Why do so many classes only get 2 Skill Ranks per level? In particular, wizards. Having access to all the Knowledge skills should make more points available to them, or have I just had too much cough syrup today? I've house ruled in the past that the minimum amount a class could gain per level was 4 ranks, and it didn't upset game balance.
Anyway, these are the thoughts of someone who's been sluggin' "Tussin" all day.
i completely agree with you on this, the minimum should be 4+Int mod. i think when they removed the d4 HD for some classes they should have removed the 2+Int for skills and just gone with 4+Int as minimum.
It's less painful than it used to be, because so many skills cover what used to be several skills. Still, I've always found it a bit odd for wizards. The best answer I have is that it's based on expecting them to have a high Int mod already, but that's really not a great answer.
Class that rely more on skill would have less appeal theoretically if they did not do so since the other classes would be really powerful in their areas and be decent at skills to. I would have made the minimum 4, and boosted the other classes that already had 4 so they could keep their skill advantage. I agree with the idea of the 2 skill class, but not the execution.
Wizard due to their intelligence modifiers get a lot of skills over the course of the game anyway. If they had 4 they would surpass the bard and rogue, and they might do so anyway, and those two are supposed to be the most skilled classes.
Why do so many classes only get 2 Skill Ranks per level? In particular, wizards. Having access to all the Knowledge skills should make more points available to them, or have I just had too much cough syrup today? I've house ruled in the past that the minimum amount a class could gain per level was 4 ranks, and it didn't upset game balance.
Anyway, these are the thoughts of someone who's been sluggin' "Tussin" all day.
I guess it's a mix of D&D history and balancing, i.e.
- Wizards: They have so much power AND their main stat is Int. For a wizard to fulfill his role, he needs to have at least an Int of 19, their only one really important ability, and thus 4 extra skill points each level. 2 skill points are fine.
- Fighters: They are focusing on fighting and the kings of the battle field. They do not have time to study or invest into a lot of skills. Plus their typical image is the "dumb fighter". 2 skill points are fine.
- Paladins: Also only 2 skill points. Less fighting power than the figher, but spells and divine powers to boost.2 skill points are fine.
- Sorcerers: The only ones who are kind of screwed there IMO. OK, they still get their spells known bumped when using prestige classes, but that's not worth it. Their CHA does not improve their skills either... I guess historic reasons are to blame here. I would like 4 for these...
Compare this to rogues: No magic, 3/4 bab, low HD - they gotta be good at something else, so there come the skills.
I think 4 skill points are fine for any class except for the wizard, but that's my personal take on it.
Wizards are more or less fine since a) it's 2+int, and b) because they can substitute many skills for spells, and spells don't even have a chance for failure. Of all the 2+int classes, wizards are if anything the best off.
Fighters, on the other hand...
one of my issues is i always in-vision every true adventurer being very skillful simply because they are adventurers but i don't in-vision that every adventurer is super smart.
it has always bugged me that if you want a decent number of skills you need to be smart (have a high Int) i have never felt that Int should be the only way to figure skills.
|
2+int is fine.
fighters tend to have high physical stats, so the checks for physical skills arent so hard, and they ignore some acp eventually.
wizard-high int, so 2 sp doesnt really matter. and +10 to most knowelewdges is fine. you only need 5 ranks in a know. to be decent. class skill bonus+int mod covers a lot of knowledge
if you want more skill points there IS the favored class option. or putting better stats into int. or being human for the extra skill point.
a human with a 12 int and favored class bonus gets 3+(class) skill points
one of my issues is i always in-vision every true adventurer being very skillful simply because they are adventurers but i don't in-vision that every adventurer is super smart.
it has always bugged me that if you want a decent number of skills you need to be smart (have a high Int) i have never felt that Int should be the only way to figure skills.
Some RPGs in the 80s had the number of skills you got broken down by ability. For example, a high Dex might net you more Dex related skill points. Honestly, having a high int shouldn't get you jack for Stealth, Acrobatics, etc. But you could easily spend your bonus points on those skills.
Not that I see any good way to apply this to our current situation, I just wanted to point out the correlation.
Basically there is zero reason fighters should have 2 skill points. When I think of a fantastic warrior of myth and legend I don't think of someone who can't swim because he spent all his time learning how to talk gud.
