|
I disagree, skills aren't supposed to be influenced by the class system. You think that a class system should interpret all aspects of a character i think that they should only influence combat and abilities. Now some skills wind up being better for certain classes and that is still true in this system, however, I disagree with your belief that people will always select the same skills. In 3.5 I had a character who for story reasons was maxing her ride skill and considering taking mounted combat, however I didn't do it because mechanically, the cross-class system made it impossible for her ranks to compete with her ride skill. But I also wouldn't be happy with just having one skill per level that I could put ranks in because I consistently, and I mean consistently in both 3.5 and beta put many ranks in cross class skills. And no I do see a big difference between a skill with a +3 and a skill without one.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.
Shortsighted? because skills are seperate from class features, honestly I think that your view is the shortsited one, being unnecessarily limited in scope in the name of classes will in the long run hurt the game. And this is from someone who likes the class based approach.
My group seems to be strongly in favor of the new system and its treatment of cross class as well...
Personaly, what I've seen from the new system is the following: The cleric and the wizard can now sneak, as they always should have been able to do, because no professional adventurer should be wtihout stealth. However, in my party, on stealth missions, they still send the rogue and bard ahead because A: too many sneakers will make the group easy to find, as represented by the random die rolls, and B: when the numbers are close, that +3 means a lot more than you'd think.
Well, it seems to really be coming down to the fighter and the rogue, so let me ask: Since a fighter could now become as good as a rogue is in maybe 1 rogue skill at the cost of a feat (that the rogue could also take), does that allow him to fill the rogue's niche? I say no. Saying the rogue loses his or her role is essentially saying that a rogue comes down to little more than a couple of skills. Will the fighter be getting as many skills as a rogue? Will he be getting evasion? Sneak attack? nifty rogue talents? a good reflex save? Uncanny dodge? One of the good things, not bad things, about pathfinder is that a fighter can choose to take some of a rogue's niche, but not all of it. Frankly, I don't like having any class made into a necessity anyway.
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'm boggled that you seem to really think that you can't do these things. Honestly, it just astounds me.
I disagree, skills aren't supposed to be influenced by the class system. You think that a class system should interpret all aspects of a character i think that they should only influence combat and abilities.
I really hope that PF stays much closer to its 3X roots than the idea expressed here does.
|
|
I disagree, skills aren't supposed to be influenced by the class system. You think that a class system should interpret all aspects of a character i think that they should only influence combat and abilities.I really hope that PF stays much closer to its 3X roots than the idea expressed here does.
The Pathfinder system sticks to the roots of the 3.x system. There are class skills and cross class skills and you are mechanically encouraged to place skill ranks in your class skills. That is the roots of the 3.x system. What you are trying to add is some limiting factor that wasn't there before and you're claiming to hold to the roots of the 3.x system? Sorry but your fear is misplaced and your not the final judge of what the class system represents.
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 he doesn't. He just want to limit you to spend all you skill points on cross class skills.
I don't think it's limiting roleplaying, certainly not more than using class fighters who can't cast spells, or wizards who can't cure wounds.
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
Am I the only one who seems to have understand what the original poster says ?
He doesn't force you to conform to some skills and do not let you do things outside of your class skills.If you multi class to be a better fighter, or to cast spells, why do you not multi class to have some better choice for skills ?
With the actual system, a character need to take only a level of rogue to have +3 on all rogue class skills.
Everyone in my group has really grown to love the skill system, as a whole, as it. I'm not seeing many problems with it from either side of the screen.
Why do I have to take a level of rogue if I plan on putting points into acrobatics and perception for my fighter? I understand that the original poster wants to "grant" his players the ability to take cross class skills, but not everyone wants to run a game with an iron fist, or be in such a game.
So why do you accept fighter only feats ? Why weapon specialization should be available only to fighters ? Why do you must take levels in wizards to cast spells, a feat could do that. Why do you have to take levels in druid or ranger to have an animal companion ? And so on... Is it not running a game with an iron fist ?
