|
I think the end result of refusing to upgrade to 4 skill points per level will be that fighters are again the 2-4 level dip class for feats. Really awesome combat feats, and a total revamp of how feats work to remove extended suboptimal feat chains from the fighter might invalidate this to a certain extent....but it may not.
Actually i think it's the other way around. I think that the fighter has become so cool in combat with his armor/weapon training and a bunch of feats that he's worthy of taking as a class - and his lack of skills will mean that rogue will be the 1-3 levels of class dipping.
Robert
|
I think the end result of refusing to upgrade to 4 skill points per level will be that fighters are again the 2-4 level dip class for feats. Really awesome combat feats, and a total revamp of how feats work to remove extended suboptimal feat chains from the fighter might invalidate this to a certain extent....but it may not.
Actually i think it's the other way around. I think that the fighter has become so cool in combat with his armor/weapon training and a bunch of feats that he's worthy of taking as a class - and his lack of skills will mean that rogue will be the 1-3 levels of class dipping.
Robert
:)
He's cool in combat until level 6 or so. With the 1-3 levels of rogue, that's 3-5 level of fighter...then he can't keep up with spellcasters because he can't force them into melee.
The reason I'm so passionate about this is because I like playing martial characters, but never bothered because of the obvious problems - until Tome of Battle came out. Then, I finally got a chance to have a martial character that could fight, could almost keep up at mid-high levels, and whether she could keep up completely or not, was fun, both on the battlefield and off!
I want fighters to have the cool stuff warblades and crusaders had - movement options, save options, defense options, "stickiness" options, skill options!
Wizards having more skills than rogues? Oh, don't be silly. They'd have to have Int 22 (to the Rogue's Int 10) just to draw even! Besides which, please explain how the book-learners and the religious educators are less skilled than the killing machine?
1. Wizards typically max out Int just to stay viable. An elf using point-buy may start with a 20 Int; he'll have that 22 by 8th level. By 12th, with a +2 headband, he's now got Int 25 and 9 skill points per level.
2. Wizards and clerics are not restricted to knowledge skills -- they can spend them on anything. How is a guy who spends his whole life persuing scrolls supposed to be a professional-caliber climber, tracker, rider, swimmer, weaponsmith, pickpocket, and con man as well? But a wizard easily can be, even if you don't start giving him extra skill points. On the other hand, a professional soldier, field marshal of the army, with 10 Int can ride, operate a siege engine, and recognize classical tactical maneuvers -- and that's all (and if he's a gnome or halfling, he can't even operate the catapult). He can't repair his own armor or sharpen his own sword, he can't talk to people, he won't notice if you sneak past him with a full marching band in broad daylight, and if he cuts his finger, he has no idea how to put a band-aid on it.
Well, most rogues of my acquaintance treat Intelligence as one of their favoured stats, with Int 12 being very common. An Elven rogue would thus have Int 14 without trying to be a suave, trickster type and thus have 10 skill points per level (at 1st-level, without modifications).
Also, I'm well aware of what a fighting-type character may well need to be well-rounded, but I'm still thematically opposed to the fighter having more base skill points than the bookish, inquisitive, knowledgeable wizard.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Wizards having more skills than rogues? Oh, don't be silly. They'd have to have Int 22 (to the Rogue's Int 10) just to draw even! Besides which, please explain how the book-learners and the religious educators are less skilled than the killing machine?1. Wizards typically max out Int just to stay viable. An elf using point-buy may start with a 20 Int; he'll have that 22 by 8th level. By 12th, with a +2 headband, he's now got Int 25 and 9 skill points per level.
2. Wizards and clerics are not restricted to knowledge skills -- they can spend them on anything. How is a guy who spends his whole life persuing scrolls supposed to be a professional-caliber climber, tracker, rider, swimmer, weaponsmith, pickpocket, and con man as well? But a wizard easily can be, even if you don't start giving him extra skill points. On the other hand, a professional soldier, field marshal of the army, with 10 Int can ride, operate a siege engine, and recognize classical tactical maneuvers -- and that's all (and if he's a gnome or halfling, he can't even operate the catapult). He can't repair his own armor or sharpen his own sword, he can't talk to people, he won't notice if you sneak past him with a full marching band in broad daylight, and if he cuts his finger, he has no idea how to put a band-aid on it.
I thought that in the change from 3.0 to 3.5 they ruled that enhancement bonuses to INT score, even if it's something you wear all the time like a headband, don't affect skill points.
