In my opinion, the 3e skill system was a bad idea.  It had some merit to it, but in other ways, it failed to really differentiate classes by their skills.  Adding to this was the plethora of skills, the multiplication of starting skill points, and the fact that some characters didn't get to do anything out of combat whereas other characters had classes that offered synergies that offered them a lot of versatility.  Given 3e's emphasis on combat rather than exploration (and thus the de facto expectation that classes should be skilled at combat) as well as its own balance issues, this lead to situations where some classes were good at skills and combat and other classes were bad at skills and combat.

4e attempted to solve this problem in exactly the wrong way: making everyone equal at everything.  The designers focused the game even more on the combat encounter while broadening the skill system and introducing ways for characters to become trained in skills.  The main difference between characters outside of the combat encounter was a +5 to a skill check.  Later, the developers would realize their mistake and introduce Martial Practices and skill powers, but such was too little, too late.

Overall, there were a few good ideas implemented.  3e created universal rules for how skills work and standardized the system, and 4e condensed the unwieldy 3e skill list while returning a lot of the control over to the individual GM.

Here's my ideas for how this could be improved.  First, let's take a cue from 4e simplify the skill system.

• Athletics (Climb, Swim)
• Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble)
• Deceive (Bluff, Disguise)
• Diplomacy (Diplomacy, Gather Information)
• Perception (Spot, Listen, Search)
• Heal (Heal)
• Intimidate (Intimidate)
• Lore (Knowledge, Decipher Script)
• Handle Animal (Ride, Handle Animal)
• Stealth (Hide, Move Silently)
• Survival (Survival)
• Thievery (Sleight of Hand, Open Lock, Disable Device)

Some players will be disgruntled at the thought of condensing skills.  "Why should my character who is good at hiding also be good at sneaking?" they ask.  Simply put: it's easier to assume that characters who have been trained in one skill have also been trained in similar skills--someone who has practiced climbing is likely to have practiced other athletic endeavors, such as swimming.

Now, you'll notice that some skills have disappeared (such as Use Magic Device and Use Rope).  This is because these skills are stupid.  But let us not dwell upon such things and instead move onto the meat of the skill system.

[size=20]Skills[/size]
Skills in D&D represent special training that puts an adventurer above the rest of society.  Adventurers trained in a skill have enough experience with the use of a skill to put them a notch above the rest of society.

Attributes
Each skill has an associated attribute that goes with it, as noted in the skill description.  Athletics uses Strength, Lore uses Intelligence, Sneak uses Dexterity, and so forth.  You apply your attribute modifier to all skill checks that you make with a skill.

Skill Checks
Whenever a test of an adventurer's abilities comes into play, the GM may call for a skill check.  To make a skill check, you roll 1d20 and add your associated attribute modifier + your level bonus + any miscellaneous modifiers that the GM assigns.  Characters who are trained in a skill gain an additional +3 bonus on their skill checks.  If your roll meets or exceeds 15, you have succeeded in using your skill (and exceeding by five or more points is considered a significant success).  If your roll falls short, you have failed at using your skill (and failing by five or more points is considered a significant failure).

In general, skill checks should only be made when there is a good chance of failure.  Characters don't need to make any sort of skill check to cook breakfast or to walk down the street, for instance.

Some skills have exceptions to this rule.  These will be detailed in the individual skill descriptions.

Trained vs. Untrained
Aside from the aforementioned +3 bonus to their skill checks, adventurers who are trained in a skill have an important distinction: a large part of the time, they do not need to make skill checks at all.  They are assumed to have a base level of competency that allows them to automatically succeed at tasks associated with their skills.

On the other hand, characters who are untrained in a skill are generally so poor with that skill that they cannot succeed even when applying themselves.  Their efforts automatically fail.

This is further detailed in the individual skill descriptions.

Opposed Skills
In some instances, two skills will be "opposed"; that is, their functions exist to overcome the other.  For example, the Stealth and Perception skills--the former exists to conceal and the latter exists to notice the concealed.  In the case that these two abilities come into play against one another, the best way to handle the abilities depends on who is doing the interacting.

