make em roll man DC 15 you get basic stuff each +5 over that you learn one more thing about them . you dont auto know everything
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.
What does that have to do with being able to figure out what kind of spell is being cast, or to maintain concentration?
The heavy armor does not always aid, and not all clerics wear, or want to wear heavy armor.
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.
Actually, I have. In my campaigns, I have housed ruled that the minimum for skill gain is +4 per level.
I haven't had any problems with it.
It's my job as DM to throw in modifiers to DCs for all skills, including Knowledge skills, as the situation requires.
I know from personal experience that there is a large difference between book learning and "knowing" something.
|
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.
see my above post about the idea of removing the INT mod; then 4 for wizard isn't so ballooned.
And I definitely agree with the knowledge and metagaming taking away the fun and mystery.....
Robert
|
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.
Actually, I have. In my campaigns, I have housed ruled that the minimum for skill gain is +4 per level.
I haven't had any problems with it.
It's my job as DM to throw in modifiers to DCs for all skills, including Knowledge skills, as the situation requires.
I know from personal experience that there is a large difference between book learning and "knowing" something.
But the idea of the knowledge skill was that he has spent his time studying books and when they face the monster, he can recall information about it. I do throw in modifiers and such but the basic DC as per RAW is 10 + HD of the creature with any additional modifiers that you see fit. Even with that, the wizard with 4+Int is still superior at getting past the difficulty, even at lower levels. If you keep the wizard at 2+Int, it's less likely he will know every skill.
That is an over-exaggeration if that were a problem Barbarian, Monk, and Druid already infringe in that sense. And by that logic there isn't a problem because three classes already had that potential. But since your arguing against the increase your logic here suggests that those three classes should drop back to 2+INT so that they stop infringing on the bard's jack of all trades position, which the rogue already out did him on anyways.
The bard class is lousy anyways.
Also note that the Elven Cleric Alpha 2 and Proposed does have 12 Int, do to the elf's now +2 Int racial boost.
3.5 Elven Bard 4 (56 ranks): Bluff +7, Diplomacy +7, Disguise +7, Gather Information +7, Knowledge (local) +7, Perform (something) +7, Sense Motive +7, Tumble +7
Alpha Elven Bard 4 (36 ranks): Acrobatics +7, Bluff +7, Diplomacy +7, Disguise +7, Knowledge (local) +7, Perception +7, Perform +7, Sense Motive +7, Stealth +7
Observations:
The bard has a single pair of skills that are condensed into a single skill: Diplomacy and Gather Information. In Alpha he gains an additional skill because of this. Also switching to Alpha Tumble becomes Acrobatics which effectively gives the bard to two additional 3.5 skills it didn't have the ranks for before: Balance and Jump. With two extra skills to play with (Thanks to combining of GI and Diplo and the elven increase) the bard now has two skills he didn't have. I selected Perception and Stealth to further illustrate the benefit of combining skills as by simply taking these two skills the Alpha Bard has now expanded his skill list in comparison to the 3.5 list with 5 additional skills.
Conclusions: Ignoring the additional skill combo example I purposefully did with Stealth and Perception, the bard gained a single point increase overall which still placed it 3 points ahead of the proposed cleric. Only a single point difference less in the gap between clerics and bards that existed in 3.5 (which was a 4 point difference). The bard still exceeds the cleric and maintains its position.
|
|
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.What does that have to do with being able to figure out what kind of spell is being cast, or to maintain concentration?
The heavy armor does not always aid, and not all clerics wear, or want to wear heavy armor.
Why would a cleric not wear the best protection that he could afford? If he chose to go in lighter armor, there must be a better benefit that character was thinking of. But to say that a base cleric needs spellcraft, he really doesn't. He typically will wear the best armors and won't be touched often.
|
I still don't see why you are trying to say that a Cleric needs to have Spellcraft.
