Nixing Class Skills

[KobaldMinion#32]

I've been thinking about this, but I thought I'd bring it up to you guys for advisement. I've been thinking about getting rid of class skills when I run games, since I think the codified list of "this is all that you can be good at (Unless you burn a feat/background)" is a pretty stupid idea. For example, I had a character, who was a brawler fighter, multiclassed at first level to monk, not to get the Improved unarmed attack, but to get access to thievery, since that worked with his background (Former soldier, fell on hard times, robbed a house, got thrown in jail, and tried to break out). It ended up being a really fun character to play, but I can't help but feel that my choices were made for me, by the need to be trained in thievery (and the DM didn't use backgrounds).

I can see the feeling that a rogue should be better at picking locks, ect than a fighter would, or a wizard, but I think that is already built in, with the fact that a rouge relies on Dex, where for a fighter, Dex is their secondary-stat, at best.

What do you guys think? Am I missing something really important, or should this be an ok houserule?

[Ashdate]

I dunno, this sounds like an "optimization" issue more than anything; as you mention, the system does have ways (particularly, feats) to give characters training in a skill, but there are also backgrounds (which can add skills like Thievery to one's class list) that perhaps would have worked nicely, without the need to houserule in something.

If the question was "why should I have to sacrifice a big portion of my character's abilities in order to get this minor thing" (a situation that sometimes comes up), perhaps I would be sympathetic. But "giving up" a background or feat to get the skill? That doesn't seem particularly onerous, given that feats are plentiful, and backgrounds are one of the more neglected parts of the game, especially after the introduction of themes.

That said, if you really want to open up some possibilities to your game, consider allowing your players to take either/or skill training, or skill focus as a free feat at 1st level. If you were to do this, I would get the players to work together so they don't end up with two characters with +awesome in Diplomacy, but no one who can reliably make an Insight check.

[KobaldMinion#32]

I guess my feeling is that the system mechanics reward a certain type of character, whose fluff fits in with the expectation of that class, whereas an equally legitimate character concept would have more of a penalty, if it didn't fit with the expectations of that class. Albeit this is rather minor, since often times the solution is multiclassing, which provides both a skill, as well as a combat viable mechanic, but it does seem like 4e is fighting against itself, by in many ways, divorcing mechanics and flavor, and in other ways, encouraging those who abide by X mechanics to have Y flavor.

To me, it's not even that it's difficult for someone who wants a flavor that is not as directly supported by the class (as I said, it's not that big a deal, with multiclassing and all), but it's that the inherent disparity between one concept requiring more mechanical (i.e. put more feats and the like into it) commitment than another makes it so that players will tend to, if they don't have a particular flavor in mind that they want to make work, just go along with a variation on the same old theme. I want to have more variety than that, and divorcing skill choice from class choice seems like it should move towards that goal, just I don't know if there's anything I'm missing, that makes this a bad Idea.

[Binks]

I'm not sure it's really needed. Playing with backgrounds (even a limited selection of backgrounds) allows all the flexibility with skills that most any character should need. Your 'fighter who knows thievery', for example, is just a fighter with one of the many city thief backgrounds attached, no issues there.

I don't really think there's any harm in allowing all skills to be class skills (as almost every class has the skills its good at as class skills anyway) but there doesn't seem to be much gain unless you're always building really obscure concepts and refuse to use backgrounds. I have not once run into a situation where my concept really needed a skill and didn't need or want any of the normal means to get that skill (background or multiclass).

The only worry I would have is a lack of diversification. You're going to see pretty much every PC having Stealth and Perception if you allow them to take any class skill, as those are the 2 big combat skills. Expect a lot more overlap in skills and a lot of 'why doesn't anyone have training in that?' situations for the more obscure ones that would normally be chosen because they're the best option on a PC's list.

In short, it won't make anyone OP, but it will probably make for a less diverse and less fun party, which seems to be the opposite of what you're trying to achieve. Just allow backgrounds instead, as they benefit people trying for stereotypes and oddballs equally (stereotypes get an untyped +2 to what they're supposed to be good at, oddballs get a new class skill to fit their story).

[ghost_warlock]

The only worry I would have is a lack of diversification. You're going to see pretty much every PC having Stealth and Perception if you allow them to take any class skill, as those are the 2 big combat skills. Expect a lot more overlap in skills and a lot of 'why doesn't anyone have training in that?' situations for the more obscure ones that would normally be chosen because they're the best option on a PC's list.

My group already has problems with a lack of skill diversification even with eight players. Most of the time our background slots are used to base hit points off a good stat for the character, rather than Con, to the point where it's quite rare to see a character that does use a background to expand skill selection. Aside from Intimidate, which fighters tend to take simply for a lack of other options, most of the Cha-based skills are usually neglected, particularly Streetwise, as are Insight, Nature, History, and Dungeoneering.

People do occasionally go out of their way to get training in Perception, but only if they already have a good Wisdom; otherwise there's really no point in training the skill. It's rare that a character trains Stealth if they're not an assassin, rogue, ranger, or other light-armor-wearing class with a high Dex. Without class support, or investing a chunk of feats to it which would usually be better spent elsewhere, there's not really much actual combat utility available with Stealth, especially for characters that wear heavy armor.

I prefer Pathfinder's method of handling skills much better - instead of limiting a character's choice of starting skills to a handful of skills based on class, characters can choose training in any skill and classes provide a small bonus to a skill if it's one associated with the class. It incentivises choosing class skills over cross-class skills for the higher skill check, but doesn't railroad players into choosing skills from a list if they'd really rather diversify or build a character to fit their own concept rather than the designers.

[Dimers]

I think the idea is a good one, for just the same reasons as the OP. Sometimes I don't want to play a fighter who has been jammed into the same mold as other fighters. Unlike Binks and Ghost_Warlock, I would expect character builds to become more diverse, not less, if the players could freely select whatever fits the character's background. Many people do emphasize character concept over optimization when it doesn't hurt TOO much ... some, even if it's disastrous for optimization. (And skill picks would never be disastrous.)

I think Diplomacy, Bluff, Insight, Stealth, Athletics and Perception are all things that nearly anyone in any setting could develop. The other skills might be more limited according to how the character grew up, but they're still not anything that should be limited by class. The only exception I can imagine is Arcana, in which people who use supernatural powers would obviously have an edge over people who don't.

[Shatteredtower]

From the sound of it, backgrounds cover most of the cases you have in mind. If that's not flexible enough, you could adjust things so that two skills a character knows come the open list.

Then again, if people both loathe to "waste" feats on the likes of Skill Training and complain about not getting the skills they want, that just sounds like they want something for nothing. The feats can't be a waste if they want what they provide. Still, if you'll enjoy the game more for waiving the requirement, go ahead.

As for diversification, people need to learn that the 5-point difference is not the end of the world. Most skill checks are designed to give anyone in the party decent odds of passing them. Sometimes you have to point out the things an untrained character can accomplish once they've got enough levels under their belt, even when dealing with a dump stat.

[Binks]

My group already has problems with a lack of skill diversification even with eight players. Most of the time our background slots are used to base hit points off a good stat for the character, rather than Con, to the point where it's quite rare to see a character that does use a background to expand skill selection.

*Goes and searched compendium*
Huh. Did not know those even existed. I'm very surprised you're using them, as they're extremely weak backgrounds unless you're playing low heroic tier and trying to be super optimized. I would much rather have a +2 to a skill or another skill selection than a few extra hp, but I do play paragon where that few hp doesn't matter.

It really depends on your players. If they are constantly creating character concepts at a detailed enough level to know which skill they want trained before hitting the books then there's a chance this will improve the diversity and fun of your characters. Otherwise you're going to have a lot of PCs picking classes, races, basic roles, then going through a list of every skill and picking the ones they want the most. And in that case being able to see others and hide from them usually tend to rank a little higher on most people's want lists than something more situational like streetwise or dungeoneering.

Do note, however, that not being trained in something does not equate to being bad at it. Plenty of skills have powerful untrained uses and anyone with a decent ability score can use them well. It's easy to get caught up in the 'I need to maximize this skill in order to fit my backstory!' rush and not even notice that you already have a pretty high skill in something that doesn't need training. I've played plenty of observant characters who were untrained in perception and got by with just a high wis score and a tendency to roll more perception checks than everyone else. Training isn't the end-all be-all of skill usage.

I'm still of the opinion that backstories do enough to diversity skill choices and that this is more likely to backfire than work well but it's possible your players will make it work well. I just don't really see the need for this sort of drastic change really, as it seems like something that would only be needed in very particular circumstances. You pretty much have to have a player who wants to run a character of a certain class but have at least 2 skills outside of that class for backstory reasons without multi-classing and is unwilling to request a special pardon from the GM. If that's a problem for your group then go ahead and make the change, else it seems like too much of a risk to me (and there is a risk here, otherwise we wouldn't have this thread at all).

[Ashdate]

If your group is deliberately choosing backgrounds and feats that suit optimization rather than their "character concept", then I don't really have any sympathy about them lacking a particular skill. I'm not saying they're "doing it wrong" (4e absolutely rewards optimization), but rather, if you buy a house without a roof, you shouldn't complain when it occasionally rains.

I do get the impression now that the OPs problem isn't optimization per-say, but rather feeling like picking a particular class railroads you into a particular archtype/trope. I would suggest that freeing up "class skills" is "low-hanging fruit" in regards solving that problem however. The amount of options this would "open up" seem rather trivial to me, especially given the numerous options available to "fix" the problem of "missing" a particular skill.

That said, I doubt it would break anything.

[Dimers]

people need to learn that the 5-point difference is not the end of the world.

Do note, however, that not being trained in something does not equate to being bad at it.

Oh, right. I meant to say that too. As is generally true in human endeavor, being willing to try (rolling a mere d20+2 instead of not rolling at all) is a major determinant of success, quite possibly the most important one.

[ghost_warlock]

Unlike Binks and Ghost_Warlock, I would expect character builds to become more diverse, not less, if the players could freely select whatever fits the character's background.

That's pretty much what I said.

*Goes and searched compendium*
Huh. Did not know those even existed. I'm very surprised you're using them, as they're extremely weak backgrounds unless you're playing low heroic tier and trying to be super optimized. I would much rather have a +2 to a skill or another skill selection than a few extra hp, but I do play paragon where that few hp doesn't matter.

Sadly, for the last couple years the majority of my gaming has been D&D Encounters, where you start at 1st, end at 3rd, and then make a new character. Skills other than Athletics rarely come into the equation and the extra 4-8 hp from an hp-based background is significant.

Oh, and as far as optimization goes, one of the guys in my group chose a background to get Insight as a class skill, and then didn't even train Insight. Also, he's playing a hybrid Cleric|Warlord and spent his 1st level feat on light shield proficiency. Yeah, got some real geniuses in my group...

Oh, right. I meant to say that too. As is generally true in human endeavor, being willing to try (rolling a mere d20+2 instead of not rolling at all) is a major determinant of success, quite possibly the most important one.

To be fair, it does make a big difference during a structured skill challenge. Nobody wants to be That Guy that rolls an untrained skill, fails, and ends up causing the skill challenge to fail for the whole party.

[Kurald Galain]

Huh. Did not know those even existed. I'm very surprised you're using them, as they're extremely weak backgrounds unless you're playing low heroic tier and trying to be super optimized.

Statistically, a bunch of extra HP is much better than +2 to some skill. It should be no surprise that on the WOTC forums these backgrounds are considered the default choice for literally every character that's not focused on constitution, and are commonly banned by DMs for being overpowered.

Likewise, spending a feat on +5 hit points is decent if not stellar; spending one on +3 to a skill is a trap.

[Leolo]

What kind of statistic should this be? I don't think that such a thing exists.

And there is a good reason for this: +2 on a skill could save the character more than just about 5 HP. But how often they do it depends on the skill, the dm, the story, the charakter, the opponents and many more. And vice versa - if you really will need the 5 HP in your next fight is unknown.

If you really want a simple math example: a level 5 charakter with con 10 and his highest attribute 20 would gain 5 extra HP, plus 1 extra HP per HS used.

Let's say this is 10HP per day.

Being ambushed or to surprise your opponents can easily trump this. Same with falling damage or traps. I have even seen optimized wizards with flying phantom steeds on heroic level using a different background that let them reroll an arcana check (much more powerfull)

[Shatteredtower]

Statistically, a bunch of extra HP is much better than +2 to some skill.

Of course, that's a meaningless statistic, relevant more to static one-shots centered on combat than to dynamic campaigns with a wider focus.

Likewise, spending a feat on +5 hit points is decent if not stellar; spending one on +3 to a skill is a trap.

The real trap is the sort of DM that treats Skill Focus as one.

[Binks]

Sadly, for the last couple years the majority of my gaming has been D&D Encounters, where you start at 1st, end at 3rd, and then make a new character. Skills other than Athletics rarely come into the equation and the extra 4-8 hp from an hp-based background is significant.

Ah, that explains it. In a heavily combat oriented and very low level environment (like encounters) a handful of hp is worth FAR more than a new skill. Outside of that (and maybe optimization) you're trading a chance to diversify your character and establish who they are and what they're good at for a free toughness feat (assuming you're not con based already). Yay? Toughness is not good enough in most situations that I would waste a feat on it, so I'm not sure why I would want to waste something far more valuable (by simple virtue of being 1 time only and non-re-trainable) for it instead. But to each their own.

If you are going to nix the class skill list I would recommend trying one thing. Tell your players no more class skill list, then compare the list of skills they train to the skill list for that class and see how many went off-base. It would be interesting to know how many of your players pick cross-class skills when given the choice.

Do note, as a warning, that making all skills class skills nixes one part of backgrounds. You're either going to want to ban them entirely or accept that they'll be used for either extra hp or an untyped +2 to a skill. Personally I don't see that as a problem, but fair warning.

[Kurald Galain]

Ah, that explains it. In a heavily combat oriented and very low level environment (like encounters) a handful of hp is worth FAR more than a new skill.

Not just encounters: all printed 4E modules are combat-heavy, and numerous DMs take their cues from there. +8 HP is still useful at paragon tier. I don't see how adding a single skill does anything to diversify your character; if you want diversity, you'd need an interesting theme or background, not a skill. Most characters don't use a lot of skills anyway: the best strategy is to focus on one or two skills (frequently arcana, perception, or bluff) and rely on your teammates for the rest.

Toughness is not good enough in most situations that I would waste a feat on it,

True enough, but it is still a lot better than Skill Training or Skill Focus.

backgrounds. You're either going to want to ban them entirely or accept that they'll be used for either extra hp

Most players (in my area and on WOTC forums) already do that anyway. That's not heavy optimization either, that's just picking the best background out of a bunch of mediocre ones.