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 am with him
the diea of "we giveeachclass what skills would be using" is preposterious! where does the academy saavy of teh wizard is elft, the raw world experience of theroscerer, the integral formation of the cleric or the atletic accumen of the fighter left?
my cleric didn't had Knowledghe: Religion until arriing to 2nd level due to the needs of trhe character concept and the group! (Heal, diplomacy, Sesne Motive (her specialty) and Spellcraft)
|
I disagree. The new skill system means that you might have to wait to acquire a skill, but when you do it is with a good degree of ability.
My player was perfectly content with his fighter have 2+Int skill ranks per level. He didn't feel the need to max out everything, so he has a fighter who can do a whole bunch of things, some of them really well.
|
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 don't think that would be such a good idea. Having your skills locked to your level is, frankly, a bit boring. Sure, it gives you a guaranteed skill advancement for all your skills, but you end up with a dull, homogonized PC. Not having a particular skill level at a particular point in play creates opportunities for creativity. And that's what this game is all about.
Also, automatic skill progression makes it hard to suspend ones disbelief. For example, a 5th-level barbarian with 20 skill points in Knowledge (nobility)? or Disguise? Uh, no.
-Chinchbug
|
I don't think that would be such a good idea. Having your skills locked to your level is, frankly, a bit boring. Sure, it gives you a guaranteed skill advancement for all your skills, but you end up with a dull, homogonized PC. Not having a particular skill level at a particular point in play creates opportunities for creativity. And that's what this game is all about.
Also, automatic skill progression makes it hard to suspend ones disbelief. For example, a 5th-level barbarian with 20 skill points in Knowledge (nobility)? or Disguise? Uh, no.
-Chinchbug
Um, I could be wrong, but I think he's asking that every class be given a minimum of 4+Int skill points per level (as opposed to 2+Int for Clerics and Fighters). I can pretty much assure you that most Pathfinder players are not interested in the 4E style of skill point increases.
To add to the discussion though. I'm mixed on this whole topic. Part of me believes that fighters/clerics are good where they are, letting other classes take the brunt of the skill points. Another part of me though hates it when I make a dwarf cleric and get stuck with barely enough points for concentration and religion with nothing leftover for the likes of heal and spellcraft.
you are right I ment 4 skill ranks per class and not 2. I can live with the wizard if need be since he gets high int anyhow but the fighter and cleric really could use 2 more points
I concur with the OP. Fighters and Priests with only 2 SP's per level has always been lame, IMO. Especially since they rarely have an INT bonus.
This topic has been beaten round and round for the last 6 months or so. Right now Jason is not even looking at skills. Rather than spending the next few weeks banging this idea around in a pointless debate how about we pretend we did and bring it up again in a few weeks when the developers are actually looking at it?
For the record I'm against the idea and I'll discuss why when the board opens for the skills and feats chapters.
|
I should think you'd do better putting a few more points into your intelligence score if you want more skills per level. ;)
Just a joke there. I would like to see a few more skill points, but with the new class skill set up it seems less of an issue.
So I get 2+int mod skill points to put ranks into skills each level.
Each level I can add to the number of class skills I've selected, there for improving a lot of skills over just a few levels, compared to the regular skill rank system of 3.5 where I only have 1st level to really splurge on skills.
Your getting a much better deal presently, so give it a shot for a little while.
|
|
Before the skill consolidation, I would agree with this. But now that the sheer number of skills has been decreased, I don't see quite the same need for more skills. If they were increased to 4, I wouldn't complain, but I don't think it's a necessary change. Well, the fighter can always use a little more love, so I say go ahead with him, but the cleric is pretty oomphy as is.
With consolidation I don't think upping from two to four will be necessary. And having cross class skills at one to one, classes are free to pick from what they want.
On top of this there is the possibility of one skill point from favored class as well as from magic items.
If there is one place I would like to see more skills, it would be with an alternate fighter. Take away medium and heavy armor and shield proficiencies in exchange for swashbuckler-type class skills and bonus skills per level.
