Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Zumarai 02-12-07, 07:07 AM	Now, I'm not one for house-rules, I mean, if I hear one more person tell me "Hey, check out my awesome critical fumble table!" I will run...screaming. But I do like exclusion and certain variants, so the following are what I like to implement to get rid of the antiquated holdovers (Gygaxian?), thus making the game smoother, tighter and faster (don't get too excited): -No multi-classing restriction for monks/paladins etc. -No favoured classes. -No XP penalties for multi-classing. -No cross-class Skills – all Skills are class Skills. -No death from massive damage. -No rolling for ability scores (use point buy). -No rolling for hit points (take average). Do you think these are reasonable, or do you think they are unbalancing/bad flavour-wise etc?
Tequila_Sunrise 02-12-07, 08:00 AM	The only item on your list that's outright unbalancing is the 'no class skills'. Using this rule will probably give you a whole lot of PCs with maxed out Listen and Spot. It also makes rogues and such a lot less cool. The 'no multiclassing penalties' thing will encourage cherry picking. If that's your cuppa' tea, go for it. Myself, I like characters with fewer classes rather than more.
Zumarai 02-12-07, 08:05 AM	The only item on your list that's outright unbalancing is the 'no class skills'. Using this rule will probably give you a whole lot of PCs with maxed out Listen and Spot. It also makes rogues and such a lot less cool. The 'no multiclassing penalties' thing will encourage cherry picking. If that's your cuppa' tea, go for it. Myself, I like characters with fewer classes rather than more. Regarding the Skill change: But what about that Fighter who was raised by a Wizard and has spent his life studying their secrets and weaknesses etc? I think if someone wants to study Knowledge (basket weaving) or what have you, it shouldn’t matter whether you are a bard or a fighter etc. Anyone can start learning from a young age how to Tumble. And the Rogue will still have more Skill points than any other class. Regarding no multi-class XP penalties: I think multi-class characters get the shaft enough as it is, without some strange, arbitrary 20% penalty.
Bavix 02-12-07, 09:14 AM	I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of your changes. The multiclassing and favored class restrictions basically go hand and hand, so if you get rid of one you may as well get rid of the other. I have gotten rid of cross-class skills as well in my games and there hasn't been any problems whatsoever. It has actually encouraged players to take skills that help them roleplay and define their characters better. For example, one of my players wanted to play a fighter that was an ex-military footman and very aquainted with and comfortable in the outdoors. By dropping cross-class skills he was able to build a fighter with ranks in Survival, Knowledge (nature) and even Heal so that his character concept matched his character sheet. And before anyone says it, he didn't want to play a ranger, and though he has a few of the ranger's class skills, he doesn't have the class features or skill points a ranger has. We don't roll ability scores either. I just let the players divide 8 "bonuses" among the 6 abilities. When they assign the bonuses they write in the actual ability score as the odd number so they can choose any of them to raise when they achieve 4th level. It's easier that the point buy system in the DMG and a little more intuitive for new players.
Zumarai 02-12-07, 10:05 AM	I have gotten rid of cross-class skills as well in my games and there hasn't been any problems whatsoever. It has actually encouraged players to take skills that help them roleplay and define their characters better. For example, one of my players wanted to play a fighter that was an ex-military footman and very aquainted with and comfortable in the outdoors. By dropping cross-class skills he was able to build a fighter with ranks in Survival, Knowledge (nature) and even Heal so that his character concept matched his character sheet. And before anyone says it, he didn't want to play a ranger, and though he has a few of the ranger's class skills, he doesn't have the class features or skill points a ranger has. Right on – that's exactly what I'm going for.
