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

[billd91]

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.

But if you really want to be a tumbling wizard, then the extra points you spend on the cross class skill aren't really frivolously spent, are they? Having some scarce resource and having to make tough choices is part of the fun and challenge of playing these games. If you just expanded the points you got to meet your desires, where's the fun or challenge in that? You might as well not have any limit at all.

 

[johnsemlak]

Lets take a simple example of a Big Bad Evil Guy. The tyrant wizard who rules a country.

I have trouble imagining such a person not being good at skills such as Intimidate and Diplomacy. They should probably also have some skill with Ride, since that would be a common mode of transport for nobility.

All of those are cross-class skills for a wizard or sorcerer.

Could this be fixed by having the character take a level or two in Aristocrat?

 

[tetsujin28]

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?

Because I happen to like D&D, and it doesn't really bother me that much. I've played and tweaked the game through more than 27 years of gaming, an amount of time that's longer than many on this board have been alive. (In fact, I've hardly touched 3.5 at all, save the usual modifications for a Midnight campaign.) I merely stated that the class system is an antiquated artifact, and that D&D could survive in the future just fine without it. Which is not the same as saying that I think D&D is a load of crap, a bad system, or that everyone who likes it is an idiot. Don't go sticking opinions in my mouth.

My initial argument was against the idea that if D&D were turned into a completely skill-based system, then characters would just tend to fall into the same basic "classes" as are already present in the game. I think that statement is a load of piffle, and stated so. I think that it would open the game up to new character possibilities that aren't encouraged in the present rules. I think that d20 Modern does a great job at a lot of these things. But do I still have fun playing D&D? Yup. Just as I still have fun playing GURPS, Hero, M&M, and Exalted.

 

[Dark Jezter]

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.

Do you have any data to back up your points? Market reserch? Gamer opinion polls? Anything? I can't believe you have the cajones to question my ability to carry on a meaningful conversation and call my opinions "arcane" when you're posting unfounded assertations and acting as though you know general gamer opinion.

And, if you must know, I've tried out GURPs, the Storyteller System (played Werewolf a few times), and The Riddle of Steel. I've had some enjoyment with those systems, but I always find myself coming back to D&D. I just plain like D&D more than skill-based systems, is that so hard to believe?

 

[tetsujin28]

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.

No, it's founded on many years' experience in the gaming industry, and dealing with thousands of player responses over the years. And look at who WotC got to write 3.0: Jonathan Tweet, who created one of the most skill-based games ever, Ars Magica.

There are probably hundreds of thousands (perhaps well more than a million) of people who have been exposed to skill-based systems.

The numbers are probably significantly fewer than that. Gamers tend to vastly overestimate their numbers. D&D is still far and away the most popular of rpgs, and the one that all non-gamers associate with the hobby. By contrast, other games might as well not even exist. Even game companies with solid followings, such as White Wolf, Steve Jackson, and Palladium, are bit-players compared to the dominance that TSR used to have on the market, and that WotC had through Magic. Remember that gaming is a tiny hobby.

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

I didn't state any opinions. I stated that, in my experience (which is quite a bit), most people, having been exposed to a game that allows a wide range of skill-based characters, have a difficult time going back to the D&D class system. Not because they've suddenly lost their "D&D brain", but because they've been exposed to systems that allow them to experience other sides of the hobby. And the creation of mechanisms that allows D&D that amount of flexibility can only be good for D&D, which is a good thing. Again, I think that d20 Modern is a great example of what can be done with the d20 mechanic, and a loosening of the class restrictions.

 

[tetsujin28]

I just plain like D&D more than skill-based systems, is that so hard to believe?

No, I just find your attitude hard to take.

As I said above, my original response had to do with the assertion that taking away the class system would just result in the reappearance of said system. Which I disagree with. Somehow, you interpreted this as an attack upon your very gaming fiber, which is just silly. Somehow this all became about you and your need to feel right. You were the one who decided for me that I should be playing something else, which isn't your decision to make.

This discussion is about Carnifex's ideas on changing the skill system to better fit his gaming needs. To which I say, "More power to him." You can agree or disagree, but don't put words into people's mouths. If you aren't able to keep up with discussion, if it bothers you so much that someone might change something in the "canon", then I don't know what to say.

 

[Olive]

Which is not the same as saying that I think D&D is a load of crap, a bad system, or that everyone who likes it is an idiot. Don't go sticking opinions in my mouth.

Not wanting to really get involved, I took exactly the same conclusions from your post as DarkJester... which tends to suggest to me that you need to take at least part of the blame for a misunderstanding.

 

[tetsujin28]

Here is the original post:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Corinth
Because players will create characters that fit into one or two character classes anyway, so you might as well formalize it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piffle. The class system is an antiquated relic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My, what strong language. "Piffle", indeed. I might have said "flapdoodle". Think of the outrage that might have caused.

