Talent Trees - The Way To Go?

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=2057]Zaukrie[/MENTION]

Fair enough - and that is exactly how many Saga Talents work. They don't have prereqs . For those that do, I too would prefer it phrased as 'must have one (or two, whatever) talents from this tree', so you can put higher powered talents in there.

[MENTION=59506]El Mahdi[/MENTION]
Sorry, I am not getting the whole you are screwed if you chose a class that doesn't have access to that Talent Tree where you wanted a power from. Isn't that the case with assigned class abilities? Not having a go here - just seems we are not getting each other...or it could just be me

BTW I would go further than Saga. For eg; Fighter would grant you access to MANY TT's. Any that thematically suit a fighter should be linked to the class. The player would choose which 3 (for example) they have access to at first level, (possibly with a feat/choice later on to add more if they like more options/choices). In this way the fighter becomes thematic if similar Trees are chosen or quite varied. An easy way to simulate the many subclasses, variants, kits, specialists or even full classes that could have been created on the foundations of another class.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I really dislike talent trees for some reason. They just seem to add uneeded confusion to charater creation and i have never quite understood what they really bring to the table.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=85243]harpy[/MENTION]

Thank you - you also trie to clarify exactly what Saga TT's mean. I seem to be constantly doing this and perhaps the problem does lie in the name.

I like the grouping or even siloing. What I didn't like about 4E was the siloing by level, not theme. I know it is there if you search through the many powers, but it would have been nice to see thematic powers linked across levels in some way.

On the rules bloat - I agree adding new TTs = much easier. As for too many TT's - again, see post above. Whilst a class could have access to many TTs, a specific PC should have limited options based upon their concept. (I have been using 3 as an eg).

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]

They bring thematically linked powers without needed a whole new class for each.

If TT's were separated from class I think it would actually be one of the simplest mechanics possible, as far as these 'add-on modules' go.

Basic Fighter
Has set class powers. (Simple mods and/or some basic talents chosen from amongst the trees).

Pre-Customised Fighter
Has specific talents pre-chosen for you to suit the archetype - with a few sample archetypes given: Swashbuckler, Sword and Board, Slayer, Weapon Specialist, Mounted Warrior, etc. These Talents replace the class powers of Basic Fighter.

Customisable Fighter
Player chooses the 3 (or however many) TT's from the many a Fighter has access to.

 

[Bedrockgames]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]

They bring thematically linked powers without needed a whole new class for each.

If TT's were separated from class I think it would actually be one of the simplest mechanics possible, as far as these 'add-on modules' go.

Basic Fighter
Has set class powers. (Simple mods and/or some basic talents chosen from amongst the trees).

Pre-Customised Fighter
Has specific talents pre-chosen for you to suit the archetype - with a few sample archetypes given: Swashbuckler, Sword and Board, Slayer, Weapon Specialist, Mounted Warrior, etc. These Talents replace the class powers of Basic Fighter.

Customisable Fighter
Player chooses the 3 (or however many) TT's from the many a Fighter has access to.

Thanks connorsrpg, i can see why you and others might like them. Personally they are not something I like having in the game. Mostly because I find they add a layer of confusion for me (just a mental block i have had with them since I first came into contact with talents). I suspect in 5e they will at the very least be an optional rule.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION]

No worries. I like your politeness in this thread for someone who doesn't agree. CHeers.

In fact, it all gets back to the fact our minds work in different ways doesn't it. I like things grouped thematically, others prefer logical groupings, by level for eg, and others like to simply know 'what do I get now'?

I guess that is why I outlined the 3 different complixity levels above.

I also picture it easier having these Talents separated from the Classes. (like feats/skills), BUT all Feats/Skills that are directly related to a Talent's Theme would be placed there - try and reduce the feat list. (Sorry, I think I have already said this).

 

[Connorsrpg]

I would love to design a fantasy version of the Saga TTs. I got half way, including how Saga did races and skills - maybe with module approach of 5E I may yet get my wish in a sense.

Main thing holding me back was spells. It can be done, but it would have been a lot of work.

Could spells be done as TT's? I would love to see thematic spells linked, though this might be too much. I could see certain thematic casters going this route. I could also see casters like sorcerers using the Force power system in Saga.

Neither would suit a versatile wizard that likes to have an array of spells, but could TT's work for focused casters?

 

[variant]

I am of full support of talent trees for class, race, and theme. It is something that is simply flexible and it works. Each talent tree should be narrow in focus and short, thus encouraging you to use multiple trees.

 

[Zireael]

Could spells be done as TT's?

Don't know, but the idea is brilliant!

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=41293]variant[/MENTION]

Yeah, and of the tiers remain, I could imagine 'advanced' talent trees to open up (like/or even Prestige Classes Talents). That way you could keep each tree narrow, but have 'higher level' options to expand too..