Class Skills - What's the point? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

ThisIsZen

2016-02-05, 06:27 PM

The benefit is that they increase character diversity. If you remove class skills, the potential problem is that everybody will pick more-or-less the same skills, or that skill training becomes irrelevant and that everybody is approximately equally good at every skill.

Accounting for the fact that each class would still get its own value of skill points, allowing some classes access to more skills than others, what skills are you expecting everyone would take? There are a couple obvious ones, like UMD, that would always be worth investing in, but I can't... actually, I dunno what other than UMD you would expect people to invest in 100% of the time. So that's 1 of each class's skill points spoken for. Beyond that, you have certain skills that are nice to have, like Disable Device, but investing in those means you can't invest in Knowledges. Investing in Knowledges means you can't invest in social skills. Investing in social skills means you don't have points for the important other skills, like Hide, Move Silently, Listen, Spot, etc.

There are enough skills which work towards enough different concepts that characters will naturally diversify without the artificial constraints of class skill lists. A face will pick different skills from a knowledgebot will pick different skills from a sneaky/trapfinder character will pick different skills from a dedicated arcanist. Etc. etc.

EDIT: This would also make PrC qualification much easier and less headache-inducing in some cases. Whether that's a bonus or a downside is up to your interpretation of PrCs as an aspect of 3.5, tho.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-05, 06:29 PM

Wait, pigeonholing characters into stereotypes and actively punishing people who venture outside them is increasing character diversity? What?
Well, that's a rather silly exaggeration you're making there.

That said, yes, allowing every character to take every skill reduces diversity between classes, for the same reason that dumping all cleric/wizard/druid spells onto one big list will reduce diversity between these. The point of having a class-based system is that classes are different. If you don't want a class-based system, well, there's nothing wrong with that but then you should look into other RPGs than D&D.

Necroticplague

2016-02-05, 06:31 PM

Probably a bad comparison, but I sort of imagine Class and Cross-Class skills as like a professional, dedicated plumber being better at the task than a rocket scientist reading Plumbing for Dummies on the weekends.

Which seems like, as is, is better represented by making the class actually give some kinda boost to the skill. Because under the current situation, the rocket scientist can be just as good at plumbing, if he's much more experiences all around. Like how the archivist represent knowing a bunch of stuff with knowlege related class features, not just having it as a class skill.

shatterspike1

2016-02-05, 06:37 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-05, 06:38 PM

Well, that's a rather silly exaggeration you're making there.

That said, yes, allowing every character to take every skill reduces diversity between classes, for the same reason that dumping all cleric/wizard/druid spells onto one big list will reduce diversity between these. The point of having a class-based system is that classes are different. If you don't want a class-based system, well, there's nothing wrong with that but then you should look into other RPGs than D&D.
And conflating "no class skills" (AKA "Able Learner and a level of Expert") with "no class-based spell lists" isn't a silly exaggeration? :smallconfused:

Seriously, I fail to see what the issue with everyone taking social skills or stealth skills or whatnot is. Their classes and feats provide so much more mechanical differentiation you probably won't notice the skills. If anything, it seems like a bonus for the DM-- if everyone picks certain skills, it means He can freely design adventures to make use of those skills, since everyone can participate in that particular minigame.
All the players are probably interested in that part of the game, so he should design adventures to make use of those skills.

Are you worried about everyone taking UMD? Who cares. It's entirely reasonable in-universe for those who risk their lives day-in and day-out to know how to use their equivalent of high-tech stuff. The most powerful classes already have spells and don't get any power boost; the least powerful classes do get a bit more magic and thus a net power boost. Concerns about nonmagical character concepts are countermanded by the fact that those players wouldn't pick UMD anyway.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-05, 06:54 PM

Well, that's a rather silly exaggeration you're making there.Is it?

Every wizard has to spend his skill points on Concentration, Knowledge skills, and Spellcraft, or he's punished with a lower skill cap AND he gets fewer of them to spend. You can't have a wizard who is an outdoorsy type and studies the arcane secrets of the universe in the evenings and weekends, nor can you have a fighter who actually knows about what he's fighting because he can't take skill ranks in Knowledge skills. All wizards are bookish nerds, and all fighters are big, dumb jocks who barely know enough about the things they fight to write a mini-pamphlet.

If you go outside those stereotypes, not only are you not as effective, but you're punished with fewer effective skill points as a result.

Again, if you don't fit your character within the narrow ranges of archetypes that the designers thought was appropriate, you get punished for it.

And somehow being restricted to those stereotypes is supposed to increase character diversity.

I hope you can appreciate just how ludicrous that statement is.

That said, yes, allowing every character to take every skill reduces diversity between classes, for the same reason that dumping all cleric/wizard/druid spells onto one big list will reduce diversity between these. The point of having a class-based system is that classes are different. If you don't want a class-based system, well, there's nothing wrong with that but then you should look into other RPGs than D&D.The only skills that I can see everyone taking are Spot, Listen, and possibly UMD (sometimes).

Concentration is only useful for casters, but they get it anyway. Knowledge skills are useful for anyone who wants to be able to know their enemies and strategize based on what they know of their behaviors, or who wants to have a sphere of knowledge they're proficient in. Survival and Search are useful for anyone who wants to be a bounty hunter (or just a hunter). Every skill has some use, and there're character concepts that require being effective in those areas. Whereas other character concepts don't need them.

I don't like being forced to pander to someone else's ideas of what kinds of characters I should play. 3rd edition is a toolbox for building characters and playing games, and if I'm going to use that toolbox, I want to use it to build the characters I want to play in the games I want to play in.

Telling someone that they can't be knowledgeable just because they kill stuff with a chunk of metal is artificially arbitrary, and it impinges on diversity and fun for no adequate reason.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-05, 07:07 PM

Again, if you don't fit your character within the narrow ranges of archetypes that the designers thought was appropriate, you get punished for it.
And just to be clear, the answer isn't "so go play GURPS." There are plenty of advantages to class-based systems that still remain, and plenty of downsides to trying to switch. Class-based games can have more mechanical variety, are often easier to build characters in, etc-- there's a thread going on the Roleplaying forum right now on the subject. Divorcing skills from class is just a slightly more extreme version of ditching alignment restrictions or changing the provided fluff, both things that are pretty commonly accepted.

squiggit

2016-02-05, 07:08 PM

I'm not finding the diversity argument particularly compelling. The only big outlier here is UMD and I guess maybe a very RAW strict diplomacy (but I've never seen a table actually play that) and outliers the other direction in skills like climb.

But that's more an argument to look at those skills than to pigeonhole classes.

The point of having a class-based system is that classes are different. If you don't want a class-based system, well, there's nothing wrong with that but then you should look into other RPGs than D&D.

It seems a bit weird to complain about 'silly exaggerations' and then post something like that.

Yeowan

2016-02-05, 07:13 PM

I actually think removing class skills would be fine as well. Not everyone wants to play the stupid fighter. I have a character I'm working on right now that is fairly intelligent and hunts monsters. The thing is, his intelligence can't really shine because no knowledge skill is a class skill for him. Well, gee. I hope I roll really well when we fight a werewolf so that he knows werewolves have DR x/silver. Oh wait, I have to throw away 2 of my already limited skill points into a "cross-class" skill to even have the chance of figuring that out.

Plus, everyone that thinks they HAVE to be there doesn't seem to have any faith in their players. When someone makes a character they usually stick with what they want that character to do. Sure the perceptive skills will probably be taken by lots of people, but if you were going around killing creatures that would love to tear you apart wouldn't you want to be cautious/perceptive? And, going off of a fighter as an example, what if you played some sort of bounty hunter or a more dexterous fighter using a bow and light armor? You may want use rope or tumble. Sure other classes may do it better, but what's the point of having the option if that's the case? There is also the whole bit about the classes getting extra things that you won't use or don't fit your concept. A feat is better than a class feature that you won't ever use.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-05, 07:30 PM

And just to be clear, the answer isn't "so go play GURPS." There are plenty of advantages to class-based systems that still remain, and plenty of downsides to trying to switch. Class-based games can have more mechanical variety, are often easier to build characters in, etc-- there's a thread going on the Roleplaying forum right now on the subject. Divorcing skills from class is just a slightly more extreme version of ditching alignment restrictions or changing the provided fluff, both things that are pretty commonly accepted.Agreed. Insert this filler here.

Ninjaxenomorph

2016-02-05, 07:44 PM

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-05, 07:51 PM

Funny, most PF players' reaction to telling them you're removing class skills would be 'What? NOOO!', since in PF you are rewarded for putting ranks in class skills (which may be changed via archetype and traits to customize a character), rather than punished for putting ranks in non-class skills.
I guess the PF version would be to get the +3 bonus to any skill you put ranks in. They're already halfway there with the number of traits that add new class skills...

Jay R

2016-02-05, 09:09 PM

If you want to play D&D with no class skills and less complexity, you don't need to try to change 3.5e into original D&D. Just go play original D&D.

Necroticplague

2016-02-05, 09:45 PM

If you want to play D&D with no class skills and less complexity, you don't need to try to change 3.5e into original D&D. Just go play original D&D.>OD&D
>Less complexity
Man, nice stand-up act. Yeah, there was less choice for character generation, but it wasn't less complex. it just had the complexity in its general mechanics instead of its character generation mechanics. 3.5 (and its precursors, 3e and 2e) did a good job of actually simplifying a lot of the mechanics (see also: replacing the massive multi-part round system with the current action system). This is to be expected, given how the knowledge of game developement changed in the years.

Jay R

2016-02-05, 09:51 PM

>OD&D
>Less complexity
Man, nice stand-up act. Yeah, there was less choice for character generation, but it wasn't less complex. it just had the complexity in its general mechanics instead of its character generation mechanics. 3.5 (and its precursors, 3e and 2e) did a good job of actually simplifying a lot of the mechanics (see also: replacing the massive multi-part round system with the current action system). This is to be expected, given how the knowledge of game developement changed in the years.

The rules for original D&D were 29 8 1/2" x 11" sheets of paper, folded over (plus covers). Yes, this is less complex than 3.5, even if you want to pretend that using a single form of die roll simplified things.

And there was no multi-part round system in original D&D.

29 pieces of paper. Really.

shatterspike1

2016-02-05, 10:17 PM

If you want to play D&D with no class skills and less complexity, you don't need to try to change 3.5e into original D&D. Just go play original D&D.

I'm missing the part where 3.5 without class skills == OD&D. Please don't troll this thread.

johnbragg

2016-02-05, 10:21 PM

I'm missing the part where 3.5 without class skills == OD&D. Please don't troll this thread.

I also want to point out, "no class skills" != "no skills"

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-05, 11:05 PM

You could just restrict UMD to classes that grant it in house. Still a case of screwing over mundanes, but you could do that. And it keys off Charisma, which puts it in a weird place for an optimized fighter or monk anyway.

The way I originally played this game, we threw out class skills. I wanted a fighter with knowledge skills but not have to dip away. We just got rid of the class skills boundary and the game played fine.

It was actually weird to have to think like you guys when it came to optimization, you know, thinking about how to get class skills covered using only non-houserule RAW. It felt like trying to teach etiquette to a feral child.

NichG

2016-02-05, 11:11 PM

For me, no point really, just another hoop to jump through or to make people jump through (since there are ample ways to basically get anything or everything as a class skill). I'd be fine without them.

Ninjaxenomorph

2016-02-06, 12:34 AM

I guess the PF version would be to get the +3 bonus to any skill you put ranks in. They're already halfway there with the number of traits that add new class skills...

Yeah, but then you have to adjust every single skill DC, since it effectively gives everyone a +3 to almost every skill the PC uses; its either trained skills and untrained ability score checks. Likely, the modifier is either really good with ranks, 'rank bonus', and a good ability score, or pathetic with a non-primary ability score and no ranks, no inbetween.

Apricot

2016-02-06, 01:48 AM

ryu

2016-02-06, 01:56 AM

My group ignores cross-class restrictions on the understanding that nobody will try and do anything dumb or bull****ty. Really, the only classes that suffer inordinately from class skills are the worst ones. All the spellcasters get Concentration, Spellcraft, and some kinds of Knowledge, while the skillmonkeys get whatever they want. It's only polite to give something back in return for playing one of the other classes.

There are some neat things for casters ignoring class skills. For example wizards with trained UMD can share ranks with their familiar allowing it to use wands. Excellent strat for low to mid level action economy.

Blackhawk748

2016-02-06, 02:04 AM

I can say that when we have tried out no class skills, my Fighters wound up taking ranks in Survival a lot. Mostly cuz i like Survival. Move Silently and Hide where also popular, but otherwise people just grabbed what they wanted, which was largely the point. And no, everyone didnt wind up with identical skill selections.

SangoProduction

2016-02-06, 03:13 AM

If that's true (it hasn't been in my experience), then the skills that are picked 100% of the time need to be rethought or removed altogether. If an optional skill is always the required decision (a skill tax), then that skill shouldn't exist in its current form. Yes, this includes Perception.

Actually, it's more that the use of the skill needs to be changed, more than the skill itself. If you are calling for 20 rolls of a single skill in a single night, then it's basically required...but you don't need to call for those rolls if they aren't being opposed by stealth or whatever.

SangoProduction

2016-02-06, 03:24 AM

ericgrau

2016-02-06, 03:29 AM

Vaz

2016-02-06, 03:45 AM

As I'm reading it, the issue isn't actually with Cross Class Skills etc, but rather what the skills do, and what classes have access to X skills, and that some classes don't have enough skill points to go around.

As several have said, there are ways around it, ranging from picking up feats or ACF's. A fighter struggling to know about what he is attacking? Thug Fighter, Int 14, Education or Knowledge Devotion Feat. Heavy Armour proficiciency sucks by the time Mithril Full Plate is on the table, but you are a fighter and have Feats out the wazoo if he must. Or dip full knolwedge and able learner feat.

Alternatively, change the bonuses of the skills, scale up points access, reduce PrC's requirements. I won't argue it is perfect and often find myself annoyed at not having enough when building for IC. But the system isn't broken, and it works.

SangoProduction

2016-02-06, 03:58 AM

Differentiation mostly. Same reason you don't make spells available to all, or a high attack bonus and armor and melee combat abilities available to all.

You could always play a classless system, or give every character full casting in armor, all skills, full BAB and melee special abilities.

There is also the reason of giving everyone class skills because they need the skills to function on a basic level, which is a poor reason. If you need skills to function on a minimal level any more than you need spells or sword swinging, then you're doing it wrong. Whether that's from perception or from any skill.

Why do people escalate this from "no class skills" to "let everyone be gods" to "omg this rule is meaningless, but you are going to abandon it? Go to another game!" ?

If I want my forsaken noble of a rogue to have knowledge (nobility), don't force me to search through a billion books for an alternate class feature that for some reason gives that skill.

Perhaps I don't want to be the stereotypical pot-smuggler rogue?

Vaz

2016-02-06, 04:28 AM

So take the education feat, or you know, be an adult, and speak to your DM, who should either award a circumstance bonus or perhaps trade you a class skill for access to it, Like Disable Device, say.

Coidzor

2016-02-06, 04:33 AM

Yeah, but then you have to adjust every single skill DC, since it effectively gives everyone a +3 to almost every skill the PC uses; its either trained skills and untrained ability score checks. Likely, the modifier is either really good with ranks, 'rank bonus', and a good ability score, or pathetic with a non-primary ability score and no ranks, no inbetween.

If they're predicated for non-trained characters to do them, they're basically gimmes. If they're predicated to be a challenge for trained characters, they'll still be a challenge.

Last I checked in Pathfinder, skill DCs were still set assuming that the people attempting them should be characters with max ranks in them as class skills or they're low DCs for everyone else where a rank or two is now for greater consistency, but not necessary.

Having max ranks without class skill just means a character is 15% more likely to fail than then character that is wanted. Which is better than no ranks and a much higher increased chance of failure or even having certain failure on the table.

Jormengand

2016-02-06, 04:58 AM

Well, here's the thing.

Suppose that my truenamer* (4+int) has absolutely pumped up his int modifier (because he's a truenamer) to, let's say, +6, which isn't actually that high in the grand scheme of things. Now, let's say that your rogue wanted to be all sneaky-like, so he got lots of dexterity, and "Only" has a +2 intelligence modifier. Now, that means that my truenamer and your rogue have the exact same number of skill points per level. It also means that the truenamer can be better at disabling devices than the rogue, which really sucks if you were the rogue and wanted to be the one who sneaked into places and unlocked all the doors, yadda yadda. Add on the fact that by about 5th level, your ranks in a skill are more meaningful than the actual ability score modifier (which kinda makes sense), and the truenamer is just sitting there casually pretending that he's a rogue, and also he has utterances, which may seem a bit naff, until you remember there's one which, wait for it, gives a +5 to all skill checks.

If the truenamer is actually restricted to being a goddamn truenamer rather than stealing the rogue's spotlight, then the game stops sucking so much for the rogue.

In D&D, there are things that your class can do and there are things that your class can't do. This is true of some feats, almost all spells, most utterances, yadda freaking yadda. That's what the entire point of having classes is, and that's why some people have been suggesting that you should play classless if you don't like it.

Also, the idea of someone who's spent his life learning the arcane secrets of blah-di-blah suddenly being good at smashing up traps for no reason kinda makes no sense to me, but that's more an aside.

*I freely admit to this being the first int-based non-skillmonkey with more than 2 skills per level I could think of.

ThisIsZen

2016-02-06, 05:23 AM

I'm going to stand by Grod and the others here and say that if your only niche protection is a half-decent skill list or a couple particular skills, it's way too weak and there isn't enough to make the class worthwhile. A Truenamer in a party with a Rogue going out of his way to shoehorn himself into the rogue-ey activities and push the Rogue out is also being kind of a jackass to his fellow player, and player behavior is kind of the unpatchable vulnerability in the RPG framework. Alternately, maybe the rogue doesn't care about not being the best at disabling devices, because he still has rogue talents, sneak attack dice and a completely different set of PrC progression paths. Not to mention class features that actually work at least halfway correctly in general.

Skills are honestly not a huge part of the game, with a few outlying cases (UMD, RAW-strict Diplomacy etc.). Allowing everyone to take the knowledges they consider relevant to their backstory, or to specialize in a set of minor skills outside of what is considered "typical" for their profession isn't going to break anything. Skill lists are, at best, a tertiary point of distinction between classes - class features, BAB and save progression already do plenty to make each class play more-or-less uniquely.

Beyond that, unless you remove all these restrictions mid-campaign (bad idea, IMO), it's not that the arcane scholar randomly develops a keen understanding of trapwork. It's always been an interest they had, one thing they studied alongside everything else they studied. Same with a Wizard with a high Jump skill, or high Diplomacy - it's another interest that they developed alongside their primary abilities. If you're suggesting that the study of arcane magic is so consuming you don't have time for any other pursuits, it falls apart kind of quickly - having a bunch of skill points in something like Knowledge (dungeoneering) suggests extensive study in a direction that has nothing to do with the arcane arts. Same with any mundane Craft, or Profession.

ekarney

2016-02-06, 05:32 AM

Wait, you're playing D&D, one of the most complicated and rules-verbose RPGs on the market, and you find class skills too complex for that game? Huh?

I think the emphasis is that class skills are unnecessarily complex. All I've found it does is slows down character creation because you have to constantly checks what are and aren't allowed to learn easily.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-06, 05:38 AM

I'm going to stand by Grod and the others here and say that if your only niche protection is a half-decent skill list or a couple particular skills, it's way too weak and there isn't enough to make the class worthwhile.

Nobody says it's the only thing.

But you can make the same argument about every other thing that makes a class unique. Why shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak attack? Why wouldn't a cleric be able to rage against heathens? What's stopping a wizard from casting healing spells?

Jormengand

2016-02-06, 05:40 AM

Why shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak attack?
In fairness, probably a bad example. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighter)

Kurald Galain

2016-02-06, 05:45 AM

In fairness, probably a bad example. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighter)

A very good example, actually, because it shows that (1) the game designers already took it into account, and (2) it's a tradeoff rather than allowing everybody to do everything.

Just like how it's pretty easy to become good at a non-class skill (particularly in PF), it just takes a tradeoff for something else.

ThisIsZen

2016-02-06, 05:51 AM

Nobody says it's the only thing.

But you can make the same argument about every other thing that makes a class unique. Why shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak attack? Why wouldn't a cleric be able to rage against heathens? What's stopping a wizard from casting healing spells?

In addition to what Jormengand posted above, I'm almost certain that every single one of those things is possible one way or another, be it through leveraging cash or divine alternate class features or etc., but I get the thrust of your argument anyway.

That aside, it's a question of impact. With a few notable exceptions, skills aren't hugely influential mechanical aspects of classes, and the exceptions have kind of already been addressed. A fighter with ranks in Sense Motive, Spellcraft and Knowledge (nobility) is, in terms of overall mechanical function, not especially different from a fighter with ranks in more conventional skills. A fighter with bardic music, on the other hand, is mechanically rather significantly different, and would function much differently. Both are expanding a fighter to some degree into a different niche than normal, but one expansion is measured in centimeters and the other's in meters. On the up-side, a vast number of backstories become much easier to implement, and some of those archetypes are fairly iconic. The exiled noble Fighter who aims to reclaim his throne can take the Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Knowledge (nobility) befitting a character with courtly experience, without having to dip around or scrabble together several feats. The gentleman rogue with an appreciation for the finer things in life can add some high-society skills to his repertoire. So on and so forth.

Jormengand

2016-02-06, 05:58 AM

The exiled noble Fighter who aims to reclaim his throne can take the Diplomacy, Sense Motive and Knowledge (nobility) befitting a character with courtly experience, without having to dip around or scrabble together several feats. The gentleman rogue with an appreciation for the finer things in life can add some high-society skills to his repertoire. So on and so forth.

What about the fighter who has hidden divine power inside him? Oh, wait, he can't cast any spells, less still divine ones. The rogue who has been avidly practicing his slow-falling (a talent you would imagine to be quite useful for a rogue)? Nope, that's a monk feature.

And honestly, if you're going to say that a rogue without disable device is more similar to a normal rogue than a rogue with slow fall is to a normal rogue, I'm going to point and laugh at you.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-06, 05:59 AM

That aside, it's a question of impact. With a few notable exceptions, skills aren't hugely influential mechanical aspects of classes, and the exceptions have kind of already been addressed. A fighter with ranks in Sense Motive, Spellcraft and Knowledge (nobility) is, in terms of overall mechanical function, not especially different from a fighter with ranks in more conventional skills.

That right there is the issue.

Quite a lot of DMs (and some entire games, really) treat skills as an afterthought, something that may add a bit of flavor but is pretty much irrelevant to gameplay. If skills are that unimportant in your campaign, then giving everybody the full list won't make a difference anyway.

But it becomes a rather different story when skills are a hugely influential part of the campaign.

ericgrau

2016-02-06, 06:14 AM

I'm going to stand by Grod and the others here and say that if your only niche protection is a half-decent skill list or a couple particular skills, it's way too weak and there isn't enough to make the class worthwhile. A Truenamer in a party with a Rogue going out of his way to shoehorn himself into the rogue-ey activities and push the Rogue out is also being kind of a jackass to his fellow player, and player behavior is kind of the unpatchable vulnerability in the RPG framework. Alternately, maybe the rogue doesn't care about not being the best at disabling devices, because he still has rogue talents, sneak attack dice and a completely different set of PrC progression paths. Not to mention class features that actually work at least halfway correctly in general.

