3 Character Types: Fighter, Wizard, Mixed (Bard, Cleric, Monk)

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by flankspeed

Fighters: Pay normal cost to learn Talents, pay triple cost to learn Spells.
Wizards: Pay triple cost to learn Talents, pay normal cost to learn Spells.
Mixed: Pay double cost to learn Talents, pay double cost to learn Spells.

Problem: Given these numbers there is no character design for which mixed is superior to both hero and wizard. So why would anyone take it?

If the costs were (1.5, 1.5) that might be playable.

I tried a generalist class. Fighters were (1, 3) and wizards were (2, 1), setting generalist to (1.25, 1.25) gave a reasonable range in the middle where it was the preferred option. But the rounding was a pain.

I also wrote a Druid class which could buy some spells and talents at normal price and the rest were doubled. But listing which spells and talents was too much trouble.

Then I tried splitting up the spells and talents into colleges and letting people choose which ones they got cheap.

I even looked at weird nonlinear envelope functions but thankfully got therapy before I did anything for which I could be prosecuted.

I think abolishing the distinction and going to (1, 1) for all characters is very likely better than any of these. I've played in a game like that but the characters were practically superheroes for other reasons as well so I'm not sure how it would work for a 32 point start.

stereotypical bards, clerics, and monks.

By stereotypical you mean D&D? It's not obvious to me a cleric should be mixed, some are going to be studious theologians who should use the wizard template, for instance, And monks will be piling so much into Unarmed Combat they may not have any to spare for magic and might be better off as fighters.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I think abolishing the distinction and going to (1, 1) for all characters is very likely better than any of these. I've played in a game like that but the characters were practically superheroes for other reasons as well so I'm not sure how it would work for a 32 point start.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Charging all characters the same costs for all learned abilities is an enormous simplification for the rules. No more complicated exceptions to keep track of, no more pesky arithmetic, no more debating what is and isn't fair. This was almost the first thing my old friends and I house-ruled when original ITL first arrived.

To maintain the game balance between wizards and non-wizards intended by the RAW, we made wizards take an expensive Wizardry talent (which I've mentioned elsewhere) as the prerequisite for learning any spells.

We charged 5 memory/talent points for Wizardry, but a GM might tweak it, charging 4 points or 6 points depending on how versatile you want wizards to be in all the other talents. But at that cost of 5, and with other talents priced equally for all characters, an IQ 10 wizard can only afford half as many of the other talents as a non-wizard could -- the same balance struck by charging wizards double under the RAW, but without any of the fuss. At higher IQs some advantage does creep in; an IQ 12 wizard spending 5 on Wizardry has 7 free memory points, as opposed to only affording a maximum of 6 points worth of talents had the costs been doubled following the official rules.

One could even mitigate the number of talents available to wizards without a Wizardry talent, and without differential talent costs, by simply ruling a wizard only gets 1/2 their IQ in points to spend on talents. That is only a smidgen of math, and a decision on which way to round.

Personally I prefer using the Wizardry talent approach -- it gives us something to clearly delineate what makes a wizard a wizard. ITL page 12, under 'Different Kinds of Characters' says this: "Heroes gain talents – physical abilities – easily, but are handicapped in learning spells, since they lack the proper training." But what is the "proper training" the Heroes are missing? In everything else, the proper training for a thing is represented by taking the pertinent talent. The rules here state there is a regimen of "proper training" for learning spells. The concept is built into TFT, it just doesn't have a name or a talent point cost assigned. Calling it Wizardry (or what you prefer), cost 5 (or 4, or 6, or 7) is just attaching a name and number to fully integrate the concept with the rules.

As a further simplification you can treat spells and talents as being paid for from separate memory pools. Let an IQ 10 wizard start with 10 spells, and 10 points for talents (but remember the latter is only 5 points net after paying 5 for the Wizardry talent). This solves the trouble with porting characters created under the Wizard micro-game to a campaign running under ITL -- they won't have to "forget" spells they already knew in order to afford any talents, and yet they'll still only be able to afford about half as many of the talents available to non-wizards.

We should be able to forget about character "types" and "classes" entirely. Every character is their own "class" unto themselves, each one self-defined and self-determined by the unique combination of talents they've chosen.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

I think abolishing the distinction and going to (1, 1) for all characters is very likely better than any of these. I've played in a game like that but the characters were practically superheroes for other reasons as well so I'm not sure how it would work for a 32 point start.

Charging the same cost for spells and talents for all characters is the way to go. This encourages character types instead of character classes, and this, in turn, supports a more diverse array of characters in any given game. In my experience, this diversity is highly desirable.

In my games of late, I have required a Wizardry talent as a prerequisite for learning spells. It seemed like a fair way to compensate for the power magic brings to the game, and having fewer spells encourages players to be creative with the spells they have. But, there are a lot of spells, and learning new ones with XP is a slow process unless your GM is generous. It may be that it is better to just have the talent and spell cost be the same for everyone and leave it at that.