Hello everyone!
We all know the rule about class skills gaining a +3 which is supposed to represent some sort of training, but wouldn't you think that after gaining 10 ranks in a non-class skill, you would gain that +3?
Not particularly looking to make it a houserule, just looking to see if maybe I am the only one who thinks it would make more sense.
|
Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
I dont undestand why it would.
Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
No more than giving full bab to every one that manage to get to Bab 10 would.
IMOP.
|
According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
You have training and experience. 10 ranks of it.
You want a bonus to a skill because you're good at the skill?
|
|
According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.
As Cap. Darling notes, this makes precisely as much sense as giving anyone who makes it to a particular amount of BAB free extra BAB or anyone who gets a certain number of skill ranks free additional skill ranks (gaining 10 extra skill ranks when you hit 50 ranks total, for example), or giving anyone who gets a certain Save Bonus the Save Enhancer Feat for that save. Or giving everyone a free +2 to any stats they get to 20.
Having bonuses in something granting additional bonuses in that thing is not the way the system is designed to work, and is not a good idea mechanically. Nor does it necessarily make sense thematically (why do people suddenly get better at 10 ranks? Why not 6? Or 13?).
Having played rolemaster, more skills gave less benefits as you could on only learn so much. Kind of a diminishing returns to concentrate in one area and it encouraged diversifying.
First ten skill ranks was plus 5% each
second ten skill ranks was plus 2% each
third ten skill ranks was plus 1% each
Any other +.5% each
I agree the more you learn, the less you get better than before.
According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
You have training and experience. 10 ranks of it.
You want a bonus to a skill because you're good at the skill?
There is nothing about the +3 representing being good at a skill. It is described as from training and experience. You would think that by level 10 a character would be considered trained and experienced enough to warrant the +3.
There is nothing about the +3 representing being good at a skill. It is described as from training and experience. You would think that by level 10 a character would be considered trained and experienced enough to warrant the +3.According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
You have training and experience. 10 ranks of it.
You want a bonus to a skill because you're good at the skill?
But the numbers are added togeather.
Class skill =/= being trained in a skill. It wouldn't make more sense. The bonus one gets from putting ranks in a skill represents training and experience. I would argue that giving +3 makes less sense.
You just described exactly what the +3 means according to the SRD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So at 10 ranks the difference between a class skill and a non-class skill disappears? Or are we just giving anyone who invests 10 points an extra 3?
So at 10 ranks the difference between a class skill and a non-class skill disappears? Or are we just giving anyone who invests 10 points an extra 3?
This.
Giving everyone free class skills after x levels is a bad idea imo.
To be honest, I find the definition and purpose of Class Skills being misguided: The reason why there were things like Class Skills in the early editions of this brand of game was to show that each class had an inherent ability to do X better instead of Y; there were several scaling grades that went behind increasing a skill, which varied depending on if it was a Class Skill or not, as well as its availability for usage (for example, a Fighter who didn't have Disable Device as a Class Skill could not put ranks into it; if they somehow received it as a Class Skill from some other source, putting ranks into it were only half as effective [it took 2 skill points for 1 rank of Disable Device]).
Pathfinder removed that discrepancy, as well as the concept of Cross-Class Skills (which I believe I might have confused, but it still raises the point). They simply turned it into an extra +3 Bonus if it was a Class Skill, which greatly opened the door for unique character blends instead of straight-jacketing playstyles and group complementation.
That being said, I'd rather say the same definition of Class Skills back then still have the same meaning now: A class represents specialization and inherent expertise of a certain set of skills that cannot really be duplicated easily, if at all. This is simulated in the untyped +3 bonus.
Class skill guy puts 10 ranks into his skill for a +13.
So, if non-class skill guy puts 10 ranks into the skill, why should he get the +3 when class skill guy put MORE time and training into the skill early on?
ie, no. you are off-base.
It's not off base because I am looking at it from a level one perspective. The class skill guy will be +3 ahead from levels 1 through 9. It would essentially take 10 levels to achieve what the 1st level guy started with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not off base because I am looking at it from a level one perspective. The class skill guy will be +3 ahead from levels 1 through 9. It would essentially take 10 levels to achieve what the 1st level guy started with.Class skill guy puts 10 ranks into his skill for a +13.
