Final tweaks on talents

[Chris Rice]

I'm perfectly happy with the Literacy Talent as is it and never felt the need to add detail to it. There is already an advanced level (in a way) with the Scholar Talent.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

It sounds like the next couple of weeks is the last chance to make any corrections/clarifications to the core rules, so I thought this would be a good time to point out any specific places that seem like rough spots. I was re-reading the talents recently and had a couple of thoughts:

1) Monster Followers is patterned after New Followers, but it isn't totally clear whether or not it requires Charisma as a prereq. New Followers clearly does; on the other hand, MF functions like NF, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has the same prereqs as NF, and the Charisma talent itself works in ways that seem directly related to NF but would not function on the targets of MF. So, it strikes me as an ambiguity that should be tidied up.

2) I really like the rules for taking temporary ST damage when you travel in harsh environments without a guide who has the Woodsman talent (as well as the complementary rules on getting lost). But its pretty confusing that the core rules on overland travel describe getting lost but the Woodsman talent does not, whereas the Woodsman talent describes how people take temporary damage during travel but the core rules do not. You have to be pretty observant to figure out how this is all supposed to work together.

p.s., the intended point of this thread is the sort of stuff an editor would pick up, not big changes to the list of talents or how they are supposed to work.

I agree about these points. I think Animal Handler should be a prereq for Monster Followers. I don't think Charisma should play a part.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

In an effort to nudge this thread back on track, I offer another case where I think some tidying up is called for: Alertness.

The Alertness talent has a simple description and function - it sounds like you get a 1 die advantage for pretty much all attempts to notice things. Yet the Detect Traps talent specifies that Alertness does not 'stack' with it - rather, Detect Traps is a kind of focused version of Alertness, specifically for traps. In my mind, this raises the question of whether Alertness stacks with other things, like the Naturalists' roll to notice ambushes or the Acute Hearing roll to detect things that are not seen. So, setting aside the question of how you might recommend these things work together, I think the talent should be re-written so it is concretely clear how it interacts with all other talents of the same general type.

I see Alertness as applicable to a broad range of visual perception checks. I would not allow it to stack with any other Talent that describes a knack for detecting specific things as these are more focused and specialized perception checks. However, I would allow the Alertness to be used in an either/or fashion for the purposes of Detect Traps. Despite explicitly saying that Alertness does not stack with Detect Traps, old ITL does imply a relationship between Detect Traps and Alertness by stating that Detect Traps only costs 1 talent slot if Alertness is already known. I think this is why the took the space to explicitly state that they do not stack. It should be assumed that Talents do not stack unless explicitly stated otherwise.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Larsdangly,
In my campaign, Alertness helps you find traps. If you have Detect Traps, they stack together. It only seemed sensible.

Warm regards, Rick.

It doesn't seem sensible to me. Alertness lets you use ONE less die when detecting traps. Detect Traps lets you use TWO less die. The Detect Trap talent costs less to learn if you already know Alertness. I think that's a fair and balanced relationship between the two.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

A more subtle issue, related to that for Alertness and various perception rolls, is Charisma and various social interaction and reaction rolls. The question is, is the intent to have bonuses from all relevant talents stack, or should we think of these more narrowly, where you use the best relevant bonus to which you have access? I can understand cases being made either way, but it is something I would want to state explicitly if I were the lead author.

I agree it should be stated more explicitly but my interpretation and preference is that Talents do not stack unless explicitly stated that they do. However there are many instances where a GM may decide that a Talent can be used in place of another Talent if the PCs don't have access to the first Talent. This should be GMs prerogative, but the stacking should not.

[platimus]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

I'm perfectly happy with the Literacy Talent as is it and never felt the need to add detail to it. There is already an advanced level (in a way) with the Scholar Talent.

I agree and don't see how there is any room for intepretation in the way language rules were written in old ITL or in the way Literacy was EXPLICITLY defined:

LITERACY (1): Ability to *read and write* all the languages *that you know*. An illiterate figure can't read or draw any but the simplest maps, and an illiterate wizard can't use scrolls or magic books! This talent costs only 1 IQ point for either a hero or a wizard.

From a narrative perspective, when a PC decides to become literate he will endeavor to become literate in all of the languages he already knows. Afterward, when he learns a new language (spoken) he will also endeavor to become literate in that language.