The point of restricting specializations isn't necessarily to challenge the universality of bonuses. There are certain skills that already start with a high level of blanket usefulness. Pilot Ground Craft is one of these, since having a few points and a specialization in (Wheeled) makes you equally good at driving your minivan, a dirt bike, and an F-1 racer.

The First Aid (Combat Wounds) example isn't egregious, but it is still pretty broad. First Aid (Gunshot Wounds) or First Aid (Blunt-force Trauma) would probably be better. Generally, First Aid (Source of Damage).

Personally with First Aid, I don't know why they split it from Medicine in the first place. I'd prefer the old Biotech (First Aid), really.

As for Pistols (Ares Predator), it gives a high incentive to keep using the same gun, sure. And certainly the character will use it for every pistols shot he can. But suppose the character with the Predator specialization loses his gun somehow, to a spell or explosive, or he gets stunned and drops it in the river. One of his assailants has a Colt Manhunter on him, which will get him by in a pinch but just isn't the same.

I'm not confused about your point. The actual impetus for my post were the examples used by Epicedion about why Spellcasting (Combat Spells) was a bad specialization, whereas Spellcasting (Manaball) was; I was just using your numbers. But while we're on the subject, 90% of a character's possible options with pistols being "semiautomatics" is only true insofar as "listed purchaseable pistols" is concerned. Granted, Heavy Pistols/Holdouts/Light Pistols is a much more sensible breakdown of specializations than "semiautomatics" and whatnot, but my point is that this doesn't matter in actual play, because the chances of a PC ever using something they AREN'T specialized in is so low as to be negligable, unless they are seeking to change things up for the sake of it.

My point was that IF you are worried about the universality of certain specialties, such as "Semi Automatics", then changing the CLASS of the spec doesn't make sense, because you still have the same problem. You must make them SITUATIONAL. The base "possibilities" of a specialization in this case don't really matter in the face of the actual dice that will almost always be used in play.

Just a quick aside, but there is a Bike specialization as well. The Wheeled specialization is still a pretty darned versatile one, but all the go-gangers and Combat Bikers will still probably be a little better on two wheels than four (and all the dedicated getaway drivers will still be better on four than two).

while I would prefer to have one specialization for vehicles with four or more wheels and one for bikes the RAW specializations don't make that distinction. The Bike Specialization is effectively a subset of the Wheeled Specialization.

BTW where do you put ATVs and Trikes?

*shrug* I think that the actual dice used in play don't really matter in the face of the base "possibilities" of a specialization.

I do agree that situational specializations can certainly make sense (in some cases, much more sense). As I said, the rule of thumb I described doesn't stand alone among the considerations for GM approval, and possible not even foremost.

If you start considering 'custom' specializations (which tend to be of the 'situational' variety), there's plenty to consider. Something might be perfectly balanced, but not really make logical sense. Pistols (Daylight)? Maybe not. Pilot Ground (Urban)? Maybe. To some GMs, the specialization of Automatics (Semi-Auto Mode) might be narrow enough, but not make sense.

I'd go back to having Bike (2-3 wheels) and Car (4 or more wheels) having full skills, which each having a specialization in a specific vehicle. It's a level of specificity that would add a little realism to the skill system. I can't drive a motorcycle for crap, but I can do pretty well in my car.

But then, I think SR4 has gone a little bit too far in letting you get by on making easy-going suggestions rather than hard choices. Right now it's a universe of "why go through the trouble of getting Cybereyes when you can get nifty contact lenses with the same options at lower cost?" Why make specific specializations when you can take broad categorical ones?

Remember that a +2 specialization bonus would otherwise be worth 18+ Karma (for most players, assuming they'd generally buy up a skill to at least 3 if they plan to use it a lot). The worst thing to do there is make the specialization broad and easily interchangeable.

Skill inflation is a lot more unbalancing than a very broad specialization.

Apples and oranges. A specialization is not an increase in skill rating. It is a positive dice pool modifier.

