills everyone should have at the least is a problem. It is one thing to have the option to boost skill points above that basic competency, it is another to require burning resources just to be competent.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I've been using 4 as the min since 01 and its never made the skill monkeys any less because of it. I was put off it want fixed in 3.5
While it's sometimes not fun to have only a few skill points, to simply increase the lower skilled classes' skill ranks would narrow the contrast between the skilled and unskilled classes. I think it should stay as it is.
Yoda, it would result in the same contrast as between BAB, Hit Die and Saves....three tiers. The difference between skill points is an every increasing one...
1st level @ 4 skill points = 4
1st level @ 8 skill points = 8
10th level @ @ 4 skill points = 40
10th level @ 8 skill points = 80
20th level @ 4 skill points = 80
20th level @ 8 skill points = 160
Those are considerable contrasts. A 10th level rogue would have as many skill points as a 20th level fighter or cleric. We cant just look at one level at a time. We need to consider the full 1st to 20th spectrum.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I concur. We have two players in the RotRL playtest who couldn't ride a horse because they didn't have the skill picks to divide. I expect the same limitation even with the new skill system. The 2 to 8 spectrum was in part because of the vast number of skills the rogue needed to do his job.
[DEVILS_ADVOCATE]
Have you considered the other end of the spectrum? Maybe a 2/4/6 skill progression is what is called for, and NOBODY should count on contributing skills outside of specific pidgeonholed roles?
[/DEVILS_ADVOCATE]
I don't like the devil's advocate role, and concur that 4/6/8 is the best option so far.
|
On another thread I made a brave suggestion.
Instead of the current 2, 4, 6, and 8, I proposed different intervals. 3, 4, 5, 6. It balances the classes; no longer is the "1st level rogue" so much of an appealing choice. Furthermore, it fits better now that the skills have been decreased from 36 to 26.
To add my 0.02 dinars to the multitude of similar posts, 4 skill points a level is quite reasonable and probably so commonly house ruled as to be ridiculous. If you're at the point where everyone is houseruling it the same way .... well, maybe it should change.
Skills in play are somewhat odd in that the rarely provide class balance but often smooth the way between things and let characters feel more powerful by being proficient in something.
I vote for 4/6/8, too.
Let me add my vote for the 4/6/8 option as well.
Yeah, if they insist on doing that rank stuff, a 4/6/8 system would be great (since they're streamlining HD anyway).
One more for the 4/6/8 group :) Give the fighters something to do other than swing a sword, and let the wizards actually make use of all their Knowledge skills!!
I'm on board for 4/6/8 as well. Rogues may not absolutely need 8 anymore, but it allows them to retain their status as skill monkeys, which is part of the charm. Actually, I think with the drawdown in the number of skills, it makes it more likely to see an actual Rogue linguistics expert who wasn't just taking the ranks to get to a PRC.
And that, to me at least, is a good thing.
I am not in favor of changing all 2s to 4s. Not all classes are meant to be skillful and with the combination of many skills the argument that it was needed is even less valid now.
I'm sorry release 2 went back to a rank system. I would have prefered to see the Scaled variant of the Release 1 system in which each class got 2,3,or 4+Int mod skill picks at 1st level with additional skill picks every 2 levels for high skill classes, every 3 levels for med skill classes, and every 4 levels of low skill classes.
This system avoided most of the pit falls of the Alpha Release, made cross-class skills meaningful, allowed new skills to be acquired in meaningful amounts at high levels, and was extremely easy to calculate when making high level characters.
|
I've played in groups that thought everyone should have atleast 4 instead of 2 and the result was the classes that got nerfed for having more actually got nerfed harder. A Ranger in a 2.5 game was taken to a d8 so that he could have 6+int but if the fighter was upped to 4+int, the ranger was less of a fighter than a fighter. He didn't have the HP that a fighter would and definately wasn't more skillful than a fighter. I like the 2+int for the fighter because it makes sense. He has spent the majority of his training with weapons and armor so he didn't really learn anything else along the way unless he grew up doing something else(like farming). I think, like Jason said, that it should remain the same for backwards compatability. Also, most people forget that you can take 10 and 20 on just about every skill. So having ranks in those skills are not necessary.
well on the note of the ranger it'll be a d10 again so bumping everyone thats 2 to 4 wouldn't be an issue. How ever i can live with a option lest it will be in the core book then.
|
|
Hey there all,
I can certainly understand the desire to give more skill points. I think this will be an optional rule in the final system. I would prefer to keep the base numbers close for backwards compatibility reasons.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Exactly why I proposed 3,4,5,6 instead of 2,4,6,8. The current revision of the rogue has 21 skills in her class skill list, opposed to the original 29 in D&D 3.5. That's a 28% drop in that list.
