What was wrong with D&D 3E's notion of a bonus feat list? When I first saw how 3E implemented the Fighter, I wondered why more classes weren't handled that way.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Talent Trees - Your Thoughts?
- Thread starter Connorsrpg
- Start date
molepunch
First Post
@Jawsh of course it's gonna veer towards silly or boring TTs if the designers don't know when to stop. I mean, how many ice-cream flavors do you really need, right?
TTs are not inherently bogus or flavorless, so I only agree with you in the context of game designers doing... well... bad game design.
As for your criticism about talents and how it can translate into verisimilitude, in my example Shield Bash just means you are able to "hit someone with your shield" in a skilled way in fluff, and in crunch, gives you a powerful ability that stuns or what-have-you. Of course you can "hit someone with a shield" without that Talent anyway. You should. Similarly, it would be laughable if one cannot breathe without the Breathe talent. I'm not sure if you're just trying to be funny or you're serious (no sarcasm). Shield Finesse might translate to the character being able to deftly wield a shield so that it's no longer cumbersome (no more penalty to checks, for example), and sets the character to be able to use a higher damage dice if attacking with the shield.
Again, let's assume we are talking about good game design that makes sense in crunch and fluff: tightly set TTs can be a great idea, IMO. Stupidly designed TTs are of course a bad idea, but not because they are TTs.
Just my thoughts
TTs are not inherently bogus or flavorless, so I only agree with you in the context of game designers doing... well... bad game design.
As for your criticism about talents and how it can translate into verisimilitude, in my example Shield Bash just means you are able to "hit someone with your shield" in a skilled way in fluff, and in crunch, gives you a powerful ability that stuns or what-have-you. Of course you can "hit someone with a shield" without that Talent anyway. You should. Similarly, it would be laughable if one cannot breathe without the Breathe talent. I'm not sure if you're just trying to be funny or you're serious (no sarcasm). Shield Finesse might translate to the character being able to deftly wield a shield so that it's no longer cumbersome (no more penalty to checks, for example), and sets the character to be able to use a higher damage dice if attacking with the shield.
Again, let's assume we are talking about good game design that makes sense in crunch and fluff: tightly set TTs can be a great idea, IMO. Stupidly designed TTs are of course a bad idea, but not because they are TTs.
Just my thoughts
Last edited:
The problem with 3e like feat system isn't just that there are a lot of them to choose from, but that those options interact. If you use more splatbooks the number of character builds grows exponentially.
I don't really have a solution to offer, except trying to design abilities that don't interact. Simplifying stacking rules (from 3e) is probably an important part of that.
DonTadow
First Post
I love the idea, and proposed 5 years ago.
FIrst of all, there's not going to be a system that won't be expandable. What you're asking a company to do is not make any more money and not try to make their development money back.
But as I proposed in another thread, a simple system that starts off with 3 or 4 classes and then is expanded on as advanced classes in the form of feats would great.
Classes are nothing more than what they are, classes. There's no level progression or anything of the sorts. There's no skills or preset save.
Instead, each level, players cna get a feat that expands the class. The feat might include a bonus to the ability modifier when used for a particular skill, a bonus to a particular save. The total bonus for anything is limited by level.
So in the core book, you get 3 or 4base classes (and thats it forever) and contains advanced class feats of about 7 to 11.
Doing like this, the book would be 100 pages tops and finally something i can hand someone and say, see its easy to learn. The one thing that got me into this was that the book wasn't daunting, it was cheap (20 bucks) and someone made my character for me, which alllowed me to learn hte rules.
FIrst of all, there's not going to be a system that won't be expandable. What you're asking a company to do is not make any more money and not try to make their development money back.
But as I proposed in another thread, a simple system that starts off with 3 or 4 classes and then is expanded on as advanced classes in the form of feats would great.
Classes are nothing more than what they are, classes. There's no level progression or anything of the sorts. There's no skills or preset save.