Well, it would be nice if the Sorcerer could change his skill points per level to 4 instead of 2. First of all, he has always been the "barbarian" of the Arcane classes (I'm speaking of flavor comparison, nothing more), while the Wizard has always been the "fighter" (more spell selection, less punch in the immediate but more solidity on the long run, etc.).
The Barbarian takes 4 skill points per level, the Fighter takes 2. Yes, the Fighter is more civilized, but the Barbarian takes more skill points because he lives in a harsh environment and has to survive (and so, more skill points, more skill choices, etc.)
The Wizard is extremely civilized, yet it still takes only 2 skill points per level. Why ? Because he spends all his time STUDYING his spells. He has no spare time to dedicate to anything else. Of course, because of his high Intelligence, he usually knows a lot more skills than most of the characters, and his skill selection is huge - especially in Knowledge skills - , thanks to his access to a library early on in his career (well, actually, even BEFORE starting his career), but his background doesn't give him the TIME to specialize in a broader range of skills, because for him the study of magic is first and foremost.
A Sorcerer is all about intuition and innate power. He obviously doesn't have access to all the resources of a Wizard (hence his more limited choices of class skills); he is more of a "self-taught" person. But he has more free time to dedicate to weapon training (and so, he has a broader weapon selection than the Wizard) and - why not ? - to skills.
I could say even more, comparing again the Sorcerer to the "druid" of the Arcane classes and the Wizard to the "cleric", and all my arguments would still be valid. So, why not give a try to this idea (which, I see in forums, is not mine alone) ?
Perplexed about the OP suggestion, still believing, with the new skill list, that two is fine.
As mentioned, favored classes can give an extra skill point, so do humans. So a human single class can get, in fact, two extra skill points per level.
Also, in the Golarion CS, there is an option that my friend showed me that reminded us of the roman soldier. From memory, the fighter lost its first fighter feat for 4 skill points per level, and new class skills.
Perhaps this very simple option (trading the first feat for two extra skill points per level) is the right solution?
DW
I personally feel that all the 2-point classes should be increased, including the wizard.
If you actually look at the skills that were consolidated, Rogues made out with 9 of their old skills being consolidated, and every new skill on the change list is actually a class skill for Rogues now! Rogues were the one class that were practically never hurting for skill points in our games and they recieved a huge power boost in the skills department. Not only do they still recieve the same number of points, but now their skills have all been consolidated to give them even more options. And people feel that the other classes should still be limited???? Makes no sense IMO.
Clerics are always hurting for skill points in our games. Considering clerics don't really have a "dump stat" like a lot of other classes, I don't think we've seen a cleric with higher than a 12 INT in our games for the last several years. WIS and CHR are important for their clerical abilities, STR, DEX, and CON are all very important for their combat abilities. If anything, INT would be their closest "dump stat" and that kills their skill points, so it too is pretty important in our games.
I'm currently building a cleric for our new campaign using the Beta rules and with a 12 INT I am hurting for more skill points. Personally I would like to play a half-orc for character reasons (Eberron setting, member of the House Therashk, treasure hunter/bounty hunter idea). As a cleric, there are a couple skills that I always see as important, being Heal, Knowledge (Religion), and Spellcraft. For the character concept I need Diplomacy (or Intimidate), Sense Motive, Perception (Spot, Listen, Search), Stealth. I really wanted a Profession skill also for character background reasons, and because they never get used in our campaigns. Even playing a human I'm out of luck for this. At least with 4 skill points I would be able to get close, perhaps waiting a level or two to pick up some skills like Diplomacy and Sense Motive.
|
|
From a game balance standpoint, increasing the point buy as they did makes it possible to increase your character's intelligence without sacrificing much. Under the old system, any fighter character who wanted to use Int as their dump stat was either human or they had 1 skill rank per level. Also, the fact you can buy as many ranks of cross-class skills as class skills should be taken into consideration. These two things are enough of a skill boost in my opinion.
Another thing to consider is backwards compatibility. There's already a bit of recordkeeping now that the base hit dice for arcanists and rogues have increased, since any non-OGL class has to have the same change made for game balance reasons. The changes to point-buy and cross-class skills require very few changes to other classes, but increasing how many skill ranks certain classes in the core game get would affect any other derivative classes in the rest of the books.
