Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-01-07, 05:56 PM	ok, I've had enough.... the concept of "cross class skills" is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D!!! Gah!!!!! *he screams* :D Look, say your character is a dwarven legionaire, a tough as nails fighter. He does some stealthy stuff, like listening at choke points for enemies...sneaking behind enemy lines, but, he's not expert at it, his "bag" is mostly straight up fighting, he is not a fighter/rogue. -So, he should have Listen as a "class" skill, pretty damned obviously, hm? But he doesn't..why? Because the rules say fighters can't have it!! -The rules also say, fighters have Ride and Jump and Swim, as class skills. Now, pray tell me, why, our example dwarf, who is, like most dwarves, scared stiff of deep water, and considers horses good eating, be "good at" Swimming and Ride, eh?! So, here's my suggestion: ditch the idea of class skills entirely. It will also make MY job, as DM, a hell of a sight easier when making multiple NPCs. Characters should be defined at what they are good at, by how THE PLAYER OR DM assigns their skills, not some arbitrary nonsense like: "Oh, you can only be good at X, Y or Z because it says so in the Player's Handbook!" Other suggestion: increase all classes skill points by +2. As folk often point out, the amount characters get is too little, except for min/maxed rogues/bards and maybe wizards. Give me a break, clerics and fighters are not all inbred retards who have trouble organizing a stamp collection, jeesh :uh-huh: Of course, monsters would also need a similar boost of +2/HD. What would be a fair, quick & simple way to add this to existing monster stats for us hard worked DMs: just add +2 onto each skill the creature has, or something else? (I'm not talking accurate, I mean something I don't have to write down on every damned monster manual page, lol) :)
Witch 08-01-07, 06:08 PM	So you think Barbarians should be equally adept at studying Spellcraft as Sorcerers?
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-01-07, 06:32 PM	that should be down to the *DM* DM: "your people have long studied the arcane arts, because they are your enemies!" etc. Remember, a barbarian CAN learn about spellcraft, it's about knowledge, it is *not* an innate ability, or an ability tied directly and only to one classes special ability that is *innate*, like Lay on Hands. -Skills are down to the ability to learn it, make it, practice it, study it. I know a crap load about weaponry ancient and modern, dosn't mean I can actually use a mortar or a "phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" :D It should be down to the DM and player to be honest and develop their character as they wish, but within the logic of that character, and that cannot be simply written into a class description ;) If my barbarian finds magic extremely interesting, why shoudln't he be able to learn about it, even if he may never be able to do it? Why should he be penalized? A sorceror or wizard fo course would have far more practical knowledge but hey, in real life you find folk who know far more about a subject than the supposed "Professional" ;)
Witch 08-01-07, 06:43 PM	He is able to learn about it. I'm just saying that a Sorcerer would be able to learn about these things a lot more easier than a Barbarian would. That's why they get it at half the cost. That's why Barbarians have a lower cap. Barbarians can still put skill points in Spellcraft, they can just not be as good as Sorcerers who put skill points in it. Don't think in terms of penalizing, think in terms of learning. If I have practical knowledge of something, theoretical knowledge will be easier to learn. If I have no practical knowledge, theoretical knowledge will be more difficult.
Mark_Aged 08-01-07, 07:05 PM	No, I see what Silverblade is saying, you don't need to have studied ancient magic for years to look up "spellcrafting for beginners" on google. Just make it that whatever skill your characters take that isn't a class skill, tell them to make their back story match. "Bob the Barbarian had long been interested with magic, and spent lazy afternoons reading about it, well his barbarian brothers slaughtered pigs and cows to eat."
locustechpriest 08-01-07, 07:07 PM	Class skills aren't about what you are "good at", that is what ranks are for. If you have several ranks in something, you are good at it. A class isn't "good at" anything. A class is a blank slate. Class skills are an estimation of the training available to someone seeking a certain master. If you are looking for martial training as a fighter, then chances are your master doesn't see reason, or simply lacks the resources, to teach you craft (alchemy), for example. Barbarians, for one, are incredibly superstitious. In order to study the intricacies of magic and what it does, you must have several things: a source of knowledge (barbarians lack this, barring extreme circumstances), a willingness to learn (also not there), and an ability to test hypotheses (magic is like science, if you can't experiment, like a wizard or sorcerer can, you will not get far). If you want to give racial alternative class skill lists, then that makes wonderful sense to me. Like you said, dwarves are not famous outriders. I would never think of touching the current class skill system because it does capture the fact that some things are harder to learn when pursuing a certain brand of training.
unundindur 08-01-07, 07:12 PM	This was the first house rule I think I ever used. Only Use magic device and spellcraft are limited, but limited so you cannot take them at all with the wrong classes. Simplicity is gold.
Mark_Aged 08-01-07, 07:14 PM	at locustechpriest: Now that just sounds racist. What if a barbarian is born smart? He goes to the near by town to learn. He wants to learn magic. He attacks the pig he's to kill for food with magic missile. You were sounding like you think stereotype barbarians are the only kind of barbarian that exist.
unundindur 08-01-07, 07:15 PM	Class skills aren't about what you are "good at", that is what ranks are for. If you have several ranks in something, you are good at it. A class isn't "good at" anything. A class is a blank slate. Class skills are an estimation of the training available to someone seeking a certain master. If you are looking for martial training as a fighter, then chances are your master doesn't see reason, or simply lacks the resources, to teach you craft (alchemy), for example. Barbarians, for one, are incredibly superstitious. In order to study the intricacies of magic and what it does, you must have several things: a source of knowledge (barbarians lack this, barring extreme circumstances), a willingness to learn (also not there), and an ability to test hypotheses (magic is like science, if you can't experiment, like a wizard or sorcerer can, you will not get far). If you want to give racial alternative class skill lists, then that makes wonderful sense to me. Like you said, dwarves are not famous outriders. I would never think of touching the current class skill system because it does capture the fact that some things are harder to learn when pursuing a certain brand of training. All this is stuff concerned with roleplaying, and not rules if you ask me. Class skills is good for stereotyping players, forcing them (although subtly) down the way the designers "assumed" suited the classes best. I cannot really see it as much of a balancing factor, unless of course it is admitted that some skills are better than others, which again would be a fault in itself.
SilentOne 08-01-07, 07:21 PM	Well, then he's not really a barbarian anymore, at that point, but a multiclass barbarian/sorcerer or barbarian/wizard or possibly some other combination, if barbarian isn't actually required, but rather a society name for the person. The barbarian can learn spellcraft. However, if he focuses on learning it, he's not learning to be a barbarian anymore, but rather a wizard, and thus it's a class skill. Tada. The stuff you do to become a barbarian (kill stuff, run around in the wild, get mad and smash stuff) isn't conducive to learning intellectual pursuits like Spellcraft. So, he can't do both at the same time. Thus, cross-class (less devotion to it) or different level (focuses on it, takes a level of wizard, and thus gets it as a class skill)
MerlintheTuna 08-01-07, 07:42 PM	Barbarians, for one, are incredibly superstitious. In order to study the intricacies of magic and what it does, you must have several things: a source of knowledge (barbarians lack this, barring extreme circumstances)Except for the Sorcerers, Druids, and Clerics among their tribes. Or the Wizards and so on that they travel with.a willingness to learn (also not there),If a guy hates Superman, he finds himself some Kryptonite. Similarly, if a guy hates sorcery, he'll likely learn a bit about how to stop it. This will likely entail the ability to identify spells. Ergo, spellcraft.and an ability to test hypotheses (magic is like science, if you can't experiment, like a wizard or sorcerer can, you will not get far).Again, there's no reason he shouldn't have access to magic unless the campaign is unusually low-magic. Class skills pigeonhole characters unnecessarily. There isn't much reason to keep them around.
Jaxgaret 08-01-07, 07:43 PM	Look, say your character is a dwarven legionaire, a tough as nails fighter. He does some stealthy stuff, like listening at choke points for enemies...sneaking behind enemy lines, but, he's not expert at it, his "bag" is mostly straight up fighting, he is not a fighter/rogue. -So, he should have Listen as a "class" skill, pretty damned obviously, hm? But he doesn't..why? Because the rules say fighters can't have it!! Emphasis mine. How do you adjudicate "not being expert" at something you spend a lot of time doing in the current rules? That's right, it's by having it be a cross class skill. Just because something is cross-class doesn't mean that a person can't be good at it. They can be plenty good at it - having max ranks in a cross class skill is still pretty darn good. But they can't be great at it without using a feat or having it as a class skill. You know, those things we use to customize out characters? Perhaps your Dwarven Legionnaire took Skill Focus (Listen), or got Listen as a class skill with a bit of multiclassing into another melee class with Listen as a class skill.
n00dle_king 08-01-07, 08:07 PM	Class skills are pointless and not justified in real life. All they do is inhibit roleplay and keep people from playing the characters they want to. Skills are things anyone can get with training regardless of class. There is no reason a seasoned fighter has to be worse at hiding and moving silently than an equal level rogue. At least they got rid of class specific skill in 3.5.
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-01-07, 08:10 PM	FYI, sorcerors cannot experiment, ever, short of finding scrolls. They are innate casters, they only get a few spells, ever. Thus, they cannot "experiment" with magic, like a wizard can. Sorcerors can be born into barbarian tribes with NO arcane knowledge at all... Jaxgaret, so, a policeman has some magical curse in the real world that prevents him learning first aid? Soldiers similarly, have some weird hinderance to sing, speak French, or acrobatics, hm? No, it's a load of bull ;) Probably thought up as some hold over crud from 2nd ed, or, as some rules balancing to prevent abuse. Remember: skills are about the ability to learn from experience. A sage studies (eh doesn't jsut read the words, he studies them), a cooper makes barrels, a barrister learns the rules of law and the performance of it in court... -most soliders will be too busy to study those things.. but not ALL of them! There's no magic (less the DM says so, hehe), that directly impedes them. The Expert class is the one which emulates a person who devotes his time to non-adventuring skills and is, IMHO a very fine class (the NPC classes, as in non-primary adventuring, are yet another reaosn I love 3rd ed) -Experts will be better than nearly any PC in their respective bailiwick. But this doesn't stop a famed gladiator being a respectable battlefield surgeon...the gladiator has less time on his hands to study medicine (less skill points than someone who's entire life is devoted to learning/crafting), not some weird thing preventing his ability TO learn, which is a massive difference. "Cross class" rules say "You are somehow, mysteriously prevented from learning this skill well" which is a load of "hairy male spheres!" :D The *DM* and he alone should have the right to say: "Sorry Joe, weaponsmithng is an almost arcane art in this setting, only dwarves know how to do it, you're character is not a dwarf, sorry!" -Only the DM should have the right to say a quirk of his campaign setting, means some skills are hard/rare/impossible etc to learn. :)
Teh_username 08-01-07, 08:11 PM	((Moved below due to editing and double-post))
SilentOne 08-01-07, 08:16 PM	Skills are things anyone can get with training regardless of class. There is no reason a seasoned fighter has to be worse at hiding and moving silently than an equal level rogue. Except that the fighter hasn't been training in sneaking around, he's been training in fighting. Part of class training is the skills they get, the abilities mesh together (at least, theoretically). Just think, you're going into job training to learn to be a nuclear engineer. Part of that invariable involves physics, chemistry, general science. In your off time, you want to join the town softball league, so you take your kid into the yard and throw around the ball some, maybe head to the gym on the weekends. In a month, are you seriously going to tell me you'll be as good at softball as the person who spent their month at the gym almost every day training with a professional trainer and going to play the game alot? Your job training did next to nothing to help you, all you got was cross-class training in the skill, while all his work went toward getting better, thus, a class skill. If you're going to put dedicated effort into learning what would be a cross-class skill in your current class, then you're no longer training to get another level in that class, but rather a different one that DOES have that skill as a class skill. Now, figure out which one it is.
Crimson_Concerto 08-01-07, 08:18 PM	I tried getting rid of the concept of class skills in my games, but my players didn't like it for some reason, so we still play with them in effect... :confused:
Dog_O_War 08-01-07, 08:48 PM	I think some of you, like the OP are forgetting that the base attack bonus, saving throws, and special abilities (like extra feats and spellcasting) are all in effect "skills" of the class. I think what you are trying to say is that you would rather pick and choose your class skills rather than have the class pick them for you right? Well you forget then that dnd is a class game, not a free-form like Deadlands. With campaign exceptions, the average fighter, the person on the front line of a cavalry charge, duking it out with the ogre, or mastering his weapon is slightly more concentrated on what immediately pertains to direct combat, as opposed to, say, "what is that I hear whilst I'm fending off a dozen kobolds?" or "hey, what was that awesome spell that I can in no way counter because I am infact NOT a spellcaster myself and really otherwise have no choice but to save make my save that the enemy wizard just cast?". These are the jobs and thus the forte (class skill) of other classes that can actually do something about it. If you are finding then that cross-classed skills are simply 'ineffective' in the games you play, then either you DM is a ponce that sets the bar too high all the time (because he has the awful need to counter the players ALL the time) or your group constantly figures they're "TeH Pwnzor" and never gets below 20 on anything, forcing your DM to arbitrarily increase the DC's of your skill checks.
Teh_username 08-01-07, 08:58 PM	There is no reason a seasoned fighter has to be worse at hiding and moving silently than an equal level rogue. Oh, I get it now - you're all fakeposting. I was worried for a second there. --------------- On the off-chance you whack-a-loons are serious, I'd suggest a look-through of the following link, particularly the bits on the Knowledge and Craft skills: D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). It doesn't take all that high of a modifier to represent "skilled", regardless of whether or not you spent the cross-class points (which'd represent you going out-of-your-way to learn something, mind).
bobothechimp 08-01-07, 09:05 PM	You are saying that there is no reason that a wizard, who has spent several years of his life studying to learn as much as possible about magic, and a barbarian, who can't even read, should both be equally knowledgeable regarding magic?
TorgSmackie 08-01-07, 09:19 PM	It sounds like your problem isn't with the fact that classes have skill lists, but rather that those skill lists are fixed. So if all you do is talk with your DM about altering the lists slightly for specific characters, you'll be fine. Take your fighter example; all you'd have to do is swap say Ride and Handle Animal for Listen and Spot and you'd be golden. You don't sell your car when all it needs is new seat covers.
Jaxgaret 08-01-07, 09:42 PM	D&D: Calibrating Your Expectations (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). It doesn't take all that high of a modifier to represent "skilled", regardless of whether or not you spent the cross-class points (which'd represent you going out-of-your-way to learn something, mind). Great site. I've linked lots of people to it ever since I myself got linked to it a while ago. It sounds like your problem isn't with the fact that classes have skill lists, but rather that those skill lists are fixed. So if all you do is talk with your DM about altering the lists slightly for specific characters, you'll be fine. Take your fighter example; all you'd have to do is swap say Ride and Handle Animal for Listen and Spot and you'd be golden. You don't sell your car when all it needs is new seat covers. QFT. And lol @ your sig. Also, what Dog O War said.
Molitor 08-01-07, 10:18 PM	OK, I have also hated cross-class skills, my reasonings are plenty so bare with me. 1) A commoner should never, NEVER have a better set of skills than a PC class. Commoners have spot, fighters don't. Without a fighter's ability to find the enemy the class name should be changed to 'reactors'. That's basically what they do when they are attacked by hidden foes. 2) A fighter with an INT of 10 has less skills than a rogue with an INT of 1. That is so stupid it's funny. We should all agree on this one. 3) The gaps are to large at later levels. Example(I'll be generous): Fighter has a WIS of 18(see how giving I am), rogue has a DEX of only 14(again trying to prove a point)...at 5th level barring any feats and items which can go both ways so don't mention them. The rogue can have +10 on move silent where as the fighter will have a +8 on listen. At 15th level the rogue will have most likely put his stats gains in DEX and I'm pretty sure the fighter wouldn't have. Rogue now has a DEX of 16 which gives him a +21, again lets be generous to the fighter....HE has boosted his WIS to 20 which gives him a grand total of +14. Notice the gap getting bigger? Basically unless the player takes feats like skill focus and alertness he cant at all compete. EVER. 4) There is a class in the PHB that casts spells, has spellcraft skill , knowledge arcana skill, and even gets free feats to make magic items every 5 levels. Yet they don't have Use Magic Device as a class skill? That's a little weird. Tell me why rogues get diplomacy? THAT should be cross-classed for them. 5) Barbarians should have spot well before a monk should. Anyone here ever hunt? You'll understand what I mean. An expert can have spot as a class skill, again...that makes no sense. 6)I'm sure I'll think of more...
Jaxgaret 08-01-07, 10:37 PM	OK, I have also hated cross-class skills, my reasonings are plenty so bare with me. 1) A commoner should never, NEVER have a better set of skills than a PC class. Commoners have spot, fighters don't. Without a fighter's ability to find the enemy the class name should be changed to 'reactors'. That's basically what they do when they are attacked by hidden foes. 2) A fighter with an INT of 10 has less skills than a rogue with an INT of 1. That is so stupid it's funny. We should all agree on this one. 3) The gaps are to large at later levels. Example(I'll be generous): Fighter has a WIS of 18(see how giving I am), rogue has a DEX of only 14(again trying to prove a point)...at 5th level barring any feats and items which can go both ways so don't mention them. The rogue can have +10 on move silent where as the fighter will have a +8 on listen. At 15th level the rogue will have most likely put his stats gains in DEX and I'm pretty sure the fighter wouldn't have. Rogue now has a DEX of 16 which gives him a +21, again lets be generous to the fighter....HE has boosted his WIS to 20 which gives him a grand total of +14. Notice the gap getting bigger? Basically unless the player takes feats like skill focus and alertness he cant at all compete. EVER. 4) There is a class in the PHB that casts spells, has spellcraft skill , knowledge arcana skill, and even gets free feats to make magic items every 5 levels. Yet they don't have Use Magic Device as a class skill? That's a little weird. Tell me why rogues get diplomacy? THAT should be cross-classed for them. 5) Barbarians should have spot well before a monk should. Anyone here ever hunt? You'll understand what I mean. An expert can have spot as a class skill, again...that makes no sense. 6)I'm sure I'll think of more... None of those complaints are about cross-classing skills specifically. 1) Complaint about the Fighter class. 2) Complaint about the Fighter class. 3) Complaint about the Fighter class. 4) Wizards don't get UMD as a balancing factor. 5) The Barbarian class is not a hunter class, it is a berserker class. The Ranger or Expert (Hunter) are hunter classes. If you feel that berserkers should be great as spotters, then feel free to houserule it in your campaign. So you are mostly just complaining about the Fighter class. Which is a fair complaint, as it can be sorely lacking in terms of skills. But it is a separate issue. Take a look at this link (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). It's a good one.
Molitor 08-01-07, 10:48 PM	None of those complaints are about cross-classing skills specifically. 1) Complaint about the Fighter class. 2) Complaint about the Fighter class. 3) Complaint about the Fighter class. 4) Wizards don't get UMD as a balancing factor. 5) The Barbarian class is not a hunter class, it is a berserker class. The Ranger or Expert (Hunter) are hunter classes. If you feel that berserkers should be great as spotters, then feel free to houserule it in your campaign. So you are mostly just complaining about the Fighter class. Which is a fair complaint, as it can be sorely lacking in terms of skills. But it is a separate issue. Take a look at this link (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html). It's a good one. If my points didn't sway you or change your opinion of skills then so be it. I used the fighter as an example, most of my points could be applied just as well to any class. And about your point on #4... I know that, but it still makes no sense from a point of realism. The 'abilities/powers/extras' that wizards get to me prove they should also have UMD as a class skill. So I take it you have no issue with points 1-3? Care to explain, I'd like to hear your complaints. Or do you think the skill system is fine and not in need of fixing?
Teh_username 08-02-07, 12:11 AM	2) A fighter with an INT of 10 has less skills than a rogue with an INT of 1. That is so stupid it's funny. We should all agree on this one. Incorrect, the Fighter has more skill points. ...because something with an INT of 1 is properly classed as an "animal", rather than a sentient creature capable of taking class levels. :D
kalstrand 08-02-07, 12:36 AM	As someone who can use the vast majority of magic devices training in their use isn't a big priority for most wizards so it rightly fits as s cross class skill.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 02:10 AM	So you think Barbarians should be equally adept at studying Spellcraft as Sorcerers? Sure, why not? Otherwise I can't have a character who happens to know a lot about magic without actually giving him magic powers (or dipping into, say, Expert and making him weak for his ECL). This is the whole problem with class/level systems. This whole issue is why I like d20 Modern's generic classes so much better than D&D's.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 02:15 AM	Class skills aren't about what you are "good at", that is what ranks are for. If you have several ranks in something, you are good at it. A class isn't "good at" anything. A class is a blank slate. Class skills are an estimation of the training available to someone seeking a certain master. If you are looking for martial training as a fighter, then chances are your master doesn't see reason, or simply lacks the resources, to teach you craft (alchemy), for example. Except that deciding to move to the big city and take some night classes from an arcanist should not be so damn difficult that it's represented by taking a whole 'nother class level (for a whole 'nother class level's worth of XP, and possible multiclassing penalties). That's the whole thing. The way classes currently work still hamstrings you into assuming all Fighters go to Fighter College and live with other Fighters and have a Fighter culture. It's dumb. Barbarians, for one, are incredibly superstitious. Are they? *Must* they be? What happens to a Barbarian who stops being superstitious? Does he instantly gain a free level in Sorcerer? In order to study the intricacies of magic and what it does, you must have several things: a source of knowledge (barbarians lack this, barring extreme circumstances) What if the Barbarian has been living in the city for the past six months (game time) after falling in with his unlikely friends (the Wizard, Rogue and Cleric he's been spending every day with since the adventure started)? a willingness to learn (also not there) Even my Int 12 (higher-than-average) Barbarian whose character sheet *says* he's marked by a thirst for knowledge and desire to see strange and different sights from those of his homeland? I guess he needs to take a level in Bard or something in order to have a curious personality though, huh? and an ability to test hypotheses (magic is like science, if you can't experiment, like a wizard or sorcerer can, you will not get far). I wasn't aware you needed a fully-equipped laboratory to "test hypotheses" or have the concept of testing hypotheses. If you want to give racial alternative class skill lists, then that makes wonderful sense to me. Like you said, dwarves are not famous outriders. I would never think of touching the current class skill system because it does capture the fact that some things are harder to learn when pursuing a certain brand of training. Except a class shouldn't be a "certain brand of training", at least not in the restrictive way you're talking about. A class should describe a certain skillset already taken, not what resources you currently have available to learn things. (So, if I *give* the Barbarian a fully-stocked laboratory, he now suddenly gains a Wizard level? And he has to keep on levelling in Wizard in order to keep on making use of that laboratory? What?)
BattleofEvermore 08-02-07, 02:37 AM	okay doing this could allow a Barbarian to take class levels in spellcraft but what the heck would that be useful for besides roleplaying. Honestly if the guy wants to use skill points just because Ugluk like magic stuff let him. Not the DM's problem. I personally am not a big fan of how someone can not have listen as a skill. Simply because it is used often in daily use. Same goes for spot, search, and jump That's my 64 cp.
Someone 08-02-07, 02:52 AM	A character who has maxed out a cross-class skill can still be better than another character who hasn't put anything into said skill. Also, there are many skills that are "trained only", so a character with a few cross-class ranks is still far more capable in the skill (i.e. can actually make checks) than a character without ranks, even if the skill is a class skill for the unranked character. To me, this whole complaint smacks of powergaming greed. You want more. You've put ranks into a skill, and are somehow offended that your modifier (or other skill perk) isn't as good as it could be, since after all, you've gone to the trouble of putting ranks in the skill, and skill points are a limited resource, and you have to get the absolute most out of the resources you spend, etc, etc...
Nom 08-02-07, 02:55 AM	Simply because it is used often in daily use. Same goes for spot, search, and jump That's my 64 cp.Firstly, you're conflating "used daily" and "is expert at". I drive almost every day, but I'm no Nigel Mansell. I'm not even vaguely close. Secondly, your argument goes equally well for BAB/BSB. Everyone benefits from a full BAB, so why not give it to all classes? That said, there's something to be said for the Star Wars Saga Edition mechanic: a base skill bonus of level / 2 that can then be enhanced with feats (and feat-like abilities). Under the 3rd Ed system, after about level 5 there's a significant distinction between those who have invested in skills and those who haven't; if you haven't put points in you may as well not even bother rolling. In contrast, the Saga system allows any hero to try to fudge anything, but specialists will still be a lot better. Note that the problem here is not cross-class skills, but that the "baseline" threshold for skills is 0 regardless of whether you are level 1 or level 20. This problem remains even if you go to a completely classless system.
BattleofEvermore 08-02-07, 03:09 AM	Yes but driving a car is a lot more complicated than listening is it not? You can listen when your 3 but can you drive? nope. BAB has a lot more to do with class than skills because a wizard is not equally able to hit someone with a physical attack. Same goes for BSB. Now believe that classes have nothing to do with skills such as listen. It has more to deal with the way you are born. So why not just leave that decision to the player.(sorry if I offend you I just enjoy arguing)
Lord_Varos 08-02-07, 03:46 AM	I think some posters may be forgetting the difference between "some night classes," "good at, but no expert," and absolute mastery of a skill. The Barbarian (a berzerker who forgoes using anything beyond basic tactics in return for incredible raw strength) who learnes to combat mages by learning Spellcraft. He's not a total master of magic, so he can't do or know everything that a fully-trained Wizard can regarding magic effects. At 5th level, the Barbarian with full ranks and an Intelligence modifier of +1 can identify a spell of 2nd level 45% of the time. This means that he will be able to identify about half of the spells being cast at him or his party, and warn them of the effects. Not bad for a guy who only "took a few night classes," eh? But, if he decided to actually seek out a master and train in the arcane arts for a Wizard level at level 6, then his theoretical training pays off by letting him skip some of the book-learning and go right to practical training and lets him start identifying those spells more like 85% of the time. Training to become a master in D&D a little tougher than stopping off for some lessons from the city's teacher. Besides, the whole idea of a Barbarian who uses Spellcraft to combat enemy mages is a little weird, since a Barbarian in Rage can't even roll Spellcraft because he is blinded by fury (read the Rage class feature). How about this reverse example? Why can't my Wizard just stop off at the military academy, pick up a sword, and learn to wield it a little better, like a Fighter or Paladin could do? Oh, that's right: he can! He can by taking a level in Fighter, putting a pause on his full-time arcane study and adventuring to learn a bit of swordplay. Oh, and he'll take Power Attack, thank you very much!
Pindar 08-02-07, 04:09 AM	so, a policeman has some magical curse in the real world that prevents him learning first aid? But surely someone trained to first aid level would be an example of cross-class training. I mean if you are ill you go to a doctor not a cop with first aid training. A Soldier could sing sure, but that also comes from natural ability (stat bonus) as well as training. The more you do something the better you get at it. If you spend all week fixing watches and play paintball at the weekend you are not going to be as effective on the battlefield as a trained soldier. Class skills are not the problem with skills, it's the small number of skill points that are the problem.
guru7892 08-02-07, 04:16 AM	So you think Barbarians should be equally adept at studying Spellcraft as Sorcerers? do you think ANY player should be able to train craft (basket weaving) proficently as a non-cross class skill? wait a minute...
Saurus33 08-02-07, 04:20 AM	I think a major problem point here is not that people consider cross-class skills a bad thing, but because they find the skill lists for certain classes inappropriate.
Lucas Blackstone 08-02-07, 04:29 AM	It makes a lot of sense to me to have cross class skills. A level in a class comes with certain areas of training. If you are a barbarian, and want to study the arcane arts, you can do so. If you want to do so more effectively, you end up shifting enough of your training and the likes ( most of which occurs during down time or time that isn't played out) to another field, and poof, you are another class. Want to be the observant, warrior who can sneak well? Then your barbarian takes a level of ranger, he's shifted from the barbarian training of learning to be more tough, and other class features, and moved into the realm of ranger, maintaining his combat prowess ( BAB) and expanding his focus to more skills. Removing the class skills is an awful idea.
Optimator 08-02-07, 05:01 AM	I think a major problem point here is not that people consider cross-class skills a bad thing, but because they find the skill lists for certain classes inappropriate. Most likely.
Breetai 08-02-07, 08:15 AM	ok, I've had enough.... the concept of "cross class skills" is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D!!! Gah!!!!! *he screams* :D Look, say your character is a dwarven legionaire, a tough as nails fighter. He does some stealthy stuff, like listening at choke points for enemies...sneaking behind enemy lines, but, he's not expert at it, his "bag" is mostly straight up fighting, he is not a fighter/rogue. -So, he should have Listen as a "class" skill, pretty damned obviously, hm? But he doesn't..why? Because the rules say fighters can't have it!! -The rules also say, fighters have Ride and Jump and Swim, as class skills. Now, pray tell me, why, our example dwarf, who is, like most dwarves, scared stiff of deep water, and considers horses good eating, be "good at" Swimming and Ride, eh?! So, here's my suggestion: ditch the idea of class skills entirely. It will also make MY job, as DM, a hell of a sight easier when making multiple NPCs. Characters should be defined at what they are good at, by how THE PLAYER OR DM assigns their skills, not some arbitrary nonsense like: "Oh, you can only be good at X, Y or Z because it says so in the Player's Handbook!" Other suggestion: increase all classes skill points by +2. As folk often point out, the amount characters get is too little, except for min/maxed rogues/bards and maybe wizards. Give me a break, clerics and fighters are not all inbred retards who have trouble organizing a stamp collection, jeesh :uh-huh: Of course, monsters would also need a similar boost of +2/HD. What would be a fair, quick & simple way to add this to existing monster stats for us hard worked DMs: just add +2 onto each skill the creature has, or something else? (I'm not talking accurate, I mean something I don't have to write down on every damned monster manual page, lol) :) I agree that there may be an argument that some of the class skill lists don't totally reflect what the class's do/are. and I would have to say that "Roleplaying" heavy groups should house rule no Cross Class Skills, they'll keep themselves in check for the most part and add flavor where needed they're a "Roleplaying" group. But as a general rule most groups mix and match between roleplaying and ROLLplaying so IMO Cross Class skills should stay required.
TaiSharShaidar 08-02-07, 09:53 AM	My group has come up with an interesting fix for this problem, we allow particularly intelligent PC (i.e. those with a +1 modifier or higher) to gain a number of skills as class skills equal to their int modifier. We do, however, keep UMD and Craft (alchemy) restricted to their current classes.
runestar 08-02-07, 10:08 AM	What if we effectively gave everyone the equivalent of the able learner feat for free? Basically, everyone can buy any skill at a 1-for-1 rate, but the max no.of ranks is still determined by whether it is a class skill or not. Thus, a barb might grasp the basics of spellcraft or knowledge: arcana as readily as a wizard (as represented by them each getting 2 ranks with 2 skill points), but he cannot understand the finer aspects of magic theories (as represented by the wizard being able to get 4 ranks in spellcraft by sinking in an extra 2 skillpoints, but the barb being capped at 2 ranks at 1st lv). Since skills in dnd pretty much need to be maxed out to be of any worth, it shouldn't result in any abuse.:)
Steely_Dan 08-02-07, 10:10 AM	How about just allowing the classes to choose their class skills. So a 1st level fighter could take any 2 + Int modifier skills as class skills.
unundindur 08-02-07, 10:53 AM	I tried getting rid of the concept of class skills in my games, but my players didn't like it for some reason, so we still play with them in effect... :confused: :confused: That was a new turn...
unundindur 08-02-07, 10:57 AM	You are saying that there is no reason that a wizard, who has spent several years of his life studying to learn as much as possible about magic, and a barbarian, who can't even read, should both be equally knowledgeable regarding magic? Again this is a roleplaying aspect. Rules and roleplay are separate, see the Stormwind fallacy :) Again I have to say that unless one thinks some skills are better than others there is no balancing point of having cross class skills. If some skills are better than others that is a problem in its own right. As I tried to say initially, class and cross-class skills are simply means to subtely force players into the stereotypes of each class. A very good example is the fighter. Why isnt hide and move silently on that list? Well, because the fighter seem to be supposed to be a dumb bloke who wanders into hell instead of actually doing what modern day solders do, hide around and be efficient.
Grand Theft Otto 08-02-07, 10:58 AM	Totally for ditching them in 4th edition (I already do for my current games). it was a bad concept that essentially marginalized many characters from effectively contributing in the social arena. Look at Roy from OOTS. You think he dipped in rogue to get his social skills to where they are?
unundindur 08-02-07, 11:00 AM	How about just allowing the classes to choose their class skills. So a 1st level fighter could take any 2 + Int modifier skills as class skills. Thats a step in the right direction, but still I ask, why should there be a limit at all? I can see only 2 skills that warnat a limit; Spellcraft and Use Magic device. These two are so spesific that I think they should be exclusive to their classes. Spellcraft because it relates to how spells work, which I think you should have to be a spellcaster to understand (although I would likely allow a fighter to choose it if he had a good reason) and UMD becasue it is obviously a very much better skill than most, and meant as a boon to the classes that can use it.
Witch 08-02-07, 11:13 AM	Again this is a roleplaying aspect. Rules and roleplay are separate, see the Stormwind fallacy :) You have failed to understand the Stormwind Fallacy. It does not say that rules and roleplay are seperate. It says that the ability to roleplay and the ability to get the best out of the rules are seperate. Something else entirely. And Arctan: I don't think that someone who actually can't use magic has the ability to know as much as someone who can use it, if both devote equal amounts of time to it.
Millennium 08-02-07, 11:26 AM	that should be down to the *DM* Then houserule it. No one is stopping you. Meanwhile, those of us who understand the fact that some skillsets dovetail more easily with one's professional training than others can continue to play in a more realistic and sensible manner. If my barbarian finds magic extremely interesting, why shoudln't he be able to learn about it, even if he may never be able to do it? He can. Nothing in RAW stops him from doing this. Why should he be penalized? A sorceror or wizard fo course would have far more practical knowledge... You just answered your own question.
Steely_Dan 08-02-07, 11:34 AM	can continue to play in a more realistic and sensible manner. A game…D&D…realistic…
Grand Theft Otto 08-02-07, 11:38 AM	Then houserule it. No one is stopping you. Meanwhile, those of us who understand the fact that some skillsets dovetail more easily with one's professional training than others can continue to play in a more realistic and sensible manner. Right, nothing like a 4th level fighter taking his 5th level in rogue and all of a sudden gaining 8 ranks of Use Magic Device. ;) CC skills are clunky, they place a good deal of importance on what order levels were taken, etc. Its really just an odd fit IMO when aiming for a streamlined and flexible system.
Lucas Blackstone 08-02-07, 12:11 PM	I still don't see how or why people have problems with class skills. Having your choice of skills doesn't make sense, it's the equal of allowing people to choose which BAB progression and what save progression they get too. Why wouldn't you choose to resist spell effects in the most optimal fashion? Why wouldn't you train to fight better? Besides games balance, it simply doesn't make sense that people who train in a field that doesn't include certain training would be able to train equally to someone who does. Why don't people work at Micky D's to further their medical education? Might as well with your logic. Being able to perform surgery is a cooler skill then "Profession: Fast Food Cook". The same logic applies to a Wizard that wants to learn Spot or Listen. Or the Barbarian that wants to learn Spellcraft. The training you recieve improves certain things at a certain rate ( BAB, saves, class abilities, but this also includes skills).
unundindur 08-02-07, 12:27 PM	You have failed to understand the Stormwind Fallacy. It does not say that rules and roleplay are seperate. It says that the ability to roleplay and the ability to get the best out of the rules are seperate. Something else entirely. ...and that again leads to the two beeing separate. You can be good at one and bad at one, og good at both or bad at both. I just take the fallacy one step further. I think I know the fallacy quite well ;) It takes the player in focus, I now use the game as a whole as the focus. The rules and roleplay are separate, you can have a solid-rulesystem and a horrible roleplaying experience and vice persa. You can also have a great and immersive session with a strong ruleset and last everything can be utterly horrible. They are 2 different axis(es?). I would still love to hear a comment about the actual content of my post though...
Dog_O_War 08-02-07, 12:35 PM	Right, nothing like a 4th level fighter taking his 5th level in rogue and all of a sudden gaining 8 ranks of Use Magic Device. What are you talking about? Max ranks are still determined by the class level, not the character level, EXCEPT for cross-class skills. Read your PHB. He could only have 8 ranks in UMD if he had an 18 int.
unundindur 08-02-07, 12:38 PM	I still don't see how or why people have problems with class skills. Having your choice of skills doesn't make sense, it's the equal of allowing people to choose which BAB progression and what save progression they get too. Why wouldn't you choose to resist spell effects in the most optimal fashion? Why wouldn't you train to fight better? Besides games balance, it simply doesn't make sense that people who train in a field that doesn't include certain training would be able to train equally to someone who does. Because as far as rules go I only care for balance. With that as a foundation let me move on to the reasoning, step by step. I first assume that skills are supposed to be balanced toward each other, as anything else makes little to no sense for classes that have a wide class-skill selection (then why do they have a wide selection?). If everyone agrees to this then there should be no problem letting all characters chose exactely what skills they want for their character; after all its not going to be a balancing problem. One could say that synergy bonuses may make a combination of skills more potent, but in almost all cases a class have all synergic skills as class skills anyway, so that argument is out. After this one could say that "a fighter shouldn't have the skill spellcraft", which is a valid statement. What is important though is that this statement have nothing to do with balance (thus rules), and as such I think it should be a GM-call (based on cahracter biography and setting), and not written in the books. The balancing factor is in the number of skills you gain from your class, not in the class skill selection. To me there is a notable exception in Use magic device, which is unusually powerful. That is a problem with that skill though, and not the system, and as such this cannot be used as an argument in this discussion. Right now class skills do nothing but limit character diversity while not retaining balance in any meaningful way, which is the only reason I can think of that would varant them. -U
Witch 08-02-07, 12:43 PM	...and that again leads to the two beeing separate. No, it doesn't. You can be good at one and bad at one, og good at both or bad at both. Quite correct. I just take the fallacy one step further. I think I know the fallacy quite well ;) In taking it one step further, you've taken it a step too far. People seperate flavor and mechanics where such should not be done. Flavor and mechanics should be conflated into one thing, rather than seperated, because they should represent one another.
Eerongal 08-02-07, 12:50 PM	Hrm...it seems to me that some people like the idea of class skills, and some don't. Which is fine, it's personal opinion, so i don't really see a point in arguing which is better. I will, however, offer up the suggestion, for those who don't like class skills, take a bit from the generic classes variant, and replace the class skills as follows: Warrior(fighter, barbarian, paladin): Choose any six skills as class skills, plus Craft. Spellcaster(druid, wizard, sorcerer, cleric): Choose any four skills as class skills, plus Craft, Knowledge (all), and Profession. Expert(rogue, ranger, bard, monk): Choose any twelve skills as class skills, plus Craft and Profession.
runestar 08-02-07, 12:56 PM	That can lead to a few odd scenarios, like a ranger not having any "rangerly" skills, and instead taking spellcraft, autohynopsis, perform etc...:P
Grand Theft Otto 08-02-07, 01:03 PM	What are you talking about? Max ranks are still determined by the class level, not the character level, EXCEPT for cross-class skills. Read your PHB. He could only have 8 ranks in UMD if he had an 18 int. You're partially right. Its been a while since I used them. UMD is a class skill for the rogue part of him (but sweet enough for the kid in him!), so his max ranks in it would be 4. Unless I'm way off however, Intelligence doesnt matter in regards to max ranks. This actually serves to nicely illustrate that the CC method is a bit of a PITA, particularly when calculating NPC's who arent built from level 1 up.
Eerongal 08-02-07, 01:12 PM	What are you talking about? Max ranks are still determined by the class level, not the character level, EXCEPT for cross-class skills. Read your PHB. He could only have 8 ranks in UMD if he had an 18 int. wrong on both accounts SRD on multiclass characters: Level "Character level" is a character’s total number of levels. It is used to determine when feats and ability score boosts are gained. "Class level" is a character’s level in a particular class. For a character whose levels are all in the same class, character level and class level are the same. Skills If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, then character level determines a skill’s maximum rank. (The maximum rank for a class skill is 3 + character level.) If a skill is not a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, the maximum rank for that skill is one-half the maximum for a class skill. emphasis mine The only difference class/non-class skills make for multiclass characters is that class skills for the class you're currently leveling cost 1, and others cost 2, regardless if the others are class skills for other classes or not. They still have the same maximum in ranks.
Someone 08-02-07, 01:24 PM	A barbarian who has "learned to fight mages" is NOT a barbarian with some ranks in Spellcraft. It is more representative of a barbarian with the Mage Slayer feat (which, ironically, requires ranks in Spellcraft), or some related feat. People keep complaining they want to have a "stealthy" or "alert" fighter. Fine, take the Stealthy or Alertness feat, its equivalent of 4 skill points. There are mechanics of a characters' training that are better represented as feats than skills.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 01:28 PM	I still don't see how or why people have problems with class skills. Having your choice of skills doesn't make sense, it's the equal of allowing people to choose which BAB progression and what save progression they get too. Why wouldn't you choose to resist spell effects in the most optimal fashion? Why wouldn't you train to fight better? The answer to that is to limit the total amount of resources you have, not link some resources inextricably to each other. We're not talking about giving everyone an infinite number of skill points, here. If the problem is that some skills are worth a lot to everybody (Use Magic Device) and other skills are total crap (Profession) then that's a problem with skill balance, isn't it? Besides games balance, it simply doesn't make sense that people who train in a field that doesn't include certain training would be able to train equally to someone who does. But why should your "class" be the be-all and end-all of your training? Why can't we decide what kind of "training" exists for a character based on a character's individual background? This is why I hope that the sooner "classes" get streamlined into things like talent trees the better. Why don't people work at Micky D's to further their medical education? Might as well with your logic. Being able to perform surgery is a cooler skill then "Profession: Fast Food Cook". Actually, the main reason is that someone who works at Mickey D's is a 1st-level character and a neurosurgeon is a 6th- or 7th-level character. Don't confuse the quantitative development of a character with what kind of character he is. This is the problem -- by the rules of what a "level" should mean, an 8th-level Fighter should be as good as an 8th-level Rogue or 8th-level Wizard, but usually isn't.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 01:31 PM	Why can't my Wizard just stop off at the military academy, pick up a sword, and learn to wield it a little better, like a Fighter or Paladin could do? Oh, that's right: he can! He can by taking a level in Fighter, putting a pause on his full-time arcane study and adventuring to learn a bit of swordplay. Oh, and he'll take Power Attack, thank you very much! Yeah, like I said, the class system is stupid in both directions. It makes no more sense that my Wizard can absolutely positively never be able to pick locks as well as a Rogue until he technically becomes a Rogue by taking one level in Rogue, and then it's all okay.
unundindur 08-02-07, 01:33 PM	That can lead to a few odd scenarios, like a ranger not having any "rangerly" skills, and instead taking spellcraft, autohynopsis, perform etc...:P Which is perfectly fine :) When I play a ranger its typically not because i want to use a bow and walk in the woods, its because I want to be a fighter with skill-points... The typical is an elven commander (ranger/wizard) for example, who would definitively have skills like diplomacy, intimidate, spellcraft and all that jazz. (possibly a couple of skills in survival just for beeing an elf, but nothing more)
navar100 08-02-07, 01:50 PM	So you think Barbarians should be equally adept at studying Spellcraft as Sorcerers? Yes, the better to know what their enemies are doing.
Witch 08-02-07, 01:55 PM	Yes, the better to know what their enemies are doing. "Being able to study it" does not equal "being able to study it equally well".
navar100 08-02-07, 01:56 PM	You are saying that there is no reason that a wizard, who has spent several years of his life studying to learn as much as possible about magic, and a barbarian, who can't even read, should both be equally knowledgeable regarding magic? If the barbarian took the time to learn it by putting in the skill ranks. By the same token, the wizard spent years at Hogwarts to learn his Sleep and Color Spray spells. The barbarian can go kill some orcs and goblins and suddenly he can cast those same spells too and pronounce himself a wizard. He also learned to read and can scribe scrolls, again just by killing orcs and goblins.
navar100 08-02-07, 02:00 PM	A character who has maxed out a cross-class skill can still be better than another character who hasn't put anything into said skill. Also, there are many skills that are "trained only", so a character with a few cross-class ranks is still far more capable in the skill (i.e. can actually make checks) than a character without ranks, even if the skill is a class skill for the unranked character. To me, this whole complaint smacks of powergaming greed. You want more. You've put ranks into a skill, and are somehow offended that your modifier (or other skill perk) isn't as good as it could be, since after all, you've gone to the trouble of putting ranks in the skill, and skill points are a limited resource, and you have to get the absolute most out of the resources you spend, etc, etc... Oh the horror a player wants his character to be very good at a particular skill.
navar100 08-02-07, 02:05 PM	It makes a lot of sense to me to have cross class skills. A level in a class comes with certain areas of training. If you are a barbarian, and want to study the arcane arts, you can do so. If you want to do so more effectively, you end up shifting enough of your training and the likes ( most of which occurs during down time or time that isn't played out) to another field, and poof, you are another class. Want to be the observant, warrior who can sneak well? Then your barbarian takes a level of ranger, he's shifted from the barbarian training of learning to be more tough, and other class features, and moved into the realm of ranger, maintaining his combat prowess ( BAB) and expanding his focus to more skills. Removing the class skills is an awful idea. This reminds me too much of the 2E admonishment of not letting a player play a ranger because he didn't roll high enough, even if you were to allow adjusting ability scores. It was bad call then; it's a bad call now. The different amount of skill points the classes get is enough to keep control. If a barbarian player really, really wants to know what spell the BBEG is casting on the rogue, the game is not broken to unplayability because he maxed ranks in it on a 1 for 1 basis.
LazyNinja 08-02-07, 02:11 PM	What if we effectively gave everyone the equivalent of the able learner feat for free? Basically, everyone can buy any skill at a 1-for-1 rate, but the max no.of ranks is still determined by whether it is a class skill or not. Thus, a barb might grasp the basics of spellcraft or knowledge: arcana as readily as a wizard (as represented by them each getting 2 ranks with 2 skill points), but he cannot understand the finer aspects of magic theories (as represented by the wizard being able to get 4 ranks in spellcraft by sinking in an extra 2 skillpoints, but the barb being capped at 2 ranks at 1st lv). Since skills in dnd pretty much need to be maxed out to be of any worth, it shouldn't result in any abuse.:) I'd actually advocate the opposite of this. Cross-class skills still cost twice as much, but remove the max ranks cap on them. So the Barbarian spends his days in Finding Your Inner Angry 101, practicing threatening glances, equestrian studies, and high-jumping. (Strange that he gets Listen but not Spot, though.) Then at night he heads to Ye Olde Magick Shoppe and Technical College to study Spellcraft. It's tougher for him than for his lab partner the mage (twice as difficult, actually), but if he spends that much effort (stays after class long after the mage has gone home to get his requisite eight hours of rest), I don't see why he couldn't be as effective in this one particular skill. As runestar pointed out, from a mechanical perspective, if you don't have max ranks, you might as well have none. And what powergamer is going to dump all of their fighter's class skill points just to max Diplomacy? An Rp'er might, though. And I think they should be able to. That said, I don't see anything broken about removing cross-class skills. I've got a character with Able Learner right now who's multiclassed enough to have pretty much every skill on his list. But unless you're playing a rogue (in which case you're not bothered by CC skills anyway), you just don't have all the skill points to max all the "good" skills. But you can at least be competent in a select few that you actually get to choose.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-02-07, 02:14 PM	Why not allow all skills as class skills except the "trained only"? Like So: Barbarian: None Bard: Decipher Script, Knowledge [any], Sleight of Hand, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device Cleric: Knowledge [Arcana, History, Religion, the Planes], Spellcraft Druid: Knowledge [Arcana, Nature, Local], Spellcraft Fighter: fighter's don't ever get nice things in core :sad: Monk: Knowledge [Arcana, Religion], Tumble Paladin: Knowledge [Nobility and Royalty, Religion] Ranger: Knowledge [dungeoneering, geography, nature] Rogue: Decipher Script, Disable Device, Knowledge [local], Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, tumble, Use Magic Device Sorcerer: Knowledge [Arcana], Spellcraft Wizard: Decipher Script, Knowledge [any], Spellcraft Those would be the new class exclusive lists. you can not add ranks in those skills unless it is on the class you leveled in has the skill. Keeps more balance That way. Although, every class needs to with less than 4 skill points per level needs to be increased to 4+int mod per level. Is that an acceptable compromise everyone?
unundindur 08-02-07, 02:17 PM	The last one is actually just the same as I suggested, except thatI limited it to Spellcraft and Use magic device. Your suggestion makes sense.
LazyNinja 08-02-07, 02:20 PM	Why not allow all skills as class skills except the "trained only"? Like So: Barbarian: None Bard: Decipher Script, Knowledge [any], Sleight of Hand, Speak Language, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device Cleric: Knowledge [Arcana, History, Religion, the Planes], Spellcraft Druid: Knowledge [Arcana, Nature, Local], Spellcraft Fighter: fighter's don't ever get nice things in core :sad: Monk: Knowledge [Arcana, Religion], Tumble Paladin: Knowledge [Nobility and Royalty, Religion] Ranger: Knowledge [dungeoneering, geography, nature] Rogue: Decipher Script, Disable Device, Knowledge [local], Open Lock, Sleight of Hand, tumble, Use Magic Device Sorcerer: Knowledge [Arcana], Spellcraft Wizard: Decipher Script, Knowledge [any], Spellcraft Those would be the new class exclusive lists. you can not add ranks in those skills unless it is on the class you leveled in has the skill. Keeps more balance That way. Although, every class needs to with less than 4 skill points per level needs to be increased to 4+int mod per level. Is that an acceptable compromise everyone? Wait, so only Bards can ever learn a new language? And going back to 3.0 restricted skills just hurts RP, not powergamers willing to level dip. (Nothing against powergamers.)
NobodyRemembersThis 08-02-07, 02:21 PM	hmmmmmmmmmm....need to change that. :blush:
wonlee76 08-02-07, 02:34 PM	I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but if you do get rid of "cross class" skills and let a player basically pick which of his skills are "class skills" for skill point distribution, that's going to make a mess with the prestige class pre-reqs (at least the ones that require ranks in certain skills). As a DM, I don't mind giving a PC an extra class skill or two based on their PC's background (ie. Kind of like the 1st level human paragon ability to treat 1 skill as an "always" class skill no matter what class is taken) but by the same token, I would now have to either remove all prestige classes that have Skill pre-reqs or I would need to tweak the prestige classes with Skill pre-reqs so the earliest entry level would be the same. Well, I guess I'm saying is the cross-class skill system has a few purposes, one of which is the balancing of prestige class entry. Getting rid of the system will make a mess out of the prestige class entry (earlier entry or much easier entry available for certain prestige classes). Tweaking it on a PC by PC basis depending on background/flavor is an easier task to deal with.
