Pathfinder 1E Making certain skills into class features and certain class features into feats

[VelvetViolet]

As I (and many others) have discussed before, certain skills are... iffy and would be more appropriate as class features or condensed into other skills. Below I present two feats/class features to take the place of the Spellcraft and Use Magic Device skills as a quick and dirty fix.

Spellcraft [General]
Prerequisites: Knowledge (arcana) or Knowledge (religion) 4 ranks.
Benefit: You can identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place. This ability functions just like a Spellcraft check to identify magical effects. Make a Knowledge (arcana) check to identify arcane spells or a Knowledge (religion) check to identify divine spells.
Special: Bards, clerics, druids, sorcerers and wizards gain Spellcraft as a bonus feat at 1st level.

Use Magic Device [General]
Prerequisites: Disable Device 4 ranks.
Benefit: You can use your knowledge of magic to utilize the devices usually only used by practiced mages. This ability functions just like a Use Magic Device check made for the purposes of using magical items. You roll 1d20 and add your character level and your Charisma modifier to determine the Use Magic Device check result.
Special: Bards, rogues and sorcerers gain Use Magic Device as a bonus feat at 1st level. However, only bard, rogue and/or sorcerer class levels are counted, unless this feat is taken, in which case the entire character level is counted.


Below I present, as examples, Trap-Find and Wild Empathy turned into feats that are available to any character who meets the prerequisites.

Trap-Finding [General]
Prerequisites: Disable Device 4 ranks, Search 4 ranks.
Benefit: You can use the Search skill to locate traps when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20. Finding a non-magical trap has a DC of at least 20, or higher if it is well hidden. Finding a magic trap has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it.
You can use the Disable Device skill to disarm magic traps. A magic trap generally has a DC of 25 + the level of the spell used to create it. If you beat a trap's DC by 10 or more with a Disable Device check can study a trap, figure out how it works, and bypass it (with her party) without disarming it.
Special: Rogues gain Trap-Finding as a bonus feat at 1st level.

Wild Empathy [General]
Prerequisites: Handle Animal 4 ranks.
Benefit: You can improve the attitude of an animal. This ability functions just like a Diplomacy check made to improve the attitude of a person. You roll 1d20 and add your character level and your Charisma modifier to determine the wild empathy check result.
The typical domestic animal has a starting attitude of indifferent, while wild animals are usually unfriendly.
To use wild empathy, you and the animal must be able to study each other, which means that you must be within 30 feet of one another under normal conditions. Generally, influencing an animal in this way takes one minute but, as with influencing people, it might take more or less time.
You can also use this ability to influence a magical beast with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2, but you take a -4 penalty on the check.
Special: Druids and rangers gain Wild Empathy as a bonus feat at 1st level. However, only druid and/or ranger class levels are counted, unless this feat is taken, in which case the entire character level is counted.

 

[knottyprof]

Search 4 ranks = Perception 4 ranks (this is Pathfinder not 3.5) correct?
Interesting idea, so would the general consensus be that any spell casting class (anything that can begin casting at 1st level) would gain the Spellcraft feat as a bonus feat? This would free up skill points but then cost a feat unless it was a bonus feat.
Never understood the whole Charisma connection for Use Magic Device, to me seems like Intelligence would be a better fit or possibly Wisdom if it was an intuitive action to use the item. Better yet, the appropriate attribute would be based on the item itself (arcane vs divine magic effect, etc.). Also, with your spellcraft feat the relevant skill would gain a +3 bonus to the roll if it was a class skill (as well as the other two class abilities turned feats listed) while the UMD feat does not gain that bonus but it automatically scales with the character's level so that may not be a bad trade off.

This really begs the question, can all class skills be turned into feats and instead of selecting a class? Just give the characters more feats starting out and one every level to build a completely custom character. This type of system would completely do away with the multi-classing and the favored class mechanics. I could see a system where the player chooses his hit die type, BAB, skill points, and Saves which then is then used to determine how many feats he begins play with.

