I was browsing through some of the specializations listed in the core book and I'm...confused.

Where on earth would some of these be useful?

Disguise (Trideo)
Throwing Weapon- Virtually all the specs are far too specialized to be really useful
Parachuting- Same problem
Gymnastics (Dance)
Medicine (Organ Culture)
Etc etc.

It seems like the vast majority of the specializations are just too focused to be of any real use.

I can see doing something or taking a certain skill for story or flavor, but I'm just bewildered as to why anyone would sink Karma into a specialization that will come into play once, maybe twice if you're lucky.

Disguise: Trideo is used for make-up when getting ready for the Trid. If you're a newsman for a Pirate News Broadcaster, it's needed. One of my PCs has Filmmaking as a Knowledge Skill.

Gymnastics: Dance is useful when blending in with the higher ups, or lower downs. See "Shindig" episode of Firefly, or some of The Invisibles Comics.

Medicine: Organ Culture is used for growing organs. Really important if you're in charge of organ farms, getting those Type-Os needed for replacement surgeries.

Really, the first two I suggested are good for PCs to take, maybe as background skills, or to help blend in with whatever group they're dealing with. (Dance could be vitally important for a Face at one time or another! Especially if he's at a Rave. "Samurai Jack" had to improvise, and did a damned good job of it!).

Organ Culture is good for NPCs.

Parachuting Specialties can come into play rarely, as most games are in a city, but there are times you gotta just jump out of that helo, and thank $Deity that you have it. But Mercs would love HALO.

Throwing Weapon... Meh. Some people would rather just have Grenade or Knives. Everything else is secondary.

Minding that specializations listed are just suggested examples, really, I fail to see the problem with them.

I dunno what you're talking about for the Throwing ones, though. Lob and overhand are too broad, not too narrow.

It's true that specializations tend to be either abusively broad or unappealingly narrow. *shrug* Not the best system.

Bah. Frankly, Shadowrun has some very solid core mechanics, it's minutia like this which is spoiling the fun with how poorly it's thought through sometimes.
Don't even get me started on rule wordings.

Sure. I meant that the specializations aren't the best system, not that the system is systemically bad.

I appreciate a good spec.
There was a thread once, about new creative specs: http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=19609&hl
although RAW doesn't say, that you may actually invent new specs other than those in the corebook.

I still have to find a GM to allow my MacGyver spec Escapte Artist (hopeless plight)

This.

For example, I like to have my pistols specialization be Heavy Pistols rather than the listed Semiautomatics. Sure semiautos are more inclusive, but I like to use a Super Warhawk from time to time.

Bring back the skill web!

Agreed, spica2501. Some of the suggestions are just odd, especially when there are natural categories right there in the mechanic already (Heavy Pistols, etc.).

Personally, I was fine with 4(6) specializations. None of this '+2 applies to both hands, mwa ha!' munchkinry.

Quiet you! That way lies madness!

Also, keep in mind not every specialization necessarily has to be useful for PC's, or ruthlessly efficient for shadowrunning. Sometimes a spec is just a spec.

If the weapon modification rules in Arsenal are available in your game, just add a Firing Selection Change mod. One slot, 300 , and your Super Warhawk is now semiautomatic.

But when it comes to some of the suggestions for specializations, I'll agree that some of them seem clunky and odd. But then I also remind myself of the same stuff that Critias posted.

I'd rather make people specialize with one damn gun/motorcycle/whatever. Specialize in "Ares Predator" or "Dodge Scoot." Specializations are too cheap and beneficial to be broad.

Well, Pilot:Groundcraft < = you know physics, you know the basics of how ANYTHING on the ground moves.
Now you can specialize in tracked or wheeled. because they are different from each other.

It may have semi auto firing mode, but its still a revolver, not a semi-automatic pistol

I agree totally

...and this idea also goes much better with...the skill web

I'd still rather see a specialization look more like: Pilot Ground Craft (GMC Bulldog Step-Van +2).

It encourages style.

Well the skill web's not necessary really, with the way defaulting works right now.

My primary concern is that you can buy a specialization for so cheap and with no penalty (as opposed to losing a point in the main skill to gain a point in the specialty) that you'd pretty well be stupid not to specialize in something like "First Aid (Combat Wounds)."

Let's see.. do you plan to use First Aid? Yes. Do you ever expect to use First Aid for anything other than combat wounds? No! Sure, get +2 dice on every single roll you'll ever make with First Aid ever.

What you need to do is make sure that specializations only assist in a single kind of roll, or a specific model of equipment.

