I want to see the educated classes, wizard &cleric, brought up to at least 4 skill points + Int bonus per lvl.
My reason is simple they need more skills to do the job/role that they were designed for.
I will never understand how a illiterate barbarian or a daisy picking druid, classes not associated with scholarly pursuits, can get more skill points than a class noted for their knowledge or wisdom. If all knowledge skills are open to them shouldn’t they have the points to take advantage of the feature?
I'm not saying every skill has to be at max ranks but being able to keep up with the demand of "hey what’s that creature" would be nice.
My group uses knowledge skills the way the book says to. If it's undead know. Religion, Magical Beast know. arcanna but if the party doesn’t have a druid it's up to the mage to fill in on what a shambling mound or a treant can do. No Bard then hello cleric with a know. History lesson. But the skill points as it is do not support that.
My solution is simple. DO NOT penalize the other classes simply make the 2+int. go away for all(except peasant or adept) and increase the minimum to 4+int. for all.
Thank You
P.S. if this topic has been brought up before then I couldn't find it.
|
This is especially painful given the way skills are set up in d20/PFRPG -
The barbarian only needs ONE survival skill - hot deserts, arctic deserts, temperate woodland, boreal woodland, tropical woodland. Despite these environments needing wildly differing skillsets, it's one skill.
Wizards, on the other hand, need to buy Knowledge [Arcane], and Knowledge [History], and Knowledge [Heraldry], and Knowledge [Local], and Knowledge [Religion], and Knowledge [Nature], and Knowledge [The Planes] to be a polymath - which is a relatively important feature of the Wizard Archetype.
If we're going to sweep all of the survival skills into one Survival skill, why don't all the knowledge skills fall into one Knowledge skill? The skill list is a weird combination of lumping some skills and splitting others that is exacerbated by weird skill point per level allocations.
I look at the skill point allocations a little differently.
In my mind, some classes train really hard at stuff that is not skill-related at all. Fighters train to fight. Wizards train to cast spells. Clerics train to cast spells. Etc.
Now, some of those things have one or two related skills, such as Spellcraft being related to spellcasting.
But those classes have enough skills to cover their related areas. Fighter in fact have more skill points than they need to cover their related skills (no skill really relates to fighting, though certain fighting styles might take advantage of bluff or tumble - but those are not generally require by the majority of fighters).
Other classes are skill dependent, the most obvious of which is the rogue. Rogues train in some non-skill stuff, like sneak attacking, but they also, obviously, train very heavily in many skills. Bards too. Druids somewhat. Rangers somewhat.
So these classes get more core skill points as part of their class features.
Now, there's nothing that says your wizard needs to be all-knowing of many subjects. Some wizards barely know how to get out of bed in the morning and tie their own shoes.
But wizards tend to be smart, and smart people tend to like learning stuff, and tend to retain what they learn, so many wizards usually come off as Ken Jennings (that guy who was Jeopardy champion for so very long), but it's not a core feature of the class.
So, for me, I'm fairly comfortable with the core skill allocations.
I mean, really, once your spellcasting adventuring cleric has his Spellcraft and his Knowledge Religion, he's set. He knows everything that is required of him for his class. He can cast spells, identify spells, know what his enemies are casting on the battlefield. And he can perform ceremonies (marriage, birth, funeral, etc.) and other rites (exorcisms, blessings, etc.) as required of his position in his church.
Done.
Does he need knowledge of the planes, or nature, or heraldry? Does he need to know how to jump or swim or intimidate? Well, maybe Bluff is a requirement for many religions...
But otherwise, no, as a cleric he doesn't need anything beyond the core two skills, and he has the poinst for those.
And if he is no smarter (Intelligence) than the average farmer, average sailor, average shopkeeper, average soldier, average, well, anything, then why should he have more knowledge than they do?
You want a cleric to be a walking encyclopedia, hook him up with a higher INT.
Otherwise, he's well suited to doing his job.
And likewise, IMO, with all the other classes.
This has been my solution as well. Class with 4 skills do not need more and those with 6 or 8 are fine as well. But all classes with 2 skills really are hurting. Sure the new system makes cross skills easier so in say 3 or 4 levels your ok, but that's 3 or 4 levels.
What I have done and have been doing so since 3 months after 3.0 came out is grant a minimum of 4 skill points per level like the OP subjected.
Now one thing you do see is less rogue dipping for skill points. Over the years I have seen many skill based fighters, that do stuff outside of combat. I have seen clerics and wizards that have lots and lots of skills.
Does this step on the toes of the high skill classes? No more then a Barbarian and druid did. If you want more give em high Int but really 4 skills makes a competent pc.
