One of the stated goals of Pathfinder RPG is to encourage people to play characters that stay in the same class. I believe that the example includes comments about why no one plays rogues past 2nd, or fighters past 4th.
Adjusting the skill systems a touch, will help make fighter more attractive.
I do believe that we have already desmonstrated that most, if not all, of the classes that you keep says are going to lose by this, have gained due to skill condensation. The fighter has not. So, how is this unbalancing to the other classes?
The flavor in the text can easily be adjusted in PFRPG when it comes out. It most likely will be adjusted to reflect the changes in the mechanics of the game.
I would prefer to have the simplest fix to what seems like, to a large number of us, a glitch/problem/imbalance in the current rules.
Yes, I know I posted most of this earlier, but I think it has been missed in the latest flury of posts.
Yes; see my post just above it as well.
We've offered:
1. With consolidated skills and higher skill purchase efficiency, 2/level skill points in 3.PF go a lot further than 2/level in 3.5e (argument rejected);
2. Add 2 skill points at every even level, and either restrict them to Knowledge/Craft/Profession, per Epic Meepo, or leave them open (suggestion ignored);
3. Bump 2/level to 4/level, but provide balancing mechanisms for the 4/6/8 classes -- bonus feats for rogues, or more points for barbarians, or whatever (suggestion rejected);
4. Consolidate more skills, e.g., Athletics, specifically in order to benefit low-skill classes (suggestion rejected);
5. More recently, give nonhuman races an extra point/level, but restrict their usage, unlike for humans and half-elves (suggestion rejected).I'm out of ideas.
1. Simply didn't make a great difference to the 2+Int mod classes in fact this efficiency and consolidation greatly favours everyone but them.
2. This wasn't ignored there were some opposals to it. I couldn't think of anything to add to those opposals. The thought of limiting it to knowledges, crafts, and professions made it even more unappealing.3. This was rejected as balancing act hasn't been shown to be needed. As DeadDMwalking pointed out on his last post there are a number of things these classes have already gained and further gain doesn't make sense. Especially not the rogue whom benefitted the most from consolidation.
4. There are whole other threads for the pros and cons of this.
5. See my prior post as to why I am opposed to it as a choice.
|
Let me elaborate some more. This gives you the minimum being 4 and all other characters the bonuses of being more skillful as is 3.5e.
3.5e Skill breakdown
2+Int
Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, Wizard, Paladin
4+Int
Monk, Barbarian, Druid
6+Int
Ranger, Bard
8+Int
Rogue
With your fix it would look like this
4+Int
Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, Wizard, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, Druid
6+Int
Ranger, Bard
8+Int
Rogue
With my proposed, it looks like this.
4+Int
Cleric, Fighter, Wizard, Paladin
5+Int
Monk, Barbarian, Druid, Sorcerer
6+Int
Ranger, Bard
7+Int
Rogue
This accomplishes what you all wanted without making some of the other classes too skillful and reels in the rogue some(Not as much as with the 3/4/5/6).
Really mate calm down. Except for the exceptional skill monkey classes (Ranger, Bard, Rogue, whom remain such even with the lower bar being raised one rung), skills are a tertiary ability in a classes overall design. Whereas the human's bonus skill ranks are a primary ability used in balance against other races.
I'm calm; I simply disagree that skills are so unimportant -- especially to the rogue, bard, and ranger. Shifting the imbalance to the races was an idea to make things a bit easier -- then all we have to do is re-balance the human/half-elf, and we're done. If them getting all skills as "racial skills" (as opposed to a very limited list) isn't good enough, then maybe also allow them to select any 3 cross-class skills and treat them as class skills, or whatever. The point is, there's room to work out an arrangement. We don't have to just cross our arms and refuse any idea of a compromise.
DeadDM -- With great respect for the clarity and logic of your argument, I might add -- I'm still troubled by bumping skills, and then balancing that by bumping combat ability as well -- at some point all the bumping needs to stop, or I need to also alter all my existing 3.5 adventures just to make them playable. The idea of a unified BAB/HD is good, but I'm already troubled by the increase in so many HD types. "Backward compatibility," optimally, should mean that I don't have to totally revise all of my old Dungeon adventures before running them. It looks like Jason is pretty solid on that increase, however, so my concerns will probably go for naught. It's just beginning to look as if 3.PF will be "backward-compatible" in name and cosmetics only, not in terms of actual playability.
Let me elaborate some more.
Funny I was just about to ask for an elaboration.
I wish there was someway to make it just a three tier. With the final spread I would much rather Rogue be on par with Ranger and Bard.
|
The conversation is going fast - hard to keep up. Start one reply and there are 5 others before you finish.
Having a racial pool of skills is just more complicated than it needs to be.
Adding 'something' to the 4 skill classes is unnecessary since they're already getting something. The cleric and the Fighter do not have any 'combined skills'. The barbarian does. In the current Pathfinder Alpha 2 he gets Tumble when he takes Jump. Even if that is not the case, many classes that had more skill points are getting a better HD (rogue, bard, ranger).
Taking a weak class and balancing it against 'better' classes does not mean that the better classes need to be improved again. This defeats the purpose of making weak classes stronger. Now, the cleric may not fit in here with the other 2/skill classes, but the extra 2 skills aren't going to make the cleric better, either.
There are a lot of considerations to make. Giving some classes 4 skill points instead of 2 won't appreciably change the power level of the game. There are a number of other posters who's playtesting experience bears this out. The Pathfinder is a chance to fix things, not leave the broeken things alone. So, the Ranger got a bigger HD. I don't see anyone saying 'Rangers got better. Now there is no reason to play anything else'. There is no call to 'bump' the other classes that didn't get an increased HD.
I guess I would say, forget about 3.5 for a second, and imagine what you would do if there were no rules. If you had to start from the beginning, how skilled would you want each class to be? If you're like me, you'd want each class to be able to do a few different things. You wouldn't want them to be 'locked into' a choice. I like fighters that can learn about nobility. I think there are a lot of reasons that makes sense. I know it isn't on the 'class list'. I don't think EVERY FIGHTER should know about nobility, but some should. I think the rules should support allowing me to create a character where this is true.
The mechanics should support the flavor. The flavor should not be a straight-jacket. There should be multiple ways to create the base classes. So, not every barbarians should be from the wilderness. The Viking Raider was a very 'civilized' person in his homeland, but he seemed pretty barbaric when he was killing all the monks and taking their gold. His industry was as or more advanced than that of many of the people he fought. So, the earlier examples of barbarians from 'civilized' groups SHOULD be something that the game supports. Not every barbarian should be from a tribe. Some might just be creepy kids who grew up in the back alleys and go crazy if you look at them funny.
My opinion. And I do know that Jason will give both sides of the debate consideration. Personally, I don't think this debate would be happening if the 4 had been the minimum in the Alpha 2. I think most people would have thought 'gee, that's great'. I think that because it is other posters proposing it, there is a lot more inclination to 'resist' the change. Sure, the Alpha 2 is pretty good. If every suggested change were made, it wouldn't be. So, 'defending' certain decisions makes sense. I'm in that boat as well. But considering changes, trying changes, evaluating proposed changes - those also need consideration.
When two different people sit down and look at the change and one says 'I tried this and it works' and the other says 'I think giving one class something and not giving every other class something is bad for balance', I think the first group is a little more reasonable. Unless you consider all the classes perfectly balanced with the release of 3.5? Of course, if that's the case, than Alpha can't be balanced because there are changes across the board and some classes have changed more than others. And to assume that they're all balanced against each other - well, that's just not going to be true. If Paizo were wise enough to do that, well, there wouldn't be a need for Playtesting. I think they're wise enough to know that there are going to be thigns that need to be improved.
