If I put 1 point in a class skill, does it automaticly give it +3?

[Zhepna]

Hi,

we play 3.5. If I put a point in a class skill, does it automatically add +3 to it?

When I read the online skill page(https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/skillsSummary.htm), I don't see it but I found explanation to skills saying that it does that (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/16211/class-skill-3-when-you-have-1-rank-in-that-skill) and my excel character sheet calculations seems to indicate that it add 3 points for the checks when it's a class skill.

I wanted to make sure since it makes a really big difference.

[Ramza00]

In Pathfinder skills are different than 3.5

In pathfinder the max skill ranks is your HD, but if a skill is a class skill for any of their classes (single or multiclass) you get a +3 bonus due to it being a class skill.

[Jack_Simth]

Hi,

we play 3.5. If I put a point in a class skill, does it automatically add +3 to it?

When I read the online skill page(https://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/skillsSummary.htm), I don't see it but I found explanation to skills saying that it does that (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/16211/class-skill-3-when-you-have-1-rank-in-that-skill) and my excel character sheet calculations seems to indicate that it add 3 points for the checks when it's a class skill.

I wanted to make sure since it makes a really big difference.

Not in 3.5, no.

In 3.5, class skill max ranks is level+3, but you start with 4*(Class base + Int + miscellaneous things, like the human bonus) at first level.
In Pathfinder, max ranks is equal to your level and you don't get the "4*" in the above: It's just (Class base + Int + miscellaneous things, like the human bonus) at first level.... but if it's a class skill for you, you get a +3 bonus if you have any ranks.

Which means it generally works out about the same:
A Wizard-1 in 3.5 will have a Spellcraft check of 4(ranks)+Int mod.
A Wizard-1 in Pathfinder will have a Spellcraft check of 1(ranks)+3(class skill)+Int mod.


There's some important differences - someone wanting to dabble in 3.5 can be trained in more skills at 1st than is possible in Pathfinder, for instance - but for the "normal" scenario, they work out the same, they just get there differently.

[Zhepna]

ok thanks a lot for the explanations!

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Which means it generally works out about the same:Unfortunately, if you prefer to spread out your skill points at 1st level, you get really screwed in PF by comparison. If I'm playing a factotum, I want as many Str- and Dex-based skills as I can get with 1 skill point, since factotum adds your Int mod to them. And for skills with static DCs but have a "you must be at least this tall "you must have at least 1 skill point to use this skill" caveat (such as for Knowledge skills), you most definitely should want to go with 3e, especially if you have a significant Int score and have access to lots of bonuses to reach level-appropriate DCs. Plus, a lot of feats and such that grant extra skill points are multiplied by x4 at 1st level, so that benefit is even greater in 3e.

In short, I really hate the PF change to skill points.

[Jack_Simth]

Unfortunately, if you prefer to spread out your skill points at 1st level, you get really screwed in PF by comparison. If I'm playing a factotum, I want as many Str- and Dex-based skills as I can get with 1 skill point, since factotum adds your Int mod to them. And for skills with static DCs but have a "you must be at least this tall "you must have at least 1 skill point to use this skill" caveat (such as for Knowledge skills), you most definitely should want to go with 3e, especially if you have a significant Int score and have access to lots of bonuses to reach level-appropriate DCs. Plus, a lot of feats and such that grant extra skill points are multiplied by x4 at 1st level, so that benefit is even greater in 3e.


I mentioned that. I even called it an important difference:


There's some important differences - someone wanting to dabble in 3.5 can be trained in more skills at 1st than is possible in Pathfinder, for instance - but for the "normal" scenario, they work out the same, they just get there differently.

[Particle_Man]

On the other hand, in Pathinfer the only penalty for cross class skills is not getting the +3 bonus (as opposed to buying half ranks with skill points in 3.5 and having lower maximums as a result in cross-class skills at higher levels). This makes some prestige classes easier to get into from a wider variety of base classes. Barbarian/ Shadow Dancer is much easier to pull off in Pathfinder for example (skill consolidation helps here too).

[Maat Mons]

While there are factors that can make the 3.5 skill system more beneficial to a player, the Pathfinder skill system is better implemented from a game design perspective.

In 3.5, if you're doing say, an Unseen Seer build, your first level will be Rogue. You'd be stupid to take your first level as Wizard and pick up the Rogue dip later. Thus, if you start at 1st level, and you want to be a magic user who later picks up thievery, you will always suck compared to what you would have gotten by being a thief who later picks up magic.

