Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;562847See, I would think that you would prefer a game that's *not* D&D.

In my case, that's probably a fair assessment, but it's also fair to point out that I played very little D&D before 3e (and much of that was heavily modified by the GM) but both played and ran D&D 3.5 pretty much by the book and bought much of WotC's 3.5 line (and quite a few 3.0 books).  The OGL helped make me interested in the game.  So did D&D 3.5 having a working skill system that allowed me to play and run characters who could do more than simply what their class detailed.  I'd probably agree that a skill system should be a removable option from D&D Next, but if D&D Next doesn't have some sort of useful skill system, even as an option, I'd be less likely to play it.

The best skill system ever devised for D&D was Katherine Kerr's version that appeared in Dragon magazine. The DM picks a character attribute he thinks is relevant, adjusts based on difficulty and rolls d% (though this could easily be converted to d20). Simple.

The way 4e handled skills was already basically just a stat check.  Everyone added half their level plus a relevant ability modifier to the check.  Some skills required 'training' to attempt a roll, and being 'trained' gave you a +5 bonus to the check.  

That's the whole system.  I thought it was pretty elegant, but could have used some work.  Mechanically it was sound and simple enough, but they could have gone the 'Secondary Skills' route and offered background packages and guidelines on how to build your own to get bonuses on relevant background-related skills.  None of the skills in 4e relate to the character so much as they do to the class, which to me seems to miss most of the impetus for having a skill system in the first place (to flesh out the character more).

Quote from: Daztur;562811What does this do that just rolling a stat check doesn't do?

The derived statistics improve with character level.

Basically, there are two reasons to add a skill system on top of an attribute system:

(1) To differentiate characters and allow customization.
(2) To improve capability without improving the underlying attributes

3E does both. This system only does #2. The playtest packet for D&D Next appears to only do #1.

Personally, I prefer the 3E approach: I like the differentiation and customization. And if combat abilities are going to radically improve (which they do in D&D), I prefer to see non-combat abilities similarly improve.

Quote from: Elfdart;562985The best skill system ever devised for D&D was Katherine Kerr's version that appeared in Dragon magazine. The DM picks a character attribute he thinks is relevant, adjusts based on difficulty and rolls d% (though this could easily be converted to d20). Simple.

I use this all the time. Never knew it started from there. But I love adjustable attribute rolls something fierce. All I want from a d100% converted to a simpler die mechanic with probabilities adjusted in 5% increments.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;562833I found NWPs an incremental improvement over previous iterations of D&D in which "adventurer" meant "useless clod who had to kill monsters for a living due to lack of any other viable talent" but in terms of implementation it was still far behind any game with a functional skill system.

I find the assumption that my character is a useless clod offensive.  There was a time when pcs were assumed to have a moderate level of competency and thee was no nee for the use rope skill just to tie a rope to a tree.  Outside of highly specialized skills like particle physics, there's no need for skills.  My fighter should know how to sharpen a sword without the waponsmithing skill.  My ranger should be able to start a fire in the rain.  Skills systems are an unnecessary complication in D&D.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;562841Because various D&D authors said for years that D&D didn't need a skill system. Calling them skills would be a tacit admission that TSR was chasing the market instead of leading it.

Old School auto enthusiasts don't NEED fuckin' seat belts.

JG

Quote from: Drohem;562915I know that there are those who lament the arrival of the DSG (Dungeoneer's Survival Guide) and the concept of non-weapon proficiencies, but I am not one of those people.  I welcomed the new non-weapon proficiency system as well as other information in that book, and it's companion the WSG (Wilderness Survival Guide).

I have those books too.  Recently I played with a guy who wanted to use the outdoor/climate/relative temperature rules, and I suddenly realized WHY nobody else used them.  

JG

Empire of The Petal Throne has my favourite D&D skill system; simple and pulp fantasy as hell.

But I generally don't fart around with skill systems, as I prefer individually adjudicating skill situation via ability score, class and the PCs background & adventuring experiences + common sense + a simple die roll.

You want a PC that's smart about books? Be lucky enough to roll a hight Int and pick a bookish class, but if you have a Fighter or Thief with a 15+ Int? Sure, they can be a scholar.

You want to be a good merchant? Have a good Int & Cha and put effort into merchanting.

I don't need to clutter up the game session by bolting on some mechanical system that could end up with wonky results like 3E Inspector Clouseau ladder hijinks or Diplomacy Jedi mind tricks; or have PCs dying of hypothermia for not purchasing Fire Building.

Quote from: The Butcher;562946I'm OK with skill systems in D&D as long as they don't step on other classes' toes.

My favorite is probably the AD&D 1e Secondary Skill list. Things that might be circumstantially useful, but won't have, e.g. a Magic-User outdoing the Thief at stealth or climibing or somesuch; and without a rigorous mechanic attached, allowing the DM to make rulings on the spot.

I like that approach, and I like that table, but I personally find it too "prosaic" for the milieus I DM.

Quote from: James Gillen;563211I have those books too.  Recently I played with a guy who wanted to use the outdoor/climate/relative temperature rules, and I suddenly realized WHY nobody else used them.  

JG

They are overly involved, I admit. But I found with a little memorization and some simplification I do like the direction. It gets players to take off their armor! That's really important for me. Suddenly being dressed appropriately outside the city is as important.

But then I could never truck people wearing their plate or chain mail everywhere. It was something that annoyed me heavily when I first played D&D. And I'm also that crazy player on the table who likes encumbrance rules and finds shopping one of the highlights of the campaign experience. No really, I really love that stuff!

Quote from: Planet Algol;563239I like that approach, and I like that table, but I personally find it too "prosaic" for the milieus I DM.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "prosaic". Care to elaborate? Also, what skill system do you use? (I see you've mentioned EPT but I'm not really familiar with the EPT system)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;562894I love Non-Weapon Proficiencies. These were great for helping define character concepts (i.e. making annoying special snowflake characters ). The rules for raising them were Scroogy, and you didn't quite get enough without extras from a kit, and some of them were pretty stupid (Fire Building...) but overall I hugely preferred them, however tacked on, to the 3E system where you got a mixture of concept skills and adventuring skills strongly limited by class (i.e. get ready to be reamed hard for taking something that suits your character) or 4Es bland, purely adventuring-driven skill list.

Agreed 2e for ever !

Quote from: jibbajibba;563275Agreed 2e for ever !

Yup!