There's no way to balance it except for going for Wasteland 2-esque skill bloat. I sure hope you enjoy having three different skills dedicated to the sole task of opening a container. I don't.
Still wrong. There are three ways you can handle it:
1. Making harder skill checks (so high skills matter less)
2. Handing out less skill points to begin with (frankly the easiest way)
3. Adding more skills. Which is the oddball solution you claim is the only one for some reason.
Besides, PoE already solves many of these problems. Instead of picking dialogue skills and simply getting to see all the content, dialogue options are tied to attributes. And since you can't max them all, and your choice of attributes also depends on your combat build, there's no way you can see all the content in a single playthrough. Stealth is cumulative and uses the party's total stealth skill, Athletics and Survival have a benefit for each individual character that has those skills, etc.
But tying dialogue options to attributes as a solution to C&C in character creation would not be needed if you do not shower the party with skill points to begin with. Duh.
The problem is that there are so many games which handles this badly (NWN2, Wasteland 2 from what I hear, I haven't gotten to playing it yet) that people without imagination like you cannot envision a game which does not shower the party with skill points and allows them to solve every situation. Maybe there are also developers who cater to Bethestards and their ilk who actually think that you should be able to do everything in one playthrough.
It's pretty hard because these games typically have a stat that increases the amount of skill points you get (usually INT). Personally I wouldn't have a stat like that (even in a single-character RPG) because it's a no-brainer option (of course you want more skills), but that's how its done.
It's just another thing to balance. I can see how games have failed to do this properly, but in theory this wouldn't be hard to balance. Just because people have had stupid solutions in the past does not mean you can't come up with better ones in the future.
I don't understand. You want to tie skills to classes? Also, see my previous point about skill bloat.
No. It was just an example. Sorry if I got too specific and confused you.
Let's be more abstract: imagine a game with 10 different skills. Your party can have a maximum of 4 characters. Now suppose you maxed-out characters are only able to reach the apex of one of the skills by the end of the game, with a (possibly very) small amount of points in other skills. Tada! Skill bloat avoided. This would be analogous to single-character games where you cannot max out all skills.
Again, if the game were a survival sim style deal, I would agree. However, a combat focused high fantasy title should never penalize the player for farming gold. Let the player get filthy stinking rich at the end game, I say. So long as no barter skills or other such character development choices are subverted, whats the problem? I am not saying this should happen immediately but around the games final act its ok. If the game must find money sinks, I say keep them optional (stronghold, etc).
Also, penalizing the player by decreasing weapon durability (thereby charging them x gold for y sword swings) just seems wrong in this kinda setting. Now, if this were a grittier setting that had Oregon Trail like gameplay (Realm of Arkania, etc), then the weapon durability mechanic would fit. Ultimately, I think its a mistake to take a one size fits all approach to crpg titles. Not all mechanics or design approaches make sense in all titles.
The problem with this is that you seem to think that being rich means "having lots of spare gold", while I think of rich as "buying expensive stuff". Merely having a number by the side of a gold coin in my inventory does not make me feel rich personally.
I absolutely think that repairing makes sense as a skill, just as haggle/trading does. Both are skills which would increase your surplus when out spelunking and killing monsters - and repairing would also greatly help player characters deep in enemy hostile territory, with no professional blacksmith close by. I support earning gold as a viable, unique and rewarding distinct path through an RPG and would not want for it to just be an inevitable side-effect of progressing through the game.
You ARE right in that different design approaches fit different games. But again we have a difference in emphasis, where I think it's generally more fun to squeeze in as many game mechanics as possible and have more C&C and less railroading. For example with regards to getting rich, you should not inevitably be able to buy everything (in which case a wealth meter would be fairly pointless), but you should only be truly rich and be able to buy anything you want if you have maxed out your party in skills which save you money, such as repairing and trading.
