Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

[CTaylor]

There are several games out there, most prominently Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft (but hardly limited to them) which use the concept of a "skill tree" or "talent tree" to build characters. The character chooses different skills that in sequence unlock later ones and due to the limited number of points negate the ability to buy others, sometimes locking others out.

 

This system has its benefits and problems, and I've been puzzling out how to best do this in the Hero system. In the past I know that works such as Fantasy Hero and Ninja Hero (4th edition) used the idea of expertise - a limitation that was granted to a power if you had to buy a certain amount of points of powers in a group before getting it - but the system didn't make sense. Once you had the power, it was no limitation to need the previous powers, it wasn't a limitation.

 

So I thought about it a bit and came up with the idea of a new power framework, the Ability Tree.

 

I haven't worked out much in terms of details, but like other power frameworks, it would give a point reduction for abilities in the framework, but limit them in some way. It should be structured in such a way as to direct and limit the sequence of purchase, and ought to be able to include skills. The reduction ought not be significant, but should be noteworthy in order to encourage people to use the framework.

 

GMs could build frameworks for various abilities (such as spells, talents, and so on) that would give players a direction to go in. Martial Arts in particular would benefit from this system: you cannot buy this ability until you get these.

 

Any thoughts?

[Fitz]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Since the Feat Tree in D&D is one of the things I find most frustrating and annoying about it, I would resist its introduction to the Hero System, to the DEATH if need be!

 

But y'know, if it floats your boat, go ahead.

[Ocelot]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Yeah, I'd just make it a campaign limitation that you can't buy a Talent without the Requisite Talents before it. If you don't have Firewalking, then you can't buy Firebreathing, or whatever.

 

But that's me.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

It's a moderately common Limitation in some Fantasy Games to have spells with "Can't Learn until you have X Points in Fire Spells" or something similar (X level of a Talent, a series of spells before it, etc). It's sometimes a -0 Limitation and a Campaign Ground Rule.

[rjcurrie]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

What specifically are you trying to accomplish with this? Maybe you can give a more concrete example. I can see having a few -0 Limitations on some Talents that specify that you have to have a previous Talent to buy it, but otherwise it really seems like a needless complication. Are you running into a specific problem in a game that this is trying to sove?

[mattingly]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

There's the argument that a character shouldn't have SS: Biochemistry 11- until he has at least SS: Biology 11- or SS: Chemistry 11-, or possibly both. I can see the point to the argument, but not all genres are equally realistic.

[Maur]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Well, or you have the GURPS 3rd Ed skill bush (not really a tree as lots of things link to lots of other things) where you can default from skills or attributes with penalties to do other things. E.g. someone with Surgery could default from that or INT to Veterinary Surgery with a penalty as the skills are similar.

 

Shadowrun had that as well (haven't read through 4th to know if it stuck around).

[CTaylor]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

What I had in mind was something like this:

 

Martial arts that have layers of skills, with groups you cannot buy any from until you get a certain number and get a certain level of statistics.

 

Spells that are in steps (you can't buy fire burst until you get fire blast, and once you get fire burst you can get fireball, etc).

 

The concept is for abilities that are simply not possible to buy until you get the prerequisites. This isn't a question on how to buy a power, I've been playing Hero over 20 years, I've got a pretty good handle on that. It's a rules question, trying to stimulate discussion over the concept of a way to set up such a structure.

[Ocelot]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Yeah, I'd just make it a -0 Limitation.

 

Just create a Ice Magic tree: Ice Bolt -> Ice Blast -> Ice Nova -> Huge Freakin' Blizzard. And just tell the players that to get Ice Blast, they need to buy Ice Bolt.

 

Or make it in tiers:

 

Martial Arts Tier 1

• Punch
  
• Kick
  
• Throw

Martial Arts Tier 2 (Cannot Buy Tier 2 until all of Tier 1 has been purchased)

• Badass Punch
  
• Super Kick
  
• Mega Throw

Martial Arts Tier 3 (Cannot Buy Tier 3 until all of Tier 2 has been purchased)

• Flurry of Blows
  
• Deadly Kick
  
• Matrix-Fu Throw

It really comes down to House rules, right?

 

Or am I misunderstanding what you're asking for here?

[CTaylor]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Sure, you can do that, but I was thinking that typically in Hero the more limited you are in purchasing or using abilities, the more likely you get a break for it. Further, the tighter the concept the better the break you get on the purchses. That's why Elemental Control and Multipower exist: to give a conceptual and role playing break.

 

So I was just thinking "hey, what if there was a new power framework or way to encourage and compensate people for this structure?"

 

See, rather than just saying "here's how it is" come up with a rules-based concept to build it around.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

With the exception of the FH2 "Requires X Points In Y College" Limitations, the system has generally avoided limiting how characters spend points. I would suggest bringing that Limitation back if you're really looking for something like this. The "basic" abilities have no Limitation; the intermediate ones require 10 points, the advanced ones require 20, the expert ones need 30, and the master level ones take 40. It was a -1/4 Limitation per level.

