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

[billd91]

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

The druid spell-casting is not generally as good as either the cleric or wizard/sorcerer. The animal companion becomes an increasingly weak power as the character levels, as do the summoning spells. Wildshape, I believe, was not rated nearly as powerful as it turned out to be (hence all the polymorph fixing).

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?

It's not simply a question of being a weaker combatant. It's having other powers, to balance off the skill points. The barbarian builds on a fairly tight schedule and focused around a certain point compared to fighters. Bards get a variety of group buffs and spellcasting building up his level progression while the rogue gets mainly a power that simply builds.
Seriously, do you think the archetype niche filled by the rogue is really much different from the bard with respect to the skill points it takes for coverage? I don't think so, that's why I think balancing off other powers is significant.

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?

The sorcerer is one of the classes I'd give 4 skill points to that didn't happen to get it.
But, with respect to archetypes, I think you help make my case. What is it about the untrained and inborn aspect of the sorcerer archetype mandates few skill points compared to the 4 point median? Nothing I can think of. It's mainly a question of power, and the sorcerer has quite a bit of it.

I think it's clear that 3e characters were not all developed to be balanced in combat without any consideration of their balance outside of combat - and that's been a pretty frequent accusation made by critics - that poor combat ability is supposedly balanced by good non-combat potential and that 4e hasn't made that mistake.
Well, if they haven't, why the differences in trained skills among the 4e classes?

I won't get into whether or not I think it's a mistake. Personally, I don't think it is, but that could help explain why I prefer 3.5 to 4e.

 

[Voadam]

It's not simply a question of being a weaker combatant. It's having other powers, to balance off the skill points. The barbarian builds on a fairly tight schedule and focused around a certain point compared to fighters. Bards get a variety of group buffs and spellcasting building up his level progression while the rogue gets mainly a power that simply builds.
Seriously, do you think the archetype niche filled by the rogue is really much different from the bard with respect to the skill points it takes for coverage? I don't think so, that's why I think balancing off other powers is significant.

I think it is legacy archetypes, rogues are the biggest skills guys in 3e followed by bards then rangers, just as it was in 2e.

Wizards get more skill points than other 2 skill point classes because of their int casting stat synergy. They also have tons of utility magic. They also have effective combat magic. Fighters can fight but get no out of combat powers and few skills.

I don't think fighters are considered better in combat than wizards so they are balanced by getting no out of combat powers or skills while the wizard does.

The sorcerer is one of the classes I'd give 4 skill points to that didn't happen to get it.
But, with respect to archetypes, I think you help make my case. What is it about the untrained and inborn aspect of the sorcerer archetype mandates few skill points compared to the 4 point median? Nothing I can think of. It's mainly a question of power, and the sorcerer has quite a bit of it.

What about the concept of somebody who is not trained and gets all their power from magic says they should be on the lower end of the mundane skill point range? Really? It seems to me that a concept that is not known for skill usage and specifically does not study or train would be on the low end of the skill point spectrum for assigning points to concepts.

I think it's clear that 3e characters were not all developed to be balanced in combat without any consideration of their balance outside of combat - and that's been a pretty frequent accusation made by critics - that poor combat ability is supposedly balanced by good non-combat potential.

I disagree. I don't think fighters outstrip other classes in combat so that they are balanced by a distinct lack of out of combat mechahical capabilities. I don't think that is the case and I don't think that was the design goal.

 

[Garthanos]

What about the concept of somebody who is not trained and gets all their power from magic says they should be on the lower end of the mundane skill point range? Really? It seems to me that a concept that is not known for skill usage and specifically does not study or train would be on the low end of the skill point spectrum for assigning points to concepts.

Conversely I am a natural talent at magic I have all kinds of skills outside of magic because I never needed to train in magic... it just came naturally.

In fact having an inborn gift and not needing external training doesn't to me imply one way or another about whether you have ability that counts as being skill trained or not.

 

[Voadam]

Conversely I am a natural talent at magic I have all kinds of skills outside of magic because I never needed to train in magic... it just came naturally.

In fact having an inborn gift and not needing external training doesn't to me imply one way or another about whether you have ability that counts as being skill trained or not.

Yeah. The concept says nothing about skill use so that implies to me lots of skill use is not part of the class archetype. The ones with high class skill points have skill use built into their class concept.

Rogue D&D archetype - sneaky skill guy uses a lot of skills - high skill points.

Bard D&D Archetype - social skill guy with magic who does a lot of skill things - high skill points.

Ranger D&D Archetype - Wilderness skilled expert warrior with a little magic - lots of skill points

Fighter D&D Archetype - exclusively weapons and armor focused warrior - low skill points

Cleric D&D Archetype - faith based warrior spellcaster whose powers are given direct by gods - low skills.

Sorcerer D&D Archetype - untrained inborn caster - low skill points

Wizard D&D archetype - intelligent spellcaster who studies magic - enough skills to be a magical lore expert but mostly come through intelligence casting stat synergy.

The classes with skill concepts get lots of class skill points.

The classes without skill concepts get the low end of the class skill points.

 

[Garthanos]

Note if something comes to you naturally you have more time to spend... "on whatever" you might spend it on skill training, or being proficient with a better weapon... or hanging out in the bars... not having to train for your class may mean you have more skills not less but it may also mean you have a rounder beer belly.(nothing in the class concept says otherwize) so sorcerors having fewer skills is arbitrary.