|
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).
some of those skills are ok, i would give either 2 background skills points and 1 trait or 2 traits, i have been reading them and are quiteinteersting, most of them are not overtly powerful... but aye a celric with "sacred touch" does free a osirion for another thing, and other players around her would be safer.
mmm improved unarmed strike as free background feat? i would ask if its not too powerful, except without the monk training its too powerful, except it serves for other feat trees, weren't you arguing against that? but yes as you point in emphatices the martial training of some lands.
but yeah after reading the traits, i hope Paizo adds them to the player options in Pathfinder RPG
but they are not backward compatible!
no... players only need no add them... no to much problem on that...
a friend who isplanning to add them is offering one trait at 1st level... and another one at 5th level earned throug RPG
Traits are as different from background skill points as Ability scores are from skill ranks.
The biggest problem with this is what's mere background for one character could be a freebie for another that he was gonna take anyway. The player I let take Improved Unarmed Strike is a Psion, a Shaper no less. The feat does almost nothing for him. It just means he can KO bigoted peasants with a jab rather than blasting them with ectoplasmic fire or calling over pretty much anyone else in the party to do it for him. A fighter or barbarian might find that feat to be downright useful under certain circumstances. Even other Psions might find a way to get more out of it.
Traits are as different from background skill points as Ability scores are from skill ranks.
Yes, that's true. But it doesn't mean that traits can't work just as well. Such as my proposed trait upthread, it amounts to the same thing, doesn't gum up the skill system, and causes every character to more appropriately flesh out their backgrounds, rather than the people who aren't spending every skill point on necessary class skills/build skills. Just because it's not a skill point/rank doesn't mean it doesn't get the job done.
Just because it's not a skill point/rank doesn't mean it doesn't get the job done.
I respectfully disagree. Both options flesh out the characters, this is true, but they do so in pointedly different ways. It's hard to ask players to siphon off a (comparatively) significant amount of their resources just for flavor purposes. More to the point, they are implicitly punished for doing so. Traits, quite frankly, don't really have much to do with what I'm proposing.
And of my my current PCs spent her free background skill point on just that: Profession (Prostitute).
Do you think that the same character would have had 4 ranks in Profession in 3.5 edition?
If not, then why does she need a +4 modifier to checks in Pathfinder but not in 3.5?
If so, then why should she need free skill points in Pathfinder but not in 3.5?
|
|
Just because it's not a skill point/rank doesn't mean it doesn't get the job done.I respectfully disagree. Both options flesh out the characters, this is true, but they do so in pointedly different ways. It's hard to ask players to siphon off a (comparatively) significant amount of their resources just for flavor purposes. More to the point, they are implicitly punished for doing so. Traits, quite frankly, don't really have much to do with what I'm proposing.
indeed they are both different solutions... and i think both work... toguether it might be too much, but if some "background skills" work for someone, that is fine... Traits are cool for other poeple also... again it deopends on personality and focus...
aside of that i insist... 4 skills + int mod at least for all classes...
i myself would work like thisand use 2 traits in thenext game i use.
I respectfully disagree. Both options flesh out the characters, this is true, but they do so in pointedly different ways. It's hard to ask players to siphon off a (comparatively) significant amount of their resources just for flavor purposes. More to the point, they are implicitly punished for doing so. Traits, quite frankly, don't really have much to do with what I'm proposing.
It's certainly your right to disagree, but I'd like to know why. Do you *want* PCs to have to sacrifice actual character resources on flavor? It sounds from this post like you do, but I had the impression that you didn't. If you don't want them to expend resources in that regard, and you just give them background skill points or whatever, how is that really any different from a trait that gives them a +1 trait bonus and the ability to use the skill untrained? The former requires the old skill system to function appropriately (and is therefore a continuation of the abuse of 8 + INT classes always being the first level of a multiclass, something I'm glad the new system fixed) while the latter works with Pathfinder's actual system and seems, to me at least, to accomplish the exact same thing. So, why is it calling it a "trait" somehow unable to do the job, but just giving them a skill point or two does get it done? I'd really like to understand.
A +1 bonus (competence rather than trait, I think) and the ability to use the skill untrained sounds like a great idea for a trait. I'd throw in two such traits into a 1st-level-only "background" feat.
|
|
It's certainly your right to disagree, but I'd like to know why. Do you *want* PCs to have to sacrifice actual character resources on flavor? It sounds from this post like you do, but I had the impression that you didn't. If you don't want them to expend resources in that regard, and you just give them background skill points or whatever, how is that really any different from a trait that gives them a +1 trait bonus and the ability to use the skill untrained? The former requires the old skill system to function appropriately (and is therefore a continuation of the abuse of 8 + INT classes always being the first level of a multiclass, something I'm glad the new system fixed) while the latter works with Pathfinder's actual system and seems, to me at least, to accomplish the exact same thing. So, why is it calling it a "trait" somehow unable to do the job, but just giving them a skill point or two does get it done? I'd really like to understand.
i think he likes the old skill system
while this is respectable ihope we never go back to it.
I prefer the old system over 4e or Saga's skill system, but I very much like Pathfinder's system, and prefer it because it doesn't disadvantage fighter/rogues over rogue/fighters. That's a very important thing, to my mind.
|
|
ok... 2... times... post erased...
*sight*
ok i agree whole heartedly
nor shouldbe punished the:
sorcerer/rogue
wizard/rogue (archeologist anyone?)
cleric/rogue (trickster god anyone? i had one of this... i did had to go rogue/cleric for the same reason you point... just because is stupid not to do this)
paladin/rogue?? (in a land where you would be bured to be part of a religion... or any religion at all... you can't be a paragon of virtue without burning... so you keep your head down and keep the good work done in secret)
Yeah, I get that we're on the same page here. Just figured I'd try to spell out the benefits of Pathfinder's system IMHO to be safe.