Logic behind skill points

[Yanisa]

Hey Playgrounders,

I was busy with my own campaign setting and was thinking to sneak in a couple of little homebrews, one of those being to change around the skill points a bit. But before that I wanted to understand why certain classes get a certain amount of skill points. Some are easy to understand, rogues and bards for "skillmonkeys" and classes that general rely on skills and are famous for having many skills and tricks. Casters often get less skill points because magic easily makes up for it (although wizards still end up with more skill points then rogues) and many others can sort of be explained... It still leaves me with question marks like fighters getting a mere 2 skills points per level, rangers have more skill points then barbarians, who in turn have more skill points then fighters.

So my questions are:
What is the logic behind skill points per class?
Are they just random numbers that sorted sounded fitting or is there any design behind them?
And will it have any impact if I switch those numbers around?

P.S. For the people interested, my current idea was to assign skillpoints based on "tier", aka tier 1 and 2 classes get +2, tier 3 +4, tier 4 +6, etc. Not for any power reason (switching skill points around will do zilch for the balance I guess), but mainly because the tier system sorts certain types together, tier 1 and 2 are mostly spellcasters and i.m.o. don't need to rely on their skills point. Whereas Tier 4 consists out of those poor melees that should rely far more on skills then casters.

[Rubik]

Apparently skills aren't useful for anyone expecting to thrive on the battlefield, despite what most of the skills themselves say. Fighting is all about feats, not silly skills like Tumble or Bluff, and actual class features are right out.

AKA, fighters can't have nice things, because the early-game developers were morons.

[Stux]

There is some logic, but there is definitely room for some tweaks. Fighters getting more skill points is an often touted improvement to the class for instance.

[Yanisa]

Apparently skills aren't useful for anyone expecting to thrive on the battlefield, despite what most of the skills themselves say. Fighting is all about feats, not silly skills like Tumble or Bluff, and actual class features are right out.

AKA, fighters can't have nice things, because the early-game developers were morons.

But if that was the whole logic, why would a class like barbarian get more skill points? Aren't they also only for combat, combat and more combat? In fact shouldn't they get less skill points because they are more stupid then a fighter?

[Rubik]

But if that was the whole logic, why would a class like barbarian get more skill points? Aren't they also only for combat, combat and more combat? In fact shouldn't they get less skill points because they are more stupid then a fighter?They're naturey, I guess.

And again, WotC is full of morons.

[JungleChicken]

I would say the logic, be it right or wrong, is that a fighter relies on his equipment and the huge number of feats reflects time spent on martial training instead of daily skills.

The barbarian is less armored and has less feats which can be described as less formal training and lives off of the land and therefore more common knowledge/mundane skills

[Yanisa]

They're naturey, I guess.

And again, WotC is full of morons.


I would say the logic, be it right or wrong, is that a fighter relies on his equipment and the huge number of feats reflects time spent on martial training instead of daily skills.

The barbarian is less armored and has less feats which can be described as less formal training and lives off of the land and therefore more common knowledge/mundane skills

Yeah there is a theme of classes closer to nature having more skill points. Druids, Rangers (and barbarians of course)... Though Rangers have more then Barbarians, for no explained reason or logic.

But then we got in the oddity of fluff, DnD is designed in such a way that every class can from everywhere. They keep location or origin restrictions light. Even druids can live in large urban areas according core fluff and there are class variants as urban barbarians, druids and rangers. Yet that rarely affects the skill points.

And if the gear is the argument... Monks are basically naked, rely mostly on their own skills, strict discipline and inner power. Also I'm pretty sure half of the monks are hermits that live close by nature, living off the land, making their own food and never buying stuff. Yet they also deal with 2 skill points per level.

So basically, there is barely any logic behind skill points and any logic that can be found is wonky plus there is no general design behind it? They just did stuff that seemed fitting and no one cared to change it because of legacy reasons?

[Rubik]

Yeah there is a theme of classes closer to nature having more skill points. Druids, Rangers (and barbarians of course)... Though Rangers have more then Barbarians, for no explained reason or logic.

But then we got in the oddity of fluff, DnD is designed in such a way that every class can from everywhere. They keep location or origin restrictions light. Even druids can live in large urban areas according core fluff and there are class variants as urban barbarians, druids and rangers. Yet that rarely affects the skill points.

And if the gear is the argument... Monks are basically naked, rely mostly on their own skills, strict discipline and inner power. Also I'm pretty sure half of the monks are hermits that live close by nature, living off the land, making their own food and never buying stuff. Yet they also deal with 2 skill points per level.