Ironically the class that would fit the "dumb fighter" archtype is the barbarian...who gets more skill points then the fighter.
Basically there is zero reason fighters should have 2 skill points. When I think of a fantastic warrior of myth and legend I don't think of someone who can't swim because he spent all his time learning how to talk gud.
Ironically the class that would fit the "dumb fighter" archtype is the barbarian...who gets more skill points then the fighter.
Usually the fantastic warrior of the myth would belong better to the ranger class than the fighter.
Aragorn and Richard Cypher (from the sword of the truth) come to mind.
|
one of my issues is i always in-vision every true adventurer being very skillful simply because they are adventurers but i don't in-vision that every adventurer is super smart.
it has always bugged me that if you want a decent number of skills you need to be smart (have a high Int) i have never felt that Int should be the only way to figure skills.
Skills are based on your other abilities. Every ability (except Con) is tied to a skill. If you increase those, your skills go up. If a skill happens to be a class skill, you only really need 1 skill point to give it a large boost.
A wizard, who should have the highest Int score, also has access to all the worst Int-based class skills. Appraise is nearly useless, Craft is rarely used, Knowledge is circumstantial (and you have to put points into all of them if you really want to be a know-it-all), Linguistics is also circumstantial, and Spellcraft is actually useful.
Basically there is zero reason fighters should have 2 skill points. When I think of a fantastic warrior of myth and legend I don't think of someone who can't swim because he spent all his time learning how to talk gud.
Ironically the class that would fit the "dumb fighter" archtype is the barbarian...who gets more skill points then the fighter.
Usually the fantastic warrior of the myth would belong better to the ranger class than the fighter.
Aragorn and Richard Cypher (from the sword of the truth) come to mind.
Eh, Aragorn is called a 'ranger' by tolkien standards, but i could see arguments for building him as a cavalier. Sure he could be a ranger too, he does some tracking in the books, certainly no spells or animal companion (although i dunno maybe his horse)
And there are certainly alot more mythical warriors of old, than just tolkien types.
I typically play fighters with stats like this:
Str 14
Dex 13
Con 12
Int 13
Wis 14
Chr 10
With this array, as a human, and preferred class fighter taking the skill point option, i get 5 skill points per level. That's quite a bit for a fighter really.
My Barbarians tend to be a bit more stat heavy
Str 16
Dex 14
Con 17
Int 10
Wis 8
Chr 12
and I usually take my preferred point to HP so most of my barbarians get 5 skill point per level (as a human) so usually equal to the fighter.
Rangers on the other hand when I build them usually look like:
Str 14
Dex 12
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 14
Chr 14
And as such a human Ranger would get 7-8 skill points per level.
I usually put more INT into the fighter because he's usually more of an AC tank type, and will more likely have the feats available to consider taking Combat expertise (to make his Ac even more impressive when tanking)
I generally don't put the INT into barbarians or rangers because they have other places to put their feats and are not as AC focused.
with the greater wis into ranger they can cast the spells they need to and they end up being a good good good saves type character.
i think you have to figure in to that wizards maybe smart but they spend alot of that smart in learning and memorizeing spells i can only imagine the mental fortitude you would have to have to memorize 9 pages of a 9th level spell AND all the other spells you have memorized... who has time to learn how to swim when there busy doing THAT
oh and keep in mind your stong fighter still gets your str to swim and stats to boost those skills up and most likely if your talkin about aragorn hes like 10th level and probably didn't bother maxing all skills but probably dipped a bit into everything hes like hmm im fighting mostly orcs i probably won't need more then 5 points in stealth so lets put some else where
It's actually quite simple. the amount of skill points a class gets essentially represents the "free time" they have to learn things when not practising or learning thier core skills. Primary combat and Spellcasting classes require the most in class practise so they they have the least free time for extra-curricular work. High-int Wizards are just that much better in making use of that scant free time.Why do so many classes only get 2 Skill Ranks per level? In particular, wizards. Having access to all the Knowledge skills should make more points available to them, or have I just had too much cough syrup today? I've house ruled in the past that the minimum amount a class could gain per level was 4 ranks, and it didn't upset game balance.
