I've grown really, really fond of the new skills system, particularly the replacing 4x amount at 1st level with the +3 for class skills. This aside, however, I would like the see the allowance of rank maximums being total Hit Dice+3 (as roughly before) instead of rank maximums for each skill being equal to Hit Dice...
2 reasons...
1. The new +3 for class skills allows a nice focus of mundane/non-combative skills for npcs of the commoner and expert likes... which compliments what these classes were meant for. Adding back the Hit Dice+3 for rank cap allows that much more concentration (consider this... an Expert, Lvl 1 NPC with an Intelligence of 14 (+2) takes up Craft: Leatherworker and places 4 rank points into the Craft Skill along with Skill Focus: Craft (Leatherworker). Now, the character also gets a +3 as this is a chosen Expert class skill. +2 Ability, 4 rank points, +3 for Skill Focus, +3 for being a class skill... This means that the level 1 Expert already gets a +12 total mod for Craft: Leatherworker... Kabam! You have a skillful character in a trade that you do not have to take beyond Level 1 (aka the desired villager)
2. I have a high intelligence Expert Merchant type and I'm constantly having to shove ranks into oddball non-Expert Class skills each level because the character's combined bonuses allow the character to gain a total of 11 rank points for skills each level... if the Hit Dice+3 was simply allowed, the character could concentrate more rank points in skills most desirable to the NPC.
Unfortunately, that screws up the way PrCs are done. There's no real good way to do a middle ground.
This means that the level 1 Expert already gets a +12 total mod for Craft: Leatherworker... Kabam! You have a skillful character in a trade that you do not have to take beyond Level 1 (aka the desired villager)
Which doesn't make sense. Why have a level system if you don't use it? level 1 experts aren't supposed to be masters at their craft. If you want an expert that is really good at something, give him a couple of extra levels. NPC classes have 20 levels for a reason.
And I won't even go into how this would mess up the DCs.
2. I have a high intelligence Expert Merchant type and I'm constantly having to shove ranks into oddball non-Expert Class skills each level because the character's combined bonuses allow the character to gain a total of 11 rank points for skills each level... if the Hit Dice+3 was simply allowed, the character could concentrate more rank points in skills most desirable to the NPC.
By the way: They're called skill points. Rank points sounds weird, as if those points went rotten.
Beyond that, it can't be helped: A human high int expert just does have a lot of skill points.
Increasing the cap without adding the quadruple skill points at first level back in would just mean that characters had to decide whether they want many skills or very few skills they're better in. And then you'd have to add more skills, because after a couple of levels, you cannot shove all your skill points into those few skills because you will reach max rank.
Big mess, and of course the whole difference between level rank wasn't a good thing to begin with.
The current system is so much better than the old. The concerns you have are, sad to say, minor, and nothing compared to the ease the new system grants us.
I know it's not a nice thing to hear, but your concerns are best addressed with house rules - and if you do, tell us what the players thought about it.
This means that the level 1 Expert already gets a +12 total mod for Craft: Leatherworker... Kabam! You have a skillful character in a trade that you do not have to take beyond Level 1 (aka the desired villager)Which doesn't make sense. Why have a level system if you don't use it? level 1 experts aren't supposed to be masters at their craft. If you want an expert that is really good at something, give him a couple of extra levels. NPC classes have 20 levels for a reason.
And I won't even go into how this would mess up the DCs.
Yes, level one experts aren't supposed to be masters of their craft, but gaining a +12 bonnus at level 1? Remember that an increadible difficult task is only DC 25, which this expert can ace by taking 20. I think you're missing the point, the OP is saying that the skill system allows skills to be too good.
And level 1 NPC's isn't that uncommon, why would there be a need for PC's if the majority of NPC's were high level?
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, this shouldn't affect the DC system at all since the maiximum number of ranks equaling your level +3 is actually the default skill system.
I think you're missing the point, the OP is saying that the skill system allows skills to be too good.
