D20 Roll-Under?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I've heard lots of people disparage the 3.5 Skill system, many with good reasons. So while trying to make a homebrew 3.X system for my friends, I tried to research how to "Fix" skills. And while some people apparently prefer "Skill Tricks" and raising DCs, I found the oddest notion: What if the skill system were roll-under?

The only problem I see is that after a certain point (even if I ban feats and spells that increase skills), characters will have 20+ ranks in some skills, effectively meaning an auto-success for that skill every time. I suppose I could hit them with penalties often (hard to pull off more than a few times), or once the characters' skill ranks hit a certain point they have to roll more dice (+1d6 at skill rank 15? +1d20?)

Is there a published roll-under variant for 3.5 skills? If not, are there any D20 games that use it? How does that work?

[Flickerdart]

Raising DCs? What?

The whole problem with 3.5 skills is that the classes that need them get too few skill points, and even those that get skill points can't do enough with the skills. If anything, the DCs should be lower, so it's actually possible to, say, balance on a 1-inch-wide pole or stand on a horse without being a 20th level character. In a game where spellcasters can fly and shoot lightning from their arse at level 5, waiting until level 20 to perform beginner circus tricks is inexcusable.

[BWR]

The other side of the coin being that DCs are too easy to match, allowing first level characters who optimize for it to do stuff the game doesn't really expect them to be able to do until 10th level or higher.

[Flickerdart]

Aside from Diplomacy (and weird nonsense like Sleight of Hand and Tumble fixed DCs) the things the game expects 10th level characters to do with skills are systematically underwhelming.

[JusticeZero]

So.... Basically you want to play AD&D 2E?

[HalfQuart]

Not really sure how to fix things, but I hate how experience isn't taken into account with skills... surely a 20th level fighter would have plenty of Knowledge skills simply from exploring and fighting monsters and the like, but there's no reasonable way they can invest the ranks in the skills to represent this. 4e has a different system where you pick a few skills that you are trained in and you get +5 to those skills, but all skills are advanced at 1/2 your level... I like that this reflects experience, but dislike the lack of flexibility to really focus on a few skills or dabble in lots like you can in 3.5. So maybe finding some middle ground would be nice.

Also I think there are plenty of skills that if you're trained you can just say "yeah, you can do that" without having to figure out some complicated DC roll. But I suppose DMs can just decide that on the spot and it doesn't have to be a written rule.

Edit: added omitted word.

[Matticussama]

While this may just be personal preference, I generally find roll-under systems to be too limiting and generally a very poor mechanic in most games. The strength of 3.X is that it can be continued nigh infinitely, with new challenges being made to constantly challenge and reward players for their strengths. Adding in a roll-under system takes away the best strengths of the 3.X skill system, without actually fixing its problems.

Generally speaking, your best options are to increase skillpoints to martial classes (every class should have at least 4+Int skill points IMO) and limit access to spells and magic items that give major skill boosts if they become too much of a problem in the campaign. Sure, items that grant anywhere from +2 - +5 should be fine; but anything more than that should be limited and hard to access. Seeing as the magic item creation rules are all guidelines anyways, the DM has final say over custom magic items for skill improvement items (or any other item).