|
I sincerely regret starting another NEW THREAD, but in the proliferation of skill threads, one subject has come up numerous times, and it does not have a home. Rather than continue to allow it to crop up all over the boards, I hope by putting it in one place and making it the clear topic of conversation we can beat it to death and make sure we come to a solution. To wit, the division between class skills and cross-class skills needs to be addressed.
We should all be familiar with the 3.5 skill system. In it a class was given skill points and could spend them on class skills at a 1 for 1 basis. Cross-class skills could be purchased, but each rank cost 2 skill points for 1 rank. This causes problems when assigning skill points in any way other than level by level (the player’s method) for any character that isn’t simply single-classed. This includes any monster that has racial HD but advances by character class, or any ‘interesting’ combination of classes (fighter/rogue or fighter/ranger/arcane archer for example). For a DM creating a 9th or 17th level baddie, he needed to figure out the order of levels and whether it was better to purchase a skill when it became a class skill or a cross-class skill. This also is a problem for anyone who cares about accuracy when using a pre-made adventure. Determining whether skills were spent appropriately is impossible because it cannot be determined whether a skill was purchased as a cross-class (costing two points) or a class-skill (costing one point).
Something needs to be done. A new system for skills is a critical component of the Pathfinder RPG. The skill system in 3.5, while it has a lot of strengths, has been seen as a system that *NEEDS* improvement. There are a number of systems currently being discussed that attempt to do just that. Regardless of which system is used, the fundamental question of whether to retain a distinction between cross-class skills and class-skills must be addressed.
This is the place to do so. This is a place to not only make your opinion known, but to explain why you feel that way. It is a place to explain what your reaction would be to a change (or lack of change) to the ‘class-skill system’ (hereafter referred to as the CSS), and what other changes might be considered to balance any changes to the CSS system.
For example, if you believe that the CSS system should be retained because access to class skills is an important part of the flavor of a class, and you don’t want to see the flavor ruined or ‘watered down’ by having those skills available to everyone, might you be okay with the removal of the CSS if something else were done to add flavor or retain flavor for the class in question?
Since this thread is supposed to be for everyone’s thoughts and not just mine, I’m going to end this post here.
|
|
Picking up where I left off, I want to offer my personal opinion. While a number of systems that retain the CSS distinction have been proposed, any CSS system appears to have problems created by the CSS distinction. Any system so far proposed is less complicated when the CSS distinction is removed. Sometimes, though, simplicity is not better. An important part of the game for me is ‘realism’ or ‘simulationism’. Obviously skills are something of an abstraction already. As a modern human, you have a large number of skills that aren’t necessarily related. You might have unsurpassed knowledge of using Excel and Word, but know nothing about programming languages. Most skills assume if you know anything about the field, you know a lot about the field. If you’re good with computers, you’d be good with every aspect of computers from assembling hardware, installing software, using computers, and even writing programs. The point is, most of the skills aren’t skills as we traditionally think of them. Most of them are ‘skill suites’ – a number of related abilities that make you good at one class of thing. So, for example, a profession skill includes basic business management, knowledge of exchange rates, how to obtain and distribute your good or service, etc. A skill like Ride is more than just how to stay on a horse. It includes riding griffons and giant lizards, and performing difficult riding stunts like standing in your saddle and keeping the horse moving while you leap away. This level of abstraction is useful, and since it has already been built into 3.0 and 3.5, I’m not suggesting abandoning it in favor of a new system that is more realistic, but involves more work. For example, I don’t want to see Ride (horses) and Ride (griffons) and Ride (Gelatinous Oozes) as various skills – certainly the techniques might be very different (if even possible), but once you accept that that some abstraction is for the best, I think the rest of my argument makes more sense.
Let me begin by using two examples:
For my first example, please consider the rogue. The rogue is well-known for having access to the widest variety of skills. This is true in all the systems we’ve looked at, but let’s look at 3.5 for a moment. In 3.5 there are 45 skills. There are 16 skills that are not class skills for the rogue and 29 that are. Essentially, 2/3 of the available skills are available as class skill. Now, we know that even the most intelligent rogue will not have 29 skill points available. They would need a +21 modifier for their Intelligence, requiring a score of 51. That isn’t likely to happen. So, it is already accepted that a rogue won’t have ranks (at least not max ranks) in every skill available. But in the vast number of class skills available, let me focus on two that are not – Ride and Handle Animal. Now, on the surface it makes sense. Who has ever heard of a rogue that is a capable rider and trainer of horses? I mean, besides the classic western trope of the horse thief? The thing about rogues is that they fit in every setting and every society. If I’m playing a rogue character from a Mongolian setting, it would certainly make sense to allow me to have Ride and Handle Animal as class skills. They represent the types of abilities my character would gain in that society while doing the normal ‘rogue’ activities within it. Certainly the DM could allow me to ‘trade’ two of the (29-8, assume 4 Int mod = 17 skills I didn’t intend to get anyway) seventeen skills that I have access to in order to make my character concept work. Is that really necessary? Why not just make ride available to all rogues? Why take a character that has a convincing back story and force him to either take the skill as cross-class (making him not very good at it, even though his people are renowned) or take a level of a class that grants the bonus? It certainly doesn’t make sense for my rogue from a Mongolian horde to take a level of fighter first if my character background details how I was a rogue in the Great Khan’s Horde, working as a spy, infiltrator and assassin. I mean, maybe if you’re starting at 5th level, but certainly not at 1st.
Consider the following for my second example. My character is a fighter. Fighter’s have seven class skills available under the 3.5 rules (and 38 that are not). These class skills are Climb, Craft, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Jump, Ride and Swim. One of them (Craft) is actually a class skill for every class (and Profession is for every class except Barbarian and Fighter), but we’ll count it anyway. Now it is possible to begin as a fighter with 7 skills known under the core rules (human w/ 18 Intelligence) but it certainly doesn’t happen often. Now, one would tend to think of the fighter as a pretty versatile class. They can use any armor, any shield, any weapon (except exotics), they have a lot of feats – you would think that any type of fighter could easily be made with the skills available, wouldn’t you? I don’t. Swashbuckler wasn’t a core class, but it is closest to a fighter – basically a fighter that gets certain other skills. Don Juan De Marco was a great swordsman and a great lover. Tumble and Diplomacy would have to be added to his list. Zorro wasn’t a rogue, but he did know how to make a snazzy disguise (okay, I’ll give you that disguise was cross-class) and wasn’t bad at sneaking around. Inigo Montoya spent years training with a sword (sounds like a fighter to me) but he also seemed to have some Tumble ranks – more than you’d expect from a straight fighter. Queen Bodica was known as a warrior, and a leader. You would think that Diplomacy and Sense Motive would be on her skill list (and I don’t think she multi-classed as an aristocrat considering the time and place). So, if I want to make a fighter based on Queen Bodica of the Celts, how should I do it? Not with the fighter base class, apparently.
With both of the above examples, it should seem fairly reasonable to allow a player to have access to skills that aren’t normally associated with the class. This is a situation where allowing the player to create the character they envision will enrich their gaming experience without unbalancing the game. When the game is made more compelling for one player, everyone benefits. Now, as a DM anyone of us could make an exception for our player. That’s pretty common. Of course, not every DM is willing to make an exception. As much as possible, the rules should reflect what the DM should do – that way the DM isn’t forced to make a judgment call that may or may not be correct. There are also advantages to a game that everyone plays the same way when sharing or moving from group to group. Rather than put the DM in a position to ‘open’ the game, I’d rather see a situation where the DM has to say ‘that isn’t appropriate for my game’. Hopefully they can even provide a reason.
Now, if the CSS system is replaced with a ‘Universal System’, there are a couple of possible negative effects, and they need to be addressed. I’d like to lay out what they are, and then try to address each in order.
1) By allowing every class equal access to the skill list, certain classes will ‘lose out’ because their most important and special abilities will be the domain of every class.
2) Eliminating the CSS system will destroy compatibility with 3.5.
3) The CSS is necessary because it is logical that a class with a number of related abilities will excel at all of those abilities and a class that doesn’t use those abilities for ‘normal functions’ just can’t learn those skills as quickly.
Regarding Point 1 – There are only three skills in 3.5 that appear as a class skill for only a single class. Bard gets exclusive access to Speak Language (assuming aristocrat doesn’t count) and Rogue gets exclusive access to Open Lock and Disable Device. Nobody really seems to worry that bards won’t be ‘special’ if they lose their exclusive access to speak language, but there is a lot of concern over the rogue. Now, under a Universal System, the rogue does gain access to more class skills, but only sixteen, while the fighter gains improved access to 38 skills. The point is valid. Rogues gain less under the CSS than the fighter does. Does that mean that the rogue is now an obsolete class and nobody will ever play one? Certainly not. Even if you ignore the host of abilities that rogues get apart from skills in 3.5 (and even more abilities in Pathfinder), even if you ignore the fact that there are a lot of players that just like rogues (just like some players just really like the idea of a ninja) you’re left with one incontrovertible fact – the rogue gets more skills than anyone else. I fully admit that under the Alpha skills system this isn’t really true (since a Rogue 1/Fighter 19 has the same skills as a Rogue 20), but under just about every other proposed system (and certainly every proposed skill point system) this becomes a non-issue. A fighter with the equivalent of between 2 and 7 skills (assuming human w/ 18 Intelligence), Open Lock and Disable Device are not going to be popular choices. Even if a fighter had those skills, they’re not terribly useful without Trapfinding, which is a rogue class ability. I’d personally like to see it made a feat (like Track) and have it given to rogues as a bonus feat (as Rangers get track), but even if that is the case, the rogue is going to have the best access to those skills. The Fighter with seven skill choices is going to want to make sure they’re good at the things that they consider most important. This includes skills that are required for their preferred prestige class and skills that are most directly beneficial to them personally. Under the 3.5 skills this would tend to include skills like Spot, Ride, Jump, Swim, Climb, Tumble and probably Use Magic Device. Of course it could vary from one character to another, but the point remains valid. Most skills are useful to the classes that would typically take them anyways which is why they were originally offered as class skills in the first place. Players need no incentive to ‘optimize’ their character, and no disincentive to avoid it. Most players will put their skills where it is most appropriate for their chosen role, with perhaps a few skills used for background. Even if the other class tried to truly fill the role of the rogue, they would be doing it at the expense of other skills. If they use all of their skills to be the rogue they’ll still fall short because a true rogue could do all the things they can do, and a few more (2 more skills compared to a bard and ranger, the next closest in terms of number of skill points per level.) So, a change to a Universal system would not likely cause the feared effect, but even if it did, the ability of a rogue to pick a lock or disable a device are not their most iconic abilities. If that were the case, all rogues would have them. Since there are so many choices for rogue, there are certainly some that just don’t do traps. They might have spent most of their skill points on stealth and interpersonal relationships. Since a rogue that does traps and one that does not are both ‘rogues’ it is unfair to say that those skills are the most important or iconic abilities. All rogues have sneak attack (at least, under the Core Rules) and Evasion – those are signature abilities.
