Thank you for getting rid of the x4 skill points at level 1! I disliked that about the previous system (even though I liked the 3.5E system overall), since it meant that in any multiclass combination, it is always better to take the class with more skill points at level 1 and only later the classes with fewer skill points.
The new system gets rid of that and I like it.
Clarification question: Is the maximum number of ranks one can put into cross-class skills limited by level/2 or by level? I hope it is still level/2, even though they cost one point for one rank.
Heh, upon closer inspection I see that the maximum number of ranks is equal to level/hit dice even for cross-class skills. No matter, I still like the system a lot.
I don't understand why you'd want that. This way taking cross-class skills is not completely useless.
I don't understand why you'd want that. This way taking cross-class skills is not completely useless.I think he was concerned that the class/cross-class distinction had become pointless.
Yes, that was indeed my concern, but it was upon initial perusal of the rules only. Now that I read it more closely, I see that class skills get a +3 bonus and am really happy with the new system.
|
I've read through the class skill sidebar twice now and I'm just not clicking.
So, now, with every one rank you spend, you get +3 to a class skill?
But you can only put in 1 rank per level for skill?
Meaning, that you could have +6 of one skill at second level?
Also, I'm lost on cross-class skills. They're gone? Does this mean that you only have access to class skills to put ranks in? Then I don't get how people who like to invest in cross-class skills are better off.
I've read through the class skill sidebar twice now and I'm just not clicking.
So, now, with every one rank you spend, you get +3 to a class skill?
But you can only put in 1 rank per level for skill?
Meaning, that you could have +6 of one skill at second level?
Also, I'm lost on cross-class skills. They're gone? Does this mean that you only have access to class skills to put ranks in? Then I don't get how people who like to invest in cross-class skills are better off.
No. your max rank is your level. so if your level 3 the max skill rank u can have is 3. How ever class skills give you a +3 bounes for taking them. Now the +3 is flat and only adds to rank. Also all skill cost 1 point each but class skills get a one time bounes of +3
Example fist level say you took 4 skills 2 are class skills 2 are not your ranks would be +4/+4/+1/+1
if at 2nd you put all 4 points into the same skills it would be
+5/+5/+2/+2
if you took a new class skill it would gain a +3 at the time you took it. but not evey time you added a skill rank.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I've read through the class skill sidebar twice now and I'm just not clicking.
So, now, with every one rank you spend, you get +3 to a class skill?
But you can only put in 1 rank per level for skill?
Meaning, that you could have +6 of one skill at second level?
Also, I'm lost on cross-class skills. They're gone? Does this mean that you only have access to class skills to put ranks in? Then I don't get how people who like to invest in cross-class skills are better off.
If you add any ranks to a class skill, you get a +3 bonus (making up for the lack of x4 points at first level). Thus, at first level 1 rank in a class skill gets you a +4 bonus (as if you'd maxed it out with the old system) and 1 rank in a cross-class skill gets you a +1 bonus. At higher levels the lack of +3 for a cross-class skill which has received a rank at each level will become less noticeable, hence making it better to cross-class characters in PF. Likewise, the +3 becomes less of a big deal after a few levels as things start to even out across the skills.
I really like the new system! Good call Mr. Bulmahn.
|
|
I am also a bit worried that the distinction between class/cross is going to go away though. Look at 20th level. Difference between 2 class and 2 cross: +23/+23/+20/+20. Not really enough of a difference to matter. :P
The distinction is going away - or at least in a major way.
That distinction, though, made work much harder for a DM, and any player starting above 1st level.
If the DM said 'start your characters at 8th level' it would be real tricky to figure out when you had to take each level to qualify for your prestige class without 'illegally purchasing' more skills than you could at any point.
For example, if you needed 8 ranks in tumble and you started as rogue1/fighter 4 - you couldn't have the 8 ranks from rogue even though you had 48 rogue skill points - you couldn't have used more than 4 at 1st level - those other ranks have to come from the fighter level, unless you take another rogue level. But it would have to be at least 5th level to raise the bonus to eight.
Long story short - it was hard. There are a lot of good reasons to erode the difference between them. I think they could go farther without losing anything, but this is a good compromise to actually keep any distinction at all.
Just to point out that removing the x4 skill points doesn't totally do away with order being important.
Take a rogue 1/fighter 1
At first level they can only put one point in any skill, so (assume they are non-human with Int 10) they "max" out 8 skills.
At second level they can only put one point in any skill that was previously maxed out which means they could have 6 skills with 1 point and 2 skills maxed with 2 points.
Now consider a fighter 1/rogue 1
At first level, again they can only put one point in any skill, which (again assuming INT 10 non-human), they can "max" out 2 skills.
At second level, they can only put one point in each one of their 2 maxed skills, but they can put two in any other skill if they wish. So they could in the end have 5 maxed skills (1 point in 2 previous, 2 points in 3 new) if they wished.
So comparing the two characters:
1st: 6 skills with 1 rank, 2 skills with 2 ranks
2nd: 5 skills with 2 ranks (you could also match #1 if you wished)
I guess you might say the power level has switched, previously taking rogue first was the better choice, but now it appears as if taking rogue second might be better.
My house rule has always been the extra +2 for good saves don't accumulate when multi-classing and 4x skills are not taken multiple times. In fact, I've reduced everything, combat, saves, etc. explicitly to an initial bonus if present only taken at first character level and additive fractions at each additional level that do stack between classes (keep track of fracitons but round down for modifier).
Initially, I let multi-classers take one +2 per good save, and this lead to some interesting min-maxing. Now, I just let the +2 apply to the good save(s) of the first character level's class. Additional levels just add +1/2 or +1/3 for good vs poor saves, whether it is the same class or a different class (although the good saves can be different).
Recently, I've changed (skills+INT)X4 at 1st level to (skills+INT)X2 at character levels 1,2, and 3. I spread out the additonal +3X at first level to an additional +1X at the fist three levels. For a single class, the unlimate result is the same at 3rd level. for Multi-clasers, you get a weighted mean of the first 2 or 3 classes. This spreads out the huge impact of skills at lower levels and prevents class regret or min-maxing on which class to take first. Now it makes no difference if your fighter takes that level of Rouge first or not. Instead of Rogue(1)/Fighter(1) having 8x4+2=36 skill points and Fighter(1)/Rogue(1)2x4+8=16, both get 2x2+8x2=20 and will still get an extra 2 or 8 at 3rd level. No longer do you have a party of four 1st level rogues with 32 skill points, one who wants to be a cleric when he grows up, another a Fighter, another a Sorcerer, the last a Wizard. ;)
Mike
|
What if the difference was not +3, but something else. +4? +5? While that might make lower levels seem unbalanced, it also might help in demonstrating some difference at higher levels.
This would be entirely new, but you could ratchet up the class skills bonus a couple of times as levels increase: +3 to class skills starting at 1st, +4 at 5th, +5 at 10th, etc. Some classes could even progress faster than others. But then this ends up creating a whole new stat, almost a Base Skills Bonus progression, and I'm guessing most folks wouldn't be interested in that.
What if the difference was not +3, but something else. +4? +5? While that might make lower levels seem unbalanced, it also might help in demonstrating some difference at higher levels.
If there's to be a difference (which I do think could be a good idea), perhaps it should be 1/2 the class levels (for those classes providing the class skill), minimum 1? Granted, it seems a little complicated, but it does provide a significant difference at higher levels.
There is one slight power up with the new system, in that by choosing class skills at later level, you get the equivalent of 3 free skill points with each new class skill you take. This will most help those wizards who like to spread their skill points through the various knowledge skills. Now they could spend 10 skill points (over 5 or, realistically, fewer levels) to get one rank in all Knowledge skills and get the equivalent of 40 skill points, making it much easier to keep many Knowledge skills up to par.
A rogue "playing the rules" could keep up to 16 skills (if there are even that many now) within 1 point of max and gaining the equivalent of 24 extra skill points in the course of 2 levels.
Something to consider.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Another example: A wizard is 19th level. He has spend his entire career studying Almost all fields of knowledge. He has studied in the forgotten librarys of Myth Dranor, in the libraries of Mystra herself! And then he decides to retire at 20th level, grabbing Profession (Barkeep) and is suddenly one of the worlds best barkeeps!
Explain that?
He would only have a Profession (Barkeep) score of +4. Not so hot compared to some. (+1 for his actual rank, and +3 for it being a class skill)
An elven wizard spends a hundred years of his childhood reading every book about the planes, magic, history and religeon he can and gains 4 ranks in each of them.
