Please explain cross-class skillz

[dkilgo]

I do like Zhure's idea of switching out the skills, but I would like to add a twist.

Why not at character creation the player gets to chose so many skills as his class skills equal to the number of set class skills listed in the PHB. For example a fighter would be able to choose 6 skills from the list as his class skills, and a Rogue would be able to choose 34 skills from the list minus those that are mandatory exclusive skills to that class.

This is a very simple version of my idea, but what do you think? Do you understand what I am trying to convey?

 

[shilsen]

I do like Zhure's idea of switching out the skills, but I would like to add a twist.

Why not at character creation the player gets to chose so many skills as his class skills equal to the number of set class skills listed in the PHB. For example a fighter would be able to choose 6 skills from the list as his class skills, and a Rogue would be able to choose 34 skills from the list minus those that are mandatory exclusive skills to that class.

This is a very simple version of my idea, but what do you think? Do you understand what I am trying to convey?

That is something I was already planning to implement next time I DM (in a few months). The only restriction I'm using is that you can't choose skills exclusive to other classes (so no druids with Use Magic Device, for example). I might put a max on it, such as only 50% of your total can be new skills, but I probably won't.

 

[Zhure]

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.

Your argument with faulty logic is with the DMG, not me. Is Spot superior to Ride? Maybe if you're avoiding an ambush but not so much if mounting your horse as a free action will allow you to escape a battle alive. I think most of the non-craft/non-knowledge skills that aren't exclusive are all relatively par. The exclusive skills tend to be a bit better. My opinion, of course.

As I put forward a number of suggestions and you chose to focus on the one, I'll assume you find one of the others more palatable.

Cross-class vs class isn't about game balance; the number of skill points is more relative to game balance. Assuming one allows the Fighter to swap out his Ride for Spot and his Swim for Listen, to represent an alert woodsmen still only has two skill points to spend, whereas a Ranger has four.

I don't perceive this situation of cross-class skills as a problem. When my concept requires certain skills, I either suck it up and pay double or I take a more appropriate class. Wrangling with the DM to modify the core classes seems undignified. I only presented it since the DMG presents it as an option.

Greg

 

[Spatula]

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?

No, the fighter's training involves fighting and mostly physical activities. If he spends all his time training in something else, like rogue abilities, then he's training to be a rogue and not a fighter, and in game you would represent that by picking up a level of rogue. If he's training as a fighter and only being taught by Joe Bob in his off-time, then he's not as focused and has to learn search as a cross-class skill.

The class skills for each class are a representation of what training for that class involves. And it's not that it's "harder" for a character to learn cross-class skills, it's that the cross-class skills are things the character is doing on the side, outside of normal training, and their progress is slower because they can't devote the same time to it that a dedicated student can.

Take your biking, for example. You're a computer technician that bicycles as a hobby. Maybe you're pretty good at it, but you're not as good as someone who devotes most of their time to being a better cyclist. That doesn't mean that it's more difficult for you to train as a cyclist, just that you don't put as much time and effort into it as a professional athlete does. Even an athlete that's not focused on cycling would probably be better at it than you, because that sort of exercise is a normal part of their training.

 

[dkilgo]

I believe that the static class skills vs. cross-class skills rules to be flawed. Here is why:

One's training is dependant upon environment, and the way that particular character was raised. The PHB offers an entire section on how to make your character unique, and it's title is Description. In that section they bring up creating a background for your character. While creating your background you have to take into account what profession the character has chosen to be his/her staple career. But, it does not take into account how your character became a fighter, a rogue, a sorcerer, or what ever other class you decide to take at first level. The environment and your characters grooming all the way up to manhood/womanhood plays a huge part as to how your character became that fighter, rogue, or sorcerer. Perhaps the fighting style that has made you the fighter that you are was passed on to you by your father. Well, perhaps your father was a woodsman for the king at one time, and he really relied on his ability to spot things from afar. Maybe in learning how to see things from a distance he was able to learn how to listen to the sounds of nature to tell him when danger was close. All these things are relevant to how your character came to be who he/she is.

That is a basic reason as to why I would allow players to choose thier class skills upon character creation. So, all these character can be truly unique, and add depth to thier back story. The method I have expanded upon that was suggested by Zhure is what I will house rule as my character creation method. I don't know about you, but I really like the roleplay aspect of the game. The more unique and interesting the charcters the more the DM can do take make the game better. It is all about the cinematics of it all, and if every fighter and rogue had very similar skills, then things would just start to become a little dull.

 

[Spatula]

The environment and your characters grooming all the way up to manhood/womanhood plays a huge part as to how your character became that fighter, rogue, or sorcerer. Perhaps the fighting style that has made you the fighter that you are was passed on to you by your father. Well, perhaps your father was a woodsman for the king at one time, and he really relied on his ability to spot things from afar. Maybe in learning how to see things from a distance he was able to learn how to listen to the sounds of nature to tell him when danger was close. All these things are relevant to how your character came to be who he/she is.

Sounds like a ranger to me, and not a fighter at all. Start as a ranger (to represent the training you learned from your father), then move into fighter, or start as an apprentice-level ranger/fighter with ranger as the primary class.

