Effects of making all "Class Skills"open?

[Kemrain]

Bret, I like your suggestion a great deal. I'll think on this for my campagn.

- Kemrain the Pondering

 

[Kae'Yoss]

I don't like that overmuch, especially since it doesn't conform to D&D's class model. A fighter just doesn't get the proper training to be as good at sneaking as a rogue (and if you say now that the fighter in question has sneaked about most of the time in his last level of experience, and has almost never fought, he shouldn't have leveled-up as a fighter, but a rogue).

Then there's the problem with certain skills that offer substantial power and having them as class skill could almost be stated under "special abilities".

What I would do: instead of diminishing multiclassing even further, I'd make it easier to multiclass: get rid of the multiclassing penalties, and your characters can now take that level or rogue to get a better sneaker without fear of XP penalties.


The class lists are a part of the classes' power. Deleting that would hurt ranger, rogue and bard (the major skill users). If you give everyone access to all the skills, you would have to give everyone access to the other staff as well, eg: spending 4 skill points to get 1/1 instead of 3/4 BAB or strong instead of weak save etc.... Removing class lists is the first step toward D&D without classes (nothing bad about it - I just like D&D because of the class system - but don't leave the job half done)

 

[Speaks With Stone]

Besides, who isn't going to max out Tumble if it's open to everyone?

(I'll caveat that I am entirely unaware of any potential changes to tumble in 3.5, but I sure hope they tweak it).

 

[coyote6]

What I've considered doing is removing the doubled cost of cross class skills, but leaving the max ranks in place. Thus, the wizard can max out Spot and Listen if wants -- but it'll be half the rogue's maximum.

It's just an idea I've thought of using, and -- given my fondness for GURPS & the like -- I'm not too concerned about weakening archetypes.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

I did this in my last campaign (just ended a couple weeks ago) and had no problems at all. Following up on what KaeYoss was saying, this is a very effective way to make the DnD class system more flexible and less like a straight-jacket. I've personally never liked the idea that a character has to multiclass to fit certain archetypes. With this system, if a player wants a fighter who puts ranks only in tumble, move silently, and hide, I have no problem with that - the character then doesn't have ranks in other areas. Nor does he have the exclusive skills of a rogue, so it becomes a question more of flavor and character concept than one of making some classes less useful.

Indeed, I found that classes with large numbers of skill points are still much more flexible (in terms of skill use) than others - the characters have so many more skill points to spend. Allowing a wizard to max out spot doesn't reduce the need for a good rogue and his 8+Int skill points per level. I think it also forced players to think more about their characters when leveling up - it was no longer a case of the fighter taking a rank in jump and climb every level.

So I see no serious balance issues involved with this change. The only real concern I see is to make sure it fits the concept of your campaign - some campaigns prefer to enforce the class stereotypes and balance more than others.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What I've considered doing is removing the doubled cost of cross class skills, but leaving the max ranks in place. Thus, the wizard can max out Spot and Listen if wants -- but it'll be half the rogue's maximum.

That could work.

 

[Piratecat]

I'll move this to house rules.

 

[Ravellion]

What I've considered doing is removing the doubled cost of cross class skills, but leaving the max ranks in place. Thus, the wizard can max out Spot and Listen if wants -- but it'll be half the rogue's maximum.

So what would be the Max rank in Hide for a Fighter4/Rogue1 in that proposal?

Rav

 

[DrSpunj]

Well...

So what would be the Max rank in Hide for a Fighter4/Rogue1 in that proposal?

Rav

I've thought about using this exact house rule (all ranks cost 1, but keep Max Ranks according to Class skill vs Cross-class skill), and may implement it when we switch to 3.5e, as I really like my PCs to have diverse skills. That way they aren't screwed when the primary PC with that skill can't help (like when the "Spotter" (Ranger) is unavailable and they miss the ambush or when the "Searcher" is out cold and they have to check for traps or find the hidden whatever).

Rav's question brings up one of the big barriers I had. AFAIK under 3.0 Core (and I wouldn't expect it to change under 3.5e), once *any* skill becomes a class skill for you, the Max Ranks is always your character level +3. However, if you level in a class that doesn't have that skill as a Class skill you have to spend the Cross-class cost (2 skill pts) per rank.

Since all skill ranks (class & cross-class) cost only 1 rank with the proposed house rule, I thought of making the following adjustment:

"Only half of all cross-class levels count towards the max rank total (rounded down, of course)."

So the Ftr4/Rog1 would have a max of:
(Ftr4/2) + Rog1 + 3 = 6, whereas the the max for a Rog5 would be 8, while a Ftr 5 would only be 2.

I'm not sure if that's enough of a balance or not, compared to the old "2 Skill pts per rank" cost, but it's what I've come up with so far.

Any opinions on that? or anyone have a better alternative?

DrSpunj

 

[Ravellion]

While I was away from the boards to eat I thought that for every class level, every skill that's cross class for that class gets -1 max ranks, to a total of -6 (arbitrarily picked at the moment).

In effect, it is slightly simpler.

A Fighter 1 Would have 3 max ranks in Hide.
A fighter 3 would have 3 max ranks in hide
A F3/Rogue6 would have 9 max ranks in hide.
A F8/R12 would have 17 max ranks in hide.

Don't know whether it would work balancewise, but at least it is easier to track skill points ("did I buy this skill cross class or class?")

Rav