The Class-Based To Skill-Based Transition

Over the years, I'm fairly confident that most D&D players have heard the lamentations of various individuals in regards to the rigid "class-based" system of character generation, and how they have longed for a system that would grant more possibilities to customize their player characters, or PCs. Most frequently, they propose solutions that take the form of a more "skill-based" system of character generation. Within it, they feel they'll be able to take nothing but skills or feats they actually desire to play while avoiding all skills or feats that don't exactly fit their character conception.

Classes, you see, often demand one take skills or feats that are part of their base package, and if those are skills or feats the player has absolutely no intention of using, then they appear to be just so much excess baggage and a waste of space.

Of course, if they were simply disused, then that wouldn't be too big a problem. But, it is reasoned, the character would have done better to use their limited time and resources to learn something else - something the player actually wanted to play. In short, such skills or feats logically should cost time - or in game terms, skill points or feat slots - and if one were allowed to forgo the unwanted skills or feats, they logically could have used those skill points or feat slots to buy better, more desirable skills or feats.

The entire idea is perhaps faulty since it assumes each class (or new subclass) has, in actual fact, an identical amount of time to become 1st level in their chosen class. But this isn't the case. The conceptual approach to starting characters does not assume each PC has spent an identical amount of time training, and thus it is wrong to think a new proposed subclass has X amount of time, or their time may have been better spent elsewhere since there is no reason to believe they had this time in the first place, or used it, or couldn't have used it better. But I digress.

From a superficial examination, it often does seem like skills or feats found in a class's base package are modular and independent, so it's not always easy to understand why they aren't, and players will forever be tempted to think they are and wish to treat them that way.

For example, if they wished to play a "fighter type" character, but knew it would have a flavor more similar to pirates or adventuring on the open seas, they certainly won't need the heavy armor feat - and probably not the medium armor feat, either. Also, shields are not that important to such a swashbuckling character. They further reason their PC would be much better if, instead of spending three feats on those "useless" abilities, they instead could acquire three, better feats, such as ambidexterity, two weapon-fighting, and/or perhaps weapon focus or weapon finesse.

At first glance, this may seem like a perfectly reasonable and "fair" trade off, and the DM may simply allow it. That's fine if they want to play that way, of course, but I think it's a bit shortsighted. Why? Even if one had no desire to actually wear and use heavy armor, one might imagine possessing knowledge of it would still make them a better fighter anyway, particularly when confronting opponents donned in heavy armor. You would know the weaknesses of armor, its soft spots, or the "chinks" in such armored defenses, as they say, and as such might better fight such a foe. You might even do better against creatures whose hides are a natural kind of armor, understanding more innately the way to fight such foes is not to breech their armor, per se, but find ways around it.

Furthermore, a typical fighter's style of hand-to-hand combat fighting is geared toward wearing heavy armor, and knowledge of armor, and that style of fighting that accompanies it would also provide insights into the weaknesses of fighters, in general, whether you were personally clad in heavy armor or not, since you understand better the style of fighting that uses heavy armor. All this is borne of a simple and greater appreciation of heavy armor, and that knowledge is yours to have and use, but only if you posses those feats.

Without this knowledge, it is not unreasonable to assume, when confronting armored opponents, your tactics wouldn't be as good as they might have been had you known more about heavy armor and its strengths and weaknesses.

Also, it may be the case some skill packages cost less when you take them all at once and learn them under one trainer than they might if you learned them piecemeal over time from many trainers. For example, learning light, medium, and heavy armor, as well as shield, could all be synergistically related and cost 2 feat slots if one took them at one time, but might cost 4 feat slots if they took them one at a time over the years to come. Thus, we can see, the very notion one deserved a refund of 1 feat for heavy armor may ignore such considerations that went into that class's creation.

