Please explain cross-class skillz

[El Seso]

I've been in discussion with my DM for a few hours now, and still am unhappy with the reasons given for the existence of cross-class skillz.

We have established that fighters spend more time fighting than studying, and that would explain why they get better base attack progression and fewer skill point progressions. This I see and agree with. But what I don’t get is why a fighter finds it more difficult to learn the art of persuasion (diplomacy, gather information, etc) than a rogue just because he/she is a fighter. Or why it's easier for the same fighter to learn to create jewelry or pottery than to search for something in a room.
This of course applies to any class and any cross-class skill.

Paallease don't post balance as the reason. This I know. I'm looking for logical reasons, as I feel there are better ways to balance out characters.

Thanks!

 

[Kamard]

Well, let me tell you my thoughts on this.

The longer you train in certain skills, the better you will get at skills vaguely related to the skills you already know, because your brain adapts to the patterns of thought necessary for those skills.

Thus, other skills, coming from something more off-base, are more difficult to grasp. If you get a lot of formal training in skills like that (aka, take a level of a class featuring those skills) it becomes a lot easier. But simple dabbling is harder than real formal training.

For a single class character, we can blame upbringing your typical (aka, normal single-classed) fighter has no training in diplomacy, as your normal soldier doesn't need to be diplomatic. A high level warrior, with a lot of practice in the field, might be as good a diplomat (or better) than a fresh recruited expert, but in time someone who focuses more on diplomacy or any other skill will be better at it than someone who picks it up in tangent to the rest of his training.

(this is probably why I have such a low rank in Bluff)


Your typical fighter can be a better diplomat than other fighters, or some oter classes, but he really doesn't have the time around all that sword-training and physical prowess.

 

[the Jester]

In my view of it, a better way of looking at skills is to think of the default for everyone being cross-class. A class skill is one you train in as a member of that class- so wizards learn Spellcraft as part of their wizard studies, for example. A fighter can be a diplomat, sure; but that's not what they're trained for. They're trained to fight, and that sometimes includes things like being able to repair their stuff (craft), physical fitness (climb, jump), etc. A high-level fighter might well be much better at diplomacy than a low-level rogue or bard by virtue of applying himself to it- but he's not focused on it. He's focused on learning weapons, fighting tricks, etc.

 

[El Seso]

mm.. All these points came up, when I had this discussion with me DM, but I don't understand it...
I hold that no one only does one thing. I'm a computer tech by profession, but that does not define me. If I want to bicycle for example, would it really be that much harder for me to learn than it would be say to learn pottery?
My character is a fighter, but it's easier for him to learn pottery (not important for a fighter) than it is to be observant (spot/listen)?
For example:
Two characters in a party decide they both want to increase thier chance to search things. They both seek out a teacher, and hire Joe Bob, a 13th level rogue. Both characters are 2nd level; Guy is a fighter and Fred is another rogue. Joe Bob teaches both of these guys to search, but Fred picks it up faster JUST BECAUSE he's a rogue? Don't get it. I mean, they've both had equal formal training, right?

I guess I just assume that a character is not defined by her class but instead by what she wants to learn.

And yeah, presumably a fighter will be better at jumping/swimming/etc, but it's probably because her strength is higher than that wizard.

Isn't part of the fun in gaming that your character is above average, and not typical? I mean come one... If my character were a typical person in the middle ages, I'd be playing a farmer.
DM: What does George do now?
George the farmer: I pay my taxes, 'cause I don't want to go to jail.
DM: Okay, he pays the tax man. What now?
Gtf: Umm. I farm. Otherwise my family starves, and I can't pay the tax man and I go to jail.
What's the fun in that?

 

[Hawkeye]

You might be able to learn to ride a bike, but would you be able to compete in the Tour de France? Maybe, maybe not. You might be able to learn the basics of pottery, but could you be a master potter (or is it glazer?) You might leanr the baisc skills of observation, but are you sharp enough to notice the ambushers lying in wait. I can understand your desire to be above average in your games. We all desire to be above normal in our chracters, but that does not mean being good at everything.

One way to look at it, is like this: The class system in D&D represents the average example of that character. Every fighter fights well. Every cleric can cast divine spells. Every wizard/sorceror casts arcane spell, every rogue knows how to take advantage of the opportunity to hit someone where it hurts, etc... As such, people in these groups tend to learn and teach the same skills to their apprentices and students. If it happens long enough, people get locked into traditions and only certain skill sets and knowledge are passed onto the students. (Example, look at the reading lists for most introductory English lit classes at American colleges) No one wants to make a change. You can choose to learn outside of thier usual knowledge base, have a difficult time finding teachers and tutors and are unable to get the full benefit from you time. Those that want to "think outside of the box and buck the system" are the ones who tend to multiclass. They take the time to find the correct teachers and tutors and get the full benefit from their time

Is that an explanation that works for you?