A cleric need Spellcraft for the following reasons:
Task - Spellcraft DC
Identify a spell as it is being cast - 15 + spell level
Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll - 10 + spell level
Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell if you are damaged while casting - 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Cast a spell if you are taking continuous damage - 10 + half the damage dealt + spell level
Cast a spell if you are distracted by a non-damaging spell - Distracting spell’s DC + spell level
Cast a spell while on a moving mount or vehicle - 10 + spell level
Cast a spell while on a vigorously moving mount or vehicle - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell while moving violently (earthquake, falling) - 20 + spell level
Cast a spell while entangled - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell while grappled - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell during extreme weather - 10 + spell level
(Alpha2, p.47)
|
|
That is an over-exaggeration if that were a problem Barbarian, Monk, and Druid already infringe in that sense. And by that logic there isn't a problem because three classes already had that potential. But since your arguing against the increase your logic here suggests that those three classes should drop back to 2+INT so that they stop infringing on the bard's jack of all trades position, which the rogue already out did him on anyways.
My logic is that the monk, barbarian, and druid should be more skillful than a fighter or cleric. If you bump up the fighter or cleric, now those classes above get a little shafted.
Maybe the problem with the logic is that instead of bumping up some classes, a new set of numbers need to be introduced. By trying to bump up the existing numbers for some classes and not others, you are saying that the more skillful classes don't really need to be more skillful vs. the ones don't need to be skillful. If we change to something like 3/4/5/6(Just for example, not my actual proposal), then you have classes getting a good minimum and allowing others to be at their peak.
Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard would get 3+Int
Monk, Barbarian, and Druid would get 4+Int
Ranger and Bard would get 5+Int
Rogue would get 6+Int
Now this effects backwards compatability but it allows for some classes to be more skillful than others which should be the case. With the system you are proposing, this is what it looks like.
Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard, Monk, Barbarian, and Druid get 4+int
Ranger and Bard get 6+int
Rogue gets 8+Int
With your proposed fix, you just lumped 2/3 of the classes into one skill category. Some of those classes should be more skillful than the others but there is no way to help them with your fix. That's why I'm against the idea.
Even if you don't bother with casting defensively your god isn't going to help you if you actually get hit and take damage because of the AoO.
The DC is 10 + damage dealt + spell level. We'll the cleric is casting a 2nd level spell, and AoO from a Hound Archon hits (first CR 4 monster that was melee centered I came across) we'll say he uses his bite for average damage 6. DC 18, with no ranks in Spellcraft you have +1 using the elven cleric as example...your most likely going to lose your spell. If he's using his greatsword the DC is 22, you have no chance at all to make the DC with no ranks on the average hit, not even on a Nat 20.
Now we give cleric the +7 plus +1 int mod, +8. The cleric is now mostly going to make the save against the bite and has good chance to maintain the spell from the hit from the greatsword.
Now lets compare the DC from the damage dealt to casting defensively...DC 17...this is lower than even the bite dmg DC. Benefit, not only is it easier for you to maintain the spell by casting defensively but you also didn't take any damage.
|
|
I still don't see why you are trying to say that a Cleric needs to have Spellcraft.A cleric need Spellcraft for the following reasons:
Task - Spellcraft DC
Identify a spell as it is being cast - 15 + spell level
Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll - 10 + spell level
Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell if you are damaged while casting - 10 + damage dealt + spell level
Cast a spell if you are taking continuous damage - 10 + half the damage dealt + spell level
Cast a spell if you are distracted by a non-damaging spell - Distracting spell’s DC + spell level
Cast a spell while on a moving mount or vehicle - 10 + spell level
Cast a spell while on a vigorously moving mount or vehicle - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell while moving violently (earthquake, falling) - 20 + spell level
Cast a spell while entangled - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell while grappled - 15 + spell level
Cast a spell during extreme weather - 10 + spell level(Alpha2, p.47)
I just bolded what the cleric would actually use from the list. But some of those would be avoided by the clerics armor while others would only happen if he was not using his weapon instead(ie Grapple or on Mount).
Why should a druid be more skillful than a cleric?
Why should a barbarian or monk be more skillful than a fighter?
Again I leave out wizard because currently with his high Intelligence he was already more on par with the ranger. And moves more up to on par with the bard.
|
|
Why should a druid be more skillful than a cleric?
Why should a barbarian or monk be more skillful than a fighter?
