Mike Mearl's on simplifying skills in D&D

[Plane Sailing]

Of course, another example of 'simplified skills' which we have yet to actually see is in the Star Wars SAGA system. It will be interesting to see how that works out.

The biggest problem with Mikes idea is that it makes level irrelevant wrt skills. Having the same chance of success in your best abilities whether a 20th level hero or a 1st level neophyte goes completely against the basic principles of a 'level-based' game, while making buffing items and spells even more valuable.

Don't like it one bit.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think it sounds like a good idea. And I know for a fact that it works well, because (as was mentioned), this is very similar to how C&C handles such things.

 

[greywulf]

I'm kinda proud of the system from Microlite20 :

There are just 4 skills : Physical, Subterfuge, Knowledge and
Communication. Roll higher than the given Difficulty Class to
succeed.

Skill rank = your level + any bonus due to your class or race.
Skill roll = d20 + skill rank + whatever stat bonus is most
applicable to the use + situation modifiers

For example, Climbing would use Physical + STR bonus. Dodging
a falling rock is Physical + DEX bonus. Finding a trap is
Subterfuge + MIND bonus. Disabling a trap is Subterfuge + DEX
bonus.

(MIND is Microlite20's version of INT and WIS (and CHA, kinda)) (Damn programmer habits, automatically nesting brackets (like this))

Each class gets a bonus of +3 on one skill (Fighters get +3 to physical, Rogues +3 to subterfuge, etc)

I approximated avary skill in d20 using just those four and varying the STAT in this post on the big Microlite20 thread.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If I really wanted an ultra-simplified skill system, I'd do something like

Get (class determined) skills at 1st level. Use level+3 for checks on these, use half that for all other skills.

Get an additional skill from your class list every 'x' levels (5?), which gets promoted to 'level+3'

I might even get rid of all 'trained only' skills, so that all skills can be used 'untrained'.

I'm not going to do it, but if I wanted to, that is the way I'd probably go about it.

 

[BryonD]

I really don't like the all-or-nothing approach to skills. Varying degrees of ability must be taken into account.

Exactly. I've never found any system that worked on this approach which I cared for at all.

 

[Gentlegamer]

'The Castles & Crusades SIEGE Engine is already copyrighted.

Sounds like a great system to me! Especially this part:

"Everything else is up to the DM."

"These rules don't tell you what you can do with them. They just provide a framework for doing stuff."

FRAMEWORK! That's the concept that has been missing from d20! Bring it back!

 

[Gentlegamer]

Not for me, thanks. The current system models the career diplomat, the guy who's just likeable, and the people who are somewhere in between. Mike's suggestion... does not.

Allow characters to "trade in" one skill for two skills that make checks at 1/2 attribute. Done.

 

[el-remmen]

Sometimes I feel like the only person who wants MORE skills not less.

I like the skill system as is. . .

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I don't like it. This system doesn't let you 'get better'. AT the start of your career you need to work at the average door lock and by the end of it the door opens itself just because you looked at it (literaly or figuratively - take your pick). I like that a lot. Not to mention that it completely drops filling out a character that doesn't max one one skill to have a few points in other skills so they can at least roll an appraise check or something.

 

[Gentlegamer]

If I really wanted an ultra-simplified skill system, I'd do something like

Get (class determined) skills at 1st level. Use level+3 for checks on these, use half that for all other skills.

Get an additional skill from your class list every 'x' levels (5?), which gets promoted to 'level+3'

I might even get rid of all 'trained only' skills, so that all skills can be used 'untrained'.

I'm not going to do it, but if I wanted to, that is the way I'd probably go about it.

This approach sounds good . . . I've been thinking of something like this for a while.