Please kill 2 skills per level


Skills & Feats

101 to 150 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Kirth Gersen wrote:
lordzack wrote:
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.

That's kind of my point. They should have abilities that make them superior to other classes skill wise. They should get like Hide in Plain Sight at like 3rd or 4th level (so should the Ranger).

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Deussu wrote:
I find the comparison slightly ... not relevant.

While I agree that it's no automatic slam dunk, game over argument, it is at least relevant. The rules say that certain skills are within your field so you expect to be able to get good at a them. With the current points/level, many classes can only get good at about 1/4 of the skills they're eligible for. To me, that doesn't seem like enough.

Deussu wrote:
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.

That's at least 3. A fighter only gets 2.


Mosaic wrote:
Deussu wrote:
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.
That's at least 3. A fighter only gets 2.

Another reason tro merge Climb and Swim into Athletics! Seriously, though, fighters should probably get 4/level, to make them even with barbarians. I'm totally against any kind of free increase in skill points for clerics and sorcerers, though -- out of all the classes, they're the ones who least need any kind of bump, and wizards already realistically get more than almost anyone, because of their Int.


jordankarr wrote:

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.

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

Totally agree with the Fighter getting Perception too - they're not just meat-shields, as most folks who are involved in combat for a living tend to be pretty frosty - otherwise they won't last long...

Wizards with 6 skill points might be a little excessive, as 4 might cover it, but you're right - wizards should be the font of the weird and the obscure!

Clerics too shouldn't be limited to 2 skill points and the obligatory Heal and Knowledge: Religion maxing... in my campaigns we've always assigned Domain Skills to compliment the clerics typical picks.

Bottom line - a 4/6/8 skill point system would definately befit the Alpha 2.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

I don't beleive the need for Perception added to the class skill list for fighters is really neccessary anymore, with the removal of "Cross-class skills" as they were before. Though Acrobatics should, jump and balance are needed for a fighter. Otherwise I don't advise trying to charge anywhere or your just going to end up on your arse.

4/6/8 Is optimal, and very backwards compatibable. Its not very hard to add skill ranks, dropping them would make it harder. I don't beleive Wizards need 6 though, 4 base is perfectly fine with their vast intelligence. As I said before they're the only class not royally shafted by the lack of skill ranks.

Factotum is a moot example as he's not-OGL, comparisons with the multitude of splat books is redundant because they are unuseable by paizo, so trying to balance against those things is pointless.

Its often been discussed in my groups to up the base from 2 to 4.

This increase does not infringe on the Rogue's skill mastery overall. I do beleive that perhaps the bard should be increased to +8 though.

[url=smurf][/url]

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Anry wrote:
I don't beleive the need for Perception added to the class skill list for fighters is really neccessary anymore, with the removal of "Cross-class skills" as they were before.

That's a really good point. Now that there are no more cross-class skill penalties (1 point = 1 rank regardless and there is no cross-class rank cap), everyone can take everything and do just fine. A fighter can take Perception, a Wizard can take Disable Devices, a Rogue can take Knowledge (religion). Instead, some classes are extra good at doing certain things.

Maybe the discussion should go the other direction. Instead of asking what we can add add add to people's class skills list, maybe we should be looking to remove skills from class skills list to boil it down to the 5-10 things each class is really, really good at in a way that distinguishes from other folks who are merely pretty good at it. It would simplify things and would dull the effect of all those +3s suddenly appearing when folks multiclass. Hmmm. Something to consider.

The other thing to remember is that in most cases having ranks in a skill is not necessary to attempt it. Most people in the world go through their lives just fine with only a few ranks in anything. Just because you don't have Ride as a class skill or only have a few ranks doesn't mean you can't ride a horse. Aren't the DCs for most everyday uses of skills 5 or 10? If it's hard, an average person takes 10 or 20. Maybe you can't stand in the stirrups as you shoot your bow and drive your horse through a burning building, but you can certainly ride from point A to point B. Maybe it's time to remember that anything more that 5 or 6 ranks in a skill is already getting into the heroic range.

I still like the Alpha 2 system with the 4/6/8 progression twist, but I also see the benefit of being a little more conservative as to how many skills are declared class skills and which ones they are.


Mosaic wrote:
I still like the Alpha 2 system with the 4/6/8 progression twist, but I also see the benefit of being a little more conservative as to how many skills are declared class skills and which ones they are.

That would also serve to bump up the "% of maxed out class skills attainable" that people are so keen on; fewer class skills = higher % maxed out with same # of skill points.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
That would also serve to bump up the "% of maxed out class skills attainable" that people are so keen on; fewer class skills = higher % maxed out with same # of skill points.

True. I've got to tinker with this for a little while. A few more (or the same number of) skill points but fewer class skills. More +1s and less +3s. Hmmm.

Sovereign Court

Eh, I must make sure that I'm not all that much against 4/6/8... it'd just feel so .. bland, since nearly all classes would then have the same amount (bard, ranger and rogue excluded).

Oh, and I didn't mean skills previously when I listed those fighter training things. ;) Merely trying to show what the choices for a fighter would be. Almost no charisma-based skills, most str/dex. A bard gets all kinds of choices, but not necessarily proficient in all.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

I don't really see it as bland to expand some shafted classes in the case of skills. They don't really have selection its just the illusion of selection. Blandness lies in the 2 skills points per level classes. They lack any ability to branch out even in their own class skills, the wizard being the only exception due to his key ability being Intelligence.

Besides that, it shouldn't be the number of skill ranks that makes the difference but class skills of the class that make the difference.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Deussu wrote:
Oh, and I didn't mean skills previously when I listed those fighter training things. ;) Merely trying to show what the choices for a fighter would be.

I know, I was just poking at you a little.


I apologize if some of this ground has been covered. I haven't read all of the posts. In general, I believe that 2 skills per level are too few. One difficulty in playing LG or home campaigns is that quite often if you don't have the right class mix, no one can make that skill/knowledge check. It frustrates players and DMs. Pathfinder has addressed some of those issues. I

I definitely believe wizards should have more skill points. I believe that rogues don't need anymore, and sorcerers and bards should have more. In my opinion clerics need more as well, but this detracts from my proposal.

Anyway, I haven't checked the past messages as an option, but how about classes recieving 2 skill points per intelligence modifier? An intelligence of 12 gets 2 additional (instead of one), an intelligence of 14 gets 4 additional (instead of 2). This would resolve part of the issue around the bard and wizard. This would also make intelligence less likely a dump stat.

Eric Kim

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I took a quick glance at the Class Skills chart wearing my new more conservative (why do they need so many class skills now?) glasses. Here are some thought on skills that could be cut from people's class lists. Remember, there are no CC penalties in Pathfinder so you could still take them, you just wouldn't get that special +3 anymore.

* Craft & Profession - nobody gets these as class skills (except Experts). You want 'em, take a feat and make them class skills.

* Barbarian - lose Acrobatics. Neither balance nor tumble are iconic barbarian traits.

* Bard - lose Climb. She's a performer, not a thief. Maybe add Ride.

* Cleric - lose Knowledge (arcana). They know religion, not magic. They only get to keep Appraise for detecting magic, and I'm dubious that they are good enough at that to merit the skill.

* Fighter - lose Knowledge (engineering). Knowledge (fortifications) maybe, but not engineering, engineering is definitely not an iconic fighter trait.

* Monk - lose Ride, maybe Intimidate.

* Rangers - lose Intimidate and Knowledge (dungeoneering), unless they are an underground ranger, in which case they lose Knowledge (nature).

* Rogues - lose Intimidate and Perform.

* Wizards - lose Knowledge (engineering) and Knowledge (local)

That would drop everyone's class skill list by 2-4 skills. Less demands for more skill points to max out all those slots (although I still think the 2/levels need 4) and a lot less +3s from class skills. Interesting. I'm not married to any of this, just playing out an idea to see if it moves us forward. Opinions?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

I don't know. I'll have to comment on that when I get back from work.


I've been tinkering with an idea on skill balance between classes; first level dips into rogue; too few skill points for some classes; and backwards compatability.

Separate skills from classes entirely. All PCs get the same number of skill points, but specific classes also get, as a class feature, a class bonus to specific skills.

i.e.: Everyone gets 5 skill points.
Rogues get a bonus to deception, perception and thivery.
Bards get a bonus to perception and perform.
Wizards get a bonus to spellcraft and knowledge(arcana).
Clerics get a bonus to knowledge(religion) and heal.
Rangers get a bonus to survival and knowledge(nature).
Druids get a bonus to knowledge(nature) and handle animal.
Monks get a bonus to acrobatics and knowledge(religion).
Barbarians get a bonus to intimidate and survival.
Paladins get a bonus to ride and knowledge(religion).
Sorcerers get a bonus to spellcraft and knowledge(planes).
Fighters get a bonus to intimidate and athletics.

This still needs some tweaks. But would it work under the ideas of balance and backwards compatability?

-Jack


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I have used 4 skill points as a minimum in my campaigns for years too. I have not seen any ill effects. Quite the opposite, I see more balanced characters.

The argument that fighters spend all their time learning their martial skills is an in-game argument. You can come up with in-game arguments to defend any view point. So these do not hold a lot of weight for me.

I am ex-military, and I can tell you that you learn a whole lot more than just 2 or 3 skills.

If the official decision is not to go to 4/6/8, can we at least get it as an optional rule?


Repairman Jack wrote:
Separate skills from classes entirely. All PCs get the same number of skill points, but specific classes also get, as a class feature, a class bonus to specific skills.

Someone previously suggested that everyone get like 4 skills/level, but that classes also get "essential" skills maxed-out for free as class features:

Wizards: Concentration, Knowledge (arcana), Spellcraft
Bards: Perform, Diplomacy
Clerics: Concentration, Knowledge (religion)
Rogues: Stealth, Disable Device, Perception, Sleight of Hand
(etc.)


Mistwalker wrote:
I am ex-military, and I can tell you that you learn a whole lot more than just 2 or 3 skills.

Fighters absolutely need 4 skill points/level, agreed 100%. I'm not sure that argument holds up for clerics (for example), however. Some Belgian monks brew great beer, but can they also paint, climb, swim, do acrobatics, and play the guitar? Maybe 2 of those, but probably not all or even half. They spend a lot of time praying and doing good deeds, rather than training. That doesn't make them bad people, just not skill-focused ones.

The Exchange

I have played in games where classes get that boost from 2 to 4 and I can tell you, it does change the game drastically.

Wizards have more knowledges, though this doesn't seem bad, The DM cannot throw something at the party that would surprise the wizard as "WTF is that!"

Fighters do benefit from this increase but Barbarians and Rangers suffer because they had to give up a little to get their 4/6+int skills.

Clerics are supposed to be cloisted or active members of the church so they do not spend most of their time Jumping or Swimming but really focus on Knowledge(Religion). Concentration may seem as an essential skill to take but they wear heavy armor for a reason and what use do they have for Spellcraft?
Paladins, just look at the fighter argument.

Now I'm not using PF for my examples, I'm strictly speaking 3.5 but from my experiences, I think it should be left the way it is for the sake of backwards compatibility and balance.


Mosaic wrote:
I took a quick glance at the Class Skills chart wearing my new more conservative (why do they need so many class skills now?) glasses. Here are some thought on skills that could be cut from people's class lists. Remember, there are no CC penalties in Pathfinder so you could still take them, you just wouldn't get that special +3 anymore.

My comments:

Craft and Profession: Taking them from everyone would imply that player characters aren't supposed to live in the real world - they're just for the dungeon. I don't like that implication at all.

Barbarian: I agree about acrobaticsI think it's in because jump i part of acrobatics. I think it shouldn't be. It (and the other str based "movement" skill) should be in athletics. But as long as jump is part of acrobatics, barbarians should keep it.

Bard - Climb could be used as a performance rather than to break into some place. In fact, it could be used to climb. I wouldn't mind seing ride added, though.

Cleric - They don't all have to know about religion (personally I think that they don't even need Knowledge (Religion) for the more general things concerning their own church). But some will be exorcists and witch hunters and all that, going after arcane spellcasters, and for that, it's useful to know about them.

Fighter - There is no Knowledge (Fortifications). There's just (Architecture and Engineering), which contains fortifications. So fighters should get that instead. It's a really bad idea to split Knowledge into a myriad subskills: Knowledge (3rd level bard magic), Knowledge (Lower Noble Ranks), Knowledge (Leg structure of arachnids)....

Monk: Agreed, one thing I don't think monks do is ride. They're faster than horses, anyway ;-). I might see the intimidate. I must say that there's several weird things on the monk list.

Ranger: Intimidate? Yeah, it's a bit weird, though I could see it as something to chase away intruders when you defend nature but don't want to kill them right away. The thing about Dungeoneering is that caverns are part of nature, and rangers aren't just running around in forests. Rangers and Knowledge should get some extra treatment, anyway. As part of the favoured enemy treatment, they should be able to make a special knowledge check with a bonus equal to their level + their int + their favoured enemy bonus. It emulates the relevant knowledge skill, but only to find out stuff about the monster. So if they have constructs as a favoured enemy, they could make "virtual" Knowledge (Arcana) checks, but only to identify constructs and know their traits and weaknesses.

Rogues: They need both Intimidate and Perform. Intimidate is a stapel skill for the thug, a roguish character archetype. And Perform can be used as a distraction: One rogue does tricks, the other picks pockets.

Wizards: Just keep "Knowledge (any)". They're book worms. They read anything out of academical interest. So some tranmuters pick up books about architecture to know what they're building with their magic there. At the same time, enchanters will read the newspaper (or listen to the town crier) to know about people so their charms are even more effective.

Anyway, I don't think weakening skills is the way to go. One complaint about 3e skills is already that they don't play a big enough role. They shouldn't restrict the classes even further.

Repairman Jack wrote:

I've been tinkering with an idea on skill balance between classes; first level dips into rogue; too few skill points for some classes; and backwards compatability.

Separate skills from classes entirely. All PCs get the same number of skill points, but specific classes also get, as a class feature, a class bonus to specific skills.

Absolutely not! Beyond the fact that this would tear backwards compatibility to pieces, it would unnecessarily limit character concepts.

Not all rogues are liars and thieves. Not all bards are perceptive. Not all wizards have to be able to recognise spells as they're being cast. Not all clerics know how to heal or know much about religion beyond their own church....

Skills should be separated from classes entirely. That means no class bonuses on skills, since that would mean they were tied more firmly into classes than before. The whole skill system would be one big mess.

4e already does that sort of thing, and it's one of the biggest turnoffs for me. No one tells me how to run my characters.


fliprushman wrote:


Now I'm not using PF for my examples, I'm strictly speaking 3.5 but from my experiences, I think it should be left the way it is for the sake of backwards compatibility and balance.

I don't think there's a ton of work in terms of backwards compatibility to think of. I mean, by that argument, they may as well keep wizard HD a D4. In my experience, most encounters that ended up using a lot of skills were with NPCs. As for monsters, we could just keep the skill points the same as they are now. I think a troll should have less skill points than a trained warrior...I also think a dog should have less.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
I am ex-military, and I can tell you that you learn a whole lot more than just 2 or 3 skills.
Fighters absolutely need 4 skill points/level, agreed 100%. I'm not sure that argument holds up for clerics (for example), however. Some Belgian monks brew great beer, but can they also paint, climb, swim, do acrobatics, and play the guitar? Maybe 2 of those, but probably not all or even half. They spend a lot of time praying and doing good deeds, rather than training. That doesn't make them bad people, just not skill-focused ones.

Clerics don't = monks...not even a little bit. And its not even about taking things like acrobatics, climb, swim, or perform (though perform sing maybe common in many churches). Right there your talking Class skill list not how many actual ranks they get. Currently for a cleric your looking at three things: Knowledge (religion), honestly how can you call yourself a cleric and not know religion; Spellcraft, hey when your trying to fling out spells in the fray being able to cast defensively is important; and finally Heal its expanded use for healing Deadly Wounds even more important. And currently he could even get all three of those for the average cleric, unless your human. Your either going to be no good at one of those three things. OR half-assed at two of them. Forget about branching out.

Scarab Sages

WarDragon wrote:
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 disagree...I dislike 2 skill points under the new system...

This system will lead to no one having Knowledge skills...worse than what I have happening in my current campaign...it's already so bad I can't have knowledge checks in the game, cuz no one has any knowledge skills....

The Exchange

Anry wrote:


Clerics don't = monks...not even a little bit. And its not even about taking things like acrobatics, climb, swim, or perform (though perform sing maybe common in many churches). Right there your talking Class skill list not how many actual ranks they get. Currently for a cleric your looking at three things: Knowledge (religion), honestly how can you call yourself a cleric and not know religion; Spellcraft, hey when your trying to fling out spells in the fray being able to cast defensively is important; and finally Heal its expanded use for healing Deadly Wounds even more important. And currently he could even get all three of those for the average cleric, unless your human. Your either going to be no good at one of those three things. OR half-assed at two of them. Forget about branching out.

With the DC's set up the way they are for a Heal check and Wisdom being the Clerics main spiel, I think that having two ranks to focus into those three skills is enough. A DC 20 heal check is not that hard to accomplish after a few levels and why the heck would spellcraft be useful to a caster that can wear full plate? He can have the AC of a Fighter and Cast his great spells with no penality from his armor. He could just take the AoO and most likely not be hit.


Ftr should have more SP IMHO. He should get 4.
Or maybe add a rule that 2+racial is the minimum
even if your Int mod is negative?

Clr, Pal, and Wiz should stay at 2.

Brb, Drd, Sor 4 ok.

Rog 8 could probably even go down to 6,
because many of his skills got broader,
i.e. old skills combined into new ones.
This could affect Rng and Brd SP...

LL

Liberty's Edge

I'm strongly in favor of more skill points for the 2 skill point classes. 4 skill points seems emminently reasonable.

I don't think that any other classes need more skill points to feel special. The rogue would still have twice as many skill points as the cleric before accounting for the likeihood of the rogue having a higher intelligence. In addition, the skill combinations mostly favor the rogue - it takes fewer skill ranks to be good at more rogue skills. Thus, an increase 'across the board' would not be necessary.

Arguments for 3/4/5/6 for skill points mean nothing to me. I don't like it for aesthetic reasons if nothing else. And of course, reducing skills is more work than adding skills when doing conversion.

