|
I've enjoyed going back and forth here on the Pathfinder boards about which skills could be combined and which ones should remain distinct and separate. I like the idea of a consolidated skill list for when I'm playing with newer players or teaching middle school kids to play. I also like the idea of a long list of skills for when I play with adults because it's better for developing detailed characters with complex backgrounds, which I enjoy.
who can train animals but not ride well. 4E is a chocolate bar, Pathfinder is tierra misu. 4E is cheap beer, Pathfinder is fine wine. 4E is a one-night-stand, Pathfinder is a love affair. I want complexity. When my students (or someday my son) have gotten good at basic-D&D 4E, I want to introduce them the an adult's game - Pathfinder.
So, that in mind, and the original Pathfinder mission of fixing problems in 3.5, I want to argue for NOT consolidating the majority of skills. Fix the ones that are broken or truly redundant, but leave the rest alone. Maybe even change the way the various skills function, but don't needlessly alter the list.
3.5/OGL
Appraise
Balance - works fine by itself
Bluff
Climb
Concentration
Craft
Decipher Script - I'm okay with this one, but roll it into Linguistics if you must
Diplomacy
Disable Device - plenty you can do with this
Disguise
Escape Artist
Forgery[b] - make this a Craft so people can still use it but it disappears from the list
Gather Information
Handle Animal
Heal
[b]Hide - okay, this one ALWAYS gets used with Move Silently, so go ahead and combine them
Intimidate
Jump - never belonged in with Balance and Tumble
Knowledge(arcana)
Knowledge(dungeoneering)
Knowledge(engineering)
Knowledge(geography)
Knowledge(history)
Knowledge(local)
Knowledge(nature)
Knowledge(nobility)
Knowledge(planes)
Knowledge(religion)
Listen - Pathfinder's Perception is an improvement on Listen/Spot so keep that
Move Silently - always used with Hide, combine
Open Lock - classic thief skill
Perform
Profession
Ride
Search - very different from simple Perception
Sense Motive
Sleight Of Hand
Speak Language - Linguistics if you must
Spellcraft
Spot - combine with Listen
Survival
Swim
Tumble - worth it's own skill for avoiding AoOs alone
Use Magic Device
Use Rope - not useful enough by itself, combine with Survival
Fly - add it if you think it helps clarify maneuverability rules
That's all that's really broken, everything else is just personal preference. And we can deal with personal preferences with our own house rules. I can add Mechanics myself. Someone else can roll Balance and Tumble into Acrobatics. But don't consolidate Pathfinder's skill list all the way down to 4E just 'cause it's possible. Sure it's possible, but with every simplification we loose richness. If I want simple, I'll play 4E. When I play Pathfinder I want all the nuances and complexity I've appreciate in 3.5.
|
I'll second this.
I've been very interested in the skill lists for the Alpha releases. While I understand a lot of people have 'good reasons' for wanting certain changes, most of them simply don't work well for me personally. The skill list in 3.5 was pretty darn good. Now that the skill costs are 'fixed', I'd leave just about everything the way it is now.
The only thing that I think could/should be changed above is the combination of Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft. But that is a small enough issue that while I'd personally like it, I think it is easier and probably therefore better to just leave it as it was in 3.5.
Sorry but I must deny.
While 4E went far too far, Pathfinder is on the right track regarding skill consolidation.
It's just unnecessary to have skills like climb, jump and swim separated in a regular game.
I say regular, because every shift in theme or focus actually results in another need for skills.
If you play a wilderness heavy, survival game, you could even get be with only ONE interaction skill covering diplomacy, bluff, disguise, etc, but would need to have things like climb, jump, swim, and maybe even boating or Use Rope as separate skills.
Pathfinder (as any non-setting core book) should therefor present a nicely tied package of skills with a sidebar/paragraph about deconsolidating those skills however "your" personal campaign sees fit.
|
|
The basic campaign book should work for a city based intrigue game (a la Curse of the Crimson Throne) or a dungeon delving adventure (a la Seven Swords of Sin) or a mountain survival adventure (Spires of Xin-Shalast).
That means the rules don't have to be changed when you 'switch gears'. It is easier to combine skills if the DM feels it is necessary than to 'decompress' them.
Having more skills leads to more flexiblity. Rather than combining, a DM can also give more skill points if he feels it necessary, accomplishing the same result.
