Talents are better than attributes

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Which version of the rules are you looking at? I don't see this.

It's under the Remove Trap talent which makes sense... characters without this talent really shouldn't be messing with traps.

[hcobb]

So if you'll concede the point that talents are really worthwhile, what's the four character team look like?

ST 8 DX 13 IQ 11 Human Thief
Maul(1d)
Physicker(2), Woodsman(1), Locksmith(1), Remove Trap(1), Naturalist(2), Detect Traps(2), Alertness(2), mundane talent: Miner(0)

Note that this character is maxed out at IQ 11 and should advance other stats in the future.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by hcobb

... Hence it is always better to have the correct talents for the roll rather than take a super high attribute and attempt an untalented roll. ...

Translation: Thankfully, high attributes don't reduce all unskilled attempts to just a matter of how high your attributes are.

But that does not reduce to the thread title "Talents are better than attributes" as it's not a matter of either/or, but picking talents for what you want to be competent at, and then also increasing your attributes.

And most talents have only one or maybe two levels to get.

Originally Posted by hcobb

Talents are always better for a roll than adding 3.5 points to your attribute.
...
Would you rather have each party member have three more ST or have a Master Physicker along?

You're muddying and confusing whatever point you're trying to get at, by weird overstatement of the situation.

The quote above should be obviously untrue to an experienced player. Obviously it depends on the talent, and a talent only applies to one thing. Master Physicker requires a high IQ and talent-point investment, so he's probably at least partly specialized in that, and the real answer is I'd rather have one or two physickers in/with/available-to the party, and then have the warriors and wizards have more points in attributes.

Even at the reductum ad absurdiam level of your specific example, I'd like to have some people with +3 ST so they can use powerful weapons, and some people with +3 DX so they can remain effective while carrying 3 more points of armor, where reducing damage by 3 per attack is often better than healing 3 after combat.

Originally Posted by hcobb

An alert Naturalist is maxed out at IQ 11 and will more or less automatically spot things the average IQ 19 Goblin Apprentice overlooks.

Good! As it should be. It makes sense that you need specific knowledge to know/do specific things. It'd be broken if it weren't so.

And again, it in no way reduces to "Talents are better than attributes" except in what the talent is for. The IQ 11 naturalist is still 8 IQ points inferior to the IQ 19 non-naturalist in every task they have equivalent talent in.

And BTW FWIW:
Really "the average IQ 19 Goblin Apprentice"? Mhmm.

Originally Posted by hcobb

So if you'll concede the point that talents are really worthwhile, what's the four character team look like?

If that was your point, then why wasn't your thread title "Talents are really worthwhile"? You could save us all a lot of confusion and effort.

What's "the four character team"? If you mean for MicroQuests, we often had three fighters and a physicker.

Originally Posted by hcobb

ST 8 DX 13 IQ 11 Human Thief
Maul(1d)
Physicker(2), Woodsman(1), Locksmith(1), Remove Trap(1), Naturalist(2), Detect Traps(2), Alertness(2), mundane talent: Miner(0)

Note that this character is maxed out at IQ 11 and should advance other stats in the future.

"Should"? What goal are you assuming?

[Jeff Lord]

* reductio ad absurdum

FWIW

Though I do like what you did :)

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Skarg

"Should"? What goal are you assuming?

The first goal is to get everything a party of novices ought to spot down to an 2d roll and have IQ 11.

The next goal is to be able to deal with these things, which requires a DX higher than 13. Taking a Goblin for this would require another skill point for the Human Tongue which either chases IQ up (towards the 14 mark to unlock the top skills) or gives up an existing skill and this character is already so tight on skills that she doesn't have Literacy or a weapon talent.

A starting party thief needs IQ 11 for Locksmith and also needs a high DX to actually use remove traps. Hence get the talent IQ 11 is sufficient for if you have to be there anyway.

Can a Halfling take Human Tongue as the mother language? In that case you're able to reach DX 15 to max out 3/DX, but don't get hit.

ST 4 DX 15 IQ 11 Halfling Thief
4x Very Fine Dagger(1d+1), Brand(1d-2)
Knife(1), Recognize Value(1), Woodsman(1), Locksmith(1), Remove Trap(1), Naturalist(2), Detect Traps(2), Alertness(2), mundane talent: Miner(0)

[Helborn]

Originally Posted by hcobb

The first goal is to get everything a party of novices ought to spot down to an 2d roll and have IQ 11.

The next goal is to be able to deal with these things, which requires a DX higher than 13. Taking a Goblin for this would require another skill point for the Human Tongue which either chases IQ up (towards the 14 mark to unlock the top skills) or gives up an existing skill and this character is already so tight on skills that she doesn't have Literacy or a weapon talent.

A starting party thief needs IQ 11 for Locksmith and also needs a high DX to actually use remove traps. Hence get the talent IQ 11 is sufficient for if you have to be there anyway.

Can a Halfling take Human Tongue as the mother language? In that case you're able to reach DX 15 to max out 3/DX, but don't get hit.

ST 4 DX 15 IQ 11 Halfling Thief
4x Very Fine Dagger(1d+1), Brand(1d-2)
Knife(1), Recognize Value(1), Woodsman(1), Locksmith(1), Remove Trap(1), Naturalist(2), Detect Traps(2), Alertness(2), mundane talent: Miner(0)

Detect Traps is only 1 pt if you have Alertness

[hcobb]

Originally Posted by Helborn

Detect Traps is only 1 pt if you have Alertness

Thanks, so Knife or Literacy for the human? The smaller races get to take both of course.

[Anaraxes]

If Talents weren't better, then players would only ever buy stats. It's not a flaw, but a good thing, for a Talent to be better than a stat increase in a focused area.

(Compare with GURPS, once you have enough skills that raising them all by one level costs more than raising their common base attribute. or Techniques, which even more rapidly reach a point where it's cheaper to upgrade the base skill. Even in that game, it's arguably not a flaw. There's always going to be some crossover point. But it is a common complaint. So perhaps we should be happy that you're not posting the thread "Attributes are better than Talents", thus reducing all characters to nothing but three numbers and some equipment.)