Without Knowledge (Religion), I don't see how any cleric would understand the holy days, ceremonies, etc. of their orders. The planes are "generally" tied pretty close to the divine orders in many campaign settings (such and such god resides on such and such plane), so that becomes an integral part of their training and understanding of the powers that they worship and draw power from. Saying a cleric doesn't need these things is like saying a rogue doesn't need to be able to move stealthily or bypass locks.
Aside from that I didn't say dump K(rel) I said K(planes). However since you brought it up K(rel) is more about identifying undead, knowing obscure bits of religious knowledge, etc. I don't know any DMs who would require a K(rel) roll to know holy days or any of the core things a cleric needs to do his daily tasks.
As far as saying "just increase your INT if you want more skill points", the same can be said for the rogues who feel that they don't have enough points for their skills. If you take the stance that the cleric is the "arm of his god" and is melee oriented, then STR, DEX, and CON all become important and thus the only dump stat is CHR.... oh wait their turning is tied to that one, not to mention any chance of trying to convert people to their religion.
Indeed a rogue does have to make a choice whether he is going to be a basic sneaky thug or be a serious skills monkey. Rogues barely have enough skills to cover their basic class requirements. Some rogues will dump INT and focus on only the melee aspects of the class while some will be serious skills monkeys.
A player need to make choices, the cleric has a ton of options, one of those options is he can be a scholarly cleric with lots of book learning and Knowledge Skills. If you choose for your cleric to be a scholarly cleric then you need to sacrifice other abilities in order to go that route. You can also choose to be the strong arm of the church with a high strength and constitution but lower INT, it doesn't really make much sense for this guy to have a high INT. You choose.
That's the cool thing about it, it's all about choice. The cleric has the choice to play the "arm of god" type cleric wading into melee, it's just a little challenging for one character to be every role in the party. You can also be a serious undead hunter focusing on CHA and WIS alone. Any single one of these roles is seriously powerful in the game so pick, what kind of cleric do you want to be. Your answer appears to be "I want to be them all".
If they were going to boost some classes to 4 skill points per level I would say fighter first, then maybe sorcerer. Cleric would be second to last on the list of classes to upgrade, right before wizard.
|
A player need to make choices, the cleric has a ton of options, one of those options is he can be a scholarly cleric with lots of book learning and Knowledge Skills. If you choose for your cleric to be a scholarly cleric then you need to sacrifice other abilities in order to go that route. You can also choose to be the strong arm of the church with a high strength and constitution but lower INT, it doesn't really make much sense for this guy to have a high INT. You choose.
i disagree in the last statement
being "the arm of god" is not in disagreement with INT... just check the real world Templars, they were well trained, quite academic, good tacticians (ok if the King said, you take your templars and die in name of god and King... well there was not much for the Grand Master Templar to do about, except suggest a tactic that will win the day with the less casualties posible for his side), they knew how to ride, how to write and where well verdes in their religion (i as a DM would ask roles for obscure thing IN THEIR religion, and basic things in any other religion, undeads and obscure religions would just go to high DCs)ok here for the basic templar (whose organization was the base for the cleric, NOT the paladin)this would be his skills: ride, handle animal, knowledge: religion, heal, literacy (they knew more than one language), diplomacy... and those are only the ones without high rank those would add sense motive & Knowledge: tactics
many would have Knowledge: nobility and politics, a craft or a profession, and we are not considering posible the possibility he learned a few thingsbefore joining the Templars
now lets consider a Fantasy Setting where you need to add also spellcraft and maybe Knowledge: planes(maybe)
Clerics are well instructed people, even if they go and adventure and fight in the name of their god, most religions ask some stabndards ofeducation.
If they were going to boost some classes to 4 skill points per level I would say fighter first, then maybe sorcerer. Cleric would be second to last on the list of classes to upgrade, right before wizard.
i say ALL of the above, begininning with all ending with all, just because we don't like a class we should descriminate it.
ok here for the basic templar (whose organization was the base for the cleric, NOT the paladin)this would be his skills: ride, handle animal, knowledge: religion, heal, literacy (they knew more than one language), diplomacy... and those are only the ones without high rank those would add sense motive & Knowledge: tactics
Human clerics can't even use a longsword or a lance, kind of tough to claim they are modeled after Knights Templar isn't it? In AD&D they couldn't even used edged weapons. If the cleric is modeled after the horseback riding sword wielding knights templar... then what exactly is the point of the paladin?
You make a reasonable argument for why a Paladin should have higher skill points. Doesn't really apply much to clerics though.
Clerics are well instructed people, even if they go and adventure and fight in the name of their god, most religions ask some stabndards ofeducation.p
If this is how you perceive clerics to be then feel free to play them this way. Just bump up your INT a little bit and there is no problem. Other people have different perceptions about the class. That's the beauty, you have the choice. It is extremely easy to play an effective cleric with High WIS, and High INT. Cleric is one of the most flexible classes in the game, it is also one of the most powerful classes.
So for the sake of argument what would the cleric give up to get more skill points? A domain perhaps? Maybe heavy armor proficiency? This idea of rampant power ups sprinkled throughout the boards is getting crazy.
|
So for the sake of argument what would the cleric give up to get more skill points? A domain perhaps? Maybe heavy armor proficiency? This idea of rampant power ups sprinkled throughout the boards is getting crazy.
What about losing the 2 Domain abilities for +2 skill points.
