Sorry, didn’t get to read this until after I had posted my house rules. Have a look at my options, one of them isn’t dissimilar to this.

From the blog :-
“At character generation you can select a limited number of skills for your character from a prescribed list. This list is dependent upon your class. The skills you choose become trained skills. You have a +5 bonus to all trained skills.”

Why not have at character gen. that each class must take a number of “untrained” skills from a prescribed list – these skills become completely independant of level.
You could then have feats to allow our hero’s to overcome their lack of training in these fields during the course of play.

I’ve had discussions on and off email on exactly the points you raise. Skills like Craft and Profession are always going to be sub-optimal choices, and every skill list is a compromise between a faithful representation of the breadth of human endeavour, and a something that is playable. I think that third edition got the balance about right in terms of number of skills. 4e’s list is just too short.

And, all those homogenised skills… acrobatics, athletics, thievery. I can see how some skills fold together – pick lock and disable device are effectively the same thing – but some of it is just indefensible.

I guess it’s not so much being bad at a skill, as it is the assumption that everyone can do everything. That’s not heroic. A hero is someone who overcomes his disadvantages, not someone who just doesn’t have any disadvantages. Still, you’re right that it is in keeping with the 4e ethos.

This is going to be a tricky balancing act.

I have to admit that I am one of those players / DMs happy with the skill changes. And, your quote here sums it up: “Why limit what players?”

Dungeons and Dragons is a game about players being the heroes, not the “nobodies”. Who cares about farmers, basket weaving, and the like, when you are running heroes? If a player wished to take basket weaving, I would let them – one feat, and they are trained in the skill, most likely based around Dexterity or Intelligence. What are the rules? Well, we can work them out together. But does it need to be in the core system, does it need to balance with everything in there (which, let’s face it, is about combat)?

Basically, I am all for houseruling this stuff, and both love that it is not core, and that the core system is flexible enough to allow us to do it. But my houserules will be adding new skills (and only as needed), probably not quite what you are planning to do :p

Having a new player start 3.5, the skill list (and the mechanics behind the choosing) is pretty much always the most daunting task. 4E simplifies this, and I love it :D

As to being bad at things – it is possible. A low score, with appropriate penalties (armour?) can drop skills down. Now, you might be saying that the 1/2 level bonus quickly negates all negatives. Well, sure, but a low positive can still be bad. +3 isn’t great if others have +13. Remember that 4E is a game of little negatives – non-proficiency doesn’t give a penalty, but rather, proficiency gives a bonus. All races have bonuses to stats, and no negatives. This is accenting the “hero” feel, but its just a shift in the scale of numbers. AC’s, defences and DCs have all risen accordingly, so people are still going to fail stuff, they are just going to fail it with higher results :p

Hrmm, anyway, I think I might be being a little confusing. Maybe my painkillers are wearing off… Still, interested in seeing your house rules and changes!

-hvg3