|
ok we haven't arrived to feats... but we are in a point where usually players are offered 1 or 2 feat depending on their chosing of race...
i have been playing many games and we have arrived to the conclusion that players should begin with 2 feats at least
Arcana Evolved (and AU for that matter) make players begin with 2 feats (3 for humans) giving them options general, ceremonial and "background" (ok this was not the name but i don't remember the name)
you usually could only take 1 ceremonial (powerful feats needing the player to have a true name), you could take up to 2 backgrounds (butonly at 1st level) or any combiantion of this and general feats
Iron Hoeroes gave 1 feat and 2 traits (soemthing like background feats)
etc
**this options permits a bit more customization and give players more options to begin with
still i think humans should get their extra feat, but all races should get 2 feats
I agree, especially with background feats available, players could flesh out their character without sacrificing the utility of their starting general feat(s).
Humm background feats be nice or could we do something like the traits there using in 2nd darkness?
I think that I would like to see traits included in the core.
I like them.
|
|
Wouldn't be a huge change as long as the extra feat had to be a General Feat. Of course, that means most people would take Toughness.
This is the purpose of the Pathfinder Traits System, which should get a facelift for PRPG.
i liked for example the use of ambidexterity as background feat... you want it... you have to get it now or never, i don't remember most of them, but theyhad useful things
but yes general feat or background feat would be great
|
|
Our group frequently uses the Background feats from the Forgotten Realms. We have not used them for our Rise of the Runelords campaign nor for our current Curse of the Crimson Throne. However, we did start with two 'traits' - these differ from the Unearthed Arcana in that they only provide a benefit, no trade-off.
I wouldn't mind seeing core 'background' feats in Pathfinder.
I like traits, but I think they work better as being something detailed in the adventure paths or Pathfinder specific sourcebooks, rather than in the core RPG book.
So favored class gives skill points or hit points, characters get more HP at first level, wizards and sorcerers get a bigger hit die, all PC races get a mental ability score bonus, the rate of feats was bumped from 1/3 levels to 1/2. Now you suggest increase feats at first level too (on top of pushing for increasing skill points for half the classes)?
Umm... this isn't power creep, this is power boldly marching forward at a ridiculous pace. How about we try to limit changes to things that actually attempt to fix something that's broken rather than trying to arbitrarily increase the power level of the entire game.
Traits are Ok in my book because as done by the APs they help the player define the character.
|
|
So favored class gives skill points or hit points, characters get more HP at first level, wizards and sorcerers get a bigger hit die, all PC races get a mental ability score bonus, the rate of feats was bumped from 1/3 levels to 1/2. Now you suggest increase feats at first level too (on top of pushing for increasing skill points for half the classes)?
Umm... this isn't power creep, this is power boldly marching forward at a ridiculous pace. How about we try to limit changes to things that actually attempt to fix something that's broken rather than trying to arbitrarily increase the power level of the entire game.
Traits are Ok in my book because as done by the APs they help the player define the character.
I'm a relatively conservative DM. I understand that orb spells are overpowered, and I don't allow them in my games. There are many non-core feat/class/combinations that I've taken a nerf-bat to. That said, concerns about power creep are worth consideration, but I would like to draw your attention to the 'power curve'.
The power curve is a measure not only of how powerful the character is, but how quickly they power up. In 3.5 the difference between 1st and 2nd level was the most extreme increase in power. Essentially, characters went from being x to being 2x - a 100% power gain. Each of hte next levels is a much more moderate gain. When you start getting into high levels the power gain per level increase is pretty dramatic (the difference between 4th and 5th level spells, for instance). So frontloading level 1 means a power increase in absolute terms compared to 1st level in 3.5, but it also means that the increase from 1st to 2nd isn't as extreme and it may make 1st level play more than just a 'roadblock' to the real fun.
I think that powercreep needs to be kept in mind, but having a background feat as 'core' isn't a problem. It is already widely used and in my games, it has not been a problem.
