changing the way cross class skills work

[Treebore]

Personally, i think it will work. You are paying ten skill points to make each cross-class skill you spend these points on into a class skill. Balancing enough. Feats are hard enough to come by, using skill points can be a little less painful, but still balanced.

I'd go with it, matter of fact, I will have it as a houserule.

 

[argo]

5 cross class ranks (10 skill points) is a _massive_ investment for anybody except maybe a rogue. So yeah, this looks balanced. It may weaken standard multiclassing a bit but the heart of multiclassing in 3e is the idea that if you want it bad enough to pay for it then you can have it.

However I would leave the skill caps in place as they will afford the class skill users a slight edge. Besides, I doubt anyone is going to be spending enough points cross class to break the cap anyway.

 

[Negative Zero]

Al,
your assumption seems to be centered around a belief that everyone will somehow suddenly have whatever skill is necessary at any given moment maxed out, because all of a sudden, "every guard on the planet has maxed Listen" and "most characters have good Sense Motive scores." they both can't be true. and saying that hypotheically at any given point either can be true, just doesn't have any grounding in reality.

as argo said, it's a simple case of "if you want it bad enough to pay for it then you can have it." which is exactly what i had in mind when i thought up the idea. i also agreed with Treebore that feats are a lil hard to come by. e.g. as a 5th lvl cleric you've got 3, (assuming you're human) that's still a tough choice. and there's nothing (but the GM) stopping players from taking those feats in addition to using this rule. if you want to play a fighter who's got bluff, sense motive and appraise, there you go. (of course i'm exaggerating for effect.)

as for the changing the cap thing, the only real difference it makes is that now, with this rule, a character can have that skill he's always wanted added to his list one lvl earlier (4th instead of 5th). after that, he's likely to buy cross class ranks in a different skill, if he does so at all. it's my experience that nost people generally don't take more than one (two at most) cross class skills anyway. if you need more than that, you play a different class.

'nyway that's just how i see it. i could be wrong.

~NegZ

 

[Treebore]

Argo,

They would already have a 5 point edge, assuming they had been putting max points and keep doing so. So keeping the cap will just give a little more assurance of keeping the edge.

The cross-class character will always be five points behind in overall skill points for every cc skill they get changed to a class skill. So in that perspective the character with all of their skills being class skills will always have the edge.

I am going to think about your point some more, though. It does have some merit in keeping class skills as being a stronger benefit than cross-classing.

I will go with whichever way will be more fun for my players, it isn't like adopting this rule is going to break game balance and ruin everything. But it could make it easier for players to achieve a wider variety of character concepts that revolve around skills.

Why punish players with a cc skill that some game designer decided should be cc when the player can create a history to justify it being a class skill? Why should it stay a cc when a PC has spent so much time and effort learning it to level 5? Why do they continue to not be as good at learning these skills? I don't see the logic in keeping it a cc after a certain high level of proficiency is obtained. A skill level of 5 is a high level of proficiency. I think it is more logical and fairer to do it this way than as written in the rules. If it "broke" things I wouldn't support it. I do not see how this could break the game when a PC that has it as class skill could always be 5 ranks higher.

I think i will use it as originally posted here. I like it and don't see how it is unfair. Matter of fact, I think it is actually fairer.

 

[Al]

Al,
your assumption seems to be centered around a belief that everyone will somehow suddenly have whatever skill is necessary at any given moment maxed out, because all of a sudden, "every guard on the planet has maxed Listen" and "most characters have good Sense Motive scores." they both can't be true. and saying that hypotheically at any given point either can be true, just doesn't have any grounding in reality.

Not really. I'm assuming that characters max out skills most useful to their professional careers. Guards have to...um...guard. In spite of being fighters, they have little use for Jumping around or Climbing up and down- even Ride is likely to be somewhat useless. Thus, they are best maxing Listen and Spot- a guard is useless if he cannot hear someone sneak past him! If he maxes Spot as well (most guards should go Listen, Spot, then other skills), the poor PC rogue is 'double nerfed' since even if the guard only has a 30% chance of beating the rogue on either, his chances of passing one or the other means that the odds are the PC is detected...so much for the great sneak-thief. Likewise, those in positions of authority, court, or power would do well to invest ranks in Sense Motive.

it's my experience that nost people generally don't take more than one (two at most) cross class skills anyway

That's probably because they don't get that much return under the current system. Using an argument that under the status quo not many cc skills are taken is flawed- because you're changing the parameters, cc skills become more attractive, and more are taken. It's a bit like saying not many wizards take Gust of Wind, so it's okay if we add 30d6 sonic damage.

Why punish players with a cc skill that some game designer decided should be cc when the player can create a history to justify it being a class skill?

Players can justify anything given half the chance. One could 'justify' why your characters has to have 18 in all stats, 9th level spells, full BAB progression, d12 hp etc. 'Justification' usually means 'post facto excuse for powergaming', IME. If his 'history' is really that detailed, sink a feat into it.

