Skill Simplification? This is NOT 3.5!!!!!!


Alpha Playtest Feedback General Discussion

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Brent wrote:
Because these folks need something to complain about. ...

What a mature viewpoint you have of your fellow posters.


Well to get the discussion back to point.

Aaron, don't enterly disagree with you. Spot and Listen should be seperate skills. We are in agreement. Pathfinder however is trying to take the best concepts of 3.5 and streamline them. For some reason many players = this with fewer skills.

On the other hand the concept of keep skill ranks as all 1 for 1 but class skills get a +3 (as I think it stands now) is the best idea for skills I have seen for 3.5/ogl game. Keeps complexity while at the same time not making an issue or reexplaing the system over and over until people get it. Moreover in Alpha one ther was a method of adding class skill every other level (thats a bit much but I intend to do this [maybe every four or three levels] with my game as I like having more skills not less).

Fly on the whole is very good. Most people who like 3.5/ogl perfere a very detaled system instead of 4th's attudie that a monster is only good for killing. The problem with standard 3.5 in terms of flying beast is that a Great Wyrm Red dragon might enjoy flying so much he just got better at it, while a very young blue dragon might simply fat an lazy, flying isn't only rough, but on the whole never done.

I would add Tech. Knowledge, Use Tech. Split Concetration and Spellcraft, and maybe one or two brand new skills.

With the home suggestions above you don't even need to add skill points, just train in the skills you want. This along with feats such as specializtion still make great diverse characters.

Addressing problems. Yes some flying monsters make this difficult. But I doubt flying vermin will ever need to be converted much as I doubt they will ever be the archvillan of a story.

Older books whithout these ranks can be easily done. One if the class the npc was didn't have the said skill in Patfinder, he wouldn't have it now. If he would, assume didn't put ranks in it and add 3 or assume he put in 1/2 his class levels in it and add 3. Given how bad some of WotC editing was duing the 3.5 days, you would be missing at lest that many ranks anyways.

P.S. on the character sheet please leave at lest 3 or 4 blank skill slots to, so they can be added to the game for GM's like myself.


I apologize then.
I am sorry I compared people to nazis.

But if I ever hear President Bush called a nazi, mark my words I will call out the hypocrisy.

Question: Does telling you I didn't know it was that offensive negate my apology?

The Exchange

Well, if you actually seemed contrite, maybe that would be a valid comment, but since in your subsequent comments you clearly think you didn't do anything wrong, and are still acting like the wounded party, your trollishness is apparent.

Look, better people than you have been banned from this board for hostile attitude - and recently, and connected with the Pathfinder RPG. If you want to say something, say it, but phrase it politely ("lying" "Nazis" - I mean, really, I think you are the one who needs to move on). And you probably won't get your way - I really dislike the special powers handed out to wizards under PFRPG, I tried to get it changed, but didn't get a head of steam from the other board members. I'm not that crazy about what I see as unnecessary changes to the skill point system. But I can get over it. Yelling and trying to get one's way through aggressive tactics has been tried by others - it didn't work, they got banned in the end, and so ended up being unable to contribute (and these were people with some very good, thoughtful ideas).

I take it that you care about D&D, 3.5 and PFRPG - we all care, actually. I got heavily involved in the previous exchanges like this and got pretty jaundiced by the experience, so I'm leaving it here. You can carry on making a fuss, but it isn't worth it. It will make it no more likely to change anyone's mind, and might actually make it less likely that your point of view is given a hearing.


Aaron Goddard wrote:
Question: Does telling you I didn't know it was that offensive negate my apology?

Soup Nazi: No Soup for you!

Nazi Nazi: No Nazi for you!


Glad to see that the OP is behaving with greater civility now.

For what it's worth, I'll simply weigh in with my opinions on the skill system [in case anyone is keeping tabs].

* I like the ease-of-use that eliminating the 4× at 1st level provides. This makes my job as DM a lot easier when statting out NPCs. While (as a player) I might miss not having some level of skill in everything at first level, the Class Skill +3 bonus and a couple levels evens this out.

