New Skills

[Jeff Lord]

[QUOTE=Steve Jackson;2190262]I don't know. 32/2 = 16, and giving 16 spells to every starting wizard seems as though it breaks one of the big tradeoffs of Wizard.

If this is a major concern, then you could cap the total number of spells known at IQ, as I believe JLV suggested. But, truth be told, this issue never once came up in years of play. No starting wizard ever took 16 spells. They were too busy taking either "mandatory" (e.g. Literacy), supplemental/useful (e.g. Quarterstaff), or even quirky (e.g. Mimic) talents to flesh out their character.

ST+DX+IQ/2 was simply the most elegant solution I managed to come up with for the IQ bloat problem in the RAW. It just "felt" like TFT to me and my play group. Again, I realize that everyone's preference and/or play style is going to be somewhat different.

In the end though, I'm just honestly tickled that you (Steve), Guy, and a number of others are actually kicking the tires on my idea.

[luguvalium]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

I don't know. 32/2 = 16, and giving 16 spells to every starting wizard seems as though it breaks one of the big tradeoffs of Wizard.

Here is another formula I've pondered: Total Knowledge ( points in talents and spells ) should not exceed IQ + ( IQ minus 8 )

In this way, the limit of an IQ 8 character is 8 points,
IQ 9 -> 10 points
IQ 10 -> 12 points
...
IQ 14 -> 20 points
IQ 16 -> 24 points

In this way, higher IQ characters have a greater capacity for knowledge, while keeping low IQ characters limited.

Steve Jackson Games my freely use this idea.

[zot]

Originally Posted by guymc

Wow, this flowed along fast! Hard to keep up.

A few of my takes:

** Half-points - yuck.

** I really like the idea of having talent “slots” equal to your (ST+DX+IQ)/2. Starting talents are limited by starting IQ, with multi-point talents costing more. The nomenclature is getting confusing, though. How about this:

You have Talent/Spell SLOTS equal to your basic ST + DX + IQ / 2.
No matter how it is purchased, a Talent or Spell takes up 1 Talent/Spell SLOT.

At character creation you have a STARTING POOL of Talent/Spell POINTS equal to your IQ stat. You may spend these POINTS as you choose, spending:
For Wizards 1 POINT per Spell or 2x the Talent COST in POINTS per Talent
For Heroes 3 POINTS per Spell or 1x the Talent COST in POINTS per Talent

Once your STARTING POOL of Talent/Spell POINTS is all spent, you may not have any more Talents/Spells with which to start.

After character creation you may buy additional Talent/Spell POINTS at a flat 100 XP per POINT. They are spent the same as the POINTS from your initial POOL.

I like that combination of slots for X talents, IQ starting points to buy talents, and buying more talent points with XP later.

One session per talent point seems to fast to me, considering how long it takes to buy attributes. I was thinking 3 sessions or so because players can feel like their characters are still progressing. Steve's rate of 5 sessions per talent point seemed too slow to me but maybe it isn't.

**Professional Knowledge could be purchased in packets like Talents, taking the same slots as Talents do. They have minimum IQ levels, and may be stackable requiring higher levels of knowledge to be bought atop lower ones. Some Professions may have only one level, others may have more depending on the depth of knowledge required. However many levels you buy, it all goes in a single Slot. For the most complex professional subjects, you might have a level for a lay enthusiast or student, another for a practicing professional or teacher, a third for a recognized expert or theoretician, and even a fourth for that renowned person who is at the top of their field and on the cutting edge. This, however, is approaching the “too darn much trouble” level. We might not need it at all.

Unless mundane talents (professional knowledge) have a mechanical effect, they are just flavor and they should be removed as talents and just noted on the character background.

If there end up being contest rules where they could have some kind of effect, then they would actually participate in the game mechanics and they should be kept. I'm all for that, of course!

[ak_aramis]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Monster Followers – I have wondered how much those get used. They definitely have no basis in reality. Should I consider deleting them and using the space for other things, and possibly doing a whole splatbook, or section of a monster book, about it? Discuss, please.
.

I've had players who loved them... because it gave them henchmen. Please leave them, but put the writeup only on one, and the others as "See Monster Followers I" - use the twice as long but needful explanation once, and include the alterations for the others in it.

They represent a group of tangible qualities that generate genuine loyalty, but are otherwise each too subtle for a talent. Likewise, they should benefit with any other hirelings, too. It's the difference between the master baker, beloved of the community, and the beloved master who has apprentices who will willingly risk life and limb for him.

It DOES have a basis in reality... just not a straightforwardly obvious one. At 2 slots, tho', it's a bit expensive.

On languages... I think a base should be IQ/5 native (if local area has only 1, then an archaic related or religious, or a jargon by profession for the extra... but prootwaddles only speak one... )... and each additional slot should be no less than 1. How much more should be a GM decision... if the GM wants polyglot supreme, set it to 5 per, if the GM has only a half dozen languages, 1 per slot, with a default of 2 per slot.

