Deepbluediver
2013-01-08, 10:56 AM
The standard rule in 3.5 was that you got four times your normal skill points at first level. Mostly, it seems, so that you could max out your entire selection of chosen skills right off the bat. Of course, if you where planning a multi-class character, this gave great incentive to take at first level whichever class gave you the biggest static skill boost, regardless of what that meant for gameplay or roleplay.
Pathfinder changed the skill rules a bit, making cross-class skills less onerous to acquire, doing away with the "times 4 at first level", and lowering the cap on ranks.
Personally, I like the idea of being able to got more than a +1 via ranks to any particular skill at first level, but I understand the desire to disincentivise players from picking up a level of rogue before splitting off into whatever their actual class was meant to be.
I think that more skill points are always better than fewer, and with rare exceptions giving more of them does not drastically unbalance or break the game. So I have two new, very simple, houserules, and I'd love to hear what people thought of them.
Rule One
At first level, players get a number of skill points equal to 10+their class skill points. The basic 10 skill points represent the skills that the player picked up during their childhood and adolesence, before begining their training to be a Bard/Warlock/Fighter/Dragon Shaman/whatever.
Update: If you are playing in a game with a higher power level, the DM should feel free to increase the number of skill points players get at level 1, similarly to how the the stats for character creation are adjusted.
Rule Two
The minimum value that your Intellect modifier can apply to your calculation for skill points acquired each level is -0, so that you never get fewer skill points than the static portion listed for each class. For example, a Fighter with a really low Intellect score would get a minimum of 2 skill points each level, and a Rogue with really low Intellect would get a minimum of 8 skill points.
The human racial trait or other features that grant you additional skill points stack with this value (So a human Fighter would get a minimum of 3 skill points each level).
Pathfinder changed the skill rules a bit, making cross-class skills less onerous to acquire, doing away with the "times 4 at first level", and lowering the cap on ranks.
Personally, I like the idea of being able to got more than a +1 via ranks to any particular skill at first level, but I understand the desire to disincentivise players from picking up a level of rogue before splitting off into whatever their actual class was meant to be.
I think that more skill points are always better than fewer, and with rare exceptions giving more of them does not drastically unbalance or break the game. So I have two new, very simple, houserules, and I'd love to hear what people thought of them.
Rule One
At first level, players get a number of skill points equal to 10+their class skill points. The basic 10 skill points represent the skills that the player picked up during their childhood and adolesence, before begining their training to be a Bard/Warlock/Fighter/Dragon Shaman/whatever.
Update: If you are playing in a game with a higher power level, the DM should feel free to increase the number of skill points players get at level 1, similarly to how the the stats for character creation are adjusted.
Rule Two
The minimum value that your Intellect modifier can apply to your calculation for skill points acquired each level is -0, so that you never get fewer skill points than the static portion listed for each class. For example, a Fighter with a really low Intellect score would get a minimum of 2 skill points each level, and a Rogue with really low Intellect would get a minimum of 8 skill points.
The human racial trait or other features that grant you additional skill points stack with this value (So a human Fighter would get a minimum of 3 skill points each level).