FoxmanFX 02-12-07, 11:30 AM	-No multi-classing restriction for monks/paladins etc. -No favoured classes. -No XP penalties for multi-classing. -No cross-class Skills – all Skills are class Skills. -No death from massive damage. -No rolling for ability scores (use point buy). -No rolling for hit points (take average). Do you think these are reasonable, or do you think they are unbalancing/bad flavour-wise etc? Multiclassing/favored classes/no XP pen for multiclassing - check! - commonly used houserule - works fine :) One thing I have instituded in my game is: pick ONE Prestige Class - that is the ONLY prestige class you can take. Its a flavor thing - depends on how you want to go... Class/cross-class - not a huge deal, this can work, I've seen a house rule that suggests that you keep the class/cross-class for maximum ranks, but otherwise all skills cost 1 to buy. - Mind you either way you may have some cherry picking rather than story building choices. Personally I don't/won't use either one because I'm lazy and don't feel like rewriting all the skill points of NPC's/monsters (and if you play them as is, they are underpowered compared to the PC's). No death from massive damage - Common common house-rule - works fine! No rolling for ability scores - I completely agree - nothing is less fun than rolling up a character like 16,14,13,10,8 and your friend rolls up an 18,16,16,13,10 (seen it). Any stat generating system should be fair to all the players! No rolling for hit points (take average) - Ok you really have to be careful here. All monsters are at 75% HP - If you are not rolling I suggest 75% (round up or down to taste, like at odd/even levels) HP. Monster hp = 1 HD max, + 75% of all remain HD + Con bonuses. I use a system where every level is 75% 'round down' for minimum. PC's roll. If they get above the minimum they keep it, if not they get the miniumum. d4+4 for a d8 class also works... Or 50% round up for minimum roll works too...
Zumarai 02-12-07, 11:39 AM	All monsters are at 75% HP - If you are not rolling I suggest 75% (round up or down to taste, like at odd/even levels) HP. Monster hp = 1 HD max, + 75% of all remain HD + Con bonuses. Thanks for all the input, but I believe monsters have average hit points, and not even max for the first HD.
FoxmanFX 02-12-07, 12:27 PM	Hmmm I can't remember where I picked up that number.... It appears you are correct. I ran the numbers again and it comes out to exactly 50% So average rolls should work for PC's.
starfire311 02-12-07, 05:37 PM	Now, I'm not one for house-rules, I mean, if I hear one more person tell me "Hey, check out my awesome critical fumble table!" I will run...screaming. But I do like exclusion and certain variants, so the following are what I like to implement to get rid of the antiquated holdovers (Gygaxian?), thus making the game smoother, tighter and faster (don't get too excited): -No multi-classing restriction for monks/paladins etc. -No favoured classes. -No XP penalties for multi-classing. -No cross-class Skills – all Skills are class Skills. -No death from massive damage. -No rolling for ability scores (use point buy). -No rolling for hit points (take average). Do you think these are reasonable, or do you think they are unbalancing/bad flavour-wise etc? I like and actually use most of what you got, not a big fan of the skill changes and also removing the favored classes is kinda tricky since it can be seen as a benfit for both human and half-elf to have favored class any... do you compensate the poor half-elf for you removing one of its few redeeming qualities?
Galstaf, Sorcerer of Lite 02-12-07, 05:44 PM	Theoretically, taking the average on hit die rolls will produce hit point totals identical, or nearly so, to what you'd get if you rolled them normally. That's why it's called the "average." There is no pitfall there. The only thing this house rule does is eliminate luck -- both good and bad -- as a factor in a character's hit point total. It's essentially the same as using a point buy for ability scores -- eliminating chance and keeping the playing field level for everyone. Just like it sucks to be the guy whose dice cursed him with low ability scores when someone else has stupidly high ones, it sucks to be the guy who keeps rolling 1's and 2's on his hit dice while everyone else pulls farther and farther ahead. I've used average hit points in every 3.X campaign I've ever run.
kadeity 02-12-07, 05:45 PM	Regarding the Skill change: But what about that Fighter who was raised by a Wizard and has spent his life studying their secrets and weaknesses etc? I think if someone wants to study Knowledge (basket weaving) or what have you, it shouldn’t matter whether you are a bard or a fighter etc. Anyone can start learning from a young age how to Tumble. And the Rogue will still have more Skill points than any other class. But what about game balance? Making all skills class skills is worth a feat, that you ahve to be human or changeling for. Its also one of the big class abilities of the new class from Dungeonscape. Why did you think that some classes have alot of skills, but others dont? Did you somehow think "unfun" meant "unfair"? Class skills are class skills for a reason. Some classes just dont learn some skills as part of their class training. I dont think that fighter should get Knowledge arcana, no. I think that fighter should be a multiclassed wizard. Now, adversely, if you wanted to say that when a class gets a knowledge skill they can pick what knowledge, id understand that logic.
