|
Hello!
Is there any chance that the 2 skill points per level can be amended?
I have run 3.0/3.5 & Arcana Evolved games since 3.0 launched and our very first house rule was raising base minimum skill points to 4 for the 2 points per level classes.
This has never caused a balance issue even after the conversion to Pathfinder's superior skill system.
Heroes need to know more then how not to fall off their horses and climb a tree in my opinion.
Thank you!
I raised skill points for all classes by +2. Easy to implement, benefits everyone, doesn't chance the power level in a meaningful way.
You're not the first one to ask, but Jason has been cool on the idea.
Personally, I don't see the big problem. There's already the extra skill point you can get from taking your favored class, not to mention that:
- cross-class skills are cheaper
- some skills have been consolidated (giving you a "package deal" if you take them)
- you can learn new skills instantly via a Headband of Intellect
- skill point increases are retroactive when you increase your intelligence
- you can always multiclass in rogue or ranger (say) if you want more skill points and you don't have to worry about an XP penalty
So those are all helpful to a character who wants lots of skills.
On the other hand, I'm playing in a game with a minimum of 4 skill points per level and it seems fine, too.
I never run a game with less then 4 skills. The only change is it gives 2 skill classes something to do out of combat
While I'd see no problem with increasing skill points, that'd mean incompatibility on a historical context with the rest of d20. Medieval games get the 2 points/level norm as the average medieval Joe got little (if any) access to education. 4/level is usually reserved for modern-to-future d20 games, where people's access to culture and education is considerably greater.
the issue with that dogbert is the 2 uneducated types get more then 4 civilized classes
I dont think it will change but the 2 skill classes are worse off now not better
Yeah... the Barbarian is illiterate, and yet he gets more skillpoints based on his class than the Fighter, Cleric, Paladin and Wizard of all people.
A Barbarian who happened to have high Intelligence would actually have MORE skillpoints than if he took levels in Wizard.
It's not about education.
...
What about adding just one more skillpoint?
So 3, 5, 7, and 9 skillpoints per level. Why does it have to be an even number? Is there some discrete balance going on that I'm unaware of?
Or even just just bump the 2 pointers to 3, and leave everyone else at their current.
myself I just want the 2 skill classes to go to 4 skills that simple. I am not asking to bump up skills just then 2 skills classes have always been skill staved and now with no x4 at 1st level they are even more so then before
myself I just want the 2 skill classes to go to 4 skills that simple. I am not asking to bump up skills just then 2 skills classes have always been skill staved and now with no x4 at 1st level they are even more so then before
Similarly, it would be nice to increase the Monk to 6+Int skill points per level, right up there with the full-BAB Ranger. And the Bard to 8+Int skill points, making it a viable choice for a skill-based character, instead of the Rogue standing alone.
Just as Pathfinder reduced all PCs to having three varieties of Hit Die (with one exception), having three varieties of skill point progressions would be a nice parallel.
-Matt
myself I just want the 2 skill classes to go to 4 skills that simple. I am not asking to bump up skills just then 2 skills classes have always been skill staved and now with no x4 at 1st level they are even more so then beforeSimilarly, it would be nice to increase the Monk to 6+Int skill points per level, right up there with the full-BAB Ranger. And the Bard to 8+Int skill points, making it a viable choice for a skill-based character, instead of the Rogue standing alone.
Just as Pathfinder reduced all PCs to having three varieties of Hit Die (with one exception), having three varieties of skill point progressions would be a nice parallel.
-Matt
Agreed. For me CoCT campaign, I have house-ruled skills the following way, largely based on fluff reasoning.
Brb: 4+ INT
Brd: 8+ INT
CLR: 6+ INT
DRD: 6+ INT
FTR: 4+ INT
MOK: 6+ INT
PAL: 4+ INT
RAR: 6+ INT
ROG: 8+ INT
SOR: 4+ INT
WiZ: 6+ INT
I am also thinking about re-introducing the sp x4 on 1st Level rule. But I am wondering if this would over-power my players too early
Makamu
I too find the limited number of skill points a bit frustrating. I don't think raising the number per level to be nescessary, but the starting skill points should be higher. I suggest double for first; kinda like getting maximum HP at level 1 IMO.
I'd suggest just giving an extra 4 skill points at level 1, if anything. That's 16 skill points in dog years...er, I mean 3.5 terms.
the Barbarian is illiterate, and yet he gets more skillpoints based on his class than the Fighter, Cleric, Paladin and Wizard of all people.
And again I failed to notice the glaringly obvious... you're absolutely right... I stand corrected. =)
...and indeed, the problem needs to be addressed. o_o
the Barbarian is illiterate, and yet he gets more skillpoints based on his class than the Fighter, Cleric, Paladin and Wizard of all people.And again I failed to notice the glaringly obvious... you're absolutely right... I stand corrected. =)
...and indeed, the problem needs to be addressed. o_o
Well, this could be explained by a 'role' point of view.
