New Skills

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by zot

I wasn't talking about changing the price of talents. I was asking for clarification on how many talents a character could know. UC V would still cost 11 points, it would just count as 5 talents against the total.

How a character gets points to spend on talents is (potentially) a different matter.

Hi Zot, thanks for the clarification.

Hmmmm....

Well, first, I think it is clear that the new TFT will use experience (XP) to buy talents and spells. (Spells are always cheap costing 1, but talents can cost 1, 2 or 3 points.) So buying expensive talents (UC v), will be slower, but the number of memory slots (mIQ) will be reduced.

However, you can always get more XP, but mIQ is in VERY short supply. So I don't think this rule materially changes the arguments I have made above. That said, I like this better than the system I first thought you had suggested.

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by the1weasel

In the past, i've pondered a Expert or Specialization talent for Wizards which would allow them to pay 1 less ST to cast (for example) Expert Summoner, Expert Creator, Expert Illusionist, Missile Specialist or Control Specialist.

As a possible alternative, why not "Expert XYZ" where "XYZ" is the type of spell being cast -- Missile, Thrown, Creation or Special? This would both tend to create something vaguely like those "schools" that some of us like (without actually bringing in all the extra rules that "schools" or "colleges" of magic require) and provide a bonus to people who want to specialize in that particular type of Spell.

The only real joker in the deck is the "special" category, which might be somewhat problematic, but if it is, then you could just ignore it and stick to the other "kinds" of spells...

[CJM]

Well, trying to keep up with you all is nigh impossible I simply can't type that fast :-) These are my thoughts;
1) keep the new XP system Steve has suggested.
2) Make a beginning character the same as always (IQ is the limit of points you can spend)
3) Once made and played, the character can spend his/her XP normally, but once (after) a talent is bought it counts as ONE IQ slot (even though it might have costed you three, two, or one IQ points). This was suggested by Zot I believe. I really like that.
4) Once the PC has been made the limit of IQ points in talents that a player might retain is the total of your three attributes (ST/DX/IQ) divided by two as Jeff Lord has suggested. I really like this as well as a lot of these talents we are talking about is a combination of all three attributes. I would give an example but I can't type that fast...you know what I mean, I think. As far as the cost of a talent I will have to leave that up to others....math....blah...

[tbeard1999]

An observation/contention -

If we assume that no "defense" mechanism is added to TFT, then I submit that advanced weapons talents should NOT give additional DX bonuses (this includes Missile Weapons and Thrown Weapons).

The reason is that TFT already suffers from DX being too powerful. In a 3d6 resolution system, a +3 DX bonus can increase an adjDX 10 figure's hit probability from 50% to 84%.

This bonus becomes even more of an issue if used with aimed shots. A +3 DX bonus can increase an adjDX 13 figure chance of hitting the head from 16% to 50%. A head shot will inflict a -4 DX on the target if 2 points of damage are done and will KO an opponent if 5 points of damage are done, so this is a pretty powerful improvement.

However, I don't really have a problem with advanced weapon talents that increase damage.

As noted elsewhere, characters can get to pretty high levels of armor protection even without magical armor. A figure with leather armor, tower shield and warrior/veteran will stop 7 points of damage.

This means that a broadsword will do 0 damage on 58% of the hits. And even the mighty 3+1 greatsword will only average 4.5 points of damage per hit. Add a modest +2 magical protection to the shield or armor, and the broadsword does 0 damage 83% of the time. The greatsword averages 2.5 points of damage per hit.

If fine plate is used, the figure can get 1 more point of protection on the above numbers for the same DX adjustment. If he maxes out, he can take fine plate, warrior/veteran and a tower shield and stop 11 (!) points of damage.

Allowing advanced weapon talents that increase damage would help address this problem.

You could also package a "quickdraw" ability into an advanced weapon talent.

Sample Expert Sword talent: IQ 10; 2 points; AdjDx 12+; prerequisite: Sword. You do +1 damage with ST 10- swords or knives, +2 damage with ST 11-13 one-handed swords; +1d6 damage with ST13+ two handed swords. Allows you to quickdraw any knife or sword (ready and use a sword in the same turn).

Sample Master Sword talent: IQ 10; 2 points; AdjDx 14+; pre-requisites: Sword and Expert Sword. You do +2 damage with ST 10- swords or knives, +1d6 damage with ST11-13 one-handed swords; +2d6 damage with ST13+ two handed swords. Allows you to quickdraw any knife or sword (ready and use a sword in the same turn).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Languages – Hmm. Having anything that costs less than 1 point add complexity. I suppose we might say “For a half-point, you can learn a language well enough to read it if you are Literate, and speak it well, but with an accent. For a full point, you sound like a native.” But that leaves a loose half-point floating around. Kind of GURPSy.

[HOWITZER]
The more I think about characters adding talents, the less I want my own games to use either memory point limits or EP-purchase for them, and languages are a good example. Languages are not something you can learn quickly like swimming or knife-throwing. Maybe for starting characters they can trade things to get another language, but after, how about you actually have to spend years learning it from people who know it, and then eventually you get it? Maybe facility learning languages is the sort of thing you can buy during character creation.

What if PCs started with 36 points or so, but you could choose to spend up to 6 on gifts that can't be learned, such as Charisma, Acute Hearing, Beauty, Toughness, wizardry, gifted fighter/marksman, language-facility... Maybe that's getting GURPSy (?) but it seems like it'd solve some of the problems I keep thinking of with TFT talents.
[/HOWITZER]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Monster Followers – I have wondered how much those get used. They definitely have no basis in reality. Should I consider deleting them and using the space for other things, and possibly doing a whole splatbook, or section of a monster book, about it? Discuss, please.

I thought both New Followers & Monster Followers had weird names, a weird concept, not the way I thought they should work, and ignored & never used it. Looking at New Followers now, I'm slightly fascinated to finally actually try to play a character (or run a campaign) that uses it more or less as written, but as a GM, I don't usually really want my NPCs and monsters to be susceptible to 4-die mechanical control attacks... though I've been biased about it and not giving it a chance since I first saw it at age 11 or 12, and I've become vastly less controlling as a GM. Now, I'd just want the mechanic to be more crunchy (the target PC's nature other than race isn't taken into account at all ("Hey Duke, we should be friends! Hi Revoreesh, how about I roll 4/IQ to take you into my stable of characters?"), and no limits are specified as to what you can have them do) or mention more GM discretion as to arbitrary resistance and effects and limits.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Reduce IQ prereqs for UC talents – Maybe. They require dedicated training but not genius. Discussion?

Yes.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

... If we assume that no "defense" mechanism is added to TFT, then I submit that advanced weapons talents should NOT give additional DX bonuses (this includes Missile Weapons and Thrown Weapons).

Hi Ty, everyone.
I agree.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

The reason is that TFT already suffers from DX being too powerful. In a 3d6 resolution system, a +3 DX bonus can increase an adjDX 10 figure's hit probability from 50% to 84%.

This bonus becomes even more of an issue if used with aimed shots. ...

However, I don't really have a problem with advanced weapon talents that increase damage.

I agree. In my campaign, Sword ii does +2 damage and things have worked well for decades.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

As noted elsewhere, characters can get to pretty high levels of armor protection even without magical armor. A figure with leather armor, tower shield and warrior/veteran will stop 7 points of damage.

... If he maxes out, he can take fine plate, warrior/veteran and a tower shield and stop 11 (!) points of damage.

Allowing advanced weapon talents that increase damage would help address this problem.

I agree. People in my campaign love powerful armor. So much so that I made magical protection much more difficult to gain because...
-- Stone Flesh / Iron Flesh cost the same but now require 1 fST / turn.
-- wa/e now can only double the base protection of armor. (So leather can't get a -3 hits stopped with w/ae.)
-- I doubled the cost of the armor part of wa/e.
-- Eventually, I increased the cost of Stone Flesh & Iron Flesh and added Leather Flesh (stops 2) at the price of Stone Flesh.

Even with magic armor costing a LOT more, people buy some, and stopping 8+ hits is not that rare. Talents that allow people to do more damage help to offset this.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

You could also package a "quickdraw" ability into an advanced weapon talent. ...

Here I'm not quite in agreement Ty.

Are you going to package quick draw into the other talents as well? Quick draw knife? Quick draw Hammer? etc. Rather than repeating that text several times, it would save space to just have the talent broken out by itself.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by the1weasel

In the past, i've pondered a Expert or Specialization talent for Wizards which would allow them to pay 1 less ST to cast (for example) Expert Summoner, Expert Creator, Expert Illusionist, Missile Specialist or Control Specialist. ...

Hi the1Weasel, everyone.
On one hand this makes wizards more powerful, <sigh>, but on the other hand, I like the idea of wizards specializing. Serious fighting wizard tend to have similar mixes of spells. If these talents are expensive enough that wizards just don't get all of them, then you might see wizards with a LOT of thrown spells. Which makes a wider variety of wizards you come across, which is good.

Originally Posted by the1weasel

PSYCHIC ENDURANCE(3) ...

There are a lot of cool spells that people rarely take because of the high maintenance cost. This would make them more popular, and the 3(!) memory cost (mIQ), is a good price I think. I would certainly be thinking hard about losing 3 spells in order to get this talent. Nicely done.

Originally Posted by the1weasel

MEDITATION(2) ...

EXPERT MEDITATION(3) ...

I have a similar talent to your meditation. However, it is less powerful, it lets you recover 1 fST per 10 minutes, and there is no second level. I thought it would be more popular, but in practice few wizards want to spend the 2 mIQ to pick it up.

Warm regards, Rick.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Here I'm not quite in agreement Ty.

Are you going to package quick draw into the other talents as well? Quick draw knife? Quick draw Hammer? etc. Rather than repeating that text several times, it would save space to just have the talent broken out by itself.

Warm regards, Rick.

In the example, I assumed that there was no separate quickdraw talent available. I should've made that clear.

If quickdraw is available separately, then there's probably no reason to include it in these talents.

[guymc]

Wow, this flowed along fast! Hard to keep up.

A few of my takes:

** Half-points - yuck.

** I really like the idea of having talent “slots” equal to your (ST+DX+IQ)/2. Starting talents are limited by starting IQ, with multi-point talents costing more. The nomenclature is getting confusing, though. How about this:

You have Talent/Spell SLOTS equal to your basic ST + DX + IQ / 2.
No matter how it is purchased, a Talent or Spell takes up 1 Talent/Spell SLOT.

At character creation you have a STARTING POOL of Talent/Spell POINTS equal to your IQ stat. You may spend these POINTS as you choose, spending:
For Wizards 1 POINT per Spell or 2x the Talent COST in POINTS per Talent
For Heroes 3 POINTS per Spell or 1x the Talent COST in POINTS per Talent

Once your STARTING POOL of Talent/Spell POINTS is all spent, you may not have any more Talents/Spells with which to start.

After character creation you may buy additional Talent/Spell POINTS at a flat 100 XP per POINT. They are spent the same as the POINTS from your initial POOL.

Does that make sense? Is it easy to remember the difference between Talent/Spell SLOTS (how many you can have) and Talent/Spell POINTS (used to purchase Talents & Spells)

**Pull languages out of Talents entirely. You have language SLOTS equal to your IQ. You may start with your native tongue (spoken, oddly enough, like a native) and perhaps a common or trade tongue (spoken with a discernible accent), each filling a slot. Multi-cultural characters can start with TWO “native” tongues plus a trade/common tongue, but you speak all three with an accent. After character creation, you may buy additional languages with XP. It costs 100 XP to learn to read and speak a language, built you’ll not be mistaken for a native by a real native speaker. Spending an additional 100 XP on a language means you’ll be taken for a native, even among natives. You can only learn languages until you fill up your language slots. (A language fills only one slot, whether or not you speak like a native.) If you possess the Linguist Talent, you have IQx2 slots and an expenditure of 100 XP lets you speak like a native. If you choose that Talent at character creation, you can start with a number of starting languages up to 1/2 your IQ, each filling one available slot.

**I would not miss the two “Followers” Talents if they go away. That’s not really a Talent.

**I think a character should be assumed to have Literacy (in his known languages) and basic mundane abilities like cooking, etc. As an option, a character can start WITHOUT Literacy. Such a character gets only one native language which he can speak but not read or write. The character also gets one EXTRA starting Talent/Spell Point in their Pool. They may later BUY Literacy for *200 XP* if they wish, and it takes up a Talent slot of they do. (Those who start with Literacy don’t use up a slot for it.) You cannot “give up” Literacy to free up a slot after you already have it. And the GM should STRICTLY require an illiterate character to play the handicap. No reading of signs, books, papers, scrolls, etc. No writing except for making symbols in the nature of a game of Pictionary.

**Professional Knowledge could be purchased in packets like Talents, taking the same slots as Talents do. They have minimum IQ levels, and may be stackable requiring higher levels of knowledge to be bought atop lower ones. Some Professions may have only one level, others may have more depending on the depth of knowledge required. However many levels you buy, it all goes in a single Slot. For the most complex professional subjects, you might have a level for a lay enthusiast or student, another for a practicing professional or teacher, a third for a recognized expert or theoretician, and even a fourth for that renowned person who is at the top of their field and on the cutting edge. This, however, is approaching the “too darn much trouble” level. We might not need it at all.

[tbeard1999]

While I'm a big fan of staying with the original IQ limit on talents (and NOT allowing them to be bought with XP), I'd like to suggest an alternative to the common "1.5 or 2 times IQ" system.

Why not allow starting figures to have their IQ plus (say) 2 in talent points? That gives a boost to starting figures without allowing massive increases in available talents.

I also like the notion of decoupling languages from talents entirely.

Or, I think that a starting package of free talents might be a good thing.

The equivalent would be giving a TFT character in a modern setting Literacy, Drive Car and (maybe) Use Computer for free.

In a fantasy setting, you might allow one free mundane talent, and a free one-point talent that fits the GM's campaign conception. Examples would be an extra language, Literacy, Knife, Small Ax talent, another 1 point mundane talent etc.