Number of skill proficiencies by class seems skewed


Classes


Has anyone else been looking over the number of proficiencies each class is allotted? I think that the way it is currently presented martial classes are severely restricted in the ways they can specialize for roleplay AND utility.

Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians last I checked get 3 proficiencies to start with. This is seems strange because that is barely enough to hit the major skills they need to be good at. Athletics, acrobatics, and maybe stealth or survival. I understand that every other level you get a bonus proficiency which helps a lot, however compared to classes with casting things start to get strange. Paladins get 4 proficiencies starting. That seems like a reasonable amount but it's more than martial classes without access to spells (which grant a massive amount of utility) get.

What I don't understand at all is that the full casting classes get far more proficiencies to start than martials. Clerics and Sorcerors get 5, Druids get 4, Bards (which I understand are supposed to be the skill monkeys of casters) get 7! Of course Rogue deserves special mention for having a boggling 10 proficiencies and twice as many increases as any other class, which might be overkill.

It's always been my opinion that martial classes should get equivalent or more skills than casters because otherwise they are pigeonholed into combat only and become dead weight outside of a narrow skillset, which is why lots of players prefer to play classes with at least a little magic and being the fighter is often considered a necessary chore. This kind of setup guarantees casters will be awesome at all sorts of things and totally outshine other classes in rp and general utility. Weigh in and let me know if I'm missing something or if this is crazy unbalanced.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

From my other post regarding Wizard Signature skills, here's my list of number of Signature skill by class as well as trained skills by class:

Alchemist: 3 (2+Int trained)
Barbarian: 3 (3+Int trained)
Bard: 7 (7+Int trained)
Cleric: 5 (5+Int trained)
Druid: 4 (4+Int trained)
Fighter: 3 (3+Int trained)
Monk: 3 (3+Int trained)
Paladin: 4 (4+Int trained)
Ranger: 6 (6+Int trained)
Rogue: 10 (10+Int trained)
Sorcerer: 5 (5+Int trained)
Wizard: 2 (2+Int trained)

Not that due to the mechanics of flat level based skill increases, you can theoretically only train a maximum of 7 skills total to Master level, or 3 Legendary and 1 Master skill.

It's interesting to note that both Int based classes get the least amount of bonus trained skills, meaning an 18 Int Wizard is trained in only one more skill than a 10 Int Sorcerer, and has far fewer class Signature skill options to increase above Expert.

Overall, I highly dislike Signature skills as a mechanic and believe they should be removed entirely, allowing any class to spend their levels in any skill they wish. I don't see anything inherently unbalancing in a Fighter that's trained his whole life in moving stealthily, or a Monk that's spent years becoming one with Nature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JDLPF wrote:

Overall, I highly dislike Signature skills as a mechanic and believe they should be removed entirely, allowing any class to spend their levels in any skill they wish. I don't see anything inherently unbalancing in a Fighter that's trained his whole life in moving stealthily, or a Monk that's spent years becoming one with Nature.

Thanks for the reference list that really makes it easier to digest!!!

I highly agree that Signature skills is unnecessary and only further limits character choice. Skill points work just fine and I don't see anyone complaining about that system being broken. However whether or not it is kept for the final version I'd really like to see at least the lowest 3 (fighter, barbarian, monk) get 5 proficiencies or base skill points per level. No reason to nerf players for not choosing to be a magical ponce.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Oddyssis wrote:
JDLPF wrote:

Overall, I highly dislike Signature skills as a mechanic and believe they should be removed entirely, allowing any class to spend their levels in any skill they wish. I don't see anything inherently unbalancing in a Fighter that's trained his whole life in moving stealthily, or a Monk that's spent years becoming one with Nature.

Thanks for the reference list that really makes it easier to digest!!!

I highly agree that Signature skills is unnecessary and only further limits character choice. Skill points work just fine and I don't see anyone complaining about that system being broken. However whether or not it is kept for the final version I'd really like to see at least the lowest 3 (fighter, barbarian, monk) get 5 proficiencies or base skill points per level. No reason to nerf players for not choosing to be a magical ponce.

historically speaking, it is the entire reason to nerf them.


Really wish that they ditched the "dumb muscle warrior" image, it's a loathsome discrimination! Real "dumb muscles" cannot survive in their field for so long to make names for themselves anyway.

So more skill points for non-casters, please. Actually, it would be best to have more to less skill points in the order of...

Rogue (10)
Fighter (9)
Barbarian / Monk (8)
Paladin / Ranger (7)
Bard (6)
Sorcerer (5)
Cleric / Druid (4)
Alchemist (3)
Wizard (2)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that casters are going to need to be at least 1 skill proficiency up over martial in this system the way that so much magical stuff is depending on them keeping their magical casting skill at maximum ranks.


Unicore wrote:
I think that casters are going to need to be at least 1 skill proficiency up over martial in this system the way that so much magical stuff is depending on them keeping their magical casting skill at maximum ranks.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it means that casters will naturally be inclined to invest in intelligence and focus on their areas of expertise, which is the way a caster should be. I'm not arguing that they all get 2 base either, just that the martials start with a lot more skillpoints or proficiencies so they can be versatile too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like 3 +Int trained skills at 1st level and only 3 signature skills is simply too low for any class. If casters absolutely need to keep their Arcana/Religion/Nature/Occultism up to keep pace so get an extra trained skill for that, why shouldn't martials get an extra skill point for like "Athletics" which is pretty essential in the fray.