Skills are honestly not a huge part of the game, with a few outlying cases (UMD, RAW-strict Diplomacy etc.). Allowing everyone to take the knowledges they consider relevant to their backstory, or to specialize in a set of minor skills outside of what is considered "typical" for their profession isn't going to break anything. Skill lists are, at best, a tertiary point of distinction between classes - class features, BAB and save progression already do plenty to make each class play more-or-less uniquely.

The other class features are nice too, and also distinguishing. But skills are quite nice.

If skills aren't making a big difference then they are a bit under-used as they should be strong. More likely the DM is watering them down by making them basic and an RP element, with little in the world to support it. Which then leads to wanting to let everyone select their flavors, because it's useless and doesn't really matter anyway. And then they should be allowed to choose their style freely with access to all of them. Take forgery for instance, the most useless skill ever... because too many campaigns are hack and slash. In Dr. Who his universal fake credentials is one of his most useful items which lets him waltz right in to every plot situation without any opposition. Vs. "Monsters appear, they attack". Appraise is also garbage... because the DM tells you what is valuable, usually gives money in coins and gives you unlimited carrying capacity. So you don't have to worry about pesky large art objects, scrap materials and other items that run through a more vibrant world where appraise can determine your WBL. And I could give 40 more examples, greater and lesser. Skills actually suffer from a lazy DM making them useless in his 1 dimensional video game world that doesn't support them, or over-supports 2-3 forcing the player into skill tax. They don't suffer from any intrinsic weakness.

ThisIsZen

2016-02-06, 06:22 AM

What about the fighter who has hidden divine power inside him? Oh, wait, he can't cast any spells, less still divine ones. The rogue who has been avidly practicing his slow-falling (a talent you would imagine to be quite useful for a rogue)? Nope, that's a monk feature.

And honestly, if you're going to say that a rogue without disable device is more similar to a normal rogue than a rogue with slow fall is to a normal rogue, I'm going to point and laugh at you.

Well, in a campaign with few or no traps, the rogue with slow fall is the oddball (and actually I'm surprised there isn't an ACF or something to get a rogue slow fall, I even checked before posting this). In a campaign with a lot of traps, the rogue who didn't take disable device is the oddball.

To address your other angle, tho: a fighter with divine power inside him could start advancing as a cleric once that comes to light, maybe even ask his DM to trade in fighter levels for cleric levels at some cost. Alternately, if you want it to be a more subtle divine power, you could give him the Aligned Strike, Armor of God or Resolute ACFs from Complete Champion, without needing to start picking up spellcasting. Depends on your concept. I'd like to point out tho that divine magical potential is a future-plot character aspect that comes to light over the course of a campaign, while exiled nobility is backstory, an event which already happened. Furthermore, being exiled nobility makes no suggestions about a character's mechanics in combat or at the core of the build - an exiled noble can be any base class. A character with the spark of divine power discovered inside of him prior to game start should... probably take a divine class instead? That makes actual suggestions about the mechanics.

And yes, there are probably minor mechanics that you can point to (like slow fall) which are less distinguishing, but deciding which primary class features are central and which are "tradable" creates complexity rather than reducing it, so it's kind of running counter to the entire point of the exercise. Skills are a nice, compact package that can be separated from other class features and then made class agnostic.

And if skills are a hugely influential part of your game, then the distinguishing vectors become "what did the PCs spend their points on" and "how many skill points does a class give" rather than "what are my available class skills?" You're still gonna have at most 8-10 areas of specialization per character, and there are over 40 individual skills (counting each Knowledge separately) in which characters can invest.

EDIT@ericgrau: Okay, so skills are important. Your fighter is a merchant's child, takes Appraise, they can handle checking the worth of objects because they grew up doing exactly that. Meanwhile the Wizard paid the bills before adventuring by working as a scribe, so they take Forgery as a skill. The Rogue is a high society dilettante who enjoys the excitement of adventuring (although his ponciness grates on those around him) so he takes Diplomacy and Knowledge (nobility), but he also decides to play to standard expectations a bit and writes in something about his family making their riches off of clockworks to justify Disable Device.

The Cleric, meanwhile, achieves spiritual calm through ritual gardening, and picks up Knowledge (nature) as a result. Furthermore, their temple perhaps emphasizes outdoorsmanship, so they pick up Survival. Then, assuming a +1 Int, they can still invest in Spellcraft, Concentration and Knowledge (religion) or (arcana) depending on their tendencies.

Each of these characters still performs pretty much exactly as they normally would in combat, which is the meat of D&D content and let's not pretend otherwise. Outside of combat, they have interesting, backstory-supported areas of expertise that don't overlap too terrible much, and don't change the core identity of their class much either. The Rogue still gets their sneak attack and talents, the Fighter still gets their bonus feats, the Wizard and Cleric get their respective spells. They're still roughly the same as they would otherwise be, but their players had a single vector of increased freedom in character creation.

johnbragg

2016-02-06, 08:11 AM

What about the fighter who has hidden divine power inside him?

Isn't that called a cleric? OR some other splatbook or homebrewed divine-champion fist-of-Godname Godname's-Chosen something?

Oh, wait, he can't cast any spells, less still divine ones.

I'd say then he probably DOESN'T have hidden divine power in him. He either needs to adventure for a long time to be able to afford 7th-level healing, or just take some levels in Cleric by that point.

The rogue who has been avidly practicing his slow-falling (a talent you would imagine to be quite useful for a rogue)? Nope, that's a monk feature.
Ummm, falling slowly is not a thing you can "practice" in a default setting. That's one of those things where real world physics is assumed to apply.

I don't think anyone's given a particularly good argument against the Pathfinder system. The class bonus represents the fact that some classes have an affinity for some things, they're talked about in training, common item of discussion. SO even if you haven't taken ranks in it before, if you do, things suddenly click into place. For "Cross-class skills", it's just as easy to pick up a rank, but you don't have that background knowledge, you're starting from scratch.

I think that answers the "why not let everyone do everything?" argument. Specific arguments where a spellcaster (Truenamer included) obsoletes a rogue's skills--that's not a new thing, or a class skills thing. That's a spells obsolete skills thing.

There's a separate argument that class X *should* get skill Y as a class skill. "So we're hiring Warriors to guard things who don't have Spot and Listen as class skills?" But that, again, is a different argument.

EDIT: And +1 on Slow Fall as a Rogue ACF.

EDIT @ ThisIsZen : I think it's a design criticism if something doesn't work with a mediocre to average GM. Many GMs will be, statistically, mediocre to average.

Necroticplague

2016-02-06, 08:18 AM

Is everybody if who keeps mentioning slow fall gonna ignore that Tumble, a skill, and Jump, also a skill, can both be used to reduce fall damage? With the skills, you can fall 30 feet and not take any damage.

Âmesang

2016-02-06, 08:27 AM

What about the fighter who has hidden divine power inside him?
Wouldn't that be a favored soul? How many non-fighter classes get Weapon Specialization?

Hiro Quester

2016-02-06, 08:28 AM

I can certainly see a DM allowing each player to count a couple of extra skills of their choice as in-class for all their classes.

You want to be a singing wizard? Add perform to your list.
Your backstory involves being raised by pirates sailing all around the world? Add knowledge geography and balance.
Your parents were circus acrobats? Add perform and tumble.
You are a sorcerer who likes plumbing? Add profession (plumber) and knowledge (architecture and engineering) to your list.

That would keep the niches of many classes, while allowing PCs to add a bit of backstory flavor to their character.

Psyren

2016-02-06, 08:42 AM

What I think the OP is missing, is that not every aspect of this game is aimed at the sort of optimization-focused players that frequent boards like this one. It's a tiny disparity that is wholly intended to be overcome easily by medium-op players - the ones who figure out that multiclassing is a thing, or that CS-granting feats, traits and racials exist. For a less-experienced group however, it helps them to narrow down the list of all skills that are out there (particularly Knowledge skills) into the few that members of their class typically take, as well as encouraging the group to divide amongst them and cover as many skills as they can. If my Wizard is in a party with a Cleric and Druid for instance, I probably won't feel the need to take Knowledge Nature or Religion, and possibly not even Planes - but if nobody has History or Nobility, my wizard can cover those and become an academic or court-mage. People forget that fluff can arise from crunch and a character's concept can arise from their build just as easily as the reverse.

Having said that, I much prefer the way PF handles skills to how 3.5 does it, but I like 3.P best of all. I would take the PF skill system as a base, add in all the skill tricks and expanded skill uses* from 3.5, then add in skill unlocks from Unchained. Also, Fighters and Clerics would get 4+Int.

*Except Concealed Spellcasting - I'm okay with that being a feat tax for casters.

Blackhawk748

2016-02-06, 09:13 AM

johnbragg

2016-02-06, 09:55 AM

Lets examine this from another angle. Lets examine the Sorcerer. It has the normal Arcane Caster skills (Concentration, Know: Arcana, Spellcraft) but since it runs on Charisma it also gets Bluff. Bluff is its only social skill. So what the designers are telling us, is that all Sorcerers are liars and have no way to tell if anyone is lying to them (lack of Sense Motive). This is, firstly, ridiculous. The Class runs on Charisma, and you cant even be bothered to give it Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive? This Class should be on the Party Face list for gods sake! But no, there the Sorcerer sits, only being able to lie. Secondly, whose niche is this protecting? Several classes have Party Face skills, hell Monk is one of them, and i've never thought of Monk as a Party Face. The others are the Cleric (its a Priest so this makes sense), the Bard (performer), the Rogue (the Huckster), and the Paladin (the Knight in Shining Armor). So a Face Kung Fu master is ok, but a gregarious natural mage isn't? Strange line.

IS this a problem created by having in-class and cross-class skills (in either the 3.5 or PF variant), or a problem created by a poorly drawn class skills list? I'd never played a face Sorcerer, so I didn't notice the gap in their list. (Wow, that's a terribad skill list.) Yes, the Sorcerer should be a candidate for party face, and shouldn't be gimped by buying those skills cross-class.

True about monks. Doesn't every kung-fu movie story have the Master try to reason with the Big Bad in Act I, and the Big Bad laughs him off and the plot sets in motion? Monks make terrible Faces in the lore.

But taking things from the poor Monk is just cruel.

Now as for Wizards/Sorcerers not being able to cast Healing Spells, well i've always thought that was dumb. I shouldn't need a holy man or a performer to get healing spells.

That is a case of role-protection that is a pure outgrowth of D&D mechanics, magic-holy-warriors being a co-equal type alongside warriors(Achilles), skillmonkeys(Odysseus) and casters(Athena).

But mess with that and you mess with the four corners of the game. IT's very doable, but understand what you're doing, and that what you're doing is big. Very separate thread, separate forum (homebrew).

Blackhawk748

2016-02-06, 10:41 AM

IS this a problem created by having in-class and cross-class skills (in either the 3.5 or PF variant), or a problem created by a poorly drawn class skills list?

Both really. If they had decent class skill lists, or something like each class gets to add X Skills to their skill list, we probably wouldnt be having this discussion. The problem is, on top of having a crap skill list, you are punished (fairly heavily) for trying to go outside your list. This problem is mitigated somewhat by PFs skill list, both in terms of less skills and just how they handle class skills (by rewarding staying in your list, instead of punishing for going out of it)

That is a case of role-protection that is a pure outgrowth of D&D mechanics, magic-holy-warriors being a co-equal type alongside warriors(Achilles), skillmonkeys(Odysseus) and casters(Athena).

But mess with that and you mess with the four corners of the game. IT's very doable, but understand what you're doing, and that what you're doing is big. Very separate thread, separate forum (homebrew).

Id agree, if buying a Wand of CLW wasnt just the superior option. I've only seen someone play a dedicated Healer twice. Once as the actual Healer (modified to not completely suck) and once as a Specific Cleric type from kingdoms of Kalamar. Usually our "healer" is a Ranger or Paladin with a wand. On top of this the feat Arcane Disciple (Healing Domain) would accomplish this fairly easily, so i see Healing spells being absent from the Sorc/Wiz list as a bit odd.

Do note that im fine with something like Regeneration or Heal staying where it is, mostly because those aren't on 5 different spell lists.

Apricot

2016-02-06, 10:45 AM

There are some neat things for casters ignoring class skills. For example wizards with trained UMD can share ranks with their familiar allowing it to use wands. Excellent strat for low to mid level action economy.

That would get you politely not invited back to a group that ranks extremely lowly on the optimization level.

Blackhawk748

2016-02-06, 10:46 AM

That would get you politely not invited back to a group that ranks extremely lowly on the optimization level.

Its also expensive. Believe me i've done it. The shoulder cannon Raven is sweet, but having to buy two wands adds up pretty quick.

Necroticplague

2016-02-06, 10:55 AM

That would get you politely not invited back to a group that ranks extremely lowly on the optimization level.

What else are you gonna do with a familiar? That's not optimization, that's just making sure your resources are all being utilized.

ericgrau

2016-02-06, 11:06 AM

Lets examine this from another angle. Lets examine the Sorcerer. It has the normal Arcane Caster skills (Concentration, Know: Arcana, Spellcraft) but since it runs on Charisma it also gets Bluff. Bluff is its only social skill. So what the designers are telling us, is that all Sorcerers are liars and have no way to tell if anyone is lying to them (lack of Sense Motive). This is, firstly, ridiculous. The Class runs on Charisma, and you cant even be bothered to give it Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive? This Class should be on the Party Face list for gods sake! But no, there the Sorcerer sits, only being able to lie. Secondly, whose niche is this protecting? Several classes have Party Face skills, hell Monk is one of them, and i've never thought of Monk as a Party Face. The others are the Cleric (its a Priest so this makes sense), the Bard (performer), the Rogue (the Huckster), and the Paladin (the Knight in Shining Armor). So a Face Kung Fu master is ok, but a gregarious natural mage isn't? Strange line.

Now as for Wizards/Sorcerers not being able to cast Healing Spells, well i've always thought that was dumb. I shouldn't need a holy man or a performer to get healing spells.
Originally sorcerers didn't even have bluff but the designers decided to toss them a bone and give them one charisma based skill. I think there was a fight between diplomacy and bluff and bluff won.

Anyway any class can lie and be ok at it with or without skill points. How many foes have any ranks at all in sense motive? It's just that certain ones can be great at it. For that matter anyone can be party face without any skill ranks at all. They can still be friendly and talk. I think the trap is to think that all social interaction falls under one skill or another. It doesn't. All skills are specialized abilities letting the player go above and beyond the norm for certain limited activities. Normal activity doesn't use them.

A neat roleplaying tool I've heard of once before is to play one campaign while ditching all skills and skill rolls. No diplomacy, no spot, no disable device. Try to resolve it verbally with roleplay. Then after you've done this once you may add skills back in for narrow situations, but still rely primarily on roleplay. If you aren't heading to the pre-agreed upon negotiation table, don't roll diplomacy, you're just talking. If your foe isn't actively hiding, don't roll spot, you aren't blind, you just see it. If you haven't opened a panel and found the mechanism of the trap, don't roll disable device, you can't reach it, plug a hole or press a shield against it instead. There are exceptions, but they aren't the norm. Roll-succeed/roll-fail, next challenge please, is dull and boring.

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-06, 11:15 AM

Âmesang

2016-02-06, 11:23 AM

So a Face Kung Fu master is ok, but a gregarious natural mage isn't?
Well, to be fair, how many people watched The Green Hornet for the Green Hornet? :smalltongue:

Though I've always wondered why sorcerers never received Use Magic Device as a class skill; for a class who's talent for magic is wholly inborn, it just made sense to me that they'd also have some aptitude at manipulating other sources of magic in some small way.

Blackhawk748

2016-02-06, 11:32 AM

If you hate class skills, check out Pathfinder. They made the distinction pretty much meaningless and the rogue is a worthless class for it. Every caster takes Perception (spot + listen + search! wtf were they thinking?) and whatever other top tier skills they want like Diplomacy, and the "skilled classes" get the benefit of having room for climb or whatever in addition to the top tier skills that the casters all have anyway.

The Rogue had a lot more issues than just Skills. Remember that anyone can find Traps in PF, the Ninja came in and was Rogue 2.0, and the amount of feats it takes to get a Dex based warrior off the ground didnt help either.

Ya, skills are the least of the PF Rogues issues.

Psyren

2016-02-06, 11:38 AM

Niche protection is very important.

Do you really want the wizard to have full access to the best skills in the game? Spells already destroy skills enough as it is, why would you want to make it WORSE? I would agree w/ boosting all the noncaster (4-level casters like Ranger and Paladin, too) class skill lists and giving them more skill points, but beyond that...NO.

If you hate class skills, check out Pathfinder. They made the distinction pretty much meaningless and the rogue is a worthless class for it. Every caster takes Perception (spot + listen + search! wtf were they thinking?) and whatever other top tier skills they want like Diplomacy, and the "skilled classes" get the benefit of having room for climb or whatever in addition to the top tier skills that the casters all have anyway.

The 3E skill system is beautiful. Nothing's perfect, you certainly could tweak it a bit, but it's as close to perfect as D&D's ever come.

The Rogue had a lot more issues than just Skills. Remember that anyone can find Traps in PF, the Ninja came in and was Rogue 2.0, and the amount of feats it takes to get a Dex based warrior off the ground didnt help either.

Ya, skills are the least of the PF Rogues issues.

Have you two been under a rock? Unchained (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained) has been out for months now :smalltongue:

Lets examine this from another angle. Lets examine the Sorcerer. It has the normal Arcane Caster skills (Concentration, Know: Arcana, Spellcraft) but since it runs on Charisma it also gets Bluff. Bluff is its only social skill. So what the designers are telling us, is that all Sorcerers are liars and have no way to tell if anyone is lying to them (lack of Sense Motive). This is, firstly, ridiculous. The Class runs on Charisma, and you cant even be bothered to give it Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive? This Class should be on the Party Face list for gods sake! But no, there the Sorcerer sits, only being able to lie. Secondly, whose niche is this protecting? Several classes have Party Face skills, hell Monk is one of them, and i've never thought of Monk as a Party Face. The others are the Cleric (its a Priest so this makes sense), the Bard (performer), the Rogue (the Huckster), and the Paladin (the Knight in Shining Armor). So a Face Kung Fu master is ok, but a gregarious natural mage isn't? Strange line.

Now as for Wizards/Sorcerers not being able to cast Healing Spells, well i've always thought that was dumb. I shouldn't need a holy man or a performer to get healing spells.

This confused me too; the only thought process I can think was going on at WotC is that Sorcerers tend to lie about what they are so that they don't get run out of town by pitchforks.

Regardless, your diplomatic or intimidating sorcerer is only a trait or bloodline away.

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-06, 11:40 AM

The Rogue had a lot more issues than just Skills. Remember that anyone can find Traps in PF, the Ninja came in and was Rogue 2.0, and the amount of feats it takes to get a Dex based warrior off the ground didnt help either.

Ya, skills are the least of the PF Rogues issues.

They also made tumbling suicidal and thus flanking no longer a gimme and melee combat in general far more perilous for rogue (and monk), made ranged sneak attack much harder without using what many would (unfairly) call cheese by nerfing blink (only for rogue-uses) and grease (again, only for rogue-uses), and so on. PF did their best to kill the rogue, it's true. But the fact that literally any other class could become the party skill monkey was definitely the biggest screw job.

And Ninja is seriously overhyped. Even the much more balanced playtest version was tier 4 at best. The nerfed final version is barely better than rogue and possibly the most MAD class in the game. Yes, it's better than rogue. But it's still worse than the other dozen or so classes and archetypes that are also "rogue, but better."

Have you two been under a rock? Unchained (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained) has been out for months now :smalltongue:

Well, yes. Once I found a reliable 3E game and started DMing my own long term 3E game, I was quite happy to no longer have to care about PF and haven't kept up with it for at least a year now. So perhaps things have improved. But considering they've claimed they were helping monk and rogue w/ new splatbooks for years and...didn't....made me rightfully skeptical. :smalltongue:
(well, there's been times they accidentally helped monk but then came to their senses and nerfed it to oblivion in FAQs later, like Crane Wing or brass knuckles)

Blackhawk748

2016-02-06, 11:45 AM

Have you two been under a rock? Unchained (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained) has been out for months now :smalltongue:

Im aware, and it fixes many issues with Rogue.

Necroticplague

2016-02-06, 12:09 PM

A neat roleplaying tool I've heard of once before is to play one campaign while ditching all skills and skill rolls. No diplomacy, no spot, no disable device. Try to resolve it verbally with roleplay. Then after you've done this once you may add skills back in for narrow situations, but still rely primarily on roleplay. If you aren't heading to the pre-agreed upon negotiation table, don't roll diplomacy, you're just talking. If your foe isn't actively hiding, don't roll spot, you aren't blind, you just see it. If you haven't opened a panel and found the mechanism of the trap, don't roll disable device, you can't reach it, plug a hole or press a shield against it instead. There are exceptions, but they aren't the norm. Roll-succeed/roll-fail, next challenge please, is dull and boring.

Conversely, I find playing games of 'mother may I' where the main skill is trying to read the DMs mind to be annoying and boring. Also kind of kills immersion. When I had a DM that did this before, it was always wierdly offputting how the smartest characters in the group couldn't figure out jack because their players were colossal morons, ability to be convincing had nothing to do with a character's personal charm ability, and how it made dealing with traps an excessive pain (protip; when you can't see a mechanical system, it's much harder to try and troubleshoot it, especially when you're so easy to gaslamp, due to needing to really on someone else to provide descriptions).

ShurikVch

2016-02-06, 12:19 PM

You can't have a wizard who is an outdoorsy type and studies the arcane secrets of the universe in the evenings and weekends, nor can you have a fighter who actually knows about what he's fighting because he can't take skill ranks in Knowledge skills. All wizards are bookish nerds, and all fighters are big, dumb jocks who barely know enough about the things they fight to write a mini-pamphlet.Well, to be fair, Wizard is one of the most difficult classes in a game.
For comparison: novice Barbarian, which is able to wield all Simple and Martial weapon in a game perfectly, wear any Light or Medium armor, use Shields, and move 10' faster than any non-Barbarian of the same race and level, - take 1 - 4 years; newly minted Wizard take 2 - 12 years!

But, if you really want "an outdoorsy" wizard, Dragon #344 have Anagakok with Survival as class skillhttp://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/sfery/images/a/a2/Anagakok.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131007123120

And thing about the Fighter "can't take skill ranks in Knowledge skills" is a blatant untruth - nothing prevent you from taking cross-class skills - it's not a 3.0
If you mean Fighter don't have enough skill point to take cross-class skills, then it's completely different issue
Also, do you heard about the Education feat? Knowledge Devotion?

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-06, 12:23 PM

Im aware, and it fixes many issues with Rogue.

I'm reading now, but I'm very skeptical. Most of rogue's problems were changes on a system level, not changes to the class itself (if you took PF Rogue and dumped it in a 3.5 game with those rules, it'd actually be a buff to the 3.5 rogue).

There really isn't much changed, it seems.
- Still the worst base saves in the game, still a d8 HD (wouldn't be a problem if they had good base will and could dump wis for another +2 to Con)
- Getting Dex to attack and damage helps MAD a little but limiting it to only one weapon until level 11 (and max of 3 weapons at level 20) is needlessly crippling specialization. It's replacing str, not getting it on top of str, why not just get dex to damage on all finesse weapons?
- Danger Sense is barely any better than Trap Sense.
- I haven't read all the skill unlocks yet, but I've looked at Acrobatics, Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Fly, Perception, and UMD. Diplomacy's level 20 ability is decent (but a more limited version of the 3E epic use of Bluff, so...), Perception's got what are effectively skill mod boosts (+1 DC per 0 ft eventually instead of per 10 ft), and Diplomacy is pretty strong. The rest were pretty worthless. If there's at least half a dozen really powerful options (enough so rogue can fill up his choices and...actually have choices; also, if there's only one or two clear standouts, it means every class will have them thanks to the feat) this is probably important, but it's not looking that way so far. Having Perception and Diplomacy leagues better than the rest is the exact OPPOSITE situation than what you'd want if your goal is to make the rogue stronger, not everybody.

