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

[Default Name Player]

However, within a class-based system, I do enjoy a fair bit of customiseability... hence my problem with the cross-class skill thingy, because it seems unnecessarily restrictive...

Hmm...I don't know, but the first thing that came to my mind when you mentioned "restrictions" is that there's a big feat system within the core rules that pretty much solves many issues of "customization", if multi-classing is not desireable.

- "no tweaking, within the rules":
as per Page 1 of this thread, as per what Olive & Jeph pointed out, there is a feat (or feats) that covers this.

- "tweaking, within the rules":
as per tetsujin, there are suggestions within the rulebooks on how to slightly tweak the core classes, trading one ability for another. Another example is the recent "Specialized Fighter Classes" in a recent Dragon issue that has a variety of trade-offs in abilities and cross-skills, which might offer some ideas.

- "Rule 0/house rules":
as per many others in the thread, there's the house rules method of just removing the cross-class system or implementing a new one.

As you can see, there's already pretty much an extensive level of customization you're allowed (in regards to cross class skills), ranging from zero DM involvement, to extensive DM involvement.

However, is all of this to accomodate one player or all of your players? If it's just one player, it might be fair to the other players that method 1 or 2 above be used, where the player has to burn a feat to get good at tumbling (can't have something for nothing, right? ), or tweak the wizard class, albeit some kind of trde-off must occur (again, to be fair to the other players).

If all of your players have issues with the cross-class skills system, then perhaps a wholesale house rules of the system would be used, and as you have read in this thread, there have been many suggestions.

Personally, I'm just happy with using method 1 above, where there is a feat for this sort of thing.

 

[Celtavian]

re

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?

Fun is what is most important.

I just assumed that the folks thinking about removing classes were removing any semblance of classes including the xp and level system. d20 Modern is alot more generic with character design, but it is still not a classless system akin to GURPS. GURPS is a true classless system that does not use level-based advancement. It's really the only game system I would use for modern adventuring, though my friend seems to like D20 modern.

 

[BSF]

I have been going back and forth on this a lot. Though, it isn't entirely based on this discussion. Some points that BelenUmeria and Woodelf have brought up are also on my mind. In any event, I think I will be eliminating cross-class skills from my next campaign.

I can see a number of character concepts that _could_ be built by doing this that can't be easily achieved with multi-classing. I know some people will assure me that the balance will be ruined and certain character classes will no longer be viable. You may be right, but I don't think it will be that big an issue for the campaign I am putting together.

If it is a total disaster, I will let everyone know!

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

I like the Class VS. Cross Class skill distinction well enough to keep it in the D20 homebrew system I'm currently working on, but the difference is I will let players choose their class skills. The base I'm working from is (6+Int Bonus) Class Skill slots, with a free class skill slot added at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th levels.

The assumption I'm working from is that every class has 3-5 archetypical skills it "absolutely must have" to succeed (spellcraft/knowledge/concentration for spellcasters, the core thief skills for rogues, perform/diplomacy/bluff/etc. for bards, and so on). After buying those skills, PCs should also have one or two class skill slots left over to fill with skills unique to the character. The bonus class skills received every fifth level represent new areas of focus that the character picks up over the course of their career.

 

[woodelf]

I have been going back and forth on this a lot. Though, it isn't entirely based on this discussion. Some points that BelenUmeria and Woodelf have brought up are also on my mind. In any event, I think I will be eliminating cross-class skills from my next campaign.

I can see a number of character concepts that _could_ be built by doing this that can't be easily achieved with multi-classing. I know some people will assure me that the balance will be ruined and certain character classes will no longer be viable. You may be right, but I don't think it will be that big an issue for the campaign I am putting together.

If it is a total disaster, I will let everyone know!

One further thought: despite D&D3[.5]E's [implicit] claims, i'd argue that "skill monkey" isn't really a core element of rogue or bard, the two classes that i seem to see the most people worrying about losing their appeal. Yes, rogues, and to a lesser extent bards, have more skill points and more class skills than anyone else. But, if you look at the actual class abilities, i think there is only one, between the two classes, (skill mastery) that actually builds on this potential strength. If they were really intended to be skill monkeys, i'd think that they'd have a lot more skill-related abilities, like AU's akashics do. And, for those few things they have that actually involve abilities (trapfinding, frex), the ability is only semi-skill-dependent. That is, while you won't be good at trapfinding without a bunch of points in search, you can't get good at trapfinding just by putting a bunch of points in search--you have to also take rogue levels. So i don't think you'll be handicapping or crippling the currently skill-heavy classes at all by eliminating cross-class skills. Having access to [almost] all the skills isn't a siginificant differentiating element of rogues or bards, IMHO--the skill points and other class abilities are what matter.

 

[BSF]

*laugh* The Bard wasn't evena concern of mine. The rouge was a possibility, though a very slight one. Well, except for Use Magic Device. I'm not entirely sure that I want it to be a really viable option for every class. But, then again, you do have to devote several ranks into it to get a good chance to use the skill effectively. And with a bad roll, the affects are dangerous. I suspect it won't be much of a concern.

My biggest concern is something along the lines of another character class outdoing the Ranger & Druid in the wilderness. But, then again, why couldn't a fighter devote his hard earned skill points into Survival?

*shrug*

My kneejerk reaction is to change nothing. But then I think about the educated fighter that is a military history buff (With Knowledge skills). The Sorceror that is a great con artist (with a great bluff), the rogue that is a hardened scout, but not necessairly a Ranger. Do I really want characters to burn a feat to make the concept come alive? I'm not so sure. Do I want to force multiclassing? So, I am going to give the elimination of cross-class skills a shot and see what my players do. Maybe it will be great, maybe it won't. But, I want to find out.