I am currently playing a bounty hunter/force user in a Star Wars game. With the release of AoR we are moving into a working relationship with the rebellion. Now we have this awesome talent tree that gives mechanics and civilians significant combat abilities (not as good as dedicated combatants but still passable) and they are able to do this without spending extra xp on out of class skills.

How do I get social skills as a bounty hunter without spending out of class experience penalties?

Define social skill because you have Coercion in your career which is a social skill. You're also a Force user, buy down to the Control upgrade in Influence and buff your coercion checks with the Force. It will also allow you to buff any other social check.

Yep the bounty hunter has coercion, and threatening people never goes wrong. So lets say that I am not a force user. Perhaps I am playing a droid that wants to be articulate. Why do I have to start as a politico or ambassador? Why can the slicer all of a sudden get combat skills without paying out of career prices, but any combat focused character that does not wish to go force sensitive have to pay extra for the ability to carry on a friendly discussion?

If we have a talent tree that allows social or technical characters to act in a combat roll why can we not have a talent tree that allows an assassin or marauder to play nice when the situation calls for it?

The point is that in the Rebellion, combat is not a likelyhood; it's a certainty. If your Diplomat who carries info that could make or break the Rebellion is attacked by some Imps, he sure as heck better be able to defend himself. However, your Soldier does not need the skills to talk with people, because that's not his job. True, it's not the Diplomat's job to be fighting, but while a fight could destroy an untrained Diplomat, a conversation won't do the same with a Soldier. It's more important to allow a Diplomat to defend himself than a Soldier to talk to people.

Eh, you got to think that once you pick up the specialization and the talent necessary to grab a combat skill (at MINIMUM 1st extra tree + first level talent) you are spending 25 xp. If all you wanted was the skill, you could have just spent the extra 25 xp to buy it noncareer (5 extra xp per level).

The advantage of the recruit tree is in the talents to make you toughter, not in the career skill talents (though they are a nice bonus in conjunction with everything else).

The recruit exists to allow "civilian" c!asses to be adapted to the military/combat heavy campaigns expected to go along with AoR without changing any serious paradigm. Recruit is nice, but not as nice as an actual combat class as its talents aren't amazing usually just adding skills, or being over priced compared to an actual class.

Also, unlike real classes, the recruit will likely die at the end of this tree. Real classes will get signature abilities with their class books.

So I suppose the "Political Intern" universal class could appear should FFG decide to make a core book centered around all the prequel trilogy's senate scenes...

Yep the bounty hunter has coercion, and threatening people never goes wrong. So lets say that I am not a force user. Perhaps I am playing a droid that wants to be articulate. Why do I have to start as a politico or ambassador? Why can the slicer all of a sudden get combat skills without paying out of career prices, but any combat focused character that does not wish to go force sensitive have to pay extra for the ability to carry on a friendly discussion?

If we have a talent tree that allows social or technical characters to act in a combat roll why can we not have a talent tree that allows an assassin or marauder to play nice when the situation calls for it?

For starters that same Bounty Hunter could also go to Recruit and obtain Gunnery, which it doesn't have, as well as, Second Wind, a rank of Enduring, and 3 ranks of Grit, which the Bounty Hunter tree is sorely lacking. So it isn't like there aren't combat oriented options available to the Bounty Hunter as well in the same tree.

Plus the Politico has to buy the tree, then spend xp to buy the talent, just to have access to the combat skill, with no free ranks, which the Bounty Hunter obtained on creation. That works out to at least 20 xp for the tree, 5 for the talent, and then 75xp to purchase rank 5, for a total of 100 xp, which is what the combat skill up to rank 5 would have cost the Politico in any event purchased as a non career skill.

A player buying into Recruit only to gain combat skill is wasting xp imo. It would be smarter to buy into a non career combat spec for a little more xp up front and get access to the combat skill desired without having to spend xp on a separate talent in order to even start buying the combat skill. In addition in a non career combat spec they would have access to other talents that actually buff the combat skill. Recruit has little to actually buff combat skills.

So the flip also applies, if you were thinking you should have a social version of Recruit so that your Bounty Hunter could have their friendly conversation and that's all you're interested in, you would be better served by just buying Politico or whatever other social tree spec appeals to you. You would gain access to that spec's social skill without having to buy a talent, and there would be talents in the tree to buff your newly purchased career skill(s).

