Hi All,

please provided feedback on this custom specialization

http://www.mediafire.com/view/08re174u8qsd40s/SoldierSpecOps.pdf

The idea is to provide a single soldier spec that provides a solid foundation for a special forces character. Well rounded, able to do ranged or melee adequately with stealth, survivability, maneuverability (hit and fade tactics). Combining this spec with the Spy:Agent (versión 7) in the following thread is supposed to provide a decent James Bond character

So please base your feedback for this custom spec based it and a it combined with the "custom spec: spy:agent" in this other thread

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/130157-custom-spec-spyagent/

I'm not trying to rubbish your efforts, EW. I appreciate you're trying.

But it feels like you're trying to squeeze too many concepts into one Spec. It's impossible to make a movie superhero using one or two specs. The're so much they can do - Bond probably has several Spy specs, some from Soldier or Commander, probably Gambler and others from Smuggler.

I feel that FFG intended the career/spec rules to be a 'loose' class system. Not as rigid as D&D, but most Specs are fairly focused. If you want multiple abilities, you really need to buy into more specs (which becomes progressively more expensive). Trying to put everything good into one spec seems counter-productive. So many player-made Specs make me feel 'this has everything, why would anyone not take this?' Why would I pay for two Specs when this one does it all?

The official Specs mostly feel balanced (although some are very focused and thus seem overpowered). There's 'wasted' Talents in them by design, or obscure Skills, not just a pick of the most effective ones. FFG clearly didn't envisage a system where you picked whatever Skills and Talents you want, hence this particular structure with the Specs.

Bit like the guy who was on here the other day wanting a 'build' for his character to be good with guns, intimidation, face skills and slicing. That range of abilities will require multiple specializations.

Well there are some generalist specs like the fringer. I love the recruit spec but it isn't a career spec so you can't take it as your first spec. I'd like to see more of them only "themed." Like a generlist melee ranged combatant. And a generalist is generally less good at any particular thing than someone who is focused at it. And yeah I figured out that I was trying to put a little too much into this one. I think that a tree can definitely take 2 focuses pretty easily, three is a bit tougher, but two or 3 with a one off talent or two on the top row is doable. I think I've seen a 4 focus official tree with 1 focus per column that went straight down. I was in the process of reworking the spec ops to a ranged-generalist-melee-survivability tree with about one column for each. The explicitly "generalist" column has talents that apply to ranged or melee or just "generalist" like "well rounded." And I'm making an effort to put "wasted" (build up/lead in) talents in it (like point blanks and feral strengths as a ranged/melee build ups to the generalist in the middle "deadly accuracy"). I might put a one off stalker at the top of the generalist column.

The top row would look like point blank, stalker (disconnected/one off), feral strength, toughness with the second row looking like grit (connected to) brace (connected to) toughened (connected to) dodge, the third row looking like spare clip (isolated from) well rounded (isolated from) jump up (isolated from) grit, the 4th row looking like, lethal blows (connected to) deadly accuracy (connected to) quick strike (isolated from) dodge, the 5th row looking like dedication (can only get to it through dynamic fire) dynamic fire (connected to) superior reflexes (connected to) enduring. So a lot less awesome, and still fitting the generalist combatant theme.

Here's take 2 at the spec ops soldier (it's a generalist with talents that are applicable to multiple situation)

http://www.mediafire.com/view/geqebjqr7yb1zt5/SoldierSpecOps2.pdf

I put in some filler/wasted/lead in/build up talents, I think it's on par with official specs but I could be delusional (yeah that happens). It is something that I would want to play more than many in the book specs, but again I like generalists so I'm not sure that's indicative of it being too good.

Could someone please leave feedback on version 2 (or newer, supposing that there is a newer version of the spec when you're reading this) of the Spec Ops spec? Should it be called something other than "Spec Ops"? I was thinking that the job of Spec Ops was to be good in multiple rows (but generally a stealthy up close and personal combatant), i.e. a generalist but maybe someone else has another suggestion for a name for a combat generalist soldier.

Should I swap the location of the dynamic fire (currently under the 2nd/generalist column) and dedication (currently under the 1st/ranged column but only accessible through dynamic fire) and then connect from lethal blows to dynamic fire? The reason for the current placement is that dynamic fire is about using a ranged weapon while engaged, so it's kind of an intersection/bridge between ranged and melee in the same sense that deadly accuracy (right above it) is a bridge (applicable to either, your choice which) and I wanted to make access to this side of the tree a little tougher. But a link between deadly accuracy and dedication (can be used for "either" [between the ranged and melee columns], it's a general [i.e. your choice] specialization) also makes sense to me. I think the most appealing column would be the generalist (so you can't go straight down it), the next most appealing is probably the ranged or melee but there is a bit of not cheap filler (spare clip a single copg of lethal blows/jump up a single copy of quick strike, i'm not sure how enthused people are about point blank or feral strength eiyher) above the gold on the 5th row.

Out of curiosity, why is this a new spec instead of utilizing Commando and cross classing into, say, infiltrator?

Some people feel their concept should be all in one spec for convenience rather than multi-specing. It's a choice.

I have no objection to cross specing, but my "concept" is James Bond/Jason Bourne. Essentially each of those is an at least 2 concept character, maybe more. I'd be perfectly happy if I could create such a character with two or even 3 specs, but doing either of them right would take 4 or maybe 5 official specializations. So I broke the James Bond/Jason Bourne archetype into 2 concepts and created 2 custom specs one for each "concept" and together they make an adequate but not overpowering James Bond/Jason Bourne.

James Bond would be a Spy:Agent that cross spec'ed into Spec Ops, Jason Bourne would be a Soldier:Spec Ops that cross spec'ed into Agent.

Also both of those concepts are more about personally tough and the commando is more about tough through armor, also neither commando nor infiltrate is "good" with a pistol and both James Bond and Jason Bourne are.

I'm thinking of replacing the 2 copies of Dodge with one each of Defensive Stance and Side Step, but I'm wondering if it would make Spec Ops too good. What do you think?

Edit: Here it is with that replacement.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/v8h24okwkrz8vrg/SoldierSpecOps3.pdf