|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why? What benefits does this system provide over a simple point increase?
Rolling adds an unwelcome element of randomness to the proceedings. If you think being a Paladin with 2+int skills is difficult, try being a Bard/Rogue/Investigator (a class whose main selling point is their skills) that rolls a 1 or a 2 for skill points several times in a row. Or, imagine if the aforementioned Paladin rolls a 1, leaving them with fewer skills than if they had just taken the normal amount.
Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.
Rolling adds an unwelcome element of randomness to the proceedings.
I personally agree, but I think it's an interesting idea to bring rolling of skill points into the mix alongside rolling of hit points. In my group, the DM usually goes "just take the average" if a hit point roll goes poorly at level-up, but for those who like more random and organic progression, I can see the appeal of adding a little variance to what your character learns over the course of their levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this proposal actually makes it worse. One time in four, your fighter will actually be weakened by this new rule.
The other issue is that, after about third level, skills are valueless, because any useful skill can be duplicated and exceeded with a potion or oil.
And a third issue is that randomness in character generation is generally not considered fun, which is why editions since the mid 80s have generally been pushing for reduced roles for random generation -- by which read, they've been incorporating the house rules that have been used all over the world because they make the game more fun, so your proposed rule will probably make the game less fun.
Let's see -- we're making the game less fun by unpredictably weakening characters that are already weak because they depend on skills. I think you may have hit the trifecta of suck there.
Well here is my reasoning. Rolling is super fun plus it isn't like the Paladin is STUCK with that 1 with only nine days of down time he has his four. But the base idea is just allow people to pick from the base of what they would normal or allow to to at least train it up higher from there if their roll is same or lesser. It is just a thought.
I never met someone who thought rolling for hit points is fun. I doubt I'd ever meet someone who would feel the same about rolling for skill points.
My group does away with rolling for hit points entirely. Using a static value makes it easier to calculate hit points and audit character sheets. In addition, it removes an annoying formality to leveling up. I'd never want to do the same for hit points.
And a third issue is that randomness in character generation is generally not considered fun, which is why editions since the mid 80s have generally been pushing for reduced roles for random generation -- by which read, they've been incorporating the house rules that have been used all over the world because they make the game more fun, so your proposed rule will probably make the game less fun.
This is definitely a Your Mileage May Vary sort of thing. Many groups still enjoy the randomness that dice rolling provides, especially in more laid back games. I am not personally one of them, especially when it comes to hit dice, but I understand the appeal.
That said, this is just too complex. Prince Yyrkoon's suggestion is much more simple and elegant.
And potions and oils are just free in your games, are they?Yeah, this proposal actually makes it worse. One time in four, your fighter will actually be weakened by this new rule.
The other issue is that, after about third level, skills are valueless, because any useful skill can be duplicated and exceeded with a potion or oil.
And a third issue is that randomness in character generation is generally not considered fun, which is why editions since the mid 80s have generally been pushing for reduced roles for random generation -- by which read, they've been incorporating the house rules that have been used all over the world because they make the game more fun, so your proposed rule will probably make the game less fun.
Let's see -- we're making the game less fun by unpredictably weakening characters that are already weak because they depend on skills. I think you may have hit the trifecta of suck there.
No, but they're cheap enough to be pocket change. At third level, wealth-by-level suggests you should have about 3000 gp to your name, of which 50 gp can buy you a potion of spider climb (or 15gp for a wand charge) and you will probably never need to make a climb check again.
Less, if the party wizard has taken the crafting feats.
And a third issue is that randomness in character generation is generally not considered fun, which is why editions since the mid 80s have generally been pushing for reduced roles for random generation -- by which read, they've been incorporating the house rules that have been used all over the world because they make the game more fun, so your proposed rule will probably make the game less fun.This is definitely a Your Mileage May Vary sort of thing.
Not really, no. The history of D&D and of RPGs generally is not a YMMV sort of thing. The changes that have been made in D&D are not a YMMV sort of thing. The reasons for those changes are not a YMMV sort of thing.
