Still 2+Int skill points?


Races & Classes

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

I agree that ALL 2+ need to be increased to 4+

especially at 1st level...the reduction of the x4 skill points makes very very one-dimensional characters, and NO ONE will take knowledge skills, which are great role-playing tools!


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SirUrza wrote:

Not really. If I'm designing a rogue NPC maybe I gave up 2 or 3 ranks in Stealth to give Ride a boost because after the PCs find him (he's stealthing about) the PCs are going to have to chase him on horseback... but the Rogue doesn't know he's being followed, so he needs a decent Perception score too.

If I had more skill points I wouldn't have had to give up any ranks in stealth, it'd be maximized and I may even have more ranks in ride. Such a NPC shouldn't have a dump skill because he's an encounter NPC.

I wouldn't consider that a problem, because if you want the NPC to have X number of ranks in a single (or multiple) skills, you can give him that amount, and assign any extras to other skills that might make sense for him.

Not to mention this change wouldn't affect the rogue at all, only the cleric, fighter, sorcerer, and wizard.


I personally feel that EVERY class certainly wouldn't be hurt by +2 skill points, even with the combinations of many old skills into a single skill.

I wouldn't mind a more skill-focused game where even fighters are expected to rely more on jumping around, mobility, or secondary skills...

...but I know the majority of the people on the boards don't ant Rogues, Monks, etc, to get +2 skill points too.

That being said, I'd be happy if just all the classes that previously got 2 skill points got 4.


Jason, I understand you concerns about backward compatibility and the the ease of using existing 3.5 modules and material. From this thread however I am getting the impression that this particular change may not have as drastic an impact as you fear. I also believe that this may be a situation where other design guidelines may take precedence. Specifically balance and gameplay issues.

Most of the 2+INT classes were considered skill starved. While removing the cross class penalties help greatly, it is in part slightly offset by the removal of the x4 multiplier at 1st level granting more points to spread around. Since this particular change effects all classes equally it does little to address this issue in particular.

The consolidation of skills benefited the classes with the highest number of skill points per level the most. Add to this the fact that all but 2 classes gained additional class skills (including fly but not counting those skills which combined old skills).

When I looked at the effective skill changes by class (effective gain in class skills from consolidation minus number of new class skills added) I found that those classes with 4+INT or more all came out ahead under Alpha 3 with the exception of the Druid which broke even. The Fighter gained no benefit from consolidation (losing the only skill that would have benefited Jump) but gaining 4 new class skills. The Sorcerer also took a loss gaining more new class skills than benefit from consolidation. For the most part the rest of the 2+INT classes broke even with the exception of the Paladin who gained from consolidation but got no new class skills.

If class skills are meant to be particularly thematically appropriate to a class, this puts a particular burden on those classes with the fewest skills and limits customization options. It also forces the choice of practical vs. flavor in skill selection.

For the sake of improving the game I ask that you look at what I have presneted here and reconsider increasing the 2+INT classes to 4+INT.

Jason, you have done a wonderful job at making meaningful changes to improve the game while maintaining maximum backward compatibility. Please do not stop short when gains can be made that outweigh their loss of compatibility.

Liberty's Edge

Okay. I'm confused.

After the changes to the hit points, class abilities, turn undead, spells, domain powers, school powers, the CMB (all of which I like), and adding such mechanics as Rage points (don't like) and Ki pools (kinda like), changing the minimum skill points is problematic for backwards combatibility?

I would have figured Pathfinder as a whole was problematic toward backwards compatibility.

Don't get me wrong... I love most everything that has come out of Pathfinder so far (with exception to the afore-mentioned Rage points). I just don't see adding 2 more skill points per level (or HD, as the case may be) as a huge problem for conversion.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I agree with the 4 points/level minimum, but I'm not going to spend hours arguing it anymore.

Either Jason, et. al., has made up his mind and isn't interested or he didn't spend much time in the skills forum for Alpha 2. Either way, the arguments have been made for both sides, more folks seem to prefer 4/level but there are legitimate arguments for keeping a few classes at 2. You can read it all here or continue as you wish.


Wildfire142 wrote:

2 points more per level means a maximum of 40 skill points for that 20th level fighter/paladin etc to assign. With the other changes to the classes that's going to take a minute or two extra as other people have said and will add greater depth to both PC's and NPC's. please at least consider including it as it as an optional rule.

Pick two skills, max them out. Ten seconds.

Pick two skills at 1st level to max out for the rest of the career. Spread out the rest as usual.


