Specialization issues

[shonuff]

Two issues:

1.) 14, 16, & 18 seem a little late in the game for your second specialization, IMO. Anyone else have similar thoughts? Especially with a level cap of 20. I was thinking about bumping the second specialization to 12, 14, & 16 (& then moving up the 1st specializations to 4, 6, & 8 -- although I am fine with where they were initially placed. I just don't want them bumping up on specialization 2).

2.) A lot of the warrior/rogue specializations do not seem to be mutually exclusive. I was thinking about making the warrior specializations Spirit Warrior & Templar available to rogues. I would change Templar to Templar Scout, and the Strength requirement would be a Dexterity one, but the abilities would stay the same. I would let warriors take Duelist and Marksman. I would also allow warriors to take Marksman and Skirmisher from KQ #20. Maybe Ranger, as well.

[5trangeCase]

I wouldn't say those are the key problems with the Specialisations. I'd bring up the fact that you can create a perfectly functional and balanced character that is either incapable of taking any of the specialisations, or backed into a corner they don't like.

Ultimately, while I can see the justification behind the ambiguity of Marksman, Templars are warriors. That is a simple fact of the setting. There is no ambiguity in the fact that almost without exception Templars are battle-hardened close combat veterans that wear plate armour and wield swords. Templar Scouts, if they exist, are no different from regular Templars.

In regard to the spacing of levels, I think that due to the experience gaps between the higher levels, starting at 14 isn't late. A campaign could fit between Level 18 and 20.

[Elfie]

I wouldn't say those are the key problems with the Specialisations. I'd bring up the fact that you can create a perfectly functional and balanced character that is either incapable of taking any of the specialisations, or backed into a corner they don't like.

"Backed into a corner" implies that one must take a specialization, which isn't true. You can take a Talent instead.

Also, I'd say that by definition, a "balanced" character is not "specialized."

[5trangeCase]

I could agree with you there, to an extent. Although I'm certainly not one who is particularly concerned with statistics, if there is a harmful difference between the power of a specialisation and the power of a talent, and I think that there is (+1 defence or access to Blood Magic) it is a bad mechanic in my opinion. Even if I were a Warrior with uber stats that met all categories, if I felt that none of those fit my character, it would be noticeably harmful to the character (in that he would make the party weaker than a party of the same level and class distrib.) to choose a level in Linguistics instead.

[Elfie]

It's the GM's job to build adventures that suit the player's strengths/weaknesses/concepts. It's not the players' job to make sure his character is as combat-powerful as possible.

Thus, if the player chooses to build a combat-maxed character, the GM should play to that. If another player builds a more thematic, combat-light character, the GM should play to that too.

[5trangeCase]

Consider how difficult that is though. If the character rooting through the system for the best possible character wants a challenge, how can the GM give him one if it will tear through the pathetic newbie with 8 overall.

[Elfie]

I don't know what "with 8 overall" means, but it's no more difficult to make an appropriate challenge for a power-built character than it is for a role-built character. Both require balance. One just needs tougher bad-guys than the other.

[5trangeCase]

I meant with all of its stats added together (Comm, Con, Cunn, Dex, Mag, Per, Str, Will) you make 8.

But I mean an uber system-manipulator and an ant in the same party. If they meet the same encounters, how can you present something that the uber guy doesn't crush under his boot instantly, but doesn't leave the ant a bloody husk?

[Elfie]

If those two characters are travelling together, the Uber should be taking responsibility to protect the Ant. If he's not, the Ant probably does end up a bloody husk. And if the Ant survives, he probably needs to re-think why he's hanging out with the Uber, or at least why he's doing so without hiring protection of his own (yay NPCs).

If your Uber doesn't give a shit about whether the rest of the party lives and he just lets the Ant die while continuing to swing away at bad guys, declaring himself mightily victorious even though the rest of the party is dead... one of these two people is not in the right gaming group

But as long as all of the players are aware that different people enjoy different things and they're all working together to make sure everyone has fun, an Ant and an Uber can absolutely play together.

My wife is an Uber. She's on her second character, both of which have been warriors completely focused on combat prowess and maximizing damage output. Her best friend is an Ant, spending all of her Talents thus far on Thievery, and often being the first to fall in combat. The group knows the best plan is usually to let my wife run in first and aggro the bad guys. They also know that the bad guys aren't dumb and are going to switch to squishier targets when possible, so the mage (who isn't terribly good at casting spells) focuses on keeping the squishy targets (including himself) alive.

