|
(Alpha 2 version of the rant: here. Cheers to DracoDruid for the feedback)
Note
In 3.5, characters received skill points which were spent to buy ranks.
In Alpha 3, characters receive ranks which are spent to buy ranks. This strikes me as counter-intuitive and confusing.
I would suggest reverting to the old terminology and renaming the +3 bonus for investing in a class skill to "3 bonus ranks". This also resolves the issue of recalculating the prerequisite class skill ranks for feats and prestige classes.
Tweak
At first level, your character gains a number of skill points dependent upon your class plus your Intelligence modifier. At every level after that, you gain additional skill points. These skill points can be spent on any skill, but you can only invest a number of points into a specific skill equal to your total Hit Dice. In addition, each class has a number of favored skills, called class skills. Your character is most proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. When you spend skill points on a class skill, you gain 3 bonus ranks in that skill. If you have more than one class and if two or more of your classes share the same class skills, you receive the 3 bonus ranks only once.
The number of skill points you gain when taking a level in one of the base classes is shown on table 5–1. Humans
gain one additional skill point per class level. At each level after 1st, you gain a number of skill points dependant
upon your class. If you select a level in a new class, all of its class skills are automatically added to your list of class
skills and you gain 3 bonus ranks in these skills if you have spent points on them.
(Alpha 2 version of the rant: here. Cheers to DracoDruid for the feedback)
Note
In 3.5, characters received skill points which were spent to buy ranks.
In Alpha 3, characters receive ranks which are spent to buy ranks. This strikes me as counter-intuitive and confusing.I would suggest reverting to the old terminology and renaming the +3 bonus for investing in a class skill to "3 bonus ranks". This also resolves the issue of recalculating the prerequisite class skill ranks for feats and prestige classes.
Tweak
At first level, your character gains a number of skill points dependent upon your class plus your Intelligence modifier. At every level after that, you gain additional skill points. These skill points can be spent on any skill, but you can only invest a number of points into a specific skill equal to your total Hit Dice. In addition, each class has a number of favored skills, called class skills. Your character is most proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. When you spend skill points on a class skill, you gain 3 bonus ranks in that skill. If you have more than one class and if two or more of your classes share the same class skills, you receive the 3 bonus ranks only once.The number of skill points you gain when taking a level in one of the base classes is shown on table 5–1. Humans
gain one additional skill point per class level. At each level after 1st, you gain a number of skill points dependant
upon your class. If you select a level in a new class, all of its class skills are automatically added to your list of class
skills and you gain 3 bonus ranks in these skills if you have spent points on them.
Don't overanalize this. Please. If it's easier for you to say points instead of ranks, then just say points instead of ranks. We don't need another rules revision. 1 point = 1 rank (Humans = +1 skill point). max ranks = character level. Class skills = +3 bonus. Done. Simple.
DogBone
|
|
Don't overanalize this. Please. If it's easier for you to say points instead of ranks, then just say points instead of ranks. We don't need another rules revision. 1 point = 1 rank (Humans = +1 skill point). max ranks = character level. Class skills = +3 bonus. Done. Simple.
Thank you for your concern. The problem is that there are two distinct concepts and one word used for them. The concepts are used in the same context. It's a recipe for confusion.
I'm not sure I see which "another" revision you are referring to. We are helping out with the revision of 3.5. Anything happening between now and the final PF/3.75 rule set is part of the design process. Suggestions and recommendations shouldn't be undesirable just because they change something which was introduced after the revision started.
I would recommend they call the +3 bonus for class skills a proficiency bonus or a training bonus and let it be something that goes in the miscellaneous column. Although I was initially distasteful of them keeping skill points, I now find that max ranks = level is a very elegant system the simplicity of which I appreciate.
|
|
I agree with Locworks. Clarifying is an important part of playtesting. One of the problems that we have as playtesters is our ability to understand what the designers meant based on our experiences with earlier versions of the game. If we imagine we're approaching the material for the first time, we can see areas that cause confusion and have them addressed.
This is a good thing.
And 'overanalizing' is a funny and insulting replacement for 'overanalyzing'. 'anal-izing'... I have to wonder if it was an honest typo (I assume it was), but...
|
|
And 'overanalizing' is a funny and insulting replacement for 'overanalyzing'. 'anal-izing'... I have to wonder if it was an honest typo (I assume it was), but...
I don't mind, really. It's a funny typo, especially since I am quite ...obsessed with consistency, accuracy and usability. It helps on the job (localization and translation of games), I guess, but can be a pain for some people. :-)
And 'overanalizing' is a funny and insulting replacement for 'overanalyzing'. 'anal-izing'... I have to wonder if it was an honest typo (I assume it was), but...
Yes, it was an honest typo.
