Fighters, Monks, and Barbs getting 3 skills is pathetic.


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as a favorite.

Clerics and Sorcerers get 5 Skills! 5! Alchemists and Wizards are limited to 2, but as INT based characters they'll almost always be adding +4. Bards are now Full casters but still get 7 skills!

How does this make sense? Why are Fighters, Barbs, and Monks getting such a pitiful number of skills? Why are they so much worse at skills than every caster in the game (other than the Druid, who has been bumped down to 3 after initially being at 4)?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why skills as a mechanic haven't been split off into their own section yet, to be evaluated and balanced on their own, giving all classes the same base number of points or ranks to start.


Yeah, I noticed that a while back as well. It seems that the number of skills you get is based on the number of signature skills your class has, when really some classes could use a few more.

It also feels like being compelled to choose from your signature skills to be good, since you can't get more than expert proficiency in non signature skills.

However, intelligence already doesn't do much, just more trained skills and one bonus language if it's at 14, so on the other end of it I'd be worried that adding more skills to those classes would make it even less useful.

do note that with bonus spells gone, not every wizard is necessarily going to pump Int all the way to max anymore(especially with how people keep talking about how strong multiclassing into fighter is now.) a lot of them will probably add 2 or 3 trained skills instead of 4, depending on how gishy they want to be.

Nevertheless, Fighters, monks and barbarians shouldn't get fewer skills than clerics.


But getting more for Int, and as you level, gains you quite a few.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Clerics and Sorcerers get 5 Skills! 5! Alchemists and Wizards are limited to 2, but as INT based characters they'll almost always be adding +4. Bards are now Full casters but still get 7 skills!

How does this make sense? Why are Fighters, Barbs, and Monks getting such a pitiful number of skills? Why are they so much worse at skills than every caster in the game (other than the Druid, who has been bumped down to 3 after initially being at 4)?

How does it make sense that the smartest characters in the game barely have more skills than the least likely to be intelligent? Wizards and Alchemists should have 4 or 5 skill points plus intelligence and lore skills should be packaged to be more useful and not as narrowly focused as has been presented in the playtest. Who is really going to make use of lore gladiator or lore gnoll after more than a few levels? The lore skills need to be broadened considerably

Liberty's Edge

32 people marked this as a favorite.

Magic users having no more skills than martial characters is one of the few ways to keep martial characters relevant in non-combat activities. Casters having more is deeply annoying to me personally, and not at all fun for martial players.

In terms of realism, both Alchemists and Wizards spend a fair amount of their time and energy studying magic and alchemy, respectively. It thus makes a fair amount of sense that they'd have no more skills than even less intelligent people who need to invest less time in one focused area. Advanced mathematicians are not known for having vastly more different skills than Special Forces soldiers (who admittedly tend to be fairly bright), y'know?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Magic users having no more skills than martial characters is one of the few ways to keep martial characters relevant in non-combat activities. Casters having more is deeply annoying to me personally, and not at all fun for martial players.

In terms of realism, both Alchemists and Wizards spend a fair amount of their time and energy studying magic and alchemy, respectively. It thus makes a fair amount of sense that they'd have no more skills than even less intelligent people who need to invest less time in one focused area. Advanced mathematicians are not known for having vastly more different skills than Special Forces soldiers (who admittedly tend to be fairly bright), y'know?

On the flipside, you're "punishing" wizards and alchemist for being Int based.

What's the point of Int as a stat if starting skills get decoupled from it.

Why does the cleric and the sorc and the druid get just 1 less skill when they have 10 int as opposed to 18 int Wizards?

Clerics didn't need to study for equal years just to learn their scriptures?

It's completely ridiculous that Non-int casters get "free 16 int" "just because".

I don't see wizard getting free +3 perception /initiative/will (wis based casters)

Martials should keep their extra free skills, ALL casters need to drop down to 2+int (and 0 from domains and whatnot)

Alternative, give int an actual benefit like allowing all and every Recall Knowledge to be rolled with Int instead of Int/wis and make medicine make sense by making it Int based (medicine being Wis based is ridiculous). Making resonance int+cha+level can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
shroudb wrote:
On the flipside, you're "punishing" wizards and alchemist for being Int based.

I'm really not. I'm perfectly happy with them having around as many Skills base as others, maybe a single skill less to avoid being overpowered (in reality, their free +2 Int from Class would thus make their skill totals identical). This would put Alchemist and Wizard at 3-4 Skills, assuming most martials had 4-5. That seems fine.

My issue is not primarily with those Classes, it's with Cleric and Sorcerer having flatly better Skills than Fighter despite both not being Int-based and the Cleric and Sorcerer also having 9th level spells.

shroudb wrote:

What's the point of Int as a stat if starting skills get decoupled from it.