As a houserule, I have been giving two 'bonus' feats at first level for many years now. Never had any problem with it. And I would have to agree that it lessens the impact of first to second level.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I agree w/Dennis that there have been some 'power ups' in trying to make the lower levels more fun/survivable (level 1 dwarven sorcerer with the racial HP(15 HP) may laugh at 1 dire rat. For me as a DM that's good, as I can now drop 4 of them on the party Mwahahaha! Orc W/Falchion will still scare him)
I think "regional feat at 1st level" should be a sidebar though.
As to power creep, the Pathfinder giveth, the Pathfinder Taketh away. While Sorcerers do not suck as much anymore, the Cleric and Druid were reduced, the fighter got stronger (in theory, my local group went boom) Polymorph/alterself, etc, are also clarified/restricted/nerfed.
Synergy bonuses are gone. I call this a good thing, since it a)kills the diplomancer and b)makes it easier for players to remember what gives what bonus (simple, NOTHING! :-)
Ok, I'm rambling now. Let me sum up. NO extra feat at 1st level.
I would prefer a traits system rather than more feats. It's easy to give the PCs more and more, but that doesn't necessarily make for a better game.
|
I like traits, but I think they work better as being something detailed in the adventure paths or Pathfinder specific sourcebooks, rather than in the core RPG book.
There should be general traits, racial traits, and faith traits in the core RPG book, and then campaign specific traits detailed in the adventure paths.
I am more in favor of traits at first level and leave the feats as they are.
Power creep is not a problem at all for anyone except full casters. When people on these forums question the "power creep" of things like an extra feat or an extra +2 to stats, I wonder if they've even read the spell descriptions yet. Especially for martial characters, who need all the help they can get, adding these things won't even come close to breaking the game.
|
|
I like traits, but I think they work better as being something detailed in the adventure paths or Pathfinder specific sourcebooks, rather than in the core RPG book.There should be general traits, racial traits, and faith traits in the core RPG book, and then campaign specific traits detailed in the adventure paths.
I am more in favor of traits at first level and leave the feats as they are.
the only issue with this is that Jason already mentioned that there won't be enough space for background feats (or traits while we are on that)
either 1 extra "backgroundfeat" or 2 traits works for me, in my own campaigns i tend to give either an extra normal feat or a background one... or i took the Iron Heroes book and offered them the opportunity to take 2 traits, it gave them a bit more personalization and as someone ponted a bit more possibilities to survive.
characters are supposed to be special, to be heroes, even at 1st level... pushing them a bit out of the ordinary shows this well... also... other sourcebooks and campaign settings already use either 1 extra feat or the traits, and they have worked well for those who use them
The power curve is a measure not only of how powerful the character is, but how quickly they power up. In 3.5 the difference between 1st and 2nd level was the most extreme increase in power. Essentially, characters went from being x to being 2x - a 100% power gain.
This is just not true, not under 3.5 and even less so under Paizo. In what way is a second level character TWICE as effective as a 1st level character? Are 2nd level fighters twice as likely to hit a target? Only if the target is AC 20. Do those fighters do twice the damage of their 1st level counterparts? Not even close. Do 2nd level casters have twice as many spells? No. Do they have twice as many feats? No. Do they have twice as many HP? Probably not. Are their skills twice what they were at first level? Generally No. Do they have twice as many class powers? In a few cases yes but generally not.
So, considering no single factor in the character is twice as good as first level... Maybe some are 50% more effective in some ways... but nowhere near twice as effective.
Martial characters generally have a linear progression of powers. Casters? As a % I would suggest that Wizards biggest power boost is from 4th to 5th level, getting a 3rd level spells is far more significant than getting a 3rd 1st level spell. In particular since at will powers are nearly as effective as many 1st level spells.
I think that powercreep needs to be kept in mind, but having a background feat as 'core' isn't a problem. It is already widely used and in my games, it has not been a problem.
Many people play with 50 point buys or rolling methods than ensure 2 18s on their stats and it's not a problem. That doesn't mean it should be introduced into the game rules. One of the goals is to maintain backwards compatibility. Seriously ramping up the power level of the characters makes 3.5 based material less challenging.
