Class Skills vs Cross-class Skills

[sunrisekid]

I'd like to hear some opinions on why the cross-class skill mechanic is still around. I'll explain why I don't like it but, before I house-rule anything, I'd like to hear what some of you have to say about this.

Why do we still have skills listed for class and cross-class? Is there an inherent advantage or balancing effect that I'm missing? Maybe this was a question posted back when 3E was emerging or maybe this has been kicked around already (in which case I apologize). But I'd like to hear some other people's opinion on this.

I didn't like this mechanic in 3E and I'm not sure I like it in 4E; it just seems kind of arbitrary to me how classes are permitted to learn only certain skills. The separation seems to be limited to thematic conceptions; I understand the reasoning behind it but it seems just as reasonable to permit a player to choose any skill for their character. I'm sure many of you have seen cases where a player wants to select a cross-class skill just because it is interesting for their character. Why bother restricting?

I'm sure there's some easy way to address this in the upcoming rules (eg, feat selection) but why not just let people use the skills they want right from the start? I'm not bringing up cross-class powers or multiclassing or weapon/armor selection or anything like that; just the skill list.

I'm cool letting my player's fighter take nature survival training; I'm cool with the druid learning how to sneak around; I'm definitely cool with the wizard being intimidating... and possession of the thievery skill simply implies a (possibly) criminal background. I just don't see why we need to restrict the selection for what are otherwise pretty minor abilities. Thoughts?

 

[Traken]

The biggest argument against being able to pick any skill would be Arcana. Any class being able to use this skill changes the world a bit. It would assume that absolutely anyone would be able to detect something magical and figure out its properties.

Other than that, I agree with you from a flavor stance. Why not let them do it? There's not really a reason.

I don't agree from a gameplay point of view. It breaks a little bit of the balance between the classes. How this occurs, we can't know until we see the full rules, but it might be dire.

To take 3.5 as an example: A wizard takes UMD. The wizard now has literally every spell under his possible control.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Because putting things like skills into "packets"(classes) with other abilities helps preserve archetypes and encourages balance.

That being said, I'm currently hoping that class skills only applies to your first level trained skills, not skills gained through the skill training feat, Class skills as a barrier should exist, but it is too much of a barrier in 3.x and SW Saga.

 

[Cadfan]

For the same reason we have classes at all. Niche protection.

For me, that's a good enough reason to have class and cross class skills in the game. But its not a strong enough reason for me not to permit my players to change their class skills if they can explain to me why its a good idea.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As far as I can tell, 4E class skills are simply the list of skills you can take at level 1. After that anyone who wants a new skill has to spend a feat on it, and I don't see that it makes any difference what skill you take.

Fitz

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

It matters because not every skill are equally powerful and therefore the class skill selection itself is an element of balance. Skills are really an extension of the classes power.

For example, every classes would benefit from a high perception score. No one likes getting stabbed in the back. But the fact that the typical ranger is much more likely to notice an assassin than a fighter is part of the inherant balance between these two classes. Who needs a scout when everyone is equally alert?

 

[TwinBahamut]

It matters because not every skill are equally powerful and therefore the class skill selection itself is an element of balance. Skills are really an extension of the classes power.

In that case, effort should be made to balance out the skills more, rather than accept an imbalance and build classes based on such an imbalance. Also, because the skills in 4E are very broad and useful (no more wastes of skill points), and because there is a lot of flexibility in the non-combat encounter system, I am not convinced that this argument is a good one. Other than the number of skills that a class gets, I think every class's skill list is merely chosen for flavor.

For example, every classes would benefit from a high perception score. No one likes getting stabbed in the back. But the fact that the typical ranger is much more likely to notice an assassin than a fighter is part of the inherant balance between these two classes. Who needs a scout when everyone is equally alert?

This is not a very good example. Anyone who has chosen the Perception skill will be a good scout, so a scout is anyone who has chosen the Perception skill. Not everyone who can choose Perception will do so, simply because of preferences and opportunity costs. As such, even if everyone in the party has the option of training in Perception, there will still be scouts and non-scouts.

As a whole, I am not terribly fond of enforcing class stereotypes through having class skills. I think it is an unnecessary limitation that should be avoided if at all possible. Classes are already very different based on class abilities, weapon choices, etc, and what niche protection is needed is already covered by the automatic skills that each class starts trained in. If a player wants to create a Fighter trained in Arcana, then I say he should be able to do so.

 

[tombowings]

If a player wants to create a Fighter trained in Arcana, then I say he should be able to do so.

Here Here!!!

 

[Starglim]

We have cross-class skills because we have class skills.

It's a good thing for a class to allow preferential learning of skills that are relevant to the class' focus and training.

The way that this worked from 3.5e was to allow purchase of class skills at normal cost and to make cross-class skills more expensive and capped at a lower maximum rank. It would be just as easy to purchase all skills at standard cost with a discount or a bonus to class skills, adjusting skill points per class, normal maximum ranks, or DCs accordingly.

 

[Iron Sky]

If a player wants to create a Fighter trained in Arcana, then I say he should be able to do so.

If the Warlock's Skill Training - Stealth Feat is anything to go by, then all you have to do is spend a feat(which characters will have more of) and you become trained in that skill. I think WotC agrees with you on this point.