I have used increased skill points for the last two campaigns I have DMed. I give all classes that used to only get 2 a boost to 4 instead with the exception of psions, wizards, and sorcerers, all of whome get 6 points per level.
I have not experienced any undo issues with this and have also found that the players would selecdt those skills that added extra flavor.
So please - more skill points, please!
Always thought wizards should not be on the low end of the skill points. These are supposed to be highly educated people. 2 points just does not convey that well at all.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
Always thought wizards should not be on the low end of the skill points. These are supposed to be highly educated people. 2 points just does not convey that well at all.
This is a highly debatable issue, since most wizards invariably have a high intelligence score. Giving a few extra skill points to fighters might give them 5 total instead of 3. Giving 2 more to wizards might give them 8 instead of 6.
|
So, it is an issue where the 3.0 and 3.5 designers opted to try for balance at the expense of 'realism'.
Counting on a wizard to have a +4 bonus to Intelligence so that they would have 6 skills seems strange. Depending on the ability score generation method, an 18 can be very hard to come by. With Pathfinder it will be easier, I believe with Int as a bonus for some races. In any case, once a wizard buys Spellcraft (which still has concentration in it, which is bad) and Knowledge Arcana, yes, he has more skill points to spend. He's probably going to pick up a lot of knowledge skills. Usually, I see the wizard taking a couple ranks in a few because they can't 'support' them at future levels. This means they don't get to take fun abilities like Decipher Script (linguistics).
More skills = more fun. As long as the skill uses don't go crazy, where climb lets you walk on ceilings without penalty. The skills is the one area of the game where we're least likely to accidentally make a 'super hero' even with more points.
Personally, I'm not looking for a lot more skill points (as in Alpha 1) - but I do like the idea of having a few extra every now and then so you can begin learning a new skill. Of course, I do have a system that generates that, but it does involve fewer skill points for levels 1-3.
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, I think that is being too conservative. Skills from non-Pathfinder stuff are already going to be a little off.
I am very much in favor of giving more skill points to the classes with the fewest skills. The 4/6/8 progression is good; the 3/4/5/6 progression is pretty good too.
But there are likely just as many people who don't want to see the skill point totals increased for the low skill classes and a much larger group who doesn't care either way. It is a truism that people who dislike something tend to speak up more than people who like something.
Increasing the 2 sp classes to 4 is utterly unnecessary and the problem of low skill points has already been solved by the combining of skills and the new rank system.
A fighter with only 2 skill points can gain decent bonuses in far more skills under this system than under 3.5. If he wants four class skills he can have all of them by 2nd level at a +4 bonus instead of +2 in two of them and +3 in two of them. Cross-class skills are also far more valuable now. If the fighter wants he can put all of his ranks into Perception and Stealth and he'll only be 3 points behind the rogue who did the same thing for his entire career. And those two skill points effectively let him near max out what would have been five skills under 3.5 (spot, listen, search, hide, move silently).
There's just no reason to increase the low skill threshold any longer. It's a non-issue.
Under 3.5 I agree it was a problem and under 3.5 I could probably be convinced that increasing the low classes to 4 sp is good idea. But it just isn't a problem in the Pathfinder rules. Increasing their skills points now devalues the high skill point allotments of the high skill classes.
I think it's time for odd skill points per level.
Why is anybody afraid of using 3 or 5 skill points per level?
Fighters and Clerics and Paladins could all be good with 3 skill points.
And Rangers were maybe good for 5.
My POV.
@ Arne: Hey chef, are you german?
I have read the entire thread and have to say I agree with everyone who says the 2+Int skills per level needs to be killed.
I have never ran a game where I had any class with less then 4 skill points per level.
Backwards compatibility issues are not that big of a deal!!! So what I get to add 2 skill points per level to my character WHOOOT!!!
I also feel some skills need to be added to some of the classes.
Warrior Types needs Perception. Sorry I don't know how many times my DM has called for a spot check or listen check as a Warrior who is on watch while the party rests and sleeps and were jumped because I had no ranks or cross class skills in any of those skills. A fighter should be ALERT! Not just a Meat Shield.
I am not advocating for a Fighter or Paladin to be a font of knowledge, but to be perceptive, is something a WARRIOR should be able to do or they tend to end up dead or back stabbed.
