No More Class Skills

[rfreixo]

I've been toying with the idea of using the Pathfinder skill system in my D&D 3.5 campaign. The way I see it, it removes a lot of problems caused by multiclass and cross-class skills, and it looked simple, better.
But now, after considering it for a while, I'm having second thoughts. Apparently, it nerfs the Rogue and other skillmonkeys, because everyone can have any skill, and they don't get such a larger number of skill points anymore. Also, there's no variety. At Level 1, you either are trained in a skill, or you are not.

Then I decided to combine (what I see as) the best of both worlds: adopting the same cost for class skills and cross-class skills, so any one can be good at whatever they want, and keeping the x4 multiplier at 1st level, and setting max rank at HD +3 - obviously, class skills wouldn't get the +3 bonus from Pathfinder. This would make the rogue's higher number of skills points matter again, and would allow two characters of the same class and level to have different levels of expertise with a skill, as in 3.5

The result of that: there aren't any differences between class skills and cross-class skills. At all. And with this, the concept of "class skills" becomes obsolete.

Has anyone ever played the game like this? If so, how was it?
Does this sound like a bad idea? It sounds nice in my head, but in practice, who knows?

[Razanir]

If I were going to completely remove class skills, I'd probably just remove ranks all together, and borrow a different skill system, like Hackmaster or Basic Roleplaying. If I were fixing the system within class skills, I'd either do as Pathfinder does or implement a "Once a class skill, always a class skill" rule in 3.5.

[Extra Anchovies]

What I like to do is require that the class-granted skills (e.g. the 2 from fighter, or the 8 from rogue) have to be class skills, but skills from Int, human, Open Minded, favored class bonus, etc are added to your list of class skills. Combined with Background Skills it works pretty nicely.

[atemu1234]

In Pathfinder, I reduce the required ranks for PrCs by three, and do the opposite when doing the reverse.

It sounds like you have a similar idea. I like the PF skill system, but for some reason I'm too much of a coward to switch whole-hog to them. Maybe it's familiarity.

[Fouredged Sword]

Eh, rogues still get tons of skill points. They are the only ones with the points to have almost all the rogue skills. This way they are encouraged to have a spattering of other class skills as well.

They still suffer from being a tier 4 class, but that was a problem before. They will never be as good at a skill check as a cleric who decided the check is worth popping a divine insight / guidance of the avatar.

[BowStreetRunner]

A couple of considerations worth thinking about when you look at the Pathfinder skill system.

Rogues get 21 class skills (counting Craft, Perform and Profession only once each). If they put one skill point into each of these along with the +3 bonus for a trained class skill, that is equivalent to 63 bonus points. By comparison, a Rogue with 18 INT gets 36 extra points at first level in 3.5.
Rogues still get 8 + INT bonus skill points at each level. However, Balance, Jump and Tumble have been combined into Acrobatics. Open Lock was rolled into Disable Device. Gather Information was rolled into Diplomacy. Speak Language, Decipher Script and Forgery were combined into Linguistics. Listen, Search and Spot were combined into Perception. Hide and Move Silently were combined into Stealth. Use Rope was rolled into various other skills/abilities. So in effect, a rogue has 10 fewer skills they need to spend ranks to receive, without receiving fewer skill points per level. (In fact, with the favored class system a character can get one more skill point per level of their chosen class.)

So in this respect, the rogue did not get nerfed but actually received a nice boost. I realize that some of these changes will benefit other classes as well, but the rogue benefits the most.

One thing they removed that I miss however are the synergy bonuses. I know they claim the changes to the +2/+2 feats (like alertness) now scaling made up for this, but that requires an investment in feats, not skill points.

[Curmudgeon]

Then I decided to combine (what I see as) the best of both worlds: adopting the same cost for class skills and cross-class skills, so any one can be good at whatever they want, and keeping the x4 multiplier at 1st level, and setting max rank at HD +3 - obviously, class skills wouldn't get the +3 bonus from Pathfinder. This would make the rogue's higher number of skills points matter again, and would allow two characters of the same class and level to have different levels of expertise with a skill, as in 3.5
This boils down to: all skills are class skills for everybody.

The effect is that classes with lots of class skills become relatively less powerful, because the Wizard with high INT can now buy many more skill ranks than they could previously. Conversely, the Rogue gains affordable access to few extra skills.

The basic questions to ask when proposing a house rule are:

Who benefits? Answer: Wizards.
Who suffers? Answer: skillful classes.

[Oberon Kenobi]

I wouldn't really call that suffering. Benefiting less, sure, but not suffering; it takes a Wizard until 22 Intelligence before they even get to the baseline amount of skills that the Rogue has. By the time they actually have that, the power difference has very little to do with skill ranks.

Besides, Wizards and Rogues care about very different skills, and the most Roguish one (Disable Device) is still something that only Rogues can get the most benefit out of because of Trapfinding. So there's still niche protection, even without class skill restriction.

[Mehangel]

What if you made rogues special in that the limit in skill ranks would be Level + Rogue Level? That way by level 20, A rogue could have 40 skill ranks in a single skill. By having it scale, it would prevent level 1 dips into rogue from breaking anything. Now of course rogues wouldn't actually gain extra skill points, they only get a max number of ranks in each skill.

[Oberon Kenobi]

That's a good starting point, but it would force Rogues to specialize in one or two skills and sacrifice their diversity to get the most out of it. I'd be more inclined to give skillful characters some kind of scaling bonus based on their class level to any skills they have trained. Say, a +1 untyped bonus for every two class levels or something, so by level 20 they get a +10 bonus to any skills they've invested in. That way they get both the raw power (from the bonus) and the diversity (from the number of available skills).

[Curmudgeon]

I wouldn't really call that suffering. Benefiting less, sure, but not suffering ...
Why is it not suffering? Now every Wizard enemy the Rogue faces can have sufficient Tumble ranks to no longer provoke AoOs from movement, and Sneak Attack of Opportunity stops benefiting the Rogue.

D&D is a game of antagonists. Every time you boost some characters, you make them more potent adversaries for those you didn't boost.

[atemu1234]

I wouldn't really call that suffering. Benefiting less, sure, but not suffering; it takes a Wizard until 22 Intelligence before they even get to the baseline amount of skills that the Rogue has. By the time they actually have that, the power difference has very little to do with skill ranks.

Besides, Wizards and Rogues care about very different skills, and the most Roguish one (Disable Device) is still something that only Rogues can get the most benefit out of because of Trapfinding. So there's still niche protection, even without class skill restriction.

Rogues are already worse than wizards, and wizards already have things that make skill checks flat-out pointless.

They really don't suffer that much. If you're playing a Wizard that starts with 22 intelligence, you've already optimized to the point that this game wasn't intended for, as per the designers. That's not a bad thing, but that's not really the answer.

Who else benefits from this? Fighters who want ranks in some other skills to be useful. Anyone that wants to Listen and Spot better than not at all. Everyone gets a bump.

Yes, Rogue gets the short end of the stick, but let's face it, most things are already immune to its signature attack. That's not a recipe for a stable character.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

In my group, there are no cross-class skills except UMD and Iaijutsu Focus, which are only class skills for characters that would normally have them as class skills.

Furthermore, every class/racial HD gives a minimum 4+Int skill points/level. So classes like Fighter, Paladin, Cleric, Sorcerer, etc. can actually get a decent number of skills without a high Int, and even low-Int monsters can have multiple skills.

Plus we don't use the Trapfinding class feature, if someone would get Trapfinding they get a +2/+2 skill feat of their choice instead, such as Alertness, Stealthy, etc. Classes/races that get the ability to find a particular type of trap (such as Geometer) instead gets a +2 bonus to find and disarm traps of that type.

[Oberon Kenobi]

Why is it not suffering? Now every Wizard enemy the Rogue faces can have sufficient Tumble ranks to no longer provoke AoOs from movement, and Sneak Attack of Opportunity stops benefiting the Rogue.

D&D is a game of antagonists. Every time you boost some characters, you make them more potent adversaries for those you didn't boost.But you boosted the Rogue too, though. They can take ranks in Spellcraft just as easily as the Wizard can take ranks in Tumble, so they can counterspell Wizard shenanigans with Wands of Dispel. It'll be at a low CL for the dispel check, sure, but if you're at the level where the enemy Wizard is still actually caring about Tumble ranks you've probably got as good a chance as not.

And ranks the Wizard puts in Tumble are ranks they're not putting in other things–like Concentration to cast defensively, or Sense Motive to avoid getting flat-footed and sneak-attacked. Likewise with Dexterity and other ability scores.

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, Rogue gets the short end of the stick, but let's face it, most things are already immune to its signature attack.
Not so very immune; generally not more than 32%. You trade the useless trap sense for Lightbringer Penetrating Strike (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, page 208) and deal sneak attack damage with ½ the usual dice to those foes normally immune when you flank them. You add Craven (non-dice) bonus sneak attack damage as usual. So against someone with 100% Fortification (normally immune to sneak attack) you'll deal 68% of your usual sneak attack damage. (Sneak attack at +1d6 every other level averages +1.75 points of damage per level. Craven adds +1 point per level, for a total of +2.75 points per level. Halving the dice makes that 0.875 + 1 = 1.875 points per level. The ratio of reduced damage to normal sneak attack bonus damage is 1.875/2.75 = 0.6818.) And because you are dealing sneak attack damage, add-ons dependent on sneak attack, like Staggering Strike, still work. Ambush feats may actually work better in this context: you reduce your number of sneak attack dice for the Ambush feat before halving. So if you had an odd number of sneak attack dice and an Ambush feat which reduces the sneak attack by 1 die, there's no further reduction in sneak attack damage (no fraction to round down) and your Ambush feat effect (like Dazzling or Hinder) is "free".

[rfreixo]

Maybe I should keep the x4 multiplier and max ranks at HD +3, but limit cross-class skills to half the max, while changing every skill to cost 1 point per rank, whether they're class or cross-class. Seems to be a reasonable solution.

[JBPuffin]

Maybe I should keep the x4 multiplier and max ranks at HD +3, but limit cross-class skills to half the max, while changing every skill to cost 1 point per rank, whether they're class or cross-class. Seems to be a reasonable solution.

I think you might be better off just giving the rogue something like the "+1 to trained skills per X levels of rogue". Fighters and other low-skill classes can finally get skills they needed/wanted (Tumble Paladin, go!!), and losing that invalidates the point of changing the system, I'd think.


Why is it not suffering? Now every Wizard enemy the Rogue faces can have sufficient Tumble ranks to no longer provoke AoOs from movement, and Sneak Attack of Opportunity stops benefiting the Rogue.

D&D is a game of antagonists. Every time you boost some characters, you make them more potent adversaries for those you didn't boost.

Only if PvP is involved or the DM is a min-maxer and/or character-slayer in his/her own right. "Can have sufficient..." and "Will have sufficient..." are very different things, after all. The DM doesn't have to design characters optimally.

You're right if all you're talking about is theory, but in practice? Not the 100% certain conclusion you appear to see.

[Curmudgeon]

Only if PvP is involved or the DM is a min-maxer and/or character-slayer in his/her own right.
I disagree. Once the Wizard has access to all skills, picking those skills which have greater utility (Tumble instead of Decipher Script or Profession) is a given. The way I (and many other DMs) make NPCs is the same way I make PCs: they're all trying to accomplish something with the resources available to them. Nobody except Wizards of the Coast thinks that Alertness and Iron Will are must-have feats. If you're going to give NPCs halfway decent feats, you would also give them halfway decent skills, and changing the skill system in this manner changes the options. You don't have to make optimal choices for these NPCs; you just need to avoid bad choices.

[Fouredged Sword]

I think adding +1 to all skill checks at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level wouldn't be a horrid idea on a rogue. It doesn't solve the Tier 4 problem though.

Here is what I would do.

First,

All knowledges as class skills.

Sneak attack - Also adds +1 to hit at levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 for all attacks that qualify as sneak attacks (even if the target is immune). Basically a rogue gets full attack bonus (but not itteratives) when sneak attacking.

Know thy enemy (3rd level, replaces trap sense +1) - When identifying enemies, a rogue gets one additional piece of information about any creature the rogue successfully identifies, as if he rolled 5 higher than the actual result of the roll.

Finding the weakpoint (6th level, replaces trap sense +2) - A rogue can make a knowledge check to find the weak points of enemies otherwise immune to sneak attack. This requires a successful check to ID the monster, but once the rogue knows what he is fighting, he can sneak attack it at full efficiency for the remainder of the encounter. This check must be made by the rogue. It doesn't work if someone else simply tells him.

[Grod_The_Giant]

D&D is a game of antagonists. Every time you boost some characters, you make them more potent adversaries for those you didn't boost.
First of all, that's not true, because the game isn't a PvP match-- it's a team against a wide variety of enemies.

Secondly, the issue of "skill-focused classes benefit less" is looking at the wrong class. Rogue isn't a skill-focused class (at least not in 3.5)-- it simply gets a lot of skill points. A "skill-focused class" is something like a Factotum*, or a Bard with Bardic Knack-- a class that has abilities relating to skills.

Thirdly, let's look at the Rogue. In 3.5, he's expected to invest in Hide, Move Silently, Search, Open Lock, and Disable Device, with Tumble, UMD and Sleight of Hand being very nearly as stereotypical. That's 8 pretty-much-required skills, on a class which otherwise has very little use for Int. Do you want to be acrobatic (Balance, Jump, maybe Climb)? Deceptive (Bluff, Disguise, probably Sense Motive)? A scout (Spot, Listen)? Want to invest in interesting skills (Forgery, Use Rope, etc)? Better hope your stats are amazing enough to put a 14-16 in a tertiary stat!

Now let's look at the Pathfinder list. His required list drops to (Disable Device, Stealth, and probably Acrobatics, UMD, and Sleight of Hand)-- a net gain of three skill points/level to specialize, and you get the acrobatic skillset thrown in for free. Scouting is a single point (Perception). Suddenly you can be a standard rogue and still customize your skill list.

I mean, does the wizard get better? Sure, but he's already stupid powerful. "Better skill access" really doesn't do much of anything, at least past the first few levels where he's already desperate for things to do. (There's a reason you don't see "take Able Learner" as a common suggestion for wizards.) Skills are the last resort of the weakest classes, and so they are the ones who benefit most from making skills better.



*I know you hate them, Curmudgeon, but their dysfunctions aren't relevant to this discussion.

[Troacctid]

So, the problem with class skills in 3.5 is that they're way too nerfed. Not only do they cost double the skill points to buy ranks in, they also have half the normal skill cap, so even if you want to invest in them, you'll still suck.

Pathfinder made two major changes: it gave cross-class skills the same cap as class skills, and made cross-class ranks cost the same to buy. But these changes went a little too far, and now in Pathfinder, the difference between class skills and cross-class skills is so negligible that class skills are sharply devalued.

I think the best answer is somewhere in the middle. Either give them the same cap, or make them cost the same to buy, but not both.

[rfreixo]

So, the problem with class skills in 3.5 is that they're way too nerfed. Not only do they cost double the skill points to buy ranks in, they also have half the normal skill cap, so even if you want to invest in them, you'll still suck.

Pathfinder made two major changes: it gave cross-class skills the same cap as class skills, and made cross-class ranks cost the same to buy. But these changes went a little too far, and now in Pathfinder, the difference between class skills and cross-class skills is so negligible that class skills are sharply devalued.

I think the best answer is somewhere in the middle. Either give them the same cap, or make them cost the same to buy, but not both.

Yes, I agree with that. I'll probably make them cost the same, but cap at half the max ranks for class skills then. So a Rogue would still be better at Stealth (for example) than a Fighter, but the Fighter wouldn't be completely crippled if he decided to invest some skill points there. I think it's a nice compromise.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Maybe 2/3 level, or level-2 or something. Half ranks still leaves you way too far behind the curve for your investment to be worthwhile.

[rfreixo]

Maybe 2/3 level, or level-2 or something. Half ranks still leaves you way too far behind the curve for your investment to be worthwhile.

Maybe HD+3 to class skills, HD to cross-class skills, same cost for both.

EDIT: After replying, I saw the link to your houserules in your sig. Apparently, you already do that. :smallsmile:
So, how does it impact the game?

[Troacctid]

Maybe 2/3 level, or level-2 or something. Half ranks still leaves you way too far behind the curve for your investment to be worthwhile.

I disagree. Firstly, the cap needs to be significantly lower in order for class skills to be meaningful--you're not supposed to be as good at them as you are at your class skills. Second, once you make cross-class skills cheaper to buy, they're no longer a more expensive investment than class skills, and it becomes plenty viable to spread some cross-class points around here and there, especially for classes like Incarnate and Warlock that are starved for skill points to begin with.

[Eisirt]

Destroys the "Able Learner" feat and greatly diminishes the appeal of the Factotum.

[Sagetim]

The last time I was in a 3.5 game with my regular dnd group we had a house rule in place for skills: You get int mod of class skills of your choice at character creation. These skills are always class skills. It worked out really quite well. The general idea being that the smarter you are, the more capable of having an expanded repertoire you are. I know the base game represents that by giving you more skill points...but this gives a little more flexibility to your ability to build a character instead of a class.

If you're going to import the pathfinder skill system but want your players to have a little more flexibility, then let them pick a number of class skills equal to their int mod. Pathfinder already has a rule that class skills remain class skills, the main problem with using it in 3.5 is if your players are going to go into prestige classes, because you will have to adjust the ranks required down to compensate for no longer having the maximum be level +3. Do bear in mind that adding this rule to the mix will make it easier for a smart character to qualify for some prestige classes. That still assumes that you're even playing to a level where prestige classes are going to factor in.

[Curmudgeon]

First of all, that's not true, because the game isn't a PvP match-- it's a team against a wide variety of enemies.
Who said anything about player vs. player? Unless you add house rules that all enemies must be monsters without class levels, and that they don't get the benefit of free access to skills the same way players do, the enemies will benefit from this rule change the same way as players. A Wizard enemy with affordable access to many more skills just became a tougher opponent for a Rogue player. Your "not true" answer presupposes restrictions on module writers and the DM which don't exist.

Thirdly, let's look at the Rogue. In 3.5, he's expected to invest in Hide, Move Silently, Search, Open Lock, and Disable Device, with Tumble, UMD and Sleight of Hand being very nearly as stereotypical. That's 8 pretty-much-required skills, on a class which otherwise has very little use for Int.
Once again, you're presupposing restrictions in the game which don't exist. I play Rogues a lot. I often make INT my top stat and take Knowledge Devotion feat (maybe with a Cloistered Cleric dip to get the feat for "free"). With investment in all 6 creature-related Knowledge skills that gives me INT-based bonuses to attack and damage everything in D&D. And because I've got at least 16 INT I can still maximize at least 5 other skills, including other INT-based skills like Search and Disable Device. Don't tell me how I'm "expected" to build and play my Rogues; it's offensive. :smallmad:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Let's step back a moment: why class skills? Why should we give a crap about class skills? Why should class skills matter? Why should we impose artificial restrictions in a game that's about freedom of concept? If I want to make a sneaky wizard or a charismatic barbarian, why should I have to jump through hoops to do so? If class A is supposed to be better than anyone else at a thing, shouldn't it have a unique strength, a unique ability, rather than a slightly larger number?

Take Bards. Even if everyone can take Perform, a Bard will still be the best at singing, because he can sing so well he can control minds. A Scout will still be the best at stealth because he can hide in plain sight. A Druid/Ranger will still be the best at nature because he can ignore brambles and make friends with bears.


Who said anything about player vs. player?
Enemy wizards get ever-so-slightly tougher, which is sad. Your wizard buddy gets ever-so-slightly tougher, which is good. It balances out. "Casters can tumble" is a serious edge case, since it presupposes a Rogue build that focuses on AoOs and a caster who doesn't have tactical teleportation, intangiblity, or some other form of dipping out of a dangerous situation. At best, it illustrates a flaw in the skill rules (static DCs).


Once again, you're presupposing restrictions in the game which don't exist. I play Rogues a lot. I often make INT my top stat and take Knowledge Devotion feat (maybe with a Cloistered Cleric dip to get the feat for "free"). With investment in all 6 creature-related Knowledge skills that gives me INT-based bonuses to attack and damage everything in D&D. And because I've got at least 16 INT I can still maximize at least 5 other skills, including other INT-based skills like Search and Disable Device. Don't tell me how I'm "expected" to build and play my Rogues; it's offensive. :smallmad:
I did no such thing. I listed the skills that a bog-standard "sneakthief" rogue needs to do his job of sneaking around, stealing things and disarming traps. I didn't mean to imply that was the only way to play the class, but it is the by-the-book-fluff way to play the class, and what you'd expect if someone said "I'm playing a rogue" with no further details. "Expected" wasn't meant as a command; rather, it was, well, what the stereotypical rogue is perceived as being capable of. What it was designed to do. It's like a bard being able to buff you, or a barbarian hitting things with a two-handed weapon.

And I said that, when you look at the chassis, a rogue has little need for Int (I'm not counting skill bonuses, because your modifier is greatly overshadowed by ranks and cheap magic items). She has one optional ability that uses Int; nothing else. By contrast, she needs a high Dex, a solid Con, and possibly a passable Str, depending on what sources are available. As you point out, there are ways to add an Int dependency-- Knowledge Devotion, a Daring Outlaw build, a Factotum dip, even a caster multiclass build-- but those are outside options.

[Curmudgeon]

Enemy wizards get ever-so-slightly tougher, which is sad. Your wizard buddy gets ever-so-slightly tougher, which is good. It balances out.
No, it really doesn't balance out. Not only do Rogues have many more class skills than Wizards, Rogues have many "high value" (i.e., useful when life is at risk) class skills. Removing class skills from the game gives Wizards much more of a boost than it does Rogues.

[rfreixo]

Destroys the "Able Learner" feat and greatly diminishes the appeal of the Factotum.

Losing one feat is a small price to pay for greater flexibility in characters.
As for the Factotum, I like to think it doesn't exist anyway. :smallsmile:
In my games, I only allow the (sometimes modified) core classes, scout, duskblade and philosopher (a homebrew spontaneous divine caster).

[Oberon Kenobi]

If class A is supposed to be better than anyone else at a thing, shouldn't it have a unique strength, a unique ability, rather than a slightly larger number?

Take Bards. Even if everyone can take Perform, a Bard will still be the best at singing, because he can sing so well he can control minds. A Scout will still be the best at stealth because he can hide in plain sight. A Druid/Ranger will still be the best at nature because he can ignore brambles and make friends with bears.That's something that Pathfinder has actually started doing more of thanks to the Unchained Rules–and specifically, skill unlocks, which give you unique scaling benefits with a given skill as you put more ranks into it.

They're not as character-defining as full-blown class features, but still: they're generally a very cool way to represent characters who can get more out of their skills than anyone else.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, it really doesn't balance out. Not only do Rogues have many more class skills than Wizards, Rogues have many "high value" (i.e., useful when life is at risk) class skills. Removing class skills from the game gives Wizards much more of a boost than it does Rogues.
Look me in the eye and tell me that the relative power gain is greater for a Wizard than a Rogue. Look me in the eye and tell me that a T1 class gains a larger power boost than a T4. Look me in the eye and tell me that a Wizard gaining new ways to do things that spells can do better is a greater power boost than a Rogue practically doubling the amount of things he can do out-of-combat*.

[Curmudgeon]

Look me in the eye and tell me that the relative power gain is greater for a Wizard than a Rogue. Look me in the eye and tell me that a T1 class gains a larger power boost than a T4. Look me in the eye and tell me that a Wizard gaining new ways to do things that spells can do better is a greater power boost than a Rogue practically doubling the amount of things he can do out-of-combat*.
Well, looking you in the eye isn't going to be possible, but I claim all of those things except for that "practically doubling" part. The Rogue gains access to fewer additional skills both in absolute numbers and in relation to their 3.5 base.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, I'm absolutely with Curmudgeon there. The change to skills in Pathfinder was a huge net gain for classes with short class skill lists and a huge middle finger for classes with long class skill lists.

[Fouredged Sword]

Yeah, I'm absolutely with Curmudgeon there. The change to skills in Pathfinder was a huge net gain for classes with short class skill lists and a huge middle finger for classes with long class skill lists.

They turned around and gave the skill classes better class features past "more skillpoints" and combined many point intensive skillgroups into a single skill (stealth <- hide / move sci)

Pathfinder balanced it out, and in the end Rogues improved over the 3.5 version.

[Curmudgeon]

They turned around and gave the skill classes better class features past "more skillpoints" and combined many point intensive skillgroups into a single skill (stealth <- hide / move sci)

Pathfinder balanced it out, and in the end Rogues improved over the 3.5 version.
That's entirely debatable. However, such a debate is off-topic, so can we confine the debate to skills, please?

[BowStreetRunner]

That's entirely debatable. However, such a debate is off-topic, so can we confine the debate to skills, please?

I believe the takeaway is that the PF developers adjusted the skills system along with making other changes to the classes, so the same skill system changes with different class abilities will have a different impact on balance. Whether you believe the PF skill system is balanced or not, it was designed with PF classes in mind. If you use it with 3.5 classes, you are already starting from a different balancing point.

One of the trade-offs that the PF system introduces is maximizing versus efficiency. The +3 to every trained class skill gives you the greatest number of bonus points if you drop a point in each class skill. Your points are spent most efficiently when you get +4 per point rather than just +1. Doing this prevents you from maxing out as many skills as you otherwise might, but reduces the frequency of characters who can't perform simple in-class tasks. In a high-OP game, having less than max ranks in a skill is often a waste - you live and die on rolls against DCs that are also maxed out. In a low-OP game, being able to take 10 and make a DC 15 or DC 20 check allows your character to make a lot of utility checks, and the need to make DC 50 checks is a bit less frequent so you aren't ham-stringed by not having every skill maxed.

In a high OP game I don't think players are going to spread their points around for the +3 bonus as much. They will pick the skills they intend to maximize and ignore anything else except prerequisites. The biggest advantage of +3 in high OP games is for multi-class characters, since you no longer care which class is taken at first level to get the x4 points.