Power creep is not a problem at all for anyone except full casters. When people on these forums question the "power creep" of things like an extra feat or an extra +2 to stats, I wonder if they've even read the spell descriptions yet. Especially for martial characters, who need all the help they can get, adding these things won't even come close to breaking the game.
Most of the changes to the spell system has been in the opposite direction. The bulk of the changes I've seen have been major or minor nerfs. Do you have any examples of spells that have gotten more powerful?
Martial characters have universally gotten significant boosts in power. I doubt it's enough to compete with the god-like powers of the casters but they are greatly improved. Jason's hinted that there should be some martial focused feats that might help the situation a bit. We'll see.
I don't see a universal bump in feats helping the situation though. In fact I don't see how a universal bump in anything is going to help the imbalance between casters and martial characters. You mentioned the +2 to stats but that actually helps the casters more than anyone. You talk about the martial characters needing all the help they can get but then in the same paragraph support a caster friendly game stat boost? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
characters are supposed to be special, to be heroes, even at 1st level... pushing them a bit out of the ordinary shows this well
Thus they have significantly better stats and a set of classes which are supposed to be for Player Characters as opposed to the NPC classes.
I like the suggestion of a Regional feat as well as a general one at first level for all characters as well.
Call it a trait, perhaps and list the available ones separately.
But, then, I also like the SWSE/Modern Talent Trees as well.
I am also concerned about power creep. Whereas 2 feats (3 for humans) at character creation can help flesh out a character at 1st level and thus help flavor and customization, it does introduce further power creep. Those who say that granting a single extra feat in 3.5E games at 1st level was not imbalancing are correct, but it is important to bear in mind the other power-ups that the Pathfinder RPG has introduced. Many consist of small changes like this one that are not overpowering on their own, but they gradually add up.
As such, although I like the idea of an extra feat at level 1, I would only support the idea if there were some compensating costs introduced. I have, for example, suggested in another thread that characters be forced to spend a feat each time they want to multiclass, which would also help mitigate the power creep resulting from the increased feat progression.
|
An extra feat at level 1 doesn't amount to much, but at the higher levels, that extra feat could grant access to a feat chain or Prestige class several levels earlier than originally intended. Which is fine, if that is your intent, but could lead to some class abilities totally out of synch with the expected party level.
If a D&D3.5 PrC has 4 pre-req feats, then (assuming they are not available as free feats or class abilities) it is generally only available to PCs of level 9+ (or 6+, if human).
As such, it is appropriate to grant abilities equivalent in power to 4th/5th-level spells.
A PFRPG PC can gain that many feats by level 6 (4 if human), so the potential is there to access these powers 5 levels lower than the class was originally weighted for.
If the intent is to give PCs some 'flavour', rather than 'power', then we need to limit the extra benefit to a list of low-end feats, talents and background traits, which give minor effects, and which aren't pre-reqs for any feat/class combo.
A +2 bonus to a rarely-used skill, no problem.
If it's a common PC skill, then maybe balance it with a -2 penalty to another skill.
A +1 to hit/damage a specific creature type,
an extra cantrip,
a social bonus when within a specific region, etc.
An extra feat at level 1 doesn't amount to much, but at the higher levels, that extra feat could grant access to a feat chain or Prestige class several levels earlier than originally intended. Which is fine, if that is your intent, but could lead to some class abilities totally out of synch with the expected party level.
But this would not happen if spending a feat were a requirement for multiclassing.
|
|
Only if you redefine 'multiclassing' to include 'taking a Prestige Class', which, at present, it does not.
Unless there is another pre-req, such as BAB, skill ranks, or 'ability to cast spells of level X', a flat increase in number of feats given out reduces the character level at which a PC can first begin a PrC.
If the original designer left out such failsafes, believing that the sheer number of feats required would set the minimum character level, then this results in earlier access than intended, and you have powers appropriate for 9th-level D&D3.5 characters (teleportation, polymorph, immunities, etc) being available to PCs in a 'PF/D&D3.5/d20/OGL-melting pot' game at level 4.
And that is where the power-creep is (or 'power-march', as coined above). Not because all Fighters can afford Weapon Focus, for +1 to hit with one weapon, at level 1.
Only if you redefine 'multiclassing' to include 'taking a Prestige Class', which, at present, it does not.
Unless there is another pre-req, such as BAB, skill ranks, or 'ability to cast spells of level X', a flat increase in number of feats given out reduces the character level at which a PC can first begin a PrC.
Multiclassing does include taking a Prestige Class.
A flat increase of the number of feats by 1 (at level 1) combined with the requirement of spending 1 feat to multiclass results in a net +/- 0 feats for multiclass characters (if they have taken one extra class [be it a base class or a prestige class] - the feat is paid each time an extra class taken - not a one-off feat payment to enable multiclassing into as many classes as desirable). As such, the pre-requisites are fulfilled at the same time as they would have been in the absence of the bonus feat at level 1.
We also use "regional" feats, that are specifically listed by the DM to limit the choices for the players. Of course, Toughness is on the list and so far every play has chosen it over things like Stealthy, Dodge, or Lightning Reflexes.
As far as backwards compatability, an extra feat at 1st doesn't break it anymore than the additional 3 feats over 20 levels does. Personally I've always thought that the number of feats for characters has been too low and Pathfinder is making great progress in changing this...
|
|
Only if you redefine 'multiclassing' to include 'taking a Prestige Class', which, at present, it does not.
Unless there is another pre-req, such as BAB, skill ranks, or 'ability to cast spells of level X', a flat increase in number of feats given out reduces the character level at which a PC can first begin a PrC.
Multiclassing does include taking a Prestige Class.
A flat increase of the number of feats by 1 (at level 1) combined with the requirement of spending 1 feat to multiclass results in a net +/- 0 feats for multiclass characters (if they have taken one extra class [be it a base class or a prestige class] - the feat is paid each time an extra class taken - not a one-off feat payment to enable multiclassing into as many classes as desirable). As such, the pre-requisites are fulfilled at the same time as they would have been in the absence of the bonus feat at level 1.
sounds like an interesting solution to the characters with 4 classes... i like it :)
my players would hate it :DWe also use "regional" feats, that are specifically listed by the DM to limit the choices for the players. Of course, Toughness is on the list and so far every play has chosen it over things like Stealthy, Dodge, or Lightning Reflexes.
As far as backwards compatability, an extra feat at 1st doesn't break it anymore than the additional 3 feats over 20 levels does. Personally I've always thought that the number of feats for characters has been too low and Pathfinder is making great progress in changing this...
i agree, as player and DM i have always felt there were too feat per character but the options to chose were so many,.... that most players ended chosing always the same, becasue they neededa boost, while there were nice and cool feats the cost-benefit was so little that they were considered useless... having a bit more feats might aleviate thes cost-benefit feeling.
also i agree in thatregional or background feats would enhance roleplaying by giving characters something extra to craft their character's past.
I like the background feats/traits for campaign style play. Not only does it hook the pc's into the world around them, but it boosts them ever so slightly for a more heroic playstyle. Furthermore the skill feats tend to get ignored in my experience (not so much by me when I'm making a PC, but..) so encouraging a little skillfulness in the PC's encourages a more well rounded party IMO.
As such, although I like the idea of an extra feat at level 1, I would only support the idea if there were some compensating costs introduced. I have, for example, suggested in another thread that characters be forced to spend a feat each time they want to multiclass, which would also help mitigate the power creep resulting from the increased feat progression.
This is an absolutely terrible idea. You know who benefits when you penalize mutliclassing? Casters. Casters don't *need* to multiclass, while melee and skill based classes get more out of it. It *helps* those classes get a little bit more oomph occasionally, but it's not like it's something that's terribly game breaking on its own. Multiclassing requiring feats is a poor idea that prohibits the customization of character that 3.x is all about, and I for one oppose it.