Wizards are very well learned. And they should get at least 6 skills per level. Make them have a stipulation that they can only spend them in Knowledge skills or Magical Ability skills.
They should also have to take the FLY Skill (not a pointless skill) in order to know how to fly. Our Warmage in the game I am a part of tends to just fly at a low hover almost all the time now. And he is a human with no natural ability to fly. I like the FLY skill, Good Idea!
Clerics should not just be a Healing battery they should be able to ride, heal, treat injury, know nobility, religion, Know the Planes, Turn Undead and still be diplomatic and charismatic
Jason,
You want to create a game that takes 3.5 in to the future and you ask for feedback. Then deal away with the old skill system and introduce the 4/6 or 4/6/8 skill system. You cant be open to feedback unless your willing to seriously listen to the players. Every post but a few uses the same house rule. Why make it an Optional rule, Make the 4/6 or 4/6/8 a Full fledge rule for PRPG.
Also on a side note I want to vote for combining Swim and Climb into a Single Athletics Skill.
An example of PRPG Fighter right now with out more skill points.
OHH I as a Fighter with an Int 12 get Climb 1 rank, 1 Swim Rank and 1 Ride Rank... But what about being alert and watching for the enemy... Oh I guess thats what the rouge is for... (insert snoring rouge here)
BAH BAH!!! I am just a little lamb for the big bad monster to eat!! When did the darkness get big red eyes. Oh well I guess I will keep my eye on the rock who keeps Eye Jamming me over there near the fire....
I am a long winded poster when I feel its important! but those are my suggestions!
Yes I understand the +3 in a class skill. Please don't comment on my post if your going to just say but one rank equals 4. I know that, I am trying to give my feedback on a game system thats asking for our feedback.
Dracodruid, I'm American of German descent.
jordankarr,
I have to utterly disagree that fighters need Perception as a class skill. In 3.5 cross-classing in Perception was admittedly a very bad option since you could never keep both Spot and Listen at decent levels. But under the Pathfinder system a fighter can cross-class Perception using only 1 rank per level and he's only 3 points behind the ranger (absent differences in race and wisdom).
Fighter are the typical NPC guards and if they all have max ranks in Perception than sneaky characters are completely hosed because there are always far more people trying to spot them any one of whom can sound the alarm. I'm actually worried that the existing system may already hose stealthy characters because cross-classing in Perception is so incredibly effective now.
|
I have to utterly disagree that fighters need Perception as a class skill. In 3.5 cross-classing in Perception was admittedly a very bad option since you could never keep both Spot and Listen at decent levels. But under the Pathfinder system a fighter can cross-class Perception using only 1 rank per level and he's only 3 points behind the ranger (absent differences in race and wisdom).
Fighter are the typical NPC guards and if they all have max ranks in Perception than sneaky characters are completely hosed because there are always far more people trying to spot them any one of whom can sound the alarm. I'm actually worried that the existing system may already hose stealthy characters because cross-classing in Perception is so incredibly effective.
Both very good points.
I'm for the increase from 2 to 4. The 2 was just not enough to give a character any amount of skills with it.
[url=smurf][/url]
|
|
I think it's time for odd skill points per level.
Why is anybody afraid of using 3 or 5 skill points per level?
Fighters and Clerics and Paladins could all be good with 3 skill points.
And Rangers were maybe good for 5.
My POV.
I really really hope you did read my message on the first page, since I said the exact same thing!
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.
I've been giving this idea away on maybe three different threads. It balances, makes roguedipping more improbable, and makes a fighter with INT 8 still better than a fighter with INT 6. Think about it. Really. Don't blindly think 2 -> 4 is the only choice.
I dont know 3,4,5,6, just don't feel right and to me is alot harder on backwards compatibility then just making everyone thats 2 a 4.
Really whats so bad about
Barbarian 4 + Int modifier
Bard 6 + Int modifier
Cleric 4 + Int modifier
Druid 4 + Int modifier
Fighter 4 + Int modifier
Monk 4 + Int modifier
Paladin 4 + Int modifier
Ranger 6 + Int modifier
Rogue 8 + Int modifier
Sorcerer 4 + Int modifier
Wizard 4 + Int modifier
It does not take away from bards,rangers or rogues in the lest it does make rogue dipping a lot less common
Thats really all I have to say. 2 skills per level is bad lest give em 4
Nope. I would agree with the old skill list. But the new consolidated one makes up for this.
|
|
I dont know 3,4,5,6, just don't feel right and to me is alot harder on backwards compatibility then just making everyone thats 2 a 4.
