Ok.. i get why a rogue, bard or ranger may have quite a few skills.
but why are so many other classes limited to 2+bonus?
what is the balance that says this class gets 2 or this class gets 4?
Skill points are a resource, like any other resource, like feats, saves, base attack and class abilities. Some classes get more skill points, but fewer base attack bonuses or fewer feats. I don't know exactly how they weight skill points, like if they consider 4 skill points equivalent to a feat, but I am sure there is some loose weighting applied.
Classes with an actual use for Int built into their class tend to get fewer natural skill points, since they're likely to have a bunch anyway. The standard classes all inherited their skill point counts from earlier editions. It's interesting to note that Paizo seems to be a bit more liberal with skill points than 3.5 was - every Paizo original class is either an int-based caster (who will get extra skill points from the int they're investing in to make them preform better in other areas), gets at least 4+Int skill points each level, or has a pet that gets a big pile of skill points. This is true even when the core class whose role they most closely emulate only gets 2+Int skill points. (Compare the Oracle to the Cleric or the Cavalier to the Paladin and Fighter.)
Compared to 3.5, Pathfinder has more of a "skills are something that everyone gets to do at least a little" design ethos, reflected in the new way class skills work, the option to take skill points as a favored class bonus, skill consolidation, and the increased generousity with skill points in the classes they design. (The 3.5 port classes have four representitives - the Sorcerer, the Cleric, the Paladin and the Fighter - in the "no in-class reason for int, 2+Int skill points" camp. Paizo-original classes have none, unless you count the Antipaladin, and even that gets a smart buddy.)
I think the in game justification is that the 2+ classes are too 'busy' doing what they do to expand their skill base. (Thumping things, praying, studying in their specialism...) I think this is a bit harsh on the Sorcerer who is supposed to be a bit more eclectic than wizards and I'd be tempted to up them to 4. However, the character with the worst skill to skill point comparison is bard - they have 17 class skills plus ten knowledge plus nine perform with 6 skill points (-22 if you count perform as 1). Compare with rogues who have 21 class skills (and no need for one, let alone more than one, perform) on 8 skill points (-13) or wizards with 6 plus ten knowledge with 2 skill points and an int bonus of at least 3 (-11 or less).
|
I think the in game justification is that the 2+ classes are too 'busy' doing what they do to expand their skill base. (Thumping things, praying, studying in their specialism...) I think this is a bit harsh on the Sorcerer who is supposed to be a bit more eclectic than wizards and I'd be tempted to up them to 4. However, the character with the worst skill to skill point comparison is bard - they have 17 class skills plus ten knowledge plus nine perform with 6 skill points (-22 if you count perform as 1). Compare with rogues who have 21 class skills (and no need for one, let alone more than one, perform) on 8 skill points (-13) or wizards with 6 plus ten knowledge with 2 skill points and an int bonus of at least 3 (-11 or less).
Yeah, but Versatile Performance and Bardic Knowledge make up for this and then some. With the right planning, VP gets you the equivalent of +6 skill points per level by level 10, for an effective 12 per level. If you factor in the knowledge bonus, it's like having 17 skill points a level, plus Int and racial bonuses.
The harshness comes in when you choose archetypes that trade away these class skills.
I'm never completely sold on "by level X" arguments. (Especially where X is 20. By level 20, any PC is a minor deity - but I have seen several board discussions where 'build Q at level 20 is awesome' (well duuhhhh)). But yes, VP is a balancer - although there's a good chance you're going to have needed some of those skills (say, diplomacy) long before your VP covers it and some of the skills (eg Fly) are 'new'. We folk who work up from first level in medium or slow progression look on with envy...
|
|
I'm never completely sold on "by level X" arguments. (Especially where X is 20. By level 20, any PC is a minor deity - but I have seen several board discussions where 'build Q at level 20 is awesome' (well duuhhhh)). But yes, VP is a balancer - although there's a good chance you're going to have needed some of those skills (say, diplomacy) long before your VP covers it and some of the skills (eg Fly) are 'new'. We folk who work up from first level in medium or slow progression look on with envy...
Any GM who doesn't let you reassign your points from the client skill to the VP skill is sadistic. Not to mention the inherent absurdity of, say, not being able to do any acrobatics of any sort your entire life then suddenly become a tumbling dervish of destruction once your VP clicks over.
No class should have only 2+int skill points. Especially when you compare new classes to old like the oracle to the sorcerer, oracle has more abilities, can take feats to get abilities, gets bonus spells known earler, has more class skills based on there "theme" then sorcerer. Just because your fighter doesn't mean you can't have skills. Isn't a sorcerer who is kicked out of there home there powers supposed to survive in the wild or with other more openminded cultures but wait they don't get acrobatics, diplomacy, survival, swim, climb, perception, sense motive, escape artist, or most knowledge skills as class skills. Why does the ranger really need 6+int when it the monk could use it more. When the ranger gets d10HD, fighter BA, two good saves, animal companion, spells, many bonuses vs favored enemies and terrains, etc. I do not see any balance reasons to keep skill points at just 2+int especially when most games use 15 point buy.
I would really have to say it's a matter of time devotion, that said I can only think that the reason a Bard is not a 9 skill point class is because of their "jack of all trades, master of none" shtick which is a bad reason, they really outta be a 9 class. Personally I always give my players an extra skill point at starting level to put into a craft/profession skill just to add in some fluff that would otherwise be passed over by the crunchy players I game with.
|
Any game design philosophy that has half the party useless in any encounter is stupid. It's a sacred cow with bovine spongiform encephilitus. Holey cows need to be piled in a ditch and burned.The balance is the other toys and tricks the classes get. The 2 skill classes, like fighter and arcanist reflect that they represent a greater commitment to training and study than say rogues and bards who are essentially dilletantes with much more free time by comparison. And remember that wizards offset this with the bonus skill slots gained from a high Int.Ok.. i get why a rogue, bard or ranger may have quite a few skills.
but why are so many other classes limited to 2+bonus?
what is the balance that says this class gets 2 or this class gets 4?
