Talent Trees & D&D

[VictorC]

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.

While I really like the talent trees for star wars, I personally like D&D just the way it is.

 

[Ranger REG]

While I really like the talent trees for star wars, I personally like D&D just the way it is.

It could use a few more improvements as well as a few more options. Not many like the monk the way it is, and though they do allow them to choose bonus feats to suit a particular martial arts style, that stopped after class level 6. Then all monks basically have the same class features afterward.

We're halfway there already, with the rules option to replace one class feature for another (introduced in Player's Handbook II).

 

[Baumi]

I really like Talents. I think the main problem is that they are always compared to feats, but should be instead compared to class features (star wars converted all class features like sneak attack or bardic-buffs to talents).

For example a Talent-Paladin could choose between healer, smiter, holy mount caller, leader, spirit caller, etc. instead of having everything fixed. Which would make the class much more flexible and also easier to add new stuff (win-win for Wizards and us).

Also when the talents are not fixed, it is much easier to multi-class because you don't have to take exactly x-levels and x-useless bonuses till you get the thing that fits to your character (I usually hate Multi-Classing, but Star Wars seems so much better in this regard).

 

[EditorBFG]

For example a Talent-Paladin could choose between healer, smiter, holy mount caller, leader, spirit caller, etc. instead of having everything fixed. Which would make the class much more flexible and also easier to add new stuff (win-win for Wizards and us).

Exactly. It all leads to people getting the character they want more specifically.

Talent trees are just a natural extension of things already present in D&D. As it is now, a rogue gets what is essentially a talent tree from 10th level, choosing between special abilities. A ranger chooses from two-weapon or archery talents. The monk's very limited choice of bonus feats is much more like a talent tree than most classes' bonus feat choices. The psion's choice of one of six discipline paths is a similar kind of class customization. It is not that huge of a leap.

I don't think anyone is saying that something like what we did with Fantastic Classes is something WotC should put in a book tomorrow, but as far as 4th Edition changes go, this would be a welcome one.

 

[Victim]

Exactly. It all leads to people getting the character they want more specifically.

Not necessarily. Everything depends on how the trees are structured. Too many prereqs in a tree and you still have to take a bunch of unwanted stuff to get the ability you want - only you have to actively select the stuff you don't want. Trees that are very shallow on the other hand, can lead to "take X levels, then out" like the 3.0 ranger (1 level) or Swashbuckler (1 or 3 without Daring Outlaw). Evasion and Mettle probably shouldn't be too readily available after all.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I like talent trees if for no other reason than they discourage proliferation of base classes. There's no reason to create, say, a "Scout" base class if you can just add a movement, observation, and sudden strike talent trees to the ranger base class*.

The classes, then, can be much more general. More like the classic "tank", "caster", "expert" classes.

I mean, really--ranger and barbarian are two flavors of what should be the same "wilderness warrior" class. Cleric and paladin are a caster with fighter feats and a fighter with caster feats.

Hey, just for fun:
Armored Fighter = fighter, knight, marshal, samurai, and paladin
Wilderness warrior = ranger, barbarian, scout
Agile Fighter = swashbuckler, rogue, warmage, beguiler, duskblade, hexblade, ninja
Caster (draws from internal power) = wizard, sorcerer, healer
Totemist (draws from external power) = warlock, dragon shaman, druid, artificer

Ha! The cleric--the armored, decent BAB, full spell progression power class--is kind of a misfit under the above classification. Well, that solves the "no one wants to be the cleric" problem.

 

[jmucchiello]

We're halfway there already, with the rules option to replace one class feature for another (introduced in Player's Handbook II).

That was in the 3.0 DMG (p 25) actually: "Consider making a swashbuckling rogue with no ability to sneak attack but more combat and movement oriented feats...." It just took this long for everyone to get the prestige classes out of their system and move through substitution levels and arrive at the PHB2 format for class variants.

Of course I codified this a bit in my 4 year old Character Customization book. (And I am working on the update. Tell my son not to occupy so much of my time and I might even finish it before 4e.)

 

[EditorBFG]

Not necessarily. Everything depends on how the trees are structured. Too many prereqs in a tree and you still have to take a bunch of unwanted stuff to get the ability you want - only you have to actively select the stuff you don't want. Trees that are very shallow on the other hand, can lead to "take X levels, then out" like the 3.0 ranger (1 level) or Swashbuckler (1 or 3 without Daring Outlaw). Evasion and Mettle probably shouldn't be too readily available after all.

Sure, there would be a certain degree of balancing required-- just as with any other piece of game design. After all, some abilities should be delayed as opposed to others, as in the existing system where some feats are gateways to others.

But certainly, it is logical that having a greater degree of control over when your character gets certain class abilities allows you to make a character closer to how you want it, yes?

 

[Herobizkit]

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

Where's the monk?

Personally, I'd put Monk in with the Rogue class. They are swift, agile warriors with a penchant for dealing damage. If you strap on two-weapon fighting (with the onus that the two weapons must be Monk weapons), you'd get an excellent option for more "martial" rogues. Oh, and all your paths would have three categories.

 

[Mercule]

I think talent trees would be a beautiful addition to D&D: a nice, clean, unified and modular mechanic for customizing characters -- and if trees were implemented correctly could do away with the proliferation of base classes and prestige classes.

And end up with a proliferation of talent trees -- new ones in every book.