Class Based Skill Groups

[tedcahill2]

I have reposted this topic, much better thought out, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?524063-Class-Based-Skill-Group&p=21984161#post21984161). This one has become a debate about skills.

[KillianHawkeye]

I find this to be a really interesting idea.

You might even be able to come up with some oddly specific groupings such as Infiltration (Bluff, Disguise, & Forgery). You could possibly also use this to allow certain classes to use a different ability score for a skill. The Infiltration group, for example, could be keyed entirely off of Charisma even though Forgery normally uses Intelligence, or you could go the other way and make it entirely Int-based because of how thoroughly planned and rehearsed the lies and disguises are.

You'd have to go through the list of all the standard classes, though, and probably prestige classes as well. Heck, some prestige classes might make sense having a highly unique skill group or something. You could even do it for racial paragon classes or racial substitution levels. Or even have some groups that aren't necessarily class-related be available with a feat. It'd be a big task, but I can see this having a really cool effect on the game.

[Petrukio]

Though it doesn't directly apply to your post, the original version of Third Edition - D&D 3E, the one that came out at GenCon 2000 - had skills that were exclusive - only allowed to - select classes. Here's a list:

Animal Empathy could only be taken by Druids and Rangers.
Decipher Script could only be taken by Bards and Rogues.
Read Lips could only be taken by Rogues.
Scry could only be taken by Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Wizards.
Use Magic Device could only be taken by Bards and Rogues.

All other skills were class skills (so you could take up to <level>+3 ranks) or cross-class (only (<level>+3)/2 ranks allowed).

[weckar]

If you could rank up in these skills the same as any other skill, I see two potential problems:

1. They are WAY more powerful than 'normal' skills, by sheer virtue of encompassing multiple of those.

2. A Rogue, for example, would have no reason to take ranks in Sleight of Hand, Use Rope, and Escape Artist individually. This in turn removes uniqueness to characters that may for example be very good at pickpocketing but utter garbage at tying a knot.

[KillianHawkeye]

2. A Rogue, for example, would have no reason to take ranks in Sleight of Hand, Use Rope, and Escape Artist individually. This in turn removes uniqueness to characters that may for example be very good at pickpocketing but utter garbage at tying a knot.

It might be interesting, particularly for heavy skill-based classes like the Rogue, to be able to choose from a list of skill groups rather than get all that's available to them. Then you'd have some Rogue's who choose the social set skill group, others who choose the thievery skill group, and still others who choose something else like stealth. And for whatever groups they didn't choose, they'd have to invest in the individual skills like normal.

If there were enough skill groups, there'd probably have to be some sort of balancing system to indicate that some groups are more powerful/useful than others.

[tedcahill2]

2. A Rogue, for example, would have no reason to take ranks in Sleight of Hand, Use Rope, and Escape Artist individually. This in turn removes uniqueness to characters that may for example be very good at pickpocketing but utter garbage at tying a knot.
Maybe skill groups would work a bit different. Maybe you can only have a number of ranks in a skill group equal to your level, and than invest additional skill points in individual skills within the group to his the level+3 max rank.

My examples were just that, examples. The skill groups would need to be much more thought out. For a rogue there would be multiple skill groups representing different ways in which you might archetype a rogue.

Thievery (Use Rope, Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand)
Cutpurse (Sleight of Hand, and Hide)
Streetwise (Knowledge (local), Gather Information)
Stealth (Hide, Move Silently)
Spycraft (Disguise, Forgery)
Persuasion (Diplomacy, Intimidate)
Deception (Bluff, Disguise)
Poisoncraft (Knowledge (nature), Craft (alchemy))
Acrobatics (Tumble, Balance)
Tinker (Open Lock, Disable Device)

I think limiting the number of skill groups each class can take would be good too. Something simple like one skill group per 2 skill points per level the class gets. Skill groups can't use crossclass skill points to purchase ranks. Ranks in a skill group will be limited by class level not character level. So a multiclass character gets additional skill groups for each class, but their ranks in those skill groups will be limited to the level of the class associated with that skill group.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's not a bad thought. You might even make ranks in the class-specific skills free, at least up to a certain point; that would free you up to use your skill points to make yourself more unique.