Regarding the second point and compatibility with 3.5, this is mostly a non-argument. A character that was prepared for 3.5 could be run ‘as is’ with no changes to skills and would work just fine. In the rare situation that the creature had ranks in a cross-class skill, he simply wouldn’t be getting his ‘full total’. This is somewhat unfair to the creature, but since we expect some conversion anyway, it is nice to know that if we do run the character ‘as written’, it won’t unfairly punish the PCs. We also know that if there is no distinction between racial skills and fighter skills and rogue skills and whatever other types of skills the character has, modifying it to the new system is a breeze. Calculate the number of skill points from all HD (race, level, etc). Determine maximum ranks in a skill. Determine how many skills can have maximum ranks. Assign skills in order of importance. If there are any skill points that are not used, assign them to the next most important skill. If a DM would prefer to assign them without maximum ranks, of course that would be an option as well, but it might require a little more time (but only enough time to figure out how many skills he wants ranks in). With a system of assigning max ranks, it should take less than 1 minute with a calculator, and can be done ‘on the fly’. \
If compatibility is so important that an easy to modify system like this does not work, then any change from 3.5 cannot be made. This would be unfortunate, because 3.5 skills have widely recognized problems when working with high level characters and characters that have lots of different classes (particularly for the DM).
Regarding the third argument against a Universal System, this one makes the least sense. If a class skill is a class skill because it is related to the other skills the character is using every day, wouldn’t you expect them to adjust automatically? If spot is closely related to what a rogue is doing anyway, why doesn’t it go up if the rogue doesn’t put ranks in it? Since even the smartest rogue doesn’t have enough ranks to ‘max’ all of their class skills, it is obvious that there are a lot of skills that rogues aren’t using every day. If a rogue isn’t using open locks, and at 15th level decides that he is going to start learning, why would he learn faster than a fighter who also started learning at 15th level? Assume the rogue only had the skills related to stealth and interpersonal relationships. How is that related to the ‘every day tasks’ of the class? They’re not. Learning a skill that is related to skills you already know is best simulated by a ‘synergy bonus’. Something is easier to do well even though you haven’t trained extensively in that particular field because it relates to something you already know. I know there has been a lot of talk about eliminating synergy bonuses, but cross-class skills can’t be explained as making sense by using the ‘related skill’ argument, since it simply doesn’t hold up.
What about the fact that the fighter is spending a lot of time doing ‘warrior stuff’ to justify his d10 HD and his BAB +1? If he is doing warrior stuff, he can’t spend much time learning to open locks. Again, this argument falls apart under close examination. While the fighter was doing his ‘warrior stuff’ the rogue was learning sneak attack and any other cool rogue abilities. The warrior spent more time on the ‘warrior stuff’, so he only gets a fraction of the skill points that the rogue gets (the rogue has more free time to learn new skills). Riding a horse or climbing a wall isn’t necessarily related to gaining combat experience or making yourself tougher. Of course learning to open locks isn’t either, but that isn’t the point. The number of skill points granted at each level is a much better indicator of how much time is available to learn new skills.
In summation, the very reason for cross-class skills to exist is tenuous at best. Their function in the game may actually be counterproductive. They restrict the choices that a player gets regarding type of skills (which is a very different choice than number of skills), often with no explanation. They fail to allow a player the flexibility to design a character based on oft repeated archetypes that don’t fit the ‘D&D mold’ – rogues who can ride horses, wizards who pick pockets, fighters who know how to dance. Removing them does empower players. Players might be tempted to ‘abuse’ the privilege by taking skills that aren’t appropriate to the character’s background – but the skills can largely explain the background and therefore become a powerful tool for shaping interesting characters. If a player makes a fighter that opens locks, there should be an explanation for how he learned that ability and what he used it for before he became an adventurer. The same criticism can be leveled at feats. An elf rogue in my Pathfinder campaign uses an Earthbreaker. It only bothers me because the player hasn’t explained why he uses it and how he learned its use. Unrestricted access to skills doesn’t make that a guaranty, but just about every skill can be ‘plausibly explained’ which means that this system is better than a system where any feat can be chosen as long as the prerequisites are met, even if they don’t make sense for the character.
A Universal system also has advantages in production (explaining the skill system is easier and shorter) and in play (one less thing to explain to new players). It doesn’t really increase the overall power of the game, because while you have some classes taking ‘non-traditional skills’, they don’t gain any more skill points. Some would argue that giving up a skill you had no intention of taking in favor of a skill that you prefer is ‘power-creep’ at best, or a ‘freebie’ at worst. I disagree. Since most players would LIKE to be able to do everything, making a choice, any choice, is a cost. Choosing to take Diplomacy and not having enough skill points to also take Decipher Script is a cost – though one the player probably thinks it is well worth since Diplomacy may fit his character concept better.
As I said in the original post, I’m very curious to see other opinions on class skills and cross-class skills (even those that I don’t agree with), but I’d also like to challenge those people who think they’re important to try games without them and see what happens. Try having your players make characters and just tell them that all classes have ‘universal access’ to all skills, and see what skills they take. Ask them why they did it, and ask them if it was better than the 3.5 system. Most of all, see how it works in play. Does it make your party stronger, tougher, or less diverse? I think you’ll find it works pretty well. If not, I’d love to hear why it didn’t work, and if possible a system that keeps cross-class skills but solves the other problems with them (from ‘pops’ to ‘extra math’ to ‘banking skill points that don’t show up in your stat block until you unlock them’).
And if you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading.
My opinion is that characters should count skills from all classes they have as class skills (if you gain a new class you gain skill points back retroactively if you have skills that used to be cross-class) and cross-class skills would have the same cap as class skills but would still cost 2x as much as much. It seems pretty simple and also backwards compatible to me.
|
|
Frankly, I don't see the system as a problem. What you're essentially saying is that there's jog-room for the DM to play around with the points (or to make a mistake and not have to retcon). The system is made primarily for players to work with. DMs mostly deal with it peripherally and have the liberty to handwave it as they see fit.
Also, while I've played a number of fighters with Disable Device, I've never expected them to have an easy time gaining ranks in it. It makes sense it'd be more expensive for them. Same with things like Ride for a Rogue or Knowledge (arcane) for a Druid.