* I think 4+INT should be the minimum, especially since most of the skill consolidations are of greatest benefit to classes that could have already afforded tumble, listen/search/spot, etc. IMO, classes having more skills doesn't diminish the importance of the high-skill classes so much as it allows the low-skill classes to contribute to a lesser degree without botching the expert's chance of success due to enforced ineptitude. Also, low-skill points tend to solidify the role of such classes as autistic killing machines... something that is neither diverse nor something that aids the suspension of disbelief.

* I agree with those who [in other threads] have advocated Monks getting 6+INT. It fits the flavor and RealWorld™ history of Oriental monks being both learned, enlightened and athletic.

* I always considered Spellcraft and Concentration to be "skill taxes" to keep the high-Int Wizards in line with the 2+INT design goal. I'm not sorry to see these consolidated especially since it's effectively more expensive to gain the ability to make a trained knowledge check now.

* I LOVE the fact that the physical sensory skills have been consolidated into Perception. While I don't have the 4E rules yet, I disliked hearing that 4E rolled Sense Motive into Perception. That would be going too far.

* I LOVE that Hide and Move Silently have been consolidated into Stealth. To paraphrase a prior poster, it doesn't matter if You can keep to the shadows if You make a lot of noise.

* I haven't had a chance to use the Fly skill at all yet. However, I'd think that even a Clumsy flier shouldn't be any worse off that a character who can't natively fly and simply polymorphs. i.e. I'd make the racial modifiers to Fly all positive and adjust the DCs from there.


Brent wrote:
Aaron Goddard wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Let's not feed the troll - it isn't worth it.

I said it before and I said it again,

I am not a troll.

Would a troll be constantly apologizing?

If you're getting mad its your fault for taking it so personally.

Now its our fault for getting angry with what you said. So I assume you also think it is the fault of a rape victim that they were violated. Or you are the type of person who would walk up to someone, throw a drink in their face, kick them in the nuts, and then after they kick your butt saying that you getting your butt kicked was their fault for getting mad at what you did.

Ludicrous.

You assume wrong.

I am disgusted that you would make that leap.

Dark Archive

To comment on topic now, I do see the validity in separating out some skills. I never really had a problem with Listen, Spot, and Search in 3.5, although I did get confused sometimes on which one to use in a given situation. I like perception because it lumps together a persons physical senses. The ability to search for something or spot it is in my mind the combined effect of a persons ability to use all their senses to notice things. A person may not be very good at listening but have great eyes for spotting stuff. That said, are they not listening at all when they spot something? Or is it that their eyesight helps them overcome their inability to listen? When searching for a secret door, do you find it because you feel a crease in the wall with your hand, because you see a bit less dust on the ground where the door swings out, or because you hear faint sounds from behind the secret door? I tend to think it is a combination of all those things.

So to summarize, I think perception is an amalgamation of a characters ability to see, hear, taste, smell, or feel something that gives them information they might not otherwise have. All 5 senses work in concert to give the character the sensory input needed to know something. So that is why I like perception. It accounts for how all the various senses work together to do the job of Listen, Spot, and Search.

In terms of the Spellcraft/Concentration thing... I do think they represent different things. However, I also see how a Wizard that is more practiced at their craft would be able to concentrate to cast a spell better than one who is less so. So perhaps split the skills and just have spell concentration be covered under Spellcraft while all the other concentration related things are under concentration? I am ok with it either way. The 3.5 system worked fine IMHO, but I don't have a problem with the change on this one in PFRPG either.


Is this where I complain about no ratzis in the new Indy film?

Sure the commies are bad, but if you want true, unrepentant evil, you gotta have Nazis! No one does evil like Nazis. Commies are just too conflicted.

The only thing worse than Nazis...zombie Nazis, or, dare I mention them lest they hear....SMURF Nazis!!!

Dark Archive

Aaron Goddard wrote:
Brent wrote:
Aaron Goddard wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
Let's not feed the troll - it isn't worth it.

I said it before and I said it again,

I am not a troll.

Would a troll be constantly apologizing?

If you're getting mad its your fault for taking it so personally.

Now its our fault for getting angry with what you said. So I assume you also think it is the fault of a rape victim that they were violated. Or you are the type of person who would walk up to someone, throw a drink in their face, kick them in the nuts, and then after they kick your butt saying that you getting your butt kicked was their fault for getting mad at what you did.

