Two extra skill points per level (and character backgrounds)

[Ace]

Okay, normally I am conservative when it comes to drastic changes to the game

But I just can't help myself: I think that 2 sp/level as a base does not cut it.

Has anyone done this? What were the results?

I think the d20 skill system works well, and I also feel that some class skills aren't flexible enough. A second thing I am considering is incorporating character backgrounds (similar to the Second World Sourcebook, RoninArts character record, or Black Company setting) to add some additional class skills. The mechanic is similar to d20 modern starting professions, but a bit more self-consistant.

I play a fairly skill based game, and I feel that the emphasis on skills should mean that the extra skill points are pretty essential for those with few SP/level, but the emphasis on skills should mean that classes that already have strong skills aren't losing out in the bargain.

Both of these tricks work fine. Heck WOTC more or less uses them in Wheel of Time and IIRC Star Wars

I have run a game with these rules -- they made characters who were a little better rounded and very slightly better than a blog standard D&D. They also reduced Rogue multi classing a bit -- another good thing

I tunred at least 2 others DM's onto the idea and they are using them sucessfully too

 

[Ace]

I think that adding 2 more skill points would in part reduce the values of:

1) intelligence scores
2) human bonus skill points
3) to a lesser extent other races flat bonuses
4) rogues, bards & rangers as proportionally they will offer less

You may well see skill duplication across characters (cc spot for e.g.). The benefit may outweigh the cost for individual campaigns but as a general rule I think it is a bad idea.

As per your points

#1 True but a very minor problem

#2 Also a minor problem

#3 Not IMC I have very few non human characters though YMMV and in general it is pretty accurate

and #4 I would disagree with that. I think almost anyone who risks their life on a regular basis should have Spot at a 5 or better --

Also extra skill points help out in less Dungeoncentric games by making players feel like they can afford to get a craft or profession or knowledge local or the like as a flavor skill

When a human fighter has onlyh 3 skill points it always looks like Riding 3 Climb 3 Swim 3 Animal Handling 3 (sometimes) -- this is boring -- I would much rather see some variety

If you are concrned about issue #2 just give Humans the Able Learner feat free -- you will get people with a really wide range of skills but they are still balanced

As for #3 well I think Non Humans are overpowered a bit anyway YMMV
I

 

[Ibram]

IMC all classes get 2 additional skill points per level (4 at first). So far it hasnt taken away from rogues, or made humans any less of a good choice.

My games tend to be fairly skill intensive (investigation, social interation, sneakyness) and I found that players who had classes like the fighter or the cleric tended to shut down in those situation (they didnt feel they had a way to contribute). Now rather then sacking a part of the game I enjoy I just increased the skill points, letting the fighter at least have some impact on such a situation. It also allowed clerics to be diplomatic as well as focused and well versed in religion.

Rogues (and bards) still shine in such situations (they have the skill points to cover the spread of investigative abilities, as they should).

 

[Roman]

IMC (currently 13th level) the PCs gain 2 "education skill points" each level (and 2x4 = 8 at 1st level). These ESPs can only be spent on Knowlege, Craft, Perform or Profession.

This sounds good. I must admit I am becoming a but of a sucker for your d20 mechanics ideas which tend to be consistently good.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

As a cleric, you don't have the Int points a wizard is going to have to help you out, arguably you need concentration, spellcraft, and knowlege just as bad.

You probably only need concentration out of this list.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think I have already explained why I think this is not a concern. The same reason applies to the other points to some extent as well: if you increase the importance of skills, the value of things that enhance skills, and classes that are strong in skills to begin with, goes up.

How can you increase the value of skills; you wouldn't call for more checks when not warranted? I can only guess you're talking about more non-combat encounters but you still want clerics & fighters (for example) to have more skills while retaining their combat capabilities. Unless there are guidelines, as mentioned by some, these extra points would be sunk into combat related skills, no?

How can this not devalue the classes that rely on strong skills for balance? Bluntly I do not understand your rationale and I think it is because I'm missing some information.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

As per your points

#1 True but a very minor problem

#2 Also a minor problem

#3 Not IMC I have very few non human characters though YMMV and in general it is pretty accurate

and #4 I would disagree with that. I think almost anyone who risks their life on a regular basis should have Spot at a 5 or better --

Also extra skill points help out in less Dungeoncentric games by making players feel like they can afford to get a craft or profession or knowledge local or the like as a flavor skill

When a human fighter has onlyh 3 skill points it always looks like Riding 3 Climb 3 Swim 3 Animal Handling 3 (sometimes) -- this is boring -- I would much rather see some variety

If you are concrned about issue #2 just give Humans the Able Learner feat free -- you will get people with a really wide range of skills but they are still balanced

As for #3 well I think Non Humans are overpowered a bit anyway YMMV
I

4 'minor' problems stemming from 1 change would send alarm bells ringing in my world. 5 ranks in spot is either a heavy investment in crossclass which will be of little use versus an appropriate challenge; or if in a newly allowed 'class skill' it would tread on the other various class niches. I've only once seen such a fighter build & you're right it is boring. A less dungeoncentric game if mentioned at the start (I'm assuming noone is suggesting a rule change post character generation) will allow the players to choose more skill heavy characters anyway.

Do not underestimate the strong desire for players to choose a combat heavy character, even if the roleplaying is 75% to combat 25%; that is what 3/4 of my players have chosen regardless. Without guidelines these extra skill points would be sunk into UMD, cc Spot & Listen, maybe a social skill like Gather info.

I think part of this topic is a seeming unwillingness to mainly accept a skill that is not max ranked, and the more minor issue of putting ranks in a cross class skill.

 

[Psion]

How can you increase the value of skills; you wouldn't call for more checks when not warranted? I can only guess you're talking about more non-combat encounters

More non combat encounters, yes, and more reliance of meeting adventure goals on skills.

How can this not devalue the classes that rely on strong skills for balance?

If the campaign relies more strongly on skills, the fact that they have more skills to begin already favors those classes.

 

[Shadeus]

I play in a low magic world where we use something similar to what Nifft proposed. Basically each region of the country has a set of skills that are appropriate to that region. The amount of skill points varies but basically it's 6 skill points at first level and then 1 additional each future level. And the future skill points can be in the region in which you are currently.

For example, one country is big on trade, farming, and crafts. You get bonuses to Craft skills only. Another is a wasteland where it is a struggle to survive every day. You get Survival and Intimidate as a class skill and the "extra" points have to be taken there. Another region is big into culture and political posturing. They get a free knowledge skill and diplomacy.

I kind of liked the way you are forced to use mostly unused skills. Think of all the soldiers with Diplomacy, which they would never take. Of course, in that region of the world, it is a boon to paladins and the like. it also helps integrate your character backgrounds into the world itself.

As for clerics, Heal is a wasted skill to learn for the most part. It does have its limited uses for poison saves, disease, etc. But in general a cleric's spells quickly eclipse that skill. A cure minor wounds makes the stabilization check worthless. So that reduces the list to Spellcraft, Concentration (which is IMO the most important cleric skill), and Knowledge (Religion).

 

[Campbell]

I use a similar house rule along side of reducing the cost for cross class skill ranks down to one while maintaing the level cap. However, when you multiclass into a different class you only gain one additional class skill that you did not previously possess. It has worked out wonderfully. In general there is greater customization without diluting concept through needless multiclassing.

The various classes have been impacted as fallows

• Barbarian: The skill advantage Barbarians possessed over fighters, while slightly marginalized has never really been an important balancing feature between the two classes in any game I have run. Barbarians still possess an advantage in class skills that is significant.
• Bard: The bard is impacted the most heavily of all classes, but I never really saw many bards anyway. I don't really care for the archetype anyway. I view this is a positive.
• Cleric: I see more distinctive priests that have a skillset that reflects their religious practices. This class really didn't need a boost, but their overall power level hasn't increased by much.
• Druid: Still remains slightly more powerful than an equivalent level Cleric, but not by as much. An improvement.
• Fighter: Fewer frustrated players that want to go for an archetype that should be covered by the fighter class. Less multiclassing occurs. Players get to play the type of Fighter that they want to play.
• Paladin: Absolutely a positive. They know possess enough skill points to accurately deal with the demands of their social position.
• Ranger: A Ranger's special abilities are relatively on par with a fighter of equivalent level. Absolutely no problem.
• Rogue: While changes slightly marginalize the rogue, rogues maintain a healthy level of ability, and their host of class skills really seperate the wheat from the chaff. Rogues built for combat still have as much of an effect as fighters on the battlefield, as long as they play to their strengths. As an added benefit I don't see people multiclassing to rogue to pick up Diplomacy or Spot nearly as much.
• Sorcerer: This class needed the boost my house rules provide. Changes helped to offset the power differential I have noticed between wizards and sorcerers.
• Wizard: See above.