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

[Afrodyte]

Because it's a D&D tradition?

(only this time, the thief isn't on the receiving end)

Easiest thing to do would be to give every 4e class 4 class skills and done with it. Actually, just gave them any 4 Trained skills of the player's choosing (and be done with it).

Traditiooooooooon! Tradition!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Exactly, and this is the issue with the system. In earlier editions, the thief traded combat ability for that necessary competency. Now that every class can contribute equally in combat, having some classes more competent at skill use serves no purpose.

Why screw over certain classes in the name of flavor? Flavor wasn't a barrier when it came to giving clerics at-will laser attacks so it shouldn't be a problem when letting the fighter be useful at something besides swinging a sword.

But is he really screwed? Does he fail to fulfill his role? Is he less fun to play for it?

I don't feel so. A class that sucks in combat always runs into a problem here. But in 4E, having a bad skill list is not a big issue. One feat later, and you can have a crucial skill that can make your character excel at stuff he normally couldn't do and compete with other PCs in that area.

But: The fighter will never be as good as the Rogue in Stealth, Thievery, Bluff or Streetwise. He simply needs the wrong ability scores to be good there. It doesn't matter if you give him all skills as class skill and 10 trained skills. The Rogue will still excel in that area. He will never be as good as the Wizard in Arcana or Religion. He will never be as good as a Ranger in Dungeoneering or Nature.

So he focuses on the few skills Rogues have a harder time to be good at. And if he wants, he can branch out further with a few feats.

The "Thief" or "Rogue" with lack in combat abilities never had something that could fix hsi weaknesses in the core rules of earlier editions - except, of course - by not being a Rogue and dual- or multiclassing into a class that didn't suck.

The skills available to the Fighter are skills that others have a harder time taking and being as good as him. Of course, now with new classes, some of these classes can be similar good at it. But the Barbarian shares his skill point number, right?

 

[ExploderWizard]

But is he really screwed? Does he fail to fulfill his role? Is he less fun to play for it?

I don't feel so. A class that sucks in combat always runs into a problem here. But in 4E, having a bad skill list is not a big issue.

It is no less fun being useless in a skill challenge than in combat. It is true that fighters don't normally have the talent to be as skilled as rogues at the signature skills but a fighter could train in other areas such as diplomacy, religion, etc. and be better than they are now. Without the high statistic to support the skill the fighter won't be as great as a specialist but having the opportunity and the skill slots of other classes without having to spend feats would be cool.

 

[billd91]

I don't think there are any game balance reasons for different number of trained skills.

Maybe, maybe not. But it does kind of stand out. If the classes are no longer balancing off combat and skills together because they're so effectively "siloed" off as some posters have said in other threads, then why the difference at all?

What is possible is that it was guided primarily by the "flavor" of the class. A Rogue needs to rely on wit and skills, a Fighter... doesn't.

In previous editions, I'd agree, in part, because the rogues weren't as good in combat. Their roles in the party were different and they were expected to gain spotlight time in situations other than combat. But now, every character supposedly has an equally valid (or even important) combat role. So why should we expect the rogue to continue to rely on wit and skills any more than the fighter if the relative deficiency has been removed? Why retain a relative deficiency (the fighter's skills) when you're getting rid of the ones on the combat side of the silo wall?

Personally, I'm mystified and I don't think archetype really explains it. That would explain differences in class skills pretty well, but not skill point differences.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Maybe, maybe not. But it does kind of stand out. If the classes are no longer balancing off combat and skills together because they're so effectively "siloed" off as some posters have said in other threads, then why the difference at all?



In previous editions, I'd agree, in part, because the rogues weren't as good in combat. Their roles in the party were different and they were expected to gain spotlight time in situations other than combat. But now, every character supposedly has an equally valid (or even important) combat role. So why should we expect the rogue to continue to rely on wit and skills any more than the fighter if the relative deficiency has been removed? Why retain a relative deficiency (the fighter's skills) when you're getting rid of the ones on the combat side of the silo wall?

Personally, I'm mystified and I don't think archetype really explains it. That would explain differences in class skills pretty well, but not skill point differences.

Yup. I've been thinking about it some more and the skill system the way it stands makes it a hard fix. Skill use is too entwined with ability scores for the fighter to get close to an even break. If your main good stats are STR and CON there isn't a lot in the way of skill selections that are really great.

What if skill use and ability score modifiers were broken up some? If you can use your INT for AC why not your STR or CON for intimidate? In fact most INT /WIS skills should be interchangeable. Anything goes for an attack power but skills are rigidly defined by a single stat. This would add more versatility to non-combat activities.

 

[Garthanos]

Decoupling attributes from skills is a fair answer to that... If I use Int with my athletics in the real world I inform you of who won a particular event at the olympics .... if I jump far I use my strength and athletics ... if I swim far I use my constitution... etc.

 

[billd91]

Yup. I've been thinking about it some more and the skill system the way it stands makes it a hard fix. Skill use is too entwined with ability scores for the fighter to get close to an even break. If your main good stats are STR and CON there isn't a lot in the way of skill selections that are really great.

That doesn't bother me at all. Not all stats need to have the same number of skills to balance out the game, particularly when the bonus you get from level will eventually outstrip your stat bonus (usually).

That's why I think it's an easy fix. Normalize the number of skills all classes get.

 

[Imaro]

Well, when the group was asked to make Endurance checks for that climb up the mountainside to reach the cave where they are fighting, those that made that check didn't have to spend a healing surge and having more healing surges sure seem useful in combat.

Also, the fact that you can be involved in social skill challenges while in combat where skills like History, Streetwise, Diplomacy, Insight, etc. are useful means that the skills are...well...useful (ergo, they matter).

Are some skills more likely to be useful in combat? Absolutely, but the same can be said of certain powers (especially Utility powers).

So you're saying there's nothing inherently useful about skills in combat, but a DM can rule or create situations where that they are... uhm, ok that wasn't what I was disagreeing with... I mean a DM can make combat powers have out of combat effects too if he wants, so I guess I'm missing your point.

 

[Hawke]

3 pages and no data tables or cool charts/graphs? I'm disappointed... but seriously, as this isn't a huge deal to me, it'd be cool if someone who was really interested put something together.

 

[Saeviomagy]

One of the rogue skills is more of a combat feature: stealth. The rogue gets a large portion of his striker abilities from sneak attack, and stealth gives him a shot at attaining it in a number of situations where other methods won't work.

I'm not seeing thievery as all that great TBH. Traps in 4e tend to be such that disabling them is a bad idea - they're either comboed with monsters or they are far easier to avoid or smash than disable. That leaves picking pockets: but again - when does that ever actually happen? I doubt that anyone would spend resources on such a limited skill (and if they do they're being ripped off), so giving it to a rogue free isn't really a big deal.