POLL: Would you play D&D without a Skill System?

[Geron Raveneye]

I voted "Would play but would probably create my own". Coming from Basic D&D, an RPG without a skill system is nothing new, and nothing to get really upset about, but I can remember that all of us back then enjoyed it when the Proficiency system was introduced in GAZ1. I like the general approach of the 3E skill system, especially after they printed a "general DC guideline" in the 3.5 PHB, but I'd group related skills together (Lone Wolf and others did that, and it makes for a shorter and yet functional skill list) and hand out a few more skill points for several classes.
Generalized resolution mechanics like C&C's SIEGE engine works for me as well, as long as it doesn't lead to hours of discussions and arguments between players and DM. And if you look at it, even old editions of D&D had the attribute check as very simplified resolution mechanic.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I dunno. There are some "skills" that just seem inappropriate to actually spend points on. If a player wants his character to be a gemcutter, I don't think I'd ever tell him to buy ranks of Profession: gemcutter. It's probably never gonna come up in the game, and if it does, if won't be something he actually has to roll for, so why waste the points?

Its one of the cool thinkgs about the Shadowrun skill system. You have what amounts to essentially "background" skills that come from a secondary pool. So your points in Comic Book Knowledge arent at the expense of shooting, hacking, etc.

 

[JDJblatherings]

It all depends on how picky i want to be within the campaign. I'm currently playing in D&D derivative where we don't use skills other then the thief skills for the thief. I do use ability checks but only when stuff matters in a heroic situation.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

3.X's current scheme for scoring/balancing innate aptitude (Abilities) and training (Skills) is completely off. Its "double-hoop syndrome" forces a character with a DEX 18, for instance, to turn around and, again, invest in DEX-based endeavors that he should already be great at for having a DEX 18: balance, tumble, move silently skills.

So, you can end up being nearly the most naturally dextrous character around...but still unable to keep your balance on a floor with some rubble because of skill point shortage.

Theres plenty of smart guys out there who arent knowledgable in every area. My buddy is incredibly dextrous and athletic... I dont think he'd be great at picking a lock or hiding. Should strong guys just automatically be better at fighting than high level fighters who are physically weaker? I like that stats matter less than training.

 

[Mieric]

Its one of the cool thinkgs about the Shadowrun skill system. You have what amounts to essentially "background" skills that come from a secondary pool. So your points in Comic Book Knowledge arent at the expense of shooting, hacking, etc.

And that secondary pool is tied to two of the mental attributes - so Intelligent or Intuitive characters can have a more diverse background skill list than the physical combat monster without impacting the latter's combat ability.

 

[Lackhand]

I think some skills are clearly more double-hooped than others.

Something like Knowledge skills clearly deserve to be measured in two ways: raw talent and specific study; a character of very high intelligence (and a little bit of practice) shouldn't be as good as a character of very high intelligence and a lot of practice.
I think that Open Locks and Disable Device belong here, too. Maybe so does Climb; I don't climb enough to know.


On the other side is something like Balance or Diplomacy, which are almost part of the definition of the stats that they use as key attributes; being especially good at convincing people (to the exclusion of intimidating them), or of excellent kinesthetic memory (to the exclusion of tumbling, moving cautiously, or dancing), is not a "skill" in the same way that the knowledges are, because naturally studying any of them should lead to improvements in linked areas.
I think things like Spot and Listen, Diplomacy and Intimidate, Tumble and Move Silently belong here. Sure, there might be someone who's better at moving silently than they are at tumbling, but if I picture a tumbler, it's the same picture as a pretty sneaky person.

So it's not a crime against humanity to unify them, but one could use different systems for things like Spot and Balance (class features, maybe, and bread + butter of adventurers!) and Knowledges and Tracking (skills which not everyone is trained in!).

Ideally? Anything in that second category is improved as a class feature, like the second edition thief, or a saving throw.
Anything in the first category has to be improved via character-building tools like feats or something.
Some feats modify things in the second category too -- why not?

 

[pawsplay]

D&D "without skills" is effectively "D&D with skills, but only combat skills," which to me is the stinkeroo. Even Basic D&D had thief abilities and ability score checks, which sort of bridged the ground between trained and untrained skills, and the RC had a full on skill system. Virtually every D&D imitator of note except Tunnels & Trolls has skills, and T&T is one of the few games I simply won't play without an ulterior motive.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I'd want a skill point/rank system or skill proficiency system (like star wars saga edition or 2e). Depending on how involved I wanted it to be.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I prefer D&D without a skill system, for the reason T. Foster and others have mentioned.

In general, I like a class-based system or a skill-based system, but I'm not as fond of the hybrids.

 

[Samnell]

Not only do I need skills to play D&D, I need the d20 system in general. I want feats, prestige classes, the ability to craft magic items without having to crawl on my belly over a field of broken glass, high rolls are always good, a tightly-integrated core mechanic, and so forth. I want it as a DM and I want it as a player.

To my tastes, previous editions of D&D are only good for mining setting material from. I started playing D&D in '92 and was pretty much done with the system by '96. I looked at 1e, but the differences are stylistic and cosmetic. Alternity convinced me that there was more to RPGs than spit and bailing wire, randomly distributed. After that I could never go back to pre-d20 D&D.