One of my grumps with skills such as Diplomacy is that they're one-shot. That is, a PC typically rolls, and then...that's it. Without adapting the rules for Performance Combat into Influence Combat, there's little dynamism to be had.
When the original playtest came about, the subject of skills came up, and the boards were mostly silent...at least compared to other playtest areas.
So this is my challenge to you: If you had the opportunity, how would you address skills in a PF 2.0? What's your ideas for them?
I imagine "minimum 4 skill points, with the exception of int-based casters" is a given, so what else? Would you address the greater system? If so, how?
I don't like the way socials skills such Diplomacy or Intimidate can become an auto-win button at high levels. In my own games, I use an intuitive guideline with additional DC modifier depending on the back-story of the NPC targeted by the Diplomacy attempt. According to me, there is not enough conditional modifiers to Diplomacy rolls, both for improving someone's attitude or when asking him to perform a task.
I would also like to see Diplomacy being opposed to something when used to influence someone, instead of a flat DC, as it is already the case with Bluff Vs Sense Motive or Intimidate vs 10 + hit dice + Wisdom modifier.
However, I don't like the «social encounters» approach. According to me, this part of the game must be as intuitive as possible. Any extra rules can only get in the way of role playing in my opinion.
I would have a codified skill challenge system like 4e and other systems have. The player or players are faced with a situation where they have so many chances of completing a task and must gain a number of successes over time. If players are clever then they could use non-standard skills or ability modifiers for the check (though these skill substitutions should only be allowed once or twice during a skill challenge). Every 5 points over the DC scores an extra success.
As for skills themselves: I have been home-brewing a system. I would essentially cap skills at 1/2 class level and adjust DCs accordingly. I would actually give characters FEWER skills per level but on the second level, they would diversify and grab more new skills. This structure makes feats that improve skills more attractive.
In general, I think the math of Pathfinder 2.0 would need to be scaled down a little. Attack bonuses and defenses should probably both scale slower.
I would have a codified skill challenge system like 4e and other systems have. The player or players are faced with a situation where they have so many chances of completing a task and must gain a number of successes over time. If players are clever then they could use non-standard skills or ability modifiers for the check (though these skill substitutions should only be allowed once or twice during a skill challenge). Every 5 points over the DC scores an extra success.
This is pretty similar to what I do, though I didn't own the 4e books. One of the last SWSE books had a version of skill challenges in it (based off 4e's, I'd bet).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, I don't remember the beta discussions being silent over skills, but the talk was more about what skills to have/consolidate rather than over how they worked. There was a big debate over Acrobatics and whether Climb/Swim/Jump should be worked into an "Athletics" skill for example. (Which I for one would still prefer.)
I like the skill system, but I'd like to see more robust guidelines for the GM using them---and guidelines for how roleplay factors into skill use. For example, a big complaint about Social Interaction skills is that if they are overused/ used exclusively to determine reaction, the value of what someone says/how they roleplay is lost. But on the other hand, of course, if a character is technically more charismatic/persuasive than the player, it's hard for that player to roleplay out just how suave his or her character is, and skill checks become essential to them to feel like they can play their character effectively. When I run games, the quality/content of what someone says can modify a skill check--for example, if the PC does some research and learns that the NPC he is trying to persuade is mourning the death of her husband, well expressed condolences might help sway her (add a bonus to his Diplomacy check), while a callous remark about the guy kicking the bucket might increase the effective DC. This also lets someone who isn't hugely trained in such challenges be successful if they appropriately use in-game knowledge (and helps someone already be persuasive push the successes up an incredible notch). I'd like to see guidelines for how good descriptions, problem solving skills, etc. (or lack thereof) might affect a use of skills. GMs can do all of this on their own, but some are better at intuiting that kind of system than others.
I've always liked the idea of a skill challenge and would like to see more of those (those CAN exist in Pathfinder currently, there's just not a lot of examples of them). Coupled with the comment above, guidelines for how GMs can run skill-based scenes and encounters I think are crucial.
Being fan of lots of skill use, I would like to see, perhaps, a better specialization system. I.e., someone who is really good at lockpicking gets a better bonus at Disable Device than he does at disarming traps. A Historian who knows the Last Great War history really well gets a bonus on checks, but doesn't get that same bonus for, say, knowing the history of the settlement of the colony of Boondockia. That said, I can understand that would be finicky, and perhaps be too complicated.
I imagine "minimum 4 skill points, with the exception of int-based casters" is a given, so what else? Would you address the greater system? If so, how?
No such things as class skills (or, alternately, all skills are class skills for all classes), would be my main thing.
Climb+Swim+Jump is Athletics.
Tumble+Balance+Falling is Acrobatics.
Spellcraft becomes like Concentration is now; just something spellcasters get. Since it seems every caster is obligated to keep that as high as possible, no reason for it to be a skill point tax.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to be a broken record, but I'll assume the role anyway: instead of spells auto-succeeding where one would normally make a skill roll, spells should grant a bonus to said skill, treat you as trained, add rerolls, and so on. While the binary nature of skills is problematic without GM intervention, the number 1 issue with skill use is, "don't bother, Bobgoblin the Wizard has <insert spell> which has no chance of failure."
When Gygax and Co. wrote the original spells, skills as we know them didn't exist. The 3.0 writers did not account for that -or didn't care - which caused many of the problems we still deal with today in PF. Continuing to purchase products and support a company that refuses to correct this oversight, however, is our own fault.
My opinions, of course, so take them with a grain of salt.
I'm with Da'ath, though I'd file that under 'How would you handle spells in PF2'. :)
I agree with Da'ath. And I also think that binary success or failure are important things to address. I think skills should sort of have "degrees of success" and "degrees of failure". I always rule that failing by a lot may have particularly problematic consequences while failing by a little might actually still get the job done (especially when the skill check is to move the story forward), but there are some additional drawbacks or consequences to the relatively poor check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKILLS
Appraise: Merged with Profession (merchant)
Craft: Merged with Profession
Perform: Merged with Profession
Profession: Now has the additional functionality of the Craft and Perform skills. Being a craftsman or a performer requires ranks in a Profession skill associated with that craft or performance. For example, instead of having ranks in Perform (singing), you would have ranks in Profession (singer). Likewise, you would have ranks in Profession (weaponsmith) instead of Craft (weapon). Using these skills follows the same rules as described in Craft or Perform. You can make a weekly job roll as normal for all Profession skills.
More concrete rules on how long term activities work.
Actual examples of how to run skill checks rather than just a table with DCs.
I personally run Diplomacy/Intimidate very differently. Players have to roleplay it out. I judge mostly on the content of what they say rather than how they say it, so not to punish players for being bad actors. I only call for Diplomacy/Intimidate rolls if the NPC is on the fence about the matter. In most circumstances, the players ask for Diplomacy rolls. I let them do so, but it merely has an influence on the result rather than the decider, which is what the skill was made for in the first place.
Should skills be made less important, or their uses more robust and/or fleshed out? For example, skill challenges?
More. Definitely more important.
I think generally, most players prefer their skills being broad, robust, and fleshed out. Putting a rank in a skill should feel like a good investment. Using a skill should be fun and encourage creativity.
