Donovan Morningfire said:

Exalted5 said:

Doc, the Weasel said:

Yeah, its supposed to be dismissive.

Doc, the Weasel said:

If you read the recommendations I made in that same post, I explicitly listed two possible solutions for number one. One addresses the dice, the other addresses the mechanics dependent on the dice. In all likelihood, yeah, we're probably stuck with the dice the way they made them, and have been for the last 3 weeks since they announced that the beginners set was at the printers.

For the record, that fucking sucks.

This is going to lead to balance problems that players are already finding. This is going to lead to players gaming the system.

If one set of mechanics (the dice) are already immutable, then problems have to be fixed in a different set of mechanics (game rules/symbol interpretation)., hence:

LethalDose said:

Its not the ideal fix, but its probably what we're stuck with. And it really REALLY needs to happen.

Doc, the Weasel said:

Sounds like a great idea, all you gotta do is get some support.

Exalted5 said:

LethalDose said:

-WJL

Exalted5 said:

Regarding this suggestion, not counting the PC's initial spec would be a definite step in the right direction in terms of cost, as helps curtail system abuse while not totally discouraging players from making off-kilter character ideas, such as a tech-savvy Bounty Hunter that's also an expert pilot (BH career with Gadgeteer as the initial spec and Pilot purchased at character creation).  Still expensive (20 XP for buying a non-career spec), but not prohibitively so, particularly with the focus being on buying up your Characteristics at character creation over buying skills, talents, or even other specializations.

Regarding Dice Mechanics, one alternative option would be alter things so that extra successes have one of two effects, either accomplish the task faster (non-combat skills) or deal more damage (combat skills), with everything else being the purview of Advantages, as the math (particularly where Boost Dice are concerned) appear to lean more towards generating Advantages over Successes.  As for Triumphs, I think just providing the option to treat the "turn the tide" aspect as 3 extra successes if no other option presents itself (highly unlikely unless dealing with a profoundly unimaginative player).  Despair I think is powerful enough, since effects that can really screw over the players should be fairly limited, particularly as one of the effects is "tool or melee weapon being used is damaged" and the other is "ranged weapon runs out of ammo," both of which are pretty nasty thing to happen to a PC.

For skills, the main one I think that can stand to go is Cool, as that skill's functions can be split between Discipline (simply changing which Characteristic is used based on what is being resisted) and Vigilance (initiative).  Demolitions would be fine as a function of Mechanics rather than needing to be it's own entirely separate skill.

Autofire I will presume is still being worked on, though having it cost 2 Advantage per extra target or additional damage is a nice simple fix, with the latter also being extended to Linked, which suffers the same issue.  Alternatively, have it cost extra successes to use Autofire/Linked rather than Advantages, which are less common and would also curtail the power of those two qualities.

As far as Vigilance and the "foresight to be prepared for situations," I can't help but wonder if, like the Utility Belt talent, that's left over text from an earlier draft of how Destiny Points work.  The talent based upon Destiny Points only being able to allow a PC to "just happen" to have items of Rarity 1 (which most if not all of the examples given fall into) and the skill description due to a Vigilance skill check being required to spend that Destiny Point.

Can't say I agree with Force Exile getting career skills, since one of it's first tier talents adds two skills to the character's list of career skills.  While I don't agree with the current costs of acquiring that specialization, I think that getting what amounts to the Force Rating talent for free just for buying the spec is a decent trade-off.

Speaking of, one possible idea regarding buying Force Exile (or any future Force-Sensitive specializations) would be allowing the player to select Force Exile as their initial free specialization rather than one typically associated with their career, provided the player has the GM's approval.  You'd loose the two bonus skill ranks (meaning you'd be forced to pay XP to get 2 ranks in any given skill unless your species happens to provide a free rank in it) as well as anywhere from two to four additional career skills, but considering how much XP is being saved, I'd call it a fair trade-off.  Even if not an official rule, it could be an option for GMs to consider if they feel that the costs to play a Force-Sensitive character are too steep.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Not saying I disagree about things being expensive, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I think the reasoning behind it is a matter of rules endorsing behavior.

It's one thing to put a note in a book saying that the GM should be the arbiter of what does and doesn't go for a character being Force-sensitive, but for a lot of players, it's just going to annoy them if the rules say they can easily build a Force-sensitive character, but the GM just flat-out tells them no.

