Talent Trees & D&D

[Ranger REG]

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

Better new talent trees than new base classes (my one gripe about 3.5e, two if you count the early 2003 release).

 

[GreatLemur]

I've got to say, I'm on the fence about mmadsen's points regarding feats vs. talents. I lean strongly towards generic classes and greater flexibility, and the main point of making a distinction between talent trees and feat chains seems to be to keep flavorful abilities isolated across several not-completely-generic classes.

And, seriously, I can't see any reason a fighter-type shouldn't have access to Evasion.

However, I do like the idea of using the distinction to allow for two different power levels of character options, with feats as the "nice to have" abilities that add depth to a character, while talents are the high-powered primary abilities that define a character, and are used all the time.

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

Honestly, I think one of the biggest benefits of a more flexible class system (whether it's based on feats, talent trees, or both) would be the chance to finally ditch prestige classes all together. Instead, we can just have powerful feats or talent trees with more elaborate (and possibly story-based) prerequisites.

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

I'd argue that you're mixing mechanics and flavor a little bit, here, and my own bias is to base character systems strictly in mechanics. For exmple, there's nothing in the mechanics (or even the most basic concept) of the Paladin class that says they have to wear heavy armor; so classing Paladin-type abilities like Smite under "Armored Fighter" wouldn't make sense to me. Instead, I'd say that a paladin-type character would be one who'd taken a generic Warrior class and focused on abilities from some Divine Crusader talent tree. The same Warrior class--and even this paladin character--might also have access to abilities like Evasion, AC bonuses while unarmored, and archery feats. There's no reason any of this shouldn't coexist and be compatible with things like Smite and such.

I'd also say that "Wilderness Warrior" is more of a concept designation than a mechanical one: There's no reason why an urban character shouldn't have Favored Enemy or Rage. There's really nothing inherently wilderness-related about those abilities.

I think I'd structure my generic class system a lot like True20, but with room for more different types of supernatural power. So I'd have Warrior, covering all the various combat-specific abilities (including unarmed combat, martial maneuvers, and even Sneak Attack), and Expert, covering everything that's neither combat-related nor magical (that means things like the Marshal's leadership effects, Bardic Knowledge, almost every skill-related ability out there, movement enhancements, most Rogue-type stuff other than Sneak Attack, and so on), and several different caster classes with different spellcasting mechanics. Maybe a spellpoint-based class for arcane magic, a fatigue-save-based class for divine magic, a Warlock / Dragonfire Adept-style cast-all-day class for psionics or other inborn powers, etc. Maybe a single caster class with several very different talent trees could work, as well, but I'm not sure.

 

[EditorBFG]

Honestly, I think one of the biggest benefits of a more flexible class system (whether it's based on feats, talent trees, or both) would be the chance to finally ditch prestige classes all together. Instead, we can just have powerful feats or talent trees with more elaborate (and possibly story-based) prerequisites.

To my mind, prestige classes would not go away completely, but they would stop fulfilling generic functions and become more directly tied to settings. Duelists do not establish the setting, whereas Red Wizards do-- the concept of elite groups only select people can join is a good one.

Hopefully, there would be far fewer prestige classes in this case, causing them to mean something again-- the fact that a guy is a Knight of Takhisis is scary rather than ho-hum if PrCs are rare.

 

[Flynn]

Prestige Classes work in Star Wars Saga Edition, but in my D&D, I'd rather drop them entirely, if I can. But that's my opinion, and I understand that others may not agree with it.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Zaruthustran]

I'd argue that you're mixing mechanics and flavor a little bit, here, and my own bias is to base character systems strictly in mechanics.

Good point. I started a new thread about a system that's quite a bit more generic, and that severs the bond between combat role and noncombat role. Check it out:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=199461

 

[orangefruitbat]

I prefer the idea of prestige talents - join the organization, keep your own class and get access to a bunch of new substitute class options.

Prestige Classes work in Star Wars Saga Edition, but in my D&D, I'd rather drop them entirely, if I can. But that's my opinion, and I understand that others may not agree with it.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Flynn]

I prefer the idea of prestige talents - join the organization, keep your own class and get access to a bunch of new substitute class options.

I could work with that...

Nice Idea,
Flynn

 

[Ranger REG]

Prestige Classes work in Star Wars Saga Edition, but in my D&D, I'd rather drop them entirely, if I can. But that's my opinion, and I understand that others may not agree with it.

In 3e, prestige class is optional, found only in the DMG for the DM to decide if they want it in his own game ... or not, such in your case. The fact it is so popular -- as the optional character kits were in 2e -- is the reason many gamers (unlike yourself) would prefer to see them in new D&D products.

Granted you don't like them, but it doesn't mean everyone shouldn't like them.

 

[RFisher]

I'd argue that you're mixing mechanics and flavor a little bit, here, and my own bias is to base character systems strictly in mechanics.

Yeah. I too tend towards trying to make mechanics generic & let the group/judge add the flavor by what they choose/allow.

On the other hand, when you do mix flavor & mechanics, it can give you different ways to balance things. Character concepts that might be more difficult to create (or build balanced rules to create) with the generic system can become simpler.

I still lean towards generic, though.

In any case, I'm unsure that--if you are going to have both--feats & talent trees are different enough to be treated as different. i.e. Just make talents feats with class prerequisites.

 

[Flynn]

In 3e, prestige class is optional, found only in the DMG for the DM to decide if they want it in his own game ... or not, such in your case. The fact it is so popular -- as the optional character kits were in 2e -- is the reason many gamers (unlike yourself) would prefer to see them in new D&D products.

Granted you don't like them, but it doesn't mean everyone shouldn't like them.

Acknowledged. I did very clearly use language that stated that this was my preference, if that helps address your concerns about the content of my post. I know a lot of people like PrCs, and they obviously sell well, given their presence in so many WOTC, D20 and OGL products. I even went through my phase of PrC Mania, as it were.

But I've come to not appreciate them as much, being on the DM's side of the table and having to prep everything. Eventually, in my experience, PrCs become a tool for PCs and rarely the DM, since it's quicker to prep characters with base classes only using automated tools than doing all the PrC stuff by hand. (I didn't say it was easier to use just base classes, but just quicker. I'd rather spend my time on the adventure rather than on the NPC stats.)

But as I said before, this is my preference, and I know that others do not agree with me on it.

With Regards,
Flynn