Talent Trees - in, out, shake them all about?

[FireLance]

I'm opposed to feats that offers level-based or level-dependent benefit (e.g., +x per level bonus). Better to use feat tree to improve a benefit's bonus (e.g, Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, etc.).

Level-based benefits should be in the form of class features, be it talents or default class features, IMHO.

It really depends on what is the effect of the feat. In order to remain useful at all levels, a feat must provide approximately the same proportionate benefit at high levels that it provided at low levels. In some cases, e.g. feats that grant a bonus to opposed checks such as attack rolls, the numerical bonus does not need to change because your opponents' numbers should also advance at roughly the same pace. In other cases, e.g. damage and hit point bonuses, the feat needs some way to get better as your level increases because the benefit needs to keep pace with your opponents' hit points and damage.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Although feats are slightly interesting, I'm really interesting in seeing what they do with talent trees / powers / class abilities.

In SWSE talent trees are used to allow different classes to configure their 'class features' differently - so one noble might be all about helping the party to work together well while another noble is all about their social position and financial clout.

I'm hoping that 4e will have something similar, whether they call it talent trees or powers or something else. Some mechanism for ensuring that Rogue 1 and Rogue 2 could have different class abilities quite independent from their choice of feats.

I can only see this as a good thing, and it seems to me that there have been a few hints in various places about this, but nothing definite yet.

Unless anyone has spotted something that is otherwise missed?

Regards,

 

[Ranger REG]

I disagree. There's a very significant cost to minor improvements if you have to continue sinking resources into a tree. It often means getting low level abilities at high levels.

Yeah, that's how I like feats offered their benefits. I also think there should be high-powered feats offered at higher level with few prerequisites (at least minimum character level).

Whereas talents (and talent trees) offers more for choosing the class that certain talents are available, especially when they have fewer prerequisites (aside from being available to certain classes).

 

[Khaalis]

The feeling I get is that there will be multiple mechanics involved in what makes your character. Feats are definitely remaining, we've heard this. However, they are going to be revamped to be more streamlined, less overlapping and (if I remember correctly) more about cool abilities than simple bonuses.

On top of this we have class powers. I think each class will have a set of "core" powers that define the class. Beyond this, I believe, is where the concept of "talent trees" (though I doubt they will use this name) will come into play. I think it will be implemented differently than Saga, being that it will not be as simple as 'choose a talent every other level' where talents are simply more glorified feats. I think this concept will be used to create the different fields of specialty in each class. For example the warlock will have to choose a pact that determines what kind of abilities they have access to. Fighters will gain access to powers/abilities relating to their weapon choices. Wizards gain powers/abilities based on their chosen focus, etc.

Additionally, I think we will be given the option of focused specialization or broad access. For instance you can choose multiple low level powers/abilities from more than one "area of specialty' or gain increasingly more powerful options by staying in an area of specialization (similar to Bo9S:ToB).

They have also stated that your race will also have a strong impact on your class, in that you will have the option to take race specific powers/abilities for your class, yet again differentiating members of the same class. An example might be that a dwarven fighter has a better selection of abilities for say Axe specialty than an elven fighter who may instead prefer light blades.

JMHO. It will be interesting to see how they actually pull off the character progressions.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Well, I can't speak for the game itself, but talent trees are certainly a huge part of what I imagine about and look forward to in the game.

SWSE is nice for that, but what I really like is something along the lines of 3.5's archer or brawler Ranger and stunner or tripper Monk taken up to a whole other magnitude of character development.

Further, I like the idea that a mechanic like that could be used to replicate some of the things 2E could do with kits where you could make appropriate situational changes to a class from the very begining of the character's development.

 

[Ranger REG]

Further, I like the idea that a mechanic like that could be used to replicate some of the things 2E could do with kits where you could make appropriate situational changes to a class from the very begining of the character's development.

The big difference is whereas you need to balance a kit's Special Benefits with Special Hindrances (some of which are ridiculous), you merely swap class abilities. This is a much better trade-off.