What i am refering to is the one you get with each career. I appreciate that you dont keep it until you finish the career however i think some are so much better than others that i am a little conserned that this might encourage some min maxing as players see no point in finishing the current career and cut it short.
I also think that you could argue that its expensive to cut a career short however if you are playing a reiklander the cost could be almost nothing.
So what are your thoughts?
boggle said:
What i am refering to is the one you get with each career. I appreciate that you dont keep it until you finish the career however i think some are so much better than others that i am a little conserned that this might encourage some min maxing as players see no point in finishing the current career and cut it short.
I also think that you could argue that its expensive to cut a career short however if you are playing a reiklander the cost could be almost nothing.
So what are your thoughts?
Well, in my campaign folks are only going to be allowed to choose new careers based on good story reasons. Careers are not balanced in the game and I prefer care be taken in using them, same for new skills - the better ones will require suitable training or practice in the basics of the skill before being taken.
Given that it takes 10 or more sessions to keep the card, I'm not sure how problematic it will be over time - seems a lot of effort when many of the actions they can gain are more powerful than most of the career talents which often only have one use per session.
Don't forget that if you complete the career, you also get a free speciality in all the skills you ahve taken in that career. That is generally more use than any of the career talents.
How GMs handle careers will determine whether it is an issue or not. If all the players and GM are doing is looking at careers like "levels" and they're allowed to transfer into them and go on adventures as that career without some form of story-line justification then yeah. It will likely be a problem.
However, if the GM incorporates the career choices into the story and requires that player actually perform work in the career (or find a mentor or something similar when taking on a new career), it alters the play style away from min-maxing somewhat.
Why is cutting a career short a problem in the first place?
Well considering that if you switch career before you're done with it, it cost an extra 1 to switch. And if the new career is different (and it will probably be) that's an extra 1-3 points. So you're looking at wasting up to 4 advances just to switch career. Considering the high cost and how long that would take (2-4 gaming sessions) I'd certainly allow it but I doubt any min-maxer would do this. Most I know of would just play out their character until it dies and then hope they get luckier in their next life.