D&D 3.X skill system sucks, discuss.

[Mr. Friendly]

As evidenced by the various threads on the subject. Not that 2.0 didn't suck also, I mean let's face it, this is D&D not Papers and Paychecks. The point is though, the 3.0 and beyond skill system is woefully inadequate (A Feebleminded character with Profession can still earn his normal amount of GP?) and in many cases, flat out insane. (DC 30 to make you my best friend? Really?)

I don't see 4th as really doing much to fix the problem, unless of course they massively overhaul the DCs for everything.

[ALOR]

What sane DM would allow someone while feebleminded to earn there wage? What DM would allow the Diplomancer to woo his BBEG. The Skill system we have now is much better than anything else we have had in other ed's. I guess some consolodating would be nice (move silently and hide being stealth) but other than that I have never had a problem with the skill system.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, and an untrained rookie can defeat an olympic athlete in the sport of that athlete's choice about 10% of the time.

A large part of the time it is more important how lucky your dice roll is than how many ranks you had.

[Craig1f]

I think you should get a bonus rank in every class skill every three levels or something.

Right now, I dislike that some skills, that are probably totally cool, are just never used. Like balance, or sleight of hand, or escape artist.

[Cybren]

I blame the d20.

[Mr. Friendly]

What sane DM would allow someone while feebleminded to earn there wage? What DM would allow the Diplomancer to woo his BBEG. The Skill system we have now is much better than anything else we have had in other ed's. I guess some consolodating would be nice (move silently and hide being stealth) but other than that I have never had a problem with the skill system.

Right, but if the books and the rules are there so the DM knows what the balance of things is, then the rules for Diplomacy *should* be fine. Unfortunately, it's broken right out of the box without ever even leaving Core.

What about this:

A character with Profession (Translator) could earn a living via that skill, without actually knowing any languages other than Common. Meanwhile, his "rival" across the street who has permanent Tonuges doesn't actually earn any money since he doesn't have Profession (Translator).

Yes, yes, a good DM works around all of this, blah, blah, blah. But most DMs aren't good, they are average to sub-par and have to earn xp to get better just like the players. So they start with the RAW and move on to RAI later.

How about the Profession (Baker) and Craft (Baking) point addressed in the other thread? that is a fairly obvious hole as well.

[ALOR]

Right, but if the books and the rules are there so the DM knows what the balance of things is, then the rules for Diplomacy *should* be fine. Unfortunately, it's broken right out of the box without ever even leaving Core.

What about this:

A character with Profession (Translator) could earn a living via that skill, without actually knowing any languages other than Common. Meanwhile, his "rival" across the street who has permanent Tonuges doesn't actually earn any money since he doesn't have Profession (Translator).

Yes, yes, a good DM works around all of this, blah, blah, blah. But most DMs aren't good, they are average to sub-par and have to earn xp to get better just like the players. So they start with the RAW and move on to RAI later.

How about the Profession (Baker) and Craft (Baking) point addressed in the other thread? that is a fairly obvious hole as well.

Ok I'm not going to highjack your thread as this could get out of hand but let me ask you this, Do adventures earn money for their deeds or do they have to have (profession) adventurer to get the treasure out of the chest or the reward from the king?

[Draz74]

Much of the problem comes from the way that different non-combat related areas of expertise, i.e. skills, are drastically different in how hard they are to learn, in how many situations in life they apply to, and in whether mastering them is really an adventure-related thing or not.

For example, anyone who is really good at Spellcraft really almost has to be an adventurer. But anyone who is really good at Craft (Gourmet Food) doesn't have to be an adventurer -- in fact, it would be rare that you'd find an adventurer who spends much time on that skill. But this difference isn't accounted for in the rules at all ... skills are a level-based system, when really some of them shouldn't be.

That, and the "sub-skill system" (i.e. different skills that fall under Craft, Profession, Knowledge, and Perform) really wasn't well thought out at all. There are too many of each of these, and it's an open-ended list, making it so there's a ridiculous number of skills in the game total. And the way that different Perform skills (to name the most blatant) don't give each other any kind of synergy is just awful.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

actually, i think this conversation is more evidence that there are flaws in the skills diplomacy and profession individually, rather than there being a problem with the system itself. although these skills certainly have flaws, i never had any major problem with the system itself

[ALOR]

actually, i think this conversation is more evidence that there are flaws in the skills diplomacy and profession individually, rather than there being a problem with the system itself. although these skills certainly have flaws, i never had any major problem with the system itself

agreed, per RAW they do have flaws

[Lord Tataraus]

Really, I think the craft and profession skills were never supposed to be used by adventurers but rather by NPCs. Therefore, their balance doesn't matter. As for diplomacy, I think that the designers figured everyone would fight and only put a little bit in diplomacy. I don't have a problem with the skill system, just how some of them are divided up.

[Kizara]

The problem is that after about level 4, the system breaks down aside from opposed checks.

DC 30 is supposed to be 'really hard', and at level 6 it is quite practical to regularly get 30+ results. At level 10, getting results in the 40s is doable.

If DC 50 is incredibly, impossibly hard, and an average 13th level character with some magic can get results like that in a skill he's maxed out, there's a problem.

Really, DCs need to scale better.

[RandomFellow]

....

Really, DCs need to scale better.

That they do. =)

[Cuddly]

The problem is that after about level 4, the system breaks down aside from opposed checks.

DC 30 is supposed to be 'really hard', and at level 6 it is quite practical to regularly get 30+ results. At level 10, getting results in the 40s is doable.

If DC 50 is incredibly, impossibly hard, and an average 13th level character with some magic can get results like that in a skill he's maxed out, there's a problem.

Really, DCs need to scale better.

I mean, if you min-max a character to swim real good, or jump real far, yeah, it's great.

Then the dragon eats him.

What's the problem?

[Titanium Dragon]

I mean, if you min-max a character to swim real good, or jump real far, yeah, it's great.

Then the dragon eats him.

What's the problem?

Most skills are rather the opposite of broken, e.g. useless (or nearly so). Why jump when you can fly? Why climb when you can fly? Why swim when you can fly? Why craft when you can make with magic? Some are very useful (knowledge, spellcraft, survival, spot, listen, search) but many just aren't.

Then there's the broken diplomacy skill.

And, yes, the scaling difficulties.

[Kurald Galain]

Then the dragon eats him.

What's the problem?

The discussion is not about whether the skill system is unbalanced, but whether it sucks.