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-02-07, 03:12 PM	I am not a player I am a DM (alas, for my sins! :D) So, power gaming is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is simplicity, logic and as one poster put it and I paraphrase "not pigeon holing characters into stupid stereotypes". As a DM, I have to make NPCs, that's a lot of work in 3red, and working out cross class drivel narks me off big time! 1 point should = 1 POIINT, what's with this 1/2 point idicoy, gah, reminds me to much of "THAC0" *cringes* I got E-Tools to help make characters, but until one of it's later patches you couldn't adjust class skills, and even with the one you can, you have to pick each class skill....I've got a life, I love makign cool characters for my player's to meet, but I have a LIFE I want to lead, not spend hours making one blasted NPC sheet. It's an added level of complexity that is deeply retarded. Back to the "cop who wants to learn first aid skills": sorry the cop doesn't have some magic curse preventing him learning first aid, he damned well can just as well as anyone else. However...he will be spending time learning other "cop" skills (Search, Sense Motive etc)..the limit, is, and only should be, how many skill points he has, and what he wishes to funnel his time and effort into, not some magical eye in the sky saying "you are gonna suck at this because your class si nto supposed to do this!". Amazingly, cops can be classical painists or whatver...you don't see folk going "Oh, he's a cop/soldier and so he's gonna be crap at painting, gardening, automotive repair etc"....give me a break ;) It's nonsense. I like multiclassing, and often have characters with Expert classes as NPCs. But there should be nothing stopping your fighter being a reasonably good sneak etc, if that's what he wants to be!! Why throw blocks in the way of character creation, which are not about "core innate abilities etc of a class"...these are SKILLS we're talking about, not spell casting, Lay on Hands etc. :)
Ornum 08-02-07, 03:36 PM	I really don't see the need to change anything, either. At least, not officially. With a few exceptions, most of the skills fit within the typical training associated with a given class. If a player wants to make a one or two skills into class skills because of the character's background ("As the son of a nobleman, my fighter should be allowed to have Diplomacy as a class skill", for instance) then said player should make their case to the DM. If a DM wants to incorporate some rules changes ("house rules", I believe), then have at it. To be honest, I make it MORE difficult when it comes to skills than even the rules state (mainly because I was unaware of a rule). In my game, what skills you can choose from depend on what class you are taking at the time. For instance, a rogue takes a level in fighter. Well, the only choices the player has are fighter class skills at a 1-for-1 basis. For that level, all other skills are considered cross-class, even though the rogue has access to other skills. My reasoning? The choice of skills for a given class represents what training is available and used on a regular basis. So, if the rogue took a level of fighter, then obviously the character spent the time to learn the abilities of a fighter and mostly ignored their rogue-ish abilities. Though the player may have used Move Silently at will during the time up to the choosing of a new class, what is RP'd is hardly everything that a character does. (There's downtime that was glossed over to be considered, too...and honestly, I tend to "encourage" players to let me know in advance they are taking another class and then have them RP accordingly up until the point that the class is added). My biggest complaint is Spot and Listen. No, it's not because it's a class skill for "Class A" and cross-classed for "Class B". My complaint is the fact that the associated ability is Wisdom. So, as a character ages, he can actually see and hear better, according to how the two skills are currently set up. Why not Constitution instead? (This has probably been discussed to death, actually).
Kyoti00 08-02-07, 04:58 PM	Let me preface this with a story of broken house rules, and the glory of playing by the system as it is intended. For a LONG time we had our own magic system. We spent years developing and refining it into a workable system. This system was based (loosely) on the rules... but it allowed pretty much anything to be made using magic. Nearly any spell of any level could be placed on any item (weapons, armor, clothing, etc) depending on the materials used. We had cloaks that could cast Darkness with perminant True Seeing, we had amulets that could heal for 250 hp when you drop to 0, swords that could teach asto-physics... in short, just about everyone in the group was a Fighter-Sorcerer-Cleric. Then we took the time to learn the real rules. In learning the real rules, as they were intended by WoTC, we came to a realization: Not everyone is supposed to be a Wizard-Monk-Cleric-Rogue. This is a multi-player game. A Fighter is not supposed to be able to spot and listen, that is the job of the Rogue or the Ranger. The Wizard is not supposed to get into melee combat, that is the job of the Fighter and Barbarian. Everyone has a job, and a specialization, that is why there are class skills and cross-class skills. That is why Fighters don't cast healing spells. When you give one class the skills or features of another it diminishes from the role of the person who choose that class to play. Afterall, why would anyone play a cleric (and no, not a full out CODzilla optimized cleric) if every other class in the group could heal full hit points 3 times in a fight? Why would anyone be a Wizard when everyone in the group can cast fireballs AND fight hand to hand too (and have decent hit points). This is a group based game, and everyone needs to play their part. Everyone has specific talents and specific purposes. If you let everyone do everything you limit the players, and IMO break the game. We just like to put it this way: There are hundreds of people that make thousands of dollars a year and spend WAY more time than us to design this stuff, they probablly have the best way of doing it.
ArcTan 08-02-07, 05:07 PM	I don't think anyone mentioned this yet, but if you do get rid of "cross class" skills and let a player basically pick which of his skills are "class skills" for skill point distribution, that's going to make a mess with the prestige class pre-reqs (at least the ones that require ranks in certain skills). I know. In general, all this is is general proof that the class system is a very rickety structure that hamstrings characters more than we like to admit.
Grand Theft Otto 08-02-07, 05:58 PM	Actually, the main reason is that someone who works at Mickey D's is a 1st-level character and a neurosurgeon is a 6th- or 7th-level character. Don't confuse the quantitative development of a character with what kind of character he is. Or you're a member of an underground cabal determined to bring about a magical revolution by infusing arcane energy into fast food, and want the widest distribution possible. I loves me some Unknown Armies.
Grand Theft Otto 08-02-07, 06:06 PM	Everyone has a job, and a specialization, that is why there are class skills and cross-class skills. Quick question. How many character classes can effectively contribute in a combat scenario. Basically all, eh? How many characters can make an effective contribution in a social situation? Why exactly is it a good idea for many people to be very ineffective or sitting on their thumbs during "talky" parts of play? What many would consider the more "role playing" part of the game?
locustechpriest 08-02-07, 06:50 PM	I appologize for taking so long to get back to you. FYI, sorcerors cannot experiment, ever, short of finding scrolls. They are innate casters, they only get a few spells, ever. Thus, they cannot "experiment" with magic, like a wizard can. Sorcerors can be born into barbarian tribes with NO arcane knowledge at all... That is a huge error in roleplaying on your part. I'm sorry if that's blunt. Sorcerers don't just *have* their spells. They spend years of trial and error, figuring out magic by practical experience. They, in essence, become their own source of knowledge. Barbarians cannot cast spells. They don't feel and experiment with magical energies. If they have no library, no laboratory, and so forth: would you trust their theories? Would you risk your life, bending world-shattering energies to the precise nuances of their speculation? What they would for is something called superstition and conjecture. Jaxgaret, so, a policeman has some magical curse in the real world that prevents him learning first aid? Soldiers similarly, have some weird hinderance to sing, speak French, or acrobatics, hm? The police academy does not offer medical training. That is what the *police officer class* tells us with it's CSL. If for some reason a certain academy provides such training, the officers don't need to go search google, expending more effort to get questionable knowledge (aka spend 2 skill points for 1 rank). Call it a medical field officer, switch up the class skills, and there you go, no longer a problem. People here keep saying, "Class skills are tyrany against roleplayers!" Well, it's not! It gives you a healthy framework to develop flavor in your character and to bring a measure of logic to the game. No one is stopping you making a minor variant and giving fighters hide and listen! I am encouraging it. Wizards is encouraging it. Everyone else who supports the class skill system is encouraging it (or insulting you for Killing something just cause it Annoys you). If you do not want to take a legitimate method of working this out, and want to forge ahead into the realm of unconstrained absurdity (Barbarians with easy spellcraft), then be my guest. You don't care, but I don't approve. :p
Kyoti00 08-02-07, 06:52 PM	Quick question. How many character classes can effectively contribute in a combat scenario. Basically all, eh? How many characters can make an effective contribution in a social situation? Why exactly is it a good idea for many people to be very ineffective or sitting on their thumbs during "talky" parts of play? What many would consider the more "role playing" part of the game? As far as role play is concerned, I try to play off of my stats. If I have a high wisdom I would be very down to earth, with a lot of common sense. If I had a high int, I would be very book smart, maybe not the best in social situations. If I had high cha I would be very polite, have good manners, very much a socialite. Now, those are just a few general examples, but they are relevent. Anyone can roleplay a character in a social setting, I don't see where skills and feats, and classes come into that. Now, if you are playing in a min/max powergamer group, yeah it probablly won't work that way, but in our group we have a fighter with an 18 int. Is it great for power gaming? No. Is it great for role play? Absolutely.
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-02-07, 07:51 PM	Quick question. How many character classes can effectively contribute in a combat scenario. Basically all, eh? How many characters can make an effective contribution in a social situation? Why exactly is it a good idea for many people to be very ineffective or sitting on their thumbs during "talky" parts of play? What many would consider the more "role playing" part of the game? EXACTLY! I dont' expect a fighter to be as good as a bard at social skils, in general, but I see no reason why he can't be as good at one or maybe 2 skills if he so desires to specialize...or buy a little of many skills for utility/RP and ot be half way useful outside of battle. It's not because the fighter should be penalized (cross class), it's because the bard's prime stat is Charisma (so generally better at it), and, bards are a heavily SKILL based class, so get more skill points...thus, in general, the bard should have a better skill set..not because the fighter is soemhow deliberately gimped ot make him a dumb grunt, OMFG that's annoying... -Trajan, Leonidas, and many others, charismatic skills = high, were they bards/rogues, hm? Other RL folk in one walk of life or another had lots of odd skills too. Soldiers who were writers. Doctors who were atheletes and so on. -In our game other week, player's decided to talk to one fire giant, who was wavering about what to do, in hopes of talking him out of it, which was cool in regards to the scenario (giant was a bystander in a plot by other giants to kill the PCs who were guests, circumstances were odd). -However, the character's ability to use Diplomacy skill, sucked: cleric only gets 2 points level, barbarian doesn't have it as a class skill (so with about 10 Int iirc, he doens't have skill points to blow on things that cost x2 as much as they should!) nor does the wizard have it as a class skill (who likes being "the face man"): what utter *hairy male spheres!* :D -So I decided, stuff the rules, roll decently and the giant will remain non hostile. (they got a good roll I'm happy to report). That bugged me. Locustechpriest, no one says a cop can't take paramedic training in his spare time, hm? Would it improve his "cop" skills, probably not, would it help save the lives of fellow cops and civilains, perhaps, would it be a useful thing, probably. Such an officer would perhaps dangerous situations better, direclty, but largely indireclty (knowing you've got a team member who can save your ass improves morale, hm?) it's just a SKILL, there's nothing magical preventing learning it, just time, effort. Some folk obvisuly spend their time learning things to the exclusion of some skills, a boxer for example spends more time/effort training, than he does reading...generally...so for D&D equivalent, you could say "fighter, gets less skill points, than a rogue, who's life is mostly about learning/practicing non-combat skills"...no one says the boxer can't learn to be sneaky or pick locks in RL! But in a fight he just doggedly beats his oppent face to face...not backstab, so he's not multi-class. Why should he have some penalty to learn to open locks, rather than simple obvious fact he doesn't have the time to do so to a high degree of proficiency, like a jewel thief? ie, skill point totals are what should be the point here: rogues/bards/experts should be the most skillful, that's what they do! SKILLS. :)
Mojo_Rat 08-02-07, 08:35 PM	Most of these arguments are pointless. If a Player with a barbarian character wants his char to be good at spellcraft there is a /feat/ he can take to make it a class skilll. there is also I think a feat that allows you to purchase all cross class skills 1 for 1. Its all easy to get around. But Barbarian should not be able to learn spellcraft as well as a wizard without at least giving something up (like a feat)
Twylyght 08-02-07, 08:45 PM	Hmm one thing my group is experimenting with in our current game is removing the rank limit on CC skills while keeping the increased cost. So with enough effort, that barbarian can be just as good at spellcraft rolls as the wizard. The increased cost in skillpoints still represents the "extra effort" needed to learn something so far removed from his core ablilities. Also Listen and Spot we have made class skills for everyone. In addition like the above mentioned Human Paragon, each character is allowed to select a a single "Background Skill". That skill is always treated as a class skill, and they get a untyped +1 bonus on the checks.
unundindur 08-02-07, 09:10 PM	Most of these arguments are pointless. If a Player with a barbarian character wants his char to be good at spellcraft there is a /feat/ he can take to make it a class skilll. there is also I think a feat that allows you to purchase all cross class skills 1 for 1. Its all easy to get around. But Barbarian should not be able to learn spellcraft as well as a wizard without at least giving something up (like a feat) Well, to gain "roleplay-bonuses" you thus should trade very important feats, which you would otherwise use to keep up with the rest of the party balancewise? Again I have to refer to my previous posts in this thread that none ever responded to...
unundindur 08-02-07, 09:21 PM	In learning the real rules, as they were intended by WoTC, we came to a realization: Not everyone is supposed to be a Wizard-Monk-Cleric-Rogue. No, but some are (notably the wizard/monk/cleric/rogue ;). This is a multi-player game. A Fighter is not supposed to be able to spot and listen, that is the job of the Rogue or the Ranger. The Wizard is not supposed to get into melee combat, that is the job of the Fighter and Barbarian. Now where did jobs come from? If you look at it as a coop-game on a computer then yes. If you look at DnD as the backbone of a fantasy-realism world then I have to disagree strongly. The rules are here to support ideas, and make alll the crazy ideas people have relatively balanced toward each other. As I have said earlier, the other job fo the engine (DnD rules) is to allow for as many concepts as possible within the frame that is again the rules. Class skills limit this choice for no apparent balancing reason (you could say PrC requirements, but that is a fault of the requirement system, not the skills). One shouldnt say that a fighter shouldnt spot because its not on his class skill list, one should ask why on earth those skills are not on his class skill list? Where did the archer go? Perhaps he was kicked into the ranger class, just to give that class some meaning (again, horrible reason). Everyone has a job, and a specialization, that is why there are class skills and cross-class skills. That is why Fighters don't cast healing spells. When you give one class the skills or features of another it diminishes from the role of the person who choose that class to play. Afterall, why would anyone play a cleric (and no, not a full out CODzilla optimized cleric) if every other class in the group could heal full hit points 3 times in a fight? Why would anyone be a Wizard when everyone in the group can cast fireballs AND fight hand to hand too (and have decent hit points). So you quite simply say that a group must have the four stereotypes of MMOs? Tank, nuke, healer and since its DnD a trapper. Again if I am right I have to say thats an extremely narrow approach to DnD. In my gorup no one wants to be a cleric for a different reason; no one like them flavourwise. And the last example is a balancing issue, as opposed to the class-skill discussion. This is a group based game, and everyone needs to play their part. Everyone has specific talents and specific purposes. If you let everyone do everything you limit the players, and IMO break the game. Yes, if you let people do anything that interfere with balance, which I cannot see how this does. We just like to put it this way: There are hundreds of people that make thousands of dollars a year and spend WAY more time than us to design this stuff, they probablly have the best way of doing it. Well...I say druid to that :cool:
StalkerEntreri 08-02-07, 09:32 PM	ok, I've had enough.... the concept of "cross class skills" is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D!!! Gah!!!!! *he screams* :D Look, say your character is a dwarven legionaire, a tough as nails fighter. He does some stealthy stuff, like listening at choke points for enemies...sneaking behind enemy lines, but, he's not expert at it, his "bag" is mostly straight up fighting, he is not a fighter/rogue. -So, he should have Listen as a "class" skill, pretty damned obviously, hm? But he doesn't..why? Because the rules say fighters can't have it!! -The rules also say, fighters have Ride and Jump and Swim, as class skills. Now, pray tell me, why, our example dwarf, who is, like most dwarves, scared stiff of deep water, and considers horses good eating, be "good at" Swimming and Ride, eh?! So, here's my suggestion: ditch the idea of class skills entirely. It will also make MY job, as DM, a hell of a sight easier when making multiple NPCs. Characters should be defined at what they are good at, by how THE PLAYER OR DM assigns their skills, not some arbitrary nonsense like: "Oh, you can only be good at X, Y or Z because it says so in the Player's Handbook!" Other suggestion: increase all classes skill points by +2. As folk often point out, the amount characters get is too little, except for min/maxed rogues/bards and maybe wizards. Give me a break, clerics and fighters are not all inbred retards who have trouble organizing a stamp collection, jeesh :uh-huh: Of course, monsters would also need a similar boost of +2/HD. What would be a fair, quick & simple way to add this to existing monster stats for us hard worked DMs: just add +2 onto each skill the creature has, or something else? (I'm not talking accurate, I mean something I don't have to write down on every damned monster manual page, lol) :) Why don't you do what it does in the Generic classes in the Unearthed Arcana, have it so that each class has a number of skills to choose as class skills, it doesn't get rid of Class skills, but it's more what you want
Meikle_641 08-02-07, 09:53 PM	In one of my former DM's campaign settings, de did this house rule (copies from the file): "The concept of class skills have been liquidated. All skills, save those below, are considered class skills for all classes. The following skills remain class skills for a specific class or classes in parentheses. All other classes may take these skills as typical cross-class. Disable Device (Rogue) Disguise (Rogue and Bard) Forgery (Rogue) Open Lock (Rogue) Spellcraft (Wizard and Sorcerer) Sleight of Hand (Rogue and Bard)" I wasn't around for very long, but it does help some, I think. Of course, I'd probably just do the Able Learner effect, but either way is neat. On a side note, I'm fairly certain that cops, much like soldiers at least get basic first aid training, people. Hell, I know firemen do. Edit: or perhaps you could have the +2/+2 feats let you add the skills as class skills, or whatever.
Dragoncat 08-02-07, 11:08 PM	Barbarian Appraise- Let's face it. Hordes take up a lot of space. Krogath is very keen to note the quality of all gems he collects, the markings of the various coins and their correspondence to the power of any given kingdom, and the substance of each art object plundered to ensure maximum earnings. Krogath likes earnings. Balance- How on earth can you possibly survive the rope bridges of Chaku'thak while fighting off the harpy beasts using only moose antlers without knowing how to balance. Using two logs and a vine, Krogath makes sure to practice every day, lest the harpies best him when he seeks the Eye of Ni'deen. Diplomacy- Leading a clan is serious business. Negotiating with rival clans, keeping the warriors in line, trying to convince your son to settle down, marry a nice girl, kill a few villages, and have some grandchildren, all tend to pile up on the mind. The barbarian is a savage, but he knows the ways of the primal heart, those deep desires and understandings within us all. To these, he appeals with motivational fervor, and his clan follows. Heal- Krogath lives off the land, an independent soul. When he is hit by an arrow, bitten by a serpent, or suffering from heat stroke, he is the only one he can rely upon, and he knows his physical form best. Using the substances of the land, he is well versed in caring for himself, and can use that knowledge to assist others. Hide- Every good ambush relies on the guile of all within it. Every warrior from knee-height up knows that the Horned Pekpek requires cunning to slay, and everyone within the ambush party must be expert stalkers. A single misstep, a cracked twig, and the beast is away in an instant, the plunder of its horn and hide gone for the next moon. Krogath has snuck up on wild animals, Lesser Pekpeks, siblings, opponents, and even the leader to hone his stalking prowess. Perform- The Dance of the Four winds is an ancient rite, passed down by the skalds through the ages. Learn well the story, young one, for one day you shall be called to pass it on to the next generation. Profession- The raiders on the coast are barbarians, true, but their sailing skills are unmatched. By the time their infants can walk, they already know how to steer a small craft, and their fishing and marine skills only grow from there. No one knows the coast better, nor can any ship outclass their simple yet effective vessels. Speak Language- Krogath has traveled far, pillaging many tombs, battling many beasts, visiting many lands. His travels have taught him a hundred different ways of saying "Shiny object", "Get out of my inn", "My apologies, I did not know she was your daughter", "Ale", and "He split the trader in two with an axe!". Spellcraft- Watch the shaman. See how he intones the ancestral spirit's favor, how each prayer is a unique form. A barbarian's greatest threat comes not from the opposing bulette, but from the nefarious wielder of the arcane, the beguiler who will twist the warrior's soul right through his iron defense. Watch their movement, the whisper from their lips, and you shall find your target amongst the fields of opponents. Spot- You see that bird, Krogath? No, that one, the one across the field? Damn it, lad, how are you going to catch anything if you can't find the damn bird? Use Magic Device- The ancestral totems require focus and devotion to wield. Created for warriors long past, their wielders today must place themselves in the spirit of their ancestors, taking on their form, mannerisms, ideals, for the items to accept them. Much focus is required, as is communion with the spirits of old. Use Rope- It's a rope. It's not that bloody complicated. Korgath can learn to tie knots if Korgath damn well wishes to. Wizard Heal- Anatomy 101 covers the basics of the physiology of most beings, along with simple remedies and mundane formula for their manipulation, usually for a positive result. After the severe burns suffered in the last evocation lecture, it was decided for the curriculum to teach basic survival on par with the destructive capability of the course. Hide- 1d4 hit points. How on earth do you think the average level 1 wizard survives? Open Lock- Mechanics are not especially tricky when you can understand and manipulate the clockwork spires of a chronolaboratory with your thoughts. All are a matter of applied leverage, a good understanding of friction coefficients and tensile strength to the trained practitioner. Perform- Pyrotechnics. Next please. Sense Motive- The common diviner must sometimes rely on the basics of discerning fact and fiction, the mannerisms by which an individual reveals they are lying. Although formulaic, the methods of the wizard can be applied, scrutinizing not only the exact wording of the subject, but also the common signature of deception in posture and inflection. Sleight Of Hand- Manipulating spell components for a living tends to give one an affinity for the movement of small objects unnoticed. Any decent conjurer will tell you how important being able to extract the right hair from the left pocket of the inner seam of the bag while dodging fiery breath is to the average wizard. Applying this study to the art of thievery is not a significant stretch of the intellect. Speak Language- Having consorted with elementals, demons, celestials, Far Realm beings who tend to break in to your sanctum, various creatures from Sigil, and everything in between, learning dwarven just isn't all that difficult anymore. The theories of linguistics hold true across the planes, and grammar and structure come easily to those so well practiced in the formula arcane. Use Magic Device- With a grasp not only of the common components of spells and their inscriptions but also the underlying theories of magic, a practiced wizard can grasp the basic thread of power that binds all items together, creating the vital connection that allows all magical forces coalesced into a material form to function. Arcane, divine, psionic, all follow the same formula, and the input of the mage can be adjusted to trigger any effect. Use Rope- Your mind can harness the latent abilities of the magical spectrum unnoticed to all but the sharpest wit and keenest senses, but you can't figure out a piece of string? What the hell kind of genius are you? I think the biggest problem is not simply skill lists, but the fact that each class is assumed to have a specific theme. A barbarian, to use the example often provided, is often considered a brute, and therefore gets few skills. What about the skalds, the viking sailers, the beastmasters, those individuals who are used to furious, strength-based combat, but have other skills they employ on other occassions? Enchanters, summoners, and diviners are completely different themes, with various styles and mannerisms, which should change their skill emphasis(which, by the by, is another reason psions are more intereting). Why should their dedication to any given skill be less rewarding than the exact same commitment of skill points of another profession? For example, a cleric and paladin growing up in a temple together can have an equal understanding of religious lore, diplomacy, and medicine, yet if both, with equal stats and heritage, try to learn how to tame and train dogs, something that is covered in the portfolio of neither of the two, the paladin will learn faster than the cleric. A druid and a ranger can roam the wilderness together, but the latter will always have an edge in climbing a cliff face, because he simply picks it up faster. The bard and rogue can be partners in crime, but the one more focused on language and song picks up forgery with less grace than his counterpart. If you assume all the classes are a single archetype, the class skills work to some degree. When you try to diversify them, however, things become complicated. In theory, equal effort should have equal reward, and classes should bolster their favored skills rather than constrain others through the use of skill bonuses, synergies with class abilities, or other modifiers. Wishful thinking, unfortunately.
Nom 08-02-07, 11:21 PM	The issue is simplicity, logic and as one poster put it and I paraphrase "not pigeon holing characters into stupid stereotypes".But that's exactly what a class-based system is supposed to do. "I'm an X, so I'm good at Y and bad at Z". Skills are part of the package, in the same way as BAB or BSB is. There are two important design issues here: * Skills allow customisability. Rather than every (say) rogue being equally good at the same set of abilities, each rogue chooses 8+ abilities that he will specialise in. * Cross-class skills allow you to dabble in someone else's speciality. The cross-class skill mechanic is exactly equivalent to the half-BAB mechanic, except that you can choose whether you want to use it. BAB is fundamental enough that everyone gets it. I do admit that cross-class skills get a bit quirky when mutliclassing (which is how you are supposed to do hybrid stuff in a classed system). The skill point mechanics allow you to trade off a smooth progression for getting more "value for money" from your skill points. Now, there's something to be said for a generic system, where skills become just another feature. There's also something to be said for "unskilled" scaling with level (as per Saga Edition, rather than fixed at 0). But expecting generic skills combined with classed everything else is misunderstanding the fundamental system design.
Someone 08-03-07, 02:58 AM	But that's exactly what a class-based system is supposed to do. "I'm an X, so I'm good at Y and bad at Z". Skills are part of the package, in the same way as BAB or BSB is.I completely agree, and would add: if you don't like the fighter class's class skills, there's probably a different core class (or PrC) for that. A character doesn't need a single level in the fighter class to call themselves a "fighter".
Dog_O_War 08-03-07, 03:04 AM	...Er...yeah, what the guy who corrected me said about max cross class ranks (appearently I need to read my PHB). What you guys are arguing is that you want to change the way classes work because you disagree with how they're presented. They don't fit your views on how the class system should work. DnD is not the most awesome, perfectly balanced system. It has flaws like all things, which in my opinion is more exciting than having an "ultimate" system where you can pick everything and be good at it. Yes fighters are 'reactors' as a previous poster said; that is why the ranger and the rogue are there in the party to back him up, to warn him of impending danger, so he can be around to take hits for them. Every class has it's strengths and it's weaknesses, and it is up to you to roll with it, work around it, and beat it through better playing. Is it fair to the rogue, who is a third the warrior the fighter is, to only have even odds hiding against an opponent who can beat him in a staight on fight of an even level? Not where I'm sitting. Not every rogue has his hide skill maxed out; they're not all hide and sneak thieves. What if the fighter had hide and sneak as class skills because you said in your background that your fighter lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and had to use these skills every day just to survive? Do you think that justifies a change in the list? What then of the sorcerer who had to engage in heated melee combat everyday since he was young because he was a slave, and the others didn't like him? A full fighters' BaB for him? What I am trying to say (and mean no insult when saying it) is that you desire the people at wizards to change something they spent thousands of hours play-testing, because it erks you that it doesn't mesh with your backstory that the character is an awesome listener (or any skill for that matter), despite his character class. This sounds a bit whiny. Your efforts and all of the other posters of this thread would have been better off if you had asked what a fair balance would be to modify one of the current classes to better suit your needs. Besides, it wouldn't matter if your DM doesn't go for in the end, eh?
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:43 AM	...Er...yeah, what the guy who corrected me said about max cross class ranks (appearently I need to read my PHB). What you guys are arguing is that you want to change the way classes work because you disagree with how they're presented. They don't fit your views on how the class system should work. DnD is not the most awesome, perfectly balanced system. It has flaws like all things, which in my opinion is more exciting than having an "ultimate" system where you can pick everything and be good at it. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's not put "D&D is a flawed system" and "D&D is a system with character niche protection based on limited resources" in the same basket, here. D&D is a *flawed system*. It is flawed at doing what it claims to be trying to do, which is let you create characters using limited resources that have to give up being good at one thing to be good at another thing, but still characters where you can basically make something up out of whole cloth and make a character fit it. There's a wide gulf between "I don't have to pick one of 12 basic character types" and "I can make my character absolutely competent at everything". A big one.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 04:45 AM	The police academy does not offer medical training. That is what the *police officer class* tells us with it's CSL. If for some reason a certain academy provides such training, the officers don't need to go search google, expending more effort to get questionable knowledge (aka spend 2 skill points for 1 rank). Call it a medical field officer, switch up the class skills, and there you go, no longer a problem. I'm reminded why it's incredibly nice that d20 Modern simply has "Profession: Police Officer" or "Profession: Doctor" rather than a "Police Officer" or "Doctor" class. Yeah, there's still class and cross-class skills for their "Strong Hero" and "Tough Hero" and "Fast Hero" classes, but now it feels just a little bit less annoying. (Maybe part of it is not getting arbitrarily punished for taking the mix of classes I want.)
High Octane 08-03-07, 04:58 AM	ok, I've had enough.... the concept of "cross class skills" is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D!!! Gah!!!!! *he screams* :D I pretty much stopped here.
Eerongal 08-03-07, 09:46 AM	...Er...yeah, what the guy who corrected me said about max cross class ranks (appearently I need to read my PHB). That was me, and no problem. I used to do it the exact way you said before until i was also corrected on it. :P What you guys are arguing is that you want to change the way classes work because you disagree with how they're presented. They don't fit your views on how the class system should work. DnD is not the most awesome, perfectly balanced system. It has flaws like all things, which in my opinion is more exciting than having an "ultimate" system where you can pick everything and be good at it. Yes fighters are 'reactors' as a previous poster said; that is why the ranger and the rogue are there in the party to back him up, to warn him of impending danger, so he can be around to take hits for them. Every class has it's strengths and it's weaknesses, and it is up to you to roll with it, work around it, and beat it through better playing. Is it fair to the rogue, who is a third the warrior the fighter is, to only have even odds hiding against an opponent who can beat him in a staight on fight of an even level? Not where I'm sitting. Not every rogue has his hide skill maxed out; they're not all hide and sneak thieves. What if the fighter had hide and sneak as class skills because you said in your background that your fighter lives in a very dangerous part of the world, and had to use these skills every day just to survive? Do you think that justifies a change in the list? What then of the sorcerer who had to engage in heated melee combat everyday since he was young because he was a slave, and the others didn't like him? A full fighters' BaB for him? What I am trying to say (and mean no insult when saying it) is that you desire the people at wizards to change something they spent thousands of hours play-testing, because it erks you that it doesn't mesh with your backstory that the character is an awesome listener (or any skill for that matter), despite his character class. This sounds a bit whiny. Your efforts and all of the other posters of this thread would have been better off if you had asked what a fair balance would be to modify one of the current classes to better suit your needs. Besides, it wouldn't matter if your DM doesn't go for in the end, eh? personally, i pretty much agree with everything you've said here. I don't think that classes should be changed just because someone has a roleplaying justification, instead their character should be built more towards what you want, regardless of how if effects you character power-wise. If it gimps you to play a character to fit your idea of him, that's fine with me, i would still play him/her to their dying breath.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-03-07, 09:58 AM	As far as the fighter goes, just give him the following level 3 ability (an empty level, by the way): Adaptability At level 3, the fighter selects 2 skills to add to the fighter's list of class skills. Additionally, the fighter gains 1 additional skill point when gaining levels 3-20; effectively changing his skillpoints per level to 3+Does this work for you?
Grand Theft Otto 08-03-07, 10:02 AM	I appologize for taking so long to get back to you. That is a huge error in roleplaying on your part. I'm sorry if that's blunt. Sorcerers don't just *have* their spells. They spend years of trial and error, figuring out magic by practical experience. They, in essence, become their own source of knowledge. No they dont. They get enough exp in a week and dump the next level in sorcerer. Class and levels in D&D work very different for PC's than NPC's if you run it by the rules. What kind of loser gets to be a 3rd level fighter in 25 years? Thats about 3 months of killing orcs and taking their stuff! :D
Grand Theft Otto 08-03-07, 10:04 AM	As far as role play is concerned, I try to play off of my stats. If I have a high wisdom I would be very down to earth, with a lot of common sense. If I had a high int, I would be very book smart, maybe not the best in social situations. If I had high cha I would be very polite, have good manners, very much a socialite. Now, those are just a few general examples, but they are relevent. Anyone can roleplay a character in a social setting, I don't see where skills and feats, and classes come into that. I completely agree that you can RP without a single social stat. I'm just tossing that out there because many consider "social encounters" to be "RP encounters". Regardless, my point stands. Everyone can pretty much contribute well to combat. Not everyone can make a difference in a social encounter. Class skills are that barrier (and gimp classes with a measly 2 skill points/level).
elondir 08-03-07, 10:05 AM	Human Factotum 1 + Able Learner = this is no longer a problem. Try the SAGA skill rules. I've heard they rock. Or go back to the old days and use secondary skills.
Kyoti00 08-03-07, 12:24 PM	I completely agree that you can RP without a single social stat. I'm just tossing that out there because many consider "social encounters" to be "RP encounters". Regardless, my point stands. Everyone can pretty much contribute well to combat. Not everyone can make a difference in a social encounter. Class skills are that barrier (and gimp classes with a measly 2 skill points/level). So it sounds like this issue you have is not that cross-claas skills are retarded as the OP said, but that some classes get too few skills per level. And I 100% agree with that. And this is not directed at you Otto, but at many of the post I have read on this. I guess I am just a snob ellitist role player talking to a majority of power gamers. When I set out to play D&D I build a character. I make a personality, with goals and asperations, fears and short comings, loves and hates, I don't build a class and then try and fit a character around my stats. We have actually had players in our group who try ro justify stats, and gear through a backstory and it is just frustrating as a DM and as a player. As far as I am concerned "My Barbarian lived in a harsh part of the world, he did a lot of sneaking around and hiding, so he should have hide and move silent as class skills" sounds to me like "Blah, blah, blah, my Barbarian had to live as a Ranger for a few years". I am really not trying to be a jerk, but if we all dig down deep I think most of us can admit that we are just building a character around stats instead of building stats around a character as this ellitist role player believes this game was intended. If you just want to kill stuff, I think you will get a lot more enjoyment out of DDO,WoW, EQ2, or any other hack-and-slash MMO.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 01:36 PM	As far as I am concerned "My Barbarian lived in a harsh part of the world, he did a lot of sneaking around and hiding, so he should have hide and move silent as class skills" sounds to me like "Blah, blah, blah, my Barbarian had to live as a Ranger for a few years". I am really not trying to be a jerk, but if we all dig down deep I think most of us can admit that we are just building a character around stats instead of building stats around a character as this ellitist role player believes this game was intended. I don't agree with this at all. I think someone is totally entitled to look at their character sheet and say "Well, this doesn't match what I pictured when I imagined my character at all!", and blame the fact that if they want a Barbarian they have to have exactly what a Barbarian is supposed to have in its class desc. D&D simply isn't flexible enough to accommodate a lot of the characters people think up, and that's a problem.
Kyoti00 08-03-07, 02:02 PM	I don't agree with this at all. I think someone is totally entitled to look at their character sheet and say "Well, this doesn't match what I pictured when I imagined my character at all!", and blame the fact that if they want a Barbarian they have to have exactly what a Barbarian is supposed to have in its class desc. D&D simply isn't flexible enough to accommodate a lot of the characters people think up, and that's a problem. I think this goes back to the point that was made earlier. Why should a Barbarian be able to hide as well as a Rogue? And more to the player side: Why should the DM's innane Fighter guards be able to have a spot and listen high enough to find your Rogue? It is all about game balance. And yeah it's not perfect, but it's good.
ArcTan 08-03-07, 02:12 PM	I think this goes back to the point that was made earlier. Why should a Barbarian be able to hide as well as a Rogue? And more to the player side: Why should the DM's innane Fighter guards be able to have a spot and listen high enough to find your Rogue? It is all about game balance. And yeah it's not perfect, but it's good. I get that this is a form of balance. I disagree that it's "good".
NobodyRemembersThis 08-03-07, 02:25 PM	And no thoughts on either of my posts - again ;_;
Dog_O_War 08-03-07, 04:08 PM	As far as I am concerned "My Barbarian lived in a harsh part of the world, he did a lot of sneaking around and hiding, so he should have hide and move silent as class skills" sounds to me like "Blah, blah, blah, my Barbarian had to live as a Ranger for a few years". I am really not trying to be a jerk, but if we all dig down deep I think most of us can admit that we are just building a character around stats instead of building stats around a character as this ellitist role player believes this game was intended. If you just want to kill stuff, I think you will get a lot more enjoyment out of DDO,WoW, EQ2, or any other hack-and-slash MMO. Hmm...I am a very rigid person when it comes to the rules, as the games I've played in usually had overpowering house-ruled stuff that no one but the DM and maybe one other player were aware of. But my arguement was not for building stats around a character, mine was taking the bad with the good, investing in skills that may be cross-class because it is something you want your character (under his current class) to be good at. He may not be and elven ranger with maxed listen and spot, or a halfling rogue with hide and move silently to the roof, but he's better than the fighter sneaking with no ranks, or the cleric with no listen, that's for sure.
navar100 08-03-07, 05:13 PM	Everyone has a job, and a specialization, that is why there are class skills and cross-class skills. That is why Fighters don't cast healing spells. When you give one class the skills or features of another it diminishes from the role of the person who choose that class to play. Afterall, why would anyone play a cleric (and no, not a full out CODzilla optimized cleric) if every other class in the group could heal full hit points 3 times in a fight? Why would anyone be a Wizard when everyone in the group can cast fireballs AND fight hand to hand too (and have decent hit points). This is a group based game, and everyone needs to play their part. Everyone has specific talents and specific purposes. If you let everyone do everything you limit the players, and IMO break the game. We just like to put it this way: There are hundreds of people that make thousands of dollars a year and spend WAY more time than us to design this stuff, they probablly have the best way of doing it. Or you're a member of an underground cabal determined to bring about a magical revolution by infusing arcane energy into fast food, and want the widest distribution possible. I loves me some Unknown Armies. In addition: Not to mention watch duty. While not every encounter on watch will be of someone or something with high Move Silently and/or Hide modifiers, but those who don't have high Listen and/or Spot will have a hard time. D&D is a group game. That is good, but it's ok for there to be some things everyone can do rather equally well given they choose to do so. Skills should be one of those things. Some characters will still be better than others at some skills due to more skill points and the greater need of the skill for their class. A "skill-monkey" will still be the "skill-monkey" because he will be competent in the more skills while other classes will be competent only in particular skills, similar to dedicated warriors having the best BAB but there are still classes with 3/4 BAB who can be competent warriors in their own right.
navar100 08-03-07, 05:15 PM	As far as role play is concerned, I try to play off of my stats. If I have a high wisdom I would be very down to earth, with a lot of common sense. If I had a high int, I would be very book smart, maybe not the best in social situations. If I had high cha I would be very polite, have good manners, very much a socialite. Now, those are just a few general examples, but they are relevent. Anyone can roleplay a character in a social setting, I don't see where skills and feats, and classes come into that. Now, if you are playing in a min/max powergamer group, yeah it probablly won't work that way, but in our group we have a fighter with an 18 int. Is it great for power gaming? No. Is it great for role play? Absolutely. Stormwind!
Jaxgaret 08-03-07, 05:22 PM	I don't agree with this at all. I think someone is totally entitled to look at their character sheet and say "Well, this doesn't match what I pictured when I imagined my character at all!", and blame the fact that if they want a Barbarian they have to have exactly what a Barbarian is supposed to have in its class desc. D&D simply isn't flexible enough to accommodate a lot of the characters people think up, and that's a problem. I think part of what you are missing is that Barbarian != barbarian. You can have a Ranger character who is for all intents and purposes a barbarian. You can also have a Barbarian character who calls himself a woodsman. If you want to change the class skills of the Barbarian class, or alter them for a specific character build, feel free to do so in your game as a houserule. Exchanging class skills on a skill-by-skill basis at certain ratio, with DM approval, should be fine. This doesn't mean that you have to push your opinion of cross-class skills at other people in a holier-than-thou manner. I.E. "If you think the way D&D presents cross-class skills is fine, then you're a dipstick." This is not directed at you specifically, ArcTan, but rather at any of the posters in this thread who espoused something similar.
navar100 08-03-07, 05:36 PM	In one of my former DM's campaign settings, de did this house rule (copies from the file): "The concept of class skills have been liquidated. All skills, save those below, are considered class skills for all classes. The following skills remain class skills for a specific class or classes in parentheses. All other classes may take these skills as typical cross-class. Disable Device (Rogue) Disguise (Rogue and Bard) Forgery (Rogue) Open Lock (Rogue) Spellcraft (Wizard and Sorcerer) Sleight of Hand (Rogue and Bard)" I wasn't around for very long, but it does help some, I think. Of course, I'd probably just do the Able Learner effect, but either way is neat. On a side note, I'm fairly certain that cops, much like soldiers at least get basic first aid training, people. Hell, I know firemen do. Edit: or perhaps you could have the +2/+2 feats let you add the skills as class skills, or whatever. I disagree Forgery should be rogue only. Part of the skill is also to recognize a Forgery. While it is true a "rogue" can be Honest and True like a paladin, the desire of the skill to recognize a forgery isn't limited to a rogue class. The stereotype would be the leader of an army battallion receiving written orders.
KirkBb 08-03-07, 05:38 PM	I can definitely see a case for some of the class skills to be given to everybody, but you have to remember, some of them may be present as a balancing factor. For example, Use Magic Device is a very potent skill, I can see it being granted to only the classes that originally possesed it because of balance.
navar100 08-03-07, 05:46 PM	I think this goes back to the point that was made earlier. Why should a Barbarian be able to hide as well as a Rogue? And more to the player side: Why should the DM's innane Fighter guards be able to have a spot and listen high enough to find your Rogue? It is all about game balance. And yeah it's not perfect, but it's good. 1) So the barbarian can set up ambushes against the enemy. 2) They're guards. They're supposed to be able to notice sneaky people trying to break into whatever it is they're guarding.
SilentOne 08-03-07, 06:05 PM	Barbarian ambushing someone would probably not make high use of the Hide skill, but rather just get total concealment somehow by blending themselves into the wild, true ambush style. Not "I hide behind the tree the pop out", but "I'm hiding in a hole in the ground, covered by branches and leaves, and when they pass by I pop up, screaming bloody murder". And even then, barbarian ambushing someone's not using barbarian skills, they're using ranger skills (see Hide in Plain sight, Hide as a class skill, etc that the ranger gets. It's what they do). And for guards, if I put a man at a door to a house with no other points of entry besides some windows locked from the inside (unpickable), he doesn't need to spot the thief to stop him from getting in, he needs to bash him in the head when he tries to get through the door he's standing next to. The listen DC to hear breaking glass on a still night isn't that high, and they can still cross-class to be slightly better than the standard fighter at hearing and seeing, thus giving the reason why they'd be hired instead of others for the job. If you want a guard that just patrols around and tries to spot people sneaking in to the grounds, again, go for a ranger. They train to find animals hiding in the wild, they can find humans hiding in the city, etc. Town guards don't spot, they guard. They protect stuff, they stand in place, they prevent people from getting by if they need to. They're not required to spot people hiding though. That's for bounty hunters they hire.
Dog_O_War 08-03-07, 06:16 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by Kyoti00 I think this goes back to the point that was made earlier. Why should a Barbarian be able to hide as well as a Rogue? And more to the player side: Why should the DM's innane Fighter guards be able to have a spot and listen high enough to find your Rogue? It is all about game balance. And yeah it's not perfect, but it's good. 1) So the barbarian can set up ambushes against the enemy. 2) They're guards. They're supposed to be able to notice sneaky people trying to break into whatever it is they're guarding. 1. The prerequisite of the hide skill is not linked with being able to hide, only that one has cover - hide and ambushes are not inclusive to each other, only the element of suprise and ambushes are 2. They are most likely guards because of job availablity, spot and listen bonus (as in a fighter with a 10 wis and no ranks VS a fighter with a 12 wis and 2 ranks in each, as well as the alertness feat), or proficiency ( a country at war for example might draft most of the qualified guards of a city, leaving new recruits and volenteers to fill the gap). Besides most guards are warriors, a NPC class. If you're trying to say then that NPC warriors spot and listen should rival those of the PC rogue, giving him only even odds at best to hide and move silently (not taking into account that there will most likely be multiple spotters) without super specializing, then I would most definately not enjoy what ever games, so unduely stacked, you play in.
Dog_O_War 08-03-07, 06:27 PM	If you still insist that the classes are not 'up to snuff' as far as skills go, then take a look at complete arcana pages 76-78 for the generic classes. Try talking your DM into allowing these (I suggest self imposed restrictions coupled to them) because by the sounds of it OP, this is exactly what you are looking for.
Nom 08-03-07, 11:48 PM	2) They're guards. They're supposed to be able to notice sneaky people trying to break into whatever it is they're guarding.No, they're supposed to present a clear physical barrier and deterrent to those who would break in, and act as a mobile response in case of such an attempt. If you want active anti-sneak activity, then you need a few characters with good perception skills (eg levels in ranger or rogue) who can direct the muscle to the right place if a sneak-thief is spotted. Basically, Spot counters Hide, and Listen counters Move Silently. If every guard and his dog can have as many ranks in "spot sneaky guy" as the master sneak can in "sneak", then you've massively devalued the stealth skills. Class skills are things you are potentially expert in. Now, while a fighter can "specialise as a non-specialist" by choosing Spot as one of the skills to max out, the 2-1 trade provides a strong disincentive against doing this. Thus leading to the "all or nothing" issue that Saga Editions 1/2 CL + specials seeks to address. One could also allow cross-class skills to be purchased 1-1 while retaining the cap, but this makes things messy for multiclass (you should calculate the cap by summing the contributions for each class after accounting for the +3 at level 0) and doesn't solve the issue that the rate of advancement for a maximum class skill is double that of a cross class. Class vs cross-class at level 1 is minor. Class vs cross-class at level 20 is massive. Though I still haven't figured out a clean way to retrofit the Saga skill system to D&D. I'm thinking that it's probably something along the lines of base 1/2 CL + ability mod, and allowing a certain number of "skill picks" in class skills per level (eg a rogue might get 2 at 1st and 1 thereafter, while a fighter gets 1 at 1,3,5...). The first pick would make the skill "trained" and grant a +5, while additional picks on a single skill would grant conditional bonuses or rerolls. An alternative way, that is slightly more multiclass-friendly, is to grant 1 skill pick at each odd level that can be spent on any skill that is a class skill for any class you currently have, with the limitation that no class can be granted more picks than it has levels. Certain classes (eg rogue, bard, ranger) would get additional picks as class features.
navar100 08-04-07, 05:03 PM	The idea is, if there were no such thing as "class skills", then guards could have high Spot and Listen skills. However, since by RAW they usually don't, that's where you have to justify it by saying they are just NPC mooks who needed the job. Given I'm playing a rogue in a game with no class skills, I'd be rightly proper to complain if every single "guard" I come across has high Spot and Listen to foil me, just as I would complain if every monster was an undead, elemental, plant, or construct. All NPC statistics are designed by DM fiat. Yes, there are rules to govern them, but the DM decides what they have when he creates them for that particular moment they appear on stage. For someone on guard duty, 99.9% of the time they won't be seen again. He might have Skill Focus (Spot) for all a player would know. For a player, though, his character is always on stage. Sometimes a player will know how he want to build his character over the levels regardless of what happens in game. Sometimes a player will adapt his character based upon what is happening. For some people, the idea of class skills is an unnecessary restriction. In anti-fighter threads, the fighter gets reemed for their lack of class skills. Given them more class skills is one way to go to "fix" it. Getting rid of class skills altogether and just have skills is another way.
celloshane 08-04-07, 05:19 PM	To the OP: You mention that your biggest problem with cross class skills is in designing NPCs with the proper skills for encounters. So I ask you this; Why are you using the PC creation system to design your NPCs? You apparently know what you want your NPCs to be capable of, so why not simply alter the skills so that they are? As DM you aren't beholden to cookie-cutter cannon fodder for your PCs to blow through. Players have reasons for following appropriate rules for cross class skills, but the only rule a DM has to follow is to provide appropriate challenges for the PCs. I don't think your problem has anything to do with the system of rules. I do think you need to pay a visit to the "What's a DM to do?" board.
Jaxgaret 08-04-07, 05:24 PM	To the OP: You mention that your biggest problem with cross class skills is in designing NPCs with the proper skills for encounters. So I ask you this; Why are you using the PC creation system to design your NPCs? You apparently know what you want your NPCs to be capable of, so why not simply alter the skills so that they are? As DM you aren't beholden to cookie-cutter cannon fodder for your PCs to blow through. Players have reasons for following appropriate rules for cross class skills, but the only rule a DM has to follow is to provide appropriate challenges for the PCs. I don't think your problem has anything to do with the system of rules. I do think you need to pay a visit to the "What's a DM to do?" board. QFT and seconded. There's nothing stopping a DM from doing what he wants with his NPCs, as long as s/he does it competently and effectively.
runestar 08-05-07, 02:57 AM	There's nothing stopping a DM from doing what he wants with his NPCs, as long as s/he does it competently and effectively. Be careful - I would think that you are treading down a potential slippery slope here.
unundindur 08-05-07, 08:47 AM	Be careful - I would think that you are treading down a potential slippery slope here. If you are competent enough you don't need any books at all ;)
runestar 08-05-07, 09:51 AM	If you are competent enough you don't need any books at all ;) A laudable ideal one could consider striving towards, but also one which I feel is all but unattainable, since I don't think "competence" can be properly defined in any meaningful way in this context.:P
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-05-07, 11:36 AM	Ad a DM: what's good for the NPCs is good for the PCs!! never EVER make NPCs in ways PCs cannot be made, without a damned good reason. Or you get the crap we had in 2nd ed with multiclass humans with odd powers to try and make 'em be like characters as imagined. :) All the anti arguement so far, have been just the sussuration of those who don't want a system to change when they're used to it :D Look, "cross" class introduces a levle of clomplexity the game simply doen'st need. It annoys me and my players. 3rd ed is complex eouugh, without that. I don't want the hassle of working out "Oh I have to spend mroe point sot by this and oh what skilsl are cross classed?" etc etc. I jsut want ot assign points 1 for 1 so I can get on and PLAY. Yes, it cross class skills does force characters to be like ridiculous stereotypes. Ban anyone from abusing skills. As a DM, you have to say to the "munchkin maker": "No, get stuffed, you are only taking Use Magic Device to cheat, either stop it, or leave the GAME!" if the fighter wants to sneak about with a modicum of ability, the rogue study magic so he can understand arcane traps...fine. It's all for the good :)
NobodyRemembersThis 08-05-07, 03:00 PM	UIf it's NPC's, just rebuild the NPC classes. IMC, I have the following NPC classes: Acolyte, Aristocat, Commoner, Expert, Thug, Warrior, Witch. Each is a 5 level class. All but the commoner get a "skill" feat at levels 2 and 4. Example: Warrior gets alerntess and Athletic (ties in to the skills he has); expert gets Skill Focus at levels 2 and 4. It allows me to build basic NPC's and guilds. A bandit gang would have an even mix of Warriors and Thugs; a thieves guild would have a lot of thugs for enforcers, and a smattering of rogues.
starfire311 08-06-07, 01:03 AM	Look, say your character is a dwarven legionaire, a tough as nails fighter. He does some stealthy stuff, like listening at choke points for enemies...sneaking behind enemy lines, but, he's not expert at it, his "bag" is mostly straight up fighting, he is not a fighter/rogue. I know there has been a lot said but I just wanted to get back to the original example... This to me sounds exactly like a fighter with cross-classed stealth skills... you say he is not an expert, but he is good, an expert would have full class skills while someone that is good but not an expert would have fewer ranks. so a 1st level dwarven fighter with 2 ranks in hide and 2 ranks in move silently would be pretty darn good at stealth, but he wouldn't be an expert like the rogue with 4 ranks in hide and move silently.
MrCustomer 08-06-07, 02:01 AM	-Skills are down to the ability to learn it, make it, practice it, study it. I know a crap load about weaponry ancient and modern, dosn't mean I can actually use a mortar or a "phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" :D Thats the point entirely isn't it? You may read and study up all you want on motars and how they work etc, but you would never know as much about them as the people who actually used and fired mortars now would you? A Barbarian could learn about Spellcrafting, but without the ability to read, without the prerequisite skills and abilities, how would he be able to understand and learn it as well as a Wizard? The Wizard can read magic, cast and manipulate the spells studied with Spellcrafting, he understands the principles and magics involved, how they work etc. he has hands on knowledge. As much as the barbarian is interested in Magic, the Wizard will always know more then them about it. Cross Class Skills are not there to punish classes, having to cross class Spellcraft is not a penelty to Barbarians, the intention is to give classes who would naturally have a focus on certain skills, such as the Wizard really needs to have Spellcraft, the benifit of being better at it then those classes who aren't focused nor need the skill as much. Can you imagine the Wizard trying to learn a new spell needing to have the barbarian teach it to him? Why is Listen a Cross Class skill for the Dwarfen Defender? Because Scouting and Spying is not the Focus of his class. Classes that Focus on Scouting and Spying (and thus Listening) are Rangers and Rogues, Just as crafting spells is the focus of the Wizard class. Cross Class skills allow classes that focus in these areas the chance to shine. If your Dwarfen Defender could Sneak, Search, Listen, Pick Locks, Disable Devices etc then the Rogue in your party would be useless now wouldn't he. Considering he can't wear heavy armor and fight as well as your dwarfen defender I don't think it's fair.
unundindur 08-06-07, 06:08 AM	Thats the point entirely isn't it? You may read and study up all you want on motars and how they work etc, but you would never know as much about them as the people who actually used and fired mortars now would you? A Barbarian could learn about Spellcrafting, but without the ability to read, without the prerequisite skills and abilities, how would he be able to understand and learn it as well as a Wizard? The Wizard can read magic, cast and manipulate the spells studied with Spellcrafting, he understands the principles and magics involved, how they work etc. he has hands on knowledge. As much as the barbarian is interested in Magic, the Wizard will always know more then them about it. Cross Class Skills are not there to punish classes, having to cross class Spellcraft is not a penelty to Barbarians, the intention is to give classes who would naturally have a focus on certain skills, such as the Wizard really needs to have Spellcraft, the benifit of being better at it then those classes who aren't focused nor need the skill as much. Can you imagine the Wizard trying to learn a new spell needing to have the barbarian teach it to him? Why is Listen a Cross Class skill for the Dwarfen Defender? Because Scouting and Spying is not the Focus of his class. Classes that Focus on Scouting and Spying (and thus Listening) are Rangers and Rogues, Just as crafting spells is the focus of the Wizard class. Cross Class skills allow classes that focus in these areas the chance to shine. If your Dwarfen Defender could Sneak, Search, Listen, Pick Locks, Disable Devices etc then the Rogue in your party would be useless now wouldn't he. Considering he can't wear heavy armor and fight as well as your dwarfen defender I don't think it's fair. In response to this I quote myself (from earlier in this thread): Rules only care for balance. With that as a foundation let me move on to the reasoning, step by step. I first assume that skills are supposed to be balanced toward each other, as anything else makes little to no sense for classes that have a wide class-skill selection (then they wouldn't really have a wide selection). If everyone agrees to this then there should be no problem letting all characters chose exactely what skills they want for their character; after all its not going to be a balancing problem. One could say that synergy bonuses may make a combination of skills more potent, but in almost all cases a class have all synergic skills as class skills anyway, so that argument is out. After this, one could say that "a fighter shouldn't have the skill spellcraft", which is a valid statement. What is important though is that this statement have nothing to do with balance (thus rules), and as such should be a GM-call (based on character biography and setting), and not written in the books. The balancing factor is in the number of skills you gain from your class, not in the class skill selection. To me there is a notable exception in Use magic device, which is unusually powerful. That is a problem with that skill though, and not the system, and as such this cannot be used as an argument in this discussion. Right now class skills do nothing but limit character diversity while not retaining balance in any meaningful way, which is the only reason that would varant them. -U
High Octane 08-06-07, 09:02 AM	In response to this I quote myself (from earlier in this thread): Rules only care for balance. With that as a foundation let me move on to the reasoning, step by step. I first assume that skills are supposed to be balanced toward each other, as anything else makes little to no sense for classes that have a wide class-skill selection (then they wouldn't really have a wide selection). If everyone agrees to this then there should be no problem letting all characters chose exactely what skills they want for their character; after all its not going to be a balancing problem. One could say that synergy bonuses may make a combination of skills more potent, but in almost all cases a class have all synergic skills as class skills anyway, so that argument is out. After this, one could say that "a fighter shouldn't have the skill spellcraft", which is a valid statement. What is important though is that this statement have nothing to do with balance (thus rules), and as such should be a GM-call (based on character biography and setting), and not written in the books. The balancing factor is in the number of skills you gain from your class, not in the class skill selection. To me there is a notable exception in Use magic device, which is unusually powerful. That is a problem with that skill though, and not the system, and as such this cannot be used as an argument in this discussion. Right now class skills do nothing but limit character diversity while not retaining balance in any meaningful way, which is the only reason that would varant them. -U Actually class skill selection does have a bearing on balance. You say that a character is balanced by the number of skill points he is given, not by his class skills. I say that it false. Class skills are a balancing factor. Lets bring up wizards and sorcerers. Wizards already are considered by many to have an edge over sorcerers, and that edge would be further increased if that happened. The wizard will logically receive more skill points because his primary casting stat grants more skill points. With the extra class skills, he would be able to invest successfully into tumble and keep up with the rogue in tumbling. The actual balancing factor is not just the cross class skill point cost, but the rank limit put up. A wizard, cleric, fighter, or ranger could not keep up with the rogue in the disable device skill, even if they dumped skill points into it since the max ranks they can have in that skill is half the rogues. Well why add the cross class cost if the max ranks is in effect? To prevent dipping. Say a wizard dipped just a single level in rogue. The max ranks limit on skills is based on whether ANY of your base classes have it as a skill. Class skills ARE a balancing mechanic just as much as the number of skill points you have. Of course there are ways around such things. I remember my one rogue/wizard concept included the Able Learner feat which makes cross class skills cost only 1 point per 1 rank (but kept the max ranks in effect) and he only took 2 levels in rogue, but the feat allows his wizard skill points max out his skills so he could achieve the prestige class he wants. (Able Learner is human only by the way. Well Human and Illuman. Feat is in Races of Destiny)
AllisterH 08-06-07, 09:05 AM	In response to this I quote myself (from earlier in this thread): The balancing factor is in the number of skills you gain from your class, not in the class skill selection. To me there is a notable exception in Use magic device, which is unusually powerful. That is a problem with that skill though, and not the system, and as such this cannot be used as an argument in this discussion. -U Actually, even outside of UMD, the following skills seem better. Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Spellcraft - Let's face it, after UMD, these are the skill that seems maxed out for classes that have it as a class skill and with enough skill points per level. If you give a wizard a choice to take skills, outside of spellcraft, even the wizard will take these If the skill system is changed, then yea, I do think that Rogues will be somewhat screwed as pretty much these are opposed skills and really, there's no reason for a NPC to NOT have max ranks in say Spot compared to say Craft. Someone argued that the DM should not design NPCs to screw over PCs but at the same time, logically, there's no reason why such a NPC wouldn't max these out. Ride, Tumble, Open Lock, Balance, Handle Animal, Disable device - These skills tend to be maxed out only by characters who are filling out a character concept. Everything else - Unless the campaign calls for it (you need Perform for a PrC, you're playing in a Stormwrack-based campaign and thus Swim is a no-brainer, these skills just aren't as useful as the above skills. Simply saying "You can take any skill outside of UMD, will have balance issues"
Derren S. 08-06-07, 09:21 AM	I don't see where the problems with cross-class skills is. They are not that hard to do, after all counting in 0.5 steps is still basic math. And that someone can't be good in everything is only natural. A babarian trains to fight people with weapons not with magic. If he really wants to learn magic he can do this in his free time (which isn't that much) but compared to someone who devotes his entire time to learn magic like a wizard/sorcerer or expert devoted to learning magic the babarian can never be as good as them.
Irving 08-06-07, 09:21 AM	In response to this I quote myself (from earlier in this thread): I first assume that skills are supposed to be balanced toward each other, as anything else makes little to no sense for classes that have a wide class-skill selection (then they wouldn't really have a wide selection). I find this assumption faulty. Even "wide" class-skill selections have some critical omissions (like Survival or Spellcraft for the rogue). And the balance for skills shifts tremendously depending on the campaign setting. An urban campaign has little to no need for Survival; a desert campaign practically demands it. I cross-classed my rogue into Survival for just one rank, simply so that I could give an "aid another" bonus to the ranger in all situations.
Roog 08-06-07, 10:04 AM	[B]After this, one could say that "a fighter shouldn't have the skill spellcraft", which is a valid statement. What is important though is that this statement have nothing to do with balance (thus rules), and as such should be a GM-call (based on character biography and setting), and not written in the books. QFT If people think a Barbarian learning spellcraft (with an appropriate teacher) as a class skill is ridiculous, then how ridiculous is a Barbarian off in the wilderness by himself learning spellcraft as a cross-class skill? If people are worried about fighters with sneak, move silently, spot, and listen etc, then they just need to remember how many skills fighters get each level. (Not that I see any problem with fighters with full ranks in those skills.) Sure, some skills may be so much more useful for some characters that full access to them is effectively a class feature (eg UMD, UPD). If that is the way you see it, then you need to house-rule mutliclass characters skill maximums.
Eerongal 08-06-07, 10:21 AM	To the OP: You mention that your biggest problem with cross class skills is in designing NPCs with the proper skills for encounters. So I ask you this; Why are you using the PC creation system to design your NPCs? You apparently know what you want your NPCs to be capable of, so why not simply alter the skills so that they are? As DM you aren't beholden to cookie-cutter cannon fodder for your PCs to blow through. Players have reasons for following appropriate rules for cross class skills, but the only rule a DM has to follow is to provide appropriate challenges for the PCs. I don't think your problem has anything to do with the system of rules. I do think you need to pay a visit to the "What's a DM to do?" board. Off topic: ....Celloshane? This doesn't happen to be the person named shane who used to DM and play with my group who used an email address to similar effect, is it? :eek: For confirmation Players in group: Myself(Eric), Matt saffle, Amber Nelson, Dan Hyman, Joey krietemeyer, Jared latore, Uriah Moss, among others. On Topic: really, is this even worth arguing this much? Some people have a problem with cross-class, some don't. If you don't like it, don't have it in your games. It won't be that game breaking if it applies to everyone. Personally, i'll keep the skill system in tact, because i think it works great for what it does.
Anguish2 08-06-07, 11:08 AM	I too have had trouble with cross-class skills when penning a character concept. Problem that I keep bumping into whenever I think "cross-class should be removed" is a touch different though. Am I to accept that the best-trained Paladin should be as good at opening locks as the best-trained rogue? That's what we're talking about here, really. Best-trained. How about the best-trained barbarian having the same Knowledge(religion) as the best-trained cleric? In the end, I can come up with skill combinations that just shouldn't be "as good" for someone who has the "wrong" class. One of my gaming buddies came up with an interesting idea though. What if you could always spend 1 point for 1 rank, and at character inception you could place a couple +5 bonuses to a couple "class skills". Idea being that at 20th, your rogue could have 28 in Open Locks while the Paladin could only pull of 23. (Plus the usual modifiers.) Narrows the gap somewhat, and you get less of these class-bonus things than you have class-skills, meaning you still have to specialize within your class. (Meaning that not every rogue is the same.)
unundindur 08-06-07, 11:36 AM	It seems this discussion have come to the point of "What is a class?" You either see the class as something you model your character around, or (as I do) the character as something you model a class after. Of course when we look at "the barbarian" as in conan it doesn't make sense to have spellcraft. If we on the other hand think of barbarian as a set of rules that represents anyone who have an exceptionally powerful rage then suddenly spellcraft may be viable. Out of the box thinking is what I think is lacking here. The classes are there to help the group make whatever character concept balanced toward each other, its not there to force players into playing Conan, Redgar, Kelben and similar stereotypical characters. You can play them, but just as well you may play a fighter who have devoted his life to batte spellcasters, and who study magic (spellcraft) to reach his goal. This fighter have further dedicated his study entirely to hiding and move silently, but his true warrior is first shown in combat (where he acts completley differnet than a rogue).
unundindur 08-06-07, 11:42 AM	I find this assumption faulty. Even "wide" class-skill selections have some critical omissions (like Survival or Spellcraft for the rogue). And the balance for skills shifts tremendously depending on the campaign setting. An urban campaign has little to no need for Survival; a desert campaign practically demands it. I cross-classed my rogue into Survival for just one rank, simply so that I could give an "aid another" bonus to the ranger in all situations. I wil ltry to outline why I think you are furthering my cause ;) The survival skill is a perfect example in that it is so campaign spesific. You cross classed you say. I would say that if you are a rogue who have lived your life in a desert you should definitively have it as a class skill, without using resources on it. When we have the current limit any out-of-the-box character would need house ruling in for example giving this rogue survival as a class skill because of background. In removing class skills we effectively undo this, and let the system do all this by itself. Players are usually a smart lot, and would only take survival if it 1. suited their character and 2. was somewhat useful. This way you never have to make up houserules to allow/prevent stuff, except if something gets out of hand from a roleplay prespective, which is unlikely as its supereasy to roleplay a reason to have any skill in the book (even use magic device). In the urban adventure where the skill is less than optimal none would take survival, not even the ranger (possibly though..). Then its not a problem, cause none wanted survival. Much easier to roll with a problem than just stand vigilant against it if you ask me. :)
Roog 08-06-07, 11:43 AM	Problem that I keep bumping into whenever I think "cross-class should be removed" is a touch different though. Am I to accept that the best-trained Paladin should be as good at opening locks as the best-trained rogue? That's what we're talking about here, really. Best-trained. How about the best-trained barbarian having the same Knowledge(religion) as the best-trained cleric? How about the best trained fighter? Or the best trained swashbuckler? Like BAB it would be more natural to group classes into three groups with regard to skills. Those for whom the skill is particularly appropriate (open locks - Rogue), those for whom the skill is particularly inappropriate (open locks - Paladin), and those that are neither (open locks - Swashbuckler). Even then that classification only works when you combine the classes with their standard stereotypes. You asked "Am I to accept that the best-trained Paladin should be as good at opening locks as the best-trained rogue?", but you could just as easily ask "What kind of Paladin is it, who trains as hard at opening locks as the best-trained rogue?", and "Is the character that kind of Paladin?" In the end, I can come up with skill combinations that just shouldn't be "as good" for someone who has the "wrong" class. One of my gaming buddies came up with an interesting idea though. What if you could always spend 1 point for 1 rank, and at character inception you could place a couple +5 bonuses to a couple "class skills". Idea being that at 20th, your rogue could have 28 in Open Locks while the Paladin could only pull of 23. (Plus the usual modifiers.) Narrows the gap somewhat, and you get less of these class-bonus things than you have class-skills, meaning you still have to specialize within your class. (Meaning that not every rogue is the same.) If you do that (and don't have retraining), how do you know at level one what skills you will care about at level 20? Even if you do pick the right skill, the paladin could still be a Rogue 1/Paladin 19 with 28 in Open Locks.
unundindur 08-06-07, 11:51 AM	I don't see where the problems with cross-class skills is. They are not that hard to do, after all counting in 0.5 steps is still basic math. And that someone can't be good in everything is only natural. A babarian trains to fight people with weapons not with magic. If he really wants to learn magic he can do this in his free time (which isn't that much) but compared to someone who devotes his entire time to learn magic like a wizard/sorcerer or expert devoted to learning magic the babarian can never be as good as them. Again this is the stereotype. I would guess that 95% of all barbarian players wouldn't chose skills like spellcraft. Its just that the rulesn ow limit the select few who want it. Perhaps they have a backstory of magical experimentation, infusion of arcane power, a father who was a magician or even that they previously were powerful spellcasters, but cursed to take the form of a barbarian. Its roleplaying, its the land of opportunity and rules for rules sake is a horrible idea. As I said in the previous post, if the skills are about equally powerfull (which I think they are to a certain degree) then the players will themselves chose skills that suplement their idea of a character, and everyone is content. As I have said a hundered times this limit is in place because someone somewhere found out it was a good idea to enforce stereotypes. I am all for stereotypes, but they should not be enforced. People will likely play most stereotypes anyway, becasue thats what makes them stereotypes. The only new "stereotype" I can think of in DnD is the drow, who have become a very large concept compared to their initial appearance. Taken further than skills its the same with classes, why on earth not have a class-less system with a multitude of specialisations? Well, there are at least 2 reasons: 1. Its hard to balance (though not impossible). 2. It would sell a lot less books, because you could litteraly get all concepts you could imagine into 1-2 books, as compared to the XXX number of classes and prestige classes today. I put my coin on the last beeing hte reason this haven't been done already.
Grand Theft Otto 08-06-07, 11:53 AM	So it sounds like this issue you have is not that cross-claas skills are retarded as the OP said, but that some classes get too few skills per level. And I 100% agree with that. Its both really. Not only can someone not do enough (a fighter can fight, jump and ride...and thats IT?!), but the skill lists are pretty crappy. If every list had something like "and any 3 skills" I'd have less of a problem. Niche protection is one thing. Hardcore exclusion is another. Everyone can help out in fighting. Few classes can help out in talking. Anytime the other players arent making a contribution to a sizable chunk of the game (in this case, social encounters) it reeks, and much like a dirty diaper, needs changing. Again, I pose the question. IN your average game, how many players are helping in combat vs. how many are helping in social situations? And I'm not talking adding a busch league +2 to the face guy either, because a naked commoner can asist other in combat, but I wouldnt call him "contributing". If you want the game to be something other than hack and slash, you have to give everyone better tools to do more than kill things and take their stuff.
unundindur 08-06-07, 11:59 AM	Actually, even outside of UMD, the following skills seem better. Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Spellcraft - Let's face it, after UMD, these are the skill that seems maxed out for classes that have it as a class skill and with enough skill points per level. If you give a wizard a choice to take skills, outside of spellcraft, even the wizard will take these Well, I rarely take them, but yes they are useful. I see a wizard take many different skills before that, depending on what wizard we are talking about. Knowledge if played correctly by a GM would be likely wizard choices. And a skill you didn't mention which gets a lot of attention in our games is tumble. Is it to strong though? I dont think do. It has its uses, but the right knowledge skill can be a lot more helpful in completely differnet situations. If the skill system is changed, then yea, I do think that Rogues will be somewhat screwed as pretty much these are opposed skills and really, there's no reason for a NPC to NOT have max ranks in say Spot compared to say Craft. Someone argued that the DM should not design NPCs to screw over PCs but at the same time, logically, there's no reason why such a NPC wouldn't max these out. I admit craft sucks, but that again is not due to the class/cross-class problem, but becuase it is sucky in and by itself. There are still plently of reason for an npc not to have listen. 1. He/she may have other skills that are more important and 2. Is that NPC really an eagles-eye? After all as a GM you can at least chose abilities for your NPCs with though to realism, and not only powergaming (which players to a certain degree have to do to survive) Ride, Tumble, Open Lock, Balance, Handle Animal, Disable device - These skills tend to be maxed out only by characters who are filling out a character concept. Yes, but I would say they are no less powerful than those given above, they just don't suit that many concepts. Everything else - Unless the campaign calls for it (you need Perform for a PrC, you're playing in a Stormwrack-based campaign and thus Swim is a no-brainer, these skills just aren't as useful as the above skills. Simply saying "You can take any skill outside of UMD, will have balance issues" I still don't see the big balance issue (likely since I have played without class skills for a long time already). We even removed skills from PrC requirement and instead set a level cap. The skills required for PrCs are usually no-braineds anyway, and now the unusual combination is at least possible. An example is an assassin who focus on disguise and dont have a single skill in move silently and hide.
unundindur 08-06-07, 12:11 PM	Actually class skill selection does have a bearing on balance. You say that a character is balanced by the number of skill points he is given, not by his class skills. I say that it false. ok :) Class skills are a balancing factor. Lets bring up wizards and sorcerers. Wizards already are considered by many to have an edge over sorcerers, and that edge would be further increased if that happened. The wizard will logically receive more skill points because his primary casting stat grants more skill points. With the extra class skills, he would be able to invest successfully into tumble and keep up with the rogue in tumbling. Yes, but this is not a problem founded in he class/cross-class skill dilemma. This problem is twofold; First the wizars power is in his ability to cast spells suitable for whatever he wants and secondly becasue intelligence is arguably better than charisma. Those can be problematic in their own, but doesn't mean class skills and cross-class skills are a balancign factor. The actual balancing factor is not just the cross class skill point cost, but the rank limit put up. A wizard, cleric, fighter, or ranger could not keep up with the rogue in the disable device skill, even if they dumped skill points into it since the max ranks they can have in that skill is half the rogues. Any what balancing factor is this? If skills are balaced toward each other the other classes could just stay in their own stereotype (under the current system) and never even bother with cross-class skills. This system only penalize somewhat special concepts, which are usually penalized heaftily already (multiclass penalty, BaB, caster levels etc.etc.). Well why add the cross class cost if the max ranks is in effect? To prevent dipping. Say a wizard dipped just a single level in rogue. The max ranks limit on skills is based on whether ANY of your base classes have it as a skill. Would that ever be a balancing issue? If the wizard is the one who disables traps, thats fine, he will be worse of in some other area (skill, of whcih I assume are balanced toward each other in a proper manner). He even invested 1 level in rogue to get trapfinding, thus losing a precious caster level (not that it has anything to do with this discussion.. :) ). Class skills ARE a balancing mechanic just as much as the number of skill points you have. I still disagree Of course there are ways around such things. I remember my one rogue/wizard concept included the Able Learner feat which makes cross class skills cost only 1 point per 1 rank (but kept the max ranks in effect) and he only took 2 levels in rogue, but the feat allows his wizard skill points max out his skills so he could achieve the prestige class he wants. And here we have it. You have even experienced how the game is hitting your own somewhat "out of the box" concept. You had to invest a feat, that others could use to actually gain something ust to play your concept in a meaningful way. (Able Learner is human only by the way. Well Human and Illuman. Feat is in Races of Destiny) Still far from convinced. Although you have come with the best arguments so far. :)
Someone 08-06-07, 01:33 PM	There still seems to be some sort of resentment that a character taking a skill cross-class "isn't good enough" at it. And that only really matters for opposed checks, and not all skills are opposed checks. But a character with max ranks in a class skill should have as much advantage over a character with max ranks in a cross-class skill (or a character without max ranks) as the character with max ranks in a cross-class skill has over a character with no ranks at all. And I don't think removing the most likely way a character will end up in that middle level (the "minor league" as it were), is a good idea.
Kursk 08-06-07, 01:49 PM	ok, I've had enough.... the concept of "cross class skills" is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D!!! Gah!!!!! *he screams* :D So, Fighters can and should learn spellcraft as easily as a Wizard? How & why?
unundindur 08-06-07, 02:01 PM	So, Fighters can and should learn spellcraft as easily as a Wizard? How & why? Se my (gazillion) posts ;)
Roog 08-06-07, 02:08 PM	So, Fighters can and should learn spellcraft as easily as a Wizard? How & why? No they should just have the same max skill, and spend the same number of skill points for ant given skill level. Those are OOC factors, they don't say much about how much effort the fighter had to put in.
Kursk 08-06-07, 02:10 PM	Se my (gazillion) posts ;) Question was for the OP
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-06-07, 02:13 PM	Learning a skill, is not the same as being able to do a special ability! Nothing magically prevents a fighter attending a wizard's college and learning about their arts (except maybe the college rules, lol). To say the fighter can't learn about magic, is retarded, unless the DM specifically states so due to rules of his milleu. SKills != Abilities. Being knowledgeable about something, doens't mean you can DO it. You can learn about Dragons: Knowledge (Dragons), doens't mean you can bake "Frodo flambe'" ! ;) It's down to the player and DM to have a legitimate reason to want the skill, and to approve it. And as said, it just adds a level of complexity we don't need. It's enough of a pain making characters as is. :)
Kursk 08-06-07, 02:16 PM	Nothing magically prevents a fighter attending a wizard's college and learning about their arts (except maybe the college rules, lol). To say the fighter can't learn about magic, is retarded, unless the DM specifically states so due to rules of his milleu. Correct, but having NOT attended wizards college the Fighter has a HARDER time learning spellcraft. Hence, cross class. EOT
Grand Theft Otto 08-06-07, 02:21 PM	So, Fighters can and should learn spellcraft as easily as a Wizard? How & why? So fighters can learn to socialize as easily as a rogue? Or military history as easily as a wizard? Or LISTEN AS WELL AS A ****ING COMMONER. Lets not autmoatically gravitate towards the most extreme examples.
Grand Theft Otto 08-06-07, 02:26 PM	Correct, but having NOT attended wizards college the Fighter has a HARDER time learning spellcraft. Hence, cross class. EOT You dont have to attend wizards college to become a wizard. Just have enough exp. Seriously, unless they totally change how multiclassing and training time works, its nit picking a dead horse to complain about realism. Lets consider Sorcerers, who by all accounts are pretty much the X-Men of D&D. You roll out of bed one day and can shoot fire with little to no training. Yet all of a sudden you know spellcraft and knowledge arcane?
Kursk 08-06-07, 02:27 PM	So fighters can learn to socialize as easily as a rogue? Or military history as easily as a wizard? Or LISTEN AS WELL AS A ****ING COMMONER. Lets not autmoatically gravitate towards the most extreme examples. Don't get me wrong. I agree some are stupid but, some make sense. The OP still doesn't have an answer to my question...
Kursk 08-06-07, 02:31 PM	You dont have to attend wizards college to become a wizard. Just have enough exp. Seriously, unless they totally change how multiclassing and training time works, its nit picking a dead horse to complain about realism. Lets consider Sorcerers, who by all accounts are pretty much the X-Men of D&D. You roll out of bed one day and can shoot fire with little to no training. Yet all of a sudden you know spellcraft and knowledge arcane? Address the person who brought it up, not me.
Grand Theft Otto 08-06-07, 02:33 PM	double post a go-go!
Grand Theft Otto 08-06-07, 02:34 PM	Address the person who brought it up, not me. Its just a general post. Your comment served well as a set up. Anyone can field it if they want.
Kursk 08-06-07, 02:35 PM	double post a go-go! gleemax is way slower for me...
MrCustomer 08-06-07, 02:42 PM	Here is the thing, A Rogue has a smaller base attack bonus, less hit points then the Dwarfen defender. Rogues are only profecient with simple weapons and light armor but not shields. Why can't a Rogue raise their base attack to equal the Dwarfen defender? Why can't the Rogue use all exotic weapons like the Dwarfen Defender? Why can't the Rogue wear Heavy armor like the Dwarfen Defender and use a shield? The answer is the Rogue can learn exotic weapons by selecting feats, but much like cross-skill training being limited, he can't learn ALL exotic weapons with a single feat, he must select only 1 weapon per Feat. What you are saying is that the Dwarfen Defender should be able to do whatever he wants with skills but the Rogue shouldn't be able to use any weapon he wants? Using any and all weapons and a higher base attack is defining for fighter types. For classes like rogues skills like Move Silently, Listening at doors, Picking Locks etc is defining. This is the area that makes rogues valuable to a party. Your party does not need a Rogue for his Sneak Attack, nor for his Evasion, the party needs a rogue to scout ahead, disarm traps, move silently up on your opponents and listen to their plans and pick locks. These skills are what make a rogue useful to a party. If the Fighter could do that, then you wouldn't need the Rogue.
unundindur 08-06-07, 02:42 PM	Question was for the OP Does it matter who answers :confused:
Kursk 08-06-07, 02:43 PM	Does it matter who answers :confused: Yep
NobodyRemembersThis 08-06-07, 03:13 PM	Your system screws at least two base classes (Bard and Ranger) and completely undermines the the PrC and Feat systems. Without cross class skills, there is no reason to play a bard. A wizard can now do nearly everything the bard can, and do it better. A bard is a mix between a rogue and a wizard, with a few performance based skills mixed in. Under your system, the Wizard gets the same skill options, and will have nearly as many skill points (due to the Intelligence requirement). So now the only character concept a bard can fill is a minstrel - and a rogue or a wizard can still do that better. Rangers are just as screwed. As a ranger is a mix (now, anyway ;) ) of a druid and a rogue, you have just made him superflous. With all skills available, the druid has almost as many skill points, and can now fill every role of the ranger, only 100% better since the druid is already the most powerful class in the game. Then there are feats. Not very prevelant in core, but prevelant everywhere else are feats that require a certain rank total to acquire. Now, anyone cany acquire the skill trick feats or the ToB manuevers as the skill requirements are negligible for everyone. One of the balancing factors for both styles of feats has been completely removed by your system - making the feats too good. PrC's are even worse. It makes it possible for single classes to qualify before they are able to. Case in pint from Core - Assasin, ShadowDancer, Heirophant (!). The Heirophant is the bad one - a druid can qualify at level 12 now, with no other class needed to pick up Religion as a class skill. This is bad, because now the Druid can take 3 levels in Heirophant and still have access to every spell level. Making a change to an established balancing factor for class/feat/PrC builds/requirements is a huge undertaking. It is obvious you have not considered all of the ramifications before making your change. :nonono:
MrCustomer 08-06-07, 04:21 PM	Learning a skill, is not the same as being able to do a special ability! Nothing magically prevents a fighter attending a wizard's college and learning about their arts (except maybe the college rules, lol). To say the fighter can't learn about magic, is retarded, unless the DM specifically states so due to rules of his milleu. SKills != Abilities. Being knowledgeable about something, doens't mean you can DO it. You can learn about Dragons: Knowledge (Dragons), doens't mean you can bake "Frodo flambe'" ! ;) Actually the skills are the same as a special ability. My rogue can Tumble past a group of enemy soldiers and smack their cleric who they protecting with a sneak attack all without provoking an attack of opportunity. My Rogue can see that Magic Death Trap that your fighter is about to step on and disarm it. Being able to sneak into the enemy camp (move silently), Listen to their leader's plan (listen) and steal their map (slight of hand) and sabatoge their catapult while on the way out (disable device) is something a Rogue can and should be able to do better then the a Dwarfen Defender. A Wizard can use Spellcraft to cast a spell written on a scroll, or to cast a counter spell to cancel another caster's spell. A Barbarian using Spellcraft to use a scroll to counterspell an enemy wizard's spell is just plain wrong. Incidentally a Barbarian is iliterate and uneducated. That is part of the definition of the barbarian class. If he were to learn Spell Craft, that is become educated, he would no longer be able to advance in barbarian class levels as he is now civilized and educated, that is what happens when your barbarian goes to a wizard college to learn Spell Craft. Now you say that skills are pointless and not a balance issue. But the Barbarian's Rage attack is balanced by his skill limitiations, a Barbarian is Uneducated and illiterate and this is the price he pays to fly into a Rage and become an unstoppable killing machine. You can say well I define a barbarian as being a class that can fly into rage and ignore the balancing rules. A Rogue's skills have just as much impact as the barbarian's greater Hit Die and Rage ability. That isn't to say that you should make exceptions. If you want a Dwarfen Defender to be able to Sneak and listen and spy on the enemies, then yes you should change his cross skills to allow him to do so. but please, please read page 174 og the DM guide under modifying character classes. If you want a Dwarfen Defender who acts as a scout for his army division, Make him a Dwarfen Defender Scout. Reduce his abilities in another area and give him the skills/abilities he needs to scout ahead. Say you reduce his AC bonus, but give him more skill points and add Move silently, Listen, Search, Hide, Gather Information, Open Locks etc to his class skill list. Similairly an Ogre Rogue living in the wilderness might have Survival as a skill list, and better combat skills, but Disable Device, Open Locks, Use Magic Device, Decipher Script and Slight of Hand would be removed from his class skill list. A variation of a class to better suit a theme or concept should be encouraged, but at the same time you need to balance out extra skills and abilities used to match that theme.
Irving 08-06-07, 04:22 PM	I wil ltry to outline why I think you are furthering my cause ;) The survival skill is a perfect example in that it is so campaign spesific. You cross classed you say. I would say that if you are a rogue who have lived your life in a desert you should definitively have it as a class skill, without using resources on it. I disagree. The iconic desert rogue, such as Aladdin, would not have Survival by any stretch. Rather than trying to shoehorn a skill into a balanced class like the rogue, perhaps a party would be better served with a ranger taking the "skill monkey" slot in a party... or better still by far, a scout. (A desert setting has a lot of potential for wide-open spaces, so a scout's skirmish ability becomes that much more viable.) You seem to be working under an assumption that in a skewed campaign setting like an desert one, everyone should be equally good at a vital skill. That strikes me as a bad design choice. By extension, in a classic dungeoneering setting everyone should be equally good at disable device. The point of "game balance" is not to have everyone equally good at everything; it's to give everyone a moment to shine. Denying some classes some skills is a good way to go about this.
Darion Fenix 08-06-07, 04:31 PM	My group plays without class-skills. It just makes things simpler and we end up with characters you just wouldn't see otherwise. My Knight has 2 ranks in Slight of Hand!
unundindur 08-06-07, 04:48 PM	I disagree. The iconic desert rogue, such as Aladdin, would not have Survival by any stretch. Rather than trying to shoehorn a skill into a balanced class like the rogue, perhaps a party would be better served with a ranger taking the "skill monkey" slot in a party... or better still by far, a scout. (A desert setting has a lot of potential for wide-open spaces, so a scout's skirmish ability becomes that much more viable.) But that again is to force characters to comply to fictive rule-based terms (that dont have a balancing purpose imo) instead of the reverse; rules that embrace the concept a player wants. As I have stated I am under the beleive that rules should only limit a player when there is a balancing or setting-based reason to do so. In the case of this discussion I cannot find a good enough reason to warant that. You seem to be working under an assumption that in a skewed campaign setting like an desert one, everyone should be equally good at a vital skill. That strikes me as a bad design choice. By extension, in a classic dungeoneering setting everyone should be equally good at disable device. The point of "game balance" is not to have everyone equally good at everything; it's to give everyone a moment to shine. Denying some classes some skills is a good way to go about this. Should is not the right word; could is. Everyone could be equally good at survival if they chose to, and if that happened to be everyone in the group, well, that wasn't a problem either, not conceptually (its not unreasonable that everyone in htat group of 4 characters from the desert are experts at survival) and even less so from a balancing perspective. And again in the dungeon, everyone could be equally good at disable device if they want to. First and foremost I doubt there are so many wizards, fighters and clerics who would care for it, and if there was, is it a problem? Unlikely. Yes, everyone should have a chance to shine, but that is not every class, its every character. First you see how the players depict their characters conceptually, then they find what rules most resembles their concept (inc chosing skills as they please) and then you as a GM can see where to make them shine. Make that wizard shine while he is disabling traps, and the rogue when he is using survival to its fullest; if the players want that to be their focus then you could, and will likely shine in that role. Everyone is happy! EDIT: Regarding alladin, he wouldn't have to much in survival because he have lived in a city. But if a player wanted him to have ranks in survival I could easily understnad it, as he have lived in the streets for much of his life.
Derren S. 08-06-07, 04:50 PM	My Knight has 2 ranks in Slight of Hand! Which he would also be able to have when you play with class and cross-class skills, even at 1st level. So whats the difference?
unundindur 08-06-07, 04:58 PM	Which he would also be able to have when you play with class and cross-class skills, even at 1st level. So whats the difference? The point is that he doesn't take a penalty for playing differently than the norm. Its a bit like you would take a penalty for using a non-standard rifle in real life just becasue its non-standard and doesn't comply with the idea of a GI.
Grand Theft Otto 08-06-07, 05:03 PM	Your system screws at least two base classes (Bard and Ranger) and completely undermines the the PrC and Feat systems. Without cross class skills, there is no reason to play a bard. A wizard can now do nearly everything the bard can, and do it better. Whoah nelly. A wizard cant really use bardic music, have more HP, better BAB, better Reflex saves, bardic knowledge etc. There is a functional difference between a bard and a wizard, even in a game where all skills are class skills. I ditched em entirely, and people still think the NPC bard is badass for giving them +3 to hit and damage (among other things). Bards could use a tweak, but it doesnt completely negate their purpose. Making a change to an established balancing factor for class/feat/PrC builds/requirements is a huge undertaking. It is obvious you have not considered all of the ramifications before making your change. :nonono: I'm imagining this more as a design theory behind 4th edition, and as such prc/feat balance would be taken into account.
Irving 08-06-07, 05:05 PM	[Yes, everyone should have a chance to shine, but that is not every class, its every character. First you see how the players depict their characters conceptually, then they find what rules most resembles their concept (inc chosing skills as they please) and then you as a GM can see where to make them shine. ...might I suggest the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana to you, then? If you're genuinely interested in producing classes that can achieve anything a player wants, that would be the ideal (and balanced) route. Changing the balance of 3.5 core classes by removing cross-class skills as a concept is more unbalancing. [B]EDIT: Regarding Aladdin, he wouldn't have to much in survival because he have lived in a city. But if a player wanted him to have ranks in survival I could easily understnad it, as he have lived in the streets for much of his life. Gather Information, Knowledge(local), Hide, Bluff, and Diplomacy are better "survival" skills in an urban environment than Survival, IMHOP. (And, of course, it's worth noting that Aladdin probably should have the highest Use Magic Device skill ever recorded...)
unundindur 08-06-07, 05:13 PM	...might I suggest the generic classes from Unearthed Arcana to you, then? If you're genuinely interested in producing classes that can achieve anything a player wants, that would be the ideal (and balanced) route. Changing the balance of 3.5 core classes by removing cross-class skills as a concept is more unbalancing. Gather Information, Knowledge(local), Hide, Bluff, and Diplomacy are better "survival" skills in an urban environment than Survival, IMHOP. (And, of course, it's worth noting that Aladdin probably should have the highest Use Magic Device skill ever recorded...) Yes, the generic classes is a step in the right direction, but the system is far to limited for actual use (it doesnt even take all PHB class features into account). But by all means, its something that could nearly justify a 4th edition (if the three generic classes became one it would be reason for a 4th ed). But the generic classes still have class skills, which is unnessesary (although they can chose them, so its never much of a problem except conceptually) and those classes have little to do with the problem at hand... They are a step in the right direction, but not even they are conceptually sound. And i agree with you on all acounts for alladin :) EDIT: Unearthed arcana is filled with improvements to the game on a conceptual level, such as the fractional base bonuses that was a must even in 3.0. Problem is that they don't seem to become raw, even though they make sense to a score of 100!
Irving 08-06-07, 05:35 PM	Yes, the generic classes is a step in the right direction, but the system is far to limited for actual use (it doesnt even take all PHB class features into account). But by all means, its something that could nearly justify a 4th edition (if the three generic classes became one it would be reason for a 4th ed). It sounds to me like you're unhappy with 3.5 in general. Might I suggest another rules system entirely that's point based instead of class based? Steve Jackson's GURPS comes immeditately to mind.
unundindur 08-06-07, 06:02 PM	It sounds to me like you're unhappy with 3.5 in general. Might I suggest another rules system entirely that's point based instead of class based? Steve Jackson's GURPS comes immeditately to mind. Well, there are lots of stuff that I find not to sound in DnD, on the other hand DnD have a few very important advantages: 1. Everyone is familiar with it (who dabble in rpgs), 2. there is a ton of stuff released for it and 3. There is a very large and good community to support it (here for example). Those three overshadow any problem DnD may have with rules, which is likely why it have grown to outshine all comparable games :) So I rather tweak DnD than get everyone I know into playing something else, that may or may not be a better system. I know DnD well enough to fix the major issues, instead of learing something from anew.
ArcTan 08-06-07, 07:30 PM	I disagree. The iconic desert rogue, such as Aladdin, would not have Survival by any stretch. Nitpick: The original Arabian Nights Aladdin had no special abilities, being just a clever city boy who got lucky. The Disney Aladdin who's a "street rat" extraordinaire is, after all, someone who has lived in the *city* his whole life, not in the desert itself. Living in a city that happens to be in or near a desert rarely faces you with the actual problems of desert survival (I live in Los Angeles -- does that mean I'd survive in Death Valley?). On the other hand, if you took someone as smart as Aladdin and *did* dump him in the desert for a certain amount of time, and he survived, he'd come out as canny and knowing about how to live in the desert as he was about living in the city. You seem to be working under an assumption that in a skewed campaign setting like an desert one, everyone should be equally good at a vital skill. That strikes me as a bad design choice. By extension, in a classic dungeoneering setting everyone should be equally good at disable device. The point of "game balance" is not to have everyone equally good at everything; it's to give everyone a moment to shine. Denying some classes some skills is a good way to go about this. You don't have to have class and cross-class skills. Just *give them a limited number of skill points*. I *can't* be good at every single skill as long as I only have 4 skill points (or 6 skill points, or 10, or 15) every time I level up. There's still too many skills. If the number of skill points is balanced with the number of places to put them, then every character will be forced, by simple scarcity, to choose to generalize in everything (and thus not be very good at anything) or else specialize. The reason not everyone would have max ranks in Disable Device would be that it wouldn't be possible to do that and still have max ranks in Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana), or do that and have max ranks in Bluff, Intimidate and Diplomacy, or whatever. But it wouldn't be *forced* on you by which class you picked. You could *decide*. That's the difference. It's not a question of being equally good at everything -- as long as resources are limited, that problem solves itself. It's a question of having to be good at some things in order to be good at others. (Good at fighting? Can't be good at social skills. Good at magic? Can't be good at jumping or climbing.) D&D basically says you have to be a stereotype (the gruff, taciturn warrior or the nerdy mage) or else multiclass. And then it makes multiclassing weaker and more complicated and carrying an XP penalty compared to single-classing. It punishes you for not being a stereotype. I don't like that.
navar100 08-06-07, 07:44 PM	So, Fighters can and should learn spellcraft as easily as a Wizard? How & why? So he knows what spell the evil wizard casted on his rogue buddy.
Irving 08-06-07, 07:54 PM	Nitpick: The original Arabian Nights Aladdin had no special abilities, being just a clever city boy who got lucky. ...which is a diversion from the main thread, but it's a fun diversion, so what the heck. I think the original Aladdin probably had a very decent Diplomacy skill (to sweet-talk the genies), a legendary UMD skill rank, and as a city boy, a good deal of Knowledge(local) and Gather Information. Some Bluff and Disguise is probably in there, too (I shall make you into a prince...) As for the luck, well, that's what Complete Scoundel is for. On the other hand, if you took someone as smart as Aladdin and *did* dump him in the desert for a certain amount of time, and he survived, he'd come out as canny and knowing about how to live in the desert as he was about living in the city. Tough call. Survival's Wisdom based, which I would interpet as a weak suit for Aladdin. You don't have to have class and cross-class skills. Just *give them a limited number of skill points*. I *can't* be good at every single skill as long as I only have 4 skill points (or 6 skill points, or 10, or 15) every time I level up. There's still too many skills. Granted, but most campaigns will end up "weighting" one skill above all others, and player will inevitably gravitate to that one. Why wouldn't everyone take Survival in a desert setting? It's the skill that has the most impact. So where does that leave the ranger? Better to force PCs to specialize. It makes sense on a host of levels. It's better storytelling (Anyone remeber the Seven Chinese Brothers when they were a kid?), it makes every PC feel unique, it's easier the adjuicate the result of one die roll than four. Specialization makes your PC unique. Celebrate diversity!
navar100 08-06-07, 07:59 PM	Obviously if you change a fundamental rule as class/cross-class skills it will affect things related to it, namely prestige classes that use skill ranks as a prerequisite. However, the problem is not insurmountable. If no player wants such a prestige class, then there's no problem. If a player does want a prestige class, then you only have to worry about that prestige class. If the rule change could allow him to enter the class at least one level earlier than "normal", if you're ok with it, then no problem. If not, just raise the ranks.
Kesthol 08-06-07, 08:50 PM	*throws hat into the ring* Alright, here's what I propose: Boost all skill points/(level or HD) by 2 (for monsters, NPCs, and PCs) All skills are bought at 1 rank for 1 skill point. Class skills have max ranks = 2*{level} or 4+{level}, whichever is greater Cross-class skills have max ranks = {level} or 3, whichever is greater Synergy works as follows: +1 bonus for each multiple of 7 ranks. (0-6 ranks are at +0 bonus, 7-13 ranks are at +1 bonus, 14-20 ranks are at +2 bonus, etc.) 1st level (or HD) skill points are multiplied by 5. DC system modified up (usually increased by 10) DC of "Nearly impossible to fail" tasks (new difficulty level) is 0 DC of "Simple" tasks (new difficulty level) is 5 DC of "Very easy" tasks is 10 DC of "Easy" tasks is 15 DC of "Average" tasks is 20 DC of "Tough" tasks is 25 DC of "Challenging" tasks is 30 DC of "Arduous" tasks (new difficulty level) is 35 DC of "Formidable" tasks is 40 DC of "Heroic" tasks is 45 DC of "Nearly impossible" tasks is 60 DC of Epic tasks are increased by 25 or more. Some DCs deserve to be adjusted less than up 10, but I will postpone making that list indefinitely. Essentially, anyone can learn anything, but it helps (in terms of maximum capability) to have it as a class skill. However, maxing out a skill requires a lot more effort. Effectively, to be an expert at a skill, you have to focus a lot more on it; to be good at something, you have to have it as a class skill and put 1 rank, sometimes 2, in it at every level; to be decent at something, you simply have to put a rank into it at most levels. This also solves some of the problem of a level 5 wizard/bard/character with a maxed out knowledge skill and a decent (14+) Int being able to take 20 (just one minute, usually) and remember essentially everything useful about just about any topic in that field of knowledge. In the revised system, the same character with a maxed out knowledge skill and a decent Int takes 20 and remembers... what would have been DC 20 to remember in the RAW system. It just seems a little more accurate to me.
Jaxgaret 08-06-07, 08:59 PM	Alright, here's what I propose: [list] Boost all skill points/(level or HD) by 2 (for monsters, NPCs, and PCs) Giving a flat +2 sp/level to all characters is unbalanced. It favors the classes with less skill points, as it benefits a character going from 2 to 4 more than it benefits a character going from 8 to 10. In its stead, give a 1.5x sp/level increase, like so: 2 sp/level --> 3 sp/level 4 sp/level --> 6 sp/level 6 sp/level --> 9 sp/level 8 sp/level --> 12 sp/level
NobodyRemembersThis 08-06-07, 09:21 PM	GTO: You did not address my comments on the ranger, I noticed. ;) More importantly, the Bardic abilities of the Bard are the only reason to use him in your system - you have effectively made the Bard a 1 trick NPC class, instead of a middle tier PC class. I'd like to note your bard is an NPC, not a PC - and I highly doubt your players would play a Bard given your changes to the system. :P Saying it will be addressed (feats and PrC's) in 4e is more than a bit of a straw man GTO. We are dealing with changes to the current system, not theoretical changes to the next system. Personally, I think all PC classes have to have a minimum of 4 skill points per level. Each class should have class skills = to the number of skill points they gain, with the option to pick 3 additional skills as class skills. Have your max rank for class skills = to level+3, and cross class skills = to level. This way, there is still a difference between specialized and non-specialized training. Would that work as a better compromise?
MrCustomer 08-06-07, 09:54 PM	If you are a Rogue living in the wild, then having survival as a class skill is reasonable, even to be expected, since the rogue would need to have that skill in order to have survived. However that same rogue, who lived his entire life in the wilderness, would not reasonably have Open Lock or Disable Device. The thing here is that you are dismissing skills as being near worthless, skills aren't a balance issue etc. That is not true, many Skills are on par with any other special ability. The fighter's purpose in the group is to be the Tank, the Rogue's purpose is to scout ahead. The Fighter should no more get the skills of a rogue then the rogue should get the fighters melee skills. Look up Tumble in the rules, it's a very powerful skill. A rogue can tumble past enemies without provoking attacks of opportunities, and use Tumble to make sneak attacks using skill tricks (complete Scoundrel) He takes less damage while falling, he even can gain up to +6 AC bonus with a high Tumble skill. I beleive that puts it up there with any other Class ability, like Favoured Enemy, Rage, etc. This is why Rogues (who have a lower base attack, hit die etc) get it as a class skill and the fighter doesn't
Jaxgaret 08-07-07, 12:22 AM	The thing here is that you are dismissing skills as being near worthless, skills aren't a balance issue etc. That is not true, many Skills are on par with any other special ability. Agreed. It is incorrect to assume that skills are balanced to each other, and it is probably incorrect to assume that WotC tried to make them balanced to each other. Certain skills are much more useful than others in combat (Tumble, UMD, Knowledge, Spellcraft), other skills have specific uses in combat (Concentration, Perform, etc.), there are the social skills that are partially useful in combat and very useful outside of combat, and there are skills that are only useful outside of combat (Craft, Profession, Appraise, Disguise, Pick Lock, Forgery, many others), etc. The fact that each skill has its own application to its own particular situations does not mean that all skills are balanced to one another.
Someone 08-07-07, 01:59 AM	People still seem to have the problem of "oh no, I spent 2 skill points and only got 1 rank! Woe is me! My character is worthless! He/she/it will never succeed at a skill check! etc., etc." Having a +2 instead of a +4 from skill ranks at 1st level isn't the end of the world. Nor is having a +11 instead of a +23 at 20th level. You're still doing better than a character with 0 from skill ranks. Especially on the skill checks that have a flat DC.
Roog 08-07-07, 02:32 AM	People still seem to have the problem of "oh no, I spent 2 skill points and only got 1 rank! Woe is me! My character is worthless! He/she/it will never succeed at a skill check! etc., etc." The reason I dislike 2 for 1 is that it adds unnecessary complication to mutliclass character creation, especially at higher levels. It means that you need to pay attention to what skills were spent at each level. If you took 2 for 1 away then you would simply have a pool of skill points to spend, and a list of maximums for each skill; and you simply spend those points up to the maximums. Having a +2 instead of a +4 from skill ranks at 1st level isn't the end of the world. Nor is having a +11 instead of a +23 at 20th level. You're still doing better than a character with 0 from skill ranks. Especially on the skill checks that have a flat DC. Characters do not have an unlimited number of skills to spend. If the system was working properly, then you could remove the limits, and allow limited skills/level to leave you with characters with some medium skill ranks. For example, if you only care about flat DC checks why spend enough to get that +23, even if you are allowed to.
ArcTan 08-07-07, 02:53 AM	Tough call. Survival's Wisdom based, which I would interpet as a weak suit for Aladdin. The Disney movie does portray him surviving being dumped out in the Arctic (or wherever) and surviving, though. The semi-canon TV series has him surviving in a whole bunch of other really random wilderness environments for long stretches of time. Granted, but most campaigns will end up "weighting" one skill above all others, and player will inevitably gravitate to that one. Why wouldn't everyone take Survival in a desert setting? It's the skill that has the most impact. So where does that leave the ranger? Doesn't it feel just the least bit funny to have a bunch of PCs who really do have to know basic survival skills to live where they live, but only have one PC who's the "right class" be any good at it? If you want to challenge someone at something they're not good at, the logical thing to do is take them out of the environment they live in (which, *by definition*, is the thing they'll train to be good at surviving in) and put them somewhere else. You shouldn't run a desert campaign where the point of the campaign is for the one person who can make Survival checks to babysit everybody else. That's not going to be fun for anybody, trust me. If the campaign requires everyone to make Survival checks, everyone makes Survival checks. The point of the "Wait! I can do Survival and no one else can!" scenario is that it should be a short-term chance for one player to shine. The whole premise of "The campaign is about X, and only character Y can do X" is misguided.