[Fizban]

That's not really adding more skills, it's adding class features that multiply your skill points.

The skill system can be fixed by adding more skills however. Why do people hate having to buy multiple skills to do "one" thing? Because some other thing, usually a caster, makes them expect it to be easy, that this group of things is actually "one" thing. The two big offenders skillwise are Spellcraft and Diplomacy: Spellcraft does anywhere from 2-6 things depending on how you figure it, for one skill, while Diplomacy allowed RAW just mind controls people. There's also Use Magic Device, which supposedly lets you do anything when combined with schrodenger's item list.

Take the skills that do too many things and split them into properly narrow skills to match the rest of the skill system. Spellcraft becomes Spellcraft (as in researching spells), Identify Spells, and Analyze Phenomena at minimum, or you could even go so far as to split it into Spellcraft (school of magic) like Craft/Knowledge/Profession (which will probably be required if you actually want to limit int users). Diplomacy becomes Charm and Bargain (and you fix the DCs while you're at it). If UMD spam is a problem, split it into Use Scroll, Use Wand, Use Commands, and Bypass Item.

This will make people whine about not being able to do anything anymore, but what they're actually whining about is not being able to do everything. It is well known that Rogues don't have enough skill points to take all the skills. Duh, that's the point. If you can take "all" the skills there's no point in a skill system. Yes, even Rogues are supposed to make choices about what they want to be good at and what they'll accept being bad at. No, Wizards should not be able to perfectly identify literally everything. The problem is that a few skills are so ridiculously broad that it makes the rest look bad even though it should be obvious that means those skills are OP, not that half the skills are underpowered.

[Jay R]

My experience in trying to fix skills for 40 years, since the first list of skills appeared as an adjunct to the birth tables in The Dragon #3, leads to the following conclusions.

The system will have certain inaccuracies and flaws, because it is less complex than human learning.
lead to inaccuracies. Therefore:



It is very easy to identify a flaw in such a system. Specifically, they become obvious in use.
It is moderately easy to modify the system to eliminate the identified flaw, at the cost of increased complexity.
The new modified system will not have the flaw. but the modification will have introduced new flaws.
Return to step one.

[tedcahill2]

----I'm deleting a particularly salty statement I made. Bad day at work.----

I don't think the skills system is broken, but I think that it's not very fun sometimes. It sucks being a rogue and wasting a bunch of points in open lock, only to have your wizard constantly preparing knock. Is sucks to be a fighter that wants to be good at mounted combat, taking handle animal and ride, but don't have the skill points to have athletic skills like climb, jump, and swim.

These skill groups, and the underlying rules I'm working on, is intended to group skill sets to help build toward a particular archetype without forcing all your skill points to be spent on them. I plan on each class having access to numerous skill groups, but making them select only a few in which they are allowed to buy ranks in.

Certain races may also have skill groups available to them automatically. I don't think PrC's will have additional skill groups.

What this should do, is help differentiate the classes a little bit, because even though anyone can take ranks in hide and move silently, only the rogue and ranger will have the stealth skill group. Because stealth is often core to what the class does they can get those particular skills at a discount, if they choose that as one of their skill groups.

Similarly only arcane casters will be able to choose the Arcane Lore skill group, discounting Spellcraft and K (arcane).

It shouldn't affect the skills balance too much. Let's take the fighter, with a 12 INT, for example. At level 1 they get 3*4=12 skill points, and choose one skill group from their class list; they choose Athletics.

They put one rank into Athletics, effectively getting the benefit of 3 skills points but spending only 1. They are effectively gaining 2 bonus skill points for each rank they put in Athletics.

Sure we could just give the fighter more skill points, but skill groups have a thematic impact on the class, ensuring that the skill points are being spent on skills that fit the role of the character.

[Mendicant]

Personally, I liked your skill shrinkage idea better as a baseline, for the same reason I prefer Pathfinder's skill list despite its flaws--a somewhat compressed skill list is just a major quality of life inprovement.

