[Skarg]

Not debating but commenting on your points:

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

I can see three reasons why something like this would be good:

-- If the rules specifically suggest that the GM can tune the cost of being able to use magic, then different campaign types will arise. Some will have a very strong class distinction, others will allow worlds where everyone can learn a spell or two. I believe more variety and an easy way for the GM to tweak his or her campaign is good.

Yes... though it can also be done with a few lines of notes about how it can be done differently.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- It is looking like the current shape of the new TFT rules make wizards even stronger. (Steve admitted that advanced wizards are more powerful than advanced heroes, and the new rules make this considerably worse.) As I have said before, I like that there is a nice balance between wizards and heroes, and I was bothered that this balance was lost as the characters became more experienced. If you have to pay a steep cost up front, then wizards pay for this advantage.

Yes, though it's not as simple as one being more or less powerful. They're different. Higher ST, DX, weapons and armor can be duplicated by magic but only at a rapid/high cost in fatigue. In an ongoing action situation that doesn't leave time for rest, wizards who use their power don't have time to recover it, and then they become exhausted non-fighters.

The aspect I worry about the new system is that maybe many more people will start taking spells, blurring some of this difference and making even warriors foolish not to take at least a spell or three.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

-- It gets rid of several fussy rules. Fighters pay 3:1 for spells. Wizards pay 2:1 for talents (Why are these number different???). Wizards pay 1:1 for several talents. (Insert list to remember here.) One logical rules makes all this nonsense go away.

Making them the same would be slightly simpler and more symmetrical. But I tend to think there is a logical feel to the existing system, so I wouldn't call it nonsense. It makes sense to me that there might be a few people whose genius is with magic, so it's much easier for them to learn that. I don't think it follows that that means they'd be equally terrible at learning most other human talents, and the exceptions seem to have appropriate thematic reasons. Languages and especially literacy are things wizards would tend to use probably more than almost all non-wizards, and magical alchemy might logically be easier for a wizard than a non-wizard, and having it be harder (especially three times harder) seems wrong to me.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Apart from these arguments, I liked that TFT was a classless system. No D&D style Thieves, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Monks. I could grow into what ever type of character I wanted!

Yes, I definitely agree there.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Except wizards. There was a class distinction between wizards and heroes. Oh, well. It sucks, but that was what was published.

However, with new TFT being created and with us having a chance to give some input on what will be there, I think that costing wizards logically could be cool.

I wouldn't say the class distinction sucked (I think it does it's job fairly well, and remains the bar a proposal needs to beat), but yeah, it was an exception and I might say it felt imperfect or less than ideal. It could be nice to remove the exception and have it be entirely classless, but I'd want the new method to be an improvement and not introduce more problems than it solves. A 5-point or 500 EP talent to be a wizard seems like a non-starter, but I'd be very interested to see more suggestions on what might replace the class distinction, especially if it works better with the new EP system.