Out of combat balance - skills trained and known

[Garthanos]

OK actually I do not like nerfing player side I like to give them
more but I think I might be having an OCD attack

after giving the fighter 4 skills all the phb classes now
have 4 skills out of the gate except the rogue with 6
(oh yeah and the wizard with 5)

So I am thinking maybe
Aerealist Rogue - Acrobatics plus any three
Brawny Rogue - Athletics plus any three
Cutthroat Rogue - Intimidate plus any three
Shadowy Rogue - Stealth plus any three
Trickster Rogue - Bluff plus any three.

Feels like a big reduction, it might be reasonable to give them something more in the
skill arena to compensate? what if they get access to martial practices

*there are definitely some that are roguish.
Fourth Dimensional Packing
Parkour
The Perfect Price
Awaken Magic Device
Acupressure
Make up
Method acting
Mimicry
Hypnosis

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the rationale here is that these skills are effectively a 'class feature' for rogues, the equivalent of the old Thief Abilities from classic D&D, just re-expressed in skill terms. So rogues get Thievery and Stealth as effectively a feature, and 4 more skills as just the normal allotment (most classes get 4). Rangers get basically the same thing, with a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature for their basic 'outdoorsman' concept, plus 4 more skills.

Now, I will note that other classes seem to follow a different design, the wizard gets 4 total, with Arcana as a mandatory pick which one could argue represents simple utility magic like Detect Magic. Why don't they get a total of 5? I don't really know... (not that Fighter's wouldn't logically get Athletics and 4 more by the same logic of course...).

PHB2 seems to have come to its senses, the only flub was the 3 skills allotted to barbarians.

 

[Garthanos]

I think the rationale here is that these skills are effectively a 'class feature' for rogues, the equivalent of the old Thief Abilities from classic D&D, just re-expressed in skill terms. So rogues get Thievery and Stealth as effectively a feature, and 4 more skills as just the normal allotment (most classes get 4). Rangers get basically the same thing, with a choice of Dungeoneering or Nature for their basic 'outdoorsman' concept, plus 4 more skills.

Now, I will note that other classes seem to follow a different design, the wizard gets 4 total, with Arcana as a mandatory pick which one could argue represents simple utility magic like Detect Magic. Why don't they get a total of 5? I don't really know... (not that Fighter's wouldn't logically get Athletics and 4 more by the same logic of course...).

I find myself suggesting everyone get a build specific skill and an X others if 4 was reasonable then fine.

PHB2 seems to have come to its senses, the only flub was the 3 skills allotted to barbarians.

Basically they pretty much hit in combat balance on the nose and scattershot out of combat balance in a fit of tradition giving fighters/barbs 3 skills most others 4 with wizards 5 and thieves 6. Then post essentials let wizards spend cantrips to easy replace because have more skills than every one but thieves wasn't good enough - I guess we can ignore the Mearles - isms introduced later if you like.

Note how being skill deprived also tends to mess with your versatility wrt what rituals or martial practices you can know.

 

[The Human Target]

I do no class skills, no mandatory free skills, everyone gets to pick six (unless they gain more from a race like human or eladrin.)

 

[Garthanos]

I do no class skills, no mandatory free skills, everyone gets to pick six (unless they gain more from a race like human or eladrin.)

I was about to ask about humans and eladrins.... before my slow brain fully parsed your clauses.

I think that this option might just make taking multi-class feat more properly "optional" .... AND you just did my no take away bit meaning you didnt give rogues less you just made what they had a bit more versatile.

I might have to build a CBloader part file implementation of that house rule of yours.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was about to ask about humans and eladrins.... before my slow brain fully parsed your clauses.

I think that this option might just make taking multi-class feat more properly "optional" .... AND you just did my no take away bit meaning you didnt give rogues less you just made what they had a bit more versatile.

I might have to build a CBloader part file implementation of that house rule of yours.

I thought 6 was a bit much. If you have 5 PCs with 4 skills each, that's 20 total trained skills, plus there's likely one per PC of untrained but with a good solid bonus (possibly due to a feat, background, etc. coupled with a good AB, etc.). There are what, 17 skills in 4e? Chances are that party covers at least 14 of them, and quite feasibly all 17, at least once. So its easy enough to make the rule '3 plus one class skill' or even just 'pick 4'. I basically agree that the concept of 'class skills' is a bit dubious, given the range of build options in 4e. I mean, maybe a wizard without Arcana is a BIT weird, but...

 

[Garthanos]

I thought 6 was a bit much.

Kind of.... but situational.

If you have 5 PCs with 4 skills each, that's 20 total trained skills, plus there's likely one per PC of untrained but with a good solid bonus (possibly due to a feat, background, etc. coupled with a good AB, etc.). There are what, 17 skills in 4e? Chances are that party covers at least 14 of them, and quite feasibly all 17, at least once. So its easy enough to make the rule '3 plus one class skill' or even just 'pick 4'. I basically agree that the concept of 'class skills' is a bit dubious, given the range of build options in 4e. I mean, maybe a wizard without Arcana is a BIT weird, but...

First picture a party with 2 or 3 in it... which in spite of the games target 6 happens far more often just like 2 or 3 encounter days more than 8 and picture the possibility that the skills overlap because lots of players choose similar popular skills and that some activities are just more useful if everybody has the ability stealth and endurance may be exceptions in that category. I do think making multi-classing back to being more of a choice, could be valuable.

I have very much figured on Making arcana based on the Cha/Int/Wis.

 

[The Human Target]

I thought 6 was a bit much. If you have 5 PCs with 4 skills each, that's 20 total trained skills, plus there's likely one per PC of untrained but with a good solid bonus (possibly due to a feat, background, etc. coupled with a good AB, etc.). There are what, 17 skills in 4e? Chances are that party covers at least 14 of them, and quite feasibly all 17, at least once. So its easy enough to make the rule '3 plus one class skill' or even just 'pick 4'. I basically agree that the concept of 'class skills' is a bit dubious, given the range of build options in 4e. I mean, maybe a wizard without Arcana is a BIT weird, but...

It's worked great for my table.

Everyone has a wide variety of skills that they're good at, which makes the skill part of the game feel much more of a group thing instead of just got the skill heavy characters. Plus they can actively help each other more and break into smaller functional units.

People can build weirder more interesting PCs with the freedom. Charismatic druid and smart fighter and fit wizard who paid attention to learning fireball but not Arcana are fun ideas when you actually have the skill ranks to be properly good with the required skills.

 

[pemerton]

Personally I've not seen any issues with the RAW approach to trained skills. But if I was going to push towards uniformity I'd rather level up than level down. A thief without Acro, Athletics, Stealth, Perception, Thievery, Bluff and Streetwise is a sad thief . . . and that's already seven, not six!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's worked great for my table.

Everyone has a wide variety of skills that they're good at, which makes the skill part of the game feel much more of a group thing instead of just got the skill heavy characters. Plus they can actively help each other more and break into smaller functional units.

People can build weirder more interesting PCs with the freedom. Charismatic druid and smart fighter and fit wizard who paid attention to learning fireball but not Arcana are fun ideas when you actually have the skill ranks to be properly good with the required skills.

Yeah, I'm not arguing with the lists at all, backgrounds pretty well made those irrelevant anyway, almost. I get what you and [MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] are saying. I still feel like I enjoy the sort of "heist flick" motif of each guy has his favorite approach to solving problems. I never ran games with only 2 or 3 players, for whatever reason. If I did, I THINK I'd make them more tightly themed than usual. That would mean, for example, the PCs are playing an urban stealth kind of game, etc. They'd all be built on themes related to that, so probably they'd not too much feel the lack of Nature or History too much. If it became critical there's always a way to give the party a resource and make finding that with the skills they do have into the focus.

It just makes it feel more like your working for it to figure out how to leverage what you have, vs being omni-competent. Neither way is bad of course.