Proposed House Rule: Removing Class Skill List Restriction

[Aoirorentsu]

A house rule I'm considering for future 4e games.

Observation: In most cases (IMO), most of the skills in which a PC gets training are attained at 1st level. Because these skills form the basis of the character's non-combat identity, they are an important if not the most important means by which a player's concept for their character can be created in-game.

For example, I want to play a rogue as a silver tongued diplomat. While Bluff is a rogue class skill, I imagine my rogue as indeed a quite genuine character who relies on logic and displays good etiquette. At 1st level, in order to get Diplomacy training, I either have to spend a feat on it or, if I'm an eladrin, spend my Education racial feature on it. In non-eladrin cases in particular, this can create a conflict between the rules and the character concept one wants to create.

Problem: the class skill list as a limiting factor for choosing trained skills at first level limits the character concepts that a given class can embody from first level. The rules should allow players to create within reason a reflection of any character concept they would like.

Considerations:

• The class skill list is useful, however, for giving you a sense of the kind of people who most typically end up in the class. Thus, getting rid of it entirely is probably unnecessary and may even be counterproductive.
• numerous multiclass feats grant skill training from the class's skill list. Multiclassing rogue and training in Arcana probably doesn’t make a lot of sense.
• Particularly among martial classes, the class skill list is used as a basis for requirements for utility powers that are related to a class. While skill powers and theme powers would enable you to have utility power options regardless of your trained skills, going too far afield in your skill choices can create difficulties to be sure.

Proposed House Rule: when choosing skills at first level, you may choose skills that are not on your class skill list.

Clarifications:

• This rule does not affect skills automatically granted as class features. All rogues will still have training in Thievery and Stealth; all clerics will have training in Religion.
• This rule does not eliminate the class skill list. It would still be used as the basis for feats and other effects relating specifically to a class skill list, such as multiclass feats.
• This rule does not affect the number of skills your class grants you training in. A rogue would still gain training in 4 skills (in addition to Stealth and Thievery), but under this rule would not need to choose those from her class skill list.

I thought I'd throw this out to everyone. Do y'all think this is a good idea? Any issues I haven't touched upon?

Thanks!

 

[the Jester]

The only other consideration I can think of off hand is that it allows fighters and other similar classes slightly easier access to rituals (by allowing them to take Arcana and/or Religion without spending a feat on it).

 

[OnlineDM]

If I were the DM in this case, I'd evaluate this on a case-by-case basis. As long as it didn't seem unbalanced to get training in a skill outside the class's normal skill list, I'd allow it. Diplomacy instead of Bluff for a nice-guy rogue seems fine, but I might hesitate if someone were trying to abuse this to get free access to a combat-focused skill like Athletics or Stealth when it's not a part of their class.

If I were running this as a broad house-rule rather than case-by-case evaluation, I'd perhaps say that characters can pick from their class skills list to get the usual +5 to those skills, or they can pick other skills and only get +3 to them.

 

[Rune]

Not that I think your house-rule would be particularly unbalancing, but you might find that backgrounds give you all the skill access you would really need.

Alternatively, you could consider just giving every character one free class skill that they could take training from (player's choice, chosen at character generation).

 

[Aoirorentsu]

Thanks for the feedback, guys

...slightly easier access to rituals...

Interesting point. Hadn't thought about that. Of course, they'd still have to take Ritual Caster, but yeah that's a Consideration I would add.

...As long as it didn't seem unbalanced to get training in a skill outside the class's normal skill list, I'd allow it. Diplomacy instead of Bluff for a nice-guy rogue seems fine, but I might hesitate if someone were trying to abuse this to get free access to a combat-focused skill like Athletics or Stealth when it's not a part of their class.

If I were running this as a broad house-rule rather than case-by-case evaluation, I'd perhaps say that characters can pick from their class skills list to get the usual +5 to those skills, or they can pick other skills and only get +3 to them.

I take your point. I for one wouldn't mind them loading up on combat-centric skills as I tend to run a game where they're on equal footing with knowledge/social skills, especially if they made an effort to have that make sense with their character concept.

I definitely see the potential for gaming the, well, game.

I'm not such a big fan of the +3 rather than +5 idea, though I see where you're coming from. My issue is that it punishes you for thinking outside the class skill list for your character concept, which is sorta against the spirit of the house rule.

I think DM's judgment (ie, case-by-case) and control over the adventures would have to rule the day here. If you have a player who's clearly choosing skills to take undue advantage of the freedom you're giving them with no thought to their character concept, make sure you emphasize other skills equally to encourage a broader sphere of concern on the player's part. Or, you know, a wizard who can sneak and jump may not be the worst thing ever

...you might find that backgrounds give you all the skill access you would really need...

