04-08-2022, 05:37 AM | #111 |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
Yes, my mistake. I suspect you’d still see a reasonably high number of players choose to purchase Weapon Expertise, since it confers so many benefits.
|
01-28-2023, 01:56 AM | #112 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
Quote:
Just skimming through an aging binder of my house rules from the 1980's, I was shocked and appalled to see I'd advocated and implemented the very thing I'm always opposing in this discussion -- oh the things we forget! Here was our system back in the day... We had a home-made stat called "Talent Points", with a box on our character record sheets labeled "TP". I had no recollection of that at all. The new rules I'd written then went on to say:
On the other hand, that last rule obviates the possibility that the same total XP could result in character builds with different attribute totals, something I actively dislike about Legacy ITL. It also obviates the unsavory tendency of the new rules to force PCs into doing any attribute increases early, while saving talent additions for later in their careers lest they waste the buying power of their XP. And lastly it mitigates that problem in Legacy where talent points and IQ increases are in competition for the same XP, as it still grants that one talent point with the IQ increase -- you can still work on acquiring both another talent and a higher level talent at the same time. My old group collaborated, revised, and voted on all house rules, so I really can't say who should get the credit for that whole thing. I was the editor typing it all up, but it's hard now to remember who came up with exactly what parts.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
01-28-2023, 06:36 PM | #113 | |
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
Quote:
If you wanted to encourage attributes first and talents second, the way Legacy does, then you could have the ratio increase as the character develops. e.g. the first attribute point allocated to talents and spells buys 2 TP, the second buys 3, the third buys 4, etc. But that leads to graininess in the purchase of talents. |
|
01-28-2023, 07:12 PM | #114 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
Quote:
I suspect I don't even recall my old group using this because it may have been a later addition to our house rules, so it didn't have time to play out before the group ended. And all five or six of us had characters nearing 40 attribute point, which meant their further advancement was stalled under the ITL progression rules -- a thousand XP can take a couple years of play. We probably should have just changed that. This forgotten adoption of a "Talent Point" rule was probably a last-ditch effort to get PC advancement moving again. I've thought about it tons since Legacy arrived and although this old 1980's solution ain't bad, it isn't really sufficient, especially if sticking to the rest of the Legacy progression rules. Many talents, like many spells, are underutilized.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
01-28-2023, 08:50 PM | #115 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
Which is why XP costs for non-attribute character features need to be lowered as well IMO.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
01-29-2023, 02:08 AM | #116 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
Quote:
I'd go much farther and say, XP costs for talents and spells should be entirely eliminated. XP should pay for attributes alone, and period. (And certainly not used to buy gold!) IQ and IQ alone could still work to regulate talents and spells, it just has to be implemented in a little better way than it was in original ITL. Is the goal to liberalize the acquisitions of spells and/or talents? If so, there are simpler ways to do both without bringing XP into the equation, except indirectly as it still regulates the attributes that regulate the other things.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." |
|
01-29-2023, 09:17 PM | #117 | ||
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
Quote:
Quote:
I like the idea of the player having to choose whether to spend XP on something that increases the character’s proficiency across their existing portfolio of abilities vs. adding a brand new ability to mix.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
||
01-30-2023, 02:27 AM | #118 | |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
That sounds intriguing!
Quote:
Yes, the exchange rate of old, only 1 point to spend on a new ability for every 1 point increase of IQ, is way too low and slow, especially as any IQ increase will eventually get very expensive under the RAW. But that's just one number to be changed. Let the points for buying talents become 2 times IQ, or maybe even 3. (No, I'm not suggesting starting characters of IQ 10 begin with 20 or 30 "talent points". There's formulaic ways to suppress that happening while still having that faster rate for later increases in IQ.) Will IQ get bloated if we return to encouraging its increase as the only means to add new spells and talents? Well not if the rate is something generous enough. If people weren't piling all their XP onto IQ under the classic rules, when that was the only way to get more abilities, they won't do that now if the new abilities become more affordable than ever through a multiplier that means you don't need as much IQ as you did before.
__________________
"I'm not arguing. I'm just explaining why I'm right." Last edited by Steve Plambeck; 01-31-2023 at 12:26 AM. |
|
01-31-2023, 07:35 PM | #119 |
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: North Texas
|
Re: Alternate XP progression schedule
I also like the juxtaposition between escalating attribute costs and the fixed structure for talents. Under the 'classic' model, a talent like HORSEMANSHIP has a variable (potentially drastically so) cost depending on when in the character’s lifecycle it is purchased, but in Legacy (or my game) the XP required to learn that skill is the same whether they are 30-points or 40. There's some logic in that, I think.
__________________
“No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style.” -Vladimir Taltos |
|
|