Spellcasting (Combat Spells)? No. Spellcasting (Manaball).

I agree with your points about specialization.

But jokes aside, the skill web...to me, just makes sense. Defaulting right now? It just uses base stat - 1 die. No matter if you're trying to fire a shotgun, but you "only" have the automatics skill. Ok, yeah, it seems most of my problems are around how the firearms skills are broken out. Combat skills in general, really. And piloting skills. And some social skills. And some of the technical skills. But still

There are plenty of other foreseeable uses of First Aid. I'm AFB, but what about diagnosis, toxins, diseases, stabilisation and all the types of damage that don't fit the 'combat' descriptor? There's falling, dumpshock, vehicle crashes, demolitions, elemental effects (I wouldn't even class tasers as inflicting combat wounds), gas inhalation, fatigue and all kinds of accidents you could suffer.

A) I don't think I'd let anyone use First Aid to treat dumpshock, gas inhalation, fatigue, disease, poison, or electrical stuns

B) It was just an example of a specialization that covers the majority of uses of a skill

C) First Aid used to be a specialty of Biotech

How about damage from a stunbolt or manabolt?
And would you count them as 'combat damage'?

How about damage that is essentially the same as what you might suffer in combat but not actually suffered in combat, like a cut from barbed wire or a broken limb from falling? Would the specialisation work just as well for them?

[Genuine questions – no rhetoric or facetiousness]

I had a Jaguar shapeshifter with First Aid (Toxins), because really, healing bullet wounds is easy, not so much a Naga bite...

Regarding the Parachuting, it makes me think of a training montage in a TV show where they learn a new skill, use it once, and never mention it again. Learning skill to level 1, purchase specialization, three dice plus attribute. Done.

True, but the listed Specialization is not semi-automatic pistols but Semi-Automatics. A semi-automatic revolver is obviously a weapon fired semi-automatically with the Pistols skill. Thus the Specialization applies to the SA modded Super Warhawk or the stock Cavalier Deputy.

Not "obviously". You meant, 'conceivably'. Or, 'munchkin-arguably'. That's just another reason those spec examples suck.

That's the kind of thing you'd really need to take up with your GM before laying out any points one way or another. For my two bits, a revolver is a revolver, no matter what doo-dads you bolt on to up the firing rate.

And this differs how from Pistols (Ares Predator)?

Let's see.. do you plan to use Pistols Skill? Yes. Do you ever expect to use Pistols Skill for anything other than using an Ares Predator? No! Sure, get +2 dice on every single roll you'll ever make with Pistols Skill ever.

No real difference here.

That seems like a pretty deliberate misunderstanding, Tymeaus. Regardless of plans, there's a clear 'real' difference between one model of pistol, and 80+% (probably more?) of all models of pistols.

True, but Specializations from the book are not necessarily mutually exclusive so at least by RAW a modded Super Warhawk could be used with either the Revolvers or the Semi-Automatics Specialization.

There are other examples:
Going SCUBA-Diving in a cave you can use either the Cave Diving or the SCUBA Specialization.

Technically a Bike is also a Wheeled vehicle and the latter specialization should apply to bikes as well as cars and trucks.

Point being, If I only care about the Ares Predator, the Specialty will apply almost universally. It mirrors the insane argument that First Aid (Combat Wounds) is universally applicable.

The assumption that Epiocedion used about First Aid (Combat Wounds) applying uiniversally is just flat wrong, as was pointed out above. I chose to highlight that absurdity with one of my own which was not quite so absurd, using his line of reasoning... They would definitely both be quite useful, but sometimes Specialties are just that useful.

But then again, I have no issues with Specialties as they are currently. I don't klnow, maybe that is just me...
As for Real Differences... what is the Difference between all of the Colt .45 Clones out there? I will tell you, there aren't any functional differences, so it is not as big of a thing as you make it out to be. Definitely not the 80%+ that you threw out there.

I didn't check the math, but I was comparing Revolvers to Semi-Automatics in SR4. I daresay it's much *greater* than 80%. [For kicks: 1:11 in SR4A, 3:27 in Arsenal; so, 90%. ] Clones are already part of the game, Variant Models, and they already count as the same specialization (as do the other dozen Semi-Automatics, no matter how different).

You are absolutely right, Tymeaus: 'Combat Wounds' isn't the most abusive example possible. Luckily (unluckily?), there are plenty of better ones, including the exact example we were just discussing. The point is more important than the example: specs can be way too broad. I thought he made it pretty clear.

