My campains all have no max rank to skills. This has resulted in several things. I now have an explanation for why someone can be a mastercraftsman, yet not 20th+ level. Also it results in characters min-maxing, I'll have people put tons of ranks in steath. lol, then i killed him at a river crossing, no swimming ranks means you die. It's the best addition i've added to the campain.
I think it should be included in the base set, with max skill ranks an option.
What do you think?
My campaigns all have no max rank to skills.
What do you think?
Honestly? Crap... (please, don't take that personally, its just a ridicolous rule, which strengthens superior skills over the top. It's just munchkin.)
The NPC thing... well just break the "NPCs are the same as PCs"-rule and say, if that shoemaker fabricated shoes his hole life, he *is* better than the adventurer who happens to have a needle of +10 to shoemaking.
|
Or that NPC could just get a +30 circumstance bonus for having done it his whole life.
Letting the PCs put points without limit just enhances the disparity of the skills. The ones that are always important will be put through the nonexistant roof and the rest added as afterthoughts, completely ruining the DC system for level appropriate challenges.
I mean, earlier than it already is in 3.5
No ranks and no stat bonus means his take 10 still lets him cross a river unless you are putting some insanely high DC on a simple task.no he did, he was carring all the treasure from the dungeon he just left.
Honestly? Crap... (please, don't take that personally, its just a ridicolous rule, which strengthens superior skills over the top. It's just munchkin.)
no worries i never take personally things said on posts by people i don't know, or know me.(....it seems like a crap idea) ;-)
skills should be more important that BAB, it's why i did this. i also give more xp for a pc that uses skills and idea's to beat an opponent.The NPC thing... well just break the "NPCs are the same as PCs"-rule and say, if that shoemaker fabricated shoes his hole life, he *is* better than the adventurer who happens to have a needle of +10 to shoemaking.
lol, that is the best magic item ever....
i don't want the NPCs to be better than the PCs, if they where, they'd be PCs.Or that NPC could just get a +30 circumstance bonus for having done it his whole life.
Letting the PCs put points without limit just enhances the disparity of the skills. The ones that are always important will be put through the nonexistant roof and the rest added as afterthoughts, completely ruining the DC system for level appropriate challenges.
I mean, earlier than it already is in 3.5
lol, level appropriate challenges.
i've found so many falts with this idea, i don't scale things for the pc's level. life is not scaled for level. if you run into a frost giant and don't get away, you die. yay, roleplaying, and not rollplaying.|
|
lol, level appropriate challenges.
i've found so many falts with this idea, i don't scale things for the pc's level. life is not scaled for level. if you run into a frost giant and don't get away, you die. yay, roleplaying, and not rollplaying.
Then we wouldn't play very well together I guess. I prefer more than a yes/no answer to the question of can you overcome the encounter. Buffing a skill check until you never fail is boring to me, and an encounter where 'if you can't move this fast to escape, you die' is just as boring.
Also it results in characters min-maxing, I'll have people put tons of ranks in steath. lol, then i killed him at a river crossing, no swimming ranks means you die.
He who lives by min/maxing dies by min/maxing, I can speak from experience. Eventually dice rolls forced me to play a character who was actually balanced (mayority of 14's, one 16), and turned out to be not only my most survivable character, also one of the most enjoyable.
Removing max ranks/level isn't particularly bad, you give your players freedom to manage their characters however they see fit. Some will make mistakes, yes (like your Solid Snake in the river), but that's how we grow up, isn't it?
|
Removing max ranks/level isn't particularly bad, you give your players freedom to manage their characters however they see fit. Some will make mistakes, yes (like your Solid Snake in the river), but that's how we grow up, isn't it?
or hope to grow
yes you can make an specialist but you would be worthless in toher endeavors... your choice
i personally prefer to limit it...yes i have players that doesn't know how to manage their characters, and while they willbe very good at something they will die easily...
and that is not a campaign they wil enjoy, nor that i as a DM will enjoy
i believe yes... skills should be given more relevance
this is NOT the way...
but that is my humble opinion
|
I don't think no caps on skill ranks is a good idea, but I've had three ideas along the lines of the OP. They won't make it into Pathfinder but I'll most likely end up house ruling them.