Read again. He wants level one experts to have enormous bonuses so you don't have to have higher-level characters.
And level 1 NPC's isn't that uncommon, why would there be a need for PC's if the majority of NPC's were high level?
No one says that the majority of NPCs should be high level.
The thread starter says that even low-level (i.e. 1st-level) experts should be really good at their chosen profession, and I say that masters of their craft should be high-level.
I'm not saying that there should be many of those. Masters should be rare, hence the high-level requirement
Oh, and I hate to break it to you, this shouldn't affect the DC system at all since the maiximum number of ranks equaling your level +3 is actually the default skill system.
I hate to break it to you, but you come across as ignorant and pompous. You sound as if I insulted you and your family or something.
Note that Pathfinder's default skill system is max ranks = level, with a +3 class skill bonus, while 3e's skill system (which we're not really discussing here) is max ranks = level +3, with no extra bonus for class skills.
Since the thread starter wants a system where the maximum rank equals level +3 AND where you get +3 for class skills, that would certainly change things, because at level one, you'd go from +4 plus ability score and other bonuses (with 1 rank +3 or 4 ranks) to +7 plus ability score and other bonuses (with 4 ranks +3).
This would not only change the maximum bonus up by three, it would also change dynamics, since now you have to decide between versatility and concentration, while before you could just max out a number of skills equal to the number of skill points you get per level, but now you can't.
Yes, level one experts aren't supposed to be masters of their craft, but gaining a +12 bonnus at level 1? Remember that an increadible difficult task is only DC 25, which this expert can ace by taking 20. I think you're missing the point, the OP is saying that the skill system allows skills to be too good.This means that the level 1 Expert already gets a +12 total mod for Craft: Leatherworker... Kabam! You have a skillful character in a trade that you do not have to take beyond Level 1 (aka the desired villager)
Actually , that wasnt how the OP got to a +12. The +12 included the +3 class skill bonus from PF as well as the level+3 cap from D&D.
Either system on it's own, same character and stats, will only hit +9 at level 1.I like the system as is. There is no reason I see to master a skill at level 1 with regularity. Or even have it as a viable option for most characters. Level 1 is just that. Not Level The One.You got to keep some character goals beyond reach of entry level.
P.S. We should all be so lucky as to have extra throw-away skill points. If an Expert has enough to cover each and every class skill then how could adding more be considered "more desireable" and spending points in cross-class be , in any way, undesireable? That dude is just that good. He is an Expert Plus, lol. Dont pigeon-hole the renaissance man. =)
I hate to break it to you, but you come across as ignorant and pompous. You sound as if I insulted you and your family or something.
Forgive me if I seem a little defencive, but you'd be surprised how many here come across as that when arguing for paizo.
Note though that in the paizo version you can't choose between versitatliy and concentration. While in the older version you had to spend more skill points to gain maximum ranks, you were able to dab out to other skills more due to the larger number of skills gained at first level.
Personally, I prefer the older version as I dislike an automatic +3 to all class skills. Even without any ranks in stealth or even a particularly high dexterity score, a rogue will still have a higher stealth modifier when compared to say...a fighter who has actually put ranks in said skill.
In my games I leave lvl 1 commoner for children and more specialized lvl 1 NPC classes for adolescents receiving some basic training for future careers. Adult workers are lvl 3-4 and experienced people are on even higher levels (as the NPCs are anyway if they are to interact with PCs).
I take it that a skilled worker needs ranks in more skills in his life anyway. Aside from maxed profession / craft an expert should also have some ranks in appraise, sense motive and perhaps knowledge (local) and diplomacy to run a successful business and that is hard to accomplish with a lvl 1 NPC who is quite unlikely to have Int bonus better than +1 (we're talking about ordinary people, not heroes). That's why I don't think that the cap can stay lower.