Not really, no. The history of D&D and of RPGs generally is not a YMMV sort of thing. The changes that have been made in D&D are not a YMMV sort of thing. The reasons for those changes are not a YMMV sort of thing.And a third issue is that randomness in character generation is generally not considered fun, which is why editions since the mid 80s have generally been pushing for reduced roles for random generation -- by which read, they've been incorporating the house rules that have been used all over the world because they make the game more fun, so your proposed rule will probably make the game less fun.This is definitely a Your Mileage May Vary sort of thing.
They actually are. Hence why people still swear by AD&D or play retro-clones. The reason behind one system versus another are many and varied beyond "people do or do not like reducing dice rolls/randomness".
I hate rolling for HP. I hate rolling for stats. Heck, I hate rolling for most things, and prefer builds that force others to roll or that otherwise focus more on increasing flat bonuses than die rolled. I would particularly despise rolling for skills.
In my setting, I give my players 4 extra skill points per level, but they need to use downtime to "train" them (they don't come automatically per level up). Allows for those who care to be more skillful, without negating the usefulness of having a class that automatically grants a bunch.
Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.
Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.
You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.
I'm sure the guy who can use the laws of physics as a yo-yo and summon a devil to fetch him a beer just to remind it who's boss around here is going to feel mighty penalized that the fighter can assess his surroundings, bandage a wound, ride a horse, AND do a cartwheel instead of just two of those.Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.
You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.
What Black Waltz said. They're already rewarded plenty for investing in Intelligence, and are the most powerful classes in the game. They don't need anything to 'make up' for other classes getting a few extra skills.
This is a pretty basic idea I came up with because I'm a lover of fighters and Paladins. But they get short changed on the skills rather hard even with a skill bump and use of background skills I often just feel like the big juicy meat for the skill monkey type to stand behind which in some RP events made me feel VERY left out. My fix? Easy
For anything that would get 2 skill per level plus int give them 1D4(or average round down, It would still be 2) And allow them to spend the same time they would training their HP up to train to their max skill dice. If you think this is unfair to the 4+int skill users easy fix, Give them a D6, Etc. Following this logic the rogue with the most skill points gets a mighty powerful D10+int and it would more than likely raise the powerlevel of the group but that is at the very least my fix to the problem...Or just bump all the 2+int to 4+int and call it a day.
stop reading my mind I thought about this last night damn it.
Yeah, this proposal actually makes it worse. One time in four, your fighter will actually be weakened by this new rule.
statistically it's actually WAY in favor of improving them, the statistics of having equal or better improve with level.
like even if you roll a 1 at first level, you get a 50% chance to come out even or better next level
after about a 6% chance of getting 2 1s in a row, it's still got a 25% chance to get even again.
Yeah, this proposal actually makes it worse. One time in four, your fighter will actually be weakened by this new rule.statistically it's actually WAY in favor of improving them, the statistics of having equal or better improve with level.
like even if you roll a 1 at first level, you get a 50% chance to come out even or better next level
after about a 6% chance of getting 2 1s in a row, it's still got a 25% chance to get even again.
And the rogue? Would get shanked almost every time. Rogues are weak to begin with, and your suggestion makes them lose most of their skill points... On average you'd get about half of what they are supposed to get, and with my luck with dice I'd get a quarter.
Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.
You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.
Not getting a buff is not the same thing as a penalty. Look, for most classes int has no purpose except skill points. Asking a character to invest between 1/3-1/4 of their build points (1/5 with a generous GM), or be forced to play a human, for a functional amount of skill points is absurd. Meanwhile classes like the Wizard or the Magus are already going to put that 14, or more in most cases, in Int anyway. They gain powerful mechanical benefits, and skill points.