I'm saying a lot of things, but I don't think this is one of them. The 3.5 system is a problem. I'm a DM. I use skills far more often than my players do. For every PC, I make something on the order of 20 'bad-guys'. Maybe more. When I make a high level (or mid-level) NPC, there are two things that are very time consuming to do correctly - the first is skill points and the second is spell selection.
Any system should not require the DM to 'handwave skills'. As a DM I want to make sure I build my monsters with the same rules that the PCs use. If I were a company like Paizo, I would want my editors to quickly ascertain that the writers allocated skill points correctly.
Some people don't think skills matter, or the correct number of skill ranks matter. I'm not one of those people. Whenever I make an NPC, I want it to be correct. A system that makes it easy to be correct would be a great boon.
I also fail how to see it would be 'more expensive' to learn 'Disable Device'. I tried to provide a number of reasons why it doesn't make logical sense, but in order to more fully respond to your point, I'd like to know why you feel it does.
Let me explore knowledge (arcane) for a druid. What do ranks represent? To me they represent training, and not the kinds of things you just 'pick up' during adventuring. Why? Because the druid probably does spend a lot of time with nature while adventuring. Does he automatically pick up knowledge (nature)? No. He must choose to actually learn something about it.
There are two possible situations when this druid levels. In situation A he has spent a lot of time before leveling exposed to nature. In situation B he is not exposed to nature at all. Let's say he spends his entire adventure in a lifeless metal dungeon on an alien plane fighting robots. In Situation A the druid could choose NOT to learn about nature, even though he was exposed to it. In situation B, the druid could choose to learn about nature even though he was NOT exposed to it. Obviously the skill ranks don't come from what you were 'naturally doing' the previous level. Therefore ranks must represent training and study. Of course the system 'abstracts' training. The druid doesn't have to say that he is studying with the wizard every night around the campfire to gain ranks in knoweldge (arcana) anymore than he has to do that to take his first level of wizard after 5 levels of druid. If skill ranks do represent an actual effort to learn, and people have the same capacity for learning, they should gain equal benefit from the same amount of training. The things that make this untrue and not well represented by cross-class skills. If a rogue is better able to learn disable device because he has ranks in open lock, that would best be represented by a synergy bonus. If the rogue is better able to learn to open locks because he is more nimble than the druid, that is best represented by the ability modifier. And if it is a lack of time to study, that is best represented by the number of skill points given to the class.
At least, in my humble opinion.
My opinion is that characters should count skills from all classes they have as class skills (if you gain a new class you gain skill points back retroactively if you have skills that used to be cross-class) and cross-class skills would have the same cap as class skills but would still cost 2x as much as much. It seems pretty simple and also backwards compatible to me.
This, at least, should be a requirement of a new system that uses skill ranks. We're calling this the Epic Meepo system. You buy ranks at a 1 for 1, but you divide your ranks by 2 as long as it is a cross-class skill. If it becomes a class skill you stop dividing by two (basically doubling the number of 'effective ranks' the moment it becomes a class skill.
The fact that this causes skill points to 'pop' is not a problem for me. The problem for me is that under this system, there is no quick or easy way to list the skills in the stat block to denote if the bonus is based on class or cross-class ranks. Rather than figure out a way to change the notation of stat blocks to clearly determine how they're coming up with the bonus, a system that eliminates cross-class skills also eliminates 'hidden ranks'. If you have 10 ranks in a cross class skill giving you an effective bonus of +5, the 5 other ranks can't be seen in a normal stat block until you take the skill that provides it as a cross-class and then the 10 ranks are readily apparent.
For the sanity of the Paizo editors, I think consideration of a fully transparent system should be a must.
The Druid example is a very good example. The explanation behind getting a rank in a skill is not clear if it comes from training, instinct, magic, genetic or whatever. In this sense, it is fair to allow any class to get access to any skills. If I can explain why "Druid B" (with metal and robots) get points in Knowledge(nature), I can explain why my Fighter get to know how to open basic locks.
As a DM, I too think that generating skills ranks for mid- to high-level NPCs will be faster with a system that does not have a distinction between class and cross-class.
I also think that current 3.5 monsters/creatures/NPCs will not be that much penalized because their were build with a 2-for-1 ranks in cross-class. In general, cross-class skills would not have had a significant impact to the PCs in an encounter. I won't even bother to retrofit those cross-class skills. Changing a bonus from +4 to +8? not much of a difference if the DCs are around 30 at higher levels...
I see two PROBLEMS with the buying of cross-class skills ranks at 1-to-1:
-1-
Many prestige classes have skill requirements. DeadDMWalking proposition makes some of them available more easily. The first PrC that comes to my mind is the Dragon Disciple, with Knowledge(arcana) 8 ranks. In 3.5, a Fighter (human, 12Int, 4skills point) need to spend ALL is skills points for 4 levels to meet this requirement. This is a big commitment. Under DeadDMWalking current proposition, it will take only 2 levels.
But anyway, if this is what the player really wants, no system should restrict his choice. (as long as balance is kept). For my point of view, it is more a matter between the DM and is group, than a system problem. So, my first problem is not really a problem...
-2-
Some players will feel that their class don't give them the edge they wanted. A fighter with a high Int score, who could then use Open locks, Spellcraft or Diplomacy would be a source of frustration to Rogues, or Wizard or Sorcerers or Bard...
Allowing any class to buy ranks in any skills is unfair to the Rogue in particular. Some would compare this to allowing all class to get bonus combat feats, thus removing the advantage of the Fighter.
Something should be done to balance this "unfairness". I think giving an advantage (bonus) to skills that are class skills is better than giving a disadvantage to skills that are cross-class.
Honestly a Rogue's skills don't give them much of an edge any way, especially considering spells like Invisibility and the like. In my opinion the Rogue aught to have only a slight advantage in skills and then have feats and class features that give them capabilities other classes do not.
I just had an idea...
As much as like the idea of 1-for-1 point buy for class or cross-class skills, I still think that something needs to be done to keep class skills better than cross class.
