|
Many skills have nothing to do with the intelligence of the person training in the skill. A fighter's ability to increase his skill at intimidation, climbing or riding shouldn't be limited by his intelligence.
A rogues ability to increase his dexterity based skills shouldn't be limited by intelligence.
Instead of basing every classes skill points on the INT bonus it should be based on the average of the bonuses that are critical to that character class.
Skills get a bonus to their check based on the ability score that's appropriate. Strength helps with climbing, so your roll is d20 + climb ranks + Strength modifier.
However, learning is a factor of your intelligence. Skill points per level is how much you learn per level. Some of it is how much time you devote to it (Fighters spend more time learning to fight than training in skills, 2 + Int, vs Rogues spending more time training than learning to fight, 8 + Int).
The Int is used here because it's a factor of how much you are able to learn from your experience.
You don't learn how to climb fast because you are strong, you can perform the physical act better because of it. Point in fact, you can have a strong person who isn't that smart, or possibly mentally challenged, who "just doesn't get it" and slowly or never improves his climbing ability beyond his base ability.
Many skills have nothing to do with the intelligence of the person training in the skill. A fighter's ability to increase his skill at intimidation, climbing or riding shouldn't be limited by his intelligence.
A rogues ability to increase his dexterity based skills shouldn't be limited by intelligence.
Instead of basing every classes skill points on the INT bonus it should be based on the average of the bonuses that are critical to that character class.
Actually, in IRL a person learns skills and the like mostly because the neurons associated with a skill or knowledge grow dendritic spines, thus making it easier to gain access to said skill or knowledge.
So Int makes a lot of sense actually.
|
I also think Intelligence makes sense as THE abilty to base skill points on. The rules are pretty clear that intelligence measures ones ability to learn - and that does not only include intellectual but also practical learning.
I also think that physical skills are heavily influenced by physical abilities (in D&D this is shown by the attribute modifiers for these skills) but someone who is domb as a log would have difficulties mastering stealth skills or riding skills - he simply could't grasp the concepts of advanced / trained movements necessary.
|
|
Many skills have nothing to do with the intelligence of the person training in the skill. A fighter's ability to increase his skill at intimidation, climbing or riding shouldn't be limited by his intelligence.
A rogues ability to increase his dexterity based skills shouldn't be limited by intelligence.
Instead of basing every classes skill points on the INT bonus it should be based on the average of the bonuses that are critical to that character class.
Actually, in IRL a person learns skills and the like mostly because the neurons associated with a skill or knowledge grow dendritic spines, thus making it easier to gain access to said skill or knowledge.
So Int makes a lot of sense actually.
I disagree. Gaining skill at swimming has nothing to do with intelligence. I've known stupid, but very good swimmers. Many athletic skills are not enhanced by intelligence. Why would a fighter with a low intelligence be limited in learning to climb, swim, ride, intimidate etc? These skills have more to do with innate ability and repetitive training than with intelligence.
A rogue's skill points that can be applied to Acrobatics, Climb, Stealth, Ride, Escape Artist etc shouldn't be limited by intelligence.
My point is that many skills are physical in nature and many people with low(er) intelligence are very good at multiple skills that don't require a lot of thought.
|
I also think Intelligence makes sense as THE abilty to base skill points on. The rules are pretty clear that intelligence measures ones ability to learn - and that does not only include intellectual but also practical learning.
I also think that physical skills are heavily influenced by physical abilities (in D&D this is shown by the attribute modifiers for these skills) but someone who is domb as a log would have difficulties mastering stealth skills or riding skills - he simply could't grasp the concepts of advanced / trained movements necessary.
I 100% agree that int makes sense for this. A 22 str Barb with 8 int is going to have some natural ability to climb because of his high strength- +6 climb also he may put some skill points into climb as part of his training, and he could max out the ranks if he wanted to, but in doing so he takes up much of his time and learning the nuances of climbing such as finding good hand and foot holds, how best to distribute his weight, etc. and won't have much time to learn other skills.
On a side note there should be some options for using dexterity in place of Strength in certain skills, like climbing or ride. IMO.|
|
On a side note there should be some options for using dexterity in place of Strength in certain skills, like climbing or ride. IMO.