I think the new PF headbands give you one rank per level in Int-based skills if you've worn it all level, but otherwise, yes, you're completely right.
|
|
[
The reason I'm so passionate about this is because I like playing martial characters, but never bothered because of the obvious problems - until Tome of Battle came out. Then, I finally got a chance to have a martial character that could fight, could almost keep up at mid-high levels, and whether she could keep up completely or not, was fun, both on the battlefield and off!
I want fighters to have the cool stuff warblades and crusaders had - movement options, save options, defense options, "stickiness" options, skill options!
And I firmly believe and have faith that this will happen and that Jason is on board with this; his coy comments about such things when we get to the feat section leads me to believe this.
We will just have to wait to get to the feats section of the playtesting discussions to see most of this come to fruition; but it will be a big discussion that will go on and on I'm sure. Regardless, as I said - I do believe the fighter will be able to be what you're describing.
Robert
|
|
On the other hand, a professional soldier, field marshal of the army, with 10 Int can ride, operate a siege engine, and recognize classical tactical maneuvers -- and that's all (and if he's a gnome or halfling, he can't even operate the catapult). He can't repair his own armor or sharpen his own sword, he can't talk to people, he won't notice if you sneak past him with a full marching band in broad daylight, and if he cuts his finger, he has no idea how to put a band-aid on it.
Good point Kirth. And I completely agree with you and still believe that 4 is needed. Unfortunately it's not going to happen, and so we'll just make it a house rule (for those of us who DM) and hope that our DMs do house rule it in for us players.
The only losers will be those who want to participate in Pathfinder Society and other such league rules that don't have the freedom of house rules.
Robert
I thought that in the change from 3.0 to 3.5 they ruled that enhancement bonuses to INT score, even if it's something you wear all the time like a headband, don't affect skill points.
I think it got changed back in Pathfinder -- permanent bonuses give skill points after a day of use, or something along those lines. There was some discussion on the boards about having the skills "pre-loaded" into the headbands, and not up to the player to choose, though...
Director of Games
|
Hi there All,
Permanent Int bonuses now grant bonus skill points (Beta, pg 388). If you are wearing an item, such as a headband of mental prowess (Beta, pg 377), you will note that the item comes with a set number of skills that the addition points get placed into, automatically).
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set. Unlike many of the other classes, the fighters skills did not go through much change, meaning that the 3.5 fighter's skills need next to no conversion. Bumping them to 4 would also be out of line with all the other classes that get 2. At this point, I prefer the skill diversity between the classes (in terms of the number of points) and would prefer to keep the current values (especially considering these are so easy to houserule up, but not to go down).
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set. Unlike many of the other classes, the fighters skills did not go through much change, meaning that the 3.5 fighter's skills need next to no conversion. Bumping them to 4 would also be out of line with all the other classes that get 2. At this point, I prefer the skill diversity between the classes (in terms of the number of points) and would prefer to keep the current values (especially considering these are so easy to houserule up, but not to go down).
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I would like to see all the classes have a minimum of 4 skill points.
As mentioned in other posts, I have had that as a house rule for years now. It allows more versatility of the characters.
The high skill point character, the rogue, gained a large number of bonuses from the skill consolidation, so I do not see it as a threat to the more skilled classes.
I will certainly house rule it all classes get 4 skill points, but would prefer it if it was the official rule.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hi there All,
Permanent Int bonuses now grant bonus skill points (Beta, pg 388). If you are wearing an item, such as a headband of mental prowess (Beta, pg 377), you will note that the item comes with a set number of skills that the addition points get placed into, automatically).
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set. Unlike many of the other classes, the fighters skills did not go through much change, meaning that the 3.5 fighter's skills need next to no conversion. Bumping them to 4 would also be out of line with all the other classes that get 2. At this point, I prefer the skill diversity between the classes (in terms of the number of points) and would prefer to keep the current values (especially considering these are so easy to houserule up, but not to go down).
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
A simple thought:
I would actually boost ALL of the classes' skill points by 2, not just the fighter. I instituted this as a house rule in my playtest campaign and the players all love it.
Skills are hardly game-breaking, especially with the caps on how high you can get a given skill. Having more points doesn't let you get better at the automatic skills that you're going to take because they are critically needed in actual gameplay (Perception, Spellcraft, etc.), but it will allow you to have more room to take more flavor/background skills (I'm looking at you, Craft, Profession, and Perform), which no fighter in his right mind would take as it stands because he can't afford it.
You still have great diversity of skill points between the Ftr/Pal/Clr end and the Rog/Brd/Rgr end of things, but the people at the low end get to play the skills game too.
