PDA

View Full Version : Talent Trees in TTRPG? (yes - I know that it rhymes)



CharonsHelper
2020-07-19, 04:49 PM
Talent trees are a major part of a LOT of video games. They limit the number of choices you have to make early-on in customizing your character, and they give you high-end moves/abilities to build towards.

What do you guys think about them in TTRPGs? They seem much rarer overall. Many games have pre-requisites for abilities (like 3.x feats) but rarely do they have more than one previous requirement.

I'm currently finishing up a swashbuckling space western TTRPG (see signature) and I've found that just naturally as I designed them, the psychic Talents (basically their powers) have a lot of pre-reqs. For example, Raw Psy-Scream (starter mental attack) is a requisite for Nightmare, which is a prerequisite for Nightmare's Strike, which is a pre-requisite for Nightmare's Grasp (the longest current chain). The last ability is very powerful and niche, as you first have to use Nightmare to make your foes create mental images of their deepest fears which then start ripping apart their Psyche.

To that end, I am considering just running with that and having the psychic classes (2/8 total classes) have talent trees. It would help make them feel more distinct and gate a lot of their complexity, since they are definitely the trickiest classes to play. The drawback being that any given character would likely end up doing only a few things well if they want the higher tier abilities, since even at max level a psychic character only has about 10ish Talents total, while most of the time they would have around half that.

So - what do you think? Do talent trees appeal to you in TTRPGs, or is there a good reason that they are much rarer here than in video games?

Thanks much!

NigelWalmsley
2020-07-19, 04:52 PM
Talent trees are overkill for rules light games, and difficult to write expansion material for. If you look at the size of the talent trees in e.g. Classic Wow, they're actually fairly small compared to the number of options available in games like D&D or Shadowrun.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-19, 04:57 PM
Talent trees are overkill for rules light games, and difficult to write expansion material for. If you look at the size of the talent trees in e.g. Classic Wow, they're actually fairly small compared to the number of options available in games like D&D or Shadowrun.

That is true. If a supplement included an entirely new talent tree, it may feel worthless to someone who already has a mid-level character.

But even in video games, there are some pretty complex ones. (Path of Exile being super extreme.)

ImNotTrevor
2020-07-19, 07:05 PM
If the trees are non-exclusive it could make for something interesting. Make them a bit less branching and more like straight Paths you can take varying numbers of Steps down, (and make the default number of Steps you recieve more than is needed to complete one full Path) and you could have something pretty neat, and adding one new path would be pretty easy.

It would end up being a bit like multiclassing within your own class, which could be neato.

NigelWalmsley
2020-07-19, 07:24 PM
That's basically what 3e did with Feat Chains, and it wasn't all that popular. Even a simple linear chain dramatically reduces the amount of play any particular option gets. If you have to take Dodge and Mobility to get Spring Attack, that means a big reduction in the number of characters eligible for Spring Attack, which makes it a dead option for a lot of campaigns. It also multiplies the number of abilities you have to write to maintain a given level of choice literally exponentially. If you write ten tier one options, then two tier two options for each of them, that's 30 abilities, but it's only 20 distinct characters. Whereas if you write ten tier one options, then ten tier two options, and let people pick whichever they want, that's a hundred characters from only twenty abilities.

Kyutaru
2020-07-19, 07:28 PM
It's also what 5e did with the different subclasses. People who spec into talent trees end up in similar cookie cutter builds anyway so they just gave you all the cookie cutter along that path. Choose from one of these three and then they added more later. Works better than trees for balance because then you get the Shadow Mastery/Ruin builds that exploit design flaws.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-19, 07:39 PM
That's basically what 3e did with Feat Chains, and it wasn't all that popular. Even a simple linear chain dramatically reduces the amount of play any particular option gets. If you have to take Dodge and Mobility to get Spring Attack, that means a big reduction in the number of characters eligible for Spring Attack, which makes it a dead option for a lot of campaigns.

