Would I break D&D if I gave 6 extra skill points to all per level?

[Felnar]

2) No "cross-class" skill rank penalty

Please clarify,
does this mean cross-class skills dont cost 2 per rank, or
does this mean cross-class skills arent limited to half ranks,
or both?

Since you're not removing Trapfinding (yes, that's an assumption), Rogues, Scouts and Artificers will still be vital to any adventuring company; no loss of niche protection there.

i dont agree. the full rogue loses a lot of ground against the multiclass rogue
this system is very similar to the "feat a level" houserule (which makes multclassing fighter even less appealing), at least extra skill points would still require multiclassing to get trapfinding

One of 3ed's best points is its multiclassing system. Last level your character had problems getting ambushed? Take a level of rogue or ranger and get spot/listen. Need some elemental damage for those high DR creatures? Get some spells with a level of wizard. Etc

The goal behind many houserules, like this one or "feat a level", seems to be the desire to have lots of skills like a rogue or lots of cool feats like a fighter, but without slowing progression in their "real class" (eg. wizard, cleric, barb, etc)

Generally, you'll see a bunch of interestingly rounded and experienced characters as players introduce the fighter-diplomat, the barbarian-scholar and other fun anti-archetypal characters. I think it will be lots of fun, once you get through the munchkin period.

this is the real benefit of such a system, expanding the types of characters possible, without creating a dozen new base classes. IMO, this system steps on too many toes to do it.

 

[ValhallaGH]

One of 3ed's best points is its multiclassing system. Last level your character had problems getting ambushed? Take a level of rogue or ranger and get spot/listen. Need some elemental damage for those high DR creatures? Get some spells with a level of wizard. Etc

The goal behind many houserules, like this one or "feat a level", seems to be the desire to have lots of skills like a rogue or lots of cool feats like a fighter, but without slowing progression in their "real class" (eg. wizard, cleric, barb, etc)

There's an assumption in the above that I'm not sure you're aware of. The above statements assume that the listed classes aren't inherently worthwhile; their sole advantage is that they bypass certain, arbitrary, limiting mechanics.

The core of your assumption is that the Rogue, Fighter, and to lesser extent Ranger, can't stand on their own as viable classes. That they are completely inferior to other classes in the system.

Whether or not that assumption is true is irrelevant to this discussion. If it isn't true (which I generally believe) then there's no risk of those classes being lessened by the proposed houserule. If it is true then it will become blatantly obvious due to the proposed houserule, forcing the imbalance to be corrected. Either way, things are good.

Additionally, the Rogue is still the master of skills. Anyone that wants a skillful character will play a rogue; 14 + Int skill points per level guarantee that you can master a sufficient number of skills to be useful in almost every situation or to be utterly dominant in a somewhat smaller array of situations.

Generally, you'll see a bunch of interestingly rounded and experienced characters as players introduce the fighter-diplomat, the barbarian-scholar and other fun anti-archetypal characters. I think it will be lots of fun, once you get through the munchkin period.

this is the real benefit of such a system, expanding the types of characters possible, without creating a dozen new base classes. IMO, this system steps on too many toes to do it.

I'm glad we agree on the merit of the goal, even if we don't agree on the merit of the method.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

6 is WAY too much. I might suggest that 2 wouldn't be bad, and dropping the 2for1 on cross class skills alone would see a big boost in more diverse skill selection. A 10th level fighter with 5 ranks in Spot (for 5 skill points), Alertness, since he can afford the feat, and a decent Wis will be able to spot things quite well, without invalidating a 10h level Rogue with a maxed hide skill and high Dex.

In my campaign, I grant +2 skill points per level, give all skills at a 1for1 basis, and cap cross class skills at level, with class skills capping at level+3. It hasn't broken my game, and my friends seem to like it, but I havn't seen a massive difference in skill selections, with the exception of Knowledge skills being taken more often. This approch may well damage some games, though.

 

[Emirikol]

So, I quizzed my players what they've been doing with their characters.

