I was looking over grouped skills the other day and suggested it to my players at our last session. Most of them seemed willing to try it in our next campaign but one refused saying it would be too much work for him.
what I wanted to ask is: are the three skill systems (traditional, consolidated and grouped) balanced enough against each other that I could let my players decide which system they use on their characters individually or would that horribly unbalance the game?
The person who doesn't want to use the grouped skills or consolidated skills would likely be at a disadvantage compared to those who do.
Personally I would ask the whole group to agree to use one system, instead of using differing systems.
Normal skills and group skill system should be pretty compatible, because you still have all the same skills.
Consolidated skills wont play nicely at all with the core system.
However, both optional systems are pretty easy in my opinion, so I don't buy that "it's too much work".
No matter what it's not going to be imbalanced in a way that would ruin the game for the majority of your players, but the player that doesn't want to use the optional system might find they're behind in the skills department compared to everyone else which (would be imbalanced) but in a way that is worse for the player than you as a GM.
However, both optional systems are pretty easy in my opinion, so I don't buy that "it's too much work".
This. Consolidated Skills might take a bit to learn (or a sheet that you look at during gameplay), but Grouped Skills is super easy to understand, since it only actually changes things during character creation and levelup.
I don't know why, but the player is making excuses.
Edit: And now I'm seriously considering implementing the Grouped Skills system in my current ongoing campaign. The system feels natural, actually requires fewer decisions (good for my players!), and broadens out the characters.
However, both optional systems are pretty easy in my opinion, so I don't buy that "it's too much work".This. Consolidated Skills might take a bit to learn (or a sheet that you look at during gameplay), but Grouped Skills is super easy to understand, since it only actually changes things during character creation and levelup.
I don't know why, but the player is making excuses.
Edit: And now I'm seriously considering implementing the Grouped Skills system in my current ongoing campaign. The system feels natural, actually requires fewer decisions (good for my players!), and broadens out the characters.
Yeah, this is my first time seeing the Grouped system and I really like it as an alternative option.
I would not make the switch mid campaign, but this sounds like a perfect discussion for your Zero Session. We let all the players have a chance to talk about it, then discuss, with the GM having a weighted vote.
It's not really balanced with the standard system, it seems to be more powerful instead.
But honestly, I can understand your refusing player. The writeup could be way more clear:
* introduction mixes overview with relevant mechanics: no ranks anymore, half level as group bonus - which leads to the wrong first impression it's only about groups
* no separate heading for skill specialities (despite they are as important as the group bonuses)
* some sentences are oversaturated with the word "skill", making them more difficult to read than necessary
* example is too short: It never mentions the actual bonuses the druid gets
The mechanics aren't perfect either:
* Human gets no compensation for losing a strong racial trait
* There is no penalty for dumping Int down to 7, just the usual -2 on Int based skills
* Rogue gets too little of an edge over the 6 + Int classes
* Increased skill overlap between PCs will lead to increased competition for spotlight
* Any change to your Int bonus gives or takes specialties: Consider instant skill mastery (as needed) with fox's cunning and other exploits
It feels like a premature ancestor of PF2's system (be trained in a skill for a level + 2 bonus, be even more trained for level + 4 / 6 / 8 later).
Ok, that last posting was quite lopsided. I see some arguments in favor of grouped skills:
It's newbie friendly: As long as they pick groups fitting the character concept, they are more or less fine. Taking a less useful skill as specialty doesn't ruin the day. No more choice paralysis when it comes to spending numerous ranks.
It allows everyone to contribute, when it comes to skills. When the PC only aids the check of someone else (since even four PCs will have skill overlap), it's less spotlight but more teamwork.
It encourages Int 14 (for a bonus specialty), making ability scores more diverse and choosing them more interesting.