I'm with Da'ath, though I'd file that under 'How would you handle spells in PF2'. :)
Ha! True, but it is astonishing how many systems suddenly become useful when magic can't do it all and better. I am a broken record.:(
Agreed with the above posters. I'll provide some examples when I can use my computer instead of my phone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, they need to decide what the actual purpose of the skills are and why they are there. Are skills there to indicate the areas of specialized knowledge that characters have? Are they there to model everything a character knows? Are they things characters have been trained in or gained experience in?
Right now we have a huge mish mash with no clear purpose that creates a situation where you have some really specific skills and some really generic ones and they seem to have been picked at random.
The second thing they need is high level uses of the skills. Most skills really aren't useful past the mid-levels which really hurts skill-focused characters. If high skill point alchemists could make basic potions and high skilled weapon smiths could make basic magic weapons that would make skills much cooler. Characters would have an incentive to invest in skills beyond the basics.
Third, they need to expand class skill lists drastically and/or provide a generic class skill for each type of class. Right now there really isn't a good way to model the random collection of things martials or rogues would know unlike clerics and wizards who have spellcraft and knowledge:religion/knowledge:arcana. Where is the combatcraft skill?
Personally speaking, I would un-consolidate the skills and give out more skill points. As it is there is way too much emphasis on Perception due to the consolidation.
For Diplomacy I would use the rules proposed over at The Alexandrian. His changes actually make it easier to adjucate the skill in game and provides much better guidelines on how to use it, how long it lasts, and what kind of bonuses there are. I believe he riffs off of and improves the diplomacy rules proposed by Rich Burlew. I would also use his variation on Tumble since it works way better.
(On a side note, I would probably import most of his side rules for crowds, fire, and other useful corner cases).
Also, thumbs down on the skill challenges. At least as far 4E did them (extremely poorly - they didn't understand the math behind them and got it backwards).
Skill challenges always seem interesting in theory but I have never seen them pulled off well.
Also, thumbs down on the skill challenges. At least as far 4E did them (extremely poorly - they didn't understand the math behind them and got it backwards).
Skill challenges always seem interesting in theory but I have never seen them pulled off well.
A better formulation of skill challenge would be to have a fixed number of attempts and then rate level of success based on the results obtained. For example, a skill challenge may have 5 checks. 5 successes = decisive success, 4 successes = success, 3 success = marginal success, 2 successes = marginal failure, 1 success = failure. Something along those lines. And each level of success (or failure) has consequences appropriate to the magnitude of the task and how well the PCs did.
I think that the skill system is if anything too streamlined. if every class get's 4+int skills per level and even more skills are combined than the huge combinations from 3.5 to pathfinder then every character will soon be able to do every skill. Okay that's an exaggeration but I think it should be hard to master multiple things and players should have to choose how to allocate finite resources. So overall I really like how they changed things from 3.5 to pathfinder and don't really think it needs changed at all as far as skill point allocation.
I would like to see expanded uses for the skills particularly the social skills as has been mentioned previously. I would also like to see spellcraft being used more, particularly to modify spells, eg whenever you want to do something with a spell which is non standard but logically sound you make a spellcraft check.
I would also like to see Diplomacy being opposed to something when used to influence someone, instead of a flat DC, as it is already the case with Bluff Vs Sense Motive or Intimidate vs 10 + hit dice + Wisdom modifier.
A sensible approach; logically the Diplomacy would be opposed by the NPC's diplomacy.
However, I don't like the «social encounters» approach. According to me, this part of the game must be as intuitive as possible. Any extra rules can only get in the way of role playing in my opinion.
In general I like the addition of skills to the game compared to the original AD&D, but I don't like them replacing role-playing. It seems a big loss when instead of role-playing a discussion with an NPC, the player just states intent and rolls the d20.
However, for physical skills (Craft, Climb, Acrobatics, etc.) I think the system is good.
Survival is a borderline case; it would be nice (sometimes) for the players to come up with ideas for how, say, how to find food in a wild location.
I think I'm against increasing the skills of any classes, because the high skills of classes like Rogues are exactly what makes those classes attractive; by increasing the skill ranks of other classes you make a class like the rogue comparatively weaker.
I actually don't feel like there's much that needs to be changed in the skills, and I feel Paizo would be unwise to make big changes to *anything* for a version 2, instead focusing on tweaks, small fixes, and clarifications.
In general I like the addition of skills to the game compared to the original AD&D, but I don't like them replacing role-playing. It seems a big loss when instead of role-playing a discussion with an NPC, the player just states intent and rolls the d20.
As I talked about above, it shouldn't have to be either or.
Any check that can potential auto win an encounter must be opposed by 3 different options.
Ie:
Diplomacy and bluff can be opposed by opponents:
Sense motive
Will save
10+wis modDiplomacy can also as now be a diplomacy vs. diplomacy check...
No character should be able to lose an encounter just because 1 skill was rejected in char gen...
Kind of puzzled by the idea of "social skills as win button" because I've never seen that happen, and in the games I play at the table with my friends, social skills--all skills--get used a lot.
If you can talk someone down with a skill check (versus an appropriate DC as always) to me, it's the same level of ability as hitting someone with a sword--in both, you roll d20 versus an appropriate defense DC. The only existing issue is that some (but not all) social checks are vs a static DC, and turning that into an opposed roll.
But the "defense" against it shouldn't be a choice of any one thing any more than a roll to hit someone can be opposed by AC OR a Fortitude save OR an Acrobatics check to Dodge.
Also, very, very seldom should a social skill check completely resolve an encounter, at least if you are following the rules correctly. If you manage to get an impressively high enough Diplomacy check that a hostile character becomes friendly, you may have avoided an immediate fight (which is a good thing worth celebrating), but that character is still an independent being with free will. The NPC may be willing to help the party, but his idea of "helping" could indeed be to, say, try to talk the party in turn into joining his bad guy friends. The PCs earning an NPC's loyalty doesn't necessarily mean that NPC gives up his existing loyalties--heck even a lot of charm-type spells don't do that. A skill check certainly won't.
Further, as generally you don't need every party member capable of doing the talking, someone who "dumped" social skills should be content to let the Party Face shine in the appropriate moment, just as that person probably shines elsewhere in the game that the Party Face doesn't. No one character should be good at everything--and you shouldn't dumb down social encounters to make the guy who dumped Charisma feel better about himself any more than you should nerf fights to make the skill-support non-combat specialist feel powerful.
The only issue where problems like that erupt is if the party is effectively split--okay, you go talk to the guards, you go buy the shoes, you go take care of things at the tavern, you go beat up the bully, and the party either has divided its tasks poorly and/or the party remains split for too long than is ever wise or safe in an RPG. And in that case, if the Big Dumb Fighter decides to talk down the guards and manages to piss them off instead, you kind of get what was coming to ya.
But then I also don't believe in the idea of "losing" an encounter. Sometimes non-ideal circumstances erupt, but it just leads to interesting story opportunities, at least under a creative and non-punishing-type GM. The Big Dumb Fighter pisses off the guards? An exciting fight breaks out! Or he has to flee, but in the process, the guards drop the keys to the place they have to get into, noticed by the rogue as he comes to help the fighter. Or everybody gets arrested... which is at least one way in to the dungeon of the castle they were trying to enter anyway, and then an exciting escape plan can be concocted. If you're feeling constantly helpless or frustrated because you can't do something, something's wrong, not with the system itself, but something in how encounters are being mapped out (too many challenges of the same kind, for example), or something in what you are trying to do with your character (forcing them out of their element too often, perhaps). There may be a GM or player deficiency there, in other words, but not a system deficiency. (And hopefully either that deficiency can be addressed, or you can find another game that better suits your play style.) If there IS a case where a lot of stuff is social for an extended period of time--there should be opportunities for the others to do things where either they don't require social skill checks or there are appropriate bonuses/lowered DCs based on circumstances. For example, the PCs have been invited to a party and are expected to mingle. There's a goal to find a certain piece of information. But while the party bard does a lot of the quick-talking, perhaps there's a guest who is enthralled by the fighter's muscle, or a nerdy scholar who wishes to discuss a bit of arcane history with the wizard. Some things shouldn't require rolls--just let people roleplay--save it for finding that one crucial piece of information, let the others drop clues as appropriate to the story. Aaaaaand that's why I think there needs to be better guidelines for how to run social encounters.
But no character should be good at anything, and I especially, passionately do not approve of making social encounters easier because Cha is too often considered "worthless" (clearly, it's not if people feel this way about social encounters) and the person who does build it and related skills up deserves to shine in their own way as much as anyone else--just as someone who chose to focus on physical prowess should have their moments of awesome. And the two should be mature enough to step back and let the other do their thing when the time comes to it.
Is the consolidation of skill the whole problem, apart from spells? What was removed that suddenly made many of these things problems that weren't much of an issue in 3.0-3.5?
I thought a bit more about skills last night after my 3 year old went to bed, and while reading through many of my alternative d20 source books, I noticed something that really hadn't dawned on me before.
Pathfinder did what Paizo does best - grab bag and removing checks and balances from systems without thought for potential consequences. It is, however, as much fault as those who participated in Beta (which includes myself) as it is Paizo in this case.
What checks and balances did Paizo remove?
- Niche protection. See the next point.
- Maximum ranks on non-class skills. Everyone has maximum Perception because everyone CAN have maximum Perception.
- Inflated skill values through feats. Did skill focus need to be made more appealing? Yes. Does it need to further add a +6 after 10 ranks? Not so much. The value should probably be +2/+4, not +3/+6 (I need to check the math, this is a hypothesis at this point).
Here's what they did right:
- Reduced the number of skill ranks we have to deal with (Int + X) * Y. It's a flat value we start with and goes up by that flat value. Class skill? You get a training bonus for putting ranks in it. You can put 1 point into a skill, period and that's great.
- Removed the really annoying spend 1/2 a point on class skills bit.
- This last one is my opinion, which may or may not be shared: consolidated class skills.
These are just a few things I thought of, but shouldn't be considered a complete critique.
I am now considering doing the following for my home setting:
- Re-institute Cross-Class skills, sort of. If the skill is not a class skill, you may put no more than 1/2 your level into it. In essence, you may not put points into the skill save on even levels.
- Reduce Skill Focus and Adjust DCs/check the math: +2/+4 (or something more appropriate if the math is found faulty.)
- Every skill that can be used against an NPC or PC should have an opposing skill (I already do this, Re: Diplomacy/Bluff vs Sense Motive).
- And the harder part, make skills a bit more robust. Tie certain "special uses" to the number of skill ranks.
Further, I would argue (now) that skills might not need to be any less binary than they currently are.
I saw an example someone posted on another forum not so long ago which involved his scenario that was "Diplomancered". I suggest that GM ignorance is a big problem with skills, as well. You don't "meet" someone, roll Diplomacy, and they're suddenly a friend for life or some mind-less maleable entity you can talk into anything. You roll for initial reaction; you roll for attempts to alter their attitude, you roll for unreasonable requests and when these fail, you reduce their attitude. You arbitrate the scenario as GM; while the system needs to grant more variety, it doesn't need to account for each and every bit of minutae possible. What does account for that? Favorable and Unfavorable circumstances (+2/-2). There are also times, as GM, when you decide regardless of what the player rolls, the particular act isn't possible for this NPC. Farmer Joe can't help you get into the tower of the Order of Uber Arcana, because he's a friggin farmer and doesn't know the secret handshake, for example. It doesn't matter how well you roll, sometimes, if you have nothing of value to a particular NPC to bribe him with.
Sometimes a step "backward" is what is needed. My opinions, as usual.
First, they need to decide what the actual purpose of the skills are and why they are there. Are skills there to indicate the areas of specialized knowledge that characters have? Are they there to model everything a character knows? Are they things characters have been trained in or gained experience in?
Right now we have a huge mish mash with no clear purpose that creates a situation where you have some really specific skills and some really generic ones and they seem to have been picked at random.
I think this first paragraph touches on something important. The PF skill system was inherited, and at a closer reflection, it does seem to suffer from a lack of cohesive purpose. Clarifying that would be a big step forward.
Many in this thread seem to have different ideas on how to do so, but could we say that perhaps the system feels too streamlined in some ways, in general?
What I mean by this is, for example, craft and profession skills could be unified, but other skills could use greater definition, or usage.
The second thing they need is high level uses of the skills. Most skills really aren't useful past the mid-levels which really hurts skill-focused characters. If high skill point alchemists could make basic potions and high skilled weapon smiths could make basic magic weapons that would make skills much cooler. Characters would have an incentive to invest in skills beyond the basics.
I also enjoyed this. I suspect ideas of what constitutes "high level uses" would differ, though.
A change such as this would mean re-addressing the magic system, however. Particularly, as one poster noted, spells such as Fabricate and Mend.
Is the consolidation of skill the whole problem, apart from spells? What was removed that suddenly made many of these things problems that weren't much of an issue in 3.0-3.5?
I admit to skimming this thread, but I'm not sure of the exact "problem" you're talking about. If you'd indulge me enough to explain further I'd appreciate it.
To me, skill consolidation is one of the very best things Pathfinder did--it made a lot of concepts a hell of a lot more playable. I admit, I'm coming in here from the perspective that Pathfinder's skill system is one of the best d20 skill systems there is, so obviously you and I are approaching things from a very different angle.
What checks and balances did Paizo remove?
[list]
Niche protection. See the next point.
Maximum ranks on non-class skills. Everyone has maximum Perception because everyone CAN have maximum Perception.
Except that's not true.
Let's take your example of Perception.
First, okay, let's say every PC "maxes out" Perception--i.e., trains a rank in the Perception skill. Let's look at some fairly typical (neither unoptimal nor ridiculously min-maxed) level 1 characters:
Bob the Human Fighter, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +1 to Perception (the 1 rank).
Sandy the Elf Wizard, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +3 to Perception (rank plus Keen Senses).
Chuck the Dwarf Cleric, with a Wisdom of 18, and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +5 to Perception (rank plus Wisdom bonus).
