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

[Dark Jezter]

Betamax was a technically superior system to VHS. VHS won.

Commodore and Apple computer systems were technically superior to IBM-compatibles. IBM-compatibles won.

Many will tell you that Linux-based and Mac OS base software are technically superior to Microsoft software. Microsoft software continues to win.

The world is full of such examples. The technically best product does not always win. Other factors, such as marketing, market penetration, critical threshold for word-of-mouth, distribution, availability of cash and credit, trendiness, compatibility with third party products, and many such elements come in to play when two products compete.

Just because the class-system is the most popular, it doesn't mean it is technically the best system.

We are talking about gaming rules, not technology.

That's like saying that Axis & Allies is superior to Risk.

That's like saying that Boggle is superior to Scrabble.

That's like saying Easy Money is superior to Monopoly.

Gaming rules are one of the most subjective things around. Personally, I can't stand skills-based systems, which is why I've stuck with D&D for so long.

 

[Desdichado]

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).

If you say so. What you describes sounds very much like M&M though and very little like D&D. Add the damage save, and you're essentially 95% there. For fantasy gaming, I personally would rather not play D&D these days, at least not for campaigns I'm running. D&D is a kinda beer & pretzels game to me these days that we can run for each other in our sleep without any thought. For "real" fantasy campaigns, I'd still be d20 but not D&D. The D&D classes and their ties to the implicit D&D setting is a big part of the reason for that.

 

[woodelf]

I'm quite happy with D&D using a class/level system, and I'm willing to bet that most of the members of this forum are as well. Otherwise, they wouldn't be coming to a forum dedicated to D&D.

Well, there're a couple of reasons that you'll see me in the General and D20 Systems fora, but not the D20 Modern or D&D fora. And one of those is that, while i like the core D20 system, and have seen some great games built with it, i can't stand D&D3[.5]E, and think it is one of the poorer implementations of the underlying concepts. And, while D20M is better in some ways, it's worse in others, and the same in still others.

Also, i can be a fan of D&D without necessarily being a fan of D&D3[.5]E--in fact, i think that they made several changes that make it less "D&D" than previous editions (along with a whole lot of positive changes well within the spirit of D&D).

So, no, i don't think you can presume that those participating in discussions on a General RPG forum (even on a D20-dedicated website)--especially when there is a separate "D&D" forum--are "quite happy" with any particular element of D&D3[.5]E, or even with the whole on balance. Are lots of them? Probably. Are lots of them discussing here precisely *because* they're unhappy with D&D3[.5]E (at least in parts) and are looking for suggestions on changing it? Probably.

 

[FoxWander]

In my last 3.0 campaign, I also eliminated the class/cross-class distinction from skills, even going so far as to have only one exclusive skill (Use Magic Device). There were *no* balance issues at all, and players did not stop playing rogues, as some have suggested would happen.

I did the same thing and have also had no balance issues or feelings of discontent from those playing rogues. I also gave classes with only 2 skill pts/level 4 pts instead, so they could take advantage of the versatility. Still no problems or complaints. I got rid of Use Magic Device as a skill and made it a Feat however (I gave it a Cha check with a bonus equal to half your level to replace the skill roll.) There was some very minor whining about it, but since none of the whiners had taken ANY skill levels with it that didn't concern me much. In general everybody liked the change. So far only the fighter has taken it though, so he can carry a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

 

[tetsujin28]

Gaming rules are one of the most subjective things around. Personally, I can't stand skills-based systems, which is why I've stuck with D&D for so long.

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.

 

[Mistwell]

We are talking about gaming rules, not technology.

That's like saying that Axis & Allies is superior to Risk.

That's like saying that Boggle is superior to Scrabble.

That's like saying Easy Money is superior to Monopoly.

Gaming rules are one of the most subjective things around. Personally, I can't stand skills-based systems, which is why I've stuck with D&D for so long.

The statement I was responding to was this "Then how did D&D stay on top since its inception?"

My answer was that TSR, and later WOTC, may have won the marketing battle, may have had more investment power, may have gotten to the market first, may have priced their products better, may have known the right people, may have had better distribution, and many other reasons why they stayed on top since inception.

I wasn't saying one system IS better than another, I was saying that popularity of a product is not always related to the quality of the product, so arguing from popularity isn't really saying much.

 

[billd91]

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.

If the class-based system of D&D is such a sore point for you, then why aren't you off playing GURPS instead? Why do you stick with something that graps your fanny so much?

I like the class-based aspect of D&D. I think it fits a medieval setting far better than a skill-based system would. Skill-based systems are good for modern, superhero, and futuristic role playing settings because, with the spread of education and technology, it's fairly easy to pick up some training in highly unrelated areas of knowledge and endeavor. Contrast that with a medieval-style setting where characters learn things through apprenticeships and guild-enforced monopolies, where education isn't so easy to come by just by ponying up a tuition fee, where opportunites are far more restricted because of social classes and statuses.
If you make it just a skill-based system, you get modern society with some wizards and elves thrown in. That's not much of an interesting departure for a day of escapist role-playing, if you ask me.
This is why I'm largely in favor of having the class skill system in 3.x. If you want a tumbling wizard, then suck it up and pay for the skill the hard way... the way a wizard might reasonably be forced to pick up a skill considering that his master probably wouldn't be able to teach it to him, nobody in his guild gives a flying fig about that skill and would be willing to teach him, and isn't part of his core competency.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I say this because people tend to forget it. Even professional game designers. They slip from talking about what they personally prefer, and slip into talking in absolute senses. I see this happening on both sides of the skill argument here. It's silly. Some of you like it, some of you don't. That's cool. But don't go talking like someone's got an absolute truth.

Heck, don't go talking about general gamer opinion unless you've got data to back it up. I'm sorry, tetsujin28, but unless you've got some market research or something, your statement that "Most people, once exposed to a skill-based system ...find it very difficult to go back to the restrictions of the D&D class system," is an unfounded assertion. There are probably hundreds of thousands (perhaps well more than a million) of people who have been exposed to skill-based systems. Are you really in a position to express the opinion of the majority of them? Unless you can prove that you've actually got information or a right to talk about what other people like, you really shouldn't make such claims.

Please, folks, remember that you're really talking about personal opinion, and personal experiences, and that there's no accounting for taste.

In retrospect, that's a bit of a long hijack. But the point is sound, so I'll leave it be.

 

[Creamsteak]

Carniflex,

If you don't think your characters get enough points to 'frivolously spend them', the best thing I can think of doing would be to increase all classes skill points by 2 per level. For instance, wizards with 4+Int * Level+3 would be able to afford to put 2 more ranks into 'extra' skills per level. It makes slightly more sense than adjusting the CC/Class Skills system.

 

[billd91]

I wasn't saying one system IS better than another, I was saying that popularity of a product is not always related to the quality of the product, so arguing from popularity isn't really saying much.

This is even assuming there is an objective way to determine the relative quality of different products.
People can assert what their favorite systems are, but there's no way to objectively set one above the other. It's too subjective.