It isn't penalizing int based classes, it's removing a stat tax on on int based classes who want enough skill points for some basic competences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Black Waltz said. They're already rewarded plenty for investing in Intelligence, and are the most powerful classes in the game. They don't need anything to 'make up' for other classes getting a few extra skills.I'm sure the guy who can use the laws of physics as a yo-yo and summon a devil to fetch him a beer just to remind it who's boss around here is going to feel mighty penalized that the fighter can assess his surroundings, bandage a wound, ride a horse, AND do a cartwheel instead of just two of those.Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.
You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.
So, we apply a damage penalty to strength based characters then. Wisdom based classes should always have will as a poor save. Charisma based classes should never have social skills as class skills.
Can't have characters receiving full benefit from investing in their primary stat, i.e., intelligence based characters are penalized by being explicitly exempted from the rules change because they are intelligence based.
You see where this goes. Any time you penalize one class on the basis of their primary stat, you open the door to penalizing other classes for their stat choices.
Not getting a buff is not the same thing as a penalty.
Having base skills set lower than every single non-intelligence based class would be a penalty.
The base expectation is moved upwards when you buff all other 2+ skill classes, making a specific exception for intelligent characters.
Example: Federal minimum wage is increased for everyone. Except McDonalds employees, they can stay at the previous minimum wage. They have no right to complain, this is not a penalty, just a bonus for everyone else.
What Black Waltz said. They're already rewarded plenty for investing in Intelligence, and are the most powerful classes in the game. They don't need anything to 'make up' for other classes getting a few extra skills.I'm sure the guy who can use the laws of physics as a yo-yo and summon a devil to fetch him a beer just to remind it who's boss around here is going to feel mighty penalized that the fighter can assess his surroundings, bandage a wound, ride a horse, AND do a cartwheel instead of just two of those.Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.
You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.
So, we apply a damage penalty to strength hased characters then. Wisdom based classes should always have will as a poor save. Charisma based classes should never have social skills as class skills.
Can't have characters receiving full benefit from investing in their primary stat.
You see where this goes. Any time you penalize one class on the basis of their primary stat, you open the door to penalizing other classes for their stat choices.
Not getting a buff is not the same thing as a penalty.Having base skills set lower than every single non-intelligence based class would be a penalty.
The base expectation is moved upwards when you buff all other 2+ skill classes, making a specific exception for smart characters.
Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.
Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?
Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.
It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.
Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.
Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?
Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.
It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.
You and I build very different fighters.
My fighters usually start with 7-8 skill points/level. About the same as my wizards, considerably more than the 5 skill points/level most of my magi start with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.
Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?
Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.
It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.
You and I build very different fighters.
My fighters usually start with 7-8 skill points/level. About the same as my wizards, considerably more than the 5 skill points/level most of my magi start with.
8 skill pointts per level on a fighter? Seriously? Fighters get a base of 2... so human for +1, and favored class bonus for another +1, brings to 4 skill points per level... If your fighters usually start with 18 int then I think you play way above the powerlevel of most people... or play awfully unoptimized builds. Epic array is 25 points and an 18 is worth 17 points...
8 skill pointts per level on a fighter? Seriously? Fighters get a base of 2... so human for +1, and favored class bonus for another +1, brings to 4 skill points per level... If your fighters usually start with 18 int then I think you play way above the powerlevel of most people... or play awfully unoptimized builds. Epic array is 25 points and an 18 is worth 17 points...Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.
Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?
Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.
It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.
You and I build very different fighters.
My fighters usually start with 7-8 skill points/level. About the same as my wizards, considerably more than the 5 skill points/level most of my magi start with.
Maybe another 2 skills/level from Lore Warden, Pack Mule, or that 4-level casting archetype. Which means you *only* need a 14 INT, though this is still a considerable investment.
Magus with 5 skills/level could be a 16 INT character with FCB HP. Or a 14 INT human, or a 14 INT nonhuman with FCB skills, or 12 INT human with FCB skills.
