Input desired - increasing Skill Points per level

[Helgraf]

One thing I've just about always noticed in D&D is that there's never enough skill points.

I'm curious, oh game tuners (both 'expert' and 'hobbyist' and 'novice'), do you think increasing all the classes skill points per level by 2 points across the board would unhinge general game balance?

If so, why? Also, what other system twinks might you recommend in place or in addition?

[Dhavaer]

So long as it's done evenly, I can't see any major problem.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

Well, outside of how you just effectively made the small difference that attributes added to skills even more useless then it already was, I don't see much wrong.

And I guess that an intelligence-based rogue then becomes a little more redundant then usual.

[Swordguy]

It shouldn't.

I do it universally, and it's never caused any problems (and is only helped by the fact that I roll Move Silently and Hide into a single "Stealth" skill, and roll Listen and Spot into "Perception").

I would also recommend increasing the number of Knowledge skills that are considered class skills for different classes. Basically, what I''ve done is allow my PCs to chose a number of knowledge skills equal to thier INT mod (minimum 1) that should be related in some way to thier class or background. Therefore, Fighters can get Knowledge(Tactics) as a class skill, and any charcter with contact with nobility in thier background may take Knowledge (Heraldry) or Knowledge(Nobility/Royalty) as a class skill.

The players LOVE it.

[cupkeyk]

I think that's what makes Sorcs and Fighters unplayable for me. They have no skill points. But wizzies are fine at their current level and druids and clerks too. They will be pushing rogues and bards and rangers out of the game too if they had any more skill points.

[Amiria]

Our house rules are:

1) Retroactive skill points.

2) Skill points aren't based on intelligence alone, but on the average of intelligence and your best ability score, rounded down. So if you are a fighter with Int 13 (i.e for Combat Expertise and Improved Trip) and Str 20, you get skill points as if your Int was 16.

[Miles Invictus]

Sorcerers and Fighters are doubly hurt by their lack of useful class skills. More skill points won't help, if Bluff and Climb are the best skills you've got.

[Saph]

Bear in mind that class balance is relative. Adding 2 skill points per level makes Fighters and Sorc's a little bit better, but makes Rogues and Rangers a little bit worse, because their niche has been cut into.

- Saph

[cupkeyk]

If fighters and sorcs had more class skills in their repertoire then they would border on Ranger/Rogue/Bard territory. think forcing them to take cross class ranks in Tumble(for fighter) or whatever is an okay limitation.

[Pocket lint]

One house rule I think is worth trying is to let cross-class skills cost 1 point per rank, but keep the max ranks as normal. That way you don't run out of points if you want to add a little flavour to your char that isn't in the standard template.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Bear in mind that class balance is relative. Adding 2 skill points per level makes Fighters and Sorc's a little bit better, but makes Rogues and Rangers a little bit worse, because their niche has been cut into.

Not really.

Skill Monkey classes have niches that aren't just defined by the number of class skills, but also by what they get for class skills. No amount of extra skill points is going to give Sorcerers or Fighters Disable Device as a class skill. They'll never cut into that aspect of the Rogue's niche. They'll never be more than half as good as the rogue in its actual niche areas.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

But the only two specialties a rogue has at that point is open lock and disable device. Everything else can be covered by someone else and their shiny new skillpoints. And I'm sure this game will get old really quick for the guy who's only saving grace is opening trapped doors. You've effectively made rogues so niche that any party can do without one.

[Yakk]

Skillmonkeys are already pretty gimped by "I cast a L 2 spell and do your high skill ability better than you can".

To take something out of Iron Heros, what if:
1> You gain +1/2 bonus in every class skill every class level.
2> All skills cost 1 point for +1/2.
3> If you have a skill as a class skill under any class, you gain +1 in it.
4> The most points you can spend in any skill is equal to your level+2.

The result is people are competent at their class skills (at about 1/2 of their level), and their skill points can be used to master their class skills or pick up non-class skills.

[Arceliar]

Two obvious solutions come to mind:

1) Let characters pick a number of skills equal to their Int mod to be class skills. That way a fighter/warrior of above average intelligence might actually make a competent guard for a change. It's always seemed for me not how many skills a character has, but what skills a character has, that really matters in the end.

2) See this. It may oversimplify some things, but if you do the same thing to NPCs then suddenly players actually have to start using skills other than spot checks and hide.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

But the only two specialties a rogue has at that point is open lock and disable device. Everything else can be covered by someone else and their shiny new skillpoints.

