|
A friend and I were talking about how in the grand scheme of the game that Clerics get the shaft on skill points. But that in itself segwayed into Fighters not having enough either. He believed that all classes should get 4 skill points at the minimum, unless INT lowers that value.
I went home on that and have been reading many posts about how people would like to see more of a non min/max (or optimizing) in PFS play, so there wasn't so much of a cookie cutter approach to character building.
Thats when I thought about a rehaul of the skill point system. In order to push the idea that any person has the ability to do, or learn, multiple things we would arrange skill points by race and class.
For example, looking at a Dwarf Cleric, if you had only a 12 INT, you would only get 3 points/level (favored class not included). That generally means, Heal, Kn. Religeon and a floater to go where ever.
What if using the Dwarf Cleric as an example, you were given 1-2 racial skill points, 1-2 class skill points, and 1-2 skill points that can be modified by INT (to a minimum of 0).
Each race would have certain skill sets that are naturally inherent to their race, Kn. Engineering for example, maybe even Appraise, etc. in the case of a Dwarf.
Each class skill point would have a skill set as well, Kn. Religeon, Spellcraft, etc. in the case of Cleric.
General skill points could go anywhere that do not raise the skill level above max ranks at that level.
Level advancement could be 1-2 class and 1-2 (modified by INT), etc.
The 1-2 is because I am spit-balling an idea and the value is not as relevant as the idea.
But I think this could give players the ability to round out a character more than what they can currently do.
Thoughts?
I agree that fighters need more skills.
I've retained the "School Trained" feature from the original Campaign Setting hardback for the fighter as an option for fighters.
But clerics are fine, they get spells. Spells are better than skills in almost every way. The Cleric class may be the most effective class in the system, adding more skills to them is, IMO, unnecessary.
If you start adding skills to the spellcasters you risk completely marginalizing the skill monkey classes.
|
Each race would have certain skill sets that are naturally inherent to their race, Kn. Engineering for example, maybe even Appraise, etc. in the case of a Dwarf.
Each class skill point would have a skill set as well, Kn. Religeon, Spellcraft, etc. in the case of Cleric.
Thoughts?
Sounds a bit like racial stereotyping :-)
Seriously, some of the most interesting characters come from players who think outside the box. A player who creates a claustrophobic, technophobe, non-materialistic dwarf should be rewarded, not penalised by being forced to take skills and/or traits that are of no use to the character concept.
While I can't think of a particularly strong counter-example off-hand to the class skills, I'm sure that somebody will be able to provide one.
Lol
|
|
First off, thanks for moving the post. Didn't see this channel until I had already posted it.
Admittedly perhaps a racial point wouldn't work simply because (in this example) the dwarf could have been raised in a human community.
It just seems odd to me that you don't have any pre-class skill set. Its like saying until you decided your class, you learned nothing. So our dwarf cleric learned nothing about how to cook, survive, or sing (might not be a bad idea) until they decided to become a cleric. And only then they were "trained" in a specific skill set.
Its at that time in character creation where with your 2 points (assuming no INT bonus or Favored Class bonus) that you give your character a pseudo fleshed out existence.
Maybe all this could be helped with just saying that at character creation you get an additional 2-4 points to give you that pre-class life. So you could pursue your singing career before becoming a cleric. It won't be "trained" but at least it gives you something to boost a very sparse skill set.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters and all the other INT+2 skill guys are just fine. You can't have everything in the game, right? If you wants lots of skills, then you need to choose from the limited classes that have higher base skill points. By giving the rest of the classes more points, you devalue classes like Rogue etc.
|
|
Fighters and all the other INT+2 skill guys are just fine. You can't have everything in the game, right? If you wants lots of skills, then you need to choose from the limited classes that have higher base skill points. By giving the rest of the classes more points, you devalue classes like Rogue etc.
Im not asking for everything per sé, Im asking for assistance in fleshing out character creation so that the the INT+2 classes have more of a background than Climb or Swim (in the case of the fighter)
I understand that Traits accomplish this somewhat by giving you a trait bonus and making it a class skill, but if you don't have any skill points its not 'that' useful. The idea that if you want to make a skilled character you have to be "more intelligent than average" is a little daft. EDIT-Also the idea that a 'skilled' fighter needs to be a rogue or ranger is also wrong.