And for me, this is one of those things. Four skills per level as a minimum addresses enough problems without getting excessively complicated that I support it. There might be a couple of concerns with it, but none of them are significant enough that they need to be specifically addressed in my opinion. Since most of the concerns seem to be 'this class isn't as good in a relative way' my answer would be 'will this change make anyone who was considering the class less likley to play it?'. If the answer is no (and I do believe the answer is no) then it is not sufficient reason to not make the change that does have a lot of advantages.
|
|
Ok Dead, using your stance, how about something like this.
4/5/6/7?
Characters are overall more skillful but each class still functions within it's amount of skills.
There are some advantages to a system like this. But, I don't favor it. The reason I like the 'all 2 skill classes get 4 skill points' is that it involves the least amount of change. Nothing to do if you were in a class that had 4, 6 or 8 skill points before. No reduction in skills to worry about for the rogue, etc. Less concern about 'well, the fighter was a 2 skill class, but they should really be a 6 skill class, and the monk was a 4, and they should stay a 4.
Simple is always better if it is as realistic as a complex system.
|
|
Let me elaborate some more.Funny I was just about to ask for an elaboration.
I wish there was someway to make it just a three tier. With the final spread I would much rather Rogue be on par with Ranger and Bard.
I probably could do a 3 tier of 4/5/6. Lets see.
4+Int
Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer
5+Int
Monk, Druid, Ranger
6+Int
Bard, Rogue
The sorcerer ends back up in the first group because he shouldn't have as many skills as a Ranger or Monk. And bard moved up to Rogue status because he should be a jack of all trades like a rogue is a skill monkey.
|
|
This might come out as a triple post. Crazy.
The 4/5/6/7 isn't bad. It does actually fix things. I would support it. Happily.
Though I would also support 4/6/8. The thing is, I don't think that 4/5/6/7 is inherently better than 4/6/8. Some classes in it get an extra skill point that they don't need. The rogue loses an extra skill point it didn't need.
So, basically, in my mind, both systems work. Both address the major problem, which is that the 2 skill classes don't get enough skills. Once you set four a minimum, it is easier to discuss whether or not further changes are in order. But I oppose any system that doesn't grant at least 4 skill points to each class. Even with consolidation, I think that is the 'minimum required' to really get any use out of skills. I want every class to think that skills are important. In 3.5 as a fighter, I don't need to bother assigning skills. Even in a situation that they could be useful, I'm almost always guaranteed to fail with my Armor Check Penalty. Skills become something not for making skill checks, but for qualifying for prestige classes. I'd like to see skills MATTER for every class, at least a little. And I'd like to see skills as a way to every member of the same class to look a little different. Giving a few more skills to the people who have the least does that.
Its only moving so quick because we're all on right now. This one has its lulls.
But I hear you.
That's seems like a fairly even spread flip. I'd comment more but I've got to run out for a bit. If the wife has anything to say about it I won't be back for several hours...
I'll be back though.
|
|
Ok Dead, using your stance, how about something like this.
4/5/6/7?
Characters are overall more skillful but each class still functions within it's amount of skills.
There are some advantages to a system like this. But, I don't favor it. The reason I like the 'all 2 skill classes get 4 skill points' is that it involves the least amount of change. Nothing to do if you were in a class that had 4, 6 or 8 skill points before. No reduction in skills to worry about for the rogue, etc. Less concern about 'well, the fighter was a 2 skill class, but they should really be a 6 skill class, and the monk was a 4, and they should stay a 4.
Simple is always better if it is as realistic as a complex system.
Well with any changes that Alpha has made, it will take some time to change things over and will require the same amount of worry. A rogue will be losing a good number of abilities due to consolidation but some of his orignal skills will gain double or triple effectiveness. So to say that he doens't replace one of his skills is not really a problem.
|
|
Well with any changes that Alpha has made, it will take some time to change things over and will require the same amount of worry. A rogue will be losing a good number of abilities due to consolidation but some of his orignal skills will gain double or triple effectiveness. So to say that he doens't replace one of his skills is not really a problem.Ok Dead, using your stance, how about something like this.
4/5/6/7?
Characters are overall more skillful but each class still functions within it's amount of skills.
There are some advantages to a system like this. But, I don't favor it. The reason I like the 'all 2 skill classes get 4 skill points' is that it involves the least amount of change. Nothing to do if you were in a class that had 4, 6 or 8 skill points before. No reduction in skills to worry about for the rogue, etc. Less concern about 'well, the fighter was a 2 skill class, but they should really be a 6 skill class, and the monk was a 4, and they should stay a 4.
Simple is always better if it is as realistic as a complex system.
I should have taken more time to post. I basically just contradicted my previous statement. I can support 4/5/6/7. I don't think we need it, but it addresses the things that I think are most important, as does the 4/6/8 system. Reigning in Rogues is a good idea. In the Alpha 1 threads, though, trying to convince anyone that rogues didn't have too many skill points was enough to make me want to stand between two rogues with 10d6 sneak attack and opportunist. Reducing rogue skill points is a good idea. Trying to convince people that it is a good idea may not be.
Huzzah for delays.
Yeah especially after Flip's examples of the rogue the reign in may be needed.
But it will be harrowing to convince people that it may be needed.
When two different people sit down and look at the change and one says 'I tried this and it works' and the other says 'I think giving one class something and not giving every other class something is bad for balance', I think the first group is a little more reasonable.
Fair enough, but in this case no one has 'tried it out' yet to see how well it works; all we've done is statted up some hypothetical example numbers. No one is citing evidence from Pathfinder playtesting yet; just from 3.5e. So all "I've tried it" arguments are failing to reckon on the increased efficiency of skill purchasing coming from 3 different directions:
1. Combining of skills (which we'll ignore, because fighters don't get much from it);
2. "Half-Price" cross-class skills, which go a LONG way towards letting you flesh out a character; and
3. "Class skill" +3 bonus applies to ALL class skills you take, not just the first 2 as in 3.5e.
Balance between classes may be totally unimportant, as you maintain, or better addressed elsewhere. I see us being halfway to a scenario where all classes are equally effective in terms of skills, and equally effective in terms of combat (for the record, I'm one of those who would like to see Sneak Attack nerfed, not enhanced as is currently the model). That might be an ideal system for you; I won't argue if it would be a "better" or "worse" one. But it would certainly be different, because it violates the 3e assumption that some classes are drastically less effective in combat but might get 4x as many skills to make up for it.
Already, Pathfinder characters get more feats, more class features, and effectively more skills than in 3.5. In consequence, I'm unconvinced that older adventures are playable without serious alteration -- and I AM playtesting that to find out (party of 4 recently converted is running through "Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk." Ironically, the paladin is impressed at how much more effective he is in terms of skills, STILL USING 2 points/level). Until the results are in, I'm uncomfotable advocating making Pathfinder characters still more effective on top of that. If Pathfinder rules require massive reworking of older adventueres, then switching from 3.5 would be silly for anyone who still has a backlog of Dungeon, GameMastery, original, and other advetures they still would like to run.
|
I probably could do a 3 tier of 4/5/6. Lets see.4+Int
Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer5+Int
Monk, Druid, Ranger6+Int
Bard, RogueThe sorcerer ends back up in the first group because he shouldn't have as many skills as a Ranger or Monk. And bard moved up to Rogue status because he should be a jack of all trades like a rogue is a skill monkey.
Could go one step further and have;
4+Int
Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard
6+Int
Bard, Rogue
No need for klunky odd numbers at all.
Hmmm...Moving the ranger down to four...well we'll have to wait until the revised Ranger comes out, at current I don't beleive that's a good idea.
@Kirth: Huzzah for nerfing sneak attack! <.< >.>
|
|
Hmmm...Moving the ranger down to four...well we'll have to wait until the revised Ranger comes out, at current I don't beleive that's a good idea.
