I think that's a terrific idea. +1!Personally, I think it would be cool if you got the option to add a new class skill at levels 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18. Those are "non-class-related dead levels." You get non-class feats at the odd levels, and ability score boosts at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, so it would be nice to get SOMETHING at 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18. I think those levels would be nice for race-related features, non-class skill options, and similar non-class related, non-feat-based character growth.
Yeah, I think it would be really useful for adding racial abilities that would be a bit powerful for 1st level characters, but fit some racial tropes, like flight, spell resistance, energy resistance, natural armor or damage reduction, climb speeds, swim speeds, water breathing, spell-like or supernatural abilities, etc.
Maybe some social or economic landmarks, like a title, land, house, spouse, political favor, useful contact, etc., could be gotten at those levels too.
A bunch of options would be great.
I agree. For something that's supposed to be the epitome of the hunter, the stalker that takes down its kill, the predator of the wilds...it's stupid that Acrobatics is not a class skill for them.
Tumbling, jumping, and balancing are all ANIMAL-related skills to get by in the wild and as defenses and offenses against natural hazards. The ranger, who is supposed to be the ultimate hunter, can't balance on tree branches, can't make the jump across the pit or atop a rampaging dragon, nor can he outmaneuever his enemies by tumbling by them sounds like a really handicapped wilderness warrior. The ranger, who is supposed to emulate a predator, has no skill in any of the main skills a predator must have to accomplish their job?
The logic is...astoundingly full of fail.
Rangers don't get acrobatics because barbarians get acrobatics?
That is the most inane reasoning I have ever heard.
I just remembered Pathfinder doesn't have Athletics. Nonsensical, but whatever.
I should hope there is a better reason for Ranger not having Acrobatics other than "Barbarians and Rangers would then have too similar a skill list!"
So what? Why do Barbarians get Acrobatics? The only "acrobatic" skill they had in 3.5 was Jump, just like Rangers. Not only that, but isn't the fluff about the same?
I mean, really. Absurd. And that's discounting the absurdity of Jump now being a Dex skill to begin with - Dex being far more prevalent in the Ranger list than Barbarian.
I just remembered Pathfinder doesn't have Athletics. Nonsensical, but whatever.
The reason behind Pathfinder not having Athletics kind of makes sense, though. They wanted to give every form of movement (except land speed) a skill to go with it. Flight has Fly, Swimming has Swim, Climbing has Climb and so on. Merging Climb into Athletics would make creatures that are good at climbing good at swimming as well, for no good reason.
I'm not saying I agree with the design, but it makes sense.
I just remembered Pathfinder doesn't have Athletics. Nonsensical, but whatever.The reason behind Pathfinder not having Athletics kind of makes sense, though. They wanted to give every form of movement (except land speed) a skill to go with it. Flight has Fly, Swimming has Swim, Climbing has Climb and so on. Merging Climb into Athletics would make creatures that are good at climbing good at swimming as well, for no good reason.
I'm not saying I agree with the design, but it makes sense.
Please see the "Perception" skill. Pathfinder skill combinations already aren't making sense. It would make just as much sense to put Jump, Climb, and Swim in one skill as it does to put Seeing, Hearing, and Smelling in the same skill.
|
The point I was making is I cannot see a Ranger receiving Profession or Intimidate in lieu of Acrobatics.
I, personally, think every class has a Profession, since you can do any one of your skills for money, anyway.
A Ranger could use his Survival skill to make money as a guide, even, without the need of the 'Profession', unless, of course, you see a guide as the guy saying ... "If you look to your left, you'll see the ruins of the Dark Oubliette of the High Priestess...and to your right..."
What about rangers who chose Urban as their favored terrain?
It's hard to find steel weapons out in the woods as well...
Urban Rangers are a bit enigmatic, for my tastes, but at the same time, it's nothing more than a chosen terrain.
Since when do you need a profession to buy weapons?
