Talent Trees & D&D

[Zhaleskra]

Semantic arguments aside, I have used both the straight feat system and the talent tree and feats system. I have enjoyed playing either way, here is an example of how I'd construct the trees.

Arcane
Path of Learning (Wizard)
Path of the Mind (Psionic)
Path of Nature (Sorcerer)

Divine
Chosen (Paladin)
Clergy (Cleric)
Nature's Protector (Druid)

Warrior
Fury (Barbarian and other rage/fury based characters)
Guard (Fighter)
Nature's Guardian (Ranger)

Rogue
SpellSong (Bard)
Thief

In two more breaks from tradition, I'd have some universal talent trees and have prestige classes use talent trees. For example, a couple universal trees:

Tree of Riding
Tree of Weapon Mastery

 

[mmadsen]

Ah, but you still need to meet the prereqs of those feats, which varies a lot, whether they're part of their own feat tree or not. Talent tree is different, the prereq is minimal, usually requires "low-level" talents in the beginning.

Is that a good thing? And can't we unite the best elements of both ways?

 

[atomn]

While I enjoy having the various classes, PrCs and alternative class options, I'm cool with the talent tree concept. But I don't think that it will simplify anything. If the talent tree system is adopted, what would have been published as prestige classes would be published as talent trees. There will be the same number of options spread through the same number of books but the mechanics for getting those options will be slightly different. So the complains of too many options won't change.

One of the benefits I've heard about the talent tree concept is that it provides superior versatility for fitting mechanics with your character concept. Often PrCs offer similar abilities but at different levels. For example, many PrCs offer an immunity to fear ability. Your ideal character could fit perfectly with a PrC that offered immunity to fear but if the newly designed talent tree that gives immunity to fear has prerequisites that aren't suited to your concept, you're going to be juggling prerequisite talents instead of classes, prerequisite feats and PrCs.

So I don't see talent trees as a bad thing but I don't see that they significantly improve anything. To me it looks like another mechanic that is equally easy (or difficult, depending on your opinion) to use.

 

[Remathilis]

First, I do not see much conceptual reason why a great warrior would not be able to jump out of the way of dangerous attacks. That is, I don't see a strong flavor reason for restricting Evasion -- in fact, it's practically mandatory for action heroes, especially with any anime or wuxia influence. Our concern is with game balance.

Exactly. Whats going to keep a rogue in the rogue class when he can take "fighter", have a 1:1 bab, d10 hp, and grab feats like "sneak attack" or "evasion"? What becomes of niche protection?

 

[Flynn]

I think it makes far more sense to give a class a bonus feat every level than to split its abilities into bonus feats and talents and offer one on odd levels and the other on even levels.

Here's my thoughts on something very similar to what you are describing here:
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=197705

I'm slowly working on some of the other classes as well.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[hexgrid]

While I enjoy having the various classes, PrCs and alternative class options, I'm cool with the talent tree concept. But I don't think that it will simplify anything. If the talent tree system is adopted, what would have been published as prestige classes would be published as talent trees. There will be the same number of options spread through the same number of books but the mechanics for getting those options will be slightly different. So the complains of too many options won't change.

No, it doesn't decrease options, it just streamlines their use and presentation.

And so far, both games that use Talent Trees still have PrCs. It's base classes (maybe) and alternate class abilities that would be replaced by Talent Trees.

 

[mmadsen]

Exactly. Whats going to keep a rogue in the rogue class when he can take "fighter", have a 1:1 bab, d10 hp, and grab feats like "sneak attack" or "evasion"? What becomes of niche protection?

If sneak attack and evasion belong in the Fighter class -- which they don't currenlty -- then it makes perfect sense for a player character to take levels in Fighter to get those bonus feats. On the other hand, that PC won't have Rogue skills.

 

[Ranger REG]

Is that a good thing? And can't we unite the best elements of both ways?

No. Personally, I'd rather have talents mimic the existing class features, particularly level-dependent benefits, while feats should not be level-dependent, but give a one-time benefit, thought a feat tree could have "improved, greater, advanced" feats to increase (and expand) benefit at higher level.

 

[EditorBFG]

No. Personally, I'd rather have talents mimic the existing class features, particularly level-dependent benefits, while feats should not be level-dependent, but give a one-time benefit, thought a feat tree could have "improved, greater, advanced" feats to increase (and expand) benefit at higher level.

Yes, and this way feats remain available to everyone, while talents remain class-based, allowing the archetypal focus that is the selling point of a class-system.

If all class abilities in D&D were replaced with talent trees-- such as what already happens to the Rogue at a certain level-- I'd be happy.

 

[Ranger REG]

If all class abilities in D&D were replaced with talent trees-- such as what already happens to the Rogue at a certain level-- I'd be happy.

Then you can simply customize a class with options such as an Archer or a Samurai talent tree (for fighters). Rangers could have a Scout and Sniper talent tree options.

While this should not remove prestige class entirely, but at least you can get a headstart with some benefits at low level rather than trying to get to character level 6 so you can begin to choose a prestige class of your liking.