|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys are going to try to burn me at the stake for this, but there's actually one (and only one) thing I think 4th Edition did better than Pathfinder: Skills.
I find that Pathfinder (and 3.0x in general) has a lot of redundant skills. Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.0 and 3.5, but some of the awkwardness remains.
For example, do we really need Knowledge (Geography), Knowledge (Nature), and Survival? I know there are minor differences between them, but aren't they close enough that we could have just one skill called "Nature" like 4th Edition does?
The same goes for Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft. Thematically, what are you doing with one that isn't covered by the other? Maybe divine spells? Seems like if that's the only difference, you could just have one skill that covers all the knowledge and all the spellcraft of each, like 4th Edition does.
Another thing I loved was the combining of climb and swim into "Athletics." That freed up a lot of points for martial classes to actually invest in other skills instead of having to waste them all on the skills needed to haul their heavy armor around.
Whittling down the thief skills into just one called "Thievery" was a good move, too, since Stealth was left separate (for rangers and other stealthy classes). Rogues got the same freedom as the martial guys: the ability to explore other skills without neglecting something that's basically mandatory for their class.
I also really liked the skills they added, like Endurance and Streetwise. Knowledge (Local) is horribly misnamed for what it's supposed to do, which is also strange because what it's supposed to do is largely covered by gathering information using Diplomacy.
Anyway, 99% of Pathfinder is great, but the skill system still bugs me.
I do agree that some combinations--the ones that share a ability score--might be justified. Knowledge (geography) gets very little love, so it probably wouldn't ruin things to just fold it into Knowledge (nature) altogether. Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft tend to get confused a lot as-is, so I could also buy that combination.
Survival, however, should remain separate. It's Wisdom-based for a reason.
Honestly, I'd rather Swim and Climb get kept separate as well. That's less a matter of balance and more a matter of flavor. If I want to have a character who's good at climbing but can't swim, there shouldn't be anything standing in my way, because it makes sense, darnit.
All-in-all, this is stuff best reserved for homebrew. More customization is generally more desirable than less.
|
|
The other problem with an abundance of redundant skills is the huge discrepancy in how much each skill is worth. Is a point in Knowledge (Nobility) really as important, frequently used, or versatile as a point in Perception? Acrobatics? Use Magic Device?
If you read any Pathfinder guides, they almost all say that perception is mandatory for every single character, even if it's not a class skill and wisdom is a dump stat. In my opinion, that's indicative of a system that could be better designed.
There are clearly some skills that are way more often used and far more potent than others, which diminishes when you start combining the redundant ones.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like WOW-like skills.
Also, I don't like edition wars.
Nice, a guy I can safely call a troll because it's right there in his name. :)
Well, "Troll" you'll be glad to know that neither Pathfinder nor 4th Edition have WoW-like skills, because WoW doesn't really have skills in this sense. WoW has several things called skills that are really just crafting or gathering categories.
I really didn't mean for this to sound like a debate over which edition is better. In my opinion, Pathfinder is superior in almost every way, but in just this one area, I think 4th Edition had some great ideas.
Does that constitute an "edition war?" I'll leave it up to the "troll" to decide. :)
|
|
Climb and Swim should be kept separate, as there maybe be people who grow up not near water and never learn to swim but can climb like a monkey. I know it is just flavor but it also makes sense as there are people still in today's world who cannot swim.
I agree that lots of skills are redundant and each class should get more skill points to invest, would add much more flavor to each class.
There is a big difference between knowledge skills and practical skills. Your combining of skills ignores this important difference. Knowledge nature may allow you to identify animals but does that mean you are good at tracking them? Knowledge arcana means that you know a lot about magic, but may not be able to actually do anything with it. It is like saying just because I studied the history of art I can create an artistic masterpiece. Geography is more about knowing the lay of the land than being able to survive in the wilderness. Knowing the boundaries of the amazon jungle does not keep me from getting hopelessly lost while traveling in it.
You guys are going to try to burn me at the stake for this, but there's actually one (and only one) thing I think 4th Edition did better than Pathfinder: Skills.
I think 4e did a lot of things better than PF, among them skills. In one PF game we're using the 4e skill combinations, which gave some breathing room to low skill classes.
I'd take it one step further and allow some skills to be either-or stat. For example, use Cha or Str for Intimidate. Use Dex or Str for the jumping part of Athletics.
Edit: Yeah, someone might not have learned how to both Swim and Climb, but it's pretty likely they did. One might say that someone studied the deities and mythologies but not undead, but they're both under Knowledge Religion. Bundling similar skills makes sense more often than not I think. If you want your character to be a bad swimmer but you're good at it due to Athletics ranks for Climb, feel free to give yourself a circumstance penalty, right?
I'll agree that Knowledge (geography) could probably stand to be done away with since it is so infrequently used or useful, and is largely covered by other skills.
That said, I do NOT like the folding of skills together, as it causes weird issues like a blind guy still rolling Perception, or not being able to use Stealth to sneak up on someone without cover or concealment, because Move Silently doesn't really count.
Of course, this can fall to GM adjudication, but I'd prefer for their to be separate skills. I like the definition it grants: one can have keen eyesight but not good hearing, may be small (easy to Hide), but walking around in metal boots (poor Move Silently). One could be very skilled at rolling and flipping and cartwheeling, but not be able to dunk a basketball, and some people may have exceptional balance, but cannot perform any of those tumbling tricks.
Ditto for your Athletics example: I know people who can climb much better than I can, yet who cannot swim at all, while I'm a fairly strong swimmer.
Even though they may have been oft overlooked, and a little confusing to some people, I liked the skill synergies from 3.5, as they made sense...more so than folding the skills together entirely.
Now, sure, some game systems do this and it works, because they're trying to be less simulationist than Pathfinder/D&D 3.x is, or are trying to streamline rules a bit, but I don't much care for that approach in those systems either.
Pathfinder tries to make up for this in some cases by granting a situational bonus (rarely) to a skill that specifies when it can be used, but playing that idea out further just leads to overly cluttered character sheets.
If it was felt by the designers that characters were stretched too thin on skills, they could have bumped the 2+Int group up to 4+Int, or done what I do, and bump them to 3+Int, then give all classes 1 freely ranked skill that is thematic to the class (wizards, for example, get free Knowledge: Arcana).
Finds stake, lights fire.
I'd take it one step further and allow some skills to be either-or stat. For example, use Cha or Str for Intimidate. Use Dex or Str for the jumping part of Athletics.
Not sure how I feel about 4e skills vs Pathfinder skills, but I do like this idea. Thanks! :)
|
May I suggest u check out the "Serenity" RPG system. The whole things is based on that ur skills are a certain dice scale and depending on circumstances ur gM says rolls this attribute with that skill. So instead of intimidate being only CHA or STR, it can be willpower, strength, intillengence, or anything that makes sense.Not sure how I feel about 4e skills vs Pathfinder skills, but I do like this idea. Thanks! :)I'd take it one step further and allow some skills to be either-or stat. For example, use Cha or Str for Intimidate. Use Dex or Str for the jumping part of Athletics.
The same is true of just about all White Wolf games and quite a few other game systems of various sorts. Just for the record. In my experience it's actually more common than the way Pathfinder does it.
And I do the same for Intimidate, though I don't feel it's necessary on most other skills.
Headfirst you actually make some good (skill) points.
But seriously I recant my previous post. Especially when it comes to Knowledge (Geography), (Nature) and Survival.
Are you really suggesting that Rogues, Rangers, Bards, and Wizards don't have enough skill points?
You don't actually have to have max ranks in every skill you want at every level.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Ugh. The skill system is one of those things that turned me off of 4e. Though it was more the "once you pick your skills they are set for life" part, and the "all skills get better as you level, but the skill DCs all go up too" part than the categories themselves.
Also I disagree with many of your combinations. What does knowing social/political boundaries (knowledge(geography)) have to do with knowing biology (knowledge(nature)) have to do with building fires and shelter and hunting (survival)?
I can see an argument for knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft - there is a lot of overlap there. But while many knowledge skills are niche skills, they still have their uses in the right campaign.
I think knowledge(local) should be renamed to knowledge(civilization and society) or something that reflects what it actualy does.
Nearly all the "thievery" skills are already under disable device at this point anyway.
|
If you are playing a courtly intrigue game, then knowledge nobility could be a life or death skill.
GM: "A beautiful lady of high station walks past you at the ball. Roll knowledge (nobility)."
Player: "Uh, I don't have that skill sooooo... 1?"GM: "You fail to recognise her, and she devours you immediately. She was the Duchess of Punt, who you should have known is an Ancient White Dragon with a fearsome appetite."
|
|
There is a big difference between knowledge skills and practical skills. Your combining of skills ignores this important difference. Knowledge nature may allow you to identify animals but does that mean you are good at tracking them? Knowledge arcana means that you know a lot about magic, but may not be able to actually do anything with it. It is like saying just because I studied the history of art I can create an artistic masterpiece. Geography is more about knowing the lay of the land than being able to survive in the wilderness. Knowing the boundaries of the amazon jungle does not keep me from getting hopelessly lost while traveling in it.