[Miles Invictus]

It doesn't take that much effort to maximize a skill, though. You can net a +13 bonus by 3rd level (synergy, skill focus feat, +2/+2 feat, and ranks), which gives you a 20% of passing even a "really hard" DC. And that's without magic items that'll boost your skill checks higher.

If you operate on the principle that 5th or 6th level is the limit of what's humanly possible, it works out okay. It doesn't work out so well for high-level games.

[KIDS]

Really no idea, I've never paid much heed to those flaws in the skill system but I think it serves the need adequately and needs very little fixing IMO. I'm happy with it.

[Craig1f]

Most skills are rather the opposite of broken, e.g. useless (or nearly so). Why jump when you can fly? Why climb when you can fly? Why swim when you can fly? Why craft when you can make with magic? Some are very useful (knowledge, spellcraft, survival, spot, listen, search) but many just aren't.

Then there's the broken diplomacy skill.

And, yes, the scaling difficulties.

Yeah, I wish that my Barbarian with 8 ranks of jump and climb, and a few ranks of swim, was not completely wasting all of his skill points.

Fly is annoying. Any situation can be fixed with it.

I'm still going to keep boosting those skills though, because it's more fun that my character can just brute force through situations without the use of magic.

[Matthew]

Personally, I consider the D20 Skill System to not be an improvement over the core 2e Proficiency System (which I also thought was pretty poor). The kinds of problems the D20 Skill System exhibits are symptoms of larger issues within the rule set, but the degree to which an individual may consider them a problem also depends on what he wants to get out of the game. For me, the most fundamental problems are a combination of the D20 roll, open ended DCs, open ended Attributes and relation to advancement by Level.

[Mr. Friendly]

Don't forget the brokenness of the Forgery skill.

And when I said the system sucks, I meant it as an all inclusive sort of catagory, i.e. unbalanced skills here, useless skills there, poorly scaling DCs and whatever else anyone wanted to grouse about.

[Draz74]

For me, the most fundamental problems are a combination of the D20 roll, open ended DCs, open ended Attributes and relation to advancement by Level.

Open ended meaning what?

[Aquillion]

So how would you fix it?

One possibility that occured to me: Merge the skill and feat systems somehow. If you want to be stealthy, you take feats from the stealth feat chain; if you want to be knowledgable, you take feats from the knowledge feat chain, etc.

Of course, skills are generally weaker than feats, so to make this work, rogues and related classes would get 'stealth bonus feats', Bards would get knowledge bonus feats... essentially, the new feats that used to be skills would be divided up into fighter-bonus-feat style areas of expertise, and anyone with important class skills would get bonus feats in the areas that those skills currently encompass. If you want to take something cross-class, you need to burn a regular feat on it.

...there are a few skills that could be hard to adapt to this, though, like UMD. Even if you turn it into a chain of feats, I don't see how it could be justified as a 'stealth bonus feat'... maybe it could be a 'lore bonus feat' along with the knowledge skills, an area where bards get several bonus feats, and rogues get just enough to take the whole UMD chain (or a knowledge area or two, if they want. It makes sense for rogues to have some local knowledge.)

[hamstard4ever]

It doesn't take that much effort to maximize a skill, though. You can net a +13 bonus by 3rd level (synergy, skill focus feat, +2/+2 feat, and ranks), which gives you a 20% of passing even a "really hard" DC.

Sure, but how many skills are actually worth blowing two feats on? Use Magic Device, maybe, but considering how low its DCs are you're going to be kicking yourself in a couple levels. That and Diplomacy, but only if you're making a serious attempt at spoiling the game.

[Matthew]

Open ended meaning what?

That they just keep on going. As Skills go up, so do the DCs to create appropriate challenges.

[horseboy]

Other problems not already brought up here yet:
Not enough skill points.
Binary skill systems. It's either a class skill or not. It really needs at least three catagories (Class skill, common skill, cros class skill) Cause riding is just riding, it's not brain surgery.
It's designed, like everything else in D&D, for combat effectiveness and not for character development.

Though I must admit, I do like how they tried to get it to use the same mechanic as everything else.

[Titanium Dragon]

How would I fix the skill system? Scrap it and start over.

Alternity's skill system always served me pretty well, though Alternity is completely different from D&D. Imagine where your attacks are skills, your initiative is handled the same way as skills are (though, unfortunately(?), it is not itself a skill), ect. and you start to get the picture. Of course, they also sort of merged in proficiencies (for instance, armor operation) though it worked fairly well (as basically it reduced "armor check penalties" once you put enough "ranks" into the skill).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Real problem? d20. That is way to much variance for a skill. Your ranks aren't all that important, and when it comes to something like jump where the total roll is important, not the dc, you have a problem. Replace it with 3d8 or 2d10 and it might be a bit more feasible, but between that and the lack of things like spot and swim as universal skills is more than a bit annoying.

[Emperor Demonking]

Yes it is. Some of them are stupidly powerful, Diplomancy and UMD and as mentoned jump is useless at high enough levils.

[Sebastian]

Personally, I consider the D20 Skill System to not be an improvement over the core 2e Proficiency System (which I also thought was pretty poor). The kinds of problems the D20 Skill System exhibits are symptoms of larger issues within the rule set, but the degree to which an individual may consider them a problem also depends on what he wants to get out of the game. For me, the most fundamental problems are a combination of the D20 roll, open ended DCs, open ended Attributes and relation to advancement by Level.

Mostly I agree with you.

I think the main problem is that is just to easy increase a skill to high ranks, this have the consegunces that most if not all the DC checks will be dependent on the Pc level, i.e when you are at level X all the Dc will be around X +5, but this mean that a skill is useful only if you put max ranks in it, for a PC to have 5 ranks in a skill at medium-high level only means he have wasted 5 (or 10 skill) points, this BTW is what make Cross Class skill as useless skill.

How to fix it? I'm not sure, certainly you must change all the DC lowering down some, and increase the number of skill points/level for some or all classes. Beside that I think a good idea could be increase the cost of skills for higher ranks, for example, to increase a skill until rank 5 you need 1 point /rank but from rank 6 to 10 you'd need 2 point/rank, from 11 to 15 3points/ranks, and so on. I didn't think it completely throught and probably I'm missing something, but this way a character that want to be the master diplomat, for example, could do it and he'll pass the 99% of any diplomatic check with ease but at the cost of his competence in the other skills.

[MrNexx]

Most of my problems with the d20 skill system are fixed by E6. However, introducing a system similar to Earthdawn's "Half-Magic" for many skills that can be used untrained would make sense.