I always thought that the dislike was largely because the ones further along the chain were rarely actually more powerful. Plus, I do think that talent trees in TTRPGs work better for active abilities than they do for passive ones like feats.



It also multiplies the number of abilities you have to write to maintain a given level of choice literally exponentially. If you write ten tier one options, then two tier two options for each of them, that's 30 abilities, but it's only 20 distinct characters. Whereas if you write ten tier one options, then ten tier two options, and let people pick whichever they want, that's a hundred characters from only twenty abilities.

That is a definite drawback. 100%. However, I'd argue that the number of viable characters likely isn't the full hundred choices - and many would likely be trap options since some abilities don't play well.

While the drawback you point out is true, it's sort of a reflection of the advantage that it cuts down on trap options since most players will pick a talent chain and run with it.

Really, it's a similar argument between classes & pure point-buy. There are advantages & disadvantages to both. My system is largely a hybrid (there are classes but with point-buy sub-categories), and I may not really mind shifting a bit more towards the ridged class structure for the most complex classes.

NigelWalmsley
2020-07-19, 09:12 PM
then you get the Shadow Mastery/Ruin builds that exploit design flaws.

Of course, one man's "design flaw" is another man's "unique interaction".


I always thought that the dislike was largely because the ones further along the chain were rarely actually more powerful. Plus, I do think that talent trees in TTRPGs work better for active abilities than they do for passive ones like feats.

I don't know that that's the case. I mean, look at the specific example I cited: of Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, the last is definitely the best. There were definitely exacerbating factors (e.g. people get way too few feats), but overall feat chains don't seem like a great well to go back to.


That is a definite drawback. 100%. However, I'd argue that the number of viable characters likely isn't the full hundred choices - and many would likely be trap options since some abilities don't play well.

Absolutely. But it's not the full 20 in the other case either. Any system will have some bad options in it. There are arguments for larger systems (if there are four kinds of Fire Mage, odds are at least one of them is decent) and smaller ones (if you have more time to test and refine the Paladin, it's more likely to work well). But what prerequisites do is make the system smaller relative to the amount of content you write. If you want a system that has twenty builds in it, why write thirty abilities to do that when you could do it with seven instead?


Really, it's a similar argument between classes & pure point-buy.

Sure. But I think having classes already gives you a lot of the benefits (and costs) of ability trees. If someone is already committing to being a Crusader or a Druid or a Warlord, locking up which Druid spells they can take doesn't seem beneficial.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-19, 10:47 PM
Absolutely. But it's not the full 20 in the other case either. Any system will have some bad options in it. There are arguments for larger systems (if there are four kinds of Fire Mage, odds are at least one of them is decent) and smaller ones (if you have more time to test and refine the Paladin, it's more likely to work well). But what prerequisites do is make the system smaller relative to the amount of content you write. If you want a system that has twenty builds in it, why write thirty abilities to do that when you could do it with seven instead?

See - I'm not just talking about how to get the most possible viable builds. While beneficial, past even three or four builds for a class you're quickly getting diminishing returns IMO. And past a dozen it's diminishing fast.

I think that it's even more important to prevent as many chances for new players to accidently make horrible builds. And while I agree that all of them wouldn't be top tier, it's a lot easier to make abilities mesh when one is actually a pre-req for another.

But I'm not saying that you're WRONG per se. And I really do appreciate the feedback!

Silly Name
2020-07-20, 03:33 AM
I don't know that that's the case. I mean, look at the specific example I cited: of Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, the last is definitely the best. There were definitely exacerbating factors (e.g. people get way too few feats), but overall feat chains don't seem like a great well to go back to.


There were two issues in how 3.X handled feats:

1) Feat taxes. Dodge and Mobility suck, but you want Spring Attack so you have to waste two feat slots on abilities you don't actually want. Then throw in that you also need other feats as requisites to enter a Prestige Class, and how often those feats are taxes too, and you start hating the fact that a cool feat or class is gated by a sucky one.

