Skill Points Per Level Too Low?

[Abadar]

I am personally of the opinion that Pathfinder classes do not receive enough skill points per level. I see too many Bruisers/Casters that dump int, and end up getting one skill point per level... ONE SKILL POINT PER LEVEL! As someone who loves role-playing and other non-combat encounters, this reality bothers me.

So, we can discuss my premise if you guys want, but I have three major questions I was hoping we could explore.

Assuming what I said is truth:

1. Would increasing all 2 and 4 skill-per-level classes by 2 skill points per level, and increasing everyone else by 1 be a reasonable balancing act? What about only increasing the 2 skill-per-level classes by 2 and everyone else by 1?

2. Is increasing skills-per-level by an odd number somehow wrong or taboo? Why does paizo only have even numbered skills per level?

3. Would this kind of increase in skills encourage viability in non-combat encounters without over-doing it?

On a side note, these proposed increases were done in a formulaic fashion with a progressive equation, though the product is so simple and seemingly obvious to me that I feel a bit silly for having spent an hour on it haha.

[strayshift]

My issue would be the dump stat, not the consequence of it. But I hate dump stats so hold a personal bias.

[kyrt-ryder]

1. Somewhat reasonable, but I STRONGLY suggest leaving the Wizard and Witch at 2 skill points per level, and you might want to consider only giving the Magus +1 skill point per level.

2. It's a holdover from 3.0, and I have no idea why they only offered base skill points in increments of 2.

3. Not really. Skills are of pretty limited value because of their limited applications. Its the reason you never see anybody put any priority into Intelligence unless they're an intelligence based caster or they they need it to meet some prerequisite.

[kyrt-ryder]

strayshift wrote:

My issue would be the dump stat, not the consequence of it. But I hate dump stats so hold a personal bias.

You and me both brother, but that's a problem with the system as a whole, not with the fact that at the ground level Fighters and Paladins and Clerics and Sorcerers just don't get enough skill points at the baseline.

[Abadar]

I used the dump stat as an example of what can break the system in a negative way in my opinion. Just cuz you dump Int, does that necessarily mean that your character is almost incapable of improving their skills?

I do agree with you though, there obviously should be a natural penalty for dumping anything. As it stands, this natural consequence manifests itself in plenty of ways, one being your base proficiency with all skills related to the dumped stat.

Say they didn't dump and only get 2 skills per level, I personally feel that this is too low as a base as it is.

[Abadar]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

1. Somewhat reasonable, but I STRONGLY suggest leaving the Wizard and Witch at 2 skill points per level, and you might want to consider only giving the Magus +1 skill point per level.

Thanks, great points!

1. I totally forgot this. I agree that less of an increase should exist with int-base characters. I will take that into consideration on my next "alpha release".

[kyrt-ryder]

I'm sure you know, but reading the quote of myself it becomes less clear.

When I said +1 Skill point per level for the Magus I meant +1 beyond normal, aka 3+Int.

[strayshift]

The issue with the class thing is that it penalises skill focussed classes then, making them less 'special'. If skills are that much of an issue take a level in Rogue or Bard.

Again I would come back to how you generate your character here, if people don't prioritise something (i.e. Int or a skill focussed class) then there should be minimal benefit, if they actively make it a weakness (i.e. dump stat) then there should be a corresponding defecit.

Although somewhat cynically I have yet to meet a player who's character has a low Int play according to the consequences of that when it comes to say, party treasure...

[kyrt-ryder]

Except he's actually helping those classes too, by giving them +1 skill point per level compared to normal.

I can't count the number of times I've been playing a Rogue or Ranger or Bard and had one more skill I would have killed to have been able to afford.

(And again, that's a problem of the system. It provides a pointbuy, wherein to get effective stats you have to dump something. Sad, but true.)

[Heaggles]

remember that someone that has a 7 int has a IQ of 70, with that IQ they would be lucky to know 1 or 2 skills trained after that they would be untrained in almost everything. Its not the skill points that need to be changed its the ability for people to dump stats that needs to be changed, think if someone had a 70 IQ would anyone want to adventure with them for any amount of time, would you want them on watch at night or watching your back?

