Maximum SL bonus?

[Mathias4]

Are there any upper limit for SL bonuses tied to talents? If combining talents and other bonuses, it is not unrealistic to achieve +8 SL bonus for example before taking your rolled score into account. For example 3x reversal, 3x riposte, and and a swordbraker in each hand, in melee opposed tests.

Thanks

[Orin J.]

Page 164 describes some ideas for limiting SLs by initiitve and such (this was a big deal in the beta testing and that option is the "fix") but you've made a mistake with the swordbreakers. You can't stack weapon qualities. All the other things are correct though.

[Mathias4]

Thanks for the reply. I did find some ideas for limiting advantage on page 164, but not SL bonuses from talents. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. It seems to me there are no options given in the rulebook to limit SL bonuses.
Also, at cubicle 7, FAQ #2, I found an example of a mutant having a bunch of arms with bucklers, giving him +4 SL. Wouldn't that be transferable to a person wielding two bucklers, or two weapons with the defensive quality?
https://www.cubicle7games.com/4919-2/
Thanks

[Ayantis]

Correct to both, there is no maximum SL bonus and Defensive Qualities stack as explained in the FAQ.

[SigmariteOrWrong]

The limiting factor for Talent SL is XP. Only super advanced characters are going to have 1200 of XP to spend on stacking two talents. Maybe Ancient Vampires, Elves, Demons, and Big Heroes & Villains of the Empire. Just buying Riposte 3 & Reversal 3 is enough to go from State/Skill 0/0 to Stat/Skill to +18/+25. Without those stats & skills the talent bonus almost useless.

[adambeyoncelowe]

Yeah, and you only get the SL bonus if you *succeed* on your Test (i.e., roll under your modified Skill). Winning isn't enough.

[Orin J.]

Yeah, and you only get the SL bonus if you *succeed* on your Test (i.e., roll under your modified Skill). Winning isn't enough.

This is incorrect. Page 164, under the "Gaining Advantage" paragraph states you gain advantage if you win an opposed roll. It's entirely possible to fail the test itself, win the roll anyways, and gain the advantage.

[SigmariteOrWrong]

Yeah, and you only get the SL bonus if you *succeed* on your Test (i.e., roll under your modified Skill). Winning isn't enough.

This is incorrect. Page 164, under the "Gaining Advantage" paragraph states you gain advantage if you win an opposed roll. It's entirely possible to fail the test itself, win the roll anyways, and gain the advantage.

Adam is correct, in his statement. Bonus SL from Talents only apply if you succeed in your skill test. Failing a skill test but winning the contest does not allow you to add SL bonuses from Talents.

You are misinterpreting the rule p164, which has to do with gaining advantage after winning a contest.

[adambeyoncelowe]

Yeah, and you only get the SL bonus if you *succeed* on your Test (i.e., roll under your modified Skill). Winning isn't enough.

This is incorrect. Page 164, under the "Gaining Advantage" paragraph states you gain advantage if you win an opposed roll. It's entirely possible to fail the test itself, win the roll anyways, and gain the advantage.

I was talking about bonus SLs from Talents not Advantage. I think you're responding to something else?

Yeah, and you only get the SL bonus if you *succeed* on your Test (i.e., roll under your modified Skill). Winning isn't enough.

This is incorrect. Page 164, under the "Gaining Advantage" paragraph states you gain advantage if you win an opposed roll. It's entirely possible to fail the test itself, win the roll anyways, and gain the advantage.

Orin is correct, in his statement. Bonus SL from Talents only apply if you succeed in your skill test. Failing a skill test but winning the contest does not allow you to add SL bonuses from Talents.

You are misinterpreting the rule p164, which has to do with gaining advantage after winning a contest.

Do you mean I'm right? Orin was talking about Advantage and I was the one talking about SLs.

My head hurts.

[Orin J.]

a quick perusal of the traits that might apply there show that they explicitly work off of winning the opposed roll (which for some reason is called an opposed test in that part of the book but is still about opposed rolls) or in the case of shieldsman, losing the roll. trying to apply a normal test to them is not how the system works.

in the case of ranged attacks, which are a normal test, you are probably correct but with melee passing your own seperete test is redundant.

[SigmariteOrWrong]

Do you mean I'm right? Orin was talking about Advantage and I was the one talking about SLs.

My head hurts.

You are correct again. Sorry I hurt your head. I shouldn't comment when I'm tired.

[SigmariteOrWrong]

a quick perusal of the traits that might apply there show that they explicitly work off of winning the opposed roll (which for some reason is called an opposed test in that part of the book but is still about opposed rolls) or in the case of shieldsman, losing the roll. trying to apply a normal test to them is not how the system works.

in the case of ranged attacks, which are a normal test, you are probably correct but with melee passing your own seperete test is redundant.

Yes and No.

The separate listed effects from Riposte or Reverse do stand on Winning a test, so doing damage or gaining advantage respectively.

However neither talent list that you get a +1SL, so here you default to the standard rules for Talents as spelled out on p132.

On p132 of the Core book the Talent Format Box explicitly sets the basic rules for bonus SL to Skill Tests from Talents.

Talents tied to a Test come with an extra rule: For each time you have taken the Talent, you gain +1 SL on any successful use of the Skill tied to the Talent.

The emphasis is mine.

If you want the +1SL for having a Talent for a test you MUST pass your skill test to access this, unless there is text in the talent itself the explicitly states so.
So far there are no published Talents that explicitly state a +1 SL bonus in its description so we are bound by the rules of p132.

So, if you fail your test, you get to add no bonus SL from Talents, IF you still win the contest, then you get the benefits of Winning the Riposte or Reversal contest, but this does not include bonus SL, which are tied to a successful test.

Your GM may decide to house-rule otherwise. In fact, one of the groups I play with the GM has hand-waved the successful test requirement, as he can't be bothered trying anything complicated after a long day at work and a late night gaming.

[Orin J.]

If you want the +1SL for having a Talent for a test you MUST pass your skill test to access this, unless there is text in the talent itself the explicitly states so.
So far there are no published Talents that explicitly state a +1 SL bonus in its description so we are bound by the rules of p132.

-and there's your problem. you've snuck in an additional skill check they don't intend, it's hinging on you winning the opposed test using that skill rather than asking you to use the roll to handle the combat and then additionally check separately to see if you passed against your own skill. the skill is successful if you pass the opposed skill check because you have passed the skill check. it doesn't matter if you would have failed as a static skill check, only if you've passed the check you're making.

i blame the horrendous phrasing used in this book.

[SigmariteOrWrong]

-and there's your problem. you've snuck in an additional skill check they don't intend, it's hinging on you winning the opposed test using that skill rather than asking you to use the roll to handle the combat and then additionally check separately to see if you passed against your own skill. the skill is successful if you pass the opposed skill check because you have passed the skill check. it doesn't matter if you would have failed as a static skill check, only if you've passed the check you're making.

No, it's one roll. If you roll under your skill for the test you get to add bonus SL from your Talents when calculating your final SL for the Test. It's very clearly explained if you parse the rules.

i blame the horrendous phrasing used in this book.

I think the weakness in not in phrasing, but layout of the book. Rules are scattered across broad areas of the book as opposed to one chapter. Rules for Gear are in the Gear Chapter. Rules for Crafting are in the Endeavours Chapter. Rules for Combat are across the Combat, Wounds, Advantage, & Magic sections, the gods knows where else. Advantage comes in different flavours too, and is poorly explained across different sections, and differs from Combat bonuses to skills.

One major problem is Talents offering 'Special Case' bonus SL, and players and GM's not being able to track these well. We've got one player in our group that can't do the required math and rules knowledge at days end when we game after 9 hours days of hard work and 2 hours driving. We simplified the rules greatly to accommodate simpler resolution. Lots of GM Handwaving of resolution too to speed the story.

[Orin J.]

i blame the horrendous phrasing used in this book.

I think the weakness in not in phrasing, but layout of the book. Rules are scattered across broad areas of the book as opposed to one chapter. Rules for Gear are in the Gear Chapter. Rules for Crafting are in the Endeavours Chapter. Rules for Combat are across the Combat, Wounds, Advantage, & Magic sections, the gods knows where else. Advantage comes in different flavours too, and is poorly explained across different sections, and differs from Combat bonuses to skills.

I believe in this case we can agree there's room for both to coexist.