Traverse 08-07-07, 03:42 AM	I believe it's understood by this point that messing with class/cross-class will displace a number of rules. Unless you're already running with a highly modified set of rules, I'd advise against it simply due to the punishment a player could accomplish through it. If, however, you trust your players, it can lead to unique and interesting sessions. So, I'll throw out my rules mod suggestion as well, to round out these wonderful alternatives this thread has produced. Each class can make a choice in skills and 1st level, gaining more class skills for higher skill points per level. Skills may be purchased singly or in sets. ---- Skill Points Per Level |Points put towards Skill Sets 2 5 + 1 Skill of Choice 4 9 + 1 Skill of Choice 6 13 + 1 Skill of Choice 8 17 + 1 Skill of Choice ---- Cost |Skill Set |Skills 1 - Any One Skill 1 Collector Decipher Script, Use Magic Device 1 Esoteric Concentration, Spellcraft 1 Perceptive Listen, Spot 1 Provoker Psicraft, Use Psionic Device 1 Stealthy Hide, Move Silently 1 Tradesman Appraise, Craft, Profession 1 Trainer Handle Animal, Ride 1 Willed Autohypnosis, Concentration 2 Acrobat Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble 2 Athletic Climb, Jump, Swim 2 Sophisticate Heal, Search, Sense Motive 3 Cunning Bluff, Disguise, Forgery, Sleight of Hand 3 Glib Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Perform 3 Scholar All Knowledge 3 Tactical Disable Device, Open Lock, Survival, Use Rope This gives cohesive groups for player progression, or allows them to simply pick from exactly what they want, though gaining fewer 'class' skills if the latter. I'd say that under any rules, keep the class skills for any PrC of other class moved into the same as they were, due to the player moving from a undefined initial role to a defined secondary role.
DM-Scott 08-07-07, 05:00 AM	Very nice table Traverse. It's a cool idea as well. Also, I can't remember if anyone ever thought of this idea, but I've sometimes felt the cross class limitation in skill ranks as well as the double point cost of a cross class skill redundant in most cases. Players generally dislike cross-classing skills because it is quite frankly a bad deal (2 for 1 = bad trade usually), and a lot of it is actually good for roleplaying. One suggestion would be to allow all skill points to be spent evenly (that is all ranks cost 1 point regardless of class skill or not) but leave the skill limits the same (1/2 max class skill ranks). This means that at 1st level a fighter for instance could spend 4 ranks in Ride (a class skill) and 2 ranks in Spot, 2 ranks in Listen, 2 ranks in move silently, and 2 ranks in hide, for the cost of 12 skill points. He would never be quite as good as his rogue buddy, but he will get a benefit out of it. If you wanted to, you could make certain skills, probably the "trained only" skills only available to their standard classes. I've seen some feats here and there to give access to a variety of skill sets, and Eberron has a cool feat which makes all Knowledge skills class skills as well as gives a small bonus to two knowledge skills I believe. In addition it has the added benefit of making NPC creation a ton easier and faster (Got enough skill points to put 20 ranks in 4 class skills? You could just put 20 ranks in 2 class skills, and 10 ranks in 4 cross class skills). Peace out, Game on.
unundindur 08-07-07, 06:18 AM	GTO: Personally, I think all PC classes have to have a minimum of 4 skill points per level. Each class should have class skills = to the number of skill points they gain, with the option to pick 3 additional skills as class skills. Have your max rank for class skills = to level+3, and cross class skills = to level. This way, there is still a difference between specialized and non-specialized training. Would that work as a better compromise? with those changes the gap up to free-form non-class based skills is so diminutive you could just as well allow all skills as class skills, and thus have a more streamlined design. It seems you agree at some point, but don't want to go the full mile. If you get three free class skills that in effect will give everyone what they want (except for extremely strange concepts), and thus its only a conceptual difference to remove cross class skills althogether, which makes a lot more sense conceptually. But any step in this direction is a good one, and I also agree everyone should have a minimum of 4 skills per level :)
Irving 08-07-07, 07:36 AM	The Disney movie does portray him surviving being dumped out in the Arctic (or wherever) and surviving, though. ...for about five minutes before he has to run away from a rollling minaret (making some really good Balance and Tumble checks along the way.) I'd have to see the TV series, but I've got this nagging feeling that he's got a lot of those luck feats from Complete Scoundrel rather than ranks in Survival. Doesn't it feel just the least bit funny to have a bunch of PCs who really do have to know basic survival skills to live where they live, but only have one PC who's the "right class" be any good at it? There's a difference between "any good at it" and skilled at it. Survival is a skill that can be untrained, and taking care of yourself for a day is a DC 10 skill check. Joe Commoner knows enough about Survival, untrained, to make it 50% of the time in the more forgiving sections of the desert. It takes someone how really knows all the tricks of the trade to let you live for weeks in the deep desert, though. You shouldn't run a desert campaign where the point of the campaign is for the one person who can make Survival checks to babysit everybody else. That's not going to be fun for anybody, trust me. If the campaign requires everyone to make Survival checks, everyone makes Survival checks. Trust me, that's a serious pain in the butt. If the party rolls 12, 8, 15, and 1 on their DC 10 survival checks, and everyone has a skill of 3, who starves? On the other hand, the smart way to do it is to let the expert roll... and everyone else perform an aid another action. Survival in the desert is a genuine team effort that way, everyone's invested in the toss of one die, and the chances of everyone getting the supplies they need in difficult environments where you need a 15 or better increase. (It says volumes about this board in general that so few people think about an aid another action... but I digress.)
Steely_Dan 08-07-07, 07:41 AM	(It says volumes about this board in general that so few people think about an aid another action... but I digress.) I guess most people want to score the goal, not make the pivotal pass that led to the goal…
Irving 08-07-07, 08:07 AM	I guess most people want to score the goal, not make the pivotal pass that led to the goal… ...I seem to recall that it's that second approach that actually wins games. D&D really is a team sport at heart, but we never seem to remember that.
yrogerg 08-07-07, 08:13 AM	I guess most people want to score the goal, not make the pivotal pass that led to the goal… Right, and that's why nobody wants to be quarterback. They never get *any* of the glory.
Steely_Dan 08-07-07, 08:17 AM	...I seem to recall that it's that second approach that actually wins games. D&D really is a team sport at heart, but we never seem to remember that. Exactly, I totally agree with ya. Most people just want to make the winning shot, instead of working together to make the shot.
Steely_Dan 08-07-07, 08:18 AM	Right, and that's why nobody wants to be quarterback. They never get *any* of the glory. The worst is being goalie in soccer – man, there's a thankless job.
yrogerg 08-07-07, 08:49 AM	It sounds to me like you're unhappy with 3.5 in general. Oddly enough, pre-3.X was *worse*. Anybody remember how, in 2.0 if you wanted your human Fighter 10 to become a little sneakier, you needed to *stop being a fighter* for 10 levels? That's the thing: by getting rid of the more ridiculous multi-class/dual class rules, 3.5 actually manages to offer more flexibility if someone wants to play a "sneaky fighter" or whatever. The important thing to remember is that the Fighter's still gaining Fighter levels when he takes cross-class skills: he's not devoting his time to this training to becoming sneaky; he's picking up a few tricks that might work while *focusing all of his energy on staying in peak shape for physical combat*. If the character wants to become even sneakier, there's other options: a Rogue dip. Skill-Boosting Feats. Heck, even a feat that makes selected cross-class skills class skills. Each represents a different level of dedication and focus on *that particular skillset*, as even spending feats or class represent other different levels of dedicated training. However, there's no reason why a Fighter who's spent his entire life perfecting the art of physical combat should be as good at recognizing spells as a Wizard who's spent his whole life studying magic, or the Bard that's spent his whole life learning how to manipulate people's emotions. This rule seems to eliminate the *ability* to create a specialist character if I want to.
yrogerg 08-07-07, 08:49 AM	The worst is being goalie in soccer – man, there's a thankless job. I was being mildly sarcastic. :sigh:
yrogerg 08-07-07, 08:54 AM	You shouldn't run a desert campaign where the point of the campaign is for the one person who can make Survival checks to babysit everybody else. That's not going to be fun for anybody, trust me. If the campaign requires everyone to make Survival checks, everyone makes Survival checks. The point of the "Wait! I can do Survival and no one else can!" scenario is that it should be a short-term chance for one player to shine. The whole premise of "The campaign is about X, and only character Y can do X" is misguided. Right, but why not just encourage everyone to take Ranger or Scout levels, and/or offer a feat that makes Survival a class skill? Why not use the existing framework, rather than destroying and radically rewriting that framework? Trust me, that's a serious pain in the butt. If the party rolls 12, 8, 15, and 1 on their DC 10 survival checks, and everyone has a skill of 3, who starves? Nobody. The first person has food and water for two people, the second for 1, the third for 5. 1 and 3 can share their food with the third person. On the other hand, the smart way to do it is to let the expert roll... and everyone else perform an aid another action. Survival in the desert is a genuine team effort that way, everyone's invested in the toss of one die, and the chances of everyone getting the supplies they need in difficult environments where you need a 15 or better increase. (It says volumes about this board in general that so few people think about an aid another action... but I digress.) Not really. It's DC 10 + 2/(additional person being fed), and aid another is DC 15. Any person who can hit DC 15 can feed 2 additional people, rather than putting all their hopes on adding +2 to a different roll that might flub. In fact, the highest non-tracking Survival roll is DC 15 anyway, making Survival kinda non-useful for Aid Another.
Steely_Dan 08-07-07, 09:21 AM	I was being mildly sarcastic. :sigh: Do you think so...
NobodyRemembersThis 08-07-07, 09:29 AM	with those changes the gap up to free-form non-class based skills is so diminutive you could just as well allow all skills as class skills, and thus have a more streamlined design. It seems you agree at some point, but don't want to go the full mile. If you get three free class skills that in effect will give everyone what they want (except for extremely strange concepts), and thus its only a conceptual difference to remove cross class skills althogether, which makes a lot more sense conceptually. But any step in this direction is a good one, and I also agree everyone should have a minimum of 4 skills per level :)IMC, I have increased the skill points to a minimum of 4/level for PC classes. I am considering removing the 2:1 ratio for cross class. However, that is as far as I would go. Going further than that will create complications in too many other aspects of the rules. I have no interest in rebalancing/redesigning some aspects of combat (Feint, Invisibility, Hiding and Shooting, etc.), feats, PrC's, Skill DC's (Tumble, Bluff, Intimidate, Balance, etc.), or class balance (Bards and Rangers). The post was an example to GTO only - not something I would ever consider doing. I am more concerned about overall balance than having my PC's/NPC's more powergamed (bordering munchkined) than they already can.
Grand Theft Otto 08-07-07, 11:15 AM	GTO: You did not address my comments on the ranger, I noticed. ;) More importantly, the Bardic abilities of the Bard are the only reason to use him in your system - you have effectively made the Bard a 1 trick NPC class, instead of a middle tier PC class. I'd like to note your bard is an NPC, not a PC - and I highly doubt your players would play a Bard given your changes to the system. :P Limited time. Rangers are a pretty badass class IMO, I'll reread it later and respond. Again, the bard has more HP, better BAB, better Reflex saves, etc than the wizard. Bards in our game are modded somewhat (we're playing primarily with Arcana Evolved classes). I just think that even in a non AE game, without mods, theres a point to a bard if you ditch CC skills. Saying it will be addressed (feats and PrC's) in 4e is more than a bit of a straw man GTO. We are dealing with changes to the current system, not theoretical changes to the next system. I didnt intend for it to be. I honestly dont think it would benefit WOTC to make sweeping changes and remove the concept of class/cross-class skills in 3.5, for many of the reaons you listed. Despite it not being a very elegant balancing measure, for some feats and particularly prestige classes, it IS. I deal with it in my current game on a case by case basis. I see a difference in whats good for my particular game (via house rules) and whats good for the game as a whole in this edition. However, I do believe ditching the concept is a good idea for future editions, to remove certain stereotypes and prevent "Decker syndrome" for social situations. Anyone who has played shadowrun knows what a boring pain in the ass it is whenever the decker starts to do his crap and you may as well go on a beer run. Personally, I think all PC classes have to have a minimum of 4 skill points per level. Each class should have class skills = to the number of skill points they gain, with the option to pick 3 additional skills as class skills. Have your max rank for class skills = to level+3, and cross class skills = to level. This way, there is still a difference between specialized and non-specialized training. Would that work as a better compromise? Decent compromise. It lets people get flexibility within an archtype. I'd be down for the Cthulhu method, where you pick a background or concept, that has built in skill recommendations (doctor, policeman, military, etc). At least 3.5 with cross class is still better than RIFTS. Why cant dragons punch again?
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-07-07, 12:00 PM	Correct, but having NOT attended wizards college the Fighter has a HARDER time learning spellcraft. Hence, cross class. EOT And what if he has attended such a college, eh? See, that's what blows the entire cross class nonsense out of the water ;) The PLAYER should dictate what his character is good or not good at, by what he spends points on, not by an arbitrary, silly mechanic saying he can never be very good at something. It's silly as hell. Rogues, bards and experts are skill based, have the most skill points, so, if they chose to, can always be better than anyone else if they devote themselves to some broad area. But there's no non-metagaming reason that really holds water, to say Joe the barbarian can't learn how to pick locks to escape the shackles of his tribe's masters, and thus, become a bit of an expert at it. Remember, "metagaming", "game balance" arguements are bad, here. If there's a flaw in the rules, if it's exploitable, tough, fix the problem, but not by just a crude, silly hack as cross classed skills. DMs and players can do without the ludicrous hassle of working out "1/2" points...that is out right hairy male spheres! lol. Charcaters should never be pigeon holed into a damned stereo-type, unless they wish to be. Skills are not class abilities, they shouldn't be, unless you develop a skill that only someone with a special prerequisite can ever use, and I can't think of any such thing, really, in 3rd ED...maybe one of the Psi skills perhaps? Even the "only rogues can disarm traps with a high DC" is a metagame hack....understandable to an extent, but it's still a hack. So, you're telling me the wizard who designs the damned traps in the first place, can't ever disarm the traps his rivals make using the same techniques? That's ridiculous. He just doesn't have the amount of skill points most rogues do, nor the Evasion to survive FUBARs, hehe. I jsut wish the rules ot be simplified, for everyone in a party to have, if they wish, enough skill points to be useful at several areas. Useful, doe snot mean "superb", it just means the fighter won't have to be a useless idiot when it comes to sneaking or dialogue skills. :)
NobodyRemembersThis 08-07-07, 12:15 PM	Skills are not class abilities, they shouldn't be, unless you develop a skill that only someone with a special prerequisite can ever use, and I can't think of any such thing, really, in 3rd ED...maybe one of the Psi skills perhaps? Incorrect. Skills available, and skill points per level, are a function of the class. By your ridiculous argument, every class should get the same exact amount of skill points - only differentiated by race and Intelligence. And that is the flaw in all of these arguments. If skills are not a function of class, why does a rogue get more skill points than a fighter? Any answer you provide will invalidate your arguments that skills are not class abilities, so tread carefully, as they will apply equally to class/cross class.
Someone 08-07-07, 01:21 PM	Aah! The slippery slope of item-by-item response! -A PC should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. By taking levels in a particular class, they have to give up some things. How high their maximum bonus from ranks in particular skills being one of them. -A "bit of an expert" sounds a lot like somebody who picked up some ranks cross-class. Such as a barbarian (or other martial class) who went to wizard's college on a sports scholarship. -The math of 1/2 isn't that hard, just look at Empower Spell. -"Only rogues can disable high DC traps" isn't a hack, its a class feature. Only rogues having trapfinding is the same as only bards having bardic knowledge. -You don't need a single rank in Hide or Diplomacy to be useful in an ambush or an audience with the king. There are things can be resolved without a single roll.
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-07-07, 03:02 PM	MrCustomer, you can't tumble in anyting but light armour... so, why shouldn't the swashbuckler type fighter, have that ability, hm? Never seen "THE VIKINGS"? Hell, those Norse dudes did pretty good Balance checks on them oars ;)
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-07-07, 03:11 PM	Rogues some how are the only folk to be able to deal with traps, more or less...what sillyness. Is an army Engineer a bloody backstabber, hm? What does the amry engineer do? Disable booby traps! :D Rogues class *abilities* are really evasion, extra skill points, and sneak attack. Making rogues "as trap monkeys" is...dumb. Metagaming at it's worse. Why SHOULD the rogue be forced to be the party trap monkey? To make rogues wanted in party's they've been forced to be the trap monkey, good GRIEF! What if you want to play the "face man" and leave the party's dwarven cleric, who's got a love of Moradin's mechanical works, and traps, to deal with kobold claymore mines? ;) -Is Disable Device a magical or supernatural ability? No. It's nothing like wizard's spells or paladin's lay on hands. The rogue should be the guy with a butt load of skill points to be good at a lot of skills, or a master of several...and able to stick a spike up yer butt and be the only guy standing at ground zero....traps should be an optional area of expertise for him, not bloody mandatory! ;) *stands outside The White Tiger* "We have a man inside now, stirring the pot! Let's see what the stew of ideas produces, Egg Shen!" :D
Irving 08-07-07, 04:29 PM	Not really. It's DC 10 + 2/(additional person being fed), and aid another is DC 15. Er, no. Sorry. You can help another character achieve sucess on his or her skill check by making the same kind of skill check in a cooperative manner. If you roll a 10 or higher on your check, the character you are helping gets a +2 bonus to his or her check, as per the rule for favorable conditions. So if you're in a fairly benign environment, you're no better or worse off aiding another than doing it yourself. The desert often has areas where the survival check is 15 or higher for living off the land, though. In those cases, you're far better off helping the expert. Likewise, helping the expert greatly improves your chances of not getting lost or avoiding hazards.
Irving 08-07-07, 04:39 PM	Rogues class *abilities* are really evasion, extra skill points, and sneak attack. Making rogues "as trap monkeys" is...dumb. Metagaming at it's worse. Why SHOULD the rogue be forced to be the party trap monkey? Becuase the rogue also has this class ability... Trapfinding: Rogues (and only rogues) can use the Search skill to locate a trap when the task has a Difficulty Class higher than 20. Finding a nonmagical trap has a DC of at least 20, or higher if it is well hidden. Which means, in essence, skills or no skills, only rogues can find nonmagical traps, period. Likewise, rogues have this class ability... Trap Sense(ex): At 3rd level, a rogue gains an intuitive sense that alerts her to danger from traps, giving her a +1 bonus on Reflex saves made to avoid traps and a +1 bonus to AC against attacks made by traps. For mercy's sakes, folks. I'm trying to be civil, but read the rules at least. No class can find traps except for rogues (and some similar classes, I'm sure.) Skills have nothing to do with it.
Breetai 08-07-07, 04:43 PM	This whole thing reminds me of arguing the system should not have alignments...
Vharuck 08-07-07, 04:45 PM	If you are a Rogue living in the wild, then having survival as a class skill is reasonable, even to be expected, since the rogue would need to have that skill in order to have survived. However that same rogue, who lived his entire life in the wilderness, would not reasonably have Open Lock or Disable Device. I think a player would be hard pressed to explain this character's backstory, personality, and abilities in a consistant manner that justified rogue when it screams "ranger!"
Jaxgaret 08-07-07, 05:01 PM	I think a player would be hard pressed to explain this character's backstory, personality, and abilities in a consistant manner that justified rogue when it screams "ranger!" *Ahem* Wilderness Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogueVariant WildernessRogue). Problem solved. Really, all of the people here complaining that a character concept can't be done because of cross class skills - you're really, really wrong, and just not thinking outside of the box you've drawn yourselves into. There are so many feats, classes, variant classes, etc. that will accomplish pretty much any character concept you put your mind to. In any event, maxing out cross class skills (oh noes!) is not the end of the world for your character. Also, what yrogerg said. He makes some good points.
Cindre2000 08-07-07, 05:08 PM	For mercy's sakes, folks. I'm trying to be civil, but read the rules at least. No class can find traps except for rogues (and some similar classes, I'm sure.) Skills have nothing to do with it. You hit on something Irving, :D If it is "obviously" unfair for only the rogue class to have trapfinding. Then how can I play my emo fighter who likes to disable traps and identify opponents spells that he can shout "I knew he was casting that!". Since we agree we should get rid of alignment; and know skills. We might as well get rid of classes so that we can play any character we want, with no penalty.
unundindur 08-07-07, 05:28 PM	*Ahem* Wilderness Rogue (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#rogueVariant WildernessRogue). Problem solved. Really, all of the people here complaining that a character concept can't be done because of cross class skills - you're really, really wrong, and just not thinking outside of the box you've drawn yourselves into. There are so many feats, classes, variant classes, etc. that will accomplish pretty much any character concept you put your mind to. In any event, maxing out cross class skills (oh noes!) is not the end of the world for your character. Also, what yrogerg said. He makes some good points. Again, what is best? 1. And ever expanding system of new classes and abilities to tailor each and every possible concept. 2. An open system where you have a bare minimum of restrictions, and a plenora of options, thus allowing all concepts within the framework of one design. To me this isn't even a choice. Why did the swashbuckler come into existance? because the fighter wasn't designed with a light warrior in mind. Why did we even have the barbarian? Because the fighter doesn't allow rules for rageing (although I could agree that you cna perfectly well play a fighter who is roleplayed a barbarian). Most things cna be done under the current system, but it requires extensive book-keeping to make some concepts valid from a balancing perspective. To take the good example I have been trying to figure out: An elven warrior who is primarily dual wielding scimitars but also skilled in defensive magic and a great commander. It have turned out to be a beguiler/fighter, although i am far from content with that as I virtually get a truckload of class features that will never see any use in-game. With an open system I could cherrypick just the abilities that were right for me, and it would all make sense. Cherrypicking is a good thing, as long as the fundamental system takes care of balance. DnD have become an ever expanding set of new rules to fix older rules that fixed older rules, instead of a "fix the core problem" approach. Well, it seems I took this a bit further than the skill-thingie, but it is a clear analogy. All in all: All somewhat reasonable concept should be possible without home-rules with only one book and without getting shafted. That would be good design.
unundindur 08-07-07, 05:30 PM	This whole thing reminds me of arguing the system should not have alignments... Which is again a clear analogy, and with only one logical answer ;)
GawainBS 08-07-07, 05:48 PM	Why not use the UA classes Warrior, Caster, Expert? Or at least give characters the ability to create their own class skill list, with a limit on the number of class skills ofcourse? This could represent the strain the other class abilities take on the character to learn them, so that a class with powerful/many abilities has less time/effort to spend on skill training.
Vharuck 08-07-07, 05:51 PM	Again, what is best? 1. And ever expanding system of new classes and abilities to tailor each and every possible concept. 2. An open system where you have a bare minimum of restrictions, and a plenora of options, thus allowing all concepts within the framework of one design. I like the second, good thing we have it. The PHB, DMG, and MM have everything you need to make almost any possible character concept. The only newer classes off the top of my head that allowed a player to create a character around a concept not easily feasible by the core rules are: 1. Wilder 2. Soulknife 3. Warlock 4. Truenamer Let it be known that right now I am trying to find a list of all base classes on D&D's official page, because I'm struggling to think of anymore. 5. Binder There. 5 classes. Every other concept feasible with all those other newer classes else can be done in the system easily. They may not be mirror images, but damn sure close enough to fit the concept.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-07-07, 06:01 PM	Originally Posted by Silverblade The Enchanter Skills are not class abilities, they shouldn't be, unless you develop a skill that only someone with a special prerequisite can ever use, and I can't think of any such thing, really, in 3rd ED...maybe one of the Psi skills perhaps?Incorrect. Skills available, and skill points per level, are a function of the class. By your ridiculous argument, every class should get the same exact amount of skill points - only differentiated by race and Intelligence. And that is the flaw in all of these arguments. If skills are not a function of class, why does a rogue get more skill points than a fighter? Any answer you provide will invalidate your arguments that skills are not class abilities, so tread carefully, as they will apply equally to class/cross class. Still waiting for an answer. :waits: :bored:
unundindur 08-07-07, 06:23 PM	I like the second, good thing we have it. The PHB, DMG, and MM have everything you need to make almost any possible character concept. The only newer classes off the top of my head that allowed a player to create a character around a concept not easily feasible by the core rules are: 1. Wilder 2. Soulknife 3. Warlock 4. Truenamer Let it be known that right now I am trying to find a list of all base classes on D&D's official page, because I'm struggling to think of anymore. 5. Binder There. 5 classes. Every other concept feasible with all those other newer classes else can be done in the system easily. They may not be mirror images, but damn sure close enough to fit the concept. Most concepts can be made, yes. That said they cannot compete with the archetypes which gain all the benefits of the classes. Compare a fighter who wields a two handed sword and full plate to a fighter (same class) who wears leather armour and a rapier (even with the full duellist PrC attached as a bonus). Although it is possible its greatly inferior, and thus doesn't varant the current system as a functional "create anything in a balanced way" system. To examplify you could create all concepts with the wizard class, you would simply be horribly underpowered if you chose to pick heavy armour proficiency as a feat (yes yes, its not possible at level 1...) and put your 8 in intelligence.
Irving 08-07-07, 06:33 PM	...so are you seriously proposing that sneak attack be available as a class choice, like a skill? Why not just use the generic classes? Or even the gestalt classes? Are you familiar with Unearthed Arcana? I can't help but feel that, in all honesty, you just want an entirely different core rules system. An alignmentless, classless rules system can exist, and does exist. But it's not D&D in any meaningful way. Those two concepts date all the way back to Chainmail . Removing them from the system and calling it D&D is like taking the peanut butter from the Reese's Cup.
unundindur 08-07-07, 06:40 PM	...so are you seriously proposing that sneak attack be available as a class choice, like a skill? Why not just use the generic classes? Or even the gestalt classes? Are you familiar with Unearthed Arcana? I can't help but feel that, in all honesty, you just want an entirely different core rules system. An alignmentless, classless rules system can exist, and does exist. But it's not D&D in any meaningful way. Those two concepts date all the way back to Chainmail . Removing them from the system and calling it D&D is like taking the peanut butter from the Reese's Cup. I have Unearthed arcana and are familiar with both. As I have siad earlier the generic classes are a step in the right direction, and yes in an ideal world sneak attack would be available to anyone who wnated to dedicate themselves to it. But DnD isn't to far away if you compare it to for example call of chutulu or ADnD. Removing classes from DnD wouldnt be earth shattering at all, it would be a natural step forward, just as 3.0 was a natural step forward from the completely rigid system that was ADnD. Everything goes toward dynamic systems, look at RL computer processors, economy and virtually anything. The only reason DnD can live without it is because it have no serious rivals, which real life processors and buisnesses have ;) People would likely revold in DnD went down this rout, just like people were sceptical to the television and computer, but eventually it would grow on people and it would be embraced and seen as a nesessity. Eventually the current system would be a "why on earth did we have that?" issue.
kalstrand 08-07-07, 07:00 PM	And what if he has attended such a college, eh? You give him a level of Wizard because he is no longer training as a fighter but as a Wizard.
unundindur 08-07-07, 07:05 PM	You give him a level of Wizard because he is no longer training as a fighter but as a Wizard. But he never learned spells...he just went to the "know about magic" classes. Apart from that he was out in the local wood killing dragons as usual. But this isn't the point. We can battle over single examples all day long, its the underlaying concept that is at stake.
Irving 08-07-07, 07:07 PM	...okay. If you want to talk about a theoretical 4.0 (or 5.0, more likely) that is incompatible with prior versions of D&D, go for it. As I've said, you seem to really want a rules system that has very little to do with D&D as we know it. Me, I want to play a this weekend. You don't seem to be voicing any suggestions that would be applicable to D&D as it's written and played, so... have fun with that. I'm not forseeing a circumstance where this conversaion can prove useful to the current players of the game. Good luck.
yrogerg 08-07-07, 07:14 PM	So if you're in a fairly benign environment, you're no better or worse off aiding another than doing it yourself. The desert often has areas where the survival check is 15 or higher for living off the land, though. In those cases, you're far better off helping the expert. Likewise, helping the expert greatly improves your chances of not getting lost or avoiding hazards. It's still zero-sum, at best. A successful aid another survival check adds +2 to the modifier, allowing the "live off the land" check to support another person, but a successful DC 10 survival check reduces the people who need supporting by *at least* one, if not more. (In particular, note that a lucky 18 on aid another still only allows to support *one* extra person) Seriously, do out the math for the example rolls you used. Even if the guy who rolled 18 is your "expert", that party's still marginally better off if each of them make checks than if they all made aid another checks. And if the natural 1 guy was the "expert", they're reall just all kinda hosed.
unundindur 08-07-07, 07:18 PM	...okay. If you want to talk about a theoretical 4.0 (or 5.0, more likely) that is incompatible with prior versions of D&D, go for it. As I've said, you seem to really want a rules system that has very little to do with D&D as we know it. Me, I want to play a this weekend. You don't seem to be voicing any suggestions that would be applicable to D&D as it's written and played, so... have fun with that. I'm not forseeing a circumstance where this conversaion can prove useful to the current players of the game. Good luck. Eh...I am not sure what to think of this. In my last post I tried to un-alienate the concept. And if you look at my posts a bit earlier they have direct suggestions that require little adjustment. I guess I should never have used the term 4.0 as I only meant that in a conceptual way, not that it would have to be drastically different in the way it is played. (still using the same monsters, same items, same CR system, same feats, same level system, same special maneuvers [not that they couldn't be improved]. My suggestions only target a minute part of DnD, and the one that makes the least sense to me; Character progression. traditionalism isn't good when it doesn't hold a purpose.
Kesthol 08-07-07, 08:23 PM	The idea of being able to cherry-pick one's skills seems to mimic real life much better than the current system. I am all for doing away with class and cross-class skills. Certain skills, like Spellcraft, Use Magic Device, and Disable Device, should be the forte of certain classes, but this should not deny any other class the ability to learn it equally well. If you want to restrict the ability to learn a particular skill, make it a bleeping class feature, not a skill (ie, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device). Or, make it a combination of a skill and a class feature. For example: All spellcasting classes have this ability. Spellcraft Familiarity: Benefit: Add your caster level to your Spellcraft checks. If you have more than one caster level, use the sum of your caster levels. If your you have more caster levels than ECL, you may only your ECL to Spellcraft checks. Penalty: You get -1 skill points/(level in a spellcasting class). If you take a spellcasting class at first level, you get 3 bonus skill points (these are not quadrupled, but added in "on top"). This ability/skill combo system would work best if used in with a system where no class grants less than 4+Int skill points/level. It would also neatly explain why Wally the Wizard can do so much more with Spellcraft than Bob the Barbarian, but both can learn it equally well. Rogues, bards, etc., may have the option of taking all, some, or none of their associated {insert skill here} Familiarity abilities.
yrogerg 08-07-07, 09:55 PM	It should also be noted that if all skills are class skills for everyone, then Fighters and Barbarians lose the edge they had in the Intimidate skill. In order to correct this, you now *have* to use the somewhat ridiculous houserule that Intimidate, a social skill that should benefit from a character's natural ability to manipulate the emotions of those around him, a Strength-based skill like Climb, Swim or Jump, instead. Otherwise, Sorcerers and Bards will *always* be better at Intimidating their enemies than Fighters and Barbarians.
MogliGrimTooth 08-07-07, 10:01 PM	Ok heres a rough idea... What if at 1st level you could pick 5 skills that are not on you class list. Any five. Now they are still considered cross class skills to begin with, Then once you have raised your skill level in that skill to say Three ranks (6 cross class point to get it there) Becuase you have trained in that skill and use it activally to get to Three Ranks you can now take ranks in it as a normal class skill..... Now this wont take to much away from skill monkeys as they get many more skill points, in fact this is a benifit for them as spending 6 points on a new skill is not that big a deal for them..... But it also means martial classes get access to extra skills they dont normally have, but have to be careful how they spend thier skill points as they only get a very few, and 6 points is alot for them..... Just an idea..... What do you think....
MrCustomer 08-07-07, 10:20 PM	I have Unearthed arcana and are familiar with both. As I have siad earlier the generic classes are a step in the right direction, and yes in an ideal world sneak attack would be available to anyone who wnated to dedicate themselves to it. But DnD isn't to far away if you compare it to for example call of chutulu or ADnD. Removing classes from DnD wouldnt be earth shattering at all, it would be a natural step forward, just as 3.0 was a natural step forward from the completely rigid system that was ADnD. That is fine and dandy. But in the terms of generic classes, a player who choose Sneak attack would be doing so from a list of possible abilities. The Paladin chooses either Sneak attack or Turn Undead. In such a generic system the Rogue could choose a Warrior's Base attack abilities instead of Sneak Attack. The problem comes from just adding an ability for free to an existing Class in 3.5, that is not balanced. under the current D&D game there is room for customizing classes at the DM's descretion, but a tradeoff is suggested, To give a fighter rogue skills he should do so only in exchange in another area to keep his class balanced.
MrCustomer 08-07-07, 10:42 PM	But he never learned spells...he just went to the "know about magic" classes. Apart from that he was out in the local wood killing dragons as usual. But this isn't the point. We can battle over single examples all day long, its the underlaying concept that is at stake. Yes, but looking at the Spellcraft skill, you can use it to: When using read magic identify a glyph of warding, learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, read a scroll, prepare a spell from a boprrowed spellbook, when casting detect magic determine the magic involved in the aura, use read magic to identify a symbol, decipher a written spelldraw a diagram to allow Diminsional Anchor to be cast on a magic circle, understand a strange or unique magical effect such as the effect of a magical stream. point is much of the knowledge in Spellcraft requires being able to Read Magic, Detect Magic and understand the principles of Magic, and indead Cast Magic. I don't think that without actually learning at least Detect Magic and Read Magic and being able to cast magic that a fighter could learn as much about Spell Craft as a Wizard would. This is why it is a crossclass skill, a Fighter lacks the appropriate knowledge requirements to learn Spellcraft. Since he can't cast, detect or read magic it is harder for him to learn and there is a limit to which he can understand it. Teacher to class. "now you see how the magical energy swirls around the caster as he prepares this spell" Fighter "um what swirls, I don't see anything" Teacher "and note the magical formula on this scroll, divide the preflux of this figure with the amplitude of the mana wave equation here. Recite these words whilemoving your fingers in the patern determined by the wave principles" Fighter "er this page just has squiggly lines on it with funny shapes" Teacher "now open your mind and feel the magical radiation surrounding you.." Fighter "is it cold" Teacher"no that is the open window, concentrate" Fighter"is it a light thumping?" Teacher "no that is your pulse" Fighter"um the only thing I feel is foolish" Teacher"you got that right at least"
navar100 08-07-07, 11:30 PM	People still seem to have the problem of "oh no, I spent 2 skill points and only got 1 rank! Woe is me! My character is worthless! He/she/it will never succeed at a skill check! etc., etc." Having a +2 instead of a +4 from skill ranks at 1st level isn't the end of the world. Nor is having a +11 instead of a +23 at 20th level. You're still doing better than a character with 0 from skill ranks. Especially on the skill checks that have a flat DC. But the problem is exacerbated by the fact that some classes only get 2+IN modifier skill points per level such that spending 2 points for 1 rank really hurts. It's ok that classes get different skill points per level. A no class skill house rule does not hurt the rogue because he can still be quite the expert in the most number of skills. The non-skilled classes are just now more able to be skillful in the skills that really matter to that particular character or at least be more generalized. A fighter may want max Spot, but he could just as well want a "good enough" spot then spend some levels on points in various Knowledges so he will know something about the various monsters he faces so that the player can exploit weaknesses of the monster without metagaming. Maybe he wants to sneak around with the rogue and be a "thief". He lets the rogue do the mechanical stuff like picking locks and disabling trap while he's the "muscle". However, he still needs to move silently and hide with the rogue. Being the "muscle" is the last resort.
Irving 08-07-07, 11:45 PM	My suggestions only target a minute part of DnD, and the one that makes the least sense to me; Character progression. You're talking about a system where every skill is a class skill, alignment doesn't exist, and class abilities like sneak attack are optional for every class - assuming class has any meaning at all in this system. How is this D&D? What makes a rogue any different from a fighter anymore? Is it the BAB and saves? I honestly don't undsertand how your version of D&D would work. traditionalism isn't good when it doesn't hold a purpose. But it does - balance and character definition. You might not agree with it becuase it doesn't match how you think the real world should operate, but it does work - and work quite well. You have to be creative to get the kind of character types you want, but complaining that it would be easier to take shortcuts and just claim the abilities within your class instead of multiclassing isn't compelling. You can get across town faster if you run red lights and ignore one-way streets too, but you'll throw the whole system into anarchy. Like I keep saying, there are systems that do what you want to do. They're just not D&D. They use points instead of classes. They work fine. If you really want a system like that, be brave and try them out.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-07-07, 11:58 PM	Irving, they still haven't answered me (the pro all skills camp) about explaining why the rogue (or any skill class with higher than 2 sp/level) has more skill points than the fighter. I've even posted it twice. I reckon it is because they can't - Any answer they provide will also apply to (and defeat) their arguments that class/cross class skills are a basis of the class design and balance system. It's over, and they are provably wrong. They just don't want to admit it.
Roog 08-07-07, 11:59 PM	I like the second, good thing we have it. The PHB, DMG, and MM have everything you need to make almost any possible character concept. Yes, because: - every berserker is good at avoiding traps - every martial artist becomes immune to disease and poison - every trapfinder has a nasty sneak attack - anyone who can safely use poison, is also a magic user I'm sure there are plenty of others. The PHB, DMG, and MM do have everything you need to make almost any possible character concept, as long as you are willing to houserule character abilities.
Roog 08-08-07, 12:20 AM	Irving, they still haven't answered me (the pro all skills camp) about explaining why the rogue (or any skill class with higher than 2 sp/level) has more skill points than the fighter. I've even posted it twice. I reckon it is because they can't - Any answer they provide will also apply to (and defeat) their arguments that class/cross class skills are a basis of the class design and balance system. It's over, and they are provably wrong. They just don't want to admit it. I'm in the all skills should be class skills camp (with maybe a few exceptions like UMD/UPD) Why do they have them 1: In 2'nd Ed Thieves had a special "Thieving Skills" ability (Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Find/Remove Traps, Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Detect Noise, Climb Walls, Read Languages), and received 30% each level to distribute between those skills. In 3'rd Ed skills became generalized, so in order to keep their abilities Rogues (as the replacement for thieves) gained extra skill points. In the new skill system +30% converts to +6 skill points, so Rogues get 6/level more skill points than Fighters. 2: In order to fit their assumed stereotype, Rogues need a number of skills, so they were given more skills/level in order to purchase them. Fighter's assumed stereotype does not require so many skills. 3: In an expanded view of Rogues class features, one of their class features is to be skilled at a large range of skills. 4: In designing (hopefully balanced) classes, each class makes trade offs between class features, HP, skills/level, etc. The fighter has more HP and feats, feats seem more valuable at first than they really are (especially at higher levels), so the trade off of {Good Fort Save <-> Good Ref Save, +6skill/level <-> +2HP/level, Fighter Feats <-> SA + Rogue Abilities} seemed fine. 5: People will play a fighter with 2 skill/level, most people would not play a Rogue with 2 skill/level.
NobodyRemembersThis 08-08-07, 01:20 AM	1.) so you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. 2.) you admit again the skills are balancing factor of the class. 3.) you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. 4.) you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. 5.) you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. So, in every instance you have admitted that the skill/cross class skill system - of which skill points per level are a major balancing factor - is part of balancing the mechanics of the system. Your arguments only prove it. If every class has every skill as a class skill, then every class has to have the exact same number of skill points per level. You can't have it both ways. Either skills are not a blancing factor for the classes, or they are. So your proposed "balanced change" has just been proved, by you, to be nothing more than a munchkinny attempt at powergaming.
navar100 08-08-07, 01:32 AM	Irving, they still haven't answered me (the pro all skills camp) about explaining why the rogue (or any skill class with higher than 2 sp/level) has more skill points than the fighter. I've even posted it twice. I reckon it is because they can't - Any answer they provide will also apply to (and defeat) their arguments that class/cross class skills are a basis of the class design and balance system. It's over, and they are provably wrong. They just don't want to admit it. I didn't answer because you didn't direct the question to me. However, I already answered your question indirectly in other postings. The rogue gets more skill points because he's the "skill monkey". The skill monkey is a viable character niche. It has nothing to do with "balance" as far as I'm concerned for this thread regardless of what the Power That Be who designed the class intended. Being an expert at many skills is what rogues do. I am perfectly fine with the idea that different classes get different skill points. Let the rogue keep his crown of getting the most. With a House Rule no class skill, the rogue retains his skill monkey shtick. He retains the most skill points and can be an expert at the most number of skills at once (expert=max ranks) or he can generalize a bit, willing not to have max ranks to be able to have maybe max-2 or max-3 in quite a number of different skills most other classes couldn't hope to be equivalent. The low skilled classes, meanwhile, would then have an easier time to be experts in the few skills that are really important to that character or decide to be "good enough" with a bit more skills. The House Rule improves their lot without taking away anything from the rogue. Not every bad guy will have Spot and Listen to make a Hide and Move Silently rogue's life miserable. To do so means a terrible DM who is just as likely to have all bad guys have fire resistance and/or evasion just because the wizard finally learned Fireball.
Roog 08-08-07, 02:08 AM	1.) so you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. No, Legacy factors 2.) you admit again the skills are balancing factor of the class. No, fitting stereotypes 3.) you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. Yes, number of skills is a balancing factor. 4.) you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. Yes, number of skills is a balancing factor. 5.) you admit the skills are balancing factor of the class. Yes, number of skills is a balancing factor. So, in every instance you have admitted that the skill/cross class skill system - of which skill points per level are a major balancing factor - is part of balancing the mechanics of the system. Your arguments only prove it. Most instances, but Yes - skills/level is a balancing factor. If every class has every skill as a class skill, then every class has to have the exact same number of skill points per level. WTF - where does that crazy logic come from! You can't have it both ways. Either skills are not a blancing factor for the classes, or they are. So your proposed "balanced change" has just been proved, by you, to be nothing more than a munchkinny attempt at powergaming. I said skills/level is a balancing factor. I did not say anything about class skills being a balancing factor. I can munchkin quite well, with the current rules - since most munchkin characters don't need cross-class skills. Its only my non-munchkin characters that have the problem with class skills. For example: I was recently playing a Spell-Jammer game, and I wanted to create an Int based fighter as the ships navigator, but all navigation related skills (Profession:Navigator or Knowledge:Whatever) are cross-class skills for a Fighter. If I used the cross-class skill rules then eventually I would lose my job to another PC with the right skill as a class skill.
ArcTan 08-08-07, 03:04 AM	...so are you seriously proposing that sneak attack be available as a class choice, like a skill? Why not just use the generic classes? Or even the gestalt classes? Are you familiar with Unearthed Arcana? I can't help but feel that, in all honesty, you just want an entirely different core rules system. An alignmentless, classless rules system can exist, and does exist. But it's not D&D in any meaningful way. Those two concepts date all the way back to Chainmail . Removing them from the system and calling it D&D is like taking the peanut butter from the Reese's Cup. Can I just say, again, I hate this argument? I don't give a crap what you think is intrinsic to D&D. The only thing *really* intrinsic to D&D is that it's a fantasy roleplaying game with the name "Dungeons and Dragons". That's the part that makes it popular. Brand power, the network externality, whatever you wanna call it. There's a lot of dumb crap that's stayed in D&D for no other reason than the fact that it has a monopoly on the D&D brand name means it's never had to compete. None of these things make them objectively good facets of D&D. None of these things can be proven to have increased D&D's popularity instead of exerting a drag force on it. D&D should be trying to *learn* from its competitors, who, unlike D&D, have had to compete in a scrappy market where you have to evolve, adapt or die. In order to get people to play your game that's *not* called D&D, you have to actually have a damn good game. In order to get people to play a game that *is* called D&D, it just has to not be actively bad. So no. It's the sacred cows of D&D that I think most need slaughtering -- the things about D&D that are most questionable and most worth throwing out are the things that have been in it the longest.
Steely_Dan 08-08-07, 03:49 AM	traditionalism isn't good when it doesn't hold a purpose. Exactly, tradition is the illusion of permanence.
Steely_Dan 08-08-07, 03:57 AM	So no. It's the sacred cows of D&D that I think most need slaughtering -- the things about D&D that are most questionable and most worth throwing out are the things that have been in it the longest. You are totally on my page. There are still many clunky holdovers – xp penalties for multi-classing, multi-classing restrictions, turning rules, death from massive damage, crafting rules etc, just to name a few (IMO). Quite a few things in this game are in it, just to be in it, not because it adds any greater sense of fun or what not.
unundindur 08-08-07, 06:30 AM	Irving, they still haven't answered me (the pro all skills camp) about explaining why the rogue (or any skill class with higher than 2 sp/level) has more skill points than the fighter. I've even posted it twice. I reckon it is because they can't - Any answer they provide will also apply to (and defeat) their arguments that class/cross class skills are a basis of the class design and balance system. It's over, and they are provably wrong. They just don't want to admit it. Well, teh rogue gets more skills than a fighter because his field of opperation typically require more skill points. So far nothing new. I am against this too but this would impact balance, and as such I am more hessitant to remove this difference. I have said the opposite of what you say, class/cross-class skills are not a basis of class design and balance, but number of skill points are. And just to underline it, I personally would love for the fighter to have the option (at a balanced tradeof) to get as many skills as a rogue, because that would offer diversity, thus more easily allow for interesting character concepts.
unundindur 08-08-07, 06:30 AM	You are totally on my page. There are still many clunky holdovers – xp penalties for multi-classing, multi-classing restrictions, turning rules, death from massive damage, crafting rules etc, just to name a few (IMO). Quite a few things in this game are in it, just to be in it, not because it adds any greater sense of fun or what not. Word!
unundindur 08-08-07, 06:44 AM	You're talking about a system where every skill is a class skill, alignment doesn't exist, and class abilities like sneak attack are optional for every class - assuming class has any meaning at all in this system. How is this D&D? What makes a rogue any different from a fighter anymore? Is it the BAB and saves? I honestly don't undsertand how your version of D&D would work. But it does - balance and character definition. You might not agree with it becuase it doesn't match how you think the real world should operate, but it does work - and work quite well. You have to be creative to get the kind of character types you want, but complaining that it would be easier to take shortcuts and just claim the abilities within your class instead of multiclassing isn't compelling. You can get across town faster if you run red lights and ignore one-way streets too, but you'll throw the whole system into anarchy. Like I keep saying, there are systems that do what you want to do. They're just not D&D. They use points instead of classes. They work fine. If you really want a system like that, be brave and try them out. Class would not be a term in that sort of system, character concept (out of character) and "jobb" (in-character) would replace it, and could be completely separate of each other. A rogue and fighter would only be as different as the players chose to make them. If the "fighter" happened to be exactely akin to the rogue he would likely not fil the fighter role (in-character) anymore and thus be a rogue (not the class, but the concept). How is this DnD? Well I have to ask, why isn't this DnD? Is DnD really only separate because of ints rigidity and unability to adapt? I would say its DnD as long as there is DnD written on the books and I can play in Faerun (and Eberron) and as long as its a high-fantasy game that works. Again, character definition is where we seem to go separate ways. To me it seems you imply that character definition is when a character chose to be something the rules embrace, and thus make more powerful than another concept (see my fullplate/greatsword vs. leatherarmour/rapier example above). To me this is bad design. Furthermore you say that a creative mind can create anything. This is to a long extent true, but that isn't for the good. Why do I have to own 30 books, be creative, abuse rules, use lots of time and "powergame in the sense that I take classes that don't have any flavour in common with my concept to play a relatively normal concept of mine (the example with the high elf two-weapon-fighter/defensive magic wielding commander) without beeing shafted severely by the rules? I play a beguiler, even though it doesn't fit at all with my concept, its just numerically the closest I could get to where i wanted. What do that say about the class system? I play a class to play a completely different concept... That cannot be intended... The typical DnD approach would be a new book with "Elven commander" as a base class instead of opening the previous design(s) and improve upon those. Not good. Again, otehr systems may be better, but DnD have the most important benefit; reknown, which effectively locks me to it (everyone I know who play it wouldn't ever care to learn a new system from the ground). So I rather try to change what we have than start a new :)
pmurray@bigpond.com 08-08-07, 06:57 AM	No, I see what Silverblade is saying, you don't need to have studied ancient magic for years to look up "spellcrafting for beginners" on google. Just make it that whatever skill your characters take that isn't a class skill, tell them to make their back story match. "Bob the Barbarian had long been interested with magic, and spent lazy afternoons reading about it, well his barbarian brothers slaughtered pigs and cows to eat." If Bob has spent lazy afternoons with dusty tomes rather than brawling, then his XP ought to count against his Wizard level, not his Barbarian level. If he takes a level of Barbarian, then that is a statement to the effect that "Bob has been spending his time brawling". Given that, any time spent on dusty tomes will have been far less effective. At the end of the day - why not move to a classless, skill-based RPG if that's your bag? Be my guest.
Irving 08-08-07, 09:46 AM	How is this DnD? Well I have to ask, why isn't this DnD? Is DnD really only separate because of ints rigidity and unability to adapt? No, D&D is D&D becuse there are certain underlying concepts and rules that don't change. You can use chessmen to play checkers, and complain about "rigidity" when people tell you that you're not playing chess, but if you're not using the rules of chess, you're not playing chess. The rules define the game. Playing D&D rules without its core concepts is not D&D. Again, other systems may be better, but DnD have the most important benefit; reknown, which effectively locks me to it (everyone I know who play it wouldn't ever care to learn a new system from the ground). So I rather try to change what we have than start a new :) So you want a system called D&D, but isn't. If you spent as much time on your friends as you have on this board, you might just convince them. Or just buy new rules and tell your friends it's "D&D 4.0 Beta".
unundindur 08-08-07, 09:50 AM	No, D&D is D&D becuse there are certain underlying concepts and rules that don't change. You can use chessmen to play checkers, and complain about "rigidity" when people tell you that you're not playing chess, but if you're not using the rules of chess, you're not playing chess. The rules define the game. Playing D&D rules without its core concepts is not D&D. So you want a system called D&D, but isn't. If you spent as much time on your friends as you have on this board, you might just convince them. Or just buy new rules and tell your friends it's "D&D 4.0 Beta". The only problem is that D&D sort of defines roleplaying, as sad as that may be... May I ask what you said when ADnD became 3.0? After all it changed some of the very fundamental aspects (much more so than my suggested changes), and by your logic is is no longer DnD... and the rest I hope was a pun of sorts... EDIT: And the big difference from checkers to DnD is that DnD takes years to learn and have near monopoly in its market-league. There is an analogy to microsoft... DnD is microsoft in the roleplay world. Its a slow moving beast that can come away with horrible solutions simply due to its massive market. That said, people are at least aware of it in that case. EDIT 2: I would much rather have microsoft change instead of switching to another operating system, thus messing around with all my aplications that are based on the windows platform.
Steely_Dan 08-08-07, 10:04 AM	So you want a system called D&D, but isn't. Like what many people called/call 3rd edition?
Steely_Dan 08-08-07, 10:06 AM	The rules define the game. No they don't, I could have a great role-playing session in FR etc using any number of systems.
Kursk 08-08-07, 10:23 AM	And what if he has attended such a college, eh? See, that's what blows the entire cross class nonsense out of the water ;) Then he'd be a wizard and it wouldn't be a cross class skill. What's your point?
Ornum 08-08-07, 10:48 AM	Really, nothing about skills in 3.5 needs a global overhaul. The existing rules shouldn't be changed yet again to accomplish what a few dislike. Why? Because just as many would complain that such a change was made. Let's face it, if WotC could really please everyone, then threads such as these would not exist. But it's not possible. You can't please everyone and there are too many that hover in these forums wanting nothing more than to find *some* flaw in WotC and then blast them at every turn. If I don't like a game's rules set or a particular expansion to a game, I simply don't buy it. When you buy the book and then complain about how useless it is, your opinion really doesn't matter. You've done what they want already by spending the money in the first place. Look, it's simple. If you don't like it, then change it. As long as it was changed across the board in your game for PC's and all DM controlled creatures, then it should work out fine.
