I have read and reread the skills chapter, and I have a question. Does it still cost 2 skill points for each rank in a non-class skill? Because if it does, I completely missed it. It appears, at least in the manner I read it, that all skill ranks cost 1 skill point, but you only get the +3 bonus on class skills. Is this correct? Or am I mssing something?
Master Arminas
I have read and reread the skills chapter, and I have a question. Does it still cost 2 skill points for each rank in a non-class skill? Because if it does, I completely missed it. It appears, at least in the manner I read it, that all skill ranks cost 1 skill point, but you only get the +3 bonus on class skills. Is this correct? Or am I mssing something?
Master Arminas
You got it right. Only 1 point fo reach rank. Max ranks is equal to characer level. Get a +3 if class skill for any of you class or prestige classes.
PF has much less of a difference between class skills and cross class skills than 3.x had. Which to be honest, I kinda miss.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly the single best rule change from 3.5 -> PF.
Making mid-level multiclassed NPCs is a joy now.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a tip to help you deal with issues like this one:
Read the Pathfinder rules while pretending that D&D never existed.
You see, the only reason you had a question is because you had an expectation based on 3.5 and didn't see anything directly contradicting it. Had you been a player new to RPGs in general, you'd have simply taken the skills chapter at face value and not had this question.
Remember, Pathfinder is not an update or a "patch". It is written to be its own game, capable of being played by a total newbie - no knowledge of D&D is required. In fact, sometimes (as you just discovered) it can be a hindrance; many people sorely misinterpret the rules because they read them with assumptions in mind from D&D rules. (For example, there was recently a huge, multi-thread discussion about Two-Weapon Fighting, where most of the misunderstanding came from D&D familiarity/assumptions.)
So again, when you find yourself unsure of how Pathfinder works in comparison to a similar element of D&D, ask yourself: "What would I think if I'd never played D&D? What does this rule say on its own?" Do this consistently, and you'll be miles ahead of a lot of players. :)
Welcome to Pathfinder, and happy gaming!
It is written to be its own game, capable of being played by a total newbie - no knowledge of D&D is required.
That is not quiet true. Many things were clipped and changed which lead to confusion. There are still things not clarified.
In short 3.5 knowledge is helpful to know intent, but remember that if there is a contradiction PF takes precedence.
Many things would be ruled wrong without my 3.5 knowledge because of how some rules were written.
Thanks all. I 'discovered' Pathfinder only a few weeks ago. However, I have played the game since '86 and wasn't certain if it was just my wanting it (the skill point issue) to be true or if there was a hidden rule somewhere I had missed.
I dropped out from gaming pretty much completely when Wizard released 4.0, swearing I would never play that system (too much like a pen-and-paper on-line game. And after they cancelled Dragon and Dungeon!
But so far, I have rather estactic at what Paizo has done with Pathfinder! It is indeed 3.5 the way it should have been. And right now, I am having the time of my life, going through the all the stuff, both printed and online.
Once again, thanks for the quick answers.
Master Arminas
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In short 3.5 knowledge is helpful to know intent, but remember that if there is a contradiction PF takes precedence.
The issue with that, though, is twofold:
1. Yes, in the case of a contradiction, PF takes precedence - but many people don't count an omission as a contradiction (omission of "pick a guy" in the Dodge feat, omission of anything outside of TWF granting an "off hand"), but they really need to. A "fresh" player would read the rules on a given topic and take them at face value (and in many cases be correct), while a "veteran" might see a lack of contradiction and therefore think it "still" works like 3.5.
2. Knowledge of 3.5 is helpful to know intent... of 3.5. Not necessarily of Pathfinder. To again cite the huge TWF debate - the Core rules were already clear, but people cited both a lack of direct contradiction to 3.5 and statements of 3.5's design intent to argue their case. Then Sean K Reynolds wrote the FAQ and showed they were wrong. Then some of them continued to argue - this time based almost entirely on "intent" from 3.5 - about a smaller detail. And again, SKR came out and said they were wrong. The issue wouldn't have really come up from a "fresh" reading of the Core rules. There was only a problem because people were bringing their ideas about 3.5's "intent" into Pathfinder.