Since all skills are class skills for all characters (allowing more background character customization), they indicated the following:
a) They like it.

b) Everyone felt that tumble and spot were very valuable skills, but nobody had maxed them out except for the rogue

c) They felt that certain skills may "lean" towards a class, there were NONE that anyone felt that couldn't be justified for ANY class. For example, disable device, open locks and pick pockets were obviously rogue skills but that it wouldn't be hard to justify for any character out there; especially considering that the rogue is no longer a "THIEF" according to the rules...same for assassin-type skills.

Now, back to the original quandry: whether or not to add additional skill points between levels to make up for a slower rate of advancement and "loot" in the game. We already essentially have "racial" skills that allow for some advancement (e.g. Himiliean Vendhyans have better hide/climb/survival when in mountian terrain, etc.), but I"m talking about a full 6 points between levels.


Are "skill points" all that make up a rogue? Surely there has to more than that to them.


Any of you done this before?

jh

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Are "skill points" all that make up a rogue? Surely there has to more than that to them.


Any of you done this before?

jh

I too play with all skills as class skills. But I do not increase how many skill points each class gets. I do give the option though for a player at any given level to drop his hit dice size by one step to get +2 skill points.

And I think increasing the number of skill points each class gets by more than 2 points would significantly weaken the rogue, ranger and bard and to a lesser extent the intelligence attribute and the human.

Consider that normally a rogue's base skill points are normally 4 times greater than the fighters.
If you give them both +6 skill points the rogue's base skill points will be less than double what the fighter gets. Also few archtypes will need as many skills as the rogue would be getting under this system, this will further decrease the rogue's power.

Keep in mind a character does not need to have a skill maxed out to be proficient or skilled at it, having a skill at half max ranks or at even 4 or 5 ranks is good.

I don't see how it would make up for slower advancement. And why would you want to make up for it if you're choosing slower advancement in the game?

 

[Kaodi]

If I were going to change the skill system, I think I would go with 2 extra skill points/level for every class, and I would divide skills into Basic and Advanced. Everyone can take basic skills at max ranks, but only certain classes can take certain Advanced skills at max ranks and no cross-class penalty.

 

[Felnar]

I don't see how it would make up for slower advancement. And why would you want to make up for it if you're choosing slower advancement in the game?

my guess is that Emirikol plans to award these extra skill points throughout the course of adventuring, not as a lump sum upon level up. this allows for more time spent with lower level adventuring, while attempting to show that character as better now than they were a gametime month ago.

Kaodi - that is essentially the houserule my group is looking at implementing. and without looking it up right now, i think our basic/advanced distinction fell pretty close to which skill can be used trained-only.

 

[Emirikol]

my guess is that Emirikol plans to award these extra skill points throughout the course of adventuring, not as a lump sum upon level up. this allows for more time spent with lower level adventuring, while attempting to show that character as better now than they were a gametime month ago.

Yes, that is the thought. It's not been implemented and I wanted to see what you experts had to say. I doubt very much that I would use 6, but I knew I wouldn't get a response if it was less..plus if it is less, why bother?

In our games spot/listen really don't count for much btw. My players don't know what to "max-out" in because I tend to use as obscure of skills as I can. In fact, someone posted a poll a while back about what skills were least used. I keep that list on my DM screen and reference it often. [evil DM grin] I also look at the players' sheets and find out what their strengths and weaknesses are. Although I don't prey on their weaknesses, I don't ignore them either. A PC's weaknesses are as important as his strengths when it comes to role-playing. [evil DM laughter]

jh

 

[Emirikol]

I too play with all skills as class skills. But I do not increase how many skill points each class gets. I do give the option though for a player at any given level to drop his hit dice size by one step to get +2 skill points. And I think increasing the number of skill points each class gets by more than 2 points would significantly weaken the rogue, ranger and bard and to a lesser extent the intelligence attribute and the human.

Ask your players what they would think if you removed this rule and played rules-as-written. After my recent poll with my players, I was surprised to see that they could care less about many of the house rules I specifically wrote for them to have more options.

jh

 

[was]

I think that 6 extra skill points seems a little much, especially with removing the penalty...maybe if you just gave them just 2 extra....