2+ skill points?

[Righteous Doggy]

So, I was just curious why any class would have 2+ skill points and why it carried over to pathfinder. Its just painful to play a class who can barely jump and land at the same time and can't be expected to talk very well. In fact I've always found it debilitating and I can't play them.
Other opinions or anyone know a direct reason?

[Flickerdart]

The designers thought that some classes shouldn't be allowed to be competent outside of combat, I guess. Unless they have magic, of course.

[Righteous Doggy]

The designers thought that some classes shouldn't be allowed to be competent outside of combat, I guess. Unless they have magic, of course.

Well, clerics/wizards/sorcs all have 2+ skillpoints too. Oddly enough, ToB classes all have 4+. Warblade even has incentive to put points into INT. I think they wizened up, but I started this becuase I was looking over the Pathfinder OGC and for some insane reason they decided to carry it over. They still decided fighters need 2 and no incentive for INT, Clerics still get 2, Magus get 2, and then for some reason druids and barbarians get 4? I just feel like I missed something.

[Deadlights]

Well, it kind've makes sense for the wizard, since his Int is gonna rock either way, and at least even the sorcerer has magic. You are just out of luck if you are a fighter.

At least the Pathfinder skill list is compressed, I guess.

[Wyntonian]

Well, int-focused classes like wizards and psions really only need 2+int skill points, because their intelligence modifiers will be so high naturally. Any more than that and they out-skillmonkey a rogue. Oh wait.....

[Reluctance]

If the skills are sufficiently broad, I wouldn't mind being limited to two shticks. When basic archetypes like being sneaky or being athletic require multiple skills to count as proficient in, the dearth of skill points is much more noticeable.

Does anybody have a list of initial NWPs and the rate of advancement for 2e, BTW? I remember them also being scarce unless you had a decent Int and used the "bonus languages => proficiencies" rule. Many of 3.5's rules make more sense when you remember that it's only a mild tweak to 3.0, which was in turn designed to be as compatible with a 2e playstyle as possible.

[Flickerdart]

Pathfinder also nerfed Power Attack and gave wizards extra stuff. Trying to find a reason for Paizo doing things won't get you very far.

[Righteous Doggy]

Pathfinder also nerfed Power Attack and gave wizards extra stuff. Trying to find a reason for Paizo doing things won't get you very far.

Eh, to me it looks like they mainly filled in empty levels and gave you a reason to stay in a class instead of go on a multiclass/prc frenzy, meanwhile nerfing the overall damage of wizards and giving melee nice things(nothing to get more complicated than charge smash though!). Which I rather dislike them for, but I still wonder about them skillpoints. 2 means I have a character who if he takes Acrobatics and Perception in the condenced tree, apparently can't climb, nor can't swim, nor speak intellegently, nor survive in the wild.
Of course, I haven't looked too indepth. So feel free to correct me! We're all here to learn after all.
Edit: And Oracles, Druids, Cavaliers, and Alchemist all got 4? They don't seem that much different than the Cleric/Fighter.

[Belril Duskwalk]

Does anybody have a list of initial NWPs and the rate of advancement for 2e, BTW? I remember them also being scarce unless you had a decent Int and used the "bonus languages => proficiencies" rule. Many of 3.5's rules make more sense when you remember that it's only a mild tweak to 3.0, which was in turn designed to be as compatible with a 2e playstyle as possible.

Indeed I do. The list of Non-weapon proficiencies is extensive and some are more readily available to some classes than they are to others. Second edition rogues and warriors opened with 3 non-weapon proficiencies, wizards and clerics open with 4. Every class except Rogue then gains another every 3rd level (rogues gain at every 4th). Notably, the trademark Rogue abilities (Hiding, Lockpicking, Trapfinding, etc.) were all handled under a separate mechanic that were mostly inaccessible to anyone not a Rogue.

[nedz]

NWPs were valuable in 2E. I remember my players designing a Library Research NWP which they took before the epic library quest. I let them go with it as a houserule because it seemed very reasonable. As for the quest, well that was an hilarous anti-climax. long story short: they were supposed to ally with a nomadic tribe to launch a war. Due to a slight misunderstanding of a prophesy they, after a very long journey by sea and camel, asked to see their library. They had three books.:smallbiggrin:

Anyway, 3E
I quite like the Thug Fighter idea - lose the 1st level feat and gain 4+ Skill points per level with a few additional skills. I realised that you could customise this for other Fighter concepts eg Dispatch Rider. This led me to think you could make this more general by allowing any 4 skills to be added to the class, so long as they fit the backstory. Its not a complete fighter fix by any means, but it does add more dimensions to the character; after all the standard fighter skill set is awful.