A point that I obviously disagree with The specialty of Pistol (Semi Automatics), notwithstanding. Honestly, if you can shoot one semi automatic pistol, you can shoot them all (This from personal experience, with hundreds of variations that I have actually fired). Same goes with the Revolver Specialty, if you use it (though there are only a few examples in the books)... Heavy Pistols works too. They are not abusive.

So you are GOOD at one (possibly broad) aspect of a Skill... I am sure that I can find other aspects of that skill to challenge you with, even with that "overly broad" specialization... I find that way too many people are making way too much about specializations. They are not an "I Win" button. All they do is add +2 Dice... Big Deal... I have yet to see a truly abusive Specialty in game, ever. I would be willing to bet that you could not even provide me with a good example of such... And again, why would you feel the need to care if the specialty is overly broad? Is Pilot Ground Vehicle (Wheeled) such a problem that the character gets the bonus on each and every roll? Really?

If the complaint is that a Specialty is so broad that it provide a Universal Bonus, I say So What. However, I have yet to see a Specialty that is Universally applicable to EVERYTHING in a given Skill. So it applies to a large number of choices, Again, I say so what. If you are trying to model reality, the rules system is woefully inadequate (as is every rules system ever created), and will never do what you want it to do. This is about having fun.

As for restricting Specialties to a more narrow scope, you have the same issues that Epicedion is complaining about. If I had that Specialty - Spellcasting (Mana Bolt), guess what spell I am going to be using almost exclusively. Same with the Specialty - Pistol (Ares Predator). It does not change the incidence of its use. You will generally default to the best use of a skill whenever possible, so it does not change anything. I actually think that the broad scope of the specialization system works much better in 4th Edition than the previous editions, with their convoluted Skill/Concentration/Specialization crap. Which always ended up with the Specialization applying the vast majority of the time (in fact, I can remember characters that never used a skill except for its specialization). To each his own I guess...

Rant Over, I apologize...

The point of specializations is not 'are you going to *attempt* to use it all the time?'. It is, 'is this an actual tradeoff in terms of what other specializations could exist?' It's balance, that's all.

The points you're trying to raise are distractions, Tymeaus. Saying that the question doesn't matter because it's 'just +2' is *ignoring the question entirely*. Your threshold of "EVERYTHING" is incorrect, and a clear tangent. As I explained, 90% is also much too high. I think under 50% is probably a good rule of thumb, but that's a separate point to hash out.

I get that you're not talking about what the rest of us are. You're talking about overall fun. That's fine, but we're having a 'theory' discussion about rules balance. See how they don't match up? You're not wrong, but you're going to be frustrated by the total mismatch. Theoretical balance and game mechanics is a fun topic for some crazy people (guilty!).

My favorite is in SR3, Unarmed Combat:Kicking (or Punching) - in a system which never distinguishes between the two again.

Only if your weirdly ruling that specialization to prefer to a firing mode and not to a specific type of weapon like every single other weapon skill specialization in the book(except parrying).

I do understand the difference here Yerameyahu...

Apparently, though, I see tradeoffs where others do not. And that goes to your theory aspect. The biggest problem with it is that a Tradeoff for one person is not a tradeoff for another person. The tradeoffs are not Ironclad, in and of themselves. When this is the case, the theorycrafting starts to unravel. If you have a Specialization you think is a no-brainer to take, someone else may dispute that. It is all dependant upon the individual (player and/or character) to determine applicability. These comparisons do not always match up at that point.It is one of the reasons that there is a gamemaster to adjudicate.

No worries though.

BUT... you can have a specialty in Suppressive Fire, or Fully Automatic Fire, or even Bursts, if you like. Nothing says that you need to restrict yourself to what is in teh books. If you want to restrict based upon Fire Mode, you can do so, if the GM allows it (and I do not see any reason to disallow it, personally).

"Shindig" would be an example not of physically being able to dance but knowing the steps of a dance. That would be a knowledge skill not a specialization of an active skill. Being specialized in dance means you are better able to execute the steps that your knowledge skill is telling you to do.

Not @CanRay despite the quote: I made parachuting and diving knowledge skills instead of active ones. Figured they are so rare that no sense penalizing people for having it. In the end it is just throwing yourself out of a plane or Athletics to swim -- the real skill comes in knowing how to properly pack a chute, how to hook up your oxygen tank, etc. Sort of like background skills for active skills -- maybe you know more theoretical stuff about the skill than actual practical stuff (best example is Spellcasting Background).

