Thoughts: 4 Classes + Talent Trees?

[nnms]

I really like the idea of a basic class and then being able to swap class features for others (or choose them from a big pool of options).

I think I'd especially like it if all class features became feats and you just built what you wanted by picking them. Multiclassing built right in.

And then you could have fast 10 minute character generation just by having prebuilt packages of feats.

 

[Sammael]

[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.

IMO (and also in my Fatebinder system) feats do have a place. They are not directly related to enhancing class abilities in any way.

The problem is how to introduce such feats into a game with complexity dials, since feats inevitably add a separate layer of complexity.

Perhaps each feat should come with a corresponding hindrance, i.e. each feat should be balanced with itself for a net gain of zero (but added customization potential). In games where all players use feats, hindrances can be dropped.

 

[Raith5]

I like this basic idea and it points to the modularity that seems to be coming.

@TwinBahamut I know where you are coming from. There many fantasy settings where the divide between the arcane and divine does not exist. However, the divide is an established one in D and D lore and I am willing to accept that some PCs are powered by divine faith rather than arcane skill.

I think there is space for some primal basic class

FWIW I prefer the term talent over theme because talent sounds more active. The term theme makes a PC sound like a novel or something.

 

[mlund]

You need Super-Classes with Sub-Classes.

Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, and Rogue are all Super-classes. They carry some core mechanics and each one has a default Sub-class that's old school: Slayer, Warpriest, Wizard, Thief. Each should also have at least 2 Sub-classes that fill different roles but share those core commonalities of the Super-Class. In effect the Sub-class gives you a "kit."

Say with the Fighter super-Class it means you are proficient with all Martial Weapons, have solid HP, and have proficiency with most types of Heavy Armor and Light Shields.

Then with the sub-class/kit you get to pick your core attacks and some specific features. The Slayer gets a core damage enhancement and powers that help bring the pain. The Knight gets Plate Armor and Heavy Shields along with powers that help keep enemies stuck in melee with him. Etc.

To take the styles further you should have substantive Feats that function like Talent Trees. A prototypical Barbarian would be a Slayer running down Feat trees that are based off of themes like "Rage" or "Primal Power." They'd be more formative than "+1 to hit with a weapon type" or "+2 healing surges" and accumulate better effects deeper in the tree with minimum level requirements. Variety is nice too: Rage could give you better HP to start out, then branch off into things like enhanced speed, enhanced strength, or spell rage - etc.

As long as you don't break the action economy, break the to-hit and damage curves too baldly, or completely overshadow / obsolete the features of a Super-Class or Sub-Class it should be close enough to balanced that you can't twink a character that steals everyone else's spotlight all the time.

- Marty Lund

 

[FireLance]

I think I would prefer a system of simple classes with no customization options as the base, and a variable number of themes that present more options but little to no additional power. A character with more themes would thus have a greater variety of options to choose from for each of his abilities, but would gain no additional abilities.

So, sub-classes like ranger, barbarian, illusionist, etc. can be themes. Weapon or fighting styles (axe specialist, dagger specialist, Braavosi water dancer style, etc.) can be themes. Even things like race and backgrounds can be themes. So, at the simplest level, you could choose to play a fighter (with no option to customize your class abilities), or (with enough themes) a fighter dwarf berserker axe specialist from the Ironback Mountains, and can choose abilities from the fighter class as well as the dwarf, berserker, axe specialist and Ironback Mountain themes.

 

[DonTadow]

IMO (and also in my Fatebinder system) feats do have a place. They are not directly related to enhancing class abilities in any way.

The problem is how to introduce such feats into a game with complexity dials, since feats inevitably add a separate layer of complexity.

Perhaps each feat should come with a corresponding hindrance, i.e. each feat should be balanced with itself for a net gain of zero (but added customization potential). In games where all players use feats, hindrances can be dropped.

That's the thing though. Whats the difference between a feat and a special ability. Not much. So why not just have all feats (or special abilities) and make some accessible to certain classes and some not.

I try to think about the things i always come back to when i am first explaining dnd, this is a question that pops up every 1st character build. What's he difference. When do i get these. When do I get this. Why?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

This. Talent trees imply a symmetry to the things being modeled that is seldom born out in practice. Not least of all is the problem of misplaced prerequisites. When talent trees start looking appealing, remember this: Each 4E class powers list is very close to a talent tree presented differently.

Now, when talent trees work, they are relatively small and only contain the things that absolutely fit that model. You've got a handful of choices, and the choices you make lead to a handful of other choices. They are a particularly useful visual presentation when this is so.

I can't think of anything in D&D that really has fit that model well in the past, but I guess you could have something like certain packages of spells with prerequisites that could make sense, if you want to restrict certain speciality spells to those that took the more basic lead ins.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

regarding talent trees and feats in a system where we have the core four classes and kits, I think it could work well as follows:

group talents/feats into tiers of about 4 levels each, this provides a guideline for the power that feat would provide. You can always choose a feat of a lower tier if you want.
Then, some feats have 'enabling' feats that bring a feat down a tier. This shows focus and provides added power through specialization.

For instance the Heroic Heavy Sword Specialty enables the Paragon Cleave, which in turn enables the Epic Sundering Strike {using 4e tier names..}

Assuming one feat per level, a 2nd level fighter could take Heavy Sword Specialty and Cleave.. gaining access to the higher powered ability sooner than others. A 5th level fighter could take Cleave without taking Heavy Sword Specialty.. but by then the focused character would be taking Sundering Strike and would still be the best at what he does.

The same could be done for spell abilities,
For instance, Heroic Fire Bolt enables Paragon Fire Ball, which in turn enables the Epic Inferno


Other side note,
I think there should also be a core four races that have a similar complexity dial and talents trees.. split on the nature and nurture lines. That way you can have an Elf raised as a Dwarf.

I also think power sources should be hard coded as dials/options. So if I want to run an iron-heroes mostly historical recreation I wouldn't allow {Fey} or {Shadow} and maybe restricted {Arcane}...

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I really really like the idea of reducing the plethora of classes down to their basic concepts. It's unclear to me whether a tetra- or tri-fecta would work best however. I'd also be wary of reducing things to 'classes', because, as ever, everybody likes to customise their characters and that requires a robust multiclassing system.

No, instead I would consider (within an as yet unknown system) what characters actually DO with their class abilities. An example list:

FIGHT - in melee, at range, lightly or heavily armoured
INTERACT - with the environment, with NPCs
CHEAT - aka, use magic to simulate the above

Now, you can pigeonhole these things into the 'fighter', 'thief', 'magic-user' roles, or you can make them independent and allow organic development of each aspect of a character. I like the idea of splitting each into further trees too, so within FIGHTING you can have melee weapon skills, ranged weapon skills, armour use, toughness and so on; within INTERACTING you can have sneaking, charisma stuff, knowing stuff, crafting; within MAGIC you can have magic schools/themes like healing, burn it with fire, make illusions and so on. (I always hark back to the CRPG Arcanum when I think about this!)

 

[Hassassin]

Classes are essentially talent trees. Each level you can advance in any one talent tree. There's just a lot of seemingly unrelated stuff stuffed into each.

Maybe "Cleric" should just be shorthand for advancing in Healing Magic, Melee Combat and Divine Champion talent trees?