Reshuffling Skills ...

[Jeff Wilder]

I am aware that languages are very complex, however even in a game that requires some level of distinction between languages (such as a non-action game, possibly a Cthulu horror style game), you don't need much more than "are you fluent: yes/no".

That's exactly how D&D 3.5 is.

(God, I'm so confused.)

Now, since the game treats languages as a binary thing, and doesn't require a 20 level grade of fluency between them, that is why it should be removed from the skill system.

Aside from costing skill points -- which, once you spend them, you never have to think of again -- D&D 3.5 languages are removed from the skill system.

Basically.. in order to know 20 Languages, you HAVE to be Epic at forgery, etc.
And in order to be Epic at forgery, etc, you HAVE to know 20 languages.

In Pathfinder, that is true. (And I also don't like it, which is why I changed it.) In D&D 3.5, what you just described above isn't how languages work.

I honestly can't tell, but you seem to think that in 3.5, when you have learned five languages (leaving aside bonus languages for INT) you also have a +5 in Speak Language. You don't. There's no "+" anything in Speak Language in 3.5. You just spend skill points, which you never worry about again, and write the language down on your character sheet. You are now fluent (and usually literate) in the language.

If your objection is, instead, that learning languages uses skill points, well ... languages aren't particularly important, but they're important enough to consume some character-building resources, and "skill points" makes more sense than anything else.

(And, again, I wouldn't play in any game in which someone's progress in learning a language was tracked. Hell, I wouldn't be interested in any game where tracking someone's progress in learning any skill was "important," I'm pretty sure.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Changed the OP again. There are a few subtle changes (like Notice not being able to detect traps with a DC higher than 20) and several not-so-subtle.

This should be the last change we make to the skills lineup before testing for several sessions.

 

[ChampionoftheTriad]

Kaisoku....wow dude(?)....why don't you pay attention to what Jeff is saying about the functioning of the Speak Language skill...

Read the PH/SRD description!

 

[Kaisoku]

Talking to three different people, about three different instances of Language in a thread about multiple subjects.. yeah, things get confusing. Sorry.

To put it simply, I dislike the old way, and dislike more the new Linguistics.


Basically, my stance on Languages in the game is that it either shouldn't even be there at all (Star Trek method), or have a rule that allows more in depth rules if you wanted to.

So I'd keep most of the Linguistics skill in Pathfinder... just take out the rule that each rank gives a language, and use checks to become fluent. That would fit my sensibilities on the issue the best.

 

[Colonelpuddinhead]

I'm don't have too much trouble with the skill set they've offered... I don't like some of it... especially the Acrobatics skill. I'm not going to rehash old discussions, but I'm a little puzzled by how the "jump" portion of the skill was drasticaly lessened.

In the discription, they say you can use Acrobatics to "soften" a fall. Now, this is not addressed at all later on in the meat of the skill description. I'm wondering if I should houserule a "tumble" Acrobatics check to negate the last 10ft of falling damage, and a "jump" Acrobatics check to negate the first 10ft of falling damage - the way it is in 3.5 - and of course, what should be the DCs?

I'm interested in your opinions, please... ty

 

[Jeff Wilder]

[Acrobatics and Falling]

The rules for using Acrobatics to lessen the impact of a fall are in the section on Falling, in one of the later chapters. From memory, so could be wrong, DC 15 Acrobatics check will negate 10 feet and turn 10 feet to non-lethal damage.

The thing that's weird is that magic items are still representing the old system. E.g., there's a rring of jumping (+5 to Acrobatics for jumping) for 2500 gp. but then there's a ring of swimming, which is +5 to Swim checks for 2500 gp. Now something's off, there.

 

[abelan]

I have tried using a new skills set very similar to what the OP listed, and it has worked well for the group. I think a few people took their cue from the 4e rules reducing the number of skills, and making them more playable. I will offer the new Perception rules to the group and see if we want to change now. The skill set won't be perfect for everybody, but the intention is good.

 

[Colonelpuddinhead]

I will offer the new Perception rules to the group and see if we want to change now. The skill set won't be perfect for everybody, but the intention is good.

I think Search should be brought back to be its own skill. As far as Spot + Listen = Perception goes... I'm fine with that. I used to houserule the exact same thing (I forget what we called it... think it was Sense). Search, though, used INT as its base stat and the others used WIS - which is enough right there for me to revert back.

CP