-I really don't feel like reading all the new talents right now. Obviously they will make a huge difference....
- The only major change I've seen so far is that an enemy the rogue sneak attacks spends the entire combat unable to 5 ft step, effectively. (I know there's other options, but then you lose that one, so I assume that's pretty much all Debilitating Injury is ever used for). That is actually pretty decent. Staggering Strike was my favorite Rogue feat in 3E; this is basically serving the same purpose but from a different direction (you full attack; foe has to standard action attack you...just in this case it's b/c you're kiting him w/ 5 ft steps away)

Apricot

2016-02-06, 12:40 PM

Its also expensive. Believe me i've done it. The shoulder cannon Raven is sweet, but having to buy two wands adds up pretty quick.

What else are you gonna do with a familiar? That's not optimization, that's just making sure your resources are all being utilized.

The response wasn't so much to the specific instance as to the attitude. The point of our group allowing free cross-class skilling is to allow players to develop their characters freely in terms of backstory, style, and individual capabilities. It's not to open up the possibility of minmax optimization on another front. Even if this use of the system isn't inherently abusive, it's still preferable that it not be used that way.

The moment you say "wait, I can use this with a class feature to give that class feature a completely new function," you've missed the point of the lax restrictions. Similar problems would arise with accessing PrCs. Other groups could have different reasons for relaxing those restrictions, but this is ours.

Although if you asked the DM from the get-go if you could figure out some neat way of letting your familiar use wands and then suggested this, chances are he'd be completely down with it. Our Barbarian with many ranks in Craft(Taxidermy) made a wingsuit out of a Remorhaz' frills, after all.

Miranius

2016-02-06, 12:50 PM

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-06, 01:03 PM

I can see valid points to both stances, so i think in the next game i run i will be introducing the following compromise:

Every character can switch two skills from his class-skill list for any other skill not yet on that list.

What do you think? Useful?

Bad idea. The wizard will trade two useless class skills for skills like Diplomacy, Spot, or Tumble. Allowing class skill swaps is fine, but you should iron out specific acceptable swaps, or put the skills in tiers and require that the new skill be equal or lower tier to the replaced one. The Skilled City Dweller option in the Cityscape web enhancement was fine, for example. Even though losing Ride for Tumble is a pretty obvious choice...at least most of the caster classes don't get Ride.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-06, 01:11 PM

I can see valid points to both stances, so i think in the next game i run i will be introducing the following compromise:

Every character can switch two skills from his class-skill list for any other skill not yet on that list.

What do you think? Useful?

Super useful. Like I said earlier, my group through out class skills entirely when we started playing and it makes everything better. Less bookdiving and cramming squarepegs into round holes just to have a PC that reflects mechanically what you imagine.

The biggest problem being voiced are issues of niche protection, and that argument really boils down to UMD in the hands of casters. Which isn't that big a deal if your casters aren't the gamebreaking type. And it lets your fighter have sleight of hand. Or your paladin have lucid dreaming. Or a Rogue who is a surgeon with Heal. It wasn't broken at all. If your players are breaking the game with unlimited access to unrestricted skill acquisition you are either too sensitive to game balance stuff (of the TOB is overpowered variety) or you haven't adequately set parameters about play styles that don't fit in the campaign.

My additional suggestions are here:
Ban iaijutsu focus and limit autohypnosis to characters that have PP. Or don't, who cares! Everything is gonna be alright.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-06, 01:32 PM

Originally sorcerers didn't even have bluff but the designers decided to toss them a bone and give them one charisma based skill. I think there was a fight between diplomacy and bluff and bluff won.

Anyway any class can lie and be ok at it with or without skill points. How many foes have any ranks at all in sense motive? It's just that certain ones can be great at it. For that matter anyone can be party face without any skill ranks at all. They can still be friendly and talk. I think the trap is to think that all social interaction falls under one skill or another. It doesn't. All skills are specialized abilities letting the player go above and beyond the norm for certain limited activities. Normal activity doesn't use them.

A neat roleplaying tool I've heard of once before is to play one campaign while ditching all skills and skill rolls. No diplomacy, no spot, no disable device. Try to resolve it verbally with roleplay. Then after you've done this once you may add skills back in for narrow situations, but still rely primarily on roleplay. If you aren't heading to the pre-agreed upon negotiation table, don't roll diplomacy, you're just talking. If your foe isn't actively hiding, don't roll spot, you aren't blind, you just see it. If you haven't opened a panel and found the mechanism of the trap, don't roll disable device, you can't reach it, plug a hole or press a shield against it instead. There are exceptions, but they aren't the norm. Roll-succeed/roll-fail, next challenge please, is dull and boring.
There's a whole argument going on about this in another thread, so let's not get into it here, but to summarize:

No-skills helps immersion and roleplaying by keeping people from just saying "I roll X" and making them think about what they're doing.
No-skills hurts immersion and roleplaying because it punishes people who try to play characters with different skills than the ones they (the players) possess-- the awkward guy can't play a face properly, the guy who's not mechanically inclined can't play a trapfinder, etc.

So no, it's not necessarily a good change.

Niche protection is very important.
Agreed, but... skills aren't where that happens. As a general rule in 3.PF, magic > class features > feats > skills. The Rogue isn't as good a skillmonkey as the Factotum is because the latter gets class features to boost skills and patch up weaknesses. It isn't as good a face as a Bard because the latter gets spells and songs to complement things. It is a better stealth than the Swashbuckler, because it has features (sneak attack) that play into that. It is a better trapmonkey than a Ranger, because it gets features to complement that (Trapfinding and Trap Sense).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if your only niche is having a good class skill list, you're not a very good class. You're an NPC class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/expert.htm).

Bad idea. The wizard will trade two useless class skills for skills like Diplomacy, Spot, or Tumble. Allowing class skill swaps is fine, but you should iron out specific acceptable swaps, or put the skills in tiers and require that the new skill be equal or lower tier to the replaced one. The Skilled City Dweller option in the Cityscape web enhancement was fine, for example. Even though losing Ride for Tumble is a pretty obvious choice...at least most of the caster classes don't get Ride.
You're worried about skills upsetting caster-mundane balance? Brother, that issue is tilted so far towards the casters that you won't even notice the change. Compare that to something like a fighter, who gets significantly more of a bump because he has so little to start with.

Psyren

2016-02-06, 01:35 PM

I'm reading now, but I'm very skeptical. Most of rogue's problems were changes on a system level, not changes to the class itself (if you took PF Rogue and dumped it in a 3.5 game with those rules, it'd actually be a buff to the 3.5 rogue).

There really isn't much changed, it seems.
- Still the worst base saves in the game, still a d8 HD (wouldn't be a problem if they had good base will and could dump wis for another +2 to Con)
- Getting Dex to attack and damage helps MAD a little but limiting it to only one weapon until level 11 (and max of 3 weapons at level 20) is needlessly crippling specialization. It's replacing str, not getting it on top of str, why not just get dex to damage on all finesse weapons?
- Danger Sense is barely any better than Trap Sense.
- I haven't read all the skill unlocks yet, but I've looked at Acrobatics, Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Fly, Perception, and UMD. Diplomacy's level 20 ability is decent (but a more limited version of the 3E epic use of Bluff, so...), Perception's got what are effectively skill mod boosts (+1 DC per 0 ft eventually instead of per 10 ft), and Diplomacy is pretty strong. The rest were pretty worthless. If there's at least half a dozen really powerful options (enough so rogue can fill up his choices and...actually have choices; also, if there's only one or two clear standouts, it means every class will have them thanks to the feat) this is probably important, but it's not looking that way so far. Having Perception and Diplomacy leagues better than the rest is the exact OPPOSITE situation than what you'd want if your goal is to make the rogue stronger, not everybody.

-I really don't feel like reading all the new talents right now. Obviously they will make a huge difference....
- The only major change I've seen so far is that an enemy the rogue sneak attacks spends the entire combat unable to 5 ft step, effectively. (I know there's other options, but then you lose that one, so I assume that's pretty much all Debilitating Injury is ever used for). That is actually pretty decent. Staggering Strike was my favorite Rogue feat in 3E; this is basically serving the same purpose but from a different direction (you full attack; foe has to standard action attack you...just in this case it's b/c you're kiting him w/ 5 ft steps away)

I won't derail the thread, but suffice to say every objection you've brought up is easily addressed - yes, you can inflict multiple debilitating injuries, yes, you can easily boost fort and will, yes, you can get Dex to damage with multiple weapons (why on earth you'd want to do this given the system encourages using your resources to boost a single weapon I don't know, but for whatever reason you can), etc. I'd start a new thread to refute the above in detail but it sounds like you don't play PF anyway, so it'd be a waste of both of our time. So we can agree to disagree and have fun in our respective systems :smallsmile:

As a side note, I find the "niche protection" argument baffling. Or rather, I get it, but I fail to see how 3.5's crippling half-cap and half-progression are supposed to be an improvement. "Less options are better!" is a very weird mindset to me. But I digress.

Getting back on topic - as I stated before, the whole point of class skills is an affordance for the newer players. The intermediate players have traits and multiclassing, and the truly advanced ones can just houserule them away entirely, or use one of the alternate skill systems in Unchained/UA if they wish instead. For the folks saying there's no value to them, chances are you are in one of the more experienced buckets and are complaining about something that wasn't intended for you in the first place.

Jormengand

2016-02-06, 01:40 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if your only niche is having a good class skill list, you're not a very good class. You're an NPC class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/expert.htm).

That's true of having a good BAB, a good (insert save here), a decent hit die, a +2 circumstance bonus to diplomacy and sense motive checks, poison use, and bonus feats, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-npc-classes/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/courtesan) or, y'know, freaking spells (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/npc-classes/adept). But the thing is, in 3.5, a fighter's niche is... a good BAB, a good fortitude save, a decent-going-good hit die, and bonus feats. A rogue's niche is a good skill list, and stuff. Take away the skills and they have a less good niche.

It's like taking away a duskblade's spells and consoling them with the words "Oh, well, if 5th-level spellcasting was all you had going for you, you weren't a very good class anyway".

As a side note, I find the "niche protection" argument baffling. Or rather, I get it, but I fail to see how 3.5's crippling half-cap and half-progression are supposed to be an improvement. "Less options are better!" is a very weird mindset to me. But I digress.

Fewer options can mean more meaningful options, though. Consider a choice of whether to cast burning hands or fireball. Now consider the choice of whether to cast burning hands, cast fireball, or use your at-will fireball spell-like ability.

johnbragg

2016-02-06, 01:51 PM

As a side note, I find the "niche protection" argument baffling. Or rather, I get it, but I fail to see how 3.5's crippling half-cap and half-progression are supposed to be an improvement. "Less options are better!" is a very weird mindset to me. But I digress.

I don't think anyone actually argued for the 3.5 way and against the PF way. People argued for the PF way, people argued for a free-for-all, people argued against having a free-for-all. And people argued the merits of specific class skill lists.

I don't remember anyone saying the 3.5 cross-class skills mechanic has advantages vs the PF mechanic. (The only quibble I see is that, if you're using 3.5 built monsters, the skills are built the WOTC way, and you don't have exact backwards-compatibilty. And that Just Doesn't MAtter.)

Getting back on topic - as I stated before, the whole point of class skills is an affordance for the newer players. The intermediate players have traits and multiclassing, and the truly advanced ones can just houserule them away entirely, or use one of the alternate skill systems in Unchained/UA if they wish instead. For the folks saying there's no value to them, chances are you are in one of the more experienced buckets and are complaining about something that wasn't intended for you in the first place.
Also speeds up skills for NPC creation. "Ok, max ranks in 5 skills, Spot plus yes, no, yes, yes, no, no, no, yes. Done."

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-06, 01:56 PM

Agreed, but... skills aren't where that happens. As a general rule in 3.PF, magic > class features > feats > skills. The Rogue isn't as good a skillmonkey as the Factotum is because the latter gets class features to boost skills and patch up weaknesses. It isn't as good a face as a Bard because the latter gets spells and songs to complement things. It is a better stealth than the Swashbuckler, because it has features (sneak attack) that play into that. It is a better trapmonkey than a Ranger, because it gets features to complement that (Trapfinding and Trap Sense).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if your only niche is having a good class skill list, you're not a very good class. You're an NPC class (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/npcClasses/expert.htm).

You're worried about skills upsetting caster-mundane balance? Brother, that issue is tilted so far towards the casters that you won't even notice the change. Compare that to something like a fighter, who gets significantly more of a bump because he has so little to start with.

See, most of this board seems to have the mindset that "casters are overpowered anyway, so what's it matter if we help them out a teensy bit more?" I do not see things that way, if anything it's a reason to be as harsh on them as possible in rulings, not further give them a leg up.

But I also don't think that this isn't a big deal. People certainly seem to care a lot about it, otherwise they wouldn't complain about how "limiting" it is that their GOD caster can't have the same ranks in [insert great skill] as the rogue. I know when I play wizards, I often pay for skills like tumble cross-class and consider it totally still worth it.

As for Factotum, it is a stronger class than Rogue and fills the same niche, but it's still not *that* much stronger when the rogue has the same amount of splat options to choose as Factotum and does have advantages over factotum, especially offensively. In fact, the two dip and multiclass together pretty nicely. I rather enjoy combining Brains Over Brawn with a Martial Rogue (trade sneak attack for feats) to make a cool lockdown/trip build.

I don't think anyone actually argued for the 3.5 way and against the PF way. People argued for the PF way, people argued for a free-for-all, people argued against having a free-for-all. And people argued the merits of specific class skill lists.

I don't remember anyone saying the 3.5 cross-class skills mechanic has advantages vs the PF mechanic. (The only quibble I see is that, if you're using 3.5 built monsters, the skills are built the WOTC way, and you don't have exact backwards-compatibilty. And that Just Doesn't MAtter.)

I've argued it's worse. The PF skill system is completely broken. There's a few top skills that are even more elite than the top skills in 3E were due to dubious choices of consolidation (Perception got spot, listen and search; Diplomacy apparently needed additional functions; meanwhile sleight of hand got nothing) and because class skills mean pretty much nothing now, the "unskilled" classes just grab all the top tier skills and the "skilled" classes define themselves by being able to also take the cruddy ones. Plus they gave away Concentration to casters for free, making them laugh even harder at the skill system.

It is definitely simpler, I can't argue that. If that's all you care about, I guess PF's skills system is great.

Psyren

2016-02-06, 01:57 PM

Fewer options can mean more meaningful options, though. Consider a choice of whether to cast burning hands or fireball. Now consider the choice of whether to cast burning hands, cast fireball, or use your at-will fireball spell-like ability.

That's not actually a choice though - it's a calculation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8fVtKyYxY)

I don't think anyone actually argued for the 3.5 way and against the PF way. People argued for the PF way, people argued for a free-for-all, people argued against having a free-for-all. And people argued the merits of specific class skill lists.

I don't remember anyone saying the 3.5 cross-class skills mechanic has advantages vs the PF mechanic. (The only quibble I see is that, if you're using 3.5 built monsters, the skills are built the WOTC way, and you don't have exact backwards-compatibilty. And that Just Doesn't MAtter.)

I was responding to Stream, who did in fact say that.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-06, 02:04 PM

That's true of having a good BAB, a good (insert save here), a decent hit die, a +2 circumstance bonus to diplomacy and sense motive checks, poison use, and bonus feats, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-npc-classes/4-winds-fantasy-gaming/courtesan) or, y'know, freaking spells (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/npc-classes/adept). But the thing is, in 3.5, a fighter's niche is... a good BAB, a good fortitude save, a decent-going-good hit die, and bonus feats. A rogue's niche is a good skill list, and stuff. Take away the skills and they have a less good niche.

It's like taking away a duskblade's spells and consoling them with the words "Oh, well, if 5th-level spellcasting was all you had going for you, you weren't a very good class anyway".
Put the straw men away, please. I'm saying that skills alone aren't a good reason for a class to exist, anymore than a good save or good BAB is. The fighter's niche is bonus feats-- they're what make him unique among full BAB classes. (It's also not a very good niche-- for much the same reason that "lots of skill points" isn't-- but that's besides the point). If a class is fragile enough that it can't survive its skill list not being a special snowflake, it had problems beyond that.

The Rogue... does not suffer that problem. The Rogue has a niche beyond "good skill list"-- they're an ambush fighter and trap monkey, as evidenced by all of their class features. The Scout has a niche beyond "good skill list"-- they're, a skirmisher and, y'know, a scout , with class features for sneaking and perception.

Getting back on topic - as I stated before, the whole point of class skills is an affordance for the newer players. The intermediate players have traits and multiclassing, and the truly advanced ones can just houserule them away entirely, or use one of the alternate skill systems in Unchained/UA if they wish instead. For the folks saying there's no value to them, chances are you are in one of the more experienced buckets and are complaining about something that wasn't intended for you in the first place.
Easily avoided by renaming the current "class skills" lists "recommended skills" lists. "All skills are one point/rank and capped at [level/level+3]; the ones listed by your class are the ones members of that class often rely on."

SangoProduction

2016-02-06, 02:07 PM

So take the education feat, or you know, be an adult, and speak to your DM, who should either award a circumstance bonus or perhaps trade you a class skill for access to it, Like Disable Device, say.

Ooo. We got an adult here. So the options are: homebrew, or homebrew. It's almost as though both achieve the same goal, but your option requires much more time and effort on both the DM's and player's part.

Psyren

2016-02-06, 02:13 PM

Easily avoided by renaming the current "class skills" lists "recommended skills" lists. "All skills are one point/rank and capped at [level/level+3]; the ones listed by your class are the ones members of that class often rely on."

Certainly, this would take care of it. But I'm compelled to wonder why so few mainstream class-based games go this route. The "Class Skill" paradigm continued past PF, into 4e and even 5e, leaving some classes just plain better at some skill checks unless they spend other resources like feats. Having a mechanical barrier to wide open skill selection, however small, doesn't seem to be hurting anything.

shatterspike1

2016-02-06, 02:39 PM

What I think the OP is missing, is that not every aspect of this game is aimed at the sort of optimization-focused players that frequent boards like this one. It's a tiny disparity that is wholly intended to be overcome easily by medium-op players - the ones who figure out that multiclassing is a thing, or that CS-granting feats, traits and racials exist. For a less-experienced group however, it helps them to narrow down the list of all skills that are out there (particularly Knowledge skills) into the few that members of their class typically take, as well as encouraging the group to divide amongst them and cover as many skills as they can.

If that's true, it would only explain why there was a recommended skills list, not a skill list that provides a mechanical penalty for investment.

Having a mechanical barrier to wide open skill selection, however small, doesn't seem to be hurting anything.

Err, it adds unnecessary complexity for little to no benefit. If the niche protection was harder (as in, you can't take certain skills) then it would actually do something other than be an annoying jump-through-the-hoops game. You can see this harder niche protection with Rogues and Disable Device: only Rogues can disable magic traps. Boom, there's an ability Rogues (and only Rogues) get. The argument that you can get around class skill restrictions with a little dumpster diving isn't an argument in favor of class skills, its the opposite.

Jormengand

2016-02-06, 02:59 PM

I'm saying that skills alone aren't a good reason for a class to exist,

I know, and that was why I was pointing out that classes do not exist for skills alone, but that is still not a good reason to remove one of their reasons for existing.

nyjastul69

2016-02-06, 03:13 PM

ahenobarbi

2016-02-06, 03:18 PM

Umm... In 3.5 cap on skill ranks is the most effective mechanism of limiting PrC access so I'd be careful about removing restrictions there.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-06, 03:19 PM

I know, and that was why I was pointing out that classes do not exist for skills alone, but that is still not a good reason to remove one of their reasons for existing.
It's a trade-off, I suppose: a small bit of niche protection/class differentiation verses more potential customization and fewer hoops to deal with. My feeling is very much that the benefits, while not tremendous, still decisively outweigh the drawbacks.

But simply adding a couple class skills based on background isn't a bad idea either.

Umm... In 3.5 cap on skill ranks is the most effective mechanism of limiting PrC access so I'd be careful about removing restrictions there.
I don't think anyone's proposed that. We're just arguing about whether or not there should be a difference between class and cross-class skills.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-06, 03:35 PM

Umm... In 3.5 cap on skill ranks is the most effective mechanism of limiting PrC access so I'd be careful about removing restrictions there.

I won't derail further after this, but the game isn't too terribly hurt by removing skill pre-requisites from prestige classes either. We did a one shot L6 campaign where one could choose any prestige class starting at level 2 so long as they had the class features and feats they wanted (Banning advanced caster prestige classes like nar demonbinder & urpriest). Everyone got to feel like the character that they wanted. There were some weird abilities floating around the table. It was great.

Psyren

2016-02-06, 04:01 PM

Err, it adds unnecessary complexity for little to no benefit.

I keep seeing this assertion and I don't get it. How do class skills add "complexity?" At most, someone who doesn't know that Traits exist will learn. And it gives both the player and the GM an extra roleplay hook to explain why there might be an intimidating wizard or lockpicking cleric.

ryu

2016-02-06, 04:45 PM

I keep seeing this assertion and I don't get it. How do class skills add "complexity?" At most, someone who doesn't know that Traits exist will learn. And it gives both the player and the GM an extra roleplay hook to explain why there might be an intimidating wizard or lockpicking cleric.

His argument on that front is that something as basic as skills shouldn't require active acquisition of system knowledge just to be customized beyond rote stereotypes. The new player shouldn't be limited to the class skill list, the experienced player shouldn't have another layer of obfuscation to deal with every time he makes a character just to do the same, and the DM shouldn't have to deal with this nonsense for NPC creation. I agree vehemently. It doesn't stop people like me from getting their desires, but is annoying. It does stop new players more than a recommend list and that's bad. It adds at least a good thirty seconds or so to every NPC creation. It's a needless weight around the neck of the experience.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-06, 04:48 PM

Morty

2016-02-06, 04:51 PM

Psyren

2016-02-06, 04:58 PM

You say "rote stereotypes" but the term I would use instead is "expected archetypes." I'm sure there are wizards out there that are intimidating or good at picking pockets, just as I'm sure there are wizards that are good at using axes and swords. And their existence certainly doesn't hurt the game's balance. But by attaching a cost to these less orthodox choices, you provide an in-game justification for the rarity of these archetypes, which (in my opinion) enhances verisimilitude.

As for those who find these costs (e.g. Traits) annoying, however small - well, that's a personal taste/preference, so there's clearly no debating that. All I'll say again is that they don't seem to have hurt the health of any of these editions.

ryu

2016-02-06, 04:58 PM

I'm going to agree with those who have been saying that class skills are far more trouble than they're worth. And if the rogue class suffers from their removal, then it's indicative of a problem with the rogue (not dissimilar to the problem with the fighter).

And lets not even acknowledge how weak flimsy the trapfinder niche is nor how silly their relative monopoly on actually using the search skill for half the reason it exists is for more than a sentence.