Ludicrous.

You assume wrong.

I am disgusted that you would make that leap.

Indeed. That was the point of me choosing to use those specific words to illustrate the point to you. I knew you would be disgusted by the comparison. Which is the irony of your logic. You said it was our faults for taking it personally. So by that logic, your disgust is your own fault for taking it personally.

All of that said, you have apologized. You can build your reputation on these boards, and I hope you can genuinely see why so many were outraged. Best of luck!


Aaron Goddard wrote:

Well excuse me for not knowing there were actual German people here.

Besides which, I don't believe in political correctness. . .

Be careful, your statements are bordering on troll-speak again.

It's not a matter of what is or isn't politically correct. It's a matter of an accusation that is highly offensive, to some cultures more than others, regarding an issue that was highly divisive and destructive. You may have apologized, but when you say stuff like this it has a tendency to negate any apology you can offer.

Your best bet at this point to be taken seriously is to stop attempting to defend your actions, stop making excuses for what you've said, and stop such comments altogether; as many have pointed out, they paint you as a troll, even if that's not your intention. Instead focus on what you think can be done to improve the game, and communicate those ideas in a positive manner. That's what we're all here for, and it's the only way your opinions will be effectively heard.


Brian Dunnell wrote:
$MURF Nazis!!!

Silly $murf, everyone knows $murfs are communists. Everybody is dressed the same. The biggest heroes are the worker $murfs (hefty and handy). They are lead by a fellow all dressed in red with a white beard (*cough*Lenin*cough*).

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Aaron Goddard wrote:
Essentially, I saw this decision to use 4th Editions logic that a man with one eye should take a penalty to his ability to smell and taste as a ridiculous adherence to conformity and change for the sake of keeping the Establishment happy.

If a character has only one eye make it either a trait or flaw that affects "Spot and Search" based Perception checks. There are easy enough fixes that don't require you to give up character flavor.

As for keeping the "Establishment" happy. What "Establishment"? WotC? WotC has nothing to do with the direction Pathfinder but the fans do. If the new rules apeal to most of the fans then Paizo has kept the right "establishment" happy. If that isn't you then I'm sorry but the Pathfinder RPG is close enough that you can keep running 3.5 with the Pathfinder modules with little to no conversion.

Aaron Goddard wrote:
The part that triggered my decision to cement my association between Nazism and the move towards melting everything together was the fly skill; so now a dragon the size of a jumbo jet can just spend skill points and turn on a dime? So now a Pixie that’s level one with no skill points to spare (due to having a 4 intelligence) has to move 15 feet to turn? I have no idea what the logic is behind the Fly Skill, but I can see a lot of problems with it already. If a dragon wants to improve his flight ability, what was wrong with taking a feat from the Draconomicon to that effect?

About the fly skill: This is a mechanic that allows designers who no longer have access to the feats in the Draconomicon (and other related non OGL sources) to improve dragons and other flying creatures beyond what is listed in the SRD.

Aaron Goddard wrote:
7) Don't take away the human's multiclass ability. The way they have to choose it at the beginning instead of taking the one they have the most levels in is kind of a big nerf.

They have changed what a favored class does. Humans NEED to pick it at first level because it grants bonus HP.

Alpha 3 wrote:
Each race has a favored class, representing its natural affinity for a specific set of skills and abilities. Whenever you take a level in your race’s favored class, you receive +1 hit point. Humans and half-elves frequently get this bonus, unless they multiclass. You do not gain this bonus for taking levels in a prestige class, regardless of its focus or theme.
Aaron Goddard wrote:
Why do people put so much emphasis on word choice? It's rather ridiculous.

Because it was grossly offensive and some people will respond before reading your apology. Others may find that an apology is insufficent for such a slur. Since you never know who will be reading your post or when you should choose your words more carefully. The language you use on the boards should be the same sort of social language you would use with people you have never met, rather than what you would say to your buddies at the gaming table.

Finally don't fly off the handle until you have had a chance to play with some of the options. Some of the rules work better in play than they look on paper. Feedback based on actual play is more useful than an admitted knee jerk tantrum.