Alternatively, you could consider just giving every character one free class skill that they could take training from (player's choice, chosen at character generation).

In most cases, I agree with you that just using the background is probably good enough.

The potential problems with just using a background stem from the fact that you only get one. If your character concept required two skills that aren't on your list (Diplomacy, and, say, History for my educated diplomat rogue), you're out of luck. Also, if everyone else takes a +2 pip from their background, then you are missing out (though admittedly it probably wouldn't matter much).

I'm not sure what you mean with that last part - you mean they get an extra skill that they can pick outside of the class skill list from?

 

[Rune]

I'm not sure what you mean with that last part - you mean they get an extra skill that they can pick outside of the class skill list from?

I mean the player gets a choice of an extra skill to add to the class list, but not an extra trained skill. Basically, the same as the benefit from picking a background, except not tied to any particular background.

If you wanted to use backgrounds, but allow for more skills, you could just allow the payers to gain the benefits of two (maybe even three) backgrounds. Or, you could limit any background benefits after the first to only expansion of class skills (instead of granting additional +2 bonuses).

 

[Aoirorentsu]

I mean the player gets a choice of an extra skill to add to the class list, but not an extra trained skill. Basically, the same as the benefit from picking a background, except not tied to any particular background.

Ah, I see. This would be a reasonable and moderate change to make in lieu of my house rule. Not sure either way is better than the other, just a matter of degree.

If you wanted to use backgrounds, but allow for more skills, you could just allow the payers to gain the benefits of two (maybe even three) backgrounds. Or, you could limit any background benefits after the first to only expansion of class skills (instead of granting additional +2 bonuses).

I think this is sorta what I had in mind before, but with an intermediary step to blend with the current rules (which is a good thing). Instead of creating a character concept and using that to justify "free" skill purchases per my house rule, I would under your suggestion translate my concept into the discrete background elements, and then add the corresponding skills to my list (and get a +2 to one skill).

I think either way would essentially end up the same: +2 to my "active" background skill, and then sufficient backgrounds to be able to train in the skills that I want.

I like that idea, as it ties the skill list openings more firmly with specific background elements.

 

[Stormonu]

Interesting point. Hadn't thought about that. Of course, they'd still have to take Ritual Caster, but yeah that's a Consideration I would add.

You could go even further and remove the Ritual Caster feat, and give those that would normally begin with that feat some sort of bump (a bonus to rolls when casting the ritual, a slight discount, something). Thus, you make it possible for anyone to use a ritual, they just need access to the ritual itself and the funds to use it.

I mean, isn't part of 4E philosophy enabling PCs ability to be heroic instead of punishing it (I mean, that's why they got rid of stat penalties isn't it)?

 

[Aoirorentsu]

Thanks for your thoughts, Stormonu.

...remove the Ritual Caster feat, and give those that would normally begin with that feat some sort of bump (a bonus to rolls when casting the ritual, a slight discount, something). Thus, you make it possible for anyone to use a ritual...

I mean, isn't part of 4E philosophy enabling PCs ability to be heroic instead of punishing it (I mean, that's why they got rid of stat penalties isn't it)?

Interesting thought. It's a little outside the scope of this particular discussion and may have some story consequences, but I can see the argument. Especially since, in my opinion, there's a lot of non-power-specific "ritualesque" activity with using Arcana and Religion to manipulate traps and hazards.

As for "the 4e philosophy"... well, there are still stat penalties - just ask my STR 8 thief. Not exactly leaping and bounding and climbing above the opposition. In my reading, 4th edition funnels characters towards a niche. My house rule was intended to add some flexibility to that without sacrificing effectiveness in other areas (namely, combat).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I thought I'd throw this out to everyone. Do y'all think this is a good idea? Any issues I haven't touched upon?

Great minds think alike! I tossed class skills a while ago, and haven't looked back. The only issue that can crop up is that some players will take skills they think are useful, regardless of their character concept -- namely Perception and Stealth. If that's a problem for you, you can simply exclude those skills from your house rule.

Backgrounds help, but to me it's treating the symptom rather than the problem. With one background, out-of-the-box characters might not have access to enough of the right skills. (As you pointed out yourself.) With multiple backgrounds, you're making character creation ever more involved, and well...if you're gonna hand out a bunch of backgrounds so that PCs can get enough out-of-the-box skills, why not just toss class skills and save everyone some time?