What I'm saying is: you seem to be under the impression that Rangers are all about the wilderness. I think that's only part of it. Rangers are also about protecting civilization from the wild, they're very much a part of the communities that they protect.
Can anyone explain why a Barbarian would get acrobatics but not a Ranger?Rangers have much less need to jump.
Ever spent much time in the woods?
Rangers don't get acrobatics because barbarians get acrobatics?
That is the most inane reasoning I have ever heard.
I don't see anyone saying rangers don't get acrobatics because barbarians do. If you're going to be critical, at least be critical about something people are saying.
I don't see anyone saying rangers don't get acrobatics because barbarians do. If you're going to be critical, at least be critical about something people are saying.Rangers don't get acrobatics because barbarians get acrobatics?
That is the most inane reasoning I have ever heard.
I think from a designer's point of view the decision to make the movement modes separate skills is primarily because of 'monster's' skills.
If you want a creature to be a good swimmer you do not also want to make it a superb climber by default, this often just doesnt make sense.
In my game I did lump jump and climb together into athletics with some minor issues with some creatures, but relatively minor compared to placing swim in athletics as well. Jumping and climbing are in my opinion similar enough not to be hurt much by this, many creatures get a bonus on the athletic skill for purposes of jumping or climbing instead.
I gave barbarian athletics instead and removed acrobatics, ranger got acrobatics and athletics, while I do not think a barbarian is per definition a poor candidate for acrobatics the classic conan barbarian is not it anymore than a fighter.
I also find it very confusing that of all classes the Ranger, who has very explicit features that say "I live in the wilderness. Yes, even mountains!" does not have Jump on his skill list.
Rangers know that you don't jump around when you're in the mountains. The people who don't know that usually don't live long enough to be famous adventurers. But some mountain ravines are full of them.
And who is the Ranger supposed to be intimidating?
Those ghosts who have sworn fealty to his ancestor, of course.
When I picture the most stereotypical Ranger, I picture a guy leaping like a gazelle in pursuit of his prey.
Huh? The whole "stereotypes are bad" thing aside, what ranger stereotype jumps around to catch animals? You shouldn't get your stereotypes from Mel Brooks films or similar sources (a leaping, prancing ranger just shouts "Men in Tights" to me!) ;-P
If you go by the stereotype, you have a wise woodsman who stalks his pray and then shoots it with a bow, like a hunter. Or maybe goes toe to toe with a couple of weapons (but that's usually against big and bulky critters, since humanoids don't really have a chance catching smaller, faster prey with sheer speed alone)
You won't get much of an argument from me in this regard. So which would you prefer, that they get acrobatics or not?
I'd prefer both, at least for animal totem rangers channelling Schrödinger's Cat!
So, if you happen to come across a group lost in the woods, and you offer to assist them using your Survival skill, all they can pay you is 1sp, per day, for your trouble?
No, they'll pay you all they have or they starve. However, counting on groups getting lost in the woods is probably not a source of stable income, so the one-time earning of everything they have with them (for normal people, that will not be that much more than some silvers, maybe even a few gold pieces) has to tide you over until the next fool throws caution and all warnings to the wind and prances into the Accursed Forest. I'd guess that on average, that comes out as 1sp per day.
|
There's a big difference between playing through actual adventures, and just earning ca$h during down time. Finding a chest full of a zillion gold coins isn't a 'job', it's an 'adventure'
It's a job for me.
Yes, my job is awesome. Even more if you consider that it also pays me to kill people I don't like anyway (but then again, I don't like anybody much)
When I picture the most stereotypical Ranger, I picture a guy leaping like a gazelle in pursuit of his prey.Huh? The whole "stereotypes are bad" thing aside, what ranger stereotype jumps around to catch animals? You shouldn't get your stereotypes from Mel Brooks films or similar sources (a leaping, prancing ranger just shouts "Men in Tights" to me!) ;-P
All the classes are based on stereotypes.