I can see yours and Locworks side of it. Clarity is important. But we don't have to freak and pull our hair out over a small wording issue. I see my son do that at least 5 times a week (he has Autism). We don't have to have EVERY little detail etched in stone.
That's all I'm saying.
But, as I said, clarity is important. I won't be upset if Paizo does decide to use a standardized terminology, but I won't lose sleep if they don't.
DogBone
We don't have to have EVERY little detail etched in stone.True. :-) I'll try to limit my editor's zeal.
I didn't mean to be insulting. As I said, I see this with my son a lot. He picks one thing (what most people would consider a small and/or insignificant thing) and fixates on it, stressing himself out to the point of giving himself a migraine. So, I may have overreacted.
Tell you what, if you try to control your editors's zeal, I'll try to control my fatherly zeal. Deal?
DogBone
|
I'm a little late to this discussion but I have a couple of thoughts.
In 3.5, characters received skill points which were spent to buy ranks.
In Alpha 3, characters receive ranks which are spent to buy ranks. This strikes me as counter-intuitive and confusing.I would suggest reverting to the old terminology and renaming the +3 bonus for investing in a class skill to "3 bonus ranks". This also resolves the issue of recalculating the prerequisite class skill ranks for feats and prestige classes.
Okay, I agree with you that the using-skill-ranks-to-buy-skill-ranks wording is strange. I agree that characters should continue to receive skill points which can be used to buy ranks. In addition to the simple clarity of this, it leaves the door open for things like skill tricks, where players spend skill points on something other than ranks. Skill tricks may not be OGL but people who use them may want to continue using them.
On calling the +3 "3 bonus ranks," I disagree with you on this one. The +3 is a product of moving away from x4 skill points at first level (which happened for many reasons and is good). To make 1st level characters comparable in 3.5 and Pathfinder, they needed to be able to get to a final skill mod of +4. In 3.5 it's 4 ranks, in Pathfinder it's 1 rank + a +3 bonus.
The thing is, the +3 are not ranks. That's the other big change in the Pathfinder skill system. All skill ranks cost the same. No more cross-class skill penalty. A rogue and a cleric can both buy 1 rank of Stealth for 1 skill points. This had to happen to make stat'ing high-level NPCs easier (many people said it was too hard to stat high-level, multi-class NPCs in 3.5 because they had to keep track of cross-class penalties and know at what level each skill was bought). So cross-class skills are gone. But wait ... a cleric shouldn't be as good as a rogue at Stealth! Thus are born "+3 class skill bonuses." The innovation is that it is a bonus that is not part of the how-many-ranks calculation, so NPCs can have their ranks calculated without worrying about what class they were when they took a skill. Instead, class skill bonuses are added afterwards as something separate from ranks. Long story short (too late), calling the +3 "ranks" would make it seem like they should be added into the characters total ranks, and that goes against the philosophy of keeping the rank calculation clean and simple- skill points/level + Int bonus.
I would recommend they call the +3 bonus for class skills a proficiency bonus or a training bonus and let it be something that goes in the miscellaneous column.
I think this is closer to what Jason was shooting for. If calling it a proficiency bonus would make that more clear to more folks, then I agree 100%.
|
|
I would recommend they call the +3 bonus for class skills a proficiency bonus or a training bonus and let it be something that goes in the miscellaneous column. Although I was initially distasteful of them keeping skill points, I now find that max ranks = level is a very elegant system the simplicity of which I appreciate.
Characters which don't have the skill as a class skill have purchased ranks, i.e. they trained in the skill and are proficient. I wouldn't use "proficiency bonus" or a "training bonus".
|
|
Okay, I agree with you that the using-skill-ranks-to-buy-skill-ranks wording is strange. I agree that characters should continue to receive skill points which can be used to buy ranks. In addition to the simple clarity of this, it leaves the door open for things like skill tricks, where players spend skill points on something other than ranks. Skill tricks may not be OGL but people who use them may want to continue using them.
Cheers.
On calling the +3 "3 bonus ranks," I disagree with you on this one. The +3 is a product of moving away from x4 skill points at first level (which happened for many reasons and is good). To make 1st level characters comparable in 3.5 and Pathfinder, they needed to be able to get to a final skill mod of +4. In 3.5 it's 4 ranks, in Pathfinder it's 1 rank + a +3 bonus.
Qualifying for a prestige class requires X ranks in skill Y. In 3.5, this was attained more quickly if skill Y was a class-skill. I don't expect PF to change that (despite the dodgy calculation in the Designer Notes: Prestige Skills on page 52). That means that the +3 bonus counts as ranks, so that some classes will be able to meet the requirements earlier.
I don't think that adding the 3 bonus ranks once over the characters lifetime will make character creation more difficult.