There is endless debate in favor of and against things like a combined Athletics skill, or whether Perform should be lumped together, or whether Perception is too good. Mostly, this boils down to the dichotomy between skill groups (e.g., Acrobatics) and individual sub-skills (e.g., Perform (string instruments)), and the problems in relative value. To end the bickering and introduce some semblance of sanity into the skill system, I propose the following:
Skill Groups:
In this manner, the people who argue (correctly) that Climbing and Swimming are in no way related are vindicated; swimming monsters would have ranks in Swim, but not in Climb. Those who prefer the ease of combined skill groups can have things that way as well; a barbarian who grew up among rocky cliffs and rapids could buy ranks in the Athletics group and not have to micromanage the individual skills comprising it.
I'm aware that it's been clearly stated that no restructuring of skills will occur. However, this system requires little more than an explanation paragraph and a restructuring of the table to list skills within their associated groups. The potential of this proposal to eliminate argument, to please both crowds (the "realism" people and the "I hate micromanaging skills" people), and to restore some semblance of parity to skills (e.g., "Perception is too good"), in my humble opinion, hopefully merits some consideration.
|
I like it; did you ever play Rolemaster Revised Edition?
This mirrors that thinking quite closely.
There are some ludicrous situations in the current rules, such as having aquatic creatures be skilled mountaineers. LOL
The only issues I can see are, firstly, maybe needing to explain which option an NPC has used, in his statblock (to show the math). Though, if DMs don't care to know the math, then they'll just run the guy as is.
Secondly, what to do if someone starts using one method, then swaps to the other? Buying a skill group as a Rogue, when skill points are high, but concentrating on individual skills when taking Fighter levels?
I guess you could say the player should make a choice and stick with it, but when has that ever worked? In any case, he could get his Int drained, and only get one skill point per level.
Secondly, what to do if someone starts using one method, then swaps to the other? Buying a skill group as a Rogue, when skill points are high, but concentrating on individual skills when taking Fighter levels?
Then he'd record the individual skill ranks. Say he's got 4 ranks in the Athletics group as a rogue (8 skill points), and 4 ranks in the Climb skill as a fighter (4 skill points); with a Str of 16, he'd have Climb +14, Jump +10, Swim +10.
The thing I like is, for using 3.5 adventures, you just assume everyone bought their skills a la carte, and the ranks and points work out exactly: no need to rebate skill points because Balance and Tumble are now Acrobatics. Sure, there will be instances where they could have saved points (e.g., if they have Listen, Search, and Spot), but the discrepancies will be fairly small.
P.S. I've never played Rolemaster. I know Shadowrun 4e uses skill groups vs. skills vs. skill specializations, but I've never played that, either. If they both do something similar, it's because it just makes sense (well, at least to me it does).
Kirth, Just a suggestion, but I'd make getting the class skill bonus dependent on spending at least one dedicated point in the skill.. Otherwise, the skill group option is too good compared to a la carte, IMHO.
I thought about that, but as of the Beta, Perception already gives you the +3 class bonus on everything, so I figure, why not keep it? The inclusion of Acrobatics and Perception and Stealth in the Beta sort of makes the default assumption that groups are the Beta standard, as opposed to individual skills in 3.5.
|
|
The thing I like is, for using 3.5 adventures, you just assume everyone bought their skills a la carte, and the ranks and points work out exactly: no need to rebate skill points because Balance and Tumble are now Acrobatics. Sure, there will be instances where they could have saved points (e.g., if they have Listen, Search, and Spot), but the discrepancies will be fairly small.
That is a VERY attractive aspect.
No need to amend anyone's statblock, if you don't feel like it.To the pedants out there; Yes, I know, you always had the option to leave them alone, but now you have the added justification that they're not 'wrong' in the first place.
The NPC was just a doofus when it came to picking skills the inefficient way.
With more threads appearing regarding the pros and cons of an Athletics skill, etc., I re-submit this idea for your examination. See the OP, above. (*BUMP!*)
maybe leave as is for costs, etc
but add skill groups (not necessarily these groups)
with a higher cost for +1 an entire group
meaning the group name itself is a very generalised skill
maybe instead, gain +1 to skill checks for entire group when obtain proficiency in a skill
meaning +1 to the group for each proficient skill within it
maybe remove stat boons from normal advancement
gain +1 in a stat boon when gain proficiency in a relevant skill
so 10 ranks in Knowledge (arcane) would bestow a +1 competency bonus to Intelligence for instance.
requires a complete rewrite though
many aspects could be converted to skills
BAB becomes two skills, one for Dex and one for Str
spells and spells/day become skills, and so on...
the very first Conan attempt by TSR had a system like this.
|
I like the idea of skill groups, but the two-tiered pricing doesn't quite sit well with me (although I absolutely appreciate the part about assuming everyone in all printed materials so far has bought skills a la cart; that totally makes sense).
What about handling skill groups through feats? It almost seems like what is being described is like an improved version of the old '+2 in two skills' feats, only now, it's +1 in a whole group of skills.
Cons: Costs a feat, although we now have more feats to spend. This could be balanced by making it worthwhile. Is a +2/+2 feat worthwhile? What if it were +2/+2/+2 or +2/+2/+2/+2? (Could the number of skills in a skill group be standardized?). How badly would this throw of the balance with Skill Focus? +2/+2 tend to be one good skill and one under-used skill, but for a total of +4, vs. Skill Focus with +3 right where you want it.
Pro: This would maintain the new, clean 1 skill point = 1 rank in ALL cases system the Pathfinder has established. It would keep all the pluses in the bonus column rather than the rank column.
Any thoughts? I'm really just thinking out loud, not advocating.
how about...
groups cost same as skills, but get a bonus when using a specific skill?
no cost for groups, every 5 ranks in a skill raises group +1 rank?
then group rank is a bonus to it's skills
and/or used for untrained roll bonus
I suggest that instead of creating a new skill group system, that you simply lift the already existing Iron Heroes skill groups. It is Open Game Content and already covers the core classes.
Using this system each individual skill costs one point per rank and each class gets access to one or two skill groups which gives a rank in each subskill for every skill point spent on the group. A multiclassed character has access to the skill groups of every class that he has taken, and if he has bought ranks in both a subskill and a skill group that contains that subskill that subskill still cannot have more than the maximum number of ranks for that character level.
The only possible problem is the names of the skill groups; I'm not sure if those names count as Product Identity or Open Game Content. Also, even if Paizo doesn't include skill groups in Pathfinder you can still use them in your games.
If you want I can post the skill groups, and which classes have access to which groups. Although, if the group names turn out to be Product Identity then I will have to change them.
I suggest that instead of creating a new skill group system, that you simply lift the already existing Iron Heroes skill groups. It is Open Game Content and already covers the core classes.
If you want I can post the skill groups, and which classes have access to which groups. Although, if the group names turn out to be Product Identity then I will have to change them.
I like the idea behind this and would definently be interested in you postin the skill groups. Do you know if Iron Heroes is available still? Perhaps I will check around. I'm not opposed to lifting solid systems from other games for my own homebrew games. Thanks for the information.