Condensing Spells

[zot]

Originally Posted by zot

What about mashing all the versions of a spell into the same listing?

Just don't put "augmentable" in the spell summary or you'll alienate a whole group of D&Ders... ��

[The Wyzard]

Well, if it turns out to work badly, you can always release Advanced Advanced Wizard in 12 months.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

When it comes to talents and spells, we all want more of them. Maybe not at character creation (where we keep it simple), but definitely later on. So I am definitely for any way of higher IQ spells includes the lower IQ similar ones for free. And a way to upgrade the low IQ ones to higher IQ ones that doesn't burn more IQ memory slots.

When it comes to the cost I am definitely against cutting the cost of the higher IQ ones and keep the low level costs. It is back wards! One of TFT's greatest charms is the trade off between the three main characteristics, no matter the type of character you make. If a wizard can compensate for low ST or fST with higher IQ, that is already a much stronger over all attribute for wizards, then we lose the trade-off. We end up with the classic fantasy trope of only overly smart and physically laughable wizards.

So, no! Do it the other way around instead. Make ST more important. Keep low IQ spells and then boost the size of the effect, damage or radius with fST. Just like missile spells can be boosted. And set the max level of the boost based on the current characters base ST. So a x-hex fire spell is a low IQ level spell, but you can boost it with fST to inlcude more hexes and the max number of hexes are based on ST/3 or some such.

And while you are at it, maybe this boost function could be applied for DX as well. The more you boost the harder it is to control the spell resulting in a negative DX adjustment. This will mean that not only can a wizard hit from a distance he can do bigger spells with a higher DX. And really high ST and DX on a wizard is something to benefit from.

In TFT vanilla, I have yet to see a viable low IQ wizard in a campaign. But I have seen plenty of genious glass canons.

But I agree with the over all sentiment. Alot of the spells are too costly per turn to be practical. I would lower cost per turn across the board and maybe increase or keep the initial casting cost. Maybe even change the uppkeep cost to once per minute (or 15 min) or some such for dungeon delves and RPG reasons. And practically 0 for wizard duels. That would remove one book keeping issue from the fights.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

When it comes to talents and spells, we all want more of them. Maybe not at character creation ... but definitely later on. So I am definitely for any way of higher IQ spells includes the lower IQ similar ones for free. And a way to upgrade the low IQ ones to higher IQ ones that doesn't burn more IQ memory slots.

Hi Nils,
Very nice, very clever analysis. A few comments.

Memory slots are a thing of the past, so this is really not a concern anymore. You can buy as many spells as you want with XP, but the XP cost goes up as you learn more of them.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

When it comes to the cost I am definitely against cutting the cost of the higher IQ ones and keep the low level costs. It is back wards! One of TFT's greatest charms is the trade off between the three main characteristics, no matter the type of character you make. If a wizard can compensate for low ST or fST with higher IQ, that is already a much stronger over all attribute for wizards, then we lose the trade-off. We end up with the classic fantasy trope of only overly smart and physically laughable wizards.

I agree that more variety is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

So, no! Do it the other way around instead. Make ST more important. Keep low IQ spells and then boost the size of the effect, damage or radius with fST. Just like missile spells can be boosted. And set the max level of the boost based on the current characters base ST. So a x-hex fire spell is a low IQ level spell, but you can boost it with fST to inlcude more hexes and the max number of hexes are based on ST/3 or some such.

VERY neat idea!

One thing to think about, with the Staff, wizards are likely to have more fatigue ST to use. Several people have suggested that drawing energy from the staff is limited in some way (I like the idea that it takes an action and will only refill your natural fatigue that you have spent some how), but this is nothing that Steve has commented on.

But getting back to your point, with a powerful staff and your idea, wizards would be more willing to spend large amounts of fatigue ST to get multihex / boosted spells. So strong wizards, can cast some of their basic spells with greater effect. A few spells like this will drive large variations in wizard attributes.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

And while you are at it, maybe this boost function could be applied for DX as well. The more you boost the harder it is to control the spell resulting in a negative DX adjustment. This will mean that not only can a wizard hit from a distance he can do bigger spells with a higher DX. And really high ST and DX on a wizard is something to benefit from.

Perhaps have two DIFFERENT kinds of boosting. ST boosting increases area of effect where as DX boosting increases the difficulty of saving throws? Again, this would make high ST, high DX and high IQ wizards play differently and be attracted to different groups of spells.

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

In TFT vanilla, I have yet to see a viable low IQ wizard in a campaign. But I have seen plenty of genious glass canons.

But I agree with the over all sentiment. Alot of the spells are too costly per turn to be practical. I would lower cost per turn across the board and maybe increase or keep the initial casting cost. ...

Warm regards, Rick.

[Oneiros]

Originally Posted by zot

Why have separate listings for spells that improve with IQ? What about mashing all the versions of a spell into the same listing? Like just have "Create Wall" and list the sizes, IQs, and costs? That will put then all in the same place, make the other versions easier to find, and save space.

