So in my current group we've recently gone through several character creation sessions. We're starting a new first level campaign and also resurrecting an older campaign one guy used to GM.
During both sessions of character gen at least once someone asked me "what skills are YOU focusing on, since I don't want to overlap." My question is...why? I don't understand why you couldn't have 2 "faces", or an entire party maxing out on Perception.
Even in combat you want at least SOME overlap right? You don't want only ONE ranged guy; what if he get's taken down? Now until you get him back on his feet EVERY combat must be melee. That's silly. So why work it that way for any kind of "role" in combat OR out?
Three reasons. First, doubling up on Perception probably means no one took Sense Motive; doubling up on Appraise may mean that no one took Linguistics.
Second, while it's rather likely that your ranged specialist will get taken down in combat, it's rather rare that anyone dies from a failed Appraise check; you don't need redundancy for many non-combat skills. Personally, I think that everyone should take the skills that THEY need, and everyone should take movement skills (e.g. if I can swim, that doesn't keep you from drowning), but you really only need one person with Knowledge(religion).
Third, having everyone have different skills gives everyone a chance to shine in different areas and at different times. This problem is especially apparent if there are mutiple party "faces," all trying to role-play in different directions at once.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like having overlap in skills within the party (and we actually compete in-group with who rolls better). I think partly what you are experiencing is a group that doesn't want to find out "Hey guys, look what is that? Nobody has that Knowledge at all? Darnitalltoheck we can't ID extraplanar stuff? but the adventure is about demons?!?!"
Overlap is great to me but sometime limited skill points can make it difficult to have decent overlap and cover all the skills needed/wanted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some conversation about who has what is fine, but it shouldn't determine your character. The other PC can die and you'll be left without a skill. Follow your instinct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An overlap in skills should be there for no other reason than it's just unrealistic for a group of random adventurers to assemble with a "perfect fit".
Otherwise you're not playing an RPG, you're playing World of Warcraft and putting together a Raid Group.
|
Some people just like to be polite and not step on others toes. Others like to cover all bases so there are no holes. For instance, covering all knowledge Skills.
I wouldn't go so far to say collective optimizing of skills makes you "playing World of Warcraft and putting together a Raid Group". For some its unrealistic but for others that's not an issue in an elf game. Some folks are perfectly capable of separating RP from mechanics. Either way is not badwrongfun just table/player preference.
Heh, sorry, I think I've still got a 4E chip on my shoulder, and I shouldn't be bringing it in here ;)
I think what it comes down to is whether the other player is truly doing it to be polite, or is doing it in order to ensure all the bases are covered, which then starts to stray into power-gaming. If that's what the group wants, that's fine, but it sounds like the OP at least would rather make their character the way they want and not be constrained by having to fit a niche in the group.
I usually aim for some overlap, regardless of in or out of combat, but not so much that it's going to be effectively be the same character repeated. You need enough overlap that you have redundancy in case one character dies or their player doesn't show up, or something else that might disrupt the party, but you have to avoid stepping on toes whenever possible as well. In the end, it comes down to what each campaign and group can support and is willing to deal with; some groups are perfectly happy leaving holes figuring that they can find some other way around the problem; other times the campaign doesn't really support that or some of the players aren't comfortable with it.
I think there is plenty of room for overlap, especially on key skills like sense motive, perception, and diplomacy. These are skills that everyone in the party can use on a regular basis, and can be expected to use even when separated from the rest of the party. I also think a skilled GM can make some overlap even on skills normally less friendly to limited investment. Mine has always been able to give martial characters with knowledge skills different bits of knowledge than the casters, which gives them some incentive. They tend to have the practical, rather than theoretical info.
There are also plenty of skills that it strongly advantages the group to have everyone with some investment in - stealth for instance.
|
|
Having a lil overlap in skills to aid one another never hurts either.
I hear you Matt. Collective skill optimizing is outside my preference as well. I remember I was in a group once with a bard. Every player would hand me a shopping list because I had the best CHA and haggle skill so naturally I should do all the shopping. /rolleyes They took it to ridiculous levels too like not even buying a level 1 potion themselves.
