PDA

View Full Version : Where do your characters fall on the generalist to specialist spectrum?



Ameraaaaaa
2022-01-20, 12:49 AM
Basically are your characters jacks of all trades or masters of one or something in between. Do you have any examples or exceptions?

Personally i like playing specialists.

Obviously it depends on if the system allows it (my storyteller system and fate system characters are generally forced to be more generalist due to how the system is designed.)

But in general my characters generally have 1 or 2 things they are good at. For example in one low power level m&m game my character was just a barely decent combatent with only a shotgun and brass knuckles as a weapon. But he had the ability to become immune to anything as long as he had downtime (as long as it didn't cost too much points)

In 1 of the games I'm signing up for (a savage world game) I'm playing a combat specialist mech pilot who otherwise was only good at technology and insulting people.

And for 1 last example i just made a 150 point character who literally used all of said points on 15 ranks of variable with the reflexive extra. (Since all variable powers need a flavour limitation this specific power let's the user literally manfest any anime trope into reality.)

Batcathat
2022-01-20, 02:08 AM
I tend to favor specialists too. Preferably ones that aren't completely helpless outside of their speciality, but occasionally it can be kinda fun trying to fit a square into whatever round holes show up.

mucat
2022-01-20, 02:12 AM
Obviously it depends on if the system allows it (my storyteller system and fate system characters are generally forced to be more generalist due to how the system is designed.)
In my experience, Fate system characters can be anywhere on that spectrum. One of my favorite Fate characters was a thunderously focused mad scientist who could ignore pretty much anything outside his core few obsessions. He actually started out as a Pathfinder character, but if anything, the switch to Fate helped make him more hyperspecialized, not less. Another was a punk rocker and amateur hacker who was dangerously bad at everything but hacking and making music. (Oh, and in theory she was a hotshot driver too, although I seem to remember her crashing a lot in practice.)

Ameraaaaaa
2022-01-20, 02:42 AM
In my experience, Fate system characters can be anywhere on that spectrum. One of my favorite Fate characters was a thunderously focused mad scientist who could ignore pretty much anything outside his core few obsessions. He actually started out as a Pathfinder character, but if anything, the switch to Fate helped make him more hyperspecialized, not less. Another was a punk rocker and amateur hacker who was dangerously bad at everything but hacking and making music. (Oh, and in theory she was a hotshot driver too, although I seem to remember her crashing a lot in practice.)

I'm guessing your games didn't use the skill pyramid. Which for those who don't know it. It 1 +4 skill then 2 +3 skills then 3 +2 skills then 4 +1 skills.

I say this because i tried to make a academic character but ended up having to take a few social skills from the default skill list dispite him being a nerd.

MoiMagnus
2022-01-20, 04:43 AM
My favourite position is at the "reactive character" place, which I guess is in practice more on the "Jack of all trade" side.

This means, I don't miss not being able to proactively do X, and will gladly specialise myself at the cost of not being able to do everything. However, I don't like missing on opportunities to react to what's happening. Similarly, I'm fine with specialising myself offensively, but I don't like being specialised defensively (both while building a character, and during gameplay, I don't like "set up" defences where you anticipate a long time in advance what will happen and increase your defences against that).

Xervous
2022-01-20, 08:19 AM
Either I make a lot of jacks or everyone I play with makes hyper specialized characters who are otherwise incompetent. My characters have specialties of course, but they’ll be at least moderately relevant for most other fields.

I should note that crippling overspecialization is a potential cause of death, and that being incompetent in all manner of simple scenes strains verisimilitude for the character concepts I like to play.

mucat
2022-01-20, 09:00 AM
I'm guessing your games didn't use the skill pyramid. Which for those who don't know it. It 1 +4 skill then 2 +3 skills then 3 +2 skills then 4 +1 skills.

I say this because i tried to make a academic character but ended up having to take a few social skills from the default skill list dispite him being a nerd.
We did use the skill pyramid, but I always found that the biggest question in Fate is not "What is my skill bonus?" but "How do my Aspects apply here?"