Penalizing characters for wanting to customize their character with (*gasp*) low level abilities from other classes doesn't make any real sense. All the while, the wizards and clerics and druids are laughing at the fighter/barbarian who wanted a few extra feats/a little dab of rage and speed/whatever.
As for the subject of an extra feat at first level, I'm not opposed to it, but I don't think it's entirely necessary, either. It's a nice boon, to be sure, but I think a traits system such as others have proposed may be a better idea, since it'd keep players from just optimizing over choosing the flavorful feats that the OP would like them to select.
Penalizing characters for wanting to customize their character with (*gasp*) low level abilities from other classes doesn't make any real sense.
I have an idea to solve the multiclassing exploit... a new, fresh nerf on magic! Because as everyone knows, there's no problem in d20 that can't be solved by nerfing magic! =P
...okay, jokes aside, I fully agree with you, it seems many people around is unable to get it through their skulls but... News Flash! Pathfinder is NOT a game for Draconian game tables.
However, having played both DnD and NWN a long time, I've seen plenty of Sorcerers with 1 level of Paladin (to get Divine Grace), Rogues with 1 level of Shadowdancer (to get Hide in Plain sight), or just about anyone with 1 level of Rogue (for the skills). This kind of cheesy, metagaming multiclassing can easily be deterred without incurring in draconian measures:
1) Never put an "end-all-be-all" ability at level one (Paizo already did this by moving Divine Grace I think).
2) PF's skill system grants a +3 on all class skills, how about this? Upon taking additional (non PrC)clases, you get no skill bonuses on level one, then get +1 at level 2, +2 at lvl 3, and +3 at lvl 4.
Sounds better?
|
|
2) PF's skill system grants a +3 on all class skills, how about this? Upon taking additional (non PrC)clases, you get no skill bonuses on level one, then get +1 at level 2, +2 at lvl 3, and +3 at lvl 4.Sounds better?
No it doesn't sound better, the +3 is there to make up for the loss of the x4 skill points at first level. Also you can only put 1 skill point in per level, your system adds more complexity and a nerf, no thank you
No it doesn't sound better, the +3 is there to make up for the loss of the x4 skill points at first level. Also you can only put 1 skill point in per level, your system adds more complexity and a nerf, no thank you
We got a bit of misunderstanding, I only meant to apply that to multiclassing, not to your freshly rolled, "Character level" 1... that would SUCK. =P
|
|
No it doesn't sound better, the +3 is there to make up for the loss of the x4 skill points at first level. Also you can only put 1 skill point in per level, your system adds more complexity and a nerf, no thank youWe got a bit of misunderstanding, I only meant to apply that to multiclassing, not to your freshly rolled, "Character level" 1... that would SUCK. =P
but he is right in that he adds complexity, i told you by msn :P
but aye he talks about 2nd classes... that way you don't take rogue as a 2nd class just to get a lot of skill bonuses at +3, which sounds reasonable... untill you need to keep the math (i have no trouble, i use excel, but lots of people will)
1) Never put an "end-all-be-all" ability at level one (Paizo already did this by moving Divine Grace I think).
Alternately, cap any such abilities using the base class level. That way, there's no possibility for abuse, it doesn't significantly cut into the base class's power level, and the base class can still have the ability from the get-go.
2) PF's skill system grants a +3 on all class skills, how about this? Upon taking additional (non PrC)clases, you get no skill bonuses on level one, then get +1 at level 2, +2 at lvl 3, and +3 at lvl 4.
Way too complicated. Way more trouble than it's worth.
Personally, I would be fine with going halfway back to the old system, with 4x at first level, being able to go to you level +3 in class skills, but only your level in all others. The big advantage is it means you can spread your skill points out more, which means you can better fill in those little nooks and crannies, like one or two points into Profession (Basketweaver) without feeling like you just seriously shot yourself in the foot.
I'm not against any of the proposed improvements. +2 to stats is not a game balance issue, and I'm aware that it does more for casters than anyone else.
