So what happens to skill points when you condense the skill list?

[Ozreth]

A lot of people seem to like condensing their skill list, and I've always been of the mind to do so but never got around to it.

I was thinking though, If you cut your skill list in half, what should you do with the amount of skill points allotted to a class?

For some context, here is a thread I was looking at about skill condensing http://paizo.com/forums/dmtyzswh?Condensing-Skills

[prufock]

You would almost need to approach this on a class-by-class basis, because the condensed skills are going to affect some classes more than others. The Int bonus is also going to be a biasing effect - some classes are more int-based than others.

[tyckspoon]

Leave 'em alone, mostly, or even combine it with another houserule for giving everybody more skillpoints (2/level base is a cruel practical joke.) For sake of example, the Rogue has 29 class skills (ignoring the subdivisions of Perform/Craft/Profession.) If you cut the skill list in half, that'd be about 15 skills; his base class-gained skill points would still only be enough to be good at a little over half his potential skills, and that's the class that is *supposed* to be The Skills Guy. Every other class has it worse.

[Ozreth]

I think if I were to do this I would combine it with the level based skill check rule from UA.

No skill points.
Class Skill = d20+mod+level
Non Class = d20+mod

It's odd to me that in that big thread I linked to this was never brought up.

[Oscredwin]

I think if I were to do this I would combine it with the level based skill check rule from UA.

No skill points.
Class Skill = d20+mod+level
Non Class = d20+mod

It's odd to me that in that big thread I linked to this was never brought up.I would love to play a Factotum with that rule.

[BIGMamaSloth]

I would love to play a Factotum with that rule.

My group plays with this rule. Someone played a factotum once and it really wasn't all that world shattering. I think we made some adjustments somewhere along the lines of he get's 1/2 or 3/4 his level to skills (I don't remember exactly it was maybe a year and a half, two years ago), showing his nature of true generalization and not being the best at anything.

[Oscredwin]

If I wanted to be world shattering I'd play a wizard. A well built factotum with that rule would be the best of tier 3, always able to do contribute to the task. I'd really enjoy using obscure professions, and crafts. I would know everything! I'd jump at every chance to use unusual skills, say things like that's some skill right? inspiration point, d20+level x 2+Mod.

[Water_Bear]

In terms of condensing the skill lists, I think Pathfinder is a golden example. It reduced redundancies (Spot/Listen, Hide/Move Silently, Diplomacy/Gather Info) and it made less worthwhile skills more worth taking (Decipher Script Forgery and Speak Language were almost worthless in 3.5, but Linguistics is a solid choice in Pathfinder).

Pathfinder's skill list is still pretty large, mostly because of bloat from all the Knowledge skills, but each character gets slightly more bang for their buck. Skillmonkeys are more worthwhile, while low-skill classes aren't any worse off than they were under 3.5.

I'd say it isn't a drastic change either way, but if you feel comfortable home-brewing you should look at Pathfinder's skill list as an example of "doing it right."

[Ozreth]

I'd say it isn't a drastic change either way, but if you feel comfortable home-brewing you should look at Pathfinder's skill list as an example of "doing it right."

And in this case would you use PF's method for distributing skill points?

[Particle_Man]

Iron Heroes had "skill groups" which allowed classes that had a skill group on their list to put a point into the group and improve each skill in that group.

It also allowed knowledge/perform skills to improve 2 dimensionally (so your 2nd rank in Knowledge both improves knowledge (religion, say) from 1 to 2 ranks, and adds a 2nd field of knowledge (arcane, say) at the same time at the same level as your knowledge (religion)).

[ericgrau]

Those that want to effectively give out more skill points can leave it alone, but otherwise don't do that. Consolidation and extra skill points are two different options and not everyone wants both. But I would divide by a number that's less than the new number of skills / the old number of skills. The reason is you're forcing the player to take extra skills that he might not need. So it's not fair to charge full price for them. For example the system in my sig has 1/3 as many skills but it only charges double for ranks. I don't know if that's correct, but it should be in the ballpark.

[Ashtagon]

Leave 'em alone, mostly, or even combine it with another houserule for giving everybody more skillpoints (2/level base is a cruel practical joke.) For sake of example, the Rogue has 29 class skills (ignoring the subdivisions of Perform/Craft/Profession.) If you cut the skill list in half, that'd be about 15 skills; his base class-gained skill points would still only be enough to be good at a little over half his potential skills, and that's the class that is *supposed* to be The Skills Guy. Every other class has it worse.

This is a mistake that many people make.