Now we always here don't make Int your dump stat. It has nothing to do with dump stat. Barb did not NEED 4 skill points. The druid may have but so did the cleric and wizard. They HAD to have concentration, know arcana/religion and spellcraft. 3 skills off the bat
I know others will be far more elegant then me but yeah 4 skills should be the min
I allow Fighters to have 4 skill points/level. It hasn't broken anything!
The barbarian only needs ONE survival skill - hot deserts, arctic deserts, temperate woodland, boreal woodland, tropical woodland. Despite these environments needing wildly differing skillsets, it's one skill.
You think that's bad... try NINE different varieties of Perform, a skill that doesn't actually do anything.
Here's how I fixed it:
Barbarian: 4+Int
Bard: 8+Int, along with removing Perform
Cleric: 4+Int
Druid: 4+Int
Fighter: 4+Int
Monk: 6+Int
Paladin: 4+Int
Ranger: 6+Int
Rogue: 8+Int
Sorcerer: 4+Int
Wizard: 4+Int
-Matt
Over the years I have seen many skill based fighters, that do stuff outside of combat.
Now you've hit on the head an argument I can agree with in favor of more skill points.
When someone wants to build a character who is competent in areas outside of their class focus, having limited skill points, or requiring massively high INT to pull it off is a bit much to ask.
One of my favorite fighters in all of literature is John Carter.
Over his years battling across the entirety of Barsoom he used many skills that a D&D/Pathfinder fighter would not likely have. Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Disguise, Climb, Escape Artist, Disable Device, Perception, Stealth, Ride, Fly, and of course, the ubiquitous John Carter Jump ("Sak!"). I would say, by the end of 11 novels (some of which he wasn't even in) he was a successful statesman (diplomacy, sense motive, and bluff all at near max), a successful rogue (stealth, climb, and perception all at or near max), and was considered the best "horseman" ("thoatsman") on the whole planet (ride at max). The other skills, jump at max, and decent levels of intimidate, disguise, escape artist, fly, and disable device since he used all of those sucessfully. In fact, I think his ability to control the atmosphere plant and to operate the space ship to Jasoom might even count as Use Magical Device at or near max.
Try doing all that with a D&D fighter. You'd need something like a 30 INT to even try to pull that off.
Does this step on the toes of the high skill classes?
Yes, giving extra skill points to classes with few skill points is an added class feature. When you consider that, for a rogue, having all those skills is a class feature, and if you assume the classes are fairly balanced as is, then adding to one side of the balance without adding to the other side will create an imbalance, even if it corrects a flaw in the system.
What I've proposed, but never done myself, is breaking the skills into categories.
Maybe:
Social Skills (bluff, intimidate, sense motive, diplomacy)
Action Skills (acrobatics, climb, escape artist, fly, swim)
Rogue Skills (disable device, disguise, sleight of hand, stealth)
Knowledge Skills (knowledges, linguistics, use magical device)
Common Skills (appraise, craft, handle animal, heal, perception, perform, profession, ride, survival).
Then you assign a number of points per category to each class.
Something like:
Barbarian: 2 Action, 1 Rogue, 2 Common
Bard: 2 Social, 1 Action, 2 Rogue, 2 Knowledge, 2 Common
Cleric: 2 Social, 2 Knowledge, 1 Common
Druid: 1 Action, 2 Knowledge, 3 Common
Fighter: 2 Action, 2 Common
Monk: 3 Action, 1 Common
Paladin: 2 Social, 1 Action, 1 Knowledge, 2 Common
Ranger: 2 Action, 1 Rogue, 1 Knowledge, 3 Common
Rogue: 2 Social, 2 Action, 3 Rogue, 1 Knowledge, 2 Common
Sorcerer: 1 Social, 2 Knowldege, 2 Common
Wizard: 4 Knowledge, 1 Common
And I'd recommend giving every adventuring class 1 bonus skill point to use in any category (or even limiting the bonus point to only use in a category in which that class has 0 or 1 skill point to encourage branching out a little).
That's off the top of my head - it probably needs some revision and balancing.
You'll notice that every class gained skill points the way I wrote that up, but they also can't just overload on the obvious skills. They need to put some thought into other skills that many PCs often ignore - especially the PCs with low skill points.
The main reason I never trid to implement this as a house rule was because I decided that power gamers would find one really good skill in each category, and everyone would end up jsut dumping their category points into the good skills. This gives almost Carte Blanche for every class in the game to have max Perception, for example.
Interesting point. It's not unlike core wizards having a d4 for hit points. It penalizes the party and the PC more.
I don't think that rolling Knowledge into a few skills would hurt either.
You could allow the fighter to trade in a "fighter" feat for say 8 skill points. It would allow more flexibility.