The only people with new skill points that can compete with the rogue on a given rogue class skill are those people that already had those skills as class skills as their own. Giving a Ranger an extra skill point or two isn't gonna make the competition over Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move Silently any worse. Rangers already invest in those skills and already have a fair number of skill points to support that competition to boot. There's really no new competition over "niche" skills that didn't exist before.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

But there's still a skill cap per level. Rogues are typically the only ones that can hit that cap with plenty of skills while still keeping other skills pretty decent, around 6-7 at a time. You've certainly made it so rogues can now effectively max out all their skills, but so what? So can everyone else now. Mix a ranger, a monk, and a wizard together with the extra skill points and you've now completely made the rogue redundant and worthless. All he has going for him is, what? Trap sense? Sneak attack?!

[Helgraf]

:eyebrow: Nothing about my suggestion changes what skills are class skills for classes.

As for sneak attack, uncanny dodge, evasion, trap sense ... yeah, none of that is useful stuff. So this variant just made rogues undesirable. Somehow I'm not seeing your argument there.

Hell, given 10+Int SP/level, I can still easily max out a bunch of skills and want more. If I pimp out with a 20 Int (Say, elf, or 18 Int + human), I can - using the variant - max out 15 skills - but to do that I have, in just about any point buy system to screw over my other stats, having a bunch of 10s and such. If I don't pimp out, then I have to decide what assets I'm ignoring and make sure my party knows good and well I can't do it for them.

Just for the record, here's the skill list of stuff rogues tend to end up having to do.

Surveillance/Scouting : Spot, Listen, Hide, Move Silently (4 skills)
Locks, Traps and Puzzles : Search, Disable Device, Open Lock, Use Magic Device (4 skills)
Getting Places Safely : Balance, Climb, Jump, Tumble. (4 skills)
People Skills: Appraise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information, Knowledge (local) (5 skills)

That's 17 skills right there. So even your most twinked out Rogue isn't covering all the bases he's often expected to - and that's _with_ the +2 SP variant in debate here until he gets to 16th level, since enhancement bonuses don't give extra SP (unless your DM has changed things). And of course, by that point, one of the skills is halfway behind (started taking ranks at 8th level), and the other is only just starting to get ranks (start taking ranks at 16th level).

And if, lord forfend, your character concept requires you to dip into the tiny pool of cross-class skills for some ranks (or for synergies), thats other skills you have to short-sheet to do it.

And a ranger or bard going from 6 to 8 isn't really going to make up that difference; it gives them (and everyone else) a little more flexibility, but they're still not going to have all the neccesary skillsets, especially with the harsh cross-class limits. Bards come close, admittedly, but then, they're the _other_ skill-focused class - and they have to plunk at least one well of skill points into a Perform skill if they want to use one of their primary class features (bardic music).

[PnP Fan]

I tend to belong to the camp that adds skill points to the game, and while I agree that it cuts down on the advantage in terms of number of sp that rogues have, it hardly makes the rogue unplayable. However, my group tend to do skill heavy games (lots of knowledges that aren't in the books, for example, that cover niche information in greater detail that the standard knowledge skills).
What I have done in the past is award extra skill points based on INT and WIS. The end effect of this is that Cleric and Druidy types get skill points more representative of what a well-educated medieval priestly type ought to have. Additionally, since arcane spellcasters often pump their mental stats as well, they get points also more representative of what a well-studied wizardly type ought to have. Additionally, anyone who wants to play a wise/intelligent fighter, instead of just a damage sponge, can do so by placing their attributes appropriately. I play, typically, with a group of 6 or 7 people, and hardly ever do we have folks who can't contribute at some point. Rarely do our rogues sit there and complain about how useless they are. Truth of it is, we don't even do much dungeoneering, and most of our DM's (myself excluded) don't even use traps much, but somehow, the folks who play rogues always seem to find something fun to do. They still wind up being better scouts than rangers, because of character focus. We actually have more play conflict between the bards and the clerics for Diplomacy rolls! ;-)
Having said all that, we still have issues with Fighters being able to do almost none of their class skills well. I'm only pointing this out as a fact, please don't let this thread turn into another "wizards pwn fighter" thread.
One thing I do like is Pocket Lint's suggestion regarding cross class skills. I can see where that would open up a great deal of freedom for character creation, while still keeping folks within their assigned roles. Especially useful if you play in small groups and don't have all of the roles covered.