What a character of the aforementioned classes (Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Wizard) does when 'gaining' a level (even their FIRST level)?...
...a Fighter enters a hard training to improve all his battle skills (and gaining more and more Feats)
...a Paladin goes into a 'mystic state' of linking with the powerful forces of Law and Good (which gives him more powerful abilites and immunities), as well as improving his martial skills.
...a Cleric enters into a deep meditation in order to expand his limited grasp of the mysteries of his God (and his spells...)
...a Wizard starts to study ponderous tomes of vast knowledge that broaden his knowledge of the mechanics of the cosmo (and give him more 'nukeful' spells...)
All these are time-consuming experiences that leave little time to broaden their more 'mundane' abilites (aka Skills).
Other characters are either 'dabblers' (the Bard), 'skill-monkeys' (the Rogue), or 'wilderness wanderers' (Ranger, Barbarian, Druid) that have more time and more specialized skills in their fields of interest to dedicate with (a Ranger LIVES in the Wilderness, and most if not all of his class skills are nature-oriented; a Wizard, while having ALL Knowledge Skills as class skills, MUST dedicate all their free-time on their most powerful and time-consuming field of interest - SPELLS)
Only exception to this scheme, the Sorcerer (2 skill points to self-learner, free-willed flamboyant characters make no sense to me) and perhaps the Monk (but most of their class skills can be seen as part of their martial training, so they could be ok).
So, my final opinion is: boost the Sorcerer to 4 skills per level, but leave the others as they are now.
Just my 2c.
Becuase learning to focus your anger takes less time than learning how to hit better with your sword...
or learning how to uncanny dodge is so easy a caveman (barbarian) can do it.
Or to ignore wounds (Damage reduction)...
Or How to channel energy through your weapon while you are angry (what and why?)
Or Instantly heal yourself through your anger (Channel your anger Young Skywalker!)
Or how to dodge traps
Or how to become even angrier (now I'm really really mad!)
If you are going with the level up option that' what a barbarian is doing when he levels up. If you say Barbarians are learning how to do that while they live their lives/ during their downtime, same thing applies to the other classes too (i.e. a fighter is still practicing to figure out how to get that trick to work just right, after he gains the level and feat he's now a master at it and doesn't have to really even try to do it).
Becuase learning to focus your anger takes less time than learning how to hit better with your sword...
or learning how to uncanny dodge is so easy a caveman (barbarian) can do it.
Or to ignore wounds (Damage reduction)...
Or How to channel energy through your weapon while you are angry (what and why?)
Or Instantly heal yourself through your anger (Channel your anger Young Skywalker!)
Or how to dodge traps
Or how to become even angrier (now I'm really really mad!)If you are going with the level up option that' what a barbarian is doing when he levels up. If you say Barbarians are learning how to do that while they live their lives/ during their downtime, same thing applies to the other classes too (i.e. a fighter is still practicing to figure out how to get that trick to work just right, after he gains the level and feat he's now a master at it and doesn't have to really even try to do it).
Point taken :) ...
But I'm still of the idea that the only class that really needs more skill points is the Sorcerer.
Of course, this is only my personal opinion.
Fair enough.
Sometimes as a house rule I'll give out extra skill points for good character concept.
Playing a blacksmith gone fighter? Ok I'll give you one free skill point towards Craft(blacksmith).
Playing a Wizard that started out as an apothacary? Again free skill point towards your profession.
Playing a Courtasean gone rogue (literially)? Could be worth yet another free skill point towards a profession.
I'm the type of player that likes to have his basics covered and then spends whatever I got left on extra role play stuff. If I get those extra points it just means I can take some profession or the like, if I don't get them, my character is the same I just don't have the game mechanics to back up his background.
It works for me... I like my players to feel that their characters are alive and that I'm not going to kill/maim them for good role playing. At the same time I don't want to have to coddle them becuase in order to take role playing stuff so the mechanics match the character they had to nerf their build. A few free ranks here or there isn't going to overpower the game (at most it's a +4 to a rarely used skill at level one), can give me a way to throw a bone through character knowledge if need be, and keeps players happy.
It would make a nice parallel, aye.
Would the DCs of checks need raised if this was done?
Not really...
You can either:
1. Not give them the extra "role play" skill points past first level.
2. Realise these points are to be spent only on Craft, Profession, Perform, and maybe Knowledge skills and keep it to 1 a level.
Either way the party probably won't be using these skills very often, and they aren't going to have a higher level in skill than they could to begin with. You're basically giving them 1 bonus point to spend according to their individual story... if you don't argee with where they where going to spend it, you don't let them have it. That's a great thing (from a GM perspective) about GM handouts, they don't have to happen.
|
|
the Barbarian is illiterate, and yet he gets more skillpoints based on his class than the Fighter, Cleric, Paladin and Wizard of all people.And again I failed to notice the glaringly obvious... you're absolutely right... I stand corrected. =)
...and indeed, the problem needs to be addressed. o_o
thank you!
i have been telling this for years to this guy!|
|
Well, this could be explained by a 'role' point of view.
