RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, to my knowledge Paizo has no plans to create this book, but, if they did, what would you like to see?
I would absolutely NOT want to see new skills or a change to how skills work. That's an edition change, and needs to be saved for such, not put in a splat book.
What would be good for a "skills" book would be lists of feats, spells, equipment and archetypes that let you get more mileage out of your skills. For instance, there are "equipment tricks" in something (I think the Pathfinder Society Field Guide) where you take the Equipment Trick feat (and choose a certain type of equipment, sort of like with Weapon Focus) and you gain access to some tricks. Some of those tricks can only be done if you have at least X ranks in a certain skill. Stuff like that would be cool.
1.) A better Heal skill so that the party isn't forced to include a divine caster. UMD isn't a work around for obvious reasons.
This isn't needed. Anyone with even a single level in Cleric, Oracle, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Bard, or Witch can activate a wand of cure light wounds without a check, which is one of the most efficient healing methods in the game. Or if everyone insists on being a fighty-guy or a wizard/sorcerer, try out a wand of infernal healing. And if neither of those wands is a viable option, then there's something wrong with your party, not the Heal skill. :P
2.) The ability for one PC with a skill to better aid other characters without tne skill so that you can have entire adventures involving stealth or social stuff.
Hm... Could be interesting. Maybe a feat that lets you guide people along and give bonuses to their checks.
3.) lots a d lots of skill tricks which can't be duplicated with magic
Sounds kind of like what I was talking about in my first paragraph. Is that what you're thinking?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I absolutely do not want expanded skill tricks to be based on feats or spells. A main goal should be to give the rogue a power boost. Spell casters have enough power already. Rogues, in my opinion, are already feat starved.
I listed spells for completeness' sake. Wouldn't need to be that. But an archetype that give you a cool new way to use a skill would be great. Or a piece of equipment that offers a new application for a skill - like magic boots that let you use Acrobatics to stand up from prone without provoking (much like tumbling through threatened squares), or a "headband of quick thinking" that lets you use a Knowledge skill or Sense Motive or something to anticipate a foe's moves and give you some sort of combat bonus.
And forcing somebody to take a level in a divine class when none of the players want to is no solution.
Nevermind the arcane classes I listed. Or the wand of infernal healing. Seriously, statistically speaking, it's very unlikely that you'll not have anyone capable of using a wand. You're inventing a problem that doesn't exist.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, among the thousands and thousands of games that have ever existed, you don't think there's ever been a case where, for example, there were three players who wanted to play a Rogue, Fighter, and Barbarian respectively? That the very suggestion that such a situation,might exist is 'inventing a problem that doesn't exist'?
I think requiring players to play a specific archetype when they'd rather play another just so that their party has healing is no solution - just as bad a solution as forcing them to bump up charisma so that they can use a wand reliably.
You misunderstand me. There's a difference between a certain situation (say, the all-martial party) being possible, and the situation being a problem that needs to be addressed with new rules/content.
Yes, there might be an all-martial party with no access to reliable healing. They'd also have no reliable access to utility spells or blasting, but you don't seem to think skills need to be altered to accommodate that. Why? Because - just like with a lack of healing - the situation is possible, but not an overall problem.
A party could also be nothing but squishies (a lack of melee power), but that doesn't mean it's a "problem" that needs to be "fixed" by changing how skills work.
See, it's only an actual problem if one of these roles is only filled by a small subset of options - small enough that a party completely incapable of a certain vital function is going to be a severe statistical outlier.
Over half the classes can heal! You have better odds of a random party lacking blasting magic (about 6 out of 19 classes) than lacking healing capability (about 12 out of 19 classes).
Yes, the no-healing party is possible. No, it's not a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean like 101 New Skill Uses by Rite Publishing?
With reviews that say:
I have to get this out of my system: Every Pathfinder-group should own this book.
No exceptions.
Good enough for me!
New classes! A shaman-type medium spontaneous Charisma caster with druid/elemental powers and many nature skills! An Engineer!
New archetypes for bards, rangers, druids, inquisitors! Skillmonkeys Summoners! Roguish tricks for animal companions and familiars!
New devices for dextrous characters!
Options for thievery clerics!
Spellthieves!
To name only a few...
You mean like 101 New Skill Uses by Rite Publishing?
With reviews that say:
Good enough for me!I have to get this out of my system: Every Pathfinder-group should own this book.
No exceptions.
Thanks for the pimpage cheapy
|
I do think that skills need a boost, but how exactly does one make them more powerful without creating class bleed? Any class can put ranks in any skill they want, after all, and if the Heal skill basically turns into at will cure spells that even Fighters can get, well, it's obvious there's a problem.
My suggestions?
1)Make class skills count more. By 10th level, the difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill is a +10 bonus and a +13 bonus, which is hardly worth talking about. Even if we acknowledge that a class's skills tend to be off the stats it needs anyway, the difference just gets ironed out after a while. I'd say when you hit 10th, your bonus for having ranks in a class skill should increase to +6, or some other progression, to really make it feel like the Bard is the guy with the awesome Diplomacy skill, the Rogue is the champ at Acrobatics, and so on.
