How 'Bout Some More Skill Points? [Archive] - Wizards Community

How 'Bout Some More Skill Points? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Zyrusticae
09-11-06, 10:12 PM This is just one thing I have had kept in my head for a 'lil while.

Have every modifier point for each attribute allowed to be spent on skills much like points of intelligence, except only for the skills related to that attribute (i.e. tumble for Dex, jump for Str, so-on and so-forth). INT is not an exception; one gets an extra number of skill points equal to one's INT modifier, on top of the regular skill points that can be spent anywhere (on class skills only, of course).

I've always felt it rather silly that an incredibly strong yet unintelligent barbarian does not know how to jump better than an incredibly intelligent yet wimpy fighter. (Not just jumping, of course, but for any other skill as well).

I also feel that the game gives too few skill points for the number of skills it has, and spreading out tends to penalize players excessively (especially since certain skills tend to be throwaway skills in terms of usefulness/frequency of use, i.e. only for RP purposes and what-not).

'Course, this is assuming a relatively low-powered game to begin with; if your characters have huge attribute modifiers they may break the gameworld with these kinds of rules. (+5 STR modifier, +5 to STR skills of one's choice per level - I can imagine how that can get out of hand).

Still, I'd like to find another reasonable way to get strong or dextrous characters to perform strong or dextrous deeds better than their intelligent counterparts. Or maybe some way to refine this idea somehow. Any honest opinions would be welcome.:)
Ruhl-Than Sage
09-11-06, 10:53 PM There were a series of feats for the Scared Lands campaign setting (the one released by White Wolf under their Sword and Sorcerery label. Which is probably the best third party material out their and storywise far superior to any of the core campaign settings); one for each attribute. Upon taking the feat you would gain a number of skill points equal to the bonus you had in that attribute and each level thereafter you would gain an extra skill point. These extra points could only be used for skill that had the choosen attribute as the key attribute.

If you wanted to use a house rule that mantained a relative balance without needing to spend a feat, here's an idea:

At character creation every player chooses one of their attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. This attribute grants additional skill points that can only be spent on skills with a matching key attribute. Bonus skill points are still gained from intelligence normally. If Intelligence is choosen as the key attribute, you gain bonus skill points from it twice, half of which can only be spent on intelligence related skill and the other half which may be spent normally.
Thane26425
09-12-06, 06:41 PM The easiest thing to do is simply increase the base multiplier. I think the fighter and cleric really get shorted with only 2 base points, so I usually bump that to at least 4, more if the player can give a good rationale for it. Another example would be a fighter who is more like a ranger. I would give them the skill list of the ranger plus a greater amount of points, but they don't get any of the ranger special abilities. Likewise if a wizard also did a lot of sneaking around during their training, I'd give them Move Silently and Hide as class skills and increase the base points to 4.

As I've said before, the DMG does say that changing skill points is one of the least unbalancing ways to modify character classes. You could give a fighter search and remove traps as class skills, but that won't make them as good at removing traps as a rogue because the rogue has class abilities that complement the skill. Making a stealthy fighter is also perfectly reasonable: not all hunters or commando types are rangers and rogues, most would be fighters who invested a little extra time learning to skulk about.
fatal error
09-12-06, 07:50 PM This is why Cross-class skills exist. . .

As for the original issue, why would my rogue ever have a high int? I can fill out my Dex based skills with my dex mod and then grab the rest with my base skill points. Plus, it would drop any reason for my fighters to have an ok int, because most of my skill list would be automatically taken by virtue of my strength score.
Seldriss
09-13-06, 07:52 AM I understand your idea, but I am not sure if it's balanced or not...
Basically a high score in an attribute would gives a high bonus and bonus points in the related skills ?
I don't know, in a highpowered campaign, why not...
But it might be difficult to keep track of the allocated points.
Kradlo
09-13-06, 05:57 PM My friends and I played Iron Heroes for a while (much fun!). Iron Heroes is like D&D on steroids. One of the things I liked about it was that skills were easier to acquire. There were no cross-class skill issues, and each class had one or more skill groups. Spending a skill point in a skill group gave you equivalent ranks in all skills in that group. Example: the Athletics group covered Climb, Jump, and Swim. A berserker (i.e., barbarian) had 4 skill points per level (and the usual 4x skill points at first level). He could spend 4 skill points in the Athletics group to have 4 ranks in Climb, Jump, and Swim.

While I've not yet incorporated the skill groups into my game (figuring which classes get which groups is a bit of work), I've upped the skill points by 8 at first level, and +2 per level thereafter. And all skills are considered class skills for all classes, with the exception of Speak Language. So, fighters can have full ranks in Profession: Sailor, wizards can have skill in Escape Artist, etc.

