The adjustments that I’ve made to the core mechanics and to
some of the ways in which traits are purchased also has considerable impact on
specialties- and in the best possible way. The intention with commando (for
instance) is that a commando is innately superior in regards to stealth
compared to any other specialty. The +1 cap adjustment didn’t really reflect
this in a substantive way. If you don’t elect to take your Stealth at level +1,
you have no discernible benefit from being a commando.
By having traits increase in cost as they increase in value,
I can take the concept of shifts from Mythweaver/Resolute and apply that here.
Now, if you are a commando, you get an automatic +1 shift to Stealth. Sure, at
+1 this is only worth 1 point – but you’re a commando, and you took that to get
Stealth. That’s the big selling point of being a commando, so you’re going to
invest a few points into Stealth. Now, a +2 or +3 rating nets you 2 free
character points on your investment, because that +1 shift is worth more. At the
top end, when you have a +6 Stealth rating and it shifts to +7, you are getting
a bonus valued at 5 character points because of your specialty. It’s a benefit
that increases in value as you increase your investment into the trait.
Here are some of the specialties that I’m considering for
the Core rules, along with their linked trait (granting the +1 shift). I think
that the list should include between 8 and 12 Specialties. I definitely liked
specialties from 2E (more military-based) over 3E (more ant-based). However, I
want to avoid the overlap/redundancy that hit some of the 2E specialties. For
example, Recon ended up being this hybrid specialty that had layers of other
things but nothing to call its own. On the list that follows, I particularly
like several of these, although I don’t know about the link between Engineer
and Explosives (you are the best at building things, so you get rewarded by
being good at blowing things up too) and Sniper (this is more of a
designation/certification on top of another specialty rather than a spec unto
itself).
Armor Driving
Artillery Tactical
Weapons
Aviation Aircraft
Commando Stealth
Covert Operations Intelligence
Engineer Explosives
Infantry Munitions
Ranger Nature
Sniper Aim
I suppose that I could see taking Infantry out of the mix,
and saying that Infantry is a ‘catch all’ specialty – you are in the infantry
unless you make it a point to select something else. It would be the only
specialty with no minimum attribute buy-in, but then what trait to link it to
(maybe Moxy? That fits). Then, I could create a ‘weapons specialist’ specialty
that gets the +1 munitions shift… or the +1 aim shift…
Hrm, I should mention while I’m at it that
artillery/tactical weapons will likely be linked to Mind instead of Prowess, in
order to increase the value of that attribute. Also, I’ve always considered
firing a mortar or LAWS rocket a function more of your ability to visualize the
math rather than to point and click.
You'll notice also that Heavy Weapons as a spec is gone (at least for now). That's a function of Infantry... although you could say the same about Sniper... clearly, I still have some thinking to do on how these all fit together.
You'll notice also that Heavy Weapons as a spec is gone (at least for now). That's a function of Infantry... although you could say the same about Sniper... clearly, I still have some thinking to do on how these all fit together.
It's no surprise that I prefer the specialties of 2e. I don't think they have to be significantly distinct. In a way they are background choices as well so it doesn't matter so much that a commando and a ranger and a recon are almost exact. Also, they specialties have different equipment which can also distinguish one from another.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of having a choice of bonus instead of a fixed one. Two choices from two different lists; one more combat oriented and one non-combat. That way the character will all have some sort of non-combat skills.
I like the idea of choice... Would you argue that traits should be further broken up into combat and non-combat options? Hmmmm.... Then a commando or infantry gets 3 combat and one non-combat per level, while a ranger or recon gets 2 of each per level, and covert ops or coomunications gets 1 combat and 3 non-combat per level. This would require that the game put as much emphasis on non-combat situations as combat ones. I don't know... I see the game in large part as exploring and interacting with this strange, exotic world...this might work. Thanks for the suggestions!
ReplyDeleteGrrr. I was typing on my iPad, and didn't see that I had misspelled 'communications'. And, I have no way to edit the reply. Confound you, BLOGSPOT!
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's necessary to have separate combat and non-combat trait points. Having the game emphasize non-combat situations should be sufficient to encourage players to spend their points there.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with Hedgehobbit in that there isn't a real need to develop side-by-side trait pools and points for combat and non-combat traits. I think that a blend of 2e/3e Specialties is a good way to go since the Ant culture is focused on a military life, but also a military culture still needs to focus on other aspects of its culture and society to keep the Machine moving forward.
ReplyDelete