Do you know the DK System ? It's a D20 based system, where when you level up you can choose to upgrade anything, skills, HP, base attack bonus, sneak attack, spells... Anything. You can do 4 things at each level. It's a class less system. And it's perfectly acceptable as it is. D&D is a class based system. I think that if we want to retain his original flavor, we need to keep at least some degree of specializations for the different classes.
|
Why do I have to take a level of rogue if I plan on putting points into acrobatics and perception for my fighter? I understand that the original poster wants to "grant" his players the ability to take cross class skills, but not everyone wants to run a game with an iron fist, or be in such a game.
i agree Tamec
Selios, if i want to learn something different from what i do i do not need to be forced to learn a different class
again i don't play classes
i play concepts
and then i take a class, skills, feats that go according to what i want
if one class is better doing that but lacks the feeling of what i want to do... ignore it
i play to create an history... Selios... as a profesional writer i suppose you should understand this concept
|
|
So why do you accept fighter only feats ? Why weapon specialization should be available only to fighters ? Why do you must take levels in wizards to cast spells, a feat could do that. Why do you have to take levels in druid or ranger to have an animal companion ? And so on... Is it not running a game with an iron fist ?
Do you know the DK System ? It's a D20 based system, where when you level up you can choose to upgrade anything, skills, HP, base attack bonus, sneak attack, spells... Anything. You can do 4 things at each level. It's a class less system. And it's perfectly acceptable as it is. D&D is a class based system. I think that if we want to retain his original flavor, we need to keep at least some degree of specializations for the different classes.
The point of skills is that they are universal. Your comparison is completely invalid, because class abilities are what make classes, and are not supposed to be universal. Even in 3.5, there was no limit on how many cross class skills I could spend my points on; I could put every fighter skill point I got into Spot and Listen if I so chose, because skills aren't attached to classes that way. They are supposed to be "easier" for some classes than others, but every character is supposed to have access to every skill. Period.
i agree TamecSelios, if i want to learn something different from what i do i do not need to be forced to learn a different class
again i don't play classes
i play concepts
and then i take a class, skills, feats that go according to what i wantif one class is better doing that but lacks the feeling of what i want to do... ignore it
i play to create an history... Selios... as a profesional writer i suppose you should understand this concept
So tell me, why because of the rules, I can't have an animal companion without having to take levels in druid or ranger. A rogue with an animal companion is a concept as good as any character taking ranks in a cross class skill, don't you agree ?
Why couldn't have a character dedicated to fight with his favored weapon couldn't take weapon specialization ? It's a perfectly acceptable concept I can use to create a story. What's the difference ? Just tell me.
The point of skills is that they are universal. Your comparison is completely invalid, because class abilities are what make classes, and are not supposed to be universal. Even in 3.5, there was no limit on how many cross class skills I could spend my points on; I could put every fighter skill point I got into Spot and Listen if I so chose, because skills aren't attached to classes that way. They are supposed to be "easier" for some classes than others, but every character is supposed to have access to every skill. Period.
Fighting is not universal ? Magic isn't either in a fantasy world ?
Get a look at DK System, you will maybe get my point.By the way, thank you for your peremptory opinion.
|
Is it not running a game with an iron fist ?
The "iron fist" comment was because the original poster wanted to "allow players the opportunity to take 1 cross class skill per level." Forcing how players build their characters down to what skills they take, or even how their characters think (yes I've had a DM like that and only played 2 games) is just wrong. You shouldn't punish players for wanting their characters to learn more. You shouldn't pigeonhole players into a select set of skills. You're a fighter you can't learn about knowledge arcana, religion and be perceptive.
|
|
So tell me, why because of the rules, I can't have an animal companion without having to take levels in druid or ranger. A rogue with an animal companion is a concept as good as any character taking ranks in a cross class skill, don't you agree ?
Handle animal, you can train an animal
its just that the rules give the druid and ranger a pet for "free" if they want more they need handle animalyou still get your "animal companion"
Why couldn't have a character dedicated to fight with his favored weapon couldn't take weapon specialization ? It's a perfectly acceptable concept I can use to create a story. What's the difference ? Just tell me.
training
you know kunf fu... can i learn it correcty watching TV?|
|
Is it not running a game with an iron fist ?The "iron fist" comment was because the original poster wanted to "allow players the opportunity to take 1 cross class skill per level." Forcing how players build their characters down to what skills they take, or even how their characters think (yes I've had a DM like that and only played 2 games) is just wrong. You shouldn't punish players for wanting their characters to learn more. You shouldn't pigeonhole players into a select set of skills. You're a fighter you can't learn about knowledge arcana, religion and be perceptive.
i agree
once we have a GM using palladium system... it gaves you 2 options roll or chose... of coursehe forced rollingsa friend and i had a concept for our characters and while he agree that we could use the characters he forced the skills and abilities and what we could do, even when the system give more options
have never been happier to discover my character died because i missed 1 game
never again i played with him, never again i would play with someone who forces on me something different than what the rules allow... to play characters who feel cartonish, had no difference from another of the same level and class i would either play WoW or 4E
training
you know kunf fu... can i learn it correcty watching TV?
