Re-doing Cross-Class Skills

[airwalkrr]

To be honest, I think I prefer the other house rule: where the limit is removed, but the costs stay the same. That way, a Fighter can be as good as a Rogue at Tumble, but he has to really work at it.

I agree. I think this is the superior solution.

 

[delericho]

While I havent eliminated Cross Class skills, I HAVE made it so you can choose what your class skills are.

Do you allow a free choice of class skills? If so, are you aware that this is functionally equivalent to letting the character treat all skills as class skills in almost every case? (Consider: how many characters have ranks in more skills than their class grants as class skills? The answer must surely be 'very few' - most characters will concentrate their ranks in just a few skills. If you let the player choose the class skills, therefore, won't he just choose "the skills I was going to use anyway"?)

I'm not saying that what you've suggested is a bad thing - but it may not be quite what you intended.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I like a lot of what's posted here. Here's one more: "once a class-skill, always a class-skill." A friend of mine who DMs a somewhat historical campaign uses this, and he does so to encourage flavor-based multiclassing.

Dave

 

[D.Shaffer]

I'm not saying that what you've suggested is a bad thing - but it may not be quite what you intended.

I'm aware of it, but dont really have a problem with it. It only effects those with really high Int scores. Admittedly, I'm still toying with the actual number of class skills they get.

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah, I just dropped em outright.

And everyone gets +2 sp a level.

 

[Li Shenron]

Cross-Class skills are limited in two ways: Their maximum rank is half that of cross-class skills, and two skill points need to be put into the skil to increase it by one rank.

This is done for niche protection. In this way, each class has its skill that it is good in, and doesn't encroach on the "territory" of the others. In this way, it is unlikely that the fighter of the group will be the chief diplomat of the group, or the rogue the expert on the fine points of theology.

However, I think this is just a bit too restrictive. This all but prevents characters from developing side skills in which they might not be first rate, but in which they are at the very least decent. Why shouldn't a fighter be able to be halfway decent at Sense Motive, especially since that skill can also be important in combat? Or why shouldn't any other character dabble in some purely acedemic knowledge skills?

Therefore I would suggest keeping the maximum ranks for cross-class skills, but making them cost the same number of skill points as regular skills. This way, the niches of the classes remain protected when it comes to skills, but it does allow for some more diversity among characters. With the double cost, characters will be hard pressed to even catch up to other party members who only have high ability scores linked to the relevant skills, but without this restriction, they can at least be somewhat credible in these skills.

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts is that you're quite wrong, as someone else has already mentioned.

If you keep the max ranks as it is (half than class skill max), you're going to have exactly the same limitations as before: the fighter is NOT going to be very good as a diplomat, and most players will not bother spending skill points in Diplomacy even at half price. They are not going to be any more "credible" in those skills, they are just going to have MORE secondary skills, some of which they might not use at all after a certain level.

I would do the opposite: use max rank = level +3 for ALL skills, keep the double cost for cross-class skills.

But then, yours is a very popular house rule, since any player cannot really say no to a discount... IMXP player like this house rule, they are just going to spend those points in Listen & Spot or Hide & Move Silently, but if that's ok with you then you should do it.