So basically, there is barely any logic behind skill points and any logic that can be found is wonky plus there is no general design behind it? They just did stuff that seemed fitting and no one cared to change it because of legacy reasons?The weaker the WotC crew made a class, the fewer skill points it got.

Except for T1s, for some odd reason.

[Yanisa]

The weaker the WotC crew made a class, the fewer skill points it got.

Except for T1s, for some odd reason.

So Rogues are better then Rangers?

But yeah, I think I sorta concluded to that without realizing it. Hence my want to give lower tier classes more skills points.

In my model this would happen: (My setting is Pathfinder based, but I'm not listing PF classes atm)
Barbarian from 4 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Druid from 4 skills/lvl to 2 skills/lvl
Fighter from 2 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Monk from 2 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Paladin from 2 skills/lvl to 4 skills/lvl (Maybe 6?)
Ranger from 6 skills/lvl to 4 skills/lvl (Maybe keep it at 6?)

Not that that fixes anything. It might make fighters slightly less unhappy with their existence.

Another question, what happens if I introduce odd numbered skill points per level? (like 5 skills/lvl for ranger and paladin)

[Thanatosia]

Basically the 'natury' classes like Barbarians and Rangers have more skillpoints then fighters because they are expected to have skills like Survival, climb, swim, and maybe even move silently and hide.

Fighters by contrast didn't spend their time learning that stuff and instead focused on pure martial combat, so they get more feats instead of skills. Unfortunately, from a balance perspective, Fighter trading skills for feats makes sense, but it doesn't make up for fighter having nothing but feats as class abilitise vs all the other class features the other classes have (hence fighter sucking, even in comparison to other mundanes).

[Rubik]

Since fighter is supposed to be the ultra-generic fighting class, give fighters a core list of class skills (which needs to include all Knowledge skills, Spot, and Listen) and allow them to choose a few class skills from all that are available. That way the class can fulfill a much broader variety of archetypes.

Of course, it'd help if 45% of the class wasn't composed of complete dead levels and fighter feats were worth much.

[NichG]

So basically, there is barely any logic behind skill points and any logic that can be found is wonky plus there is no general design behind it? They just did stuff that seemed fitting and no one cared to change it because of legacy reasons?

Tons of people care to change it - just look at the Homebrew forum. Its generally not in a large company's interest to issue unnecessary edits to the rules, since people don't generally purchase errata, and a heavily-errata'd game has a higher barrier to entry for people who have to not just learn the rules but all the corrections too. Change a game-breaker, sure, but mucking around with skill points per level is just asking for confusion - after all, they even left the Swordsage's 6xInt at first level.

I would say that the original logic was probably something like - Cunning = Skill Points. The sneakier someone's methods are supposed to be, the more skill points they'll get. Wizards are stodgy academics - they know a lot (high Int) but they aren't inherently cunning. Fighters are rank and file soldiers - they can do what they're told well, but they're not expected to take initiative, just to follow orders. Barbarians hunt and snare things, so they're a little more cunning.

Does it make sense in all views of the classes (the fighter as a knight and a noble for example)? Nah. But its as close as I can get to a plausible consistent line of argument at the least.

[Yanisa]

Basically the 'natury' classes like Barbarians and Rangers have more skillpoints then fighters because they are expected to have skills like Survival, climb, swim, and maybe even move silently and hide.

Fighters by contrast didn't spend their time learning that stuff and instead focused on pure martial combat, so they get more feats instead of skills. Unfortunately, from a balance perspective, Fighter trading skills for feats makes sense, but it doesn't make up for fighter having nothing but feats as class abilitise vs all the other class features the other classes have (hence fighter sucking, even in comparison to other mundanes).


Since fighter is supposed to be the ultra-generic fighting class, give fighters a core list of class skills (which needs to include all Knowledge skills, Spot, and Listen) and allow them to choose a few class skills from all that are available. That way the class can fulfill a much broader variety of archetypes.

Of course, it'd help if 45% of the class wasn't composed of complete dead levels and fighter feats were worth much.

A problem is that by core fluff a fighter is a multiple of things, not just a generic weapon swinging person. Let's list off a couple of occupations that are assumed fighters:
knight
overlord
elite foot soldier
mercenary
bandit king
defenders
marauders
adventurers
soldiers
guards
bodyguards
champions
criminal enforcers

With such a list, one would expect fighters have the skill points to pull of bandit king or at least get the social skills for bodyguard. A fighter is a varied class but lacks the skill points to show that variety. Feats are only allowing different combat styles, but not the difference between elite soldier and an overlord.
Ignoring the lack of class abilities to pull off those things. I bet a barbarian can fulfill all those roles and probably even better then the fighter... (And especially in pathfinder where barbarians basically also get a feat every level the normal fighter is worthless.)

