So, there are a lot of specializations now, and more ever few months. Some are unique, and others find homes in multiple careers. Each one, and each version, brings something new and something exciting to a table.

But what's the one you would never use? Which one is the last specialization in the lineup?

The one I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole is easily Ace Gunner. I don't have a sound reason for it. The talents don't speak to me, and the flavor is lacking. I'm positive some folks love it, too, and more power to you if you do, but its the one specialization I will not be playing.

But what about everyone else?

Ironically, I’m getting the most mileage out of Ace Gunner with my latest character. That’s where I’m getting my ranks of True Aim. There’s some talents like Overwhelm Defenses and Debilitating Shot that I don’t find to be that useful, but all the other talents in that spec are pretty decent. And this is for a character that is officially a Hired Gun/Heavy first, and Ace Gunner second.

Of course, if you don’t go ship-to-ship combat, and you don’t want/need lots of ranks of True Aim for personal-scale ground combat, then I can understand why Ace Gunner would not be of interest to you.

For me, the specs that hold no interest are the ones under AoR Commander and AoR Diplomat.

But please feel free to convince me that I’m wrong.

I don’t think any Spec is ‘bad’ per se. Some of them are highly specialised, and a few feel like a stretch to give each career six specs.

It very much depends on what you’ll be doing, really. Most Star Wars games will assume a fair bit of combat, a bit of face interaction and some sneaking and vehicle combat, so Specs that are good at all that will get more use.

There are other Specs that can be good, but you really have to run games that include these skillsets, rather than the standard ‘plucky rebels sneaking around the Imperial base shooting stormtroopers’ default.

In terms of sheer power, there’s Sharpshooter, or Marauder/Enforcer. Or any of the ‘Jedi’ ones. All the Hired Gun Specs can be very focused and give good synergies as well as some face skills. Gunslinger (from Fly Casual) is a great ‘glass cannon’.

Arguably the ‘weakest’ in a ‘shooting stormtroopers’ game is Scholar, because of the focus on Knowledge skills that is overlooked in many games. (And because Archaelogist beat Scholar up and stole his best stuff)

I personally dislike Explorer because the Specs are such a hotch-potch of mismatched skills and talents, especially before the splatbook added much-need combat Specs.

Also, I should add that I don’t allow non-career specs, so my players have to get creative at using the specs in their careers, rather than cherry-picking the best ones. Some have found that a few Specs (like Gunner) are more useful than they originally thought.

bradknowles, on 02 Jun 2016 - 03:58 AM, said:

For me, the specs that hold no interest are the ones under AoR Commander and AoR Diplomat.

But please feel free to convince me that I’m wrong.

As to Commander and Diplomat, Brad... A mix of Tactician and Instructor makes a great PC even in a standard ‘stormtrooper shoot’ game, with good combat skills and healing/buffing/protecting built in. Thematically, this makes for a great ‘lead from the front, father to his men’ character. The other Specs are a lot more specific. Commodore works well for even a freighter captain, but you need a lot of ship time to use it (and Squad Leader) to its potential. Figurehead and Strategist really need you to have a focus on behind-the-scenes, big-picture events, which makes for a very different game played at a different level to most campaigns. For this, I let one of the PCs lead one of our Big Four factions (she’s essentially the equivalent of Mon Mothma) and concentrate on high-level diplomacy and making the big decisions. I have to run things differently there, making use of the Mass Combat rules and a Dragon Age style ‘War Table’ to enable her to do high-level diplomacy, propaganda, affect the course and theatres of the War, and generally outwit both internal and external rivals. There’s also a lot of politics among the Alliance High Command, which is seriously a nest of vipers. On the other hand, she’s no good at shooting stormtroopers, and only seldom dons the jumpsuit for field missions.

Likewise Diplomat – you can make a very fun campaign, but you have to play to their strengths and go outside what’s usually expected of a pulp science-fantasy adventure. Ambassador is a good Face/buffing tree, and Agitator allows you to shout stormtroopers to death instead of shooting them. The other trees are more specialised – you’ll really need to make encounters that play to their strengths. Playing these out via email helps – the Quartermaster/Analyst can open supply channels and gather data for the field operatives before the mission starts. The Advocate/Propagandist can make dirty backroom deals and stir up angry mobs to make the mission easier. These roles require a player to enjoy playing a behind-the-scenes character in a support role, which isn’t as glamorous as the guy who shoots stormtroopers or hurls ATATs around with her mind.

And as a GM, you really need to give these PCs roles and tasks that are normally done by NPCs - let them gather data, affect public opinion, give mission briefings. Some players love this stuff; others don’t want to play ‘Age of the Spreadsheet’ and want to shoot stormtroopers rather than open procurement chains or analyse data. My set-up (nearly 20 players, 4 groups across all three Core books in a shared campaign) makes it easy to fit these characters in. But involving them in a game where everyone is sitting around a table about to sneak into an imperial base is much trickier.

Speaking of commanders and diplomats

Analyst are da bomb, squadron leaders can create from a party of mediocre pilots and minions a deadly force to bring down the deathstar and the aggressor/agitator combination is downright unfair and broken.

In general the desperate allies diplomats specs are imho very good and the AoR commander specs are already super-strong if you have the troops avaible to command and squad, squadron and mass combat rules available. (doh!)