A skilled lvl 1 apprentice is still possible IMO. +1 rank +1 ability +3 class skill +3 skill focus +2 mwk tools (if the master allows) is still a + 10. A full plate craft DC is merely 18 and that is an item that was historically reserved for master craftsmen. It seems that even a well trained lvl 1 expert can make it with some basic tools if he takes 10s...
I take it that a skilled worker needs ranks in more skills in his life anyway.
Not nessicerily, remember that for most skills as long as you're not in combat or immediate danger you can take 20. Without a single rank in craft and a negative modifer, a blacksmith can still make a good suit of full-plate armour, so long as he/she isn't rushed. While this does cover few of the skills your've mentioned (appraise, craft, profession, knowledge) but it doesn't cover diplomacy or sense motive. However, even a commoner has 2 skill points per level, so even a commoner of average intellect could act as an apprentice.
If you really want an extra +3 for your commoner, just give him the Skill Focus feat.
|
I usually have my NPCs between lvls 1-5ish. The majority of people just do not need to be high levels to live well enough and to do their jobs. An average craftsman or an average small business owner will be level 1. He can have skills high enough to perfom any deeds he requires.
To move from lvl 1 up the NPC must engage in social encounters that are progressively more difficult to gain the XP needed to advance. This could mean things like negotiating a new contract, or engaing in a new caravan expedition or something like that. It can include moving up the ladder in the city, in the guild or in politics. These scenarios would provide plenty of challenges necessary to advance in levels.
The only feasible way I can imagine normal NPCs moving up to the teens levels would be by some military action. Then you get an Expert 5/Warrior 7 or something like that. This could be a blacksmith, for example, that excelled in his craft and in combat during a military campiagn. He then turned around his contacts and experience into advancing his own personal goals and business to become a guild and city leader.
Even a lvl 5 Expert can muster enough ranks through skill points, feats and equipment and spells to get skills high enough to make Masterwork items (there really should be a level of craftsmanship above that).
An Aristocrat can rule a land with just a few levels as well. His authority comes from nobility, not from skills or ability. That being said, many Aristocrats are going to practice their military skills and engage in many military campaigns, allowing them to advance more readily than just about anyone else. A King can easily be a level 2 Aristocrat for example. He would not be very effective, being a young leader or not very assertive and allowing the beuraucracy to run the kingdom. More likely, an assertive king would be in the lvl 5-10 range, possibly higher if there was a period of warfare in which he led troops.
Anyway, my point is, after all that long winded babel, that NPCs do not need to very high level. It is not likely they would be. And they can accomplish their goals in life with lower levels.
|
|
This of course makes me think of characters or NPCs that start in nontraditional ways.
Let's say the current, new king, rose from the gutters of the streets to rule the land.
He started as a commoner 1.
He apprenticed himself and was successful in business so becomes an Expert 3.
The kingdom goes to war and is drafted and becomes a Warrior 3. He becomes so good that he undergoes a transformation and becomes a Paladin and rises to level 5.
His adventures in the war earned him a title so he goes to court and earns Aristocrat 1. He learns in court that the king is corrupt so begins to bring down the corrupt monarchy, raising him to Aristocrat 4 and Paldin 7.
He succeeds in defeating the evil king and is elevated to the title himself. He fends off assassination attempts and holds on to his power while exerting the authority of the church as well, advancing to Aristocrat 6/Paladin 8.
So we have a character with Commoner 1/Expert 3/ Warrior 3/Paladin 8/Aristocrat 6 for 21 total levels, but only 8 Class levels for a what- CR 15ish? So when do we drop all the old NPC class levels and just write him up as King 7/Paladin 8? Do we? Or do we keep the long line of classes that make an interesting character now that I think about it.
Anyway, my point is, after all that long winded babel, that NPCs do not need to very high level. It is not likely they would be. And they can accomplish their goals in life with lower levels.
Do you assume that the only way to gain XP and levels is through encounters?
