Skills as class features

[Shining Wrath]

Thinking about adding a houserule for next campaign that some skills are so closely associated with some classes that they ought to be free class features; if you are a X, you are always proficient in Y, just as elves get Perception.



Class
Skill


Barbarian
Intimidation


Bard
Performance


Cleric
Religion


Druid
Nature


Fighter
Athletics


Monk
Insight


Paladin
Persuasion


Ranger
Survival


Rogue
Stealth


Sorcerer
Intimidation


Warlock
Deception


Wizard
Arcana




Your suggestions and comments are welcome!

[Ralanr]

Makes for larger amounts of skills overall. Having 4 skills kinda sucks in my opinion

[DireSickFish]

As someone who frequently plays Clerics with no Religion skill I'm personally against the idea. Those skills are all available for anyone that wants to play the "traditional" version of any class. But it shoehorns in those abilities for those trying to make a atypical or contradictory character.


That being said balance wise I see no problem with it. If your players are on board for it then have at it. It's your game after all not mine.

[Takewo]

Why not just giving them one more skill to choose from their list?

[Shining Wrath]

Why not just giving them one more skill to choose from their list?

The idea is that some skills are so closely tied to a class, like elves having keen senses, that they ought to be automatic. We don't let elves choose a free skill from a list. Although half-elves do get to do that ...

[Takewo]

But I fail to see why Intimidation is more intimately related to barbarians than Athleticism. Or any other skill from the list for that matter.

[GiantOctopodes]

yeah, I'm with DireSickFish on this, it makes it harder to play against type. I see nothing wrong the outspoken and brash rogue, who is a swarthy grappler with expertise in athletics, intimidation, survival and nature, who 'sneak attacks' with their Rapier using their massive strength score and has a 10 in Dex, who started with a level of Fighter and runs around in full plate, and who is far more likely to hunt down any coward who dares to try to hide from him than he is to skulk about himself. Why *force* such a character to be proficient in stealth?

What about the monk who is like the blackbelt from 8 bit theatre? The one who has a singular fixation on simply beating people to death with their bare hands, who is as spiritual as a McDonalds and as obtuse as a 120 degree angle? Why force him to be great at insight?

Furthermore, some of your selections are a bit strange for me. Why is Barbarian intimidate instead of athletics? I would think athletics would be far more central to the class. I would say you wanted to avoid repeating skills, but intimidation is repeated, strangely in the sorcerer, when it seems to me that persuasion would have been far more appropriate.

The reason that Elves have the specific skill is because their keen senses make them naturally better at it- it's a result of their biology, not their training. Classes are a result of training, and to say that there is a specific skill that is inherently linked to that training both shoehorns in definitions of the class that otherwise need not be present, and reduces, rather than expands, the number of options a player has.

Some of these, you have merit on, like the Bard, the Wizard, the Druid, and the Ranger. For such classes you're essentially just giving them an extra skill. The rest of them seem, to me personally, more like you're trying to stretch that concept to fit all classes, even if it doesn't naturally apply.

[PoeticDwarf]

Thinking about adding a houserule for next campaign that some skills are so closely associated with some classes that they ought to be free class features; if you are a X, you are always proficient in Y, just as elves get Perception.



Class
Skill


Barbarian
Intimidation


Bard
Performance


Cleric
Religion


Druid
Nature


Fighter
Athletics


Monk
Insight


Paladin
Persuasion


Ranger
Survival


Rogue
Stealth


Sorcerer
Intimidation


Warlock
Deception


Wizard
Arcana




Your suggestions and comments are welcome!

There is just one problem, I think.

If you want to play a rogue, with for your background just NO stealth. You can't fluff it. Let the player choose between two.
Rogue (slight of hand, stealth)

[caden_varn]

It will depend on your group, but I personally would not want this. Having skills 'forced' on you limits the concepts unnecessarily in my opinion. It just reinforces stereotypes.
Looking at some of the options here:

Bard - loremaster/sage types would not necessarily have performance (more in the skald/irish bard concept than the wandering minstrel type). The lore bard I am playing at the moment does not have the skill, and I would not have picked it no matter how many skills I had (I resent the fact the game forces to take proficiency in musical instruments)

Cleric - someone who gets their power through a direct connection/blessing from the gods might not know much or anything about the god/religion. They could be an earthly manifestation without the knowledge of what they are (a common enough archetype), a prophesied 'blessed one', or just someone who is so good and kind that a god bestows powers on them without asking. (I want to play one of these now).

