Alternate XP progression schedule

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

---

BTW, I think talents (per point) should never cost more than an attribute point. This can be done by saying a talent (per point) costs 500 XP or the cost of an attribute, whichever is cheapest. So, a beginning character can learn a 1 point skill for only 100 XP. They do say that the young learn faster than the old. But mostly this opens up talents to being acceptable purchases early on, instead of waiting until your character gets to 36 points.

I don't go quite this far, but I do have a house rule that the first two talent points cost 250XP each, not 500. The motivation is similar, though I'm less generous than your suggestion.

[Axly Suregrip]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I don't go quite this far, but I do have a house rule that the first two talent points cost 250XP each, not 500. The motivation is similar, though I'm less generous than your suggestion.

I am glad I am not the only one that see this as need to be fixed.

A new character is looking at gaining an attribute for 100 XP or a new 3 point talent for 1500 XP. I want starting characters to consider both attributes and talents. Leads to more diverse characters. Otherwise you should never encounter a 32 point character with more talents than his IQ points.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

An alternate fix to this is to increase the amount of XP given out. Say if you average game night averages 100 XP, then give out 200 XP.

This will shrink the XP whole scale by half. At some point you don't want humans (and the like) to continue to gain attributes. That will still happen but later. This will also make other purchases easier (Staff mana, talents, etc).

---

BTW, I think talents (per point) should never cost more than an attribute point. This can be done by saying a talent (per point) costs 500 XP or the cost of an attribute, whichever is cheapest. So, a beginning character can learn a 1 point skill for only 100 XP. They do say that the young learn faster than the old. But mostly this opens up talents to being acceptable purchases early on, instead of waiting until your character gets to 36 points.

Originally Posted by phiwum

I don't go quite this far, but I do have a house rule that the first two talent points cost 250XP each, not 500. The motivation is similar, though I'm less generous than your suggestion.

The concept of spending EXP on Talents/Spells and Mana Points on Wizard's Staves are still a new thing for me to wrap my head around as compared to the Classic TFT. I really have no problem with their cost structure in ITL. Phiwum has a decent house rule that the first two talent points only cost 250 EXP instead of 500 which I plan to steal from him. At this time, I also plan to give the first mana point for Staff 2 spell. I may vacate that later but, like Phiwum wanting to promote some talent diversification, I like the new staff spells and want to promote them. Classic TFT's two staff spells were structured in a way that most wizards didn't even bother with having one due to overall impracticality in combat or general game play. That was a true flaw in my opinion. Most wizards of lore had a staff and it was more than just something for him to carry and look like a wizard.

I have stated that I think the new EXP/Attrubute cost structure is a case of intellectual dishonesty (you all can read the posts). Classic TFT EXP Cost/Attribute does become restrictive as you approach 38 to 40 point totals but adding the new EXP spending options would combat the Attribute bloat that occurred. Even with the Classic TFT EXP cost system, before you get past 38, it starts to become more economical to spend EXP on talents/spells or mana points than on attributes. So, at that point, the player of that character is at a crossroads in the development of their character. However, the EXP Cost/Attribute is not so restrictive that it becomes an outright wall to full character development like the Legacy TFT system does. Again, a GM shouldn't be too stingy with awarding EXP and definitely not throw it out like candy in a parade. The average of 50 to 100 per session is a reasonable guideline to follow with some allowance for the GM to make calls either way.

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by Bill_in_IN

At this time, I also plan to give the first mana point for Staff 2 spell. I may vacate that later but, like Phiwum wanting to promote some talent diversification, I like the new staff spells and want to promote them.

It's my opinion, Bill, that the new staff spells need no promotion. Indeed, from discussions on this forum, it seems that the PC who doesn't take Staff at level II or better is the oddity, since the ability to store mana is very useful beginning around the 35 attribute level if not before.

But my experience is pretty limited, I must admit.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's my opinion, Bill, that the new staff spells need no promotion. Indeed, from discussions on this forum, it seems that the PC who doesn't take Staff at level II or better is the oddity, since the ability to store mana is very useful beginning around the 35 attribute level if not before.

But my experience is pretty limited, I must admit.

That's a fair assessment. You probably have more experience with the new staff spells than I. At first, I thought of half cost for the first two mana points. It may not need promoting. Again, any character that I'm creating at this time in my game will most likely be in my pool of NPCs. So, I don't see this creating any rule violations for those characters or any unfair development so far as game play. I'm just trying to see where development mistakes can be made so that I don't steer players the wrong way.

[TippetsTX]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

A new character is looking at gaining an attribute for 100 XP or a new 3 point talent for 1500 XP. I want starting characters to consider both attributes and talents. Leads to more diverse characters. Otherwise you should never encounter a 32 point character with more talents than his IQ points.