Many Rangers will be saving 2 skill ranks worth of skills each level from the Listen + Spot and Hide + Move Silently consolidation alone, but I could see an argument for this being a big nerf to a Ranger who doesn't do the stealthy scout thing and is more of a professional orc killer who charges in screaming.
well guys I dont have a lot to say on this.
4/6/8 to me is an easy fix it just bumps some classes up to being able to do something besides combat.
4/6 to me is also good with bard,ranger and rogue at the top tier.
3/4/5/6 I dont know something it just dont like about this and can't really pin point it .....just don't like it
4/5/6/7 This i also dont care much for i just dont see why the classes with 4 skill now need bumped even more.
To me 4 is the min I never got why some classes would have more to me its kinda a simple fix. I wouldn't mind bard being bumped to 8 as well being a jack of all trades and all.
maybe this
4+INT Fighters,Barbarians,sorcerers,Clerics,Wizards,Druids,Paladin,Monk
6+INT Rangers,Rogues
8+INT Bards
Heres why 4 is the min anything less and you really can only be good at 2 skills. Sure you can branch out but then you'll be well behind on ranks for stuff that might just save your hide.Rouges had 8 for all the skills they needed for there class. Now they no longer need as many skills so just drop em to 6 when running older stuff if ya look at there skills it'll add up to about 6 now anyhow no real loss. As for 8 on the bard well they have always be billed as jacks of all trades and now it seems bardic lore adds a +3 to knowledge skills.So give them the skill points needed to take advantage of that let them step out of the rogues shadow and be a skill monkey as most players wanted them to be .
Just my thoughts. I would also like to thank everyone for keeping civil and talking about this without it getting out of hand like some threads have. Many of you have made great points about your views even if I don't agree thank you for posting them.
Kirth: Huzzah for nerfing sneak attack!
Thanks! It's probably the single most abused class feature in existence.
I don't subscribe to the "everyone should fight equally well" model.
And, as I pointed out, my main concern is that the power creep in Pathfinder already has too much momentum for any 3.5e adventures to be useable without conversion. THAT'S my big issue, and until it's resolved, I want to hold off a bit before making ANY classes more powerful than they already are. As it is, I may have to houserule the feat progression back to 1/3 levels... we'll see how the playtesting goes.
Well, the question may be moot.
Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or
fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha),
Gather Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and
engineering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge
(nobility and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
Well, the question may be moot.
Class Skills: A fighter trained at a famous war college or
fighting school gains the following class skills (in addition
to the normal fighter class skills): Diplomacy (Cha),
Gather Information (Cha), Knowledge (architecture and
engineering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge
(nobility and royalty) (Int), Sense Motive (Wis).
Skill Points at 1st Level: (4 + Int modifier) x 4.
Skill Points at Each Additional Level: 4 + Int modifier.
what was this in?
In the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazetteer.
Perhaps I should have also included the paragraph that went just before it.
Class Abilities: Numerous martial academies around
the Inner Sea region teach weapon skill, tactics, diplomacy,
and other tools useful for war. Fighters who attend these
schools may choose to take additional class skills. Taking
this option replaces the bonus feat gained upon taking the
first level of fighter.
Seem to me thats not worth it 2 extra skills for there fighter feat thats like saying a rogue can take 10 for there sneak attack or a cleric giveing up turning . Thant just give the fighter more of a shaft then already having 2 does thats worse not better.
Seem to me thats not worth it 2 extra skills for there fighter feat thats like saying a rogue can take 10 for there sneak attack or a cleric giveing up turning . Thant just give the fighter more of a shaft then already having 2 does thats worse not better.