For me it's possible to gain levels by training and studies alone. It's slower and less dangerous way, while adventuring is a high-risk, high-reward path to power (for which there are not always good circumstances - no adventure, go to school). I can have a level 15 wizard who never therew around a fireball in his whole life (and no, evocation is not his prohibited school), but you shouldn't wonder why is he so old. It's because he spent his lifetime burried in books and perhaps occassionally selling some magic item. Oh, he helped to put down a fire twice or so, perhaps laboured on a spell to strengthen castle walls here and there, but after some 60 years of peace he simply didn't have the opportunity to do any real adventuring.
I'm getting off-topic :/
I take it that a skilled worker needs ranks in more skills in his life anyway.Not nessicerily, remember that for most skills as long as you're not in combat or immediate danger you can take 20. Without a single rank in craft and a negative modifer, a blacksmith can still make a good suit of full-plate armour, so long as he/she isn't rushed. While this does cover few of the skills your've mentioned (appraise, craft, profession, knowledge) but it doesn't cover diplomacy or sense motive. However, even a commoner has 2 skill points per level, so even a commoner of average intellect could act as an apprentice.
I'm not sure about taking 20s on crafting. You are still risking the loss of invested resources. Taking 10 means that you work slowly and carefully, while taking 20 explicitely mentions multiple attempts. "Trying till you get it right" is not an option with limited resources.
Commoner IMO is a labourer, who never saw a school or something, all he knows is his profession or craft. He may earn barely enough to keep his family alive, unless he's skilled enough. An expert on the other hand is an educated middle-class person, who has some broader knowleedge in his choice area and can lead an establishmnet, like a shop other than vegetable stall, tavern or even guild with high enough level. Heh, minor thief guilds could be NPC class only completely without any rogues in their ranks IMO.
This of course makes me think of characters or NPCs that start in nontraditional ways.
Once I had a lot of fun by DMing a party starting as children (commoners) in the city. After 300 XP the party was allowed to retrain to more specialized classes (Warriors, experts, adepts and nobles) and aronud 600 XP they gained full PC classes. The heroic starts by saving kittens and obtaining money through running other errands was priceless, because PCs actually helped to set up their first adventure. A game still remembered here and there.
Anyway, my point is, after all that long winded babel, that NPCs do not need to very high level. It is not likely they would be. And they can accomplish their goals in life with lower levels.Do you assume that the only way to gain XP and levels is through encounters?
For me it's possible to gain levels by training and studies alone.
Old D&D held that if your life was in no danger, there is no XP.
You could get xp for climbing a cliff if a fall was going to be particularly harmful. Negotiating with pirates since failure produced hostility with them was also an example. Training was (in the strictest sense) what one did after one gained xp to level.But, your own game is your own. =)
This of course makes me think of characters or NPCs that start in nontraditional ways.
Let's say the current, new king, rose from the gutters of the streets to rule the land.
He started as a commoner 1.
He apprenticed himself and was successful in business so becomes an Expert 3.
The kingdom goes to war and is drafted and becomes a Warrior 3. He becomes so good that he undergoes a transformation and becomes a Paladin and rises to level 5.
His adventures in the war earned him a title so he goes to court and earns Aristocrat 1. He learns in court that the king is corrupt so begins to bring down the corrupt monarchy, raising him to Aristocrat 4 and Paldin 7.
He succeeds in defeating the evil king and is elevated to the title himself. He fends off assassination attempts and holds on to his power while exerting the authority of the church as well, advancing to Aristocrat 6/Paladin 8.
So we have a character with Commoner 1/Expert 3/ Warrior 3/Paladin 8/Aristocrat 6 for 21 total levels, but only 8 Class levels for a what- CR 15ish? So when do we drop all the old NPC class levels and just write him up as King 7/Paladin 8? Do we? Or do we keep the long line of classes that make an interesting character now that I think about it.
I think your trying way too hard. Even Conan never had that many classes. LoL
...
Old D&D held that if your life was in no danger, there is no XP.