I think this idea is an improvement on raw overall, but simply eliminating use rope and open lock is more elegant.

[Jay R]

Jay R and Fizban, thanks for the feedback, but you really didn't mention anything to add to or criticize my OP directly. I'm not really looking for your opinion on whether the skills system needs to be fixed, I'm just spit balling an idea I had to fix some of the perceived shortcomings, whether or not you agree with those shortcomings.

Didn't I? I'll repeat. Yes, the old system has flaws. Yes, this will fix some of those flaws, but it wil introduce new ones, which will become obvious only through play. Having not played with the new system, I obviously don't know what those new flaws will be.


It sucks being a rogue and wasting a bunch of points in open lock, only to have your wizard constantly preparing knock.

Agreed - having a poor DM stinks. The advantage of skills over spells is that you can use them all day long. If you never face more than one lock in a day, yes, the rogue is less useful - but that's because the DM never puts you in a position that calls for the rogue's skill instead of the spell.

Similarly, if each day, you only face undead, and only enough for the cleric to dispel, the fighter never fought. But that was by DM choice, not stinky rules.

Note also that your proposal will not help this, since Open Lock is not included in your proposal. [And even if you include it in the thievery bundle, that won't help, since the Knock spell is still there. Nothing will help this except to face more locks in a day.]


Is sucks to be a fighter that wants to be good at mounted combat, but you have to now blow your few skill points on ride and handle animal.

I don't consider buying what I most want my character to have to be "blowing" my few skill points, just as buying the D&D books I want isn't "blowing" my few dollars. Having played in earlier versions, I appreciate the ability to make my fighter a better horseman, while his ally becomes a more athletic fighter.


These skill groups, and the underlying rules I'm working on, is intended to expand upon typically used skill sets to alleviate some of the cost that goes along with them. They are not replacing skills and character will have limited access to skill groups.

This is merely an extension to the mechanic that having a certain level of Handle Animal gives a + to Riding, etc. There's a similar mechanic in Champions, in which paying the points for Scientist gives a +1 to each science you learn, and Linguist gives a +1 to each language, etc.

You are extending the idea, and tying it to classes.


What it should do, is help differentiate the classes a little bit, because even though anyone can learn ranks in hide and move silently, only the rogue and ranger will have the stealth skill group. Because stealth is often core to what the class does they can get those particular skills at a discount, if they choose that as one of their skill groups.

"... if they choose that as one of their skill groups"? I think we're all pretty sure that virtually everyone will.

Finally, I will speculate on the effects. I suspect that the three biggest effects will be to:
1. Give every PC more skill points (which appears to be your real goal), and
2. Reduce the differences between PCs within the same class (since virtually everybody will buy the bundled skill points.
3. The class-specific skills that are not included in your bundles will be used less often, since everybody is buying the bundles.

I can't tell, without playing, what effects these changes are likely to have, but I assume new flaws will appear, only discoverable through play.

Play with them and have fun. And let us know what effect the additional skill points will have on the game.

[Mendicant]

I don't consider buying what I most want my character to have to be "blowing" my few skill points, just as buying the D&D books I want isn't "blowing" my few dollars. Having played in earlier versions, I appreciate the ability to make my fighter a better horseman, while his ally becomes a more athletic fighter.

This doesn't really address the core problem that TedCahill was pointing out: the fighter has far too few skill points, for no good reason. A guy who is good at riding horses but is otherwise an oaf and a moron is not what just about anyone sets out to create when they visualize their hero.

I'd prefer a straight increase to skill points for classes that unaccountably have too few and some sort of consolidation of skills overall as a solution. But in comparison to RAW I think what's being proposed is strictly superior.

[Jay R]

This doesn't really address the core problem that TedCahill was pointing out: the fighter has far too few skill points, for no good reason...

I was replying to a proposal that included cheaper multi-skill bundles for pretty much all classes. That is clearly not intended to address inter-class imbalance.


... A guy who is good at riding horses but is otherwise an oaf and a moron is not what just about anyone sets out to create when they visualize their hero.

