Should the whole idea of class skills be done away with?

[Greg K]

I don't quite understand why someone would stick with the d20 system and not use the class system. There are other gaming systems like GURPS that use a classless system. Is there soemthing wrong with these other systems that a person would go to such efforts to alter the d20 system from its core rules?

Well classes are not core to the d20 system. the d20 system is the core mechanic of d20+bonuses vs. DC.

 

[Arnwyn]

Most people, once exposed to a skill-based system (whether RuneQuest in '77, or GURPS or Hero today) find it very difficult to go back to the restrictions of the D&D class system.

Hogwash. I've played both types, and believe both have their place.

For the futuristic genre, I agree - a skill-based system is the way to go (I'll never play any game that tries to shoehorn classes into a futuristic setting). Conversely, for the fantasy genre, I much prefer classes. I'd dump D&D in a second if they moved away from a class-based system.

 

[Desdichado]

And there we go. You can't stand skill-based systems, for whatever arcane reasons you have. I would question your ability to carry on meaningful discussion on the topic, since you've already stated that you are opposed to anything of the kind. Most people, once exposed to a skill-based system (whether RuneQuest in '77, or GURPS or Hero today) find it very difficult to go back to the restrictions of the D&D class system. d20 Modern has gone a good way towards correcting this, and shows that the d20 system can withstand a fair amount of tweaking without breaking.

Bleagh, classes are fine. If classes are too restrictive this would be true, but where classes are flexible, or plentiful, than I'd rather have 'em. Gives me some direction, so I don't have to think about every single detail of my character up front. In other words, I doubt that your statement about most people exposed to skill-based systems is true.

 

[bret]

If you want to describe your character to another player quickly in a class-based RPG, you spit out your race, class and level and perhaps a signature weapon or magic item. Done. The other player has about 90% of what your character is at his finger tips. Getting another player about 90% of what your skill-based character is like requires that you list your skills, a longer process.

Lets try this.

I've got a 5th level half-elf Diviner from Amn in Forgotten Realms.

Has a magic dagger, but I wouldn't exactly call that a signature item.

I gave you a little more information than you requested. Want to tell me what my character is capable of? How about where they put their skill points?


DnD used to be as simple as you described. I don't believe it is any more.

If you want to use a classless system and bring new characters in quickly, use templates. Torg had about the quickest character generation using that idea that I've seen, but it can be applied to other systems.

 

[Elvinis75]

Have you thought about the idea of letting a player pick their class skills and making spot and listen class skills for all?
E.G. The fighter can pick 6 class skills + spot and listen.
I think that this allows the players to mold their characters to their own vision.
The rogues still have their nearly all encompassing strangle hold on the skills.
Fighter will still fall far behind.
I do not believe that the 2 or 4 skill point/level classes will overpower the 8 skill point rogue. If you believe that it will then I suggest bumping the rogue to 10.
A smart rogue can specialize in 10 skills most others would be limited to 4 or 6.

 

[buzzard]

So go play in the street. What a great attitude

That would be you. Some of us who have been playing the game for more than 25 years feel differently.

Funny, some of us who have been playing the game for 25 years agree with him not you. I've read GURPS. It fails to impress me. Notably it also fails to impress the gaming market. Since we don't have an objective measure of value in gaming systems, we'll have to live with popularity as a key measure. By that measure you are dead wrong.

buzzard

 

[der_kluge]

Yes.

In my house rules, I ruled that all classes just choose 10 skills, and those skills become their class skills.

This campaign hasn't started yet, but I don't anticipate any difficulties associated with this change.

 

[Voadam]

I vote for eliminating class vs. cross class skills entirely. Class differences should be in the class abilities and the number of skill points, not mechanically discouraging a character from developing certain skills.

The difference is not major, a character can pick up limited ability in cross class skills, but a fighter who pictures himself as a knight will be pretty poor at most of the noble type skills at a sacrifice of his fighter skills.

Even without limitations, most characters will take skills to match their character concept role (scout, spellcaster, guard, social, etc.)

 

[tetsujin28]

I don't quite understand why someone would stick with the d20 system and not use the class system. There are other gaming systems like GURPS that use a classless system. Is there soemthing wrong with these other systems that a person would go to such efforts to alter the d20 system from its core rules?

I would certainly say that there's a comfort level in using a system you're already familiar with, especially if the feel you're going for is very 'D&D'. Going to a system like, say, Hero, requires a tremendous amount of effort to make it like D&D. A friend of mine ran a very fun and successful Birthright Hero game for years, but the amount of documentation for just the players was like a whole new Player's Handbook.

Some things just feel neat using the d20 system. It's very heroic, and it fits certain genres very well. I like GURPS, and I like d20 Modern, but running the same campaign under those two rules sets would feel very different. The more cinematic the game, the more I would lean towards d20M, and the more gritty, the more towards GURPS.

I don't feel that the class system is an integral part of what makes d20, any more than changing that AC is based on armour worn (Star Wars), removing 'fire and forget' spellcasting (Midnight), &c. Certainly the success of d20M, with its much more generic classes, and d20 CoC, which doesn't really have classes at all, have shown that d20 is flexible enough to cover a lot of bases. And I believe that 3.0/3.5's relaxation of the formerly constricting and contradictory multi-classing/dual-classing rules are a step in that direction. At what point does a game "stop being D&D"? I guess that's up to the individual. But does it really matter, as long as those concerned are having fun?

 

[woodelf]

Hmm.

There is no such thing as an objectively better or worse game mechanic. As somebody said, this isn't technology. The only thing that makes a mechanic good or bad is whether people like to play with it or not - it is a matter of taste, not physical law.

That's not true. There *are* objectively worse game mechanics. But very rarely are the ones being cited as "worse" objectively worse. A game mechanic that explicitly states it does one thing, but actually does another, is worse than one that does what it states it does. If you have a game mechanic that supposedly gives more-skilled characters a better chance at succeeding at something, but the actual probabilities don't reflect this, that mechanic is flawed, and inferior to one that does what it's supposed to. Not that i've seen any talk of such matters in this thread. But such mechanics *do* exist.