It might also be the case allowing such a swap would ruin the parent class. For example, if a player were allowed to swap heavy armor for weapon focus (or any other feat of his choice) then everyone who wanted to play a fighter should also be so allowed. Recall, since beginning characters can't really afford to buy actual platemail yet, it would be sort of foolish to take the heavy armor feat at first level when many others are easily and immediately more useful. Unless the concept of a subclass included, for example, prohibitions against taking the heavy armor feat later, or its new feats or skill didn't work while clad in heavy armor, the option of swapping feats one-for-one ruins the parent class of fighter. Unless, of course, there is some reason why one would take heavy armor at 1st level despite the fact one cannot afford to buy platemail or the like at that time. The synergistic cost of 2 feat slots now, instead of 4 later, would be such a reason.

Analysis of other classes might reveal other apparent problems, such as why don't magic users or other characters who also lack this knowledge of the heavy armor feat, receive some sort of penalty, too, when fighting armored opponents? The answer, of course, is that they do - this fact is reflected in why they don't get the same number of bonuses to their Base Attack Bonus (or BAB) as fighters do. So it is not an active penalty for classes that don't have the heavy armor feat, but perhaps a hidden bonus for those that do have it. The knowledge of the heavy armor feat provides greater advantages than just the ability to wear the stuff.

Rangers, however, do not have the heavy armor feat, yet they seem to enjoy the same BAB progression tables as fighters do. Why is that? Where is their penalty? It may be reflected in the fact rangers do not get nearly as many feats as fighters get. For example, a ranger's fighting style, different from that of a more traditional fighter, may be such that it finds another solution to their BAB problem when facing armor. The style is more geared toward quicker, more fluid motions, for instance. But as such, the devotion to this different style of fighting precludes gaining the extra feats that fighters enjoy since the ranger's fighting style is probably more demanding. It certainly is different.

NOTE: It's probably the case that the styles of fighting for a fighter, a ranger, a paladin, and a barbarian, are ALL different and not identical, despite each one apparently given an identical +1 BAB bonuses at 1st level. As such, they may, in fact, also not cost the same in time or training, or in game terms, skill points and/or feat slots. Furthermore, each different style might rely on some skill or feat that is part of the class's base package. In any event, it's hard to adjudicate their exact cost objectively, and though it's easier when subjectivity is allowed, the fact it is so subjective invites the possibility of huge arguments and disputes between players and DMs. I mention the probable different costs of each fighting style only as a further example of how each class's base package may synergistically intertwine with all its other traits, making it nigh impossible to unravel them. Thankfully, it's not necessary to do this. However, it does mean subjective points of view, and most probably the DM's POV, will eventually prevail for their world, and players should accept the experience of the DM as to what is balanced for their world if that player wishes to play there.

While good DMs often will allow players to propose new ideas for different subclasses based on the standard 4 classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, or magic user), each proposal must be judged as acceptable or not, balanced or not, and conceptually new enough or not, to be worth inclusion. Rangers and paladins were exactly the sort of example of a proposed subclass of the fighter template that were deemed worthy, but there may still be others. From each parent class one may derive new subclasses. However, in addition to being relatively balanced with its parent class, any new proposed subclass must also NOT make its parent class obsolete.

Naturally, part of the D&D system is abstract, so it's not always particularly easy to see the importance of a skill or feat that is part of the "class package," and it may seem perfectly correct one could substitute those skills or feats for other skills or feats with no detrimental effects whatsoever. But this is usually not the case, for several reasons.

FIRST, though it is an OOC (Out Of Character) reason, the game system assumes that 1st-level characters of each existing class have been play tested and are reasonably well balanced and fair. This doesn't mean each class will fair equally well in a toe-to-toe fight or arena of combat, of course, but it means they have comparable selections in diversity and power. Keep in mind there are many more ways to judge one's power other than hit dice, armor class, and base attack bonuses. Diversity is also powerful - in the right hands, it can be VERY powerful, as well as having greater long-term potential.

Though a 1st-level fighter will almost always be able to kill a 1st-level magic user if you stand them right next to one another and shout - GO - a magic user would probably win more often than not if they had the right spell or two prepared and you started them some distance from one another. Or while a 1st-level bard may not shine in combat compared to a fighter, their skills may allow them to avoid combat, pass the guards, or gain acceptance far more than a fighter's brute strength approach - not to mention it may work many times a day, while fighting would soon take its toll. Thus, one could go further with a bard than a fighter in many instances - but I digress.

