As I mentioned in my chargen houserules thread, skills scale the same way a drunken monkey drives.
Now, why is that?
3. Skill Bonuses are Undervalued
Magic items that give you a big ol' bonus to skill checks are cheap (a +5 bonus is 2,500 gp, for example); many spells give you a +4 or +8 bonus to skill checks as side effects. This is what stops this from being an easy problem to fix - you'd have to go through and fix the bonuses from magic items and spells, which is a big project.
4. Large Skill Bonuses are Pointless
At least, for unopposed rolls. Most skills cap at DC 30, which you can hit on a 10 at 7th level if you've got a masterwork item. If you hunt around for bonuses, you could reliably hit that DC at 4th level. Something is deeply wrong with a system that's supposed to last 20 levels that can be "beaten" before 5th level.
5. Not Enough Points
Seriously - we have a system with 30+ skills, and an optimized character might get enough skill points to raise 14 of those to the cap at 1st level. Seriously? I could understand if those skills were broader, but a lot of them are piddly.
What could be done, then? I'm not sure.
I'd say at that point that we're not so much talking about skills being broken, and more about the fact that spells were designed with a cavalier disregard for the rest of the system.
Pretty much.
And so of course that cannot be fixed by adjusting skills.
It is just something to keep in mind while adjusting the skills - that "nothing" is going to make them as good as spells, and trying is just going to make things worse.
I think the Trope Namer on that is Truespeech.
Can you treat this as a hypothetical theorycrafting in a system where the spells does not exist? Like, say I play a non-spellcasting setting where only martial and skills exists.
2. Cut some excessive skill choices for "flavor".Another option is to have two pools of skills. One could be close to what they are now, called Skills, and the other could be the more flavor-oriented ones, called Trades. This would allow people to put some mechanical representation of the fact that they have a background in hunting, blacksmithing, or underwater basket weaving on their character sheet without dipping into the same pool that fuels Knowledge, Concentration, and UMD.
Even if it's logical
Using two types of groups as skill choices begs the question of why not make it two separate groups altogether, as in different pools of point buy and on.That's exactly what I meant. That's why I said it keeps you from spending from the same pool to take Craft(Underwater basket weaving) and Use Magic Device. To help clarify that, the other pool would be called something different (I'd suggested "Trades", but it can be anything).
If you want something different from Skill Tricks, Pathfinder has an optional rules system called Skill Unlocks where you can gain bonuses for skills based on having ranks in a multiple of five (and this is Pathfinder so max ranks = character level).
For example:
Intimidate
5 Ranks: If you exceed the DC to demoralize a target by at least 10, it is frightened for 1 round and shaken thereafter.* A Will save (DC = 10 + your number of ranks in Intimidate) negates the frightened condition, but the target is still shaken, even if it has the stalwart ability.
10 Ranks: If you exceed the DC to demoralize a target by at least 10, it is panicked for 1 round or frightened for 1d4 rounds (your choice) and shaken thereafter.* A Will save (DC = 10 + your number of ranks in Intimidate) negates the frightened or panicked condition, but the target is still shaken, even if it has the stalwart ability.
15 Ranks: If you exceed the DC to demoralize a target by at least 20, it is cowering for 1 round or panicked for 1d4 rounds (your choice) and frightened thereafter.* A Will save (DC = 10 + your number of ranks in Intimidate) negates the cowering, panicked, and frightened conditions, but the target is still shaken, even if it has the stalwart ability.
20 Ranks: If you exceed the DC to demoralize a target by at least 20, it is cowering for 1d4 rounds and panicked thereafter.* A Will save (DC = 10 + your number of ranks in Intimidate) negates the cowering and panicked conditions, but the target is still shaken, even if it has the stalwart ability.
Another option is to have two pools of skills. One could be close to what they are now, called Skills, and the other could be the more flavor-oriented ones, called Trades. This would allow people to put some mechanical representation of the fact that they have a background in hunting, blacksmithing, or underwater basket weaving on their character sheet without dipping into the same pool that fuels Knowledge, Concentration, and UMD.
About the only thing people might get twitchy about is Craft (alchemy) with that, which is given some enhanced use in the current system.That, and potentially Knowledge. Being educated could make sense as a background trade, but Knowledge skills can have a pretty tangible effect in combat.
I do sort of miss the Secondary Skills from AD&D. And, have always wanted to encourage some semi-useful basketweaving. I'll take a look at the d20 Modern backgrounds (referred to as Starting Occupations) and see if there's anything worthwhile in there to pillage from.Another option is to have two pools of skills. One could be close to what they are now, called Skills, and the other could be the more flavor-oriented ones, called Trades. This would allow people to put some mechanical representation of the fact that they have a background in hunting, blacksmithing, or underwater basket weaving on their character sheet without dipping into the same pool that fuels Knowledge, Concentration, and UMD.
At that point, just go AD&D and have a single "secondary skill" for background, which are generally trades or professions, and current skills as the actual skills.
Or, using the D20M reference I made to professions with the D20M backgrounds adapted into the current version of the game, just have players select such backgrounds and include some set of additional things they can do, unrelated to identifying monsters, sneaking about, scouting, and other such "functional" skills.
What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?
Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.
At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.
At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.
What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?
Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.
At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.
At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.
You mean like how Pathfinder gives +3 to your class skills (with the investment of the 1st point)? It's sort of like 3 free points in each of them.
What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?This is kinda sorta the SAGA approach with its trained/not trained dynamic. It's not a bad way of going about it. It's not really something that bothers me, to be honest.
I do sort of miss the Secondary Skills from AD&D. And, have always wanted to encourage some semi-useful basketweaving. I'll take a look at the d20 Modern backgrounds (referred to as Starting Occupations) and see if there's anything worthwhile in there to pillage from.
What if Class Skills didn't represent skills that are cheaper, but gave you your starting skills instead?Sign me up in favor for skills costing the same. I'm not sure about the class related bonus thou
Like, every class gets X class skills and Y skill points per level.
At 1st level, they get Z points in their X class skills, and Y points to spend anywhere they damn well please.
At 2nd level, you'd just get the Y points, and so on and so forth.
That, and potentially Knowledge. Being educated could make sense as a background trade, but Knowledge skills can have a pretty tangible effect in combat.They can, but should they? I don't think how Knowledge works right now is good for the game.
Yet another option is to eliminate "fields". For example, instead of Craft, Profession and Perform, I use just two skills: Trades and Performer. Trades covers whatever sorts of background professions the character has: a PC tradesman can be the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker at no extra cost, and if the PC tradesman wants to acquire a trade he didn't already practice in the background, he roleplays out an appropriate training sequence and adds it to his list at no cost. Likewise, a Performer can know how to play string instruments, wind instruments, dance and sing as a single skill, or whatever else he uses in his performance. This is simpler than using two pools of skills, and I think the combined skills are useful enough to compare with adventuring skills.2. Cut some excessive skill choices for "flavor".Another option is to have two pools of skills. One could be close to what they are now, called Skills, and the other could be the more flavor-oriented ones, called Trades. This would allow people to put some mechanical representation of the fact that they have a background in hunting, blacksmithing, or underwater basket weaving on their character sheet without dipping into the same pool that fuels Knowledge, Concentration, and UMD.