In theory I would agree with you that knowledge of 3.5 would be helpful. But in practice, I've seen exclusively the opposite. In my experience, every time the Pathfinder rules seem to say one thing but somebody's knowledge of 3.5 suggests something else, the 3.5 guy has been wrong.
Feel free to offer counterexamples if you have any, though.
|
Thanks all. I 'discovered' Pathfinder only a few weeks ago. However, I have played the game since '86 and wasn't certain if it was just my wanting it (the skill point issue) to be true or if there was a hidden rule somewhere I had missed.
I dropped out from gaming pretty much completely when Wizard released 4.0, swearing I would never play that system (too much like a pen-and-paper on-line game. And after they cancelled Dragon and Dungeon!
But so far, I have rather estactic at what Paizo has done with Pathfinder! It is indeed 3.5 the way it should have been. And right now, I am having the time of my life, going through the all the stuff, both printed and online.
Once again, thanks for the quick answers.
Master Arminas
You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar! :)
Welcome to the message boards!
In short 3.5 knowledge is helpful to know intent, but remember that if there is a contradiction PF takes precedence.The issue with that, though, is twofold:
1. Yes, in the case of a contradiction, PF takes precedence - but many people don't count an omission as a contradiction (omission of "pick a guy" in the Dodge feat, omission of anything outside of TWF granting an "off hand"), but they really need to. A "fresh" player would read the rules on a given topic and take them at face value (and in many cases be correct), while a "veteran" might see a lack of contradiction and therefore think it "still" works like 3.5.
2. Knowledge of 3.5 is helpful to know intent... of 3.5. Not necessarily of Pathfinder. To again cite the huge TWF debate - the Core rules were already clear, but people cited both a lack of direct contradiction to 3.5 and statements of 3.5's design intent to argue their case. Then Sean K Reynolds wrote the FAQ and showed they were wrong. Then some of them continued to argue - this time based almost entirely on "intent" from 3.5 - about a smaller detail. And again, SKR came out and said they were wrong. The issue wouldn't have really come up from a "fresh" reading of the Core rules. There was only a problem because people were bringing their ideas about 3.5's "intent" into Pathfinder.
In theory I would agree with you that knowledge of 3.5 would be helpful. But in practice, I've seen exclusively the opposite. In my experience, every time the Pathfinder rules seem to say one thing but somebody's knowledge of 3.5 suggests something else, the 3.5 guy has been wrong.
Feel free to offer counterexamples if you have any, though.
1.I have seen many the new person often be wrong. A double weapon adding double str x 1.5 even when TWF'ing has come up more than once. I had to use a rules of the game article to handle that one.
2.The TWF thing was not clear at all. I also think it was not thought of since the rules don't assume you will use nonefficient tactics. The side that was incorrect when a verdict was finally given did have a valid point. The Two weapon warrior fighter archetype suggest a penalty for using two weapons, even when not two weapon fighting. That needs to be errata'd.If someone is using 3.5 rules, and they conflict with PF course they are wrong if there is a contradiction.
Having 3.5 experience helps you understand things when the rules were badly written or words were omitted, but the intent never changed.
You can't really say 3.5 has no merit if the game is backwards compatible. For the most part the rules have to work the same way or there really is no compatibility.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1.I have seen many the new person often be wrong. A double weapon adding double str x 1.5 even when TWF'ing has come up more than once. I had to use a rules of the game article to handle that one.
You had to use an article? You couldn't just quote the rule that says a double weapon is treated as a one-handed and a light weapon? That hardly counts - it was already spelled out in the core.
In any case, I'll stay on the lookout for instances of the veteran correcting the fresh-reader (where the two perspectives actually conflict directly, not where the same conflict would arise from differing levels of PF familiarity), and feel free to draw my attention to them; I daresay it'd lighten my perspective a bit to see such examples.