So yeah, that mad neuroalchemist did have his share of +1 and +2 skills -- in his case, things he was good at back before the events that made him into the desperate, determined maelstrom of regrets he now was -- but his aspects were hyperfocused on sciencing away the worst of those regrets. When those aspects applied, the guy was a frikkin' force of nature. The rest of the time, he was, at best, a passable assistant to his comrades whose aspects did apply.

The musician, now that I think of it, was more broadly relevant than I'd given her credit for. One of her aspects amounted to, basically, a personal soundtrack; if I could google up a relevant rock song to play on her turn (it was an online game), she'd be a lot more effective. Punk songs were ideal, but her tastes were eclectic. So really she was limited only by my imagination and the full scope of all music, ever. Not exactly crippling overspecialization. She could still be a walking disaster area, but I guess that was more a combination of unlucky die rolls at crucial moments, and the fact that, hell, sometimes the best songs are about disaster!

Mastikator
2022-01-20, 09:36 AM
I try to have my characters be good at one or two things, decent at a few other things. I prefer to have some in each pillar, but it will also depend on the DM and the campaign.

DigoDragon
2022-01-20, 10:12 AM
I guess my characters lean specialist, but when specializing I find it always a good idea to be really good at something in combat encounters and be really good at something in social encounters.

Easy e
2022-01-20, 10:52 AM
I like to play generalists BUT most RPG design favors specialists. Therefore, I tend to get more specialized as I learn the system and the GMs better.

Stonehead
2022-01-20, 04:08 PM
I pretty strongly prefer specialized characters. They're just way more memorable.

I don't even optimize any more so I'm not min-maxing for combat, it's just a matter of making interesting characters. All PCs are going to be at least fairly competent, just by nature of being the protagonists. A character who's really good at something, and really bad at something else already has twice as many characteristics as one who's only good at something.

Thinking about some of my favorites of other PCs I've played with (because everyone likes their own character), they all have very distinct weaknesses. The Monk who loses all his money playing darts, the Wizard who slips in a normal mundane puddle of water, the Bard who can't even remember the name of his hometown. All much more memorable than the guy who's relatively competent at most things.

Even outside of RPGs, think of your favorite characters from stories you like. Odds are they have weakness just as well defined as their strengths.

Theoboldi
2022-01-20, 05:53 PM
Typically, I like characters who are good all-rounders, with one or two areas of special expertise where they really shine. It's more fun to me to be able to contribute in any scenario proactively, even if only a little, than either sitting out specific scenarios or having to bumble my way through them. Plus, I still get those scenes of proper spotlight whenever my character's actual focus becomes relevant, letting them have a clear identity within the party.

Telok
2022-01-20, 07:14 PM
Hmm... Depends on the system and character goal.

Mostly I like character with a strength, a not-crippling weakness, and a personality. I dislike them being incompetent in large sections of the game.

Some (surprisingly few) games let 'jack of all trades' be a viable character. I enjoy those, the character's personality becomes dominant over the mechanics and there's no being forced to sit out play time by the game mechanics.

D&D fighters (the class, not always the archetype) for 20 years have had a hard time at being more than "since nobody else has the skill may as well let them try" for anything but fighting and maybe jumping/climbing*, and usually have to optimize/over specialize to be more than a bag of hp with a pointy stick & (maybe) a gimmick. Of course these days you can plop down a wizard with 2/3 the fighter hp, one less melee attack & damage, plus full wizarding and decent intelligence skills, so its sort of a moot point. Sort if a shame since I really enjoyed AD&D fighters for being broadly competent & really good at fighting.

What I really enjoy is characters with one or two decent combat gimmicks (because most rpgs feature combat as semi-central to game play) and are then good at a bunch of other stuff. A glass cannon socialite or a "how can you have that many hp & ac?" themed magician are pretty fun, as is a nearly unhittable technology genius. I've found combat incompetent characters who support a strong combat pet to be pretty good too, if the system allows it. Buffs are usually pretty strong, the pet is a better & more reliable team member than other players (often), and dropping combat ability often frees up more build resources than the pet uses which lets you be that much better out of combat.

* if the verson supports dex fighters you might be good at landing on your feet from a fall and tightrope walking instead of jumping & climbing.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-01-21, 12:49 AM
If we rank all the areas out of 10, where 10 is "don't need no help" and 1 is "nope, can't help", I prefer if everyone (myself included) has a few 7s and the rest 4-5. Some specialty, but not overwhelming amounts or and particular incapacitates.

I dislike the "can only do this one thing and so I just sit out the rest of the time" type, especially where that's really narrow.

LibraryOgre
2022-01-21, 11:05 AM
I like bards, so I tend to be aggressively generalist.

Faily
2022-01-21, 11:13 AM
Overall I go more Generalist than Specialist.

Too often when I've made a Specialist, I feel like I don't get to show off my specialty-focus enough for it to matter, so instead I go for Generalists who have strong points instead of being hyper-focused.

My Paladin is a damage-dealer mostly, but also can heal, be party-face, and shores up on scrolls+potions+wands and uses UMD to be able to handle some situations that fall outside their normal wheelhouse.

KorvinStarmast
2022-01-21, 11:18 AM
If we rank all the areas out of 10, where 10 is "don't need no help" and 1 is "nope, can't help", I prefer if everyone (myself included) has a few 7s and the rest 4-5. Some specialty, but not overwhelming amounts or and particular incapacitates. That's how I roll mostly but I also tend to, these days, play a support character of some kind as a preference. Even my Champion fighter played the support a bit, in terms of knocking enemies down so that my barbarian team mate could attack prone enemies (Shield Master feat) and not have to use reckless attack.

Psyren
2022-01-21, 01:10 PM
Speaking more for D&D and similar TTRPGs.

I like specialists, but with the caveat that I don't want to be completely sidelined in any of the three main pillars of play. So even if I make a character that excels at combat, if they don't at least have a role to play in Exploration or Social Interaction (preferably both if possible) then I get bored with that build fast. I don't have to be the best at every pillar but I definitely don't want to be sitting on my hands, even if I'm playing something narrow like a Fighter or Barbarian.

False God
2022-01-21, 03:04 PM
I generally play generalists. Mostly because I often play with folks who will "LOL time to do the dumb!" which can be fun, to a point, but I don't like their foolishness falling on my head. When I play specialists with these folks, I often come up short in areas where they aggro danger.

If I do play a specialist, I'm often a defender-type or a healer (white mage, fun times). Because again, I want to know I've got a handle on things, rather than leave it up to someone else.

KorvinStarmast
2022-01-21, 03:09 PM
I think that at this point the only time I'll want to play a specialist is if the group (the players) all get into the game as much as I do and fully embrace their roles, and we all pick different roles. (Our second Traveler group, way back when, did this, as did our Fellowship game).

If there's a mix of casual gamers and more "into it" gamers I find that I prefer spreading out my expertise areas.

Tanarii
2022-01-21, 06:19 PM
Depends if I know what group I'm going to be with in advance, or if I don't.

If I do know, I'll work with the group to figure out what key specialization we think need to be covered, and make sure someone has them covered to some degree. If there's something that needs baseline competency for everyone, we'll make sure everyone has it. Example, if we're playing stealth infiltrators, everyone needs to be stealthy, but different characters can be the assassin, the face, the mask, the safecracker, and the hacker. But if we're playing mercenaries, everyone needs to be able to handle themselves in a fight, but different characters can be the tactical planner, the point man, the contract negotiator, and the grenadier/Arcane nuke/forward observer.

If I don't know the group in advance but do know the general theme, I'll pick up core competencies and then usually pick up a few supporting functions to a solid level. I can usually count on the other players to pick self-centered or cool badasss specialities as opposed to supporting ones.

If I don't know the general theme because there GM hasn't given a campaign concept or it's so broad as to be useless, I'm not making a character.

Pauly
2022-01-22, 01:33 AM
I prefer generalists, mainly on the basis that the party isn’t screwed if the specialist goes down. Having a whole party of generalists is a lot of fun because a lot of challenges are written on the assumption there is a specialist in the party, so having several characters who can muddle through rather than one guy is a more challenging and co-operative experience rather than sitting back and saying let the [X] handle it.