1. If a player is opposing an NPC, the player should almost always roll his skill.  This is done for two reasons.  The first is that players enjoy rolling dice.  The second is that the players are going to feel "cheated" if they're suddenly ambushed and they didn't even get a chance to roll to defend themselves.

2. If a player is opposing another player, then both should roll their skills.  This is done because players are going to be unhappy if suddenly their coin purse is lightened and they don't even get a roll to spot the thief.

Specific rules for handling these sorts of situations are detailed under the skill descriptions.

It should also be noted that all skills provide potential modifiers to help the GM get an idea of various difficulties when using skills.  In the instance of opposed skill rolls, the bonuses and penalties should be applied to one person only or else you will give an adventurer an undue chance of success or failure.  As an example, darkness provides a bonus to the Stealth skill and a penalty to the Perception skill.  You don't want to give the Stealth user a +2 bonus and the Perception user a -2 penalty because that would be "double dipping" on the modifiers.

Narrative Time Structure and Multiple Skill Checks
Many skills listed account for structured time in the rules.  Climbing, for instance, lets a character move up to half his move speed in a round.  This is to adjudicate situations where tracking time is particularly important, such as when in combat.  However, outside of the combat encounter, there is less of an emphasis on time within the skills.  In these cases, it is up to the GM to adjudicate how long it takes for adventurers to use a skill and whether they require multiple skill checks.  For instance, when climbing a ten-story building, the GM need not calculate the total time to ascend in rounds based on the climber's speed.  Assuming that time is not of the essence, he can simply say the feat took a certain amount of time based on the need for the adventurer to periodically stop and rest.

Furthermore, there are some instances in which it might seem appropriate to call for multiple skill checks because of the extent of the skill use.  (For instance, swimming the English Channel would probably best be handled with a handful of skill checks rather than a single skill check.)  In general, the number depends on the time spent and the complexity of the task.  As a rough guideline:

• One skill check: an action that is resolved in the short-term, measured in minutes or hours (picking someone's pocket, foraging for food, learning the local gossip).
• Three skill checks: an action that requires an extended period, up to a week (teaching a pet a trick, researching in a library, climbing a mountain).
• Five skill checks: an action that requires a significant investment of time, up to a month (translating an ancient tome, nursing someone back to health, blazing a path through the wilderness).

In these cases, you should generally not resolve these skill checks as an all-or-nothing approach.  Each successful skill check should bring the user closer to completion even if he doesn't make all the skill checks.  For example, when teaching a pet a trick, if the adventurer manages two successes the first week but fails the third, he might only need to succeed on a single check the following week, and he might get a +2 bonus on skill checks to teach his pet that lesson.

Begging for Modifiers
Some GMs are stingy with handing out bonuses and penalties.  Don't be.  Encourage your adventurers interact with the environment to get those skill bonuses.  You want them snuffing out torches to sneak better or creating elaborate disguises to trick their enemies.  Get them to think outside of just rolling the dice.

Improvisation
Improvise, improvise, improvise.  The skills listed don't cover every possible situation that will arise in your games, so don't be afraid to make things up.  In the event that you're not sure how to deal with a potential skill check, ignore the skill list.  Ask yourself what attribute should be involved in the check.  Does the idea sound like it requires brains or brawn?  What about deftness or charm?  Pick the best modifier for the task and have the adventurer roll his ability modifier + his level bonus against DC 15.  If he succeeds, then he does it.  If he fails, then he doesn't.

Doing the Impossible
There will be times when an adventurer wants to do the impossible.  Perhaps he wants to steal a ring off of the king's finger, or perhaps he wants to climb the sides of a glass castle, or perhaps he wants to balance on a thread of fishing line.  When these situations come up, you have two main options.  The first is not "no."  Don't say "no."  That's going to discourage adventurers and reinforce the idea that they can't try anything unusual or innovative.  When an adventurer wants to do the impossible, say "no, because," and then give him the reason why he can't do something.  This gives the adventurer the opportunity to overcome the limitation put into place.  For instance, "no, you can't climb up the sides of the glass castle because they are too smooth."  How can the adventurer overcome the smoothness of the glass castle?  Suppose he were to use a blunt object to partially smash the castle's exterior and cause to it spiderweb?  Could he use the uneven surface as handholds?

Your other option is "yes, but."  You tell the adventurer that he can try, but there's a mitigating circumstance that makes him aware of the consequences of failure.  To return to the impossibility of snatching the king's ring from his hand: "Yes, you can try, but you will take a penalty on your skill check and the king will get a Perception to see you and you are in a throne room full of armed guards."  The adventurer is thus aware of the disastrous consequences of failure but is still welcome to try.  He can risk it all or, better yet, come up with a plan to mitigate the consequences.  What if he waits until the king has had a bit much wine at a feast?  And what if he waits until the court jester is performing?  And what if someone stages a break-in to distract the king and his guards during the jester's performance?

Now imagine you had just said "no."  "No, you can't steal the king's ring off his finger.  It will never happen, not in a million years, and he will see you right away, and you will fail.  No."  It certainly seems that one approach is more likely to encourage adventurers to think on their feet and come up with ways to succeed, doesn't it?

Athletics (Strength)
The Athletics skill involves physical conditioning, so it is naturally associated with the Strength score.  There are two primary uses for the Athletics skill: climbing and swimming.

Climb
Trained: Those who are trained in the Athletics skill are capable of ascending all manner of things, from a tree to a rope to the side of a building.  They need not make skill checks to climb unless they encounter unusual circumstances, even if they lack special climbing equipment.  They have developed the form and style to climb easily without fatiguing, and they can climb up to one-quarter of their speed each round as a move action.

Untrained: Those untrained in the Athletics skill are unprepared to climb, their muscles unused to the strain of climbing.  Although capable of short distance climbs (pulling themselves up from a ledge, for instance), they automatically fail at any sort of strenuous climbing.  In circumstances where climbing is made considerably easier, the GM may allow them to make an untrained skill check to climb, but in most cases they will require assistance in traversing vertical terrain.

Skill Check: In cases in which the success of a climb is uncertain, an adventurer must make a DC 15 Athletics check to ascend (moving at a quarter of their speed as a move action).  In general, a single DC 15 skill check will suffice for an entire climb, though extended climbs may involve multiple skill checks at the GM's discretion.  Likewise, when climbing in a combat scenario, the GM may call for Athletics checks each round to advance.

The results of a failed Athletics skill check vary based on the scenario.  In general, the failures of some trained in Athletics are less severe than the failures of those untrained.

Some possible modifiers to the Athletics check:

• Pouring rain (-2).
• Slick surface (-5).
• Solid ledges serving as handholds (+2).
• Knotted rope and pitons (+5).

EXAMPLE: Lecter the Wizard and Starling the Fighter are captured and hurled into the depths of a pit within Bison Bill's lair.  The pit itself stone, roughly-textured with the potential for makeshift handholds.  Lecter, being untrained in the Athletics skill finds escape impossible--no matter how he tries, he manages to climb only a few feet before falling back to the floor below.  Starling, on the other hand, is trained in Athletics, and she easily climbs out.  She searches the lair and comes up with a bit of rope, which she lowers down to Lecter.  The GM rules that Lecter can attempt an Athletics check to climb the rope, so Lecter rolls his skill.  Unfortunately, he rolls an 8 and fails.  He can't pull himself up, so Starling will need to find another way to get him out.

Swim
Trained: Adventurers trained in Athletics are competent swimmers, able to navigate even choppy waters with ease.  They can tread water for long periods of time, and in normal circumstances, they can swim up to half their speed each round (as a move action).

Untrained: Adventurers untrained in Athletics cannot swim and are in immediate danger when in deep water, forced to make Athletics checks immediately as described below.  However, should an adventurer have some method of staying afloat (such as grabbing onto a piece of driftwood or an empty wine casket), he is buoyed and need not make Athletics checks to avoid drowning.

Skill Checks: When success is uncertain, an adventurer must make a DC 15 Athletics to swim.  Success indicates that he can swim as normal (up to half his move speed); failure indicates that he risks drowning.  Depending on how dangerous the waters are, a single skill check may suffice to traverse them, or they may require multiple successful skill checks.  In general, each failed skill check imposes a cumulative -2 penalty on subsequent skill checks, and three failed skill checks means that an adventurer is drowning.

Some possible modifiers to the Athletics check:

• Adventurer is wearing armor or is otherwise encumbered (-2).  This penalty stacks with that from normal armor check penalties.
• Stormy seas (-5).
• Adventurer is wearing fins or other swimming equipment (+2).

Acrobatics (Dexterity)
The Acrobatics skill refines an adventurer's natural grace, so it is associated with the Dexterity score.  There are three primary uses for the Acrobatics skill: balancing, jumping, and tumbling.

Balance
Trained: Adventures trained in Acrobatics are capable of easily balancing upon narrow ledges and uneven surfaces, including those that are mere inches wide.  They can move confidently across these at half their normal speed (as a move action) without risking of falling.

Untrained: Adventurers untrained in Acrobatics are not necessarily clumsy, but they lack the appropriate training to maintain their equilibrium on any surface that lacks sure footing.  They do not automatically fall when confronted with such situations, but they cannot advance.  Only in circumstances where untrained adventurers are significantly stabilized (such as by tying a rope around their waists and anchoring it to a nearby tree) can they advance.  Even then, they move slowly and uneasily, and they risk falling.

Skill Check: When success is uncertain, an adventurer must make an Acrobatics check to move.  Success indicates that the adventurer can move at half his normal speed (as a move action).  Failure indicates that the adventurer is paralyzed by fear or vertigo; particularly poor skill checks may indicate that an adventurer slips and falls (though even then he can usually make a second Acrobatics check to grab the edge).

Some possible modifiers to the Acrobatics check:

• Adventurer is distracted or in combat (-2).
• Surface is oily (-5).
• Adventurer is using a balancing pole (+2).
• Adventurer is safely anchored (+5).

EXAMPLE: The portly Friar Tuck travels through the woods and comes across a raging river.  The only route over it appears to be the trunk of a fallen tree.  Being rather round and not at all gymnastic, the good Friar knows better than to try to make his way without precautions.  He settles himself belly-first upon the trunk, wraps his arms and legs around it, and slowly scooches himself forward in an entirely undignified manner.  The GM rules that this gives Friar Tuck a +5 bonus on his skill check, so Friar Tuck makes his Acrobatics check and rolls a 15.  He has managed to make it across the river without incident, though his dignity may have suffered.

Jump
Unlike other uses of the Acrobatics skill, jumping does not require any special training, and training does not confer any special benefit aside from the +3 bonus to skill checks.

Skill Check: Jumping is a move action whereupon the adventurer makes an Acrobatics check.  He leaps a number of feet equal to half his skill check result (when jumping horizontally) or a quarter of his skill check result (when jumping vertically).

Some possible modifiers to the Acrobatics check:

• Adventurer attempts to pole vault (+2).
• Adventurer has a running start (+5).

Tumble
Trained: Those trained in Acrobatics have learned the art of falling with subtlety, allowing them to automatically negate falling damage from heights of twenty feet or less.  At heights greater than twenty feet, adventurers may attempt to reduce falling damage by making a DC 15 Acrobatics check.  Success indicates that they reduce falling damage by ten feet, plus an additional ten feet per five points that the skill check exceeds DC 15.

Untrained: Adventurers untrained in Acrobatics cannot tumble.

Some possible modifiers to the Acrobatics check:

• The ground below is uneven or rocky (-2).
• The ground below is grassy or otherwise "soft" (as far as ground goes) (+2).

Deceive (Charisma)
The Deceive skill measures an adventurer's ability to lie and get away with it, so it is associated with the Charisma score.

Trained: Adventurers trained in Deceive are versed in crafting lies, so they automatically succeed in telling white lies and subtle half-truths.  When dealing with characters untrained in the Perception skill, adventurers can get away with proportionally larger lies, but particularly suspicious opponents require them to make Deceive skill checks.  Likewise, when attempting to fool those trained in the Perception skill, adventurers must make Deceive checks.

Untrained: Adventurers untrained in Deceive are not bad liars--in fact, they might be quite clever at coming up with lies--but they have not been taught how to conceal nervous habits and body language that give unconscious clues to their dishonesty.  When lying, they must always make Deceive checks to convince someone of their honesty.  Attempts to lie against opponents trained in the Perception skill automatically fail unless the lie is incredibly well-crafted with corroborating witnesses or evidence (and even they, they must still make a Deceive skill check).

Skill Check: Upon presenting a lie to skeptical audiences, an adventurer must make a DC 15 Deceive check to convince them otherwise.  Opponents trained in the Perception skill are also allowed to make skill checks to detect the presence of a lie (as noted earlier, simply assume NPCs have rolled a 10 on their Perception skill checks while allowing players to roll their Perception skill).

If the deceiver succeeds and the perceiver fails, the deceiver succeeds in his lie.  If the deceiver fails and the perceiver succeeds, the perceiver immediately sees through the lie.  If both fail or both succeed, compare whose roll is highest to determine the winner.

Note that success does not necessarily abrogate the deceiver of suspicion, and it certainly does not brainwash others.  It is possible not to detect a lie while still being cautious or wary of the deceiver.  The GM should take into consideration the relationship between the adventurer and his target.  If the adventurer is particularly close to his target or otherwise a trusted acquaintance (or even if the target has no reason to disbelieve the adventurer), the GM should apply additional modifiers or penalties, and he might rule that no check is necessary at all--either the target automatically believes the adventurer, or he refuses to trust the adventurer.

Some possible modifiers to the Deceive check:

• The lie is believable (+2). ("Once, I caught a fifty-pound fish!")
• The lie has evidence supporting it (+5).  ("Once, I killed a giant..and here's the skull to prove it!")
• The lie is unlikely (-2).  ("We found your coin purse, but it was missing half the silver.")
• The lie is particularly outlandish (-5).  ("I am the ruler of a far-off nation...called France!")

If you're just going to use a level check to handle success/failure, do you need a skill system at all? You can roll it into the feat system without too much trouble - particularly if you're using feats.

E.g. replace with:
The normal mechanic to attempt a task is to roll d20+character level + an ability modifier (determined by the GM). Add +3 if you have a feat or class feature relevant to the task.

i.e. you can ditch Ride completely; the character who takes the Mounted Combat feat gets a +3 on level checks to control a mount. The rogue or character who takes a "Stealthy" feat gets a +3 on rolls to hide or move unobserved past an opponent, etc.

I'm actually eliminating the feat system.  The idea was that certain classes offer certain skills, so thieves can sneak while wizards cannot.  I figured there needed to be a (simplified) system to support this.

Quote from: B.T.;512879I'm actually eliminating the feat system.

  Consider doing the opposite, i.e. eliminate the skill system and just turn skills into feats.  If I were ever tasked in redesigning the D20 system, that is what I would do.  One simple mechanic to describe all your characters capabilities instead of two separate mechanics that are totally different from one another.

While I might consider using the feat system, I am more interested in discussing the implementation of the skills themselves.  Does the system rely too heavily on GM fiat?  Should I reintroduce the "take 10" rules from 3e?  Should I allow everyone to use skills but put a cap on the DC that untrained users can overcome?

Well, I thought the amount of GM fiat was fine.
Capped DCs are dumb, IMHO, since anyone can get lucky.  Rules like that are kludges to fix the actual DCs assignment being busted in some way.

Personally I don't like Take-10 since unless its heavily limited, it removes a class of dangerous tasks from the game. For instance, you can't have a crevesse that characters can fail to jump 25% of time, for instance - if their chance of success is less than 50% they take-10 and do it automatically.