Dark Archive

pres man wrote:
Brent wrote:
Because these folks need something to complain about. ...
What a mature viewpoint you have of your fellow posters.

Its not my view of my fellow posters. It is my view of a handful of posters who never offer anything constructive in their critisisms and simply complain. The vast majority of folks here are very bright, courteous, and thoughtful. Many don't agree with components of PFRPG, but participate in dialogues to make those things better instead of just repeating how upset they are that 3.5 isn't going to be kept verbatim in 3P over and over again. That said, even such a view of those who do nothing but complain is no more immature than throwing a temper tantrum because one doesn't get what one wants.

Grand Lodge

Not that I want to get back in this Thread, but...

I know a lot of profs that compare Bush to Hitler. I'm one of 'em. It's a mild list of similarities, true, and it's a list of correlations so there's no real publishable stuff to say. I guess we do it because the similarities are striking sometimes and we hate Bush so much it's just kind of good to vent.

-W. E. Ray

Anyway, back to your arguments...


Brent wrote:
That said, even such a view of those who do nothing but complain is no more immature than throwing a temper tantrum because one doesn't get what one wants.

And no more mature either.


Brent wrote:
(The post where he made his comparison to what he said to what I said)

Touche.

(the magic ` above the e, not sure how to put it there. I am well aware there is supposed to be a mark there before anyone points this out.)

Grand Lodge

Actually I do have something to add to the Thread.

The OP has become a much more articulate poster and we the community need to start acknowledging that -- not just Chris.

To the OP: I think many folks are posting knee-jerk reactions based on reading a few early posts and maybe skimming a few others. I doubt many have read the whole Thread.

-W. E. Ray


Molech wrote:

Not that I want to get back in this Thread, but...

I know a lot of profs that compare Bush to Hitler. I'm one of 'em. It's a mild list of similarities, true, and it's a list of correlations so there's no real publishable stuff to say. I guess we do it because the similarities are striking sometimes and we hate Bush so much it's just kind of good to vent.

-W. E. Ray

Anyway, back to your arguments...

<-----Points out Molech's hypocrisy with the Pointy Stick of Lampshading

Grand Lodge

lol

Sovereign Court

Question to the OP

Do you really think that doing some minor skill consolidation makes it incompatable with 3.5

Are you just upset because something that is done in 4e is done in pathfinder.

I mean what exactly are you trying for, do you want them to go back to the exact same skill system or do you like ranks but hate the consolidation. Honestly you haven't made a real case for what you are fighting for so all people really have to talk about is your tone. If you give us something to work with instead of just saying "I don't like it" maybe we can come up with ideas, but if you just want it to be the 3.5 skill system then you've made your point and there's really nothing to discuss or defend. Play 3.5, because even if they change skill ranks again, they aren't (as others have stated) going back to the same as 3.5


----- Important discovery ------

I think everyone, including the OP, should stop posting on this thread. Everybody should stop using the internet for one hour, go outside enjoy the sun and eat ice cream.

After that, if he still feels like it, the OP could come back to the Paizo Board and start a NEW thread, where he tries to make his original point(s) with a less controversial phrasing.

If he and other posters go to the new thread and debate the issue politely and interestingly, the Internet will be a better place and our hearts will grow warm and fuzzy.


lastknightleft wrote:

Question to the OP

Do you really think that doing some minor skill consolidation makes it incompatable with 3.5

Are you just upset because something that is done in 4e is done in pathfinder.

I mean what exactly are you trying for, do you want them to go back to the exact same skill system or do you like ranks but hate the consolidation. Honestly you haven't made a real case for what you are fighting for so all people really have to talk about is your tone. If you give us something to work with instead of just saying "I don't like it" maybe we can come up with ideas, but if you just want it to be the 3.5 skill system then you've made your point and there's really nothing to discuss or defend. Play 3.5, because even if they change skill ranks again, they aren't (as others have stated) going back to the same as 3.5

The latter and some of the former. I hate everything about 4th edition, and one of the main deal breakers was the new skill system. If you have to commit the act of conversion, then its a different edition and not the same edition.

Basically, I see the skill system in alpha as a step towards 4th edition and away from 3.5, which causes the system to lose its appeal.