The 4 skill points per level instead of 2 skill points per level has been extensively tested as this thread can attest. It sounds like of all the people who have tried it, only one didn't enjoy it as much because monsters were never a surprise. The system works. Four skill points per level adds more fun and versatility to the game, doesn't severely impact backward compatability, and doesn't appreciably 'power up' the game.

I am not in favor of reducing the list of class skills for any of the classes. Even though the Patfhinder Alpha 2 rules are much better regarding the distinction between cross- and cross-class skills, increasing the distinction discourages unusual character concepts or thinking outside the box. I'd prefer to avoid that when possible.

As for seeing it as an optional rule, I would like to avoid that. This is the game. I hope that we're mostly going to all use the same rules. And I hope that the various modules that come out to support the game support the game that I'm playing. The closer to perfect the game can be the less likely there will be people that play. If 90% of the Pathfinder DMs are changing the 2+Int classes to 4+Int skills, I'd hope that the Pathfinder game includes that rule as the default.

Once everyone is on the same page and knows what the rules are supposed to be, I'd be more comfortable with a proliferation of 'alternate' rules. I like books of Alternate Rules, but I don't like core books that are full of them. Already as the DM I can change what I don't like, but each alternate rule can have far reaching conceptual consequences. For that reason, I want the designers to consider the 'real rule' and worry about optional rules later.

Again, the 4/6/8 skill progression will be something that my games continue to see this system (or something equivalent that does allow more skills). And since I want Pathfinder to be the 3.5 game with the good houserules that make it better (fixing grapple, fixing sorcerers, fixing skills), I want this.


Thank you deadDMwalking for a well thought out post. 4/6/8 Skills needed to be looked at in 3.5 it wasn't. If something is houseruled more hen 50% for feeling that it is to weak or needs fixed then something might indeed need looked at from a game design point.


DeadDMWalking wrote:
As for seeing it as an optional rule, I would like to avoid that. This is the game. I hope that we're mostly going to all use the same rules. And I hope that the various modules that come out to support the game support the game that I'm playing. The closer to perfect the game can be the less likely there will be people that play. If 90% of the Pathfinder DMs are changing the 2+Int classes to 4+Int skills, I'd hope that the Pathfinder game includes that rule as the default.

Except that is is an optional rule, and can't help but be one: even if it appeared in the Pathfinder rules with no mention of 2/level, that doesn't retroactively change the SRD. All existing 3.5 adventures would still have 2/level, as would all existing Dungeon adventures. Going from 2 to 4 is going to be an optional rule no matter how you look at it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
DeadDMWalking wrote:
As for seeing it as an optional rule, I would like to avoid that. This is the game. I hope that we're mostly going to all use the same rules. And I hope that the various modules that come out to support the game support the game that I'm playing. The closer to perfect the game can be the less likely there will be people that play. If 90% of the Pathfinder DMs are changing the 2+Int classes to 4+Int skills, I'd hope that the Pathfinder game includes that rule as the default.
Except that is IS an optional rule: it would be in the Pathfinder rulebook, not the SRD. All existing 3.5 adventures use 2/level, as do all existing Dungeon adventures. Going from 2 to 4 is going to be an optional rule no matter how you look at it.

Not at all if it is the rule in pathfinder it overrules the 3.5 SRD just as 3.5 PHB changes overruled 3.0 SRD that simple. A change from 2 to 4 is not game braking its really simple and trust me its not hard to run stuff that useing 2 skills when you use 4 Been doing it for 8 years. 2 skill per level is a flaw has always been a flaw. It makes some classes just far to weak in skills and if you group lacks a rogue trust me you really see that glaring flaw fast


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Not at all if it is the rule in pathfinder it overrules the 3.5 SRD just as 3.5 PHB changes overruled 3.0 SRD that simple.

As I pointed out, that doesn't cause all of my existing Dungeon and other adventures to magically update -- if it did, I'd be a lot more open to that change. And the Pathfinder rules will still require the SRD to work; my understanding is that Paizo is not reprinting every rule necessary to play the game, just their proposed changes.

P.S. A number of blanket statements I don't agree with, supported by saying "trust me," really doesn't lead me to change my mind -- quite the reverse. Sorry.


Pathfinder when finished will not require the SRD it will replace the PHB and DMG and 2 to 4 is not a big change 2 options dont update one use npc's if its a big deal or just add 2 more skills off the class list on the fly new skill rules make that really easy


Understand the trust me thing you dont know me so why should you? bad wording on my part. I have however been using 4 skills as the min since 2000 so yeah its not as hard to update as you seem to think it is very easy and on the fly

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Actually from my understanding the final product is to replace the DMG and PHB books in their entirety. As there is no guarantee how long the SRD as a site will be maintained.