And a human wizard spends only a few short years in apprenticeship and already knows the 'dungeoneers guide for dummies' almost letter prefect, along with the subject areas the elf to decades to learn. I will not attempt to explain the training disparity between races do to their ages. This will take us down a long dark road best ignored.
As to the 19th level wizard he will not become the worlds best barkeep. Assuming he is human and meets the minimum stat for spell casting, he has 7 ranks to spend. For at total of +10. Your standard village barkeep has +4, while a 7th level barkeep has a +10, the world's best barkeep (20th level expert) would have +23 (+26 with skill focus). He is more then twice as good as your average barkeep but he has also had 19 more levels of adventuring experience, and has visited more taverns then the average barkeep has seen unique customers. He is also not quite as half as good as the world's best barkeep.
In 3.5 this same Wizard would have a +7 putting him on par with a 4th level barkeep. That's not even out of the 'low-level' bracket of skill.
One way or another a simplified skill point(rank) system was going to afford characters more skill points then 3.5 did.
(What I find funny is that this wizard could very easily have meet the world's best barkeep.)
Personally, I really like this system. Its backward compatible and simpler. I had an initial reaction of 'WTF?!' because of how it impacts cross class skills but then I thought 'What's the danger of encouraging more diverse skill picks?'
I like.
|
Personally, I really like this system. Its backward compatible and simpler. I had an initial reaction of 'WTF?!' because of how it impacts cross class skills but then I thought 'What's the danger of encouraging more diverse skill picks?'
I like.
I agree 100%.
It is simple, efficient, easy to implement with existing stats, and gives the possibility to create a richer but not unbalanced character.
It also has the added benefit of giving a slighlty higher number of points available, so homebrew campaigns with specific skills added to the list will not impact so much the overall system.
I like it as well.
I have always had a problem with cross-class skills in the past.
Example: A fighter that wants steath skills had a lot of problems, even with all the examples of such in fantasy.
Now, no problem.
Just to point out that removing the x4 skill points doesn't totally do away with order being important.
Take a rogue 1/fighter 1
At first level they can only put one point in any skill, so (assume they are non-human with Int 10) they "max" out 8 skills.
At second level they can only put one point in any skill that was previously maxed out which means they could have 6 skills with 1 point and 2 skills maxed with 2 points.Now consider a fighter 1/rogue 1
At first level, again they can only put one point in any skill, which (again assuming INT 10 non-human), they can "max" out 2 skills.
At second level, they can only put one point in each one of their 2 maxed skills, but they can put two in any other skill if they wish. So they could in the end have 5 maxed skills (1 point in 2 previous, 2 points in 3 new) if they wished.So comparing the two characters:
1st: 6 skills with 1 rank, 2 skills with 2 ranks
2nd: 5 skills with 2 ranks (you could also match #1 if you wished)I guess you might say the power level has switched, previously taking rogue first was the better choice, but now it appears as if taking rogue second might be better.
I see what you mean, but it is a world of difference from the previous importance of order of skills. This time it is only the number of maxed out skills that is different, but not the actual number of skill ranks. It is not inherently better to max out skills than to have a broad range of skills, especially when one considers the bonuses granted to class skills in the new skill system.
This is what I posted on another board.
The Pathfinder Alpha (1) skill system is vastly preferable, in my mind, to the skill system of SW Saga or 4E, where it is impossible to be bad at a skill at higher levels. Indeed, in practice I almost always give both my PCs when I play and NPCs when I DM max ranks in their skills, so it works out like the Pathfinder system. That said, however, there are players who do like to tinker with their skills and assign different numbers of ranks to different skills. 3.5E system supports both: I can assign max ranks to my skills and have it simple, whereas those who like it can really fool around with their skills. As such, I don't see any major benefit of the Pathfinder Alpha (1) system over the current 3.5E skill system that supports both simplicity and detail depending on what one wants to get out of it. (Still, unlike the 4E skill system, the Pathfinder Alpha (1) skill system works fine for me.)
It is a bit of a bad form to quote oneself, but I am doing this, beacause I feel that Paizo have run along with this kind of thinking with the new skill system in Alpha 2, which makes it even easier to max skills than the 3.5E system, but still supports tinkering for those who want it. Kudos to Paizo all around on the new system - I really like it!
