He's also right in that losing a level of spellcasting is never worth it unless you get something amazing. (I would argue Fatespinner 5 is sufficiently amazing, i think it might be the only thing i'd argue for).
I prefer to play without in/out of class skills, because i think theyre silly. Thats actually how i read it in 3e too, and really think that interpretation is superior for sense reasons (also, some of the class skill lists have obvious holes, like Fighters not having bluff or sense motive despite combat uses, and not having spot or listen, which really everyone should have). Note 3.5 removes exclusive skills entirely, they don't exist anymore (a change i agree with).
To get all the skills with in-class max ranks, rogue + expert is probably sufficient, and expert is totally SRD (DMG, NPC class. Perfectly cromulent, heck, i've taken it).
no subject
He's also right in that losing a level of spellcasting is never worth it unless you get something amazing. (I would argue Fatespinner 5 is sufficiently amazing, i think it might be the only thing i'd argue for).
I prefer to play without in/out of class skills, because i think theyre silly. Thats actually how i read it in 3e too, and really think that interpretation is superior for sense reasons (also, some of the class skill lists have obvious holes, like Fighters not having bluff or sense motive despite combat uses, and not having spot or listen, which really everyone should have). Note 3.5 removes exclusive skills entirely, they don't exist anymore (a change i agree with).
To get all the skills with in-class max ranks, rogue + expert is probably sufficient, and expert is totally SRD (DMG, NPC class. Perfectly cromulent, heck, i've taken it).