Pathfinder 1E pathfinder skill system

[Psion]

I see getting rid of skill points is sloppy and a step backwards to a more inflexible game when it comes to character definition.

You want to make a shortcut for GMs, fine. But for my purposes, replacing skill points with a simple advancement scheme is inadequate.

 

[Michael_R_Proteau]

I guess I've never quite understood this criticism. Can't you just eyeball it and give the monster/NPC the skills you want them to have without worrying about counting individual skill points?

Not when a good chunk of the stuff I have prepped for 3.5 was with an eye towards publication, as with Shades of Gray from Necromancer, and a few other projects that were in the works when the 4E announcement came down.

If I am prepping something purely for a home game w/o looking at future publication, then eyeballing works and I can be fairly close to accurate with it, but if I were looking towards running something that was a playtest with an eye towards future publication, than no, I can't just eyeball it and do have to worry about each and every individual skill point, modifier, synergy bonus, and any other little fiddly bit that affects the math in NPC creation and monster advancement.

 

[mmu1]

Not when a good chunk of the stuff I have prepped for 3.5 was with an eye towards publication, as with Shades of Gray from Necromancer, and a few other projects that were in the works when the 4E announcement came down.

Well, too bad, then - tought it out. If it was all sunshine and ponies, everyone would do it themselves, and wouldn't be inclined to pay for it.

Seriously, though - I think revisions should be made primarily with the convenience of the end user in mind. The professionals developing stuff... well, if you can accomodate them too, that's nice, but it doesn't need to be convenient on their end, as long as it works and doesn't affect the bottom line.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I have 3 of theas up in 2 of them pathfinder is ahead one behind by 4 .glad to see folks like alpha as much as me.

 

[BryonD]

I have 3 of theas up in 2 of them pathfinder is ahead one behind by 4 .glad to see folks like alpha as much as me.

It would be interesting to see the results if you asked people planning to primarily switch to 4e not to vote.

 

[BryonD]

I see getting rid of skill points is sloppy and a step backwards to a more inflexible game when it comes to character definition.

You want to make a shortcut for GMs, fine. But for my purposes, replacing skill points with a simple advancement scheme is inadequate.

Exactly. A short cut for npcs and even for players who don't mind a pre-planned character is perfectly fine. Very good even. But freedom to go off the fixed path should be built into the basic rules.

 

[Michael_R_Proteau]

I see getting rid of skill points is sloppy and a step backwards to a more inflexible game when it comes to character definition.

You want to make a shortcut for GMs, fine. But for my purposes, replacing skill points with a simple advancement scheme is inadequate.

Let me ask then, how much differentiation between characters do skill points really make? There are so many other and IMHO better tools (race, class, feat selection, equipment, ability scores, and oh yeah the role-playing of the cplaeyers i.e. personality and how the character is played) already built into the system to provide definition and differention between characters that skill points are in my view a superfluous add on. The difference between 4 ranks and 8 raks in a skill really doesn't differentiate at all between 2 characters who otherwise have identiacal ability scores, race, class, equipment, and feats, and if the toher things are already different, does a difference in number of ranks really matter all that much.

As to how to define a character without skill points:

-I want a character who is really good at climbing-I take climb (or athletics) as a trained skill, have a good ability modifier, take Skilll Focus and buy a climbing kit.

-I want a character who is ok at climbing-I take climb (or athletics) as a trained skill, have a decent key ability modifer and there you go.

-I want a character who is not good at climbing-don't take climb (or athletics) as a trained skill.

Measuring that one character has 8 ranks, the other 2 ranks and the last 0 ranks just adds bookkeeping without really affecting the end result in a meaningful way, at least not meaningful enough im my estimation to justify all the extra time, bookkeeping, and fiddling with skill points that come with using them.

Again, YMMV, but in my experience using skill points don't add enough to the game to justify the time cost of using them. The effects they achieve can be accomplished in other, simpler ways, and I just don't by the argument that you cannot define a character or differentiate between characters without skill points.

 

[Blue]

Let me ask then, how much differentiation between characters do skill points really make? There are so many other and IMHO better tools (race, class, feat selection, equipment, ability scores, and oh yeah the role-playing of the cplaeyers i.e. personality and how the character is played) already built into the system to provide definition and differention between characters that skill points are in my view a superfluous add on. The difference between 4 ranks and 8 raks in a skill really doesn't differentiate at all between 2 characters who otherwise have identiacal ability scores, race, class, equipment, and feats, and if the toher things are already different, does a difference in number of ranks really matter all that much.