I like Mosaic's list for various reason, including 3.5 compatibility. But I would combine Spellcraft and Knowledge(arcana).
Also, Pathfinder's Perception with its separate bonuses for Spot, Listen, Smell basically becomes separate skills. Actually, I would rather have separate skills than write down Perception +10 (Spot+12).
One other change I would like is to have a Track skill instead of lumping it into Survival. Then I can finally make an urban tracker who isn't good at living in the wilds, and I can finally say "Make a Track check" when tracking instead of "Make a Survival check".
I like having Balance, Jump, Climb, etc. skills. I want to be able to say "Make a balance check and have it in front of me, instead of looking for the skill to roll." My games use a lot of climb, balance, etc.
There are so many threads on this I don't know where to put this!
I like the combining of skills but I'm no so
sure about eliminating the Skill Point system. The
Pathfinder System makes it essentially so that you are
maxed out in skill points in any skill you choose. So
essentially any PC on the same level as another PC
with the same Class Skill are equal except for their
ability score modifier. So in other words a Rouge with
Stealth at 1st level has a 18 DEX. Well what Rouge
does not have a maxed DEX? So every other Rouge at 1st
Level has the same exact modifiers? Same with every
other level. That is fine, I play fighters a whole
lot, but it makes Skills look a lot like Feats.
Skills - Ability Scores: The new Skill system seems to
make DEX a necessity (i.e what about all those DEX =
12/+1 fighters in full plate?) There is only one STR
related Skill; Climb. Combining the skills also means
making the "best" choice on what ability score to tie
to the new combined skill but I think its worth
talking about.
As for the concentration threads out there - I agree; it needs to be kept. It is, at least, an essential mechanic for spellcasters and those attacking spellcasters (one of my favorite hobbies when delving into combat).
The obvious options are to housefule some stuff, stay
with the "old" D&D v3.5 Skill system or just use what
Pathfinder has.
These issues certainly are not make or break for me
but I thought them worth noting for the conversation.
I like the combining of skills but I'm no so
sure about eliminating the Skill Point system. The
Pathfinder System makes it essentially so that you are
maxed out in skill points in any skill you choose. So
essentially any PC on the same level as another PC
with the same Class Skill are equal except for their
ability score modifier.
Warlord, I think that's how it was in one of the earlier Alphas, however as of Alpha 3, that's not how it works at all.
A3 version is basically:
* Skill points as per standard 3.5 rules.
* All skills cost 1 point per rank.
* If You put a skill point in a class skill, You get a +3 bonus on that skill.
Just throwing my hat in for the Alpha 3 skill list.
A good system is a balance of depth and elegance. It knows when to be complex and meaty and when to be simple or abstract. I like complexity, but I think the skill system was a good place to trim up and streamline.
Rage points? Ki points? Bloodlines? These complications I enjoy, but I don't think the long 3.5 skill list added that much to play, especially in light of how many abstractions it still included. I think the changes were modest and well-considered.
Having all my mounted character good at handling animals is something I'm prepared to live with.
|
|
I like skill consolidation. In fact, I don't think the Alpha have gone far enough in the direction of consolidating skills. Personally, I would like to see Climb and Swim (and the effects of the Jump skill) rolled up into an Athletics skill. On the other hand, I'd like to see Concentration come back with some explicit non-spellcasting applications. I already know that Fly is sticking around, but I don't like it, and I won't be using it. >_<
Otherwise, kudos on how much has been done for skill consolidation so far; keep it up.
Jeremy Puckett
Rolling together jump and swim would be a bit of a stretch. Sound mechanically, yea, but there are a lot of characters who would be great at one and unversed in the other.
Actually, I take that back. Sailors (who would want swim) are often good at climbing anyway (rigging), and mountain men (who need climb) are likely to be decent swimmers.
Still a shaky association though.
Concentration is an awesome "flavor" skill ("my monk is good at concentration"), but as a dm it's so hard to come up with non-spellcasting applications for it.
So often when concentration might be applicable, you just ask for a will save.
Concentration is an awesome "flavor" skill ("my monk is good at concentration"), but as a dm it's so hard to come up with non-spellcasting applications for it.
- ignore calltrop wounds
- ignore hunger/thirst- ignore heat/cold
- ignore distraction
- control shape
- auto-hypnosis
Just to name a few.