 

[Celebrim]

I prefer to give out more skill points and let players decide where to spend them. Feats are a very scarce resource, and by moving skills and class abilities into feats you are limiting access to them in further, limiting the diversity of builds, and risking front-ending classes even further by increasing the number of bonus feats low levels in a class grant you.

That isn't to say that you can't have a feat 'Trapfinding' that grants you the rogue class ability or simply say that Rogues gain 'Trapfinding' as a bonus feat, but in general I think skills and the skill mechanic are a good thing not a bad thing.

In my game there is no Druid and 'Empathy' is a skill somewhat akin to Knowledge or Craft, but relatively difficult to acquire especially if you want something like Empathy (Dragons) or Empathy (Oozes). It is generally regarded as the most powerful skill in my game, although its considerably less effective when dealing with intelligent beings (who can rationally evaluate their own feelings and self-interests). Still, you can pretty effectively play a diplomancer for a whole class of challenges if you want to.

 

[gamerprinter]

The other direction to go is to use Rite Publishing's 101 New Skill Uses (for PFRPG) which is designed so that almost every new use has a penalty or failure, with DCs that scale based on the opponent or subject you attempt to use it against, avoiding fixed DCs wen possible, and/or DCs based on intentional attempts at an amazing success with a skill.

I agree with Celebrim, that changing skills to feats further limits use of feats. You only get a limited number of feats and most class builds have preconceived notions on proper feat selection over the course of a PCs gained level lifetime. Having to replace a needed feat slot to accomodate a skill is too costly. Changing skills to feats drastically changes how PF PCs are built, destroying the integrity and balance of existing classes. Doing so makes it a completely different game than PF - not that new system ideas aren't worthy, but it doesn't make the system better, only different (and perhaps weaker).

I get far more mileage with 101 New Skill Uses applied than removing the skill system from Pathfinder.

 

[VelvetViolet]

This is a quick and dirty fix for skill bloat. I would prefer to just condense the skill list directly. I wrote a thread about that a while back. But you can basically remove like ten skills off the skill list without problems. That 101 new skill uses book just proves my point. If we can just add new skill uses, why do we need so many individual skills?

I believe that Pathfinder has too many skills (and that's not even going into how character skills gimp player skill*) and too many creature types, and that the game could be seriously improved by cutting down on skills and creature types. Allowing class features to be taken as feats by other classes provides more options to customize characters without completely reworking the rules like True20 or FantasyCraft or, to a lesser degree, Iron Heroes or Trailblazer.

* If the rogue's player says that the character looks at the underside of the chest and knocks on it a few times to check for hidden compartments, does he find it or not? You have to let him roll perception, and he has to take the result if the roll fails. If you let him find it based on player skill, you are being unfair to the players who put points in perception. Not to mention that stealth doesn't have facing, or handle animal being either worthless or depowering druids, or tons of other issues covered in this blog.

 

[Greg K]

* If the rogue's player says that the character looks at the underside of the chest and knocks on it a few times to check for hidden compartments, does he find it or not? You have to let him roll perception, and he has to take the result if the roll fails. If you let him find it based on player skill, you are being unfair to the players who put points in perception.

I don't know about Pathfinder, but in D&D 3.0
a) Being specific about where you search can give you a circumstance bonus of the roll or reduction in DC which is from 2-20 (DM's Best Friend)
b) If your character search an area for traps, secret doors, etc, it doesn't matter how well your skill check is. You are not going to find what is not there.
c) there was mention of a special gate that the characters could only open by figuring out a correct sequence of levers spread throughout the dungeon.

Based upon this, I have handled search checks as follows:
1. You can't find what is not there.
2. You can find a secret door with a successful search check if you search the correct area, but that does not, necessarily, mean you found the mechanism to open it if the mechanism is elsewhere.
3. You can find the mechanism to open a door or deactivate certain traps with a successful search check, but that doesn't, necessarily, tell you where the secret door or trap is. However, pulling the level, the sconce, the book from the shelf, etc or , will do what is supposed to.
4. If you say your are searching the book case and there is a book that, when, pulled opens the secret door, I may give the player a bonus on the check depending upon the size of the book case. If it is too big, I will give a bonus based upon time spent or when they get to the right area. If the dust in front of the book has recently been disturbed, I would tell the player. They would still have to pull the book.
If the they searched a wall with a secret door, I would tell them about disturbed dust (if recent), bricks with scratches, a small seam in the wall. Depending upon how it is opened, the players would have to figure out how to open it (pull a sconce on the wall, search the room for a mechanism, destroy the wall, etc.)
In either case, a player stating they are pulling the sconce, pulling all the books off the shelves, etc. would open the secret as stated above.

In the case of the rogue, he might note a false bottom. Does he find it? It depends on the chest. He might just get a bonus to detect it and a good one. You might just tell him However, he still has to figure out how to open the false bottom and deal with any traps.

 

[gamerprinter]

If the rogue's player says that the character looks at the underside of the chest and knocks on it a few times to check for hidden compartments, does he find it or not? You have to let him roll perception, and he has to take the result if the roll fails. If you let him find it based on player skill, you are being unfair to the players who put points in perception. Not to mention that stealth doesn't have facing, or handle animal being either worthless or depowering druids, or tons of other issues covered in this blog.

Of course, that's how I use skills in game. The player tells me what he's trying to do, then I associate a skill with the task (if it isn't obvious) and depending on what exactly he's doing, I give me him a straight roll or modifiers based on how he is approaching a problem. In some cases, I judge it's easy to discover if a player looks in the right place the right way - and then I don't even require a skill check, I say the task was accomplished. If due to circumstance, an inept approach to solving a problem, or is someone else made extra effort to make the task more difficult, then I require a roll and with negative modifiers. I don't make players make a skill check for everything they want to do - only on tasks that would be more difficult due to circumstance.

I'm the opposite in your thinking regarding too many this or that. I'm a 3PP and I create more because as a GM/Player I want more, not less. I have even created new creature types, in addition to new creatures - there can never be enough creatures, nor creature types... Pathfinder is a game of many options and that's a good thing.

 

[N'raac]

So why would a player not state each individual part of the chest which their character is examining to enhance their search check? Is it assumed that a rogue searching a chest (let's assume taking 20, not just a quick check) would fail to look at the underside of the chest and knock on it a few times? I suggest that anyone thoroughly searching the chest would do so. If that is adequate to locate the secret compartmet, then the DC to locate that compartmnet should be 18 or less, since even a 7 INT searcher with no ranks should be able to find the compartment.

If the DC is 30, then clearly the compartment is well enough secreted that it will not be found by just rapping on the bottom of the chest. It's much better concealed than that, and will require a skilled searcher to find it, even with considerable time invested.

 

[VelvetViolet]

I'm the opposite in your thinking regarding too many this or that. I'm a 3PP and I create more because as a GM/Player I want more, not less. I have even created new creature types, in addition to new creatures - there can never be enough creatures, nor creature types... Pathfinder is a game of many options and that's a good thing.

I'm all for new creature types, if you really, really think that your new monster can't be classified under existing creature types (e.g Relics & Rituals: Excalibur adds the spirit type, but BOED's deathless are more appropriate as an undead subtype since they are affected by undead-affecting spells). But right now there's far too much overlap in creature types.

Monstrous humanoid is a perfect example, since many humanoids with animalistic or monstrous features are NOT classified as monstrous humanoids (e.g. gnolls, catfolk, ratfolk, kobolds, pretty much all the furry races basically). Why is fey a separate type from humanoid? The description for fey admits that most of them are humanoid, so they could easily be classified as a subtype of humanoid or magical beast. Vermin should be an animal subtype (which also opens up animal spells to to apply to vermin, which still makes sense). Dragons should be magical beasts (and humanoids), because dragons are basically reptilian magical beasts (and they don't need to have better hit dice and skills by default).

 

[Zireael]

I agree that feats are scarce and while we can cut down on the number of skills, converting them into feats isn't the way to go.

However, all the points about skill use are valid. I would add that we have a top limit on skill values and modifiers to avoid situations described in the blog posts (a character with +3 versus a character with +37 and DC 30 [I assume it's chosen to be somewhat challenging for the better char).

Does 4e level-appropriate DC system fix the aforementioned problem?