Also, it helps deal with two related problems:
1. If you have an INT below 10, you are screwed if you have a 2/level SP class. Your SP have just been cut by 50%. Bumping everyone's SP up gives a bit more buffer at the bottom of the curve to be able to play an archetype like a faithful but none-too-bright cleric or paladin or a lunk-headed fighter without being completely gimped in terms of skills.
2. Lots of skills aren't based on INT, but skill points always are. A thick-skulled fighter is basically incapable of learning how to ride a horse, climb a mountain, jump over a fence, and swim, much less be able to see and hear with any acuity (as in, he can probably do one of them but not more than one), even though none of those have anything to do with being smart.
Come on, relent! Give up the skill points! A rising tide lifts all boats!
|
|
Jason,
A 3.5e 1st level fighter with a 10 int (8 skill points) could get all of his class skills at rank 1.
A Pathfinder Fighter with a 10 int (2 skill points) could only get 2 of his skills. And have 0 in the rest, having a 0 means not having the +3 to the skill either.
Removing the x4 means you have completely changed the number of starting skills available. Something needs to be done. Either increase the base numbers to 4+int. Or add 4 skill points for all classes at level 1 to offset the removal of the x4 modifier. I think I'm leaning toward the 4 skill points for all, these 4 skill points would represent the background of the characters. While leaving the base skills/level in place. It would be a similar mechanic to the Hit Point bonuses based on race. Perhaps base it on the race's lifespan. Short lived (half-orcs) 3 skill points, medium lived (human, halfling, gnome) 4 skill points, long-lived (dwarf, elf, half-elf) 5 skill points.
|
|
Hi there All,
Permanent Int bonuses now grant bonus skill points (Beta, pg 388). If you are wearing an item, such as a headband of mental prowess (Beta, pg 377), you will note that the item comes with a set number of skills that the addition points get placed into, automatically).
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set. Unlike many of the other classes, the fighters skills did not go through much change, meaning that the 3.5 fighter's skills need next to no conversion. Bumping them to 4 would also be out of line with all the other classes that get 2. At this point, I prefer the skill diversity between the classes (in terms of the number of points) and would prefer to keep the current values (especially considering these are so easy to houserule up, but not to go down).
Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingA simple thought:
I would actually boost ALL of the classes' skill points by 2, not just the fighter. I instituted this as a house rule in my playtest campaign and the players all love it.
Skills are hardly game-breaking, especially with the caps on how high you can get a given skill. Having more points doesn't let you get better at the automatic skills that you're going to take because they are critically needed in actual gameplay (Perception, Spellcraft, etc.), but it will allow you to have more room to take more flavor/background skills (I'm looking at you, Craft, Profession, and Perform), which no fighter in his right mind would take as it stands because he can't afford it.
You still have great diversity of skill points between the Ftr/Pal/Clr end and the Rog/Brd/Rgr end of things, but the people at the low end get to play the skills game too.
Also, it helps deal with two related problems:
1. If you have an INT below 10, you are screwed if you have a 2/level SP class. Your SP have just...
I have toyed with the idea of splitting skills into physical and mental skills. making physical skills =x+(dex+str+con/3) per level and mental skills y+(int+wis+cha/3) per level. where X = 3 for melee and 1 for non-melle, and y=1 for melee and 3 for non-melee.
Unfotunately that would break all backwards compatibility and we'd never see it on Pathfinder
Jason I have been pushing for a min of 4 skills. Losing the x4 at 1st level didn't hurt to bad unless you had less then 4 skills. All class that had less then 4 feel it hard. There is no need to bump anyone with 4 ,6 or 8 as they have always had enough but less then 4 always hurt but now it really hurts a simple bump from 2 to 4 I think would be welcome by most players.
|
|
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set.
Now this brings up a tricky situation, I know many of us have opinions about consolidating skills, but until the skills are finalized we cannot really argue about the Fighter's skill list.
But as I have stated before I am convinced that the changes to cross-class skills has really solved the Fighter as diplomat(or whatever) issue. Fighters have enough feats to take Skill Focus: Dipolmacy(or whatever)if they really want to(and for that matter Persuasive for another +2).
Unless its changed fights feats must be combat feats so No 2 skills still isn't enough
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set. Unlike many of the other classes, the fighters skills did not go through much change, meaning that the 3.5 fighter's skills need next to no conversion. Bumping them to 4 would also be out of line with all the other classes that get 2. At this point, I prefer the skill diversity between the classes (in terms of the number of points) and would prefer to keep the current values (especially considering these are so easy to houserule up, but not to go down).
