I've been thinking about this skill system in this game and wondering if there shouldn't be more niche protection for careers. It almost feels like anyone can do anything they want, as long as they invest XP in their skills. And let's face it, having that Marauder be pretty great at Computers, Medicine, and Mechanics seems a bit of a stretch.

For example, a player can build a high Intellect character, say a Slicer, and with some points thrown into medicine can be nearly as good a Doctor as a Doctor. I mean, sure, maybe the kid took some first aid classes, but the buy-in for non-career skills isn't all that high (just an extra 5XP per rank), and suddenly hacker because old sawbones. Same goes for Mechanics.

And the same can be said of other careers. Take one focused on Ranged (Heavy) and a few additional XP makes him as sneaky as a thief, just lacking the talents to round him out.

Should there be a penalty for making skill attempts outside your wheelhouse? A setback die or two, depending on how rationally far away from your skillset it might be? (A Slicer might get a single setback die for any non-career Knowledge check, while a Mechanic might get two. But a Mechanic might understand the basics of Medicine - after all, biological bodies are really just super-advanced machines, right? - so he'd only get one setback.)

Should a great Doctor be a reasonable Slicer by default? (I can tell you from years of working as a tech at a major hospital, most doctors don't know jack about computers. *chuckles*)

The skills are just the beginning of expertise in this game. The talents are where the characters truly shine in their chosen professions.

I've been thinking about this skill system in this game and wondering if there shouldn't be more niche protection for careers.

That's one of the selling points of this game for me. I was always frustrated with the D&D monolithic approach.

FangGrip is 100 percent right on this. I often crap on choices the Devs have made in this game, but one thing I do think they got right is breaking down the somewhat artificial partitions that some games put around having X Skill or not.

In real life, many professional and technical skills can't be faked. You can't brass your way through open heart surgery or rocket science, it just isn't possible. But, this is a game, and unlike real life, whose purpose is to get you breeding and then kill you at some point, a game's stated purpose is to promote fun.

And one of the things I think most of us realize is that having only 1 or 2 people in a PC party who can perform "skill X", while providing a quick and easy route to role specialization is also a recipe for problems down the road. What happens when the character(s) with Skill X die mid-game? What happens when their players can't make it?

Now for some games I don't ever think the "Better talented than skilled" approach is appropriate. In military games where the PC's have a very specific skillset dictated to them by their MOS's and where they work in an organization that heavily stresses you stick to your own knitting such a system wouldn't work.

But out in Wild Space or the Outer Rim territories where an actual "doctor" might not even be in the same planetary system, and where the local capital M mechanic charges an arm and a droid for her work, well, everybody's gotta know something about everything. So between thematic appropriateness and party cohesion, I think a diffuse competency base is a good choice.

If all you have is skill points, your still an amautre - maybe an occationaly lucky amature, maybe a skilled amature, but an amature. (I keep making this argument about the pilot skill in the other thread ) Talents are what make you a professional - what puts you beyond what any normal person could figure out.

This is also an artifact of the fact that these are heroic stories, where everyone is surprisingly semi-competent at almost everything. See Han, or Obi-Wan (particularly Obi-wan, who uses almost every skill at some point in the Prequels). They basically assume that any hero is something of a Renaissance Man.

Edit: IIRC there's at least one GM floating around here that just flat out forbid out-of-career skill ranks. That might be an easier fix for you then building in a penalty, if you really want to keep your players specialized. Not something I would do, but eh, YMMV.

Edit: Edit: It's also worth considering XP expenditures. Getting up to 5 ranks in a skill is only 75xp (125xp out of career). Filling out a talent tree is 300xp. So which is the more important part of being a specialist, the part they spend 75xp on, or the part they spend 300xp on?

If all you have is skill points, your still an amautre - maybe an occationaly lucky amature, maybe a skilled amature, but an amature. (I keep making this argument about the pilot skill in the other thread ) Talents are what make you a professional - what puts you beyond what any normal person could figure out.

This is also an artifact of the fact that these are heroic stories, where everyone is surprisingly semi-competent at almost everything. See Han, or Obi-Wan (particularly Obi-wan, who uses almost every skill at some point in the Prequels). They bascily assume that any hero is something of a Renaissance Man.

I honestly see talents as a parallel to stunts in FATE. Anyone can do first aid, but it takes additional talent and expertise to be a medical doctor. There are a few things that require talents that I wish did not (and vice versa), but aside from that I am enjoying the system.