If I were to have one suggestion, though, I would recommend increasing the bonuses to class skills with level, so that the distinction between a maxed out class skill and non-class skill at level 20 is not +20 vs +23. I would suggest a progression that increases the bonus to class skills by +1 every four levels, starting with level 2. This would result in the following bonus to class skills:
Level 1: +3
Level 2: +4
Level 6: +5
Level 10: +6
Level 14: +7
Level 18: +8
Why did I chose a progression every 4 levels starting with level 2? I would recommend it, because it meshes well with the other progressions in Pathfinder - it gives a bonus at levels, where the universal progression grants neither a feat nor an ability score increase. It also seems to work out pretty well in terms of final numbers. +28 for a maxed out class skill versus +20 for a maxed out non-class skill is a substantial difference, but maxed out non-class skills can still be useful at that spread.
(If we have a progression of this sort, it could be possible to remove the front-loaded +3 bonus at 1st level in lieu of a +1 bonus, or even a complete absence of an initial bonus, but I think the initial +3 bonus, although a bit front-loaded, is fine.)
I should also mention that a decent idea to prevent dipping a skill point in each class skill just to gain the bonus, might be to rule that the class skill bonus cannot exceed the number of ranks one has placed into the skill.
None of these changes are really necessary - from my perspective the skill point system is already good. Nonetheless, I do feel that especially the first change would improve the skill system further.
It is probably best, however, to discuss the class and non-class skill issues in another thread. I will begin one and post this there.
|
I dont think anything I have seen works well.
The thing I liked about the rank based system was that you could suck at things.
Think about it. A lot of DMs give their players a single rank in Profession or Knowledge (local) for background reasons. A 20th level Wizard who grew up on a farm (Profession (farmer) +1) is still going to suck at farming. According to the new system a 20th level farmer is almost as good at farming as they are with Spellcraft or Knowledge skills. It doesnt really make sense to me. :P
I have to say that I agree with this. Which is why I don't like the new system. I've always had characters who started off with one or two ranks in some skills reflecting what they had done in their younger years. And I've always preferred to have a wide variety of skills that the character is reasonably skilled in rather than being maxed out in a smaller number. So I might want to have my Rogue with a rank or two in profession sailor but as he then spends his career adventuring in cities and dungeons he gets to improve his climbing skills but doesn't become a better sailor.
Yes, the new system makes things simpler but at the cost of the flexibility that is the virtue of the skill point system.
|
|
A lot of DMs give their players a single rank in Profession or Knowledge (local) for background reasons. A 20th level Wizard who grew up on a farm (Profession (farmer) +1) is still going to suck at farming. According to the new system a 20th level farmer is almost as good at farming as they are with Spellcraft or Knowledge skills. It doesnt really make sense to me. :PI have to say that I agree with this. Which is why I don't like the new system.
Why can't you do this now? A player can still do this at level 1 or any level, although without the x4 skill points are a bit more precious. Or a DM can just house rule a 1 skill point gift to each player.
|
|
Why can't you do this now? A player can still do this at level 1 or any level, although without the x4 skill points are a bit more precious. Or a DM can just house rule a 1 skill point gift to each player.A lot of DMs give their players a single rank in Profession or Knowledge (local) for background reasons. A 20th level Wizard who grew up on a farm (Profession (farmer) +1) is still going to suck at farming. According to the new system a 20th level farmer is almost as good at farming as they are with Spellcraft or Knowledge skills. It doesnt really make sense to me. :PI have to say that I agree with this. Which is why I don't like the new system.
Now if the skill is a class skill then it is automatically maxed out at 1st level. And you can't spread out the skill points in a large number of skills. The x4 skill points was something I always thought to be a good idea. Now there isn't any difference between your very first level and any other level.
|
|
Now there isn't any difference between your very first level and any other level.
This is absolutely true. I've said before - can't remember which thread - that one nice thing is that, now, there is no reason not to start characters with a level of Commoner or Expert or Aristocrat to represent their backgrounds and pre-adventuring experiences. There's no waste of all those 1st level skill points. Such a character would really be 2nd level but those NPC classes offer so little that it would be more like +.5 levels. And a lot of background and story telling opportunities for those who want it.
|
|
Now if the skill is a class skill then it is automatically maxed out at 1st level.And you don't have to put all your points into class skills, it just kinds' stings not to. But you're right, it's harder to diversify.