[Piccolo]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

3. Not really. Skills are of pretty limited value because of their limited applications. Its the reason you never see anybody put any priority into Intelligence unless they're an intelligence based caster or they they need it to meet some prerequisite.

Actually, I've seen plenty of players put some of their highest scores into Int, because they wanted the skill points, or languages (really handy for Disguise if you can speak a different racial language), or to be somewhat more knowledgeable and thus cover areas the rest of the PC group doesn't.

[kyrt-ryder]

Abadar isn't looking to change the core ability score system here Heaggles, he just wants classes to have more skills while still being able to perform their baseline functions. That means Fighters being able to Fight, Clerics being able to do their Clerical thing, Paladins who have the Strength, Charisma and Constitution to stand for Truth, Justice and the American\|/Taldorian Way

@Piccolo: different playstyles I suppose. Lets not make a huge debate out of this in Abadar's thread :)

[Piccolo]

I agree that Clerics need more skill points, simply because they are SUPPOSED to be educated types. Think I shall change that now in my game.

I don't really see why Fighters and Sorcerers need more skill points. Granted, both classes are somewhat of a one trick pony, but there's nothing in their basic role description that really necessitates more skills. They aren't educated formally, for starters.

Personally, I never allow point buys in my games; I just have flat dice rolls. If the set is too low because of bad luck, I allow a reroll of the whole set.

[kyrt-ryder]

See, here's my problem. The Wizard is the guy who locks himself up in a dusty study/college/apprenticeship (in a dusty tower) to learn his trade. But he could spend those skill points on things like Acrobatics and Survival and Stealth and Swim and such even so.

Compare that to the Fighter and Sorcerer, who are out in the real world LIVING it. The Fighter is typically going to be in some kind of Fighter College/Military Training Facility/Whatnot and is going to be put through hell learning the things he needs or just acquiring these skills the hard way through the school of hard knocks (Survival, Stealth, Acrobatics, Swimming, Climbing, Heal[MEDIC!!], Intimidate, Perception etc.)

The Sorcerer, on the other hand, is likely living it up in the social scene and experimenting with his growing powers. Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Knowledge: Nobility, Knowledge Arcana, Spellcraft.

There's no good reason for Fighters and Sorcerers to have less than 4 skill points per level base.

[Heaggles]

I agree about the clerics having more skill points, but fighters dont need them the class as it names implies is there to fight not to do skills, most fighter archtypes are like that too, there are some.

[Atarlost]

Piccolo wrote:

I agree that Clerics need more skill points, simply because they are SUPPOSED to be educated types. Think I shall change that now in my game.

I don't really see why Fighters and Sorcerers need more skill points. Granted, both classes are somewhat of a one trick pony, but there's nothing in their basic role description that really necessitates more skills. They aren't educated formally, for starters.

Personally, I never allow point buys in my games; I just have flat dice rolls. If the set is too low because of bad luck, I allow a reroll of the whole set.

If you want a fighter that is knowledgeable about monsters and not half blind you need 7 skill points/level.

We can talk about 2+int classes when skills have been condensed to the point that there's only one associated with each attribute.

[Ninja in the Rye]

I've house ruled to give all classes that aren't INT based casters a minimum of 4 per level (before modifiers) and increase the Monk to 6. Also the Fighter gets to add Perception and Sense Motive to their class skills.

I also give all classes half again their base skill points at first level as a bonus to help diversify a bit and represent their background.

[Heaggles]

well I do think that they need more skills as class skills, fighter has almost none, same as sorcerers. Skill points I dont think they need more of. yes the figher is a trained solder but why would you train a solder with anything more the basics of what you need them for. If you need a scout you train a scout, if you need a leader you train a leader, if you need a medic you train a medic. But why would you train a medic, scout, and a leader for a unit? There should be a arctype for scout that gives them the right skill sets. But a gen fighter is a solder, not anything more.