I don't want game-breaking, or even bending. Just a boost that helps the role-playing aspect of a character when an actual roll is required to back up the background.
Making classes have a minimum of 4 points per level does not give them everything in the game. Nor do the high skill characters feel threatened unless skills weren't what they were focused on.
Then you're doubling everybody? Or are you just raising all classes by 2?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minimum of 4 means no '2/level' classes, not 'add 2' or 'double all'. ;)
Then you're effectively devaluing the other classes. They've already traded BAB or full-casting, etc. for skills, but now you're giving away part of their main advantage.
If you have 2+Int skills, and you want more, than invest in INT. That's how the game is set up. If it's a hard decision for you to make, then I submit it's a good rule (because the decision is a meaningful one).
|
Saying something is a good rule because it's a hard decision is terrible logic. I mean if every time your character wanted to get magical healing they had to accrue a penalty of some kind it would make you think about whether you absolutely need it, however, it would be a crappy rule. Just because it's a hard decision doesn't make it a good rule.
|
|
I don't think I would suggest 4 skill points minimum/level approach. Maybe just a minimum 4 at character creation. Personally I would prefer an additional 2-4 points ONLY at character creation. Only to give you that background skill. Even a low INT individual has skills, it wasn't until they became a X Class that they became trained.
It wouldn't devalue other classes, they also would benefit from this if all classes received an additional 2-4 at creation.
Looking at the base skill point to class skills you have:
Barbarian (4+) -> 10 skills
Bard (6+) -> 19 skills
Cleric (2+) -> 13 skills
Druid (4+) -> 13 skills
Fighter (2+) -> 10 skills
Monk (4+) -> 14 skills
Paladin (2+) -> 10 skills
Ranger (6+) -> 15 skills
Rogue (8+) -> 21 skills
Sorcerer (2+) -> 9 skills
Wizard (2+) -> 7 skills
Being good at class skills is one thing, but with a skill list that tops over 35 total skills giving an additional 2-4 at creation is not going to devalue anyone I don't think.
My group has experimented with giving every class a free 'flavor' skill point, usually a knowledge, proffession, or craft skill. Its an interesting idea, but I do agree that skills are part of what fills the metaphorical cup of a class, and if you increase skills you should take a long hard look at what else the class gets. Of course the fact that intelligence is the primary driving factor of skills is in and of itself a problem. I think that is what needs to be looked at first. Wizards and magi dont suffer from 2+int, because int is relatively high. I always felt skill points should be detatched from intelligence and set some other way.
|
|
Wizards and magi dont suffer from 2+int, because int is relatively high. I always felt skill points should be detatched from intelligence and set some other way.
Good point. The idea that a Wizard has spent a large amount of time learning their class (hence the older age at creation) and having so many skill points seems odd.
"Why yes, I learned how to be more acrobatic and sing while studiously pouring over ancient tomes." :)
Wizards and magi dont suffer from 2+int, because int is relatively high. I always felt skill points should be detatched from intelligence and set some other way.Good point. The idea that a Wizard has spent a large amount of time learning their class (hence the older age at creation) and having so many skill points seems odd.
"Why yes, I learned how to be more acrobatic and sing while studiously pouring over ancient tomes." :)
Exactly. Being brilliant in no way helps you find time to learn gymnastics or rock climbing. Heck it doesn't even guarantee you know how to talk to people (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, sense motive). The flavor doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense, and in terms of the rules, it gives an unfair advantage to classes that focus on intelligence over those that dont.
I'm currently trying a method that gives a number of skill points to each attribute that can be spent on skills based on that attribute. The higher the attribute, the more skill points available for related skills. So far, it's seems to be well received, so I have hopes it works out well.
|
If I was to stat up a world the non human races would never take fighter levels, they would use ranger, barbarian, or paladin. To either have useful skills or charismatic warriors who have better skill choices.
The favored class bonus helps alot except fighters have such a tiny skill selection. Just because you live off the land doesnt meant you are a ranger or barbarian, fighters can learn stealth and survival.
In fading suns everyone had the same ability to learn skills, skills were used in every action from swinging your sword (melee) to healing injury(remedy) to casting heal spells( remedy again but it works much better) why learning somethings are feats and others are traits or skills or class abilites has never made much sense in dnd.