I think a Domain would be worth 4 skill points.
Last I checked most 'real life' faith healers don't study medicine much.I would expect someone who can heal magically, but without unlimited power to do so, to know how to heal in the mundane manner.
On a battlefield, I would expect that the clerics use their healing skill first, on the none-critically wounded, and save their spells for life and death situations. This would keep more of the soldiers alive.
Let's not get into the real life vs the game argument.
I was talking about all kinds of fantasy novels, including those based on DnD, where the cleric knows how to heal without his spells.
If this is how you perceive clerics to be then feel free to play them this way. Just bump up your INT a little bit and there is no problem. Other people have different perceptions about the class. That's the beauty, you have the choice. It is extremely easy to play an effective cleric with High WIS, and High INT. Cleric is one of the most flexible classes in the game, it is also one of the most powerful classes.
What did the rogue give up to get his 7 extra skills points (skill consolidation) in the Pathfinder version?
I find it amusing (not in a nasty way) that you seem to be defending the skill increases for several classes, but have a large objection to the 4 classes with base 2 skill points getting any extra skill points.
How exactly would it negatively affect you or your game play?
Please leave aside the "Well, I would have to modify my NPCs" argument, as you already have to do so with the changes to skills.
I would have to disagree with you here.
I would expect someone who can heal magically, but without unlimited power to do so, to know how to heal in the mundane manner.
On a battlefield, I would expect that the clerics use their healing skill first, on the none-critically wounded, and save their spells for life and death situations. This would keep more of the soldiers alive.
If you consider yourself primarily a walking band-aid, then yes, you would want Heal. However, there's no reason to assume the average cleric focuses their meaning for being on healing. There's certainly no reason the average cleric would be able to dump Int and still pick up general medical knowledge.
Actually, it wouldn't be too hard to make a more skills focused cleric, he just can't use INT as a dump stat. People have to recognize that there are sacrifices to be made in character design. You want a character that is a great spellcaster, a good martial character, and a skills expert? Gimme a break. If you want a skills focused cleric then don't dump INT.
That's pretty much my point. The cleric does not need skills to function, either mechanically or thematically. As such, it is innapropriate to give him the ability to acquire all the skills that any cleric could possibly want without asking him to pay for it.
Without Knowledge (Religion), I don't see how any cleric would understand the holy days, ceremonies, etc. of their orders.
Who said he needs to understand them? He doesn't even need to know them. You don't become a Cleric by passing a bunch of hard multiple-choice tests, at least not the generic cleric. You get the powers directly from your god, who presumably has his or her own reasons. Many probably wouldn't care whether or not you knew all the details of the order, just that you had faith in the teachings (which, really, you wouldn't need any ranks to know, since most would be DC 10 knowledge checks anyway). If you wanted to know those details, one or two ranks would suffice. You wouldn't know everything, but why would you need to?
Plus, Knowledge (Religion) is knowledge about all religions. Why would your average (key word: "Average") cleric be especially well-versed in the tenants of all the other religions of the world?
As far as saying "just increase your INT if you want more skill points", the same can be said for the rogues who feel that they don't have enough points for their skills.
Which is what I say to players who want more skill points for their rogue.
If you take the stance that the cleric is the "arm of his god" and is melee oriented, then STR, DEX, and CON all become important and thus the only dump stat is CHR.... oh wait their turning is tied to that one, not to mention any chance of trying to convert people to their religion.
Exactly. If you want to be able to do something, you have to pay for it. It is unfair for your character to be good at everything (though clerics are already pretty darn close to that).
I think part of the problem is people seem to think skills are powerful. They are not. They are nothing in comparison to the power of a +3 Sword, a fireball, a Cure Critical Wounds spell, or many feats, etc...Sorry chap, but that is your opinion and your experience.
Skills are simply "what you know", its helpful, hopefully often very helpful, but its not powerful in game terms.Again, that is your opinion and your experience.
I could allow a character to have 20 skills and he would not break the game. He'll just know and be able to do a lot of stuff. Allow him 20 feats and he will break the game.Again, that is your opinion and your experience.
I do agree that the skill point minimum should be 4 per level.
(Saying the Barbarian deserves more skill points because he lives outdoors and it is harder than living in a city is a fallacy.)I hadn't noticed how the skill consolidation gave the rogue such a boost in skills and how the fighter only got the 1 skill point. Good point there.
Thats good that you realize that. I hope it also means the same for your opinion/view. Which I am happy to hear, since you apparently would think/say that the skill heavy rogue is a powerful class because of their skills.
So I look forward to how and why your opinion and experience tells you different.
What did the rogue give up to get his 7 extra skills points (skill consolidation) in the Pathfinder version?
I find it amusing (not in a nasty way) that you seem to be defending the skill increases for several classes, but have a large objection to the 4 classes with base 2 skill points getting any extra skill points.
Hmm... I'm not sure I really defended the skill increases for several classes. I talked about how the rogues needed additional skill points as much as the clerics but I didn't really talk about the existing rogue fixes.
Clerics got helped by the consolidation just as much as rogues did. The requirement for concentration completely eliminated a 1 skill point tax on the cleric. The original "7 to 1" post also missed the fact that clerics also benefit from the Diplomacy and Linguistics roll ups... so that's a total savings of 3 skill points per level for the cleric versus 7 for the rogue. Considering the cleric only gets 2 skill points that roll up actually benefits the cleric more than the rogue. (For the record the cleric in my party uses both Diplomacy and Linguistics). Further, suddenly perception as a CC skill is viable for the cleric where as previously taking Spot, Search, and Listen was ridiculous.
