Pathfinder 1E pathfinder skill system
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
I prefer the 3.5 skill point system in general, but have gleaned a lot of streamlining ideas from all the Paizo discussions about skill systems. Lots of creative juices flowing over there. 
Hunter In Darkness
First Post
arscott said:
Funny thats one of the changes I like most
I prefer that PCs have the option of full 3.5 skill points, but use a set of house-rules very similar to The Gneech's list.
I understand the idea behind the Pathfinder system (and this is what I do with NPCs) but I think it needs some brushing up to be any easier to use than the regular 3.5.
I understand the idea behind the Pathfinder system (and this is what I do with NPCs) but I think it needs some brushing up to be any easier to use than the regular 3.5.
Rauol_Duke
First Post
I don't really like assigning ranks, so I voted Alpha, even though the Pathfinder RPG skill system is currently in revision (which it needed). Hopefully, I will prefer it after the revision as well.
igavskoga
First Post
Personally I prefer something closer to the 3.5 system with a few additions, namely getting rid of cross-class cost and increasing skill points across the board.
In my heavily augmented d20 campaign I went a bit further and did the following (for anyone who might find these changes useful in their own game)-
Removed the concept of cross-class skills entirely (though for a while I considered keeping the class skill lists and the cross-class rank restriction but eliminate the 2:1 cost)
Increased skill points across the board (6+int is the minimum, with one or two classes having 10+int)
Consolidated some skills into a single skill but kept multiple ability dependency (Ex: Swim, Climb, and Jump into Athletics, but a Swim check keys off of Constitution, Climb off of Strength, and Jump off of Dexterity). Retaining these sort of sub-categories allows me to also keep feats and abilities that grant a +2 to Climb checks, but also add new ones that may give a +2 to Athletics.
Increased the minimum rank requirement for skill synergy bonuses to 10 ranks, as I've always felt that synergies should represent the ability to apply theories in the abstract to a different field - hence speaking to a greater depth of knowledge.
Borrowed a bit from Saga and implemented the idea of Core Skills, a small list of skills which are "core" to the character's concept and improve simply through use - these skills gain a free *rank* (not a bonus) every Even level.
Lastly I implemented Background Skills. The PC's, at creation, pick from the NPC classes and define a role, such as "Commoner (Farmhand)" or "Warrior (Watch Recruit)" and are able to put a small pool of points into a limited list of skills to reflect that.
These skill changes resulted in characters (especially 1st level) that feel far more fleshed out and "real".
Obviously that's a bit of a hefty change, and most DM's are largely going to tweak and twist the rules to fit their personal tastes. I think the overall skill system is one that, no matter which way you go, will be guaranteed to rub one group the wrong way -- as such the smartest thing to do would probably to present both systems as an option in the rules. I also think that in order to stay close to the stated goal of backwards compatibility, it would be a good idea to think hard on retaining the 3.5 skill points as the "main" option, and leave the more 4e/SAGA influenced skill system as a secondary option.
EDIT: Also, IMO, there's no reason why you can't have the more customizable (arguably) 3.5-esque skill system for PC's, and use the more streamlined (arguably) 4e/SAGA-esque skill system for easy/quick NPC generation. This is something I have always sort of done anyway, but mostly because I never felt the need to fully stat out an NPC that wasn't going to last more than a few rounds of combat (beyond HP, AC, Attack Bonus, DMG, Senses, and some notes on tactics). If they did, and survived long enough to become a recurring enemy -- that's when I would create/add more detail.
In my heavily augmented d20 campaign I went a bit further and did the following (for anyone who might find these changes useful in their own game)-
Removed the concept of cross-class skills entirely (though for a while I considered keeping the class skill lists and the cross-class rank restriction but eliminate the 2:1 cost)
Increased skill points across the board (6+int is the minimum, with one or two classes having 10+int)
Consolidated some skills into a single skill but kept multiple ability dependency (Ex: Swim, Climb, and Jump into Athletics, but a Swim check keys off of Constitution, Climb off of Strength, and Jump off of Dexterity). Retaining these sort of sub-categories allows me to also keep feats and abilities that grant a +2 to Climb checks, but also add new ones that may give a +2 to Athletics.
Increased the minimum rank requirement for skill synergy bonuses to 10 ranks, as I've always felt that synergies should represent the ability to apply theories in the abstract to a different field - hence speaking to a greater depth of knowledge.
