It wasn't an issue in 3.5 because the only monsters that could effectively sneak up on you were the monsters that had Hide and Move Silently as class skills. If you didn't have Spot and Listen as class skills, you knew you were going to be surprised by those monsters no matter what.
In the Beta, if you don't have max ranks in Perception, after a certain level, every monster that has max ranks in Stealth is going to sneak up on you automatically. Every monster with max ranks in Stealth. Not just the ones intended to be extra good at Stealth.
Because they are opposed rolls, Perception and Stealth create an arms race. In 3.5, there were two different levels of arms race. If you belonged to a non-stealthy, non-observant class, you knew that you were only ever competing against other non-stealthy, non-observant creatures. The stealthy, observant creatures were clearly so far beyond your ability that you knew they'd get you every time. So the incentive to spend ranks on stealth and perception skills was relatively low. It might make sense for your character, and it might even prove useful from time to time, but it wasn't going to provide you with a huge advantage.
I'm still not seeing this as a very big difference. It means that any creature could max out its stealth skill, but it's still only going to be the stealthy ones who actually do. Species-wise, it'll still be the creatures that a decent knowledge check could identify as "typically stealthy" and the character who doesn't want to spend a lot on perception is back in the same situation as in 3.5.
With respect to intelligent monsters who could be expected to have the freedom of choice, then a few super-stealthy cases keep the PCs on their toes. If the DM abuses the power, the players all invest in perception and the game becomes less interesting/the situation is resolved via tit-for-tat strategic building. It doesn't have to be an arms race when the power is used responsibly by the DM (as the DM should always use his powers... because if he doesn't, the game has other problems that changes to cross-classing won't fix).And no, a red dragon great wyrm with a +37 stealth check isn't a compelling argument since, in 3.5, all of the other chromatic dragons could have pretty much the same as that given their high hit dice and all having hide and most of them having move silently as class skills. In other words, it's pretty much the same difference.
Dennis, DMs can rearrange Monster skill points, but I think the problem Meepo is trying to discuss is that the dynamics of class vs. cross-class skills has really changed with Pathfinder.
At first level (assuming you maxed out the skills you actually use in 3.5) the systems are more or less the same. At 20th level, though, they're really different. A 20th level 3.5 cleric who maxed out their Move Silently still only has 11 ranks. He can certainly out-sneak a level 1 rogue, and is exactly as skilled as a 7th level rogue, but there's no way he can keep up with even the clumsiest 20th level rogue (who has 23 ranks). That same cleric, in Pathfinder, has 20 ranks (in Stealth, now), and can keep up with a 17th level rogue. If he's a cleric19/Rogue1, he can sneak just as well as the 20th level rogue.
That's a heck of a switch. The +3 class skill bonus doesn't scale properly with level the way the old cross-class system did.
That's probably ok for PCs, because if a Wizard has been studying from their Rogue companion for 19 levels they could probably learn to sneak just fine, and that Cleric might be of a trickster god. But if gets weird when Ancient Red Wyrms can sneak up on you too easy.
This is true. Then again... What is the penalty to stealth for being Gargantuan?
That's probably ok for PCs, because if a Wizard has been studying from their Rogue companion for 19 levels they could probably learn to sneak just fine, and that Cleric might be of a trickster god. But if gets weird when Ancient Red Wyrms can sneak up on you too easy.This is true. Then again... What is the penalty to stealth for being Gargantuan?
Gargantuan –12
Which means the Ancient Red Dragon has a Stealth check of +25 instead of +37 if they want to invest some of their 6 + Int skill points/HD in it (and the probably would as they have around 300 total skill points).
Where as in 3.5 it would never do that as the Size penalty would wipe out the CC max ranks.
The problem isn't really that everyone is taking perception- its that you get so *few* skill points at first level that each and every one has to be used in a skill you are going to USE. Because dropping 1 skill point into something is actually *giving up the equivalent of 4 points*.
What do I mean?
I mean that in 3.5 you could take a point in Craft: Underwater Basket Weaving or Profession: Rancher- or whatever- and it really didn't deteriment your character much. The wizard could have perform: lute (1-2 ranks) or the fighter could drop a rank into Cooking, thus adding a little spice to the character without terribly screwing up the fellows skills.
That is a very good point... But what is a possible solution?
Would (Skill Points * 2) + Int mod at 1st level be overpowering?
Rouges would get 16 + Int instead of 8 + Int, but they have (at least) 20 class skills, so they could still not max all of them.
Bard/Ranger would get 12 + Int, but they have 18/15 class skills. Ranger might be able to max all skills, but not Bard.
Wizard/Sorc/Cleric would get 4 + Int, but they all have over 8 class skills, so they would still not be able to max all skills.
And past 1st level, it would be back to the X + Int mod per level.
Taking Perception away won't solve this issue, it will just shift it to some other skill with a mechanical benefit.
That's why as every skill should have an in-game use, or as many skills as possible.
I started that thread not long ago with some ideas, and trying to gather more, but the idea didn't stick. Perhaps we could give it a second try?
But my argument remains the unchanged. A high-level non-stealth creature that maxes out Stealth can sneak up on a high-level character with no ranks in Perception with no chance of failure. And that's a big change from the 3.5 rules.
And I'm saying that if your DM wanted to make a non-stealthy creature super-sneaky in 3.5, he could have used a level of rogue, or an elixir of hiding + cross-class stealth skills, or some stealthy template, or any of a dozen other methods.
If your DM really, really wants all his monsters to be sneaky, they will be -- it doesn't matter if it's 3.5 or Pathfinder or AD&D (for that matter). But if your DM doesn't really care about making all his monsters sneaky, then having every single character max out Perception is pointless (IMO).
That's why as every skill should have an in-game use, or as many skills as possible. I started that thread not long ago with some ideas, and trying to gather more, but the idea didn't stick. Perhaps we could give it a second try?
Love to! Because that's exactly what I meant by "beefing up" existing skills. I'd also really like to reduce the number of "waste" feats that no one ever takes, and then selectively merge only those skills that are useless on their own.
Examples/ideas:
|
Dennis, DMs can rearrange Monster skill points, but I think the problem Meepo is trying to discuss is that the dynamics of class vs. cross-class skills has really changed with Pathfinder.
At first level (assuming you maxed out the skills you actually use in 3.5) the systems are more or less the same. At 20th level, though, they're really different. A 20th level 3.5 cleric who maxed out their Move Silently still only has 11 ranks. He can certainly out-sneak a level 1 rogue, and is exactly as skilled as a 7th level rogue, but there's no way he can keep up with even the clumsiest 20th level rogue (who has 23 ranks). That same cleric, in Pathfinder, has 20 ranks (in Stealth, now), and can keep up with a 17th level rogue. If he's a cleric19/Rogue1, he can sneak just as well as the 20th level rogue.
That's a heck of a switch. The +3 class skill bonus doesn't scale properly with level the way the old cross-class system did.
There was a lot of talk back in Alpha 1 - before the switch to +3 for class skills - about the pros and cons of different systems. A flat +3 was hands down the simplest way streamline skills (vs some great but somewhat convoluted formulas). But it did give up something by being a straight linear progression. One of the ideas was to have the +3 scale slightly, +3 at 1st level, +4 at 5th, +5 at 10th, +6 at 15th and +7 at 20th for class skills. Still only a four point difference at 20th level, but it is something to cause the distance to grow between a rogue and a cleric who both take ranks in Stealth.
[This also preserves the vastly superior new don't-screw-with-the-ranks, play-with-the-bonus philosophy that makes high level NPC generation a snap.]
|
|
That's why as every skill should have an in-game use...Love to! Because that's exactly what I meant by "beefing up" existing skills. I'd also really like to reduce the number of "waste" feats that no one ever takes, and then selectively merge only those skills that are useless on their own.
Examples/ideas:
Roll the Quick Draw feat into the Sleight of Hand skill. Also, possibly allow an additional thrown weapon attack if your check (or just # of ranks) is high enough (but all attacks that round would get a -2 penalty, like a flurry of blows). Now rogues can be adept knife-throwers as well as pickpockets!
Craft (alchemy) subsumes the Brew Potion feat, and also allows you to brew beer, make wine, and distill whisky.
