Epic Talents

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by timm meyers

swimming+ Diving+ Area Knowledge = gives "Naturalist" for underwater flora and fauna only.

The problem with letting talents bleed like this is that when you give a character these abilities for free you are creating a disincentive for buying the Naturalist talent. Which might well have been a path they wanted to follow, and might seem quite natural.

On the other hand if the game didn't have the wilderness talents (Naturalist, Woodsman, Tracking, etc.) and instead had talents related to specific environments (Forest, Desert, Sea, etc.) then this problem goes away. This is my preferred solution: instead of having characters who can track in a forest or desert, but don't know anything about the wildlife of either, have characters who can track and know the wildlife of deserts, but don't know anything about forests.

Starting as or becoming a Queens guard that grants you (over time) a free talent like Courtly Graces or Expert Horsemanship is a great idea imho. This validates the cultural/political world build and gives PC's more goal choices or background adherence.

I don't see the advantage over letting people just choose talents. I mean, even in the Queen's Guard there's going to be a few guys who just don't get talking to the nobs and make the other soldiers face palm when they try. Saying everyone in the guard has that talent cuts into player agency and I find the sentence which explains the advantage hard to understand.

[timm meyers]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

The problem with letting talents bleed like this is that when you give a character these abilities for free you are creating a disincentive for buying the Naturalist talent. Which might well have been a path they wanted to follow, and might seem quite natural.

On the other hand if the game didn't have the wilderness talents (Naturalist, Woodsman, Tracking, etc.) and instead had talents related to specific environments (Forest, Desert, Sea, etc.) then this problem goes away. This is my preferred solution: instead of having characters who can track in a forest or desert, but don't know anything about the wildlife of either, have characters who can track and know the wildlife of deserts, but don't know anything about forests.

Making the woodsman/naturalist talents biome specific could definitely add flavor and nuance.
Tracking not so much imho.

The "....= gives Naturalist for underwater flora and fauna only" is very similar to your own biome specific ideas.

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I don't see the advantage over letting people just choose talents. I mean, even in the Queen's Guard there's going to be a few guys who just don't get talking to the nobs and make the other soldiers face palm when they try. Saying everyone in the guard has that talent cuts into player agency and I find the sentence which explains the advantage hard to understand.

No there are not any queens guards who have not mastered the royal edikit and speech, just like there are no seal members who can't swim. You either learn and perform the skills or you wash out. (I would refer you to the handbook "The Queens Guards: What you need to know to become one of the Ladies Men.")

No player agency is harmed in making a choice to join an organization and gaining the benefits. The PC that choses a build with courtly graces presumably has some reason for this already. Born into nobility? A history of service to the upperclass? A retired Queens Guard?

[Shostak]

One way to handle the partial talent given through "epic" combination would be to allow its use at -2attribute instead of 1 extra die. So the Queen's Guard with some knowledge of courtly graces might attempt to use it at an advantage over someone without the talent, but at a disadvantage to those with it.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

One way to handle the partial talent given through "epic" combination would be to allow its use at -2attribute instead of 1 extra die. So the Queen's Guard with some knowledge of courtly graces might attempt to use it at an advantage over someone without the talent, but at a disadvantage to those with it.

Now this is how to thread a needle.

[Bill_in_IN]

I see the talent combinations mentioned and the ability to use them in different environments as more of a GM tracking function. What I'm about to state is an extension of Shostak's last post--unless he disagrees.

So, you have a character with Naturalist, Woodsman, and Tracking talents which is a common path. You can add Area Knowledge to that but every PC has a certain amount of area knowledge based upon their own experiences. Area Knowledge within the areas to which it applies would definitely give more insight to who is who and what is going on than the regular PC.

I believe that these talents can work in any environment with which the PC has experience and can still be used even in new environments. Otherwise, why even get the talents. On the surface and as stated (out of the box 'so-to-speak'), these talents work in a more forest-like area. Tracking should work just about anywhere unless the environment makes it harder to use. Naturalist and Woodsman should work just about anywhere in the wilderness but perhaps, be hampered by a minus on their IQ roll if they are in the desert. If they spend a reasonable amount of time in the desert, their Naturalist and Woodsman talents will become more proficient in that environment and not be subjected to an IQ adjustment. The GM should have an idea where the PC has been and be able to apply this in a fair and consistent manner.

This could also apply to the same PC that gets thrust into the mountain ice caps or swimming in certain lake or ocean areas. They are at a disadvantage when first put into the environment but has the talents to help them eventually overcome those disadvantages and increase their ability to use these talents in more environments. Again, it takes an engaged GM to make it play out well. It also works in the case that you have a PC that was born and raised in the desert or swamps. The natural environment of their abilities is not the forest but they can still use those talents anywhere they go.

If the GM wants to track the PCs abilities in a more formal manner, he can grant mundane sub-talents for Naturalist, Woodman, and Tracking for specific environments.

While I can see the argument that these talents don't spell out their use in various environments well, I don't see where there is any need to create or call out new environment specific talents to account for where such PC talents can and cannot be used. Again, the GM is in the driver's seat on this topic. I think that a GM that says, " your PC is in the desert therefore, their woodsman and tracking talents are useless." is just being lazy. Conversely, the player that claims his PC can use these talents in new environments without any adjustment is asking for a bit too much. The talent should still be useful just about anywhere. The familiarity with the environment dictates the success rolls.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

I believe that these talents can work in any environment with which the PC has experience and can still be used even in new environments.

By RAW the talents just work in all wilderness environments. Woodsman is not specific to forests, it explicitly includes swamps and deserts.

This means it is impossible to generate a character who knows deserts and doesn't know forests. Which you might think would be a pretty natural character type, if you had, say, anything like the Fremen in your world.

Otherwise, why even get the talents.

Because even limited to forest they would still be useful?

If they spend a reasonable amount of time in the desert, their Naturalist and Woodsman talents will become more proficient in that environment

The problem with this approach is that you've created a new aspect to characters - which environments they have spent enough time in to have no penalties. This is a new rule for TFT, which works in a whole new way from talents and attributes, and for which the rules are a little vague and require a lot of GM judgement. It's an increase in complexity and a recipe for arguments and disgruntlement. It also encourages PCs to invent travelogue-style backgrounds which take them through all the environments.

One of the key advantages of TFT is the simplicity and clarity of its character descriptions. You can write a character on the back of a business card and everything you need to know is there. We shouldn't give up that advantage unless we have a really great need to do so, and this application doesn't qualify.

Whereas having talents called Forest, Desert, Mountain, etc. is a lot cleaner and works the same way as the rest of TFT.

1. If Naturalist, Tracking and Woodsman don't exist in this system then some character types that are possible in RAW become impossible. For instance, a character who knows all the animals of the wilderness, and can spot if one is stalking the party, but doesn't know how to camp in the wilderness. I don't have a problem with that: such a character obviously must have spent a lot of time in the wilderness and it's perfectly natural they should know how to operate in it. It also makes impossible the character specialising in tracking, which is a character you meet in fiction, so I guess that's a problem. Instead the system says that anyone expert in forests can track in forests, which might not be perfect but I think is acceptable.
2. If Naturalist, Tracking and Woodsman also exist in this system, overlapping with talents like Forest at right angles, then there needs to be some rule explaining what happens if you have one, or the other, or both. For instance it could be that if you have Forest or Tracking you can try with either at a 1 die penalty, but if you have Forest and Tracking you get a 1 die bonus. I think that's a bit ugly compared with 1., but it's certainly tolerable.

I think that a GM that says, "your PC is in the desert therefore, their woodsman and tracking talents are useless." is just being lazy.

I disagree. Try the reverse example: you're a desert nomad and a recognised master of the desert. You can follow the tracks of the muad'dib, find water where no one else can, and know how to shelter from a sandstorm. You're dropped in a forest and told to find food and watch out for predators. You have literally never before seen a wolf, bear, squirrel, track of any of the above, acorn or tree. You're going to be every bit as helpless as the wizard who grew up in a town, and you're not going to get over it quickly by spending a little time in the environment. Rather, you're going to need serious training and experience: you're going to need, in fact, to buy other talents.

[timm meyers]

Yet another odd combination.

IQ-11 Running Shot (2): Prerequisites: Running, Missile Weapon 1 or more
High level of training and practice with a selected missile weapon to be more mobile when firing or skirmishing. The figure may move up to 1/2 their MA and still fire during the action phase. Each hex moved beyond the 1st counts as -1DX modifier.

