Let's walk through this:

1. In EotE, and AoR if you want to start with a Force Rating of 1, you must spend 20 xp on it.

2. Therefore, that is 20 xp less you can spend on Characterstics.

3. Therefore, people who start with a Force Rating of 1, will have lower Characteristics than other characters on Average.

The part you are discounting here, is that EotE characters who want to be Force users are also their primary career. A Bounty Hunter/Force Sensitive Exile shouldn't' be on par with a career Force User, because they are also a Bounty Hunter .

This is like saying Pilots should start with 30 less XP, because the Politico who wants to start with the Piloting spec is 30xp in the hole compared to the career Pilot.

Its like you didn't read the whole last paragraph of my post.

Or realize that the whole thing was a response to people saying that they should leave Force Specializations as universal specializations and I was saying that if they did, they need to find a way that makes a F&D character start with a Force Rating, since it was the whole point of the game, that wasn't "you are docked 20xp".

The idea of letting someone start with a Universal Specialization instead of their free Career Specialization was a way to do that, inside of what people were talking about.

Context.

You keep assuming things. The problem is all of your suggestions throw off the balance they have astablished.

You keep assuming things. The problem is all of your suggestions throw off the balance they have astablished.

Not significantly. Unless you truly believe F&D characters should be docked 20xp just to do what is the whole point of the game.

My guess honestly that we will see Force Careers. That will behave exactly like regular careers but you start with 1 Force Rating.

I have yet to figure out why people think a Force Rating of 1 is some huge leap in character power. It isn't. Wooo you can use a few force powers 1. If you buy them, and 2. They work less than half the time. And the talents in a Force Specialization are not really any better than the talents in any other tree.

Force powers really aren't that reliable until you at least get 2 in your Force Rating. And by then the amount of experience you've spent is more than enough that 20xp is hardly a big deal.

You keep assuming things. The problem is all of your suggestions throw off the balance they have astablished.

Force powers really aren't that good, Forsee is incredibly gm fiat based, sense, influence, and enhance are good but not world shattering, Move is the one most people point to and go "OMG op" but really, you need a lot of lightside points to do anything impressive, and to attack you need to do a discipline roll on top of it, which isn't the end of the world but it still increases the odds of a wiff; and it's not like your getting them for free either, just the force rating, likely instead of something else a "mundane" class gets.

Seems easy to balance.

You keep assuming things. The problem is all of your suggestions throw off the balance they have astablished.

Not significantly. Unless you truly believe F&D characters should be docked 20xp just to do what is the whole point of the game.

My guess honestly that we will see Force Careers. That will behave exactly like regular careers but you start with 1 Force Rating.

I have yet to figure out why people think a Force Rating of 1 is some huge leap in character power. It isn't. Wooo you can use a few force powers 1. If you buy them, and 2. They work less than half the time. And the talents in a Force Specialization are not really any better than the talents in any other tree.

Force powers really aren't that reliable until you at least get 2 in your Force Rating. And by then the amount of experience you've spent is more than enough that 20xp is hardly a big deal.

Its called a trade off. You are trading spending XP on other things to instead get force abilities. So instead of buying some talents or skills or attributes you are buying into having force powers. You act like you are being cheated. You are not.

Its called a trade off. You are trading spending XP on other things to instead get force abilities. So instead of buying some talents or skills or attributes you are buying into having force powers. You act like you are being cheated. You are not.

For a game that is about Force use, I do consider it being cheated. If I'm playing Vampire: The Masquerade, I don't have to pay XP to be a Kindred.

Force and Destiny is about Jedi/Sith/Force Sensitives. You shouldn't have to take XP away from buying other things to be what the game is about.

I already said I think the current system works fine for AoR and EotE. But let's look at it another way: If having a those Universal Specializations that grant a Force Rating of 1 are SOOO POOOOWERFUL, Why do they cost less than picking up a specialization outside your career?

You keep saying that they should have to give up something, and they did in the way I talked about it, they gave up their free career specialization. It wasn't a freebie. And XP wise, that is the SAME COST discount they are normally getting.

Lets say you have two characters, using the idea of starting with a Universal specialization in place of a Career specialization. I'll use AoR names, since I don't know Force and Destiny names yet, but keep in mind I'm talking about for FORCE AND DESTINY, not EotE or AoR:

1. This character starts as a Soldier, Force Emergent. With his first 20 xp from adventuring, he buys the Commando specialization.

2. This character starts as a Soldier, Commando. With his first 20 xp from adventuring, he buys the Force Emergent specialization.

