Talent Trees - The Way To Go?

[mkill]

I don't mind talent trees, but they need to be limited to 3 items, and each must be useful by itself. Otherwise making a character gets too fiddly. With too much crap on the way too the good stuff.
You should also be able to pick the 3 steps in quick succession. I don't want to be limited at epic levels by stuff I forgot to pick at level one. Better make separate trees for heroic, paragon and epic.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=55985]mkill[/MENTION]
I certainly do not envisage them being limited to 3 powers. I would like all powers thematically linked in the one place.

These talent trees aren't just progressions, where one Talent leads to the next - that is basically static class powers. (Have you seen the Saga TTs we are talking about)?

I also expect to have more choices for these.

Prestige Classes/Paragon Paths (and perhaps later, Epic Destinies) would open up new TT's. These could have the power level bumped up (but that would depend upon the 'standard' class abilities they are replacing).

 

[Minigiant]

As much as like Talent trees, the typical method forces you to choose between option. I don't want to compromise my elfness for my fighterocity and woodsmanship.

I prefer a more automatic approach. At the first level, you get your primary racial, class, and theme bonuses. Then at preprogrammed levels, one of the aspects gets a turn to increase or upgraded.

1: Class (Fighter traits) Race (Elf traits) Theme (Nature traits) Feat (Weapon Proficiency Rapier)
2: Class (Weapon Finesse)
3: Race (Light step) Feat (Improved Tracking)
4: Theme (Woodcraft)
etc...

 

[Bobbum Man]

I like the talent tree idea, as long as the actual talents themselves aren't very deep, so as to force growth in one direction or another, though I do think that clear decision points are important in character growth.

I would like to see something like talent trees springing from class, race and theme which characters can choose from.

So for instance, a character playing a dwarven fighter could choose:

Dwarf Talent Trees
Sturdiness
Goblin Foe
Deepwarden

Fighter Talent Trees
Guardian
Weaponmaster
Slayer
Gladiator

Theme: Mercenary Talent Trees
Siegecraft
Skullduggery

Personally I'd rather see somethinglike this than individual feats and skill ranks

 

[Wednesday Boy]

The thing that I dislike about talent trees is when they have prerequisites that you don't necessarily care about for your character. That happened to me in our most recent Saga campaign and it was disappointing to be required to spend my character resources just to get access to abilities that emulated the character that I wanted to play.

Another issue that may turn some people off is when you have a talent tree connected to a certain class when the talent can apply to different classes. For instance there are Soldier talents to become a bettter demolitionist but you could be a stealthy Scoundrel who uses explosives. This isn't an issue for me personally but I think the folks who were upset to not be able to play a Fighter archer in 4E will have a similar issue with not being able to play a Scoundrel demolitionist.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The closest D&D has ever gotten to something like this was the point-buy system in Player Options: Skills & Powers.

And that is a big clue as to why talent trees are generally a bad default choice for organizing all such options--the system is either class-based or it is something else based. You can't finesse the issue with talent trees.

The thing that I dislike about talent trees is when they have prerequisites that you don't necessarily care about for your character. That happened to me in our most recent Saga campaign and it was disappointing to be required to spend my character resources just to get access to abilities that emulated the character that I wanted to play.

Yep. And no matter how you organize it, someone gets left out. The whole point of trees is organizing and presenting opportunity costs. If those opportunity costs are not consistent with your campaign, then some character is left out. That is, it is the same limits as classes with a lot more fiddliness.

****

Neither of the above to say that there is not a place for talent trees. I can see them working quite well in limited usage. But much like feats (and 3E prestige classes and 4E powers, for that matter), they work best when confined to exactly what they are good for--not broadened as some kind of generic mechanic for representing choices for every character. That's always the problem with the ivory tower aspect of these kinds of mechanics--someone has to say, "just use X for everything to structure it, and those little annoying exceptions won't matter."

I have a counter suggestion. How about determine what actual abilities are available to a given class, or group of classes, and why? Then if the best way to organize some of those are talent tree, and another set is really feats, and yet another set is class abilities--use what works best and don't worry about it being 100% consistent across every class? When you use talent trees, use them consistently. When you use feats, ditto. Heck, only using a given structure when it fits the subject matter well will help them be more consistent. You won't need as many of those little annoying exceptions.

 

[Smoss]

When I designed my own RPG system, the talent tree model was something I heavily borrowed from. Since my system has no classes or levels it worked out even better (Highly customizable characters). I include racial trees (As well as racial feats too) that races can differentiate themselves more than what they start with.

Of course, the main issue is "option paralysis". To mitigate that I have pre-made "archetypes" that people can use as is (or tweak). I imagine if 5e goes on a similar path, they will do much the same (Pre-chosen abilities).

In short, the basic idea has worked exquisitely well (An improvement over my original version of choosing abilities in scope and ease). I love the ability to make ANY kind of concept character with ease.
Smoss

 

[Gamer McSmartypants]

...

 

[El Mahdi]

Like most people, I have mechanics that I really like and prefer above others, but there is only one that I absolutely hate...and that's talent trees. I find them far too limiting, limiting in a way that doesn't make sense to me. I always end up asking "but why can't I learn that skill or Feat?". I don't mind prerequisites for feats and skills, but not talent trees. I certainly hope that talent trees are not part of core. For me, they are definitely not the way to go.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]

I can see your concerns there, but more often than not 'too much choice' (or 'option paralysis' Smoss mentioned above) has been more of a problem than 'not enough choice' in my experience. If the TT's each have a solid theme, then there should be enough to choose from.

On the other hand, if you do not want to be limited in choice, then setting the powers/feats/talents out in the 'trees' (I prefer theme) might still be a better organisation model. You would know where to go for the 'woodsy' powers, the two-weapon powers, etc. You just wouldn't have to limit players choice - or allow greater selections.

4E tried later on to categorise Feats didn't they? I prefer things grouped myself.