What if all skills were allowed as class skills for all classes?

[mhacdebhandia]

I firmly believe that it would cause absolutely no problems. In fact, it would do some good things: simplifying multiclassing and entry into prestige classes (including a reduction in "dipping" into rogue and other high-skills classes) and broadening the potential range of character types by making "light fighters" and the like more effective are just two of them.

I'll never use class skills in any of my games. Whatever class skill lists contribute to balance between the classes is negligible - it's really the number of skill points a class offers that makes the difference. Class skills just make "dipping" more attractive as the way to pick up class skills that matter to your character concept, and I think that's a negative feature from both ends.

 

[Jubilee]

I play in a campaign where the class-skill rules have been chucked out the window. So far it hasn't been unbalancing, or made anyone feel limited. We have a Warlock/Ranger, Druid/Sorcerer/Arcane Hierophant, Bard/Wizard, and Bard/Marshal/Chameleon in the game, so no one's taken the chance to play a fighter with max tumble, sense motive, and spot/listen.. I'm pretty sure no one was planning to play a rogue even before we found out there wouldn't be class skill rules.

I also got rid of them in the campaign I was running last year, and again.. no real balance issues that I could see.

/ali

 

[TarionzCousin]

All Skills Are Class Skills = More Fun For Everyone

I play in a campaign where the class-skill rules have been chucked out the window. So far it hasn't been unbalancing, or made anyone feel limited.

Same action, same results in my group's 3 campaigns. In fact, if one DM uses this rule, it really makes it seem quite restrictive for the other DM's to restrict Skills as in the SRD.

The six of us in our group have all enjoyed being able to take whatever skills we want for our characters. The only direct result I've seen is that nearly every character has one or two more Knowledge skills than they would otherwise have.

...but maybe this is a Portland thing.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it's a fine idea, except it does take away something from rogues. And it isn't like rogues are powerful relative to the rest of the base classes as it is. To compensate them, I would give them one free skill-themed feat at first level, or a boost of +2 skill points per level at least.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I can anecdotally disprove that conclusion: rogues still get played as much as any other class in our games. We have all skills as class skills and an extra +2 skill points per level for everybody. People still play rogues, ninjae, and scouts plenty.

And the people playing rogues don't mind that all the bad guys can now max out their Spot and Listen checks much more easily so that sneaking around is much, much harder? Or that they can no longer feint in combat very easily because everyone also has higher Sense Motive checks?

What about the fact that anyone can have a decent Use Magic Device score now that it only costs half as much as before.

The rogue only has a couple of niches, sneak attack and skill monkey are the 2 biggest in my opinion. Removing cross-class skills (and giving everyone more skill points like you have in your game) basically eliminates one advantage that they have.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Pants]

Instead of making all skills class skills, I make all skills cost 1 skill point. However, the max ranks for class/cross-class skills still apply.

I like this idea. Consider it yoinked!

 

[Psion]

I'll be the voice of dissent. I think it's a horrible idea.

I think it would weaken niche protection, and the team-play aspect of the game, and especially weaken bards and rogues.

And it would make the internal logic of the classes much less compelling. Why should a fighter learn knowledge(arcana) as easily as a mage? There's no compelling reason I see.

I'm all about ways to expand class skill lists, but think that throwing the doors wide open is a bad way to go.

I am on board with the idea of retroactive Int. I don't even know why they came up with that rules. It causes more of a tracking burden than is worth whatever they would be trying to emulate.

 

[Treebore]

When I still ran 3E games I allowed each character to have every skill on their class lists, and select one in each skill like knowledge, craft, and profession.

Then they selected which skills they concentrated on, which was handled essentially the same as the basic skills point rules of 3E. So at first level all there skills were rank one, with the skill concentrations starting at 4 ranks. Then they all went up one rank with each level of character advancement.

So this way the "niche's" were protected, because Rogues have the most extensive list with Monks a close second. No one ever played a Bard, so I don't remember what their list was like.

Worked well for us.

I essentially do the same thing in my C&C game, with no skill concentrations.

 

[blargney the second]

And the people playing rogues don't mind that all the bad guys can now max out their Spot and Listen checks much more easily so that sneaking around is much, much harder? Or that they can no longer feint in combat very easily because everyone also has higher Sense Motive checks?

It's not a problem because I'm not an adversarial DM. NPCs who should have decent perception skills have them. Not "all the bad guys" nor "everyone", just those for whom it makes sense.

 

[Drowbane]

Would this unbalance the game unduly? If so, in what ways?

We've been doing this for months. It works quite nicely.

None of my last few characters have bothered with Perception or Knowledge skills (cept my Greenbond, who kinda needs knowledge nature) as it is sure to be covered by everybody else in the party.