Good afternoon.
This is not a troll attempt. It is a genuine inquiry.
Why are we wanting to change the skill system?
It's relatively simple- anyone who can add can figure it out. It'e existed through 3.0 and 3.5 with little problem. The only issue is whether or not int loss (or gain) is retroactive for skill points. Otherwise we have a generally solid system that's been integrated into prestige class requirements.
So the question is: why is there such hatred for the system? Myself, I have no objection to merging some skills and what not- but why do so many of you out there want to overhaul the entire thing?
And I'm looking for actual reasons here, not "cuz it sux" and such.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of changing the system- i just don't see any need for such.
-S
There is a few but the most pressing issue is its a pain for DM's. It is time consuming beyond belief and bogs down npc creation really bad. Some folks have no issue with it alot however do am sure someone will have other things to say but for me thats is really the issue.
Oh and the new system gets an A+ from me.
|
Good afternoon.
This is not a troll attempt. It is a genuine inquiry.
Why are we wanting to change the skill system?
A few reasons:
1) Building advanced creatures or characters with multiple classes can be a pain in the butt (you can't just add points together and buy skills, you have to do it level by level to make sure its accurate).2) A lot of folks (not all, but a lot) believe that there are a lot of skills that would be better served by consolidating them (particularly hide/move silently and spot/listen). The main reason for this belief is the desire for less die rolling.
3) A lot of skills are unattractive selections and are seldom chosen (use rope, anyone?), especially by characters with limited skill points. An effort to redesign specific skills to either make them more attractive or combine them with similar skills to increase their utility.
My greatest problems with the skill system were simple, and fixed by the Paizo changes:
1) Front-loaded skills at first level. If you're going to be a rogue/mage, you litereally had to take rogue first, or the x4-at-first-level skill system is going to punish you, and badly.
2) Redundant skills. Why exactly is Hide seperate from Move silently? Aren't they really two aspects of the same skill? Ditto for Spot and Listen, Balance and Tumble. And some skills I've never seen anyone take, except to qualify for prestige classes. And one I've never seen anyone take [yes, Use rope, I'm looking at you].
3) Cross-class skills. I can understand it that if it's not class for you, then it's harder to learn. But if it's class for one of my classes then it's still class for purposes of maximum rank, but not for how much I need to invest for.....get it? 1 = 1 is much, much better.
What I like about Paizo's skill system is the smoothness of it. If I add a class, all I do is adjust my class skills by +3, if they weren't already class.
|
|
So the question is: why is there such hatred for the system? Myself, I have no objection to merging some skills and what not- but why do so many of you out there want to overhaul the entire thing?And I'm looking for actual reasons here, not "cuz it sux" and such.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of changing the system- i just don't see any need for such.-S
The 3.5 skill system isn't bad for players. For the most part, since as a player you'll level up from 1st to whatever, all you have to do is figure out how many skill points you deserve, and assign as you wish (being careful to spend 2 points to raise a cross-class skill by 1).
As a DM, though, it is very hard. For multi-class players starting above 1st level it is very hard. For anyone trying to edit the stat block of anyone else, it is very hard. The reasons are many, but I'll try to lay out the biggest ones:
1) The x4 at 1st level means anyone reviewing or creating a character must know what the first level or HD was. A rogue 1/fighter 15 is very different from a fighter 15/rogue 1 is very different in terms of skill points (62 versus 44 assuming no Intelligence modifier).
2) The order of levels is also important, even if you know which level was taken first. A rogue 2/fighter 1 who advanced rogue/fighter/rogue can have maximum ranks in 4 class skills without spending any cross-class skills from his fighter levels. A character who advances rogue/rogue/fighter must spend fighter skill points to raise rogue skills to their maximum.
3) There exists the possibility for a large number of 'phantom' skill points. Take a fighter 5/rogue 5. If I tell you that he has 50 skill points spent, you'll know that some must have been spent on cross-class skills. Which ones? When? What if you are modifying the adcventure and need to take off two levels. How do you know if I'm even right about the skill point allocation. Basically, the current system makes it so it is near impossible to check anyone else's work.