They would already have a 5 point edge, assuming they had been putting max points and keep doing so

Unlikely. If the skill is sufficiently important for them to invest 10 points into it, they will doubtless max it altogether, leaving them just 2 points astray from the full level.

The cross-class character will always be five points behind in overall skill points for every cc skill they get changed to a class skill.

Which is fine assuming parity of skill points. But not all skill points are equal, due to the skill list (going back to the 'double balancing'). A fighter's skill points are worth less since they can only invest in a few less useful skills like Climb, Jump, Swim etc. Likewise, once Concentration, Spellcraft, Knowledge (arcana) and possibly one or two others are at decent levels, a wizard's skill points dramatically decline in value. This places the skill points at a closer parity, and removes of the balancing factors of the skill system.

I do not see how this could break the game when a PC that has it as class skill could always be 5 ranks higher.

I agree. It doesn't 'break the game'. It merely imposes a 'hidden nerf' on the skill heavy classes, particularly the ones dependent on opposed rolls- the ranger, rogue and bard. 'Break the game' is a bit dramatic, but it does make the classes (more) unequal.

 

[Tatsukun]

I'm not sure I like this idea. If your mage is sneaking around all the time and thus is improving his move silently, he's taking levels of rogue (and not wizard).

It's hard to learn ‘spellcraft’ by sneaking around, and it's hard to learn ‘move silently’ by reading books. You can do either one (There are no more class exclusive skills), but not necessarily both at the same time.

That said, I do like to allow my players a chance to expand the class (especially fighters). I let them use a feat (and it's on the fighter list) to make any one skill a class skill. It seems to work when it's used, but it is rarely used.

That's my two yen.

-Tatsu

 

[Buttercup]

I don't see a problem with your idea, Neg-Z. In fact, I would go even farther. I would say that it wouldn't be a problem to let a player, at character creation, make any single cross-class skill into a class skill, in exchange for giving up a class skill from the regular list.

This would let you create the fighter with a taste for military history (Knowledge (Military history)), or the sorcerer who grew up on a horse farm (Handle Animal), or perhaps the wizard who believes that a physically fit body makes the mind work better (Tumble).

 

[Zustiur]

I have to agree with Buttercup on this one.

I see no major flaw in Negzero's idea. I'm split over the idea of changing the max ranks though.

In some ways you've already paid the penalty... but I believe it's always a good idea to make a story:

-------
WARNING: The rest of this post is quite long, and I ended up destroying my own theory. Read for interest's sake only, otherwise skip to the final paragraph.

At universities, you will often find some students (studing the exact same course) will be more talented at a particular subject, and less talented at others. This is similar to classed and cross classed skills.

Person A has a natural affinity with programming, he learns very quickly and finds it a breeze.

Person B does not have this affinity, and took much time in the first few years of university, getting the hang of programming.

Now they have both become very good at programming, but person A still learns it faster - generally needing much less time studying to solve the same problems.

Keeping this story in mind, and compare it back to skills.
Both people are the same or similar class - 'programmer', but person A had programming as a talent (class skill) and person B did not. Person A and Person B have a similar level of ability in programming, but Person B requires more time to get the hang of it.

So it would seem to me: What changes is not the cost, but the limit. Ie, removing the limit of max ranks, whilst retaining a slower progress.

However, in this specific example, it is probable, that Person A could spend the same amount of time on the subject as Person B, and become much greater at programming.
Meaning that what has actually happened, is that Person A has spent less skill points learning the subject, and due to the nature of university, has not bothered to max his ranks in programming.
----------

So in conclussion, this theory actually supports the idea of swapping 'talents' or individual skill from a class skill list (during the character creation process), rather than the breaking of the cross class barrier.

Zustiur.

 

[Stalker0]

Two points I'd like to make about the skill system in general.

1) People mention guards as fighters that need listen. But the thing is, the pure fighter is a solider. A guard would be a fighter/rogue, or fighter/ranger. Multiclassing was intended to fill in archetype gaps.

2) Skills are not equal. In most campaigns skills like listen are far more useful than things like jump... which are often replacable by magic at higher levels. This is a balancing factor for classes like the rogue and ranger.


That being said, I like this idea. It allows expansion but at a good price. I don't think you should change the skill level caps though. Then you start messing with Prc req territory and that can get hairy. You have to be 7th level to start benefiting from the system without the new caps, and I think that's early enough.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.)

As I already mentioned in a couple different occasions, I am willing to try the opposite of Gez's idea (haven't tried it yet):

- max rank is 3+level for both class and cross-class skills
- cross-class ranks cost 2 skill points each

I think this way keeps the advantages of a class which has a good class skills list, but at the same time it allows a character who really wants to be at the top of a skill to do so, although it costs.