What a character of the aforementioned classes (Fighter, Cleric, Paladin, Wizard) does when 'gaining' a level (even their FIRST level)?...
...a Fighter enters a hard training to improve all his battle skills (and gaining more and more Feats)
...a Paladin goes into a 'mystic state' of linking with the powerful forces of Law and Good (which gives him more powerful abilites and immunities), as well as improving his martial skills.
...a Cleric enters into a deep meditation in order to expand his limited grasp of the mysteries of his God (and his spells...)
...a Wizard starts to study ponderous tomes of vast knowledge that broaden his knowledge of the mechanics of the cosmo (and give him more 'nukeful' spells...)All these are time-consuming experiences that leave little time to broaden their more 'mundane' abilites (aka Skills).
Other characters are either 'dabblers' (the Bard), 'skill-monkeys' (the Rogue), or 'wilderness wanderers' (Ranger, Barbarian, Druid) that have more time and more specialized skills in their fields of interest to dedicate with (a Ranger LIVES in the Wilderness, and most if not all of his class skills are nature-oriented; a Wizard, while having ALL Knowledge Skills as class skills, MUST dedicate all their free-time on their most powerful and time-consuming field of interest - SPELLS)
Only exception to this scheme, the Sorcerer (2 skill points to self-learner, free-willed flamboyant characters make no sense to me) and perhaps the Monk (but most of their class skills can be seen as part of their martial training, so they could be ok).
So, my final opinion is: boost the Sorcerer to 4 skills per level, but leave the others as they are now.
Just my 2c.
looking it in gaming terms is right depending the type of game you play
the characters function as classes...i mean the fighter does well his work as fighter and so does the wizardbu they are irrealistics, in story terms they are not "real persons", in the caseof the fighter any soldier might explain you that they learn much more things than just fighting... just see the barbarian (not for being illiterate) but he is a savage doing little more than fighting and ragin and he has better survival skills
where is the logic on that?
a wizard not only learn spells he needs to discover them by research, which is a lot more than just pouring through mystci tomes
the cleric has other duties than just understanding their god(dess) for that case the monk would only learn how to fast and meditate and nothing else... the cleric has duties to the people, to their religion and they are militant in general, they need the skills to survive...
paladin is a case miexed with the fighter and the cleric
one as a DM must see the character beyond just combat, and try to see them aspersons in the world... there is any logic on them?
theer is any logic in a rogue bahing much more skills than someone who has being traiend as a holy warrior and who as a champion is being prepared to confront any problem he must encoutner... or than a soldier that has needed to survive the battle camp and the world?
the only reason for the rogue having more skills is because mechanically he is the skill-monkey... i do not complain about the rogue, i understand most of his abilities were passed as skill from 2nd Ed to 3.0
and i agree to keep him as the ebst in that area...
but other 5 classes are crippled outside combat and i think this is unfair
You're not the first one to ask, but Jason has been cool on the idea.
Personally, I don't see the big problem. There's already the extra skill point you can get from taking your favored class, not to mention that:
- cross-class skills are cheaper
- some skills have been consolidated (giving you a "package deal" if you take them)
- you can learn new skills instantly via a Headband of Intellect
- skill point increases are retroactive when you increase your intelligence
- you can always multiclass in rogue or ranger (say) if you want more skill points and you don't have to worry about an XP penalty
So those are all helpful to a character who wants lots of skills.On the other hand, I'm playing in a game with a minimum of 4 skill points per level and it seems fine, too.
Multiclassing for skill points?! YUCK! Talk about a bad reason to do something...
BUT, the lower cost cross-class skills, the bonus for sticking with a preferred class, both make nice augmentations to the classes with 2 measly points per level. And they're a much more "elegant" solution I suppose.
Multiclassing for skill points?! YUCK! Talk about a bad reason to do something...
Not at all, in my opinion. For instance, if your fighter spends so much time practicing being stealthy, perceptive, smooth-talking, etc. at the expense of his weapons training, why wouldn't that be reflected by multiclassing into the rogue class (or the expert class or something else)?
|
|
Not at all, in my opinion. For instance, if your fighter spends so much time practicing being stealthy, perceptive, smooth-talking, etc. at the expense of his weapons training, why wouldn't that be reflected by multiclassing into the rogue class (or the expert class or something else)?
Multiclassing for skill points?! YUCK! Talk about a bad reason to do something...
actually i would be happy if i could give my fighter Knowledge: War & Survival
aside of the other skills she needs to actually survive.
but you are right in ONE thing
Jason is not interested in solving this, for many reason he doesn't see the problem, mechanically the skills are understandable... but not if you try to focus in story instead of just combat
backward compatibility is another things that he usesas a way to keeping them in 2 points
so we could scream to heavens... this is not something that is going to be changed