I think that the new system has done a great thing in getting rid of 1/2 ranks and I like the direction it has taken.
However, in the games I have played so far the class niche system has shown to be overly gutted by the rules as they stand. With the only difference between a class skill and a non-class skill being a rather trivial 3 point bonus.
My proposed solution is to limit the number of skill points which may be spent in non class skills at a given level. This allows character to still splash into any side skills they want, but tends to keep the fighter in the fighter realm and the rogue in the rogue realm, etc...
I understand that some people prefer the anything goes approach. But I think it is vastly better to have a well defined base system and encourage DMs to offer more choices to players as they see fit than to leave the core overly open and expect DMs to set their own limitations.
Letting a player choose extra skills is a "nice DM" thing, but if the rules remain as they are now and yet you want to keep with the idea of niches, then you are forced to take away from the players.
I've played with limiting cross class skills to 1 point per level. I also allow Rogues 2 points and give Bards an ability to spend as they see fit (which hardly matters anyway). It has been an improvement for me.
Director of Games
|
I think that the new system has done a great thing in getting rid of 1/2 ranks and I like the direction it has taken.
However, in the games I have played so far the class niche system has shown to be overly gutted by the rules as they stand. With the only difference between a class skill and a non-class skill being a rather trivial 3 point bonus.
My proposed solution is to limit the number of skill points which may be spent in non class skills at a given level. This allows character to still splash into any side skills they want, but tends to keep the fighter in the fighter realm and the rogue in the rogue realm, etc...
I understand that some people prefer the anything goes approach. But I think it is vastly better to have a well defined base system and encourage DMs to offer more choices to players as they see fit than to leave the core overly open and expect DMs to set their own limitations.
Letting a player choose extra skills is a "nice DM" thing, but if the rules remain as they are now and yet you want to keep with the idea of niches, then you are forced to take away from the players.
I've played with limiting cross class skills to 1 point per level. I also allow Rogues 2 points and give Bards an ability to spend as they see fit (which hardly matters anyway). It has been an improvement for me.
Interesting. Is anyone else seeing this as a large problem?
I am worried about the tracking complexity this proposed fix adds to the GMs plate when creating NPCs.Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
We have had no issue with the new system. A +3 can mean a pass or fail big time with a roll. We have noticed while it doesn't seem a huge deal the +3 can make or brake you. I will also point out that a non class skill can never make up that +3 with out paying for it with a feat .
I've played with limiting cross class skills to 1 point per level. I also allow Rogues 2 points and give Bards an ability to spend as they see fit (which hardly matters anyway). It has been an improvement for me.
It sounds like a fine idea to me. I really like the new openness of all skills, because it helps put a lot of flavor and functionality into "Mage-Hunting Fighter" and "Tribal Shaman" builds. This limitation wouldn't remove that flavor but it would keep the fighter from knowing as much about magic as the wizard. Which both enhances class roles and just makes sense.
I wouldn't bother giving Rogue's two points instead of one; they have enough class skills as it is that if they want to dabble in something they can suffer with the rest. Boosting the bard ... well, suddenly there's another reason to play a bard, now isn't there? Not a great reason, but a start in the right direction.
|
I haven't seen it as a problem -- in fact, the proliferation of PCs with ranks in cross-class skills is something I like.
Most of the fighter types in my playtest campaign, for instance, have been dropping points into Perception -- before, they simply relied on the rogue.
The interesting thing is, the Rogue still has the highest bonus -- that +3 does make a difference. And the classes are still filling similar niches in terms of skills because of the their ability scores -- the Rogue is the acrobat and stealth guy, because he has the best Dex (which makes as much difference as the +3 from class skill). And the Paladin, with his high Wisdom and Charisma, is still the Diplomat (and Sense Motive dude) even though other warriors have taken ranks in Sense Motive to avoid getting Bluffed in combat.
What's nice is that the change to cross-class skills seems to have created a middle tier of skill aptitude, where before there was only low and high (either it was a class skill, with high ranks and bonuses, or cross-class and abysmally low or non-existent).
|
We have had no issue with the new system. A +3 can mean a pass or fail big time with a roll. We have noticed while it doesn't seem a huge deal the +3 can make or brake you. It is a big impotence to point out that a none class skill can never make up that +3 with out paying for it with a feat.