Mary the Halfling Rogue, with a Wisdom of 12 and Perception as a class skill, gets +6 (1 rank + 3 class bonus + 2 Keen Senses +1 Wisdom), which also increases further to +7 when looking for traps.
Mary only does a little bit better than Chuck because Chuck's got a maxed out Wisdom (racial bonus helps), and in her niche as a trapfinding-type rogue, she definitely exceeds the rest of the party. In a typical party, the party member playing the scout (rogue in this example) is going to definitely exceed everyone else in Perception, thus she's got that as a "niche."
Not to mention--Bob and Chuck both only get 2 skill points a level, fewer if they've dumped Wisdom. Bob does get 1 from being human but that's still very few skill points to play with. They can opt to spend a favored class bonus there, but both as fairly crucial combat character types may not want to lose access to that hit point (or some other racially based bonus). If either of them really want to "max out" Perception, they've got to avoid actual, other niches members of their class might want to have--Bob as a Fighter might easily want to say, train, Intimidate, Ride, Climb, or Knowledge Dungeoneering before Perception, a non-class skill looks attractive. And Chuck the Cleric almost definitely wants to prioritize Spellcraft and Knowledge Religion, and possibly things like Sense Motive and Heal, before getting to that skill as well. Chuck's going to feel stupid if he can't identify the holy symbol of his rival church because he mis-spent his skill points.
Mary, on the other hand, being a rogue, has all the skill points in the world to not only max out Perception--and she should be expected to, like the others--but also to train the other skills she needs to round out her concept.
Mary the rogue also provides an example of how classes that really DO have a skill related niche retain that niche --- additional class bonus. Mary has trapfinding, which boosts her Perception to find traps. Only rogues with the trapfinding abilities or the handful of other archetypes that grant trapfinding get that additional bonus--going up to a +10 above and beyond whatever else they want to spend. Rangers get Perception bonuses related to favored enemy and favored terrain, up to, IIRC, +8 or so. The character types that are going to have a certain niche will easily retain that.
Splitting Perception back into Listen or Spot doesn't make those bonuses any lower... it just leads to arguments at the table about whether something can only be seen, or heard, or both (and multiplying the number of checks to be made and taking up unnecessary time): "well, if he was rustling in the bushes, I should have SEEN the bushes move even if I didn't hear the rustling noise!"
Halving the ranks makes Mary's bonuses much higher compared to everyone else's half ranks, but who cares? Mary's still better at it, and if the party splits, it just means whoever Mary's not with is more likely to get screwed. It gives the party a little versatility, while still leaving the scout-type character the ability to do what they do best.
The only issue with Perception SPECIFICALLY is that it is very, very, very useful skill so a lot of people want to be good at it. But there will always be someone who is best at it -- and besides, having a party that is decent at Perception isn't exactly some horrible thing, especially as some party members will have had to sacrifice training other things to be good at it (meaning they've created weaknesses elsewhere for the GM to exploi---er, provide interesting challenges for). (Now, perhaps if Perception were split out into "notice hazard" and "Search" that would make it a little less of an uber-skill, but everyone training it if they want I still don't think is a big deal.)
Inflated skill values through feats. Did skill focus need to be made more appealing? Yes. Does it need to further add a +6 after 10 ranks? Not so much. The value should probably be +2/+4, not +3/+6 (I need to check the math, this is a hypothesis at this point).
Why is this a problem?
Skill Focus and the dual-skill boost feats (which do give a +2/+4) reward specialization, i.e., helps make it feel worthwhile for both burning the feat and not spreading skill points thin. You have to really focus a build to get that bonus to happen, that's not a terrible thing---and again, it probably means they made sacrifices to be THAT good at one mere skill (perhaps, indeed, to further excel in that "niche" you want to be sure is protected).
I ran a high level game where a cleric of death put skill focus in Knowledge Religion -- her ability to truly identify ANY undead creature (because she could easily hit DCs of 30 or higher easily) was very appropriate and really cool. I wouldn't want to take that away from her (or a similarly focused PC).
Here's what they did right:
On those things I agree.
Reduce Skill Focus and Adjust DCs/check the math: +2/+4 (or something more appropriate if the math is found faulty.)
Again, all the dual-focus skills give that (e.g., Alertness grants +2/+4 to Perception and Sense Motive) so if you reduce the Skill Focus boost, you need to either also reduce the dual skill feats to +1/+2 (which is nearly no better than a trait, so not not really worth it), or just houserule out completely. If you do find the improved bonus at 10 ranks game breaking for your campaigns, you might just want to leave the base bonuses as they are (+2 for dual skill, +3 for Skill Focus) and not give them the incremental boost at 10 ranks.
Tone in internet is hard to convey so for all the above--I am a bit bewildered and would love to understand your POV better; not attacking what you feel works, I just disagree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think skills should become progressively more powerful in the effects that they can do.
For example, take Diplomacy, at 5 ranks, if you beat the Diplomacy DC by 10, the target is affected as per the spell hypnotism.
At 10 ranks, if you beat the DC by 10, you can affect the target as per suggestion.
At 15 ranks if you beat the DC of a large group by 10, you can affect them as per mass suggestion.
At 20 ranks, if you beat the DC by 10, you can affect the target as per charm monster.
All of the spell effects require a saving throw at the minimum DC, so the charm monster would have a DC of 16. It the target succeeds on the saving throw, it doesn't affect the outcome of the diplomacy check in anyway (targets remain friendly etc).
I would do similar things for other skills as appropriate. For example, swim might grant the ability to hold their breath for a long time, then a swim speed, then the ability to breathe underwater.
Removal of niche protection is, IMHO, a good thing. Niche protection should be determined at the table level, not the system level.
Tone in internet is hard to convey so for all the above--I am a bit bewildered and would love to understand your POV better; not attacking what you feel works, I just disagree.
No worries. There's not a thing you wrote that conveyed anything other than what you meant: you want to understand and may disagree with my perspective. I love criticism, especially when it makes me look at something in a different light.
The problem you asked about is a perceived one. There are many threads about skills, most of them complaining in one fashion or another about certain skills being better than others, which ultimate revolve around people feeling Perception is just too useful (but they typically don't say that outright, it takes a few pages).
To me, skill consolidation is one of the very best things Pathfinder did--it made a lot of concepts a hell of a lot more playable. I admit, I'm coming in here from the perspective that Pathfinder's skill system is one of the best d20 skill systems there is, so obviously you and I are approaching things from a very different angle.
My post may have not been clear on this topic until much further in, but I will say I agree with you that skill consolidation was a great idea. My first exposure to it was in Star Wars Saga Edition (couple years before PF, if I remember right) and I was hooked. Since we agree on the point of skill consolidation being a good thing, I won't directly address any of your paragraphs which detail defense of it, as I already agree.=)
Let's take your example of Perception.
First, okay, let's say every PC "maxes out" Perception--i.e., trains a rank in the Perception skill. Let's look at some fairly typical (neither unoptimal nor ridiculously min-maxed) level 1 characters:
Bob the Human Fighter, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +1 to Perception (the 1 rank).
Sandy the Elf Wizard, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +3 to Perception (rank plus Keen Senses).