Could be a 2nd bigger combo with, Running Shot + Acrobatics, to get something even more unusual like dodge and fire. You get to dodge at the same time but your shot is at 4d6

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by timm meyers

Yet another odd combination.

IQ-11 Running Shot (2): Prerequisites: Running, Missile Weapon 1 or more
High level of training and practice with a selected missile weapon to be more mobile when firing or skirmishing. The figure may move up to 1/2 their MA and still fire during the action phase. Each hex moved beyond the 1st counts as -1DX modifier.

Could be a 2nd bigger combo with, Running Shot + Acrobatics, to get something even more unusual like dodge and fire. You get to dodge at the same time but your shot is at 4d6

Its hard to shoot while running when you can only shoot after moving one hex.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

By RAW the talents just work in all wilderness environments. Woodsman is not specific to forests, it explicitly includes swamps and deserts.

This means it is impossible to generate a character who knows deserts and doesn't know forests. Which you might think would be a pretty natural character type, if you had, say, anything like the Fremen in your world.



Because even limited to forest they would still be useful?



The problem with this approach is that you've created a new aspect to characters - which environments they have spent enough time in to have no penalties. This is a new rule for TFT, which works in a whole new way from talents and attributes, and for which the rules are a little vague and require a lot of GM judgement. It's an increase in complexity and a recipe for arguments and disgruntlement. It also encourages PCs to invent travelogue-style backgrounds which take them through all the environments.

One of the key advantages of TFT is the simplicity and clarity of its character descriptions. You can write a character on the back of a business card and everything you need to know is there. We shouldn't give up that advantage unless we have a really great need to do so, and this application doesn't qualify.

Whereas having talents called Forest, Desert, Mountain, etc. is a lot cleaner and works the same way as the rest of TFT.

1. If Naturalist, Tracking and Woodsman don't exist in this system then some character types that are possible in RAW become impossible. For instance, a character who knows all the animals of the wilderness, and can spot if one is stalking the party, but doesn't know how to camp in the wilderness. I don't have a problem with that: such a character obviously must have spent a lot of time in the wilderness and it's perfectly natural they should know how to operate in it. It also makes impossible the character specialising in tracking, which is a character you meet in fiction, so I guess that's a problem. Instead the system says that anyone expert in forests can track in forests, which might not be perfect but I think is acceptable.
2. If Naturalist, Tracking and Woodsman also exist in this system, overlapping with talents like Forest at right angles, then there needs to be some rule explaining what happens if you have one, or the other, or both. For instance it could be that if you have Forest or Tracking you can try with either at a 1 die penalty, but if you have Forest and Tracking you get a 1 die bonus. I think that's a bit ugly compared with 1., but it's certainly tolerable.

I disagree. Try the reverse example: you're a desert nomad and a recognised master of the desert. You can follow the tracks of the muad'dib, find water where no one else can, and know how to shelter from a sandstorm. You're dropped in a forest and told to find food and watch out for predators. You have literally never before seen a wolf, bear, squirrel, track of any of the above, acorn or tree. You're going to be every bit as helpless as the wizard who grew up in a town, and you're not going to get over it quickly by spending a little time in the environment. Rather, you're going to need serious training and experience: you're going to need, in fact, to buy other talents.

I don't have a problem interpreting these talents to apply to all wilderness. It kind of negates this whole part of the discussion which keeps it simple.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by timm meyers

Yet another odd combination.

IQ-11 Running Shot (2): Prerequisites: Running, Missile Weapon 1 or more
High level of training and practice with a selected missile weapon to be more mobile when firing or skirmishing. The figure may move up to 1/2 their MA and still fire during the action phase. Each hex moved beyond the 1st counts as -1DX modifier.

Could be a 2nd bigger combo with, Running Shot + Acrobatics, to get something even more unusual like dodge and fire. You get to dodge at the same time but your shot is at 4d6

Considering 1/2 MA is walking (not running) speed, and there's -1DX per extra hex moved, I think this is a very well balanced and good idea. Not as sure about the second part -- I can see a combination of Dodge with a hand weapon attack much more easily than Dodge combined with aiming and firing a missile weapon. Although the latter works when Legolas does it in the movies :)