Liberty's Edge

PLAYTESTING Results

I have considered removing the onus on INT mod for the # of skill points one gets, and instead just bump up the 2 skill pts / level up to 4.

I have always thought that while the wizard was one of the 2/level classes it never really was that, becuase the emphasis on INT for the wizard guaranteed they'd have a bunch of bonus skills - with an 18 INT at 1st level gave them 3 times the amount of a cleric or fighter!

However, I was concerned that removing the need for INT to do this would turn INT into a major dump-stat for every class other than Wiz - especially now that Disable Device is dex-based.

Here's what I did:

Bumped the 2 skills / level up to 4.
Removed INT from adding skill points.
BUT - negative INT took away.

(as a side note - negative INT modifier means you're illiterate - can speak - but not read/write).

SO - a fighter now has the equivalent # of skill points as if he had a 14 INT (if using normal system). If player of said fighter didn't make his INT at least a 10, he'd wind up with 3 (or possibly even back to 2) skill points per level.

In other words - it awards those who do not use INT as a dump stat - while allowing extra skills without having to make the stat very high - AND it puts the other classes on par with the Wizard.

We made characters and played and it worked really well! The wizard player complained a little that he lost 2 skills but he sees the overall balance now that he's not going to be leagues better with skill points via INT just as a side-effect of being an INT-based class.

Robert

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Understand the trust me thing you dont know me so why should you? bad wording on my part. I have however been using 4 skills as the min since 2000 so yeah its not as hard to update as you seem to think it is very easy and on the fly

Indeed no different then updating hp changes nor the actual changes in the class list, which will actually cause more work then a simple increase in the lowest ranks gained. The fact that Perception is 3 old skills in one means your going to have a large chunk of ranks that your going to have to find a new home for anyways. Or heck think of getting rid of the x4 skill ranks from first level in your calculation. Those are more complex then, hmmmm...well Fighter 1, Cleric B, Sorcerer C, Paladin D, and Wizard 2 all get 2 extra ranks per level.


Anry wrote:
Actually from my understanding the final product is to replace the DMG and PHB books in their entirety. As there is no guarantee how long the SRD as a site will be maintained.

Evidently I was misinformed as to that; I happily stand corrected. It'll be nice to have everything in one place.

Let me emphasize that I don't oppose 4 points/level just because I'm mean or stingy. D&D 3/3.5 was designed so that skill points were an important class feature -- as much so as spells or BAB. When we propose "equalizing" them -- blanket increases for low-skill classes, on top of skill combining so that a few points go a longer way -- we change a fundamental assumption around which the game is designed.

No one seems to be arguing that wizards need a 3/4 BAB, because 1/2 is too low. No one has yet, to my knowledge, proposed that paladins and rangers be bumped to full spellcasting, and fighters and rogues to half. Why not? Because BAB and spells are immediately combat-applicable, unlike skills. Does that mean skills are fundamentally less important?

If your answer is "yes," you've obviously never played with my group. There are ways to play D&D that include skills and combat on a more or less equal level. Minimizing the importance of skills by handing them out too liberally, coupled with "balancing" by giving more combat abilities to the skilled classes, changes the assumption of the game to one in which combat is the only focus, and skills are sort of an afterthought. If that's how you view the game already, then I can see why adding skills would seem like a fine idea, and it's probably never crossed your mind that you may disenfranchise a large portion of the audience. If not, then you might be like me, or many other people, who prefer to keep skills on equal footing with attack bonuses or spells.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

I don't see the extra skill points breaking the balance when you compare the 2 skill rankers with the current 4 skill rankers.

I mean by your logic, the Barbarian should have 2 skill ranks per level and yet it has four.

Barbarian, Druid, and Monk are the 4 skill rankers. So show me how upping Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, and Sorcerer to 4 ranks unbalances them incomparison. The 4 ranks doesn't infringe on the realms of the Bard, Ranger, or Rogue as they still have more ranks in general. Wizard is left out of the equation because he already outclassed the 4 rankers with his key ability modifier being Intelligence, this already placed him more on par with the Ranger then any other class. Bard and Rogue generally should have decent intelligences so Bard was already a step above the Ranger. And the Rogue remained a step above all else. The increase from 4 ranks from 2 ranks would now put the wizard on par with the Bard but still below the rogue.

Show me the break in balance.


I run skill heavy games always have. Adding enuff skills to make skills useful to none rogue/bard/rangers is not a bad thing it brings more people to the table that can enjoy and use skills and not just go well i can clime or ride sorry guys cant do anything else.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I run skill heavy games always have. Adding enuff skills to make skills useful to none rogue/bard/rangers is not a bad thing it brings more people to the table that can enjoy and use skills and not just go well i can clime or ride sorry guys cant do anything else.