Ignimortis
2022-01-22, 02:10 AM
Specialists, all the way. I hate feeling useless, and unless the game allows a decent degree of competence in a wide range of things (which tends to be rare), it's better being incredibly good at one or two things than being useless in many of them. If an action has less than 2/3 chances of success, that's usually too low for me. Specialists can usually nail their stuff down to 9/10 or even better, so at least I'm not wasting turns or actions or attempts.

Tanarii
2022-01-22, 03:06 AM
That depends on how many things a group needs to be able to do, and how many each character gets for specialization vs not specializing. If there are 16 unique things a group of players need to be able to do, and the game gives you a choice between being good (9/10) at two vs passable (2/3) at 5, for a group of four players you're better off being "generalists". Because if they're specialists they can't even do half the things they need to do.

Mostly I see that kind of thing in games that have an expansive skill list plus a cost for the next rank that grows each rank bought, where the group ends up wanting access to many skills from the list at middling values.

Faily
2022-01-22, 01:01 PM
I generally play generalists. Mostly because I often play with folks who will "LOL time to do the dumb!" which can be fun, to a point, but I don't like their foolishness falling on my head. When I play specialists with these folks, I often come up short in areas where they aggro danger.


I relate to this so hard it's kind of a "lolsob" reaction from me.

And yes, my weekly group is why I tend to be a generalist because I need to cover up for their mistakes and failings a lot of the time. xD

Second Wind
2022-01-22, 04:18 PM
If it's obvious what action to take on my turn, I don't really need to be there. So, something with interesting options. Generalists usually have more options.

False God
2022-01-22, 04:33 PM
I relate to this so hard it's kind of a "lolsob" reaction from me.

And yes, my weekly group is why I tend to be a generalist because I need to cover up for their mistakes and failings a lot of the time. xD

To be fair, I also like to be at least somewhat skilled in a lot of areas of the game. As Second Wind says, if there's nothing for me to do next turn, or I'm limited to only one thing every turn, the game gets boring real fast.

DigoDragon
2022-01-24, 07:38 AM
I generally play generalists. Mostly because I often play with folks who will "LOL time to do the dumb!" which can be fun, to a point, but I don't like their foolishness falling on my head. When I play specialists with these folks, I often come up short in areas where they aggro danger.

I often refer to that role as being "The Adult". :3

I personally feel that playing a generalist just to keep them out of trouble makes playing the character a bit frustrating. Babysitting is not a glamorous job. Sometimes you just gotta step back (to a safe distance) and let them take the aggro danger.

Outside that specific situation, there are good reasons to play generalists. Especially when the party splits up, you can fill in roles that went to the other group.

Telok
2022-01-24, 10:48 AM
Sometimes you just gotta step back (to a safe distance) and let them take the aggro danger.

Or sometimes you missed a session and come back to "We TPKed throwing grenades at police helicopters*. We're playing D&D now.... We really need a cleric."

* Shadowrun mission to put a couple people in the hospital so they could sit out a city election. They decided to machine gun a hot-dog rally in a park in a AAA security zone... They never did explain that decision.

Xervous
2022-01-24, 02:44 PM
Or sometimes you missed a session and come back to "We TPKed throwing grenades at police helicopters*. We're playing D&D now.... We really need a cleric."

* Shadowrun mission to put a couple people in the hospital so they could sit out a city election. They decided to machine gun a hot-dog rally in a park in a AAA security zone... They never did explain that decision.

Getting machine guns into an AAA zone is the real head scratcher. Sounds like a job for the palming troll adept specialist.

DigoDragon
2022-01-24, 02:52 PM
Or sometimes you missed a session and come back to "We TPKed throwing grenades at police helicopters*. We're playing D&D now.... We really need a cleric."

Ohhhh... yeah I been there once. Condolences. Sometimes you just never understand what their train of thought was that led to such an end.

(at least in my case I do like playing the healer).



Getting machine guns into an AAA zone is the real head scratcher. Sounds like a job for the palming troll adept specialist.

I had a group once that figured this part out-- they stole a UPS truck and smuggled the guns inside packages as part of a Trojan horse delivery scheme.