Chuck the Dwarf Cleric, with a Wisdom of 18, and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +5 to Perception (rank plus Wisdom bonus).
Mary the Halfling Rogue, with a Wisdom of 12 and Perception as a class skill, gets +6 (1 rank + 3 class bonus + 2 Keen Senses +1 Wisdom), which also increases further to +7 when looking for traps.
Okay, let us look at these same adventurers at 20th level, using the same parameters you did, but assuming no skill focus or alternative feats, and that they maintained the same ranks (we'll skip magic items, because I really don't have the time to "gear" these guys up).
* Bob the Human Fighter, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +20 to Perception (the 20 ranks).* Sandy the Elf Wizard, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +22 to Perception (20 ranks plus Keen Senses).
* Chuck the Dwarf Cleric, with a Wisdom of 23, and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +26 to Perception (20 ranks plus Wisdom bonus).
* Mary the Halfling Rogue, with a Wisdom of 12 and Perception as a class skill, gets +26 (20 rank + 3 class bonus + 2 Keen Senses +1 Wisdom), which also increases further to +27 when looking for traps.
While we can guarantee that the cleric would surpass the rogue in terms of Wisdom with magic items (he'll likely be 28+), overall, the difference is not very significant from the level 1 versions of these character. The probability of this party being surprised is not great unless the GM specifically designs an encounter to do so which will require him or her to inflate the numbers unnecessarily (in my opinion) to force it to happen (for whatever reason he needs it to happen).
Let's alter the numbers a bit, taking into account your arguments regarding skill focus and skill boosting feats (which I'm now learning toward agreeing with – particularly with my proposal) and my proposal of a reversion to ½ cross class skills.
* Bob the Human Fighter, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +10 to Perception (the 10 ranks).
* Sandy the Elf Wizard, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +12 to Perception (10 ranks plus Keen Senses).
* Chuck the Dwarf Cleric, with a Wisdom of 23, and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +16 to Perception (10 ranks plus Wisdom bonus).
* Mary the Halfling Rogue, with a Wisdom of 12 and Perception as a class skill, gets +26 (20 rank + 3 class bonus + 2 Keen Senses +1 Wisdom), which also increases further to +27 when looking for traps.
You now have a noticeable difference. The chance of a GM surprising some of these guys is a good bit higher without having to inflate his numbers. If we assume that any of these guys wanted to take alertness and skill focus, we could add 10 to their total. Just like in 3.5, the rogue is able to do his job well, and chance to be surprised is increased for the party.
I hope that better explains my position, but if it doesn't, please feel free to question further and/or point out flaws in my logic.
Removal of niche protection is, IMHO, a good thing. Niche protection should be determined at the table level, not the system level.
Could you be more specific? I'm not trying to be difficult, but to remove a class' niche is to remove its place in the game and/or reason for existing. I don't think that's what you mean, but I do NOT want to put words in your mouth, either.
Unrelated: Are spoilers not working for anyone else? I can't get them to "stick" or register and I'm very familiar with how to use them.
Edit: Edited multiple times for typos.
I'd love to see Perception split up into the other skills. Traps are found with Knowledge(Engineering), for example.
So, basically, kill the God Skill.
I really enjoy the concept of the skill system in the abstract, but a few of the details leave me a bit flat. I have a couple of things that would make me grin. First more interaction of skills, particularly at higher levels, with other skills, magic and class abilities: want to enchant a sword? Would be easier/ cheaper if you are a weapon smith, high stealth skill? Makes it easier to spot ambushes (you know where the best hiding spots are.)
Second I'd actually like more skills added to better be able to customize characters. Now I don't want to split the skills we already have up, but add some in different combos and niches. Take Black Bart, the blackest of dark wizards, in the current setup he needs to have knowledge planes and religion for his lore of devils and vampires, but he also gets knowledge of elementals and the the symbology of the fluffy bunny god, neither of which he cares about in the least. I'd like to be able to give him Knowledge: Dark arts to cover his needs.
I realize that some of this goes against the streamlining trend that many seem to prefer, but that is what feels better to me as a player and GM.
I'd prefer Perception to become a part of every character's derived numbers, like what Pathfinder did with Concentration.
That seems like it would be the easiest and most elegant solution to the issue. Everyone needs it, there's really no reason for everyone not to have it, lets just admit it and fix it. Certain classes could get bonuses to Perception in certain circumstances (rangers with tracking, rogues with trapfinding) which would let them maintain their niche. Other than that, lets not waste skill points on it anymore.
In whatever manner the rules said to, unless and until I decide the rules suck.
I'm more or less quite happy with Pathfinder's skill system. It helps to remember that the listed uses for skills are, RAW, not exhaustive--the GM is specifically empowered to come up with new and creative uses for skills. Which is pretty much what most other systems take as a given, but Pathfinder players seem to need the reminder now and then.
Appraise is pretty crappy as written, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to be a broken record, but I'll assume the role anyway: instead of spells auto-succeeding where one would normally make a skill roll, spells should grant a bonus to said skill, treat you as trained, add rerolls, and so on. While the binary nature of skills is problematic without GM intervention, the number 1 issue with skill use is, "don't bother, Bobgoblin the Wizard has <insert spell> which has no chance of failure."
When Gygax and Co. wrote the original spells, skills as we know them didn't exist. The 3.0 writers did not account for that -or didn't care - which caused many of the problems we still deal with today in PF. Continuing to purchase products and support a company that refuses to correct this oversight, however, is our own fault.
My opinions, of course, so take them with a grain of salt.
Wow, that's a pretty good idea actually. Of all things, that's one thing I could think would be a particularly good thing to implement, though some caster fans may hate it.
Wow, that's a pretty good idea actually. Of all things, that's one thing I could think would be a particularly good thing to implement, though some caster fans may hate it.I hate to be a broken record, but I'll assume the role anyway: instead of spells auto-succeeding where one would normally make a skill roll, spells should grant a bonus to said skill, treat you as trained, add rerolls, and so on. While the binary nature of skills is problematic without GM intervention, the number 1 issue with skill use is, "don't bother, Bobgoblin the Wizard has <insert spell> which has no chance of failure."
When Gygax and Co. wrote the original spells, skills as we know them didn't exist. The 3.0 writers did not account for that -or didn't care - which caused many of the problems we still deal with today in PF. Continuing to purchase products and support a company that refuses to correct this oversight, however, is our own fault.
My opinions, of course, so take them with a grain of salt.
I'm a caster fan... I don't hate it. In fact I like it, allot. Lest say my thing is spells that make stuff invisible. On myself I would use Grater invisibility, and then there are no higher level spells that fit my theme that target myself (maybe there is 1 that I don't remember but you get the idea). So I take other stuff and become an over powered wizard like all others because why not? Try to fill an entire 20th level wizards spell list around one theme, its not as easy as it should be. And this leaves them going the OP path.
With spells doing what Da'ath suggests the Martial / caster gap becomes a lot smaller because they are finally playing the same game. But you also need to put better high rank stuff into the skills.
Let's alter the numbers a bit, taking into account your arguments regarding skill focus and skill boosting feats (which I'm now learning toward agreeing with – particularly with my proposal) and my proposal of a reversion to ½ cross class skills.
