I think the change to holocrons and mentors makes the ship option an odd choice. You have two choices that give you an XP boost, and one that may or not be a requirement for the campaign.

On the surface, it looks like the base or ship(s) choice in AoR, but in all cases you are selecting the group's foundation for launching attacks against the Empire.

In this case the group is choosing between how they study the Force and how they get around. I think this would be better as an apples to apples choice.

Does there always have to be a choice between three things? Can there be two things? Can there be two choices? Maybe the group selects their mentor type, then their ship or base.

Thoughts?

I think the change to holocrons and mentors makes the ship option an odd choice. You have two choices that give you an XP boost, and one that may or not be a requirement for the campaign.

...

Thoughts?

I think you may have to look at it in the greater context of a Session Zero. That is, how is this campaign going to play out? How will it be structured? Ignoring the mechanical benefits and just looking at the fictional side, the players are (or should be) telling the GM what they want to see in the game. Same thing applies with characters per se -- if I roll a pilot, it tells the GM that I want to see space combats.

So this looks like an issue the dev's should address in the final product -- it was no issue in EotE since all the choices were ships and there was no real impact on the assumptions of the campaign. AoR was a squeaker. But a "ship" game seems different than a "holocron" game or a "mentor" game. Those all present very different narrative choices, at least to begin with.

I think the change to holocrons and mentors makes the ship option an odd choice. You have two choices that give you an XP boost, and one that may or not be a requirement for the campaign.

...

Thoughts?

I think you may have to look at it in the greater context of a Session Zero. That is, how is this campaign going to play out? How will it be structured? Ignoring the mechanical benefits and just looking at the fictional side, the players are (or should be) telling the GM what they want to see in the game. Same thing applies with characters per se -- if I roll a pilot, it tells the GM that I want to see space combats.

So this looks like an issue the dev's should address in the final product -- it was no issue in EotE since all the choices were ships and there was no real impact on the assumptions of the campaign. AoR was a squeaker. But a "ship" game seems different than a "holocron" game or a "mentor" game. Those all present very different narrative choices, at least to begin with.

To begin with, maybe , but not necessarily. After all, we see a lot of Jedi piloting ships, and the most iconic Jedi we have ends up with both a ship and a mentor (although he gets the ship after the first mentor bites the dust). Plus, the EotE/AoR/F&D system is going to result in a lot of mixed groups where only receiving one or the other is going to be problematic.

Plus, the EotE/AoR/F&D system is going to result in a lot of mixed groups where only receiving one or the other is going to be problematic.

Yeah, I think it's been well-established on this forum that they won't be able to cleanly get away with not addressing this issue in the final release.

Plus, the EotE/AoR/F&D system is going to result in a lot of mixed groups where only receiving one or the other is going to be problematic.

Yeah, I think it's been well-established on this forum that they won't be able to cleanly get away with not addressing this issue in the final release.

I also think it's absurd to imagine or assume that they wouldn't have very specific plans to address how to combine all the systems.

So all the posts about "They'd better include a section on how to combine the systems" just seem like so much wasted effort to me, because OF COURSE they will.

I also think it's absurd to imagine or assume that they wouldn't have very specific plans to address how to combine all the systems.

So all the posts about "They'd better include a section on how to combine the systems" just seem like so much wasted effort to me, because OF COURSE they will.

One might hope, but there was a lot of posts about "AoR better have mass combat rules in the core rulebook!" Turns out it didn't, and said rules were found in the GM Kit (squad-level combat) and the Arda 1 adventure module (actual mass combat, which is fairly narrative in nature and very lean on the on tactical aspect).

I really only say this because there is very specific precedent--unless I am misremembering, didn't the AOR Core Rulebook have a section on incorporating EOTE that wasn't included in the AOR Beta?

Anyway, it's not a big deal, I just think that it's a lot of hubbub over something that is inevitable.

I really only say this because there is very specific precedent--unless I am misremembering, didn't the AOR Core Rulebook have a section on incorporating EOTE that wasn't included in the AOR Beta?

Anyway, it's not a big deal, I just think that it's a lot of hubbub over something that is inevitable.

It did, but that section was simply "do you use Duty, Obligation, or Both?" with no mention of choosing between the two different group resources that EotE and AoR offer.

If they follow the same pattern for FaD, then it'll be "do you use Duty, Obligation, Morality, or some combination of the three?" and put into the hands of the GM to decide which book's group resource they use.

I really only say this because there is very specific precedent--unless I am misremembering, didn't the AOR Core Rulebook have a section on incorporating EOTE that wasn't included in the AOR Beta?

Anyway, it's not a big deal, I just think that it's a lot of hubbub over something that is inevitable.

I've listened to the 2nd most recent Order 66 podcast with Sam Stewart a few times, and it sounded to my (admittedly rather deaf) ears that it will be covered in the FaD corebook. Though, I think he referred to the TWO systems, which is still throwing me.

Anyway, we'll see when the book comes out

Mentoring: My GM Bone says let it be a part of character creation as it will make the player consider some rather hard choices as to spending his XP. Attributes or Force Powers? They can only raise their attributes easily during character creation and the mentor will be there for quite some time.

For the Zabrak, perhaps take the sub-species route as done with Aqualish and to some extent the Gand (lungs or no lungs)? Such that Dathomorian Zabraks (like Savage Oppress and Maul) get the Fearsome Appearance trait, but the Iridonian Zabraks (like Eeth Koth) get the Boosted Awareness trait? options for Inquisitors, or perhaps even the Bind power?

I agree with this, I have been filling in some of the details on Oggdude's character generator and have created Iridonian and Dathororian sub-species covering exactly this and would definitely love to see this as the official rules.

E

I'm not sure how much I like that the new nemesis (master) has a krayt dragon pearl in his saber. In the fiction, that's one of the most rare crystals possible, and as an NPC... I dunno. Bothers me for some reason.

As a GM I certainly wouldn't want to put a krayt dragon pearl in the hands of an NPC that is so weak that a starting party will be able to easily finish him off and take the pearl. It is up to the GM to make any encounter with the Fallen Master a non-trivial one. The Fallen Master himself has Adversary 2 and other abilities which make him a good opponent for a party, but he should not be encountered alone. He should have a group of hench men; starting with a Fallen Apprentice, but there should be several other Rivals and a number of minions to round out the bad guy's entourage. Also a Fallen Master & his apprentice should appear in an extended story line where multiple encounters occur before finally being able to confront the Fallen Master in his trap laden lair. In other words, the GM should never just stick any treasure laden Nemesis NPC in an encounter by himself to face a group of players so they can just easily kill him and take his stuff, the party should have to work for it.

For the Zabrak, perhaps take the sub-species route as done with Aqualish and to some extent the Gand (lungs or no lungs)? Such that Dathomorian Zabraks (like Savage Oppress and Maul) get the Fearsome Appearance trait, but the Iridonian Zabraks (like Eeth Koth) get the Boosted Awareness trait? options for Inquisitors, or perhaps even the Bind power?

I agree with this, I have been filling in some of the details on Oggdude's character generator and have created Iridonian and Dathororian sub-species covering exactly this and would definitely love to see this as the official rules.

E

I have to add my vote for having 2 sub-species for the Zabrak. Doing so certainly won't unbalance anything and it adds some good flavor to the game.