Well, I'm currently DMing Age of Worms, having played the first two modules, and I'm planning on converting the campaign to Pathfinder rules... and while I can add new class abilities to all NPCs relatively fast, and condensing their skills is easy too, but adding more skills points to spend to every single major NPC in the campaign would be a much greater and time-consuming task, so I understand Jason's reasoning for keeping the skill ranks as they are. Also, with the condensing of skills I have been creating some characters and it's not as a big of an issue as it used to be.

Liberty's Edge

With some characters it isn't much of an issue. For others it is.

The fighter is the poster-child for 4 skills. In the Gazateer they offer 'martial school training' that adds like 6 skills to the Fighter skill list and grants two extra skill points per level. The problem is, a fighter has to give up a bonus feat for these skills. The skills listed and the extra skills SHOULD be what all Fighters have.

It fits the image of the fighter better than the skills and number of points that the 3.5 (and Alpha 3) fighter have.

Other classes are in a similar boat. Adding more skills adds more interesting options. It should be built into the rules from the beginning because it doesn't terribly affect backward compatability but does a lot for making the game better. I'm surprised at how much better the game runs with just a couple more skill points on the low end.

Liberty's Edge

Arnim Thayer wrote:

Okay. I'm confused.

After the changes to the hit points, class abilities, turn undead, spells, domain powers, school powers, the CMB (all of which I like), and adding such mechanics as Rage points (don't like) and Ki pools (kinda like), changing the minimum skill points is problematic for backwards combatibility?

I would have figured Pathfinder as a whole was problematic toward backwards compatibility.

I agree. I like the changes so far but the backwards compatibility argument doesn't hold weight here. If you don't want to do it

Jason, just say so. But in face of all the other system wide changes the idea that two minutes of conversion work might be a problem is somewhat insulting. You have already blown easy backwards compatibility out of the water.

In light of all the changes I really think dumping 2 skill points per level will be fine.


So, I did a little converting from 3.5 to Pathfinder v3.

Figuring out conflated skills and class changes took much longer than dealing with the additional skill ranks on a Fighter.

In play, the low skill count has come into play several times; the Fighter has had to choose between being an athletic meathead, or being basically 'with it' but strangely milquetoast outside of combat; with 2+, there's no middle ground.


Totally disagree. I'm glad Pathfinder kept 2 sp as the low threshhold. To do otherwise encourages Int as a dump stat, plus the lack of skill points has already been solved with the combining of skills and the change to cross-class skills.

A fighter can near match a ranger in Spot, Listen, Search, Hide, and Move Silently with his 2 measly ranks and Skill focus in Perception and Stealth. He doesn't need more skill points.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

As another argument for keeping 2+Int skill points, if favored class were changed to grant 1 bonus skill point per level instead of 1 bonus hit point per level, the 2+Int classes would do just fine most of the time.

Dark Archive

Epic Meepo wrote:
As another argument for keeping 2+Int skill points, if favored class were changed to grant 1 bonus skill point per level instead of 1 bonus hit point per level, the 2+Int classes would do just fine most of the time.

I think that adding skill points to favored classes might be a little too much, but what about adding a feat, called "Skilled"? Make the prerequisites Human, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc, and allow +1 skill point per level. I think it's a valuable enough feat that people would choose it. Not just fighters, but rogues too.

It's got precedence, as in the similar vein to Toughness, right?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
modus0 wrote:
I wouldn't consider that a problem, because if you want the NPC to have X number of ranks in a single (or multiple) skills, you can give him that amount, and assign any extras to other skills that might make sense for him. Not to mention this change wouldn't affect the rogue at all, only the cleric, fighter, sorcerer, and wizard.

Well then maybe I should be talking about a fighter sneaking about?

In any case it is a problem. Read what I was replying to.. no.. don't bother, I'll explain it to you. I was replying to someone that stated that more skill points wouldn't effect the conversion of existing NPCs and that extra skill points could be written off as being put into dump skills. My example was to show him that it's a terrible idea.


I'm on the fence here. In the original system the mininum 4+ skill point system was one of my first houserules, and it made an immediate effect on the overall happy factor.

However, much of the dissatisfaction was due to crossclass skills and their doubled point cost. Most of my players wanted the extra skill points so they could make their characters more rounded and diverse.

Now that there are, technically, no crossclass skills any longer, that problem is fixed. I've been running our playtests with the Pathfinder R.A.W. and so far none of my players has voiced concern about lacking in skills with the system thus far. Plus, I think the "Int as dump stat" argument could be considered valid.


Archade wrote:
Epic Meepo wrote:
As another argument for keeping 2+Int skill points, if favored class were changed to grant 1 bonus skill point per level instead of 1 bonus hit point per level, the 2+Int classes would do just fine most of the time.

