Opinions on my house rules

[Prak]

In my continuing effort to present one thread that covers every possible future iteration of the same sort of thread, I'm starting one for when people want advice on a house rule they're considering.

So my group, or the most vocal member of it, likes the idea of the Tome skill point rule (cross class skills cost one point, but have half max ranks) but thinks the polarity should go the other way (double cost but full max). His reasoning being that cross class should represent skills outside of discipline that are harder to learn, but still masterable with dedication.

This of course hoses organic characters still (and even more).

But I had a thought for a compromise (Which I'll run by him when he's online again), and am curious about opinions on.

What if, up to half-max, cross class cost one point/rank, and then between half and full max, cost 2 pts/rank? Yes, it still kind of hoses organic characters, but only if they go for mastery. Short of that, it's identical to the Tome rule.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The one rule that sticks out from Conan d20 that I think should be standard is that skill points from a high intelligence aren't subject to cross-class penalties of any sort. I'm not really down with class skill lists at all, but that seems a happy compromise.

[deaddmwalking]

Personally, I think getting rid of class versus cross-class skills is an unmitigated improvement in the game. But if you were to insist on keeping them, your proposed 'compromise' (cost the same as class skills up to 1/2 maximum ranks, two skill points if you exceed half maximum ranks) is a better option than the Tome (where maxing the skill is impossible).

To avoid 'hosing' organic characters, you might want to consider treating a skill as a class skill if it is a class skill for any of their classes and letting them have the skill points back if they take a class that grants the skill.

For example, if I were a Fighter 1, I could buy 4 ranks in Diplomacy. The first 2 ranks would cost 1 point each (total 2 points) and the next 2 ranks would cost 2 points each (total 4 points). It would cost me 6 skill points to gain 4 ranks in diplomacy.

If I take a level of Rogue at 2nd level, Diplomacy becomes a class skill. At that point, instead of 4 points for 2 ranks in Diplomacy, I can get two points back.

[Kaelik]

Personally, I think getting rid of class versus cross-class skills is an unmitigated improvement in the game.

Thisish. Skills should be things that everyone chooses between that aren't necessary for anyone. You would need to rewrite some of the skills, but you need to do that anyway.

For example, UMD just could not work under this system, but that should be a Rogue Class Feature anyway, not a skill.

[Prak]

Yeah, I was thinking about something like the retroactive refund thing, Dead.

Neb, the int skill point thing gets a bit book keeping heavy, but maybe.

[Seerow]

Neb, the int skill point thing gets a bit book keeping heavy, but maybe.

As an alternative, maybe let the player pick a class skill for every point of int mod (bonus pick for humans). Same basic principle, but less book keeping. May penalize organic characters though (since most characters aren't going to gain +1 int mod in game to choose a new class skill)

[Roog]

So my group, or the most vocal member of it, likes the idea of the Tome skill point rule (cross class skills cost one point, but have half max ranks) but thinks the polarity should go the other way (double cost but full max). His reasoning being that cross class should represent skills outside of discipline that are harder to learn, but still masterable with dedication.

That sounds like he may plan to use the rule, and flush away his skill points. Your alternative solution still lets him do that.

Maybe you could use the regular tome rules for skills, but gave players some flexibility over which skills are class skills. For example, allowing them to choose a small number of extra skills to be added to their list of class skills, that they have "dedicated themselves to mastering". That could give the flavour he wants without penalising him for it.

[JonSetanta]

You shouldn't use class skills at all. Everyone gets access to every skill, all is good.

[Voss]

You shouldn't use class skills at all. Everyone gets access to every skill, all is good.

Indeed.
Oh noes, the rogue can identify obscure aberrations. The horror

[JonSetanta]

Gasp! The Fighter took Diplomacy and UMD. Game over. Everyone go home.

[radthemad4]

I'm pretty happy with Pathfinder's approach to this. You can take ranks in anything, but you get a +3 to class skills. You can alter the +3 to something else (possibly make it scale with level of the class the skill is a class skill of, so you get a smaller bonus in say, UMD if you have only one level of a class for which it's a class skill) depending on how much you want something being a class skill to matter.

[OgreBattle]

Why have skill points instead of skill proficiencies?

[shadzar]

so you want to use the Tome method, then after it runs out double point costs? only way to find out if it works is to try it.

i have to ask though, why did it stop at half-max in the first place?

[Username17]

Double cost ranks shits on people who take classes in the wrong order. Cross classed maximums don't. I have no idea why someone would think that it was a good idea to make the order of classes you take be a minmaxxable thing.

-Username17

[Zaranthan]

I have no idea why someone would think that it was a good idea to make the order of classes you take be a minmaxxable thing.

I would lay dollars to donuts this didn't even occur to anybody before 3E went to print. Why they didn't fix it in UA is beyond me, because it was certainly evident by then.

[Voss]

I have no idea why someone would think that it was a good idea to make the order of classes you take be a minmaxxable thing.