Yes, giving extra skill points to classes with few skill points is an added class feature. When you consider that, for a rogue, having all those skills is a class feature, and if you assume the classes are fairly balanced as is, then adding to one side of the balance without adding to the other side will create an imbalance, even if it corrects a flaw in the system.
So a bard, barbarian, Druid, ranger and monk already makes the Rogues skills pointless?
Sorry man I do not by that at all. And I have not seen that. Rogues are still skill monkeys in my game, but other classes now pick up the slack, the rogue and a wizard are not made to take skills because no one else has the points to spare. So ya get a fighter or wizard with an Int of 18 having 8 skill so? A rogue with Int of 18 has 12. I fail to see an issue here.
4 skills allows you to round out a char without having to have super Int. Sure if you want to be a super smart fighter or rogue or whatever, you will have more skill points. But skills never balanced anything mostly. They tried to but failed. Give a rogue 4 skills ya know what he is still a rogue, just no a skill monkey is all. Having less then 4 skills is a unneeded hardship, nothing more
You could allow the fighter to trade in a "fighter" feat for say 8 skill points. It would allow more flexibility.
They had something like that in the setting book. First level feat for 4 skill points per level, don't think thats a fair trade really, but some like it
|
If we were talking purely about 3.5, I would agree a point increase would be needed; however, with the consolidation of several skills and the reduction in cost for cross-class skills, I don't see this as necessary.
Remember, it isn't necessary to maximize every skill. Some lend themselves to this due to opposed nature of the skill - perception vs. stealth. Others only require a certain level to be effective - do you really need 12 ranks in a skill when the most difficult DC you face in your campaign is DC 10?
I don't believe every character should have max ranks in every skill either - this is a team game after all. If your wizard doesn't have the spare point to max rank Knowledge: Geography, maybe someone else in the party can? Does the Wizard really need max ranks in the skill, or will a rank or two suffice?
I realize there is some contention concerning the Fighter only having two points, but think of it this way - the fighter has the ultimate versatility with those two points. The fighter has no skills which are tied intimately to his abilities as a fighter. Several other classes do. What spellcaster doesn't need spellcraft to function? Can a ranger or barbarian track effectively without survival? Bards and rouges have a laundry list of needed skills.
If anything, maybe the fighter really needs the ability to swap out a few class skills at first level to allow him to focus on a particular motif more easily. Need a diplomatic fighter? Swap intimidate for diplomacy. Need a high-born warrior? Swap climb and swim for Know: nobility and know: history.
Just my four cents (inflation and all). Please feel free to agree/disagree/discuss/tear apart/point and laugh.
They had something like that in the setting book. First level feat for 4 skill points per level, don't think thats a fair trade really, but some like it
You could allow the fighter to trade in a "fighter" feat for say 8 skill points. It would allow more flexibility.
Bonus points, and it also made several of the Knowledge skills class skills I believe.
So a bard, barbarian, Druid, ranger and monk already makes the Rogues skills pointless?
I think you missed what he was saying. It's not that it would make a Rogue useless, it would be an adjustment to the balance of the classes. If we assume that the classes are all properly balanced, if you add something to a class (such as more skill points), you change the balance. The class gets a boost of extra skill points, and everything else gets nothing, making them a weaker choice in comparison. It's not necessarily a huge boost, but it is a boost.
I can tell you this is not the case. Not from what I have saw, it did stop the rogue/anything with 2 points dipping. You still see it but never for points. I really have not seen it lessen any of the classes, it was an artificial balance that really did nothing.
Personally, I've been seriously tempted to drop skills altogether and go with something more along the lines of C&C's SEIGE system. You can give the core skills to their respective classes as class features (survival goes to barbarians and rangers, spellcraft to wizards, etc.), but then otherwise, just let anyone try anything and test it against attributes with an experience level adjustment.
It's so much more flexible and easier to explain to players. The range of possible actions doesn't feel so arbitrary and it removes the video game like feeling in which players are restricted by the game engine (no, you can't jump over that 2 foot wall or swim across that shallow pool).
That said, for the existing system, I'm happy to give players more points. Skills add flavor and are less unbalancing than most other aspects of the game.
As people are saying that it is a boost to the fighter to get more than 2 skill per level (that is get 4 per level), I would like to raise a few points:
1: Rogues went from d6 to d8 (an important increase, stepping on the fighter’s toes?)
2: Rangers went from d8 to d10 (again, an important increase, stepping on the fighter’s toes?)