What is the clerics role in the party? Casting spells, healing, melee, now skills too?
Lets look at what the rogue would have to have taken under 3.5 to 'save' 7 skill points: Balance, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Tumble
Wow... 14 skill points/ level, impressive, the rogue would have to have a 22 INT to save 7 skill points! I took the liberty of bolding what Brett helpfully identified later as the rogues required abilities, notice there are 10 of them? Notice also there are some large gaps in abilities that rogues are generally expected to cover?
It's pretty clear that there was a huge gap between the number of skill points rogues had and the number of skills they were expected to be good at. Generally the result was one of two things, rogues had a high INT, or rogues sucked at what they were expected to do. Pathfinder has improved this situation... maybe they went too far, that's a different discussion. Under 3.5 clerics could do what they wanted, if they wanted to be good at skills they could, if they wanted to fight they could. The rogue didn't have that flexibility because just to do his basic job he needed a high INT and a high DEX.
Now, under PRPG rogues will have a small touch of the flexibility clerics have enjoyed since 3e.
How exactly would it negatively affect you or your game play?
Please leave aside the "Well, I would have to modify my NPCs" argument, as you already have to do so with the changes to skills.
I am so tired of these arguments "It's just a tiny change", "it's not overpowered", "This won't effect your game negatively", "It's a minuscule change". Everyone who wants their little powerup eventually starts with those lines. What would happen if every tiny change everyone wanted was incorporated? How about this, any change people propose should be balance neutral, no powerups no matter how small without taking something away? So Heavy Armor?
Not trying to derail things here, but I would like to bring up an observation. Regarding the "just increase your INT if you want more skill points" argument, I believe there is an assumption being made the point buy automatically the standard being used for stat generation. This is not the case for me or the groups I play with. This makes a big difference. With point buy you can shave one stat stat to add to another. Using rolled stats you have fixed values to assign to your stats so instead of being a point or two difference you end up looking at swapping a 10 and a 14 or worse depending on your rolls, and not all rolling methods give you the option of assigning rolls at will. Any solution has to work for BOTH point buy and rolled stats (regardless of Roll Method and that includes 3d6 in order).
Saying it needs to work if you don't have the option of assigning rolls is ridiculous. If you don't have the option of assigning the rolls you aren't even guaranteed a playable cleric, you can just as easily wind up with an 8 in WIS as in INT.
Your Half Orc Cleric... are you suggesting that a moron... no 6 is classified as genuinely mentally retarded. Are you suggesting a mentally retarded cleric is going to be skilled at a whole lot? INT 6 is at a 'needs help tying shoes' level INT.
Just for the record there is historic and literary precedence for unwashed, uneducated holy men as well.
Lets look at what the rogue would have to have taken under 3.5 to 'save' 7 skill points: Balance, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Tumble
Wow... 14 skill points/ level, impressive, the rogue would have to have a 22 INT to save 7 skill points! I took the liberty of bolding what Brett helpfully identified later as the rogues required abilities, notice there are 10 of them? Notice also there are some large gaps in abilities that rogues are generally expected to cover?
And this highlights where I said that we will have to disagree on what skills are important. In the last several years, no rogue in our gaming group has taken Decipher Script (wizard's responsibility), Diplomacy (cleric's responsibility), or forgery (no one uses it). I'll grant you Gather Information since I think 1 rogue out of about 1/2 dozen over the years took it.
As for heavy armor, I would be more than happy for that to be dropped from the cleric class in exchange for an additional 2 skill points. I think that heavy armor proficiency should be one of the abilities that only the warrior classes get anyways....
Yeah, I am with this, with the exception of a wizard.
|
Not trying to derail things here, but I would like to bring up an observation. Regarding the "just increase your INT if you want more skill points" argument, I believe there is an assumption being made the point buy automatically the standard being used for stat generation. This is not the case for me or the groups I play with. This makes a big difference. With point buy you can shave one stat stat to add to another. Using rolled stats you have fixed values to assign to your stats so instead of being a point or two difference you end up looking at swapping a 10 and a 14 or worse depending on your rolls, and not all rolling methods give you the option of assigning rolls at will. Any solution has to work for BOTH point buy and rolled stats (regardless of Roll Method and that includes 3d6 in order).
I realize it's just my personal experience, haven't run any statistical analysis or anything, but rolling 4d6 for each and dropping the lowest, with players assigning which roll goes to which ability, seems to yield much better ability scores than point buy. Maybe some people actually roll the 3d6 in order, 1st edition style, but that's probably not the case.
And this highlights where I said that we will have to disagree on what skills are important. In the last several years, no rogue in our gaming group has taken Decipher Script (wizard's responsibility), Diplomacy (cleric's responsibility), or forgery (no one uses it). I'll grant you Gather Information since I think 1 rogue out of about 1/2 dozen over the years took it.
Lets look at what the rogue would have to have taken under 3.5 to 'save' 7 skill points: Balance, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Tumble
I highlighted the skills you identified as critical in bold and the complete list is the list of skills you identified that the the rogue would have to take in order to save 7 skill points. These are both lists you put forth, they aren't mine.
You say "no one uses forgery" but that is one of the skill points you noted the rogue saved... hmmm, so if a skill is worthless does the rogue really save it?
