Slow Learner & Fast Learner, Alternative

[ntin]

My gripe with the slow learner and fast learner, traits is that all my player’s take fast learner. I don’t really blame them the trait can pay for itself in xp quickly. I am trying to come up with a different system that is based more on their attributes. I am thinking of trying something like and this and curious if anyone else house ruled something similar.

Code: [Select]

Linked Attributes
Value Mod Skill Cost Modifier
0-1 -2 -8%
2-3 -1 -4%
4-5 +0 +0%
6-7 +1 +4%
8-9 +2 +8%
10-11 +3 +12%

Basic Skill Cost Modifier = (4 * Skill Link Modifier) + (4 * INT Link Modifier)

Complex Skill Cost Modifier = ([(4 * 1st Skill Link Modifier) + (4 * 2nd Skill Link Modifier)] / 2) + (4 * INT Link Modifier)

Code: [Select]

Level Score Base -16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24%
0 20 23 23 22 22 22 21 21 20 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 16 15
1 30 35 34 34 33 32 32 31 31 30 29 29 28 28 27 26 26 25 25 24 23 23
2 50 58 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38
3 80 93 91 90 88 86 85 83 82 80 78 77 75 74 72 70 69 67 66 64 62 61
4 120 139 137 134 132 130 127 125 122 120 118 115 113 110 108 106 103 101 98 96 94 91
5 170 197 194 190 187 184 180 177 173 170 167 163 160 156 153 150 146 143 139 136 133 129
6 230 267 262 258 253 248 244 239 235 230 225 221 216 212 207 202 198 193 189 184 179 175
7 300 348 342 336 330 324 318 312 306 300 294 288 282 276 270 264 258 252 246 240 234 228
8 380 441 433 426 418 410 403 395 388 380 372 365 357 350 342 334 327 319 312 304 296 289
9 470 545 536 526 517 508 498 489 479 470 461 451 442 432 423 414 404 395 385 376 367 357
10 570 661 650 638 627 616 604 593 581 570 559 547 536 524 513 502 490 479 467 456 445 433


[NullVoid]

You're proposing to do away entirely with slow/fast learner and simply introducing these mods?  We'd have to run some numbers, but for me it looks like your players would simply invest heavily in attributes (especially intelligence) and buy minimal ranks allowed by the life modules.  Also, this breaks aging as there can be now slow-learner effect; for that reason I'd suggest keeping the traits, even if at reduced effectiveness and increased cost.  Last but not least, (4*X+4*Y)/2 can be simplified to 2*X+2*Y.

We generally do use an extra discount in XP costs for exceptional linked attributes, as well as Training skill rolls rebates, but we use a more byzantine skill system, à là MW3e, so characters end up with dozens of marginally-useful skills at +0 to +4.

[William J. Pennington]

Just dump both slow and fast learner. It's easier. Characters who 'learn' slowly, and the player, for some reason, really wants to reflect that, can reflect this ability by spending XP on something other than skills, or just don't spend it if they really want to play a character inferior to the other inhabitants of the game.    No one wants to take slow learner, and it makes no sense for any character who ever thinks they may spend more than 3k points on XP not to take it.  In effect, not taking fast leaner is an XP 'tax' on characters with over 3k in XP spent on skills, and slow learner is just an even heavier 'tax' rate.

Don't adjust the skill costs, especially on attributes. Let skills cost what they should. It keeps characters closer to an equal footing. in terms of the impact of XP awarded over the length of a campaign.  And it is a lot less work and headache for the players and the GM, and has no detrimental impact on gameplay, game balance, or character creation.

[ntin]

You're proposing to do away entirely with slow/fast learner and simply introducing these mods?  We'd have to run some numbers, but for me it looks like your players would simply invest heavily in attributes (especially intelligence) and buy minimal ranks allowed by the life modules.  Also, this breaks aging as there can be now slow-learner effect; for that reason I'd suggest keeping the traits, even if at reduced effectiveness and increased cost.  Last but not least, (4*X+4*Y)/2 can be simplified to 2*X+2*Y.

We generally do use an extra discount in XP costs for exceptional linked attributes, as well as Training skill rolls rebates, but we use a more byzantine skill system, à là MW3e, so characters end up with dozens of marginally-useful skills at +0 to +4.

My group made their characters heavy in skill but with just 4 attributes across the board as they did not see the value in investing in attributes. Later on even as MechWarriors they wish they had more BOD and WIL, for longevity.With this even a character investing heavily into attributes is not going to be able to match the flat 20% reduction that fast learner provides for some skills due to limits of the normal human phenotype.

The formula can be simplified more to 4(X+INT) and 2(X+Y) +4*INT but I like explicate parenthesis to avoid order of operations ambiguity.

Just dump both slow and fast learner. It's easier. Characters who 'learn' slowly, and the player, for some reason, really wants to reflect that, can reflect this ability by spending XP on something other than skills, or just don't spend it if they really want to play a character inferior to the other inhabitants of the game.    No one wants to take slow learner, and it makes no sense for any character who ever thinks they may spend more than 3k points on XP not to take it.  In effect, not taking fast leaner is an XP 'tax' on characters with over 3k in XP spent on skills, and slow learner is just an even heavier 'tax' rate.

Don't adjust the skill costs, especially on attributes. Let skills cost what they should. It keeps characters closer to an equal footing. in terms of the impact of XP awarded over the length of a campaign.  And it is a lot less work and headache for the players and the GM, and has no detrimental impact on gameplay, game balance, or character creation.

Tax is a good way to look at it. Only one my players did not have fast learner and he felt like he was missing on during downtime training. Occam ’s razor removing both traits probably will be the easier way to go.     

[monbvol]

Fast Learner actually pays for itself at 1.5k XP these days.

But I do tend to agree.  The way it stands now there is basically no reason to not take it even if below 1.5k XP in skills as it will pay for itself very quickly and really you'd have to work very hard to not have at least have 1.5k in skills.

It is why I decided on it not decreasing XP costs of the skill ranks but instead focused on it improving XP income.  I know it gets a little fuzzier this way but since I did something similar to all the skill ranks XP adjusting traits it is much easier on the math and makes Slow Learner a more reasonable negative trait without making Fast Learner all but mandatory.

Details can be found in my house rule thread, first post, link to the main document.

[Col Toda]

Anything that moves away from the KISS principle is bad .  As for your players if the character lives long enough they are going to lose the Fast Learner Trait when age gives them slow learner and cancels it out . If they are mercenaries then let them take far distance contracts in which they spend time travelling . They also spend some time between contracts with family or projects .  The AGE chart with after a few contracts will make them lose Reflexes and DEX so they have to spend the bulk of XP they get to keep what they have so the actual explosive progress happens short term but they unless they invest in attributes ( which is not effected by Fast Learner) they will start to  back slide perceived problem solved . In the Succession War Era spans huge time frames .  The Jihad had people doing end runs around systems to avoid war ship interception so the travel takes longer . In the Dark Age the fortress republic forces the unit to go around the 10th Prefecture of the Republic travel to the other side 3X longer as you have to around and not through . The best thing is not to keep them in a theatre for more than 3 or 4 significant battles then not renew the contract and send them packing for home or the other side of the Inner Sphere .