One thing that should be done with the normally low skill classes is to have a few automatic skills that they receive without having to spend skill ranks. Just assign level to the class skill (like Wild Empathy is for Rangers and Druids).
This is to avoid some of these embarrasing moments of roleplaying;
Cleric without Knowledge (Religion)
PC: So, Cleric, when is the next Holy Feast for your God?
Cleric: I don't know. I am not that type of Cleric.
PC: So, Cleric, did your God marry anyone and have any children?
Cleric: I don't know. I am not that type of Cleric.
PC: In your religious opinion, Cleric, how should we proceed into the temple to avoid offending this God?
Cleric: I don't know. I am not taht type of Cleric.
Barbarian without Knowledge of Survival.
PC: So, Barbarian, can you build us a fire while I tend to the horses?
Barbarian: No, I am not that type of Barbarian.
PC: So, Barbarian, where do think that we should shelter for the night?
Barbarian: I don't know. I am not that type of Barbarian.
PC: So, Barbarain, can you point out which of the food around here is safe to eat?
Barbarian: I don't know. I am not that type of Barbarian.
Paladin without Ride skill.
PC: Wow! So your god gave you a mount. When can I see you ride it in battle?
Paladin: I don't know how to ride. I am not that kind of Paladin.
{I know that Sprit Bond now gives an option that does not involve a mount but a Paladin should not get to level 5 without having some skill in riding}
The previous could be repeated for
Druids not having Knowledge (nature)
Wizards not having Spellcraft
Bards not having performance skill in a single instruement
Since these classes often start with a limited amount of skills choices like 2 to 4 then it seems only fair to give them free the one skill that is most related to doing their profession instead of having players end up with crazy combinations that do not know the basics of what they are supposed to have spent their lives doing.
It's a pretty cool idea, though I'm sure the 4e haters will cry blasphemy. But it's true, there's always that skill that a class should always max out in, it wouldn't be a bad idea.
|
The previous could be repeated for
Druids not having Knowledge (nature)
Wizards not having Spellcraft
Bards not having performance skill in a single instruementSince these classes often start with a limited amount of skills choices like 2 to 4 then it seems only fair to give them free the one skill that is most related to doing their profession instead of having players end up with crazy combinations that do not know the basics of what they are supposed to have...
One free rank already allocated to an essential class skill (for a +4 bonus) shouldn't be a problem. In 3.5, I usually give 4 ranks to spend on Craft and Profession skills to let the characters have training in a "proper" job before hitting the road.
If you don't want to give out freebies, you can ask the player to explain the character concept. I'd love to hear the "play it by ear" bard's story.
Bards not having performance skill in a single instruement
Why would a bard need a perform: instrument skill? Bardic music works with any perform skill and even the PHB suggests perform: oratory.
I used to be annoyed by the fact that in 3.5 if I wanted to make a "classic" bard, that is a singer who can tell tales and play a lute or harp, I'd have to have 2 or 3 perform skills (Sing, Orate, Stringed Instruments).
I think having some automatic skills makes sense as part of a character's "basic training"
I'd only allow this at first level though. If you multiclass you don't get the free skill points in the class you multiclass into.
Totally off-topic, but there's a feat in ... umm, I can't remember which book, but it's an official WotC book ... that lets you treat X number of Perform skills as if they had ranks equal to your highest Perform skill (even for meeting feat and PrC pre-reqs). Unfortunately, I can't remember either the name of the feat or which book it was in at the moment.
Bards not having performance skill in a single instruementWhy would a bard need a perform: instrument skill? Bardic music works with any perform skill and even the PHB suggests perform: oratory.
As long as they have some performance skill then I am fine with the idea. I am just thinking it is silly that a player can make a Bard and have no performance skill at all.
I do agree that this should be a 1st level starting character benefit that is not given to someone that multiclasses.
|
Bards not having performance skill in a single instruementWhy would a bard need a perform: instrument skill? Bardic music works with any perform skill and even the PHB suggests perform: oratory.As long as they have some performance skill then I am fine with the idea. I am just thinking it is silly that a player can make a Bard and have no performance skill at all.
Personally, I think that skill ranks from class should be devoted to these basic skills that members of the class would know.
My beef is that everyone should begin with at least one point in Knowledge (Local - Specific Area) in the area that they grew up in, to reflect the fact that they didn't grow up in somebody's basement/root cellar. Each person should also get one point in Survival (Wilderness, Rural or Urban). Anyone with an INT 7+ or WIS 7+ would get these skills IMHO.