The fact that a character who takes a level in his race's favored class can now choose either +1 hp for that level or +1 skill rank is another concession to those who felt characters weren't getting enough skill ranks. Let's not go overboard. A character who has average intelligence gets average skills, which is 2 unless you're a monk, ranger, bard, rogue, or barbarian. Half the classes. That's a pretty fair percentage.
Oh, and many skills were consolidated so that a character no longer has to choose whether they see or hear better, or whether they can jump but not tumble. If you want more skills, there's nothing preventing a character from putting a few more points in intelligence, so it's not like there are no options for the other five classes.
I don't think we need to up skill ranks anymore.
AS has been pointed out, the skill list has been consolidated.
Taking a level in a favored class gives an extra Hit Point or Skill Point.
So an Int 10 human fighter in Pathfinder has 4 skill points to spread around on a condensed skill list. I think that should be plenty.
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...
Skills are simply "what you know", its helpful, hopefully often very helpful, but its not powerful in game terms. They primarily help define a character, is he intimidating? Does he have a lot of knowledge? Is he athletic? Does he play well with others? etc...
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.
For my last 3.5 campaign, all classes got 2 extra skill points per level (8 more at first level). They got to round out their characters, and could dabble in a variety of skills. I've not heard a complaint from any of my players, and I think it worked just fine.
Note 1: This has been my group's experience as well. +2 points/level kept the "skill-monkey" niche protection while allowing everyone to have adventurers that more closely matched their desired build. With rank/level caps in place, you're not inflating the power of the character, just rounding them out.
Compared to magic, additional skill points are hardly unbalancing.
Note 2: I like the original 3.5 skill system. If you want "simpler" skill generation, you as the GM can use an alternate method. Last time I checked, no one forced GM's to build NPCs with the same level of detail as a PC. [One of the primary reasons I found this "broken issue" to be a falsely-inflicted one used to justify 4e.]
Skill consolidation did nothing for the 2+ classes since it affected everyone across the board, including the rogues and rangers. If anything, Rogues actually made out head-over-heals better with the consolidation because every consolidated skill is one of their class skills!!!
The 2 skill point issue has been around since 3e was created and won't be fixed until a solution comes up that affects these skill-point starved classes without touching the existing skill-monkeys. The consolidation didn't come close to doing this.
For my last 3.5 campaign, all classes got 2 extra skill points per level (8 more at first level). They got to round out their characters, and could dabble in a variety of skills. I've not heard a complaint from any of my players, and I think it worked just fine.
In my last 3.5E game I was even more generous than this, and the players liked being able to do so much more, and they certainly didn't have easier times in fighting, etc...
So even if PF does not officially change the skill points rest assured I, and likely all of you, will have it house ruled.
Like priests, to me, are seriously scholarly. I guess its because of all the reading I have done on the churches down through the ages. They have not only been the destroyers fo knowledge, but the repositories fo knowledge. They have been the book makers, keepers of lineage, heraldry, etc... They even discovered genetic inheritance in plants. So to me Priests should have a lot of knowledge skills.
So maybe rather than give 2+ skill points I should just say Clerics can choose 3 additional knowledge skills, and get Spellcraft, for free. Do something similar for other classes. That way they are forced to take only free knowledge skills, rather than anything they wish, and use those 2+ to select anything else they wish.
Hmmm.
I'm not sure the low skill points is a serious problem. Would a higher minimum skill point total be kind of nice? Sure. I'm just not sure how important it would be for rebalancing.
Personally, I'd be more content to see Jump pulled out of Acrobatics and added to a Strength-based skill with Climb and Swim. We could call it Fitness or something to make it distinct from Athletics in 4e. That would be a really nice skill consolidation for the Fighter and we could keep away from the tumbling barbarian weirdness just so he can keep his good jump.
I strongly disagree. However, I will wait until the Skills design forum opens before expressing my view.
