Talk:Skill-Monkey, ToP (3.5e Class)

Thoughts
I've been trying to figure out how I feel about this class for a bit now. I don't particularly like it, but it's not unbalanced or bad in any mechanical way I can see. The training and specialization abilities are interesting, but don't seem like enough to build a class around. It depends almost entirely on skills to make its way through the world, which would probably work reasonably well until the high levels where the skill abilities fall off. But it doesn't have any more skills than a fighter, barbarian, or rogue would, it just has different combinations and expanded flexibility in exchange for the (in some cases crap) combat options that the other classes would provide. In a lot of ways it reminds me of a fighter, just with an even less well defined niche. Which I guess is my problem with it, there's no niche here and no conceptual space for it to live in. That's probably the whole point of the class though, being able to do anything they need to, I just don't care for it so much.

Anyway, skill abilities do drop off in the higher levels, and this class could use something up there to compensate. It's not a huge deal, they just get less than the fighter does for the end game and that's pretty weak. I have no idea what to suggest though, since the class doesn't have any progression or theme for me to work from. Loosening the restrictions on the bonus feats might help though, and this is actually a class that probably wouldn't get too diluted by additional scaling skill feats if you wanted to add a few of those.

Also, it's worth noting that there are no non-scaling skill feats. Skill as a feat type refers to the scaling feats by definition, the non-scaling ones are all just general. Could make a new feat type, like Prowess or something, but I'm not sure it would be useful outside of this specific case. Otherwise you probably need to say that they can only select bonus feats with that require skill ranks as prerequisites instead, if you're not going to open it up anyway. - Tarkisflux Talk 20:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I definitively realize that by 8th level it gets really boring. I'm thinking about adding a path system similar to the Agent's specialization so that you can gain abilities built around certain niches.  Could that work do you think?--ParakeeTalk 21:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It might, though each of those make me wonder why the class isn't just built around some combination of them already and narrowed slightly (yes, that is probably my bias showing). Or you could throw a grab-bag of stuff at him, like the Rogue's special abilities (with a wider selection) or the Tome Soldier's attack and stance selections, just let them pick up whatever they want from the list. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Edit - Ghostwheel seemed to think that the path setup there worked well for a jack of all trades character, so it's probably worth looking into at least. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Skilled Combatant
Wondering a few things about the design intent with the ability. Like, why the low damage? And, why the -5 to hit instead of a -3 to put them on par with a full BAB character? - Tarkisflux Talk 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This ability is supplemental. I want this to be a skill class with just in case combat powers.  I might add your ability modifier attached to the skill to the damage (actually Im pretty sure I'm gonna do that), but don't want to be on the same level as someone who actually trains in combat.  And unless your using tome of war the actual bab doesn't do that.  I am willing to change it a little bit.--ParakeeTalk 22:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * No, if the intent is supplemental, keep it as is. It starts off as a worse roll than a wizard hitting something (attribute bonuses not withstanding), but it doesn't stay that way and is probably fine. It's not bad, just sub-optimal, and since that's the intent it's probably in the right place. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)