Dwarves' stonecunning ability becomes a Dungeoneering skill, that also encompasses Profession (miner) and Knowledge (dungeoneering).
Roll Knowledge (tactics), Profession (soldier), and Profession (siege engineer) -- three otherwise "waste" skills -- into a single Knowledge (warfare) skill, and allow minor tactical advantages for successful checks.
If "Athletics" becomes a Climb + Jump skill, then add the Run feat to that skill as well, and assign it a DC.
(etc.)
Brilliant. Make every skill worth taking by merging them with some of the interesting-but-not-quite-worth-it feats.
I will re-look at the skills and feats with this in mind.
Would (Skill Points * 2) + Int mod at 1st level be overpowering?
Would it be overpowering? No. It's still a bad idea. Part of the benefit of the current system is that it doesn't matter what your first level was when making a multiclass character. A Ftr1/Rog1 has the same skills as a Rog1/Ftr1. It's much easier to generate characters, both PC and NPC.
That is not true in 3.5 or under your suggestion.
Love to! Because that's exactly what I meant by "beefing up" existing skills. I'd also really like to reduce the number of "waste" feats that no one ever takes, and then selectively merge only those skills that are useless on their own.
Examples/ideas:
The only one of those I don't like is Craft Alchemy comsuming both Brew Potion and Craft(Booze).
Everything else, I like (except I'd leave the name of the Dungeoneering skill 'Knowledge(Dungeoneering)'.
|
Taking Perception away won't solve this issue, it will just shift it to some other skill with a mechanical benefit.That's why as every skill should have an in-game use, or as many skills as possible.
I started that thread not long ago with some ideas, and trying to gather more, but the idea didn't stick. Perhaps we could give it a second try?
no luck :P
it still being ignored
Ask yourself: does it make sense for different skills, which cost the same amount (1 point per rank), to have such wildly different levels of usefulness?
Yes. My maxed out Knowledge(D&D) is far less useful than my Profession(Programmer) ranks. Those ranks may also be more useful than someone else's in Knowledge(19th Century French Literature) - despite being just as costly to attain.
But let's think - why is that? Because relative to the demand, far fewer people select ranks in Profession(Programmer).
Perception is a fairly high demand skill, but not infinite demand. 1-2 people in a group with a high Perception skill is really all you need most of the time. Reduced 'demand' for Perception reduces its value.
On the flip side, if very few people choose ranks in Knowledge(Nobility), that can make it correspondingly more valuable to take it. However overall the skills do *not* need to be equally valuable. 1 rank in Write Paper can get you a job, while 10 in First-Person Shooter will not.
Side note: In 3.5 Hide was already a class skill for Black, Blue, Green, White, & Copper dragons already. So the calculation on spotting a great wyrm red may have changed, but not for all the rest.
Yes. My maxed out Knowledge(D&D) is far less useful than my Profession(Programmer) ranks - despite being just as costly to attain.
I still have to disagree with the cost; my Knowledge (D&D) seems like it was easier to get than the six years of difficult study put into Knowledge (hydrogeology). And anyway, life isn't fair -- but a game should be, or it's a poorly-designed game.
Brilliant. Make every skill worth taking by merging them with some of the interesting-but-not-quite-worth-it feats.
No! You fools! Don't you realize -- if you make every skill worth taking, then EVERY SKILL BECOMES A SKILL TAX!!!1!!1!
;-)
No! You fools! Don't you realize -- if you make every skill worth taking, then EVERY SKILL BECOMES A SKILL TAX!!!1!!1!
That was worthy of Heathansson. Or even The Jade. Nice one!
And anyway, life isn't fair -- but a game should be, or it's a poorly-designed game.
A competitive game needs to be designed fairly, that is true. But that doesn't need to be the case for all aspects of games in which the players are expected to cooperate, there is no opponent, and there is no measurable win other than said players had a good time.
I believe that game rules that lead to dominating strategies should be avoided, but the fundamental determining factor in whether one skill is much more valuable than another is how the DM runs his game and what situations he presents. Perception and Stealth skills are, on paper, very powerful skills but it's not evident that investment in them is a dominant strategy for all character classes or all campaigns.