I will not go in the ranks/2 or all those bonuses dicussions (this is in the *other* thread). My idea is not about the maths.
The Rogue class ability "Skill Mastery" allows the use of take-10 of certain skills, even under pressure.
Why not giving every class a similar ability to use with their class skills?
Maybe it is fix number of skills every x levels. Or when attaining a certain number of rank in a class skills, you gain automatic skill mastery. The Rogue class ability should be adjusted to give more skill mastery.
If a skill is in your basic training, you should have less chance of failure. But you can be lucky as much as anybody, even if a skill is not in your basic training.
I was thinking more like Swift Tracker or Hide in Plain Sight, or more and better. Actually it occurs to me that Hide in Plain Sight possibly should be a much lower level ability. It can be used more often than Invisibility, but...
|
|
Honestly a Rogue's skills don't give them much of an edge any way, especially considering spells like Invisibility and the like. In my opinion the Rogue aught to have only a slight advantage in skills and then have feats and class features that give them capabilities other classes do not.
I do agree with this. After a wizard gets second level spells (or enough money for some 2nd level wands), the rogue begins losing out. Invisibility, and Silence allow any character to sneak as well as a rogue (or better) and Knock makes short work of even the most complicated locks.
The ability to find and remove traps can still be useful, but it seems like most traps are thrown in to give the rogue something to do, anyways. There's a good chance the rogue wasn't looking, or didn't find it and the trap went off. If the rogue did find it and disable it, it actually seems to be less fun.
Imagine, if you would, Inidiana Jones and the temple of Doom. After looking at the pedestal with the golden idol, Indy determines there is a trap. Taking a metal spike out of his bag and a hammer he pounds it into the side of the pedestal, making it impossible for it to 'sink' into the table. He grabs the idol, and he cautiously and slowly walks out of the Temple.
It is fortunate that the rogue has a lot of other things that they can do. Finding and removing traps could be their least interesting skill choice from the beginning. But allowing others to choose it won't likely take anything from the rogue since nobody will WANT to do it (especially if it also takes a feat to do it well).
Is there any longer any concept of classes beyond their abilities. What I mean is, does Rogue any longer mean anything more than "someone that has the sneak attack ability"?
I would just like to say, I have seen many of the skill arguments across the boards and I appreciate the time you put into this post. I too have played around with different skill systems and the class skill / cross class skill argument has never made any sense to me either. I believe the class # of ranks seperates them enough from each other and making all skills class skills really opens up creating the flavor of the character. And, as a dm who also really cares about correct skill allocation, I couldn't agree more that this would make life easier.
Heres my two thumbs up.
Just get rid of cross-class. They cause plenty of trouble and the only argument against is that it hurts the rogue. Give the rogue a slight bump to make up for it (though I don't think that's necessary. I don't see a fighters/wizards pumping levels into Disable Device).
|
|
Is there any longer any concept of classes beyond their abilities. What I mean is, does Rogue any longer mean anything more than "someone that has the sneak attack ability"?
Yes.
Skills can still serve to differentiate characters. What all rogues will have in common is their class abilities. Currently, not all rogues have the same skill selections. The only thing that makes them similar is that they have access to the same pool of skills. If I remember correctly, rogues have access to 29 different skills as class skills. Assuming 9 skill points per level (from Int +1 or human) you can have three different rogues that don't have a single skill in common with each other under the 3.5 rules. Skills have never been the great distinguishing feature for a class.
What this change would do is allow the rogue to retain their dominance in skills by sheer number of skill points. Learning (or learning the Pathfinder equivalent) of Search, Open Lock and Disable Device (whether that is two skills or a different number) is still a major investment for any class. The bard and ranger could probably pull it off without missing out on TOO many other skills that are important to them. The other classes probably cannot. If a player really wants to have a fighter that can handle traps, this system supports it, and it remains balanced because of the skill points allocated to each class.
If skills are generally equal (which is a debate, but lets assume it is the case right now) than a fighter that puts all his skill points into Tumble in 3.5 is weaker than a rogue that puts all of his skill points into Tumble - the 2 for 1 exchange basically means that the fighter gets fewer skill points per level than he is 'supposed to' for balance reasons, resulting in a weaker fighter. Thus, nobody (or practically nobody) purchases cross-class skills. Thus, the rules so effectively discourage the selection that many classic archetypes are impossible to build in D&D. Opening up skills is a very small way to do so without giving fighters all the wizard's spells, or giving rogues all of a fighter's weapon choices.
Between more flexible skills and more feats, more character types can be created. And while the feats may increase the power level, the skills certainly won't. And the rogue still has trapfinding (which no one else does, unless it is made available as a feat) and even if someone else takes on that role, that means the rogue has more 'spare' skill points to devote to other things that the player finds more fun.
For most people (even the players of rogues) this should be a good thing. There will be somewhat more diversity from one rogue to another, but not appreciably more (instead of the equivalent of 29 skills they'll have 45 to choose from).
Is there any longer any concept of classes beyond their abilities. What I mean is, does Rogue any longer mean anything more than "someone that has the sneak attack ability"?Yes.
So being a rogue means ... you can sneak attack and you have alot of skills? A smart bard can easily have more skills than a stupid rogue, does that make a smart bard a "rogue" or does the lack of sneak attack mean it is not. What is a "rogue" beyond the specific abilities listed in the PC class?
|
|
So being a rogue means ... you can sneak attack and you have alot of skills? A smart bard can easily have more skills than a stupid rogue, does that make a smart bard a "rogue" or does the lack of sneak attack mean it is not. What is a "rogue" beyond the specific abilities listed in the PC class?Is there any longer any concept of classes beyond their abilities. What I mean is, does Rogue any longer mean anything more than "someone that has the sneak attack ability"?Yes.
