I have started giving all classes 1 rank in every class skill at character creation including class skills gained form traits. They do not get the listed base skill ranks (2,4,6,8) but they still get to add INT modifier, racial traits like skilled or favored class bonus. For Craft, Perform, and Profession if they are class skills you only pick one of the sub skills from each of those skills. 2nd level onward things work like normal, but I also give +2 skill ranks per level.
So far this has worked out great. Classes that are skill centric get to start off with lots of skill and the low skill classes have enough to invest in a couple skills. It is a lot of extra skill ranks, but I find the players like it and it really helps a character to feel like their class at 1st level instead of having strange holes in their character. If something is a class skill seems like the character should actually be able to do it at the most basic level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a theme of 3 tiers that run throughout the core system with a few exceptions.
HD: 3 tiers with the barbarian sticking out like a sore thumb
Skills: either drop all the 8 sp classes down to 6, or bring all the 2 sp classes up to 4. Either way, balance it.
Or...
BaB: add a 1/4 BaB or a 5/4 BaB
Spells levels: change progressions to 2, 4, 6, and 9?
Personally it seems easier to drop the barbarian (and dragon disciple) down to d10s, and bring all the 2 sp classes (yes even wizards and magi) up to 4
Skills don't break the game, they make it IMO... It doesn't matter if the wizard has more skill points than the rogue... It's all about who has the class skills to fulfill their role. Frankly, the fighter is not cutting the cheese in the skill department, neither is the sorc or cleric. Irregardless of who bumps and dumps int, you need to assume a minimum ability score of 10. With 2 skills/ lvl can any of the 2sp classes really hope to be able to effectively pull off their functions? The answer is no, period. It doesn't break the game to give fighters (or wizards!) 4 sp/ lvl.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well if it is 'justified to not give them to that Archtype' then the fighter is fine as is.
Why?
The Lore Warden has 4 sp/level.
So they tried to patch an error in the base class with an archetype that takes away things from the base class.
Smart Paizo, reeeal smart there. /sarcasm
Or maybe it's just that you're the one seeing an error, and they traded armor for skill points.
It certainly makes more sense than "Oh look, that class uses intelligence, so lets take points away from it!"
They DO teach basic medical skills to everyone, they DO constantly try to encourage and develop leadership skills in soldiers (at least good units do), they do teach basic combat skills to everyone, etc... Training doesn't stop upon completely basic training, training NEVER stops as long as you are in the service. They don't just rely on one person to spot ambushes or to lead.
I think some of these issues are answered by the fact that so many of the skills in Pathfinder can be tried untrained (at least in the formal sense of training=investing a skill point). In other words, the adventuring PC is versed in the basics of a lot of stuff, even if he doesn't excel at them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that all classes need a skill point boost but I would agree fighters do need 4 per level. A couple of thoughts:
A. The US army has over 200+ field manuals. Soldiers need to know a lot to survive, more so in a world where magic and monsters abound.
While I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that fighters could really use 4 skill points/level instead of 2, I'm not sure this argument is telling me that. It might just be telling me that the fighter isn't too analogous to the modern soldier.
C. I really think Fighters should get a bonus to knowledge checks to identify creatures. Their entire purpose is to stab things... don't you think they'd focus on how, where and with what they should do it with? I would like to see them have a class ability called tactics that gives them a scaling bonus to identify monsters. Think of a bunch of grizzled old veterans sitting around the fire swapping war stories;
That is kind of an inquisitor niche now, isn't it? Does the fighter need it too? I'm unconvinced.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How is leaving Wizards and Witches at 2+int taking points away from them?
Funny, we weren't talking about the Wizard or the Witch (Though there have been many saying that they don't 'need them' because they are int based casters.)
To the person upthread who asked about the Sage sorcerer archetype, I could see that Archetype reducing the Sorcerer's base skill points from 4 to 2. The whole 'sage' thing, although fluff, carries the same fluff weight that a Wizard's scholarly conditioning does, aka that the character committed far more time to study than practical experience.