I was trying to communicate that not everyone uses the same method of generating stats and that using the ability to selectively change stats that certain methods allow is not a valid argument against the changing current skill point levels as not everyone is using those methods.
What you completely failed to notice in your zeal is that there are dozens of character concepts that are not viable if you can't change your stats. The monk, bard, and paladin are both nearly unplayable unless they have certain minimum abilities. Maybe you have some suggestions to fix those classes while you are at it?
In the mean time the cleric is a perfectly viable character as long as he has a 14 wisdom or higher.
As far as I'm concerned this is like suggesting rangers should get a minimum of +2 bonus damage even if they have a 10 strength (because they need to do at least +2 damage to be viable characters). INT says how many skills you have, STR determines how much damage you do in melee. Your ability scores determine how effective your character is at various things, if you have an 'average' value in that ability then you should be not better than the average joe on the street.
Darn boards ate my post. Got to remember CTRL+A, CTRL+C before posting! This will probably be shorter than my earlier reply...
OK, taking out the skills that we disagree on, we have...
3.5 = 11 skill points
Balance, Disable Device, Gather Information, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Tumble
Pathfinder = 5 points
Acrobatics, Disable Device, Gather Information, Stealth, Perception
So, my 7 points is off by 1 by just using the skills that you highlighted, still making it a lot more beneficial for the rogue than the cleric....
Honestly, the whole problem from my perspective may be the change in how skills are handled. Rarely did anyone in our group make a character that had maxed skill points for every skill they chose under 3.5. Rogues usually had plenty of skill points because characters weren't "perfect" in all their skills. A rogue may have had 4 skill points in Move Silently and Hide in Shadows, but only 2 in Open Locks and Disable Device, showing their areas of expertise while still being "adequate" in other areas.
Take my human cleric with a 12 INT for example. Under 3.5 he had 12 skill points and might have put 2 in Heal, Know(planes), Know(Religion), Spellcraft, and 4 in Concentration. Sure, he wasn't great in any skill, but he was better than the average person and it allowed me to create a rounded character with the skills that I felt were important.
In Pathfinder, that same cleric is limited to 4 skills but is automatically maxed out in them. There isn't the ability to customize the character to my view of his abilities. Instead of being average at some skills and exceptional at others, he is now "limited" to exceptional status on a smaller, total number of skills available.
The rogue however, went from having to choose which skills to be exceptional and which to be average out of the 11 listed, to being exceptional in all of them, with skill points to spare.
OK, maybe it didn't end up shorter.... :)
|
What about having skill points treated like the stat point buy system.
That is, have different levels of skill points/level depending on the kind of game you want to play.
STD fantasy - classes as listed (clerics 2, rogues 8)
High Fantasy - all classes get +2 skill points per level (clerics 4, rogues 10)
Epic Fantasy - all classes get +4 skill points per level (clerics 6, rogues 12)
doesn't necessary have to match with the point buy levels, names are just for illustration.
Darn boards ate my post. Got to remember CTRL+A, CTRL+C before posting! This will probably be shorter than my earlier reply...
I sympathize... had plenty eaten myself.
3.5 = 11 skill points
Balance, Disable Device, Gather Information, Hide, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, TumblePathfinder = 5 points
Acrobatics, Disable Device, Gather Information, Stealth, Perception
Ok, first off, the rogue is not the only one to benefit from the Perception and Gather Information consolidations. Clerics often took diplomacy and in particular now they are much more likely to boost CHA for channeling so clerics benefit from that as well. Also, as I mentioned above, it's now viable for clerics to take perception as a cross class skill... heck their perception score is likely to be higher than the rogues if they do because of their high wisdom score.
So, my 7 points is off by 1 by just using the skills that you highlighted, still making it a lot more beneficial for the rogue than the cleric....
Sure, but the deficiency was much greater for the rogue than the cleric. Personally, DMing a group where the rogue has 5th level rogue with a 5 in his climb skill because he had to spread his ranks out to cover all the rogues bases pretty much sucked. The rangers in our party consistently kicked the rogues hindside on climbing due to better STR and lack of demand on skills. Heck the rangers were often better at Move Silently and Hide than the rogue.
The clerics biggest problem was the need for Concentration and Spellcraft... heck scratch that, our clerics rarely used spellcraft so they would just sprinkle a few ranks in it and put more in K(rel) and Diplomacy.
In any case, you missed the biggest winner in the skills consolidation windfall, the ranger. He didn't have the huge skills deficit the rogue had, and now he's got 2-3 more skill points freed up.
Honestly, the whole problem from my perspective may be the change in how skills are handled. Rarely did anyone in our group make a character that had maxed skill points for every skill they chose under 3.5. Rogues usually had plenty of skill points because characters weren't "perfect" in all their skills. A rogue may have had 4 skill points in Move Silently and Hide in Shadows, but only 2 in Open Locks and Disable Device, showing their areas of expertise while still being "adequate" in other areas.
The problem with this is that the challenges put to rogues are often based upon character level with the assumption that skill levels are maxed out. Traps, locks, opponents spot checks, etc all were designed with the expectation of maxed out skills. Having 3 ranks in a skill at 6th level is about as useful as having none. Having 3 ranks in 2 skills at sixth level means you have 2 skills you aren't very good at.