Hooray teamwork?

[Balgin Stondraeg]

My gut feeling regarding specialisations in set 2 was that, when set 3 came out and characters gained access to a specialisation, the specialisation levels should have basicaly read "take the next level in an existing specialisation or one level in a second one". With a character being prohibited from picking up a third. That way a specialisation could be develoepd at a slower rate whilst picking up a second one too.

Also if someone doesn't qualify for the specialisation they want I wouldn't force them to take another one. I'd just let them keep the specialisation slot empty and fill it when they meet the requirements at a suitable plot or levelling moment later on. So someone could take their first specialisation slot at 7th rather than 6th for all I care.

[Loswaith]

Two issues:

1.) 14, 16, & 18 seem a little late in the game for your second specialization, IMO. Anyone else have similar thoughts? Especially with a level cap of 20. I was thinking about bumping the second specialization to 12, 14, & 16 (& then moving up the 1st specializations to 4, 6, & 8 -- although I am fine with where they were initially placed. I just don't want them bumping up on specialization 2).

2.) A lot of the warrior/rogue specializations do not seem to be mutually exclusive. I was thinking about making the warrior specializations Spirit Warrior & Templar available to rogues. I would change Templar to Templar Scout, and the Strength requirement would be a Dexterity one, but the abilities would stay the same. I would let warriors take Duelist and Marksman. I would also allow warriors to take Marksman and Skirmisher from KQ #20. Maybe Ranger, as well.

I dont realy see any reason why you cant make the new specialisations eairler, it is likely a better time to do it too so it gives characters more time to play those specialisations before hitting a level cap, afterall they can all be taken at level 6 anyway.

Personally I have allowed characters to take other class specialisations, though the only occurance of it actually happening was a warrior taking duelist, it worked out fine, sure some arent as suited to other classes as well. However I wouldnt worry about changing the requirements, it shows that its not as suited to a different class, which is why its usualy taken by those of certain professions/classes more so than others, while in most cases a 3 stat isnt that difficuilt to get but i can force a player to diversify a bit more than they otherwise would (which is never a bad thing in my opinion).

My gut feeling regarding specialisations in set 2 was that, when set 3 came out and characters gained access to a specialisation, the specialisation levels should have basicaly read "take the next level in an existing specialisation or one level in a second one". With a character being prohibited from picking up a third. That way a specialisation could be develoepd at a slower rate whilst picking up a second one too.

Also if someone doesn't qualify for the specialisation they want I wouldn't force them to take another one. I'd just let them keep the specialisation slot empty and fill it when they meet the requirements at a suitable plot or levelling moment later on. So someone could take their first specialisation slot at 7th rather than 6th for all I care.

Sounds like some more good ideas to me too.

[shonuff]

Ultimately, while I can see the justification behind the ambiguity of Marksman, Templars are warriors. That is a simple fact of the setting. There is no ambiguity in the fact that almost without exception Templars are battle-hardened close combat veterans that wear plate armour and wield swords. Templar Scouts, if they exist, are no different from regular Templars.

Except it's not necessarily the case. The Templar Order is the militant arm of the Chantry. That doesn't mean that they're all running around in full plate. One of their main tasks is to track down apostates and fugitive mages, and there is nothing in the Templar rulebook about stealth.

None of the Templar abilities even support the notion that the specialization should necessarily be warrior-only. While specializations are coded in a CRPG, a PnP is much more fluid.

In regard to the spacing of levels, I think that due to the experience gaps between the higher levels, starting at 14 isn't late. A campaign could fit between Level 18 and 20.

Only if your campaign goes up to level 6.

More than 50% of the XP is pre-14; more than 80% is pre-18. Specializations are one of the key ways to personalize your PC and IMO 18 is a little too late.

[shonuff]

I dont realy see any reason why you cant make the new specialisations eairler, it is likely a better time to do it too so it gives characters more time to play those specialisations before hitting a level cap, afterall they can all be taken at level 6 anyway.

Right, but I would bump up the levels for the 1st specializations, too. I think that if specialization progression went 6,8,10,12,14,16, the specializations would bleed together and not feel as distinct.

Personally I have allowed characters to take other class specialisations, though the only occurance of it actually happening was a warrior taking duelist, it worked out fine, sure some arent as suited to other classes as well. However I wouldnt worry about changing the requirements, it shows that its not as suited to a different class, which is why its usualy taken by those of certain professions/classes more so than others, while in most cases a 3 stat isnt that difficuilt to get but i can force a player to diversify a bit more than they otherwise would (which is never a bad thing in my opinion).

The only one I would change would be Templar, and mainly because I don't really see why a rogue Templar would actually need the high strength. Wouldn't wear the heavy armor or wield the heavy weapons. None of the abilities require physical strength, either.

[si1vergecko]

I get the feeling that the general idea is to space out when you get the specializations and I seem to recall that it is the same way in the game.

As for the argument of making some specializations available to multiple classes I can see the argument for some, especially since our party has a warrior that wants to be mostly an archer and be the best one that he can (at the time only up to set 3 was out and there was a possible argument for this aside from the cunning bonus that rouges got) but once again they are going off what is in the game more then anything else.

[shonuff]

I get the feeling that the general idea is to space out when you get the specializations and I seem to recall that it is the same way in the game.

Right, and I agree with that, which is why I'm thinking about bumping the 1st specialization to 4, 6, 8. I'm OK with 6, 8, & 10, but I don't want it to run into the 2nd group.

As for the argument of making some specializations available to multiple classes I can see the argument for some, especially since our party has a warrior that wants to be mostly an archer and be the best one that he can (at the time only up to set 3 was out and there was a possible argument for this aside from the cunning bonus that rouges got) but once again they are going off what is in the game more then anything else.

In a CRPG, you have to deal with coding restriction. In a PnP, you have to deal with your warrior who wants to know why he can't be a marksman, or a rogue who wants to join the Templars, or some such, and there's just no good reason to limit some of the specializations. And, IMO, it leads to more interesting PCs... the mage-hunting assassin, the tribal berserker/archer, etc.

[Loswaith]

...
The only one I would change would be Templar, and mainly because I don't really see why a rogue Templar would actually need the high strength. Wouldn't wear the heavy armor or wield the heavy weapons. None of the abilities require physical strength, either.

Thats a good point, but I look at is as a 3 strength is good but not huge (as a rogue will likely start with a 1 or 2 strength anyway, while the magic score still being the bigger factor) and pushes that militant side of them, and also makes less of an incentive to take templar as a rogue (just for the unique abilities). All In all resulting in fewer rogues being templars but not excluding them entirely (a partial mechanical reason for Templars having more warriors than rogues in the order, as rogues traditionally have a better skill set to undertake the mage hunting tasks).

[shonuff]

Solid points. I might just do that.

[Estoirtoh]

Another question that is raised now that characters got access to two specializations is the question of 'modes'. For example, could a warrior enter Berserk mode and Rally mode at the same time? Could a mage enter Blood Magic mode and Spirit Healer mode at the same time? The modes in the specializations just say that they take an activate action to enter and another activate action to leave, but nothing about how many of those modes you can run parallel.

[Vaelorn]

This might change in the published Set 3 rules of course, but it could be that they're letting the GM decide. Personally I would probably allow it as long as the effects didn't stack. As I recall Rally mode and Berserk mode give very different bonuses, and I could imagine a character in both modes: the NPC's going "yay! let's follow the crazy man!".

In my Eberron mod the Shifter race has a shifter mode, which in some cases acts a bit like the berserker mode. So I probably wouldn't let those stack - unless the player made a good case for it! And in Josh Jarman's Dragon Hack mod there's a rage mode for barbarians. Allowing all three to stack could be very unbalancing (at least for the few rounds it was active)!

With Blood magic and Spirit Healer... I guess they could stack but they have a very different 'feel' to each other. How would the healing spirits feel about the mage draining life from one person to heal another?

[Zapp]

The modes in the specializations just say that they take an activate action to enter and another activate action to leave, but nothing about how many of those modes you can run parallel.

Then please assume that the reason why no such restrictions are mentioned is because no such restrictions are intended.

In other words, assume any omissions are intentional rather than accidental. A sound principle to rely on in all cases of rules lawyerism!