Aaaand another version. I was bored. I'll just keep updating this one rather than continue posting new links.
Well
* There are fewer skills now so each skill point is more valuable in 2e than they were in 1e.
* There seems to be no point to dumping Int now as well so there are going to be more skill points to go around for maritals just based on that.
3+ skills for barbs and fighters might be just fine based on those two pretty big things.
Edit:
Oh yeah, being untrained in a skill isn't nearly as crippling in 2e as having no ranks in a skill is in 1e. So that's a major change in and of itself.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well
* There are fewer skills now so each skill point is more valuable in 2e than they were in 1e.
* There seems to be no point to dumping Int now as well so there are going to be more skill points to go around for maritals just based on that.3+ skills for barbs and fighters might be just fine based on those two pretty big things.
Edit:
Oh yeah, being untrained in a skill isn't nearly as crippling in 2e as having no ranks in a skill is in 1e. So that's a major change in and of itself.
The issue is not whether it's 'enough' skills based on a percentage of the skill list, it's based on comparing them to other Classes. So the issue is the Druid, a full caster who thus definitionally has non-combat options the Fighter and Barbarian can't even approximate, having more skills too. Heck, based on Signature Skills, it looks like Sorcerers also have 4+Int.
Full casters having more skills than Fighters is not cool.