New Skills
 

I am not ignoring the call for new skills, but I really cannot think of many things that seem worth it.

Maybe:

Writing (11?) - prereq Literacy - ability to write in a clear and concise manner. Useful for researchers, military officers (to write orders), and who else? Combined with Bard, would let you write entertaining fiction.

Poetry - prereq either Bard or Literacy - ability to write a poem that is not merely a collection of rhymes, engaging emotion in a way that prose cannot. (A bard who lacks this talent can still compose amusing doggerel, of course, but a poet bard will write GOOD songs.) An illiterate poet/bard is quite possible - a Skald who has memorized thousands of lines of sagas.

Open suggestion time. Saying Howitzer! is okay if you have one.

Re: New Skills - Awesome skills needed.
 

Sorry all, for repeating some arguments, but think of this as collecting them into one place.

When read the Fafrd / Grey Mouser stories, I assume that these awesome swordsmen were great because Greywand and Catsclaw (their weapons) were awesome. Did those blades have +5 w/ae on them? Did they have a built in charm? Then Fritz Leiber mentioned in passing that several times their blades broke, and they replaced them with similar weapons.

This blew my mind. They were great not because of their equipment, they were great because they were awesome swordsman!!!

I tried to think how I would make them in TFT. They would take Sword, and Fencing and... nothing. The only way to distinguish them was endlessly raising their attributes. (Which won't work in the new TFT by the way.)


***
I also like the fact that heroes and wizards were nicely balanced in TFT. (Much more so than in D&D.) However, this breaks down at high levels. Experienced wizards in TFT out class experienced fighters.

In my campaign I added some very powerful, hard to get talents for heroes, and this solved both of these problems.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills - Awesome skills needed.
 

Hi all, Steve.
I would suggest the following classes of talents:

1) Second level of talents for orphans. Most skills in TFT have two levels of talents. (Sword & Fencing, Naturalist & Woodsman, Charisma & New Followers, etc.) However, some talents are 'orphans', with only one level. (Pole Weapons, Shield, Running, Guns, Spy, etc.) Give these single level talents a second level to back them up. (Shields in TFT are pretty weak, and an advanced Shield talent would be a welcome addition to TFT, and something that gives people some defence.)


2) A better stealth, a hiding, and an camouflage / ambush talent. The only thing for stealth is Silent Movement (which also makes it an orphan above). Give rules for contests of search and stealth, to make Thieves, Ninjas, and Rangers more interesting.


3) A half dozen kick ass talents. These are hard to get talents like Unarmed Combat v. They are awesome which gives heroes something to aspire to, and help keep these characters competitive with high level wizards. Some suggestions:

-- Strike Master. Vast knowledge of the weaknesses of many races, monsters, and animals. You do +2 damage, and have a much better chance of getting a critical hit when you hit if you are using those optional rules.

-- Trained Reflexes. Like UC v but for guys with weapons & armour. You are just harder to hit.

-- Expert Defender. The defend option is better for you, and if the enemy misses by a LOT, you get a free counter attack.

-- Logistics / Management. This can combine with any top level talent to allow you the abilities to run a major operation. This plus Spying makes you the Spy Master. This plus Master Seaman makes you the Captain. This plus Master Thief makes you a Thief Lord. This plus Strategist makes you a General.

-- Trained Judge of Character. You are much better at detecting lies, detecting attempts to manipulate you, and figuring out what motivates people.


4) Miscellaneous Talents. Some odds and ends. Suggestions:
-- A Judo talent that is for HTH. Makes it easier to get into HTH, or make it harder for someone to get you in HTH, making or avoiding pins. Being taken down into HTH is a frustrating random roll. This talent gives you some control over your fate HTH wise.

-- A talent for knocking people out with out killing them. To Kosh or sandbag someone. (Note that concussions can do permanent damage, but this is a cinematic talent that never does permanent damage.)

-- A Fast Draw talent.

-- A security / police talent to give top ninjas a minor boss.

***

I think that 20 well chosen talents would GREATLY improve TFT. They had a huge impact for a small cost in my campaigns.

Re: New Skills
 

Quickdraw Sword (or Axe/Mace or Pistol for modern campaigns): IQ8, 1 talent point. Allows figure to ready an unready sword (or axe/mace or pistol) and still attack it hit in the same turn.

An unnecessary flourish - the figure must make a 3/adjDX roll. If he succeeds he attacks normally. If he fails, he attacks after everyone else attacks. A 16+ means he drops the weapon.

Re: New Skills - Awesome skills needed.
 

I don't think the solution to this is to have lots of Advanced combat Talents. Those two heroes will skillfull sure, but mostly they were lucky, that's why I moved towards luck/hero points for advancement beyond the medium level. I believe Steve has mentioned some sort of "Karma" points and I think that's the way forward.

Re: New Skills
 

Definitely a "Quickdraw" or "Iaijutsu" talent.

I'd also like to see something like a "Medic" or "First Aid" talent, that could at least stabilize a person on the verge of death, maybe even heal a single point of damage. Medics in the military go through months of training and are not considered to be as qualified as nurses or doctors are; despite that, they are far more skilled than the average soldier is.

A "Survival" skill, perhaps differentiated by type of environment (mountains, swamp, plains, forest, ocean, arctic, desert, jungle) which improves the character's chances of finding food and potable water in that environment. Something like this would be a very useful adjunct to role-playing I would think (certainly, I have found it so).

Some kind of "Tracking" talent -- that allows a character to follow a trail more effectively -- it would be separate from Naturalist (which should focus more on other things, in my opinion). Perhaps even a prerequisite for Naturalist.

A "Streetwise" talent, that would allow the character a better sense of alertness in an urban/village environment; maybe make it more like for the holder to find something the party wants in a town, or make it more likely they can find out rumors and information in a town/city. (This might be the urban equivalent of "Survival" in fact.)

A "Sleight of Hand" talent, that allows the user to switch things in plain sight, misdirect a viewer's attention for a second or so, or cheat in games of chance or something similar.

Perhaps even break out "Pickpocket" from "Thief." A Thief might be a great safe cracker or trap finder/disarmer, but not be able to steal something from someone else's belt pouch worth a darn; this talent would allow him to do so (and picking pockets, if we are to believe our Charles Dickens, is a complex skill requiring extensive training...). (Edited to add: "Pickpocket" might also allow the user to slip something into someone's pocket without being noticed...)

Re: New Skills - Awesome skills needed.
 

You think that the only thing that distinguishes great swordsman from competent ones is that former are LUCKY??? Really???

