|
Could you provide an example of an expenditure that would be illegal if you tried to do it level by level?
Thanks for asking. I've haven't quite understood how that worked either. Thanks DeadDMWalking for explaining so well.
1) What would the negatives be of allowing players to hang on to unspent skill points? Other than banking them, is there anything else players can do with skill points besides buying ranks? Buying languages come to mind, or skill tricks if Pathfinder has it's own version of those. So there is a little bit of a precedent. What would the in-game explanation be, if any?
2) As for raising the max ranks cap, right now with 2 points per levels classes and 8/level classes, you can be off by 6 skills. If you raised the max ranks to level+3 (extreme example), the problem would go away, but you could end up with a few rogues who were VERY good at 2 skills. Not horrible, but not the best solution IMO. If however you bump the lowest skill classes to 4/level (which has been proposed many, many times) and bump the max ranks to level+1 (not so extreme), the problem also goes away, right?
Using DeadDM's example:
Assume a character takes rogue (8 skill points at 1st level), and then always takes a 4 skill-point class from that point. Assume level 9.
8 (1st level) + 32 (8 levels of 4 skill points) = 40 skill points. Max ranks in any skill = 10.
If you as the DM assign the 40 skill points into 4 skills you get 10, 10, 10, and 10. You would not have spent more skill points in any class than you're able to, and you would not have 'cheated' because the 8 skill points at 1st level could have legally been spread among 4 skills. Viola!
In summary, raising the max ranks cap work, and so does closing the gap between the highest and lowest skilled classes. I would suggest doing a bit of both.
|
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: +8Why 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...
I love this suggestion....Might I add one
Return the Synergy skills ..... It gives you a reason to want other skills.
Also only 2 classes have access to linguistics as a class skill. I can understand not giving it to the Barbarian however I could think that Clerics, Wizards, and Sorcerers should also have it as a class skill as they tend to have to know many different languages.
I think with the current rules that even someone who doesn't have linguistics as a class skill can still put ranks in it and have as many languages as the classes that have it as a class skill. The only difference is how good they are at the skill checks which doesn't normally apply to speaking languages.
|
|
Dorje Sylas and DeadDMWalking have pointed out that there is still a small difference between the skills taken at first level and those taken at later levels.
A couple of possible fixes:1) You can 'save' skill points to use at a later level...
2) Increae the maximum number of skill ranks I can purchase at 1st level...
I personally favor #2 - increase max ranks to level+1 and bump the 2 skill points/level classes to 4/level, as I described a few post up - but would also be okay with #1 if there was some kind of cap, like no more than you Int modifier held in reserve at any time, or no more than your class's ranks per level.
There is one more option that I can think of.
3) Allow characters to unspend skill points. At each level or certain points determined by the DM, players can reduce the skill ranks they've previously purchased and put those points into ranks into other skills. This wouldn't represent 'unlearning,' just the fact that, over a period of time, the character has let certain skill atrophy. By not spending time maintaining her skills at a certain level, they have declined. However, this has freed up some extra time/energy/effort that could be used to develop other skills. You'd still need a cap - no more than Int mod or no more than you class's skill ranks for 1 level or no more than you total number of levels.
Anyway, I just wanted to add that re-training might be a viable alternative fix for the level 1 problem. Me? I still prefer DeadDMWalking's #2.
|
Could you provide an example of an expenditure that would be illegal if you tried to do it level by level?Thanks for asking. I've haven't quite understood how that worked either. Thanks DeadDMWalking for explaining so well.
1) What would the negatives be of allowing players to hang on to unspent skill points? Other than banking them, is there anything else players can do with skill points besides buying ranks? Buying languages come to mind, or skill tricks if Pathfinder has it's own version of those. So there is a little bit of a precedent. What would the in-game explanation be, if any?
2) As for raising the max ranks cap, right now with 2 points per levels classes and 8/level classes, you can be off by 6 skills. If you raised the max ranks to level+3 (extreme example), the problem would go away, but you could end up with a few rogues who were VERY good at 2 skills. Not horrible, but not the best solution IMO. If however you bump the lowest skill classes to 4/level (which has been proposed many, many times) and bump the max ranks to level+1 (not so extreme), the problem also goes away, right?
Using DeadDM's example:
Assume a character takes rogue (8 skill points at 1st level), and then always takes a 4 skill-point class from that point. Assume level 9.8 (1st level) + 32 (8 levels of 4 skill points) = 40 skill points. Max ranks in any skill = 10.
If you as the DM assign the 40 skill points into 4 skills you get 10, 10, 10, and 10. You would not have spent more skill points in any class than you're able to, and you would not have 'cheated' because the 8 skill points at 1st level could have legally been spread among 4 skills. Viola!
In summary, raising the max ranks cap work, and so does closing the gap between the highest and lowest skilled classes. I would suggest doing a bit of both.
If each class has at least 4 skill points per level, and each character is allowed to put level +1 skill points in any skill, I think you'll get rid of the problem in most cases. In any case, I like the idea.
There should be no case where a class (with Int bonus) has more than 2x the number of skills as another class. This works with Int penalty as well. So, I like this.
I don't like increasing the bonus of class-skills. I like that there isn't that much difference between them. I think that there is a difference, and +3 ranks is a nice bonus for choosing to focus on class skills. I think that it is enough incentive that if you have people choosing non-class skills, they'll have a pretty good reason (in character) for wanting them. So, keeping them a mechanically viable choice is very important to me.
Well, there might be a few corner cases, but I think the example is pretty synthetic. I think you can eliminate most reasonable cases by considering:
1) Take at least one level of one of the high point classes last.
2) A common case would be racial hit dice, which have to be taken first, luckily, they stink for skill points (and for most other reasons too.)
3) Maxing out your skills is really less beneficial than in 3.5. You could have 10 ranks of acrobatics at tenth level for a bonus of 10+3+DEX or you could have 9 ranks in acrobatics and 1 rank in say, sense motive, which suddenly jump from 0+WIS to 1+3+WIS. Even if you use acrobatics a lot more than the other skill that's pretty tempting.
|
|
3) Maxing out your skills is really less beneficial than in 3.5.
