Skills: 3.5 of PF?

[Seharvepernfan]

Which do you like better?

Why?

Personally, I like aspects of each, and as a DM, I think I would have them meet halfway.

I also like the feats-at-odd-levels idea.

It's fun to be a PF character, but it sucks that your enemies have all those skills as well. I also like having synergy bonuses.

What, as a DM, do you do?

[Kane0]

I like PFs approach to skills. Its simple and effective with no messy synergy bonuses and half skill ranks.

PF feat progression is good too, except maybe for the fighter getting one every level.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I prefer 3.5, but I'm a bit biased; what with not caring for pathfinder in a more general sense.

3.5's 50+ skills allow for much greater nuance in a character's non-combat and movement related skills that the simplified pathfinder skills turn into only a relatively small number of big lumps of ability.

I'm generally against simplification though. I thrive on complexity.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder, definitely. I finally have a fighter than can jump, swim and climb better than the bookworm.



I'm generally against simplification though. I thrive on complexity.

So how are those ranks in Intuit Direction working out for you

[Kelb_Panthera]

Pathfinder, definitely. I finally have a fighter than can jump, swim and climb better than the bookworm.



So how are those ranks in Intuit Direction working out for you

I started in 3.5 so I never did see intuit direction until I got my first 3.0 supplement. I didn't see any reason to add more complexity than there already was.

Had I started on D&D a year earlier, I might still be using it.

I have given serious consideration to reintroducing the scry skill though.

[Eldonauran]

I like pathfinder's skill system because of the simplicity but not all of the 'skills' they combined.

Specifically, I like:

The elimination of half ranks
The elimination of synergies
The cap of character level to skill ranks
The +3 to class skills that have 1 rank in them.

I am neutral on the increase in feats (every odd level).

[docnessuno]

Which do you like better?

Why?

Personally, I like aspects of each, and as a DM, I think I would have them meet halfway.

I also like the feats-at-odd-levels idea.

It's fun to be a PF character, but it sucks that your enemies have all those skills as well. I also like having synergy bonuses.

What, as a DM, do you do?

Depends on how much i'm willing to bend the system. Some general toughts:

Skill consolidation: i like PF approach, and i even further consolidate Climb and Swim into Athletics (wich is also used to jump).

Skill points / level: i like the base number of skill/level to be 3, so a int of 8 doesn't mean you get a single point at each level. On the other hand, lowering the maximum from 8 to 7 helps balancing the massive boost (in thos area at least) skillmonkeys got from skill consolisation (considering most consolidated skill are their field of expertise usually). So 3 / 5 / 7 skill/lvl

Feats at odd levels: i like it.

Sinergy bonuses: while they do make sense, it's an HUGE pain in the rear end to go and check evey skill that might be getting a synergy bonus. Even more problematic is finding a place to note conditional synergy bonuses on the character's sheet.

PF "class skills": While i really appreciate the rank = level concept and not having to pay double for cross-rank skills, on the other hand something strikes me as "odd"

PF Traits: I LOVE them. Expecially the ones giving you an additional class skill.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Anything not D&D or D&D-related (PF, Hackmaster, although I've never tried Hackmaster and I've heard the later editions have ticks/seconds rather than rounds).

D&D is far too focused on the wargame aspect, leaving everything other than combat and chargen in the dust. Cortex, FATE, L5R, White Wolf games... all those have much better skill systems.

[Ravens_cry]

I mostly like Pathfinder skills, though Perception can get messy because of the need for so many conditional bonuses. I can see where 3.0 skills were coming from. They basically were trying to emulate the non-weapon proficiencies of the older editions, but 3.5 was a much needed reduction, and Pathfinder is almost entirely an improvement on that.
Seriously, it's now worth it to take non-class skills, and that makes me happy.

[JennTora]

Pathfinder. because I can put put ranks in craft(glass) just to make my character more human.

Sure you can do it in 3.5 but it screws your optimization a lot worse. Cross-class skill are particularly egregious, What if I'd like my Fighter to be reasonably stealthy without having to multiclass to rogue? In 3.5 I have to spend 2 points per rank in hide, and move silently. In pathfinder I put 1 point per rank in stealth.

[navar100]

Pathfinder because there's no cross-class purchase penalty. A 10th level Fighter can have 10 ranks in Perception. Say his Wisdom is 12. He has +11 Perception. That is good. The 10th level Rogue has 10 ranks in Stealth. His Dex is 18. His Stealth is +17. That's six better than the Fighter's Perception, but the Rogue is supposed to be that good being Stealthy. Still, the Fighter has a chance of seeing the Rogue anyway. If Perception is important enough to the Fighter, he can take Skill Focus (Perception). Skill Focus provides a +6 bonus at 10 ranks. The Fighter now has +17 Perception, equal to the Rogue's Stealth! Rogue would have to counter with Skill Focus (Stealth) to get +23 Stealth to be at the same +6 advantage as before.