Really whats so bad about
Barbarian 4 + Int modifier
Bard 6 + Int modifier
Cleric 4 + Int modifier
Druid 4 + Int modifier
Fighter 4 + Int modifier
Monk 4 + Int modifier
Paladin 4 + Int modifier
Ranger 6 + Int modifier
Rogue 8 + Int modifier
Sorcerer 4 + Int modifier
Wizard 4 + Int modifierIt does not take away from bards,rangers or rogues in the lest it does make rogue dipping a lot less common
Having 3,4,5,6 isn't that hard. As I elaborated somewhere (too many threads, argh), since the number of skills has decreased by about ~25%, having a rogue redistribute skills isn't that hard. Heck, you'd have to do the redistributing anyways, whatever the class!
And to my knowledge nearly all rangers and rogues and such invested in Spot & Listen. That makes things a little easier. I don't see a problem with backwards compatibility.
The problem with 2->4 is that it makes classes too similar and stale. Then there'd be only 3 classes with more than 4+int. Whoop-di-doo.
Thats really all I have to say. 2 skills per level is bad lest give em 4Nope. I would agree with the old skill list. But the new consolidated one makes up for this.
I don't agree. For one thing some of the classes don't have any of the consolidated skills, for instance the Fighter. For another thing all characters won't necessarily buy consolidated skills. Also, even consolidated skills aren't that much better than normal ones. Also another thing two skills just plain isn't enough, period (that's just my opinion of course, feel free to disagree).
|
My vote is for 3/4/5/6 simply because I had the same discussion about rogue skill points and the number of skills available being reduced. by virtue of a 10 Int human rogue there was almost no difference at higher levels with the Alpha 1.
I agree skills do add flavor and I have yet to see someone play a character with so many skill points that it destroyed the game, in fact most players take the ranger/rogue level dip just to add some flavor at first level to their characters. Ive even seen people play experts at 1st level just for the skill points!
|
I have been following this thread to some extent, yet still don't see there being an issue with how many skill points are provided. Especially factoring in that there have been different skills "folded" into each other in 3.PF, it seems even easier to maintain decent enough bonuses.
If you want a character with more skills, why not create the character with a higher intelligence?
Another idea I saw suggested in a thread on races, was to provide a bonus skill point per level instead of bonus hit point, for the levels one takes in your favoured class. Would that concept help alleviate some of the skill point issues?
Fighter and cleric have always suffered from the lack of skill points. Heck the example 5th level cleric in the DMG didn't even have enough skill points to drop some in Knowledge (religion).
Also with both of those classes requiring focus 2-3 ability scores to be optimal in many cases. Intelligence falls to the way side for the average fighter or cleric looking at a 12 at most in their cases. The only class that gets 2+Int mod and doesn't care is the wizard whos primary ability is Intelligence.
This is much the same case for paladins and sorcerers. Moreso Paladins in which there are a number of highly useful skills, but a severe lack of skill points to spend in them. These are key in my points for one reason, I don't play either, for two different reasons.
For the paladin: I've not played a paladin since my last one was used as bait for a giant crocodile, since that incident I have had no desire to be the lawful good martyr of the group by the group.
For the sorcerer: Well, ummm...the class bit alright. I had no interest in playing a class that was so severely limited in versatility.
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
I agree with this 100%.
I also endorse the idea of a 4/6/8 tier for skills. Don't take that as me supporting a skill rank system, because I don't. But if it MUST be a skill rank system, this is the way I would prefer it.
|
I see all this talk of viable characters but I don't understand how you are not able to build a viable character with the restrictions already set in place. 2+int is put into place for a reason. It says that those characters have spent their time training in the "class" and were not able to focus on excelling in many skills. When you all talk about viability, you also have to pay attention to the Taking 10 and 20 rules. I swear that most people forget that these exist. With those in place, you don't have to have a high amount of ranks in a given skill to get something done using it. You can jump gaps, climb walls, swim a little. It's when you put points into these skills that you excell at those tasks and do it better than anyone else.
