XP Cost for Talents/Spells

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

TBH, restoring the 'classic' progression scheme is a great solution to the LE problem. It is an elegant, well-balanced and time-tested design. If you go that route, however, I would not recommend attempting to accommodate the LE feature of purchasing talents/spells directly with XP. Stick to the original IQ-increase dependency. It's much cleaner.

I concur that the Classic system is cleaner especially from an accounting perspective. There was only one thing on which XP could be spent, attribute points, and IQ was the limit on Talent points. But it was also why we had high IQs to accommodate multiple talents. The old joke was, "Conan the Librarian".

However, I do appreciate Legacy TFT's allowance for spending XP on talents. Although, I believe that 500 per IQ point is too expensive, it does get rid of the "Conan the Librarian" situation. If you capture the starting attributes, XP earned, XP spent, and starting list of talents, the accounting in Legacy works. I have set up such an accounting system for all of my PCs while I was learning the Legacy TFT system. I don't require it as a GM but I strongly encourage it because I don't want to be the bad guy later on when I default to the 'you should have tracked that better' stance when deciding which way to rule on something as a GM. I also try to GM as if I'm training new GMs. That way, I'm not seen as a guy with a God complex. Having players know the rules themselves can help to keep a GM honest and promote a higher level of participation.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

I concur that the Classic system is cleaner especially from an accounting perspective. There was only one thing on which XP could be spent, attribute points, and IQ was the limit on Talent points. But it was also why we had high IQs to accommodate multiple talents. The old joke was, "Conan the Librarian".

TBH, the 'genius barbarian' thing never bothered me that much. The issue I had with the 'classic' approach (one of very few) was that talent costs weren't consistent. Let's take RUNNING, for instance. Assuming I didn't select the talent at character creation, the cost I pay (in EP/XP) will vary depending on when I choose to acquire it. If learning RUNNING is my first priority once play starts, I spend only 250 EP to buy the 2 IQ points I need for the talent. If I wait and build up ST or DX first (or IQ for different talents), however, at TAP 35 the same talent costs 375 EP. Further into my progression the cost for RUNNING continues to escalate... 500 EP at TAP 38, 2000 EP at TAP 42, etc. That just seemed nuts to me (eventhough I stand by my previous and seemingly contradictory "it's much cleaner" statement).

Fixed XP costs for talents or spells makes far more sense IMO in spite of being a bit more complex. Characters should pay more XP for more potent abilities as they qualify for them, but the effort to acquire RUNNING (or any other specific talent) should be the same regardless of when they want to learn it. That's why this particular element of the LE ruleset really resonated with me. It's also why I don't find attempts to combine the fixed-cost model with the 'classic' IQ = TP approach attractive. It exacerbates the issue described above.