Does anyone like class skills?

[Runestar]

I can see the rationale behind class skills.

There is nothing preventing your fighter from say, learning how to play the violin (eg: ranks in perform), since 3.5 did away with exclusive skills. However, this does not mean that it will be easy for him to do so. For instance, there may not be any music tutors in the fighter academy, so he may have to resort to learning by himself from scratch. Compare this to a bard from a music academy, who has access to all the resources he needs to learn how to play music, and you can easily understand how the bard can learn to play the violin much better, and with just a fraction of the time and effort it takes the fighter to master.

Conversely, the fighter would have no problems perfecting his athletic skills, since the fighter boot camp will likely have access to all the necessary facilities for him to train extensively in these areas.

Likewise, I don't see how a barbarian living in the wilderness would have the same ranks in spellcraft or arcana knowledge as a bookish wizard.

Let's just say I am opposed to giving classes free reign over what class skills they can access.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Let's just say I am opposed to giving classes free reign over what class skills they can access.

It sounds more like you're opposed to giving backstories free reign over what skills they can access. A class isn't a character, after all; nor are all PCs trained in specialized academies (or whatever, since Barbarians and Druids probably wouldn't have colleges in any setting).

 

[Angrydad]

I still think that limiting cc skills to half the number of ranks for class skills but having all skills cost 1pt./rank allows for story related skill taking a lot more. How many fighters are going to spend 4 skill points at 1st level to give themselves 2 ranks in something like Profession(cook) for story purposes?

 

[FentonGib]

I can see the rationale behind class skills.

There is nothing preventing your fighter from say, learning how to play the violin (eg: ranks in perform), since 3.5 did away with exclusive skills. However, this does not mean that it will be easy for him to do so. For instance, there may not be any music tutors in the fighter academy, so he may have to resort to learning by himself from scratch. Compare this to a bard from a music academy, who has access to all the resources he needs to learn how to play music, and you can easily understand how the bard can learn to play the violin much better, and with just a fraction of the time and effort it takes the fighter to master.

Conversely, the fighter would have no problems perfecting his athletic skills, since the fighter boot camp will likely have access to all the necessary facilities for him to train extensively in these areas.

Likewise, I don't see how a barbarian living in the wilderness would have the same ranks in spellcraft or arcana knowledge as a bookish wizard.

Let's just say I am opposed to giving classes free reign over what class skills they can access.

Agreed, my players often argue with me "but it's a class skill!" and I respond "you've just spent a whole level and not once rolled diplomacy... how can you justify improving it?" I expect player concepts and roleplaying to justify their skills. If they play their characters as bloodthirsty, trigger-happy louts I won't let them raise Diplomacy... or get social feats. Fortunately my players usually like doing things in-concept rather than metagamingly what's good for them (bless 'em).

 

[Runestar]

It sounds more like you're opposed to giving backstories free reign over what skills they can access. A class isn't a character, after all; nor are all PCs trained in specialized academies (or whatever, since Barbarians and Druids probably wouldn't have colleges in any setting).

The way 3e classes were designed, it seemed that the designers statted them out with specific impressions of how they were meant to be run (hence the stringent list of class skills). So you are actually building a fighter the way the wotc designers felt they should be played.

Another example is why prcs have the requirements they do. You may be wondering - why do blackguards need to have ranks in hide, as well as the cleave/sunder feats? I believe the answer is because they were conceptualizing the blackguard as the archetypal black knight, clad from head to toe in black plate, wielding a 2-handed sword and using vicious fighting tactics to cower and overwhelm his foes.

Also, I don't quite the idea of letting backstory govern what class skils they have. From experience, my players are resourceful enough that they can probably design some over-elaborate backstory just to get the custom skills they want. I certainly don't want my wizard to be taking rogue skills like disable device/open lock and replacing the party skill monkey altogether.

If need be, I can allow "background" feats that add class skills (such as education), or multiclassing/able learner. Some classes, such as the fighter, could use revised skill lists as well (I like the warblade's one).

 

[FentonGib]

So you are actually building a fighter the way the wotc designers felt they should be played.

Agreed and this is what I hated about the 4e... 3e felt directed at times, but 4e feels directly shepherded. Most of the characters in my game (esp the PCs) are multiclasses, representing the character's development (e.g. rogue 1/Wizard 4 - representing being raised on the streets but then learning the art from a mentor), but this is lost in 4e.

You may be wondering - why do blackguards need to have ranks in hide, as well as the cleave/sunder feats?

Especially considering they usually wear heavy armour and thus have amazing check penalties... I do find that sometimes the requirements are dubious and feel just like "level restrictors." I can't remember which class there was, but one PrC required Gather information at high enough levels to force the character to multiclass to get it, but then didn't even have Gather Info as a class skill! Was this an omission on the skills list, or just lack of thinking?