Yes. My maxed out Knowledge(D&D) is far less useful than my Profession(Programmer) ranks - despite being just as costly to attain.I still have to disagree with the cost; my Knowledge (D&D) seems like it was easier to get than the six years of difficult study put into Knowledge (hydrogeology).
I know what you mean here, but ease and cost are two separate things. I at least have spent far far more time (the 'cost') "working" on my Knowledge (D&D) than almost anything else.
A competitive game needs to be designed fairly, that is true. But that doesn't need to be the case for all aspects of games in which the players are expected to cooperate, there is no opponent, and there is no measurable win other than said players had a good time.
Well said.
A competitive game needs to be designed fairly, that is true. But that doesn't need to be the case for all aspects of games in which the players are expected to cooperate, there is no opponent, and there is no measurable win other than said players had a good time.
There are opponents, though -- the monsters and evil NPCs, and various problems to be overcome, as portrayed by the DM. By making some skills "worthless" to those ends (or, as is the case, by broadening a few skills while leaving other skills so minutely focused so as to be worthless except in extreme circumstances), we create a situation in which, when newbies select those "worthless" skills because it suits their character concept, one of two possible scenarios results -- both of them bad and better off avoided (I say newbies because experienced players can work around them):
(a) Newbies' characters' skills don't contribute anything at all to the group except when the DM goes out of his way to create situations for their use. Game world feels exceptionally strained and artificial, because so many encounters hinge on pie baking contests (or whatever). Prewritten adventures (e.g., Paizo's own products) cannot be used without rewriting to include these elements.
(b) DM, through lack of experience or lack of prep time, fails to include these types of strained scenarios. Newbies' characters fail to contribute meaningfully to the group. Newbies become dispondent and quit playing because they're so "bad" at it.
By broadening the areas in which some of the laser-focused skills can be used, we ease both of those possibilities. It's unlikely that every adventure involves pie baking, but not unreasonable that a character with cooking/baking skill can find some use for them in most games (e.g., "I use my cooking/baking skill to make our trail rations taste really good!" vs. "I have no use right now for my baking (pies) skill, because all that's here is a pizza oven.") Perception is unbelievably broad. Perform (lute) is incredibly narrow. It is quite easy to expand Perform (lute) to Profession (musician), suddenly opening worlds of game-play possibilities for a lutist whose instrument happens to break. The only reason not to do so is either a misplaced sense of "realism," or a slavish adherence to 3.5 norms (in which case Perception should be broken up again).
|
(a) Newbies' characters' skills don't contribute anything at all to the group except when the DM goes out of his way to create situations for their use. Game world feels exceptionally strained and artificial, because so many encounters hinge on pie baking contests (or whatever).
IRON WOK DEATH CAGE!
TWO MEN ENTER; ONE MAN LEAVES! TWO MEN ENTER; ONE MAN LEAVES!
interesting debate
the 50% rule in 3.5 certainly has put me off from putting skill points on Cross Class Skills that weren't *trained only*
there might be a solution to make Class Skill or Cross Class Skill make more of a difference by looking at how the skill boosting feats work: The bonus doubles at 10+ ranks on the skill they boost.
if you give an automatic skill focus for Class Skills you put 1 rank on,
and make the prerequisite for the doubling of the benefit 10 ranks given as class skill
the result is a +6 benefit for those who have at least 10 levels of the skill as class skill.
This puts the difference between Class and Cross Class Skills back to near the 3.5 situation
RE: Perception
as far as I understood 3.5 you didn't put ranks in how well your ears or eyes work, but on how good you where able to process the information, which makes it sound quite logical to combine these things.
the racial boni are still split up to account for sharp ears or eyes, but I think these should be increased at higher levels, to make the differences of the races stick out more. (mebby double at 10th level?)