Bavix 02-12-07, 08:22 PM	But what about game balance? Making all skills class skills is worth a feat, that you ahve to be human or changeling for. Its also one of the big class abilities of the new class from Dungeonscape. Why did you think that some classes have alot of skills, but others dont? Did you somehow think "unfun" meant "unfair"? Class skills are class skills for a reason. Some classes just dont learn some skills as part of their class training. I dont think that fighter should get Knowledge arcana, no. I think that fighter should be a multiclassed wizard. Honestly, I'm really not that worried about game balance. There are enough balancing factors in the game (the number of skill points per level being a big one) that I don't believe if a player wants to give his fighter a couple of ranks in Perform (flute), Knowledge (local) or Profession (woodcutter) for roleplaying purposes that it will unbalance the game. What about a character's life before he started his "adventurous" training? I hate to think that all D&D characters spring into the world fully grown and knowledgeable only in the skills their profession teaches them. Heck, I'm a graphic artist by trade but I have a background in martial arts, music, construction, plumbing etc and so on. While a D&D character's entire background can't be shown on paper, it's nice to let a player be able to back up his or her PCs background a little.
Judging Eagle 02-12-07, 08:22 PM	Hmm, all seems pretty reasonable. I'd state that the following be changed though: . -No cross-class Skills – all Skills are class Skills. Try doing this: Skills don't cost you double points if they're not on your class list. You can only have 1/2 of your class skill ranks however. That way characters who have certain skills can still have them as their specialty; but other characters aren't anally molested if they create organic characters that take role-playing related skill choices. Like, an Archivist who takes ranks in Perform (Dance) b/c he wants to be able to dance the Tago which the people from his former nation are well known for. Yeah, even brutally efficient powergamers make roleplaying related choices. Even when the choice is a mockery of a real thing from the nation of my parentage. :weep:
Bavix 02-13-07, 11:04 AM	Try doing this: Skills don't cost you double points if they're not on your class list. You can only have 1/2 of your class skill ranks however. You know, that works for me. It lets players take skills that add "flavor" to their characters while reigning in the min-maxing potential of the rule change. Here's another idea. What do you guys think about letting players choose their character's class skills at first level? The rule would be that they have to pick the same number of class skills as the class would normally have and cross-class skills would cost 2 slots like normal. It would be kind of like the expert NPC class (which I like very much by the way).
FoxmanFX 02-13-07, 11:23 AM	A caveat on Average HP's is that on a d8 the average is 4.5 NOT 4 ;) ((1+8)/2=4.5) There are a couple of ways of handleing that - one is that at odd levels they get 5 HP and at even levels they get 4hp. I keep the class/cross-class rules for my game, but I do do the following: * All classes has +2 skill points per level * All core (PHB) classes have Listen, Spot and Knowledge (local) as class skills. * Bards have Sense Motive as a class skill. * Druids have Knowledge (religion) and Sense Motive as class skills. * Sorcerers have Use Magic Device and Diplomacy as class skills. * Wizards have Decipher Script as a class skill. * As a rule of thumb - to balance out all printed NPC's/Monsters I give them one higher in all their skills. Its a quick fix and not always accurate but it works. * Removing class/cross-class skills devalues class features and feats built into the game. * If printed NPC's/monsters are not 'rebuilt' using this rule, they are 'sub-optimal' and weaker than they should be when compaired to PC's. It can be done but its a lot of work... I also do not fold skills. Why you ask? * I give PC's more skill points to spend * Folded skills (like hide/move silently) become 'too-good'. They do too much for the cost. * Rebuilding printed NPC's/monsters with folded skills gets annoying and time consuming after a while (KISS).
