| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my home games I give every character a minimum 4+int unless they're int focused and it hasn't really unbalanced anything. People seem to like it too, it gives the character more stuff they can do outside a fight and generally I see people try things I don't see in normal games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wouldn't be unbalanced if you gave them 20. In the end they still suck at their job. Now they're just better at moonlighting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's unbalanced to keep them at 2.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would not. They probably need a lot of non-skill advantages as well to be really competent, honestly.
See here for my Fighter fix, just for example.
And, on a similar note, why aren't acrobatics and perception class skills for them? I am considering changing this for my campaign, and was wondering if this would be a problem.
I feel like fighters, as typical men at arms or knights or mercenaries or whatever, should be capable of recognizing a threat, and should be able to jump and balance at least ok with all their physical training, and should be better at balancing while wearing armor than a rogue who happens to be wearing plate mail. And I'm kind of tired of seeing people have to hoist fighters across ledges or whatever. This is the guy who should be doing that on his own. It's very un-heroic and silly.
For that matter, would it be wrong to give most classes 4 skill points? I don't really understand, from a flavor perspective, why fighters and clerics get 2 and barbarians and oracles get 4; the former are generally presented as more formally trained or whatever. I kind of understand paladins only having 2, being a martial class with some spellcasting ability, so they may be stretching their resources thin. But then bloodragers are given 4 (and a more versatile spell list).
So long story short, can I give all characters 4 skill points per level (unless they would normally have more), or would this make things too unbalanced? and can I give fighters perception and acrobatics as class skills? Does anyone foresee any major problems with this?
If you compare them to a ranger, who gets spellcasting AND 6 skill points, its unbalanced to give them less then 6.
So, no, 4 isn't a problem at all.
==Aelryinth
No, not unbalancing in the slightest.
And, on a similar note, why aren't acrobatics and perception class skills for them? I am considering changing this for my campaign, and was wondering if this would be a problem.
I am of the opinion that you could give fighters (and rogues as well) maximum ranks in every skill in the d--n game and they would still suck.
How many ranks in swim do you need in order to breathe water? Oh, yeah, you can't. How many levels of spells do you need in order to breathe water?
So, yeah, give fighters all the skill points you like.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Supremely overpowered, just look at the extremes Ultimate Intrigue went to by giving clerics extra skill points...
On a more serious note, the background skills from Unchained has been working out great for my current group.
If a player wants more skill points, I let them use the fighter variant from the old Campaign Setting book.
Being scarce on a resource (here: skill ranks) can be annoying or inspiring. If you have to live with 2 ranks from the class, you might have to reconsider:
What skills do I really need?
What can I delegate to fellow PCs - or other allied creatures?
Do I have to max out every skill I start?
What Int score fits best?
Are there affordable options beside Int to increase the number of ranks? Are there affordable options to improve checks, beside ranks?
Can I bypass some skill checks?
That's more challenging than picking up a class with a lot of ranks per level. But doable. And more rewarding.
Anyway, you could simply give them 4 ranks. It won't result in an imploded multiverse.
4 skill points as a minimum sounds good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All classes should have at least 4+
|
|
I like a lot of your fixes; I will definitely consider them. The monk one with adding wisdom to a bunch of skills is pretty cool. flavor-wise you can describe it as the guy having mystical "mind-over-matter" training or as him being a worldly, wily opponent who can take advantage of any situation.It would not. They probably need a lot of non-skill advantages as well to be really competent, honestly.
See here for my Fighter fix, just for example.
I'm quite pleased with it. :)
each time I look this over for the fighter I like it more and more.
I'm probably going to use it as a template for my houserule "Fighter Unchained". Will probably tweak a couple things though as I'd like to incorporate stamina pool to give the player some on demand options to boost str/dex based checks.
A very reasonable addition. I'm not a huge fan of the Stamina system, which is why I didn't include it. If you like it, including it is super logical. Though I'd be inclined to make it available to all non-spellcasters, since I balanced them pretty well IMO, and adding it to just the Fighter might thus be problematic.
I'd be more than happy to discuss my House rules in more detail, but further discussions in that vein should probably be taken here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All classes should have at least 4+
Except int-based spellcasters, but yes.
I give everyone 2 more skill points than their class calls for. My players use their mad skillz a lot in my games.