You always want some overlap, just in case someone rolls badly.
And Perception is always a must, just to keep you from being surprised.
PF rewards specialization. It's better to have one guy who is very, very good at something than multiple guys who are just good at it.
Why would a player want to coordinate choices to minimize/eliminate overlap? Because there are a LOT of skills and even with four party members they aren't usually going to all get covered anyway. The following is a generalization.
I count about 21 "essential" skills. That's a rough number, obviously. But while a rogue and a wizard (or other high-Int) character will handle over half of that list on their own, the cleric and fighter types won't (usually) hold up their end of the bargain. Maybe you've got lots of humans. Maybe you blow your favored class points in skills. Sure, then you cover all the bases.
In my experience there's always a Knowledge skill missing or Appraise gets skipped or nobody bothers with Heal because... "uh, we'll just ask an NPC what to do then the cleric casts the right spell."
Overlap is actually really useful for maybe five ultra-important skills like Perception and Knowledge(whatever monsters are really common in your game). Maybe Climb, but usually only low-level.
Avoiding overlap that causes shortages is a very good simulation of team-building. A party would pick who to hire based on what they bring to the table.
Moderate Importance/Situational
Acrobatics
Craft
Disguise
Escape Artist
Fly
Handle Animal
Knowledge (engineering)
Knowledge (history)
Linguistics
Perform
Profession
Ride
Sleight of Hand
Use Magic Device
Highly Useful/Essential
Appraise
Bluff
Climb
Diplomacy
Disable Device
Heal
Intimidate
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (nobility)
Knowledge (planes)
Knowledge (religion)
Perception
Sense Motive
Spellcraft
Stealth
Survival
Swim
It's worth noting that having multiple people trained in the same skill allows for Aid Another. Having a 13 in a skill vs.a 23 can make a difference in a skill attempt.
In standard Pathfinder, there are not a lot of skill points to spend, so it makes sense to metagame your skill points. In my group, we house rule so characters get more skill points, then everyone just takes the skills they want.
In standard Pathfinder, there are not a lot of skill points to spend, so it makes sense to metagame your skill points. In my group, we house rule so characters get more skill points, then everyone just takes the skills they want.
I just want to go ahead and underline that meshing skills to reduce overlap isn't metagaming in the traditional sense. In-game, characters would be doing the exact same thing. Once a solid group forms, they would (usually) focus their limited attention on talents not currently covered by other members. As well, during hiring it would only make sense to fill gaps.
Reducing overlap in skills is no more metagaming than is reducing overlap in class choices.
Heh, sorry, I think I've still got a 4E chip on my shoulder, and I shouldn't be bringing it in here ;)
I think what it comes down to is whether the other player is truly doing it to be polite, or is doing it in order to ensure all the bases are covered, which then starts to stray into power-gaming. If that's what the group wants, that's fine, but it sounds like the OP at least would rather make their character the way they want and not be constrained by having to fit a niche in the group.
From what I read, the player who did the asking and who is trying to avoid overlap is not the original poster.
It seems even odder to me for the OP to respond "I'm not telling you what skills I have!" If the first person wants to be cooperative and avoid overlap, why should it be an issue?
I grant that I would have a problem with someone saying "you have to take Knowledge(arcana) and Appraise because no one else did." But I don't put "Did anyone take Appraise yet? If not, I can take it" in that same category.
You always want some overlap, just in case someone rolls badly.
And Perception is always a must, just to keep you from being surprised.
This may be a difference in playstyles, but our group finds it advisable instead of huge Perception overlaps, instead to rely on shouted -- or whispered -- warnings. ("Hey, guys, I think there are some gnolls behind those bushes.")
RP wise, I think both types of groups work very well.
If the church of Nethys is putting together a special action unit to take care of the X situation, it makes sense that they will try to put together a team with complimentary abilities.
If the party is the 5 closest friends of the guy that just got murdered and they are planning to avenge his death, well it makes sense that the capabilities of the group may not mesh at all well. There could be significant overlap and gaps in what they know and can do in given situations.