Well, we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

I don't think that's what he said at all, Rick -- I think he's stating that the only real difference between skilled opponents often comes down to luck. And presumably, the people who all have the various talents are roughly equal in skill in most ways.

Re: New Skills
 

I was thinking the same thing, until I found it in ITL on page 13. Tracking IQ 10.

I guess great minds think (and forget) alike. :)

Re: New Skills
 

Well, after 40 years of playing this game I have the impression that perhaps, perhaps, some type of second level of skill might make sense, perhaps akin to the "orphaned" approach given prior.

To the point, once someone gets ax/mace talent only DX really affects how they do.

Archers can ramp up with Missile Weapons, Thrown Weapons is for guys that specialize in throwing stuff, UC I-V for those that practice martial arts, but there really is no progression past IQ 8 or 9 for becoming more skilled with a blade or axe. Fencing talent doesn't really do it, maybe it could be replaced.

Perhaps something aligned with aimed shots, where the skill reduces the DX disadvantage when an aimed shot is taken a point or two, making more pinpoint damage a possibility beyond just being "faster" and hacking generically at a foe.

Re: New Skills
 

Who else: Scholars, Mechanicians, and anyone else who wants to communicate effectively and produce books that can easily be learned from. Wizards too - Advanced Wizard has rules for learning and casting magic from written books and scrolls - well, it would naturally be really helpful if they were well-written, as opposed to poorly-written. The given rates of learning and reliable casting for books and scrolls could be for those written by people with the Writing talent (and Calligraphy...?), while those written by someone without could be slower and/or less reliable to learn or cast from.

There could also be a Reading talent (prereq Literacy) which would represent the ability to read and understand more quickly, to comprehend dense texts, and make understanding poorly-written texts easier. Also helps understanding nuance, poetry, subtle hints & clues, etc. Also useful for Scholars, Wizards, Mechanicians, etc. who have access to valuable but dense reading materials. People with Reading talent learning from written sources would do so more quickly (or those without, less quickly), and have less difficulty reading poorly-written texts, bad calligraphy, etc.

Re: New Skills
 

Many people have suggested Quick Draw talents, though I would suggest that these should still involve some sort of penalty (-2 adjDX?) for using a weapon you just readied the same turn. Otherwise, it just removes ALL effect/significance of having a weapon ready or not. (Seems to me that makes situations and choices less interesting.)

Re: New Skills
 

Definitely a Streetwise equivalent. I would also suggest a Heraldry talent—knowledge of the arts, people and politics, but no musical instruments.

A Lore or Area Knlowledge would be nice as well.

Re: New Skills
 

Hi JLV, everyone.
Oh, maybe? Want to weigh in Chris?

Fencing is IQ 10, and requires a DX of 14. So a starting character can take both Sword and Fencing talents.

So someone with Sword + Fencing feels to me like a "talented beginner" or perhaps a "competent swordsman". Good but not exceptional. Certainly not the best of the best, the master swordsman of sagas & legends.

Under current rules (where you can pick up as many talents as you want), characters with another focus (say a Thief armed with a rapier), could max out sword fighting talents fairly casually. "You know, swords are not my main focus, but it is only one talent. What the heck. I'll be equal skilled to the best swordsman. Why not?"

***
UC v, requires DX 16, & 11 memory. UC v is an example of a "hard to get talent".


If Strike Master (6), required a fairly high IQ (need to know lots of physiology of many different types of creatures and monsters), then gaining it would require some focus and effort. Our casual thief might not have the IQ, or wish to spend that much experience to get the 6 point talent.

Expert Defender (4), needs medium ST & IQ and requires a high DX. Our casual thief has the DX & IQ, but being in fights defending is not his main focus. If there was a better hiding / sneaking talent (which I suggested), maybe he would go for that rather than getting a couple more ST and taking this talent?

Trained Reflexes (11), adj DX 16+. (Perhaps broken up into a couple of talents). This gives UC v like abilities but for armoured fighters. No way the casual thief is getting this.

***

A few tough to get, powerful talents would increase the number of characters possible. TFT could better distinguish between a beginner, an average practitioner, and a master. It would also give something for a mid level player to really lust after. "Let's play next week! I'm only 3 sessions away from getting talent X!"

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills - Streetwise.
 

Hi JLV, everyone.
I thought Streetwise WAS in original TFT, but it is not. Definitely a good addition.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

Rick's list, plus a Writer talent, as mentioned by Skarg.

IMO, Quickdraw should have a DX penalty or an extra die vs AdjDX for the attack, not separate QD roll, with a note that a fumble results in disarming oneself.

Re: New Skills
 

Ok, Rick asked for some more information on my views, so here goes:

If we look at Sword and Sorcery fiction (the quoted example was of Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser), but it could easily have been Conan or Elric; the heroes are often faced with life and death challenges which they nearly always somehow manage to overcome by the skin of their teeth. For us to believe that the heroes are in real danger, the challenge they face has to have a high chance of them failing to overcome it. The heroes are of course skilled individuals in their own worlds, but their escapes from tight spots often go beyond mere skill; they are rescued by a powerful Magician, spared by the lascivious Evil Queen, find a hidden Scroll etc. How does this happen? Well, obviously it suits the authors purpose and that of the story, but how do we make our games reflect this?

Many modern RPG designs such as FATE, Barbarians of Lemuria etc have accepted that some sort of means must exist beyond skills/Talents/attributes, and include some sort of Luck/Hero/Karma mechanism which allows the player to overcome bad luck or otherwise influence the story direction in some way. If we allow this survivability to be purely by skill/talents, then logically, the characters must never have faced enough of a challenge in the first place.

Now, Melee/Wizard are renowned as tough games with high casualty rates, which is fine for one-off games, but those of us wanting to run extended campaigns need something else. Of course, the GM can fudge things to keep the characters alive, as I've often done, but wouldn't it be better if the players could fudge things themselves?

Now, sorry for being a bit long winded here, but I'll finish by summarising with two points:

1. I did not say we shouldn't have advanced combat Talents. What I said was I didn't think the solution was to have "lots of Advanced combat Talents." In other words, the problem (if it's felt to be a problem) won't be solved entirely in this way.

2. Having "Karma" points or whatever you want to call them, allows us to more closely follow the kind of things that happen in the stories, enhances player choice and increases character survivability without attribute bloat or massively expanding the Talent system.

Re: New Skills
 

I am probably going to be odd-man-out on this one, but I highly resist the idea of including "Quickdraw" into TFT, for the simple reason that nearly every member of the adventure party will take it. If everyone takes it, then it stops being special to that super-swordsman, and it just ends up as another player cheat.

I get the idea behind it, and why people really like this thing - and yes, this is the classic Samuri/Conan move - but from a dramatic tension perspective, I think it hurts the overall game-tension level in the long run; and that would hurt TFT.

My 2 cents.

JK

Re: New Skills
 

As TFT stands at the moment, I don't think most characters would take it because, (a) it cost a Talent point that you could use for something else, (b) it's only useful occasionally or to a very specific character type (i.e., the javelin throwing swordsman etc). Obviously game styles will vary and if you feel it breaks your game you wouldn't use it. That's why I didn't use the New Followers Talent for example.

Re: New Skills
 

Here are 32 new talents

Research (find things out about the world and people)

• Sense motive
• Interrogation
• (Knowledge)
• (Talent fields)

Knowledge (declare things your character already knows)

• Nature
• History
• Architecture
• Architect
• Mining
• Dungeoneering
• (talent fields)

Manipulation / Influence (get people to do what you want)

• Intimidation
• Torture
• (Membership / culture / reputation)

Arts (bard specializations -- perform in front of a crowd)

• Acting
• Musical performance
• Composing
• Dance
• Comedy

Culture / reputation (make impressions, use reputation)

• Etiquette
• Poetry appreciation
• Poet
• History
• Music appreciation
• Social dancing
• Literature appreciation
• Pedigree
• Renown
• Wealth

Ranking Membership (contacts, influence)

• Guilds
• Police
• Government
• Royalty
• Military

Level 2 (higher levels of existing talents)

• Chemistry 2
• Alchemy 2

Re: New Skills
 

Well, it is not my game I am concerned about Chris; it is the game run by future neophyte GMs and Players, who, if they all end up taking this talent - and at IQ8 and 1 point, what newbie could resist - will miss out on so much added drama, tension, and fun.

It is those people I am concerned about with the inclusion of such a talent at such low IQ and cost.

If I was forced to include it in the rules-set, I would make the talent reflect *years* of specialized training, and seriously raise the IQ requirement *and* the cost - so it would be very rare among members of an adventure party.

JK

Re: New Skills
 

Well, I'd say the prerequisite should be that you have the Talent for both weapons, the Thrown weapons Talent and perhaps a min adjDX to use it. And perhaps 2 points is a fairer cost. I wouldn't allow it in conjunction with a missile weapon. In my games it was intended for the skilled javelin/axe thrower, who could throw and then rush into combat.

Re: New Skills
 

There are more possibilities if you think about court life, like hawking, hunting, and heraldry (I'm sure there inspirational are scenes from Game of Thrones for this).

Re: New Skills
 

First aid.
It costs only one point, level 9.
works as a "minor physicker" Heals one point and works even without any medical equipment making a 3d/DX. The Physicker talent costs 1 if the Character already has First Aid.


Also I love the idea of a sort of "level two" for many talents that come only in one version without a reason:

silent movement II
climbing II
Acrobatics II

tracking II
woodsman II
spying II
chemist II
alchemy II
mathematician II

the first three should have an high DX (15?) as prerequisite

finally I'm in the camp of who thinks that a "quick draw" talent is not that useful for playing and combat balance.

Re: New Skills
 

Navigation would be useful.

Also, since we have Tactics (maybe it would sound better as Tactician?) and Strategist as a skill progression, how about we include a level above Captain, call it Commodore and Admiral, that would allow a +2 on initiative and include the ability to command a fleet?

Re: New Skills
 

I would think those would be included as a perk of having a job.

Re: New Skills
 

Artillery, for the use of VERY large crossbows (ballista) and other siege weapons, even if we don't have rules for them yet.

Re: New Skills
 

Hi Pyratejohn,

I wasn't thinking just simple membership, I was thinking ranking membership -- I'll edit the post for that. Ranking membership in an influential organization should cost at least 1 talent point to represent the work it takes to get there.

What you say makes sense with the current rules, where the only thing social talents can do, mechanically, is affect a reaction roll. Social talents in the RAW are very weak sauce.

Many of the talents I listed only make sense if there are contest rules and SJ did say that we need them:

Re: New Skills
 

Marine, gives a +1 to adjDX while fighting aboard ship.

Re: New Skills
 

True, and we do need contest rules. I did a contest in my Tollenkar game last night because it seemed like the best way to handle the situation.

Re: New Skills
 

I would observe that these are not exactly talents in the sense of things that you can learn; they might make sense if taken as initial choices, but less so if taken later.

Re: New Skills
 

The Count of Montecristo begs to differ...

Re: New Skills
 

My feeling on things like this is that if they can grant consistent mechanical advantages, they should cost points and there are usually ways to rationalize characters getting them late in the game.

Re: New Skills
 

I agree and posted earlier that I think if such a talent simply removes the need to ready a weapon, then it is mainly removing an interesting element of play for those characters.

And, I generally dislike all the things that remove elements of play. (e.g. High DX - yay, I almost always hit everyone I attack. Magic healing - poof, no one needs to rest. Magic Light or Dark Vision - poof, no one needs to worry about lighting. Magic Food - poof, no more food supply issues.) It makes improving your character make interesting parts of the game go away.

And, it shouldn't just remove all meaning from having your weapon ready or not. It should still be better to have a ready weapon than not.

Seems to me a DX penalty for attacking on the turn you fast-draw something would tend to work well. There could be levels of mastery that reduce the penalty, but I'd never have it go away entirely. Maybe start at -5 or -6 for the first level of the talent, and let people dump points into it to reduce the penalty.

Of course, there should be some consideration for the type of weapon. One or more of the classic "TFT is broken" articles was about people abusing the fast-draw ability included in Thrown Weapons to have people with many boomerangs, nets and bolas using them every turn (sigh). Can someone quick-draw a crossbow, load and shoot it in one turn? Can they fire a bow twice per turn?

Also, should the talent apply to all weapons, or do you need to train it in each weapon type, as in GURPS?

Re: New Skills
 

A new skill I'd suggest is "Riposte"

Prerequisites: Sword and Fencing

If the character with the skill chooses the "Defend" option, each time they are attacked and the attacker misses they may immediately make a counterattack, also rolling 4 dice vs DX.

This makes the idea of a skilled "counterpunching" or "counterstriking" swordsman viable (Think about Inigo Montoya vs the six-fingered man in the Princess Bride)

Re: New Skills
 

I think you're being excessively hostile here.

Re: New Skills
 

Hi Zot, everyone.
This is an interesting idea. To gain high ranks in a hierarchy, it costs you an experience 'block' to gain.

This is a bit like GURPS spending character points to gain the advantages of military rank, ecclesiastical rank, etc. (Of course, I think in GURPS if you earn it thru roleplaying, you get the advantage for free.) Perhaps if you pay an experience block, you get fast tracked for promotion? Would you have to pay 2 experience blocks to fast track to the second level, and 3 for the third level? How do you see this working?

Zot, you might want to start a new thread of other uses for experience to discuss this idea and others like it.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

>> Rick Wrote:
>> "Oh, maybe? Chris would you like to weigh in?"

Hi JLV,
No hostility was intended. I had not considered the idea that you brought up and considered it possible, (tho certainly not certain from what Chris had said). I asked Chris, and he was kind enough to clarify.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

Roger that Rick; I later read his response, which was calm and well-reasoned. And your response to same. It just seemed like you were getting very defensive there and I was concerned that we were pushing past the cooperative stage here...

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Re: New Skills
 

Actually I'm thinking it's the opposite of a fast track -- moving up in an organization (usually) takes time and effort and the talent point represents all the effort you have put into it, just like when you "spend time studying" for any other talent.

Re: New Skills
 

A lot of these would be GURPS-style advantages. And I weighed trying to add those to the system but decided "No." Or "not now," at least.

I really like advantages and disads, but every one is a new rule.

Streetwise I can definitely see.

Survival (terrain) maybe.

Heraldry, yes, but probably just in the list of mundane skills. Might be a 2-pointer.

Area Knowledge, maybe.

Artillerist, or just Gunner, makes sense, but is it worth adding when we don't have the weapons?

What about Spelunking? What might a talent by that name bring to the tble? Is it just Survival (Caves?)

----

After deep meditation and reading comments, I have slid back to the "memory limit" camp - your IQ limits the number of spells/talents you can have.

Re: New Skills
 

Hi Steve, everyone.
At least 2/3 of the TFT campaigns I've seen have some sort of house rule that makes it possible to get more talents. (Education attributes, memory = 2x IQ, memory sub-attributes, +4 memory for all characters, lowering costs of expensive talents, for example.)

You might want to consider lowering the memory cost for several or most talents.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

I really think that's a wise decision Steve. We can always have whole books worth of alternative rules later on.

Skills require memory IQ again.
 

Hi Chris, everyone.
I agree. TFT has few enough talents, that experienced figures would soon have pretty much all of the talents applicable to their 'class'. And the big trade offs (what goes in my finite memory), is lost.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

Any particular talents you feel are overpriced?

Re: New Skills
 

Would it be reasonable to allow talents beyond IQ but only after the attribute cap has been reached?

Re: New Skills
 

I did something unusual with talents that I think worked out well and others might find interesting: I use them as 'gate keepers' for characters occupying high status roles, like knighthood or membership in the nobility. There is a 'Gentry' talent that means you a member of a family that holds land in exchange for fealty to some local noble, and 'Noble' talent means you are a member of a family that rules a barony or larger territory and owes fealty only to a king or other higher ranking noble.

Re: New Skills
 

IQ should limit talents, just like spells, and just like ST limits proper use of weapons, etc. The three attributes need to say balanced or risk breaking the game.

We haven't really run into talents that are overpriced, just ones that are used more frequently than others because of the type of play we engage in. For instance, mimic or sex appeal or mechanician might be properly priced, but not more frequently taken on a one-off castle raid.

To the "problem" of feeling that one cannot create an interesting or developed character with the IQ limit and not wanting to invoke "forgetting" (which is a little clunky but really not so unrealistic), we have found that if the GM wants to design in *inherent* style talents at no cost, this is a way around this problem.

For instance, if I want to model a forest Elf in Lothlorien, I might give them silent movement, acute hearing, and missile weapons talent at no IQ cost. This is, in effect, a part of their culture from birth, and perhaps even evolutionarily predisposed skill.

One can do this with any talents, granting them as part of the character one is designing, without having to dink with nor risk unbalancing the way ST, DX, and IQ are balanced and the 3d6 with 10 average aspect of the game.

Buying talents just a bit above your IQ.
 

Hi Wayne,
I don't think so. That said...

An optional rule that I used for a while was that you could buy a talent (or spell) one IQ over your IQ, by paying double memory cost. This was prompted by a Giant character who REALLY wanted to take Tactics.

Low IQ figures have low memory, so the double cost hurts. If you think that x2 is not enough of a penalty, try x3.

Warm regards, Rick.

Price of talents
 

Hi Steve.
Most adventurers want to have a few fighting skills, (say Sword, Shield, & Running), and if they take some other talents (Thief, Detect Traps, Climbing, & Silent MA), then they are DONE. That is it. Many characters in fiction and in real life are not so limited, which explains the wide spread house rules that allow them more memory. ("All of my Elves just start with Naturalist, Woodsman and Bow. Makes sense!").

In old TFT, you could keep increasing IQ to get the memory (mIQ) to give your thief Boating, Seamanship & Swimming (a thief / pirate or some other equally exotic character class). Sure an IQ of 14 was really high for your character concept of a hard fighting, hard drinking, dimwitted, (but friendly) pirate. But you REALLY wanted your guy on a tall ship. However, in new TFT, with people limited to 40 attributes, memory is going to be even more short than in old TFT. Give up on the idea of him every buying Charisma or Sex Appeal. Your pirate would like to get Guns and Missile Weapons (assuming that works with Guns), but forget-about-it in the new TFT.

Let's say that I want to play a Arabian Nights type master merchant adventurer. What talents are appropriate? Say... Sword, Fencing, Shield, Tactics, Literacy, Business Sense, Extra language, Detection of Lies, Courtly Graces, Charisma, New Followers, Diplomacy, Riding (camel), Driver (camel), Recognize Value, Assess Value, Survival (Desert) (say the same cost as woodsman?). Several other talents would be nice, but my master merchant right now needs an IQ of 22. In real life, and in fiction, these people exist, but try to build a competent Merchant / Adventurer in the new TFT.

It wouldn't hurt my feelings if most of the TFT talents were reduced in price to 1/2 to 3/4 of their current mIQ cost.

***

I think some talents should cost 1/2 a memory. In GURPS 4th edition you sensibly got rid of 1/2 character point talents. But that is easy to do when your characters are 100 or 150 points. In TFT when players have, say, 10 mIQ to work with, 1/2 point skills make more sense.

An IQ 12 figure might be able to get 7 or 8 talents but an IQ 12 wizard could easily take 14 spells (since 3 hex fire includes 1 hex fire). So if I take Master Thief, I have to pay for Thief with separate memory (mIQ). However, if Master Thief cost 3 mIQ and included Thief, there would be a 1 mIQ net saving compared to how TFT works now.

Likewise, if you add a First Aid talent (as several people have asked for), IQ 11 Physicker (2) could include it.

