What would have to be done to 3.5 D&D if you removed skills and feats?

[Cedric]

If I wanted to play D&D without Skills and Feats, I'd play 1e, and maybe incorporate a few things I like about 3e in my houserules (initiative perhaps?).

 

[Voadam]

You'd have to think about fighters, right now they are warriors with bonus feats and would not be balanced against barbarians or paladins.

High skill classes would have to be thought about, rogue and ranger. Maybe just say they are good at the things they are good at. Rogue Trap sense means they don't have to roll but can just find them.

Some classes have feats as class powers, rangers, monks, fighters, wizards. Maybe leave these as the only feats in the game.

A party of barbarian, sorcerer, cleric, bard works well, and even rogue with just evasion, sneak attack, and trap sense work well.

 

[jdrakeh]

If skills and feats were taken out of D&D, what would have to be done to balance it?
-Jamie

Honestly? What many folks seem to be overlooking is that this is, for the most part, what C&C is (i.e., D&D without feats and skills). They balanced things out fairly well with level-dependent special abilities and Primary Attributes (and, for me, I could actually do without the primary attributes bit). Me? I'd also lower the default DCs (by default, DC values assume skill ranks being factored into a given roll).

 

[howandwhy99]

I would love love love to remove both skills and feats from D&D, but it just isn't going to happen. Sure they were minimally offered in the previous Advanced editions, but now they are mandatory for D20. As you can tell, most folks want them in their game and I believe many couldn't imagine playing without them.

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly? What many folks seem to be overlooking is that this is, for the most part, what C&C is (i.e., D&D without feats and skills). They balanced things out fairly well with level-dependent special abilities and Primary Attributes (and, for me, I could actually do without the primary attributes bit). Me? I'd also lower the default DCs (by default, DC values assume skill ranks being factored into a given roll).

True, and perhaps that is the biggest thing I dislike about C&C; there is no distinction between characters. Everyone is equally good at something if they have a similar ability score and class. It was one of my primary complaints in older editions of D&D as well.

For example, I say "I want to build a fighter who is a master of the bastard sword". Depending on the edition of D&D, the DM says...

OD&D: Ok. You're a master of a bastard sword, but that grants you no mechanical bonus over any other fighter.
First: Ok, take proficiency in bastard sword. Every other weapon has a -2 to hit with.
Second*: Ok. Spend another wp to become specialized. You get a +1 to hit, +2 to damage, and faster # of attacks.
Basic/Cyclopedia: Ok, continue selecting WP in bastard sword until you are a grand master with better damage dice, more attacks, and unique abilties as shown on this chart.
Skills and Powers: Ok. Spend some character points to become specialized, then a master, high master and finally grand master.
Third: Ok, take weapon focus, weapon specialization, improved critical, greater wf and wpn spec, and check out some of these feats in PH2...

The same can be said for thief skills, etc. The further back, the less mechanically that defined who you were. Some DMs love that (everyone is mechanically the same, RP the differences) others like those differences on their character sheet.

Anyway, back to the OP: I'm going to say you can't. Both are SO ingrained into 3.5 that you cannot remove them. Fighters, Bards, Rogues, Rangers, Wizards all rely on a skill or feat for some or all of there class abilities. Monks, Druids, Clerics, and Barbarians also take a hit. Really, only Paladins and Sorcerers seem pretty self-sufficient in that area.

Magical items would need to be reworked. The monster manual would be useless. Spells would need to be rewritten (Find Traps?) Racial traits would need adjustment. In short, you're re-writing the whole bloody thing. I'd say forget it and player either C&C or an older version of D&D at that point.

* Yes, I know Unearthed Arcana introduced Specialization first...

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

True, and perhaps that is the biggest thing I dislike about C&C; there is no distinction between characters. Everyone is equally good at something if they have a similar ability score and class.

You left out primes. Primes have a huge impact on what your PC is good at. Say two fighters have the exact same ability scores, but Fighter #1 has Str, Con, and Cha prime, and Fighter #2 has Str, Dex, and Int prime. The first fighter is going to be a tough, hardy fellow who is an excellent leader and communicator. He's the big man on campus. He'll be very good at diplomacy, intimidation, etc. The second fighter is going to be the agile, quick-witted type. He's more likely to wear lighter armor, so he can take advantage of his agility. He'll also be good at intelligence-oriented stuff (knowledge checks, searching, et cetera). In game terms, Fighter #1 will have what amounts to a +6 bonus over fighter #2 in anything having to do with Con or Cha tasks, and Fighter #2 will have a +6 advantage over fighter #1 in anything having to do with Dex and Int. Primes affect saving throws, too, so a fighter with Wis prime is going to be much more resistant to certain spells, for example.

C&C's approach is much broader and less fine-grained that a detailed skill system, but I like the tradeoff. It's simple, flexible, and models most concepts pretty well. When you want to create a "dexterous fighter," you can do so with a very simple mechanic that still has real game impact, and is not so different from what you'd end up with using a fine-grained approach (where you'd spend points and get a lot of individual Dex skills).

 

[Aaron L]

I dont know why you'd want to play 3E without skills and feats rather than just go with good old 1E. For me the character customization of 3E is so gosh darned great I couldnt even imagine wanting to take skills and feats out of the equation. Without them any character of a specific class is just the same as all others of that class. Sure, there are differences in personality and roleplaying, but thats just as true in 3E, and just as important.


