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

[Steverooo]

Take it with a few shakes of salt...

There are two or three problems with the 3e/3.5e skills system. First of all, no one (not even the rogues) have enough skill points to be good at all the things that make up their "job". Secondly, a/n (N)PC can be wrotten at everything their class entails, while being poor, Cross-Class, in something their class doesn't! Worse, they can be totally lacking in skills required for their class (such as a Wizzer with no Spellcraft, who can't learn a new spell from a scroll or spellbook found in the dungeon).

There are two ways to fix this: The Class way, and the Class-less.

The class way breaks all skills down into four categories: Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Unrelated. Primary skills are what a class does every day, and MUST be good at. Secondary skills are what they do often, and would be skilled in. Tertiary skills are what a class would have to do, at some point, but not often. They would have some basic knowledge, but not much. Unrelated skills are something a class could safely ignore all their life, with no ill side effects...

Once skills are divided up, for each class, ranks would be added every X levels of that class. Primary skills would be added to every level (like a Fighter's BAB). Secondary skills would be added to every Y levels (1rst, 3rd, etc., perhaps?), and Tertiary at (say) 1rst, 5th, 10th, etc. Unrelated skills would receive no benefits from that class.

The skill points/level would still be received, and could be used to improve class skills, or gain cross-class ones. Which "Group" a skill fell into would depend upon the Class in question.

The Class-less system gets rid of classes all together. It consists of a table which details how many XP an ability is worth (the 2e DMG had such a table, but it would need expanding to cover all skills, HD, and feats). At each level, the PC chooses their abilities and total the XP needed to advance to the next level. This allows for tough mages who wear armor and wield martial weapons (but advance slowly), and skillful, lightly-armored fighters specializing in a single weapon who blaze through levels... It also isn't D&D, as we've known it. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing! D&D aint what AD&D used to be!

EITHER system is flexible and adaptable - something 3.xe isn't.

 

[Olive]

EITHER system is flexible and adaptable - something 3.xe isn't.

I disagree pretty much totally.

I think it's both flexible, especially in 3.5 with no exclusive skills, and adaptable with feats that allow you greater access to the skills you want. With a couple of feats and multiclassing I can build pretty much any character concept i want. Just because it won't be as good at fighting as a straight fighter isn't a bad thing.

No class should be able to do everything all the time. that' the whole point. ust because there are now more feats possible, doesn't mean that PCs need more feat slots, it means the decision is harder.

And is a player wants to play a wiz with no spellcraft, that's there problem. Stupid? yes, but that doesn't mean that the system should prevent such stupdity any more that it should stop a ighter who takes weapon focus and spec (longsword) but insists on using a dire flail...

 

[Thanee]

Yeah, the problem with skill is, that with only few exceptions skills are only really useful, if you get them at high levels.

It's usually only class skills which play a role in the game and regardless of how many skillpoints per level your wizard gets, he will never reach a decent level of spot or listen, for example, to actually use these skills for anything but the most basic tasks.

However, removing the class/cross-class system entirely would be quite unbalancing as some have said already. This doesn't have to be a problem, you just won't see any rogues then.

Bye
Thanee

 

[bret]

Then how did D&D stay on top since its inception?

Probably because a lot of people will buy anything they put out, including updating with new editions and then buying the material all over again for the 'new edition'. It also helps that there is a core following that often refuses to look or try any other game systems.

Then again, how many times has the IP from the game changed company hands? TSR -> WotC -> Hasbro come to mind. Each time, the preceeding company was having money trouble when it got bought.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Piffle. The class system is an antiquated relic.

Then go play GURPS instead of D&D.

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.

 

[Zappo]

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.

Removing cross-class skills does make her better than the other wizard; Tumble is a very useful skill. More generally speaking, any rule alteration that increases a character's options at least indirectly makes her more powerful.

Also, you seem to view each of a character's class properties as disconnected. I don't think this is the case. The wizard casts spells, and gets spellcraft and knowledge (arcana), and gets bonus metamagic feat. These features are all part of the wizard's magical studies - they are not interchangeable with any other feat or skill, not only mechanically but also on a conceptual level. The wizard getting scrying and spellcraft more easily than tumble and disable device makes sense, a lot of sense. Assuming that all skills are equally easy for any given character is very, very reductive. I'm a programmer; I could easily major in computer science and mathematics, not so easily in computer science and ancient literature. If your character concept is a wizard which consistently performs tumbling as well as the party rogue, there is something more than just having trained in his spare time.

In any case, it is wrong to state that D&D 3E can't represent the acrobatic wizard and is therefore faulty. It can, via cross-class skills, Cosmopolitan feat, or multiclassing (depending on how much of his wizarding time the character is willing to sacrifice).

Or by giving the character a higher Intelligence, so that he gets the skill points for a cross-class skill. Or an extra level, so that he can get that rogue level without losing in spellcasting power. I mean, I perfectly agree with reapersaurus that balance shouldn't get in the way of a good character. So let's do the simple thing and hand the wizard two Int points, rather than reworking a basic game rule.

 

[Thresher]

The changes to the skill system in 3.5 where one of they best improvements to the game so far and while sometimes Ive come across as being overly critical in a negative way of a lot of things that changed, to be honest its just how I see it and I dont like to mince words.
Dumping class based skills would be a step in the right direction and giving more skill points per level for all classes so people can pick up the basics like the spots and listens that will at least level a few things out and freeing up a few points that will give the character an emphasis away from just hitting things, stealing things and nuking things in the times they arent adventuring.
As for rogues loosing out?
I really dont think so, the ones Ive played and made up recently where quite good both in and out of combat, skills are just one aspect of them and their other abilities later on are to be highly respected, if not feared by GM's everywhere

Dont tell me a fighter picking up a rank or 2 in Spellcraft or Knowledge arcana after being nuked a few times and hanging out with clerics, sorcerers and wizards for most of his career on a day to day basis, is going to cause the D&D "Balance" bulls..t to go spinning wildly out of control and cause gamers sterility, hair loss and mental scarring for life...

 

[A'koss]

I strenously disagree that it should be harder for some classes to pick up certain skills provided they have the opportunity and desire to do so.

Learning how to swim while growing up in a barren desert you can argue, but a wizard wants to pick up tumbling? Why not? If he has the desire to learn, there's no reason why it should be harder for him to pick up ranks in it than the rogue. Also keep in mind that these are adventuring classes and one could easily argue that tumbling would be almost mandatory training for wizards. In the end, it's your head...

A'koss.

 

[Elf Witch]

There are already suggestions on how to do just this on PH110 (3.5).

I looked at page 110 I don't see waht you are talking about can you please elaborate?

 

[Greg K]

I looked at page 110 I don't see waht you are talking about can you please elaborate?

I don't have 3.5, but having looked at it I seem to recall that is the page they give the example of the fighter reducing his armor and weapon proficiency to that of a rogue for 2 additional class skills and +2 skill points per level. In 3.0 PHB, it was p.94 second column.