True. Alpha2 encourages you to take at least 1 rank in as many of your class skills as possible to get the +3. I used to do that in 3.5 with trained-use-only skills to get my ability modifier; the Alpha2 effect is similar, just a little more pronounced. I like it.
|
I think that the system is ok as it is.
The order of leveling still has effects but they are less than 3.5 (when crossclassig cost was double)
Trying to change the rank cap only make it less backwards compatible (you can't use skill DCs of 3.5) only solves partially the problem.
Try to make a cleric 5 / rogue 5 maxing 5 skills and then make
rogue 5 / cleric 5.
We need a system that makes easy to convert from 3.5, this system makes it easy.
We need a system that makes easy making high level NPCs. Before we needed to track the leveling of multiclass NPCs. Now it is optional:
1) You can put ranks as if the order doesn't matter. You only have to suppose that this NPC has chosen the rank high classes later.
2) You can use a method, that is order neutral.
2.1) Look to the class levels of your NPC and classify them in number of ranks per level:
Rogue: 8
Bard, Expert, Ranger: 6
Barbarian,Druid,Monk : 4
Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard:2
2.2) Add the levels of each category. For example: Fighter 2/Wizard 1/Rogue 3/Druid 2. In the example we have 3 categories: 2 Skill ranks, Cat2(Fighter 2 + Wizard 1)=3, 4 Skill ranks Cat4(Druid 2)=2, 8 Skill ranks Cat8 (Rogue 3) = 3.
2.3) Add all categories, this is the number of max skill ranks for the number of skill of your lesser category +Int.
In the example: Cat2(3) + Cat4(2)+ Cat8 (3) = 8. The lesser category is Cat2, so you can have 8 ranks only in 2 skills+Int.
2.4)Substract to this number the levels of the lesser category, this are the max skill ranks for your next lesser category+Int including the previous.
In the example: 8- Cat2(3) = 5. The next lesser category is Cat4, so you can have 5 ranks only in 4+Int skills including the previous.
2.5) Repeat 2.4 till there are no categories left, having no limit of skill in the last category.In the example: 5- Cat4(2) = 3. The next lesser category is Cat4, so you can have 3 ranks only in another skills.
It seems complex, but you don't need bookkeeping:
Maxing the example:
8
8
5
5
3
3
3
3
Ashkecker, DeadDMWalking's example may be synthetic but does demonstrate the point. The problem is the outliers, and making sure you have a rule to catch builds are not currently evident as problems. Let me add to the example pot.
There remain constrains on when classes need to be taken, and the order they are taken in. Both Feats and Prestige Classes have their own non-skill requirements. You can't have an Arcane Trickster 4/ Rogue 3/ Wizard 5 take that 3rd Rogue level last. Worse lets take a DM example succubus sorceress, who is locked into the 8 + int skill points for 6 levels before switching to a class with 2+Int.
I don't see that raising the cap (#2) and alerting the skill point allotments does nothing for this problem. It may help in that specific case but isn't the kind of catch all rule that is needed. Even the Succubus Sorceress 1 doesn't quite work. In a very real way the Cap (any cap) is the problem. I don't think getting rid of the cap would be good idea, however...
I would prefer #1, the option to save unspent skill points. It is by far the simplest to implement and has almost 0 impact on NPC/Monster stat-blocks. It will cover any outlier build. For module writers and developers they only need a single number to indicate unspent skill points (if any). For an active player unspent skill points are a resource that isn't (and can't) be used, which is the disincentive to hoarding skill points.
While #1 doesn't have an elegant fluff dressing I don't think it needs one. It's not directly a Player rule, it is a written DM/Developer excuse. The only question in my mind is what can a player do/break by saving skill points?
If allowing not spending points is all that is needed to say that the system works, it sounds ok to me.
It will probably only be used for high level builds like you are talking about, since it is difficult to imagine a player walking through the levels step by step actually foregoing an increase, unless they've got a very specific plan.
Especially as I mentioned before, with the great temptation to spend points on untrained class skills to get a +4 bonus.
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.
I don't like the PF skill rules. They really really penalize the Rogue and the Bard classes at low levels. In most games PCs don't need a fixed +3 bonus maximizing fewer skills instead of actual skill points.
A simple skill fix is to give the Rogue +2 skill points (a +25% skill increase) to 10 skill points a level like the Variant Changeling Rogue and give all the other classes +1 skill point a level and either leave cross class skills as currently written or at a simple 2 for 1 skill point cost per rank. For many classes like the Fighter and Cleric and Wizard and Sorcerer that will be a +50% skill power up and a +25% skill power up for a class like the Monk and almost a +17% powerup to the Bard and Cloistered Cleric Variant.
Skills like Appraise are fine in most games with an intelligent PC with a rank of 1 or 1/2 if it is a cross class skill and Knowledge skills become usable as trained.
1 or a 1/2 rank of Diplomacy goes a long way in a campaign dealing with flunkie NPCs with most starting off Indifferent or Unfriendly before adding in other modifiers to the mix. The same is true for Gather Information if taken by all PCs in a party since odds are at least one will make the DC15+ check for other information splitting up or hear an additional rumor.
Heal is a DC15 for first Aid, Long Term Care and Treating Wounds. A Healer's Kit provides a +2 bonus with a wisdom of 14+ most PCs don't need any more ranks at low levels of play.
Instead of 8 base maxed skills + racial and intelligence modifier skills in a first level regular game a Rogue could max 5 base skills + racial and intelligence modifier skills and have 12 additional skills with a single rank or half a rank for a cross class skill. As the Rogue levels he can become an even greater skill monkey in game just assigning a single skill point or two a level to various skills.
