Not at all. Wizards and Sorcerers dont really need it because they have spells that can be useful out of combat, and giving fighters 4+INT skill points per level is just one of many improvements given to fighters in many fighter homebrew improvements. I don't think even 6+INT skill points would be too much for a fighter.
I wouldn't give them to INT-based classes, but everybody else, definitely.
More skills <> Role Playing.
Some classes simply aren't designed to do everything. I find that most classes that have 2+INT skills are classes that really don't need more unless the player is trying to get greedy with what he wants from the character.
That said, I personally find the skill system to be the most flawed part of 3.x or Pathfinder, and I would like to see an overall rewrite someday, even if it is just in the Homebrew section, that changed the skills around.
Given that, the classes built around the skills would also have to be changed.
As of right now, the only classes that would be receiving this addition of skills are Fighters and Paladins, and neither of them really need them.
I already introduced such changes in my own game. Everyone except wizard, magus and witch get a minimum of 4 ranks per level. This allowed one of my paladin player to max Knowledge (nobility), cause he wanted to be aristocratic and well informed about the court, and allowed the Cleric to actually understand a bunch of things outside of Knowledge (religion). One of my player even maxed craft (ship) using its new skill points.
With my own experience, more skills allow more character customization instead of seeing a fighter maxing the 2 or 3 same skills. This is a role-playing helper, because many of these skill points are use to introduce background skills, such as craft/profession/perform, at least at low level.
As of right now, the only classes that would be receiving this addition of skills are Fighters and Paladins, and neither of them really need them.
Fighters need them most of all, since they have zero noncombat abilities.
Fighters need them most of all, since they have zero noncombat abilities.
I agree. The current non-combat feat options are pretty lackluster, as well, though this issue is extremely common across all iterations of d20.
You won't see a significant hit to game balance by giving fighters, paladins, clerics, and sorcerers 2 additional skill points per level. The wizard easily makes up for the lack by investing in intelligence so he doesn't need them.
I agree. The current non-combat feat options are pretty lackluster, as well, though this issue is extremely common across all iterations of d20.
Fighters need them most of all, since they have zero noncombat abilities.
I'm pretty content to think of feats as 'combat customization' and skills as 'noncombat customization'. This is also why I just say all skills are class skills for every class.
Would it throw off game balance to give 4 plus int mod skill points to all classes who only start the game with 2? To try to make them more useful out of combat. Paladin and fighter come to mind. Saw the guy at dawnforged cast suggest this was thinking its not a bad idea
I've been in favour of giving 4 skill points as a base for a long time. Yes, even INT-based characters. Give them something to invest in cross class skills
I'm pretty content to think of feats as 'combat customization' and skills as 'noncombat customization'. This is also why I just say all skills are class skills for every class.
I think that is precisely what your typical fighter player thinks, as well. One of my players is exclusively fighter (high system mastery). No matter how many non-combat options I've offered him in the past in the form of feats (and fighters get a lot of those as we all know), he never once selected a feat which granted him additional non-combat options. I've had similar experiences with other players over the years, as well.
He was quite happy that he could now have more than 3 skills (we don't use ANY of the favored class mechanics).
I'm pretty content to think of feats as 'combat customization' and skills as 'noncombat customization'. This is also why I just say all skills are class skills for every class.I think that is precisely what your typical fighter player thinks, as well.
I think that's how your typical player thinks in general. I don't recall anybody taking non-combat feats since 2000, unless it was a prerequisite for a PrC or something.
I think that's how your typical player thinks in general. I don't recall anybody taking non-combat feats since 2000, unless it was a prerequisite for a PrC or something.
Very true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The non-combat feats generally aren't very good and every non-combat feat you take delays your long and weary climb through whatever feat chains you're using. If combat feats scaled I'd be much more willing to take general feats.
The Fighter really should have more skill points, even ignoring the gameplay reasons. There's no reason why the Ultimate Generalist should be the most unskilled class in the game.
The non-combat feats generally aren't very good and every non-combat feat you take delays your long and weary climb through whatever feat chains you're using. If combat feats scaled I'd be much more willing to take general feats.
Okay, I'll bite. I am genuinely curious to see if the options you would select match up in anyway to my dedicated fighter player - you two seem to have similar views on skills and feat consolidation.
Could you provide me with 2-3 examples of non-combat feats you WOULD spend a feat on?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a very good question, actually. So good that I just went through the PSRD and browsed all the feats to see what I might pick up.
Of all the feats that do not have a direct contribution to combat, the only ones I saw with enough of a benefit to be worth picking up were Skill Focus and Eldritch Heritage. The vast majority of them are "+2 to this skill in one stupidly specific instance".
Why did Paizo make so many non-combat feats if they were going to make all of them terrible
There is seriously no difference in your feat choices and my fighter player.
Don't judge this too harshly, but let me throw this idea at you (that I actually just made up):
Specialized Training [Combat]
Your military training included a particular field of expertise.
Benefit: Select one of the following specialized areas. You may substitute your base attack bonus for your ranks in the listed skills.
- Cipher - Gather Information, Linguistics.
- Commando - Stealth, Survival.
- Noble - Diplomacy, Knowledge (Nobility).
- Medic - Craft (Alchemy), Heal.
- Sapper - Disable Device, Knowledge (Engineering)
- Scout - Perception, Knowledge (Geography)
Normal: A fighter normally has 3 or fewer skills, 4 max if they need combat expertise. Grr. Arg!
Now I just threw that together, it has NOT been done with any sort of balance in mind. What I'm asking is, would a feat like this appeal to fighters? I'd personally only allow this feat to be selected once, twice tops. I'm curious if I'm working toward the right direction.
That's not a bad idea at all, actually. I'd make the provided skills class skills, too.
Scout in particular could be very desirable. I could see myself picking up Commando or Noble too, maybe Cipher if I have a weird idea I want to implement. It'd require further support to make going for those skills really desirable, but it's not a bad place to start.
only 2 skill per level for fighters is one of the most horrible bad desings in PF. Giving them (and clerics, paladins and others) more skill points could only increase the quality of hte game...IMHO, of course.
That's not a bad idea at all, actually. I'd make the provided skills class skills, too.
Scout in particular could be very desirable. I could see myself picking up Commando or Noble too, maybe Cipher if I have a weird idea I want to implement. It'd require further support to make going for those skills really desirable, but it's not a bad place to start.
Good points. I'll have to toy with the idea a little more and see what kinda of concepts I could throw together, as well as add in your suggestions.
only 2 skill per level for fighters is one of the most horrible bad desings in PF.
I agree 100%. If you take into account they copy and pasted large portions of the Core Rule book from the SRD, it makes a lot more sense.
|
We have actually played with this a great deal and found it did not break the game at all in any way. We just applied it in a broad stroke to all classes that only had a base 2 skill points. Mostly just to make it easier in case it has been a hard week for people. Really my group is odd anyways we tend to be more skill heavy and skew towards seeing if we can avoid killing things.
((This has been demonstrated in our RotRL game. We have amassed and army of goblins and ogres to defend Sandpoint from the giant army. It was complete RP and the GM wanted to see if we could pull it off.))
I agree that changing 2 skill bases to 4 skill bases would be a very good idea. I find that the 2 skill based characters often feel unable to get the skills they are expected to have for their class. I also have PCs and NPCs that would like to diversify with some skills for role playing purposes, but the ones with only 2 skill point bases are often unable to afford putting points into anything non-essential.
I plan on implementing this change in the next campaign I run.