Again I leave out wizard because currently with his high Intelligence he was already more on par with the ranger. And moves more up to on par with the bard.
A druid spends his time out in nature while a cleric is spending his time in a temple. The temple does not allow for him to do much else than to learn while the druid is out applying various skills to survive off the land.
Barbarians and Monks are more skillful because the fighter has spent his time training for combat with various weapons and armor while the Barbarian is out scavagening for food and the monk is training his body to be one with his mind.
How about a shift from 2/4/6/8 to 3/5/7/9? The relative skillfulness of the classes is largely kept even, while giving a bit more capability for everybody.
How about a shift from 2/4/6/8 to 3/5/7/9? The relative skillfulness of the classes is largely kept even, while giving a bit more capability for everybody.
no
Why should a druid be more skillful than a cleric?
Why should a barbarian or monk be more skillful than a fighter?
Again I leave out wizard because currently with his high Intelligence he was already more on par with the ranger. And moves more up to on par with the bard.
A druid spends his time out in nature while a cleric is spending his time in a temple. The temple does not allow for him to do much else than to learn while the druid is out applying various skills to survive off the land.
Barbarians and Monks are more skillful because the fighter has spent his time training for combat with various weapons and armor while the Barbarian is out scavagening for food and the monk is training his body to be one with his mind.
sorry man that just makes no sence at all. level one lets see what goodys they get that takes more training.
3.5 classes
cleric...spells,3 armor types weapons commoners use
druid ...spell.2 types of armor,a few weapons ,nature sense, wild empathy
not a big difference at all there
fighter...simple and martial weapons 3 armor types and shields 1 feat
barbarian..simple and martial weapons 3 armor types and shields..fast move rage and oh he cant read
no the augment you used doesn't fit
|
|
Why should a druid be more skillful than a cleric?
Why should a barbarian or monk be more skillful than a fighter?
Again I leave out wizard because currently with his high Intelligence he was already more on par with the ranger. And moves more up to on par with the bard.
A druid spends his time out in nature while a cleric is spending his time in a temple. The temple does not allow for him to do much else than to learn while the druid is out applying various skills to survive off the land.
Barbarians and Monks are more skillful because the fighter has spent his time training for combat with various weapons and armor while the Barbarian is out scavagening for food and the monk is training his body to be one with his mind.
sorry man that just makes no sence at all. level one lets see what goodys they get that takes more training.
3.5 classes
cleric...spells,3 armor types weapons commoners use
druid ...spell.2 types of armor,a few weapons ,nature sense, wild empathynot a big difference at all there
fighter...simple and martial weapons 3 armor types and shields 1 feat
barbarian..simple and martial weapons 3 armor types and shields..fast move rage and oh he cant readno the augment you used doesn't fit
Your speaking of mechanics while I'm speaking Flavor. The flavor of one class helps to govern how the class is set up while the mechanics of the class are used to help try and make it level out with the other classes in power. My arguement is legit if you go and read the PHB classes and what roles they tend to fill.
Why doesn't that work? It's just giving all classes a boost of one skill.
it looks bad for one. And it pulls away from a set partten 4/6/8 is simple and not over powered sorry it doesn't work for you but man your the only one that seems to have tired it and didn't like it no offense but it sounded like you just let your playes slide by to easy on the knowledge thing
* Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
* Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
* Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
* Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
* History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
* Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)
* Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
* Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)
* Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
* The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes)
So unless that had 20 ranks in all of this there is no way they know every thing . thats 10 skills at 20 ranks each..200 points
|
|
Why doesn't that work? It's just giving all classes a boost of one skill.it looks bad for one. And it pulls away from a set partten 4/6/8 is simple and not over powered sorry it doesn't work for you but man your the only one that seems to have tired it and didn't like it no offense but it sounded like you just let your playes slide by to easy on the knowledge thing
* Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
* Architecture and engineering (buildings, aqueducts, bridges, fortifications)
* Dungeoneering (aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking)
* Geography (lands, terrain, climate, people)
* History (royalty, wars, colonies, migrations, founding of cities)
* Local (legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids)
* Nature (animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin)
* Nobility and royalty (lineages, heraldry, family trees, mottoes, personalities)
* Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
* The planes (the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, elementals, magic related to the planes)So unless that had 20 ranks in all of this there is no way they know every thing . thats 10 skills at 20 ranks each..200 points
No offense taken. I know what the knowledges do but some knowledges have more uses than others. With those knowledges, you could just max them out and get the full benefit while the others, you just need a few ranks in them to get the maximum benefit.
sure I am speaking mechanics were talking about a mechanical change based on a flaw . Flavor wise both druids and barbarians spent just as much time leaning there class ability's as the others .