One feat is worth way more than 2 skill points PER LEVEL and a wider array of class skills? If so, I'm inferring that your game doesn't involve much skill use at all -- in which case 2/level or 4/level would seem like a meaningless distinction. Or is the argument simply that the fighter is lame (in which case I agree)? If the latter, then 1 feat more or less isn't going to change that, only a redesign will (and remember you get a lot more feats in Pathfinder than you did in 3.5e anyway).
well its not just that its one feat your trading your class feature for 2 extra skills that truth is you should have anyhow. So yes that is not a fix.
|
My opinions:
2/4/6/8
- Nasty for those at the low end, limited.
4/6/8
- Eliminates differences, makes classes too similar skill-wise. I find it to be necessary to have a difference between Barbarian and Fighter skill points, for example.
3/4/5/6
- I've been backing this up all the time. Aids in the lower end, balances those at the high end. Skill consolidation practically makes the 6+ stay the same, and 2+int to become 4+int in concept.
4/5/6/7
- Well, it's a compromise. I find it alright, but find the amount of skill points maybe a bit too much.
4/6
- Oh gods, No!
|
|
I'm with SeekerofShadowLight on this one. Giving up a feat for the 2 extra skills that you should have anyways is not cool. Of course, making that the default fighter and giving everyone an extra feat is something I COULD do, but I'd rather not.
The thing is, I'm almost not worried about it anymore. I think the arguments for the 4 as a minimum are pretty sound. And everytime I'm convinced that Paizo will do something I think is stupid, they prove me wrong. Like when I thought they were about to announce going 4th edition, and they went with Pathfinder instead? And when I thought they were going to abandon skill ranks and they came back?
The 'gazeteer' fighter should keep his feat and that should be his skill list, and he should have the extra two skill points. That is what a Fighter SHOULD be. They're more than just someone who uses a weapon and has a good base attack. They should have a few skills that help them interact with their world, just like the barbarian. Not every fighter needs to take Diplomacy, and not every fighter needs to take Climb. More options and more skill points to explore those options would be a good thing. And it is good for more than just the fighter.
DeadDM, I want to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt, because I've been impressed with the helpfulness of a number of your postings in the past. So I need to ask if you're totally opposed to any sort of a compromise, such as Deussu (3/4/5/6), or Epic Meepo (+1/level for Craft, Profession, Knowledge), or tallforadwarf (+2 every even level, when you don't get a feat), or myself for that matter, have suggested? Because it seems as if, like seekerofshadowlight and Anry, you're offering no counterproposals on this particular issue except to state that your way is the only proper way, and that Paizo is sure to accede to your demands because they would be "doing something stupid" (your quote) to do otherwise.
I have a feeling Paizo doesn't simply make decisions based on the inflexibility of one side or another. Indeed, I notice they've already made some compromises, in an effort to please both sides on a number of particular issues. Nor do I feel they've been at all stupid. The thing is, I can live with a compromise, if it means more people will play Pathfinder. I wonder if you can? (In case the tone comes across as other than I intend it, that's not meant to be rhetorical, nor snarky, by the way -- far from it. I am genuinely curious.)
|
|
The art of compromise is a funny thing. In general, I'm willing to compromise. But sometimes a specific issue there is no compromise possible.
I think that 4 skill points per level is an absolute minimum. I think that 3 doesn't work. I think that offering Intelligence bonus to allow people to pick up knowledge skills doesn't work. I think that picking up skill points at every even level has some advantages, but it would not be simple to 'track'.
I really do like the skill point system in Alpha 2. The all skills cost 1, +3 in class skills isn't exactly what I was thinking after Alpha 1, but after trying it, it really does what I want it to do. It doesn't make cross-class skills such a worthless endeavor, and it does make assigning skills to even complex NPCs very easy. I'm pretty happy.
But the fighter, the class that I'm most often relegated to as a player, really needs these skills. Even with some combinations of skills, two skill points doesn't allow me to customize the character the way I think it needs to be done. Personally, I think the fighter should have more than 4 skill points, but I think that I can get those with a high Int and by being human. So, even though I think that a fighter should have quite a few skill options, I'm not asking for them. I'm already compromising for what I think the fighter NEEDS to be fun and interesting to play. I think 4 is a minimum for that. Three doesn't do it.
So, in that sense, this is a 'line in the sand'. I'm not going to ask for more than 4, even though I might enjoy that. I'm asking for four because I think I can get it, and I think the game needs it.
Well no class works with less then 4 skills that simple. And classes with 4 skills do not need boosted higher. Classes with 4 points work with 4 so no boosting is needed however classes with less then 4 really do need it. And Int skills only isn't a good fix it penalizes the 2 skill classes by not letting them use the high Int for anything but a very limited set of skills .
But the fighter, the class that I'm most often relegated to as a player, really needs these skills. Even with some combinations of skills, two skill points doesn't allow me to customize the character the way I think it needs to be done.
The fighter is the one 2 skill/level class that I personally think should get 4. I don't agree that the wizard or cleric need that many; indeed, I feel that 4/level for them is just too much. So that's my line, I guess. Giving them to classes that need them (fighter, if someone pitched it correctly, they might get me to accede paladin, too, but it would take more doing). The rest don't need 4. Three is already pushing me to my limit, on them.
Well no class works with less then 4 skills that simple.
Yes, you've said that many times now. I know you're not interested in any sort of a compromise, or any real discussion for that matter.
Well no class works with less then 4 skills that simple.Yes, you've said that many times now. I know you're not interested in any sort of a compromise, or any real discussion for that matter.
Well if ya can show me something that is better then yes I will consider it. Some folks have made good points but I fail to see how 3 skills is any help,I fail to see how bumping folks who have 4 skills to 5 . All that really needs done is more then 2 skills .
Now lets relook at this your saying 3 skills is enuff ok then the barbarian and druid can work just as good as they do now with 3. They can and they dont need 5 or 6 4 works fine with the. So we have a few points
2 skills not enuff
3 skills while better dose not go far enough to fix the issue at hand may work with wizards however
4 skills the common number to almost every other class and seems to work well
5 skills notsure what this helps as classes with 4 really need no bump
6 skills not bad helps some classes that are a little more skillfule then common classes
7 skills I may be open to this but only for classes that have 6 now or for the rogue even if I do not think it is called for
8 skills For the rogue only not sure if it should still stay but I am fine with leaving it
Now if you can show me a away that does not boost classes that seem to be fine and brings the classes with 2 skills on par with that I would be happy to hear it,but as deadDMwalking said sometimes there is a line in the sand and less the 4 it seems is it.
Now if you can show me a away that does not boost classes that seem to be fine and brings the classes with 2 skills on par with that I would be happy to hear it.
If I understand you correctly, you're asking me to come up with something else, but it has to be exactly what you're already demanding. Um, I'll have to sit this round out. Deal me back in when you're open to any other suggestion whatsoever.
kirth it just looks as if we are on two sides of this you want a rewrite for everyone and all I want is a small fix for classes that do not have enuff skills to even take there basic class skills. I am willing to hear other ideals however less then 4 skills isn't a fix it just doesn't help enuff to brake even.
To quote myself a couple of pages ago...
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(
Even if it was kept to 2 "signature skills" (instead of the 4 I suggested above), it would go a ways in alleviating the crunch certain skill starved classes feel.
well Pathos that gives people with more then 2 way tomay skills a rogue gets 12 maxed out skills without and INT mod thats just to much with and int of 16 and human he would have 16 maxed out skills it would be
2=6
4=8
6=10
8=12
with a 16 on int and human it would be
2=10
4=12
6=14
8=16
with just 2 its
2=4
4=6
6=8
8=10
16 int and human
2=6
4=8
6=10
8=12
sorry man thats way to many fo any one that stated with more then 4
(Lets try this again... forum ate post) *Grrrr*
Even if the "Signature skills" were cut down to 2, that would leave the low skill point classes with 4 possibly maxed skills, while the skill-monkeys would have a possibility of 10.