The short version is, there seems to be no good reason to give a fighter 2 skill points. The fluff even hints a fighter is more then a soldier just for fighting.


Tons of people care to change it - just look at the Homebrew forum. Its generally not in a large company's interest to issue unnecessary edits to the rules, since people don't generally purchase errata, and a heavily-errata'd game has a higher barrier to entry for people who have to not just learn the rules but all the corrections too. Change a game-breaker, sure, but mucking around with skill points per level is just asking for confusion - after all, they even left the Swordsage's 6xInt at first level.

I would say that the original logic was probably something like - Cunning = Skill Points. The sneakier someone's methods are supposed to be, the more skill points they'll get. Wizards are stodgy academics - they know a lot (high Int) but they aren't inherently cunning. Fighters are rank and file soldiers - they can do what they're told well, but they're not expected to take initiative, just to follow orders. Barbarians hunt and snare things, so they're a little more cunning.

Does it make sense in all views of the classes (the fighter as a knight and a noble for example)? Nah. But its as close as I can get to a plausible consistent line of argument at the least.

I was looking at Pathfinder, they did zilch with skill points, kept everything like 3.5... Not the homebrewers.

Skills points as cunning makes more sense in how classes got their skill points but skills are far more then just cunning skills... It's something to keep in mind though.

[NotScaryBats]

A lot of those terms seems synonymous to me, but I agree that Fighters should have more Skill Points than they get. There is a Fighter ACF that swaps the first level feat for a few more class skills and skill points IIRC, something like "Thug" ACF.

The logic appears to be:

Rogue 8 SP and master of skills
-
-
-
Fighter 2 SP and master of combat

And then they put things in where they felt they fell between the two.

[Schizek]

If you want to play Figher with skills just play Warblade or Swordsage.

3.5 edition was already like errata to 3E. WotC could not make another errata, instead they made supplements that provide classes with could be used as errata. Simple.

Most Maneuvers gives more power that bonus feats in Fighter List. Why would anyone choose Fighter Class beside feats dips?


fighters:
knight
overlord
elite foot soldier
mercenary
bandit king
defenders
marauders
adventurers
soldiers
guards
bodyguards
champions
criminal enforcers
Warblade with 14 int have 6 skill points per lvl. He might not become diplomancer but can do somethiing outside using stick.

[Ivanhoe]

Monk from 2 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl


Not that it changes much, but the monk already has 4 skill points/lvl.:smallwink:

Overall, all classes receive too few skill points for the number of skills there are (I mean: four skills for doing stealth?) . So Pathfinder did a step into the right direction with handing out more skill points and reducing the number of skills.

A DM may also use the leeway provided by the rules not insist a, e.g. fighter, has to take diplomacy or knowledge-royalty to be able to behave like a lord and be well-mannered.

There are also many expansion rules that make INT-based characters possible for many classes (again, the fighter example: a human fighter with focus on INT and, say, knowledge devotion feat could have a decent amount of skills).

In general, when the game design envisions "fighting specialists" and "magic specialists" to have the least number of skill points, then apparently fighting and magic in general are supposed to be powerful enough in their own rights. Unfortunately, though, magic also tends to be able to emulate skills quite well (something that fighting cannot do).

[Yanisa]

A lot of those terms seems synonymous to me, but I agree that Fighters should have more Skill Points than they get. There is a Fighter ACF that swaps the first level feat for a few more class skills and skill points IIRC, something like "Thug" ACF.

The logic appears to be:

Rogue 8 SP and master of skills
-
-
-
Fighter 2 SP and master of combat

And then they put things in where they felt they fell between the two.

Yeah maybe I should have filtered the synonyms but still, it shows they wanted fighters to have more diversity.

And once again, it doesn't seem to work like that. Rangers have something called combat style, which would put them pretty high as masters of combat... And 6 skills points per level.
I always see exceptions in any try to give it general logic, making me conclude there is no real general design. I don't think anyone put that much thought behind skills point other then "does it fit the broad idea of the class. I suspect there was a lack of contrast and compare.

Also nice avatar and now I see a comic to check out.


If you want to play Figher with skills just play Warblade or Swordsage.

Sadly my real life friends and fellow players never connected with the ToB. So I never more then glanced at the book. For what I have heard it is a nice fix to melee fighting, but it feels too 4th edition for me.


