Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 6147450" data-attributes="member: 3400">I don't really agree that all classes in 3e are skill starved. Fighters and probably sorcerers and paladins, yes. But I think, ideally, you should have a situation in which a PC can't quite pay for all the skills they want because that encourages focusing a bit more and making choices. And, along with that, you need to include skills in which investment is useful to a point but maxing out on it is unnecessary. For example, Tumble in 3.5 benefits from investment until you reach the point you can auto-succeed moving in combat without provoking an attack of opportunity - then if you don't intend to go through your opponent's square, you can stop investing and focus on something else. Once you've got a comfortable level of success at appraising items, you can stop investing in that. And so on.As far as knowledge spells and certain other skills go, I really think each class should offer one or more as freebies like what they did with Wild Empathy in the 3.5 revision. Back in 3.0, Wild Empathy was a skill that a lot of players probably called a skill tax considering it was a core ability of the druid and ranger classes. Folding it into a class ability was a good choice. I wouldn't mind seeing core class knowledges or even a few other skills being auto-invest skills, leaving the skill points available for more discretionary skills.That said, if you wanted to push the game more into skill use territory (even making the attack bonus a skill), then one good way to offer a little more balance in that regard is to keep the skill ranks per level lower for full casters than non-casters. Non-casters would gain more access to the narrative benefits of skill use.</blockquote>

Verification