In Earthdawn's "Half Magic", any skill your character would reasonably have because of your discipline [class in D&D] could be made as if you had a step [skill bonus] equal to half your level, rounded down. In D20, I would see that as getting to add half your level to all class skills that can be used untrained, or your actual ranks, whichever is higher (so you can put a couple ranks in something to meet a prereq, or to start building up towards a better bonus).

[Chronicled]

E6 means that the skill checks don't spiral into the realm of absurdity, but the inherent problem is still there. (E6 is great, don't get me wrong.)

The problem is using the d20 and level-based advancement. Success-based d6-d10 rolls would help make character skill more important at low levels than a single roll.

If, instead of advancing by levels, characters gained points with which they could purchase an array of scaling abilities (1 point to increase BAB to 1, 3 points to increase it to 2, as an example of the sort of system I'm describing), versimilitude would be easier to achieve. It would also allow characters to have exactly the sort of abilities desired by the player.

Hmm. Are there any systems that incorporate both of these things? Or do I need to sit down and homebrew?

[MrNexx]

E6 means that the skill checks don't spiral into the realm of absurdity, but the inherent problem is still there. (E6 is great, don't get me wrong.)

The advantage is that, by having a hard cap on what mortals can accomplish, you CAN set fixed DCs around those that make sense. There are DCs that make sense for a 1st level character, and DCs that make sense for a 6th level specialist. Sure, things like Outsiders and Dragons can beat those DCs with ease, but E6 isn't designed around them.

[greenknight]

If, instead of advancing by levels, characters gained points with which they could purchase an array of scaling abilities (1 point to increase BAB to 1, 3 points to increase it to 2, as an example of the sort of system I'm describing), versimilitude would be easier to achieve. It would also allow characters to have exactly the sort of abilities desired by the player.

If I'm understanding you correctly, GURPS does something like this - but GURPS has problems of it's own.


Personally, I consider the D20 Skill System to not be an improvement over the core 2e Proficiency System (which I also thought was pretty poor).

3e's Skill system certainly has problems, but it's a huge improvement over Core 2nd Ed AD&D. First of all, non-weapon proficiencies are entirely optional in that system, and I think something is always better than nothing. If you do decide to include them, the core rulebook gives three methods:

* Using what you know. Despite pointing out the advantages of this method, the discussion in the book shows why this is a really bad idea.

* Secondary Skills. As was pointed out in the "Using what you know" discussion, a typical person will know lots of different things, many of which aren't related to the person's profession. And not only is the Secondary Skills idea far too limited in scope to be practical, you still don't know how well the character can do those things.

* Non-weapon Proficiencies. IME, this is the one most DMs and Players ended up using, because it's the only method in the book which is even remotely practical. However, the big problem with this method has to do with training. What happens when you try something you aren't proficient at isn't really defined, and when you do have that training (which usually only requires 1 NWP slot), you can often be better than a master who has spent years (or maybe even centuries for some races) doing the job.

I know there are people who complain that even with 3e's system, there are 1st level characters who can beat masters at their profession, and I agree that this is one of the serious design flaws in 3e's skill system. But let's not forget that it can be even worse if you use 2nd Ed's NWPs.


For me, the most fundamental problems are a combination of the D20 roll, open ended DCs, open ended Attributes and relation to advancement by Level.

This compares to 2nd Ed NWPs as follows:

* d20 roll: Same
* Open Ended DC's: 2nd Ed has DMs adding or subtracting modifiers, so it's essentially the same thing. However, 2nd Ed has 20 auto-fail, so no matter how good you are at something, statistically 5% of your work is going to be messed up somehow if the DM requires a proficiency check.
* Open Ended Attributes: AD&D Proficiency checks are always in a 1 - 20 range, and 20 always fails. So provided you can get your NWP check to 19, you're as good as you're going to get at the task, so the point is moot. I should also point out that while it's usually very difficult to increase ability scores in AD&D, it is remotely possible for PCs to have a score of 25 in an ability score, which would usually raise all related proficiencies the character has to 19+.
* Advancement by Level: Both systems suffer badly here. With NWPs, the character gets too much of a boost by taking the proficiency (assuming the character has a high ability score for that proficiency), while in 3e the number of skills ranks you can have is limited by character level. Which means a master of a particular skill needs to have a lot of character levels, and I just don't see the local basketweaver increasing his or her skill by going out and overcoming adventuring challenges.

[MrNexx]

3e's Skill system certainly has problems, but it's a huge improvement over Core 2nd Ed AD&D. First of all, non-weapon proficiencies are entirely optional in that system, and I think something is always better than nothing. If you do decide to include them, the core rulebook gives three methods:


The core NWP had the problems you stated. However, the system laid out in Skills and Powers greatly improved upon it.

*Improving upon NWPs was a viable options. You got a certain number of CPs per level, which could be used for more WPs, more NWPs, or to improve your existing NWPs. Improving your NWPs was 1:1; buying WPs or NWPs had a variable cost.
*NWP base scores were no longer solely based on attributes. There was a base inherent in the NWP, plus a modifier based on your attribute.

So, while there was still the 5% inherent failure chance (which was also there on thief skills and most other rolls), the system was pretty clean.

[greenknight]

The core NWP had the problems you stated. However, the system laid out in Skills and Powers greatly improved upon it.

I'll agree with you there, but then again the S&P system is what 3e's Skill system is based on and as I stated, it's a big improvement. It's still far from perfect though, and a lot of good examples of that are right here in this thread.

[Matthew]

3e's Skill system certainly has problems, but it's a huge improvement over Core 2nd Ed AD&D. First of all, non-weapon proficiencies are entirely optional in that system, and I think something is always better than nothing.

Well, that's where I would disagree. A bad skill system is not necessarily better than not having one.


If you do decide to include them, the core rulebook gives three methods:

* Using what you know. Despite pointing out the advantages of this method, the discussion in the book shows why this is a really bad idea.

Maybe, I'm not a big fan of this one, anyway.


* Secondary Skills. As was pointed out in the "Using what you know" discussion, a typical person will know lots of different things, many of which aren't related to the person's profession. And not only is the Secondary Skills idea far too limited in scope to be practical, you still don't know how well the character can do those things.

Perhaps.


* Non-weapon Proficiencies. IME, this is the one most DMs and Players ended up using, because it's the only method in the book which is even remotely practical. However, the big problem with this method has to do with training. What happens when you try something you aren't proficient at isn't really defined, and when you do have that training (which usually only requires 1 NWP slot), you can often be better than a master who has spent years (or maybe even centuries for some races) doing the job.