I also think this is not necessary with (a) the condensed skill list and (b) the fact that you no longer need to pay double for cross-class skills.
well the smaller skill list worked out fine for skill heavy classes not so much for skill starved ones.
|
|
Just to toss in my 2 cents:
Certain skills should be virtually automatic for some character clasees. How can you be a cleric and not have max ranks in Knowledge: Religion? "Hi, I am the Grand High Priest of the Great Goddess.. (psst..don't tell anyone but I actually haven't a clue as to what all this ceremony and faith and stuff is about)" Similarly, how could a wizard, studying musty tomes in secret libraries not have many ranks of Knowledge: Arcana. How could any character spend the first fifteen - twenty years of their life growing up somewhere not have decent ranks in Knowledge (local) for the place they grew up in? Imagine a Ranger or Druid, living their lives in the wilderness, yet not having any ranks in survival. How did they manage? Merely making something a class skill, or giving extra skill points doesn't fully address the issue.
It seems to me that keeping to the skill system, there should be some changes such that each class gets some skill 'automatically', above and beyond the basic skill points, which goes up one with each level increase.
Home town type knowledge could be simulated by reducing the DC for knowledge checks related to a PC's home, and should be allowed untrained in most circumstances.
Just to toss in my 2 cents:
Certain skills should be virtually automatic for some character clasees. How can you be a cleric and not have max ranks in Knowledge: Religion? "Hi, I am the Grand High Priest of the Great Goddess.. (psst..don't tell anyone but I actually haven't a clue as to what all this ceremony and faith and stuff is about)" Similarly, how could a wizard, studying musty tomes in secret libraries not have many ranks of Knowledge: Arcana. How could any character spend the first fifteen - twenty years of their life growing up somewhere not have decent ranks in Knowledge (local) for the place they grew up in? Imagine a Ranger or Druid, living their lives in the wilderness, yet not having any ranks in survival. How did they manage? Merely making something a class skill, or giving extra skill points doesn't fully address the issue.
You're assuming that one partial architype applies to all members of that profession. Imagine the difference between the scholar priest who spends his time at the main cathedral for the religious hierarchy studying the finer points of the canon and an adventuring priest who hardly has time to crack open a prayer book. I think it might make sense for a certain number of classes to have bonus skill points to provide a minimum level of training in particular skills (the aforementioned knowledge skills) but I would hate to assume that all characters with the training continue to develop the skill. That's one of the differences between 3.x/Pathfinder and 4e that I like.
well the smaller skill list worked out fine for skill heavy classes not so much for skill starved ones.
I completely agree with you on this. Everyone says how the consolidated list and removal of the cross-class cost balanced everyone one, but I don't see that. Just compare the cleric to the rogue for example...
Cleric class skills
3.5 - Concentration, Spellcraft
Pathfinder - Spellcraft
Result - gained 1 skill point
Rogue class skills
3.5 - Balance, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Gather Information, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Search, Spot, Tumble
Pathfinder - Acrobatics, Disable Device, Linguistics, Stealth, Perception
Result - gained 7 skill points
Hmm, the class with the largest number skill points made out head-over-heals better during the skill consolidation than one of the most skill-starved classes. So now the rogue can get all his rogue-ish skills and still have some to spare to get cross-class skills like Heal, Survival, Ride, etc. while the Cleric is still hurting just to get his basic skills like Heal, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Religion), Spellcraft, and Knowledge (Planes), let alone anything remotely resembling a cross-class skill.
Bards made out about as well as the Rogue, Rangers did slightly better than the cleric with 3 vs. 1, Monks got 5, Barbarians got 4, Wizards made out with 1 point (gained the benefits of Forgery and Speak Language, but also gained Fly as another class skill to spend points on), Sorcerers = 1, Fighter = 0, etc.
So my question is, how did the skill consolidation help out the low skill-point classes? I'm open to someone doing number crunching to show me the statistics and prove me wrong. Why did the consolidation clearly (from my numbers) benefit the Rogue, Ranger, Bard, Monk, and Barbarian when they already had better skill options to begin with, while leaving the Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Paladin, Fighter, and Druid out in the cold?
I agree with those that are saying that the minimum skill points per level should be 4.
I had just this discussion with Jame Jacob at GenCon (Jason was not available, alas).