So, if non-class skill guy puts 10 ranks into the skill, why should he get the +3 when class skill guy put MORE time and training into the skill early on?
ie, no. you are off-base.
Does the class skill guy then get an addition +3 for being extra, extra trained?
According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
Skill ranks represent self training and natural talent, but having someone who skilled in the area actually train you is big bonus in many situations.
Skill ranks represent self training and natural talent, but having someone who skilled in the area actually train you is big bonus in many situations.According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
Wouldn't you think that after using a skill for a long time you could be considered trained in it? Aren't these supposed to be people who are cut above the rest?
It's kind of like someone teaching you guitar on one hand, or practicing and learning yourself for years. One just achieves the goal a lot quicker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill ranks represent self training and natural talent, but having someone who skilled in the area actually train you is big bonus in many situations.According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
Wouldn't you think that after using a skill for a long time you could be considered trained in it? Aren't these supposed to be people who are cut above the rest?
It's kind of like someone teaching you guitar on one hand, or practicing and learning yourself for years. One just achieves the goal a lot quicker.
You are a cut above the rest, since you have 10 ranks in the skill and most people don't. But the character who got professional training, was (substantially) better than you to start, and then worked just as hard as you did (based on skill points invested) is still better than you. It's completely reasonable, even if every "motivational speaker" in the country wants to tell you differently.
If that's not the case you either (1) worked harder (which is handled here by the # of skill points you put in), or (2) had a higher natural aptitude (which is handled by the stat dependence).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole class skill thing is bunk, anyway. I'd recommend just throwing it out and letting all skills be class skills for every class.
Skill ranks represent self training and natural talent, but having someone who skilled in the area actually train you is big bonus in many situations.According to the SRD, the +3 represents training and experience. So after 10 ranks, wouldn't it seem logical that the character could je considered trained and experienced since that is what represents leveling up.Class Skill bonuses represent early training, or natural talent, or some such, and thus not as easy to acquire as all that. I mean, why at 10 ranks? Why not one rank, or three, or twenty? All would make the same amount of sense.
And in large part that's because Class Skills are a purely metagame construct to make there be a meaningful difference between Class and non-Class skills without the annoyance and difficulties that distinction led to in 3.5. Changing it is just a bad idea with the rules the way they are. If you want to make everything Class for everyone I guess you can (though that screws over skill-heavy classes somewhat), but don't try and justify it with weird excuses.
Besides, if you want something to be a Class Skill, a Feat will get you two or three skills as Class along with some ancillary bonuses (via Cosmopolitan or Extra Traits). Adding additional ways to do this really isn't necessary.
Wouldn't you think that after using a skill for a long time you could be considered trained in it? Aren't these supposed to be people who are cut above the rest?
It's kind of like someone teaching you guitar on one hand, or practicing and learning yourself for years. One just achieves the goal a lot quicker.
No. Knowing how to do something, even being good at it, is not the same as being trained. Being formally trained normally gives you certain fundamental concepts of how something works.
As an example I am going for my BS in Computer Networking. I am past the half way point, and still have not learned anything new. However since there are things that I know I am not knowledgeable on*, I am sure that by the end of my training I will have a core understanding of certain things.
*I have had to google certain things when I go to forums. Had I been trained I would likely know these things already.
My point is that being good is not always a replacement for actual training.
Call the +3 bonus the synergy between the class abilities and skills.
You cast spells a lot? You're 'training' in Spellcraft if you give it any attention at all (min: 1 rank).
Just get a trait for it.
We all know the rule about class skills gaining a +3 which is supposed to represent some sort of training, but wouldn't you think that after gaining 10 ranks in a non-class skill, you would gain that +3?
The +3 bonus is supposed to represent a "head start" from the training the character had before level 1. It's a simplification of having a bigger pool of skill points at level 1, as it used to be in 3rd edition.
In principle, there shouldn't be any reasons for a character not to be able to "catch-up" at a later point in life by investing time and energy training in that skill.
Thing is, you automatically catch-up with all your class skills as soon as you invest 1 rank; it's the cross-class skills that you'll always fall behind. But that's pretty much the definition of what a cross-class skill is; a skill you'll never be just as good.
In game mechanics, putting extra effort and training to catch-up to a class skill is represented by a feat or trait that transforms a cross-class skill into a class skill (as said BigNorseWolf). Without re-questioning the pertinence of cross-class and class skills as a concept, IMO, I don't think the game is flawed in that regard and need adjustment.