re: Knowledge
is Rick Burlew around somwhere? I liked his approach to boost these skills to something more useful:
http://www.giantitp.com/Func0019.html
same goes for the balance of Diplomacy:
http://www.giantitp.com/Func0010.html
edit for clarification
There are opponents, though -- the monsters and evil NPCs, and various problems to be overcome, as portrayed by the DM. By making some skills "worthless" to those ends (or, as is the case, by broadening a few skills while leaving other skills so minutely focused so as to be worthless except in extreme circumstances), we create a situation in which, when newbies select those "worthless" skills because it suits their character concept, one of two possible scenarios results -- both of them bad and better off avoided (I say newbies because experienced players can work around them):
(a) Newbies' characters' skills don't contribute anything at all to the group except when the DM goes out of his way to create situations for their use. Game world feels exceptionally strained and artificial, because so many encounters hinge on pie baking contests (or whatever). Prewritten adventures (e.g., Paizo's own products) cannot be used without rewriting to include these elements.
(b) DM, through lack of experience or lack of prep time, fails to include these types of strained scenarios. Newbies' characters fail to contribute meaningfully to the group. Newbies become dispondent and quit playing because they're so "bad" at it.
I'd add:
(c) The DM eliminates most hazards that require skills to circumvent and all skills are equally worthless and/or flavourful (depending on whether you're a "glass is half-empty" or "glass is half-full" kind of guy).
|
|
Then knowledge nobility and royalty needs to be eaten by knowledge history.I don't know what teachers are filling kids' heads with nowadays, but ask anyone of my age or older what they learnt in History class, and they'd say "You know; Kings and Queens and stuff...".
No, but what they would tell you about in our terms is how president carter did blah blah blah and how nixon was impeached for blah blah blah. People learn about the leaders relevant to them in history.
And it was my history teacher that could name all the presidents in order of inaugeration in less than a minute.
|
|
And it was my history teacher that could name all the presidents in order of inaugeration in less than a minute.
The Mediocre Presidents (as performed by the children of Springfield)
All: We are the mediocre presidents.
You won't find our faces on dollars or on cents!
There's Taylor, there's Tyler,
There's Fillmore and there's Hayes.
There's William Henry Harrison,
Harrison: I died in thirty days!
All: We... are... the...
Adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!
Nobility & History are linked skills clearly, but there is a big difference between listing the Kings & Queens of England from 1066 - 1707 and stating the social causes of Catholic recidivism in Elizabethan England.
|
|
Nobility & History are linked skills clearly, but there is a big difference between listing the Kings & Queens of England from 1066 - 1707 and stating the social causes of Catholic recidivism in Elizabethan England.
Doubtless, however, both are in fact studies in history. and if the one was subsummed into the other I don't think you can make the argument for many situations where you would need to make a knowledge nobility and royalty check that you couldn't instead make a knowledge history check. As such since the Knowledge nobility & royalty skill is so reliquary and underused, and history actually is a decent one, but one that could use more utility combining the two would make the skill more worthwile and thus give more equality in spending a point in it instead of stealth or perception. And aside from which, the great thing about knowledge skills is like craft you can always feel free to make up your own. I had a character with knowledge anatomy, and another with knowledge fables.
|
|
And it was my history teacher that could name all the presidents in order of inaugeration in less than a minute.The Mediocre Presidents (as performed by the children of Springfield)
All: We are the mediocre presidents.
You won't find our faces on dollars or on cents!
There's Taylor, there's Tyler,
There's Fillmore and there's Hayes.
There's William Henry Harrison,Harrison: I died in thirty days!
All: We... are... the...
Adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!
That song needed to be longer :D
Well, heraldry, social etiquette on how to address lords and identifying your local ruler would all come under Knowledge: Nobility, unless such cultural mores would come under a revised Knowledge: Local.
|
|
Well, heraldry, social etiquette on how to address lords and identifying your local ruler would all come under Knowledge: Nobility, unless such cultural mores would come under a revised Knowledge: Local.
most of those could be explained under a knowledge history check if necessary, the great thing about history, it's not just what happened, it's also why. Social etiquette is cultural tradition and heraldry unless newly created usually has roots in history. The only one that might need to be subsumed into local is identifying local rulers but there really isn't enough call to have it be it's own skill, I can only think of a few modules that make use of it and only rarely. In fact in my gaming experience the opposed check for use rope has come up more than knowledge nobility and royalty, and didn't we kill use rope because it wasn't that useful?