My thoughts are only that Sleight of Hand should be rolled into Stealth as most uses of SOH are attempting to conceal something i.e. Stealth. The Fly skill, honestly, I don't see being used much and can be made into a GM decided thing Dex or Acrobatics for those with wings and some sort of Arcane Knowledge or Spellcraft based check for Magical flying.
Sense Motive could also be rolled into Perception as most times one would ever put points into Sense Motive would be in a mystery style campaign.
It does make sense to condense skills down as much as possible, as players have a limited number of points to spread out and unless they know before hand what skill will be used most it can leave them at a disadvantage. Having a few skills that cover many bases could only make for better game play.
You have my complete agreement.
Skill consolidation stifles character individuality.
-S
Wow, that is actually a pretty cool idea tussock. I'll be interested to see what has made it into the beta, but there is a certain appeal to this approach...
After creating new characters tonight with the sole purpose of playtesting the rules, my players were pretty easygoing with the changes right up until we got to skills. They absolutely loathed the consolidation and removal of skills - I had a near mutiny on my hands. To compromise, I went with no skill consolidation, but keep the class skill bonus (the +3).
I'm not sure what form the final method of skills will take in the Beta or the final product, but my players and myself both enjoy the wide variety of skills presented in 3.5 and will be keeping it that way (though maybe I can get them to warm up on the class bonus thing).
They could've just as easily fixed it by giving more skill points out imho
I agree with Coridan in this.
For Example 2 extra skill points per level would double Fighters skill points to 4 but would not be so big addition to rogue, who already gets 8. I think it would be in a good balance.
I´ve also thought giving some racial skill points at first level reflecting the skills the characters must have learned when growing up. For example elf 8 (1st level elves are pretty old you know.), dwarf 6, halfling/half-elf 4, human gets the standard 4, half orc 2. It could get too complicated though...
After creating new characters tonight with the sole purpose of playtesting the rules, my players were pretty easygoing with the changes right up until we got to skills. They absolutely loathed the consolidation and removal of skills - I had a near mutiny on my hands. To compromise, I went with no skill consolidation, but keep the class skill bonus (the +3).
Which consolidations in particular did they not like? I don't like rolling Search/Spot/Listen into Perception, rolling Speak Language into Linguistics, and Concentration into Spellcraft, but the combined Stealth and Disable Device I don't have a problem with.
After creating new characters tonight with the sole purpose of playtesting the rules, my players were pretty easygoing with the changes right up until we got to skills. They absolutely loathed the consolidation and removal of skills - I had a near mutiny on my hands. To compromise, I went with no skill consolidation, but keep the class skill bonus (the +3).Which consolidations in particular did they not like? I don't like rolling Search/Spot/Listen into Perception, rolling Speak Language into Linguistics, and Concentration into Spellcraft, but the combined Stealth and Disable Device I don't have a problem with.
Personally the rolling of Search,Spot and Listen into Perception seems to make sense...a person who's sharp eyed should be better at spotting cracks in wall that denote a secret door or the wall makes a different sound etc. The only thing I would say was that you can still have magical items that effect only spot or listen or search. I've always thought Search was a duff skill anyhow and Spot\Listen covers it.
At the end of the day it's an unnecessary game mechanic to have three skills instead of one. The only skill that should be separate is Jump otherwise you'll end up with fighters who are doing cart-wheels everywhere because they wanted to be able to jump out of a pit. Very odd.
Balance is a natural part of Acrobatics as most characters who take Tumble also take Balance. Elves should get a good Balance bonus though as a race.
I am generally quite happy with the Pathfinder RPG skill list in Alpha 3 - the only skill that I would de-consolidate for sure would be Jump and I would roll Use Rope under Escape Artist, rather than getting rid of it entirely. I would also not welcome any further consolidation of skill beyond that already done in Alpha 3, in particular, I would resist getting rid of the mode of movement skills.
Although I like the current system, I would also be fine with going back to the old 3.5E skill list, so either way works for me.
|
|
Concentration is an awesome "flavor" skill ("my monk is good at concentration"), but as a dm it's so hard to come up with non-spellcasting applications for it.- ignore calltrop wounds
- ignore hunger/thirst
- ignore heat/cold
- ignore distraction
- control shape
- auto-hypnosisJust to name a few.
Aren't Auto-hypnosis and Control Shape separate skills?
|
|
You have my complete agreement.
