Class Skills vs Cross-class Skills

[Maximillian]

Also, I don't agree that any kind of flavor-based assumption or stereotype should be used to argue whether a class should get access to a skill or not. ...snipped... I think, for a PC with the right story, any skill choice makes just as much sense as any other, and I don't think a PC should need to spend a feat in order to fill out details like that.

I completely agree. I would *much* prefer a system where the classes abilities are balanced against each other, and skills don't enter into the balance equation.

I remember going through these arguments before 3e came out, when the big deal was adverts featuring a dwarven wizard and cleric picking pockets. Those things opened my poor, blinded 2e eyes to a game that wasn't rooted in convention and archetype... too bad the rules were written to shoehorn you into a role, and that multiclassing and cross-class skills were a pastiche of too-good combinations and utterly useless ones.

I don't think that balance will be too severly thrown off by letting 4e characters pick any trained skills they want. I for one like the idea of well-read warriors (anyone read Etched City by K. J. Bishop? I'm thinking of Gwynn.) and acrobatic wizards.

Do we know how many trained skills each class gets? I haven't done the math. That'd be the biggest balance issue.

 

[sunrisekid]

Do we know how many trained skills each class gets? I haven't done the math. That'd be the biggest balance issue.

If I'm not mistaken the PHB-lite shows a table that appears to indicate each class receiving 4 trained skills, but that the ranger and rogue each receive 6. The table also indicates that the rogue must select Stealth and Thievery; if this turns out to be true perhaps the ranger will receive similar treatment (eg, must select Stealth and Nature).

I like the idea of flat bonuses and progression, with room to improve via feats and whatnot.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Well, I suppose this is true, but for me this is a question of balancing the potential gain of trying to find perfect balance, versus the potential loss of limiting character choice. In my opinion, if the skills are imperfectly balanced, but still close enough, than restricting them to certain classes in order to make it even more balanced hurts more than it helps.

Having never felt restricted by the class system as a whole (although I have a problem with specific 3.x classes, such as the fighter and Sorcerer) I'd have to say my opinion is it's worth it.

I did not say that "personal preference means that they won't take it", I said that some may not take it because of opportunity cost. For example, if a team of four PCs have only three skills they can train each, and there are twelve skills available, then even if there is a slight imbalance in the balance of skills, the stronger tendency would be for each character to pick an entirely different skill set so they can cover every situation, rather than have every character pick the the same three "strong" skills. In such a party, there will still be only one scout (the player who trained perception).

You also said opportunity cost, I agreed that with more consolidated and powerful skills in general, fewer skill points on average and an (apparent) that it perception and similar skills would be less universally taken than in 3.x if you did a similar thing. I assumed you weren't repeating yourself.

The entire reason perception gets used as an example is because everyone will roll it eventually, because even if you don't go out of your way to use it, it could save your character's life, (it's similar to 3.x concentration that way). I already said this. Unlike survival or Arcana or even particularly powerful skills like Use Magic Device, just because the Ranger character has perception doesn't make it not worth taking for the Wizard.

Well, suppose that the Warlock automatically gets the Arcana skill for free (a reasonable assumption, considering that the Rogue gets Stealth and Thievery automatically). In that case, a Fighter selecting Arcana as one of his limited choices of trained skills is a case of him putting a greater investment into it than the Warlock. The Warlock does not need to put a limited resource into the choice, but the Fighter does. Any kind of niche protection or direct flavor link between class concept and skills is already handled by the automatic class skills.

The Warlock we've seen is not trained in Arcana and I would not want that to be common, since it would imply that most classes would only get two, maybe three choices of class skills, this is far more restrictive than class skills for me. I think it's more likely that all (or most) classes get 4 skills to choose, and some (Rogue and Ranger) get prechosen skills as a bonus.

Also, I don't agree that any kind of flavor-based assumption or stereotype should be used to argue whether a class should get access to a skill or not. To make this more clear, why not look at skills like Insight, Streetwise, or Dungeoneering. Can you name a class for which skills like these should ever be cross-class skills? Is there a class for which the character growing up on the streets does not make sense? Is there a class where being insightful does not make sense? Is there a class where going into a dungeon does not make sense? I think, for a PC with the right story, any skill choice makes just as much sense as any other, and I don't think a PC should need to spend a feat in order to fill out details like that.

Streetwise doesn't make obvious sense for classes which have some sort of extensive training as part of their background (Wizards & Clerics as the most obvious ones), Insight is (I believe) supposed to be sense motive, not just generally being "insightful", so it makes sense for it to be cross-class for classes for which dealing with people is not necessarily the norm (such as Wizards, and the more wildernessy classes). I'm not entirely sure what 4e Dungeoneering is supposed to cover.

However, obviously these are rationalizations, reasons for specific class skills not reasons for the rule as a whole. I still feel that it the reason for the rule is it helps create archetypes, making characters of different classes feel different and making creating characters easier for new users. Removing the mechanic of "class skills" should be a perfectly good house rule, similar, but less drastic to opening up power selection to all classes, but from the position of the developers, as creators of a game that is going to be used in RPGA games and is attempting to get new blood, it is my opinion the solidification of character archetypes and the extra safety valve against imbalance outweighs the extra character options opening up all skills would provide.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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?

Your fundamental premise is incorrect. Anyone can learn any skill.

It so happens that each class has access to practically heroic levels of certain skills at a moderate costs, varying by class.

But any mid-level PC could have, say, a +7 or better Tumble. That is none too shabby, and useful to boot.

The real problem is that most classes get so few skill points, such that their advancement in terms of breadth seems unnecessarily anemic.