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 12:06 PM	To take the good example I have been trying to figure out: An elven warrior who is primarily dual wielding scimitars but also skilled in defensive magic and a great commander. Marshal/Abjurer/EldritchKnight. Add in Abjurant Champion, etc. if you feel like it. Wow, that was hard.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 12:09 PM	You have proven his point, actually. The build you suggested takes at least three books, four if you want it to be effective and five if you want it decent. (PHB, DMG, MiniHB, CAdv, CM).
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 12:11 PM	You have proven his point, actually. The build you suggested takes at least three books, four if you want it to be effective and five if you want it decent. (PHB, DMG, MiniHB, CAdv, CM). What is "decent"? A straight Marshal/Abjurer/Eldritch Knight is playable/effective, and only requires one non-Core book. If you are an extreme powergaming* player then perhaps it is not good enough for use - but otherwise it should suffice, even for a normal powergamer*. And if you want it to be more "decent", add splatbooks. *I have nothing against powergamers, and indeed can be one if I so choose.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 12:25 PM	What is "decent"? A straight Marshal/Abjurer/Eldritch Knight is plenty playable, and only requires one non-Core book. If you are a munchkin, then maybe it's not good enough, but otherwise it should suffice, even for a powergamer. If you want it to be more "decent", add splatbooks. Dualwielding scimitars without Oversized TWF is bad. Your combo would also suffer heavily from MAD. With 3 books, it'd be on the verge of unplayable.
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 12:46 PM	Your combo would suffer heavily from MAD. It is hardly MAD. A high Int is not required for a buffing/defensive Abjurer. The rest is normal for a high-Cha type warrior - in other words, the character concept itself is slightly MAD. My build does not make it more so. The original build had a Beguiler anyway - that's Int-based casting, so what are you talking about? Dualwielding scimitars without Oversized TWF is bad. So... take Oversized TWF. What's the problem here? With 3 books, it'd be on the verge of unplayable. Only one non-Core book. And it is nowhere near unplayable.
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-08-07, 12:51 PM	Incorrect. Skills available, and skill points per level, are a function of the class. By your ridiculous argument, every class should get the same exact amount of skill points - only differentiated by race and Intelligence. And that is the flaw in all of these arguments. If skills are not a function of class, why does a rogue get more skill points than a fighter? Any answer you provide will invalidate your arguments that skills are not class abilities, so tread carefully, as they will apply equally to class/cross class. A rogue spends more of his time learning/using skills than anyone else EXCEPT the expert or Commoner, and maybe a Ranger. Thus, he should have the most "skills" of the adventuring archetypes. More skill points in total, not some weird ability that only HE can disarm traps...that's total metagaming and ONLY done for class "balance" not game logic...or that Bob the FIghter is magiclaly cursed to be lousy at singing, when his entire family are famed singers, and also soldiers of the crown. A rogue should not be forced to be the party's "trap monkey", that's bad. he should be guy able to use a hell of a lot of skills well or several to utter mastership...the con-man, the burglar, and if he wants, the trap smith. Other points: Joe the Barbarian goes to wizard college, why, who knows, long as there's a good reason for it! He doens't go to learn how to make magic (spell casting), he goes to understand magic...but he's still a barbarian...but what IS a barbarian? In my games, they are often *berserkers*, NOT savages. they are combatants who rely on fury and passion, not precise skill at arms. But that's my choice as DM. Anyway, he can learn Spell Craft or Knowledge (Arcana), but he'll probably be using other skills to, not connected with magic, Survival, stealth skills to maintain his "contact with the natural world"...or Perform: Singing, because he's actually a town-born man of incredible passion who's as happy singing an aria, as he is chopping enemies to shreds. STOP PUTTING CHARACTERS IN NICE, NEAT BUT DUMB BOXES!! :) For goodness sake, that should have died out with 2nd ed. Long as there is good reason for a character to take a skill, feat or class level, FINE! Just don't let folk do it for munchkin cheating ;)
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-08-07, 12:53 PM	No, I see what Silverblade is saying, you don't need to have studied ancient magic for years to look up "spellcrafting for beginners" on google. Just make it that whatever skill your characters take that isn't a class skill, tell them to make their back story match. "Bob the Barbarian had long been interested with magic, and spent lazy afternoons reading about it, well his barbarian brothers slaughtered pigs and cows to eat." Bingo! Give that man a beer! :)
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 12:55 PM	Joe the Barbarian goes to wizard college, why, who knows, long as there's a good reason for it! He doens't go to learn how to make magic (spell casting), he goes to understand magic Skill Focus (Spellcraft) covers this pretty well. Or a feat that makes Spellcraft a class skill.
Someone 08-08-07, 12:58 PM	Why are so many complaints along the lines of "oh, I can't turn my specialized concept into game mechanics with the rules as they are"? As Jaxgaret showed, maybe you need to be better at figuring out what game mechanics (classes, feats, etc) fit your concept well, rather than rearranging mechanics that don't fit the concept well. And people keep coming back with the word "stereotype". There's a difference between a stereotype and a specialty. The rogue class' specialty is traps and sneak attacks. The fighter class' specialty is proficiencies and combat techniques. I just don't understand all the hate for a fighter who actually uses his heavy armor proficiency or a rogue who actually uses his trapfinding...
Kursk 08-08-07, 12:59 PM	Bingo! Give that man a beer! :) But since "Bob the Barbarian" has no idea about the basics of magic he has to study twice as hard as the trained wizard to get to the same level of knowledge... :rolleyes:
CCS 08-08-07, 01:14 PM	So you think Barbarians should be equally adept at studying Spellcraft as Sorcerers? One could argue that given the rules for multi-classing that they already are. What, there's NO penalty for leveling up & deciding to take an entire lv of sorcerer - yet the same barbarian has difficulty recognizing spells that commonly get cast around/at him? Yet that's what the rules imply....
GawainBS 08-08-07, 01:53 PM	It is hardly MAD. A high Int is not required for a buffing/defensive Abjurer. The rest is normal for a high-Cha type warrior - in other words, the character concept itself is slightly MAD. My build does not make it more so. The original build had a Beguiler anyway - that's Int-based casting, so what are you talking about? So... take Oversized TWF. What's the problem here? Only one non-Core book. And it is nowhere near unplayable. But you still have need of some 16-17 INT, and Oversized TWF adds yet another non-core book. Don't forget you need 19 DEX as well. And if you want to be able to cast while holding two weapons, take Somatic Weaponry, yet another Non-core book.
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 01:53 PM	the concept of "cross class skills" is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D!!! So, here's my suggestion: ditch the idea of class skills entirely. Other suggestion: increase all classes skill points by +2. SO basically the Rogue is gimped because EVERYONE has two extra skill points to put into Spot and Listen, both of which are now essentially Class skills because there is no difference between class and cross class skills. Sure anyone (with average or better vision) can spot a car coming down the road, but how many people are trained to spot camouflaged troops? Right, people in the appropriate careers. So the use of cross Class skills to BALANCE certain class abilities (rogue Silent Move) sees a parallel IRL. Does not seem that retarded. Closing note - I had no desire to wade through pages of people debating their view of some small aspect of the above, particularly when so many seem to be congratulating the OP on his observations, so someone else may have said this very thing before.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 01:56 PM	So, someone who spends his life on a battlefield (Let's say, a fighter) shouldn't be able to spot camouflaged troops?:) I think the best would be to let characters pick their own class skills, up to a certain limit.
tantric 08-08-07, 02:06 PM	suggestion: class and cross-class skills only apply at character creation, usually 1st level. if you want to roleplay going and learning something, have at it.
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 02:07 PM	So, someone who spends his life on a battlefield (Let's say, a fighter) shouldn't be able to spot camouflaged troops?:) I think the best would be to let characters pick their own class skills, up to a certain limit. The troops who specialize in spotting camouflaged enemies are in RECON units, you know the equivalent of D&D RANGERS.
Breetai 08-08-07, 02:12 PM	This horse stinks to high heaven. Whew.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 02:17 PM	The troops who specialize in spotting camouflaged enemies are in RECON units, you know the equivalent of D&D RANGERS. So, every recon units consists of guys & gals who can cast spells and have pets? Wait, maybe I lend more force to my argument if I type something in CAPS. Besides, a "normal" trooper lives or dies by his battlefield awareness, which would equate to Spot/Sense Motive.
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 02:55 PM	But you still have need of some 16-17 INT, and Oversized TWF adds yet another non-core book. Don't forget you need 19 DEX as well. And if you want to be able to cast while holding two weapons, take Somatic Weaponry, yet another Non-core book. All of that is unavoidable due to the character concept itself, and has nothing to do with my specific build. Can't you see that? Also, 16-17 Int is not required. Perhaps 13-14 is minimum necessary. This horse stinks to high heaven. Whew. Agreed.
OravennasBrother 08-08-07, 03:07 PM	So, every recon units consists of guys & gals who can cast spells and have pets? No every recon unit consists of soldiers who have received special training in spotting things (ambushes, mines booby traps etc.) which other soldiers not trained specifically to spot would miss. Surprise there is no MAGIC IRL, but there is an equivalent of the D&D ranger (or Scout f you prefer)
DM-Scott 08-08-07, 03:12 PM	Actually I've come up with a way to indeed make everyone happy. :D It seems to me that one half of the conversation is about the fact backgrounds and character concepts are difficult to pull off from a purely class perspective, at the same time that classes have certain class skills and skill points for a reason. Why don't we look at d20 modern for a way to fix this issue? D20 modern has a number of classes that are generic, but they also are intended to fill specific roles in a party and have class skills. A strong hero (beefy melee type guy) doesn't have preform as a class skill, because it's not really a trademark of that character class. BUT They have starting occupations / backgrounds. These add flavor to your character, come in a variety of backgrounds, and add a number of class skills to your character and sometimes a bonus feat or extra starting money. Try some of these starting occupations / backgrounds for your characters. You only need choose 1. Mystic Background You grew up in an area of liberal magic use. You could have been living in a mageocracy, or perhaps you were good friends with a tribal shaman. Regardless, you understand and have a knack with magic. Prerequisites: Age 18+ Skills: Choose a three of the following skills as permanent class skills. If a skill you slect is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill. Knwowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Planes), Knowledge (Religion), and Spellcraft. Bonus Starting Gold: 1d6 gp Wilderness Background You grew up hunting, trapping, fishing, and living off the land. Prerequisites: Age 15+ Skills: Choose a three of the following skills as permanent class skills. If a skill you slect is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill. Craft (Trapmaking), Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival. Bonus Starting Gold: 1d4 Artisan Background Through apprenticeship, family trade, or some other situation, you picked up useful creation skills. Prerequisites: Age 18+ Skills: Choose a two of the following skills as permanent class skills. If a skill you slect is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill. Craft (Armorsmithing), Craft (Weaponsmithing), Craft (Trapmaking), Craft (Poisonmaking). Bonus Feat: Skill Focus (Craft) Bonus Starting Gold: 4d4 gp These are some examples... I didn't put much effort into these, just did them on the fly. But I think it's good enough to get the general idea across. Peace out, Game on.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 03:44 PM	All of that is unavoidable due to the character concept itself, and has nothing to do with my specific build. Can't you see that? Also, 16-17 Int is not required. Perhaps 13-14 is minimum necessary. Agreed. A concept which suffers of this because of the rules as they are set out. Can't you see that?
unundindur 08-08-07, 03:54 PM	Marshal/Abjurer/EldritchKnight. Add in Abjurant Champion, etc. if you feel like it. Wow, that was hard. No core class, and a prestige class... and he cannot wear the breastplate I envision :weep: Se above posts for more detail.
unundindur 08-08-07, 03:54 PM	You have proven his point, actually. The build you suggested takes at least three books, four if you want it to be effective and five if you want it decent. (PHB, DMG, MiniHB, CAdv, CM). Darn, didn't see that before I posted, but yes, he did :rolleyes:
unundindur 08-08-07, 03:58 PM	But since "Bob the Barbarian" has no idea about the basics of magic he has to study twice as hard as the trained wizard to get to the same level of knowledge... :rolleyes: Perhaps he did? That would none the less be a fluff-issue, not a balance-issue, thus neither a rule issue (unless of course the otehr parameter called setting disallows it)
unundindur 08-08-07, 04:03 PM	Actually I've come up with a way to indeed make everyone happy. :D It seems to me that one half of the conversation is about the fact backgrounds and character concepts are difficult to pull off from a purely class perspective, at the same time that classes have certain class skills and skill points for a reason. Why don't we look at d20 modern for a way to fix this issue? D20 modern has a number of classes that are generic, but they also are intended to fill specific roles in a party and have class skills. A strong hero (beefy melee type guy) doesn't have preform as a class skill, because it's not really a trademark of that character class. BUT They have starting occupations / backgrounds. These add flavor to your character, come in a variety of backgrounds, and add a number of class skills to your character and sometimes a bonus feat or extra starting money. Try some of these starting occupations / backgrounds for your characters. You only need choose 1. Mystic Background You grew up in an area of liberal magic use. You could have been living in a mageocracy, or perhaps you were good friends with a tribal shaman. Regardless, you understand and have a knack with magic. Prerequisites: Age 18+ Skills: Choose a three of the following skills as permanent class skills. If a skill you slect is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill. Knwowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (Planes), Knowledge (Religion), and Spellcraft. Bonus Starting Gold: 1d6 gp Wilderness Background You grew up hunting, trapping, fishing, and living off the land. Prerequisites: Age 15+ Skills: Choose a three of the following skills as permanent class skills. If a skill you slect is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill. Craft (Trapmaking), Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival. Bonus Starting Gold: 1d4 Artisan Background Through apprenticeship, family trade, or some other situation, you picked up useful creation skills. Prerequisites: Age 18+ Skills: Choose a two of the following skills as permanent class skills. If a skill you slect is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill. Craft (Armorsmithing), Craft (Weaponsmithing), Craft (Trapmaking), Craft (Poisonmaking). Bonus Feat: Skill Focus (Craft) Bonus Starting Gold: 4d4 gp These are some examples... I didn't put much effort into these, just did them on the fly. But I think it's good enough to get the general idea across. Peace out, Game on. Again its a step in the right direction, but it still an unnecesary limit. If you made the list of those starting packages unlimited, taking into account all possible concepts then fine, but it still won't help us get rid of house rules (to allow concepts while still retaining balance). You seem to be in the "we want peoplee to play what they want" group, and if so, what is your reason not to just allow everyone to pick just want they want?
unundindur 08-08-07, 04:10 PM	Btw, is there a way to get someone from WotC to check on this thread? I think it have this issue covered from all sides to such an extent that it could be valuable for them, and it would be very interesting having someone from WotC comment on this whole issue. I assume people like Andy Collins would agree the current system is flawed, just as he agreed that rolling for hit points doesn't make sense from any point of view, and is just there because it have always been that way (yes, he did). Is there an analogy? Boja!
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 04:51 PM	No core class, and a prestige class... and he cannot wear the breastplate I envision :weep: Se above posts for more detail. I used a single non-core class and a single (Core) prestige class. Woe is me. And yes, yes he can wear the breastplate that you envision. Have you ever heard of Twilight Mithral armor? Granted, that adds one more splatbook - but a gish build is going to be tough any way you slice it in Core. Anyway, why all the hate for splatbooks here? They [usually] add a lot to the game, and you don't have to allow them in your campaign if you don't want to. Plus there are ways to get them very cheap if cost is an issue.
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 04:57 PM	A concept which suffers of this because of the rules as they are set out. Can't you see that? Yes, obviously, I can. You are the one bringing up issues that have nothing to do with my build, but with the concept itself, which I did not create. If you want a character to be good at lots of different things, it is going to take more work to get there, and a dual-wielding arcanist/warrior/commander needs to be good at lots of different things. That is not my problem, that is a problem with the concept. Even with this difficulty, I came up with a viable build, proving my point.
GawainBS 08-08-07, 04:58 PM	I have tons of love for splatbooks, but it just goes to show that the system needs constant tweaking.
unundindur 08-08-07, 05:24 PM	Yes, obviously, I can. You are the one bringing up issues that have nothing to do with my build, but with the concept itself, which I did not create. If you want a character to be good at lots of different things, it is going to take more work to get there, and a dual-wielding arcanist/warrior/commander needs to be good at lots of different things. That is not my problem, that is a problem with the concept. Even with this difficulty, I came up with a viable build, proving my point. You did prove that its possible under the current rules (abeit still not comparable to a regular build), what you didn't prove was that the system did so in an efficient and ellegant way. As have been outlined it required more than 1 book, and more than core classes, which is not good. If you wanted the character in question in a trait-based DnD you would simply chose some abilities that simulated the abilites you wanted. (I guess its time to create a new thread for my part ;) )
Zyphus 08-08-07, 05:53 PM	So you think Barbarians should be equally adept at studying Spellcraft as Sorcerers? Yes. I totally agree and don't use cross-class skills, and next campaign plan for each character class to have +2 skill points per level. If the Barbarian and Sorcerer both have a 10 Int, the Barbarian is still as good since he has 4 skill points per level to the Sorcerer's 2. The only difference is max ranks. But the characters usually want the Barbarian to do stuff, and not identify magic. The Sorcerer wants to do magic stuff. While characters have dabbled with a point or two in what would be a cross-class skill, most just aren't that interested in them unless they are needed for a prestige class, feat, or other benefit. I also convinced another DM to do away with cross class skills. Not only does it make making NPCs easier since you don't have to look up which skills cost more, there is more variety in what tricks an NPC could do.
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 06:01 PM	You did prove that its possible under the current rules (abeit still not comparable to a regular build), what you didn't prove was that the system did so in an efficient and ellegant way. As have been outlined it required more than 1 book, and more than core classes, which is not good. I don't see what's so inelegant or inefficient about using a single non-Core book. Or even two of three. Again with the bias against splatbooks; what do you want, for everything to be in one book? It's not going to be - the D&D system will never be condensed into one book. Also, I beg to differ that that build is not comparable to a regular build. It is plenty viable for everyone but an extreme powergamer. Though on second thought it may be better served by using a Abjuration-focused Sorcerer instead of an Abjurer, for the Cha synergy. If you wanted the character in question in a trait-based DnD you would simply chose some abilities that simulated the abilites you wanted. (I guess its time to create a new thread for my part ;) ) Yes, perhaps that should be rendered in a new thread.
Kursk 08-08-07, 06:05 PM	Perhaps he did? That would none the less be a fluff-issue, not a balance-issue, thus neither a rule issue (unless of course the otehr parameter called setting disallows it) Apparently not, if he learns it as fast as a Wizard... :rolleyes:
DM-Scott 08-08-07, 06:06 PM	Again its a step in the right direction, but it still an unnecesary limit. If you made the list of those starting packages unlimited, taking into account all possible concepts then fine, but it still won't help us get rid of house rules (to allow concepts while still retaining balance). You seem to be in the "we want peoplee to play what they want" group, and if so, what is your reason not to just allow everyone to pick just want they want? Well yes, I have to admit I'm perhaps a bit odd here. I'm in the middle of the debate, methinks. Basically yes, I want people to be able to build a character into a character concept they want. But at the same time I can't help but to think free-skills are a bad way to go. I've played in games where our DM felt class skills were stupid, and everyone had open skills. It unfortunately didn't work very well, as it really did mess up some of the game balance. D20 Modern's way of doing it pretty good in my opinion. It allows you to build a character based on a focus (strong, fast, smart) just as you would in D&D (fighter, monk, rogue for example), gives them a set number of class skills. For example, a "smart" hero is the skill monkey, and most of their skills are based on intelligence. They typically lack skills such as climb, move silently, bluff, or diplomacy. However, a smart hero then picks a background / occupation which give him a bit of extra cash, a set of selectable skills to always consider "class skills" and sometimes a bonus feat such as endurance, a weapon proficiency, or something similar. It meets both sides of the argument in the middle. It also makes it easier to house rule without changing the very fundamentals of the system, because your house rule is as simple as adding another background or occupation to the selectable list, as you would add a feat or spell. That's why I think this method is best. I've played in games that have all class skills, and it didn't work very well for any of us. I've played in games using the standard rules and I usually don't mind, but I do in fact have trouble with some character concepts. I offered the idea to make them all cost 1 point for a rank in a cross class skill, but keep the usual half class skill limit. That gives characters more options, but means the specialists will always be better. Then I offered this option which gives you a much broader level of options, since you could even create your own starting occupation / background and present it to your DM. I don't think I can go much further than this though. I'd accept both of the above options in my games if my players liked it, but I've found free-form skills to be a bit too much, and many players often feel dis-satisfied if they aren't really filling any sort of niche in the party, and it ultimately comes down to everyone having the same skills - then you get into arguments about meta-gaming, and why everyone has tumble, use magic device, or handle animal. Yep, handle animal "But...it's MY thing to train the pets!" arguements. In my personal game, I wouldn't do it for the world. I have one player who gets bent out of shape because his rogue is supposed to do "rogue stuff" and without ever putting ranks in climb, felt upstaged because the bard/fighter climbed a building and dropped a rope down to them (after he dumped all of his ranks into climbing when he became a fighter). However, some players are different. I know out of the people I game with, only that one is kinda like that. So there are my reasons, and my two suggestions. A) Use an option like the D20 Modern book and let everyone select a small number of different background / occupation / regional packages that give a few skills or a feat or two to pick from. B) Let all skill points be spent equally, but go ahead and limit the maximum ranks for cross class skills to 1/2 of class skills. That way the fighter can search, spot, listen, and disable devices, and bluff, but perhaps not as well as a monk, rogue, or bard.
Kesthol 08-08-07, 07:28 PM	No, D&D is D&D becuse there are certain underlying concepts and rules that don't change. You can use chessmen to play checkers, and complain about "rigidity" when people tell you that you're not playing chess, but if you're not using the rules of chess, you're not playing chess. The rules define the game. Playing D&D rules without its core concepts is not D&D. So you want a system called D&D, but isn't. If you spent as much time on your friends as you have on this board, you might just convince them. Or just buy new rules and tell your friends it's "D&D 4.0 Beta". Then why the **** aren't you using a THAC0 anymore? Or you have a cleric that can (at least, at higher levels), cast 8th and 9th level spells?? Complex games do change over time to keep up with society & the players--even some of the "fundamental rules". Take chess (your example), a game that has existed for (at least) 1200-1500 years (depending on the origin theory you accept). Castling was a more recent development. The queen, originally, was only mildly stronger than a king, in terms of offensive power--she could only move up to 2 squares, and then only on a diagonal. Go and try to tell all the world's chess players that "You are not playing chess if you allow castling and/or a strong (or mad, as the strengthed queen was originally called) queen." A good number of them will have to resist the strong urge to take your nose hairs en passante with a pair of pawns. The concepts that don't--and cannot--change in D&D (to keep it D&D), IMHO, are: There exists a DM/GM (or more than one of such) who exercises control over the direction of the game (both in-game and metagame) There exists one or more players, who control one or more PCs, to play in the game The ratio of DM/PC control is not universal for all groups Dice are used as random number generators The most common die used, in terms of what it is used for, is a d20 (as opposed to a d6, d10, d%, used by some other role-playing games) Archetypes of mythology, fantasy, and the world are common (but not necessarily in any specific game; I mean overall, as if looking simultaneously at all D&D games played around the world, at all times). Teamwork is used to help promote group survival (and metagame, fun). Character ability develops over time Character story develops over time Variety and choice in the direction of both of the above (including race, magic ability, combat ability, and other skills & abilities) Challenges exist to be overcome, including the following 2 entries Dungeons (at least conceptually) exist to be crawled through for the sheer purpose of "Can I/we survive this?" Dragons (great foes) exist to be slain/defeated and their hoard plundered (or lands conquered, etc.) There is no way to "win", per se--a greater challenge always awaits. I think that's it, at least for now. So to y'all who say "But it wouldn't be D&D!!": Did you burn you AD&D books?? I thought not. I agree with the idea that a more open, player-driven (as opposed to developer- or DM- driven system, where skills and abilities could be chosen essentially as you like (as long as it is BALANCED!! -- it is impossible to get both full BAB and full spellcasting at any level (for that respective level)) would be a much better, more fun, less confusing/complicated way to play D&D. It is possible. I hope that D&D 4e/AD&D 3e (whichever term is used) allows for much more freedom in terms of character ability development. Cause that may be the only way I agree to play the game when that next edition comes out (even if it is 25 years down the road).
Irving 08-08-07, 07:37 PM	The concepts that don't--and cannot--change in D&D (to keep it D&D), IMHO, are: There exists a DM/GM (or more than one of such) who exercises control over the direction of the game (both in-game and metagame) There exists one or more players, who control one or more PCs, to play in the game The ratio of DM/PC control is not universal for all groups Dice are used as random number generators The most common die used, in terms of what it is used for, is a d20 (as opposed to a d6, d10, d%, used by some other role-playing games) Archetypes of mythology, fantasy, and the world are common (but not necessarily in any specific game; I mean overall, as if looking simultaneously at all D&D games played around the world, at all times). Teamwork is used to help promote group survival (and metagame, fun). Character ability develops over time Character story develops over time Variety and choice in the direction of both of the above (including race, magic ability, combat ability, and other skills & abilities) Challenges exist to be overcome, including the following 2 entries Dungeons (at least conceptually) exist to be crawled through for the sheer purpose of "Can I/we survive this?" Dragons (great foes) exist to be slain/defeated and their hoard plundered (or lands conquered, etc.) There is no way to "win", per se--a greater challenge always awaits. I think that's it, at least for now. Aside from the 20-sided die, you've defined an RPG, not D&D. D&D is a game where: Character progression is level based, instead of point based. Characters are defined by classes with set abilites which increase by level. The fighter, cleric, rogue, and magic-user are iconic class concepts. The human, dwarf, elf, and halinfing are featured prominently as playable races. Spellcasting is adjudicated through a "Vancian" (i.e., spell per day) system. Certain core monsters and spells invented by Gary Gygax are common (i.e., fireballs, magic missiles, beholders, et al.) If you strip out the class system for a point based system, it isn't recognizably D&D anymore. An RPG, yes. Quite possibly a good one. But not D&D.
unundindur 08-08-07, 08:11 PM	Good posts by both of you, which lead to the connclusion that D&D is really just an rpg, and doesn't single out in anyway except for its massive success. What races are prominent in DnD is for example up to change just as soon as WotC sees potencial for earning money from it. The Drow have their own book, which is a lot more than the halfling ever got, which would mean the Drow are slowly becomming a trademark of DnD,also from a player perspective (I would say it have been for a long time). But you did not answer blue's question regarding THACO. That was a fundamental change in its time. THACO have for many of us been similar to DnD, abeit in a negative way.
Irving 08-08-07, 08:34 PM	THAC0 is by no means a core concept of D&D - it wasn't a part of Chainmail, the red and blue books, or AD&D, and was a fairly late addition to 2.0 (it might have debuted in Unearthed Arcana 1.0 - anyone remember when barbarians destroyed magic items for XP?) It's an inelegant way to express probability on a d20. There's no reason that it's explicitly D&D. As for D&D's success... blame it on Hasboro and WoTC. Without them, TSR would have died. That being said, the gaming indsutry is replete with business failures - ask poor Kevin Siembeda about it, and throw a dime into his tin cup while you're at it. At this point, however, we veer into the RPG business as opposed to the rules. If you want a point-based game, go try one out. Honestly. It's not going to kill you or anyone you play with. Go into a gaming store and look for one. Eclipse is fine; if you like Book of Nine Swords you'll love it. Steve Jackson's GURPS is superb is you like historical realism. Or go online and buy one of the "failed" systems. You'll never have to worry about a splatbook again. (And "splatbook" is a term that has nothing to do with D&D, as an aside... it comes from yet another gaming company.) I love D&D for what it is, warts and all. In its current incarnation, it's got a minatures-centric focus that's beautiful, all the icons that I grew up with and fell in love with, and enough tactical development to keep me amused for a very long time. Story? Yes, and lots please. But here's a dirty secret - I can tell a good story at a tabletop with any rules system. Don't try to rip out D&D's heart to suit what you think a perfect - or even good - RPG ought to be. There are many other authors who've gone this path already, and produced some good results. Go try them.
Jaxgaret 08-08-07, 10:12 PM	THAC0 is by no means a core concept of D&D - it wasn't a part of Chainmail, the red and blue books, or AD&D, and was a fairly late addition to 2.0 (it might have debuted in Unearthed Arcana 1.0 - anyone remember when barbarians destroyed magic items for XP?) It's an inelegant way to express probability on a d20. There's no reason that it's explicitly D&D. As for D&D's success... blame it on Hasboro and WoTC. Without them, TSR would have died. That being said, the gaming indsutry is replete with business failures - ask poor Kevin Siembeda about it, and throw a dime into his tin cup while you're at it. At this point, however, we veer into the RPG business as opposed to the rules. If you want a point-based game, go try one out. Honestly. It's not going to kill you or anyone you play with. Go into a gaming store and look for one. Eclipse is fine; if you like Book of Nine Swords you'll love it. Steve Jackson's GURPS is superb is you like historical realism. Or go online and buy one of the "failed" systems. You'll never have to worry about a splatbook again. (And "splatbook" is a term that has nothing to do with D&D, as an aside... it comes from yet another gaming company.) I love D&D for what it is, warts and all. In its current incarnation, it's got a minatures-centric focus that's beautiful, all the icons that I grew up with and fell in love with, and enough tactical development to keep me amused for a very long time. Story? Yes, and lots please. But here's a dirty secret - I can tell a good story at a tabletop with any rules system. Don't try to rip out D&D's heart to suit what you think a perfect - or even good - RPG ought to be. There are many other authors who've gone this path already, and produced some good results. Go try them. Well said, Irving. And I am glad that you kept your tone moderate in this post (unlike some others here, myself included unfortunately). I personally also prefer certain parts of other RPG systems to D&D's, but the D&D system has plenty of its own merits. v3.5 actually gets a lot of things right.
Kesthol 08-09-07, 12:18 AM	Aside from the 20-sided die, you've defined an RPG, not D&D. D&D is a game where: Character progression is level based, instead of point based. Characters are defined by classes with set abilites which increase by level. The fighter, cleric, rogue, and magic-user are iconic class concepts. The human, dwarf, elf, and halinfing are featured prominently as playable races. Spellcasting is adjudicated through a "Vancian" (i.e., spell per day) system. Certain core monsters and spells invented by Gary Gygax are common (i.e., fireballs, magic missiles, beholders, et al.) If you strip out the class system for a point based system, it isn't recognizably D&D anymore. An RPG, yes. Quite possibly a good one. But not D&D. :clap: :D Excellent, intelligent conversation! I am delighted, and I appluad you all. :clap: I would agree with alll but the first, second, and second-to-last point of your list. RAW yes, those first two points are true. The second-to-last point is not quite--there have been published variants to the Vancian system; UA had a spell points variant. And in AD&D, there was a book called something along the lines of Players Option Handbook. This had an option to set your class abilities using a point system (although the abilities were locked in for that class after you chose the abilities). That kind of flexibility is all I am really after--like being able to trade heavy armor for d12 HD for the fighter, or swap skills in and out (a reasonable amount, not the entire list) of the skills known list. That kind of point-buy for class abilities (where you set your abilities for a specific class at the 1st level of it) is achievable within D&D--although it do lethal damage to a number of prestige classes (they would be rolled into more general prestige-class styles). Such a system could even be expanded to be a "set your class abilities at every level"--where there are levels, but no classes. So you want to multiclass from "fighter" 7 into "fighter" 7/"rogue" 1? Just select the appropriate abilities at level 8. It combines levels and points--and could solve some of the game-balance issues with the classes. Prestige classes, as we know them, would cease to exist. And points for class abilities could gradually scale over character level (Two examples, under the assumption that a level 1 character gets 40 points to buy class abilities, which is essentially balanced vs. the current system: 1) 40 points at levels 1-5, 45 points at 6-10, 50 at 11-15; or 2) 39+1/level). But, I will continue to play in the current system. Because I like playing a(for the moment, nearly) half-dragon kobold with fighter and sorcerer levels. It is a character concept that coincides with the current system. But the dragon class levels would be nice (in the near future), too. :) And also because 3.5 (especially core) gets most things right, and the splatbooks generally add to the overall system.
Pindar 08-09-07, 08:13 AM	After many years away from d&d playing RuneQuest and RoleMaster we went back to to 3.0 and now 3.5. I like the current system, it's simple and it works, clearly it's not perfect and never will be. D&D and it's leveling system is iconic in the gaming worldmany people hate the system. Those people play different games, I don't want to rile anyone up but it sounds to me that a lot of people just want characters that can do everything. No-one can do everything. I don't understand why people that want a stealthy fighter don't take a Ranger. Barbarians have plenty of skill points anyway if you really want to take spellcraft bash on. The skill doesn't really do you much good anyway if you have no spell casting ability of your own. All the arguments in favour of doing away with class skill in this thread just come across as power gaming to me. If you have a character concept you can't seem to make to make using the existing rules you should be able to come up with something by discussing it with your DM. If you are the DM it's your game go crazy with whatever skills ruling you make but don't be surprised if it has unforeseen consequences on the game. Given how strongly some people seem to feel about this issue please explain to me what keeps you playing D&D when there are other better suited game systems out there to fill your gaming needs.
unundindur 08-09-07, 08:23 AM	THAC0 is by no means a core concept of D&D - it wasn't a part of Chainmail, the red and blue books, or AD&D, and was a fairly late addition to 2.0 (it might have debuted in Unearthed Arcana 1.0 - anyone remember when barbarians destroyed magic items for XP?) It's an inelegant way to express probability on a d20. There's no reason that it's explicitly D&D. As for D&D's success... blame it on Hasboro and WoTC. Without them, TSR would have died. That being said, the gaming indsutry is replete with business failures - ask poor Kevin Siembeda about it, and throw a dime into his tin cup while you're at it. At this point, however, we veer into the RPG business as opposed to the rules. If you want a point-based game, go try one out. Honestly. It's not going to kill you or anyone you play with. Go into a gaming store and look for one. Eclipse is fine; if you like Book of Nine Swords you'll love it. Steve Jackson's GURPS is superb is you like historical realism. Or go online and buy one of the "failed" systems. You'll never have to worry about a splatbook again. (And "splatbook" is a term that has nothing to do with D&D, as an aside... it comes from yet another gaming company.) I love D&D for what it is, warts and all. In its current incarnation, it's got a minatures-centric focus that's beautiful, all the icons that I grew up with and fell in love with, and enough tactical development to keep me amused for a very long time. Story? Yes, and lots please. But here's a dirty secret - I can tell a good story at a tabletop with any rules system. Don't try to rip out D&D's heart to suit what you think a perfect - or even good - RPG ought to be. There are many other authors who've gone this path already, and produced some good results. Go try them. Very good post Irving :) Istill don't agree, but this makes sense.
unundindur 08-09-07, 08:36 AM	After many years away from d&d playing RuneQuest and RoleMaster we went back to to 3.0 and now 3.5. Those people play different games, I don't want to rile anyone up but it sounds to me that a lot of people just want characters that can do everything. No-one can do everything. Not anything in the sense that I want to be as good as a 20th levle fighter and 20th level wizard at the same time (at level20). I want to be anything in the sense that I can be any concept I want in a balanced way without tweaking rules, and without having to devote long hours in search of a rule here and a class there to suit my need. I don't understand why people that want a stealthy fighter don't take a Ranger. Because by taking the ranger you all of a sudden gain a lot of other abilities, that may have nothign to do with your concept. Favoured enemy comes to mind. I have played a lot of rangers through the ages, but enver have the concept had anything to do with favoured enemies. Again, you can fix this by 1. find variants in various books or 2. make home rules. That may not be feasable, and is a trait of a lacking design. Barbarians have plenty of skill points anyway if you really want to take spellcraft bash on. The skill doesn't really do you much good anyway if you have no spell casting ability of your own. Exactely! That is why its fine for a barbarian to take it! He doesn't gain half its benefit, and as such only someone who really wants it will take it. The system is, if balanced self policing. All the arguments in favour of doing away with class skill in this thread just come across as power gaming to me. Yes, but see the Stormwind fallacy. Powergaming is getting the best out of your options, and is not a problem to roleplaying (which is a separate concept). I am a powergamer, but not in that I want to be better than anyone else, rather in the sense that I care for balance and want to retain it no matter what the rules may imply (you wnat to play a fighter/mage, well I fix it so its feasable). If you have a character concept you can't seem to make to make using the existing rules you should be able to come up with something by discussing it with your DM. Yes, but that only prove that the system as such is lacking. There is a huge difference between possibility and official rules. If you are the DM it's your game go crazy with whatever skills ruling you make but don't be surprised if it has unforeseen consequences on the game. Given how strongly some people seem to feel about this issue please explain to me what keeps you playing D&D when there are other better suited game systems out there to fill your gaming needs. I have tried to outline this multiple times. The main reason is that D&D is vast, in a positive way, and as such it would be a pain to remodel everything I have relating to D&D into a new system. Furthermore I am not sure there are much better systems out there (and since my local store don't have a single skill-based RPG I have a hard time testign them before I buy). Last but most importnat is the fact that D&D is popular (see the microsoft example above). D&D is so popular that its hard to convince people to play a different game, especially when you really just want to play the same sort of scenario (high fantasy). Not everyone care about rules and balance, and these are very hard to sway into learning a new game just for the heck of it (their view on the issue).
Broken vacuum 08-09-07, 11:11 AM	There seems to be quite a few things that are frequently either confused or ignored in this thread and though it mostly has been mentioned I think that a collected and structured approach of these might be of benefit. One thing is that of confusing character with class; they are not the same - yet people equate predetermined class skills and archetypes to shoehorning characters into certain skill sets and roles. As a player you have the power to determine what your character calls and describes itself in game. The character can view itself as a fighter regardless of whether a majority, minority or none of its class levels are in the class called 'Fighter'. From a balance point of view a class is a collection of abilities that counted together are supposedly approximately balanced against the collection of abilities any other class receives. Now, cross classed skills are a part of this balance equation and in order to make this clear to those that dispute this, you can make two observations: - x ranks in a skill is generally better than x/2 ranks in the same skill. - Max ranks in Spot is generally a lot more useful to an adventurer than max ranks in Craft(Basket-weaving). The first means that a character's potential power is higher in a class skill than in a cross class skill and the second that all skills and thereby by extension all skill lists, are not equal in power. You are of course free to form your own opinion on exactly what skills or skill lists are more powerful than others, but the asymmetry in power is still there, meaning cross class skills do serve a balance purpose. It is also generally not the case that a character taking a cross class skill ends up hopelessly bad at it. If the skill has a flat DC, cross class limits still give you a decent shot at a lot of things rather quickly. A first level character with 2 ranks and +1 from stat bonus manages DCs for tough applications of the skill 45% of tries. That is really not bad for a first level character. If the skill mostly uses opposed checks there will always be a lot of people that either do not have the opposed skill at all or have it as a cross class skill. To take an example, you often hear about how fighters (i.e. the class) 'suck' at spotting things. To put this in perspective, you have to consider how many ranks in the opposed skill, Hide, opponents have. Looking at the PC classes in the PHB, we can see that 4 (Bard, Monk, Ranger and Rogue) out of 11 have Hide as a class skill and of the NPC classes only one (the expert) has access to it as a class skill. If you flip through the MM, you find that quite a few of the monsters therein have less than stellar modifiers when it comes to hiding. What this means is that a fighter with max cross class ranks in Spot will be better at spotting than his opponents at hiding in a lot of cases. Sure, equal or higher level opponents with classes in one of the above mentioned classes - that bothered to invest in Hide - will be another story, but that does not mean that everyone else in the world suddenly disappears; everyone is not of the fighter's or higher level and everyone does not have class levels in a relevant class or is a monster with a very good Hide modifier. Generally speaking, multi-classing is the way to go if you wish to extend a character's selection of skills, but of course there may be concepts that are hard to realise with just the PHB. D&D provides two ways of dealing with this; one is by way of splat books and the other is by way of class customisation as per the DMG. If you wish, you can view the former as a help to DMs trying to do the latter. What is interesting to note in this, is that the DMG emphasises the principle of exchange when it comes to class customisation. In general you do not just add something to a class, but instead remove something else to preserve the balance. Getting rid of cross class skills is getting something for nothing. If you wish to do away with the class basis of D&D that may be fine for you, but it is questionable if the resulting system would be D&D and what is more, I suspect that you will be disappointed anyway. The thing is that judging from the comments and wishes in this thread it seems that most - if not all - complaining about classes and cross class skills simply want to much. Take the example of 'An elven warrior who is primarily dual wielding scimitars but also skilled in defensive magic and a great commander.' Oh, and he is supposed to wear a breastplate as well. Making this character will cost you under any system that is even remotely similar to D&D or any of the more free-form systems out there. It is the question of wanting too much in the same character. Note that are no less than two specific equipment requirement and three major areas of expertise you want in the same character. Nevertheless there is something remarkably similar in the PHB - namely the bard. You will have to customise the spell list - and possibly some of the bardic music abilities - a bit so that it focuses on abjurations instead of enchantments and illusions, but that is it. Take two-weapon fighting and either use a sickle in your off hand (you can still call and picture it a scimitar and think of the decreased crit range as a result of using it in your off hand) or suck up the penalty of dual-wielding scimitars. Proficiency with scimitars can either be attained by using a longsword and call it a scimitar, taking a feat or possibly exchanging it with another similar proficiency that you actually have. The above way is of course not the only way of doing it, but it reveals the approximate efficacy in the different areas you can expect. d6 HD, 3/4 BAB, rather staggered casting progression and MAD. You could get a decent approximation of this by extensive multi-classing mostly consisting of fighter and abjurer levels with a splash of bard or paladin. If you are happy with the power level of this, all is fine and the the concept is indeed doable in core, but if not I suspect you will have the same problem under any system that has something even remotely akin to balance and that does not allow everyone to do everything at once. A system that is more free than the D&D of today but still has the ambition to incorporate mechanical balance between characters that can do different things, needs to have things to choose between. On whatever level you put players' choices, there will always remain the possibility that some player want half of this and half of that, where this and that are things not already halved in the rules.
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-09-07, 01:18 PM	Cross classing does not always address the problems. For example Take the dwarven cleric of Moradin I mentioned earlier. Say he likes defeating orc traps...dwarvesa re known for their mehcnaical ingenuity..it makes sense, but he is not or ever will be, a "rogue", he never ever "backstabs folk"..it's against his ethics. So why would he take a level of "rogue" just so he can actually deal with traps, hm? That doesn't make sense. if you want a RL analogy: an amry engineer maybe an Expert (or Expert/Warrior, Expert/Fighter) but he sure doesn't have to be a backstabber just to deal with booby traps, does he? Therefore, that idea, of restricting a skill, is blown out of the water ;) It's a metagaming fudge. The dwarf cleric can't be as good as a rogue trap smith, because the rogue has so many skill points he can easily max his skill at disarm, or mix a lot of skills. It also gets rid of the crazy idea roguesa re ONLY good for traps... Likewise, the cleric, or trapsmith, or anyone else should be good at whatever they wish to study and learn. Everyone has different skills according to necessity, and desire. having the party fighter be reasonably competant at sneaking makes sense, for pity's sake...rather than being guaranteed to be garbage at it, as it is currently ;) People shouldn't be forced to multi-class, unless it's what the character concept fits. Bob wants his fighter to be a good orator, he is going ot be the next Ceasar!! So why the dickens shouldn't he be good at that, hm? Sorry, cross class is an anacronysm, a hold over from 2nd ed's bad ways of confining characters, and a metagaming hack to protect the exclusivity of certain skills. i.e. rogue's DC20+ disable rule, is a bad thing, as not only is it illogical, but it's basically a quiet way of saying "Ok, too many folk will play munchkins only out for kill counts, and ignore skills, so we need ot make the rogue desirable!" Ick ;) Understandable, but bad. It means for many adventures you HAVE to have a rogue...omg...that's silly. "Hey guys, sorry, we can't go to the Dungeon O' Doom 'cause we ain't got no rogue! Even though Fred's a trapsmith, he can't disable the booby traps." :D
Broken vacuum 08-09-07, 03:30 PM	Cross classing does not always address the problems. For example Take the dwarven cleric of Moradin I mentioned earlier. Say he likes defeating orc traps...dwarvesa re known for their mehcnaical ingenuity..it makes sense, but he is not or ever will be, a "rogue", he never ever "backstabs folk"..it's against his ethics. So why would he take a level of "rogue" just so he can actually deal with traps, hm? That doesn't make sense. Again, you make the mistake of confusing character with class. That a character takes a class level in rogue does not in any shape or form mean that he is a rogue. It is as simple as that. Furthermore, I have to question your view of 'backstabing' (it is called sneak attack nowadays) as ethically inappropriate for the cleric in question. 'Sneak attack' is just a name for an ability - just like 'rogue' is just a name for a class - and the name and flavour is yours to change. You can just as easily call it 'decisive strike' or 'stone strike' or whatever. Flavour description could be that the power of the cleric's blows are so tremendous that an opponent unable to protect himself properly (defined as under sneak attack) take extra damage. If your ethical problem is that the cleric cannot conceive of attacking anyone flat footed, the extra damage will never come up and thus never be a problem - levels in rogue or not. if you want a RL analogy: an amry engineer maybe an Expert (or Expert/Warrior, Expert/Fighter) but he sure doesn't have to be a backstabber just to deal with booby traps, does he? Therefore, that idea, of restricting a skill, is blown out of the water ;) It's a metagaming fudge. The metagaming fudge here is more in the line of you equating class with character. The dwarf cleric can't be as good as a rogue trap smith, because the rogue has so many skill points he can easily max his skill at disarm, or mix a lot of skills. It also gets rid of the crazy idea roguesa re ONLY good for traps... Likewise, the cleric, or trapsmith, or anyone else should be good at whatever they wish to study and learn. Everyone has different skills according to necessity, and desire. Do you also support the idea that wizards should get full BAB without giving up casting progression if their players declare that their wizards studies fighting? As I demonstrated above access to skills as class skills is more powerful than access to skills as cross class skills. having the party fighter be reasonably competant at sneaking makes sense, for pity's sake...rather than being guaranteed to be garbage at it, as it is currently ;) Then take Move Silently as a cross class skill or give up some HP and take some levels of ranger. People shouldn't be forced to multi-class, unless it's what the character concept fits. Bob wants his fighter to be a good orator, he is going ot be the next Ceasar!! So why the dickens shouldn't he be good at that, hm? What is wrong with taking Perform(Oratory) cross class? Why should he not multi-class? What is wrong with it? Again, he will not be less of a fighter in game just because he takes a level of some other class that is not named 'Fighter' in the PHB. In fact Bob could be a fighter without having a single level in that particular class. Sorry, cross class is an anacronysm, a hold over from 2nd ed's bad ways of confining characters, and a metagaming hack to protect the exclusivity of certain skills. i.e. rogue's DC20+ disable rule, is a bad thing, as not only is it illogical, but it's basically a quiet way of saying "Ok, too many folk will play munchkins only out for kill counts, and ignore skills, so we need ot make the rogue desirable!" Ick ;) Understandable, but bad. It means for many adventures you HAVE to have a rogue...omg...that's silly. Actually anyone can disable DC20+ traps as long as they are skilled enough and the trap is not magical. The DC20+ restriction is actually on Search. And you can manage trap heavy adventures without someone able to find and disable traps with Search and Disable Device.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 03:48 AM	Do you also support the idea that wizards should get full BAB without giving up casting progression if their players declare that their wizards studies fighting? Comparing a wizard gaining full BAB for free to dropping cross-class skills is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? Many other systems do it (good ones).
Broken vacuum 08-10-07, 06:08 AM	Comparing a wizard gaining full BAB for free to dropping cross-class skills is a bit of an exaggeration don't you think? It is an exaggeration, yes, but that is to drive home the point. Getting rid of cross class skills means that characters will be more powerful - just as giving characters better BAB is. Many other systems do it (good ones). Then use such a system. You will notice, though, that the good ones also incorporate some sort of mechanical balance. Cross class skills is part of the mechanical balance of D&D and just getting rid of them will disrupt that balance as access to skills are not equal between the classes. Rogues pay for their access to in-class skills and if you just get rid of cross class skills they will get a very small power boost while every other class receives a bigger power boost. Wizards (i.e. the class), of course, will benefit greatly from this. In order to preserve balance you would have to change a lot in the game and then you would have that other system and not D&D. It is not that you could never change it, but the effects of that change are so extensive that you more or less need to release a new and extensively reworked PHB.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 06:19 AM	It is an exaggeration, yes, but that is to drive home the point. Getting rid of cross class skills means that characters will be more powerful Not more powerful, maybe more useful outside of combat.
unundindur 08-10-07, 06:56 AM	You don't gain power compared to not taking cross-class skills, you just gain diversity (again I work under hte assumtion that skills are equally good). If you take cross-class skills in the current system you will get a power increase, but it won't go beyond that of a current character who chose one class skills, you will only get exactely to his power level; In other words all wharacters would grow closer to each otehr in a balancing perspective, and not take a power-hit because you want a non-traditional focus. The current system is based on stereotypes, and stereotypes in a certain setting. If you play in a different setting, where for example fighters are the typical diplomats (why not?, but its just and example) then you suddnely have to make a house rule. Setting-based house rules are much easier to do the other way, in limiting options, as it is extremely easy to see the scope of a limit, while many are daunted by the feeling that a GM is adding new stuff, while not a professional designer. These things must be taken account for.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 06:59 AM	You don't gain power compared to not taking cross-class skills, you just gain diversity Yeah, I've never heard of a campaign breaking because the fighter has 17 ranks in Move Silently…
unundindur 08-10-07, 07:05 AM	Yeah, I've never heard of a campaign breaking because the fighter has 17 ranks in Move Silently… No, but before someone points out something else, also from a pure conceptual vie you don't gain even a tiny portion of power. You gain diversity, but not power (except for that diversity of course). But my last post explains that :)
Broken vacuum 08-10-07, 07:25 AM	You don't gain power compared to not taking cross-class skills, you just gain diversity (again I work under hte assumtion that skills are equally good). Your assumption is flawed. Again, compare Spot with Craft(Basket-weaving). If you take cross-class skills in the current system you will get a power increase, but it won't go beyond that of a current character who chose one class skills, you will only get exactely to his power level; In other words all wharacters would grow closer to each otehr in a balancing perspective, and not take a power-hit because you want a non-traditional focus. Since your assumption is wrong, your reasoning is void. The current system is based on stereotypes, and stereotypes in a certain setting. If you play in a different setting, where for example fighters are the typical diplomats (why not?, but its just and example) then you suddnely have to make a house rule. Again, this is the error of confusing character with class. A character that calls himself 'fighter' might not have a single level of the class Fighter. It is here that you seem to get confused every single time. Perhaps it would help if you just referred to the classes as numbers? To make a fighter (a character - not class) that is a really good diplomat you only need to splash a level or two of some other class - e.g. rogue. Having the mechanical abilities of a good dimplomat (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff etc.) means power in D&D. You are asking for that power in return for nothing. In other words you are asking for a power-up. Multi-classing forces you to actually give up something else in order to attain that power and that is good balance. Setting-based house rules are much easier to do the other way, in limiting options, as it is extremely easy to see the scope of a limit, while many are daunted by the feeling that a GM is adding new stuff, while not a professional designer. These things must be taken account for. As must the fact that it seems that you are basically just asking for a power-up. Also you are simplifying too much. Limiting options can be just as balance-disturbing as introducing new ones. Removing the option of taking a full attack action would have rather far reaching balance effects on D&D, would you not say? And the ramification of a certain limitation might not be obvious at all. Simplicity of design is an elusive target. Everyone wants it, but it is extremely hard to come to a general consensus on what it is in general for the simple reason that it is at least in part subjective. You can make a RPG system that is extremely free in the creation of characters, without much of bundled traits, but such a system will be complex and harder to get into than D&D today. Also, as I explained in an earlier post, some who want that freedom, in disregard of creation simplicity, will still be disappointed.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 07:27 AM	No, but before someone points out something else, also from a pure conceptual vie you don't gain even a tiny portion of power. You gain diversity, but not power (except for that diversity of course). But my last post explains that :) Totally, it's getting ridiculous the way people are exaggerating the power of dropping cross class Skills. To think of all of the ridiculously overpowered things in this game, like the entire magic/spell system to start, but ooh, don't let the paladin take Spot as a class skill! …Please.
