Revamp of the Skills System

[SylverFlame]

Doesn't Cosmopolitan from the FR campaign setting give you two non-restricted skills as class skills? I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Not to mention you are removing the most compelling reason to choose ranger.

I really think you have to have different lists for each class or it just doesn't accomplish what you are going for.

Just MHO though.

--Disagreable Spikey

I concur with Spikey.

The Ranger gets a double bonus relative to the Fighter, both extra skill points and an attractive skill list.

The strong skill classes need to have a different cost structure or they will fall behind.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Doesn't Cosmopolitan from the FR campaign setting give you two non-restricted skills as class skills? I can't remember off the top of my head.

Cosmopolitan makes a cross-class skill a class skill, and gives a +2 bonus to that skill. Not bad, eh? Puts Skill Focus to shame.

It is a very attractive feat for a Fighter, Cleric, Sorceror, or Paladin character who has an interesting skill as part of their character concept. Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Bluff, Spot, and Hide are particularly attractive choices.

 

[Dave G]

Well, this is a topic I've been thinking about quite a bit lately...

Here's what I was considering doing.

Eliminate the heightened cost of buying a cross-class skills, but keep the maximum rank system

I've also considered creating a list of skills that are considered 'class' skills for everyone...

The ones I was thinking of were:
Craft
Profession
Ride
Search
Spot
Listen

 

[Drawmack]

I think that your list of always class skills is a good idea. Though I wouldn't have search on it.

 

[Dave G]

Well, having the search skill still doesn't give the ability to find traps as per a rogues special ability, but how else do most characters find a hidden or concealed object or door?

I say this because several of my parties of late have not had a rogue at all...

 

[Drawmack]

I model search with spot.

If something has a search DC of x then it has a spot DC of x+10. Which means that spot becomes much more important in my games and by mid levels those without search as a class skill are much better at spotting then searching.

For example they'll notice the secret door cause they've seen 100 of them as opposed to the rogue finding the door because he feels the draft around the edge while rubbing down the wall.

 

[Dave G]

You know, that's a pretty good idea, you mind if I steal it?

 

[Murrdox]

Well, having the search skill still doesn't give the ability to find traps as per a rogues special ability, but how else do most characters find a hidden or concealed object or door?

I say this because several of my parties of late have not had a rogue at all...

Actually, you don't need a rogue in the party to deal with traps, although having one certainly helps.

If a mundane trap has a search DC of 20, then anyone can find it with a search check. Above 20, and you either need a rogue, or the "Detect Traps" spell, which lets you search for and disable traps like you were a rogue.

 

[Kannik]

Skills have bugged me a bit in the way they're handled in the core DnD rules....

For me, it boils down to what I consider a case of 'Double Penalization'. ie, they've taken 2 ideas that, on their own, make sense and work to achieve their aim, the problem is they've used them both. The two ideas are:

a) fighters (as an example) focus on training, so they don't get many skill points.

b) fighters focus on their training, so non-combat/physical skills (such as spot) are harder for them to learn, so they're 'cross-class'.

So, you end up a case where fighters have maybe 3 or 4 skill points on average (including Int and Human), and if they want to branch out from climbing, running, jumping, swimming (reminds me of an Eddie Izzard skit), well, good luck.

If I were to suggest a change to the system, I'd probably take a course that is the opposite of what has been suggested above: rather than remove cross-class skills, instead increase skill points. Give the 2+ folk 4+ now, give the 4+ 6+ instead, and leave the 8+ where it is. Heck, even without increasing the 4+ group, its not like a fighter will ever out-skill a ranger; the cross-class penalty will keep that in check.

IMHO, this would increase diversity amongst members of the same (low-skill) classes, both for things like spot, move silently and for knowledge skills, etc.

Though, that doesn't mean I wouldn't play around a bit with some of the (cross-)class skill designations; knowledge:local should never be cross-class IMHO, for example. And I think a starting character should be able to select a craft/know skill or two to make class-, or get a few ranks in, or some more everyman skills (to borrow a term from HERO); they are doing SOMETHING and learning something before they take up the adventurer's call. }:>

Kannik