Hi,

I am currently running an Edge of the Empire campaign. During the course of the game, one player - who was initially playing a force-sensitive Hired Gun - bought the Force and Destiny rules, and really liked the character concepts in there - and has asked to recreate his character using those rules. He wants to stay the same character with the same background. I don't mind cross-pollination of classes from F&D to EotE, but I am not sure if 'converting' a character when we're already half a dozen adventures in works dramatically. It feels like he should really roll up a new character, with the same amount of XP as the existing party have. Or am I overthinking it?

What do people think?

Are his new capabilities going to be very different from the old? If not, don't worry about it. If so, maybe his old character needs to get curb-stomped, and after he's decanted from the bacta tank, he's "changed".

Are his new capabilities going to be very different from the old? If not, don't worry about it. If so, maybe his old character needs to get curb-stomped, and after he's decanted from the bacta tank, he's "changed".

I think it is from Marauder to Aggressor, which are similar I guess. I'm probably overthinking it and as you said, I shouldn't worry about it.

I've found that it's a losing fight to ask players to stick with the character build mechanics available to them at the time when new mechanics (specializations, careers, species, etc.) come out that more accurately reflect their concept.

Before there was an Entrepreneur specialization, for example, a business-being focused character might have chosen Politico simply because it matched their concept most closely. They could have spent several hundred XP building up a Politico to be some kind of a money-generating master, but, when Far Horizons came out (or they got access to it) they saw exactly what they wanted their character to be.

In such a case, I would suggest allowing a rebuild and retcon such that their mechanical build more closely relates to their concept.

The upcoming Technician book and the "Droid Tech" career might match a player's concept better than Outlaw Tech does currently. However, that shouldn't stop them from playing that concept until the book is available.

I've been in this boat, and had players in this boat. Usually a splat book comes out which has options far more in-line with the concept of the character. In the end, I allow the re-rolling of the character as long as the general concept doesn't change.

Something similar occurred to me as a GM. One of my players wanted to completely redo his character after deciding he didn't like the way his character was stated and FFG released some more interesting material. In short, I allowed him to completely remake his character. After all, was the alternative forcing a player to play a character he didn't like? The silver lining here was, the player cared enough about his character, and was invested enough in the game, to make the effort to create the character he envisioned. So, I just GM hand waved it. The player was happy with his redesigned character and we had a great game. I should also say the other players at the gaming table were supportive as well.

Something similar occurred to me as a GM. One of my players wanted to completely redo his character after deciding he didn't like the way his character was stated and FFG released some more interesting material. In short, I allowed him to completely remake his character. After all, was the alternative forcing a player to play a character he didn't like? The silver lining here was, the player cared enough about his character, and was invested enough in the game, to make the effort to create the character he envisioned. So, I just GM hand waved it. The player was happy with his redesigned character and we had a great game. I should also say the other players at the gaming table were supportive as well.

Yes - I'm probably going to go the same route. It's supposed to be fun, there is no point making them play something they aren't happy with.

Thanks for all the replies and help on here - it's really helping me to work out the best approach. I really appreciate the time you've all taken to help me out. I love these forums. :-)

Character regeneration?

(subtitle - The 10th Doctor tries out his new teeth)

Seriously tho - I would totally allow it. I have a policy at my table that everyone can have a free respec once if the character just isn't working out for them.

Did a new source-book come out for his career? Let him respec.

Is this a new campaign or a new character? Sometimes it takes a bit to realize your numbers suck - let him respec.

Is he just not having fun? Then whats the point of playing? Let him respec.

Sure don't let him abuse it, re-rolling again and again as the game goes along, but once? Sure.

I've been in this boat, and had players in this boat. Usually a splat book comes out which has options far more in-line with the concept of the character. In the end, I allow the re-rolling of the character as long as the general concept doesn't change.

Agreed. My "face" player started as Trader, changed to Politico, and since Desperate Allies came out, he's Ambassador/Propagandist. My only rule was that if he'd used a skill in a way that was significant to the story, he had to at least keep the same ranks in that skill. If that means purchasing them even if they're non-career, so be it.

As long as the intent was genuine to the concept of the character, I'd allow it, along the lines of what whafrog said.

No reason for the player to be hamstrung by a slow dribble of characters options published for a talent-tree-based system.

e: noticed a typo.

Always let my players respec. Golden rule if it's not to min max and if it doesn't change the core of a character

If Wedge Antilles can change actors in the middle of a movie, then your characters can be "recast" too.

I had a character that wanted to change like mid campaign so i just worked with him outside of the game to incorporate it into the story. His original character lost his connection to the force and found out were a jedi temple was and went there to try and reconnect. When he got there he found one of the npc's they had run into before who was meditating at the temple. So we just switched the characters so that he was playing the npc and his old character stayed at the temple to try and regain his force powers.

I tell all my players if they don't like their character that they can do the same, they just have to tell me ahead of time and we work it in, instead of just having a pc disappear and a new one appear

I tell all my players if they don't like their character that they can do the same, they just have to tell me ahead of time and we work it in, instead of just having a pc disappear and a new one appear

Isn't this more "I like the concept and character, I just don't like the numbers" more than not liking the character? I mean both approaches are fine, just that one's not the other.

I allow a free re-do the first couplish sessions if a PC is just not liking the way their character is going. Once things have been rolling awhile I allow it, but they take a xp hit, since they're going to be able to optimize the process. I do think a little heads up so it can be worked into the story is appropriate.

If Wedge Antilles can change actors in the middle of a movie, then your characters can be "recast" too.

Hey they did it for Darth Vader too

One of my guys has completely revamped his character several times since we started playing. Personally I don't have a problem with it, it a character isn't happy playing their character then there is no harm in letting them make changes or retiring that character and bringing in a whole new one. At the end of the day your job as the GM is to make sure everyone enjoys the game.