1.I have seen many the new person often be wrong. A double weapon adding double str x 1.5 even when TWF'ing has come up more than once. I had to use a rules of the game article to handle that one.You had to use an article? You couldn't just quote the rule that says a double weapon is treated as a one-handed and a light weapon? That hardly counts - it was already spelled out in the core.
In any case, I'll stay on the lookout for instances of the veteran correcting the fresh-reader (where the two perspectives actually conflict directly, not where the same conflict would arise from differing levels of PF familiarity), and feel free to draw my attention to them; I daresay it'd lighten my perspective a bit to see such examples.
They had very good arguments by RAW. Your statement of one handed and light was actually countered in the thread when I used it. If it was that easy to dismiss it would not have gone on for several pages.
Double Weapons: Dire flails, dwarven urgroshes, gnome hooked hammers, orc double axes, quarterstaves, and two-bladed swords are double weapons. A character can fight with both ends of a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons, but he incurs all the normal attack penalties associated with two-weapon combat, just as though the character were wielding a one-handed weapon and a light weapon.
The lesser damage on TWF is not listed as a penalty. Only the attack rolls have penalties. Since you are fighting "as if" TWF'ing, but only have to take the penalties for it(attack rolls) then they figured they got the 2-hand strength modifier.
Of course I disagreed, but not being able to reference 3.5 would have made for another FAQ that is now not needed.
I have never seen the new guy be correct. If you mean both people are looking at the same PF reading then this is one.
concentration debate
You can't really say 3.5 has no merit if the game is backwards compatible. For the most part the rules have to work the same way or there really is no compatibility.The backwards compatibility has been beaten about like a dead horse. Saying that Pathfinder was designed with backwards compatibility to 3.5 does not mean it's 100 percent compatible. In that case it would be nothing more than a SRD reprint like the Mongoose Pocket Books. The main thrust of Pathfinder's compatibility was with old Paizo modules first, and everything else varying degrees of second. Also compatibility is not a strict two way street, many Pathfinder rules can be brought into a 3.5 game and not that much would break. However it's very easy to break a Pathfinder game by allowing 3.5 material, in particular the non core stuff.
Where did I say 100%? I am saying the rules have to be the same to a large degree.
And I quote:
For the most part the rules have to work the same way or there really is no compatibility.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have never seen the new guy be correct.
Yes you have. You just wouldn't know it because "newness" doesn't get announced in rules debates. A veteran will say "it's X, and I know this because that was the intent in 3.5" while a freshie will say "it's X, because the rules say so" with no mention of "I know this because PF is my first RPG". So I guarantee you've seen the "new guy" be right more often than you realize - as with the topic I linked, any time you've seen me be right would be an example (and I don't think it's bragging too much to say I've been right a non-zero number of times).
Interesting points on the STR damage and the concentration checks. I guess I can see why there was debate... but unfortunately it doesn't make me feel much better about the issue, as both examples leave me (as a "freshie" myself, having not played 3.5) raising at least one eyebrow in disbelief at the arguments.
Ah well, as long as we're both trying to understand the rules better. :)
I have never seen the new guy be correct.Yes you have. You just wouldn't know it because "newness" doesn't get announced in rules debates. A veteran will say "it's X, and I know this because that was the intent in 3.5" while a freshie will say "it's X, because the rules say so" with no mention of "I know this because PF is my first RPG". So I guarantee you've seen the "new guy" be right more often than you realize - as with the topic I linked, any time you've seen me be right would be an example (and I don't think it's bragging too much to say I've been right a non-zero number of times).
Interesting points on the STR damage and the concentration checks. I guess I can see why there was debate... but unfortunately it doesn't make me feel much better about the issue, as both examples leave me (as a "freshie" myself, having not played 3.5) raising at least one eyebrow in disbelief at the arguments.
Ah well, as long as we're both trying to understand the rules better. :)
So you got one. ;)
I blame the new guy for all of my problems. Stupid new guy.
I, for one, welcome our new guy overlords. May death come swiftly to their enemies!
The real question is: is the said New Guy backwards compatible?