***
However, you asked me if there are any particular talents which I thought were over priced. See next post.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

Here are some thoughts about several talents...

-- Languages. 1 mIQ each is too high. Many people know several languages and TFT does not handle that well. I suggest you get 2 languages per memory point.

-- Mimic: is too expensive. I've lowered it to 1 mIQ in my campaign and still no one takes it. This is a talent I would consider simply dropping.

-- Monster Followers i and ii: It has been ages since anyone took these talents. These and New Followers really need more space to describe how they work than there is room for in the Talent write ups. A lot of GM's just don't allow them. I think that they need to be supported with more rules. (I also multiply the value of the follower by the size in hexes, so a 2 hex Dire Wolf counts as two followers.)

-- Two Weapons (3): It does allow you to attack twice, but the second attack is at -4 DX. (Not like the hyper powerful Missile Weapons which gives you +3 to an attribute. And with +3 DX you likely can attack twice / turn with a bow, with +3 DX on each attack. To add insult to injury, Two Weapons requires a higher IQ than Missile Weapons.)

-- Boating: A typical human has 10 IQ. Does Boating really take up 1/10 of everything he or she can learn???

-- Horsemanship, Swimming, Climbing: Many physical skills seem to take a lot of memory. I would include Running in this, but the game effect of Running is so powerful that people are happy to pay that much.

-- Priest and Theologian: Unless these have some game effect, they are over priced. If you are intending to release a Cleric supplement that would give them holy powers their price is OK, or perhaps you could get both for 3 mIQ by including Priest in Theologian.

-- Spying: I think that this talent should be reworked. What the talent describes is not really what spies do. (And I have a hard time describing how someone can crack open a door to a lit room and not have people inside notice.) But being able to understands and use 'trade craft' is a lot easier than 3 mIQ would suggest.

-- Mundane Talents: A lot of these could be made 1/2 mIQ talents. Many of them are only for history / roleplaying effect and if they were cheaper they would be more likely picked.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

Surely that problem can be fixed by making it more expensive?

It should be rare: when someone demonstrates it their opponent should be surprised and alarmed.

Re: New Skills
 

Does that mean an IQ 11 character can have 11 talents, using the new XP talent cost system?

Or does it mean to use the original talent point system?

Re: New Skills
 

I think the IQ prereqs for the UC talents are too high.

Re: New Skills
 

After reading the other posts, it seems to me that making IQ limit the flat number of talents (IQ 11 allows 11 talents) would

• address concerns about being able to make well-rounded characters
• make IQ limit how well-rounded a character is
• keep the new XP cost for talents.

I still can't quite tell from his wording if that's Steve's intent.

Re: New Skills
 

Talents that allow a bonus attack with a primary weapon. To make whether to use this a tough decision sometimes, and to make high DX useful, make the modifier equal to his side’s initiative roll. (I like using the initiative roll this way because it means the talent will be used sometimes but maybe not always, it balances out the luck of getting a good initiative roll, and saves having to make extra rolls.)

A less powerful version might allow a bonus attack with a secondary weapon: a left-handed weapon, a kick, a trip by leg or polearm pole, a bash with a shield, a strike of the sword pommel, etc. DX modifier is initiative roll halved round down. Incidentally being punched by a character in plate armour hurts a lot more than being punched by someone unarmoured.

An extra die of defence, i.e. make them roll 4/DX instead of 3/DX. This might work against missile weapons too, it depends how cinematic you're being.

Fast Draw should be expensive enough not everyone gets it.

I think the game needs to represent the sneakiness of e.g. having a dagger hidden in your boot. This could be a talent Holdout, though I suppose there are other ways to represent it.

An effect similar to, but perhaps weaker than, Eyes Behind. Or maybe a strong and weak version of the ability.

Shield Wall allows you to lend your shield’s defence, less one, against attacks that hit certain allies. Actually it’s quite hard to write the rule as to who those allies would be, especially to handle missiles and jabs correctly. Something like this works, but it’s a bit technical, maybe there's a simpler way to do it. Figure A attacks and hits Figure B. Figure C may may use a shield to stop some of the hits, provided (a) Figure C has this talent, (b) Figure C has a shield that stops at least two hits, (c) Figure C is adjacent to Figure B, (d) Figure A is to Figure C's front, (e) Figure A is no further from Figure C than Figure A is from Figure B. The protection provided is one less than the shield's normal protection.

I don’t like it that a character who usually carries a sword but today only has a spear is so severely penalised. Heroes should generally look competent in their field, and carrying multiple weapons, expecting to switch, was a common thing to do historically. All Weapons (IQ 8; memory 1, prerequisite: 2 memory of melee weapon skills) reduces the penalty from -4 DX to -1 DX.

It’s very difficult to learn to run a small business in TFT. You end up buying Business Management, which costs a fortune, has a huge IQ requirement and seems to be mostly about defrauding people. There should be a basic skill related to accountancy, possibly something mundane.

You might need more interpersonal talents. There's one to look sexy, and one to make people like you. There isn't one to Intimidate. Or one that makes people believe you when you Persuade them it's best to stay in the barn, even if it appears to be on fire. There should be a general penalty to interpersonal attempts if you're lying (it's easier to persuade if you believe it) and a Deception talent that reduces or eliminates the penalty.

The detect lies talent of Master Thief should be spun off on its own.

A Command or Leadership talent. When your minion is not closely supervised and the GM has to roll to see if they do what they should, rather than getting lazy, confused or whatever, the minion rolls one less die against their IQ than they usually would. This would be purchased by leaders in the army, navy, merchant navy, magic foundries, business empires, nobility, etc. How this interacts with New Followers I'm not sure: technically those characters are taken over and played by the player.

I agree First Aid is needed. It could work on animals too: no need for separate talents at this level.

Archers never miss, because they have high DX for two shots a turn benefits and also get bonuses from Missile Weapons. They should miss. Rather than +3 DX consider having Missile Weapons add 1-1 damage. (It also feels more in the spirit of huge English war bows wielded by people with distorted bodies.) Two shots a turn should cost a DX penalty, rather than being free when you achieve a threshold.

Re: New Skills
 

If all they do typically is to lend color and support background stories, I'd be happy if each player could select one for free.

Re: New Skills
 

This is what I had been thinking about: Someone who knows a weapon well usually trains with a particular weapon and they don't automatically have an an advantage with all weapons even if they are similar. A talent for Weapon Expert ( weapon ) This require a minimum DX of 13 and will give the character a +3DX to hit with that particular weapon and also limit the optional rules of Aimed Shots to only those with Weapon Expert () This will replace Thrown Weapons, Missile Weapons, and Fencing. Weapon is a specific weapon like Dagger, or Rapier, or Longbow. The GM can decide if another weapon is similar enough to qualify. Each Expert(weapon) talent cost 2 points

So Expert(Dagger) gives +3DX to melee use and throwing and the Dagger Marksmanship rule and quick drawing a dagger.

Weapon Expert (Longbow) gives +3DX and allows critical aimed shots.

Weapon Expert (Rapier) gives +3DX and allows critical aimed shots ( or damage like fencing rules if simplify is desired, but not both )

But it also allows for Expert of the various hammers and axes, or pole arms, which were not there before.

Two Weapons skill could also be replaced by just requiring that two different Weapon Expert skill be needed.

Steve Jackson Games is welcome to use these ideas.


As mentioned above new talents in Streetwise, Persuasion, Intimidation, and Deception could be useful.

Re: New Skills
 

Talents that increase your adj. DX with non-missile weapons would work in a peculiar way, as most of the people experienced enough to get them wouldn't need them (note all the threads about the crisis of high DX characters!). I think if you are going to have people 'trade' talent points for melee combat abilities, the trade off should focus on: making you harder to hit (following the model of unarmed combat), doing more damage (following the models of Fencing and Unarmed Combat), or opening up new tactical or equipment options (following the model of Two Weapons and the Peculiar Weapons talents).

Re: New Skills
 

I don't think I have the time/energy available right now to properly break down and explain what I see is going on with TFT IQ / Talents / Spells, but I can't resist mentioning a few things that seem important to mention at this point:

* It seems to me that the main issue with just letting people buy as many talents as they can at a flat EP price (as SJ's previous two EP drafts did) is that it removes an important effect of the old ITL system, which is that characters can only choose a few of the specialized talents (including adding spells) before it becomes impractical due to the total memory needed. That meant that there was an important choice about what to specialize in, and even a 32-point character could have specialized talents that much more experienced characters likely might not have, etc.

* I think part (but not all) of the above problem may just be perception due to not enough experience/playtesting of what it's actually like to have to choose what to allocate EP to. There IS still a choice to make, but it's hard to get a feel for what it's like when it's 1500 EP instead of 3 memory points.

* There are several issues with the old ITL system that would be helped by dropping the memory cap at IQ. Knights needing IQ 14+, and several other reasonable character designs (including many PCs) who run out of memory seemingly too early, talents that are really gifts hogging memory (people with Acute Hearing can learn 3 IQ less?), people needing to be high-IQ just in order to be able to have some mix of talents that shouldn't need high IQ (such as physical training, gifts, and some mental talents).

* I think the best solution would be to add some other limit to solve the above problem (and the other remaining problems with Talents), rather than backing up to the old ITL memory system.

* One idea is that characters could add talents of types that can be learned with training/study, but the requirement is not IQ nor EP, but actually doing an in-game training program requiring a serious way to learn, adequate aptitude, and a serious amount of time spent training it. It would also be really helpful to have a way to think about what talents NPCs can learn and what it takes, and it'd be nice not to be able to "learn" Acute Hearing, so this sort of approach could be a win-win-win, it seems to me.


And, apparently I can't resist going on a rambling brainstorm either, so make what you will of this:

As for what Talents might be cheaper, well the problem I think is not that some are too expensive, but that TFT is so far stuck in one dimension for learning talents (which is also collapsed with the other uses/meanings of IQ). It shouldn't really be about IQ, but about fortune and opportunity and learning experiences.

Some people have Sex Appeal, Charisma, or Acute Hearing, and others don't, and only a few of the people who don't would ever be able to learn it, and it is NOT because they are "out of memory" to do so - it's because of their ears or genes or psychology or personality or genus or whatever. If anything, people with those "talents" have an easier time learning things, not a harder time, and the way to compensate is not to make them need to get higher IQ than characters who lack those gifts. (There IS a need to not have all characters have access to all talents, but the memory limit only has that result accidentally, not in a way that makes sense.)

Then there's the difference between physical and mental talents. Yes, there are some people who are mainly physical or mainly mental in their talents, but there are also people who manage to have both types, and their IQ should not need to be the sum of those - it's far too severe a trade-off, which can't be well-represented by just reducing the points needed and letting everyone take whatever they want.

Many talents take some time and opportunity and perhaps some (again, innate gift) aptitude to learn, but then don't require particular effort to maintain, nor do they fill up people's brains preventing further learning, nor does happening to have many of them mean that person needs to be above-average intelligence. Social skills, basic physical skills, languages - some of them might get rusty if you have some you don't use, but you're not going to forget how to behave, or how not to drown in water, etc.

I think part of the solution may be looking at the suggestion people sometimes make about "cultural norm" talents and assigning them zero memory to learn (the elf example above, and the several people in the previous thread where people were mentioning their own talents and assigning zero points to all their cultural-norm talents).

It seems to me what the "choice" of what talents a person has is not about memory but about opportunity. Everyone is born with different gifts and a genius but many people often don't know what their own ones are. Then we each get a family, a culture, peers, an education, and experience, and all those things can give us talents, and we can choose to maintain them or not. But it's not really like how smart we are gives us a memory pool and then we run out.

Re: New Skills
 

Something I toyed with and which might be worth exploring is preset bundles or "suites" of Talents. For example:

A typical knight would be expected to have the following Talents: Sword or Axe/Mace (2), Pole Weapons (2), Horsemanship (1), Shield (1), Literacy (1), Courtly Graces (1). These Talents would normally cost 8 points and require a minimum IQ 11.

Taken as a "suite". We might allow both the cost and min IQ requirements to be reduced. So we might say that particular suite of Talents costs 7 and has a min IQ 10. So the character can buy a bundle of Talents more easily but is much more constrained in what they can get.

Just an idea that I toyed with but never fully developed.

Re: New Skills
 

What I MEANT was your option #2. I had not even thought about #1. Now I am thinking about it. Discuss?

Two questions, two answers:

1) I don't think talents are necessarily overpriced per se; what I DO think is that some of them are excessively high in terms of IQ required to be able to take them at all.

2) I much prefer the new Talent XP cost system; but I can also see why you might be considering limiting the number of talents to the IQ level of the character. On the other hand, that drives us right back into those "forgetting spells and talents" rules, and I really never liked that system at all.

Perhaps something could be done along the same lines by saying that the new talent XP cost system remains in effect, but that a character is limited to two times his current IQ regarding the number of talents he can take. Thus, an IQ 12 person could have a total of 24 talents and/or spells -- which should both restrict the character from becoming a demi-God, and also push back the need to "forget" things for at least a while.

Re: New Skills
 

I like it. It's kind of a middle road that allows for more growth but not unlimited growth.

Re: New Skills
 

Like more than a few of you, my friends and I have been playing TFT since it first came out, lo these many moons ago. Over the years we butted up against most (if not all) of the concerns/issues that have been so thoughtfully discussed here on the forums and elsewhere. IQ bloat with talent acquisition was obviously one such conundrum.

Our "fix" for this perceived dilemma was to simply allow a character to have points of talents/spells/languages equal to half his character points round down. So a starting 32 point character would be able to take 16 points, a 36 point character would have 18 points and so on.

IQ minimums still applied (e.g. 10 for Fencing), but IQ itself was decoupled from being necessary to "remember" new talents, etc. So, for example, if a character raised his ST attribute 2 points, he could then take swimming without needing to boost IQ.

Of course YMMV, but we found this to be a simple "solution" that has served us well for decades. And with the proposed attribute cap, a character would still need to make meaningful choices when choosing initial and subsequent talents/spells/languages.

Re: New Skills
 

I like Jeff Lord's idea too.

What I really don't want to lose is the "Talents for XP" idea -- it really is an excellent system (after a couple of decades of experience playing with a very similar system) and significantly changes how players approach character development, tying it in more to the flow of the campaign itself, as opposed to merely playing the math inherent in attribute plussing.

Re: New Skills
 

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.

Mimic – yes, I agree that should be cut down in cost. Done.

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.

Two Weapons – I can see cutting that cost to 2. Heck, I fought with two weapons in the SCA, modestly well, and it did not fry my brain. I think it’s too powerful, mechanically, to cut to 1.

Boating – Rick, are you suggesting it is too trivial, in the game world, to be a talent?

Remember, “memory” is also taking in continued training time.

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

I have also cut Expert Naturalist to 2 since it has to stack on top of Naturalist.

First Aid – Does the first aid that you know take up 10% of your memory? I think that from the game standpoint I’d rather push them to spend the points on Physicker. And first aid as I learned it in the Scouts does not heal wounds, even a little – it just stabilizes the victim while the EMTs are on the way. TFT deliberately has no “bleeding out” rules, so “real” first aid is not needed anyhow.

Jeff Lord – Interesting idea.

Re: New Skills
 

Hmmm, it's hard to keep track of what is actually going on with this Talents thing, but I certainly hope we're not moving away from how this game works.

Each attribute limits/contributes about two things, as we all know.

ST is how much damage you can take and deliver, DX is when you act and how successfully, and IQ is what level and how many talents you can have based on their costs.

Dinking around with some of the costs or prereqs. based on 40 years of this game being played is perhaps justified, but I certainly hope the way all three attributes balance each other out isn't changed by changing how talents are counted up or allocated.

Just as an aside, from my own personal experience in relation to UC skills, I don't necessarily think it is currently broken by requiring higher IQ levels for the higher level skills. In all of my competing, training, and teaching I have generally seen that more moderate levels of intelligence limit the ability to reach high levels of understanding and consequently skills in martial arts. My best students and most highly skilled have almost without a doubt been in the gifted to superior levels of IQ.

Talents all cost 1 memory. Discuss?
 

Hi Steve, everyone.
What is being suggested is that all talents cost one memory (mIQ), like spells.
Some thoughts:

-- This makes heroes more balanced vs. wizards which I like.
-- Spells are balanced by minimum IQ, and fatigue ST cost.
-- Talents are currently balanced by minimum IQ and mIQ cost.

So this throws the balance of talents out of whack.

The new TFT is does not like multi class characters (like Thief AND Pirate) or (Merchant AND Adventurer), which is not fun. Let us say that there are 15 or so 'classes' you can take with talents. (e.g. Mechanicians, Healers, Thieves, Rangers, Animal Guy, Fighter / Tank, etc.) If the cost of talents are so high that all you can take is 2 or 3 fighting talents and one of these classes, that means that there are 15 characters (with minor variants) which you can aspire to in TFT.

However, if the price of talents drops to where you can take talents to make you two of these classes, then there are 15 x 14 = 210 possible characters that people could invent. There is a huge increase in the design space for heroes to grow into. In other words, there are far more ways to customize your character and make her different from Joe's character over there. This is clearly good.

Destroying the balance between talents is bad, I think. Some talents get a HUGE boost (Missile Weapons) while a lot of currently underpowered talents (Boating) are not helped at all.

However, the increased customization is worth it. Currently most TFT campaigns allow you to cheat on memory for talents one way or another. This is strong evidence that something needs to be fixed.

In other words, I think it is worth it to break the balance between talents, in order to allow people to gain more talents.

However, I think a BETTER solution would be to allow 1/2 mIQ talents, and halve the cost of most talents (Missile Weapons can still cost 3, so there can be some exceptions). That allows you to make characters who are Thieves AND Pirates and still keep balance between talents.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

Well said. I think that's pretty much in line with my own views. As regards UC, I've already made the point that I'm happy with high level skill being related to higher IQ. I know not all agree, but I'm happy with things as they stand.

Re: New Skills
 

First Aid: I'd rather that not be a Skill. As SJ said, TFT has no "bleeding out" rules, so I've always felt that it's an assumed ability. Adventures just bandage each other up as needed, but healing takes real care.

Forgetting talents.
 

Hi JLV, everyone.
I agree with you here, a lot.

In my Pirate example above, my character grew up on the docks of Port RoughAndTumble, and as a kid with Thief being able to run away was a key survival skill. Also it helped in fights as he grew old enough to use a sword. So it makes total sense that the character started with Running talent.

However, now that he is on a ship, does the 2 memory for Running really help him that much? Being able to dump the mIQ for Running to take Boating and Seamanship would help a lot to try to make a Thief & Pirate double 'class' character work in the new TFT.

Maybe Kracken can also hypnotize you and allow you to quickly forget talents? That actually would be a little bit cool. Or maybe eating a funny jelly fish will do the job. But if we are back to extremely tight memory, being able to manage the mIQ spent on talents becomes a key strategy of TFT.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

I really do not like constructions like "mIQ" or "fST." If memory or fatigue really need to be truncated, I'd prefer it was done in regular English rather than inventing more game terms.

I also do not like half-points.

Re: New Skills
 

Perhaps what we need is a different approach to languages, writing/reading (literacy) and so on. Perhaps it shouldn't be tied to talents in the same way as everything else is. Maybe, instead of IQ levels and points, it should simply cost XP to learn a new language, and more XP to learn how to read and write that language. After all, even people of less than standard intelligence can learn to speak a native tongue, and several that I have known personally could speak more than one language, even if they were "illiterate" in the language. This would also allow you to differentiate the languages by type -- so learning to be literate in Mandarin Chinese might cost substantially more than learning to be literate in Russian would (for example). If you DO want to keep it tied to IQ in general terms, make learning to SPEAK a language an IQ 7 or 8 task, and LITERACY (by language) an IQ 9 or 10 task. Then, just vary the language/lieracy cost in XP based on the difficulty of the language (e.g., Sorcerer's Tongue is harder to learn than Common Speech is, and literacy for Sorcerer's Tongue is harder than literacy for Common as well).

YES. Frankly I don't believe I've EVER had a player take Monster Followers (and I think, in the past 38 years, only one has taken New Followers). I think part of the problem is that no one was sure how to play them or wanted to devote the time to figuring it out (as opposed to fighting and casting spells). I think putting it together in either a Bestiary or in an entirely separate splat book would be a GREAT idea -- since it would both better explain the skills, allow you the opportunity to provide various examples of the talents in use, and tie them directly into a series of creatures who could be best associated with the skills. So, from my perspective, removing them from ITL and replacing them with other, more user-friendly things, and then bringing them back either within a Bestiary or their own splat-book would be an ideal solution.

I do want to hastily offer a somewhat different perspective on this as food for thought; believe it or not, there ARE people out there who literally CANNOT handle two weapons simultaneously, no matter how much training they receive. I'm one of them. I simply cannot wrap my head around using my off hand independently of my dominant hand. It just doesn't work for me. I have excellent hand-eye coordination, and extremely fast reflexes (heck, I flew search and rescue helicopters for a living), but I still can't use two weapons properly under any circumstances -- and believe me, I tried to learn how to do this in both fencing and martial arts. I don't know if this in any way would modify your thoughts on this, but I offer it up as a point for consideration.

Hmm. Part of the problem here is that learning a martial art isn't a straightforward training process the way learning how to box, or learning how to fence is. It's more a process of internalizing a mind-set than purely a process of learning moves by rote until they become "instinctual." I'm not saying that you have to accept the "philosophy" behind a martial art in order to properly use that martial art, but you do have to wrap your mind around a subtly different approach to the problem of combat than is common in western styles of fighting. Because of that, there IS a bit more to them than simply training your muscles to move in the proper fashion. On the other hand, you certainly don't have to be an Einstein to learn them; even quite average people have the capacity to learn them.

Again, maybe this is an area where varying the XP required to learn them is a more effective approach than placing them in the upper reaches of IQ -- maybe UC-V is an IQ 11 or 12 skill, but it takes five times as many XP to learn as would be indicated by its normal number of "talent points." I think something like that would be a better reflection of what actually goes on, than simply requiring someone to be a genius to learn the skills -- it takes time, not brain cells.

memory is based on attribute total & XP buys talents.
 

Hi Jeff, JLV, everyone.
Jeff, this is a solution for tight memory IQ slots (mIQ) which I've not seen before. In a strange way it makes sense to me. If I get stronger, then I have an easier time learning Warrior / Veteran / Campaigner. If I get more dexterous, then I have an easier time learning Swimming or Fencing.

JLV, two months ago, the idea of buying talents with experience (XP) would have seemed very alien to me. But after a month or so of thinking about the new TFT working this way, I am finding I agree with you.

The new TFT has a very tight number of attributes that you can buy. So when you have maxed out that character, what does he spend XP on? It pretty much has to be talents and spells, right? The way I see the new TFT working, is that the XP spent on a talent or spell, REPLACES the rules for studying spells or talents. "You have spent 1000 XP on Chemist? Well obviously you have been studying it for a long time!"

So I don't think that this new mechanic will go away.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: New Skills
 

Thinking further on this, I don't really want any skills - even if they already exist in the game - that fall into one of these two broad categories:

GENERAL KNOWLEDGE: Running, First Aid, Cooking, etc. These are things any adventurer in TFT should know, and don't need to appear on character sheets.

PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE: Seamanship, Accounting, Administration, etc. If a character has a job, then anything related to that job that has no general use in combat should be assumed as being known.

Basically, I don't want to see characters being hobbled by having to take skills that have no important game effect.

terminology and 1/2 memory talents.
 

Hi ColBosch,
The word 'memory' has a lot of meaning and connotations in English, but when I use mIQ, I am speaking specifically to the TFT game idea that you have your IQ worth of memory slots to use for your character. Thus the terminology is precise and it needs only 3 characters to convey that idea.

(I've used mIQ for years in my campaign so it looks natural to me.) So I won't stop using it, but if it is any consolation to you, I doubt it will be used in the new TFT.

I think that the price of talents are too high. Most TFT campaigns have some rule or other that allows people to 'cheat' a bit (or a lot) on talents. Now if Steve really does not want to have 1/2 point talents, he could get rid of a few (maybe move Boating into Seamanship for example). But that will only get him so far.

Unless he wants to do some pretty major revisions to how he handles lower memory cost talents, I think this is something he has to consider.

Warm regards, Rick.

Re: memory is based on attribute total & XP buys talents.
 

Rick, to my mind, that's EXACTLY right -- plus it has the advantage of removing a metric ton of paperwork from the players (not having to track what talents they are learning) AND removing that punishing 1000XP penalty for changing your mind about what you're studying. All of which vastly simplifies both the players' and the GM's lives! ;-)

Re: New Skills
 

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.

Also, just as an athlete might do training for marathons and endurance tests of all sorts, I'd pictured a talent of Psychic Endurance. I think it'd look something like this:

PSYCHIC ENDURANCE(3) - When a wizard spends ST to pay the continuation cost of a spell, the PSYCHIC ENDURANCE skill allows them to power the spell for 2 turns instead of the normal one turn.

It goes to follow that if a Wizard could specialize in a particular type of spell and condition himself to be more equipped for the continued drain of ST for spells, he might also be able to learn how to recover more quickly:

MEDITATION(2) - When a Wizard with the MEDITATION talent rests specifically to regain ST lost to casting spells, they are able to recover double the normal amount of ST in the same amount of time. For every 15 minutes of rest, 2 ST points are recovered. MEDITATION can in no way recover ST lost from wounds.

EXPERT MEDITATION(3) - Prerequisite: the MEDITATION talent. When a Wizard with the EXPERT MEDITATION talent rests specifically to regain ST lost to casting spells, they are able to recover triple the normal amount of ST in the same amount of time. For every 15 minutes of rest, 3 ST points are recovered. This is NOT cumulative with the MEDITATION talent. EXPERT MEDITATION can in no way recover ST lost from wounds.

Re: Talents all cost 1 memory. Discuss?
 

I want talking about canging 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.