I would like some oppinions about a house rule I've been thinking of using sometime in the future.
Would it unbalance the game much if I let every character pick their own class-skills? I would of course give fighters less skill choices than rouges.
I think this would help the alot with diversifing (did I spell that wrong?) the characters right from the first level, even if they play the same class.
You can also consider removing cross-class skills completely.
They are not necessary. And they don't really make sense.
You can also consider removing cross-class skills completely.
They are not necessary. And they don't really make sense.
Though that might work in 3.5, and might not be a bad idea at that, I'm not sure how that would work when I move to Pathfinder RPG. Since they've reworked the skillsystem a bit removing crossclass would in effect just give a set +3 bonus on all skills (or am I missreading the rules here?) It's still not wrong I guess but it would seem weird to me.
I am a big fan of skills and class skills just further boxes me into someone else’s concept. I do not think it would harm balance in any way you would notice.
I have always been of the opinion that every adventurer should have stealth. Of course that is just me forcing my concept on others.
|
I would like some oppinions about a house rule I've been thinking of using sometime in the future.
Would it unbalance the game much if I let every character pick their own class-skills? I would of course give fighters less skill choices than rouges.
I think this would help the alot with diversifing (did I spell that wrong?) the characters right from the first level, even if they play the same class.
"Would it unbalance...?" No. Skills overall play such a minor role (and roll) in the game that in the end it probably wouldn't matter at all.
"...help them a lot with diversifying..." Would it really? Or would it end up making them more similar? The classes are already diversified. If a character wants to be more stealthy, then take a stealthy class. If a character wants to know more about spellcasting, then they should take a spellcasting class. It doesn't necessarily make sense to me to allow a fighter to take "Spellcraft" as a class skill. But if you limit that, will you limit other things as well? If you give every class the ability to take "Spot" as a class skill, won't they take it? Wouldn't that end up making them more similar rather than diversified?
And "rouges" don't have any skills. ;)
|
|
I am a big fan of skills and class skills just further boxes me into someone else’s concept. I do not think it would harm balance in any way you would notice.
I have always been of the opinion that every adventurer should have stealth. Of course that is just me forcing my concept on others.
I would similarly suggest that some skills are universally "class skills". This concept should also work with the Pathfinder version of the game. I would limit what you allow to be universally "class skills", but don't see any harm in it.
I and my gaming groups kind of do this. We houserule that the feat Jack of All Trades (which can only be taken at first level) allows all skills to be class skills. This in our opinion allows for more diversity among characters, but not so much abuse, for the classes don't get any more skill points than they normally would. That way if the skillpoint-starved fighter wants to put points into spot, listen, hide and move silently and such, his ride, climb and jump skills will suffer for it. Not a single character has been broken this way (so far)!
|
|
...and things seem a bit more realistic...
I don't necessarily find the Skill point system (or D&D for that matter) very "realistic".
So the football player with a 10 intelligence should be able to do Calculus? They can. It will just take them longer to get it -- as it should. What isn't "realistic" is suggesting that they can learn it as well or as quickly as the stereotypical brainiac nerd with an 19 intelligence.
I really don't care what people decide, but whatever it is, it isn't "realistic".
|
I really don't care what people decide, but whatever it is, it isn't "realistic".
Come on now...
Our beloved game has always had flaws. I'm not talking about being mechanically broken here and there...
I'm talking about inherent concepts. We just learn to live with them, and accept them (or make house-rules we think will make them better)...
In order to make something "realistic" is to just suspend our disbelief. And with a game like D&D (any edition), that is sometime difficult, but oft-times rewarding...
Just my thoughts...
-That One Digitalef Fellow-
|
Realistic? Quit using that word! *STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
Anyway, to the thread originator, you could use the method I've set up for my campaign world. All skills cost merely 1 point, whether Class or Cross-Class skills. Characters also get one or two background(or "tag skills") that they get to split 10 points between at character creation. These tag skills are considered to always be class skills, no matter what class the character is, or multi-classes into.
"...help them a lot with diversifying..." Would it really? Or would it end up making them more similar? The classes are already diversified. If a character wants to be more stealthy, then take a stealthy class. If a character wants to know more about spellcasting, then they should take a spellcasting class. It doesn't necessarily make sense to me to allow a fighter to take "Spellcraft" as a class skill. But if you limit that, will you limit other things as well? If you give every class the ability to take "Spot" as a class skill, won't they take it? Wouldn't that end up making them more similar rather than diversified?
I guess that depends. It sounds like you only think of players who min/max their characters. Everyone would get spot, tumble (especially if your a spellcaster), and move silently. These are skills that would help every character. I'm guessing my players wouldn't do that.
I would like them to be able to choose class-skills because then one could play a stealthy fighter with move silently, perhaps tumble, hide (and so forth). While another fighter could get climb, jump, ride, all the normal fighter skills. And why not a third more academic fighter with alot of knowledge skills and perhaps even spellcraft (why wouldn't that make sense? I can think of a reason or two).
|
|
As a side note, I find the differences between Class and Cross-Class skills believeable. Aside from some corner-cases, you don't normally come across a Druid who's well versed with the country's political system, or the Wizard who is adept at picking locks. The tag-skills system allows for this, while still keeping the Class/Cross-Class skill system as it normally runs.
I believe the concept of class skills is valid to a point. For me they represent the things one generally learns while going to soldier school. Rogues do many different things and therefore may learn the skills of the trade from many teachers. I like to keep the base class skills constant.
On the flip side every individual is unique. Perhaps your instructor's brother was a mage. Perhaps you developed an aptitude for sneakyness. Perhaps... perhaps... perhaps. If there is a good in game reason for a character adding a class skill I'd go for it. Alternately you as DM can assign bonus skill points or list things as class skills based on back story. Players rarely complain about 'bonus' points. Can also help with the R-E-A-L-I-T-Y of a character when their maritime background taught them to use rope.
|
|
R-E-A-L-I-T-Y
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
R-E-A-L-I-T-Y*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
*STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!STAB!*
&c
*giggling self to sleep*
I would like some oppinions about a house rule I've been thinking of using sometime in the future.
Would it unbalance the game much if I let every character pick their own class-skills? I would of course give fighters less skill choices than rogues.
I think this would help the alot with diversifing (did I spell that wrong?) the characters right from the first level, even if they play the same class.
When I DM, I don't even enforce cross-class skills. If the fighter wants to max out Spellcraft or Spot, I think it's great because the rogue can max out six more skills than the fighter can.
TS