I agree with this approach. Keep IQ thresholds and ST costs, but for presentation, fold them into one spell that only has to be learned once. It also gets rid of game-ish names like “3 Hex Fire”. Now it’s just “Fire”, “Shadow”, etc

[tomc]

Originally Posted by Oneiros

I agree with this approach. Keep IQ thresholds and ST costs, but for presentation, fold them into one spell that only has to be learned once. It also gets rid of game-ish names like “3 Hex Fire”. Now it’s just “Fire”, “Shadow”, etc

I think it's a great idea. You can add all the granularity you want in the table (4 hex fire anyone?) while only having one spell entry.

[Nils_Lindeberg]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Nils,

Memory slots are a thing of the past, so this is really not a concern anymore. You can buy as many spells as you want with XP, but the XP cost goes up as you learn more of them.

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Is the XP cost linked to normal attribute progression, have their own curve or is it a flat cost?

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

One thing to think about, with the Staff, wizards are likely to have more fatigue ST to use. Several people have suggested that drawing energy from the staff is limited in some way (I like the idea that it takes an action and will only refill your natural fatigue that you have spent some how), but this is nothing that Steve has commented on.

But getting back to your point, with a powerful staff and your idea, wizards would be more willing to spend large amounts of fatigue ST to get multihex / boosted spells. So strong wizards, can cast some of their basic spells with greater effect. A few spells like this will drive large variations in wizard attributes.

Perhaps have two DIFFERENT kinds of boosting. ST boosting increases area of effect where as DX boosting increases the difficulty of saving throws? Again, this would make high ST, high DX and high IQ wizards play differently and be attracted to different groups of spells.


Warm regards, Rick.

Sounds very interesting. I always thought staffs were a little bit under used. I went the other road in my own house rules and incorporated them with normal weapons like Quarterstaff and such. But I like this way too, real staffs that stores mana.

It would be nice to use a DIFFERENT boosting system based on DX to get some balance. I want it to be a really tough trade off choice between the attributes balance wise, and when you play a similar character with just a couple of points placed differently they will feel completely different.

Maybe you could boost with dice. So instead of limiting a ligthning to 2, 3 or 4 dice of damage, you could have the To Hit be 2vsDX, 3vsDX, 4 vsDX, etc. Then there would never be a DX15, auto hits or auto misses, because most wizard would choose a spell stregth that fitted the situation in combination with the current adjusted DX, etc. You want to shoot far? Ok a 1 die lighting coming up, you need to kill that dragon in one round, here comes a hail mary 8 dice lightning with almost no chance to hit...

And besides I like normal talent challenges that are from 2 to 6 or even 7 dice vs the attribute. While combat challenges almost always are 3 dice. And maybe 4, once in a blue moon when someone defends.

And nice to see you again Rick, :-)

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Is the XP cost linked to normal attribute progression, have their own curve or is it a flat cost?

I don't think it's final yet. SJ posted two proposed revisions to the XP system, both with flat rates mentioned (first it was 100 XP per IQ Cost, next it was 500 XP per IQ Cost), along with new XP costs for attributes and some other things.

But then SJ posted in another thread that he was thinking of reverting to using IQ Cost with caps after all.

I don't know if Rick missed/forgot that, or if I overlooked some later post. There's been a lot of discussion since then among fans. Later the new TFT line editor Guy (Grail Quest) McLimore, Jr. posted an idea that involved some new ideas, but my impression is it's still up in the air, but AFAIK SJ's latest word was there would still be an IQ Cost cap.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Nils_Lindeberg

Ok, thanks for the heads up. Is the XP cost linked to normal attribute progression, have their own curve or is it a flat cost? ...

And nice to see you again Rick, :-)

Hi Nils, you to.
Last I heard the new TFT can have any number of talents but a limit on attributes which was the opposite of the old TFT. The cost for a talent or spell (ability) is paid for with experience (XP) and the cost is...

Cost of new ability = Your total number of points in abilities x Wild Ass Guess # x difficulty of new ability.

(The difficulty is the old memory cost.)

The Wild Ass Guess (WAG) number is not known. Let us say it is 25 XP.

***

So if you were playing an IQ 12 thief who is fairly capable and who has learned the Lock / Knock spell. All together you have 16 memory points of abilities. To now pick up the Running (2) talent would cost you...

XP for Running = 16 x 25 XP x 2 = 800 XP.

800 XP is more expensive than the low half of the attribute table, so this is not a trivial cost. (I believe Steve was suggesting that GM's give out about 50 XP in a typical session so this would be 16 evenings to gain Running.) I like games with more talents, so a WAG number of 20 or even 15 would suit me.

As far as I know, the XP cost of attributes and the XP cost of abilities are independent.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

Oh right! Thanks Rick, I forgot about that last one, described originally here: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?t=158536

Still seems to be undecided, though.