I visualize a low-int horseman who doesn't dip into Ranger as exactly an oaf and a moron. I can't imagine why anybody else wouldn't. More skill points come from higher INT or Ranger levels; everybody knows that.

A warrior takes Fighter levels specifically to trade away skill points for Fighter Bonus feats. He takes Ranger levels for the skill points.


I'd prefer a straight increase to skill points for classes that unaccountably have too few ...

In that case, you need to counter-propose a clear definition of which classes have too few, since this proposal isn't about lifting up some classes compared to others.

My proposal for the problem you're bringing up would be to convince people who want to play high-skill warriors to build Rangers, and for people who want to play Fighters to think of them as skill-poor, feat-rich warriors.

Play a Fighter as Boromir; play a Ranger as Aragorn.


...and some sort of consolidation of skills overall as a solution. But in comparison to RAW I think what's being proposed is strictly superior.

The reason Fighters have few skill points is that the class was built on superior numbers of Feats, just as the Rogue class was built on higher numbers of skills.

Getting back to the proposal we've been asked to comment on. Based on the actual suggestion, it's clear that the goal is to increase total skill points for everybody, by giving them both the ability and the incentive to buy the "crucial" skills in bulk. Therefore its two most likely effects are to increase total skills, and to make characters within the same class more alike. It will not improve fighter skills relative to other class's skills, because it's affecting all classes equally.

I don't believe that the two biggest problems in D&D 3.5e are that PCs in general have too few skills, and the PCs within each class aren't similar enough. Therefore there is nothing in this proposal to interest me.

But it doesn't have to interest me. As I said before, "Play with them and have fun. And let us know what effect the additional skill points will have on the game."

[tedcahill2]

Therefore its two most likely effects are to increase total skills, and to make characters within the same class more alike. It will not improve fighter skills relative to other class's skills, because it's affecting all classes equally.

Why do you think it will make them more alike?

[Jay R]

Why do you think it will make them more alike?

Good question. I'm sorry I didn't explain it.

Every rogue with both Sleight of Hand and Escape Artist will also have Use Rope, simply because that's the cheapest way to buy those two. Similarly, every fighter with climb and jump will also have swim, even if he lives in a desert. If you've made it cheaper to buy a bundle than a custom set, more people will have the bundle, and fewer will have custom sets.

[Jack_Simth]

Why do you think it will make them more alike?
He already answered that, didn't he?

2. Reduce the differences between PCs within the same class (since virtually everybody will buy the bundled skill points.
3. The class-specific skills that are not included in your bundles will be used less often, since everybody is buying the bundles.

If you do NOT buy the bundle, you're cutting yourself out of a very useful class feature, and paying a premium to 'be different'. Nearly everyone will go for the bundle, especially if it includes at least one skill that they'd be getting anyway. It encourages sameness between different members of the same class.

[tedcahill2]

He already answered that, didn't he?

If you do NOT buy the bundle, you're cutting yourself out of a very useful class feature, and paying a premium to 'be different'. Nearly everyone will go for the bundle, especially if it includes at least one skill that they'd be getting anyway. It encourages sameness between different members of the same class.

Two things that are missed in that assumption though. 1) you are only allowed to select a limited number of bundled skills and 2) you will never be able to take all of the bundled skills for your class.

I don't have them all planned out yet, but I'm aiming for their to be 3 to 4 times more skill group options, than a class would be allowed to take.

Rogues for example will be able to choose 4 skills groups (due to their base 8 skill points). I'm planning to have between 12 and 16 skill groups available to the class. Fighters on the other hand only get a single skill group (due to the base 2 skills points), and I'm aim to have 3 to 4 skill groups available to them.

The skill groups are a way for character to say, yeah I'm a rogue, but I really want to focus on deception and charisma skills, so they take their 4 skill groups in ones that contain skills like bluff, diplomacy, disguise, etc. They will end up with a different skill set than an assassin type rogue that has stealthy and poisoncrafting skill groups.

Their will likely always be some over lap, just like there is now, but skill groups are a way to further define that your character wants to be good at.