So far, it's working out quite well.
dizfactor
09-14-06, 02:41 AM Making a stealthy fighter is also perfectly reasonable: not all hunters or commando types are rangers and rogues, most would be fighters who invested a little extra time learning to skulk about.

"Investing a little extra time learning to skulk about" = "multiclassing for a few levels as a ranger or rogue or scout" in game terms.

A fighter is someone who spends virtually all his or her time simply fighting, a frontline combat fighter on an open battlefield or what have you. Commando and hunter types are almost never single class fighters, they're fighter/rogues or fighter/scouts or fighter/ninjas or whatever.

I've upped the skill points by 8 at first level, and +2 per level thereafter. And all skills are considered class skills for all classes, with the exception of Speak Language. So, fighters can have full ranks in Profession: Sailor, wizards can have skill in Escape Artist, etc.

So far, it's working out quite well.

I think that's very workable, especially if skills are a major focus of your campaign. The SW RPG Soldier base class is pretty much identical to the D&D Fighter, and it gets 4 skill points per level, and it's not unbalanced. In the SWRPG, no one gets lower than 4 pts per level and it works, though, admittedly, no one gets higher than 8, either (and only Scoundrels get 8).
Seldriss
09-14-06, 10:11 AM The SW RPG Soldier base class is pretty much identical to the D&D Fighter, and it gets 4 skill points per level, and it's not unbalanced. In the SWRPG, no one gets lower than 4 pts per level and it works, though, admittedly, no one gets higher than 8, either (and only Scoundrels get 8).
Personally, the minimum amount of skill points I give is 4 (instead of 2) to clerics, fighters, mages, paladins and sorcerers. And nobody ever complained :)
Relic
09-16-06, 11:55 AM Personally, the minimum amount of skill points I give is 4 (instead of 2) to clerics, fighters, mages, paladins and sorcerers. And nobody ever complained :)

I upped the number of skill points all classes receive (except Int-based caster classes like the Wizard or Psion) by 2. For example, fighters receive 4 skill points per level.

I also eliminated cross-classed skills casting 2 skill points for 1 skill rank. All skills cost 1 skill point to get 1 rank. No sense is penalizing a character twice (by double the cost, and a lower limit to the maximum number of ranks a character can possess) for cross-class skills.

My players tend to have a broader range of skills that represent their character instead of just a few skills that represent their character's need. For example, I've a fighter in my campaign that has ranks in Perform (Singing) because it fits the character. Without the above changes that fighter would probably only have ranks scattered in Climb, Jump, Ride, and Swim.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zyrusticae 09-11-06, 10:12 PM	This is just one thing I have had kept in my head for a 'lil while. Have every modifier point for each attribute allowed to be spent on skills much like points of intelligence, except only for the skills related to that attribute (i.e. tumble for Dex, jump for Str, so-on and so-forth). INT is not an exception; one gets an extra number of skill points equal to one's INT modifier, on top of the regular skill points that can be spent anywhere (on class skills only, of course). I've always felt it rather silly that an incredibly strong yet unintelligent barbarian does not know how to jump better than an incredibly intelligent yet wimpy fighter. (Not just jumping, of course, but for any other skill as well). I also feel that the game gives too few skill points for the number of skills it has, and spreading out tends to penalize players excessively (especially since certain skills tend to be throwaway skills in terms of usefulness/frequency of use, i.e. only for RP purposes and what-not). 'Course, this is assuming a relatively low-powered game to begin with; if your characters have huge attribute modifiers they may break the gameworld with these kinds of rules. (+5 STR modifier, +5 to STR skills of one's choice per level - I can imagine how that can get out of hand). Still, I'd like to find another reasonable way to get strong or dextrous characters to perform strong or dextrous deeds better than their intelligent counterparts. Or maybe some way to refine this idea somehow. Any honest opinions would be welcome.:)
Ruhl-Than Sage 09-11-06, 10:53 PM	There were a series of feats for the Scared Lands campaign setting (the one released by White Wolf under their Sword and Sorcerery label. Which is probably the best third party material out their and storywise far superior to any of the core campaign settings); one for each attribute. Upon taking the feat you would gain a number of skill points equal to the bonus you had in that attribute and each level thereafter you would gain an extra skill point. These extra points could only be used for skill that had the choosen attribute as the key attribute. If you wanted to use a house rule that mantained a relative balance without needing to spend a feat, here's an idea: At character creation every player chooses one of their attributes: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. This attribute grants additional skill points that can only be spent on skills with a matching key attribute. Bonus skill points are still gained from intelligence normally. If Intelligence is choosen as the key attribute, you gain bonus skill points from it twice, half of which can only be spent on intelligence related skill and the other half which may be spent normally.
Thane26425 09-12-06, 06:41 PM	The easiest thing to do is simply increase the base multiplier. I think the fighter and cleric really get shorted with only 2 base points, so I usually bump that to at least 4, more if the player can give a good rationale for it. Another example would be a fighter who is more like a ranger. I would give them the skill list of the ranger plus a greater amount of points, but they don't get any of the ranger special abilities. Likewise if a wizard also did a lot of sneaking around during their training, I'd give them Move Silently and Hide as class skills and increase the base points to 4. As I've said before, the DMG does say that changing skill points is one of the least unbalancing ways to modify character classes. You could give a fighter search and remove traps as class skills, but that won't make them as good at removing traps as a rogue because the rogue has class abilities that complement the skill. Making a stealthy fighter is also perfectly reasonable: not all hunters or commando types are rangers and rogues, most would be fighters who invested a little extra time learning to skulk about.
fatal error 09-12-06, 07:50 PM	This is why Cross-class skills exist. . . As for the original issue, why would my rogue ever have a high int? I can fill out my Dex based skills with my dex mod and then grab the rest with my base skill points. Plus, it would drop any reason for my fighters to have an ok int, because most of my skill list would be automatically taken by virtue of my strength score.
Seldriss 09-13-06, 07:52 AM	I understand your idea, but I am not sure if it's balanced or not... Basically a high score in an attribute would gives a high bonus and bonus points in the related skills ? I don't know, in a highpowered campaign, why not... But it might be difficult to keep track of the allocated points.
Kradlo 09-13-06, 05:57 PM	My friends and I played Iron Heroes for a while (much fun!). Iron Heroes is like D&D on steroids. One of the things I liked about it was that skills were easier to acquire. There were no cross-class skill issues, and each class had one or more skill groups. Spending a skill point in a skill group gave you equivalent ranks in all skills in that group. Example: the Athletics group covered Climb, Jump, and Swim. A berserker (i.e., barbarian) had 4 skill points per level (and the usual 4x skill points at first level). He could spend 4 skill points in the Athletics group to have 4 ranks in Climb, Jump, and Swim. While I've not yet incorporated the skill groups into my game (figuring which classes get which groups is a bit of work), I've upped the skill points by 8 at first level, and +2 per level thereafter. And all skills are considered class skills for all classes, with the exception of Speak Language. So, fighters can have full ranks in Profession: Sailor, wizards can have skill in Escape Artist, etc. So far, it's working out quite well.
dizfactor 09-14-06, 02:41 AM	Making a stealthy fighter is also perfectly reasonable: not all hunters or commando types are rangers and rogues, most would be fighters who invested a little extra time learning to skulk about. "Investing a little extra time learning to skulk about" = "multiclassing for a few levels as a ranger or rogue or scout" in game terms. A fighter is someone who spends virtually all his or her time simply fighting, a frontline combat fighter on an open battlefield or what have you. Commando and hunter types are almost never single class fighters, they're fighter/rogues or fighter/scouts or fighter/ninjas or whatever. I've upped the skill points by 8 at first level, and +2 per level thereafter. And all skills are considered class skills for all classes, with the exception of Speak Language. So, fighters can have full ranks in Profession: Sailor, wizards can have skill in Escape Artist, etc. So far, it's working out quite well. I think that's very workable, especially if skills are a major focus of your campaign. The SW RPG Soldier base class is pretty much identical to the D&D Fighter, and it gets 4 skill points per level, and it's not unbalanced. In the SWRPG, no one gets lower than 4 pts per level and it works, though, admittedly, no one gets higher than 8, either (and only Scoundrels get 8).
Seldriss 09-14-06, 10:11 AM	The SW RPG Soldier base class is pretty much identical to the D&D Fighter, and it gets 4 skill points per level, and it's not unbalanced. In the SWRPG, no one gets lower than 4 pts per level and it works, though, admittedly, no one gets higher than 8, either (and only Scoundrels get 8). Personally, the minimum amount of skill points I give is 4 (instead of 2) to clerics, fighters, mages, paladins and sorcerers. And nobody ever complained :)
Relic 09-16-06, 11:55 AM	Personally, the minimum amount of skill points I give is 4 (instead of 2) to clerics, fighters, mages, paladins and sorcerers. And nobody ever complained :) I upped the number of skill points all classes receive (except Int-based caster classes like the Wizard or Psion) by 2. For example, fighters receive 4 skill points per level. I also eliminated cross-classed skills casting 2 skill points for 1 skill rank. All skills cost 1 skill point to get 1 rank. No sense is penalizing a character twice (by double the cost, and a lower limit to the maximum number of ranks a character can possess) for cross-class skills. My players tend to have a broader range of skills that represent their character instead of just a few skills that represent their character's need. For example, I've a fighter in my campaign that has ranks in Perform (Singing) because it fits the character. Without the above changes that fighter would probably only have ranks scattered in Climb, Jump, Ride, and Swim.