Why does the cleric and the sorc and the druid get just 1 less skill when they have 10 int as opposed to 18 int Wizards?

Clerics didn't need to study for equal years just to learn their scriptures?

It's completely ridiculous that Non-int casters get "free 16 int" "just because".

I don't see wizard getting free +3 perception /initiative/will (wis based casters)

Martials should keep their extra free skills, ALL casters need to drop down to 2+int (and 0 from domains and whatnot)

Alternative, give int an actual benefit like allowing all and every Recall Knowledge to be rolled with Int instead of Int/wis and make medicine make sense by making it Int based (medicine being Wis based is ridiculous). Making resonance int+cha+level can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Dropping down to 2+Int Skills is super un-fun and I don't recommend it for anyone. I'd much rather drop Cleric and Sorcerer to 4 and raise Wizard to 3 and Martials in general to 4 minimum. Or better yet, raise everyone not Int-based to 5 minimum and Alchemists and Wizards to 4.

I also don't think adding Int to Resonance is a good plan. It adding skills is really pretty awesome already, the class skill numbers just need some adjustment,


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dropping down to 2+Int Skills is super un-fun and I don't recommend it for anyone. I'd much rather drop Cleric and Sorcerer to 4 and raise Wizard to 3 and Martials in general to 4 minimum.

This.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
shroudb wrote:
On the flipside, you're "punishing" wizards and alchemist for being Int based.

I'm really not. I'm perfectly happy with them having around as many Skills base as others, maybe a single skill less to avoid being overpowered (in reality, their free +2 Int from Class would thus make their skill totals identical). This would put Alchemist and Wizard at 3-4 Skills, assuming most martials had 4-5. That seems fine.

My issue is not primarily with those Classes, it's with Cleric and Sorcerer having flatly better Skills than Fighter despite both not being Int-based and the Cleric and Sorcerer also having 9th level spells.

shroudb wrote:

What's the point of Int as a stat if starting skills get decoupled from it.

Why does the cleric and the sorc and the druid get just 1 less skill when they have 10 int as opposed to 18 int Wizards?

Clerics didn't need to study for equal years just to learn their scriptures?

It's completely ridiculous that Non-int casters get "free 16 int" "just because".

I don't see wizard getting free +3 perception /initiative/will (wis based casters)

Martials should keep their extra free skills, ALL casters need to drop down to 2+int (and 0 from domains and whatnot)

Alternative, give int an actual benefit like allowing all and every Recall Knowledge to be rolled with Int instead of Int/wis and make medicine make sense by making it Int based (medicine being Wis based is ridiculous). Making resonance int+cha+level can kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Dropping down to 2+Int Skills is super un-fun and I don't recommend it for anyone. I'd much rather drop Cleric and Sorcerer to 4 and raise Wizard to 3 and Martials in general to 4 minimum. Or better yet, raise everyone not Int-based to 5 minimum and Alchemists and Wizards to 4.

I also don't think adding Int to Resonance is a good plan. It adding skills is really pretty awesome already, the class skill numbers just need some adjustment,

but you are!

you can't say that 5 base skills= 2 skills
you can't say that 4 base skills= 2 skills
etc

you most certainly CAN'T justify those classes having lower BASE skills because Int is their main stat and that brings them up to equal footing.

to give you the exact same analog:

"Expected perception is (random number) +5"
So, let's give wizards +4 perception base
"Expected will saving throw is 5"
So, let's give wizards +4 will saving throw
"Expected resonance is 5"
So, let's give wizards +4 resonance

I'm sure you'll agree that "BASING BASE NUMBERS OFF MAIN STAT" now seem idiotic.

and yet... "it's unfun to play with 2 skills"

well:
It's REALLY unfun to play with +1 initiative and +1 perception and +1will... THAT'S WHY YOU PUT STATS INTO WISDOM

much more unfun than getting less skills at trained rank (since all classes excpet rogue) actually get the same amount of "skill points" irregardless of stats

lastly, once more:
Int atm is the dump stat of dump stats. out of 3 tables that we talk, out of 2 adventures each, out of 17 non-wizard/alcehmists we don't have a single character who put a Single ability boost to int. Not.One. Not.A.Single.Boost. It's that useless (and adding just base trained skills certainly won't fix that)

Int has been 100% decoupled from skills at this point. So just let it have an actual benefit

p.s. I love how your "balance" suggesdtion STILL has clerics and Druids with higher base skills compared to wizards... like.. WHY?


Jason S wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Dropping down to 2+Int Skills is super un-fun and I don't recommend it for anyone. I'd much rather drop Cleric and Sorcerer to 4 and raise Wizard to 3 and Martials in general to 4 minimum.

This.

it's much more unfun to play with +1 initiative and +1 perception

but that's what people who don't pump wisdom get.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Clearly, the solution would be to raise the skill points of fighters, monks and barbarians, not to punish the cleric and sorcerer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Clearly, the solution would be to raise the skill points of fighters, monks and barbarians, not to punish the cleric and sorcerer.

clearly the solution is removing skills from Int and making Int actually do something because now it just hinders Int classes. alternatively if you want to keep Int being the "skill" stat, let it raise up to expert rank and not only trained. That's an actual benefit of a stat

to put it bluntly why this petition of martials shows exactly how bad INT classes have it:

you boost 4 stats each time.

even if you boost all 3 physical stats.

still NO ONE wants to have his 4th boost being Int (just for a trained skill)

that's why fighters/monks/barbarians want more base skill points, because Int is effing useless and no one wants to boost it.

Now... imagine being a main Int, where your main stat is the ONE stat that NO ONE wants to boost ever.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I would like is for classes to be given skill ranks in some of their signature skills, and then some other "free" skill ranks, similar to how one's background gives them the choice of one stat boost between two choices (e.g. Con or Wis for the Farmhand background) and one "free" choice for everything else.

Like something like Fighters are trained in 2 of {Intimidate, Craft, Athletics, Acrobatics} and 2+IntMod additional skills.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually that has nothing to do with the issue of base skill points being low for the mentioned three classes.

But, yes, INT not being a very useful stat outside of spell DC's is definitely an issue which should be adressed. Especially since spell DC's are kinda less useful now, since blasting is a sad joke. Still relevant for save or suck spells, though, although they also have been nerfed badly. Like all spells have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

Actually that has nothing to do with the issue of base skill points being low for the mentioned three classes.

But, yes, INT not being a very useful stat outside of spell DC's is definitely an issue which should be adressed. Especially since spell DC's are kinda less useful now, since blasting is a sad joke. Still relevant for save or suck spells, though, although they also have been nerfed badly. Like all spells have.

thing is, if Int was useful in someway, most people wouldn't mind pumping it and get extra skills.

but it's such a joke atm that everybody wants to get all the skill he needs with 10 Int.

Meanwhile, everybody wants to use all his boosts in the other stats because they actually DO something.

You don't see people arguing that they need higher base Perception, because Wisdom is so universally King atm that you want to pump it either way, so why not get some free perception along the way. And etc


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:

Actually that has nothing to do with the issue of base skill points being low for the mentioned three classes.

But, yes, INT not being a very useful stat outside of spell DC's is definitely an issue which should be adressed. Especially since spell DC's are kinda less useful now, since blasting is a sad joke. Still relevant for save or suck spells, though, although they also have been nerfed badly. Like all spells have.

Yes, casters are in bad shape. They went way too far. But more on that in a different post.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Are we sure this isn't a typo? Paladins get 4 + Int per level, and it feels like that's where martials ought to be.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Are we sure this isn't a typo? Paladins get 4 + Int per level, and it feels like that's where martials ought to be.

well... they went over a pass on starting skills in the 1st errata. if it were a typo, you'd guess they would have mentioned (and errata) the other classes as well.


All int classes should start out with 3 +int skills because of the way characterdevelopment works in this edition.
No one needs to dump stats and that is the big difference to the old edition. Int classes got so few starting skills in PF1 because they already get so many extra points compared to other classes who usually don't invest in int.
Other classes actually have the boosts available to do that now. There is a misbalance because of that on higher levels between the int-classes and the other classes which doesn't make much sense from a balancing perspective.
In the light of characterprogression, Fighter, Monk and Barbarian are more than fine with getting 3 skills.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:

All int classes should start out with 3 +int skills because of the way characterdevelopment works in this edition.

No one needs to dump stats and that is the big difference to the old edition. Int classes got so few starting skills in PF1 because they already get so many extra points compared to other classes who usually don't invest in int.
Other classes actually have the boosts available to do that now. There is a misbalance because of that on higher levels between the int-classes and the other classes which doesn't make much sense from a balancing perspective.
In the light of characterprogression, Fighter, Monk and Barbarian are more than fine with getting 3 skills.

so... if all Int classes start with 3+Int

and all martials start with 3+int

why should sorcs, druids, clerics, and others NOT start with 3+int?


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Magic users having no more skills than martial characters is one of the few ways to keep martial characters relevant in non-combat activities. Casters having more is deeply annoying to me personally, and not at all fun for martial players.

In terms of realism, both Alchemists and Wizards spend a fair amount of their time and energy studying magic and alchemy, respectively. It thus makes a fair amount of sense that they'd have no more skills than even less intelligent people who need to invest less time in one focused area. Advanced mathematicians are not known for having vastly more different skills than Special Forces soldiers (who admittedly tend to be fairly bright), y'know?