3: Skill consolidations:
Acrobatics: Balance, Jump and Tumble
Stealth: Hide and Move Silently
Disable Device: Open locks and Disable Device
Linguistics: Decipher Script, Forgery and Speak Languages
Diplomacy: Diplomacy and Gather Information
Perception: Listen, Search and Spot
So, for a rogue who used to have to spend 14 skill points, they now only need to spend 6 skill points and they even get an extra skill (Speak Languages). To me, that seems to be the same as giving them another 9 skill points per level?
A fighter has not benefited from the skill consolidation at all. He has gained Knowledge Dungeoneering and Engineering, Profession and Survival as class skills, but has had Jump removed (the only skill in the old skill list that was affected by the skill consolidation and it was removed from his list).
For years I have housed ruled that all classes get 4 skill points per level, without anyone feeling that any of the other classes were diminished in any way.
So, please explain to me again how giving the fighter 4 skill points per level is an unfair, unjustified modification to the game? I am not trying to be confrontational, but I am failing to understand the arguments being raised.
I can tell you this is not the case. Not from what I have saw, it did stop the rogue/anything with 2 points dipping. You still see it but never for points. I really have not seen it lessen any of the classes, it was an artificial balance that really did nothing.
Not trying to be unfriendly, but I can't figure out what you are attempting to convey here, the grammar is a bit too far off. There's a couple of things that could mean, and I don't want to misinterpret.
Mistwaker: I personally am not attempting to argue that any classes need more skill points, or that they shouldn't get them. I'm merely attempting to say that giving a class more skill points is a bonus to that class. If you feel the that the balance of the classes is a bit off, feel free to tinker with it.
I completely agree with you on the consolidation of the skills, it helps out the Rogues and Bards a lot, and not so much for Fighters. I run a house rule where Swim, Climb, and Jump into a skill called Athletics. It's something small, but I think it helps.
|
I agree that Fighters, Wizards, and in my opinion Clerics really need a skill boost. Fighters and Wizards just really need a little something on the side and for outside of combat completely. Sure Wizards have thier spells, but that is only if they purposefully give up their combat ability for it.
It is the same for Clerics, except Clerics do not have the tools they need to just do their basic job right. Besides being the healer/buffer, they are also suppossed to be the parties face, negotiator (partially), leaders, and source of guidance. What leader can not lie "for the greater good" or tell when other are BSing you? If they are the type of Priest that takes confession, shouldn't they have the ability to get various insinuations and know the truth when they hear it? If they are battle priests and tactical leaders, shouldn't they be able to sense a feint or some sort of deception? In 3.5 (because I don't know what final PathFinder will be doing), that just means 2 skills that should be available for Clerics, Bluff and Sense Motive. They really need these to both be Class skills and to have the skill points to put into them.
A few Domains granted extra class skills, but when you realize that you don't get the skill points to put into them, well, what's the point? High Ability Mods just don't cut it after like 2nd Level.
By giving more skills to a Fighter, they can build a swashbuckler, pirate, (exotic) weapon master, or whatever tank varient they want from the base class, or by multiclassing many other "prestige classes", like Monk/Fighter or Rogue/Fighter for Ninja.
Additionally, they can actually have a noncombat focus for personality, maybe go into a spiritual fighter build like Samurai, (normal fighter with ranks in something such as know: Nobility, Religion, and Craft: Caligraphy or Poetry).
I'd have to say that the Wizard probably need the bump the least. Unlike any other Class, they could just not memorize anything and spend the 15 minutes before attempting something to memorize something that will be useful. Besides, in a well rounded party, they should be able to rely on others for some skills. Any other caster for Know: Religion, Nature, and/or Planes, for example. If they really want all Know skills, they can just buy 5 ranks in all and continue with a few afterwards. That gives them a real good chance for knowing most things, but leaves room for other things as well. Heal they should always, always take, as they are the most likely to be left standing if everything in melee goes down hill.
|
|
I'd even go so far as to say Rogues (only) need to be dropped down to 6 or 4 skill points. They have gotten huge combat bumps, and with so many skills being consolidated, they really have just far to much. With 4, they can get the things they really need to have, lock picking, bluff, etc. . . and have a choice between one or two other things they want to be good at rather than being good at: skills.
Secondly, it will mean that the rest of the party gets to have a little fun when they can finally do something important out of combat that the rogue can't do better. It will also help to encourage a better sense of the party picking up the slack when others can't.
With 6 points, the rest of the party is still left far behind, but at least the rogues have to make a choice between A, B, C.
IMO, all the 2 + Int mod skill classes (cleric, fighter, paladin, sorcerer, and wizard) should be bumped up to 4 + Int mod. Granted, wizard probably needs it the least, but since they're supposed to be "masters of arcane lore and hidden knowledge," it's not as if it runs against the class concept.
