Basic Level Talents - A Proposal

[tbeard1999]

Some have expressed a desire for more talents to be available to characters. I've stated ad nauseum why I think that's a bad idea for most campaigns.

But, another way to approach the issue is to add "base talents". These talents represent a "serious hobbyist" or apprentice level of competence.

General Rule. Many 2 point talents - called "full talents" - can be bought at a 1 point "base" level. Unless otherwise stated below, a base talent halves whatever penalty is applied when figures completely lack the full talent. Or, it halves any bonus received when a figure has full talent.

If the full talent only grants a success roll (i.e., Thief) add 1 die to the success roll.

A figure who has the base talent can acquire the full talent later for a cost of 1 IQ point.

Base talents require the same IQ level as the full talent.

Base talents are NOT sufficient to fulfill talent requirements for jobs, nor do they satisfy prerequisites for advanced talents.

Talents available at base level are listed below. Most are covered by the general rule above, but I'm showing the effect for clarity. Talents with a base level can be indicated with a (b) or somesuch.

Sword: -2 DX.
Ax/Mace: -2 DX.
Pole Weapons: -2 DX
Bow: -2 DX
Guns: No bonus to hit, but no penalty either.
Thrown Weapons: +1 DX; cannot ready and throw in one turn though.
Running: +1 MA; when determining half movement allowance, round fractions up.
Priest: Basic familiarity with religious rites and doctrines, but not enough to regularly lead a congregation.
Bard: +1 die for all success rolls; -2 from roll if you also have Sex Appeal; -1 if you have base Sex Appeal.
Detect Traps: Roll 1 fewer die instead of 2 dice to detect traps; converts to full Detect Traps if you also have Alertness.
Animal Handler: +1 die for all success rolls.
Naturalist: 3/IQ to identify creatures; +1 die for other success rolls.
Thief: +1 die for all success rolls.
Mechanician: +1 die for all success rolls; includes base Remove Traps
Physicker: heal 1 point with physicker's kit.
Detection of Lies: +1 die for all success rolls.
Ventriloquist: +1 die for all success rolls.
Disguise: +1 die for all success rolls.

You can extend this rule to 1 point talents, but I'm ambivalent about that. At some point, you're re-creating GURPS. If you insist, the following base talents cost 1/2 IQ point.

Base talents with -2 DX: crossbow, knife, shield,
Base talents with +1 die for all success rolls: Sex Appeal, Tracking,
Horsemanship: -2 DX but no DX roll required to stay mounted.
Swimming: 3d if you fall in water
Climbing: takes twice as long as someone with Climbing skill; 3/DX roll every 5 minutes to avoid a problem. +1 die for any success rolls.

[Chris Rice]

I'm not keen on this idea of "watering-down" Talents at all. To me, one of the uniquely attractive features of TFT Talents is that they represent a substantial level of experience and competence in a skill or ability, something that clearly separates a character from others. The only "levelling" of Talents I'd be interested in would be the "Master" level of a talent which would represent an individual who had reached the pinnacle of skill and had gained unique abilities unavailable to the base level of the Talent.

A good example of this is Horseman/Expert Horseman from ITL.

The Expert Horseman can (forgive my paraphrasing):

Break wild horses or other riding animals of a type they are familiar with.
Ride broken-in animals even if they are of a new type (Wargs, Velociraptors, whatever!)
Suffer no DX penalties for using weapons whilst mounted.
Train riding animals like an Animal Handler.
Heal them like a Vet.

These aren't things that a character with the Horseman Talent can do at all; not with a DX penalty or a 4 die roll. Never. They are unique to the Expert Horseman and why the "Master" level of Talent should be prized.

This is the way that I understand and love the TFT Talent system and I don't want that to change.

[Chris Rice]

Or put another way: to me the TFT Talent system has 3 levels:

1. You can't do the thing at all (you don't have the Talent)

2. You can do the thing (you have the Talent)

3. Wow. You can do amazing things (you have the Expert/Master Talent)

[David Bofinger]

I've said elsewhere that I think four levels are needed. As an example, look at four characters' qualifications in Woodsman:

• Myopia: a young alchemy student who's never left her home city and can get lost in a nature strip.
• Grimdark the Blue: A typical adventurer, used to tramping through woods among other environments.
• Sylvia of the Glade: The party's scout, hired because she knew the woods.
• Mick Dundee: justly famed as one of the finest bushmen in the region.

i think every one of those levels is needed in a role-playing game. If you disagree, tell me which one you'd let go.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I've said elsewhere that I think four levels are needed. ...

