Pathfinder 1E Condensing the skills list

[MarkB]

This has the same problems 4e had with its skill list.

First, you get pirates born on the sea who have never been above sea level being master mountain climbers, and the reverse of steppe dwellers who have only see small creeks being master swimmers.
It also removes much opportunity for classic ability checks. With a "Strength-based skill" that covers everything Strengthy, why make a Strength check ever when you can just make an Athletics check. You're trained at Athletics, you know how to use your strength and position yourself for lifting objects, why can't you use that to batter down doors or bend bars?

Well, there is a certain degree of commonality between different uses of the same ability. Certainly, I'd expect a trained sailor who was able to swarm up rigging to also be better than average at mountaineering, and someone who was particularly good at running to be better than an untrained person at swimming.

One option would be to use something similar to the Cortex system's approach to skills - you have a small list of major skills, then a list of sub-skills for each major skill. The first, say, 5 points you put into a skill go into the major skill, and can be applied to any task on that skill's sub-skill list.

When you spend points above 5 on that skill, you have to choose specific sub-skills to dedicate them to, specialising in particular tasks.

So, for instance, a character might spend 5 points on the Athletics skill, and then a further 3 points on the Jump sub-skill. When performing athletic tasks he hasn't specialised in, such as swimming and climbing, his bonus (excluding ability modifier) is +5, but when attempting to jump his bonus is +8.

 

[Jester David]

Well, there is a certain degree of commonality between different uses of the same ability. Certainly, I'd expect a trained sailor who was able to swarm up rigging to also be better than average at mountaineering, and someone who was particularly good at running to be better than an untrained person at swimming.

True, but we're not talking some overlap but 1-for-1 competence. The mountaineer dwarf who has never set foot in water before is suddenly Michael Phelps when knocked overboard. The urban thief who has spent his entire life on rooftops sneaking, balancing, and squeezing through windows suddenly being a master equestrian the first time they hop on a horse.

This is also frustrating from the player perspective. You have the paladin who has built himself to be the shining knight, the master horseman. But the rogue can ride circles around him because she has the same number of ranks in Agility but also a higher Dex.

 

[MarkB]

True, but we're not talking some overlap but 1-for-1 competence.

Thus my suggested approach to skills. It allows for basic training that advances all sub-disciplines, but requires specialisation for advanced training.

 

[N'raac]

First, you get pirates born on the sea who have never been above sea level being master mountain climbers, and the reverse of steppe dwellers who have only see small creeks being master swimmers.

I agree. At the same time, I perceive an argument this is not a bad thing. In much of the source material, the characters seem competent at skills they have never previously demonstrated any skill with. The more classic examples are science fiction/fantasy, such as Flash Gordon or Malcolm Reynolds being immediately proficient with a sword, despite no indication of prior experience ("the pointy end goes in the other fellow"). If that is the material we wish the game to emulate, then fewer, broader skills is a good mechanic for doing so.

But it also allows the Rogue to ride rings around the Paladin, as you say.

It also removes much opportunity for classic ability checks. With a "Strength-based skill" that covers everything Strengthy, why make a Strength check ever when you can just make an Athletics check. You're trained at Athletics, you know how to use your strength and position yourself for lifting objects, why can't you use that to batter down doors or bend bars?

The counter question may be "Why can't my Fighter become more skilled at lifting heavy objects, breaking down doors or bending bars?"

The only Skills I haven't seen much use for are Escape Artist and Knowledge (geography) as the former works nicely as a Dex check and the latter overlaps with Knowledge (local) more often than not. Knowledge (geography) often just becomes Knowledge (local) when you're in an unfamiliar land.
Appraise could also be folded into Craft without issue.

Escape Artist would not permit grapple escapes if reduced to DEX checks. Geography need not be local, and perhaps should be used more to avoid getting lost on long journeys. Or maybe we should combine knowledge of History/Geography (those geographical points are often reflected in history). As for Appraise and Craft, it's bad for a sailor to be able to climb a mountain, but every art aficionado who can tell a Picasso from a clever fake should be equally skilled at creating such a fake, or painting his own masterpiece? And Picasso should be able to value works from 100 years ago?

"How much granularity" is a good question. Do we really need 9 different Perform skills, while lumping Balance, Jumping and Tumbling into a single skill (Olympic Long Jumpers rarely also compete in gymnastics, I believe, but many singers also dance and play a variety of instruments)?

 

[N'raac]

Thus my suggested approach to skills. It allows for basic training that advances all sub-disciplines, but requires specialisation for advanced training.

Sure - but then we have to determine how many skill points we provide as levels are gained. Do you get more starting at L6 because you now have to invest in half a dozen specialties where a single skill covered them for the first 5 skill points?

 

[Jester David]

Thus my suggested approach to skills. It allows for basic training that advances all sub-disciplines, but requires specialisation for advanced training.

But that means every skill should have a specialization.
And if you're putting ranks into specializations anyway... why condense the skill list?

The Cortex skills/specialization works because it does have some divided skills. There might be "Athletics" split into swimming or climbing but there is also a "Ride" skill divided by animal or a Melee Weapon skill divided into swords and clubs. It's not just the skill system but integral to the combat system.

 

[MarkB]

Sure - but then we have to determine how many skill points we provide as levels are gained. Do you get more starting at L6 because you now have to invest in half a dozen specialties where a single skill covered them for the first 5 skill points?

I'd say no, or at least very little - having to specialise in order to advance beyond a certain level should be a choice with costs.

But I take your point about granularity - it has to break down at some point. Is it worth getting upset that a character with ranks in Perform (Woodwind) is automatically considered equally good with a flute or a clarinet?

 

[MarkB]

But that means every skill should have a specialization.
And if you're putting ranks into specializations anyway... why condense the skill list?

Because, as you've already acknowledged in an earlier reply, there is at least some commonality between similar skills. Someone who's a practised athlete and very good at running is going to be a better swimmer than someone who's had no athletic training at all, even if he shouldn't be as good at it as a professional swimmer.

 

[Jester David]

Another problem 4e demonstrated with consolidating skills is the symmetry of characters and reduction of choice.
Because there is a one-skill-does-it-all skill, most people pick one related to their character's primary stat. There's no choice in the matter as that or skill is so useful it's silly not to.

All fighters, cavaliers, barbarians, and paladins are always going to train Athletics as there's no good reason not to. More skills might mean splitting between climb and swim or choosing between one or the other, but with one dedicated skill it's silly not to take it.
Rogues become much less flexible. All train in Acrobatics and Thievery and their only real choice comes down to stealth vs athletics vs diplomacy. Unless they're smart and human, in which case they might be able to do it all.

Skills serve as a customization option. A way to differentiate your character from someone of the same race and class, or with different focuses. Combining skills defeats that purpose as customization becomes harder and differentiation goes away.

 

[N'raac]

Skills serve as a customization option. A way to differentiate your character from someone of the same race and class, or with different focuses. Combining skills defeats that purpose as customization becomes harder and differentiation goes away.

This depends, again, on the desired game structure. If the intent is that classes be more defining, specific skills linked to specific classes make sense (harkening back to the 1e/2e days when we had no or very limited skills). What happens with the broadly defined list in 3e/Pathfinder now?

How many characters put ranks in Profession to distinguish them versus how many put ranks in Perception and Use Magic Device because these are "the most useful skills in the game"? If every member of a given class will always, or virtually always, max out a specific skill, maybe that skill should be removed in favour of becoming a class ability (possibly with commensurate reduction of skill points to that class).