Saying something is a good rule because it's a hard decision is terrible logic.
Then you're okay with the Magus having Full BAB, right? Because right now, a player has a pretty hard choice between enjoying the Fighter's Full BAB or the Wizards Full Casting or taking a little of both in the form of the Magus. There is no obvious choice here, each has its strengths or weaknesses.
When the Fighter get 4+Int skill points, you don't think that choice between Fighter and Rogue becomes just much easier? I know a certain player who would jump at that chance. Fighters just don't get skill points, because they have so many other game tools (tools that Rogues can't match.)
TOZ says it isn't that much of a devaluation, and I agree it's not a game-breaker. Be that as it may, I view it as a bad idea.
/ special note: Magus is actually a pretty easy choice to make, because he's got some great tools of his own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that with the favoured class skill rank and the auto +3 on favoured skills a lot has been done to alleviate skill point scarcity with the 2/level classes.
More isn't really needed.
Just don't dump INT, for gods sake! ;) And also realize that not every skill needs to be maxed out.
I feel that with the favoured class skill rank and the auto +3 on favoured skills a lot has been done to alleviate skill point scarcity with the 2/level classes.
This...
Just don't dump INT, for gods sake! ;) And also realize that not every skill needs to be maxed out.
...And this too. I cannot stress it enough; not every skill needs to be maxed.
A Fighter, especially a human one, can get the skills he needs without having to houserule more points.
People already skip over the rogue that's a separate problem of skills being over valued, you don't improve exponentionally for having more skills like bab or caster lvl does
I think you'll find that dedicated Skill Monkeys will take a different stance.
I'm currently playing a high-INT Ranger, and it's whole different world for a long-time Fighter-type. I do wish that Fighters could have more skills, because I'm playing a martial-type who has them in abundance. I know now that which I have been missing.
Just like I wouldn't want to give away Fighter abilities to other classes, I wouldn't want to give skills away either. Every class needs to have it's bits that it doesn't share with anybody else.
Something to keep in mind is the Trained-Only skills. Often just increasing a stat can have an impact. Most of the Trained-Only skills are Int-based. So a character that wants to be able to even use certain skills (Knowledge for example) will need to place at least one rank in the skill. This starts to limit the character's choices. The wizard, who is often seen as the font of knowledge for the party, needs to spend his skill points just to be able to be able to know anything over DC 10.
There are also plenty of ways to improve your bonuses. I haven't seen too many issues with the players that have taken these feats.
I think that people also need to take into account the DCs when they are placing their skill points. Knowledge skills may not need to be maxed out if the only thing you want them for is identifying creatures. Sure, the more you know the better you can do but you still may not need to max it out. Same with skills like Climb, Swim, and Survival (tracking characters may feel differently).
I do think that classes that require certain skills to function probably should just get a bonus to that skill and be able to use it untrained. It seems odd that a bard needs to take his skill points and be forced to place them in certain skills just to be able to do his job. That takes away from the flexibility.
I also think that the affinity feats (Acrobatics, Alertness, etc) and Skill Focus should also make the appropriate skills class skills and allow the skills to be used untrained. There may be some exceptions to this for some of them. I would need to look them all over. The Core ones though should do this.
How about making the stat bonuses equal extra skill points, but only in the skills the stat affects, and only half the bonus applies?
Say you have a str of 18, a +4 bonus. Divide that in half, gives 2. You now have 2 extra skill points for skills that use Str.
Now Str kind of gets the shaft as there are only 2 skills in that tree, but its not that big a deal as these bonus skills can only be selected at character creation.
I don't see the problem with just giving everyone +2 skills. It lets the skill monkey's retain their advantage but it allows just a little more flexibility in the classes that currently only get 2.
This would be fine with me, if you just wanted more skill points for everyone.
Since this conversation is still going, I'll throw in my 2 cents and the approach I've decided to test. Each attribute gets a base (which varies by class) + modifier skill points for related skills; if a negative stat is enough to cancel out the base, the only way to get a skill in that attribute is with the favored class bonus or something like the human racial bonus, which can go anywhere. Any unused skill points get turned into action points.