Skill consolidation stifles character individuality.
-S
I'm not sure that's true. I think a character's individuality is better exemplified by how that character is played, not by choices they make on their sheet. A druid who chooses not to wildshape is just as interesting as one that chooses some obscure feat that prevents wildshaping. An incredibly serene character doesn't need maxed out ranks in concentration to get across that they're serene.
Hide - okay, this one ALWAYS gets used with Move Silently, so go ahead and combine them
Listen - Pathfinder's Perception is an improvement on Listen/Spot so keep that
Move Silently - always used with Hide, combine
I disagree completely here.
Hide and Move Silently being two separate skills gives the guard that needs to notice being snuck up on two chances instead of one. This is IMO better than just the one chance, given that sneak characters usually invest heavily in sneaking and get far higher bonuses. Without the double opportunity, opposed sneak/notice rolls are usually a completely foregone conclusion.
And if Hide and Move Silently remain separate, so should Spot and Listen - otherwise the balance between sneaking and noticing gets skewed.
What I REALLY like is that the 3.5 SRD gives us the individual "building blocks" (sub-skills), which can be used "as-are," but the Pathfinder rules give an example of how those sub-skills can be consolidated. My group has made some different combinations, that work for us.
|
|
Hide - okay, this one ALWAYS gets used with Move Silently, so go ahead and combine them
Listen - Pathfinder's Perception is an improvement on Listen/Spot so keep that
Move Silently - always used with Hide, combine
I disagree completely here.
Hide and Move Silently being two separate skills gives the guard that needs to notice being snuck up on two chances instead of one. This is IMO better than just the one chance, given that sneak characters usually invest heavily in sneaking and get far higher bonuses. Without the double opportunity, opposed sneak/notice rolls are usually a completely foregone conclusion.
And if Hide and Move Silently remain separate, so should Spot and Listen - otherwise the balance between sneaking and noticing gets skewed.
I once had a player who had such an insanely high bonus to both skills that it was hardly worth doing the opposed roll. After only five or six levels, the balance between a player's Dex+skill ranks and an enemy's Wis+skill ranks starts to widen considerably, since there are lots of ways of increasing your hide and move silently, but spot and listen aren't even class skills for most of the combat classes.
A halfling rogue who puts all her point-buy into Dex likely ends up with a +5 to hide, along with another +4 for being small. Without any special equipment, a +9 to hide before taking ranks in it.
Now, here's where I don't see any issues with Stealth as opposed to Hide and Move Silently. A small creature now gets a +4 to Stealth instead of hide, but it's still the same check. If the ubersneaky halfling tries to sneak past a guard, she still has to be quiet and the +4 doesn't apply to that. So, depending on your gaming style, you can still have two checks, one for hiding and one for moving silently... both opposed by the guard's single perception roll or opposed by two separate rolls. The only difference now is that I'm not obligated to have multiple rolls if I want to speed things along, knowing the unlikeliness of the rogue failing her checks.
Ultimately, once invisibility becomes available, hide checks usually become irrelevant and rogues with easy access to the spell, via UMD, dipping into Sorcerer, or even just a haversack full of potions don't even have to both taking ranks in Hide anymore. Which is annoying, but unless you're running a low-magic game, what can you do?
So, depending on your gaming style, you can still have two checks, one for hiding and one for moving silently... both opposed by the guard's single perception roll or opposed by two separate rolls. The only difference now is that I'm not obligated to have multiple rolls if I want to speed things along, knowing the unlikeliness of the rogue failing her checks.
A valid point, but making two rolls that are identical apart from a +4 racial bonus seems a little silly to me. If I really want to speed things up by making only one roll instead of two, I can simply elect to only roll the more difficult one (likely the least easy one, rather) for the rogue. Not that skipping one roll out of two is that big a time gain, or that you can't roll two d20 at the same time. ;-)
Also, with two separate skills I could have two guards, each of which is moderately skilled at one of the two notice skills and highly skilled at the other, while a good sneak will have to consider both equally. Not something to use all the time, but every now and then it could serve to further equal things out.
|
|
So, depending on your gaming style, you can still have two checks, one for hiding and one for moving silently... both opposed by the guard's single perception roll or opposed by two separate rolls. The only difference now is that I'm not obligated to have multiple rolls if I want to speed things along, knowing the unlikeliness of the rogue failing her checks.A valid point, but making two rolls that are identical apart from a +4 racial bonus seems a little silly to me. If I really want to speed things up by making only one roll instead of two, I can simply elect to only roll the more difficult one (likely the least easy one, rather) for the rogue. Not that skipping one roll out of two is that big a time gain, or that you can't roll two d20 at the same time. ;-)
Also, with two separate skills I could have two guards, each of which is moderately skilled at one of the two notice skills and highly skilled at the other, while a good sneak will have to consider both equally. Not something to use all the time, but every now and then it could serve to further equal things out.
