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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

But are Fighters useless in a skill challenge? From my experience, they are not. Most challenges just cover enough skills that a Fighter still gets his place there.

Now someone just needs to make a table or graph of skills used in published skill challenges and prove me wrong or right.

 

[Voadam]

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.

Sure it does. Just like in 3e rangers and rogues are skill monkeys while fighters are archetypally cast as simple combat meat shields. The differences are a little smaller but the archetypes are the same.

 

[Voadam]

But are Fighters useless in a skill challenge? From my experience, they are not. Most challenges just cover enough skills that a Fighter still gets his place there.

Now someone just needs to make a table or graph of skills used in published skill challenges and prove me wrong or right.

From the sample DMG one the fighter's intimidate option was an auto fail.

 

[billd91]

Sure it does. Just like in 3e rangers and rogues are skill monkeys while fighters are archetypally cast as simple combat meat shields. The differences are a little smaller but the archetypes are the same.

The different amount of skill points in 3e is largely the result of horse-trading class abilities. Fighters get full BAB, excellent armor, excellent hit points, tons of feats = low skill points. Wizards and sorcerers get most powerful full spell casting progression = low skill points. Clerics get very powerful full spell casting and excellent armor = low skill points. Druids get weaker full spell casting, weak armor, good oddball powers = medium skill points. Rangers get weak armor, moderate hit points, good BAB = high skill points. You get the idea...

But people keep telling me that 4e's methodology, of balancing combat separately so that every character is as useful as every other in virtually every fight, is different and that combat and out of combat were NOT balanced against each other. So while 3e's different skill point amounts make some sense as I see it, I can't explain 4e's. If archetype explains, why would they rely on an archetype to create characters a bit out of balance out of combat when they explicitly tossed that idea for combat?

That's why the archetype argument doesn't work with me, not as anything but a mistaken decision in design methodology.

 

[Samurai]

The different amount of skill points in 3e is largely the result of horse-trading class abilities. Fighters get full BAB, excellent armor, excellent hit points, tons of feats = low skill points. Wizards and sorcerers get most powerful full spell casting progression = low skill points. Clerics get very powerful full spell casting and excellent armor = low skill points. Druids get weaker full spell casting, weak armor, good oddball powers = medium skill points. Rangers get weak armor, moderate hit points, good BAB = high skill points. You get the idea...

But people keep telling me that 4e's methodology, of balancing combat separately so that every character is as useful as every other in virtually every fight, is different and that combat and out of combat were NOT balanced against each other. So while 3e's different skill point amounts make some sense as I see it, I can't explain 4e's. If archetype explains, why would they rely on an archetype to create characters a bit out of balance out of combat when they explicitly tossed that idea for combat?

That's why the archetype argument doesn't work with me, not as anything but a mistaken decision in design methodology.

Well, in 4e, the Fighter still starts with more HP, better weapons and armor (which cost feats for other classes to learn), etc. Classes that get less of those "free feats" make up for it with more trained skills.

 

[Voadam]

Well, in 4e, the Fighter still starts with more HP, better weapons and armor (which cost feats for other classes to learn), etc. Classes that get less of those "free feats" make up for it with more trained skills.

Doesn't the paladin get all those plus more skills than the fighter?

 

[Voadam]

The different amount of skill points in 3e is largely the result of horse-trading class abilities. Fighters get full BAB, excellent armor, excellent hit points, tons of feats = low skill points. Wizards and sorcerers get most powerful full spell casting progression = low skill points. Clerics get very powerful full spell casting and excellent armor = low skill points. Druids get weaker full spell casting, weak armor, good oddball powers = medium skill points. Rangers get weak armor, moderate hit points, good BAB = high skill points. You get the idea...

But people keep telling me that 4e's methodology, of balancing combat separately so that every character is as useful as every other in virtually every fight, is different and that combat and out of combat were NOT balanced against each other. So while 3e's different skill point amounts make some sense as I see it, I can't explain 4e's. If archetype explains, why would they rely on an archetype to create characters a bit out of balance out of combat when they explicitly tossed that idea for combat?

That's why the archetype argument doesn't work with me, not as anything but a mistaken decision in design methodology.

Nah, I think 3e skills were based on archetype as well and were not considered part of balancing classes for combat. In 3e the design goal was also for all classes to be balanced for combat, that's why rogues get such devastating sneak attack and evasion while rangers get ranger magic and animal companions.

Take the fighter and barbarian. I don't think many argue the barbarian is considered weaker than the fighter so he gets double the number of class skill points the 3e figther does to compensate. Barbarians just have a legacy of skills tracing back to the archetype conan and 1e UA barbarian abilities.

Similarly 3e druids are not considered weak and so they need more skill points than a fighter or cleric, they are simply traditionally associated with a range of wilderness skills, nature lore, magic lore, and magical skills.

I agree with you that the archetype skill theory is a poor design methodology, I just think it is there in both 3e and 4e class skill systems and for the same reason.

 

[Dire Human]

Skill Training and Backgrounds help, but sometimes they really don't cut it. For the sake of argument, let's imagine an alternate universe where DnD kept its wargame roots.

