06-14-2018, 07:54 AM | #61 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Quote:
Anyhow, it more or less replicated the hero/wizard distinction. Then I asked myself - “what’s the point of changing a very simple and straightforward rule?” I decided that there was no point other than to show that I could needlessly complicate a simple rule. So I discarded it. A lot of TFT modifications (including many of mine) fall into that category, IMHO. Last edited by tbeard1999; 06-14-2018 at 07:59 AM. |
|
06-14-2018, 07:59 AM | #62 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Experience Points
Quote:
|
|
06-14-2018, 09:16 AM | #63 | |
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Quote:
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. -- 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. -- 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. 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! 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. Warm regards, Rick. |
|
06-14-2018, 10:03 AM | #64 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: London Uk, but originally from Scotland
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Quote:
|
|
06-14-2018, 10:10 AM | #65 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Quote:
That said, if you want to alter the TFT default rules, then of course special rules may be required. My comments were in the context of using the default rules. I see no benefit in replacing the default rules. |
|
06-14-2018, 10:13 AM | #66 | |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Quote:
|
|
06-14-2018, 12:39 PM | #67 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Quote:
If being a wizard were just a matter of putting in 500 EP, then certainly everyone would want to be one. But if being a wizard has a significant cost/disadvantage of some other sort, it could address the "every PC wants to be a wizard because why not?" issue - there may want to be more of an answer to "why not?" than double or maybe (?) even triple EP cost for talents. I haven't yet studied the situation enough to see what the size/shape of a good answer might be. I think the new system wants something to limit some talents to be innate traits about the character rather than just things you can learn. Things like Charisma, Alertness, and Acute Hearing, and being a full wizard, don't seem like everyone would be able to learn them the same way many talents can be learned. |
|
06-14-2018, 01:50 PM | #68 | |
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Coquitlam B.C.
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Quote:
First, some corrections: the underlined section above is 3 rules, not 1. Also Wizards don't pay double for Alchemy, AND Mathematics AND Literacy. One of my arguments earlier was that you had to remember a list of talents that cost normal rather than double. When you incorrectly stated that there was one talent which was an exception, you trivialized my argument. *** The 'default' TFT system HAS changed... a huge amount. Wizards are far more powerful than they used to be. Now some of us are troubled by that and we are playing around with ideas on what the new TFT might do to mitigate some of the issues we are concerned with. If you don't perceive these to be problems, then repeating (several times) that our new system does not EXACTLY replicate the old does not move us, (or at least me), very much. Note the texted bolded above. Exactly replicating the default TFT system is VERY LOW on my list of priorities. If you read the thread, you will notice that I see problems with the current system which I think that the new TFT will exacerbate. To some extent, the people debating these ideas want to preserve some aspects of the old TFT. But not all!!! When you claim that we are tying to exactly preserve the old TFT while making changes, you are making a straw man argument. We are NOT trying to exactly preserve the old TFT - which is precisely why we are playing with ideas on how it could be changed. *** On a tangental subject, I note you are not saying, "I don't see that this is a problem," and moving on. But instead, you are trying very, very hard to trivialize our discussion. "If all we are trying to do is exactly reproduce what is there, why bother changing anything?" and "<shrug> I still see no useful purpose in it." Well in my post to you, a little ways back, I gave 3 arguments (and a personal preference), as to why these changes were suggested. You could direct your discussion to those reasons! Those 3 arguments (and a personal preference) ARE the useful purpose that prompted the discussion. (For me at least.) When you ignore 75% of my post and trivialize the remaining 25%, it feels less like I am having a discussion with you, and more like you are using debating tricks to push an agenda. Now having an agenda is fine. I've been clear about mine. I think that the new TFT could be improved in a lot of ways and I'm not shy about suggesting ways to make it better. If I may speak for you, I think you're are pretty happy with how TFT is now, and don't want to change very much. I love arguing. But if I make an argument, simply ignoring it seems pretty rude. When I give several reasons why we should change TFT and you shrug and say you can't see any reason to change anything, I wonder if you have even READ what I've written. I'm not saying you mean to do this, but it feels like you are effectively saying that 75% of my argument is so trivial, that you in your loftiness, can not be even bothered to acknowledge it. To give another example, in an earlier thread we were debating how many talents people should know. Several times you would argue basic TFT is fine because of "insert new rule that is not in basic TFT here". That is assuming facts not in evidence. When I called you on this and said if you want to defend basic TFT, please do it using only basic TFT rules, you said I was constructing a straw man argument and terminated the discussion. I don't think so. If you have to invent new rules to shore up your defence of existing rules, then your argument is weak, and I was simply pointing this out. Anyway, I'm willing to debate and argue with you at length, that is the fun! But I would prefer if we directed the arguments to what the other person said. If you think some of my arguments are strong, acknowledge that and then say, "But THIS OTHER argument is weak BECAUSE..." Ignoring them and treating them as if they had never been said, might fool the rubes, but does not actually advance the debate. It just tempts me to bring up the ignored argument again and again, which is boring. Warm regards, Rick. |
|
06-14-2018, 01:53 PM | #69 |
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tyler, Texas
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
|
06-15-2018, 11:38 AM | #70 | |||||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Talent (or advantage) needed for spell casting.
Not debating but commenting on your points:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|