Edit: My verisimilitude is directly harmed literally every time a class lacks a skill you would expect them to have, and also every time something that should be relatively simple to learn is treated as more difficult than a more complex skill. No fighter you don't get listen. Only the rogue is capable of HEARING THINGS. This problem compounds every time it shows up too.

Psyren

2016-02-06, 05:05 PM

It's certainly worse if you're playing 3.5 and traits don't exist. Class/cross-class skills aren't terrible in PF; 3.5 has the bigger problem.

But they do exist, even in sanctioned play, so this is moot. Granted, your GM can ban them, but then you have a different (and arguably bigger) problem.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-06, 05:55 PM

But they do exist, even in sanctioned play, so this is moot. Granted, your GM can ban them, but then you have a different (and arguably bigger) problem.
Not... in... 3.5?

ThisIsZen

2016-02-06, 06:00 PM

Technically, there are traits: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm

That said, they're vastly less effective than the PF version and can't actually expand skill lists.

ShurikVch

2016-02-06, 06:39 PM

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-06, 07:14 PM

ryu

2016-02-06, 07:18 PM

What I don't understand about this is: how it matter which skills are in your list, if you just don't have a skill points to invest in? :smallconfused:

Fighter, you said?
Let me ask: does his 1 skill point/level really impact gameplay in any meaningful way?

If character have a skill points to spread around, then he's probably either:
1) Skillmonkey with 6 or 8 skill points/level; such classes usually have decent skill list, so access is not a problem
or
2) Heavy Int-based character, which is usually mean "spellcaster(/psion/truenamer)"; skill access is usually not a problem for casters - they have Magic

There's a huge number of classes between fighter and caster that this directly effects in a power sense, and it's a change more for general enjoyment anyway. People get annoyed when something they want to invest in, that may not even be the best choice to invest in without any class based restrictions, is penalized. All of this to fit the preconceived notions of the developers about what sort of characters should exist. Most people aren't fans of being told they can't make a concept efficiently just because it's unorthodox.

ThisIsZen

2016-02-06, 11:17 PM

It's not unreasonable in 3.5 to go the Pathfinder route and houserule a minimum skill point rate of 4+Int a level. I do it for my games, and similarly set d6 as minimum HD.

Coidzor

2016-02-06, 11:29 PM

It's not unreasonable in 3.5 to go the Pathfinder route and houserule a minimum skill point rate of 4+Int a level. I do it for my games, and similarly set d6 as minimum HD.

Unfortunately 2+Int skill classes are still a thing in Pathfinder. Poor Clerics.

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-07, 12:25 AM

Edit: My verisimilitude is directly harmed literally every time a class lacks a skill you would expect them to have, and also every time something that should be relatively simple to learn is treated as more difficult than a more complex skill. No fighter you don't get listen. Only the rogue is capable of HEARING THINGS. This problem compounds every time it shows up too.

He can still hear things. You're confusing no ranks in a skill w/ no ranks in a trained-only skill. It does cost him more to improve his hearing.
I do agree mundane classes could use skill boosts. I give Fighters 4 + int skills in my game, and their expanded list includes spot and listen, among several others. There's no need to hand it out to wizard, sorc, and cleric, though. Let them pay dearly for it if they want it.
(And "only the rogue" is super hyperbole. Tons of classes get Listen as a class skill, even a few that oddly don't also get Spot)

What I don't understand about this is: how it matter which skills are in your list, if you just don't have a skill points to invest in? :smallconfused:

Fighter, you said?
Let me ask: does his 1 skill point/level really impact gameplay in any meaningful way?

If character have a skill points to spread around, then he's probably either:
1) Skillmonkey with 6 or 8 skill points/level; such classes usually have decent skill list, so access is not a problem
or
2) Heavy Int-based character, which is usually mean "spellcaster(/psion/truenamer)"; skill access is usually not a problem for casters - they have Magic

Again, noncasters could do w/ some more class skills and skill points. That includes those who are already skill monkeys, like Rogues. The 3E skill system isn't perfect, there is room for improvement.

Unfortunately 2+Int skill classes are still a thing in Pathfinder. Poor Clerics.

I really hope that's sarcasm.

ryu

2016-02-07, 12:53 AM

He can still hear things. You're confusing no ranks in a skill w/ no ranks in a trained-only skill. It does cost him more to improve his hearing.
I do agree mundane classes could use skill boosts. I give Fighters 4 + int skills in my game, and their expanded list includes spot and listen, among several others. There's no need to hand it out to wizard, sorc, and cleric, though. Let them pay dearly for it if they want it.
(And "only the rogue" is super hyperbole. Tons of classes get Listen as a class skill, even a few that oddly don't also get Spot)

Again, noncasters could do w/ some more class skills and skill points. That includes those who are already skill monkeys, like Rogues. The 3E skill system isn't perfect, there is room for improvement.

I really hope that's sarcasm.

Thing is casters can do literally everything anyway. This is why no one cares about ''buffing'' them anyway. Infinity plus one is still just infinity. Remove class skills as a thing around the board and the wizard doesn't really care from a power standpoint. Matter of fact he might get distracted and pick something less useful than the usual list thus actually weakening himself.

This also isn't a power or balance fix. It's literally just a thing that exists because people are annoyed with what class skills does to the game itself. You want to also hand other goodies to the mundanes? Fine. Not really relevant to this thread though.

Anlashok

2016-02-07, 02:03 AM

I don't really see the doom and gloom here. Or what's so ridiculous about a wizard with appraise that not only do we need to make sure it can never happen but we have to shut down dozens of other potential character opportunities just to be certain we never run the risk of encountering it.

Now, yeah, some skills are more problematic, but that's an argument for addressing the skill. A wizard who breaks the game with diplomacy isn't a problem because he's a wizard who doesn't have to pay double points for diplo (it's because you're playing with bad diplo rules and an aristocrat and expert would only be slightly worse) and beyond those couple potentially egregious skills the effects of letting such a character pick up some variety is negligible.

As for niche protection. I think that argument fails on three parts. It firstly seems to present a pathetically fragile character archetype to begin with if they're that at risk, and second treats D&D as a zero sum game. That somehow a universe where a fighter can do something other than scream at people and hit them with a stick is a world where rogues are fundamentally nonfunctional purely for that reason is patently absurd.

And thirdly, even if a class like that fighter had all class skills, the rogue still has their 8+int per level skill points that puts them head and shoulders above everything else (sans potentially the factotum and a sufficiently high level int based character) which is their actual advantage in that regard in the first place.

So yeah, a negligible boost in power to characters that are already going to ruin the game without DM fiat against dramatic improvements in verisimilitude and a player's ability to express the character concept they want to play? That seems like a no brainer.

Abithrios

2016-02-07, 02:38 AM

ryu

2016-02-07, 03:07 AM

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to niche protection is that stepping on people's toes is a waste of resources. The fine control that you have in assigning skill points makes it easier to see that waste and avoid it.

In a world without cross class skills, the optimum strategy would probably be to still have different niches for different characters. The only difference is that they would be divided by what ability scores the characters have instead of what classes they are.

I would definitely get rid of the system 3.5 uses. I am on the fence about doing the same in pathfinder, but only because the system of class vs. cross class skills makes such a little difference. I would also get rid of things like trap finding that require someone in every party be one of a few classes.

Best part? You can still totally have different people better or worse at various skills due to class. Just given them direct, in-class benefits to advancing that skill or making new uses for it. Setting up ''niches'' by making it so everyone not in the niche is disallowed competence is awful. Instead make the people who are supposed to be specialists at it significantly better than average with the skill. A ''trap monkey'' should not be taking significant time to do his job nor at much risk. Ideally? He should almost be casually walking through trap infested halls disarming things with well-aimed rocks, the quickest and most effortless of physical interactions, or simply just telling the party where not to step. If almost literally your entire job is obstacle clearing, obstacles should fall before you like leaves in autumn.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-07, 07:07 AM

What I don't understand about this is: how it matter which skills are in your list, if you just don't have a skill points to invest in? :smallconfused:

Fighter, you said?

We can agree that the fighter has issues with skills; that doesn't imply there are issues with the skill system as a whole.

And yeah, Pathfinder does actually fix most issues this thread has with 3E.

Psyren

2016-02-07, 11:01 AM

We can agree that the fighter has issues with skills; that doesn't imply there are issues with the skill system as a whole.

And yeah, Pathfinder does actually fix most issues this thread has with 3E.

This. What I'm taking away from this thread is less "class skills serve no purpose" and more "Fighter specifically has skill problems." Which is a much easier problem to fix without ripping up all the carpet.

ryu

2016-02-07, 02:19 PM

This. What I'm taking away from this thread is less "class skills serve no purpose" and more "Fighter specifically has skill problems." Which is a much easier problem to fix without ripping up all the carpet.

Okay you want examples of annoying that aren't fighter? How about the undeniable fact that not everyone gets survival despite the fact that most all PCs are some variant of wilderness hobo for a good portion of their careers? How about casters apparently not understanding how to use magic device despite that being one of the most obvious things they should know. How about the general rarity of spellcraft despite the fact that magic is so common literally everyone has to worry about being hit by it? Do I have to keep listing more examples to prove this isn't just a matter of the stupid fighter being uneducated?

squiggit

2016-02-07, 02:22 PM

This. What I'm taking away from this thread is less "class skills serve no purpose" and more "Fighter specifically has skill problems." Which is a much easier problem to fix without ripping up all the carpet.

Yeah, but it's more than just fighters. A sorcerer with intimidate is fluffy, appropriate and interesting, but is something a player is punished for trying in 3.5. An illusionist or enchanter wizard with stealth or bluff or sleight of hand is fluffy, appropriate and interesting, but something a player is punished for trying. Or a fighter with knowledge skills. And so on.

Fighter is just the best example because it's lacking in pretty obvious ways.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 02:25 PM

most all PCs are some variant of wilderness hobo for a good portion of their careers?
Oddly, I've never actually played a PC who's done this.

How about casters apparently not understanding how to use magic device despite that being one of the most obvious things they should know.
You mean... to activate the items that they already know how to activate without having to roll?

How about the general rarity of spellcraft despite the fact that magic is so common literally everyone has to worry about being hit by it?

Being able to identify exactly how you've been set on fire should be the least of your worries.

Do I have to keep listing more examples to prove this isn't just a matter of the stupid fighter being uneducated?

No. Because even if any of these were good examples, it still wouldn't prove that class skills were a bad idea, only that class skill lists are badly written. If you want to argue that classes, spells, feats, and weapons are a bad idea because most of them are unbalanced and/or stupid, that's certainly a conversation that you can have. With yourself. In another room from us.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 02:35 PM

Whether class skills should exist depends on what you think class skills are supposed to do.

If skills are supposed to be a minor background ability like rock-climbing, haberdashery, or history, then they shouldn't be class limited. Whether you learned how to pick pockets as a child should in no way impact or be impacted by how you fight dragons.

If skills are supposed to be meaningful abilities, like divination, healing, or summoning, then they should be class limited. It's very reasonable to expect a Wizard to have significant skill in divination, or a Cleric to know how to heal people.

As it happens the game tends much more towards the first than the second. When you have legend lore, no one really cares if you have ranks in Knowledge (History).

I would very much support splitting Backgrounds (like pickpocketing or archeology) and Skills (which would get non-combat magic) and forcing people to pick class skills. But keeping them in the current game excludes reasonable character concepts to no gain.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-07, 03:09 PM

Yeah, but it's more than just fighters. A sorcerer with intimidate is fluffy, appropriate and interesting, but is something a player is punished for trying in 3.5.

Hyperbole like "punished", while hilarious, unfortunately isn't helping your case any.

ryu

2016-02-07, 03:11 PM

Oddly, I've never actually played a PC who's done this.

You mean... to activate the items that they already know how to activate without having to roll?

Being able to identify exactly how you've been set on fire should be the least of your worries.

No. Because even if any of these were good examples, it still wouldn't prove that class skills were a bad idea, only that class skill lists are badly written. If you want to argue that classes, spells, feats, and weapons are a bad idea because most of them are unbalanced and/or stupid, that's certainly a conversation that you can have. With yourself. In another room from us.

Nice of you to be so concerned about who should and shouldn't post in the thread even when the people involved are actually discussing the topic raised in the OP directly. You can keep having that conversation with yourself. In another room from me called the ignore list.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 03:33 PM

Nice of you to be so concerned about who should and shouldn't post in the thread even when the people involved are actually discussing the topic raised in the OP directly. You can keep having that conversation with yourself. In another room from me called the ignore list.

I... never mentioned that you shouldn't post in the thread. But okay, have it your way.

squiggit

2016-02-07, 03:42 PM

Hyperbole like "punished", while hilarious, unfortunately isn't helping your case any.

It's not hyperbole. A sorcerer who wants to level their intimidate only gets one skill per level at 10 int while a sorcerer who takes bluff and spellcraft gets two and double the value out of those two, that's most certainly punitive for the former.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-07, 03:44 PM

Hyperbole like "punished", while hilarious, unfortunately isn't helping your case any.
"Disincentivized," let's say instead. You can do it, but it requires more system mastery to figure out and more resources to acquire, for no particular mechanical reason.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-07, 04:04 PM

Hyperbole like "punished", while hilarious, unfortunately isn't helping your case any.What would you call it when you get half the number of skill ranks at half the normal skill maximums, thereby cutting your effective number of skills by 75%?

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 04:17 PM

The system punishes you for trying to play a fighter who casts spells. The system punishes you for trying to be a rogue who walks into the middle of a fight and expects to survive. The system punishes you for doing the same as a wizard. The system should punish you for trying to make a truenamer fit the role of a rogue. If it's not doing that, what's the point of having class distinctions? If you want to play a rogue, play a damn rogue.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-07, 04:49 PM

Kurald Galain

2016-02-07, 05:00 PM

"Disincentivized," let's say instead. You can do it, but it requires more system mastery to figure out and more resources to acquire, for no particular mechanical reason.

Not a mechanical reason, but an archetypical one. In every class system I can think of (and certainly in 3E/PF), classes are not arbitrary combinations of mechanics, but rather literary archetypes. This is pretty much the reason why class-based systems exist.

For instance, the ranger class is a combination of Drizz't and Robin Hood, and the reason that the ranger doesn't have diplomacy on his class list is that neither of these archetypes is known for its diplomacy. The sorcerer is based on the archetypical mutant or half-blooded outcast with freaky powers, and as this kind of character tends to get bullied a lot, he doesn't get intimidate.

And yes, the game designers made a few mistakes in these lists (e.g. the aforementioned fighter), but the system is sound.

ryu

2016-02-07, 05:01 PM

And those things should be punished, yes. But they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

No they shouldn't be punished. Specialists shouldn't be specialists because they're the only people competent in their area. Specialists should be well above and beyond the keel of average within their specialty. Don't punish everyone who isn't a specialist dipping their toes in the water. Give specialists a class feature that makes them superior to non-specialists. Lets start with in-class bonuses to skills, more efficient skill use, and a more robust number of uses for the skill.

Edit: DRIZZT of the soft-spoken voice, friendly demeanor, and resident peace nut isn't known for diplomacy? Excuse me what?

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 05:02 PM

And those things should be punished, yes. But they have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Only they have everything to do with it. Why pick on class skills, rather than spells, or class features? Why does it so offend you that the rogue has a niche, but it's only offensive to you because that niche is skill-based?

Cosi

2016-02-07, 05:09 PM

Only they have everything to do with it. Why pick on class skills, rather than spells, or class features? Why does it so offend you that the rogue has a niche, but it's only offensive to you because that niche is skill-based?

Because skills are bull, and restricting them by class is bull. Hide has about as much meaning to your character as your background does, so why should having it be any more restricted?

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-07, 05:09 PM

Only they have everything to do with it. Why pick on class skills, rather than spells, or class features? Why does it so offend you that the rogue has a niche, but it's only offensive to you because that niche is skill-based?
Because-- with a few rare exceptions-- skills are vastly weaker than anything else in the game. Changing skill lists around does next to nothing to change balance, or even archetypes. The Wizard who can pick pockets is still an intellectual powerhouse who gets phenomenal cosmic power from silly words and gestures; the Barbarian who can chat people up is still a hulking brute who chops dudes in half with a greataxe; the Rogue who knows about religion is still a sneaky backstabber. The Rogue is still a sneaky backstabber even if the Fighter has Open Lock and Disable Device and the Ranger has Hide and Move Silently. All-- all-- it does is let people put their own spin on the provided archetypical classes, which you might recognize as the entire reason we play 3.5.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 05:11 PM

Because skills are bull, and restricting them by class is bull. Hide has about as much meaning to your character as your background does, so why should having it be any more restricted?

Hide is really, really, really important if you want to, I dunno, avoid combat? I know, I know, but maybe some people play games that aren't just about stabbing or burning things as hard as they can.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 05:18 PM

Hide is really, really, really important if you want to, I dunno, avoid combat? I know, I know, but maybe some people play games that aren't just about stabbing or burning things as hard as they can.

Yes, because high level characters sneak around with Hide rather than a level appropriate invisibility variant, teleport, or dispensing with stealth and simply using Divinations for information gathering.

And no, low level people being more reliant on skill checks isn't an argument for keeping class skills. All sorts of non-class stuff matters at low levels. Ability score spreads, race choice, equipment, or feats. None of that is class limited, and much of it matters more than skills. If it isn't restricted, why should skills be?

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 05:26 PM

Yes, because high level characters sneak around with Hide rather than a level appropriate invisibility variant, teleport, or dispensing with stealth and simply using Divinations for information gathering.

Yeah, levels before ninth and the see invisibility spell actually exist. I hate to break it to you.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 05:31 PM

Yeah, levels before ninth and the see invisibility spell actually exist. I hate to break it to you.

Did you read the part of my post where I directly and preemptively addressed that particular point? I mean, I assume not because you didn't respond to it, but I think it would've been helpful.

And yes, people at low levels use different abilities than people at high levels. Non-class abilities, typically. Why is Hide something that only Rogues should get, but the Halfling race something anyone should get?

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 05:34 PM

And yes, people at low levels use different abilities than people at high levels. Non-class abilities, typically. Why is Hide something that only Rogues should get, but the Halfling race something anyone should get?

People at low levels use skills, feats, and class features. People at high levels use... skills, feats, and class features. I haven't ever played in a game where this wasn't the case. You might as well ask why sneak attack is something that "Only rogues" (Which you seem to be using to mean "A bunch of classes that includes rogue", so I will too) get.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-07, 05:38 PM

Only they have everything to do with it. Why pick on class skills, rather than spells, or class features? Why does it so offend you that the rogue has a niche, but it's only offensive to you because that niche is skill-based?Because skills define a character, instead of a class. If a class wants to define itself by its skills, it needs class features that make skill use better.

Like, say, factotum. Factotum is definited by its skill use, as opposed to rogue, which is defined by sneak attack, as it has no class features that make it better at using skills. The exception, if you want to call it that, is trapfinding, but that's mostly because Search is basically useless unless you have it, and it's an arbitrary screwing over of everyone who takes Search and doesn't have it. That's like Craft (Alchemy) needing spellcasting for no real reason; the skill is almost useless to anyone who doesn't have it.

ThisIsZen

2016-02-07, 05:41 PM

Can we maybe dial back the straw men and ad hominem a bit? All that straw and fire isn't good for anyone's health.

Regarding rogues: if the argument goes that in the absence of skill lists rogues will lose their niche, then that argument is that a skill list including disable device is more meaningful to the rogue and a stronger part of their identity than any other element. Meaning the skill list is being accorded more weight than: sneak attack, the trap finding feature itself, improved evasion and rogue talents, either individually or as a whole. I personally find that claim incredibly suspect, and the argument gets flimsier if applied to the PF rogue's better talent list.

Class skills just honestly don't carry the weight of real class features, and if you want some classes to be drawn to some skills, incentivizing those skills with class features is a better way to do do than disincentivizing other classes.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 05:42 PM

People at low levels use skills, feats, and class features. People at high levels use... skills, feats, and class features. I haven't ever played in a game where this wasn't the case.

What is Gather Information supposed to do when your party caster has legend lore (or whatever other divination)? Repeat for every other obviously better spell.

The things skills do are low level and pathetic. They should be compared to other things that are low level and pathetic. Like your race. Or your base ability scores. And none of those things are class restricted.

You might as well ask why sneak attack is something that "Only rogues" (Which you seem to be using to mean "A bunch of classes that includes rogue", so I will too) get.

That's a strawman. Sneak Attack is a combat ability that scales with level. Like battlefield control or debuffing. As such, it should trade off with the same things. Just like Hide should trade off with things that are comparable with Hide. Or, low level crap like the Elf's secret door sense, or the Dwarf's stonecutting.

Also, you aren't actually in favor of role protection. If you thought that, you'd be opposed to cross class skills too. A Wizard can still get Hide, he just gets boned at it.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 05:43 PM

Because skills define a character, instead of a class.

So do spells. Hells, so do feats, but there are still feats with fighter level restrictions. So does the ability to be good at dueling. So does sneak attack. I mean, really, what does being good at hiding say about your character that being able to stab people from hiding doesn't?

Everything about a class, skill, feat, trait, flaw, or other character option should either be usable to define a character, or it shouldn't be taking up valuable book space.

Hal0Badger

2016-02-07, 05:52 PM

I always felt that skill list is one of the defining features of a class, and a point that they are supposedly balanced around.

I would agree some classes need more skill point (fighter, paladin, sorcerer) and maybe giving away "able learner" as a free feat to everybody may make cross-class skill system better.

This being said, the current balancing system of the classes assumes that "skill lists" and "skill points per level" is one of the aspects. As it is noted, it should not be the only strong part of a class, but it is definitely one of the key things that defines a class and its niche. Removing them simplifies the game, and actually breaks immersion for me.

As a real life example; you may take gym classes, have an active sport-life while studying engineering, but you won't be on par with professional athletes. Of course, there can be exceptions to these rules, but removing class system does not make them "exceptions", it makes them "stream-line". For example, trait system of PF to add more skills to class skill list, would be a better approach then removing the skill list system.

All of the above, are personal opinions, without sufficient data or claim to back it up (aside from personal experience. Therefore, they are not set in stone. I simply like the "class skill system" since it helps me to define a class and character.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 06:02 PM

Because skills define a character, instead of a class. If a class wants to define itself by its skills, it needs class features that make skill use better.

Yup. Skills as they are currently written are low level abilities. The mechanical effect Hide has isn't making you stealthy. invisibility, or nondetection, or mindblank make you stealthy. Hide lets you do low level stealth. Just like being a freakin' Goblin or having 18 DEX does.

Class skills just honestly don't carry the weight of real class features, and if you want some classes to be drawn to some skills, incentivizing those skills with class features is a better way to do do than disincentivizing other classes.

And you'll notice that when Jormengand talks about it, he says "skills, feats, and class features" if he actually believed that Hide was a meaningful part of the Rogue, he would not make the distinction between "skills" and "class features". Because Hide would be a Rogue class feature.

So do spells. Hells, so do feats, but there are still feats with fighter level restrictions. So does the ability to be good at dueling. So does sneak attack. I mean, really, what does being good at hiding say about your character that being able to stab people from hiding doesn't?

That you invested some skill points in Hide? All sorts of characters do that. Locke Lamora uses magic, but has the iconic "Rogue" skill set. Because he was raised as a thief. Conan is a Barbarian and he also has the "Rogue" skill set. All sorts of characters hide without stabbing people from hiding.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 06:08 PM

That you invested some skill points in Hide? All sorts of characters do that. Locke Lamora uses magic, but has the iconic "Rogue" skill set. Because he was raised as a thief. Conan is a Barbarian and he also has the "Rogue" skill set. All sorts of characters hide without stabbing people from hiding.