2) Too many feats, too few slots. A character would get 7 feats (8 if human) over the course of their career, and those were far too little to actually get creative with your picks. Even the classes that granted bonus feats limited your selection and were little more than a small boost in getting the requisite feats quick.

So, you could solve those problems relatively easy: remove feat taxes by getting rid of horribly underpowered feats, don't create excessively long feat chains for skills that players are likely to want, and give characters more feats so they can complete a chain and still pick up other stuff.

Pauly
2020-07-20, 05:16 AM
I think talent trees actually work very well for magic systems.
If you want fireball, first you have to learn burning hands and then aganazzar’s scorcher.

The idea that mages could ignore, for example, all flame based magic until they wanted a flame based spell at a high level that they liked.

For me a talent tree based magic system fits the fiction of mages learning and specializing for years, yet an adventuring wizard chooses a random gag of spells based on how combat effective they are.

As for physical skills I l8me the concept of talent trees, but I can’t recall a well done implementation in TTRPGs. If good skills are available early then there is no incentive to specialize. If the good skills are kept locked behind crappy skills players resent the crappy skills.

Some suggestions to make talent trees workable in TTRPGs.
1) specialization allows you to access high level skills/spells faster than generalists.
2) you get bonus spells/skills based on how many you have, not you character level. EG for every 4 [X class] skills/spells you have, you are entitled to one free [X class] skill/spell
3) spells/skills are bought with s/s points that you get on leveling up. Certain spells or skills give you discounts for buying new skills/spells in their talent tree.

NigelWalmsley
2020-07-20, 07:18 AM
See - I'm not just talking about how to get the most possible viable builds. While beneficial, past even three or four builds for a class you're quickly getting diminishing returns IMO. And past a dozen it's diminishing fast.

I don't think the number of builds in a class matters very much. What matters is the number of builds in the system, and the number of builds for a particular archetype. It doesn't really matter if there are three ways to be a Wizard or ten ways to be a Wizard. What matters is how many ways there are to be a Necromancer or a Fire Mage, because those are the characters people actually set out to build.


I think that it's even more important to prevent as many chances for new players to accidently make horrible builds. And while I agree that all of them wouldn't be top tier, it's a lot easier to make abilities mesh when one is actually a pre-req for another.

But there's not necessarily that much synergy between abilities in a tree. Look at a suggestion like "Fire Magic". If you have Fireball, you're actually less interested in Meteor Swarm than Cone of Cold or Black Tentacles, because you can already do AoE Fire damage. Taking a bunch of thematically related abilities is a trap option, unless you're getting some kind of synergy. And if you are, it's better to allow customization within the theme.


For me a talent tree based magic system fits the fiction of mages learning and specializing for years, yet an adventuring wizard chooses a random gag of spells based on how combat effective they are.

That's not really universal in the fiction though. Certainly, there are examples of specialist wizards whose talents lie in a particular tactic or element. But there are also examples of generalist wizards who have a wide range of abilities, like Harry Potter or Doctor Strange. There's room for the game to have both specialists and generalists.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-20, 07:34 AM
I think talent trees actually work very well for magic systems.
If you want fireball, first you have to learn burning hands and then aganazzar’s scorcher.


Psychic Talents rather than magic spells in Space Dogs, but I was only considering talent trees for the psychic talents rather physical ones. A few of the physical talents have pre-requisites of other talents, but they are a small minority.

Kyutaru
2020-07-20, 07:36 AM
Yeah, too much focus on fire magic can be bad. If I were ever to include something similar to talent trees then it would be power pools like City of Heroes did. In that MMO, your character was an assembly of pools that had 4 to 8 powers in them and you could choose a certain number of abilities from them by devoting power selection points. Different tiers unlocked with different requirements and levels but you didn't need to select all the powers in a list to access the best ones.

My character was a blaster whose primary and secondary were Fire Blasting and Energy Melee. But I also had other pools like Flight, Fighting, Fitness, and Concealment. Even though it carried the same sort of restrictions as trees, can only select this power before accessing these powers and level requirements to unlock the strongest powers, it didn't actually provide you a tree to go down and was more free access in what power pools and powers I could choose from. Trees make for cookie cutter builds because there are only so many avenues and every competent player will end up taking the same few. This leads to balance issues if they're using a build you as the designer didn't plan for.