Dracodruid, I'm American of German descent.
jordankarr,
I have to utterly disagree that fighters need Perception as a class skill. In 3.5 cross-classing in Perception was admittedly a very bad option since you could never keep both Spot and Listen at decent levels. But under the Pathfinder system a fighter can cross-class Perception using only 1 rank per level and he's only 3 points behind the ranger (absent differences in race and wisdom).Fighter are the typical NPC guards and if they all have max ranks in Perception than sneaky characters are completely hosed because there are always far more people trying to spot them any one of whom can sound the alarm. I'm actually worried that the existing system may already hose stealthy characters because cross-classing in Perception is so incredibly effective now.
Only problem I have with this is the first sentence of the last paragraph. Most guards are probably Warrior NPC class not Fighters (who stand head and shoulders above the Warrior). This make it even more likely to be able to sneak past them.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
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
What backwards compatibility reasons?
NPCs in adventures tend to have the skills they need to challenge the PCs. If they are short on skill points then "background" skills suffer. I think you could double NPC skill points without significantly affecting their challenge rating (although it would be a pain to amend their stats).
It certainly pales into insignificance when compared to the effect of giving a human fighter, power attacking with a two handed weapon, +2 strength - which effectively Pathfinder is already doing.
More skills helps PCs not suck in more situations, which I think is a good thing.
Thats really all I have to say. 2 skills per level is bad lest give em 4
I *wholeheartedly* agree! Only the Wizard easily endures this rule. I, and 2 other GM's in my circle, flat out just grant *all classes* +2 skill points per level. From what I can tell so far it's in no way overpowering.
Dracodruid, I'm American of German descent.
jordankarr,
I have to utterly disagree that fighters need Perception as a class skill. In 3.5 cross-classing in Perception was admittedly a very bad option since you could never keep both Spot and Listen at decent levels. But under the Pathfinder system a fighter can cross-class Perception using only 1 rank per level and he's only 3 points behind the ranger (absent differences in race and wisdom).Fighter are the typical NPC guards and if they all have max ranks in Perception than sneaky characters are completely hosed because there are always far more people trying to spot them any one of whom can sound the alarm. I'm actually worried that the existing system may already hose stealthy characters because cross-classing in Perception is so incredibly effective now.
Only problem I have with this is the first sentence of the last paragraph. Most guards are probably Warrior NPC class not Fighters (who stand head and shoulders above the Warrior). This make it even more likely to be able to sneak past them.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
I forget about the Warrior NPC when I am thinking of Warrior types. I should have said that Fighters/Paladins should have perception. Warrior NPC's should be unable to spot rouges.
Fighers/Paladins may be well trained in arms and equipment, but why can't they spot a rouge. Once rouges get Rings of Improved Invis., they tend to be almost near unstoppable.
------I'm actually worried that the existing system may already hose stealthy characters because cross-classing in Perception is so incredibly effective now.-----
You could solve the situation by giving a rouge a contested roll when they are initially spotted. If they beat the Spot Check again, then the person who spotted them did not see the hidden character.
Those sneaky rouges? *chuckles* Do we now need perception checks to differentiate colours. ;)
Sorry just bugging.
[url=smurf][/url]
Not only backwards compatibility, but class balance suffers if all the 2- and 4-skill guys get a 2-skill boost. Already, with skills being combined, it might be more reasonable to go 2-3-4-5 skills, instead of 2-4-6-8.
By giving everyone with 2 or 4 skills a +2 skill bonus, you make the new low people (clerics, paladins, etc.) equivalent to 3.5 bards, in terms of their total skill abilities (and never mind the easier advancement in cross-class skills now). So the bard sucks that much worse in comparison. The rogue meanwhile has very few more skills to spend points on: once you've maxed out Deception/Bluff, Perception, Disable Device, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Climb, Acrobatics, and Stealth, what do you spend more points on? Craft (new class)? Profession (sap)? I mean, giving them more points doesn't help much, so what do you do to re-establish par with the others?