Besides Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, and Master Strike, a rogue gets Rogue Talents and Advanced Talents.
I certainly appreciate your desire to keep the rogue a 'special class'. I want all the classes to be special. I don't want other classes taking over the druids wild shape, or everybody getting full access to a wizard's spell book.
I've explained above why the rogue doesn't 'need' this ability to feel special. Obviously we disagree on that. Perhaps you can explain why it is necessary and we can find a solution that eliminates cross-class skills but still makes the rogue special in your opinion.
However, disable device is not a required skill for a rogue. It is an available skill. Since not all rogues have the skill, it can't be considered a 'core concept' of the class. If that were the case, it would be 'built in' like Sneak Attack. And if bards get disable device, THAT'S GREAT. Bards absolutely suck. That would be such a small way to make them more useful since they COULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING USEFUL if a group were missing one of the 'four standard classes'. In that case the bard might be able to disarm traps and open locks, but they probably wouldn't be able to sneak as well as a rogue, not if they want to keep up their Diplomacy (and other Interpersonal skills) and their perform skills. And since Diplomacy only works if you can communicate, speak language. And they might want to represent their esoteric knowledge with a whole bunch of knowledge skills....
Besides Sneak Attack, Trapfinding, Evasion, Trap Sense, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge, and Master Strike, a rogue gets Rogue Talents and Advanced Talents.
Again, we are seeing Rogue is merely a collection of abilities, devoid of any flavor.
I've explained above why the rogue doesn't 'need' this ability to feel special. Obviously we disagree on that. Perhaps you can explain why it is necessary and we can find a solution that eliminates cross-class skills but still makes the rogue special in your opinion.
They don't NEED it. But the question is, does it fulfill anything useful? I would claim it helps to give a better idea of the concept of what a "Rogue" is suppose to be in the general sense, sure there are exceptional characters that don't focus on those areas. I believe you have even indicated that even without the cross-class mechanic, many rogues would choose similiar skill choices (as would wizards, rangers, bards, etc) as the ones listed as class skills. So maybe the class skill choices are their to help players (and DMs) to narrow down the options to get a better feel for the iconic concept of what a Rogue is (or bard, ranger, wizard, etc).
Now it is not a straight jacket, individuals can choose cross class skills, but this indicates they are moving away from what is imagined by the concept of "Rogue" (or Bard, Ranger, Wizard, etc). I certainly think that a game producer would be wise to help motive players towards certain concepts that are in the end probably in their best interest but not out right banning other choices.
However, disable device is not a required skill for a rogue. It is an available skill. Since not all rogues have the skill, it can't be considered a 'core concept' of the class. If that were the case, it would be 'built in' like Sneak Attack.
Ah, but if a character was using it, would it be more likely the character was what we might classify a "rogue" (in the layman sense, not necessarily in the PC class sense) than say, a "fighter" (again in the layman sense). Take a character not related to D&D at all. Eddie Murphy's character Axel Foley (sp?) from the Beverly Hills Cop movies. He knows how to break into places, pick locks, disarm security systems, etc., he also knows how to fight. Yet if you had to choose between the concept of "rogue" or concept of "fighter", again in a layman sense, which would you choose. Me personally I would choose "rogue" for that type of character. So is it unreasonable for a game to make choices that are more aligned with that type of concept to be "better"? No.
The question really is, is it necessary (anymore, if it ever was)? Is it necessary to promote a concept in a general sense, or not? Should the concept of a "rogue" have anything specific to do with the PC class "Rogue", or should it be left entirely up to the player to decide without any game bias involved? I get the feeling you believe that it is no longer needed. Heck if a player wants to play a Rogue who is a nerd who maxes out all the knowledge skills and is better at them than anyone else in the party (overall) and who happens to be able to get "lucky" shots in when a foe is distracted, why not right? Who cares that most people wouldn't look at such a character in a layman sense and think "rogue"?
And if bards get disable device, THAT'S GREAT.
Well looking at the disable device skill, it isn't too hard to be able to do some pretty useful things. Even if it is a cross class skill.
Bards absolutely suck. That would be such a small way to make them more useful since they COULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING USEFUL if a group were missing one of the 'four standard classes'.
Really? Let's see, access to healing spells, access to buffing spells, fair base attack bonus (3/4), nice skill selection, pretty high number of skills, a bit weak on hp (d6), but not horribly so (not d4), can cast while in light armor, every extra point of damage done because of courage is due to the bard as well as all those barely hits due to it as well. I think if you find bards suck, it is probably that they haven't been played well in your games. Sure they aren't as good as any one other class at that class's speciality, but they often better across the board than any one other class (druid or cleric being the most obvious exceptions).
In that case the bard might be able to disarm traps and open locks, but they probably wouldn't be able to sneak as well as a rogue, not if they want to keep up their Diplomacy (and other Interpersonal skills) and their perform skills. And since Diplomacy only works if you can communicate, speak language. And they might want to represent their esoteric knowledge with a whole bunch of knowledge skills....
And yet, see here, you are falling into the same train of thought as the designers. You are assuming there are specific skills that are indicative of a bard, even if not all bards take them. Heck the only skill that all bards would have across the board is perform, and only in one area, due to the necessasity for the bardic abilities (which I guess goes against your claim of a skill being so attached to the class that it would be an ability). Not all bards are diplomats or language gurus and yet if one were to see such a person, that also is skilled at some type of performance, we'd assume that there was a high probability that they were a "bard".
But in the end all of this is basically meaningless. Some feel that flavor has no meaning for classes and so such things like class and cross class skills that promote and discourage (but not out right ban) flavor options have no place. Classes should be a collection of abilities and should not have any bias towards a certain character concept, the character concept is the entire domain of the player/character designer. I would say for myself it is easier to quickly make up a character as an NPC using more "stereotypical" skill choices than trying to pick and choose from the entire list and I believe it is easier for new players as well, but to each his own.