The Variant Psychic Rogue gains 100 Power Points and 15 Powers of First to Fifth level for losing +3D6 Sneak Attack and 2 skill points a level at L20.
|
|
I don't see that raising the cap (#2) and alerting the skill point allotments does nothing for this problem. It may help in that specific case but isn't the kind of catch all rule that is needed. Even the Succubus Sorceress 1 doesn't quite work.
This is my version of DeadDMWalking's #2 - bump the lowest skill classes to 4 skill points/level and bump the max ranks to level+1. I don't think it's a fix only for this specific example. I'm pretty sure that, as long as the the highest skill class = 2x the lowest skill class, raising the cap to level+1 works for all cases.
Your succubus sorceress 1 example:
48 (6HD @ 8 skill points) + 4 (1 level sorcerer) = 52 skill points, max ranks = 8 (6HD + 1 level +1)
You end up with 6 skills @ 8 and 1 @ 4 - a legal build. Because of the level+1, those 8 1st-level points don't have to go into 8 skills any more, they could go into 4 skills, which a 4-points/level class could do as well. No more problem.
So I think my fix does work for your succubus example, but please, try to come up with some other bizarre builds and let's see if the formula falls apart.
While #1 doesn't have an elegant fluff dressing I don't think it needs one. It's not directly a Player rule, it is a written DM/Developer excuse. The only question in my mind is what can a player do/break by saving skill points?
It's not my preferred solution but I'd be okay with allowing players/DMs to bank a few points. How many though? What's the limit? Or is the inherent penalty for doing so (being under-skilled while adventuring and more so the more points you bank) enough?
What about my idea of letting players un-spend skill points? That way they wouldn't have to hold them in reserve, doing nothing, but could still go back, re-allocate them, and get builds that were strictly speaking impossible. I guess that would require a limit because it would no longer be self penalizing.
Skills like Appraise are fine in most games with an intelligent PC with a rank of 1 or 1/2 if it is a cross class skill and Knowledge skills become usable as trained.
1 or a 1/2 rank of Diplomacy goes a long way in a campaign dealing with flunkie NPCs with most starting off Indifferent or Unfriendly before adding in other modifiers to the mix. The same is true for Gather Information if taken by all PCs in a party since odds are at least one will make the DC15+ check for other information splitting up or hear an additional rumor.
Heal is a DC15 for first Aid, Long Term Care and Treating Wounds. A Healer's Kit provides a +2 bonus with a wisdom of 14+ most PCs don't need any more ranks at low levels of play.
But for Appraise, Diplomacy, and Heal work nearly as well with no ranks. If the party could work well with only one rank in a skill I would say that they could do just as well with no ranks. It is only a small bonus and would affect play only in 1 in 20 rolls.
Also, how does half a rank help in these skills? None of them are trained only and, if I recall correctly, half a rank gives no bonus.
(I think the board ate my post, sorry if this doubles up.)
Mosaic, you didn't take into account the succubus's 16 intelligence. This raised the skill point total to 73, 9 skills with 8 ranks, 1 skill with 1. At 5th level (5 HD) the character has 9 skills with 6 ranks, and 1 with 1. At 6th level the character has to increase that 10th skill to 3 ranks or get an 11th skill. This becomes a problem at 7th level.
This is what I was looking at when I said it didn't work.
Even without using the 16 Int lets move to a Succubus Sorceress 14 (6 HD + 14 Levels). 104 skill points, no Int, cap 21. The total and divide by max ranks: 4 skills at 21 ranks, 1 skill at 20. This is impossible. By 2nd level (2nd HD) the Succubus is forced to have 5 skills at 3 ranks, 1 skill at 1.
I do not see a need or reason to limit the number of skill points a character can save. This would be imposing another cap. Anecdotally, every time I've need to 'save' skill points it has usually been no more then 1 or 2. However keeping with the last example of the Succubus Sorceress 14, it would have need to save 13 skill points total (at 6th HD). Which then get spent out 1 point at time over levels 7 to 18. (Thats assuming #2 max ranks and 4+int instead of 2. It also doesn't include a high intelligence.)
Un-spending skill points is a very real option. Do you mind if I call it retraining? Retraining is something that D&D has not really had in its rules. It would actually be nice to see an option(not optional rule) to re-spend skills and re-pick feats. Re-picking class features as well wouldn't be a bad idea. Aside from allowing that little bit of DM/Developer hand waving with skill points, it would also let players back out of bad unplayable choices without having to make a totally new character.
|
|
Even without using the 16 Int lets move to a Succubus Sorceress 14 (6 HD + 14 Levels). 104 skill points, no Int, cap 21. The total and divide by max ranks: 4 skills at 21 ranks, 1 skill at 20. This is impossible. By 2nd level (2nd HD) the Succubus is forced to have 5 skills at 3 ranks, 1 skill at 1.
Damn. Okay, so my formula works most of the time. I still like it because it pulls together two different suggestions I've made - no fewer than 4 skill points/level and max ranks = level +1 - but you've shown that it doesn't work in all cases. Builds that start with high point classes then go to several levels with low skill point classes seem pretty hard to make level-irrelevant.
I do not see a need or reason to limit the number of skill points a character can save...
The loss (or at least sub-optimal) use of skill points would seem to be penalty enough in most cases.
Un-spending skill points is a very real option. Do you mind if I call it retraining? Retraining is something that D&D has not really had in its rules. It would actually be nice to see an option(not optional rule) to re-spend skills and re-pick feats. Re-picking class features as well wouldn't be a bad idea. Aside from allowing that little bit of DM/Developer hand waving with skill points, it would also let players back out of bad unplayable choices without having to make a totally new character.
Retraining skill points might be the best fix. It's straight forward and explainable in-story. I'm not so sure about feats or class features, but that's a whole other discussion. But I'd have no problem with a rule that said a player could shift his class's skill points/level + Int bonus from old skills to new ones. That allows him to retrain one level's worth of skill points. Or his level + Int bonus worth of skill points. That scales so high level characters and retrain more skill points than low level characters. Either works, but I do want a cap here or else your going to see players rebuild their characters from the ground up, shifting from one set of skills to a completely different set of skill in just one level. That strains credibility. A few points, that's okay, that's leaving behind an old interest and picking up a new one. Changing all your skill, that's a new character.
