So I started to think, "could I just do away with class skills altogether?"
When I saw Halflings are ideal for Warlocks, that didn't make any sense to me, but then I thought, what if Halfling society has so few large settlements without colleges of magic and theolgical schools there is a large void of magic users amongst them. A gap that is filled by a shamanistic healer/sorcerer who makes up for his communities lack of resources by becoming a fey pact loner, on shunned by a community that needed him. But if I played that type I would want both the nature and healing skill to make my character sheet resemble my design, but that would be two feats! Who would want to play that?
So here is my question, if adding to the skill list willy nilly is so game unbalancing: What if I just declared class skill lists void. If a player can tell me why their background means they have streetwise, arcana, thievery, and sneak does it really make that big of a difference to me?
What do people think?
So here is my question, if adding to the skill list willy nilly is so game unbalancing:
I think WoTC disagrees. Forgotten Realm Player's Guide regional benefits do just what you consider. An extra item on the class skill list. Sometimes with a +2 bonus.
It's not a huge problem, though, and it's pretty easy to troubleshoot.
Might have to change DC's a bit to compensate for class bonuses, but this seems like a simple and easily-balanced fix.
-Training now grants +3 instead of +5
-Classes get +2 to all skills in their list
-Classes can train/focus any skill
-No DC bump required
Incidentally, this has the effect of making an untrained rogue more acrobatic than an untrained wizard of comparable DEX, which is probably desirable for many people.
A) that character isn't going to put nearly as many ranks in INT as other attributes so the Wizard is still going to be better at Arcana than him
B) It's so rare that a Fighter character is going to choose to do that, being somewhat aware that he doesn't have nearly enough points in the applicable attribute, it's only the most dedicated ROLE player to ignore his inner ROLL player, who even then has to have a concept he likes enough.
And while I like Quantam's ideas, they really just go back into encouraging stereotypical characters.
So bring on Wizards who Intimidate by swathing themselves in black robes and name the dimensions of power they will rain down on their foes
Or Treasure hunting Indiana Jones style rogues who search for the fabled artifacts they know from their detailed study of history.
I think my next game your class determines the number of skills, but your choice of skills is up to you and your character concept.
Way back in 1st ed when non-weapon proficiencies (IE; skills) were introduced we quickly house ruled away any class restrictions/cross-class costs. Didn't break the game one bit.
When 2nd ed arrived we did the same thing. Didn't break that system either.
In 3.x? Once again, we just dropped all cross-class costs. I'll be damned, this edition didn't shatter either!
So guess what I'm going to do when I get around to running a serious 4e game (right now we're just trying it out)?
That's right, once more make the skills an open list.
The system will endure just fine.
And if the people on whatever board disagree? So what.
So here is my question, if adding to the skill list willy nilly is so game unbalancing: What if I just declared class skill lists void. If a player can tell me why their background means they have streetwise, arcana, thievery, and sneak does it really make that big of a difference to me?
What do people think?
It appears that what you want to do is not have a player burn a feat or two to make a character that matches their background if that background calls for them to have non-class skills. Do you feel that the cost of the feat(s) is too great and would discourage players from making interesting backgrounds that are atypical of the class they play? In any case, I think you just do not want to penalise players for being creative.
I think what you may end up doing for some players is having them come up with an excuse for having a non-class skill. Someone's fighter wants perception, so instead of just taking a feat, he'll just make up some reason for being very perceptive. In any case, he just has to do it when making his character.
I don't see it as being unbalancing because every player can do the same. The rogue can take Arcana or Religion if his background calls for it. What I see is perhaps many characters choosing skills outside of their class and few characters just sticking to their class skills. I do think that there are some skills outside of the class skills that can be benefit to the class. If a fighter wants to be a ritual caster, now it only costs me one feat instead of two.
I'm just wondering do you feel that some players want to have an interesting background, but are turned off by the fact that they need to use a feat or two to build their character? Do you feel that the character would be too inferior if they use a feat or two to make their character fit their background? From what I have seen, the number of feats you get and the power level of most of the feats seem to indicate that using a feat or two for background isn't that big a deal.
Then perhaps the solution is to get rid of the skill list, but give class-bonuses (and auto-training) to certain class-related skills. Thus, one could make a fighter with decent knowledge of magic, but the wizard would still know more.