In adding my support to this position, I'll toss out that I have had no trouble with any characters doing anything other than better realizing their character concepts without demanding ludicrous amounts of multiclassing. My impression is that the OP's position is based on a vision of skill purchasing that I don't want to see as part of the Pathfinder philosophy; one of the biggest problems I had with 3.5 was the sheer difficulty of buying skills to match concepts if the class' mechanics didn't stongly support that take on it.
|
one of the biggest problems I had with 3.5 was the sheer difficulty of buying skills to match concepts if the class' mechanics didn't stongly support that take on it.
Agreed, I have a "smith" (fighter) who has ranks in Knowledge arcana (for magic item research), and every character I've ever made has put points into perception (or search spot and listen) every level possible.
I like the new system. It gives better flexibility to players, allowing them to create individual characters.
One possible suggestion would be to add a "bonus" of +2 once a player has invested at least 10 ranks into a non-class skill to reward an obvious dedication to that skill.
|
|
the system is perfect :P
i will just add a few skill points to clerics, fighters, paladins, sorceres and wizards
which i know they won't get
you can't force a person to take one or other skill, each player should decide what he/she needs
my only complain is that half the classes have too little posibilities of choice
I like the new system. It gives better flexibility to players, allowing them to create individual characters.
One possible suggestion would be to add a "bonus" of +2 once a player has invested at least 10 ranks into a non-class skill to reward an obvious dedication to that skill.
i like this idea very much
I love the new skill buying system as is.
I like the new system. It gives better flexibility to players, allowing them to create individual characters.
See, where I disagree is that, for skills, it goes way beyond flexibility and completely into uniformity.
Yes, the number of skill points are going to limit a particular character. But it does nothing to define one overall class from another. You can pick your set of skills before you even select which class you want to be.
To me that is a gaping flaw in the essence of a class based system.
As I said, before, I understand that a lot of people are going to be completely dedicated to a complete flexibility approach. But I really think that is short sighted. And, more importantly, it is vastly easier to ignore cross class skill limitations than it is to impose them.
The interesting thing is, the Rogue still has the highest bonus -- that +3 does make a difference.
It makes *up to* a 15% difference in chance to succeed. And very frequently it is less than that for specific cases.
To me that is not nearly enough.
|
|
mmm then if you take a class you are unable to learn everything else?
for this fixed approach sir... 4.0 has done a greatwork... so i heard... that is one of the things i hate from their system... if i want to take one skill i should not be impeded, cross class or not... ok i might not be as good as someone who has been training in it for years.
if you like the idea of forcing your characters into being one way or the other and they accept it, its their problem, i myself HATE the idea of being forced to stick toa basic set of skills
as a cleric i would prefer not to take knowledge:religion and heal to take the skills that better approach to my character concept... a race, class, skills and feats should agree and add to a character concept not other way around
My impression is that the OP's position is based on a vision of skill purchasing that I don't want to see as part of the Pathfinder philosophy; one of the biggest problems I had with 3.5 was the sheer difficulty of buying skills to match concepts if the class' mechanics didn't stongly support that take on it.
My vision of skills is that 3.5 did a damn fine job of it.
Can you give me some examples of skill builds that you couldn't make?
I can not recall a single time that it required more than the selective spending of a feat to reach a concept. And again, in a class based system, if you want a fighter who is radically outside the niche of a fighter, then there needs to be a trade off for the system to work at its best.
|
Director of Games
|
Although the 3.5 system had a great deal of flexibility in it, we will not be going back to that system. Although it is relatively simple for players to use, it is a pain for GMs and Publishers, as skill blocks are almost never done right.
As I mentioned in the intro thread, I am not really interested in discussing changing the skill system. The original post had a suggestion that worked within the current skill system (limiting skill expenditure somewhat based on class skill lists). Lets get back to that discussion... (although it seems that most are not interested... I myself am still mulling it over)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
mmm then if you take a class you are unable to learn everything else?
No. I didn't say that. But I strongly think you shouldn't have the freedom to pick absolutely anything without some trade off for it.
for this fixed approach sir... 4.0 has done a greatwork... so i heard... that is one of the things i hate from their system... if i want to take one skill i should not be impeded, cross class or not... ok i might not be as good as someone who has been training in it for years.
