I've never understood the hardliners of giving skills in multiples of 2 anyways. 5 + Int for say, an inquisitor. Would that be so horrible?
A sorcerer wakes up with magic without studying at all and gets 2? Why? Why not 3? Never got the logic.
Because his training is all centered on controlling the magic within.
Training?
Because they train more than a monk at training their inner power so they get less skills... Yeah, let that one sink in...
I think we can all agree that that doesn't make sense.
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.
Not quite.
Specialized Fighter topped at 5/2 (specializing gave you +1/2 attacks over a normal fighter).
Cavaliar with weapon of choice got to 3 at/rd (bastiches).
Scimitar of Speed gave you another +1/2 attack.
5/2 attacks is 250% of normal damage per round, which not coincidentally is just about what 4 iterative attacks gives you.
==Aelryinth
I see no reason not to extend a 4+int minimum to all classes. Witches and wizards have terrible class skill lists outside knowledges and will have poor controlling stats unless built very specifically for a skill role at the expense of combat stats, and knowledges devalued by their diversity.
The only int classes with the skills and stats to do anything but knowledge monkey as more than a last ditch backup are the alchemist and investigator, who are supposed to be skill classes.
The bard, the skill monkey of PF, just pricked up his ears. More skills then anyone. And a flat, rising bonus to all knowledge skills on top of it all.
The ranger, with his stacking FE and FT bonuses for all them contested checks, also laughed into the fur of his animal companion.
==Aelryinth
|
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).
True to some degree, but I'd include the roleplaying leading up to a lot of skill checks (especially social skills) as part of how long they take. That gets tham to the 30% figure I was citing.
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.
There's certainly an element of truth here. But combat still doesn't eat up more than half the session or so most sessions IME.
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.
True...but being able to do the listening and talking bit and achieve things effectively often necessitates a certain amount of skills, again, at least IME.
The bard, the skill monkey of PF, just pricked up his ears. More skills then anyone. And a flat, rising bonus to all knowledge skills on top of it all.
The ranger, with his stacking FE and FT bonuses for all them contested checks, also laughed into the fur of his animal companion.
Uh...Atarlost specified (and was clearly specifically talking about) Int Classes. I'm not sure I agree with him, but Bard (which is a Cha Class) and Ranger (which is a Wis Class) are both clearly irrelevant to his point.
The 3.5 Pathfinder CS book had an option for fighters to lose their bonus feat at 1st level for 4+int skills and a better list, and I found it to be a very interesting option. If you are not using the Unchained rules for background skills and skill groups, I can definitely see fighters getting this feature - and heck, with how incredibly OP they are, I don´t see a need for it to cost a feat, either.
Because his training is all centered on controlling the magic within.I've never understood the hardliners of giving skills in multiples of 2 anyways. 5 + Int for say, an inquisitor. Would that be so horrible?
A sorcerer wakes up with magic without studying at all and gets 2? Why? Why not 3? Never got the logic.
Since a Savage Mage practices de controlling the magic within, I should give them 1D4 + Int skill points a level. :)
I see not many reasons to rise to 4+Int the number of skill points for the fighter, at least in Pathfinder.
The numbers are arranged much like the hit dice, that is "poor amount" (2+Int), "average amount" (4+Int), "high amount" (6+Int), and "exceptional amount" (8+Int). Why they choose 2 as a base I don't Know, since pre-d20 system editions had more, but here we are.
How they assigned the amount of skill points to each class is probably due to balance: a class very good at combat or magic would get less.
There are a bunch of ways to rise the total, though, even for a fighter.
The most obvious one is to roll a good Int score or at least not to treat Int as a dump stat.
The second most obvious one is to adopt a race with bonus skill points or bonus to many skills.
A less obvious one is to take bonus skill points as favored class bonus.
The newest one is to use the background skills variant from Pathfinder Unchained, which basically gives 2 extra points to every class for non-adventuring skills.
A more drastic one is to get an archetype that trades more skill points for some other class option.
The extreme one is multiclassing to a class with a good amount of class skills and skill points and/or bonuses to some skills, but in Pathfinder that means renouncing to part of the favored class bonuses.
If after all this you still feel that 2+Int points for low-skills classes are too few, you should rise all skill points total by 2, to preserve the balance (so having 4, 6, 8 and 10).
Tweaking a bit some list of class skills is not that wrong too, but in Pathfinder class skills are not that better than non-class skills (they just get a +3 when trained) and everyone can easily get any skills he wants.
The fighter also has so many feats that he could use one of his 10 character feats to get a +3 to one skill or a +2 to two related skills he should really need.
Fighter is the only non-spellcasting class I can think of that has only 2+INT SP per level.
Of classes with "no" spellcasting*:
- Two (Ninja, Rogue) have 8+ SP.
- One (Slayer) has 6+ SP.
- Seven (Barbarian, Brawler, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Monk, Samurai, Swashbuckler) have 4+ SP.
- One (Fighter) has 2+ SP.
Also, the only other full BAB class with only 2+INT SP/lvl is Paladin, which, let's be honest here, has a lot more going on for it than Fighter does.
How is it remotely a problem again to at least bump a Fighter up to 4+ SP/level?
I'm not saying Paizo has to do so, but from a design perspective, there's a single outlier here, and it's the Fighter.
*Excepting things like Minor/Major Magic for Rogues and (Su) Rage Powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all classes except those who have INT as a primary stat should get 4 points a level. This helps avoid the Perception/Climb/Swim/Human bonus skill that crops up so much
Fighter is the only non-spellcasting class I can think of that has only 2+INT SP per level.
They are also the only class with tower shield proficiency. Which equals a feat if you consider such shields wortwhile. Which means one freed up feat which can be invested into skills...
Heavy armor proficiency is a rare gift also, only (?) fighters, paladins and cavaliers get it.
Beside that, fighter's class skills are not that awesome, so additional ranks might result in less impact than expected.
|
|
Beside that, fighter's class skills are not that awesome, so additional ranks might result in less impact than expected.
I think most people arguing for more skill points would likely add a few additional Class Skills as well (I added Knowledge-Local, Perception, Sense Motive, and a floating skill of their choice).
All combat adventure path, sure +2 minimum for skills.
Balanced for combat, social, and roleplaying, everyone gets an extra +2 skill points per level.
If it's Scooby Doo but with one "real" monster at the end of a module, better add an extra 4 points per level.