FoxmanFX 02-13-07, 11:29 AM	Here's another idea. What do you guys think about letting players choose their character's class skills at first level? The rule would be that they have to pick the same number of class skills as the class would normally have and cross-class skills would cost 2 slots like normal. It would be kind of like the expert NPC class (which I like very much by the way). It can work. But most PC's 'should' keep most of thier same skills. However how to do handle giving up a profession/craft/knowledge skill? I give up all knowledges for tumble? or I give up Knowledge (nobility & religion) for tumble... I don't think it balances out... How do you handle NPC's can they change out what they are skilled in? the more optimized a PC becomes the less optimized printed NPC's/monsters become, unless you apply the rule to them as well, which then require more work (KISS!). Not saying you cant - just consider the implications... Anyways I advocate giving the players more skill points in general.
JustinA 02-13-07, 11:58 AM	-No favoured classes. -No XP penalties for multi-classing. This is totally tangential to your post, but my thinking on this one was: "No favored classes? Why?!" And then I saw the next line and said, "Oh, that's why." And then I thought, "Hmm. I wonder how you could implement favored classes without XP penalties for multiclassing." General thoughts on a favored class giving you +20% XP? And dividing that by the number of classes you have if you multiclass out of your favored class? (+10% for two classes; +5% percent for three classes; etc.) This has the advantage of encouraging races with favored classes to actually specialize in their favored class (rather than only encouraging those races to dabble in their favored class). (The +20% lets you eventually build up a full +1 level advantage over your compatriots. If you want to give a slighter edge, start with a +10% bonus. This needs playtesting.) I'm not sure how I feel about the human and half-elf "any" status. I suspect it's OK (particularly for the half-elf, who's pretty shafted when it comes to racial abilities). Anyway... Random thought for the day. The only item on your list that's outright unbalancing is the 'no class skills'. Using this rule will probably give you a whole lot of PCs with maxed out Listen and Spot. It also makes rogues and such a lot less cool. Everyone being able to get a decent Listen and Spot doesn't concern me much. In fact, it's always annoyed me that fighters are constantly being surprised when a battle breaks out. It doesn't match the genre-standard of the experienced and cunning warrior sensing when danger is near. I mean, these are all adventuring classes: Basic awareness (in the form of Listen and Spot checks) would seem like an entry-level requirement. And I don't think this reduces the rogue's "coolness". The rogue still gets 8 base skill points, and since his schtick is skills he's probably dropping a +2 into his Intelligence. The fighter only gets 2 base skill points and isn't likely to be dropping more than +1 into his Intelligence on average. The difference is profound. The designers also went out of their way to make sure that rogues would need a plethora of interacting skills (you can't just Disable Devices, you have to Search for them first). They almost certainly did this specifically to protect the Rogue's turf. Sure, you can dabble with your 2+Int or 4+Int skill point pool -- but the rogue is still going to be the guy you send out on point. The only area where I see a rogue potentially getting burned is that, with the higher Spot and Listen skills out there, their Hide and Move Silently checks become marginally more difficult. Since there are plenty of people who can already Spot and Listen at class ranks, I don't think that's going to be a major factor in actual gameplay. But if it turns out to be true, you can fix that problem with a simple bonus to those skills for the rogue. The upside of this rule is that you're not double-damning the fighters: "Here's your crappy skill point pool... and you're not going to get anything to spend it on, either." It encourages making unusual skill choices to represent unique character backgrounds because it's cheaper to dabble in those skills. And it allows for non-standard parties because, if nobody wants to play the rogue, the rest of the party can spread those duties around. I dont think that fighter should get Knowledge arcana, no. I think that fighter should be a multiclassed wizard. I don't see any reason why someone who wants to know a lot about magic (a represented by the Knowledge (arcana) skill) should automatically be able to cast spells (as represented by the Wizard class abilities). You argue about game balance, but I notice that you don't actually mention any game balance reasons for the class/cross-class distinction. If you want to argue that it makes for stronger class identities, I can see where you're coming from. But, in practice, I think it's just an unnecessary impediment for people who want to go a little way outside the box.
