Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sunrisekid" data-source="post: 4134323" data-attributes="member: 57326">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?</blockquote>

Verification