Let's see, it's a "sacred cow"? From something last edition? I can't think of anyone who thinks of it as a "sacred cow" and I can think of less people than that who haven't houseruled it out of existence.
Still trying to find "skill points" in OD&D and 1e, the source of what normal people consider "sacred cow" pastures.
Furthermore, the "everybody has to contribute all the time" thing is ridiculous and comes from the thought "if my character isn't shining all the time, well, I just can't have that" philosophy of selfish gameplay. It also results in the "15 minute adventuring day" because wizad players won't just let the fighters handle the easy stuff. Casting a spell EVERY ROUND isn't good gameplay, it's selfish game play. Go read the intro to Maure Castle in dungeon issue #112. Mordenkainen and Tenser were worthless against the golem, so Tenser went and grabbed a couple of fighters to handle it.
Every class has a niche, if that's too much of a "sacred cow" for you, I don't know what to say.
really all the 2+int classes are just holdovers from 3E. Bards have 6 skills because they also get spells and other ways to boost their skills (VP &Bardic knowledge).
It seems from a design standpoint the base line is 4+int. If you are a skilled class you get +6. Bard, Inquisitor, and Ranger are all skilled because despite what they do in combat their real class ability is defined out of combat, Ranger and Inquisitor is Tracking, Bard is social, Ranger is stealth and Inq is Intimidate and Sense Motive. Rogue gets +8 b/c they don't get anything else (spells etc.) to augment their skilliness.
If you are an Int caster they drop you down to +2 b/c otherwise you would get Arcane (read: super powerful) spells AND you get to be better than everyone else OOC.
This really just leaves us with 4 outliers. Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, and Sorcerers are not skilled or INT casters but still only get +2 skills. Note these are all holdovers from 3E. Generally speaking these classes already get several abilities that make up for the lake of skill points. Fighters get a boat load of feat. Sorcerers can do most anything they need with spells like Charm Person, Knock, Invisibility. Paladins get spells and lay on hands and Smite and mercies and a horse or free magic weapons.
To me the only class that is really left out is the Cleric. Their spell list is less versatile and powerful than Arcane casters, they don't really get any cool abilities like Bloodline Powers or Revelations and in many groups are relegated to Band-Aid only. This is really the only class that is SOL
One note, the Summoner is only +2, but they have the Eidolon that can get a +8 in any skill they want with only 1 EV, and they can take it themselves once they get Aspect. So this makes up for it.
houstonderek is absolutely correct. The game may have scenarios where for extended periods of table time character can't meaningfully contribute, but not wanting to sit around doing nothing during extended social/knowledge/survival/investigation encounters because you're bad at everything but fighting is just flat-out selfish. The only kind of teamwork that counts is the kind where everyone is good at one thing and everyone else just sits around while they take turns overcoming the challenges that they're specialized for. Wanting everyone to be able to work together to some degree on most challenges is just being selfish.
The 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide had secondary skills - something that could be used by any character. Though their actual use was up to the DM, as there were no real rules governing their use.
Personally I always give my players an extra skill point at starting level to put into a craft/profession skill just to add in some fluff that would otherwise be passed over by the crunchy players I game with.
+1
I wish you were my gm - I always try to take a point in a 'background' skill but my crunch just won't let me for the 2pt classes.
I think that comparing 'old' classes with new ones is always going to find the old ones wanting. One of the sad things that Paizo translated to PF from 3.5 when they got it from Wizards was 'Supplement Inflation'. The stuff in the new book is ALWAYS better than the stuff in the old book. Spells, feats, classes...it's a good thing they can't actually add any new skills or it would be "are you still using 'stealth'? I have the 'Skills Manual' and I use 'Elusiveness' which works the same way but means I can also five foot step in difficult terrain."
I still have my magic cards from fifteen years ago when we were playing. Magic has had a resurgence but if I was to hope to ever *win* I'd have to go out and spend a vast sum of money because with one or two exceptions the new cards are just plain better than the old ones.
Oops. Ranting again. ;-)
I would really have to say it's a matter of time devotion, that said I can only think that the reason a Bard is not a 9 skill point class is because of their "jack of all trades, master of none" shtick which is a bad reason, they really outta be a 9 class. Personally I always give my players an extra skill point at starting level to put into a craft/profession skill just to add in some fluff that would otherwise be passed over by the crunchy players I game with.And what are your crunchy players doing with the other skill points? I assume min-maxing them for diplomacy whoring and other "game-winning" placements. Are they really roleplaying that much more or just "rollplaying" with more numbers to add to crunch factors?
All my players are crunchy players(I wouldn't have it any other way, lol) It's part of the exact reason I do so.
|
|
houstonderek is absolutely correct. The game may have scenarios where for extended periods of table time character can't meaningfully contribute, but not wanting to sit around doing nothing during extended social/knowledge/survival/investigation encounters because you're bad at everything but fighting is just flat-out selfish. The only kind of teamwork that counts is the kind where everyone is good at one thing and everyone else just sits around while they take turns overcoming the challenges that they're specialized for. Wanting everyone to be able to work together to some degree on most challenges is just being selfish.
You should work on your sarcasm. This is not good work.
My actual point was, yes, teamwork to overcome goals is the point. Not every character has every tool for every job. If you want that, play 4e.