[3.5] Skill Points for Non Casters

[Thurbane]

Hey all,

I'm considering a house rule for my next campaign - I've already increased the Fighter's skill list and will be giving them 4 skill points/level.

It got me thinking, should I bump all non-primary casters (Knight, Paladin etc.) to a minimum of 4 skill points/level?

Would there be many kick on effects from this? Is it encroaching on classes that already rely on skill points for their advantage?

Cheers - T

[Namfuak]

I'd go even further and give everyone a flat +2 bonus instead of their int bonus if it benefits them. Or even just add 4 to everyone and take away the +int part.

In short, I think that giving every melee fighter 4+int skill points will not encroach on the ranger or rogue, though I think that they deserve their points to be bumped up too.

[Thurbane]

For the Knight, I'm also thinking of adding the skills from the Aristocrat NPC class to his list.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Absolutely.

Maybe give the poor sorcerer 4+Int and a few social skills, while you're at it?

[Randomguy]

Some people just give a flat +2 to skill points to all non casters, so rogues would get 10 + int per level, for example.

[Barsoom]

Scrap the Fighter, use a Warblade. Scrap the Paladin/Knight, use a Crusader. Problem solved.

[ArcturusV]

Yeah, I'd kick them up to 4+Int, Minimum 4 (Thus if they have an Int penalty they still get 4).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Scrap the Fighter, use a Warblade. Scrap the Paladin/Knight, use a Crusader. Problem solved.

Problem changed.

I like my knights, fighters, and especially my paladins, thank you very much.

Don't get me wrong, I like warblades and crusaders just fine too but eliminating options is rarely a good thing.

[Thurbane]

Problem changed.

I like my knights, fighters, and especially my paladins, thank you very much.

Don't get me wrong, I like warblades and crusaders just fine too but eliminating options is rarely a good thing.
Very much so. My group generally uses core + PHB2, and ToB most likely won't be included in my upcoming campaign (I offered to use it if people want to learn the subsystem, but as many of my group are very part-time, they are mostly more comfortable in the core).

Not to mention there are many other classes that my houserule would apply to other than Fighter, Knight and Paladin (Hexblade for starters).

[Chronos]

While you're expanding the class skill lists, make sure to give the Fighter knowledge (history) and knowledge (architecture and engineering).

[Ceaon]

And Spot and Listen.

[Studoku]

I can't see it being a problem regarding stepping on the skillmonkey/rogue's toes. Rogues aren't just about the abundance of skill points- they also get class skills such as open lock and disable device which most classes don't.

[undead hero]

Hey all,

I'm considering a house rule for my next campaign - I've already increased the Fighter's skill list and will be giving them 4 skill points/level.

It got me thinking, should I bump all non-primary casters (Knight, Paladin etc.) to a minimum of 4 skill points/level?

Would there be many kick on effects from this? Is it encroaching on classes that already rely on skill points for their advantage?

Cheers - T

My house rule is that with skill points your Int modifier for skills has a minimum of 1.

It does quite well actually.

Fighter McBadass gets 3/ level and 12 to start (more if human) and makes things more bearable.

I also give able learner to all PC classes as a bonus class feature.

[Studoku]

My house rule is that with skill points your Int modifier for skills has a minimum of 1.

It does quite well actually.

Fighter McBadass gets 3/ level and 12 to start (more if human) and makes things more bearable.

I also give able learner to all PC classes as a bonus class feature.
Doesn't that also cause the majority of characters to have 6-8 int?

[undead hero]

Doesn't that also cause the majority of characters to have 6-8 int?

Actually it keeps the fighters having the same int but more skil l points.

This stops ppl from having to have above average Int just to be able to jump swim and intimidate... I know a ton of old teammates that had a 6 to 8 Int but could be considered maxed out on all physical skills.

Also ... [Blue] Omg the fighter is min maxing! Everything is breaking down! [ /blue]

[questionmark693]

Also ... Omg the fighter is min maxing! Everything is breaking down!

Going in my sig later :smalltongue: anyways, I don't think the skill point thing will hurt people at all, or step on any toes. You should be fine.

[RFLS]

Scrap the Fighter, use a Warblade. Scrap the Paladin/Knight, use a Crusader. Problem solved.

*shrug* Not really. Some people dislike those using the ToB subsystem, some people don't have access to the whole thing, and some people just want to play one of the Core martial classes, despite relatively poor design. Eliminating player options is rarely justifiable from a non-setting perspective.

On topic, the proposed fix of minimum 4 points per level would be a good step. Other posters have mentioned giving all mundane classes +2 skp/level, which is a better fix. Other things that could help include removing the whole silly "class skills" system so that players have much more customizable characters. There's no reason a fighter, for instance, should be incapable of sneaking or talking to people. The only thing to be wary of here is allowing people into PrCs earlier than the PrC should be showing up. Just watch for it and you'll be fine.