Not that it changes much, but the monk already has 4 skill points/lvl.:smallwink:
Wait I overestimated the monks suckiness? :smallconfused:

But so only fighters, sorcerers, wizards and clerics have 2 skills/level? One of those is not like the others... I thought there was another melee with 2?


Overall, all classes receive too few skill points for the number of skills there are (I mean: four skills for doing stealth?) . So Pathfinder did a step into the right direction with handing out more skill points and reducing the number of skills.

A DM may also use the leeway provided by the rules not insist a, e.g. fighter, has to take diplomacy or knowledge-royalty to be able to behave like a lord and be well-mannered.
Also you don't have to put all your skill ranks in a skill to use it. But if I want an athletic and acrobatic fighter that can climb, swim, tumble and jump, I am already out of luck unless I play human, or a smarter then average guy. Even in pathfinder that condensed some of those skills.

Ignoring the skills every adventure need like spot/listen (perception)... and maybe spellcraft and survival. And the knowledge skills...

Yeah most classes could still use more skills, but I am not giving casters more.


In general, when the game design envisions "fighting specialists" and "magic specialists" to have the least number of skill points, then apparently fighting and magic in general are supposed to be powerful enough in their own rights. Unfortunately, though, magic also tends to be able to emulate skills quite well (something that fighting cannot do).
But there is only one fighting specialist and that is the fighter? I can call out the Ranger and Combat Style again, but the Ranger is a lot of things. It seems like the game is really stuck on just giving fighters the shaft when it comes to skill points, for poor reasons.

[OldTrees1]

But yeah, I think I sorta concluded to that without realizing it. Hence my want to give lower tier classes more skills points.

In my model this would happen: (My setting is Pathfinder based, but I'm not listing PF classes atm)
Barbarian from 4 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Druid from 4 skills/lvl to 2 skills/lvl
Fighter from 2 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Monk from 2 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Paladin from 2 skills/lvl to 4 skills/lvl (Maybe 6?)
Ranger from 6 skills/lvl to 4 skills/lvl (Maybe keep it at 6?)


WotC assigned skill points based on how skill focused the theme of the class was. (While ignoring the existence of Int for better[no stat tax] or worse[int does affect skill points])

Rangers were themed as the skill focused nature warrior while Barbarians were themed as the combat focused nature warrior. So I can see reason to have Rangers get more skill points than Barbarians. (Especially since Barbarian's class features turn off some skills while Ranger's class features access some skills)

Classes in general should get more skill points. (There is no reason, other than tradition, not to do odd skill points)

I would consider:
Casters: 2+Int (they won't have max ranks but they can augment it with spells)
Warriors: 6+Int
Skill Focused Warriors (Monk, Ranger, Scout): 8+Int
Skill Monkeys: 10+Int

[Socksy]

(although wizards still end up with more skill points then rogues)


Firstly, *than.

Secondly, no, they don't (or shouldn't). Wizards get two plus INT modifier, rogues get eight plus INT modifier. The wizard's INT modifier would therefore have to be seven entire points higher than the rogue's, a whopping thirteen points minimum INT gap. Fourteen if the rogue's INT is an even number.

Assuming you're using 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, and for some reason the rogue's player was stupid enough to stick the 10 in INT, and the wizard placed the 15 in INT, the wizard would only have the necessary INT at (24-15)*4= THIRTY-SIXTH LEVEL. And that's just for the individual level, not considering the amount the rogue earned at previous levels which the wizard didn't. Yeah.

Even giving the wizard a Tome of Clear Thought +5, that's still sixteenth level, if a 15th level character could possibly have access to one before leveling up - it costs the majority of said character's WBL, far more money than they would actually be able to have or spend. More realistically, the wizard would either get a lower bonus, or have to wait a few more levels. And this is assuming, again, that the rogue doesn't want an INT-boosting book too, to help with all their INT-based skills (although admittedly, a headband of intellect would be cheaper and more beneficial in that situation).

TL;DR the wizard will only have more skill points per level if two of three conditions are met: The party are Epic-level; the rogue is thick; the DM is flinging far-too-powerful items about.

[NichG]

Whenever talk of skill systems comes up, and more specifically the tendency for expanding the set of available skills to effectively starve classes for skillpoints, I get the urge to mess around with things.

What about a system where rather than buying up skills, you buy them down and get the ability to be ahead of the curve as a result? So for example - everyone gets 1 skill point per class skill every 2 levels, plus 2 at first level. Cross-class skills are 1 point per 3 levels, no boost at first level (sort of like saving throws). Take your skill points per level - at each level, you can reduce skills by this many points to increase other skills by the same amount, with the usual maximum.