[Desaril]

I used to be in the "More Skill Points" group, but I've recently changed my mind.

I somehow came to the conclusion that if you DON'T have skill points, you aren't good at a skill. Now I think differently; that if you DO have skill points, you are GREAT!!! Why the switch you ask? I'll tell you.

Most skills can be attempted untrained except for very specialized skills. Anyone can bluff, appraise, listen, climb, etc. For the most part, the entire world is equally good at all of them (i.e. no skill points). So how do we ever do anything? Taking 10! The game allows you to take 10 on a roll (and add any bonuses). That means you can always accomplish an task with an average DC (see chart on PHB 64). Further, if we use the right tools (the various kits in the equipment section) we can get a +2. In many situations, we can take 20 and accomplish Challenging tasks by putting in some time and hard work. So a person with no skill points can still accomplish challenging tasks with NO chance of failure.

A person with skill points can do GREAT things. Also, they can do the easier tasks under adverse conditions, such as combat (when you can't take 10) or under time pressure (when you can't take 20). That's what makes it GREAT!!! Anyone can climb a cliffside, but the rogue can do it barehanded while being shot at by goblins. Anyone can bluff their way past a guard, but the beguiler can do it when the guard finds the stolen gems in his pouch.

If you put every character at that level of effectiveness, you should also improve the wizard's chance to hit and the sorcerors AC. Skill effectiveness is one of the balances of the game.

[Viscount Einstrauss]

It opens up a whole can of cheese, too. You'd either have to recalculate monsters skills or just deal with the fact that the PC's will beat them at it extremely often. Then you add more cheese involving specific races, classes, and feats (and at the same time you've made skill feats entirely worthless instead of mostly-worthless). For instance- I play human, take the Able Learner feat, and take my first level in rogue. I'll max out my intelligence at 18 so that, at level 1, I get 60 skill points. I'm within 8 points of maxing every single class skill at level 1, which is ridiculous. Now, for my next level, I drop rogue altogether and take the wizard class and prestige classes from now on. I've dropped to, under your blanket skill increase, 9 skillpoints a level, I can take rogue skills freely without any penalty (cheese was already there, but you've just made it cheesier), and I've only lost one level in arguably the most broken class there is. I have made the party specialty rogue pretty much worthless, since I can do what he can do only slightly worse before buffs, and way better after buffs. Casters in particular should never be given MORE power in D&D.

What you really want to do is make the non-caster guys stronger, right? Increase their skillpoints, and only their skillpoints. Possibly half-casters as well (at least the paladin), but take heed- the only reason this doesn't seem game breaking to you right now is because you're only considering combat viability. There's more to D&D then dungeon crawling, and giving everyone too many skillpoints will either make that stuff so easy that a character will never need to touch a weapon or so hard due to rebalancing that only a dedicated skill specialist will ever be able to deal with the monsters and NPC's that also have overly high skills now.

[Saithis Bladewing]

As long as you make sure that it is a balanced and equal increase across all classes (percentages work well, as it ensures that higher skill point classes still have a distinct advantage in the skills department over the lower skill point classes).

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I've dropped to, under your blanket skill increase, 9 skillpoints a level, I can take rogue skills freely without any penalty (cheese was already there, but you've just made it cheesier)...

Uh, you still have to pay 2 skill points per rank. That's pretty steep.

[Tobrian]

Personally, I like the suggestion from the Unearthed Arcana that every character should pick a certain number (depending on class and INT) of primary skills at creation and make these his "class" skills, instead of having some cookie-cutter table dictate what your character should or should not be able to learn. Look at the Dragonlance novels: most wizards there had Healing and some herbalism skill, in a world with few or no clerics, and Raistlin Majere had Sleight-of-hand skill (and probably Intimidate and Perform (illusions)) without multiclassing with rogue or warrior levels. On the other hand, Dragonlance wizards never showed much inclination to study alchemy.

I like the Expert class from Unearthed Arcana, too, and use it a lot for NPCs. It makes it possible to create a character that's basically similar to the rogue or bard, centered on skills, but allows you more flexibility. You can throw out bardic music or sneak attacks if they don't fit the character concept, but specialise on social or sneaky skills, and you get bonus feats to boost skills. In previous edition, gamemasters and players had to try and simulate such characters by using the rogue and muddling through, and then the character was saddled with a lot of abilities he didn't want or need.

WotC has by now published so many official ways to customize classes and races via substitution levels (i.e. paladins and rangers without spellcasting, paladins as PrC, variant monks), I don't see why we should be bound by the core rules in regard to class skills. Currently, I'm seriously thinking about completely overhauling the PHB classes for my house rules, adding more skill points, and especially rewriting the wizard and sorcerer class to add better education and customization. Let the player choose between either having knowledge skill foci or metamagic/crafting feats or boosting his familiar, and give them more wizard-specific options than the meagre one bonus feat every five levels they get now. What good are all the new extra feats and options WotC throws at us if characters have to get insanely high levels to get anywhere on those feat trees, or does not have enough skill points to use those skill tricks from PHBII?

I don't want +ber-characters that can do everything, but it's frustrating for a player if all the roleplaying in the world to find a teacher and learn something new does not give you any skill points until you've gone out and bashed a few goblins to get a new level. Personally I'd wish 3rd edition D&D had done away with classes and levels entirely. Prestice classes are nice, but it means you the player have to plan ahead several levels and build up the character towards that goal regardless of what the character actually goes through in the interim... changing a character's focus around at mid-level can ruin a whole level progression. This enforces metagaming over roleplaying.

I "grew up" as a roleplayer with RP systems like GURPS, Warhammer, and World of Darkness... systems that place a much bigger role on skills that AD&D used to do, allowing characters to actually spend points on "fluff" skills like professions, knowledges, hobbies and the like without sacrificing their primary competence, and allow players to spend points dynamically and directly, whenever the character actually learns something without having to wait ages for a level-up. Don't get me wrong, the d20 skill system is great, mechanically, but D&D still woefully undervalues skills.

Well, outside of how you just effectively made the small difference that attributes added to skills even more useless then it already was, I don't see much wrong.

What's your point? Once characters go up in levels, the significance of attribute boni to skills compared to skill ranks spent decreases anyway.

I can't follow the argument "But if you give everyone more skill points, the rogue/bard/whatever would suddenly become irrelevant, because skill points is their holy "niche"!"

By that logic, shall we forbid any class or prestige class but rogues to have Tumble skill? Or Open Lock? Or sneak attacks? By now, tons of classes and PrC have sneak attacks or something similar. Perhaps we should forbid rogues to take any sort of Perform skills, because this cuts intothe bard's territory? And we should forbid Experts (from Unearthed Arcana) completely.

Oh hey, Wiz/Sorc/Cleric/Druid/Bard all have spellcasting powers, and in the case of Wiz/Sorc/Cleric the spell lists overlap in many places! Considering that all the Wiz and Sorc can do is cast spells, basically, if someone has reason to cry, it's a specialist wizard seeing all those new shiny classes like Duskblade, Warlock, Warmage, Archivist, etc etc...

Sorry, making a character useful or relevant to the group cannot mean demanding that you alone get some Special Ability that no-one else is allowed to have.


I know that the players in my group would love to have some more skill points to spent on "non-vital" skills, like i.e. the paladin on Knowledge (nobility) or the fighter on Knowledge (tactics) or a Craft skill, they simply can't afford to divert enough points into it to make it worthwhile. Even the bard rather spends ranks on Move Silently, Perform and Listen, although I try to run a campaign where knowledge skills are not a wasted commodity.

Unfortuantely, when I started the campaign, the d20 D&D v3.0 books had just come out and we were still too much "in awe" of the new system; we didn't dare to customize it to our own liking; that was in the days before stuff like d20 Modern and Unearthed Arcana. Although we upgraded to v3.5 and I have offered my players to take PrCs, so far none of them has taken one... With all the new books and options WotC keeps adding, like regional feats, flaws, more PrCs, new base classes, class substitution levels, racial variants, apprentice & mentor systems, and optional rules in the Unearthed Arcana like channeling, I've seen a lot of things I'd like to add to my game (and of course stuff I won't touch with a 10' pole), but it's almost impossible to change characters retroactively without upsetting things too much.

Back to the topic of skill points: What annoys me most is that Wizards and Sorcerers only get 2 skill points. With all other classes, the logic seems to be "If you have a lot of class skills, we'll give you a lot of skill points, too." But the wizard does have a lot of skills... he has all those knowledge skills, for example, and various d20 fantasy supplements keep adding more, like Knowledge (tactics), Knowledge (arcanobiology), or Knowledge (Necrology). Isn't the often-cited reason why the wizard is so terribly inept at anything but spellcasting that he's a pimply wimpy nerdy bookworm? The stereotype for the basic PHB wizard is a sage-type character. Bad BAB, only 1/3 good saves, few feats (and don't get me started on having class features like scribe scroll that actually decrease your XP when you use them!), lowest possible hit dice, lowest possible skill point allocation. Shouldn't a "bookworm" at least get some free bonus knowledge skill-boosting feats? At least something like the Forgotten Realms regional feat "Education" at first level?? Hello?

I've actually come across page at WotC website with two game designers (forgot their names) discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the various core classes, and actually pretending that the wizard had lots of skill points! Funnily enough in other classes with 2 skill points, that trait was listed under weaknesses, exceptfor the wizard, where it was listed under strengths... no doubt to boost the short list of wiz "strengths" a bit. Their logic was that 2+INT skill points means the wizard has plenty points to spend because every wizard naturally has a high INT, and that is why he doesn't need more skill points. I guess in their corner of the world no 1st level wizard has ever started play with an INT of only 14? Even if a wizard starts with INT 18, that only gives him 6 points... which is what the bard gets even without any potential INT bonus!

By the same logic I could demand that rogues don't get a good Reflex save... after all rogues usually have high DEX anyway. Why do clerics need a good Will save? They have a high WIS anyway. See my point?

"But," I hear you cry, "the wizard has full spellcasting! Spellcasting is so incredible powerful!" HOGWASH!! Yeah, my character feels really special when he's cast his handful of spells for the day and then has to trudge after the rest of the group like a fifth wheel.

Unless you regularly play in groups with level 15+ characters and lots of money and time to make all the pink little wands you can carry, arcane spellcasting isn't all that's cracked up to be. First of all, the cleric and druid get full spellcasting too, and look at all the shiny class features of the druid! Second, what other class depends on a mundane item for their primary class ability? A book that first needs to be filled with spells by expensive means and then can be stolen, destroyed, burned up or ruined under water unless you take even more expensive protective measures? Bleh.

If full spellcasting prevents you from learning anything else but flinging spells, why do we get Arcane Tricksters, Duskblades, Spellswords, and other PrCs that have no problem with combining full spellcasting with combat or skill focus?

Perhaps WotC game designers have realized that the PHB 3.5 wizard and sorcerer are no longer able to compete, and have decided to develop the arcane caster along archetype lines into separate spellcaster types, i.e. the Beguiler or the Warmage, which represent a high-powered version of a specialist wiz/sorcerer, but with A LOT more spells to burn and nifty extra powers, ultimately making the core class wizard specialist irrelevant.

Want to see a PrC that embodies exactly what I secretly imagined a wizard to be? (More, even, to be frank, because it's an urban PrC meant for Bards and Wizards and thus gets all the skills of both classes - personally I'd be happy with maybe 50% of them provided I'm allowed to take my pick.) Take a look at WotC's Cityscape supplement (Nov 2006), page 100, the Urban Savant PrC. Six shiny skill points, d6 hit die, 2/3 good saves, tons of extra feats at each level, and full spellcasting in light armor with no spell failure chance.


---
One things about skill DCs that bothers me is that some skills, like i.e. Listen, Bluff, Diplomacy, Tumble and Perform, have relatively low DCs to accomplish most tasks well, or these DCs are tied to an NPC's opposing skill roll, like Listen-vs-Move-silently, or Bluff-vs-Sense-motive. Beginning characters have at least a 50% chance to do most things, and at higher levels characters hardly need to roll unless you introduce steep modifiers.

On the other hand certain specialist skills like Open Lock and Use Magic Device (emulating a different race or abilities) start with DCs at 25 and go up to 40. Which means characters have to put a lot of ranks into these skills for many levels just to get into decent skill ranges one day to accomplish anything. Even taking 20 won't help your 3rd level rogue much if a lock has DC 35. D&D is supposed to be pseudo-medieval, but locks are state-of-the-art?

THe point is, for easy everyday situations with DCs of 5 or 10, you usually don't even roll. You only have to roll for high-risk situations, or during combat, and that's when just having +1 in a skill doesnt help you much.

Still, even if you increase skill points for every class, no character will be able to be great in everything, and max ranks ceiling for level still exists. I have no problem with a wizard having forgery as a class skill as long as there's a background story reason for it. For every point he puts into Forgery, that's one less skill point he can put anywhere else. *shrug* Hey, it works in GURPS.

I do admit that Viscount Einstrauss has a point, though, when he argues that if you upgrade PCs you have to upgrade monsters and NPCs too. But why is upgrading a system that offers too few skillpoints to begin with "cheesy"? Is it more unbalancing than WotC creating PC classes with all kinds of spell-like abilities usable AT WILL? Monsters without class levels already calculate skill points by monster dice not by any sort of class. Where's the problem?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

It's because, as stated before by someone else here, this way doesn't do it by a percentile. Rogues get gipped here because an extra 2 skillpoints effectively only raises their skillpoints by 25%. Compare that to the fighter, wizard, sorcerer, or cleric who suddenly has double. Even the bard, ranger, and monk are getting a 33% return. Rogues, who's single best ability is that they have the most skillpoints, are raising the very least under a 2 point blanket increase. So, statistically, you just awarded everyone else while punishing the rogue. Why?

I'm not saying other classes couldn't use some more skills. I'm saying the rogue should be significantly better at it, because it's their niche. You're taking away that "significant" part and just making it "a pretty decent bit".

As for the other thing about the rogue1/wizard thing working, it's because Able Learner makes every skill cost 1 to use, which is why that's so cheesy.

[Saph]

Also, the classes with the fewest skillpoints are usually full casters (wizard, cleric, sorcerer), and full casters don't need boosts. Having only 2 skillpoints per level is about the only weakness Clerics have - do you really want to make them even more powerful?

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

Is it more unbalancing than WotC creating PC classes with all kinds of spell-like abilities usable AT WILL?

PC classes like the Warlock? Yes, it is more unbalancing (even if it isn't at all), because the Warlock is majorly underpowered, not uber.

[Whamme]

Also, the classes with the fewest skillpoints are usually full casters (wizard, cleric, sorcerer), and full casters don't need boosts. Having only 2 skillpoints per level is about the only weakness Clerics have - do you really want to make them even more powerful?

- Saph

See, given Clerics and Wizards already break the game balance, I say go for it. There's no real balance to be lost, so why not tweak at will?

[Renegade Paladin]

I've been considering this myself. The subject came up in the discussion thread for OneWinged4ngel's Rebalanced Paladin on the WotC board. I think it sounds like a good idea; frankly, most skills aren't going to break anything.

Though I wouldn't just give two more to every class. Wizards can definitely do without, as can bards I think. I'm playing a human barbarian now with 15 INT (the rolled stat spread was insane) who has so many skill points that I've maxed every class skill except Handle Animal and Craft, so I don't especially think they need it.

I'd give the boost to fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, rogues, and possibly sorcerers. Of course, while I was at it I'd rebuild some of those or use someone else's rebuild, but that's another topic entirely.

[Anon-a-mouse]

Bards, rangers and rogues are already the weakest classes. Why on earth would you want make them proportionately weaker?

[Dark]

Isn't the often-cited reason why the wizard is so terribly inept at anything but spellcasting that he's a pimply wimpy nerdy bookworm?

Hmm, that made me think of restricted skill points. What about giving the wizard 2 skill points that can only be used on Knowledge skills?

This could be generalized: give everyone 2 restricted skill points per level (8 at 1st level, as usual), that can only be used on Knowledge, Craft, Profession, or Perform skills. Class and cross-class rules still apply normally. The number of restricted skill points is not affected by Intelligence either way.

This way, characters can pick up a number of minor background skills, without having to sacrifice primary adventuring skills to get them.

Some concerns about this change:

• Bards benefit unequally from this, since they can apply their restricted skill points directly to an important class skill (namely Perform).
• It allows adventurers to maintain full competence in two professions, in addition to their adventuring career. That's a bit unrealistic. On the other hand, they're not likely to use a feat on skill focus like an NPC expert would.
• It'll make it easier to get into prestige classes that are "balanced" by requiring ranks in obscure knowledge skills.
• It'll make it easier to get synergy bonuses; this also encourages players to put their restricted skill points into synergy skills rather than into genuine background skills.

Giving only 1 restricted skill point instead of 2 would help with most of these concerns, but it would magnify the bard thing.