For example, a player can build a high Intellect character, say a Slicer, and with some points thrown into medicine can be nearly as good a Doctor as a Doctor. I mean, sure, maybe the kid took some first aid classes, but the buy-in for non-career skills isn't all that high (just an extra 5XP per rank), and suddenly hacker because old sawbones. Same goes for Mechanics.

The Slicer will be missing out on important talents, such as Surgeon, Master Doctor, and Natural Doctor to make those medicine checks go from decent to amazing. Those ranks in Surgeon are absolutely amazing at keeping everyone else on their feet without relying on Stims. And that's before you round out the character's usefulness with the Stim Application or Pressure Point talents.

And the same can be said of other careers. Take one focused on Ranged (Heavy) and a few additional XP makes him as sneaky as a thief, just lacking the talents to round him out.

Thief is an interesting one. To me, they are more about stealing stuff then just stealth. So, their talents really aren't aimed at being generally sneaky, but that rank of Stalker and Natural Rogue helps. Indistinguishable is great for stealth in a crowded area and lets the Thief blend in with the crowd. A handful of their other talents remove black dice, which makes them better when the chips are down. I have a feeling that liberal usage of black dice is not something a lot of GMs do.

Should a great Doctor be a reasonable Slicer by default? (I can tell you from years of working as a tech at a major hospital, most doctors don't know jack about computers. *chuckles*)

Slicers get great Talents for being better at slicing. Technical Aptitude reduces the time it takes and Codebreaker removes black dies and reduces the difficulty for breaking codes. Both very important for a Slicer and both are 5xp Talents. Following the tree the next two talents are Defensive Slicing and Natural Programer, which means that it's harder to catch the Slicer and the re-roll on Computers checks make them even better. A Doctor without slicing talents is just as useful as someone who knows how to use Google and run hacking scripts. They don't really know what they are doing but if given enough time they might be able to figure it out, but are bad at hiding their tracks.

Should there be a penalty for making skill attempts outside your wheelhouse? A setback die or two, depending on how rationally far away from your skillset it might be? (A Slicer might get a single setback die for any non-career Knowledge check, while a Mechanic might get two. But a Mechanic might understand the basics of Medicine - after all, biological bodies are really just super-advanced machines, right? - so he'd only get one setback.)

If you can fit it into the narrative, then sure. An untrained thief may not know how to properly break a rare/unique lock, so they get a black die. Things like that. I can think of worse house rules to use. However, I'd recommend to chat with your players about it and explain how you're planning on implementing it. I also would recommend against over using it.

Also, how are you defining non-career? Do you mean to say skills in which the character has no ranks in a skill? Do you mean a character that does not have the skill on the career skill list? How would you give out the black dice for a character that has no ranks in a skill but it is on their career skill list? How would you give out the black dice if that character was attempting the same thing as a character who doesn't have the skill on their career list but bought non-career skill ranks? To me, it seems that the character who spent XP on a non-career skill would know more about something than a character who has the skill on their career list but has no ranks.

Personally, I feel that the 5xp cost for each rank of a non-career skill is enough to justify the character being just as good at something as a character who has it as a career skill. I would use your house rule idea very sparingly. Only if it comes up in the narrative. For example, I'd give a black die for survival rolls on an unknown world with unknown floral and fauna but I might not give the black die to the Explorer if their backstory is that they've been studying unknown worlds. I'd also give a way to remove that black die over time through role playing, such as if a player wanted to spend time studying the world.

I definitely hear you about how a doctor might not know much about computers, but still have a high Intelligence. That's the real world.

Adventure fantasy is a little different, where the characters have to draw on every ounce of themselves to solve problems. Sometimes they're forced outside of their comfort zones but we can do that with things like setback dice that get removed by talents and so on.

I honestly think that the skill ratings are far too cheap at the higher ranks. I think that may be part of the perception issue on this topic, they don't really reflect how much effort it would take to obtain them. Perhaps if they cost the same as specializations?

In a narrative game, it could come down to narration!

Injured Character: Who can help me?

Smart Slicer: I can.

Doctor: I can.

Injured Character: Where did you learn medicine?

Smart Slicer: Web MD.

Doctor: I did pre-med at -

Injured Character: <pushing the slicer away and addresses the doctor> Thank you.

Helps not to let the players start spouting off attribute and skill values to do mathematical comparisons like the displaced Pathfinders in my group wanted to do when we first started playing EotE.

I have come to find that players are not interested in really going all over the board with skills. They want to do a good job in the spec they chose and tend to invest in that role, especially eyeing the talents down the line.

I have come to find that players are not interested in really going all over the board with skills. They want to do a good job in the spec they chose and tend to invest in that role, especially eyeing the talents down the line.

Do you give them reasons to? Not that you HAVE to, but I find it's fun sometimes to put characters in situations they haven't optimized for.

After falling down collapsing scaffolding and getting Hamstrung because of a failed Athletics check, my PCs were more motivated to buy a rank or two of Athletics.

The whole "only THIS CLASS can have THIS SKILL" is a D&D thing. Leave it there. Luke didn't suffer some silly penalty or cap because he was a Warrior:Starfighter Ace instead of a Commodore:Squadron Leader, why should I?

One of the GOOD things about this system is you don't get kicked in the nuts if your entire party decides to roll starfighter pilots of various flavors instead of the borderline required D&D composition of a Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Wizard.

I honestly think that the skill ratings are far too cheap at the higher ranks. I think that may be part of the perception issue on this topic, they don't really reflect how much effort it would take to obtain them. Perhaps if they cost the same as specializations?

I rarely see people buy Skills compared to more Talents or new Specs, tho. Rank 3 is generally plenty for most purposes.

That said I think Setbacks for "outside your wheelhouse/only throwing Greens instead of having any Skill ranks" is appropriate so long as it's not super punitive.

I honestly think that the skill ratings are far too cheap at the higher ranks. I think that may be part of the perception issue on this topic, they don't really reflect how much effort it would take to obtain them. Perhaps if they cost the same as specializations?

I rarely see people buy Skills compared to more Talents or new Specs, tho. Rank 3 is generally plenty for most purposes.

That said I think Setbacks for "outside your wheelhouse/only throwing Greens instead of having any Skill ranks" is appropriate so long as it's not super punitive.

I think 3 ranks is a good buy, shows that a character is competent but not uber-skilled. It starts to get hard to narrate at 4 and 5 ranks, the best of the best. Thankfully the talents help ameliorate this issue a bit since skill rank is not the only qualifier. It was really hard to justify those higher ranks in games such as World of Darkness.

I have come to find that players are not interested in really going all over the board with skills. They want to do a good job in the spec they chose and tend to invest in that role, especially eyeing the talents down the line.

Do you give them reasons to? Not that you HAVE to, but I find it's fun sometimes to put characters in situations they haven't optimized for.

After falling down collapsing scaffolding and getting Hamstrung because of a failed Athletics check, my PCs were more motivated to buy a rank or two of Athletics.

I actually throw all types of situations at them but they are quite the team to be honest. They complete each other which is quite funny to see... Also the politico doesn't mind he is terrible at shooting since he is so goood at making others shoot, after 10 sessions he hasn't added any skill in his ranged light for instance, "not interested"

I think 3 ranks is a good buy, shows that a character is competent but not uber-skilled.

Good point. IIRC the core rules describe 2 ranks as the same as college education in the field. 3 ranks really does mean that you know what you're doing.

I have come to find that players are not interested in really going all over the board with skills. They want to do a good job in the spec they chose and tend to invest in that role, especially eyeing the talents down the line.

Do you give them reasons to? Not that you HAVE to, but I find it's fun sometimes to put characters in situations they haven't optimized for.

After falling down collapsing scaffolding and getting Hamstrung because of a failed Athletics check, my PCs were more motivated to buy a rank or two of Athletics.

I'm jealous, but my players never seemed to branch out like that. It's a combination of the "ooh shiny" new talents that give new abilities with "someone else in the group is good at that, so I don't have to be" mentalities. Let's be honest, buying up important skills is kind of boring. They just aren't as cool as talents. People will buy up their combat skills but I had to talk my Doctor into getting more Medicine.

@Jamwes - I don't recall seeing a chart anywhere, but I usually use the following as a guide...

0 - Novice

1 - High School / Amateur

2 - Recent College / Technical School Graduate

3 - Skilled Professional

4 - Master / 5% of the Population

5 - Grand Master / Best of the Best / 1% of the Population

Well you could just say that before advancing to the next level of skill in anything you need to purchase a Talent. That would slow the process a bit and ensure PCs have more Talents. It's not an onerous requirement, PCs get Talents after all.

I think a lot of Players (and GMs) being new(ish) to the system often forget about Talents while at the table and don't consider them as important or plan for them when setting up challenges. I know in the heat of it we sometimes do.

I also like to emphasize sprinting to a Dedication or two as a bonus die to a bunch of skills tends to be more beneficial (and versatile) than upgrading one skill by one degree.

In my experience, players rely a whole lot more on skills than they do on talents.

Talents are sort of like, "Oh, well, I get a boost die for this!" or a little fine tuning for something else.

Skills, on the other hand, give a significant boost per point invested.

