Hey, so I wanted some feedback on how to make better a house rule I came up with, to give my PC's more skill versatility.
So basically I allow the PC's to take negative skill ranks, this is just like taking normal skill ranks every level but on the opposite direction, for example:
at level 1 a fighter with 10 intelligence gets 2 skill ranks, with this system he could choose to put a -1 skill rank on any non trained skill to obtain an extra skill rank somewhere else. this way they could put -1 on appraise to then put it somewhere else, at level 2 the -1 could go to -2 and so on until -20 at level 20.
Of course the higher the negative skill rank the higher the penalty up to GM discretion the negatives could be scaled and given flavor to.
What do you guys think?? I think its a good way to give a little more chance to the classes with low skill ranks p/l like the fighter.
The main issue I see is you will have things like the fighter taking negative ranks in spellcraft or the weak wizard taking negative ranks in climbing. Or someone loading up on negatives to knowledge skills if they aren't the knowledge monkey.
Or, to put it another way - everyone will just load up on negative in things they never plan to actually use at which point it might as well just be bonus skill ranks if it's not somehow a real tradeoff.
I'm currently playing in OP's campaign and it seems like there's a bit of miscommunication. Players, such as myself, aren't allowed to put negative skill ranks into Trained-Only skills, such as Knowledges or Use Magic Device.
Hey, so I wanted some feedback on how to make better a house rule I came up with, to give my PC's more skill versatility.
So basically I allow the PC's to take negative skill ranks, this is just like taking normal skill ranks every level but on the opposite direction, for example:
at level 1 a fighter with 10 intelligence gets 2 skill ranks, with this system he could choose to put a -1 skill rank on any non trained skill to obtain an extra skill rank somewhere else. this way they could put -1 on appraise to then put it somewhere else, at level 2 the -1 could go to -2 and so on until -20 at level 20.
Of course the higher the negative skill rank the higher the penalty up to GM discretion the negatives could be scaled and given flavor to.
What do you guys think?? I think its a good way to give a little more chance to the classes with low skill ranks p/l like the fighter.
This has been tried in a number of other games, and it rarely works well for precisely the reasons mentioned by RDM42. I don't think I've ever made a Perform check other than as a bard or in an explicitly themed campaign (e.g., we're the Partridge Family and we're a traveling band). So when my wizard takes negative ranks in every Perform skill ever, it's simply free skill points.
Or when my fighter takes negative ranks in Perform.
How many Profession skills are there that I will never roll? [So, I have a -5 in Profession (neatherd). What's a neatherd, anyway?] How many free skill points can I put in something I will actually use, like Knowledge skills or Perception?
ETA you might limit the damage this rule will do if you limit negative ranks to class skills only, and not to open-ended skills like Craft/Profession/Perform. That would help ensure that the disadvantages are real disadvantages. But even there, negative skill ranks in Climb are meaningless when you can fly....
This has been tried in a number of other games, and it rarely works well for precisely the reasons mentioned by RDM42. I don't think I've ever made a Perform check other than as a bard or in an explicitly themed campaign (e.g., we're the Partridge Family and we're a traveling band). So when my wizard takes negative ranks in every Perform skill ever, it's simply free skill points.
Or when my fighter takes negative ranks in Perform.
How many Profession skills are there that I will never roll? [So, I have a -5 in Profession (neatherd). What's a neatherd, anyway?] How many free skill points can I put in something I will actually use, like Knowledge skills or Perception?
ETA you might limit the damage this rule will do if you limit negative ranks to class skills only, and not to open-ended skills like Craft/Profession/Perform. That would help ensure that the disadvantages are real disadvantages. But even there, negative skill ranks in Climb are meaningless when you can fly....
Yeah with perform you are right, but the player could only get 2 more skills per level from that and the more negatives they put the GM could have some fun making them relevant in an encounter every now and then.
On the other hand profession is a trained skill so the PC's would not be able to take any negative ranks on them.
