Leveling up skills

[timm meyers]

What if?
Talents were tracked and given a progressive cost the same way as attributes.
This could be done in several ways, but the goal is to give learning new skills the same lowered XP costs for the PC early in their careers just like the hard Stats of ST, DX, and IQ.

1. Simply marry the xp threshold of the character to the cost per 1 point of IQ using the same progressive cost of attributes.
Example- 32 to 34pt character only spends 100 xp per IQ slot needed for any new talents/spells. When they level up to 35, talent IQ now costs 200xp each and so on up to level 37 and beyond where they cap out/revert to the RAW of 500xp each.
OR
2. A characters IQ record will always show their beginning IQ level. This is used to note how much a PC "levels up" their IQ.
At zero (they are the same IQ as when they started) talent points/spells cost 100xp
At level 1 (One above the original IQ) talent points/spells cost 200xp
At level 2 (two above the original IQ) talent points/spells cost 400xp
At level 3+ (Three " ") talent points/spells cost 500xp

I can see some abuse power build problems with either system. The most basic would be maxing out IQ from the start and trying to become the uber talent/spell nerd before raising your stat levels.

[Bill_in_IN]

I have adopted a more simple approach. I stole it from a GM that wanted to promote obtaining talents/spells early in character development. That is, the first two IQ points spent only cost 250 XP and then revert to 500 XP per RAW.

In my game, this is now the policy across the board. All IQ points for talents/spells cost 250 XP. It has had no impact on the game. PCs are still focusing on attribute increases until approximately 37 points.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

In my game, thus is now the policy across the board. All IQ points for talents/spells cost 250 XP. It has had mo impact on the game. PCs are still focusing on attribute increases until approximately 37 points

That's pretty close to the cost model I adopted too.

My rules break talents into TAP-based 'tiers'. They retain fixed XP costs (continuing the LE model which requires characters to purchase talents directly w/ XP), but the costs for more potent skills and abilities get progressively higher. I removed the IQ dependency entirely which creates some nice opportunities that wouldn't exist otherwise (like a primitive IQ 8 woodsman). As the character advances and TAP increases, they gain access to higher 'tier' talents, but can always purchase the lower ones at their original XP cost. So CLIMBING, for example, costs the same (250 XP) if acquired early in the PC's career or much later.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

That's pretty close to the cost model I adopted too.

My rules break talents into TAP-based 'tiers'. They retain fixed XP costs (continuing the LE model which requires characters to purchase talents directly w/ XP), but the costs for more potent skills and abilities get progressively higher. I removed the IQ dependency entirely which creates some nice opportunities that wouldn't exist otherwise (like a primitive IQ 8 woodsman). As the character advances and TAP increases, they gain access to higher 'tier' talents, but can always purchase the lower ones at their original XP cost. So CLIMBING, for example, costs the same (250 XP) if acquired early in the PC's career or much later.

What I noticed was that at even at 250 XP for the first two IQ Talent/Spell points used, there was still a reluctance to vary from bumping up attributes that were getting more expensive. It seems that there is still a natural tendency for PCs to progress toward 37 points before spending XP on talents/spells. Hopefully, the 250 XP cost per point as a flat cost should truly promote more broadening of PC talents. Each spell costing 250 XP will add quickly to a wizard's list of spells. There are lots of interesting talents that cost 1 IQ point. Spending 500 XP instead of 1,000 for most talents is and average of 5 or 6 game sessions. We aren't teenagers with all the time in the world to play this game. High XP costs prohibit PC development before many of us die of old age.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

High XP costs prohibit PC development before many of us die of old age.

Which is why you have to modify attribute progression as well IMO.
;)

The key (for my table, anyway) was in keeping the choices at each 'tier' balanced. XP costs for talents or stat increases should remain close enough for it to make the choice difficult or at least require careful consideration on the part of the player.

[Drakenbow]

The Legacy TFT rules seem to suggest to me that once a character is made, all new spells or talents cost 500XP per point.

I give some leeway. If the character's IQ is raised, that will include 1 point for talent or spell purchase. The player can always purchase points at 500 XP per point, but they will always get a point through raising IQ.

I'm still trying to figure out a good monetary cost for paying for training. I consider the character is always in training, then pays with cash when the character has the IQ and available points. It tends to be a simple system.

Character has an IQ of 12, that's 12 points, and has purchased 5.
Total is 17.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Which is why you have to modify attribute progression as well IMO.
;)

The key (for my table, anyway) was in keeping the choices at each 'tier' balanced. XP costs for talents or stat increases should remain close enough for it to make the choice difficult or at least require careful consideration on the part of the player.

In my normal style, I did a simple change to the XP to Attribute cost. It follows RAW up to 38 points. After that, each attribute is 300 points more than the prior point. So, 1,000 for 38, 1300 for 39, 1600 for 40, etc.

Changes like this keep my house rules for a topic down to one sentence or two.

[JohnPaulB]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

What I noticed was that at even at 250 XP for the first two IQ Talent/Spell points used, there was still a reluctance to vary from bumping up attributes that were getting more expensive. It seems that there is still a natural tendency for PCs to progress toward 37 points before spending XP on talents/spells.

There is a solution to this 'everything goes into Attributes before it goes into talents'.

When you create your character, don't give them any weapons talents. It guarantees that the first thing you spend your XP on is a weapon.

Also there are published rules for discounting the RAW 500XP costs for talents.

The Fanzine Trip 1
• Discounting Talents Learning Talents Through Books by John Paul Bakshoian……..p 43

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

And then there's this little conundrum that came new with Legacy's RAW: you can't aim to acquire a new talent (which would cost XP) if it's above your current IQ, without increasing IQ (which would also cost XP). So you end up with the two things necessary to reach your goal are now competing with each other. You'd get more bang for your buck increasing ST or DX instead, so why bother trying to broaden your character anyway?!

That alone is the reason to keep awarding (at least one) memory point with every IQ increase, as it was in Classic..

I consider the IQ level as a threshold of capacity to learn. If you have IQ 11, you have the capacity to learn those IQ talents and below. You don't have the capacity to learn higher than that yet. There are a lot of talents there to learn at each level. But sometimes you want to be represented by something higher than your IQ 11. So your character has to raise his capacity to that level so he can learn the thing. Then he can buy that Talent on the next XP exchange.
I don't think that spending XP on an IQ Attribute equates to getting the Attribute AND the talent.
That would lead to the case where Players could start with IQ 8 figures and in three attribute exchanges get to IQ 11 And have an 9IQ Talent, a 10IQ Talent and a 11IQ talent at the same time.

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

The one thing about Legacy that I do see in a positive manner is the ability to spend XP on talents as opposed to just Attributes. However, I have seen the competing conundrum for XP expenditure with respect to specific advancement goals. You need two IQ points with XP cost to be able to get Master Fencer that costs three IQ points. Spending XP to get the IQ first only helps you on IQ rolls but you have to do that before you earn and spend XP to get the talent. The trade off is, "To heck with IQ/Talent advancement. I'll just boost DX or ST to get more immediate benefit."

And this can go back to "How Do I Envision The Character?"
If the player says "I see Kurt as a Merchant. Average ST, Average DX, Above Average IQ, then ST=10, DX=10, IQ=12 would start him out.
If you never envision Kurt being strong, you won't have his ST go above 11. If you envision that he could dance pretty well, you might have his DX go to 11. You might even consider his becoming bright enough to reach IQ 13. You might start with raising Kurt's IQ to 13, buy some more Merchanting worthy talents, socializing talents, then possibly put a point into ST to help him survive an extra point of damage. And if Kurt was going to learn a spell or two, that would go under the category of XP=1500.

Sure, there may be life-changing events, both good or bad for the character that would change "his" envisioning, so there can be alterations to this viewpoint.

The characters don't have to be worked up into graceful tanks.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

And this can go back to "How Do I Envision The Character?"
If the player says "I see Kurt as a Merchant. Average ST, Average DX, Above Average IQ, then ST=10, DX=10, IQ=12 would start him out.
If you never envision Kurt being strong, you won't have his ST go above 11.

This is so important, but often is an aspect of playing a character that gets overlooked or set aside in the quest for power and survivability.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by JohnPaulB

There is a solution to this 'everything goes into Attributes before it goes into talents'. When you create your character, don't give them any weapons talents. It guarantees that the first thing you spend your XP on is a weapon.

Not guaranteed at all, I think. Most principal weapon talents (e.g. Knife + Sword, Axe/Mace, Pole Weapons) cost 2. That's 4 attribute points and change. Buying the attributes and using a maul is just better, whether it's after 100, 200, 400, etc. XP.

And this can go back to "How Do I Envision The Character?"
If the player says "I see Kurt as a Merchant. Average ST, Average DX, Above Average IQ, then ST=10, DX=10, IQ=12 would start him out.

The problem starts when the player says, "I imagine Kurt as a demigod, above average ST and DX, genius IQ, ..." and you have to tell them no.

My theory of character design is:
1. defining talents, e.g. "He's a merchant."
2. IQ, determined from Step 1
3. ST and DX, using whatever points are left
4. Other talents.

The game kind of implies doing 2 & 3 first, then 1 and 4, and this is broken.

The characters don't have to be worked up into graceful tanks.

Most characters get pushed into the combatant role because the campaign they are in is mostly about combat, and whether they live or die depends in large part on their grace and tankishness.