For the setting feel that the designers seem to be wanting to get across, I see the logic in making it so that it should be a major character investment to have a connection to the Force, as opposed to just asking your GM nicely.  Yes, the PCs are supposed to be extraordinary people, but having a connection to the Force is even more extraordinary still, and I think that, from a purely narrative standpoint, it's more impressive for a GM to make that investment worth it to the player than it is for the buy-in to be cheap and for the GM to simply feel generous in allowing it (if that makes any sense).  The Force is supposed to be special, after all, and I see the logic, from a design standpoint, of wanting to make it feel special.

As to how expensive is "too expensive" (or "expensive enough," for that matter), that's something that doesn't even necessarily need to be hard-coded into the game itself.  Similar to how other game systems have different suggested power levels for characters depending on the type of campaign the GM wants to run, I can easily see there being a rules option to give a higher XP budget (or, alternatively, allowing for a lower cost of entry to be Force-sensitive) for GMs who want to run games where Force use is more prevalent.

This way, accounting for personal and/or GM taste can be a part of the campaign setup from the outset, instead of the core rules being something that people feel compelled to constantly change for taste because they're not happy with them.

Rikoshi said:

It makes sense.  Well said, Rikoshi.

LethalDose said:

Another thing, now that I think of it, is that making it more expensive to venture into Force-sensitivity pretty much forces a player to take a high Obligation to offset the XP cost--and that's exactly how it should be, in my opinion.

Palpatine rules the galaxy with an iron fist. Darth Vader and other Imperial agents have hunted the Jedi and other Force-users to near-extinction. Being a Force-sensitive PC should feel like you've got this big honkin' Sword of Damocles hanging over your head at all times, and the "Obligation for XP" mechanic hardwires that into the game instead of relying (solely) on GM savvy to get that feel across.

Most of what I see works here, but  I think the earlier version of Specializations was expensive enough, especially considering that Specializations within a career are so closely related.

            I think the main issue (at least the one we are seeing in our game and I am seeing as a GM) is the fact that some useful skills are neglected when it comes to certain Specializations. For example, I've noticed that the Smuggler does not have, in any specialization has Negotiation, Knowledge (Outer Rim) or Knowledge (Core Worlds) as career skills. The very essence of a smuggler is to move goods (legal or illegal) from one place to another, presumably for sale or trade. Without a knowledge of bargaining or skill-based gambling (Negotiation. No, Deceit is NOT a viable substitute, though it IS a good supplement to it), or where to best buy and sell these commodities (Knowledge [Outer Rim] and Knowledge [Core Worlds]-it's right in the description of each), how does a smuggler do the job? These do not make sense as non-career skills for a smuggler at all. The only currrent way to solve this is to take Non-Career specialixations which are now a bit too expensive or to house-rule them in, which may unbalance the career in comparison to other careers.

Yes, these can be taken as Non-Career skills, but some are just used too often in practice to be seen as such.

The fact that half the classes have no way to defend themselves doesn't help. The Tech having brawl is ok, but the Outlaw Tech or Slicer that CAN'T USE a weapon at all? In life itself this could be acceptable, but in an adventure game it's almost suicide. This is why most classes in earlier editions had at least a blaster pistol as a proficiency (The equivalent of a career skill here). I think this could use some work.

                                   The argument that this is acceptable loses it's power with the fact that true characters in sci-fi shouldn't be completely limited by their careers. While there are few real ways to do this, the movies reflect a certain versatility in characters that reaches beyond a single career. Luke Skywalker was an amazing pilot, a mechanic AND a Jedi. Han Solo was a Pilot, Scoundrel AND a general. Leia Organa was a polititian, War leader AND something of a soldier. Boba Fett was an Assassin, Survivalist AND a Gadgeteer (if his armor and the fact that he PERSONALLY modified it was any indication). The only true 'one-trick ponies' were the droids, and even THEY weren't all quite that limited (At least, R-2 wasn't. I won't get into C-3PO, underappreciated though he was….).

                           The number of Specializations x5, or x10 for non-career specializations is expensive enough because the cheaper price applies to only TWO  specializations other than what you choose at character creation. Everything else is x10, which is more than enough in my opinion.

                             As for Force users, I would give that particular Specialization a flat cost, rather than treat it as any other specialization. It is NOT simply another specialization because you get NO skills for it, You end up with ANOTHER characteristic which needs to be built up and all of it's powers already have a flat rate. For cost consistency if nothing else, make it a flat cost, say 20 or 25 xp.