With very few exceptions (ie none I know of), no class is intended to be able to fill all their class skills. In objective terms, the rogue still gets more skill points than almost everyone else -- more, if he doesn't dump Int.

The huge skill list reflects the rogue's versatility. A rogue can pick from one half or teh other half quite easily. Classes that have much smaller skill lists, especially relative to their number of skill points, are predictable in terms of what skills they will have. NPC Rogues are unpredictable because they have so many options.

[Ashtagon]

Iron Heroes had "skill groups" which allowed classes that had a skill group on their list to put a point into the group and improve each skill in that group.


I wonder if we couldn't implement that as a class feature. For example:

Versatile Athlete: You gain a number of virtual ranks in Climb, Jump, and Swim equal to half the number of actual ranks you have spent in the highest one of these skills. These virtual ranks do not stack with any actual skill ranks purchased.

Versatile Acrobat: You gain a number of virtual ranks in Balance, Escape Artist, and Tumble equal to half the number of actual ranks you have spent in the highest one of these skills. These virtual ranks do not stack with any actual skill ranks purchased.

These could also equally be made into feats.

[tyckspoon]

This is a mistake that many people make.

With very few exceptions (ie none I know of), no class is intended to be able to fill all their class skills. In objective terms, the rogue still gets more skill points than almost everyone else -- more, if he doesn't dump Int.


Meh. Personal opinion matter, I suspect; to me, D&D's skill system is viciously miserly. I want a system where you can be competent at everything your character concept should be competent at and then throw a few points around into Crafts/Professions for flavor/background reasons, or cross-class into some generically useful skills that every adventurer really should have (Spot/Listen/Search, for example) and not feel like you're purposely making yourself weaker for doing so. The system as it exists massively fails to enable this, and even condensing every class's skill list by half while leaving skill points at RAW levels doesn't make it feasible.

So.. I don't particularly care what the intended design was, because whatever the heck they intended it doesn't work for me. It's very barely tolerable for those characters fortunate enough to be deemed 'skilled' archetypes and it doesn't work at all for anybody else.

[AslanCross]

Pathfinder gives less points (you don't get the x4 at first level), but does away with the double cost for ranks when it comes to non-class skills and gives you a +3 bonus on class skills. I think it's much more elegant in play (I found calculating total skill bonuses on the fly much easier for my players, who were new), and it certainly is easier in character creation.

[Ashtagon]

Meh. Personal opinion matter, I suspect; to me, D&D's skill system is viciously miserly. I want a system where you can be competent at everything your character concept should be competent at and then throw a few points around into Crafts/Professions for flavor/background reasons, or cross-class into some generically useful skills that every adventurer really should have (Spot/Listen/Search, for example) and not feel like you're purposely making yourself weaker for doing so. The system as it exists massively fails to enable this, and even condensing every class's skill list by half while leaving skill points at RAW levels doesn't make it feasible.

So.. I don't particularly care what the intended design was, because whatever the heck they intended it doesn't work for me. It's very barely tolerable for those characters fortunate enough to be deemed 'skilled' archetypes and it doesn't work at all for anybody else.

Put it this way. The thief skills from 2nd edition and earlier? Translated into 3e, those are the core class skills. All the other class skills? They are ACFs (alternate class features). For any other ACF, you sacrifice one class ability to gain the ACF. Why should the skills be different in this regard?

[Malachei]

And in this case would you use PF's method for distributing skill points?

I am using Pathfinder's condensed skills, with 3.5's ranks system and no reduction of skill points. It works nicely, and people are still taking Nymph's Kiss for additional skill points -- and I still don't see people invest in cross-class skills, and they still take Able Learner, as well.

I don't think granting a few more skill points (which is one major effect of the condensed skills list) creates a balance issue.


Put it this way. The thief skills from 2nd edition and earlier? Translated into 3e, those are the core class skills. All the other class skills? They are ACFs (alternate class features). For any other ACF, you sacrifice one class ability to gain the ACF. Why should the skills be different in this regard?

I don't think 2nd edition is a good example. The game has changed in profound ways, and many regarded thieves as the worst class in D&D, AD&D 1st and AD&D 2nd editions. If a sub-standard class is the target, then of course you hit the target with comparing ACF to skills.

[navar100]

Do what Pathfinder did. :smallsmile:

No cross-class skills.
No x4 at 1st level.
Ranks are one for one, max level.
Class skills gives +3 bonus.

[Rubik]

I dislike the 'no x4 at first level' because I like putting 1 rank into tons of skills, especially if I have a factotum.