Hytheter
2020-07-20, 09:14 AM
I think talent trees actually work very well for magic systems.
If you want fireball, first you have to learn burning hands and then aganazzar’s scorcher.

The idea that mages could ignore, for example, all flame based magic until they wanted a flame based spell at a high level that they liked.

For me a talent tree based magic system fits the fiction of mages learning and specializing for years, yet an adventuring wizard chooses a random gag of spells based on how combat effective they are.

I mostly agree, but I do think the random grab bag of spells is fine for the Wizard in particular. Just seems on brand that they can scribe what is convenient and not worry about building up from Burning Hands to Fireball. That said, obviously other casters should get something to compensate like more castings, stronger spells or better at-will magic. I actually think encounter/daily is a good model for wizards. They prepare a number of spells and they can cast each one exactly once until the relevant rest. That makes them a bit less flexible on a momentary basis, like a simpler version of spell-in-slot preparation.

Morphic tide
2020-07-20, 09:37 AM
There were two issues in how 3.X handled feats:

1) Feat taxes. Dodge and Mobility suck, but you want Spring Attack so you have to waste two feat slots on abilities you don't actually want. Then throw in that you also need other feats as requisites to enter a Prestige Class, and how often those feats are taxes too, and you start hating the fact that a cool feat or class is gated by a sucky one.

2) Too many feats, too few slots. A character would get 7 feats (8 if human) over the course of their career, and those were far too little to actually get creative with your picks. Even the classes that granted bonus feats limited your selection and were little more than a small boost in getting the requisite feats quick.

So, you could solve those problems relatively easy: remove feat taxes by getting rid of horribly underpowered feats, don't create excessively long feat chains for skills that players are likely to want, and give characters more feats so they can complete a chain and still pick up other stuff.

I largely agree with this take on implementing talent trees in a more particularly d20 framework, though I tend to think of it as reframing "tax" feats as "boring but practical", so Dodge and Mobility would be buffed to be useful, but remain their current kinds of effects. Dodge being +Dex or +3-5 AC against that one target would certainly be useful for characters that desperately try to avoid contact and thus will expect to be threatened by one, such as the archers. Then Mobility becoming more fully Skirmish-lite further benefits the as-intended Rogue in their "big hit" pursuit by rendering them near immune to Attacks of Opportunity without Tumbling, just from having +8-12 AC when they're doing the in-and-out against a single target.

This then makes Spring Attack not giving AoO protection a relatively mild problem, as you're going in with a large AC, so unless there's multiple enemies in range of eachother, you're almost never going to be hit by the one you attack. Of course, the issue is that this is three feats for zero damage, and that's a pretty fundamental issue facing class-based systems with class-independent options. The class-independent stuff can't be too effective or else the classes have to generalize toward the same bundle of numbers, because if you have a class specialized in something and feats to specialize in that thing, it becomes too possible to end up rolling outside the game balance to end up in rocket-tag or immortality.

lightningcat
2020-07-20, 09:04 PM
I think talent trees actually work very well for magic systems.
If you want fireball, first you have to learn burning hands and then aganazzar’s scorcher.

The idea that mages could ignore, for example, all flame based magic until they wanted a flame based spell at a high level that they liked.

For me a talent tree based magic system fits the fiction of mages learning and specializing for years, yet an adventuring wizard chooses a random gag of spells based on how combat effective they are.

This is basically how GURPS does its spells.


As for physical skills I l8me the concept of talent trees, but I can’t recall a well done implementation in TTRPGs. If good skills are available early then there is no incentive to specialize. If the good skills are kept locked behind crappy skills players resent the crappy skills.

Not really "physical" skills, but Exalted is built around talent trees. Some of the Charm trees are better designed than others. But they are intended to make the lower level Charms remain usable even at higher levels.