A very uncommon fix I've seen implemented once was to give each character its basic skill points, which can go anywhere, Intelligence based skill points, which can only go to mental skills, and Dexterity based skill points, which can only go to physical skills. On the face of it, it's counterintuitive. However, it's no more so than the current system, and, at the price of a little more complexity, negates some of the MADness present in current mundanes.

[undead hero]

Also there is this

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm

And the open minded feat that gives +5 Skill Points. Slap the Fighter with more feats (free) and there you go.

[Chronos]

Quoth RFLS:

Other things that could help include removing the whole silly "class skills" system so that players have much more customizable characters. There's no reason a fighter, for instance, should be incapable of sneaking or talking to people. The only thing to be wary of here is allowing people into PrCs earlier than the PrC should be showing up. Just watch for it and you'll be fine.And while we're at it, let's take away the whole "class spells" system, too, so a fighter can cast spells.

In fact, that's probably more necessary than the class skills thing, since a fighter can already sneak and talk to people: He can use the skills untrained, or he can spend points cross-class in them. He can't sneak or talk to people as well as (say) a rogue, but that's because the whole point of the rogue class is to be good at using skills. Let the rogue be good at the things the rogue is meant to be good at, and the fighter be good at things the fighter is meant to be good at.

[avr]

Absolutely a good idea. I'd also add a few skills to the fighter's skill list - likely listen, spot and survival at the minimum.

[Coidzor]

Let the rogue be good at the things the rogue is meant to be good at, and the fighter be good at things the fighter is meant to be good at.

Well, since making the fighter good at what he's supposed to be good at is basically impossible, unless we accept that the designers meant for Fighter to be a 2-level class, slightly longer with Dungeoncrasher and/or Zhentarim Fighter, might as well throw him a bone so he's at least as skillful as a barbarian.

Besides, Rogues are the only ones allowed to be trapmonkeys in core, and no one's suggesting taking that away from him (in this thread). :smalltongue:

[CRtwenty]

This is a great idea actually. I let all of my PCs get the Able Learner Feat for free. But this sounds even better. I'll be discussing adding this to my groups houserules soon. :)

[RFLS]

And while we're at it, let's take away the whole "class spells" system, too, so a fighter can cast spells.

In fact, that's probably more necessary than the class skills thing, since a fighter can already sneak and talk to people: He can use the skills untrained, or he can spend points cross-class in them. He can't sneak or talk to people as well as (say) a rogue, but that's because the whole point of the rogue class is to be good at using skills. Let the rogue be good at the things the rogue is meant to be good at, and the fighter be good at things the fighter is meant to be good at.

Uhm....over the top reply is over the top, but I'll respond. How, exactly, would a fighter infringe on a rogue's roll as skill-monkey? Is it the bucket-loads of skill points they had that were pent up behind their mediocre class skill list, or is it perhaps all of those class features they get that really just set them up to be astounding skill-monkeys?

All that would happen is you'd have less PITA characters that perhaps didn't always require planned 1-20 builds, because honestly, most people would keep dumping their class skills right into the same skills they were before.

[Eldan]

If I can make a suggestion: just drop the entire concept of cross-class skills and make everything a class skill for everyone. I did that long ago and never had any problems.

[The Viscount]

I approve of the change to 4 points per level. It's a neat little boost to those brave enough to go martial.


I can't see it being a problem regarding stepping on the skillmonkey/rogue's toes. Rogues aren't just about the abundance of skill points- they also get class skills such as open lock and disable device which most classes don't.

You'd be surprised, actually, especially since open lock is entirely subsumed by disable device and any class with Ride can get Tumble from the cityscape enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20070228a) which is a great trade for many characters.

[Hunter Noventa]

If I can make a suggestion: just drop the entire concept of cross-class skills and make everything a class skill for everyone. I did that long ago and never had any problems.

This, but you could just lift and transplant the whole Pathfinder skill system. It consolidates skills (Hide and move Silently become Stealth, Spot and Listen become perception, etc.) And eliminated cross class skills. You still have class skills, but you just get a flat +3 to them when you actually put ranks into them, every rank in every skill is one skill point.

I honestly don't think i could ever go back to the malarkey that was cross-class skills ever again.

[Eldan]

I prefer the opposite. More skills, not less. And then more skill points proportionally. I like pointless granularity, dammit!

And again, I don't see the point in class skills. Not even the +3 bonus Pathfinder gives. If you want your fighter to know magical theory, then just buy him spellcraft and be done with it. If your wizard is a trickster, buy him bluff. If your Rogue is also a Truenamer, sure.