You could get xp for climbing a cliff if a fall was going to be particularly harmful. Negotiating with pirates since failure produced hostility with them was also an example. Training was (in the strictest sense) what one did after one gained xp to level.
But, your own game is your own. =)
Zmar prefers not to hear where do all the experienced sages and other NPCs come from in adventure poor settings (Extraplanar import? Pretenders?) Or how many times a day is the world saved in adventur rich ones :D
... I think your trying way too hard. Even Conan never had that many classes. LoL
Conan has his own d20 rules. He was way too cool to play according to core 3.5 ;)
...
On the other hand, Chuck Norris book had only one race, one class and one level.
Combat section specifically said
1.) To do anything roll d20 (not required, Chuck Norris can play d20 games without d20. In fact he doesn'tneed to roll at all).
2.) No matter what you did, you roundbout kickeded the enemy in the face and it died (no save).
Daresay that it was boring to play...
Enough SPAM, but I can't resist childish jokes.
I'm not sure about taking 20s on crafting. You are still risking the loss of invested resources. Taking 10 means that you work slowly and carefully, while taking 20 explicitely mentions multiple attempts. "Trying till you get it right" is not an option with limited resources.
Commoner IMO is a labourer, who never saw a school or something, all he knows is his profession or craft. He may earn barely enough to keep his family alive, unless he's skilled enough. An expert on the other hand is an educated middle-class person, who has some broader knowleedge in his choice area and can lead an establishmnet, like a shop other than vegetable stall, tavern or even guild with high enough level. Heh, minor thief guilds could be NPC class only completely without any rogues in their ranks IMO.
Risking "resources" doesn't prevent anyone taking 20. Besides, what exactly happens if a blacksmith screws up making metal armour? Theres nothing to stop him melting the metal and trying again.
Though I strongly agree with the commoner only knowing his profession or craft, just pointing out that the existing skill system is already pretty generous to them.
Zmar prefers not to hear where do all the experienced sages and other NPCs come from in adventure poor settings
Simple, dude. They just stroke their beards, mutter about the impudence of youth, and take 20. (meanwhile a decent Int and but a few ranks in Knowledge taken as a class skill and you can regularly hit 25+. 30 with a skill focus feat.)
|
|
This of course makes me think of characters or NPCs that start in nontraditional ways.
Let's say the current, new king, rose from the gutters of the streets to rule the land.
He started as a commoner 1.
He apprenticed himself and was successful in business so becomes an Expert 3.
The kingdom goes to war and is drafted and becomes a Warrior 3. He becomes so good that he undergoes a transformation and becomes a Paladin and rises to level 5.
His adventures in the war earned him a title so he goes to court and earns Aristocrat 1. He learns in court that the king is corrupt so begins to bring down the corrupt monarchy, raising him to Aristocrat 4 and Paldin 7.
He succeeds in defeating the evil king and is elevated to the title himself. He fends off assassination attempts and holds on to his power while exerting the authority of the church as well, advancing to Aristocrat 6/Paladin 8.
So we have a character with Commoner 1/Expert 3/ Warrior 3/Paladin 8/Aristocrat 6 for 21 total levels, but only 8 Class levels for a what- CR 15ish? So when do we drop all the old NPC class levels and just write him up as King 7/Paladin 8? Do we? Or do we keep the long line of classes that make an interesting character now that I think about it.
I too have a sort of beef with the idea of mixing adventuring classes with NPC classes. It just seems wrong to me.
I'd suggest that once a character should have a way of buying off NPC levels with XP and convert NPC classes to PC classes.
And I also argue that once a character has PC classes, they can't take NPC classes.
...
Risking "resources" doesn't prevent anyone taking 20. Besides, what exactly happens if a blacksmith screws up making metal armour? Theres nothing to stop him melting the metal and trying again.
Though I strongly agree with the commoner only knowing his profession or craft, just pointing out that the existing skill system is already pretty generous to them.