Otherwise it seems like my character can't do anything worthwhile, especially due to the 'tons of Knowledge skills and I don't even know what my own race is unless I put a rank in the right one' thing (which is stupid, but RAW).

And for that reason (among others) I agree with the 'condense the skill list and give everyone more skill points' way of doing things. I've only had ONE build where I felt I had enough skill points, and I was getting 20+ skill points per level.

[navar100]

I dislike the 'no x4 at first level' because I like putting 1 rank into tons of skills, especially if I have a factotum.

Otherwise it seems like my character can't do anything worthwhile, especially due to the 'tons of Knowledge skills and I don't even know what my own race is unless I put a rank in the right one' thing (which is stupid, but RAW).

And for that reason (among others) I agree with the 'condense the skill list and give everyone more skill points' way of doing things. I've only had ONE build where I felt I had enough skill points, and I was getting 20+ skill points per level.

The +3 class bonus is the equivalent of the x4 at first level only you don't have to do it at first level. You get the +3 even if you put your first rank in a class skill at some level above 1. Also, there's no cross-class. You pay for ranks in a non-class skill on a 1 for 1 basis. A 10th level Fighter can have +10 + Wisdom modifier Perception. For my Sorcerer, Perception is not a class skill. Wisdom 10 and no ranks meant +0 Perception. It mattered a few times. When I reached 5th level, I put 5 ranks into it. I now have Perception +5, which helped a lot. At 10th level I'll dump another 5 into it. That is good flexibility.

[Rubik]

The +3 class bonus is the equivalent of the x4 at first level only you don't have to do it at first level. You get the +3 even if you put your first rank in a class skill at some level above 1. Also, there's no cross-class. You pay for ranks in a non-class skill on a 1 for 1 basis. A 10th level Fighter can have +10 + Wisdom modifier Perception. For my Sorcerer, Perception is not a class skill. Wisdom 10 and no ranks meant +0 Perception. It mattered a few times. When I reached 5th level, I put 5 ranks into it. I now have Perception +5, which helped a lot. At 10th level I'll dump another 5 into it. That is good flexibility.I know how it works, and it works with some characters, but you still get 1/4 the number of ranks if you like to spread them out so your character actually knows things.

[Eldariel]

In my books, don't change anything. Classes get too few skill points by far; removing half the skills goes a long way towards making Rogues the dilettantes they're supposed to be and make even a Fighter's skill points somewhat useful.

[Ozreth]

In my books, don't change anything. Classes get too few skill points by far; removing half the skills goes a long way towards making Rogues the dilettantes they're supposed to be and make even a Fighter's skill points somewhat useful.

Eh, but people have different playstyles. Skills aren't that important in my game because you can do most things without having to roll. Like swimming. I would never make somebody roll swim checks unless it was a very long distance or against a crazy current/tide, which is rare. Or Diplomacy. We talk it out, if your argument is good then you get what you want. Etc etc.

Skills are used so few and far between in my games that they might as well be consolidated and simplified in order to A) Let us write our character sheets on a single page and B) Let people roll up PC's more quickly and with less thought.

I also play with kind of a 2e mindset though.

[Talentless]

I know how it works, and it works with some characters, but you still get 1/4 the number of ranks if you like to spread them out so your character actually knows things.

still comes out to the same bonus though... so its six of one, half a dozen of the other in principle really.

3.5 version
Level 1
8 Class Skills, 4 ranks each. Total Mod= 4 ranks +stat mod
Level 5
16 Class Skills, 4 ranks each. Total Mod = 4 ranks + stat mod
etc.

Pathfinder
Level 1
8 Class Skills, 1 rank each. Total Mod = 1 + stat mod + 3 class skill bonus
Level 5
16 Class Skills, 1 rank each. Total Mod = 1 + stat mod + 3 class skill bonus
etc.


The total modifier for class skills between Pathfinder and 3.5 should be the exact same number.
And due to Pathfinder's consolidated list, there are more options to choose from, 1 skill perception compared to 3.5s Spot/Listen combo for example.

And also, due to the lack of penalties for cross class skill ranks, Pathfinder pulls even farther ahead...

Honestly... why exactly are you complaining about lost skill ranks?

I mean, I can understand not liking Pathfinder compared to 3.5e, but just saying that you get a 1/4 of the ranks when spreading out skills is a bit of a misnomer.

[navar100]

I'm guessing maybe he's not so concerned about maxing ranks in particular skills in 3E but rather likes to have at least one rank in every skill possible and wanted so that he's at least "trained". Having x4 skill points at first level does help to do that.