Hi all, David.
I tend to agree with the four levels idea. (Perhaps not on EVERY talent but certainly for every 'job'.) I also think that if it costs X resources to go from no skill to apprentice level skill, it should (say) 2x effort to go from apprentice to journeyman, and 4x effort to go from journeyman to master level.

That will make the cost of becoming a master, high enough that it is meaningful.
And if the cost is significant, that level of mastery will be fairly rare, which gives a nice dynamic.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

There are already a few master level weapon talents, but what's available is mixed:

No weapon talent: -4 DX (or inability to use some complex weapons)

Normal weapon talent: no DX modifiers

And then by type:

Sword has Fencing ("Ability to use a sword WELL"): extra 2x & 3x damage chances

Thrown Weapons: +2 DX, no time to ready

Missile Weapons: +3 DX

Expert Ax/Mace (Dwarves - I'd make it a 3-point talent that dwarves only pay 1 for): +1 damage

Unarmed Combat I - V: all sorts of stuff including +3 damage, becoming useful to everyone (depending on what works when armed/armored or not) if you get the über levels.

And then a few that aren't weapon-specific:

Warrior and Veteran

Two Weapons

However there are some weapons that have no expert-level talents:

Pole Weapons

Shield

Ax/Mace (unless you are a Dwarf or adopt my idea above to make it a talent).

Seems to me a basic expansion that keeps to the existing pattern might be something like:

Expert Ax/Mace or Pole Weapons: as above, gives +1 Damage

Master Ax/Mace or Pole Weapons: gives the Fencing rate for 2x and 3x damage

Expert Shield: Shield Rush takes 1 more die to resist and does 1d6 damage.

Master Shield or Sword or Quarterstaff: Gives extra defense from hand weapon attacks through front hexes, a block chance or +1d6 to hit.

Defense Expert & Master: makes you harder to hit (though adding these at +1d6 per level creates pretty steep tiers)

Eyes Behind (wants better name, probably shouldn't work in a helm): part of the UC IV ability, but why couldn't it be developed by weapon-using fighters?

Deadly Strike I to III: +1, +2, then +1d6 damage - if Unarmed Combat can do this, why not weapons?

And again, I think if you allow extra talents to be bought like attribute points in excess of IQ, I think you'll get less attribute bloat as well as more diverse high-level characters.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I've said elsewhere that I think four levels are needed. As an example, look at four characters' qualifications in Woodsman:

• Myopia: a young alchemy student who's never left her home city and can get lost in a nature strip.
• Grimdark the Blue: A typical adventurer, used to tramping through woods among other environments.
• Sylvia of the Glade: The party's scout, hired because she knew the woods.
• Mick Dundee: justly famed as one of the finest bushmen in the region.

i think every one of those levels is needed in a role-playing game. If you disagree, tell me which one you'd let go.

Well, I disagree.

Every talent is not created equal, nor is every talent particularly important to a fantasy RPG campaign. TFT was produced in a time when page layout was very expensive and time consuming. This required rules to be lean and focused.

That is an approach that I like; time is my most limited resource. I'm getting sick and tired of bloated, 500-800 page RPGs that, at the end of the day, are no better than (and often inferior to) their 1980s predecessors.

And a classically lean approach might even help distinguish TFT from other current rules sets.

If TFT is gonna stay with that approach, the designer will need to ruthlessly cut unnecessary rules.

Also, quadrupling or tripling the number of talents will slow character creation (a genuine strength of TFT).

I'm concerned too that you're re-creating GURPS at some point.

There's also the problem that a 3d6 bell curve is very sensitive to modifiers. Adding 2-3 levels to a bunch of talents exponentially increases the chance of game-breaking issues arising. The only way to mitigate this will be very extensive playtesting, which delays the deployment of the game. And frankly, I'd rather Steve use his time on more useful things like additional monsters, a genuine healing spell, revising certain unbalancing combat system rules, and resolving the glitches, contradictions and ambiguities in the current rules set.

So I would stay with the current TFT treatment of talents. I could be persuaded that axe/mace might deserve an equivalent talent to Fencing. Pole Weapons are already quite overpowered in my opinion and need no further help. Missile and thrown weapons have the Missile Weapons and Thrown Weapons talents. Sword has Fencing, which is really an "advanced sword" talent. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other talents that really need expert levels.

I'd be very opposed to adding a bunch of additional talents mainly out of a compulsion to have uniform treatment. I prefer that the designer spend his time on the things that will be the most useful to TFT players and GMs.

I should have stated in the original post that I don't really think basic level skills are necessary. This is just how I'd do it if I did want them.

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

Or put another way: to me the TFT Talent system has 3 levels:

1. You can't do the thing at all (you don't have the Talent)

2. You can do the thing (you have the Talent)

3. Wow. You can do amazing things (you have the Expert/Master Talent)

THIS to me is essentially the correct interpretation of the basic frame-work of the established TFT Talent-System.

LARS had previously in another post summed it up quite nicely, which I will paraphrase as: "an On/Off switch for an ability". As CHRIS is also stating here, it goes from: OFF, to ON, to even more ON (if you will).

While I admire all the thought so many put into attempting to refine the Talent-system, as I have said before, taking us from this "Binary - On/Off" basic format, by trying to interpolate a "gradient" system, while admirable, takes us further and further away from the original and inspired "feel, form, and flow", of what make TFT, TFT; into something else.

DAVID B has also hit on the edge of what is root-frame work, with his proposal of "4 levels"; however, these levels - IF I am following you correctly David - really are operationally more "gradient", than "binary" in operation; so I would ask you to consider the following as you continue in your refinement of your concept. If I am misstating your idea, please forgive me, as I have not seen your fully fleshed-out proposal, so I have to knowingly make some uninformed projections as to your specific meaning and intent. If I am in error, I apologize.

From TFT:ITL, we see the Talent for Unarmed Combat I through V, which as both CHRIS and LARS have nailed, is either "On" or "Off"; you either have it or you don't - simple. The subsequent "levels" in UC serve to give specific extra unique abilities other characters do not enjoy (binary), and specific bonuses at a flat-rate (i.e. Not Gradient).

Correctly or Incorrectly, I basically view the overall Talent engine as a lightbulb, which is either On or Off; and when On can further (with the acquired level), offer the added ability to completely cast a special color to the light - such as the ability to cast: Red at I, Orange at II, Yellow at III, Green at IV, Blue at V.

Anyone without the COLOR talent just casts plain old white light.

My essential point is: I see the engineering behind the Talent System as a binary and additive platform - and NOT a gradient one, like a rheostat dimmer switch which would provide refined levels of white light - and I think many of these suggestions fall into the: "How I would install a rheostat talent system into TFT", which, by my interpretation, doesn't really fit our original binary wiring system, in terms of: form, feel, and flow.

But hey, do what you like; I love reading everyone's brilliant ideas and concepts regardless!

JK

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

THIS to me is essentially the correct interpretation of the basic frame-work of the established TFT Talent-System.

LARS had previously in another post summed it up quite nicely, which I will paraphrase as: "an On/Off switch for an ability". As CHRIS is also stating here, it goes from: OFF, to ON, to even more ON (if you will).

While I admire all the thought so many put into attempting to refine the Talent-system, as I have said before, taking us from this "Binary - On/Off" basic format, by trying to interpolate a "gradient" system, while admirable, takes us further and further away from the original and inspired "feel, form, and flow", of what make TFT, TFT; into something else.
JK

Yeah, what you said.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I'm not keen on this idea of "watering-down" Talents at all. To me, one of the uniquely attractive features of TFT Talents is that they represent a substantial level of experience and competence in a skill or ability, something that clearly separates a character from others.

...

This is the way that I understand and love the TFT Talent system and I don't want that to change.

Oh I agree. The current system is fine with me. But if you think that characters need more talents, this offers a way to do it without increasing the number of talent points available. My objection to doing that is simply that I think (a) most people can do only one major thing at an expert, professional level at a time; and (b) that campaigns work best when each character is the best in the party at one very important thing.

In TFT, a starting character can be a pretty good thief or a pretty good warrior. If you make too many talent points available, he can be pretty good at both. So I like the current talent system just fine. Of course, I also prefer 1 player to play 1 character and don't care for hirelings. So if I ran a campaign with (say) 2 or 3 characters, I'd probably increase the talent points.

With base talents, a character can be familiar with more talents, but inferior to others who take the full talents.