It was my understanding that the Recruit specialization was intended to represent basic combat training provided by the Alliance. Example: Senator Sue of the McGuffin Sector decides to defect. After working for the rebels for a while, the Alliance decides that it wants to send him on some deep cover operation that will likely place him in danger.

Since Senator Sue is still a valuable asset, they want to make sure he can defend himself in case things go rimward and they send him to a basic military training course. This "recruit" training gives him some basic familiarity with common weapons used by the Alliance. It makes sense that a "social" character might gain some combat skill after going through basic military training. Does such an analog even exist for the soldier that wants to be a better speaker? Should it?

Are we really suggesting that there's a government out there that realizes how much its soldiers need social skills and provides them a rigorous eight week program where they're taught the basics of etiquette and protocol?

Edit: As hilarious as it would be, I don't expect to see the "Finishing School" universal specialization anytime soon.

It was my understanding that the Recruit specialization was intended to represent basic combat training provided by the Alliance. Example: Senator Sue of the McGuffin Sector decides to defect. After working for the rebels for a while, the Alliance decides that it wants to send him on some deep cover operation that will likely place him in danger.

Since Senator Sue is still a valuable asset, they want to make sure he can defend himself in case things go rimward and they send him to a basic military training course. This "recruit" training gives him some basic familiarity with common weapons used by the Alliance. It makes sense that a "social" character might gain some combat skill after going through basic military training. Does such an analog even exist for the soldier that wants to be a better speaker? Should it?

Are we really suggesting that there's a government out there that realizes how much its soldiers need social skills and provides them a rigorous eight week program where they're taught the basics of etiquette and protocol?

Edit: As hilarious as it would be, I don't expect to see the "Finishing School" universal specialization anytime soon.

Actually there is a lot of cultural and language training that occurs in the military to accomplish just that in the more professional expeditionary militaries in the world.

Edit: As hilarious as it would be, I don't expect to see the "Finishing School" universal specialization anytime soon.

I now really want to see an 80's-style training montage of Count Dooku giving Jango Fett etiquette lessons in an attempt to pass him off as an aristocrat from the Pygmalion System.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXZ4hFTgkM

(Note that Palpatine, himself, takes part...)

Actually there is a lot of cultural and language training that occurs in the military to accomplish just that in the more professional expeditionary militaries in the world.

Yes, I know. I've actually sat through a significant amount of cultural training in my own military career. That said, most of that training is very specific and situational. That is to say, boost dice when interacting with people from a certain region, rather than proficiency dice when interacting with everyone.

Military linguists often go through language training for a year or more. The U.S. military also has personnel specifically dedicated to public affairs. They would have a basic familiarity with small arms, but I wouldn't expect them to be anywhere close to on par with an infantryman. Such a person would probably be best represented in-game as a Diplomat or Spy with possibly a talent or two from the Recruit tree.

My point was more that while a weeks-long crash course to give a person basic combat skills is a requirement to enter virtually every military out there, there is no analogous cultural training course that everyone must go through. Certain people that are assigned certain jobs might have extensive training, yes, but those people aren't going to be represented by the Soldier career anyway.

Actually there is a lot of cultural and language training that occurs in the military to accomplish just that in the more professional expeditionary militaries in the world.

Yes, I know. I've actually sat through a significant amount of cultural training in my own military career. That said, most of that training is very specific and situational. That is to say, boost dice when interacting with people from a certain region, rather than proficiency dice when interacting with everyone.

Military linguists often go through language training for a year or more. The U.S. military also has personnel specifically dedicated to public affairs. They would have a basic familiarity with small arms, but I wouldn't expect them to be anywhere close to on par with an infantryman. Such a person would probably be best represented in-game as a Diplomat or Spy with possibly a talent or two from the Recruit tree.

My point was more that while a weeks-long crash course to give a person basic combat skills is a requirement to enter virtually every military out there, there is no analogous cultural training course that everyone must go through. Certain people that are assigned certain jobs might have extensive training, yes, but those people aren't going to be represented by the Soldier career anyway.