If you don't have the Proficiency, you can't do the things listed in each description. It's fairly straight forward. See below for why your second contention is in error.


I know there are people who complain that even with 3e's system, there are 1st level characters who can beat masters at their profession, and I agree that this is one of the serious design flaws in 3e's skill system. But let's not forget that it can be even worse if you use 2nd Ed's NWPs.

You need to read up on NPCs and Proficiencies. They get as many slots as they need. That also means they can improve them well beyond what any Player Character could manage.


This compares to 2nd Ed NWPs as follows:

Be careful here. I didn't say the 2e Proficiency system is better than the 3e Skill System. I said the latter was not an improvement over the former. I wouldn't use either; the problems I listed may or may not apply to both.


* d20 roll: Same
* Open Ended DC's: 2nd Ed has DMs adding or subtracting modifiers, so it's essentially the same thing. However, 2nd Ed has 20 auto-fail, so no matter how good you are at something, statistically 5% of your work is going to be messed up somehow if the DM requires a proficiency check.

That's if the DM requires a check. In general, unless there is a chance of failure, he shouldn't.


* Open Ended Attributes: AD&D Proficiency checks are always in a 1 - 20 range, and 20 always fails. So provided you can get your NWP check to 19, you're as good as you're going to get at the task, so the point is moot. I should also point out that while it's usually very difficult to increase ability scores in AD&D, it is remotely possible for PCs to have a score of 25 in an ability score, which would usually raise all related proficiencies the character has to 19+.

However, the actual scale of change is much smaller. An 'average' character might have a 50% chance of succeeding in a check (Attribute 10), but should he somehow raise his attribute by 10 Points, he will only double his basic chance. With 3e, the scale of improvement is much different.


* Advancement by Level: Both systems suffer badly here. With NWPs, the character gets too much of a boost by taking the proficiency (assuming the character has a high ability score for that proficiency), while in 3e the number of skills ranks you can have is limited by character level. Which means a master of a particular skill needs to have a lot of character levels, and I just don't see the local basketweaver increasing his or her skill by going out and overcoming adventuring challenges.

Not really. Acquiring a Proficiency Slot only comes round five or six times during a 1-20 Level progression in 2e; since you start with around five or six, it's a very limited progression. Also, the benefit of having a Non Weapon Proficiency is usually not very great.

[MrNexx]

I'll agree with you there, but then again the S&P system is what 3e's Skill system is based on and as I stated, it's a big improvement. It's still far from perfect though, and a lot of good examples of that are right here in this thread.

I don't really see the d20 system as being based on the S&P system. While there are some vague similarities (you spend points to gain skills and improve skills), that's about it. Everything else (method of resolution, initial value of proficiencies) was different.

[greenknight]

Well, that's where I would disagree. A bad skill system is not necessarily better than not having one.

I don't know of any DM who has gone into a game without some system of determining what a PC can and cannot do. That's because having nothing means a PC can't do anything, or maybe can do everything, depending on how the DM interprets it. Every DM needs something better than that.


If you don't have the Proficiency, you can't do the things listed in each description. It's fairly straight forward. See below for why the second part is just basically wrong.

See, that's why it's such a nebulous thing, because some DMs said you could do it at half the chance of success you'd have if you were proficient, others took your approach and still others went with something else (usually a large negative modifier on the check).


You need to read up on NPCs and Proficiencies. They get as many slots as they need. That also means they can improve them well beyond what any Player Character could manage.

Which works out to be 2 - 3 slots, according to p17 of the 2nd Ed AD&D DMG. That's not enough to make the master better than a PC who only used one slot if the master has an average ability score and the PC has a high one. An Expert might have started with a high ability score and spent 4 or more NWP slots on it, but even so his chance of success always falls in the 1 - 19 range, just like a PC who has spent only one slot.


Be careful here. I din't say the 2e Proficiency system is better than the 3e Skill System. I said the latter was not an improvement over the former. I wouldn't use either; the problems I listed may or may not apply to both.

Whether you use them or not, 3e's Skill system is demonstratably better than what Core 2nd Ed AD&D offers. It's like comparing black and brown - neither are white, but brown does come closest.


That's if the DM requires a check. In general, unless there is a chance of failure, he shouldn't.

That's not quite what is stated in the book. I'll quote it for you:

If the task is simple or the proficiency has only limited game use (such as cobbling or carpentry), a proficiency check is generally not required. If the task the character is trying to perform is difficult or subject to failure, a proficiency check is required.

So in addition to tasks which are subject to failure, the DM should request a check for a difficult task (difficult being determined by the DM, although it's not stated whether that is an absolute or relative scale).


However, the actual scale of change is much smaller. An 'average' character might have a 50% chance of succeeding in a check, but should he somehow raise his attribute by 10 Points, he will only double his chance. With 3e, the scale of improvement is much different.

IME, players often spent their NWP slots on proficiencies based on their better than average ability scores, unless it was an important proficiency like Riding, Land Based. And if they happen to have an 18, it's often fairly easy to push that into the key 19+ range.


Not really. Acquiring a Proficiency Slot only comes round five or six times during a 1-20 Level progression in 2e; since you start with around five or six, it's a very limited progression. Also, the benefit of having a Non Weapon Proficiency is usually not very great.

A 1st level 16 year old Human Wizard with 18 Intelligence starts with 11 NWPs and gets another 6 by 20th level. That's enough to make the character better than many masters who have spent more than 20 years in their profession. Although it's true that 3e's skills are generally more useful than Core 2nd Ed AD&D NWPs.

[nweismuller]

Forgive me for what may be a stupid question, but what is E6?

[Chronicled]

Forgive me for what may be a stupid question, but what is E6?

Not a stupid question at all. E6 is a version of D&D that caps the level at 6, with additional experience granting feats. It keeps characters within the laws of physics (an interesting article about this can be found here (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html)), while allowing them to keep growing--and lets them branch out in power rather than just get more power. It also keeps the party approximately equal in power levels, with casters only able to get 3rd level spells.

A detailed explaination is found here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206323). The E6 wiki (with .pdf) is found here (http://esix.pbwiki.com/).

[Matthew]

I don't know of any DM who has gone into a game without some system of determining what a PC can and cannot do. That's because having nothing means a PC can't do anything, or maybe can do everything, depending on how the DM interprets it. Every DM needs something better than that.

Then you're obviously not acquainted with that method of play. Attribute Checks are not a skill system, niether is assigning a percentage chance of success or failure, but they're both valid methods of play for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.