He said that we had a some good points (like the rogue effectively gaining 7 skill points while the fighter gained none)(and if you wanted to play something other than platemail, weapon and shield/off-hand weapon, you where SOL as far as skills are concerned -thinking swashbuckler, pirate, etc...).
James also suggested that I raise all those points and more, on the forum, when skills/classes came around.
So, no fear seeker, even if you are held to your promise, I am sure that the rest of us will make sure that the points are raised.
thanks mistwalker I wont bring it up after this I didnt pay any mind to him only working on a few parts at a time..doh. anyhow I will comment when someone else brings it up.
Certain skills should be virtually automatic for some character clasees. How can you be a cleric and not have max ranks in Knowledge: Religion? "Hi, I am the Grand High Priest of the Great Goddess.. (psst..don't tell anyone but I actually haven't a clue as to what all this ceremony and faith and stuff is about)"
Clerics are not priests. They channel their powers through faith, not understanding. I don't see it as particularly implausible for a devout follower of a given god who never knew much beyond their god's fundamental tenants but believed in them nevertheless to find themselves imbued with divine power.
Similarly, how could a wizard, studying musty tomes in secret libraries not have many ranks of Knowledge: Arcana.
He focused on magic, not on magical creatures.
How could any character spend the first fifteen - twenty years of their life growing up somewhere not have decent ranks in Knowledge (local) for the place they grew up in?
I don't have an adequate response for this other than that Knowledge (local) isn't a very well-written skill.
Imagine a Ranger or Druid, living their lives in the wilderness, yet not having any ranks in survival.
That is simply building the character badly. If the character would have a certain skill and you don't give it to them when you could, you have misrepresented your character.
Merely making something a class skill, or giving extra skill points doesn't fully address the issue.
You have to let people build their own character. They might even build it badly, but part of the DM's responsibility is to help them prevent that.
Home town type knowledge could be simulated by reducing the DC for knowledge checks related to a PC's home, and should be allowed untrained in most circumstances.
I agree. You should only ever have to roll if you don't know for sure that your character would know that.
Hmm, the class with the largest number skill points made out head-over-heals better during the skill consolidation than one of the most skill-starved classes.
Clerics were never skill-starved because they never needed skills. Whenever I played or built a rogue, though, I was always scrambling to get enough skill points, usually going so far as to boost my Int over my Dex, because rogues live and die by their skills.
I just started reading a borrowed copy of Book of Nine Swords last night (never had read it before). And so far I think the best argument for going to 4 skill points/level for some classes is that book. All of the fighter types in it have at least 4 skill points/level and I don't see them, particularly the warblade, being any less "special-featurey" than the fighter. If we want the Pathfinder core classes to move up to the power line of later books, I can see the argument for giving fighters 4 skill points.
I still don't see any justification for doing the same for wizards. Their own prime stat will not only compensate, but probably overcompensate. I'd move the sorcerer to 4 per level with the fighter. I'd leave the wizard where he is and debate moving the cleric.
Hmm, the class with the largest number skill points made out head-over-heals better during the skill consolidation than one of the most skill-starved classes.Clerics were never skill-starved because they never needed skills. Whenever I played or built a rogue, though, I was always scrambling to get enough skill points, usually going so far as to boost my Int over my Dex, because rogues live and die by their skills.
Well, my experience as been the opposite. The rogues and rangers usually had the skills they needed and a couple others, while clerics and fighters were usually left wanting.
Just as as some comparisons here are percentages of skill points vs class skills...
Rogue = 8 skill points vs 21 class skills = 38%
Ranger = 6 skill points vs 15 class skills = 40%
Cleric = 2 skill points vs 13 class skills = 15%
Fighter = 2 skill points vs 10 class skills = 20%
So, with no intelligence bonus (I left the wizard class off since their primary stat is Intelligence which skews the results from 13% to 38% with a 16 INT), the rogues can start out with 38% of their class skills while clerics can only start with 15% of theirs??
To further complicate things, I would generally say that the base class skills for a rogue are Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Perception, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth. IMO, these are the basic skills for a rogue to perform "normal" thievery-based activities. This gives the rogue 6 "required" skills with 2 skill points left for picking other class-related skills or even cross-class skills.