Such class balance comparisons are difficult to make and one may always be tempted to say things like, "this class is broken," or "under powered," or "over powered," especially within a limited scenario like a toe-to-toe combat. But as well-rounded games with diverse scenarios and objectives are played, each class usually demonstrates obvious strengths that make them worth playing. All of this was considered while play testing the classes in many different styles of play (some more heavily combat oriented than others).

Now, if one took a play-tested 1st-level fighter, and was simply allowed to tweak it in ways that essentially boosted its power but didn't really have any apparent downside, this balanced character class might become unbalanced and broken. Or worse, by comparison, the new subclass is obviously better than the parent class, so no one will play the parent class anymore, opting instead to play the new subclass. This, in fact, doesn't make a new subclass so much as it replaces the old parent class. And, under the assumption the old parent class was balanced, the new one is probably more powerful than before, and may not be balanced with the remaining classes.

SECOND, as a roleplaying consideration, those who really wish to trade this skill for that, or this feat for that, often do so only with the goal of achieving more power - i.e. more combat bonuses, more hit points, better saves, or just greater diversity. They hardly ever deliberately do it so their character will be weaker. Roleplayers, however, should have more than fun playing a character's strengths; roleplayers should have fun playing a character's weaknesses, too. Overcoming such weaknesses is often part of the fun, and having weaknesses leaves room for growth and character development, gives one immediate goals to overcome, and sometimes establishes dependency on others to help your PC out, which may lead to friendships, loyalties, and possibly even deeper relationships.

THIRD, it's often only possible for a character to know what skills or feats to take by virtue of an OOC knowledge, or overview, of the game mechanical rules. On the IC (In Character) level, an inexperience character shouldn't have an intimate knowledge of the game rules, or necessarily know how best to maximize their abilities to achieve a kind of goal, which is probably several years, if not decades away, before they start to decide what skill or feats they will bother to learn, and which ones they will avoid learning. In fact, it's often not even the character's choice, but their parents', their mentors' and teachers', or other adults' choices for them that tell them what to do, and teach them what these more experienced characters think it is best for the youngster to learn.

Furthermore, such decisions as to what to learn are most likely not based on a final goal or product in mind, but would be borne of more immediate needs, or desires, or dreams, which, more often than not, change as the character matures. As a result, each character is not the product of carefully selected skills and feats that synergistically reinforce one another, but instead are the products of a mishmashed collection of skills or feats. So if one learned the wrong feats early on, it's not like they can unlearn them, get a refund, and spend such skill points or feat slots on something else. The retroactive OOC approach to character generation often ignores this fact, and while we might accept this limitation to gaming and must allow some degree of OOC knowledge to creep in, it just becomes worse than necessary if characters are always made flawless and without a history of missteps or altered dreams and aspirations.

NOTE: Naturally, the younger a character begins supervised training, the more missteps and wasted time they may avoid. This is often why you'll hear tales of epic characters who have been in training since they were knee high to a grasshopper, or some such description of a very tender age.

And this brings us to the FOURTH point, and probably the main gist of this article. Classes make more sense on the IC level.

If from a very early age a character demonstrated such aptitudes and gifts - (i.e. higher than average statistics in one or more areas) - then it's far more likely they would catch the attention of certain, highly skilled individuals. For a variety of reasons, then, such a master might accept such promising young characters for training. Or perhaps a relative or family friend might encourage such youngsters to be sent to these masters to receive this special training. Whatever the reason, or however it comes about, some lucky few, talented but raw characters will be set on a path that could lead to greatness (assuming they do, in fact, have the aptitude, temperament, and will to complete the training).

Of course, if this happened, they still wouldn't select what they wished to learn themselves, so much as they would accept whatever their masters/mentors/trainers felt they should learn as they began their journey from 0th-level to 1st-level characters. But how do these teachers make those choices for their young students?

