[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

If average is 30, and the range is about 24 to 40 (6 points below 30, to 10 points above 30), then there are many people with attributes in the 24 to 30 range. It can't be very easy or common that people add attributes.

I agree that it is not common. Whether it is easy or not doesn't matter. See below...

That is an interesting (different) topic, and I take the traditional TFT view that PCs are a bit above average and it's up to them to learn from extraordinary (and probably very dangerous) experiences if they're going to become even more capable. And that most people don't go on life-threatening extraordinary adventurers and gain that experience, or else the average would be higher and/or many of them would die off trying.

YES! This what makes PC "above average"! Their background! For whatever reason, they have unshackled themselves from the societal norms. They boldly pursue opportunities to advance themselves while the rest of society remains content with the roles life has given them.

Really though you've bypassed the main point, which is why is gaining 5 attributes on par with learning just one talent point? I was a bit generous in giving Pudork the Pole Weapons talent. If he had no weapon talent and had to learn that too, it'd take 1500 XP, not 500! I don't think there's any point discussing any of the rest of it without tackling that.

Ah! So that was your point! You might have led with that! LOL

Yes, which is why my response to this thread is I would not use RAW but at least restore the ability to study talents up to your IQ during play using study time and without using XP, so raising IQ means you can learn more talents. (In fact, I'd probably also house rule that you can train someone with full IQ to learn more talents without XP, but it just takes more time.) This discussion after having said that is just about why I would do that.



Because they considered them the "third estate of men", and they needed peasants to farm, and would just conscript them when needed as soldiers.


I have no idea why you're writing most of these things.

Not sure why you're asking, but I think peasants tended to be mostly average people who may have had the equivalent in a weapon talent or two, probably not as good though as a trained soldier at fighting with them (but TFT doesn't have a good way to represent that the way GURPS does).

I think that basic training's physical conditioning probably does things like train discipline and physical fitness, and probably at most might maybe give some trainees +1 ST and/or +1 DX if they were not in good condition already. It might be worth some XP, but mostly I think it should be able to train basic talents.

And that they probably do not increase people's attributes much if at all - I'd call it maybe 1d6 x 10 XP per three months of training.

I think a military training program should be able to teach 1-4 points of talents, usually taking about a year. That matches SJ's original rate of 1 talent point per 3 months of study, and my house rule of double time to study total talent points above your IQ. I think most NPCs may not have their full IQ in talents.

TL;DR - which is your "discussion style" that I wonder about...