You have two iconic classes: the Skirmisher and the Knight. The Skirmisher has always been mercenary in flavor, ever since the beginning; a tricky bastard who lives for combat and showing off his skill. The Knight, on the other hand, was flavored a wealthy landholder and a master strategist; calling advice to his allies, blocking and running interference, and especially meeting with enemy and allied commanders. In this alternate 4e, the Skirmisher gets a rather limited number of skills (Athletics, Intimidate, Streetwise, maybe Bluff or Perception) while the Knight got much more (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Insight, Streetwise, History, Heal, Athletics, Endurance, etc.).

Suddenly, an alternate 4e player shouts, "Wait! My backstory says my Skirmisher was a cunning thief and master of stealth before joining the army! Why can't I have as many skills as the Knight to round out my concept?"

Well, why not?

My best advice would be to give the Fighter Athletics for free, give the Barbarian Endurance for free, and add Insight onto the Fighter's list. That at least keeps them equal with most of the other classes. Once that's done, think about taking a good look at other "one for free, choose three from the list below" classes, and think about bumping up their skill list. Make sure they've at least got one combat skill (Athletics, Acrobatics, Heal, Intimidate, Stealth), one knowledge skill (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Nature, Religion, Streetwise), and one social skill (Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Intimidate). But, preferably, give them two or more each for the sake of choice. Sprinkle Endurance, Perception and Thievery to taste.

 

[billd91]

Nah, I think 3e skills were based on archetype as well and were not considered part of balancing classes for combat. In 3e the design goal was also for all classes to be balanced for combat, that's why rogues get such devastating sneak attack and evasion while rangers get ranger magic and animal companions.

Take the fighter and barbarian. I don't think many argue the barbarian is considered weaker than the fighter so he gets double the number of class skill points the 3e figther does to compensate. Barbarians just have a legacy of skills tracing back to the archetype conan and 1e UA barbarian abilities.

Similarly 3e druids are not considered weak and so they need more skill points than a fighter or cleric, they are simply traditionally associated with a range of wilderness skills, nature lore, magic lore, and magical skills.

I agree with you that the archetype skill theory is a poor design methodology, I just think it is there in both 3e and 4e class skill systems and for the same reason.

I don't agree.

In 3.5, I think the fighter gets fewer skill points than the barbarian because the fighter gets a bunch of bonus feats and better armor while the barbarian's fighting abilities, though still nice, are pretty much fixed in a niche.

I suppose the archetype matters a bit in that characters were designed to fill a variety of archetypcal roles in the party. But I do believe that the tools given to fill those niches, and the amount of them, was part of the overall balance process and not arbitrary based on the archetyping. The fighter may not need a lot of skill points to fill a typical fighter niche, but he's got expansive feats that make up for it. The paladin has the same paucity of skill points but has powerful defensive and divine abilities to compensate. The barbarian gets more skill points to fill his niche, but has more limited powers. The ranger has the most skill points of the main fighter classes but has the weakest offense as well.

The fact that the druid turned out to be one of the most powerful characters of all was, I believe, a totally unanticipated result of polymorph (and thus wildshape) simply being too good.

 

[Voadam]

I don't agree.

In 3.5, I think the fighter gets fewer skill points than the barbarian because the fighter gets a bunch of bonus feats and better armor while the barbarian's fighting abilities, though still nice, are pretty much fixed in a niche.

I suppose the archetype matters a bit in that characters were designed to fill a variety of archetypcal roles in the party. But I do believe that the tools given to fill those niches, and the amount of them, was part of the overall balance process and not arbitrary based on the archetyping. The fighter may not need a lot of skill points to fill a typical fighter niche, but he's got expansive feats that make up for it. The paladin has the same paucity of skill points but has powerful defensive and divine abilities to compensate. The barbarian gets more skill points to fill his niche, but has more limited powers. The ranger has the most skill points of the main fighter classes but has the weakest offense as well.

The fact that the druid turned out to be one of the most powerful characters of all was, I believe, a totally unanticipated result of polymorph (and thus wildshape) simply being too good.

Also full caster (with the strongest summons), strongest animal companion, on top of the wildshape with a 3/4 BAB and d8 HD.

So you feel barbarians are fixed in a niche whereas fighters are not and so barbarians get skill points and more class skills to balance them out. Heh. Yeah, we disagree.

Taking the other end of the skill spectrum, do you think the 8 skill point 3.5 rogue is a weaker combatant than the 6 point bard (4 points in 3.0) or the 4 skill point monk? More limited in his other overall class powers and features? The weakest/most limited of all the classes if you take out skill mechanics?

The 3e wizard has his casting stat bonus giving him bonus skill points as well, while the sorcerer does not. Are the wizard class powers (prepared arcane casting, bonus feats, familiar) more limited than the sorcerer's (spontaneous arcane casting, limited spells known, slower spell level progression, familiar)? Or is it a difference better explained by the archetypes of the knowledgeable sage-like wizard who studies magic versus the sorcerer's untrained inborn magic concept?