So, in regards to "you don't need to have full ranks in a skill to be competant" what are the thoughts on half & 3/4 bab? Are such classes (assuming they target ac) competant at combat as the game progresses? Magi and druids tend to be, though by virtue of spell enhancements (shocking grasp / spellstrike / wildshape bonuses, etc).
As for skills, I had a thought about how to further tweak their impact. Ise the behavior found in the likes of Knights of the Old Republic where non-class skills can only have ranks up to half char level & cost 2 skill points per rank. This would allow further balance tweaking by management of class skills. I'm experimenting with creating such a system at least.
Fighter can overcome that pretty handily with Armor Training and mithral.
don't have armor training as a lore warden, though you don't have full plate either...
OK, so Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests. They should get something, too. It's not like 9 skill points per level is too much if they want to invest a few points in Int.
I for one think that if someone wants to invest heavily into having a lot of skills that's not some horrible thing.
Th Rogue sucks anyway no need to worry about giving away yet another of his diminishing assets.
Really? That's your play? Fighters having two extra skill points is going to destroy rogues?
Nevermind that the rogue still has double the skill points in this example and... wait.
You were gloating earlier about how your homebrew 'gave' fighters 3 extra skill points. If giving fighters two ruins rogues, what would giving them three do to those poor guys?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about allowing straight INT = Skill points for first level only, then use RAW for 2nd level on?
All players (fighters, paladins included) would be able to benefit and place them liberally ONCE. Also makes for more flexible choosing of Traits and Feats that give class skills and bonuses.
Don't think this would unbalance anything, it is one rank after all, just more of them, and one-use only.
So, in regards to "you don't need to have full ranks in a skill to be competant" what are the thoughts on half & 3/4 bab? Are such classes (assuming they target ac) competant at combat as the game progresses? Magi and druids tend to be, though by virtue of spell enhancements (shocking grasp / spellstrike / wildshape bonuses, etc).
I tried to be an archer as a hunter, and struggled with accuracy the entire time: at higher levels when I was getting 4 or 5 attacks per round (rapid shot, haste, etc.), usually one of them would hit. It was my first character ever, though, and I didn't figure out exactly what the problem was for a while. If I'd put it together sooner, I probably would have made less use of Deadly Aim and more use of things like Gravity Bow and special ammunition, to do more damage without giving up attack bonus.
Anyway, I hadn't heard of the background skill rules before, but I hope to try that out sometime. It seems to get at the heart of what the problem is: no more "Hey, Bob, you worked for your family's candle-making business before you became a paladin, right? This is a situation that calls for a good candle-making! … What do you mean you put all your skill points in perception, diplomacy, and sense motive?!" Getting rid of that particular bit of gameplay/story segregation sounds like a great idea.
OK, so Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests. They should get something, too. It's not like 9 skill points per level is too much if they want to invest a few points in Int.I for one think that if someone wants to invest heavily into having a lot of skills that's not some horrible thing.
Th Rogue sucks anyway no need to worry about giving away yet another of his diminishing assets.Really? That's your play? Fighters having two extra skill points is going to destroy rogues?
Nevermind that the rogue still has double the skill points in this example and... wait.
You were gloating earlier about how your homebrew 'gave' fighters 3 extra skill points. If giving fighters two ruins rogues, what would giving them three do to those poor guys?
FWOOSH!
Are you serious? are you aware of how many campaigns skilled fighters have ruined? Last weekend I was playing my usual god wizard when the fighter player said "I use knowledge (dungeoneering)" and I said, "no, dude you can't, you already used intimidate against that cultist, you have perception maxed, and I know that your dwarf fighter only have int 10" and the Dm said " I give him 2 extra skill points per level", that totally ruined everyone's fun.
I already do all that, plus handle traps, on my fighter. Except I use diplomacy more than intimidate.
Without house rules.
Fighter can overcome that pretty handily with Armor Training and mithral.don't have armor training as a lore warden, though you don't have full plate either...
I used one feat for proficiency with mithral chain.
As an archer, I was not going to be able to benefit from heavy armor until much higher level, if ever.