Instead, each level, players cna get a feat that expands the class. The feat might include a bonus to the ability modifier when used for a particular skill, a bonus to a particular save. The total bonus for anything is limited by level.
So in the core book, you get 3 or 4base classes (and thats it forever) and contains advanced class feats of about 7 to 11.
Doing like this, the book would be 100 pages tops and finally something i can hand someone and say, see its easy to learn. The one thing that got me into this was that the book wasn't daunting, it was cheap (20 bucks) and someone made my character for me, which alllowed me to learn hte rules.
El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
I think talent trees are a great concept, but not as a requirement. There are many who prefer the choice, even if it does mean digging through multiple books.
I think having talent trees for groups that want to use them, or even for players to make choices easier are great. But I don't think a system that works strictly on talent trees is a good idea.
I think having talent trees for groups that want to use them, or even for players to make choices easier are great. But I don't think a system that works strictly on talent trees is a good idea.
Quickleaf
Legend
Here's what I think talent trees would do well: Consolidate. Logically.
If you look at a ranger, and think of what you'd like your character to do, you might say:
* find my way in any situation (explorer theme? Nature bonus from background? wilderness knack?)
* secure our group's campsite (skill check? ritual? martial practice? roleplaying?)
* stay vigilant guarding all night (is that a feat? racial ability? something else?)
With a talent tree model, your ranger wants the "Wayfaring" tree, then selects "Secure Camp" under that tree, and finally "One Thousand Watchful Eyes" at the end of the tree. One of the benefits is that a well-designed talent tree can act as a cataloguing system to mitigate bloat by giving players a common sense reference point. For example, if your ranger wants to trap the party's camp, the appropriate talent is probably under "Wayfaring-Secure Camp" or else under "Trap-Making", but it's definitely not under "Tracking" or "Archery".
Of course if poorly designed it would have about the same effect as me trying to find a file from a year ago. IOW disastrous.
If you look at a ranger, and think of what you'd like your character to do, you might say:
* find my way in any situation (explorer theme? Nature bonus from background? wilderness knack?)
* secure our group's campsite (skill check? ritual? martial practice? roleplaying?)
* stay vigilant guarding all night (is that a feat? racial ability? something else?)
With a talent tree model, your ranger wants the "Wayfaring" tree, then selects "Secure Camp" under that tree, and finally "One Thousand Watchful Eyes" at the end of the tree. One of the benefits is that a well-designed talent tree can act as a cataloguing system to mitigate bloat by giving players a common sense reference point. For example, if your ranger wants to trap the party's camp, the appropriate talent is probably under "Wayfaring-Secure Camp" or else under "Trap-Making", but it's definitely not under "Tracking" or "Archery".
Of course if poorly designed it would have about the same effect as me trying to find a file from a year ago. IOW disastrous.
Ringlerun
First Post
This thread should be called how can we turn D&D into more of a computer game. Talent Trees Seriously? Diably 2 had talent trees and its 11 years old. Or more importantly lets make D&D more like world of warcraft.
Talents trees suck. They pigeon hole characters into defined crappy roles that they cant get out off. Take end level World of Warcraft. You cant go on some raids if you dont have the right talents chosen. Same thing is going to happen if its put into D&D.
D&D is already a power mongers game with defined roles and every bonus counts. You add talent trees to the mix and i can guarantee there will be optimal builds and woe to the player who doesn't conform.
At least with feats you have a choice of how your character is going to develop take that away and the last bit of free will in character creation will be gone.
Talents trees suck. They pigeon hole characters into defined crappy roles that they cant get out off. Take end level World of Warcraft. You cant go on some raids if you dont have the right talents chosen. Same thing is going to happen if its put into D&D.
D&D is already a power mongers game with defined roles and every bonus counts. You add talent trees to the mix and i can guarantee there will be optimal builds and woe to the player who doesn't conform.
At least with feats you have a choice of how your character is going to develop take that away and the last bit of free will in character creation will be gone.