Judging Eagle 02-13-07, 02:45 PM	This is totally tangential to your post, but my thinking on this one was: "No favored classes? Why?!" And then I saw the next line and said, "Oh, that's why." And then I thought, "Hmm. I wonder how you could implement favored classes without XP penalties for multiclassing." General thoughts on a favored class giving you +20% XP? And dividing that by the number of classes you have if you multiclass out of your favored class? (+10% for two classes; +5% percent for three classes; etc.) This has the advantage of encouraging races with favored classes to actually specialize in their favored class (rather than only encouraging those races to dabble in their favored class). (The +20% lets you eventually build up a full +1 level advantage over your compatriots. If you want to give a slighter edge, start with a +10% bonus. This needs playtesting.) I'm not sure how I feel about the human and half-elf "any" status. I suspect it's OK (particularly for the half-elf, who's pretty shafted when it comes to racial abilities). Anyway... Random thought for the day. Everyone being able to get a decent Listen and Spot doesn't concern me much. In fact, it's always annoyed me that fighters are constantly being surprised when a battle breaks out. It doesn't match the genre-standard of the experienced and cunning warrior sensing when danger is near. I mean, these are all adventuring classes: Basic awareness (in the form of Listen and Spot checks) would seem like an entry-level requirement. And I don't think this reduces the rogue's "coolness". The rogue still gets 8 base skill points, and since his schtick is skills he's probably dropping a +2 into his Intelligence. The fighter only gets 2 base skill points and isn't likely to be dropping more than +1 into his Intelligence on average. The difference is profound. The designers also went out of their way to make sure that rogues would need a plethora of interacting skills (you can't just Disable Devices, you have to Search for them first). They almost certainly did this specifically to protect the Rogue's turf. Sure, you can dabble with your 2+Int or 4+Int skill point pool -- but the rogue is still going to be the guy you send out on point. The only area where I see a rogue potentially getting burned is that, with the higher Spot and Listen skills out there, their Hide and Move Silently checks become marginally more difficult. Since there are plenty of people who can already Spot and Listen at class ranks, I don't think that's going to be a major factor in actual gameplay. But if it turns out to be true, you can fix that problem with a simple bonus to those skills for the rogue. The upside of this rule is that you're not double-damning the fighters: "Here's your crappy skill point pool... and you're not going to get anything to spend it on, either." It encourages making unusual skill choices to represent unique character backgrounds because it's cheaper to dabble in those skills. And it allows for non-standard parties because, if nobody wants to play the rogue, the rest of the party can spread those duties around. I don't see any reason why someone who wants to know a lot about magic (a represented by the Knowledge (arcana) skill) should automatically be able to cast spells (as represented by the Wizard class abilities). You argue about game balance, but I notice that you don't actually mention any game balance reasons for the class/cross-class distinction. If you want to argue that it makes for stronger class identities, I can see where you're coming from. But, in practice, I think it's just an unnecessary impediment for people who want to go a little way outside the box. Hmm, you should check out the Supplements that Frank Trollman and K wrote up regarding D&D; so far they've covered Dungeouns, D&D political structure as presented in the Core books; D&D economy; the Wish-based Economy and how to make sense of it; How to play unusual races as PCs in a way that doesn't make you cry. Plus stuff for how favoured classes and multiclassing should work. If you have a favoured class for your race, and you take a level of it, you can take racial substitution levels for that class. Also, most races get two favourd classes and humans get them all (so they can take any racial sub lvl that they want; happy birthday). Since multiclassing only applies to one half of all character types (the non-caster who go for skill points, saves and BaB over trying to ride the Spellcaster Power Gravytrain into Crazytown); multiclassing has no xp penalties. As well as a fighter that is neither overly complex to use, but shouldn't be given to a novice player; and is as good for it's level 20 abilities at level 20 as it's abilities at lvl 1 were good at lvl 1. No, seriously, this is the fighter that should have been written up. The Races of War fighter is not your 'dumb fighter' and should be played by people who know that a Roper has tentacles that reach a certain distance, or how to really kill a troll (hint: acid/fire to finish the job, not start it). New players should play core rogues; or Tome of Fiends Conduits of the Upper/Lower Planes or the Races of War Barbarian.
