|
I may reopen a discussion that was already done, but i searched and found nothing, so i ask:
Why did Paizo drop skill synergy bonuses? They were pretty useful, and some of them really made sense. Of course, having 5 ranks in acrobatics can't givr you a +2 bonus to acrobatics, but there were skills that didn't end up compounded into one.
munchkinism (as mentioned before)
favorite class change --> possibly more skill points anyhow
unnecessarily complicated (well just unnecessary to be exact)
if it makes sense for RP reasons, you can just as easily acquire those other skills.
1) Hideous min-maxing in some cases (like Diplomacy).
2) To simplify the skill system (seriously, 83% of all errors in NPC stat blocks were caused by skill synergies :p). Granted, favoured class bonuses have kinda mucked that up again, but imagine having BOTH!
I think those are two of the main reasons (whether we agree with them or not).
a number of the skills that gave synergies were combined. they are not necessary..
One of my favorite things about PF vs. 3.X is the simplified skill system. Once a class skill, always a class skill, which is great for multi-classers. Anyone else wanting a stealthy cleric or a well-read fighter can have a respectable score with straight ranks, not that 1/2 pt. nonsense that made it nigh impossible to be good at anything but a predetermined set of skills.
Rogues and other skill-dependent classes in particular have much to be grateful for in PF. They can dip into other classes and still stay competent in their key skills.
Synergies are gone because they just aren't needed. Good riddance! :P
I don't miss them at all. In my opinion, most were either a bit ridiculous (e.g. +6 on Diplomacy checks from synergies is just nuts) or a bit obscure (e.g. +2 to Disguise checks when acting in character, or +2 when escaping from being tied up with ropes).
Furthermore, if you want a small bonus to a skill, now you can take the appropriate trait.
|
The one thing that I miss (and this goes back to 3.0, actually) was the slight dex boost you could get for a really high tumble skill. Of course, you could synergize that as well, which made it a bit too powerful, probably.
If they kept skill synergies out but brought back the dodge bonus to AC for high ranks in acrobatics (ranks, mind you, not just the gross skill bonus), that would be nice.
The one thing that I miss (and this goes back to 3.0, actually) was the slight dex boost you could get for a really high tumble skill. Of course, you could synergize that as well, which made it a bit too powerful, probably.
If they kept skill synergies out but brought back the dodge bonus to AC for high ranks in acrobatics (ranks, mind you, not just the gross skill bonus), that would be nice.
What, you mean this?
Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4.
I never remembered to figure them in but, to mirror some other folks remarks, we did had a player who NEVER forgot to figure them in.
|
|
The one thing that I miss (and this goes back to 3.0, actually) was the slight dex boost you could get for a really high tumble skill. Of course, you could synergize that as well, which made it a bit too powerful, probably.
If they kept skill synergies out but brought back the dodge bonus to AC for high ranks in acrobatics (ranks, mind you, not just the gross skill bonus), that would be nice.
What, you mean this?
Special: If you have 3 or more ranks in Acrobatics, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2, and a +6 dodge bonus to AC when taking the total defense action instead of the usual +4.
No - that's different. IIRC (and this is a while ago), back in the early days of 3rd, for every 5 ranks of Tumble you had (it might have been every +5 to the skill, I can't remember) you got a +1 dodge bonus to AC, full stop, no fighting defensively needed. It helped reduce reliance on armor for classes like rogues, monks, and rangers.
Yeah, I don't miss them.
I'd rather just define my character as I please.
And it makes the math simpler.
No - that's different. IIRC (and this is a while ago), back in the early days of 3rd, for every 5 ranks of Tumble you had (it might have been every +5 to the skill, I can't remember) you got a +1 dodge bonus to AC, full stop, no fighting defensively needed. It helped reduce reliance on armor for classes like rogues, monks, and rangers.
It doesn't say anything like that in the 3.0 SRD, just the stuff about fighting defensively. Maybe it was in a splatbook?
Synergy bonuses weren't really worth the hassle. Especially those conditional ones, where you got a bonus to only part of the skill, not all skill applications.
No - that's different. IIRC (and this is a while ago), back in the early days of 3rd, for every 5 ranks of Tumble you had (it might have been every +5 to the skill, I can't remember) you got a +1 dodge bonus to AC, full stop, no fighting defensively needed. It helped reduce reliance on armor for classes like rogues, monks, and rangers.
YRI
|
|
No - that's different. IIRC (and this is a while ago), back in the early days of 3rd, for every 5 ranks of Tumble you had (it might have been every +5 to the skill, I can't remember) you got a +1 dodge bonus to AC, full stop, no fighting defensively needed. It helped reduce reliance on armor for classes like rogues, monks, and rangers.It doesn't say anything like that in the 3.0 SRD, just the stuff about fighting defensively. Maybe it was in a splatbook?
The Neverwinter Nights computer game did that, but that's the only source that I'm familiar with.
I've still permitted skill synergies in game, assuming the player can come up with a reasonable reason why Skill A would provide a bonus to Skill B in that particular situation. For example, I had a player ask to apply a synergy from Knowledge (architecture & engineering) to a Perception check to determine if there was anything unusual about a particular room's construction. It seemed reasonable, and so that player go a +2 bonus to the Perception check.
I did like the tumble skill in NWN.
I don't think skill synergies are necessary anymore. With the skill boosting feats encouraging you to put at least 10 ranks in a skill to double the bonus, the synergies aren't needed. You get more feats in Pathfinder so it is easy to take a skill boosting feat and not feel like you are sacrificing too much.
Skill points are also much more potent than they were before, with all of them having the same value, unlike in 3.5 where you had 2:1 ratios depending on if it was a class skill or not.
Further, to implement them now you'd need to have a clumsy rule of "You need 2 ranks in this class skill, or 5 ranks if it is not a class skill, plus you also need 2 ranks in this other class skill, or 5 ranks if not a class skill." If people had their eyes glaze over at the old rules, these would definitely make people ignore the option all the more.
Class skills don't give you 3 ranks, they give you a +3 bonus to the checks. Otherwise you'd be able to upgrade your Skill Focus-type feats 3 levels early if they were for a class skill. So it would still just need to be "If you have 5 ranks in this skill..."
speaking of combining skills, what about rope use? that just disappeared and didnt get put into anything?
speaking of combining skills, what about rope use? that just disappeared and didnt get put into anything?
There are rules for tieing people up. I believe they are in the grapple section. The other functions of use rope can all be combined into other skills like Climb or profession.
The principle use was binding someone, which is now tied to CMD. As for the other uses, didn't they mostly amount to tying knots?
well tying someone up really well is making a combat maneuver against them?
So an unconscious prisoner that was really hard to trip or bull rush would be really hard to tie up as well?
I have only one thing to say, Gullivers travels, how did all those little people tie gulliver up then?
The principle use was binding someone, which is now tied to CMD. As for the other uses, didn't they mostly amount to tying knots?well tying someone up really well is making a combat maneuver against them?
So an unconscious prisoner that was really hard to trip or bull rush would be really hard to tie up as well?
I have only one thing to say, Gullivers travels, how did all those little people tie gulliver up then?
Grapple no longer has the limitation based on size differences and then they used Aid Another many, many times. 20 Lilliputians would have +38 to their CMB.
A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?
Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.
Grapple no longer has the limitation based on size differences and then they used Aid Another many, many times. 20 Lilliputians would have +38 to their CMB.The principle use was binding someone, which is now tied to CMD. As for the other uses, didn't they mostly amount to tying knots?well tying someone up really well is making a combat maneuver against them?
So an unconscious prisoner that was really hard to trip or bull rush would be really hard to tie up as well?
I have only one thing to say, Gullivers travels, how did all those little people tie gulliver up then?
So when you are tieing something remove the size difference/bonus for grappling?
I cant remember what the party tried to tie up recently and we couldnt find binding rules, but do remember it had a huge cmd (like 34) and it wasnt a giant. think thye ended up using a wand of web...
A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?
Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.
I played in dozens of 3.5 games. I saw 1 use skill synergies mostly correct. Various players remembered them to different degrees. They are very easy to forget about or ignore. They are even easier to cheese. They were not hard, but they were a pain.
They are much easier to impliment as misc. bonuses as they would come up in game.
A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?
Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.
As I noted above, I thought they were either too cheesy (Diplomacy, mostly) or too obscure. "Hard" has nothing to do with it.
So when you are tieing something remove the size difference/bonus for grappling?
I cant remember what the party tried to tie up recently and we couldnt find binding rules, but do remember it had a huge cmd (like 34) and it wasnt a giant. think thye ended up using a wand of web...
When you're binding an opponent, you use this rule:
"Tie Up: If you have your target pinned, otherwise restrained, or unconscious, you can use rope to tie him up. This works like a pin effect, but the DC to escape the bonds is equal to 20 + your CMB (instead of your CMD) ... If the DC to escape from these bindings is higher than 20 + the target's CMB, the target cannot escape from the bonds, even with a natural 20 on the check."
So, you can effectively tie up most creatures, even those with a high CMD. Also note that if the target is unconscious or immobilized, your CMB roll automatically succeeds, regardless of its CMD.
Grapple no longer has the limitation based on size differences and then they used Aid Another many, many times. 20 Lilliputians would have +38 to their CMB.The principle use was binding someone, which is now tied to CMD. As for the other uses, didn't they mostly amount to tying knots?well tying someone up really well is making a combat maneuver against them?
So an unconscious prisoner that was really hard to trip or bull rush would be really hard to tie up as well?
I have only one thing to say, Gullivers travels, how did all those little people tie gulliver up then?
So when you are tieing something remove the size difference/bonus for grappling?
I cant remember what the party tried to tie up recently and we couldnt find binding rules, but do remember it had a huge cmd (like 34) and it wasnt a giant. think thye ended up using a wand of web...
To tie up, you do not need to beat their CMD unless they are actively resisting (trying to do it as part of a grapple). An unconcious person could not resist. The DC to break out is the CMD of the person doing the tieing. Things with high CMBs are difficult to tie up.
This does make size an issue, as well as making it so full BAB classes and high str characters are better at using ropes. But overall, it comes up so infrequently and is so specialized that it really did not need a skill dedicated to it.
I may reopen a discussion that was already done, but i searched and found nothing, so i ask:
Why did Paizo drop skill synergy bonuses? They were pretty useful, and some of them really made sense. Of course, having 5 ranks in acrobatics can't givr you a +2 bonus to acrobatics, but there were skills that didn't end up compounded into one.
I'm gonna go against everyone here and say that I do miss the concept that skills may synergize between each others...
The hourserule we use: If you can convince the DM that a skill (in which you have at least 5 ranks) should help you succeed another skill's check, you get a +2 bonus for "favorable circumstances". You can't stack bonuses from multiple skills; +2 is what you get.
'findel
A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?
Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.I played in dozens of 3.5 games. I saw 1 use skill synergies mostly correct. Various players remembered them to different degrees. They are very easy to forget about or ignore. They are even easier to cheese. They were not hard, but they were a pain.
They are much easier to impliment as misc. bonuses as they would come up in game.
You infer that you know exactly how they work.
My question would then be what happened in those dozens minus one games then?
The chart is in the main book, there were numerous character sheets and builders that that gave you the info or even auto included them, yet people still had issues?
Makes me wonder about all of the other stacking modifiers that is the game.
A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?
Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.I played in dozens of 3.5 games. I saw 1 use skill synergies mostly correct. Various players remembered them to different degrees. They are very easy to forget about or ignore. They are even easier to cheese. They were not hard, but they were a pain.
They are much easier to impliment as misc. bonuses as they would come up in game.
You infer that you know exactly how they work.
My question would then be what happened in those dozens minus one games then?
People don't care about them. Or the GM doesn't use them because he hates them. Or the players make their sheets quickly and ignore them. Or they recalculate their sheet and forget them (especially when they notice they have an extra +6 and can't remember where it comes from because standard sheets do not include a spot for them).
The chart is in the main book, there were numerous character sheets and builders that that gave you the info or even auto included them, yet people still had issues?
Doesn't mean people use those tools. My character sheets are typically on a blank sheet of paper that I pull out of my printer tray. Most characters I make without taking out a core rulebook. Skill synergies are one of the only rules I need to look up for non-casters, and the only thing I need to look up in that section. IME, most players never even read the skill section unless they need to look up a specific skill.
Makes me wonder about all of the other stacking modifiers that is the game.
There are reletively few locations where all those modifiers are covered in the books. Class bonuses, stat bonuses, and magic item bonuses account for almost all of them. Racial bonuses are rare and static. Skill synergy bonuses do not apply at first level, have a relatively random point for when they apply, often have arbitrary limitations, do not always make sense as to when they should or should not be there, are often misused or abused, are frequently forgotten about, are located in a often ignored part of the book, and do not add much to the game.
Creative Director
|
I may reopen a discussion that was already done, but i searched and found nothing, so i ask:
Why did Paizo drop skill synergy bonuses? They were pretty useful, and some of them really made sense. Of course, having 5 ranks in acrobatics can't givr you a +2 bonus to acrobatics, but there were skills that didn't end up compounded into one.
Because skill synergy bonuses were the Number One error we saw pop up over and over and over in stat blocks.
Not only that, but in cases like Diplomacy, they were a great way to have unnaturally huge skill bonuses. You could make a 2nd-level character with a Diplomacy +17 or so quite easily by abusing the synergy bonuses.
Those two reasons alone were great reasons to drop skill synergies—even BEFORE the fact that we wanted to simplify skills across the board as much as we could while retaining backwards compatibility. Skill synergies were just too complex and too easy to abuse to live.
|
I may reopen a discussion that was already done, but i searched and found nothing, so i ask:
Why did Paizo drop skill synergy bonuses? They were pretty useful, and some of them really made sense. Of course, having 5 ranks in acrobatics can't givr you a +2 bonus to acrobatics, but there were skills that didn't end up compounded into one.
I'm gonna go against everyone here and say that I do miss the concept that skills may synergize between each others...
The hourserule we use: If you can convince the DM that a skill (in which you have at least 5 ranks) should help you succeed another skill's check, you get a +2 bonus for "favorable circumstances". You can't stack bonuses from multiple skills; +2 is what you get.
'findel
I too like this. That is, in my mind, exactly what the "situations modifiers" that a GM can add to skill checks are for. This also allows more flexibility to both the player and GM for synergies.
|
The +3 bonus on any class skill when first taken at any level obviates the need for the old 3e "layer" of synergies and quadruple ranks at 1st level.
For instance, in 3.5, if you wanted a play a rogue/tank who wasn't worthless as a rogue, you had to hold your nose and take rogue at 1st (with its puny maxed d6 HP) in order to mix/max the 40 ranks or so in skills you'd get if you had an INT of 14 ([8+2]x4). Then, at 2nd, you'd take the melee class level (for 4 skills) -- and that all was very annoying if you wanted a BAB+1 prerequisite feat at 1st level (such as, commonly for DEX rogues, Weapon Finesse).
In Pathfinder, the same concept takes the melee class at 1st, maxes the hit-die, takes the BAB+1 feat if he wants it, and has 4 skill ranks (fighter or paladin) each of which get a +3 bonus if spend in class skills. At 2nd, take rogue, receive 10 skills to spend (and all receive a +3 bonus if spent on first-time-taken rogue class skills). Pathfinder rogues also have d8s.
In Living Greyhawk 3.5 organized play, the rogue/tank with rogue at 1st had 14HP and 44 skill ranks at 2nd level given CON:12 and INT:14.
In Pathfinder Society organized play, the same-stats rogue/tank with fighter or paladin at 1st has 17HP and 15 skill ranks (assuming favored class picks extra skill) with a potential +45 in bonuses if all 15 ranks are spread out into fifteen different class skills. The player is also free to choose the tank class as his favored one if plans to have more levels in it, and take even more skills (and spend them upgrading rogue skills).
So, in this comparison you'd lose 3.5 synergies but gain 16pts worth of skill finalized numbers, 3hp, and, due to being able to name your favored class, never worry about XP penalties for having out-of-even class levels in a multiclass.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm on the fence, as to whether the elimination of skill synergies is a really good idea, or just a meh rules change.
One of the design goals for the Pathfinder RPG was to make it easier for folks (players / DMs / designers) to stat up medium- or high-level characters without starting at the beginning and walking their way up from level to level. While it's not a big deal for players to remember to add in skill synergies to their favorite PCs, I'll certainly cop to the claim that it's harder for me as a DM to remember to do that when statting up a 12th level opponent. If I give her 5 ranks in Bluff, I have to adjust her Diplomacy, Disguise, Intimidate, and Sleight of Hand skills as well.
Right now, in Pathfinder, a 2nd-level half-elf character devoted to Diplomacy can get:
- 2 ranks
- a +3 bonus for favored class
- a +5 bonus for a 20 Charisma
- +3 bonus for Skill Focus
- +1 trait bonus
- +2 from the enhanced diplomacy orison.
Thee's another point, which I haven't noticed anybody bringing up: to get all those synergy bonuses, your PC had to devote a good chunk of skill ranks. To get Really Awful Good at tracking, your character would need to invest 5 ranks in two or three knowledge skills and Search, as well as Survival. Unless your PC has a high Intelligence as well as Wisdom, that's probably over half your skill allotment per level. And then throw in "gotta have" feats like Tracking and Skill Focus: Survival, and you've committed most of the character's low-level resources. Which means that characters who are Awfully Good at Tracking (or at Diplomacy, or at Spellcraft) all look pretty similar. Breaking Skill Synergy allows the player to put those resources in other skills or feats, diversifying the character.
On the other hand ...
Skill Synergies hold a dear spot in my heart. From a "common sense" point of view, and a flavor point of view, they're a nice addition to the skill rules. Being good at a Craft (jewelry) ought to give your character a benefit when appraising jewelry.
Laurelfindel's houserule, a +2 circimstance bonus, would address that, to my satisfaction. (It's like giving the synergy bonus a type, so they don't stack with one another.)
Synergies are also a nice touch for role-playing a character. Those 5 ranks in Knowledge (royalty) that help with your Diplomacy check? They let you drop the names of a knight errant's feudal lord and some peers who support your position. Those 5 ranks in Bluff that help your ally's Diplomacy? They likely work in a different way. So even though both of you have a +2 to your Diplomacy checks, you probably approach NPCs differently.
I'll agree with whomever suggested that this level of flavor is expressed just as well if you use the optional Traits rules.
Skill Synergies hold a dear spot in my heart. From a "common sense" point of view, and a flavor point of view, they're a nice addition to the skill rules. Being good at a Craft (jewelry) ought to give your character a benefit when appraising jewelry.
Laurelfindel's houserule, a +2 circimstance bonus, would address that, to my satisfaction. (It's like giving the synergy bonus a type, so they don't stack with one another.)
I'd probably allow it the other way. E.g., if you wanted to use Craft (jewelry) to appraise an item (say), I might let you do it with some kind of penalty to the check.
I hated the skill system in 3E with 4 times at 1st then paying double for cross class and applying synergies. As a player it wasn't bad but as DM if you stat up an NPC on the fly it's nightmare.
Now I can make up human guard who is level 3 fighter with not int bonus get 6 skill point. Just spend them how you will, add the attribute and class skill bonus and done. So for example if the guard is required to use perception I know he has +1 wisdom mod and 3 ranks in perception for +4 to spot the rogue in the shadows. Just much easier to do on the fly.
Hogarth, do you envision a character with both Craft (jewelry) and Appraise ought to be able to analyze and evaluate obscure jewelry caches better than someone with only the same degree of skill with Appraise?
I don't know why a piece of jewelry would be "obscure" to an expert appraiser, but not to an expert appraiser who also makes his own jewelry on the side.
Now if you wanted to argue that Appraise is a weird kind of catch-all skill that doesn't make much sense, I wouldn't argue with that. :-)
A system based and designed around stacking modifiers and people thought the skill synergies was too hard?
Sounds a bit too 'Paizo can do no wrong with pathfinder' to me.
It's not that they were complicated. It's that they were needlessly complicated. The gain doesn't really justify the effort. It just adds another, unnecessary step to character generation/advancement: Figure out synergy bonuses. Not to mention those cases where you didn't get a bonus to all skill checks, but just certain kinds of checks. Now you're going to add that information to the skill section of your sheet, which isn't really built for prose.
So an unconscious prisoner that was really hard to trip or bull rush would be really hard to tie up as well?
Oh yes! Because if an unconscious prisoner is hard to topple or bull rush, he's the s**+. In fact, unconscious prisoners should, by all means, already lie on the ground instead of standing. So if the guy remains upright and refuses to fall over despite being out like a light, he deserves to be hard to tie up! ;-P
I have only one thing to say, Gullivers travels, how did all those little people tie gulliver up then?
It didn't come up in the stories, but they were all high-level monks.
I know in one Forgotten Realms game, we had a halfling with an Intimidate check of at least +20.
That is just wrong. Especially since halflings are small and should get a penalty based on size.
The chart is in the main book, there were numerous character sheets and builders that that gave you the info or even auto included them, yet people still had issues?
Not everyone uses character builders, and most sheets I've seen didn't include them (I can't think of a decent way to even do that).
And it's something that is not just easy to abuse, but easy to forget, too. It didn't come up at character generation (if you created a fresh 1st-level character), you had to get to level 2 to have this special instance (since there was only the one time you got the bonuses - when you got 5 ranks). Unless, of course, we're talking about cross-class skills here, then it's level 7. Or maybe you add skills, or don't max out all your skills.
It was too rare to be easy remembered, yet too frequent to avoid errors.
I for one remember it as a chore. Especially in 3.0, where there was no synergy chart.
Pathfinder's skill system resulted in most characters becoming more skilled, and some instances, the gain was enormous. It does so by being quite simple in execution while still allowing a lot of flexibility.
There were several skill consolidations in Pathfinder, and that includes some of the most important skills in the game. That means that you'll get more skills for your skill points. And you can gain even more skill points with Favoured Class.
The net increase of racial bonuses also means that your skill bonuses will often be higher than before. And Skill Focus and those +2/+2 feats now double their bonus once you get 10 ranks in those skills.
Not to mention that when something is not a class skill for you, Pathfinder is a lot more generous than 3e.
All in all, I don't think that the boost these bonuses provided will be missed. And I'm quite sure that the needless extra effort won't be missed, either.