                            The argument of "If the player wants to do it, then they should think it worth the cost" loses power as well in the name of fairness. As a GM, I cannot favor non-force users any more than I can favor force users. If I make a force-user pay more for what they can do, I have to make a Bounty-Hunter do the same or I fail as a GM by not being balanced in my rulings. Force-Sensitive does fundamentally change the character, but it is a curse as well as a gift, especially for those who have done the research on the positive AND negative aspects. I have never seen a non-force user driven insane by visions of a battle that happenned 1000 years ago by simply being at that location, but Force-Sensitives can STILL die or go mad from being too close to the location of Ruusan's Thought Bomb as ONE example. It's a different dynamic and should be treated as such, not just as a hard-wired extra cost, but as a roleplaying opportunity for players and GMs. Just Hard-Wiring extra cost due to circumstance or iminent danger at all times removes the very essence of role-play. If you as a GM have so much issue with a force-sensitive in your, simply dissallow it rather than punishing players for choosing it. Since the Force has been a focal point in every movie in every series EVER MADE for Star wars, and is indeed the very reason the setting is Star Wars and not  'Battlestar Galactica', it's something to consider. Difficult enough to be so hunted, and a great roleplaying opportunity for my (few) players who are willing to accept being so hunted.

                                                                                    A reminder to all here, this Beta version is a method in which to discuss issues players have with the system and tweak it so all can enjoy the game better. Please do not simply dismiss another's opinion because it is not agreeable to you. The simple fact is, what some would call "whining" is what this version of the game was built for, to discuss perceived issues with the system so that all players can enjoy the game better. I understand that we don't all agree, but let's not attack each other for disagreeing. Debate is fine in itself, but let's not lose our dignity here, Not to mention that if there is no chance of solving an issue, there is no reason for this thread, the Beta or any conversation on the subject at all.

                                                            Thank you all for your understanding and your time. May the force be with you.

 @Dreddwulf1

I'm not going to quote your whole passage above, I hope that's okay.  

I think I agree with your main point.  In my own words, It seems that the career skill lists are, well, sloppy.  I think the broad variety of skills kind of screwed up who got what.  You raise a number of very very good points, especially re: smuggler lists.  I think more care should be spent on the career/spec skill lists, and personally I think the first part of that is cleaning up skill redundancies, but I'm getting off of your point: skills are poorly distributed, especially combat skills.

Between the week 4 update and today, I would have agreed with you.  But really, the current cost of a rank in an OOC skill is not as bad as you might think.  There is a bit of a premium you pay, but it doesn't add up as much as I suspect you believe it does.  I think a character can take enough ranks without breaking the XP bank to be at least competent.  They may have to choose to focus in just one weapon, but I don't see that as an issue in non-combat oriented careers (Colonists, Techs, Explorers).  They have other toys they can play with.  Having the reduced, but not absent, penalty keeps characters playing to their strengths while still being able to round out their portfolios.  

RE: your opinion on the Force exile… I think Rikoshi hit the nail on the head.  I don't have anything to add.

-WJL

 I see your point in theory for skills. In practice, however, the MATH doesn't add up.

                                    For example, buying specializations doesn't actually GIVE you anything by itself. You pay less for certain skill, but you STILL pay for them. Not to mention that talents aren't free, either. You pay for cheaper access to skills, but don't get anything else for the thirty-plus points spent.

                                  On the other hand, buying two ranks in a non-career skill pretty much becomes 30 points off the bat. That means for reasonable competency in a single non-career skill I can already buy a specialization instead. now imagine that three or four skills are this way….good luck making what you want.

                         Using the movies as an example, Luke was a Fringer, Mechanic and Pilot at the beginning of the movie A New Hope! He used those skills later, but presumable had at least some of them from minute one.

                                 The Force IS special, but it's the only ability that comes complete with it's own problems, moral issues and outright dangers that NO OTHER CHARACTER needs to worry about. Not to mention that it's already more expensive in Practice than other specializations because you have to buy separate trees, most of the abilities have hampered use until AFTER you've mastered the Exile tree and with the new rules I don't see how ANY PC gets higher than 2 as a force rating except at character creation, which is expensive by itself.

                               This smacks far more of people being AFRAID of the force rather than balancing it. Just making the cost higher and higher just makes for a passive-aggressive way of removing the Force-User from a game by making one entirely too expensive or inconvenient to play.  The cost isn't just points, or being hunted like a dog if you ever use it. The very fabric of the character changes, and not always for the better. It's the fact that half the universe can be a brand-new fatal incident waiting to happen but ONLY for the Force-Sensitive, everyone else is safe.