Also, in PRPG the skill amount in total is 35, and in 3.5 it's 45. A drop of 23%. It'd only be fair to balance the skill point outlet in favor of fighters and other low-skill classes. If you aren't convinced this would be easy to convert? Spot & Listen -> Perception, Move Silently & Hide -> Stealth, Disable Device & Open Lock -> Disable Device etc. So practically the rogue doesn't lose any particular skill.
A fighter would, of course, receive a boon. Though I feel like it should be intended; a fighter always lacked so much outside of combat. And, well, inside combat as well.
And I really doubt it'd be somehow harder to calculate when you use odd numbers. With this kind of modification, the difference would still be visible, and the importance of intelligence greater even to a warrior.
Ok, with the current skill list I feel that there are still too many skills, we have Bluff and Disquise, which both can be rolled into Deception, Climb and Swim can both go into Athletics, and sense motive needs to fold into perception, and drop Fly, I dont see this as being useful. with that there should be enough skill points to go around to cover and make your characters viable
|
|
Ok, with the current skill list I feel that there are still too many skills ...
Just curious, why is having "too many" skills a problem? If you don't like Fly, don't take it and it has no effect on you. I see the argument for wanting to combine Hide and Move Silently because people use both at the same time, etc., but I don't get "I never use it so get rid of it." If it's a shortage of skill points to put into all the good skills, like Climb and Swim, others have suggested upping the skill points per level of classes like fighters. But how does having less skills make the game better?
I was refering to the lack of skill points to go around, as I posted in another area I was suggesting the following skill list, I think it folds the skills that are close to each other into a more viable list but still keeps a nice selection.
Acrobatics
Appraise
Athletics
Deception
Diplomacy
Craft (each seperate as current list)
Disable Device
Escape Artist
Heal
Intimidate
Knowledge skills (each seperate as current list)
Linquistics
Perception
Perform (each seperate as current list)
Profession (each seperate as current list)
Ride
Spellcraft
Stealth
Survival
Thievery (or sleight of Hand whichever name you prefer)
Use magic device
|
I can certainly understand the desire to give more skill points. I think this will be an optional rule in the final system. I would prefer to keep the base numbers close for backwards compatibility reasons.
Not only backwards compatable, but based on the increased availability of skills in Alpha 2, it makes sense to keep the numbers low:
For example,
A 5th level Gnome fighter with 10 Int wants to be stealthy:
PRPG
Invest one rank per level in Stealth.
Cost: 1 rank/+1 modifier
Total Cost: 5 out of 10 class ranks
Benefit: +5 to move silently or to hide
3.X
Invest 2 ranks per level into Move Silently and Hide.
Cost: 2 ranks/+1 modifier
Total Cost: 10 out of 10 class ranks
Benefit: +3 to move silently and +2 to hide (or other combination)
Whoah, I just noticed the x4 multiplier has gone at 1st level...
I appreciate that fighters should get fewer skill points than more skill based classes (that makes sense), but if after 120 years of growing up my elven fighter gets just +1 to Diplomacy and +1 to Sense Motive as the sum of everything she learnt (plus one feat), then that's pathetic.
Granted, she can continue to train those skills up and end up better off than in 3.5, but it strains credibility that any starting character, other than the most stupid peasant, is that limited. Half the fun of playing the game is designing an interesting character to interact with the game-world. Skills are an easy way to provide individuality and break out from the stereotypes, so lets have more of them.
And why have synergy bonuses disappeared?
|
|
Whoah, I just noticed the x4 multiplier has gone at 1st level...
I appreciate that fighters should get fewer skill points than more skill based classes (that makes sense), but if after 120 years of growing up my elven fighter gets just +1 to Diplomacy and +1 to Sense Motive as the sum of everything she learnt (plus one feat), then that's pathetic.
Granted, she can continue to train those skills up and end up better off than in 3.5, but it strains credibility that any starting character, other than the most stupid peasant, is that limited. Half the fun of playing the game is designing an interesting character to interact with the game-world. Skills are an easy way to provide individuality and break out from the stereotypes, so lets have more of them.
Let's see, your fighter has also learned how to use every martial weapon, every type of armor, shields, how to defend himself better than any peasant (10 HP), and how to attack better than any peasant (+1 BAB, requirement for lots of feats).