I think that characters who multiclass between two base classes should be allowed to start with whichever they like, without mechanical punishment for those who didn't pick the "right" order. The Pathfinder skill system is a step in the right direction. Though there's still the issue of getting max HP at 1st level. I mean, in Pathfinder, you secretly get max HP every level (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/more-character-options/retraining/#Hit_Points). The only reason you roll the die is to find out how many days and gp it will take. But they really should have just committed and skipped the die roll, and the time and gp cost.

[Psyren]

Unfortunately, if you prefer to spread out your skill points at 1st level, you get really screwed in PF by comparison. If I'm playing a factotum, I want as many Str- and Dex-based skills as I can get with 1 skill point, since factotum adds your Int mod to them. And for skills with static DCs but have a "you must be at least this tall "you must have at least 1 skill point to use this skill" caveat (such as for Knowledge skills), you most definitely should want to go with 3e, especially if you have a significant Int score and have access to lots of bonuses to reach level-appropriate DCs. Plus, a lot of feats and such that grant extra skill points are multiplied by x4 at 1st level, so that benefit is even greater in 3e.

In short, I really hate the PF change to skill points.

As Particle_Man stated, this change is offset by (a) PF's general consolidation of skills (I don't have to throw any those points into "Open Lock" or "Listen" for example), and (b) not having to pay a "cross-class skill" tax on my points. Add in traits for very easy class skill addition and I'd argue PF comes out ahead overall.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

As Particle_Man stated, this change is offset by (a) PF's general consolidation of skills (I don't have to throw any those points into "Open Lock" or "Listen" for example), and (b) not having to pay a "cross-class skill" tax on my points. Add in traits for very easy class skill addition and I'd argue PF comes out ahead overall.I usually get all skills as class skills via factotum (because it's a great dip for anyone who wants to be Int-based and use skills) and Able Learner, so the latter is hardly an issue for my characters. And most of the consolidated skills simply don't make up for the losses you take when moving to PF. Stuff like Open Lock only really needs 1 skill point, and if you've got access to spells, psionics, or sunder, you don't even really need that, a lot of the time.

Honestly, the best would simply be to use 3e skill points and PF skills (except Fly, or lack of the Concentration skill; those can die in a fire).

[Psyren]

To each their own, but I find dipping non-core classes, using human-only feats, and/or needing to rely on magic/psionics/brute force for what should be a simple build concept to be supremely inelegant compared to just having a better skill system to start with.

As for the Fly skill, I like it, as it provides a mechanical means for average or worse fliers to do things like bank and hover and fly backwards provided they invest in it. Without that you run into oddities like Overland Flight users or dragons having to constantly move forward or else stall out and drop 150 ft, despite such not being the case in many fictional examples.

[Darg]

Getting access to prestige classes is hardly a mark against either system. The 3.5 DMG highly encourages tailoring PRCs to the campaign and only refers to the classes shown as examples. It specifically calls them out as not being all encompassing or definitive. There's no reason to not allow a lawful good Assassin for example. While I like the idea of PFs class skills, being able to spread out your skills more is pretty beneficial and from what I can tell it does nothing to fix the issue of martial classes deserving more skill ranks per level. However, I do like that they got rid of cross-class skills.

[Arkain]

I usually get all skills as class skills via factotum (because it's a great dip for anyone who wants to be Int-based and use skills) and Able Learner, so the latter is hardly an issue for my characters. And most of the consolidated skills simply don't make up for the losses you take when moving to PF. Stuff like Open Lock only really needs 1 skill point, and if you've got access to spells, psionics, or sunder, you don't even really need that, a lot of the time.

Honestly, the best would simply be to use 3e skill points and PF skills (except Fly, or lack of the Concentration skill; those can die in a fire).

I agree with Psyren here. That you have(/feel compelled) to take these steps highlights the problems, I'd say, as "You see, I simply pick this technically human-exclusive feat, go heavy on intelligence and take a level of Factotum" does not seem like an argument in favor of 3.5's skill system, but rather the opposite.
On the flipside, if you want to go with mechanical solutions to the kind of skill problems where you feel you don't wish to spend your limited resources on everything in PF1, you could go Fast Learner (for another favored class bonus, though RAW it's only ever hp+skill point) and then (Improved) Improvisation. Does technically require human and 13 intelligence, but the former is achievable via trait* and the latter is usually not too difficult or inadvisable anyhow. This would allow you to have an implicit rank of 2 (or 4) in every skill. Independent of classes. Feel free to spend your actual skill points however you like, while simultaneously playing all the instruments you'd ever dream of. Maybe also quite inelegant in that it requires a couple resources, but allows you to be The One Who Has All The Skills.

*Having just looked this up, I misremebered how the Adopted trait works. It works only for race traits, whoops. Still, at least the planar races can usually count as human(oid) as well, same for half-orcs and half-elves, which are quite a few options to choose from.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Problem is, you have to jump through hoops for PF to get non-class skills, too; otherwise, you're putting off options with skill prereqs by 3 full levels.

And since human is by far the most used race in 3e due to that feat and the skill points (and all the human-exclusive options in the game), taking a human-exclusive option is only rarely an issue.

[Arkain]

How are you delaying by 3 levels? The class skill bonus is not a rank at all, your maximum rank under Pathfinder rules is your level. So when skill focus gives you +6 once you have 10 ranks in something, you don't need 7(+3), you need the actual 10 ranks, skill points and implicit levels. Same for prestige classes, feats and whatnot.

[Psyren]

It sounds like he's using the PF skill caps in conjunction with 3.5 PrC requirements, which the official conversion guide specifically says not to do. A GM can certainly ignore that directive and force you to delay your acquisition of a PrC, but that's hardly the system's fault at that point.

[Bavarian itP]

If I'm playing a factotum

That's your mistake right here.

[Kurald Galain]

Unfortunately, if you prefer to spread out your skill points at 1st level, you get really screwed in PF by comparison.Sure, but unless you either play a factotum or really need all trained-only skills at first level, that doesn't actually affect you any. On the contrary, at any level above first, you get really screwed in 3E by comparison (because PF gives you a free +3 the instant you put a point in any class skill, including from multiclassing or prestige).


Problem is, you have to jump through hoops for PF to get non-class skills, too
Most players I know use traits for that.


And since human is by far the most used race in 3e due to that feat and the skill points (and all the human-exclusive options in the game), taking a human-exclusive option is only rarely an issue.
The catch here, too, is that nonhuman races are much better in PF. They're actually competitive in most cases, and flat-out better than human for several classes.

I get the impression your reasoning is a bit circular here: you always play a human factotum because it's the only way to get all the skills; and the 3E skill system is fine because you can always play a human factotum. :smallbiggrin:

[Elves]

While there are factors that can make the 3.5 skill system more beneficial to a player, the Pathfinder skill system is better implemented from a game design perspective.

In 3.5, if you're doing say, an Unseen Seer build, your first level will be Rogue. You'd be stupid to take your first level as Wizard and pick up the Rogue dip later. Thus, if you start at 1st level, and you want to be a magic user who later picks up thievery, you will always suck compared to what you would have gotten by being a thief who later picks up magic.
Agreed, it's much better. I don't see MaxiduRaritry's complaint as a negative either: taking 1 rank in 24 skills at 1st level is obnoxious and a pain to put on a character sheet.

Not immediately on board with removing the increased cost for cross class skills, but maybe dishing the increased cost but keeping the ranks cap (or vice versa) is ok.


Though there's still the issue of getting max HP at 1st level.
You could use average but also give everyone the average result of a "0th-level" RHD. +2 hp for most PCs. Flattens it out a little bit but not too much.

Or use Con score + average of HD at 1st. But flattens out classes, which is bad for the relatively realistic dungeon-crawl game 3e tries to be at low levels, vs. 4e which is pulp out the gate. Does have symmetry with the PF rule for negative HP. For total symmetry to death at negative hp = Con score, you could give base positive hp equal to Con score in addition to Con from levels, though this results in Con being too strong at 1st.


Or run with averages at all levels and have a larger hp difference between classes. Right now, the difference in HD is meaningful at 1st, where the Con bonus to HD ratio is almost halved, but as levels go on 1-hp-per-die-size becomes less important. 21 hp between a 20th level rogue and wizard is nothing. 63 hp between a 20th level wizard and fighter is the equivalent of a single maximized fireball, a 6th-level AOE (not even ST) spell or a single hit from an NPC Power Attacking with a greatsword. That's not the kind of difference that makes one a squishy class and one a tank.

Simplest way to do that is maxed hp at all levels. If you think that takes the totals too high, you could replace d4/d6/d8/d10/d12 with 2/4/6/8/10 per level. Could combine with the 0th-level RHD rule above to keep hp at 1st the same. Or take it higher with increments of 3, wrapping both d10 and d12 into the 12 tier and reserving the 15 tier for tough monsters.

It sounds appealing to have a 1-hp-per-HD tier for "minion" type creatures like commoners, but that means they'd never suffer a hp penalty for low Con, so you probably want to keep it 2 minimum.