Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="paradox42" data-source="post: 3791625" data-attributes="member: 29746">d20 Modern (the origin of this approach AFAIK) displayed this quite well. Talents are like a meld between feats and class features. It is very much like what you're doing with Portfolios, except without the built-in weaknesses thing- though I suppose you could have certain weaknesses show up as the character acquires specific talents, for example getting Fire Immunity (or whatever the equivalent is in 4E) could force you to also get Cold Vulnerability. This would be a way to balance out more powerful abilities against less powerful ones, while still being at the same "rank" as you put it so as to prevent cherry-picking.This is, of course, the primary advantage to the talent tree approach- the main disadvantage is that talents aren't as flexible as feats. But this is where the question of how closely one wants to tie characters to archetypes gets asked- if you want to force archetypes, talents are much better than feats because not just anybody can have them. You have to become the appropriate archetype to do it. In mortal levels, the archetypes are called "classes;" once the character crosses the divide to godhood, perhaps they're called something else.This is irrelevant really. If you're using talent trees, the most important thing is deciding when the character can acquire the talents; there's no need for an actual class progression list unless you have certain generic abilities every Immortal should get at specific levels....That said, I just stuck my foot in my mouth since this approach would allow you to grant the powers of each stage of godhood (demi-, lesser, intermediate, etc.) while not worrying at all about what Portfolios the deity in question represents.I think this approach will win you more converts to the Portfolio idea than the present system of absolutely gaining certain abilities at certain ranks. Why shouldn't a demideity of Fire be able to use Uncanny Fire Mastery while being completely unable to do more than basic summoning of Fire Elementals, after all? On the other side, why shouldn't that deity be able to heal from Fire damage, if it can't use Fire to attack at all (i.e. no Fire [Effect] abilities)?Do keep in mind that we already know this approach isn't all that valid in 4th Edition. Classes themselves are now being structured as a sort of amalgam of two sub-archetypes: the "power source" and the "role." Fighters in this scheme are "Martial" (power source) "Defenders" (role), Clerics are "Divine Leaders," Wizards are "Arcane Controllers," and Rogues are "Martial Strikers." There's the new Warlord class which will be the "Martial Leader," a character type who is looking a lot like the Crusader from Book of Nine Swords in the info leaked so far, and Paladin has been suggested as a "Divine Defender." This gives us some idea of what the roles really represent- Leaders, for instance, are about buffing the entire party and healing, though they apparently can do both these things in 4th Edition without using separate actions to do them in at least some cases (for instance, the Warlord probably has some attacks that heal his allies by "bolstering morale"). Bards are the obvious choice for the "Arcane Leader," though they won't be appearing in the first Player's Handbook. We also already know there's going to be a new class (also not appearing in the first PHB) called the Swordmage, which is the "Arcane Defender." The Swordmage is a character who is actually a warrior, but who uses magic to fight better rather than depending on tools like armor (one of the talents mentioned for this class is a constant Mage Armor-like effect).So tying all of this in to Portfolios, it makes more sense IMO to tie them to the roles and/or the power sources, rather than specific classes. Why shouldn't a Paladin (the Divine Defender) be able to take War just as easily as a Fighter (the Martial Defender)? For that matter, why should the Swordmage be left out of that- he's a warrior, isn't he? And why limit Magic to the Wizard, when the Bard and Swordmage clearly depend on it just as much?One other avenue this approach potentially opens up is that of making four Immortal classes, one for each role. So if you're the party tank, you'll want to become a Warrior Deity, whereas if you're the mage you'll want to become a Divine Sage. Those are just off-the-top-of-my-head names, of course- no reason to use them if (or more likely when) better names are suggested.Balance is, of course, the crux of the whole matter, but we do have to also ask- balance between what? Do you mean balance between different divine ranks (in the old sense), or balance between Immortals and mortals, or what?</blockquote>

Verification