In addition, monk really needs to be a 6 + Int mod class. As it stands in 3.x/PF, they are the only core class that does not meet at least one of the following criteria: +1 BAB per level, +1 CL and spell advancement per level, or at least 6 + Int mod skill ranks per level. They are unable to fill any of the basic functions of an adventuring group: combat focus, magic focus, or skill focus. Bards and rangers (as well as clerics once they hit 7th level) can fill two of the functions (magic/skills for bard, combat/skills for ranger, and combat/magic for clerics). Throw the class a bone and at least let them fill the skill focus function (which also returns them to their 1st Ed AD&D roots, where they gained all the thief "skills" except Pick Pockets).
2: Rangers went from d8 to d10 (again, an important increase, stepping on the fighter’s toes?)
Well just as an aside the old ranger would end up in general with more hps then the fighter on average and throughout most level he had more as well. I like him back at the same level at least once again.
I don't have an issue with 4 skill points for the fighters, clerics, wizards and the like. If you think it's needed fine.
With the pathfinder skill system though I don't know how needed it is.
First take your dwarven fighter with a 10 int. Maybe he takes craft (weapons), maybe he takes knowledge engineering. Fine at first level he has 4 ranks effectively in each.
In 3.5 he used 8 skill points to do the same, so no net change here.
Level 2, he wants to be the best axesmith around so another point in craft weapons. But he also wants to make his own armor, not be a great armor smith as well but be able to do it, 1 point in craft armor.
Well that is in effect 4 points in craft armor and 1 in improving his craft weapons.
Compared to 3.5 he just had 5 skills point to spend at level 2. 5, that's one more then your asked for 4.
And this can go on and on with him focused on one skill but sampling many to make his skill list a little more balanced.
But think of the guy who wants a skilled fighter, what does he need to do to really build it. Clearly being a human with the bonus skill point helps, but skip that for now. Think back to the dwarven fighter, make fighter his choosen class (+1 skill point per level if you want it, and why not your a fighter if you really want the extra hps just take toughness.) Also throw 2 points into int.
What do you now have, 4 skill points per level. But as you saw before they will act like many more in this system. Pathfinder lets you branch out into in class skills with just one point making it useful. You don't need a ton of skill points to make a skill fighter, but with just a small adjustment you can increase your skill numbers even more.
We came up with a customization to handle this.
When creating a character, you get a number of skill points at 0 level (before taking any racial hit dice or class levels) based on your stats.
The number of skills is equal to 3 times your stat bonus. If your bonus is +0, you get 2 skill points, and 1 if it's -1. Stats bonus's below -1 don't get skill points. Those skill points can only be spent on skills that use that stat (so, for example, Skill points given from STR can only be spent on Climb, Jump, Swim (using SRD)). You can 'cross class' physical skill points (spending 2 con skill points on a dex skill, for one rank) for other physical skills, and mental skills for other mental skills (trading 2 INT points for a +1 rank in spot for exmaple). The maximum ranks you can put in at 0 level is 3 (Again, for SRD). Then when you take your first hitdie of race or class, you only get skill points equal to what you would get for second level (no * 4).
This results in everyone starting out with a similar number of skills, and very varied skills, but after a few levels, the skill classes are still way ahead, but the fighters and clerics aren't bumbling morons who are useless out of combat.
I've been playing with ways to adapt this to the way PF does skills, but so far, I haven't found a way to make it work except to replace the first level skill points from class/race with skill points equal to the attribute bonus's themselves (IE: Str 12 get's you one STR skill point) which must be spent on Str Skills. Perhaps giving an additional number of skill points equal to INT bonus that can be spent anywhere. The problem for me being that there's no real CON skill in PF.
|
|
Has anyone seen Monte Cook's World of Darkness? There is an amazing skill system there. Essentially, it is based more off of D20 Modern than 3.5 D&D, but most of the stuff is similar enough to freely convert over. Each character gets to Focus in two skills sets every time they level. Each skill set get 2-4 skills. At 1st level you get max ranks. Each other level, you get +1 Rank to all the skills in the set you chose.
You can swap between Skill sets at any level you want. An example skill set is Hide and Movel Silently, or Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive, or all Knowledges. They are set, and there are only like 6 - 10 (I forget) of them, so you don't just get to pick all the skills you want.
It is incredibly easy once you get how it works, and there is never any bother as to how many skill points you get this level, or what is cross-class for this new class, and what is max ranks.
And the ride skill now getting an ACP. It makes the 2 point skills hurt that much worse for the classes who might use mounted combat.