These archetypes look terrible... Losing that armor mastery is likely going to make the character need even more dex to compensate, further decreasing his ability to purchase a high int score. I'm guessing they each fit to just a few builds just to be on par...
And the rogue? Would get shanked almost every time. Rogues are weak to begin with, and your suggestion makes them lose most of their skill points... On average you'd get about half of what they are supposed to get, and with my luck with dice I'd get a quarter.Yeah, this proposal actually makes it worse. One time in four, your fighter will actually be weakened by this new rule.statistically it's actually WAY in favor of improving them, the statistics of having equal or better improve with level.
like even if you roll a 1 at first level, you get a 50% chance to come out even or better next level
after about a 6% chance of getting 2 1s in a row, it's still got a 25% chance to get even again.
as far as i understand it, this has nothing to do with rogues... only 2+int mod.
if it did involve rogues it would be 1d4+6+intmod
Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.
Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?
Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.
It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.
You and I build very different fighters.
My fighters usually start with 7-8 skill points/level. About the same as my wizards, considerably more than the 5 skill points/level most of my magi start with.
that's a lot of wasted build efficiency...
generally when I build fighters they get 3/level and I spread them around on class skills the first few levels then pump perception and a skill or 2 I want.
8 skill pointts per level on a fighter? Seriously? Fighters get a base of 2... so human for +1, and favored class bonus for another +1, brings to 4 skill points per level... If your fighters usually start with 18 int then I think you play way above the powerlevel of most people... or play awfully unoptimized builds. Epic array is 25 points and an 18 is worth 17 points...Wizards have no need to invest in strength to bave meaningful out of combat interactions with the game world.
Whys should Fighters have to heavily invest in int to do the same?
Int based classes already have a strong incentive to invest in int. A Fighter with 4 base skill points will still end up less skilled than a Wizard with 2, or even a Magus in the long run.
It's not a penalty, it's increasing parity.
You and I build very different fighters.
My fighters usually start with 7-8 skill points/level. About the same as my wizards, considerably more than the 5 skill points/level most of my magi start with.
Maybe another 2 skills/level from Lore Warden, Pack Mule, or that 4-level casting archetype. Which means you *only* need a 14 INT, though this is still a considerable investment.
Magus with 5 skills/level could be a 16 INT character with FCB HP. Or a 14 INT human, or a 14 INT nonhuman with FCB skills, or 12 INT human with FCB skills.
Or, in other words "It's easy to get skill points as a fighter, if you use a certain race/archetype combo!". Very narrow, niche examples are poor evidence. And does nothing to adress the issue with other classes (Paladin, Sorc, Warpriest, Cleric.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Black Waltz said. They're already rewarded plenty for investing in Intelligence, and are the most powerful classes in the game. They don't need anything to 'make up' for other classes getting a few extra skills.I'm sure the guy who can use the laws of physics as a yo-yo and summon a devil to fetch him a beer just to remind it who's boss around here is going to feel mighty penalized that the fighter can assess his surroundings, bandage a wound, ride a horse, AND do a cartwheel instead of just two of those.Just bump non-int based classes/archetyles to a 4 skillpoint base. Rolling is just needlessly complex.Were you planning on bumping the HP or bab or the int based classes.
You know, since you are penalizing them for investing in their primary stat.
So, we apply a damage penalty to strength based characters then. Wisdom based classes should always have will as a poor save. Charisma based classes should never have social skills as class skills.
Can't have characters receiving full benefit from investing in their primary stat, i.e., intelligence based characters are penalized by being explicitly exempted from the rules change because they are intelligence based.
You see where this goes. Any time you penalize one class on the basis of their primary stat, you open the door to penalizing other classes for their stat choices.
Not getting a buff is not the same thing as a penalty.Having base skills set lower than every single non-intelligence based class would be a penalty.
The base expectation is moved upwards when you buff all other 2+ skill classes, making a specific exception for intelligent characters.
Example: Federal minimum wage is increased for everyone. Except McDonalds employees, they can stay at the previous minimum wage. They have no right to complain, this is not a penalty, just a bonus for everyone else.