I tried to be an archer as a hunter, and struggled with accuracy the entire time: at higher levels when I was getting 4 or 5 attacks per round (rapid shot, haste, etc.), usually one of them would hit. It was my first character ever, though, and I didn't figure out exactly what the problem was for a while. If I'd put it together sooner, I probably would have made less use of Deadly Aim and more use of things like Gravity Bow and special ammunition, to do more damage without giving up attack bonus.
I for one think that if someone wants to invest heavily into having a lot of skills that's not some horrible thing.
OK, so Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests. They should get something, too. It's not like 9 skill points per level is too much if they want to invest a few points in Int.
Well I wouldn't call a 14 with a 25 point buy heavily, but OK.
Th Rogue sucks anyway no need to worry about giving away yet another of his diminishing assets.Really? That's your play? Fighters having two extra skill points is going to destroy rogues?
Nevermind that the rogue still has double the skill points in this example and... wait.
You were gloating earlier about how your homebrew 'gave' fighters 3 extra skill points. If giving fighters two ruins rogues, what would giving them three do to those poor guys?
Well, we're talking about all low skill classes here, not just Fighters.
Encouraging PCs to make modest investments in Int for more skills solves the the problem with the "1 skill point Paladin" without creating situations where a Fighter could have more skill points than a Ranger or Monk by virtue of a high Int.
Just giving low skill classes extra skill points will still fix the problem of the "1 skill point Paladin" but it closes the gulf between low skill and high skill classes to the point of "Why even bother?".
Most classes get either 2, 4, or 6. Bumping all the 2s up to 4s drastically changes and flattens the distribution curve, making skill points no longer something that separates classes.
Okay, let's bump every class up by two skill points then. That also solves the problem while preserving the gulf and raises the power level just a little.
OK, so Clerics, Paladins, Sorcerers, Summoners and Warpriests. They should get something, too. It's not like 9 skill points per level is too much if they want to invest a few points in Int.I for one think that if someone wants to invest heavily into having a lot of skills that's not some horrible thing.
Th Rogue sucks anyway no need to worry about giving away yet another of his diminishing assets.Really? That's your play? Fighters having two extra skill points is going to destroy rogues?
Nevermind that the rogue still has double the skill points in this example and... wait.
You were gloating earlier about how your homebrew 'gave' fighters 3 extra skill points. If giving fighters two ruins rogues, what would giving them three do to those poor guys?
FWOOSH!
I was being half sarcastic.
I also think that one of the reasons the Rogue sucks so much was the evolving system gave away everything that made the Rogue unique: sneak attack, stealth, trapfinding, but also their cornered market on all the skill points.
In the CRB 5 classes got 2 skill pionts, 3 got 4, 2 got 6, and the Rogue got 8. Skill points were a class feature.
Between the next 2 dozen base classes Paizo created, only 5 were limited to 2 skill points per level, and 3 of those were Int based casters. They stopped making classes with low skill points. Which did hurt the Rogue.
And that totally would be a great thing fr the game.
Most classes get either 2, 4, or 6. Bumping all the 2s up to 4s drastically changes and flattens the distribution curve, making skill points no longer something that separates classes.
Better to go 5e and remove skill points altogether if they're not going to mean anything.
Better to go Pathfinder and have spells do everything for skills and boost the hell out of the ones they can't replace.And that totally would be a great thing fr the game.
Most classes get either 2, 4, or 6. Bumping all the 2s up to 4s drastically changes and flattens the distribution curve, making skill points no longer something that separates classes.
Here, lemme fix that for you.
|
Better to go 5e and remove skill points altogether if they're not going to mean anything.And that totally would be a great thing fr the game.
Most classes get either 2, 4, or 6. Bumping all the 2s up to 4s drastically changes and flattens the distribution curve, making skill points no longer something that separates classes.
Thankfully, even with 4 being the baseline, skill points still have meaning.
Has anyone tried using the combined skill group & specialties rules from Unchained? I think they reduce the difference in skill points significantly. My main worry is how it impacts skills that must be maxed to be efficient at all, i.e. trapfinding early on.
OTOH, when 2+ and 4+ skill classes start trained in 2 whole skill groups and get the same amount of specialties as everyone else, any character is able to contribute in at least some skill situations.
And that totally would be a great thing fr the game.
