Improving amount of skill points a good idea?

[Nyaricus]

I'd say it goes the wrong way around... (snip)

You know, I think you are right in this, in theory if not application (personally I feel as if you gave out too many skills in your example). I think the classes which get 2 SkP/level simply don't get enough.

Okay, everyone is on the same page that pretty much only the commoner should get 2 SkP/level - I agree. I think the minimum for all Hero Classes should be 4, so maybe simply bumping everyone up by 2 points is enough, actually. It's simple and it works

 

[Nyaricus]

...bumping everyone up by 2 points is enough, actually. It's simple and it works

actually, on second thought: even simpler than you think. Convert NpCs to this would be a breeze - just add two more spendable points

 

[Spatzimaus]

[*] 6 SkP/lvl for people who get 2 SkP/lvl
[*] 7 SkP/lvl for people who get 4 SkP/lvl
[*] 8 SkP/lvl for people who get 6 SkP/lvl
[*] 9 SkP/lvl for people who get 8 SkP/lvl

I really don't like this; it completely takes away from the high-skill classes. Sure, you want your Fighter to have a few more skill points, but you're TRIPLING them, but doing almost nothing for the Rogue, who actually NEEDS to raise skills to be effective? Not even close to balanced. All this does is allow an INT 4 Fighter to still have more skill points than he ever needs. INT becomes the new dump stat for everyone other than Wizards.

The across-the-board +2 would be okay (it's the same as just increasing the point-buy pool to allow a higher INT), but I'd really suggest limiting those extra two points to Craft/Profession/Knowledge skills. Otherwise, people will just use the extra skill points to max out the "essential" class skills (Concentration, Spellcraft, Hide/Move Silently, etc.), which just ends up making everyone into cookie-cutter characters.

 

[Nyaricus]

The across-the-board +2 would be okay (it's the same as just increasing the point-buy pool to allow a higher INT), but I'd really suggest limiting those extra two points to Craft/Profession/Knowledge skills. Otherwise, people will just use the extra skill points to max out the "essential" class skills (Concentration, Spellcraft, Hide/Move Silently, etc.), which just ends up making everyone into cookie-cutter characters.

Meh, people usually work it so that they have their essentual skills maxed out (or close too it). I wouldn't have a problem with saying "everyone gets 2 more skill points a level," and simply leaving it right at that.

YMMV, of course, but if I have an abusive player, I'll just tell him to knock it off.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Meh, people usually work it so that they have their essentual skills maxed out (or close too it).

That's assuming your INT is high enough. If you're a Cleric with INT 10, which two skills do you max? If you pick Spellcraft and Concentration, what about Knowledge(religion)? And some Clerics put ranks into other class skills (Heal, Diplomacy), especially if their domains include some additional class skills. This was REALLY painful with the 3E Ranger. With only 4+INTmod skill points per level, how could you max Hide, Move Silently, Wilderness Lore, Spot, Listen, and Search? Let alone Knowledge(nature), Concentration, and so on. Even in 3.5E at 6+INT it's a bit tight.

End result, you couldn't max all of them, even with an INT of 14 or so. Each player picked a few that were "essential", and occasionally threw a few points into the others. Maybe the Ranger dumped the Hide/Move Silently combo, figuring that if the rest of the party lacked stealth, it wouldn't be very useful to be sneaky. Maybe he dumped Spot or Listen, figuring that one covered the other. Maybe he dumped the nonessentials altogether. Who knows.

The point is, for many classes, the rules as written didn't give you enough skill points to max out all of your "essential" skills. You ended up compromising; with my Sorcerer, I stopped raising Concentration once I got it to +15 or so, just so I could always cast defensively; the few remaining sources of Concentration checks (interruptions, etc.) were almost always damage-based, and so would scale up much faster than I could ever raise the skill. So, I had a good reason to stop raising it and use those points for other skills.
If you greatly increase skill points, then everyone can always max all of their "essential" skills, and even a few nonessentials in some cases. This just reduces the variation within each class.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Wow, cool discussion.

I guess that's why I'm shortening the list of skills that you can have for "background skills".

Granted, it doesn't solve the tactical choices for some character types, such as the Ranger Spatzimaus gives an example of above. In my campaign's case, it will depend heavily on the region.

Nearly every Ranger from the Talons of Garuda, for instance will know how to swim (kind of a good idea when you live on a low-lying island of sailor-folk), while Rangers from the mountainous region of Selan Chitesh may have a lot of acedemic learning.
I guess it'll broaden the base of knowledge, but keep the challenge of maintaining the "essential skills" as well.

A few "gentle" restrictions don't seem to hurt when you have reasonable players, IMO.

 

[Al the Absentminded]

You know, I think you are right in this, in theory if not application (personally I feel as if you gave out too many skills in your example). I think the classes which get 2 SkP/level simply don't get enough.

Okay, everyone is on the same page that pretty much only the commoner should get 2 SkP/level - I agree. I think the minimum for all Hero Classes should be 4, so maybe simply bumping everyone up by 2 points is enough, actually. It's simple and it works

I think Warriors should stay at 2 per, as well. They're _supposed_ to be the bumblers that Rogues use to show off against.

-Albert

 

[Spatzimaus]

Wow, cool discussion.

I guess that's why I'm shortening the list of skills that you can have for "background skills".

Well, we've got a couple parallel discussion threads right now on the same topic, and in the other one we've been discussing region-based systems with ~3 pre-selected class skills. In my setup, typically these skills are Craft/Knowledge/Profession, although some get more locale-appropriate ones (Climb, Swim, etc.). In other people's systems the lists include more useful skills (Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently), but YMMV.

But basically, as long as the "background" skills don't overlap much with your essential class skills, the balance hasn't really changed any; your character will still be just as powerful at his class roles as before, and be faced with the same hard choices, but he'll also have a few ranks in some nonessential stuff, which'll make him more interesting in the long run.

And it really DOES make a difference. I had a 3E Shaper (Psion specializing in INT) who ended up putting about 30-40 ranks into Craft skills. Some were practical ones (Weaponcrafting, Armorcrafting), but some weren't (12 ranks in Sculpting). It really made him more fun; the group would camp for the night, he'd find a nearby rock, cast fabricate (or, if low on power points, pull out his chisel) and turn it into a sculpture of one of the group, or one of the recent enemies, or some animal...
Now, I did this before we added any sort of "background skill" system, so all those skill points were taken away from my more useful skills (Psicraft, Knowledge (psionics), etc.), but I enjoyed it anyway. So, personally I think everyone should have the chance to pad out their "flavor" skills without weakening the character.