Precisely. And if a character didn't max out on skills at 1st level then it isn't backwards compatible either.
|
|
It is backward compatible.
If you mean 'you can't get the exact same bonuses as you could in 3.5 edition', that may be true, but that isn't the essence of backward compatability.
If you had 4 skills per level in 3.5, you would have 16 effective ranks. If you put them all in class skills you could have 4 skills with 4 ranks each. If you put them all in cross-class skills, you could have 2 skills with 4 rank eachs. If you put 1/2 into class skills (8 ranks) and 1/2 into cross-class skills (8 ranks) you would have 2 skills with +4 and 2 skill with +2.
Now, in Alpha, if you put your 4 skills into class skills, you have 4 skills with 4 ranks. If you put them all into cross-class skills, you could have 4 skills with 1 rank each. If you put 1/2 into class skills (2 skill points) and 1/2 into cross-class skills (2 skill points) you would have 2 skills with +4 and 2 skills with +1.
The advantage is that at every level, you gain the same number of skill points, so if you were investing in cross-class skills to begin with, you get more 'bang for the buck'. Most classes do get Profession as a class skill, so most will begin with a respectable skill. They will still be able to do other things. It may take 2 or three levels to get the same number of skills with at least 1 rank, but the total bonus will generally be higher.
The Pathfinder 2 is a great system. The only thing that I have any complaint with is the skill list. And a few classes that should have more skills than in 3.5.
|
|
It is backward compatible.
If you mean 'you can't get the exact same bonuses as you could in 3.5 edition', that may be true, but that isn't the essence of backward compatability.
If you had 4 skills per level in 3.5, you would have 16 effective ranks. If you put them all in class skills you could have 4 skills with 4 ranks each. If you put them all in cross-class skills, you could have 2 skills with 4 rank eachs. If you put 1/2 into class skills (8 ranks) and 1/2 into cross-class skills (8 ranks) you would have 2 skills with +4 and 2 skill with +2.
That's fine if you always go for maximum ranks in skills. But if you don't then it doesn't match things.
So say I have a 1st level Rogue (I won't factor in int bonus etc)with 32 skill points in the 3.5 system and 8 in the Alpha 2 system.
So Alpha 2 Rogue can have a maximum of 8 skills that they are proficient in and if they are class skills then he is as proficient in each one to the same level. There's no variation in skill.
3.5 Rogue could spend those 32 points so that in some skills they have 1 or 2 points and others 4. They could be skilled in a larger number of skills than 8. (Say maybe my Rogue is great at sneaking, spotting, climbing as he's a former scout in the local militia, has 2 ranks in profession-soldier, 2 cross-class in survival, 3 in local knowledge, is a fair rider (3) and swimmer (2), can pick up some gossip (gather info 2) and intimidate a raw recruit (2) and in his childhood was a pickpocket (2 sleight of hand). So he has some skill in 11 different skills. How can I get that with the Alpha 2 system?
|
|
The rogue in Alpha 2 can only have 8 skills at 1st level.
Assuming that you would have had 32 skill points in 3.5, you could either put them all into cross class skills (2 ranks for 1) so you would have 16 skills with 1 rank at 1st level (and if you boost as many as you can at 2nd level, you would only have 16 skills with 1 rank in it). If you put all your skill points into class skills (but only 1 point each) you would have 32 skills with 1 rank.
In Alpha 2, if you put your 8 skill points in cross-class skills (1 rank for 1) you would have 8 skills with 1 rank at 1st level. At 2nd level you can put skill points into 8 cross-class skills, making 16 cross-class skills you have 1 rank in (just like 3.5 at 2nd level). If you put your 8 ranks into class skills, you would have 8 skills with 4 ranks. You could not get 16 skills with 1 rank if you put them in class skills, but at 2nd level, you can put your next 8 skill points into different class skills, and so you would have 16 class skills with 4 ranks (2x as many as 3.5).
So, it does work like 3.5. At first level if you just put skills into class skills, it emulates it exactly. If you put some ranks into cross-class skills, it doesn't emulate it exactly, but it overcomes the deficiency very quickly (by 2nd level) since the cap is no longer level+3/2.
The Alpha 2 system is great for me as a DM to quickly make NPCs. I have a single skill pool, and I don't need to know when I spent the skill point for it to work. If I calculate at 15th level I have 100 skill points, I can put them into any skills without regard to what order the classes were taken, or without regard to what the 1st level would have been.