Yeah that's a common problem in our group, through skill challenge with a majority of 2 skill rankers and they become stumped.


Anry wrote:
Show me the break in balance.

OK. I'll go through an example, but if you still have no idea what I'm talking about after that, I'm obviously speaking Greek. Let's look an elf characters with 10 Int, so we don't have to deal with any wacky mods. I'll also leave out other ability mods for skills, so that we're looking at ranks/class skill bonuses only.

3.5e elf cleric 4: Concentration +4, Knowledge (religion) +7, Heal +3.
3.5e elf rogue 4: Bluff +7, Climb +7, Disable Device +7, Hide +7, Move Silently +7, Open Lock +7, Search +7, Spot +7.

New elf cleric 4: Bluff +4, Climb +4, Concentration +4, Diplomacy +4, Knowledge (religion) +7, Heal +4, Sense Motive +4.
New elf rogue 4: Appraise +5, Buff +7, Climb +7, Disable Device +7, Knoweldge (local) +7, Perception +7, Ride +2, Sleight of Hand +7, Stealth +7.

On the face of it, the rogue has gained three more good skills: appraise, sleight of hand, and local knowledge, and a few ranks in ride. None are really optimal, because his "core" skills are already covered in either system. He maxes out all but two of them because taking a few ranks in "Profession (basket weaving)" doesn't do much for him.

The cleric, on the other hand, has expanded his skill capabilities exponentially.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Anry wrote:
Show me the break in balance.

OK. I'll go through an example, but if you still have no idea what I'm talking about after that, I'm obviously speaking Greek. Let's look an elf characters with 10 Int, so we don't have to deal with any wacky mods. I'll also leave out other ability mods for skills, so that we're looking at ranks/class skill bonuses only.

3.5e elf cleric 4: Concentration +4, Knowledge (religion) +7, Heal +3.
3.5e elf rogue 4: Bluff +7, Climb +7, Disable Device +7, Hide +7, Move Silently +7, Open Lock +7, Search +7, Spot +7.

New elf cleric 4: Bluff +4, Climb +4, Concentration +4, Diplomacy +4, Knowledge (religion) +7, Heal +4, Sense Motive +4.
New elf rogue 4: Appraise +5, Buff +7, Climb +7, Disable Device +7, Knoweldge (local) +7, Perception +7, Ride +2, Sleight of Hand +7, Stealth +7.

On the face of it, the rogue has gained three more good skills: appraise, sleight of hand, and local knowledge, and a few ranks in ride. None are really optimal, because his "core" skills are already covered in either system. He maxes out all but two of them because taking a few ranks in "Profession (basket weaving)" doesn't do much for him.

The cleric, on the other hand, has expanded his skill capabilities exponentially.

whats wrong with that? seems like the cleric can now do a few things. and the rogue still has more. I fail to see the issue here


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
whats wrong with that? seems like the cleric can now do a few things. and the rogue still has more. I fail to see the issue here

Yes, I see that. I'm unfortunately not able to explain any better. Have you seen The Incredibles: "If everyone is special, then no one is." That's how I'm seeing it. The example rogue's capabilities have really not been all that meaningfully expanded, but the cleric's have vastly mushroomed.

I feel like, if the non-skilled people are suddenly given an abundance of skills, then wizards should get 3/4 BAB, and rogues should get spellcasting like a bard, to make up for it. I could then argue "the fighter's BAB is still better," and "clerics can still cast more spells."

Edit: The added rogue talent every other level helps, but the minor talents are far too limited to really address this. If rogues could gain a rogue talent OR any non-combat-maneuver bonus feat of their choice at 2nd, 4th, 6th, and 8th, that would help. Of course, since everyone now gets more feats than they did in 3.5, that's less of a draw, but we are bumping their BAB, so maybe that's OK. Then we just need to wait and make sure the bard and ranger remain balanced as well.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Why is the cleric taking ranks in Bluff and Climb? (using new skill system, and elf boost to intelligence, based off NPC stats (Cleric 10 base INt, Rogue 14 base Int)

3.5 elf cleric 4 (14 ranks): Concentration +4, Knowledge (religion) +7, Heal +3

Alpha 2 elf cleric 4 (12 ranks): Knowledge (religion) +7, Heal +7, Spellcraft +7

Proposed elf cleric 4 (20 ranks): Diplomacy +7, Knowledge (religion) +7, Heal +7, Spellcraft +7, Sense Motive +7

3.5 elf rogue 4 (70 ranks): Balance +7, Bluff +7, Disable Device +7, Hide +7, Listen +7, Move Silently +7, Open Lock +7, Search +7, Spot +7, Tumble +7.

