Another issue with always requiring XP to learn talents/spells after play begins

[Wayne]

My comment was exaggerated and not actually aimed at you specifically.
If you think I was attacking you I unreservedly apologise.

I could see the conversation getting heated on both sides and just wanted to remind people that it’s not important.

Sorry if I offended you.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Wayne

My comment was exaggerated and not actually aimed at you specifically.
If you think I was attacking you I unreservedly apologise.

I could see the conversation getting heated on both sides and just wanted to remind people that it’s not important.

Sorry if I offended you.

Your heated and exaggerated comment is totally forgiven, Wayne.

[Skarg]

Apologies if anything I've written is making anyone uncomfortable. My intention is to point something out, and to make it clear what the issue is when people don't see it. Certainly people can and will continue to disagree and have other ideas.

Originally Posted by platimus

Are you saying this incentive didn't exist in the old ITL? I hope not. Because it did! I don't think the new rules adds any more incentive to start with high IQ than the old system.

Yes, I am saying that there is a new type of incentive which is the XP difference I outlined, compared to attaining that level in play. 500 XP per talent you start knowing, plus another 500 XP for each prerequisite spell you start knowing.

And I'm also pointing out that if the starting attribute costs are 100 XP before the 35th point, then 200, 400, 800 XP for the 35th-37th, those are very large new incentives.

Originally Posted by platimus

See my 10-points of talents/spells for starting characters.

Yes, quite! I saw and replied - it's a house rule counter to what I was pointing out about, which would remove the XP disparity, and seems to acknowledge that there is a disparity. But it extends the other new effects back to starting characters, removing of the original trade-offs in making a TFT character. And it wouldn't address average people needing so much more XP to learn anything than it takes to raise attributes.

I'd also hope you'd also allow some way to start with more talent/spell points, to allow for more types of characters.

Originally Posted by platimus

Well, his highest stat is DX. His ST and IQ are equal. This guy looks more like a fighter to me. "Wizardly" looks like this (in proportions): ST1 DX2 IQ3

I tend to think most attribute arrangements are fairly wizardly, particularly those that aren't particularly high in ST, coming from original Wizard, where many combinations were viable arena wizard designs, (and where someone with IQ 9 and DX 11+ and a goodly ST is very useful casting Aid to enable a higher-IQ lower ST/DX person to make more effective use of their spells - though that's more assistantly/apprenticely).

Originally Posted by platimus

Never saw that proposal. Don't like it. Leads to characters with ST, DX, and IQ all being pretty much equal (like your ST10 DX12 IQ10 guy). You'd end up with a lot of experienced characters that look alike (ST14 DX14 IQ14).

Well, it would lead to a disincentive to achieve exceptional levels in any attribute, but exceptionally high attribute levels (especially DX and IQ) tend to be their own incentives in terms of practicality and being able to do better than anyone else. And I kind of like the tendency towards more (not all) people having more regular stats. I don't want to side-track into discussing my appreciation for that, though, as I don't see the lack of it as a problem, and it's not what I started this thread to point out.

[The Wyzard]

I know this doesn't wholly ameliorate the mechanical issue, but I have some doubts about the 8/8/16 wizard's ability to survive to take advantage of his future xp advantage. A wizard with an adjDX any lower than 11 has a rather fragile existence, IMO.

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by The Wyzard

I know this doesn't wholly ameliorate the mechanical issue, but I have some doubts about the 8/8/16 wizard's ability to survive to take advantage of his future xp advantage. A wizard with an adjDX any lower than 11 has a rather fragile existence, IMO.

You are in luck because his adjDX with his armor piercing two hex strikes is 11.

[The Wyzard]

Originally Posted by hcobb

You are in luck because his adjDX with his armor piercing two hex strikes is 11.

Hmm. The staff spell does help somewhat, yes. I haven't wholly internalized that issue. He's begging to be an arrow-magnet, but *shrug*, his survival isn't as impossible as I'd first supposed.

[Skarg]

Yes, leaving ST and DX low still has most of the natural consequences of doing that*. But starting with IQ 16 is just an extreme example to highlight the issues. The issues are still significant with even a few learned talents under consideration, especially at lower levels where someone choosing to learn 1 spell or talent may end up several attribute points behind someone who puts all their XP into attributes.