There's more to hunting than just shooting your prey. Even in modern times, with high-powered rifles, not all hunting is one-shot kills. After the first shot, the chase can be very challenging. Bow hunting is even more shoot and chase. Sure, you could just be lame and track, but why risk losing your prey?
I understand why junp is part of acrobattics...because that is what alot of acrobats do. It makes better sense to me them lumping it in with lumping it wqith climb...or swim...or in one big skill called athletics.
As for what constitutes a class skill....I could come up with arguement why any given skill should be a class skill for any given class. Based on sterotypes etc. But you know what it really is not that big of a deal anymore as the difference bewteen class skills and non-class skills is soooo minor it not worth it. The use of traits even means that is even more meaningless.
Now the one change I think Pathfinder should have done with skill system was to not have skills so tied with stats. I had people roll skills with other stats than what is the norm. If somebody jumps in my game they use strength instead of dex....like that.
Role: Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle.Ignoring the "jumping" aspect of Acrobatics (which I've houseruled to allow for using the better of Str or Dex), the thing that irks me about Rangers not having Acrobatics is the fact that it is used to avoid AoOs.
The class description of the Ranger flat-out states that they are effective at moving in and out of combat, yet this is a case where the crunch doesn't back up the fluff.
That is one of the best reasons for including acrobatics into the ranger class skill list.
|
|
Role: Rangers are deft skirmishers, either in melee or at range, capable of skillfully dancing in and out of battle.Ignoring the "jumping" aspect of Acrobatics (which I've houseruled to allow for using the better of Str or Dex), the thing that irks me about Rangers not having Acrobatics is the fact that it is used to avoid AoOs.
The class description of the Ranger flat-out states that they are effective at moving in and out of combat, yet this is a case where the crunch doesn't back up the fluff.That is one of the best reasons for including acrobatics into the ranger class skill list.
+1
All the classes are based on stereotypes.
There's more to hunting than just shooting your prey. Even in modern times, with high-powered rifles, not all hunting is one-shot kills. After the first shot, the chase can be very challenging. Bow hunting is even more shoot and chase. Sure, you could just be lame and track, but why risk losing your prey?
That would be why they have woodland stride. The ultimate in outdoor movement.
That would be why they have woodland stride. The ultimate in outdoor movement.All the classes are based on stereotypes.
There's more to hunting than just shooting your prey. Even in modern times, with high-powered rifles, not all hunting is one-shot kills. After the first shot, the chase can be very challenging. Bow hunting is even more shoot and chase. Sure, you could just be lame and track, but why risk losing your prey?
Okay, and what about the levels 1-6?
I'll answer that ...
They run, jump, and tumble through the rough terrain in pursuit of their prey.
:)
For general information . . .
Kept
Climb (Str)
Craft (Int)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Heal (Wis)
Perception (Wis) - Listen, Spot, and Search
Stealth (Dex) - Hide and Move Silently
Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int)
Knowledge (geography) (Int)
Knowledge (nature) (Int)
Profession (Wis)
Ride (Dex)
Survival (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Lost
Concentration (Con) (but so did everyone)
Acrobatics (Dex) (Jump only)
Use Rope (Dex)
Gained
Intimidate (Cha)
Spellcraft (Int)
Kept
Climb (Str)
Craft (Int)
Handle Animal (Cha)
Intimidate (Cha)
Perception (Wis) (had Listen but not Spot)
Ride (Dex)
Survival (Wis)
Swim (Str)
Gained
Acrobatics (Dex) (already had Jump)
Knowledge (nature) (Int)
Lost
Nothing
The question of why Rangers don't get Acrobatics is as valid as why Barbarians do get it. Both had jump but only one got acrobatics. Personally I think they both should have it, although not from acrobatics, but from Athletics. Acrobatic jumping is worlds different from olympic jumping. I consider acrobatic jumping part of tumbling. But it's all just a matter of personal preference. After all, I also don't think any character should have craft and profession on their class lists. Leave those to the NPC classes. It doesn't prevent a character from taking Profession: Waiter for background, because without the +3 it may explain why he gave it up to pursue that career as a professional viking.