 

The current edition of FH advises not using this Limitation and just making it a condition of your magic system. But the Limitation is certainly there if you want it. I can see why it was done away with; the system generally tries to discourage limiting how characters spend points from a mechanical standpoint, preferring to leave things like that to the GM.

 

A similar idea might be having an organization that is the only source for learning certain skills; it would be necessary to have their "basic" package before being able to learn any skills in the "intermediate" and "advanced" packages.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

A similar idea might be having an organization that is the only source for learning certain skills; it would be necessary to have their "basic" package before being able to learn any skills in the "intermediate" and "advanced" packages.

 

Sounds like Scientology. Is there a price list?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Sounds like Scientology. Is there a price list?

 

Yes, but it's copyrighted.

[CTaylor]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

I think the limitation was done away with because when you already have the power (the only time limitation would affect you) it wasn't a limitation at all. In other words, it was giving you points for not actually limiting you. Kind of like rare cards in collectable card games being more powerful: if you've got it and can benefit from it's power, it's not rare for you and thus the limitation is meaningless.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Sure. On the other hand, I've often considered allowing free Limitation bonuses on certain constructs in order to encourage characters to take them.

[Markdoc]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

One thing that I do to encourage people to take certain skill sets is allow them to buy "Professional skill enhancers". They work exactly like the current skill enhancers. They cost 3 points and give you a 1 point cost break on each relevant skill. It encourages people to buy coherent skill sets and as GM, I control what skill sets (and thus enhancers) are available in any given game.

 

Works well, nice and simple and uses a mechanism already in place. Also, as a GM, I prefer to encourage my players in certain directions rather than force them to go certain directions.

 

cheers, Mark

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

One thing that I do to encourage people to take certain skill sets is allow them to buy "Professional skill enhancers". They work exactly like the current skill enhancers. They cost 3 points and give you a 1 point cost break on each relevant skill. It encourages people to buy coherent skill sets and as GM, I control what skill sets (and thus enhancers) are available in any given game.

 

Works well, nice and simple and uses a mechanism already in place. Also, as a GM, I prefer to encourage my players in certain directions rather than force them to go certain directions.

 

cheers, Mark

 

DAMMIT MARK!

 

He took mine. Anyway. What I was GOING to say before freaking MARK TOOK MINE was simply that we already have a "framework" in effect in the system; Skill Enhancers. Buy enough of "these skills" and you get "this cost break." There's no reason that couldn't be expanded, and in fact I believe that The Ultimate Skill does exactly that, early on in the text. So by all means, go ahead modify them to your needs.

 

The other things that were mentioned, are as much Final Fantasy as they are Digital Devil Saga and so on; Blizzard -> Blizzara -> Blizzaga -> Ice 9. It's a simple matter of defining "Must know all prior versions of this spell, -0" as the limitation isn't really limiting. It doesn't prohibit you from casting it in any way, unless someone were to make you "forget" a lower version, but even then, as GM I'd rule "Now that you know it, meh." You know it. The points were spent. So however you want to handle it is fine, really, but deep down?

 

I agree with Chris Goodwin. I came from d20, where "In Communist RPG, points spend YOU." In HERO, the power solely rests with the player, which is as it should be. However, YCMV, and YMMV.

[Ganesh]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Another concept that involves a little more work going on in the background could be to borrow from Exalted, and their "Essence" attribute.

 

You have your "skill tree" powers. They are part of an elemental control. You then make as a condition of the EC that it's value, in points, is equal to the number of "skill tree" powers, maybe times something, maybe plus something.

 

Wait, do ECs need to be half the size of the smallest power, no greater? Because that would fubar this idea.

 

You might still, for some types of "skill tree" effects, be able to use multipower slots, and the reserve is the thing that goes up in proportion to the slots, so you can buy more powerful "skills" only once you have a fair number of "skills" to begin with. So if the reserve starts at 10 points, and you put the cost of the slots into the MP as well, you have a nice, moderately-tiered growth.

 

Finally, you might be able to do something with lockout, where in order to buy the (pre-built) high-powered Flame Strike, you need to have at least 40 points of flame powers to be locked out when you use it.

 

I'm just throwing things at the wall here, to see what sticks...

[tancred]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Well said, Thia, as usual. (I'd rep you, but you must spread, blah, blah...)

 

In my Turakian Age game, I've allowed the mage player to use the Expert Skill Enhancer (from Dark Champions) to partially offset the cost of his Power Skills (mages have to spend a LOT of points on Power Skills if they want to be proficient at multiple arcana).

 

I also suggested Expert Alchemist for all his Alchemy Skills, but in his case it isn't cost-effective because he also has Scholar for his numerous Knowledge Skills. But any NPC master alchemists will have that.