Anyway, these are the thoughts of someone who's been sluggin' "Tussin" all day.
+1
that sort of makes the ranger an outlier doesn't it, i mean, he has full combat, special training VS specific enemies, spells, and his skills.
|
It's actually quite simple. the amount of skill points a class gets essentially represents the "free time" they have to learn things when not practising or learning thier core skills. Primary combat and Spellcasting classes require the most in class practise so they they have the least free time for extra-curricular work. High-int Wizards are just that much better in making use of that scant free time.Why do so many classes only get 2 Skill Ranks per level? In particular, wizards. Having access to all the Knowledge skills should make more points available to them, or have I just had too much cough syrup today? I've house ruled in the past that the minimum amount a class could gain per level was 4 ranks, and it didn't upset game balance.
Anyway, these are the thoughts of someone who's been sluggin' "Tussin" all day.
So why do sorcerers not get more? They don't have to spend countless hours pouring over old tomes trying force the magic to work...the magic flows freely through their veins. This is also a reason sorcerers should actually advance FASTER to higher levels spells than wizards.
lol yeah really he should pwn the face off those orcs why take any other favored enemy? 1st favored enemy im thinkin orcs... second hmm well ive not seen any abberations so how about ORCS third favor enemy... hmm worgs maybe... nah orcs
actually the Great kthulu whom slumbers in his home at ryleh dreaming makes a damn good point.
sorcerers don't have to study or do anything with there free time do they?
In our last campaign, we just decided to house rule that any class with 2+ Int skills gets bumped up to 4+ Int.
It has not disrupted our game in the least, in terms of balance, and it has made the appropriate players feel a bit more useful, and their stats a bit more colorful.
Here's a variation of something I did for 3.5. In 3.5, rather than have the starting skills be 4x for 1st level, I did this...
Your ranks at 1st equal your Stat Mod for each stat. But each set of skill ranks could only be spent on skills that were modified by those ranks.
So, the High Str fighter had ranks from Str to put into Climb, Jump, Swim, Etc.
As a variation, if you wanted, you could do the following :
All 2+INT classes instead get skill ranks equal to their inherent stat mods, but can only spend the ranks on skills linked to those stat mods.
All 4+INT classes get the same, plus 1 floating skill point.
All 6+INT classes get the same, plus 3 floating skill points.
All 8+INT classes get the same, plus 4 floating skill points.
Human bonus skill points are floating skill points. Favored Class bonus points can only be spent on class skills.
This makes each class have more skills, but the skill monkey classes have a much higher flexibility (with all the floating skill points that can be put into any skill). It also let's you have the stupid fighter who's actually good at certain skills (like climb and swim) due to his strength.
well was agreeing with the great old one for a little there but he kind of went left field on me...
So why do sorcerers not get more? They don't have to spend countless hours pouring over old tomes trying force the magic to work...the magic flows freely through their veins. This is also a reason sorcerers should actually advance FASTER to higher levels spells than wizards.
I've thought along similiar lines as I see the sorcerer to the wizard as the same as the barbarian to the fighter. To me sorcerers are survivors that tend to be drifters as they try to figure out their gifts and how to control them. I picture them roaming from town to town as they get in and out of trouble needing to escape, talk or fight their way out. I see them as having to lift out in the wild a bit and thought that some of the survivor style outdoor skills fit the theme of a sorcerer better than knowledge skills. If I was to re-jig their skills list I'd be adding climb, diplomacy, escape artist, swim and survival to their list and boost them up to 4+Int. Maybe even look at things sleight of hand, disguise, stealth and perception.
Given its not an INT driven class I don't think adding extra skills to class lists or increasing the number of points is going to tip the balance.
|
|
So why do sorcerers not get more? They don't have to spend countless hours pouring over old tomes trying force the magic to work...the magic flows freely through their veins. This is also a reason sorcerers should actually advance FASTER to higher levels spells than wizards.It's actually quite simple. the amount of skill points a class gets essentially represents the "free time" they have to learn things when not practising or learning thier core skills. Primary combat and Spellcasting classes require the most in class practise so they they have the least free time for extra-curricular work. High-int Wizards are just that much better in making use of that scant free time.Why do so many classes only get 2 Skill Ranks per level? In particular, wizards. Having access to all the Knowledge skills should make more points available to them, or have I just had too much cough syrup today? I've house ruled in the past that the minimum amount a class could gain per level was 4 ranks, and it didn't upset game balance.
Anyway, these are the thoughts of someone who's been sluggin' "Tussin" all day.
Their ego gets in the way. They are of the opinion, "Why should I learn to do x when I can just do this!" (queue flashy magic).
sorry, could not resist, j/k of course. :P
Personally, I would not mind seeing Sorcs at a 4 ranks+int instead of the 2 ranks+int.
You could alleviate some of the issue by making the bloodline class skills automatically equal to class level for ranks. This would effectively give the sorc a 3+int instead of a 2+int, but that third would be based on bloodline.
Always disliked the 2+int skill points especially for sorcerers. I mean you never have enough skill points for most of things you want, like wether basic usefulness(perception, knowledge skills,etc.) or chracter developement(Craft, profession, perform,etc.). If I want a fey blooded sorceress with Acrobatics, ecape artist, diplomacy, knowledge(nature), handle animal, perception and perform as class skills and skill points enough to get ranks in, is impossible without multiclassing and I hate multiclassing spellcasters.
Making skills INT-based means that everyone, even the "dumb" fighters, has to balance out their stats a little more or they'll take a hit on skills. It's true that Wizards get a big bonus when it comes to skill points, but take a look at how many feats and bonus spells a sorcerer gets compared to the wizard. And the fighter gets gobs of bonus feats; if you've got a fighter with deficient skills, burn one of them thar feats and beef it up by three points.
well was agreeing with the great old one for a little there but he kind of went left field on me...
I actually spit Pepsi on that one. Thanks :)
As for skills, it's balance, but it can be rationalized. The Wizard and Fighter have a lot to learn (i.e. spells for the Wizard and all martial weapons for the Fighter), other classes have more time to learn skills (i.e. Rogues and Rangers). As for Sorcerors, well the arrogance of the natuarlly gifted ("Why learn a mundane skill. I have Power.") or the lack of education / opportunity :D Another way of looking at it is that the Sorceror has to learn to control and manifest his innate power and that might take up a lot of his time / effort. If you do want a skilled Sorceror, don't use Intelligence as a dump stat. Anyway, as numerous people have pointed out it's fairly easily to use "Rule 0" on it.
If you do want a skilled Sorceror, don't use Intelligence as a dump stat. Anyway, as numerous people have pointed out it's fairly easily to use "Rule 0" on it.Exactly. Same goes for every class. As far as the fighter being shortchanged on physical-based checks, their high ability scores should somewhat rectify.
As for skills, it's balance, but it can be rationalized. The Wizard and Fighter have a lot to learn (i.e. spells for the Wizard and all martial weapons for the Fighter), other classes have more time to learn skills (i.e. Rogues and Rangers). As for Sorcerors, well the arrogance of the natuarlly gifted ("Why learn a mundane skill. I have Power.") or the lack of education / opportunity :D Another way of looking at it is that the Sorceror has to learn to control and manifest his innate power and that might take up a lot of his time / effort. If you do want a skilled Sorceror, don't use Intelligence as a dump stat. Anyway, as numerous people have pointed out it's fairly easily to use "Rule 0" on it.
One point here regarding Fighters. Rangers and Barbarians have all martial weapons as well, and they get more skill points; paladins have heavy armor as well, just lose out on tower shields, same skill points. Apparently for martial types armor's the problem :)
One point here regarding Fighters. Rangers and Barbarians have all martial weapons as well, and they get more skill points; paladins have heavy armor as well, just lose out on tower shields, same skill points. Apparently for martial types armor's the problem :)
True on the weapons. I've worn armor and while it takes time to acustom yourself to it and learn to move properly in it, it's not that time intensive. Maybe just dedication and how you spend your spare time :D Too much partying for the Fighters, more time spent on practice for the Paladins and Rangers. Barbarians might take some time to rationalize :)
Does this really need any more rationalization? The fighters don't have as much time to learn new skills because they're learning all those EXTRA FEATS.
They can choose to devote their time to skills; if they do, it's called skill focus. And if you want an exceptionally skilled fighter, make him a smart fighter.
