| 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.
|
| 31 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?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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,
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.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, the solution would be to raise the skill points of fighters, monks and barbarians, not to punish the cleric and sorcerer.
| 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. |
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. |
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.
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
| 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.
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.
|
|
| 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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. |
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. |
Who is really going to make use of lore gladiator?
Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?
|
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. |
It's simple- because they do gobs of damage with weapons that don't have per day uses.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)?
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.)