4) Complex characters at high levels are a pain. If I make a Rakshasa Sorcerer2/rogue5/archmage 1 (assuming that is even possible) I can't just calculate the skill points from each level and assign them. The Rakshasa skill points must be spent on the Rakshasa skills unless I choose to pay the cross-class price. Likewise each of the various levels I must determine if I can pay for the skill I want (say concentration) at class or cross-class pricing. This means that I prety much have to advance level by level. Since all other mechanical attributes (other than starting HD) don't matter what order you progress, there is a definite benefit in figuring out the 'optimal' advancement path to end with the highest number of ranks in your 'important' skills, and an incentive to try to buy skills when they're a class skill not a cross-class.
The current Pathfinder 2 system pretty much takes care of all those problems. I'm very glad it has been addressed.
|
There is one simple reason the skill point system needs an overhaul. It makes a GMs job nightmarish at times. From the players point of view, any system is not really that difficult, as they are only minor adjustments over numerous levels, but from the GMs side, these are ever shifting variables that require a great deal of work every week to manage.
Take the following examples...
1 - Add 8 levels of ranger to a troll. Make sure to account for the upgrade to the elite array (which might affect Int).
2 - Build the skills for the following character: Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Fighter 2/Arcane Archer 4. Remember that the character's Int score increased from 14 to 15 at 4th, and to 16 at 8th.
3 - Build a party of rival 9th level adventurers to challenge the PCs. Aside from equipment (which I will get to in a later release), the skills are going to be the time consuming component.
Remember that a GM might have to tackle these problems once a week during game prep. If we can change the system to one that takes even half the time to work out, we will allow GMs to spend a lot more time coming up with fun games and a lot less time doing tedious math.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
- I too, like the flexibility of skill points as a player. From a GMs perspective though, they can be a bit of a nightmare, especially at higher levels. This was the primary reason the ranks were pulled.- We also changed to the selection system to give some of the "lower skill progression" classes a bit of a boost. 20th level fighters tend to be great at just two skills, and completely untrained in all the rest. Although this eats into the rogue role a bit, we added to its role in other ways to balance.
- There was a thought in earlier notes of allowing you to "split a selection" to get two skills at a lower bonus (1/2 level + ability mod or 1/4 for cross class) to represent a sort of Hobby skills.
- There was also a variant that gave you a pair of Hobby skills directly that had to be chosen from a set list (craft, profession, perform, etc) that represented training and dabbling in non-adventuring skills.
- In the end there was one other problem I want to bring up that led to the change. If you wanted to be truly good at specific skills, you pretty much had to max ranks, meaning that this system and the old were pretty similar (in the end). If you split up your points, it took quite some time to have any real proficiency (this is a thin arguement, I know, but it is true for a number of skills, not all though). In the end, it seemed simpler just to assume max and give you more skills to play with.
Thoughts? I am not set on this decision, but I do like it right now. I just wanted to give you all a few extra nuggets to chew on. Please continue...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
|
I must say that I like the Rolemaster-style rank-based system better than the 4e version simply for flexibility. However, when I read the section for converting PrC skill requirements for class versus cross-classes skills I though of a much smoother way to get it to flow. Simply categorize the +3 bonus for a trained class skill as a +3 rank bonus. It could have its own column on the skill table for easy adjustment and it would count as ranks for PrC requirements. That way you don't need to make all kinds of adjustments when adjusting PrC requirements - just read it straight.
The 3.5 skill system isn't bad for players. For the most part, since as a player you'll level up from 1st to whatever, all you have to do is figure out how many skill points you deserve, and assign as you wish (being careful to spend 2 points to raise a cross-class skill by 1).
I think I may be one of the few players who found the 3.5 skill system to be a royal pain. I played 2e for years, then took a long break and recently came back to 3.5. In the course of our current adventure, I'm not sure my bard/fighter has had the proper number of skill ranks since 2nd level (we're now at 7th level), what with cross-class skill costs, bonuses for magic items being added and subtracted mid-game, ability boosting magic items changing ability mods mid-game, racial bonuses, feats, etc. Part of that is my own fault for not recognizing the need to track ranks separately from modifiers early on, but part of it is due to the complexity of the system. When I realized how screwed up my skill ranks were, I actually created a spreadsheet to track them across levels from that point forward. And when a math-phobic former English major resorts to creating a spreadsheet because it's *easier* to keep track of something, I think it makes a pretty strong case for the system being a bit overly complex. ;)
I was thrilled with the concept of simplifying skills, and am a little disappointed to see skill ranks return in Alpha 2. At least the A2 system doesn't look like quite as much of a nightmare to keep track of as the 3.5 system is.