Argo 02-14-07, 04:55 PM	Hmm, you should check out the Supplements that Frank Trollman and K wrote up regarding D&D link?
Talkkno 02-14-07, 07:42 PM	http://www.d20ragon.com/frank/
Argo 02-15-07, 05:02 AM	http://www.d20ragon.com/frank/ Thanks.
Tequila_Sunrise 02-15-07, 07:59 AM	Regarding the Skill change: But what about that Fighter who was raised by a Wizard and has spent his life studying their secrets and weaknesses etc? I think if someone wants to study Knowledge (basket weaving) or what have you, it shouldn’t matter whether you are a bard or a fighter etc. Anyone can start learning from a young age how to Tumble. And the Rogue will still have more Skill points than any other class. Most skills are assigned to different classes as cross-class for flavor, or mostly for flavor, so no biggie. I would be concerned about skills like listen, spot, hide, move silently; they are part of what makes sneaky characters, well, sneaky. Think about it this way; BAB is just a skill that each character is forced to take a certain number of ranks in per level. Have you ever thought "well anyone can learn from a young age how to fight, so every character should have the option of good BAB." No? I didn't think so, because it's a balancing factor. Anyway, you're the DM. If you want to eliminate cross-class skills go ahead. I'm just offering my insights to your HRs, like you asked.
JustinA 02-15-07, 12:22 PM	Most skills are assigned to different classes as cross-class for flavor, or mostly for flavor, so no biggie. I would be concerned about skills like listen, spot, hide, move silently; they are part of what makes sneaky characters, well, sneaky. Realistically, though, what's the practical effect of this? If a fighter drops all their skill points in Hide and Move Silently, they've honed in on the rogue's turf. But that's all they can do with their skills, and the rogue -- while still specializing in Hide and Move Silently -- still has 3x that number of skill points to define other areas of competence. In practice, this means that -- whether the fighter decides to be sneaky or decides to be wary or decides to be cunning -- the rogue still has a big enough playground of skills and a large enough pool of skill points that they're always going to be able to stake out a territory for themselves. This, to me, remains more of a feature than a problem. While it's nice that the game is designed so well to support the basic party with the four core classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard), there are plenty of real-world scenarios in which that Platonic Ideal of a gaming group doesn't exist. If the party is short a rogue, it's nice to have mechanic flexible enough that other characters can step in and fill their shoes. Think about it this way; BAB is just a skill that each character is forced to take a certain number of ranks in per level. Have you ever thought "well anyone can learn from a young age how to fight, so every character should have the option of good BAB." That's not really a good way to think about it, because BAB is much more useful than any other skill in your typical D&D campaign. In a typical D&D session there will be dozens of attack rolls made for every single check made with a particular skill. Only Spot and Listen checks even have a chance of coming close, and (a) that's only because many DMs will call for Spot and Listen checks even if there's nothing to see or hear; and (b) they're still an order of magnitude shy of attack rolls. There's a reason why the designers split BAB off into its own category.
Tequila_Sunrise 02-16-07, 07:25 PM	Do you think these are reasonable, or do you think they are unbalancing/bad flavour-wise etc? I noticed today your post on the Favorite House Rules forum about the very subject of class skills. I also noticed that your full endorsement of your HR on said forum was posted before you started this thread. Seriously lame, dude. Asking for opinions just so that you can then argue with folks who express reserve about your ideas? I'm signing off this thread now; I'm just not in the mood for pettiness.
Seerow 02-16-07, 07:32 PM	This topic wins the award for the best topic title. Ever.
Judging Eagle 02-16-07, 10:30 PM	link? Oh, sorry, I was not paying attention to this thread for a few days. Check in my sig.