I wasn't complaining about anything, just saying that martial characters need a lot more buffing.
My remark was that the "power creep" from an extra feat or +2 to stats doesn't affect the relative balance of power; full casters can still do all their tricks, and even if some of the spells have been rebalanced, the fact is that their class features are what provide their power.
Feats and stats are just the icing on the cake.
Personally, I would be fine with going halfway back to the old system, with 4x at first level, being able to go to you level +3 in class skills, but only your level in all others. The big advantage is it means you can spread your skill points out more, which means you can better fill in those little nooks and crannies, like one or two points into Profession (Basketweaver) without feeling like you just seriously shot yourself in the foot.
On the other hand, it makes taking your first level as rogue rather than fighter a no-brainer, which was the problem with the old system that I'm glad has been alleviated in PF.
|
|
Personally, I would be fine with going halfway back to the old system, with 4x at first level, being able to go to you level +3 in class skills, but only your level in all others. The big advantage is it means you can spread your skill points out more, which means you can better fill in those little nooks and crannies, like one or two points into Profession (Basketweaver) without feeling like you just seriously shot yourself in the foot.On the other hand, it makes taking your first level as rogue rather than fighter a no-brainer, which was the problem with the old system that I'm glad has been alleviated in PF.
Exactly why i like PF new skill system (and i do love to make rogues), suddenly you have a class with about 8 or 12 skillpoints and one with 40? (and no they were never enough if you ask me)
i say the skill system is fine, maybe a few chanegs in some skills, but the system is perfect...
but aye... how to alleviate the abuse of multuiclassing without hitting the people that does it for valid reasons... that is the question...
:D
The Council of Canines demands more scooby snacks.
The international brotherhood of felines mandates the abundance of catnip.
RPG gamers the world over call for more feats!
Upping the general power level was a wise marketing move for Paizo, whether or not it was intentional. But I can't get behind the idea that two feats at first level is called for.
On the other hand, it makes taking your first level as rogue rather than fighter a no-brainer, which was the problem with the old system that I'm glad has been alleviated in PF.
Yeah, but I see the x4 system as the lesser of two evils. Yes you encourage taking Rogue first, but that only effects those people who are multiclassing and might otherwise have taken their other class level first. The current rules, OTOH, effect everyone since they make background skills for everyone much more difficult. I went ahead and just gave everyone an extra skill point into a background skill because the characters (at 5th level, no less) didn't feel quite fleshed-out enough on paper.
|
|
If the extra feat is a 'regional feat', which is what I am supporting, it is not going to cause problems with qualifying for PrCs earlier than anticipated. The ones that exist now are not used in feat chains.
So, yes to regional feats, no to +1 feat for no good reason.
As for PrCs, if the only requirement is the number of feats, that is simply bad design. Skill ranks and BAB or spell of a particular level make good requirements since no character can exceed a particular pace (level +3 for skills, BAB = level for BAB, or spell level = character level x2-1).
If number of feats is the only requirement, you could try a rogue/fighter using the Unearthed Arcana variant (trade sneak for bonus feats). That would be 5 feats by 4th level...
Personally, I would be fine with going halfway back to the old system, with 4x at first level, being able to go to you level +3 in class skills, but only your level in all others. The big advantage is it means you can spread your skill points out more, which means you can better fill in those little nooks and crannies, like one or two points into Profession (Basketweaver) without feeling like you just seriously shot yourself in the foot.On the other hand, it makes taking your first level as rogue rather than fighter a no-brainer, which was the problem with the old system that I'm glad has been alleviated in PF.
You are correct. That arbitrary unfairness in multiclassing based on the order of classes taken was precisely what I disliked the most about 3.5E's original skill system.