So a Lv10 Fighter might look like:

Spot 7(+0), Listen 7(+0), Tumble 3(+0), Knowledge Arcana 0(-3), Ride 10(+3), ...

Basically, you choose what you're bad at rather than choosing what you're good at. Of course this means that adding more skills makes it easier to put those low skills in things you don't care about, but at least you don't tend to get as skill-point starved over all.

[Amphetryon]

The weaker the WotC crew made a class, the fewer skill points it got.

Except for T1s, for some odd reason.

So, Rangers are stronger than Sorcerers?

[nedz]

There is some logic, but there is definitely room for some tweaks. Fighters getting more skill points is an often touted improvement to the class for instance.

In itself it wouldn't really help since Fighters get a poor selection of skills to spend their points on.

On idea I had to to replace the Int to all skills rule with one allowing you to spend stat mod skill points on skills associated with that stat. E.g. if you have a +2 Strength mod then you can spend 2 points on Strength skills — You could only spend your Int Mod points on Int based skills. One thing that worried me was that this might be too many skill points though this would lead to more usage of cross class skills.

[Rubik]

So, Rangers are stronger than Sorcerers?Okay, and T2s. Though it doesn't take too terribly much for some T2s to reach T1.

[Amphetryon]

Okay, and T2s. Though it doesn't take too terribly much for some T2s to reach T1.

I do believe you'll find Binders (T3 except in niche cases) vs Rangers or Rogues also provide a problem for the particular generalization you're making.

[Rubik]

I do believe you'll find Binders (T3 except in niche cases) vs Rangers or Rogues also provide a problem for the particular generalization you're making.Binders aren't early-3.X (which is what my post referred to), and rangers tend to be lower in the tier than rogues are, so they gain fewer skill points.

[lunar2]

Yeah maybe I should have filtered the synonyms but still, it shows they wanted fighters to have more diversity.

And once again, it doesn't seem to work like that. Rangers have something called combat style, which would put them pretty high as masters of combat... And 6 skills points per level.
I always see exceptions in any try to give it general logic, making me conclude there is no real general design. I don't think anyone put that much thought behind skills point other then "does it fit the broad idea of the class. I suspect there was a lack of contrast and compare.

Also nice avatar and now I see a comic to check out.


Sadly my real life friends and fellow players never connected with the ToB. So I never more then glanced at the book. For what I have heard it is a nice fix to melee fighting, but it feels too 4th edition for me.


Wait I overestimated the monks suckiness? :smallconfused:

But so only fighters, sorcerers, wizards and clerics have 2 skills/level? One of those is not like the others... I thought there was another melee with 2?


Also you don't have to put all your skill ranks in a skill to use it. But if I want an athletic and acrobatic fighter that can climb, swim, tumble and jump, I am already out of luck unless I play human, or a smarter then average guy. Even in pathfinder that condensed some of those skills.

Ignoring the skills every adventure need like spot/listen (perception)... and maybe spellcraft and survival. And the knowledge skills...

Yeah most classes could still use more skills, but I am not giving casters more.


But there is only one fighting specialist and that is the fighter? I can call out the Ranger and Combat Style again, but the Ranger is a lot of things. It seems like the game is really stuck on just giving fighters the shaft when it comes to skill points, for poor reasons.

paladins are 2+ skill points/level, as well.

[Ivanhoe]

TL;DR the wizard will only have more skill points per level if two of three conditions are met: The party are Epic-level; the rogue is thick; the DM is flinging far-too-powerful items about.

Another aspect to keep in mind is that casters with their 2 skill points per level (druid with his 4) have some sort of skill tax for their spellcasting to work properly:
Concentration and spellcraft usually have to be maxed (knowledge nature nad religion for clerics and druids also should be raised somewhat).
So it is not that they can be expected to fill the usual skill gaps in the party.

[Socksy]

Another aspect to keep in mind is that casters with their 2 skill points per level (druid with his 4) have some sort of skill tax for their spellcasting to work properly:
Concentration and spellcraft usually have to be maxed (knowledge nature nad religion for clerics and druids also should be raised somewhat).
So it is not that they can be expected to fill the usual skill gaps in the party.

And another point, druids need high WIS rather than INT. For that matter, Wilders need high CHA. So the rogue's skill monkey position isn't threatened by either of them, 4+ INT notwithstanding.

[Yanisa]

Firstly, *than.
Thanks for pointing it out, but I am afraid I am going to keep confusing those two. My apologize for similar mistakes in the future. (But I do am watching my then's and than's for now.)