I'd be absolutely with you on that - in fact I let some of my characters use different attributes for their skills on a regular basis - and this doesn't end with character creation. For example I think to spot some feints, appropriate skill checks (riding while fighting on horseback for example or pilot when boatracing) with an intelligence or wisdom modifier instead of the original attribute modifier can make more sense then a sense motive skill.
- sorry if this is seen as threadjacking.
|
There are 2 simple answers to the question.
The First is that bonus skills based on high Intelligence goes all the way back to 1e. It's been in the game that way for a long time. So tradition is one answer.
The second, and better answer, is that basing any bonus skill points on a single ability modifier is the easiest solution. You have one number to concern yourself with. You don't have to create rules that handle averages of ability mods and fractions and so on and so forth.
The second answer is certainly not the most realistic system that designers can come up with if they desire, but it does nicely bridge the gap between "realistic" and "simple, easy to sue game mechanic."
Besides, in a game where we pretend to be elves fighting dragons with magic, how things work in reality becomes kind of secondary.
-Skeld
I disagree. Gaining skill at swimming has nothing to do with intelligence. I've known stupid, but very good swimmers. Many athletic skills are not enhanced by intelligence. Why would a fighter with a low intelligence be limited in learning to climb, swim, ride, intimidate etc? These skills have more to do with innate ability and repetitive training than with intelligence.A rogue's skill points that can be applied to Acrobatics, Climb, Stealth, Ride, Escape Artist etc shouldn't be limited by intelligence.
My point is that many skills are physical in nature and many people with low(er) intelligence are very good at multiple skills that don't require a lot of thought.
Intelligence isn't limiting how skilled a character can be in a field though.
From reading your posts, I'm getting the impression that you are getting "performing the task" and "learning multiple/additional things" confused.
Your swim check isn't Ranks + Strength + Intelligence. Intelligence has nothing to do with the swim skill itself. Stupid but very good swimmers would simply be people that spent skillpoints on swimming and have a good strength score.
You can max out Swimming, without having a good intelligence score.
What Intelligence does do, is allow the swimmer to also be good at many other things. A smarter person can more quickly learn more skills.
In the same amount of training time, a more Intelligent person can squeeze out more skill advancement.
Learning = Intelligence, and that's all this is talking about. He didn't learn how to swim because he had a higher intelligence, he learned how to Swim WHILE learning how to Climb AND Intimidate because he could split his focus and still maintain his training.
It's the same as the Human bonus. They get an extra skillpoint, because they are versatile in their training, and can learn more than others do in the same period.
|
|
I'd be absolutely with you on that - in fact I let some of my characters use different attributes for their skills on a regular basis - and this doesn't end with character creation.
On a side note there should be some options for using dexterity in place of Strength in certain skills, like climbing or ride. IMO.
Too big a change for Pathfinder, but my ideal system would have two ability modifiers for each skill. For example, Climb would be Dex and Str because you've got to be both agile and strong to climb well, while Swim would be Str and Con because you've got to be strong but also have great stamina. Disable Device is Dex and Int, etc. A few might be "pure," in which case you'd get a double bonus - Knowledge would be Int bonus x2.
It wouldn't be that radical a change; low DCs would still be the same as "average" people wold still only have one or two +1s. But heroic folks - PCs - would have more bonus and higher DCs would have to be adjusted somewhat.
Initiative, while not a skill, would also be nice as Dex and Wis. How quickly can you sense danger and how quickly can you react.
BTW, on topic - I agree that skill points based in Int represent your ability to learn multiple things at once, while ability bonuses represent your actual ability to use a skill.
|
|
As was said, basing skill points on Int represents how much you can learn, not what you can learn. Classes determine if you can be good at a skill by having it as a class skill, and ability scores factor in your actual ability.