[navar100]

It was a mistake on Pathfinder's part to keep the 2+ skill points legacy. However, in its defense:

1) No cross-class skills. The Fighter can put ranks into Perception or Sense Motive over the levels. Not the greatest, true, but he has some significant chance to succeed at stuff and even opposed rolls against non-Rogue NPCs at least.

2) You can get bonus skills points as your favored class bonus.

3) Humans' bonus skills points is a valuable racial feature.

4) Class skills give free +3 bonus

Example Fighter. Many feats require at least 13 Intelligence, so already he gets 3 skill points per level. Play Human, 4 per level. Favored Class bonus makes it 5 per level. Nothing to crow about but doable. His skill sweet spot starts at 5th level. From then on he can dump 5 points onto neglected skills. Perception is a good place to start. 5 + Wis modifier will help to avoid being surprised. A Rogue is at 8 + Dex modifier on Stealth. It is a significant difference, but a Rogue is supposed to be that good. However, it is not an insurmountable difference. At 10th level the Fighter dumps another 5 points if he hadn't boosted Int to 14. His Perception is now 10 + Wis modifier vs 13 + Dex modifier for a Rogue's Stealth. He caught up again. If Perception is really important to the Fighter, he can afford a feat for Skill Focus. He now has 16 + Wis modifier Perception. Given a Rogue's Dex, call that 50% chance to see the hidden Rogue, probably less if Dex is focused on improvement, but not by much.

Yes, the Fighter still should have received 4 + Int modifier skill points. It does take some care for decent skill allocation, but he has an easier time of it than in 3E.

[TuggyNE]

Eh, to me it looks like they mainly filled in empty levels and gave you a reason to stay in a class instead of go on a multiclass/prc frenzy, meanwhile nerfing the overall damage of wizards and giving melee nice things(nothing to get more complicated than charge smash though!).


nerfing the overall damage of wizards Do you mean damage literally, as in HP damage caused by spells? :smallconfused: Because that is so very much not the aspect of wizards that needs to be nerfed.

Actually, it's just about every other aspect of wizards that could use a firm but delicate hand to bring them down to earth. :smalltongue:

[Righteous Doggy]

Anyway, 3E
I quite like the Thug Fighter idea - lose the 1st level feat and gain 4+ Skill points per level with a few additional skills. I realised that you could customise this for other Fighter concepts eg Dispatch Rider. This led me to think you could make this more general by allowing any 4 skills to be added to the class, so long as they fit the backstory. Its not a complete fighter fix by any means, but it does add more dimensions to the character; after all the standard fighter skill set is awful.

I could think of a few times I could totally have used a library research skill! Due to a past life as a librarian, they always get to play an important role you see :smalltongue:!

Anyways, you can really customize any class. If I ever get to finally play pathfinder I'll have to ask. Too many silly things that could easily be remedied with a few houserules,(same with 3E actually). Its not an uncommon houserule to see 4+ skillpoints for a few 2+ classes. Can't have your big awesome meatshield forget how to tie his shoes and trip over his own feat can you:smalltongue:

@Navar awesome, so as long as I play a human, and I devote all my favored class bonuses to skill points, and have at least 13 intellegence I can do the things I probably should've been able to do in the first place. not perfectly, but I totally can! I feel sorry for my beefy orc friend though. He only gets 4 for being a sociopathic barbar! And funny enough, very few classes have perception skills in class in 3E by some radical idea. I guess seeing and hearing are commodities.

@Tugg Oh! yeah... that too. They removed shapechanging skills right? no more Flying, immune to crits, hasted, magically armored, Twin 12 headed hydras ravaging the field(well, 16 of them with mirror image, but who's counting when they're blurry)? Nor over the top kill your best friend skills? Nor attribute damage going over a d8? I really haven't read in depth...

