Max pluses with talents

[Lameth]

If you have a character that has a few talents, and they combined give more then +4 to a skill, due to overlap, is that correct? Or is there a max pluses you can get with combined talents?

[Phantasm]

IIRC, the combined +4 from Talents only applies to Power Talents.

If you have two Talents that overlap with a only one or two skills, and both Talents are +4 or +6 (DF caps Talents at +6, IIRC), then for those few skills you'd get the benefits of both Talents.

Of course, a GM is well within his rights to limit you further, and IME any two Talents that overlap with three or more skills should be mutually incompatible. YMMV, of course.

That help?

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Lameth

If you have a character that has a few talents, and they combined give more then +4 to a skill, due to overlap, is that correct? Or is there a max pluses you can get with combined talents?

The skill bonus adds up just fine. The learning speed and reaction bonuses cap at 4. From Power Ups 3.

Though, a GM can, and probably should, put his foot down if a player takes a bunch of talents that heavily overlap just for the purpose of gaming the rules. For example, Born Sailor, Mariner, and Seafarer are, effectively, three versions of the same basic talent. I wouldn't allow a character to have them all.

[Flyndaran]

Mental Talents are only marginally better than buying up IQ when 5 points. 10 and 15 point ones are worse. So I don't see the problem allowing someone to get really good at one or two skills.
Putting one's foot down will force them to make characters that are experts at nearly everything.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by RyanW

The skill bonus adds up just fine. The learning speed and reaction bonuses cap at 4. From Power Ups 3.

Though, a GM can, and probably should, put his foot down if a player takes a bunch of talents that heavily overlap just for the purpose of gaming the rules. For example, Born Sailor, Mariner, and Seafarer are, effectively, three versions of the same basic talent. I wouldn't allow a character to have them all.

It's probably mostly a matter of what the Talent represents. The overlapping Skills from Mathematical Aptitude and Business Acumen explicitly stack. This is noted in the Skill's rules text. It appears to me to be a relatively rare case of "I am good with these Skills because I am good with Math" v. the more usual "I have a natural gift for this activity and this gives bonuses to these Skills".

The "activity-based bundle of Skills" Talents are rather more common than other sorts and they generally shouldn't stack with each other according to how I understand the theory.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The "activity-based bundle of Skills" Talents are rather more common than other sorts and they generally shouldn't stack with each other according to how I understand the theory.

All Talents stack, but not all talents are viable in any given game some of the ones with similar themes are baicle pick one that fits the world view don't use the others in the same game. If the GM allows 2 talents with the same theme and reasoning into the same game then they stack

[Kalzazz]

Stealth is a really good example, as are several talents which boost it

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Though, a GM can, and probably should, put his foot down if a player takes a bunch of talents that heavily overlap just for the purpose of gaming the rules. For example, Born Sailor, Mariner, and Seafarer are, effectively, three versions of the same basic talent. I wouldn't allow a character to have them all.

Frankly, I don't think it's that much of a balance issue. In the specific case you mention, perhaps it's a bit abusive to take all those Talents, but if a Talent doesn't overlap by more than two skills or so, I'd be inclined to allow them both. Consider someone who's taken, say, 1 level each in 4 5-point Talents, with two skills in each common to all of them. For 20 points, they have +4 to two skills, and +1 to about 9 or 12 other skills. If they spent the same 20 points in DX or IQ, they'd have +1 to hundreds of skills, plus the other benefits of DX or IQ, and if they spent 20 points on one of the skills, they'd have it at something like Attribute+6. And given the way that talents and skills that default to each other often overlap, odds are pretty good that that level in one skill would be providing a decent level to a couple of the other skills the various talents would be covering. Since GURPS already has a problem with encouraging players to either dump all their points into attributes, or one good skill and just default from that, anything that encourages other builds is a good thing, in my book.

[weby]

By Raw they stack, but a GM is fully allowed to say no t abusive combinations.

In my house rules talents stack to a maximum of +4 but it is mostly because I allow really almost anything as talent that the players can describe as hanging together so characters have a lot of talents normally.

I also use talent cost based on the number of skills(1/skill,minimum 5), similar to the "smooth talent cost" that became an official alternate rule later in PU3. And in my system they do not pay for the skill bonuses that would go above +4. Thus someone with 3 levels of talent A giving 9 skills and thus costing 9 points/level=27 and 2 levels in Talent B with say 7 skills=14 points and if both talents give bonus to the same skill, the total bonus is only +4 not +5, but one of the talents would then be -1 point in final cost.

[Kalzazz]

The biggest use I see from stacking Talents isn't 'I want to be really good at X+Y' but rather 'I want to be really good at X, but just buying X at 4pts/level is lame, I'd rather buy at 5pts a level and get side benefits'

For instance, one of my characters really wants Public Speaking (she is a bard, so it is her focal skill), so I had her take 4 levels of two 5pt talents. So more expensive than buying 8 levels of Public Speaking, but bringing extra benefit which makes her a better bard