TL;DR the wizard will only have more skill points per level if two of three conditions are met: The party are Epic-level; the rogue is thick; the DM is flinging far-too-powerful items about.

And oops, personal experiences are no general statements. The few wizards I have seen general scope in the 18-20 int at level 1, my groups tend to be slightly higher powered in that regard.

For example my current level 11 wizard has 24 int (without items) and gains 9 skills points a level. I am at least equal to the party rogue, not sure how many he has atm. It also feels like I got more because I have way more skill point dibs, and most of my skills are used more than his.

But yeah, it ain't no general fact, even though it feels like that to me. Sorry.


Whenever talk of skill systems comes up, and more specifically the tendency for expanding the set of available skills to effectively starve classes for skillpoints, I get the urge to mess around with things.

What about a system where rather than buying up skills, you buy them down and get the ability to be ahead of the curve as a result? So for example - everyone gets 1 skill point per class skill every 2 levels, plus 2 at first level. Cross-class skills are 1 point per 3 levels, no boost at first level (sort of like saving throws). Take your skill points per level - at each level, you can reduce skills by this many points to increase other skills by the same amount, with the usual maximum.

So a Lv10 Fighter might look like:

Spot 7(+0), Listen 7(+0), Tumble 3(+0), Knowledge Arcana 0(-3), Ride 10(+3), ...

Basically, you choose what you're bad at rather than choosing what you're good at. Of course this means that adding more skills makes it easier to put those low skills in things you don't care about, but at least you don't tend to get as skill-point starved over all.

But if you get points in every skill, is there even a reason to keep skills around? It might just go a step beyond what I had in mind.


In itself it wouldn't really help since Fighters get a poor selection of skills to spend their points on.

On idea I had to to replace the Int to all skills rule with one allowing you to spend stat mod skill points on skills associated with that stat. E.g. if you have a +2 Strength mod than you can spend 2 points on Strength skills — You could only spend your Int Mod points on Int based skills. One thing that worried me was that this might be too many skill points though this would lead to more usage of cross class skills.

This is one idea I like more, but it does give a lot more skill points, perhaps far too many than I want. Even the elite array would give like +5 skill points. I might say there is a limit of twice the normal amount of skill points you would get... It's something to tinker with, but I ain't sure about it...

Although it might be too complex, I wanted to keep it kinda simple. I was never a large fan of homebrew for many reasons and its weird that I would be the one with the campaigns setting full of new and strange rules.


Binders aren't early-3.X (which is what my post referred to), and rangers tend to be lower in the tier than rogues are, so they gain fewer skill points.

Entirely different topic but... I was under the impression rangers were low Tier 3/high tier 4. Where rogues where low tier 4/high tier 5.
(The general list puts them both at tier 4, but I dunno how high or low within said tier 4 that is...)

Than again I once played a rogue that got outshined by almost every other class out there, so my love for rogues is low. (I never partied with a ranger though...)


paladins are 2+ skill points/level, as well.
Duh, I even posted that earlier. And yet it feels somehow more fitting that paladins have less skills than fighters.


Another aspect to keep in mind is that casters with their 2 skill points per level (druid with his 4) have some sort of skill tax for their spellcasting to work properly:
Concentration and spellcraft usually have to be maxed (knowledge nature nad religion for clerics and druids also should be raised somewhat).
So it is not that they can be expected to fill the usual skill gaps in the party.

Pathfinder removed concentration, so that isn't a concern to me... Also the game kinda expects melee combatants to have tumble (or wear full plates) and in general expect the party to have some people with spot/listen/perception. Besides almost any class has a skill that is expected to have, except like monks and fighters, because no one expects anything of those two.
There is always that nagging feeling when creating a character that you need to put points in that skill. (I do agree, casters got it the worst.)

[NichG]

But if you get points in every skill, is there even a reason to keep skills around? It might just go a step beyond what I had in mind.


Mostly it was me messing around. The reason to keep them around is that class skills differ, and you can push skills up by pushing others down, but it means that basically there is less danger of getting left behind due to having low skillpoint income.

I also liked the idea of a game where characters were all hypercompetent except in a few specific but sufficiently frequent endeavors, in which they were utter klutzes. Instead of 'the guy who is good at lockpicking' you have 'the guy who can't tell north from south when they're looking at a map and a compass' or 'the guy whose Tumble checks are more like bull rush attempts'. Not a really serious idea, but it seems like unexplored territory.

[Rubik]

Entirely different topic but... I was under the impression rangers were low Tier 3/high tier 4. Where rogues where low tier 4/high tier 5.
(The general list puts them both at tier 4, but I dunno how high or low within said tier 4 that is...)I'm fairly certain that the rogue's skill list and sneak attack takes the class to the pinnacle of T4 or the bottom of T3. Only with ACFs does the ranger hit a solid T3; otherwise, it's high in T4, but not as high as the rogue.