Unlike inexperienced characters, veteran adventurers are old hands in the game of life and have already learned many things from the school of hard knocks. They actually have good IC reasons, then, to know about missteps in one's training, what things to avoid, and what things to aspire to in order to achieve a desired end - i.e. 1st-level in a particular class. They understand better what skills are compatible and might synergistically compliment or reinforce one another, as well as what skills are counter intuitive to one another, or destructively interfere with each other, or might hamper a student's progression. They also understand in what order such skills should be learned, as opposed to learning things out of order, forcing one to backtrack, review, unlearn something, then relearn it properly, all of which wastes time. And finally, they have a better appreciation for what general or specific knowledge is useful, and which skills or feats probably provide foundational information necessary to meet and overcome likely future challenges while paving the way for advanced study beyond 1st-level.

In short, masters, mentors, teachers, or trainers, almost without exception, know better what to learn, when to learn it, and in what order to learn it, than an inexperienced youth will know. Follow their instructions dutifully, and you'll almost certainly do better than if you don't pay attention, decide many of their lessons aren't worth learning, and instead pursue whatever happens to seem more important to you at the moment.

Of course, characters may pursue whatever they wish later, after completing 1st-level training, and odds are they will do reasonably well if they don't stray too far off the tried-and-true path of a class's teachings. But it's also likely they won't do as well as they might have if they didn't accepted the hard-won knowledge of the masters and didn't embraced their master's inherited centuries of wisdom, but instead swapped out tried-and-true skills or feats for ones outside the class and were not tried-and-true as foundationally important at that time.

Now, in a real world - or even in a fantasy world - what works, works, and what doesn't, doesn't. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that certain "skill packages" will be superior to other similar, but at least slightly different, skill packages. Exactly why they are superior, exactly what one factor within them makes them superior, isn't necessarily obvious. Also, even if it is obvious to some, they may choose to keep it secret. For example, a fighting guild of men, over the decades and centuries, has learned special fighting techniques, and their students tend to achieve notoriety with greater frequency than the students of rival-fighting guilds. Naturally, the reason to keep such things secret are obvious, as this draws more students to their guild, or allows them to command better prices for their mercenaries, or for similar reasons any DM may devise. They may do so well, in fact, that most rival guilds eventually fail or go under.

In such a scenario, it is reasonable a "fighter's" guild would arise, or more to the point, a rather specific set of skills, or a skills and feats package, would arise, that history has demonstrated is superior in some manner. This is essentially the "class" of fighter. Now, no one is saying you can't learn swordplay from most anyone who knows a bit, but this will never be as good as learning swordplay from a master of the fighter's guild - or learning that specific style, or that class. Even most new proposed subclasses of the fighter class may be inferior in fighting style and won't necessarily qualify for a +1 BAB at 1st level. Your DM will be the judge of that - not you.

We've seen similar notions in secret kung fu fighting styles - dragon, crane, tiger, etc. - or other martial arts - Kung fu, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Jujitsu, etc. While learning these arts, you do not learn whatever moves you feel like, but learn very specific skills and moves that have made that style superior to most anything a self-taught martial artist might come up with on their own. Oddly enough, monks do not even qualify for a +1 BAB at 1st level, despite their seeming to be a fighter-type, combat oriented class. Obviously, though combat skills are a big part of being a monk, that usually comes through later and after years of discipline and training.

NOTE: Self-taught does not necessarily mean one teaches themselves everything - though that's possible - but rather means one decides for themselves what to learn and does not rely on some master to show them what is best to learn at that time. Even if the masters agrees to teach one what the student decided to learn, since the student decided what to learn on their own, it is, in part, a self-taught thing.

Besides the fighter example above, a very similar tale may be told for each 1st-level class the game system deemed worthy (and well play tested). In D&D, this is one of the 11 classes (with an exception or two, since some classes, let's face it, aren't really classes one can "learn" so much as cultural or racial oddities one might be born with, such as "barbarian" or "sorcerer." A character may not choose to "become" a barbarian - they are born into that culture and raised that way - and a character may not choose to have a draconic bloodline - they are born with it, or they aren't. So while "players" may pick these classes on the OOC level, "characters" may not "pick" them on the IC level, and thus they are not tried-and-true classes. But I digress.

