Skill points and Enabling more fun!

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Let me just begin by saying I love all the changes to Pathfinder, but was disappointed by the lack of one change.

2 skill points a level for Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, Wizards and Sorcerers just isn't enough.

Let's take a halfling fighter who wants to ride his handy riding dog into combat. A fun class choice because the mount can enter most dungeons without issues. Now if he wants to be a decent rider he'll need a high Dex, if he wants decent damage, he'll be a halfling in melee so he'll definitely need a high Con, he'll need a high Str and since he's not a druid or ranger he'll probably need a high Cha to get the most out of Handle animal. That's 4 high abilities. Let's give him the array I give my players 18, 17, 15,13, 11, 10. So we'll give him Str 16, Dex 19, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 15

Now even if our halfling chooses fighter as his favoured class and picks the bonus skill point at level one that leaves him with three skills.
Handle Animal +6
Ride +8
and Survival +4
I suppose.

Basically any time he isn't directly interacting with his animal, or killing something our poor fighter has nothing to do! While the other characters are searching for secret passages, or researching ancient tomes, or climbing/swimming etc our Halfling is patting his doggie.

Now if we move his skill points up to 4 per level then his skill list at level one might look like this:

Handle Animal +6
Ride +8
Survival +4
Stealth +8
Intimidate +6

Now when the elf rogue goes a-sneakin' ahead the Halfling can sneak along on his trusty steed. Or when the Bard is shakin' down some information at the local tavern the halfling and his trusty hound are in a position to play "bad cop" with intimidate aiding the Bard's Diplomacy.

What more skill points does - It gives characters more opportunities to meaningfully interact in non-combat situations (aids ROLE playing as well as ROLL playing).

The cons - the other classes might feel that their skillful toes are stepped on. But I contend that instead the Monk, Barbarian and Druid with their skill taxes (Handle Animal for Druid, Acrobatics for Monk, Intimidate for Barbarians) would be glad to have someone aid them in their non-combat endeavours.

So anyway that's why I'm house ruling 4 skill points/level minimum.

[Skaorn]

If you're giving +2 to those classes you should really give it to all the classes to be fair.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I dunno, it just seems overkill to give everyone +2. Part of the choice was also because of the way HD and BAB have 3 levels rather than 4(with barbarian as the exception for HD).

Skill points should to me have 3 levels rather than 4 (with the Rogue being the exception to the rule due to his role as skill-monkey).

[mavikfelna]

I whole heartedly agree with this. Particularly with the spell casters. Clerics in particular.

A wizard with a 20 Int and wizard favored class will be getting 8 skill points normally, and that's about right for what he needs. But how many start with that high of an Int?

And a cleric, who is going to be lucky to have a 14 Int as Int is the only real dump stat a cleric has, will have 5 skill points.

Now, at low level that's not a huge problem, but when a cleric or wizard gets to be much higher in level, they're not going to have much in the way of knowledge skills because they've had to use the points elsewhere. And just doesn't feel right. And of course, if they follow a prestige class they're likely to get sorted even more with the loss of the favored class bonus.

--Mav

[Count Buggula]

There's always an extra skill point gained from favored class - that ain't nothin'.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Which doesn't cover the deficiency that the 2 skill points/level character feels in non-combat situations.

Additionally those extra skill points can be put into cross class skills to give your character that extra delicious flavour. A Fighter with Knowledge (Nobility) would make an excellent Knight or Noble, but again he'd have to lose out on more useful skills to fill out his flavour skills. That doesn't sit right with me.

[Sean FitzSimon]

I agree with bumping the skills to 4 for all classes except Wizard. Intelligence is their primary ability score, which leaves them with gobs of skills points, even right off the bat. Wizards weren't even designed to be skillful characters, as demonstrated by their poor class skill set.