If skills are generally equal (which is a debate, but lets assume it is the case right now) than a fighter that puts all his skill points into Tumble in 3.5 is weaker than a rogue that puts all of his skill points into Tumble - the 2 for 1 exchange basically means that the fighter gets fewer skill points per level than he is 'supposed to' for balance reasons, resulting in a weaker fighter. Thus, nobody (or practically nobody) purchases cross-class skills. Thus, the rules so effectively discourage the selection that many classic archetypes are impossible to build in D&D. Opening up skills is a very...
Sorry, I didn't catch this the first time. In 3.5, you can't put all your points into a single skill (assuming of course you get more than 1 skill point per level). You can describe it as 2 for 1, but it is actually 1 for .5 for cross-class skills. The most points you can spend on a cross-class skill at first level is 4 points and get 2 ranks, at 2nd level you can spend another 1 point and get .5 ranks, at 3rd you spend another point and get another .5 rank (giving a total of 3 ranks at this point). It is no coincidence that the max level for a cross-class skill is 1/2 that of a class skill, because you can spend at most the exact same number on each.
So if you had an Int 10 half-elf fighter, that maxed out tumble, he would still have another skill he could max out (either class or cross-class). Just as if he had maxed out two class skills. Sure he doesn't benefit as much from taking a cross-class in shear numbers but if the skill is that much better than any class skill, getting 1/2 benefit is still going to be better.
|
|
[Also, I wonder why you keep insisting on skills not being class features.
I'm trying very hard not to be verbose. I had a very long response that wandered onto several tangents, but I have decided reign myself in.
I have only used the word 'class feature' when quoting someone else on this thread, so I have not indicated that skills are not a 'class feature'. They are a very important one. 'Special Abilities' are probably more important - skills are like BAB and save progressions - everyone gets them and they're important - but a lot of the good stuff is in the 'special' column. That's why they call it 'special'.
While I think that skills are an important class feature, I believe that the number of skills granted per level is a more important aspect than the class skills and cross-class skills list. A comparison: a wizard gets a BAB of +1/2, and a Fighter gets a +1/1. A wizard is proficient with simple weapons and the fighter is proficient with simple and martial weapons. Which is a more important feature? I think the BAB is more important than the weapon selection. Even if you give a wizard a greatsword, he isn't going to be able to do much with it compared to a fighter.
Opeing up skill points is similar (but different) from letting any class use any weapon. Even if you open up the choices to everyone, some people won't really be able to effectively utilize the newer options. Not every wizard would use a greatsword because they could, and not every fighter will choose disable device if that's an option.
Three issues that I think sometimes come up when discussing class (and cross-class) skills, should be separated from the discussion.
1. Some/All classes don't have enough skill points. That issue has nothing to do with class skills, and can be addressed by giving some/all classes more skill points.
2. Some skills should be combined. Again, this is not a class skill issue and thus can be fixed without getting rid of the class skill concept.
3. Some skills that are not class skills for certain classes should be. Now this one superficially seems to be about class skills but isn't really. You can add tumble to the fighter class skills* without getting rid of the class skill concept whole clothe.
*
|
|
Three issues that I think sometimes come up when discussing class (and cross-class) skills, should be separated from the discussion.
1. Some/All classes don't have enough skill points. That issue has nothing to do with class skills, and can be addressed by giving some/all classes more skill points.
2. Some skills should be combined. Again, this is not a class skill issue and thus can be fixed without getting rid of the class skill concept.
3. Some skills that are not class skills for certain classes should be. Now this one superficially seems to be about class skills but isn't really. You can add tumble to the fighter class skills* without getting rid of the class skill concept whole clothe.
Agreed. There are more issues than just whether or not the CSS distinction is necessary. Regarding point 3, however, trying to forge agreement on whether each skill should or should not be a class skill will be more difficult than discussing whether or whether or not there should be class skills. Every class could have a situation where the skill SEEMS appropriate. How unusual and infrequent these situations are will make this decision tricky.
I do want to have the Pathfinder system be easier to use than 3.5, so I certainly don't support just keeping skills the way they were. I also think there were significant problems with the Alpha release. I'm eagerly awaiting the Alpha 2 release. The three separate issues, though, have gotten quite a bit of play in other threads. So while there can be decisions considered on some of those points you bring up, that doesn't mean consideration for whether there should or should not be a CSS distinction should be abandoned. Quite the contrary - it supports a thread to discuss the specific 4th issue - whether any of those other changes are even necessary if there are no cross-class skills anymore.
*** spoiler omitted **
Just finished reading my Kobold Quarterly #4 today. In the 'Ask the Kobold' Skip Williams discusses the 3.0 design philosophy regarding armor. He admits that the team was aware of recent scholarship that shows armor has little impact on how quickly one can move, which is why armor didn't change Initiative or Reflex saves. But the armor check penalty and max dex bonus were included to help keep the iconic image of a 'fighter in full plate' and not have every other class just putting on the heaviest armor they could find.
I personally object more to monks and wizards wearing full plate than to fighters and bards having access to open lock - not that they can't learn to use it, but I'm pretty happy with it requiring a feat. I guess I'd be okay with eliminating the spell-faiure in regard to spell-casting (it doesn't make a WHOLE lot of sense). But that is also not part of the immediate discussion.
|
|
My group has used an alternative cross-class option. One buys cross-class skills at 1-1 but "spending" is capped at half the class skill maximum. This means that a fighter can take a rank in Spot and still have a rank for Balance rather than spending both points to get that one rank in Spot. This simplifies book keeping, eliminates "bumps" when multiclassing and allows more flexability for all. The "skill master" classes continue to outshine their companions in their class associated skills.
To further simplify math when generating hight level characters, make skill points from Int. advancement retroactive.
Cowboyleland I like what you are suggesting. It maintains simplicity and rewards focus.