                                     Thank you for the comments and opinions. It seems we don't agree on this particular subject, but the input does give me another perspective to work from. That's always appreciated, if not always agreed upon.

dreddwulf1 said:

You don't have to agree with me, but you may want to check your math… I'm not sure I understand where yours is coming from.  You seem to ignore the cost you would pay to get the 2 ranks in a skill as a career skill, and your math still doesn't add up when you claim "buying two ranks in a non-career skill pretty much becomes 30 points off the bat". Lets take another look at your example: the costs of buying 2 ranks in some skill, career vs OOC.

• 2 ranks in a career skill: First rank bought for 5 XP (1 x 5), second rank bought for 10 XP (2 x 5).  Total cost is 15 XP
• 2 ranks in an OCC skill: First rank bought for 10 xp (1 x 5 + 5), second rank bought for 15 XP (2 x 5 + 5).  Total cost is 25 XP

The OOC is more expensive, but only by 10 XP (Paying the OOC skill rank 'tax' twice).  10 XP doesn't get you your new spec. not even close.  Now, if you were doing this for 3 skills that become class skills, yeah, you're breaking even.  You also break even by buying 2 skills that were OOC up to rank 3, and one skill never reaches equivalency.  Its just wrong to say "I can already buy a specialization instead", and if you believe buying the specialization doesn't actually give you anything anyway, why would you buy it?  Seriously, if you bought the spec, you'd have that, but no ranks in the skills you want.  To put it nicely, pointing out "buying specializations doesn't actually give you anything by itself" is… shortsighted? It gives you access to new talents and classifies up to four skills as career skills, dropping the price, which leads to savings on future XP expenditures.  Basically, spending Y XP now saves more than Y XP later, which means you reach the goals you're aiming for sooner.  It's like spending $20 to get your oil changed to avoid spending $2000 to replace the engine because you didn't.  Now if you want to talk about "making 3 or 4 skills this way, good luck making what you want". Well, OOC, 3 or 4 skills at 2 ranks each will cost you 30 or 40 XP on top of what you would spend anyway. If you're lucky enough to find a single specialization to make ALL 3 or 4 of them a career skills, then maybe that new spec is worth the investment of XP and would meet your needs. Pointwise, it would be a smart investment (as long as the spec costs 30 or 40, or less), and the math adds up.

If you're in a situation where you want to start with 3-4 OOC at rank 2, maybe reconsider your starting career/spec choice.  I'm confused by the tone of your message, honestly.  You seem intent on making sure you get the absolute best value on every spent XP, but then invoke "character concept".  Sometimes you have to make choices.  I actually think that's one of the cornerstones of good game design: consequential decision making.  If the idea that you can't have everything you want at creation bugs you, maybe this isn't the system for you.

The devs didn't provide the motivation for this change, but I suspect it was made to discourage players grabbing specs just to drop the price of buying skills, avoiding the exact "economic" or "point-wise" thinking I described above. and I personally think that was a damned good reason to do it.  I don't think players should feel "forced" to buy additional specs to be able to expand their skill selection, which was the problem with the previous 10* new rank formula from the week 4 patch.  That was a BAD decision.  It's been rectified in this patch.

-WJL

Donovan Morningfire said:

This. They need to stop ramping up the cost of multi-specing. Getting a new spec doesn't provide huge benefits, and should not have prohibitive cost. It was too much with the last update, this update is a deal breaker.

If they want to ban multi specing, then they should just go ahead and do it.

 In thinking of the costs of abilities, specializations, skills, etc., I've realized something:

It really sounds like the biggest complaint boils down to, "I can't make a starting character who's awesome at three or four things at once."

And okay, maybe that's exaggerating a little bit (at least in some cases), but the thrust of most of the arguments I'm seeing is that the starting XP budget doesn't allow a starting character to pile on multiple specializations, and I'm trying to figure out why that's necessarily weird or bad or undesirable.

To look at Saga Edition, which is extremely multiclass-friendly (and encouraging), when you build a character, you're still starting out at Level 1, and so you're still limited in what your character can be good at out the starting gate. Sure, you can take a feat or two to expand your repertoire beyond what the core class itself gives you, but your resources for character proficiency are limited. I don't see why Edge of the Empire limiting starting character power levels like that is a bad thing when nobody is in an uproar that a character in a d20-type system can't have abilities from three classes at the start at Level 1.