Martin Greywolf
2020-07-24, 03:56 PM
Talent trees in TTRPGs in general? Can work, why not. FATE Core does use them for Stunts sometimes.

Talent trees in DnD? Definitely, absolutely not. You already have classes and feats, and 3.5 and 5 have prestige classes plus alternate class features and subclasses, respectively. There is no need to add yet another system of gaining abilities when these are already available. It's simply redundant, makes your bookkeeping more complicated and serves no purpose whatsoever.

Hell, if you take a class and map out abilities it gets and how those branch out, you will very likely end up with something very similar-looking to a talent tree.

LibraryOgre
2020-07-24, 04:18 PM
Reminds me of Star Wars: Saga Edition, where the talent trees were tied to class, but could reward specialization.

Cluedrew
2020-07-24, 07:35 PM
Sure, here is the advice I would give:

Lines are not trees, if is a chain were everything is a prerequisite for at most one other ability then really you are just putting levels into one ability. On one hand it is perfectly reasonable to have abilities with levels or even to stick thematic names on the levels. But it isn't really the same thing, I have found that it has always had a very different feel for me.

I think it should always be easy to reach any leaf (talent that is not a prerequisite) on the tree. This means it should actually be easy to reach any talent. Maybe it will take time - for instance if each level of the tree also has a general character level requirement - but you shouldn't need (from the Spring Attack example) 3/7ths of your build resources to reach one.

In short I would say that talent trees work best when they look like trees and the sections that the characters tend to have also look like trees. And not the same trees every time.

(PS. Doesn't quite rhyme, it would have to be "Talent Trees in TTRPGs?" Just had to get that off my chest)

Anonymouswizard
2020-07-24, 08:28 PM
As has been said, the main problems with Talent Lines or Trees is making sure each level is worth taking. But I'm the flip side you don't want to lock players into continuing the line being the clear best option.

My first thought is that you should be able to buy any line with less than half your picks, and that characters shouldn't become one trick ponies because of following a line to the end. So later levels should probably add versatility to the basic ability as much as, or even more than, raw power, and give a reason to use earlier Talents in the line other than 'they cost less'.

Also, while I rarely see it in RPGs, there's also the idea of Talent picks limiting what you can take in the future. While I've not developed it particularly yet the science fiction game I'm writing does this with it's psychic powers. You buy access to a broad discipline (ESP, Telepathy, Telekinesis, maybe some others), before picking a branch of that discipline (e.g. Telekinesis has Gross Telekinesis, Precision Telekinesis, and Thermal Telekinesis) and locking yourself out of the other branches. So you can have Psionic Flight out Psionic Lockpicking, bit not both.

Pex
2020-07-25, 12:41 PM
I don't know that that's the case. I mean, look at the specific example I cited: of Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, the last is definitely the best. There were definitely exacerbating factors (e.g. people get way too few feats), but overall feat chains don't seem like a great well to go back to.



Maybe the problem wasn't the chaining concept but that many people didn't like the prerequisites, such as Dodge. No one wanted Dodge, so it was never taken. Since it was never taken no one gets Spring Attack. Talent trees can work if each ability along the chain is worth having in its own right. What would also help is that while high end ultimate goal abilities can have one specific path the low level entries should be prerequisites for many different ultimate goal abilities. A & B lead to X while B & C lead to Y and A & C lead to Z. A, B, & C should be cool things players want for the sake of having A, B, or C.

LibraryOgre
2020-07-25, 12:44 PM
Maybe the problem wasn't the chaining concept but that many people didn't like the prerequisites, such as Dodge. No one wanted Dodge, so it was never taken. Since it was never taken no one gets Spring Attack. Talent trees can work if each ability along the chain is worth having in its own right. What would also help is that while high end ultimate goal abilities can have one specific path the low level entries should be prerequisites for many different ultimate goal abilities. A & B lead to X while B & C lead to Y and A & C lead to Z. A, B, & C should be cool things players want for the sake of having A, B, or C.

