changing the way cross class skills work

[Negative Zero]

i've never liked the artificial limits imposed by cross class skills. or, more to the point, the permanency of those limits.

after purchasing 5 cross class ranks (i.e. 2 skill points per rank) in a cross class skill, the character becomes proficient enough in that skill to add it to his class skill list. thereafter, all ranks will be purchased as class skills (i.e. one skill point per rank).

in addition, the cross class skill limit is now character level+1 (as opposed to the standard level+3/2)


the rationale behind this is; if a character is dedicated to a skill, at some point, he should become better able to grasp and understand it's subtleties. i don't think it's unbalancing since each class still has the same number of skill points per level to work with. in fact, i've always thought that having too many class skills and not enough skill points is kinda cruel

i've also felt that the cross class skill point limit was too severe. cross class skill or no, if a character is willing to invest his hard earned skill points, he's already being penalised by having to spend double the amount for each rank.

so, what do you think?

~NegZ

 

[Terath Ninir]

Sounds good to me. After all, if the wizard spends all his adventuring time sneaking around behind the rogue, he might just learn something about sneaking. It also weakens the 3e multiclassing system's ridgid structure, which is only a good thing for me.

The people who don't like this sort of thing wouldn't use the rule, and I see it causing no harm for those who would use it. So I see no down side.

 

[Al]

The problem with implementing this is that the skill system is a 'double-balanced' system, not a single one. There are two balancing factors in the current skill system, which forms one of the three main components of mechanical gameplay (the other two being direct combat prowess and spellcasting ability): number of skill points, and class skill lists.

This change is a monumental one. Once the initial penalty is overcome, *all* skills effectively become class skills. Cross class skills become only two points lower than regular class skills. This has major game-balance implications. Opposed rolls are no longer in favour of the class skill user: in short, the high level rogue is no longer guaranteed to surprise the sorceror, sneak past the guard or eavesdrop on the nefarious plans of the necromancer. Whilst this might be considered a 'good' thing, the problem is that in other areas, capabilities diverge. The fighter's advantage is fighting diverges (at 1st level, his +1 BAB is only one point better than a wizard's +0; by level 20, it is ten points better). The caster's advantage in spellcasting diverges (since 9th levle spells are better than 1st level spells). However, the third of the three main aspects of gameplay- skills- now no longer diverge. Divergent capabilities are an integral part of DnD: this change broadly removes one of the major two balancing factors of a good third of the game.

 

[Negative Zero]

true, however in order for the sorceror to spot the sneaky high level rogue, he'd have to forgo at least one of the other skills that sorcerors are "supposed" to be good at.

balance is still maintained by the number of skill points available to the class, while adding more flexibility.

~NegZ

 

[Terath Ninir]

Al, you are taking a view where the classes are important in and of themselves. This house rule, in my eyes, takes a different point of view, where the *character* is more important. When I make a character, I don't care about the classes per se. All I care about is making the powers and abilities that the character has match my conception of the character.

Game balance is important to me only in that I don't want any one character to outshine the others. That isn't fun for everyone, which is what I want. Game balance is *not* important to me in and of itself.

Negative Zero wants to play a game with more freedom in choosing skills. Given that assumption, he wanted to know if his rule would have any pitfalls. I don't think it will; I haven't used that rule, but I've used ones similar enough that I think it will be okay.

 

[Zad]

I've seen feats that let a character add a skill to their class skill list. I think this could reflect the same level of study you mention.

 

[Al]

true, however in order for the sorceror to spot the sneaky high level rogue, he'd have to forgo at least one of the other skills that sorcerors are "supposed" to be good at.

Perhaps, but then the sorceror only needs Concentration (at this needn't be maxed at high level) and possibly Spellcraft, with Knowledge (arcana) and Bluff being at the outside. However, I wasn't really thinking about sorcerors: wizards, with their high Ints and small skill lists can easily max Listen without incurring too much penalty; fighters (especially 'guard' archetypes) should max Listen- their class skill list is broadly useless; clerics benefit from high Wis to reinforce their Listen scores...

This house rule, in my eyes, takes a different point of view, where the *character* is more important. When I make a character, I don't care about the classes per se. All I care about is making the powers and abilities that the character has match my conception of the character.

As Zad has raised, there is the possibility of taking the relevant feats (Cross Class Learning)- or multiclassing. There is always a possibility that the
*character* is predominant, but if you're specialising outside of your class, there out to be some 'opportunity cost'. Otherwise, it's like the player who insists that his character 'archetype' is a combat god, master spellcaster, spy, diplomat etc. Character archetypes are well and good, but without balance limitations there are problems of 'archetype inflation'.

Game balance is *not* important to me in and of itself

But crucially, and this is an important point, game balance impacts on archetype. If your archetype is a sneaky thief, it's no good finding every guard on the planet has maxed Listen and you can be heard by a pack of goons. If your archetype is the smooth talker, it's pointless if most characters have good Sense Motive scores. At high levels, abilities diverge (see my previous post)- this is part of the point of character archetypes more than game balance. Game balance necessary enables character archetype. Without game balance, there are significant *restrictions* on character archetype, because of the relative nature of (especially opposed) skills: the skills which tend to largely be the most popular and useful.

 

[Gez]

The system I use is different. One skill point is one skill rank, whether class or cross-class, however, you can't raise a skill above it's limit depending on the class level you take when you level up. (Limits are still level+3 and level/2+1.5.)

So, a fighter 3 could put 3 ranks max in a cross-class skills, but that would cost him only 3 points.

It ease the creation of multiclassed NPCs. A fighter 3/rogue 1, upon, gaining a new level of fighter, could not raise Disable Device above 4, but if instead gaining a new level of rogue, he could raise it up to 5.

 

[BSF]

I have begun an experiment in my latest game where all skills can be taken as class skills. It completely negates the class skill lists entirely. I wanted people to be able to make the characters they wanted. If a fighter is also a war history buff and spent time with the dwarves studying the techniques, I want them to be able to take Knowledge skills and speak language. Then they don't have to have a high intelligence. Sure, they give up some of their traditional fighter skills. That can come back to bite them at some point. The only criteria I left was that they have to have an in-character justification for whatever they did.

I have found that my players have not tried to abuse this. I am still waiting for a truly unusual character to creep in with skill choices. I'm getting close, but not quite there.

I haven't found it to be unbalancing, yet. It seems to be good so far. But, if it breaks down later on, I fully intend to do a post-mortem and post it up here.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Seems a bit expensive, to me. From two OGC sources...

Cross Class Learning: This is a Feat in FNCC's Netbook of Feats that turns one Cross-Class Skill into a Class Skill.

Versatile: This is a Feat in AEG's Rokugan Campaign Setting that turns two Cross-Class Skills into Class Skills.

My own rules: I use both, making CCL a prereq for Versatile (although you only need CCL once and then you can get as many Versatiles as you wish).

At any rate, you essentially have a cost of 10 Skill Points for what one Feat can do (or for half of what another Feat can do). So, while I acknowledge that it might be ideal at your table, there are already other options that you may want to consider. After all, what if someone's multiclassed and that Skill is a CS for one Class and a CCS for the other Class. Would the player have to keep track of how many Skill Points were put into that Skill as a CCS in order to implement your rule and make it a full-time Class Skill?