I think most people are advocating all classes getting a minimum of 4 skill points across the board, not just the fighter. I don't think raising the fighter, wizard, cleric, etc. to 4 skill points per level will really hurt class diversity all that much--the classes who are supposed to be the skill masters (rogue, bard, ranger) will still have more skill points than the others. Meanwhile, it doesn't make much sense that the barbarian gets twice as many skill points as the fighter and paladin or that the druid gets twice as many as the cleric and wizard. And as for concerns about backwards compatibility, I don't see it. Making sweeping changes to class abilities, the skill system, combat maneuvers, etc. is fine, but giving some class more skill points is not? I'm not trying to be snide, I honestly don't see the argument. So please consider this one more vote for 4 skill points.
As for fighters and their skill points. I think that their list of class skills is certainly up to debate, but the number of points they receive is probably pretty set. Unlike many of the other classes, the fighters skills did not go through much change, meaning that the 3.5 fighter's skills need next to no conversion.
Unless a new Knowledge (warfare) skill is created, their list of class-skills is fine. They already have an edge in those areas for which it is reasonable to expect a professional soldier to excel at.
Bumping them to 4 would also be out of line with all the other classes that get 2. At this point, I prefer the skill diversity between the classes (in terms of the number of points) and would prefer to keep the current values (especially considering these are so easy to houserule up, but not to go down).
The problem is that while many skills were consolidated (which makes skill-points go further), those changes primarily benefit the classes who already had a higher number of skill points. Below is a listing of all classes. It illustrates what classes have effectively gained skills (compared to 3.5), or have skill-points liberated due to consolidation:
Barbarian: Acrobatics, Perception
Bard: Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Linguistics, Perception, Spellcraft
Cleric: Diplomacy, Linguistics, Spellcraft (though MAD comes into play: CON-> INT)
Druid: Perception (balanced by fly), Spellcraft (MAD: CON-> INT)
Fighter: None (actually loses Jump by inclusion in Acrobatics)
Monk: Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth
Paladin: Diplomacy, Spellcraft (MAD: CON-> INT)
Ranger: Perception, Spellcraft (MAD: CON-> INT), Stealth, (loses Jump by inclusion in Acrobatics)
Rogue: Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Linguistics, Perception, Stealth
Sorcerer: Spellcraft (MAD: CON-> INT) (balanced by Fly)
Wizard: Spellcraft (SAD: INT is already chief ability) (balanced by Fly)
As you can see, the more skill points a class already had, the more they benefited from consolidation. This means that the classes who were already good at skills became even better.
As for the other classes that get only 2 skill points, even with the inclusion of Fly, the Wizard still benefits since Int is the ability now for both Spellcraft and Concentration. Fly also offsets the Sorcerer's gain in this department, though now that they need to focus on Int more, that will raise their skill points.
This leaves the Fighter who has actually lost the +3 bonus he would have had in what was previously a STR-based skill (Jump).
Essentially, the fact that the Fighter has not benefited from consolidation AND has not received more skill points is out of line with the changes that have affected every other class... even those with 2 skill points per level.
|
Wow, just a guy who hits people, that sounds so exciting...why would I want my guy who hits people to be able to do stuff out of combat...hmm...let me think...OH so my guy who hits people is more than a Guy who hits people...especially when out of combat...
A Guy who hits people should just be the Warrior...A Fighter should be more...it's a PLAYER CHARACTER CLASS, not a non-player class...
The utility of a character out of combat has a lot more to do with roleplaying and a lot less to do with skill points. Mechanically, the class is intended to hit people. It is his absolute specialism, in fact he is so specialised in it he gets no other abilities, unlike the barbarian or ranger. The big difference between a fighter and a warrior (more or less the only the difference) is the feats, and as I have said before the problem with the fighter is the lack of decent feats at high level. You give him a few more skill points - meh, who cares (apart from some of you guys, I admit)?
I mean, did you ever play 1e or 2e? You rolled up the fighter's stats, you bought him his armour and a weapon - and that was it. The 3e fighter is a major advance, conceptually. Yet people still played fighters. It seems to me that some people in favour of extra skill points are simply in favour of power-creep, or who really want to play a rogue or bard but want good armour and BAB too - i.e., they just don't like the archetype much, and seem to want to change him into a pseudo-rogue. The fighter is simply not a skill-monkey. Even if he had the extra skills proposed, someone else in the party would likely outclass him in them anyway.
Oh, and my eyesight is OK with my glasses on - you don't need to bother with the capitals.
It seems to me that some people in favour of extra skill points are simply in favour of power-creep, or who really want to play a rogue or bard but want good armour and BAB too...