Borrowed a bit from Saga and implemented the idea of Core Skills, a small list of skills which are "core" to the character's concept and improve simply through use - these skills gain a free *rank* (not a bonus) every Even level.
Lastly I implemented Background Skills. The PC's, at creation, pick from the NPC classes and define a role, such as "Commoner (Farmhand)" or "Warrior (Watch Recruit)" and are able to put a small pool of points into a limited list of skills to reflect that.
These skill changes resulted in characters (especially 1st level) that feel far more fleshed out and "real".
Obviously that's a bit of a hefty change, and most DM's are largely going to tweak and twist the rules to fit their personal tastes. I think the overall skill system is one that, no matter which way you go, will be guaranteed to rub one group the wrong way -- as such the smartest thing to do would probably to present both systems as an option in the rules. I also think that in order to stay close to the stated goal of backwards compatibility, it would be a good idea to think hard on retaining the 3.5 skill points as the "main" option, and leave the more 4e/SAGA influenced skill system as a secondary option.
EDIT: Also, IMO, there's no reason why you can't have the more customizable (arguably) 3.5-esque skill system for PC's, and use the more streamlined (arguably) 4e/SAGA-esque skill system for easy/quick NPC generation. This is something I have always sort of done anyway, but mostly because I never felt the need to fully stat out an NPC that wasn't going to last more than a few rounds of combat (beyond HP, AC, Attack Bonus, DMG, Senses, and some notes on tactics). If they did, and survived long enough to become a recurring enemy -- that's when I would create/add more detail.
Last edited:
Michael_R_Proteau
First Post
Getting rid of skill points is one of the easiest ways to simplify the game and reduce DM prep time, two of the biggest criticisms I have of 3.5. Skill points create a lot of needless bookkeeping that rarely comes into actual gameplay, especially when creating NPCs of improving/creating monsters.
I am not 100% satisfied with the Alpha sills system, I would like to see an elimination of the cross-class/class skill distinction. However, I think eliminating skill points was a huge step in the right direction. I am looking forward to the Alpha revision dealing with the skills they mentioned was in the works and hoping that it does not make a step back to skill points.
The way we currently houserule the acquisition of class skill/cross skill distinction is that the number of skills you get to choose for your class must choose from among your class skill list, as these represent what you learned in training to become 1st level in your class, but those you get to choose based on your Intelligence modifier can be taken from the entire skill list as they represent things you learned before you began "training to be an adventurer in a particular class." Any new skills you learn after character generation have to reflect things you would have learned in play or during downtime between adventures. Example: your wizard is travelling with a group of adventurers and has to spend time on watch, the experience makes him better at doing so, and when he learns a new skill he chooses Perception. It is an outgrouth of the character. He did not spend any time learning about the outer planes during his adventures and had no time to spend in a library or tracing down scrolls, so he cannot add Knowledge (the planes) as a new skill until that opportunity presents itself. It can also ad potential hooks for future adventures if the character wants to learn about the outer planes (or any other skill for that matter).
I am not 100% satisfied with the Alpha sills system, I would like to see an elimination of the cross-class/class skill distinction. However, I think eliminating skill points was a huge step in the right direction. I am looking forward to the Alpha revision dealing with the skills they mentioned was in the works and hoping that it does not make a step back to skill points.
The way we currently houserule the acquisition of class skill/cross skill distinction is that the number of skills you get to choose for your class must choose from among your class skill list, as these represent what you learned in training to become 1st level in your class, but those you get to choose based on your Intelligence modifier can be taken from the entire skill list as they represent things you learned before you began "training to be an adventurer in a particular class." Any new skills you learn after character generation have to reflect things you would have learned in play or during downtime between adventures. Example: your wizard is travelling with a group of adventurers and has to spend time on watch, the experience makes him better at doing so, and when he learns a new skill he chooses Perception. It is an outgrouth of the character. He did not spend any time learning about the outer planes during his adventures and had no time to spend in a library or tracing down scrolls, so he cannot add Knowledge (the planes) as a new skill until that opportunity presents itself. It can also ad potential hooks for future adventures if the character wants to learn about the outer planes (or any other skill for that matter).
Last edited:
igavskoga said:
This is exactly what I would have preferred in both 4e, Pathfinder and Star Wars. I primarily DM. As a DM, I can relate to statting out NPCs and can appreciate a quick method of generating skills. However, as a player, I want to develop skills from level to level as I deem appropraite rather than having the system decide that my skills automatically improve.
Similar Threads
