Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Skill Consolidation

[Nikosandros]

I'm somewhat perplexed by the skill list in PF. There are some broad skills like stealth and perception and than climb and swim are separate skills. Also, each type of perform is a separate skills. This strikes me as somewhat incoherent.

I'm currently playing PF, but I might run it again soon. Last time I was the GM, I consolidated some of the skills: climb and swim went into athletics (which could also be used to jump), escape artist was folded into acrobatics, bluff and disguise became deception and there is just a single perform skill (as in D&D 3.0). I'm thinking of keeping this house rules and I'm also looking hard at spellcraft (it could be folder into either K: Arcana or Religion, depending on the type of spell), but I'm curious about other opinions.

Also, I'm looking at this from a somewhat "gamist" stance. I fully understand that it might be more realistic to keep those skills separated, but I'm not too concerned about that angle (and after all the same could be argued about stealth and especially perception).

 

[Ahnehnois]

There will always be problems of scope. PF just moved the bar a bit.

If you're going to consolidate skills to this extent, you might want to relook at how you're granting skill points. If a rogue can take stealth, perception, deception, athletics, and acrobatics, he has basically the entire rogue skill set, with 3 skill ranks/level left over before bonuses from Int or being human. At some point, most characters can pretty much do anything that they want to do, about equally well, and the skill system no longer provides any meaningful customization of characters.

 

[Wicht]

For myself the PF breakdown is just about right. I wouldn't mess with perform personally, but could see a general Athletics category for swim and climb (though one is Strength and one is Dex and that suits me so I leave as is).

 

[Nikosandros]

Climb is strength, as it was in 3.x. I can actually see a good argument for using dexterity for climbing, but that is another topic...

 

[Nikosandros]

There will always be problems of scope. PF just moved the bar a bit.

I agree that different games have different scopes for skills, for example, 4e has skills with a much wider scope. My quibble is that PF is somewhat incoherent with the scope of different skills.

If you're going to consolidate skills to this extent, you might want to relook at how you're granting skill points. If a rogue can take stealth, perception, deception, athletics, and acrobatics, he has basically the entire rogue skill set, with 3 skill ranks/level left over before bonuses from Int or being human. At some point, most characters can pretty much do anything that they want to do, about equally well, and the skill system no longer provides any meaningful customization of characters.

This is a very valid point. I don't see it as necessarily bad that rogues can cover all the "standard" abilities and than have ranks to spare in other areas like diplomacy and knowledge skills. It also true however, that the bonus from Int can provide a huge variance between different characters, so that what appears balanced for one might very well turn out to be excessive for another.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I agree that different games have different scopes for skills, for example, 4e has skills with a much wider scope. My quibble is that PF is somewhat incoherent with the scope of different skills.

It's never really coherent though. IIRC, 4e has "Dungeoneering" as a skill, which is a pretty narrow category compared to, say Arcana. Let alone Stealth. 4e has fewer skills and they are consolidated, but the scope of the skills it does have still varies widely.

It would be impossible to have any meaningful skill list where they're all the same in scope.

Of course, all of D&D to this point has the oddity of treating noncombat skill differently from combat skill, which is a huge incoherence.

This is a very valid point. I don't see it as necessarily bad that rogues can cover all the "standard" abilities and than have ranks to spare in other areas like diplomacy and knowledge skills. It also true however, that the bonus from Int can provide a huge variance between different characters, so that what appears balanced for one might very well turn out to be excessive for another.

The default characters are pretty underskilled, IMO, so increasing the effective value of their skill points won't be a huge issue until you do it a lot. But it will happen. Increasing the effective value of each skill point increases the swinginess that INT causes.

 

[billd91]

While I too would prefer putting climb, jump, and swimming together, Paizo's rationale is reasonably sound for not doing so. Climb and swim are fairly standard movement categories and lots of creatures should get varying bonuses to one or more of them. Lumping them together causes a proliferation of context bonuses that doesn't simplify the game.

 

[Morrus]

I'm at the point where I definitely prefer 13th Age's broad player-defined skill system if backgrounds. I've always found 3.x skill lists to feel arbitrary to me. Never connected with them.

 

[Wicht]

Climb is strength, as it was in 3.x. I can actually see a good argument for using dexterity for climbing, but that is another topic...

You are correct. My mind, I think was on Acrobatics.

The other point, made by Bill, about different creature types utilizing different move categories is also a good thing to keep in mind when combining them.

 

[Zireael]

I'm at the point where I definitely prefer 13th Age's broad player-defined skill system if backgrounds. I've always found 3.x skill lists to feel arbitrary to me. Never connected with them.

You mean backgrounds supersede skills?