|
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 ...
It's impossible to keep reading your comments without wondering about your Dex and Str ratings, your hit points and saves.
Real life.
Wonder if that was an off-handed insult. And QM, a black belt is more than basic combat training. Basic combat training would be a self-defense course.
Edit: Reposting this from elsewhere.
Personally, I think that Skills should not only be made into smaller, more useful groupings, but be made into a major part of the game, like in Iron Heroes.
When a Fighter has Athletics, Ride, Warfare, Endurance, Dominance, and Craft: Weaponsmithing on his skill list, who loses? (Assuming he's a Human Fighter with
Is it the high-skill classes, who people fear no-one will play if people with 2+Int Skill points get more SP and skills? No. Because I would never play a Rogue if I wanted to play a Fighter anyways.
Class lines are rigidly drawn, but each class should have enough skills to be useful in multiple situations, and those skills should actually mean something, especially in combat.
The Fighter should be able to fix and repair his sundered weapons, ride a Horse, Run, Jump, and Climb, Intimidate and Coerce, and come up with good combat strategies when the odds are against him.
I do not understand why people think that's 'being good at everything'. In the real world, are Soldiers good at everything, since they can do more than just fire a gun, and are trained for specific tasks? Is a Scientist with multiple disciplines who can use a computer and sing good at everything?
More skills is better.
Also check this thread.
I see no reason that raising the minimum skill points should affect the high skill classes. A 5-skill point human fighter is still not going to have anywhere near the diversity of a 10+ skill point rogue, both because of the disparity in skill points and the range of class skills. Int is still a dump stat for most of the 2+ classes, so they will rarely if ever hit the highs an inteligent rogue could.
Whats more, class abilities already diversify the classes greatly. A fighter isnt going to be disabling traps or sneaking around, and its not likely he will be tracking the enemy either. The rogue and ranger just do it better for a variety of reasons.
And I also agree that as a class trying to fill the "expert" slot in the typical 4-man party the Monk should really have 6 skill points. The other 4+ and up classes can stay as they are.
I think the push for more skill points for certain character classes represents an ironic lack of respect for the skill sub-system. The gist of comments here is that a few more skill points simply won't matter, instead of recognizing that certain classes and roles would be diminished by comparison.
Uh, how? Instead of stating that it will happen, giving some examples would do nothing but help your position.
I don't see that 2 extra skill points for clerics, fighters, paladins, and sorcerers (wizards are an exception to this argument, they're the only class I feel doesn't need more skills, but there's no point in leaving them the only 2+ Int skill class) in any way "diminishes" certain classes or roles. All it really does is allow those currently skill-limited classes to actually contribute outside of their primary role.
People have been griping for years that the fighter is useless outside of combat, why not give them 2 more skill points to get rid of that problem?
I think it's important to overall game design that some difficult choices remain, and that a newbie PC isn't allowed everything and a bag of chips from the start. If you want a character with more skills, there should be a trade-off with combat feats or magic spells or something else.
Changing the 2+ Int skill classes to 4+ Int is nowhere near giving "everything and a bag of chips". A Human Fighter with a 14 Int under standard rules gets a grand total of 5 skill points. A Human Rogue would need to have a 3 Int to have that few skill points. Given how low Int is on the "Important Stat" list for most of the 2+ Int classes, the only thing bumping their skill points by 2 does is allow them to put a lower score into Int (which some would already do, resulting in a character with little to no skill points), reserving the higher scores for another, equally (or more) important ability score.
And, no, this isn't about *simulating reality* but rather creating a game that provides challenge and balance.
Leave as is.
2+ Int skill points aren't balanced, and create an unfairly skewed challenge. Especially considering that despite the skill consolidation, many classes actually gained more class skills. Both the cleric and fighter, for instance, gained 3 new class skills. You'd need to put at least a 14 into Intelligence for either class to put a rank into half their skills at present, having a higher Int would allow more points, but would also end up hurting the class' strengths more than is necessary.
... OK, people. That's the end of the discussion. Move on now. Move on.
Come down off your high horse, you're opinions aren't the be-all end-all of this discussion. It only needs to stop when the final Pathfinder RPG rules are released in August 2009.
|
I wonder why it would be ironic to disrespect the skill system?
Can I take ranks in disrespecting it?
A point worth noting - a fighter with an Intelligence of 9 and a fighter with an intelligence of 3 are functionally the same. They have the same number of languages and the same number of skills.
Increasing the number of skills also increases the 'penalty' for taking a dump stat. If a fighter had 4 skill points as a base, than a 9 Intelligence fighter would be better off than a 7 Int Fighter, who would have an advantage over a 5 Int fighter.
I think that would be a good thing - it actually encourages smart fighters by increasing the difference between a very low intelligence and a 'slightly below average' intelligence.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I see no reason that raising the minimum skill points should affect the high skill classes. A 5-skill point human fighter is still not going to have anywhere near the diversity of a 10+ skill point rogue, both because of the disparity in skill points and the range of class skills. Int is still a dump stat for most of the 2+ classes, so they will rarely if ever hit the highs an inteligent rogue could.
I'm in the middle. I'd like to see the fighter go to four, and maybe the sorcerer.
The Wizard and Cleric have enough perks. The Pathfinder wizard will have 4-5 points via intelligence. The cleric already has armor, weapons, spells, domains... If the player makes intelligence his dump stat, he deserves to be penalized for it.
I'm with Matthew here. Dead DM's argument is unassailable with respect to the fighter, but few people seem to disagree that the fighter needs 4/level skill points (myself included). The same argument totally fails with respect to the wizard, however,and I remain against upping their skill point allotment as well. Add a "Versatile Sage" feat so the wizard, sorcerer, and cleric can accumulate a lot of knowledge skills? Yes, I'm all in favor. Make them equally as skilled as a monk or barbarian in all kinds of things, just for kicks? A more compelling argument than the ones already given would be needed.
Make it a 4+Int minimum.
Then, if you want to make sure the 'super-smart' Wizard isn't a better expert then the Rogue, create a skill for each Spell Schoool, make them all class skills, and then don't allow a caster to cast spells of a level higher then his skill level in that school, or even make it so he has to have TWICE the skill level to cast the spell (which means his skill level should equal his Wizard level)- but only if you really wanted to restrict him (and I'd give him 6+Int for that).
With eight new magic-based skills, the Wizard will have plenty of places to dump his extra points.
This could be built upon as well, granting better counter-spelling and what-not with higher skill levels. It would also be a good way to enforce specialization (no rank in restricted schools).
Just a thought.
I always felt spells and weapon proficiencies should be rolled into the skill system anway.
I like the idea of bumping the Monk up to the high skill (6+INT) category. Being as they are not only very learned, but also exceptional athletes, it makes sense for them to be accomplished in a wide variety of disciplines — even if their focus is quite different from that of the bard, ranger or rogue.
I also had another thought on skill points...
What if taking levels in Your race's favored class granted You the option of an extra +1 Skill Points at each level rather than +1 Hit Points? Maybe it's just me, but I think it is a bit more believable for a race renouned for a particular class to have extra insight and training rather than being extra beefy — particularly if the favored class is not a martial class.
Just my 2CP...
Markus, I've debated houserules similar to that as well, and I think your proposal could work. Would it strain backward compaitibility too much, though, I wonder?
Laithoron, I like both of your ideas. So much so that I have nothing to add to them!