Actually, that is incorrect. The Ride skill is not affected by ACP. The description in the equipement section does state "all" dex and str skills, but in the skill section itself, the Ride skill does not have the tag "(Dex; Armor Check Penalty)".
|
|
Again, I say that some classes need more, but I don't want to see something like 4 + Int in now minimum, or everyone gets +2 skills/level. That really doesn't solve the problems as much as switch it from deficiency to powergaming deficiency.
I know it's a little late but some of the problem is that the classes that are hurt the most also don't have the class skills, not just the skill points. So what if, rather than you get # + Int skills per level, you get ranks in skills based on your Class. You get to add your Int Bonus as additional Class skills, and you get an addition single (any) skill.
Again, I say that some classes need more, but I don't want to see something like 4 + Int in now minimum, or everyone gets +2 skills/level. That really doesn't solve the problems as much as switch it from deficiency to powergaming deficiency.
I know it's a little late but some of the problem is that the classes that are hurt the most also don't have the class skills, not just the skill points. So what if, rather than you get # + Int skills per level, you get ranks in skills based on your Class. You get to add your Int Bonus as additional Class skills, and you get an addition single (any) skill.
Actually,
I've been seriously considering adding the following feat as a houserule.Skilled
You have had extensive training in two related skills, and may consider them class skills.
Benefit: Choose any two related skills (subject to DM approval), and treat those skills as class skills. Some examples might be Handle Animal and Ride being taken by a Sorcerer to represent a sorcerer member of a horse clan. Another example might be a wizard taking Slight of Hand & Perform (Acting) to be a street magician.
This seems to fit with many of the existing 'add class skills' feats in that it is two related skills that get added to your class list.
|
|
The only problem I have with this, is that feat is so much easier for some classes to give up than it is for others. But, for the reasoning behind the feat, (character personality), you shouldn't have to make that sort of sacrifice. I could really see it as a 1st level freebie, or maybe the feats give you a little extra, like you get free 1/2 ranks in the skills at each new level?
The second side to this is the problem I always had with certain 3.5 Clerics. If you take, say Trickery, you add Bluff, Disguise, and Hide to your Cleric Class skills. Sounds really good, except if you are human, roll fairly well to get a +1 Int, and are playing in a standard D&D game setup, that gives you a total of 4 skills per level. As the Cleric, you need, minimum Concentration, Diplomacy, Know: Religion, and maybe Spellcraft. Thats your 4 skills per level. You give up things you need for your class to get something that should be yours. Either a "Not-A-Cleric of Trickery" or a "Cleric that should be but is not at all Tricky".
The only problem I have with this, is that feat is so much easier for some classes to give up than it is for others. But, for the reasoning behind the feat, (character personality), you shouldn't have to make that sort of sacrifice. I could really see it as a 1st level freebie, or maybe the feats give you a little extra, like you get free 1/2 ranks in the skills at each new level?
The second side to this is the problem I always had with certain 3.5 Clerics. If you take, say Trickery, you add Bluff, Disguise, and Hide to your Cleric Class skills. Sounds really good, except if you are human, roll fairly well to get a +1 Int, and are playing in a standard D&D game setup, that gives you a total of 4 skills per level. As the Cleric, you need, minimum Concentration, Diplomacy, Know: Religion, and maybe Spellcraft. Thats your 4 skills per level. You give up things you need for your class to get something that should be yours. Either a "Not-A-Cleric of Trickery" or a "Cleric that should be but is not at all Tricky".
Well,
I don't think adding freebie skills to every class is a great idea, honestly. Not slamming you, just saying, the skill monkies get so many that adding two to them is really kind of worthless normally. Plus, giving someone half HD in ranks for a single feat would make the skill monkies take it more often than the people who need it (like your cleric). They would take it for skills they already have on their list, and it wouldn't be fair to tell them they can't take it. I'd add a +2, but there are already feats to give a +2 to skills (skill focus, Acrobatic, etc). So that would give this feat the benefit of both the skill and skill focus or acrobatics or whatever. That's sort of double dipping the feats.I agree clerics and fighters don't get the skills they should have to use skills, but I try to balance the skill against everything else too. Perhaps adding a +1 to the skills as a competence bonus for taking the feat. I believe there is a forgotten realms feat that does this (Educated, add all knowledges to class list, and give a number equal to INT mod a +1 competence bonus). That feat's 1st level only though. I could see modifying it to be 'Unusual Background' and giving you a choice of any 2 related skills, each getting a +2 competence bonus, but takeable at 1st level only. If you're going to replicate existing feats, it's best to keep them similar. I don't know of any feat that grants '1/2 HD as ranks' to any skill.
|
|
Sorry, my original post was eaten, and I didn't add this part the second time. With the freebie feat, what I was suggesting is that the character essentially lose two skill ranks and get that instead. So in the end they are not getting more skill points, just the option of picking up a few choice skills. I also suggested either it is a 1st level only thing, or that characters can only take the feat once, and the ranks are not retroactive.
|
IMO, all the 2 + Int mod skill classes (cleric, fighter, paladin, sorcerer, and wizard) should be bumped up to 4 + Int mod. [snip] In addition, monk really needs to be a 6 + Int mod class. As it stands in 3.x/PF, they are the only core class that does not meet at least one of the following criteria: +1 BAB per level, +1 CL and spell advancement per level, or at least 6 + Int mod skill ranks per level. They are unable to fill any of the basic functions of an adventuring group: combat focus, magic focus, or skill focus.