2)Weaponize Disable Device against constructs. If I'm staring down a clockwork creature, I'd like to believe that the same skillset that lets me disarm a trap or sabotage a machine will let me defeat this thing. I don't remember off the top of my head if you can sneak attack a construct, but if you can't, letting Disable Device be used offensively against a construct would help the rogue a long way, and be a pretty cool moment the rogue could brag about for years to come.
3)Give more skills combat application. A big part of the relative weakness of skills is that most campaigns take place more in combat than out of it. Look at the most commonly used skills-- Perception, Intimidate, Heal, Spellcraft, Bluff, and Knowledge. They all have combat-relevant uses. What if you could use more skills in combat? Maybe Appraise could assist you in sunder maneuvers by helping you find the weak spots? Maybe Climb would be more useful if more fights took place near climbable surfaces (or if small characters could climb medium ones somehow)?
Silent Saturn, 101 New Skill Uses has those and... Well, 99 others :-)
I do think that skills need a boost, but how exactly does one make them more powerful without creating class bleed? Any class can put ranks in any skill they want, after all, and if the Heal skill basically turns into at will cure spells that even Fighters can get, well, it's obvious there's a problem.
Why is that a problem? We have tons of spells that acheive the same goals as skills (jump, invisibility, disguise self, detect secret doors, etc). Why cant we have skills that achieve the same goals as spells? Its this kind of thinking that creates imbalance in the first place.
My suggestions?
1)Make class skills count more. By 10th level, the difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill is a +10 bonus and a +13 bonus, which is hardly worth talking about. Even if we acknowledge that a class's skills tend to be off the stats it needs anyway, the difference just gets ironed out after a while. I'd say when you hit 10th, your bonus for having ranks in a class skill should increase to +6, or some other progression, to really make it feel like the Bard is the guy with the awesome Diplomacy skill, the Rogue is the champ at Acrobatics, and so on.
It was a design goal to make class skills matter less in pathfinder. The fact is that the devs and many fans WANT people to be able to take skills outside of their class skills and still be good at them eventually.
2)Weaponize Disable Device against constructs. If I'm staring down a clockwork creature, I'd like to believe that the same skillset that lets me disarm a trap or sabotage a machine will let me defeat this thing. I don't remember off the top of my head if you can sneak attack a construct, but if you can't, letting Disable Device be used offensively against a construct would help the rogue a long way, and be a pretty cool moment the rogue could brag about for years to come.
This is such a specific situation its hardly going to be a real solution.
3)Give more skills combat application. A big part of the relative weakness of skills is that most campaigns take place more in combat than out of it. Look at the most commonly used skills-- Perception, Intimidate, Heal, Spellcraft, Bluff, and Knowledge. They all have combat-relevant uses. What if you could use more skills in combat? Maybe Appraise could assist you in sunder maneuvers by helping you find the weak spots? Maybe Climb would be more useful if more fights took place near climbable surfaces (or if small characters could climb medium ones somehow)?
How is this not 'class bleed'. You are giving skilled characters more combat ability, thus stepping on the fighty types toes. Is it only spellcasters that should have their niche of being able to do everything protected?
|
|
As for the Disable Device suggestion, yes it is narrow and no it won't solve the bigger issue. It's still a good idea and we should do it anyway. If I put my time and effort into learning to tinker with and disable mechanical devices, and I get attacked by a mechanical creature, I want to be able to use my relevant skills to take it down.
And as for the class bleed issue, giving skills combat relevance isn't class bleed because ALL classes are expected to be able to contribute in combat, in some way or another. Martial types have their weapons and combat maneuvers, and casters have their buffs, control spells and blasts. Letting the skill monkey use his skills in combat gives him a new strategy with which to deal with combat, but it's not class bleed because without his skills, he could have devoted his character to the sword, bow, or spell and contributed in combat another way.
It also goes back to my reasoning that your class skills should matter more. Let's use my earlier example of Climb. Suppose we added this line of text to the game.
"If Climb is a class skill, you gain an insight bonus on grapple checks against creatures larger than you."
We'd need to iron out the exact numbers, and probably make it so that you need a rank in Climb to reap the benefit, but this ability (an inherent part of the Climb skill, not a feat or a class feature) would pretty much ensure that the fighter and barbarian would have their class specialties protected. A wizard can put all the ranks he wants into Climb, and he'd still get something out of it, but he'll never be able to do what a barbarian, rogue, or monk can do with Climb, because it's their niche.
Or my earlier concern about the Heal skill giving fighters the ability to cast cure spells?
"If Heal is class skill, you can make a Heal check to heal [X] hit points once per day."
Heal is a class skill for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers-- all of whom already get Cure spells on their spell lists. So now the Heal skill looks better for them than it would for a fighter, but the figter can still put ranks in it and get everything else the skill does without the healing classes losing their niche.
We could do a similar thing for pretty much all the skills, each one getting an extra effect if it's a class skill for you. Then having loads of class skills like the rogue or bard would look better, and make rogues and bards seem more like the versatile, tricky types they were always intended to be.