Once again, I'm aware that there are subtle nuances between each of Pathfinder's skills. The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of skills that are really, really close to each other thematically.
Good game design tends to simplify things more than complicate them. In that light, wouldn't it make more sense to combine knowledge and practice of a certain skill into one thing?
|
|
I'd take it one step further and allow some skills to be either-or stat. For example, use Cha or Str for Intimidate. Use Dex or Str for the jumping part of Athletics.
Dude.
This would be an amazing thing to tie to specific classes. Fighters can use Str instead of Cha for intimidate. Rogues can use Dex instead of Str for climb. Wizards can use Int instead of Wis for perception. Clerics can (finally) use Wis for knowledge (religion) instead of Int.
That would be a great way to add a little flavor and reduce the MAD of each class. Great idea!
|
|
If you are playing a courtly intrigue game, then knowledge nobility could be a life or death skill.
Sure, if you're in a game like that, it would be useful.
But even in those games, I'd probably still prioritize bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and sense motive. Note that that's 4 skills right there, more points than some classes get period.
Also, for as rarely as Knowledge (Nobility) is used, it's further crippled by the fact that it's only a class skill for 5 classes. Furthermore, only one of those classes (wizard) is Int-based, and so will have a decent roll. Bards will be okay it it, but the other three (cleric, oracle, and sorcerer) are going to suck at it even with ranks invested.
|
|
Ugh. The skill system is one of those things that turned me off of 4e. Though it was more the "once you pick your skills they are set for life" part, and the "all skills get better as you level, but the skill DCs all go up too" part than the categories themselves.
I specifically didn't talk about how they handle skill advancement because I agree that it's not very interesting or realistic. What I'm talking about here is just the array of skills and how they've consolidated it down to the fewest possible that still cover almost every situation.
Also I disagree with many of your combinations. What does knowing social/political boundaries (knowledge(geography)) have to do with knowing biology (knowledge(nature)) have to do with building fires and shelter and hunting (survival)?
The overlap comes into play when the bulk of the actions that call for each skill could easily be covered by the others. For example: The party needs to cross some mountains to reach the next country. Justifiable arguments could be made for using any of those three skills to get the job done.
I can see an argument for knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft - there is a lot of overlap there. But while many knowledge skills are niche skills, they still have their uses in the right campaign.
If certain skills require large alterations to the core gameplay just to make them relevant or rolled more than once in a blue moon, they should probably get combined into fewer, more useful, more frequently rolled skills. Sure, you might be in a Steampunk campaign that makes you roll Knowledge (Engineering) at least once a session, but how often is that skill really used in a classic high fantasy setting? Is it as valuable is other skills, even other knowledge skills?
I think knowledge(local) should be renamed to knowledge(civilization and society) or something that reflects what it actualy does.
My local group has always treated it like streetwise. Who's the gang leader who runs this city? Where can I fence these stolen goods? What's the scuttlebutt around the barracks? Where can a guy score some poison around here? This is basically the rogue's iconic knowledge skill (just like religion is the cleric's ironic knowledge skill).
Nearly all the "thievery" skills are already under disable device at this point anyway.
Except climb, disguise, escape artist, sleight of hand, stealth, and use magic device.
That brings up another example: I think escape artist should be rolled into acrobatics. We all know the primary use of escape artist is to give Dex-based characters a defense against grappling; doesn't it seem like an acrobatic character would be just as capable in that regard?
Climb and Swim should be kept separate, as there maybe be people who grow up not near water and never learn to swim but can climb like a monkey. I know it is just flavor but it also makes sense as there are people still in today's world who cannot swim.
Drawback: Can't Swim.
|
|
So someone who can tightrope walk and tumble is automatically good at getting out of a straightjacket?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hang on there. Getting out of a straight jacket is completely different than getting out of handcuffs. Also, both of those are absolutely nothing like slipping out of a hill giant's grapple.
You're right: We need to break escape artist down into three new skills.
Torso-Based Restraints
Wrist-Based Restraints
Grapple Escape
While we're at it, walking a tightrope is totally different than tumbling between a dragon's legs. Also, neither of those skills has anything to do with reducing fall damage. But wait, acrobatics is also used for jumping, which isn't like any of that stuff. Okay, here's how we break down acrobatics:
Balance
Tumbling
Breakfall
Jumping
I hope you can see through the sarcasm to see where this is going. The point of my argument is that some skills are so close to one another that they should be grouped into one skill.
To be clear, Pathfinder already started doing this. Remember how 3.0x had Listen, Search, and Spot? Remember how Hide and Move Silently were combined into stealth? So there's already a precedent: A system that involved numerous overlapping skills was simplified into one with fewer, more useful skills. My argument is that it could got a bit further still.