Broken vacuum 08-10-07, 07:31 AM	Totally, it's getting ridiculous the way people are exaggerating the power of dropping cross class Skills. To think of all of the ridiculously overpowered things in this game, like the entire magic/spell system to start, but ooh, don't let the paladin take Spot as a class skill! …Please. So basically you are saying that we should not fix the problems, but exacerbate them by introducing more problems? Also, for some reason people always seem to disregard that the most powerful classes would gain at least as much extra power from this as the less powerful classes.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 07:38 AM	So basically you are saying that we should not fix the problems, but exacerbate them by introducing more problems? I'm working on fixing the problems in my D&D campaigns (the magic system etc), but how would a paladin having Spot as a class skill exacerbate the problems of D&D?
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 07:40 AM	Also, for some reason people always seem to disregard that the most powerful classes would gain at least as much extra power from this as the less powerful classes. 'Oh no, the wizard now has Listen as a class skill, I mean, time stop was bad enough, but now this!'
Broken vacuum 08-10-07, 07:45 AM	Try this one out: Wizards get full BAB and d10 HD. I mean what is that in comparison to 9th level spells? Getting rid of cross class skills means a significant power-up for most classes. To me it seems like you are just looking for excuses to power-up your characters.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 07:48 AM	Try this one out: Wizards get full BAB and d10 HD. I mean what is that in comparison to 9th level spells? Getting rid of cross class skills means a significant power-up for most classes. To me it seems like you are just looking for excuses to power-up your characters. I think you're just messing with me now… Take care, SD
unundindur 08-10-07, 07:57 AM	Your assumption is flawed. Again, compare Spot with Craft(Basket-weaving). Which is not a problem with hte skill system, but with that skill in particular (and a few others, that simply don't have any balacing impact at all). Everyone knows craft isn't usable apart from fluff, so they can be disgarded in this discussion. From a balancing perspective we must assume people take relevant skills, not the 1-3 completely useless skills that are there only for the purpose of beeing in the system and for fluff reasons. My flaw was not to mention this as a clause beforehand, but the reasoning is as sound as ever. Since your assumption is wrong, your reasoning is void. If I agreed then I would agree ;) Again, this is the error of confusing character with class. A character that calls himself 'fighter' might not have a single level of the class Fighter. It is here that you seem to get confused every single time. Perhaps it would help if you just referred to the classes as numbers? If you look at the posts back in this thread I have stated quite clearly that I am in the opposite lair; "class" (OOC) has nothing to do with your "job" (IC). The problem is just that when my character wants to become a diplomat (as part of an IC warrior concept) he has to take a class that not only grant him this ability, but other abilities that may or may not suit the concept at all. He have to take those abilities, which by the system grant him a numeric advantage, evne though he may never use them. The example I have used before with my elven commander is neat because I stumbled into this very issue. While the beguiler class suited my primary needs (spellcasting in light armour with defensive spells) I also gained some abilities I would never use (Cloaked casting, trapsense) which from a balancing perspective make my character better, as it expects me to use them. My character thus effectively isn't as good as he is supposed to be, because the system doesn't embrace the elven spellcasting commander in light armour as much as the tricky thief-magician in light armour etc. I can very well refer to each class as a number, no problems there (just give me a list of what number goes to each class. To make a fighter (a character - not class) that is a really good diplomat you only need to splash a level or two of some other class - e.g. rogue. See above, I can do that, but I do so at a disadvantage unless I also use the rogues other benefits (sneak attack, trapfinding etc.) Having the mechanical abilities of a good dimplomat (Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff etc.) means power in D&D. You are asking for that power in return for nothing. Yes and no. Its definitively power, but I don't ask for it in return for power. If I have 4 skills and I want those 3 skills you listed I would lose the same number of ranks in other skills, that are supposed to be as good. Lets pretend that is listen, climb and intimidate. If these skills are balanced or not is an entirely different discussion. In other words you are asking for a power-up. Multi-classing forces you to actually give up something else in order to attain that power and that is good balance. I hope my argumentation is convincing enough to sway you into agreeing its not a power up, except for the tiny-tiny add in versatility, which I find a good thing entirely. As must the fact that it seems that you are basically just asking for a power-up. Also you are simplifying too much. Limiting options can be just as balance-disturbing as introducing new ones. Removing the option of taking a full attack action would have rather far reaching balance effects on D&D, would you not say? And the ramification of a certain limitation might not be obvious at all. I still don't agree and I am simplifying, under the assumption that we hold this discussion at a sensible level. Of course you can limit the game in horrible ways, but have anyone ever considdered removing the full attack? I simplify under the assumtion that people take my view in best intention, not that everythign I say is exactely and minutely right, that way I would have to write essays in every post. The core of my view was that people have a much easier time accepting limits (as they can easily be discussed) compared to new rules. Especially when they come from players (the classic assumtion that a player is powergaming). Simplicity of design is an elusive target. Everyone wants it, but it is extremely hard to come to a general consensus on what it is in general for the simple reason that it is at least in part subjective. You can make a RPG system that is extremely free in the creation of characters, without much of bundled traits, but such a system will be complex and harder to get into than D&D today. Also, as I explained in an earlier post, some who want that freedom, in disregard of creation simplicity, will still be disappointed. I will again railroad a little, as we have done for the last 40 posts or so :P But those two are easily combined. I agree some of the beauty of DnD is its simplicity, but I don't see it as more complex to a player just having choices. After all the same can be said to prestige classes, that it makes the game more compex, which is true, abeit in a less ellegant way. The easiest way I can think of to get a more flexible and logicla system would be to scrap the PrC-system and take all abilities derived thereof and make them into class-variants and switch options. This would also be i nthe same spirit as removing class/cross-class skills.
Irving 08-10-07, 07:57 AM	'Oh no, the wizard now has Listen as a class skill, I mean, time stop was bad enough, but now this!' Heh. And yet another common fallacy rears its ugly head on these boards. Class balance doesnt' start gettting measured at 17th level. Most games never even see 17th level. Class balance starts getting measured at 1st level. (Reference the fighter... and compare the "uber-cleric" and fighter at 1st.) Do wizards gain a power boost by having Listen at 1st level? Yes - a small one, but yes. Much more importantly, do fighters gain a power boost by getting 5 ranks in Tumble at 1st level? Or Survival in an extreme environment. Yes, absolutely. They's better trade something off to maintain balance. It doesn't matter what game you play. You can't take something for nothing. You can cry about "stereotypes" and "limiting creativity", but people who break rules in art without understanding why the rules exist do so at their peril. The current system is there to maintain balance. Taking it out unbalances things and distorts the characters (why would you *not* take Tumble, without exception, for your character of any class?) It throws a host of other rules out of whack, too (can commoners take any skill? How about dragons?) Don't upset the apple cart unless you can show you know what you're doing.
Broken vacuum 08-10-07, 07:58 AM	I think you're just messing with me now… Take care, SD It is not my intent to mess with you. The point is that your argument basically boils down to that since there are other things or areas that are more powerful, a post in power when it comes to skills does not matter. I merely used the same kind of reasoning on things were the over-poweredness is more obvious. You are essentially not denying that characters would be more powerful if cross classes skills were removed, you are arguing that it does not matter and I am less than convinced. This in part depends on that you do not draw any line, you just claim that more power does not matter. Convince me that wizards, that are already very powerful, should have more power. Convince me that it does not matter that wizards, that are among the most powerful of classes, get a greater power boost out of this than rogues. Convince me that it does not matter that a lot of PrCs now are ridiculoulsy easy to enter. Convince me that this change does not mean that we need to adjust the CR system.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 08:01 AM	Heh. And yet another common fallacy rears its ugly head on these boards. Not at all, and really, I'm good. Let's just agree to disagree. Some people think that a cleric having Spot as a class skill will cause catastrophic ripples though the game, and some of us don't – no biggee.
Irving 08-10-07, 08:02 AM	Which is not a problem with hte skill system, but with that skill in particular (and a few others, that simply don't have any balacing impact at all). Oh-ho! So some skills are more powerful than others - yes or no?
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 08:03 AM	Convince me that this change does not mean that we need to adjust the CR system. Now I know you are messing with me.
pauln6 08-10-07, 08:03 AM	The class skill system is not perfect but it is fine. It isn't about the power of the classes it is about representing archetypes in a way that encourages you to adopt the classic character but does not prohibit you from deviation. I truly believe that a fighter who focuses on stealth is a fighter who has chosen to take a level of rogue. Players will always want their characters to have the best skills and be good at whatever is most useful and you can't please all of the people all of the time! If you don't want to take a level dip, you buy skill feats. Stealthy or Alertness count as 8 skill points apiece for fighters - that is equivalent to one level of rogue. Of course then people complain about having to use up a feat, but there aint no such thing as a free lunch. Skill focus is less value for money, being equivalent to 6 skill points but can lead to a whopping +5 to a cross class skill. I would say that I would prefer it if more feats were available to represent deviations from the base archetypes so that classes like swashbuckler, knight, beguiler, or warmage were superfluous because you could build them into the standard classes by taking feats that make cross classs skills class skills. Of course that wont happen because they want to sell more books.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 08:05 AM	do fighters gain a power boost by getting 5 ranks in Tumble at 1st level? 1st level character can't have 5 ranks in anything.
Irving 08-10-07, 08:08 AM	Not at all, and really, I'm good. Some people think that a cleric having Spot as a class skill will cause catastrophic ripples though the game, and some of us don't – no biggee. So how's that straw man doing out in the cornfield for ya? Don't start throwing around cheap rheotric like that. I didn't say "catastophic ripples" about the Spot skill. I said that giving every class every skill as a class skill would unbalance the game. Don't exaggerate my position to make a straw man. Giving a cleric Listen would be slightly unbalancing. Giving him Spot, Listen, Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Tumble, Jump, Climb... ...and that's what's being advocated with the withdrawal of cross-class skills. Not "Giving clerics Spot". It's unfair to pretend otherwise.
Irving 08-10-07, 08:09 AM	1st level character can't have 5 ranks in anything. All right then, 2nd level. The example stands.
Pyke_Moonshadow 08-10-07, 08:13 AM	Ok, time for me to chime in. Let's look at cc skills at various levels. This is not looking at feats, or synergy or the like, just ranks. at 1st level a character can have 4 ranks class and 2 ranks cross class. Not really all that big a difference. at 5th level a character can have 8 ranks class and 4 ranks cross class. Here we start seeing the benefits of specialization. The specialized character is gaining a distinct advantage. at 10th level we are looking at 13 ranks and 6 ranks. The cc character is losing ground but he can still make checks with set DCs with a fair chance. by 20th level the specialized character has 23 ranks and the cc character has 11 ranks. 11 ranks is nothing to sneeze at. The characetr should regularly make set DCs and the like. Skills are like other class features. Some classes have good saves, some have high BAB, some have full spell progression some have a stunted spell progression. Why shouldn't some classes have good skill progression and bad skill progression?
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 08:14 AM	So how's that straw man doing out in the cornfield for ya? Don't start throwing around cheap rheotric like that. Why are you being so insulting and rude? It's just one aspect of a game; there is no need for it.
Roog 08-10-07, 08:16 AM	Giving a cleric Listen would be slightly unbalancing. Giving him Spot, Listen, Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Tumble, Jump, Climb... ...and that's what's being advocated with the withdrawal of cross-class skills. Not "Giving clerics Spot". It's unfair to pretend otherwise. The Cleric gains 2 skills per level + INT modifier. Think about it.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 08:16 AM	Giving a cleric Listen would be slightly unbalancing. Giving him Spot, Listen, Disable Device, Use Magic Device, Tumble, Jump, Climb... ...and that's what's being advocated with the withdrawal of cross-class skills. Not "Giving clerics Spot". It's unfair to pretend otherwise. I was under the impression that a class such as cleric could choose any 2 + Int modifier skills as class skills etc.
Roog 08-10-07, 08:20 AM	Do wizards gain a power boost by having Listen at 1st level? Yes - a small one, but yes. Much more importantly, do fighters gain a power boost by getting 5 ranks in Tumble at 1st level? Or Survival in an extreme environment. Yes, absolutely. They's better trade something off to maintain balance. How about - they trade getting all skills as class skills for all other characters (and NPCs etc) getting all skills as class skills.
unundindur 08-10-07, 08:25 AM	Oh-ho! So some skills are more powerful than others - yes or no? With a few exceptions, no.
Roog 08-10-07, 08:27 AM	The class skill system is not perfect but it is fine. It isn't about the power of the classes it is about representing archetypes in a way that encourages you to adopt the classic character but does not prohibit you from deviation. I truly believe that a fighter who focuses on stealth is a fighter who has chosen to take a level of rogue. So what is a fighter that focuses on Profession (siege engineer)?
unundindur 08-10-07, 08:29 AM	The Cleric gains 2 skills per level + INT modifier. Think about it. Exactely, and number of skills is a balancing factor, and clearly represent which of the archetypes will get options (in addition to intelligence of course)
Irving 08-10-07, 08:30 AM	You only need to take 5 ranks in Tumble to gain significant combat advantages. Focus on it for 2 levels, then ignore it at no cost to you - bingo. Cleric with 5 ranks in tumble, 2nd level. Easy. Now you can walk away from the skill and focus on skills like Spot and Listen for 10 ranks, then shift over again... most skills have a "break point" at which you've earned enough bonuses to decisively shift probability to your favor. There's no need to max out any skill in this system. Also note how much more important Intelligence becomes to every class under this system, since it buys you just about everything under the sun. And no, giving every skill to ever class does not balance things out. Not unless you give every class spellcasting and full BAB...
Irving 08-10-07, 08:33 AM	With a few exceptions, no. Now you're irritating me. All birds fly, except for the ostritch, emu, kiwi, and penguin. Do all birds fly - yes or no? All skills are equal, except for some. Are all skills equal - yes or no?
Roog 08-10-07, 08:35 AM	And no, giving every skill to ever class does not balance things out. Not unless you give every class spellcasting and full BAB... I take it that you are being sarcastic there (suggesting that a huge power increase would be needed to balance out a smaller one). But following that point, what do you think would be required to balance out making all skills class skills?
unundindur 08-10-07, 08:39 AM	You only need to take 5 ranks in Tumble to gain significant combat advantages. Focus on it for 2 levels, then ignore it at no cost to you - bingo. Cleric with 5 ranks in tumble, 2nd level. Easy. Now you can walk away from the skill and focus on skills like Spot and Listen for 10 ranks, then shift over again... most skills have a "break point" at which you've earned enough bonuses to decisively shift probability to your favor. There's no need to max out any skill in this system. Also note how much more important Intelligence becomes to every class under this system, since it buys you just about everything under the sun. And no, giving every skill to ever class does not balance things out. Not unless you give every class spellcasting and full BAB... Tumble would be a nice way to encourage a cleric to wear light armour. Just as with the heavy fighter, the cleric could very well get to take tumble, but it would be significantly less optimal to them due to armour check penalties (untill at higher levels, but then they have spent a lot of skill points). Spot and listen are typical skills that don't have a break point. You need to max out what you want to be best at. Intelligence is only better for characters what have an extremely limited class-skill-selection, and here I agree there is a slight powerincrease to some, though not to the extent of beeing problematic. BaB is a different matter entirely. BaB can be seen as similar to number of skills per level, not what skills you are allowed to get. Its more similar to proficiencies, IF we assume all weapons were equally powerful, and they are not, and they clearly were never intended to be (simple weapon, martial weapon and exotic respectively). If all weapons were equally good, I would also say the same about them; everyone should be able to chose what weapons they are proficient with, and the fighter types getting more (a benefit) proficiencies than the casters.
Irving 08-10-07, 08:40 AM	But following that point, what do you think would be required to balance out making all skills class skills? Awarding each skill a point value based on its worth. For examply, tumble would cost 2-3 skill points per rank. Profession would be worth 1/2. Give some classes a discount on certain skills - monks for Tumble, for example. Of course, this is more or less the same thing as cross-class skills...
Roog 08-10-07, 08:41 AM	Oh-ho! So some skills are more powerful than others - yes or no? To phrase that a different way. Are some skills so much more powerful than others that what is being suggested would be unbalancing? Or Are some skills restrictions important Class Features, and are those skills important/powerful/useful enough that loss of exclusive access would be a bit hit to the value of a class? Personally... I would be worried about UMD/UPD. But if a skill is weak (eg Profession: Rat Catcher) its not going matter who has it.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 08:43 AM	And no, giving every skill to ever class does not balance things out. Not unless you give every class spellcasting and full BAB... Now let's not get silly – there is no need to exaggerate that much to make your point. Or is it this "strawman" you speak of?
unundindur 08-10-07, 08:43 AM	Now you're irritating me. All birds fly, except for the ostritch, emu, kiwi, and penguin. Do all birds fly - yes or no? All skills are equal, except for some. Are all skills equal - yes or no? No, they are not. But I have to be allowed to say that its not the skillsystem thats problematic, its the select skills in question. The craft skill have been regarded as inferior and problematically so since 3.0 came out. It simply do not have a purpose for a player character (in its weakness, not concept) and a relatively smart player (you may call him/her a powergamer) would not take that skill even if it was on his/her class-skill list. When you wouldnt take it under the current system of class-skills/cross class skills it should neither be part of our debate as far as i can see. This goes for profession, craft and perform (unless a bard of course). There may be otehr skills suffering like this, but I cannot recall now.
Irving 08-10-07, 08:45 AM	But if a skill is weak (eg Profession: Rat Catcher) its not going matter who has it. ...and interestingly enough, every class has profession: rat catcher as a class skill. Why, it's almost as if the designers made it that way!
Roog 08-10-07, 08:48 AM	Awarding each skill a point value based on its worth. For examply, tumble would cost 2-3 skill points per rank. Profession would be worth 1/2. Give some classes a discount on certain skills - monks for Tumble, for example. Of course, this is more or less the same thing as cross-class skills... But at the moment we have different costs for different classes (encouraging certain choices for each class), and different levels of usefulness of skills for different classes (eg Artificer with UMD, or Wizard with Concentration). If we followed your logic... That would mean that Wizards should pay more for (say) Concentration than Fighters do, whereas currently Fighters pay more. How is it that the change you are describing here (Weighted costs by skill value), would cancel out any class imbalance created by de-restricting skills? It seems that many people here are claiming that certain classes need the purchasing of their core skills weighted in their favour.
unundindur 08-10-07, 08:48 AM	Awarding each skill a point value based on its worth. For examply, tumble would cost 2-3 skill points per rank. Profession would be worth 1/2. Give some classes a discount on certain skills - monks for Tumble, for example. Of course, this is more or less the same thing as cross-class skills... This have an other implication in that it effectively undermines a broad class-skill selection. If tumble is numerically better than say...use rope, it will effectively mean that use rope could just as well not be on the class skill list of the rogue (unless the rouge have such a high intelligence score that he covers all his better skills before taking use rope), cause the rogue is always at an advantage taking the better skill. The ideal must as such be to balance the skills out against each other, under the current system too (which I think have not been done perfectly, but somewhat ok). I try to show that there are flaws internally in the skilllists, but they should not be relevant to this discussion.
Roog 08-10-07, 08:49 AM	...and interestingly enough, every class has profession: rat catcher as a class skill. Why, it's almost as if the designers made it that way! Not Fighters. # Edit And not Barbarians either.
Irving 08-10-07, 08:53 AM	NoThe craft skill have been regarded as inferior and problematically so since 3.0 came out. It simply do not have a purpose for a player character (in its weakness, not concept) and a relatively smart player (you may call him/her a powergamer) would not take that skill even if it was on his/her class-skill list. ...and amazingly enough, every class has access to Craft skills, too. They're cross-class skills for nobody. Why, it's almost as if... eh, why do I bother. Craft: alchemy is tremendously useful, by the way... and gets more so with every new book.
ORC_Sinister 08-10-07, 08:56 AM	Folks, Stick to the topics, don't get personal please. Everyone is entitled to there thoughts on the matter. I for one am in favor of anything to speed up the game play. That said I don't want cookie cutter characters either.
Irving 08-10-07, 08:56 AM	How is it that the change you are describing here (Weighted costs by skill value), would cancel out any class imbalance created by de-restricting skills? It seems that many people here are claiming that certain classes need the purchasing of their core skills weighted in their favour. How about this system. Core skill classes cost 1 point. Non-core skill classes cost 2 points. Sound good?
unundindur 08-10-07, 08:59 AM	...and amazingly enough, every class has access to Craft skills, too. They're cross-class skills for nobody. Why, it's almost as if... eh, why do I bother. Craft: alchemy is tremendously useful, by the way... and gets more so with every new book. Ok, if we agree that this skill is just out of the whole equation (it seems we can say so since its on everyones list...) the rest of the skills are reasonably balanced (you asked me above).
unundindur 08-10-07, 09:04 AM	How about this system. Core skill classes cost 1 point. Non-core skill classes cost 2 points. Sound good? I can live with that (concept put aside), but then what are the core skills for my elven spellcasting warrior general? The book says its would vary by levels (fighter/beguiler) but I would say: Survival, Spellcraft, Concentration, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Tumble, knowledge (at least nobility), spot (not listen nescisarily). Of course these are also the skills I would chose, but that is because I want to play a stereotype elven spellcasting warrior general.
Roog 08-10-07, 09:07 AM	How about this system. Core skill classes cost 1 point. Non-core skill classes cost 2 points. Sound good? Thats still awkward (or minmaxable depending on how you see it) for creating multiclassed characters. My preference: Remove the following rule Skills: If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, then character level determines a skill’s maximum rank. (The maximum rank for a class skill is 3 + character level.) and Replace with "Skills: If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, then character's level in each class determines a skill’s maximum rank. (The maximum rank for a class skill is 3 + 1x(Number of levels character has where the skill is a class skill) + 0.5x(Number of levels character has where the skill is a cross-class skill) .)" In addition make the cost of purchasing all skills one skill point per rank. As a Second Choice: De-restrict all skills But I can live with: the current rules #Edit I would also like to add a few class skills to some classes
Roog 08-10-07, 09:10 AM	I can live with that (concept put aside), but then what are the core skills for my elven spellcasting warrior general? The book says its would vary by levels (fighter/beguiler) but I would say: Survival, Spellcraft, Concentration, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Tumble, knowledge (at least nobility), spot (not listen nescisarily). Of course these are also the skills I would chose, but that is because I want to play a stereotype elven spellcasting warrior general. You have eight skills there. If your Fighter has INT =< 14, you could only raise them at one point/two levels even if they were all class skills. Thats why what I suggested in my last post would work OK for your character.
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 09:16 AM	Hey, unundindur, have you checked out d20 Star Wars:Saga Edition's take on Skills?
unundindur 08-10-07, 09:19 AM	Hey, unundindur, have you checked out d20 Star Wars:Saga Edition's take on Skills? Not yet, but its on my to-do list, I have heard a lot of good stuff about it at the unearthed arcana board :) It sounds like the whole saga stuff may be part of 4, but as I have not seen it yet I cannot really say to much about that :)
Broken vacuum 08-10-07, 09:23 AM	Which is not a problem with hte skill system, but with that skill in particular (and a few others, that simply don't have any balacing impact at all). Everyone knows craft isn't usable apart from fluff, so they can be disgarded in this discussion. From a balancing perspective we must assume people take relevant skills, not the 1-3 completely useless skills that are there only for the purpose of beeing in the system and for fluff reasons. My flaw was not to mention this as a clause beforehand, but the reasoning is as sound as ever. It is certainly not a problem limited to some skills. Skills are created very unequal. Some skills work well with just some ranks in it, while others demand lots. Other skills are used very frequently and have powerful effects, while others are used rather infrequently and do not have that powerful effects. Skills are quite simply very dissimilar in power and frequency of use and they are used as a balance tool. For an easy example you can look at the fighter skill list. With the exception of Intimidate all of these skills have cut-off points were it really does not pay any more to invest in them. For quite a few of them a few ranks are nice, but anything over that is really just a luxury. The basic movement skills exemplify this nicely. Climb, Swim and Jump can all be nice skills to put a couple of points in depending on campaign and playing style. They soon lose importance, however, as movement enhancing gear or spells will be necessary anyway. At mid-levels fighters with decent amount of skill points (e.g. human fighters with 13 int) usually spend plenty of points on cross class skill, as most skills they do have as class skills give them very little. Giving them class skill level access to Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide or Tumble represents a clear power-up for them. These are not just 'a few' skills that do not have any balancing impact. If you look at the posts back in this thread I have stated quite clearly that I am in the opposite lair; "class" (OOC) has nothing to do with your "job" (IC). The problem is just that when my character wants to become a diplomat (as part of an IC warrior concept) he has to take a class that not only grant him this ability, but other abilities that may or may not suit the concept at all. He have to take those abilities, which by the system grant him a numeric advantage, evne though he may never use them. The example I have used before with my elven commander is neat because I stumbled into this very issue. While the beguiler class suited my primary needs (spellcasting in light armour with defensive spells) I also gained some abilities I would never use (Cloaked casting, trapsense) which from a balancing perspective make my character better, as it expects me to use them. My character thus effectively isn't as good as he is supposed to be, because the system doesn't embrace the elven spellcasting commander in light armour as much as the tricky thief-magician in light armour etc. I can very well refer to each class as a number, no problems there (just give me a list of what number goes to each class. See above, I can do that, but I do so at a disadvantage unless I also use the rogues other benefits (sneak attack, trapfinding etc.) Either live with it or exchange the unwanted ability for something else. Mostly it should suffice with a reworking of the flavour of the ability, though. Part of my problem here is that you are not really asking just for flavour, you also wish to cherry pick specific mechanics and no system with internal balance will let you combine just anything. Yes and no. Its definitively power, but I don't ask for it in return for power. If I have 4 skills and I want those 3 skills you listed I would lose the same number of ranks in other skills, that are supposed to be as good. Lets pretend that is listen, climb and intimidate. If these skills are balanced or not is an entirely different discussion. It is actually not a different discussion. As far as I can see skills are not designed to be of equal power and use. Nothing suggests that this has been the intent of the designers; it certainly has not been implemented that way. I have demonstrated that skills are indeed of unequal power. You have tried to claim that this only concerns a 'few' skills. I contest that. Moreover, if you wish to get rid of cross classed skills and still have a balanced system, you would have to deal with the inequality of skill power first, however few problematic skills there are. I hope my argumentation is convincing enough to sway you into agreeing its not a power up, except for the tiny-tiny add in versatility, which I find a good thing entirely. And versatility is not power? You have not convinced me at all. I still don't agree and I am simplifying, under the assumption that we hold this discussion at a sensible level. Of course you can limit the game in horrible ways, but have anyone ever considdered removing the full attack? I simplify under the assumtion that people take my view in best intention, not that everythign I say is exactely and minutely right, that way I would have to write essays in every post. The core of my view was that people have a much easier time accepting limits (as they can easily be discussed) compared to new rules. Especially when they come from players (the classic assumtion that a player is powergaming). Evidently I was not clear enough. I see nothing that suggests that the ramifications of limitations should be inherently easier to predict than those of extensions. Again, the DMG suggests the principle of exchange when it comes to customisation. I see that as rather sensible, as it gives the DM a clear framework to work with. Starting off with allowing everything and then trusting the DM to be able to limit in a balance-preserving manner seems a lot more problematic to me. I will again railroad a little, as we have done for the last 40 posts or so :P But those two are easily combined. I agree some of the beauty of DnD is its simplicity, but I don't see it as more complex to a player just having choices. After all the same can be said to prestige classes, that it makes the game more compex, which is true, abeit in a less ellegant way. Choices you can ignore do not make it harder on a player, but choices you have to take do. PrCs are choices you can ignore in the sense that the game works fine even if you never consider them. If you are to build your character from mechanical scratch there will be a lot of choices you cannot ignore - HD, BAB, saves etc. D&D as is, presents a player with a few well defined choices in the beginning. Later on, when your understanding of the game has grown, you can expand your choices quite a lot. The easiest way I can think of to get a more flexible and logicla system would be to scrap the PrC-system and take all abilities derived thereof and make them into class-variants and switch options. This would also be i nthe same spirit as removing class/cross-class skills. Actually that seems quite different from removing cross class skills. Both class-variants and switch options implies that players have to choose between things, exchange one thing for another. Removing cross class skills just adds.
unundindur 08-10-07, 09:25 AM	Folks, Stick to the topics, don't get personal please. Everyone is entitled to there thoughts on the matter. I for one am in favor of anything to speed up the game play. That said I don't want cookie cutter characters either. Who doesn't :) Would you care to elaborate a bit more?
Steely_Dan 08-10-07, 09:34 AM	Not yet, but its on my to-do list, I have heard a lot of good stuff about it at the unearthed arcana board :) It sounds like the whole saga stuff may be part of 4, but as I have not seen it yet I cannot really say to much about that :) Check it out: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2
Traken 08-10-07, 12:00 PM	I've read about 3 pages of this, but thought Id put my thoughts in the stewing pot. Personally, I like the idea of class skills because it just seems to make sense to me. A fighter spends his time fighting. This includes physical training such as jumping and climbing, in order to make you better at fighting. Even if you don't get better (increase skill ranks), you still spend your time doing these to keep your body in shape. If you wanted a character to be a "elven spellcasting warrior general," then make one. It might be a fighter3/sorcerer2/bard1. Or, if you don't like multiclassing, here's a thought: Make your own class (or find a new one). Want a warrior that uses spells to augment his fighting abilities? Be a Battle Sorcerer (SRD variant). Want to be a "elven spellcasting warrior general"? Make a class with Medium BAB, Good Will, Normal Fort, Bad Reflex, casts spells as a sorcerer of 1/2 your level, and has Inspire Courage that is non-magical, non-musical. Add in the skills you want, get the DM's approval, and have fun. You're not trapped by the rules. You an alwas just make up your own. That being said, you like to play your way, I like to play my way. Can't we all just get along? As for a classless skill system being put in place officially... it's not going to happen unless they make 4ed a classless system (might actually make it worth buying). A simple system would be you have 20 'points.' You spend these points to buy BAB, Skills, Spell Casting, extra abilities, feats, etc, etc.
MrCustomer 08-10-07, 02:22 PM	Yeah, I've never heard of a campaign breaking because the fighter has 17 ranks in Move Silently… I also have never heard of a campaign being broken because the player with the Fighter character cheats when rolling his HPs every level and adds an extra 5 hp a level. What champaign has ever been broken by a Fighter with 50 extra HPs? Quite the comparison isn't it? Now take a party of characters where the Cleric, Wizard, Warrior etc all have 17 Ranks in Move Silently. The entire party is able to sneak up on the unsuspecting End game critter, despite the dry leaves covering the ground, and ambush him with a suprise attack and dispatch him easily. Not only does this make the Rogue's abilities mundane and the rogue himself expendable, but you are dismissing a single simple fact: A Fighter with 17 ranks in Move Silently has the same increase in power as a Fighter with an extra free Feat, or who is tacking on some extra hps each level.
Roog 08-10-07, 02:42 PM	I also have never heard of a campaign being broken because the player with the Fighter character cheats when rolling his HPs every level and adds an extra 5 hp a level. What champaign has ever been broken by a Fighter with 50 extra HPs? Quite the comparison isn't it? Yes, and a character can become more powerful by being optimized. What champaign has ever been broken by an optimized character? It's a quite pointless comparison. Unless you mean to imply that adding house rules is like cheating?
unundindur 08-10-07, 02:49 PM	Can we please stop commenting on how unbalanced/not-unbalanced it is with X rnaks in a skill. It doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, and I doubt the first post was meant as a real argument, moreso just a comment. That comment may have some purpose, in that is questions the usefulness of skills as a whole, but didn't have anything to do with the discussion. Of course 17 ranks in move silently will have some impact, although how much is completely up to the GM and setting.
unundindur 08-10-07, 02:50 PM	Check it out: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2 Thanks! And whose who deviced this should get teh golden star of gamedesign. They have understod all the major points of concern as far as I can desipher from that text (I still have not seen the rules though).
MrCustomer 08-10-07, 03:03 PM	Here is a simple solution as a balanced way to allow classes to pick up any skill they want without it being restricted, capped or costing them twice the skill points, and without having to rebalance the class. This can be used by any character, in any game, and the DM has nothing to worry about as far as balance is concerned. Like the weapon and armor Proficency feats which allows a class to further customize their characters to be able to use weapons and armors that are not part of their class, make a similair Skill Feat, which I present here. Studied Skill: This Feat may betaken multiple times, but each time it is taken the player must choose a different skill. Choose 1 skill, like Tumble, Spell Craft, Concentration, Heal, etc. that skill becomes a Class skill and may be purchased at maximum ranks with the same costs as any other skill. This is balanced because the player is spending a feat to build up that skill and is not just gaining an additional free power. (the Fighter forgoes training Cleave Attack and spends time learning the finer points of Move Silently) If you think this is an overly expensive purchace, then perhaps you can balance it out with multiple skill feats like thus. Not a bad idea since some skills have more power then others you can allow a group of weaker skills to be purchased with a single feat, whereas a powerful skill like Use magic Device would cost a feat in of itself. Step of the Rogue: Add Hide and Move Silently as class skills. Expert Tinkerer. Add Open Lock and Disable Device as Class Skills. Smooth Talker: Add Bluff, Diplomacy and Sense Motive as Class skills. Use Magic Device: Add Use magic Device as a class skill. Look Out: Add Listen, Search and Spot as class skills The point here is the character balance is being maintained with a cost. This is the same as a Rogue Character wanting to use a Composite Longbow, it would cost him a Feat to add the Composite Longbow to his Weapons Proficiency list. It requires no further balancing to add this into the game which makes it useful for customizing characters without presenting balance issues.
Kesthol 08-10-07, 03:05 PM	...but you are dismissing a single simple fact: A Fighter with 17 ranks in Move Silently has the same increase in power as a Fighter with an extra free Feat, or who is tacking on some extra hps each level. Oh-ho! So some skills are more powerful than others - yes or no? See above example: Yes, some are. For example: Move Silently vs. Heal. Assume 5-player party, each with at least 10 ranks in 1) Move Silently, or 2) Heal. 1) The party all avoids the bugbear patrol (of appropriate EL) altogether. OR 2) Each character patches up 1 hp of each member in the party (everyone gets 5 points of healing)... after the dwarf cleric ("Clank") gets their attention 3 round before combat starts. And the spellcasters tossed at least 3 spells each, while Joe, the fighter, sustained 47 points of damage total... This horse stinks to high heaven. Whew. *Summons a squad of 3rd level barbarian ogres, all armed with large great clubs. Directs them to attack the equine corpse until it cannot be recognized as a horse.* :) ------- The Saga (d20 Star Wars edition to be released soon) skill system looks like it would fit the bill of what I am looking for in a skill system. Re-posting of the link: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/SagaPreview2. Bob the Barbarian could use the skill "Spellcraft" gets rolled into, even get trained in it, but not have the class abilities that allow him to ID a scroll, or to learn a spell from someone's spellbook. And Robby the rogue can sneak better, and open locks better, because he has class abilities that allow him to use these skills in ways and times that other characters cannot, although Joe the Fighter also has equal skill with senaking around. Sounds good to me. And a lot more logical, and as well as being more like RL: there are much fewer restrictions on who can learn a particular skill. Some people, who get much more experience at using these skills by the nature of their job/occupation/attempt to make it in this world, are able to use a few of their skills in situations where others would struggle to accomplish the same task.
unundindur 08-10-07, 04:15 PM	It is certainly not a problem limited to some skills. Skills are created very unequal. Some skills work well with just some ranks in it, while others demand lots. Other skills are used very frequently and have powerful effects, while others are used rather infrequently and do not have that powerful effects. Skills are quite simply very dissimilar in power and frequency of use and they are used as a balance tool. For an easy example you can look at the fighter skill list. With the exception of Intimidate all of these skills have cut-off points were it really does not pay any more to invest in them. For quite a few of them a few ranks are nice, but anything over that is really just a luxury. The basic movement skills exemplify this nicely. Climb, Swim and Jump can all be nice skills to put a couple of points in depending on campaign and playing style. They soon lose importance, however, as movement enhancing gear or spells will be necessary anyway. At mid-levels fighters with decent amount of skill points (e.g. human fighters with 13 int) usually spend plenty of points on cross class skill, as most skills they do have as class skills give them very little. Giving them class skill level access to Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide or Tumble represents a clear power-up for them. These are not just 'a few' skills that do not have any balancing impact. Although I see your point, it then implies that the rules for pricing skill-boosing items are just not working. After all they cut all skills over the same edge. Then the question is, is it easier to make a system based on all skills beeing equally good, then pricing them equally (and building the game around that), or behind a system where skills are different in power from the get go, and where every mechanic added later (pricing for example) have to account for this? I say the latter is a much more logical and ellegant way of design. I may not have been direct enough in stating that I talk about how DnD could improve, not just how it works now. Your point about the movement skills is a very good one. Either live with it or exchange the unwanted ability for something else. Mostly it should suffice with a reworking of the flavour of the ability, though. Part of my problem here is that you are not really asking just for flavour, you also wish to cherry pick specific mechanics and no system with internal balance will let you combine just anything. Well here I have to disagree. Of course I can just live iwth it, but when talking about design its this is what I would call "living with a weakness", which is counter-productive. In getting forward we have to strive for perfection. Then we can of course debate, as we do, what perfection is. A system that assume cherry picking would naturally allow you to combine anything that is in some way natural combinations, given enough developing time. I have been working on this myself, abeit as one man with design as a hobby and not a job I cannot hope to acheive this to the level it would be possible if WotC happened to approve it. It is actually not a different discussion. As far as I can see skills are not designed to be of equal power and use. Nothing suggests that this has been the intent of the designers; it certainly has not been implemented that way. Again the item pricing comes to mind, but your good example of movement skills shows that this is a problem. But the item pricing do suggest that it is the intent, although it may not be more than that. I have demonstrated that skills are indeed of unequal power. You have tried to claim that this only concerns a 'few' skills. I contest that. Moreover, if you wish to get rid of cross classed skills and still have a balanced system, you would have to deal with the inequality of skill power first, however few problematic skills there are. Yes, you have convinced me. :) I still see it as a horrible design though, that should be changed, however drastic that may be. And versatility is not power? You have not convinced me at all. Of course this was based on all skilsl beeing equal. When they are not its obviously not so. If all skills were balanced against each other I still see versatility as opposed to power. Evidently I was not clear enough. I see nothing that suggests that the ramifications of limitations should be inherently easier to predict than those of extensions. Again, the DMG suggests the principle of exchange when it comes to customisation. I see that as rather sensible, as it gives the DM a clear framework to work with. Starting off with allowing everything and then trusting the DM to be able to limit in a balance-preserving manner seems a lot more problematic to me. Then we can agree to disagree. I find it much easier to have all options in the world in front of me, then then just picking away those that don't suit me for flavour reasons (as a player and GM alike). Its much harder when you get stuff like a player who wants to do something thats not written in the rules and you have to start comparing homemade stuff to previously made stuff and more so you have to facot in the possibilities for synergies in the future. The reverse is of course true to limits, you have to look at how much weaker other options become as a result of it, but I still find that a much simpler task. Choices you can ignore do not make it harder on a player, but choices you have to take do. PrCs are choices you can ignore in the sense that the game works fine even if you never consider them. If you are to build your character from mechanical scratch there will be a lot of choices you cannot ignore - HD, BAB, saves etc. D&D as is, presents a player with a few well defined choices in the beginning. Later on, when your understanding of the game has grown, you can expand your choices quite a lot. Yes to a certain extent this is true. It is a tad more complex to get options, but this have in my experience been something most players actually enjoy, old and new players alike. HD, BaB and saves could be fixed (I will post a link to my old realia project later). Prestige classes still ahve the same backside though. To be comparable to a PrC character you usually have to take one yourself, thus you cannot just ignore it unless you are content with a less powerful character (I know this was not the intention in the beginning, but its how 3.5 have developed). Actually that seems quite different from removing cross class skills. Both class-variants and switch options implies that players have to choose between things, exchange one thing for another. Removing cross class skills just adds. I meant in that they allwo you to customize your character to your wish, instead of beeing contained by rules that force, or at least gently touches your hand As I said to someone else some pages past, brilliant post! :)
Nirid 08-10-07, 05:08 PM	A perfectly valid solution was presented earlier in the form of professions from d20 modern. They grant access to key skills that members of a certain job would have. A guard would indeed have spot and listen regardless of class. An assassin could in fact have hide and move silently even if he was a wizard. If all you want is the ability to customize character concepts that are currently poorly supported by the core rules (and I could never figure out why guard was one of them) then this seems like the best way to go. You of course would have to add prereqs that prevent people from always taking a certain profession for skills w/o a reason. A person who's background is acrobat should have a certain amount of dex just like someone who wants to be a guard should probably be slightly more perceptive then other people (wis). Mix in a few professions that give fluff feats (Toughness, Lighting Reflexes, etc) and maybe 1 extra class skill for classes who don't need or want different skills and you are set. That certainly solves your role-playing dilemma. Now if your problem is more of a roll-playing one there isn't much arguing here is going to do about it.
unundindur 08-10-07, 05:13 PM	To me it is a roll-playing issue, in that I see it as a flaw in the fundamental concept :) Of course its not a problem in the games I play in since we just houserule the whole shebang. And teh solution you present is indeed one that works, its just not as open conceptually as I would prefer.
Nirid 08-10-07, 05:29 PM	Then the problem is not within the class skill system, but the actual skills themselves, no? That is a far more ambitious project then most would be willing to take on. As far as being "open", how open do you really want? A class would have it's full class skill list plus any from their profession. That means you could tack on an extra 3 skills to a fighters class skill list. If there was a certain combo you wanted for concept you could always talk to your DM about custom professions. After all there are cerainly a great deal of diverse jobs that most people wouldn't think of. Concept is very important in games like D&D and one of the things that makes them special is that not everyone has acess to the same resources. I played a rogue/sorcerer once that lost his hand and moved into rogue/sorcerer/fighter because my weapon ended up grafted to the stump. I was hardly the best the way my skills took a dive or with stunted BAB and spells, but it was an intresting concept I'm glad I got to play even with it's limitations. Have you ever tried to turn a weakness into a roleplaying focus? It can be very entertaining and rewarding. This applies to skills as much as class features.
Forgember 08-10-07, 08:46 PM	Now, pray tell me, why, our example dwarf, who is, like most dwarves, scared stiff of deep water, and considers horses good eating, be "good at" Swimming and Ride, eh? If most dwarves in your games are afraid of water and eat horses I think you have better things to worry about. Nothing wrong with cross class skills, It represents a lack of training/focus. Someone who often has his head burryed in a steel bucket focuses less on spoting and listing.
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-12-07, 11:09 AM	If most dwarves in your games are afraid of water and eat horses I think you have better things to worry about. Nothing wrong with cross class skills, It represents a lack of training/focus. Someone who often has his head burryed in a steel bucket focuses less on spoting and listing. Someone who's head is in a steel bucket, and is often attacked had BETTER be damned good at spot and listen, or he's dead! ;)
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-12-07, 11:15 AM	I also have never heard of a campaign being broken because the player with the Fighter character cheats when rolling his HPs every level and adds an extra 5 hp a level. What champaign has ever been broken by a Fighter with 50 extra HPs? Quite the comparison isn't it? Now take a party of characters where the Cleric, Wizard, Warrior etc all have 17 Ranks in Move Silently. The entire party is able to sneak up on the unsuspecting End game critter, despite the dry leaves covering the ground, and ambush him with a suprise attack and dispatch him easily. Not only does this make the Rogue's abilities mundane and the rogue himself expendable, but you are dismissing a single simple fact: A Fighter with 17 ranks in Move Silently has the same increase in power as a Fighter with an extra free Feat, or who is tacking on some extra hps each level. That is a VERY bad analogy ;) 17 ranks = lvl 14. have you seen the kills of many critters of that level? ALso, in my proposed chnages (no CC skills +2 skill points/level or HD for everyone), the critters would have higher skills too...PLUS what end boss DOESN'T have guardians, sentries...traps? Better skills HELP, they don't make it "cheap" ;)
Silverblade The Enchanter 08-12-07, 11:20 AM	Oh, and after reading it, the Saga system seems MILES better! :) The formula for determining a character's skill bonus is as follows: 1/2 character level + relevant ability modifier + 5 (if trained) + 5 (if Skill Focus) but how do you work out how many skills someone can be trained in?
GawainBS 08-12-07, 11:22 AM	Oh, and after reading it, the Saga system seems MILES better! :) but how do you work out how many skills someone can be trained in? You get a class list, and you're trained in x + Int mod skills. X = dependant on class, humans get one bonus skill. Disadvantage: you can't pick up a skill that isn't on your list.
MrCustomer 08-12-07, 12:29 PM	To me it is a roll-playing issue, in that I see it as a flaw in the fundamental concept :) Of course its not a problem in the games I play in since we just houserule the whole shebang. And teh solution you present is indeed one that works, its just not as open conceptually as I would prefer. Silverblade: That is a VERY bad analogy 17 ranks = lvl 14. have you seen the kills of many critters of that level? ALso, in my proposed chnages (no CC skills +2 skill points/level or HD for everyone), the critters would have higher skills too...PLUS what end boss DOESN'T have guardians, sentries...traps? Better skills HELP, they don't make it "cheap" Level 14 Fighter with 17 Move Silent Ranks= 9 Free Ranks and 18 Free Skill Points. That is the same as giving him extra free feats The Flaw you are seeing is that D&D is a class based system rather then a generic skill based system. I believe the same flaw exists where classes are limited in the Weapon and Armor proficencies as well as other abilities. -Why can't an Monk Sneak Attack? After all a fighter should know the soft spots. -Why can't a Bard have a Familiar? -Why Can't a Rogue use a Bastard Sword or wear heavy armor? -Why Can't a Paladin spontaneously cast Cure Spells? These Questions are no different then asking why there are cross-skills. Class skills are as much a feature of a classes ability as any other ability like mentioned above. No in a pure non-class, non-level system of building and advancing characters, all abilities are purchaces with points. Vampire the Masquerade for instance or the old Starwars RPG from West End Games. Both had PCs entirely customized. But note the limits on such non-class systems: There was a finite abount of points to be spent. Adding extra abilities to a class is akin to giving extra free points to a PC in a point based system. In your desire you are adding abilities to a class, cross classed skills, but there is no cost. In my above questions all those things could be done with various feats from the source books. Even in a class based system there is still plenty room for customization with choices for Feats, Prestige Classes etc. but there is also always a cost (choosing between feats or which class to raise) I strongly advice that if you want to open up skills that you ensure there is an assotiated cost Remember you are in fact giving the Fighter (level 14) 9 Free ranks of Move Silently in order for him to have 17 Ranks in that skill and are only charging him 17 skill points for it when it would normally cost him 16 just to get to 8 Ranks, 17 Ranks would cost him 34 Skill points. That is 9 Free Ranks and 18 Free Skill Points that you have given your fighter to get him to 17 Ranks, according to the rules. Considering that in the rules you have to purchase a feat, Stealthy to gain a measily +2 to Move Silently and another, Skill Focus to gain +3, I think this is rather extreme to give +9 for free when it costs 2 feats to get a +5. Making a Feat that adds a skill (or group of skills) as a class skill is a fair, arguably cheap, way of customizing classes while retaining balance. Check the PHB for the Feats Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness etc as a guideline if you want to group skills together in the feat (Acrobatic, Alertness, Nimble fingers etc)
Someone 08-12-07, 01:36 PM	A fighter doesn't depend on his ability to see ambushes to overcome them. A fighter depends on surviving the ambush (heavy armor proficiency for high AC, d10 hit die for more hitpoints) and/or beating the snot out of the ambushers (good BAB, proficiency in martial weaponry) to overcome the ambush. There's what a particular class does do, and what that class does not do (or do well). And just because a class has things it does not do doesn't make the whole system somehow flawed.
unundindur 08-12-07, 05:39 PM	As I have said you only give the fighter free ranks IF he none-the-less would take move silently. If he had instead spent his skills on intimidate he would be at a 1-1 trade. I beleive that the current system penalises the fighter without reason (for taking move silently instead of intimidate), and removing cross-class skills only remove this penalty (you now trade those at 1-1). That is my comparison, and I agree that you gain free ranks, if you compare it to what I see as a penalised concept in the first place.
High Octane 08-12-07, 05:51 PM	The reasons behind Cross Class skills: 1. Balance If all skills were to be considered class skills, the advantages certain classes would have would be lessened. The ability of the rogue to have a rank total of tumble at 3+Hit Die (instead of half that) is an advantage he has over classes that do not have that skill as a class skill. 2. Role filling By having a class that has a certain skill set as class skills, that class' purpose can actually BE having those skills. The bard having an extensive list of charisma based skills make him a good choice when you want a character who emphasizes those skills, whereas the ranger has many survival based skills which makes him a more valid choice for the outdoorsman. The elimination of class skills would make it so there would be no mechanical reason to choose the bard over the ranger for a charismatic skill emphasizing character. After all, they get the same amount of skill points, and both have 2 good saves. The ranger though gets bonus feats, favored enemies, an animal companion, better BAB and a higher hit die. The fact that the ranger has most charisma based skills as cross class however allows the bard to be a much better choice for the job which leads to.... 3. Flavor Now it makes perfect sense that an environment that raises a certain class emphasizes certain skills, making them easier to learn, whereas other skills would not be emphasized and even discouraged. Similar to learning computer engineering. If you went to MIT, you would learn computer engineering very well, but if you went to say The Rhode Island School of Design, you could theoretically still learn computer engineering, but it would be harder, taking more time, and without the teachers who know the subject heloung you and the other students of that major to get help with, as well as a lacking amount of literary resources on the subject, means that you will not have as good a mastery of the subject. In a D&D example, a fighter is someone who spends a good amount of time martially training. They could have a background saying that their father was a wizard that taught them about wizardry. That could be a valid background, but remember all the time they have to take to become a fighter. Then think about the fact that nothing in being a fighter emphasizes the Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana skill. They may have some exposure to the right materials, but in order to have themselves be a fighter they have to put emphasis on it, otherwise they would be a less specifically melee oriented class. Their swinging a sword and learning combat maneuvers does not synergize in learning with spellcraft, potions and spells and such. The wizard though, has to deal with spells constantly in order to learn to CAST their spells. The sorcerer, though not as emphasized on the book learning, still has to look towards learning about magic in order to form it to his will and come up with how to create a magic missle. Learning about spellcraft and knowledge of arcana thus synergizes with their attempted class skill learning, which is why they can get to it better than a person who is going back and forth between swinging a sword and learning about spells. It's the difference between learning about computers in a book and going to a school where you get hands on experience with computer hardware and software THEN getting a job as a computer repairman. Sure the construction worker could read about it and learn about it, but he will never be able to have as much learned experience in that regard as the guy who went to school AND got a job in the field. So, it is a balance factor, a role filling factor, a logistical factor, and a flavor factor.
Jaxgaret 08-12-07, 05:59 PM	flavor factor. That sounds like a new cereal or band name :)
MrCustomer 08-12-07, 06:53 PM	As I have said you only give the fighter free ranks IF he none-the-less would take move silently. If he had instead spent his skills on intimidate he would be at a 1-1 trade. I beleive that the current system penalises the fighter without reason (for taking move silently instead of intimidate), and removing cross-class skills only remove this penalty (you now trade those at 1-1). That is my comparison, and I agree that you gain free ranks, if you compare it to what I see as a penalised concept in the first place. And not being able to use a Bastard Sword or heavy armor is Not penalizing the Rogue for no reason? After all a Rogue isn't using his normal weapons and armour while using a bastard sword and plate mail. He's trading them 1-1. Giving up a class skill that you don't find useful for a cross class skill that is amazingly useful (trading Climb for Move Silently) is not a fair 1:1 trade. Just as a rogue giving up being able to use a gauntlet to use a Bastard Sword proficently a fair system. D&D is a class based sytem. That means each class is unique in their abilities, skills and class features. Hence classes like Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. How wide their skill selection is based incidenally on their other abilities for instance Fighters are under Good Base Attack bonus High Hit Die, Casters who get spells are under Poor Base attack Bonus, low Hit Die, Classes like Rogues are under Average Base attack bonus, average Hit Die. Fighters and Wizards get low skill selection for having a high focused base attack or spell power etc. Rogues and Bards etc get only average Base Attacks/average Hit Die in exchange for versatility in skills and abilities. The Fighter advantage is being able to use all weapons and armors without restriction and a high Base attack bonus and high Hit Die. The Rogue advantage is being able to use nearly all skills without restriction with an average base attack, average Hit Die and special case abilities. You see balance in this situation is: Rogue HD, Base attack, special abilities, Class Skills and Skill Points = Fighter High base attack, High Hit Die, Bonus Feats and Weapon Proficencies. When you add versatility to a Warrior's skills you are adding power and should trade off in another area, lower HD, Lower Base attack etc, Costing a feat in this case is more reasonable I think. If the Rogue wants to use a Bastard Sword effectively, He spends a Feat on Weapon Proficency: Bastard Swords If a Fighter wants to Move Silently effectively, he should likewise spend a Feat to gain Skill Proficency: Move Silently Similairly a bard could use the gain Familair feat to gain a Familiar like a sorceror, A Paladin can use the Spontaneous Caster Feat to spontaneously cast Cure spells like a Cleric. Why can't a Wizard cast Cure Light Wounds? After all would be replacing one of his normal level 1 spells for a level 1 cleric spell? It's a 1:1 trade and besides he could normally cure light wounds anyways by using a potion right? All Level 1 spells are Equal aren't they? The answer is no, not all elvel 1 spells are equal, nor are all level 1 spells appropriate for every caster. A Wizard should not have Cure Light Wounds, a first level spell. This is exactly the same as a fighter having Move Silently as a class skill.
unundindur 08-12-07, 07:10 PM	The reasons behind Cross Class skills: 1. Balance If all skills were to be considered class skills, the advantages certain classes would have would be lessened. The ability of the rogue to have a rank total of tumble at 3+Hit Die (instead of half that) is an advantage he has over classes that do not have that skill as a class skill. See below... 2. Role filling By having a class that has a certain skill set as class skills, that class' purpose can actually BE having those skills. The bard having an extensive list of charisma based skills make him a good choice when you want a character who emphasizes those skills, whereas the ranger has many survival based skills which makes him a more valid choice for the outdoorsman. But why on earht cant i just make a ranger with a lot of charisma skills indead if thats what I want? The bard is justified by his other features; bardic music, lv 6 arcane spells (in light armour) etc. Why do I have to take the whole package if I only want a tidbit of it. That is forcing a concept onto someone because "its like that". The elimination of class skills would make it so there would be no mechanical reason to choose the bard over the ranger for a charismatic skill emphasizing character. After all, they get the same amount of skill points, and both have 2 good saves. The ranger though gets bonus feats, favored enemies, an animal companion, better BAB and a higher hit die. Exactely, and its just brilliant. You play a bard when you want to play a ministrel/musician type, and a ranger when you want to play a woodsman. What you happened to dedicate your other resources on is best left to the player who actually have a vision of his class (yes you cna multiclass, but that penalise you in so many ways, again for no, or diminutive gain) The fact that the ranger has most charisma based skills as cross class however allows the bard to be a much better choice for the job which leads to.... And a shame it is. Why do my diplomat have to be good at sneak attacking (or for that sake music?). Why cant he just as well be a fighter, who by chance have a good "noble" schooling. 3. Flavor Now it makes perfect sense that an environment that raises a certain class emphasizes certain skills, making them easier to learn, whereas other skills would not be emphasized and even discouraged. This is a fluff issue, best left to the GM in every camapign. A meta-game concept like class doesn't emphasize anything in-game; an in-game soceiety does (such as the order of noble warriors who hone their diplomacy skills). [yes, you could paly a paladin or knight, but that may not be what the player has in mind] Similar to learning computer engineering. If you went to MIT, you would learn computer engineering very well, but if you went to say The Rhode Island School of Design, you could theoretically still learn computer engineering, but it would be harder, taking more time, and without the teachers who know the subject heloung you and the other students of that major to get help with, as well as a lacking amount of literary resources on the subject, means that you will not have as good a mastery of the subject. And these are (looking at our world as a game) in-game soceieties. Its not like the GM (lets say god) defines what you learn at MIT or not (unless you have that sort of beleive, but you get my point). In a D&D example, a fighter is someone who spends a good amount of time martially training. They could have a background saying that their father was a wizard that taught them about wizardry. That could be a valid background, but remember all the time they have to take to become a fighter. Then think about the fact that nothing in being a fighter emphasizes the Spellcraft or Knowledge: Arcana skill (elven warriors in my world does). They may have some exposure to the right materials, but in order to have themselves be a fighter they have to put emphasis on it, otherwise they would be a less specifically melee oriented class. Their swinging a sword and learning combat maneuvers does not synergize in learning with spellcraft, potions and spells and such. The wizard though, has to deal with spells constantly in order to learn to CAST their spells. The sorcerer, though not as emphasized on the book learning, still has to look towards learning about magic in order to form it to his will and come up with how to create a magic missle. Learning about spellcraft and knowledge of arcana thus synergizes with their attempted class skill learning, which is why they can get to it better than a person who is going back and forth between swinging a sword and learning about spells. Now why on earth do the fighter have climb then? Its not like climbing is part of regular warriors training...from this point of view climb should be a rogue/barbarian exclusive skill... It's the difference between learning about computers in a book and going to a school where you get hands on experience with computer hardware and software THEN getting a job as a computer repairman. Sure the construction worker could read about it and learn about it, but he will never be able to have as much learned experience in that regard as the guy who went to school AND got a job in the field. Of course thats a difference, but as my real-world example above this is an in-game question that is either defined in the characters history, or disallowed by the GM if it is out of place. Its only your imagination and the GM(in a fantasy world) that place limitations to how a character have learned stuff. So, it is a balance factor, a role filling factor, a logistical factor, and a flavor factor. Its possibly a balance factor, abeit a minute one and its a way to force players to play stereotypes unless they want to be penalised (role filling) its not a logical factor, abeit it can be in the most stereotype game and its preventing flavor for a lot of characters.
Anodai 08-12-07, 07:41 PM	I've played in games where the DM has assigned skill points for the player at each level, based on what the player has done that level. it only works with certain play styles and a DM willing to do a bit of extra work, but works very well in such a game
Roam7 08-12-07, 08:01 PM	PHB, page 110. Class skill sets are not set in stone. Just give your dwarf listen, even move silently. Done. No need to kill the entire system.
Jaxgaret 08-12-07, 09:15 PM	PHB, page 110. Class skill sets are not set in stone. Just give your dwarf listen, even move silently. Done. No need to kill the entire system. Seconded.
OravennasBrother 08-13-07, 11:02 AM	Its possibly a balance factor, abeit a minute one and its a way to force players to play stereotypes unless they want to be penalised (role filling) its not a logical factor, abeit it can be in the most stereotype game and its preventing flavor for a lot of characters. Actually the degree to which Class Skills balance classes is IMMENSE WRT the skills Spot, Listen, Hide, and Silent Move. Those four skills are the essential elements for reconnaissance, and the classes which receive those four skills as class skills are weaker in a stand up fight (Core rules) than the classes which receive none of them - even the barbarian for all his woodcraft gets only Listen as a class skill. At firs level the difference between max ranks class and cross class is only 2, but by 10th level it is 6, more than the BAB difference between a Fighter and a Wizard at that level. Definitely a powerful balancing factor. Finally the ease of multiclassing makes it possible to get the "Class Skills" desired - one merely needs to obtain the right training. If a player were to tell me they hated limits on their class skills, I would tell them to multiclass, and if they told me that would make them weaker then I would respond that they were making the choice.
Broken vacuum 08-14-07, 05:55 AM	I appologise for taking such a long time to get back here. Although I see your point, it then implies that the rules for pricing skill-boosing items are just not working. After all they cut all skills over the same edge. Then the question is, is it easier to make a system based on all skills beeing equally good, then pricing them equally (and building the game around that), or behind a system where skills are different in power from the get go, and where every mechanic added later (pricing for example) have to account for this? I say the latter is a much more logical and ellegant way of design. I may not have been direct enough in stating that I talk about how DnD could improve, not just how it works now. Your point about the movement skills is a very good one. A system where every skill is as powerful as any other would be pretty much impossible to design if the skills are to bear any resemblance to what they are now at all. Since skills encompass such a wide variety of effects, it simply cannot be done for a complex system. You would have to put considerable limits on the game itself compared to what you have now to come even close to such an arrangement. Also, I think you have a too undifferentiated view of skill use and effectiveness as it varies over character career. Quite a few skills are very effective during a smaller range of levels than 20 and only marginally useful at other levels. Published skill-boosting items tend to reflect this. I am not saying that there are not any less than well conceived items published by WotC, but in general they do seem to spend a moment or two reflecting on the actual impact of a specific item. (I do, however, not own the Magic Item Compendium, so conceivable they could have thrown every caution overboard there.) The pricing guidelines in the DMG should not be mistaken for rules about what should be allowed or not. Everything constructed with them must go through the DM and the DM is adviced to use the pricing chart as a sort of last resort with a liberal dose of common sense. Well here I have to disagree. Of course I can just live iwth it, but when talking about design its this is what I would call "living with a weakness", which is counter-productive. In getting forward we have to strive for perfection. I may not have been too clear, there. My point is that it is not inconceivable that certain choices and combinations should result in 'unwanted' weaknesses or abilities. Abilities do not exist in a vacuum, but should instead be considered as a part of the whole. The value of certain - if not most - abilities depend on what other abilities a character has. For what it is worth, this is also quite realistic. When you practice or train for most things, you tend to learn other things and some of the latter may be things you do not particularly care for. They remain necessary, though. Again, part of the problem I see here, is that you seem to want to cherry-pick mechanics as well as flavour. Then we can of course debate, as we do, what perfection is. A system that assume cherry picking would naturally allow you to combine anything that is in some way natural combinations, given enough developing time. I have been working on this myself, abeit as one man with design as a hobby and not a job I cannot hope to acheive this to the level it would be possible if WotC happened to approve it. The problem with this is that what combinations are 'natural combinations' is very much a subjective point of view. Part of your problem with the rules seem to be that you and WotC do not see eye-to-eye on what is 'natural', and that is of course not a problem in itself, but it does become a problem if you think that exchanging WotC's vision for your own will solve the underlying problem for anyone else and that you have thereby created a 'better' or 'more logical' system. Then we can agree to disagree. I find it much easier to have all options in the world in front of me, then then just picking away those that don't suit me for flavour reasons (as a player and GM alike). Its much harder when you get stuff like a player who wants to do something thats not written in the rules and you have to start comparing homemade stuff to previously made stuff and more so you have to facot in the possibilities for synergies in the future. The reverse is of course true to limits, you have to look at how much weaker other options become as a result of it, but I still find that a much simpler task. A couple of points here: People play D&D on different levels - there are beginners as well as experienced players. I suspect that a part ofthe D&D success is that it is pretty simple for beginners to start playing. They do not need to spend hours learning the inner workings of the system, but can start after a very short introduction. If they would have to build their characters from scratch, this would not be the case. Later on, the game allows for greater customisation with things like generic classes from Unearthed Arcana if nothing else. Another thing is that choosing or discarding this or that ability based on 'flavour decision' in the end very often is about wanting this or that mechanic. It is not that decisions should be made entirely without flavour or that you should never want some specific mechanic available to your character, but you must be aware of that the combination of two abilities may be very much more powerful than each ability in itself. PHB and DMG suggest reworking of flavour and this is where you should start. Abilities are provided with some sort of sample flavour that can and should be individualised for each character. Game systems where you buy abilities with points has much to speak for them, but one of their limitations as compared to bundled systems - like the D&D class system - is that some abilities need to be left out or toned down severly in order to preserve balance. In a bundled system you can pair such an ability off with a weakness or other abilities that do not lend themselves to over-the-top synergy. Yes to a certain extent this is true. It is a tad more complex to get options, but this have in my experience been something most players actually enjoy, old and new players alike. HD, BaB and saves could be fixed (I will post a link to my old realia project later). Prestige classes still ahve the same backside though. To be comparable to a PrC character you usually have to take one yourself, thus you cannot just ignore it unless you are content with a less powerful character (I know this was not the intention in the beginning, but its how 3.5 have developed). The importance of PrCs to power is often somewhat overstated on these boards. It is not that there are not a lot of PRCs that make characters more powerful than without them - there are a lot of them (and this I do find a bit less than well conceived) - but that the actual proficiency of the player to play D&D is far more important. If a player is not experienced enough to evaluate PRCs, people that are will have more powerful characters whether they use PRCs or not. I meant in that they allwo you to customize your character to your wish, instead of beeing contained by rules that force, or at least gently touches your hand Yes, but what I mean is that it is a matter of exchange. You have to choose one ability to give up to get another. Abilities and combinations of abilities are not of equal power and any system that wish to preserve balance will have limits on what you can combine - if nothing else regarding the number of effects. In any rules-based system players can come up with abilities that are not already defined in the system and in any balance preserving system there will be a limit to what mechanics you can combine in one character. What I am trying to say here is not that you are a powergaming munchkin that should be doomed to eternal damnation for attempting to change the holy rules of D&D (invectives may vary according to personal tastes), but instead that the arguments that you bring against D&D can be brought against any RPG that tries to preserve balance - bundled abilities or not. Based on your arguments against the D&D system as is, I cannot see how the proposed ways of attaining solutions could result in a system that could not be critisised on more or less exactly the same grounds. As I said to someone else some pages past, brilliant post! :) Thanks! This is a very enjoyable discussion and I hope it can continue despite my late post.
Kineon_War 12-27-07, 01:26 AM	I like this idea. The only thing I'd change is the restriction on UMD. I'm not a fan of class restrictions on magic items anyway. (Actually I'm not a fan of classes full stop but it does save time during character creation). I created my own 5 class system that had a lot of freedom to pick feats/ class abilties/ skills/ spells etc. It is a balanced system (except for the commoner who is deliberately nerfed as the class "flavour"). It works well but new players are drowned by the choices involved. When you give players more freedom, many times they waste time agonising about how to build the most powerful character. My advice is to think of a theme, then stick to it, after which it gets easier for them. My group has come up with an interesting fix for this problem, we allow particularly intelligent PC (i.e. those with a +1 modifier or higher) to gain a number of skills as class skills equal to their int modifier. We do, however, keep UMD and Craft (alchemy) restricted to their current classes.
sigma999 12-27-07, 06:44 AM	I have been complaining for years about cross-class skills, too. Makes me smile that not only is there so much discussion about this topic, but that the naysayers aren't really putting up much of a reasonable defense other than supporting the way D&D has been for too long. Very few of my gamer friends want class skills. Those that do, are wishy washy about it, as if they are almost fed up with them. :rolleyes:
Dog_O_War 12-27-07, 03:17 PM	I have been complaining for years about cross-class skills, too. Makes me smile that not only is there so much discussion about this topic, but that the naysayers aren't really putting up much of a reasonable defense other than supporting the way D&D has been for too long. Very few of my gamer friends want class skills. Those that do, are wishy washy about it, as if they are almost fed up with them. :rolleyes: What more of a defence do you want? This is an antiquated game about high fantasy (usually medival high fantasy) That involves both a class system and a social-status concept (that is usually ignored). Skills don't grow on trees and they tend to follow what is most easily learned for a given class. While it may seem like it makes sense that your fighter should have spot and listen as class skills, what doesn't make sense is that your martially trained and focused character had time to learn them properly with all of his weapons and tactics training. This is why I believe they should be kept cross-class; it just doesn't fit for a fighter to be learning all these things and for him to have spellcraft as well; it adds a level of unbelieveability that his training would include this and not other magic based elements. Basically skills are the way they are because the classes' training is best suited (or is well suited in the case of spellcraft and spellcasting rangers and paladins) that they have them. A person can make any case they like as to why they should get different skills, and may seem totally justified, but until you examine as to why the system is the way it is, you will never truely know if that justification is correct. That's what I think anyways; people will do as they like no matter what someone else says. All I can hope for is that someone takes into consideration what I've said.
sigma999 12-28-07, 12:29 AM	Well I do recognize your validity, Dog. I won't ever call you an idiot for your opinion because I know myself to be a fool. There is no pride in debating an RPG on an internet forum. It's just that, in summation, when a gamer is asked the question "why is my character archetype limited in this way? I want to have ___" The most common answer is; "Because that's how D&D is." My response is; "It doesn't have to be like this, though. ___ is a better option for balance, encounter-competence, fun, and simplicity." And the usual response is; "No. Just no." So, what is this? An emotional appeal? There really is no answer, other than 'you're not playing the same game any more', and I guess that's what most gamers fed up with the strict Gygaxian limitations wind up with. I could confidently state today that, quite truly, I am not playing D&D any more. I play a mismatched jumble of houserules, bugfixes, and setting-specific designs that could only vaguely approximate the same game as you are playing. And this probably holds true for most gamers, unless they play 'by the book'.
sapient 12-28-07, 06:13 AM	But to be fair - there have been a lot of good arguments from both sides here. I don't recognize what you're describing, Sigma999. A lot of the arguments for the current skill/class system has been elaborate and well stated. It would be just as unfair to categorize all arguments against the current system as being the tiresome complaints of rule-wary munchkins or something similar. Please don't trivialize or belittle the arguments of your opponents. I think this is a question where I could really be swayed by arguments. When I read the initial postings, I sometimes felt that maybe there was something good here. I haven't felt constricted by the class/skill system myself nor have any of my players grumbled about it. But some of the arguments certainly had merit. And maybe a more "libertarian" skill system could benefit character-building and roleplaying. But I find that the opposite side has merit as well. The class system IS integral to D&D. It regulates so much more than skills. It is the way to define character concepts in this game. There could be other systems, but this is the one that's included in D&D. And if you feel you want to change it, fine. But to say that the arguments maintaining this is only saying "No" is simply not correct. You could take away the character level and experience points system as well, and substitute something else. (Some things to that effect have been suggested, like handing out skill points based on successfull skill uses.) That would also be a major change. It would also make for bigger freedom and flexibility - but in the end not everyone WANT all that flexibility. Part of this game and any game, is to learn to use the rules. The rules are in a sense arbitrary. They could be any of a number of alternatives. But that does not mean that no rules will do as well. Once the rules are defined, they in turn define the game. After all, there no particular difference between football and basketball except a few different rules. When I think about what makes D&D fun to me, some of that comes from the rules being what they are. That they DON'T let me or my players do exactly what we want, is part of the challenge. We have to apply ourselves and find the way that it can be done. For some, this fits well with the class/skill system. For you and others, it might not be so. But that's still way above and beyond saying "no, because that's not D&D".
Derren S. 12-28-07, 06:23 AM	I hope cross class skills stay because they are more realistic than free for all skills. You are simply learning something related to your profession faster than something with isn't because of synergy.
GawainBS 12-28-07, 08:26 AM	I don't think the issue of class & crossclass skills is a balance issue. It's rather a flavour-issue. We can't imagine a tumbling wizard or cleric, right? It feels rather wrong, for most people. (Imagine Gandalf in a handstand.) On the other hand, if you stick to the classskill-lists, you are very limited. Why would EVERY fighter be able to climb, jump and ride well, and not one would be able to have a decent spot or listen skill, even if he is a bodyguard, an archer, or a borderguard watching over plains all day? The basic skill system boils down to this: if you want to play something else than the "archetype" Wizards had in mind when creating a class, you're down yourself a disfavour. Let's stick to our Fighter: I want to be an archer. If we can assume that my training focused on ranged combat instead of melee (thus I have Point Blank Shot instead of Power Attack), why is it so hard to assume that the "periferial" training focused on Spotting instead of Riding? Maybe he's rather timid, and sucks at intimidating? Typically, I feel that giving a character INT mod extra class skills and allowing them to exchange class skills, is a good balance. As a DM you might still limit certain choices. Also, some classes are so specific that their background already explains their skilllist. (Think of most PrC's, Duskblade, most Martial Adepts, ...)
Derren S. 12-28-07, 09:01 AM	Why would EVERY fighter be able to climb, jump and ride well, and not one would be able to have a decent spot or listen skill, even if he is a bodyguard, an archer, or a borderguard watching over plains all day? Not all fighters would be good at those things. Only the ones who actually do put skillpoints in it are good. I played many fighters who could not climb very well. Imo being a fighter and for example riding are so closely related that a fighter can combine part of his fighter training with learning to ride. Or take swimming. A fighter has to be phyiscally fit and whats a better way to stay fit than regular swiming? Cross class skills on the other hand can't be combined with fighter training. I can think of no way of how a figher can practice typical fighter things and at the same time train to listen very well. To train listen the fighter has to stop his fighter training and instead only train how to listen well. Sure you can say that archers would train spot this way but fighters are not archers. Their role is to be flexible. Rangers are the archer class and they do get spot as class skill.
GawainBS 12-28-07, 09:49 AM	Not all fighters would be good at those things. Only the ones who actually do put skillpoints in it are good. I played many fighters who could not climb very well. Imo being a fighter and for example riding are so closely related that a fighter can combine part of his fighter training with learning to ride. Or take swimming. A fighter has to be phyiscally fit and whats a better way to stay fit than regular swiming? Cross class skills on the other hand can't be combined with fighter training. I can think of no way of how a figher can practice typical fighter things and at the same time train to listen very well. To train listen the fighter has to stop his fighter training and instead only train how to listen well. Sure you can say that archers would train spot this way but fighters are not archers. Their role is to be flexible. Rangers are the archer class and they do get spot as class skill. I knew this was going to come up. Not every archer is a ranger, in fact, I think only a very small amount of them are. Most would be Warriors or Fighters. Apart from that, your argument implies that to be an effective archer, one would have to be a ranger/multiclass to one, which brings along the whole nature implication and favoured enemy and what not. Why would every fighter have the ability to ride very well? (Mark "the ability to", implying ride being a class skill) If you spend the years it took you to become a 1st lvl fighter aiming at distant targets with your bow and standing watch, why wouldn't you be able to Spot things as good as a Ranger?
unundindur 12-28-07, 02:45 PM	Two small points (since I have used my elven general as an example all along)... 1. D&D being a game with more than human races, and even completely weird supernatural things from other planes of reality, it is somewhat simplistic in my mind to say that skill X is related to class Y (note, class is not profession, the latter is an in-game term). For example, if I were to play with class and cross-class skills, a Githyanki fighter would not have swim, and a dwarf warrior would neither have swim nor ride as class skills. 2. Even in our world today, a fighters training can have widely different approaches to skill-training. In Ethiopia, a country largely 2000 meters above sea level, swimming is a no-no. Climbing have little, or nothing to do with the military, except perhaps for extremely specialised units (rogues). What on the other hand is taught is something like sense motive, even though people are not necisarily natural talents (low wisdom). Given what I can see from 4edition (and Saga), they have understood a thing or two ;)
sapient 12-28-07, 03:00 PM	I don't think class skills and skill ranks represent "having some experience of doing X". Not at all. Most classes have way to few skill points for that. Instead they represent the possibility to, over time, become really, really, really good at doing something. Most skill checks will be determined by an ability modifier, maybe a miscellaneous modifier and some circumstance effects and the d20 roll. Unless you play a character that has spread his or her skill points all over the place and thus lacks focus on a few important skills. But even then, most classes haven't skill points enough to go around the whole skill list until higher levels. Most DC:s are set from the assumption that people have some single rank or no rank but a positive modifier. If they are supposed to have a chance to succeed, then the DC is 10 - 20. DC:s of 20+ represent things a normal person wouldn't succeed on most of the time under normal circumstances. DC:s of 25+ represent things that are usually impossible to do. Looking at the physical skills, like jump for example, jumping 20 feet with a running start, is DC 20. If you are a 3th level fighter with high strength (say a +4 modifier) and max skill ranks (+6) the longest you could do without some serious circumstance modifier is 30 feet (DC 30, a roll of natural 20 + 10) That is in excess of the mens world record for long jump. PC are supposed to represent truly terrific people, above the norm in every way. But even a third level fighter - a class that emphasize strength - with a strength score well above the norm that puts the maximum amount of skill points into jump can exceed the world record lengths of long jump. Then it is clear that class skills doesn't represent normal training. It is beyond that. Class skills are means of building characters to acomplish feats even better then real world heroes and athletes. .
Dog_O_War 12-28-07, 03:55 PM	I think some of you missed what I had said; that the skills are tied into the flavor of a class designed for a specific setting in mind. sigma got it, but I think he (you) missed the fact that you are playing D&D. What this means is you don't load up tetris and expect final fantasy 7. "modding" your game to suit your group is just fine; the rules say "go right ahead! that is the beauty of the system!", but they do ask that you consider why you are doing this (and saying "because the current way is stupid" is not consideration). No horses (or other mount-type creatures) exist? Make ride a cc skill for every one while replacing it with an appropriate substitute.
GawainBS 12-28-07, 04:07 PM	I think some of you missed what I had said; that the skills are tied into the flavor of a class designed for a specific setting in mind. sigma got it, but I think he (you) missed the fact that you are playing D&D. What this means is you don't load up tetris and expect final fantasy 7. "modding" your game to suit your group is just fine; the rules say "go right ahead! that is the beauty of the system!", but they do ask that you consider why you are doing this (and saying "because the current way is stupid" is not consideration). No horses (or other mount-type creatures) exist? Make ride a cc skill for every one while replacing it with an appropriate substitute. The only thing you're saying is "keep it this way because this is the way the creators made it." Several people have proven that class skills limit the possibilities of creating certain archetypes. This thread was started as a means to solve that problem.
sigma999 12-28-07, 06:55 PM	Well then I'll repeat it: if you make changes to the game from anything you find in the book, you may still be considered to play D&D but you are not playing the same game as others without those changes. This is the good and bad part about house rules. And on a grander scale, all these little "official" tweaks and errata (which are pretty much WOTC designer house rules) affect everybody. This is also good and bad, since every bad decision then drives players away. The designers themselves at times are not playing D&D, but some mildly deviant version due to their own errata. If you're petitioning for class-skill removal for 4e, which I wholly support, go there and rant. There's a whole forum, if you believe you can affect the outcome. I have, too, on other topics such as the butt-ugly Tiefling remake and boobless lizard-head dragonpeople that seem to be (obliviously) pushed by specific designers in the soon-to-come 4e PHB debut. But as for modifying D&D, as Sean K Reynolds told me, you can make any changes you want. No one is stopping you. But this also means that you can't enforce those same rules upon other players, since they reserve the same right. Same goes for designers, and unless you play their "Living Greyhawk" or some organized 'certified' crap, it's not anyones business but your own.
GawainBS 12-28-07, 06:59 PM	Well then I'll repeat it: if you make changes to the game from anything you find in the book, you may still be considered to play D&D but you are not playing the same game as others without those changes. This is the good and bad part about house rules. And on a grander scale, all these little "official" tweaks and errata (which are pretty much WOTC designer house rules) affect everybody. This is also good and bad, since every bad decision then drives players away. The designers themselves at times are not playing D&D, but some mildly deviant version due to their own errata. If you're petitioning for class-skill removal for 4e, which I wholly support, go there and rant. There's a whole forum, if you believe you can affect the outcome. I have, too, on other topics such as the butt-ugly Tiefling remake and boobless lizard-head dragonpeople that seem to be (obliviously) pushed by specific designers in the soon-to-come 4e PHB debut. But as for modifying D&D, as Sean K Reynolds told me, you can make any changes you want. No one is stopping you. But this also means that you can't enforce those same rules upon other players, since they reserve the same right. Same goes for designers, and unless you play their "Living Greyhawk" or some organized 'certified' crap, it's not anyones business but your own. I never read the part where the OP called for a jihad against people who kept using class skills in their games... He's thinking out loud for a houserule, which, yes, isn't "D&D by the books", but might (and probably will) result in a better kind of D&D. In that aspect, we're all playtesting, when we use houserules.
Rebel7284 12-28-07, 08:25 PM	How about this for a houserule: you can buy cross-class skills on a 1-1 basis, but you still can't go over half your class level+3. Seriously, it never made sense to me why it's harder for a barbarian to learn spellcraft (more skill points = more effort in my opinion). However, I support the idea that due to being a barbarian, a character just doesn't have the same amount of time to dedicate to maximizing his/her abilities with the skill. Opportunity cost is a b1tch. :)
Dog_O_War 12-28-07, 08:32 PM	The only thing you're saying is "keep it this way because this is the way the creators made it." Several people have proven that class skills limit the possibilities of creating certain archetypes. This thread was started as a means to solve that problem. Classes limit the possibilities of certain archetypes, and I've heard people rant here about that too; D&D was designed as a class-based game. Basically I'm saying if you don't like it, change it. But don't force your decision of "this is stupid" on the rest of us. I like the class-based, skills/cross-class skills system before me. It is the game I wanted to play. If you want something different, buy some tape, paper, and a marker, as well as a class-less, skills-free RP book and tape the words, "D&D" over it. Because changing the system that is presented is akin to saying "I don't like this game, but I still play it." When really you just desire another (obviously inferior game if yer still playing D&D) RPG system entirely.
Cartigan 12-28-07, 08:38 PM	The only problem with class/cross-class skills is that there are some skills that every class should just have, especially Spot, Search, and Listen.
sapient 12-28-07, 10:15 PM	The only problem with class/cross-class skills is that there are some skills that every class should just have, especially Spot, Search, and Listen. Yes. And everyone can do those things just fine without investing any skill ranks in them. You DON'T need any skill ranks to make a listen check. You don't even need any ranks to be quite good at it, if you have a decent Wis-modifier. Having skill ranks in D&D doesn't represent being about average in doing ordinary tasks. As I demonstrated before, skill ranks help elevate a PC above and beyond that. Doing everyday things, doesn't take any particular skill rank since ordinary stuff should have a DC that lets you do it anyway. Skill ranks are for learning to do extraordinary things. I used a physical skill like Jump as my example. But the argument really holds up on perception-skills as well. Using listen - which anyone can do untrained at any time - to hear a person walking softly, trying not to be heard, has a DC of 10. Without any skill ranks and any ability modifier, you will pick up the sound of that 50 percent of the time. That seems about right to me. You are both applying yourself, trying to do an ordinary thing (since none of you are an expert). So in the end you are about evenly matched (baring any other factors, like high or low ability scores) and end up with a 50/50 chance. Trying to hear a thief that uses Move Silently - an expert in stealth trying his utmost not to be heard - is still only a DC of a d20 plus his skill ranks in Move Silently. (Using 10+rank if you don't want to roll every time.) Should any character be able to hear a master of stealth tip-toeing across the floor in the next room? Or should this be something only a similarly skilled master or someone with truly remarkable hearing could do? What just about anyone should be able to hear most of the time, is an ordinary (meaning no positive but no negative Dex-modifier), encumbered person walking across the floor, even if he tried to make no sound. That has a DC of 5. Even without any skill ranks or positive modifiers you do that 75 percent of the times. So what's the problem? Give me an example of something that really everybody should be able to succeed in, that requires a single skill rank to do. Otherwise you don't have an argument at all. And please - if your problem is that the DC:s assigned by your DM is so high you always fail even on ordinary things, then that is your problem. Not the class/skill system.
Cartigan 12-28-07, 10:49 PM	But how hard is it to train Spot, Search, and Listen? A cloistered cleric or wizard who has spent most of his life in silence studying in silence would have ridiculous Listen checks - ridiculously high, like hear a cat stalking across carpet in a sound proof room high, yet neither class has Listen as a class skill.
Dog_O_War 12-28-07, 11:22 PM	But how hard is it to train Spot, Search, and Listen? A cloistered cleric or wizard who has spent most of his life in silence studying in silence would have ridiculous Listen checks - ridiculously high, like hear a cat stalking across carpet in a sound proof room high, yet neither class has Listen as a class skill. Actually, people who spend most of their time with noses buried in books are the most easily surprised (ask my aunt). Skills that can be done untrained allow for a far higher amount than ones you need training to do; compared with knowledge, I could double my score (that is +10 above the other) which is a monumental increase without even having a rank in it. +10!!! Add in a few ranks and those skills can get prety high. Learning to spot a target is actually much more difficult than you might like to believe. The idea of a cross-classed skill is tied in with the class itself. It really doesn't make sense for a human ranger trained in the underdark to have a high spot; listen yes. So you don't buy ranks in it. Why then would a class that is extremely proficiency and combat skills focused have access to that skill as well? Even above ground the one that learned about his environment instead of the steel in his hands should have some type of edge, otherwise everyone would have an uber-spotter, listener, etc... and there would be a major detraction from certain classes (like, did you know that a dwarven ranger can already find traps in their most common places as well as any rogue? Why bother with a rogue at all if he could just have disable device as well. (yes, I know there is a trap-finding ranger variant, but the loss of other abilities makes you not want the feature) They are there to simulate the idea that there isn't a specialty school in every thorpe, village, town, etc... and that characters actually do learn from clan/family/organisational traditions.
Cartigan 12-29-07, 12:00 AM	Actually, people who spend most of their time with noses buried in books are the most easily surprised (ask my aunt). Just because they arn't paying attention doesn't mean their ears would be used to silence and thus sensitive to any small sound. It really doesn't make sense for a human ranger trained in the underdark to have a high spot; And why not? and there would be a major detraction from certain classes (like, did you know that a dwarven ranger can already find traps in their most common places as well as any rogue? Sure, if you only travel in dungeons and all the traps are made of stone. Or just all the traps in your game are made of stone. Why bother with a rogue at all if he could just have disable device as well. Well besides the Open Lock, Use Magic Device, and Sleight of Hand, no reason at all. Not to mention the fact you don't generally take classes for their skills besides Open Lock, Disable Device, and Use Magic Device. They are there to simulate the idea that there isn't a specialty school in every thorpe, village, town, etc... and that characters actually do learn from clan/family/organisational traditions. Anyone can learn to search, spot, or listen extraordinarily well.
GawainBS 12-29-07, 06:35 AM	Most classes are templates. I think we can all agree that a Fighter could be a swashbuckler, swordsman, samurai, archer, bodyguard or knight. It says so in the PHB even. (Fighter with the capital is a class, the others are "professions" or "jobs" or whatever, just the way the character thinks about himself.) Under the current system, the swashbuckler will never be particularly charming (Diplomacy is no class skill), the knight won't know many details about royalty & nobility (No Knowledge here, despite him probably being raised on such issues), nor will the bodyguard be very attentive (since he can't train his Spot & Listen skills very well). I think nobody wants to force his houserules on anybody else here. We just want to point out flaws in the system and find ways to solve them. If you're not bothered with it, fine, but apparently, many people are. The suggestion of cross classing only costing 1 point and still being capped is a good step in the right direction.
sapient 12-29-07, 10:01 AM	But how hard is it to train Spot, Search, and Listen? A cloistered cleric or wizard who has spent most of his life in silence studying in silence would have ridiculous Listen checks - ridiculously high, like hear a cat stalking across carpet in a sound proof room high, yet neither class has Listen as a class skill. Obviously we have different opinions here. I think it is a lot harder then sitting in a silent environment studying. That, in itself, won't train any listening skill at all unless you actually do some training while you are there. Training involves actively using the ability and trying to get better at it. (You would for example have to get up and investigate what those padfalls are that you think is a cat, so you can learn the difference between them and say a dog. Constantly doing that would disrupt other things you're doing.) Sure a cloistered cleric could choose to do that instead of some of the other things he is supposed to do - like translate old parchments and stuff that gives him access to deceipher script. As a DM I'd okay that swap immediately, if a player came to me and told me that he wanted it and we could agree on that explanation. That is using the rules wisely. In your anser to Dog_O_War you write: Anyone can learn to search, spot, or listen extraordinarily well. Yes they can. Again: they can. But they have to pay a price for it. Either (assuming you are using a point buy system) invest in good Wisdom to get a decent modifier, or buy skill ranks (double cost is not preventing anyone to invest - it just makes it cost more) or take feats. Or all of the above for a truly remarkable artist in preceptive skills. It seems to me you want access to skills without that part. Essentially I think what you are saying is something like "I want this benefit and I don't want to pay the price for it" because it is accessible if you pay the price in skill points or which ever way you like it. You just want to be good at doing stuff from the start. Well, then you'll have to break the game concept because the game concept isn't that. It is not a fault of the class/skill system at all. It's just that you want to break a fundamental principle in the game - that all things come with a cost. You can do that. If all of you agree that is the type of game you want, go ahead and do it. If you want to retain the mechanics, just add on the things you think every person should be able to do to the list of class skills and then add skill points to every class so people can invest them. Or go ahead and abolish that system as well - use something else. But your problem isn't so much that there are class skills restricting you. It is that there are any kind of rules restricting you from the kind of game you want to play - if they hadn't been tied to classes they'd be something else.
Cartigan 12-29-07, 10:13 AM	Yes they can. Again: they can. But they have to pay a price for it. You missed the point. Anyone should be able to extraordinarily train Search, Spot, and Listen. Throw in the social skills as well. It seems to me you want access to skills without that part. Essentially I think what you are saying is something like "I want this benefit and I don't want to pay the price for it" because it is accessible if you pay the price in skill points or which ever way you like it. Wrong. My argument is that it makes no sense for certain skills to be limited to only certain classes. Like the social and perception skills. Especially since the social skills are "force of personality." Because of that generalization, it makes less since for a fighter to have Intimidate than a Wizard or Sorcerer. And what about the fighter who can't Spot, Listen, or Search? Makes for a pretty terrible combat oriented class.
GawainBS 12-29-07, 10:28 AM	Obviously we have different opinions here. I think it is a lot harder then sitting in a silent environment studying. That, in itself, won't train any listening skill at all unless you actually do some training while you are there. Training involves actively using the ability and trying to get better at it. (You would for example have to get up and investigate what those padfalls are that you think is a cat, so you can learn the difference between them and say a dog. Constantly doing that would disrupt other things you're doing.) Sure a cloistered cleric could choose to do that instead of some of the other things he is supposed to do - like translate old parchments and stuff that gives him access to deceipher script. As a DM I'd okay that swap immediately, if a player came to me and told me that he wanted it and we could agree on that explanation. That is using the rules wisely. In your anser to Dog_O_War you write: Yes they can. Again: they can. But they have to pay a price for it. Either (assuming you are using a point buy system) invest in good Wisdom to get a decent modifier, or buy skill ranks (double cost is not preventing anyone to invest - it just makes it cost more) or take feats. Or all of the above for a truly remarkable artist in preceptive skills. It seems to me you want access to skills without that part. Essentially I think what you are saying is something like "I want this benefit and I don't want to pay the price for it" because it is accessible if you pay the price in skill points or which ever way you like it. You just want to be good at doing stuff from the start. Well, then you'll have to break the game concept because the game concept isn't that. It is not a fault of the class/skill system at all. It's just that you want to break a fundamental principle in the game - that all things come with a cost. You can do that. If all of you agree that is the type of game you want, go ahead and do it. If you want to retain the mechanics, just add on the things you think every person should be able to do to the list of class skills and then add skill points to every class so people can invest them. Or go ahead and abolish that system as well - use something else. But your problem isn't so much that there are class skills restricting you. It is that there are any kind of rules restricting you from the kind of game you want to play - if they hadn't been tied to classes they'd be something else. The game itself proclaims that you can be whatever you want. For most purposes, you have feats. Look at the Fighter's pool of bonus feats: lots of diversity, without forcing a certain role upon you. Why not something like that with skills? There is no argument not to let players adjust their class skills. Of course, within limits. Several suggestions have been done as to what those limits could be. But keeping the current system just because otherwise we wouldn't be playing D&D, exactly as we picked it up, is inane.
sapient 12-29-07, 10:42 AM	You missed the point. Anyone should be able to extraordinarily train Search, Spot, and Listen. Throw in the social skills as well. And you have stopped making any kind of sense to me... What is the problem here? What, exactly, is it that you think prevents anyone from doing this? I don't get you. You keep saying things like "prevent", but there are infact no gamerules that prevents this at all. Only a cost. Wrong. My argument is that it makes no sense for certain skills to be limited to only certain classes. Like the social and perception skills. Especially since the social skills are "force of personality." Because of that generalization, it makes less since for a fighter to have Intimidate than a Wizard or Sorcerer. And what about the fighter who can't Spot, Listen, or Search? Makes for a pretty terrible combat oriented class. Uh, okay. But if your argument is that "it makes no sense for certain skills to be limited to only certain classes" then it is no argument at all. Since there is no such limitation. Unless of course the "limitation" that you are talking about that "prevents" people is the cost. But then I didn't miss the point at all, did I?
unundindur 12-29-07, 11:16 AM	I think some of you missed what I had said; that the skills are tied into the flavor of a class designed for a specific setting in mind. sigma got it, but I think he (you) missed the fact that you are playing D&D. What this means is you don't load up tetris and expect final fantasy 7. "modding" your game to suit your group is just fine; the rules say "go right ahead! that is the beauty of the system!", but they do ask that you consider why you are doing this (and saying "because the current way is stupid" is not consideration). No horses (or other mount-type creatures) exist? Make ride a cc skill for every one while replacing it with an appropriate substitute. Yes of course, but as i tried to elaborate in my former post the skills don't even make sense in the official settings; Grayhawk, Faerun etc. When you restrict something like skills you would from a logical point of view have to take account for racial and geographical differences, which are done, abeit in diminutive scale (Rokugan partially does it). Its just not right that since you have an out-og-game "class" called fighter you can if you chose, be a great swimmer (the dwarf beeing the super-example). On the other hand, if you allowed everyone to spend skillpoints in everything it would suddenly be ok to allow the dwarf to be a good swimmer, cause he woud have the option to spend them in skills that reflect his character to a greater extent, without being penalized.
sapient 12-29-07, 11:21 AM	The game itself proclaims that you can be whatever you want. For most purposes, you have feats. Look at the Fighter's pool of bonus feats: lots of diversity, without forcing a certain role upon you. Why not something like that with skills? There is no argument not to let players adjust their class skills. Of course, within limits. Several suggestions have been done as to what those limits could be. But keeping the current system just because otherwise we wouldn't be playing D&D, exactly as we picked it up, is inane. But you seem confused about what the rules are. It seems to me that you argue for swapping out the current rules and replace them with a system - that are more or less the same! Allowing for the effect of different mechanics, the situation with skills is not very different from feats really. You can choose to take any one you want to, at every level. How much you can improve, differs from class to class and from character to character. (If you want many skill pints you can't use Int as a dumpstat. To gain extra skill points, if you aren't happy with what your base class gives you, invest in higher Int. Again, everything is possible - but it comes with a cost...) The very real difference between skills and feats is that while feats are an "all or nothing"-thing, you can get steadily better at skills. But if you play a class with a low amount of skill points, you will have to prioritize. Especially if you want to be good at something that is normally a cross class skill. However if you want to do that, the first thing I would suggest is talkning the DM into aquiring one or two of those skills as class skills. (It is perfectly possible under the standard rules. It is described on page 110 of the PHB as previously mentioned.) It won't increase the skill points per level, though. That is a limitation of the class that should be a bit harder to change, since it goes to game balance. (I'm not saying it is impossible - but it would result in a modified class or even a presitge class and that is at least a larger procedure to establish. And might be percieved as a step away from "current rules". But chances are you could find an existing prestige class to acomplish what you want already.) There are several ways around that as well: Play human, get one extra skill point every level. Invest in high Int. It gives you both extra skill points and bonuses to Int-based skills, of which there are many. Use feats that give bonus to useful skills. The feats that many seem to think of as "lame", that give you a +2 to two different skills (not ranks though, miscellaneous bonuses) like Alertness to Listen and Spot-checks, represents investing four levels of a fighters base skill points in these two skills. (And that means that that progression in two obviously usefull skills is available through this feat at a slightly faster rate then focusing all those skill points would take, assuming neither skill is a class skill, since a feat comes available every third level.) Granted, you can't (under the normal rules anyway) take this feat several times - that's the "all or nothing" again. But you could build a kind of "skill monkey" out of these feats if you took the time. All of this is what you can do, with the current system. All of the choices you make have a cost in that it eliminates a lot of other possibilites - but so does choosing feats. Even if you're a fighter, you can't choose all feats. And you can easily choose to invest say six or eight skill points in a perception-skill and then take Alterness, for a quite decent value in Spot or Listen. (+5 or +6 without a Wis-bonus and the extra +2 to the other skill.) That would give any fighter a good chance to hear things no normal person would ever be able to. Same with social skills. It is only if you want to be good at everything and right a way, that the class/skill system is a severe limitation. But as I have said, then you are really questioning a more profound principle of the game - the "it comes with a cost" principle. Go ahead and change that, if that is what you want. But don't try to masquerade it as a problem inherent in the class/skill system when it isn't. After all, if someone was complaining that magic items was to expensive and wanted to access them faster then the Wealth by level would normally allow or someone playing a spell caster wanted access to better spells quicker, you wouldn't say that the fault was in the game, would you?
unundindur 12-29-07, 11:32 AM	And you have stopped making any kind of sense to me... What is the problem here? What, exactly, is it that you think prevents anyone from doing this? I don't get you. You keep saying things like "prevent", but there are infact no gamerules that prevents this at all. Only a cost. Uh, okay. But if your argument is that "it makes no sense for certain skills to be limited to only certain classes" then it is no argument at all. Since there is no such limitation. I will try to continue where the other left. I beleive the point is that you should not be pelanized even the slightest for beeing the best at spotting, without having to spend feats, multiclass, or do something else that makes you numerically less powerful, for choosing another skill to be your area of focus. Why is this? The reason is that players come up with so many concepts that fall out of the "norm" (ie, standard archtype), that their new characters- skill selection would from a logical point of view be completely different. For examp+le, my traditional example of an elven general would have a mish-mash of arcane, combat and doplomatic skills as his logical skills, thus they make sense as his class skills, from level 1 to level 20. Now I want to play a wizard-fighter-whatever to acheive this, because he is no singer (bard), he doesn't have any affiliation to stealth (that illusion class...can't remember), and isn't a very offensive caster (warmage). Now the rules would make me worse at basically all skills because I didn't wan't one of these random packages of abilities, and I find it highly unfair. This of course could theoretically be solved, by creating every tiny nichè into a class, which have been the trend lately, but in reality its impossibly to cover every players conceptual dream. For this reason, its easier for everyone to just reverse the logic, and allow all skills and let the DM say no in those few cases where a player breaks all logic (barbarian with use magic device). And as I have discussed some pages back in this threat, there are balancing implication (however small), but those are due to stupid game design, that makes certain skills useless, and incomparable to others. In general though, my experience is that most skills are equally powerful (tumble, knowledge, spellcraft, hide, spot, concentration, ride, alchemy, disguise etc.). The few that become useless, and typically the movement skills, which is a shame, but they anyhow belong to classes that wouldn't hurt getting a boost. And this is obviously something that bothers a lot, as its possibly the house-rule I have encountered in most groups, forums and whatnot.
GawainBS 12-29-07, 11:38 AM	But you seem confused about what the rules are. It seems to me that you argue for swapping out the current rules and replace them with a system - that are more or less the same! Allowing for the effect of different mechanics, the situation with skills is not very different from feats really. You can choose to take any one you want to, at every level. How much you can improve, differs from class to class and from character to character. (If you want many skill pints you can't use Int as a dumpstat. To gain extra skill points, if you aren't happy with what your base class gives you, invest in higher Int. Again, everything is possible - but it comes with a cost...) The very real difference between skills and feats is that while feats are an "all or nothing"-thing, you can get steadily better at skills. But if you play a class with a low amount of skill points, you will have to prioritize. Especially if you want to be good at something that is normally a cross class skill. However if you want to do that, the first thing I would suggest is talkning the DM into aquiring one or two of those skills as class skills. (It is perfectly possible under the standard rules. It is described on page 110 of the PHB as previously mentioned.) It won't increase the skill points per level, though. That is a limitation of the class that should be a bit harder to change, since it goes to game balance. (I'm not saying it is impossible - but it would result in a modified class or even a presitge class and that is at least a larger procedure to establish. And might be percieved as a step away from "current rules". But chances are you could find an existing prestige class to acomplish what you want already.) There are several ways around that as well: Play human, get one extra skill point every level. Invest in high Int. It gives you both extra skill points and bonuses to Int-based skills, of which there are many. Use feats that give bonus to useful skills. The feats that many seem to think of as "lame", that give you a +2 to two different skills (not ranks though, miscellaneous bonuses) like Alertness to Listen and Spot-checks, represents investing four levels of a fighters base skill points in these two skills. (And that means that that progression in two obviously usefull skills is available through this feat at a slightly faster rate then focusing all those skill points would take, assuming neither skill is a class skill, since a feat comes available every third level.) Granted, you can't (under the normal rules anyway) take this feat several times - that's the "all or nothing" again. But you could build a kind of "skill monkey" out of these feats if you took the time. All of this is what you can do, with the current system. All of the choices you make have a cost in that it eliminates a lot of other possibilites - but so does choosing feats. Even if you're a fighter, you can't choose all feats. And you can easily choose to invest say six or eight skill points in a perception-skill and then take Alterness, for a quite decent value in Spot or Listen. (+5 or +6 without a Wis-bonus and the extra +2 to the other skill.) That would give any fighter a good chance to hear things no normal person would ever be able to. Same with social skills. It is only if you want to be good at everything and right a way, that the class/skill system is a severe limitation. But as I have said, then you are really questioning a more profound principle of the game - the "it comes with a cost" principle. Go ahead and change that, if that is what you want. But don't try to masquerade it as a problem inherent in the class/skill system when it isn't. After all, if someone was complaining that magic items was to expensive and wanted to access them faster then the Wealth by level would normally allow or someone playing a spell caster wanted access to better spells quicker, you wouldn't say that the fault was in the game, would you? Yes, I argue for a rules change. Ofcourse, I know Wizards won't care. That's why so many people call it a houserule. It's not because Wizards made a rule, that that rule is perfect and should be adhered to without flinching. There are several houserules that are widely spread over these boards. (Like doing away with multiclass penalties, Ranger's effective Druid level is Ranger -3, Half-Elves get +1 skillpoint/level, etc...) Are you going to tell those people they're blaspheming because they don't use the RAW from the PHB? That's the whole point, it's a houserule, not an official errata. Now remains the question, how to implement it? (For those who want to use it, anyway.)