Determining if a multi-class character took Rogue or Cleric first made a big difference in terms of total skill points (due to the x4). By eliminating it, they've made a system that grants the same number of skill points (effectively) if you max class skills, and gives more skill points if you purchase cross-class skills.
In 3.5 if I had 8 skill points/level, and I wanted to advance 16 skills, at 1st level I could have a +2 bonus, and at 3rd level I could have a +4 bonus. In Pathfinder I can have the +4 bonus at 2nd level. That means I can actually advance more skills FASTER than 3.5, and it remains easily compatible with 3.5.
Again order does matter with Alpha2 system. Take a character with 1 level of rogue and 1 level of cleric. This character has 10 skill points to spend. Does that mean that they can max out 5 skills? Maybe if they took the cleric level first, but if they took the rogue level first, then no. Then can have 6 skills with 1 point and 2 skills with 2. Order still matters, since you can't spend more points on a skill than your HD at that level.
I like it as well.
I have always had a problem with cross-class skills in the past.
Example: A fighter that wants steath skills had a lot of problems, even with all the examples of such in fantasy.Now, no problem.
This was one of the things our group was most excited about. The fighter picked stealth and actually had a decent chance of using it.
Now there isn't any difference between your very first level and any other level.This is absolutely true. I've said before - can't remember which thread - that one nice thing is that, now, there is no reason not to start characters with a level of Commoner or Expert or Aristocrat to represent their backgrounds and pre-adventuring experiences. There's no waste of all those 1st level skill points. Such a character would really be 2nd level but those NPC classes offer so little that it would be more like +.5 levels. And a lot of background and story telling opportunities for those who want it.
I'm a HUGE fan of the Dungeon Crawl Classics 0-level adventures. It really adds a lot for those who like to flesh out their characters a bit more.
|
|
The rogue in Alpha 2 can only have 8 skills at 1st level.
[Cut]
So, it does work like 3.5. At first level if you just put skills into class skills, it emulates it exactly. If you put some ranks into cross-class skills, it doesn't emulate it exactly, but it overcomes the deficiency very quickly (by 2nd level) since the cap is no longer level+3/2.
The Alpha 2 system is great for me as a DM to quickly make NPCs. I have a single skill pool, and I don't need to know when I spent the skill point for it to work. If I calculate at 15th level I have 100 skill points, I can put them into any skills without regard to what order the classes were taken, or without regard to what the 1st level would have been.
I think I've not understood the point you're making and I have a feeling you haven't understood what I was saying.
You're completely right about the Alpha 2 stuff and how many skills they would have at 1st level.
As the thread is about skills at 1st level then I'm not considering what you can do at 2nd level or with later levels.
So in my example above the 3.5 Rogue has ranks in 12 different skills and has varying degrees of expertise at those skills. You just can't do that with the Alpha 2 system and I can't see any way to emulate it. In Alpha 2 the Rogue could be skilled in a maximum of 8 skills and if they are all class skills will have a +4 bonus to all of them. So I don't understand what you mean when you say "it does work like 3.5" in the above. Maybe I'm missing something about the Alpha 2 system that does allow variety and flexibility in a 1st level characters skills.
I can see that it is useful to the DM for quickly making a character. But if it is a character that you're quickly making then you probably don't want to have that sort of variety so you'll just give them max skill ranks in a small selection of appropriate skills. But when it comes to major NPCs and the PCs then you're going to take time over them and having to calculate skills really isn't that complicated (and there are a few pieces of software out there that can do it for you).
At 1st level skills are I believe a major difference in characters because with the x4 you can have flexibility so that even characters with the same class and similar feats can be quite different and their skills can reflect different backgrounds. The Alpha 2 system loses that so as to gain simplicity for the DM in making some quick, high level characters. Personally I don't see that as a good deal.
As far as I can see, it is only when you're thinking about characters taking Prestige Classes that knowing exactly when the character got the skill ranks is important and if you're bringing in the complexity of adding prestige classes to a character then you can't expect it to be a quick process.
There will always be a different way to game the system when there is a different system. True, you cannot take 1 level of rogue and be slightly skilled in more than 8 skills. (Keep in mind, though, that a lot of popular rogue skills got merged.) But when you take a second level of rogue, which every rogue 1 will eventually do, if only for evasion, you can put all 8 points in different skills (assuming that there are still 16 skills left after the merge), and get +3 bonuses to them too, thereby being a lot better jack of all trades than you could be with 32 points.