See, that's why it's such a nebulous thing, because some DMs said you could do it at half the chance of success you'd have if you were proficient, others took your approach and still others went with something else (usually a large negative modifier on the check).

Well, that's up to them. I don't see the problem. I prefer DMs to do things in line with their own preferences.


Which works out to be 2 - 3 slots, according to p17 of the 2nd Ed AD&D DMG. That's not enough to make the master better than a PC who only used one slot if the master has an average ability score and the PC has a high one. An Expert might have started with a high ability score and spent 4 or more NWP slots on it, but even so his chance of success always falls in the 1 - 19 range, just like a PC who has spent only one slot.

That's 'typical Journeymen', we don't know what their relevant Attribute Score is nor is that a hard limit on the number of slots available. The vast majority of his checks are going to be automatically successful anyway.


Whether you use them or not, 3e's Skill system is demonstratably better than what Core 2nd Ed AD&D offers. It's like comparing black and brown - neither are white, but brown does come closest.

I disagree. You may prefer the 3e Skill System, but demonstrating that it is better than the 2e Proficiency System is another matter. It simply better fits criteria that you have established for it.


That's not quite what is stated in the book. I'll quote it for you:

If the task is simple or the proficiency has only limited game use (such as cobbling or carpentry), a proficiency check is generally not required. If the task the character is trying to perform is difficult or subject to failure, a proficiency check is required.

So in addition to tasks which are subject to failure, the DM should request a check for a difficult task (difficult being determined by the DM, although it's not stated whether that is an absolute or relative scale).

Yes, difficult tasks are subject to failure, that's because they're difficult. What exactly constitutes difficulty is another matter. Of course, most proficiencies fall into the 'limited game use' category where the difficulty is irrelevant.


IME, players often spent their NWP slots on proficiencies based on their better than average ability scores, unless it was an important proficiency like Riding, Land Based. And if they happen to have an 18, it's often fairly easy to push that into the key 19+ range.

So what? Why object to a character with an 18 Attribute taking proficiencies keyed to it? It's the scale of improvement I object to, not the starting level of proficiency.


A 1st level 16 year old Human Wizard with 18 Intelligence starts with 11 NWPs and gets another 6 by 20th level. That's enough to make the character better than many masters who have spent more than 20 years in their profession. Although it's true that 3e's skills are generally more useful than Core 2nd Ed AD&D NWPs.

If he has an Intelligence of 17-18, that means he is a genius (check your Monster Manual); it would hardly be surprising if he were able to outdo others. Still, you're comparing him to Journeymen, not 'experts' or 'brilliant artists'. The way Attributes scale in AD&D is very different to 3e.

[greenknight]

Then you're obviously not acquainted with that method of play. Attribute Checks are not a skill system, niether is assigning a percentage chance of success or failure, but they're both valid methods of play for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.

If used that way, Attribute Checks are a skill system. In fact, 2nd Ed AD&D NWPs are essentially Attribute Checks with modifiers.


That's 'typical Journeymen'

That's also a typical Master. From p17 of the DMG : Masters, who watch over the work of journeymen and apprentices, are normally no more accomplished than journeymen but have additional proficiencies in other business areas.


we don't know what their relevant Attribute Score is nor is that a hard limit on the number of slots available.

No we don't, but with NWPs, it makes a huge difference. Someone with an ability score of 10 for the proficiency would need to spend 8 NWPs to match someone with an 18. To put that in perspective, that's more than any PC class gets going from 1st to 20th level (unless we talk about someone dual classing, in which case what happens with proficiencies is undefined in Core AD&D). So just how many extra NWPs are you going to give out before it becomes unreasonable?

I should also point out that if you use the 3d6 method of ability score generation, only 1 in 36 characters are going to have an 18, so the vast majority are going to have something lower than that as their highest ability score. So unless you use an ability generation method which produces higher results than that for your NPCs, we do know that statistically most masters aren't going to have an 18 at all.


I disagree. You may prefer the 3e Skill System, but demonstrating that it is better than the 2e Proficiency System is another matter. It simply better fits criteria that you have established for it.

And exactly what criteria are you using? Mine is to duplicate the learning process, where someone may have some talent and interest in a particular field, but requires study in order to get better at it. There's some serious issues with 3e's method (one of which is that maximum skill ranks are tied to level) but overall it models that approach better.


Of course, most proficiencies fall into the 'limited game use' category where the difficulty is irrelevant.

If you read it as written, that's not how it works. Even simple tasks or tasks with limited game use require a proficiency check if they are subject to failure, and all difficult tasks require them.


So what? Why object to a character with an 18 Attribute taking proficiencies keyed to it? It's the scale of improvement I object to, not the starting level of proficiency.

I don't object to someone taking a NWP keyed to a character's high ability score. I object to that character going from knowing (essentially) nothing about a subject (which is how many DMs handle non-Proficiency, including you from your previous statements) to being the equivalent of a master at it - which is how it ends up working out if you use the 2nd Ed AD&D Core NWP system. And often the character is just using one NWP slot to do it.


If he has an Intelligence of 17-18, that means he is a genius (check your Monster Manual); it would hardly be surprising if he were able to outdo others. Still, you're comparing him to Journeymen, not 'experts' or 'brilliant artists'. The way Attributes scale in AD&D is very different to 3e.

That "genius" is statistically one person in 216 if you use a simple 3d6 method for rolling ability scores. And I'm comparing him to a Master, not a Journeyman.

[Matthew]

If used that way, Attribute Checks are a skill system. In fact, 2nd Ed AD&D NWPs are essentially Attribute Checks with modifiers.

That's not a Skill System, that's a Task Resolution System. Non Weapon Proficiencies can be advanced and have specific things written out for them in terms of cause and effect, Attribute Checks are a quick and dirty method of determining success or failure of an action not covered in the rules.


That's also a typical Master. From p17 of the DMG : Masters, who watch over the work of journeymen and apprentices, are normally no more accomplished than journeymen but have additional proficiencies in other business areas.

You're confusing a Master Craftsman (in the sense of having mastery of his craft) with a Master of Craftsman (as in, in charge). If you peruse that section again, you'll note that Experts are seperated from both Journeymen and Masters.


No we don't, but with NWPs, it makes a huge difference. Someone with an ability score of 10 for the proficiency would need to spend 8 NWPs to match someone with an 18. To put that in perspective, that's more than any PC class gets going from 1st to 20th level (unless we talk about someone dual classing, in which case what happens with proficiencies is undefined in Core AD&D). So just how many extra NWPs are you going to give out before it becomes unreasonable?