The issue of skill specificity is a really interesting, separate one. I think it's funny that we have Pilot Ground Vehicles… but Pistols, Automatics, Longarms, and Heavy Weapons (nevermind Throwing/Projectile). It's a game choice, obviously, and nothing wrong with that per se. I imagine that Pilot Aircraft is pretty amusing to actual pilots (of jets, props, helicopters, whatever), and you can fly/drive literally anything with just Command, right?

True, but I think these were skills that were unnecessarily merged. Compare it to the de-merging of skills like (First Aid and Medicine), (Rifles and Shotguns), and that whole mess of about 9 skills that used to be Computer and Electronics, and it makes for a pretty schizophrenic rewrite of the skill list.



Yeah, yeah, but it is an effective increase in skill rating if it's too broad.

And yet, I am not cofused on your point, I just do not agree with it... I just do not think that any of the specializations cover MOST of the player's possible options. I am sure you could construct one if you tried, but that is what a GM is for.

But no worries...

Comparing SR4A to SR3 is pretty moot. They are different games with a different backgrounds.



No, even if the specialization applied all the time, a dice pool mdifier is something els than a skill increase. For example. the Specialization does not enable you to take more of the Improve Ability Power. Also Specializations (by RAW and not the erroneous FAQ) apply after the split for shooting two weapons at the same time.

That last bit makes them *better*.

If someone were to look up from where "Bikes" is listed as a specialization for the skill in question, and then say "LOLOL bikes have wheels, I win," I'd probably hit them with my book or something. There's playing a game, and then there's playing a system to try and win; I don't have much fun gaming with folks that are interested in the latter, and to me that's where that sort of thing falls.

I'd cover ATVs and Trikes under Bikes, if I had to choose an existing specialization (but I don't), because playability matters more than the letter of the law. Both of them have control set-ups more similar to a motorcycle (handlebars, etc) than to a car. It has yet to come up in a game, though, and if it a character wanted to be comfortable on one, I'd probably remind them that the specializations listed aren't all the specializations possible, and if he wanted some badass off-roading action, he could ask for a new spec and probably get it.

As a totally random thought I had while reading this thread:

What if specializations were done away with? Instead, a player has the option to buy a very specific skill, for a reduced cost, and more general options for an increasing cost. To reflect a PC having trained with one specific gun, or with a specific class of gun, or with guns in general.

For instance, (specific heavy pistol) skill is 2 points / lvl : heavy pistol skill is 3 points / lvl : pistols skill is 4 points / lvl etc...

Seems a little like skill groups, but with more than one layer, with "specs" becoming the top layer.

So in the current rules, a player buys a skill, then "drills-down" to a spec. This new way would have a sort of pyramid of skill choices, and the player cane choose at what level their character is proficient.

AND of course, skill web

Might be a little complicated, though.

No, skill web's not very complicated

But seriously, that's a good point - I guess rules have to make tradeoffs between ease-of-use and "realism". I just think the direction SR4 took is the wrong one.

I liked how SR3 made it a more literal tradeoff, the old 4(6) method. Same +2, but feels different. And I wouldn't say you shouldn't compare them, or even that they're *that* different. Two apple varieties, not apples and oranges.

Back to the OP: the example specs are in some places quite flawed. The players should ask for their own reasonable options, and the GM should approve reasonable ones. Heh.

Not entirely true. Large swaths of SR4 are lifted from SR3. I'm not going to complain about where the rules are different if the differences are reasonable, but there are certain places where the differences seem to be arbitrary and not as good.



Why on earth would you allow someone to apply a +2 specialization modifier after splitting their dice pool, effectively making it a +4 modifier?

Because rules lawyers exist, proving there is evil in the world.

Rules Lawyers are just petty evil.

True evil are the folks that revel in outright destruction and carnage, as well as massive body counts as if these were Fantasy Orks, rather than Bob from Accounting, his wife Mary, and their two Litter he's trying to feed and get into College.

Because that is what the rules say:
And no it is not a +4 modifier but +2 on two pools.

?

"must've hit 'er pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh kid?"

I'd rather go compound specs EG Heavy pistol Autoloaders(not semi-automatics cuses too many silly questions) . So the Preditor and the Manhunter ect but not the Warhawk. For example I might allow revolvers as is however.