Cartigan 12-29-07, 11:56 AM	And you have stopped making any kind of sense to me... What is the problem here? What, exactly, is it that you think prevents anyone from doing this? I don't get you. You keep saying things like "prevent", but there are infact no gamerules that prevents this at all. Only a cost. To rephrase, it should not cost certain classes extra to use perception or social skills. Uh, okay. But if your argument is that "it makes no sense for certain skills to be limited to only certain classes" then it is no argument at all. Since there is no such limitation. Except there is. Limitation 1: Double the cost of gaining a single skill point Limitation 2: Only being able to gain half the amount of points in cross class skills as class skills.
sapient 12-29-07, 12:03 PM	I will try to continue where the other left. I beleive the point is that you should not be pelanized even the slightest for beeing the best at spotting, without having to spend feats, multiclass, or do something else that makes you numerically less powerful, for choosing another skill to be your area of focus. And it is this that I don't see as penalizing. What you propose is fine as a houserule, of course. I cartainly haven't - and never will - argue against anyones right to houserule as they want. (Even if I criticize the concepts or the ideas behind it in a debate, because I don't like them as they are presented...) What bothers me with this thread, is that from the start is lashes out against the existing rules and calls them stupid (or "retarded" iirc, albeit with a smiley under) and from then on a lot of people voice criticism that is not only kind of unbalanced, but also slightly demeaning to anyone not agreeing with that point of view. (The "don't stick to rules because they are the rules" line of arguing, when there are a lot of other aguments for preserving the existing rules presented throughout the thread.) This was most certainly not a PEACH-thread suggesting a new system. It was an all out attack. To me (and appearantly to several others as well) that attack seems misguided in blaming the rules for wanting to play a slightly different kind of game. Maybe you aren't out to participate in this attack. But take a look at the threads history - I think you will find that my description is true. Then you might understand why a lot of us are arguing against what we find as misdirected criticism.
sapient 12-29-07, 12:20 PM	To rephrase, it should not cost certain classes extra to use perception or social skills. There we obviously have different opinions. While your opinion is certainly valid, I haven't found any compelling reason given in this thread - by you or anyone else - to make me agree. There are (as I have said before) arguments with some merit to them, but on the whole they don't make a very strong case. Unless, I guess, the kind of game you want to play happen to coincide with this notion from the start. Except there is. Limitation 1: Double the cost of gaining a single skill point Limitation 2: Only being able to gain half the amount of points in cross class skills as class skills. No. While the word "limit" in some senses may be taken to mean a "soft limit", kind of like a penalty as GawainBS calls it, the context in which you wrote it is too definitive. You said, effectively, that it was impossible. (The other kind of limit.) I didn't just get that impression from that phrase alone. It was a consistent part in your argument from several posts back. For example when you said: "...there are some skills that every class should just have..." All classes have all skills, but some come at an extra cost. It was this I pointed out to you, and since you seemed to contradict that (with the argument about limitations) I think it was more then fair to interpret it the way I did. But maybe you never did intend that, since you are now presenting a rather different view. That is, I think, part of the problem with this thread - it is a debate and fuled by an attack on the class/skill system. Not a PEACH-thread about a suggested house rule. And people on both sides of the matter behave acordingly. (And then, maybe, are hurt because of the tone...) .
unundindur 12-29-07, 02:03 PM	And it is this that I don't see as penalizing. What you propose is fine as a houserule, of course. I cartainly haven't - and never will - argue against anyones right to houserule as they want. (Even if I criticize the concepts or the ideas behind it in a debate, because I don't like them as they are presented...) What bothers me with this thread, is that from the start is lashes out against the existing rules and calls them stupid (or "retarded" iirc, albeit with a smiley under) and from then on a lot of people voice criticism that is not only kind of unbalanced, but also slightly demeaning to anyone not agreeing with that point of view. (The "don't stick to rules because they are the rules" line of arguing, when there are a lot of other aguments for preserving the existing rules presented throughout the thread.) This was most certainly not a PEACH-thread suggesting a new system. It was an all out attack. To me (and appearantly to several others as well) that attack seems misguided in blaming the rules for wanting to play a slightly different kind of game. Maybe you aren't out to participate in this attack. But take a look at the threads history - I think you will find that my description is true. Then you might understand why a lot of us are arguing against what we find as misdirected criticism. Hmm... There is something fundamentally different in our perception of the game design I assume, cause I cannot see how it is not penalizing, when one trades one point in X to get 1/2 point in Y, which is supposedly equally powerful for the reason that it under the system is like that. Even Andy Collins once commented on this issue on his own forum, as he have critizised stat rolling and hp-rolling, as counter productive and a dumb holy cow (soon to die, which I support 101%). ok, back on track :) . Of course I can houserule, and no one would care a bit. The point here is who has to houserule. I of course would not care if you houseruled restrictions, and enforced the current system even in a system that didn't have cross-classed skills. The point is that the official rules tend to count in a lot of situations, and as such that is what we discuss. This thread is a sort of feedback, even though its not put forth in such a manner (and I am sure someone important have read it by now). I came into this threat at page 4 or something, and followed it for a long time, and have to say its a rather clean one compared to most others. A few overeager comments are always present, but on a whole it have been very constructive imo. Again though, I have to point out that I wouldn't even be in this thread unless I found the current system backwards, over-complexing something that could be simple, and restricting rp. Since you like the current system, its natural you see that as an attack, but what can we do? If I don't like it I try to voice it in an appropriate and polite manner. Anything you say is of course slightly demeaning towards me, as you don't see my solution as equal to the current one, but that is of course the way it has to be, unless we would agree. Few people voice an oppinion unless they beleive it is better than that of the opposing part. The key is to allow oneself to be convinced by a better argument, of which I have not been, yet (and thus don't think i will, yet). I openly critizise the system, as I critizise a lot of (imo) issues of DnD. Many, in this thread also tell me to play another game, but as I have said a million times, thats not the same. If you use windows its likely better to try to influence microsoft into tweaking windows than starting Ubuntu, especially if I want to play all the modern games (translated to D&D that is want to have a steady flow of good written matereal, setting support and a huge comprehensive community)
Jaxgaret 12-29-07, 02:46 PM	I see no problem with gaming groups houseruling that cross-class skills cost only a single skill point. That can make some sense. But removing the skill rank cap for cross-class skills is IMO not a good idea. Individual classes should simply have the capacity to be better than other classes at certain things. Removing this cap also screws up a lot of game dynamics, especially if you are removing the doubled skill point cost for cross class skills.
GawainBS 12-29-07, 02:47 PM	There are other options... INT mod extra class skills, or swap class skills (except Profession & Craft) on one-one basis.
sapient 12-29-07, 02:55 PM	Hmm... There is something fundamentally different in our perception of the game design I assume, cause I cannot see how it is not penalizing, when one trades one point in X to get 1/2 point in Y, which is supposedly equally powerful for the reason that it under the system is like that. Yes, there certainly is. The problem I have with the word "penalizing" are its connotations of punishment. It isn't a form of punishment. Up until recently I played at times a fighter (level 15 at the end) in an Eberron campaign. I wanted him to be of noble birth, and gave him the feats and skills I saw as apropriate for that role. To begin with I took the feat Education (from ECS) which gives all Knowledge skills as class skills (and a small bonus to two of them). One of the skills I invested in, was - of course - royalty and nobility, even if I haven't used that even once and I knew that from the start. Doing that and investing in the knowledge skills (as well as other skills I felt was part of my concept) gave me so much more satisfaction because I could do it even if it was outside of the concept of a standard fighter and because it required a careful strategy including both feats and skills until I had built the character I wanted. Sometimes I had to sacrifice other things which could have been more useful, especially in battles. My character was still the most acomplished fighter in our group, but he was also clearly something more. And all that was acomplished within the narrow margins - because otherwise it wouldn't have been a challenge at all. Then I wouldn't have felt the same satisfaction. That is how I view these rules - they are part of the challenge of D&D to me. Fighting monsters and rolling dice are just the test to see if I have succeeded in what I wanted to do. ok, back on track :) . Of course I can houserule, and no one would care a bit. The point here is who has to houserule. Uhm, yes - that is the issue which set this thread apart from a simple houserule PEACH. You not only want to be able to DO this, you want to be vindicated in doing so. :) That is where the antagonism is comming from, I guess. I came into this threat at page 4 or something, and followed it for a long time, and have to say its a rather clean one compared to most others. A few overeager comments are always present, but on a whole it have been very constructive imo. Well, I'll agree with that it has on the whole been constructive. I certainly wouldn't suggest that anyone close it. But those "overeager comments" and the antagonism that bothers me, are still there. I don't as much object to them as point them out to some of the other participants that seemed to think that it wasn't a debate about who's view was the right one and said that they only had this humble suggestion for a house rule... A debate is fine by me. I can give as much as I can take, but if I had offended someone who wasn't aware of what this thread has been through it was unintentional. Hence my somewhat apologetic tone in the last posts. Anything you say is of course slightly demeaning towards me, as you don't see my solution as equal to the current one, but that is of course the way it has to be, unless we would agree. Few people voice an oppinion unless they beleive it is better than that of the opposing part. The key is to allow oneself to be convinced by a better argument, of which I have not been, yet (and thus don't think i will, yet). Ah yes, I can see your point even if I think you're exagerating a bit. There's certainly a difference between assuming you have the best solution and belittleing someones argument, don't you agree?
Cartigan 12-29-07, 02:59 PM	Yes, there certainly is. The problem I have with the word "penalizing" are its connotations of punishment. It isn't a form of punishment. Up until recently I played at times a fighter (level 15 at the end) in an Eberron campaign. I wanted him to be of noble birth, and gave him the feats and skills I saw as apropriate for that role. To begin with I took the feat Education (from ECS) which gives all Knowledge skills as class skills (and a small bonus to two of them). One of the skills I invested in, was - of course - royalty and nobility, even if I haven't used that even once and I knew that from the start. Doing that and investing in the knowledge skills (as well as other skills I felt was part of my concept) gave me so much more satisfaction because I could do it even if it was outside of the concept of a standard fighter and because it required a careful strategy including both feats and skills until I had built the character I wanted. Sometimes I had to sacrifice other things which could have been more useful, especially in battles. My character was still the most acomplished fighter in our group, but he was also clearly something more. And all that was acomplished within the narrow margins - because otherwise it wouldn't have been a challenge at all. Then I wouldn't have felt the same satisfaction. Other classes don't have the kind of feats to waste that a Fighter does. And that is to say nothing about using a feat from a specific campaign setting to "prove" your point.
GawainBS 12-29-07, 03:01 PM	The Feat Education suggests that there's some kind of flaw in the system, don't you think? If you take that feat to mold your fighter from noble birth, you can understand the need to have a fighter with high awareness skills.
sapient 12-29-07, 03:40 PM	Other classes don't have the kind of feats to waste that a Fighter does. And that is to say nothing about using a feat from a specific campaign setting to "prove" your point. I have a hunch that there's simply no example that would please you. And I think you didn't really understand what I said, if you think this example was intended to "prove" anything else then what I see in the rules as they are. Of course I use what feats are available - where did I say you wasn't supposed to? To turn the tables around - are you sure you understand the game at all, if you think you can't use feats this way? I have already given more then one example of how feats and skills both tie into building a characters abilities. I really think your critique against the existing rules, loose a lot of what merit it may have if this is based on you having other, arbitrary, limitations like not using skills and feats in concert for best result.
sapient 12-29-07, 03:42 PM	The Feat Education suggests that there's some kind of flaw in the system, don't you think? If you take that feat to mold your fighter from noble birth, you can understand the need to have a fighter with high awareness skills. No, why would it suggest anything like that? It seemes you haven't read my earlier posts very well if you think so. YOU might think so, for all I know - but just as I said to Cartigan - if you do, you sure loose a lot of force in your argument. Basing the attack against the class/skill system on limitations you have invented your self is really not a way to persuade other to see a fault in them...
Dog_O_War 12-29-07, 06:26 PM	The Feat Education suggests that there's some kind of flaw in the system, don't you think? If you take that feat to mold your fighter from noble birth, you can understand the need to have a fighter with high awareness skills. If the system then is so flawed, then why do you play? There are other RPG's out there that seem to better represent a free-flowing skill system. I can think of a few; Heroes (the rifts version) - you can buy skills in this one. Deadlands; with some easy modding you could be in a dungeon crawl and have all the free-flowing skills you like (actually, I love this system. I find it to be the coolest, most original and smooth-flowing system to date). Hows about BESM? Be exactly as you invision your character. The reason you don't just play those systems? The classes and skills system of d20 has a very unique view of how we play. Many video games follow this type of play style, and people are accustomed to it. This means it has ease and comfort, solidarity over other systems in what can and cannot happen, and a high level of versimilitude. So you don't think spot and listen should be cross-class for the reasoning that we all have ears and eyes. Well I disagree with you, and others that say the classes as is should be free-form with skills. People know what the arguements are, and neither side has a very good position. A game where fireballs exist means that you can discount the "realistic" reasoning. A game that has been updated 3 times (soon to be 4) means you can dump tradition as well. That leaves us right where we started; with classes as presented, and someone complaining about it.
GawainBS 12-29-07, 06:49 PM	If the system then is so flawed, then why do you play? There are other RPG's out there that seem to better represent a free-flowing skill system. I can think of a few; Heroes (the rifts version) - you can buy skills in this one. Deadlands; with some easy modding you could be in a dungeon crawl and have all the free-flowing skills you like (actually, I love this system. I find it to be the coolest, most original and smooth-flowing system to date). Hows about BESM? Be exactly as you invision your character. The reason you don't just play those systems? The classes and skills system of d20 has a very unique view of how we play. Many video games follow this type of play style, and people are accustomed to it. This means it has ease and comfort, solidarity over other systems in what can and cannot happen, and a high level of versimilitude. So you don't think spot and listen should be cross-class for the reasoning that we all have ears and eyes. Well I disagree with you, and others that say the classes as is should be free-form with skills. People know what the arguements are, and neither side has a very good position. A game where fireballs exist means that you can discount the "realistic" reasoning. A game that has been updated 3 times (soon to be 4) means you can dump tradition as well. That leaves us right where we started; with classes as presented, and someone complaining about it. Not the "keep the realism away because we have fireballs"-argument... Most skills are very realistic. At least they represent a very realistic action. I guess someone in D&D learns to swim, ride a horse, jump, climb, listen, etc... just the same way you or I would learn those things in our world. No Fireballing there. So that is pretty realistic and we can apply all the advantages & drawbacks we expect to suffer in the real world to it. As soon as Magic enters the picture, we have a different situation, so for things like UMD & Spellcraft, I'm willing to concede. Basicly, if we stick to the RAW, nobody who fights well with an axe (a Fighter with Weapon Focus Axe and Power Attack) can be as good in, say, spotting, as a guy who spent his entire life in a monastery (a Monk), even if the former spend several years manning a guard tower scanning the plains. So, to build upon your reasoning, if you learn to fight well, you can't train your eyes or ears. The reason the feat "Education" suggests a flaw, is that it was recognised that adding Knowledge-class skills allows for greater customisation. What else would be the reasoning behind it? One of its uses was already illustrated earlier. It takes little effort to draw that further to other skills. In Dragon #310, there are a lot of fighter-variants. They all were fighters, but with different accents. What's wrong with that? It could easily be done with other classes. (I'm thinking mainly of Rogues, but their class skills list is already so large you should have little difficulty customising your rogue.) As for the reason I'm playing D&D: it's a great game, no doubt. Also, it's by far and wide the most easily obtainable. (At least where I live.) Just because I'm not entirely happy with a small subsection of the rules, that doesn't mean I should abandon it. A rather simple tweak in the rules, without, or with very little at the most, any balance issues would serve me and my gaming group a lot better.
sapient 12-30-07, 06:47 AM	... Basicly, if we stick to the RAW, nobody who fights well with an axe (a Fighter with Weapon Focus Axe and Power Attack) can be as good in, say, spotting, as a guy who spent his entire life in a monastery (a Monk), even if the former spend several years manning a guard tower scanning the plains. So, to build upon your reasoning, if you learn to fight well, you can't train your eyes or ears. Look, this is where your argument gets the better of you. You make such an effort to - I don't know - rouse anger over the unfairness of the system in D&D, that you throw everything else overboard. You say: "...nobody who fights well with an axe...can be as good in, say, spotting, as a guy who spent his entire life in a monastery...". That is not true. You seem to assume that every monk invest so heavily in spot that a fighter can't keep up. But a monk still only get 4 (+Int mod.) skill points per level to 18 class skills. There's plenty of room for monk builds who aren't experts in spotting. In the end it's all up to the effort the person playing fighter want's to put in. I've demonstrated several ways - within the rules - that you keep ignoring. So there's no "can't" here. Again, building a case on misinformation and exaggerasions isn't the smartest thing to do. You loose credibility when your falsehoods are exposed. The reason the feat "Education" suggests a flaw, is that it was recognised that adding Knowledge-class skills allows for greater customisation. What else would be the reasoning behind it? One of its uses was already illustrated earlier. It takes little effort to draw that further to other skills. Uhm, again - if you argue that customization is the problem you just can't keep refusing the ways that are included within the framework of the game rules. There's one reason the Education feat is in the Eberron Campaign Setting - the authors thought it belonged in the world of Eberron. Take a look at the consolidated list of feats. There are, as of 18th december, 3304. Four of them are named Education. Among those four, there are two different sets of descriptions. That could suggest that they have two different functions. (I don't know since I don't own the other source books...) But there are literally hundreds of feats which lets you customize skills by bonuses an other mechanics. The Eberron variant was not the first, it's been around for years. And this is not an afterthought - there are all those feats in PHB that grant bonuses to skills. They were used, from the start, to let every player customize his or her character in exactly the way you keep saying the rules are against. (Not to mention the other ways you keep ignoring...) That is it really. You have no case at all. You just try to make one by throwing "nobody" this and "prevents" that around to fool others into believing you. Go ahead and make whatever house rules you want. But don't come saying there's a fault in the rules, when it can be demonstrated that you disregard several methods to acomplish what you want within the rules and all it boils down to is you want to build more powerful characters for lesser cost. .
GawainBS 12-30-07, 07:10 AM	But it IS a fault in the rules. The rules say: if you want to be a warrior in heavy armour, you're deaf & blind. (Little exageration here.) Education has some fluff text why it belongs in Eberron. Do you really lack the imagination to see such a feat with Tumble, Balance, & Jump in another setting or in the next Eberron book? The fact that I referred to your Eberron fighter at least twice is conveniently forgotten to expose "falsehoods", eh? Point me to a feat or alternate rule that allows you to customise your character in the "Education" way, but for other skills, and I rest my case. (One of the options would be to use UA basic classes, but that makes it harder to put in many other, well designed, fun, baseclasses.) I do not assume every Monk maxes out his spot, on the contrary. Read what I wrote. I merely showed that once you choose to be a Fighter, no way in hell will you ever be good at spotting. Even a Fighter with the various Combat Form feats, which represent some hyper-awareness combat stance-like thing, will still be deaf & blind. Yes, he could have 11 ranks in Spot & Listen, but that's not so much at lvl 20. I can live with restricted class lists, based on fluff, but only for "narrow" classes, with a very specific background. Most PrC's fall in this category. Some of the coreclasses are just to generic to warrant such a narrow/specific class skill list. Feats & Skills just serve the purpose of making your character unique. Why not utilise them as such? I still haven't heard any reason to keep the current rules other than "They are the rules." I haven't heard a single reason not to let characters adjust their classskill lists.
Nirid 12-30-07, 08:17 AM	Go look at the d20 modern occupation system. Everyone gets one and they add class skills, bonus feats, and wealth/rep (meaningless). But they all have prereqs and you can only pick one. Most will only add 3 skills to your list or 2 skills and a proficiency feat. Now go make some that so that EVERYONE can benefit from them. Introduce them into your game and profit. Here is one for the "Body Guard" occupation. Body Guard This occupation revolves around offering protection to their client by either spotting or visually dissuading attempts on their life. The hulking warrior in plate standing behind his charges shoulder and the unseen shadow who keeps a keen watch from a distance all fall under the category. Prerequisite: Wis 13+ or Cha 13+ Skills: Choose three of the following skills as permanent class skills. If you select a skill that is already a class skill, you receive a +1 competence bonus on checks using that skill. Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Intimidate, Knowledge (Local or Nobility), Listen, Search, Sense Motive, Spot Special: If you choose Search as a skill and forfiet your third skill selection you may search for traps like a rogue with a -5 penalty.
unundindur 12-30-07, 09:09 AM	Look, this is where your argument gets the better of you. You make such an effort to - I don't know - rouse anger over the unfairness of the system in D&D, that you throw everything else overboard. You say: "...nobody who fights well with an axe...can be as good in, say, spotting, as a guy who spent his entire life in a monastery...". That is not true. You seem to assume that every monk invest so heavily in spot that a fighter can't keep up. But a monk still only get 4 (+Int mod.) skill points per level to 18 class skills. There's plenty of room for monk builds who aren't experts in spotting. In the end it's all up to the effort the person playing fighter want's to put in. I've demonstrated several ways - within the rules - that you keep ignoring. So there's no "can't" here. Again, building a case on misinformation and exaggerasions isn't the smartest thing to do. You loose credibility when your falsehoods are exposed. Uhm, again - if you argue that customization is the problem you just can't keep refusing the ways that are included within the framework of the game rules. There's one reason the Education feat is in the Eberron Campaign Setting - the authors thought it belonged in the world of Eberron. Take a look at the consolidated list of feats. There are, as of 18th december, 3304. Four of them are named Education. Among those four, there are two different sets of descriptions. That could suggest that they have two different functions. (I don't know since I don't own the other source books...) But there are literally hundreds of feats which lets you customize skills by bonuses an other mechanics. The Eberron variant was not the first, it's been around for years. And this is not an afterthought - there are all those feats in PHB that grant bonuses to skills. They were used, from the start, to let every player customize his or her character in exactly the way you keep saying the rules are against. (Not to mention the other ways you keep ignoring...) That is it really. You have no case at all. You just try to make one by throwing "nobody" this and "prevents" that around to fool others into believing you. Go ahead and make whatever house rules you want. But don't come saying there's a fault in the rules, when it can be demonstrated that you disregard several methods to acomplish what you want within the rules and all it boils down to is you want to build more powerful characters for lesser cost. . I have to defend your target here, as I think the two of you are just arguing on slightly different ground. If the fighter tries as best he can to be good at spotting, he can not equal a monk who tries as best he can. That is what have to be discussed. If one part maxes out, we have to compare it to another maxed out part, anything else is unfair. Of course anyone can be "good" at spotting, but you pay a higher price by not having it as a class skill (and you can never reach the same level). By higher price I mean that you are encouraged, rulewise, not to place your skill points in that skill. A fighter gets more bang for the buck by placing his skills in intimidate than in spot, effectively railroading him into what may be the stereotypical fighter, but not neccisarily the nearly as classic professional archer (professional as in not a woodsman). The fighter may still spend his other resources (feats, abilities, whatever) to compensate for his weakness, but this again makes him less powerful in another area, which is supposed to be balanced toward the monk as far as I can comprehend. The various feats that grant skill bonuses are generally extremely underpowered in D&D, but also irellevant to this discussion as they are equally powerful for someone with or without skill X as a class skill (+15% chance of success). This is on the basis that skills are suposed to be equally powerful toward each other. If they are not, that is a problem within the skills-system, and only indirectly relevant to this discussion. As for building more powerful character, I want that, to the extent that I want my elven general to have skills follow all his classes, instead of having a modest diplomacy score, just because I happened to have wizard and fighter as my classes, and don't wnat to spend my very precious feats to make up for my disadvantage. To me this is not to gain an advantage over otehr players, it is to remove a penalty that is placed on me because I happend to play D&D 3.5 edition, and not enough splatbooks have been published to cove my tiny nichè yet. How do you look upon the growing number of classes btw? I am thinking of things such as duskblade etc, which effectively makes you more powerful if you are exactely "that" fighter/mage. I for one dislike it, and would favour more options to the general concept, instead of a perfectly tailored class for some fighter/mages. In the extremes, its classless vs. every nichè is a class. D&D 3.5 is drifting toward the later, while 4ed seems to go toward the first, which I love. The problem with a every nichè is a class occurs when you have 42 classes and you happened to fall into the 43rd, which unfortunately have nto been created yet. Then you are at a disadvantage, because each class is so tightly tailored to a spesific idea (in my scenario, wizard is automatically not as well schooled in diplomacy as a rogue). To me that makes no sense, whatsoever, except perhaps for balance, which is affected so gently it can be ignored, given the huge advantage this will make for interesting character choices, and not to mention new players who don't have the same experience with the rules as we do. I can usually do what I want and be reasonably effective, though I hate it when i have to use 4 PrCs, 3 core classes and a multitude of variant fatures to make a reasonably effective character, simply because I had a slightly un-stereotypical idea (or in the case of the elven general, quite stereotypical). EDIT: I also want to note that I beleive the reason Education is a feat (and why it have four incarnations) is because the author(s) found that knowledge should be possible to obtain for anyone, but because the rules were already built up as they were, a feat was the currect (as to follow the portfolio of already published matereal) way to introduce it. Had the system been as I foresee 4ed teh feat would be near useless, as written (it would possibly grant you trained status with those skills, as in Saga).
sapient 12-30-07, 06:33 PM	Education has some fluff text why it belongs in Eberron. Do you really lack the imagination to see such a feat with Tumble, Balance, & Jump in another setting or in the next Eberron book? I must confess I don't get you at all. But it seems clear you do not read what I write. At least not very well. "Education" is not only occuring in ECS. There are all together four feats with that name, in different sources. (Though there are two slightly different descriptions in the consolidated feat list, and since I don't own all four I can't guarrantee that they are all the same...) I told you all that before, you know. What I said about it belonging in Eberron, was only in respons to your wild theory that it was an admission of a fault. It isn't. It is in other sourcebooks as well, because it is part of the versatility and flexibility that you keep saying isn't there, within the original rules. The fact that I referred to your Eberron fighter at least twice is conveniently forgotten to expose "falsehoods", eh? Point me to a feat or alternate rule that allows you to customise your character in the "Education" way, but for other skills, and I rest my case. (One of the options would be to use UA basic classes, but that makes it harder to put in many other, well designed, fun, baseclasses.) I don't know if saying the same thing a third time will make a difference - but here goes: In the most basic source of all, the Players Handbook, on page 110 you are encouraged to swap out class skills if you think it makes sense. (I think it is like the fifth time in as many pages this gets mentioned...) So if you have a fighter with a story like you mentioned, who has spent a lot of his time as a sentinel or a scout, I'd let you add Spot as a class skill with no worries what so ever. (I'd not even demand that you sacrifice something else, as long as it is a single addition. The low skill points stops it from being broken anyway. But if you go for two skills, I'd have you pick something else to drop from either the skill list or perhaps if you preferred a proficiency or something similar, suitably tied to a good explanation.) But if you aren't satisfied with this, I'll give you another example as well. There's a feat I've read once that let's you add another skill to your class skill list and even get a +2 bonus to it. It's called Cosmopolitan. But I don't remember the prereqs and so forth, because it was in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting that a friend of mine own but I don't. I've seen reference to a feat called Versatility as well, that should let you add two skills, but since it isn't in the consolidated list of feats it might be third party, and thus it wouldn't count here. To that I think you should also add Jack of all trades (use trained only-skills) and Openminded (for extra skill points) from Complete Adventurer, because they let you bend the rules of the skill system a bit and add more cumstomization possibilities. I do not assume every Monk maxes out his spot, on the contrary. Read what I wrote. I merely showed that once you choose to be a Fighter, no way in hell will you ever be good at spotting. The problem is that your descriptions are so biased and fraught with exaggerassions that I find it impossible to accept them. Instead of responding to the different methods of custumization of the skill system that I show you, you come up with these examples that simply aren't valid because you pepper the text with absolutes like "impossible" and so forth. And if your posts are constantly based on flawed arguments and exaggerated examples - well then why should anyone take ithem seriously? Your next paragraph serves as a good example on those exaggerations: Even a Fighter with the various Combat Form feats, which represent some hyper-awareness combat stance-like thing, will still be deaf & blind. Yes, he could have 11 ranks in Spot & Listen, but that's not so much at lvl 20. Having 11 ranks in listen will make an average skill check result of 21. That let's you hear a stalking cat from twenty feet away. Is that "deaf"? How can it be? Not to mention that if you are level 20, you could easily afford to have a decent Wis modifier (either by raising the ability or through magic items) to add to those skill ranks. Then you could without a doubt overcome DC 24 at least 50 percent of the time. If your "deaf" fighter lay his ear to a thick door he can hear the padfalls of said cat as it stalks a mouse on the other side. I still haven't heard any reason to keep the current rules other than "They are the rules." I haven't heard a single reason not to let characters adjust their classskill lists. If, by now, you haven't heard any other argument then that, then at least it isn't because no other argument has been given. It may seem that I am attacking you a lot for not paying attention to what I and other post. And I am. There's not much new information in this post at all. Exept for being a bit more elaborate at some points, all but the new feat example have been posted before. Some things more than once. Therefore I don't think it wise to continue answering your posts, as long as this style goes on. (I'll only end up overstepping the CoC...) If you want me to continue discussing with you, try to reply constructively to some of the methods I have described - why aren't they giving the flexibility you seek? They might not be, but as long as you keep ignoring them (and even challenge me to provide evidence already given) it's just not useful to keep it up.
Derren S. 12-30-07, 06:55 PM	I knew this was going to come up. Not every archer is a ranger, in fact, I think only a very small amount of them are. Most would be Warriors or Fighters. And those are simply worse in spotting their targets than rangers are (they only learn how to shoot for example fore battlefield situations where spotting isn't really required to see the enemy) Apart from that, your argument implies that to be an effective archer, one would have to be a ranger/multiclass to one, which brings along the whole nature implication and favoured enemy and what not. Not an effective archer. A effective archer who is also very good in spotting hiding enemies. Why would every fighter have the ability to ride very well? (Mark "the ability to", implying ride being a class skill) Because a lot of forms of warefare involve riding? While I was in school I also had the ability to maybe do something very well. Some things I did (put skill points into) and some not. If you spend the years it took you to become a 1st lvl fighter aiming at distant targets with your bow and standing watch, why wouldn't you be able to Spot things as good as a Ranger? Because in the years of becoming a fighter you also did train how to do close combat, wear all sorts of armor and how to deflect blows very well. Scouting wasn't a priority and so you had to train it in your "off time". Rangers on the other hand lack some of the martial training fighters have, but their regular training does involve scouting so training that skill is easier for them which is represented by spot being a class skill.
sapient 12-30-07, 08:01 PM	If the fighter tries as best he can to be good at spotting, he can not equal a monk who tries as best he can. That is what have to be discussed. If one part maxes out, we have to compare it to another maxed out part, anything else is unfair. Of course anyone can be "good" at spotting, but you pay a higher price by not having it as a class skill (and you can never reach the same level). By higher price I mean that you are encouraged, rulewise, not to place your skill points in that skill. I don't agree with you there. Of course a monk can be better on spot than a fighter, if they both expand the same amount of skill points and are otherwise equal in relevant aspects. But this was not an issue of comparing two classes - it was an issue about constraints of the class/skill system. Why would it matter of the monk is better? Is it not about what a character can do - but who can do it best? If you want to build a fighter that can perform supernatural feats of spoting you can. Let's say we have a tenth level fighter who have invested in 5 ranks of spot, taken the Alertness feat and Skill focus (spot) for a total of +10. He should then have an average check result of 20, which lets him become aware of invisible creatures. And that's only on tenth level. Yes, it costs more to build a fighter that way. You may say it is not encouraged - but if you want to be a fighter/scout you can. And that is the definition of versatility. This is assuming you didn't have that idea from the start or have a grouchy DM that wouldn't let you take Spot for a class skill even if you did. (That rule is of course were the big flexibility to customize characters classes acording to a concept lies.) A fighter gets more bang for the buck by placing his skills in intimidate than in spot, effectively railroading him into what may be the stereotypical fighter, but not neccisarily the nearly as classic professional archer (professional as in not a woodsman). The fighter may still spend his other resources (feats, abilities, whatever) to compensate for his weakness, but this again makes him less powerful in another area, which is supposed to be balanced toward the monk as far as I can comprehend. The various feats that grant skill bonuses are generally extremely underpowered in D&D, but also irellevant to this discussion as they are equally powerful for someone with or without skill X as a class skill (+15% chance of success). Now I think you sound more as someone who chose the wrong class and wants to redo his character. (Or maybe a typical fighter-basher from that long line of "the fighter stinks"-debates. :) ) If you want to do what other party member does, then of course you will be worse at it. But if that is your problem, it isn't a rules problem. The classes are concepts. You have to begin by defining what you want your character to do and then choose a fitting class. Then you build it to do that. And yes - there will be other things that others do better. If that is your problem, then we are back with what I said before - you want everything at no cost. You want to abolish the basic balance - the class/skill system is only what stands in your way... This is on the basis that skills are suposed to be equally powerful toward each other. If they are not, that is a problem within the skills-system, and only indirectly relevant to this discussion. I don't understand this either. Why are the skills supposed to be equally powerful? But as you say, it is only indirectly relevant to this topic, so maybe we had best leave it. How do you look upon the growing number of classes btw? [...] The problem with a every nichè is a class occurs when you have 42 classes and you happened to fall into the 43rd, which unfortunately have nto been created yet. Then you are at a disadvantage, because each class is so tightly tailored to a spesific idea (in my scenario, wizard is automatically not as well schooled in diplomacy as a rogue). [...] I can usually do what I want and be reasonably effective, though I hate it when i have to use 4 PrCs, 3 core classes and a multitude of variant fatures to make a reasonably effective character, simply because I had a slightly un-stereotypical idea (or in the case of the elven general, quite stereotypical). Yes, that is what I think is the strongest argument for "free form skills". Right now there are 175 entries in the consolidated list of classes. Even if that means some double entries (for the same class being published in several supplements, such as campaign specific splat books, or with just minor differences) it is simply too much. The list of prestige classes are even longer, with 782 entries. But I find that I don't need to use them very much at all - since I think the different ways of customization that I have exemplified here are enough to fit my needs. I see most prestigeclasses are predefined variations, sort of like recepies in a cook book that inspire you. But I prefer making the character into my own concept, just as I seldom cook my food exactly as the recepies say... :D EDIT: I also want to note that I beleive the reason Education is a feat (and why it have four incarnations) is because the author(s) found that knowledge should be possible to obtain for anyone, but because the rules were already built up as they were, a feat was the currect (as to follow the portfolio of already published matereal) way to introduce it. Had the system been as I foresee 4ed teh feat would be near useless, as written (it would possibly grant you trained status with those skills, as in Saga). Well, I think you maybe partly right. I don't know if that is the only motivation for the feat, but it doesn't make much sense that all knowledge skills are 'trained only'. It makes sense for the more "academic" ones, like arcana, architecture and engineering, planes and religion for example - then they represent scholary efforts. But local, nature and to some extent nobility and royalty should be things everybody knows a little bit about from their upbringing. I have often considered giving the players in my gaming group a free rank in them (or why not half a rank, so they can use them but without any kind of skill rank bonus unless they actually buy it...) to flesh them out. But such house rules are small tweaks. They work within the system, sanding down the rough edges. They don't upset the fundamental workings of the existing rules.
unundindur 12-31-07, 10:32 AM	I don't agree with you there. Of course a monk can be better on spot than a fighter, if they both expand the same amount of skill points and are otherwise equal in relevant aspects. Of course? I though you argued against that with the other fellow above... Anyway, more on that later ;) But this was not an issue of comparing two classes - it was an issue about constraints of the class/skill system. Why would it matter of the monk is better? Is it not about what a character can do - but who can do it best? It is absolutely everything about who can do it best. Rules are here to facilitate balance, in-game-whatnot is here for flavor etc. If I can be "good" (a completely intangable term) at something is wuite irellevant, as I am likely "good" just by playing a character with an over average wisdom score. This discussion is vital because, as I have said before it penalizes certain concepts because they have not been thought of before (or at least none have cared to elaborate the concept fully). In this I see almost any minor change as a new concept (a fighter with knoweldge arcana is a different concept than a fighter with knowledge religion etc). If you want to build a fighter that can perform supernatural feats of spoting you can. Let's say we have a tenth level fighter who have invested in 5 ranks of spot, taken the Alertness feat and Skill focus (spot) for a total of +10. He should then have an average check result of 20, which lets him become aware of invisible creatures. And that's only on tenth level. I know I can that, but this is a discussion about balance, of which we may have a different view, but not necisarily. When discussing balance we have to set characters up against each other, and critter of equal CR. An equal CR rogue can just toy with this super-guard you have created (at least compared to another super guard built around... the ranger?). Yes, it costs more to build a fighter that way. You may say it is not encouraged - but if you want to be a fighter/scout you can. And that is the definition of versatility. A fighter scout still takes a penalty to spot, abeit it is lessened. This is a principal battle for my part, which is why I care to argue for so long. This is assuming you didn't have that idea from the start or have a grouchy DM that wouldn't let you take Spot for a class skill even if you did. (That rule is of course were the big flexibility to customize characters classes acording to a concept lies.) I am not certain I understand this, but if you mean that a DM should allow spot in my case, then you have effectively switched side as far as I can see. Its just so much easier for everyone to not bother with class/cross class skills, and from a whole lot of years of experience it doesn't break the game in any way. Now I think you sound more as someone who chose the wrong class and wants to redo his character. (Or maybe a typical fighter-basher from that long line of "the fighter stinks"-debates. :) ) Now I never play a fighter, this is a conceptural debate. In my games its not an issue since we houserule, but I use the fighter as an example since someone else started using him as an example. If I want to be a guard the fighter "should" be the natural choice, as a monk is very specialised, and the woodsman is a woodsman, and the rogue specialise in stabbing people in the back, which is not a very typical thing to do for a guard. When the classicaly envisioned guard can't do it, something is wrong (not talking about the "fluff" fighter, purely the mechanics behind him). And I have voiced a view toward the fighter beeing sub-optimal, but THAT is another discussion. We could just as well discuss why the wizard doesn't have spot, or diplomacy on his list (the later bothers me to the bone). If you want to do what other party member does, then of course you will be worse at it. But if that is your problem, it isn't a rules problem. The classes are concepts. You have to begin by defining what you want your character to do and then choose a fitting class. Then you build it to do that. And yes - there will be other things that others do better. Other party members? This is an NPC guard (just to be difficult of course). Or what about a party where the fighter player is the guard with the halberd, the rogue is an agressive reckless one (no skills in spot and listen, very normal in my groups), the wizard neitehr have it in his list, nad the cleric have to few skill points. It is absolutely my problem, as a GM. Of course I cna houserule it, but as I have said before, thats not good enough. When you find old meat in a store, you can ust take another, or you cna report your finding. I come from Norway, so i do the latter ;) Ok, I want to be a spot-machine of a guard (of the wizard say), but I do nnot know how to stab people in the back, nor have I any affinity to the woods. Of course, you can find something to fill this role, but again this is just an example, there are others and yet others that are moe difficult (my elven genera comes to mind...again). If that is your problem, then we are back with what I said before - you want everything at no cost. You want to abolish the basic balance - the class/skill system is only what stands in your way... I think this is where we have fundamentally different views. I see skills as minor, and as a tool to facilitate your characters background and coolness, mroe than a balancing factor. Also from actual experience it have proven to be of extremely little importance if you get to chose your skills free, even including use magic device (which is in my games a rogue/bard only skill). I see class abilities (BaB, saves, HD, number of skills and special abilities) as balanced toward each other, and skills balanced toward each other. Of course, some skills are horridly underpowered, but alas I see that as a flaw with the skill-skill balance. As I have said some 10 pages back, there are examples where you "can" avoid those poor skills anyway, and as such they only limit certain classes even further into stereotyping (given you want a character with as much power as possible). I don't understand this either. Why are the skills supposed to be equally powerful? But as you say, it is only indirectly relevant to this topic, so maybe we had best leave it. Sorry, a little missunderstanding here. The first line is important (This is on the basis that skills are suposed to be equally powerful toward each other.), the latter is not (If they are not, that is a problem within the skills-system, and only indirectly relevant to this discussion.). Unfortunately, I now think this is the core of our different perceptions, and as such cannot be left. Yes, that is what I think is the strongest argument for "free form skills". Right now there are 175 entries in the consolidated list of classes. Even if that means some double entries (for the same class being published in several supplements, such as campaign specific splat books, or with just minor differences) it is simply too much. The list of prestige classes are even longer, with 782 entries. But I find that I don't need to use them very much at all - since I think the different ways of customization that I have exemplified here are enough to fit my needs. I see most prestigeclasses are predefined variations, sort of like recepies in a cook book that inspire you. But I prefer making the character into my own concept, just as I seldom cook my food exactly as the recepies say... :D Lets not get into personal games, that you don't have to use them is on the same hand as I can houserule cross-class skills away. For this discussion everything official must be taken into account, and everything non-official is ruled out. The easiest way to have a certain standard is to assume the fighter in question is playing a living grayhawk campaign (if I understand the rules there). I still feel you got away a bit easy here. You say its the best argument without any reasonable counter... ;) I use it to found my view that the designers have changed their view as the game have evolved, which seem further strengthened by Starwars Saga edition, and the tidbits we know of 4 ed. Well, I think you maybe partly right. I don't know if that is the only motivation for the feat, but it doesn't make much sense that all knowledge skills are 'trained only'. It makes sense for the more "academic" ones, like arcana, architecture and engineering, planes and religion for example - then they represent scholary efforts. But local, nature and to some extent nobility and royalty should be things everybody knows a little bit about from their upbringing. Scholarly effort is a fluff issue. My elven general (ranger/wizard/abjurant champion) certainly have a scholarly education. Talking about why i chose ranger it was because that class represents an elven fighter better than the fighter class to me (more skills, light armor, track etc), I still chose spellcraft, diplomacy, tumble and other skills suiting my in-game profession; "spellsinger". Any gish have this problem, they don't get their "real" class before entering their final prestige class, which is problematic in all ways. Prestige classes fill gish roles instead of beeing prestigious, while its near impossible to play a gish without these prestige classes. Removing cross-class skills help a lot in this regard, abeit not enough. And you seem to contradict yourself here. If knowledge nobility should be for everyone, who shouldn't spot? After all everyone could know something about both of those... I have often considered giving the players in my gaming group a free rank in them (or why not half a rank, so they can use them but without any kind of skill rank bonus unless they actually buy it...) to flesh them out. I see this, and it is just yet another reason to tear down the ricewall. But such house rules are small tweaks. They work within the system, sanding down the rough edges. They don't upset the fundamental workings of the existing rules. Neither do removing cross class skills! (sorry for using that sign) In the worst of cases you have 8 players who get to chose their skills freely, and likely they will pick skills close enough to their stereotype, and voila; 10 skills or something fell outside the normal box. The only cases where it have major impact is for a multiclass-character, and in that case it is needed more than I can ever describe. It have game impact, it is not major and it makes the life of players who want to follow the rules easier. "Better to loosen the rules and keep normal folks within, than to constrict the population with laws so that many fall outside". This have been policy in Norway at least, on a lot of areas. You don't want to jail the most law abiding person just to catch the once-a-year abuse (in this case the barbarian who wnats use magic device because its good)
Derren S. 12-31-07, 10:39 AM	A fighter scout still takes a penalty to spot, abeit it is lessened. This is a principal battle for my part, which is why I care to argue for so long. No. A fighter is not as good as other characters in spotting. A fighter scout (meaning a fighter/ranger or fighter/scout multiclass) has the ability be among the best spotters overall. You can't take class A and expect it to do what class B is supposed to do.
unundindur 12-31-07, 10:55 AM	No. A fighter is not as good as other characters in spotting. A fighter scout (meaning a fighter/ranger or fighter/scout multiclass) has the ability be among the best spotters overall. You can't take class A and expect it to do what class B is supposed to do. Here I differ between class and concept, which it seems even sapient is leaning towards, by possibly allowing a fighter spot, on a one time basis. A concept is supposed to do something, a class is a mean to get there. Problem is that classes in D&D are so extremely narrow, and classes like the scout suddenly have all sorts of other weird abilities that do not make any sense to a bodyguard or similar concept (or at least not to "my bodyguard"). I know class skills is a feature of the class the way it is written today, and this is really what i think is a bad idea. If classes were more flexible (scirmish was a feat of the fighter etc) then the whole shebang would be easy, and class skills would naturally fall away. As for the scout, its not a scout, its a ranger which name was already taken, thus forcing the clas to take on something vaguely relevant. The closest you get to the concept scout is the rogue right now (imo :rolleyes: ). I want to formalise what it seems most GMs do anyway, allow the un-sterotype. And just to make it more evident I present to you: The elven general... (parompampash!) Ranger4/wizard2/abjurant champion5/something Not exactely a diplomacy-tower, but that is sort of an integral poart of his education. To the elven he is close to a human paladin, fighting for their cause, appoaching with peace etc etc. And even if you can beat this (somehow), its just an example, there are litteraly hundreds of concepts ut there that don't work because of unnecisary restrictions. What are these gross reasons not to get rid of the cross class skills? Is it because it removes flavor? The rogue still ahve more skills than any, the ranger still have different abilities than a bard, the wizard still casts spells differently than a sorcerer. After playing without cross-class-skills for 5 years (I think) I really cannot see what horrors have ocurred. By playing with the opposite though, I find myself constricted by limits everywhere. Its enough to chose the major abilities, if not only these minor ones shall force your hand in chosing class. And this is me, who know the books and all that. To a new player who tries to create a reasonably powerful X is just lost, unless we help him build unnatural constellations of abilities to reach the goal; a compleely normal character with a focus on the wrong skill, according to the rules.
Dog_O_War 01-01-08, 12:09 PM	Okay, you guys are arguing about the appearent 'flaws' in a games' rules. But like with all games, rules are there for a reason; take hockey. The offside rule stands to eliminate a cherry picker; they want to see skills, speed, and endurance on the ice; not two or three guys rifling the puck back and forth down the ice to their lazy team members. Cross-class skills are apart of this game. They mean something in their mechanics, which could be anything from flavor to a balancing factor (what a hiderance on rogues if every class just maxed out it's spot/listen). Either way the rule is there, and it is there with intent. This may seem like the Jimmy Hoffa of rules (where's he buried? /why is this here?), but the rule is what it is.
unundindur 01-01-08, 01:06 PM	Okay, you guys are arguing about the appearent 'flaws' in a games' rules. But like with all games, rules are there for a reason; take hockey. The offside rule stands to eliminate a cherry picker; they want to see skills, speed, and endurance on the ice; not two or three guys rifling the puck back and forth down the ice to their lazy team members. Cross-class skills are apart of this game. They mean something in their mechanics, which could be anything from flavor to a balancing factor (what a hiderance on rogues if every class just maxed out it's spot/listen). Either way the rule is there, and it is there with intent. This may seem like the Jimmy Hoffa of rules (where's he buried? /why is this here?), but the rule is what it is. And Star wars Saga edition and the sneak peeks into 4ed D&D show that they likely changed their minds ;)
sapient 01-01-08, 01:28 PM	It is absolutely everything about who can do it best. Rules are here to facilitate balance, in-game-whatnot is here for flavor etc. If I can be "good" (a completely intangable term) at something is wuite irellevant, as I am likely "good" just by playing a character with an over average wisdom score. Okay, I understand your point. But this is where I think you cross from only having a beef with the class/skill system into a whole other balance issue. It is what I have called the "get more without a price" and such similar epithets before. I think the rules are quite clear on the fact that you shouldn't expect to be the best at everything and that as a party with different roles you would have to learn to complement each others strengths and weeknesses. I am not certain I understand this, but if you mean that a DM should allow spot in my case, then you have effectively switched side as far as I can see. Its just so much easier for everyone to not bother with class/cross class skills, and from a whole lot of years of experience it doesn't break the game in any way. No, I haven't "switched sides". I, and others as well, have pointed out that there are rules in the Players Handbook (and the DMG) that encourage tailoring classes to suit specific ideas. Using this is a core as it can get, even though many doesn't seem to know about it at all. It is not even an alternate rule, like the Gestalt classes of Unearthed Arcana. (But that might have some potential for you.) Since your argument is that the rules don't let you get the best out of your character, I think this goes to the very root of your issue. That is why I'm irritated with GawainBS's answers, he keeps ignoring all of those suggestions and just fill his posts with new claims. I don't think you could call it a debate on principles unless you could honestly say that you have given all of these different methods a try (at least looked them over) and still couldn't find a way to do what you wanted. Because then you'd only be criticising a selective part of the rules. Those parts that may be most "friendly" towards your cause shouldn't be disregarded at least untill they have actually been tested and either found useful or not. (In which case there would be an answer to why they aren't satisfactory.) Now I never play a fighter, this is a conceptural debate. In my games its not an issue since we houserule, but I use the fighter as an example since someone else started using him as an example. If I want to be a guard the fighter "should" be the natural choice, as a monk is very specialised, and the woodsman is a woodsman, and the rogue specialise in stabbing people in the back, which is not a very typical thing to do for a guard. When the classicaly envisioned guard can't do it, something is wrong (not talking about the "fluff" fighter, purely the mechanics behind him). And I have voiced a view toward the fighter beeing sub-optimal, but THAT is another discussion. We could just as well discuss why the wizard doesn't have spot, or diplomacy on his list (the later bothers me to the bone). Other party members? This is an NPC guard (just to be difficult of course). Or what about a party where the fighter player is the guard with the halberd, the rogue is an agressive reckless one (no skills in spot and listen, very normal in my groups), the wizard neitehr have it in his list, nad the cleric have to few skill points. It is absolutely my problem, as a GM. Of course I cna houserule it, but as I have said before, thats not good enough. I don't see the problem, since I don't expect my guards to be able to spot things that are so far out of the ordinary. A guard is in most cases essentially a guy placed in a spot by his immediate commander and told to call out if he sees some enemies. When I want a BBEG to have guards that have superhuman powers of spot and listen so they can hear the assasin breathe six doors down, I use rogues with lots of skill points in those ranks. And I don't mind doing that, since hiring assasins and the like has been known to be done prevent murder as well as instigate it historically. (The assasins and master spies of kings and nobles have a double role as head of security as well.) But the fighter is a good choise for some of these arguments, since it is a class with low skill points and a narrow skill list while it has a confrontational role and is right in the middle of D&D tradition. But of course, some of the arguments aren't so well directed using the fighter as one would still have to accept the premisses of the fighter class. It wouldn't make much sense in asking "why can't my fighter cast spells? why should he be penalized for wanting to fight melee?" since it is clearly said that the concept of a fighter isn't about casting spells. This is again a case of the rules - while arbitrary in a sense - define the game once they are put in place. Once you decide to play soccer you don't argue that it is a stupid game because you can't take the ball in your hands and run with it... In D&D there are a lot more rules and the rules are a lot more complex. Therefore it isn't quite that easy - it makes sense to question the rules and change them from time to time. But if you challenge the more fundamental principles it might be time to ask yourself "is it really soccer I want to play?". As long as this is a question about possibly modifying the skill system, I don't think it is as serious as all that. But from some of the motivations that you (and others) present, I think it might be. If the current class/skill system becomes the focus of a wider grudge, then I think what Dog_O_War repeatedly says my be a valid question: "Why do you play D&D?" The skills and the DC of the tasks one could try to accomplish shouldn't be inflated. That is one sure way to break the game without really getting anything for it. (Since inflated skills are mostly countered by inflated DCs.) I have given several examples of how the skills are set so you don't need a high skill rank to do stuff that is remarkable and that even with a few carefully chosen skill ranks you can do truly amazing feats. What is it you want to do with these superhuman fighters and terribly eloquent wizards and everything? When you have them, don't you find that you have to up the monsters CRs to keep things interesting? Won't the fighter/super-spotter become a bit bored unless his skill is tested to the limit once in a while? Do you then have a rogue with even more skill ranks try to sneak up on him? When does it stop? (I have to think through my response about skill-skill balance a bit more, perhaps reading up on what you said ten pages ago :) before picking up that part later.) And you seem to contradict yourself here. If knowledge nobility should be for everyone, who shouldn't spot? After all everyone could know something about both of those... The difference, of course, is that anyone can spot while the Knowledge skills are "Trained only".