Nerana 02-17-07, 05:57 PM	I actually wouldn't use most of those, partially because I think that skills are very valuable. However, I do allow something similar--it even has support in the PHB, on page 110. If that Fighter thinks he should have Knowledge (Arcana) because his dad was a wizard, well, then he can just have it. That is, I let people, within reason, rearrange their class skill list at character creation with a good deal of freedom. Many of the skills on that list aren't essential, especially for self-taught classes like the fighter and sorcerer. For instance, a fighter who's supposed to be an officer in an army should have Knowledge(history), to reflect his knowledge of tactics. That wizard? Well, she was a noble, and before she went off to study magic, she had Perform(Sing) as a hobby. And so on. You're usually limited to the same /number/ of class skills unless you give something else up, as well as skill points, but it can't hurt to adjust things a little bit--most skills that shouldn't be on a class's list are balanced by the lack of, say, trapfinding, and no one's abused it yet for UMD love.
Judging Eagle 02-17-07, 09:14 PM	I actually wouldn't use most of those, partially because I think that skills are very valuable. However, I do allow something similar--it even has support in the PHB, on page 110. If that Fighter thinks he should have Knowledge (Arcana) because his dad was a wizard, well, then he can just have it. That is, I let people, within reason, rearrange their class skill list at character creation with a good deal of freedom. Many of the skills on that list aren't essential, especially for self-taught classes like the fighter and sorcerer. For instance, a fighter who's supposed to be an officer in an army should have Knowledge(history), to reflect his knowledge of tactics. That wizard? Well, she was a noble, and before she went off to study magic, she had Perform(Sing) as a hobby. And so on. You're usually limited to the same /number/ of class skills unless you give something else up, as well as skill points, but it can't hurt to adjust things a little bit--most skills that shouldn't be on a class's list are balanced by the lack of, say, trapfinding, and no one's abused it yet for UMD love. What you propose is a complete non-solution that is not easy to transport from one gaming group to an other. Either there's a hard and fast rule that anyone can abide by or you're constantly having to adjucate in every situation. If you're adjucating everytime, then people will be a lot less likely to spend skill points on things that they think are cool, and will instead burn those points on things that they can normally get instead. One varient could be: "Any skill costs 1 skill point; cross-class skills still have 1/2 the max ranks that a class skill could have" thus a character could learn a smattering of RP-related skills without setting skill points on fire like they do now. An other Varient could be: "You can Trade X number of skills out of your classes skill list for other skills that would normally be a cross-class skill. Where X is 1/2 of your classes base skill points per level. Example a Fighter could trade 1 class skill for a cross-class skills, while a Rogue could trade out 4 class skills for cross-class skills. These changes are permanent and your newly changed class skills remain so for this class the next time you take a level of it." Personally; I think that KIS is the best way to have someone remember a new rule. So, the 1st one wins out. Also, for characters generated before the game starts, being able to tailor their flavour through selected skills in advance and without wasting DM time is probably a bonus. Finally, if you're that engrossed in having a military officer have relevant training, why not just let them take Knowlege (Logistics/Tactics/Strategy) and have them make regular checks as the game progresses?