It does increase the overall number of skill points significantly, especially for the non skill monkey classes, but the increase comes with increased specialization, and so helps reduce the problem of stepping on one another's toes. The traditional skill monkey classes still have the most points overall, and because they have a higher base, are more likely to be able to overcome negative stats, and therefore are more likely to have a broader array of skills.
I debated simply increasing the number of skill points for everyone, but that doesn't address the tendency of other party members overshadowing the skill character by taking a wide range of skills that may or may not be related to their primary role. This approach also discourages min/maxing to achieve maximum mechanical benefit, as all attributes have potential value. It won't stop the person who is willing to have 3 7's in order to have a single 20, and it is not meant as a punishment, but it will make it clear to such a person that doing that will have tangible downsides, and those downsides will come into play just as much as the benefits. All in all, I like it because it increases overall skill points, and thus, hopefully, the use and relevance of skills into the later parts of the game, but does so in reasonably well balanced manner.
I don't see the problem with just giving everyone +2 skills. It lets the skill monkey's retain their advantage but it allows just a little more flexibility in the classes that currently only get 2.It still devalues the rogue.
what if he gets 4, and everyone else gets 2?
I see a fallacy in the "skill class" argument in discussions like this. It's the true value of skills. For example, if you were to envision the Commoner as a base class on par with the other base classes and buff it by only giving it additional skill ranks and class skills, how many would it take?
For me, I don't think I'd be interested in that class if you gave me unlimited skill points and everything as a class skill. It might be interesting for a short game of 1-2 sessions, but if the game included much combat at all, it would quickly feel of limited value.
I like playing rangers, but I wouldn't feel like anyone was "stepping on my toes" by having a couple more skill points, because rangers are already designed to be better at their specialty skills in their specialty areas (tracking, vs favored enemies and in favored terrains).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like playing rangers, but I wouldn't feel like anyone was "stepping on my toes" by having a couple more skill points, because rangers are already designed to be better at their specialty skills in their specialty areas (tracking, vs favored enemies and in favored terrains).
The biggest complaints I've seen always seem to focus on the number of skill points, but usually actually are more concerned about how those skill points are spent. Supporters of the skill based classes get a little annoyed when the wizard, who can end up with just as many or more skill points as the rogue, can effectively overshadow the rogue even in the area of skills because they can spend the skill points anywhere they want, including the skills that rogues traditionally have, but not wizards. That's why simply increasing skill points doesn't solve any problems; if anything, it makes the problems worse. You have to find a way to make sure the wizard can't outrogue the rogue by taking all the rogue skills just because they have a massively high int.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like playing rangers, but I wouldn't feel like anyone was "stepping on my toes" by having a couple more skill points, because rangers are already designed to be better at their specialty skills in their specialty areas (tracking, vs favored enemies and in favored terrains).The biggest complaints I've seen always seem to focus on the number of skill points, but usually actually are more concerned about how those skill points are spent. Supporters of the skill based classes get a little annoyed when the wizard, who can end up with just as many or more skill points as the rogue, can effectively overshadow the rogue even in the area of skills because they can spend the skill points anywhere they want, including the skills that rogues traditionally have, but not wizards. That's why simply increasing skill points doesn't solve any problems; if anything, it makes the problems worse. You have to find a way to make sure the wizard can't outrogue the rogue by taking all the rogue skills just because they have a massively high int.
You're completely missing the point you just quoted though, which has nothing to do with the skill points themselves.
Why are rangers better at tracking? Because they add half their level, plus can add favored terrain and favored enemy if they apply.
My ranger from a RotRL campaign had Favored Terrain: Mountains (+4) and Favored Enemy: Giants (+4). At level 10, that's a +13 before we even spend a single skill point. If I max out Survival, no one could ever better at it than me.
If you really want Rogues to be better at something, you should argue for special bonuses that only Rogues get that are tied to Rogue levels. Just rename Trap Sense to Rogue Training and add a bonus to Disable Device, Perception and Stealth to it. Bam, Rogues now have an edge with those skills.