Why should a druid be more skillful than a cleric?
Why should a barbarian or monk be more skillful than a fighter?
Again I leave out wizard because currently with his high Intelligence he was already more on par with the ranger. And moves more up to on par with the bard.
A druid spends his time out in nature while a cleric is spending his time in a temple. The temple does not allow for him to do much else than to learn while the druid is out applying various skills to survive off the land.
Barbarians and Monks are more skillful because the fighter has spent his time training for combat with various weapons and armor while the Barbarian is out scavagening for food and the monk is training his body to be one with his mind.
I don't see a difference between a fighter, cleric, or monk. In fact, the monk is far more cloistered than the cleric ever would be. A cleric doesn't just spend time locked away in the temple, their is combat training, ecclastic training, and most likely be interacting with others that follow the religion. These leads to the development of martail skills, escoterics (philosophy, acedemics), and social skills. Also most are going to be trained in healing in most places. This also applies to the paladin but greater emphasis is placed in training martially and socially.
As pointed has been pointed out, there is a great deal more to fighter then just honing martial skills in training. Especially if you look at fighter being the expert soldier. The idea that a fighter does nothing but beat straw filled dumbies with wooden swords is just ridiculous.
And why does the sorcerer not have more skill ranks then? He hardly needs to spend vast amounts of time to his magic which is mostly innate to him. He over all others has the most time on his hand to hone whatever he wishes.
good point there on just maxing out some of the knowledge ranks. Still I run a skill heavy game so it doesn't seem that big an issue for me and havening a few knowledge skills have saved players a few times.
In my games I like the players to have skills to be able to do something more then just 2 things but mostly the classes that dont have high INt is the issue wizard tends to do well even if he had no ranks he would still do well.
+1. 2 points is too bad. It's impossible to personalize a character with only 2 points.
Whatever happened to personalizing a character through roleplaying?
+1. 2 points is too bad. It's impossible to personalize a character with only 2 points.Whatever happened to personalizing a character through roleplaying?
That's completely seperate. But I mean you could say your character is spy and play it out roleplaying in personality and such, but if you don't have the skills to support the idea . . . Once you start interacting with the game world your concept slips away like sand through a strainer.
Oh and the difference between the druid learning and cleric learning is like College and University.
One is practical learning, and the other is acedemic learning.
Neither way is a better way to learn, nor does either learn more then the other. But it is what is learned that is difference, not skill level gained.
This falls into the realm of class skills not skill ranks.
Why would a cleric not wear the best protection that he could afford? If he chose to go in lighter armor, there must be a better benefit that character was thinking of. But to say that a base cleric needs spellcraft, he really doesn't. He typically will wear the best armors and won't be touched often.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.What does that have to do with being able to figure out what kind of spell is being cast, or to maintain concentration?
The heavy armor does not always aid, and not all clerics wear, or want to wear heavy armor.
Well, I do not allow my players to wander around town fully armored up in plate and such. Tis very bad manners, will get the watch to keeping a close eye on you (and probably the thieves guild too).
I add a fair amount to the DCs for social skill checks when they do that. As well as dropping the amount of respect that they get.I also have players who like to add "flavor" to their clerics, who have adopted various reasons for not wearing the bestest/highest AC armor around.
Your speaking of mechanics while I'm speaking Flavor. The flavor of one class helps to govern how the class is set up while the mechanics of the class are used to help try and make it level out with the other classes in power. My arguement is legit if you go and read the PHB classes and what roles they tend to fill.
Well, I can come up with all kinds of flavor explaining why fighters should have more skill ranks.
