Finding a balance between class-based and skill-based?

[Greywander]

Progression is a part of almost every RPG, but each RPG does it differently. Games like Dungeons and Dragons use a fairly rigid class system, where you choose a class when you create your character and gain specific new abilities in a certain order. I don't know this for certain, but I'd hazard a guess that this is due to D&D's origin of being adapted from war games, where instead of controlling an army each player controls a singular soldier. Strategy games (including war games) often organize soldiers or groups of soldiers into different units, with each unit having its own stats and abilities, and when this was adapted into D&D this idea carried over in the form of classes. D&D does give you some room in which to customize your character, but the class-based approach is still very restrictive.

Other systems, like GURPS or Fate, use a skill-based system. Instead of having a preset selection of abilities that are doled out in a specific order all wrapped up nicely into a class, every ability is purchased individually using XP (or the system equivalent). Want to learn to throw fireballs? There's a skill for that. Want to learn to pick locks? There's a skill for that, too. Want to learn how to repair toilets? Yep, there's probably a skill for that. And if there isn't, you can probably make one and add it to the game. Skill-based systems are very open, with little or no restrictions on which abilities you can purchase, and when. All that's required is that you have the XP for it, and that it's an ability that is permitted for the type of creature you are (if you are a race that specifically has no psionic ability, you probably won't be allowed to purhase any psionic traits... unless your GM rules otherwise).

I do think the skill-based approach is better suited to roleplaying games, and is my preference as well. In fact, there's actually a lot I dislike about D&D, and yet I keep finding myself drawn back to D&D 5e. Maybe it's because it's a system I've become familiar with, and learning a new system is hard. But I don't think that's the whole story. Because I think there's actually something about the class-based structure that appeals to, and it's not something I can get from a skill-based system. I think what draws me back to D&D is build optimization; it's not just about making a strong character, it's about finding interesting combinations or synergies, even underpowered or impractical ones, and is a bit like solving a puzzle.

Build optimization isn't really a thing in skill-based systems. If an ability is strong, you just take it. Nothing is stopping you. If two abilities synergize, just pick them both up. Again, there's not really any restrictions beyond "the type of creature you are is literally incapable of having that trait". But in a class-based system like D&D, the restrictions are what create the puzzle. A level put in one class necessarily means you can't put a level in a different class. It's not possible to build a character who is both an 11th level fighter with three attacks and also an 11th level paladin who adds 1d8 radiant to each attack, because you'd need to be 22nd level, and 20th level is the max (although with homebrew...). When you can get literally everything with enough XP, there's not really a challenge to building an optimized character; just get everything.

So what I'm wondering is if I can have my cake and eat it, too. Can I get a system that is primarily skill-based, but has some aspects of a class-based system that allows for creating interesting builds? One thought I had was to perhaps use some kind of talent tree system, where you have your skills that bonuses to basic rolls while your talents give more unique and interesting bonuses. A system like Fudge might work well here; Fudge makes a distinction between "traits", which are essentially skills that add a bonus to a roll and can be ranked up, and "gifts", which usually don't influence rolls and can't be ranked up. In Fudge, a swordfighting skill is a trait, while the ability to regenerate would be a gift. So perhaps gifts could be arranged into trees where you need to buy the lower level gifts to access the stronger ones, and these trees could serve as an analogue to classes. So anyone can purchase swordfighting skill, but you might need to buy some gifts in the Fighter tree before you can access the gift that allows you to attack twice on your turn instead of once. We could also keep track of the total XP earned, and when you cross certain thresholds you would gain a level, and instead of spending XP on talents you would get a talent point for each level.

I suppose my worry would be that any method of implementing such a thing would inevitably either turn the system into a class-based system in disguise, or else not fulfill it's purpose.

[Morphic tide]

The question really is just the balance point of how much to put in the fungible skills and how much to put in the non-fungible classes. If I'm understanding you properly, is the idea that you can buy individual skills directly while simultaneously having class levels? Another thing you might not think about is that class-level-based systems have lockstep progression, giving a variety of set ratios of character abilities, which minimizes the potential for certain truly distended hyper-specialist builds. Sure, you have Elf Wizards with 6 Con in 3.5, but that's a very specific choice resting on a single number rather than an ongoing problem.

This is a big thing for zero-to-hero campaigns, because it makes it mandetory to gain meaningful amounts of "meat" so the dice cannot doom you against fodder abruptly. You may die to a stiff level-appropriate breeze, but even the Elf Wizard with 6 Con ceases to risk being one-shot by the beginning Goblins by level 10.

[Old Harry MTX]

I think that one way to do what you are trying to do is design a skill based system, adding for each skill a set of prerequisites. These prereqs should not be too stringent, for example to take a certain skill it should not be necessary to know another specific skill, but for example have reachen a certain ability score, or a minimum number of skills of a certain type, such as martial, caster, healer, detective...

If you use a system based on skill trees, I'm afraid it could be nothing more than a multiclass system.

[Draz74]

I share most of your feelings, Greywander.

My solution, originally based on the Generic Classes + class features as bonus feats Variant Rule in 3.5e, is to replace classes with a system of Kits and Feats and Talents that characters can choose as they level up. This adds a lot of flexibility to the class system. If two players disagree about whether a "Ranger" archetype should be a spellcaster, both of them can build characters that fit with their idea of the archetype and they can just agree to disagree about who's more Ranger-ish.

