But why is it up to you to decide if a spec has the right skills or not, and whether another spec is invalid or not? Why shouldn't that decision have been up to the designers? Why can others play the game as it was presented, but you cannot and have to fault-find and fix what you claim wasn't done properly?

Again, we are talking about grassroots terrorists, not crack commandos. They are going to lack certain skills and certain training. That's likely what the Recruit spec is meant to represent, and ultimately what the whole point of multiple specializations are. No character is an island. No one spec is going to have every skill and every ability that a player thinks they should. That's why roleplaying games have rules for advancement, and that's why this game has ways to add more career skills. At the end of the day, it's only opinion as to what should be included in a career or spec, but what is actually there is in the rules. And I will always choose the rules before a knee jerk reaction or wishlist, because the rules are always going to be more carefully planned and a house rule, no matter what the intention behind the house rule is.

Scooter, you fail to realize that the rules in the book are meant to be changed by the players and GM if it leads to a better experience at the table. Many groups are quite proficient at making house rules that serve them better than what the designers could have predicted.

In addition, the game designers have a whole host of constraints that individual GM's don't have: deadlines, balance concerns, license agreements, page counts, marketability, etc. For example, my GM didn't like the idea that you can slice an enemy ship during combat as it doesn't feel very Star Warsy to him (and I agree). So he got rid of it. Does it make the Slicer Career less valuable? Absolutely. But since none of the players are, or want to be, Slicers it doesn't matter.

Plus, writing and talking about house rules is the best way to learn a game. I can't tell you the number of times I sat down to rewrite something only to realize that my house rule doesn't work (or isn't worth the trouble) and the original rules is the best way. So, instead of grudgingly playing a game with a rule I hate, I can accept the original rule for what it is.

If the Soldier career isn't meant to represent a professional soldier, then what career does? In the Star Wars galaxy, every planet has their own military, such as the dudes on the Tantive IV that were soldiers of Alderaan. These guys are what I'm thinking of when I see the Soldier career.

A thought just occurred to me that it's possible FFG has developed a "Grunt" specialization, which includes things like Discipline and Resilience, to represent a regular line infantry dude as this seems noticeably lacking from the career. But that this spec didn't make the 3 spec cut for the core book and is being held back for the soldier splat book. I might have to withhold judgement until that book comes out in 2018.

Sam on one pf the podcasts suggests a custom skill for those that felt the compound bow in SoF needed it. That's pretty much an official nod to making house rules where any particular table sees fit imo.

But why is it up to you to decide if a spec has the right skills or not, and whether another spec is invalid or not? Why shouldn't that decision have been up to the designers? Why can others play the game as it was presented, but you cannot and have to fault-find and fix what you claim wasn't done properly?

I have bought the book and I can do whatever I want with it including stating my opinion that the developers did a poor job with the skills in many of the Careers and Specs in AoR. The name of the thread does start with "House Ruling..." It's not like the OP is demanding a reprint and free copy.

So it's one's opinion that because they own the book, or because they are the GM, they are entitled to change the game without understanding why? Got it.

I'll continue to spending my effort learning the rules and playing the game rather than fault-finding and trying to fix problems that I'm fabricating. Elaborating on custom skills or disturbances in the Force are one thing. Invalidating player choices and entire careers and specializations because you don't like them is not the way I choose to play.

But why is it up to you to decide if a spec has the right skills or not, and whether another spec is invalid or not? Why shouldn't that decision have been up to the designers? Why can others play the game as it was presented, but you cannot and have to fault-find and fix what you claim wasn't done properly?

Again, we are talking about grassroots terrorists, not crack commandos. They are going to lack certain skills and certain training. That's likely what the Recruit spec is meant to represent, and ultimately what the whole point of multiple specializations are. No character is an island. No one spec is going to have every skill and every ability that a player thinks they should. That's why roleplaying games have rules for advancement, and that's why this game has ways to add more career skills. At the end of the day, it's only opinion as to what should be included in a career or spec, but what is actually there is in the rules. And I will always choose the rules before a knee jerk reaction or wishlist, because the rules are always going to be more carefully planned and a house rule, no matter what the intention behind the house rule is.

So it's one's opinion that because they own the book, or because they are the GM, they are entitled to change the game without understanding why? Got it.

I'll continue to spending my effort learning the rules and playing the game rather than fault-finding and trying to fix problems that I'm fabricating. Elaborating on custom skills or disturbances in the Force are one thing. Invalidating player choices and entire careers and specializations because you don't like them is not the way I choose to play.

