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

[Carnifex]

Why not just play Mutants & Masterminds without the super powers, then?

For fantasy gaming, I'd rather play D&D. Mutants & Masterminds is different in a lot more respects than just skills, after all. (It is an excellent system for superhero gaming though, from my experience of it thus far).

 

[Dark Jezter]

I was just playing devils advocate a little bit... Other RPG engines certainly are better for classless play.. I do predict ( like others ) that a future edition of D&D will be entirely skill based ( with many class "packages" of course )

That seems to stem from the reasoning that classless RPG systems are the next step in "RPGvolution", and that classless systems are inherently better.

When classes are replaced by a skill-based system, when HP is replaced by a wounds system, when alignment is eliminated, and when "spells per day" is replaced by a mana pool system, then D&D will cease to be D&D, and everything that made it special in the first place will be gone.

 

[Aaron L]

No, because everyone would have maxed out Spot, Listen, and a few essential skills, and the vast majority of them would be ignored. It even talks about giving characters non standard class skills to fit a character concept in the DMG. Use that.

 

[Elf Witch]

I was thinking about this subject myself all week as a matter of fact I was going to start a thread on it myself.

I have never liked the class/cross class skills. It locks all the classes into the same mold you get no variety. Say you want a fighter who wears leather and use dex with weapon finesse why can't she take tumble as a class skill it fits the concept. And don't say use cross class skills with the two for one and the fact that fighters only get 2 skill points it does not work unless you have a high intelligence.

I have heard the argument that well now this fighter tumbles better than the rogue so what. The rogue with his skill points still does better in a lot of other skills than the fighter. I have often heard this argument done with pick pocket now sleight of hand that other classes can be as good as a rogue in this again I say so what. The rogue will still shine in so many more areas that the rest.

Off topic why is alchemy now have the requirement of one level of spellcaster? That makes no sense to me. A lot of the compunds are not magical. If you want magical take brew potion.

 

[Carnifex]

No, because everyone would have maxed out Spot, Listen, and a few essential skills, and the vast majority of them would be ignored. It even talks about giving characters non standard class skills to fit a character concept in the DMG. Use that.

Are you so sure about that?

Maxing out essential skills depends on what your class is as to what is essential, and the class essential skills are already class skills anyway. No change there. And maxing out Spot and Listen as well... um, apart from maybe rangers, bards and rogues, no-one has enough skill points to jsut be able to max out two not-that-essential skills anyway. And when they realise that its just not necessary to have everyone in the part with max Spot, they might choose different things instead. Or if they do want to do that, if they have for instance a character concept of a fighter with keen senses, more power to them!

I don't see why everyone would max out Spot and Listen.

 

[swrushing]

In my next game, and subsequent ones unless problems develop, i will introduce CHARACTER SKILLS. Each character at the beginning will be allowed to choose one skill to be a CHARACTER SKILL. This skill will be considered a class skill regardless of which class or classes the character takes. I will also give the character a +2 bonus with that skill.

I think the benefit of class skills and cross class skills is to enhance the benefits of classes in general. By linking together reasonable groups of abilities into classes, you gain a valuable tool for showing the players what the world is like. The classes tell the players what archtypes and stereotypes they know to be ib the world. Just as "actor", "scientist", "construction worker" and "marine" give us a basic idea of what traits and abilities a person would have, so classes give the players that knowledge about their character's world and people.

To me, the more the character's world deviates from ours, the more valuable classes become as an information tool.

But, they should not be too rigid and unflappable. It seems a lot of people don't want to get into making minor tweaks and such to make the generic class fit the specific character better. To me, making small changes to a class is fine and reflects the normal levels of diversity. It just should not be some dramatic as to make the stereotypes/classes meaningless.

 

[reapersaurus]

not having read the rest of the thread, my answer to the original question is:

A resounding YES! You should definately try out all skills as class skills.

Fretting over the rogue's plight is the tyranny of the minority - every other class potentially has a better game, and more fun. That's the point, isn't it? So don't let the over-concern for rogues stop you from doing a change that you fell would better the game as a whole.