You are failing to sufficiently distinguish between an Adventurer who has Non Weapon Proficiencies on the side ("almost as a hobby"), and a 0 Level NPC whose life consists of practicing his craft. Reasonable is when the mechanics create versimillitude. Whether that consists of 100, 20, 10, 5 or 1 Proficiency Slots, it's completely up to the DM.


I should also point out that if you use the 3d6 method of ability score generation, only 1 in 36 characters are going to have an 18, so the vast majority are going to have something lower than that as their highest ability score. So unless you use an ability generation method which produces higher results than that for your NPCs, we do know that statistically most masters aren't going to have an 18 at all.

You aren't supposed to generate Attribute Scores for every NPC, you should simply assign them if you need them. Average is 9-12. Assuming that this NPC has some natural aptitude for his chosen career, a score of 12-15 would not be unlikely.


And exactly what criteria are you using? Mine is to duplicate the learning process, where someone may have some talent and interest in a particular field, but requires study in order to get better at it. There's some serious issues with 3e's method (one of which is that maximum skill ranks are tied to level) but overall it models that approach better.

Well, that's the question. Neither I nor you have actually presented any criteria on which to judge the two systems. One of my criteria is certainly that a Level 0/1 Character who practices all of his life should be able to achieve a level of very great skill that is not outdone by your average adventurer or linked to level. Another would be that skills should not be integrated into the core game or treated as 'character building resources'.


If you read it as written, that's not how it works. Even simple tasks or tasks with limited game use require a proficiency check if they are subject to failure, and all difficult tasks require them.

Not at all. You have four conditions:

Simple
Difficult
Limited Game Use
Subject to Failure

Simple tasks do not require a check. Difficult tasks do require a check. Tasks that have limited game use do not require a check. Tasks that are subject to failure do require a check. There's no reason to think that these need to be interacted; note the example:

"Rath, skilled as a blacksmith, has been making horseshoes for years. Because he is so familiar with the task and has every tool he needs, the DM lets him make horseshoes automatically, without risk of failure. However, Delsenora has persuaded Rath to make an elaborate wrought-iron cage (she needs it to create a magical item). Rath has never done this before and the work is very intricate, so the DM imposes a penalty of -3 on Rath's ability check."

At some point, making Horse Shoes must have either been difficult or had a chance of failure for Rath (or both). Now it is either considered simple or of limited game use, but it is no longer difficult or carries a chance of failure. Either 'difficult' is a subjective term here or something that would otherwise carry a chance of failure can have that chance removed by favourable conditions and become automatic.


I don't object to someone taking a NWP keyed to a character's high ability score. I object to that character going from knowing (essentially) nothing about a subject (which is how many DMs handle non-Proficiency, including you from your previous statements) to being the equivalent of a master at it - which is how it ends up working out if you use the 2nd Ed AD&D Core NWP system. And often the character is just using one NWP slot to do it.

I use the training rule mentioned in the Proficiency Chapter. Again, though, that's not how it works. You can ride perfectly well before acquiring the riding proficiency, what you cannot do is any of the specific things mentioned in the description of the proficiency.


That "genius" is statistically one person in 216 if you use a simple 3d6 method for rolling ability scores. And I'm comparing him to a Master, not a Journeyman.

No, that's 1 in 216 Adventurers generated with 3D6, not 1 in 216 people in the campaign world. You cannot possibly be disputing the fact that 18 = Genius. It's written right there in black and white in the Attribute section: "A genius character is brilliant (Int 17 or 18). A character beyond genius is potentially more clever and more brilliant than can possibly be imagined."

You are also misunderstanding the meaning of Master in that paragraph, otherwise you are creating a hierarchy of Journeyman, Master and Expert, which is just silly.

[Prophaniti]

The main problem is that you simply can't create a system that is completely realistic for things like how good you are at making something. Personally, I think the system does a fair job of taking into account all the myriad factors that go into things like sneaking past a guard or riding a horse in battle. Is it perfect? No, of course not. I don't like the limitation on certain class/cross-class skills (why can't my wizard be good at listening? doesnt he need to be able to detect minor variances in the pronunciation of arcane words to successfully cast his spells?) and in some cases I don't like the 'by level' advancement of certain skills.

The problems that occur are mostly because WotC developers tried to create a skill system to cover virtually ANYTHING you want to do outside of fighting, and some of the things in it that can't be covered by attack rolls. They also tried to do this with a universal system for the sake of simplicity, which I think is a big plus. Complicated systems detract from the game. You do, however, end up with some mildly unrealistic ones like the proffesion and crafting skills, for which 'success' or 'failure' do not cover all possible outcomes, nor are the chances of them accurately reflected in the current system. You also end up with some seriously game-breaking ones that were not fully thought out, like the diplomacy cheese (I always use the Giant's fix in my games).

You can use some basic fixes to taste if you find any of these problems too drastic to carry on, but the system itself I will continue to use merely for the sake of simplicity and an easy-to-learn, easy-to-use game. Perfect verisimilitude is not really achievable and shouldn't be tried for. You either fail or end up with a system that is too complex to be practical or enjoyable. And still not good enough.

[nweismuller]

Actually, given that the technical definition of 'genius' is pegged at 140 IQ, which is 1 person in 100... 17 and 18, statistically, would indeed cover natural geniuses, and the idea that only 1 in 216 'adventurers' have an 18 in any given stat is a cop-out. An 18 is NOT ridiculously out of the norm; people such as Sir Isaac Newton or Einstein would be best modelled as having, say, perhaps a 20 INT under E6, achievable by levelling and feats.

[Matthew]

Actually, given that the technical definition of 'genius' is pegged at 140 IQ, which is 1 person in 100... 17 and 18, statistically, would indeed cover natural geniuses, and the idea that only 1 in 216 'adventurers' have an 18 in any given stat is a cop-out. An 18 is NOT ridiculously out of the norm; people such as Sir Isaac Newton or Einstein would be best modelled as having, say, perhaps a 20 INT under E6, achievable by levelling and feats.

Maybe not for D20, but we're talking AD&D here. Attributes scale differently and they don't exceed 18 except by extraordinary means. That said, if you felt that 1 in 214 people ought to have Intelligence 18, that would be up to you as the DM.

[greenknight]

That's not a Skill System, that's a Task Resolution System.

You're playing with words. If ability checks are used this way, they determine what a character can and cannot do, along with determining the character's aptitude for those tasks. IE, a skill system, even though it doesn't improve unless the ability scores themselves do.