Why should one of these have different opportunity costs than the other?

You are consistently overestimating the worth of Force Rating 1. With the amount you spend making Move actually viable for anything other than a few sneaky little maneuvers, another character would have probably picked up almost every talent they want out of a tree and bought up rank 3 in several skills. Force Rating 1 isn't really that big of a deal.

(Also remember that the Force Emergent and Force Exile trees DO NOT HAVE SPECIALIZATION SKILLS, meaning you would be losing out on 2 free ranks, up to 20 possible XP worth by choosing it (and will generally have less career skills)).

(Also remember that the Force Emergent and Force Exile trees DO NOT HAVE SPECIALIZATION SKILLS, meaning you would be losing out on 2 free ranks, up to 20 possible XP worth by choosing it (and will generally have less career skills)).

You don't get any extra ranks from choosing another specialization. However, you're right that they don't have any bonus career skills. The two skillranks you're talking about is only for your first spec.

(Also remember that the Force Emergent and Force Exile trees DO NOT HAVE SPECIALIZATION SKILLS, meaning you would be losing out on 2 free ranks, up to 20 possible XP worth by choosing it (and will generally have less career skills)).

You don't get any extra ranks from choosing another specialization. However, you're right that they don't have any bonus career skills. The two skillranks you're talking about is only for your first spec.

He's talking about a house rule to allow universal specs to be chosen as starting specs.

(Also remember that the Force Emergent and Force Exile trees DO NOT HAVE SPECIALIZATION SKILLS, meaning you would be losing out on 2 free ranks, up to 20 possible XP worth by choosing it (and will generally have less career skills)).

You don't get any extra ranks from choosing another specialization. However, you're right that they don't have any bonus career skills. The two skillranks you're talking about is only for your first spec.

He's talking about a house rule to allow universal specs to be chosen as starting specs.

Guess i should pay more attention. I blame lack of sleep, played AoR this night.

Yeah, it was a hypothetical way that FFG could keep the same method currently used (careers and career specializations nonforce, force using universal specializations), and have F&D characters start with a Force Rating of 1 and not have to spend valuable starting XP (As starting xp is > adventuring xp, as it can be spent on characteristics).

Lower stats?

If you're playing a human then the 110xp could allow for 3 characteristics to rise to 3 leaving 20xp spare others like the wookie having 90xp would have nothing left over.

True you could use extra obligation for a 4th characteristic but if you want to start off force sensitive or even have access to a force power you will have to decide what's more important not argue because you want to have both but your gm quite rightly disagrees because that's how they make it fair for those who don't want to play Jedi or Sith.

I'm sorry but enough about whinging on the cost of being force powered, its there so only those who actually want to play force users rather than don't give a d£%n about anyone else having fun playing han, chewie or anybody else uninterested in the force!

Until they release info on what they are going to do you're just going to persuade your gm to give you the extra xp to do what you want but I hope you realize your fellow players will get the same extra xp as you would if they agree... ultimately does that really solve your problem?

(Note: I am not suggesting that for EotE or AoR that it doesn't work correctly. I feel it works fine for those games, because I don't see most characters as really "starting" as Force aware. In F&D though, I really expect characters to be able to start with a Force Rating, since that is kind of the whole jest of the game, and I don't think there should be a "ok, well, in order to do what the game is about, you are docked 20xp." My suggestion of keeping Force specializations as universal rather than career specializations and then letting people pick them as their free career specialization was an alternate idea of how that could be done.)

I'll use AoR names, since I don't know Force and Destiny names yet, but keep in mind I'm talking about for FORCE AND DESTINY, not EotE or AoR:

I wish people would actually read what I write.

You guys are seriously delusional if you think that F&D isn't going to have a way to start with a Force Rating that doesn't involve spending your starting XP.

"Ok, guys, lets play a Jedi game, everyone pay your 20xp tax".

Calling people delusional is a very constructive rhetorical strategy. I'm impressed.

Looking at the universal specs, it is possible that FaD careers and specs will have less career/spec skills in exchange for a force rating, instead of force rating costing XP...

Calling people delusional is a very constructive rhetorical strategy. I'm impressed.

Please follow the sentence. IF you think X, then Y. If people truly think that a game called Force and Destiny, which is about being Force Sensitives (I mean, that was the whole point of splitting that off into a third core game), is going to require you to spend XP to start with a Force Rating, rather than have a way to give it to you to start with (just as you suggested), then yes, I do think they are deluding themselves.

I like how you make sure to jump in to tone police me about a conditional if "you believe ridiculous thing" you are delusional, but don't seem to care that the person I was responding to accused me of whining, not caring about the fun of anyone else, wanting to have my cake and eat it too, etc.

Mayhaps its not the tone you dislike?

I think the apt comparison here is that this was the "Deathwatch" of the Star Wars line. Basically F&D will have characters that are scaled up a bit as far as I understood it at least, these characters are movers and shakers. Playing a member of a galactic order that it it's height has ca 10000 members, out of the millions of force users in the galaxy (each civilisation more or less has it's own pre-hyper space tradition) —with thousands of sentient species that would mean a lot of force adepts— only that few are powerful enough to qualify to become a Jedi.

As for the mechanics I'm pretty sure that there will be as mr. Morningfire stated earlier in another thread a Jedi career with a Guardian, a Sentinel and a Councillor speciality (or 3 different careers with specialisation's, who knows?), a Force Adept and then a "heroic level" non-force user career or 3. Heroic Ace, Legendary Bounty Hunter etc and one or two universal specialisation's that allows you to become a Jedi later in life (or Luke would be mechanically impossibly within the rule set).

Also Norton, you can correct peoples misunderstandings without being a **** about it, Wheaton's law. Just saying.

And other people can be not dicks first? Unless you think accusing me of whining and not caring about anyone else's fun is totally cool.

Didn't say it was cool, but you were the only one degenerating into ad hominem attacks.

I get it, it's frustrating when people don't "get" what you're trying to say.

Ad Hominem is about invalidating someones argument by bringing up irrelevant information about the person arguing. Notice that I was not dismissing their argument because they are delusional, it was the other way around, if they believe that x, then y. The delusional part comes from my incredibly strong opinion that x is the most likely course FFG will take with Force & Destiny, and I find believing otherwise a bit ridiculous.

Was I being a bit snide? Sure, but much less so than the person I was responding to. He was unequivocally accusing me of those things, while I only accused him of being delusional if he believed they wouldn't include a way to start with a Force Rating of 1 without spending Starting XP.

There is an incredibly strong bias on the forum for allowing regulars to be as nasty as they want, but anyone else bites back they are apparently an ass.

The sense of persecution is strong in this one...

Yes that was ad hominem which is also covers personal attacks in an otherwise civil discourse. Accusing someone of being delusional (and by extension stupid for not understanding you) is AH at it's finest. But please, do go on.

Oh, you mean this isn't a situation where I was called out for being rude, but the regular who attacked me first barely gets mentioned?

Also, you seriously do misunderstand ad hominem, ad hominem is about DISMISSING SOMEONE'S ARGUMENT BASED ON PERSONAL ATTACKS. Which I never did. I wasn't dismissing someone's argument because I think they are delusional, I think they are delusional because of their argument (or the argument they were arguing against, which I don't think is what they actually believe, I'm pretty sure 99% of the people on the forum believe that Force Rating will be baked into character creation somewhere else, like Force Careers, or Specializations within careers).

Was I being insulting to the hypothetical people who truly believe that Force Rating will only be through Universal Specializations that can only be obtained by XP in a game about playing Force Sensitive characters? Yep. Are all insults ad hominems? Nope.

And also if you think accusing people of whining and not caring about anyone elses fun is civil discourse... (though this is also not an ad hominem attack, he never used those accusations to dismiss my argument).

... but don't seem to care that the person I was responding to accused me of whining ...

Anyway, I'm looking forward to having the beta of FaD in my hands, by that time we can all hopefully look back at this thread and laugh... Although I expect some will be smug and find pride in their own speculations if they got close enough.

But was there really a need to insult people because they have another opinion than you, it all seems very unnecessary to me?

And just for the record I do agree with you that we are going to see careers that have force rating 1 as a starting feature, Jedi without force rating are called... Well not Jedi, but I still don't think that calling someone delusional is the way to go about it, saying that they are wrong could would have done the trick.

Also:

"

Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments. Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy . Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy. ^[8]

Ad hominem abuse is not to be confused with slander or libel , which employ falsehoods and are not necessarily leveled to undermine otherwise sound stands with character attacks."

In essence, being verbal in an otherwise civil conversation is as I mentioned, Ad Hom.

"Abusive

Abusive ad hominem usually involves attacking the traits of an opponent as a means to invalidate their arguments . Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy . Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy.

Ad hominem abuse is not to be confused with slander or libel , which employ falsehoods and are not necessarily leveled to undermine otherwise sound stands with character attacks."