There is a way, however, to circumvent that problem, yet maintain the customization and other benefits provided by the 4x at first level system. The trick is to give out a standardized amount of bonus skill points that is the same for each class plus 3 x Intelligence bonus at 1st level. These bonus skill points could even be granted by race (all races would grant, say, 12, apart from humans granting 15). Class skill points would then be gained normally on a per level basis. I discuss this system in much greater detail (including compensation for classes that would have had more skill points at level 1) here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/design/ability/racialSkillsHitPointsAndOtherBonusesSolutionToSkillsAndLA
On the other hand, it makes taking your first level as rogue rather than fighter a no-brainer, which was the problem with the old system that I'm glad has been alleviated in PF.Yeah, but I see the x4 system as the lesser of two evils. Yes you encourage taking Rogue first, but that only effects those people who are multiclassing and might otherwise have taken their other class level first. The current rules, OTOH, effect everyone since they make background skills for everyone much more difficult. I went ahead and just gave everyone an extra skill point into a background skill because the characters (at 5th level, no less) didn't feel quite fleshed-out enough on paper.
An alternative for fleshing out a character in the skill department is to go the route of one or two traits that a PC can take at first level. I'm warming to this idea. If the traits are regional or racial (or both) and do something minor like providing a +1 to a skill or two, it amounts to the same as putting a single dot in profession (baker) without interfering with the somewhat more elegant Pathfinder solution to skills. I think I may just put together some national and racial traits for my CS and let each PC take 2...
Honestly, I'm all for the fleshing out of a character, and I do understand how the current skill system doesn't allow it. If you want your character to have one rank in craft or profession, you're devoting a lot more resources in PF than in 3.5, though you'll be exceptionally good at it. I think something like traits may fix this unintentional flaw in the skills while not benefiting those who wouldn't have spent points on fluff skills to begin with, and not interfering with the revised skill system in any real way. I like that solution a lot better.
I loooove me some traits.
Love them.
Flaws too, if players aren't just using them to get extra feats.
I'd so much rather see this kind of flexibility than just giving everyone two feats. We've had enough of a power bump already, my friends.
An alternative for fleshing out a character in the skill department is to go the route of one or two traits that a PC can take at first level.
It's not so much about netting a higher bonus as it is modeling training the PC would have had in a given skill as part of his or her background that very possibly doesn't have much real effect on gameplay from day to day.
An alternative for fleshing out a character in the skill department is to go the route of one or two traits that a PC can take at first level.It's not so much about netting a higher bonus as it is modeling training the PC would have had in a given skill as part of his or her background that very possibly doesn't have much real effect on gameplay from day to day.
No, I get that. I've had characters with a rank in profession (carpenter) and seen PCs with a single rank in profession (prostitute) before.
I'm saying that, rather than going back to the old skill system, wherein a player *could* spend them on RP possibilities or maxing out useful stats and encouraging a rogue level to be the first level for the amazing skill points, we could do the same thing with traits that give a minor bonus to a skill or two that aren't ranks, so they don't interfere with the (largely) superior skill system Pathfinder's got.
For example:
Carpenter
You have some training in carpentry from your youth, though you obviously do something else for a living now.
Benefit: You gain a +1 trait bonus on Profession (Carpenter) and Craft (Woodworking) checks. You may make these rolls untrained.
Something like that, for various backgrounds, allows what you're asking for (the ability to invest a single rank in something without it being as large a chunk of your skill points at first level) while still working with the system we've got. It also allows experts and other NPCs to potentially specialize to a further degree in their chosen profession, which isn't a bad idea, really.
No, I get that. I've had characters with a rank in profession (carpenter) and seen PCs with a single rank in profession (prostitute) before.
And of my my current PCs spent her free background skill point on just that: Profession (Prostitute).
Perhaps it would be best if we gave 1st level PCs 4 skill ranks to spend on, say, Appraise, Craft, Handle Animal, Heal, Knowledge (other than Arcana, Dungeuoneering, or Religion), Perform (other than the Bard), Profession, Ride, or whatever else the DM deems appropriate. It might even be ok to let certain PCs pick certain feats (I let my Psion player pick up Improved Unarmed Strike instead of a bonus skill point since the place he's from emphasizes martial arts).
Four free background skill points or a free background feat? I could go with those if the campaign had limited skills or feats from which to choose. I always like the idea of background crunch in a character.