You know, I totally disagree with the notion that specializations should only be useful 50% of the time or less. Just conceptually, I think it's a bit of a fool's errand to try and even engineer it to be so, because it relies not only any kind of objective criteria, but rather on some kind of expected narrative criteria revolving around what you suppose will happen, and that just doesn't fit with how the Shadowrun rules work. In Feng Shui it might be great, but not in my Shadowrun, thanks.

I mean, if we run by the expected 50% rule, you have to change the very nature of specialization, or can't specialize in, say, pistols. Because any shadowrunner with the pistols skill will have his own handgun, with a customized grip, electronic firing, etc; even if we reduce the specialization to "My Handgun, Bessie", then he's going to be using Bessie more than 50% of the time when he fires a handgun, UNLESS the player has some kind of fetish for switching up weapons. How often, on average, do you expect PCs to get new handguns? Because it's pretty rare, in my experience, and that's culled from a hell of a lot of Shadowrun games. We end up with this world where Mark the Mage has to specialize in Spellcasting (Manaball), Conjuring (Fire Spirits) and Assensing(Bug Spirits) because the GM figures he'll be casting other spells a lot, be summoning other elementals a lot, and won't be running into bug spirits a lot... but Sally the Samurai has a specialization in Blades (My Spurs), Automatics (My MP5-TX), and Pistols (My Ruger Thunderbolt)... and she's gonna be using those pretty much every single time she rolls the skills, unless you constantly contrive situations where she can't use her own equipment at which point you're pretty much dicking her over.

If you want to reduce the effectiveness of specialization in terms of "percentage of time it's useful", require that people specialize their skills in task-based uses, rather than increase the specificity of them, because that specificity is largely worthless in many cases. You could end up with gun specializations like a "long range shooting" specialization that only kicks in at long or extreme range, or CQB tactics, so people have more dice when in close quarters with their firearms. You could have spellcasting specalizations like "penetratin counterspelling", so you have more dice against defended targets, but don't against naturally resistant things, or "Against machinery", or even "while being subtle" for those out-of-combat situations.

Personally, I don't have a problem with specializations as they are; they give amateurs a way to really shine at one specific task while not having a terribly good skill. We've all met that guy that sucks at cooking but can make mexican food really well: he's got cooking 1, but Mexican Food +2. He shouldn't be penalized because he might choose to stick with what he's good at.

SO Much This... Thank You Adarael...

Ofcource if your GM allows it you can do what ever you like, no matter what any of the book says.
I'm just questioning the logic behind assuming that this one specialization from the book refers to a firing mode and not to a type of weapon like every other specialization.

well. I'm still looking for the rule, that allows me to use other specializations than those in the book...

I get your point...



@ Makki, Even the book states that the Speicalizations given are EXAMPLES, and are not restricted to those given. The FAQ expounds on this further. Devs have expounded on that. Freelancers who wrote the text have expounded on it. The Specializations are myriad and varied. They can be anything, as long as they are accepted by the table being played at...

Are you questioning that logic for other skills like parachuting, diving or navigation as well? Task based specializations are a lot better to reduce the universality of the bonus than equipment based ones. The thing is you can be very familiar with either or both. The only question is whether this is balanced and if any imbalance impacts majorly on your fun.

As long as the specialization is a proper subset of the skill, I don't care how large the subset is.

The only specialization I really detest and disallow at my table is Unarmed Combat (Martial Arts), since IMHO this is not a proper subset.

Just for the rules lawyers, where does it actually say that? I found the lists of specializations and the possibility to create new skills (with specializations of course) but not to add specializations to existing skills, except for those skill that have an open list anyways (e.g. Climbing).

I would go so far as to suggest it is a *meaningless* subset, or was meaningless until the introduction of Arsenal, whereupon it could be read to mean "Get extra dice when performing any Martial Arts manouver you know."

Honestly I think River in "Safe" may be a more accurate example of dance specialty.

Adarael, that long post is addressing a point I didn't make. Completely. I explicitly said, in fact, that the question is not what the player will do or plans to do, 50% of the time or whatever. Instead, I said that a specialization should not cover the vast majority (our example was literally 90%) of all of the player's *possible* options (non-revolvers in the group Pistols).

I can see from Tymeaus' response that he is also still confused about my point, so I'll re-reiterate: a valid specialization should not be something applicable to most (and esp. not nearly all) of the *options* for a skill. There are other factors that should inform the GM's decision to allow a specialization (and they should always require approval, RAW or not), but this is a rule of thumb that's hard to refute.

I vote we change the semi-automatics specialization to autoloaders. That way it maintains the spirit of the entry.