Well, I do agree that Knowledge: Nobility is a barely used skill, mostly slotted for role-playing reasons rather than mechanical ones. I also agree that most of what it covers could be covered by Know: History, but if we were going to put heraldry and suchlike under Know: Local, I would still want Local renamed and re-themed as a general cultural knowledge skill.
|
The relevance of certain skills over others is not a rules problem; it's a table problem. If the DM doesn't place any traps, then Disable Device becomes useless. IF he doesn't place intelligent NPCs who can be bluffed, convinced or intimidated, then Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive become useless.
Same way, if the DM is always using monsters with maxed Stealth, Perception becomes a "skill point tax".
A good DM should present different kinds of challenges, and a good PC groups should try to cover as much ground as possible. If every PC maxes out the same skill, they're simply wasting resources. The second maxed Perception could very well have been that life-saving Knowledge (engineering) that tells them the dungeon level they've descended wasn't constructed by goblins, but by drow...
A competitive game needs to be designed fairly, that is true. But that doesn't need to be the case for all aspects of games in which the players are expected to cooperate, there is no opponent, and there is no measurable win other than said players had a good time.There are opponents, though -- the monsters and evil NPCs, and various problems to be overcome, as portrayed by the DM. By making some skills "worthless" to those ends (or, as is the case, by broadening a few skills while leaving other skills so minutely focused so as to be worthless except in extreme circumstances), we create a situation in which, when newbies select those "worthless" skills because it suits their character concept, one of two possible scenarios results -- both of them bad and better off avoided (I say newbies because experienced players can work around them):
(a) Newbies' characters' skills don't contribute anything at all to the group except when the DM goes out of his way to create situations for their use. Game world feels exceptionally strained and artificial, because so many encounters hinge on pie baking contests (or whatever). Prewritten adventures (e.g., Paizo's own products) cannot be used without rewriting to include these elements.
(b) DM, through lack of experience or lack of prep time, fails to include these types of strained scenarios. Newbies' characters fail to contribute meaningfully to the group. Newbies become dispondent and quit playing because they're so "bad" at it.
By broadening the areas in which some of the laser-focused skills can be used, we ease both of those possibilities. It's unlikely that every adventure involves pie baking, but not unreasonable that a character with cooking/baking skill can find some use for them in most games (e.g., "I use my cooking/baking skill to make our trail rations taste really good!" vs. "I have no use right now for my baking (pies) skill, because all that's here is a pizza oven.") Perception is unbelievably broad. Perform (lute) is...
I am anything but a newbie to roleplaying. Only the most jaded of Grognards could say i was when i have been playing since the age of seven and am now closer to 30 than twenty. Yet every character i make is built from concept up, with a smattering of skills to represent what is appropreate to the characters background, profession and hobbies.
I don't find either of the two examples you give take place. Certainly the DM will occationally put in events with can be solved by the fact a character can swim or cook well, but in a game group worth even half a damn, i have yet to see such an encounter be a strain.
More often than not, however such events are player driven. For example craft: basket weaving is a by word for roleplayers being daft, in optimiser circles. Yet, i can of the top of my head list five use of the skill, which could have major game impact on an adventure set during the siege of a fort.
1. Logistics: Ensuring that food, ammunition and water can be distributed more quickly and efficiently.
2. Lighting: Making caged brands which can be used to light an area where the enemy are attacking the walls or a breach.
3. Weapon: Fill baskets full of rocks to dump on the enemy as they attempt to scale the walls.
4. Emergancy repairs: Stacked wicker baskets full of earth and rubble, make excilent and quick way of closing a breach.
5. Earthworks. Woven willow fencing is an essential part of making earthworks and pickets
With regards to pie baking, the skill system is already fairly broad for it. You use either Profession: Cook or Craft cookery for it. There is no pie making skill.
The same goes for performance. You don't get performance (lute) you get performance (string instruments). its broad, letting you pick up many different intruments and use them, while differentiating between very different elements of musicianship such as singing or playing the drums.
