I feel like skills deserve more love in Pathfinder.
Lately I have noticed a number of class features, feats, and maneuvers that really should be expanded skill applications. This is nothing new, really, it's been a problem since Leadership.
But in some sense, it hurts characters for whom skill mastery is a major part of their package. Of course I mean the Rogue.
I understand that having new skill applications in books can get out of hand, but it looks like a few very reasonable things got passed over. Any taunting mechanic should have been skill-based, in my opinion, and yet we have Antagonize as a feat. Stealing things in combat (and stealing in general) should have been an application of sleight of hand, and yet we have the Steal maneuver.
Some experimentation is perfectly fine, but must it come at the expense of a robust skill system? It leads to a feeling of paralysis, where characters can only perform in areas they have specifically invested in.
Just a thought I wanted to share. Anyone feel similarly? Disagree? What what?
I feel like skills deserve more love in Pathfinder.
Lately I have noticed a number of class features, feats, and maneuvers that really should be expanded skill applications. This is nothing new, really, it's been a problem since Leadership.
But in some sense, it hurts characters for whom skill mastery is a major part of their package. Of course I mean the Rogue.
I understand that having new skill applications in books can get out of hand, but it looks like a few very reasonable things got passed over. Any taunting mechanic should have been skill-based, in my opinion, and yet we have Antagonize as a feat. Stealing things in combat (and stealing in general) should have been an application of sleight of hand, and yet we have the Steal maneuver.
Some experimentation is perfectly fine, but must it come at the expense of a robust skill system? It leads to a feeling of paralysis, where characters can only perform in areas they have specifically invested in.
Just a thought I wanted to share. Anyone feel similarly? Disagree? What what?
I've had similar concerns, especially with a number of Feats and Rogue Talents that have come about in UC. Things that should be part of Bluff, especially, seem to be targeted.
Oh, I meant to add in the OP that I hope that Skills get their own day in the sun, possibly with a rules hardcover.
That would be a good way to expand their utility without spreading the data over too many books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like skills deserve more love in Pathfinder.
Lately I have noticed a number of class features, feats, and maneuvers that really should be expanded skill applications. This is nothing new, really, it's been a problem since Leadership.
But in some sense, it hurts characters for whom skill mastery is a major part of their package. Of course I mean the Rogue.
I understand that having new skill applications in books can get out of hand, but it looks like a few very reasonable things got passed over. Any taunting mechanic should have been skill-based, in my opinion, and yet we have Antagonize as a feat. Stealing things in combat (and stealing in general) should have been an application of sleight of hand, and yet we have the Steal maneuver.
Some experimentation is perfectly fine, but must it come at the expense of a robust skill system? It leads to a feeling of paralysis, where characters can only perform in areas they have specifically invested in.
Just a thought I wanted to share. Anyone feel similarly? Disagree? What what?
I agree in general (though disagree in the specific case of Leadership, because it's not actually skill bound and gives you a significant boon). Antagonize specifically bugs me because it's conceptually much like feinting or demoralization, and yet you can do the latter without feats (you can in fact do the latter without training the skill, although it will be hard). Sure there are feats that IMPROVE feinting and demoralizing, but you don't need a feat to do them at all.
I'd say generally, a feat that involves a skill should fall into one of these categories:
1. Boosts a skill or improves the application of skill (Skill Focus, Improved Feint)
2. Alters a skill modifier (Intimidating Prowess)
3. Makes a skill do a magical or supernatural thing (use bluff to make someone mystically fall asleep? Yes (okay probably better as a spell or class ability, but you get the idea). Use bluff to trick someone into attacking the wrong person? No.)
4. Allows some unusual, rule bending effect--such as allowing a reroll/retry with no time spent, or using two dice and keeping the highest
If it doesn't it doesn't need to be a feat, IMO.
I don't think this is necessarily new to Pathfinder. I wish I could remember the specific ones, but I remember reading the feats in the 3.5 PHB II, and thinking, "They made a feat for that? I already just allow that as a use of the skill." I think one of them had to do with diplomacy that seemed to be basically using the diplomacy skill for what it was for.
I am sad to see it show up again, though. Especially because often in the case of "use this skill to x" feats--before, there would be no rules that would say you couldn't, but by making a feat out of it, suddenly it makes it so the uses for skills by themselves become useless.
FWIW, I've been trying to write up some psychological warfare rules (inspired by Slayers d20) that make, conceptually, things like Antagonize a function of skills (just as demoralize is a function of Intimidate)--as absolutely, that does not need to be a feat, although it could use some rules mediation. Right now I've made it over-complicated but I'm working on it.
