Talent Trees - Your Thoughts?

[Impeesa]

This thread should be called how can we turn D&D into more of a computer game. Talent Trees Seriously? Diably 2 had talent trees and its 11 years old. Or more importantly lets make D&D more like world of warcraft.

It's worth noting that in the previews for the next WoW expansion, the devs (with 7 years of design lessons learned under their belts) showed how they planned to replace the old talent tree system with what basically amounts to a small set of more meaningful feat choices.

 

[Jawsh]

As for your criticism about talents and how it can translate into verisimilitude, in my example Shield Bash just means you are able to "hit someone with your shield" in a skilled way in fluff, and in crunch, gives you a powerful ability that stuns or what-have-you. Of course you can "hit someone with a shield" without that Talent anyway. You should. Similarly, it would be laughable if one cannot breathe without the Breathe talent. I'm not sure if you're just trying to be funny or you're serious (no sarcasm). Shield Finesse might translate to the character being able to deftly wield a shield so that it's no longer cumbersome (no more penalty to checks, for example), and sets the character to be able to use a higher damage dice if attacking with the shield.

I don't want to come down on your example too hard, because I know you just sort of came up with it on the fly, and you're not claiming it as great game design. The point I want to make is: game design is hard. And some design puzzles don't have good, elegant answers. You can always put in a kluge and handwave it away with some clever flavor text, like "this martial arts school teaches these techniques in this order, and that's why you need these earlier talents."

I don't think there's a way to create a talent tree that logically builds up to an Improved Shield Bash. If you want to become better at bashing people with a shield, why should you be required to pick up some kind of finessing ability?

And if it's a question of granularity, then how can you be assured that you're applying the same level across the board? If shield bashing mastery takes seven steps, does two-weapon fighting mastery have the same number of steps? Do their granularities match?

 

[Aldarc]

It's worth noting that in the previews for the next WoW expansion, the devs (with 7 years of design lessons learned under their belts) showed how they planned to replace the old talent tree system with what basically amounts to a small set of more meaningful feat choices.

Primarily for two reasons: talent bloat and the illusion of choice. People used cookie-cutter builds, and - as you say in your post - players were not making "meaningful feat choices." But they are also significantly reducing the number of "feats/talents" that are available to players.

 

[Spatula]

SWSE's talents are a mess. As Pssthpok notes, they're basically class-restricted feats that aren't called feats and are allocated separate from feats. But some talents have feat prereqs, some require other talents. Since you get feats and talents at different levels, trying to coordinate this only encourages having a "build" planned out for your character from day 1.

 

[Storminator]

One of the things I really disliked about 3e was the need to pick out high level feats early in an adventuring career and then diligently working towards that goal for many, many levels. Talent trees can have that effect. If I want power 4 in the tree, I need to start working towards it very early, and I need to keep accumulating irrelevant powers for many levels until I get what I want.

While a few folks have discussed using talent trees instead of feats, I think replacing class abilities with talent trees would be a better fit.

PS

 

[molepunch]

I guess I have to agree with the bloat issue and the fact that there is an illusion of choice. But I still like the idea of TTs and I will enjoy having a fixed framework of "feat schools" to work from, as well as a having visual map of feats I will pick up.

IOW I am ok with the bloat and ok with the illusion of choice because I like the idea of talent trees. Maybe I deserve to be mocked for liking something so related to Diablo but meh I don't mind So my vote is still "yes please"

I don't know how to reply re: talent tree design and how to apply it consistently across all abilities. I have a idea or two but I think that's not the point of this thread anyway.

 

[Nytmare]

In my mind, I don't see them as replacing feats, I only really see it as a way of organizing them, and giving a player a different way to visualize a build.

New feats can be added on to an existing branch, or used to create a new tree, or wreath, or shrub.

 

[Nytmare]

This thread should be called how can we turn D&D into more of a computer game. Talent Trees Seriously? Diably 2 had talent trees and its 11 years old.

Feng Shui had talent trees and it is 13 years old.

I've never played Diablo 2, or World of Warcraft, but the problems you are complaining about sound more like problems with the design of the game, and power systems in general, not something tied specifically to skill trees.

 

[Rechan]

I generally don't like ability y having a lot of per-requesits to get (aside from level). Just like those feat-trees from 3e, talent trees also often mean getting things you Don't want to get something you Do.

However, if you like Talent Trees, take a look at Exalted.

In Exalted, you have various character abilities (equivalent of skills): Archery, Medicine, Martial Arts, Dodge, Occult, Athletics, Thrown, Craft, Melee (weapons), Presence, Performance, Larceny, Investigations, Survival, Bureaucracy, Socialize, Sail, Stealth, Resistance, Ride, Lore, Linguistics, Brawl (1st ed only), Endurance (1E only), Integrity (2e only; resisting social attacks/body transmutation attacks), and War (2nd only; commanding large scale battle).

Each skill has several trees of Charms (4e equivalent of powers) associated with it. For instance, Melee has a tree for multi-attacks, doing more damage with single attacks, and parry-related powers.

Taking a page from Exalted, it would be interesting if they tied Talent Trees to skills. It's unlikely to work for some things in D&D - combat related abilities aren't skills. But things like stealth/search/etc are, and feats/whatever that affect those could be tucked under a tree.

 

[DonTadow]

3e feats were designed with prerequs that only existed t omake sure you had reached a certain level. in 5e, just provide the level as the prereq with no "neccessary feat". I find feat steps to be "the illusion" and i'd love a system where no feat/special ability depended on another.

I am game for feats having multiple levels, so when i get a new feat i can choos eto bump the rank (sneak attack more damage etc).