Also, how does half a rank help in these skills? None of them are trained only and, if I recall correctly, half a rank gives no bonus.
Perhaps I should have limited my post to only using skills like Handle Animal, Knowledge, Profession and UMD skills which cannot be fully utilized untrained. The game is based on the PCs improving by leveling in game and gaining more abilities like additional skill points. Not remaining at first level indefintely. Each PC will have different priorites. Not all PCs will have an extra skill point or two each level to spend on cross class skills. Plenty of games where skill checks are glossed over. First level is when the PC receives the skill point multiplier. As a player you can open the PHB and determine what the sweet spot is for your PC needing to make certain skill checks based on his ability scores and magic items.
An untrained Knowledge check is simply a intelligence check. Without actual training you know only common knowledge.
The 1/2 rank makes the skill trained and opens the door for more PC knowledge in game over and beyond common knowledge even if the PC won't always make the greater knowledge checks.
Also, how does half a rank help in these skills? None of them are trained only and, if I recall correctly, half a rank gives no bonus.Perhaps I should have limited my post to only using skills like Handle Animal, Knowledge, Profession and UMD skills which cannot be fully utilized untrained. The game is based on the PCs improving by leveling in game and gaining more abilities like additional skill points. Not remaining at first level indefintely. Each PC will have different priorites. Not all PCs will have an extra skill point or two each level to spend on cross class skills. Plenty of games where skill checks are glossed over. First level is when the PC receives the skill point multiplier. As a player you can open the PHB and determine what the sweet spot is for your PC needing to make certain skill checks based on his ability scores and magic items.
An untrained Knowledge check is simply a intelligence check. Without actual training you know only common knowledge.
The 1/2 rank makes the skill trained and opens the door for more PC knowledge in game over and beyond common knowledge even if the PC won't always make the greater knowledge checks.
But this system doesn't punish cross-class skills anymore. One rank means a +1 bonus to that skill rather than two ranks to a +1 bonus.
This system seems to be worse for putting single ranks in cross-class skills at first level. However it gets better at later levels and I would even say that by 3rd level this system works just as well for one rank dips as it does in 3.5.
But this system doesn't punish cross-class skills anymore. One rank means a +1 bonus to that skill rather than two ranks to a +1 bonus.This system seems to be worse for putting single ranks in cross-class skills at first level. However it gets better at later levels and I would even say that by 3rd level this system works just as well for one rank dips as it does in 3.5.
I disagree. The PF skill system does punish cross class skills if I as a PC can no longer have the option in game of taking more skills than allowed by the PF rules in comparison to the standard rules to acquire a dip in a skill or skills to facilitate a broader range of acceptable skill use in a game. PCs don't need or require max ranks or max ranks +3 in all skills.
I disagree. The PF skill system does punish cross class skills if I as a PC can no longer have the option in game of taking more skills than allowed by the PF rules in comparison to the standard rules to acquire a dip in a skill or skills to facilitate a broader range of acceptable skill use in a game. PCs don't need or require max ranks or max ranks +3 in all skills.
I think I need to put some sets together to get a handle on how this plays out.
Assuming a rogue with Int 10 in both systems the rogue gets eight skill points per level after first.
***
At first level,
In 3.5, seven class skills get four ranks each and four more skills (knowledges) get one half point.
In PRPG, six class skills get one rank each (for a +4 bonus) and two more skills (knowledges) get one rank (for a +1 bonus).
At second level,
In 3.5, seven skills get five ranks each and the four more skills (knowledges) have one half point, and one more class skill has one rank.
In PRPG, six skills get two ranks each (for a +5 bonus) and four more skills (knowledges) get one rank (for a +1 bonus).
At third level,
In 3.5, seven skills get six ranks each and the four more skills (knowledges) have one half point, and one more skill has two ranks.
In PRPG, six skills get three ranks each (for a +6 bonus) and four more skills (knowledges) get one rank (for a +1 bonus), and then two more class skills get one rank (for a +4 bonus).
Doesn't work out as nicely as I originally thought, but it seems to at least getting better. Most of the bonus is for getting three virtual points for putting that first rank in a skill. I want to now see what it looks like if eight ranks are spent on cross-class trained only skills at first level.
So my goal is to have at least the same number of basic skills early on and have at least half a rank in eight skills. Same rogue as before with 10 Int.
***
At first level,
In 3.5, six class skills get four ranks each and eight more cross class skills get one half point.
In PRPG, five class skills get one rank each (for a +4 bonus) and three more cross class skills get one rank (for a +1 bonus).
At second level,
In 3.5, six skills get five ranks each and the eight more skills have one half point, and two more class skill have one rank each.
In PRPG, four skills get two ranks each (for a +5 bonus), two class skills get one rank each (for a +4 bonus), and six more skills get one rank (for a +1 bonus).
At third level,
In 3.5, six skills get six ranks each and the eight more skills have one half point, and two more class skill have two ranks each.
In PRPG, four skills get three ranks each (for a +6 bonus), and three skills have one rank (for a +4 bonus), and eight more skills get one rank (for a +1 bonus).
PRPG is still behind with ranks in only seven class skills, but I want to see what it looks like a level later.
At fourth level,
In 3.5, six skills get seven ranks each and the eight more skills have one half point, and two more class skill have three ranks each.
In PRPG, five skills get four ranks each (for a +7 bonus), and three skills have one rank (for a +4 bonus), and eight more skills get one rank (for a +1 bonus).
Now for the class skills it is roughly even, the PRPG character has one worse class skill and three better skills. The big difference however is that the eight cross class skills all have a +1 bonus instead of none.
While you don't get everything at first level, it seems you can get those skills as you go up a few levels. In a small number of levels you have what you had before and slightly more.