Paladin - Persuasion is certainly not the first skill that came to mind as iconic. I would think Athletics, Insight or Religion to be more iconic of the class, but I could easily see a Paladin with none of these.

Rogue - Stealth pushes them towards the sneaky archetype, not every rogue will want this. This and Bard are the go-to classes for people who want to be good at skills due to expertise, which means that they will have a wider range. (side-rant - I LOATHE the fact they put Thieves cant as a Rogue class feature. It should be in the background IMO (a default in criminal and an option in several others). It not only pigeon-holes Rogues as being dodgy, but means that other classes with the criminal background don't get it, which is silly.)

Warlock - I don't see deception as being particularly key to the class. I cannot think as any really 'defining' skills for a Warlock.

Basically, I think that in most cases the skills you have picked out are skills that most characters in that class would take, but not all. I'd generally prefer to pick my own skills than have any picked for me, even if I get less skills in total that way. It wouldn't stop me enjoying the game though.

Something I have just thought of - would I get multiple skills if I multiclassed? And how badly gimped would I be if I took 1 level in each class just to pick up extra skills? :smallbiggrin:

[Shining Wrath]

Upon reflection, this is a bad idea. It does force one "fluff" upon a class (although I'm still waiting to see the wizard without arcana), and as noted, there are some classes where you could easily argue for different choices than the ones I made.

Maybe one extra skill chosen from the class list is the way to go.

[MadGrady]

I'm just spitballing here - so take all this with that grain of salt.


At first I was like - "yeah, I like this idea" Then i read the responses and was like, "Oooo I see their point" Then I remembered that since there are no longer training/untrained skills - but all skills are always available - you just get to add proficiency to certain ones, I hesitate to add additional skills that they are proficient in.

Technically speaking - that's what the class lists are doing. They take a selection of skills normally associated with most of the representatives from that class, and let you pick a certain amount to reflect your individual character's training (and even then I usually just allow them to pick the requisite number from ALL the skills, since it doesn't really matter if they pick from class list or not imho).

What you COULD do, instead of granting an additional proficiency, is perhaps grant a reduced/limited form of expertise (if you are finding in your games that you would like to see more class impact on skills). Say they get to pick one skill that they get a +1 to proficiency in. Its not full expertise, and doesn't step on the toes of Jack of all Trades, so those class features remain valuable.

Another option is to grant advantage to a certain set of skills - let them pick two, and they get advantage on those rolls. Limit it to 1x-2x per day if you think that is too powerful (or hell, they get to roll advantage number of times = to INT modifier - helping that not become a dump stat).

I definitely like the idea of helping a class specialize a little more, and letting each member of the party have a niche roll. I just hesitate to grant additional full proficiency when there are certain classes that are already getting a butt load of skills.

[djreynolds]

Thinking about adding a houserule for next campaign that some skills are so closely associated with some classes that they ought to be free class features; if you are a X, you are always proficient in Y, just as elves get Perception.



Class
Skill


Barbarian
Intimidation


Bard
Performance


Cleric
Religion


Druid
Nature


Fighter
Athletics


Monk
Insight


Paladin
Persuasion


Ranger
Survival


Rogue
Stealth


Sorcerer
Intimidation


Warlock
Deception


Wizard
Arcana




Your suggestions and comments are welcome!

Great idea

It's nice but I'd give wizards history and sorcerers arcana. It fairer than you think. Free skills, yes please. Yeah. A free skill. No complaints.

My fighter took history, what soldier is not exposed to prior battles. Make sure they are appropriate. Religion would be great for cleric or paladin... or they don't get powers. They have to pray, perhaps for warlock too.

[Ralanr]

I'm not sure Han Solo was particularly stealthy.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm not sure Han Solo was particularly stealthy.

But Chewbacca defined inconspicuous for a generation of movie viewers.

[Ralanr]

But Chewbacca defined inconspicuous for a generation of movie viewers.

Totally. Could barely notice the hairy lummox