Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

With a normal 32 point character you can't start with DX 14 and IQ 13. You need a 35 point character to even get to ST 8, DX 14, IQ 13. Not so bad, you game for four to ten nights, get your 400 xp, and voila!

Not quite. If you had started with a very talented or somewhat experienced character you could be a master at 35 points. But since you started with a 32 point character, you can't buy the mastery talent from the start. Neither can you save IQ talents points by not using them at character creation, as far as I can see. There are no Study talents as in the first edition either. You will have to buy the talent at full talent cost, no matter what. Even if you start with an IQ of 13, you can't buy the talent, even though it doesn't work until you get DX 14, you can't even buy it without DX 14. So not only do you need to get to 35 points, that is 400 xp, you also have to invest 1500 extra xp for the talent itself.

So there is a huge difference between starting with a 35 point character and getting there from a 32 point character.

Is there a rule for saving unspent IQ talent points, that you can activate later on when you meet the prereqs? Or is there another way, bar magic stat boosting items that you can have from the start on a more or less permanent basis to get around the DX prereq?

Waiting for 400 xp is ok for most players, but 1900 xp just to be able to stab someone with a dagger is kind of expensive. Especially since a person that spent that XP on more attributes would be close to a 38 point character! And since we have proven that mastery isn't OP, by way of simulations, a 2,5 attribute point penalty will make it very sub par. Unless you start as a 35 point character, or you are allowed to save talent points at the start, then it is balanced.

Thoughts or links to this conundrum being discussed earlier would be nice? This is not quite the same problem as someone starting with a high IQ and by doing that gets bonus XP compared to the same build at higher levels where the IQ was bought later.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Two other options are open to you:
- Start with 35 (or more) point PC's
- Use the rules for flaws in the TFT Companion, which grant you extra starting stat points in exchange for various disabilities and personality defects

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

It's supposed to be more than kind of expensive. It's supposed to be the sort of talent only some of the best and best trained warriors in the setting have, and many of them may not have.

Weapon Mastery isn't supposed to be balanced to make it an equally viable and available choice for beginning or moderate characters.


This seems to me like a perspective coming from other games where the expectation is that most or all of the abilities are things a player should be expected to be able to start as a novice and survive to achieve in a relatively short period of time.

It seems to me that the new advanced weapon talents were added to the game to be interesting alternatives to raising attributes once a very experienced character started getting to around 38 character points. That is, not a thing a character can rush to get at 35 points, or else instead you get weird relatively inexperienced low-ST "masters" who have nothing else to learn about weapon talents.

And in practice, a ST 8 DX 14 fighter is a pretty feeble fighter. In typical original TFT adventures, he's not liable to gain much real fighting experience without getting killed unless he's being greatly assisted by a better fighters or a GM who never pits him against practically any serious situation. If he keeps putting points into IQ rather than ST, that situation is going to be prolonged.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

As presented in the new rules, Weapon Mastery (and UC V) seems intended as a pinnacle talent meaning that it won't typically be achievable until a character nears the top end of his stat potential... unless you are satisfied with being limited to mastery of a dagger only.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

I take the question as not limited just to weapon mastery, but to higher IQ talents in general.

Not as far as I can see either, but this seems very reasonable even for RAW, yet with planning would allow easier progress into higher IQ talents.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

BTW, under the old system, this was a very common occurance. You had to save up IQ for the more costly talents and in fact, I remember saving a couple during character creation so that I had a jump on picking up Fencing or some other key talent. That was one of the aspects that I really enjoyed about TFT... the planning that went into character advancement.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Larsdangly, I absolutely agree that starting as a 35 point character is an alternative, but it is kind of strange that a player that starts at 35 points have many more options than a 32 point character that advances up to 35 points. I would almost expect it to be the other way around.

Handicap points are a very valid alternative to get around the problem, even if it doesn't fix it. :-)

But still, it is awkward and clunky. It would be smoother if it didn't matter much in which order you got to ST 10, DX 14, IQ 13 and a weapon mastery talent. In most game systems the order would not be relevant, the total xp needed would usually be the same.

