In other words, could you take them both?

I don't think you are supposed to take both as they are essentially the same.

They are exactly identical, and you cannot by the rules take them both.

It's one specialization. It happens to be an in-career specialization for two careers, but that doesn't make it two specializations. Since its only one specialization, you can only take it once.

Same can be said of Mechanic, Scout and Slicer.

I'm not sure I'm even all that comfortable with someone taking differently named (yet nearly identical) specs from the two CRBs. Like Politico/Ambassador or Doctor/Medic. I'd probably even have questions for someone with Pilot/Driver...

Same can be said of Mechanic, Scout and Slicer.

I'm not sure I'm even all that comfortable with someone taking differently named (yet nearly identical) specs from the two CRBs. Like Politico/Ambassador or Doctor/Medic. I'd probably even have questions for someone with Pilot/Driver...

Why is that? If the character wants to spend a lot of xp to focus on one thing, isn't that their prerogative?

Same can be said of Mechanic, Scout and Slicer.

I'm not sure I'm even all that comfortable with someone taking differently named (yet nearly identical) specs from the two CRBs. Like Politico/Ambassador or Doctor/Medic. I'd probably even have questions for someone with Pilot/Driver...

Why is that? If the character wants to spend a lot of xp to focus on one thing, isn't that their prerogative?

Because the rule book says so. Its in the update, if the spec has the same name as another of different career the player can't take it because for all intents and purposes he already has it. So Doctor/Medic is allowed, but pilot/pilot is not.

Same can be said of Mechanic, Scout and Slicer.

I'm not sure I'm even all that comfortable with someone taking differently named (yet nearly identical) specs from the two CRBs. Like Politico/Ambassador or Doctor/Medic. I'd probably even have questions for someone with Pilot/Driver...

Why is that? If the character wants to spend a lot of xp to focus on one thing, isn't that their prerogative?

First of all, is it? Is it their prerogative, exclusively I mean? Have they no incentive to consider the fun of the rest of the table? Or the type of game the GM wants to present? I'm asking, because it seems like you are advocating, "the player is always right". And I don't agree with that premise before I even address any reasons for what I said...

Now, the other issue is that my comments were chock full of uncertainty and hesitation. I was voicing a potential concern I hadn't fully realized yet. But that something in the idea of combos, such as those, didn't sit right with me.

Perhaps because some tree combos may lead to almost free slides down to Dedication (if enough non-ranked talents already taken in one tree happen to occur in another of similar type)? Maybe that alone gives me pause? I don't know. I was thinking out loud. Maybe I'll revisit this when I have more...

Why? What makes you think a player can do no wrong?

I never said a player can do no wrong, it just sounded to me like you had something against a player being ultra-specialized.

Of course I think a player should take into consideration the fun of the table. I don't think that ultra-specialized builds necessarily ruin fun though. *Especially* if the player's specialty fits the campaign's theme. We have a politico that has put almost all his experience into social skills and talents. If he can have fun trying lie his way through every encounter, it doesn't bother me.

The only question (in my mind) was about pilot/driver, doctor/medic, etc. (In case anyone isn't following along: The Specialization Names Are Different , so quoting the rule doesn't really help an argument one way or the other.)

I'm a Driver considering Pilot. My free slide to dedication in Pilot would cost 80 XP (assuming I buy all the sliders in Driver first.) (Dedication in Driver costs 75 XP, by the way).

Pilot/Driver and Doctor/Medic are fine to take

Technician (Slicer) just can't take Spy (Slicer).

Is it their prerogative, exclusively I mean? Have they no incentive to consider the fun of the rest of the table?

I absolutely do not think a player should be forced to clear the mechanical advancement of his own character with the rest of the table before pursuing that mechanical advancement. Even on a certain level I don't think the GM really should have a right to say no. Unless he's running Edge and the player is trying to take something from AoR when the GM did not specifically OK it...or the pitch of the campaign was "no Force users" and a player is trying to wheedle his way into being FS. I don't know why the GM would be entitled to tell a Smuggler (Scoundrel) that he can't take either Thief (from his Career) or Politico (from another Career).

Is it their prerogative, exclusively I mean? Have they no incentive to consider the fun of the rest of the table?

