Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 4946486" data-attributes="member: 2209">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.</blockquote>