There's already a bonus when you get 10 ranks in a skill. It's for feats like Skill Focus (+3 becomes a +6 bonus at 10 skill ranks) or the feats that grant a +2 bonus to two skills, and becomes a +4 bonus at 10 skill ranks (i.e. Athletic or Acrobatic).
Call the +3 bonus the synergy between the class abilities and skills.
You cast spells a lot? You're 'training' in Spellcraft if you give it any attention at all (min: 1 rank).
This is the way I look at it too.
i look at it as something your character finds important and spends more time training in, if you want your character to have that class skill get a trait or multiclass in a class that has that class skill. This should represent your training and devotion to that skill. obviously if you don;t put any skill ranks into it, then your character hasn't tapped the natural talent or experience effectively yet.
Hello everyone!
We all know the rule about class skills gaining a +3 which is supposed to represent some sort of training, but wouldn't you think that after gaining 10 ranks in a non-class skill, you would gain that +3?
Not particularly looking to make it a houserule, just looking to see if maybe I am the only one who thinks it would make more sense.
Nah, I'm with those who see it as synergy with the class training. So without the class training you don't get it as a bonus.
each class has a number of favored skills, called class skills. It is easier for your character to become more proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. You gain a +3 bonus on all class skills that you put ranks into.
Conceptually if you don't have the class training synergy you can still get a +3 bonus from training and practice, but it is not easier. It takes the addition of three skill ranks to become that much more proficient in the skill.
The +3 is exactly the same as three ranks. It is there to compensate for the change from the previous version of the game. It used to be that you got 4x skills at first level and that you could have ranks = to your level+3.
Pathfinder wanted to streamline this so you get a slightly unintuitive construction. The difference is even more noticeable when you start activating class skills in midgame, because you get a rise in modifiers that work in an unintended way.
Class skills should just provide their bonus regardless of ranks if it's a representation of training or synergy. The synergy is between your class and the skill not the ranks.
Two characters, one class skill vs. one non-class skill, having the same stat array are equally competent at a skill when both have no ranks. That's not a representation of training. Both make the equal investment of 1 rank and the class skill guy gets more benefit from the skill point. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with previous training.
Two characters, a noncaster and a caster from the core rule book are both equally poor at spellcraft if they put no effort into learning the skill.
If they decide to learn the skill and become actively trained or devote effort to become proficient in the skill the caster gets a bonus on mastering the skill because of the synergy with them casting spells from level 1 onward.
Fighter and cleric never tried rock climbing before and are both so-so to start when they have no skill points in the skill yet. They both take up rock climbing and the fighter's warrior training is more suited to the physicality of rock climbing than the cleric who channels divine power. The fighter picks up the techniques of rock climbing faster than the cleric due to the synergy of his class.
The +3 is a class feature from the class you are in that gives training and expertise particular to that class that applies those skills that are class skills. So I don't see why 10 ranks would give you that training or expertise that class that you have no levels would give.
I like the +3 bonus very much as it represents several strong points of certain classes and gives PC's an opportunaty to have a small edge in skills specific for their class.
And there are ways around the selected class skills using traits or feats.
I create a Paladin in a Kingmaker campaign that started with the trait 'Eyes and ears of the city (Abadar)' and this makes perception a class skill for a Paladin as well as provide a +1 on it. I noticed the Abadar at the class skill and decided that my Paladin should become a Paladin of Abadar as well because I liked the Lawfullness of the Abadar diety as well as the urban preference of Abadar. I thought that since the Kingmaker campaign will focus on founding a city/kingdom that this would be right up the ally of a Paladin of Abadar who would really appreciate bringing Law, Order and a city to the wild of a region.
And thusly my paladin was created with both an awesome bonus on Diplomacy (+11) and Perception (+9) at level 1.
I agree that Class skills are limiting certain classes, but I also think that's what makes the game versatile and shows strenghts and weaknesses in classes. And feats and traits allow you to mildy adjust this to your liking.