PF fixed skill points, compared to 3.X. A sorcerer can take a rank of any skill, not just half a rank. Ride? Spend one and add your dex. Good enough... Knowledge? Same deal.
Any full caster with an int of 10 gets more use out of skills than any 3.X character ever could, regardless of skill points per level.
|
Maybe with a little more skill consolidation, I could see keeping some classes at 2/level. Since I still use 3.5 skills, with only a couple modifications, I made 4/level the minimum for all classes. 2/level just isn't enough to allow characters to branch out enough in 3.5. It's better in PF, but not quite enough.
I can understand most of the 2+int skills class.
Wizards spend time learning magic...they are specialize in that.
Fighter learn all of those feats.
Paladins fight as well as get heavily involved with religous training.
Clerics again spend their time learning about a particular faith or even pantheon. and if they are concept clerics than they have to self-teach themselves.
Summoners are again follow a specialized course of study.
Witches are again trained...though it also might be a out of game balance thing.
Ones I disagree with.
Sorcerers...should get atleast 4+int. The only reason I don't think they do is a out of game balance reason.
Rangers should also be at the 4+int level as they get spells...get full attack...get a bunch of class skills and feats( the combat styles) etc. They also requires skills...so trhey are like I think Monks...Barbarians and druids.
It is all about specilization vs generalist. Personaly I perfer the distiction. But if you want to raise thge 2+inbts to 4s...you should raise the them all by two with the exception of Rogues...
Here's what I do:
Increase the skill ranks per level of all classes except wizard by half the difference between their current skill ranks per level and 6. If they have 6 or more already, no change.
Wizards get 3 skill ranks per level so they don't feel left out.
Sorcerers...should get atleast 4+int. The only reason I don't think they do is a out of game balance reason.
I personally disagree. I'm building a 1st-level character right now that I initially saw as a level 1 sorcerer, but I know that the campaign she's going to be in will require more skill ranks than I could give her even though I went the extra mile and made her intelligence 14 and took the Skill Point instead of HP for her favored class. This still only gave me 5 ranks, which didn't seem enough.
What I came to realize, in no small part thanks to the forums here, is that the sorcerers are really powerful (an elemental blood with 20 CHA has 8 d6 ranged touch attacks per day at level 1, which strikes me as way better than an evoker's force missiles) and that I was trying to make this character fill too many roles at once. I was trying to get a character who can talk her way into a palace, sneak around in the shadows, take bad guys out with a rapier, and cast spells to disguise herself as a princess or King or whatever. Too much, too soon.
I wanted the extra skills and the rapier so bad that I ultimately decided to start her out as a rogue to get those extra HP and Skill Ranks (it also happens to completely fit the character)... and I like that the game is balanced enough that I was forced into a tough decision like that. It certainly didn't seem unfair. To me, hard decisions are the crux of any good game, RP or otherwise. 4 skill ranks + INT would have gotten me that much closer to having my cake and eating it, too. Instead I decided to have the cake now and eat it at 2nd level, when this chick's favored class kicks in.
As to wizard vs. sorcerer - sure the wizard gets bonus skill ranks by default, but nearly all of his trained skills are INT-based, and knowledge is the only skill that's useful on a regular basis. KNOW ranks aren't insignificant by any means, but nowhere near as useful as something like perception or even diplomacy (the way my DM runs things, anyway). Sorcerer is a mage class that uses CHA as its prime requisite; if you've poured everything into CHA with your Sorcerer (like you should), then you have a 5-point head start on bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, which to me is at least as useful as huge Knowledge scores. To say nothing of how barren a wizard's "special" column looks compared to a sorcerer's bonus spells. Sure, the wizard gets uber-powerful, but the sorcerer has access to the same spells, minus school restrictions. And is inherently better at making friends.
If it's important to have your sorcerer be more skilled, that should be reflected in how much Intelligence you're willing to give them.
To be honest no player ever thinks he has enough skillpoints, if you do not maximize every skill you can get along decently and be a very skillful fighter though you might still not be nearly as good as your epic companions.
A dwarven lvl 12 fighter with int 10 can maximize two skills to 12 or get one skill at 12 and two skils at 6, not every character given the option has to maximize acrobatics and perception.