An interesting point which I would not otherwise have noted, about the Monks. APs sometimes slot a Monk into the 'skill-monkey' slot as well (as in 2nd Darkness, where Sajan was the 'skill-monkey'), and the 1st edition Monk had quite a few Thief abilities strapped on, so the idea is hardly without some good precedent.
In short, yeah, total agreement with this. 4+Int mod for Clerics, Fighters and Wizards (and, in general, as bare minimum for any class), and 6+Int mod for Monks (who, keeping with the pseudo-asian flavor, should have some points left over to splash into stuff like calligraphy and gardening and whatnot).
Sorry, my original post was eaten, and I didn't add this part the second time. With the freebie feat, what I was suggesting is that the character essentially lose two skill ranks and get that instead. So in the end they are not getting more skill points, just the option of picking up a few choice skills. I also suggested either it is a 1st level only thing, or that characters can only take the feat once, and the ranks are not retroactive.
Ok, a little confused, but let me see if I understand. You're saying give up two skill points at 1st level to add two skills to the class list? And then from the point they take it they get one rank every other level? Are they continuing to lose skill points to accomodate this? I would think no (I hope so). Thing is, giving up two ranks at 1st level when you likely only get two sounds really painful, and you would have no ranks in any skill at 1st level if you were a 2+ class with an average int. That sounds way more painful.
I really like the Pathfinder skill system. They merged some skills that should have never been split (like balance and tumble, sheesh), got rid of synergy (as far as I can tell, which KISS), and got rid of the 'level + 3) and 2 for 1. Then the bonus +3 for a class skill if you put a rank into it really rocks.
I think really that the following would be balanced in PF.
Unusual Background Training
You have an unusual background, and have skills not normally taught to the majority of your class.
PreReq: 1st Level Character
Benefit: Pick any two related skills (DM approval), and add them to your list of class skills. In addition, you gain a +2 untyped bonus to these two skills.
So,
By the above, just putting a single rank into both the picked skills gives you (Attribute Modifier) + 1 (Rank) + 3 (Class Bonus) + 2 (Feat Bonus). I think that's not a bad use of a feat at 1st level, and for a skill poor class an excellent ability to use two non-class skills effectively at 1st level.
I've thought about this a few times and I am mostly happy with the starting skill allocations. I have seen games that rely more heavily on skills and those that rely less on them. As I look over the classes, here are my thoughts.
Fighter - This class is borderline for me. But, since I added that feat (can't remember the name) that allows a fighter to use his first level feat to change his skills from 2+Int to 4+Int I have been happy. Those players that want fighters with more skills have the option.
Cleric - This class is strong enough to me that having low skills seems more of a balancing factor and I am fine with it.
Wizard - With the Int bonus to skills, they seem fine to me with regard to skills. Haven't had a player complain yet here.
Rogue - Skill monkey. The pathfinder changes to skills really bumped up their options. I'm ok with them.
Bard - If there is one class I would change, this would be it. They aren't the greatest at much and I feel this class should benefit from the 8+Int spread.
Druid, Barbarian - Looks ok.
Paladin - I will have to wait to see the final version of the Paladin before I make a call here. I know there have been considerable changes to the class.
Sorcerer - This class should benefit from a bump. The nature of the class itself seems to call for an increase. Wizards have the larger intelligence.
Ranger, Monk - Looks good as is.
The benefit of an added skill point or hp for those taking favored class levels was a change I enjoyed that also helped those that wanted a few more skill points. The human race also can benefit those that want more skills.
|
|
I don't know, just a concept I'm still tossing around in my head. I was kind of thinking of them like the two feats from Heroes of Battle. One is for Spot and Listen, one is for Hide and Move Silently. Both make those skills cost 1 Rank (for all Classes), but they are still Cross-Class for max Ranks.
Has anyone ever tried a game where there are no Class/Cross-Class Skills. You just put ranks into whatever you want your character to have. So a 1st level Human Paladin (+0 Int) could have say 4 Bluff, 4 Intimidate, and 4 Ride.
