[JLV]

In the past, I've proposed a "talent cost" of something like (35XP x IQ Level x Talent "difficulty number") as a possible solution to this "pricing" problem. Simultaneously it does a couple of things; it makes simpler and lower IQ talents cheaper to acquire (an IQ 7 talent with a (1) after it totals 245 XP), and the more complex, higher IQ talents more expensive (an IQ 16 talent with a (3) after it totals 1680 XP) -- which seems a lot more reasonable in that the costs probably SHOULD scale with the difficulty and intellectual requirements of the talent. That way, Talents that beginning characters can learn become just about as appealing as the Attribute add -- especially if we use Platimus' Attribute XP requirements instead of the ones listed in the book. Thus, it would cost a Wizard 490 XP to learn Sword, but if we agree with the game world rationale that Wizards find it harder to master physical skills, that's not an insurmountable total, and is far better than the 1000 it would cost them in the RAW.

Spells would work the same way, except that the XP cost would be, say, (50XP x IQ level of the Spell), so a Level 8 spell would cost a wizard 400 XP and a non-wizard 1200 XP -- which seems about right to me given the general conviction that learning a spell is not a trivial exercise. An IQ 16 spell would cost the Wizard 800 XP and the non-Wizard 2400 XP to learn.

Obviously you could vary the baseline XP costs in these formulas to give you the exact "feel" you want for acquiring talents and spells in terms of XP. Additionally, if you as the GM, want to put some other constraints on the learning process (you need to "study" the talent or spell for a number of weeks equal to the IQ level of the talent/spell x the "difficulty" of the talent/spell (though spells are always difficulty (1) in the RAW) in order to be allowed to expend your XP on it; and you can "study" up to three things at one time), then, hey, it's your game and you can do it however you want to. In fact, if you think the XP cost to learn a spell is too low, but don't want to fiddle with the baseline XP number, just increase the "difficulty" of learning a spell from (1) to (2) or (3) and hey presto, magic spells are way tougher (and potentially more time consuming) to learn than they were before.

In short, it's easy to fiddle with the numbers if you don't like the ones in the books, and create exactly the level of complexity and constraint that you feel is right for your campaign. At the end of the day, that's what all of us do anyway...