If the GM insists the max stats are 16 before race adjustments to start, you might rethink the exception. Maybe not if you allow increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
Not sure what Paizo's position is on allowing increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM insists the max stats are 16 before race adjustments to start, you might rethink the exception.
That's only one less skill point a level than the official version, and that's effectively dropping from 7 points a level to 6 in most cases (occasionally 5 points rather than 6). I'm not sure if it's as important as all that.
Maybe not if you allow increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
Not sure what Paizo's position is on allowing increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
All increases are retroactive. One of the Pathfinder design goals was for you to be able to count a character's skill ranks (or whatever) and know whether they are correctly made without having to figure out what level they got something at.
"Would it be unbalanced to give fighters 4 skill points per level?": LOL I think you could multiply them by 4 and it wouldn't be an issue.
I've been giving a minimum of 4+ to everyone (even INT based classes. seriously, what's 2 more to a class already dumping there) for some time now. I've had absolutely no issues to date.
You could give Fighter a d12, 6+Int and still not break the poor class.
If the GM insists the max stats are 16 before race adjustments to start, you might rethink the exception. Maybe not if you allow increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
Not sure what Paizo's position is on allowing increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
My opinion of wizards is generally "f+!! wizards", so if I'm giving them a hard time then that's great.
If I really wanted to fix the skill system what I'd probably do is have characters pick a "key stat" at 1st level (this would usually be your highest stat but doesn't have to be). You get bonus skills equal to that stat's modifier but can only spend the bonus skills on skills that use that stat.
If the GM insists the max stats are 16 before race adjustments to start, you might rethink the exception. Maybe not if you allow increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
Not sure what Paizo's position is on allowing increased intelligence to retroactively increase skill points from previous levels.
You can get skill points retroactively.
I think that it would be insane to give wizards more than two points per level. And it would be kind of odd to have fighters with more skills than wizards.
As far as out of combat utility, 85 percent of this game is combat, and most of the rest is roleplay, not skill rolls, I don't see the need for such radical changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it would be kind of odd to have fighters with more skills than wizards.
Not really, I mean. One goes out and does stuff, like moving in combat, jumping, running, surviving in the wild, being a soldier/guard/hunter/etc., guarding places, fighting on unsteady slippery ships, etc.... and the other just stays in one spot learning about magic.
I don't see the need for such radical changes.
Interesting definition of radical :P
Several fighters already get 4 skills per level. Lore Warden, Pack Mule, Tactician.
And they give up significant class features in exchange.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it would be insane to give wizards more than two points per level. And it would be kind of odd to have fighters with more skills than wizards.
Actually, I don't find it that odd. Spellcasting is a skill unto itself, and fighters don't spend time learning spellcasting, so they can learn other things.
It's also a something that goes back a long way in the D&D lineage tree. Back when skills were called "proficiencies," fighters got more of them than wizards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it would be insane to give wizards more than two points per level. And it would be kind of odd to have fighters with more skills than wizards.
As far as out of combat utility, 85 percent of this game is combat, and most of the rest is roleplay, not skill rolls, I don't see the need for such radical changes.
First, I'd be fine with Fighters with more skills than Wizards, since Fighters are stuck with mundane solutions to things, and Wizards can rely on spells.
But it's a moot point because you could give Fighters 6+INT SP per level, and an average Wizard would have more actual SP per level than a Fighter who wasn't stacking INT.
Also, Barbarians get 4+INT skill points. Flippin' Barbarians.
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war.
These guys. 4+INT.
I think that it would be insane to give wizards more than two points per level. And it would be kind of odd to have fighters with more skills than wizards.Actually, I don't find it that odd. Spellcasting is a skill unto itself, and fighters don't spend time learning spellcasting, so they can learn other things.
It's also a something that goes back a long way in the D&D lineage tree. Back when skills were called "proficiencies," fighters got more of them than wizards.
If I remember correctly that's because they were also spent on weapons as well. Now, fighters simply get every simple and martial weapon there is in the books, while wizards are still restricted to specific weapons.
Spellcasting is a skill.
Wizards have fewer skill points because they are putting skill points into learning magic. There are VERY FEW actual intelligence requirements for skills that actually are involved with spellcasting. Basically you need Spellcraft...that's it! You can be a wizard and actually not know how to read and write, as long as you have spellcraft ranks!
So, no, wizards don't need more skill points. Any that you give them simply let them horn in on the skill monkey role. Really, wizards should have skill point REQUIREMENTS...skill points they need to put into skills to represent learning magic. It's because they don't have to do this that everyone thinks magic is so easy to do.
If every school of magic required you to have skill ranks in order to advance (i.e. your caster level in Necromancy was equal to your ranks in Profession: Embalmer), suddenly everyone would realize that magic is VERY skill intensive, indeed.
But really, the comparison should be with the fighter and the other martial classes.
i.e. why does the Barbarian, who doesn't train or learn and is the product of an uncivilized society, have more skill points then a fighter, who is probably the result of a long fighting tradition and possibly even a fighting school?
Do you know ANY martial art that doesn't have a deep history and intelligent focus behind it?
Paladins having few skill points, I can see. Their abilities are divinely granted by faith, zeal and divine power. They don't need to study, they pray and forge ahead.
Barbarians have 4 skill points because it's assumed they are going to be stupid.
Rangers...have magic. Swim, climb? Cast Monkeyfish. Stealth? Cast Camoflage. Animal training? Cast speak with animals. Strength training? cast bull's strength.
WHY would a ranger traintraintrain in mundane skills when they can spellcast to take care of the problem?
Rangers are given extra skill points because of legacy proficiency. It is assumed that the average ranger will be skilled in Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide In Shadows, Animal Empathy, and Survival (for tracking). Despite four of the skills being consolidated to two, they still get 6 skill points for some mind boggling reason.
So, giving Fighters 6 skill points to reflect the fact they are civilized and INTENSE martial combatants who train in mundane skills to make up for their lack of magical ones (including magic) only makes sense.
==Aelryinth
If I remember correctly that's because they were also spent on weapons as well. Now, fighters simply get every simple and martial weapon there is in the books, while wizards are still restricted to specific weapons.I think that it would be insane to give wizards more than two points per level. And it would be kind of odd to have fighters with more skills than wizards.Actually, I don't find it that odd. Spellcasting is a skill unto itself, and fighters don't spend time learning spellcasting, so they can learn other things.
It's also a something that goes back a long way in the D&D lineage tree. Back when skills were called "proficiencies," fighters got more of them than wizards.
And wizards were always restricted to specific weapons, so that's not an argument.
Also, getting weapon profs meant fighters could specialize in a weapon as soon as level 1, and have a damage bonus right out the door!
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that it would be insane to give wizards more than two points per level. And it would be kind of odd to have fighters with more skills than wizards.
I agree that Wizards don't need more points...but how is Fighters having more (ignoring Int) odd?
Slayers, Rangers, Barbarians, and Cavaliers already all have more, and I know no flavor reason that a Fighter should be worse at skills than a Cavalier simply because he never learned to ride a horse...or than a Barbarian simply because he's more disciplined and less angry.
As far as out of combat utility, 85 percent of this game is combat, and most of the rest is roleplay, not skill rolls, I don't see the need for such radical changes.
Wow. No. Not even a little. Some people's games may go that way, but mine are maybe 50% combat (if that), and probably over a quarter skill checks. Thinking about it, I'd probably say 50% combat, 30% skill checks (or occasionally spells used where a skill check could've been), and 20% pure roleplaying (in Pathfinder games anyway, the percentages vary depending on the game).
That number's a little misleading because people certainly roleplay the making of skill checks the vast majority of the time, but the percentages are correct for how often it's the skill check rather than the roleplaying alone that allows the PCs to achieve a particular goal.
As far as out of combat utility, 85 percent of this game is combat, and most of the rest is roleplay, not skill rolls, I don't see the need for such radical changes.Wow. No. Not even a little. Some people's games may go that way, but mine are maybe 50% combat (if that), and probably over a quarter skill checks. Thinking about it, I'd probably say 50% combat, 30% skill checks (or occasionally spells used where a skill check could've been), and 20% pure roleplaying (in Pathfinder games anyway, the percentages vary depending on the game).
On the other hand, most skill checks can be handled within ten or fifteen seconds of table time (even if they take weeks in-world). Combat is one of the few parts of the game that takes more time to resolve at the table than it would in real-life. I can pick a lock with a single die roll taking ten seconds, even when it would take a minute or more in real life. I can make a Fortitude save to avoid being tired after a six hour march in full armor, and it takes one roll. For my party to kill six hobgoblins, though, probably takes at least ten to fifteen minutes at the table.
So if you look at what you're doing most of the evening, skill checks are a very tiny fraction of your activities. Most of the time, you're either fighting, listening, or talking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hahaha.... No.
Fighters really should have 4~6 skill points per level.
Fighters have no spells or divine blessings, all they do is train their physical bodies and mind. It makes no sense for them to have only 2 skill points per level
Considering all the changes the designers made to the rules, I really don't understand why they didn't add this small change to Pathfinder... Or why they don't errata it, considering it would have no impact on word count and page space.
I think it could be interesting to give fighters (and all classes with only 2 points per level) 4 points. Then have everyone take traits to give them additional class skills of their choosing. You could easily just restrict the bonus trait to the ones that grant a class skill.
Create backgrounds like you see in 5E.
Here's an example:
=============
Soldier
Bonus Trait: Choose one: Fire Guard, Well Trained, Squad Leader
You gain a new trait every 4 levels. This trait can be from any source allowed by the GM, but you still must follow the rules for traits. Note that some traits will not be feasible after level 1 (such as Rich Parents).
Fire-Guard: You spent many nights on watch, more than your companions. You've learned how to observe your surroundings better than those you served with. Choose either Perception or Sense Motive. You get a +1 trait bonus to that skill and it is always a class skill for you.
Squad Leader: You know how to push your allies beyond their normal limits. When you use the Aid Another action you can add an addition +1 to their check.
Well Trained: You get 1 additional skill point every level.
Starting Equipment: 1 martial melee weapon, 1 martial ranged weapon (20 units of ammunition), 1 dagger, 1 suit of light armor and shield or a suit of medium armor.
Starting Gold: 10d6.
=============
You could also grant every character a bonus trait as they level based on their initial starting skill points. They gain an additional bonus trait at the twice the level as they have starting skill points for the class that provides the most skill points. So a fighter would gain an additional trait every 4 levels. A ranger would get one every 8 levels. A rogue would get one every 16 levels. A paladin/monk would get a bonus trait every 8 levels.
Note that I haven't playtested any of this so they would take some tweaking to make them more balanced.
Spellcasting is a skill.
Wizards have fewer skill points because they are putting skill points into learning magic. There are VERY FEW actual intelligence requirements for skills that actually are involved with spellcasting. Basically you need Spellcraft...that's it! You can be a wizard and actually not know how to read and write, as long as you have spellcraft ranks!
I think you got lost in the argument. It isn't stated that Wizards have to be able to read their spellbook to prepare spells because it's supposed to be obvious.
I've got to go back and read the rest of your post, because that statement stopped me cold.
Spellcasting is a skill.
Wizards have fewer skill points because they are putting skill points into learning magic. There are VERY FEW actual intelligence requirements for skills that actually are involved with spellcasting. Basically you need Spellcraft...that's it! You can be a wizard and actually not know how to read and write, as long as you have spellcraft ranks!
I think you got lost in the argument. It isn't stated that Wizards have to be able to read their spellbook to prepare spells because it's supposed to be obvious.
I've got to go back and read the rest of your post, because that statement stopped me cold.
Just look at the example of a goblin wizard. They think writing pulls your soul out, so they just use smell and colors for their spells instead of text. No need to read or write at all.
Spellcasting is a skill.
Wizards have fewer skill points because they are putting skill points into learning magic. There are VERY FEW actual intelligence requirements for skills that actually are involved with spellcasting. Basically you need Spellcraft...that's it! You can be a wizard and actually not know how to read and write, as long as you have spellcraft ranks!
I think you got lost in the argument. It isn't stated that Wizards have to be able to read their spellbook to prepare spells because it's supposed to be obvious.
I've got to go back and read the rest of your post, because that statement stopped me cold.
They have to read their spellbook...which is drawn using a SPELLCRAFT CHECK.
In other words, with spell formulae and mystic bugaboo.
There is NO requirement for them to be able to read and write the common tongue, or any other language.
Just Spellcraft, the de facto language of magic.
After all, you don't make a Linquistics check when scribing new spells into your spellbook, do you?
I stand by what I said. It may seem non-sensical (and people are automatically considered to be able to read and write any language that they know in this game), but there is no REQUIREMENT for the wizard to actually be literate!
Bizarre, yes?
==Aelryinth
Not to mention that pre-third edition, when fighters got multiple attacks they could move and make all attacks. You weren't limited to only making them in a full attack action.
At most however those "multiple attacks" topped out at twice per round, assuming single weapon fighting.