Quote from: aspiringlich;747324I've never played C&C. And isn't the "siege engine" different from the PF d20 mechanic?

Its the same d20 mechanic (roll d20 + bonuses v DC), with some minor differences in implementation.

In C&C, you set a DC that is recognisable as a D20 DC which operates in the same way. However, instead of using the standard set of DCs that are in D20, it sets the default DC at 18 and increases this by way of Level of the effect.  

Likewise, instead of Skill ranks, PCs get a bonus for Prime Attributes (which is similar to the increased cap for class skills) and Level. The bonus operates the same as in D20 but its derived in a way that removes the need for Skills.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;747318Didn't Pathfinder just release a beginners box set that does exactly what this post asks? I thought about picking it up but waiting to see what Next does.  Besides DCC effectively removes the skills/feats from d20 yet adds back in the cool.

The PFBB has Skills and Feats.

Actually Tombs and Terrors may also fit the bill. Its has even less ties to AD&D that C&C attempts to maintain but pretty much does the same thing in presenting D&D3e with no feats and much reduced skills.

Quote from: Skywalker;747327The PFBB has Skills and Feats.

 Thanks for the info. You just made that decision for me. I'm not against skills/feats completely but I think the 3.x/PF model is over kill for my taste.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;747329Thanks for the info. You just made that decision for me. I'm not against skills/feats completely but I think the 3.x/PF model is over kill for my taste.

PFBB is just Pathfinder with less options, level cap and better presentation.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;747318Didn't Pathfinder just release a beginners box set that does exactly what this post asks? I thought about picking it up but waiting to see what Next does.  Besides DCC effectively removes the skills/feats from d20 yet adds back in the cool.

No, that still has feats and skills, though in a somewhat stripped down form.

OP, you could do this, but it'd take some retooling to keep from making non-casters even more gimped than they already are in that system.

Kind of an interesting, if slightly perverse idea.

One way to "eliminate" feats: just choose feats for each class and hard-wire them in as class features.

I think one of the trickiest classes to rework would be the Rogue, which has Talents (basically just Rogue-only feats) and derives a lot of its efficacy from its very high number of skill points.

There are lots of other features - like a Ranger's Track, quite a few spells, and plenty of magic items - that don't really work without a skill system.  You could redo them all, but it'd take a lot of work.  Or you could remove all the abilities that link to skills... but that'd be a big chunk of the game.

Overall, it's probably not worth the effort, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

Almost more interesting, to me, would be to experiment with eliminating classes.  Make class features and spells into feats similar to Minor Magic, Monk/Rogue Evasion becomes a feat, Ranger's Favored Enemy becomes a feat etc.  Probably give everyone 1d8 HD and 6+Int Skills, give them 1 feat/level, and let them choose which saving throw to boost by +2 every level.  Or something like that.

Quote from: Steerpike;747335Kind of an interesting, if slightly perverse idea.

One way to "eliminate" feats: just choose feats for each class and hard-wire them in as class features.

I think one of the trickiest classes to rework would be the Rogue, which has Talents (basically just Rogue-only feats) and derives a lot of its efficacy from its very high number of skill points.

There are lots of other features - like a Ranger's Track, quite a few spells, and plenty of magic items - that don't really work without a skill system.  You could redo them all, but it'd take a lot of work.  Or you could remove all the abilities that link to skills... but that'd be a big chunk of the game.

Overall, it's probably not worth the effort, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

Almost more interesting, to me, would be to experiment with eliminating classes.  Make class features and spells into feats similar to Minor Magic, Monk/Rogue Evasion becomes a feat, Ranger's Favored Enemy becomes a feat etc.  Probably give everyone 1d8 HD and 6+Int Skills, give them 1 feat/level, and let them choose which saving throw to boost by +2 every level.  Or something like that.

I tried that once with D&D 4E. You do the first 3 or so levels (In line with BECMI redbox stuff) they decide it's too much work. (you hardwire a few feats in for class distinctions, and double fighter damage, that seems to work)

I'd love to play a really popular game that has support and market penetration like PF, but without the skill and feats and bloat and crap. But I can't. Yet. D&DN, Don't Let Me Down....

Quote from: Barefoot GaijinI'd love to play a really popular game that has support and market penetration like PF, but without the skill and feats and bloat and crap. But I can't. Yet. D&DN, Don't Let Me Down....

You could just restrict the Pathfinder feats list.  Very easy to do without fundamentally altering the system.

It's also pretty easy to just treat everyone as if they already have a lot of basic combat feats to eliminate the "feat tax" issue some dislike (example of such a hack here).

The skill system really isn't that bad.  There are 26 skills, and one of them is Fly, which almost no one takes.  Lots of the excessive skills found in 3.5 (which had 36 in all, not counting whacky splatbook skills) were condensed - Hide and Move Silently become Stealth, Open Lock is absorbed into Disable Device, Gather Information into Diplomacy, Jump and Tumble into Acrobatics, Spot, Search and Listen into Perception etc.  Others, like Use Rope, were just eliminated because they're ridiculous.

Still might not be for you, of course.

The game balance wouldn't work too well without Feats. Skills could be replaced with eg roll-under attribute checks.

I would suggest start with your preferred version of D&D (eg Labyrinth Lord) and then treat Pathfinder as a buffet of options, add in any bits you like from it such as magic items, or funky subystems in the supplements & various Adventure Paths. Expanding from a lean core seems to work much better than cutting down a huge beast.

BTW D&D-Gamma World kinda does this - no Feats, Skills are just some +4s on rolls that you get at chargen (bit like C&C Primes); instead you add your Level to all d20 rolls, and (AIR) most damage rolls too.

Likewise, you could get rid of skills & feats in PF beyond say +3 to some skills at chargen, instead adding Level to all checks. If you add Level to weapon damage that'd even up casters vs non-casters quite well too.

Quote from: S'mon;747345BTW D&D-Gamma World kinda does this - no Feats, Skills are just some +4s on rolls that you get at chargen (bit like C&C Primes); instead you add your Level to all d20 rolls, and (AIR) most damage rolls too.

Likewise, you could get rid of skills & feats in PF beyond say +3 to some skills at chargen, instead adding Level to all checks. If you add Level to weapon damage that'd even up casters vs non-casters quite well too.

I think you could get pretty close to PF skills via all checks +1/2 level +3 if a class skill.

If you remove feats, though, you're gutting most classes.  Imagine the poor Fighter...

After a few years do 3.5 and PF, our group did exactly that. First we got rid of the Feats... Played a few sessions... Got rid of the skills... Played a few sessions... The quality of the playing experience went up - a lot fewer bonuses and modifiers to keep track of, a lot fewer "roll perception to see what's in front of you" checks, and we didn't feel like we were missing out on anything.

Pretty quickly, after looking at version upon version of houserule documents, I ditched PF and went back to my long-preferred games: B/X and AD&D. Another DM went for Savage Worlds (he didn't like it), then to OD&D. The other DM, probably the most inherently 3rd editiony of all of us, went to Microlite then on to Blood and Treasure.

Of all of them, Blood and Treasure is the closest to our house rule documents. There are some minimal feat rules, but these are very-much optional. What Skills there are are traditional thief skills or bend bars and the like, but streamlined into one single subsystem based nicely off saving throws.

GM#3 runs PF and S&W modules in Blood and Treasure without fuss. If you'd like to see 3e without the skills and feats, I'd suggest you check out B&T. It's well supported and, for those who like a pile of character options, John Stater puts lots of interesting classes, races, and beasties on his blog or in NOD magazine

Quote from: mcbobboI think you could get pretty close to PF skills via all checks +1/2 level +3 if a class skill.

This is certainly feasible, but I wonder if it would address the issue most people have with skill systems.  My impression - and I could be wrong - was that people who deeply disliked skill systems in rpgs just didn't like the idea of rolling for tasks they feel that their character should already be capable of doing.  So, like, if they're riding a horse in combat they don't want to have to make an additional Ride check, because it's assumed their character knows how to ride well enough to keep their mount under control.

Quote from: Steerpike;747389This is certainly feasible, but I wonder if it would address the issue most people have with skill systems.  My impression - and I could be wrong - was that people who deeply disliked skill systems in rpgs just didn't like the idea of rolling for tasks they feel that their character should already be capable of doing.  So, like, if they're riding a horse in combat they don't want to have to make an additional Ride check, because it's assumed their character knows how to ride well enough to keep their mount under control.

That's possible.  Kind of comes at me sideways, though.  See there's already rules for that in PF.

"A skill check represents an attempt to accomplish some goal, usually while under some sort of time pressure or distraction. Sometimes, though, a character can use a skill under more favorable conditions, increasing the odds of success."

So you made a quick house rule that says "characters with X ranks in ride can take 10 when riding a trained mount in combat".

Far, far easier than ripping out the system entirely, IMO.