I like playing rangers, but I wouldn't feel like anyone was "stepping on my toes" by having a couple more skill points, because rangers are already designed to be better at their specialty skills in their specialty areas (tracking, vs favored enemies and in favored terrains).The biggest complaints I've seen always seem to focus on the number of skill points, but usually actually are more concerned about how those skill points are spent. Supporters of the skill based classes get a little annoyed when the wizard, who can end up with just as many or more skill points as the rogue, can effectively overshadow the rogue even in the area of skills because they can spend the skill points anywhere they want, including the skills that rogues traditionally have, but not wizards. That's why simply increasing skill points doesn't solve any problems; if anything, it makes the problems worse. You have to find a way to make sure the wizard can't outrogue the rogue by taking all the rogue skills just because they have a massively high int.You're completely missing the point you just quoted though, which has nothing to do with the skill points themselves.
Why are rangers better at tracking? Because they add half their level, plus can add favored terrain and favored enemy if they apply.
My ranger from a RotRL campaign had Favored Terrain: Mountains (+4) and Favored Enemy: Giants (+4). At level 10, that's a +13 before we even spend a single skill point. If I max out Survival, no one could ever better at it than me.
If you really want Rogues to be better at something, you should argue for special bonuses that only Rogues get that are tied to Rogue levels. Just rename Trap Sense to Rogue Training and add a bonus to Disable Device, Perception and Stealth to it. Bam, Rogues now have an edge with those skills.
I'm simply trying to point out why some people object to simply giving more skill points. Doing something like expanding Trap Sense would be a good solution; the only problem is that especially rogues, but all classes to some extent, tend to be a diverse lot in terms of skills and concepts, so hardcoding set skill bonuses into a class or race can turn off a lot of people. That's why I went with accentuating the attributes the skills are based off of; there is still a difference between the characters, but it's based on the characters themselves, not what someone else decided the class would be good at. Either way works, but whether it's by attributes or class, or something else, that kind of distinction is something the base skill system lacks.
I'm simply trying to point out why some people object to simply giving more skill points. Doing something like expanding Trap Sense would be a good solution; the only problem is that especially rogues, but all classes to some extent, tend to be a diverse lot in terms of skills and concepts, so hardcoding set skill bonuses into a class or race can turn off a lot of people. That's why I went with accentuating the attributes the skills are based off of; there is still a difference between the characters, but it's based on the characters themselves, not what someone else decided the class would be good at. Either way works, but whether it's by attributes or class, or something else, that kind of distinction is something the base skill system lacks.
And I'm pointing out that the point of view that this argument is based on is flawed.
In fact, a wizard's skill points are not what threatens a rogue, it's his spells. There are a ton of utilitarian 2nd level spells. As a wizard goes up in level, those spell slots becomes less useful for anything that requires a save, does damage or doesn't scale with level well for combat. On the other hand, things like Knock, Levitate and Invisibility all stay relatively useful and can solve the same kinds of problems that rogues can deal with.
In addition, just because you reduce the number of skill points of other classes doesn't stop them from taking your "iconic" skills.
As for the hardcoding problem, we already have archetypes, so the idea that somehow improving this ability or hardcoding certain skills into it is limiting to the class in general is already solved. Just replace the skills with an appropriate list for the type of "rogue" being made. Or to make it compatible with existing archetypes that might replace Trap Sense, just add Rogue Training as a new ability completely. A +1 every 3 levels to 3-4 skills isn't a huge game changer, and giving rogues 4-5 sets to choose from isn't a huge deal.
Second Story Thief: Acrobatics, Climbing, Stealth
Con-man: Bluff, Sleight of Hand, Perform
Tomb-raider: Disable Device, Perception, Climbing
Bandit: Intimidate, Stealth, Survival
This is off the top of my head.
In fact, a wizard's skill points are not what threatens a rogue, it's his spells. There are a ton of utilitarian 2nd level spells. As a wizard goes up in level, those spell slots becomes less useful for anything that requires a save, does damage or doesn't scale with level well for combat. On the other hand, things like Knock, Levitate and Invisibility all stay relatively useful and can solve the same kinds of problems that rogues can deal with.
But spells still have daily limits, require a caster to speak in a firm voice, and can at best supplement trained professionals. Having actual training in a skill still trumps spells in many situations. Spells only become an issue when the DM allows them too, which happens far too often, quite frankly.
In addition, just because you reduce the number of skill points of other classes doesn't stop them from taking your "iconic" skills.