--------------------------------------------------------------
My current group absolutely refuses to do any of the kind of planning the OP mentioned and it often gives us problems. We often have many critical skills/abilities completely uncovered.
We once had a group with no face character. No one had a decent charisma (high was 10) or took any social skills. Until the casters got high enough level to perform the functions with magic, things were very rough. Even then we didn't have enough magic to use it all the time.
My personal 'ideal' group would have both overlap and non-overlap capabilities. This applies not just to skills.
I think everyone should have at least a decent investment in perception if not max'd. Ok so one guy always makes the check and isn't surprised. Everyone else takes a sneak attack or 3 every session.
Everyone should be able to swim, climb, sneak, and ride (or take care of the same activities with magic) at least well enough to be part of the group. Once had a dwarf (dex 8 and stone plate) who's stealth was so low that he had to follow way behind the scout and even behind the rest of the party to keep from blowing the mission. He often didn't even make it to battles before they were basically over. And twice he was ambushed from behind because he was so far behind. He eventually paid for the armor enhancement and a wand of silence to make up for it. That worked just as well if not better than a few ranks in stealth.
Sometimes some overlap is advisable in the social skills. Many campaigns it is difficult to keep the single face character with you every time you need to talk to someone. Sometimes in the city we have to split up due to time constraints. I think there should be a primary face character with high diplomacy and linguistics. Maybe a secondary with a decent bluff/intimidate and at least a few languages. You can have a different character with them for the appraise and sense motive checks to see if they are being scammed/conned.
Of course there are several skills that I don't think usually need any overlap. Things like appraise, knowledge (whatever), heal, survival, disable device, handle animal, disguise, slight of hand, perform, etc... Overlap on these might be helpful (and might be needed for particular builds), but are usually not necessary.
I don't have anything against my buddy not wanting overlap and didn't refuse to tell him my skills; in the end he chose to be a forest-capable elf fighter who will multi-class eventually into ranger, despite the fact that I'm a forester-type ranger Halfling who will eventually multi-class into fighter (lore warden). There ended up being some overlap in Survival and Knowledge: nature, but he's more Acrobatic and I'm more Diplomacy.
I think my concern was just that, in the setup for this game (strangers called together from across the land to serve in a militia) it seemed inorganic that our 2 characters would have the perfect synthesis of skills, powers and abilities to survive any challenge.
Also... hirelings. What ever happened to "Oh, none of us took Disable Device and we're heading somewhere called 'the Temple of Doom'? We should hire a trapspringer guide person..." If we don't have a lot of healing in the group we bring along a hireling called Mr Cure Light Wounds Wand; why not do the same for other deficiencies?
... Also... hirelings. What ever happened to "Oh, none of us took Disable Device and we're heading somewhere called 'the Temple of Doom'? We should hire a trapspringer guide person..." If we don't have a lot of healing in the group we bring along a hireling called Mr Cure Light Wounds Wand; why not do the same for other deficiencies?
Well we used to do things like that quite abit. But PF is so much more lethal as you go up in level that we found we couldn't keep hireling allive more than about 2 encounters. Or we were using so much effort and resources keeping them allive it was interfering with the actual mission.
IMO:
Acrobatics - situational; mostly useful for avoiding AoOs from moving through threatened spaces
Appraise - only minimal investment needed; with just one skill rank (plus a class skill bonus) and a magnifying glass and you can hit a DC 25 when taking 20.
