Getting rid of Cross-Class skills

[Drawmack]

1) Its complicated. My players ask all the time is this cross-class is that cross-class. And it makes adding up points difficult. It get even more complicated for multiclassing.

I don't understand this one. Look at the table on the first page of the skills chapter of the PHB. If there is a big dot at the intersection of the skill and any of your classes then it is a class skill for calculating max ranks. If there is a big dot at the intersection of the skill and the class you just leveled then it is a class skill for point assignment as well. The system is actually quite simply, unless you're misusing your tools.

2 It makes no sense. Someone, being a rogue gives me innate access to all these trainers that can teach me escape artist and such, while the fighter couldn't learn any of that. I mean, fighters should be trainable in ambushing, escaping from prisons if there captured, etc.

There is a better solution to this then doing away with the skills. Two that are built into the rules are multiclassing and PrCs. One that is easily house ruled is locality or specialist bonuses. I give my players one skill and one feat for their locality or specialty. The pick their class and race, then their pick their specialty and place of origin. Based on which has the better benefits for their class is the one they get.

3) It creates imbalances in opposed rolls. The trained rogue with his hide check can beat a trained fighter with his spot check any day of the week. This annoys me greatly.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. If the fighter is trained then it would be a search check. The rogue is trained and should have a better chance then someone casually noticing him with a spot. Now if the fighter is standing guard then they should be search checks not spot checks and do forget listen checks as well. So the fighter is getting two chances every time the rogue moves half their normal movement rate.

Over all I would not recommend this. Skills make up almost 1/3 of the class abilities with feats and spells/special abilities being the other 2/3. Altering them this drastically is going to seriously impact game balance.

 

[officeronin]

What I would like to see is some system where by you can choose a few class skills. For instance, if my fighter was a guard at Candlekeep I'd like him to be able to have knowledge (arcana), etc etc. Some system that allows for a few class skills due to background.

Here's what I did, and it worked really well --

1. For each PC, define where they are from and what their parents did.

2. Pick 4 skills based on this backround -- none of them can be exclusive skills.

3. DM adjudicates the skill choices for balance, and, since not all skills are equal, it's usually 2 good skills and 2 pretty useless skills. So "My Daddy was a detective, so I get search, spot, listen, and sense motive!" becomes "search, sense motive, knowledge: police procedures and cooking: donuts".

4. If the skill is not "in-class", it becomes in-class -- and will remain so even if the PC changes class. If the skill is "in-class", then the PC gains 4 ranks of skill in it, and it remains in-class even if the PC changes class.

This means that fighters generally get more skills "in-class" (which is their weakness), and rogues get more skills. Pretty balanced...

OfficeRonin

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

My extensive house rules did this:


1) All skills are class skills for every class. (Except exclusive skills)

2) I took all the PHB skills and combined them in smaller, more general skills. (Example: I took Spot, Listen, Scry and Search and combined them all into one skill called "Alertness". Move Silently and Hide turned into "Stealth".) This dropped the number of skills from around 50 + the Craft, Profession and Knowledge skills, to about 25 + the Craft Profession and Knowledge skills.)

3) Skill bonus magic items cost the same, but only give a +5 bonus. (i.e. +5 to Stealth.)

4) Got rid of all feats that are +2 to one skill and +2 to another.

5) Skill Focus is a +3 bonus.

6) Rogues receive Skill Focus as a bonus feat at regular intervals.

7) The DM must approve all skill point expeditures. Also, skills can only be spent on activities done through actual gameplay.
.
.
.
The good consequences of this:

1) PCs can have fighters with Stealth or Rogues with Wilderness Lore.

2) There are a lot less rolls that need to be made in game play. Just Alertness vs. Stealth

3) PCs are a lot more self-sufficient, skills-wise.

4) All PCs can interact during most non-combat encounters. (Fighters don't have to sit in a corner during diplomacy interactions.)


Problems with this:

1) PCs are a lot more self-sufficient, skills-wise.

2) It is a major break from the game. (Difficult to convert monsters and modules and character sheets. Also, it is not the core mantra of the d20 system.)

3) DMs must be on the lookout for Munchkins who only take the "best" skills. (i.e. max ranks in Alertness an nothing else.)

4) It takes more DM time to approve skill point expenditures.

 

[jonrog1]

Re: Re: Getting rid of Cross-Class skills

>SNIP<
I'm sorry this makes no sense. If the fighter is trained then it would be a search check. The rogue is trained and should have a better chance then someone casually noticing him with a spot. Now if the fighter is standing guard then they should be search checks not spot checks and do forget listen checks as well. So the fighter is getting two chances every time the rogue moves half their normal movement rate.

>SNIP<

Why, if the fighter is standing guard, does he suddenly get to use the skill he's trained in instead of the one called on by the situation? SEARCH is based on your ability to carefully examine minute areas, specifically 5'x5' at a time, and to figure out what's incongruous. SPOT is based on noticing things in the world around you, which is why it's Wisdom (perception, I know, I know, but with only six stats, what're ya gonna do) - based.

I would suggest that the guard get to take 10 when on duty, and if he stops on his route and REALLY CONCENTRATES, he can take 20 as in the D20Modern SRD.

By the way, I must again plug the D20Modern SRD definition for the skills. Better written, better thought out, always with a take 10 or 20 ruling, a "must-YOINK" for your D&D game.

Oh, and back to the thread -- the Occupations rule worked wonders for us. All PC's very happy, Joe.

 

[aRogueByAnyOtherName]

I think it was balanced to begin with. A fighter gets bonus feats because he fights and trains to do so, a rogue gets skills and skill points because he trains using skills, thats logic. If you want to play a figher that can be stealthy and alert play a ranger.

 

[Liquide]

Our rules in our groups are:

1) once a skill has become a class-skill it is always treated as an class-skill no matter from where the skill points come from.

2) this is the exeption to rule 1, exlusive skills can only be raised from skill points from the class that has exlusive access to it (only raise use magix device with rogue skill points for example).

Why do we play like this?
Well when you multi-class we see you new class to become Fighter/Rogue not Fighter and Rogue, when you multi-class we see it as developing your own class more or less and we don't see why we would loose the ability to raise skills we know just because it isn't in line with what you develop in other apsects.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

If, for example, you want a Fighter to be able to be as proficient at a given skill as a Rogue of equal level, you could simply rule that any skill taken outside of the class being advanced costs +1SP--and get rid of the cross-class max, etc...