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

[Skarg]

Consider an experienced (39-point) wizard character:

ST 10
DX 12
IQ 17
17 spells/talent-points including Staff V
Staff Mana: 12

How much XP did it take to get there? It depends a LOT on what the starting character looked like.

If it started as:

ST 10
DX 12
IQ 10
10 spells/talent-points including Staff I

Then not only did it add seven attribute points (assuming the XP table didn't get adjusted, 100+100+200+400+800+1600+3200 = 6400 XP), and 12 staff mana (2400 XP), but it bought 7 points of talents for 500 XP each (3500 XP), AND upgraded the staff spell 4 times (2000 XP) for a total of 14,300 XP.

If it started as:

ST 8
DX 8
IQ 16
16 spells/talent-points including Staff IV

Then the cost is the same, minus all but one of the talent points and one of the Staff upgrades, so it only took 9,800 XP.

If it was a goblin:

ST 6
DX 9
IQ 17
17 spells/talent-points including Staff V

Then it could've started with all its talents ans spells, and cost 8,800 XP.

To me, this seems like another good reason why characters should be able to learn talents & spells up to their IQ through study without spending XP, like in old TFT. It would remove the XP divide above, as well as reduce the weirdness of learning something taking as much XP as several early attribute points (and the other issues people have mentioned with that).

[Wayne]

Originally Posted by Skarg

To me, this seems like another good reason why characters should be able to learn talents & spells up to their IQ through study without spending XP, like in old TFT. It would remove the XP divide above, as well as reduce the weirdness of learning something taking as much XP as several early attribute points (and the other issues people have mentioned with that).

I 100% agree with this. It gets too expensive to keep buying talents via IQ so as the rule book says:

You may use XP to buy additional attribute points – Strength, Dexterity, and IQ – and this is the best way to improve a new character.
…
Somewhere around a total of 36 or 37 stat points, most players will choose to start learning new abilities instead of buying higher stats.

I've always read that you still get talents/spells with IQ until 36 or 37 points, but from that point onwards it's more cost effective to just buy new talents/spells with XP directly.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Wayne

I've always read that you still get talents/spells with IQ until 36 or 37 points, but from that point onwards it's more cost effective to just buy new talents/spells with XP directly.

Yeah that's how I read it too until I read people pointing out that all the places saying that got removed.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

To me, this seems like another good reason why characters should be able to learn talents & spells up to their IQ through study without spending XP, like in old TFT. It would remove the XP divide above, as well as reduce the weirdness of learning something taking as much XP as several early attribute points (and the other issues people have mentioned with that).

Why? Why does it matter that different "starting configurations" of the same wizard paid different amounts of XP to become the "current wizard"? I feel like I'm missing something.

Your first "starting configuration" (ST10 DX12 IQ10) isn't very "wizardly". It seems fair to me that he would have to spend more XP to reach his "more wizardly" self (ST10 DX12 IQ17).

The other two "starting configs" pay about the same XP and pay almost half as much as the first "starting config". Did you notice that they both look more "wizardly" as well?

There's absolutely nothing horrendous, offensive, wrong, incorrect, erroneous, unfair, or objectionable about this to me. I love the new XP system. If it were up to me, I'd tear out the IQ-point system at character creation too. I'd throw it all in the can, pour gasoline on it, and light a match. Burn, baby, burn! LOL

I'd give all starting characters 10 points of talents/spells. Done.

[platimus]

Somewhere around a total of 36 or 37 stat points, most players will choose to start learning new abilities instead of buying higher stats.

Notice the words in bold?

If increasing your IQ (increasing your stats) ALSO gave you new abilities, why would one use the words "instead of"? One wouldn't.

If it meant what you guys thought it meant, it would read as follows:
"Somewhere around a total of 36 or 37 stat points, most players will choose to start learning new abilities without buying higher stats."
OR
"Somewhere around a total of 36 or 37 stat points, most players will choose to start learning new abilities without buying higher IQ."

Maybe Steve will change his mind about this if you complain enough. Good luck.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by platimus

Why? Why does it matter that different "starting configurations" of the same wizard paid different amounts of XP to become the "current wizard"? I feel like I'm missing something.

Because it adds a new peculiar incentive to start with as much IQ as possible, which doesn't scale and doesn't seem to make any sense. Do you see a reason why this should be the case? If learning talents and spells is so difficult for characters in play, why are characters with high IQ given more talents points for no cost in terms of starting points?

Originally Posted by platimus

Your first "starting configuration" (ST10 DX12 IQ10) isn't very "wizardly". It seems fair to me that he would have to spend more XP to reach his "more wizardly" self (ST10 DX12 IQ17).

Not very wizardly in what way? ST 10 DX 12 IQ 10 seems like a not-irregular TFT wizard character, to me, at all. Pretty balanced, in fact.

The thematic argument I think you mean, lands with me as an argument for Steve's original new XP proposal, which involved charging higher XP to raise attributes based on the level of the attribute being raised, rather like GURPS did in editions 1 through 3, which I rather like, but doesn't seem particularly on point here.

Originally Posted by platimus

The other two "starting configs" pay about the same XP and pay almost half as much as the first "starting config". Did you notice that they both look more "wizardly" as well?

Yes, they're obviously taking lots of IQ and start with all their spells. The difference in cost is because learning is really expensive during play, but free during creation. That's just the flip side of the same issue.

Originally Posted by platimus

There's absolutely nothing horrendous, offensive, wrong, incorrect, erroneous, unfair, or objectionable about this to me. I love the new XP system. If it were up to me, I'd tear out the IQ-point system at character creation too. I'd throw it all in the can, pour gasoline on it, and light a match. Burn, baby, burn! LOL

I'd give all starting characters 10 points of talents/spells. Done.

Ok, love / opinion noted.

And BTW, your change to 10 knowledge points for all starting characters would solve the issue in this thread about the disparity of costs. But it wouldn't solve the other issues with not being able to learn a 1-point talent or spell as an average character without enough XP to gain several attribute points instead.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Because it adds a new peculiar incentive to start with as much IQ as possible, which doesn't scale and doesn't seem to make any sense.

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.

Do you see a reason why this should be the case? If learning talents and spells is so difficult for characters in play, why are characters with high IQ given more talents points for no cost in terms of starting points?

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

Not very wizardly in what way? ST 10 DX 12 IQ 10 seems like a not-irregular TFT wizard character, to me, at all. Pretty balanced, in fact.

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

The thematic argument I think you mean, lands with me as an argument for Steve's original new XP proposal, which involved charging higher XP to raise attributes based on the level of the attribute being raised, rather like GURPS did in editions 1 through 3, which I rather like, but doesn't seem particularly on point here.

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).

Yes, they're obviously taking lots of IQ and start with all their spells. The difference in cost is because learning is really expensive during play, but free during creation. That's just the flip side of the same issue.

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

And BTW, your change to 10 knowledge points for all starting characters would solve the issue in this thread about the disparity of costs. But it wouldn't solve the other issues with not being able to learn a 1-point talent or spell as an average character without enough XP to gain several attribute points instead.

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

[Wayne]

Wow, can we tone this back a few hundred notches?
Just because we disagree there’s no need for vitriol!

[larsdangly]

I like the new version of things. If there is a 'path dependence' to getting to certain ends, it just means people who care about that sort of thing will plan ahead.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Wayne

Wow, can we tone this back a few hundred notches?
Just because we disagree there’s no need for vitriol!

Wayne, I assume you are referring to me because of the last sentence in your comment. What have I said that you consider to be "cruel and bitter criticism"?

Just because we disagree there's no need to demonize me. :)