It's a particular preference that Pathfinder does take away, but even so, having just one rank in Hide in 3E for example purposes only might as well be 0. In Pathfinder, if Stealth is a class skill that only 1 rank is worth +4. Pathfinder is not in the wrong; it just is.

[awa]

partially inspired by 4th edition i did this for my home brew game
certain skills are vital and pcs get ranks equal to their level for free
others are common and pcs get half their level
some are specialized and must be purchased at full price
and finally some are hobbies which if you spend one point on them become vital.

this means that some skills which everyone of a given class is more or less obligated to take like say preform on a bard or knowledge religion on a cleric are basically class features letting them spend their points on customizing their character.
the hobby skill is for things like profession or decipher script while rare enough that not every one would have it is just not very useful in game.
(although even with this i still combined skills)

[Darth Stabber]

On the note of combining skills here's a couple of combines I usually make
Use Magic Device += use psionic device (transparency++)
Spellcraft += psicraft (if spellcraft can identify soulmelds, why not powers)
Linguistics = decipher script + speak language (you get a language for each rank you have, and you roll it for traditional decipher script purposes.

[Igneel]

I'm currently in a game that does something along these lines as a house rule.

Something along these lines;


Swim + Climb + Jump = ATHLETICS (STR)
Decipher Script + Forgery = WORDSMITHING (INT)
Bluff + Diplomacy + Intimidate = PERSUASION (CHA)
Hide + Move Silently = STEALTH (DEX)
Handle Animal + Ride = ANIMAL AFFINITY (CHA)
Balance + Tumble = ACROBATICS (DEX)
Listen AND Spot = PERCEPTION (DEX)
DISABLE DEVICE + OPEN LOCK + SLEIGHT OF HAND = THIEVERY (DEX)
Survival becomes a function of KNOWLEDGE(Nature). Survival Checks cannot be made without at least 4 Ranks in Knowledge(Nature). Classes with Survival as a Class Skill can use Wisdom or Intelligence as the Skill Ability Modifier, whichever is more favorable.
SPELLCRAFT and CONCENTRATION remain separate. CONCENTRATION can be based on the primary spellcasting statistic. You may choose whichever spellcasting ability you wish, but must use it for all Concentration Checks.
A character can choose whether to use Constitution or a primary spellcasting ability for their Concentration Checks, once this choice is made it is final.
ESCAPE ARTIST AND USE ROPE remain separate.
PROFESSION, PERFORM, GATHER INFORMATION, SEARCH, HEAL, SENSE MOTIVE, APPRAISE, KNOWLEDGE, SPEAK LANGUAGE, and CRAFT remain unchanged.
To calculate your new skills, take the original skills bonuses, and calculate them as usual. Obtain an average. A final bonus to Bluff of +10, Diplomacy +12 and Intimidate +0, results in a final Persuasion bonus of +7.
All bonuses from feats, items, abilities, spells, etc. go into the old stats, and are totaled up to be averaged into the new bonus. Ranks however, go directly into the new skills. Only the bonuses are finally averaged out.
At the start of a new-level, a character gains the quadruple the per-level skill points, even when multi-classing
At character creation or retraining, before the start of an Oasys game, Skill Points may be applied retroactively using the character's final UNMODIFIED Intelligence modifier, meaning unchanged by items or effects.
POST-character creation or retraining, and after in-game levelling, those skill points cannot be applied retroactively. So an increase in Intelligence, doesn't gain more experience points across the board.
Please, if you were always applying them retroactively, don't tell me for God's sake.
Opposed Checks rule; at any point where another character makes a Skill Check against another character, an Opposed Check may be made, with standardized DCs being rendered irrelevant in place of a within 20 result
Skill Synergies no longer exist.
Class Skills: If a new Skill has 50% or more of a the original class skills, its still a Class Skill.
Skill-Tricks
Some of these are awesome, and there's no reason you shouldn't be using them...
...but with the combined Skills... Increase the Rank requisites by half and Skill Tricks cost 4 Skill Points.

[Rubik]

I'm guessing maybe he's not so concerned about maxing ranks in particular skills in 3E but rather likes to have at least one rank in every skill possible and wanted so that he's at least "trained". Having x4 skill points at first level does help to do that.

It's a particular preference that Pathfinder does take away, but even so, having just one rank in Hide in 3E for example purposes only might as well be 0. In Pathfinder, if Stealth is a class skill that only 1 rank is worth +4. Pathfinder is not in the wrong; it just is.This is it. I like to play factotums, and the Pathfinder skills nerf them rather hard.