[Chronos]

And again, I don't see the point in class skills. Not even the +3 bonus Pathfinder gives. If you want your fighter to know magical theory, then just buy him spellcraft and be done with it. If your wizard is a trickster, buy him bluff. If your Rogue is also a Truenamer, sure.
Trying again, with a bit less sarcasm: Why should skills be treated any differently than any of the other features that make the classes distinct? I presume you don't let all classes cast spells. How is not letting all classes use spells any different, in principle, from not making all classes equally adept at using skills?

[Eldan]

Eh. If someone wants spells in their class, I usually make up some kind of trade-off for them.

Also, there was no sarcasm there. I'm serious.

[RFLS]

Trying again, with a bit less sarcasm: Why should skills be treated any differently than any of the other features that make the classes distinct? I presume you don't let all classes cast spells. How is not letting all classes use spells any different, in principle, from not making all classes equally adept at using skills?

Because they're not equally adept at skills based on the difference in number of skill points they get, and which skills benefit their character, and which skills represent their concept best. There is literally no design reason for class skills other than pigeonholing classes in a manner that the designers thought was accurate at the time. So. Can you come up with a reason that justifies class skills that doesn't rely on the rather poor analogy you've developed between skills and spells?

[Eldan]

Yeah, see, between gish base classes, new base classes, alternate magic systems, homebrew and alternate class features, I really see no point in sticking certain classes with certain skills.

[Chronos]

But that's the thing: Those are new base classes. If you want to make a new class that's pretty good with skills and with something else, that's different from saying "OK, you've got everything that class had before, and now you also can learn any skill you want".

I don't see what's wrong with the spell analogy. Spellcasters' schtick is that they can cast spells, and so non-spellcasting classes can't. Skillmonkeys' schtick is that they're good with certain skills, so other classes aren't as good with those skills as them.

And I meant less sarcasm on my own part.

[Eldan]

Right. But why can't a rogue study spellcraft, if he's fighting spellcasters often? He should be able to, is my pooint.


Would it be better if I homebrewed a new class called "Spellcraft rogue" that lost, say Decipher Script as a class skill and got spellcraft instead? It's a new base class!

[Kelb_Panthera]

A rogue -can- take ranks in spellcraft. Just not as many as an actual spellcaster. This makes more than a little sense when you consider that the rogue can only observe and study magical phenomena while the wizard actually uses spellcraft to -shape- such effects.

It makes less than no sense for someone who is completely unable to directly wield magic to be just as knowledgeable about such things as someone who applies that knowledge in practice on a regular, if not daily, basis.

[ArcturusV]

Granted, if you wanted to fit the concept of a rogue who "studied" spellcraft, and eventually became adept at it. The game kinda figures that into the class system and your character would probably quite logically end up looking like:

Rogue 3/Bard 1

Or:

Rogue 3/Spellthief 1

Perhaps not the most powerful. But it'd make sense in that IC actions determining Levels and Focus sort of thing. I realize not everyone does that however. But it'd make sense to that character concept.

[Coidzor]

A rogue -can- take ranks in spellcraft. Just not as many as an actual spellcaster. This makes more than a little sense when you consider that the rogue can only observe and study magical phenomena while the wizard actually uses spellcraft to -shape- such effects.

It makes less than no sense for someone who is completely unable to directly wield magic to be just as knowledgeable about such things as someone who applies that knowledge in practice on a regular, if not daily, basis.

At best, wizards use spellcraft to write descriptions of such effects down so they can store the spells in their brain-meats or brain-meat equivalents for later casting.

If someone can learn a programming language but lacks a compiler, they are still as personally capable of reading the code as a person identical to themselves who happens to have a compiler.

So that specific area falls down to being highly variable in interpretation, though my understanding of the way canonical sources have discussed and dealt with spellcraft was that it was more theoretical than practical knowledge.


But that's the thing: Those are new base classes. If you want to make a new class that's pretty good with skills and with something else, that's different from saying "OK, you've got everything that class had before, and now you also can learn any skill you want".

I don't see what's wrong with the spell analogy. Spellcasters' schtick is that they can cast spells, and so non-spellcasting classes can't. Skillmonkeys' schtick is that they're good with certain skills, so other classes aren't as good with those skills as them.

And I meant less sarcasm on my own part.

Skillmonkeys' shtick is more that they are good with lots more skills than everyone else or are the only ones allowed to use skills in certain ways. Class skills are tertiary to that at best and they might be quartenary. Rogues still easily have twice the skill points of a Barbarian, even if the barbarian can now help the party with spot/listen/perception and not blunder and give the party away when everyone has to hide/move silently/stealth.

Spells, on the other hand, are incalculablely useful things that pretty much every class needs access to in one form or another.