A better question is why the F do you care what Zar does at his table? His table, his game.

I just went back to the AoR book to review the description of the Soldier career, expecting to see at least some line about "hardened warrior" or "dedicated fighter", but was surprised and found a description fitting the logic presented above instead.

I think that I agree that the omission of Discipline from the Soldier's list of career and spec skills is reasonable, given that the Recruit specialization exists. I think it works well in the flavor or the game, and in the mechanics.

That being said, there are some entries on the career and specialty skills lists that seem downright bizarre, at least on the surface. I wouldn't see a problem allowing a player to swap one out for something that made more sense in the context of their character with GM permission, but that's house-rule territory.

A better question is why the F do you care what Zar does at his table? His table, his game.

I have an even better question than that. Why are you so insistent the rules are wrong and that I'm a bad person for wanting to play by them? I have a table too.

I'm just cautioning people about the damage they are doing to their players, because we all know that house rules don't always stay at one table. If Zar's and other GMs' players ever try and play a Star Wars game with anyone else after playing with made up rules because the GM thought the game wasn't made properly, they either have to reconcile with the game or insist on changing it again, causing further damage and problems later. Like bacteria spreading out of control, rule changes masked as "my table, my game" have a way of spreading to other tables and getting out of hand, causing problems for years to come.

You aren't "just cautioning" anyone. You're using rhetorical BS questions like you're somehow superior because you play RAW and he's completely not in his right to play the friggin game he bought however he likes. Presenting yourself in this condescending arrogant manner like you're somehow superior. You're an abrasive jerk on these forums.

ScooterinAB, I see your point, I really do. I typically despise house rules, and have seen nothing in this thread to change my mind.

That being said, if these guys want to modify things to make themselves happy, what do I care? If it makes them feel better, then so be it. You arguing they shouldn't probably isn't going to make much headway. Let people play the game the way they want. They did pay money for it after all.

I have said what I came here to say. I have given my caution not to start changing to rules, since that takes options away from the players, makes it harder for them to play in other groups, and makes it harder for them to step up as GM due to a lack of understanding about the rules. I can't control your game but I can ask you to rethink your actions and think about why you are taking them. Take it or leave it.

But 2P51, do not make personal insults because you disagree with me. I have reported your post. Do not reply to this message.

I'm not the one that is taking to people in a condescending rhetorical manner, you are. I'll respond to whatever I like.

Oh and back at you on the reporting for the antagonistic trolling rhetorical nature of your posts tough guy.

I honestly think ScooterAB does have a point in that it seems that folks are in an awful hurry to apply house rules to "fix" what they perceive as "broken" or "ill-conceived" mechanics without giving much thought as to why things were set up the way they were.

But at the same time, if HappyDaze or Zar want to run things differently for their games... hey, they bought the book, and they can toss it in a bonfire and use the ashes to make their bread if they wish.

LethalDose also has a very good point in that based upon the fluff that FFG presented for the Soldier career, these generally aren't hardened combat vets by default as some have assumed based simply upon the name "soldier." The comparison to WW2 U.S. armed forces being comprised of young and generally inexperienced "fresh meat" is an apt one, given that both World Wars were an influence on making the original trilogy.

Now, that's not to say a player can't play a Soldier as a "grizzled vet;" I've done this myself with a rebuild of an older EotE PC (aging clone trooper that deserted several years after the Empire formed). In this case, I took a rank of Discipline as one of his bonus non-career skills. Other species could spend 10 XP for that rank (after all, that's what that XP budget every PC gets is for, fleshing out your character) to denote that their PC has "seen plenty of action" prior to the campaign starting up and is able to keep it together in a stressful situation.

I have said what I came here to say. I have given my caution not to start changing to rules, since that takes options away from the players, makes it harder for them to play in other groups, and makes it harder for them to step up as GM due to a lack of understanding about the rules. I can't control your game but I can ask you to rethink your actions and think about why you are taking them. Take it or leave it.

But 2P51, do not make personal insults because you disagree with me. I have reported your post. Do not reply to this message.

What makes you think we dont understand the rules? I understand the rules perfectly fine. I just completely disagree with the logic behind them.

Why would it be harder to play with others? I have played three completely different games in the last week, and was able to keep the different rules separate. I can play another 4 or 5 out of my head without looking at the rules, including 2 other star wars RPGs. I've played maybe a dozen other sets of rules in the last three decades. Keeping rules sets separate isnt all that hard.

I would also point out that you are the one making 'my table, my game' a problem. Adults dont make it a problem.