(* And the new XP system also encourages GMs to award XP per session for non-combat play - compared to old TFT where combat was a/the major source of experience, I can see many new players avoiding combat as much as they can at first to get some 100 XP attribute improvements, but that's a side-point.)

Original Wizard was remarkably balanced and allowed a wide variety of attribute mixes to all be viable (though the ones with 15 or 16 in any one attribute tended to be lopsided (and ST was never the best place to favor over DX & IQ if you're a wizard). In this thread, I'm trying to focus attention on the point that (on top of that rather well-balanced situation) the new system adds an advantage in terms of the XP needed which seems to me rather large and especially out of proportion compared to attribute costs, and especially out of proportion below about 37 attribute points.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I'd also hope you'd also allow some way to start with more talent/spell points, to allow for more types of characters.

No, I would not allow for some way to start with more. 10-points. That's it.

[Jack O'All Trades]

That's "wizardly" to me. High IQ. Or IQ >= DX >= ST.

This problem exists for any character, not just for Wizards. If I want my warrior to know how to swim, or fencing, or missile weapons, it is vastly cheaper to start with a higher IQ than to learn the relevant talents during play. As Skarg notes, this is an incentive unique to this system, as in old TFT IQ points earned in play were equal to IQ points at character creation.

That's what my slightly adjusted XP costs/scale is for :)

Now if I could just lower the IQ requirements of ALL talents to IQ 10 or less, my evil plan to devalue IQ will be complete! Mwuhahahaha! LOL

I think this is a bit of a problem for this discussion. House rules are grand, and if you want to emphasize wizards = high IQ and everyone else = high DX and ST, you can do it. But what Skarg and I (and based on the other thread, others) are worried about are the rules as written. We could debate the merits of having all characters start with 10 Talent Points, and we could note that changing the XP scale would help ameliorate some of the issues with the RAW, but they are not reasons that we should be satisfied with RAW.

So far, no one has actually offered a reason that it is better that beginning characters/hypothetical NPCs need to spend 500xp per Talent Point (that's as much as 1500xp for some pretty common Hero talents) when attributes cost 100xp. The solutions to 'unused' Talent Points at character creation are themselves house rules, not defenses of RAW. People say they prefer decoupling IQ increases from Talent Point increases, but I'm in the dark as to why - is it because IQ for 32-36pt characters is perceived as an overpowered stat that needs to be nerfed? The closest to an explanation I've seen is Platimus's, but that is based on additional house rules to make IQ nearly solely the domain of wizards. Beyond that, there is the vague notion that IQ shouldn't be related to talent points at all - but RAW leaves a very strong relationship between starting IQ and talents!

So: On one hand we have a critical analysis of RAW that raises issues with how character development works for 30-38pt characters (in my experience, the vast majority of time spent in played in campaigns is at this level.). There's also the issue raised about how talents would work for NPCs, when most things in TFT assume NPCs and PCs use the same 'physics.' There is also an issue with having the fairly well-balanced attributes become less balanced after character creation by making one weaker when gained from experience. The proposed solution to these problems leaves in place the ability for experienced characters to get lots of talents without having a high IQ, which is the main reason given for the changes of RAW between old and new TFT.

I would like to see the other hand posit the merits of RAW without resorting to house rules. If there are people who actually really like the XP cost of talents in relation to the cost of attribute increases for starting characters and under those terms prefers that IQ increases don't give Talent Points, then at least I know the RAW work for someone! It will only be bad if RAW is in fact a problem that needs to be house ruled for everyone.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Skarg

(* And the new XP system also encourages GMs to award XP per session for non-combat play - compared to old TFT where combat was a/the major source of experience, I can see many new players avoiding combat as much as they can at first to get some 100 XP attribute improvements, but that's a side-point.)

And that comment strikes directly to the heart of a lot of the discussion over the whole XP award process earlier on these threads. Frankly, I liked the old way of awarding XP. Sure, I can see also awarding XP for non-combat things (like clever puzzle solving, spotting a carefully hidden trap or door, disarming a complex trap or picking a tough lock, and even good roleplaying when it conforms to the background and talents of the character being played (and I have done just that for decades, now), but I really dislike pulling the benefits from combat and just hand-waving the whole combat thing. To me, that change was throwing the baby out with the bath water...

Combat is so deadly in TFT, that I feel some kind of reward should be a part of winning one. And, as Skarg points out, now we'll have players purposely avoiding all combat since there's no real "payoff" for putting your hide on the line anymore.