And I don't expect characters are actually just grunts, I view them as a cut above in whatever organization they are serving. So they would be the people that are put through the extensive training.

And I don't expect characters are actually just grunts, I view them as a cut above in whatever organization they are serving. So they would be the people that are put through the extensive training.

Of course. I suppose I just picture them as social characters with tacked-on combat skills rather than combat characters with tacked-on social skills. A non-combat analog to the Recruit tree just seems unnecessary and somewhat silly to me. Your mileage, obviously, may vary.

I'm not advocating for it at all, I'm just suggesting there is a wrung between bob the door gunner and ambassador to Switzerland that could be had in sort of Foreign Service Officer Recruit tree. I get the intent of the Recruit tree, but honestly it really falls flat I think. It makes more sense for a non combat career to buy an out of career combat spec than buy Recruit.

For example, a Diplomat Career wants to get some gun training and we will say Ambassador. They are already Presence focused so Leadership and Negotiation, and say this is the first new spec they are buying. Recruit would only cost 20xp and Mercenary Soldier 30xp, but, the Ambassador has to spend another 5 xp to get access to Range(H), whereas the Merc gets it as a consequence of their spec. So that's only 5xp savings.

Then looking at the two trees there really isn't anything that buffs the Ambassador's newly purchased weapon skill while Merc has talents aplenty to do just that. In addition Merc has the commander talents that will naturally segue into the Ambassador's exiting higher Presence and Leadership. Honestly it makes more sense for combat specs to take Recruit, like Marauder, 3 ranks of Second Wind, and 3 ranks of Grit are a godsend to them. So the intent of the spec really isn't delivered by the tree, exactly the opposite I think. Which was my original point to the OP that in reality Recruit is a pretty crummy way for a non combat spec to advance their combat skills as career oriented.

It's a role-playing thing I think, 2P51.

Let's say I have a pilot, diplomat or scientist in an Alliance campaign. I want them to have some basic familiarity with being in battle, but it doesn't suit my character to buy into a full assault trooper (Commando) or sniper (Sharpshooter) class, for role-playing reasons. So 'Recruit' gives me what I want without me suddenly training as an elite specialist.

As I see it, 'Soldier' represents an elite; SAS, Marines, Navy Seal or Green Berets. 'Recruit' covers basic training for those who are primarily in a support function.

(Also, I don't allow multi-classing at my table for house-rule reasons, so Recruit works well there...)

When we set up the AoR campaign, I wanted the characters to represent an experienced Special Forces team rather than rookies fresh off the farm with Papa's old slugthrower rifle. (Our Galactic Civil War has been raging for 20 years, and one of the PC's had been fighting it since Day One).

So I gave out a bunch of starting XP, but stipulated that half of it had to be spent on the Recruit tree, to represent basic training and general military experience.

From a power-gaming perspective, there are better trees. But for role-playing, Recruit works fine. Not everyone wants to play a min/maxed Droid Marauder after all!

Sure I get that, but the OP was bemoaning non-combat careers accessing combat skills in a universal tree and why he couldn't do the same with social skills. So since the root question was in regards to efficiency and costs of skills, xp invested etc, my point was to illustrate that getting Recruit just for access to combat skills actually makes little sense in the context of that power gamer mind set. From that perspective buying an actual career at non career xp expenditure makes sense. It's always more important to go with concept rather than build, you'll play a build, you'll love your concept.

Is paying that extra 10 XP that much of a hardship?

How do I get social skills as a bounty hunter without spending out of class experience penalties?

Short answer: you can't.

Spend the +10 XP and add Politico or Diplomat or any Spec with the Well Rounded talent if you'd like more people to like your character.

The input from everyone is awesome.

A couple notes. My original intent was to spur discussion and see if there were creative ways to get around this. The character I am playing is planning to eventually get into the politico tree. We have a large group playing together and my character has become the face of the party.

I guess I would like to see a talent tree that would be similar to an officer training school or sensitivity training to be the security detail sent on diplomatic missions with Mon Mothma. The Marines guarding the POTUS have not only proven themselves with a rifle they have also proven themselves mentally. So I believe there is precedent for this type of talent tree. It would likely not give me the same bang for the buck as the politico talent tree. However, it would be more in character for him to receive this type of training.

