Super-elves!

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

A random group of Super Elves:

http://www.hcobb.com/tft/rand_squad....comp=3&group=M

39-41 points?

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

If elves are long-lived, maybe the 40-year-olds are like normal humans at ST 8 DX 8 IQ 8 plus 6 extra points, but what they consider a respectable adult is a 36-point character as you suggest (or maybe ST 8 DX 8 IQ 8 plus 12) but would tend to be about 80 years old?

That would seem to me about on par with the new ITL listing 32-point Gargoyles and Reptile Men, when the typical adults are 39 & 36-38 points.

I'm not a fan of using stat totals to force-balance races or the creation of weaker 'playable' versions of races. I will be restoring Gargoyles and Reptile Men to their former strength (or closer to).

Originally Posted by larsdangly

A good way to look at it. If you want an Elf PC, you don't get to play in 'god mode' from the outset, so you get a young elf. But NPCs are likely much older and more experienced, with decent stats, tons of spells and talents, and maybe a lesser wish in their back pocket.

I would hardly consider starting at 36-points to be 'god mode'. My elves don't hit maturity until around 100 years and although I plan for the race to be in decline when my campaign takes place, there will be some very scary elves that have over 1000 years under their figurative belts.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yes, or you intentionally start a higher-power campaign where the choices are something like:

34-point human
36-point elf (disadvantage is age/XP rate - they'll start better but fall behind later)
38-point reptile man (disadvantages are hostility from others, and age/XP rate)
39-point gargoyle (disadvantages are stigmas from others, and IQ cap)

i.e. back to old TFT apples & oranges balancing, though Reptile Men are probably the least disadvantaged though perhaps doomed to be an outsider.

How one thinks starting points should balance against improvement costs seems subjective and hard to evaluate, and depends on what XP table you're using and how much XP the GM gives out, and how dangerous the early game sessions are. With the listed costs in current ITL, if the GM gives out fairly high XP and doesn't run very dangerous sessions, it may not be long before even a 32-point human catches up to a 36-point elf paying double costs to improve... or maybe the 32-point humans will die a lot while the 36-point elves start out able to survive... etc...

So just to be clear, all of the house rules that I plan to share on this forum will be based on the biases and assumptions outlined in my revised XP progression thread. That means a starting Elf character will need 600 XP to get to 37-points. In that same period, however, a human who started at 32-points will have just earned their 36th.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I'm not a fan of using stat totals to force-balance races or the creation of weaker 'playable' versions of races. I will be restoring Gargoyles and Reptile Men to their former strength (or closer to).

Yeah, I will too, unless I ever play a game where for some reason there's a need/desire for all-32-point PCs, in which case, I'd assume the 32-point gargoyles and reptile men must be very young/old or otherwise impaired.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

So just to be clear, all of the house rules that I plan to share on this forum will be based on the biases and assumptions outlined in my revised XP progression thread. That means a starting Elf character will need 600 XP to get to 37-points. In that same period, however, a human who started at 32-points will have just earned their 36th.

Ok, good to know.

The "however", however, seems even stronger in the new ITL, where a 36-point elf would need 600 XP (doubled to 1200 XP) to get to 37 points, and a 32-point human would need 700 XP to get to 36, and only 1300 to get to 37! So they'd catch up to 36 before the elf reached 37, and then reach 37 shortly after the elf did, then get to 38 almost twice as fast. Of course, that's assuming the humans survive and earn XP at the same rate, both of which might tend to not be true.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

The "however", however, seems even stronger in the new ITL, where a 36-point elf would need 600 XP (doubled to 1200 XP) to get to 37 points, and a 32-point human would need 700 XP to get to 36, and only 1300 to get to 37! So they'd catch up to 36 before the elf reached 37, and then reach 37 shortly after the elf did, then get to 38 almost twice as fast. Of course, that's assuming the humans survive and earn XP at the same rate, both of which might tend to not be true.

I noticed that as well which only helps to reinforce my feeling that the new RAW costs for stat advancement are too high.

[Skarg]

On which end of the scale?

Seems to me that now that there is no constant XP award system, the data points we have are more significant relative to each other than they are as numbers.

i.e. how does the low end compare to the high end, and how do the attribute costs compare to the cost for talents/spells or other uses of XP, are more material than what the numbers are.

The shift from the beta PDF values to the current PDF values only really amount to roughly a 1-attribute point difference at the high end. In both cases, the costs double into oblivion from the 39th point onwards, becoming probably unattainable around 42-43 points or so, give or take. That seems a bit steeper than it makes sense to even list costs for, to me.

However on the low end, I feel like I'd like the middle range (36-38) to be relatively higher cost than it is compared to the low end, as I think that's a sweet spot where the PCs are more capable than most people, but not super-more-capable (which I think it starts to feel like around 39-40 points), so I'd like those costs to be where it slows down, but then the higher level costs could not double at each point.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

On which end of the scale?

Seems to me that now that there is no constant XP award system, the data points we have are more significant relative to each other than they are as numbers.

i.e. how does the low end compare to the high end, and how do the attribute costs compare to the cost for talents/spells or other uses of XP, are more material than what the numbers are.

I'm not sure this is the right thread to continue this debate (and don't get me wrong, it is a completely valid subject for debate), but for me the main problem is the almost immediate cost escalation established in the new rules. I preferred how it was originally more evenly spread out and allowed for a wider range of character advancement potential. Then, when coupled with the inherently vague (but consistantly lower) rate of XP awards, I'm left with a system that provides much slower progression than I would like. And I totally get that folks have different preferences for this kind of thing, but I feel like even objectively, new players will find character advancement terribly tedious. I mean, based on the combat example on ITL, pg 127-129, a player needs to take down 50-60 trolls in order to move from 36 to 37 points per RAW (probably not very probable in real gameplay, but it does illustrate the point I think).

[hcobb]

Sorcery is the only sensible source of strength. Final result is ST 14, DX 14, IQ 20, for 48 total attribute points.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

I'm not sure this is the right thread to continue this debate (and don't get me wrong, it is a completely valid subject for debate), but for me the main problem is the almost immediate cost escalation established in the new rules. I preferred how it was originally more evenly spread out and allowed for a wider range of character advancement potential. Then, when coupled with the inherently vague (but consistantly lower) rate of XP awards, I'm left with a system that provides much slower progression than I would like. And I totally get that folks have different preferences for this kind of thing, but I feel like even objectively, new players will find character advancement terribly tedious. I mean, based on the combat example on ITL, pg 127-129, a player needs to take down 50-60 trolls in order to move from 36 to 37 points per RAW (probably not very probable in real gameplay, but it does illustrate the point I think).

Yeah, sorry to sidetrack the super-elf thread. We ought to start a new thread if we're going to keep discussing that.

(Seems to me they got 0 XP for the troll, 10 for cooperation, and 5 for trying to make use of the Fire spell. Which is never the way I would give out XP.)

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Skarg

(Seems to me they got 0 XP for the troll, 10 for cooperation, and 5 for trying to make use of the Fire spell. Which is never the way I would give out XP.)

True, so it's really 50-60 'cooperative' troll kills to reach 600 XP (unless you play out of character, in which case it will take twice as many).
;)

[Skarg]

Yes, or 5-6 cooperative sessions where you were cooperative and you cooperatively went camping and solved some cooperative puzzles and defeated a few cooperative hobgoblins armed with sticks and rocks, and your GM cooperatively awarded 100+ XP.