RAI here are obviously that the skill specialization is intended to be in the dice pool before the split, and the "before you apply modifiers" bit means modifiers for things like range.

In other words, specializations are not dice pool modifiers, they are situational skill modifiers.

They say so in the FAQ.

If specializations were skill modifiers, the rules would say that they raise the skill by two under certain conditions. Specializations however add dice and as such are dice pool modifiers. There are only four kinds of modifiers as per p. 61 of SR4A. Only the dice pool modifier adds dice to a test.

Here and in several other places the FAQ unfortunately contradicts the rules as they are in the books/errata. As such it is worthless. Only errata can change rules.

The specialization bonus is obviously intended to be used to create the dice pool, not modify it.

Arguably the reason the specialization bonus is referred to as a "bonus" is to keep it from being a "modified skill." Otherwise, the rules are that when you go to improve a skill with karma, you use the modified value to calculate improvement cost as opposed to the base. Also there's a limitation on how much higher a modified skill can be over the base skill. Specialization doesn't play by those rules.



You don't need errata to clarify RAI.

I would not say that it is obvious in any way; Your view is personal opinion...

When RAI remains fuzzy, you do indeed need an Eratta...

When the people who made the game keep an updated FAQ on their website, and they say something explicitly like:



You don't have to go a long way with your personal opinion to figure out what they intended.

Again, it is not a Eratta, which is what you use to alter rules. And if you look real close, you will see that the FAQ is not accurate for SR4A (Glaring rules mistakes, in direct opposition to the Rules as printed in the actual books)... AND, It is not updated.

What they intended is not the rules that they wrote. Want to change the Rules, write an Eratta, not a FAQ.

What he said +1

Yes. She doesn't know the steps to the dance but she uses her incredibly high Dancing dice pool to overcome the negatives and is able to correctly follow the steps. Baryshnikov can probably pick up on a waltz very quickly but if you asked him to perform Swan Lake without knowing the choreography it'd be pretty dicey.

From the FAQ:



Otherwise, having not carefully inspected every entry in the FAQ, could you point out some of the glaring rules mistakes?



In RAW they just fail to specify the complex case of building a dice pool with specializations and then splitting it.

Personally, I don't see why a FAQ on the official website is not sufficient clarification.

And yet, if it was actually updated, the glaring rules contradictions would have been fixed, yet they were not. So, no, it is not updated.

I can give you one example right off the top of my head... Mystic Adepts and how they treat their magic rating. The Book uses the rating (Total Rating) as the cap for Adept powers and the cap for your Spellcasting/Summoning for Overcasting. The Faq completely contradicts that...

As for why the FAQ does not cut it, it is a FAQ, not an Eratta. If you want to fix a rule, you use Eratta.

The book says



I've always read that section to mean that spending Magic points on phys ad abilities "locks up" that magic and prevents it from being used for spellcasting. It doesn't say "Every point of magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use in Spellcasting tests." It says "with Magic-based skills." That's sort of a vague statement.

Could you read that either way? I guess. But when the FAQ contradicts one interpretation, it is not a "glaring contradiction." Rather, it just shows that when you decided what they meant, you chose something different than what they later came out and said they actually meant. Obviously since the question is in the Frequently Asked Questions file, it's a point that a lot of people have gotten stuck on, and not some definitely cut-and-dry matter like you're saying it is.

No, what it says is that if you have 6 magic, and you split the Magic at 4 Adept, and 2 Spellcasting, You use the magic of 2 for the actual skill roll for Spellcasting/Summoning (How you construct that Dice Pool), but your Magic rating is still 6 for determining how you Cast those Spells/Summon those Spirits (ie where Stun/Physical breaks at for overcasting/summoning). Likewise, your 4 Adept points are what you are allowed to spend upon Adept abilities, but you could have 6 Levels of Critical Strike because your Magic is a 6, not a 4. Look at the examples in the SR4A book, it makes it all very clear.

The FAQ is completley opposite of the book at that point, and if one of the questions is incorrect, how many more are incorrect? The problem with the FAQ is that it was written by the Then-Writers for SR4, and then was half-assed into SR4A with no thought as to how the rules had changed.