Take my human cleric with a 12 INT for example. Under 3.5 he had 12 skill points and might have put 2 in Heal, Know(planes), Know(Religion), Spellcraft, and 4 in Concentration. Sure, he wasn't great in any skill, but he was better than the average person and it allowed me to create a rounded character with the skills that I felt were important.
Spreading out skill points under PRPG is significantly more effective than it was under core 3.5, this is a hidden windfall you don't seem to account for. So at first level your cleric has +4 (ranks plus class skill bonus) in 3 skills... not as nice as spreading them around but then at second level if you spread them around you now have +4 in six skills versus the 3.5 cleric which has +3 in six classes. +The +3 class skill bonus j
In Pathfinder, that same cleric is limited to 4 skills but is automatically maxed out in them. There isn't the ability to customize the character to my view of his abilities. Instead of being average at some skills and exceptional at others, he is now "limited" to exceptional status on a smaller, total number of skills available.
This is wrong. You can spread your skill points out after first level to whatever skills you want. As I mentioned above there are benefits to doing that as well.
The rogue however, went from having to choose which skills to be exceptional and which to be average out of the 11 listed, to being exceptional in all of them, with skill points to spare.
First, would you say that clerics are 'exceptional' at casting spells? I would say yes. Are they exceptional healers? In particular since PRPG I think yes. Are they exceptional at kicking serious undead hiney? Absolutely. Is it unreasonable for a rogue to be exceptional at one of her classes primary roles? Rogues have 2 things, Skills and SA... that's about it. Skills are at best a tertiary thing for clerics.
While I understand the game mechanic part of picking up a new skill at 2nd level for example, our group have developed a different way of character creation and play over the years. For example, we use training rules when acquiring new feats and skills. Out in the wilderness when you advance a level? Unless someone in the group has the skill you want, at a higher bonus than you do, your not picking up a new skill until you make it back to civilization and find someone who can train you. Same for feats.
Profession skills are generally a whole other area. A couple of us in the group like to use them to flesh out the characters. How do you justify picking up Profession (Inkeep) at 2nd level if you haven't worked in an inn? If you have worked in an inn, why didn't you start with Profession (innkeep) at 1st level?
I realize that, from a technical standpoint, the new system actually ends up being better for characters who choose to pick up a class skill at another character level due to the +3 bonus, but from a character creation/background standpoint it proves difficult to stat out the character's skills to match backgrounds, especially with the low skill point classes.
In the end I guess it doesn't matter too much because we can always houserule, which we've already decided to do by boosting all 2-skill classes to 4 skill points. It may just be the fact that people who really want something changed or want to complain about something are the most vocal, but it seems like our group definitely isn't the only one who feels this way. I won't pretend to know the real numbers, but if it is even close to a 50/50 split (which I think it might be) I don't understand why we shouldn't change it since the old way has had it's chance throughout 3.0 and 3.5.
Tomorrow is our first get together to go over the new rules and character creation. After we test it out for awhile, I guess we will see if the rogue or ranger feel cheated by this change, though I doubt they will, at least in our group...
|
I have to say I am for an increase in skills. I have posted as much a couple of times with my version of what I am using in my play testing. It is working well I think. I also think that there are different camps when it comes to skills. Some groups hardly use skills except for the key points in the game that call for rolls. Other groups see the skills as a fleshing out of their characters, and use skills to represent their role play not roll play. I know these camps are not going to agree, but can we all please be civil while doing it I have read some very snarky comments in this thread. I think things work out much more pleasantly if we can debate without the "I'm right your wrong ergo I know what I am talking about you don't" attitude. I will step off the soap box now, and hope everyone continues in a civil manner.
|
|
In our group we have agreed to play the Beta Rules 'as is' with the exception that all classes get at least 4 skill points per level. We just changed the 2 skill classes to 4 skills and made no other adjustments.
I absolutely believe that 4 should be the minimum. I find that with 2 skills they serve virtually no purpose - the character can't even be good at the skills that are archetypal.
I don't think the cleric (which certainly has some advantages) is too powerful with 4 skills.
Fortunately adding extra skill points is pretty easy, but this remains one of the major points of contention for me. This was the single thing that I was most disappointed in regarding the Beta.
I look forward to the opportunity to bring up the logic in the near future. Though I will certainly not buy the Pathfinder RPG 'sight unseen'. I have a (short) list of things that must change before I would adapt and a longer list of things I'd like to see change.
In our group we have agreed to play the Beta Rules 'as is' with the exception that all classes get at least 4 skill points per level. We just changed the 2 skill classes to 4 skills and made no other adjustments.
I absolutely believe that 4 should be the minimum. I find that with 2 skills they serve virtually no purpose - the character can't even be good at the skills that are archetypal.
I don't think the cleric (which certainly has some advantages) is too powerful with 4 skills.
Fortunately adding extra skill points is pretty easy, but this remains one of the major points of contention for me. This was the single thing that I was most disappointed in regarding the Beta.
I look forward to the opportunity to bring up the logic in the near future. Though I will certainly not buy the Pathfinder RPG 'sight unseen'. I have a (short) list of things that must change before I would adapt and a longer list of things I'd like to see change.
See this is how I have been running my playtests at home and online. I hated that the 2 skills a level was not fixed in 3.5 and saddened that such an easy fix wasn't done in the beta. I haven't used 2 skills per level since 2000 and I would way about half the people here have used 4 skills per level at one time or another. giveing 2 skills points to some classes just made no since fighter 2 but barbarian 4???? cleric 2 but druid 4 ? yeah no since at all there.
|
Ok this is the last time I will bring this up but can we please go with 4 skills ranks per level as a min?