Here's my point: So what if I think it's an "antiquated relic"? Does it really bunch people's panties up that much? Is the class system part of some sacred neo-Platonistic realm of gaming ideas, where any doubt of its veracity is held to be heresy? Here I thought we had gotten past most of the "sacred cow" attitude that pervaded the hobby during the Gygax era (go check out the 1E DMG for some classic lines). I guess I was wrong.

Did anyone ask why I thought it was a relic? Of course not -- that would have been too difficult. And it would have resulted in far less thread hijacking. If this really is a bee in someone's bonnet, I guess you can start a thread about it.

But for now, I suggest that those actually interested in this thread apply their talents to Carnifex's question.

I would suggest looking at some of the feats in the Forgotten Realms Campaign sourcebook, which allow you to take certain skills as permanent class skills. The Wanderer class in Swashbuckling Adventures is a sort of "PC-scale" Expert, getting lots of skill points and getting to choose a bunch as class skills. A level or two, and your wizard will have more tumbling than he knows what to do with.

 

[ES2]

Why is it a relic?

1. Why don't some of you take the Akashic class from Arcana Unearthed and use that class in your D&D games. They get all skills as class skills and some cool abilities as they gain levels if you don't want to get rid of the class/x-class skill issue in your games. Problem solved.

2. I would vote for adding in Professional packages into character design, this way if I play a wizard who has lived in a port harbor town his whole life and selects Profession: Sailor, then gets two bonus skills of Profession (sailor) and Knowledge: Ocean Life, or something like that, as perminant skills, then that is cool.

3. Also, the option for 4 bonus skill points for background skills in any Craft, Profession, or Knowledge would work.

4. Or the option for giving everybody 2 extra skill points each level to spend on just a Craft, Profession, or Knowledge.

5. Or the option of eliminating class and x-class altogether (can't do that in Arcana Unearthed though) in D&D would be kind of neat.

6. Or change the cost of x-class skills to 1 pt per rank, but still keep the requirements to max 2 ranks at 1st level.

7. Or play something else that doesn't use classes and stop playing D&D.

8. Or keep playing it the way it is and stop bickering so much about it.

See, ya'll gots lots of options available. Why don't we just have somebody put up a poll and vote on what the single best option would be.

 

[Umbran]

No, it's founded on many years' experience in the gaming industry, and dealing with thousands of player responses over the years. And look at who WotC got to write 3.0: Jonathan Tweet, who created one of the most skill-based games ever, Ars Magica.

I'm sorry tetsujin28, but in what capacity have you dealt with thousands of player responses over the years? If you're going to claim authority on the subject, I'd prefer that you be a bit more specific.

Experience doesn't mean you cannot be wrong. I've seen professional game designers who are known for good work say things like "hero points are a patently bad design". Never mind the fact that lots of people enjoy the mechanic tremendously, and the only measure of the value of a design is how much people like to use it. Never mind that one cannot evaluate a mechanic in general, outside the context of a whole set of game rules. So, even professionals can on occasion mistake personal preferences for objective truth.

I don't see how Tweet's other products matter. When he sat down to design D&D, he accepted (if not created) a design that was more class-based than skill-based. If Tweet is a competent designer, then that suggests that class-based really isn't all that bad, since it was good enough for him to work with. If Tweet is incompetent, then appealing to his other work as an incompetent doesn't support your position.

The numbers are probably significantly fewer than that. Gamers tend to vastly overestimate their numbers. D&D is still far and away the most popular of rpgs, and the one that all non-gamers associate with the hobby. By contrast, other games might as well not even exist.

That position is somewhat at odds with WotC market research as of 1999. Specifically, WotC says that their research suggests:

"3% of the U.S. population between the ages of 12 and 35 (approximately 2.8 million people) play paper-based tabletop roleplaying games (TRPGs) at least once per month.

59% of monthly TRPG players (approximately 1.65 million) play Dungeons & Dragons at least once per month."

So, that leaves some 41% of monthly gamers (approx 1.15 million people) not playing D&D. Most of the non-D&D games are what I'd call "skill-based" (your list of RuneQuest, Gurps, and Hero is hardly inclusive). And many of the D&D players also play other games, and are likely to have been exposed to skill-based systems. So, I don't think my numbers are that far off. The truth may be that no single game puts up much competition to D&D. But in aggregate, they become considerable.

I didn't state any opinions. I stated that, in my experience (which is quite a bit), most people, having been exposed to a game that allows a wide range of skill-based characters, have a difficult time going back to the D&D class system.

Respectfully, Tetsujin28, that is not what you said.

I quote:
"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."

You'll note the decided lack of anything to the effect of the words "in my experience" there. You stated it as a fact. Perhaps it was unintentional, but you took the position of knowing The Truth.

If it was unintentional, you should watch your wording. Because folks aren't going to assume the "IME" is there. They'll simply get cheesed off at you and the discussion will get heated. If it was intentional, then you kinda deserve to have people get cheesed off at you, because in order to speak for that many gamers, you need some pretty well-designed market research, and so far you've given no sign that you have such.