Bluff - situational; not needed unless feinting, passing secret messages, or lying
Climb - investment beyond 4th-6th level not really required; levitate, spider climb. fly, etc. can take the place of the skill
Craft - depends on the character; most only require a +8 skill check modifier and masterwork artisan tools (to make masterwork items by taking 10; +8 +2 +10 = 20); Craft (Alchemy) and Craft (Bows) may have higher DCs
Diplomacy - the group should have one primary "face," but everyone should consider investing at least a couple ranks (for aid another or just being able to interact socially with NPCs on their own if necessary)
Disable Device - one character should invest in this; if more than one, one should be primary and the other(s) should be back-ups/use aid another
Disguise - not needed for most characters
Escape Artist - situational; once freedom of movement is available, not really required
Fly - only useful at higher levels for most characters
Handle Animal - not required for characters without animal companions
Heal - only minimal investment needed; once past the lower levels, magic healing is much more effective
Intimidate - depends on the character; only invest in it if demoralizing opponents is a common activity
Knowledge (arcana) - one character (probably an arcane caster or a ranger) should invest in this; "ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts"
Knowledge (dungeoneering) - one character should probably invest in this; "aberrations, caverns, oozes, spelunking"
Knowledge (engineering) - not needed for most characters/parties
Knowledge (geography) - not needed, but can be useful
Knowledge (history) - not needed, but can be useful
Knowledge (local) - one character should probably invest in this; "legends, personalities, inhabitants, laws, customs, traditions, humanoids"
Knowledge (nature) - one character should probably invest in this; "animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin"
Knowledge (nobility) - not needed, but can be useful
Knowledge (planes) - one character should probably invest in this; "the Inner Planes, the Outer Planes, the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, outsiders, planar magic"
Knowledge (religion) - one character (probably a divine caster or ranger) should invest in this; "gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead"
Linguistics - not needed, but can be useful; those that summon extraplanar creatures will tend to get more use out of the skill
Perception - everyone should consider investing in it
Perform - primarily useful for Bardic Performance and certain magic items
Profession - not needed for most campaigns, but could be very important in others; Profession (Sailor) in a sea-faring campaign, for instance, is very important
Ride - not needed for most characters, unless mounted combat is a common occurance
Sense Motive - the primary "face" should invest in it; everyone else should consider it, similar to Diplomacy
Sleight of Hand - not needed for most characters
Spellcraft - almost all spellcasters should probably invest at least a few ranks in it; if frequently crafting magic items, "probably" becomes "definitely"
Stealth - somewhat situational, but can be useful; if the entire group invests in it, they can be very effective in typical situations
Survival - except for tracking, only minimal investment is needed
Swim - situational; once past lower levels, magic can obviate the need for investment
Use Magic Device - not needed for most characters, but can be useful; can be used to function as a backup "spellcaster" of a specific class by activating spell-trigger or spell-completion items
This may be a difference in playstyles, but our group finds it advisable instead of huge Perception overlaps, instead to rely on shouted -- or whispered -- warnings. ("Hey, guys, I think there are some gnolls behind those bushes.")You always want some overlap, just in case someone rolls badly.
And Perception is always a must, just to keep you from being surprised.
Yep and while whispering ("Hey guys,...") the gnolls open fire and/or charge into battle. I've seen too many combats where most of the party is flatfooted on the surprise round and the squishy spellcasters end up in melee.
So in my current group we've recently gone through several character creation sessions. We're starting a new first level campaign and also resurrecting an older campaign one guy used to GM.
During both sessions of character gen at least once someone asked me "what skills are YOU focusing on, since I don't want to overlap." My question is...why? I don't understand why you couldn't have 2 "faces", or an entire party maxing out on Perception.
Even in combat you want at least SOME overlap right? You don't want only ONE ranged guy; what if he get's taken down? Now until you get him back on his feet EVERY combat must be melee. That's silly. So why work it that way for any kind of "role" in combat OR out?
Every character should make something fun for them. Cross talk in my opinion is more important to get everyone on the same page role playing-wise than trying to make sure all of your bases are covered. Sometimes having an achilles heel or a blindspot can lead to new challenges and actually increase the fun.
These are the parties we've played with as best as I can remember:
Second Darkness
Human Arcane Duelist
Elven Void Mage & Spellbinder
Half-Elven Summoner
Half-Elven Master Summoner
Skull n Shackles
Human Sea Singer
Human Knifemaster
Human Invulnerable Rager & Urban Barbarian
Half-Elven Master Summoner
Reign of Winter
Human Witch
Human Witch
Human Witch
Human Invulnerable Rager & Urban Barbarian
Way of the Wicked
Half-elven Master Summoner
Human Invulnerable Rager & Urban Barbarian
Dwarven Wild Rager / Evangelist (Madness Domain)
Human Knifemaster
Jade Regent
Human Witch
Human Invulnerable Rager & Urban Barbarian
Dwarven Infiltrator
Halfling Archeologist
Serpent's Skull
Human Knifemaster
Human Invulnerable Rager & Urban Barbarian
Half-Orc Scarred Witch Doctor
Kitsune Crossblooded Sorcerer (Fey-Serpent)
Rise of the Runelords
Aasimar Arcane Duelist
Human Weaponmaster (Bow)
Half-Elven Summoner
Half-Elven Master Summoner
Rise of the Runelords, 2nd run
Kitsune Sorcerer (Fey)
Human Sorcerer (Draconic) / Dragon Disciple
Human Sorcerer (Draconic) / Dragon Disciple
Dwarven Sorcerer (Elemental Earth)
Wrath of the Righteous
Tiefling Paladin
Aasimar Dervish of Dawn
Aasimar Dervish of Dawn
Dwarven Wild Rager / Theologian (Madness Domain)
Shattered Star
Human Sorcerer (Fey)
Human Brawler
Half-Orc Two-Handed Fighter / Thug & Scout
Halfling Archeologist
A couple of these AP's were played all the way through, some were started and were put on hold while others are being planned for in the hopeful event that we get to play through them. We generally try to have someone capable of some sort of healing and someone capable of some sort of spell-casting but that's pretty much it. We want somebody to have some social skills and somebody to have some knowledge skills and if we have overlap in either then great. Classic 'roles' are less important to us than figuring out how the players relate to one another - in five of the above groups there were sets of siblings (twins usually), for instance. Clearly, some of our players have favorite characters who reappear often.
The group consists of seven actual players, one of which is a full-time GM and one who serves as a part-time GM. We tend to rule that only four PC's will participate in any given campaign, though we do have other players occasionally step in and run villians or orchestrate battles from the bad guy's perspective.
IMO:
NIce and informative list. One other piece of information to consider, though, is whether one person can cover for the entire party or not?
For example, I can certainly rely on someone else's Appraise skill ("Hey, Moe, how much is this worth?"), but I can't rely on someone else's Swim skill if I get dunked into water. Everyone who plans on tumbling needs their own Acrobatics skills, but one person can do the Profession (advocate) thing for the whole party.
... though we do have other players occasionally step in and run villians or orchestrate battles from the bad guy's perspective....
I love this. But some players have gotten upset when the bad guy suddenly started using good tactics and cleaned their clocks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in my current group we've recently gone through several character creation sessions. We're starting a new first level campaign and also resurrecting an older campaign one guy used to GM.
During both sessions of character gen at least once someone asked me "what skills are YOU focusing on, since I don't want to overlap." My question is...why? I don't understand why you couldn't have 2 "faces", or an entire party maxing out on Perception.
Even in combat you want at least SOME overlap right? You don't want only ONE ranged guy; what if he get's taken down? Now until you get him back on his feet EVERY combat must be melee. That's silly. So why work it that way for any kind of "role" in combat OR out?
While some overlap is fine, and even good, you also want to be sure everyone feels like
1) they have something unique to contribute
2) All bases are covered. By having one person specialize in one area, it frees others to specialize in other important areas.
There ARE times when people feel like they are stepping on people's toes, and it can feel frustrating.
For example, I'm in a game where we started as fighter (me), rogue, wizard, monk, cleric, ranger.
We lost the ranger first. I multiclassed as ranger -- as a fighter, I had already been training Survival (which, people often forget, is a fighter class skill) and using it a lot to help people through various wildernessy things, and felt it was appropriate to take a class to help me specialize in those things, as well as get a few more class skills I wanted to use, like Perception. I'm still largely a fighter, but my character from the start was taking on the role as party tracker, survival expert, navigator, and point person.
Later we lost the cleric, but another person joined the group with a druid. Fine -- she also provides divine magic, and has a host of unique skills.
