Racial experence modifiers
 

For anybody who doesn't see Reptile Men as nature's ninja... (With a rework)

First change the exp progression to this: It costs a character 100 XP to raise his first attribute point by one over his starting stats. Each additional point costs 100 XP more than the previous. So the second attribute point costs 200 XP and the third 300 XP and so on. Knowledge slot cost remains a flat 500 XP.

Reptile men, Gargoyles and Giants grow stronger as they age, but only a rare few are skillful. Reptile men and Gargoyles pay half of the normal XP cost to raise their ST by a point, but they pay 100 XP more than humans would to raise the DX or IQ. Knowledge slots cost them 1000 XP each. Giants are the same, but their cost to raise ST is a third of what humans would pay.

Example: A Gargoyle hero first spends 200 (instead of 100) XP to raise his DX from 11 to 12. Then he spends 300 (instead of 200) XP to raise his IQ from 8 to 9. Then he spends 150 (instead of 300) XP to raise his ST from 13 to 14. Finally he spends 3000 XP (three slots times 1000 XP each) to learn the Turn Missiles spell.

Halflings pay double XP cost to raise ST but it costs them only 400 experience to buy knowledge slots for DX based talents. (Halfling wizards still require double slots to buy most talents, but they get a break on the cost for each slot.) Hardy types, they generally roll one less die on ST-based saving rolls to resist poisons, the elements and such.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

This system was at least implied in the original TFT, when it suggested that Elves and Dwarves only accumulated XP at half speed since they lived so long. That implied (at least to me) that lots of tweaking could be done in how much attributes cost and how quickly XP were accumulated on a race-by-race basis. Under the new rules, it could also affect how new talents/spells are learned (by varying the cost of each in relation to that particular creature type).

I think what we need is a general rule on this topic.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

On Giants...
and...
If you max-out the Giants DX and IQ first, you'll have 36 points. After that, you'll have to spend XP on ST, talents/spells, or the other misc. uses. This doesn't seem to require any special XP rules to me. I would assume an ST40 giant is QUITE old in human years. I don't see any need to create special XP rules for any of the races mentioned so far.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

On second thought, I can see problems once they reach the 40th stat level if you use the official XP costs for raising stats. I was planning on using these XP costs though (for all races/characters)...

Added attribute point / XP cost
33 / 200
34 / 400
35 / 600
36 / 800
37 / 1200
38 / 2000
39 / 3000
40th and after costs 5000


Talent(1) costs 400XP
Talent(2) costs 800XP
Talent(3) costs 1200XP

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

I tend to define every race's usual and exceptional ranges, and what it takes for them to improve, in crunchy detail, but then, I'm a crunch-loving GURPS GM.

But even in TFT trying to keep things light, I think there's a major need for more attention than is in the new ITL, especially since the only experience curve given is based on going from 32 to 40 as a human, and because there are new 32-point listings for reptile men and gargoyles (whose average NPC members are 35 to 39 points).

i.e. we've got:
Humans/Orcs/Elves/Dwarves: 32 PC, 30 average
Halflings: 30 PC, unknown average - 28?
Goblins: 32 new PC, was 30 PC - unknown average - 28?
Hobgoblins: new (PC?) 28, used to be 26 - unknown average - 26? 28?
Gargoyles: 32 new PC, was 35, 39 average (q.v. spell, Melee)
Reptile Men: 32 new PC, was 38, unknown average - 36?

Also consider that in original TFT, Gargoyles and Reptile Men (and also Giants and Centaurs, which I'm ignoring for now for sake of simplicity and because I'd use more-different systems for them) paid double experience to improve, back in the old TFT EP system, which was much flatter and allowed near-indefinite improvement with enough EP.

Also notice that gargoyles have a hard IQ cap at 10, and giants have a hard DX and IQ cap at 10.

I think that I'm not too worried about halflings, goblins or hobgoblins, but I would tend to want to adjust the attribute/XP scale for them so that their difference from humans doesn't vanish down to essentially the lowest cost to advance an attribute, twice - especially with the PDF preview's setting of 100 XP for that - that makes halflings get a 2-point talent (thrown weapons) which would cost 1000XP to learn, for starting with two less attributes - but if they can buy both of those for 100 XP each, that seems like a silly good deal to me and fails to meaningfully not be like humans with benefits for a temporary reduction in attributes.

But that points out that the current XP table also seems way too shallow at the start and way too deep at the end, to me. I'm going to ignore that for now. (i.e. I prefer Platimus' table above, and even more prefer Steve's previous table which was:
100
300
700
1500
2700
4300
6300
9300
though I'd let it go over 40.

So for haflings or hobgoblins, and perhaps for goblins, to keep them adjusted down a bit, I would say their XP table should be read with a 2-point racial offset.

I'd say gargoyles and reptile men should get a similar positive offset, but that it should probably be at least doubled in cost (as in original TFT), and that they also want a mechanism to counter the natural temptation to pile their points into DX since they have plenty of ST. That could be done with a cost multiplier for raising DX (maybe both can raise ST normally, but DX or IQ costs 2-4 times as much?).