You're confusing a Master Craftsman (in the sense of having mastery of his craft) with a Master of Craftsman (as in, in charge).

I'm using the the term master as it is used in the book, ie someone who oversees apprentices and journeymen. Who would also have been in the trade for many, many years in order to achieve that position.


If you peruse that section again, you'll note that Experts are seperated from both Journeymen and Masters.

And if you peruse my statements again, I specifically said the character could be as good as a master, not an expert or brilliant artist.


You are failing to sufficiently distinguish between an Adventurer who has Non Weapon Proficiencies on the side ("almost as a hobby"), and a 0 Level NPC whose life consists of practicing his craft.

You're right, because as I see it there may well be absolutely no difference in the skill level of the Adventurer (to whom this is merely a hobby) and someone who spends years in the trade (a journeyman or master).


Reasonable is when the mechanics create versimillitude. Whether that consists of 100, 20, 10, 5 or 1 Proficiency Slots, it's completely up to the DM.

Except the DM is told on p17 of the DMG that typical journeymen and masters spend 2 - 3 slots on their main skill. That's a bit short of 100, 20, 10 or even 5, although it is more than the 1 the PC might spend to become better at the skill than the journeyman or master.


You aren't supposed to generate Attribute Scores for every NPC, you should simply assign them if you need them. Average is 9-12. Assuming that this NPC has some natural aptitude for his chosen career, a score of 12-15 would not be unlikely.

Which is a bit different to what p17 of the DMG says (ability scores range from 3 - 18, although the method of generation isn't discussed). Nevertheless, if I use your method and assume a particularly talented master (ability score 15) who has spent 3 extra slots on his or her main skill, a PC with an 18 could match that character for ability. I don't think that should happen.


Well, that's the question. Neither I nor you have actually presented any criteria on which to judge the two systems. One of my criteria is certainly that a Level 0/1 Character who practices all of his life should be able to achieve a level of very great skill that is not outdone by your average adventurer or linked to level. Another would be that skills should not be integrated into the core game or treated as 'character building resources'.

Ok, I agree that skill building shouldn't be directly tied to character level, and that's one of the issues I've levelled at 3e's skill system. However, I think it's absolutely insane not to have some form of skill system built into the core game. How else would you determine if a particular character can ride a horse, swim, climb, knows about something or is able do any of the dozens of skill related tasks which commonly come up in game? And how do you judge whether a character is able to deal with more difficult examples of using those skills?


Not at all. You have four conditions:

Simple
Difficult
Limited Game Use
Subject to Failure

You're wrong. I quoted the passage for you, go back and read it.


At some point, making Horse Shoes must have either been difficult or had a chance of failure for Rath (or both). Now it is either considered simple or of limited game use, but it is no longer difficult or carries a chance of failure. Either 'difficult' is a subjective term here or something that would otherwise carry a chance of failure can have that chance removed by favourable conditions and become automatic.

All of which conforms to my earlier statement. Making horseshoes has become a simple task with no risk of failure. Doing something else might also be a simple task but is subject to failure because the character is inexperienced at doing it, so a roll is required. That can even apply if the task has limited game use. So even simple tasks or those with limited game use can require a check if they are difficult or subject to failure.


Again, though, that's not how it works. You can ride perfectly well before acquiring the riding proficiency, what you cannot do is any of the specific things mentioned in the description of the proficiency.

But riding and handling horses (or some other type of ground mount) is specifically mentioned in the description of Riding, Land Based. So if you can't do that, how can you ride before you're proficient?


No, that's 1 in 216 Adventurers generated with 3D6, not 1 in 216 people in the campaign world.

No, that's 1 in 216 characters generated with 3d6. Maybe you don't use the 3d6 method to generate NPCs in your game world, but I allowed for that by specifying the 3d6 method, and p17 of the DMG supports the idea of NPCs having ability scores which range from 3 - 18.


You cannot possibly be disputing the fact that 18 = Genius. It's written right there in black and white in the Attribute section: "A genius character is brilliant (Int 17 or 18). A character beyond genius is potentially more clever and more brilliant than can possibly be imagined."

But this is a genius which statistically appears in 1 out of 216 people using the 3d6 method. That's certainly remarkable, but many such characters would exist.


You are also misunderstanding the meaning of Master in that paragraph, otherwise you are creating a hierarchy of Journeyman, Master and Expert, which is just silly.

No, the paragraph is clear enough to me. There's apprentices, journeymen and masters (who oversee apprentices and journeymen). There's also experts and brilliant artists who usually devote all their ability to a single proficiency. But I'm certainly not mistaking either of those titles for master.

[Matthew]

You're playing with words. If ability checks are used this way, they determine what a character can and cannot do, along with determining the character's aptitude for those tasks. IE, a skill system, even though it doesn't improve unless the ability scores themselves do.

No, I'm not. A Task Resolution System is different from a Skill System and the difference is significant.


I'm using the the term master as it is used in the book, ie someone who oversees apprentices and journeymen. Who would also have been in the trade for many, many years in order to achieve that position.

Yes, but he has stopped improving his art and become embroiled in other practices, to which he is devoting an unspecified number of Proficiency Slots. He's as skilled as a Journey Man, which is to say that both are better than proficient, but neither are Experts.


And if you peruse my statements again, I specifically said the character could be as good as a master, not an expert or brilliant artist.

Well, now I think you're playing with words. If a Journey Man and Master are of equivalent skill and neither are Experts, why should it matter that their proficiency check is lower than someone with significantly more natural talent, but less experience and training?


You're right, because as I see it there may well be absolutely no difference in the skill level of the Adventurer (to whom this is merely a hobby) and someone who spends years in the trade (a journeyman or master).

Then you're missing the point of how it works. By comparing the number of slots available to an Adventurer over his career to the indeterminate number available to a 0 Level Character over his lifetime and saying "look adventurers only get X proficiencies, how can a 0 Level character have Y?" you are setting up an entirely false relationship. 0 Level characters do not advance levels and do not gain proficiencies at the same rate or by the same mechanisms as Player Characters.


Except the DM is told on p17 of the DMG that typical journeymen and masters spend 2 - 3 slots on their main skill. That's a bit short of 100, 20, 10 or even 5, although it is more than the 1 the PC might spend to become better at the skill than the journeyman or master.

That is a guideline, not a rule; some Journey Men will invest more, others less. As it stands, I have no problem with the idea that a Journey Man with a 12 in his main Attribute and three Proficiency Slots is not as skilled as a Player Character with a greater degree of natural talent and one Proficiency Slot.


