07-18-2018, 08:13 PM | #41 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New England
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Deal. I'll get you something by the weekend.
|
07-20-2018, 07:09 PM | #42 |
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: New England
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Steve -
Incoming. I sent it to your work email. If you'd rather I submit it some other way I'll be happy to oblige. Enjoy! - Jack |
07-21-2018, 12:32 PM | #43 |
President and EIC
Join Date: Jul 2004
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Got it. Am impressed. High ratio of thoughts to words. Sent to Guy for his feedback. Thank you! First article-length contribution from the forums, though I have hopes of more.
|
08-09-2018, 01:31 PM | #44 |
Join Date: Jul 2018
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
I think that talent cost should be based on the number of talent points, not the number of talents, but that's settled right?
And IQ together with a WAG number should be the multiplier. This would mean that IQ will be important to learn talents faster as well as being the upper limit for how complex things you can learn. Up to you IQ, x100 Up to twice your IQ, x200 Up to thrice your IQ, x300 Up to four times your IQ, x400 etc... So an example. I have 21 points of talents and IQ 12. The next three point talent would cost me 200 x 3 = 600. The next two points after that would cost 300 x 2 = 600. The same 21 points of talents with an IQ of 8. The next three point talent would cost me 300 x 3 = 900. The next two points after that would cost 400 x 2 = 800. So if you want to know many talents, it might be cheaper in the long run to raise IQ. And a person who wants to learn a one point talent and hasn't already filled his "mIQ" would pay 100 x 1 = 100. A 100 times the IQ multiplier is just WAG, but at least easy to remember. |
08-10-2018, 10:30 AM | #45 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost
Quote:
As designers, we typically have a clearer view of how the game systems interact. Players proposing house rules often have a sort of myopia where they get so focused on addressing the "problematic" rule that they don't consider its secondary effects. We can sometimes help them avoid a lot of frustration. In addition, we've very often tried and discarded the house rule in question. I see no reason that this wouldn't be the case with TFT and Steve. I'd add that game design decisions that improve speed of play or game balance seem particularly vulnerable to being houseruled. The designer's philosophy/reasoning can be invaluable for players who are tempted to modify such systems. |
|
|
|