My group has used an alternative cross-class option. One buys cross-class skills at 1-1 but "spending" is capped at half the class skill maximum. This means that a fighter can take a rank in Spot and still have a rank for Balance rather than spending both points to get that one rank in Spot. This simplifies book keeping, eliminates "bumps" when multiclassing and allows more flexability for all. The "skill master" classes continue to outshine their companions in their class associated skills.
To further simplify math when generating hight level characters, make skill points from Int. advancement retroactive.
I can see that, my only problem with it comes in with multiclassing. A fighter that takes a level of rogue can max out and keep maxed out at a level equal to a rogue of the same level a small number of rogue skills. This being due to how if a skill is a class skill in one of your classes, the max is equal to your level+3. Now if the max was instead set with some kind of assessment of how many levels it is a class skill for and how many it is a cross class skill for, that would be less of a problem. I'm not really sure what that would look like, due to the 1st level (x4) issue. I'm just imagining something similiar to the fractional BAB and Saves option.
|
|
The retroactive Intelligence has been addressed in what I think is a pretty quick and easy way.
For every modifier you lose for Intelligence, all skills suffer a -1 penalty until healed. Example - Bob has a 14 Intelligence. He loses 4 Intelligence after eating a fungus he should not have. He went from +2 to +0, and so suffers a -2 on all skill checks until he is healed.
If the Intelligence loss is permanent, he must 'pay off' his penalty with new skill points.
For example, Bob finds his brain is permanently fried. He was 6th level, so losing his Intelligence cost him 18 skill points (or 12 if there is no multiplication at 1st). Let's say he gets 6 skill points. Too bad. He 'pays' all 6 for the Int penalty, and doesn't get any new skill points. Worse, he keeps his skill check penalty. After two more levels he has 'paid off' his Intelligence penalty. He resumes gaining skill points as normal when he levels and no longer suffers a penalty on skill checks.
Kind of mean, but not as bad as level loss. And since very seldom is Intelligence loss PERMANENT, it shouldn't come up much - a simple restoration and he gets those lost skill points back 'instantaneously'.
*whisper* ...get rid of cross-class skills...
...they aren't worth it... *sssshhhh*
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Pres man, you asked if the rogue had any "flavor".
in my campaign, the fighter and rogue are the two "flavorless" classes. Anybody can take levels of fighter if they want to train in the practice of armed combat. Anybody can take levels of rogue if they want to practice various skills. A "rogue" isn't necessarily any shadier than anybody else, but shady "thief-like" characters usually spend several levels in rogue.
(Other classes have varying, but greater, degrees of flavor. The Sha'ir, Hexblade, and Dervish are more colorful than the Wizard, Scout, and Runemaster, but they all have a "flavor" about them.)
|
I agree that cross-classed skills should be abolished. It is a level of complexity that is not necessary. If people are looking for realism they are playing the wrong game. Is it so unrealistic for a Druid to have Knowledge Arcane when the dude is about to shapeshift into a badger? What about the druid that was shipped off by his parents to study under a wizard and it turns out the kids power is in druidism instead? Nope can't have that character sorry.
What about the fighter who was an elite scout for the military (think modern army Rangers or Special Forces). Nope can't have that either. No search and move silent skills for fighters. In fact armies are amazingly easy to sneak up on.
IF one must keep the cross class system, then allocate a certain number of skills that are designated class skills, to be chosen by the player. Even that does not allow for future growth and choices of the player.
What about the FIghter that spent his formative years in the military and is now dedicated to the destruction of all necromancers? He can't change his focus at a later to date to learn about his enemies and take Knowledge Religion and Arcane. Once he begins his career a character is forever trapped in that one dimensional role.
Unless he multi-classes... and that is not always a satisfactory way of doing it.
Nope can't have that character sorry.
Well you can, but you wouldn't necessarily expect that character to be as good at things that did not directly have any influence on his developement than those things that did. A wizard that has to study and learn to cast spells and understanding the working of magic would more "natural" have more insight and likelihood to learn about arcane magic than a "wizard" that just does some praying to a bowl of bananas.
What about the fighter who was an elite scout for the military (think modern army Rangers or Special Forces). Nope can't have that either.
Or maybe the class Ranger, might just be a better choice overall for that character? Crazy talk I know.
But your right, it is just as "realistic" that a barbarian is running around with knowledge (arcana) and decipher script developed to an extreme ability as it is for a dragon to fly by and breath fire. Just as "realistic", yes. Alot stupider, but just as totally realistic.
|
|
Or maybe the class Ranger, might just be a better choice overall for that character? Crazy talk I know.
Maybe. But necessarily? No.
If you are a ranger, you either get two-weapon fighting or ranged feats for 'free'. If you want to be sort of like a Ranger but fight with a Halberd - well, the character concept doesn't really have anything wrong with it, but it just doesn't work under the rules. If you use a halberd, the feats you get for your Ranger levels don't make sense. The skills you get from your fighter levels don't make sense.
In this case, letting the character take fighter levels, but using his relatively few skill points on stealth isn't that game breaking. The Ranger would get the bow/two-weapon feats and have far more skills than the fighter - stealth, survival, perception, acrobatics, and whatever other couple of skills the ranger character thinks most important to his concept...
The idea behind removing cross-class skills is to make a lot of good character concepts that SHOULD work but DON'T work under the rules.
If you want to be sort of like a Ranger but fight with a Halberd - well, the character concept doesn't really have anything wrong with it, but it just doesn't work under the rules. If you use a halberd, the feats you get for your Ranger levels don't make sense.
Now how about this insane idea. Instead of a halberd, the character instead goes with a dwarven urgrosh. It has much the same flavor, but can, if the player chooses, be used as a double weapon. But even without that, I can't picture a "fighter" that never picks up a ranged weapon, if the character does use a ranged weapon from time to time, then those feats would make sense.