I think the idea is that certain classes train in certain areas. As an example, if I want to be a network security analyst I might take some programming classes as part of my training. That does not mean someone who is trying to be a lawyer cant be a better programmer than me, but it is not as likely for him to pursue it, since he will be less likely to use it.
|
|
You just described exactly what the +3 means according to the SRD.Class skill =/= being trained in a skill. It wouldn't make more sense. The bonus one gets from putting ranks in a skill represents training and experience. I would argue that giving +3 makes less sense.
This is what the PRD say:
It is easier for your character to become more proficient in these skills, as they represent part of his professional training and constant practice. You gain a +3 bonus on all class skills that you put ranks into. If you have more than one class and both grant you a class skill bonus, these bonuses do not stack.
Fairly different from what you say.
Somethings aren't done because they make sense, some things are done purely as a mechanic advantage to maintain game balance and give obvious advantages for being certain classes.
By giving characters the ability become trained in any skill they choose you inadvertently weaken other characters, how much would it suck to be that bard who focuses on Diplomacy become outclassed by a fighter who simply added points.
All you've done is reiterated my point with specific examples. If a fighters training was conducive to climbing rocks then he would have a bonus to climb with 0 ranks. Same as the caster with Spellcraft. The training would be evident putting them up against someone else with 0 ranks and no class skill. 1 rank is 1 rank. It's the same investment from both characters. If there was some bias due to class training you would see this with no actual training in any skill.Class skills should just provide their bonus regardless of ranks if it's a representation of training or synergy. The synergy is between your class and the skill not the ranks.
Two characters, one class skill vs. one non-class skill, having the same stat array are equally competent at a skill when both have no ranks. That's not a representation of training. Both make the equal investment of 1 rank and the class skill guy gets more benefit from the skill point. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with previous training.
Two characters, a noncaster and a caster from the core rule book are both equally poor at spellcraft if they put no effort into learning the skill.
If they decide to learn the skill and become actively trained or devote effort to become proficient in the skill the caster gets a bonus on mastering the skill because of the synergy with them casting spells from level 1 onward.
Fighter and cleric never tried rock climbing before and are both so-so to start when they have no skill points in the skill yet. They both take up rock climbing and the fighter's warrior training is more suited to the physicality of rock climbing than the cleric who channels divine power. The fighter picks up the techniques of rock climbing faster than the cleric due to the synergy of his class.
Not quite. It is a similar situation to skills you can't use untrained.
Take a sorcerer and spellcraft.
A sorcerer can go his whole career and never learn spellcraft and he can't do any spellcraft checks even as a 10th level caster. If he gets any training, his relevant constant practice of actually casting spells means that the techniques of spellcraft make sense more naturally and come easier once he actually does work directly on the techniques of spellcraft.
Now say the sorcerer has a high intelligence. The intelligence bonus also will only help him once he gets actual training. Super smart does not help you with zero ranks of spellcraft either.
A smart guy who casts spells all the time can't do spellcraft without training or actual development of the skill. Once he does develop that skill both his intelligence and his constant use of spells make him better at spellcraft than someone without those advantages.
From a game perspective making it dependent on having a rank puts a different value on the choice to invest a single skill point in a wide variety of skills versus dumping them all in the same skills every level to max out those few skills.
In one sense it makes the choice of skill point investment more important and nuanced than if there were no class skill bonus or if the bonus applied regardless of ranks.
Somethings aren't done because they make sense, some things are done purely as a mechanic advantage to maintain game balance and give obvious advantages for being certain classes.
By giving characters the ability become trained in any skill they choose you inadvertently weaken other characters, how much would it suck to be that bard who focuses on Diplomacy become outclassed by a fighter who simply added points.
I'm afraid a + 3 is not going to make or break any class when it comes to skills. A fighter still only has 2 + Int mod for skills.
If you actually run the math and have all classes who gain 10 ranks in a non class skill gain a + 3, nothing ends up broken or out of wack.
Somethings aren't done because they make sense, some things are done purely as a mechanic advantage to maintain game balance and give obvious advantages for being certain classes.
By giving characters the ability become trained in any skill they choose you inadvertently weaken other characters, how much would it suck to be that bard who focuses on Diplomacy become outclassed by a fighter who simply added points.
I'm afraid a + 3 is not going to make or break any class when it comes to skills. A fighter still only has 2 + Int mod for skills.
If you actually run the math and have all classes who gain 10 ranks in a non class skill gain a + 3, nothing ends up broken or out of wack.
He never said it would break anything.