Sometimes a Kit or Feat or Talent has another specific Kit or Feat or Talent as a prerequisite, but this is uncommon enough that I wouldn't call this a "Talent Tree" system (Tree, to me, implies that most special ability selections have one other special ability as their main prerequisite, and you mostly have to take the special abilities in a certain order).

I also have Skills in my system, but I think the above is my answer to your posed question.

[quindraco]

So what I'm wondering is if I can have my cake and eat it, too. Can I get a system that is primarily skill-based, but has some aspects of a class-based system that allows for creating interesting builds?

Yes, escalating costs. As you pointed out, in D&D you have 20 levels to spend, so you can't buy everything - you'll use up all 20 levels. In terms of experience points, each level costs more than the level before it. That's how you do it - a prerequisite structure, or as you called it a talent tree, and escalating costs. A build, by definition, simply exists at some budget point - some amount of cost spent, whatever currency you use. If your currency is levels, a level 17 build is distinct from a level 20 build. You get the idea.

Here's a very basic example, using D&D monks (modified slightly, because 5E monks have slightly nerfed unarmed damage progression for no clear reason, and it makes the math harder to express):

Martial Arts I: Prereqs: Dex 13, Wis 13. Cost: 1 unit. Benefit: Your unarmed strikes deal 1d4 damage.
Martial Arts II: Prereqs: Dex 13, Wis 13, Martial Arts I, Proficiency Bonus 3. Cost: 2 units. Benefit: Your unarmed strikes deal 1d6 damage.
Martial Arts III: Prereqs: Dex 13, Wis 13, Martial Arts II, Proficiency Bonus 4. Cost: 3 units. Benefit: Your unarmed strikes deal 1d8 damage.
Martial Arts IV: Prereqs: Dex 13, Wis 13, Martial Arts III, Proficiency Bonus 5. Cost: 4 units. Benefit: Your unarmed strikes deal 1d10 damage.
Ki-Empowered Strikes: Prereqs: Dex 13, Wis 13, Martial Arts II, Proficiency Bonus 3. Cost: 3 units. Benefit: Your unarmed strikes deal magical damage.

So getting to 1d10 damage costs 10 units in addition to whatever getting your proficiency bonus up requires, and that can't be shortcutted. Then you compare builds at 10 units, or 20, or whatever. You could also do away with the Proficiency Bonus prerequisite if you wanted to get rid of levels as well as classes.

[Greywander]

Reviving this thread to add some additional thoughts.

First, I think this does require a change in my thinking. It's easy to think in terms of specific builds in D&D, because the game actively prevents you from getting everything. Even then, though, often you're looking at 20th level, which isn't realistic. Sure, you can make an interesting build for 20th level, but (a) how many of your campaigns will actually get to 20, and (b) of the ones that do, how many will keep going for any significant amount of time. It's true that skill based systems allow you to cherry pick which abilities to get and when, but given a specific point budget you'll only be able to acquire so many abilities. Even if a D&D game allowed you to eventually raise every class to 20 (as with some of my own homebrew rules), ultimately each campaign still only hands out a finite amount of XP before the campaign ends, so actually getting everything is impossible (unless you play for a very long time).

Second, there are some things we can do with mutually exclusive features. Vampire: the Masquerade has a few examples of this. Certain disciplines are outright mutually exclusive, such as Celerity and Temporis. You can either be really fast, or have time manipulation powers, not both. Also, younger vampires can blend disciplines together into techniques, whereas older vampires are incapable of learning techniques. On the other hand, elder vampires can learn elder disciplines, which is basically breaking the normal level caps for disciplines.

I also thought of an example of this using a magic system I came up with that was in a big part inspired by the psionics system from GURPS. In this magic system, there are eight different "elements" arranged into four opposing pairs. But these aren't elements like fire or water, they're based on the different types of psionics from GURPS. So one opposing pair is Motion (which includes speeding up or slowing down molecular vibration, AKA fire and ice magic) and Space (AKA teleportation). Another opposing pair is Light (electromagnetism, visual illusions, actual lightning) and Chaos (order, randomness, and probability). I've decided that Light can be used with other types of magic to interact with the past (linking Light to General Relativity, as the light from distant stars shows us the past), e.g. you can time travel to the past by combining Light with Space, and Chaos is the same but for the future (linking it to Quantum Mechanics, allowing for prediction of possible futures).

Anyway, since this magic system has the different types in opposing pairs, it logically makes sense that you can't learn both types in a pair. So you must choose between Motion or Space, Light or Chaos, etc. I haven't worked out exactly how I want the system to work, and at one point I was leaning toward most mages only learning one type, but at the very least you'd be limited to four of the eight. Alternatively, perhaps you could play a mage who masters both elements in a pair, but at the cost of not being able to learn other elements (or being restricted to one additional element).

Mutual exclusivity could also crop up in the case of racial choices. Certain types of creatures get access to unique abilities that no other creature does. Perhaps you could play a halfbreed, but this would only give you access to the weaker abilities of both, or limit your selection in some other way.

Mutual exclusivity doesn't have to be a strict either/or, either. It could take the form of "any two of three", or similar. This could also be used for skill trees, where you might need one skill before you can purchase another skill, but you could also make it so that purchasing one skill makes you ineligible for a different skill, e.g. swearing a paladin's oath would make you ineligible to gain dark powers from questionable spirits. Such skill trees could also serve as an ad hoc class system.