[Roberta Yang]

Heaggles wrote:

well I do think that they need more skills as class skills, fighter has almost none, same as sorcerers. Skill points I dont think they need more of. yes the figher is a trained solder but why would you train a solder with anything more the basics of what you need them for. If you need a scout you train a scout, if you need a leader you train a leader, if you need a medic you train a medic. But why would you train a medic, scout, and a leader for a unit? There should be a arctype for scout that gives them the right skill sets. But a gen fighter is a solder, not anything more.

"Sure, there are many important skills needed in the military, and being able to see enemies, avoid being seen by enemies, heal comrades, intimidate opposing soldiers, lead men, identify opposing threats, tumble through unstable terrain, survive if supply lines go down, swim, and climb barriers are all very useful to the military. But fighters are the stupidest and least competent form of soldier, so they deserve none of those abilities."

K.

[Abadar]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Abadar isn't looking to change the core ability score system here Heaggles, he just wants classes to have more skills while still being able to perform their baseline functions. That means Fighters being able to Fight, Clerics being able to do their Clerical thing, Paladins who have the Strength, Charisma and Constitution to stand for Truth, Justice and the American\|/Taldorian Way

Abadar is pleased:)

@Kyrt: I think you really understand what I'm trying to say here.

@Stray: I would disagree that there's some sort of penalization. The way I've actually set it up, Rogues and bards would get an additional +1. As any rogue if they could use an extra skill point per level and they'll almost always say yes.
Ask a rogue if they'd take 1 skill point per level at the expense of base 2 and base 4 classes gaining 2 skill points per level and they'd still say yes.

@Picco: Just because their descriptions mention nothing of actual skill points, their description of who they are and what they do SCREAM skills. I really agree with Kyrt here.

Edit @Picco: And Roberta too!

[kyrt-ryder]

Lets see, for a baseline barebones soldier you need....

1: Perception (Ambushes are bad!)
2: Swim (Bridges weren't always convenient [and usually heavily defended], and it would take far too long to try to ferry an army across a river rather than cross at a ford which is quite liable to have spots where swimming was required or be swept away)
3: Climb (What soldier training routine DOESN'T include climbing for conditioning? Besides that, climbing is huge for tactical positioning of light infantry units.)
4: Survival (Because it's not uncommon for small units to be sent into enemy territory on their own to fend for themselves while setting up a base of operations for guerrilla tactics or to stage a distraction and draw defenders away from a primary target)

That's 4 skills, just right for the average run of the mill non-human fighter with a 10 or 11 intelligence.

[Heaggles]

no a fighter is just someone that is trained for one job, not the special forces of the military, think how long would it take to train everyone in a military to the same skill lv as a special forces, their would be no militarys because your using all your time training. I know everyone wants to pay someone that can do it all, but the pc are not James bond that can do any mission alone what fun would that be? Fighters fill a role in the game and If you want more skill points I would say give them a int of a 12 not a 10, yes its a not a important stat for fighters but your saying I want to hit things well, have any armor, have good HP, and have the same skills as a ranger. But then why would anyone play a ranger if fighters had all those skills and 4 skill points a lv, their is no down side to the fighters now. I can track as good as a ranger, I can spot things as good as them, I can climb as good as them, and I have a feat every lv.

[kyrt-ryder]

In the above example, with Human Armies, there would be some mobile skirmishing units who also took Acrobatics, there would be medics throughout the army who also took Heal, Commando units who took Stealth...

(Also, this came up in another thread. Fighter isn't JUST a rank and file soldier, it's also a class intended to represent all kinds of martial fighters, from Swashbucklers, to Cavalrymen, et all)

[kyrt-ryder]

Clearly you and I aren't playing the same game Heaggles, so with all due respect I'm going to stop replying to you on this subject now. A Fighter shouldn't be some idiot in a tin can who can't tie his own shoes and is just a handicap to his unit.

EDIT: one last note: Rangers are already WAY better than Fighters, because of all the goodies they get. Spells (and wand access from level 1), an animal companion that scales with level, bypassing ability score prerequisites for Archery feats (and Improved Precise Shot at level 6, which is a big deal) and 6 (7 with this houserule)+int skills per level.

[Roberta Yang]

"It makes no sense to train fighters to do anything other than hit things standing directly in front of them with a sword. Now let me introduce my new PC. He's a wizard who can cast any spell regardless of school, even in the schools where he's meant to be weak, and whose smart smartness alone lets him be stealthy, a great swimmer, very intimidating, able to patch up wounds, and an accomplished ballet dancer. Your unskilled fighter is his hireling."

[Heaggles]

but in a unit you would have someone that can spot ambushes, and you would have a medic, and you would have a scout, but not everyone can do it all that is all I am trying to say. I Agree that they need more class skills to show that they can do it but not the skill points to say they can do it all. thats my point.

[Abadar]

@Heaggles: I agree that they shouldn't be able to do everything.
To sum up our disagreement: whether or not 2 more skills per level makes fighters thematically broken.

[Ninja in the Rye]

Heaggles wrote:

no a fighter is just someone that is trained for one job, not the special forces of the military, think how long would it take to train everyone in a military to the same skill lv as a special forces, their would be no militarys because your using all your time training. I know everyone wants to pay someone that can do it all, but the pc are not James bond that can do any mission alone what fun would that be? Fighters fill a role in the game and If you want more skill points I would say give them a int of a 12 not a 10, yes its a not a important stat for fighters but your saying I want to hit things well, have any armor, have good HP, and have the same skills as a ranger. But then why would anyone play a ranger if fighters had all those skills and 4 skill points a lv, their is no down side to the fighters now. I can track as good as a ranger, I can spot things as good as them, I can climb as good as them, and I have a feat every lv.

Why would you play a ranger? Bonus feats that you don't have to meet prereqs for, Favored Enemy, Favored Terrain, more skills, free animal companion, SPELLS, and that's just the first few levels.

[kyrt-ryder]

Heh, 2 more skill points barely changes things Abadar. 4+int gives them just enough they don't quite seem like bumbling idiots (and that's WITHOUT dumping Int. Gods help them if they did.)

[Abadar]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Heh, 2 more skill points barely changes things Abadar. 4+int gives them just enough they don't quite seem like bumbling idiots (and that's WITHOUT dumping Int. Gods help them if they did.)

I agree in spirit, but think about it, this is a HUGE improvement for fighter... It's a likely 66%-200% increase in skills! (3/level vs 1/level and 5/level vs 3/level)

Edit I just realized my math is probably totally off, and so I go to bed.

[Heaggles]

Why dont we just give all classes all skills as class skills, why cant a fighter know knowledge arcana, why cant a wizard tumble through other peoples areas, why cant a cleric track. I understand that fighter is very lacking out of combat and yes they need to be relooked at. I do feel that they need more class skills so their skill points feel like they matter, if you look at a fighter with his 2 skill points you can ride, climb, swim, survival, craft, perfession (why would a player as a fighter ever take this still I dont know). so yea when it comes to skills that get the short stick and it makes them feel that they dont have any good skills and I would agree with that statement. They need more class skills and if you want more skill points then be human, or have a higher int.

[kyrt-ryder]

It is a huge improvement in the skills department Abadar, but in practical play in my experience skills are more representative of a character's capabilities than a significant power.

[BillyGoat]

Heaggles wrote:

but in a unit you would have someone that can spot ambushes, and you would have a medic, and you would have a scout, but not everyone can do it all that is all I am trying to say. I Agree that they need more class skills to show that they can do it but not the skill points to say they can do it all. thats my point.

Haven't you heard of cross-training?

If the guy who's sneaky & good at spotting people takes an arrow to the knee, you need another guy who's sneaky & good at spotting people. And, as you say, they don't have time to stop the war and find a new recruit.

So they train everybody to be kind of good at sneaking & spotting people. Not great. As a fighter, neither is a class skill. So a rank (at level 1) translates to between +0 and +5 total mod (not counting ACP).

Your comparison between basic soldier & spec ops is a little off. Spec Ops don't really know skills that the basics don't. They know them to a level of capability beyond what the basic soldier does. That is to say, more skill ranks in the same skills and feats to support. In simpler terms, spec ops have more levels, and probably a prestige class.