I want them to go back to the exact same skill system and I hate consolidation.

Consolidation is detrimental to roleplaying, because it means that the jester who spent his whole life tasting food and living inside a castle with no windows is magically able to spot and listen as if he were a ranger who grew up among wolves, and a mountain climber whose never done a somersault in his life and has instead spent his whole life climbing rock faces is suddenly a Power Ranger.

Its detrimental to freedom because I want to be able to choose different skills. I want a set of abilities chosen by me, I don't want to be forced to be good at everything just by buying one skill. If I'm a fighter, I want to fight and maybe intimidate; I'll leave the spotting to the guys with skill points.

Sovereign Court

Ok then, so you liked 3.5 more than 3.0 as an entirely new edition? I'm asking because I learned with 3.5 not 3.0 but there are some conversions when you build a 3.0 character and switch it to 3.5

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

There's no reason that you must take the entire PFRPG rules set as written. I'm playing 3.5 STAP now, and we've implemented plenty of house rules (including skill consolidation) into the game with no problem. If you like some of the things that Paizo has done, but not others, just implement those few changes. The system as a whole is close enough that it's not hard to do. The same can not be said of 4e.

As for how much of a commitment is involved in the conversion, it's not much. I'm doing the complete conversion option for my RotR campaign, and it's pretty simple to do. You just see how many of the original skills are now combined, and take those skill points and reallocate. No big deal. In terms of the backwards compatibility Paizo promised, so far, they are doing a fantastic job.

But the best way to be heard and to make an impact on the development process is to run actual playtests and post feedback. Not "I didn't like this when I played it" but more along the lines of "such-and-such" didn't work when we played it because ... and we house ruled the problem away by doing this." Everyone's going to have opinions, but when it comes down to it, Paizo is not obligated to make the game for one person's tastes. By analyzing consistent feedback, however, they can gauge what will work as a game system across the board.

Sovereign Court

Aaron Goddard wrote:
I want them to go back to the exact same skill system and I hate consolidation.

Does that include cross-class bought at half ranks and level +3 points in class skills and half that in CC skills?

Aaron Goddard wrote:


Its detrimental to freedom because I want to be able to choose different skills. I want a set of abilities chosen by me, I don't want to be forced to be good at everything just by buying one skill. If I'm a fighter, I want to fight and maybe intimidate; I'll leave the spotting to the guys with skill points.

Mkay, with 2+int skillpoints still isn't that entirely possible I mean the dwarf fighter in the game I'm in right now has 1 skill point per level which she puts in craft (brew) in pathfinder after conversion she doesn't get any more ranks and still only has enough skills to be a brewer and nothing else, but lets say we have a fighter with a high int who actually purchased all those cross class skills in 3.5 (like my shepperd staff fighter who maxed all three because they were important skills for a sheperd) I had 5 Skill points a level (2 fighter, 2 int, 1 human) I maxed listen and spot, profession (sheperd), Swim, and climb. Are you telling me that it's somehow evil if I can also put ranks finally in perform (flute) which my character had on him but never used because I couldn't afford to loose the ranks in the other skills? I mean I'm still not as good as the ranger who has a +3 over me.


Without getting into things too much (I'm not going 3.Paizo, so my opinions aren't really important), but I think putting smell into perception probably isn't a good idea. How do the 1st level grunt guards keep a bunch of thieves from sneaking by? Guard dogs. In 3.x the scent ability almost always beat someone's move silently and hide skills as long as they were within 30 ft.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Aaron Goddard wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:

Question to the OP

Do you really think that doing some minor skill consolidation makes it incompatable with 3.5

Are you just upset because something that is done in 4e is done in pathfinder.

I mean what exactly are you trying for, do you want them to go back to the exact same skill system or do you like ranks but hate the consolidation. Honestly you haven't made a real case for what you are fighting for so all people really have to talk about is your tone. If you give us something to work with instead of just saying "I don't like it" maybe we can come up with ideas, but if you just want it to be the 3.5 skill system then you've made your point and there's really nothing to discuss or defend. Play 3.5, because even if they change skill ranks again, they aren't (as others have stated) going back to the same as 3.5

The latter and some of the former. I hate everything about 4th edition, and one of the main deal breakers was the new skill system. If you have to commit the act of conversion, then its a different edition and not the same edition.

Basically, I see the skill system in alpha as a step towards 4th edition and away from 3.5, which causes the system to lose its appeal.

I want them to go back to the exact same skill system and I hate consolidation.

Consolidation is detrimental to roleplaying, because it means that the jester who spent his whole life tasting food and living inside a castle with no windows is magically able to spot and listen as if he were a ranger who grew up among wolves, and a mountain climber whose never done a somersault in his life and has instead spent his whole life climbing rock faces is suddenly a Power Ranger.

Its detrimental to freedom because I want to be able to choose different skills. I want a set of abilities chosen by me, I don't want to be forced to be good at everything just by buying one skill. If I'm a fighter, I want to fight and maybe intimidate; I'll leave the spotting to the guys with skill points.

The way I see the consolidation of skills is that by investing 10 points in one is you get the others for free. In the case of perception, one roll does not apply for everything at once. You must still roll for spot, and listen seperately.

Example: Rogue is scouting 30ft in front. A group of Orc Marauders is planning an ambush and a pit trap. The GM asks the rogue for a search check on the trap. He rolls a 10 plus bonus of 8 = 18. He finds the trap. Then the GM asks for a spot check to see the Orcs hiding in the bushes. He rolls a 2 + 8 = 10. He did not see them. Finally the GM asks for a listen check. He rolls a 17 + 8 = 25. He heard them. No suprise round.

All three checks using the same modifier. This is how I see the combined skill checks working.


Absinth wrote:
Doombunny wrote:

All I can really say is this:

Jason Buhlman = Pol Pot

LMAO

Posting of the week! Where shall I send your award? :)

Thank you!

I'd like to dedicate this award to the many children this horrible thread has injured. I believe the children are the future. And remember, you can't soar like an eagle without a Fly skill.


Aaron Goddard wrote:
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!

Spelling wrong. Highly insulting. I bet, you are not even knowing what this sentence means and how it is related to history. I do not want to be confronted with such sillyness here on these boards. If you have an opinion, discuss it the civilian way and without "pseudo-political" nonsense. I vote for a ban.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:
Without getting into things too much (I'm not going 3.Paizo, so my opinions aren't really important), but I think putting smell into perception probably isn't a good idea. How do the 1st level grunt guards keep a bunch of thieves from sneaking by? Guard dogs. In 3.x the scent ability almost always beat someone's move silently and hide skills as long as they were within 30 ft.

Consolidation of all Perception into one skill check, rather than two skills and special abilities like tremorsense and scent will cause a certain amount of ripple through the system, it is true. I would just add racial bonuses to perception checks involving scent for guard dogs. Simple and easy, and no different than having +2 synergy bonuses to Use Magic Device checks involving scrolls from 3.5.

These changes exist, but I think the consolidation of the 5 basic senses into the same rules mechanic is only a good, solid simplification. Sure, it's a little more abstraction that requires a certain amount of the human touch to pull off (accounting for the blind or deaf, for example) - but I don't view that as a negative.

(I apologize for any misspellings, I appear to have misplaced my ability to type today...)


Beastman wrote:
Aaron Goddard wrote:
All I have to say to that is Javhol mein fuher!
Spelling wrong. Highly insulting. I bet, you are not even knowing what this sentence means and how it is related to history. I do not want to be confronted with such sillyness here on these boards. If you have an opinion, discuss it the civilian way and without "pseudo-political" nonsense. I vote for a ban.

It has already been dealt with, try not to bring up old issues.


Jess Door wrote:

Consolidation of all Perception into one skill check, rather than two skills and special abilities like tremorsense and scent will cause a certain amount of ripple through the system, it is true. I would just add racial bonuses to perception checks involving scent for guard dogs. Simple and easy, and no different than having +2 synergy bonuses to Use Magic Device checks involving scrolls from 3.5.

These changes exist, but I think the consolidation of the 5 basic senses into the same rules mechanic is only a good, solid simplification. Sure, it's a little more abstraction that requires a certain amount of the human touch to pull off (accounting for the blind or deaf, for example) - but I don't view that as a negative.

(I apologize for any misspellings, I appear to have misplaced my ability to type today...)

My issue would be with having scent in there, that a rogue could basically be standing right by a dog (perhaps invisible) and the dog couldn't smell him because of good or bad rolls. That just strikes me as kind of lame, and putting racial bonuses wouldn't completely help since it is still dicated by a roll, unless the bonus was so high that it made the roll mute (dogs have +50 on perception when using scent within 30 ft).


Charles Scholtz:

Yes, and that is exactly what I hate. I hate the fact that you basically get 4 free skills for investing in only one skill.


To the OP:

a) I am German, hence I should feel insulted. I would've taken you a tad more serious had you been able to spell stuff correctly. You did not. And also because those who toss the term around like that do not really know what they are talking about. And if you did... that kind of shows me what type of person you are.

b) I don't mind the consolidation as you can always add modifiers for noise, stench (was about to say ignorance but that is more of an INT thing) and visibility. I played StarWars by WEG for a long time and it never bothered me that there were no "specialized" perception thingies. If you don't like it, don't...

you have a point though, but your attitude, tone and lack of basic historical knowledge really does not help you...

'nuff said

Scarab Sages

Aaron Goddard wrote:
Yes, and that is exactly what I hate. I hate the fact that you basically get 4 free skills for investing in only one skill.

Somewhere (in the Alpha 1 boards, I think) there was a suggestion to keep the skill consolidation for organizing separate-but-related skills, but still treat them as separate skills when buying ranks or making skill checks.

So, for example, instead of one Perception skill that's used in multiple contexts, you'd deal with Perception(sight) and Perception(sound) as two separate skills, similar to Knowledge(arcana) and Knowledge(religion), etc. I personally think this is a good compromise, as you could have players spend ranks separately in the five distinct Perception skills but still have something like a feat or class feature that gives a bonus to all Perception skills equally.

Grand Lodge

pres man wrote:
Herald wrote:
Having read the post here, I can't see how anyone is telloing the OP that they should get thier hopes up at all that things might revert to thier original position.

O Rly?

Chris Mortika wrote:

If something in the Alpha rules doesn't work, if people don't understand it, if it leaves itself open to loopholes and abuse, if it turns out to wreck backwards capabilities --the most obvious examples are the skill system from Alpha 1, Combat Feats, and possibly the change to Damage Reduction-- then that rule will not be in the Beta test, or might not make it into the hardcover.

The hardcover Pathfinder rules system as a whole will certainly not be the same as 3.5, but Jason has occaissionally stated that several rules in the Alpha documents are experiments, which might succeed or might fail. If they fail, they'll be scaled back closer to the (3.5) baseline.

That's the process, as I understand it.

Besides, which that goes back to my point. If someone is complaining about how they don't want things to change from 3.5, who does telling them "Well don't get too excited these rules might not be in the final product" help them? As you stated, "When things change they very rarely go back to thier original condtion." If someone doesn't want to change from Vanilla (3.5), telling them that the it might not end up being Strawberry (Alpha) is pointless if it is likely to be Chocolate (Beta) and extremely unlikely to be Vanilla. The person complaining doesn't want Strawberry or Chocolate, they want Vanilla.

All I'm suggesting is not using the comment about how what is in Alpha might not be in the final product, when someone complains "It's not 3.5!" Because you are not helping them. Tell it to folks that say, "The new change is super totally awesome! I'm wetting myself it is so cool!" so they don't get their hopes up too much and then get disappointed when it changes (e.g. Alpha 1 max-min skill system fans).

And your quote proves my point, There rules aren't going to go back to the original. Thanks from proving my post.

You aren't being helpful, all your doing is is confusing issue. Please don't tell anyone else how to post or what to post.


For organizing them alphabetically, you mean?
No, I would still be against that.
I hate the sight of too many of the same letter clustered together. Knowledge, Craft, and Profession are bad enough. I like seeing listen and Spot in different parts of my character sheet.

Sovereign Court

Aaron Goddard wrote:

For organizing them alphabetically, you mean?