Point conceded. You have to grant, though, that so many of these mechanics are only there to give game values to flavor options, having a guard who's blind as a bat but hears exceptionally well, as an example. I've often seen Paizo handle things like that in 3.5 by tinkering with the mechanics a little (Listen check as normal, 50% miss chance when he attacks someone). It would be the same for PRPG. I mean, a blind character can't make a perception check to see any more than a character with craft (metal) could use his crafting to make wooden birdhouses. And for NPCs where it doesn't matter whether seeing or hearing is their better attribute, not having to choose which skill to give the NPC does save me a little time here and there when I make sentries. = )
Keep Hide and move silently folded together.
Keep Search, Spot and Listen folded together.
Keep Climb, Jump, and Swim folded together.
Fold Bluff and Diplomacy.
Tumble is fine on its own, same with Escape Artist, Intimidate and Sense Motive. :)
My 2 coppers.
|
|
Has there been any discussion regarding Knowledge ranks...
I give my players 1/2 of their highest Knowledge score as a check for any other Knowledge category. It seems unlikely to me that you could be well educated in Knowledge (religion) and be ignorant of Knowledge (the planes) ditto with geography and history, or local and nobility, or architecture and dungeoneering for that matter.
With so few ranks to spread around, i feel it neccesary to reward my players that actually choose to spend ranks in knowedge, and it seems likely that in the course of any particular study you would gain a broader education as well.
Point conceded. You have to grant, though, that so many of these mechanics are only there to give game values to flavor options, having a guard who's blind as a bat but hears exceptionally well, as an example. I've often seen Paizo handle things like that in 3.5 by tinkering with the mechanics a little (Listen check as normal, 50% miss chance when he attacks someone). It would be the same for PRPG. I mean, a blind character can't make a perception check to see any more than a character with craft (metal) could use his crafting to make wooden birdhouses. And for NPCs where it doesn't matter whether seeing or hearing is their better attribute, not having to choose which skill to give the NPC does save me a little time here and there when I make sentries. = )So, depending on your gaming style, you can still have two checks, one for hiding and one for moving silently... both opposed by the guard's single perception roll or opposed by two separate rolls. The only difference now is that I'm not obligated to have multiple rolls if I want to speed things along, knowing the unlikeliness of the rogue failing her checks.A valid point, but making two rolls that are identical apart from a +4 racial bonus seems a little silly to me. If I really want to speed things up by making only one roll instead of two, I can simply elect to only roll the more difficult one (likely the least easy one, rather) for the rogue. Not that skipping one roll out of two is that big a time gain, or that you can't roll two d20 at the same time. ;-)
Also, with two separate skills I could have two guards, each of which is moderately skilled at one of the two notice skills and highly skilled at the other, while a good sneak will have to consider both equally. Not something to use all the time, but every now and then it could serve to further equal things out.
At the end of the day the DM determines the turn of events, and if the Rogue is Sneaking round behind 2 guards it makes more sense to role once for each guard and 1 for the PC instead of 4 oppsosed rolls, after all it seems to make more sense to go on the situation.
For example- PC sneaking down allyway 1 guard rolls higher so turns round and looks straight at the PC as the guard was looking the other way but the noise alerted him rather doing the two rolls(listen and spot) then saying you are silent as a cat but he see's you after the four rolls. Time wasted, game slowed. As the Rogue may need to make 5 lots of rolls to get past the two guards doing the 2 PC rolls and the two guard rolls each round this is 6 rolls rather than 3, multiply by the 5 rounds to do 30 rolls instead of 15.The game takes too much time as it is, lets speed it up.