On the original house rule... I think I too favour the idea of swapping out Medicine for Discipline. While I can appreciate the idea that the Rebellion is more about skirmishing, survival, and preservation of assets, to me the careers are more about where a person came from. If I wanted to play a career soldier from, say, Dac's defense forces before the planet was captured, I'd be looking at Soldier for my career. If anything, I'd say the Discipline skill doesn't belong on the Recruit specialization, as that one represents training given by the Rebellion.

By the way, it's also possible to buy ranks in skills that aren't Career skills. It just costs 5 points more of XP.

Just FYI, it seems like some folks are missing that. Just because a skill isn't a Career skill doesn't mean you're not allowed to buy it.

Of course. I just think that it makes more sense in some cases for the career skills to be different from what the book suggests.

By the way, it's also possible to buy ranks in skills that aren't Career skills. It just costs 5 points more of XP.

I see this more of a issue of starting skill. Like what should a generic "soldier" know or be good at.

Since you can buy non-career skills later, the risk associated with changing the skill lists is minimal.

By the way, it's also possible to buy ranks in skills that aren't Career skills. It just costs 5 points more of XP.

Just FYI, it seems like some folks are missing that. Just because a skill isn't a Career skill doesn't mean you're not allowed to buy it.

Actually, it seems the tone is more "well I don't want to have to pay a premium for a skill that I want my character to have!" than forgetting about the option to buy them as a non-career skill.

Though I suppose there's at least one person out there that thinks FFG screwed up the default career skills for any given career.

But as I said earlier, it's their game and they don't need anybody's consent beyond that of their players (if they're GM) or if their GM (if they're a player). Personally I see it as a meta-gamey grab to remove a skill they don't want for a skill they really do want. But since none of those folks are at my gaming table, it's largely a moot point.

But as I said earlier, it's their game and they don't need anybody's consent beyond that of their players (if they're GM) or if their GM (if they're a player). Personally I see it as a meta-gamey grab to remove a skill they don't want for a skill they really do want. But since none of those folks are at my gaming table, it's largely a moot point.

I agree on all points. Just because I choose to take the skills RAW doesn't mean I begrudge a GM his (or her) own house rules.

My question is this: what do you do if your player comes to you and asks to have it house ruled? My first instinct would be to suggest he spend the 20 XP at character creation to buy Recruit, but I'm not sure if that comes across as rude or dismissive.

By the way, it's also possible to buy ranks in skills that aren't Career skills. It just costs 5 points more of XP.

Just FYI, it seems like some folks are missing that. Just because a skill isn't a Career skill doesn't mean you're not allowed to buy it.

Actually, it seems the tone is more "well I don't want to have to pay a premium for a skill that I want my character to have!" than forgetting about the option to buy them as a non-career skill.

Though I suppose there's at least one person out there that thinks FFG screwed up the default career skills for any given career.

But as I said earlier, it's their game and they don't need anybody's consent beyond that of their players (if they're GM) or if their GM (if they're a player). Personally I see it as a meta-gamey grab to remove a skill they don't want for a skill they really do want. But since none of those folks are at my gaming table, it's largely a moot point.

With Zar specifically, it was him saying he wanted to buy negotiation, but really didnt want to pay the surcharge, so he would just spend it in career skills. At which point his GM thought to himself 'oh hell no. Stupid classes are not going to get in the way of character development' and then said: 'All skills are class skills. Buy what you want'

Probably came from playing too much Heavy Gear/GURPS/WEG Star Wars, where you can build the character you want instead of having to pick an idiotic class.

My question is this: what do you do if your player comes to you and asks to have it house ruled? My first instinct would be to suggest he spend the 20 XP at character creation to buy Recruit, but I'm not sure if that comes across as rude or dismissive.

For me, it would depend greatly on the reason the player presented. Though I suspect that in most instances, it'd be the "I don't want to pay the non-career premium on this skill," in which case my answer would be "sorry, but I'm sticking with RAW on this one."

Given that a 5 XP is a trivial amount in this system (most GM's hand out between 15 to 20 XP per session, with an extra 5 XP for having your Motivation come into play), it seems that trying to weasel your way out of playing that extra 5 XP for a single rank of a non-career skill seems a lot more effort than it's really worth. And if your PC is going to buy multiple ranks, then perhaps investigate means to get said skill added to your list of career skills. In the case of Discipline, there's the Recruit universal spec, which not only adds said skill, but other skills and has some pretty good combat-related talents as well that just about any Soldier can appreciate.