Right, only that wasn't the question I asked. What I asked is, what does being good at hiding say about your character that being good at stabbing people from hiding doesn't?

Cosi

2016-02-07, 06:12 PM

Right, only that wasn't the question I asked. What I asked is, what does being good at hiding say about your character that being good at stabbing people from hiding doesn't?

Assuming those are exclusive (i.e. you hide, but do not stab people from hiding), it says that you have a non-combat shtick of stealth, but a combat shtick other than backstabbing. Like Conan or Locke. Or the Midnighter. Or the goddamn Batman. Or an Illusionist. Is it so hard for you to imagine characters with stealth who are not Rogues?

ThisIsZen

2016-02-07, 06:16 PM

Plenty, mostly by the absence of the ability to stab from hiding.

Perhaps your character has become skilled at hiding as a result of personal trauma. Maybe they were trained to steal but never to commit violence. Thee are plenty of reasons to be good at hiding without gaining the requisite anatomical knowledge implied by sneak attack.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 06:16 PM

Assuming those are exclusive (i.e. you hide, but do not stab people from hiding),

Try again without that assumption.

Alternatively, ask yourself "What does it say about my character that they throw blasts of fire at everything?" That's either a spell or a class feature, depending on whether you're a sorcerer or a pyrokineticists. Or, what does it say about my character that their musical talents inspire everyone? That's a bard class feature. There is absolutely no reason to pick on skills as though they were the only thing that defined a character.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 06:19 PM

Try again without that assumption.

What? Why should the only characters allowed to have stealth be characters who also have backstabbing? It doesn't happen in the source material, it doesn't make conceptual sense, and it restricts the play space for no reason.

squiggit

2016-02-07, 06:22 PM

Right, only that wasn't the question I asked. What I asked is, what does being good at hiding say about your character that being good at stabbing people from hiding doesn't?

That you don't stab people while hiding?

There is absolutely no reason to pick on skills as though they were the only thing that defined a character.
That's they point, they don't. But they are A thing that helps define your character and restricting them restricts a player's ability to play certain character archetypes.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 06:25 PM

What? Why should the only characters allowed to have stealth be characters who also have backstabbing?

Well, I didn't say that, so you tell me.

Okay, let's break down what I actually asked, and while I'm doing that you can answer the half of my post you ignored.

What does:

"I hide"

Say about a character that could not be said by:

"I stab people from hiding"

That is to say, any character event that could be portrayed by ranks in hide could also be portrayed by sneak attack. Why, then, do you insist that hide is something that portrays character but sneak attack, burning hands, and greater weapon specialisation aren't?

Cosi

2016-02-07, 06:29 PM

Well, I didn't say that, so you tell me.

Okay, let's break down what I actually asked, and while I'm doing that you can answer the half of my post you ignored.

What does:

"I hide"

Say about a character that could not be said by:

"I stab people from hiding"

That you do hide, but don't stab people therefrom. Like Batman, who uses stealth combined with kung fu and gadgets. Like an Artificer/Monk. Or an Illusionist, who uses invisibility or silent image for stealth, and fights with color spray or shadow conjuration. Or Conan, who sneaks around but fights with a sword and manly muscle.

Think about this in terms of set theory. Are you really alleging that the sets of "people with stealth" and "people with backstabbing" are equivalent?

squiggit

2016-02-07, 06:31 PM

Well, I didn't say that, so you tell me.

Okay, let's break down what I actually asked, and while I'm doing that you can answer the half of my post you ignored.

What does:

"I hide"

Say about a character that could not be said by:

"I stab people from hiding"
Well the former character hides. There's really nothing else to be said about him. He could be a subtle wizard or someone who's simply very cowardly or who knows.

The second character is some sort of ambusher, obviously, given that he or she stabs people from hiding. Obviously there's still a lot of ways to express such a character, but it's a fundamentally more narrow concept than the former because of the emphasis on stabbing.

That is to say, any character event that could be portrayed by ranks in hide could also be portrayed by sneak attack. Why, then, do you insist that hide is something that portrays character but sneak attack, burning hands, and greater weapon specialisation aren't?

Sneak attack can help define what a character does, yes, but that's not really relevant to the topic at hand at all. Someone can have sneak attack and knowledge(religion) and express a different character concept than someone who does not.

LTwerewolf

2016-02-07, 06:34 PM

Classes aren't just one thing, they're a sum of their parts. Spells obsolete skills. Yes, we have all known this for 10+ years. That doesn't mean everyone should be able to just take over skills as they please. It's pretty common for people to be ok with having to multiclass into wizard for wizard casting. Why is it not ok to multiclass for extra skills? Instead of thinking "class skills should be assumed" why not think of it as "cross class skills should be assumed." You're not punished for taking cross class skills, you're rewarded for taking class skills.

squiggit

2016-02-07, 06:37 PM

Classes aren't just one thing, they're a sum of their parts. Spells obsolete skills. Yes, we have all known this for 10+ years. That doesn't mean everyone should be able to just take over skills as they please. It's pretty common for people to be ok with having to multiclass into wizard for wizard casting. Why is it not ok to multiclass for extra skills?

Because jumping through elaborate hoops just because I want an intimidating sorcerer or a smart fighter is pretty lame.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-07, 06:37 PM

Well, I didn't say that, so you tell me.

Okay, let's break down what I actually asked, and while I'm doing that you can answer the half of my post you ignored.

What does:

"I hide"

Say about a character that could not be said by:

"I stab people from hiding"

That is to say, any character event that could be portrayed by ranks in hide could also be portrayed by sneak attack. Why, then, do you insist that hide is something that portrays character but sneak attack, burning hands, and greater weapon specialisation aren't?When you were young did you ever play Hide & Seek? How many times did you, while hiding, gank the seeker with a shiv? And if the answer isn't "zero," why aren't you in a mental institution?

LTwerewolf

2016-02-07, 06:38 PM

You can have both. Just like people that want to have wizards that wear armor and fight with melee weapons, you need to actually put forth some effort to do it. Multiclassing is built into the system.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 06:40 PM

Sneak attack can help define what a character does, yes, but that's not really relevant to the topic at hand at all. Someone can have sneak attack and knowledge(religion) and express a different character concept than someone who does not.

Right, but Cosi stated that skills defined a character where class features do not, which is why he's fervently ignoring all argument to the contrary.

When you were young did you ever play Hide & Seek? How many times did you, while hiding, gank the seeker with a shiv? And if the answer isn't "zero," why aren't you in a mental institution?

I literally just addressed this exact point in the post you just quoted.

What does:

"I hide"

Say about a character that could not be said by:

"I stab people from hiding"

NOT

What does:

"I stab people from hiding"

Say about a character that could not be said by:

"I hide"

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-07, 06:43 PM

I literally just addressed this exact point in the post you just quoted.

NOTIt says, "I hide but don't necessarily stab people." The other says, "I hide and stab people."

[edit] I find it humorously ironic what quoting the above as-is and reading it verbatim says about your point.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 06:46 PM

Also, Sneak Attack has connotations that are totally different from stealth. For one thing, it does not grant you any stealth ability. For another, it triggers off flanking or BFC effects.

Right, but Cosi stated that skills defined a character where class features do not, which is why he's fervently ignoring all argument to the contrary.

What?

How is that what I said at all? My point is that skills as written are low level crap, and should be treated as such. That is, not class restricted. Just like you don't have to be a Rogue to have the background "was a street urchin" or a Fighter to have the background "served in the military" or a Wizard to be an Elf or a Cleric to be a Dwarf.

My point is that things should trade off with equivalent things, and face equivalent restrictions. So combat abilities trade off with combat abilities. In D&D, that means class. And low level crap trades off with low level crap.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 06:47 PM

It says, "I hide but don't necessarily stab people." The other says, "I hide and stab people."

Right. So in fact, all of the information (I hide) given by the former is ALSO given by the latter. So in fact, the answer to:

What does:

"I hide"

Say about a character that could not be said by:

"I stab people from hiding"

Is nothing.

What?

How is that what I said at all?

Well, you responded to:

Because skills define a character, instead of a class.

With:

Yup.

So, in fact, the fact you literally actually said it practically verbatim is how that's what you said at all.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 06:51 PM

Right. So in fact, all of the information (I hide) given by the former is ALSO given by the latter. So in fact, the answer to:

Is nothing.

No.

Read people's posts.

If your claim was true, then there would be no characters who have stealth but do not stab people from stealth.

But that is obviously false. For example, Conan the Barbarian.

Eat your crow.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 06:54 PM

If your claim was true, then there would be no characters who have stealth but do not stab people from stealth.

Uhm, no. You're reading it backwards. I'm saying that there are no people who stab from hiding who aren't hiding, not the reverse.

But thanks for misrepresenting my argument and blaming me for it.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 06:57 PM

Uhm, no. You're reading it backwards. I'm saying that there are no people who stab from hiding who aren't hiding, not the reverse.

But thanks for misrepresenting my argument and blaming me for it.

If that's the claim you're making, your point does not matter. Like, at all. The fact that some characters who have X have Y does not imply that all characters who want Y must also have X. Seriously, go learn some set theory.

The fact that Rogues have stealth and also backstabbing doesn't mean everyone who wants stealth needs to be a Rogue.

So, in fact, the fact you literally actually said it practically verbatim is how that's what you said at all.

Yes, skills define a character. Stealth is a thing a character has. It's not a thing Rogues have, it's a thing people with stealth have. As obviously demonstrated by the existence of literally any characters with stealth who are not Rogues. Like Conan the Barbarian.

Jormengand

2016-02-07, 06:59 PM

Yes, skills define a character. Stealth is a thing a character has. It's not a thing Rogues have, it's a thing people with stealth have. As obviously demonstrated by the existence of literally any characters with stealth who are not Rogues. Like Conan the Barbarian.

And some characters don't fit into the D&D 3.5 class system. Big news. But sneak attack is a thing that people with sneak attack have. Healing is something that people with healing have. There happens not to be a class which is a rogue with healing spells (to my knowledge). You know, you can keep saying that about skills, but it's true of everything.

Cosi

2016-02-07, 07:01 PM

And some characters don't fit into the D&D 3.5 class system. Big news. But sneak attack is a thing that people with sneak attack have. Healing is something that people with healing have. There happens not to be a class which is a rogue with healing spells (to my knowledge). You know, you can keep saying that about skills, but it's true of everything.

After learning set theory, you should consider an investigation into the is/ought problem.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-07, 07:04 PM

Let's back up a step. Maybe several.

All* RPGs operate somewhere along the spectrum from classed to classless. On the one extreme you have things like Apocalypse World, where you choose your "class" and pretty much nothing else. On the other you have pure point-buy like GURPS, where your entire character consists of choosing options off a list. Many-- perhaps even most-- games fall somewhere in the middle. White Wolf games, say-- you choose your "class," which determines how different options are priced, but from there it's more free-form. Or various forms of D&D.

3.5 in particular is not a purely class-based system. It can be, but given the ease and ubiquity of multiclassing it's more than halfway to being point-buy. At least by RAW, and especially for optimizers like us-- we hop from class to class, sourcebook to sourcebook, looking for the exact abilities we want to represent the character we have in our head. But even without that, there are plenty of ways to customize your character: Race, Ability Scores, Class, Class-based choices (domains, specializations, etc), ACFs, Feats, Skills, Skill Tricks, Spell Selection... you can build two pure-classed Paladins that play radically differently, that are virtually unrecognizable as coming from the same starting point.

So on the one hand, yes, it's odd to single out skills. They're one of many ways to differentiate characters, not really any different from feats or spell selection. But on the other... why not single out skills? What's the harm in sliding the game one more notch towards point-buy? No-one really gets harmed balance-wise. It takes about half a second and a single line of text to implement. Classes lose a bit of differentiation, but many of use never really cared about it that much to begin with.

Furthermore, skills have much more in common with universal options like race and feat choice than class-specific options like spells and class features. Skills are universal, they're common. Everyone has skills. Everyone has the same skills. A Bard's Hide and a Rogue's Hide work exactly the same. And like race in particular, they have a small effect on what your character is capable of, and a large effect on how they present themselves to the world.

*I suppose there might a few weird exceptions out there, like if you count Fiasco.

Coidzor

2016-02-07, 10:44 PM

I really hope that's sarcasm.

You try getting all the skills you need when you have no other use for Int and everyone who plays PF insists on point buy so you can't have a lucky roll to give you an extra 12. Knowledge: Religion and Spellcraft requires all your skill points if you leave Int alone, then you've got to be human or pump your favored class bonus into it if you want to be able to help not blunder into traps or not blunder into social traps. Heavens forbid you want to know about the afterlife, too.

Having a fullcaster actually be able to know their fullcaster skills is not making them more OP.

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-08, 12:36 AM

Thing is casters can do literally everything anyway. This is why no one cares about ''buffing'' them anyway. Infinity plus one is still just infinity. Remove class skills as a thing around the board and the wizard doesn't really care from a power standpoint. Matter of fact he might get distracted and pick something less useful than the usual list thus actually weakening himself.

This also isn't a power or balance fix. It's literally just a thing that exists because people are annoyed with what class skills does to the game itself. You want to also hand other goodies to the mundanes? Fine. Not really relevant to this thread though.

"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we make Planar Shepherd, who can get 10 rounds of actions per round.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we add the Incantatrix.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if let Clerics get Divine Metamagic.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we add thousands of new spells to the prepared casters' tomes.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we give the wizard domain access.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if there's a Craft Contingent Spell feat.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we add some infinite loop options.

Maybe if people didn't just accept it as fact that casters are unstoppable anyway, so whatever...they wouldn't have gotten nearly as much power creep as they did.
Wish I could find that old commercial for...Brita, I think it was. Some announcer stating, "A little bit of lead won't hurt you," and a lady drinking from the tap. Then the image and voice-over repeat again and again and again and soon the screen is filled up with little squares of her drinking the "little bit of lead."

Okay you want examples of annoying that aren't fighter? How about the undeniable fact that not everyone gets survival despite the fact that most all PCs are some variant of wilderness hobo for a good portion of their careers? How about casters apparently not understanding how to use magic device despite that being one of the most obvious things they should know. How about the general rarity of spellcraft despite the fact that magic is so common literally everyone has to worry about being hit by it? Do I have to keep listing more examples to prove this isn't just a matter of the stupid fighter being uneducated?

Survival is an untrained skill and the DCs to survive in the wild are stupidly low, usually DC 10 or barely higher. An average commoner who's never set foot outside of a city could get lost in the woods, take 10 every day, and keep himself fed and with drinking water indefinitely.

UMD: Seriously, wtf? Casters DO know how to use magic devices....of spells they can actually freaking learn! UMD would be for spells completely alien to them, and why should that come easier to them than anyone else? A wizard's skill at arcane book magic should transfer to skill with nature magic the same way his wizard CL stacks with his Druid CL. Oh, wait...
Cue...
1. All caster levels should stack!

Followed by....
2. They're overpowered anyway, so what's the harm?!
:smallmad: :smallmad: :smallmad:

Anyone can learn spellcraft. If you don't study or frequently use magic, it takes you more effort and you take longer to learn it compared to someone who does. Are you just willfully ignoring that cross-class doesn't mean "no access"? Your points are all terrible and I can't believe I even have to refute them.

You try getting all the skills you need when you have no other use for Int and everyone who plays PF insists on point buy so you can't have a lucky roll to give you an extra 12. Knowledge: Religion and Spellcraft requires all your skill points if you leave Int alone, then you've got to be human or pump your favored class bonus into it if you want to be able to help not blunder into traps or not blunder into social traps. Heavens forbid you want to know about the afterlife, too.

Having a fullcaster actually be able to know their fullcaster skills is not making them more OP.

So skills are important? Because this entire thread is an avalanche of people claiming otherwise, so giving casters full access to the best ones doesn't matter.

"Forced to point buy" is a poor excuse, that gives you total control of your stats and 12's are cheap. If your tier 1 cleric wants more skill points, maybe he shouldn't min-max his key stats so high. Anyone who isn't int-based has "no other use for int." That's what it's for -- more skill points!

PF already did Clerics quite a few favors for the problems you listed. Not walking into traps is now a wis-based skill instead of int-based, so clerics are good at it by default even if they don't get +1/2 level to the checks via a domain power or something (certainly one of my favorite domains...), plus they can use detect magic at will to discover magical traps.
I've played Cleric in PF. I did just fine. Was shocked how buffed from 3E they were. Not as much as wizard was, but still amazingly undeserved.

ryu

2016-02-08, 12:50 AM

You try getting all the skills you need when you have no other use for Int and everyone who plays PF insists on point buy so you can't have a lucky roll to give you an extra 12. Knowledge: Religion and Spellcraft requires all your skill points if you leave Int alone, then you've got to be human or pump your favored class bonus into it if you want to be able to help not blunder into traps or not blunder into social traps. Heavens forbid you want to know about the afterlife, too.

Having a fullcaster actually be able to know their fullcaster skills is not making them more OP.

Considering this is a 3.5 thread? Cloistered cleric. Boom. That is how you get more skill points as a cleric. You also get a domain out of the deal. Also you didn't really lose much of value for it by any stretch of the imagination.

Apricot

2016-02-08, 01:02 AM

For all the weaknesses of skills, I have to say - they tend to be fun. They rarely do anything particularly crazy, apart from UMD and Diplomacy, but they give players all sorts of angles into a variety of situations and can let players define what they're good at without being insanely limiting or being full MacGyver.

I think it's fine to want more skill points or to want more available skills, although a reasonable cost should be in place for casters.

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-08, 01:03 AM

Considering this is a 3.5 thread? Cloistered cleric. Boom. That is how you get more skill points as a cleric. You also get a domain out of the deal. Also you didn't really lose much of value for it by any stretch of the imagination.

And in PF, you also get a "favored class bonus" that is really better spent on skill points than hp anyway (+1 hp per level is one feat...last i saw, there was no feat for +1 skill point per level). So a Human Cleric w/ an easily affordable 12 Int has 4 skill points per level, and gets his Concentration for free to boot.

So no. Either way, there's no reason to feel sorry for poor, omnipotent clerics.

Anlashok

2016-02-08, 01:30 AM

"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we make Planar Shepherd, who can get 10 rounds of actions per round.

Are you really trying to create some sort of equivalency between a druid with full ranks in appraise and a planar shepherd?

Holy hyperbole, Batman. That's just plain ridiculous.

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-08, 01:40 AM

Are you really trying to create some sort of equivalency between a druid with full ranks in appraise and a planar shepherd?

Holy hyperbole, Batman. That's just plain ridiculous.

But infinity +1 is still infinity, and infinity +100000 is still infinity. If casters are already completely irreparably broken, it shouldn't matter what buffs we give them. That's what the poster I responded to said. If you think my examples are ridiculous...glad you agree with me that this isn't true at all.

As for Appraise, I said several pages ago I don't mind swaps as long as they're fair. Appraise is a pretty weak skill, there's plenty of skills on a Druid's class list he could trade for it.

ryu

2016-02-08, 01:53 AM

But infinity +1 is still infinity, and infinity +100000 is still infinity. If casters are already completely irreparably broken, it shouldn't matter what buffs we give them. That's what the poster I responded to said. If you think my examples are ridiculous...glad you agree with me that this isn't true at all.

As for Appraise, I said several pages ago I don't mind swaps as long as they're fair. Appraise is a pretty weak skill, there's plenty of skills on a Druid's class list he could trade for it.

See I don't agree with any of your examples. None of them actually matter in an absolute sense because everything you could do with them could be done before they existed. The only net effect is that the process has more roads to completion and simpler steps to follow. In order to use arguments that make your opponent seem ridiculous in their own eyes you have to use their logic as it would naturally follow to make statements they DON'T believe. You've failed to do that.

StreamOfTheSky

2016-02-08, 02:01 AM

In order to use arguments that make your opponent seem ridiculous in their own eyes you have to use their logic as it would naturally follow to make statements they DON'T believe. You've failed to do that.

I've gotten you to state that you don't think Planar Shepherd, Incantatrix, and so forth are overpowered or a problem. So I'd say I succeeded. Not at convincing you, I knew that would be impossible. Here, I'll let Aaron Eckhart explain:
https://youtu.be/eW87GRmunMY?t=52

ryu

2016-02-08, 02:06 AM

I've gotten you to state that you don't think Planar Shepherd, Incantatrix, and so forth are overpowered or a problem. So I'd say I succeeded. Not at convincing you, I knew that would be impossible. Here, I'll let Aaron Eckhart explain:
https://youtu.be/eW87GRmunMY?t=51

Oh you got me to admit that I play at a much higher balance point than is common on this forum, when that's literally become a common part of my persona to such a degree that most anyone who enters a conversation with me can find out on a whim, and is basically common knowledge for anyone who knows me here? Woe is me. WOE IS ME!

You could've accomplished that a lot sooner by asking a simple one line question without working yourself up so much.

ShurikVch

2016-02-08, 02:15 AM

Yes, because high level characters sneak around with Hide rather than a level appropriate invisibility variantTo spot invisible creature is a flat DC 20; to spot a hidden 7th-level Small-sized skillmonkey with Dex 20 and masterwork tools for Hide is DC 21

teleportDimensional Lock
Anticipate Teleportation
Halaster's Teleport Cage
Black Labyrinth
Also, what if campaign just don't have access to Astral plane (i. e. all "standard teleport spells" are impossible)?

or dispensing with stealth and simply using Divinations for information gathering.http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ootsdetectevil.gif

ThisIsZen

2016-02-08, 02:18 AM

In the case that skills are important: a rising tide raises all ships, but it'll raise a dinghy more than it'll raise an airship. No one is proposing unilateral, exclusive buffs to casters by removing class skills. They're proposing a system-wide buff to all classes without distinction. This may have the net effect of slightly increasing caster power, but it wouldn't be by much (given that casters already have workarounds and skills, even if important, can't do the weight-lifting magic can do in the mid-late game environment), and it would benefit non-full casters more. Also, it's not quite accurate to say that Planar Shepard is Infinity + 10,000 while no class skills is Infinity+1, and that's at least partially because you're treating infinity like it's a single concept.

If we assume that casters before planar shepard/incantatrix/initiate of the sevenfold veils/other delicious cheddar are infinitely powerful, then we're talking about the infinity of integers. Removing the concept of class skills is equivalent to infinity + 1 == infinity. Throwing on <cheesy feat combination/PrC ridiculousness> is increasing the cardinality. Now you've got the infinity of the real numbers, which is bigger than the infinity of the integers.

That's the sort of scale difference that's being talked about here.

Furthermore, in the case that skills aren't important: it doesn't matter, you could give everyone +20 to all skills and it wouldn't matter, because skills don't matter at this table. And if you aren't changing the power of characters in any way then, well, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference whether you do or don't?

Note: the latter case is hyperbole, because obviously there are mechanics that draw off of the skill lists which always will confer real power. But there's this constant back and forth game of "gotcha" regarding whether skills are important or not, and it's really starting to seem silly to me. The game doesn't have a "default" usefulness setting for skills from which all deviations are aberrant. The degree of usefulness of skills themselves will vary from table to table depending on taste and DMing style.

I would argue however that in the case that skills are used regularly, as written they lack the mechanical significance to impact games much beyond the lowest levels. There are exceptions, but as everyone has been saying, that's not an issue with the skill system as a whole, it's an issue with UMD/Perception/RAW Diplomacy having too much utility for their position in the game. Adding extra functionality to skills is certainly a way to make them more impactful - but it's also essentially houseruling, regardless of how sensible it might or might not be.