Wee_Willy_Winky 02-19-07, 09:51 AM	I noticed today your post on the Favorite House Rules forum about the very subject of class skills. I also noticed that your full endorsement of your HR on said forum was posted before you started this thread. Seriously lame, dude. Asking for opinions just so that you can then argue with folks who express reserve about your ideas? I'm signing off this thread now; I'm just not in the mood for pettiness. Oh, come on, just because Zumarai doesn't agree with you, there is no reason to start throwing your toys out of the pram. …Seriously lame, dude (as you would put it). And I didn't see Zumarai arguing with anybody, so who exactly is being petty…
Fanaelialae 02-19-07, 04:15 PM	I have considered eliminating cross-class skills from my games in the past, but decided not to do so as I felt it would diminish "class-borders". Instead, I use the house-rule mentioned several times elsewhere in this thread, whereby cross-class skills only cost 1 skill point per rank, though they retain the 1/2 class-skill rank cap. I never felt right about the idea that characters were heavily penalized for taking skills based around a concept. Nonetheless, it seems to me that making all skill class-skills diminishes the unique flavor of the class-based system. It seems to me that the 20th level fighter who could walk into a lecture hall and debate arcane theory with a 20th level wizard would be a rare prodigy, an exception rather than the rule and not something that just any fighter who set his mind to it could accomplish. Nonetheless, I have no issue with the concept of a fighter who is interested in, and actively pursues arcane studies, hence the above house-rule. In support of the previous concepts, I've granted all classes an extra 3 skill points per level and characters gain extra (or lose) class skills at 1st level based on their Wisdom modifier; class skills gained from a high Wisdom are always considered class skills, regardless of multi-classing/ class skills lost due to low Wisdom remain cross-class regardless of multi-classing. Due to their open-ended nature, lost class-skills cannot be Craft, Knowledge or Profession. I acknowledge that the benefit outweighs the penalty, but I'm not especially concerned by it; it hasn't caused a problem yet. Since the group I run for is small (three players on average), having skilled characters allows me to run more dynamic adventures without them having to constantly seek out NPCs with the given skill they happen to need. It's also reduced Intelligence's value as a dump-stat, since you will always lose skill points for a low Intelligence (I consider the loss of language for a 1 Intelligence to be it's own unique and sufficient penalty; and yes, I am aware that the minimum Intelligence for a normal PC is 3). As for the addendum to Wisdom, it's my opinion that the static Willpower bonus from Wisdom is not well-balanced against the other ability scores (except Charisma). The in-game justification behind the Wisdom-based bonus skills is that characters with good Wisdom are intuitive; these skills are ones for which you have an unusually intiuitive capacity for learning (in other words, they represent a character's inborn talents). As I see it, class-skills represent things that you are likely to learn about while performing your given focus. Certainly the rogue can learn about religion, but he's busy learning a plethora of other skills that remain his day-to-day focus, regardless of how faithful a follower he is. The cleric on the other hand, is constantly in a theological state of mind. Each can gain some skill in the other's world, provided the interest is there, however their "jobs" focus the majority of their attention elsewhere, preventing them from being able to achieve the same level of mastery in the other's given field of expertise (though there can be exceptions in the case of talented individuals). Any greater focus would result in a complete shift of focus (the rogue multiclasses into cleric; I allow characters to multiclass freely, given a minimal amount of justification... the fighter can't decide at the end of a particular melee that he suddenly wants to learn magic and immediately multiclass as a wizard). I have other house rules that mesh with these (such as one which keeps Charisma from being left in the dust) but that would be getting a little too far off-topic... When all is said and done, this is merely what works for my group; you should do whatever works best for your group.
Nerana 02-21-07, 01:36 AM	Actually, Judging Eagle, the system I proposed is pretty much identical to your second suggestion, except without the cap on numbers. I do think that it takes away from the flavor and utility of the system to make cross-class skills cost only one point without a feat, caps or not--and so my system tends to work in my games. I don't think it's a waste of DM time, especially considering that this rule can only be used at chargen--and I prefer to do chargen with my players, rather than having them all show up with characters. It doesn't work for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's a bad solution. It's pretty simple--if you don't like your class skill list, change it. Just let me know, and let me know how it makes sense. After all, there is the problem of the fighter who can walk into a wizards' college and discuss arcane theory with accomplished wizards, and that's what I seek to avoid in wanting to glance over the changes. And the reason I say knowledge(history) is that I don't like adding new skills when an old skill can serve the exact same purpose. Knowledge(history) reflects a knowledge of history--including historical battles, tactics, and so on. So, to keep it simple, I just go 'knowledge history' instead of 'new knowledge'. Fanaelialae has a point, I think--the main reason that I allow it is that a 'class' is just a group of people--it's an almost purely metagame consideration what 'class' someone is, in my games, with few exceptions. (wizard and paladin, for instance.) Varria the Rogue isn't going to say she's a rogue, she's going to say she's a thief, or a scout, or a diplomat. Her skill list ought to reflect it.