Alpha 2 elf rogue 4 (44 ranks): Acrobatics +7, Appraise +7, Bluff +7, Disable Device +7, Disguise +7, Escape Artist +7, Knowledge (local) +7, Perception +7, Sleight of Hand +7, Stealth +7, Use Magical Device +7

Note: Alpha 2 character include class skill bonuses, and no skill contains ability modifiers. 3.5 elf characters lack elven +2 to Intelligence.

Observations:

3.5 cleric is good in one skill and half-assed in two. Alpha 2 cleric is now good in all three skills but only has three skills, and is only good in three skills due to the Elven Intelligence increase. Proposed cleric has a slightly larger skill selection, able to branch out into two more skills.

3.5 rogue, the majority of his ranks were spent in now consolidated skills: Balance, Disable Device, Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, and Tumble; These 9 skills are now only 4 skills: Acrobatics, Disable Device, Perception, and Stealth. This gives the Alpha 2 rogue 5 new choices for skills.

Conclusion: With the consolidation of skills the rogue has already effectively gained a large boost in skills to the equivilance of raising their base to 13 + Int mod. Whereas the Alpha 2 cleric has remained the same. Raising the cleric to 4 + Int modifier is only a 2 point increase compared to the rogues 5 point increase, the rogue is still lightyears ahead in ranks in comparison.


Look rogues are not just a 8 skills per level and nothing else.Each class has its ability's that doesn't mean they should be bad at skills. bards get 6 and can cast spell i guess they step on the wizard and the rogue's toes.

Having more skills for weak skill classes does not make the rogue any less How many times have yall saw the rogue dip just to get a few skills. Now how many a ranger or bard dip for just 4 more? 4 skills per level does not make the rogue any less a rogue hell with the new system they dont even use that many on basic rogue now.

We just see it in to different ways and thats fine. You feel it makes the rogue useless I feel it makes other classes useful out side of combat.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Look rogues are not just a 8 skills per level and nothing else.Each class has its ability's that doesn't mean they should be bad at skills. bards get 6 and can cast spell i guess they step on the wizard and the rogue's toes.

Having more skills for weak skill classes does not make the rogue any less How many times have yall saw the rogue dip just to get a few skills. Now how many a ranger or bard dip for just 4 more? 4 skills per level does not make the rogue any less a rogue hell with the new system they dont even use that many on basic rogue now.

We just see it in to different ways and thats fine. You feel it makes the rogue useless I feel it makes other classes useful out side of combat.

*points up to his comparison*


yep saw it after i posted anry nicejob

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16

Thanks, I mean even if your rogue character in 3.5 didn't choose all 9 of the skills, even selecting a single one in the 3.5 version will have effectively given your character an additional skill it didn't have when moved to PRPG. The likelyhood of a rogue not having ranks in any of those skills at all is slim.

For example, if your rogue had ranks in Search in 3.5, in PRPG he now effictively got just as many ranks in Spot and Listen, plus the additional senses of Perception: Taste, Smell, Touch.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Anry has a very good point.

3.5 Rogue had 29 class skills
PFRPG Rogue has 21 class skills (+2 new skills, one old one removed)
Difference of 10 skills there

13 rogue skills were folded into 6.

That looks to me like the Rogue has gained a skill increase of 7 points per level.

With that, I am not sure why some people are upset with the request to increase the minimum skill gain to +4?

The Exchange

I still don't see why you are trying to say that a Cleric needs to have Spellcraft. He is wearing Heavy Armor most of the time. Also, if you wanted a more skillful Cleric, Why would you just give him a 10 INT? Why not give your example a Int of 12 or even on par with the Elf Rogue. Watch how it blooms up and makes the 14 Int Rogue looke like he got shafted. Even look at the Bard because he is really getting shafted. That cleric just closed that gap between him and the bard and now the bard is less effective. The cleric can do everything better than him now and fits the jack of all trades better.

The Exchange

Mistwalker wrote:

Anry has a very good point.

3.5 Rogue had 29 class skills
PFRPG Rogue has 21 class skills (+2 new skills, one old one removed)
Difference of 10 skills there

13 rogue skills were folded into 6.

That looks to me like the Rogue has gained a skill increase of 7 points per level.

With that, I am not sure why some people are upset with the request to increase the minimum skill gain to +4?

Have you played in a game with a Wizard with 4+int for skills? It's ridiculous. It takes away from the game by adding more metagaming.

"P:What is that creature? DM:Roll Knowledge(Something) P:I have that knowledge. DM:Is there any knowledge you don't have? P:I have them all. DM:Well it's a Bodak and it has such and such abilities and...etc."

That slows down the game and takes away the mystery of fighting new monster for the characters.

101 to 150 of 288 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / Skills & Feats / Please kill 2 skills per level All Messageboards