 

In short, what Mark said about Expert seems to me a good way to go.

 

I used the Expertise Limitation back in 4th Edition, and early on when I began converting to 5th, but it does seem overly complex. And with the Cost Multiplier rule for Turakian Age, Expertise often doesn't give you a cost break either, means it's extra complexity for not much benefit.

 

So for my game at least, Expert is what we're going to use.

[CTaylor]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Also, as a GM, I prefer to encourage my players in certain directions rather than force them to go certain directions.

 

Yes, well that's pretty much what the concept I'm thinking about would do: give a cost break to people for building things in an order rather than whenever they feel like: I think I'll take "upgraded attack" now instead of buying "attack" first, then the upgrade!

 

Some kind of cost break would help players want to buy things in this order with this structure rather than willy-nilly, and to be honest certain concepts really do lend themselves to buying in order sequentially rather than whenever you wish. Hero does this to some degree, you can't buy Defense Maneuver III without buying Defense Maneuver I-II.

 

I'm just looking for a better way than saying "you can't" and throwing a meaningless limitation on the power that does nothing (-0) and waving my hand at it. A rules structure that codified the system could also be applied to skills and replace the skill enhancement system now.

 

I was thinking maybe for each step down the rank it's a little cheaper - but not enormously so, just enough to give a nod for having to buy all those steps. You want to buy Fire Blast (single target) its price as is, then you can buy Fire Blast (hex effect) for slightly cheaper, and from that you can go on to buy Fire Ball (explosion) and then finally fire storm (area effect any, continuous) for cheaper each rank. Maybe 1 real point off each rank or something? Just thinking on paper so to speak.

 

Or how about this: you get half the previous level's cost in real points off the cost of the next level? Sure, Fire Blast cost you 5 points, and Fire Burst costs you 9, but you get 3 points off because of Fire Blast. Then Fire Ball costs 12 points but now it's only 7 because of the 5 points off from Fire Burst.

[vincemcd]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

To extend on CTaylor's last post: Couldn't this be done with a compound power, at least when all the powers in the tree do roughly the same thing? It might require some handwaving, particularly for adding "not-quite-naked" Naked Advantages into the power.

 

F'rinstance, just to wrap my head around numbers:

Fire Blast - 4d6 EB

Fire Burst - +2d6 EB AoE (Hex); plus Naked Advantage: AoE (Hex) on Fire Blast

Fire Ball - +2d6 EB AoE (Radius); plus Naked Advantage AoE (Radius) on Fire Blast + Fire Ball (minus the AoE (Hex) cost on Fire Burst?)

 

I think "Linked" might be too much to add to any of these. Maybe a -0 "Must use with previous powers in tree" for something along this line.

 

I'm probably taking plenty of license with the "rules as written" enough to get that license revoked, particularly without a book on hand to refer to. And, of course, it doesn't help when you have a "power" in your tree that's not at all related to the previous ones - say, a Change Environment power to control temperature.

[sbarron]

Re: Skill Trees (A New Framework?)

 

Yes' date=' well that's pretty much what the concept I'm thinking about would do: give a cost break to people for building things in an order rather than whenever they feel like: I think I'll take "upgraded attack" now instead of buying "attack" first, then the upgrade![/quote']I'm in total agreement with this. I'd much rather my player bought their powers in this way. Unfortunately, there is no advantage to them doing so. That's why I think some structured powers purchases are a great idea.

 

I'm just looking for a better way than saying "you can't" and throwing a meaningless limitation on the power that does nothing (-0) and waving my hand at it. A rules structure that codified the system could also be applied to skills and replace the skill enhancement system now.

 

I was thinking maybe for each step down the rank it's a little cheaper - but not enormously so, just enough to give a nod for having to buy all those steps. You want to buy Fire Blast (single target) its price as is, then you can buy Fire Blast (hex effect) for slightly cheaper, and from that you can go on to buy Fire Ball (explosion) and then finally fire storm (area effect any, continuous) for cheaper each rank. Maybe 1 real point off each rank or something? Just thinking on paper so to speak.

 

Or how about this: you get half the previous level's cost in real points off the cost of the next level? Sure, Fire Blast cost you 5 points, and Fire Burst costs you 9, but you get 3 points off because of Fire Blast. Then Fire Ball costs 12 points but now it's only 7 because of the 5 points off from Fire Burst.

Personally, I think if you're going to take the time to establish the "fire attack spells" that are available, then you're more than within your rights to place an order in how they are purchased. I don't see it as handwaving at all. Or, maybe it is handwaving. But that doesn't mean its a bad thing.

 

My problem with HERO for years has been the lack of structure to the power build side of the game. 150 pt starting fantasy character, left unchecked, will make powers that hit the max AP limit every time. So where do they go from there? That's why creating a magic system that has tiers, levels, or structered spell purchases is so appealing to me. It provides the players with something to work towards and look forward to.