01-29-2020, 05:48 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Classless play
Yes; it effectively lets you treat the information required to cast spells as its own category of magic item.
|
01-29-2020, 11:03 PM | #22 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Classless play
I don't see why you'd require literacy to be a wizard, as it seems like a separate ability to me. I've made and seen quite a few illiterate wizards, and literacy is its own reward - it doesn't make sense to me to require it, or to count it as part of the supposed cost of learning to be a wizard.
I also don't think 2-4 or even 6 points of talent learning is the equivalent of learning to be a wizard. The math for the number of spells certainly doesn't work, and certainly there are many non-wizard character designs that took talents, who would be tempted instead to become a wizard rather than say, Alertness and Thrown Weapons. Seems to be like: 1) an apples/oranges comparison 2) not enough comparative effort from several perspectives 3) not an equivalent thing 4) penalizes dedicated wizards compared to what spells they can have for the same effort RAW I can see wanting to define what wizards are, or what it would take to become a wizard, but I don't think having it be a talent works very well without some other adjustments. Seems to me like it's a combination of some natural aptitude, and also years of development. And I think defining it that way helps limit both PCs and NPC populations and reasons for why characters are how they are. If learning to be a wizard is only as hard as learning a few talents, then some training regimes could train large numbers of spellcasters, and many heroes who earn the ability to add talents may instead choose to "just decide to also become a wizard". I get that there's a whole spectrum of what different games want, but that's generally off the part of the scale I want. |
02-02-2020, 03:12 AM | #23 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Classless play
Quote:
We never once in 20 years of continuous play had a non-wizard PC decide to start learning our Wizardry talent as a change in careers. Under the classic rules, no PC would survive putting all their XP on IQ to eventually afford that talent years down the road. Nor would a player build a character but not take a bunch of useful talents they could have from the beginning just to leave room for one big talent later; it only made sense to take the big expensive talent from the beginning. The new Legacy edition rules, letting PCs learn talents with XP instead of an attribute increase, rocks that boat. Now it's not as impossible for a PC to acquire an expensive talent in mid-life. But if the GM wants to use a wizardry talent in their world, they can just as easily rule it is only available at character creation, or that it takes 12 years to learn regardless of its point cost, or anything that keeps the lid on it. Just say if the PC neglected their natural aptitude growing up, it's atrophied and wasted away. As to the spell math. In Wizard, an IQ 12 wizard could know 12 spells. In classic ITL, an IQ 12 wizard could still learn 12 spells provided they took no talents at all (not practical, but still possible). That same wizard, having spent (for example) 6 IQ points to learn an expensive wizardry talent would only be able to know 6 spells, right? Of course we wouldn't want a wizard to be less of a wizard for having studied wizardry! But the original Wizardry Talent as I proposed it and my group used it also functioned as a "gatekeeper" talent to regulate the cost of learning spells. If you had the Talent, by writ, it gave the PC the ability to know as many spells as they had IQ points, completely separate from talents. Voila! Now the IQ 12 wizard is back to having 12 spells, exactly as it started under the Wizard RAW. And, after paying for the 6 point Wizardry Talent, she has 6 points left to spend on other talents at 1 point each, which works out to be the same as if she had 12 points but was spending 2 points each, exactly the same as it started under the ITL RAW. It was the rare case of a house rule fulfilling the exact intent of the RAW by using less rules, and no exceptions to memorize.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
02-02-2020, 08:26 AM | #24 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Classless play
Presumably everyone is assuming that the 'wizardry' talents you have in mind (whatever you call them) are also the gate-keeper abilities for things that only wizards can do RAW (read scrolls; cast spells from books; learn and use the Staff spells)?
|
02-03-2020, 01:05 AM | #25 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Classless play
Oh absolutely. My group never allowed anyone to learn or cast any spells at all if they weren't a wizard. Nope, not even for triple cost to learn, nor by accepting a DX penalty, no exceptions. A non-wizard could technically read a spell book, if they were literate and knew the language it was written in; maybe they could just sound it out phonetically too without even knowing what the words meant. Such a person could read it aloud, sing it, or chant it all the merry day, but nothing would ever happen. Because they weren't wizards.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
02-03-2020, 06:12 AM | #26 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Classless play
I have run campaigns in which there was no point cost difference for wizards and heroes. We did not see everyone learning magic. If spells or combat talents suited their character concepts, they learned those. If not, they didn't. We did tend to see more scholar-wizards and physicker-wizards, but the folks who just wanted to slash and stab pretty much just did that. Everyone had fun.
|
02-03-2020, 08:55 AM | #27 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Classless play
Quote:
|
|
02-03-2020, 11:31 AM | #28 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Classless play
Yes, if all the characters are made by people who are limiting their characters to types everyone thinks is reasonable and fine, then there's no problem.
There are also no problems with any rule systems until something someone thinks is a problem comes up during play. Style of play also limits which problems ever come up in play. So does the types of characters people make, the talents and equipment and tactics they use, and what they do between adventures, etc. New Followers didn't need a house rule until someone thinks to use it to get a 3/IQ roll to claim the king as his PC. It's possible to play for years and years without ever running into a lasso, whip, bolas, PCs making potions or enchantments or summoning demons or astral projecting, etc etc etc. TFT though is mostly pretty good at providing rules that mostly limit the problems in consistent ways, which is nice. There are different places where there are problems for different people, which is where house rules come in. |
02-03-2020, 12:47 PM | #29 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Classless play
Everyone should play at least once with whatever is the opposite end of the extreme they think they prefer; i.e., if you dig niche protection then let everyone buy spells and talents at base costs; or if you love wildly distributed magic then play a few sessions with a group of 'heroes' who have no access to magic of any kind but have to deal with a mysterious supernatural foe.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|