It should be noted however that I'm biased against 1/2 rank to use skills. My experiences with 1/2 rank skills have been negative up until now.
|
|
An untrained Knowledge check is simply a intelligence check. Without actual training you know only common knowledge.
The 1/2 rank makes the skill trained and opens the door for more PC knowledge in game over and beyond common knowledge even if the PC won't always make the greater knowledge checks.
But this system doesn't penalize this, it only makes you wait to level 2 to do that.
It can be seen better with an example.3.5
For each cross/class skill that you train in first level you sacrifice two class skill to be maxed. With a warrior
1st level (2*4 ranks)
Mount 3 ranks
Intimidate 3 ranks
Knowledge (Nature) 1 rank
2nd level (2 ranks)
Mount 4 ranks
Intimidate 4 ranks
Knowledge (Nature) 1 rank
Pathfinder RPG
If you use one of your first level rank in cross class you will have less class skill with 4 rank. So, it seems wise to not do that at first level. But in the next level this is less a problem. In PF RPG you only sacrifice one rank for cross classing. Let's see the warrior example.
1st level (2 ranks)
Mount 1 rank = 4
Intimidate 1 rank = 4
Knowledge (Nature) = 1
2nd level (2 ranks)
Mount 4 ranks
Intimidate 4 ranks
Knowledge (Nature) 1 rank
Knowledge (Arcana) 1 rank
So, you have to wait some few levels to invest in cross classing, but the result is better because you don't have the 1/2 cross class cost.
But this system doesn't penalize this, it only makes you wait to level 2 to do that.
So, you have to wait some few levels to invest in cross classing, but the result is better because you don't have the 1/2 cross class cost.
I don't understand this kind of reasoning. You admit the PC has to wait and go without the access to the skills for a few levels but that isn't a penalty in game because eventually he could be better with a skill when he finally acquires it.
My example was clear PF penalizes a PC who would normally diversify some of his skill points with minimal skill ranks in a breadth of less critical ranks.
The wait is a penalty in a PF game in a skill oriented campaign. Being denied the opportunity to not diversify skills as desired and be forced to maximize is a penalty because the PC Rogue or other PC rarely needs all his skills maximized with all the magic available in the game.
Being denied that opportunity to diversify skills is a penalty.
Rarely is more than a single 1/2 rank or single rank of Appraise needed in most games at low levels. Most rare items are only a DC15 check with Exotic items at DC20 or higher.
In 3.5 a Rogue could open up 8 knowledge skills with a 1/2 rank and use them trained for 8 skill points at first level with 6 skills maximized that's 14 skills before any racial or intelligence modifiers. That can be huge at low levels of play particularly without a Bard i the party. Basically the Rogue can act as a party Sage at low levels. Throw in human with a positve intelligence modifier and quite a few more class or cross class skills could be opened up by the PC.
Between other party members, attribute bonuses, class options, spells and magic options in game all PC skills don't need to be maximized plenty of skills work just fine in game with a 1/2 rank or a few ranks.
|
|
I don't understand this kind of reasoning. You admit the PC has to wait and go without the access to the skills for a few levels but that isn't a penalty in game because eventually he could be better with a skill when he finally acquires it.
Possibly untill level 2. I don't think this is a huge penalty. Nevertheless he can choose to give 4 ranks to class skills and 4 ranks to have a halfway approach.
In 3.5 a Rogue could open up 8 knowledge skills with a 1/2 rank and use them trained for 4 skill points at first level. Basically the Rogue can act as a party Sage at low levels. Throw in human with an Intelligence with a positve modifier and quite a few more skills could be opened up by the PC.
Only to clarify, a 1/2 rank doesn't make an skill to be trained. You need 1 rank.
To train 8 cross class skills you need to spend 16 skill points of the 32 that you have.This means. 4 crossclass at 1 rank and 4 maxed class skills. The same as PF-RPG, if maxing. If not maxing, he can have 8 class skills with 2 ranks o 16 class skills with 1 rank, roughly.
I'm with you that at first level PF system is a bit less customizable for cross class, but only a bit and only at first level.
|
|
I'm with you that at first level PF system is a bit less customizable for cross class, but only a bit and only at first level.
It is less customizable at first level and I agree that you can overcome that with higher levels but I still don't see what advantage you get with adopting the new system to compensate for that loss. Yes the old system has an issue about multiclassing and which level is your first but really that's a problem with multiclassing not this system.
The discussion above seems to show that with the new system and designing high level characters that it doesn't really make things much easier and simpler.
So am I missing something when I look at the new system and think "At first level it is less customisable and versatile and it doesn't make designing high level characters any easier so why reject the 4x skill points at 1st level?"
(Please, I want to be convinced that this is a virtue and that I don't need to house rule the old system.)
|
|
I love the fact that there is no x4 at 1st level. Needing to know what the first class is has been a major pain as a DM when making NPC/enemy stat blocks. This removes that necessity for the most part.
The 'penalty' in the breadth of skills at first level does not seem like a penalty at all.
Yes, in 3.5 if you had 24 skill ranks, you could choose to put 1 rank into 24 class skills if you wanted, having 24 skills with a +1 bonus. You can't do that in Pathfinder. If you put 1 rank in 6 class skills, you'll have a +4 bonus.
However, to get a +1 bonus in twelve cross-class skills, it would take you all 24 skill points. In Alpha, if you have 6 skills at 1st level you can only have 1 rank in six of the skills.
But the beauty is, Pathfinder does make up for it at a higher level. By giving up the x4 at 1st, every later level 'makes up for it' a bit.
So, at 2nd level, with Alpha I get 6 more skills, so I have a +1 in twelve cross-class skills. In 3.5 I could only advance skills 1/2 a rank so at 2nd level, my effective skill bonus is the same as 3.5, 9 skills with +1.5.
At 3rd level the Alpha system clearly pulls away. In 3.5 if I were spreading my cross class skill points evenly, I would have 6 skills at +1 and six skills at +1.5. The next two levels would see no effective advancement in skills at all. In Alpha I can continue to advance them rather quickly.