In the end, If you want to CHANGE A RULE, you need an Eratta, not a FAQ. FAQ's do not FIX anything, they attempt to clarify. In this case, the SR4A FAQ fails at that miserably.

The relevant portion, which the FAQ ignores and contradicts, however comes directly afterwards:
This line has always been there even in the first printing of SR4 (p. 187).

No, it what it says is (and I'll add the rest of the line):



What you've done is determined that "with Magic-based skills" means only on the Spellcasting/Summoning/etc tests. What other people (including myself) have done is determined that "with Magic-based skills" means on the Spellcasting/Summoning/etc tests as well as for determining Force, since Force falls within the reading of "with Magic-based skills." Force only ever comes into play when using Magic-based skills, and your Magic attribute (when using Magic-based skills) is what you would use to determine the Force of a spell.

The people who make the game obviously side with the latter group.

In other words, you read it wrong. Other people read it wrong, too, hence why the clarification is offered in the FAQ.

Just like with splitting dice pools.

If you're going to complain about glaring contradictions in the FAQ, it would help for the contradictions you think are in there to be, well, glaring.

Dakka Dakka provided the relevant Quote from the Rules that you apparently are missing.
Also, Did you even look at the Examples? It is all there...

That line is included in what I quoted from the rules. "For all other purposes.." et cetera.

If you read "with Magic-based skills" to include the Force, like I've explained, then it's already specified and "for all other purposes" doesn't have any bearing.

Oh, and "for all other purposes" generally means: "we couldn't think of anything else that this could apply to, but use it like this just in case you find something obscure." Not: "this was intended to apply to this super-obvious and incredibly important thing that the entire rules are centered on, but we just didn't want to waste five words on it."

Except that:



If the Adept is using his Full Attribute for determining levels of Adept abilities, the Mage is using the Full Attribute to determine the Force at which his spells become Overcast. No one is arguing that the dedicated Points of Magic are the only points used to construct dice pools for the Skill Tests... Any thing else falls under the "For ALL OTHER PURPOSES" Clause indicated above.


Anyways...

Apples and oranges. Adept max power level does not equal Magician Force. It explicitly states that for adept powers they're allowed to buy a level up to their full Magic attribute, but it doesn't explicitly state that they're allowed to cast/overcast based on their full Magic attribute.

Obviously (since they were getting questions on this and saw fit to clarify it in a FAQ), they meant for it to be read in such a way that Force is limited as I described earlier.

If you screw up interpreting something, the correct response is not to claim that the rules are extremely clear and that the clarification (and all other associated clarifications) is wrong. The fact that there's a clarification strongly implies that the rules are not extremely clear.

If you include the maximum level for adept powers but not the maximum force/overcast force, what is there besides the maximum for adept powers? "all other purposes, including the determination of the maximum level for adept powers" means that there must be at least one other thing to which the full magic attribute applies.

It is not a clarification but a rules change, which has no business in a FAQ.

The rules are clear though. do you use any magic-linked skill to determine force? No, you pick a number between 1 and twice your magic Attribute. Skill has nothing to to with it.

Could we get back to specializations now?

Cut and paste previous stuff about what "for all other purposes" generally means.



It doesn't seem like a rules change for me, because I've never read it in a different way than is clarified in the FAQ.



"Every point of Magic invested in mana-based abilities grants the character one point to use with Magic-based skills." Selecting Force is part of using Magic-based skills. It doesn't specify that the Magic attribute only applies to Magic-based skill tests.



Sure. You apply Specialization bonuses when constructing the dice pool, before you split the pool. Dice pool modifiers (such as for wounds, range, cover, et cetera) are applied to each part after the split.

There is a tracked bike in Arsenal, and bikes can be converted to have other movement modes like hover or walker.

But can you get a hover skateboard?

Sure, you just have to make one...

Alternatively, if your GM allows it, you could try using any flying medium drone (like the omnipresent Rotodrone) as a skateboard.

Aren't there skimmer discs already. Just duct tape them to a board. Give them 20/50 speed and use the other characteristics of the discs, finished.

I doubt that the classical hoverboard can fly much higher than 30 cm. BTW do they exist in other fiction besides back to the future?

Isn't that a bit fast?