It seems to me that Paizo's "academy fighter" variant (or whatever it was called) might represent a good compromise here: give up a feat at 1st level for +2 skill points/level. For fighters, this would be their 1st level bonus feat: no great loss, and then they have the skill points that people are craving (and one or two more class skills, if I remember correctly). For wizards, clerics, and sorcerers, your 1st level feat is a big committment -- you'd really have to think hard before giving up, say, Selective Channeling just to get more skill points.
In short, it presents a means to get more skill points, but eliminates the whole "something for nothing" situation that you and I dislike.
|
A simple thought:
I would actually boost ALL of the classes' skill points by 2, not just the fighter. I instituted this as a house rule in my playtest campaign and the players all love it.
Skills are hardly game-breaking, especially with the caps on how high you can get a given skill. Having more points doesn't let you get better at the automatic skills that you're going to take because they are critically needed in actual gameplay (Perception, Spellcraft, etc.), but it will allow you to have more room to take more flavor/background skills (I'm looking at you, Craft, Profession, and Perform), which no fighter in his right mind would take as it stands because he can't afford it.
You still have great diversity of skill points between the Ftr/Pal/Clr end and the Rog/Brd/Rgr end of things, but the people at the low end get to play the skills game too.
Also, it helps deal with two related problems:
1. If you have an INT below 10, you are screwed if you have a 2/level SP class. Your SP have just...
T H I S.
My group has two low-int melee-oriented PCs (a fighter and a paladin), who now get 1 point per level, which has led them to max. out all class skills instead of investing any in more "logical" choices (i.e. Survival and Perception, both of which they've been using a lot, and it would be only natural to expect they're getting better at them). Both of the players just shrugged, saying: "As the system is as it is, and you only have one logical path of skill selection for a low-int PC. You invest in class skills and *nothing* else, and even then you're occasionally screwed."
So my group is all for giving *all* the classes 4 skill points per level -- it would leave room for occasionally picking up skills for "role-playing reasons".
Now, in my opinion the skill system in Alpha 1 worked a lot better, as you progressed in all your class skills (even those you didn't put ranks in) -- that helped low-int characters a lot. In essence, it seriously downplayed (in a positive way) the importance of INT on skills. In Beta, you can only invest a single rank in a single skill per level, if you have a negative INT modifier (as it often happens with point buy), which creates a lot of problems at higher levels if your highest skill modifiers (for your class skills) are between +8 and +10.
It seems to me that some people in favour of extra skill points are simply in favour of power-creep, or who really want to play a rogue or bard but want good armour and BAB too...It seems to me that Paizo's "academy fighter" variant (or whatever it was called) might represent a good compromise here: give up a feat at 1st level for +2 skill points/level. For fighters, this would be their 1st level bonus feat: no great loss, and then they have the skill points that people are craving (and one or two more class skills, if I remember correctly). For wizards, clerics, and sorcerers, your 1st level feat is a big committment -- you'd really have to think hard before giving up, say, Selective Channeling just to get more skill points.
In short, it presents a means to get more skill points, but eliminates the whole "something for nothing" situation that you and I dislike.
yay ok lets see barb should give up rage for his 4 then? The feat is his only class ability and some want him to give that up to have enuff skill to do more then 2 things.
Edit let me point out Kirth this isn't an attack at you.
|
|
yay ok lets see barb should give up rage for his 4 then? The feat is his only class ability and some want him to give that up to have enuff skill to do more then 2 things.
Not quite sure what your point is. The barbarian has four skill points (partly) to balance out his lack of feats and mediocre armour. I don't think anyone was saying that all combat types should have two skill points. Is that what you were saying? It's unclear.
well to be honest yeah it is why do they have 4 ? they dont need 4 but yet they get 4 same goes for clerics getting 2 yet druids get 4 ?
sorry if I came off as rantish but eh Its a big issue for me.
|
|
I mean, did you ever play 1e or 2e? You rolled up the fighter's stats, you bought him his armour and a weapon - and that was it. The 3e fighter is a major advance, conceptually. Yet people still played fighters.
Its not really fair to use 1st and 2nd edition methods of a class design to compare either - if you use the same line of thinking, most of the classes have much more cool features now than they did in those earlier editions; and people still played them.
Robert
|
|
well to be honest yeah it is why do they have 4 ? they dont need 4 but yet they get 4 same goes for clerics getting 2 yet druids get 4 ?
sorry if I came off as rantish but eh Its a big issue for me.