But ever since she joined--a good year after the campaign started and I had well established my role--the GM always defaults to ask her, specifically, to make Survival checks when tracking or navigating, because as the druid "she should be the wilderness expert." He also asks her to make Knowledge Nature checks when she's never trained it, and I have (for one thing, Knowledge Nature is the skill you use to identify traits of humanoids such as orcs, goblins, and giants, which is something my dwarf character should be able to do). I don't mind having more than one person with Survival training or a certain general area of expertise, but it's really annoying to have designed a character for a certain purpose and THEN be completely ignored, or be told my character shouldn't be as good at this thing as another character, because of certain assumptions.
The Druid could also still be an expert on other aspects of nature as well as of magic, religion, and spellcasting. She has class skills and abilities and I don't have, but the GM keeps pushing her to play the role I had set up for myself before she had ever joined, and urges her to train class skills I and other party members have already trained,a and urges her EXCLUSIVELY to use them, separate of the rest of us. I constantly have to remind him what my character does and is capable of, and we've been playing for a couple years.
The WAY this all plays out makes me and my character feel really redundant and overlooked. In fact I didn't realize how much it frustrated and upset me until I started writing this post. (I shall have to have a chat with the GM about this.)
I would have no problem if my character's abilities were acknowledged. Indeed, in ideal circumstances, she and I could collaborate to do things like use Aid Another to make awesome Survival check results and the like. Unfortunately, she is both encouraged by the GM to do things solo, and she neither knows the rules very well nor is interested in learning them (I doubt she knows what an aid another check is), and usually tunes out when we talk about tactics, unless it's about the best tactics for HER to use in her spellcasting.
So there's an issue of HOW you use abilities--and how you acknowledge other players' skills. If someone sets up their character to play them a certain way, and then they never actually get to use their character for that purpose, or everybody else can do it so they don't really do anything that can help the party in a unique way, that can feel really disheartening.
It's actually really COOL that your players are creating characters TOGETHER and making sure that toes aren't being stepped on -- because what this means is everybody is really thinking about how everyone can work together AS A TEAM and really KNOWS what everyone is capable of. It's a sign of a group intent to have good teamwork -- and what this also means is that when skills do overlap, the party will capitalize on that and use it to their advantage rather than make people feel useless or redundant.
IMO:NIce and informative list. One other piece of information to consider, though, is whether one person can cover for the entire party or not?
For example, I can certainly rely on someone else's Appraise skill ("Hey, Moe, how much is this worth?"), but I can't rely on someone else's Swim skill if I get dunked into water. Everyone who plans on tumbling needs their own Acrobatics skills, but one person can do the Profession (advocate) thing for the whole party.
Because many skills can be used untrained, most characters can generally hit the basic DCs (5, 10, or possibly 15) with a reasonable success rate (assuming an ability score above 10, possibly some other bonuses such as from guidance, and taking 10 when possible). Once you throw in some low level spells like spider climb, touch of the sea, etc. (either from a scroll or other consumable item), there is a whole bunch of situational skills that don't need much, if any, investment beyond the first few levels in most campaigns.
After making sure the group covers Diplomacy, Disable Device, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Religion), Perception, Sense Motive, and Spellcraft, which other skills to invest in should be determined by the character goals (what does the player want the character to be able to do) and the campaign (what skills will see a lot of use, based on the environment and opponents). A crit-fishing ranger (dual kukris or wakizashis?) may want at least 5 ranks in all the Knowledge skills that are associated with creatures (especially those that correspond to their Favored Enemies) to benefit from the cunning weapon property. Swim in a desert campaign may not see much use, while in a sea-faring campaign it will probably get used quite a bit.
Knowledge Nature is the skill you use to identify traits of humanoids such as orcs, goblins, and giants
Knowledge (Local) covers humanoids such as orcs, goblins, and giants, not Knowledge (Nature). Knowledge (Nature) covers "animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin."
The issue with "class role" assumptions (stereotypes) and a GM trying to control a player's character sounds annoying. I'd recommend that you sit down with both the GM and the player and discuss how the behavior is reducing the enjoyment of the rest of the group. That the player should be the one making the decisions on how to develop their character and what actions to take, not the GM. That if the two of them want to run "solo" adventures, please have the courtesy to do so on their own time and not force the other players to sit and watch.