Which is a bit different to what p17 of the DMG says (ability scores range from 3 - 18, although the method of generation isn't discussed). Nevertheless, if I use your method and assume a particularly talented master (ability score 15) who has spent 3 extra slots on his or her main skill, a PC with an 18 could match that character for ability. I don't think that should happen.

It's not different at all. That's the range of Attribute scores, not the probability distribution. If the DM wants an exceptionally strong NPC, he can have one. If he wants an exceptionally dumb NPC, that is also possible. If it were intended that he randomly generate the Attribute Scores of every NPC, then presumably it would have been expressed as 3D6 or the probability distribution discussed. If you don't feel that a Player Character who is at the limits of human natural talent should be able to match an NPC who is above average, but well trained, then that's up to you. I have no problem with the idea that natural talent should have a significant impact.


Ok, I agree that skill building shouldn't be directly tied to character level, and that's one of the issues I've levelled at 3e's skill system. However, I think it's absolutely insane not to have some form of skill system built into the core game. How else would you determine if a particular character can ride a horse, swim, climb, knows about something or is able do any of the dozens of skill related tasks which commonly come up in game? And how do you judge whether a character is able to deal with more difficult examples of using those skills?

You may think it's absolutely insane, but plenty of people play without skill systems. Tasks are there to be completed. It's no fun for anyone when half the party cannot climb a tree or ride a horse. If the Player wants his character to be a skilled rider, why not simply allow it? If he wants him to be good at jumping, running or climbing, that's also fine. If his Wizard is interested in the mysteries of the elemental plane of fire or a Fighter in the philosophy of Nim-Twan, why not allow it? If the DM wants to introduce a chance of failure to build tension or whatever, then he's free to do so, but there's no actual need beyond that.
If, on the other hand, the player wants his character to be able to routinely create exceptional weapons or do other things of significant mechanical benefit on account of having the 'skill', then that's something for him and the DM to discuss. It will either be allowed, modified or rejected, depending on whether it's appropriate for the game. The responsibility, and I believe this to be a great benefit, lies with them, not with a set of rules that may or may not be made to allow it.


You're wrong. I quoted the passage for you, go back and read it.

I have read it several times and I think that you are reading it out of context.


All of which conforms to my earlier statement. Making horseshoes has become a simple task with no risk of failure. Doing something else might also be a simple task but is subject to failure because the character is inexperienced at doing it, so a roll is required. That can even apply if the task has limited game use. So even simple tasks or those with limited game use can require a check if they are difficult or subject to failure.

If you agree that a task that is difficult or carries a chance of failure can become simple and automatic through modified circumstances, then where's the problem? If a Sword Smith has been making swords all of his life and the DM allows him to make them automatically, then he is better at it then a Player Character with any number of additional Proficiency Slots or Attribute Scores, as he will fail at least 5% of the time until he invests enough effort in practice for the task to become simple. If that same Sword Smith is asked to make an Axe Head, which he has never done before, and has less chance than the Player Character with greater natural aptitude, that seems reasonable to me. If the DM wants to modify the difficulty to take into account the Smiths familiarity with forging weapons above and beyond his Proficiency in Weapon Making, that would also be acceptable, as would reducing the Player Character's chance for having not practiced the art in some time.


But riding and handling horses (or some other type of ground mount) is specifically mentioned in the description of Riding, Land Based. So if you can't do that, how can you ride before you're proficient?

Being able to ride a horse is different from being "skilled in land riding" or "proficient in the art of riding and handling horses." It's the same as a character with the Run, Mountaineering or Jump Proficiency. Some proficiencies work differently, such as Swimming, where a character is unable to swim without it and that is stated in the proficiency description. The ride proficiency grants the character access to various 'tricks'.


No, that's 1 in 216 characters generated with 3d6. Maybe you don't use the 3d6 method to generate NPCs in your game world, but I allowed for that by specifying the 3d6 method, and p17 of the DMG supports the idea of NPCs having ability scores which range from 3 - 18.

That's the range, not the probability distribution; the difference is important. Certainly, there's no reason an NPC shouldn't be able to be a genius or an idiot, but the Attribute spread of the population is at the discretion of the DM. If he wants all the Barbarians of the North Plains to be hardy and strong, it would be foolish to generate their Attributes randomly.


But this is a genius which statistically appears in 1 out of 216 people using the 3d6 method. That's certainly remarkable, but many such characters would exist.

No, this is the limit of human talent. "A character beyond genius is potentially more clever and more brilliant than can possibly be imagined." That's a pretty unambiguous statement.


No, the paragraph is clear enough to me. There's apprentices, journeymen and masters (who oversee apprentices and journeymen). There's also experts and brilliant artists who usually devote all their ability to a single proficiency. But I'm certainly not mistaking either of those titles for master.

Then why worry about it? If a Master and a Journey Man are of equal skill and not experts, then why should we be surprised if a Player Character with significantly more natural talent can more reliably turn out goods that neither are particularly familiar with?

[Telonius]

What sane DM would allow someone while feebleminded to earn there wage?

The same one that pays my co-workers.:smallmad:

[MrNexx]

The same one that pays my co-workers.:smallmad:

Hee-hee-hee.

However, a task resolution system is not necessarily a skill system, though I'd be hard-pressed to think of a skill system that was not a task resolution system. Rectangles and squares.

For example, in the Strength attribute of 2nd edition, there were the Open Doors and the Bend Bars/Lift Gates percentages. These were definitely task resolution systems... they gave you a way to determine how certain things got done. However, they were not skill systems. There was no way to improve on your ability to do these things (short of a raw improvement of the linked attribute) and they were fairly limited in scope.

In Dragonlance SAGA, the entire system resolved around the same task resolution system. Play a card, add your attribute, compare to target number. If the card was the same suit as the attribute, you had a "trump", which would allow you to turn over the next card on the deck and add that to your total, as well. However, it's skill system was very simple... if you had a given skill (whether because of race or training), you got a "free trump" with certain actions... meaning that ANY card you played was trump, making you much more likely to achieve things.

[Matthew]

Indeed. The difference between a skill system and a task resolution system generally lies in the predetermination of what can and cannot be done, as well as defining how those things are accomplished. A Task Resolution System can accomplish most of the things a Skill System can, but that does not make them the same. Generally speaking, task resolution systems have a greater degree of interpretative latitude. To quote the 2e PHB on the subject:

"First, nonweapon proficiencies are rigid. Being so defined, they limit the options of both the player and DM."