Pathfinder 1E pathfinder skill system

[Twowolves]

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.

I'm with Psion on this one. The trend to "streamline" skills seems more like "devolution" to me. In fact, I wish they had gone the other way with 3.5, in that in addition to a synergy bonus at 5 ranks in some skills, they should have had additional things you could do at certain skill rank thresholds, like levels of mastery. Too many skills (especially the "trained only" skills) give too much benefit for a 1 rank dip, at least IMO.

IMC, we have a dwarven wizard with a high Int. One rank in Appraise and he can nail just about anything made of metal or stone (gold and jewels, what else do you really care about?). He also put 3 or 4 ranks in Craft Weaponsmithing and Craft Armorsmithing as just a little background filler, and he's already way better than the cleric and paladin in the group, both of which worship a god that includes metalsmithing in his portfolio! With benchmarks for minimum skill ranks, it would encourage people to stick with some skills beyond the 1 or 2 point dip.

 

[Twowolves]

Distributing the points from one skill over 2-3 skills is generally a very bad idea, it essentially makes the skill useless for anything but the most banal things. While it might be effective at lower levels, especially if you count ability and racial modifiers. At higher levels it really sucks, both for the player and the GM. Often not everyone spreads his skills around, they often concentrate one a few skills and max. those. Higher levels often have higher DCs, thus the folks that only have a few points in a skill could just as easily not have taken those skills at all.

I don't completely agree. Especially for skills with static (non-opposed) DCs. Once you hit double digits in levels, almost any maxed out skill for non-opposed DCs is essentially done. Once you can beat a 25 or 30 while taking 10, there is little point to keeping that skill maxed out. Which highlights a distinction between skills I hadn't noticed before. Opposed skills should be kept maxed out, but others (Appraise, Tumble, Climb, etc) can reasonably be effectively "capped" early, or dabbled in across many levels of play.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I favor the Alpha skills, they resemble a SAGAesque HRed skill system I already used and the numbers are better for use of existing DCs.

I probably would have broken down the skills slightly differently and ended up with a few less. But these are a good system especially for an Alpha test. I'll be making some adjustments to my own system after seeing this. I think it would be better to split it into a primary and secondary skill groups with all combat and adventuring relevant pieces in primary and others in secondary with separate skill progressions.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I wouldn't care either way, even if this was a potential issue. As it isn't (I use M&M, which uses skill ranks, and as few or as many as you like in anything you like, PL and PL caps allowing). . . well. . . I really don't care.

I had a skill system figured out for a special modified 3e (my other one,) which was used only for one-shots and other generally quick-prep and quick-play situations. I had skills at 5 levels, including untrained (= 0 ranks in the RAW.) Worked fine, so yeah, I'm not opposed to different approaches to skills. Whatever works.

Time to have another look at the Pathfinder rules. Fly? That's pretty cute. Perception and Stealth, well I'm using them currently (in M&M) so obviously, no issues.

 

[Roman]

The Pathfinder Alpha skill system is vastly preferable, in my mind, to the skill system of SW Saga or 4E, where it is impossible to be bad at a skill at higher levels. Indeed, in practice I almost always give both my PCs when I play and NPCs when I DM max ranks in their skills, so it works out like the Pathfinder system. That said, however, there are players who do like to tinker with their skills and assign different numbers of ranks to different skills. 3.5E system supports both: I can assign max ranks to my skills and have it simple, whereas those who like it can really fool around with their skills. As such, I don't see any major benefit of the Pathfinder Alpha system over the current 3.5E skill system that supports both simplicity and detail depending on what one wants to get out of it. (Still, unlike the 4E skill system, the Pathfinder Alpha skill system works fine for me.)

Skill combinations are a different matter, of course. Rolling tumble and acrobatics into one skill, for example, makes eminent sense. I also like the introduction of the flight skill.

 

[Azgulor]

3.5 skills, amended so that each class gets +2 to its base skill amount (Fighter 4+Int, to Rogue 10+Int).

Amen, amigo. I'm of the same opinion. The current skills rules, being reminiscent of SAGA, made me want to hurl.

 

[Roman]

Amen, amigo. I'm of the same opinion. The current skills rules, being reminiscent of SAGA, made me want to hurl.

I like the 3.5E skill system, but the current Pathfinder Alpha skill rules are surely vastly superior to the SAGA system: Unlike SAGA, they at least they make it possible to be bad at a skill.

 

[doghead]

pathfinder - skills

I read through the pathfinder skills section a couple of times, and still couldn't get its straight in my mind (its late, and I have had too much coffee, which doesn't help.)

So I voted for 3.5.

With some modifications.

* eliminate the cost difference between class and cross class. Its just fiddly, and adds little to the enjoyment of the game. One rank costs one point. Keep the different 'max ranks' for class and cross class if you want.

* combine some of the more granular skills like Listen/Spot, MvSilent/Hide.

Personally, I tend to go further and ditch the whole class skill system. Players can give their characters whatever skills they think fit. Its simpler, players are happier, and it hasn't caused any great problems so far. I also tend to throw a the players a bunch of extra skill points as well 'cos I often find myself battling to have characters reflect fairly ordinary backgrounds with the skills given - especially for fighters.

doghead
aka thotd

 

[Syltorian]

As such, I don't see any major benefit of the Pathfinder Alpha system over the current 3.5E skill system that supports both simplicity and detail depending on what one wants to get out of it. (Still, unlike the 4E skill system, the Pathfinder Alpha skill system works fine for me.)

I perfectly agree with this. I am one of those people who like to tinker with their skill points, and who like to max out some skills, while being versatile with others. The new skill system is not the only reason why I do not like 4E, but it is a major one and would likely give me serious doubts about getting into that edition, even were it not for other elements I don't find to my liking. Yes, I do like my skill points a lot!

I agree that micromanagement can be a head-ache (though I personally adore it - the micromanagement, not the headache); but as Roman says, if you want to make your NPC within the shortest time possible, simply max out all his skills. To me, that does not seem to take more time than the Pathfinder System. Skill-points allow for both ways of play (may not perfectly, but close enough); Pathfinder (and related) systems only for one, so even beyond personal preferences, I have to support skill-points.

The other problem is backwards compatibility. That is another goal of Pathfinder, and one I really appreciate. It may be more difficult to achieve than they want in any case, but changing the skill system simply adds to the problems. Most PrCs and some feats, some spells even (e.g. Balancing Lorecall) depend on skill ranks. Rolling the skills together (Perception, Acrobatics, etc) is already going to prove difficult - it's not a move I like, but one I can live with - but changing the entire system will make conversion more difficult. Not impossible, admittedly, but this simplification can make matters very difficult.

Like some other posters I dislike the class-skill/cross-class-skill distinction. However, this is easy enough to bring in as a house-rule, whereas it is more difficult to create a house-rule that creates cross-class skills for people who want that. So, by the same reasoning by which I would plead to return to skill points (offers both possibilities), I would argue that the distinction should remain (with, perhaps, a side-bar offering the alternative).

 

[biotech66]

Being a big fan of how SWSE handles skills....

I though I was the only one who didn't hate that system.