For example- PC sneaking down allyway 1 guard rolls higher so turns round and looks straight at the PC as the guard was looking the other way but the noise alerted him rather doing the two rolls(listen and spot) then saying you are silent as a cat but he see's you after the four rolls. Time wasted, game slowed. As the Rogue may need to make 5 lots of rolls to get past the two guards doing the 2 PC rolls and the two guard rolls each round this is 6 rolls rather than 3, multiply by the 5 rounds to do 30 rolls instead of 15.
The game takes too much time as it is, lets speed it up.
For the love of all that's good and holy, consider the structure of your sentences. That example is nearly incomprehensible, how is anyone supposed to reply intelligently to it? :p
More to the point: as I've said elsewhere already, it's easier to houserule from complex to simple than vice versa. If you feel making two opposed rolls instead of one takes too much time, merging the two skills is easy. If you feel making just the one roll is not satisfying, splitting the one skill into two is harder. Not undoable, even quite easy if you have prior knowledge of the system, but the Pathfinder rules should also consider new players, players who get 3.P as their intro into D&D.
For example- PC sneaking down allyway 1 guard rolls higher so turns round and looks straight at the PC as the guard was looking the other way but the noise alerted him rather doing the two rolls(listen and spot) then saying you are silent as a cat but he see's you after the four rolls. Time wasted, game slowed. As the Rogue may need to make 5 lots of rolls to get past the two guards doing the 2 PC rolls and the two guard rolls each round this is 6 rolls rather than 3, multiply by the 5 rounds to do 30 rolls instead of 15.
The game takes too much time as it is, lets speed it up.For the love of all that's good and holy, consider the structure of your sentences. That example is nearly incomprehensible, how is anyone supposed to reply intelligently to it? :p
More to the point: as I've said elsewhere already, it's easier to houserule from complex to simple than vice versa. If you feel making two opposed rolls instead of one takes too much time, merging the two skills is easy. If you feel making just the one roll is not satisfying, splitting the one skill into two is harder. Not undoable, even quite easy if you have prior knowledge of the system, but the Pathfinder rules should also consider new players, players who get 3.P as their intro into D&D.
Ok I'll simplify the statement, unnecessary rolls...= BAD, less Rolls = Faster and Better.
And I do disagree with the 'splitting the one skill into two is harder', I'd say the it was a doddle otherwise you may as well not bother with Pathfinder and stick to 3.5.
Ok I'll simplify the statement, unnecessary rolls...= BAD, less Rolls = Faster and Better.
If your guard needs to roll both Spot and Listen and the PC needs to roll both Hide and Move Silently, use 2 d20s each. Red is Spot/Hide, blue is Listen/Move Silently (replace with color of choice as desired). The speed difference is minimal. We already roll attack and damage at the same time as well.
And I do disagree with the 'splitting the one skill into two is harder', I'd say the it was a doddle otherwise you may as well not bother with Pathfinder and stick to 3.5.
Pathfinder *is* 3.5, for purposes of continuity. I'll be happy with everything it fixes, but this doesn't seem like it needs fixing to me.
Ok I'll simplify the statement, unnecessary rolls...= BAD, less Rolls = Faster and Better.If your guard needs to roll both Spot and Listen and the PC needs to roll both Hide and Move Silently, use 2 d20s each. Red is Spot/Hide, blue is Listen/Move Silently (replace with color of choice as desired). The speed difference is minimal. We already roll attack and damage at the same time as well.
And I do disagree with the 'splitting the one skill into two is harder', I'd say the it was a doddle otherwise you may as well not bother with Pathfinder and stick to 3.5.Pathfinder *is* 3.5, for purposes of continuity. I'll be happy with everything it fixes, but this doesn't seem like it needs fixing to me.
Generally I prefer the Role play aspect of the game, rather than the Roll play. It needs a mechanic behind it but I can't see a reason to add unnecessary dice rolls especially as the DM can narrate. It also cuts down on the number of skill points needed for the rogue character which can't be a bad thing.
As for rolling 2 different coloured dice for both spot and listen, yeah that works for 1 NPC but for ten or more...still too slow for me personally. Give me Alpha Skill consolidation any day ( but not 4th edition skill consolidation).
If you enjoy rolling more dice you might try white wolf games like Vampire, werewolf or Shadowrun..you get to roll loads.
Generally I prefer the Role play aspect of the game, rather than the Roll play. It needs a mechanic behind it but I can't see a reason to add unnecessary dice rolls especially as the DM can narrate. It also cuts down on the number of skill points needed for the rogue character which can't be a bad thing.