I do think though that cross-classed skills should be limited to 1/2 your character level though.
|
|
Of the two skill classes, I think all of them need four, except perhaps the wizard.
I do think that if every other class is changed, it is 'unfair' to keep them as the only class that has two, even though there are good arguments for them having more skill points than other classes.
I want something from the skill system. Having more skills does this.
|
|
2 skills not enuff
3 skills while better dose not go far enough to fix the issue at hand may work with wizards however
4 skills the common number to almost every other class and seems to work well
5 skills notsure what this helps as classes with 4 really need no bump
6 skills not bad helps some classes that are a little more skillfule then common classes
7 skills I may be open to this but only for classes that have 6 now or for the rogue even if I do not think it is called for
8 skills For the rogue only not sure if it should still stay but I am fine with leaving it
Most of this is based off of your opinion and I don't want to pick it apart. I must say though that 4 works well now for those classes that have it but classes that had more skills need to be bumped down for those classes that had more. But to keep up with more skillful characters, I had thought 3+int was enough and with my example, I found that it was enough but a lot of you disagreed so I found a better compromise. 4/5/6/7 It gives you all the minimum you want and keeps those classes that were slightly more skillful in 3.5e more skillful but also reels in the power of the rogue which is drastically needed now as that is something I have shown too. I respect your opinion but you are arguing based on your gameplay from 3.5e which with the Alpha 2 system, you bump that fighter up one more rank a level, you end up with more customizability. 3/4/5/6 or 4/5/6/7 are something I would recommend over the current 2/4/6/8 or 4/6/8 methods.
[
Most of this is based off of your opinion and I don't want to pick it apart. I must say though that 4 works well now for those classes that have it but classes that had more skills need to be bumped down for those classes that had more. But to keep up with more skillful characters, I had thought 3+int was enough and with my example, I found that it was enough but a lot of you disagreed so I found a better compromise. 4/5/6/7 It gives you all the minimum you want and keeps those classes that were slightly more skillful in 3.5e more skillful but also reels in the power of the rogue which is drastically needed now as that is something I have shown too. I respect your opinion but you are arguing based on your gameplay from 3.5e which with the Alpha 2 system, you bump that fighter up one more rank a level, you end up with more customizability. 3/4/5/6 or 4/5/6/7 are something I would recommend over the current 2/4/6/8 or 4/6/8 methods.
I respect your opinion as well. and why I was talking of the 3.5 system we are useing 4/6/8 in alpha testing know this will be are 4th playtest next week and so far with both 1.1 and this system there has been no issue.
haveing said that how about 4/5/7 .4 for all classes with 2 skills
5 for classes with 4
and 7 for classes with 6 or 8
mostly as a middle ground. I really think there should be just 3 skill tiers to match BAB and HD really. so 4/6/8 or something like4/5/7
i can live with 4/5/6 very easy the new rogue if ya go back and look at all state blocks and convert em has 6 anyhow as you have shown.
How about skills that match your HD? That's a good idea though it smacks of 2e, it's still functional.
D10(And barbarian)4
D8 6
D6 5Just another idea.
oh I like that not sure it will fly but not a bad ideal good thought.
Nah, sorry. I just can't see it. Skills should stay as they are in the (3.5e) RAW. The only exception to this that I'd want to accept would be increasing the fighter's skill points to 4/level. Everything else works just fine already.
Actually lets switch that around a bit. Wizards and Sorcerers are the only ones with d6.
D10 5+Int
D8 6+Int
D6 4+Int
As we already have the Barbarian that "breaks the rule" whith its d12, would the Rogue also "break the rule" retaining its 8 skill points?
Actually lets switch that around a bit. Wizards and Sorcerers are the only ones with d6.
D10 5+Int
D8 6+Int
D6 4+Int
Oh this i like have to look but it seems like it would match 3.5 skill section close.