RE: (TFT) Re: Brawling

["Gadda, Charles A" <charles.a.gadda@lmco.com>]

		The thing that prompts me to write all this, is the
suggestion
	below that fighters be required to take a 2 memory point talent in
order
	to get to where they are now.  I don't know about how the balance is

	in your campaign (some times the smallest rules can make a huge 
	difference) but I suspect that punishing fighters by forcing them to
	spend 2 memory while not forcing wizards to put in a simular 
	'apprenceship' is NOT the way to go.  I think that wizards
(especially
	high IQ wizards) get more bang for their buck when compaired to 
	what a fighter or a thief gets for 1 memory point.

Hadn't thought of it that way - I thought I was punishing the wizards since
they have to spend more for the talent. But this is a serious concern.

This concern touches on a real problem with the TFT system, namely the
inconsistency between the acquisition of talents and the acquisition of
spells. The talents are fairly logically developed in terms of cost (i.e.
how intensive they are to learn), IQ (how complicated they are) and
prerequisites (both other talents and physical abilities, as needed). While
folks may quibble over details, there aren't too many complaints about the
overall system as such. Which is as it should be - the mechanics are quite
solid.

Spells, on the other claw, do not use quite the same system. The only
differentiation is in IQ level; there are no prerequisites or variable
costs. For example, in order to learn Fireball would it not make sense to
have to learn Fire and Magic Fist? In some spells, the problem is more
obvious: Wizard's Wrath allows the mage to cast his bolt in any given form
(fist, fireball, lightning) - yet one may in theory buy the spell without
any of the other missile spells. In actual game play this isn't so bad since
you also need an 18 IQ for this spell - so it balances to an extent. It just
doesn't fit well with everything else.

Going back to the problem posed by my version of Brawling, there are 3
solutions:

(1) Either ignore it, or use the other one proposed by someone who's name I
can't quite recall now (i.e. doing +1 dam in HTH). Doesn't address my
concerns but since they are MINE and not necessarily anyone elses, it is not
a problem.
(2) Overhaul the spell system to address the above concerns. While **I**
intend to do it as a game design exercise, it is labour intensive and not
recommended to anyone else. Though if anyone is interested in seeing the
results when I'm done, drop me an e-mail.
(3) If you like my version of brawling, but share the above concern, might I
suggest this middling solution: create wizard talents (i.e. learnable by
wizards at no additional cost) called Sorcery in at least one and possibly
two versions (Sorcery I and Sorcery II, or perhaps Sorcery and Advanced
Sorcery - whatever turns your crank). The way it works is all spells IQ 8-10
may be learnt straight up. Spells IQ 11-14 require Sorcery talent as a
prerequisite, while anything IQ 15 or higher will need Advanced Sorcery. The
IQ limits may be adjusted; I pulled those numbers from out of my posterior.

You may want to do it anyway, if there is a real concern about wizard's
being too powerful. I don't think its all that far out of whack, but they do
have an edge.

> 	Also if virually all fighters have to have it, where is the 
> variation in characters which was one of the strengths of TFT (as 
> opposed to GURPS Magic for example, where all wizards were 
> basically going along the same path of spells prerequisits and the
> only variation between characters is how far they are along each
> path).
> 
Most fighters usually have the sword talent, but I don't hear too many
complaints about lack of variation. Ditto for wizards and literacy. Yes, you
can get by without literacy as a mage, but you are handicapping yourself.
You can "get-by" without brawling, by focusing on missile/thrown weapons,
should you so desire. If anything, I think it INCREASES variation by drawing
sharper lines between warriors and non-warriors, which was an ulterior
motive to proposing the talent. In any case, I don't see how requiring one
talent makes all warriors identical; I'm sure there will still be plenty of
variation (particularly if "adjIQ" rules or the like are in effect, which
will balance out the extra 2 IQ point requirement - admittedly, that was in
the back of my mind anyway. If that is not in effect, then dropping the rule
or reducing the cost back to one seems to be in order)
>  
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"