Knowledge Nature is the skill you use to identify traits of humanoids such as orcs, goblins, and giantsKnowledge (Local) covers humanoids such as orcs, goblins, and giants, not Knowledge (Nature). Knowledge (Nature) covers "animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, seasons and cycles, weather, vermin."
Whoops! I must have been reading too quickly one day and saw only the "humanoids," and let that get stuck in my head.
She still needs and uses the skill for other reasons.
The issue with "class role" assumptions (stereotypes) and a GM trying to control a player's character sounds annoying. I'd recommend that you sit down with both the GM and the player and discuss how the behavior is reducing the enjoyment of the rest of the group. That the player should be the one making the decisions on how to develop their character and what actions to take, not the GM. That if the two of them want to run "solo" adventures, please have the courtesy to do so on their own time and not force the other players to sit and watch.
He isn't running the game with attention only to the druid player (that would irk all of us and he'd probably particularly get his ear chewed off for it by his wife, who is also in the game).
But he is, as you say, trying to dictate our actions according to class stereotypes (and class stereotypes circa 1989 at that). He isn't always just asking the druid to roll, but when we are in a situation to do with nature or outdoorsmanship, he calls her out specifically and ignores the rest of us--and that affects me directly since I designed my character to be the party pathfinder, well before she ever showed up. But he likewise might do the same thing for other players, like call the wizard out for a Knowledge (History) check when the monk has that as a class skill may also have that trained (and his justification would be "but wizards are scholars and monks punch people").
I do plan to have a chat with him (well, probably email) -- in many respects he is a good GM, but he gets certain very fixed ideas in his head. I know he isn't doing it maliciously, but I don't think he's quite realizing the effects of what he's doing.
As Zhayne mentioned, PF rewards specialization.
But just wanted to note, EVERYBODY should be maxing Perception, class skill or no class skill. It's the most rolled skill in the game.
Perception is one of those skills that is very GM dependent.
Some GMs like to give a full description of an area and then have the players use that as a launching point for asking questions and investigating.
I prefer campaigns that focus on this method. Perception is primarily used by the investigator character to pull fine details out of something. In this case it isn't needed as a skill by most of the characters so long as they pay attention to descriptions.
Others tell everyone to "roll Perception" and then tell them what hidden/interesting things are worthwhile.
Totally valid play style. And if this is the case the more people with a high perception, the better.
Others tell everyone to "roll Perception" and then tell them what hidden/interesting things are worthwhile.Totally valid play style. And if this is the case the more people with a high perception, the better.
I'm not sure I agree. In a number of campaigns I've seen, the character with the high perception will get a score taking 10 that the other characters can't match on the dice.
A druid, with perception in class (+3), a high wisdom (+5), a magic item (+5) and two ranks gets a 25 taking 10. A fighter who tanked wisdom (-1) and puts those same two ranks into it can get a 21 at most.
What's the fighter going to notice that the druid missed? Surely the fighter has something else he can do with those all-too-rare skill points?
Others tell everyone to "roll Perception" and then tell them what hidden/interesting things are worthwhile.Totally valid play style. And if this is the case the more people with a high perception, the better.
I'm not sure I agree. In a number of campaigns I've seen, the character with the high perception will get a score taking 10 that the other characters can't match on the dice.
A druid, with perception in class (+3), a high wisdom (+5), a magic item (+5) and two ranks gets a 25 taking 10. A fighter who tanked wisdom (-1) and puts those same two ranks into it can get a 21 at most.
What's the fighter going to notice that the druid missed? Surely the fighter has something else he can do with those all-too-rare skill points?
Taking 10 isn't the usual approach I've seen. In my experience players enter a new area/room and then all make Perception rolls.
In this case, the more characters rolling dice the better your chances of a lucky hit.
I'm not sure I agree. In a number of campaigns I've seen, the character with the high perception will get a score taking 10 that the other characters can't match on the dice.
Others tell everyone to "roll Perception" and then tell them what hidden/interesting things are worthwhile.Totally valid play style. And if this is the case the more people with a high perception, the better.
Taking 10 assumes you're "not in danger or distracted." Often adventuring is dangerous or distracting, and the more people rolling the better when it's called for.