1. They are supposed to the be steely eyed guardians. (Perception)
2. They are supposed to be able to get into X temple/caste. (Stealth)
3. They are supposed to know the who/what/where/when. (Various Knowledges)
4. They are supposed to take care of their mates when they get hurt. (Heal)
I could go on.
Barbarians : Have 2 combined skills -effective gain of 2 skills per level
Druids : Have 2 combined skills -effective gain of 2 skills per level
Fighters : Have no combined skills
Rogues : Have 6 combined skills -effective gain of 7 skills per level
So, it would appear that while everyone else is getting a behind the scenes gain, the fighter is not.
Don't forget fighters loose out on jump as well.
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.
It's not because of the SRD - I doubt that d20srd.org is going anywhere. Or any of the other srd sites out there. If push comes to shove, Paizo can put it on their site.
The problem is not the SRD, it's the core books. For a game to work, the core rules must be out on shelves. The SRD is not enough.
As I said, that had been my understanding, the final product wasn't just going to be a Campaign Setting in fact they have a number of other books covering the setting the main point was for PRPG to be the core book and to replace the 3.5 core books since they wouldn't be found on the shelves for much longer.
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 viableI 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.
Im glad to see someone likes my idea :) and I still think it would be the best bet.
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
Especially given the changes made to hit points, I really think this is a good idea.
|
|
Your speaking of mechanics while I'm speaking Flavor. The flavor of one class helps to govern how the class is set up while the mechanics of the class are used to help try and make it level out with the other classes in power. My arguement is legit if you go and read the PHB classes and what roles they tend to fill.Well, I can come up with all kinds of flavor explaining why fighters should have more skill ranks.
1. They are supposed to the be steely eyed guardians. (Perception)
2. They are supposed to be able to get into X temple/caste. (Stealth)
3. They are supposed to know the who/what/where/when. (Various Knowledges)
4. They are supposed to take care of their mates when they get hurt. (Heal)I could go on.
Barbarians : Have 2 combined skills -effective gain of 2 skills per level
Druids : Have 2 combined skills -effective gain of 2 skills per level
Fighters : Have no combined skills
Rogues : Have 6 combined skills -effective gain of 7 skills per levelSo, it would appear that while everyone else is getting a behind the scenes gain, the fighter is not.
I would have to say that the flavor you describe is not the flavor of the classes as presented in the PHB. That's a players take on how the class should function. Fighters as in the PHB are meant to be trained for combat through weapons training, armor training, formation training, and physical endurance. This doesn't give them much time to learn anything else outside of those grounds. That's why they have always lacked Perception skills and any sort of Knowledges. The Cleric I must agree isn't as cloistered as the monk but the monk is being trained both mentally and phsyically while the cleric is only learning about his god what how he can enact his god's will in the land. It depends on the domains and such but to get to the point. Give a cleric a 4+Int, he decides to not make his Int a dump stat and he ends up a lot more powerful than he should be. He gains a lot of new abilities that he shouldn't have the time to train for.
As for bringing up the fact about skill consolidation, it's not a complete list yet. Also just because some classes got the benefits of reduced skills, look what the fighter has gained. He now has some new armor and weapon training abilites and access to some new class skills.
I was overjoyed to see the Ranks skill system reinstated in Alpha 2! Though I was highly disappointed that the 1st level multiplier was dropped. What was so horrible about it? I'm suffer from dysnumeria and the whole multiply at 1st level was not an issue for me. Why drop it? Did the characters just suddenly not have skills learned from childhood and adolescent life experience before taking up a class?
I'm in agreement with everyone who says that skills need to be brought up to 4 (2 is just way too low, even with condensed skills list.)
|
|
Now just to clear things up, I'm not against giving fighters more skills, I'm just against that certain classes are gaining a bonus while others are being shafted. Just increasing the 2+Int classes to 4+Int is not a good fix in anyway, because even with the consolidation, you are saying that all classes should be about equal in skill while there are only a few exceptions(Ranger, Rogue, and Bard). I don't think that is fair to those other classes that originally had 4+int to get shafted out of a few skill ranks because the other classes need a boost. I just think that maybe a better compromise needs to come out of this. For backwards compatability sake, just leaving it alone is Paizo's take but for the sake of the game, maybe something like 3/4/5/6 should be explored. It's better balanced for all classes with the consolidated list of skills and it makes the minimum higher for those players that want to do more than just Jump and Climb, they could now Swim(LOL!). 4/6/8 is not balanced unless Barbarians, Druids, and Monks are bumped up to 6 while Rangers and Bards are bumped to 8 but the Rogue gets the shaft in this case. Better than half of the classes being lumped into one skill category.
|
|
Though I was highly disappointed that the 1st level multiplier was dropped. What was so horrible about it?