Might have to change DC's a bit to compensate for class bonuses, but this seems like a simple and easily-balanced fix.
-Training now grants +3 instead of +5
-Classes get +2 to all skills in their list
-Classes can train/focus any skill
-No DC bump required
Incidentally, this has the effect of making an untrained rogue more acrobatic than an untrained wizard of comparable DEX, which is probably desirable for many people.
I like this solution, though im not sure how it would affect balance, it seems elegant and fun.
For example, the rogue is usually the one looking for traps. That's his historic role, as he's the one who can also disarm them and he gets perception as a class skill. Trap perception DCs are based on rogue/ranger level perception. The rogue doesn't have much use for wisdom, however, the key ability of perception, and the ranger has little more. With your proposed house rule, the cleric who maxed wisdom could pick up perception and be much better at it than the rogue or ranger ever was. Once this cleric with an awesome perception mod spots the trap, he can point it out to the rogue for disarming (or do it himself if he picked up thievery too and has a decent dexterity score). This may not be extremely imbalancing, but it's certainly something to consider
sorry little rant thier.
but i like the idea of skills being based off of a background written for the charector. it gives a small mechanical benifit for the person who takes the time to actually right up the background of thier charector and helps with them getting a little bit closer to the concept they like. while not making them obvisoulsy better in all aspects of the game.
but i like the idea of skills being based off of a background written for the charector. it gives a small mechanical benifit for the person who takes the time to actually right up the background of thier charector and helps with them getting a little bit closer to the concept they like. while not making them obvisoulsy better in all aspects of the game.
Note that while this approach will work well for many groups, it is not for everyone. You have to know your group well. If you have a powergamer, he may decide to flex his creative muscles in order to get a few more points in-game. Make sure your players are mature enough to use this for purely creative purposes and not to try to get an edge.
You get more feats than ever, but because they do less, individually, you *need* to sink more feats than ever into combat-specific choices to see any payoff. Without doing so, the character is useless on the battlefield. Minmaxing is more vitally needed than ever before. We're just learning this, the hard way.
Since perception is inherently important for any adventurer, I've always been a fan of putting perception on everyone's class list. I houseruled spot and listen onto all class lists in 3.5 since they were used every session by every player.
Re: AttilatheNun
Was your "possible imbalance" regarding my proposed houserule (admittedly, I came up with this on the fly and it probably is unbalanced to some extent), or just letting everyone have free reign of skill choices? I think a slight bump to class skills would fix that particular problem, though it may be unbalancingly powerful for classes with a large skill list and possibly the Jack of All Trades feat (though is overpowering Jack of All Trades really a problem?).
Re: MacEochaid
The class system itself promotes stereotypical characters. While I see your point, I think the problem has less to do with "wizards know magic and fighters don't" and more to do with "I'm a wizard, you're a fighter" (I guess this is why the proposed fix involves removing part of the class system). Also, I'd think that even if the fighter spent his life studying magic, he'd know less about it than the guy who's spent his life doing magic, even if the two have comparable intelligence.
Re: SavevsDeath
Glad you liked it. It definitely has mild balance issues as it lowers the power of skill-training feats and raises the potency of untrained class skills, but I think any attempt at opening up skill training will do that sort of thing (and since trained class skills still get the same overall bonus it hopefully isn't too broken). Also, in looking at it again I've realized that the fix has the interesting property of making class skills both matter more and less. That's... strange
Re: Burning Feats for RP Value
I think forcing people to make sub-optimal choices for RP value is really lame and should be avoided if possible (yay houserulses!). While O/T, this is one of the issues I have with intelligence's relative uselessness for all non-arcane classes (especially the rogue... since when did rogues become stupid?).
EDIT:
After a little thought, I think it might be interesting to try this:
-Classes can take any skill
-Training gives +4 instead of +5
-Classes get +1 to all skills in their list
-No DC bump
A little less extreme than my first idea. It's more balanced, but makes class skills matter less.
While lots of people like their god to offer different flavor it worries me whenever a mechanical effect tied to Gods is released: for example AV has a weapon devoted to Bahamut that acts like a low level Holy Avenger. Any paladin that uses their CHA powers at all would be foolish not to take it, but what if they really wanted to roleplay under another god. Like the skill list you can just ignore the Godlist but then why are we bothering making separate mechanics in the first place?