Example for ranks:
Let's say I have a character that over time from delving into many ruins and dungeons develops an interest in history. I can't retroactively change my class or race. No class has a focus on it - maybe the loremaster PrC or you could shoehorn bard and ignore most of what the class can do. Equipment? Maybe a +2 for a masterwork ... um, encyclopedia. Spending your one feat ever 3 levels on skill focus (know (history)) is a big investment. But a skill point or two every level can add up. It's the granularity of skill points that make them an important vehicle for the character.

Example for more discrete skills:
Let's take an example from my game. I've got one character who talks and listens. Good diplomacy and listen skill. But closer to the absent-minded professor trying to spot things. As a side note, I have an archer who's the exact opposite - an eagle eye from training it, but nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to listening. As a side note, for your example above, both are human, just core classes (none which can explicitly help spot or listen). Neither spent a feat or has equipment which modifies spot or listen, but somehow they are very different. The one that talks has a much better wisdom - but the lower spot.

I'm confused about this "time cost" about skill ranks. A PC needs to worry about it only once in a while, and usually only adding a single level. It's 5 minutes, probably between sessions, when they are levelling up? That's no real cost. If you tell me that DMs (besides professional publishers) need to invest that time in each NPC, I'll laugh at you. Out loud. There may be some finger pointing as well. Maybe once every few adventures do I need every skill point accounted for with an NPC, usually a major villain. The rest of the time I'm doing like the examples for starting PCs and just giving out max ranks in the correct number of skills. Or in less skills for multiclassing. If I need that much detail. I'll often just have a few appropriate skills (spot +6, ride +8, bluff +6). Personally, that gives me leeway to improvise in a game. Meet a bunch of NPCs? Well, this one's the cook - and has enough unused skill points I don't need to make him an Expert or have a 16 Int to have the skill points to get ranks in it.

Yes, what I do as a DM is much like the consolidated systems. That's because I want the granularity where it will do good - PCs, and a few major NPCs. Let them be special and stand out. A DM-shortcut method is fine for minions. But don't try to force it on PCs.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[Treebore]

My skill system has skill equal to their level. Easy to track. You know your class level you know your skill level. Cross class skills never made sense to me. Why would a fighter not be able to learn just as much about a given subject as a wizard would? Saying that you can only know half as much as someone else because of "X" reason just never worked with me.

So I got rid of cross classing of skills. Too much extra work.

Plus I never saw how you could say a Fighter would only know so little, but the rogue would know tons of stuff. SO I went for a uniform set of skills, everyone has a base of ten skills+INT modifier. The Rogue got to pick 5 more from their class skills, Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Climb, etc.... If they wanted more "rogue skills" than they could use their 10+INT like everyone else. However I did make Rogue skills (Pick pockets, Open Locks, Disarm, etc...) off limits to all other classes except Bard. The rest of the skills were available to anyone. So anyone can have spot, listen, search, diplomacy, etc...

Anyways, I went for what I thought was more uniform, so it was easy to remember (everyone has 10 skills + INT, no cross class stuff), and the rogue was still able to be a rogue.

I did roll spot, listen, sense motive, and search into one skill "Perception" because that is a "skill" I have used for those purposes since early 2E days.

So I still have character diversity/uniqueness with skills, and everyone is treated more equally in terms of knowing skills. Works fine.

 

[Psion]

Let me ask then, how much differentiation between characters do skill points really make? There are so many other and IMHO better tools (race, class, feat selection,

So, one elf rogue with the dodge feat should be the same as another? I don't concur.

equipment,

Wait, I thought equipment dependence was a bad thing.

ability scores, and oh yeah the role-playing of the cplaeyers i.e. personality and how the character is played)

That may be good enough for you.

It's not good enough for me. Never has been. I'm sure I could dig up some arguments in usenet about how "roleplaying" should be good enough (or more recently, where Castles & Crusades is the issue.) To me, some roleplaying is meaningless if not backed up by abilities that reflect their portrayal and background.

I don't really get why it's so hard to believe or (since you seem like you want to disabuse me of my preferences) accept that others might want a level of detail greater than you. Games like GURPS have much more nuanced treatment of skills than D&D does.

Measuring that one character has 8 ranks, the other 2 ranks and the last 0 ranks just adds bookkeeping without really affecting the end result in a meaningful way, at least not meaningful enough im my estimation to justify all the extra time, bookkeeping, and fiddling with skill points that come with using them.

For a random NPC, it may not be. Usually isn't. But then, pick X+int mod, max out always worked for me.

For PCs... once per level up, the player is asked to divvy up typically <10 points. Not a huge book-keeping effort.

I'm cool with simplifying for NPCs.