Alternatively, the basic cleric skills, again in IMO, are Heal, Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (Planes), and Spellcraft. So, the cleric can't even get all his basic class skills, let alone expanding to cross-class skills or other non-basic skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive.
|
|
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.
So, with no intelligence bonus (I left the wizard class off since their primary stat is Intelligence which skews the results from 13% to 38% with a 16 INT), the rogues can start out with 38% of their class skills while clerics can only start with 15% of theirs??
Yes, but Rogues need (or at least needed) at least 50% of their skills, and clerics only need 10%.
Alternatively, the basic cleric skills, again in IMO, are Heal, Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (Planes), and Spellcraft. So, the cleric can't even get all his basic class skills, let alone expanding to cross-class skills or other non-basic skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive.
Heal is totally useless to a cleric, and doesn't really make sense for them to have. If you could call down the power of your god to heal any injury or affliction, would you really bother going to medical school? Especially when you also had weapons training to get to?
Knowledge (Religion) and Knowledge (Planes) are nice, but not really as necessary as you might think. Not every cleric is a Thomas Aquinas or a professor of comparative religions. No ranks would indicate simple belief and knowledge only of the basic tennants, one or two ranks would indicate knowledge of the reasoning of the tennants, and more would indicate a scholarly knowledge of the tennants (which most clerical members of most real-world religions don't have).
Upshot is, skills are gravy for the cleric. He's martially oriented anyway. If you wanted a more scholarly-type cleric, he'd have to do it in opposition to the class's core concept (a footsoldier for his god), or go for a cloistereed cleric variant.
To further complicate things, I would generally say that the base class skills for a rogue are Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Perception, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth. IMO, these are the basic skills for a rogue to perform "normal" thievery-based activities. This gives the rogue 6 "required" skills with 2 skill points left for picking other class-related skills or even cross-class skills.
Alternatively, the basic cleric skills, again in IMO, are Heal, Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (Planes), and Spellcraft. So, the cleric can't even get all his basic class skills, let alone expanding to cross-class skills or other non-basic skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive.
Your list of basic skills is flawed. I would suggest that rogues require Escape Artist, Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Local), Diplomacy, and (how can you forget) Use Magic Device as much as or more than clerics require Heal and Knowledge (Planes). You are forgetting that for rogues skills are a significant class feature, even with the new skill compression (which helps clerics as much as or more than rogues with the elimination of concentration) the rogue is still significantly short on skills. Clerics are supposed to solve problems by using spells, rogues solve problems using their skills. If you want to cover your 2 extra 'required' class skills then make INT your second highest ability, all you need is a 14, or make a human with a 12 INT.
|
|
I disagree. The new skill system means that you might have to wait to acquire a skill, but when you do it is with a good degree of ability.
My player was perfectly content with his fighter have 2+Int skill ranks per level. He didn't feel the need to max out everything, so he has a fighter who can do a whole bunch of things, some of them really well.
its not about maxing things...
either skill you put i fits class skill it would be bonused with +3, but i don't see a lot of margin... how many skills does he get? i would like to bet that 4 at most
you are right I ment 4 skill ranks per class and not 2. I can live with the wizard if need be since he gets high int anyhow but the fighter and cleric really could use 2 more points
sorcerers, wizards, fighters and clerics should all get 4 skills +int mod
its illogic for the wizard not be able to take any knowledge because he needs to cover base skills (alchemy, knowledge: arcana, spellcraft, between others)
Heal is totally useless to a cleric, and doesn't really make sense for them to have. If you could call down the power of your god to heal any injury or affliction, would you really bother going to medical school? Especially when you also had weapons training to get to?
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.
Upshot is, skills are gravy for the cleric. He's martially oriented anyway. If you wanted a more scholarly-type cleric, he'd have to do it in opposition to the class's core concept (a footsoldier for his god), or go for a cloistereed cleric variant.
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. With the basic array:
STR: 8 +2 (cost)
DEX: 10 -
CON: 10 -
INT: 14 -5
WIS: 16 -10
CHA: 12 -2
That's a 15 point build, has a high enough CHA to be decent at turning undead and has a high INT to give 2 bonus skill ranks per level PLUS gives +2 to K(rel) and K(planes).
