His point was more that the houserule seemed more like you were rewarding players for sucking, while punishing (indirectly) other players for playing effective characters.
I never suggested a houserule, and Mezzer's example of DM rulings or establishment of DCs aren't house rules.
If that was his point regarding my example of how the rules could work with each other if theoretical problems suggested exist or come to exist, it is incorrect. The fighter is being punished for playing an effective fighter by not being able to develop his class skills via his background, skill choice and feats. The Dragonborn Inspiring Warlord (he of the 18 CHA) is getting the benefit of boosting his class skills along with boosting his class abilities. The fighter is paying a seperate cost (his choice of background) to gain this boost to his class skills, which the Dragonborn Warlord can use for something else (say Brother in Battle to be as good at Endurance as the fighter if he wants to be).
The fighter with 10 cha likely chose to have 10cha because he wanted or was willing to forgo intimidate and concentrate on other stats which would give him an edge in combat, such as dex or con. As such, this seems all the more reason not to give him a bonus in intimidate. Conversely, if he opted to skip cha exactly because he knew that there would be a free nameless +3 skill bonus to make up for the deficiency, that too can be construed as a form of optimization. Especially when you consider that cha is normally a dump stat for fighters.
The fighter built an effective character to fill his role. Being able to develop one of his class skills to an optimal level isn't inconsistent with that. The 18 CHA Warlord (or Paladin) is getting a bonus to his abilities in combat via CHA-Based powers and Inspiring presence. He is able to develop one of his class skills to the same or better level at a lower cost (not needing to use a background or other untyped bonus) in addition to being able to use that CHA bonus with his other social skills (and, incidentally, probably being as good at Streetwise as the trained fighter without being trained).
Note that nobody seems to be complaining much about the +3 Endurance benefit from Brother in Battle, which allows the Warlord that takes it to become as good or almost as good at Endurance as the Fighter with a CON focus and stacks with the CON bonus and Endurance bonus of the recommended race (Dwarf). That doesn't seem broken at all to anyone evidently. Is it because Endurance itself can't be used to somehow break the game if it is pumped really high?
You're trying to compare being good at a skill with capability at fighting and filling a role in combat. The apt comparison is a Dwarf or Dragonborn Fighter taking Wandering Duelist and a Dwarf or Dragonborn Warlord or Paladin taking Brother in Battle. Both provide an untyped +3 bonus to a class skill for a stat is isn't going to be primary or secondary for the classes in question, allowing them to become really good at that skill without sacrificing their ability to fulfill their role.
Now, looking at a Dwarf Fighter with Brother in Battle and a Dragonborn Paladin with Wandering Duelist, both have a class/role reason to max the applicable stat, a racial stat bonus and racial skill bonus. Are you worried about the Dwarf with those bonuses stacked potentially breaking the game? Are you worried about the Dragonborn with those bonuses stacked breaking the game?
On the other hand, the dragonborn who pumped cha for a good intimidate check is ironically, no better off than the fighter who dumped cha. Which seems to be making a mockery out of his efforts.
The Dragonborn didn't pump his CHA for a good Intimidate, he pumped his Charisma for good Inspiring Warlord/CHA-Based powers Synergy (or for a paladin, his combat ability - making him good at thumping and able to Intimidate simultaneously). He is just as he was and is in no way losing anything - and he still has a background ability on tap to pick up something else (perhaps in a future background list, some other benefit to his Intimidate beside a straight bonus). And, if he really, really wants that number on his sheet, he can take the background and maintain his character-sheet superiority and be more Intimidating than the fighter, even though the extra numbers might be wasted - or not, as they might offset penalties before a cap to applied bonuses would take effect).
If he gets no benefit from CHA from his powers/abilities and takes a little hit by putting two or three or maybe even five points into CHA (though at five, he'll probably be dipping in a CHA-based class), the background is still a good deal for him.
If, on the other hand, he is maxing Intimidate to build an Intimidomancer that creates a lasting status effect of surrender on each bloodied enemy every combat so reliably that it breaks the game as something other than a message board exercise, then (assuming a theoretical WotC fix of applied bonus caps to a hypothetical problem of these bonuses from backgrounds pumping skills high enough to break the game), he won't get as much value or possibly none beyond being able to say he has the highest number (and may not get that considering class powers that give bonuses and paragon paths, which also give untyped bonuses). If he is trying to break the game, though, maybe his efforts should be mocked.
Especially when there does not appear to be any background for the dragonborn which can compensate for the loss in stat points to his say, dex.
Not an issue. Backgrounds aren't limited to one race, the races/classes are recommendations, so a background that benefits a specific skill and offsets lower stat points in that skill doesn't need to be race specific. There has been one background article published for one adventure path and one set of backgrounds in the FR book - there is plenty of time and opportunity for additional backgrounds.
IMO, until my skill check is high enough to be able to automatically pass any challenge without having to roll at all, there is no such thing as a useless or wasted bonus/boost to the relevant skill.
Based upon this, you should, even more than I, consider the stacking bonuses in this article to be a non-issue. You're arguing against one of the examples I made of how WotC might solve a theoretical problem some people suggested may exist (that these bonuses would stack too high and break the game).
If that theoretical problem exists, then I'd rather see a cap to total applied bonus to skills than a cap on options you have to reach an optimal, but not broken skill level. If it only breaks certain skills, then certain skills should be fixed.
If anything short of automatically passing
any challenge is acceptable to you, your argument would seem to be with those that think these bonuses potentially stacking too high would break the game...