Bards, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Rogues, and Magic Users, however, are true classes, or close enough. As such, over the centuries, these "classes" have arisen and realistically represent optimally chosen skills and feats. One may attempt a close parallel to learning the skills and feats of those classes, but odds are, in such a self-taught manner wherein one selected their own skills and feats, they'd miss out on some bonus here or there and ultimately prove to be weaker than the epitome of a member of a tried-and-true parent class. This is particularly true when guilds and temples etc. keep their secrets well guarded. Yet it is possible, in many significant ways, new proposed subclasses are as good, such as any currently and officially accepted subclass, or even player devised ones that the DM agrees are conceptually new, balanced, and also worthy of inclusion on their world.

Keep in mind, these comments concern mostly each class's base skill package AT 1st-level only, and not what may or may not happen at higher levels. So the mix of skills and feats a "class" is given at 0th to 1st level usually justifies all the bonuses they get at 1st level. And if one didn't take the whole tried-and-true package, odds are, even if one doesn't see or understand how or why each skill and each feat, explicit and implicit, that make up the core beginnings of each class, may be foundationally important to that class, one would not get the full benefits of that class if they didn't learn it all as given.

For example, though you may forgo learning about shield, medium and heavy armor while pursuing something similar to the fighter's standard class, and take three other feats in their stead, the DM probably will downgrade the normal bonuses that true fighters normally get for becoming a 1st-level fighter. For instance, instead of +1d10, +1 BAB, +2 Fort, and a bonus feat at 1st-level, as well as light, medium, and heavy armors, shields, and all simple and all martial weapons, you'd get +1d8, +0 BAB, +2 Fort, and no bonus feat, no armor or shield skills, maybe all simple weapons, but no marital weapons, and, of course, you'd take your three hand-picked feats. Furthermore, since you gave up those feats (for some reason) there would probably be devised IC reasons why that subclass could not take those same feats later, OR why doing so would negate some of that subclass's benefits (just as rangers, for example, taking heavy armor later, may not enjoy the benefits of two-handed weapon skills, etc.)

Is this a terrible price to pay for customizing your PC? No. It's not much weaker, and even if it were, playing one's weaknesses is also a good thing. Roleplayers are quite happy getting the concept they wish to play, and do not often worry about minor drops in power in purely combat oriented situations, while roll-players will often complain bitterly, or even whine a great deal, should their proposed class not be all that and a bag of chips - i.e. have all those new advantages and no real down side, too.

To allow for role-players to have good choices, a nice fix for 3e D&D would be for DMs to allow players to have their characters pick up what is known as a level of Substandard Training. They may do this at first level, but it's probably better they wait until 2nd level or higher to attempt such a thing. Yet, if they feel their character concept just can't fit into any of the given class templates of the game, they could start with their 1st-level as a Substandard level. Of course, it may be a Commoner level, an Adept, an Aristocrat, an Expert, a Warrior, or some Substandard level contrived from of the 11 standard classes the DM and player agree more closely matches the player's character concept, while NEVER being more powerful than a 1st-level standard class it most closely resembles. When 2nd-level is finally achieved, they may take a standard class or choose another substandard level.

AFTER 1st-level, if one wishes to play some aspect of a new class, but not the whole class, per se, or one doesn't wish to take time off (to avoid sudden development) and learn what normally takes a character years and years to learn (like all the skills and feats of a new class), the DM may allow them to pick up a substandard level of any particular class.

Now, the reason a player may opt to do this is simple - it allows them to take part of a class and some of its skills and feats and get some of its bonuses, but not be saddled with the normal problems of taking that class whole and complete for real. For example, the DM may dislike sudden development and require you give N level's advanced notice prior to learning a new class, while he may require no level's notice to learn a substandard level. Or, another possibility, the normal xp penalties for having "uneven levels" in non-favored classed will not apply to substandard levels.