Looking at 20th level - In Alpha I have 12 skills (cross-class) with 10 ranks each.
In 3.5 I have 12 skills (cross-class) with 9 with 6 ranks and 3 with 5 ranks.
Personally, I think that is worth the 1 level 'wait' to 'catch up' to 3.5.
Let's look at another situation. Instead of advancing 12 cross-class skills, let's look at advancing 6 class skills and 6 cross-class skills, assuming 6 skills per level.
In 3.5, I would have 24 skill points at 1st level. I advance 6 class skills by 2 ranks, and 6 cross-class skills by 1 rank (12 skill points).
6 skills at +2, 6 skills at +1.
In Pathfinder, I advance 3 class skills by 1 rank (+4 bonus) and 3 cross-class skills by 1 rank (+1 bonus).
3 skills at +4, 3 skills at +1.
In 3.5 at 2nd level, I have six skill points. I decide I'm going to 'alternate' raising skills by 1 point at a time, so I raise 6 class skills by 1 rank.
6 skills at +3, 6 skills at +1.
In Alpha I have six skill points. I put 3 in the class skills I didn't have before, and 3 in the cross-class skills I didn't have before.
6 skills at +4, 6 skills at +1.
At 2nd level, I'm 'better off' than my 3.5 counterpart.
Skipping to 4th level -
3.5 6 skills +3, 6 skills +2 (cross-class).
Pathfinder 6 skills +5, 6 skills +2.
Skipping to 20th level - 138
3.5 6 skills with +11, 6 skills with +6.
Pathfinder 6 skills with +13, 6 skills with +10.
Again, the delay at 1st level is 'paid for' by gaining more effective skill points at later level (since there is no cross-class penalty).
The only time there is no 'advantage' to the Pathfinder system is when a character takes max ranks in class skills (which is pretty common). Then the two systems work out to be effective the same.
In a situation where any cross-class skills are taken, the Alpha system works better quickly. In any system where points are spread thinly, the Alpha system quickly overcomes (the +3 to all class skills makes a difference). So, at 1st level there are situations where Alpha has fewer 'trained skills' than 3.5. Even in skill heavy games, though, there are some skills a starting character might not know or might not be any good at. They'll learn those skills later, and Alpha does that well.
And since there isn't much difference between a +1 and a +0 on a skill useable untrained, if the Alpha character puts his skills into skills taht require training (even cross-class), he'll still 'feel' like he has the same 'number' of skills as a 3.5 individual that spreads them thin....
|
|
So am I missing something when I look at the new system and think "At first level it is less customisable and versatile and it doesn't make designing high level characters any easier so why reject the 4x skill points at 1st level?"
As I see there are some reasons because this system if better to make high level characters:
-- Max ranks are your character level. For both, class and cross class-- You don't have to care about 1/2 ranks.
-- If your NPC is multiclass you don't have to worry about when he gets the ranks in order to apply 1/2 ranks.
-- You don't have to worry about INT increases in level 4, 8 ... since they spread skill points retroactively.
All this is possible because now the 4x skill has changed to +3 for class skills, and made possible to get rid of 1/2 ranks.
I love the fact that there is no x4 at 1st level. Needing to know what the first class is has been a major pain as a DM when making NPC/enemy stat blocks. This removes that necessity for the most part.
For skills, for the most part, but not completely if you want to do it legally. Yet what about other character aspects at first level? How many hp do you have, makes a difference if you took barbarian first or rogue first. What feats could you have taken at first level? Do you have a BA +1 or +0?
Suggesting that skills were/are the only reason knowing what class was taken first is misleading. No fix for skills is going to totally remove the need to know which class was first, unless you change all of the other details as well.
So am I missing something when I look at the new system and think "At first level it is less customisable and versatile and it doesn't make designing high level characters any easier so why reject the 4x skill points at 1st level?"
As I see there are some reasons because this system if better to make high level characters:
-- Max ranks are your character level. For both, class and cross class
-- You don't have to care about 1/2 ranks.
-- If your NPC is multiclass you don't have to worry about when he gets the ranks in order to apply 1/2 ranks.
-- You don't have to worry about INT increases in level 4, 8 ... since they spread skill points retroactively.All this is possible because now the 4x skill has changed to +3 for class skills, and made possible to get rid of 1/2 ranks.
Consider a real multiclasser skill monkey with the PF skill system and backwards compatibility.
Something like a Changeling Rogue - 1 with 10 skill points a level, Factotum - 1 (All skills become class skills now and receive the PF +3 skill benefit which is like getting first level times 4 multiplier at more than first level whenever assigning a single rank to a skill for a dip which is much better than a mere 1/2 skill rank because quite a few skills have a DC15 sweetpoint range), Bard - 1, Cloistered Cleric Variant - 1, Swordsage - 1.
5 class levels with base 10 + 6 + 6 + 6 +6 skills per class level probably with a PC with a decent Intelligence modifier to have even more skills.
Changeling Rogue -1 and Factotum -1 is huge now at L2 for a skill monkey dipper probably with an Intelligence 14+ using the default array or 25 point buy with each single skill point getting the +3 class skill bonus first because of the freebie multiplier and second because of the DC 15 sweet spot for many skill checks.
The kicker is just because some people won't use that in their game doesn't make it illegal or broken for use in a game under the rules.
Consider a real multiclasser skill monkey with the PF skill system and backwards compatibility.
Something like a Changeling Rogue - 1 with 10 skill points a level, Factotum - 1 (All skills become class skills now and receive the PF +3 skill benefit which is like getting first level times 4 multiplier at more than first level only so is much better than a mere 1/2 skill rank because quite a few skills have a DC15 sweetpoint range), Bard - 1, Cloistered Cleric Variant - 1, Swordsage - 1.
5 class levels with base 10 + 6 + 6 + 6 +6 skills per class level probably with a PC with a decent Intelligence modifier to have even more skills.
