And no folks, you won't see any of our products using it. We strive (with very few exceptions) to be 100% Pathfinder compliant.
In my original 3.5 game I gave everyone 2 extra skill points per level, so say an INT10 not Human Fighter got 16 at 1st and 4 each level after. Since I used various background skills, this allowed characters to be broadly skilled in a couple of areas w/o going overboard.
My players seemed to like the rule and other than one, basically adopted it for their games too.
Why I am thinking something like this might go well with Pathfinder is that despite having more condensed skills and in some cases an extra skill point, Pathfinder characters especially the 2 per level classes seem under skilled to me. This is exasperated by the fact that if traits are used many characters have one or more extra class skills too. There just aren't enough points to feel right.
I can see the design is meant to allow skills to be dolled out at each level and if skills are taken at a level up, they can be jumped into faster than in 3.5.
As an example, said Fighter gets 3 extra skill points at his level up (not Human, INT 10, preferred class) he can either take an extra class skill at (points+3) or put (points) into a new skill.
Not bad, but the problem comes about when we note the fighter has at least 10 class skills (and craft and profession can be applied to several skills) in addition to any gained from traits. This leaves him still points starved for games where "stuff outside the dungeon" matters.
My solution here is to simply give everyone an extra 2 base skill points, a Fighter is 4, a Rogue is 10 and so on.
What do you folks think of that idea?
D and D is cool - The *New York Times *recently published an opinion piece explaining "Why the Cool Kids Are Playing Dungeons & Dragons." Of course, *I* have known that D&D ...
2 weeks ago