I believe they got called "Feat Taxes". The one I really recall is Combat Expertise... but it lead to trips and other such fun combat tricks.

Pex
2020-07-25, 12:53 PM
But there's not necessarily that much synergy between abilities in a tree. Look at a suggestion like "Fire Magic". If you have Fireball, you're actually less interested in Meteor Swarm than Cone of Cold or Black Tentacles, because you can already do AoE Fire damage. Taking a bunch of thematically related abilities is a trap option, unless you're getting some kind of synergy. And if you are, it's better to allow customization within the theme.




The solution to that is Meteor Swarm is not a separate spell. It is Fireball that you can cast as Meteor Swarm if you have these other fire spells. If it is a separate spell maybe you get it for free. That is at level 17 having met the prerequisite knowledge of fire spells you automatically know Meteor Swarm without having to use up a Know Spell slot. The Know Spell slot can be used to choose another powerful spell, which can have its own prerequisites. Accepting a spellcaster should not be able to do everything, it's still fine for a Fire Mage to have some spells that aren't fire related. It's ok to limit what the non-fire spells could be, but the Fire Mage has some.

CharonsHelper
2020-07-25, 01:42 PM
As has been said, the main problems with Talent Lines or Trees is making sure each level is worth taking. But I'm the flip side you don't want to lock players into continuing the line being the clear best option.

That's a good point. I'm considering having three main psychic talent trees - Telekinesis, Mind Surge, and Phantom (still iffy on the names). The first is obvious, Mind Surge is more raw mental attacks, while Phantom is all about invading their mind to rip them apart from the inside, such as having their fears appear real to them and attacking them in their own mind.

Maybe I could add a mechanic where using a Talent from the same tree against the same foe is less effective. (maybe not for telekinesis) And it makes sense as the foe's mind would grow accustomed to it. It would basically force every character to branch out a bit into different trees (pun intended) both in their selection and what they use.

It may not be necessary, as I am trying to make each of the abilities somewhat situational. I've done that successfully for the martial Talents, but I find that it's trickier for the psychic Talents as they are active abilities as opposed to situational modifiers to melee/ranged attacks or defenses.

EndlessKng
2020-07-26, 09:29 AM
I'm kind of shocked that FFG's Star Wars hasn't come up yet (unless I outright missed it). It's one of the aspects of the game I find most interesting but simultaneously find the execution rather frustrating.

In the system, each character starts with a given career - Bounty Hunter, Colonist, Diplomat, Ace, Warrior, etc. Each career (save the Jedi one from the Clone Wars books) has six trees over the course of the lines books called specializations, and there are additional "Universal" specs that can be taken. In addition to determining starting skills, these represent most of the progression outside of buying skills, and in fact the only way to boost stats is to get the "Dedication" talent on the bottom row. Each row costs the same XP per talent - top row costs 5, second 10, and so on to the fifth; the expansions also added two "signature talent" options to each career, which can only be taken if you start in a given career and require two bottom nodes to be filled in one of the career specs, but only cares about the positions filled (so, if you have the first and third bottom row talent of any spec), which then create their own tree of modifiers to the Signature Ability.

The Spec trees are all the same size, but the paths down them are all different. A couple have four downward paths connected at the bottom; at least one has two paths (one straight down, one zigzag), and one has three unconnected talents at the top and one talent which goes down and over and then gives two branching paths (you can potentially take both if you have the XP but it's super expensive). Most, however, are more varied, going down and crossing over and branching at random, allowing a lot of flexibility in many builds.

Where the execution breaks down (for me) is the increasing cost to get them and how they are gated between careers. To buy another spec costs 10 XP per spec you already have, which limits how far you can go. But, there's an additional surcharge for specs outside the career. This becomes a real hassle when a given spec doesn't synergize well with others in its career (this is a big issue in the Force and Destiny book; the other games have decent synergy on the whole, but F&D focused more on the idea of what the person uses the Force for as the Career-defining trait and leaves some Specs as placeholders - being a pilot is the worst since there are three Force-pilot trees and they're all in different Careers, and one doesn't even really benefit the rest of the career super well). Universal specs can help with this a bit, since they don't deal with the surcharge, but even then there are limitations since they can only cover so many concepts.

