fgsl's page

Skill Synergies sound entirely reasonable, but you do have to stop somewhere: you could reasonably make a case for almost any skill contributing to almost any other skill in some specialized situation. Ergo you wind up with oscillations between three poles - the extreme simplicity of “no skill synergies”, the extreme complexity of “evaluate all suggested skill synergies”, and the extreme subjectivity of “make a case for it and I’ll judge it at the time”.

Admittedly, I tend towards the subjective end based on how well the player explains how the skill is related, with something like

Skill +5-15: +1 for a poor explanation, +2 for a decent one, +3 for a really good one.
Skill +16-30: +1 for a poor explanation, +3 for a decent one, +5 for a really good one.

I can't recall who suggested it first, but I'm using the "Aid Another"-syngergy which allows PCs to suggest which of their skills (max. two) would give synergy bonuses for each skill check. For example, you might suggest that your Knowledge (Local) and Knowledge (History) should help your Diplomacy check -- you get +2 to your Diplomacy check from each "helpful" skill if your succeed with DC 10 check. My players love this system, since it is dynamic and lets them suggest skills that they think are relevant in the situation -- if they can only come up with logical ´reasons for *why* and *how* those skill could work. I don't think we even *need* a giant-sized synergy table, because realistically a lot of skills could be helpful under *certain* circumstances.

I really like where this is heading.

The "make a case for it and I’ll judge it at the time" looks the best one on paper. Makes things simple for whoever simply doesn't want the rule, doesn't fill the book with awful lots of explanations, forces roleplaying, and is REALLY DYNAMIC.
The character must be tuned to what's going on instead of just going the "I'll try to improve his attitude towards me."
I think d20 system lacks on roleplaying, being more focused on combat, so anything that encourages it is welcome.

I like the Half-Constitution mentioned by some here.
But I think it should be rounded up. We have very few benefits from an even number. Just Feat pre-requisites.
I think it's more accurate than the racial, since your racial bonus to constitution is already included in your constitution. A gnome can be tough, though it's unlikely when compared to a Dwarf.

I am a big supporter of consolidated skill groups as I have been using them for many years, and the players of all my groups have greatly liked their uses.

One aspect I brought in was the concept of "trained ability checks" into my skill groups.

In example: Sometimes a straight up Strength check is required, but often similar feats of strength are needed where it would be reasonable to assume that someone who has trained (taken skill points) in strength related skills, might be better at the task than someone who has not taken any training. This same logic can be applied to all of the character's abilities.

Accordingly I have been using the following skill categories:

Athletics (Comprised of Climb and Jump), STR based
a good catch all category for anything involving a feat of strength check on any similarly trained areas.

Nimbleness (Comprised of Balance, Tumble & Escape Artist), DEX based
a good catch all category for anything involving an agility check on any similarly trained areas, yet not warranting a reflex saving throw.

Hardiness (Comprised of Concentraion), CON based
a good catch all category for anything involving an endurance related check on any similarly trained areas.
Note: I really do hope that they break this apart again from Spellcraft.

Analysis (Comprised of Appraise and Dechiper), INT based
a good catch all category for anything involving an intellectual reasoning check on any similarly trained areas.
Note: I really hope they break speaking a language apart from Decipher. Speaking extra languages is a great benefit, and one that should come from a specific skill cost to do so. If they want to simplify things, then I wouldn't object to just combining speaking with read and write for each language learned.

Intuition (Comprised of Sense Motive), WIS based
a good catch all category for anything involving an intuitive related check on any similarly trained areas. I also deem this skill to give general "streetwise" knowledge.
...

I can see where you are going, but for few skills missing, it's just like making ability checks!

This group division seems a GREAT starting point for SYNERGIES. It would boost other skills in the group and still keep evident the difference from skills to abilities.
I've started a topic on synergies.

I was wondering about things like this. What about a +1 per every 5?

That's what I was tinkering... the +2/5 ranks is too static.

I think it should always be reciprocate: Diplomacy gives Sense Motive and vice versa, and that every skill should have a reciprocate, even if it's a specific craft, profession or knowledge.

Something like: Craft trap making and Disable Device.

When you weren't using divine metamagic for powerplaying (comboing), it was a nice feat you'd take to make your Turning atempts useful. Now that your Channel "turn" Energy became a mass healing "spell", you will not be willing to trade 4 channeling slots to maximize a spell.
It's a great change that makes harder to combo (extra turn only gives +2), the cleric better and the divine metamagic more balanced feats, since now you have the feeling you're loosing something.

But, on the other hand, have Quicken and Empower Turning become too powerful?

I loved the new skill system. Really simplified and made more skills useful.
I think the synergies between skills should be exploited.
Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft?
Knowledge Religion and Channel Energy?
Acrobatics and Escape Artist?
Stealth and Sleight of Hand?
Sense Motive and Diplomacy?
I don't know... maybe every 5 ranks in one skill gives you a +1 bonus on the other?