Most classes get either 2, 4, or 6. Bumping all the 2s up to 4s drastically changes and flattens the distribution curve, making skill points no longer something that separates classes.
There would be nothing wrong with adjusting the baseline across all classes.
Thankfully, even with 4 being the baseline, skill points still have meaning.Better to go 5e and remove skill points altogether if they're not going to mean anything.And that totally would be a great thing fr the game.
Most classes get either 2, 4, or 6. Bumping all the 2s up to 4s drastically changes and flattens the distribution curve, making skill points no longer something that separates classes.
Skills still have a use, but Skill points don't have a meaning as a distinction between classes if all classes get essentially the same amount.
All classes can Aid Another, and it's a useful action, but it's not in the section on classes, as it would be rather meaningless there.
Between the next 2 dozen base classes Paizo created, only 5 were limited to 2 skill points per level, and 3 of those were Int based casters. They stopped making classes with low skill points. Which did hurt the Rogue.This is just silly. The rogue have been outclassed since the CRB, making other classes suck in the skill department doesn't make the core rogue better class.
Which options from the CRB can replace the Rogue?
God, that'd be great. In 5e people actually try to use skills even if they don't have ranks=level investment in them and the fighter and the wizard are good at a roughly equal number of things instead of the wizard pulling down a half-dozen bonus skill ranks just for optimizing to the hilt while the fighter must actively avoid optimizing his combat stats to have more than one or two ranks.
Players don't use skills they haven't maxed out? My entire neighborhood has been doing it wrong for over 6 years. Thanks for setting us straight.
Which options from the CRB can replace the Rogue?Between the next 2 dozen base classes Paizo created, only 5 were limited to 2 skill points per level, and 3 of those were Int based casters. They stopped making classes with low skill points. Which did hurt the Rogue.This is just silly. The rogue have been outclassed since the CRB, making other classes suck in the skill department doesn't make the core rogue better class.
Bard and wizard. Sorcerers and rangers too to a lesser extent.
Arbane the Terrible - I think your premise is wrong, INT is not just "book-learned," but also through life experience.
It DOES take INT to know where to grab or place your feet when climbing.
It DOES take INT to know how to move with a riding animal to best keep balance.
It DOES take INT to recognize things as a potential threat.
It DOES take INT to get a pattern when swimming and not flail wildly.
But I recognize much of that can be instinctual also.
And in 5E, there's nothing but max investment in skill or none at all. You're either proficient or not. (Or have a class ability to boost, IIRC). That's a thing I don't like, though it works ok with bounded accuracy.
The skill system is one of my biggest gripes with 5e.
I really, really do not enjoy it.
Didn't read through the thread, but long ago I house ruled that any class that was int based (has class features that depend on int) gets a minimum of 4+int skill per level instead of 2.
I believe Paizo recognizes that 2+int skill points per level is a mistake on any class that isn't int based, and that's why we haven't really seen any classes with that few skill points since the CRB*.
Exceptions include the warpriest, which is based on the fighter. The summoner is also strangely an exception, as well as the Antipaladin (but because it's basically just a paladin it's no surprise, just like the warpriest).
Basically the only classes that have 2 skill points per level are the fighter and paladin, and derivatives of those classes (with the Summoner being a rather odd exception).
Also, I saw some people griping that giving out more skill points devalues the rogue...
As others mentioned the rogue was devalued in the CRB when it came out next to the bard who can invest in perform skills and apply those as ranks in other skills, effectively giving him far more skill points than the rogue and getting bonuses to it. The rogue is bad at being a skill monkey because despite having a lot of skills to invest in, you actually need features that add bonuses to your skills for it to be "good". Investing 1 skillpoint per level is a "baseline" for being acceptable in a skill, but without class features you're going to be bested by someone else. The only class features the rogue gets to skills is perception for traps, and disabling traps. Something that almost no one cares about, mostly because the way traps are used are rarely fun or interesting. And even that can be done sufficiently well by other classes.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skills still have a use, but Skill points don't have a meaning as a distinction between classes if all classes get essentially the same amount.
4 skills and 8 skills are not the same amount. There IS a difference, you just don't think it is ENOUGH of a difference.
A few points.
1) At the OP, if you purposely cripple yourself with a low stat to increase another, that's your own fault.