I think that adding skill points to favored classes might be a little too much, but what about adding a feat, called "Skilled"? Make the prerequisites Human, Half-Elf, or Half-Orc, and allow +1 skill point per level. I think it's a valuable enough feat that people would choose it. Not just fighters, but rogues too.

It's got precedence, as in the similar vein to Toughness, right?

This is basically coming back to including Open Minded to game proper instead of having it tucked away in Psionics as a General Feat. There also isn't any good reason to limit the additional skill points based on Race. That's like saying only Dwarves, Half-Orcs, and Humans should be allowed to access toughness.

As it stand Open Minded gives 5 skill points/ranks. However it's wording will need to be brought into line with the new skill system. Like the revision of Toughness, Open Minded could be reasonably revised to 1 extra skill rank per level. This has been my suggested compromise. Given that Pathfinder sports 3 extra bonus feats over 20 levels it doesn't really changed prior 3.5 character builds. As a Feat option NPCs never have to select them and thus never have to be modified skill wise.

Yes, I am assuming you would be able to select this Open Minded feat multiple times. Unlike the new Pathfinder Toughness which you can only select once. Alternatively Open Minded could be revised to granting 2 skill ranks plus 1 per level (and 1 every level there after), which is only selectable once.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Can we change the name? Open Minded just doesn't sound right to me. Fast Learner or Skillful or something like that maybe.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

As I have already mentioned, I too am in favor of making all core classes have a minimum of 4 skill ranks +int modifier per level.

It is what I am doing in my playtesting, and it is working well so far.

It is a house rule that I have used for years in 3.5 with no adverse effects. No one playing any of the other classes has complained about it either (and my players are very vocal bunch!!)

In my experience, adding a couple of skill ranks to major NPCs is quick and easy. Especially when you consider that you have to redo most of the skills for them anyways, if you are upgrading them to pathfinder.

I am playing RofRL mostly as is. I am only adding more enemy as I have a large group of players. I have had no problems so far using the AP as is (well, I did calculate the CMB for the enemy/monsters).

Liberty's Edge

Arne Schmidt wrote:

Totally disagree. I'm glad Pathfinder kept 2 sp as the low threshhold. To do otherwise encourages Int as a dump stat, plus the lack of skill points has already been solved with the combining of skills and the change to cross-class skills.

A fighter can near match a ranger in Spot, Listen, Search, Hide, and Move Silently with his 2 measly ranks and Skill focus in Perception and Stealth. He doesn't need more skill points.

Intelligence is never a 'dump stat' except by necessity. More skills are always good. So, having a fighter with an 18 Intelligence is better than having one with a 10 Intelligence, but if you have to sacrifice something, a martial class is likely to put their highest scores in Strength and Constitution. Some builds also require a high Dexterity.

Intelligence is useful for certain feats chains (Expertise) and more skills.

A fighter with two skills match a Ranger in 2 skills with the addition of 2 feats. That doesn't mean the Ranger isn't much better. Assuming the 10 Int and non-human, the Ranger has 4 more skills. So the fighter has perception and stealth. The ranger has perception, stealth, survival, knowledge (dungeoneering), handle animal, and climb.

That's a more well rounded character. Letting the fighter have two more skill points doesn't mean that he's going to be a Ranger. He'll still be down 2 skill points and he won't be getting other class features. The ranger got a bump with the d10 HD, so let's give something to the fighter to be fair. Just about every class got something in the Alpha. The fighter didn't. In fact, you could argue that the fighter had more taken from him. Every class has more feats, so the bonus feats the fighter gets are less 'special'. And now that teh fighter gets 21 feats in 20 levels, (instead of 17) he is less likely to have a need for all those feats (since at some point he has all the ones he wants anyways).

But it isn't just the fighter. The 'average' intelligence cleric should have a few different skills. Knowledge (religion), Heal, Diplomacy and Sense Motive are my favorites. That should be a 'basic' cleric. If he has a high Intelligence he might pick up Concentration (or Spellcraft if they remain combined, though I strongly dislike it) and Knowledge (planes). Since those skills would greatly expand the character, having a high Int (14 in this case, or 12 with human) would be desired by many players. With the 2 skill points, it almost isn't worth it to bother with a high Intelligence since you'll never be able to get the skills you want, anyway, so you might resign yourself to not bothering with a high intelligence.

I personally feel the argument has been done to death over the last few releases, but I'm amazed that it has not been changed, and the final official word is 'it is bad for backward compatability'. As others have said, that just doesn't make much sense as 'the argument' for keeping it the same as 3.5.