I know most people hate the "skill monkey" niche, but that's what the rogue was meant for. The rules were never intended to turn the rogue into a better melee combatant than the fighter (due to auto-sneak attacks every round with 2-weapon combat; that's an abuse of the rules, not their intended end). And if that's really what you think a rogue should be, why have a fighter? The whole concept of various classes, in particular the rogue, bard, and ranger, suffers if you start willy-nilly giving everyone as many skills as they want.
If you want an option to trade class features for more skills, I'd be all for it (example: clerics or fighters could give up heavy armor and medium armor, but get 4/level). But if you combine skills (so that there are fewer of them) and then ALSO throw handfuls of skill points at everyone, why not just do this instead: eliminate skills altogether. Anything that would have required a skill check now requires a character level check +3. Done. Because that's exactly where you're headed.
|
|
I guess my largest problem is I really just don't see the need for higher skill points.
They already condensed skills and lowered the total number you could take. Now, when before it would take both of a fighter's 2 skill points to get Spot and Listen (assuming an average Int), he now only needs 1. He can then take that 1 and, thanks to a lack of cross-class skills, get a multitude of other things with it. All the new skills Paizo made by combining others mean that for 2 skill points in this system, he can theoretically get 4 or more 3.5 equivalent skills.
So yeah. I just don't see the *need* to give 2+ int more skill points. I think I'd be ok with a 3/4/5/6 system if it was deemed absolutely necessary, but definitely not 4/6/8. Skills are something not every class needs. The fighter especially has always seemed the warrior that sacrificed everything for his craft, including skills. He can still be perceptive and athletic, but he doesn't need all the other ones.
So yeah. I like the feel 3.5 has, and I like that Paizo is fixing some shortcomings, making classes more flavorful, etc. However, they've already given plenty of power boosts. What with plenty new class features, a different take on Favored Class, higher HP with some classes, better racial features, condensed skills, etc. More skill points is just *not* needed.
Edit: Heh, Kirth basically sums it up for me too. I'm really getting tired of the 'boost this' and 'boost that' posts. There were a few things in 3.5 that needed obvious boosts, but I never saw skill points as being one of them. It seems like the only way a lot of people here would be happy is if skills were gotten rid of all together. That's basically what the alpha 1 skill system seemed to do, when any class could really get a *ton* of skills by high levels, especially those with 6 or 8+.
|
|
The current skill list isn't 'final'. While there may be no major revision to skills, there can be tweaking. Altering the skill list may happen. Personally, I'd like to see it a little more like the 3.5 list.
My personal hope:
Hide & Move Silently remain combined into Stealth.
Spot & Listen are combined into Perception.
Open Lock & Disable Device remain combined into Disable Device.
Tumble and Balance are combined into Acrobatics.
Concentration is combined with Autohypnosis and Control shapechange in Concentration.
Knowledge (Arcana) is eliminated. All functions are combined into Knowledge (history) and Spellcraft.
Knowledge (nobility) is eliminated. All functions are combined into Knowledge (history) and Knowledge (local).
Certainly I understand that some people want to see more combinations, but I'm in favor of fewer. I don't want to see any skills combined that have different ability attributes (except Open Lock/Disable Device).
If there are fewer combinations, the argument for 4 skill points per class.
|
|
Something has been forgotten here. Part of the reason some of the core classes are getting boosted is that WotC (or somebody) didn't carefully control the power level of the PrC's and other "new base" classes. An example is the swashbuckler (my favourite class to play ever). When I described to a game balance obsessed friend a class that was "a fighter with 4 skills/level and Tumble as a class skill." He asked right away "What did you give up." Well, heavy armour, but I wasn't going to use that anyway because the whole concept is high Dex and light armour. For fighters to be an appealing class to play again, they had to gain some stuff 'cause the Swashbuckler isn't OGL so there is no way for Paizo to nerf him.
Part of the reason some of the core classes are getting boosted is that WotC (or somebody) didn't carefully control the power level of the PrC's and other "new base" classes.
You're telling the truth there, bro, although I kind of feel like the Swashbuckler sucks after 3rd level, unless you multiclass it with rogue and take the Daring Outlaw feat (my favorite combo ever). Still, Paizo is giving the base classes nice bumps already, so I don't feel that giving every class 10 skill points per level (plus maybe 2 more every time you roll a d20 or something) is a necessary boost.
|
|
My vote is for 3/4/5/6 simply because I had the same discussion about rogue skill points and the number of skills available being reduced. by virtue of a 10 Int human rogue there was almost no difference at higher levels with the Alpha 1.