The kicker is just because some people won't use that in their game doesn't make it illegal or broken for use in a game by the rules.
That just really looks like the character has a slightly higher bonus in a bunch of lower skills. I don' think it is broken, because it doesn't really break anything. I just see a character with every skill bonus at 4+ability mod at 5th level when I expect their best skills were supposed to be 8+ability mod.
So I say let them do it. It's not going break anything.
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.
You obviously don't own StarWars Saga Edition. All Pathfinder did was copy that idea of skill usage. Not to mention for any 4th ed haters out there that this is EXACTLY how 4th ed is doing skills. So they also stole skills from 4th ed. In 4th ed skills are going to be used just like this. No "ranks" so much as you have trained and untrained skills.
You obviously don't own StarWars Saga Edition. All Pathfinder did was copy that idea of skill usage. Not to mention for any 4th ed haters out there that this is EXACTLY how 4th ed is doing skills. So they also stole skills from 4th ed. In 4th ed skills are going to be used just like this. No "ranks" so much as you have trained and untrained skills.
Yes the first Alpha release system was just like it. The second Alpha release skill system is not.
|
|
Just a couple random thoughts...
First of all, the current Alpha system does use ranks, and is not just like the Saga system.
Secondly, there has been some talk of how now that there is no multiplication of skills at 1st level, one will always take the 'highest hit dice' class first instead of the 'highest skill class' first. I've been thinking about this, and while it will certainly be more common, I'm convinced that it will not be the 'norm'.
You see, when you create a character at 1st level, you're not going to be able to do everything you want to do. You have to make choices and sacrifices.
Now, in 3.5 you could never get the skill points you 'lost' at 1st level by choosing the lower skill class back. But hit points are something you can 'get back'. For example, if I choose rogue at 1st level (8 hit points) and then I take fighter at 2nd level, I have the opportunity to get 10 hit points. At 2nd level if I have 18 hit points, I am exactly the same as if I had gone Fighter than Rogue.
Well, technically I couldn't have taken a BAB +1 feat at 1st level, but now that Pathfinder is giving more feats, it is much easier to make a 'legal build' without too much worry about the BAB +1 prereq for things like Weapon Focus. And even under the old system, feats were not nearly so tricky as skills.
So, my point is that this new system does work appropriately in that it doesn't 'necessitate' one choice over another when multi-classing. What's good about that is that it makes the choice to more likely be made based upon backstory and less upon mechanics. I think a good player can't ignore mechanics when making a character, so if there is a clear benefit to doing things in a particular order, it is hard not to do that.
Lot of good points particularly the skill limits at first level and the implications of the Open Minded feat under PF rules for some skill dipping.
Open Minded [General]
You are naturally able to reroute your memory, mind, and skill expertise.
Benefit
You immediately gain an extra 5 skill points. You spend these skill points as normal. If you spend them on a cross-class skills they count as ½ ranks. You cannot exceed the normal maximum ranks for your level in any skill.
Special
You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time, you immediately gain another 5 skill points.
Huh, forgot that was OGC.
I also assumed that humans were still going to get that extra skill point at first level.
Again, I don't see people breaking the skill system with this feat no matter how are people try.
So far my group really likes this new system. Avoiding the x4 at first level is fantastic.
It's not like it's needed with the condensed skills and the trained or untrained idea AND the fact that class skills go up by one every level. So in the end characters are more skilled at skills they choose instead of having to choose between skills at higher levels. Like at low lvs or lvl 1 or so UMD is pretty useless and most people wait until higher levels to put a ton of points into it. Now it will always level up as long as you pick it to be a trained skill. But if you gain more trained skills as you level up do they gain ranks retroactively or not? Because you can gain more skills via multiclassing I believe. (If this works like Saga Edition Star Wars/4th ED D&D.)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So far my group really likes this new system. Avoiding the x4 at first level is fantastic.It's not like it's needed with the condensed skills and the trained or untrained idea AND the fact that class skills go up by one every level.
Well, it was never needed.
I'm an old CHAMPIONS afficianado, and I regret that this skill system doesn't have the flexibility of D&D 3.5's. I usually like to give my PC's a few skill points in odd places. (I'm currently running a ranger with a few ranks in Profession: brewing and Perform: drums; I don't imagine they will ever be useful, but they're there to help me flesh out the character's background.)
The Pathfinder system would require me to spend the equivalent of 4 ranks in these "flavor" skills; I probably won't.
(This is one of the reasons I'm sticking with D&D 3.5 in my home campaign. I'll probably have nothing to do with the Pathfinder system outside of PS organized play.)
|
|
It's not like it's needed with the condensed skills and the trained or untrained idea AND the fact that class skills go up by one every level.
Scott, I just want to double check something with you. As of Alpha 2, class skills DO NOT automatically go up every level. At level 1 you get the +3 to class skills instead of the x4 (both can result in a net +4 if you max out your skill, but in Pathfinder you basically have to max out 1st level skill). After that though, you just get more skill points at each level and can spend them however you want. However, that +3 class-skills bonus stays +3 forever. Some folks have suggested that it bump up at certain levels or that feats/class abilities be available to increase the bonus, but so far it's always just +3.
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.
Could you explain how the new system affects this? Your rogue can still have a rank or two in profession sailor. Nothing says he cannot. And he can continue to improve his climbing skill (and get the +3 bonus to boot) while levelling up. I fail to see the problem?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Could you explain how the new system affects this? Your rogue can still have a rank or two in profession sailor. Nothing says he cannot. And he can continue to improve his climbing skill (and get the +3 bonus to boot) while levelling up. I fail to see the problem?
Sure. The Pathfinder system confuses "skills the PC is really pretty good at" with "skills the character has had for a long time."
Let's say Meriel the rogue started an apprenticeship as a cabinet-maker before finding her niche as a leather-clad knife-thrower. She takes one level of Craft(carpentry) at first level.
At 2nd level, she takes her first two ranks in Climb Walls.
