Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 2589939" data-attributes="member: 1465">Ok, here's my opinion, but please don't get angry  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> To cut it short, your system seems just fine for me. So do most of the many skill variant systems which are suggested by people who think that the core system needs improvement.All the "need" for improvement comes from the perception of players, who always tend to see their own characters weaker than they actually are. They always push for variants which give them higher stats for example, or bonus feats, or more ranks in skills as your system.Nothing wrong in having fun in tweaking the rules. A variant written by you will make your game feel more "yours", and this is good.Regarding skills specifically, the core system may seem quite stingy, but it really isn't. Let's see your starting points:1) True that cross-class skills are discouraged. Having classes in general discourages dipping into someone else's path. Sometimes it may be really make some character idea prohibitive, in which case I prefer to help the player with an "ad-hoc" solution rather than trying to make a variant system, which will not necessarily work for the next character.If you can see skills just like you see BAB, proficiencies or spells, it makes sense that cross-class skills are hard to get; it is actually a bonus to have them, because in a different system your PC might even be completely banned from other's skills unless he multiclasses.But it is not a must to keep skills as they are, just as one could "liberalize" spells or feats or whatever, meaning that you can try to make skills more out of the class system if you like.2) Class lists are not arbitrary at all! They are imperfect, that is, because the designers were not careful in designing them. They are based on certain archetype, just like each class is. If you want a different archetype, it's usually easier to either modify a class on the fly for a specific character, or use other mechanics (feats) to help breaking the boundaries of an archetype (granting new class skills).3) Here is the part which I disagree more with. I have played really a lot of variants about skills, all of which gave PCs more than the core rule gives. Players believe that they MUST max out their "basic" skills AND still have skill points for something extra. I don't think they should necessarily have that.I take the Ranger as an example, because it irked me when they gave him 6 sp in 3.5. The archetypal ranger is a sort of scout who lives in the woods, and a good hunter-tracker. Wilderness Lore, Knowledge Nature, Handle Animal, Move Silently, Hide, Spot, Listen are all typical skills for a Ranger, but to which extend? How the hell says that every Ranger should have all these and to the max? If all Rangers had these, you will surely have little to no difference among rangers, except in the extra things which are not about being a ranger  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Furthermore, there is a group economy that should be significant. Too many PCs with the same skills are not useful at all (depends on the skill of course). Two PCs with max Survival (ex the Ranger and the Druid or Barbarian) are NOT needed.Actually, you should be able to play even if your group doesn't cover all skills! A group without a single character with Disable Device should be able to work fine, it only needs another way to get past traps. A group without Move Silently only needs another way past guards. Who says that you "must" have these in the group?Finally, skills are not at all needed to be "maxed out". The DM is not required to scale up the DCs to the maximum just because the Cleric has maxed out Knowledge Religion, and the Cleric doesn't have the right to pretend to win that check 100% of the times. For the record, I've played sorcerer almost without ranks in Spellcraft or Knowledge Arcana, and she didn't suffer (clearly she wasn't a counterspeller or the party sage).Conclusion: I think you like thinking about the rules a lot, and you have a lot of fun with tweaking them, nothing wrong with that. And your system is definitely balanced IMO, so go ahead. I do that all the time (with skills too in fact  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I just officially made a new house rules about skills in my 3.0 campaign). But don't think about it being necessary because it's not that. Iron Heroes introduction may say so, but it's only because if it doesn't seem necessary you ain't buying it  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />edit: mmm, my last sentence was kinda rude  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> I actually don't think Monte & Mike do these onlt to sell, but they're players too, and so probably feel the PCs always need "boosts"  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification