I really dislike the idea of yet another implementation of a skills system, as of course it helps break the crunch from previous versions. But I guess there is enough issues with the current systems... too simplistic (4E, or at least for me), and too open-ended (3E). One which really just is a frustrating mess, the other is way too open-ended with DCs that don't have the same progression across all skills (i.e. Minor, Easy, Moderate, Hard, Very Hard, Heroic, etc).
I suppose the idea of flipping around and apply skills to abilities when you try and do something can get away from both of those. As long the skills can be fairly fine-grained i.e. instead of "nature" skill, you break it down into different skills such as knowledge, survival, etc. but not to the level of 3E where you had to take both spot and listen, or hide and move silently.
But really if they are going to re-implement the skills system, I'd much rather see it, combat, and magic all rolled into one instead of three different checks. So if I'm trying to attack with my sword, I roll an attack skill that maybe I get a bonus because I have proficiency sword. If I want to cast, I roll the casting or magic skill, etc. Or I suppose in the parlance of the article, I'd roll an ability that is modified by the appropriate skills.
Charisma as a basis for fear saves, really? What dictionary are they using for the definition of words, not the one I am using. Just because the designers try and make every ability useful, doesn't mean it should randomly apply to things just to make use of it.
That all being said, it seems the more I read the less I'm interested. Not making any true judgement until I've seen something actually in writing to putz around with, but I question the wisdom of all these optional "modules". As a "brand", there has to be a core "D&D" experience; what is that? It seems to be getting lost in all the talk about needing to support every Tom, Dick and Harry's vision of the game.