This is what I was going to post, but way more clear than what I could have written.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Give everyone the same skill numbers, apart from specific skill monkey classes, and make intelligence bonus only apply to extra lore skills. That's how I've always run 3.x anyway, intelligence only applies to extra knowledge skills, penalty makes no dif.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Funny how nobody is talking about Rogues. They basically funnel every skill from other martials into it in order to keep it relevant. I would rather have Rogues more in line with other martials in combat and then tone down its skills and increase the other martial ability to perform things outside of combat. I hope Paizo don't try to make another OPerative again with them. It sucks to be outclassed when you are a skill monkey as well.


mach1.9pants wrote:
Give everyone the same skill numbers, apart from specific skill monkey classes, and make intelligence bonus only apply to extra lore skills. That's how I've always run 3.x anyway, intelligence only applies to extra knowledge skills, penalty makes no dif.

intelligence then would have to have some form of additional bonus if it does practically nothing ("lores" is just professions in this edition, and Knowledges have been split away from Int in a 50-50 split)

you basically neutered a stat to do nothing.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Are we sure this isn't a typo? Paladins get 4 + Int per level, and it feels like that's where martials ought to be.

They've noted an intent to fix Fighters to the 4+Int level. No similar note has been made about Barbarians, and even if they did this, it really doesn't solve the problem, since Sorcerers and Clerics get 5+Int Skills.

I mean, it helps, sure, but 5 is still better than 4 and having spells is still better than not having them, utility-wise. And making non-Rogue martials able to compete with casters at skills is really important.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spellcasters do probably need to have fewer skills than martial characters, so I'm fine with that. Wherever spellcasters land for skill ranks, all spellcasters should land there. Wizards shouldn't be lower than other casters. Shroud is right that it doesn't feel good to see Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Bard getting the full benefits out of their primary ability score while Wizards don't. If focusing int is too good, change what int does; don't punish the class that uses it.

Alchemists aren't spellcasters in this edition. They don't have anywhere near the utility and flexibility of a spellcaster. They should be up with all the martials at 5-6 base ranks, again regardless that they use int as their primary ability score.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll note that several classes actually do get some better bonuses to the things Wisdom does than Clerics do (Bard leaps to mind, with better Perception Proficiency and eventually better Will Save Proficiency), compensating for lower Wis to some degree with such bonuses (but probably only to the tune of the equivalent of +1 or +2 Wis modifier). That sort of thing shouldn't be vastly more common for Int than other stats, though, you're probably right.

So that's probably fair for the most part, though Alchemists probably should get caster-level Skills, simply because I think you're undervaluing Alchemy. It isn't as good as spellcasting, true, but it's a whole lot better than the nothing full martials receive comparatively.

Additionally, a few Skill focused Classes having extra skills also seems totally reasonable (Ranger, Bard, and Rogue would fall into this category, of the corebook classes).

But something standardized like Casters at 4, Martials at 5, then Ranger & Bard at 7 and Rogue at 9, seems very reasonable, number-wise.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'll note that several classes actually do get some better bonuses to the things Wisdom does than Clerics do (Bard leaps to mind, with better Perception Proficiency and eventually better Will Save Proficiency), compensating for lower Wis to some degree with such bonuses (but probably only to the tune of the equivalent of +1 or +2 Wis modifier). That sort of thing shouldn't be vastly more common for Int than other stats, though, you're probably right.

So that's probably fair for the most part, though Alchemists probably should get caster-level Skills, simply because I think you're undervaluing Alchemy. It isn't as good as spellcasting, true, but it's a whole lot better than the nothing full martials receive comparatively.

Additionally, a few Skill focused Classes having extra skills also seems totally reasonable (Ranger, Bard, and Rogue would fall into this category, of the corebook classes).

But something standardized like Casters at 4, Martials at 5, then Ranger & Bard at 7 and Rogue at 9, seems very reasonable, number-wise.

the thing that i want to add to that, is that Int atm doesn't actually make you better at anything. it instead makes you average on more things.

maybe that's why it stinks to raise (or to have to raise) it.

raising a stat, any stat except Int, makes you BETTER at something, be it damage, ac, saves, magical item usage, initiative, something.

raising Int instead gives you more trained skills, but doesn't make you better at anything, hence, from a balance perspective, since this is an rpg and growing better at stuff is what you want 100% of the time, it's why it's so subpar.

that's why one of my suggestions was to allow for the extra Int skills (or at the very least the ones you get from Int boost at 5/10/15/20) to allow someone to increase a trained skill up to expert instead of staying forever as a "basic skill usage unlock".


shroudb said wrote:


so... if all Int classes start with 3+Int
and all martials start with 3+int

why should sorcs, druids, clerics, and others NOT start with 3+int?

