All Skills as Class Skills?

[The_Ditto]

Example: Take the Fighter (lets assume a Core only game for discussion). If my character is a nobleman from the Free City, I would logically have diplomacy skills to represent my affluent upbringing. Maybe Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty) or Heraldry or something like that. But under the current ruleset I cannot do that because someone arbitrarily decided that all Fighters learn the same skills in "Fighter 101" with no room for deviation based on background.

Seems to me, however, that if you were a nobelman from the Free City, you probably wouldn't be a fighter .. maybe an Aristocrat, Expert, or maybe some other class (I'm not *that* familiar with the various classes in all the splat books lately ... but I'm sure there is a fighter-type (or maybe rogue-type) with those skills ... Marshall comes to mind ...)

With a rule like that in effect I could have my noble fighter who actually has some courtly skills.

Maybe, won't argue it ... Just adding my view - I would see a "noble fighter" as more of a multi-class ... maybe 1 level of Aristocrat or Expert to setup the background, then start the fighter training. Or as I said .. maybe Marshall all the way, or even Marshall / Fighter mix ... there's alot of options ...

Personally I think you should start with the background, and then find the most appropriate class .. not pick a class and try shoe-horn it into a particular background ...

Before anyone brings up multiclassing into Bard or Rogue for my previous example, that just serves to prove my point.

I disagree, it doesn't prove your point .. as I said - it's just a matter of which way you're building the character:

background -> class
or
class -> background ...
*shrug* To each his own, I suppose ..

A Fighter type should not have to multiclass into a non-Fighter type (or hell, this applies for ANYTHING) just to realize a basic character concept.

Sure, but are you a Fighter or a nobleman? If you're both .. than yes, multi-class does sound right .. a bit of each to represent the aspects you're after.

Take a look at a more extreme example.

I create a fighter .. for his background, I claim he's got some latent magical talent.
But the fighter can't cast spells! This means my background doesn't work!! The Fighter should have access to spells so my background is viable!
(this is a similar argument as the skills ...)

Rather than that, He should probably be a multi-class Fighter/Wizard and maybe hit a PrC like Eldritch Knight or something .... there ... that's the background first, and then we found the class(es)/Prc(s) to fit the background ..

.. just my thoughts ...

 

[billd91]

I wouldn't remove the distinction completely. A particular professional focus should limit your access to non-related topics. However, I can think of 2 tweaks I would make to the current system:

Get rid of cross class costs. Just make it a cap at 1/2 the number of ranks for class skills. It's a pain to have to figure out which ranks were bought at cross class cost and which were class cost for multi-class characters. Better to just make the cost of a rank the same.

Allow all PCs to select one additional skill that is always considered a class skill to reflect personal interests and background.

 

[The Souljourner]

I think it's a terrible rule. It's not going to make fighters more diplomatic, it's going to give them tumble and use magic device.


What's a far far better solution is to give everyone a couple points a level (x4 at first of course) for background-y skills. A very limited list, like swim, ride, knowledge: local, profession, craft, perform, etc - stuff that's almost universally not usable in combat (or very restricted to its use). Whether or not a skill is cross class stays the same, but you don't have to sacrifice skills that keep you alive for skills that make you interesting.

-Nate

 

[Rokes]

How would the cap on cross-classed skills work? So first level, a fighter can spend up to 2 skill points on open lock. What if he then multiclasses into a rogue? Can he then put 3 ranks (total 5) into open lock, or would he be limited to one rank? (by the proposed system)

I like the idea behind "pick X number of skills" as your class skills, but what's the point really? A lot of classes only get 2 skill points per level. What the difference between having to select (for arguments sake) Tumble and UMD, vs just being able to freely choose them? The only difference I see is the the former pushing characters toward maxing those two skills out, while the latter lets them spread out all 2 of those skill points.

 

[Nogitsune_Lightfox]

For myself I would rather see the class skills open than an endless creation of classes to make up for it. A good example is the Swashbuckler class. Essentially a Fghter but with full access to certain Rogue skills like jump and tumble that a normal Ffighter would only have half access to. If I wanted to make a Fighter the equal to a Sqashbuckler I'd have to cross class with Rogue to do it, gaining access to class skills I want as well as many I probably don't.

Another problem is one of the European human-centricness of D&D. Let us take a look at Elves. They are usually said to be magical by nature, and certainly they take nature more seriously than most humans yet they are confined to the same classes as a human is. While a Ranger or a Druid may fit, how does the western version of a wizard mesh with what the ELVES might have as a wizard? At the very least Elven Wizards should be duskblades if for no other reason than their society does not seem to seperate the physical from the mental and spiritual. They ALL have access to long swords and bows regardless of class, which to me points to distinct cultural differences.

I guess my question is one of importance. Is it more important to be an Elf or a Fighter? Does the background you make even matter when it comes to the class you choose? The sterotypes associated with each race do not always mesh well, in my opinion, with the sterotypes of each class. How can you carefully construct a character, yet be constantly barred or limited in the choices you'd like to make when chosing skills?

 

[billd91]

How would the cap on cross-classed skills work? So first level, a fighter can spend up to 2 skill points on open lock. What if he then multiclasses into a rogue? Can he then put 3 ranks (total 5) into open lock, or would he be limited to one rank? (by the proposed system)

The way I would envision it, the cap would be lifted as soon as the skill becomes a class skill for one of your classes. You just no longer have to ever spend 2 skill points to get 1 rank in it from that point onward regardless of whether or not the class you're currently advancing in has that skill as a class skill.

 

[wayne62682]

That's another point.. IMO when a class skill becomes a class skill via multi-classing, it should PERMANENTLY become a class skill. It's so very annoying to have to create a higher level character and basically work out skill progression level by level because x skills are class skills for this class and Y skills are class skills for this class.. its ridiculously complicated.

 

[Nail]

A Fighter type should not have to multiclass into a non-Fighter type (or hell, this applies for ANYTHING) just to realize a basic character concept.

Time and again I've found that the phrase "basic character concept" actually means "best character possible".

YMMV

 

[blargney the second]

We opened up all skills as class skills, and everybody gets +2 skill points per HD. Nothing's been broken. It actually makes creating PCs & NPCs a heck of a lot simpler, which is nice.

 

[Darklone]

Before anyone brings up multiclassing into Bard or Rogue for my previous example, that just serves to prove my point. A Fighter type should not have to multiclass into a non-Fighter type (or hell, this applies for ANYTHING) just to realize a basic character concept.

Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack?