Making social skills class skills for everyone?

[gadren]

So, in my quest to give the Fighter more to do out if combat, I was looking at class skills and started to wonder why the social skills (bluff, diplomacy, sense motive) shouldn't be class skills for everyone, like Craft and Proffession are.
Yes, bards and such should be better at it, but that is already expressed by their required high charisma.

Thoughts?

[Âmesang]

I'd be all for it. I suppose from a thematic point-of-view it'll give the war-worn old general a better voice in diplomatic matters, since not every battlefield requires strength-in-arms.

You can't just go around intimidating everyone, after all. :smalltongue:

[PersonMan]

If you do that sort of thing, be aware that without extra skill points there may be no point. If you have 2 or more class skills you already want to invest in, but have 3 points per level, adding an extra 3 won't result in more well-rounded melee characters.

I think it's a good idea, in the context of other changes to skills that give more skill points to the 2+Int gang (or at least some of them).

[Kurald Galain]

While I agree that the fighter needs a better skill list, this doesn't necessarily apply to every other class in the game, and it would reduce class diversity. For instance, I'm fine with requiring reclusive bookworms to take a feat or trait in order to learn social skills.

[OldTrees1]

No, you should not just add skill X, Y, & Z to every skill list.
However
1) The fighter list needs more (Zhentarim and Thug aside) so adding social skills makes some sense.
2) DMs can work with players to customize their classes skill lists to better represent the character concept.

[gadren]

No, you should not just add skill X, Y, & Z to every skill list.
In terms of bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive, why not? They are things every sentient humanoid would learn the basics of, I'd say there's an even stronger case for them being on every class list than for craft and profession.
Yes, it'll come harder to the reclusive book-learner than it will for the bard, but the fact that the charsima modifier difference between the two is likely to be 5 or more, that difference is already covered.

[Kurald Galain]

They are things every sentient humanoid would learn the basics of
That's absolutely not the case, neither in real life nor in any fiction that I'm aware of. People learn the basics of social interaction, not of either being a consummate liar or a suave diplomat. Not even close.

[gadren]

That's absolutely not the case, neither in real life nor in any fiction that I'm aware of. People learn the basics of social interaction, not of either being a consummate liar or a suave diplomat. Not even close.

I think the keyword here is basics. above, you are using the skills bluff and diplomacy only to describe those highly trained in it. A fighter with 8 charisma that puts 1 rank into diplomacy reflects that he put a little extra effort into getting along with people, not that he is trying to be a "suave diplomat" by any stretch.

I guess a relevant question for those opposed to the idea of social skills being class skills for all is how you feel about craft and profession being class skills for all. Are you for or against it, and why?

[OldTrees1]

In terms of bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive, why not? They are things every sentient humanoid would learn the basics of, I'd say there's an even stronger case for them being on every class list than for craft and profession.
Yes, it'll come harder to the reclusive book-learner than it will for the bard, but the fact that the charsima modifier difference between the two is likely to be 5 or more, that difference is already covered.

Every sentient knows the basics of bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive? I humbly beg to differ. I know I did not have access to training that modern diplomats receive and despite everyone knowing politicians lie, they still get elected. So I do not think bluff, diplomacy, and sense motive are class skills for everyone. Those "basics" you are referring to must be rank 0 (aka the baseline/background wherein worse word choice instills circumstance penalties).

That said I reference you to my #2 where I said that the reclusive book-learner that has an interesting in the social manipulation techniques should work with their DM to customize their personal skill list to include those social skills.


@Craft and Profession
I do not consider these part of the class skill list until a character decides to invest in one. A blacksmith does not regularly receive access to training in every craft and profession(what class skill is representing).

[Kurald Galain]

I guess a relevant question for those opposed to the idea of social skills being class skills for all is how you feel about craft and profession being class skills for all. Are you for or against it, and why?

They're actually not. For instance, barbarians don't get profession on their list.

And no, I don't think every class should automatically get craft and prof by default. However, the amount of adventurers that could make a basic living through menial jobs is substantially higher than the amount of adventurers that have consummate social skills. If anything, many adventurers are de facto loners, outsiders, weirdos, and more than a little scary; meaning that (unless they train well) they should be less effective at socializing than the average NPC.

[Grod_The_Giant]

While I agree that the fighter needs a better skill list, this doesn't necessarily apply to every other class in the game, and it would reduce class diversity. For instance, I'm fine with requiring reclusive bookworms to take a feat or trait in order to learn social skills.
Counterargument: Why stop at social skills? Ditch the entire concept of "class skills." If a class is supposed to be particularly good at something, let them have the features to reflect it-- that was already kind of the case (for example, Trapfinding and Dark Knowledge). In the meantime, you remove a hoop players have to meaninglessly jump through and open the door to more interesting characters.

[gadren]

Counterargument: Why stop at social skills? Ditch the entire concept of "class skills." If a class is supposed to be particularly good at something, let them have the features to reflect it-- that was already kind of the case (for example, Trapfinding and Dark Knowledge). In the meantime, you remove a hoop players have to meaninglessly jump through and open the door to more interesting characters.

That's a good point.

[Calimehter]

Having run a few sessions and designed a few builds in a "all skills are class skills and everyone gets more skill points" game . . . the only problem I ran into was that there was a tendancy to focus on certain skills (spot, listen, tumble, umd) which resulted in rather less character variation than I had expected.

[SangoProduction]

Having run a few sessions and designed a few builds in a "all skills are class skills and everyone gets more skill points" game . . . the only problem I ran into was that there was a tendancy to focus on certain skills (spot, listen, tumble, umd) which resulted in rather less character variation than I had expected.

Only in the way that those skills (save for tumble, except at certain tables) are overpowered. The first 2 is because they are the single most used skills in the game for the largest majority of tables. Why would you not take them if you can? You even take them as cross-class. This is the fault of the DMs for the most part, but being able to spot a mundane stealthie is great regardless...which should quickly get phased out as levels progress, as stealthies actually upgrade to magic, but regardless. Last time I counted how many times we had to roll a spot or listen check, I counted up to 31 times. Freaking insane. Balance your checks between the skills, and you'll find people not dumping all their skills in to a few.

UMD is basically: "Hey, you know those nice things casters have...well, you have to pay money for it, and invest copious amounts of skill, but here, take them, even if you are already a caster." And we all know just how many nice things casters have.

The character variation caused by limiting access to these skills is strictly artificial, and done by taking away freedom rather than amplifying an aspect that the class is supposed to focus on. Of course, I'm slightly biased as I do away with class skills. But I see nothing incorrect about what said.

[atemu1234]

Counterargument: Why stop at social skills? Ditch the entire concept of "class skills." If a class is supposed to be particularly good at something, let them have the features to reflect it-- that was already kind of the case (for example, Trapfinding and Dark Knowledge). In the meantime, you remove a hoop players have to meaninglessly jump through and open the door to more interesting characters.

Actually, I like the way Pathfinder did it. It made more sense to me, at least.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Actually, I like the way Pathfinder did it. It made more sense to me, at least.
I thought it actually made very little, from a game design standpoint. There's so little distinction between class and nonclass skills, apart from that small (mostly only important at low levels) bonus, it seems like they're forcing themselves to keep a sacred cow they really didn't want.

[Kurald Galain]

Counterargument: Why stop at social skills? Ditch the entire concept of "class skills." If a class is supposed to be particularly good at something, let them have the features to reflect it-- that was already kind of the case (for example, Trapfinding and Dark Knowledge). In the meantime, you remove a hoop players have to meaninglessly jump through and open the door to more interesting characters.

If you feel like that, you should consider playing an RPG that isn't class-based.

[Ashtagon]

So, in my quest to give the Fighter more to do out if combat, I was looking at class skills and started to wonder why the social skills (bluff, diplomacy, sense motive) shouldn't be class skills for everyone, like Craft and Proffession are.
Yes, bards and such should be better at it, but that is already expressed by their required high charisma.

Thoughts?

The problem with this idea is that, if everyone is good at something, then no one is good at it. The point of having class skills and cross class skills is to make some character concepts better at certain skills than others.

Now, the fighter does have a crappy class skill list (and one that doesn't even match with its fluff too well). It also suffers from too few skill points. But these are separate issues.

fwiw, I think Craft and Profession skills have been added too generously to classes. PCs should be adventurers -- heroes, shakers, and movers -- not petty artisans making custom robes. Importantly, the most meaningful part of crafting rules for PCs -- magic items -- doesn't even key off Craft at all.

[SangoProduction]

fwiw, I think Craft and Profession skills have been added too generously to classes. PCs should be adventurers -- heroes, shakers, and movers -- not petty artisans making custom robes.

Yeah...but how many had absolutely no life before their time as an adventurer. Very few were trained to "adventure" as opposed to hold a job.

[gadren]

Okay, so most people seem against the idea.
What do you think of making diplomacy, bluff, and sense motive class skills for every class except for Barbarian, Bloodrager, Druid, Hunter, and Ranger (basically all the wilderness classes)?

[Gale]

I'm not entirely sure whether or not every class deserves social skills; but I do believe the skill system in general should be revised to make obtaining them easier. Characters shouldn't have to multiclass into a potentially useless class to obtain a skill or worse torch a feat.

My other problem with social skills is that they cannot be contested by anyone who doesn't have them. It makes them too powerful. I had a player play a Bard once and had to frequently come up with excuses for why enemies wouldn't listen to him; otherwise every fight would had been circumvented by him saying, "Hey, let's be friends instead."

[gadren]

My other problem with social skills is that they cannot be contested by anyone who doesn't have them. It makes them too powerful. I had a player play a Bard once and had to frequently come up with excuses for why enemies wouldn't listen to him; otherwise every fight would had been circumvented by him saying, "Hey, let's be friends instead."

Well, diplomacy does say "You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future."

[Calimehter]

Only in the way that those skills (save for tumble, except at certain tables) are overpowered.

I don't know if 'overpowered' is the only way to view those skills. In a game about adventuring and combat, one expects the characters' skills and abilities to reflect their expertise in adventuring and combat. Craft and Profession are class skills for just about every base class out there, and yet because they are not all that useful in combat and adventuring, they don't really get that much play even for classes without access to some of the 'big' ones like Spot and UMD. You see Craft and Profession once in a great while, but it is pretty uncommon. I see that as more of a feature than a bug when the game fluff and mechanics are just not focused on character concepts that would utilize those skills.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of removing class skills now that I've been doing it. :) I just don't know if it will result in the outcome the OP was looking for by itself. Even with boosted skill totals (between 4+INT and 10+INT for all classes) and the removal of class skills, I've found that each party tends to have just one PC covering the "face" role, while everyone else saves their skill and ability investments for other things. I'm sure mileage varies from group to group and campaign theme to campaign theme, but some roles (face, trapfinding, even climbing at low level/op play) the players seem content to trust to others so long as *somebody* in the group has it, while other skills like Spot, etc. that are just more generically useful to all adventurers in more common situations.

My suggestion to the OP would be that you have to combine the removal of skill restrictions (for either social skills or all skills) with an open statement to the players that you are intending to play a social campaign and that such an investment would be rewarded more than it would be in a 'typical' D&D game.

[Abithrios]

The problem with this idea is that, if everyone is good at something, then no one is good at it.

I disagree. Also, even the most radical suggestions here don't make everyone good at everything, but merely let anyone be good at anything.


Well, diplomacy does say "You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future."

Is that 3.5 or pathfinder? Pathfinder diplomacy isn't perfect, but added a few limitations that the 3.5 version really needed.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not entirely sure whether or not every class deserves social skills; but I do believe the skill system in general should be revised to make obtaining them easier. Characters shouldn't have to multiclass into a potentially useless class to obtain a skill or worse torch a feat.

Pathfinder traits solve that problem easily.

[Chronos]

Yes, bards and such should be better at it, but that is already expressed by their required high charisma.
No, not really. With this rule, a bard with a given charisma is no better at social skills than anyone else. They can, of course, choose to build towards a high charisma, but then, so can anyone. The only difference is that if they don't choose that, they'll suffer in other ways... but that doesn't actually mean they're any better at social skills than anyone else.

And while everyone does know the bare basics of social skills, that's reflected in the fact that they can be used untrained. Yeah, I can try to convince someone of something, or lie to someone, or tell when someone else is lying... but that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily going to be very good at it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, not really. With this rule, a bard with a given charisma is no better at social skills than anyone else.
No better than anyone else who also has high charisma and has invested heavily in the same skills? That seems fair to me. Sure, the Bard has a particular emphasis on being social... which is why has access to a fair list of social-oriented spells and even class features (ie, Suggestion). Which is as it should be.

Query: What about borrowing the 4e solution of a scaling bonus to skills-- say that everyone has ranks in all skills equal to one-half their level, with their chosen "trained" skills being higher as normal. That way someone who invests will be meaningfully better than someone who doesn't, but no so much worse that they totally drop off the RNG and become useless.

[Kurald Galain]

Query: What about borrowing the 4e solution of a scaling bonus to skills-- say that everyone has ranks in all skills equal to one-half their level, with their chosen "trained" skills being higher as normal.

Skills are pretty much irrelevant in 4E, so unless that's your goal you possibly shouldn't copy that system...

[SangoProduction]

Skills are pretty much irrelevant in 4E, so unless that's your goal you possibly shouldn't copy that system...

I get people on this forum hate 4e without reason...but how are skills irrelevant in 4e?

[Darth Ultron]

Everyone should not have social skills. After all, everyone does not have social skills......really.

And it is not that a fighter can't take social skills, they are just cross class. And as long as your not in a crazy optimization game, your fighter will be fine. A first level fighter can still take two ranks in a social skill, have high charisma and even take a social skill feat and end up with a +6. Now, sure, a 1st level bard can have higher...but they should, right?

[GilesTheCleric]

Skills are pretty much irrelevant in 4E, so unless that's your goal you possibly shouldn't copy that system...

That's the same system 5e uses with its proficiency bonus. It seems to work to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Skills are pretty much irrelevant in 4E, so unless that's your goal you possibly shouldn't copy that system...
I haven't played 4e since it first came out, so perhaps you could elaborate somewhat?

[Endarire]

OP: If you're the GM and want people to be more socially adept, how'zabout just giving all PCs (or all creatures with at least 1 class level) ranks of social skills dependent upon their class level? Yes, actual ranks. This way people can't stack social skill synergies even higher, and it seemingly gives you what you want.

[gadren]

OP: If you're the GM and want people to be more socially adept, how'zabout just giving all PCs (or all creatures with at least 1 class level) ranks of social skills dependent upon their class level? Yes, actual ranks. This way people can't stack social skill synergies even higher, and it seemingly gives you what you want.

I think there is a misunderstanding of what my attention was. I don't want all PCs to be more socially adept (having a skill as a class skill doesn't make you any better at it unless you put points into it), I just don't think that being a fighter or wizard or whatnot should have that much more difficulty learning to be social than any other class. Learning to pick locks or perform acrobatics, yeah, that's something that some classes might inherently have restricted access to, but unless a character class somehow inherently isolates a character from society, I don't think that these skills should be penalized for those inclined to learn them.