To me, saying that "Well fighters need more skill points, because they dump int!" is the same as saying "Wizards need a higher BAB, because they dump strength"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Modern soldiers are more like rangers (dont tell the actual rangers that). While modern medics favor the bard class. Special forces get some rogue training for sure, maybe even a little horizon walker/ assassin PrC thrown in for good measure. Combative a specialists take lvls of unarmed fighter after their initial ranger lvls.
That should answer the modern military question. The marines are barbarians, the Air Force are wizards, and the navy are summoners (summon marines 1-9 lvl as a spell like ability).
EDIT: So, you know, I was totally ninja'd by, like, four people, so... I'm still leaving this here, dang it. :)
How is leaving Wizards and Witches at 2+int taking points away from them?Funny, we weren't talking about the Wizard or the Witch (Though there have been many saying that they don't 'need them' because they are int based casters.)
To the person upthread who asked about the Sage sorcerer archetype, I could see that Archetype reducing the Sorcerer's base skill points from 4 to 2. The whole 'sage' thing, although fluff, carries the same fluff weight that a Wizard's scholarly conditioning does, aka that the character committed far more time to study than practical experience.To me, saying that "Well fighters need more skill points, because they dump int!" is the same as saying "Wizards need a higher BAB, because they dump strength"
To be fair, Mathew and Artanthos, changing from 2+ to 4+ would be closer to changing from worst BAB to intermediate BAB instead of best BAB (which you've been comparing it to).
Of course, increasing the BAB to intermediate increases the wizard's hit points to d8 as well, in PF, so, you know... oh! I know! You can give the wizard a flurry-of-blows type effect!
Guys, look. In the game, the fighters don't actually need more skills. They can use them, and it's really cool if you want to add them, but it's not a mistake, or poor game design. The ranger is substantially more like a modern soldier than a fighter is (more accurately, a variant ranger that takes a few - but not many - of a fighter's traits and drops the spellcasting), if we're going to compare PF and real life, which is really hard to do after sixth level anyway.
HOWEVER. If you want to... go for it. Home-brew is fine. I think the umbrage several people here take is the idea that the game is somehow broken as it currently stands, when it honestly functions quite well for most games.
As I said up-thread (I think, anyway, though it might have been a different one), I personally give every character - every character - an additional two skill points that must be spent in craft, perform, or profession skills. This allows people to do 'stuff' before they take up the adventuring mantle and be part of society before hand.
But that's really not necessary for the game or the game world. Doing things without skill points, as has been noted, works quite well enough. It's actually well designed.
But I've no problem if you want to add skill points. I just know that some would definitively still dump INT and some wouldn't.
|
I did look. It has a base Int of 14. That's 2+2=4 at baseline before you invested in magic items. A Barbarian could do the exact same thing on 10 Int.
Everything has a cost. Barbarians receive few feats and proficiencies than fighter, fighters have few skills than a baseline barbarian. Give up your armor proficiency (via lore warden) and you too can start with a baseline of 4 skill points.
Character development choices do not stop at character creation. Any character of any class can choose additional skills and additional class skills as they advance. Ignoring that option may make your case look more impressive, but does not remove it as a valid choice for character advancement.
The build I posted starts with a 14 int and 4 skill points per level. The decisions I made during character progression left me with a 20 intelligence receiving 8 skill points/level. (Some of my favored class bonuses went into skills.)
If 8 skill points/level is not sufficient, what is? Are you demanding full skill ranks in all relevant skills? Where does that leave classes that actually intended to be skill based?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Everything has a cost. Barbarians receive few feats and proficiencies than fighter, fighters have few skills than a baseline barbarian. Give up your armor proficiency (via lore warden) and you too can start with a baseline of 4 skill points.
I wanted to add to this...
In Pathfinder, this is a big trade off. Your AC is likely to be 2-5 points lower as a Lore Warden before armor training, and not even mithral breastplate will fix it (you'll take a -1 to everything unless you burn a feat/trait, and again armor training will make you lag).
If you increase the fighter's skill points, the Lore Warden needs to go up at least two as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, for the Good Ol' Days, when you rolled your characters stats in front of your DM, and accepted the results and played. None of this min/max number crunching.
Regardless, the current version of the game, just like the older versions were about one thing. Choices. Almost every option you have is supposed to have pros and cons. You play a fighter, you get some great combat abilities, that not even other martial classes can match. Yet, those classes all have things that they do best. And each class (should) have things that they are lousy in, compared to other classes.
Now granted, this is a home-brew thread, and individual GM's can make hybrids of the game in any which way they choose. However, since it seems that the direction of this thread seems to be about standardization, I would say that the game is best when characters maintain their flaws, along with their strengths. Sometimes the choices may be tough, but if the game was easy, it would not be near as much fun. Embrace the tough choices, and the next time you create a new character, explore the other path.
The alternative is try to create characters that excel in almost everything. Which is great for solo games, especially on the computer/console. Not so great for a team-orientated, RPG.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, for the Good Ol' Days, when you rolled your characters stats in front of your DM, and accepted the results and played. None of this min/max number crunching.
You know what else was different back then? Fighters didn't need to invest to unlock skills like "is able to lie to NPCs", "is able to talk to NPCs", "is able to keep own weapon in decent condition", "is able to see approaching enemies", and "doesn't get Dominated constantly".
While I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that fighters could really use 4 skill points/level instead of 2, I'm not sure this argument is telling me that. It might just be telling me that the fighter isn't too analogous to the modern soldier.
The point of my post was "stupid soldiers don't tend to live long" and I used a modern example to make that point. Today's soldiers are not inherently smarter than ones from the iron or medieval ages. In fact compared to modern times they spent far more time preparing for war. Spartan soldiers learned every aspect of war from birth, medieval knights spent years as pages and squires learning all sorts of things. Knights were actually among the MOST educated for their time period. As a PC class fighters are the best of the best and it's somewhat silly to think that they aren't able to be well versed in the many skills relating to their chosen profession.
That is kind of an inquisitor niche now, isn't it? Does the fighter need it too? I'm unconvinced.
The proposed ability would be similar to the monster lore ability of inquisitors. Thematically I would argue that it makes much more sense as a fighter ability. A fighter is expected to fight anything and everything where as an inquisitor would only be interested in enemies of their faith. An inquisitor of Pharasma would hate undead, so it makes sense she might get a bonus to identify them but why would she know anything extra about dragons or oozes? It doesn't make sense that the knowledge bonus would be the same.
The point of my post was "stupid soldiers don't tend to live long" and I used a modern example to make that point. Today's soldiers are not inherently smarter than ones from the iron or medieval ages. In fact compared to modern times they spent far more time preparing for war. Spartan soldiers learned every aspect of war from birth, medieval knights spent years as pages and squires learning all sorts of things. Knights were actually among the MOST educated for their time period. As a PC class fighters are the best of the best and it's somewhat silly to think that they aren't able to be well versed in the many skills relating to their chosen profession.
This. And Sun Tzu. And Musashi.
The warrior caste of olden days is populated by smart, educated people.The proposed ability would be similar to the monster lore ability of inquisitors. Thematically I would argue that it makes much more sense as a fighter ability. A fighter is expected to fight anything and everything where as an inquisitor would only be interested in enemies of their faith. An inquisitor of Pharasma would hate undead, so it makes sense she might get a bonus to identify them but why would she know anything extra about dragons or oozes? It doesn't make sense that the knowledge bonus would be the same.
I'm voting you for emperor of the intertubes.
Sun Tzu and Musashi had high Int scores.
They didn't dumpstat to 7 so they could buy more STR/DEX/CON and then complain afterwards that they didn't have skills.
