Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Ah, the "Worst of both worlds" approach - exacerbate any possible balance issues of having high attributes by making it so that only those players who thought to exploit it at character generation can get the full benefit from it. With a few exceptions*, I'm generally not a fan of having traits that are only available at character creation... but things costing more because you didn't have the foresight to start with them I'm definitely not a fan of (requiring a quest or similar to justify gaining it, if just suddenly having it wouldn't make sense in the setting, I'm fine with). But if your group enjoys that playstyle, I guess go for it.

*If there are traits that a character literally cannot have without starting with it - like Magery in a setting where one is either born a mage or isn't, or a trait that can only be had with a specific racial template - that's generally fine and adds a bit to flavor and immersion.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

more likely just "do it like 3e(r) did it." But then, I think taking that rule out for 4e was one of the best decisions they ever made.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

Well, I suppose that would presuppose GMs sitting on their asses while character creation was happening, and never giving a lick of guidance or counsel. But if your group enjoys that style, meh, not my circus, not my monkeys.

Although speaking of balance issues of high attributes, the OP mentions levels my campaign's never come remotely near: no one's had an attribute higher than 15 since I flipped to 4e. Possibly you should jump all over that.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

With or without that rule my experience is that few players bump stats and even fewer more than once. Of course with that rule there's a strong impetus to dump all of your points into stats and advantages, with minimal skills. Skills are so easy to raise even without the rule.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

That's my issue with that particular house rule: the result is neither fun, nor realistic, nor interesting.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

My concern is more that it doesn't really address any potential balance issues with high attributes (which would be the main reason to boost their price) but does punish those players who don't start with said high attributes by making it so their character can never really catch up to their full potential (or, keeping in mind the concept of balance, to those in the party that did opt to start with high attributes). The fact you help with character creation does help alleviate some of that, as you can warn them if they're making a bad decision... but players aren't always going to listen to you (case in point, the fellow who opted to start with HT 9), and punishing them for doing so in the fashion your rule does simply doesn't sit right with me.

All that said, if you play games where attributes never start above 15 - which implies characters are typically more in the 12-13 range - you aren't going to see as many of the issues that can come about from high attributes and the effects of your houserule are going to be reduced. I don't really see much point to having the houserule - like RyanW, I don't see anything fun, realistic, or interesting about it - but if your group likes it, go for it.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to be insulting with "if your group likes it" - what is fun is entirely subjective, and just because I don't find something fun doesn't mean I think those who do have anything wrong with them.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

If I recall correctly (been years since I've looked at a 3e rulebook inside the cover), there was a second method that was used to curtail high attributes in lieu of purchasing skills: increasing costs via arithmetic sequence (not quite geometric). As Attributes increase they cost progressively more to raise. A geometric progression would result in almost exclusively skill purchases, but there's probably some function that mimics a linear then arithmetic then geometric rise. Of course the default 4e linear was probably chosen for a good reason beyond mere simplicity.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

It's very difficult - or even impossible - to make increasing cost for stats go well with racial templates. In an mono-specious (special?) setting, it would probably work well.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

I didn't say "I don't want high IQ characters". I said "high IQ is a problem", that is an entirely different statement.

For instance I've had people try to make "low" IQ skill-monkeys (by low I mean 12) in the same game as someone who made an IQ 16 PC who then raised their IQ two more times. The "low" IQ character simply wasn't as good as the high IQ PC at IQ based skills, even the defaults of the high IQ PC were sometimes higher than bought skills on the other PC.

And this can not be fixed with Talents. The only solutions I've come up with are:

1 - Cap IQ, which is not a solution when you want to allow IQ 20 "Super Genius" types.
2 - Cap where Attributes add to skills. This is intriguing and I've done it, but the Players whinging is terrible, loud, and incessant. Also it's slightly overly complicated.
3 - Raise the price of IQ and DX, without raising the price of the sub-attributes (or more importantly splitting some out, like Will and Per, which my Players are pretty much used to by now).

The last one really does fit the bill of "simple" and "fair". If IQ costs 60 (or ideally more) per level then it makes raising a handful of IQ based skills on their own attractive and makes Talents even more attractive (even 15 cost Talents become super attractive). And I lean toward anything that makes Talents more attractive.


That's what I've done in every game I've been in that worked that way. The only times it wasn't worth it were games where we only played a handful of sessions and the game fell apart. But any game that lasted more than "level dings" and it was super effective.

And in 3e combining high starting IQ with Eidetic Memory between session and on-the-job training? Woof, that was terribly broken.

Re: Odd Question in raising IQ.
 

The obvious mistake being made there is to try to make a versatile IQ skill oriented character with low IQ instead of just focussing on maximising a single role-defining skill or concentrating on the physical.