Another question is why the Ranger sudden gets spellcraft. Do rangers spend that much time sitting around the bush studying how spells work? And Intimidate? If they're so stealthy, why are they intimidating people? Shouldn't they be silently stalking their prey? Just a matter of preference I guess.
Thankfully these are easy to fix if you want to. Doesn't require much work to say no spellcraft for Rangers but they can gain Acrobatics.
That would be why they have woodland stride. The ultimate in outdoor movement.All the classes are based on stereotypes.
There's more to hunting than just shooting your prey. Even in modern times, with high-powered rifles, not all hunting is one-shot kills. After the first shot, the chase can be very challenging. Bow hunting is even more shoot and chase. Sure, you could just be lame and track, but why risk losing your prey?
Okay, and what about the levels 1-6?
I'll answer that ...
They run, jump, and tumble through the rough terrain in pursuit of their prey.
:)
Yeah but characters between 1 thru 6 are lame so I guess they track...;)
That would be why they have woodland stride. The ultimate in outdoor movement.All the classes are based on stereotypes.
There's more to hunting than just shooting your prey. Even in modern times, with high-powered rifles, not all hunting is one-shot kills. After the first shot, the chase can be very challenging. Bow hunting is even more shoot and chase. Sure, you could just be lame and track, but why risk losing your prey?
Okay, and what about the levels 1-6?
I'll answer that ...
They run, jump, and tumble through the rough terrain in pursuit of their prey.
:)
Sorry, no. I grew up hunting and if the first arrow doesn't drop the animal you track it, find it, and finish it. Running and leaping through the wilderness with a bow (or a rifle or shotgun) is not a good idea. The Ranger is a hunter (or more of one than other things), not a gymnast. If you want him to be acrobatic, then take the appropriate skill, and all you're missing is the plus three of a class skill. This just means you're not as focused on what is, for all practical purposes, a secondary skill to your primary area of expertise (tracking, stealthily approaching, and killing prey). My 2 cp.
That would be why they have woodland stride. The ultimate in outdoor movement.All the classes are based on stereotypes.
There's more to hunting than just shooting your prey. Even in modern times, with high-powered rifles, not all hunting is one-shot kills. After the first shot, the chase can be very challenging. Bow hunting is even more shoot and chase. Sure, you could just be lame and track, but why risk losing your prey?
Okay, and what about the levels 1-6?
I'll answer that ...
They run, jump, and tumble through the rough terrain in pursuit of their prey.
:)
Sorry, no. I grew up hunting and if the first arrow doesn't drop the animal you track it, find it, and finish it. Running and leaping through the wilderness with a bow (or a rifle or shotgun) is not a good idea. The Ranger is a hunter (or more of one than other things), not a gymnast. If you want him to be acrobatic, then take the appropriate skill, and all you're missing is the plus three of a class skill. This just means you're not as focused on what is, for all practical purposes, a secondary skill to your primary area of expertise (tracking, stealthily approaching, and killing prey). My 2 cp.
You forgot to add the fantasy element into the equation.
;)
You forgot to add the fantasy element into the equation. ;)
No. I didn't. You can do all the running and leaping you want if you take the appropriate skill :) Just not as well as some others. Of course, you're going to scare away any game in the region, alert every enemy in any reasonable distance and paint a huge target on yourself, but hey, life's full of choices...
Take Skill Focus: Acrobatics!
You get the +3 you're missing by cross-classing, and if you stick with it it goes up to +6 after 10th level.