I think it was mostly that it made it hard for DMs to create high-level NPCs and calculate their skill ranks. That was a major push with new skill point system. A lot of people wanted skill points to work the same at all levels so it wouldn't matter when you took your level of this or level of that. Similar logic is what's behind the change away from class skills and cross-class skills to class skills with a bonus and simply non-class skills; the points work the same but class skills get a bump in the skill check formula.
|
|
The Cleric I must agree isn't as cloistered as the monk but the monk is being trained both mentally and phsyically while the cleric is only learning about his god what how he can enact his god's will in the land. It depends on the domains and such but to get to the point. Give a cleric a 4+Int, he decides to not make his Int a dump stat and he ends up a lot more powerful than he should be. He gains a lot of...
This is funny to me. Have you ever played a cleric with the knowledge domain? How about the trickery domain? Any domain that grants you more class skills. Did you ever put any ranks into those skills?
That's what I thought.
It is impossible.
The thing is, skills don't make a character more powerful. Really. I understand concerns about raising the power level, but esentially skills don't really let you do anything you couldn't do anyway. They just make it faster and easier, and they allow the party to take more risks.
If nobody in the party has ranks in climb, the party won't willingly climb down the cliff. They will spend hours working out an elaborate rope system that allows the DC to become 0 so nobody risks failing by 5 or more, even if threatened or distracted. If the party thinks that they can make the climb, they'll try it, and unleashing the yrthak or whatever while they're on the cliff actually gets interesting.
There are a few exceptions. Some skills really help in combat. Tumble and Concentration come to mind (no matter where they're located). Still, not every class will take those skills because for some it is useless and some the armor check make it essentially useless.
Barbarians will do fine with 4 skills. Fighters will do fine with 4. Nobody loses. I wouldn't think of not playing a barbarian because the fighter gets the same number of skills as I do. That isn't the reason one plays a barbarian. If you like a big HD, and you like rage, you play a barbarian. I wouldn't feel like I 'lose' because the fighter can use survival like I can.
|
|
If nobody in the party has ranks in climb, the party won't willingly climb down the cliff. They will spend hours working out an elaborate rope system that allows the DC to become 0 so nobody risks failing by 5 or more, even if threatened or distracted. If the party thinks that they can make the climb, they'll try it, and unleashing the yrthak or whatever while they're on the cliff actually gets interesting.
There are a few exceptions. Some skills really help in combat. Tumble and Concentration come to mind (no matter where they're located). Still, not every class will take those skills because for some it is useless and some the armor check make it essentially useless.
This is so true on so many levels. Very well said.
Robert
Exactly true. Increasing the 2s to 4s isn't going to make the 2s overpowered nor the already 4s any less appealing in comparison. Nor are the 4s losing out. But the 2s are crippled in skills, utterly and irrevocably. (Again not counting wizard whom is currently due to his high intelligence is actually up with the ranger, and with 4 he'll be up with the bard instead, both are expected to be horrible knowledge whores)
A player is going to choose between a barbarian or fighter because of the raging or feats.
A player is going to choose between a druid or cleric because of wild shape or domains.
A player is going to choose between a paladin or a ranger because of the smite or favoured enemy.
Sidenote: x4 is no longer needed because the max ranks in any skill is now equal to your character level not your character level+3.
[url=smurf][/url]
Of the people demanding 4/level minimum, is anyone aware that those classes already have the potential to be far more skilled than their 3.5e counterparts, WITHOUT blatantly adding skill points?