[Socksy]

On mobile, so difficulty quoting, but can I ask how a level 11 has INT 24? Say you rolled an 18, +2 INT for Vanara (the only INT-increasing, non-LA 3.X race I can think of, although I know Pathfinder lets some races pick their +2 increase, and there's probably a variety of elf that does it), +2 for levelling up, that makes 22. Do you have a house rule giving you a 20 instead of an 18 if all the dice in the pool are sixes?

[OldTrees1]

On mobile, so difficulty quoting, but can I ask how a level 11 has INT 24? Say you rolled an 18, +2 INT for Vanara (the only INT-increasing, non-LA 3.X race I can think of, although I know Pathfinder lets some races pick their +2 increase, and there's probably a variety of elf that does it), +2 for levelling up, that makes 22. Do you have a house rule giving you a 20 instead of an 18 if all the dice in the pool are sixes?

Old Aged (-3 Physical, +2 Mental) would give you the extra +2. (don't know if that was their method)
Headband of Int +2 only costs 4000gp so it would be common by 11th level

[Socksy]

Old Aged (-3 Physical, +2 Mental) would give you the extra +2. (don't know if that was their method)
Headband of Int +2 only costs 4000gp so it would be common by 11th level

Didn't they say 'without magic items'?

[OldTrees1]

Didn't they say 'without magic items'?

So they did. I guess the Old Age is the only way I can think of to get to the 24 (aside from wishes).

[Yanisa]

On mobile, so difficulty quoting, but can I ask how a level 11 has INT 24? Say you rolled an 18, +2 INT for Vanara (the only INT-increasing, non-LA 3.X race I can think of, although I know Pathfinder lets some races pick their +2 increase, and there's probably a variety of elf that does it), +2 for levelling up, that makes 22. Do you have a house rule giving you a 20 instead of an 18 if all the dice in the pool are sixes?

Thats 2 inherent (from major quest rewards), also arcane gnome (dragon magazine) for the +2 int race with 0 LA. Our DM is very lenient in that regard, hence thats all I am used too. But like I said before personal expierences are not general things, even though they sometimes feel like it. I am used to high main stats and that means wizard with way more skills points than some other parties. On the down said, no normal magic items. That 2 inherent is instead the normal +2 int headband any other wizard should have on this level.

But my weird overpowered campaign aside, wizards normally dont treathen rogues in skill points. It happens to happen in my dnd party.

[Socksy]

Ah, inherent. Thank you, you have solved this mystery.

[Thanatosia]

fighters:
knight
overlord
elite foot soldier
mercenary
bandit king
defenders
marauders
adventurers
soldiers
guards
bodyguards
champions
criminal enforcers
Well, lets look at this a bit. First off, I think your scope of fighters is a bit too broad. I see fighters as people who study martial warfare as part of a millitary organization. People who are just learning combat skills out on their own fall more into the Barbarian class IMO. So the following should probably be removed from the list as Barbarians - they might have had a more civilized background before abandoning that life, but at that point they should probably continue their advancement as barbs rather then fighters:

mercenary
bandit king
marauders
Next, the following classes are all pretty much the same thing. They really only need a spot check and/or listen, sense motive, and maybe a few ranks in intimidate. That's 4 skills, but not every one of these needs all 4, you can have one soldier who's known for his keen eyes and another for his hearing in your barracks for example - no need for all your soldiers/guards to have high ranks in both spot and search... you just need a few with one or the other.


defenders
soldiers
guards
champions
That leaves us with:
Knight - Needs Ride, anything else is pretty fluffy, maybe some diplomacy and knowledge (Nobility & Royalty)

Criminal Enforcer - Needs Intimidate and Sense Motive, that's about all.

Overlord - There are no skills that really fit what he needs. He needs things like Leadership and a mastery of Strategy and Tactics, and logistics, but none of these things are really represented by existing skills.

Bodyguards - Needs Spot and Sense motive. For high-end Guards, This is one of those cases where you probably expect a int bonus to pick up some more social skills and maybe Listen.

Elite Food Soldier - I'm assuming you are setting this apart from Soldier as some fantasy version of 'special ops'. Commando-style soldiers. Frankly, I think those types are multiclass Fighter/Rogues in the D&D system - I dont think its reasonable to enfold the pure fighter class to really represent anything of that nature. They need a broad selection of skills, and a mild sneak attack well represents their ability to take down unaware guards.