With regards to perception, it doesn't actually discuss how sharp a characters sense are, but rather, how good they are at filtering that infomation. Most people have ruffle analogous sight and hearing, which cannot be trained to be better. It is not a skill. If a character has especially good eye sight or poor hearing, that should be covered by a trait or a flaw. Perception covers how observant the character is. A single skill which can be trained. Does the character pick out the pattern of the camoflaged beast ten meters away, or does he over look it, because his pattern recognision skills suck?
No skill is useless, or even very bad. Certainly there are skill which have less use in combat, but those same skills also tend to be disproportionately useful in other parts of the game.
Ok, seriously, who cares about Perception? If I'm a fighter, no way am I spending my skill points on Perception. Who cares if the enemy rogue gets surprise on me? My better hit points soak up the damage, then I use my bigger weapons, better attack bonus, and more attacks a round to whup the tar out of his hide on subsequent rounds. Sniper? I get my empty head DOWN and wait for my party rogue or ranger to locate the sneaky bugger. Or the wizard (see, Glitterdust). I'm just saying, the surprise round is not king.
Keep in mind that some of the Knowledge skills (and even others) are redundant. Want to know about the local king? K(Nobility), K(Local), and K(History) are all very likely to give up the info. Researching a Baatezu nemesis? K(Arcana), K(Religion), and K(The Planes) are all likely to have important (and possibly different) info. It's all about the GM here, players will invest in what you teach them is most important.
I too, think that the perception problem is an artifact of cross class skills being too easy to develop. I'm inclined to think 3.5's double-cost for cross-class skills is more balanced, but the pathfinder thought that anybody can learn any skill is still preferable on a number of levels and rationals.
While I do think that 3.5's three separate perception skills are too many, two skills might actually be a decent way to go. Perhaps something to try would be: "perception" for seeing & hearing enemies and "search" for finding things like secret doors, traps, and carefully hidden objects. This way perception remains the skill that every characters dumps into, but search would be a bit more specialized for rogues that find traps, elves who are good with secret doors, etc.
Adding an investigation skill, which took the search element from perception and the gather infomation element from diplomacy might be worth while. But in general I tend to think that perception is fine as it is.
Brilliant. Make every skill worth taking by merging them with some of the interesting-but-not-quite-worth-it feats.No! You fools! Don't you realize -- if you make every skill worth taking, then EVERY SKILL BECOMES A SKILL TAX!!!1!!1!
;-)
AAAAGGHGHGHGHG!!!! NO!!!! THe HORROR!!! The Logic!!!!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
pfft...Newbes!! You just combine all the skills into one skill called "Awesome!!!" and concentrate on making sure your build can kill the CR 20 monsters alone at level 13. Fail, u haz it.
For example craft: basket weaving is a by word for roleplayers being daft, in optimiser circles. Yet, i can of the top of my head list five use of the skill, which could have major game impact on an adventure set during the siege of a fort.
3. Weapon: Fill baskets full of rocks to dump on the enemy as they attempt to scale the walls.
4. Emergancy repairs: Stacked wicker baskets full of earth and rubble, make excilent and quick way of closing a breach.
5. Earthworks. Woven willow fencing is an essential part of making earthworks and pickets
Excellent; I see that you are doing EXACTLY what I advocated, by broadening "useless" skills until they're useful. By your examples, you've merged Craft (basket weaving) and Profession (Siege Engineer) into a single skill.
|
|
My thought has always been that redundancy, especially in the flavor skills like Profession and Craft, is fine.
Profession (basket weaving) - You are a basket weaver. You can make 'em, know how to sell 'em, know a bunch of uses for them, can probably even make special baskets for special occasions (water-tight baskets, baskets than fall apart when you want them to, baskets that animals won't eat through, etc.). Not too interesting for a PC but what every village needs. [note: I believe Profession should be a non-class skill for everyone except Experts; who else has time to devote making themselves an expert in these things?]
Craft (basket) - You can make baskets. Not versed in the traditions of basketry, but you can make a basket and weave wicker. Anybody can learn these craft skills; they probably reflect their background and upbringing (woulda' been a basket weaver if the village hadn't been destroyed and you became an avenging paladin). Might sometimes come in handy for an adventurer.
Profession (siege engineer) - You don't know squat about over-hand double weaves vs. under-hand fish-scale patters, but you sure as hell can twist together a quick basket to hold catapult load, or you can whip together a temporary retaining wall to hold back a battering ram.
|
|
Another thought-
Why not use synergies?
That whole idea of "aid self" synergies that has been floating around since the Alphas is simple to use and puts the burden on the player, not the DM. Allow the player to justify why his ranks of Knowledge (nobility) should benefit his Diplomacy check, let him roll a Knowledge (nobility) check, and give her a +2 on her Diplomacy check. This makes skills like Craft, Profession and Knowledge MUCH more useful.
Excellent; I see that you are doing EXACTLY what I advocated, by broadening "useless" skills until they're useful. By your examples, you've merged Craft (basket weaving) and Profession (Siege Engineer) into a single skill.For example craft: basket weaving is a by word for roleplayers being daft, in optimiser circles. Yet, i can of the top of my head list five use of the skill, which could have major game impact on an adventure set during the siege of a fort.
3. Weapon: Fill baskets full of rocks to dump on the enemy as they attempt to scale the walls.
4. Emergancy repairs: Stacked wicker baskets full of earth and rubble, make excilent and quick way of closing a breach.
5. Earthworks. Woven willow fencing is an essential part of making earthworks and pickets
Not at all.
The basket weaving skill alone produces the objects for use in case 1 through to 4. 4 produces a resource that someone with siege engeneering can use, while 5 is a required skill for some of the labourers building earth works.
The idea may have come form a siege engineer, but no broadening of the basic function of the skill i needed for this. Sure. to be most effective it need to be coupled with other seperate skills, but that doesn't mean that the person has merged the two, but rather used two seperate skills in consort.
'bad skills' aren't bad, they just require imagination, knowledge and other skills to use. But then, i am a player who can never have to many skill points, so i would say that.
|
|
Two quick points on this:
1) Skill groups written at the right level might be the innovation we need. I'm really liking what I'm hearing about recent input on grouping acrobatics, stealth, perception, etc. Its always, always bothered me that over the years nobody ever grouped these into straight-forward "useful" groups. Less=simplicity, and once and for all lets clean up this skill point mess...
2) Back in the old days, Jason Bulmahn would hop into these threads... I'm not talking about the fact that PAIZO is closed for the holiday, I'm just noting the "radio silence" lately... as a designer/developer myself, I know the importance of keeping the project on track for August '09, but seriously, have we got the skill points right for Pathfinder RPG?
Two quick points on this:
1) Skill groups written at the right level might be the innovation we need. I'm really liking what I'm hearing about recent input on grouping acrobatics, stealth, perception, etc. Its always, always bothered me that over the years nobody ever grouped these into straight-forward "useful" groups. Less=simplicity, and once and for all lets clean up this skill point mess...
2) Back in the old days, Jason Bulmahn would hop into these threads... I'm not talking about the fact that PAIZO is closed for the holiday, I'm just noting the "radio silence" lately... as a designer/developer myself, I know the importance of keeping the project on track for August '09, but seriously, have we got the skill points right for Pathfinder RPG?
Less = dumbing down. Someone who wishs to do nothing more than 'Kill things and take their stuff' can choose to only ever take three skills and max them out and need never worry about what skills his character should have. But, for those of us who play characters, who's backgrounds reflect into their build, or As DMs set a wide variaty of skills checks to represent the challanges of the world, it would be a great loss to have the game more further towards 4e's skill system.
Well, I do agree that Knowledge: Nobility is a barely used skill, mostly slotted for role-playing reasons rather than mechanical ones. I also agree that most of what it covers could be covered by Know: History, but if we were going to put heraldry and suchlike under Know: Local, I would still want Local renamed and re-themed as a general cultural knowledge skill.
I would actually favor rolling Nobility & Royalty under Local before rolling it under History. In my games, Nobility & Royalty also covers the bureaucracy of governments and guilds and knowledge of powerful guilds/merchant houses.
If any changes to occur, I think a Knowledge (current events) would be useful to cover living nobility and such, with History covering the dead ones. We could even add a Knowledge (streewise) to cover and expand on some of the underworld elements that fell under Local.