Giving everyone more skillpoints sucks a bit for the rogue and other skill focused classes, essentially all they have besides more skillpoints is the +3 bonus on class skills.
I would intoroduce a feat that gives 1 sp/level that gives characters another option to get more sp.
I also do not mind stripping classes of armor proficiencies in exchange for more sp. Fighter drops heavy armor : +1 sp/lvl, drops medium armor another +1, I'd not go more than +2 with this, since it also encourages multi-classing/dipping a bit, for most classes you could find some minor tweaks to get a +2 sp somewhere.
|
Wow.
Well Pathfinder made this not much of an issue once you gain a couple of levels given how class skills now get that +3 bonus. Really it sounds like some of you just don't like playing low level characters who aren't supposed to be super skilled at everything.
A lot of the skills in the game don't even need you to be that skilled to be good at them. Several have low static DC's that most folks don't even need a rank in to have a good chance at succeeding on a halfway decent roll.
If you want more skill points, stop tanking your mental stats and be a human. Problem solved.
Wow.
Well Pathfinder made this not much of an issue once you gain a couple of levels given how class skills now get that +3 bonus.
That is no different mathematically than 3.5 allowing you to have 3 more ranks than you have character levels. They just put it up front to make things easier.
That is no different mathematically than 3.5 allowing you to have 3 more ranks than you have character levels. They just put it up front to make things easier.Wow.
Well Pathfinder made this not much of an issue once you gain a couple of levels given how class skills now get that +3 bonus.
Well it is different if you just dedicate a single point to it to get a +3 bonus, making you fairly competent with a skill if you have a decent stat in it. For many skills this actually works ok, a fighter ignoring intelligence can get one sp in jump and swim at level 2, provided he put all his focus in strength he can get a pretty decent skill modifier.
Well it is different if you just dedicate a single point to it to get a +3 bonus, making you fairly competent with a skill if you have a decent stat in it. For many skills this actually works ok, a fighter ignoring intelligence can get one sp in jump and swim at level 2, provided he put all his focus in strength he can get a pretty decent skill modifier.That is no different mathematically than 3.5 allowing you to have 3 more ranks than you have character levels. They just put it up front to make things easier.Wow.
Well Pathfinder made this not much of an issue once you gain a couple of levels given how class skills now get that +3 bonus.
In 3.5 you would have been given enough ranks to out 4 ranks into the skill. Pathfinder gives less total ranks, but gives the +3 bonus. My point was that Morgen made it sound like you were getting more when it is the same assuming you want to max your skills which most people do.
A 3.5 fighter, and a pathfinder fighter will have the same bonuses in maxed out skills is an easy way to put it.
PS:I do think pathfinder's skill system is better.
this is why i hate that the only way for any character to beef up their skill points is increasing their Intelligence.
A 3.5 fighter, and a pathfinder fighter will have the same bonuses in maxed out skills is an easy way to put it.PS:I do think pathfinder's skill system is better.
Yeah, but you don't have to max out skills, especially not for characters that don't have skills as their class focus.
In 3.5 a 3rd level human fighter with 10 int could have:
+6 in 3 skills
+3 in 6 skills
+2 in 9 skills
In PF a 3rd level human fighter with 10 int could have:
+6 in 3 skills
+5 in 3 skills, +4 in 3 skills
+4 in 9 skills
(as long as all these skills are class skills)
Spreading around is a lot easier in PF, which means a fighter can be decent at climbing, knowledge (dungeoneering), swimming, handling animal and riding quite easily. He won't be as good as the ranger, but he's decent. In 3.5, you either sucked grandly at everything or where good at two-three skills and no clue in anything else.
Maxing out skills for low sp classes is generally a bad idea (apart from acrobatics/perception and maybe circumstantially some others).
|
Sorcerers: The only ones who are kind of screwed there IMO. OK, they still get their spells known bumped when using prestige classes, but that's not worth it. Their CHA does not improve their skills either.
Like hell it doesn't -- CHA is their primary attribute, which means they're like +5 to +7 to every social skill by 10th or so.
-- If you need more skills, stop cratering your INT. That's what it's there for. ...and who knows? You might find some other uses for it, like Combat Expertise > Improved Trip.