Skarg, when I say it is balanced I mean that if I make different fighters with a 39 point total, there are top contenders with mastery and there are those with just expertise, and probably even a non-expert build in there too. I was surprised by how balanced it was. Sure the different builds performed somewhat different against different opposition and a greatsword wielder with high DX and low IQ had advantages like sweeping attacks, and mastery fighters with shield mastery had better defense against many opponents, and so on. But they are balanced. So there is no need to make mastery the "ultimate" reward for an advanced character. Just like you can start with ST 16, DX8 and IQ 8. Not the best build but it works and you can have the "ultimate" ST from the start. If you want to that is.

As it stands now, weapon mastery is not worth it. The extra glitchy XP cost is to steep, better to stay an expert (that you bought from the start) and invest in better attributes if you want to be a badass. And I don't complain about the cost. I am not a munchkin that wants to get it all after five evenings of gaming. I complain that the system is slightly illogical and not consistent. I wouldn't complain if the mastery was slightly better and had higher prereqs. since that would be balanced too. It is the strange fixed cost of talents. Combined with an exponential XP system. Combined with IQ that gives extra talents from start, but not later on. And the fact that you can't save up talent points or buy a talent that you don't have the ST or DX prereqs. for (but later on when you do fulfill the prereqs. you can start using them).

An ST 8 fighter is pretty feeble, I agree, but then again Arya with her Needle comes to mind. And she seems to be doing ok for her self. Or any other kind of back-stabbing rogue build (with Shrewd and maybe even two attacks with a back bonus). Or you could use a rapier with a negative modifier that you compensate for with magic or a finely crafted blade and so on. Such a build wouldn't top the lists but would be a strange alternative like the ST16 fighter above. And I don't want it working from character creation necessarily, I just want to be able to get it in a logical manner. I might even put in a house rule for an even higher level of mastery, just like UC got five levels. But if only a 40 point character can get those it shouldn't matter how they got to 40 points or in which order they took the talents or attribute advancements. The order of advancement didn't use to matter in the old version.

TippetsTX, I liked the study system too, and the fact that you got talents both for starting IQ and later IQ increases and could leave a few points unspent and spend them later once you had the prereqs. I think this is my main concern.

And yes RobW it is a more general question, but the more prereqs. that is needed the more strange it gets. Most talents with just IQ prereqs. can be taken from the start and doing so circumvent the problem, but it's no fun when everyone tries to start their character at their goal IQ instead of IQ being an attribute that increases over time like the others. As a GM I would even go so far as to recommend new players in a long campaign to get Master Physicker from start, or at least the IQ for it, if they planned on getting that talent later, instead of beginning with standard Physicker, IQ 11 and increase IQ with XP. If I didn't warn them they might get a little ****** off when they realized they just ditched 1500 XP for no good reason.

I think I will go with the possibility to save talent points in the form of Study Talents combined with the house rule of IQ increases also giving you talent points. I don't think that adjustment would be game breaking in any way.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Maybe, but the need I see is more about what those talents represent than strictly the balance. I don't think figures with relatively low XP should be able to start with or rush to get those talents, and those characters tend to look to me like the weird by-products of trying to game the system to get the best talents as early as possible, rather than characters that seem to make sense to me.


I agree that the talents should be carefully developed and tested so that they make the most sense and work well, and I have not played with them enough to be sure. but my impression is that they have some issues, yes. They offer a range of unique abilities in one talent, and have IQ and DX requirements, and the "shrewd" attacks involve a DX penalty, making the whole situation rather complex to analyze. Certainly though there are some characters who would find it worth it (those who already have the prerequisites for other reasons, and who have enough attributes that the cost of raising those it quite high as an alternative thing to do with XP). So for some range of characters (perhaps a small one), I think they are a good choice.

I'm pretty sure those talents could profit from a lot more testing and tweaking, but at this point, this thread is really probably something that should be in the House Rules sub forum.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

But that is just it, the rules as they stand now, encourage you to game the system by getting IQ talents from start instead of earning them. In short, you get a bonus of 500xp for every talent you buy up front compared to buying them later. And since there is no real difference between different kinds of attributes DX is as much about Skill development as IQ, for those talents or weapons that roll against that attribute. And a fighter being a Conan from the start or a genius with good training is pretty much equal in my eyes, and it is equal according to XP progression, except for you losing out on XP if you go with one and not the other first. The super experienced person is the one with a huge number of talents more than their IQ. And if you get the "best" talents from the start you will miss out on other talents and be less effective in a fight or physical areas or magic, etc. They are all good trade-offs.


I agree that we are touching on the House Rules sub-forum, but this is kind of a central glitch in the XP system.
And I agree 100% that weapon mastery is mostly for those builds that goes the IQ route. Because they want other complex talents or it fits their character concept. This is what I love about TFT, you can make an ST-fighter, a DX-fighter a DX+IQ fighter or even a ST+IQ fighter with a BLOB build, and not only an ST+DX fighter. All different, all fun. Usually, different system only allows one attribute build, or maybe STR or DEX, but seldom a fun combination. And we got three relevant attributes that can be mixed back and forth for different flavors of a character.

I don't see Weapon Mastery as the pinnacle of fighting prowess over all, but rather the pinnacle of a specific build (DX+IQ) that makes different IQ builds viable, which they weren't in the first edition. A choice, not something better, but different. More costly, yes, but you also get access to other talents, but also less HP, etc. Balanced overall, except for those lost 1500 XP. :-)
But enough of this. I will allow handicaps (optional rule), saved talent points (rule interpretation) and maybe even the extra talents for IQ increases (and call it RAI - even though it is not, but should have been. :-) )
Play on!

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

I quite agree with you on this and some of the other things you just posted (except for the parts I colored yellow, which I don't understand what you mean, but probably doesn't matter).

However it seems to me that is a core problem with only listing 500 XP per talent point as the only way to learn talents and spells. (My house rule solution is to keep the old TFT way of learning talents/spells, and adding more, similar to what you just suggested.) There are multiple threads about this in the House Rule subforum, where this thread probably belongs.

That is, I don't think it's just about Weapon Mastery - it's about the apparent RAW cost in Legacy edition of learning new talents.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

I have a very 'game-ist' perspective on all this, and it leaves me feeling not bothered at all about the various trade offs. You get pre-rewarded for investing in IQ at the start because those are the conditions of the game - they are part of what invests the IQ score with value when you create a character. I find it very telling that basically no one takes maximum advantage of this because they realize that the resulting characters couldn't do anything in play and would get killed. Who out there is really writing up IQ 14-16 heroes? I certainly haven't seen any discussed here or run into one in play. At most, this advantage of early investment in IQ is a motivator to create heroes in the 10-11 range instead of the 8-9 range. And once a character enters play, the 500 XP per talent point cost is just a fact of life for you to navigate as your character gradually gets stronger during their career.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

additional I agree. I think the new XP system works fine. Heck we all would like lower XP costs for attributes and talents, it has worked pretty good for the players in our campaign so far.

I joined a campaign back in October last year. I started out with a ST11, DX11, IQ10 character. As he gained experience I added DX, then ST, then more DX, and finally more IQ. I wanted to add talents of toughness and weapon mastery. Right now my PC is saving up the XP to get the weapon mastery.

You can't, as the song goes, get everything you want, but will patience and a little luck you can get all you need.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

It is not about getting a lower XP cost, I would be fine playing in a game that gives out 25XP per night or 100XP per night. That is a choice of progression speed. But the glitch in the system is making it extremely attractive to start with your final IQ on your char. And that doesn't feel right to me. If I intend to end up with ST14 or DX14 I don't have to start with that, but if I plan on having IQ14 someday, it would be very suboptimal to start with anything but IQ14.

Sure it would make for a one-sided character, but since we have a set XP level per night, we just have to be very careful the first few nights. Once we get a couple of hundred XP and two more attribute points, I would basically have 1000 more Xp than the others?!? And if I actually use that IQ to solve mysteries, avoid combat, use talents, etc, I would be of use to the group in the meantime. I can see no reason why this should be.

And Skarg, about that yellow line. What I tried to say is that improving DX is just as important for a DX based talent as improving IQ and get the second level of said talent. There is very little difference between a fighter that invest in more ST or DX compared to an IQ increase and an expertise or mastery talent. So when we talk about a top "ability" we must discuss all attributes involved. Even when you lack a talent you can usually try it with a -4 on DX or an extra die or two. Which means a high DX guy is just as skilled as a talented guy. So either you start with the technical training or you are all around experience or gifted. The result can often be the same.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

I'm not convinced. It seems to me that to refer to something that someone doesn't like, or finds awkward somehow, as a "rules glitch" is to overstate the case. If folks don't like the rule, change it; that's fine and I will never argue against that -- but I think the rule as written is just fine too.