 

[maddman75]

I freely let my players swap skills at generation if it relates to background. This is in the PHB and doesn't even fall into house rules. Exceptions are no exclusive skills, and Spot, Search, Listen, and Tumble are not allowed. Those skills are given to classes as part of their design IMHO. But if your fighter was the son of a diplomat and often talked with his father about the finer points of negotiation, swapping Craft for Diplomacy wouldn't be an issue.

As far as justification, Fighters find it easy to learn things and wizards find it easy to learn other things.

Real life analogies fall apart in D&D much easier than cross class skills in many places . Balance is a reason, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. D&D is reliant on the concept that one character can't do it all. You need friends who back you up in areas you aren't good at.

Think of it like this. You're a "Techie" class, with class skill such as Profession(computer Tech) and Craft(Web Site). You have an easy time picking up on these things, because they are related to what you do every day. Certainly, you could pick up some points of Tumble, but as there's no cross pollination of experience you would have a lot more trouble than a class with skills like Perform(dancing) and Profession(gymnist).

Its that the cross class skills don't match up to what your character does every day. If your character's everyday activity don't match your skills, talk to your DM.

 

[Jay Lofstead]

To be honest, the reason they differentiate the skills has nothing to do with reality. Instead, it is a game mechanic to say that this class specializes in these areas at the expense of another area. By saying that it is a "cross class skill", it says that it is a skill that specialists in this area really don't spend that much time working in this area. Compare the time costs between an expert in one area dabbling in another compared with an expert in the area being dabbled in (if that makes sense). The expert in the area will have an easier time and take less time to accomplish the same level of competence.

In short, it is really an artifact of having classes. If we didn't have classes, we could just say that different skills have a fixed cost based on the related ability scores (your aptitude for the skill). Back in my Rolemaster days, there was an optional rule for class designing that stated that you get x skills at the cheapest cost, then y more at the next cheapest cost, etc. You selected the skills you wanted your class to be good at for the cheapest costs and the ones you didn't care about at the more expensive. When you built a character using that class, you paid for the skills using the assigned costs.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It is really a game mechanic and nothing more.

 

[dkilgo]

I don't view the skills listed for DnD as unbalancing in any factor. They are just a list presented to help define your character that much more. Granted I wouldn't allow a person wanting to create a fighter to trade ride with concentration because that just wouldn't make any sense. I wouldn't allow it simply for some misunderstood balance issue. The skills are not going to make or break your campaign setting. They are just going to add to it. Defining what your characters are good at and what they are not. That is why I would allow players to chose thier beginning class skills with some exceptions. I only believe they are there to help define your character better, and give you the player a better understanding of what your character is capable of.

So, if one of my players came to me wanting to create a fighter with a similar background to the fighter I presented in an earlier post then that is fine. Just as long as the skills he chooses fit well with the type of character he/she is making, and it meshes well with the story line. I try not to get too outrageous with my rulings when it comes to things such as this.

 

[Henry]

Explanation of class skills does not have to make perfect sense, because there is no such thing as a perfect game. But Spatula et. al. has the right idea: keep in mind that, just because you are a computer programmer, you have professional level skill to ride a bike competitively (the level of skill represented by class skills).

A better example: A rogue is naturally predisposed to Appraising the value of objects. Because of the nature of a rogue's world-wise field of study, Appraisal is something that he can not only come into contact daily, but also something that he, more so than a fighter, has the chance to practice daily. Even if the rogue doesn't spend any skill points in appraisal, he has passed up ten times as many chances to appraise goods in the field as the fighter would ever get to do.

Another anecote: Jumping and climbing come as easily to fighters and rogues as swimming does to a fish. Why is this so? Because jumping and climbing comprises half of their combat training as it is. Fighters must be mobile enough to reach their targets, or to put themselves in as advantageous a position as possible with respect to their targets. A wizard, on the other hand, has almost no opportunity to practice said jumping or climbing skills in life or death situations. Instead, they have seen the casting of THOUSANDS of spells, and has had the opportunity to observe every type of spell aura; they may have had life or death training based on how quickly they could determine an opponent's cast spell by aura so as to counterspell it.

(Now THAT's one hell of a final test from master to apprentice: "Apprentice, I am about to cast either a burning hands or a magic missile at you. YOU must decide which one, and how to counter it. If you fail, you will be dead, as these spells are REAL. Good luck to you, and Boccob keep you. If you live, the celebration party is in the next room.")

Therefore, a fighter's only exposure to spellcraft is what he can be read and taught; a wizard's exposure is through both book learning and field experience.

Thinking about it as cross-class skills being book learning, and class skills as being APPLIED book learning with LOTS of logged field time, and the distinction should become clear.

Simply put, if a fighter has logged enough field time to start easily identifying spells, he knows enough to start casting rudimentary spells, and his fighting skills start to suffer. In short, he's changed classes. Too much emphasis is placed on character classes as being like TV Channels - you make a voluntary and conscious switch from one to the other. But they are more like collegiate degree programs - if you've taken enough classes in one field, you meet the qualifications for a certain degree in that field. Take more classes, and you've earned a higher degree in that field. Take more classes than that, AND log field time in certain activities, and you earn an even HIGHER degree. Classes can be just as descriptive as proscriptive - just like alignments.