mid-career transitions and incompatible careers
Posted 16 December 2013 - 04:08 PM
- Emirikol likes this
Posted 16 December 2013 - 05:04 PM
There's not a lot of reason to switch mid-career unless you're just spamming White Characteristic Fortune Dice by taking Mystic, but yes, it seems more of a pain to swap at the end, but you also get the benefits of:
- bonus specializations for anything you trained while in the completed career
- keep the career ability permanently
Check out Liber Fanatica for great WFRP downloads. JH's House Rulebook v11.0DDbeta-- Gamer chiropractor in Lakewood, CO 305 s. kipling st suite c-2 80226 (303) 989-0255
Posted 16 December 2013 - 07:01 PM
Posted 17 December 2013 - 04:43 AM
You can swap out of the Slayer path?
I must die to cleanse my Honour. But wait a second I need go learn how to a barber I can always die with honour later.
Mental slap at FFG if thats possible.
Never seen why anyone would change mid career, unless they were in a starter career they hated.
Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:22 AM
ABCDcomplete > 4-1 adv > EFGHcomplete > 4-1 adv > BCDX
is more expensive than
ABCDincomplete > 4 adv > EFGHcomplete >1 -1 adv -> back to ABCD to complete > 1-1 adv > BCDX
Posted 17 December 2013 - 02:26 PM
the weirdness arising from transition costs only being based off the current career, not past completed ones. It's explicitly cheap to go back and finish a career you didn't finish, and then use that career's keywords for the transition, but you can't do that for a career you've actually finished.
Posted 18 December 2013 - 01:33 PM
It doesn't quite work out the way you're envisioning. Technically, there's nothing that prevents you from returning to a career you've already completed - you just can't make any further career advances in it since you've already marked them off. It seems kinda silly, but it's legal with the rules as written.
EDIT: In other words, you're not just choosing between:
- ABCDcomplete > 3 (4-1) advances > EFGHcomplete > 3 (4-1) advances > BCDX (Total advances spent = 6)
- ABCDincomplete > 4 (4-0) advances > EFGHcomplete > 0 (1 -1) advances -> back to ABCD to complete > 0 (1-1) advances > BCDX (Total advances spent = 4)
- ABCDcomplete > 3 (4-1) advances > EFGHcomplete > 0 (1-1) advances > back to previously completed ABCD and do nothing > 1 (1-0) advances > BCDX (Total advances spent = 4)
That's legal as near as I can tell (though I probably wouldn't argue with a GM who interpreted otherwise).
It costs the same number of advances as your second option does (4 total). It also means that you get access to two different career abilities throughout your second rank, unlike the path you proposed which would abandon one of the career abilities for 11 sessions.
Interestingly enough, this path actually works out better for humans (who save an extra 1 advance per transition that would have cost 1 or more). For them the costs are 4, 3, and 2 instead of 6, 4, and 4. Weird.
EDIT #2: Probably the easiest house-rule solution for those who are bothered by the numbers above would be to let people count their transitions as if taken from their current career or any completed career. That's certainly more elegant, mildly less weird, and somewhat fairer for the dwarves and elves.
Edited by r_b_bergstrom, 18 December 2013 - 03:54 PM.
- tcrudisi likes this
Posted 22 February 2014 - 03:12 AM
The troll slayer to giant slayer transition is a poor example since:
Special: A character can only enter this career after he has completed the Troll Slayer career. Furthermore, a Troll Slayer may not become a Giant Slayer until he has slain a troll or performed a comparable feat of combat prowess.
However- I see no problem in transitioning back to an incomplete career to benefit from the transition bonuses.
Posted 28 February 2014 - 05:02 PM
As a GM, from a strictly RP-wise viewpoint, I would heartily frown on a player attempting to bounce back and forth between two careers. By "frown upon", I mean I probably wouldn't let them unless they had a REALLY good RP reason for their CHARACTER to want to do so, but also how they accomplish it.
Just saying. You're the GM. There is no reason to allow min-maxing if it doesn't make sense. The rules for WRFP are fairly loose for a reason: To allow the GM to tailor the story how they want.