can you swap out a trait for a calling trait

[steelwulf99]

I suppose my question would be is this a character that is just starting out on their journeys or has this character already been through several adventures? If just starting out, I would ask why he wants that calling if he doesn't want the specialty. You can MAKE your own calling if he wants the specific skill groups and create a unique specialty to go with it.

If he's changing it after several adventures, than I could see his reasons for adventuring, his calling essentially changing at least on a personality level, and I'd probably be more lenient and allow it.

That's not quite what is being discussed. The way I'm reading the OP is that a player is (potentially) swapping out a non-Calling related Speciality, such as Swimming, for a Calling specific one that they don't have - such as Shadow Lore.

In this instance the player used a fellowship phase undertaking to swap his herb-lore trait for shadow-lore. He still has his Wanderer trait of folk-lore.

[Otaku-sempai]

In this instance the player used a fellowship phase undertaking to swap his herb-lore trait for shadow-lore. He still has his Wanderer trait of folk-lore.

Okay, so not a Trait derived from the hero's Calling. That should be perfectly legal according to RAW, though not usually recommended for a recently created character (unless you are basically allowing a 'take-back'). Is this an experienced hero who has already had a long adventuring career? I do agree that under the circumstances he probably could have made a better choice than Shadow-lore, but that's not my call.

[steelwulf99]

In this instance the player used a fellowship phase undertaking to swap his herb-lore trait for shadow-lore. He still has his Wanderer trait of folk-lore.

Okay, so not a Trait derived from the player's Calling. That should be perfectly legal according to RAW, though not usually recommended for a recently created character (unless you are basically allowing a 'take-back').

Thanks for your replies. I also concluded it was permissable under the rules.

As to how I feel about it, hmmm. Somewhat sour, actually. The in-game effect is that the Rivendell elf wanderer is now the authority on Shadow, while the Breelanders Warden (a mechanically inferior character) is disregarded (after all, who would you listen to?).

It's not fun, and the idea of burning a fellowship phase to get something useful as a forced replacement is somewhat galling.

I quite liked TOR when I first saw it, but after probably 60+ hours play it's starting to wear thin. I also have AiME and while I'm likely in the minority I regard it as a superior ruleset (no chance of playing it ever though, since I am the only person in my group willing to run it).

Sigh. Sorry, this turned into a big grump session. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

[Rich H]

Through play? I might allow it.
At the start? Probably not.

I'd probably not allow a Calling-related Speciality to be swapped in at all, under any circumstances, as its the major mechanical element of a character Calling which is fundamental to why they adventure. Also, I do support a little bit of niche protection in my games from time to time and this fits the bill for that too.

In this instance the player used a fellowship phase undertaking to swap his herb-lore trait for shadow-lore. He still has his Wanderer trait of folk-lore.

I do think that's legal by the RAW but personally I wouldn't allow it; except under really special situations and defintely not if, say, I already had a Warden in the group.

[Hamarr]

If this is allowed it begs the question on if players can swap out flaws (as those are also distinctive features) or what about virtues of cultural blessings that grant an extra distinctive feature. The Ranger's Foresight of their Kindred, or Hobbits Small Folk.

I don't think so; you just have to think about the way Flaws are acquired, they just aren't swapped out or anything. And Virtues and Cultural Blessings are a different element of the system so those aren't really treated the same either.
[/quote]

Yes I agree. I was using that as an example of why I wouldn't allow someone to gain a calling trait through the undertaking. It just seems fishy, and like the OP expressed, it makes someone who has already chosen Warden feel useless.

[Rich H]

... it makes someone who has already chosen Warden feel useless.

Yep, I do think a certain amount of 'niche protection' is required in RPGs so that's one of the reasons why I wouldn't allow it. For me, many of the "Calling Specialities" are quite big ticket traits so I'd keep them uniquely available to the Callings and those alone.

[Red Haired Thor]

I'd probably not allow a Calling-related Speciality to be swapped in at all, under any circumstances, as its the major mechanical element of a character Calling which is fundamental to why they adventure. Also, I do support a little bit of niche protection in my games from time to time and this fits the bill for that too.
...
I do think that's legal by the RAW but personally I wouldn't allow it; except under really special situations and defintely not if, say, I already had a Warden in the group.

That's very fair. And given Steelwulf's feelings of being overshadowed, I think that's a very valid concern to have. I tend to ere on the side of "If my players have fun, I had fun" when it comes to rule changes, like when I allowed my woodman to swap attributes so that he was more like a Beorning because his build wasn't working. I had extreme misgivings, but talking it over with Kullervo, who was playing an actual Beorning at the time, he didn't feel it wouldn't infringe on Ragnar's niche.

Whereas when another player was focusing on being the magical singer, he felt overshadowed when another proposed playing an outright bard and it threatened his fun.

So I think that in this case, I would actually agree with the decision of following Rules as Interpreted rather than RAW, since there's no question that Steelwulf has said "this has impacted my fun". Players should feel that there is something that is theirs, and not have it taken away.

[Rich H]

As to how I feel about it, hmmm. Somewhat sour, actually. The in-game effect is that the Rivendell elf wanderer is now the authority on Shadow, while the Breelanders Warden (a mechanically inferior character) is disregarded (after all, who would you listen to?).

It's not fun, and the idea of burning a fellowship phase to get something useful as a forced replacement is somewhat galling.

That just sucks. Big time.

Sigh. Sorry, this turned into a big grump session. Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions.

For what its worth, you have my sympathies.

Perhaps a discussion with the group as a whole is the way to go and the elf player may be okay swapping it for something else? Its worth a try considering how this is steamrolling over the other Warden PC.

That's very fair. And given Steelwulf's feelings of being overshadowed, I think that's a very valid concern to have. I tend to ere on the side of "If my players have fun, I had fun" when it comes to rule changes... So I think that in this case, I would actually agree with the decision of following Rules as Interpreted rather than RAW, since there's no question that Steelwulf has said "this has impacted my fun". Players should feel that there is something that is theirs, and not have it taken away.

Yep. Peoples' fun at the table doesn't count if its at the expense of someone else's.

[Indur Dawndeath]

OP: If you want a RAW argument, why it should not be allowed to gain Shadow lore in this way, if there already is a Warden in the fellowship, then quote the text from the undertaking: Confer with Saruman, where you can gain Shadow lore at the expence of a permanent Shadow.
It says that you can do it, if the group lacks a Warden. Clearly implying that if there were a Warden it should not be allowed.
I’m with you on this.