Part of what take-10 does (removing unnecessary dice rolling for e.g. Spot checks/Listen checks) can be done better using passive perception, perhaps other ways.

I don't really have a problem with "Take-20", however.

QuoteCapped DCs are dumb, IMHO, since anyone can get lucky.

My hope was to cap the DCs so that only characters who are trained in the skills can succeed to help differentiate the classes.  Like in 2e, only thieves could hide in shadows, so only characters trained in the Stealth skill can do the same.

I dunno, good idea weird implementation?

2E the rogue can hide and the nonrogue can't because the nonrogue has a Hide of 0%, which is logical.
In 3E, they did what you're proposing with Search and traps with rogues (trapfinding) and it was dumb, because the non-rogue could have a +infinity to Search and not find the things.
EDIT: also note that using capped DCs, "increase the target number by 2" and "take a -2 penalty to your check" now do completely different things. The 3.5 non-rogue with +22 Search finds a DC 20 trap automatically with a -2 penalty, and autofails the DC 20 trap with a +2 DC penalty.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;5130422E the rogue can hide and the nonrogue can't because the nonrogue has a Hide of 0%, which is logical.

What 3e did with regard to this is a good thing in some ways because it provided a streamlined system for characters to use their skills.  It also created a better system to adjudicate how skills worked.  On the other hand, 3e decided to let everyone try to sneak no matter what, which was a bad system overall.

QuoteIn 3E, they did what you're proposing with Search and traps with rogues (trapfinding) and it was dumb, because the non-rogue could have a +infinity to Search and not find the things.

This is a good point.  Note that in My Little Sideproject (TM), a character's skill bonus won't exceed something like +11 at max level.

QuoteEDIT: also note that using capped DCs, "increase the target number by 2" and "take a -2 penalty to your check" now do completely different things. The 3.5 non-rogue with +22 Search finds a DC 20 trap automatically with a -2 penalty, and autofails the DC 20 trap with a +2 DC penalty.

In MLS, I've considered doing things in two ways.

1. Everything is DC 15.  Roll against this all the time, applying situational modifiers as necessary.  Meet or beat and you succeed.  (This is the system in the Athletics example above.)

2. DCs vary as in 3e.  DCs are 10, 15, 20, and 25.  You don't add situational modifiers to your roll; the DM assigns the DC based on the circumstances and you roll against this.

Well,  1) and  2) - have the same effect in the end. Varying DCs means the player doesn't need to know how hard the task is, and doesn't have to do any subtraction. Presumably you'll still have variable DCs for opposed rolls etc. in any case.

If you did go with 1) you could potentially have a sort of results table like Talislanta has, based on total roll - i.e. negative = botch, 6-10 partial success, 11-19 normal, and 20+ critical.

On the other thing...maybe generic skills aren't completely compatible with niche protection.
I think your post is giving me some sort of horrible realization about how Rifts is the greatest system ever, with the way it handles difficult tasks as different skills rather than higher DCs....
Must...fight...insanity....

Doing the swsaga/4e thing with have it or don't skills, and a flat bonus for training is a common idea lifted from those games nowadays. It's a nice way of handling it.

For the rest...
Some uses are training based.
Some uses call for a minimum rank.
Some uses call for a roll.
Treat perception as another (4e style) defense. Just include the ten and be done with it.

Done.

Sort of combining your thing with 5e preview's handling of ability checks (from what I've heard; maybe I misinterpreted). Allows some skill uses to scale, some to be niche only, and some avoidance of rolling.

Quote from: B.T.;512810Here's my ideas for how this could be improved.  First, let's take a cue from 4e simplify the skill system.

• Athletics (Climb, Swim)
• Acrobatics (Balance, Escape Artist, Tumble)
• Deceive (Bluff, Disguise)
• Diplomacy (Diplomacy, Gather Information)
• Perception (Spot, Listen, Search)
• Heal (Heal)
• Intimidate (Intimidate)
• Lore (Knowledge, Decipher Script)
• Handle Animal (Ride, Handle Animal)
• Stealth (Hide, Move Silently)
• Survival (Survival)
• Thievery (Sleight of Hand, Open Lock, Disable Device)

[...]

Attributes
Each skill has an associated attribute that goes with it, as noted in the skill description.  Athletics uses Strength, Lore uses Intelligence, Sneak uses Dexterity, and so forth.  You apply your attribute modifier to all skill checks that you make with a skill.

A partially formed idea that came to me while reading this was that some skills could have multiple attributes associated with them, depending on how the skill was used.  Thus a character using Stealth to Hide might use Int while a character using Stealth to Move Silently might use Dex.  A character trying to Deceive with a Bluff might use Cha, while a character trying to Deceive with a Disguise might use Int.  Lore Knowledge might be Wisdom while Lore Decipher Script might be Int.  Handle Animal Ride might be Dex while Handle Animal Handle Animal might be Cha.

Probably more complex than what you want and I know there are some games that do things like this, but I wanted to toss it out there as an idea.

Quote from: John Morrow;513074A partially formed idea that came to me while reading this was that some skills could have multiple attributes associated with them, depending on how the skill was used.  Thus a character using Stealth to Hide might use Int while a character using Stealth to Move Silently might use Dex.  A character trying to Deceive with a Bluff might use Cha, while a character trying to Deceive with a Disguise might use Int.  Lore Knowledge might be Wisdom while Lore Decipher Script might be Int.  Handle Animal Ride might be Dex while Handle Animal Handle Animal might be Cha.

Probably more complex than what you want and I know there are some games that do things like this, but I wanted to toss it out there as an idea.

If you have a trained and untrained value listed next to ability scores, you can just run down the sheet and check boxes instead of listing values. So a good character sheet would make swapping scores in this system extremely easy.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;512889Consider doing the opposite, i.e. eliminate the skill system and just turn skills into feats.  If I were ever tasked in redesigning the D20 system, that is what I would do.  One simple mechanic to describe all your characters capabilities instead of two separate mechanics that are totally different from one another.

But then you would just have Savage Worlds, which I look upon as D&D 3rd Edition with everything D&D 2nd Edition taken out. I agree with B.T.'s analysis.....

Quote from: B.T.;513032...Like in 2e, only thieves could hide in shadows, so only characters trained in the Stealth skill can do the same.

....that getting rid of Feats and favouring a condensed Skill system is more in-keeping with the themes of pre-3rd Edition D&D.

Also, I'm a firm believer in 'less is more' for RPG design. Seeing a large and unwieldy list of Skills does not make me aglow with possibilities, it makes me feel trapped in a box with the following options. As Tacitus said: "The more corrupt the state, the more laws."

This sounds like a good course of streamlining play and differentiating between classes, bringing non-magic wielding classes like Fighter and Thief/Rogue/What-have-you back to some kind of relevance.

Here-here.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: John Morrow;513074A partially formed idea that came to me while reading this was that some skills could have multiple attributes associated with them, depending on how the skill was used.  Thus a character using Stealth to Hide might use Int while a character using Stealth to Move Silently might use Dex.  A character trying to Deceive with a Bluff might use Cha, while a character trying to Deceive with a Disguise might use Int.  Lore Knowledge might be Wisdom while Lore Decipher Script might be Int.  Handle Animal Ride might be Dex while Handle Animal Handle Animal might be Cha.

Probably more complex than what you want and I know there are some games that do things like this, but I wanted to toss it out there as an idea.

I had actually written up a whole skill system based on that before, but I trashed it because it was too much work.  (My players can barely remember how to figure their attack bonuses, so asking them to do two stats is out of the question.)  Something I also considered was adding two stats to a skill--Deception could be Charisma + Intelligence (to represent cunning) while Lore could be Wisdom + Intelligence (to represent a broader mental labor), but ultimately, I think it's just easier to leave it as single stats.  I will make a note that GMs should allow players to substitute stats for their rolls if they see it fit, though.