Are we sure we need a skill guy?

[Ry]

Well... and aren't they... actually... archetypes.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said archetypes.

The mechanics as they are need the skill-guy, because the were made with the skill guy in mind. But with some tweeking, you probably don't need him.

D&D, definitely, but I'm thinking that you could do really great d20 games with 3 classes; one for light fighter, one for casting, one for heavy fighter (all of which get say 6 + INT skill points / level)

There's the point being made that we should be able to take it a step further and make it 1 class, and do the rest with feats and skill selection. I just keep not seeing the skill-and-feat system that I'm looking for for that (although Warlock + Psychic handbook is close).

 

[Umbran]

Is the game about archetypes and niche protection for each player or not.

I know a great many gamers who don't like open-ended, any-concept-goes character generation. With too many possibilities come too many decisions, and an inibility to know where to start.

Archetypes provide a framework upon which to hang concepts. For these folks, it isn't about protecting the niches, so much as just having a way of thinking about a character, and how they might develop - focusing your choices to a reasonable number of options.

 

[Piratecat]

We have no skill monkeys in my epic game. I think the group is poorer for their lack, and they compensated somewhat by grabbing one through Leadership. It's not a game-killer, but it does make some things more challenging.

 

[KB9JMQ]

I my games I guess you don't need a skill guy as a class but you sure do need one as a character no matter how he is built.
I have never had a game without one. It is funny that sometimes my players argue about who gets to be the skill guy cause several want to.

 

[Ry]

P-Catt - do you think your game would suffer adverse effects if each player character had 3 or 4 more skill points / level?

 

[Ry]

Same question to KB9JMQ - what if instead of fighting over being the skill guy, everybody had access to several more skills?

 

[Varianor Abroad]

That IMO removes a few gaps, rather than providing someone who has the big focus on skills. Or rather, providing a funnel for information and a means of bypassing non-magical, non-combat obstacles.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Same question to KB9JMQ - what if instead of fighting over being the skill guy, everybody had access to several more skills?

Yeah I would think that it would work. Of course then they would argue over who gets to pick the lock.

 

[Voadam]

We have no skill monkeys in my epic game. I think the group is poorer for their lack, and they compensated somewhat by grabbing one through Leadership. It's not a game-killer, but it does make some things more challenging.

Where do you feel the lack for the group? Low spot and listen making them all easy to ambush? search and disable device for traps?

I don't imagine that locks, climbing, balance, hiding, move silently, riding, swimming, or survival challenges can't be taken care of by magic at high levels.

Utility of social skills will vary from campaign to campaign and every class but wizards and rangers has at least one social skill on their list I think.

 

[Ry]

Why is there necessarily a difference between the Heavy and Light fighters? Why not take it down one more level of abstraction - there's those who cast spells, and those who don't - Fighter, Caster.

I was thinking about this. The reason is because the Fighter class models the heavy fighter pretty well but the light fighter not so well. At least, that's my experience, and it's also what I've heard of others' experience. In, say, Arcana Unearthed, they're done very well as separate entities.