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.
Last I checked most 'real life' faith healers don't study medicine much.
If your player is focused on being a medic then by all means max out the heal skill. Heal and Spellcraft are all the class skills you need for that role. If you are an undead hunter you are more likely to want Spellcraft and K(Rel). You have the option to do fulfill either role out of the box. It's just if you want to fill all of the roles that you have to start making choices. The #1 choice being skill focused characters require not dumping INT.
|
|
The Wizard is extremely civilized, yet it still takes only 2 skill points per level. Why ? Because he spends all his time STUDYING his spells. He has no spare time to dedicate to anything else. Of course, because of his high Intelligence, he usually knows a lot more skills than most of the characters, and his skill selection is huge - especially in Knowledge skills - , thanks to his access to a library early on in his career (well, actually, even BEFORE starting his career), but his background doesn't give him the TIME to specialize in a broader range of skills, because for him the study of magic is first and foremost.
A Sorcerer is all about intuition and innate power. He obviously doesn't have access to all the resources of a Wizard (hence his more limited choices of class skills); he is more of a "self-taught" person. But he has more free time to dedicate to weapon training (and so, he has a broader weapon selection than the Wizard) and - why not ? - to skills.
I could say even more, comparing again the Sorcerer to the "druid" of the Arcane classes and the Wizard to the "cleric", and all my arguments would still be valid. So, why not give a try to this idea (which, I see in forums, is not mine alone) ?
minimum skills required for a true wizard: spellcraft, knowedge: arcana, craft: alchemy, appraise (which NOW isrequiered to dientify the properties of magical items) the amximum he usually gets is 6... you leae him about only 2 points to customize into a person... and only if he gets 18 in intelligence (maybe some elfs)
also learning spells came from the fact that HE does studies a lot of different topics... not jus the spell topic, a wizard NEEDs to understand how reality works in order to alter it
same withthe cleric: heal, diplomacy, spellcraft, knowledge: religion... and only if he has intelligence of 14, you don't leave a lot of space for customization....
at least i think that characters should be human an realistic... and not just another fighter.. roleplay helps... but so does skills to make unique and memorable characters
|
|
Clerics are always hurting for skill points in our games. Considering clerics don't really have a "dump stat" like a lot of other classes, I don't think we've seen a cleric with higher than a 12 INT in our games for the last several years. WIS and CHR are important for their clerical abilities, STR, DEX, and CON are all very important for their combat abilities. If anything, INT would be their closest "dump stat" and that kills their skill points, so it too is pretty important in our games.
Know the felling
i dumped dex for int (10 vs 14) i took sense motive, diplomacy, healing and spellcraft... yes absolutely ridiculous the cleric was ignorant of religion... but as eclesiastic investigator she does his job with the people. for 2th level (now with 5 skills due to favored class) i bumped diplomacy, healing, spellcraft and added knowledge: religion and intimidation (it served her well agauinst the goblins)
next feat is persuasivness +2 intimidation +2 diplomacy for a decent work (she is half elf so sheonlygot 5 skill points at mostwith 14 int)
Upshot is, skills are gravy for the cleric. He's martially oriented anyway. If you wanted a more scholarly-type cleric, he'd have to do it in opposition to the class's core concept (a footsoldier for his god), or go for a cloistereed cleric variant.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. With the basic array:
STR: 8 +2 (cost)
DEX: 10 -
CON: 10 -
INT: 14 -5
WIS: 16 -10
CHA: 12 -2That's a 15 point build, has a high enough CHA to be decent at turning undead and has a high INT to give 2 bonus skill ranks per level PLUS gives +2 to K(rel) and K(planes).
20 points half elf
str 13
dex 10
con 12
int 14
wis 17
cha 13
cleric of iomedae, needs to be in front fo the combat (one of 2 of the characters that actually do) and the concept comes as eclesiastic investigator that requieres lots of charisma use (yes i intend to get cha to 14 in level 4)
We'll just have to agree that we have different views of the classes and what skills are important to them :)
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.
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.