It is disappointing Pathfinder stuck with the minimum 2 + Int modifier skill points per level as the Fighter gets. However, consider: Some feats requires 13 Int, so give Fighter that. He's now at 3 skill points per level. Play a human. He's at 4 skill points per level. Take skill points for favored class bonus. Fighter is at 5 skill points per level. With ranks costing 1 for 1, 5 points a level is a lot. Wouldn't hurt to have more, but it's still a lot. Pathfinder Fighter does not hurt for skills as much as 3E Fighter.

[Ravens_cry]

Ooh, yeah. Traits. I love them, they just add that little something to a character, flavour and crunch both. Technically they were in 3.X as well, but Pathfinder really took the idea and ran with it.

[rollforeigninit]

PF all the way. Cross-class ranks were always a grind to take. Anyone without Spot, search and Listen as a class skill might as well be blind and deaf. Never did like that.
I second the Athletics Skill in addition to Pathfinder's changes.

[Hylas]

PF's system is much more elegant and smooth. It's easy to figure out how many skill points you have and you don't screw yourself over by taking the classes in the "wrong" order. Oh, you took a level in fighter instead of rogue first for your fighter/rogue multiclass? Well you get 28 fewer skill points to play with. I had to make a spreadsheet file to calculate skill points for the less mechanically inclined players because they kept wanting to do "a point here and there" and multiclass a bunch and they couldn't add up their totals correctly. :smallsigh:

Also the made it so INT increases from level up boost your skill point total from previous levels. Sure it doesn't make as much sense to master a new skill, but it works much better for a game. Besides, leveling up doesn't make sense anyways but no one complains about that. :smalltongue:

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who wants an "athletics" skill in PF. Although I would've made it a combination of jump, swim, and climb. Acrobatics has enough useful skills already. The poor PF fighter lost the ability to jump compared to 3.5.


DPF "class skills": While i really appreciate the rank = level concept and not having to pay double for cross-rank skills, on the other hand something strikes me as "odd"

I think the whole +3 to class skills is a remnant of trying to make Pathfinder backwards compatible with 3.5, especially with DCs and comparing 1st level characters. To be honest, I think the whole 4*class skill points at first level was a "patch" to help make the DCs look nicer that someone came up with during playtesting and no one bothered to change.

[Kumori]

Skill consolidation: i like PF approach, and i even further consolidate Climb and Swim into Athletics (wich is also used to jump).

Jump is already consolidated into Acrobatics along with Balance and Tumble. Do you have the two of those as Acrobatics after taking Jump out, or do you do something different?

[JimboG]

I gotta say, I think my favorite major change from 3.5 to Pathfinder was the skills. 3.5 just seemed way too limited and spread thin, and in many of my campaigns we gleefully house-ruled similar skills like Move Silently and Hide together into clumps way before we ever discovered Pathfinder did it. Having a system that officially embraced that concept really made me happy.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Hmmm....... I seem to be rather in the minority on this one.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Absol197]

Pathfinder for me too! Also, what are these traits things that people keep talking about :smallconfused: ? I haven't seen anything like that, and I'm a pretty close reader. What did I miss? I'm intrigued, and would like to know more!

[Psyren]

Pathfinder for me too! Also, what are these traits things that people keep talking about :smallconfused: ? I haven't seen anything like that, and I'm a pretty close reader. What did I miss? I'm intrigued, and would like to know more!

Traits (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/advancedNewRules.html) are from the APG. They're sort of "mini-feats" that are tied to your character's background - how he grew up, where he came from, any knacks or talents he had before adventuring etc. That link can give you the rules behind them. They're basically a way to represent your backstory mechanically without unbalancing the game.

They're in 3.5 as well (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm), but aren't as well-supported.

[Krazzman]

Hmmm....... I seem to be rather in the minority on this one.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

No, I'm on your side on this one. I would like to have 3.5's Skill List with Pathfinders actual system of Favoured Class, 1:1 ratio and trained +3 bonus.

As I have mentioned in some threads I dislike the DSA - Das Schwarze Auge system in general but like their approach to skills because they have so much stuff you can skill. Climbing, Skying, Riding and such stuff is actually separated from each other. For "movement" they have different skills... rowing, Skying, Riding, swiming, climbing, jumping, acrobatics and athletics.

[Psyren]

Why on earth are jumping, swimming and climbing separate from BOTH athletics and acrobatics? Even Morrowind didn't delineate that far :smallconfused:

[BowStreetRunner]

I prefer the PF system. I really like how the class skill bonus encourages players to put one rank into every class skill to get the +3. I've seen too many 3.5 skill characters who were all min-max and couldn't beat a DC 15 with some common class skills. Like a Rogue who is all maxed for burglary, but if someone asks him "did you steal the treasure" he can't even bluff to beat an ordinary un-optimized NPC.

As for synergy, in my own PF campaigns I added a house-rule to replace the old 3.5 synergy bonuses. Basically, any time you perform a task where you can argue your ranks in another skill would help (like using Sense Motive on the other guy to help gauge how best to approach a Diplomacy check with him) you can make a roll similar to the Aid Another rule - only in this case you are using one of your own skill rolls to aid yourself. You have to have ranks in the skill you are using for synergy and only one synergy bonus applies (even if you can argue that Bluff and Sense Motive would help for instance).