Replace "McDonalds Employee" with "Hedge Fund Manager" and your analogy makes sense.
Well here is my reasoning. Rolling is super fun plus it isn't like the Paladin is STUCK with that 1 with only nine days of down time he has his four. But the base idea is just allow people to pick from the base of what they would normal or allow to to at least train it up higher from there if their roll is same or lesser. It is just a thought.I never met someone who thought rolling for hit points is fun. I doubt I'd ever meet someone who would feel the same about rolling for skill points.
My group does away with rolling for hit points entirely. Using a static value makes it easier to calculate hit points and audit character sheets. In addition, it removes an annoying formality to leveling up. I'd never want to do the same for hit points.
I love rolling for things. Static values are for video games.
And the rogue? Would get shanked almost every time. Rogues are weak to begin with, and your suggestion makes them lose most of their skill points... On average you'd get about half of what they are supposed to get, and with my luck with dice I'd get a quarter.Yeah, this proposal actually makes it worse. One time in four, your fighter will actually be weakened by this new rule.statistically it's actually WAY in favor of improving them, the statistics of having equal or better improve with level.
like even if you roll a 1 at first level, you get a 50% chance to come out even or better next level
after about a 6% chance of getting 2 1s in a row, it's still got a 25% chance to get even again.
as far as i understand it, this has nothing to do with rogues... only 2+int mod.
if it did involve rogues it would be 1d4+6+intmod
See OP:
(...) Following this logic the rogue with the most skill points gets a mighty powerful D10+int and it would more than likely raise the powerlevel of the group but that is at the very least my fix to the problem...
.
Pack Mule and that casting archetypes are bad trades, but Lore Warden is an excellent trade for CMB builds. +8 CMB on a full BAB class is nothing to scoff at.
Sure, the +8 CMB can be interesting, but combat maneuvers seem, overall, subpar to me. In most cases. Are the cases where they are useful (and actually worth the ton of feats they require) worth the price, though? Lore Warden looks like it would work for some concept, but I definitely wouldn't think of making most of my fighters take it.
I love rolling for things. Static values are for video games.Well here is my reasoning. Rolling is super fun plus it isn't like the Paladin is STUCK with that 1 with only nine days of down time he has his four. But the base idea is just allow people to pick from the base of what they would normal or allow to to at least train it up higher from there if their roll is same or lesser. It is just a thought.I never met someone who thought rolling for hit points is fun. I doubt I'd ever meet someone who would feel the same about rolling for skill points.
My group does away with rolling for hit points entirely. Using a static value makes it easier to calculate hit points and audit character sheets. In addition, it removes an annoying formality to leveling up. I'd never want to do the same for hit points.
Many (maybe even most) video games include an RNG in crucial places. I would imagine that most people like some element of chance to keep things interesting, without leaving so much to chance that strategy and tactics are often overruled by dumb luck.
And the rogue? Would get shanked almost every time. Rogues are weak to begin with, and your suggestion makes them lose most of their skill points... On average you'd get about half of what they are supposed to get, and with my luck with dice I'd get a quarter.Yeah, this proposal actually makes it worse. One time in four, your fighter will actually be weakened by this new rule.statistically it's actually WAY in favor of improving them, the statistics of having equal or better improve with level.
like even if you roll a 1 at first level, you get a 50% chance to come out even or better next level
after about a 6% chance of getting 2 1s in a row, it's still got a 25% chance to get even again.
as far as i understand it, this has nothing to do with rogues... only 2+int mod.
if it did involve rogues it would be 1d4+6+intmod
See OP:
(...) Following this logic the rogue with the most skill points gets a mighty powerful D10+int and it would more than likely raise the powerlevel of the group but that is at the very least my fix to the problem...
ah well, that's not how i'd do it, as I have shown.