I just want to go on record as opposed to upping the skill points. Ranks in skill represent exceptional ability in the skill already. I think the push to add skill points is coming from people who prefer their heroes to be god-like. I like my heroes to be heroic because they do heroic things, not because they know everything and are experts at everything already. I agree with those who think that upping the skill points for all classes makes all the characters generic and interchangeable, and thus no fun.
Please, please, please leave the skill point progression as it is. It's not broken, it's just a style-of-play complaint, which as has already been pointed out can be taken care of by them for their own campaigns with a home rule. It's easy to add skill points for campaigns where that's the style, but impossible to take points away from players for those campaigns where it's not wanted. Upping the skill points for the game will lock all of us who prefer it the other way into a system we don't like, but leaving it does not lock in those who want it increased.
Ok this is the last time I will bring this up but can we please go with 4 skills ranks per level as a min?I just want to go on record as opposed to upping the skill points. Ranks in skill represent exceptional ability in the skill already. I think the push to add skill points is coming from people who prefer their heroes to be god-like. I like my heroes to be heroic because they do heroic things, not because they know everything and are experts at everything already. I agree with those who think that upping the skill points for all classes makes all the characters generic and interchangeable, and thus no fun.
Please, please, please leave the skill point progression as it is. It's not broken, it's just a style-of-play complaint, which as has already been pointed out can be taken care of by them for their own campaigns with a home rule. It's easy to add skill points for campaigns where that's the style, but impossible to take points away from players for those campaigns where it's not wanted. Upping the skill points for the game will lock all of us who prefer it the other way into a system we don't like, but leaving it does not lock in those who want it increased.
You know the opposite is true? That if PF changes Skill points to a minimum of 4 you can house rule it back to 2?
Again I am amazed that skills are so powerful as to contribute to being "god like". I don't know, I find an exceptional person, with say an 18 INT and 17 DEX as being perfectly capable of having a lot of knowledge as well as physical skills.
Lets see what do I know?
Kempo Karate
Pottery making
Faceting and cabbing gemstones/jewelry making
Degrees in Biology and Psychology with minor credits in Anthropology, Political Science, English, Probability and Statistics, and History.
I know how to competently fire rifles and handguns as well as basic care and repair, and I can even reload my own ammo.
I know basic wall climbing
I know how to make fires and forage for food in the wilds, and I am pretty darn good at hunting and tracking.
Animal Husbandry
Basic Car repair (brakes, radiators, spark plug changing, oil changing, changing out alternator, water pump, etc...)
I know basic carpentry, flooring, roofing, dry wall hanging, piping/plumbing, etc....
In the Navy I learned electronics, hydraulics, pneumatics, and a bunch of other stuff.
Running a business.
Do I have an 18 INT or 17 DEX? Nope, far from it. My IQ is 118. So maybe a 12 or 13? My DEX is a 12 at best. So how many skill points do I have? At what ranks? Certainly more than 2 points as my base. What class would I be? Probably Fighter?
I am certainly not god like with all my skills, just exceptionally educated/trained. No reason why an adventuring PC couldn't be as well. Unless they only have 2 points as their base.
|
|
I posted this up-thread but I think it bears repeating.
Since it's a play-style issue - why not have different power levels of skill points similar to the way the stat points work.
For example a standard game could be RAW.
High fantasy could add 2 skill points/level to each class
Epic could add 4 skill points/level to each class
This would give normal -
Clerics - 2 Rogues - 8
High
Clerics - 4 Rogues - 10
Epic
Clerics - 6 Rogues - 12
(or it could be +1, +2 if +2/+4 seems too high)
You could mix and match with stat levels so you could run with std stats but epic skills or epic stats but std skills or whatever.
I posted this up-thread but I think it bears repeating.
Since it's a play-style issue - why not have different power levels of skill points similar to the way the stat points work.
For example a standard game could be RAW.
High fantasy could add 2 skill points/level to each class
Epic could add 4 skill points/level to each classThis would give normal -
Clerics - 2 Rogues - 8High
Clerics - 4 Rogues - 10Epic
Clerics - 6 Rogues - 12(or it could be +1, +2 if +2/+4 seems too high)
You could mix and match with stat levels so you could run with std stats but epic skills or epic stats but std skills or whatever.
why does giving a bare miniuman of 4 skills to classes that should have them mean skill monkeys[who no longer need that many anyhow] get more?
The thing about that argument I've never understood is that there are a lot of (I'm looking at four right now) d20 games that have 4, 6, and 8 as the skill point levels and the games work just fine and the 8 point classes are still the skill monkeys. Making rouges only have twice as many skills per level rather then four times as many does not make them worse. I have found this to be true in other d20 games and in D&D itself.
I'm curious... Which games are you referring to ?
Just to know... I am also for 4/6/8 pts...
Please, please, please leave the skill point progression as it is. It's not broken, it's just a style-of-play complaint, which as has already been pointed out can be taken care of by them for their own campaigns with a home rule. It's easy to add skill points for campaigns where that's the style, but impossible to take points away from players for those campaigns where it's not wanted. Upping the skill points for the game will lock all of us who prefer it the other way into a system we don't like, but leaving it does not lock in those who want it increased.
