SKILLS
This sounds terrible... the change hinted to will open up many more cans of worms. If they want to solve a specific problem, they should seek a specific solution (perhaps using Int rather than Wis for finding traps) rather than changing the foundations of the whole skill system.
I can see their idea especially running into a problem if one's Ability bonus is higher than one's Skill bonus from training. Even if you just take the one that's highest, you lose out on one or the other, which doesn't seem very fair. You either find out that your decision to go with a high Ability Score was useless, or having training in the Skill is useless.
What other problems are you seeing in that "can of worms"...?
I was thinking of this as a good fix (I already posted this at WotC):
- Any Skill in which you have a bonus is considered "Trained". A Trained Skill provides an initial bonus of +5 (rather than +3)
- When making Skill Checks, you add your bonus from your skill with the modifier from the appropriate attribute (determined by your DM), and add to a D20 roll. Exception: ignore negative Ability Modifiers if making a check with a "Trained" Skill. (...in other words, only add positive Ability Modifiers when making a Check with a "Trained" Skill.)
This has the advantage of basically keeping the system as is (mechanically), but addressing the problem of a high ability score character being better at a Skill Check than a "Trained" character.
Someone Trained in a skill will most always have a better chance at a check than someone with a high natural Ability score, and at worst have the same chance as someone with a maxed out Ability score. But, it still maintains differentiation among characters of the same class.
For example: The Rogue with a Wisdom of 8...-1 modifier...would ignore the -1 and just have the +5 bonus for Training in the skill, while the high Wisdom Cleric...lets say a 20 for a +5 bonus...would only tie the Rogue with Training. The Rogue would have an extra +1 over the 18 Wisdom Cleric. Also, the high Wisdom Rogue will be significantly better than the low Wisdom Rogue on the same check. (one can replace any other class, ability score, or skill in the example...it's about trained skills compared to natural talent...)
This makes sense to me. The trained character is almost always going to be better, and at the worst will tie a character with a maxed out score (natural talent).
What do you guys think?
Also, I completely agree with Li Shenron, about not overusing the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I think the designers need to be very careful about making sure there aren't too many things that provide this. I think it's important to make sure that advantage/disadvantage situations don't become common occurances, especially to the point where every roll could end up having either advantage or disadvantage. It would definitely diminish or eliminate the "coolness" factor of the mechanic.