Yeah, no problem, I see where you are coming from. It is fairly inscrutable what difference two skill points here or there makes, so two or four is probably not a big difference. I guess my feelings on the matter are that I don't really agree with this notion of "useless outside combat" and lacking skill points being equivalent in the way it is bandied about sometimes, I feel it could change the flavour of the fighter class, and I question why it is felt to be quite so necessary for a class which has a much more glaring problem around it's raison d'etre - decent combat feats.
|
|
I mean, did you ever play 1e or 2e? You rolled up the fighter's stats, you bought him his armour and a weapon - and that was it. The 3e fighter is a major advance, conceptually. Yet people still played fighters.
It's not really fair to use 1st and 2nd edition methods of a class design to compare either - if you use the same line of thinking, most of the classes have much more cool features now than they did in those earlier editions; and people still played them.
Robert
I think my point is less mechanical and more that people played fighter who really had no particular abilities to speak of at all - skills, feats or anything - and there was no discussion about them being useless outside combat. To be fair, we now have a skill system which mediates in certain areas which would simply have been down to roleplaying, so I agree the comparison is not completely apposite, but it illustrates my more general point.
|
|
This leaves the Fighter who has actually lost the +3 bonus he would have had in what was previously a STR-based skill (Jump).
Essentially, the fact that the Fighter has not benefited from consolidation AND has not received more skill points is out of line with the changes that have affected every other class... even those with 2 skill points per level.
I am still all for 4 skill points for Fighters - as well as the other 2 skill point recipients.
My reasoning, mirrors, Laiths; the rogue definitiely benefitted the most from the skill annexing - and they already had the most skill points to spend.
The fighter actually lost IMO one of his coolest skills - Jump - which I feel needs to be added back on.
Finally, the current skill system, when only allowing 2 skill points, gives a character less diversity even than the original 3.5 skills system at 1st level.
Granted, it makes cross-class easier, but consider that even with only 2 skill points (in 3.5) you could start with 8 skill points at first level and could if you wanted to have a small amount of proficiency in as many as 8 skills, or 4 if you were okay with 2 ranks in each. Now when you get 2 - you get only 2. That means only 2 skills you will be able to be considered to be trained in at 1st level.
For this reason primarily I feel that 4 skill points should be the base for all the classes with 2 skill points - though I'm not as sold on the Wizard, considering his propensity for a high INT anyways; but I can see it being the fair and balanced call to give the same benefit across the board.
Regardless: Sorcerers, Paladins, Clerics, and Fighters should definitely have 4. I'm not sure how much 'backwards-compatibility' this would break and how much harder it would cause things going forward, but I don't see it affecting the compatibility any worse than having to restructure encounters and NPCs listed as having Concentration, or Jump, or Search - which have all been annexed into a different skill.
That being said - should our collective pleas for this increase not be honored, it's not a deal-breaker - and can be 'house ruled' quite easily I'll agree, and so I wont harbor ill-will; but consider, please Jason, that 'house rules' only affect the players of those of us who feel this way and are the DM of the group, and it does nothing for league play; making the change official in the rules does a lot more for ensuring such players get to enjoy those benefits.
Robert
alot is from3e bent on skills. WE have skills for hearing,seeing, knowing stuff, talking to people, making them afraid of you, making baskets ...you name it we have a skill set it can fit in. 1 and 2e wasn't really like that
That makes it valde that my fighter cant do anything I want to talk for the group...whats your diplomacy..eh I DONT HAVE IT . I want to help with finding where duke evil is hiding..whats you knowledge locale or geo skill...eh I don't have them
well you could take them...there cross skills...well so you should have taken them the barb took them...but i have 2 skills....then don't play a fighter
that's pretty much how it goes
|
|
I think my point is less mechanical and more that people played fighter who really had no particular abilities to speak of at all - skills, feats or anything - and there was no discussion about them being useless outside combat. To be fair, we now have a skill system which mediates in certain areas which would simply have been down to roleplaying, so I agree the comparison is not completely apposite, but it illustrates my more general point.
But there wasnt really a way for the fighter (or other character class) to fail at those endeavors either. The system that was added to 3rd edition that mediates role-playing encounters etc, only created the disparity; where-as before such a character never needed to have such proficiency (in the mechanics) and so there was no reason for the player of a fighter to complain that he couldn't be effective outside of combat - because there was no rule-system saying that he couldn't (in comparison to his comrades); it was of course up to a DMs arbitration - but nothing was broken out with hard-fast rules.
Robert
|
|
But there wasnt really a way for the fighter (or other character class) to fail at those endeavors either. The system that was added to 3rd edition that mediates role-playing encounters etc, only created the disparity; where-as before such a character never needed to have such proficiency (in the mechanics) and so there was no reason for the player of a fighter to complain that he couldn't be effective outside of combat - because there was no rule-system saying that he couldn't (in comparison to his comrades); it was of course up to a DMs arbitration - but nothing was broken out with hard-fast rules.