Please enlighten me why it is possible to house rule an increase of skill points from 2 to 4, but somehow impossible to houserule a decrease of 4 skill points to 2 skill points?
|
|
Please enlighten me why it is possible to house rule an increase of skill points from 2 to 4, but somehow impossible to houserule a decrease of 4 skill points to 2 skill points?
Because if the RULES, the nicely printed, official-looking rules in a book say that you get 4 points but the DM says, "No, you get 2" the player is really upset. They feel like they've had something taken away from them by the DM's stupid house rule. If, on the other hand the RULES say you get 2 points and the DM says, "No, you get 4" then the player is happy. Taking things away from players that the RULES say they should have is bad. Giving extra things to players if you think it's necessary is good.
In short, the game is not broken where the skill point distribution is concerned. Nobody has been able to show otherwise. It should stay as it is.
|
|
Please enlighten me why it is possible to house rule an increase of skill points from 2 to 4, but somehow impossible to houserule a decrease of 4 skill points to 2 skill points?Because if the RULES, the nicely printed, official-looking rules in a book say that you get 4 points but the DM says, "No, you get 2" the player is really upset. They feel like they've had something taken away from them by the DM's stupid house rule. If, on the other hand the RULES say you get 2 points and the DM says, "No, you get 4" then the player is happy. Taking things away from players that the RULES say they should have is bad. Giving extra things to players if you think it's necessary is good.
In short, the game is not broken where the skill point distribution is concerned. Nobody has been able to show otherwise. It should stay as it is.
So, if you know your players would be pretty happy if you, as a nice DM, gave 4 skill points per level, why have you chosen not to?
What detrimental effect have you encountered in your games with this change?
In more than one campaign now, we've found it to be extraordinarily useful. We don't have players dipping into high skill classes to 'represent' their character better, we have people taking more 'background skills', we have good coverage of all the 'core abilities' and we have been able to do some rather interesting experiments. For instance, in the current campaign we're playing (Curse of the Crimson Throne) we talked about what we wanted from the game as players. We decided we wanted more emphasis on intrigue and achieving objectives without actually fighting - and for that reason we're all taking ranks in stealth. It would not have been possible to do that without increasing the 2 skill classes to 4. So far, the game has been a blast, and the change in the skills per level has been a noticeable and significant part. Anecdotal, though it may be, it has made the game better.
|
|
This topic ... is ETERNAL!
For the 10000th time I say the best solution would be 3/4/5/6 instead of the current 2/4/6/8 or the proposed 4/6/8.
Fighter and cleric skills were consolidated a lot less (fighter had no consolidated class skills!) than rogues and that sort. Thus + to fighters, - to rogues. PERFECT!
This whole thing has gone on long enough! 3! 4! 5! 6!
while 3/4/5/6 is interesting I don't like it 4/5/6 would be ok for me however. Anyhow 4/6/8 is so common it isn't even funny I can bet at lest half the folk here has either played in a game that does that or has players that have. And if half of all players think its wrong well they may be on to something. I have used 4/6/8 since 2000 and I have never had the multiclass skill dipping issues most seem to have I had never even thought that was an issue until I heard about it so much.Now I have ran STAP with no rouges just fighters and rangers and there was alot of role playing and skills used With the 2 skill per level rule that game have been alot different and they players would not have enjoyed themselves.
Now pathfinder makes it easier to have cross skills great but still 2 isnt enuff not at all. Lets take a point buy fighter and look at them if they want 4 skill they need a 14 on Int if they do that they need to sink other scores making them well sub par alot of times or a liability to the group at others. Adding 2 skills per level to the skill starved classes is not game braking and is not even backward compatibility braking.
This should have been fixed in 3.5 it was not isn't it about time it was fixed now? I mean cleric gets 2 skills but druid gets 4 ? fighter gets 2 but barbarian gets 4 ? neither needs 4 the argument for bard/rouge ranger has always been but they need more skills yet Barbarian and druid don't need them yet have them. And if the druid needs them what of the cleric?? the sorcerer has not got the high int and he is self taught why does he only get 2 ? see it just does not add up
One thing to keep in mind is that if the favored class mechanism is kept as is then all the characters will have a bonus skill point per level which gets you a minimum of 3 skill points per level... half way to where people want to be. Further, humans get a bonus skill point per level and elves with their +1 INT have an extra skill point per level as well.
I see room for improvement in the breakdown of skills, but I'm not in favor or just flat out raising them for all classes.
you see the issue is with human and favored class that still does not help.
then its 4/6/8/10 that still makes skill starved skill starved i just don't see why a few classes have 2 ? when others that are just as good or stronger have 4 or 6 ?
|
|
you see the issue is with human and favored class that still does not help.
then its 4/6/8/10 that still makes skill starved skill starved i just don't see why a few classes have 2 ? when others that are just as good or stronger have 4 or 6 ?
i agree and actually is almost half the classes the ones who ahve 2 skills + int
and some of the classes that are known for knowledegable!!
yeah, i am with 3/4/5/6 or 4/5/6.
we have to take into account the skill consolidation, as referred by deussu.
--
roberto
|
|
yeah, i am with 3/4/5/6 or 4/5/6.
we have to take into account the skill consolidation, as referred by deussu.
--
roberto
Of course, the skill consolidation is another issue. I like 4/6/8. It works in 3.5 and it works in Pathfinder. I think it will work better in Pathfinder if a couple of the consolidations are removed (for example, Tumble was super-cool, now it is OMG!, Spot was good, now it is TOO DIE FOR!).