See, I loathe 4E's skill system with everyone in the same band range. This is not that bad, but it moves from really good in that general direction.
if you like the idea of forcing your characters into being one way or the other and they accept it, its their problem, i myself HATE the idea of being forced to stick toa basic set of skills
How is my suggestion remotely forcing you to "stick to a basic set of skills"? You are grossly overstating the case.
as a cleric i would prefer not to take knowledge:religion and heal to take the skills that better approach to my character concept... a race, class, skills and feats should agree and add to a character concept not other way around
OK, you've got appraise, craft, diplomacy, Know: Arcana, Know: History, Know Nobility, Know Planes, Linguistics, Profession, Sense Motice, and Spellcraft as built in alternatives PLUS using my "restrictions" you still have one additional skill point per cleric level to spread around amongst any other skill, or pile up on one or two, as you see fit.
Now, spend a feat for another class skill or something and there simply isn't anything you can't do.
But, the idea of a cleric being a cleric is still preserved. It is still a class system, and class (single or multi) should be a part of that building process.
Interesting. Is anyone else seeing this as a large problem?
I am worried about the tracking complexity this proposed fix adds to the GMs plate when creating NPCs.Thoughts
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
No, I haven't seen this problem. In fact, I completely disagree with the OP. In the game I've played, the current system is basically, skillwise, where it should be. Rogues and bards are the best and can do almost everything, but the others can also perform the requisite abilities.
The +3 doesn't matter too much, I agree, but what does matter is the number of skill points. when the fighter has 6 less skill points a level, they can't even come close to competing with the capabilities of rogue in the areas of skill.
The system, as it existed, needed to be gutted. You had rogues that could fight, but not fighters that could sneak. The various class skills were so pigeonholed that, in some cases, you may as well have not had skill points. Stealth adventures were basically impossible and nobody could find anything.
I can see the OP's concern, but, honestly, I don't think it's going to become a very common problem and it's not worth adding complication to a system that just had to be paired down.
Although the 3.5 system had a great deal of flexibility in it, we will not be going back to that system. Although it is relatively simple for players to use, it is a pain for GMs and Publishers, as skill blocks are almost never done right.
As I mentioned in the intro thread, I am not really interested in discussing changing the skill system. The original post had a suggestion that worked within the current skill system (limiting skill expenditure somewhat based on class skill lists). Lets get back to that discussion... (although it seems that most are not interested... I myself am still mulling it over)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'm certainly not proposing going back to it. Again, I greatly appreciate the removal of 1/2 ranks.
And being able to dip into any other skill is also a good thing.|
|
OK, you've got appraise, craft, diplomacy, Know: Arcana, Know: History, Know Nobility, Know Planes, Linguistics, Profession, Sense Motice, and Spellcraft as built in alternatives PLUS using my "restrictions" you still have one additional skill point per cleric level to spread around amongst any other skill, or pile up on one or two, as you see fit.
Now, spend a feat for another class skill or something and there simply isn't anything you can't do.
But, the idea of a cleric being a cleric is still preserved. It is still a class system, and class (single or multi) should be a part of that building process.
example
what do you do with priests and clerics of ... lets say... Torum? (the dwarven god of creation)
they are all about defense and tactics and crafting is their prayers
they will need Knowledge: warfare and craft
while they will be complete in other areas... they lack in others
a cleric of norvorger would need diplomacy to get information, stealth to hide, craft for poisons... etc...
a cleric who is an inquisitor requieres both diplomacy and intimidate, knowledge: law, etc
concepts are not fixed classes... i myself create characters concepts first
then i take the class that best appraches it
your system forces concepts on me which i hate
give a read to Gods & Magic, and you will see 40 different kinds of clerics
|
|
Lets get back to that discussion... (although it seems that most are not interested... I myself am still mulling it over)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingIf you're going to restrict characters to a certain number of cross-class skills, you should restrict the base skill points for each class to class skills, and allow bonus skill points for Intelligence to be spent on any skills.
BUT, that seems rather clunky. A better mechanic would be to have the class skill bonus increase a few points over the course of 20 levels so the size of the bonus remains relevant.
half the classes already receive too little skill points
don't mess more with our skill points *cleric rising arm!*
|
No problem with the new system. I like it MUCH better than the restrictive cross-class penalties in 3.5.
One possible suggestion would be to add a "bonus" of +2 once a player has invested at least 10 ranks into a non-class skill to reward an obvious dedication to that skill.
Adding a little scalability might be nice though. +3 at low levels is huge but not so much at higher levels. Maybe not based on ranks but level, at level 5 you class skills bonus goes from +3 to +4, +5 at 10, +6 15 and +7 at 20 ... or something like that.
This has been a fantastic change so far. Simplicity is good, and I have to echo the two comments above:
- It's helped create a 'Middle tier' where before there were only highs and lows.
- It'd be nice to award a +2 if a PC's spent at least 10 points in a nonclass skill, to reflect a dedication to it.
- It'd be nice to award a +2 if a PC's spent at least 10 points in a nonclass skill, to reflect a dedication to it.In a nonclass skill!?! No way. That's what Skill Focus is for.
I said "it would be nice." This is not a requirement.
Also, English requires only one punctuation per use per sentence. Not three. :)
Although the 3.5 system had a great deal of flexibility in it, we will not be going back to that system. Although it is relatively simple for players to use, it is a pain for GMs and Publishers, as skill blocks are almost never done right.
Yes, but there are ways of combining the current system with that in 3.5 to get back much of the improved flexibility of 3.5E, yet retain much of the simplicity of the Pathfinder RPG skill system. It is a pity that this never really was open to much discussion - now is the time for skill discussion and this issue is suddenly locked in. I mean I can understand the reason - time is flying along and the system must be fixed at a certain point, but there never was a really dedicated time for skill system discussion.
Oh well, although I think an even better mid-point could have been found between the 3.5E and current system with a few tweaks, the Pathfinder RPG skill system in it's current form is ultimately decent enough and it does simplify things while still providing a great deal of choice. It cannot even be compared to the utterly inflexible 4E skill system (one of the turn-offs of 4E for me), as some are suggesting. It is way, way, way better than that.
As I mentioned in the intro thread, I am not really interested in discussing changing the skill system. The original post had a suggestion that worked within the current skill system (limiting skill expenditure somewhat based on class skill lists). Lets get back to that discussion... (although it seems that most are not interested... I myself am still mulling it over)
I would not limit expenditure of skill points to solve the problem of the OP (note: the problem did appear in my group too, but the extent of it was not critical). Staying within the limits of the current skill system, I would instead advocate increasing the +3 bonus to class skills at higher levels. The class-skill bonus would rise by +1 at each of the following levels: 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 (the pattern is clear, every 4th level, starting with the second).
The reason I have chosen levels 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 is that they are 'empty levels' in the general level progression. Every other level grants either a feat or an ability score increase.
I have suggested something like this back in the Alpha phase already to deal with this issue and the suggestion was pretty popular at the time. I guess I wonder how it will prove now, many month later.
Staying within the limits of the current skill system, I would instead advocate increasing the +3 bonus to class skills at higher levels. The class-skill bonus would rise by +1 at each of the following levels: 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 (the...
That sounds quite elegant, actually. How do you think this will reflect/play with the, overall, lowered DCs? This is my one concern.
Thoughts?
Agreed with the original poster.
This is a class based game, with characters filling a different role.
I didn't want to use the beta skill system because it took away these class flavor.
I think the difference between class skills and cross class skills should be greater than it is now in the beta.
If a character really wants to be better in some skills, I think he should multiclass, as before.
Limiting the number of skill points you can spent on cross class skills at each level is simple, and still compatible.
A possible extension to the above might be to require extra ranks in the class skill to gain the increased bonus. This would provide further incentives to invest into class skills.
Staying within the limits of the current skill system, I would instead advocate increasing the +3 bonus to class skills at higher levels. The class-skill bonus would rise by +1 at each of the following levels: 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18 (the...That sounds quite elegant, actually. How do you think this will reflect/play with the, overall, lowered DCs? This is my one concern.
Thoughts?
Yes, the DCs would be my main worry about implementing this (I have not actually tried it as a houserule).
Some possibile solutions to the DC problem:
1) Leave it as it is and not worry about it. Unlike in 4E, the skill spread between low and high skills is great enough already that DCs that are too high for some while too easy for others is inevitable regardless of any extra bonuses.
2) Make the extra bonuses gained non-stackable with bonuses provided by Skill focus and the +2/+2 feats. Since the extra bonuses add up to +5, this balances out perfectly and essentially amounts to giving these feats free for class skills over time.
3) Spread out the initial +3 bonus over the course of these levels to mitigate the overall maximum bonus and limit it to +5. I would say that this may not be a wise solution - the first two are probably better.
I don't think giving a better bonus to class skills (and worse to cross class skills) at high level would be a good idea.
Generally DC don't end very high, DCs 30 and higher are very very rare.
Exceptions are the opposed checks.
When your character hit level 15, it can have +18 in a skill without even bonus from abilities, feats, racial, and other.
No risk of losing a spell when casting on the defensive (These ones are really too easy), no risk to drown while swimming in a storm wearing armor, fighters jumping 20 feet or more in full plate armor...
I think it's ridiculous but the original system was already like that.
Giving more bonuses at high level will not be a good thing for me.
Because your watchman shouldn't have only levels in fighter class, but also rogue. That's the way I see it.
First, I strongly endorse the concept of classes. I'm also very much cool with point buy type systems. But this isn't one and class systems are best when they function as class systems.
Your night watchman is quite simply, not a fighter. There is no foul in single classing, but there is also no foul in expecting to multiclass in a good class based system.
If you see a night watchman as a pure fighter, then IMO, you simply are not looking at the fighter class correctly. A fighter is about fighting. He is the best of the best at pure fighting. A ranger is not quite as good, but he is a balanced class because he has other advantages, such as skills at spotting thieves.
If a fighter is the best of the best at fighting AND can suddenly spot and sneak and everything else just as good as a rogue or a ranger, then the rogue and ranger get their niche trampled.
It may be cool in the uber min/max badass way to have your fighter also be as good at survival as the ranger and as good at sneaking as the rogue, but it is a big step down in terms of a solid game foundation.
All that aside, the rule I suggested in the OP would permit one rank in perception every fighter level. So even though I disagree with the premise of your problem, it is 100% resolved by your own standards under the system I proposed.
Add in that you can easily add a feat to add a class skill and the issue is completely covered. This way you can get a fighter who can do rogue and ranger things, but he has to trade off other things for that perk.
|
|
as someone who puts a majority of skill points into cross class skills in both 3.5 and Beta I am opposed to any attempts to limit the ability to put ranks into as many CC skills as I want each level.
The new beta system is awesome, don't change it.
Agree. I just went back and built a fighter in 3.5 for the Pathfinder Society and it sucks. I lost so many of my few skill points because I wanted to round him out with Bluff (to feint) and Know (nobility) because he's noble. Long live the new rules!
My only question is how is this change short-sighted exactly?
IMO it is short sighted because it gives in to the immediate coolness of more power (and flexibility is power) but cuts down on the long term integrity of the game core by trampling the concept of class roles.
I think you will see MORE cookie cutter characters because a great majority of characters will take the optimum skills, regardless of race and class.
Agree. I just went back and built a fighter in 3.5 for the Pathfinder Society and it sucks. I lost so many of my few skill points because I wanted to round him out with Bluff (to feint) and Know (nobility) because he's noble. Long live the new rules!
See, I disagree with the very concept that a fighter should be as good as a bard at knowledge and as good as a rogue at bluffing without paying any trade off at all.
Obviously it is way cool to get free power ups.
But I think you are eroding balance and trampling class roles.
And ultimately the game suffers for it.
Again, even by my proposal you can still take one of these skills. And if you either multiclass or spend a feat you have the other. But there is a balancing mechanism there as well.
your system forces concepts on me which i hate
No it does not.
Just absolutley no.First, most of the class skills you listed are already available.
Second, you get one other skill FREE and can EASILY tack on others if you need to.
Claiming that anything is forced on you is way overboard.
At some point a class system does require you to build around your concept.
A pure fighter "forces" you into a concept that doesn't cast spells.
But you are vastly overstating the case.
Obviously, there isn't going to be persuasion of the no limits position.
I don't have time to argue every detailed point. No offense, I just truly don't.
I think class roles are a fundamentally important part of the 3X core.
I think you can both protect class roles and permit all kinds of flexibility.
I think that without a trade off cost, unlimited flexibility is both just power creep and also leads to long term homogenizing of characters as optimal builds are determined.
I think a firm tight rule set that actively supports the DM option to expand choices for his game is a good thing and and overly unlimited system that requires DM to reign in their players is a far less good thing.
I think that ANY power up is going to have a segment of the fan base that says it is wonderful and anything less is bad, but I don't think that really means power ups actually make the game better for the overall market.