Personally, I agree with the OP, this problem is pretty much solved. (except for improving the text a bit.) Now if we can just do something about initial HPs we can totally solve the non-commutative multiclassing problem.
Well done, JB.
The Alpha 2 system is great for me as a DM to quickly make NPCs. I have a single skill pool, and I don't need to know when I spent the skill point for it to work. If I calculate at 15th level I have 100 skill points, I can put them into any skills without regard to what order the classes were taken, or without regard to what the 1st level would have been.
Currently, under Alpha 2 you cannot just total up skill points and spend them out. At least not with a guarantee those expenditures will be legal. The system still lacks the 'banking'/'pre-buy' aspects that were discussed in [Design Focus] thread for Alpha 1. This is a minor point but it needs to be clearly included (at least in the DM section).
I do agree with Wintergreen in that Alpha 2 losses that 1st level variation in skill points that 3.5 had. It is an option I would still like to have personally. However that loss diminishes as a character's level increases.
I don't really mind the loss of variation at first level. I even think this new system favors someone who spreads out their skill selection a little at levels higher than one.
I really don't think the people sitting next to you will notice over that single level that you are just as good at farming as you are at seeing things. There was a 15% difference at most in 3.5 if you put ranks in both (1 rank in farming and 4 ranks in spot).
I'm not even sure people would notice that you did put one rank in profession (farming) from across the table. That is a 5% difference. I think you could still make those farming checks with no ranks and no one would notice unless you told them.
|
Now there isn't any difference between your very first level and any other level.This is absolutely true. I've said before - can't remember which thread - that one nice thing is that, now, there is no reason not to start characters with a level of Commoner or Expert or Aristocrat to represent their backgrounds and pre-adventuring experiences. There's no waste of all those 1st level skill points. Such a character would really be 2nd level but those NPC classes offer so little that it would be more like +.5 levels. And a lot of background and story telling opportunities for those who want it.
I've actually thought of doing this also, effectively a zero level. I also have thought of making everything have a level of something. Have the characters submit a background, then I assign what they learned in their past. This would also explain the maximum HP at level 1. Make it so all NPC classes have +0BAB/saves at first level...or 0 level...so they don't affect the progression of our intrepid heroes. and as you said, the half-level shouldn't affect their ECL, as NPC levels don't suddenly make a CR 1/4 a CR1, merely a CR 3/4. Personally I think level 1 NPC should just be the base CR.
Currently, under Alpha 2 you cannot just total up skill points and spend them out. At least not with a guarantee those expenditures will be legal.
Could you provide an example of an expenditure that would be illegal if you tried to do it level by level?
The only limitation I see is that you cannot have more max'd skills than whatever the last level's class gives for skill points. And if you assume the highest skill point giving class was the last level, you don't have to worry about that either.|
|
Assume a character takes rogue (8 skill points at 1st level), and then always takes a 2 skill point class from that point. Assume level 9.
8 (1st level) + 16 (8 levels of 2 skill points) = 24 skill points. Max ranks in any skill = 9.
If you as the DM assign the 9 skill points into 3 skills (9, 9, 6) you would not have spent more skill points in any class than you're able to, but you would have 'cheated' since the 8 skill points at 1st level must be spread among 8 skills, not just 3.
So, if I were the DM and did not want to cheat, I should have 6 skills with 1 rank, and 2 skills with 9 ranks (24 skill points).
That pretty much is the only problem left with the Alpha Skill System.
A couple of possible fixes:
1) You can 'save' skill points to use at a later level (thus, in the example, I only spent 2 skill points at 1st level, but I could have started spending those stored skill points at 3rd and beyond.
2) Increae the maximum number of skill ranks I can purchase at 1st level. If there is a maximum of 4 ranks (giving me a +7 at 1st level for class skills) I could have legally spent my 8 skill points over two skills. This has the problem if I have sufficiently numerous skills, I may come into the same situation, but it is much harder to do.
I guess there are a couple of other solutions, but I consider this one mostly a minor 'DM' problem. While knowing what level was 1st may still be required, it is much better than it was. And if you assume that the low skill class came first, there is no problem at all.