ETA: I am not sure what I think of a "book of skills." Could be useful--give lots of different ideas of how to use skills. On the other hand--could be restrictive. I think the reason there aren't a lot more skill rules than there already are is because their application is often up to the GM where the rules aren't clear---creative GMs and players can come up with a million cool applications of skills that aren't explicitly in the rulebook but work with the guidelines presented; but on the other hand, very by the book players and GMs don't use skills unless exactly as described in the book (never mind that many skill tables are "sample DCs"--not the only use of the skills available). The creative players don't need the book necessarily, and the RAW-players may ironically only restrict themselves further with it, IDK.
I think, EL and DQ, that the goal is a good one. I do think it emphasizes a decision on the game development track that Paizo is taking. The, "If it's cool it should be a feat" mentality.
This is a bad design model and really does show it by effectively how each book adds new feats but cuts down on the breadth of the scope of skills. This reduction is easier to deal with in a homebrew or recurring friend game, not so much in Society play or if you have the "IF it's printed you have to use it and not ignore it" type players.
The feats, combat actions, maneuvers, also need to be revised along with the skills. So that all of those facets work well together.
Also as evidenced by the worst feat thread the in house editors need to really pick them over with a finer tooth comb for confounds and with a focus of: "Should this be a feat, skill effect, combat maneuver, or action?
OR else start making that a major component of the playtests.
I agree wholeheartedly, EL. I already houserule several feats that shouldn't be feats, but the only one I've added to that list that should be a skill function (so far) is Taunt.
The steal CM is also a point of contention with me. And don't get me started on stealth and perception. Those skills need a lot of work. It wouldn't hurt to go into more detail on taking 10 and taking 20, because it seems like there's still a lot of confusion on it (perhaps more narrowly defining what constitutes as a risk that can prevent you from taking 10 or 20).
I don't think a hardcover would be necessary for skills, maybe something like the companion line. Something that expands on skill usages and some huge lists/charts with examples of knowledges, crafts, and maybe even some new skills. A few feats. Shouldn't be any new base classes or archetypes for a while. I think softcover would be better. Easier to produce and doesn't get filled up with stuff that a lot of people may not use.
Paizo seems reticent on supplementing the rules themselves and instead try to piece-meal additional options via feats, which all but guarantees them being left behind.
This isn't entirely true. Lately I've been impressed by their willingness to add rule options in the hardcovers... it just seems to be that expanding skills is something they're avoiding.
That makes good sense to some degree. I was young for most of my 2e days, but I can remember having the skill rules spread out over several books could be cumbersome. Still, I would prefer some expansion to no love for skills at all.
I really do hope to see a UC/UM style treatment of skills. Skills are awesome, and more than diverse enough to fill a book of that size.
I agree wholeheartedly, EL. I already houserule several feats that shouldn't be feats, but the only one I've added to that list that should be a skill function (so far) is Taunt.
The steal CM is also a point of contention with me. And don't get me started on stealth and perception. Those skills need a lot of work. It wouldn't hurt to go into more detail on taking 10 and taking 20, because it seems like there's still a lot of confusion on it (perhaps more narrowly defining what constitutes as a risk that can prevent you from taking 10 or 20).
I don't think a hardcover would be necessary for skills, maybe something like the companion line. Something that expands on skill usages and some huge lists/charts with examples of knowledges, crafts, and maybe even some new skills. A few feats. Shouldn't be any new base classes or archetypes for a while. I think softcover would be better. Easier to produce and doesn't get filled up with stuff that a lot of people may not use.
I also think taking 10 and taking 20 clarification would be nice maybe in a blog post for that.
I also enjoy making skill rolls I just find that really fun.
|
M&M had the idea of making some of the skill-based feat options into 'skill challenges' that required a skill roll at -5 to use 'at default,' or one could blow a feat to be able to perform that particular 'skill challenge' without penalty.
Sample skill challenges;
Fast Task - perform a skill check that requires a full round action as a standard action, or a standard action as a move action, by taking a -5 to the check (or adding +5 to the DC, whichever).
Specific examples;
Climb - Defensive Climbing - take a -5 to the check to retain your Dodge bonus while climbing.
Stealth - Accelerated Stealth - take a -5 to the check to move up to your normal speed while stealthed. Take a -20 to the check to move at greater than your normal move (taking a double move, making a charge or using the Run action).
This added new options for each skill use, with difficulty modifiers ranging from +5 to +20, depending on how awesome the stunt was, and anyone could purchase a feat called 'Skill Challenge - Accelerated Stealth' to be able to reduce that penalty by five, representing specialized training in that particular 'skill challenge.'
Batman, for instance, probably has Accelerated Stealth and Fast Task - Intimidation, among other 'skill challenge' feats.