[Dorgar]

This was about the only thing I really tried to emphasize during the play test. Please adjust the skill points, I am happy with the CC no longer costing two a rank, but that got whammyed by the no more x4 at first level it is +3 for class skills. This made me sad because it seemed to stifle the role play to me. My group loves their skills to reflect there characters back stories, and pre adventurer life. The PRPG l does not help this aspect when it comes to skills. I appreciate the trait bonuses giving a nod to back story, but this just does not compensate. In my game I kept the x4 at first level and made CC only cost one rank. During Beta I played around with boosting skill points. I will drag out my stuff later and post my changes. Once PRPG came out though and we started the CotCT I reset to Ranks as listed, but kept the x4. (I didn't want my players to be totally turned off by PFS, or playing in someone elses game balking at the skill points). What I learned in my play test was it didn't seem to break the game in the slightest Players could do things. you didn't have to say does anyone have Know local? and everyone look at each other like "yeah sure I do" I think the real problem was this was a highly contested subject, and the opposition was very vocal. So they stuck to compatibility. I understand this decision I just regret it. And yes I know I can houserule it the way I want, and I do when I am DM, but this does nothing for my PFS characters, or my Characters that I play in other peoples Campaigns who want to stick to as written. I love Paizo and PRPG, but I feel they missed a real opportunity here.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Sean FitzSimon wrote:

I agree with bumping the skills to 4 for all classes except Wizard. Intelligence is their primary ability score, which leaves them with gobs of skills points, even right off the bat. Wizards weren't even designed to be skillful characters, as demonstrated by their poor class skill set.

Which is why even if they end up with a veritable cornucopia of skill points they'd be able to make Cross-Class choices they wouldn't otherwise get to make.

An Illusionist with Stealth? You got it.

An Evoker with Intimidate? Bam!

A Conjurer with Diplomacy for making deals with Devils? Sure.

A Varisian Universalist with Acrobatics? As you wish!

The Wizard has the ability to gain a wide variety of skills, but not to any depth. Plus it encourages wizards to take even more of those all-important Knowledge Skills. Knowledge is something that is incredibly useful as a GM tool for enticing the players to investigate further, or become more involved in the world.

[Dorgar]

Quote:

Knowledge is something that is incredibly useful as a GM tool for enticing the players to investigate further, or become more involved in the world.

I couldn't agree more.

[Bikis]

If you really want those extra skills, there are some feats to gain extra ranks in non-core books.

As well, the favored class bonus is a solid +1.

If you really need them, invest in a better int to get the ranks you need.

[Dorgar]

I hear ya, and I usually do drop my favored bonus into SP over HP, but in point buy games of 20 or 15 it can be hard to squeeze extra points into int while still giving your primary stats for the class the attention they need. I do my best though.

[Jabor]

If you're going for an uber-dex for Riding, I see no reason not to go the Finesse route and give Strength a miss completely. Taking it from 12 to 16 only gives you the rough equivalent of Weapon Spec in the weapon you're using, at the cost of twelve (if you're a halfling) ability points.

That frees up enough points to bring Intelligence up to 13 or 14, which gives access to the Combat Expertise tree and an additional one or two skills.

[Sir Hexen Ineptus]

I personally was thinking all classes getting +2 class ranks would have been better. Bringing up the 2+int to 4+int would have been fine though.

[nathan blackmer]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Let me just begin by saying I love all the changes to Pathfinder, but was disappointed by the lack of one change.

2 skill points a level for Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, Wizards and Sorcerers just isn't enough.

Let's take a halfling fighter who wants to ride his handy riding dog into combat. A fun class choice because the mount can enter most dungeons without issues. Now if he wants to be a decent rider he'll need a high Dex, if he wants decent damage, he'll be a halfling in melee so he'll definitely need a high Con, he'll need a high Str and since he's not a druid or ranger he'll probably need a high Cha to get the most out of Handle animal. That's 4 high abilities. Let's give him the array I give my players 18, 17, 15,13, 11, 10. So we'll give him Str 16, Dex 19, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 15

Now even if our halfling chooses fighter as his favoured class and picks the bonus skill point at level one that leaves him with three skills.
Handle Animal +6
Ride +8
and Survival +4
I suppose.

Basically any time he isn't directly interacting with his animal, or killing something our poor fighter has nothing to do! While the other characters are searching for secret passages, or researching ancient tomes, or climbing/swimming etc our Halfling is patting his doggie.

Now if we move his skill points up to 4 per level then his skill list at level one might look like this:

Handle Animal +6
Ride +8
Survival +4
Stealth +8
Intimidate +6

Now when the elf rogue goes a-sneakin' ahead the Halfling can sneak along on his trusty steed. Or when the Bard is shakin' down some information at the local tavern the halfling and his trusty hound are in a position to play "bad cop" with intimidate aiding the Bard's Diplomacy.

What more skill points does - It gives characters more opportunities to meaningfully interact in non-combat situations (aids ROLE playing as well as ROLL playing).

The cons - the other classes might feel that their skillful toes are stepped on. But I contend that instead the...

I agree whole-heartedly.

Role-playing is a shared storytelling experience, and if a fighter wants to be skilled in diplomacy, who am I to stop them? I've actually taken to letting the players pick there own skill lists (I give them a number, they pick that number of skills they have through life experiences).
I dislike the way the system treats skill points. I will routinely award additional skill points in a skill through effective or innovative use. I think it gives the game a more organic flow when the players see some of there abilities increase through use rather then just the arbitrary level up.
You've definately got the basic rule down...the rules are just guidelines-adjust or ignore as you will.

[Chewbacca]

I can see the point to avoid too many skills due to people exagerating.

Nevertheless, my house rules comes to +2 skill points for everyone for each level.

At the end it steps on the toes of the rogue (and a bit on the bard's). But this is SO MUCH better IMO.... :D

[Skaorn]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I dunno, it just seems overkill to give everyone +2. Part of the choice was also because of the way HD and BAB have 3 levels rather than 4(with barbarian as the exception for HD).

Skill points should to me have 3 levels rather than 4 (with the Rogue being the exception to the rule due to his role as skill-monkey).

What your talking about is 2 Skill levels (4+ and 6+) with Rogues being the exception (8+). You're also giving a boost to some classes while ignoring others. Now in 3.5 I would have been fine with giving Sorcerers and Fighters 4+, but with the attention they got in Pathfinder I don't think they need a free upgrade. Having 4, 6, 8, and 10 would still give you what you want and not leave your monk player asking what she gets.

[Adam Olsen]

I'd start by eliminating Int from the skill point formula. It can be the modifier on specific skills, just like wis and cha, rather than being a super-modifier for everything.

Compensate by giving wizards a knowledge boost, either with bonus ranks just for knowledge, or through bardic knowledge.

Then you can boost all the classes by +2/level or whatever.

Could add a feat for +1/level. I'd also consider moving Disable Device to int, especially since any character can use it on non-magical traps!

[Xaaon of Korvosa]

Skaorn wrote:

If you're giving +2 to those classes you should really give it to all the classes to be fair.

The "fair" thing is making sure everyone has fun in most situations...

2+int SP isn't fun...That was my first house-rule for PRPG.

I tried to get Jason to change it in Beta, but he wouldn't budge...

a 10int Fighter at level one, can get...2 pretty good skills in PRPG, in 3.0 he could get 8 base level skills, or 1 pretty good skill and 4 base, or 4 @ 2 ranks, low level is where skills are THE MOST IMPORTANT, when you're taking 20 just to try to succeed, skills enhance the role-play aspect of the game...

Having Knowledge skills gives players opportunities to interact with the story, to learn more about the world they're playing in...without having to feed them lines from NPCs.

My thought is, lots of skill points can't Break the game, too few skill points can destroy plots.

Traits are GREAT, granting new class skills and even a free skill point for some of them, perfect!

[angryscrub]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Let me just begin by saying I love all the changes to Pathfinder, but was disappointed by the lack of one change.

2 skill points a level for Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, Wizards and Sorcerers just isn't enough.

Let's take a halfling fighter who wants to ride his handy riding dog into combat. A fun class choice because the mount can enter most dungeons without issues. Now if he wants to be a decent rider he'll need a high Dex, if he wants decent damage, he'll be a halfling in melee so he'll definitely need a high Con, he'll need a high Str and since he's not a druid or ranger he'll probably need a high Cha to get the most out of Handle animal. That's 4 high abilities. Let's give him the array I give my players 18, 17, 15,13, 11, 10. So we'll give him Str 16, Dex 19, Con 15, Int 11, Wis 10, Cha 15

Now even if our halfling chooses fighter as his favoured class and picks the bonus skill point at level one that leaves him with three skills.
Handle Animal +6
Ride +8
and Survival +4
I suppose.

only you forgot

Acrobatics +6
Climb +5
Escape Artist +4
Perception +2
Stealth +8
Swim +3

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Basically any time he isn't directly interacting with his animal, or killing something our poor fighter has nothing to do! While the other characters are searching for secret passages, or researching ancient tomes, or climbing/swimming etc our Halfling is patting his doggie.

