Jack of all Trades & Survivor

[1of3]

Let's talk about the odd Specialties. Unlike the other these are mostly containers for two kinds of feats: Extra Skill and Extra HD.

They do not offer a strong image. Unlike an archer carrying a bow, a necromancer usually dressed in black tossing around evil spells or a healer with her tools of trade, you cannot discern a Survivor or Jack at first glance.

The feats themselves are subcomplex compared to the other options. Other than Two-Weapon Defence, none of the example feats offers a plain bonus.

Unlike the other Specialties Survivor and Jack do not encourage staying with them. The benefit offered by Skill Training or Toughness does not broaden, when you take it again.

I suggest a thorough revision of these Specialties. For example, Skill Training and Toughness could read: "Whenever you take another feat from this theme, you gain another skill/HD." And then there would be other feats increasing different aspects of competence and survivability.

 

[DogBackward]

There are two main purposes for these specialties.

1: "I don't want complex extra abilities, but I don't want to have less overall power compared to my allies. So I'll take a couple of extra bumps instead." Some people don't want extra complexity or special abilities... if we make all Specialties have extra abilities and the like, will these people just have to deal with it, or suck it up and be less powerful?

2: "I want to be good at a lot of different skills, so I'll take the Specialty that gives me extra skills." or "I want to be really hard to kill, so I'll take the Specialty that gives me lots of extra hit points." The massive-HP powerhouse is a character concept that I'm particularly fond of, for example, and a Specialty like Survivor would be exactly what I'd look for for that type of character.

Not everything has to be complex or deep and involved. Some people really do like to just have some simple options. Just because you want complexity in your character doesn't mean all options should involve complexity.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Those two specialties (especially Survivor) are for people who don't care about specialties. I think there should be a few more of those.

Edit: Not sure if "ninja'd" applies when I clicked post 7 minutes late

 

[1of3]

There are two main purposes for these specialties.

1: "I don't want complex extra abilities, but I don't want to have less overall power compared to my allies. So I'll take a couple of extra bumps instead." Some people don't want extra complexity or special abilities... if we make all Specialties have extra abilities and the like, will these people just have to deal with it, or suck it up and be less powerful?

You are correct. But I don't think that these Specialties can serve the purpose. Specalties as presented expand the story of the character. I'm an archer. I'm a medic.

This is great. Because now a player who is not much interested in rules can look for the story imparted by the specialty. I want to be an evil looking mage. Hey, there is part saying "Necromancer" right on the top.

Now, the problem is, when you ask a player, how he imagines the character, the player will not answer: "I want my character to survive." That's a given for any character. So the way the feats are presented as of now does exactly the opposite of what you think they do.

It's not the players indifferent to the rules that will take them, but players who on the other hand understand the rules very well and know what an extra HD is worth. Or maybe not. I haven't figured the healing balance out by now. But I'm talking about the presentation here and how players will approach the rules.


You could go the otherway round and not make these bonuses selectable feats. For example taking two feats of Necromancer will also give a character one of Undead Lore or Magic Lore. Taking two feats of Archer will give the character one of Spot or Survival, and so on.

But if you want to engage the players who are not interested in the rules per se, you have to make sure that rules follow the story, not the other way round.


You're other comment is correct of course. If you want to take extra skills, a feat granting extra skills is pretty nifty.


Edit: You could also be true about your intentions. If you want to have some simple feats in your game, for any one to take, just call them Bumps or whatever, put them right at the beginning of your feats chapter and explain clearly that these are for any one take, and that the feats included in Specialties will usually be more complex.

Such a list of Bumps could also take some other classics like Weapon and Armor Proficiency, Improved Initiative and Bonuses to Saving Throws.

 

[DogBackward]

Now, the problem is, when you ask a player, how he imagines the character, the player will not answer: "I want my character to survive."

"I want my character to be able to take a lot of punishment without going down."

Edit: You could also be true about your intentions. If you want to have some simple feats in your game, for any one to take, just call them Bumps or whatever, put them right at the beginning of your feats chapter and explain clearly that these are for any one take, and that the feats included in Specialties will usually be more complex.

Or, instead of wasting space on an extra section of feats, you could just make a few Specialties that serve this exact purpose. Like, say, one for the skilled types that increases skill selection, and one for the combat types that increases survivability.

 

[ComradeGnull]

Edit: You could also be true about your intentions. If you want to have some simple feats in your game, for any one to take, just call them Bumps or whatever, put them right at the beginning of your feats chapter and explain clearly that these are for any one take, and that the feats included in Specialties will usually be more complex.

Such a list of Bumps could also take some other classics like Weapon and Armor Proficiency, Improved Initiative and Bonuses to Saving Throws.

I think this is closest to hitting the mark. Remember, we don't have complete rules for selecting Feats without a Specialty yet- something that we will ultimately be able to do. Survivor and Jack of All Trades reflect a pair of Feats that are 1) popular with people customizing a first level character, but 2) don't really tie into any specific character focus. Want a Fighter who learned to fight while guarding a Wizard college? Take Jack of All Trades and pick up some lore skills. Want to make your wizard live longer, or want your Rogue to be viable in a more tanky role for a small party? Take survivor.

In the 'real world' (i.e., the final version of the rules) you would do this by selecting individual Feats rather than a Specialty 'kit' of Feats. But since we don't have full rules for that, a couple of dummy Specialties provide a proxy for picking a couple of common Feats that some players may legitimately feel they need available in order to test how the game plays compared with previous versions.

 

[1of3]

Or, instead of wasting space on an extra section of feats, [...]

Now, this is not so. One header and paragraph is less space than one header and paragraph of fluff text each for several themes.


It's kind of rule of thumb in game design: If you put two things into your game, make them work very much the same or very differently. The middle ground in these cases is often a form of forced symmetry and quite unhealthy.

 

[gideonpepys]

This is my essential problem with themes/specialties as mere pools of feats: they are of no more use than a suggested ability score array. Anyone can see that if you want more skills, you should pick the skill training feat; if you want more hit points, choose toughness.

The issue isn't complexity. I play with a lot of gamers who want simple characters. But even they would take one look at jack-of-all-trades and survivor, and wonder why the game designers have patronised them in this fashion.

Specialties feel like nothing more than a beginner's guide; a huge section of the rules devoted to suggesting which choices you should make.

Why not do the same with spells?

I'm sure people would feel short-changed if wizards released 'the pyromancer' and it was nothing more than a list of fire-based spells that you should choose at each level.

Basing the necromancer on feats feels odd too. So what if I choose just one of the feats on that list (the one that allows me to raise a zombie servant for example)? I'm not a necromancer?

Likewise, if I tailor my character to my precise needs, choosing the individual feats I want him/her to have, then I can't be said to have a specialty at all.

Or if I take every feat on the list, apart from one? (Assuming specialties progress past level 5.)

Just pool them under 'feat suggestions' and leave the cool terms for something cool, please. The specialty is doing nothing. The feats are doing all the work.

 

[1of3]

Specialties feel like nothing more than a beginner's guide; a huge section of the rules devoted to suggesting which choices you should make.

I'm not sure "beginner" is the right word. It's a bit patronizing in fact. It's a question of style. These named packages cater to players who enjoy the flair associated with the package's name.

Personally, I think Backgrounds and Specialties are the best things since sliced bread, and I do not consider myself a beginner.

You could do achieve the same effect with spells, as you suggest. Domains in 3e work a little bit like that. The bloodlines Sorcerers take in Pathfinder are even better, because you only take one of those.

 

[Mattachine]

Other simple Specialties:

Lucky: +1 on all saves (or maybe advantage on saves, etc)

Prodigy: additional +1 to an ability score of your choice