[tedcahill2]

I updated my original post with some of the skill groups I've thought of.

Would love help brainstorming skill groups.

[Aristocracy]

Personally, I feel this is a fantastic idea. I've never met a player that said "Damn, I just have too many skill points!" No matter how you bundle, or fragment the skill system a player will always want to do more and will be motivated to make it over that next threshold. This is the primary reason I enjoy the Pathfinder skill set so much.

I mostly feel that classes have *just* enough skill points to fit into their expected roles and anything spent elsewhere only serves to weaken your core concept-- even if it might be fun or interesting. Fighters being the most dramatic example of this. Fighter skills already suck-- climb, swim, and jump already pale in comparison to flashier skills like Use Magic Device, Acrobatics, and Diplomacy-- and to make matters worse, if you are a fighter who can climb swim and jump you have probably spent your entire wad of skill points. Ride a mount? Nope. Talk to an NPC without gnawing off your own bottom lip? Nope.

Why should every fighter have to pick up a level of Ranger and inexplicably be forced to know how to track and have some particularly hated race of foes just to pick up a few skill points and customize his character a little?

I DO think players are too focused on being capped on all of their skills at all times and some of their dissatisfaction comes from their own reluctance to be less than the best.

It seems to me that the biggest criticism to the idea is that these bundles will be taken for economy rather than being thematically appropriate (e.g. the desert fighter who is an expert swimmer that was discussed above). I find that argument compelling as well. A couple of work arounds might be...

1)Just let the player decide which three skills they want to bundle and have them justify it to their DM for approval.
2) Have a broader list from which a player may choose only three... You might even key them off of the primary stat for each class like "Choose any three Str. Based Skills." for a fighter or Wis based for a Ranger etc. That would probably keep things pretty thematically appropriate and still give players some breathing room to customize.

[tedcahill2]

It seems to me that the biggest criticism to the idea is that these bundles will be taken for economy rather than being thematically appropriate (e.g. the desert fighter who is an expert swimmer that was discussed above). I find that argument compelling as well. A couple of work arounds might be...

1)Just let the player decide which three skills they want to bundle and have them justify it to their DM for approval.
2) Have a broader list from which a player may choose only three... You might even key them off of the primary stat for each class like "Choose any three Str. Based Skills." for a fighter or Wis based for a Ranger etc. That would probably keep things pretty thematically appropriate and still give players some breathing room to customize.There may need to be some regional variants for skill groups, such as removing swim from athletics in a desert setting. I'm thinking more general and less specific at this stage.

1) players could absolutely define their own skill group, with DM permission. The considerations I would use are does it fit the class though? Personally, I don't care what your character's background is, if you're a barbarian, you aren't getting a skill group for diplomacy and decipher script. But the final list of skill groups will likely be no where near all encompassing.
2) As mentioned in my OP classes will have 3 to 4 skill groups available per skill group they can pick. I based the number of skill groups each class can pick on the number of skill points they get, so the rogue gets more "bonus skill points" than the fighter does, by having more skill groups to invest in. It could be swung the other way and every class can pick 3 skill groups, but that would much more greatly favor 2+ skill point classes.

[SinsI]

To be "fixed" Skills should be able to replicate most effects of spells.

This way you'll have skill like "Extraordinary Movement" that would combine Climbing, Balance, Tumble, Jump, Swimming, Running, etc. - and produce characters that are capable of mimicking wuxia heroes: run on tops of trees, climb completely vertical walls, walk on paper-thin ice - making spells like Freedom of Movement or Feather Fall obsolete, and greatly reducing power of many control spells that are meant to restrict movement.

[tedcahill2]

To be "fixed" Skills should be able to replicate most effects of spells.

This way you'll have skill like "Extraordinary Movement" that would combine Climbing, Balance, Tumble, Jump, Swimming, Running, etc. - and produce characters that are capable of mimicking wuxia heroes: run on tops of trees, climb completely vertical walls, walk on paper-thin ice - making spells like Freedom of Movement or Feather Fall obsolete, and greatly reducing power of many control spells that are meant to restrict movement.

