But to answer, I see only one class (maybe artificer, I don't have that book) that got 3, most get one skill plus 3 choices. The roogue gets six, so the variation is from 3-6 and mostly 4-6, not really a whole not, not like 3.5 where it was from 2 to 8 and intelligence could make it more or less, the dumb fighter and the clever rogue going from 1-11 or more.
Artificer gets more than 3, so I think there is only the 1 class with 3 skills.
Maybe it is, but is more likely a holdover form older versions of D&D. Mostly the same classes are getting more skills. There might be some minor balancing going on there, but it is probably a very very minor part of balancing.
That's my thinking too, however, with all the brainpower that went into examing every facet of 4e, I would have to think that they gave skill allocation some consideration as well. If they left it, there must be SOME reason for it.
As for why I posted here instead of the 4e forum, this thread was inspired from a few other threads on non-combat rules and silo-ing. it got me thinking, what could be done to tweak 4e to improve the skill system, to encourage the use of more skills in the game by everyone instead of certain classes always falling back on the same skill over and over. Another reason for this thinking, is that I have 2 types of players in my games - the ones who build well rounded characters while still being effective in combat and the combat uber specialist who finds skill challenges terrible due to his limited skill availability. I'd rather not debate the merits of either style but want to improve the game play experience.
So here is what I am thinking -
All classes (with the exception of the rogue) gets 4 skills. The rogue gets 5 just because he's special. If the class has a bonus skill, like Religion for the Avenger or Cleric, that has to be 1 of his 4 choices. Then, the player gets to choose 3 more, any 3. There are no limitations.
In addition, the following changes would be made:
Skills that normally appear on your class skill list automatically give +1 to that skill whether you are trained or not. This is to represent that that class generally has seen practice with those skills. So a fighter gets +1 on Athletics whether he is trained or not.
All bonuses from ability scores are worth only half. Therefore, if you have an 18, you only get +2 instead of the regular plus 4.
I'm considering training only giving a bonus of 4 instead of 5.
The point of all this, is to open up skills available and to lower the curve from bad skills to good skills, so everyone still has a chance to succeed, whether they are good or not.
Anyone see any issues with this?
Edit - One other goal is to stick to 4e as close as possible since we all use the Character Builder. This allows us to keep using it, just editing the numbers after the printout which is pretty minor in the overall scheme of things.