Exactly training. Why can't I have weapon specialization by training ? Why do I must have 4 levels of fighter ? Why can't I train to smite ? Why can't I train to find traps like a rogue ? Etc...
As for handle animal, it's very far from the druid's animal companion.
Couldn't animal companion be made a feat ? What about sneak attack ?
I don't think I'm really clear explaining my point of view, it seems really difficult to make you understand my approach.
The "iron fist" comment was because the original poster wanted to "allow players the opportunity to take 1 cross class skill per level." Forcing how players build their characters down to what skills they take, or even how their characters think (yes I've had a DM like that and only played 2 games) is just wrong. You shouldn't punish players for wanting their characters to learn more. You shouldn't pigeonhole players into a select set of skills. You're a fighter you can't learn about knowledge arcana, religion and be perceptive.
I really don't understand what you assume that limiting the skills is worse than limiting abilities and feats to some classes. I really don't see any difference.
It's not forcing players to some character builds, it's about making choices. That's a whole different approach. It's absolutely not pigeonhole them to a select set of skills.|
|
Iron Fisted DMs remind me of a Seinfeld episode the "Soup Nazi" only it's with skills.
Player "perception and Knowledge (arcana) please."
Player waits
DM grants skill Perception
Player "I didn't get my Knowledge (arcana)."
DM "You want Knowledge (arcana)?"
Player "Yes please"
DM "NO! NO SKILL FOR YOU!!"
DM takes back perception
|
|
Exactly training. Why can't I have weapon specialization by training ? Why do I must have 4 levels of fighter ? Why can't I train to smite ? Why can't I train to find traps like a rogue ? Etc...training
you know kunf fu... can i learn it correcty watching TV?
the levels on fighter represent such training, you go with a teacher, he shows you his techniques you learn... you don't learn it by just practicing... again did you learned kung fu watching movies?
As for handle animal, it's very far from the druid's animal companion.
Couldn't animal companion be made a feat ? What about sneak attack ?I don't think I'm really clear explaining my point of view, it seems really difficult to make you understand my approach.
maybe you don't know how to explain... by mixing feats, class features and skills where the 3 are pretty much different things
i think you didn't understand we were just talking about skills...
also... the system right now allow freedom of choice, you and the OP are advocating against it... in my book that is... HELL NO :P
|
|
That depends on if you believe what you see on television and anime? because according to them, yes :P
training
you know kunf fu... can i learn it correcty watching TV?
if that may be so i should already be able to throw ki blasts with my naked hands and jump buildings without effort... :P
or learn a secret technique by watching it... once :D
the levels on fighter represent such training, you go with a teacher, he shows you his techniques you learn... you don't learn it by just practicing... again did you learned kung fu watching movies?
Of course not.
Did you gain ranks in acrobatics by watching Jackie Chan ?It's the same thing.
maybe you don't know how to explain... by mixing feats, class features and skills where the 3 are pretty much different thingsi think you didn't understand we were just talking about skills...
also... the system right now allow freedom of choice, you and the OP are advocating against it... in my book that is... HELL NO :P
I know that my english is very bad, but I can read that we are on the skills and feats design forum.... See ?
I say that, because I want to know why you handle things differently.D&D handle things with a class system. Other games handle it without class.
Why do you want handle some aspects with a class system and others without a class system in the same rules set ?
Why do you play a class based system if you love that much freedom of choice ? I dunno...
|
|
Of course not.
Did you gain ranks in acrobatics by watching Jackie Chan ?
It's the same thing.
point taken
still there are other sources, usually most of them are learning them from childhood... which has nothing to do with a class...its like learning to play piano or learning english since you are 6 and becoming an engineer instead of a pianist ot a english teacher
I know that my english is very bad, but I can read that we are on the skills and feats design forum.... See ?
yes... but the thread is called "cross class skills", no "free system in which we mix feats, class features and skills"
I say that, because I want to know why you handle things differently.