Or, better yet, think of it this way: How many adventurers have you heard of that are great at acrobatics but not escape artist? How many have you seen that have max ranks in both?
Well ... in my experience, nobody ever takes Escape Artist because nobody uses Grapple.
One thing that I think could help is if you allowed a certain number of skills (perhaps based on class; skill monkeys like rogues would get more than a cleric or a fighter, or what have you) to have the user pick a "favored use" that gives them bonuses. It could be a 1/day or 1/session reroll on that skill, when it's for their favored use, or it could just be a +x bonus or what have you, but it would ensure creatures who have specialties don't have those specialties lost with a reduced skill system.
Thus a Fighter with ranks in Athletics (or whatever combined Climb-Jump-Swim-nondescript Strength based skill check), who is fluffed as a sailor would choose a favored use of "Swimming" perhaps. Or a Cleric might choose the favored use in Knowledge (religion) for their own deity, so a wizard might have more overall knowledge in religion (assuming they put ranks in it), but a cleric will know more about their own deity.
If I were to combine Escape Artist, I'd probably make it part of the Thievery bundle.
Skills is one of the things I hated about 4E. Effectively there were no skills in 4E because everyone could do everything. Just certain classes got +5 bonus to certain skills. So really what looks like a skill system is no skill system at all.
Now I understand the reasoning behind it. Nothing worse that having a game that requires players to have skills and the group just lacks the ones required even though they have lots of skills. 4E addresses this problem with rules, I address it by communicating with my players.
Also I like knowledge geography, get quite a bit of use in my games.
|
|
I moved most of K(Local) into K(Geography) actually, because
1) it's weird that knowing about foreign lands wouldn't extend to their humanoid populations
2) K(Local) isn't really about one specific Local place anyway.
I'm inclined to merge K(Arcana) and Spellcraft as well, mostly because we end up confused what to check for half of the time; see a spell being cast -> spellcraft. See the result of a spell -> Arcana. Identify a magic item -> Spellcraft. Identify an occult phenomenon -> Arcana.
I think a decent test to see if two skills should maybe be merged, is to ask "would it be really weird if someone was good at A and yet not at B?"
There's a certain level of realism vs. balance tradeoff as well. Ideally, a skill point should get you roughly the same sort of utility in most skills. Right now a point in Perception is worth much more than one in Swim or Climb. Combining Swim and Climb might even the scales a bit. Not strictly realistic but it seems more fair to me.
|
|
Here's yet another way of looking at it:
Are the differences between the topics covered by Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft more or less disparate than the different applications of Acrobatics (tumbling, balance, jumping, and reducing fall damage)?
I would say less or about the same, which logically concludes that Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft could easily be combined.
So far, the skills we've been talking about could easily be combined without breaking too much of the core Pathfinder system. Wizards already only get 2 skill points per level, so it's not going to upset the game's balance to combine those two skills. The same goes for mashing climb and swim together into "acrobatics," which gives the 2 skill point fighter a break.
Or actually, certain actions could fall within two skills. Like escaping Grapple can be done with Escape Artist or CMB (not a skill, but an example of players getting a choice).
Jumping could be a function of both Acrobatics and Athletics, just roll the one you're better at.
And here I was thinking there were not enough skills...
and the list needed expanding.
I think the current skill system has some fondamental problems :
1) Some classes get more out of combat spotlight than others
2) DCs are hard to balance between specialized characters and untrained ones
3) Some skills are used all the time and other are used only in specific situations
4) I never get enough points to get those proffession skills
What 4e did well I think was making some skills part of the class, like Rogues getting Thievery or Wizards getting Arcana. Grouping skills and removing the ability to spread points, I felt, lost some of the customization that Pathfinder/3.x has. wich made many skills a binary (have/don't have) thing that wasn't as fun.
I'm more a fan of the classless systems for skills systems.
|
Pathfinder has a decent skill list as it is, although I wish jumping was tied to strength instead of dexterity. But oversimplifying the skill lists isn't a good option. It makes the 8 skils per level that rogues get even more redundant, and further closes the gap between the 4 and 6 skill point classes.
And part of the d20 system and pathfinder is that is a rules heavy complex game. There is a place fore rules light games, I love FATE for being able to make easy to play characters quickly and easily, but that is part of a rules light system.
When you take a rules heavy system and try to simplify a subsystem of it without also adjusting all the other systems, you have unintended side effects.
the list needed expanding.Really? What skills would you add to it?
Oh so many... heading in to work right now... I will post up my idea of the skills list when I return in 8 to 9 hours.