Fighters spend their youths learning to fight. Nothing too incredulous about that.
small threadjack on elves.
Elves do not really start learning class skills until there well into there 80 or early 90's. They spend much of there long youth at play or messing around and learning what it means to be an elf. There minds don't really develop into what we would call young adult until then.
Drawves I would say are similar in age style. They take to time and enjoy there youth learning what it is to be a drawf to understand stone and metal to train in the arts of there kind only then do they take thought about what they wish to learn.
I'd like to toss a vote for this, as well, if we're keeping the rank system at all (which is vastly inferior to the Alpha 1 version). The only class I could see getting 2+Int is wizard; fighters, sorcerers, clerics, all need more to get anything beyond the bare bones necessities.
I still think that the clear desire for more skilled characters can be reasonably be met by a Feat. This kind of character customization is precisely the area that feats were created to cover. It does not have to be an optional rule that is added outside of the current system. I keep bring up Open Minded as it is a fairly obscure and underused feat in the Psionics SRD.
I would want to do some full play testing but modifying Open Minded to work more like the new Pathfinder Toughness would not be totally unreasonable to my mind. A character would gain 5 skill points plus 1 every level there after. Although I would prefer a feat that granted your HD/Level in skill points plus 1 every level there after. In effect a feat that grants a character 1 new fully trained skill (or split up however he wants).
Since it seems likely that the feat load in Pathfinder will remain 10 vs 3e's 7, that gives characters and extra 3 feats to take as skill point boosting feats.
|
|
In truth, I almost think the skills should be scaled back to account for the reduced number of skills. Someone else suggested 2 / 3 / 4 / 6 or something like that, and I think that may be what's needed.
With the Alpha 1 skill rules, a Rogue could thereotically max out every class skill with no int bonus. That was far too much. In this one...I don't know. I like the new rules, but I don't understand the reasoning in giving 2+int classes a boost.
One example was the Fighter, how, with higher skills, they could become that Diplomatic lord of the land, the King, the Warlord. I don't see that. I don't see the Fighter as Aragorn, as the noble King. I see the fighter as the ultimate warrior. A character who has forgon all the social graces and other skills to focus on his craft. Want a diplomatic warrior? Play a Knight or a Marshall. Please keep my Fighter weapon happy and skill low.
I too will put in my vote for 4/6
followed by 4/6/8.
Jason,
for backwards compatibility, it is not too far out of line. You only have to add 2 skill points per level to go from 3.5 to PFRPG. It appears to me that it is a smaller change than what is currently going on with skills PFRPG vs 3.5.
|
|
Hey there all,
I can certainly understand the desire to give more skill points. I
think this will be an optional rule in the final system. I would prefer to keep the base numbers close for backwards compatibility reasons.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Understood. I disagree.
There's a fine line to walk here. You're trying to make the game better and to keep it backward compatible. As you said at the Alpha 1 release, it is easier to add something into the game than to take it away. Adding more feats hasn't worried you about backward compatability.
2 skills per level is not much fun. Making the game more fun without seriously overpowering any classes is good. Skills is a good place to allow more flexibility and more 'power' because it doesn't really change the game.
For myself, as a consumer, I'll likely buy the Pathfinder stuff as long as I have money to do so. But I buy a lot of game systems that I don't use. I have Deadlands, Star Gate, BESM, some GURPs, and some systems that I have no idea what they're supposed to be. The point is, I think Pathfinder has the potential to be THE GAME that I play, the way 3.5 D&D is now. But to be the game, it must be significantly better than the game I'm playing now.
There's a lot of people on this thread that agree with me here. The 3.5 skill point allotment makes some classes less fun to play. Making them more fun is better. It is hardly a sacrifice to backward compatability if you can add two skills as class skills and make no other changes and you're done. Most NPCs it won't matter anyways, since the things that make skill use fun tend to be outside of combat anyway.
An important final consideration is design - as an adventure writer do you include information for what the dragon's frosty breath will do to the ground the fight takes place on? Having a battle in an ice rink is almost certain to be memorable - but most people wouldn't include it as a major terrain feature because there isn't an expectation that the PCs will have any real chance to 'succeed'. Opening up skill choices, even a little, makes it so a designer can expect certain things from a group. Sure, not everyone will have balance, or climb, or whatever, but you can feel more confident throwing a number of such encounters out and know that it won't just be the rogue who can handle those situations.