D&D handle things with a class system. Other games handle it without class.
those are the rules pal
you don't like it... you can always make your own house rules... for how the OP present his system, i would advocate against it if he was my DM, i he insisted on using such rules... well i would just find another gameWhy do you want handle some aspects with a class system and others without a class system in the same rules set ?
Why do you play a class based system if you love that much freedom of choice ? I dunno...
that is why i play Alternity when we play Modern and Sci-Fic Games
taking no class into account and arming the characters however we see fitthe system gives us the chance to do this... we even created a "superheroe" system using powers as FX Skills
waiting to play the 2nd Season soon...
why do you play Pathfinder if you could play 4E where everything is stuck into the class? I dunno...
|
|
people
lets leave this argument rest in peace
why?
we are nothing but flaming and trolling, each side is sure their method or the actual method of the system is better
and this skill system, as Jason has already said multiple times and is the 1st pragraph of one ofthe 2 stuck threads, is NOT going to change
lets use our time in a more productive way, looking for what can be affected and leaving what can't
if you want to make changes around this... homerules are fine, everyone have their own :P (yes +2 skill points for everyone in my games)
yes... but the thread is called "cross class skills", no "free system in which we mix feats, class features and skills"
I didn't ask to make D&D like that. It's an example of uniformity, to make things work the same way. to Class system, or not to class system. That's all.
those are the rules pal
you don't like it... you can always make your own house rules... for how the OP present his system, i would advocate against it if he was my DM, i he insisted on using such rules... well i would just find another game
For a freedom of choice supporter, I would not expect you to say something as restrictive as "those are the rules".
Are we not talking about designing a system and changing some rules ?Seems I missed the whole point of the design forum so...
"that is why i play Alternity when we play Modern and Sci-Fic Games
taking no class into account and arming the characters however we see fit
the system gives us the chance to do this... we even created a "superheroe" ssytem using powers as FX Skillswaiting to play the 2nd Season soon...
why do you play Pathfinder if you could play 4E where everything is stuck into the class? I dunno...
I don't play 4E because it is not of my taste for too many reasons to tell here, and I'm on these boards because I would like to contribute to Pathfinder and help make it a game I could like. Seems it's a problem that I have a different opinion and that I'm trying to understand yours.
Again I'm not against multiclassing, or skill choices. It's just retaining the flavors of the original game and classes.And this is also why I play with others games and systems too.
people
lets leave this argument rest in peacewhy?
we are nothing but flaming and trolling, each side is sure their method or the actual method of the system is better
and this skill system, as Jason has already said multiple times and is the 1st pragraph of one ofthe 2 stuck threads, is NOT going to change
lets use our time in a more productive way, looking for what can be affected and leaving what can't
if you want to make changes around this... homerules are fine, everyone have their own :P (yes +2 skill points for everyone in my games)
Jason asked for opinions about what the original poster said. I didn't want to flame anybody, just to tell about my thoughts, which just seem not welcome here.
But anyway...Hey, we have something in common at least. I've been giving +2 skill points to everyone in my game for years too!!
|
|
I didn't ask to make D&D like that. It's an example of uniformity, to make things work the same way. to Class system, or not to class system. That's all.
Except that uniformity never existed before, in 3.5 the difference between cross-class skills and class skills was bigger, but you didn't HAVE to take a class to put ranks in the skill. The fact is that the system the OP offered was a straightjacket when before you had a windbreaker. Class based systems aren't hurt by having one subsystem that doesn't reinforce them, if anything it makes the class based system more palatable so that people who want a little more freedom don't go running off and doing something aweful like play hero (yes that was a jab at courtfool)
Who said the game had to have uniformity, uniformity can be hurtful and limiting, look at the paladin who had his lay on hands unified with his channel energy and now can't fuel divine feats without burning through most of his even more limited now daily resources.
Except that uniformity never existed before, in 3.5 the difference between cross-class skills and class skills was bigger, but you didn't HAVE to take a class to put ranks in the skill. The fact is that the system the OP offered was a straightjacket when before you had a windbreaker.
3.5 was limiting your cross class skills at half your lvl+3 which was a lot more limiting that what the OP or myself propose.
If you wanted to be good in a skill in 3.5, you HAD to multiclass, at least to raise this limit.Neither the OP nor myself want to force multiclass to gain ranks in cross class skills. It's just a compromise between all freedom and nothing.
|
|
Hey, we have something in common at least. I've been giving +2 skill points to everyone in my game for years too!!
there is always something people can relate to
my point is simple
i like the system in general, i would like more flexible magic thatis more thematic withotu feeling like i play a videogame, but that is how the 3.5 works...nothign to do about it, except in ourgames we use most of the 3.0 spells
the classes give a base to work on, but the idea is that a character should not be limited by this
ok you have some common abilities... but having every other figher/rogue/cleric/etc, be exactly the same thing... would be boresome, and really not a game i would like to play where the only difference is what magic item do you have and they don't
the idea of straight-jacketing all the base skills and giving 1 "cross skill" is just not enough to give a character something you can feel as being differentor varied...
if i want to make a pirate i should be able to chose from a myriad of clases, not create a new one or take the "optimal" (rogue in this case)
what you need to have a pirate?
skills: profession (sailor), there are other possible skills: acrobatics, athletics, knowledge: geography, swimming
you can make a bard (a charismatic captain who guides his people through the use of orders (perform: oratory) and who is dreaded by his enemies; a fighter (best sword in the sea once he jumps into the other ship); cleric (there is a pirate goddess, and there are lots of usefull spells, and your crew fearfor their souls); wizard (again well used you have lots of useful spells); rogue (have dozens of forms to show from the swashbuckler to the thug, etc)
that is my issue with the OP offering... i have an idea, i can make it work in different ways... but to give some deepness beyond the background i need to work with skills
traits are useful, but not enough (and not in the base rules)
feats are useful, again not enough
class, only gives me the base with what to work
skills... this is what helps me make a character a person, what he knows how he uses it, how he learned it
having every fighter being the same, except for equipment and face... makes me feel like an extra in a movie, insteadof an heroe that should by deffinition be different from ANYONE else
i hope this makes my point clear
Neither the OP nor myself want to force multiclass to gain ranks in cross class skills. It's just a compromise between all freedom and nothing.
concepts can be worked on without multiclassing
the issue is that to learn some skills the OP system actually forces you to multiclass if they are not in your list and they are more than 1
there is always something people can relate to
Yup, hopefully.
my point is simple
[snip]
I agree with you in essence, but let me be more specific.
We're not talking about letting you choose only one cross class skill to develop.Just spending like 1/2 of you skill points on cross class skills at each level (for example or 2/3, or 596/1000 or whatever....)
In your sailor exemple, two skills are already class skills for your fighter. With half skill points spent on the 3 other cross class skills, it would be still a very good sailor.
You will have versatile characters, different from each others, while retaining the original flavor of class based system.
|
|
I agree with you in essence, but let me be more specific.
We're not talking about letting you choose only one cross class skill to develop.
Just spending like 1/2 of you skill points on cross class skills at each level (for example or 2/3, or 596/1000 or whatever....)
In your sailor exemple, two skills are already class skills for your fighter. With half skill points spent on the 3 other cross class skills, it would be still a very good sailor.
You will have versatile characters, different from each others, while retaining the original flavor of class based system.
i agree
my issue with the op is that for what i understood, he would give the character, lets say, his 6 class skills as permanent ranks and 1 "cross" skill to give it some varietythat was my problem from the beggining, while it would be nice to have lots of skill... the fact of not having the skills I NEED for the concept i have in mind is what hits me in the head
i advocate for more skills for everyone because of this, i believe a character should be able to be customizable to certain level, skills and feats are exactly in this level, and some class features.
i know i can't be 100% customizable, other systems have such rules, some i like some i don't (Modern D20 while interesting have a lot of thinks i don't like)
believe me when i want to go and take a 100% customizable character where i just care about the concept and not anything else... i go to Alternity... i love that system, the only reason i myself returned to D20 is because i loved the changes Paizo has made to D&D and how it feel
now if they just changed the magic to what it should be... and returned it some of it soul... i would be happy (Arcana Evolved Magic PLEASE!!!!)
So we're not that opposed to each other. ;)
As much as I can enjoy a very free and flexible system, I think D&D must retain some of its original concept.
Director of Games
|
Hello Everyone,
I think that this discussion has run it course for the time being. I have not decided exactly the direction I am going to take, but I think I will probably leave things as they are. Adding a limit to how your points are spent is an easy house rule to add anyway.
This thread is locked.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing