Would it break/hurt the game if Talents and Spells cost the same?

[hcobb]

There are a lot of spells that wizards can get away with paying zero memory points or XPs for, once they can afford a Wizard's Chest. (The wizard equivalent of Fine Plate.)

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

You could also try a weakened version of RAW. Wizards pay 150% of normal cost for talents. Heroes pay 150% or 200% of normal cost for spells. See what happened.

I used to have a generalist class who paid I think 120% of normal cost for everything.

Again, I think there are simpler paths to the same result.

In the example of my old Wizardry Talent, we charged a flat 5 points for the talent, meaning an IQ 10 wizard would have exactly the same number of (other) talents as they would under RAW, while paying the same cost as a fighter would for each one. But this caused a slight advantage to wizards with an IQ higher than 10, who'd end up with somewhat more talents than under RAW.

So one could do the same thing, but call the Wizardry Talent cost 50% of the wizard's current IQ, whatever that is. Then all wizards could only afford half the talents of a fighter at the same time as charging everyone the same cost for each talent, and now you don't need percent this or percent that, varying by character, to preserve the intent of the rules.

[Anomylous]

I have some house rules, already posted elsewhere, that are a (fairly complex/detailed) implementation of the "gatekeeper talent" concept:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...KkBZM9Hts/edit

ETA: yeah I've posted this several times. You'll have to forgive me...it's the product of years of tinkering and I'm really proud of it.