I'm not suggesting adopting a skill system. That would make C&C Not C&C. The simplicity of the game needs to be preserved.Fizz wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 11:51 pmI'm not saying this is a bad idea, it is certainly a workable system. But it would still beg the question of why a ranger could not ever be as strong as a barbarian. The real question is this: should there be certain skills that are not class-specific, and be learned at full level?paladinn wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 10:54 pmMaybe that's where the "common ability bonus" could come in. If the CK agrees, if a given skill/talent/whatever could be considered part of a character's background, or a reasonable part of the class, but Not a class ability, allow 1/2 the level (rounded down).
So rangers are physical outdoorsy types, so things like swimming would deserve 1/2 the ranger's level
Perkins's ADD3 is a nice work, a nice combination of different systems / ideas. But the skills system is too akin to 5e for my liking, because they are connected to class abilities (which started with 3e), so i don't think it's the answer to this question.
-Fizz
There's a big difference between a class ability that Definitely gets an entire level bonus+stat bonus, and a non-class ability that gets nothing but a stat bonus. The common bonus idea gives a CK some "wiggle room." Everything is CK-fiat anyway; but that would let a ranger get a pretty decent bonus. Unless the player can make a case of his ranger being an islander, in which case s/he deserves a full level bonus.
IMO the barbarian is badly conceived and designed anyway, in Any edition. "Barbarian" is a background; and you can find barbarians with almost any class. "Berserker" would be a class, or maybe a sub-class.
Speaking of.. sub-classes are another concept that might be adopted:)