NOTE: If you and your DM don't give a tinker's cuss about sudden development, or don't aspire to certain roleplaying ideals, then, naturally, a lot of this is useless information. Go ahead and take a level of fighter and have your character learn it overnight, or in a few short weeks, or whatever, while having full bonuses, and go ahead and swap out whatever skills or feats you don't want and add in those your prefer. I can't say this is the epitome of roleplaying, or tends toward the roleplaying ideal, but then a desire to do this is not a requirement for fun, so if that's fun for you, it's not technically wrong so much as actually right. However, for those who would prefer something closer to a roleplaying ideal, please read on.

True, when taking a level of substandard training you may not always get all the benefits of those who take the time and trouble to learn the whole class, but then why should you? That's just wanting to get something for nothing, and it's bad roleplaying. But you can still get some good stuff. Odds are it simply won't be as powerful as a level from a more traditional class, but you can likely build many more different character concepts this way with little difficulty.

For example, suppose a magic user wanted to wear platemail since he's strong enough for it and feels the sorts of spells he casts are not too dependent on somatic components, so spell failure is not really a huge issue for him, and he also tends to want to get directly into the frey rather than fight at a distance. O.K. Yet, to learn heavy armor, he has to learn light armor, then medium armor, and then heavy armor - that's 3 feats! And if he wants to lean proficiencies for a martial weapon or two, that's several more feats!!! It'll take way too long for a "magic user" to do that as a single class character.

Sadly, in 3e, it seems like he can just take a level of fighter almost overnight, and learn light, medium, and heavy armor, as well as shields, all simple and all martial weapons, gets +1d10 hit dice, +2 fort save, +1 BAB, and a bonus feat on top of that!!! How it can take way too long to learn three feats on one hand, yet take much less time to learn those same three feats - and much, much more, besides - on the other hand, is a bit of a problem for roleplayers.

Clearly, 3e is a bit broken in this regard, but if a DM stays ahead of these abusive attempts to get something for nothing, he'll probably require your PC take a few years off to learn all that stuff, or impose an xp penalty for uneven levels, or require N level's advance notice of these intentions before you implement them, or some other means to rectify these problems of sudden development. Personally, I simply require players, who wish to play PCs destined to have more than one class, come into the game with lots of partial training in their back story, and already be several years older. This helps avoid the problem of sudden development. But I digress.

The Problems Of Sudden Development (What Is Sudden Development, And Why Is It A Bad Thing?)

On the other hand, if your magic user doesn't wish to learn all that stuff, he needn't, and thus, might avoid some of the serious sudden development problems or game penalties, too. Suppose instead he wants a substandard level of fighter. Rather than taking another level of magic user just then, he instead may take the following:

Light, medium, and heavy armor, no extra weapon proficiencies, +1d4 hit dice, +1 fort save, +0 BAB, and no bonus feat. That's a pretty good deal compared to what it would normally take to earn three extra feats as a magic user. Also, there is no xp penalty of this substandard level, your PC is still one level higher (albeit not one level higher in any particular class) and you have a character that more closely fits your concept without having to take a whole other character class to do it.

With some careful thought and give and take, the DM and player may better customize any PC using a level or two of substandard training, and achieve a character that more closely adheres to the player's character concept, but isn't more powerful than a character that stuck to one of the tried-and-true paths of power - i.e. a full fledge level in a traditional class.

For those of you familiar with the N level rule, substandard training would not require a commitment of N levels, or even N level's advance warning, before picking up a level of substandard training. It may still take time - perhaps months - but not years.

The N Level Rule (How To Fix 3e's Biggest Problem. The N Level Rule Helps Prevent Abuse Of 3e's Multiclass System.)