If keeping the maximum atts idea, allowing extra slots of mIQ should increase the point total for XP purposes... but should be allowed to double, as an optional rule. That gives a lot of flex room.

[John Brinegar]

I have used the Followers talents, and have some sympathy for ak_aramis's position. I would not object to moving them to some later product, though, preferably one that dealt in more detail with monsters.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Languages – Hmm. Having anything that costs less than 1 point add complexity. I suppose we might say “For a half-point, you can learn a language well enough to read it if you are Literate, and speak it well, but with an accent. For a full point, you sound like a native.” But that leaves a loose half-point floating around. Kind of GURPSy.

Hi Steve,
Many GURPS ideas are good.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

... Monster Followers – I have wondered how much those get used. They definitely have no basis in reality. Should I consider deleting them and using the space for other things, and possibly doing a whole splatbook, or section of a monster book, about it? Discuss, please.

I think that a monster book with a couple pages on the care and training of monster followers would be very cool. The talents could be written up in that book at what ever length is needed to make them work.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Two Weapons – I can see cutting that cost to 2. Heck, I fought with two weapons in the SCA, modestly well, and it did not fry my brain. I think it’s too powerful, mechanically, to cut to 1.

It certainly seems over priced at 3.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Boating – Rick, are you suggesting it is too trivial, in the game world, to be a talent?

Remember, “memory” is also taking in continued training time.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. I LIKE the idea of Boating and other small utility talents. They add a lot of the flavour to the game.

However, I think that you are leading yourself mentally astray with that meme of "memory also includes training time".

***

Let us say you want to be an adventurer who can fight, but also wants to do a couple of other things. For example, I want to write up a Heroic Leader who is also a Ranger. (Kinda like a simpler version of Aragorn.)

These are the talents which my Ranger Prince needs:
Sword, Shield, Bow, Missile Weapons, Tactics, Strategist, Charisma, Diplomacy, Horsemanship, Literacy, Courtly Graces, Naturalist, Tracking, Woodsman, Alertness, Climbing. This is 24 mIQ.

Might someone want to play a prince who can fight and is a bit of a ranger? Sure! After reading Lord of the Rings, I went thru a period when I thought Aragorn was a totally cool character. I've NOT given him Expert Naturalist, Fencing, Math, Swimming, Butcher, Mimic, or a few other talents which would be useful to such a character. This is the minimum talent list I really need to represent the character I would like to play.

Now arguing, that Missile Weapons REALLY does not require 30% of my total mental capacity because it represents the time to stay in practice sounds facile, but it MISSES THE POINT. I can't write up a Commander of Men, who is also a Ranger in the old TFT. In the new TFT it is even worse.

Talents just take up too much memory to create many types of fun characters which exist in real life and in fiction. They are simply impossible in new TFT. This is why most long running TFT games cheat when it comes to memory and talents.

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

I have also cut Expert Naturalist to 2 since it has to stack on top of Naturalist.
...

Excellent, a step forward.

Warm regards, Rick.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Let us say you want to be an adventurer who can fight, but also wants to do a couple of other things. For example, I want to write up a Heroic Leader who is also a Ranger. (Kinda like a simpler version of Aragorn.)

These are the talents which my Ranger Prince needs:
Sword, Shield, Bow, Missile Weapons, Tactics, Strategist, Charisma, Diplomacy, Horsemanship, Literacy, Courtly Graces, Naturalist, Tracking, Woodsman, Alertness, Climbing. This is 24 mIQ.

Might someone want to play a prince who can fight and is a bit of a ranger? Sure! After reading Lord of the Rings, I went thru a period when I thought Aragorn was a totally cool character. I've NOT given him Expert Naturalist, Fencing, Math, Swimming, Butcher, Mimic, or a few other talents which would be useful to such a character. This is the minimum talent list I really need to represent the character I would like to play.

Now arguing, that Missile Weapons REALLY does not require 30% of my total mental capacity because it represents the time to stay in practice sounds facile, but it MISSES THE POINT. I can't write up a Commander of Men, who is also a Ranger in the old TFT. In the new TFT it is even worse.

Talents just take up too much memory to create many types of fun characters which exist in real life and in fiction. They are simply impossible in new TFT. This is why most long running TFT games cheat when it comes to memory and talents.

...

I can't write up a Commander of Men, who is also a Ranger in the old TFT. In the new TFT it is even worse.

It's important to understand that the clarification I asked for earlier and Guy's current suggestion make a distinction between talent costs and the number of talents a character can have. The Ranger Prince has 16 talents that cost 24 talent points, which is entirely possible for a TFT character under Guy's suggestion.

With attributes / 2 as the limit, characters can have between 16 and 20 talents. They still have to pay for them at the normal costs but they can keep spending XP on them even after they reach the 40-point limit, so the Ranger Prince can eventually get all of the listed talents by paying the 24 required talent points and he'll still have 4 more talent slots available.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by zot

It's important to understand that the clarification I asked for earlier and Guy's current suggestion make a distinction between talent costs and the number of talents a character can have. The Ranger Prince has 16 talents that cost 24 talent points, which is entirely possible for a TFT character under Guy's suggestion.

With attributes / 2 as the limit, characters can have between 16 and 20 talents. They still have to pay for them at the normal costs but they can keep spending XP on them even after they reach the 40-point limit, so the Ranger Prince can eventually get all of the listed talents by paying the 24 required talent points and he'll still have 4 more talent slots available.

Hi Zot, Guy, everyone.
Thanks Zot for the clarification! Yes, I somehow missed what Guy was saying about slots and points. (When I reread his post, it was quite clear.)

However, Steve did not seem pleased by the idea of memory equals to (ST + DX + IQ)/2 so I don't think that will fly. However, if we use Guy's idea that series of talents go into the same slot, the Ranger / Prince would save 1 extra memory because the points put into Tactics and Strategy would save a slot.

But Guy's points / slot idea still means that expensive talents become proportionally more valuable than 'small' talents like Horsemanship, Seamanship, Driving, Climbing, etc.

But using Guy's rules (but not using the mIQ = [total attr.]/2), the Ranger Prince could be created by creating a character with ST 11, DX 14, IQ 15. (Ignoring points, the character needs 16 slots, but less one for the Tactics / Strategist saving. Further the character could eventually pick up Expert Naturalist as a bonus.)

So Guy's rules actually addresses my major concern.

Warm regards, Rick.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

But using Guy's rules (but not using the mIQ = [total attr.]/2), the Ranger Prince could be created by creating a character with ST 11, DX 14, IQ 15. (Ignoring points, the character needs 16 slots, but less one for the Tactics / Strategist saving. Further the character could eventually pick up Expert Naturalist as a bonus.)

So Guy's rules actually addresses my major concern.

I think I misunderstood Guy's section about professional knowledge. I thought he was only referring to mundane talents, so I addressed that in my response.

If stacking professional knowledge would mean that UC V takes only one talent slot, I don't think that would be good.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

... But Guy's points / slot idea still means that expensive talents become proportionally more valuable than 'small' talents like Horsemanship, Seamanship, Driving, Climbing, etc.

But using Guy's rules (but not using the mIQ = [total attr.]/2), the Ranger Prince could be created by creating a character with ST 11, DX 14, IQ 15. (Ignoring points, the character needs 16 slots, but less one for the Tactics / Strategist saving. Further the character could eventually pick up Expert Naturalist as a bonus.)

So Guy's rules actually addresses my major concern.

Warm regards, Rick.

Hi all,
Guy had suggested that talents cost more XP to buy, but always fit into a single memory slot. (Kinda like how spells always fit into a single memory slot.)

Shostak, mentioned the Grey Mouser. If we wanted to write up the Grey Mouser, we might pick the following talents:

Sword(2), Two Handed Weapons (3) (he wields scalpel & cats claw), Fencing (3), Thrown Weapons (2), Seamanship (1), Boating (1), Sex Appeal (1), Running (2), Horsemanship (1), Swimming (1), Charisma (2), Silent Movement (2), Recognize Value (1), Assess Value(1), Climbing (1) (He and Fafrd climbed the mountain Stardock after all), Brawling (1), Thief (2), Master Thief (2), Disguise (2) and a couple spells since he was trained as a magician and occasionally dabbled in magic. This is equal to 32 mIQ + what ever spells you want to give him.

Some possible talents which I've not included are: Tactics (1), Master Horsemanship (1), Carousing (1), New Followers (2), Tracking (1), Diplomacy (1), Captain (2), a couple languages, and a few others.


Under the rules Guy was suggesting, (where each talent fits into a single slot) the Mouser would need 19 memory slots, (plus any spells), which might just be possible under the new TFT.

However, in the Unarmed Combat thread, Steve was saying that UC i thru v would take up a full 9 memory slots. This means that exotic multi-class characters like (Pirates AND Thief), (Bandit Leader AND Ranger), and (Master Merchants) are impossible in new TFT.

***

For those who don't remember, this is my dimwitted, but friendly pirate whom I want to play:

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

... Most adventurers want to have a few fighting skills, (say Sword, Shield, & Running), and if they take some other talents (Thief, Detect Traps, Climbing, & Silent MA), then they are DONE. ... Boating, Seamanship & Swimming ... Charisma or Sex Appeal. ...Guns and Missile Weapons ...

I consider this THE major problem with new TFT.

What conceivable bonus to game play or role playing is achieved, by making memory so tight that you can't be both a thief and a pirate?

Warm regards, Rick.