Monk, Fighter, and Barbarian all need an additional trained skill and one or two more signature skills.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

An error that occurs a lot is people thinking that the sorcerer are getting 5+Int skills when it fact they are getting 5+Int+4 skill training determined by their bloodline.

It means that the sorcerer has 9 Skills trained at first level and 5 signature skills, that makes the sorcerer the 2nd best class at skills after Rogue and before the Bard, even if the Bard can mitigate the differences with his classes feats that enable him to substitute some skills with performance/occultism for checks.


Unicore wrote:
I think that casters are going to need to be at least 1 skill proficiency up over martial in this system the way that so much magical stuff is depending on them keeping their magical casting skill at maximum ranks.

Their casting levels up through their class. It has nothing to do with skills. They all get expert/master/legendary spellcaster at 12/16/19

Darkorin wrote:

An error that occurs a lot is people thinking that the sorcerer are getting 5+Int skills when it fact they are getting 5+Int+4 skill training determined by their bloodline.

Actually, the error is more likely in the text. Bloodline Signature Skills is more than likely just that- it just sets 4 skills as signature by bloodline plus crafting, and a sorcerer just chooses 5 to be trained in.

Sovereign Court

Voss wrote:


Darkorin wrote:

An error that occurs a lot is people thinking that the sorcerer are getting 5+Int skills when it fact they are getting 5+Int+4 skill training determined by their bloodline.

Actually, the error is more likely in the text. Bloodline Signature Skills is more than likely just that- it just sets 4 skills as signature by bloodline plus crafting, and a sorcerer just chooses 5 to be trained in.

I do agree, but as long as we don't have any official confirmation from Paizo Staffers, I will keep on consider it this way.

My guess is that at some point the Sorcerers had a 2 free skills + Bloodline skills trained + Int, but there have been iterative changes that changed that.

We currently do not know if it should be read 5+Int skills, X+Bloodline skills+Int, or if the current 5+Int+Bloodline skills is the truth.

The fact that the Devs said that the bard is the second best in term of skills and that in the playtest the sorcerer is the second best shows that there is probably some kind of error somewhere.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Lucas Yew wrote:

Really wish that they ditched the "dumb muscle warrior" image, it's a loathsome discrimination! Real "dumb muscles" cannot survive in their field for so long to make names for themselves anyway.

So more skill points for non-casters, please. Actually, it would be best to have more to less skill points in the order of...

Rogue (10)
Fighter (9)
Barbarian / Monk (8)
Paladin / Ranger (7)
Bard (6)
Sorcerer (5)
Cleric / Druid (4)
Alchemist (3)
Wizard (2)

You're missing that Sorcerers also are trained in the 4 signature skills that they get from their bloodline, which was probably not intended, but is currently how it's written, so they actually get 9 + Int.


I think one thing that should be prevented by the numbers in the rules is the possibility of a character investing skill points only in signature skills, of which there are three, making all three of them legendary.

So if you're playing a class with 3 signature skills, who get 3+Int trained skills at level 1, since you get 9 skill ups and it takes 3 to make a trained skill legendary, it's possible you run the risk of effectively minimizing the number of skill choices this character makes.

At the least everybody should have 4 trained skills (so they can't all go to legendary) and 4 signature skills (so they can't all go to legendary). I mean, this technically is the case with the lore skill from your background but it's likely that "Circus Lore" will rarely be judged to be as important as things like Stealth or Arcana or Athletics.


JDLPF wrote:

From my other post regarding Wizard Signature skills, here's my list of number of Signature skill by class as well as trained skills by class:

Alchemist: 3 (2+Int trained)
Barbarian: 3 (3+Int trained)
Bard: 7 (7+Int trained)
Cleric: 5 (5+Int trained)
Druid: 4 (4+Int trained)
Fighter: 3 (3+Int trained)
Monk: 3 (3+Int trained)
Paladin: 4 (4+Int trained)
Ranger: 6 (6+Int trained)
Rogue: 10 (10+Int trained)
Sorcerer: 5 (5+Int trained)
Wizard: 2 (2+Int trained)

Not that due to the mechanics of flat level based skill increases, you can theoretically only train a maximum of 7 skills total to Master level, or 3 Legendary and 1 Master skill.

It's interesting to note that both Int based classes get the least amount of bonus trained skills, meaning an 18 Int Wizard is trained in only one more skill than a 10 Int Sorcerer, and has far fewer class Signature skill options to increase above Expert.

Overall, I highly dislike Signature skills as a mechanic and believe they should be removed entirely, allowing any class to spend their levels in any skill they wish. I don't see anything inherently unbalancing in a Fighter that's trained his whole life in moving stealthily, or a Monk that's spent years becoming one with Nature.

Where did you got the 3 legendary + 1 Master from?

Apart from rogue, everyone seem to cap at 3 leg only.


Yeah non-casters should definetly get more skills then casters. Even from a logical sense it takes an investment to learn magic so it makes sense that they would have less time in wizard (or whatever) school to learn more skills.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / Number of skill proficiencies by class seems skewed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Classes