I personally would rather have a fighter gain access to perception as a class skill. I play Psionic Warriors alot and it irks me to no end how neither fighters nor PsiWarriors cant"spot or listen". What the hell is that, are you telling me that all those guards on duty have no ability to see or hear someone coming? It's totally idiotic, basicly only rogues, monks or rangers have to pull guard duty, because the fighter is deaf dumb and blind.


The Italian wrote:
I personally would rather have a fighter gain access to perception as a class skill. I play Psionic Warriors alot and it irks me to no end how neither fighters nor PsiWarriors cant"spot or listen". What the hell is that, are you telling me that all those guards on duty have no ability to see or hear someone coming? It's totally idiotic, basicly only rogues, monks or rangers have to pull guard duty, because the fighter is deaf dumb and blind.

Actually, since cross-class (or should we start calling them non-class) skills are no longer bought at a cost of 2 for 1 making perception a class skill is less of an issue. The point of contention here is that if you want a fighter who can stand guard (perception), and climb, and jump, and do anything else you better have a high Int under the current rules. Otherwise you simply don't have the points to spread around.

I'm also starting to get the feeling that those against increasing the 2+Int classes to 4 tend to use point buy for stats and are seeing MSD (Multiple Stat Dependency) as a balancing factor to stop single exceptional stats. Adding a few point to Int is not an option for those of us who roll stats, and "dump stats" give a way to offset a bad roll. I guess I just can't understand the "dump stat" argument.


In my opinion either consolidate more or give the people 4+ Int!


Another one for the minimum of 4+Int for skills. There is hardly any work to make the conversion from 2+Int to 4+Int compared to choosing feats for characters.


DarkOne the Drow wrote:
Another one for the minimum of 4+Int for skills. There is hardly any work to make the conversion from 2+Int to 4+Int compared to choosing feats for characters.

And make me another. 4 seems like it should really be the minimum, as even with a high int wizard you feel like your getting left behind. I wont even bother telling you about fighters, paladins, or sorcs.

It just makes sense. I love the idea and would love to see you go that far to correct this problem.

Scarab Sages

I am also for 4 skill points being the minimum.

In fact, adding two skill points to every class would not hurt my feelings. I have played with this house rule for years in D&D 3.5 and only seen good things come of more versatile PCs.

Gary


...and another vote for 4+ from me. those hurt the most (the ranger,rogue and bard) all received hitpoint bumps. give me some skillpoints to put into some cross class skills


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
SirUrza wrote:

Well then maybe I should be talking about a fighter sneaking about?

In any case it is a problem. Read what I was replying to.. no.. don't bother, I'll explain it to you. I was replying to someone that stated that more skill points wouldn't effect the conversion of existing NPCs and that extra skill points could be written off as being put into dump skills. My example was to show him that it's a terrible idea.

Care to explain a bit better why it's such a terrible idea giving 5 classes 2 extra skill points and allowing just a bit of extra skill diversity?

Because I'm either not truly understanding your concerns, or your argument has a less than solid basis.

The Exchange

Freesword wrote:


<snip>
I'm also starting to get the feeling that those against increasing the 2+Int classes to 4 tend to use point buy for stats and are seeing MSD (Multiple Stat Dependency) as a balancing factor to stop single exceptional stats. Adding a few point to Int is not an option for those of us who roll stats, and "dump stats" give a way to offset a bad roll. I guess I just can't understand the "dump stat" argument.

Actually I'm against it and I have used so many stat methods, it's not even funny. With a point buy, you are less likely to get the Int you want because of MSD than if you were to roll it from my experience. I think though the reason people want more stats is because they are looking at what they want to be doing and not what the character should be doing. A fighter is designed with the idea that he is a combat specialist. Skills are useless to him because his main role is to fight. That's why he has the best armor selection and weapon selection and so many feats to shake a stick at. With that many feats, if he were to go guard or something, he would then take the time(Feat) and up his alertness and maybe even focus on the skills. Otherwise, his training is all about combat. That's how he was designed and meant to be played. I understand that people want to see their character work differently than what the game was designed for, but I don't see why the game has to be designed for those people when the game works well the way it is.

Anywhos, if any skill changes are to be made, I support the 3/4/5/6 method of 4/6/8 method. There should be a difference between a barbarian and a fighter and a druid.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
fliprushman wrote:
A fighter is designed with the idea that he is a combat specialist. Skills are useless to him because his main role is to fight.

Being a combat specialist should not preclude one from being capable of doing several other non-combat things.

Using a similar reasoning to "combat specialist = skill unnecessary" the rogue, with their 8+ Int skills should have the BAB of a wizard, and no combat abilities (like sneak attack) at all.

fliprushman wrote:
I understand that people want to see their character work differently than what the game was designed for, but I don't see why the game has to be designed for those people when the game works well the way it is.