1) Max ranks = level +1 (rather than Max ranks = level). This allows a little bit of specialization so that no every 1st level rogue starts with 1 rank of Stealth. You can start off REALLY good, but it'll mean you are not as much of a generalist. This rule is completely backwards compatible; it just assumes all NPCs and characters written thus far have chosen to keep their max ranks equal to their level.
2) For me, Profession is only a class skill for Experts. Anyone can do it, but only and Expert devotes their life to their profession so only they deserve the +3 class skill bonus.
3) Experts also have a thus-far nameless class ability (Specialist?) that allows them to have max ranks = level + 4. It'd use up A LOT of their skill points in one skill, but that's the point. Again, completely backwards compatible; just assume that all the experts up until now have chosen not to.
On Experts, I would really like to see a way written into the rules that keeps them better at their professions than not-so-career-dedicated adventuring PCs. Experts should be ... experts.
Then we wouldn't play very well together I guess.maybe, i tend to laugh a lot and don't take the game serously.
I prefer more than a yes/no answer to the question of can you overcome the encounter. Buffing a skill check until you never fail is boring to meyeah i agree
, and an encounter where 'if you can't move this fast to escape, you die' is just as boring..
it can be if done wrong, but if the world levels up with you, and you always win except when you shouldn't is also boring, i makes a completely unbelievable world.
e.g. i'm 5th now, and the dm fears my death, so i'll face it with no fear. yay i win cuz i was supposed to, not because i made good choices.sorry, i have a dm like that right now and it's killing me. :-)
He who lives by min/maxing dies by min/maxing, I can speak from experience. Eventually dice rolls forced me to play a character who was actually balanced (mayority of 14's, one 16), and turned out to be not only my most survivable character, also one of the most enjoyable. Removing max ranks/level isn't particularly bad, you give your players freedom to manage their characters however they see fit. Some will make mistakes, yes (like your Solid Snake in the river), but that's how we grow up, isn't it?
very nicly put, i agree in every way. thank you for saying what i was going to respond with. :-)
this rule would allow for min/maxing but it could also teach something
I think you should read Justin Bacon's article on Calibrating Your Expectations in 3.X. He makes the case that even a 1st level character can be a master craftsman (functional definition of 'master craftsman': a character who can can make ~masterwork~ items) and that a 5th level character can consistently hit DCs of anything below 40 with minimal or no tweaking.
great article, though it doesn't directly go against my argument that there should be no level limits to skills. infact it opens it up more...... if i'm a 5th level rogue, i have 8+ skills, i put my best score in int. (like all good rogues do) so i have a 15+2 (human or elf) 17. acording to this i am a bad ass in not one, but 13 different skills. add to it i'm also great in combat, because (and yes this is my main argument against limits) i increase in combat abilities as i go up.
i'm going to print this artical up and hand it to some friends they well also enjoy it. :-)
yes this opens up the idea that instead of a well balanced character it is possible to create a extreme stealth master that can't swim, but that's the price you pay from hiding all the time and never swimming.
Semi-related:
An idea you might want to consider in order to keep characters within sight one another
why would i do this?
I never scale anything to nada. It was never done in earlier version.
Give the previous case of a frost giant the PC's encounter that they obviously can't handle. Well heck they run!
There has been plenty of cases in the past where the PC's (myself included) have heard rumor of an adventure to partake upon,only to come upon a dungeon full of denizens too difficult for them to over come.
We simply had to escape (usually with not all the pc's living) and return later when we could.
We accidentally found a dragons lair once, stumbled upon the dragon (this was in earthdawn not DnD but same point) and our party blabber mouth was able to amuse the dragon enough that he let us live, albiet as his slaves, until we found and opportunity to escape.
Something that is too powerful for you, a trap that cant be undone (yet) a monster that cant be defeated (until you fin the +3 magic sword of werewolf slaying) or the map that cant be read (until the wizard learns the spell of moon reading is all to much a part of fantasy gaming, and frequnetly happens in most PC games that have tried to emulate D&D for decades.
It's as much a part of the game as it is a fun opportunity to role play.
and BTW, I don't believe you can "take 10" Swimming untrained in Pathfinder.
(in Environment Hazards not Swim Skill, bizarrely)