I happen to like the new skill system. However in my campaign I will point out that under the new system I had a player play a fighter, dip one level of rogue and took ranks in some essential rogue skills such as perception, stealth, and disable device. Having taken ranks she now has a +3 bonus and has no intention of taking more levels of rogue. Now when she levels her fighter she adds skill points to rogue skills (granted shes only getting 3 skill points per level) and can disable device and hide as good as any rogue could. I dont really have a problem with it as the party has no rogue and so she had originally intended to fill that niche. My point is, if she had been a few more skill points to spend she could easily be just as skilled as any rogue and fighter under the new system. Like I said, I dont see this as a huge issue, but I thought Id throw that out there for discussion.
Just my two cents.
How about scaling it? +3 to class skills from levels 1-9.
At 10th it becomes +5 and at 20th, it becomes +7?
|
|
First, I strongly endorse the concept of classes. I'm also very much cool with point buy type systems. But this isn't one and class systems are best when they function as class systems.
Your night watchman is quite simply, not a fighter. There is no foul in single classing, but there is also no foul in expecting to multiclass in a good class based system.
If you see a night watchman as a pure fighter, then IMO, you simply are not looking at the fighter class correctly. A fighter is about fighting. He is the best of the best at pure fighting. A ranger is not quite as good, but he is a balanced class because he has other advantages, such as skills at spotting thieves.
watchment would simple be "Warriors", most NPC don't even get the benefit of a pc class...
aside... because a person is an engineer it doen't mean he can't learn other things... just that he is good at engeeniering
we want freedom of choice, ifthe poeple in your party is happy, good for you... i would have left a game when i was forced to be encased in stone with minimal options... again i make people... not jobs... and that is how i like to play, why should i spent feats to do what i can already do with the skill system? (as if you received a feat per level...)
4E already did the changes you are asking for
many of us don't like them, and most around don't agree... much less Jason can we let the issue rest?
|
|
See, I disagree with the very concept that a fighter should be as good as a bard at knowledge and as good as a rogue at bluffing without paying any trade off at all.
Obviously it is way cool to get free power ups.
But I think you are eroding balance and trampling class roles.
And ultimately the game suffers for it.Again, even by my proposal you can still take one of these skills. And if you either multiclass or spend a feat you have the other. But there is a balancing mechanism there as well.
have you think that said warrior might be a noble with a perch for seduction and he uses his skills in battle to help his noble house get a better place in the real?
oh of course... a bard would be better in knowledge, but is not that good for fighting... for a swashbuckler game where there is no armor, the bard is optimal idea, in medieval times where nobles where heavy armor and are all about strenght... then fighter is the optimal choice
you see only game mechanics... not concepts, no histories, no background... you make it sound more like a table top game... instead of a roleplaying game...
|
|
No it does not.
Just absolutley no.First, most of the class skills you listed are already available.
Second, you get one other skill FREE and can EASILY tack on others if you need to.Claiming that anything is forced on you is way overboard.
At some point a class system does require you to build around your concept.A pure fighter "forces" you into a concept that doesn't cast spells.
But you are vastly overstating the case.
yes, but its a choice i decide, to fight without magic, otherwise i would go cleric or bard
what if i want to use half my skill for "cross-class" to get the right concept for my characteri HATE the idea of comforming to the description under the class... which is not writen en stone... in your sistem... i am nothing more than a simple cleric forced to conform to be unable to know more than what 'the system' lets me
a cleric of a god of strategic & creation should be as good in craft: and knowledge: tactics as they are in religion... its part of their religion
a fighter can be a gladiator, a noble, a knight (paladin is not equal to knight), a barbarian (not everyone is a berserker), a mercenary, etc
you make fighter just a simple fighter, tied to that, unable to be a person... i pass
|
|
I happen to like the new skill system. However in my campaign I will point out that under the new system I had a player play a fighter, dip one level of rogue and took ranks in some essential rogue skills such as perception, stealth, and disable device. Having taken ranks she now has a +3 bonus and has no intention of taking more levels of rogue. Now when she levels her fighter she adds skill points to rogue skills (granted shes only getting 3 skill points per level) and can disable device and hide as good as any rogue could. I dont really have a problem with it as the party has no rogue and so she had originally intended to fill that niche. My point is, if she had been a few more skill points to spend she could easily be just as skilled as any rogue and fighter under the new system. Like I said, I dont see this as a huge issue, but I thought Id throw that out there for discussion.
Just my two cents.
sounds fine i see it as part of its concept, maybe a fighter that learned in the streets how to survive, but uses a sword for best effect...
its not skilled based (3 skills wouldkill that reasoning) but the character fills a niche, no one has trouble with that and if well done it gives more deepness to the character.