Sample 2nd level human fighter, Int 10, in 3.5e (ability mods ignored):
Climb +4, Jump +4, Ride +4, Craft (armorer) +1, Handle Animal +1, Spot +0 (1/2 rank).
Sample 2nd level human fighter, Int 10, in Pathfinder A2 (ability mods ignored): Climb +4, Jump +4, Ride +4, Craft (armorer) +4, Handle Animal +4, Perception +1.
Between 1st and 2nd level you picked up the equivalent of 6 ranks (because of your +3 in-class bonuses being applied again), and the equivalent of +3 skill ranks in x-class skills (because you've now got the equivalent of Listen, Search, and Spot at +1 each, instead of a worthless half a cross-class rank in Spot only). So, the Pathfinder fighter really has the equivelent of 23 (3.5e) skill points at 2nd level. 4/level in 3.5e would be (20+5=25), which isn't too far (2 points) ahead. Allowing 4/level in Pathfinder puts you WAY ahead, however: you'd actually be the equivalent of a ranger or bard in 3.5.
Certainly, more or less beneficial combinations could be envisioned. But you basically get 3 free ranks/class skill now, plus half your number of ranks in cross-class skills for free. You're WAY better off than in 3.5.
Overall, throwing more skill points out may not be as useful as just playtesting the new system a bit.
Under the new skill system and I don't think that 2 skills per level is nearly as bad as it was before, since you can get a lot more out of a skill that you only invest one rank in. As others have pointed out, Open Minded becomes a really, really good feat in this regard if you want a character that has a background involving a good deal of training in various areas.
Playtesting done, the new system makes no difference in skillfulness overall it equates to the same results unless you branch out to none class skills, and I have never been arguing to branching out beyond class skills. I have been speaking specifically within the class skills. As branching out into cross-class has always been entirely flavour-based, and generally not a viable choice for most characters with 2 skill base.
I will continue this after dinner!
|
|
The Cleric I must agree isn't as cloistered as the monk but the monk is being trained both mentally and phsyically while the cleric is only learning about his god what how he can enact his god's will in the land. It depends on the domains and such but to get to the point. Give a cleric a 4+Int, he decides to not make his Int a dump stat and he ends up a lot more powerful than he should be. He gains a lot of...This is funny to me. Have you ever played a cleric with the knowledge domain? How about the trickery domain? Any domain that grants you more class skills. Did you ever put any ranks into those skills?
That's what I thought.
It is impossible.
The thing is, skills don't make a character more powerful. Really. I understand concerns about raising the power level, but esentially skills don't really let you do anything you couldn't do anyway. they just make it faster and easier, and they allow the party to take more risks.
If nobody in the party has ranks in climb, the party won't willingly climb down the cliff. They will spend hours working out an elaborate rope system that allows the DC to become 0 so nobody risks failing by 5 or more, even if threatened or distracted. If the party thinks that they can make the climb, they'll try it, and unleashing the yrthak or whatever while they're on the cliff actually gets interesting.
There are a few exceptions. Some skills really help in combat. Tumble and Concentration come to mind (no matter where they're located). Still, not every class will take those skills because for some it is useless and some the armor check make it essentially useless.
Barbarians will do fine with 4 skills. Fighters will do fine with 4. Nobody loses. I wouldn't think of not playing a barbarian because the fighter gets the same number of skills as I do. That isn't the reason one plays a barbarian. If you like a big HD, and you like rage, you play a barbarian. I wouldn't feel like I 'lose' because the fighter can use...
In your scenario with the climb, have all players forgotten that they could have taken a 20. Add in some rope climbing and the party can succeed on any check that you throw at them. That's just as quick as the party actually having ranks with the skill. That's why their is rope in the equipment section and the ability to take 20. SO you don't have to have the ranks in something to do it. As for the Trickery domain, just because you have 2+Int for skills doesn't mean you couldn't spread your points out enough to make use of those skills.
|
|
I decided to do a little test with the skills systems. First of all, I decided to build the character as I would build one at level 1 and 5. In this case, it was a unraced Fighter. This is what I discovered.