[Gavinfoxx]

Paizo TRIED to nerf spellcasters, a little bit. at one point. And then they gave up. Spellcasters aren't (ultimately) nerfed at all in Pathfinder.

If you want to play a game where people modified what spellcasters could do, play Legend.

[Righteous Doggy]

Paizo TRIED to nerf spellcasters, a little bit. at one point. And then they gave up. Spellcasters aren't (ultimately) nerfed at all in Pathfinder.

If they didn't get nerfed doesn't that mean they just got all the advantages of a Condensed skill list, more class features, and more health per hit die? :smallconfused: That doesn't sound right.

[Hylas]

If they didn't get nerfed doesn't that mean they just got all the advantages of a Condensed skill list, more class features, and more health per hit die? :smallconfused: That doesn't sound right.

That's because you also forgot that they get a feat every 2 levels instead of every 3 and their feats are completely untouched from 3.5 core.

Meanwhile fighters have to deal with Improved Trip being two feats instead of one. Good thing fighters aren't feat-based or else this could be a problem.

[Eloel]

If they didn't get nerfed doesn't that mean they just got all the advantages of a Condensed skill list, more class features, and more health per hit die? :smallconfused: That doesn't sound right.

2 out of 3 of those benefits mean nothing after level 10-ish.

[Ravens_cry]

If they didn't get nerfed doesn't that mean they just got all the advantages of a Condensed skill list, more class features, and more health per hit die? :smallconfused: That doesn't sound right.
They also upped the die on two classes that really needed it, rogues and rangers, especially rogues.
They condensed the skill list, but removed Concentration as a skill and therefore made it much harder to buff.
The condensed skill list helps skill users more than it does wizards.
Personally, I would give pretty much every class but wizards and other intelligence based casters at least 4+ skills though,
Another, informal, idea is a discretionary flavour +1. If you can show how it broadens your character, you can get another point to put into that skill, like a Fighter with Spellcraft because he spent time in his backstory as a bodyguard for a caravan of wizards, or Knowledge: Religion due to working as a layman temple guard, or Craft: Woodworking because he was a carpenter before the orc raid forced him to take up arms, etcetera.

[Callista]

So, I was just curious why any class would have 2+ skill points and why it carried over to pathfinder. Its just painful to play a class who can barely jump and land at the same time and can't be expected to talk very well. In fact I've always found it debilitating and I can't play them.
Other opinions or anyone know a direct reason?Well, you have to let characters specialize. The skill monkeys like the rogue and the bard have all those skill points and their wide skill selection because that's what they're supposed to be good at. The wizard, for example, has a more narrow skill selection because despite his high intelligence he's spending all of his study on magic (and Knowledge skills).

The characters who don't have lots of skill points will often have other abilities that let them do interesting things. For example, I've currently got a 3.5 paladin with the usual 10 INT, and she hasn't got much skill with much of anything; but she's got the Detect Evil to use to watch out for enemy ambush, the ability to cure disease and heal injury, and the high charisma and reputation of a paladin to have most people trust her instinctively. Not to mention, like many paladins and practically all clerics, she has a deity on her side. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything because she has a low number of skill points. I just stick them in Diplomacy and Knowledge(Religion) and leave it at that. It's never really held me back--the party skill monkeys can deal with things that require skills, and I deal with things that need smiting. It works.

[Righteous Doggy]

Well, you have to let characters specialize. The skill monkeys like the rogue and the bard have all those skill points and their wide skill selection because that's what they're supposed to be good at. The wizard, for example, has a more narrow skill selection because despite his high intelligence he's spending all of his study on magic (and Knowledge skills).

The characters who don't have lots of skill points will often have other abilities that let them do interesting things. For example, I've currently got a 3.5 paladin with the usual 10 INT, and she hasn't got much skill with much of anything; but she's got the Detect Evil to use to watch out for enemy ambush, the ability to cure disease and heal injury, and the high charisma and reputation of a paladin to have most people trust her instinctively. Not to mention, like many paladins and practically all clerics, she has a deity on her side. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything because she has a low number of skill points. I just stick them in Diplomacy and Knowledge(Religion) and leave it at that. It's never really held me back--the party skill monkeys can deal with things that require skills, and I deal with things that need smiting. It works.