I'm okay with some consolidation (Disable Device, Stealth, Perception (without Search), but there will be time to have this conversation another time.
For me personally I have already made the decision - the skill system is the area where the most improvement is needed. If I'm going Pathfinder, it must be the system that solves these problems. I can live with just about everything else 'as is' in 3.5.
|
|
yeah, i am with 3/4/5/6 or 4/5/6.
we have to take into account the skill consolidation, as referred by deussu.
--
roberto
skill consolidation has not helped the fighter, very little the cleric, the paladin, wizard and sorcerer...
paradoxically the class it has helped ore is the rogue...
PS: i love the rogue... but after the cleric
For me personally I have already made the decision - the skill system is the area where the most improvement is needed. If I'm going Pathfinder, it must be the system that solves these problems. I can live with just about everything else 'as is' in 3.5.
need abit of fixing... yes
the most fixing... noactually the system Paizo modified forPathfinder skills is loved in my table
i would just check a few skills like: taking search from perception, linguistic (1st level you learn to speak a language, 2nd level you leearn to write it, 3rd level learn to speak a language, 3rd level you leearn to write it, etc... and other skills
yeah, i am with 3/4/5/6 or 4/5/6.
we have to take into account the skill consolidation, as referred by deussu.
With favored class it is 3/5/7/9 for most races, for humans its 4/6/8/10 for and elves it's 3/4/5/8/9 (depends on the class)
you see the issue is with human and favored class that still does not help.
then its 4/6/8/10 that still makes skill starved skill starved i just don't see why a few classes have 2 ? when others that are just as good or stronger have 4 or 6 ?
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. People are asking for 4 skill ranks per level... well humans have that for almost every single class already. Now you are saying that's still not enough? WTF?
Yes different classes have more skill ranks, that's a class feature. Clerics get spells, rogues get more skill ranks. Personally I think the rogues got ripped but that's the way things shook out.
skill consolidation has not helped the fighter, very little the cleric, the paladin, wizard and sorcerer...
paradoxically the class it has helped ore is the rogue...
This is flat out wrong.
Under 3.5 the cleric/ sorcerer had 2 skill ranks and 1 of those ranks was sucked up by concentration which is now rolled into spellcraft, another much needed skill. Everyone benefits from the perception roll up, suddenly it's possible for these classes to be good at seeing and finding stuff without having to deal with 1/2 ranks and spreading ranks over 3 skills. Similarly, everyone benefits from the diplomacy, linguistics, and acrobatics roll ups (my sorcerer took tumble frequently to avoid AoOs). Glancing at the class skills list and saying that certain classes weren't helped is dishonest.
The rogue was seriously shafted by the skills system in 3.5, it was impossible for an average intelligence rogue to be good at the things rogues were supposed to be good at.
The question someone brought up earlier is whether the rogues and rangers benefited too much and I think that's a valid question, particularly in light of the favored class bonus. Maybe too many skills were rolled up? Maybe the rogue should be bumped down to 6 ranks per level and the ranger down to 4 or 5? Because the ranger got a lot of help here too.
To be honest if they ditched the favored class bonus I wouldn't mind seeing:
Wizard: 2 ranks
Cleric/ Paladin/ Sorcerer: 3 ranks
Fighter/ Druid/ Monk: 4 ranks
Ranger/ Bard: 5 ranks
Rogue: 6 ranks
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. People are asking for 4 skill ranks per level... well humans have that for almost every single class already. Now you are saying that's still not enough? WTF?
Yes different classes have more skill ranks, that's a class feature. Clerics get spells, rogues get more skill ranks. Personally I think the rogues got ripped but that's the way things shook out.
Ok what you seem to be missing is everyone gaining 2 extra is not the same as the skill staved classes gaining 2 . there still behind the curve alot. And why are they ??
Lets lookBarbarian:Illiterate wild warrior..they get 4?
Bard: jake of all trades..They get 6
Cleric: learned spell caster,chosen of his god normally well educated..they get 2?
Druid:...wild woodland spellcaster..they get 4?
Fighter:...CIVILIZED AND LEARNED WARRIOR..THEY GET 2?
Monk..enlightened warrior...they get 4
Paladin: knight of the faith holy warrior.very well educated..they get 2?
Ranger..woodland warrior known for archly and twf..they get 6
Rogue: skill monkey learned from the streets..they get 8
Sorcerer..self tault spellcaster...they get 2?
Wizard.spellcaster well educated ,known for there knowledge...they get 2?
Now the issue is the number is damned random. some lesser learned get more??? what your saying is the same as other sure give them 2 more just give them to everyone else to.
wHY DOES GIVEING THE ONES WHO HAVE 2 [FOR NO GOOD RESONE] MEAN THE OTHER HAVE TO BE BOOSTED UP AS WELL? Why is it ok the make the skill starved ones stay skill starved when class like rogue came out way better now then ever he does not even need 8 now days yet everyone seems fine with boosting him to 10 just oh gods its so unbalancing to give the skill staved class what every other class has...skills.
Humm brake downs I think would be ok
Barbarian/cleric/druid/monk/paladin/sorcerer/wizard:4
Ranger/bard:6
rouge:8
or
Barbarian/cleric/druid/monk/paladin/sorcerer/wizard:4
Ranger/bard:5
rouge:6
corse I would think its fine for monk to have 6 and move wizard and cleric to 3 as well.