Champions - Just needs Intimidate pretty much.

And finally, that leaves us with Adventurers.... who are probably the only real fighter archtype that has a real use for a lot of skillpoints. Sadly, this one niche role is also the one role that pretty much every PC ever falls into.

[Lans]

But if that was the whole logic, why would a class like barbarian get more skill points? Aren't they also only for combat, combat and more combat? In fact shouldn't they get less skill points because they are more stupid then a fighter?

Early game designers thought the fighter was better than the barbarian at combat, so it was given damage reduction, better HD, and skills to make up for it.

This was from an article in dragon when 3.0 came out, and that barbarian was significantly weaker than the 3.5 one.

[Grayson01]

So Rogues are better then Rangers?

But yeah, I think I sorta concluded to that without realizing it. Hence my want to give lower tier classes more skills points.

In my model this would happen: (My setting is Pathfinder based, but I'm not listing PF classes atm)
Barbarian from 4 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Druid from 4 skills/lvl to 2 skills/lvl
Fighter from 2 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Monk from 2 skills/lvl to 6 skills/lvl
Paladin from 2 skills/lvl to 4 skills/lvl (Maybe 6?)
Ranger from 6 skills/lvl to 4 skills/lvl (Maybe keep it at 6?)

Not that that fixes anything. It might make fighters slightly less unhappy with their existence.

Another question, what happens if I introduce odd numbered skill points per level? (like 5 skills/lvl for ranger and paladin)

I would leave the ranger Alone with his Skill points. I acctually see a logic in the ranger having more Skill points. The Barbarian is the (Fluff wise) uneducated savage. Where the Ranger is supposed to be this elite wilderness survivor, skilled in all manor of tracking, climbing, jumping, all kinds of different skills. The Barb is suppsoed to be a Brut using strength alone to conqure all road blocks. (that being said I am quite aware that a Barb can be made that doe not have to fit this archtype, and support such, as well as support giving them more Skill points. However I would not take away skill points from a Ranger for the stated reason above as well as for the fact that they have to burn cross class skill points on the knowledge skills for some of the best fav. Ene.)

[Yanisa]

Well, lets look at this a bit. First off, I think your scope of fighters is a bit too broad. I see fighters as people who study martial warfare as part of a millitary organization. People who are just learning combat skills out on their own fall more into the Barbarian class IMO. So the following should probably be removed from the list as Barbarians - they might have had a more civilized background before abandoning that life, but at that point they should probably continue their advancement as barbs rather then fighters

The main point bout that list... It's all from the players handbook, the first couple of paragraphs of fighter paint the fighter class as a class that takes on many different roles. (Even though after logic is applied most of those are synonyms.) But fighters lack any class feature show the fluff variation that they were given. (Fighters Feats are only for combat styles, not social roles) It's an oddity, i.m.o., in fluff design vs class design.

In contrast barbarians are just that, barbarians. They are brutes coming from savages lands and mostly do savage things, are savage people. There is nothing more to barbarians as far as my quick skimming reveals.


Early game designers thought the fighter was better than the barbarian at combat, so it was given damage reduction, better HD, and skills to make up for it.

This was from an article in dragon when 3.0 came out, and that barbarian was significantly weaker than the 3.5 one.

It is interesting to see how opinions changed over the past 10-15 years. I guess the design, if any, for a lot of aspect of game were flawed logic, not just skill points per level.
I like bits like these, maybe I should spit trough the pile of dragon magazines.


I would leave the ranger Alone with his Skill points. I acctually see a logic in the ranger having more Skill points. The Barbarian is the (Fluff wise) uneducated savage. Where the Ranger is supposed to be this elite wilderness survivor, skilled in all manor of tracking, climbing, jumping, all kinds of different skills. The Barb is suppsoed to be a Brut using strength alone to conqure all road blocks. (that being said I am quite aware that a Barb can be made that doe not have to fit this archtype, and support such, as well as support giving them more Skill points. However I would not take away skill points from a Ranger for the stated reason above as well as for the fact that they have to burn cross class skill points on the knowledge skills for some of the best fav. Ene.)

Taking away skill points seems harsh in general. For druids there is also a case of keeping them at 4 points, even though they got enough power and class ability variation to make up for it.
As for rangers, you can also call them champion of the wilds, like paladins and thus with strong combat trying. Ranger have combat training, tracking, animal companion and even some spells. They don't need that much skill points. Although I do agree they feel more the rogues/skillmonkies of the wild
.
I still need to tweak the numbers, but if I going to apply a general logic some classes are going to suffer.