Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6272530" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I prefer Pathfinder's approach of a fixed bonus to the skill if any ranks are added, rather than the 3e model where it costs double and caps out at half as many ranks.&nbsp; Patbhfinder's system provides an advantage, where the 3.5 approach largely prevents being effective in a non-class skill.While I won't completely disagree, I also don't favour a system where an average INT character can be good at everything.&nbsp; I don't think we'd lose the requirement to make real choices if we bumped every class by 2 skill points per level.&nbsp; My use of &quot;add two class skills and get max ranks in them&quot; was more aimed at minimizing the changes from 3.5.Bonuses to skills also works.Funny how Barbarians got to be icons once they became a 3rd Ed class.&nbsp; They have way less history than Ranger, Rogue or Paladin.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6272530, member: 6681948"] I prefer Pathfinder's approach of a fixed bonus to the skill if any ranks are added, rather than the 3e model where it costs double and caps out at half as many ranks. Patbhfinder's system provides an advantage, where the 3.5 approach largely prevents being effective in a non-class skill. While I won't completely disagree, I also don't favour a system where an average INT character can be good at everything. I don't think we'd lose the requirement to make real choices if we bumped every class by 2 skill points per level. My use of "add two class skills and get max ranks in them" was more aimed at minimizing the changes from 3.5. Bonuses to skills also works. Funny how Barbarians got to be icons once they became a 3rd Ed class. They have way less history than Ranger, Rogue or Paladin. [/QUOTE]

Verification