I know the FAQ clearly states that some TRAITS such as slayer, war dancer etc ARE NOT restrictions but PET is a restriction. I think in my campaign I will have all the career lablelled stuff (Pet, War Dancer, Slayer) all be restrictions. Otherwise, IMHO, it gets too confusing.
In fact, i argue this whole trait business wasn't thought out too well...sor far it all just seems too confusing...what are you guys going to do?
Just be aware that 'social' is a trait too. Make sure your players are aware of this exception if you don't want only social careers able to make social actions. Having said that - it does provide another degree of exclusivity.
Also, are you going to limit Judgement actions to Witch Hunters as they are also a 'special' career?
I agree with special traits working as restrictions. Traits like "Slayer" or "Wardancer" represent very unique cards which are very characterizing in my eyes. Therefore I will limit these special cards to the named careers.
I was thinking about this too, but what when someone switches career? A Giant Slayer will still be able to pick "his" cards, but an ex-Wardancer won't.
sudden real said:
I was thinking about this too, but what when someone switches career? A Giant Slayer will still be able to pick "his" cards, but an ex-Wardancer won't.
As long as the Wardancer has completed his career and owns the respective career card, I see no problem.
I agree. If the career is complete, there should be no reason why the character cannot continue to actions, talents, etc. with the appropriate trait.
Minor clarification for the OP. The trait Pet is not a restriction; however, all of the action cards that contain the Pet trait also have Pet listed as a requirement for their use. The action cards with the Way of the Sword trait only have the requirement that you have a sword or great sword equipped rather than specifying that you must have a Sword of Hoeth equipped. So by RAW, anyone can take Way of the Sword cards and as long as they have a sword or great sword, they would be able to use them. However, although anyone can also take action cards with the Pet trait, unless they have a Pet, they can't use them since they don't meet the requirements.
My knee-jerk reaction was to restrict certain cards to specific careers or to characters that had completed the appropriate career, but I'm relaxing that stance a bit and just insisting that there has to be a good in game explanation of how a character gets the training necessary to take a particular action. It's practically the same thing since I can't see a War Dancer trying to teach a Dwarf a Ritual Dance; however, take the case where a human mercenary saves the life of an NPC Swordmaster during the course of an adventure. I could see the Swordmaster, far from his homeland, perhaps seeing this human to whom he owes his life, worthy of taking on as a pupil and teaching him a signature move or two. So a player can't just rifle through the box and say, "I think I'll take Flight of the Phoenix," but I can offer it as an in game reward to a player under the right circumstances. They would still have to spend the advance on it as usual.
I think i agree with all you guys in this post. Only restriction if it is the title of a career and if you complete a career and on a new career you should still have access.
Thanks for all the reccommendations. @mac40k, i can also see in some RARE circumstances that yes, indeed a character can learn something outside his career if someone teaches him AND he has the slot for it on his character sheet.
We are of the opinion that a character can only learn those actions if he is...
I look at things like the Way of the Sword actions and such as ripe for reskinning as well. If someone is playing a swordsman, and thinks those actions seem fun and fitting, just let him call them something else and roll with it.