Hi all, for the past couple of weeks I've been working on a supplement for 2E that's a compilation/revision of the later parts of 2E - the Complete books, Dragon content, and some of the Player's Option stuff (Skills and Powers).

Basically its a rebuilt Skills & Powers with much of the crazy significantly ramped down - more balanced, and also almost wholly compatible with the rest of the Complete system. No subabilities, but I've meddled with and then included a number of kits, proficiencies and other stuff from the Completes as well, largely tinkering with these where a kit from handbook A would be improved (IMHO) by integrating a proficiency or other rule from handbook B.

All this in under 50 pages so far, albeit I haven't done every class.

Welcome any thoughts or feedback - balance of abilities? Obviously wrong bonus NWPs? Other stuff I should have included?

Link is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E7mopavxHSxFb5lJi_7IVYi2hS3q3XF_hybPe1XMfvs/pub

Onteresting! Give me some time to digest, I look forward to this.

Quick clarification: are you trying to integrate the PO series, or just PO: Skills & Powers through recosting CPs?

I personally think that recosting things from CPs back into WP/NWPs might be a challenge, but definitely worth it. That should help integrate it along the rest of the Complete series (sans Psionics). Have you thought of pulling out kits as their own specialty classes and not overlayed atop PHB optional classes (i.e. Bard, Ranger)?

Thought you might be interested
If I summarize what's there so far it might answer the question.
-class and race writeups using character points (CPs), adapted from skills and powers
-traits and disadvantages from Skills and Powers
-proficiency checks from Skills and Powers
-class-specific 'kits' from the Complete books
-a number of proficiencies from the Complete Books

Some of the Fighter class abilities which can be bought with CPs have an optional note letting these be purchased with NWPs instead - partly because I'm trying to make CPs optional and partly because Dragon #257 where they came from had that guideline. A lot of the time I've gone with CPs rather than 'slots' because that's good for letting player's 'sell off' some class features, and as I've kept CPs to work with a simplified S&P proficiency check system, although that's also optional.

On kits as specialty classes - The kits vary but its a selection of those I particularly liked or particularly wanted to tinker with. They vary between very slight class modification and providing an extensive class rebuild ("Lone Wolf" for thief being maybe the most extreme). Not quite sure what you had in mind here, open to ideas.

As far as the balance of Complete and Player's Option goes in the thing's makeup, as written its about 50% S&P, 50% Complete but the whole is much more compatible with the Complete series. It looks "S&P heavy" but largely because S&P needed heavy rewriting - most of the Completes on the other hand should just plug in. For instance, Fighter has an S&P writeup that's totally revised and recosted from S&P, while Bard kits are pretty much "go see complete bard".
I haven't made any attempt to touch Combat and Tactics (aside from using the Complete Fighter combat moves system that it reproduces almost exactly), or Spells and Magic, though. Bias on my part, I suppose.

My first comment is for the homogenization of the stat modifier table. I used to think of that as a great necessary step in innovation, especially around 3e's entrance. Over the years I have come to reassess that integrated mechanics can bring more problems than I care to deal with.

Not all stats are created equal, nor does each stat facet work well on an equalized modifier rate. Sometimes discrete mechanics work better because the separation allows faster (and dare I say it, safer?) modification of material. When things are integrated, each lever pulled cascades unintended consequences down the line.

And then you get WotC levels of mastery where you can calculate to a gnat's ass the exact stat value you need for cascading effects. Whereas multi-mod values within stats, and varying stat mod progressions, tends to throw point buy valuations into higher flux. Throw in campaign adjustments and min/maxing becomes a less fruitful mini-game. (Though there was 2e min/maxing it nowhere had the same level of returns for system mastery investment, especially since so much was modular or expected to be easily and discretely modified.)

As for CPs, I'll come back to that. I think people forget a lot of the restrictions PO:S&P actually had. For example, even though Priests could get one weapon specialization from CP, it didn't kick in until level 5. A lot of those points were to buy up spheres, which depending on the campaign could be huge as priests had a large and readily available list of spells. Also most CPs elsewhere had to roll over into NWPs. The big CP challenge was costing, especially advantages/disadvantages (merit/flaws) — but those are notorious in every game system.

Ah well I should note, the bonus table listed in there to apply solely to calculating proficiency scores (though that may not be clear).
Essentially my thing here is just a supplement so in every other particular, normal ability score modifiers (to-hit, to-damage, AC, reaction adjustments, hit points, etc. etc.) are meant to apply - pretty much exactly as in the 2E PHB.
Mostly due to laziness on my part though I agree with a goodly portion of what you say. (Its a crazy mess of subsystems but for the most part each subsystem at least does what its supposed to, and inherits the ability scaling it should).

With CPs in standard S&P I think the issue was the costs were usually set so you could recreate standard characters, but oft the standard options were too overcosted - in the cleric's case the problem being spheres. For a few levels at least a PHB cleric has more Spheres than they have spell slots, so losing a few of these is hardly an issue, and certainly not worth the fighter options or bonus WPs you can get instead. (I had forgotten about the 5th level requirement for specialization, but personally I'd really rather not have clerics specializing at all).

Ah, I see.

Well I always thought clerics were woefully crimped from their amazing spell flexibility by healbot party expectations. That said, I also thought it a crying shame that GMs did so little with the ineffability of divinity, and how that ties with DMG commentary about how gods not always granting spells requested. And since by 5th cleric lvl, IME, fighter weapon specialization was starting to level off as other classes improved. But that brings back another fun tidbit, inequal XP level progression rates!

Surely 5th level is the level the GM is supposed to make the weapon specialized fighter cry by dropping a +3 ranseur or something?...

Re. clerics, its a dilemma. The 0D&D/AD&D cleric is perhaps deliberately pretty vanilla, whereas in 2E there are more RP options via the various specialty priests but branching out can easily lead to a character that can't perform some key functions due to worshipping bigotry and amphibians...it would work if someone else can fill the 'healbot' slot, I suppose. Maybe the psionicist..

That would intersect with my opinion how people conflate Healing NWP and Natural Healing instead of stacking them, as per RAW.

As for obscure +3 weapons, that's one of the fun parts of leveling from 1st — by the time you get another weapon specialization you may want to expand your repertoir. But I mean by 5th level cleric XP the other classes are accessing their own nasty abilities. So where the +1 atk, +2 dmg, +0.5 #atk of first level shone brightest among the others, the other classes are starting to shine almost as bright themselves.

So when those Cleric CPs dipping into the Fighter's shtick finally kicks in there has been depreciation. Sorta like how Paladin and Ranger dipping into spellcaster shtick tends to be mitigated by the level it becomes available. However, there was a reason those classes are optional, and PO:S&P is the same; doesn't fit with everyone's campaign ideals.