as i point out above, he's actually probably better than most at balancing, sneaking, swimming, and climbing. not exactly much reason to be sitting around doing nothing.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Now if we move his skill points up to 4 per level then his skill list at level one might look like this:

Handle Animal +6
Ride +8
Survival +4
Stealth +8
Intimidate +6

stealth +9 you mean. or, he could start out as you outline above, make use of the skills you ignored initially, and be decent. and instead of house ruling, if the player decides he wants more skill points, he/she can do one rogue level for every two fighter levels. this still averages out to 4 per level, and by level 12 (fighter 8/rogue 4)the character has sacrificed some combat ability for the additional skills and some nice complementary rogue talents. if you use the combat rogue variant from unearthed arcana you wouldn't even have to sacrifice any bonus feats.

an even better fit for this character though would probably be just alternating fighter and ranger levels. 4 SP per level average and some nice mount synergy.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Now when the elf rogue goes a-sneakin' ahead the Halfling can sneak along on his trusty steed. Or when the Bard is shakin' down some information at the local tavern the halfling and his trusty hound are in a position to play "bad cop" with intimidate aiding the Bard's Diplomacy.

What more skill points does - It gives characters more opportunities to meaningfully interact in non-combat situations (aids ROLE playing as well as ROLL playing).

i agree with this, but this is exactly why int is almost never a dump stat for me. and in this, i consider fighters to be rather like jocks. an average intelligence jock who's really good at his sport is going to be able to quote you rules, stats, plays, strategies, famous games, but odds are high he'll know very little about most anything else because he spends all his time practicing and training for the game. it's all consuming and takes exceptional intelligence to also be really good at a bunch of other things. and combat is a pretty intensely demanding sport if you want to be the best.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The cons - the other classes might feel that their skillful toes are stepped on. But I contend that instead the Monk, Barbarian and Druid with their skill taxes (Handle Animal for Druid, Acrobatics for Monk, Intimidate for Barbarians) would be glad to have someone aid them in their non-combat endeavours.

So anyway that's why I'm house ruling 4 skill points/level minimum.

or maybe they'd be even happier to also get 2 extra skill points without having to sacrifice anything? druid with plant domain doesn't need handle animal. a monk bruiser doesn't need acrobatics. HULK SMASH! (and even if you're convinced a monk does, it would make more sense to have the monks jump bonus apply to ANY acrobatics check). and i definitely fail to see why a barbarian must have intimidate. the character you made above could just as easily been a barbarian maxing out handle animal, ride, knowledge nature, perception, and survival and had plenty to offer in and out of combat.

and if you do house rule more skill points, what of the monk and barbarian? now the fighter is just as good out of combat, but the monk maybe needs full BAB and bigger hit dice? and crap, now the barbarian maybe needs additional speed boosts and bonus feats to keep up with the monk. i dunno, it just seems like a slippery slope that winds up in power creep lane.

EDIT: just occurred to me a good house rule might be if you want to have more skill points, but don't want to deal with the staggered progression of 2 fighter levels per one rogue level, just let the player have four per level for fighter levels and rogue levels, but they have to take one rogue for every two fighter levels. would just make the bookkeeping a little easier

[Mylon]

Why are you guys so up in arms over skill points? I don't get it.

A skill point in Pathfinder is worth like 1.5 to 2 skill points in 3.5. With the exception of Wizards and their knowledge skills, everyone got a boost to skill points!

Fighters got a pretty big boost to fighting. If you want to play a multi-talented fighter, then don't be afraid to splash a little into intelligence, or go ahead and take a level of something with more skill points. Ranger if you want sheer mass without compromising base attack, rogue if you want all of the neat skills and even more. A level 3 fighter level 1 rogue should have plenty of skill points for anything. Remember, rogue is NOT a thief, it could also just be an expert. Or still, fighters get plenty of feats, so taking a +2/+2 feat isn't a huge drain for a fighter. For many skills, including "hobbies" or pre-adventuring, +1 is plenty enough to represent that knowledge and should and it's all many NPCs get to work with. Anything more and you're bordering more on the realm of a skilled tradesman rather than an adventurer with a passing interest.