10-12-2020, 12:50 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Talent/spell proficiency
Add to ITL 45:
For 500 XP (but not memory points) a character can purchase one point of proficiency in a specific talent or spell that they know. When using that talent or spell the character may add their total proficiency levels to adjusted DX or IQ for the use of the talent or spell. GMs can add proficiency levels for NPC alchemists and enchanters to ensure that the potions and enchantments are produced at base price.
__________________
-HJC |
10-17-2020, 01:52 AM | #2 |
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
Maybe limit it to +3 like Missile Weapons?
|
10-17-2020, 07:11 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
Okay, to balance out for the reduced attribute totals from the first edition,
This way we get a +3 Enchanter to deal with the fact that we have zero DX 15 and IQ 20 wizards. Anything else?
__________________
-HJC |
10-17-2020, 01:06 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
So this concept strays a bit further into the GURPS-scape than I would like, but the limitation to 3 'levels' of proficiency seems reasonable. It aligns nicely with the current concept of base/expert/mastery talents.
TBH, though, I think rebalancing stat progression costs to restore the potential for higher attribute totals is more desirable. P.S. If I was to use this, I think it would be appropriate to increase the XP cost for each subsequent proficiency level (i.e. if the base talent is 500 XP, then level II should be 1000 XP and 1500 XP for level III).
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos Last edited by TippetsTX; 10-17-2020 at 01:21 PM. |
10-18-2020, 01:26 PM | #6 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
I think this could be quite serviceable and has some of the advantages mentioned above. The main question I ask myself about this sort of house rule is whether its benefits outweigh the disadvantage of making your table's game inconsistent with stat blocks from published materials. Basically, I feel like a house rule that doesn't involve a change in stat blocks and applies to everyone (e.g., like adding some new option in combat) is easier to implement without splitting off from canonical materials, whereas something that changes how characters are described on paper, particularly if it provides an advantage in play, is more problematic.
|
10-18-2020, 05:20 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
Quote:
I never saw "attribute bloat" become a problem in my original group, and we had a two decade continuous run under the original rules.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
10-20-2020, 07:21 AM | #8 | ||
Join Date: May 2018
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I don't see this a really GURPSing out because ITL is already partway there with scalable talents like Missile Weapons and Toughness and the X / Master X talents (and, of course, Unarmed Combat 1 through 5). I think there's already a problem anyway with published materials and stat blocks because of Legacy's introduction of the ala carte talent purchasing system. |
||
10-20-2020, 08:08 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
Quote:
Obviously, I'm not saying that spell proficiency is a bad idea. I just don't get the enchanter argument. |
|
10-20-2020, 08:20 AM | #10 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pacheco, California
|
Re: Talent/spell proficiency
Quote:
__________________
-HJC |
|
|
|