Any other skill point expenditures should be justified by a detailed character background approved by the DM; Most characters would have to take a skill related to what they could reasonably earned a living at an apprentice-level doing for their master/teacher etc.
|
|
If the classes get enough skill points, then there is no worry about the character not taking an essential class skill.
If they don't take that skill, tough.
If you're a bard and you don't have ranks in perform, that would be pretty silly since many of your abilities require it. But since you're smart enough to assign skills, if you choose not to put them into perform, that should be your choice.
Every character should be able to learn about religions. Thus it should be a skill. Not every class should have a Beast Master like ability to 'speak' to animals. Thus that should be a class ability.
Granting automatic bonuses to skills (beyond the class skills +3) is something I am very much against. Player choice, not player restrictions. Sure, some choices are better than others (to the point where they hardly seem like a choice), but as long as the number of skills allocated allows for that, it's fine.
If the classes get enough skill points, then there is no worry about the character not taking an essential class skill.
If they don't take that skill, tough.
If you're a bard and you don't have ranks in perform, that would be pretty silly since many of your abilities require it. But since you're smart enough to assign skills, if you choose not to put them into perform, that should be your choice.
Every character should be able to learn about religions. Thus it should be a skill. Not every class should have a Beast Master like ability to 'speak' to animals. Thus that should be a class ability.
Granting automatic bonuses to skills (beyond the class skills +3) is something I am very much against. Player choice, not player restrictions. Sure, some choices are better than others (to the point where they hardly seem like a choice), but as long as the number of skills allocated allows for that, it's fine.
I can not help but find some things are pretty silly.
Going up to a level 20 Wizard and asking 'Oh, Great Wizard, master of a hundred different spells, imprionerer of a thousand demons, lord of weather, destroyer of armies, can you tell me the nature of magic?"
Then being told, 'Nope, I am not that kind of wizard,' because they have no skill ranks in Spellcraft.
Somehow, this mage can weave all these spells and is considered the pinacle of their field of wizardly power, has an intelligence of at least 19 (to do level 9 spells), but has no knowledge actually of magic.
If they had taken any metamagic or item creation feats, they could be creating the most wonderous items or altering the weave of magic but have no knowledge of magic.
This is not an attempt to restrict player's choices but a recognition that some classes just should have some abilities naturally. Spending skill points or skill choices should be to increase the diversity of a character and not to buy back features the character should already possess.
While I see the problem and thinking about right the same, I don't know if automatic skills are the best way to go.
For the sake of fairness you would need to assign each (prestige!?) class a (what I call) CORE SKILL and furthermore, those skills should be equally weighted in game play.
Giving one class Knowledge (nobility) and the other Spellcraft or Survival isn't that fair actually. Even if it would make sense.
Let's see, which skills would be the most appropriate:
Barbarian = Survival
Bard = Perform / Knowledge (History)
Cleric = Knowledge (Religion)
Druid = Knowledge (Natur)
Fighter = Knowledge (Warfare)
Monk = Acrobatics / Knowledge (The Planes???)
Paladin = Knowledge (Religion) / Knowledge (The Planes???)
Ranger = Survival / Perception
Rogue = Stealth / Bluff / Perception
Sorcerer = Spellcraft
Wizard = Knowledge (Arcane) / Spellcraft
You see there are a lot of possible skills fitting, but not every one would be that balanced.
Maybe the best solution would be like what they (WotC) did with the bard:
Put in some skill prerequisites into class abilities.
|
|
Going up to a level 20 Wizard and asking 'Oh, Great Wizard, master of a hundred different spells, imprionerer of a thousand demons, lord of weather, destroyer of armies, can you tell me the nature of magic?"
Then being told, 'Nope, I am not that kind of wizard,' because they have no skill ranks in Spellcraft.
Have you ever seen a 20th level wizard that didn't have ranks in Spellcraft?
I haven't.
Ever.
Yes, it would be pretty silly to be 20th level and never put ranks in Spellcraft. But if the player doesn't want to, I think that should be okay. It is silly. They could never learn a spell from a spell book or research a new spell.
The skill is useful to the class, so most members of the class will take it. If someone doesn't want to take it, I'm willing to let them explain why they chose not to.
Since other classes (like Bard) might want to take Spellcraft, it should be a skill. If a skill is so useful to a class that you think it should be automatic, just about every player will have ranks in it. If you think that the skill is that important for the sake of realism, either houserule that class must advance it or give them +1 skill point/level for that skill only, and it is pretty easy.
Giving some classes 'automatic' access to some skills isn't particularly in line with 3.0/3.5 and it doesn't 'flow well' with other classes that may wnat that skill but don't get it automatically.