* Bob the Human Fighter, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +10 to Perception (the 10 ranks).
* Sandy the Elf Wizard, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +12 to Perception (10 ranks plus Keen Senses).
* Chuck the Dwarf Cleric, with a Wisdom of 23, and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +16 to Perception (10 ranks plus Wisdom bonus).
* Mary the Halfling Rogue, with a Wisdom of 12 and Perception as a class skill, gets +26 (20 rank + 3 class bonus + 2 Keen Senses +1 Wisdom), which also increases further to +27 when looking for traps.You now have a noticeable difference. The chance of a GM surprising some of these guys is a good bit higher without having to inflate his numbers. If we assume that any of these guys wanted to take alertness and skill focus, we could add 10 to their total. Just like in 3.5, the rogue is able to do his job well, and chance to be surprised is increased for the party.
I don't think this is a good idea... For why just look at the many threads on base saves. If the skill system was done right then it would likely work allot like/be as important as saves.
Okay, let us look at these same adventurers at 20th level, using the same parameters you did, but assuming no skill focus or alternative feats, and that they maintained the same ranks (we'll skip magic items, because I really don't have the time to "gear" these guys up).
* Bob the Human Fighter, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +20 to Perception (the 20 ranks).
* Sandy the Elf Wizard, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +22 to Perception (20 ranks plus Keen Senses).
* Chuck the Dwarf Cleric, with a Wisdom of 23, and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +26 to Perception (20 ranks plus Wisdom bonus).
* Mary the Halfling Rogue, with a Wisdom of 12 and Perception as a class skill, gets +26 (20 rank + 3 class bonus + 2 Keen Senses +1 Wisdom), which also increases further to +27 when looking for traps.
While we can guarantee that the cleric would surpass the rogue in terms of Wisdom with magic items (he'll likely be 28+), overall, the difference is not very significant from the level 1 versions of these character.
A quick mechanical note: Mary the rogue's Perception bonus when looking for traps would be +36--you didn't increase the bonus from trapfinding, which is equal to half the rogue level, minimum 1. Which means she is still head and shoulders above her party in her particular area of expertise. That's what I was getting at earlier--there are class abilities that help protect those niches and I think that's where niche protection, if any, belongs--not in the skill system itself.
The probability of this party being surprised is not great unless the GM specifically designs an encounter to do so which will require him or her to inflate the numbers unnecessarily (in my opinion) to force it to happen (for whatever reason he needs it to happen).
I realize this is besides the point in terms of showing mere point/bonus distribution, but at 20th level, if the GM is concerned about how to ambush the party, the GM is not thinking about adequate challenges at the power scale of an APL 20 adventure. A 20th level party just doesn't worry about skill checks to avoid an ambush, and more to the point, they shouldn't have to. That SHOULD be an easy thing for them to avoid--they're nearly freaking demigods after all, and demigods don't get ambushed. A 20th level party worries about stop the Hellmouth opening at their feet, at leading an army to war, or fighting the Tarrasque (which is generally fairly easy to notice, fortunately). Ambushes are beneath them, and they should be.
Speaking as a GM who has run very high level games, knowing all the PCs have a certain skill at +20 just makes things easier for me -- it means I know they will auto-succeed most routine checks, so I can just get on with describing what's going on and we can all get to saving the universe. At that level, combat is slower, there's a lot of constant modifiers to track with various spells going off, so I'm going to find what saves time where I can and take that as the gift that it is, not as a challenge.
If I AM worried about ambushing the 20th level party, it is indeed ONLY going to be a specially designed encounter, where it will probably involve an already stealthy enemy affected by greater invisibility or a creature designed with stealth in mind; in either case just grabbing the right stats from the Bestiaries or NPC Codex and not really creating a lot of work or contrivance for me at all. (Because of size bonuses and such, it's actually easier to build a very Stealthy character than a very Perceptive one anyway.)
Let's alter the numbers a bit, taking into account your arguments regarding skill focus and skill boosting feats (which I'm now learning toward agreeing with – particularly with my proposal) and my proposal of a reversion to ½ cross class skills.
* Bob the Human Fighter, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +10 to Perception (the 10 ranks).
* Sandy the Elf Wizard, with a Wisdom of 10 and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +12 to Perception (10 ranks plus Keen Senses).
* Chuck the Dwarf Cleric, with a Wisdom of 23, and no Perception as a class skill, gets a +16 to Perception (10 ranks plus Wisdom bonus).
* Mary the Halfling Rogue, with a Wisdom of 12 and Perception as a class skill, gets +26 (20 rank + 3 class bonus + 2 Keen Senses +1 Wisdom), which also increases further to +27 when looking for traps.You now have a noticeable difference. The chance of a GM surprising some of these guys is a good bit higher without having to inflate his numbers. If we assume that any of these guys wanted to take alertness and skill focus, we could add 10 to their total. Just like in 3.5, the rogue is able to do his job well, and chance to be surprised is increased for the party.
I hope that better explains my position, but if it doesn't, please feel free to question further and/or point out flaws in my logic.
You still haven't addressed two major questions I have:
Just because you can, why would you?
Because anyone CAN max ranks in a given skill doesn't mean they're going to or that they should. Your 20th level party, some of the low skill point characters are going to have left weaknesses in their builds elsewhere to max out that Perception. They will be a less well-rounded party for it, and a GM is going to be able to exploit that if he or she wants to. A player obsessed with making his or her character the most perceptive will find ways to do so (with Skill Focus, with Wisdom boosting items, etc. etc.) regardless of how many ranks a character can potentially spend.
Why is maxing out a problem?
I really don't see the bonuses of the 20th level party you describe above as an issue. So they all are good at Perception. So what? The rogue is still best at trapfinding, as she should be. And again, it probably means the party has skill gaps elsewhere. No, they aren't easily snuck up on, but as GM, I have the entire universe at my disposal, including all manner of creatures and magic, and as my bad guys learn, okay, ambushes won't work, I'll find another route (mind-affecting magic, brutal frontal assault) or even manipulate their keen eye to make them notice clues that are actually red herrings. Same goes with any other maxed-out party--party is great at Diplomacy? Unfortunately, the zombies over there aren't in the mood for conversation.
What I DO see as a problem in your solution is loss of potential versatility. If in your version of the party, somebody needs to scout ahead, Mary's gotta do it alone because no one else is any good. Which actually creates a vulnerability in the party that may not be particularly necessary.
It also means that with half/max level---it stops me from building an atypical but sensible concept that I want to have the flexibility to do in Pathfinder. Say I'm Bob the Fighter, and my character's background is being a security guard. I want to be good at Perception because it's part of my character's historical job that I am good at spotting trouble. But with your version, my guardsman who should be good at noticing stuff, isn't going to be able to put more than 1 rank into the skill until 4th level---that's annoying. As a fighter, unless I take a trait to get Perception as a class skill, I'm still not going to get it quite as high as some other characters, but if it suits my concept, why shouldn't I be able to build it up without hindrance?
I don't mind how skill works, but I do have an issue with the 'swing' of skill modifiers. I don't even mind the 'swing' of the d20, but having skill modifiers ranging from somewhere in the negative to +40s makes DCs hard to adjudicate in order to keep things challenging without being near-impossible or automatically successful.