But in turn, becuase you only get 2+, you only have room for that much. You can't jump, nor tumble, nor swim, no climb, nor balance yourself. The idea that your trusted becuase your a paladin only works if roleplaying is involved, which can be very situational and dependant on groups. If I was a benevolent paladin I would love a few extra skillpoints, just 2 would mean I could also get the balance to escape a greasetrap and the chance to use something like heal becuase I felt like showing I was a benevolent and charitable person.

Wizards can get an absurd amount of skillpoints with all that intellect too. He doesn't just concentrate and spellcraft, he has room for spot and listen, which your paladin does not. He even gets alertness and may catch up to a paladin with a 14 wisdom score(oddly enough, neither have it as a class skills.). Sure his skill selection is small, but there are always ways around that, and its still very nice to have the skillpoints. Druids are easy to pick on as an example too, they have space to put some points into intellect and they can do alot even without those skillpoints.

I understand bards and rogues, I think they should get an abundance of choices, and skills. What I don't understand is why classes like fighter, cleric, magus, they all have super low skillpoints. They may not be able to do anything outside of combat without magic, or they may fumble in combat of all things! And druids get 4+ despite being supercapable. Then pathfinder carries it over and.. yeah, I said this before.

I also need to say I'm glad your satisfied. Always nice to see someone happy with their game. I'm just looking for reasoning behind things and ways to improve it.

@Raven I think thats actually a common houserule for it. I think I'll have to use that in any games I run, but by the book its not so cool.

[Mari01]

They also upped the die on two classes that really needed it, rogues and rangers, especially rogues.
They condensed the skill list, but removed Concentration as a skill and therefore made it much harder to buff.
The condensed skill list helps skill users more than it does wizards.
Personally, I would give pretty much every class but wizards and other intelligence based casters at least 4+ skills though,
Another, informal, idea is a discretionary flavour +1. If you can show how it broadens your character, you can get another point to put into that skill, like a Fighter with Spellcraft because he spent time in his backstory as a bodyguard for a caravan of wizards, or Knowledge: Religion due to working as a layman temple guard, or Craft: Woodworking because he was a carpenter before the orc raid forced him to take up arms, etcetera.

Forgive me if this is dumb, but isn't this the point of traits? To get the +1 and a skill as a class skill? In my game I've already decided the orc fighter is getting bumped up to 4 skills. Any time I call for a perception or some skill roll he just looks sad. I think it's dumb that the "untrained savage" (barbarian) is more knowledgeable than the typical soldier.

[Ravens_cry]

Forgive me if this is dumb, but isn't this the point of traits? To get the +1 and a skill as a class skill? In my game I've already decided the orc fighter is getting bumped up to 4 skills. Any time I call for a perception or some skill roll he just looks sad. I think it's dumb that the "untrained savage" (barbarian) is more knowledgeable than the typical soldier.
I apologize if I was unclear.
What I mean is, you get a bonus point to spend each level if you use it to broaden your character beyond "Generic X Class".
Traits certainly help though.

[Righteous Doggy]

I apologize if I was unclear.
What I mean is, you get a bonus point to spend each level if you use it to broaden your character beyond "Generic X Class".
Traits certainly help though.

Always nice to have more resources for character creation. Though I do see an insane wizard trying to convince someone that they should be a pro acrobat on the side...

[Ravens_cry]

Always nice to have more resources for character creation. Though I do see an insane wizard trying to convince someone that they should be a pro acrobat on the side...
If they can convince their DM that that broadens their character, sure.
One of my favourite characters from fiction starts out as a cooper, a barrel maker, and quite a good one, before becoming a kind of mage. He is a gruff, but kind hearted, hearty kind of person, almost stubbornly stolid, and often stubborn to boot.
His care and craftsmenship reflects also in his magic as well, rounding out his character as more then a magic user.

[Righteous Doggy]

I realize it can be great for making characters. I was refering to the kids who come to the table with outlandish reasoning trying to get something for min maxing. I once played a necromancer teacher/librarian. Easily the best character I've ever had. Couldn't have been anything but a Cloistered cleric though, Bardic Knowledge and skill points.

Eh, thats a little offtopic though isn't it :P. I love having more skillpoints though. I always end up having to turn a character that isn't a skillmonkey into one in my groups. Warblade Skillmonkey, Wizard Skillmonkey, Cleric skillmonkey... Kind of why I wonder about those poor guys with Int as a less important stat and 2+ skillpoints ontop of that.