Telok
2022-01-24, 03:45 PM
Ohhhh... yeah I been there once. Condolences. Sometimes you just never understand what their train of thought was that led to such an end.

(at least in my case I do like playing the healer).

I had a group once that figured this part out-- they stole a UPS truck and smuggled the guns inside packages as part of a Trojan horse delivery scheme.

I think they jacked a catering delivery van. Got there, kicked open the doors & started spraying lead. You know, basic d&d dungeon tactics.

They sort of regretted the cleric. Thr elf domain got true strike as a divine spell & a bow feat, craft wand, multishot for three arrows with one roll, a fancied up bow, dmm extend (not persist, we weren't that cheesy), reach spell revenance & revivify. Did no in combat healing unless you count revenance. Also a cartoonishly elf racist who claimed it was lesser races privilege to die for him.

False God
2022-01-24, 03:49 PM
I often refer to that role as being "The Adult". :3

I personally feel that playing a generalist just to keep them out of trouble makes playing the character a bit frustrating. Babysitting is not a glamorous job. Sometimes you just gotta step back (to a safe distance) and let them take the aggro danger.

Outside that specific situation, there are good reasons to play generalists. Especially when the party splits up, you can fill in roles that went to the other group.

I don't mind supporting the party and directing their recklessness in more productive directions. Unfortunately sometimes there's only so far you can step back. I play my support-generalists a lot like the Queen in chess. Preserve the best opportunities for yourself and direct everyone else in a more useful manner.

But in reference to the "missed a session now you're dead", I don't play with those DMs anymore. I don't care how the DM has to handwaive it, unless I explicitly said "yeah if I'm not here run my character as normal and I'll live with that." but I find most "Oh yeah the Adult wasn't here so the party did the dumb and now you're dead." to be one of the most aggravating forms of DMing.

I don't mind being the adult in the party, but I shouldn't have to be the adult at the table.

SpoonR
2022-01-24, 04:57 PM
I think I gravitate toward “handful of broadly useful skills”. Polymorph, 101 uses for Disintegrate, apply a buff to someone else’s roll of any skill, etc. With a bit of fetish for getting “telekinetic hands” types of ability.

Telok
2022-01-24, 06:20 PM
...but I find most "Oh yeah the Adult wasn't here so the party did the dumb and now you're dead." to be one of the most aggravating forms of DMing.

You can stop trying to blame the DM for mine. That was (and I'm sure will be again because thats the way they are) completely typical of those players.

Besides, my character lived on quite happy about never being at the scene of the crimes. A side benefit of covering all the party holes (so many holes, until one of them died and rolled a rigger my pc was the only one that could drive), not having to be super good at shoot-n-stab. Had a gun & shock glove because Shadowrun, but only used them once in a half dozen runs. One bullet might have almost hit someone. Still got paid tho.

Xervous
2022-01-25, 09:14 AM
I think they jacked a catering delivery van. Got there, kicked open the doors & started spraying lead. You know, basic d&d dungeon tactics.


AAA zones are surrounded with gated checkpoints that check IDs something fierce. Sounds like a weird matter of GM handling.

Telok
2022-01-25, 10:31 AM
AAA zones are surrounded with gated checkpoints that check IDs something fierce. Sounds like a weird matter of GM handling.

What makes you think I'd know? I missed the tpk session. It happened something like 15 years ago. You can leave off the analysis, no need for blame casting, don't bother filing an after action report. By now its just a nice story that can be used to illustrate a few points.

False God
2022-01-25, 08:57 PM
You can stop trying to blame the DM for mine. That was (and I'm sure will be again because thats the way they are) completely typical of those players.

Huh? I was talking about my past DM. Absolutely was his fault with the way he run his games.

Psyren
2022-01-26, 10:53 AM
You can stop trying to blame the DM for mine. That was (and I'm sure will be again because thats the way they are) completely typical of those players.



What makes you think I'd know? I missed the tpk session. It happened something like 15 years ago. You can leave off the analysis, no need for blame casting, don't bother filing an after action report. By now its just a nice story that can be used to illustrate a few points.