Perhaps if ranks costs in skill points were non-linear or logarithmic, it would keep skill ranks under control, and would encourage players to invest in more skills at lower ranks. Racial modifiers could be seen as a starting rank as opposed to a +something. Conditional modifiers would consequently become more important, so perhaps a revision of them would be necessary.
Ranks could also be capped (I dunno, say 10 ranks) with a little trick for those who reach that max. This could help martial character attain more mystical, near-magical or blatantly supernatural abilities.
TL;DR: I like the [d20 + ability bonus + ranks + modifiers] formula, but not how it can easily go from d20-1 to d20+40 over the course of an adventurer's career (or between two adventurers).
Re: GreyWolfLord & DragGon7601 - We (my group) have been trying to slowly implement it, and it has certainly had a positive effect (though it has been hit and miss due to the numbers not yet being right). We've been experimenting with the following progression based on spell level (1st: +2-+4, 2nd & 3rd +3-+6, 4th & 5th: +4-+8, 6th & 7th: +5-+10, 8th & 9th +6-+12). We're not sure just yet if we're happy with this (we run a very democratic table, where everyone's opinion has equal weight and we vote in and out house rules, etc). Additionally, we also are trying to tie new uses for the skills to the number of ranks in the skills. This has been more difficult than we originally thought, but has proved quite rewarding.
I don't think this is a good idea... For why just look at the many threads on base saves. If the skill system was done right then it would likely work allot like/be as important as saves.
It is entirely possible it will be a horrible idea and take far too much work to integrate with any Pathfinder campaign with the current rules as written. I'm wrong as often as I'm right and don't mind admitting it. Personally, I want skills to be important, but not the determining factor for life and death, which saves often are. In 3.0 and 3.5, which is what the maximums proposed originate from and many other iterations of d20, half cross-class skills did not cause any sort of issues, but did increase the number of skills people put ranks into (that is, it encouraged more diversity in skill choice, despite the fact most of the skills really sucked). As a result, DCs did not continue to escalate to the level that if you didn't specialize, it just couldn't be done, which is what I am beginning to see now.
While unrelated to skills, fixing saving throws can be a really easy fix, but also requires removing the "Christmas Tree" effect. Several low or no magic item iterations of d20 have done so with good results (SWSE, for example). I do not believe that skills should ever tie to saving throws, as they don't scale the same.A quick mechanical note: Mary the rogue's Perception bonus when looking for traps would be +36--you didn't increase the bonus from trapfinding, which is equal to half the rogue level, minimum 1. Which means she is still head and shoulders above her party in her particular area of expertise. That's what I was getting at earlier--there are class abilities that help protect those niches and I think that's where niche protection, if any, belongs--not in the skill system itself.
I spaced on that aspect, thank you for correcting my mistake. We haven't had a rogue in the party (I have a group of 8 players) in many years. The slack is taken up by bards or spells for traps and warrior types (paladin, fighter, etc) for melee damage, which function far better than rogues in all things.
Speaking as a GM who has run very high level games, knowing all the PCs have a certain skill at +20 just makes things easier for me -- it means I know they will auto-succeed most routine checks, so I can just get on with describing what's going on and we can all get to saving the universe. At that level, combat is slower, there's a lot of constant modifiers to track with various spells going off, so I'm going to find what saves time where I can and take that as the gift that it is, not as a challenge.
The majority of games I run go from level 1 - levels 19-22. Often, my players decide to retire their characters at that point.
For the record, I do not agree with the premise that surprise should be auto-succeeded or considered "routine". In this case, I think both of our opinions are equally valid based on our styles of GMing (what little we know of each other) - I'll agree to disagree. I always know what my players relevant statistics are due to a party sheet which we update before sessions if changes have been made. I agree we should not be expected to remember everything.I realize this is besides the point in terms of showing mere point/bonus distribution, but at 20th level, if the GM is concerned about how to ambush the party, the GM is not thinking about adequate challenges at the power scale of an APL 20 adventure.
It is both the responsibility of the GM and the product to provide means to adequatelly challenging players at high levels of play. When the rules inhibit you from doing so by forcing you to use the same "old hat" tricks over and over, the rules have failed.
I realize this is besides the point in terms of showing mere point/bonus distribution, but at 20th level, if the GM is concerned about how to ambush the party, the GM is not thinking about adequate challenges at the power scale of an APL 20 adventure. A 20th level party just doesn't worry about skill checks to avoid an ambush, and more to the point, they shouldn't have to. That SHOULD be an easy thing for them to avoid--they're nearly freaking demigods after all, and demigods don't get ambushed. A 20th level party worries about stop the Hellmouth opening at their feet, at leading an army to war, or fighting the Tarrasque (which is generally fairly easy to notice, fortunately). Ambushes are beneath them, and they should be.
In mythology, demigods are ambushed and slain, sometimes by other demigods, but also by an inordinate amount of normal men (whom they tend to kill all but one of). Examples include:
* Augeas, said to be a son of Posiedon (lineage varies), ambushed and killed by Heracles.* Troilius, son of Apollo, ambushed and slain by Achilles.
I found further examples in Chinese, Norse, and Hindu mythology as well. My point here is that there is precedent in mythology, which the vast majority of this game is based on, at least at the core. The idea that player characters, demigods as you've referred to them, "shouldn't have to" be concerned with being ambushed is purely opinion. I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it.
Just because you can, why would you?
Due to the weight placed on certain skills, why wouldn't you max Perception (since we're sticking to this example)?
Using Bob, the human fighter you mentioned above, he's just as likely to dump something other than Intelligence (Cha is often a favorite dump stat, for example) and take an Intelligence of 13 to qualify for Combat Expertise, depending on his build (since we're assuming possible variables). There are over 20 feats which require Combat Expertise (commonly referred to as a feat tax). They're not all good, but it's a necessity for a certain type of build. Bob can select Toughness due to his plethora of feats as a fighter, a human, and level-dependent benefits if he's concerned about hit points. This gives Bob a total of 5 skill points per level, which means he can have all of the example skills you provided (Intimidate, Ride, Climb, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) AND Perception).These are hypotheticals, however.I believe you and I could probably come up with examples to counter one another on this topic ad infinitum.
Why is maxing out a problem?
I may have miscommunicated. I do not have a problem with maximum ranks. My problem lies with escalation and the lack of caps for said maximums if the skill is not a class skill. It's about skill diversity, niche protection, and preventing the continued increase of skills and DCs beyond reasonable levels. Reasonable levels, however, vary from person to person.
What I DO see as a problem in your solution is loss of potential versatility. If in your version of the party, somebody needs to scout ahead, Mary's gotta do it alone because no one else is any good. Which actually creates a vulnerability in the party that may not be particularly necessary.
It also means that with half/max level---it stops me from building an atypical but sensible concept that I want to have the flexibility to do in Pathfinder. Say I'm Bob the Fighter, and my character's background is being a security guard. I want to be good at Perception because it's part of my character's historical job that I am good at spotting trouble. But with your version, my guardsman who should be good at noticing stuff, isn't going to be able to put more than 1 rank into the skill until 4th level---that's annoying. As a fighter, unless I take a trait to get Perception as a class skill, I'm still not going to get it quite as high as some other characters, but if it suits my concept, why shouldn't I be able to build it up without hindrance?
