Achan hiArusa
Explorer
If somebody could tell me how to create a thread on the Paizo boards, I would appreciate it, those boards are far from the user friendliness of the ones at ENWorld.
Anyway, one of the problems stated about Paladins in the Pathfinder revision is "Multiple Ability Score Dependency." The inherent problem with ability scores, feats, and skills are that these are the hallmarks of a point based system that has been levered into a level based system (okay, maybe not ability scores, but advancing them). With White Wolf, GURPS, or Hero you can raise your abilities, have as many advantages (feats), or skills as you want eventually by spending points. In d20 you have to give them out for advancing and as a whole the system is very stingy in doing so to try to keep to its roots as a "pure" level based system.
For Ability Scores, the best cure is the point system. But the point system is incredibly stingy with 32 being considered the top end of the point shell out. But if you compare it to (original) White Wolf game a "normals" 6/4/3 split is the equivalent of 35 points (9 attributes vs. 6 ability scores, assumes a 1 dot is the equivalent to an 8 [based on GURPS: VtM] so that each dot is equivalent to 2.5 ability points, and with an average cost of 1.6 per ability score point on point buy), a "supernatural" is then 40 points, and a solar exalted with an 8/6/4 split is 48 points. I know the argument is that a "normal" in White Wolf is about a 3rd level character, a "supernatural" is about a 7th level character, and a starting exalted is at least a 12th level character, but to go from 32 to those points would involve giving out an ability score point a level which creates its own problem in a system without ability score maximums.
My usual solution is to give out 40 points, which gives an average of 14.5 for each ability score. Then give out more points at higher level. I like the Star Wars Saga system which gives out two +1s at every fourth level to two different ability scores. I might change it to the match the schedule of 4e for +1 to two different ability scores at 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th (sometimes I think that some people failed their standardized tests if they can't see this pattern) which would give the character +12 total to be split between at least two ability scores (or more). I also want to make racial classes from UA standard and just put them into the standard advancement instead of being a side dip for the characters.
As for skills, one way to stick with the current system and still have enough skills is to simply give the characters more skill points. Using the percentile systems and the NWP system from the DSG/WSG/OA, 1st edition characters got the following number of skill points (this is assuming a normal 3d6 character generation, 5% = 1 skill point, and I did this at 10th level since thieves' skills get wonky after that point. Other caveats are that the Bard and Ranger are the 2nd Edition versions and instead of doing secondary skills for the UA barbarian, I used the OA Barbarian's initial number of NWPs, and the Paladin is the Cavalier variant, otherwise he would have the same number of skill points as the fighter):
Bard: 8 + Int bonus
Barbarian: 12 + Int bonus
Cleric: 3 + Int bonus
Druid: 3 + Int bonus
Fighter: 4 + Int bonus
Monk: 13 + Int bonus
Paladin: 5 + Int bonus
Ranger: 8 + Int bonus
Thief: 15 + Int bonus
Wizard: 4 + Int bonus
Now maybe we shouldn't raise the 3e values this high (but then again), what really shows is that even with a proficiency/level based system, 3e characters are underskilled compared to their predecessors and it is a pain that I can't have the number of skills to make my character what I want him to be. The druid is supposed to have +2 skill points per level above the cleric, the monk and barbarian can be argued down to 8 skill points per level, and the thief/rogue could be argued down to 12 skill points per level, but I'm not sure it could be anything less.
As for feats, one every odd level is a good compromise, though I would give some extras for the aforemention addition of racial levels into the normal progression (more on that later).
Anyway, one of the problems stated about Paladins in the Pathfinder revision is "Multiple Ability Score Dependency." The inherent problem with ability scores, feats, and skills are that these are the hallmarks of a point based system that has been levered into a level based system (okay, maybe not ability scores, but advancing them). With White Wolf, GURPS, or Hero you can raise your abilities, have as many advantages (feats), or skills as you want eventually by spending points. In d20 you have to give them out for advancing and as a whole the system is very stingy in doing so to try to keep to its roots as a "pure" level based system.
For Ability Scores, the best cure is the point system. But the point system is incredibly stingy with 32 being considered the top end of the point shell out. But if you compare it to (original) White Wolf game a "normals" 6/4/3 split is the equivalent of 35 points (9 attributes vs. 6 ability scores, assumes a 1 dot is the equivalent to an 8 [based on GURPS: VtM] so that each dot is equivalent to 2.5 ability points, and with an average cost of 1.6 per ability score point on point buy), a "supernatural" is then 40 points, and a solar exalted with an 8/6/4 split is 48 points. I know the argument is that a "normal" in White Wolf is about a 3rd level character, a "supernatural" is about a 7th level character, and a starting exalted is at least a 12th level character, but to go from 32 to those points would involve giving out an ability score point a level which creates its own problem in a system without ability score maximums.
My usual solution is to give out 40 points, which gives an average of 14.5 for each ability score. Then give out more points at higher level. I like the Star Wars Saga system which gives out two +1s at every fourth level to two different ability scores. I might change it to the match the schedule of 4e for +1 to two different ability scores at 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, and 20th (sometimes I think that some people failed their standardized tests if they can't see this pattern) which would give the character +12 total to be split between at least two ability scores (or more). I also want to make racial classes from UA standard and just put them into the standard advancement instead of being a side dip for the characters.
As for skills, one way to stick with the current system and still have enough skills is to simply give the characters more skill points. Using the percentile systems and the NWP system from the DSG/WSG/OA, 1st edition characters got the following number of skill points (this is assuming a normal 3d6 character generation, 5% = 1 skill point, and I did this at 10th level since thieves' skills get wonky after that point. Other caveats are that the Bard and Ranger are the 2nd Edition versions and instead of doing secondary skills for the UA barbarian, I used the OA Barbarian's initial number of NWPs, and the Paladin is the Cavalier variant, otherwise he would have the same number of skill points as the fighter):
Bard: 8 + Int bonus
Barbarian: 12 + Int bonus
Cleric: 3 + Int bonus
Druid: 3 + Int bonus
Fighter: 4 + Int bonus
Monk: 13 + Int bonus
Paladin: 5 + Int bonus
Ranger: 8 + Int bonus
Thief: 15 + Int bonus
Wizard: 4 + Int bonus
Now maybe we shouldn't raise the 3e values this high (but then again), what really shows is that even with a proficiency/level based system, 3e characters are underskilled compared to their predecessors and it is a pain that I can't have the number of skills to make my character what I want him to be. The druid is supposed to have +2 skill points per level above the cleric, the monk and barbarian can be argued down to 8 skill points per level, and the thief/rogue could be argued down to 12 skill points per level, but I'm not sure it could be anything less.
As for feats, one every odd level is a good compromise, though I would give some extras for the aforemention addition of racial levels into the normal progression (more on that later).