Some GMs also disallow taking 10 or only in certain circumstances.
I agree that you may only really need one person specializing in it to notice the important stuff and to do things like search for traps, but I think otherwise my experience is similar to Psyren's, it's one of those skills that is useful for multiple people to be good at. Especially if it comes down to stuff like noticing an ambush, which a GM is probably not going to allow taking 10 on since it's an instant-danger sort of thing. You don't need that to be the one time the party scout flops a 1 and even with lots of ranks is still just shy of success (and when allowing everyone to roll, suddenly Thog rolls a 20 and just manages to succeed).
It also means you can--if you feel you must--split the party and not lose some level of awareness/safety.
Skill that every one can have in party and more that one is great.
Acrobatics
Climb
Escape Artist (I think it is must have for INT based 1/2 BaB class)
Fly
Perception (Everyone as much as you can)
Ride
Sense Motive
Stealth ( like 2 folks having this or all)
Use Magic Device (If you have Good CHA you should have some)
Skill that need to be covered
Social Skills set (all CHA)
Bluff
Intadate
Diplomacy
(Disguise) lesser if it fit party molar compass.
It is nice to have all of fisrt 3 but you can get by with 1 or 2.
Sly Skills set (2 DEX & 1 CHA)
Disable Device
Disguise
Sleight of Hand
Natural or Green Skill set (all WIS)
Handle Animal
Heal
Surival
If you have full cleric you can skip heal. If have no pets than you can skip Handle Animal. Surival is a must have could have more than one.
The Smart guy skill(all INT)
Sub set Id Monster and other stuff
Knowledge (arcana)
Knowledge (dungeoneering)
Knowledge (local)
Knowledge (nature)
Knowledge (planes)
Knowledge (religion)
Clues skill or Story background set (all INT)
Appraise
Craft
Knowledge (engineering)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (nobility)
Knowledge (geography)
Linguistics
Spellcraft
GM if you want your party to use this or needs this then tell them.
Perform
Profession
I generaly play a skill guy. I max out 3 skills. Then I pick 4 skill to put in 1/2 ranks. Lasty I try to spead as many skill point out as I can just so I can make a roll to aid other.
If skill is a part of your trick or shtick for your character then you should have it and do not worry about over lap.
Ie Surival if you have both druid and a ranger both take it and move on.
And if you do not have every thing cover it can still work ok. You can pay expert to get things checked out for you. It give GM chance to introdues a new NPC. Bottom line for me I like skill and can never have enough. So take what I say with a grain of salt.
I'd say that some skills are essential to have overlap in. All it takes is one person to mess up a stealth check and your plan has been ruined.
In kingmaker, our party of Ranger, Rogue, Cleric, Monk, Wizard, all have nearly maxed out stealth and perception checks. It's what I would consider the two most vital skills in the game.
After that, it kind of varies as to what skills each char has. We have most everything covered by someone in the group.
Others tell everyone to "roll Perception" and then tell them what hidden/interesting things are worthwhile.Totally valid play style. And if this is the case the more people with a high perception, the better.
I'm not sure I agree. In a number of campaigns I've seen, the character with the high perception will get a score taking 10 that the other characters can't match on the dice.
A druid, with perception in class (+3), a high wisdom (+5), a magic item (+5) and two ranks gets a 25 taking 10. A fighter who tanked wisdom (-1) and puts those same two ranks into it can get a 21 at most.
What's the fighter going to notice that the druid missed? Surely the fighter has something else he can do with those all-too-rare skill points?
Personally as a DM, I try to deal with this by taking the actual characters into consideration. The druid may have an easier time seeing thing, but won't necessarily understand that what they are seeing is important. The fighter might not spot it as easily, but might be more likely to recognize that small detail as being important and noteworthy. I try to do this with all skills; not every character is going to use the same skill in the same way or recognize the same things as important when using the skill. I find this resolves a lot of toe stepping while allowing players to make the characters they want rather than the characters they feel they need.
As for holes in skills, its going to happen no matter how much you coordinate it, so I while I try to cover the key things for a given campaign, I rarely worry about trying to fill every hole.