|
One of the the things I did not like about 3.0 and 3.5 was the fighter and paladin getting so few class skills and very few skill points to put into them.
The most important skill they need is perception. This should not be a cross-class skill. While attacking and defending the party from enemies is their primary function, it is a lot harder to do if he/she can not hear or see them coming.
I can understand why a cleric, sorcerer or wizard would get so few skill points as they lead a mostly sheltered life pursuing their chosen field of study (and they get more class skills), but the fighter and paladin are out in the world learning and doing things. They should get skill points of 4+Int modifier like a barbarian and druid.
The barbarian is not punished skillwise for being an ignorant meat shield, so whare should the fighter and paladin who train to learn their class be?
What is your opinion?
I'd give the fighter Perception as a class skill (and maybe 4 skill points/level), but not the paladin. Paladins spend all their time thinking about how right they always are. Paying too much attention to anything outside of their narrow world-view -- except to covert it or kill it -- is an impediment to their divine mission. I'm not being down on paladins; they're one of my favorite classes. But really, that's how I see it.
Fighters, barbarians, rangers, rogues, and monks should get Perception as a class skill. Wizards, paladins, clerics, et al. should not. Of course, in the Pathfinder 2.0 system, "cross-class" just means you don't get an automatic +3 bump, so it's less critical an issue now than it used to be.
Here's what I think Fighters should get Class Skill wise:
Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Handle Animal , Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (dungeoneering, engineering, geography, history, local, nobility), Perception, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Survival, Swim. Two skills I'm not sure about are Bluff and Heal. With the new skill system, characters who took those skills would still be effective and If one wanted to be more effective, one could take Skill Focus and or multiclass.
Alot of people seem to be feeling that the last "tweak" needed to make the skill rank system perfect would be the inclussion of more skill points, be it more points per class level, bonus points every few character levels or bonus points at level one.
There is alot of discussion on this subject lately in the "Do not want skill ranks. Please come up with better compromise." thread in the Alpha Release 2/ Skills and Feats section. (Although this probably is a much better place for this subject.)You might want to see what's been posted.
|
Here's what I think Fighters should get Class Skill wise:
Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Handle Animal , Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (dungeoneering, engineering, geography, history, local, nobility), Perception, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Survival, Swim. Two skills I'm not sure about are Bluff and Heal. With the new skill system, characters who took those skills would still be effective and If one wanted to be more effective, one could take Skill Focus and or multiclass.
Paladins should have: Craft, Diplomacy, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Knowledge (History, nobility, planes, religion), perception, profession, ride, sense motive, spellcraft
I cant agree with that view about the paladins (most cause if that is so why in the hell the detect evil???), looks to close with the lawfull & stupid confusion.
Not stupidity, just narrow-mindedness, which is more or less the definition of lawful (of course, they would claim that lack of resolve is the definition of chaotic, but that's another issue). And detect evil sort of makes me even more certain they shouldn't get Perception -- why would they hone their physical senses when they have a better, spiritual sense to rely on?
|
|
I agree that base skill points should be 4 + INT bonus, just as bas HD has become 1d4. Cross class skills penalize a character enough; low skill points seem like a double penalty. Especially for classes such as a Wizard or Cleric. In concept, these two classes spend the majority of their time studying. Why would they lack for skills? I know some will argue that a Wizard already gains some of that back, since Intelligence is the primary ability for that class and 4 + INT bonus goes a longer way for them. But they are also hampered with a class skill list that lacks a lot of combat useful skills (Perception, Acrobatics, etc.) and pay the cross-class penalty for that.
|
I can understand why a cleric, sorcerer or wizard would get so few skill points as they lead a mostly sheltered life pursuing their chosen field of study (and they get more class skills) ...
Sorcerer? No, not likely, actually. They are given an innate ability that doesn't really require all that much training. I spoke with my brother yesterday, who exclaimed his dislike towards sorcerers to be the lack of skills.
I ask you, why should a sorcerer be an individual using a lot of her time studying? Studying what exactly?
|
|
I cant agree with that view about the paladins (most cause if that is so why in the hell the detect evil???), looks to close with the lawfull & stupid confusion.Not stupidity, just narrow-mindedness, which is more or less the definition of lawful (of course, they would claim that lack of resolve is the definition of chaotic, but that's another issue). And detect evil sort of makes me even more certain they shouldn't get Perception -- why would they hone their physical senses when they have a better, spiritual sense to rely on?
But they should definitely have intimidate.
I cant agree with that view about the paladins (most cause if that is so why in the hell the detect evil???), looks to close with the lawfull & stupid confusion.Not stupidity, just narrow-mindedness, which is more or less the definition of lawful (of course, they would claim that lack of resolve is the definition of chaotic, but that's another issue). And detect evil sort of makes me even more certain they shouldn't get Perception -- why would they hone their physical senses when they have a better, spiritual sense to rely on?
Because not everyone they would run into conflict with is actually evil in alignment. Just as likely to run afoul of a neutral druid or a chaotic good wizard. Or even another lawful good paladin of another faith. Common alignment and common class doesnt mean they get along and that always means the need to be able to keep on your toes, especially for someone who is supposed to be the front line of defense for their church.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
+1, but I think every classes with 2 points need to get 4 points. Please change that !
We've done this in out 3/Whatever games for along time.
Honestly, I switched to HARP from D&D (I'm an old Rolemaster guy anyways...), and your skill points aren't based on your class, your class determines what skills are cheaper to buy. A Fighter can still develop Perception skills to the same Rank as a Rogue, but it costs a lot of their points.If Pathfinder would just use the 4+ as a minimum, I think that one of the worst aspects of many characters would be fixed.
-Uriel
PS: Pathfinder picking up the 3.5 gauntlet has made me hold off on chucking/converting all of my Campaign stuff to HARP. Bravo guys, I look forward to being a 2 System Gamer now.
|
|
I cant agree with that view about the paladins(most cause if that is so why in the hell the detect evil???), looks to close with the lawfull & stupid confusion.
Off-Topic (Sorry): I remember coming to the conclusion (Based on a particular player's portrayal of their Paladin, as well as another Player's Thief, that the only two Alignments in D&D were 'Lawful-Stupid' and Chaotic-Self-Centered'...
:D
-Uriel