Actually, I just want a character who's capable of doing things other than their main focus, without needing to multi-class.


fliprushman wrote:


Actually I'm against it and I have used so many stat methods, it's not even funny. With a point buy, you are less likely to get the Int you want because of MSD than if you were to roll it from my experience. I think though the reason people want more stats is because they are looking at what they want to be doing and not what the character should be doing.

I apologize if my statement came across as an overgeneralization. I was specifically referring to the dump stat argument against the skill increase. I feel it is an argument in favor of spreading out abilities under point buy further to limit gutting one stat to boost another. Perhaps it is a conflict between concept and power builds within point buy that I am perceiving.

fliprushman wrote:


A fighter is designed with the idea that he is a combat specialist. Skills are useless to him because his main role is to fight.

I disagree that skills are useless to him. While he should excel at combat, he should not be a burden to the party in skill heavy situations.

fliprushman wrote:


With that many feats, if he were to go guard or something, he would then take the time(Feat) and up his alertness and maybe even focus on the skills. Otherwise, his training is all about combat. That's how he was designed and meant to be played. I understand that people want to see their character work differently than what the game was designed for, but I don't see why the game has to be designed for those people when the game works well the way it is.

And at higher levels he needs to spend those feats on combat related choices to remain relevant. In 3.5 a straight fighter who spent his feats on non combat options became little more than a speedbump so the wizard had time to get off spells after 10th level. Even spending ALL his feats on combat he still was little better. If that was what the fighter was designed for then it was poor design to begin with. The fighter shouldn't be a choice between one-dimensional and sub-par.

fliprushman wrote:
There should be a difference between a barbarian and a fighter and a druid.

I feel there is enough difference between them that giving them all the same number of skill points does not prove unbalancing. This is even more so in Pathfinder.

My position is more one of 4 skills being the optimal minimum number. with 35 skills to choose from, there is a lot of room to spread around 2 more skill points. Skills should be an important part of every character, not just a niche for a few. The high skill point classes get more so that they can excel at skills.


Just adding my vote for the minimum skill points to be increased to 4+Int.

While the consolidation of skills and elimination of the cross-class penalty is helpful, it still does not allow the fighter, cleric, sorcerer and wizard to have the potential versatility one would expect.

Jason: The d4 HD has finally been eliminated, feats are gained at a more acceptable rate, all classes/races have gained abilities... In terms of compatability and the amount of time needed to do a conversion, there is already a precedent in Pathfinder to add rather than to take away. Adding an extra 2 skill points per level for the few classes who currently have 2+Int will not take anywhere as long as mulling over all those extra feats that every character now gets.

I'd also like to echo the sentiment that it is important to get such changes in the core rules rather than simply house-ruling everything. After all, unlike the other forums, these are Design & Development forums to make this product the best it can be and to enable the greatest compatability of characters from one gaming group to the next.


fliprushman wrote:


I think though the reason people want more stats is because they are looking at what they want to be doing and not what the character should be doing. A fighter is designed with the idea that he is a combat specialist. Skills are useless to him because his main role is to fight.

This comment makes it seem that you know nothing about actual combat or only that you think you know something but don't.

I however have had only basic combat training (black belt in one style) and even I know that certain skills in Dnd are used in real life fighting. Since Dnd is supposed to simulate real life in a fantasy setting with some credibility if not a lot, the number of trained skills in the game should resemble the number of trained skills in real life.

Balance is a key skill in every fighting style known to man (even Drunken Boxing requires you to stay on your feet most of the time). Perception helps you keep track of the battlefield and what your opponent is doing in the fight you're engaged in. Athletics and Acrobatics are used in movement across the field of battle and within some fighting styles themselves and in the physical training for becoming a better warrior. Ride is necessary for mounted combat. Knowledge (history) gives you knowledge of tactics and fighting techniques used by warriors of the past.

AND most fighters in even fantasy literature have a day job other than fighting. What would a dwarven fighter be without the skills to maintain his own armor and weapons, especially when he or she is miles away from the nearest smith? Get some stones and a hammer and get a fire going. It's time to work out some dents before the next battle. Even Maximus in the movie Gladiator and Farmer in the movie In the Name of the King have Profession (farmer).

This wouldn't be a problem with x4 skill points at 1st level but the change in the skill system design to x1 skill ranks + bonus created it. At 2nd level it pans out somewhat but this means that the design of Pathfinder expects characters to start at 2nd level or higher to have credible gameplay for the characters at their normal starting ages. If it does then this should be made clear with an opening statement in the Classes section and starting hit points should just be maximum hp at the first two levels.