TMS;
So far as I recall, the published character sheet keeps track of modifiers separately from Rank. (it has ability modifier, rank, and Misc columns- if I remember correctly).
For all of you though- thanks for the replies. I'm still not sure i'm 100% for a full skill overhaul, but I do see your rationale behind it.
Thanks for the well thought replies.
-S
In the earlier games I played in, my DM's simplified it by totally chucking Cross-Class limitations out the window and making everything across the board Class skills for all. It made for some interesting and creative characters.
|
|
I must say that I like the Rolemaster-style rank-based system better than the 4e version simply for flexibility. However, when I read the section for converting PrC skill requirements for class versus cross-classes skills I though of a much smoother way to get it to flow. Simply categorize the +3 bonus for a trained class skill as a +3 rank bonus. It could have its own column on the skill table for easy adjustment and it would count as ranks for PrC requirements. That way you don't need to make all kinds of adjustments when adjusting PrC requirements - just read it straight.
this only works if the skill is from your class.. but it will penalice someone who has not that skill in his class buit can achieve the PrC...
i will go with Paizo... just cut 3 points from the max of the skills requieres... obviously this will make some skills PrC a bit ridiculous to get, as there are some that requiere only 5 ranks in some skills... i think the feats would get in there...
I love the system... i will just boost all classes with 1 or 2 base skill points for the class.. why? ok the Rogue would get a boost... but lets think about this... the fighter and the cleric and a few other classes don't usually get lots of intelligence as an attribute, so we are talking about chars that would get 1 to 3 or 4 skills points per level...
I like games focused in the intelligent use of skills... so i give all of them a boost so it will be enhanced... but this is me :D
|
|
In the earlier games I played in, my DM's simplified it by totally chucking Cross-Class limitations out the window and making everything across the board Class skills for all. It made for some interesting and creative characters.
exactly!!!!
why penalice a character because his background says he knows how to do soemthing or he has certain hobby... why can't a Noble Fighter not know of linguistics, etc...
for all this i thank Paizo for bringing a houserule i had for a while... making "Sense Motive" class skill for paladins & Clerics... a friend insist it was done in 3.5... but since i worked mostly with 3.0 i am not sure...
So the question is: why is there such hatred for the system? Myself, I have no objection to merging some skills and what not- but why do so many of you out there want to overhaul the entire thing?And I'm looking for actual reasons here, not "cuz it sux" and such.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of changing the system- i just don't see any need for such.-S
The 3.5 skill system isn't bad for players. For the most part, since as a player you'll level up from 1st to whatever, all you have to do is figure out how many skill points you deserve, and assign as you wish (being careful to spend 2 points to raise a cross-class skill by 1).
As a DM, though, it is very hard. For multi-class players starting above 1st level it is very hard. For anyone trying to edit the stat block of anyone else, it is very hard. The reasons are many, but I'll try to lay out the biggest ones:
1) The x4 at 1st level means anyone reviewing or creating a character must know what the first level or HD was. A rogue 1/fighter 15 is very different from a fighter 15/rogue 1 is very different in terms of skill points (62 versus 44 assuming no Intelligence modifier).
2) The order of levels is also important, even if you know which level was taken first. A rogue 2/fighter 1 who advanced rogue/fighter/rogue can have maximum ranks in 4 class skills without spending any cross-class skills from his fighter levels. A character who advances rogue/rogue/fighter must spend fighter skill points to raise rogue skills to their maximum.
3) There exists the possibility for a large number of 'phantom' skill points. Take a fighter 5/rogue 5. If I tell you that he has 50 skill points spent, you'll know that some must have been spent on cross-class skills. Which ones? When? What if you are modifying the adcventure and need to take off two levels. How do you know if I'm even right about the skill point allocation. Basically, the current system makes it so it is near impossible to check anyone...
In general the easiest CR encounters for PCs to defeat normally in game are NPCs with PC or NPC levels instead of appropiate level CR encounters barring an optimized high level fullcaster.
IMO the occassional BBEG with a single level or a few levels in a PC class shouldn't be that much of a problem particularly for a DM to design since the BBEG doesn't need to be mechanically perfect even the rare BBEG with several different class levels.
|
|
In my game, I am seldom willing to accept anything less than perfection. 'Guessing' skill points doesn't fly with me. If I want to use a bad guy (or a good guy) I want to make sure the skills are right.