As to the out of career xp penalty paid. It is a personality thing. I am the guy that refuses to get money from an ATM unless it is one my bank operates because I hate paying penalties that are avoidable.

I guess I would like to see a talent tree that would be similar to an officer training school or sensitivity training to be the security detail sent on diplomatic missions with Mon Mothma. The Marines guarding the POTUS have not only proven themselves with a rifle they have also proven themselves mentally. So I believe there is precedent for this type of talent tree. It would likely not give me the same bang for the buck as the politico talent tree. However, it would be more in character for him to receive this type of training.

I'm not advocating for it at all, I'm just suggesting there is a wrung between bob the door gunner and ambassador to Switzerland that could be had in sort of Foreign Service Officer Recruit tree. I get the intent of the Recruit tree, but honestly it really falls flat I think. It makes more sense for a non combat career to buy an out of career combat spec than buy Recruit.

Fair points, both of you. I suppose I was coming from the perspective that a character with enough sensitivity or leadership training to merit more than a situational boost die would be best represented by one of the specializations in the Commander career. So, conceptually, if I were running a U.S. Marine (Soldier: Commando) on embassy duty, I could deal with the special training from a roleplaying standpoint (boost dice) or I could spend the extra XP to buy a non-career skill rank in Leadership or a relevant Knowledge skill. (He's not going to be as skilled as a dedicated diplomat, obviously.)

If I needed my Marine to represent a character more akin to a Foreign Service Officer or a graduate from an officer training program, I'd probably represent him with a specialization from the Commander career. Even special forces officers still tend to have different areas of focus with their training than the enlisted troops they're leading. If he's already been established as a commando-type, then I'd probably just bite the blaster-bolt and pay the extra XP to purchase one of the talent trees as a non-career specialization.

I understand the points being made, and I don't disagree entirely, I just think I'm approaching it from the opposite direction. I think the Recruit specialization is very situational, but not entirely useless.

Our Ambassador loves the Recruit tree, although a few other PCs are indifferent to it (that said, extra Grit or Toughness is always nice).

Her concept is that she's essentially a diplomat who has gone through basic training. If some thugs try to kidnap her, she doesn't scream or faint, but neither can she wipe them all out the way a Navy Seal could. But this way, she can knee one guy in the crotch, draw her hold-out blaster and shoot another in the face, then run away while the kidnappers are dazed and off-balance.

Sorta hijacking the discussion, but I was thinking about the tree and suppose a character already has the combat skills as career skills. Should they be allowed to bypass their costs on the recruit tree. I am leaning towards letting them not pay as long as they already have both listed in the basic, tactical, and vehicle boxes.

If they already have both of the combat skills in the box I don't think it's a big deal to allow them to bypass it is only five XP.

Like I said earlier, I think the big thing of the tree is that it makes you pretty tough.

I mean, 1 rank of enduring, 3 ranks of toughness, and 2 ranks of grit. That is +1 Soak, +6 Wound Threshold, +3 Strain Threshold. There are few trees that add that much to your derived stats. Add in the 3 ranks of Second Wind, and your Strain is in a lot better shape. The tree makes you the energizer bunny.

Also, Quick Draw is honestly always pretty useful for those times you get caught off guard.

The +skill talents are a bonus for those that don't have those skills (and you only have to go through one of them to get to the rest of the tree), but buying into the spec and buying them is really not cost efficient if that was all you wanted.

Do remember that buying talents in the Recruit tree is talents not being spent in the core specialization. Later on, a developed Politico or Ambassador might do well with some Recruit training, but a newbie ambassador with some recruit training may not be as adept at things.

Here's a real-world example. I am clergy by profession, in that I work for a "mainline" church in Canada, and have been doing so for about 17 years. I have considered at various points in my career to become a military chaplain, most likely in the reserves. However, in order to do so, I would still need to take the same basic boot camp as everyone else. While I would end up with an officer's rank, I would still need to have the basic grunt training in order to meet the military's needs.

In this sense, the Recruit tree makes perfect sense to me. Game-wise it really makes sense, especially if you have EotE careers, or possibly even FaD careers transitioning into an AoR themed campaign.