I find that when players want to make a character I ask them for their backstory first and then we choose classes and skills that best represent this (and Pathfinder makes it easier) - or reverse, choose a class and pick a backstory to coincide. I like cross-class skills, but with the new Pathfinder conversions I'm insisting that players put more emphasis on class skills. A player who uses a fighter but tanks up on rogue skills is, imho, not really thinking properly about the concept and might be better off going for a swashbuckler, ranger or similar class instead.

 

[Felon]

Especially considering they usually wear heavy armour and thus have amazing check penalties...

Well, by what standard are you determining what blackguards usually wear? The DMG describes blackguards as running the gamut from brazen plate-wearing knight to cravenly cutthroat. As PrC's go, the requirements lead to a pretty open-ened design--quite unlike the paladin core class for which it's considered a counterpart.

On a broader note, my take on the relationship between skill lists and classes is as follows: a class exists to confer incrememntal benefits over the course of levels, and while a d20 class grants skill points with each level, the class skill list itself is a fixed asset. There's little point in tying it to class unless it's supposed to expand with level. Instead, tie the class skill list entirely to a character's chosen background (as opposed to the D20 Modern approach, where backgrounds provide a bonus skill or two while the rest is determined by class).

 

[FentonGib]

Well, by what standard are you determining what blackguards usually wear?

Granted, the DMG may give a certain degree of flexibility, but there is a certain bias towards Blackguards being fallen paladins or "black knight" concepts, and so there is often a tendency towards heavy armour. With the same argument as to why a blackguard may use light armour, so may a Paladin. imho a Blackguard that is really a sneaky cutthroat is probably more in line for Assassin than Blackguard. I agree though that a Fallen Paladin may go completely the opposite direction from what they used to, and rely more on stealth and dirty tactics - but I personally can't really imagine a warrior straying too far from what they're used to. Guess I'm just traditional. lol

I agree with you that the class list is fixed and can be limiting. I personally agree with the class lists since they reflect the areas of expertise for that class (since it's assumed that a level 1 character has spent their formattive years training for that class) at least to generate a level 1 skill set. But it is frustrating that you may get a Fighter or Paladin hanging around with a rogue, ranger and monk who are always relying on stealth, and they NEVER pick up any stealthy abilities?

That's why I like the new pathfinder system, because the class skills give you a bonus, which make sense to me based on their training (I also use the rules in the Cityscape book which allows each character to gain 3 extra class skills of their choice based on their social background - I find it helps round things off better) - but you can liberally raise whatever you want after that in game, allowing you to have the stealthy fighter who's picked up a few things from his stealthy companions (but won't be as good as them - as you'd expect).

The idea of tying the skills completely with the background of the character is feasible, but in my opinion that background should just reflect your choice of class, in which case it'd determine your skills. An option could be however to do something akin the "Expert" npc class, whereby a player could pick (at level 1) 10 class skills of their choice, to reflect their upbringing. Perhaps as a balance (or compromise) maybe insist that a third of those HAVE to be in "class skills" - thus ensuring that all members of a class have at least some base/common skills, but still giving room for unpredictability, flexibility and originality.

The players in my game have always felt the class/cross-class rank system restricts concepts and forces multiclassing, but they love the Pathfinder system for resolving this in a way they are happy with.

 

[Felon]

The idea of tying the skills completely with the background of the character is feasible, but in my opinion that background should just reflect your choice of class, in which case it'd determine your skills. An option could be however to do something akin the "Expert" npc class, whereby a player could pick (at level 1) 10 class skills of their choice, to reflect their upbringing. Perhaps as a balance (or compromise) maybe insist that a third of those HAVE to be in "class skills" - thus ensuring that all members of a class have at least some base/common skills, but still giving room for unpredictability, flexibility and originality.

The players in my game have always felt the class/cross-class rank system restricts concepts and forces multiclassing, but they love the Pathfinder system for resolving this in a way they are happy with.

The way I see it, background represents where a character's been, while class provides a direction to go forward. So, background could provide the basic list of skills, and the class can provide an option for expanding on them, even if that option is just a bonus feat similar to 4e's skill training, a class talent that lets you pick up a couple of class-relavent skills.

 

[Runestar]

Well, by what standard are you determining what blackguards usually wear? The DMG describes blackguards as running the gamut from brazen plate-wearing knight to cravenly cutthroat. As PrC's go, the requirements lead to a pretty open-ened design--quite unlike the paladin core class for which it's considered a counterpart.

Perhaps, but the prc clearly favours some classes over others. What rogue, wizard or bard takes cleave and improved sunder? Pure fighter classes entering said prc clearly get a lot more benefit than a spellcasting or roguish class. If the designers had intended for the prc to be open-ended, they should have come up with a varying list of abilities to cater to different career paths.

In theory, my character can take any prc he wants. In practice, there are only so many he can take without screwing with his advancement.