Starting level PCs are YOUNG ADULTS, not little children that have just begun their apprenticeship. Children are 1st level in Pathfinder and Young Adults are 2nd level or higher.


Well after running my group though death in freeport last night, and using skills as written I still say 2 is never enuff. The group was a rogue,ranger,barbarian and a cleric. The cleric had 3 skills 2 of which were knowledge religion and heal. He felt useless for anything but healing . He couldn't help skill wise in nothing really. Best he could do was aid another which often failed due to lack of skill.

So for all my playtest and games here on out will be min 4 skills per level. I will no longer penalize my players in skill heavy games for playing a class.

Liberty's Edge

Laithoron wrote:
I'd also like to echo the sentiment that it is important to get such changes in the core rules rather than simply house-ruling everything. After all, unlike the other forums, these are Design & Development forums to make this product the best it can be and to enable the greatest compatability of characters from one gaming group to the next.

Here, here...

These forums are a BIG part of why I am supporting Paizo's Pathfinder over WoTC's 4th Edition. We, the actual gaming community, are playtesting this product and being asked for feedback; not a bunch of bean-counters and rules-lawyers (okay, some rules-lawyers). If our feedback is not important, then why even ask for it in the Alpha Realease? Look through the responses to this post. You will find that support for conversion of this simple mechanic is there.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Big Fish wrote:
...but I know the majority of the people on the boards don't ant Rogues, Monks, etc, to get +2 skill points too.

Bards, rangers, and rogues have enough skill points. Barbarians and druids are also fine. Clerics, fighters, paladins, sorcerers, and even wizards should be bumped up to 4 + Int skill points. It's pathetic that a human fighter or paladin gets less skill points than a half-orc barbarian, given the same Int score.

However, monks really should have 6 + Int skill points, IMO. They don't cast spells, they're not primary combatants (even with the CMB boost, their BAB is still +3/4 levels), and they can't fill the expert role (especially considering Int is almost the least important ability score for the class as written). By giving them a skill boost, it brings them back in line with the 1st Ed AD&D monk (letting them climb, detect ambushes, discuss metaphysics/religion, mediate disputes, perform acrobatics, provide first aid or recite history/poetry, and sneak around without sacrificing Str, Dex, Con, or Wis).


Consider including an "optional" skill rule variant for GMs who run heavier skill oriented campaigns. All classes will receive one extra skill point compared to base classes and PRCs.


I'll just throw in my vote for bumping the minimum from 2 to 4.

Liberty's Edge

I think Dragonchess Player makes a pretty convincing argument for 6 skills for the Monk. I don't personally care either way. I've played a monk a couple of times, and I just don't much like the class. Maybe some extra skill points might make it more appealing...

The thing is, optional rules are too easy. Everyone can make them. Everyone should make them to make the game we want if that differs from the final version. However, the final version should require few houserules. If 90% (number comes directly from my ass) of the players thinks something is important and 10% do not, it is probably worth putting in to the final rules so that only 10% of the players have to have that houserule.

Now, this ceases to be true if the rule has some major detrimental effect on the game.

Increasing the skills does not.

As far as I can tell, every single person that says that they tried it liked it. Everyone who says that they don't think it is necessary hasn't felt like trying it. I remember one person who said 'increasing all skills doesn't do as much as you think' in regard to giving a +2 across the board. Basically, I think it comes down to the 'tweak' has had a lot of playtesting, and it works. The 'default' has had a lot of playtesting, and a lot of people think that it doesn't work.

So, I'd like to point out that if the purpose of the Playtest is to 'test' the rules, and bring the things that need to be changed to the attention of Jason, this situation should qualify.

Sovereign Court

For my campaign I put in 2 more skill points per class across the board. The sky hasn't fallen in yet as a consequence, but my players do get to use their skills more often.

And the monk player has finally invested skill ranks in Craft: Calligraphy, after being admonished by her old teacher enough times.

"Have you practiced your calligraphy laterly, little butterfly?"
"No, Master, I have not."
<Whack!>


My only real problem with the 4+Int skill points for classes that have 2+ right now and have no need for Int is that this will either make the Wizard extremely skillful (if he gets 4+) or the only class with 2+. I don't mind it the way it is. Besides, how many Paladins or Sorcerers would really be able to do a whole lot more than cover the basics if you actually think about it? Why should a Sorcerer be as skilled as a Druid?

Liberty's Edge

Gnome Ninja wrote:
Why should a Sorcerer be as skilled as a Druid?

Why shouldn't he be?