But only at the cost of their own "iconic" skills. You increase the number of raw skill points, which wizards already have in abundance because of their high int, and suddenly they can afford to get not only their own traditional skills, but the useful skills usually saved for other classes that allow them even more versatility and flexibility then they already have through the spells. This means that no matter what the situation is, the wizard (or any other full caster really) will always likely be able to offer at least a partial solution, and that can be problematic when classes like the rogue already have challenges in getting their time to shine. It isn't something a mature group of close friends can't handle, but it can be a problem if not handled right.
As for the hardcoding problem, we already have archetypes, so the idea that somehow improving this ability or hardcoding certain skills into it is limiting to the class in general is already solved. Just replace the skills with an appropriate list for the type of "rogue" being made. Or to make it compatible with existing archetypes that might replace Trap Sense, just add Rogue Training as a new ability completely. A +1 every 3 levels to 3-4 skills isn't a huge game changer, and giving rogues 4-5 sets to choose from isn't a huge deal.
Second Story Thief: Acrobatics, Climbing, Stealth
Con-man: Bluff, Sleight of Hand, Perform
Tomb-raider: Disable Device, Perception, Climbing
Bandit: Intimidate, Stealth, SurvivalThis is off the top of my head.
That is the kind of solution that works. It won't be the desired solution for everyone, even with the archetypes, and it's not the only one, but it is certainly a valid one for those who want to base the solutions on the classes themselves.
That is the kind of solution that works. It won't be the desired solution for everyone, even with the archetypes, and it's not the only one, but it is certainly a valid one for those who want to base the solutions on the classes themselves.
We're in the homebrew section, in a thread talking about making changes to the skill system.
That is the kind of solution that works. It won't be the desired solution for everyone, even with the archetypes, and it's not the only one, but it is certainly a valid one for those who want to base the solutions on the classes themselves.If you didn't notice, we're in the homebrew section and the OP is talking about making some changes to the skill system.
Your solution is to not solve the problem that they see, which isn't a very useful solution, because it doesn't solve the problem they see.
Oh, I think there are definitely improvements to be made, I just don't believe that simply throwing more skill points out there is going to fix anything. One downside of making nonclass skills cost the same as class skills is that everyone tends to take the same skills, regardless of character concept or class, if they have the points to do so. This devalues the skill classes as it cuts into their one strength, having a lot of different types of skills. Throwing even more skill points at everyone makes it even easier for the other classes to cut into this advantage. As someone pointed out above, there are only so many skills to spend skill points on, so the more skill points you throw out there, the less overall advantage the skill classes have as they reach the point of not being able to use those additional points as effectively sooner.
Your idea of putting into the classes is a better one, but doesn't stop the other classes from sharing the attention of the DM, even in the skill monkey is still nominally the focus. This can make running a rogue in many groups very frustrating, and can really only be dealt with by changing how skill points are distributed and spent. The reason I went with basing it off of attributes is that I could have the large number of skill points I like to give out, but better focus how they were spent, reducing conflicts and arguments over the spotlight, as well as rewarding those who ended up with a more average looking array or who chose a skill based class by giving them a better chance at diversity in skills than those who chose to min/max or to be a caster that already had a large amount of diversity through other means.
Yes a wizard can take rogue skills, but he doesn't get the +3 for being class skills and his related ability scores are probably not in his favor.
One downside of making nonclass skills cost the same as class skills is that everyone tends to take the same skills, regardless of character concept or class, if they have the points to do so. This devalues the skill classes as it cuts into their one strength, having a lot of different types of skills. Throwing even more skill points at everyone makes it even easier for the other classes to cut into this advantage. As someone pointed out above, there are only so many skills to spend skill points on, so the more skill points you throw out there, the less overall advantage the skill classes have as they reach the point of not being able to use those additional points as effectively sooner.
I don't see this problem at all. Players usually don't double up on skills if they don't need to, there are plenty of times where I've been the only player with Diplomacy and other people didn't feel a need to have it because I did. Similarly Survival, Disable Device, specific Crafts and a few others. The skills that players tend to double up on are ones where you can't use it for an ally, like Climb, Acrobatics or Stealth.
More than a couple times I've wished every other character had another skill point to put into Stealth. It's value tends to decrease if the guy next to you is making a huge din of noise.
Lastly, I see the solution for Rogues feeling useful is to give them equal footing in combat and let their skill ranks be a bonus, not a prime feature.