Coidzor

2016-02-08, 03:08 AM

Considering this is a 3.5 thread? Cloistered cleric. Boom. That is how you get more skill points as a cleric. You also get a domain out of the deal. Also you didn't really lose much of value for it by any stretch of the imagination.

This was a tangent off of a tangent about how someone thought all Pathfinder classes got at least 4+Int skill points.

ThisIsZen

2016-02-08, 03:18 AM

My bad there. In fairness, the last time I played a PF Fighter was like 3 years ago.

ryu

2016-02-08, 03:44 AM

This was a tangent off of a tangent about how someone thought all Pathfinder classes got at least 4+Int skill points.

The end is never the end is never the end is never the end...

Cosi

2016-02-08, 12:07 PM

"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we make Planar Shepherd, who can get 10 rounds of actions per round.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we add the Incantatrix.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if let Clerics get Divine Metamagic.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we add thousands of new spells to the prepared casters' tomes.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we give the wizard domain access.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if there's a Craft Contingent Spell feat.
"Casters can do literally everything anyway," so no one cares if we add some infinite loop options.

First, that's an obvious strawman of the idea that skills don't meaningfully boost casters.

Second, yes. None of that is better than the core Wizard who used planar binding to get wish for a Ring of Infinite Wishes and a Belt of Magnificence +1,000,000. If you had to give up 9th level spells (including getting scrolls of them or getting them from NPCs) to be a Planar Shepherd, would that be a good trade? The only cases where you'd even consider that are Craft Contingent Spell and a generous definition of infinite loops (i.e. if it bans you from Chain Binding or similar).

You could make an argument that those things are worse for practical purposes (because they are more likely to be allowed in games), but a full optimized caster already has infinite power, so anything you print will merely make builds at whatever balance point it hits more diverse.

The bolded are especially poor complaints because for the most part adding more spells to a prepared caster's list only matters if those spells are better than ones they already have (and downtime spells, but the best downtime spells are core). I don't think that's true for most splat spells, especially not after you've already grabbed the two or three top spells of each level.

I've played Cleric in PF. I did just fine. Was shocked how buffed from 3E they were. Not as much as wizard was, but still amazingly undeserved.

I'm not sure how PF making the bad design decision to buff Clerics justifies them making the bad design decision to restrict skills.

To spot invisible creature is a flat DC 20; to spot a hidden 7th-level Small-sized skillmonkey with Dex 20 and masterwork tools for Hide is DC 21

At 30ft. If they are actively moving. And all it does is give you a hunch that "something's there". And you're comparing a 2nd level spell to a 7th level character.

Dimensional Lock
Anticipate Teleportation
Halaster's Teleport Cage
Black Labyrinth

Because an 8th level spell that effects a 20ft area is a reasonable counter to a 5th level spell.

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/ootsdetectevil.gif

Because lead totally blocks contact other plane.

ShurikVch

2016-02-08, 12:54 PM

At 30ft.Yes.
Your point? :smallconfused:
Do you seriously expect wast open spaces in the Dungeon of Evil?
Floor space is expensive...

If they are actively moving.Again, yes.
They do.
What's the point in disabled invisible spy?

And all it does is give you a hunch that "something's there".Which is enough to starting alarm...

And you're comparing a 2nd level spell to a 7th level character.And before the 7th level you will have what, 6 minutes of being invisible? Kinda short-timed...
Also, guard dogs are dirty cheap :smallwink:

Because an 8th level spell that effects a 20ft area is a reasonable counter to a 5th level spell.Anticipate Teleportation is only 3rd level, and lasts hour/level

Because lead totally blocks contact other plane.Isn't contact other plane a divination?
You will get "Don’t Know" for any truthful answer

Necroticplague

2016-02-08, 01:32 PM

Isn't contact other plane a divination?
You will get "Don’t Know" for any truthful answer

Lead doesn't block all divinations. It only blocks ones that specifically say lead blocks it (like Detect Evil or Detect Magic).

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-08, 01:39 PM

How did this turn into yet another thread about caster supremacy?

I don't think caster supremacy is a balance point that is substantively influenced by allowing a PC to modify their class skill lists or to open up all skills to all PCs. The hassle of tracking skill points, on top of all of the other character creation mini-games, just blows and it limits players, particularly your most creative players.

Niche protection arguments all seem to revolve around the rogue, and even still, the rogue benefits the most from having access to the rest of the skill list because they have the skill points to exploit it. The thing that hurts the rogue niche protection the most was the invention of the factotum, which tramples all over the rogue and does rogue better than rogues do.

The dumb fighter is a problem for any player who has ever spent time in the military. Sure there are dumb fighters there, but there are amateur therapists who happen to be great snipers, engineers who happen to be expert marksmen, and even archeologists who grew up poor and joined the army just to see the cradle of civilization at a price point that their life could handle. And, as stipulated before, the problem extends beyond defying the trope of dumb fighter. There are combat feats that require higher intelligence as Pre-reqs and the fighter class list gets no synergy with them, and many of us would rather have fighter bonus feats than two levels of swashbuckler. Why can't the ranger have shady connections? Especially if he's a poacher. Why can't the sorcerer diplomance as well as a druid? Why can't fighters who specialize in archery get spot!

So then the argument shifts to how it's not class skills that are the problem, but it's poor class skill lists. But it isn't just the lists, because all of the lists fall short of the thousands of different iterations of what a class can be. Every single class skill list has stifled a character that I've wanted to make. Turning class skills into suggested class skills opens up the game to the type of customization that makes everyone on the forum turn to unearthed arcana. Even if my fighter has only a single skill point, I want to spend it on what I want to spend it on, not jump, ride, intimidate or swim.

And maybe the rancorous debate here is really a competition between what character classes are supposed to do for you as a player: are they a straitjacket or a flavor. But we already know that there are two governing philosophies when it comes to PC generation.

So perhaps summing up everything into a pro/con list is the best way to deal with the question of class skills or not. And I got to be honest, the CONS all seem a bit, unnecessarily panicky, while the PROs all seem comfortable slippers you wish you had bought years earlier.

Troacctid

2016-02-08, 04:25 PM

Lead doesn't block all divinations. It only blocks ones that specifically say lead blocks it (like Detect Evil or Detect Magic).

It also blocks all scrying.

Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is so blocked.

Psyren

2016-02-08, 09:29 PM

Okay you want examples of annoying that aren't fighter? How about the undeniable fact that not everyone gets survival despite the fact that most all PCs are some variant of wilderness hobo for a good portion of their careers? How about casters apparently not understanding how to use magic device despite that being one of the most obvious things they should know. How about the general rarity of spellcraft despite the fact that magic is so common literally everyone has to worry about being hit by it? Do I have to keep listing more examples to prove this isn't just a matter of the stupid fighter being uneducated?

All of these analogies are pretty poor. Take Survival - whether adventurers or NPCs, all kinds of folks leave the safety of town without knowing (or needing to know) how to forage or hunt. Merchants, nobles, knights, messengers, the city guard, mages, minstrels, clergy etc - such folk survive by doing what any of us would do in that situation, i.e. bring a map/compass, pack rations and stick to the roads. And while PCs do end up off the beaten path quite frequently, a given party generally only needs one woodsy person, just as they typically only need one guy who can find the black market in a given city's seedy underbelly.

As for Use Magic Device, this is an odd argument to me; UMD always struck me as some cosmic combination of fooling a magic item into thinking you have powers you don't, or even browbeating it into submission so that it functions as you desire. To say that all practitioners of magic should be equally good at such an approach is strange - there are nearly as many approaches to it as there are classes. Why should a typical druid be as good at using an arcane scroll as a typical rogue or bard?

And finally Spellcraft - this is also a strange argument that is easily disproven by looking at our world. Computers, smartphones and automobiles are nearly ubiquitous in terms of society's expectations on you for using them, and yet the folks who truly know how they work and can diagnose their inner workings at a glance remain vanishingly small. This argument is to me like saying that everyone with an iPhone should know how to program for or even configure iOS, and yet Apple has built their empire on the majority of their users not knowing more than the basics, instead choosing to swaddle them in proprietary/closed source hardware and software so that they are as unlikely to mess things up as possible.

ryu

2016-02-08, 10:09 PM

All of these analogies are pretty poor. Take Survival - whether adventurers or NPCs, all kinds of folks leave the safety of town without knowing (or needing to know) how to forage or hunt. Merchants, nobles, knights, messengers, the city guard, mages, minstrels, clergy etc - such folk survive by doing what any of us would do in that situation, i.e. bring a map/compass, pack rations and stick to the roads. And while PCs do end up off the beaten path quite frequently, a given party generally only needs one woodsy person, just as they typically only need one guy who can find the black market in a given city's seedy underbelly.

As for Use Magic Device, this is an odd argument to me; UMD always struck me as some cosmic combination of fooling a magic item into thinking you have powers you don't, or even browbeating it into submission so that it functions as you desire. To say that all practitioners of magic should be equally good at such an approach is strange - there are nearly as many approaches to it as there are classes. Why should a typical druid be as good at using an arcane scroll as a typical rogue or bard?

And finally Spellcraft - this is also a strange argument that is easily disproven by looking at our world. Computers, smartphones and automobiles are nearly ubiquitous in terms of society's expectations on you for using them, and yet the folks who truly know how they work and can diagnose their inner workings at a glance remain vanishingly small. This argument is to me like saying that everyone with an iPhone should know how to program for or even configure iOS, and yet Apple has built their empire on the majority of their users not knowing more than the basics, instead choosing to swaddle them in proprietary/closed source hardware and software so that they are as unlikely to mess things up as possible.

While most people may not understand the workings of a computer, most everyone, and their dog, and their dog's dog know how to use one and have a general knowledge of common programs.

LTwerewolf

2016-02-08, 10:13 PM

While most people may not understand the workings of a computer, most everyone, and their dog, and their dog's dog know how to use one and have a general knowledge of common programs.

Just like most people in a d&d setting can say "that guy's using a spell!" without necessarily knowing how he's doing it.

ryu

2016-02-08, 10:17 PM

Just like most people in a d&d setting can say "that guy's using a spell!" without necessarily knowing how he's doing it.

No one cares about spellcraft for the HOW! They care about the what. Understanding what is being done is vital in any combat with spells. Do you have any idea the horrible things that can be done to people who don't know what you're doing? In spell battle information is huge. Not having spellcraft or similar identification on at all times is just asking to get royally screwed.

Psyren

2016-02-08, 10:34 PM

Ninjaxenomorph

2016-02-08, 10:42 PM

Plus, remember that while each spell usually has the same results, using the code method above, each spellcaster (or wizards at least) usually writes their own version of the program (or their god gives them their version, or whatever).

LTwerewolf

2016-02-08, 10:48 PM

If you don't know how to code, haven't learned about coding, and coding isn't your thing, when you watch someone code why should you know what the result will be?

ryu

2016-02-08, 10:49 PM

Looking at a program or website, can you tell what language or engine it was coded in? The layperson can't, but folks with more experience with computers can. As you get further up the degrees of experience, they can even tell what version of a given engine something was written in, or whether it was modified (for the custom spells.)

You can tell "what" without Spellcraft. Too late to do anything about it, possibly, but a fireball or blade barrier is pretty obvious once cast.

Again too late is not acceptable. If there is one and only skill that should patently obviously be made universal from a balance perspective it's spellcraft. People who don't get it aren't allowed to react efficiently to most of the moves in the game at high level. This is literally a change that specifically renders people who weren't prepared for spells less helpless.

LTwerewolf

2016-02-08, 11:03 PM

"I've spent my entire life perfecting the art of the sword, martial prowess, and perfection of body. I deserve to innately know exactly how spells are done!"

Psyren

2016-02-08, 11:13 PM

Again too late is not acceptable. If there is one and only skill that should patently obviously be made universal from a balance perspective it's spellcraft. People who don't get it aren't allowed to react efficiently to most of the moves in the game at high level. This is literally a change that specifically renders people who weren't prepared for spells less helpless.

From a balance perspective I agree with you. This may be why the Giant went the route he did with OotS, where all the verbal components are in Common, rogues can identify non-core spells, fighters know how Plane Shift targeting works etc.

But there's more to this game (and indeed, many other games) than balance, and we've come right back to the fundamental question of whether balance was the primary goal of the game to begin with. Certainly it was a goal, at least to some extent (namely lower levels, when they could sucker newer players in maybe?) - but they also wanted the game to have a simulationist aspect, where the folks who can rewrite reality with their voices and fingers end up being the strongest, as one would expect to be the case. Skills are actually the smallest of the barriers there -even putting spells aside, there are also item crafting feats, of which only casters have access to every option and in 3.5, noncasters get nothing.

ryu

2016-02-08, 11:27 PM

From a balance perspective I agree with you. This may be why the Giant went the route he did with OotS, where all the verbal components are in Common, rogues can identify non-core spells, fighters know how Plane Shift targeting works etc.

But there's more to this game (and indeed, many other games) than balance, and we've come right back to the fundamental question of whether balance was the primary goal of the game to begin with. Certainly it was a goal, at least to some extent (namely lower levels, when they could sucker newer players in maybe?) - but they also wanted the game to have a simulationist aspect, where the folks who can rewrite reality with their voices and fingers end up being the strongest, as one would expect to be the case. Skills are actually the smallest of the barriers there -even putting spells aside, there are also item crafting feats, of which only casters have access to every option and in 3.5, noncasters get nothing.

The immediate problem with running ''simulationist'' is that you immediately have to answer many hilariously damning questions. How people without magic in general or even skills survive. You can't even make the commoner toil in obscurity and numbers argument because many of these people take adventuring roles as presented. We can go on for days talking about the poorness of the simulation to such a degree I'd argue it's actually done worse than the balance and that is SAYING SOMETHING.

Troacctid

2016-02-08, 11:29 PM

Skills are actually the smallest of the barriers there -even putting spells aside, there are also item crafting feats, of which only casters have access to every option and in 3.5, noncasters get nothing.

DMG2 lets noncasters easily craft magic items without meeting prerequisites. Even without that, they're not completely shut out--pretty much any supernatural ability of any kind will qualify you for the feats, and you can UMD scrolls for the spell prerequisites.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-08, 11:34 PM

"I've spent my entire life perfecting the art of the sword, martial prowess, and perfection of body. I deserve to innately know exactly how spells are done!"Perfectly viable if, say, you're the son of a mage and grew up witnessing spells being cast all the time but without any talent at actually utilizing magic yourself.

Cosi

2016-02-08, 11:43 PM

Yes.
Your point? :smallconfused:
Do you seriously expect wast open spaces in the Dungeon of Evil?
Floor space is expensive...

If you constrain the problem space, you warp the solution space.

Anticipate Teleportation is only 3rd level, and lasts hour/level

And is a fine answer to teleport ambushes or assaults. Piss-poor answer to teleport based scouting because it requires you to put mid level casters everywhere.

Computers, smartphones and automobiles are nearly ubiquitous in terms of society's expectations on you for using them, and yet the folks who truly know how they work and can diagnose their inner workings at a glance remain vanishingly small.

That's true. And it's a fine argument for requiring people to invest ranks (or some other limited resource) into Spellcraft to get to use it. But it doesn't jive at all with the idea of class skills. It's certainly true that (virtually) any computer engineer could tell you how a computer works on the mechanical level. But there are also people who are in no way computer engineers who have that information. For example, people who build PCs.

But there's more to this game (and indeed, many other games) than balance, and we've come right back to the fundamental question of whether balance was the primary goal of the game to begin with. Certainly it was a goal, at least to some extent (namely lower levels, when they could sucker newer players in maybe?)

Psyren, your "who cares about game balance" position is bad and it undermines what credibility you have when you talk about game design. Conspiracy theories aside, there is no reason to assume designers did not intend options presented as balanced against one another (i.e. Fighter levels and Wizard levels) to be balanced against each other.

Skills are actually the smallest of the barriers there -even putting spells aside, there are also item crafting feats, of which only casters have access to every option and in 3.5, noncasters get nothing.

How is that even a little bit of an argument for supporting class skills rather than addressing the problem of non-casters being lukewarm turds?

ryu

2016-02-08, 11:47 PM

If you constrain the problem space, you warp the solution space.

And is a fine answer to teleport ambushes or assaults. Piss-poor answer to teleport based scouting because it requires you to put mid level casters everywhere.

That's true. And it's a fine argument for requiring people to invest ranks (or some other limited resource) into Spellcraft to get to use it. But it doesn't jive at all with the idea of class skills. It's certainly true that (virtually) any computer engineer could tell you how a computer works on the mechanical level. But there are also people who are in no way computer engineers who have that information. For example, people who build PCs.

Psyren, your "who cares about game balance" position is bad and it undermines what credibility you have when you talk about game design. Conspiracy theories aside, there is no reason to assume designers did not intend options presented as balanced against one another (i.e. Fighter levels and Wizard levels) to be balanced against each other.

How is that even a little bit of an argument for supporting class skills rather than addressing the problem of non-casters being lukewarm turds?

Well... That's a word I didn't know was free from censor. Learn something new every day.

Psyren

2016-02-08, 11:48 PM

The immediate problem with running ''simulationist'' is that you immediately have to answer many hilariously damning questions. How people without magic in general or even skills survive. You can't even make the commoner toil in obscurity and numbers argument because many of these people take adventuring roles as presented. We can go on for days talking about the poorness of the simulation to such a degree I'd argue it's actually done worse than the balance and that is SAYING SOMETHING.

Of course the humans/humanoids would die horribly left on their own. That's, you know, the whole point of the plucky band(s) of heroes making that not happen :smalltongue:

It's also the idea behind the assumed default "Points of Light" archetype that pervades the published settings - where there are outposts of mortality under the protection of benevolent magic-users, and leagues of dangerous wilderness in between. Pretty much the only exception among major settings that I've seen is Eberron, which of course opted for a magic-as-technology approach where spellcraft and UMD aren't actually needed to protect yourself, and the primary threats are more pulpy/intrigue in nature than straightforward sword-and-sorcery.

This I think is a fundamental flaw in the "balanced setting" premise - if life in Faerun or Golarion were fair and the equilibrium were stable, there wouldn't actually be much use for heroes. Instead, they present a world where dragons are tyrants, aberrations and cosmic horrors plot in the shadows, fiends are infinite in number while angels aren't, Evil gods can team up to murder the Good ones but not vice-versa, and a Wightocalypse could break out at any moment - and then when the obvious question is raised as to how the setting hasn't imploded on itself already, both the intended and actual answer become "because adventurers." Because if it weren't, why would we have them?

ryu

2016-02-08, 11:57 PM

Of course the humans/humanoids would die horribly left on their own. That's, you know, the whole point of the plucky band(s) of heroes making that not happen :smalltongue:

It's also the idea behind the assumed default "Points of Light" archetype that pervades the published settings - where there are outposts of mortality under the protection of benevolent magic-users, and leagues of dangerous wilderness in between. Pretty much the only exception among major settings that I've seen is Eberron, which of course opted for a magic-as-technology approach where spellcraft and UMD aren't actually needed to protect yourself, and the primary threats are more pulpy/intrigue in nature than straightforward sword-and-sorcery.

This I think is a fundamental flaw in the "balanced setting" premise - if life in Faerun or Golarion were fair and the equilibrium were stable, there wouldn't actually be much use for heroes. Instead, they present a world where dragons are tyrants, aberrations and cosmic horrors plot in the shadows, fiends are infinite in number while angels aren't, Evil gods can team up to murder the Good ones but not vice-versa, and a Wightocalypse could break out at any moment - and then when the obvious question is raised as to how the setting hasn't imploded on itself already, both the intended and actual answer become "because adventurers." Because if it weren't, why would we have them?

First off the post you were responding to was pretty clearly including adventurers. I think you're intelligent enough to know that without being told.

Second you can totally have a world in stable equilibrium where heroes exist and are necessary. Just make them a part of the assumed ecosystem. Suddenly the greedy and paranoid that you thought seemed useless are just apex predators. Stuff above tenth level is actually somewhat common, and on all sides of alignment and ideology. Everyone is powerful. Tier 1 even. It's just that because everyone is tier 1 no one is the center of existence.

Psyren

2016-02-09, 12:04 AM

That's true. And it's a fine argument for requiring people to invest ranks (or some other limited resource) into Spellcraft to get to use it. But it doesn't jive at all with the idea of class skills. It's certainly true that (virtually) any computer engineer could tell you how a computer works on the mechanical level. But there are also people who are in no way computer engineers who have that information. For example, people who build PCs.

That raises an interesting question - at what point would the guy who builds PCs become a "computer engineer?" Is it based on knowledge? Is it whether one does it for a living or as a hobby? Is it based on which one has a degree, even if the one that doesn't has the same level of knowledge, or more?

Psyren, your "who cares about game balance" position is bad and it undermines what credibility you have when you talk about game design. Conspiracy theories aside, there is no reason to assume designers did not intend options presented as balanced against one another (i.e. Fighter levels and Wizard levels) to be balanced against each other.

Cosi, to be perfectly frank, your opinion of my credibility isn't important to me; I'm merely describing the central conflict as I see it, between the competing desires for a simulation where magic is inherently superior and a game/campaign where everyone at the table gets to contribute. (These are actually possible to reconcile, as long as you're not married to the idea of everyone's contributions being perfectly equal in every situation; I prefer the concept of Comparative Advantage myself.)

How is that even a little bit of an argument for supporting class skills rather than addressing the problem of non-casters being lukewarm turds?

My point there was that, if you hate class skills primarily because they represent (or result in) an inequity between casters and noncasters, there's a great deal of other aspects of the game you should probably start with remedying before getting to that one.

First off the post you were responding to was pretty clearly including adventurers. I think you're intelligent enough to know that without being told.

Second you can totally have a world in stable equilibrium where heroes exist and are necessary. Just make them a part of the assumed ecosystem. Suddenly the greedy and paranoid that you thought seemed useless are just apex predators. Stuff above tenth level is actually somewhat common, and on all sides of alignment and ideology. Everyone is powerful. Tier 1 even. It's just that because everyone is tier 1 no one is the center of existence.

You said "many of these people take adventuring roles" but that isn't borne out by the evidence. PC classes are assumed to be the clear minority, if we go by the DMG population tables, and even among that subset are many folks who don't do much if any adventuring, like clerics who spend all their time ministering their flocks or wizards who spend their time researching, playing politics in the mage's guild, teaching classes etc.

And actually yes, I am assuming they are part of the ecosystem. That's why I'm saying they're needed - without them, the ecosystem gets thrown off whack. The lack of stable equilibrium was without them, not with.

ryu

2016-02-09, 12:26 AM

Cosi

2016-02-09, 12:27 AM

Of course the humans/humanoids would die horribly left on their own. That's, you know, the whole point of the plucky band(s) of heroes making that not happen :smalltongue:

But there are equally plucky bands of villains making that happen. When you're throwing around high (let alone epic) level magic, the collateral damage is going to be enough to cause extinction events. One fourth level spell slot (enervation to raise a Wight) is enough to wipe out a good sized country if no one stops it.

It is easier to destroy than it is to create, yet D&D postulates balanced forces of creation and destruction in a world that has not been destroyed. That state of affairs cannot persist.

It's also the idea behind the assumed default "Points of Light" archetype that pervades the published settings - where there are outposts of mortality under the protection of benevolent magic-users, and leagues of dangerous wilderness in between.

That's 4e (maybe also PF) construction. The default of D&D, such as it is, is Points of Darkness. There are people doing evil stuff over there, you need to go kill them. See the Sunless Citadel line of adventures.