That goal is key to my own framework as well. I have taken it a step further, however, by establishing the same construct at each 'tier' of play. Whether the character is a novice (30-36 points), veteran (37-42), legendary (43-48) or truly mythic (49 and up), the choice between advancing attributes or gaining new abilities remains balanced within each sphere of experience. This way, players continue to have hard choices between different paths of progression for their characters.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by phiwum

It's my opinion, Bill, that the new staff spells need no promotion. Indeed, from discussions on this forum, it seems that the PC who doesn't take Staff at level II or better is the oddity, since the ability to store mana is very useful beginning around the 35 attribute level if not before.

I may be the minority of one, but I hate the new Staff spells. Not that I dislike the mana storage feature -- that I love, just not in this form. Also, there's nothing new about that idea, it's just new to the official TFT rules via the Legacy edition. My late 70's to late 90's group added several little features to the original Staff making it much more useful to the point no wizard would want to skip having one.

If I ever manage to start a new TFT group in the modern era, I'd use house rules for the Staff from the start, some of which I've mentioned in other contexts in other threads. My main premise is that there should be only one Staff spell, with the abilities & talents of the wizard determining how much mana he or she can focus and store in it. My goal is to encourage improvement in the PC, not the stick.

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

That goal is key to my own framework as well. I have taken it a step further, however, by establishing the same construct at each 'tier' of play. [snip] This way, players continue to have hard choices between different paths of progression for their characters.

A 'tier' system for wizards (but not others) is actually what I have in mind, although not as explicitly a tier system as yours (which I've read with great interest in your other posts on the subject).

In my approach successive Staff spells get replaced by successive magical talents the wizard would have to take to improve how they'd use their Staff (among other things). Which brings us back to the discussion at hand regarding XP progression, and the costs of attributes and talents. I wouldn't "sell" Staff mana for XP points, nor new talents. The only way I'd allow PCs to improve, or wizards to improve their Staff, is by raising attributes and subsequently raising IQ for new talents -- in other words, back to the original ITL system instead of Legacy.

I'd do the exact opposite of Legacy. Instead of uncoupling new talents from IQ increases, I'd give figures TWO "talent" points for each IQ increase. That would be my way to make taking new talents cheaper than it had been under the original rules, without using the new mechanism built into Legacy. I'd flirt with "attribute bloat", or specifically "IQ bloat" before using several of the new rules.

[Axly Suregrip]

Hi Bill,
The one compelling reason for a wizards staff in old Advanced Wizard in in today's Legacy ITL is that a wizard may not cast spell while holding something (other than the staff). Or at least most spells, depending on IQ. Having the staff at least allowed him to do a defend or a weak attack. I used to overlook this rule when using silver weapons, but it still applies with those.

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I may be the minority of one, but I hate the new Staff spells. Not that I dislike the mana storage feature -- that I love, just not in this form. Also, there's nothing new about that idea, it's just new to the official TFT rules via the Legacy edition. My late 70's to late 90's group added several little features to the original Staff making it much more useful to the point no wizard would want to skip having one.

If I ever manage to start a new TFT group in the modern era, I'd use house rules for the Staff from the start, some of which I've mentioned in other contexts in other threads. My main premise is that there should be only one Staff spell, with the abilities & talents of the wizard determining how much mana he or she can focus and store in it. My goal is to encourage improvement in the PC, not the stick.

Hi Steve,
Yes! We too played with a modified staff. For us, Staff spell created a staff that was a ST battery equal to your ST. And Staff of Power was equal to your ST x2. The thing about this approach is that it did not make ST irrelevant; just less important so you didn't have to have super beefy wizards. I agree with you that anything beyond Staff II seems off. Maybe if I play with it more I will change my mind.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I'd do the exact opposite of Legacy. Instead of uncoupling new talents from IQ increases, I'd give figures TWO "talent" points for each IQ increase. That would be my way to make taking new talents cheaper than it had been under the original rules, without using the new mechanism built into Legacy. I'd flirt with "attribute bloat", or specifically "IQ bloat" before using several of the new rules.

Attribute bloat is a lot less of a problem with The Rule of 14, which states that, regardless of how high a stat is, treat it as 14 at the highest after all adjustments. This limits characters to a 90% likelihood of succeeding on a given roll, even at IQ 30. Add 1 to the cap for each extra die added to a roll, so 4d would be against 15 (66% chance of success), 16 for 5d rolls (40%), 17 for 6d (20%). The Rule of 14 does not apply in Quick Contests.

If I were to completely redesign the XP & Attribute- Talent-buy system, I'd probably get rid of a lot of zeros by having attributes cost their value (so to rise from ST 9 to 10 costs 10 XP). It's easy to remember, so chart needed, and it gets more expensive as you increase, but not drastically. Talents and spells would cost 10--again, easy to remember.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Shostak

[...] attributes cost their value (so to rise from ST 9 to 10 costs 10 XP). [...] Talents and spells would cost 10

That makes talents quite expensive. Buying even a 1-point talent would cost almost as much as an extra attribute. At that price the only talents purchased are likely to be those absolutely central to the character concept. I don't think this is anything like enough to mitigate Legacy's great talent desert.