It is the same thing
Example
A first level character in 3.5 could have his level +3 in ranks meaning he had 4 ranks-->+4 bonus before modifiers
In PF you get 1 rank and a +3 bonus--> +4 bonus before modifiers.
The math is the same.
Well unless you count the synergy bonuses in 3.5 which actually made 3.5 give you a higher bonus, and the PF system gets rid of the half-rank issue which was just more book keeping.
Also making a check for combat casting gets easier as you go up in level. By level 17 you will NOT be casting with a +5 stat as a full caster unless you have suffered ability drain*, and if you are not a full caster the level of the spell will be lower so you still should not fail 50% of the time.
*corner cases don't count when trying to prove a point.
Even at 1st level you should not fail 50% of the time.
1st level wizard:
1(Caster level)+4(stat mod)+4(combat casting=9
15+2(1st level spell x 2)=17
9/17=52.9 percent
9/17=52.9 percent
I am not sure that's the right math.
DC 17 with +9 to the roll means you will succeed if you roll an 8, fail on a 1-7. That's 35% chance to fail, 65% chance to succeed.
9/17=52.9 percentI am not sure that's the right math.
DC 17 with +9 to the roll means you will succeed if you roll an 8, fail on a 1-7. That's 35% chance to fail, 65% chance to succeed.
I was wrong.
You are right...darn it.
edit: no more math while sleepy unless I use a calculator :)
Juda,
Please do not take this the wrong way, but did you read the replies to your OP?
You have issues with the +3 for class skills, but are ok with maxing out one skill with 4 ranks at 1st level. You do understand they are basically one in the same but just done a little differently, correct?
Juda, I know where you're coming from.
Given the low DCs of most tasks, and the ease that characters can get high skill modifiers, especially in class skills with the +3 bonus, it often seems pointless to require skill rolls.
I have a group of level 6 characters in Rappan Athuk. The druid has something like +19 on his perception check. Taking 10, he can see every trap, every secret door, every hidden thing everywhere in the entire place without fail (at least at the current levels they're exploring). I might as well read the room description as "You enter a room. There's a door on the far wall and a secret door on the left wall, and that statue has a secret compartment in the base..." because he's going to find it all, automatically.
However, he had to invest for that Perception. He gave up other things for it, like knowledge skills, sense motive, swim, even survival. He even invested a feat selection to take Alertness. So it wasn't free. He earned it. When he falls in a river in his medium armor, he'll wish he had more ranks in swim and fewer in perception...
I suggest leaving it the way it is. The system is more or less balanced. PCs should be heroic. They should succeed way more than they fail - that's what heroes do. PCs who work hard at being excellent in specialized things should be allowed to be excellent. There's always a trade off for specialization.
It's been this way for a decade and a half, more or less, since 3.0 came out. Pathfinder hasn't changed the skill balance; they only changed the mechanic for achieving that balance (+3 class skill bonus rather than investing extra ranks at first level like it was in 3.0 and 3.5).
|
D&D characters are fantasy superheroes. At later levels they slash dragons into kebabs in 30 seconds and implode realities with their magic. Expecting them to fail at tying their shoelaces or cooking scrambled eggs is a little disconnecting at that point.
If you want a game where people can realistically trip over their own legs, fail at walking and picking their nose at the same time, forget basic calculus and drown in a puddle, Ars Magica is a good choice. Ironically enough, D&D skill system was designed by Jonathan Tweet, who wrote Ars Magica :)
Hmmm, digging deep into the depths of my early RPG days, I seem to recall having a system that heroic characters had to make DEX checks to pick items up, like, picking up a glass of water from a table. Not in danger, not in combat, not hurrying. Just, simple, basic, common stuff. Worse, the check was set so that with ordinary "hero" ability scores, they would fail like 10% of the time, give or take.
So a hero who wants a drink will spill his ale 10% of the time (not even because he's drunk, but just because.), or a hero wants to tie his shoes will fail 10% of the time, or a hero who wants to get a library book off of the shelf will fail 10% of the time, etc.
I wish I could remember what that system was. I think it was either Champions or Gurps, but I could be wrong.
At least Pathfinder is better than that...
Juda,
Please do not take this the wrong way, but did you read the replies to your OP?
You have issues with the +3 for class skills, but are ok with maxing out one skill with 4 ranks at 1st level. You do understand they are basically one in the same but just done a little differently, correct?
Lol
Don´t worry!Yes i do, i mean, i dislikes the +3, and i still know that allowing 4 max ranks in the skills looks like the same, but honestly, it isn´t. Maybe the fact you get +4 at 1st, thats the goal i guess!!
Maybe im just complaining, the fact is, i feel rare with this skills system...
Myabe im an old man trying to get back to 2ndE and the non-class proficiencies.
Sorry if i make you feel akward
I don't know why you dislike it. At first you said it was OP so we showed you how even in 3.5 the numbers will be the same, if not higher due to synergy bonuses.
Now that you know 3.5 can get you higher numbers what is the problem?
What strikes me as strange is how so many builds result in a +9 or +10 to a skill at first level, then it only goes up by one point every level after that, which makes it look like your character was really good at something, but isn't really getting much better at it.
As your attributes increase and you use magic items and feats they can go up by more than one. It just depends on how much effort you want to put into it.
What strikes me as strange is how so many builds result in a +9 or +10 to a skill at first level, then it only goes up by one point every level after that, which makes it look like your character was really good at something, but isn't really getting much better at it.As your attributes increase and you use magic items and feats they can go up by more than one. It just depends on how much effort you want to put into it.
Exactly : A +10 to a skill at level one is not extraordinary. By level 10, you can reach way better skill modifiers (+25 is EASY to do without much care).
well. thanks a lot to all of you.
i will let the things at the point they are!!Maybe i will set some circunstantial DC sometimes. I also know that we are not playing with the guy who cross the street every day to go to work at the office or something. We are playing heroes, but i still feel some nostalgia with the challenge that skills use to represent in every dungeon run.
Sad times for the skill checks now!!
A +10 or +11 at level one, makes the characters very cappable for get over with any task... thats in true, a fact that we need to see from all perspectives.
Juda a character who only puts ranks in a skill still has a decent chance of failure, but a character that focus on a skill will have a much easier time, as it should be. Otherwise you are defeating the point of putting more effort into it and the focused character is wasting resources to improve in that area.
Look at it like this. The guy that only puts skill ranks into a skill is like someone only going for an associate's degree*. The guy who also goes out of his way to boost relevant modifiers, take feats, and buy magic items to boost a skill is like someone trying to get a doctor's degree in a field. He put in the work so he should be rewarded. Otherwise you are just telling your players you will cancel our their effort with GM Fiat. In real life it would be like telling the guy with the doctor's degree he won't make anymore than 20 dollars an hour so stop trying.
*There is no thing wrong with an Associate's Degree. I was just making a point.