As the reader may guess, part of the problem many players perceive is a direct result of several faulty premises upon which many systems are built. In 3e, for example, the notion most any skill or feat all cost identical amounts of time for training, take identical amounts of money, require identical degrees of innate skills, or whatever - the same number of skill points or feat slots - leads many down the wrong path to erroneously conclude, therefore, all skills and/or feats are really and essentially interchangeable or swappable - but this is far off the mark of realism, so, naturally, many problems arise when trying to adhere to such false notions a system may have utilized as a means to an end. The true cost of each skill or feat is not easily measured. Therefore, the true cost of each class package is not easily measured, and most attempts to alter them skill for skill or feat for feat will almost certainly leave something to be desired.

I hope at this point the reader may see why "classes" would tend to arise organically and naturally within a culture, and that they wouldn't really be an OOC game product imposed upon the game world environment from on high. Of course, the authors of any game system may have done better here or there, play tested more or better, or they might have given us greater insight into how and why they felt each base skill was a "necessary" component of some class's package at 1st-level.

Regardless of how well any particular game system did this, it's simply very probable that some sort of classes, or fighting techniques, or guild, cult, order, or in other ways, secret societies, would arise. They would often guard these secrets and teach them. These secrets, however, will eventually, over the centuries, propagate to others and may even become common knowledge. Nevertheless, even after the secret is out to a certain degree, the class, or skill package, or optimal path, works, and works well. Classes arising, therefore, is a far more realistic proposition than one wherein inexperienced students, almost without fail, know what to learn on their own, or make as wise a selection of skills or feats as those more experienced veterans would have made for them. Having inexperienced characters act as if they, themselves, had the same foresight as a veteran's 20/20 hindsight is a bit unrealistic.

Making The Transition To A Skill-Based System

This does not mean, however, that I wouldn't like to see D&D continue its trend away from a class-based system and more toward a skill-based system. In fact, if they do it right, it could be an even better game than it is now. But how do they do it right?

Right now, it requires an experienced DM to keep a handle on game balance, and allow or disallow this or that on a case-by-case basis as each interested player expresses a desire to play something "different" from a standard class. Different is good, even if different doesn't mean, and probably shouldn't mean, simply more power, more bonuses, and/or fewer weaknesses.

Thus, a carefully contrived skill-based system could be developed. But after the general system was explained, and each skill and/or feat detailed, and its potential synergistic bonuses or possible counter intuitive penalties were explained, and well-wrought prerequisites for each skill and feat were established, then an optimal offering of skill packages could be made.

These would be, essentially, classes, made with the same starting points all starting PCs are granted for character generation, but they would have the benefit of being put together by those well-versed in the game mechanics of that system. In short, I seriously doubt anyone could conceive of a character concept that would result in greater power than the game experts already did and already offered as optional classes. These expert play testers knew exactly which skills to take to get all those mini maxed synergistic bonuses.

Inexperienced players are likely to find the task of reading hundreds of skill and feat write ups before they can intelligently make their first character to be an overwhelming and daunting task, so they'd likely enjoy the optional "class" selection in the appendix. After all, the best way to learn a game is to play it - not read about it - and the sooner you can jump in with both feet, the better. The minor details will only become important to them later, after they get a good feel for the game and its mechanics.

Experienced players, on the other hand, particularly roleplayers, aren't always interested in just power and optimal characters, but often enjoy playing their PC's weaknesses, too. They frequently have a desire for greater diversity and flexibility that will allow them to make more unique and interesting and unusual character concepts. Under such a skill-based system, they could do that without having to open negotiations with the DM as to what is or is not balanced. Unless the authors did a bad job, nothing they can make under those rules will be over powered or out of balance since the greatest degree of power has already been squeezed out and placed in the optional character "class" appendix.

Furthermore, though this is more a DM note for color, it would not be wrong to add special powers, along with special restrictions, to each class as an optional sub class, so they take on a less generic flavor and acquire a more cult-like character, a guild-like garnish, a temple-like taste, a religion-like relish, a monastic-like moniker, a school-like seasoning, a cleric-like color, a woodsmen-like wonder, or in any way possible, a fantasy-like flavor.