I absolutely do not think a player should be forced to clear the mechanical advancement of his own character with the rest of the table before pursuing that mechanical advancement. Even on a certain level I don't think the GM really should have a right to say no. Unless he's running Edge and the player is trying to take something from AoR when the GM did not specifically OK it...or the pitch of the campaign was "no Force users" and a player is trying to wheedle his way into being FS. I don't know why the GM would be entitled to tell a Smuggler (Scoundrel) that he can't take either Thief (from his Career) or Politico (from another Career).

The way this comes off IMO, there's a bit too much absolutism, hyperbole and misrepresentation of my comments. Not sure I'm comfortable continuing to try and discuss this with you. Especially since I've repeatedly said I don't have solid arguments to express my budding opinion. And that I'd need more time to process and evaluate what I think I don't like. But clearly I've struck some kind of nerve.

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion and the enjoyment of play style you choose. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Hey - sorry if I was harsh. I'd actually like to hear about your philosophy once you're comfortable sharing it when it's more developed.

In other words, could you take them both?

As others have said you can't take the identical spec twice per the rules, however, there are a number of other specs that have pilot related talents in them that are stacking talents like Defensive Driving, Skilled Jockey, and Galaxy Mapper, which can be selected through other trees that will in addition provide non pilot talents. The Commander career in particular has a lot of depth in that regard.

I'm actually genuinely surprised there are people with issue to taking Pilot and Driver together. In Edge they're part of separate careers, but in Rebellion they're both under Ace. This implies to me that any synergies or stacking between them were intentional.

I'm actually genuinely surprised there are people with issue to taking Pilot and Driver together. In Edge they're part of separate careers, but in Rebellion they're both under Ace. This implies to me that any synergies or stacking between them were intentional.

Yah, I agree. The AoR one has a combat skill as well so you can be helpful even in a gunfight and if you keep going in that career you would be Joe Fighter Pilot with the Gunner talents. You could spread out to Commander and go Commodore and be a capital ship commander or go with the other two specs and really hone your piloting capabilities, particularly defensively. Plus those other Commander specs have other useful directions with talents unrelated to Pilot.

Same can be said of Mechanic, Scout and Slicer.

I'm not sure I'm even all that comfortable with someone taking differently named (yet nearly identical) specs from the two CRBs. Like Politico/Ambassador or Doctor/Medic. I'd probably even have questions for someone with Pilot/Driver...

Why is that? If the character wants to spend a lot of xp to focus on one thing, isn't that their prerogative?

Because the rule book says so. Its in the update, if the spec has the same name as another of different career the player can't take it because for all intents and purposes he already has it. So Doctor/Medic is allowed, but pilot/pilot is not.

I think Kirdan Kenobi was questioning why ccarlson101 would be wary of a player taking similar specs (like Pilot and Driver ).

I can understand why people are leery of players over specializing. It makes a character great in one area, but usually at the cost of other areas.

That's boring.

It's boring for the player when a string of sessions doesn't have space battles, or when the PCs get caught in a war and shoot-first-ask-questions-later is the only way to survive.

It's a grey area though. There are lots of Mercenary soldier/Assassins out there, or Gadgeteer/Outlaw Techs. Those specs overlap but can create compelling characters because they aren't niche builds. Most sessions people play will involve opportunities for the bad-ass or technical prowess.

I don't even see an issue with the driver/pilot, medic/doctor if there is also some other spec in between to give the character some diversification.

Since they put Driver/Gunner/Pilot all in the Ace career I think over-specializing, at least in regards to piloting, is probably intentional. While I get the concern the simple fact is with Pilot based on Agility if you have the points in Agility, by default you are going to be good at tactical combat, Stealth, and Coordination. If you put points into Cunning to take advantage of the Talents that use that characteristic, by default you will be good at Perception, Skulduggery, and Streetwise. At that point are you technically really even over specialized?

Having taken the time to reconcile my fledgling misgivings, here’s a little something I noticed already that I feel doesn’t sit quite right with me…

Let’s set aside for now the fact that Medic/Doctor gets to stack Surgeon and Bacta Specialist ranks from both. Maybe that’s too much? Maybe not? But really that’s just a minor issue for some. And not at all for others.