It's also really irritating that the ONLY way to get a new stat is with the Dedication Talent, which may not be easily accessible on a given tree without a bunch of junk (usually all the talents are useful somewhere along the way, but some are definitely less useful to a concept than others), and which only come one per tree. It's not super new-user friendly, IMO, and once you get it you have to spend a lot to even have the chance to access another one.

It's not a useless system, mind, but it feels... too gated. Too much to buy, too little XP to use to get it, and the implications for the power levels of canon characters is... alarming, to say the least. By the time you get to the levels where you are on par with, say, any Jedi in the Clone Wars, you're probably at a point where the GM isn't really able to challenge you. (To put this in context, Asajj Ventress' official statblock requires a minimum of 9 dedications, and that's only if you spend as much XP at chargen on stat buying - the only time you can do so directly. Nine. Han actually is a far more reasonable 3-dedication minimum, though his skills show a lot more investment. Palpatine in the OT needs about 12 dedications, and his skills are insane to boot).

CharonsHelper
2020-07-26, 09:57 AM
I'm kind of shocked that FFG's Star Wars hasn't come up yet (unless I outright missed it). It's one of the aspects of the game I find most interesting but simultaneously find the execution rather frustrating.


Yeah, I've skimmed it, and I'm with you that I find the execution lacking. It felt like they came up with all the system and numbers separately any of the talents, and then had to try to squeeze the talents into the various trees, rather than designing the talents with the tree and increasing costs in mind.

Plus, in my case I only plan to have talent trees for 1-2 classes out of 8 total. (The psychic class, and maybe the hybrid psychic/martial class.)

After this thread and some more brainstorming, I'm thinking that what I'll do is that you simply need one Talent from the previous layer of the talent tree to advance rather than a specific talent. That, and a certain rank in the associated psychic skill (which will effectually level-gate the higher ranks a bit, and push more for psychics to burn most/all their skill points on psychic skills, which fits the vibe I want). Not all Talents will be in the trees, but the ones that aren't will largely be ones which boost the ones that are. (Example: The earliest Talents actually have the most raw power, but they are very expensive, inaccurate, and random. There are supporting Talents which make them somewhat more accurate and less random, but they would still use a lot of resources to use.)

Unlike in FFG Star Wars, all of the Talents are active abilities, the psychic Talents something like spells, so I don't want to have too many. A max level character would have only about a dozen total, so I don't want to have the trees be too long/complex.

Pex
2020-07-26, 12:11 PM
It's not a useless system, mind, but it feels... too gated. Too much to buy, too little XP to use to get it, and the implications for the power levels of canon characters is... alarming, to say the least. By the time you get to the levels where you are on par with, say, any Jedi in the Clone Wars, you're probably at a point where the GM isn't really able to challenge you. (To put this in context, Asajj Ventress' official statblock requires a minimum of 9 dedications, and that's only if you spend as much XP at chargen on stat buying - the only time you can do so directly. Nine. Han actually is a far more reasonable 3-dedication minimum, though his skills show a lot more investment. Palpatine in the OT needs about 12 dedications, and his skills are insane to boot).

As an aside I hate the system because you can't play a Jedi well. In order to use the Force you have to roll the Force die. If it comes up black you can use the Force but must take a Dark Point even if doing the most pure Lightiest Light Thing Ever. If you don't want the Dark Point because you want to be pure Light Side as a proper Jedi should be, you can't do what you want to do and lose your turn. Dark Side doesn't care. If the Force die is white to gain a Light Point so what. Do whatever it is you want to do. You don't care. You can always gain Dark Points doing dark things even non-Force related if for whatever reason your Dark Points aren't high enough.

The Force is not subject to chance. You should be gaining Light or Dark points based on what you're doing, not from the random roll of a die.