In real life, we don't have classes, so if we were really trying to 'emulate reality', we'd probably have to use an entirely skill based system. For example, you don't get better at stabbing someone with a sword without, for example, taking up fencing.

That aside, if all class abilities are in a sense 'skills' in that they took practice and a special course (communing with nature, practicing hitting things with a sword) you would expect that if the characters have equal intelligence, they would basically have the same number of 'skills' and 'class abilities'. A druid has to commune with nature and gains tons of class abilities (spells, wild shape, resist nature's lure, etc, etc, etc). This would indicate that the druid spends a lot of time 'developing' these abilities. The sorcerer has spellcasting and no other abilities (except summon familiar at 1st) in 3.5. Since spell casting is 'innate', even that didn't take much study or practice. So, the sorcerer must be lazy because he has the most time to pick up new skills and doesn't use it for anything.

Obviously, the Pathfinder has done some things to address the fact that Sorcerers 'suck' and have no ability other than spell-casting. But again, the four skill points (or maybe more for them) makes sense.

They might have as many as a druid because while a druid may need quite a few skills (or not, but whatever) the sorcerer does as well, and it is better for simulation since it appears there is no in-game reason to justify the lower skill points for sorcerers.


DeadDMWalking wrote:
Gnome Ninja wrote:
Why should a Sorcerer be as skilled as a Druid?

Why shouldn't he be?

/snip/

That aside, if all class abilities are in a sense 'skills' in that they took practice and a special course (communing with nature, practicing hitting things with a sword) you would expect that if the characters have equal intelligence, they would basically have the same number of 'skills' and 'class abilities'. A druid has to commune with nature and gains tons of class abilities (spells, wild shape, resist nature's lure, etc, etc, etc). This would indicate that the druid spends a lot of time 'developing' these abilities. The sorcerer has spellcasting and no other abilities (except summon familiar at 1st) in 3.5. Since spell casting is 'innate', even that didn't take much study or practice. So, the sorcerer must be lazy because he has the most time to pick up new skills and doesn't use it for anything.

/snip/

Sorcerers don't just sit around going "I wonder what spell I'll learn today..." They still have to spend time tapping into their arcane heritage or and power, shaping it and molding it into spell form. same goes for Bards and trying out new chords. Just about all classes have the same amount of time they need to spend practicing or developing when they gain a level. The difference is that Sorcerers don't study magic, they just harness it. There is no reason why they should be as good at identifying items and spells and magical creatures (Appraise, Spellcraft and Know(arcana)) as a Wizard, while also as good at using foreign items as a Rogue (UMD), while also being good at doing whatever their bloodline lets them do well (bloodline skill). They have to spend more time studying magic and items to identify them than a Wizard does, as they have never formally learned how to do it. They should stay at 2+, as should Wizards. Clerics are more debatable, as they have formal training, but it would only be in a few subjects (religion, healing, magic, etc).


Add me to the list of people who would prefer 2/level to remain, but allow a feat granting +1 skill point/level, and you could take the feat multiple times. Then if people want more skills, thay can have them, but there's a trade-off as well. Because Pathfinder characters get more feats than their 3.5e counterparts, the loss of 1-2 feats for more skills would mean they could be more skilled and still break even, feat-wise.

That said, Dragonchess Player makes a great argument for monks having 6/level.


Jason Bulmahn wrote:
WarDragon wrote:
Seriously, Paizo. That just isn't enough to cover the things your class is expected to do and still have any kind of individuality. Two more skill points isn't going to overpower any class, and it will make Fighters, Sorcerers, and Paladins so much easier to personalize with a few roleplaying choices without falling behind in their core skills. The problem is especially made harder by the reduction of skill points at level one, and lack of any increase over levels like in Alpha 1.

You are right, it is not going to overpower any class. It does, however, force a fair amount of conversion work on anyone using 3.5 sources, which is what we are trying to avoid.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I'm sorry but it is not going to be anything close to the converstion work that will be needed already with the class re-writes, and the new skill system.


Many of the people who are /against/ the addition of extra skill points to classes, seem to want to offer the chance to for example, spend a feat and gain extra skill points, or say that you should just take skill focus, or buy a lot of intelligence.

I don't really think that will solve anything, I think that's really missing the point of the entire argument.

Really, it's just like saying to a French Peasant: "If you want more food, just go sell your children, you don't need them, and the money you'll get can buy you more food. I don't see the problem." :P

That's an exaggeration, but I've never met anyone who would gleefully sacrifice multiple feats to gain all those bonuses to various skills.

