Greenfield
Adventurer
4th edition bumped everyone's BAB and skill base equally. It also bumped the AC and general target numbers at the same rate, so the only thing this advancement did was exclude lower level characters. It was a sort of non-progress progression in that way. Actual skill training, post creation, required a Feat, and came in a coarse granularity lump of +5, with no further training possible. This kind of limited player choice on skills: You're either a trained expert in a skill, or you should never attempt it at all. I found that kind of "all or nothing" design to be a turn off, a move away from being a skill-relevant system at all.
1st Edition didn't have Skills at all, so it could/should be left out of any discussion about them.
My memory of 2nd Edition's skill system is kind of hazy, so I won't comment there. I don't recall if there was a dice roll involved at all. Thief/Rogue abilities were still class abilities at that point, as I recall, and weren't handled as Skills.
3.* had a broadly flexible skill system, extensive enough that in some ways it could become a dominant factor in play. Bonuses were there, perhaps too many, and some of the skills had poorly defined (or even undefined) limits at the higher end, and some were rather vague from the start. Profession v Craft, for example: A character could have enough Profession - Blacksmith to make a very good living, while having no actual skill at blacksmithing. Another could be skilled enough to turn out master quality gear all day long, and also make a good living, but have to plot the income on a piecework basis.
If I were to make the rule, I'd say that bonuses should never be allowed to exceed actual skill ranks. That is, ability bonuses, Aid Another bonuses, quality tool bonuses etc should never be able to do more than double the effective skill ranks. And failed Aid Another attempts should act as penalties. I think that that would do a lot to rebalance the 3.x Skill mechanic. YMMV, of course.
I don't like the idea that learning more about swinging a sword inherently teaches you Astrology, or how to sail a ship. That is, automatic advancement in effective skill ranks with levels is not, IMHO, a good idea.
1st Edition didn't have Skills at all, so it could/should be left out of any discussion about them.
My memory of 2nd Edition's skill system is kind of hazy, so I won't comment there. I don't recall if there was a dice roll involved at all. Thief/Rogue abilities were still class abilities at that point, as I recall, and weren't handled as Skills.
3.* had a broadly flexible skill system, extensive enough that in some ways it could become a dominant factor in play. Bonuses were there, perhaps too many, and some of the skills had poorly defined (or even undefined) limits at the higher end, and some were rather vague from the start. Profession v Craft, for example: A character could have enough Profession - Blacksmith to make a very good living, while having no actual skill at blacksmithing. Another could be skilled enough to turn out master quality gear all day long, and also make a good living, but have to plot the income on a piecework basis.
If I were to make the rule, I'd say that bonuses should never be allowed to exceed actual skill ranks. That is, ability bonuses, Aid Another bonuses, quality tool bonuses etc should never be able to do more than double the effective skill ranks. And failed Aid Another attempts should act as penalties. I think that that would do a lot to rebalance the 3.x Skill mechanic. YMMV, of course.
I don't like the idea that learning more about swinging a sword inherently teaches you Astrology, or how to sail a ship. That is, automatic advancement in effective skill ranks with levels is not, IMHO, a good idea.