And yes, frequently, GMs and players like to have campaigns start with more powerful PCs, and so they have the players start out at a higher level, such as 2 or 3 or 6.  The FFG Fun Police aren't going to kick down your door if you want to start your PCs with a larger XP budget to start, in order to create characters that can be more capable.  You may want/need to limit the amount that can be spent on characteristics, for balance considerations, and maybe that's even a guideline that can be written into the rules.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because costs don't let you be immediately instantly awesome at character creation doesn't mean that the costs are wrong or prohibitive or unfair.  And assuming you're getting something like 20 to 30 XP across two sessions, that right there is enough to buy yourself a decent talent and maybe bump a skill or two, and (at least by RAW), Saga Edition sure doesn't let you advance that quickly, most of the time.

In that light, is multi-specing even that prohibitive, when you really get down to it?  If you were only getting 5XP a session or something, then sure, I can see the complaints, but I honest'y don't see that advancement would be all that slow with the numbers as they are now.

LethalDose said:

LethalDose said:

Math in Skill Training: Changed back from the Week 6 update. Slightly better, but doesn't change the problem.  If the concept itself is poorly reflected, the 'Choices' don't really matter. I already spoke of this with the smuggler. Yes, choices need to be made, but they should be properly reflected with the classes as they currently are, which is NOT the case now.

            As for dropping the price, I already mentioned that. I also mentioned that versatility was something set up in the movies themselves, and in the game. Just saying "live with it" is not the premise or purpose of this thread or the Beta Game itself. The specialization was just fine with the earlier edition (x5 Career Spec./x10 Non-Career Spec) because it made you look at the choice of Career first. and it was a consistent, simple method. This new "add 5" or "add 10 carry the 4" just adds more MATH rather than one consistent Mechanic. Same for the Force Exile. It adds a career specializations without BEING a career, an inconsistency in creation. If the Force Powers have a flat rate, the Force Exile Tree should do the same (obviosly costing more than the powers because it has more in it than any one of the force power trees). I'm not looking to maximize anything as GM, just for consistent rulings that are easier to remember than tacking on excess complication for no real reason.

                      The only real way I see of solving the problem with skills is to make all the skills the same price and leave the price for Specializations so that characters buy access to TALENTS, rather than worry about skills at all. That way, there are no further specialization buys just for skills, you buy specializations for access to talents. Simple fact is, anyone can learn how to perform a task, not everyone has the talent to be amazing at it. Careers can give you that talent over time, skills are simply learned and applied tasks. Anyone can learn to be a pilot, not everyone is an ACE (which the talents reflect). Solves the problem completely because there is no skill-based reason to get a specialization at all, and the Force-Sensitives are on a somewhat even spending footing in aquiring the Specializations while still spending more for their "Kewl Powers", as it were. Versatility, efficiency and simplicity all covered.

                           Just looks to me like making skills a different price based on career is a mechanic with no real reason, except for saying: "You wouldn't use that anyway". Smuggler proves that wrong, as well as the movie that this entire system is based on. All the GM has to do is enforce the ability to attain skills based on background, use or study in-game, something most decent roleplayers I have dealt with happily do, anyway (Noone's perfect at this, though it IS good to see the attempt made).

                                                           Thanks for the input, that really help make this decision possible! WOuldn't have thought it up without your input.

Right.

My main issue with this update: Spec cost. Way too high. Keep it at the previous update's level and I'll be happy (ish) - in particular with the reversion of skill costs, this makes more sense to me (it seems they are unwilling to remove skill classifications completely, which I guess is a design choice). About the force exile spec: giving this a flat price could be interesting, although I'd prefer it to have "fluid" cost like others, simply for consistency. With this new cost, the two of my players with 2 specs would now have negative xp. So. Yes. It's a difficult issue really, because specs should be a "major" change, but the steep cost of specs is now, not only limiting (which is okay), its debilitating for character progress and customisation. Not that my players wanted to be epic heroes at the get go, but some breadth when starting out is cool, without being totally gimped. Although I guess, for a long campaign and higher powered characters these things probably evens out - depends on the rate of progress in the campaign and power level one is used to, wants to feel and the like. I assume that with this higher cost, the power-level doesn't increase way too quickly, even if some character concepts becomes nigh-impossible to start out with.

The increased encumbrance capacity of the starships is interesting (and good imo), but I wonder about reasoning and … I'm still looking for a way to convert earlier ship's cargo capacity to encumbrance. My catalogue must now be updated - those that have encumbrance statistics anyways (most (if not all) only have metric ton capacity).