If that's what you want you can pretty easily just bake those DC's into the existing skills, but that's not what this thread is about.

[Mendicant]

I was replying to a proposal that included cheaper multi-skill bundles for pretty much all classes. That is clearly not intended to address inter-class imbalance.

My comment had nothing at all to do with inter-class balance. A lack of skill points does hurt inter-class balance in the fighter's case, but the problem is worse than that. It is thematically barren, and it needlessly flattens characters.



I visualize a low-int horseman who doesn't dip into Ranger as exactly an oaf and a moron. I can't imagine why anybody else wouldn't. More skill points come from higher INT or Ranger levels; everybody knows that.

This is conditioning, imo. It is not an assumption I have ever seen a new player come into the game with. Even with "dumb" characters, they still expect their awesome warriors to be able to climb, jump, flip and ride.


Therefore its two most likely effects are to increase total skills, and to make characters within the same class more alike. It will not improve fighter skills relative to other class's skills, because it's affecting all classes equally.

It will likely make high-skill characters more similar. Rogues will be getting a mountain of skill points with 8 per level and the proposed 4 groups. Fighters will absolutely more varied, as skill groups will actually give them the ability to branch out a little. As is, they're pretty much all the same skill wise--negligible and largely irrelevant. Being able to buy into an "athletics" base would let people also buy some stealth or tumbling or diplomacy too.

To the question: I think the descriptive +2/+2 feats should let you buy into a skill group, either in addition to the bonus or instead of it.

[tedcahill2]

To the question: I think the descriptive +2/+2 feats should let you buy into a skill group, either in addition to the bonus or instead of it.

I am definitely considering all the ways to get skills groups; racial feature, feats, class, etc.

One thing I can't figure out is why anyone would purchase a skill group later in the game.

[Mendicant]

They might if you made it retroactive. Like, you take the feat or whatever, and now your points spent on climb go towards swim and jump, also. If you've got ranks in those, you can put them towards athletics also, up to your normal cap. So if you're level 4, and you've got 3 ranks in jump and 4 in climb, congrats, now you have 7 in athletics. That point you put in swim was "wasted", but you're still better off than you'd be without the feat/class feature/DM bennie. If you're ok with some more bookkeeping, you could also just refund any spent skill points, or let the go towards skill tricks.

Honestly, taking feats that tag you as "acrobatic" or "deceitful" seems like the sort of thing that makes sense most at chargen anyway.

[Cosi]

Yes, skills are imbalanced. Fixing it by adding more skills is a reasonable way to do things, but I would kind of rather not do it because it requires me to calculate and potentially care about a bunch of different numbers. I would prefer a system where skills are relatively broad, but with specializations that grant bonuses if applicable. So you have Craft (Weapons, Armor) which gives you whatever bonus to crafting stuff and then a bigger bonus if you happen to be crafting weapons or armor.


The skill system can be fixed by adding more skills however. Why do people hate having to buy multiple skills to do "one" thing? Because some other thing, usually a caster, makes them expect it to be easy, that this group of things is actually "one" thing.

This sounds like you just bringing the bog standard "casters are terrible" rant to the table for no reason. Skills are not spells. They are a thing everyone gets, and while some classes get more of them, the fact that you also get more of them for having high INT makes that rather less influential than one might think.


The two big offenders skillwise are Spellcraft and Diplomacy: Spellcraft does anywhere from 2-6 things depending on how you figure it, for one skill, while Diplomacy allowed RAW just mind controls people.

Aren't those completely unrelated problems? Spellcraft does "a bunch of things" and Diplomacy does one thing that is really good.

Also, Spellcraft is not a problem skill. Insofar as it is important, it is important because the things it does are necessary functions, so if you split them up people will just have less skills. It's like complaining that Waterskins are overpowered because everyone who goes on desert adventures buys Waterskins.


(and you fix the DCs while you're at it).

How do you "fix the DCs"? Seriously, how do you do that? A 10th level character with 18 CHA and Skill Focus gets +20 to Diplomacy. If that character buys a +10 item and takes Item Familiar, they get +43 instead. What DC is "fixed" in a game where those characters are the same nominal level?


The problem is that a few skills are so ridiculously broad that it makes the rest look bad even though it should be obvious that means those skills are OP, not that half the skills are underpowered.

You have correctly identified the problem "skills are not balanced", but you have proposed exactly the wrong solution (nerf the best skills). You should always try to solve a problem with buffs before you solve it with nerfs. If no one is taking Use Rope, make Use Rope better. Don't make Use Magic Device worse.


To be "fixed" Skills should be able to replicate most effects of spells.

Not necessarily. Skills occupy a bunch of different niches. If skills are a character defining aspect of your power like spells, then, yes they need to compete with spells. Skills like Diplomacy and Use Magic Device suggest this is the case. On the other hand, skills like Use Rope and Decipher Script suggest that skills might be relatively minor parts of your character. Either of those solutions is fine. Both is not.

[Mendicant]

If no one is taking Use Rope, make Use Rope better.

Or just set it on fire, because it is a bad skill that is actively bad for gameplay when it's not ignored. (But yes, buff first, and maybe "buff" survival or climb or profession: sailor by returning a core function to their portfolios.)

[Cosi]

Or just set it on fire, because it is a bad skill that is actively bad for gameplay when it's not ignored.

Do you have something against Use Rope in particular, or do you just think the effect is too specific? If it's the former, I'm intrigued. If it's the latter (which I expect it is), you could just do the splitting Fizban suggests and give people more skill points. If Use Rope is 1/6 of a skill, you can split Diplomacy into six pieces and give everyone six times as many skill points.

[Mendicant]

I have something against it specifically, though part of its problem is that it is too specific.

Use rope is bad because:
It is bad. It is largely a wasted skill point.

It shouldn't be a skill, and its existence needlessly muscles in on other skills. To the extent that a skill check should actually be involved in using a rope at all, it should be a function of whichever of climb, survival or profession:dominatrix seems most appropriate. If none are especially appropriate just use whatever's highest.

It serves basically no character-defining purpose, because it says nothing interesting. Ranks in ride are descriptive as well as mechanically useful. Even ranks in a silly profession or useless knowledge tell you something interesting about the character.

It encourages the wrong kind of thinking about skills, evidenced by the suggestion that what's needed is even more granularity. The joy of class-based systems is that they reduce the number of fiddly-ass dials and newsprint-looking character sheets.

The best use for use rope is as a joke (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Elothar_Warrior_of_Bladereach_(3.5e_Prestige_Class )).

[tedcahill2]

I updated my OP with the skill groups I'm working on for each class. I could use a hand, there are a lot of classes.

[SinsI]

If that's what you want you can pretty easily just bake those DC's into the existing skills, but that's not what this thread is about.

No, you can't "bake the DCs", as skills have fundamental problems, up and including the whole "roll d20" mechanics.
Just think about it - randomness has greater impact than 9 levels worth of practice!
(IMHO, something along the lines of "roll number of dices (not necessarily d20) equal to your skill ranks, and add them together to overcome DC" would be much better)

The other problem is that there are far too many skills, with minuscule number of uses for each.
If you are running up a completely vertical wall, what is it - Running? Jumping? Climbing?
Running by jumping from one top of a tree to another - is it Balance? Jump? Run? Acrobatics? Tumble?

This waters them downs, making them either almost completely useless and irrelevant outside some very rare situation - or an absolute "must have full ranks", for those skills whose use is actually powerful and important enough, like Abuse Magic Device.


Not necessarily. Skills occupy a bunch of different niches. If skills are a character defining aspect of your power like spells, then, yes they need to compete with spells. Skills like Diplomacy and Use Magic Device suggest this is the case. On the other hand, skills like Use Rope and Decipher Script suggest that skills might be relatively minor parts of your character. Either of those solutions is fine. Both is not.

Skills must be relevant. If a level 0 cantrip makes all your ranks in Use Rope completely and utterly obsolete - such skills should not exist in the same setting with that cantrip - at all.