Pathfinder 1E The Pathfinder skill system?

[smoelf]

Hi all

I'm sorry if this has already been discussed at length, but a search didn't reveal anything so here I go.

I've recently been following some interesting discussions here at Enworld and I would like your opinion on a subject my eyes fell on the other day: The Pathfinder skill system. We've been playing Pathfinder in my group, but we were all convinced it was mostly just a remodeling of some classes, spells and feats and a simplification of skills and combat maneuvers (roughly speaking). None of us actually read the part about the actual skill system and whenever someone at Enworld mentioned +3 bonus for class skills I was like: What?

When I read that part in the rule book I realized we had just transferred the 3.5 skill system unto Pathfinder and it does work (so far). However I was wondering what your experience are with it. From what I read, my first thought was that it loses some of its flavour. As a rogue I loved tinkering with my skills to manage my many skillpoints, especially at level one because of the times 4 multiplier. I didn't have to pick max ranks in all the skills. I felt the skill points told me how well I could perform a certain skill. Also, it reduces the distance between class skills and cross-class skills. Which is a bit weird but perhaps I just need to get used to it.

With this new system I feel like the skill points tell me which skills I do well without the internal distinction between skills. I don't know if this is a presumption, so here I am asking you what your opinion and experience with the system is.

 

[ruemere]

Welcome to the boards.

As for the new skill system, it's far superior to the one used under 3.x. It's simpler, less tied to class and contains fewer superfluous skills.

It's not perfect though, as some skills are better than others:
- Perception and Stealth rule supreme in terms of usability
- Fly gets the nomination for the least interesting skill... my players simply do not use it, my monsters fly under 3.x rules, and if they really need to make a check, I use Caster level check adjusted for general Fly ability

GM's chief benefit of the new system is that creating NPCs got much faster:
- primary skill bonus? NPC level + 3 + Skill Focus (if any) + ability bonus

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Overall it's an improvement. In 3E, the x4 at level 1 was too punitive and limiting, it SIGNIFICANTLY affected which class you started with if multiclassing and in general made races with racial HD grotesquely unappealing. If you disliked how punishing the 3E rules were for cross class skills, PF also improved that by making them cost the same and ave the exact same cap (aside from the +3 class bonus).

There's definitely some drawbacks, too, though. One point wonders wre always popular in 3E for trained only skills, now the immediate jump 1 rank provides makes them even more prevalent IME. Rogues and other skill based classes lost a lot of their significance, it's way too easy now to just dip for class skills and then go back to being a class that's good at something else. The removal of cross class penalties and lower cap means that the high skill classes will struggle to establish themselves as being very good at any skill without paying feats to improve the bonus. Instead, they're just (even more of) a jack of all trades, with a big handful of skills they're good at, but not as good as someone else in the party. The 2nd poster mentioned how they were consolidated, this is also a major flaw. They were consolidated very poorly. Spot and Listen as individual skills were considered some of the best in 3E already. Making them both the same skill AND adding search as well is freaking nuts. Climb and Swim are still their own skills even though they mostly suck, and Jump got oddly moved in with Balance and Tumble, making it suddenly dex-based. Just some examples.

Overall I think it's a better skill system, but I would tweak the consolidations of skills mightily if I were to DM pathfinder, and give boosts to rogue and possibly bard to make them better with skills.

GM's chief benefit of the new system is that creating NPCs got much faster:
- primary skill bonus? NPC level + 3 + Skill Focus (if any) + ability bonus

You could already do this in 3E. The only difference is no more skill synergies (which I miss greatly; add that to the drawbacks).

 

[Celtavian]

re

I like the new skill system. Better represents what a skill is. The old cross class skill system was pretty poorly designed. High level characters had low perceptions because they didn't have it as a class skill? A skill like Perception should have been a class skill for everyone. They're adventurers. Who wouldn't practice being highly alert in the situations they put themselves into?

I like that fighters and even mages can take skills like stealth if they so choose with only a minor difference in capability.

Open ended skills are a trademark of almost every game system. Because open ended skills are a better simulation of real world learning. There is no reason for a fighter not to be able to learn to move quietly or read people as well as any other class if he chooses to learn those skills. The number of skill points better represents the amount of time spent learning outside of core skills like learning magic or weapons practice.

So I like it. I think the new skill system better represents learning. Classes are more flexible in what they learn now. Only thing I'd like now is to have all classes at 4 or more skill points. It's still hard for me to imagine a fighter or wizard not spending more time learning. Though I do understand they spend most of their time on weapons and arcane studies.

 

[Dark Mistress]

As others have said. Overall it is a better system, but it is not perfect. I have toyed with the idea of keeping the 4 times levels at first of skills but otherwise use the Pathfinder system. That would let players spread points around more and for the skills they wanted to focus on they could be higher. I am not sure being basically 3 higher on avg in primary skills would upset the balance. i haven't tried it yet but considered doing it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It's still hard for me to imagine a fighter or wizard not spending more time learning. Though I do understand they spend most of their time on weapons and arcane studies.

You have to remember that all Wizards will have high Int and therefore bonus skill points. Fighters, not so much...

 

[Crothian]

I'm not a fan of the system, it is still too much like the 3e one. I like that they got rid of some skills but they probably should have condensed them more as there are way too many knowledge skills. Classes still don't get enough skill points and at least with the x4 at first level of 3e one could spread them around to get many different skills.

 

[pawsplay]

I've never looked back. It's a lot easier to figure out how characters were built. It's a cinch getting a Fighter a decent level in Perception or Diplomacy, if you want to roll that way. I've found that you can devote your decision-making to choosing between important skills, rather than trying to stretch your points across various areas that might come up.

 

[Kaisoku]

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet about the system: Int bonuses give retroactive skillpoints.

This makes character creation incredibly easy at any level. Pathfinder skills are a DM's best friend.

 

[ruemere]

(advice: avoid posting when you have fever)

Written in response to my post:
GM's chief benefit of the new system is that creating NPCs got much faster:
- primary skill bonus? NPC level + 3 + Skill Focus (if any) + ability bonus

[...]
You could already do this in 3E. The only difference is no more skill synergies (which I miss greatly; add that to the drawbacks).

In theory only. In practice creating on the spot multiclassed characters made the calculation prone to mistakes.
Additionally, use of a system with states [1] increases chance of errors.
The synergies added to confusion.

3.x skill woes:
- players hunted for best class dipping options (to get class skills cheaply),
- since the cost of skills relied on class used, it was easy to make mistakes,
- reverse engineering WotC and 3rd party sources reveals that similar problems plagued all products (with an possible exception of John Cooper's version of monsters)
- if you allowed new skill synergies (or new classes, from beyond initial core) everything got much, much worse. To check stats you needed to build a pile of books and hunt for skill lists.

Now, you could run a freeform game, with stuff conjured out of nothingness, but then you would have to be prepare for your players to be unhappy with GM's playing a different system, not to mention accusations of not being an impartial judge, calling you a cheater behind your back and so on.
Honesty and trust are things too precious to stake here [2].

And here is another nice bit on Pathfinder skill system:

Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability. This might cause you to gain skill points, hit points, and other bonuses. These bonuses should be noted separately in case they are removed.

Regards,
Ruemere

[1] System states: the system output depends on both input and current state of the system.

[2] Obligatory disclaimer: 4E provides two different systems for participants. While they are being different, they are presented in less ambiguous way, and while I do not like the game experience (or GM's side of the things), use of a different system by GM does not constitute cheating. IMHO.