The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Dice allocation between general skills and specializations
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules -> Dice allocation between general skills and specializations Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd rule the same. Finding out if the RAW explicitly says something else is still useful.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
fogger1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Posts: 107
Location: Maine

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
Spirit of the rules.


Disagree.

As I said WAAAY back in my first post, I imagine this is a common house rule, but it's not the way the rules are explicitly written. I'm not even arguing that the RAW makes more sense - I'm just arguing what is and isn't RAW.

Mamatried wrote:
the deabte is a bit silly imo


Here, at least, I'll agree.

Mamatried wrote:
you roll 5D for ALL blaster wepons with a 5D blaster skill. this makes a specialization of 4D+1 not possible, becuse the spcialized weapon is INCLUDED in the overall skill.


Except it's explicitly NOT included in the overall skill when there's a specialization, because the rules specifically say "Specializations are separate skills."

Mamatried wrote:
So choosing or later selecting hold out blaster specialization doe not exclude the hold out form the overall blaster skill.


"Specializations are separate skills" would indicate otherwise.

All of the examples and justifications you've given in this thread violate either
R&E wrote:
"Specializations are separate skills."
or
R&E wrote:
"If a character improves the basic skill, the specialization doesn't improve; if the specialization is improved, the basic skill doesn't go up."
or both. It's a reasonable house rule to make, but it's simply not RAW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ebertran
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 204
Location: Miami, FL

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In 2e, Han Solo (GG 3, pg. 81) Han Solo has a 7d in Blaster, and a 5d+1 in his Blaster: Blaster Rifle specialization.

My assumption is that he got really good at blasters over time (His DEX is a 3d+1), but lagged behind on improving with rifles. Which we never see him shoot anyway, I believe.

So yes, I believe the RAW states these are separate increases and rolls.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14287
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow.. Nice catch. Did not know they created a core character with such a discrepency...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fogger1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Posts: 107
Location: Maine

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ebertran wrote:
In 2e, Han Solo (GG 3, pg. 81) Han Solo has a 7d in Blaster, and a 5d+1 in his Blaster: Blaster Rifle specialization.

My assumption is that he got really good at blasters over time (His DEX is a 3d+1), but lagged behind on improving with rifles. Which we never see him shoot anyway, I believe.

So yes, I believe the RAW states these are separate increases and rolls.


I've always thought this was because he was a crap shot with the stormtrooper rifle in ANH but good with most anything else we see him pick up.

Han's 2E stats are like that across the board - look at any 2E sourcebook published after R&E. (For anyone wanting to confirm: reference pages 13-14 of the Corporate Sector book, page 13 of the Dark Empire Sourcebook, page 129 of the 2E Sourcebook, page 33 of the Special Edition Trilogy Sourcebook, page 29 of the Thrawn Trilogy, page 31 of the Truce at Bakura, and so on)

I'd have brought this example up before as support, but I was told once that the stats are often kind of regarded as garbage, are sometimes inconsistent with the rules, and this could have been a mistake that was made once and then repeated by bad editing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14287
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OR they made the mistake once, then said "to heck with it" and left it that way.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fogger1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Posts: 107
Location: Maine

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
OR they made the mistake once, then said "to heck with it" and left it that way.


Yeah.

Either way, though, it is actually supported by the rules.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14287
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just because that one instance shows, doesn't to ME, mean that it establishes it as a rule..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pakman
Commander
Commander


Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 448

PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Just because that one instance shows, doesn't to ME, mean that it establishes it as a rule..


^ This.

With so many inconsistencies, different authors and .... some quite special writeups here and there.

Things get missed in editing all the time - which is one reason we have such a massive and active house rules section.

ON this topic - (specializations) - we use a house rule.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fogger1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 25 Feb 2021
Posts: 107
Location: Maine

PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2025 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pakman wrote:
garhkal wrote:
Just because that one instance shows, doesn't to ME, mean that it establishes it as a rule..


^ This.

With so many inconsistencies, different authors and .... some quite special writeups here and there.

Things get missed in editing all the time - which is one reason we have such a massive and active house rules section.

ON this topic - (specializations) - we use a house rule.


Part of the reason I didn't bother to use it when I was discussing this earlier. On its own, it establishes nothing. It is consistent with the established rules as written, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0