Talent Trees & D&D

[mmadsen]

Why introduce the notion of talent trees when a bonus feat list can accomplish the same thing? From the get-go the Fighter class has been flexible, yet clearly themed. Why not give each class a tailored bonus feat list?

 

[SKid4]

I'm pretty sure that's what the core concept of a talent tree is.

 

[Kesh]

Yep. As I said earlier, if you don't like the name "Talent tree" then call it a "feat tree." They accomplish the same purposes.

 

[joela]

Details

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.



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.

Sounds similiar to the new True20 Companion but works more closely with the current DnD books and supplements. Could you post more details and examples? Do some "feats" like spell-casting or Wild-shaping cost more (in terms of feats) than others?

 

[mmadsen]

Yep. As I said earlier, if you don't like the name "Talent tree" then call it a "feat tree." They accomplish the same purposes.

Right, but why (a) call them "talent trees" and (b) set them aside as something separate from feats and bonus feat lists, when one of the "corest" classes in the game, found in the very "corest" of the three core books, has a bonus feat list?

 

[hexgrid]

Right, but why (a) call them "talent trees" and (b) set them aside as something separate from feats and bonus feat lists, when one of the "corest" classes in the game, found in the very "corest" of the three core books, has a bonus feat list?

In d20 Modern, talents are always specific to a particular class, while feats can be taken by anyone, wether they happen to be on a particular class's bonus feat list or not.

Also, talents don't necessarily balance with feats.

 

[Ryan_Singer]

Saga edition also introduced an interesting mechanic for using "force powers" (read: combat magic), the Use the Force skill. This mixed with talents to make some interesting mechanics.

for example:

Talent: Diviner
You can Use Magic checks instead of initiative

Talent: Improved Diviner
You can make Use Magic checks instead of Perception

Talent: Enchanter
You can make Use Magic checks instead of Persuasion

 

[DarkKestral]

Right, but why (a) call them "talent trees" and (b) set them aside as something separate from feats and bonus feat lists, when one of the "corest" classes in the game, found in the very "corest" of the three core books, has a bonus feat list?

Well, in d20 Modern, all basic classes get a talent every 2 levels, and a feat on every level they don't get a talent, so they ALL have bonus feat lists. Most of the AdCs (they're kinda like easy to get into prestige classes that are generally accessible by 4th class level) also have 3-5 bonus feats that are choosable from a list. The d20 Modern equivalent of a Fighter, the Soldier (a 10-level class) gets the fighter-only feats bonus feats every 2 levels, and 5 talents that would be overly powerful for a D&D feat, so chances are, the fighter in the Talent/Feat version of D&D would likely trade a few feats in for stuff like "Auto-confirm all crits with the expenditure of a action point" as abilities, but would probably get them back as part of the 'bonus feat from a class-specific list every two levels thing'...stuff which would largely be considered too powerful to be acceptable options that aren't class-specific, and which could grow in power as the character does, or are designed to be entry-level stuff that gives a small basic advantage, like small amounts of energy resist or DR/--.

Granted, the soldier only has a 3/4 BAB and no automatic armor proficiencies, but then again, no one gets automatic armor proficiencies in d20 Modern, and 3/4 BAB's the most common BAB in that game. Plus, the only base classes and AdCs that give +1 BAB, HP, and/or AC are good classes for the Soldier to take anyway, depending on his specialty, and are generally good routes for getting into the class. So it really doesn't gimp him much...

 

[Remathilis]

Well, in d20 Modern... SNIP

In Saga, it works like this.

Each base class (noble, jedi, scout, scoundrel, solider) gets A talent at first level and every odd -numbered level, and a feat at every even. All the way to 20. In addition, there are three different HD and two BABs (Jedi and solider get 1:1). All saves go up equally (10 + char level + ability + small class bonus) and AC = Reflex Defense.

D&D's Fighter could work just as well under that system. His bonus feats would probably be the ones dedicated to butt-kicking in combat (power attack, point blank shot) and his talents improve melee, archery, horsemanship, and armor (weapon specialization, armor optimization, etc).

Similarly, a rogue using that system would have talent's related to his shtick: traps, stealth, finesse, and luck. His bonus feat list would include more feats dedicated to using skills (Acrobatic Attack) or Dexterity (Dodge, Weapon finesse). With more Skill points (trained skills) and lower HD and Bab, a fighter and a rogue (while technically using the same progession) would be wildly different and still fill their niche.

The major different between Talents and feats is that Talents are tied to one class (or a small set of them) and feats are more universal. For example, "sneak attack" would be a talent for rogues, so only rogues (and rogue-like classes) could use it. Otherwise, fighters could, and that would have its own unique complications.

 

[Jer]

The major different between Talents and feats is that Talents are tied to one class (or a small set of them) and feats are more universal. For example, "sneak attack" would be a talent for rogues, so only rogues (and rogue-like classes) could use it. Otherwise, fighters could, and that would have its own unique complications.

This is the key point, I think. Feats are things that any character can have regardless of their class. "Talents" are another name for "class abilities" but they give the player a choice of what class ability to take at a given level. It allows the base classes to be more flexible and cover a wider range of archetypes without throwing out the class system entirely and going to a classless point-buy system OR going to the other extreme and having dozens of different base classes.

FWIW, a rudimentary talent tree system already exists in the core rules. The ranger class has a very simple "talent tree" in their "Combat Style" class abilities, the rogue "Special Ability" choices above 10th level also form a type of "talent" system with abilities that can only be taken by a rogue and aren't available as feats, and the "alternate class ability" choices that have shown up in various sourcebooks are also basically a type of Talent system hacked into the system after the fact.

When the next revision of the D&D rules comes, I'd love to see a Telent system implemented, along with a reduction in the number of core classes. I'd think that you could reduce the number of base classes down to 4 or possibly 5 base classes and still be able to cover all of the current core classes with a set of well thought-out Talent trees.