More skill points seems so-far to have hurt nothing in gameplay, and the people against it just think it feels wrong and that people should stop whining. I don't see any good reason /not/ to change it when the entire system is changing so much with Pathfinder.


Big Fish wrote:
More skill points seems so-far to have hurt nothing in gameplay, and the people against it just think it feels wrong and that people should stop whining.

Honestly, I feel it does hurt game play -- just not for the people getting the extra skills. Rather, it helps to de-value the higher skill point classes. Why be a ranger when you could be a fighter with all those bonus feats, if skills were almost the same? Yeah, rangers get neat favored enemy bonuses and tracking, but it seems like, mechanically-speaking, a skilled fighter could do a lot better with weapon training, weapon specialization, and putting those extra skill points in Survival and Stealth.


I'd really like my character to be able to do *everything* from the git-go, so I don't have to make any decisions or feel the need to create different characters. Why stop at 4 skill points? I'd say 6, 8 or even 12 would give me a *comfortable* measure of character design. I hate it that the rogue is supposed to be the most "skilled" character class compared with the others.

By the way, if I'm a fighter, I don't see how a couple of cantrips is going to tilt the power balance. And wizards don't have access to even a minimum number of weapons profiencies I'd expect of a worldly adventurer -- spellcasters could get an extra weapon or two without changing the game too much.

We're only asking for an inch of flexibility, guys. Don't be so stubborn. Gimme!

(A teensy bit of good-natured sarcasm, directed at no one in particular...)

Liberty's Edge

I think there is a big difference between asking for a gimmee and asking for 2 skill points for the low skill classes.

Personally, even with Fighters at 4 skill points/level, I intend to play a Ranger. I have played all the classes in D&D, and in 3.5 I liked Rangers, even when I could play a fighter with 4 skill points/level. Rangers do have interesting things.

Trying to argue that the high skill classes (who still have more skills than the fighter) won't be played because fighters have 4 skill points is silly. First of all, there are other reasons to play that class that have nothing to do with skills. Even in regard to skills, the Ranger STILL has more, so if you really like skills, it is a better choice for some reasons.

And of course, the argument that Rangers 'lose' something if a Fighter has 4 skill points, I can't take it seriously. Rangers just got a d10 HD. What's the point in being a fighter if the Ranger gets the same HD?

Or would you say that the bonus feats (class abilities) make the class sufficiently different to still be worth it?

I know there have been a lot of good reasons for the higher skill point. As far as 3.5 goes, I can houserule it because I've already done the work. With Pathfinder, I'm not interested in adopting a new system that will require a bunch of house rules. That is a fundamental problem with the system. Currently, I plan to play Pathfinder. But for me, that depends mostly on how the classes are improved. I'm neutral on most of the changes. I strongly support the skill allocation method, but I don't support the skill list or the number of skill points offered. It just falls into the category of I might be willing to change one thing, or two, but if I have to change everything it isn't worthwhile. And that's my fear right now.

Scarab Sages

Brian Brus wrote:

I'd really like my character to be able to do *everything* from the git-go, so I don't have to make any decisions or feel the need to create different characters. Why stop at 4 skill points? I'd say 6, 8 or even 12 would give me a *comfortable* measure of character design. I hate it that the rogue is supposed to be the most "skilled" character class compared with the others.

By the way, if I'm a fighter, I don't see how a couple of cantrips is going to tilt the power balance. And wizards don't have access to even a minimum number of weapons profiencies I'd expect of a worldly adventurer -- spellcasters could get an extra weapon or two without changing the game too much.

We're only asking for an inch of flexibility, guys. Don't be so stubborn. Gimme!

(A teensy bit of good-natured sarcasm, directed at no one in particular...)

The unfortunate thing is, a Fighter, with his measly 2 skill points has always had the short end of the stick.

The fact is, the 3e fighter could start with 8 different skills
(if they chose 2 crafts) @ level 1, albeit they might only have 1 rank, but it's better than 2 skills that I MUST take at the equivalent of 4 ranks each. Or just 2 skills if the fighter chooses 2 cross-class skills, which I could have had 4 at level 1 in 3e. See the point? With the fighters already limited selection of skills, this truly hinders the Roleplay aspect of the game by reducing the depth of the character.

Couple of ideas:
1: Obviously, the 4+int for all classes currently receiving 2+int.

or

2: Give characters 2 bonus Rank 1 skills off of their class skills list at first level.

or

3: Give Characters #+int x2 skills at level 1.

Personally I'm liking #2 at the moment. It makes up for the loss of the x4 skill points, it allows "Background" skills, and it doesn't break the endgame by adding 40 extra skill points by level 20.

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Races & Classes / Still 2+Int skill points? All Messageboards