These secret organizations, occult orders, guilds, schools, temples, etc., may trade a special power for a more limiting consideration. For example, something as simple as a requirement to be "good" may qualify one to join the order of (insert cool name here) rangers, and get the bonus feat "weapon focus," or "toughness," or something else the DM thinks would give such an order a cool reputation. The justification may be, for example, an association of a particular good nature deity with that order, and this would explain both the extra power's origins and well as the cleric-like requirement to adhere to that god's alignment. But this is just an example.

Under such a notion, it isn't that being "good" is a requirement to be a ranger, but only just happens to be the case that if a ranger were good and joined this order, they'd have a slight advantage (though they'd have to be good).

NOTE: Players may pick the ranger class and opt not to be good, of course, but they would not be allowed to join that particular order of rangers, nor would they get that particular bonus power. Also, though they may opt to play a good ranger anyway, they need not also join this order, and would simply play the normal ranger class package.

Be warned, however, lest this notion become a foolish addition to a game, that there would not likely be a neutral and/or evil counterpart to this order of good rangers. If there were, the GM would essentially be making rangers, no matter the alignment, more powerful than the other classes, and possibly out of balance. The GM might, of course, not offer this as a "good" option at all, but an "evil" one, making the order of evil rangers a cool and commonly occurring nemesis for the game's backdrop. In any event, remember that these extra powers should be relatively minor considerations in exchange for a minor bonus, skill, or feat or two, and not a ground-shaking advantage. It may even be a feat the DM considers kind of nice, though most players don't buy it since it seems under powered. So the GM can offer this feat, have it used more frequently in his or her game, and add a touch of flavor to their campaign setting.

A secret order of rangers, of course, was just one example. Special cults may arise from any class. And always remember, of course, despite the existence of these orders or cults, the normal optional, plain vanilla class would still be a possibility, as well as not taking a standard class from the APPENDIX at all, but making one's character from scratch.

Alignment restrictions, in fact, are often only justified in this manner. Normally it makes little or no sense that only people of a particular alignment may learn a particular skill, but it makes perfect sense that if you want to join the club, you have to qualify in some regards and conform to membership standards. And only then do they share such secrets, under the usual provisions that any revealing such secrets to nonmembers would incur penalties. It may not even be the case such things are on the honor system only, but one might be Geased or Quested into keeping such secrets after willingly accepting membership. Or, if there is a divine connection, the power may be stripped away should one incur the ire of that deity. It's even possible all remaining members of an order will seek to kill a wayward member known to be spilling the order's secrets. Anyway, there is a lot of room for the DM to use their imagination here.

The point was, of course, that, despite having a skill-based system, classes (well picked synergistically chosen skill packages) would likely arise, and naturally be more advantageous in additional power, however minor, to a badly chosen grab bag of skills, as well as allow the possibility to invent bonus powers, or grant bonus skills or feats, in exchange for some limitation or consideration.

And more importantly, under a new skill-based system, all players start in the same boat - i.e. same number of skill points or feat slots to spend - and those who wish to forego the class options in the appendix may do so as they make something more unique, despite the likelihood, though not certainty, it will be less powerful in some ways than one of the standard class packages. Roleplayers won't mind - roll-players probably will, but there's no pleasing everybody. I just don't get overly bothered by the lamentations of those mini-maxing players who want a lot more than their fellow players get, but don't want to pay for it.

Therefore, if the new system is constructed along these guidelines, the next generation D&D system could be a skill-based system that would finally satisfy those who liked classes, or wanted to keep the traditional classes, as well as satisfy those who demand a better way to customize their characters.

NOTE: Of course such a new D&D skill-based system would necessarily have to rid itself and many of the old class notions. Despite classes being an "optional" possibility, most core rules could not rely on them being used. For example, skills categorized as "class" or "cross-class" skills would have to be reworked into something more akin to the system below.

The Problem Of Cross Class Skills (A Better Method For Determining Costs Of Class And Cross-Class Skills)

Thankfully, I suspect WOTC is up to this task, and I can only hope they will go in this direction. D&D may be a great game, but it could always be better, and I think the above suggested direction would do just that.

Happy Gaming, All ;-)