[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

TFT pcs aren't beginners. An average human is 30 points. All TFT characters have experience under their belt compared to the masses of people in the world.

I usually interpret starting characters as just having somewhat more-adventurer-relevant gifts and orientations compared to average people, though sure, some could have some experience to start with.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

Also, Olympic athletes are the best in their fields and they are rarely over 20 (depending on the sport).

That's true... but I wouldn't tend to call Olympic athletes 32-point starting TFT characters.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

But a) the talent doesn't represent that

In games where you're the GM, ok.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

and b) people in the real world do have exceptional experience and training, often at a young age. This is no more strange than a starting wizard.

Sure, but again, that's not what I think a typical 32-point starting character is. They're just somewhat above-average.

Now, I can stretch that and say ok to an occasional character concept that is stretching to get Sword Expert, but:

a) it's a weird person with an unusual background who despite being below-average ST and the minimum DX 12 needed for weapon expertise, is somehow a very well-trained weapon expert despite having been a below-average fighter otherwise.

b) if the game is using the RAW talent-learning rules, is essentially getting a 1500 XP head start and hoping the GM will let his PC not face difficult enough combat situations to survive long enough to be given enough XP (probably for roleplaying well and avoiding getting killed) to capitalize on it.


If I WERE running a game where the starting PCs were supposed to be the equivalent of Olympic fencers, then I would allow Expert and Master weapon talents, but they would also start with more than 32 points!

Originally Posted by Tywyll

Master is effectively unattainable (I mean you could buy it but your build wouldn't survive combat).

Actually I think Master is one point away from being possible for even any of the low-ST races (thankfully).

Originally Posted by Tywyll

Yeah, and? That's the system.

It's the new system, which I see as problematic in various ways I have explained here and elsewhere many times.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

That's the benefit of investing into IQ at the start of character creation instead of making an IQ8 Normal as you have below. If that incentive isn't there, then why bother? Your rule basically says, don't invest in IQ, I won't make it worthwhile for you.

No, the new massive 500 XP advantage per IQ point is not needed to give reasons to put some points in IQ. The effects of many talents themselves provide reasons to do that.

The new extra 500 XP per point incentive seems to me a little-if-at-all-considered side-effect of the new way to learn talents, whose stated purpose was to give something for PCs to consider spending XP on instead of attributes when attributes start getting really expensive. That's why the value is so out-of-whack for closer-to-average characters.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

Do you limit wizards to IQ 8 spells? Your argument equally applies to them.

No I don't.

The argument about taking advantage of high IQ to save massive amounts on spell learning costs does apply equal to them, and does seem to me nearly-equally problematic for wizards.

But as for the topic of disallowing expert combat talents to beginners, it does not apply, because my argument is that it is inappropriate in terms of what I think those talents represent and what starting characters represent. Wizards represent people who are focused on magic, and to me even a ST 8 DX 8 IQ 16 starting wizard just represents a very learning-focused wizard who has neglected their physical aspects and their spellcasting skill. (i.e. They are not thematically inappropriate, but if using the RAW spell-learning system, they are ridiculously advantaged if they survive and get given XP to get their DX up.)

Originally Posted by Tywyll

B) Mr. Expert needs to spend that 1500xp to buy talents he couldn't afford as well, they just don't impact combat. The xp still has to be spent.

Both characters are fighters, so no Mr. BeginnerExpert doesn't need to spend any XP on non-combat talents. In fact he starts with enough IQ to have various other good high-IQ non-combat talents and also start a weapon expert, while Mr. Normal is limited to crappy IQ 8 talents and will also need to shell out 500 XP for anything IQ 9 or higher.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

C) Mr. Expert does +1 damage with his ax/mace, which doesn't come near to equalling mr. Normal. He inflicts a -1 to be hit (which is good) but that just brings Normal down to 50% to hit him, a hit which will likely end his career. he can also inflict a shrewd blow (if he's lucky enough to get behind an opponent or attack one that is knocked over). In essence...wheeee? I mean, is that so powerful you have to hide it behind a gate?

Yes I already mentioned the same thing. Yeah, he's not a very effective fighter when he starts out. My objection is about what he supposedly represents, not that he starts out with a practical advantage.

Originally Posted by Tywyll

And again, everything you are saying applies even more to wizards. Do you penalize them equally?

Again, only in terms of changing the system for learning talents and spells so it doesn't give a huge XP advantage to starting with high IQ.

Otherwise I would only restrict spells if there were some reason to, such as the spell was supposed to require some particular experience or training or source to learn that a beginner would not have access to. Sometimes I do do that, particularly when I have charted out which groups know and teach which spells in the campaign world. In which case, if a beginning wizard's background would not have given them access to such learning, then yes, those spells would be unavailable.