Back to the root of the topic, in my game, we decided that most every class doesn't have the starting skill points per level to actually cover their bases.

Not even a wizard. Seriously, a wizard with an 19 Intelligence gets 6 skills. And he's already putting two points each level (typically) into Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft just to do his job.

So I summed the class skills each class gets (counting each Knowledge and Perform as half the total, and craft/profession as 1 each, I think). Then divided that total by 2. This gave me a reasonable spread of skill points that saw a bump to almost every class. Somewhere, I have a table that shows the final breakdown. When I find, I will post.

It has worked great for our group, though the rogue might require a little more boost just to re-establish his "special" status as a skill monger.

[Shifty]

I hardly see the argument here as anything more than "Because I dumpstat my Int I don't have many skillpoints, so I need more skillpoints for free as I shouldn't be penalised for my choices"

Don't dump Int and you wont have a problem.

Fighter? Having a hard life?

2 Skill points, +1 for favoured class, +1 for human.
Thats 4, if you didn't dump Int.

Want to be really good? Use a Feat and buy a Skill focus.
Want a bit of an edge at level 1? Buy some skill based Traits, get a new 'class skill' (+3 bonus woohoo) and a further +1 situational bonus.

Seriously guys.

[Heaggles]

I would have to say if you do increase the skill points for fighters I would say increase everyones skill points.

[Shifty]

Its really not necessary.

[Ninja in the Rye]

Heaggles wrote:

Why dont we just give all classes all skills as class skills, why cant a fighter know knowledge arcana, why cant a wizard tumble through other peoples areas, why cant a cleric track. I understand that fighter is very lacking out of combat and yes they need to be relooked at. I do feel that they need more class skills so their skill points feel like they matter, if you look at a fighter with his 2 skill points you can ride, climb, swim, survival, craft, perfession (why would a player as a fighter ever take this still I dont know). so yea when it comes to skills that get the short stick and it makes them feel that they dont have any good skills and I would agree with that statement. They need more class skills and if you want more skill points then be human, or have a higher int.

I guess the Barbarian University of Higher Learning just offers more diversified courses than Fighter's Remedial School for swinging around pointy sticks.

[Piccolo]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Lets see, for a baseline barebones soldier you need....

1: Perception (Ambushes are bad!)
2: Swim (Bridges weren't always convenient [and usually heavily defended], and it would take far too long to try to ferry an army across a river rather than cross at a ford which is quite liable to have spots where swimming was required or be swept away)
3: Climb (What soldier training routine DOESN'T include climbing for conditioning? Besides that, climbing is huge for tactical positioning of light infantry units.)
4: Survival (Because it's not uncommon for small units to be sent into enemy territory on their own to fend for themselves while setting up a base of operations for guerrilla tactics or to stage a distraction and draw defenders away from a primary target)

That's 4 skills, just right for the average run of the mill non-human fighter with a 10 or 11 intelligence.

1 That's for the leaders or scouts. That can be simulated through the trait system.

2 Boats. That's what they did in real life. Besides, that many guys in the water (hundreds if not thousands for the really big armies) is a bad idea.

3 They already get Climb. And Swim as class skills. They tend to be the ones that most Fighters put ranks in, because most Fighters wear heavy armor and so the ACP tends to negate ranks.

4 Agreed. In real life, you didn't have supply wagons for most of medieval history. What you did was loot the countryside, even if it was your OWN nation. This created famines, even in fertile times.

Here, I just typed this up/invented it, just used the Toughness feat words mostly:
Skilled- You gain +3 skill points. For every HD past 3, you get 1 additional skill point. If you have more than 3 HD, you gain +1 skill points whenever you gain a HD (such as whenever you gain a level).

[Roberta Yang]

I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks right

[Ninja in the Rye]

Shifty wrote:

I hardly see the argument here as anything more than "Because I dumpstat my Int I don't have many skillpoints, so I need more skillpoints for free as I shouldn't be penalised for my choices"

Don't dump Int and you wont have a problem.

Fighter? Having a hard life?