I suspect they used some of their Feats towards skills, maybe their Favoured Class bonuses too, and they got +1/Lvl for being human.
You want skills? Don't try cram every last resource into solely killing stuff, you don't NEED to, set some aside for your skills.
Look after your Horse? DC10 check, can be done 'untrained'
Ride the said same horse? DC5 to ride around, DC10 to fight - oh yeah, can be done untrained.
Look after your arms and armour? No skill check required, unless you are planning on repairing significantly damaged equipment or wish to make new gear.
Climbing? Also very low DC's, high Str makes this a cakewalk
Swimming? as above.
Roaming around the woods? DC10, requires no skill points, can survive comfortably and forage for food.
Almost everything people claim they should be able to do out of the box at L1 they CAN, without a single skill being required for doing so.
I suspect Sun Tzu was playing a different system. One where the "cunning tactician" character type actually has a modicum of rules support.
(And yes, I know someone is going to mention the awful Tactician archetype for the Fighter. Don't even bother, it's awful and does not in the least do what the name promises.)
No Kyrt, I am saying there is already plenty of scope for the Fighter to be able to function quite well AS IS and does not require further skill points as everything they could be expected to do they pretty much can.
The real problem with the skill points only really shows up when someone dumps Int down, in which case the skills suffer, as not only do they get less skills to play with, they add a negative modifier to the skill check, whereas people investing in Int not only have more skills than their fellows, bit their checks are easier.
Now of course people might not want to invest a massive amount of resources into having 12 Int, but they are more than functional at 10.
The system is already pretty robust, and there are a lot of ways to become a pretty good skill monkey as a fighter.
Why do Fighters warrant extra skill points beyond anyone else?
They can already DO the things people argue they should be able to do, although people get a bit vague when asked for specifics, like the "BUT THEY NEED ALL THIS JUST TO CONTRIBUTE!11!!!" post, contribute how exactly?
We've even had the 'its needed for all those really high DC's' - yet no exemplars of these high DC's were provided when asked for.
There was a poster here who even provided a 'build' with loads of skills, and people STILL didn't like it, most likely because it disproved their stated world view, well he back his with some proof, can we get some actual stats and evidence from the 'we need more skills' crowd?
(And yes, I know someone is going to mention the awful Tactician archetype for the Fighter. Don't even bother, it's awful and does not in the least do what the name promises.)
Hey! I'm not awfu-
......
Oh! Ooooooooooooooh. Oh. The archetype! Oh, I see. Nevermind, carry on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is leaving Wizards and Witches at 2+int taking points away from them?
It's not taking aways from them exactly but giving everybody else 2 more skill points is kinda of like giving everyone except for wisdom based casters a bouns to will saves and perception checks. Or giving everyone a bouns to social skills except for charisma based casters. Having a high casting stat comes with incidental perks. In the case of int casters it's skill points.
- Torger
*Edit* that's why I give everybody two more
This is completely bogus. I'm in a party where the two characters I've seen sheets for have their second highest roll in int and not enough skill points.No Kyrt, I am saying there is already plenty of scope for the Fighter to be able to function quite well AS IS and does not require further skill points as everything they could be expected to do they pretty much can.
The real problem with the skill points only really shows up when someone dumps Int down, in which case the skills suffer, as not only do they get less skills to play with, they add a negative modifier to the skill check, whereas people investing in Int not only have more skills than their fellows, bit their checks are easier.
Do they not have enough? Or do they not have enough to feel comfortable compared with the character they envision?
Because Shifty's pointed out, they can do most everything that they "need" to do as mentioned 'round here by making untrained DC 10 checks, and the rest can reasonably be done by "taking 10" or "taking 20" over time.