I don't think people are blaming/attacking your GM or playgroup :smallconfused: if you bring up a scenario that sounds weird in a public forum you're going to get a couple of comments on it, that's all.


If it's obvious what action to take on my turn, I don't really need to be there. So, something with interesting options. Generalists usually have more options.

Even specialists have options though. Your action every turn might be "I attack and attempt to grapple" but that still leaves questions about which target, from what angle, how you're getting in position, which ally needs help etc.

Telok
2022-01-26, 11:03 AM
I don't think people are blaming/attacking your GM or playgroup :smallconfused: if you bring up a scenario that sounds weird in a public forum you're going to get a couple of comments on it, that's all.


Sorry guys, gotten a bit twitchy about it. Last few years has seen pretty much my every mention of a game or session devolve into a sort of "nobody would ever ever do that! pics or it didn't happen!" massive over-analysis debate that then concludes everything is always 100% the DM's fault or else I'm lying.

Easy e
2022-01-26, 01:11 PM
"Everything is the GMs Fault" is the unofficial mantra of this board......

Xervous
2022-01-26, 01:36 PM
It’s Shadowrun, the players choose Suicide By Adventure for their characters. I was just noting that some setting lore was overlooked which would have shifted the location of the party’s demise, not that the GM is obligated to stop the players from marching their characters into a buzzsaw.

DigoDragon
2022-01-26, 01:42 PM
I think they jacked a catering delivery van. Got there, kicked open the doors & started spraying lead. You know, basic d&d dungeon tactics.

Ah yes, the most delicious grand theft auto that the party can perform. XD

PCs that are skilled in fencing goods could make some extra cred selling the food, if it's of real quality. This is something I thing a generalist can handle. I don't see PCs specializing in fencing.

Well, maybe the sword style they do.




I don't mind being the adult in the party, but I shouldn't have to be the adult at the table.

Ah, yeah, that's a bad situation that warrants walking away from.



AAA zones are surrounded with gated checkpoints that check IDs something fierce. Sounds like a weird matter of GM handling.

This is where a specialist face can shine. The weakest link in any security is the people.

Flash the ID quickly, complain that checkpoint traffic is making you late to a wealthy so-and-so's party, you're gonna mention their names as why, and get them to quickly let you through. This can work especially well if your job really does take you to some rich person's party. :3

Xervous
2022-01-26, 02:00 PM
This is where a specialist face can shine. The weakest link in any security is the people.

Flash the ID quickly, complain that checkpoint traffic is making you late to a wealthy so-and-so's party, you're gonna mention their names as why, and get them to quickly let you through. This can work especially well if your job really does take you to some rich person's party. :3

Rich person’s party past a scanner checkpoint that runs biometrics and has a looksee through the walls of your van. There’s gear in Shadowrun you could sneak past this checkpoint but it’s far from default gear. The same to be said of the quality of fake ID you’d need to reliably pass the checkpoint. Per the default setting these things take time to acquire, you don’t up and decide to raid an AAA zone over the weekend.

DigoDragon
2022-01-27, 08:47 AM
Rich person’s party past a scanner checkpoint that runs biometrics and has a looksee through the walls of your van. There’s gear in Shadowrun you could sneak past this checkpoint but it’s far from default gear. The same to be said of the quality of fake ID you’d need to reliably pass the checkpoint. Per the default setting these things take time to acquire, you don’t up and decide to raid an AAA zone over the weekend.

I don't know how Telok's group handled it, but I'm just speaking in general terms about getting through a check point.

Chauncymancer
2022-01-27, 02:40 PM
But in reference to the "missed a session now you're dead", I don't play with those DMs anymore. I don't care how the DM has to handwaive it, unless I explicitly said "yeah if I'm not here run my character as normal and I'll live with that." but I find most "Oh yeah the Adult wasn't here so the party did the dumb and now you're dead." to be one of the most aggravating forms of DMing.

I don't mind being the adult in the party, but I shouldn't have to be the adult at the table.

How do you feel about the described situation, which is closer to "the party refuses to roll new characters to replace the ones they lost doing the dumb, so we're not playing anymore"?

False God
2022-01-27, 03:39 PM
How do you feel about the described situation, which is closer to "the party refuses to roll new characters to replace the ones they lost doing the dumb, so we're not playing anymore"?

Then I guess we're not playing anymore. *shrug*

Telok
2022-01-27, 04:13 PM
I don't know how Telok's group handled it, but I'm just speaking in general terms about getting through a check point.

Ya know, the story is worth telling again...

Group: Phys-ad ninja type w/custom double barrel shotgun. Wired reflexes full-auto gun bunny. Sniper. Double laser pistol gun bunny. Machine gun drone rigger. Elf face conjurer w/focus & 7d elemental & skillwire-5 + 10 chips in a switcher & SIN & day job magic consultant & more than 6 contacts.

Bunch of combat monsters with a couple stealth experts. I covered everything else & contact contracted out the decking.

After several runs involving mostly stealth or gunplay we get one to put 4 assistant/advisor type people in a mayor race campaign into the hospital untill after the election. Election is in 3 weeks, contracted to complete the run in 10 days.

1. Tracked down target & got they used the bus to go to work. Jacked a van with a sliding side door. Rolled up to the bus stop next morning & 3 gun bunnies blew his legs off.

2. Found a campaign event next evening. Offloaded a pile of looted pistols to a biker gang & paid them to drive by shoot at our signal. Sniper shot target in the shoulder during the drive by and filled all 10 health boxes.

3. Target was a bit paranoid. Personal car, travel between secure garages, no public appearances, 30th storey apartment with good building security. Then I noticed the rigger drones could carry 120kg of gear. Got some base jumping gear, sent ninja to the roof to secure then ferried 2 more gun bunnies up. I stayed in a separate car down the block waiting for the 'need backup' signal. Unsupervised, they murder the guy in his sleep, steal everything they can grab fast, and chuck thermite grenades in as they jump out the window.

4. This is the session I missed, and thus my character survived. It was like 4 days into the run. What I remember:
* Hot dog social & person running giving a speech event for campaign in a very high security zone.
* Started machine gunning the stage during the speech trying to hit the advisor.
* Car got blown up by police helicopter while they were still shooting from it.
* Survivors were pasted while throwing grenades at the helicopter.

Next week: "We all died. We're playing D&D now, can you roll a cleric?"

Calen
2022-01-29, 10:24 AM
I like groups that are specialists in different fields. As long as most of the bases are covered it allows each player to have the spotlight shifted from character to character. This is better for larger groups so you have a couple people that can be the party face and the more needed skills like survival and stealth. The downside to this approach is that sometimes you get groups that have all the same specialties and that can put a crimp in the game when if you bump up against something that requires something that you aren't good at and the players either have to share the spotlight or end up competing (varies from table to table)

Max Caysey
2022-01-29, 05:09 PM
I basically always build a specialist! That could be stealth, diplomatic, followers, healing or some combat thing, but these days I like building something which is not combat focused and try and make that work…

My “main” character tho, is a generalist wizard!

Taevyr
2022-01-29, 10:02 PM
I like broad specialists: They have a clear area in which they specialize, but said area tends to be broader than "fighter who hits things". My current campaign MC's a battle master who's been either a soldier or adventurer all his life, but has picked up more than a few related skills, like some military history, cartography, people skills (mostly intimidation) that tend to come with being an experienced former "NCO". He's more narrowly specialized than I'd usually go, but I wanted to see how it'd work out, and it did well thus far.

Usually, I also like giving my characters some interests/skills/whatever the background and system may give that wouldn't "fit" the mechanical goal/their perceived personality in a way: makes them feel more real to me. Even if a character's built to be a fully min-maxed specialist, they'll tend to have something that they picked up "for fun" or out of sheer interest or happenstance, or just something they're talented at but never put in the effort to really get skilled at. Perhaps the low-int barbarian speaks Dwarvish and Gnomish because he spent a few years mercing in a war between'em and picked it up through osmosis, or the bookish, "couldn't run half a mile without dying" wizard who refuses to go outside without a reason turns out to be quite a decent survivalist, because as a young student he almost died alone, stranded in the wilderness, and said "never again". Stuff like that.