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

[Imaro]

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?

Well it doesn't have to be explicitly stated, examining the claim that every character is balanced to perform equally well in combat... how can that be true unless combat abilities are balanced amongst themselves? If combat abilities are balanced with non-combat abilities then there are in fact some classes that are better in combat and some that are better in non-combat abilities, and this would in fact answer my original question... however it would mean that characters are not in fact balanced in combat effectiveness.

I mean if there is a way characters can be balanced in combat effectiveness... yet have their combat effectiveness also be balanced by an outside variable that differs with each class, please explain it too me. I really would be curious to hear the reasoning that allows this.

 

[Shroomy]

I don't think there's some sort of non-combat balancing mechanism in the background. I think the number of skills that a class gets and their skill selection is based almost completely on representing an archetype. I just don't think they felt too bad about "screwing" the fighter in 4e by giving him less skills at the beginning because there are more, relatively easy, ways to get trained skills in 4e (background, skill training feats, racial abilities, and multi-classinng), most of which will have little to no impact on their combat ability.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think there's some sort of non-combat balancing mechanism in the background. I think the number of skills that a class gets and their skill selection is based almost completely on representing an archetype. I just don't think they felt too bad about "screwing" the fighter in 4e by giving him less skills at the beginning because there are more, relatively easy, ways to get trained skills in 4e (background, skill training feats, racial abilities, and multi-classinng), most of which will have little to no impact on their combat ability.

See I find it disturbing when you've got a disparity between the Rogue and Fighter that is 3 skills... that's 3 feats just to get trained in an equal amount of skills as the Rogue... Not to mention that the Rogue can in turn increase his skill list in the same ways you mention above with little to no impact on his combat ability... or just become much better in the skills he already has.

 

[Shroomy]

See I find it disturbing when you've got a disparity between the Rogue and Fighter that is 3 skills... that's 3 feats just to get trained in an equal amount of skills as the Rogue... Not to mention that the Rogue can in turn increase his skill list in the same ways you mention above with little to no impact on his combat ability... or just become much better in the skills he already has.

I guess I'm not sure why you find it disturbing, other than someone theoretically hogging the spotlight in a skill challenge. I mean, in our games, its never really come up (and we've only expanded our skills via multi-class feats and racial abilities). IME, spotlight hogging in a skill challenge is usually caused by the challenge's design, not a disparity between the PCs (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, mind you).

 

[Imaro]

I guess I'm not sure why you find it disturbing, other than someone theoretically hogging the spotlight in a skill challenge. I mean, in our games, its never really come up (and we've only expanded our skills via multi-class feats and racial abilities). IME, spotlight hogging in a skill challenge is usually caused by the challenge's design, not a disparity between the PCs (I'm not saying it doesn't happen, mind you).

Shroomy, I'm going to try and read this in as positive light as possible and assume you aren't trying to dismiss my concerns about an aspect of the game because it's never bothered you specifically, and assume you really want to understand. That said...

It's not about spotlight but when I have a player with 3 trained skills and another with 6 trained skills and we're doing a complexity 3 or higher skill challenge, my player with 3 skills tends to get repetitive and bored with it much quicker than my player with 6. It's about fun and participation... and honestly like I said in the OP, this question has been debated over and over again and I'd personally like some insight into the rhyme or reason for the disparity.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Honestly, this is a bad place to ask that quesiton. The Wizards website would most likely be a better place to ask. I thought there was a place where they accepted questions to answer for their podcast but I have no idea where it is. The best I got so far is the lame contact us page...

As for your question, I guess it was a design legacy that they didn't really think about.

 

[Henry]

Don't forget that the martial classes that get fewer skills also get an almost-unconditional +1 bonus on their weapons of choice; that might be worth a skill or two. Plus, they also get more hit points and healing surges than most of their equivalents (defender vs. defenders, strikers vs. strikers, etc.) That might have something to do with it, too.

as for "combat skill is balanced and everyone is suppose to contribute in the game equally", I'm not sure that this is equivalent to "everyone has the exact same power in combat" - it might be more helpful to compare the rogue to other strikers who are so consistently position- and condition-dependent as they are. It might be helpful to compare the fighter to other defenders - in which case, the paladin and the fighter have the same number of skills, or within 1 if you count religion.

I'd have to get out my books and do an exact comparison role by role to see if there's a rhyme or reason there, as opposed to comparing

 

[Afrodyte]

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?

I remember reading about something like that in Races & Classes before 4e came out. I believe the idea is that one of the ideas is that classes no longer have to sacrifice in-combat effectiveness for out-of-combat effectiveness.

But it's easy enough to house rule that the only thing really separating classes are class-specific powers, features, and armor and weapon proficiencies. I'm tinkering with the system now to see just what is possible if you fold most things into the skill challenge system. It's been . . . interesting.

 

[Storminator]

I think part of it is that a lot of the classes have a forced skill. The fighter gets 3, and gets to choose 3. The rogue gets 6 and gets to choose 4. So he's got a little more freedom (and a bigger list) but not a lot more.

My question is "why do we have class skills at all?" If I get around to running a game I'll give all PCs the full skill list.

PS

 

[Shroomy]

Shroomy, I'm going to try and read this in as positive light as possible and assume you aren't trying to dismiss my concerns about an aspect of the game because it's never bothered you specifically, and assume you really want to understand. That said...

It's not about spotlight but when I have a player with 3 trained skills and another with 6 trained skills and we're doing a complexity 3 or higher skill challenge, my player with 3 skills tends to get repetitive and bored with it much quicker than my player with 6. It's about fun and participation... and honestly like I said in the OP, this question has been debated over and over again and I'd personally like some insight into the rhyme or reason for the disparity.

Nope, I wasn't trying to dismiss your concern, just understand them. I do have two points to make though. One would be that even though one class may have a larger skill list than another, how much overlap is there between their respective lists and how much do the class's primary attributes synergize with their particular skill list (also, I wonder what the impact of having two differing builds has on skill selection when it comes to making a list).

Second would be the skill challenges themselves; I think the problem you've identified is part of a larger issue with skill challenge design. As you correctly note, in general, rolling the same skill over and over again gets kind of dull (as does sitting out the challenge for having no applicable skills or constantly making aid another checks). Personally, I think that skill challenge design needs to catch up with combat encounter design (I definitely think there is a lag); the pointers in the DMG2 and Mike Mearls's monthly column really helped in this regard. Group checks, limits on the numbers of skills used, changes in the flow of the challenge, and a breadth of available skills really mitigates some of these issues IMO.