Calling 4e designers & developers.... Please explain the skills to class ratio

[Imaro]

This is a question that I've seen asked numerous times and was wondering if anyone has an official answer, or if not... could we get an official answer to the question of... what is the logic or balancing mechanism used in determining number of skills available to a particular class. Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[N0Man]

I'm no 4e designer, but it seems pretty obvious what their logic was.

Almost every class has either 4 or 5 starting skills, and the distinction between getting 4 or 5 seems so trivial, I doubt that even a developer could answer that other than with something like, "it felt right at the time".

I think just 2 classes got less than that, which are the Barbarian and Fighter who only have 3. These 2 classes got less skills in 3E as well (the equivalent of 1 and 2 skills, respectively). 4E raised them a little bit so that they could have more options out of combat than 3E, but yet still considering them more about brawn than skill.

The ones that received more than the 4-5 that most every other class are classes like the Bard and Rogue, who again either inherited it from 3E or because it felt right because of flavor. Relative to 3E, they might have a fewer skills. That's likely so that other characters have more opportunity to take turns in the spotlight using a skill instead of delegating everything to the bard or rogue skill monkey, and also partially due to the fact that many skills were consolidated.

So, in a nutshell, skills appear to be designed in such a way that every player can potentially get a chance to be useful with a few skills, with only a relatively minor variation in number of skills classes have for the sake of posterity and flavor.

I'm no designer, and I can't speak for them, but this certainly fits in with the general design paradigm of 4E (which largely encourages teamwork, and sharing time in the spotlight).

 

[Imaro]

I'm no 4e designer, but it seems pretty obvious what their logic was.

Almost every class has either 4 or 5 starting skills, and the distinction between getting 4 or 5 seems so trivial, I doubt that even a developer could answer that other than with something like, "it felt right at the time".

Well if it's so trivial why not give all of them either four or five? If combat abilities have been balanced against each other this seems like a no brainer.

I think just 2 classes got less than that, which are the Barbarian and Fighter who only have 3. These 2 classes got less skills in 3E as well (the equivalent of 1 and 2 skills, respectively). 4E raised them a little bit so that they could have more options out of combat than 3E, but yet still considering them more about brawn than skill.

Again, if combat skill is balanced and everyone is suppose to contribute in the game equally I don't understand this design decision. In a long skill challenge there is a big difference between the Fighter's 3 skills and a Rogue's 6 skills... I'm just curious as to what guided the decision to say give a particular class 5 skills while another gets 3.

The ones that received more than the 4-5 that most every other class are classes like the Bard and Rogue, who again either inherited it from 3E or because it felt right because of flavor. Relative to 3E, they might have a fewer skills. That's likely so that other characters have more opportunity to take turns in the spotlight using a skill instead of delegating everything to the bard or rogue skill monkey, and also partially due to the fact that many skills were consolidated.

I appreciate you trying to answer my question, and perhaps I'm not stating clearly what it is I want to know... but you're giving me the general philosophy on skills and totally avoiding why any particular class receives more or less skills from a game balance/mechanics point of view.

So, in a nutshell, skills appear to be designed in such a way that every player can potentially get a chance to be useful with a few skills, with only a relatively minor variation in number of skills classes have for the sake of posterity and flavor.

I'm no designer, and I can't speak for them, but this certainly fits in with the general design paradigm of 4E (which largely encourages teamwork, and sharing time in the spotlight).

Uhmm, again this doesn't really answer my question... wouldn't you achieve the same results if everyone had the same amount of skills? In fact it seems skill challenges would work better with a group that has a wider base of skills... so I'm not seeing how this is an actual reason for the number of skills each class was given.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Have any of the WoTC folks been posting here lately? Seems like I haven't seen them around these parts since Wizards re-did its message boards.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong!

 

[DEFCON 1]

If I was to make an uneducated guess as to the design decisions for the first Player's Handbook with regards to the fighter only getting three skills...

PH1 has several feats that gave a bonus to hit in specific situations, and has the Skill Training feat that allows you to take a new Trained skill. So perhaps the thought was to give most classes a 4th trained skill on their list and make them spend a feat to get bonuses to attack, whereas the fighter got the bonus to all attacks as part of his class abilities and then would spend a feat to get another trained skill. So in the end they could end up the same way... 4 trained skills, a bonus to hit, and you've spent a feat to accomplish it.

Now this doesn't explain the barbarian nor the new Martial Power fighter builds... but perhaps in the year and a half since PH1 development ended, they've made other decisions or priorities have shifted? Can't really say. But at least the original fighter builds do have somewhat of a possible explanation.

 

[Imaro]

If I was to make an uneducated guess as to the design decisions for the first Player's Handbook with regards to the fighter only getting three skills...

PH1 has several feats that gave a bonus to hit in specific situations, and has the Skill Training feat that allows you to take a new Trained skill. So perhaps the thought was to give most classes a 4th trained skill on their list and make them spend a feat to get bonuses to attack, whereas the fighter got the bonus to all attacks as part of his class abilities and then would spend a feat to get another trained skill. So in the end they could end up the same way... 4 trained skills, a bonus to hit, and you've spent a feat to accomplish it.

Now this doesn't explain the barbarian nor the new Martial Power fighter builds... but perhaps in the year and a half since PH1 development ended, they've made other decisions or priorities have shifted? Can't really say. But at least the original fighter builds do have somewhat of a possible explanation.

But isn't this balancing of combat abilities with non-combat abilities? I thought that was something 4e was suppose to get away from.

 

[Hjorimir]

Skills are very useful in combat; they count.

 

[Imaro]

Skills are very useful in combat; they count.

Really, so how does Endurance help me in combat? Or History or Streetwise. You're making a real general statement (Which IMO, should be some skills are very useful in combat... though it often depends on the particular situation) and providing nothing to back it up... care to expound?

Also, then what are the non-combat abilities in D&D 4e? If not skills what then?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Really, so how does Endurance help me in combat? Or History or Streetwise. You're making a real general statement (Which IMO, should be some skills are very useful in combat... though it often depends on the particular situation) and providing nothing to back it up... care to expound?

Also, then what are the non-combat abilities in D&D 4e? If not skills what then?

I don't think there needs to be such a dividing line between the two. In my campaign rituals (with an exception or two) take one standard action to perform in or out of combat making them useful for both. Skills are the same way, some will find use in combat occasionally. As for the original question, I would be interested to know that too.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But isn't this balancing of combat abilities with non-combat abilities? I thought that was something 4e was suppose to get away from.

What makes you say that 4E was supposed to get away from balancing characters using both combat and non-combat abilities? This isn't something I remember as being specifically called out, but perhaps you do? Where do you recall this being made explicit?