Thoughts: 4 Classes + Talent Trees?

[BASHMAN]

One of the selling points so far on 5e is the idea of it being as basic / nuanced as you want depending on play style.

One way I can think of to accomidate this is by having there be only 4 base classes, and adding optional "talent trees" to these that allow the player to customize the character.

So if there were a basic Warrior, Rogue, Priest, and Mage class; each might be able to be customized to make variants of the player's design; many of which would mimic traditional other classes.

A Ranger for instance might be a Warrior with some abilities allowing tracking, favored enemies, and emphasis on bow/2-weapon fighting. To "buy off" some of these abilities, he may "buy down" from heavy armor to only light armor familiarity, or take some other restrictions that fit his concept.

A Bard may be a Rogue with some abilities to play music and minor spellcasting with expanded weapon and armor choice, but at the cost of trapfinding.

I'm thinking they could take a page from 2e Skills & Powers or 3e Unearthed Arcana for some ideas here? Any thoughts?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd call them 'themes' rather than Talent Trees... but I do agree that I should be able to create a character for whatever combat or fluff role in whatever power source I want (probably saving some sources for additional books). I don't want a 'cleric' to be pigeon-holed into being the only divine class, and the only leader character.

Give me my choice of class (power source) and theme (role) and then I'm good.

 

[drothgery]

A few years back that idea seemed really appealing... and then I saw it implemented in True20 and the Basic Classes in Unearthed Arcana, and it wasn't as appealing any more. Star Wars Saga almost makes things work with five classes (and quite a lot of prestige classes), but there's a lot of ground that's either not covered or takes multi-classing to work.

 

[Mark CMG]

Customization of characters, IMO, should build off background and advancement should be keyed toward what transpires in-game through RPing (on-screen and off-screen).

 

[Sammael]

As I mentioned in the other thread:

Complexity dial 0 - predefined class abilities: little choice of customization (e.g. fighters can pick weapon specializations, mages can pick some spells, clerics can pick gods). Character can be made in 10 minutes or so.

Complexity dial 1 - kits: each kit comes with a number of special abilities (and weaknesses) that are unique to that kit. Pick a kit and then customize as per complexity dial 0. Character can be made in 20 minutes or so (allow extra 10 minutes to choose a kit and record kit abilities).

Complexity dial 2 - cherry picking: each class consists of a base template and special abilities that can be cherry picked to you heart's content. This is the 3e fighter (bonus feats) and pretty much every 4e class (powers). Estimated character creation time should be around 1/2 hour (more for high-level characters).

Complexity dial 3 - anything goes: we're entering GURPS territory here; this amount of customization was last seen in 2e Skills & Powers: pick a base class template, modify EVERYTHING (using a system of tradeoffs) if you so desire, cherry pick special abilities. 1 hour character creation time or more, but you can have a fighter who doesn't wear armor at all, adds Wis to AC, has d6 hit points per level, can cast cantrips at will and talks to animals, and uses a mix of fighter, ranger, and mage abilities.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I wouldn't like this at all.

I'd much rather see a system of a large number of less complex, but very well flavored and mechanically focused, characters. Generally I think it is better for a system to have a fewer number choices to make, each with a lot of meaning and variety. A talent tree system is the opposite of that, since it tends to add a lot of complexity and choices over minor details without really providing enough genuine support for different character concepts.

Of course, I also really, really dislike the Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Cleric paradigm. One of my biggest complaints about 4E is that, despite the promise inherent to the Role system, they never managed to break away from those four class concepts. To be honest, I never even understood where those four classes come from, and what they are supposed to accomplish. The Mage/Cleric division is incredibly arbitrary, the Fighter is too generic, and the Rogue is too specific. I just don't see why people like it.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I want my cake and it it too

I love the idea, except for the part about 4 classes. I believe there would need to be way to many talent trees to cater to all the other familiar classes.

I would rather more classes with tighter Talent Trees/Themes, but some of these TT's/Themes could be shared with others. So the Fighter could choose from the Weapon Specialist TT/Theme, but so could the Ranger (even if only using 2 weapons, if people feel that is inherent).

But I do love TTs/Themes. To me they have more appeal than feats and silo-styled powers.

 

[BASHMAN]

As I mentioned in the other thread:

Complexity dial 1 - kits: each kit comes with a number of special abilities (and weaknesses) that are unique to that kit. Pick a kit and then customize as per complexity dial 0. Character can be made in 20 minutes or so (allow extra 10 minutes to choose a kit and record kit abilities).

I think this is it. Have a Warrior class and have Ranger, Fighter, Paladin, Monk, etc, be "kits" that extend from it.

Have a Priest class with Cleric, Druid, and Favored Soul kits. A Mage class with Wizard, Illusionist, Warlock kits. Rogue with bard, thief, and ninja kits, etc. I think this is the way to do it.

 

[DonTadow]

I was game for 4 classes, but now I've heard 3 classes a few times and I kinda like that idea now that the argument has been presented.

Regardless, not trees in the traditonal sense.

The only thing you can choose when you level (even 1) is a feat. (and i don't care what this is called, but no special abilities and feats, just feats). Each class gives 2 or 3 bonus feats at level 1, that's it.

From there on, your class gives you access to feat sets. Say, the monk set, or the barbarian set or the rogue set.

These sets have an included template, so, if you don't want to mix and match with other sets, you don't have to, here's an example of what the class you want looks like.

These feats (abilities or whatever) have special things you can do (as is now) but they also have bonuses when you use your ability score for a certain skill. (thus in this sytem there are no skills)).

The example I gave somewhere else was, say you choose cleave, well cleave is
"attack another foe when downed"
+2 to Acrobatics rolls, Knowledge: tactics"
+1 Reflex saves .

This pretty much works like the kits example. Its simple, clean and you tell a player to do 2 things during player creation. Generate ability scores and choose a race/class. Your first feat will determine the bonuses you start with. Let's play dnd.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=22622]DonTadow[/MENTION]

Am with you on putting all Specific, special abilities/feats into kits/themes/TTs, especially all those feats now that are designed for one class anyway.

BUT, if feats survive, as broad abilities across all classes, that would be OK too. Feats must be applicable to all classes in my mind.

All the others would go to these kits/themes/TTs , though without stand alone TTs there will be a lot of doubling up.