CockroachTeaParty
2010-05-28, 09:41 PM
What would happen if you simply eliminated class skill lists? What if any class was basically like a Factotum: Class Skills: all?
Assuming skill ranks remained the same, would it really change much?
The concept of class skills seems like an arbitrary method of pigeonholing classes into specific stereotypes or roles. I suppose nothing is necessarily inherently wrong with this, but it does restrict character concepts to a certain degree.
I mean, assuming all class skills are available to everyone, class roles are still unlikely to change. A Fighter is unlikely to waste time putting ranks in Disable Device, for instance, or even Hide and Move Silently. A druid is probably not going to take ranks in Truespeak, nor is a Barbarian likely to invest in Diplomacy.
This would give everyone access to powerhouse skills like UMD and Autohypnosis, but it still makes a certain amount of sense if you think about it. At low levels, a Fighter with an 8 Charisma is unlikely to get most magical trinkets to work, especially during combat. But if he survives to high levels, wouldn't it make sense for his wizard buddy to teach him a few tricks here and there? What arbitrarily makes a Rogue better at using magical devices than a Fighter or Ranger?
I could see this variant making skill monkeys somewhat less useful, but they would still have more skill points to spread around. Prestige classes would also become much easier to gain entry into, without as much class juggling. Troublesome PRCs like Fochluran Lyricist (spelling?) or Fleshwarper might actually see play at reasonable levels.
This would also fix some of the mistakes in many classes skill lists. The fact that Favored Souls don't have Knowledge (religion) for instance, or how Knights don't have Diplomacy or Profession (!).
So, any thoughts? Opinions? Would this rob the game of something vital I'm not aware of?
Assuming skill ranks remained the same, would it really change much?
The concept of class skills seems like an arbitrary method of pigeonholing classes into specific stereotypes or roles. I suppose nothing is necessarily inherently wrong with this, but it does restrict character concepts to a certain degree.
I mean, assuming all class skills are available to everyone, class roles are still unlikely to change. A Fighter is unlikely to waste time putting ranks in Disable Device, for instance, or even Hide and Move Silently. A druid is probably not going to take ranks in Truespeak, nor is a Barbarian likely to invest in Diplomacy.
This would give everyone access to powerhouse skills like UMD and Autohypnosis, but it still makes a certain amount of sense if you think about it. At low levels, a Fighter with an 8 Charisma is unlikely to get most magical trinkets to work, especially during combat. But if he survives to high levels, wouldn't it make sense for his wizard buddy to teach him a few tricks here and there? What arbitrarily makes a Rogue better at using magical devices than a Fighter or Ranger?
I could see this variant making skill monkeys somewhat less useful, but they would still have more skill points to spread around. Prestige classes would also become much easier to gain entry into, without as much class juggling. Troublesome PRCs like Fochluran Lyricist (spelling?) or Fleshwarper might actually see play at reasonable levels.
This would also fix some of the mistakes in many classes skill lists. The fact that Favored Souls don't have Knowledge (religion) for instance, or how Knights don't have Diplomacy or Profession (!).
So, any thoughts? Opinions? Would this rob the game of something vital I'm not aware of?