I really dont see how taking away skills and feats would even simplify things to any great degree. Feats are simple. I mean really simple. I cant even imagine them being problematic. But if they are a problem for you, I'd say to just go with a different game. Taking away skills feats would neuter any class that depends on them, like Fighters and Rogues, and then that completely destroys the multiclassing (why would Fighters use the same XP table as Rangers or Barbarians now?)

It would really just strip so much out of 3E I would never want to play it. Feats are one of the greatest elements of 3E. Customizable class abilities, no two Fighters have to be the same anymore, only to be differentiated by what kinds of magic items they carry. People complain about the reliance on magic items now, taking away feats would make it so that all Fighters are mechanically the same as each other except for their magic, and I know I certainly want to be different from every other character of the same class, so I'd want even more magic to distinguish my Fighter from JoeBob's. And please dont say I'd have to rely on my imagination and actually roleplay the differences, Ive actually made people annoyed with the amount of detail, background information, and roleplaying I put into my characters. But you cant roleplay having unique skills of swordmastery when your attack bonus is the same as every other Fighter of your level and you cant use any special maneuvers. You cant roleplay special techniques with a glaive that let you use it in close quarters.


I'd say just play 1E, or I guess C&C or whatever. Better yet, HackMaster. But I'm honestly still baffled at what you think you'd gain by removing one of the best parts of the game.

 

[Acid_crash]

I would play Castles and Crusades then.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

"What would have to be done to 3.5 D&D if you removed skills and feats?"

- dig a hole, 6' deep, 6' long. Drop 3.5 D&D in. Put dirt back in.

Yes, if it's dead, bury it. And without Skills and Feats, I think you'd kill D&D.

As to why I would want to remove skills and feats, I'm interested in speeding up gameplay

There's other ways

as well as seeing what it does to the system.

As I said, I think it would kill it.

I'd love to play AD&D again but my group has invested a lot into 3rd edition, so it's not going to happen on a regular basis if at all.

Let me take a guess. They have invested a lot into 3rd edition. That means they have bought new books with new feats (and sometimes with new skills). I don't think they'd like not having feats around a lot more than not playing D&D 3 at all.

If I were to do it, I might alter the rate of experience for different classes or chane bonus feats into special abilities.

And made up tables for benefits per ability score. And giving rogues "rogue abilities" which are percentile. And getting rid of attack bonuses, using a thing called "To Hit Armour Class 0" instead. And used 5 different, weird saves instead of the current ones.

"No, we're not playing AD&D 2e. We play a houseruled 3e!"
"Why can't I play a rogue, then?"
"I decided they're called thief"




Instead of getting rid of skills and feats, I'd look for ways to simplify the system:

Every character develops X skills. In those skills, his bonus is level plus ability score (or half level in the case of x-class skills, unless you want to do away with that concept).

If you have multiclassing going on, youll have to think of something there - maybe get the average number of skill points (say, you're fighter/rogue. fighter would get 2+int, rogue 8+, so you get 5+). If you have decent players, they won't abuse the system by playing a righter 19/rogue 1 with 5+.

Alternately, the fighter/rogue would get 2+ at his character level, and 6 (the difference between 2+ and 8+) only at his rogue class level.

Do away with skill focus and the +2/+2 feats, and you're set (aren't used that often, anyway).


As for feats, you can always limit the choices. Say, only PHB 1 and 2, plus one splatbook of the character's choice (Fighters use Complete Warrior). But you don't even need that, if you decide to do level-ups only between sessions, and force the player to do it at home. If someone returns next week without a level-up, he has to use the old level.

Also Tell players that they have to know how their feats work beforehand.



I don't see a problem with feat usage, though. It never was a problem with us. Spells and the like were much more time-consuming.

 

[Remathilis]

You left out primes. Primes have a huge impact on what your PC is good at. Say two fighters have the exact same ability scores, but Fighter #1 has Str, Con, and Cha prime, and Fighter #2 has Str, Dex, and Int prime...

AFAIK: Primes just lower your TN for a specific check. You get one decided by your class, one of your choosing, and humans gain an extra one (2 normally, 3 if you're human). So you're not any better at anything as anyone else with the same Primes.

Let's skip the fighter scenario (since combat doesn't involve TN) and go with rogue. Two equal level rogues, both with equal dex, have the same chance of succeeding their move silently check (1d20+dex mod+rogue level vs 12+Challenge Rating). Barring racial mods and magic, that's the best they are doing.

However, in 2e, the two thieves could be different by putting different amounts of points into their percentage score (one could have a 33%, another a 55%, both at the same level with the same dex).

In 3e, its even easier to distinguish. The rogues can have different number of ranks, different feats that boost skills (skill focus, +2/+2 feats), synergy from other skills, etc.

It seems that C&C so simplifies skills that it forces characters into that cookie-cutter syndrome. Yeah, your prime choice can alter your character slightly, but 3e(and even 2e) allowed for two characters to have a wildly different amount of focus in even the things they are good at.

I guess if that is the game you like, go for it. I much prefer more customization of skills and talents.