Hawkeye

 

[El Seso]

Of course I'm not going to be able to win the Tour de France, but it's because I only spent one or two skill points in biking, and not 56.
In college, a person is forced to take a great deal of classes.
Say I want to major in Math (I don't, but this is fantasy after all). I have to take English and History and various other classes before graduating.
Now I know upon graduation, I won't have a fraction of the knowledge of History as a History major, because I spent more time studying Math.
But as a freshman taking the same class World History class as a History major, am I necessarily going to have to spend more time studying for said class than the History major next to me JUST BECAUSE I'm a Math major? I don't think so.

I know I'm a pain, and thanks for putting up with me. I'm just dying to understand.

 

[Hawkeye]

I didn't say win the Tour de France. I said compete. That is a major difference. As for your college history analogy. You may or may not have to study twice as hard to get the same amount out of the class based on your apptitude for the material. The history major may have to work twice as hard as the math major to get the asme amount of info out of College algebra. The same could be said for D&D classes: Those people that tend to be fighters have apptitudes for climbing, making armor etc... You may have some that want to be diplomatic or want to sing, but they don't have the apptitude to learn those skills as easily as a bard does. Occasionaly you might find a fighter that does, and it turns out he is a muticlass Fighter/Bard.

Hawkeye

 

[bret]

There is a much better explanation.

Silly D20 rules.

Lets take a really simple example. It takes twice as much effort for a Paladin to learn the rudiments of swimming (1 rank) as it does for a Fighter.

There are all sorts of things like that that have little or nothing to do with balance. The best explanation I've seen is it fits a certain stereotype that the designers were trying to create.

 

[Zhure]

Those Fighters who are competetive with cross-class skills probably spent a feat on Cosmopolitan or Versatile and shelled out the points for it. So a Fighter who can track as well as a ranger probably has Wilderness Lore selected as a skill he can learn as if it were a class skill.

Alternately, he can also have levels of Ranger or Barbarian. If he only takes levels of Fighter, he's not going to be as good because the level system represents what a character is trained to do. A Fighter trains to fight and as a consequence, can easily learn to do the things on the fighter list because they're all part of the same package.

To use the math major vs history major example: Assuming Math Major and History Major were separate classes, and history is a cross-class skill for Math Majors and assuming college freshman is first level, the Math Major is limited to 2 ranks in history and the History Major is limited to 4 ranks, both for the same amount of effort (same skill point expenditure).

The History Major is interested in history. He probably spends a lot of free time reading history, learning history for fun, and hanging out with people with similar tastes.

Meanwhile, the Math Major likes history, but hasn't spent a lot of time studying it because he has been spending his free time solving math problems, reading up on theorems and hanging out with people with similar tastes (and wearing pocket protectors). Both characters study the same amount but the History Major gets a 1-to-1 effort for his studying and the Math Major half as much because of all the associative information and activites going into what they do.

We had to make a lot of assumptions for this example because we're trying to apply real-world situations to a game-world mechanic. In real life, there probably aren't separate classes.

Your dislike of cross-class skills might also stem from not agreeing with the skills the game designers assigned to which classes. If so, talk to your DM about trading out a skill. Like swapping Ride as a class skill for Spot, if you envision your fighter as being the non-mounted but keen-eyed sort. (As mentioned in the DMG on page 25.) That will maintain game balance as well as your sense of aesthetics.

Hope that helps,
Greg

 

[bret]

Your dislike of cross-class skills might also stem from not agreeing with the skills the game designers assigned to which classes. If so, talk to your DM about trading out a skill. Like swapping Ride as a class skill for Spot, if you envision your fighter as being the non-mounted but keen-eyed sort. (As mentioned in the DMG on page 25.) That will maintain game balance as well as your sense of aesthetics.

Hope that helps,
Greg

Sorry, this looks like faulty logic to me.

Allow a character to trade out a skill they never intend to use (no disadvantage there) for one that is normally only a class skill for two classes (Ranger and Rogue). This seems like getting a lot for nothing.

I can't see that as 'maintaining game balance'. If it is necessary to have class vs. cross-class skills in order to maintain balance, then this would most definately break it.