[Roguenewb]

I find the best options to be with your low skill point fighters and such that unless you need a number of points to get into a PrC, activate a feat or whatever, to branch out at level one, so you can do a similar number of things to the 4/6ers, but none as well.

[Answerer]

Archivist, Psion, and Wizards are the only classes in the game that have any business having 2+Int skill points. The Artificer should maybe have a mechanic where they get 2+Int skill points, plus 2 or 4 that must go to Craft. Literally every other class should have more base skill points. If you aren't an Int-based full-caster, 4+Int should be a bare minimum.

[Ravens_cry]

I realize it can be great for making characters. I was refering to the kids who come to the table with outlandish reasoning trying to get something for min maxing. I once played a necromancer teacher/librarian. Easily the best character I've ever had. Couldn't have been anything but a Cloistered cleric though, Bardic Knowledge and skill points.

Eh, thats a little offtopic though isn't it :P. I love having more skillpoints though. I always end up having to turn a character that isn't a skillmonkey into one in my groups. Warblade Skillmonkey, Wizard Skillmonkey, Cleric skillmonkey... Kind of why I wonder about those poor guys with Int as a less important stat and 2+ skillpoints ontop of that.
If they are going to go to such lengths to get an extra skill point a level and convince their DM that it totally rounds out their Wizard to spend this point on Knowledge: Arcana, then so be it.
Hence why I called it a 'scheme' rather than a system, it's meant to be informal.

[ericgrau]

So, I was just curious why any class would have 2+ skill points and why it carried over to pathfinder. Its just painful to play a class who can barely jump and land at the same time and can't be expected to talk very well. In fact I've always found it debilitating and I can't play them.
Other opinions or anyone know a direct reason?
Jumping a 1 square pit: DC 5. Most can do it untrained.
Talking with an NPC: No check.

If you and the DM remember the rule that skill checks should be only for extraordinary actions and that ordinary actions don't require them (or have trivial DCs) then it makes things better for everyone. The guy with 2+int skill points can do things, and the skillmonkey is actually useful to play.

I've seen "fixes" that give out extra skill points and make success harder on skills. Everyone needs to carefully pick the essentials to avoid being a cripple and skillmonkeys become useless compared to using alternative special abilities that don't suck. That's the opposite of a solution. Do more with less not less with more.

[Righteous Doggy]

If you and the DM remember the rule that skill checks should be only for extraordinary actions and that ordinary actions don't require them (or have trivial DCs) then it makes things better for everyone. The guy with 2+int skill points can do things, and the skillmonkey is actually useful to play.

I've seen "fixes" that give out extra skill points and make success harder on skills. Everyone needs to carefully pick the essentials to avoid being a cripple and skillmonkeys become useless compared to using alternative special abilities that don't suck. That's the opposite of a solution. Don't rely on skills for basic tasks. Do more with less not less with more.

Aye, and skillmonkeys are irreplacable. In PF they have abilities that give make them supergood almost no matter what and in 3.5 they have 8+ which unmodified is as good as the fix of giving classes 4 if they had 18 int, and their skill list is unparallel.(+ unique skills that no other class can replicate such as trapfinding, bardic knowledge/knack and inspiration, but hopefully every class is a little unique.)

However, how is making success harder a fix? And is it reallly fun to have to minmax? I hate games where its optomize or die. I had a dm in highschool like that, its insane and brutal on character creation. I want to have fun and roleplay with a few fun, hopefully entertaining encounters. Not get streamrolled by super encounters and death traps. I decided I didn't like that a long time ago.

[Answerer]

skillmonkeys are irreplacable.
Except, ya know, by common and low-level spells...

[Righteous Doggy]

Except, ya know, by common and low-level spells...

Yeah... sadly. Who needs to pick a lock when you've got knock, or check traps when you can crash it. Or even search when you can spontaneously cast Detect Secret Door or some form of arcane sight, but hey, when your just talking about the number of skillpoints and how good you can get with them, rogues and bards have enough people beat. If we talk about effectiveness, Tier one classes are going to be the center of debate.

Now about them skillpoints :smallsmile: