Quote:
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.