Exactly. Penalizing INT-Classes makes no sense in the current version of P2e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Repentia wrote:
Exactly. Penalizing INT-Classes makes no sense in the current version of P2e.

It should definitely be a lot more even.

I don't even believe that Rangers, Bards, and Rogues should have an insane amount of initial trained skills beyond what every other class else gets.

Back in PF1, Rangers got more skills because the skills were so spread out. They needed Knowledge Nature, Animal Handling perhaps, Survival, Perception, Climb, Swim, Disable Device (traps), maybe Heal, Ride, and of course Stealth. 10 skills in total.

Now those iconic Ranger skills are only 5 skills in PF2 (Athletics, Nature, Survival, Stealth, Thievery). I'm OK with a Ranger have 1 more base trained skilled than other martials (assuming the other martials start at 4), so 5 trained skills at 10 Int. Is there really a reason to supply a ranger with trained skills beyond his iconic skills?

The same goes with Rogue, iconic rogue skills have been substantially been compressed, rogues should not have 10 trained base skill and maybe not even 8. This is a discussion in itself, why should a rogue have more knowledge than a wizard or a bard?

Maybe part of the reason why Bards, Rangers, and Rogues will never have more than 10 Int is because they don't need to. It's part of the reason why Int is a dump stat.


Jason S wrote:
Is there really a reason to supply a ranger with trained skills beyond his iconic skills?

So that you can give your character something unique, rather than all rangers having to have the same five to function? So that you can cover more roles for smaller parties?

Anyway, I don't think that those five skills really cover everything I'd want a ranger to have. Acrobatics for balance and battlefield maneuverability. Medicine because they're suppose to be able to take care of themselves alone in the wilderness.

In the previous edition, the ranger got 6 + Int skills. So did the slayer, which was the ranger but better. That's not counting the extra skill from favored class. I don't see any reason they should have less in this edition when the rogue is getting even more than they had before and cleric, sorcerer and bard are getting an increase.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Is there really a reason to supply a ranger with trained skills beyond his iconic skills?

So that you can give your character something unique, rather than all rangers having to have the same five to function? So that you can cover more roles for smaller parties?

Anyway, I don't think that those five skills really cover everything I'd want a ranger to have. Acrobatics for balance and battlefield maneuverability. Medicine because they're suppose to be able to take care of themselves alone in the wilderness.

In the previous edition, the ranger got 6 + Int skills. So did the slayer, which was the ranger but better. That's not counting the extra skill from favored class. I don't see any reason they should have less in this edition when the rogue is getting even more than they had before and cleric, sorcerer and bard are getting an increase.

nature actually covers up "taking care of yourself" in the wild. And there's an accompanying skill feat to actually heal (and more when in natural enviroment) through that.

medicine is more like mediaval medicine, like a science (and it has no reason to be Wis based but that's another issue)

now, they DO get more skills. You see, the old 6+Int were fragmented into much more skills. Now that nature, survival and stealth pretty much covers 90% of what stereotypical rangers are about, that leaves pretty of room to play with.

as for having even more skills, the more skills you get, the same-ish you'll become with every other ranger. If you want your ranger to actually be unique, you don't pick up everything every ranger has and then some, you pick something instead of something else.

as an example, thievery is pretty outside the field of the thing you describe.


shroudb wrote:


now, they DO get more skills. You see, the old 6+Int were fragmented into much more skills. Now that nature, survival and stealth pretty much covers 90% of what stereotypical rangers are about, that leaves pretty of room to play with.

Knowledge (nature) and Handle Animal have been merged in Nature and Climb and Swim have been merged in Athletics, but that's it for changes that would be relevant to a ranger. Stealth and Survival are still the same as PF1. Most of the skills that were merged were Knowledge skills. If you're a rogue/bard then merging Bluff & Disguise and Disable Device & Sleight of Hand are great, but they're not that relevant to the ranger.

shroudb wrote:
as an example, thievery is pretty outside the field of the thing you describe.

It might not seem like an iconic ranger skill, but it was listed as one by the person I was replying to, so I kept it. Anyway, if you're going to try to scout or be the party skill-monkey in general then you need to be able to disarm traps, because D&D/PF adventures love throwing traps at people. All the more so if "snares" are going to be a ranger thing.

If you're living off the land, then you need to be able to Craft what you need, so that's another one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Narration wrote:
shroudb wrote:


now, they DO get more skills. You see, the old 6+Int were fragmented into much more skills. Now that nature, survival and stealth pretty much covers 90% of what stereotypical rangers are about, that leaves pretty of room to play with.

Knowledge (nature) and Handle Animal have been merged in Nature and Climb and Swim have been merged in Athletics, but that's it for changes that would be relevant to a ranger. Stealth and Survival are still the same as PF1. Most of the skills that were merged were Knowledge skills. If you're a rogue/bard then merging Bluff & Disguise and Disable Device & Sleight of Hand are great, but they're not that relevant to the ranger.

shroudb wrote:
as an example, thievery is pretty outside the field of the thing you describe.

It might not seem like an iconic ranger skill, but it was listed as one by the person I was replying to, so I kept it. Anyway, if you're going to try to scout or be the party skill-monkey in general then you need to be able to disarm traps, because D&D/PF adventures love throwing traps at people. All the more so if "snares" are going to be a ranger thing.

If you're living off the land, then you need to be able to Craft what you need, so that's another one.

well, if you want to be a jack of all trades, that can stealth, find/disarm traps, live in the wilds, tame animals, heal people with herbal remedies, track, jump around, craft snares, make your bows, arrows, weapons and armor, and whatnot*

then you can. Start with higher than 10 Int, get more trained skills from the get go, and then just don't reach for 3 legendery skills, but for 4 master and 1 expert and the rest trained skills.

if you want to be jack of all trades, then you can work for it and not have it be a build-in "base" feature of every single class.

*although, everything I listed can probably be done by a ranger with 10-12 Int (if I count right, that's just 6 skills) AND you get a bonus skill from Lore from your background to boot.


The Narration wrote:
So that you can give your character something unique, rather than all rangers having to have the same five to function? So that you can cover more roles for smaller parties?

Couldn't you say that about every character and every class, that everyone wants to have something outside of their iconic skill set to make them unique, including classes like fighter who have only 3 trained skills?

And if you cover all of the iconic skills for a class and then skills that make them unique, why would they boost Int?

I'm not arguing with you, I just want to brainstorm thoughts.

The Narration wrote:
In the previous edition, the ranger got 6 + Int skills. So did the slayer, which was the ranger but better. That's not counting the extra skill from favored class. I don't see any reason they should have less in this edition when the rogue is getting even more than they had before and cleric, sorcerer and bard are getting an increase.

I agree, I'm arguing that the gap should be closer between all classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:


Couldn't you say that about every character and every class, that everyone wants to have something outside of their iconic skill set to make them unique, including classes like fighter who have only 3 trained skills?

Yes, absolutely. The fighter needs to have more skills. 3 + Int in this system is basically the same as what it had before (when you account for the extra skill from favored class), which I know the devs know is too few, because after the core book they never made a martial class with no spells that only had 2 + Int skills ever again.

The ranger's particularly problematic because it actually had its number of skills reduced while the bard became a full caster and had its increased. There just seems to be no rhyme or reason to it.

Honestly, I think there needs to be a lot more skills in general, because with the exception of Savage Worlds, D20 system games are by far the stingiest RPGs when it comes to skills that I've ever played. But non-spellcasters need to have more skills than spellcasters, because spellcasters have spells to let them do nearly anything, but skills are the only versatility that other classes have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arrow17 wrote:
Who is really going to make use of lore gladiator?

Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?


Deadmanwalking wrote:
But something standardized like Casters at 4, Martials at 5, then Ranger & Bard at 7 and Rogue at 9, seems very reasonable, number-wise.

Yes, though I might lower Bard/Ranger to 6, and Rogue to 8, as you get your Int mod, which can be very generous in this edition (increases).

On a side note, I would like Fighter to get better saves, bring back some of the AD&D resistance they are known far (I like fighters being the most resilient to mind-control magic, breath weapons, etc). Suits the genre to me, the warrior/antagonist vs. the evil wizard (Conan, etc).

Grand Lodge

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Clerics and Sorcerers get 5 Skills! 5! Alchemists and Wizards are limited to 2, but as INT based characters they'll almost always be adding +4. Bards are now Full casters but still get 7 skills!

How does this make sense? Why are Fighters, Barbs, and Monks getting such a pitiful number of skills? Why are they so much worse at skills than every caster in the game (other than the Druid, who has been bumped down to 3 after initially being at 4)?

It's simple- because they do gobs of damage with weapons that don't have per day uses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Clerics and Sorcerers get 5 Skills! 5! Alchemists and Wizards are limited to 2, but as INT based characters they'll almost always be adding +4. Bards are now Full casters but still get 7 skills!

How does this make sense? Why are Fighters, Barbs, and Monks getting such a pitiful number of skills? Why are they so much worse at skills than every caster in the game (other than the Druid, who has been bumped down to 3 after initially being at 4)?

It's simple- because they do gobs of damage with weapons that don't have per day uses.

Everyone* in the game can do gobs of damage over and over using weapons. Casters even have limitless use spells that they can cast all day.

*Excpet monks, they aren't actually proficient with any weapons. Oh, or Animal totem Barbarians since using weapons are anathema to them.


Ninja in the Rye wrote:
nogoodscallywag wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Clerics and Sorcerers get 5 Skills! 5! Alchemists and Wizards are limited to 2, but as INT based characters they'll almost always be adding +4. Bards are now Full casters but still get 7 skills!

How does this make sense? Why are Fighters, Barbs, and Monks getting such a pitiful number of skills? Why are they so much worse at skills than every caster in the game (other than the Druid, who has been bumped down to 3 after initially being at 4)?

It's simple- because they do gobs of damage with weapons that don't have per day uses.

Everyone* in the game can do gobs of damage over and over using weapons. Casters even have limitless use spells that they can cast all day.

*Excpet monks, they aren't actually proficient with any weapons. Oh, or Animal totem Barbarians since using weapons are anathema to them.

Cantrips do pathetic damage compared to a martial (and that's fine, they are there to supplement spells while martial attacks are the main thing of martials)

But what the guy who you quoted meant is that martial damage is way higher than caster (it is) while caster have versatility and utility (and they do).

Now, if there should be a "caster" class/archetype that lost most of his utility for raw damage, that's another thing altogether. (although I have the impression that no one would, as an example sacrifice his access to spells for raw damage)


Barbarians original appearance (1st Ed AD&D) is one of the more skill-focused classes, it seems.

Non-Weapon Proficiencies/Skills have always seemed to be a tad tricky in D&D, for some reason.


Vic Ferrari wrote:

Barbarians original appearance (1st Ed AD&D) is one of the more skill-focused classes, it seems.

Non-Weapon Proficiencies/Skills have always seemed to be a tad tricky in D&D, for some reason.

It's a moniker from adnd where free skill choice wasn't really a thing.

Then came 3rd edition and gave an additional system and power over what was before, while simultaneously taking away a non-equal amount of power from the classes that had the "skills" build in.

Thing is, skills aren't equally balanced with themselves. Some are inherently stronger and some weaker. And when you give "free choice" of skills you basically shift the balance depending on what you pick.

This is one reason I actually like signature skills in pf2 (although, a free choice of 1 will be even better imo). You go back to adnd which had the thematic skills "build in" and then you don't have to balance skills one by one, but instead you just have to balance classes and skills become just a "feature" of each class.


shroudb wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Barbarians original appearance (1st Ed AD&D) is one of the more skill-focused classes, it seems.

Non-Weapon Proficiencies/Skills have always seemed to be a tad tricky in D&D, for some reason.

It's a moniker from adnd where free skill choice wasn't really a thing.

What is a moniker for what, from AD&D, exactly? There are no skills, free choice or not, in AD&D.


Vic Ferrari wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Barbarians original appearance (1st Ed AD&D) is one of the more skill-focused classes, it seems.

Non-Weapon Proficiencies/Skills have always seemed to be a tad tricky in D&D, for some reason.

It's a moniker from adnd where free skill choice wasn't really a thing.
What is a moniker for what, from AD&D, exactly? There are no skills, free choice or not, in AD&D.

that was my point.

in adnd, there were no "skills", there were abilities that classes had build in, or simple checks for the rest (as houserules).

when 3rd edition rolled out, it made the free selections of skills a thing, often taking away class abilities (in case of rogue) and making them available to all.

this put an extra layer of balancing factor in (how many skills you get, how strong is each skill, etc)

with signature skills basically making your skills part of your class, this goes away, because now they are more like "class abilities" rather than a free-to-pick-up extra layer.


shroudb wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:
shroudb wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:

Barbarians original appearance (1st Ed AD&D) is one of the more skill-focused classes, it seems.

Non-Weapon Proficiencies/Skills have always seemed to be a tad tricky in D&D, for some reason.

It's a moniker from adnd where free skill choice wasn't really a thing.
What is a moniker for what, from AD&D, exactly? There are no skills, free choice or not, in AD&D.

that was my point.

in adnd, there were no "skills", there were abilities that classes had build in, or simple checks for the rest (as houserules).

when 3rd edition rolled out, it made the free selections of skills a thing, often taking away class abilities (in case of rogue) and making them available to all.

this put an extra layer of balancing factor in (how many skills you get, how strong is each skill, etc)

with signature skills basically making your skills part of your class, this goes away, because now they are more like "class abilities" rather than a free-to-pick-up extra layer.

Ah, yes, gotcha; and I heard something about the table for the AD&D thief abilities/percentages, that it's meant to be used when the situation is uncertain, a chance of failure, not for routine stuff, unfortunately that does not come across from the rules/books.

It seems like Skills really work in a system based around them (no classes), hence why they never seem to quite work as they should in D&D, just an impression/feeling I have developed over the years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Ferrari wrote:


It seems like Skills really work in a system based around them (no classes), hence why they never seem to quite work as they should in D&D, just an impression/feeling I have developed over the years.

Having played both skill-based and D20 RPGs over the years, I don't think this is necessarily the case.

The big differences, I think, are that in skill-based RPGs you get way, way more skills (except for Savage Worlds), that there are no restrictions on what skills you can take, and that the progression happens more slowly and individually.

You usually start out more generally competent in skill-based RPGs, with some key skills that are elite-tier and quite a few things that you are at least decent or passable at, but improve rather gradually after that, and likely do more broadening of your skillset rather than pushing your best skills up to the max, since the increases usually get more expensive the higher the skill rank you already have.

The big problems with D&D and skills, I felt, was always how incredibly stingy they were with the skill points if you weren't a rogue (2+Int is a joke, especially for a non-spellcaster), and how rigidly they limited what ones you could have to try and keep everyone in these narrow little niches. There's also the issue of how easy it is to get an outrageously large bonus, but if we're limiting item and circumstance bonuses more and tossing Skill Focus then I think that issue's already substantially reduced.

My last couple PF1 characters were a slayer and a stalker (from Path of War), both of which had 6+Int, and I felt like they both managed to have a pretty decently broad skillset with that amount (plus the extra skill point from favored class and two free Knowledge Skills from the optional Background Skills rule). And PF1 isn't too restrictive in terms of what skills you can take: if it's not a class skill you miss out on a +3 bonus (unless you take a trait to make it a class skill), but it's nowhere near as bad as 3E (where you could only get half as many ranks at twice the cost in cross-class skills) or PF2 (where your advancement in non-Signature Skills is capped at 3rd level).

The main things that D20 needs to do to make skills more workable, I think, are to give way more of them to most of the classes (especially non-rogue martials) and loosen the restrictions on what skills you can take based on class. I feel like PF2 took a step backwards on both of these rather than a step forward. Also, that skills that mostly just provide character flavor like Knowledge, Craft, Profession and Perform probably shouldn't come out of the same pool as skills that you actually use to do cool things, like Acrobatics and Stealth and Perception. They're really just not on par in terms of how often you can use them, so taking a skill for flavor winds up costing you heavily in encounters. PF2 takes a small step in this direction with the free Lore skill from Background, for what that's worth.

(More specific to PF2, there's a serious problem with a lot of the DCs appearing to have been copied over from PF1 without accounting for the lower bonuses in this system, resulting in a lot of the skill checks being unreasonably difficult, combined with critical failures and the loss of Take 10 and Take 20. See the stories of people breaking twenty or thirty lockpicks trying to pick the lock in Doomsday Dawn for more details. But that's not a problem with the skill system in general so much as a math problem.)


The Narration wrote:
Vic Ferrari wrote:


It seems like Skills really work in a system based around them (no classes), hence why they never seem to quite work as they should in D&D, just an impression/feeling I have developed over the years.

Having played both skill-based and D20 RPGs over the years, I don't think this is necessarily the case.

The big differences, I think, are that in skill-based RPGs you get way, way more skills (except for Savage Worlds), that there are no restrictions on what skills you can take, and that the progression happens more slowly and individually.

You usually start out more generally competent in skill-based RPGs, with some key skills that are elite-tier and quite a few things that you are at least decent or passable at, but improve rather gradually after that, and likely do more broadening of your skillset rather than pushing your best skills up to the max, since the increases usually get more expensive the higher the skill rank you already have.

The big problems with D&D and skills, I felt, was always how incredibly stingy they were with the skill points if you weren't a rogue (2+Int is a joke, especially for a non-spellcaster), and how rigidly they limited what ones you could have to try and keep everyone in these narrow little niches. There's also the issue of how easy it is to get an outrageously large bonus, but if we're limiting item and circumstance bonuses more and tossing Skill Focus then I think that issue's already substantially reduced.

My last couple PF1 characters were a slayer and a stalker (from Path of War), both of which had 6+Int, and I felt like they both managed to have a pretty decently broad skillset with that amount (plus the extra skill point from favored class and two free Knowledge Skills from the optional Background Skills rule). And PF1 isn't too restrictive in terms of what skills you can take: if it's not a class skill you miss out on a +3 bonus (unless you take a trait to make it a class skill), but it's nowhere near as bad as 3E...

Good post, I can see what you're saying, I just don't think D&D/PF has implemented a really good Skill system, yet, I am sure it's possible.

For 3rd Ed/PF1, currently, I houserule it to be a bit like SWSE, so you start with a number of trained skills (never less that 4) from your Class list, and a number of trained skills = to you Int modifier from any list. So a a Rogue with a 16 Int would have 11 trained skills (8 from the Rogue list, and 3 from any).

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Fighters, Monks, and Barbs getting 3 skills is pathetic. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.