Another Approach to Spell/Talent Cost

[zot]

Originally Posted by guymc

That “times the number of talents spells you already have” does escalate the cost pretty fast. On the one hand, I like flat costs because they are easy to keep track of. On the other, being improbably multitalented should be hard to accomplish. Can we find a middle ground there? How about doubling the flat rate once you pass a fixed number of talents/spells we would consider “normal” for an adventurer (higher than an average citizen, lower than a reknowned hero).it would double again after passing a certain point where the character is hitting the level of “legendary”. I’d consider the Mouser legendary.

So, that would be:
Adventurer: 300 XP buys 1 Spell or 300 X Talent Level buys 1 Talent.
Notable: 600 XP buys 1 Spell or 600 X Talent Level buys 1 Talent.
Legend: 1200 XP buys 1 Spell or 1200 X Talent Level buys 1 Talent.

Assuming those figures just as a place to start, where would we put the cutoffs for the three categories?

Legendary characters should be accessible to players who play by the rules as written. 3 years to make one is more than enough -- that's a flat 300 XP per talent point with the current attribute rules (Rick Smith's Ranger Prince character is about 2 1/2 years to make).

You don't want house-ruling XP to be the only practical way to get to play legendary characters.

They may be one in a million in the world but you don't want them to be one in a million for players.

Otherwise, the stories about playing legendary characters won't come from people who play the game as written.

[JLV]

I think that this idea (including Guy's suggestions) could work very easily, and still keep to the spirit of TFT.

As far as cut-offs go, somebody mentioned that the number of talents available in the old TFT was 196 or so. Perhaps that tells us where the cut-off should be.

While almost no one would have any desire to get all 196 talents, maybe after 30 or so talents and spells, the character would move up to the "notable" level, and after 60 to the "legendary" level. Just throwing a number out to kind of start the discussion.

However, I also agree with John Brinegar, I don't like the erasure of the difference between Warriors and Wizards and think the progression should still reflect the differing costs for Spells and Talents between the two.

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by zot

You don't want house-ruling XP to be the only practical way to get to play legendary characters. They may be one in a million in the world but you don't want them to be one in a million for players. Otherwise, the stories about playing legendary characters won't come from people who play the game as written.

If I had a vote I would enthusiastically endorse all of this.

[John Brinegar]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Starting a new thread because some of the old ones have been going in different directions.

What if spells and talents did not have a flat cost, just got more and more expensive, but there was no ceiling on how many you could know? (Yes, this would make the new edition the flat reverse of the old one, where spells/talents were limited but attributes had no ceiling."

The XP cost, regardless of your IQ, is the number of spells or talents you know now, times [arbitrary WAG number] 400, times the “difficulty” of the spell or talent. All spells have a difficulty of 1; talents range from 1 (most) to 4 (Unarmed Combat V). [Difficulty equals current "momory slots" used.]

Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but it seems to erase the difference between heroes and wizards. There is no longer any mention of higher talent costs for wizards or higher spell costs for heroes.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Starting a new thread because some of the old ones have been going in different directions. ...

The XP cost, regardless of your IQ, is the number of spells or talents you know now, times [arbitrary WAG number] 400, times the “difficulty” of the spell or talent. All spells have a difficulty of 1; talents range from 1 (most) to 4 (Unarmed Combat V). [Difficulty equals current "memory slots" used.]

For comparison: the cost for increased attributes in the current draft:
Added attribute point - XP cost
33rd or lower – 100 XP - deliberately cheap to encourage the new character!
34th – 200
35th – 400
36th – 800
37th – 1,200
38th – 1,600
39th – 2,000
40th – 3,000
41st and later – Magic is needed.

Hi Steve,
I think that this is a great idea!

But the numbers seem way off to me. Let us say I write up a starting character with an IQ of 10 and begin with 10 memory worth of talents. Using your formula, if I want to buy Running (2), it would cost me...

XP needed for the next talent = # of talents I know now x WAG XP x Difficulty #

XP needed for Running = 10 x 400 XP x 2 = 8,000 XP.

This is far to high. I think it should be around 1/20 or 1/25 of that value.

CONCLUSION: You might consider making the WAG number 20 rather than 400. Even a WAG of 15 might work.

EDIT:
Is "the number of talents you know now" equal to (the total difficulty number), or is it equal to (the flat number of talents)? If the latter, then it punishes people who buy cheap talents. I would rather have the former and a lower WAG number to compensate.

Warm regards, Rick.

[GlennDoren]

I like this idea a lot. It doesn't set an arbitrary limit--it simply makes "legendary characters" more "expensive". And I like that it allows the system to leverage "talents" as a key differentiator between characters, as opposed to a few attributes. Yes, it will be important to ensure all talents have been properly tested for balance... but that would have been an issue even using the original system.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

...

For comparison: the cost for increased attributes in the current draft:
Added attribute point - .... XP cost
33rd or lower – ................. 100 XP - .... deliberately cheap to encourage the new character!
34th – ............................. 200
35th – ............................. 400
36th – ............................. 800
37th – .......................... 1,200
38th – .......................... 1,600
39th – .......................... 2,000
40th – .......................... 3,000
41st and later – ............ Magic is needed.

Hi Steve, everyone.
Just a quick thought,

Anyone like the idea of extending this series of attributes which you can buy by 2 steps, but we make those steps VERY expensive. For example:

...
40th - .............................. 4,000 XP. // Note, changed from above.
41st - .............................. 8,000 XP.
42nd - ........................... 12,000 XP.
43rd and later - ............... Magic is needed.

This way if someone REALLY wanted a bit higher attributes, they could try, but they would be giving up many talents and it would take a long, long time.

It used to be possible to buy 15 attributes with attribute adders, but now they max out at 5 levels. (And presumably are more expensive.) So in that respect, we have a 'bit more room'.

I do not feel strongly one way or another, but am raising this for people's comments / consideration.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

I think it's one of those "game settings" options. I generally agree and kind of expect that many games would in theory allow slight increases above 40 which are theoretically possible but almost never occurring due to ever-increasing EP. In practice, I wonder how many people will even get there, how many years it will take, and how long it will take for anyone to go from 40 to 41, especially if there are other interesting things to do with EP than increase attributes. I think the answer will vary a lot by group, and there will be some groups who rarely get to 37 points, and others who dish out EP or change the curve just so they can play more powerful characters. It's especially hard to say at this point when so many interdependent things seem unfinalized.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

It's especially hard to say at this point when so many interdependent things seem unfinalized.

Poor Steve has been drinking from the fire hose this whole time...

[David Bofinger]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Added attribute point - XP cost
33rd or lower – 100 XP

I would like to see this table extended below 32 points, so that campaigns can if necessary start with very inexperienced 30-point farm boys who don't know what they're in for, or even less capable.

I also think most campaigns are going to house rule in progress above 40 points. It would probably be smart to say, "If you want to do that here are the costs we recommend," or something like that.