Nice to see someone else to come to this conclusion as well.
Since the 'backwards compatibility' seems to be a huge issue, I urge to mention it is still easy to convert. A fighter with int 10 just get 1 skill point/level more, or has to remove one. No problem!
A rogue fiddles a little more. Let's say the rogue (3.5 human, INT 12 -> 10 skill points/lvl) has chosen to max all of the following skills: Bluff, Disable Device, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Open Lock, Search, Sleight of Hand, Spot, Use Magic Device. To convert him, first off he gets only 8 skill points/lvl. And the following: Bluff, Disable Device (Open Lock included), Stealth (Hide & Move Silently), Perception (Spot, Listen & Search), Sleight of Hand, Use Magic Device.
So he has now 6 skills maxed. Thus there's two skill points/lvl still unused! There's no problem with rogue here.
I urge to raise the fighter's skill points to three just so there's a difference between INT 6 and INT 8. In Living Greyhawk a Half-Orc fighter never spended points on INT, since there was absolutely no big difference to INT 6.
Conclusion: 3/4/5/6 is relatively easy to convert both ways and doesn't break the balance. Decreases the benefit of roguedipping, since a rogue only gets 2x the amount of skill points as a fighter, not 4x.
|
|
Since the 'backwards compatibility' seems to be a huge issue, I urge to mention it is still easy to convert. A fighter with int 10 just get 1 skill point/level more, or has to remove one. No problem!
A rogue fiddles a little more. ... To convert him, first off he gets only 8 skill points/lvl. And the following: Bluff, Disable Device (Open Lock included), Stealth (Hide & Move Silently), Perception (Spot, Listen & Search), Sleight of Hand, Use Magic Device.
I personally like 4 for fighters but 3 would be okay too. Adding new max'ed skills would be easy for pre-existing NPCs. But dropping rogues to 6 would be much harder. Your example works great, but what if the rogue in question didn't have ranks in skills that nicely condensed? Deciding which skills to ax from an NPC would be a pain IMO.
Oh, and with 4/6/8 the rogue is also at 2x the fighter.
|
|
Okay, I compared Skills Per Level chart with the Class Skills chart, both from the Alpha 2. Using the current list of consolidated/unconsolidated skills, here's what I got:
Barbarian - 4 skill points/level, 10 class skills, can max out 40% of class skills
Bard - 6 skill points/level, 27 class skills, can max out 22% of class skills
Cleric - 2 skill points/level, 13 class skills, can max out 15% of class skills
Druid - 4 skill points/level, 13 class skills, can max out 31% of class skills
Fighter - 2 skill points/level, 10 class skills, can max out 20% of class skills
Monk - 4 skill points/level, 13 class skills, can max out 31% of class skills
Paladin - 2 skill points/level, 10 class skills, can max out 20% of class skills
Ranger - 6 skill points/level, 15 class skills, can max out 40% of class skills
Rogue - 8 skill points/level, 21 class skills, can max out 38% of class skills
Sorcerer - 2 skill points/level, 9 class skills, can max out 22% of class skills
Wizard - 2 skill points/level, 16 class skills, can max out 12.5% of class skills
Analysis
* The sweet spot seems to be being able to max out 30-40% of your given class skills.
* Rangers, Barbarian and then Rogues are on the top end of good and Druids and Monks are on the bottom end of good.
* Clerics, Fighters, Paladins and Sorcerers - all 2 skill points/level - are low. Bumping them up to 4 skill points/level would get them all into the sweet spot, at 31%, 40%, 40% and 44% respectively.
* Wizards get royally shafted. They have 16 possible skills and can only max out 2 of them! That's 12.5 fricken' %! Even assuming that they've got some Int bonus, that's still way low. Bumping them to 4 skill points/level puts them at 25%, still low if you want them to actually take all those Knowledge skills they're eligible for (although they may be eligible for too many Knowledge skills). 6 skill points/level would allow then to actually be knowledgeable, but the danger is that they would fritter away all those points on non-class skills.