I would lay dollars to donuts this didn't even occur to anybody before 3E went to print. Why they didn't fix it in UA is beyond me, because it was certainly evident by then.

You'd lose that bet, since they kept it from 3.0 to 3.5. By 3.5 they knew. Fuck knows people bitched about it enough- no need to wait until UA, of all the pieces of shit they printed.

[Emerald]

Why have skill points instead of skill proficiencies?

Yeah, that definitely seems like a better approach than fiddling with cross-class point costs. Just have basic proficiency give a [1/2 level + 1] bonus to checks, focused proficiency give a [level + 3] bonus to checks, and only allow people to take focused proficiency for class skills.

[JonSetanta]

I never thought Pathfinder would change the skill setup. Huh. That works fine.

[Mask_De_H]

Why have skill points instead of skill proficiencies?

Yeah, that definitely seems like a better approach than fiddling with cross-class point costs. Just have basic proficiency give a [1/2 level + 1] bonus to checks, focused proficiency give a [level + 3] bonus to checks, and only allow people to take focused proficiency for class skills.

I like that a lot.

Weird question, primarily PF focused: if spellcasting progression continued as normal, would it make sense to condense the class features into ten levels and just play E10? Also, how fucked would things get if I gave every class full BAB and gave fighting men extra attacks at level breakpoints instead?

[ubernoob]

Why have skill points instead of skill proficiencies?

Yeah, that definitely seems like a better approach than fiddling with cross-class point costs. Just have basic proficiency give a [1/2 level + 1] bonus to checks, focused proficiency give a [level + 3] bonus to checks, and only allow people to take focused proficiency for class skills.

I like that a lot.

Weird question, primarily PF focused: if spellcasting progression continued as normal, would it make sense to condense the class features into ten levels and just play E10? Also, how fucked would things get if I gave every class full BAB and gave fighting men extra attacks at level breakpoints instead?

Extra like, beyond iterative attacks? The problem with sword classes has never been that they can't deal enough damage to kill a foe. That was never the problem. Or do you mean remove iteratives for everyone except sword classes and give other classes a small bonus to hit that they don't care about on their single attack? Because that sounds retarded.

[Mask_De_H]

Nah, I mean divvying out iteratives at the same relative level they would get them by twenty but working off everyone's BAB equaling their level (or possibly twice level, have to work that out). It's collapsing the current system and reworking it to fit the new BAB paradigm.

For example: a level 10 fighty man would have four attacks at either 10/5/5/5 or 20/15/15/15, Tome style. A level 10 caster would have two attacks at 10/5 or 20/15.

Fighting men get things to care about by all becoming (at least) Bard casters or something.

[Cyberzombie]

You shouldn't use class skills at all. Everyone gets access to every skill, all is good.

This.

I never saw the purpose of class skills in the first place except as another means to keep the fighter down. Not only do you get 2 skill points per level, but you also can't even spend them on anything useful without getting hosed again.

[Ice9]

I'm on the "no such thing as class skills" bandwagon as well. If you put points in it, then it's a skill for you. If UMD is too good this way, then make it weaker, and make a feat or class feature to get the full functionality. Personally, I'm not even sure it is too good (staff CL abuse aside); more that some skills like Jump are too crappy.

Diplomacy - either you change the rules to be not completely broken (in which case letting everyone take it is fine), or you don't and the game is fucked anyway when somebody uses it.

I actually like the Pathfinder skills, to some extent. Perception is kind of a god-skill now; I would maybe break it into Notice and Search. But Stealth, Acrobatics - those are good, on par with Diplomacy or Bluff. Linguistics including Forgery is nice. They certainly didn't fix everything - Swim is still floating out there being terrible, for example - but it's an improvement. I would actually go even farther - not quite to 4E levels of condensed, but close.

[ubernoob]

Nah, I mean divvying out iteratives at the same relative level they would get them by twenty but working off everyone's BAB equaling their level (or possibly twice level, have to work that out). It's collapsing the current system and reworking it to fit the new BAB paradigm.

For example: a level 10 fighty man would have four attacks at either 10/5/5/5 or 20/15/15/15, Tome style. A level 10 caster would have two attacks at 10/5 or 20/15.

Fighting men get things to care about by all becoming (at least) Bard casters or something.

Under TOME, a +10 BAB guy at level 10 gets his base attack sequence at 10/5. A level ten wizard guy gets one attack at +5 (hasn't hit +6 BAB, so no iterative). Your example implies that you are just doubling the attacks of everyone for no reason? Ignore haste/TWF/etc for the purpose of this discussion. It will just make things more difficult to communicate.

[Mask_De_H]

Okay, this might be a better way to put it: use the standard class table progression, but you start at 2nd level and every level up counts for two levels (so my 2nd would be ECL 4th, my 3rd would be ECL 6, etc). The spells cap at 5th or 6th because that's where shit gets crazy. Everyone has full BAB progression and the Good/Medium/Poor distinction determines how many iterative attacks you get.

Does that make more sense?