Talent Trees & D&D

[hong]

What exactly is the difference between talents & feats? Feats can be arranged into trees by prerequisites. Feats can include class/level prerequisites. What am I missing?

IIRC they're like exclusive feats that can only be taken by one class.

 

[pawsplay]

IIRC they're like exclusive feats that can only be taken by one class.

And are generally but not always less powerful, at least until you get deep into a tree.

 

[hexgrid]

Why have a another system in addition to one that is already in place? They both do about the same thing and you could have talent trees or feat trees, I don't see a reason to have both since they effectivly do the same thing.

Talent trees aren't an additional system, they're an alternate way of handling class abilities, and exist alongside feats in the same way.

The argument can be made that having both feats and class abilities is already redundant, but talent trees just maintain the redundancy, not introduce it.

 

[TerraDave]

Less can be more

classes, prestige classes, feat choices, skill points, talent trees,

and ability scores, race, mundane equipment, magic items, spells (and powers), substitution levels, afiliations, teamwork benefits, ...

talents are ok in and of themselves, but a proliferation of ways to customize charecters is not. If talents could somehow streamline things, all the better.

 

[Kesh]

and ability scores, race, mundane equipment, magic items, spells (and powers), substitution levels, afiliations, teamwork benefits, ...

talents are ok in and of themselves, but a proliferation of ways to customize charecters is not. If talents could somehow streamline things, all the better.

I think they do streamline things. They are, essentially, class-specific feat trees. heck, if it helps, just call them "feat trees" instead of "talent trees."

They also help, because you can effectively eliminate Prestige Classes (or at least whittle them down by 90%) just by providing an appropriate talent tree in a core class.

 

[Garnfellow]

The Difference Between Feats and Talents

I agree with the posters above that talents are ideally class- (and could also be race-) specific abilities; in addition, I think feats should be limited to generic abilities that nearly anyone can take at nearly any time.

In a talent tree and feat schema, many current feats with multiple prerequisites would become talents, and many of the current complicated feat chains would become talent trees. I find that talent trees are somewhat easier to work with when statting out NPCs. I find it easier to reference talent trees than to flip around the PHB for all of the feat prerequisites.

This schema would also eliminate all of the weird feat classifications like exalted feats, vile feats, reserve feats, monstrous feats -- all of these things would become talents, while only general feats would remain feats.

 

[Sandain]

I use a completely feat based sytem (I guess you could call it talent based) where my players have to buy all thier class abilities and feats. e.g Bob the Fighter at level 1 has to buy the Fighter BaB, Saves, and Hp, and then he gets the level 1 fighter bonuses such as bonus feat, armor and weapon use, and fighter skills.

Sam the Wizard could buy the level 1 Wizard abilities, but in stead of buying a 'normal' feat could use his extra to buy a level 1 fighters HP. If he used his next 2 feats (at 2 and 4) to buy the fighters Bab and saves, he will also get the other fighter bonuses (at first level).

So he would be a level 4 wizard, but with no traditional feats, but have a +1 bab, +2 fort save, and replace one level of d4 hp with d10. He would also inherit level 1 fighter bonuses such as bonus feat, armor and weapon use, and fighter skills.

Players may also sell a class ability for 1 feat/talent point, and may also buy other class abilities (provided they are high enough level e.g level 2 for Rogue evasion) for 2 feat/talent points.

Players get a 3 feats per level, plus a bonus at every odd level. Fighters get 4 per level.

This may seem like a lot, but remember a player has to buy all 3 basic attributes of a class before they get any level dependant class ability - such as spells.

So Sam our level 4 wizard, could level up and chose to spend his 3 feats on barbarian HP, Fort save, and Rogue reflex save - and he would still only be a 4th level caster. He would have to spend all his level 6 feats/talents to 'buy' the 5th level casting.

I realise this sounds complicated - but it actually work out really really well, and almost elimainates the need for alot of prestige classes - since players can just buy the class skill if they meet the prereqs e.g Casting in Armor or some special Archmage ability.

 

[RFisher]

talents are ok in and of themselves, but a proliferation of ways to customize charecters is not. If talents could somehow streamline things, all the better.

I dunno. It seems everytime I mention liking things simpler & more streamlined someone tells me that I can't seriously be against more options. (^_^)

I think they do streamline things. They are, essentially, class-specific feat trees. heck, if it helps, just call them "feat trees" instead of "talent trees."

They also help, because you can effectively eliminate Prestige Classes (or at least whittle them down by 90%) just by providing an appropriate talent tree in a core class.

OK, that makes some sense to me. Even core D&D seems to have too many feats to me, but I suspect there really just needs to be something to help guide you through the maze.

& I definately see what you're saying about talents & PrCs. I always liked the original idea of PrCs more as setting specific flavor than as cool ability bundles.

I think I'd rather see anything that is good about talents, however, be integrated into the feat system rather than treating them separately. Heck, from the start I was annoyed that 3e--having gone the direction it did--didn't go further & integrate class abilities with the feat system.

 

[Kesh]

I think I'd rather see anything that is good about talents, however, be integrated into the feat system rather than treating them separately. Heck, from the start I was annoyed that 3e--having gone the direction it did--didn't go further & integrate class abilities with the feat system.

The problem with going down that road is that it breaks down the classes. This is how True20 works: three classes, and a ton of feats to customize them with. In traditional D&D, this would mean going back to the old Fighter/Thief/Wizard model, or something close to it. And it seems a lot of folks don't want to go that far back, but something closer to AD&D with its nearly a dozen classes. So, D&D could go that way, but it'd involve killing off a few "sacred cows" that have become traditional now, including the proliferation of classes.

Personally, I'm all for it, but most folks aren't.

 

[Psion]

What exactly is the difference between talents & feats? Feats can be arranged into trees by prerequisites. Feats can include class/level prerequisites. What am I missing?

The principal difference is that talents tend to be more directly married to a given class.

Further, talents are always in trees; there are no one-off talents.

Many talents are weaker than feats, unless they play off class levels, in which case they can be stronger.