This includes monsters that are advanced by class level. And this frequently means checking the work of someone else. For example, did you know that many of the monsters in the Monster Manual are just wrong? Completely? They aren't suitable to use as a template for advancing anything since they may be completely wrong. And if they're right, trying to figure out what modifiers they used... Take a look at the werebear entry.
Certainly some people are willing to accept 'close' as 'good enough'. I'm glad that Paizo wants a system that makes it easier for them to do the editing correctly. I'm glad that it will be easier for me to check their work. Then when something wierd shows up in Justice Ironbriar's skill totals, I can 'reverse engineer' it to double check that I'm mistaken, and they're not.
So, the skill system is being altered for the perfectionists who play the game. I'm cool with that.
An easy example, the almighty Tarrasque is so under-skilled it's not funny. Once you pull all the bonuses/penalties for stats, feats, and racial, you get a skill set that looks like:
Listen +5, Search +13, Spot +5, Survival +10
instead of
Listen +17, Search +9, Spot +17, Survival +14
33 skill points. With 48 Magical Beast HD, given its INT, the Tarrasque should have 51 (4x1 + 47) skill points. 18 skill points is no small loss for a creature at that CR. It would not be unreasonable for it to have a Spot and Listen check of 26.
Simply put it takes too much time to generate a high level character.
More accurately put, it took some people what they percieved to be too much time to generate a high level or a complex character. (A high level single class character in 3.5 is no more time consuming to pick skills for than a 1st level one, the level isn't the problem, the complexity of the character is)
*SHRUG* I actually have 3 OTHER reasons.
Does any of the changes to the skill system address any of those? Because they don't appear to, IMO.
|
|
Personally, I don't get why some game designers keep trying to fix what's not broken. If we eve went with this version of the game we'd have to put skill points back to the way it is in 3.5 since this version causes infinitely more work down the road than a silly x4 mod takes at first level. Seriously, what idiot can't handle (and remember to handle) a simple multiplication that gets done only once at the start of a character's career.
By getting rid of the 4x mult, you're causing much more work by having to do several reoccurring calculations when checking to see if you qualify for prestige classes. They took something that worked nicely and messed it up royally. distributing skill points at first level takes no more time than at any other level, but having to take every prestige class's skill requirements and have it convert it twice for class and cross class skills will bog down making characters above first level big time.
If they so blindly insist on dropping 4x mult that they don't care how much work the cause down the road, then start everyone at 4th level and be done with it, similar to d20 modern.
As long as the skill system insists on multiplying our work, there is no way my group will not want to even try playing with it.
You genuinely think that simply subtracting three from a listed number of ranks to see the minimum level is harder than multiplying skill points at 1st-level by four?
Besides which, by not multiplying at 1st-level, it makes classes like fighter and wizard more attractive to take at 1st-level and has the simple rule that maximum ranks is equal to your hit dice, rather than HD+3 (not much difference, I'll grant you, but it cuts out another constant calculation).
|
|
Why is it that the ones that can't think reply? Your saying that a signle one time calculation is more work than making a half dozen calculations to adjust every published skill requirement in every PrC ever made every level. You need to think these things out before you post.
Take any PrCs your interested in and make those adjustments to them over and over every level with differing calculations for class and CC skills and tell me if you really think your saving time in the long run.
As its stands Pathfinder is useless. I'll stick with the superior 3.5 rules.
|
|
well after trying out the pathfinder skill system on some high lvl Npc's of mine i can safely say it took half the time than under the 3.5 rules. Also ive noticed a lot of speeding up in using skills in game time (Previous rules if you had a sneaky charecter sneaking up on someone you needed to make a hide and move silently check opposed by a Spot and listen wheras now its just a stealth check vs a perception check cutting out two roles may not seem like a lot but I can say that in a game that uses a lot of sneaks.)
Also speaking of sneaks with the new skill system its possible to make something like a fighter reasonably stealthy without completly nerfing him out of other skills.
Why is it that the ones that can't think reply? Your saying that a signle one time calculation is more work than making a half dozen calculations to adjust every published skill requirement in every PrC ever made every level. You need to think these things out before you post.
Take any PrCs your interested in and make those adjustments to them over and over every level with differing calculations for class and CC skills and tell me if you really think your saving time in the long run.
As its stands Pathfinder is useless. I'll stick with the superior 3.5 rules.
Thank you for the passive-aggressive insult. I'll leave it up to you to determine the irony of your post about people not thinking and needing to think things out, as you have two typos and the same basic spelling error repeated twice in just five lines.