I know Talents are what should be separating one character career from another, but most of the time it just doesn't seem like enough. A Slicer with high Intellect and four points in Medicine is going to do nearly as well as a Doctor with the same stats, even without the talents. It's not like WebMD vs. Med School in that instance; that slicer has Med School experience or something equivalent to get him to that point.

Yes, it's narrative, and I'm not trying to bar a character from HAVING a skill. I just believe that there should be at least a measure of niche protection so that the Doctor in a group doesn't feel like he's a one-trick pony just because he sunk all his points in his Specialization Skills and Talents, while the Slicer can heal nearly as well as he can AND slice computers. (And fix droids. And know a lot about tactics and warfare and galactic lore and... and... and...)

The whole "only THIS CLASS can have THIS SKILL" is a D&D thing. Leave it there. Luke didn't suffer some silly penalty or cap because he was a Warrior:Starfighter Ace instead of a Commodore:Squadron Leader, why should I?

One of the GOOD things about this system is you don't get kicked in the nuts if your entire party decides to roll starfighter pilots of various flavors instead of the borderline required D&D composition of a Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Wizard.

Nobody's suggesting a D&D-style noose around roles, and it's a little frustrating that suggesting people who wouldn't normally be skilled in an area get a penalty invokes this idea that I'm trying to ban players from taking on certain roles. I never said, "I don't want the Slicer to heal". I said I didn't want him to heal as well as the Doctor. And frankly, Talents aren't the be-all and end-all some of you guys seem to make them out to be. Skills affect success and failure FAR more than Talents, and the edges Talents give are situational in many cases.

And yes, you see Luke get frustrated when trying to perform a Mechanics check in A New Hope and Han when trying to slice (hotwire) a door's security system in Return of the Jedi. In fact, those little failures - because the skill wasn't in the character's wheelhouse - are laced throughout the movies, giving the characters depth.

Yes, it's narrative, and I'm not trying to bar a character from HAVING a skill. I just believe that there should be at least a measure of niche protection so that the Doctor in a group doesn't feel like he's a one-trick pony just because he sunk all his points in his Specialization Skills and Talents, while the Slicer can heal nearly as well as he can AND slice computers. (And fix droids. And know a lot about tactics and warfare and galactic lore and... and... and...)

What's stopping the Doctor from also picking up skills in other areas? If the Slicer wants to infringe on the Doctor's territory, after spending XP on Slicer skills and talents, then by the same token the Doctor has enough XP to either specialize further (picking up Medic tree too) or expanding breadth with XP. You throw enough XP into a character and of course they will start to bleed over onto other career's niche because there are only so many options.

In my games, I never see two characters trying to do the same thing. We're always careful to not duplicate the role that another character is known for. If we had a Doctor and a Slicer, I'm sure both would be carrying medkits for those emergency times or when the Doctor gets hurt, but the Slicer player wouldn't be sinking too much XP into Medicine because it's just not needed and he doesn't want to overshadow the other player. Why duplicate something when there are so many other options that don't lead to being a jerk and overshadowing the other characters?

Nobody's suggesting a D&D-style noose around roles, and it's a little frustrating that suggesting people who wouldn't normally be skilled in an area get a penalty invokes this idea that I'm trying to ban players from taking on certain roles. I never said, "I don't want the Slicer to heal". I said I didn't want him to heal as well as the Doctor. And frankly, Talents aren't the be-all and end-all some of you guys seem to make them out to be. Skills affect success and failure FAR more than Talents, and the edges Talents give are situational in many cases.

I'll grant you I don't really like the linear skill improvement scale, nor that the non-career skills are only 5XP per rank more expensive. Shifting that might resolve the issue for you while still making the game open for character development, e.g.:

Career skill XP requirements: 5, 10, 15, 25, 40

Non career skill XP requirements: 10, 20, 30, 40, 60

I'll grant you I don't really like the linear skill improvement scale, nor that the non-career skills are only 5XP per rank more expensive. Shifting that might resolve the issue for you while still making the game open for character development, e.g.:

Career skill XP requirements: 5, 10, 15, 25, 40

Non career skill XP requirements: 10, 20, 30, 40, 60

I'm not sure that solves the whole issue, but it isn't a bad start. Part of the issue remaining is that Proficiency Dice don't offer a significant upgrade to the percent of success over Ability Dice. In other words, a character with 5 Intellect and zero points in Medicine can roll about as well (minus Triumphs) as a character with 4 Intellect and 2 points in Medicine. And those two points in medicine? They're supposed to represent the equivalent of a college degree in the skill.