* Surprisingly, Bards don't do very well in this analysis either, 22%. Worse if you expect them to take multiple Performs. Like Wizards, if you want Bards to take a bunch of different Knowledge and Perform skills, they're going to need more skill points. 8 per level would bring them up to almost 30%, but you may have Int bonus here too, so okay.
* Funny how Rogues don't have the highest skill points to class skills ratio. One might almost consider bumping them to 10/level ... 48% ...
Conclusions
A 4/6/8 progression with all 2/level classes bumping to 4/level, maybe Wizards to 6/level, and maybe Bards to 8/level is much preferable IMO to the current 2/4/6/8 progression. And maybe-maybe Rogues go to 10/level.
Thank you Mosaic I hope jason sees that
Very insightful post. Makes for a good argument for a skill point boost. Well done.
|
|
Okay, I compared Skills Per Level chart with the Class Skills chart, both from the Alpha 2. Using the current list of consolidated/unconsolidated skills, here's what I got:
Awesome comparison chart
Holy crap, Mosaic. That's a lot of work you put into the statistics on that, and a really enlightening piece of work. I had never considered the skill ranks/skills maxed percentage angle before. On the other hand, in games I run, people tend to only max out one or two skills and then splash a bunch of other ones anyway, so maybe it was outside my normal zone.
I agree with the common opinion here that the bottom tier of skills needs to go up to 4 per level. Even with the newly consolidated skill system, 2 per level is just too few. On the other hand, I think that bumping rogues up to 10 would be too much. I think that the 4/6/8 spread works out really well as a complement to the BAB progressions, though obviously not lining up with them in a direct sense. The three categories thing works a little better from a spread point of view, I think. (Heck, if it were me, I'd have three categories of saves, like Arcana Evolved, but there's only so far I'm willing to ask the designers to go.)
I understand that there are backwards compatibility issues, but 2 skill points per level is one of the things that didn't get fixed from 3.0 to 3.5, and part of the goal of Pathfinder is also to improve 3.5 without discarding the system and starting over (like 4E is doing). I think that improving skill sets to a minimum of 4 ranks per level is one thing that no one would complain about... except for the people who don't like skill ranks at all, and they can STFU. I keed! ^_^
Jeremy Puckett
|
|
I find the comparison slightly ... not relevant. The amount of class skills gives you a choice, whereas the important aspect is the skill points received. Why not bring up expert (who gets 6+int), have him pick 10 class skills and Voilá, suddenly it's 60%, best of all. That percentage does *NOT* make the expert somehow more awesome and better. The list dictates much in this.
I know Factotum isn't core or anything that would probably ever see permitted use in PRPG, but as a comparison it gets all skills as class skills, and has 6+int. 6+int and 35 skills. ~17%. That's mighty bad according to the comparison.
The class skill list is mostly pictured by what the class tends to train to. A fighter, ideally, is trained in some army camp and knows to crawl, jump, evade, climb, swim and other strenous things. A ranger must know the ways of nature and yadda yadda.
I personally dislike raising 2+int to 4+int if no other changes are made. I wish the classes retain differences in skills as well, or else they get too stale. Thus I stand by the 3/4/5/6 figure.
I think Mosiacs points are well founded, the percentage of concept that your skills can cover happens to be very important. It takes my horserider , fighter (handle animal, Ride) and makes it one scary tactical horseman Fighter(handle animal, Ride, Intimidate and Profession:Soldier ) a much more satisfying concept!
I truly think that the 4/6/8 is the way to go, (I really dont think it messes up backwards compatibility, not more than any other changes, less than many) I really think it should be considered for 2.1. please enlighten me as to how it is that game breaking (prestige classes become less valuable? old npc need more skills put on their sheets? what?)
I will also mention, Jason, that I really love the new skill system so far. It really solves several problems. and keeps a good deal of customization ( now you would have to be a fool not to try and put at least one rank in every in class skill....)
I find the comparison slightly ... not relevant. The amount of class skills gives you a choice, whereas the important aspect is the skill points received. Why not bring up expert (who gets 6+int), have him pick 10 class skills and Voilá, suddenly it's 60%, best of all. That percentage does *NOT* make the expert somehow more awesome and better. The list dictates much in this.
I know Factotum isn't core or anything that would probably ever see permitted use in PRPG, but as a comparison it gets all skills as class skills, and has 6+int. 6+int and 35 skills. ~17%. That's mighty bad according to the comparison.
I feel we need to leave out the NPC Classes from this discussion. As they are not really something that should be played by PC's (IMO). They are there to add spice to a world. a 10th lvl Expert is an architect/siege engineer not a scout or skill monkey.
Deussu's having seen a 25th lvl Factotum in action, I highly doubt that they are really that hampered. If you want a good read at how scary a factotum really is read the Wizards CO board The Factotum Handbook...
Heres the link The Factotum Handbook Especially read down to the Builds section... First one is the Ultimate Skill-Master... With 77% of his 35 skills maxed out. Total number of maxed skills 27 of 35... Not too shabby...
I will never allow a Factotum in a game I run as they really break the system.
|
|
Yeah, I know. I tried to show you people that the concept of "the percentage of maxed class skills proves 2+int classes need more skill points" isn't just that simple at all. Sure, it'd be nice, I don't neglect that! Problem is that it doesn't really prove anything about who needs more skills or not. Keeping the rogue at 8+int will likely override some other classes with all the numerous skills. As unfortunate as it sounds, all party members should find a certain role in their team to be useful. If one skill monkey manages to beat the crap out of others, something has failed. 3/4/5/6 balances this issue. Nyaargh!
I'll post more once I've done the necessary chores.
I'm forced to admit that I fail to see how % of skills maxable is really a meaningful percentage.
I also fail to see why everyone hates rogues so much? The skill monkeys should out-skill the others because THAT'S THEIR JOB! No one is complaining that the rogue should be able to hold his own with a wizard in terms of spellcasting. Skills are what the rogue has going for him (barring horrible abuses of sneak attack that no sane GM should allow).
Giving clerics 4 skill points, and rogues 6 means that the rogue goes from 400% the cleric's skill points (a necessary balancing factor, given his role) to having 150%. THOSE are percentages that, from a game balance standpoint, are meaningful! To make all classes "skill monkeys" makes the bard, rogue, and ranger completely obsolete. Just abolish them, in that case.
Wizards do NOT need more skill points. Wizards already essentially get more skills than anyone else by virtue of their Intelligence (unless you're really into playing dumb wizards, which would be silly, becuase then you couln't cast spells).
Again, adding skill points makes clerics, druids, wizards, and sorcerers more powerful, relative to the other classes. It makes bards and rogues comparatively weaker. Is that what we really believe? That cleric is a weak class without much going for it, but that bards are too powerful?
I am for 3,4,5,6 too. Since the skills are still merging (maybe) a total of 8 + INT skills might be too much even for a skill monkey!
That way, the rogue too is better adviced to specialize in a few fields rather than be a can-everything.
One thought about skill points. What about making INT bonus-skillpoints only usable for Knowledge skills?
That way the wizard will likely be the "wise-guy" and not the "I studies magic and about 4 other crafts"-guy
That way, the rogue too is better adviced to specialize in a few fields rather than be a can-everything.
See above. Being highly-skilled in a lot of areas is what the rogue has going for him. He can't cast spells, rage, or wear heavy armor.
I just say Sneak Attack.
bumping 2 skills to 4 doesn't hurt the rogue in the lest this has been playtested by my group for oh 8 years. How many groups out there do you know of that use a minimum of 4 skill points and not 2?
I just say Sneak Attack.
Sneak attack is the most ridiculously, horribly abused ability in the game, especially when people start in with that "ring of blinking/alchemist hand grenade" nonsense. The rogue should not be better at combat than the fighter; he should be a skill monkey. Nerf sneak attack and let the rogue keep his skills, or else delete the fighter.
If class roles are meaningless, then we should be playing a class-less system. Otherwise, they need to be brought back into alignment.
That way, the rogue too is better adviced to specialize in a few fields rather than be a can-everything.See above. Being highly-skilled in a lot of areas is what the rogue has going for him. He can't cast spells, rage, or wear heavy armor.
Which is why I've suggested several times that they get special abilities that allow them to use skills better.
Which is why I've suggested several times that they get special abilities that allow them to use skills better.
I hardly feel that "ledge walker" and "fast disable" put him on equal footing with the cleric, skills being almost equal.