This I think is a fundamental flaw in the "balanced setting" premise - if life in Faerun or Golarion were fair and the equilibrium were stable, there wouldn't actually be much use for heroes.

No.

The equilibrium of Faerun or Golarion is that people are starving all the time because it is a medieval hellscape and the "stable equilibrium" is that they do not produce enough food to feed the population. The point of heroes isn't just to save the world. It's to improve the world.

Or, to quote The Authority: "**** that. I want a better world."

fiends are infinite in number while angels aren't,

That particular setting conceit is pants on head stupid. If demons are infinite (yes), want to destroy the world (yes), and have the power to destroy the world (yes), they have destroyed the world. Regardless of the forces arrayed against them. Infinity is Bigger than You and all that.

Cosi, to be perfectly frank, your opinion of my credibility isn't important to me;

It's not about my opinion, it's about why does anyone care about your feedback on a game balance issue if you don't think the game should be balanced.

I'm merely describing the central conflict as I see it, between the competing desires for a simulation where magic is inherently superior and a game/campaign where everyone at the table gets to contribute.

A tension that exists only because you postulate it. The game doesn't intentionally have that tension on any level. If it did, it would not present "magic" and "no magic" as equal choices.

(These are actually possible to reconcile, as long as you're not married to the idea of everyone's contributions being perfectly equal in every situation; I prefer the concept of Comparative Advantage myself.)

It's funny because strawman. Also, remember last time we had this exact discussion and your solutions to "what do Fighters do out of combat at high level" was "fight" and "continue to use low level abilities"?

My point there was that, if you hate class skills primarily because they represent (or result in) an inequity between casters and noncasters, there's a great deal of other aspects of the game you should probably start with remedying before getting to that one.

"Why are you donating to a charity that fights cancer? Heart disease kills way more people!"

Somewhat less facetiously, why? If the fix is just "no class skill lists", you can do that and move on. Balancing Fighters and Wizards is a hard problem, and demanding that you solve the hardest parts first is pure foolishness.

Psyren

2016-02-09, 09:01 AM

Therefore you see the point I was making about everyone being tier 1. In a world where everyone is scary or at least self defensible in a real manner you no longer have to have a disconnect between simulation and balance. As tier 1 is my preferred balance point, I approach the problem entirely through setting alteration. Make a setting where their aren't obvious defenseless targets and people who adventure for good or for ill mostly get to contend with each other. No hoard of innocent weaklings to protect, just a set of ever-changing boundaries where different rules and organizations reign.

I do understand and appreciate that approach. I don't personally think it would sell (the closest published example I can think of this is maybe Exalted, which has middling popularity) but maybe there truly is a market for this and nobody's simply tried hard enough to make it a success yet. Or maybe I'm overlooking a different example with more critical and/or commercial appeal.

But there are equally plucky bands of villains making that happen. When you're throwing around high (let alone epic) level magic, the collateral damage is going to be enough to cause extinction events. One fourth level spell slot (enervation to raise a Wight) is enough to wipe out a good sized country if no one stops it.

It is easier to destroy than it is to create, yet D&D postulates balanced forces of creation and destruction in a world that has not been destroyed. That state of affairs cannot persist.
...
No.

The equilibrium of Faerun or Golarion is that people are starving all the time because it is a medieval hellscape and the "stable equilibrium" is that they do not produce enough food to feed the population. The point of heroes isn't just to save the world. It's to improve the world.

Or, to quote The Authority: "**** that. I want a better world."
...
That particular setting conceit is pants on head stupid. If demons are infinite (yes), want to destroy the world (yes), and have the power to destroy the world (yes), they have destroyed the world. Regardless of the forces arrayed against them. Infinity is Bigger than You and all that.

These actually have the same answer, so I'm grouping them together. Evil loses despite having the clear upper hand because one of the mores/conceits of fantasy evil is that it's ultimately self-defeating. In LotR, Sauron had the biggest and baddest army, but because he wrote off the hobbits as frivolous/inconsequential and focused on all the tough guys in Gondor, he ended up failing. His orcs even captured Frodo in Mordor at one point, and ended up slaughtering each other to a man over his mithril shirt, allowing the heroes to infiltrate Mordor proper unmolested. The infinite demons similarly lose because they embody not just evil, but chaotic evil, and so are nearly impossible to keep to task - they fight each other as hard as they do the celestials and mortal races. The devils are thrown into this too - part of the Pact Primeval (or Blood War setting-equivalent) is that they have to fight the demons as hard as they do the forces of good, while good can work together. The end result is not infinite vs. finite, it is infinite vs. infinite. Drow and Mindflayers are supremely lethal threats, but few of their schemes actually reach the surface world due to all the backstabbing and infighting. Wheel of Time is full of this too, with the Forsaken being the strongest mages psions in the setting (both in raw power and versatility), yet constantly at each other's throats, and Mashadar being just as harmful to the Dark One's forces as it is to the heroes, and the Dark One encouraging it all. It's a very pervasive fantasy trope.

That's 4e (maybe also PF) construction. The default of D&D, such as it is, is Points of Darkness. There are people doing evil stuff over there, you need to go kill them. See the Sunless Citadel line of adventures.

The bad guys are Over There, yes, but the cities themselves (the neutral/good ones anyway) are largely safe havens under spellcaster protection. If you start a ruckus in Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter, Cormyr, or Candlekeep, you're going to have a Bad Time. Remember, this is a setting where bartenders and shopkeepers can be retired epic level adventurers. So the question of "why is there still civilization and wightocalpyse/plague/etc haven't happened" is easily answered.

It's not about my opinion, it's about why does anyone care about your feedback on a game balance issue if you don't think the game should be balanced.
...
A tension that exists only because you postulate it. The game doesn't intentionally have that tension on any level. If it did, it would not present "magic" and "no magic" as equal choices.
...
It's funny because strawman. Also, remember last time we had this exact discussion and your solutions to "what do Fighters do out of combat at high level" was "fight" and "continue to use low level abilities"?

It's less "I don't think the game should be balanced" and more"I think game balance is one goal among many, and other things like immersion or variety are more important, so I only value balance to the extent that it doesn't infringe on these other things." To me, and I suspect others, the ability to rewrite reality giving you an edge makes sense, and having someone on your team that can do that also makes sense. And yet, the folks who can't do that can still play at the same table with those who can, with everyone having fun.

As for why you should care about my feedback, only you can really make that decision. All I'm pointing out is that (a) most people, at least from where I sit, don't consider this imbalance to be a problem, (b) the games that include it appear to be going strong, and (c) the one time we abolished it was a critical and commercial disaster, though perhaps for myriad other reasons beyond that one.

"Why are you donating to a charity that fights cancer? Heart disease kills way more people!"

Somewhat less facetiously, why? If the fix is just "no class skill lists", you can do that and move on. Balancing Fighters and Wizards is a hard problem, and demanding that you solve the hardest parts first is pure foolishness.

That's just it - I don't believe that approach truly fixes anything. For me, the loss in verismilitude by having all clerics be good at sneaking and picking pockets without justification for why, outweighs the benefit gained by the few folks who want their characters to be "quirky."

Necroticplague

2016-02-09, 09:44 AM

That's just it - I don't believe that approach truly fixes anything. For me, the loss in verismilitude by having all clerics be good at sneaking and picking pockets without justification for why, outweighs the benefit gained by the few folks who want their characters to be "quirky."

??
Getting rid of class skills doesn't have that occur. Even with open class skills, there's still a finite amount of skill points to go around, not every cleric is gonna get Sleight of Hand and Hide and Move Silently. The fact they didn't justify it is a problem with the player, not the system. Pretty much anything can be justified .
Former pickpocket who's turning to relegion; worshiper of a god of theivery, deceit, shadows, or similar; assassin-type branch of military arm of church; pastor who's resorted to some questionable means to make up for lack of tithes her church has been receiving, just off the top of my head for that one. The justification problem doesn't lie with the skill system. It lies with small-minded players (or similarly small-minded DMs not willing to accept even small steps outside the stereotype/archetype).

Cosi

2016-02-09, 09:44 AM

I do understand and appreciate that approach. I don't personally think it would sell (the closest published example I can think of this is maybe Exalted, which has middling popularity) but maybe there truly is a market for this and nobody's simply tried hard enough to make it a success yet. Or maybe I'm overlooking a different example with more critical and/or commercial appeal.

Yes. D&D 3.5.

These actually have the same answer, so I'm grouping them together. Evil loses despite having the clear upper hand because one of the mores/conceits of fantasy evil is that it's ultimately self-defeating.

*snip LotR, WoT*

Yes, in books, protagonists win. Because those books don't have rules to resolve events, they have author fiat. But D&D has rules, and if you take D&D villains as an input for those rules, they don't magically lose "because evil is self defeating". They win because they are intelligent actors.

The infinite demons similarly lose because they embody not just evil, but chaotic evil, and so are nearly impossible to keep to task - they fight each other as hard as they do the celestials and mortal races. The devils are thrown into this too - part of the Pact Primeval (or Blood War setting-equivalent) is that they have to fight the demons as hard as they do the forces of good, while good can work together.

That doesn't matter! If 99.999999% of the demons are fighting 99.999999% of the devils, there are still infinite demons not fighting devils. Say it with me: Infinity is Bigger than You.

The bad guys are Over There, yes, but the cities themselves (the neutral/good ones anyway) are largely safe havens under spellcaster protection.

That's not "Points of Light", that's "having a government". Which, yes, most settings do.

So the question of "why is there still civilization and wightocalpyse/plague/etc haven't happened" is easily answered.

And the new, more important, question of "why do adventurers matter if everyone is level 30" is asked.

And yet, the folks who can't do that can still play at the same table with those who can, with everyone having fun.

People play FATAL and have fun. Does that make FATAL good design? FFS, people have probably played Racial Holy War and had fun, and that game is a literal hate crime.

People are perfectly capable of having fun with bad games. This is because playing a RPG is a form of sitting around and talking with your friends, something which is inherently fun. That doesn't mean we should ignore design problems.

ll I'm pointing out is that (a) most people, at least from where I sit, don't consider this imbalance to be a problem,

If you are willing to play a bad game, your feedback doesn't matter when attempting to improve the game. Remember that people supported both 4e and PF in droves simply for claiming to fix the balance problems with 3.5.

(b) the games that include it appear to be going strong,

Is/Ought fallacy.

(c) the one time we abolished it was a critical and commercial disaster, though perhaps for myriad other reasons beyond that one.

You mean 4e? Because the claim that 4e is balanced is incredibly laughable. The Yogi Hat Ranger is a level of invincibility more absolute than anything 3e produced, the Orbizard was a perfectly effective debuff Wizard, and there are any number of other builds that radically over or under-perform relative to the nominal target.

The problem with 4e wasn't pursuit of balance (in fact, Skill Challenges where the biggest failure of the edition precisely because the people designing them didn't pursue balance), it was removing all the parts of the game other than the skill and combat minigames. Which happened not because they wanted game balance, but because they were lazy (also terrible at game design), and those things are hard.

That's just it - I don't believe that approach truly fixes anything. For me, the loss in verismilitude by having all clerics be good at sneaking and picking pockets without justification for why, outweighs the benefit gained by the few folks who want their characters to be "quirky."

That is not, in fact, what this does. It allows any Cleric to be good at sneaking (provided they wear minimal armor). As long as there are skill points (or proficiencies, or something), people won't necessarily be good at any particular thing. Just like right now not all Fighters are good at climbing, and not all Wizards have a vast knowledge of nature. If you don't want to build a sneaky Cleric, don't do that (incidentally, this solution also works for Fighters not having non-combat abilities).

Psyren

2016-02-09, 10:04 AM

??
Getting rid of class skills doesn't have that occur. Even with open class skills, there's still a finite amount of skill points to go around, not every cleric is gonna get Sleight of Hand and Hide and Move Silently. The fact they didn't justify it is a problem with the player, not the system. Pretty much anything can be justified .
Former pickpocket who's turning to relegion; worshiper of a god of theivery, deceit, shadows, or similar; assassin-type branch of military arm of church; pastor who's resorted to some questionable means to make up for lack of tithes her church has been receiving, just off the top of my head for that one. The justification problem doesn't lie with the skill system. It lies with small-minded players (or similarly small-minded DMs not willing to accept even small steps outside the stereotype/archetype).

Right, I actually agree with all this - but you can employ all of those mechanical justifications without abolishing class skills themselves. Traits, multiclassing, even PrCs like Shadowbane Stalker or Evangelist would to me be common choices for the upper echelons of this church. These are things that would deepen the divide between a cleric of such a faith and that of a more generic one. Or they could just invest in Stealth and Sleight normally, the thief god would want his clerics to be fairly smart anyway.

EDIT: @Cosi

Yes. D&D 3.5.

3.5 plainly does not have everyone at T1 as published, have you published your houseruled version? Did you get any feedback from the gaming public, critics, sales data?

Yes, in books, protagonists win. Because those books don't have rules to resolve events, they have author fiat. But D&D has rules, and if you take D&D villains as an input for those rules, they don't magically lose "because evil is self defeating". They win because they are intelligent actors.

Intelligent != Infallible. There are very smart people that are nonetheless ruled by their egos and passions. Evil being self-defeating is an easy-to-grok concept whether there is Author Fiat or not, and furthermore, all game settings have authors too so there is going to be some fiat there somewhere.

That doesn't matter! If 99.999999% of the demons are fighting 99.999999% of the devils, there are still infinite demons not fighting devils. Say it with me: Infinity is Bigger than You.

That doesn't mean those infinite are all fighting mortals though. The vast majority don't even leave the Abyss at all. The number of demons outside of it is in fact finite at any given moment.

That's not "Points of Light", that's "having a government". Which, yes, most settings do.

Right - and those governments invariably involve magical protection of their citizens in D&D settings, for the major cities at a bare minimum.

And the new, more important, question of "why do adventurers matter if everyone is level 30" is asked.

That's indeed a valid question in Faerun. I don't have an answer there, as Elminster et al. could probably save the day without PCs. Golarion and Eberron though have those actors unable to act freely, e.g. the Silver Flame pope is only near-epic while inside her cathedral so she needs adventurers, and Geb can't leave Geb etc.

People play FATAL and have fun. Does that make FATAL good design? FFS, people have probably played Racial Holy War and had fun, and that game is a literal hate crime.

People are perfectly capable of having fun with bad games. This is because playing a RPG is a form of sitting around and talking with your friends, something which is inherently fun. That doesn't mean we should ignore design problems.
...
If you are willing to play a bad game, your feedback doesn't matter when attempting to improve the game. Remember that people supported both 4e and PF in droves simply for claiming to fix the balance problems with 3.5.

It doesn't mean we should fix them with a hacksaw either. Also, FATAL and RHW don't have anywhere near the appeal of D&D or PF.

Is/Ought fallacy.

No, this fallacy says that things should stay the way they are for no reason. I'm saying there is a reason, i.e. that it is doing well, and that this change is unlikely to be an improvement since other class-less and skill-less systems have not revolutionized the genre.

In 5e, they had the chance to remove class skills and they didn't. Why? Because people like them. You don't, and that's perfectly okay.

You mean 4e? Because the claim that 4e is balanced is incredibly laughable. The Yogi Hat Ranger is a level of invincibility more absolute than anything 3e produced, the Orbizard was a perfectly effective debuff Wizard, and there are any number of other builds that radically over or under-perform relative to the nominal target.

The problem with 4e wasn't pursuit of balance (in fact, Skill Challenges where the biggest failure of the edition precisely because the people designing them didn't pursue balance), it was removing all the parts of the game other than the skill and combat minigames. Which happened not because they wanted game balance, but because they were lazy (also terrible at game design), and those things are hard.

I'll take your word for it as I haven't seen any in-depth analyses behind 4e's failure, I only know the things it did that I don't like.

That is not, in fact, what this does. It allows any Cleric to be good at sneaking (provided they wear minimal armor). As long as there are skill points (or proficiencies, or something), people won't necessarily be good at any particular thing. Just like right now not all Fighters are good at climbing, and not all Wizards have a vast knowledge of nature. If you don't want to build a sneaky Cleric, don't do that (incidentally, this solution also works for Fighters not having non-combat abilities).

But you can build a fighter with out-of-combat abilities, just like you can build a sneaky cleric. That doesn't mean the system needs to hand one to you on a silver platter, it takes a little bit of know-how.

SangoProduction

2016-02-09, 02:19 PM

Hyperbole like "punished", while hilarious, unfortunately isn't helping your case any.

So having 1/2 of your skill points isn't a punishment? Well then skills didn't matter in the first place. Then why do you care about not letting people have fluffy skills?

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-02-09, 02:44 PM

So having 1/2 of your skill points isn't a punishment? Well then skills didn't matter in the first place. Then why do you care about not letting people have fluffy skills?(Effectively) Half skill points coupled with each of those skill points being at half effectiveness, since cross-class skills have to be spent at a 2:1 ratio, and you can only get half as many skill ranks as you can with a cross-class skill. So you're basically getting 1/4 effectiveness out of each cross-class skill point.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-09, 02:51 PM

So having 1/2 of your skill points isn't a punishment? Well then skills didn't matter in the first place. Then why do you care about not letting people have fluffy skills?

Don't be silly. Having less skill points as a result of spending them on a skill isn't a punishment. It's what skill points are for.

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Pathfinder solved this particular complaint years ago.

ryu

2016-02-09, 03:20 PM

Psyren

2016-02-09, 03:30 PM

Psyrem you are making a basic error of understanding with my position. I don't have to ''sell'' to anyone. I'm no form of publisher, big company, or other such person who requires the game he puts forward to sell. I simply desire to create the most desirable experience as I see it. This is not the same as the most widely desired experience. Namely because the more focused the goals of your product the better it can be at catering to the people it's targeted at. The more people you attempt to target and cater to the less you can achieve the desires of each individual person/groups of similarly minded people. Exceptions to this rule usually come in the form of a product designed with niche sensibilities designed so well that word of mouth brings it back to the public. While that last one would be nice it's unnecessary. I'm simply trying to optimize an experience.

You're absolutely right - you're not a big company and you don't have to do this. But they are, and do, so if we're asking the question "why are things the way they are in D&D/PF" then considering that there may be a business justification for a given choice is at least worthy of examination. Especially when it's a choice these companies continue making, even with new editions/splats for their respective games.

5e practically ripped up the floorboards trying to figure out what to keep and what to change, and they still landed on "people want class skills." I have to assume there was something underlying that choice besides "we hate players to have freedom."

ryu

2016-02-09, 04:30 PM

You're absolutely right - you're not a big company and you don't have to do this. But they are, and do, so if we're asking the question "why are things the way they are in D&D/PF" then considering that there may be a business justification for a given choice is at least worthy of examination. Especially when it's a choice these companies continue making, even with new editions/splats for their respective games.

5e practically ripped up the floorboards trying to figure out what to keep and what to change, and they still landed on "people want class skills." I have to assume there was something underlying that choice besides "we hate players to have freedom."

The old fallacy of assuming that big companies have sound judgment rather than every iteration of product being an experiment? For that matter just because they decided to change things doesn't mean they looked carefully at literally everything in the new edition. It's entirely expected you'd have some holdovers either due to them not being significant, thus slipping through the change process, or to simply connect the new edition to older ones specifically to draw part of that wider audience with familiarity. There's a very large number of plausible explanations for this that have nothing to do with careful game design judgments.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-09, 04:33 PM

5e practically ripped up the floorboards trying to figure out what to keep and what to change, and they still landed on "people want class skills." I have to assume there was something underlying that choice besides "we hate players to have freedom."

It could just be an institutional thing, ever since non-weapon proficiencies in 2nd edition. The reason that they landed again on class skills is simply them pushing fantasy tropes on players in prepackaged units called classes. Rather than go fully modular for skills and skill points, D&D as an institution is really married to it's own folklore as well as to representing literary tropes through packages of abilities called classes. The problem with skills, as envisioned by D&D, is that they are often completely severable from the class features themselves. It is often the roguish characters that are set aside as the ones with extra skills, but most iterations of rogues are a bit weak. And the skills don't lift them all the way up. How many lame ninjas are D&D designer's gonna make? D&D game designers like the idea of concrete class roles and skills are a way of limiting some classes.

Which is fine.

But the problem is that the classes that they limit are often the ones who need limitations the least. So the options are to either buff skills up to be better than they are, or really and substantively take an axe to caster supremacy. If you're doing neither, let the PCs have whatever skills they want on their class list. I guarantee that little harm will come of it, Even if you play with 4 different Powermunchkin McLawyerabsurds.

ryu

2016-02-09, 04:40 PM

Again removing the concept of class skills does practically nothing to an experienced optimizer besides making life more convenient. Skill optimization is actually pretty easy and simple to do. It's just that it would be simpler if all skills were effectively class skills.

The real effect of the change is on people who don't have much system mastery. They get more freedom to mess around with skills, gain more reason to learn their functions because they at least look at them as options, and add more variety among fresh parties as everyone tries different skill setups. I see no downside here.

LTwerewolf

2016-02-09, 05:06 PM

Except in those circumstances with those that have less system mastery, it gets even easier for people to be entirely replaced by someone else. In mid op games it takes awhile for the wizard to completely replace someone, and in low op games it takes a very long time for that to happen. Removing skills compounds the problem at lower op levels, making it so at an average table it becomes pointless to be mundane. That is poor design. At anything but a high op table it's a terrible idea. At a high op table it doesn't make a difference one way or the other, because everyone is already getting everything they need rather easily. People can make whatever house rules they want, but this is one I would consider pointless at best and concept-crushing at worst. I see only downsides here.

You can go ahead and rule it at your table. I'm quite content not making casters more powerful.

ThisIsZen

2016-02-09, 05:08 PM

That doesn't mean those infinite are all fighting mortals though. The vast majority don't even leave the Abyss at all. The number of demons outside of it is in fact finite at any given moment.

I just want to point out that even if 99.99999% of demons aren't fighting the good guys, that 0.000001% that IS fighting the good guys is actually exactly the same size as the 99.99999% of demons not fighting the good guys. If only 99.99999% of the demons fighting the good guys are fighting mortals, that 0.000001% that IS fighting mortals is exactly the same size as the 99.99999% of demons that are fighting good guys as a whole. Rinse and repeat.

Infinity is incredibly counterintuitive. You can't "reduce" infinity by taking a small percentage of it, because 50% of infinity is the same size as 100% of infinity. Now, it's possible for an infinite set to have finite subsets, but you'd have to point me to where this finite subset of demons is actually detailed. Otherwise, either Heaven is finite and the Demons have already killed all good and rule everywhere at once except maybe Baator, or Heaven is similarly infinite and the Outer Planes are in a state of perpetual perfect stalemate.

(This is before getting into higher cardinality infinities - I'm not actually good enough at math to have studied higher-level set theory or anything to do with high-cardinality infinite sets, but the sheer number of different sizes of infinity is kind of impressive.)

EDIT:

Except in those circumstances with those that have less system mastery, it gets even easier for people to be entirely replaced by someone else. In mid op games it takes awhile for the wizard to completely replace someone, and in low op games it takes a very long time for that to happen. Removing skills compounds the problem at lower op levels, making it so at an average table it becomes pointless to be mundane. That is poor design. At anything but a high op table it's a terrible idea. At a high op table it doesn't make a difference one way or the other, because everyone is already getting everything they need rather easily. People can make whatever house rules they want, but this is one I would consider pointless at best and concept-crushing at worst. I see only downsides here.