Robert
I certainly wasn't dissing the 3e skill system.
|
|
alot is from3e bent on skills. WE have skills for hearing,seeing, knowing stuff, talking to people, making them afraid of you, making baskets ...you name it we have a skill set it can fit in. 1 and 2e wasn't really like that
That makes it valde that my fighter cant do anything I want to talk for the group...whats your diplomacy..eh I DONT HAVE IT . I want to help with finding where duke evil is hiding..whats you knowledge locale or geo skill...eh I don't have them
well you could take them...there cross skills...well so you should have taken them the barb took them...but i have 2 skills....then don't play a fighter
that's pretty much how it goes
Well, in a sense you have the issue that you are taking away from the barbarian what he is good at, which to some extent reduces the reason for taking a barbarian. If you want lots of skills, you need to play a class with lots of skills. The problem with a class-based system is that some classes can do things others can't. It seems to me that a lot of the desire for more skill points is a desire to pick and mix class features, which could be unbalancing as a general principle.
Don't get me wrong - my objections are primarily aesthetic and if you want more skill points, then that's cool for your game. I don't really see the problem with fighters (and why just fighters, by the way?) having two skill points, but maybe that's just me.
well its all 2 skill classes but this is a fighter thread...and why does the barb need more then a fighter? or a druid more then a cleric,wizard, or sorc?
it really doesn't. I was thinking the same but thats kinda well arbitrary really. i can kinda see the wizard but there known as well learned yet have 2 skills. To me this should have been fixed in 3.5 and I really dont see why it was not.
Now with the new skill set up it really screws you if you only have 2 skills and your not human of a faved class you get 2 skills and that's it. unlike in 3.5 when you could take 8 if ya wanted ...sure 8 really low but still up to 8 vs a 4 skill of now 4 then 32 points and the 6 and 8 made out like bandits as they has most the skills that got combined
|
|
Don't get me wrong - my objections are primarily aesthetic and if you want more skill points, then that's cool for your game. I don't really see the problem with fighters (and why just fighters, by the way?) having two skill points, but maybe that's just me.
Skills dictate out of combat (as well as some in combat) skills. Therefore, the limited nature of class skills available to the fighter, and very few skill points available for distribution, along with the changes in skills which upgraded the utility of skill points for every class except fighter, puts him even farther behind the curve.
Here's the essence of the issue:
Every class has some combat utility, even the wizard through transmutation spells. But the fighter's main concentration is not only diluted among all his fellow adventurers, he has no allowances for mediocre performance in out of combat utility - and in fact, people are proposing that he use his class abilities - feats for combat - in order to gain mediocre out of combat utility! Is anyone suggesting that a cleric that wades into battle give up turning...or spellcasting? Is anyone suggesting that a rogue give up skill points in order to gain sneak attack damage?
Fighters lost skills with the loss of jump as a class skill, have a class that encourages low intelligence scores, and receive very low skill points too. I am willing to leave the class skill list as is (I might personally prefer some tweaking, but the skill changes have made cross classing much less painful, so that's not too bad), but the low number of skill points combined with the existence of skill rules in the first place prevents fighters from having any out of combat utility.
As I said above, this isn't a backwards compatibility issue - individual pcs are easy, given the wonderful work already done to improve the skill system, to update. Just choose two skills and max. Simple. Leagues of fighters in an adventure offer two easy conversion options for DMs - max out two extra skills in the group - or ignore the extra skill points, assuming they're in something for outside of combat, like Diplomacy or Craft(baskets).
I don't know, given their wide range of abilities and the consolidation of concentration into spellcraft, that clerics need more skill points. Wizards usually don't because they have a high intelligence. Sorcerors could use more, though again the consolidation of spellcraft and concentration helps them a lot. Paladins could definitely use more in my opinion, but we're not discussing them yet. :)
yay ok lets see barb should give up rage for his 4 then? The feat is his only class ability and some want him to give that up to have enuff skill to do more then 2 things.
The barbarian lacks heavy armor proficiency, so in a sense he's forced to trade a feat for more skill points -- it's been built into the class.
|
|
Aubrey, yes I played 1e and 2e, I have been playing since I was 12...almost 26 years of experience now. I had quit 2e some time after the "options" books came out, simply because my game was so house-ruled that I had to give out a manual of my own for people to play in my game. So I went to Earthdawn.
When 3e came out, I looked at it and liked it. We're changing Wizards original ideas...if we're tossing out the x4 skill points, then we have to roll with some changes.
