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

[Carnifex]

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Didn't you also say you were gradually moving towards no classes as well?

Nope

I think you may have gotten that idea from all the class discussion that's been going on in the thread, but all I talked about was changing skills

 

[Celtavian]

re

Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Didn't you also say you were gradually moving towards no classes as well?

I don't quite understand why someone would stick with the d20 system and not use the class system. There are other gaming systems like GURPS that use a classless system. Is there soemthing wrong with these other systems that a person would go to such efforts to alter the d20 system from its core rules?

 

[Inez Hull]

If I had my drothers, NO skills would be useful in combat - I don't agree with the approach of combat-applicable skills, since by definition it means that the rogue has an advantage in combat, and that is a flaw in 3E D&D.
Fighters should be the best in combat is one of the lynchpins of the system, yet they have combat applicable skills that the fighter doesn't get, and that he gets almost zero skills to begin with.

That's a weakness of the system, straight-up.

Gotta agree on this. I find it strange that the combination of Feat and Skill working together in the case of Track and Wilderness Lore/Survival wasn't applied to other cases. Tumble, Bluff and Use Magic Device could all be easily adapted to work in the same way. Tumble and Bluff are both skills which have enough uses to make them viable without their combat applications, and enough benefit fom being able to tumble through threatened areas & feint respectively to justify spending a feat. Also UMD could perhaps be a feat that combines with Spellcraft.

 

[Desdichado]

In any case, it's the newbie factor that makes class-based games "better". Limiting a newbie's choices makes it easier for them to grasp what is going on quickly without overwhelming them with system details. That is the most likely reason class-based systems have lasted so long.

Not just newbies -- when I start a new campaign, I'm not the kind of person who creates characters as if I'm starting a new novel. My characters develop over time, and at the beginning of a campaign, I rarely have more in mind as a character concept than a race, a class, a character quirk or twist and maybe a physical appearance. Without classes, it'd be a lot harder for me to actually make characters.

 

[Plane Sailing]

On this general issue, there is one idea that I've included in my D&D game to no ill effect, and another (more radical) one that I decided against.

included: I use class and cross-class skills, but the skill cap is the same in all cases... level+3. If a fighter wants to spend the points to be great at bluff or sense motive he certainly can.

didn't use: I toyed with the idea of keeping the cross-class caps but making all skills cost 1 pt (i.e. not doubling the charge for cross-class). This one falls down with multiclass characters, which is why I didn't use it.

Cheers

 

[Desdichado]

Rather than do away with them, I'd handle it on a case by case basis. Recently I started a campaign where my concept was sorta ranger-ish and sorta not. A bounty hunter type, really, who could track his targets and then take them down. I was going to multiclass with fighter, rogue and ranger. After a bit of talking about the concept, we decided that what I really wanted was a fighter/rogue who had Wilderness Lore as a class skill. So, we just decided on the spot that Wilderness Lore was a class skill for me, and that was that.

 

[CleverName]

Carnifex,

I tell you what, I and another GM who runs a campaign in the same setting, but in another state, have ditched the whole concept of class skills and have seen ZERO negatve impact in the game. It's ALL been positive. I've been running this way for a couple of months. My compatriot's game has been running this way for the better part of a year. All the PCs (in both campaigns are around 10th level.

The characters are much more well-rounded and well, it's one less rule everyone has to keep track of.

I have to say that we both have a bunch of mature players on our hands, ones that strive to create PCs that are in tune with the setting. We also run pretty skill-centric games. Lots of knowledge/bluff. etc. checks.

Others may run into problems with discarding this rule due to poor and/or immature play. I think that is a valid point, you (DM's) know your groups better than I do. I just wanted to let you know that chucking the class skill rules works just great in our games.

I've seen no blurring of "class archetypes" or abuse of Use Magical Device, etc.

 

[bret]

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.

Actually, that little bit of market research is very likely to underestimate the number of people using other systems. In my experience, DnD tends to be the first game people are introduced to. By cutting out the upper range of the age category and making it inclusive of anyone who plays DnD (regardless of what other games they may play), you inflate the market presence of DnD.

A lot of people play more than one game system. There are also a reasonable number of people over 39 years of age who game. (Poll was 3-4 years ago, so we have to adjust the age range.) I was outside the demographic, and I know several other people who were borderline or outside the demographic.

As for why play DnD, that is easy. The GM picks the game system. DnD 3e was the new kid, something to try that had a nostalgic flavor to it yet fixed up many of the problems which caused people to leave DnD. For the past few years, it has been significantly harder to get people to try other systems.

The GM makes the game, not the game system.

That said, it doesn't mean that it is the best game system out there. It is adequate for several types of games. In my opinion, you should use the right game for the environment. For me that means that for Wuxia goodness, people should at least try Feng Shui; Champions is still the tops for 4-color Superhero action; Ars Magica should be tried for a different view of roleplaying methods; GURPS is great for grim & gritty or Sci Fi. Other people have different systems that they prefer, but you're going to find a lot of people that agree with the sentiment.


Back on topic, I don't see a lot of synergy between using a glaive, sword or lockpicks and rock climbing. I could see a lot of synergy between praying to a god that gives the Water domain and the swim skill. Although the idea of professions has some merit, people still have outside interests. The way the class system is set up currently makes anyone who attemps the type of things that I've suggested significantly less powerful.

Then again, everyone of late has been telling me how a PrC I've been working on for a character of mine is only appropriate for NPCs. I'm probably not the best one to ask for min/max advice. I am much too fond of putting a twist in any characters I create.

 

[Particle_Man]

Yanking the thread back on topic...

One consequence of making all skills class skills would be that certain prestige classes are easier to qualify for, to the point of some characters being able to get them at lower levels (Duelist in DMG would be an example).

This is not a serious problem, as a) The DM controls which Prestige Classes exist in his game, and b) A DM can tinker with the prerequisites if they want to make the prestige classes as hard to attain as before. But it is just something I would look for.

That said, my DM is trying the "all skills are class skills" option, so I will see how it goes. I am going for a "face" character cleric, so max out diplomacy, and then go for 5 ranks in the 3 synergy skills, knowledge religion, and learn some languages. Maybe concentration later on, but I intend to be fighting when in meelee, spell-casting when at a distance, if possible. Anyhow, I note that it is easier for me to get 5 ranks in the 3 synergy skills, since they would all have been cross-class. Also, languages are easier to learn.

 

[johnsemlak]

Rather than do away with them, I'd handle it on a case by case basis. Recently I started a campaign where my concept was sorta ranger-ish and sorta not. A bounty hunter type, really, who could track his targets and then take them down. I was going to multiclass with fighter, rogue and ranger. After a bit of talking about the concept, we decided that what I really wanted was a fighter/rogue who had Wilderness Lore as a class skill. So, we just decided on the spot that Wilderness Lore was a class skill for me, and that was that.

I certainly agree with that sort of approach. If you are working on a character concept that should include a certain skill, IMO it's better to just allow a character access to that skill than force the character to multiclass to get it. To me, characters multiclassing just to get this or that skill is one of the real problems with class skills.

If you give a character (normal) access to one or two more skills, there are lots of ways to maintain balance, many mentioned in this thread already. Perhaps take another one away. Perhaps allow all players to choose one additional skill.