2 Skill points, +1 for favoured class, +1 for human.
Thats 4, if you didn't dump Int.

Want to be really good? Use a Feat and buy a Skill focus.
Want a bit of an edge at level 1? Buy some skill based Traits, get a new 'class skill' (+3 bonus woohoo) and a further +1 situational bonus.

Seriously guys.

If you want to be able to do multiple things, just don't be a Fighter.

[Shifty]

But the point is the Fighter CAN do multiple things.

[Piccolo]

Roberta Yang wrote:

"It makes no sense to train fighters to do anything other than hit things standing directly in front of them with a sword. Now let me introduce my new PC. He's a wizard who can cast any spell regardless of school, even in the schools where he's meant to be weak, and whose smart smartness alone lets him be stealthy, a great swimmer, very intimidating, able to patch up wounds, and an accomplished ballet dancer. Your unskilled fighter is his hireling."

Thought I would mention that most Wizards tend to put ranks in Knowledges, because of the attribute bonuses for Intelligence. And since those same skills are used to identify monsters, along with grant hints about weaknesses/strengths, they tend to be popular.

Lots of Wizards like to have a high Dexterity as their second best attribute, because basically it's the One Attribute To Rule Them All, and because their AC sucks as a rule without a lot of spellcasting.

Never knew an Intimidating Wizard. They usually have sucky Strength and Charisma attributes. They might be okay at Heal, but since they don't get it as class, they lose that +3 bonus. That's kinda important given the high DC's inherent to the skill, and the limits to their probable Wisdom score.

[Ninja in the Rye]

Shifty wrote:

But the point is the Fighter CAN do multiple things.

Yes, if he dedicates his race, class bonus, and traits to it, he can be as skilled as a Barbarian of another race who puts no extra investment in skills.

[Shifty]

Cake.
Eat it too.

[Piccolo]

Roberta Yang wrote:

I was reading the Odyssey the other day and I was like WTF this is so unrealistic how come Odysseus can do so many different things surely everyone knows he shouldn't have been trained in anything other than poking things with sharp sticks right

In particular, Odysseus was an aristocrat by birth and training. In Pathfinder, Aristocrats get a decent amount of skill points and class skills, even if it is a NPC class....

Good point though. I always thought Barbarians should have less skill points per level than Fighters anyway, since the latter were professional warriors while Barbs were uneducated.

[Roberta Yang]

I'm going to have my fighter take levels in Aristocrat next time, thanks for the advice.

[Shifty]

I always saw the Barb as closer to the Ranger and livng off the land etc, hence his martial prowess is a little different to the Fighter who spent his time more as a dedicated warrior.

The barbarian had a different job, and in his 'other role' strapped on an axe.

The Fighter was pretty much the full time profession of arms.

[Piccolo]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Shifty wrote:

But the point is the Fighter CAN do multiple things.

Yes, if he dedicates his race, class bonus, and traits to it, he can be as skilled as a Barbarian of another race who puts no extra investment in skills.

Most players of primary warrior types (Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin) tend to put their class bonus into skill points, not HP. Understandable, imho, unless their Con bonus REALLY sucks.

Traits in general tend to be used to patch holes in class skills specifically for the concept each player has in mind. I can't honestly see a Cavalier having much need for Stealth, or a Barbarian for Religion, but if it fits their chosen concept, what the hey.

Thus, I could see a heavy armor Fighter taking Highlander and Armor Expert, or Wisdom in Flesh (Stealth) to negate ACP even if their Wis bonus ain't all that.

[Shifty]

So there's the trade.

Do I want to place all my eggs in one basket and be 'ultra-killing man', or use that same flexibility to be a more learned type?

It seems a bit strange to have the option, take one, and then people complain they don't have the other.

Choices, every class has to make them.

[Piccolo]

Roberta Yang wrote:

I'm going to have my fighter take levels in Aristocrat next time, thanks for the advice.

Aristocrats only get 4 + Int skill points and d6 for HD, but they also get a good Will save and nice class skills. To complete the effect, you can take that APG character trait that grants 900gp at 1st level.