And then if someone wants to play 'that kind of bard' or 'that kind of Cleric' or 'that kind of whatchamacallit', they're free to do so, but the likelihood of it happening without a good reason are pretty miniscule.
|
|
Totally off-topic, but there's a feat in ... umm, I can't remember which book, but it's an official WotC book ... that lets you treat X number of Perform skills as if they had ranks equal to your highest Perform skill (even for meeting feat and PrC pre-reqs). Unfortunately, I can't remember either the name of the feat or which book it was in at the moment.
The feat in question is Versatile Performer from Complete Adventurer. It made our party rogue a better performer than our bard, due to his higher INT.
I give two skills to each class. These skills are always considered max. They are just my personal choices, and players can swap them.
Fighter: Spot. Choice of Survival, Know;Nobility, or Intimidate.
Ranger: Survival. Know;Nature
Paladin: Ride. Know:Religion.
Barbarian: Survival. Know;Nature.
Cleric: Spellcraft. Know;Religion.
Druid: Spellcraft. Know;Nature.
Sorceror: Spellcraft. Concentration.
Wizard: Spellcraft. Know;Arcane.
Rogue: Stealth. Theft. Rogues have all skills that can be used untrained as class skills. This preserves the role of the rogue as skill master, when all classes have more skills.
Bard: Perform. Any one knowledge.
This works for me because players can be more idiosyncratic with their skill choices. The players who don't want prescribed skills can negotiate with me to swap them out.
While I see the problem and thinking about right the same, I don't know if automatic skills are the best way to go.
For the sake of fairness you would need to assign each (prestige!?) class a (what I call) CORE SKILL and furthermore, those skills should be equally weighted in game play.
Giving one class Knowledge (nobility) and the other Spellcraft or Survival isn't that fair actually. Even if it would make sense.
Let's see, which skills would be the most appropriate:Barbarian = Survival
Bard = Perform / Knowledge (History)
Cleric = Knowledge (Religion)
Druid = Knowledge (Nature)
Fighter = Knowledge (Warfare)
Monk = Acrobatics / Knowledge (The Planes???)
Paladin = Knowledge (Religion) / Knowledge (The Planes???)
Ranger = Survival / Perception
Rogue = Stealth / Bluff / Perception
Sorcerer = Spellcraft
Wizard = Knowledge (Arcane) / SpellcraftYou see there are a lot of possible skills fitting, but not every one would be that balanced.
Maybe the best solution would be like what they (WotC) did with the bard:
Put in some skill prerequisites into class abilities.
I disagree with automatic skills. I have run games where a rogue does not have stealth, where a cleric does not have knowledge religion, and even a caster class withough spellcraft (wiz and sorc both). They made some interesting characters and even helpped shake the prejugdice that often accompanies these classes. There is no need for automatic skills.
That said, I do not think some classes should be completely ignorant when it comes to class skills. A wizard should know something of magic, a bard better know at least 'something' and a cleric couldnt go without some knowledge of his deity. So a possible solution might to just make class skills for characters usable even if they are trained only. If that's too much, maybe narrow the field down to one or two skills that can be used in similar fashion.
|
|
Specifically regarding Knowledge Skills -
They are quite broad and very academic.
Take for example, Knowledge (Religion). Now, if you're a cleric of Pelor, it is quite possible that you know quite a lot about him. You know of his holy days, his doctrines, his church titles, etc. This is because you're part of the organization and these kinds of things aren't 'obscure'. You just know them.
Now, if you take Knowledge (Religion) as a skill, you're not just learning about Pelor. The first rank is sort of like 'Comparative Religions'. You learn about groups of pantheons that are worshipped throughout the world, and maybe the 'top gods' in each pantheon.
Purchase another rank and it's like taking a class on Religious Iconography. You might recognize the holy symbol you find is made from materials associated with a particular type of diety - like a stone symbol probably is a holy symbol for a God of Earth.
A few more ranks and you know all about the different Earth Gods, and which symbols are which, and what the various titles are of the various religious leaders (the difference between a Maguim and and a Bolshov), the doctrinal conflicts between sects, etc, etc, etc.
How many Catholic priests can give you a full accounting of every Hindu God? Probably very few. Because while they may know a lot about their religion, they aren't learning about 'religions'. They're not taking ranks in the skill. But if you ask them to explain the trinity, they'll probably be able to do some of that and even refer to the works of St. Augustine of Hippo.
So, no to automatic max skills - but yes to being somewhat 'logical' about the application of skill DCs and the category of 'common knowledge'.
Another example - I'm not a singer. But I know enough to sing in Church, and I know must of the songs that we regularly sing. Heck, most of the people in church can sing and they don't even know how to read music. Even a single rank of perform is probably being too generous. But they're willing to try...
So, skills should represent a level of training that the 'average person' doesn't have. They are something like a speciality. If you take ranks in Jump, you're actually learning how to do it - much more so than the 'casual' approach most people take to it.
Yepp, that's why I don't give real bonus skills but a distinct use of for several classes where their class level can be substituted as ranks (similar to Wild empathie)
Examples:
Rogues - Gather Info for black markets, thieves guilds and their leaders...
clerics - Knowledge (Religion) for their OWN religion
fighter - Knowledge (History) for great wars, famous battle fields, warlords, field commanders, etc.
|
|
Specifically regarding Knowledge Skills
By Jove, you are right to bring up DCs.
SRD 3.5
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).
Cleric without Knowledge (Religion)
PC: So, Cleric, when is the next Holy Feast for your God?
Cleric: I don't know. I am not that type of Cleric.
PC: So, Cleric, did your God marry anyone and have any children?
Cleric: I don't know. I am not that type of Cleric.
PC: In your religious opinion, Cleric, how should we proceed into the temple to avoid offending this God?
Cleric: I don't know. I am not taht type of Cleric.
People without Knowledge ranks still know the most common facts about their religion and a few more esoteric and random bits.
It is safe to assume that they would also know the day of the Holy Feast, the very basic mythology and cosmology and the basic behaviour in a temple. A cleric has access to the same info as Joe and Jane Average.Additionally, clerics have religious training which is independent of Knowledge (religion): daily prayers for spells, the channelling of positive/negative energy, tenets of the code of conduct required
by the cleric's god.
So, it's odd to have a cleric with no ranks in Knowledge (religion), but that doesn't affect his base class abilities and it certainly doesn't make him ignorant of things known by non-clerics who share the same religion.
|
|
Barbarian without Knowledge of Survival.
PC: So, Barbarian, can you build us a fire while I tend to the horses?
Barbarian: No, I am not that type of Barbarian.
Using a flint and steel doesn't require ranks in Survival.
Survival (Wis) is not a trained-only skill. Anyone has a 50% chance to get along in the wild (DC 10).
So, Barbarian, where do think that we should shelter for the night?
Roll d20, add WIS modifier.
So, barbarian, can you point out which of the food around here is safe to eat?
That's Knowledge (nature) or Profession (herbalist). Survival provides the basic info on some of the stuff you can eat in the area.
Without ranks in Survival, he won't be a great tracker, will take longer to light a fire with wet wood and will stick to the big blue berries that he would eat when he was a child.
However, the absence of ranks in Survival doesn't affect the barbarian's base class abilities and it certainly doesn't prevent him from having a fighting chance in the wild.
|
|
Wow.. I can honestly say that I've never had any of the problems used as examples above.
The "I'm not that type of X" happened in AD&D with the limited Non-Weapon Proficiency system and in WoW when people are looking to build a group for a raid. Unless it's a skill that is trained only, anyone can try to do anything in 3E and usually succeed and if they're not under pressure.. well there's ways to do them without rolling. :P
As for building a fire.. anyone can take 10 if the DM makes them roll to do it...
|
|
Paladin without Ride skill.
PC: Wow! So your god gave you a mount. When can I see you ride it in battle?
Paladin: I don't know how to ride. I am not that kind of Paladin.
{I know that Sprit Bond now gives an option that does not involve a mount but a Paladin should not get to level 5 without having some skill in riding}
Ride is not a trained-only skill.
SRD 3.5
Typical riding actions don’t require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem.
If most battles happen at sea, in dungeons, in overgrown forests or in cities, spending ranks in Ride and slots for the related feats (Mounted Archery, Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, Trample, etc.) is a bit pointless.
The absence of ranks in Ride doesn't affect the paladin's base class abilities and it certainly doesn't prevent him from using a mount.
I disagree with automatic skills. I have run games where a rogue does not have stealth, where a cleric does not have knowledge religion, and even a caster class withough spellcraft (wiz and sorc both)....
You quoted Tal when you posted this so it seems your protestation was to his system.
Perhaps you should have read his post more carefully because he said he allows players to swap the free maxed skills, and I'll bet he would even let us not_use_them (I play in his pbp game). So, using his rules, it's easy to have a rogue without stealth. He is flexible with feats, too: I swapped trap sense for urban tracking in his game. All in all I would say it was really easy to make the character I imagined with his system, far easier than when you don't get free maxed skills. He doesn't force anything.