[Draz74]

My reaction to most of the differences is "Meh, I could go either way." But PF does have one major advantage: making cross-class skills not suck anymore. Which they never should have in the first place.

[docnessuno]

Jump is already consolidated into Acrobatics along with Balance and Tumble. Do you have the two of those as Acrobatics after taking Jump out, or do you do something different?

I just allow to jump with either skill. "Acrobatic" jumps using athletics incur in an increased DC, the same applies to long/high jumps with the actobatic skill.

[Strawberries]

I prefer the pathfinder approach: the simplified list of skills it's easier and more intuitive. Plus, as others have mentioned, I really like the way class skills/cross class skills are handled.

[Absol197]

Another minor thing that I like about Pathfinder skills is Perception (no, this isn't exactly the same as skill consolidation). A lot of times, my group finds itself in need of some creature needing to roll a "smell" check. What skill do they use? It's not Spot, it's not Listen...maybe Survival? That's not exactly the same.

With the Perception skill, it can be used for all your senses, meaning those creatures or characters with enhanced olfactory ability don't need to spend a minute or two figuring out what to roll. There's a skill for that, and it's the same one that's used for noticing anything else.

[Boci]

I can see athletics and acrobatics I can see being merged, but I'm prefer listen and spot, as well as hide and move silently, to be seperate. I have always prefered more skill points over merging skills. It may be a bit more complex, but no by much and I feel its worth it.

[RFLS]

Another minor thing that I like about Pathfinder skills is Perception (no, this isn't exactly the same as skill consolidation). A lot of times, my group finds itself in need of some creature needing to roll a "smell" check. What skill do they use? It's not Spot, it's not Listen...maybe Survival? That's not exactly the same.

With the Perception skill, it can be used for all your senses, meaning those creatures or characters with enhanced olfactory ability don't need to spend a minute or two figuring out what to roll. There's a skill for that, and it's the same one that's used for noticing anything else.

You could just read the Scent ability; it specifies that you can know existence, direction, and location if you're respectively closer for each bit of info.

I am a fan of the combination of the Stealth and the Perception skills, though; it makes being a stealthy character easy to deal with, because you're not required to max two skills when other people only have to max one to know you're there.

[molten_dragon]

I like what Pathfinder did to class vs. cross-class skills, and I like that they condensed the list of skills a bit, but I don't think they went nearly far enough with it. I prefer a much more condensed skill list. Most of my homebrew games only have 14 skills.

[eggs]

Pathfinder's system is much easier and means wasting less time on stupid things like digging around trying to figure exactly how to get something like +1 CL/Escape Artist with a level dip in order to meet a second set of prerequisites. Plus consolidated skills mean that I've made characters who don't foster pathological fears of deep water, without kicking myself for wasting ranks.

But Fly still almost makes me want to take that back.

[navar100]

But Fly still almost makes me want to take that back.

I'm not bothered by the Fly skill. It's just a different way of doing maneuverability as opposed to ye olde Perfect, Good, Moderate, Clumsy, Poor. Casting a spell to fly gives you an enhancement bonus to the skill which serves all the purpose you need, so you don't need to put in ranks. Putting in the ranks means you want to do fancy stuff. Druids need to put in ranks if they like to wildshape into flying creatures a lot. The concept works fine, and you can ignore putting in the ranks without any real problem if it you just can't stand it. It is worth a few ranks if you plan on flying a lot. Expect winds, magical or otherwise.

[Susano-wo]

Skill Consolidation: I'm a fan, but I could accept just adding more Skill Points. Complexity is all well and good in theory, but how complex do you really want to go? Also, some of the skills are too divided(Hide/Move Silently, and Open Lock/Disable Device are particularly silly on a "are they really that different?" level--Hell, even by the end of the 3.5 run they were regretting that last one. They recommend folding it together in the Rules Compendium)


Cross Class: Wonderful!!! fixes the problem neatly and cleanly. You can learn cross class, but class skills are still better, though not insurmountably so (Ironically, its the same fix that 4 did to the BA progression, and I don't like that one too much :P)


Multiclassing: also kickass. no more fiddling with which class to take when! (aside from HP considerations, but the higher you get the less that one max hit die matters :P)

Synergy: I like having it, but I can understand, especially with skill folding, why they got rid of em.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I prefer 3.5, PF trivialized the value of a class skill and in turn destroyed the role of the skill monkey.

Also, I just really loved skill synergies.

[Arcanist]

I prefer the skill options of 3.5 and the simplicity of the skills in PF. I really must convert to Pathfinder sooner or later (preferably before 5ed comes out) :smallsigh:

[Mithril Leaf]

Probably due to a general distaste for Pathfinder, I prefer the 3.5 skills. The one I like least is the merge of Listen and Spot, what if I need glasses but have exceptional hearing?

[Susano-wo]

Probably due to a general distaste for Pathfinder, I prefer the 3.5 skills. The one I like least is the merge of Listen and Spot, what if I need glasses but have exceptional hearing?

Then personally, I would go with a +2/-2 circumstance modifier. 90% (YMMV (http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YMMV)) of all characters won't need this, so its easy to come up with some custom bonuses and penalties. But hey, if you wanna go with 3.5, I guess that solves the problem too :P