I give extra skill points to craft/perform/profession in order to help round the character out based on general personal vision. This is not, strictly speaking, necessary. I know people in real life who love to sing but suck at it, who love to dance but are terrible, and who love to write but really have no clue how. I know people who've worked for years at a job that allows for upward mobility who could never take advantage of it because they're not good enough at what they do, even though they love it. This does not actually reflect on their general charisma or wisdom.
I know people who love to climb trees, and would all the time, but just can't do so very well (I also fall into this category). I love martial arts, and have gone through quite a number of schools, but have never advanced beyond a green belt in any of them (usually due to time conflicts/moving preventing me from advancing any farther). While the former does reflect my strength currently, the latter doesn't reflect my anything except maybe life tendency.
This is "real life" experience in action: it doesn't automatically gain you additional skill ranks at what you do. You have a tendency to pick up additional skills based on what you do, but some people just don't do well at stuff they think is really keen and that they practice at all the time.
I'm all for giving people extra skills if you like. That's great! But you don't "need" it according to the rules, unless you've made genuinely bad choices or your character concept as you envision it just doesn't fit the rules, in which case you might want to revise your initial concept, or your group might want to change them.
Rules-wise, though, people have shown that you can get lots of skill points.
(I also happen to like Torger's way of thinking and suspect that I'll be doing something similar soon.)
Now there is no doubt that the average person in the military has to know a lot of stuff. But, it could easily be argued, that they are gaining lots of feats, not skills....
This is completely bogus. I'm in a party where the two characters I've seen sheets for have their second highest roll in int and not enough skill points.
That 'second highest roll' could be a 4 for all we know.
Not enough skill points for what exactly?
Unless you actually provide some details then you pretty much have no case.
This is completely bogus.
Succinctly sums up your post :P
The problem with the military argument as it is being presented is that the US military has a test called the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. About 25% fail it, and aren't accepted. People with INT scores of 7 and 8 are two dumb to be in the armed services.
/agreed.
People with INT scores of 7 and 8 are two dumb to be in the armed services.
I see what you did, there.
I liked it too :p
The problem with the military argument as it is being presented is that the US military has a test called the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. About 25% fail it, and aren't accepted. People with INT scores of 7 and 8 are two dumb to be in the armed services.
Yes and no... Your stats are right, but standard infantry are not fighters... They are rangers, and a ranger with a 7-8 int stil gets 4 sp/ lvl. I have met infantrymen who could barely spell their name... And I have met ones who are working on double masters degrees.
And it's not a matter of gaining extra feats. Except maybe exotic weapon prof: rifles...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I've gotten in the habit of giving everyone across the board 2 extra skill points per level, with the caveat that they have to put them in something to round their character out RP-wise. i.e. perform/profession skills, or some knowledge skill they aren't going to constantly be rolling for monster info (say, geography, or nobility). Tricky finding something that doesn't feel gamey for bards, but otherwise it's a fairly fool proof way to spice up everyone's character in a balance-neutral fashion.
I find most people tend to take Skills that fit their Character's Role-Playing side.
Googles isn't that the whole point of the Trait system?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Traits =/= Bonus Skill Ranks.
In fact the Skill Traits are nearly useless for a Fighter with little to no Skill Points as is.
What? A +1 Bonus to the skill (or sometimes more than one) and you score it as a class skill too and thats not enough?
Later on you drop one rank into the skill and pick up the other 3 points, not bad at all.
Along with that you have Masterwork items for an additional +2.
All of a sudden you are looking pretty respectable with that skill.
Use of Feats like Cosmopolitan can also pick you up Perception as a class skill.
For a couple of races Breadth of Experience gives you ALL the Profession and Knowledge skills in the game. All of them. And +2 to boot.
ONE FEAT. Mr Fighter, can you spare one single feat?
Breadth of Experience is an Excellent feat IF you are on of the Small Selection of Races that can pick it up.
Because Dwarven and Elven fighters are so rare? :p
Still doesn't mitigate the Cosmo route, or the use of traits, or get the Feat that gives you four traits.
So many options to give skills.