Again, if they're unnecessary you simply don't roll them. That doesn't mean they should be removed from the system altogether.
As for rolling 2 different coloured dice for both spot and listen, yeah that works for 1 NPC but for ten or more...still too slow for me personally. Give me Alpha Skill consolidation any day ( but not 4th edition skill consolidation).
If you roll both at the same time, what's the difference between 1 NPC and 10 or more (and, honestly, how often do you need to make Spot or Listen rolls for 10 NPCs)?
What makes Alpha skill consolidation so much better than 4E skill consolidation?
Generally I prefer the Role play aspect of the game, rather than the Roll play. It needs a mechanic behind it but I can't see a reason to add unnecessary dice rolls especially as the DM can narrate. It also cuts down on the number of skill points needed for the rogue character which can't be a bad thing.Again, if they're unnecessary you simply don't roll them. That doesn't mean they should be removed from the system altogether.
Likewise there's no reason to put them back in, I'm afraid we are on the opposite sides of the discussion and will never agree so ultimately its up to Paizo to decide what the majority wants. I will be cheering for one skill, obviously you will be cheering for two.
As for rolling 2 different coloured dice for both spot and listen, yeah that works for 1 NPC but for ten or more...still too slow for me personally. Give me Alpha Skill consolidation any day ( but not 4th edition skill consolidation).If you roll both at the same time, what's the difference between 1 NPC and 10 or more (and, honestly, how often do you need to make Spot or Listen rolls for 10 NPCs)?
What makes Alpha skill consolidation so much better than 4E skill consolidation?
Over the years of DMing I have had a PC sneak into an army of Devils who numbered in the thousands, other times PCs have stealthed up to an armed camp or castle with anything from two sentries to loads. You are clearly fortunate that you have PC's who don't try such gutsy actions.
4th Edition went crazy on skill consolidation and removed half the skills like craft, profession and changed the skill system completely which will end up with every fighter being a clone of each other, every rogue...etc.
Anyone else can throw there opinion in here by the way.
Over the years of DMing I have had a PC sneak into an army of Devils who numbered in the thousands, other times PCs have stealthed up to an armed camp or castle with anything from two sentries to loads. You are clearly fortunate that you have PC's who don't try such gutsy actions.
So did you roll thousands of skill checks, or did you go for a more feasible approach? And if the latter, what's stopping you from doing the same now?
I honestly don't see the issue here. You roll two dice for every one you'd roll if both skills were consolidated, but you can roll them at the same time. The number of rolls is really the same, all that changes is the number of dice.
4th Edition went crazy on skill consolidation and removed half the skills like craft, profession and changed the skill system completely which will end up with every fighter being a clone of each other, every rogue...etc.
Removing is not consolidating and neither is changing the system. Don't get me wrong, I don't like what's done with skills in 4E either, but the consolidation part of it is not really much worse than what I'm often seeing suggested here (how far the beta and the final version of Pathfinder will go - or hopefully not go, if I have things my way - is obviously still very much up in the air).
Over the years of DMing I have had a PC sneak into an army of Devils who numbered in the thousands, other times PCs have stealthed up to an armed camp or castle with anything from two sentries to loads. You are clearly fortunate that you have PC's who don't try such gutsy actions.So did you roll thousands of skill checks, or did you go for a more feasible approach? And if the latter, what's stopping you from doing the same now?
It was in an epic campaign and the Devils had no chance using the opposed SPOT and LISTEN that is being clung to so tightly as the thief had a HIDE and MOVE SILENT skill which were in the mid-20's if he rolled a 1. To give him a challenge I warned him that I would ask for 4 rolls to move between the ranks and I gave the troops a bonus which meant it was a challenge. He made it.
I honestly don't see the issue here. You roll two dice for every one you'd roll if both skills were consolidated, but you can roll them at the same time. The number of rolls is really the same, all that changes is the number of dice.
Sorry still can't get your logic, it's wasting time that i'd rather spend describing something more important to story.
4th Edition went crazy on skill consolidation and removed half the skills like craft, profession and changed the skill system completely which will end up with every fighter being a clone of each other, every rogue...etc.Removing is not consolidating and neither is changing the system. Don't get me wrong, I don't like what's done with skills in 4E either, but the consolidation part of it is not really much worse than what I'm often seeing suggested here (how far the beta and the final version of Pathfinder will go - or hopefully not go, if I have things my way - is obviously still very much up in the air).