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

I think my minor adjustment of the XP/stat progression table is enough if you consider/assume that most/all of the races you're worried about live at least twice as long as humans (and, therefore, get more "life-time" to earn XP to buy those higher stats). If you start making it easier/faster for various races to progress, you're upsetting the balance and showing favoritism. IRL, that's called racism. I question the morality of this in the real world and the game world.

I think Steve already did a good job of describing what was "normal" and "maximum" for these races in ITL.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

Racism is about heritage of humans.

Giants and Reptile men and Gargoyles and hobgoblins are subjectively different sizes and are different in other ways. It has zero to do with racism.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

My last post probably came across as WAY more harsh than intended but the idea of making XP costs significantly cheaper for certain races does not appeal to me at all. It doesn't seem fair or balanced. I'm sorry if I've spoiled the fun by using the R-word.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

Ok no worries on that, but I think also I wrote a post with several separate ideas and it may not have been clear what I meant.

I'm not sure what specific points you agreed or disagreed with, or if you followed what I meant.

That is, you wrote: I suppose you mean that you think if we use your table it will mitigate the issues with halflings & hobgoblins zooming to catch up with humans, since your cost for attributes up to 33 is 200XP rather than 100XP? And, that it's ok if a 32-point gargoyle or reptile somehow also coincidentally (but really for "fairness") progresses at the same rate as humans in terms of attributes, because they live twice as long, so they'll have longer to reach their prime, and your table flattens out at the end rather than doubling towards infinity with every point like the one in the preview PDF?

Assuming that's what you meant, we could check the numbers and see how it looks.

I notice in considering this, that it seems like the new ITL somehow jettisoned the mention of some races living longer than others.

Checking original ITL page 32, the listed races did not include gargoyles, BTW, but they did include Reptile Men, Elves, Giants and Centaurs. It was NOT the same list as the list of races which had to pay double EP to increase attributes, however.

The rule on EXPERIENCE POINTS FOR VERY POWERFUL RACES on original ITL page 10 did list Gargoyles, and Reptile Men, Giants and Centaurs, but not Elves, because the reason was about their high attribute totals.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

Skarg,
The post of mine that you just quoted was aimed mostly at the OP that says:
Regarding your post:
I agree with the part in bold. I don't understand that whole paragraph but it sounded like you wanted make stat advancement slightly touger (at least in the beginning) for them, mainly because of your take on Halflings getting "Thrown Weapons" for free.

I'm not sure what was intended with halflings "automatically have the Thrown Weapons talent" but my ruling there is that it is NOT free. It takes up one of their starting talent slots. Therefore, I feel no need to adjust the XP/stat cost scale just for them.

Also, I took the following as an argument from you against halving XP costs for Giants, Reptile Men, etc. (as the OP suggested)
And I agreed with that also.

Bottomline: I see no need to adjust XP costs on a racial basis but do see a benefit (for all races) in adjusting the XP costs the way I have. And I may change my numbers a bit but I think what I listed is pretty close to what I will end up using.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

Is anybody advocating for giants and gargoyles that pay a lot to advance their ST stats? If so would you at least grant them (and shudder Dragons) bonus ST on their birthdays or something?

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

I'm not advocating for anyone to pay more than others. Neither am I advocating for anyone to pay less than others. I think the costs should be the same for all PCs but I do think the new ITL listed costs need some tweaking to be fair to all.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

Making a giant pay just as much to add a point of ST as a point of IQ doesn't agree with the background material that sees giants improving in ST much more often than IQ.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

The background material (new ITL) caps Giants at 10 for DX and IQ. If you assume Giants live at least twice as long as humans (and lower those XP costs for all PCs at the 40th and higher stats), Giants have plenty of opportunity to reach their ST40 max.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

A human fighter generally adds one extra point of damage per point of added ST, by trading in for the next larger sword or whatever.

A giant averages around one point of damage for every three added points of ST. Hence make giant ST increases a third the cost and raise their other costs for balance and flavor.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

High ST gives other bonuses, but if high ST doesn't seem worth its cost, shouldn't that be solved by making high ST worth its cost?

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

Agreed. And to me, it already is since that's basically your Life and your resistance to things like poisons, etc.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

That seems to be what new ITL is attempting, but I think it undermines the consistency, especially if there continues to be a lack of information about what the normal ranges for NPC figures of those races are supposed to generally be like, and how quickly they generally improve. To me, this makes "equality between PCs regardless of whether they're supposed to be a giant" overpower consistency.

And personally, I care very little about "equality between PCs", especially on an attribute total basis when you mix humans with giants and gargoyles and Reptile Men. I do very much care about having a game where such very different creatures are in fact very different, and the rules try to model the differences in ways that try to represent those differences accurately. If the only way to play a huge reptile man is to play one with attribute totals equal to a human "for fairness", that's not providing a way to play a giant reptile man.

I far prefer the old "IF the GM allows Reptile Man PCs, here are the stats for a Reptile Man" to "here are stats for a PC Reptile Man - oh look, another 32-point character" especially when it comes with "stats for typical Reptile Men are never mentioned anywhere". I don't mind at all it providing for GM's who want to let PCs play 32-point Reptile Men, but to play the sort of world-consistent game I would want, I need to know not only the average adult stats for one, but what the development rate/curve is like, so I can provide a roleplaying experience of being one of those Reptile Men, not the same experience as a human who was polymorphed into a Reptile Man and is limited to the human growth curve for meta-magical (but really "all players should be equal in points to be fair" logic that I have little/no interest in) reasons.

The Giant case is even more off, and is a unique case where new ITL does give the typical NPC stat range as well as a non-32-point starting point: ST 25 DX 9 IQ 7 (the lowest stats listed as normal for giants), which comes to 41 points total. This is exactly as it was in old ITL.

For giant use of experience, old ITL doubled the cost shown on the same table, so 2000 old EP to gain +1. New ITL tries the same thing (minus the mention of doubled costs), but of course it has a doubling scale, so a new ITL giant as written has little chance to ever add more than a point or two at most. Your new table would set it to 5000 XP, which puts it somewhat like the old ITL boat. To me, this is semi-ok for giants using your costs, but really is missing what I'd want, which is more information about how NPC giants generally improve, assuming they do, and at what rates. Do ST 25 giants ever become ST 40 giants, and if so how long does that take them, and what does it involve? Ideally I would want to give a similar rate or even experience to PCs, because it's self-consistent.

I'd want the same sort of information about Reptile Men and Gargoyles - what are their typical high & low stat ranges for exceptional adults, and how long does it take for these (young?) 32-point examples to mature to normal ranges, and how long for the above-average examples to reach those levels. That's what I'd want to base Reptile/Gargoyle/all PC development on, too. And even if I didn't want that for PCs, I'd still want that information for statting and developing the NPCs in the world.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

I think keeping in the spirit of the minimalist nature of ITL what needed for any of the sentient culture forming races is are the stats for a novice, the average (which most have already), and the experienced leaders.

I think trying to take it a step further and establish a biology is overkill. How long I think a giant needs to take go from novice to average to leader may be different than how you think of it. While the foremention we both equally find useful irregardless of how we view giants.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

As for the OP, the design of treating all starting character types is flawed. It works and make sense for Human, Elves, and Dwarves who have the same totals at start but vary the starting levels for ST, DX, and IQ.

To me I have to ask what the point of the XP system among different character type? Is the broad idea that everybody irregardless of starting points has the same point total if they have 10,000 xp. Or the broad idea that 10,000 xp add on top of what the character starts at.

From working with classic D&D for my Majestic Wilderlands accounting for the difference in power between character races is needed but only to a point. A very minimal point.

It seems to me that using point total irregardless of starting total is artificial limitation imposed in an attempt to balance for the higher starting total. And it causing all kinds of side effects. I am not a fan of artificial balance mechanism like D&D's level caps.

What I would recommend is that Total Points should be relative to your starting total along with attribute exception. So the xp chart should start at 1. not 33.

Looking at things I don't see the problem with a giant with 6,400 xp starting with ST 25, DX 9, IQ 7 Cap of 10 on DX, IQ having 8 extra attributes. It would be a Giant with ST 33, DX 9, IQ 7 to a Giant with ST 29, DX 10, IQ 10.

You could tweak it from there by saying something like every increase in Strength is only 1/2 XP (or some other factor) if you think a Giant with 6,400xp should have a higher strength.

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

After giving up trying to decipher some posts here, I see A problem now. Maybe this is what some of these posts have been about.

For example, Giants start with ST25 DX9 IQ7 and no discetionary points. Giants start with a 41 point total. If you use Steve's stat/XP progression table, Giants will indeed find it nearly impossible to "grow" stat-wise. And, yes, this is a HUGE problem that should be brought to Steve's attention and hopefully fixed before going to print (if it's not too late). If I had seen this earlier, I would have posted it in the Errata thread. If you use the progression rate AS WRITTEN, you can save thousands of XP by starting with a race that starts with a total lower than 32 (like a Halfling/30-points). I have a feeling someone else will have better luck pointing this out to Steve than I will.

I think this is one of the things Mr. Conely tried to remedy in one of his posts. Here, I will keep Steve's progression rate but relabel it to be more appropriate for all races:

XP cost / Stat increase
100 / 1st and 2nd
200 / 3rd
400 / 4th
800 / 5th
1600/ 6th
3200/ 7th
6400/ 8th
double cost each time 9th and later

Now, I will substitute Steve's cost with my own:

200 / 1st
400 / 2nd
600 / 3rd
800 / 4th
1200/ 5th
2000/ 6th
3000/ 7th
5000/ 8th and later

Re: Racial experence modifiers
 

Yes, those issues are part of what I was talking about.