I would agree with the 2 attributes counting to each skill. I could see the +3 bonus for a class skill being unneeded with this change.
|
|
there is a thing called PHYSICAL MEMORY, some people have better physical memory than the have actual memory. in a perfect PFRPG WISDOM might talk the place of INT for physical based bonus skill points (instinct and all)
crazy, bizarro idea. what if every one got bonus skill point based on the average of WIS,INT and CHA. INT would give BONUS INCLASS SKILLS. its fun at least.
Many skills have nothing to do with the intelligence of the person training in the skill. A fighter's ability to increase his skill at intimidation, climbing or riding shouldn't be limited by his intelligence.
A rogues ability to increase his dexterity based skills shouldn't be limited by intelligence.
Instead of basing every classes skill points on the INT bonus it should be based on the average of the bonuses that are critical to that character class.
Actually, in IRL a person learns skills and the like mostly because the neurons associated with a skill or knowledge grow dendritic spines, thus making it easier to gain access to said skill or knowledge.
So Int makes a lot of sense actually.
I disagree. Gaining skill at swimming has nothing to do with intelligence. I've known stupid, but very good swimmers. Many athletic skills are not enhanced by intelligence. Why would a fighter with a low intelligence be limited in learning to climb, swim, ride, intimidate etc? These skills have more to do with innate ability and repetitive training than with intelligence.
A rogue's skill points that can be applied to Acrobatics, Climb, Stealth, Ride, Escape Artist etc shouldn't be limited by intelligence.
My point is that many skills are physical in nature and many people with low(er) intelligence are very good at multiple skills that don't require a lot of thought.
How good your neurons are at maintaining a swimming technique (rote of actively) isn't based on how agile you are, its based on the conditions of the neurons and how good they are at transmitting the information.
You can be a master fencer, but if you don't know how to swim you don't know how to swim.
Working on dex and strength based skill is impossible if you don't have the brainpower to back up the ability, and Int demonstrates this effectively.
|
|
And the skill points you get from Int are bonus points for being a faster-than-average learner. Everyone gets their regular skill point allotment from their classes. You can say those skill points are based on whatever trait you want - strength training for a fighter, faith and dedication for a cleric, natural agility for a rogue.
Over a character's career, she is going to get a bunch of points at each level from her class, plus ability bonuses to her skills because those abilities make her better at those skills. And if she's smart, she get a few points at each level for that too, but for most characters, the smart points will probably be less than what they get from their class, and it's not until moderately high levels that training (ranks) really begin to outweigh ability bonuses. So all and all, being strong or dexterous or wise does matter more than being smart when it comes to skills.
|
|
There are 2 simple answers to the question.
The First is that bonus skills based on high Intelligence goes all the way back to 1e. It's been in the game that way for a long time. So tradition is one answer.
The second, and better answer, is that basing any bonus skill points on a single ability modifier is the easiest solution. You have one number to concern yourself with. You don't have to create rules that handle averages of ability mods and fractions and so on and so forth.
The second answer is certainly not the most realistic system that designers can come up with if they desire, but it does nicely bridge the gap between "realistic" and "simple, easy to sue game mechanic."
Besides, in a game where we pretend to be elves fighting dragons with magic, how things work in reality becomes kind of secondary.
-Skeld
I can agree both of these points are true.
A) It's always been that way.B) It's the simplest solution.
I would prefer a solution involving more than just intelligence and the associated characteristic. There are plenty of "skills" that are based on reflex training and muscle conditioning that have nothing to do with what most people consider intelligence. Think of a cowboy or farmer - there are a large number of skills one would pick up and get proficient at that don't require a lot of brains (riding, roping, climbing, animal handling, etc.) I see no reason why a more "intelligent" person would be able to become better more easily at these skills than some one who has a higher dexterity, strength and charisma.
I think the root of my problem is probably in the inherent unbalanced nature of the game at higher levels. In order to make adventures tough for higher level characters the DC to accomplish a task can get very high (30+). This doesn't always make sense given the nature of a task (for example disabling a trap or swimming across a river). As a result some characters with a high intelligence and a specialization in that skill have an easy time and the other characters will fail. For example sorcerers should be loaded with skills based on their high charisma but may be hampered because they have a low intelligence. The issue is that the charisma bonus is a fixed constant value while the number of skill points applied can increase much more rapidly.