How did that work out?
I don't know, just a concept I'm still tossing around in my head. I was kind of thinking of them like the two feats from Heroes of Battle. One is for Spot and Listen, one is for Hide and Move Silently. Both make those skills cost 1 Rank (for all Classes), but they are still Cross-Class for max Ranks.
Has anyone ever tried a game where there are no Class/Cross-Class Skills. You just put ranks into whatever you want your character to have. So a 1st level Human Paladin (+0 Int) could have say 4 Bluff, 4 Intimidate, and 4 Ride.
How did that work out?
Uhm,
That pretty much sounds like pathfinder. Max ranks = Hit Die. You can put your ranks in any skill you want. If it's a class skill, you get a +3 bonus (or 4 at first level).
PF skill points should be left alone imo.
PF already combined a lot of skills together, so in general characters should have more freedom in PF compared to 3.5. PF has gives out more skill points per level (if you take your favored class). The only "problem" is you get hardly any skill points at level 1 and it feels very different compared to V3.5.
Wizards don't need every single knowledge skill and they certainly don't need to be maxed out in all of them. They also have high Int which still gives them plenty of skills. There is an argument for Wizards having 4 skill points per level (they are book worms), but class balance is also important.
I don't see the argument for either fighters, clerics, wizards or sorcerors having more skills. They had the same # of skills in 3.5, nothing has changed. Wizards and sorcs no longer have to get Concentration AND Spellcraft, so they just gained a skill point. Fighters should have had Jump and Climb combined into Athletics, but that's another story.
Other classes have more skill points because that's where their training time is spent. They're good at things like acrobatics, athletics, stealth, bluffing, picking pockets, things not all classes are trained at.
Another note, there should be SOME incentive for making characters with a high INT. Right now, far too many people are getting used to making "combat monkeys". If you want to make a combat monkey, you won't have as many skills, so deal with it. INT is the forgotten stat imo, yet it should be perhaps the most important.
On the skill rant. PF beta combined some skills, which was good, and combined some rogue skills, which I thought was bad.
I feel that some rogue skills, skills that really define the rogue class, should NOT have been combined. It allows other classes to get these skills at a low cost, even if it's a cross class skill. For example, Open Lock should not have been combined with Disable Device. And perhaps Move Silent and Hide should not have been combined into Stealth. Gather Information should not have been rolled into Diplomacy (there are diplomats without "street sense" or connections).
Some skill combinations were good. Combining a skill like Perception (spot, search) was good. Combining Tumble and Balance into Acrobatics was good. Concentration into Spellcraft was also good. Use Rope into Survival was good. Decipher and Forge combined into Linguistics was also good.
Some skills should have been combined but weren't, for example Climb and Jump should have been combined into Athletics, especially to make it easier on fighters. Disguise should have been eliminated and made part of Bluff. Knowledge (nobility) should have been combined with either Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (history), and maybe Knowledge (geography) should have been combined as well.
Edit: I almost forgot about the Fly skill. I don't think that it was needed.
Ah well, I guess we'll see what comes out of the PF RPG.
|
|
What we did a long time ago was break skills into two broad groups, class skills and general skills.
Class skills was things that only certain people by their profession might know.
General skills was things anyone could reasonable learn depending now they was raised. Swimming, riding as a couple of examples.
Then each class got their normal class skill points but also everyone got 4 general skill points that could only be spent on general skills. This made for more well rounded characters. like fighters that took cooking to show they picked it from being in the army. let everyone pick up things like swim and ride with out cutting into key class skills. ect.
So far it has worked well for us.
Have you ever used the cloistered cleric variant in your game?
It has turned out to be a popular variant in our FR game.
I want to see the educated classes, wizard &cleric, brought up to at least 4 skill points + Int bonus per lvl.
My reason is simple they need more skills to do the job/role that they were designed for.
I will never understand how a illiterate barbarian or a daisy picking druid, classes not associated with scholarly pursuits, can get more skill points than a class noted for their knowledge or wisdom. If all knowledge skills are open to them shouldn’t they have the points to take advantage of the feature?
I'm not saying every skill has to be at max ranks but being able to keep up with the demand of "hey what’s that creature" would be nice.
My group uses knowledge skills the way the book says to. If it's undead know. Religion, Magical Beast know. arcanna but if the party doesn’t have a druid it's up to the mage to fill in on what a shambling mound or a treant can do. No Bard then hello cleric with a know. History lesson. But the skill points as it is do not support that.My solution is simple. DO NOT penalize the other classes simply make the 2+int. go away for all(except peasant or adept) and increase the minimum to 4+int. for all.
Thank You
P.S. if this topic has been brought up before then I couldn't find it.