It seems to me that the skill rank ruleset doesn't flow or make sense. Classes get an arbitrary set of class skills and an arbitrary number of ranks plus intelligence.
Intelligence? Really?! A stupid fighter who dedicates his single rank-per-level into profession: cooking (Fighter roleplaying? It's more likely than you think!) can't climb, swim, jump or dungeoneer worth a damn.
It all seems so... Arbitrary.
Are there any alternative systems?
|
Even your worlds stupidest fighter with 7 intelligence in a point-buy can still get 2 skill ranks a level with favoured class and 3 a level if hes human. If he's been 'classically trained' by exchanging his first bonus feat for 4+int modifier skill ranks per level, Mr Stupid Fighter can still enjoy 3 skill ranks a level and 4 if hes human.
|
You could implement something akin to D&D 4e's skill rules. There are only really three levels of traing:
Untrained
Trained
Skill Focus (as in the feat Skill Focus)
The actual skill modifier can vary within that though as the modifier is calculated as follows:
Untrained
Half your level (rd) + Ability Modifier
Trained
Half your level (rd) + Ability Modifier + 5
Skill Focus Feat
Half your level (rd) + Ability Modifier + 5 + 3
So a 5th level Fighter with Str Mod of +3 untrained in Climb would have a modifier of +5, trained it would be +10 and focused it would be +13
You get training at 1st level only a certain number of your class skills, so a Fighter could be Trained in 2+Int Skills (3+Int if Human) - you'd need to drop the Skill bonus for preferred class.
To get training in another skill you would need to spend a feat (Skill Training, a new feat to Pathfinder), this could be training in any skill, class or not. Perhaps not allow Skill Focus to be chosen for non-class skills to preserve some niche?
Anyway, some ideas to consider
It seems to me that the skill rank ruleset doesn't flow or make sense. Classes get an arbitrary set of class skills and an arbitrary number of ranks plus intelligence.
Intelligence? Really?! A stupid fighter who dedicates his single rank-per-level into profession: cooking (Fighter roleplaying? It's more likely than you think!) can't climb, swim, jump or dungeoneer worth a damn.It all seems so... Arbitrary.
Are there any alternative systems?
He can climb, swim and jump just fine. Let's say he's got 16 strength and no ranks in acrobatics, because he's a trained cook. If he's doing a running jump, he'll jump an average of 13 feet (~4 meters). His record, should he take 20, would be 23 feet. That's pretty decent for the average strong man who hasn't trained doing that, seeing as how the world record is ~29 feet for men and ~25 feet for women.
Skill ranks is simply your training in a certain field, you can still do it without training if you have the talent (ability scores). At least when it comes to climbing and jumping.
And as said, all fighters are guaranteed access to at least 2 skill points per level should they want, and 3 if you're a human. If you're not stupid, it's 3 (or 4 if you're human).
Intelligence makes decent sense, since it's training and not talent. I could see an argument being made that wisdom should be the ruling stat for skill points, but I think intelligence is the best after all.
He can climb, swim and jump just fine. Let's say he's got 16 strength and no ranks in acrobatics, because he's a trained cook. If he's doing a running jump, he'll jump an average of 13 feet (~4 meters). His record, should he take 20, would be 23 feet. That's pretty decent for the average strong man who hasn't trained doing that, seeing as how the world record is ~29 feet for men and ~25 feet for women.
Skill ranks is simply your training in a certain field, you can still do it without training if you have the talent (ability scores). At least when it comes to climbing and jumping.
And as said, all fighters are guaranteed access to at least 2 skill points per level should they want, and 3 if you're a human. If you're not stupid, it's 3 (or 4 if you're human).
Intelligence makes decent sense, since it's training and not talent. I could see an argument being made that wisdom should be the ruling stat for skill points, but I think intelligence is the best after all.
I agree on all of this, except the fact that Acrobatics uses Dex instead of Str.
However, a Dex 10 character with no training can still make a long jump of 20 ft. after a lot of efforts or taking 20 (although he could take 20 only in training sessions, since the failure would bring no penalty - trying to beat the World's Record or jumping across a chasm he could not Take 20, since it would mean he would fail many times before succeeding), or a long jump of 10 ft. without any effort at all.
And a moderately agile 1st level Expert (Dex 14) with Acrobatics as Class Skill and Skill Focus could technically reach the World's Record taking 20 (Roll 20, Dex+2, Rank +1, Class Skill +3, Skill Focus +3). Routinely (taking 10) he could still reach 19 ft (~5.8 mt.).
At 2nd level, he could even beat the World's Record (30 ft. = 9.144 mt.).
So yes, if you really want to be exceptional, you have to invest in skill ranks. But a common person can still do many, many things routinely without any efforts through Taking 10 and average Ability Scores.
Just my 2c.
It seems to me that the skill rank ruleset doesn't flow or make sense. Classes get an arbitrary set of class skills and an arbitrary number of ranks plus intelligence.
Intelligence? Really?! A stupid fighter who dedicates his single rank-per-level into profession: cooking (Fighter roleplaying? It's more likely than you think!) can't climb, swim, jump or dungeoneer worth a damn.It all seems so... Arbitrary.
Are there any alternative systems?
Yes. He hasn't invested in those skills. He's still good at them because he has a high strength or dexterity modifier. What I find strange is 4e's system of 1/2 level that at mid levels makes an untrained wizard more competent at swimming or running and jumping than a trained first level fighter.
Swimming is also like DC10 to 20, maximum. That 1st level fighter can actually swim rather well with no skill ranks in swim; taking a 10 in swim lets him swim across a river with no problems, and he can easily get the DC 20 to swim in stormy water with a good roll. Being trained in swim means he's excellent at swimming.
A fighter may have more issues with climbing, but he suddenly becomes excellent at it if he carries a 50ft knotted rope with a grappling hook tied to the end. ;)
Silver Crescent Publishing
|
Well, most of you have already made the argument I would have, and even done the calculations. I'm impressed! Fighters do have heavy armor and such that weigh them down, causing penalties to things like Acrobatics, Climbing, or Swimming, but that too depends on the type of fighter you're playing. Not all of them walk around in platemail armor.
And yes, Acrobatics is a Dex-based skill, however most fighters would generally sacrifice ability scores like Wisdom and Charisma in order to get a Dex modifier of at least +1.
Think about it in roleplaying terms. Fighters are trained in a wide variety of weapons and armor. Each having different fighting styles. It is VERY different fighting with a staff than a sword. And even more so with a bow. As such they haven't had much time to spend on miscellaneous skills.
And the skill ranks per level aren't arbitrary, though I could see how you think that. Look at them in relations to each other, keeping in mind the roleplaying aspects of each class. A rogue most likely grew up on the streets, and thus needed to learn a wide variety of skills to survive (not really having any significant quai-magical or feat-related abilities). Wizards, who you might think should have a lot of skill ranks due to studies, only have two because the vast majority of their studies have revolved around figuring out how to manipulate and control arcane forces. Look at the difference in random starting age for a wizard vs. a rogue. That difference represents the amount of time needed to study arcane lore. Magic is not that easy after all. So the skill rank numbers aren't arbitrary, they are assigned based on a thought process that takes into account how much time a given class would have to devote to learning other skills, outside of learning what they would have to in order to have their class abilities. Those that would have more time, have more skill points.
i don't personally have a problem with the arbitrary number but what i do have a problem with is the 2+int to skills, it just seems so small, when the lowest hit dice was bumped up to d6 it seemed like they should have bumped the lowest skill bonus to 4+int but that is just how i feel, it also does bother me that the only option towards the number of skills you have is your intelligence, i would love to see the option to use wisdom for skill points.
one thing i would love to see is a minimum skill points based on level like half your level to skills plus 2+int mod.
|
|
I think everyone is missing the real issue here. That fighter should've been taking Craft (Culinary), not Profession (Cook)!
<j/k of course>
The entire system is completely arbitrary. Without breaking it down to an unmanageably micro-managed level no system will completely properly simulate a reality, so instead arbitrary simplifications occur.
It is my (and likely many others') opinion that Pathfinder does a pretty good job of simulating the varying levels of skill and talent that exists in real life, and I'm satisfied at that. If you're not, figure out what you don't like about it and redesign. Just be careful, the first error of game design is over-complication and its resulting obfuscation. It is usually better to have a slightly simplified rule than confused players.
In the game I'm currently playing in, the DM has granted us an additional 3 ranks at 1st level, with two caveats. They have to be spent on Knowledge, Craft or Profession skills and they have to tie into your backstory somehow.
I like the idea, but I personally think that granting actual skill ranks is a little much, due to the net +4 gain with class skills. Not to mention that I've caught myself using it for nefarious purposes. (Example: My cleric was going to have max Knowledge: Religion anyhow, so my 1st level free rank goes there, which gives me an extra rank to spend elsewhere... No! Bad monkey!)
The major problem with the skill system is there is a fundamental disconnect between what it represents, and what it does.
Functionally, Skill Ranks are a bonus. That's it. Another + on the roll. 20 Ranks in a skill is exactly the same thing as a +20 Competence item! There is no intrinsic benefit for 'training' a skill in the 3E system.
That's one reason why the 4E system is nice. There's a definite penalty for trained and untrained, and 4e Doesn't let you sub bonuses for them.
in 3e, 'knowledge and ability' is represented by DC's, NOT by skill ranks.
To balance the system out, you'd have to take each skill and denote what you can DO at each level...and THEN you have to hit the DC's. Modifiers become jsut that...modifiers. Ranks denote training, and mean something MORE.
As an example:
Craft (Smith)
1 rank - You can make simple and martial weapons and light and medium armor, and shields.
2 Ranks - You can make a masterwork weapon, and most heavy armors, except full plate.
3 ranks - You can forge full plate, or masterwork heavy armor.
5 ranks - You can forge items out of mithril weapons.
7 ranks - Your ability transcends normal human limitations, you can now actually work and mold adamantine into basic weapons, and mold mithral into armor. You can also make Dragonhide light armor.
10 ranks - Your smithing ability is legendary. you can make armor out of adamantium, molding it with more then mere muscle. You can make Dragonhide medium armor.
13 ranks - You can make armor out of things that shouldn't be possible, such as stone, leaves, crystal, precious metals, and so forth. Alchemy might be needed for many of things to reinforce them so they work. You can even forge the hides of ancient wyrms into mighty suits of full plate.
Going from OA/Rokugan; at 7/10/13/16 ranks, you can actually forge armor and weapons of superior alloy, giving them a Non-Magical enhancement bonus of +1/2/3/4. Costs are as normal, but time is completely trade/craft (so a +4 sword could easily take 6 months to forge) vs the 1000 gp/day of magic.
Etc, etc. Now, skill ranks MEAN something. You simply can't stick +1 into a skill, say you're trained, pop on the ring +10, and outwork a smith who knows his trade inside and out. Bonuses now help you do what you know, they don't substitue for real knowledge.
The problem is doing this with every skill is a bit time consuming. But, for instance, there'd be no need for Hide in Plain Sight...you could set it as a feat or something anyone with 10 ranks in hide in Stealth could accomplish. It's just something people know.
--------
I'm a firm believer in the EL6 system...where EL6 represents the absolute best that is possible in the world today. A level 6 Expert in computers is THE best hacker on the planet. Batman is level 6.
Level 7, skills start becoming mystical and powerful. Your skill starts shaping the metal, more then your hammer. Words and runes while you work turn and do things. Social skills become virtual mind control (look at those DC's at Epic). Athletic ability exceeds human limits.
Read Dresden? He introduced an ability called Intellectus. It's similar to the 'worldmind' that Monte Cook's Akasha use. Basically, once you exceed 6 ranks, you know more then any human alive should know...you're tapping into the knowledge of the overmind, and you're simply better then humanly possible, because you're calling on knowledge beyond your own. At 15+ ranks, you're recalling stuff you never studied, deducing stuff that was incomprehensible and lost millenia ago, and doing it all in seconds.
It would make a Rogue, with massive sets of skills, something to be truly feared.
==Aelryinth
20 Ranks in a skill is exactly the same thing as a +20 Competence item! There is no intrinsic benefit for 'training' a skill in the 3E system.
False. I don't care if you have a +1,000,000,000,000 competence bonus to Use Magic Device, it does you no good at all if you aren't trained in the skill.
That's one reason why the 4E system is nice. There's a definite penalty for trained and untrained, and 4e Doesn't let you sub bonuses for them.
This is a truly bizarre argument because it's entirely possible (and even extremely likely, with classes like the Sorcerer) to have an untrained skill at a higher bonus than a trained skill.
Now, skill ranks MEAN something. You simply can't stick +1 into a skill, say you're trained, pop on the ring +10, and outwork a smith who knows his trade inside and out.
Why is this a good thing? That ring of smithcraft clearly gives whosoever wears it the knowledge and skills of a master smith.
|
|
This is a truly bizarre argument because it's entirely possible (and even extremely likely, with classes like the Sorcerer) to have an untrained skill at a higher bonus than a trained skill.
I see the Half Level bonus in 4e being experience on the job, so while a 16th Level fighter may not have been technically trained in the proper knots, use of climbing tools etc, he is still a better climber than a 1st level Rogue who has had all that training but has never had to scale a sheer cliff face while dodging arrows.
In 3.5 and Pathfinder, skill ranks can represent just actual tutelage or tutelage plus experience. How many GMs actually require players to have their character seek out a teacher to add another Skill rank to a Skill in which they already have ranks? if not, then that Skill rank doesn't represent training, but learning from experience.
The standard generic fighter is reasonably expected to have Climb, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Ride, and Swim. That's 6 different skills. To those, it's reasonable to add Craft, Escape Artist, Knowledge (Dungeoneering), Knowledge (Engineering), Perception, Profession, Survival, and Sense Motive.
And, note, on top of this, the Fighter needs social skills so that the player isn't stuck grabbing a book and browsing through it waiting for the social encounters to end. -And- the Fighter needs reasons to take social skills (forex. to act as a tactical leader of men).
I would respectfully disagree that the average fighter would be expected to have such a diverse slew of skills. While it's often problematic to compare 3.x/Pathfinder with the real world, here I think it serves a purpose to equate a low-level generic fighter to a junior enlisted infantryman straight out of their technical training.
Climb - yes the soldier probably climbed some ropes and objects while in basic and advanced training, but he is by no means trained in specialized art of mountaineering. In fact, there exist numerous other schools that impart exactly those skills.
Handle Animal - here the real world comparison breaks down a bit. However, even if the generic fighter has seen a horse a few times and perhaps ridden one once or twice, again this is far from being a professional handler or cavalryman.
Heal - a basic infantryman's knowledge of first aid can largely be distilled down to slap this bandage on where ever the most blood is pouring from and get him to a medic or evacuated. Much like Climb, there are entirely separate, and often times very lenghty, schools that one must attend to become an actual combat medic (i.e. have ranks in Heal).
Intimidate - while a soldier may be intimidating by his mere presence (a serious looking guy with a painted face and an automatic weapon), this does not mean that he has been instructed on specifically how to Intimidate the enemy, which would probably fall under the reign of psychological operations in the real world, a highly specialized segment of the military and one which requires its own training.
Ride - pretty much the same as Handle Animal above. If you equate riding to perhaps driving an armored vehicle or piloting an aircraft in the real world, there are schools just for that. A basic infantryman can, probably, drive a truck, but not much more than that.
Swim - honestly I don't know if swimming is even taught to infantry, but I somewhat doubt it. When I went through Air Force basic training and then security police technical school, it never came up. While we certainly were not line infantrymen, a big chunk of our training was very similar.
After you get out of those skills and begin to look at some of the others listed, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the generic fighter has even been exposed to them, much less received even the most rudimentary training in them. The fundamental reason that the fighter/soldier exists is to kill the enemy and break his things, everything else is secondary. For the fighter, this is equated in his automatic proficiencies with all armor, all shields, and most weaponry.
Finally, while a soldier in the real world may attend one or two or maybe even three specialized schools, it is highly unlikely that you are going to find one that is a trained mountaineer/combat medic/helicopter pilot/combat swimmer. Expecting a fighter to have a large number of ranks in an equally diverse list of skills seems equally unlikely.
-Brooks
|
One of the problems is players look at their characters are highly trained commandos rather than general soliders, specialists. A fighter mainly focues on his role as tactical combat specialist and weapon mastery. Anything beyond that is well with in the scope of a flat stat roll with situational bonuses.
Pathfinder/3.x unlike 4E doesn't have a sliding scale of difficulity as you go up in level. Simple actions remain simple. 9 times out of 10 all a fighter needs to be is a reasonable diffuclity like 15-20 on complex actions outside of combat. Even with at most a bonus of say +2 he'll make those rolls 50-25% of the time, and a LOT of thes actions allow for retries.
Some skills like Climbing is obvious. It's a do or die situation and putting ranks in that brings that average up for the tricky stuff like the 20-30 difficulity range.
Interpersonal skills are very varied, but something like Sense Motive or Bluff are god sends ya, but you can get away with average negotiations most the time. Your just not going to be able to make friends out of enemies like the Bard can.
The Commando Specialists in the game are the Rogues and by extention the Bards. They are build for stealth, sneakiness, and over weaknesses with skill. The other classes don't worry because they're specialists instead.
There is no intrinsic benefit for 'training' a skill in the 3E system.
There are about 34 different skills in the game. There are 17 different "not fully useable untrained" skills. That's half of the skills in the game.
These range from "no checks higher than 10" in Knowledge, right up to "can't use it at all" with Use Magic Device.
Having a single rank in a skill (being trained) grants a +3 class skill bonus that you'd otherwise unable to get. This is a stacking benefit that can be applied right from level 1.
Quite frequently, at that level, your training (1 rank, 3 class skill bonus) is a higher factor in your success than pure ability (need a minimum of 18 to match the +4).
About the time you depart from "normal human capability" (around level 5), you will have money and magic enough to potentially outperform simple training in the skill on a d20 roll.
Conveniently, this is around the time that magic starts to really supersede skills too.
While I'm not particularly against any of the ideas you are presenting, I do want to remind that D&D really does take into account training in skills.
Hell.. there's even applications of some skills that require specialized training to be able to do, beyond even ranks (some feat options here, but the quintessential example being the Rogue's ability to disarm magical traps).
Personally, I find that the d20 system is very good/accurate at emulating* human capabilities, with only a quirk here or there made for the same of ease of play.
Play in an E6 game, and you'll find that training remains a huge factor in skills.
The fact that higher level magic (and magic items) make training no longer necessary (not useless, it's still a valid option), simply reinforces the "High Arcana" feel that D&D is going for.
This isn't Conan, or LotR, or some other low-magic fantasy. D&D is closer to a supers game than anything else. Iron Man would be the poster boy for "Xmas Tree Effect" if it was set in a fantasy world instead of modern.
The fact that this game lets me play a character that is stupid enough to barely have learned anything despite a great amount of experience, tells me I'm playing a fairly robust system that lets me play concepts that can be encountered in real life.
(This wasn't a jab at anyone here, or that I know personally. Please don't take this as any form of insult. :)
|
|
Pathfinders +3 for class skill bonus really does away with 3.X's problem of having to dump 4 ranks into a skill to max it out. They front loaded the math this way. And there are LOADS of ways to add more skills to your class skills list. Making those ranks go much longer. Nothing like gaining a class feature (from say a APG varient) and suddently getting a +3 on stuff you only 'dabbled' in.
Simple actions remain simple. 9 times out of 10 all a fighter needs to be is a reasonable diffuclity like 15-20 on complex actions outside of combat.
This is it, exactly.
The d20 roll itself, being a range from 1 to 20, means you can reasonably expect a lot of DCs in that range to be met, for average every-day use.
DCs in the 20s and higher are typically "heroic" to "godly" in the results. Granted, there might be some gamist level-oriented stuff, but most of the "keep head over water" and "climb a rope" stuff is easily within the means of someone who has no training at all.
If you a player the concept of a slow-learning, dim-witted Fighter, then why should he ever learn how to be "heroic" at skills, if all his training is in combat instead?
There are classes that focus on being "heroic" at skills, like the fighter is "heroic" at combat...
The only problem I've found is that this game has two sides, and the Fighter is weighed quite heavily to only one of them.
That's why I tend to play smart or multiclassed Fighters, or give my players options to diversify training in the form of extra options (including the Skilled feat from 3.5e).
One of the problems is players look at their characters are highly trained commandos rather than general soliders, specialists. A fighter mainly focues on his role as tactical combat specialist and weapon mastery. Anything beyond that is well with in the scope of a flat stat roll with situational bonuses.
I completely agree with this.
I think there's also a tendency for many players to want their character to succeed and even excel in every situation. It's unrealistic to have fighter who stomps every enemy in combat, swings through the trees like Tarzan to kill and field dress a deer with his bare hands, performs cardiac surgery with a plastic fork and a drinking straw, and then engages a foreign ambassador in high-level negotiations; all before lunch. I've heard this called the "James Bond Effect" because 007 as portrayed in the movies is so bleeding good at so many things.
-Brooks
And there is nothing stopping a Fighter from walking around as a 1 character "Aid-Another" in non critical situations. It's just DC 10. As long it's not a trained only situation, work as a team for max benefit!
I see this all the time in the game that I'm currently running, particularly with Survival. With her small handful of ranks in Survival, the fighter is constantly helping out the party's Druid and it's uncanny how many times a minor +2 bonus makes a significant difference.
-Brooks
|
|
Remember that little addition to the Climb rules about just raising and lowering stuff at double your normal strength capasity? Congrats Fighter, you just became the party elevator. No need for the Wizard to waste spell slots on a lot of levitation. (Or money on a wand..although they are very useful.)
Wasn't there a video game (sega or nintendo), where you were a set of characters, and the Fighter-type one was useable as a stepping block?
Sure, not the most glorious of roles... but the Fighter should be used to that by now, no? ;)
|
|
Ah higher levels a Fighter should have 1-2 two primary skils and a few 'helping' skills. Then pick up leadership for a Cohort to fill out any skill gaps the party might have. Post 10th level the Fighter has to think like "Mr. Logistics".
What can I do to make the party's life easier. The more stuff you can free up your casters on the better.
It seems to me that the skill rank ruleset doesn't flow or make sense. Classes get an arbitrary set of class skills and an arbitrary number of ranks plus intelligence.
Intelligence? Really?! A stupid fighter who dedicates his single rank-per-level into profession: cooking (Fighter roleplaying? It's more likely than you think!) can't climb, swim, jump or dungeoneer worth a damn.It all seems so... Arbitrary.
Are there any alternative systems?
That's why all the idiot skills can be used untrained and have something besides intelligence modifying them.
i don't personally have a problem with the arbitrary number but what i do have a problem with is the 2+int to skills, it just seems so small, when the lowest hit dice was bumped up to d6 it seemed like they should have bumped the lowest skill bonus to 4+int but that is just how i feel,
I disagree due to the massive changes to the skill system already implemented which makes every point far more worthwhile.
One of the problems is players look at their characters are highly trained commandos rather than general soliders, specialists.
The "highly trained commandos" in D&D 3.x and Pathfinder are represented by the ranger, not the fighter...
|
|
Pathfinder/3.x unlike 4E doesn't have a sliding scale of difficulity as you go up in level. Simple actions remain simple.
Technically 4e doesn't have a sliding scale for any particular actions though I admit it isn't well described.
The table on page 42 of the DMG gives the GM guides on the DCs that equate to Easy, Moderate and Hard tasks for characters of that level. Its a bit like the table in Earthdawn that allows you to judge difficulties for character of a certain range of levels.
But once a DC for a particular task has been established, that DC shouldn't change (assuming the task is exactly the same) even if the players re-visit it several levels later.
So, at levels 4th-6th, a Hard task will be one with a DC of 17, but if the PCs returned to perform that exact same task at levels 25th–27th it would be Easy (as DC 17 is Easy for that range of levels).
Ditto for the DC tables for Traps and Locks in the PHB - basically it is telling the GM that in the heroic tier, if you want a trap or lock to be a challenge the DC should be 20, but at Paragone Tier to still be a challenge traps and locks should be DC 30 (and those traps and locks should be described as being more elaborate and complex).
This approach is confirmed by looking at the sample traps in the DMG, a False-Floor Pit has a DC 20 to spot it, but it is only a level 1 Trap and as such you wouldn't expect to be encountering it when you're 11th level, instead you should be facing a trap such as Cave-In (level 13 trap) which has a DC 31 to spot it (see the ceiling is unstable).
Sorry for the lengthy tangent, but this is one area of 4e that is often misunderstood.
|
|
I disagree due to the massive changes to the skill system already implemented which makes every point far more worthwhile.
Yes, Skill Points in Pathfinder go further than in 3.5, for example, rather than having to use 2 skill points to get a Rank in HIde and a Rank in Move Silently, you now only have to put 1 skill point into Stealth, ditto re Spot, Search and Listen vs Perception etc.
Also, the +3 bonus to class skills is better than the 4 ranks at 1st level. E.g. as a Fighter with only 2 points per level in PF you can put a rank in Climb and Craft at 1st level, a rank in Handle Animal and Intimidate at 2nd level, a rank in Knowledge (dungeoneering) and
Knowledge (engineering) at level 3, a rank in Profession and Ride at 4th level and finally a rank in Survival and Swim at 5th level. You then have a Skill Modifier of 4 + ability Mod in all your 10 class skills.
In 3.5 to do the equivalent it would take you to 17th level; Max out 2 skill at level 1 and then take 16 levels to earn 32 more skill points to put 4 ranks in each of the remaining 8 skills.
Add to this the fact that Pathfinder offers bonus Skill Points for favoured class and a 2+Int skill points isn't half as bad.
The only thing that 3.5 has over PF in this area are Skill Synergies that can give +2 bonuses without costing extra skill points.
The "highly trained commandos" in D&D 3.x and Pathfinder are represented by the ranger, not the fighter...
I'd say that commandos, being guys skilled in infiltration and independent operations, are rangers yes. Fighters are more like weapons specialists/martial artists. Instead of skill ranks for use on non-combat stuff, they get combat feats designed to further their competence in combat.
From a design point of view, skill ranks for the skills are not at all completely arbitrary. Assume the generic class gets a base of 4 skill points per level. Barbarians, druids, and monks start with that amount and, based on the assumptions made when they were designed as far as class power goes, they kept them. Classes with more advanced combat choices like the fighter and ones with more powerful spellcasting like the sorcer and wizard, and classes with more inherent supernatural and spell-like abilities like the cleric and paladin all got fewer to balance the class as a whole. The ranger got upgraded from 4 skill points to 6 in 3.5 and had some reductions to balance the improvement like loss of a hit die. Bards also went up without significant loss because, frankly, they needed to. Rogues got 8 because, on the whole, they balance the fact that their combat is weaker than the barbarian or fighter with lower BAB and hit points. Though I'd be open to an argument that the rogue's sneak attack and evasion are good enough to warrant only bumping them up to 6 skill points per level. That's how you get the skill ranks available in 3e. Not arbitrary at all.
And before anyone brings up the chestnut that they shouldn't have balanced non-combat stuff against combat, 3e design balanced the whole character as a unit, not as semi-divided "silos" like 4e did (sloppily in my opinion).
I'd say, for the most part, that skill synergies are pretty much encapsulated by the consolidation effect.
While there are corner cases (diplomacy used to get boosted pretty easily), the skillpoints saved to spread around give in versatility, what it took away in pure bonus.
That, and skill focus now gives +6 at 10 ranks and higher (a combination effect... a bonus that never existed before, and it's applying to consolidated skills).
I'm finding characters far more skill-capable in Pathfinder than in 3.5e.
The standard generic fighter is reasonably expected to have Climb, Handle Animal, Heal, Intimidate, Ride, and Swim.
Really? Why? Because they're class skills? A Fighter needs these skills like a Sorcerer needs Spellcraft...
Oh, wait...^_^
I'd say, for the most part, that skill synergies are pretty much encapsulated by the consolidation effect.
While there are corner cases (diplomacy used to get boosted pretty easily), the skillpoints saved to spread around give in versatility, what it took away in pure bonus.
I always found it curious in 3.x that the social skills seemed to benefit from synergies at a much higher level than other skills. It was not uncommon to have a first level bard or rogue with a Bluff or Diplomacy through the roof while those focusing on more physical skills seemed to lag behind where synergies were concerned. I haven't actually done any math on this, but it was definitely a gut feeling of mine.
While those synergies are now gone, the consolidation effort seems to have benefitted social and physical skills equally. Additionally, with the elimination of two ranks needed for each increase of a cross-class skill, it allows significantly more diversification if that's what the player is looking for. Instead of needing 2 skill points to "buy into" a cross-class skill, that investment will now give you two separate skills, which could be particularly valuable where trained-only skills are concerned.
-Brooks
In 3e, a Fighter basically had to go all out into a skill with an armor penalty, otherwise you might as well forget it with typical armor.
In Pathfinder, a Fighter can completely eliminate armor penalties even in heavy armor (if mithral), and so can pull off most normal skill checks fairly reliably with just his (enhanced) ability scores.
In either case, it's not a reasonable expectation to have ranks in Climb, Ride and Swim, unless it's for roleplaying a concept or going for something specific (mounted combat), or to make certain flat DCs automatic.
Handle Animal is another "why, unless you are going for something in particular?" type of skill.
Heal checks can get equipment bonuses, and the typical use is at a DC 15, so not terribly high before it's trivial.
Honestly, Intimidate is about the only "expected" skill a Fighter might have (having both combat and social uses).
Survival and craft/profession (if going for master craftsman) follow behind if the Fighter wants another out of combat option, but not exactly "expected".
One skill that could be considered fairly critical, and even then, it's not "necessary". Regardless of Intelligence, the Fighter will get that 1 skillpoint at least.
Ugg the dense, can keep his Intimidate up easily and meet what's "expected" from his training.
I always had a problem with 3.5 and systems that followed, that would pre-determine what skills applied to a class (favored skills). As they would often exclude skills you think applies to a class. One recent pathfinder argument was whether profession skill belonged as a barbarian favored class skill, or why it was excluded. What followed were different interpretations on what historically represents a barbarian.
Another problem was old classes as presented in system like 1E, like the rogue class abilities climb walls, move silently, etc. where these were viewed as skills that should be available to everyone. Add to this systems like GURPS (entirely skill based), and all of sudden 3.5 had an explosion of skills and choices. So you had to allow rogues to have a multitude of skill points (to train is skills that were exclusive to the class in the past), and on the opposite end you have a fighter with very little. You had to wonder what the thought process behind it was.
With systems like 4E they went too far in condensing the skill list, but did make the skill point system equal across classes (not intelligence based point mechanic). It does offer backgrounds as a method to choose new favored skills, which makes sense on some level, if you want a fighter to know arcane knowledge.
I like the ability in Pathfinder to tweak the number of points you place into skills, but it has the same problem of 4E in regards to favored class skills, along with the intelligence based point mechanic.
I would be happy to see the two merge, in regards to allowing backgrounds alone to determine your favored skills, and not allow any class to be dependent on skills as part of their definition (rogue is a good example in 3.5). Removing the intelligent based point system is a good idea, but also allows some choice to move skill points around. You could still have a bonus to favored skills, and the rest would go along with an untrained progression. I also like the idea of setting skills levels to incorporate levels of knowledge, crafting, etc. and adding items like ropes, thief’s picks, etc. to increase skills as tools of the trade. Negative modifiers should be included as well, for not using the right tools, wearing heavy armor, etc.
What I don’t have an answer for is NPC class skill progression, versus PC, as there is still a gap, if you include character level as part of the equation.
"Class skill" used to be important. It used to determine if you cut your skillpoint investment in half or not, and in 3.0e, I think there was a skill or two that you could only put ranks into if it was a class skill.
Now, it's just another +3 bonus to your check. A first level 10 Wis Human with 1 rank in a Profession has the same bonus to effects on what he can do as a first level Barbarian with 1 rank, a 12 wisdom, and someone giving him an aid another check.
Whether something is a class skill or not should hardly be a major concern anymore. Barbarians can be just as professional as anyone else, with just a slightly lower "upper limit".
As for fluff? Their "training to rage" simply doesn't help them with interacting with normal society (typically what profession is used for: making money). Good enough for me.
|
|
I would be happy to see the two merge, in regards to allowing backgrounds alone to determine your favored skills, and not allow any class to be dependent on skills as part of their definition (rogue is a good example in 3.5).
Yes, this could be a good idea, a bit like Mongoose RuneQuest that has Backgrounds and Professions - both provide skills.
So in a PF 2nd Ed or D&D 5th Ed maybe you choose a Race, a Background and a Class and all add a couple of skills to the list from which you can initially choose training.
As you stated 4e does this somewhat with Backgrounds, but you only get to choose 1 extra class skill from all your backgrounds.
The current skill system is ok, makes diferent characters a bit more special, but doesnt exclude anyone.
Does a player pretend that a standard fighter should be as skillful as a generic rogue? It doesn't make any sense. Feats, PrCs and Multiclassing is there for some reason.
Want a fighter with some good skill modifiers? It is bit hard, but is possible, you have a lot of bonus feats, use them for combat, and use the normal feats for skill related traits and feats.
Want a fighter with few skills? Congratulations, the game supports you.
I don't like blue vs red games, I want classes that are different in every way; otherwise classes, and the whole D&D game, wouldn't make any sense.
I always had a problem with 3.5 and systems that followed, that would pre-determine what skills applied to a class (favored skills). As they would often exclude skills you think applies to a class.
In my mind, I've always viewed the class/favored skills as the ones that a particular class would have the greatest exposure to and the most time to develop in the course of their everyday lives. For example a fighter, in the normal course of their career and training, would be likely to be exposed to climbing, swiming, and so forth. While it is entirely plausable that Bob the Fighter might have had a troubled childhood that exposed him to petty pickpocketing (Sleight of Hand), it's also likely that when he began to focus on his combat skills (gain levels in fighter) there was little time to keep up practicing pickpocketing.
Now Bob's childhood friend Tim the Rogue never entered the army, was squired to a knight, or simply began playing with swords and instead continued his life of crime (gained levels of rogue). In the course of his own career, Tim is much more likely to have regular opportunities to exercise pickpocketing, hence Sleight of Hand being a class skill for him.
For me, this makes logical sense. There are only so many hours in the day and it makes sense that characters are likely to use those hours to focus on those skills that most directly have an impact on their career/class. In the real world, there are many people who hold professional jobs, but are skilled amateur cooks. However, their aptitude in cooking is nowhere near that of a professional chef who attended a culinary institute/worked their way up in a restaurant and practice those skills for hours every day. This would explain why someone with class levels in Professional Chef would have the +3 class bonus to Profession (chef) while someone with class levels in Marketing Director does not have that bonus. Both are free to put ranks into Profession (chef), but the class bonus represents the professional focus and effort.
-Brooks
|
|
In the game I'm currently playing in, the DM has granted us an additional 3 ranks at 1st level, with two caveats. They have to be spent on Knowledge, Craft or Profession skills and they have to tie into your backstory somehow.
I like this idea, I might have to incorporate it into my next game. This comined with Traits helps tie a character more closely to their backstory, something which has always been lacking...
You could also do some more skill consolidation.
I would be careful in this direction. In my opinion Pathfinder made some good decisions into consolidating similar skills that could easily be represented by a single skill-set, but I wonder if they've taken that course relatively close to its logical conclusion. The more you eliminate/consolidate skills, the more you are also eliminating choice, which I believe is one of the hallmarks of the system. After all, Pathfinder is arguably based on specialization, not generalization.
-Brooks
I would state the more you consolidate, the harder it is to identify what skill covers what you are trying to accomplish. The choice is still there, but the skills may be too broad to make the correct determination. On the other hand, too many skills offers the position of a character missing a skill that is needed to complete a task.
I haven't looked at the skills systems in detail as to 3.5, pathfinder, or 4E, so I am not sure if there is a magical formula everyone would support.
I can easily think up reasons why I'd want a character who is good at Hiding or Moving Silently, Spotting or Listening, but not both. I see it as a mechanical question: you can say you want to have an individual number to point to, or you only want skills for things that actually have mechanical significance in the course of a game.
As I see it, both Hiding and Moving Silently involve the same skill-set. Namely being trained to be unobtrusive, having the ability to move when others cannot detect you, and otherwise being a "sneaky bastard." Likewise both Spot and Listen involve using your senses to detect things that other may not notice. I also appreciate how Pathfinder rolls other senses into Perception such as good or trained olfactory ability and a general "situational awareness." In my mind, these were good consolidations; honestly can you envision someone who is trained and skilled in using shadows, body placement, and other factors to hide from an enemy's sight, but stomps around on lead feet so that they can be heard. Similarly, how can someone be gifted at using simply their eyes to detect hidden things, but then completely foregoes their other senses.
I don't see "choice" as a hallmark of Pathfinder. It exists, but it's not given without strings attached.
I would also argue this point. Pathfinder and the 3.x system that it was built upon are completely dedicated to choice. The player has a choice of race, class, skills, feats, equipment, etc. There are such a plethora of choices that several people have convincingly argued for a Pathfinder-light version that elminates some of those choices for ease in playability. As far as attached strings, I would state that these are intentionally included for balance within the system.