|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Right now the skill system feels a bit too samey to me, and a bit claustrophobic. I feel like I have to pick the three skills I want to become legendary in, then never venture away from those. In an effort to add a bit more breath to the system, I've been thinking about instituting the following house rule:
If you use a skill increase to raise a skill to below your maximum proficiency, you can increase the proficiency of a second skill, as long as the resulting level of proficiency is below your maximum.
So for example, at third level you'd have the choice of raising a skill to master, or becoming trained in two new skills. At 7th, you could raise a skill to master, or two trained skills to expert, or become trained in two new skills, ect.
I was inspired by the stat system, where a stat boost above 18 only adds 1 to the stat. My idea is kind of like that for skills. So, what do you think? Any just glaring problems with this that I'll regret? I'm a little concerned about rogues, but at the same time, they are supposed to be skill monkeys.
Given that there are fewer skills, ignoring lore skills, it might cause a problem of people doing too much and really becoming samey.
A potential solution if that does become a problem, is to split skills such that they are more like the background/consolidated system in PF1. Effectively making the system more granular and providing a lot more choice.
I have been thinking about something very similar to what is proposed here.
Giving up on a legendary increase is big, it just isn't a choice if what you get back for it is just another skill at master level (or just expert in return for your second legendary increase).
If the other option instead is both a master and an expert increase, for example, it becomes more palatable.