Earlier I suggested a bonus 4 skill points at first level, to directly replace the X4 skill modifier.
I also suggested possible bonus skill points based upon lifespan of the race in question. 3 for short-lived, 4 for medium, and 5 for long-lived. Similar to the bonus hit points.
Please sound off on this idea.
|
|
I also suggested possible bonus skill points based upon lifespan of the race in question. 3 for short-lived, 4 for medium, and 5 for long-lived. Similar to the bonus hit points.
Please sound off on this idea.
Interesting - but it would just be another reason to play the over-played and over-loved elves IMO
Robert
As Robert has pointed out, weird skills consolidation is partly to blame. Why is Perception now a hundred times better than Climb? To even things out, Climb + Swim + Jump = Athletics would sure be good for the fighter, and it might be worth taking first, instead of just maybe picking it up with the scraps of points left over after everyone maxes out Perception. But that's an issue for the forthcoming "skills" discussion.
If most skills remain token "minor" ones as in 3.5, I can certainly understand the desire for more points. If more combinations are made that benefit the low-skill point classes (say Spellcraft also absorbs Knowledge (arcana), the way it did Concentration), then fewer skill points aren't a bad deal. In the latter case, it seems like an "academy training" feat would be worth preserving -- people who still want minimum 4/level can give that to fighters, et al. as a bonus feat at 1st level.
EDIT: Doesn't favored class give you the option of 1 free skill point/level? So most 2/level classes are up to 3/level already, unless you're playing something goofy like a gnome fighter.
|
|
Our group is currently playing Curse of the Crimson Throne with 4+Int as the minimum for all classes. This did not change any other class (druid, monk, rouge, etc) - the only increase is for the two skill classes. After trying it, I would not play any other way.
Jason indicates that adding more skill points to the class is easy to 'houserule'. For a group that uses published adventures but wants to get more mileage than just combat, a few extra skill points are almost sure to round out a character. Having a 'combat encounter' that has ranks in perform and a MW flute is suddenly a little more interesting. Why does this character play the flute? What type of melodies do they play? Where did they learn? Suddenly the DM has a whole new avenue for expanding the adventure that he or she would never have thought to create on their own. Those extra skill points enhance the encounters included in published materials. The benefit is not that the DM could add those extra skill points in - it is that the work was already done. To be sure, I feel quite strongly about this issue.
Regarding further skill consolidation, I oppose it. However, my opinion may be discounted since I'm not currently planning on switching to Pathfinder, largely due to concerns that I have over skills. I'd like to see more skill points for some classes and some skills broken up again. The only skill combinations that I think provide any real benefit to the game are Open Lock + Disable Device, Spot + Listen, and Hide + Move Silently. The reduce redundant rolls of the dice or eliminate a 'duplicated' feature.
The fighter, alone among the 2+skill classes, deserves additonal class skills in addition to the 4+skills per level. They should be exactly as the 'Golarion Academy Trained Fighter' without surrendering a bonus feat.
Doesn't favored class give you the option of 1 free skill point/level? So most 2/level classes are up to 3/level already, unless you're playing something goofy like a gnome fighter.
Only if you are Dwarf, Half-Elf or Human.
None of the other races have fighter as a favored class.
Don't get me wrong - my objections are primarily aesthetic and if you want more skill points, then that's cool for your game. I don't really see the problem with fighters (and why just fighters, by the way?) having two skill points, but maybe that's just me.
Scroll back up and read my post if you'd like one answer to this... particularly since you've been arguing it would take away from other classes.
Wow, I had come here looking for some insight on the lack of skills for fighters, and I found lots of great information and opinions.
after reading over everything, I see that the Fighter really is at a slight disadvantage and I would like to offer the suggestion of increasing the skills per level for fighters to 3.
I really would like the suggestion of 4 skill points at first level for "background" skills. having said that, I think the background skills will end up more of a "house rule" item.
I would also put my bid in the basket for Fighters having a perception or notice skill as a class skill.
|
|
Wow, I had come here looking for some insight on the lack of skills for fighters, and I found lots of great information and opinions.
after reading over everything, I see that the Fighter really is at a slight disadvantage and I would like to offer the suggestion of increasing the skills per level for fighters to 3.
I really would like the suggestion of 4 skill points at first level for "background" skills. having said that, I think the background skills will end up more of a "house rule" item.
I would also put my bid in the basket for Fighters having a perception or notice skill as a class skill.
The 4 extra skill points at level 1 wouldnt' have to be house-ruled if they were the direct replacement for the loss of the x4 modifier.
*poke poke* eh Jason...like that idea?? *poke poke*