You can go ahead and rule it at your table. I'm quite content not making casters more powerful.

You can't patch a game for dickish players, and allowing casters access to all skills is not even a noticeable blip on the radar of their power level. If you have players who will gleefully duplicate all of their party members' abilities in order to overshadow them and take away their fun, get rid of those players. This isn't a systems issue.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 05:24 PM

3.5 plainly does not have everyone at T1 as published,

We had this conversation before. 3.5 doesn't have everyone at Wizard level, but that's because the Fighter is poorly designed, not because the game was aiming for some other balance point. Run the SGT.

Evil being self-defeating is an easy-to-grok concept

No it's not. In the actual world there are people who it would be very legitimate to call "evil", and they have very clearly not defeated themselves.

all game settings have authors too so there is going to be some fiat there somewhere.

In the creation of the setting, yes.

In the telling of stories within that setting, no.

That doesn't mean those infinite are all fighting mortals though. The vast majority don't even leave the Abyss at all. The number of demons outside of it is in fact finite at any given moment.

ThisIsZen pointed this out, but that's wrong. Whatever the percentage of demons trying to kill (or eat, or tempt, or whatever) mortals is, the number of demons doing it is infinite. Infinity is Bigger than You.

Golarion and Eberron though have those actors unable to act freely, e.g. the Silver Flame pope is only near-epic while inside her cathedral so she needs adventurers, and Geb can't leave Geb etc.

Eberron has a continent full of dragons who have more class levels than the mortals in the Five Nations, and are also dragons. I'm going to have to reject the premise that it has an answer to "WTF are high level people doing?"

No, this fallacy says that things should stay the way they are for no reason. I'm saying there is a reason, i.e. that it is doing well, and that this change is unlikely to be an improvement since other class-less and skill-less systems have not revolutionized the genre.

You remember the 90s? Vampire was the biggest RPG then, and it did not have a bunch of things D&D does.

People have fun with games. They had fun with 1e. And 2e. That doesn't mean nothing about those games was bad design. You're just saying "people like this, it must be good". Which you will recall as a defense of THAC0.

5e practically ripped up the floorboards trying to figure out what to keep and what to change, and they still landed on "people want class skills." I have to assume there was something underlying that choice besides "we hate players to have freedom."

Yes. It was "Mike Mearls is a hack". Because obviously. 5e is just 3e, but instead of having high level fall apart they decided to have it not exist. Because having it exist would be hard, and Mike Mearls doesn't do things that are hard (see: fixing skill challenges twenty times, Iron Heroes).

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Pathfinder solved this particular complaint years ago.

Except Pathfinder's solution is dumb and bad (who would have guessed?). Giving people a fixed number of traits of variable value is just encouraging them to optimize their back-stories. Also making things more fiddly instead of less for no good reason.

Except in those circumstances with those that have less system mastery, it gets even easier for people to be entirely replaced by someone else.

Who gets replaced in this situation? The Wizard can't replace the Rogue (no trapfinding), and the Fighter doesn't have good skills.

Esprit15

2016-02-09, 05:28 PM

I just make two alterations in my games: once a class skill, always a class skill; and Fighters can take any skill as though it were a class skill (it seems to fit, given all of their bonus feats). Sure, you could dip into it for all class skills and a free bonus feat, but that's also time not spent in your other class, gaining skirmish, or sneak attack, or a better will save. And most people are just going to take what makes sense for their characters, since my players tend to be less high op than myself, let alone the boards here.

Psyren

2016-02-09, 05:28 PM

The old fallacy of assuming that big companies have sound judgment rather than every iteration of product being an experiment? For that matter just because they decided to change things doesn't mean they looked carefully at literally everything in the new edition. It's entirely expected you'd have some holdovers either due to them not being significant, thus slipping through the change process, or to simply connect the new edition to older ones specifically to draw part of that wider audience with familiarity. There's a very large number of plausible explanations for this that have nothing to do with careful game design judgments.

But none of those disprove that they used judgment/business sense either. We just don't know either way. We only know what we like.

I just want to point out that even if 99.99999% of demons aren't fighting the good guys, that 0.000001% that IS fighting the good guys is actually exactly the same size as the 99.99999% of demons not fighting the good guys. If only 99.99999% of the demons fighting the good guys are fighting mortals, that 0.000001% that IS fighting mortals is exactly the same size as the 99.99999% of demons that are fighting good guys as a whole. Rinse and repeat.

Infinity is incredibly counterintuitive. You can't "reduce" infinity by taking a small percentage of it, because 50% of infinity is the same size as 100% of infinity. Now, it's possible for an infinite set to have finite subsets, but you'd have to point me to where this finite subset of demons is actually detailed. Otherwise, either Heaven is finite and the Demons have already killed all good and rule everywhere at once except maybe Baator, or Heaven is similarly infinite and the Outer Planes are in a state of perpetual perfect stalemate.

(This is before getting into higher cardinality infinities - I'm not actually good enough at math to have studied higher-level set theory or anything to do with high-cardinality infinite sets, but the sheer number of different sizes of infinity is kind of impressive.)

No one is trying to "reduce infinity." There are only infinity demons within the Abyss, where mortals will die quickly anyway. So all these discussions about the nature of infinity are moot. For any given moment or period of time on the Material, there are a finite number causing trouble, which is why they can be defeated at all.

@Cosi - between your loathing for Mearls and PF alike, I'm not sure there's much else to say - we just won't have any chance at common ground on anything.

Coidzor

2016-02-09, 05:42 PM

Don't be silly. Having less skill points as a result of spending them on a skill isn't a punishment. It's what skill points are for.

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Pathfinder solved this particular complaint years ago.

That's an amazing mischaracterization of what was said now, especially since it's been repeated and clarified.

Why are you trying to have it both ways and say it both wasn't an issue and has been solved?

ThisIsZen

2016-02-09, 05:51 PM

Well, again, unless you can point me to the specifically detailed finite subset of demons who deal with the Material Plane (or with Celestia, or etc. etc.), it's fair to assume that the Abyss, with its literally infinite fighting force (meaning sending any number of demons out of the Abyss doesn't impact the Abyss's fighting force at all) has already won all possible fights against anything that isn't either itself or similarly infinite. There are two solutions to this: either the demons are engaged with a similarly infinite foe or foes (see: Baator and the Upper Planes) that maintains a stable equilibrium forever, or Outsiders aren't actually infinite in number, just arbitrarily large in number (which is my personal preference, tbh).

That being said, this is kind of completely off tack for this thread, so maybe someone should make a new one to house this discussion.

Jormengand

2016-02-09, 05:57 PM

Why are you trying to have it both ways and say it both wasn't an issue and has been solved?

"This is not true in pathfinder, but it is true in 3.5, where it isn't an issue. If it were an issue, which it's not, but if it were, it would be one which pathfinder solved."

Is I assume the gist of what is being said.

ryu

2016-02-09, 06:00 PM

But none of those disprove that they used judgment/business sense either. We just don't know either way. We only know what we like.

No one is trying to "reduce infinity." There are only infinity demons within the Abyss, where mortals will die quickly anyway. So all these discussions about the nature of infinity are moot. For any given moment or period of time on the Material, there are a finite number causing trouble, which is why they can be defeated at all.

@Cosi - between your loathing for Mearls and PF alike, I'm not sure there's much else to say - we just won't have any chance at common ground on anything.

While I haven't savaged your idea of business sense happening beyond the point where it's physically possible to exist as a hypothesis yet I've set up a very important situation. Namely the stage has been set for doctor O's razor. The simplest answer which accounts for all evidence, and is falsifiable, is favored. The answer which needs to introduce more variables is disfavored.

So lets look at the evidence for business sense. How did WotC react to feedback on 3.5? They made 4th edition which was universally balanced at tier 3 just as seemed to be demanded. How did people react?

Psyren

2016-02-09, 06:01 PM

So lets look at the evidence for business sense. How did WotC react to feedback on 3.5? They made 4th edition which was universally balanced at tier 3 just as seemed to be demanded. How did people react?

How have they reacted to 5e, which kept Class Skills?
And for that matter, how did Paizo react to feedback on 3.5 (and 4th), and how did people react to PF?

Well, again, unless you can point me to the specifically detailed finite subset of demons who deal with the Material Plane (or with Celestia, or etc. etc.), it's fair to assume that the Abyss, with its literally infinite fighting force (meaning sending any number of demons out of the Abyss doesn't impact the Abyss's fighting force at all) has already won all possible fights against anything that isn't either itself or similarly infinite. There are two solutions to this: either the demons are engaged with a similarly infinite foe or foes (see: Baator and the Upper Planes) that maintains a stable equilibrium forever, or Outsiders aren't actually infinite in number, just arbitrarily large in number (which is my personal preference, tbh).

That being said, this is kind of completely off tack for this thread, so maybe someone should make a new one to house this discussion.

Except your assumption is faulty - the Abyss is made of Chaos. It's not sending anything, not in a co-ordinated or tactical way. The number of demons that end up in the Material at any given moment is essentially random, and the Demon Lords behind it (if at all) are as likely to be doing it to their rivals' detriment (and even their own) as they are the forces of Good (and Neutral.)

ryu

2016-02-09, 06:11 PM

How have they reacted to 5e, which kept Class Skills?

Except your assumption is faulty - the Abyss is made of Chaos. It's not sending anything, not in a co-ordinated or tactical way. The number of demons that end up in the Material at any given moment is essentially random, and the Demon Lords behind it (if at all) are as likely to be doing it to their rivals' detriment (and even their own) as they are the forces of Good (and Neutral.)

As we don't have access to hard sales numbers from WotC? The best estimates that can be found say more buyers than 4th but still not as much a literally any other edition yet. Also pretty sure no open gaming license exists for 5th which will ultimately mean it won't have the same ubiquity as 3.5 did.

Lhurgyof

2016-02-09, 06:12 PM

Without class skills you end up with all PCs being masters of iajutsu and tumbling around with wands at the ready.

Psyren

2016-02-09, 06:12 PM

As we don't have access to hard sales numbers from WotC? The best estimates that can be found say more buyers than 4th but still not as much a literally any other edition yet. Also pretty sure no open gaming license exists for 5th which will ultimately mean it won't have the same ubiquity as 3.5 did.

5e does have an OGL now actually. And while I don't have sales figures either, critical reception has been much more positive.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 06:19 PM

We only know what we like.

This is false. We can also identify things as good or bad design based on the incentives they create compared to intended incentives.

@Cosi - between your loathing for Mearls and PF alike, I'm not sure there's much else to say - we just won't have any chance at common ground on anything.

It's not "loathing". PF lied about playtesting, added fiddly changes for no reason, and made the power gap between Fighters and Wizards bigger. Mearls has yet to write something worth the paper it's printed on. If you are so totally unable to oppose those positions that merely knowing I endorse them makes agreement between us impossible, why do you still believe them? Shouldn't you have any argument at all in favor of them?

Except your assumption is faulty - the Abyss is made of Chaos. It's not sending anything, not in a co-ordinated or tactical way. The number of demons that end up in the Material at any given moment is essentially random, and the Demon Lords behind it (if at all) are as likely to be doing it to their rivals' detriment (and even their own) as they are the forces of Good (and Neutral.)

Oh so a random sample of demons arrive on the material? Interestingly, a random sample from infinity is infinite.

EDIT: Technically, "not necessarily finite". It could be either, but you've presented no evidence that it's finite.

Psyren

2016-02-09, 06:25 PM

This is false. We can also identify things as good or bad design based on the incentives they create compared to intended incentives.

On this we agree - and I would say the incentive of class skills is that a given party will want to bring someone along with that skill. Much like Roy realizing he needed a thief in OtOoPCs because neither he nor Durkon possessed or would ever possess the necessary skillset.

It's not "loathing". PF lied about playtesting, added fiddly changes for no reason, and made the power gap between Fighters and Wizards bigger. Mearls has yet to write something worth the paper it's printed on. If you are so totally unable to oppose those positions that merely knowing I endorse them makes agreement between us impossible, why do you still believe them? Shouldn't you have any argument at all in favor of them?

It's not that I don't; I have a plethora of reasons I like Pathfinder and even a significant number of things I like about 5th edition. However, I also know that engaging will be futile given the clear line you've drawn in the sand on this issue, so better to agree to disagree.

Oh so a random sample of demons arrive on the material? Interestingly, a random sample from infinity is infinite.

EDIT: Technically, "not necessarily finite". It could be either, but you've presented no evidence that it's finite.

The Material is still intact would be my evidence. Also - *points at sig*

ryu

2016-02-09, 06:34 PM

5e does have an OGL now actually. And while I don't have sales figures either, critical reception has been much more positive.

Again that just leads to the same conclusion that it's better than 4th. It doesn't take business sense or even design sense to do better than 4th. Fans pretty clearly panned all over it and it sold terribly by all estimation. Doing literally anything that isn't that again is a sign of the same reflex that makes you take your hand off a hot stove top.

What do I think would actually sell to the most people assuming good marketing? Okay first start with 3.5 as your base template, second don't present the classes as equal in any capacity, third remove most of the annoying features like class skills that only serve to limit less experienced players and annoy the experienced, and finally release settings that make sense at all power levels with lots of thought and effort put into them.

Stuff like class skills, LA, and other similarly hated systems go. Everyone can still play at whatever power level they want. There's no imbalance problem. There's a much wider space to tell stories that doesn't have to fudge individual character competence as much.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 06:35 PM

Without class skills you end up with all PCs being masters of iajutsu and tumbling around with wands at the ready.

I missed this, but I don't think that makes sense. If UMD + Iajutsu Focus + Tumble is so much better than all other skill packages, why aren't classes with that more overwhelmingly dominant in the Char Op consensus?

On this we agree - and I would say the incentive of class skills is that a given party will want to bring someone along with that skill. Much like Roy realizing he needed a thief in OtOoPCs because neither he nor Durkon possessed or would ever possess the necessary skillset.

That incentive exists because of trapfinding, not class skills.

The Material is still intact would be my evidence. Also - *points at sig*

That's not "evidence", it's a contradiction. The setting assumptions made (infinite demons, intact material) are in conflict not just with the rules but with basic mathematical facts. Either there are a finite (but potentially large) number of demons, the material has been ravaged, or you have made a groundbreaking discovery about the nature of infinity.

SangoProduction

2016-02-09, 06:40 PM

"I've spent my entire life perfecting the art of the sword, martial prowess, and perfection of body. I deserve to innately know exactly how spells are done!"

Strawmen are overpowered. It's closer to: "Just because I perfect the art of the sword (however that's defined), that shouldn't mean that my time in trying to know my greatest foe is less effective than someone else."

Since we are comparing it to coding: anyone can pick up, given some effort (ie spending skill points). They don't suddenly have to work twice as hard as someone else for the same amount of skill, assuming an equal teacher and general intelligence, whether they are janitors or professional software engineers. The latter just generally need it more, and invest more time in to it.

A fighter in a world of magic, where magic is the most dangerous thing, would definitely be predisposed to learning about what the mages are doing.

Psyren

2016-02-09, 06:49 PM

Again that just leads to the same conclusion that it's better than 4th. It doesn't take business sense or even design sense to do better than 4th. Fans pretty clearly panned all over it and it sold terribly by all estimation. Doing literally anything that isn't that again is a sign of the same reflex that makes you take your hand off a hot stove top.

What do I think would actually sell to the most people assuming good marketing? Okay first start with 3.5 as your base template, second don't present the classes as equal in any capacity, third remove most of the annoying features like class skills that only serve to limit less experienced players and annoy the experienced, and finally release settings that make sense at all power levels with lots of thought and effort put into them.

Stuff like class skills, LA, and other similarly hated systems go. Everyone can still play at whatever power level they want. There's no imbalance problem. There's a much wider space to tell stories that doesn't have to fudge individual character competence as much.

I agree with you that LA was hated, but I still haven't seen any evidence that class skills are looked at the same way. Certainly there are folks in this thread who hate them, but that's about all I can see. And I don't think 4e's failure has anything to do with class skills, especially since PF kept class skills too and ended up doing so well that it dethroned D&D for a while there (if not still.)

That incentive exists because of trapfinding, not class skills.

Traps are certainly part of it, but parties (including his) need lockpicking, scouting and stealth too, which Trapfinding doesn't help with.

That's not "evidence", it's a contradiction. The setting assumptions made (infinite demons, intact material) are in conflict not just with the rules but with basic mathematical facts. Either there are a finite (but potentially large) number of demons, the material has been ravaged, or you have made a groundbreaking discovery about the nature of infinity.

There are a finite (but potentially large) number of demons on the Material Plane.

A fighter in a world of magic, where magic is the most dangerous thing, would definitely be predisposed to learning about what the mages are doing.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US, yet that doesn't mean we're all cardiologists. We even have considerable incentive to be cardiologists given how much they make, but that doesn't make it easy.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 06:54 PM

Traps are certainly part of it, but parties (including his) need lockpicking, scouting and stealth too, which Trapfinding doesn't help with.

He had a Wizard. He's not lacking for knock, especially at around 10th level.

There are a finite (but potentially large) number of demons on the Material Plane.

That's not mathematically possible. Try again.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-09, 06:55 PM

What do I think would actually sell to the most people assuming good marketing?
Yeah, that's very nice. However, WOTC thinks differently; and Paizo also thinks differently. Both of them have sold around 100,000 - 300,000 units of their latest RPG, which qualifies as "wildly successful" by TRPG standards.

The notion that class skills are a "hated system" is prima facie disproven by the fact that all the best-selling TRPGs in the world include class skills. Outside of this thread, complaints about them are pretty rare; there are several common complaints about 3E and this clearly isn't one of them.

Play the game however you like, but don't assume that a majority of players likes the same things as you do.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 06:56 PM

Yeah, that's very nice. However, WOTC thinks differently; and Paizo also thinks differently. Both of them have sold around 100,000 - 300,000 units of their latest RPG, which qualifies as "wildly successful" by TRPG standards.

The notion that class skills are a "hated system" is prima facie disproven by the fact that all the best-selling TRPGs in the world include class skills. Outside of this thread, complaints about them are pretty rare; there are several common complaints about 3E and this clearly isn't one of them.

Play the game however you like, but don't assume that a majority of players likes the same things as you do.

By that logic, it is impossible for any element of 3e or PF to be bad design. That is obviously false. Make better arguments.

SangoProduction

2016-02-09, 07:02 PM

Don't be silly. Having less skill points as a result of spending them on a skill isn't a punishment. It's what skill points are for.

Also, as has been repeatedly pointed out, Pathfinder solved this particular complaint years ago.

If you spend it on "class skills", you don't lose any skill points. If you spend it on cross-class skills, you lose points. That's a punishment.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-09, 07:04 PM

By that logic, it is impossible for any element of 3e or PF to be bad design. That is obviously false. Make better arguments.
(1) People on the internet are vocal about hated systems.
(2) Outside of this particular thread, people on the internet are not vocal about class skills.
Modus tollens, ergo
(3) Class skills are not a hated system.

QED.

ryu

2016-02-09, 07:05 PM

I agree with you that LA was hated, but I still haven't seen any evidence that class skills are looked at the same way. Certainly there are folks in this thread who hate them, but that's about all I can see. And I don't think 4e's failure has anything to do with class skills, especially since PF kept class skills too and ended up doing so well that it dethroned D&D for a while there (if not still.)

Traps are certainly part of it, but parties (including his) need lockpicking, scouting and stealth too, which Trapfinding doesn't help with.

There are a finite (but potentially large) number of demons on the Material Plane.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US, yet that doesn't mean we're all cardiologists. We even have considerable incentive to be cardiologists given how much they make, but that doesn't make it easy.

Pathfinder did not keep class skills as 3.5 defines them. They have a system called class skills that is almost literally the opposite of 3.5 class skills. To conflate them based on title is intellectually dishonest. It also did this in direct response to 3.5 as a competitor at the time. Go figure. It's almost like there was a clear demand for something like that which was noticed by the pathfinder designers.

Psyren

2016-02-09, 07:10 PM

He had a Wizard. He's not lacking for knock, especially at around 10th level.

Verbal components can be heard, and V doesn't have Silent Spell. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5758-The-place-for-over-analysis/page7&p=211493#post211493) Making a Knock-using V inferior for infiltration.

That's not mathematically possible. Try again.

Sure it is - just let go of the notion that a percentage of demons entered the material, and instead consider that a discrete number did instead. If 5,000 demons enter the material, that is a finite number. If it was 5,000 per day for a century, that's still a finite number.

Pathfinder did not keep class skills as 3.5 defines them. They have a system called class skills that is almost literally the opposite of 3.5 class skills. To conflate them based on title is intellectually dishonest. It also did this in direct response to 3.5 as a competitor at the time. Go figure. It's almost like there was a clear demand for something like that which was noticed by the pathfinder designers.

So to you "class skills" = "the way 3.5 did it?" By that logic, neither 4e nor 5e have them either.

Suddenly restricting the thread to 3.5e's specific iteration of class skills when the discussion up until now has been considering multiple permutations is, to use your term, intellectually dishonest.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 07:14 PM

(1) People on the internet are vocal about hated systems.
(2) Outside of this particular thread, people on the internet are not vocal about class skills.
Modus tollens, ergo
(3) Class skills are not a hated system.

QED.

By that logic, it is impossible for any element of 3e or PF to be bad design. That is obviously false. Make better arguments.

Read carefully.

Verbal components can be heard, and V doesn't have Silent Spell. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5758-The-place-for-over-analysis/page7&p=211493#post211493) Making a Knock-using V inferior for infiltration.

It also takes less time, making him superior.

Sure it is - just let go of the notion that a percentage of demons entered the material, and instead consider that a discrete number did instead. If 5,000 demons enter the material, that is a finite number. If it was 5,000 per day for a century, that's still a finite number.

Except there is literally zero reason to believe that "demons who go to the prime" is a set. You yourself said they did it randomly. If each member of an infinite set has a finite chance of doing X, X is done infinite times.

Kurald Galain

2016-02-09, 07:16 PM

Pathfinder did not keep class skills as 3.5 defines them. They have a system called class skills that is almost literally the opposite of 3.5 class skills.
To be literally the opposite of 3.5's class skills, Pathfinder characters would (1) pay less skill points to raise a non-class skill, (2) be better at a non-class skill than at an equally-trained class skill, and (3) get less class skills if they multiclass or take a prestige class.

Hm, none of that appears to be the case :smallbiggrin:

In the words of Cosi, "That is obviously false. Make better arguments." :smalltongue:

ryu

2016-02-09, 07:48 PM

Verbal components can be heard, and V doesn't have Silent Spell. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?5758-The-place-for-over-analysis/page7&p=211493#post211493) Making a Knock-using V inferior for infiltration.

Sure it is - just let go of the notion that a percentage of demons entered the material, and instead consider that a discrete number did instead. If 5,000 demons enter the material, that is a finite number. If it was 5,000 per day for a century, that's still a finite number.

So to you "class skills" = "the way 3.5 did it?" By that logic, neither 4e nor 5e have them either.

Suddenly restricting the thread to 3.5e's specific iteration of class skills when the discussion up until now has been considering multiple permutations is, to use your term, intellectually dishonest.

Pathfinder will throw free points into any skill you put class ranks into. Its entire systematic point for class skills is to dangle a carrot in front of your nose to get you to put at least one rank in all class skills. Compare that to 3.5 where they take a sharp stick to your hide by negatively impacting the total pool of skill points you get above the normal cost for every rank in a non-class skill. Again same name, most definitely not the same thing to anyone who isn't being deliberately obstinate/dishonest.