I don't see the loss of versatility you suggest - I see the reduction in the ability of a particular role encroaching to such a degree that it surpasses another class' role - thus removing the reason for a class to even exist. If the rest of the party isn't good at it, it is due to not selecting things which augment their ability in that direction - in the direction that is the role of a class with said ability. The current versions of Skill Focus and Alertness, which I conceded you were right on, is how these others are able to bridge the gap and take forays into the role/territory of other classes. Bob the fighter is never going to be as good a scout as Mary; however, if Bob chooses to, he can select the feats and still get fairly close, but the likelihood of him surpassing Mary in her class' role is slim to none.
Don't get me wrong, I realize that for a fighter and many other classes to even consider focusing on boosting a skill or skills by expending precious feat slots would require the merging of many feat chains (two weapon fighting, combat maneuver groups, and so on)
Thank you, for pointing out points I missed. I have a three year old daughter which takes up most of my time and I occasionally fail to address points folks make unintentionally due to distractions which require me to lose my focus (such as emergency cleanup of juice spilled on my wife's pristine carpets).
Sorry for the double-post, but there were other posts I wanted to address.
I think skills should become progressively more powerful in the effects that they can do. [...] I would do similar things for other skills as appropriate. For example, swim might grant the ability to hold their breath for a long time, then a swim speed, then the ability to breathe underwater.
It's a neat idea, though my mind immediately went to an 80s television series I can't for the life remember the name of. The guy was able to perform super-human feats at the cost of a potential body failure.
I'd prefer Perception to become a part of every character's derived numbers, like what Pathfinder did with Concentration.
That seems like it would be the easiest and most elegant solution to the issue. Everyone needs it, there's really no reason for everyone not to have it, lets just admit it and fix it. Certain classes could get bonuses to Perception in certain circumstances (rangers with tracking, rogues with trapfinding) which would let them maintain their niche. Other than that, lets not waste skill points on it anymore.
The problem with this is where does it stop? There will always be the next must have skill. Inevitably, that skill will be added and so on and so forth.
I don't mind how skill works, but I do have an issue with the 'swing' of skill modifiers. I don't even mind the 'swing' of the d20, but having skill modifiers ranging from somewhere in the negative to +40s makes DCs hard to adjudicate in order to keep things challenging without being near-impossible or automatically successful.
Perhaps if ranks costs in skill points were non-linear or logarithmic, it would keep skill ranks under control, and would encourage players to invest in more skills at lower ranks. Racial modifiers could be seen as a starting rank as opposed to a +something. Conditional modifiers would consequently become more important, so perhaps a revision of them would be necessary.
Ranks could also be capped (I dunno, say 10 ranks) with a little trick for those who reach that max. This could help martial character attain more mystical, near-magical or blatantly supernatural abilities.
TL;DR: I like the [d20 + ability bonus + ranks + modifiers] formula, but not how it can easily go from d20-1 to d20+40 over the course of an adventurer's career (or between two adventurers).
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, especially with regard to effectively challenging PCs. I think we could all argue till we're blue in the face about how to fix it, unfortunately.
Da'ath, not going to go in depth but -- let me clarify: demigods should not be easy to ambush. Especially a whole party of them. :)
All I'm getting at with the 20th level thing is: "oh no, what if my maximally powerful, amazingly heroic PCs get a 40 on a skill check?" is not a thought that crosses my mind or concerns me. It's something I expect, anticipate, and plan for--and have even learned to use to my plotting advantage. The things I tend to put at stake in that high power level of a game make the passing of given a Perception check a fairly minimal concern. If the whole party is good at this one thing, I see that as another tool at my disposal, not something I have to tweak the system to fight.
As I said, if, in the case of Perception, I wanted to ambush them, it would be easy enough to grab an NPC out of the Codex or an appropriate monster, along with the seemingly infinite arsenal of spells, creatures, and effects at my disposal at an APL 20 game, and do so without any sort of contrivance.
Why is maxing out a problem?
I may have miscommunicated. I do not have a problem with maximum ranks. My problem lies with escalation and the lack of caps for said maximums if the skill is not a class skill. It's about skill diversity, niche protection, and preventing the continued increase of skills and DCs beyond reasonable levels. Reasonable levels, however, vary from person to person.
I feel like I am the one who miscommunicated.
My question is: so if every member of the party has a +20 or higher on one skill, so what?
They will have had to make their own contrivances and sacrifices to get there. Things will balance out in other ways. This is just not on my list of things to get worried about as a GM.
I just don't see it as a big deal, or something that needs to be fixed in the core of the system. Good players know how to build their PCs so no one person feels like their toes are stepped on, or that their "niche" is getting taken away from them. As a GM, if I see that isn't the case, my solution is to talk to the individual players about build coordination, not putting what I see as completely unnecessary restrictions into the system that may end up unwittingly and arbitrarily screw up someone's character concept down the line. IMO, most of the time, more flexibility is better than less, and reducing flexibility in a flexible system is seldom a "solution" I want to see.
Obviously, we come at this from very different angles--and I'd reckon probably both our playing styles and our gaming group's play styles are extremely different. This may just be something I'm not meant to understand. Thanks for taking the time for trying to explain your POV.
Normally, I think your perspective and mine might be very similar. My normal games tend to be high fantasy, far reaching, and are logged into my homebrew setting's history so that the setting continues to grow and the players become more invested as their previous character's actions have a permanent impact. I recently made what I'm now classifying as a huge mistake*: I started to try and log what changes occurred in the system between in each edition** when certain issues popped up. It has certainly changed my perspective.
* It has been time consuming, frustrating, and mildly depressing.
** AD&D 1e, 2e; D&D 3.0, 3.5, PF.
Normally, I think your perspective and mine might be very similar. My normal games tend to be high fantasy, far reaching, and are logged into my homebrew setting's history so that the setting continues to grow and the players become more invested as their previous character's actions have a permanent impact. I recently made what I'm now classifying as a huge mistake*: I started to try and log what changes occurred in the system between in each edition** when certain issues popped up. It has certainly changed my perspective.
* It has been time consuming, frustrating, and mildly depressing.
** AD&D 1e, 2e; D&D 3.0, 3.5, PF.
I like looking at each new system as a fresh start and a new adventure, the wind at my back and the maths in my heart.
I like looking at each new system as a fresh start and a new adventure, the wind at my back and the maths in my heart.
I generally love tinkering with the math and trying to find new ways of doing things; I probably just need to take a step back, put it down, and look at it [skills] again in a few weeks.=)
I would increase their power. High level skills hould be magic like. A character higly focused on a skill should do things that amze even the magic users. Monks should be able to run on the ceiling and on top of water, rangers should be able to track a flying enemy by how the air was displaced in it's wake, rogues should be able to steal the clothes someone is wearing without being noticed. No epic rules, no mythic rules. Those are just things you should be able to do when you have a +40 on your skill.