This is for a modern/post apocalyptic game, but I'm also curious if it could work for Pathfinder.
What changes should be made to not break the 'spine' of pathfinder (i.e. the statistical assumptions that make up the CR systems) if we were to replace BAB with a skill check.
* Both attack calculations and skill checks have a single attribute modifier added in; no change on that front is needed.
* Putting a single point into a class skill would give you a total of +4 bonus to an 'attack skill'; CHANGE: Having an attack skill as a class skill negates the non-weapon proficiency (-4) but does not grant the trained class skill bonus (+3)
* Certain feats that grant skills bonuses become too good (skill focus and 'skill affinity' feats [+2 to two related skills]). OPTION 1: Treat attack skills differently and do not allow those feats to modify them. OPTION 2: Make it an assumption of the spine and modify monsters to take advantage of those feats as well; this would cause attacks to grow faster than defense
* Exotic weapons function unclearly when proficiency is folded into the class skill system. CHANGE: Exotic weapons take a -4 penalty which can be negated with proficiency feats or features; non-weapon proficiency users of exotic weapons will be taking a -8 penalty
* Certain classes need to have skill points per level boosted in order to account for the need to spend points on attack skills
* For Pathfinder specifically, there are magic item costing concerns as +attack bonuses are priced higher than skill bonuses
Anything else? Comments? Concerns?
This is a concept that I've been intrigued with for a goodly time now. I have to say that what you've got covers a lot of the bases well. I would probably have separate combat skill and non-combat skill groups with their own pools of skill points (although it's not completely necessary, I think it would help maintain utility balances between classes--otherwise, wizards, witches and rogues would potentially be some of the biggest combat monsters in the game) and these pools of skill points would use different attributes to determine bonus skill points, with Intelligence for non-combat skills as usual and probably Dexterity ("muscle memory") for combat skills. At that point, I would probably also use armor as DR and include defense skills for use as AC as well--probably by armor category as per Skyrim.
Option one of your feat solution would work well at this point, as skill affinity feats would obviously be meant for non-combat skills, while feats like Weapon Focus would become the combat skill version of skill affinity feats.
To conclude: I think it's a good start and merits further development.
There would have to be a reason for a sorcerer to not max out his attack skill. If he gives up traditional skill points in favor of an attack bonus, what has he lost? Base attack, good saves, and class features are worth more than skill points. The existing system isn't perfect, but it works and I am against your idea - or at least what I believe you are suggesting.
|
The sorcerer already has a reason not to max out his attack skill: He doesn't need it, and he's already starved for skill points. Since most of his spells are likely to be "target", "area" or similar the point is kind-of moot. If anything, I'd be concerned with them sacrificing attack bonus in favor of another skill, though that's not much of a concern given the low value of most skills.
If I were to make such a change myself, I would declare attack bonus to be its own thing that you happen to be able to spend skill points on, rather than calling it a skill directly. This bypasses all of the issues with skill focus, class skill, etc.
That said, I would also make a separate "ranged" and "melee" skill. Skill points are cheap, after all. To compensate, basically all classes would need to be 4+int or better. After all, we don't want our poor low-int fighter to have literally no skills because he had to spend his only skill point per level on attacking (or maybe you do, but I certainly don't).
I had a similar idea involving using up points in specific 'weapon proficiency' feats instead of BAB.
I think the sorcerer was a bad example, but inquisitors have no reason not to invest in full bab.
|
|
I think the sorcerer was a bad example, but inquisitors have no reason not to invest in full bab.
This is a MUCH better example. Inquisitors, Magi, Bards, Rogues and certain builds of Summoner, Druid and Cleric would all be massively boosted by a cheap-as-free increase to attack bonus. Basically, if it's 3/4 BAB it will be helped. If it's 1/2 BAB it can't be arsed to care. If it's full BAB it is probably neutral, but could hurt if done poorly. (EDIT: Actually, VERY SPECIFIC builds of 1/2 BAB classes would enjoy this change. The shapechanger types, specifically.)
(As being discussed in another thread, a +1 BAB is worth a feat easily, whereas a feat would be considered sub-par at less than 1 skill point per level.)
I think the sorcerer was a bad example, but inquisitors have no reason not to invest in full bab.
I think this sort of system would only work in a campaign which put more emphasis on non-combat skills. Otherwise, the attack skills would be too worthwhile for most characters.
I don't think its possible without a major redesign of the rules. To ballance out the issues others mentioned, you would have to make CASTING a skill as well, like knowledge. For example, Casting Arcane (Divination) or Casting Divine (Conjuration). But once you get to that point, you are basically talking about a classless system, or at best, a semi-classless system like M.E.R.P./Rolemaster/H.A.R.P. You are better off just picking a system that does most of what you want.
OK sorcerer was a bad example. Its seems the intent was realized though.