I think this is a design flaw that new options are always introduced as feats. Be they skill options, combat options, whatever. Paizo seems reticent on supplementing the rules themselves and instead try to piece-meal additional options via feats, which all but guarantees them being left behind.
I agree.
New feats, new spells, and new classes are the easiest ways to add options for players to the game. Unfortunately, feats have become overdone. Most new and interesting feats I will never get to try out, because I don't play enough characters to use all those feats. Spells are on the verge of being overdone.
Paizo has been careful about introducing new classes. And they have opened up a rich vein of creativity with the new archetypes for existing classes. However, those are large canvases, defining an entire character rather than just an ability.
The great unexplored terrain for new small options is the skills.
However, Paizo has to avoid frontloading too many options onto the players. It would make learning the game too difficult. So they cannot simply say that nowadays you can use Appraise skill to haggle better bargains at shops, even though I think that would be a good idea.
My first thought is to create skill-based feats that allow new uses for skills. Ironically, my skill-based feats do not fit into any of DeathQuaker's four categories, though it comes close to category 3:
I'd say generally, a feat that involves a skill should fall into one of these categories:
1. Boosts a skill or improves the application of skill (Skill Focus, Improved Feint)
2. Alters a skill modifier (Intimidating Prowess)
3. Makes a skill do a magical or supernatural thing (use bluff to make someone mystically fall asleep? Yes (okay probably better as a spell or class ability, but you get the idea). Use bluff to trick someone into attacking the wrong person? No.)
4. Allows some unusual, rule bending effect--such as allowing a reroll/retry with no time spent, or using two dice and keeping the highest.
Instead, a skill-based feat is a feat that levels up as skill increases. For example:
Combat Filch
You can use Sleight of Hand to steal from your opponent in the middle of combat.
Prerequisites: Sleight of Hand as a class skill.
Benefits: When you perform a Steal combat maneuver, you add your ranks in Sleight of Hand to your CMB for the maneuver. In addition, if you have the Combat Expertise feat, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a Steal combat maneuver. If you have Combat Expertise and at least six ranks in Sleight of Hand, you may perform the maneuver with an additional -5 penalty to CMB so that your opponent does not notice the attempt and, if successful, does not notice the theft until after combat is over or if it attempts to use the missing item.
The problem with skill-based feats is that feats are already overdone. The greatness of skill-based feats is that they make a good subsitute for feat chains.
I've been debating adding an Optional rule to allow players to "buy" skill based feats via Skill points.
I.e. Every even numbered level a player can spend 3 of her skill points to buy 1 skill feat.
This keeps players from gaining too many feats and has an adequate cost comparitive. (i.e. 3 skill ranks for a Skill Focus = an even trade from levels 1-9)
Wizards of the Coast's Complete Scoundrel, a supplemental book for D&D 3.5, introduced skill tricks. A character could buy a skill trick for two skill points instead of applying those points to skill ranks. In addition, the character could purchase only one skill trick when leveling up and the number of skill tricks known could be only half the character level rounded up. A skill trick was an ability with half the strength of a feat.
I didn't get much chance to play with skill tricks. The Complete Scoundrel was published in 2007, one year before 4th Edition rendered it obsolete.
|
M&M had the idea of making some of the skill-based feat options into 'skill challenges' that required a skill roll at -5 to use 'at default,' or one could blow a feat to be able to perform that particular 'skill challenge' without penalty.
Sample skill challenges;
Fast Task - perform a skill check that requires a full round action as a standard action, or a standard action as a move action, by taking a -5 to the check (or adding +5 to the DC, whichever).
Specific examples;
Climb - Defensive Climbing - take a -5 to the check to retain your Dodge bonus while climbing.
Stealth - Accelerated Stealth - take a -5 to the check to move up to your normal speed while stealthed. Take a -20 to the check to move at greater than...
Yes, yes, yes. More ways to do harder stuff with skills. Something to do with high skill mods other than auto-succeed DC 20 checks.
I posted this a while ago. Never really got a chance to playtest it though.
My first thought is to create skill-based feats that allow new uses for skills. Ironically, my skill-based feats do not fit into any of DeathQuaker's four categories, though it comes close to category 3:
I'd say generally, a feat that involves a skill should fall into one of these categories:
1. Boosts a skill or improves the application of skill (Skill Focus, Improved Feint)
2. Alters a skill modifier (Intimidating Prowess)
3. Makes a skill do a magical or supernatural thing (use bluff to make someone mystically fall asleep? Yes (okay probably better as a spell or class ability, but you get the idea). Use bluff to trick someone into attacking the wrong person? No.)
4. Allows some unusual, rule bending effect--such as allowing a reroll/retry with no time spent, or using two dice and keeping the highest.Instead, a skill-based feat is a feat that levels up as skill increases. For example:
Combat Filch
You can use Sleight of Hand to steal from your opponent in the middle of combat.
Prerequisites: Sleight of Hand as a class skill.
Benefits: When you perform a Steal combat maneuver, you add your ranks in Sleight of Hand to your CMB for the maneuver. In addition, if you have the Combat Expertise feat, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a Steal combat maneuver. If you have Combat Expertise and at least six ranks in Sleight of Hand, you may perform the maneuver with an additional -5 penalty to CMB so that your opponent does not notice the attempt and, if successful, does not notice the theft until after combat is over or if it attempts to use the missing item.The problem with skill-based feats is that feats are already overdone. The greatness of skill-based feats is that they make a good subsitute for feat chains.
Actually that would fit, sort of, into category 1 -- improves the application of a skill (or rather in that case, makes a skill applicable to a combat maneuver that it normally isn't).
Your feat is cool, btw. But in a way, what it does is "fix" what some think is an issue with the Steal maneuver to begin with--it should be a function of Sleight of Hand to start with (and ergo, you shouldn't have to have a feat to make Sleight of Hand applicable). In other words, people should just be able to make a steal-in-combat attempt using Sleight of Hand as a function of that skill, not be a combat maneuver that has nothing to do with a person's normal ability to filch things. It could still be Sleight of Hand vs. CMD because that precedent has been established with Acrobatics and Escape Artist--you can use Dex based skills versus CMD.
I'm pointing this out because that's the earlier gist of the thread--the trend with the rules is to create feats and special abilities which override what skills should already be capable of. Certainly your proposal is more practical to work with the rules-as-written.
I have very mixed feelings about introducing stuff like skill tricks because again it can limit what might be possible with just a skill. If they'd work the way some Rogue talents do--allow a reroll or a boost in very specific situations, that might work. But anything that says, "You need this feat to do X with a skill" is potentially bothersome. Interestingly, Paizo got rid of Track, one of 3.x's most irritating of skill-limiting feats--now it's an application of Survival without any feats, which really makes more sense. But now it's bringing in abilities and feats (e.g., Antagonize) that do the same thing.
I like Dilvias's ideas of making certain applications of skills available with higher ranks (and I was doing that with the psychological warfare rules I was working on). I worry (from my own fiddling with it) if it adds too much crunch and more complex stuff to track, however.
I feel like skills deserve more love in Pathfinder.
[..]
Just a thought I wanted to share. Anyone feel similarly? Disagree? What what?
I feel the opposite: I'm not crazy about the idea of skills-as-superpowers so I'd rather they got less love. I'd rather have skills be relatively weak and then folks don't have to fret about how to make 20 ranks in Appraise worth the same as 20 ranks in Perception, for instance, or how crippling it is to have only 2 skill points per level.
Superpowers belong as class features, at least in a class system like D&D. Just my two cents...
My first thought is to create skill-based feats that allow new uses for skills. Ironically, my skill-based feats do not fit into any of DeathQuaker's four categories, though it comes close to category 3:
I'd say generally, a feat that involves a skill should fall into one of these categories:
1. Boosts a skill or improves the application of skill (Skill Focus, Improved Feint)
2. Alters a skill modifier (Intimidating Prowess)
3. Makes a skill do a magical or supernatural thing (use bluff to make someone mystically fall asleep? Yes (okay probably better as a spell or class ability, but you get the idea). Use bluff to trick someone into attacking the wrong person? No.)
4. Allows some unusual, rule bending effect--such as allowing a reroll/retry with no time spent, or using two dice and keeping the highest.Instead, a skill-based feat is a feat that levels up as skill increases. For example:
Combat Filch
You can use Sleight of Hand to steal from your opponent in the middle of combat.
Prerequisites: Sleight of Hand as a class skill.
Benefits: When you perform a Steal combat maneuver, you add your ranks in Sleight of Hand to your CMB for the maneuver. In addition, if you have the Combat Expertise feat, you do not provoke an attack of opportunity when performing a Steal combat maneuver. If you have Combat Expertise and at least six ranks in Sleight of Hand, you may perform the maneuver with an additional -5 penalty to CMB so that your opponent does not notice the attempt and, if successful, does not notice the theft until after combat is over or if it attempts to use the missing item.The problem with skill-based feats is that feats are already overdone. The greatness of skill-based feats is that they make a good subsitute for feat chains.
Actually that would fit, sort of, into category 1 -- improves the application of a skill (or rather in that case, makes a skill applicable to a combat maneuver that it normally isn't).
Your feat is cool,...
I agree track as a seperate feat was stupid. Also now more character can track down a missing boy as an adventure hook which adds to the game.