2) Since each class has a somewhat distinct set of Class Skills, I'd be 100% behind raising several of the classes to 4+Int since we wouldn't be changing the Class Skill list. I will even try it after my current campaign ends to see how it works out.
3) We currently have feats that can switch a skills ability score, switch the modifier entirely to BAB, and class abilities that do similar items. Tossing out a few skill points isn't going to destroy anything that currently exists in the game.
4) Dumb fighter archetype aside, in most fantasy literature and movies, the Fighter isn't just a dumb meat shield. They do typically contribute as a party face, assisting in what would be some skill check situations. The dumb fighter archetype can die.
Basically the only classes that have 2 skill points per level are the fighter and paladin, and derivatives of those classes (with the Summoner being a rather odd exception).
You forgot clerics and sorcerers.
Summoners are a derivative of the sorcerer, which is how they got stuck with 2+ skills/level.
You just said it. Three of those things can be done by a chimpanzee. I guess a chimpanzee are smarter than the average fighter.Arbane the Terrible - I think your premise is wrong, INT is not just "book-learned," but also through life experience.
It DOES take INT to know where to grab or place your feet when climbing.
It DOES take INT to know how to move with a riding animal to best keep balance.
It DOES take INT to recognize things as a potential threat.
It DOES take INT to get a pattern when swimming and not flail wildly.But I recognize much of that can be instinctual also.
Monkey would have 0 ranks in Acrobatics (Acrobatics = 10: +2 dex bonus, +8 racial). The monkey's only other skills are Climb & Perception.
Your level 1 fighter with zero commitment to skills has skill points equivalent to a monkey. The same can be said for paladins, clerics, summoners, and sorcerers.
|
When I saw this thread, "You wanna give the fighter a bone? Is he sword-and-board; give him a bone shield too. But wouldn't he rather have a greatbone?"
In all seriousness though, the fighter fights, and that's what his entire class entails. He could be like the rogue, who only contributes skills points to the party and is easily out shined by most other classes. Or he could be like the wizard and have it all.
But the fighter, as it's designed, is neither. Just a guy/gal who picked up a weapon one day and strapped on some armor to go swing their weapons at things. Which doesn't contribute to book smarts, which is what INT is -supposed- to stand for.
But in game terms...fighter doesn't really need INT. And human fighters get 2 skill points per level. Not playing a human fighter/insert martial here? You better be playing with the awesome book of awesome martials, Path of War, which addresses this problem with archetypes that offer more skill points per level and very neat abilities...or forever be doomed to have the wizard smash his spellbook into your poor fighter face as he yells, "Read it and weep! Don't need to climb; I fly! Don't need to swim; I breathe water!"
Arbane the Terrible - I think your premise is wrong, INT is not just "book-learned," but also through life experience.
It DOES take INT to know where to grab or place your feet when climbing.
It DOES take INT to know how to move with a riding animal to best keep balance.
It DOES take INT to recognize things as a potential threat.
It DOES take INT to get a pattern when swimming and not flail wildly.But I recognize much of that can be instinctual also.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that Wisdom is the "life experience" stat.
Basically the only classes that have 2 skill points per level are the fighter and paladin, and derivatives of those classes (with the Summoner being a rather odd exception).You forgot clerics and sorcerers.
Summoners are a derivative of the sorcerer, which is how they got stuck with 2+ skills/level.
Within the context of my post I thought it was clear I was talking about since the CRB, but perhaps it wasn't as clear as I thought.
To restate my point, basically the only classes that have 2+int skill point per level since the CRB are classes based off the fighter or paladin (or are int based classes, which don't matter if they have 2+int skill points per level since they will still naturally have a lot of skill points).
Between the next 2 dozen base classes Paizo created, only 5 were limited to 2 skill points per level, and 3 of those were Int based casters. They stopped making classes with low skill points. Which did hurt the Rogue.This is just silly. The rogue have been outclassed since the CRB, making other classes suck in the skill department doesn't make the core rogue better class.Which options from the CRB can replace the Rogue?
The bard most easily, then followed by every casting class, particularly wizard. If you're willing to do this skill point non-sense on a fighter, he can stealth better in heavier armor and be a better scout and fighter.