In short I am happy with the consolidation done in the Alpha V3 other than the Jump skill. Regardless I guess we'll run the game the way we want to Pangur when the final version comes out.
Sorry still can't get your logic, it's wasting time that i'd rather spend describing something more important to story.
Your version: roll 1d20 for a Perception check.
My version: roll 2d20 for a Spot and a Listen check.It takes the same amount of time.
Regardless I guess we'll run the game the way we want to...
Definitely. I have a bunch of houserules for 3E that are far too extreme to be included officially in Pathfinder, but obviously I'll keep using them. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.
I've been playing in a Pathfinder playtest for 14 weeks now(though i personally missed a few weeks) and I have to say that I personally like the consolidated skill list. It's sleeker and easier to use, and makes life as player better. and I am pretty sure the other members of my party agree with me.
I will say however that I have been a long time supporter of bumping up the number of skills for each class and i see no reason whatsoever why this shouldn't be done.
I don't understand where skills define a character. To me role-playing and how a character makes use of his skills ingame defines a character. The over-all selection of trained skills defines a character too. If characters are defined by who had more ranks in jump or climb then it's a sad day for role-playing.
BAB is, essentially, the skill of attacking someone. Would you then say that having a high BAB is not defining for a warrior character?
A cleric with a high knowledge (religion) rank vs the same cleric with a low knowledge (religion) rank: wouldn't you say this rank is defining for what kind of cleric this is? It speaks volumes about his approach to religion, I'd say. Same with spellcraft or knowledge (arcana) for wizards or sorcerers.
These are obvious, clear-cut examples but the principle applies to skills in general.
As an example: Character A has a jump rank of 10. Character B has a jump rank of 5 and is wearing plate mail. Faced with a wide jump of 15ft and a ton of monsters behind them both characters decide to risk the jump. Character A rolls a 1 falls and dies, Character B rolls a 20 and clears the jump and lives. Now answer me this: at what point does this example define a character other than who lived and who died?
It defines them in that character A actually had a decent shot at this and B didn't. Luck (or the absence thereof) decided on how it went down here, but it a less extreme situation these ranks show the player what his (viable) options are.
You sait it yourself: use of skills in the game defines a character. You don't think that when and how skills are used is determined in great part by the rank a character has in these skills?
Sorry still can't get your logic, it's wasting time that i'd rather spend describing something more important to story.Your version: roll 1d20 for a Perception check.
My version: roll 2d20 for a Spot and a Listen check.It takes the same amount of time.
I disagree. Rolling takes roughly the same amount of time, but you still need to add up and compare an extra set of numbers.
I disagree. Rolling takes roughly the same amount of time, but you still need to add up and compare an extra set of numbers.Sorry still can't get your logic, it's wasting time that i'd rather spend describing something more important to story.Your version: roll 1d20 for a Perception check.
My version: roll 2d20 for a Spot and a Listen check.It takes the same amount of time.
So it takes a fractional amount of time more. If you're playing D&D, the math involved should be trivial.
As an example: Character A has a jump rank of 10. Character B has a jump rank of 5 and is wearing plate mail. Faced with a wide jump of 15ft and a ton of monsters behind them both characters decide to risk the jump. Character A rolls a 1 falls and dies, Character B rolls a 20 and clears the jump and lives. Now answer me this: at what point does this example define a character other than who lived and who died?
Did Pathfinder change the rule that a natural 1 is NOT an automatic failure with skills and that a natural 20 is NOT an auto success?
cuz if they didn't and the rules are the same as 3.5, your example fails.
So it takes a fractional amount of time more. If you're playing D&D, the math involved should be trivial.I disagree. Rolling takes roughly the same amount of time, but you still need to add up and compare an extra set of numbers.Sorry still can't get your logic, it's wasting time that i'd rather spend describing something more important to story.Your version: roll 1d20 for a Perception check.
My version: roll 2d20 for a Spot and a Listen check.It takes the same amount of time.
It also takes time to communicate the numbers to the DM or the players. In my experience doing the two rolls at the same time saves a very small portion of time. While it does save time, rolling, adding, and comparing two die rolls takes nearly double the time as it takes to just do it for one roll.