Are we sure we need a skill guy?

[Evilhalfling]

If you are going to break fighters into light and heavy, you need to do the same with casters

Armored Caster - concentrates on buffing and bashing - could be a Gish, could be a cleric.
Unarmored caster - old man archtype, stays away from swords relies on magic for attack and defense.

 

[hong]

A rule set that says a charisma-based character or a stealth-based character needs more skill points to fill their archetype?

Or spells, or supernatural abilities....

Sure.

But by that token, so is the BAB the fighter needs to fill his archetype, the spells the cleric and mage need for their archetype.

In other words, all the archetypes are artifacts of the rule set.

You have it exactly back to front. I can conceive of a ruleset where BAB doesn't exist, and fighting is treated as just an application of skills. Similarly I can conceive of a ruleset where a unique, distinct spellcasting system doesn't exist, with spells also being skills. None of this prevents fighters and spellcasters from existing.

Similarly, I can conceive of a ruleset where stealth is handled by having people make saves to notice the target. This would in turn be different to how charisma is handled, say by having people make oppposed ability checks modified by various feat-like special abilities.

The archetype exists independently of the ruleset. Only in D&D, which shoves everything that isn't combat and spells into the one system, has that system been reified into something that is supposed to have archetypal justification. Hence "skill guy", as opposed to "stealth guy" or "suave guy".

My point is, those "artifacts" are in the rule set to provide people with archetypes they enjoy, including a couple of "skill guys", one aimed at stealth and the other aimed at interaction (the Bard).

All the classes and mechanics are "artifacts" of the system, but they are there because people wouldn't enjoy the game as much if the only class was Commoner.

What?

 

[Umbran]

We could really simplify this - are there a lot of people who want to play a "skill guy"? If so, the game ought to include the option of creating one, in some manner.

I'm not sure there's any reason for it to be more complicated than that.

 

[Tonguez]

The problem isn't skills its the utility belt approach to spells

Why Picklocks when Knock will do it
Why Climb when you can Spiderclimb instead
Why craft when you can fabricate
Why Sense motives when you can Discern
Why use Survival when you can cast Know Direction

Spells need to be used for 'magical effects' not as a replacement for skills

when that happens skills actually become important again

 

[Alnag]

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.

Either that, or you can use two "classes" from Call of Cthulhu d20 - Defensive and Offensive.

Deffensive - slower BAB progression, 2 good saves
Offensive - faster BAB progression, 1 good save

It is universal enough and still gives a choice. (Choice is important for some players...)

 

[RFisher]

To sum-up what I'm getting out of this thread...

From the mechanical viewpoint, Warrior & Adept are the two elemental classes of the d20 system because BAB & the spell system are the class features most tightly bound to class. (Saves as well, but we don't have a class built around that.) Nearly all the other class features turn nicely into feats.

(Of course, there's plenty of room for argument there, but I'm just expressing my unjustified opinion, not trying to convince anyone.)

From a non-mechanical viewpoint, swordsman & sorcerer are the elemental archetypes of sword & sorcery. (As suggested by the name of the genre itself.) Give the Warrior & Adept more skill points, & I think you can do an OK (if not better) job of covering even the roguish S&S characters.

I've often come down to that same split when musing on homebrew systems, but now it's beginning to make even more sense to me.

The "skill guy" role is needed because it's an archetype people like to play.

It's a game, not a reality simulator.

That a role is enjoyable is reason enough to include it.

Perhaps. I think this is a little analogous to Clerics. Some people find them to be a class they wouldn't inflict on their worst enemy. ("Fine...(sigh)...I'll be the Cleric this time.") Some people, though, enjoy playing them.

Is there any harm in keeping the Expert class should someone--even after you've boosted the skill points for the other classes--want to play it?

 

[BryonD]

What if we had only these 3 archetypes:

Heavy Fighter
Light Fighter
Caster

But any of them could have a lot of skills? I mean, what's the real need for the skill guy?

So, if you were running a game this way and a player said they they still wanted a more advanced skill based character and were willing to sacrifice some combat ability in exchange, would you allow it?

 

[The_Gneech]

I mean, what's the real need for the skill guy?

The skill guy is the most fun role in the party.

You leave my skills alone!

Being able to fight is handy in a pinch, and spells are okay if you must have them ... but when it comes down to actually catching and holding my interest in a game, I have to be able to do stuff, whether it's picking locks or fast-talking the city guard or programming the droid.

What I would ask is, "What's the real need for fighters and wizards?"

-The Gneech

 

[Ry]

So, if you were running a game this way and a player said they they still wanted a more advanced skill based character and were willing to sacrifice some combat ability in exchange, would you allow it?

Basically I'm looking for a set of rules that doesn't involve a trade-off. For example, a character could choose to skip a feat to enhance their attack in favor of a feat to enhance their skills - but those skills have important implications for combat. To me, that's a good way to establish a character's style. What I don't want is "hey, carry me in combat, I'll carry you out of combat."

 

[Ry]

The skill guy is the most fun role in the party.

You leave my skills alone!

Being able to fight is handy in a pinch, and spells are okay if you must have them ... but when it comes down to actually catching and holding my interest in a game, I have to be able to do stuff, whether it's picking locks or fast-talking the city guard or programming the droid.

What I would ask is, "What's the real need for fighters and wizards?"

-The Gneech

OK, but what if I said to you: "Yeah, you can have your skill guy. But in a pinch he'll be good at fighting too. Your fighter-minded friends are also good at fighting, and in a pinch they can use skills too."