And if you play half-elf you get skill focus for free along with other good stuff. :-)
Sorry, no. I grew up hunting and if the first arrow doesn't drop the animal you track it, find it, and finish it. Running and leaping through the wilderness with a bow (or a rifle or shotgun) is not a good idea. The Ranger is a hunter (or more of one than other things), not a gymnast. If you want him to be acrobatic, then take the appropriate skill, and all you're missing is the plus three of a class skill. This just means you're not as focused on what is, for all practical purposes, a secondary skill to your primary area of expertise (tracking, stealthily approaching, and killing prey). My 2 cp.
No one is implying you're running to your prey. So you don't think a hunter balancing himself on a tree branch for a better aim at his target is practical? Or how about balancing on a ridge along a cliff to get to your target easier? Rushing across thin logs across riverways? Tumbling through and away from a pack of wolves, like a rabbit can dart about to avoid their predators? Or if you're prey is fleeing, being able to coordinate your balance and maybe jump over a chasm that your antelope just managed to do is necessary.
Creative Director
|
Giving rangers Acrobatics is, actually, a pretty good idea, and it's certainly something I'd like to see happen for the 2nd Edition of Pathfinder (which is still quite a few years away even from us to begin seriously talking about at Paizo, so it's not gonna happen any time soon). I honestly can't say why he wasn't given the skill as a class skill, since I didn't design those rules—that'd be a question to ask Jason.
As for why we didn't combine Swim and Climb into one skill... that boils down to the fact that we want some creatures to be able to use one of those and not the other. It doesn't make sense for a spider to be a great swimmer, or for a fish to be a great climber, and combining those skills into one skill would make creating stats for creatures like that unnecessarily complex. Furthermore... the skills at being a good climber don't necessarily map to being a good swimmer. Why would a mountaineer who never saw a large body of water automatically be as good a swimmer as he was a climber?
There's plenty of other reasons why we made the choices we made, of course (not the least of which was us trying NOT to have the same list of skills as 4th edition, to be honest, because we were pretty timid at the time about stepping on WotC's toes, for good or for ill), and if those choices don't make sense to you, then change them in your game. As I've said many times before, the fact that the game CAN be so easily changed to accommodate house rules is an incredible strength of the game.
We still have to make choices on how to set things up as a baseline, though, so we do.
All of which is a way of me saying: "Feel free to talk about how and why you think the rules should change, but do so without being a jerk." The vast majority of posters in this thread are managing quite well to keep level heads and replying to the topic without being antagonistic, so I know it can be done. There's no excuse to go about it in a way that uses words like, "stupid" or "graybeards" or using all caps or otherwise being a tool.
Without even considering the fluff of the class, I think that the Ranger should have Acrobatics (not Athletics, Acrobatics) as a class skill for the sake of balance. Why?
Think about it, which classes have Acrobatics as a class skill?
-Barbarian
-Monk
-Rogue
Those are all non-spellcasting classes with low AC, and all those classes are designed to fight in melee (even the Rogue, because it's easier to use sneak attack in melee), so they NEED Acrobatics to be able to avoid AoO when moving around their opponents. It's like a booby prize to compensate for their low AC. Since the Ranger also has a low AC (he can't wear heavy armor), he should have Acrobatics for the same reason that those 3 other classes have it.
That being said, the Ranger's AC is not as bad as the Barbarian's AC (with is -2 penalty to AC when raging), so maybe that's why Jason didn't think it was necessary to give Acrobatics to the Ranger.
No one is implying you're running to your prey. So you don't think a hunter balancing himself on a tree branch for a better aim at his target is practical? Or how about balancing on a ridge along a cliff to get to your target easier? Rushing across thin logs across riverways? Tumbling through and away from a pack of wolves, like a rabbit can dart about to avoid their predators? Or if you're prey is fleeing, being able to coordinate your balance and maybe jump over a chasm that your antelope just managed to do is necessary.
You got a very strange view of hunters....
I would like to put forth wizards should get acrobatics....as the well they study ancient ruins and such aka archaeology...well Indiana Joenes obviously had arcrobatics....so it only makes sense...
Also fighters should have it too....because well have you ever watched those movies with obstacle courses and such...?
No one is implying you're running to your prey. So you don't think a hunter balancing himself on a tree branch for a better aim at his target is practical? Or how about balancing on a ridge along a cliff to get to your target easier? Rushing across thin logs across riverways? Tumbling through and away from a pack of wolves, like a rabbit can dart about to avoid their predators? Or if you're prey is fleeing, being able to coordinate your balance and maybe jump over a chasm that your antelope just managed to do is necessary.
And I'm not saying they can't be done. Just take the skill and do it. With the exception of the wolves the actions are deliberate and planned for the most part. I'd say Stealth was as important, or perhaps more so, to any of those actions (except the chasm or wolves) than Acrobatics. In any event, I'm just saying it can be done without it being a class skill and that other skills (i.e. Survival or Stealth) are more germane to the Ranger. There are only so many class skills. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see it as a class skill, but it doesn't ruin the class either.
I removed some posts.
Don't be a jerk. Keep criticism constructive.
I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...
|
I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...
What are we to talk about on this forum then? And who is to tell us what we can talk about?
Giving rangers Acrobatics is, actually, a pretty good idea, and it's certainly something I'd like to see happen for the 2nd Edition of Pathfinder (which is still quite a few years away even from us to begin seriously talking about at Paizo, so it's not gonna happen any time soon). I honestly can't say why he wasn't given the skill as a class skill, since I didn't design those rules—that'd be a question to ask Jason.
As for why we didn't combine Swim and Climb into one skill... that boils down to the fact that we want some creatures to be able to use one of those and not the other. It doesn't make sense for a spider to be a great swimmer, or for a fish to be a great climber, and combining those skills into one skill would make creating stats for creatures like that unnecessarily complex. Furthermore... the skills at being a good climber don't necessarily map to being a good swimmer. Why would a mountaineer who never saw a large body of water automatically be as good a swimmer as he was a climber?
Fish wouldn't be good climbers under an Athletics skill, because they would still be physically incapable of climbing. We already have numerous examples of people getting bonuses to one aspect of a skill that don't apply to others. Some Perception bonuses only apply to using one particular sense. The Acrobatics bonus from a high base speed only applies to Acrobatics checks to jump. Or heck, compare to your CMB number; depending on your feat loadout, that could be different for each different combat maneuver. A merged Athletics skill for Swim, Climb, and possibly Jump wouldn't be any more complicated than those existing examples--'Spiders have a +X racial bonus to Athletics checks for the purpose of climbing.' Done. And as a merged skill, it makes infinitely more sense than some--in Pathfinder, an esteemed professor of Languages is apparently one of the more capable forgers in the world by definition.
I highly support merged skills on general principle; separating skills out for increased granularity carries a high risk of creating skills to specialized for anyone to put ranks in. In my own games, I have an Athletics skill, and I've also eliminated Spellcraft--I've never seen why that should be separate from a relevant Knowledge check.
I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...What are we to talk about on this forum then? And who is to tell us what we can talk about?
I suppose it's just me. Sorry to interrupt the thread.
I suppose it's just me. Sorry to interrupt the thread.I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...What are we to talk about on this forum then? And who is to tell us what we can talk about?
Beside, the "you can house rule it otherwise" is not a valid argument when criticizing a rule. If it was a valid argument, then Paizo could sell us a book containing 575 blank pages for 52,99$ and ask us to write our own rules in it.
Sure we can always modify the rules that we don't like, but that doesn't change anything about the quality of the rules as written.
I suppose it's just me. Sorry to interrupt the thread.I don't get it, why don't you guys just house rule it? As James has said, it's a great idea and it will most likely be implemented in Pathfinder 2e, it will probably not be errata'd anytime soon, so why not skip the justification, because I think everyone will agree that at some level the ranger deserves Acrobatics. Even if you disagree, the game is already set up for you! Maybe I'll never understand the dynamics of beating a dead horse or arguing on a forum...What are we to talk about on this forum then? And who is to tell us what we can talk about?Beside, the "you can house rule it otherwise" is not a valid argument when criticizing a rule. If it was a valid argument, then Paizo could sell us a book containing 575 blank pages for 52,99$ and ask us to write our own rules in it.
Sure we can always modify the rules that we don't like, but that doesn't change anything about the quality of the rules as written.
I'm not arguing against it, I'm completely for it. I just figured since James stated it was something he'd consider for the next iteration that it wouldn't need to be justified as a skill for rangers anymore. It's not going to be modified any time soon in an errata, by the ways James posted, so I just didn't think it needed anymore convincing.
Also, I totally think "you can house rule it" is a valid argument for criticizing a rule. Some people think Leadership is broken and house rule it away. I don't think there is a problem with Leadership, I've never had a problem with it in play, but some people have different tastes. House rules are like cultural cousine, everyone has a style they use, each unique to the group.
|
|
What is the concept of a ranger? They sneak around a terrain-type, right? Frequently standing in one spot and full-attacking with a bow? Like to wear medium armor?
So, why should rangers have an especial preference for acrobatics?
Meanwhile, barbarians are moving and leaping in and out of melee, jumping on tables to get high grounds, etc.
TWF Drizzt "rangers" are multiclass barbarians.
As for why we didn't combine Swim and Climb into one skill... that boils down to the fact that we want some creatures to be able to use one of those and not the other. It doesn't make sense for a spider to be a great swimmer, or for a fish to be a great climber, and combining those skills into one skill would make creating stats for creatures like that unnecessarily complex.
To answer both assertions: Perception. You would treat "Athletics" just as you treat Perception. It wouldn't be any more or less complex. Fish would get their natural bonus to Swim but not to climbing. Just like Perception is affected by being Deaf or Blind. Being Blind doesn't make you unable to cast spells with Somatic components. And nothing that I know of actually stops fish from using Climb anyway.
Right, because a tight rope is securely fastened at both ends, whereas a fallen tree could shift and roll at any moment.What? No. A fallen tree has branches and a root system. It is not going to shift or roll anywhere. A perfectly cut log might.
I have tried to walk across a fallen tree to cross a stream and had it shift on me enough where I fell in. This has happened more than once, but then again I spend a fair bit of time moving cross-country in back woods. Some areas are remote enough that during parts of the year I can go a week or more without seeing a single human being, so I doubt they're perfectly cut logs.
|
|
I appreciate folding Spot and Listen into Perception, as well as the pains in the ass Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, and Pick Locks into Disable. I no longer feel like my rogues are gimped unless they have at least a 16 INT.
The point was, however, that you have to make notes of 'this creature gets a bonus to Perception when using smell, and not sight', which invalidates the argument 'we couldn't have an Athletics skill because then creatures that get Climb bonuses would be better at Swim'.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I appreciate folding Spot and Listen into Perception, as well as the pains in the ass Hide and Move Silently into Stealth, and Pick Locks into Disable. I no longer feel like my rogues are gimped unless they have at least a 16 INT.The point was, however, that you have to make notes of 'this creature gets a bonus to Perception when using smell, and not sight', which invalidates the argument 'we couldn't have an Athletics skill because then creatures that get Climb bonuses would be better at Swim'.
The thing is, most Perception bonuses don't apply to one sense over the others. They're just '+X Perception'. Where a creature does have one overdeveloped sense, that's usually handled by giving them one of the Special Abilities Pathfinder inherited from 3.5 like Scent or Blindsense.
Climb and Swim bonuses on the other hand generally show up on their own. It's pretty rare you see them both on the same creature (off the top of my head, I know the various rats have both climb and swim speeds, and I think the various varieties of snake are the same). Combining them into Athletics would result in almost every instance of an Athletics bonus needing a specific clarification.