In D&D, she'd be better at climbing walls (2 ranks, versus 1 rank). But since Pathfinder gives characters a permanent +3 in all 1st-Level skills, she'll be better at carpentry.
It makes more sense for the player to wait until 2nd level to buy that background skill in Craft(carpentry), to better represent the fact that Meriel just has a smattering of training. But do you see whay that's counter-intuitive?
Could you explain how the new system affects this? Your rogue can still have a rank or two in profession sailor. Nothing says he cannot. And he can continue to improve his climbing skill (and get the +3 bonus to boot) while levelling up. I fail to see the problem?Sure. The Pathfinder system confuses "skills the PC is really pretty good at" with "skills the character has had for a long time."
Let's say Meriel the rogue started an apprenticeship as a cabinet-maker before finding her niche as a leather-clad knife-thrower. She takes one level of Craft(carpentry) at first level.
At 2nd level, she takes her first two ranks in Climb Walls.
In D&D, she'd be better at climbing walls (2 ranks, versus 1 rank). But since Pathfinder gives characters a permanent +3 in all 1st-Level skills, she'll be better at carpentry.
It makes more sense for the player to wait until 2nd level to buy that background skill in Craft(carpentry), to better represent the fact that Meriel just has a smattering of training. But do you see whay that's counter-intuitive?
Just to be clear, anytime you have a points in any class skill you get a +3. It doesn't matter if you put it in at first level or 16th.
Yes, you get the +3 to any class skill with at least one rank in it whether or not you put a rank in it at first level.
|
|
Let's say Meriel the rogue started an apprenticeship as a cabinet-maker before finding her niche as a leather-clad knife-thrower. She takes one level of Craft(carpentry) at first level.
At 2nd level, she takes her first two ranks in Climb Walls.
In D&D, she'd be better at climbing walls (2 ranks, versus 1 rank). But since Pathfinder gives characters a permanent +3 in all 1st-Level skills, she'll be better at carpentry.
Totally incorrect. Pathfinder gives character a permanent +3 in all class skills, no matter when they are taken. Meriel gets her +3 to Climb as soon as she takes her first rank of Climb, be it 1st, 2nd or 20th levels.
She gets +3 to Craft (carpentry) because it is also a class skill for rogues. It has nothing to do with when it is first taken. That's actually the whole point of the new system; which class you take at 1st level doesn't matter for skills anymore (well, almost ... see DeadDM's post at the end of the first page of this thread).
Personally, I don't think Craft or Profession should be on anybody's class-skills list except for Expert NPCs, but that's gripe with what's on people's class-skills lists, not with the way the system is set up. I think it's a great system that solve most of the problems with the 3.5 system.
|
|
Could you explain how the new system affects this? Your rogue can still have a rank or two in profession sailor. Nothing says he cannot. And he can continue to improve his climbing skill (and get the +3 bonus to boot) while leveling up. I fail to see the problem?
The way I see it, my character concept might be that the rogue knows a little about sailing but is a really good climber (having been climbing masts, ropes but also walls, cliffs, etc) but by putting one rank in profession sailor and one rank in climb then the rogue has +4 in both so is just as good a sailor as they are a climber. At first level the only distinction I can make with class skills is being trained or untrained in them So the variation is lost. (Having less skill points to spend at 1st level also means that there is less diversity for the character's skills).
So by the new system I lose variation and diversity at 1st level. (Some of that can be gained with more levels but that is true with the old 3.5 system too so I wanted to focus on 1st level.)
And I wanted to know what people saw as the advantages of the new system to offset the losses. The advantages that people have pointed out seem to be that it stops multiclassing characters from taking the 1st level in a high skill class (which is a good point but not a major advantage) and that it makes building higher level characters easier in terms of having legitimate skill ranks for entry into prestige classes. (which doesn't seem to be a great advantage as any NPC who is important enough to have a prestige class will surely be one that you spend time building anyway?)
|
|
It is important for ease of use for any number of multi-class NPCs, whether they use a prestige class or not.
Yes, you cannot have 1 rank in every skill at 1st level, which a 3.5 rogue could conceivably do.
In this system, you are still free to choose background skills at 1st level, and never advance them further. That may mean you have to wait to take another skill until 2nd level. In the case where the skill is useable untrained and it was a cross-class skill for you, the only difference is a +1, not a big worry at all.
Considering that you can be 'trained' in an untrained skill without any ranks, you may opt not to put a rank in the 'background skill' but instead leave it as a +0 since even though it was part of your background, you never focused on 'mastering it'.
In some sense having ranks should represent specialized training. For example, I'm not a bad climber. Even as I approach 30 years old, I can still climb trees (though I do it very irregularly). I don't train in climbing, but it is easy enough to do. If I were on a ship, I could do the climbing thing easily enough without putting ranks since most of the DCs are low (hand and foot holds, inclination less that 90 degrees, etc). If I want to be a sailor, I might put a rank in profession sailor (as a background skill) and wait to put ranks into climb until 2nd level. If I never put another rank into Profession: Sailor, of course it will look like a background skill at 5th level.
I guess you could say that at 1st level it is harder to have 'background skills' that you stopped learning a long time ago. Which actually makes sense, since your life experiences are pretty limited at 1st level anyway.
|
|
The way I see it, my character concept might be that the rogue knows a little about sailing but is a really good climber (having been climbing masts, ropes but also walls, cliffs, etc) but by putting one rank in profession sailor and one rank in climb then the rogue has +4 in both so is just as good a sailor as they are a climber.
Personally, I'd say that Profession should not be a class skill for anyone except professionals, i.e., Experts. Sure, anyone can take ranks of Profession, but only Experts would gain the +3 class skills bonus. Slight of Hand, Acrobatics, Climb, these are the professional skills of a rogue and a practicing rogue probably doesn't have the time to also be a professional something else.
If this were the case, your rogue example would have 1 rank Profession (sailor) and 1 rank Climb. Climb would give him +4 and Profession (sailor) just +1.