The skill explicitely says that the resources are lost.
Not everything is recoverable as easily as metal and even weapon and armour can't simply be forged back together. Weapon and armour quality metal still needs to be handled with skill and care, otherwise the item will crack and break. With blade being formed of strips of soft and hard metal folded and hammered together a structural anomaly may ruin the blade anyway. Mending access may help here, otherwise imagine a gemcutter fixing a cracked diamond. Nope, taking 20 is not an option for me without additional cost investments.
Taking 20 could also mean that the worker manages to finish the item, but invests so much time in it that he'll starve if he tries to earn living this way.
Taking 20 is defined as taking as much time as it would take to make 20 separate checks and failing many times. You can't take 20 if there is a possibility of suffering any negative consequences, because if there are any, you will suffer them.
Material loss = no taking 20. Appraise is no-retry skill, as are knowledge skills. No taking 20. Social interaction skills and heal? no taking 20. Perform, profession, survival, sleight of hand... guess what?
The rules prevent making living by taking 20s. taking 10s maybe, but not 20s.
Aside from that I'd like to ask what are the 20 levels of commoner good for. If the people rarely crawl over 4 and level 10 is already über for them, then what kind of person is a level 14 commoner? A guy who held paladin's bag while the hero slayed dragons and banished fiends? Peon demi-god? A farmer who survived living 10 years on the Horde Crossroads (patent pending)? I take it that people may gain levels simply by living their lives. Swinging swords and solving quests helps, but life is a compaign on it's own.
|
Do you assume that the only way to gain XP and levels is through encounters?
For your average non-heroic shmoe, just going about your life and practicing your profession seems worth about 1 XP a day to me. That's about 8 years to 2nd level and 12 more to 3rd. 18 more to 4th. That's 38 years of grind, you reach 4th level, and then probably die of old age in your early 50's.
Do you assume that the only way to gain XP and levels is through encounters?For your average non-heroic shmoe, just going about your life and practicing your profession seems worth about 1 XP a day to me. That's about 8 years to 2nd level and 12 more to 3rd. 18 more to 4th. That's 38 years of grind, you reach 4th level, and then probably die of old age in your early 50's.
Sorry for blathering this long, but I'm just besieged with thoughts.
For me an average young human commoner (adult at the beginning of his career) is already level 4. He would probably be thaught about his trade by his parrents from his 6 and be considered adult around 16 (for the sheer simplicity of counts). That's 600 XP / year for a commoner. That's still under 2 XP / day, but consider this.
Assuming that for a person of level 1-3 (I think that NPC class is roughly equal to PC class of 1 level lower, or so it was stated somewhere... our young commoner still fits in) killing a stag (CR1) is worth 300 XP. Assuming that he kills one every month or so to provide some meat for his family he gets 3600 XP / year for lame hunting alone (and yes, for him it's resource consuming and dangerous, but even with 1/2 XP a commoner can get a fair share of 1800 XP, or 600 XP if you use 1/4 XP, but the commoner is probably hunting all week and is successful only once a month. For heroes I wouldn't take it under 1/2 XP or they'd rip off my head).
Then take into account shooting a boar or fending away wolves occassionally... Isn't running from a grizzly bear, climbing a tree and trying to fend off the frustrated animal away by throwing sticks and shooting your precious arrows a hell of an encounter for someone with low BAB, weak saves, 2 skill/level and d4 for hp?
Wait... wasn't he just performing profession (hunter) checks to earn living?
Even the children have their small quests and adventures, only the DM doesn't care, but I wouldn't rob them of their XP.
In Baldur's Gate you could get 50 XP and for taking an identify scroll from Firebeard to Tethroil. Poor kid that asks the mage if he doesn't need anything would get the same quest and earn... 1sp and be happy about it? Commoner's life is soooo lame!... Realy?
If we are glad that monsters must obey the same rules as PCs do then why would we have NPCs nerfed like this?