And again just to be clear you could only have a cumulative negative skill ranks on a particular skill equal to your level, so if your character is a level 1 character they would not be able to allocate less than -1.
Something that could work is to put negatives further than a mere check as the negative skill stack, up to each GM.
|
I can see possible value of allowing this at first level, if you were to limit the number of skills that you could go negative on.
I'm not sure it's realistic to have characters get worse and worse at some skills as they grow in experience and overall ability. "Yeah, Victar over there was bad at figuring out how much things were worth when we started dungeon delving... these days, he doesn't know whats more valuable between gold pieces and copper pieces"
It might be funny, and if that's the kind of campaign you want then by all means... but I would limit this to a first level thing to allow low skill rank classes to pick up a couple extra class skills. No negative skill points after that.
I can see possible value of allowing this at first level, if you were to limit the number of skills that you could go negative on.
I'm not sure it's realistic to have characters get worse and worse at some skills as they grow in experience and overall ability. "Yeah, Victar over there was bad at figuring out how much things were worth when we started dungeon delving... these days, he doesn't know whats more valuable between gold pieces and copper pieces"
It might be funny, and if that's the kind of campaign you want then by all means... but I would limit this to a first level thing to allow low skill rank classes to pick up a couple extra class skills. No negative skill points after that.
Of course this is an optional thing for the PC's they don't have to take it if they don's wish to. I think its of value to allow them to choose what they can take penalties on to get different benefits on other skills.
This could also symbolise skills being neglected in exchange of expertise on others, no?
A trained skill gives you a +3 on that skill check with one rank, so at first level you would get +4 to your roll. To get a skill check in another class skill, add a -1 to the skill check of a classs skill you have a rank in. To get a + 1 on a class skill you don't have a rank in. You can only get one -1 skill check per level in a class skill. No skill check can have more than a -3 on it.
So the first level fighter with an intelligence of 10 gets 2 skill ranks.
He takes a skill rank in Ride and Perception.
Ride is a class skill so he has a +4 on Ride checks.
Perception is not a class skill so he gets +1 on Perception checks.
He decides to take a -1 on his Ride chece, to get a +1 on another class skill.
He chooses Intimidate.
He now has skill checks at:
Ride +3
Perception +1
Intimidate +1
At second level, he puts a rank in Climb and Perception. Takes a -1 to Climb, to get +1 on Intimidate.
He now has skill checks at:
Climb +3
Ride +3
Intimidate +2
Perception +2
|
|
Yeah with perform you are right, but the player could only get 2 more skills per level from that and the more negatives they put the GM could have some fun making them relevant in an encounter every now and then.
I may have missed something here, but what is preventing the player from taking minuses in more than 2 preform skills? What is preventing the character from taking negative ranks in enough perform and craft skills from maxing out ranks in every other skill in the game?
How much worse is it really to have -6 perform:keyboard than to have -2 from just having dumped CHA? Sure, you can design an encounter where the penalty is relevant, but was anyone going to be able to be successful at that skill if no one dumped it anyways?
This could also symbolise skills being neglected in exchange of expertise on others, no?
I'm not sure I agree. If you have no ranks in a skill then you have (virtually)no experience with the task. continuing to not do something that you have never tried before does not make you worse at it, so I don't see how you could continue to get so bad at a skill that you eventually get to -20 ranks
Pathfinder is not like 4th edition where you slowly get better at all skills, you only train in the ones you allocate skill ranks to, any skills you don't put ranks in are already the skills you are neglecting.
Retraining exists in Ultimate Campaign to facilitate reorganizing skill ranks once certain things become no longer necessary (like a spell becoming available at higher levels, or versatile performance coming online).
Every class can have access to more skill ranks, via background skills and other various feats that pump the skills up. One of the new horror books (the player companion one) has a feat that let's you pick a skill on the fly to max out.
I would consider those options before looking at house rules.
I think that you could do better with adding flaws and traits. The flaw would give you a penalty on a particular skill and the trait would give you a bonus. You wouldn't get any extra skill ranks.