The entire game is about trade-offs and this is just another among many...

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

My point was just that there aren't any of these IQ 14 heroes kicking around my table. Actually, that isn't entirely fair: I wrote up an IQ 14 hero as a sort of side kick in my party. He is tons of fun because he's an extreme character and knows and does things other characters won't. But he's completely useless as an adventurer and I'm sure he'll be dead soon. If anything, the experience playing him strengthens my conviction that this is not really a problem in the game's design.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

High-IQ starting characters are just the most extreme examples of the problem. Their extremity or fragility doesn't make the issue go away. The size of the balance shift to IQ is very large, even for the more moderate examples.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

I still don't get it. Either you want to pump an inordinately big number of stat points into IQ when you first create a player character (like, a real one you intend to play), or you don't. The rules can't penalize you for starting with low IQ if you looked at them and decided that is what you preferred.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Only if you never intend to raise your IQ.

I don't know why this isn't more obvious to people familiar with TFT.

I could make a some examples, but I'm loathe to post such to the main forum here because I think it might do more damage as spoilers to new players and encouragement to abuse the rules.

Instead, I'll try to enumerate some points:

* Low IQ not only reduces the number of talents/spells a starting character gets by 1 per, but it also prevents taking higher-IQ talents/spells.

* Any talent/spell point that a character ends up learning after creation in the seeming RAW takes 500 XP.

* 400 XP is the cost for a 32-point character to gain +3 attribute points, raising them to the point where they (if well designed/played) can/will be superior to 32-point characters and (if the GM complies with the 32-points is above average for the population) most people in the game world. So it takes that much experience to learn one trivial 1-point talent.

* There are several valuable talents many adventurers could put to great use even at IQ 9, not to mention higher levels of IQ.

* Therefore, if you consider a 33-point IQ 9 character with some of those talents, he could either have started as a 32-point IQ 9 character with many of those talents already known for free, or, if he had started as a 32-point IQ 8 character, in order to get those same talents after creation, he'd need not only to increase his IQ to 9 (which is all it would take plus some study time in original TFT), but he would need to spend 500 XP per point, which could easily add up to 1000, 2500, 3500 or even more XP to learn those talents after creation, which were free to the character who started at IQ 9.

How to optimize your character
 

How to optimize your character

Look at the XP progression chart, and the amount of XP usually given out in your group per evening of play. Then it is easy to see where on the XP chart you think attributes will be so expensive that they are not really a realistic option.

Let's say that you get 50 XP per night in your playgroup.
And you play once every two weeks.

That is 200 XP per month. This is the attribute progression:
34 1 month
35 2 month
36 3.5 month
37 6.5 month
38 1 year.
39 1.5 years
40 3 years
41 6 years...

Let's say that you think the campaign will probably last a year but if it lasts more than 3 it's a bonus. So your realistic aim will be a 38 point build.

Given that your 38th point cost 1000 XP, your option might be to take 2 talents instead. For some builds, talents are more important, for others not so much. But let's say you value 1 characteristic at 2 talents for the build you have in mind. This means that at 37 points you could either buy 1 attribute or two more talents, it would be an equal choice. And after that it would be all talents and other stuff like staff ST or spells.

Depending on your character concept that might be a 15/14/9 fighter or a 12/14/12 roguish character or a leader (or wizard) type with say, 10/14/14.

If you start the fighter build with IQ 8 you lose 500 XP and most likely another 1000 XP for a couple of IQ 8 talents you bought that you didn't really need, instead of the talents you planned on getting at IQ 9, that you now have to buy at full cost. Let's compare the least important IQ 8 talents you bought with the important IQ 9 ones you really wanted and give them a 50% rebate. So 500 lost XP for the downgrade of two talent points. That is still a total 1000 XP loss on a fighter with a starting IQ 8 instead of IQ 9.

If you go with the roguish build and a reasonable IQ 10 you lose 1000 XP and have maybe 4 downgraded talents for another 50% of 2000 XP that you would rather not have taken at IQ 10 and below, but wanted from IQ 11 or IQ 12. That is still a 2000 XP loss for a 2 point lower IQ.

If you go with the leader type and start with a good IQ of 11. You still lose 3000 XP up front and maybe 6 other talents (1500XP) you would rather have taken at IQ 12, 13, or 14 had you started with a higher IQ. That is 4500 XP!

Even changing your leader type from a start IQ of 11 to a 12, earns you 500 xp immediately, and you could probably get two better talents from those you really wanted, worth another 50% of 1000 XP.

That one point of IQ at the start is still worth 1000 XP and 5 month of playing! 1 point of difference, that you earn back the first night of playing since the first attribute only cost 100 XP and you gain 10 nights of XP as a reward. If you feel that is a little bit insane, it's because it really is!

I know a bunch of players that would quit playing when they find out that if they had just adjusted their character 1 point from the start, they would have earned 10 nights playing worth of XP! Or even worse, they started the leader type of character with a healthy IQ 11 and lost 4500 XP! That would be close to two years worth of playing!

But you say, you can't really expect to survive with an IQ of 14? But even 1 point is worth 10 nights of playing and it only takes 4 nights to get the first 3 extra attribute points and bam!, you have normal starting attributes for ST and DX to compensate for your "insane" IQ 14. So 2 nights of surviving with sub par stats, and then 2 nights with just 1 point behind starting and on the fifth night you are caught up with a starting build. And the reward is that you are 2 years ahead of the others that didn't do it the "right" way.

Sure, you will be one or two attribute points behind the others until they actually go for the higher IQ and the talents that are part of their builds. But that could be from the start or later on, so it is hard to judge. And once you have a viable character, the extra IQ and talents might very well pay off.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

I understand all these things. They are just a list of reasons why you might decide to begin play with a high IQ hero. So do it. Or, if you look at the balance of those benefits vs. the benefits of having a high ST and/or DX and decide you prefer the latter, do that. Or perhaps you think the most advantageous and/or interesting approach in play is a compromise investment of a bit in all three, do that.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Ok, you don't seem to be troubled at all, over what I consider a design flaw. So is your opinion that it isn't really a flaw, but a design choice encouraging people to play smart guy builds from the start that would otherwise never be played.

Or is your opinion that the flaw is so small it's just a quirk of an otherwise very good XP system so a house rule or errata isn't warranted.

Or maybe your opinion is that perfectly balanced systems are boring, so it's actually the flaws that make it shine? And if some players don't read up on the rules it is their headache.

Or maybe you don't really care for house rules or errata at all and would rather play with official rules even if they are partially flawed.

Speaking for myself, I don't like asymmetry, especially if there are fixes that are in my view both better, simpler and more beautiful.

I am not trying to be confrontational, I am genuinely curious. To me, it's like seeing the neighbor coming home with a brand new car, with a missing door. And when you point it out, he just says, "I know, no biggie, it's fine for me." :-D

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

What I got from Lars' post was that he doesn't actually consider the issues raised a "flaw."

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

TBH, I wouldn't characterize it as a 'flaw' either. It is a change that alters several of the default assumptions associated with the gameplay that many of us old-timers were used to (specifically around character progression) and which I personally don't care for, but many others like it and find it to be an improvement. TFT is a great system because of this fact... it is extremely adaptable to various gameplay styles and preferences.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

What I'm still wondering is, is there anyone who "doesn't see any problem" with the new system, who does feel there's a problem with also letting people learn talents/spells up to their IQ as in original TFT (spending time studying but not XP)?


(I have the feeling the answer is (almost) no one does, in which case, once again I may have spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain issues to people who just aren't bothered by such things one way or the other.)

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

The difference between obtaining talents during character creation and through experience does not bother me; I do not consider it a 'flaw'. I don't really feel like I need to rationalize WHY it works this way, but if I did I might do so as follows:

1) Start by severing the connection between the maximum number of talents you are permitted to know and your IQ score - it is axiomatic in the game design that these don't have to depend on each other.

2) Now, sit down and start creating a character. When it comes time to populate your list of known talents you need some function that tells you how many a person has at the start of play. There are several reasonable answers to that question; the designer's answer was an amount you could purchase by multiplying 500XP times starting IQ. A house rule that was loosely in this range but different in detail would be equally good.

3) Start playing, and pay for any new talents you might get by expending XP.

The end.

I don't believe this is unbalanced; if anything it is more balanced than before because now it feels like there is a pressure to create heroes with somewhat higher IQ scores, such that the default character is something like 11-11-10 (or so) rather than the traditional 12-12-8.

You asked if I would mind a house rule in which people automatically gain 500 XP worth of talents when their IQ goes up. I'm not sure how to answer; I would not do it myself because it feels like a form of 'grade inflation' over RAW and I think grade inflation is the most destructive things people do to games with their house rules, so I just push it down wherever it raises its head. But the idea doesn't offend me. If someone did it I wouldn't consider them crazy.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Thanks for the answer Lars. You didn't owe me an explanation in any way, but I am grateful I got your reasoning. :-)

I guess the main issue is with the discrepancy of a set cost for talents at 500 and attributes that have an exponential cost. 500 at character creation and the early game is a huge deal, but later on its value is balanced by attribute cost, and in the late game it is the only realistic choice for heroes to improve.

Even in the old rules, where an (IQ point + 1 talent) was considered equal to DX and ST, there was a considerable advantage to starting with a high IQ, since you could have more of the advanced talents. Starting at IQ 14 instead of 11 gave you 3 more talents, but also access to many more, instead of taking somewhat sub-par or second choice ones at IQ 11 and below. But maybe that inducement wasn't enough to make people go for the starting high IQ heroes.

There was a problem for the guy that wanted an IQ 11 2p talent, but started at IQ 10, he had to raise his IQ to 12 unless he saved up a talent point, then +1 IQ would be enough. Being able to save talent points, or put them into a study talent that kicks in once the prereqs. are met would be one way of getting around some of the problems I see.

Another reason for the 12/12/8-char was the XP gain. The better you were at killing stuff, the faster you would get XP. IQ didn't give much bonus in that department. But now we have a flat XP gain, as long as you survive, you should get more or less as much as the others.

Do we really need more inducements to start with a higher IQ character?

It is a valid argument, and there is a problem with the starting number of talents. I would argue though, that ST and DX still are as valuable as (IQ + 1 talent). So either disconnect them completely and make starting talents non-dependent on starting IQ, or keep them dependent on each other even after character start, with the option of buying extra later on if you want to (that cost could be 500 or anything, because sooner or later it would be worth it anyways with the IQ becoming exponentially more expensive).

A tricky system, and I am not happy with it in its current state. I am starting a campaign soon and it would be nice to have it down on paper from the start since it might matter a lot.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Not having had the opportunity to run a full TFT game as yet, I have looked at the rules and thought about this. My intention was to allow for study as IQ was raised. I hadn't heard of the "study" option for slots, but I think I'll implement it.

However, when I consider RAW, it does seem somewhat realistic, if unbalanced point-wise. Lives rarely take a straight path to a particular result; people grow organically. The other consideration in RAW not bothering me is that lack of balance was a feature of early RPGs. Wizards in OD&D were pretty frail and not very useful until they reached a certain level, while fighters linear progression would be eclipsed at higher levels by wizards.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

You can find the original learning system (learning time, forgetting, all of that stuff) laid out in the Classic rules (ITL, not Advanced Wizard or Advanced Melee), if you can get a gander at that rules set somewhere.

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

Occupational hazard of life on an internet forum

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

words to live by

Re: Weapon Mastery, the long and winding road
 

I can't imagine not being able to "save" IQ points for talent learning later on. If a guy wants to start with just rudimentary skills to basically fight, thats fine with me.

I don't see any logical reason why he would have to use up all his talent points at initial generation? that's just crazy talk.

In fact, the basic logical approach that a new character is constantly learning as he adventures, or just works his day job, or studies academically, would imply that he probably shouldn't fill up his "capacity" to learn new skills on Day 1.

As a fledgling fighter character, I might have skills developed for sword/knife and shield, but I'm " working on " a few others, maybe quite a few others...which will take quite some time, especially if I'm co-developing several skills along the way, so holding back a few IQ points to representing my future studies and potential mastery only makes sense.

And in fact I would role play just that...

I would occasionally attempt my hopeful skills, like possibly abandoning my sword n board approach, and attempting two swords at a minus, or practice throwing that boomerang, or knuckling up and working on my unarmed combat etc...

I never liked to say NO to my players, that wanted to attempt some borderline actions, just assign appropriate penalties, it added lots of flavor to the game, and the occasional amazing success roll provided for an epic tale at a later time.