Many (maybe even most) video games include an RNG in crucial places. I would imagine that most people like some element of chance to keep things interesting, without leaving so much to chance that strategy and tactics are often overruled by dumb luck.I love rolling for things. Static values are for video games.Well here is my reasoning. Rolling is super fun plus it isn't like the Paladin is STUCK with that 1 with only nine days of down time he has his four. But the base idea is just allow people to pick from the base of what they would normal or allow to to at least train it up higher from there if their roll is same or lesser. It is just a thought.I never met someone who thought rolling for hit points is fun. I doubt I'd ever meet someone who would feel the same about rolling for skill points.
My group does away with rolling for hit points entirely. Using a static value makes it easier to calculate hit points and audit character sheets. In addition, it removes an annoying formality to leveling up. I'd never want to do the same for hit points.
RNG is actually more common in video games, since the chance of a computer forgetting what it rolled for height is substantially smaller than a human's.
seriously, play dwarf fortress.
|
Honestly, you could give every class +2 skill points and nothing would break. You could give every class that isn't INT based with 2 + INT SP 4 + INT skill points and you won't break anything.
I'd even go so far to say you could give paladins and fighters 6 + INT SP and nothing bad would happen.
So, a straight +2 bump for certain classes will certainly end up better, seem more fair and make your players happier than a random dice roll.
(Before anyone calls me crazy, remember that most skills are CHA, INT or DEX, and only a couple are STR or WIS based based)
Honestly, you could give every class +2 skill points and nothing would break. You could give every class that isn't INT based with 2 + INT SP 4 + INT skill points and you won't break anything.
I'd even go so far to say you could give paladins and fighters 6 + INT SP and nothing bad would happen.
So, a straight +2 bump for certain classes will certainly end up better, seem more fair and make your players happier than a random dice roll.
(Before anyone calls me crazy, remember that most skills are CHA, INT or DEX, and only a couple are STR or WIS based based)
Honestly, you could give every class max ranks in all their class skills and keep skill points as a thing for non-class skills.
With a handful of exceptions(*cough* perception, UMD *cough*), skills just aren't that powerful. Overall class balance isn't much of a concern.
|
|
Honestly, you could give every class +2 skill points and nothing would break. You could give every class that isn't INT based with 2 + INT SP 4 + INT skill points and you won't break anything.
I'd even go so far to say you could give paladins and fighters 6 + INT SP and nothing bad would happen.
So, a straight +2 bump for certain classes will certainly end up better, seem more fair and make your players happier than a random dice roll.
(Before anyone calls me crazy, remember that most skills are CHA, INT or DEX, and only a couple are STR or WIS based based)
Honestly, you could give every class max ranks in all their class skills and keep skill points as a thing for non-class skills.
With a handful of exceptions(*cough* perception, UMD *cough*), skills just aren't that powerful. Overall class balance isn't much of a concern.
Pretty much. In home games I give out extra skill points like they are candy and have only had a richer experience for it.
And allow them to spend the same time they would training their HP up to train to their max skill dice.
Um... what.
So if you roll a 5 on a D10 for your Hit Points, you can train up the other 5?Where can I find this rule?
Why? What benefits does this system provide over a simple point increase?
Rolling adds an unwelcome element of randomness to the proceedings.
I never met someone who thought rolling for hit points is fun.
I wonder if AD&D had point buy for statistics then introduced Rolling for stats later what the out cry would have been like?
That said I actually like the idea of rolling for skills, but I parrot many people's concerns that the original post's suggestion may make many classes weaker. Of course that does not mean you shouldn't try for random skill stats. Just refine it a little.
For instance every player rolls a d8. You can't roll lower than your class's "skill stat" Thus fighters will always have at least 2. Rangers's at least a 6, and rogue's still get to be super special because no matter what they roll they will always get 8.
Change variables as needed. Maybe drop the ranger's skill-stat down to 4, increase the monk's to 5, make the Skill roll a d6, or d10. Basically adjust as needed.