No, I would still be against that.
I hate the sight of too many of the same letter clustered together. Knowledge, Craft, and Profession are bad enough. I like seeing listen and Spot in different parts of my character sheet.

You know what? Then just set the order of your skills in whatever order appeals to you. If this is important to you, no one can design a product that will appeal to all your quirks, and you've just destroyed any chance that someone at Paizo might even want to bother considering your opinion.

Seriously, that's just plain silly.


Aaron Goddard wrote:
I hate everything about 4th edition

The Pro-4e side just let out a collective sigh of relief.

Thanks!


Jess Door wrote:
Aaron Goddard wrote:

For organizing them alphabetically, you mean?

No, I would still be against that.
I hate the sight of too many of the same letter clustered together. Knowledge, Craft, and Profession are bad enough. I like seeing listen and Spot in different parts of my character sheet.

You know what? Then just set the order of your skills in whatever order appeals to you. If this is important to you, no one can design a product that will appeal to all your quirks, and you've just destroyed any chance that someone at Paizo might even want to bother considering your opinion.

Seriously, that just plain silly.

Concur.


You know what? I've decided I hate the fact that Sense Motive is all one skill. It should be split up into 7 skills: sense outright lie, sense white lie, sense minor fib, sense prevarication, sense slight omission, sense garbled statistics, and sense nonsense. Keeping it one skill is a deal-breaker for me now. Too bad no one else is noble enough to fight for this self-evident Truth.

Edit: Sorry. No one has actually said anything quite that far out, nor would I imply they have. My sense of whimsy got the better of me for a moment, that's all.

Sovereign Court

Kirth Gersen wrote:
<snip!/> Too bad no one else is noble enough to fight for this self-evident Truth.

I think you're Bluffing! Or...er...Prevaricating!

::rolls 1::

Oh, okay then. You must be right.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Aaron Goddard wrote:

Charles Scholtz:

Yes, and that is exactly what I hate. I hate the fact that you basically get 4 free skills for investing in only one skill.

But if it was seperated into five skills then almost no one would seriously invest in smell, taste, or feel. Those skills are not valuable at all without giving them exceptional abilities. Then I feel that it would be wasted space on a page as people would use it maybe once in a campaign.

I'm not saying learning how to smell something well mean you must see something well too. I'm just saying that combining the skills actually makes them worthwhile to take.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

The skills in a particular game reflect the "reality" the designers and GameMaster are trying to simulate. For example, the old World of Darkness games had different ability lists, because Cainites needed acting and seduction, while garou were more interested in leadership and cosmology.

It would be nice if D&D rules explicitly allowd the GM to condense some skills and break others ot, depending on the campaign she wanted to run.


Chris Mortika wrote:
It would be nice if D&D rules explicitly allowd the GM to condense some skills and break others ot, depending on the campaign she wanted to run.

I like the fact that they sort of do; you have a "toolbox" of 3.5 and D20 modern skills from the SRD; Pathfinder makes some combinations, and other people on these boards are working on other combinations. A James Bond-influenced game would probably separate Search back out from Perception, and separate Seduction from Diplomacy, but lump all the Knowledge skills together as "Random Knowledge," for example. As long as the components are the same, it seems like the workable combinations are nearly limitless.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Chris Mortika wrote:

The skills in a particular game reflect the "reality" the designers and GameMaster are trying to simulate. For example, the old World of Darkness games had different ability lists, because Cainites needed acting and seduction, while garou were more interested in killing and more killing.

fixed it for you :-)

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Matthew Morris wrote:
fixed it for you :-)

Thanks, Matthew.


Herald wrote:
And your quote proves my point, There rules aren't going to go back to the original. Thanks from proving my post.

Which was my point as well . . . so what is your deal?

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Aaron Goddard wrote:

Charles Scholz:

Yes, and that is exactly what I hate. I hate the fact that you basically get 4 free skills for investing in only one skill.

Don't forget, you are also losing skill points at first level. You only get 4+INT instead of (4+INT)x4. The combined skills will balance out the loss of points; also, many people usually take those skills even though they lose points for cross classing in 3.5. This way just makes it more simple to figure.

101 to 150 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / General Discussion / Skill Simplification? This is NOT 3.5!!!!!! All Messageboards