An Alternate Approach to Talents

[Shostak]

The IQ prerequisite for talents carried over from original TFT to the Legacy Edition, with some talents requiring as much as IQ 14 to learn. Is this still desirable when it is so difficult to progress beyond 38 attribute points? It makes sense that some talents should require a higher IQ than others, but do they need such a wide spread? What if the IQ requirements were capped at 12? Or even 11? It seems to me that this would encourage a wider diversity starting characters and paths to desired mid- and advanced characters . Has anyone tried something like this at their table?

[hcobb]

The problem with Heroes in Legacy isn't the IQ needed to learn talents but rather the IQ needed to effectively use them.

A flinger with IQ 11 and remove traps is worse off than an IQ 17 Molly with Alertness at finding traps.

[Skarg]

I feel the IQ requirements for talents are relatively modest as they are. I like the original flavor that higher-end talents require significant investment/dedication and are not available to most characters unless/until they invest in IQ. And I'm already fairly annoyed by the new starting characters that contort to start with the new expert weapon talents.

I think I'd sooner make the effective attribute cap less severe, than dilute the talent IQ requirements.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Skarg

I like the original flavor that higher-end talents require significant investment/dedication and are not available to most characters unless/until they invest in IQ. And I'm already fairly annoyed by the new starting characters that contort to start with the new expert weapon talents.

Talents with a lowered IQ prerequisite could have an attribute total prerequisite that would still put them out of reach for beginning characters.

I agree with Axly that some of the spell IQ prerequisites no longer seem appropriate. An attribute total prerequisite could serve again here to still keep the spells out of beginnig or even mid-level characters while allowing for a more diverse distribution of ST, DX, and IQ.

[larsdangly]

The prerequisites are good as they are; they are what allows for a diversity of interesting characters. Relax them, and you will see PC's collapse to a narrower range of 'builds' as IQ becomes a sort of dump stat

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

The prerequisites are good as they are; they are what allows for a diversity of interesting characters. Relax them, and you will see PC's collapse to a narrower range of 'builds' as IQ becomes a sort of dump stat

With talents like Chemist, Locksmith, Mimic, Animal Handler, Naturalist, etc. requiring success rolls against IQ, I don't think IQ will be in danger of becoming a dump stat. Even more so because your beginning number of talents is still tied to it.

[Axly Suregrip]

I see it more as a problem with spells instead of talents. And either fighters or wizards, I like that it forces a trade off. You just cannot have everything.

IQ 14 talents are attainable with beginning characters (barring prereqs). A bookish character can start with ST8 DX10 IQ14. Or a 40 point fighter with ST11 DX15 IQ14 is quite deadly and knowledgable.

Now with spells, the top shelf spells are at IQ20. Unattainable with beginning characters, even elves and goblins (as it should be). A 40 point wizard would be ST8 DX12 IQ20. This is not good for combat situations for experienced characters. Or if your intent of all that IQ was to create magic items, you really want DX15 as missed DX rolls can get costly. If you are looking for an experienced combat wizard a higher DX would be advisable and thus the IQ20 is out of reach for combat wizards. Generally speaking. Say ST8 DX15 IQ17 for a 40 point combat wizard. That is formidable.

Magic item creation is the real problem. Greater and Lesser Magic item creation will be difficult. Costs should be changed for these to reflect this.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

The IQ prerequisite for talents carried over from original TFT to the Legacy Edition, with some talents requiring as much as IQ 14 to learn. Is this still desirable when it is so difficult to progress beyond 38 attribute points?

I say nay, this is highly undesirable. I'd much rather see attribute progression much, much easier, with plenty of tasty high IQ talents available to tempt one to choose IQ increases over increasing ST or DX to "superhero" levels. Then the choice is more between getting better at something the character already does (boring after awhile), or acquiring totally new, character-defining abilities (interesting).

I'd like to see talents above IQ 14. I'd like to see several of the existing talents, especially expert talents, kicked up higher on the tables.

I also see it as an inequity that increasing IQ alone is no longer sufficient for taking any new or upgraded talents at all. For example, an IQ 11 figure that starts with Physicker not only needs to increase their IQ by 3 points to qualify to take Master Physicker (IQ 14), but after completing that daunting task still needs another 1,000 XP to buy the "talent points". Divert any XP to raising a survival attribute, ST or DX, or taking any other talent along the way to help keep the character alive, and the player is looking at years of playing time to achieve just this one relatively modest goal.

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by Steve Plambeck

I say nay, this is highly undesirable. I'd much rather see attribute progression much, much easier, with plenty of tasty high IQ talents available to tempt one to choose IQ increases over increasing ST or DX to "superhero" levels. Then the choice is more between getting better at something the character already does (boring after awhile), or acquiring totally new, character-defining abilities (interesting).

I'm surprised, then, that you don't care for my proposal, since continually adding IQ eventually gets to the point where there is a 90%+ chance of success on a 3d roll for any talent using IQ. Boring, no?

I'd like to see talents above IQ 14. I'd like to see several of the existing talents, especially expert talents, kicked up higher on the tables.

Again, at 18 IQ, there is a 50% success rate on 5d rolls!

For example, an IQ 11 figure that starts with Physicker not only needs to increase their IQ by 3 points to qualify to take Master Physicker (IQ 14), but after completing that daunting task still needs another 1,000 XP to buy the "talent points". Divert any XP to raising a survival attribute, ST or DX, or taking any other talent along the way to help keep the character alive, and the player is looking at years of playing time to achieve just this one relatively modest goal.

Exactly so! But not only that, the newly minted Master Physicker has become strangely competent at all tasks requiring a 3d or 4d IQ roll, thanks to the IQ 14 prerequisite, and, even though they might be timid as a mouse, they've become nearly immune to the Control Person spell.

The system of IQ prerequisites forces characters into molds and thus discourages diversity. Consider a character intended to be just a really good soldier: the system pretty much forces them to be have IQ 13 and ST & DX 14 each. If the IQ requirement were lowered, you could have figures with average IQ still being skilled swordsmen who could fight well from horseback, and without being necessarily good at all mental tasks.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by Shostak

I'm surprised, then, that you don't care for my proposal

Ah, I agree you've spotted a problem and proposed a viable solution. Adding character tiers to the game seems like a drastic step though in terms of TFT's "flavor", so I was just musing aloud about other possible approaches.

Originally Posted by Shostak

... continually adding IQ eventually gets to the point where there is a 90%+ chance of success on a 3d roll for any talent using IQ. Boring, no?

And there's the rub! In original TFT we hardly ever rolled vs IQ except for disbelieving illusions*, but with Legacy the IQ stat gets used for more rolls, and that creates the problem.

Anywhere the RAW use any attribute level as both a gatekeeper to qualify to try some thing, as well as the stat tested to succeed at doing that very same thing, we're stuck with a tautology! A system that could avoid these tautological problems would be a better system. My little proposal to raise the ceiling on IQ would only aggravate the trouble with this.

Originally Posted by Shostak

Again, at 18 IQ, there is a 50% success rate on 5d rolls!

Actually this specific case doesn't bother me so much. A 50% chance at something really, really hard that you're really, really prepared for doesn't sound too unreasonable. But yeah, 90% on 3d6 rolls is getting ridiculous!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I actually have a little solution for that single case: a "Re-enforce Illusion" spell to make an illusion harder to disbelieve. The wizard who knew the "Re-enforce" spell could automatically create a "tougher" illusion by paying the additional cost at the same time as creating the illusion, or could pay the cost separately to shore up an existing illusion with a separate casting. Of course a PC should NOT be entitled to know the IQ of opponents, so whether or not they'd need to use the "Re-enforce" spell should be a matter of guesswork, which right there makes things a little more interesting.