Fighter Lvl 1
Wearing Scalemail Armor and Heavy Sheild
Str 15 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 12 Cha 8
(3.5e)
Skills: Climb -2 (2 Ranks, 2 Str, -6 ACP); Jump -2 (2 ranks, 2 Str, -6 ACP); Swim -8 (2 ranks, 2 Str, -12 ACP), Intimidate +1 (2 Ranks, -1 CHa), Spot +3 (4 points for 2 Ranks, +1 Wis)
(Alpha 2)
Skills: Climb +0 (1 Rank, +2 Str, +3 for Class, -6 ACP), Acrobatics -5 (1 Rank, +0 Dex, -6 ACP), Perception +2 (1 Rank, +1 Wis)
(4+Int 3.5e)
Skills: Climb +0 (4 Ranks, 2 Str, -6 ACP); Jump +0 (4 Ranks, 2 Str, -6 ACP); Swim -6 (4 Ranks, 2 Str, -12 ACP), Intimidate +3 (4 Ranks, -1 Cha); Spot +3 (4 points for 2 Ranks, +1 Wis)
(4+Int Alpha 2)
Skills: Climb +0 (1 Rank, +2 Str, +3 for Class, -6 ACP), Acrobatics -5 (1 Rank, +0 Dex, -6 ACP); Perception +2 (1 Rank, +1 Wis); Intimidate +3 (1 Rank, -1 Cha, +3 Class); Swim -5 (1 Rank, +3 Str, +3 Class, -12 ACP)
Fighter lvl 5
Wearing +1 Full Plate and +1 Heavy Shield
Str 16 Dex 10 Con 14 Int 13 Wis 12 Cha 8
(3.5e)
Skills: Climb +2 (5 Ranks, +3 Str, -6 ACP); Jump +2 (5 Ranks, +3 Str, -6 ACP); Swim -4 (5 Ranks, +3 Str, -12 ACP); Intimidate +4 (5 Ranks, -1 Cha); Spot +5 (8 points for 4 Ranks, +1 Wis)
(Alpha 2)
Skills: Climb +2 (2 Ranks, +3 Str, +3 for Class, -6 ACP); Acrobatics -1 (5 Ranks, +0 Dex, -6 ACP); Swim -3 (3 Ranks, +3 Str, +3 from Class, -12 ACP); Intimidate +4 (2 Ranks, -1 Cha, +3 for Class); Perception +6 (5 Ranks, +1 Wis)
(4+Int 3.5e)
Skills: Climb +4 (7 Ranks, +3 Str, -6 ACP); Jump +4 (7 Ranks, +3 Str, -6 ACP); Swim -2 (7 Ranks, +3 Str, -12 ACP); Intimidate +6 (5 Ranks, -1 Cha); Spot +5 (8 points for 4 Ranks, +1 Wis)
(4+Int Alpha 2)
Skills: Climb +5 (5 Ranks, +3 Str, +3 for Class, -6 ACP), Acrobatics -1 (5 Ranks, +0 Dex, -6 ACP); Swim -1 (5 Ranks, +3 Str, +3 from Class, -12 ACP); Intimidate +7 (5 Ranks, -1 Cha, +3 from Class); Perception +6 (5 Ranks, +1 Wis)
Now I will continue this experiement further to so what happens at 10th level and 15th level. I also will put up a comparison vs. the Druid and Barbarian at the same levels. Also, let me know if you catch any mistakes. After this, I might as well try the experimental 3/4/5/6 system on a few classes to compare them.
Interesting comparisons, my only question what is the point of bringing in 4+INT mod in 3.5?
Well, I'm not really sure if this has been brought up yet or not, within all of the various threads on the subject. But...
What if, at 1st-level, characters could choose 4 skills from their list of class skills. These four skills would be considered "signature skills", where they would be assumed to have max skill ranks as they raise in level (Character level + 3 + ability modifier + misc modifiers). In addition, characters would gain skill points as already set out in PF-Alpha 2, which could be spent to "flesh" out a character as seen fit, spending them on additional class skills or cross-class skills.
(On a side note: I think it may be prudent to limit cross-class skills to have no more than 1/2 you character level. 1st level would be an exception to the rule.)
Edit: my spelling sucks... :o(