Cleric´s 2 skill points is pathetic.

[Humanophile]

My fellowship includes a barbarian/cleric with a -1 to his INT, thus 1skill point per level. On top of this, he has no ranks in Knowlege: Religion because he would know NO other trained skills.

OK, this is a total non-sequitor. I could have a character in my party with a 3 INT, the game should not give him that many options. Penalty stats are, well, penalties, and appreciable ones should bother a character. In a way, this reminds me of the people who think that the fighter should be able to slot a 6 in CHA, but still "role-play" the witty, charming leader of a nation.

Second, I find it ironic that we have a "clerics have too few skill points" turning so soon into "everyone is shorted skill points, but spellcasters and items can mitigate it somewhat". Clerics are spellcasters too, and items are factored into characters at higher levels. I do think that this latter fact is part of the reason skill points are as low as they are, though...

Third, I partways agree that a couple more skill points would be nice, but a couple of caveats. The person who plays a fighter with minned INT and CHA probably won't be looking into background or social skills, it's all skills that have "real" effect, such as tumble, the stealth and perception skills, maybe craft for an archer. (As an aside, Shadowrun has a cool mechanic for this. You have a certain number of "skill points that do something" varying on how highly you prioritize them, and then "skill points that do nothing" to round out your character. I've been thinking about instituting a similar "everyone gets one more skill point per level, but it has to be spent on a craft, profession, or knowledge skill" rule.) And no game balanced "if you play with good players" really is. So the guy who plays the character who sits in the corner, polishing his weapons, and can talk about nothing more than killing things will just have a few more skill points for spot and tumble, not "solving" anything.

Fourth, social skills alone do not measure when you can deal with people, it just depends on when you do. Kings and presidents have advisors for all matters, and those people can get by on the social acumen of your average adventurer. If a fighter points out that a plan is tactically unsound, it's as much so regardless of the fighter's charisma and diplomacy/bluff, and any employer/patron would realize this unless they had an ulterior motive. You only have the face step forwards when you want to bargain for more money. Which is like real life, and pretty balanced. (The fighter are the man to look to in combat, the rogue when you have a tough trap, and the socialite when you want the right word in the right person's ear. You'd no more want the barbarian to help out smooth-talking the guard than you would want him helping you attend a poisoned character.) Of course, spellcasters throw all that out of whack in a fantasy game, but we all already know they can beat anything they put their minds to.

And finally, as a personal preference point, part of the appeal of intelligence and being a human is skill points. Nerf that, and those will have to be pumped up to compensate. INT might, just might, work out fine if everyone gets +2 skill points, but in a world where everyone has disposable skill points, half the benefit of being human goes down the tubes. And those INT penalties will be less like a hit to any other noncharisma stat and be more like ...well, charisma, without the enforced penalties from some rabid groups.

 

[telepox]

OK, this is a total non-sequitor. I could have a character in my party with a 3 INT, the game should not give him that many options. Penalty stats are, well, penalties, and appreciable ones should bother a character. In a way, this reminds me of the people who think that the fighter should be able to slot a 6 in CHA, but still "role-play" the witty, charming leader of a nation.

Wasn't making any negative comments about my cleric's skill points, so I'm not sure why you picked my reply to quote.

 

[Frostmarrow]

A cleric doesn't have to have a lot of skills as the church has them anyway. If the astrologer needs to know something about magic he just pops into the cell next door and ask the spellcrafter there!

 

[hong]

I swear, you are one step away from being a troll.

Nah, I've been there for years.

Shard O'Glase: You have been spot-on in your detailing of why this skill point situation is a problem.
Just because some people refuse to see it as a problem does not mean that it isn't a problem.

You know what? Just because some people see it as a problem doesn't mean that others don't have a problem. Different people can have different styles, emphasising different aspects of the game. It may be that what works for them may not work for you, and vice-versa. I think didactic statements on either side aren't conducive to productive discussion.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

ConcreteBuddha: INT shouldn't equal skill points.

I'm glad that it appears that MANY people are giving more skills to all classes in their games, and it isn't hurting your play (it isn't hurting ours either).

"Intellegence determines how well your character learns and reasons." ---pg 9 PHB

1) (In the set of DnD) All skills can be learned---> Intellegence determines learning capability----> Intellegence affects skill points.

Alakhazam!

2) Mordax, Rashak Mani, nemmerle, Shard O'Glase, reapersaurus...

5 = MANY

Neat. I'll remember that the next time I hear somebody tell me that millions of people play this game.

3) As per hong:

Um...please, chill...sometimes one sentence quips get to the heart of the matter faster than 8 page diatribes. Just read hong's posts with the shaded glasses of humorous sarcasm: then they make perfect sense.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Geron Raveneye: Bad analogy.
EVERY class has weapons it can bring to the table in combat.
Few have anything they can bring to the table out of combat.

Why is that approach so hard for some people to understand?

Sure every class has weapons it can bring into combat...the skill lies in wielding them to great effect. And this skill is expressed in BAB, fighting feats etc. And in this, you have to admit, the fighter types do excel.
If you want to argue that a wizard can cast spells in combat, as can the priest...that´s bringing a fight away from melee. A fighter could do the same with the aforementioned noble by trying to meet him on the sparring grounds, going through some rounds with him and then talk business with him. It´d bring the conversation away from the formalized court back into the fighter´s corner of weapons and combat, and might make the noble more accessible to "simple talk".

In any social situation, the "weapons" someone can bring into "melee"" are words and gestures. The skills that determine how well you wield them are Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidation and Sense Motive. I made the experience that you can compare those situations very well.

Shard O'Glase: You have been spot-on in your detailing of why this skill point situation is a problem.
Just because some people refuse to see it as a problem does not mean that it isn't a problem.

I'm glad that it appears that MANY people are giving more skills to all classes in their games, and it isn't hurting your play (it isn't hurting ours either).

Just because some people try to maker a problem out of something doesn´t mean it actually is a problem...just that it´s a matter of viewpoint. It´s nice to hear that more skill points to all classes don´t hurt your game. The way it is now sure doesn´t hurt mine, it just makes the rogue feel really special

Personally, I find it easier to eventually add something, if needed, than to take something away from an established rulesystem. The players welcome additions more than subtractions. In this context, it is nice that WotC left me the choice to add more skill points to each class, instead of making me reduce them.