Here’s the thing. Let’s say someone has advanced considerably in the Medic tree. They have purchased quite a few of the talents, including Stim Application , Improved Stim Application , Supreme Stim Application , Master Doctor and, of course, that ever useful and highly sought after Dedication . They've probably raised Medicine skill considerably by this point as well. So what they really need now is another point in Intellect to be even better at their chosen profession. But buying another tree - and getting to the bottom of it - can be a substantial investment in XP. Or is it?

So they cleverly decide to step into Doctor . They get 2 new career skills (Cool & Education). That’s fine. But the real trick is that all the non-rank talents they already bought in Medic get checked off in the Doctor tree for free.

The character now need only buy 2 more ranks of Surgeon (for 5 and 15 respectively – a great deal in its own right since those are 2 more ranks you want anyway) and <BAM> they already have instant access to another rank of Dedication . Because, again, they don’t have to re-buy Stim Application , Improved Stim Application , Supreme Stim Application and Master Doctor again. They already did back in the Medic tree.

The buy-in to the tree has already more than paid for itself in savings getting to what many consider to be one of the key talents in the game. That was a quick, cheap trip to another potent stat bump.

Is this a problem for you? Evidently not. Should you so easily dismiss that others may have concerns their players may be exploiting or meta-gaming a system? I’d hope not.

But to each their own…

Is it exploiting though? From a storytelling stand point isn't it just realistic that a medic would benefit greatly from having a background as a doctor?

Is it their prerogative, exclusively I mean? Have they no incentive to consider the fun of the rest of the table?... because it seems like you are advocating, "the player is always right".

...

The way this comes off IMO, there's a bit too much absolutism, hyperbole and misrepresentation of my comments. Not sure I'm comfortable continuing to try and discuss this with you. Especially since I've repeatedly said I don't have solid arguments to express my budding opinion. And that I'd need more time to process and evaluate what I think I don't like. But clearly I've struck some kind of nerve.

I'm going to call a point of order here.

You cannot put words in someone else mouth, then accuse that person of absolutism, hyperbole, and misrepresentation when they criticise your half-formed ideas.

It's also sort of poor form to present an idea, then retreat to a position of "I haven't thought out my position yet so you are somehow in the wrong for presenting valid arguments against the idea I chose to present before I gave it significant consideration."

Those are both unreasonable ways to have civil discourse in a forum. Don't mistake me, I'm not attacking you personally, but I am taking issue with the way you are presenting your case. I'd love to have a civil debate about taking similar specialization. So, feel free to take a minute to gather your thoughts and then present your arguments and reasoning.

Is it their prerogative, exclusively I mean? Have they no incentive to consider the fun of the rest of the table?... because it seems like you are advocating, "the player is always right".

...

The way this comes off IMO, there's a bit too much absolutism, hyperbole and misrepresentation of my comments. Not sure I'm comfortable continuing to try and discuss this with you. Especially since I've repeatedly said I don't have solid arguments to express my budding opinion. And that I'd need more time to process and evaluate what I think I don't like. But clearly I've struck some kind of nerve.

I'm going to call a point of order here.

You cannot put words in someone else mouth, then accuse that person of absolutism, hyperbole, and misrepresentation when they criticise your half-formed ideas.

It's also sort of poor form to present an idea, then retreat to a position of "I haven't thought out my position yet so you are somehow in the wrong for presenting valid arguments against the idea I chose to present before I gave it significant consideration."

Those are both unreasonable ways to have civil discourse in a forum. Don't mistake me, I'm not attacking you personally, but I am taking issue with the way you are presenting your case. I'd love to have a civil debate about taking similar specialization. So, feel free to take a minute to gather your thoughts and then present your arguments and reasoning.

No.

None of that is true.

And I was specific in pointing out why.

Try again.

I only ever said my concerns were not fully formed at the time and were just vague uneasiness. And put out only what I felt may be an issue.

I've since solidified my arguments. But that's not the post you responded to...

All these Specialisation transitions seem natural to me. In most games I've played all the players have had their characters strive to be the best in their niche. Can these things be exploited? Yeah, if you let them .

That's not a call to GMs to nerf stuff that's problematic (at least not without explaining and discussing amendments with their group), it's me hoping players'll police themselves.

Col,

Agreed. Our Marauder has consciously avoided taking his Soak to obscene levels, because he doesn't want to create a disparity too great from the rest of the team. The concern being that the GM might needs to use more powerful opponents just to challenge him. Yet those same amped up opponents would so easily destroy the rest of us.