Screw "balance" - try it out, and see if anyone still plays rogues. That'd be the only evidence that should be used for your group.

 

[Zappo]

I was hoping that the skill system would give far more flexibility and customisability to characters, in terms of picking up minor talents and abilities that helped flesh out the character. let me give an example. I played in a fun 2e Planescape group, one of the players of whom ran a Cipher wizardess. Now this wizard was very into the whole Cipher thing of physical training and spent a lot of time at Sigil's Great Gymnasium, and was very athletic and acrobatic.

With 3e, I was hoping that a character like this would be able to take a few points of, say, Tumble, to reflect her abilities. Then it'd have an actual effect, though not a great one, on the battlefield.

But it is fairly logical to say that training in athletics took some time away from the wizard's magical studies. After all, we aren't talking about fitness; having more than a few ranks in Tumble means that you're a well-trained pro, able to jump over people while dodging blows.

For this reason, I think that the correct way to represent that character would be to either spend a feat to be allowed Tumble as a class skill, or take a level in rogue or monk (incidentally, the soon-to-be-released Planescape 3E includes a feat that allows Ciphers to ignore monk multiclass restrictions, on account of their lifestyle), or sacrificing spellcraft or knowledge(arcana). Naturally, these options deliver a blow to the character's spellcasting capacity. And that's just how it should be; developing some skills means that you won't develop others.

If the character concept is a wizard that is just as powerful as the other party wizard, plus he can tumble - well then, that's evidently a more powerful character, best formalized with either a higher level or higher stats, rather than by changing the rules so that a more powerful character fits into the same level as another that is only guilty of being vanilla.

Same thing for the wizard tyrant. If he actually spends time doing politics and running the nation, well that time is subtracted from his arcane studies. If he doesn't - then he can't learn how to do it. If he manages to do both, then he is logically more powerful (being a wizard AND a diplomat), mechanically having a higher level or higher stats.

The classical example is Gandalf, of course. Powerful wizard AND excellent fighter (ignoring the maiar thingy). It's pointless to complain that D&D can't represent him because fighters can't cast and wizards can't fight. They can, if they multiclass, and it turns out they can't play in your party because of too high a level. Well duh, of course, I say. If the character is conceptually more powerful than any other character in the party, it will lack the feats, skill points, whatever, to be correctly represented at that level.

 

[Carnifex]

But it is fairly logical to say that training in athletics took some time away from the wizard's magical studies. After all, we aren't talking about fitness; having more than a few ranks in Tumble means that you're a well-trained pro, able to jump over people while dodging blows.

Surely this is represented perfectly fine by the fact that the wizard is spending some of her skill points on Tumble, where another wizard would be able to spend the points on, say, Knowledge (Arcana) or whatever. Removing cross-class skills would not make her *better* than the other wizard, but it would allow her to spend her skill points on other areas where another wizard remains more focused on his arcane skills. With cross-class skills, the skill cost is simply prohibitively high for a character to do this. Both wizards would have ther same amount of ranks in skills, just spent on different selections.

 

[Carnifex]

not having read the rest of the thread, my answer to the original question is:

A resounding YES! You should definately try out all skills as class skills.

Fretting over the rogue's plight is the tyranny of the minority - every other class potentially has a better game, and more fun. That's the point, isn't it? So don't let the over-concern for rogues stop you from doing a change that you fell would better the game as a whole.

Screw "balance" - try it out, and see if anyone still plays rogues. That'd be the only evidence that should be used for your group.

Heheh, thanks for the encouragment. I do think I will indeed try this out.

Thing is, I'm not too worried about weakening rogues. I've seen the combat capabilities of the halfling fighter/rogue in my current PS face-to-face game, and he's alarmingly deadly for someone so short. That sneak attack, all the special abilities, *and* the mass of skill points means that I don't feel a rogue is exactly a weak choice - after all, isn't the rogue the only one who'll really have the skill points to properly take advantage of all the skills being opened up?