I don't think there are any specs that I would flat-out never take. It would all depend on the build of the character and what direction I was planning for him to go in. Sure, if I were playing a smooth-talking charming rogue, Lando Calrissian-style, I probably wouldn't go for something like Heavy, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't take Heavy if I was playing a totally different build that focused on combat.

Oh, and Maelora, please, what are you doing with that font? I'm running the old dark grey theme for the site, and that colour blue was terrible to read on this background.

Oh, and Maelora, please, what are you doing with that font? I'm running the old dark grey theme for the site, and that colour blue was terrible to read on this background.

Sorry, I've no idea what happened there! It's never happened before. EDIT: amended, hopefully!

Propagandist, probably. Social encounters (both as a GM and a player) are my weakness, but Propagandist stands out at very particular. Agitator in the same vein, to a lesser extent. Mostly, I have trouble reconciling the setting (the Galactic Civil War, where dissidents are hunted like animals) and a character that publicly incites dissidence.

Propagandist, probably. Social encounters (both as a GM and a player) are my weakness, but Propagandist stands out at very particular. Agitator in the same vein, to a lesser extent. Mostly, I have trouble reconciling the setting (the Galactic Civil War, where dissidents are hunted like animals) and a character that publicly incites dissidence.

It doesn't fit my particular playstyle, but Propagandist is probably my favorite spec in the game for sheer audacity. Bad Press has got to be the most hilarious talent in the game - D&D bards have their "vicious mockery," but the propagandist tosses out a zing that burns so badly that everyone in the organization effectively takes damage. That's the gorram sublime right there!

Edit: It also helps that, if you squint just right, the example propagandist in the book looks a bit like Snoop Dogg.

I wouldn't take any spec if I couldn't come up with a good background for them. Mechanically there probably isn't any I wouldn't take. I think as the splatbooks have been released the original careers/specs that were lacking typically had their shortfalls addressed in the expansions. The game is clearly built around a long term campaign approach, so the notion of taking at least one more spec is pretty much baked into the game's intent.

I agree Explorer was very thin but the splatbook patched it up. I think Colonist is a career where a PC would definitely want the SA which combined with Well Rounded in Scholar would allow them to be very combat effective in the 'big fight' each session potentially, DPs permitting.

I think people tend to disregard Skills and are distracted by shiny Talents. Time, discipline and patience, applied to xp expenditure allows any spec to add ranks of any skill, and even if you're 2 Agility, if you're 5 Range Light you are no slouch in combat.

When I do a game that's why I always tell people to make a character idea first and don't look at the careers/specs. Once they have their character imagined, I point them towards careers/specs.

I think people tend to disregard Skills and are distracted by shiny Talents. Time, discipline and patience, applied to xp expenditure allows any spec to add ranks of any skill, and even if you're 2 Agility, if you're 5 Range Light you are no slouch in combat.

One of my favorite characters was a Mechanic based off a friend of mine from the Marines. He was dumb as a hell, but he was a fine mechanic. He was also built like a linebacker, so I gave the character an Int of 1, and Brawn of 4, and focused on getting Mechanics to 5 as soon as possible.

When sat on their own it can be easy to say that a spec isnt very good, I remember a lot of people saying beast rider wasnt any good. Including the order 66 hosts the GM Phil went and made a good build. Personally im not a fan of the one dimensional specs like maurauder , and prefer ones that spread the talents over multiple techniques instead of being hyper focused on one. I actually like a lot of the explorer specs, although you have to be happy with hitting 3 in multiple characteristics to begin with. I especially like the fringer.

I can't think of any that I outright would never take, but there are certain specs that I find to be lackluster. The most obvious example is the Fringer, just because it lacks focus and doesn't have any major unique talents. The Commodore is in a similar boat, in my view.

But i have to agree with people above about the Analyst: I have an Entrepreneur/Analyst in my group, and boy howdy is he a smarty pants. He makes bank. That is what he does, and he does it so very well.

One of my players is an Ambassador/Propagandist, and he seems to be having fun with it. Trees that have Well-Rounded offer a lot of flexibility, he was able to pick up Computers and Medicine as career skills which makes him pretty useful.

I don't think there are any "bad" specs. However, I would rarely want to play the more specialized specs, I prefer Jack of Several Trades, Master of a Couple.

I actually don't like the very combat focused specs like Sharpshooter. I don't think between a decent stat and some focus on a combat skill, coupled a good weapon, or modded one, or now some of the crafted powerhouses, it's all that hard to be very capable in a fight. I'd rather my talents do something else than just add damage.

Not a huge fan of the slicer, or other specs where the talents all revolve, essentially, around one skill. I like to have characters that can be more multi-faceted.

Thinking about this more, it's less about the specs than the talents themselves. I like talents that reduce setback or add boost, add Advantage or Threat, or fiddle with upgrades/downgrades/damage. Gearhead, Quick Draw, Guns Blazing, Dodge, Short Cut, etc are all interesting and useful.

I dislike talents that interface with the Obligation/Duty/Morality rules, and talents that interface with the economy. The latter are for nickel-and-dime games where every credit counts, and since I don't host that kind of game, those talents are totally wasted. Instead, I've actually let players buy around them. Also not a fan of Jury-Rigged...not because of the Autofire issue (though that is a problem), it just might have been better if it simply added an advantage rather than cutting weapon quality triggers in half.

Yes, I think if given the choice of a spec I wouldnt choose its slicer. It is perhaps the most focused talent tree there is

I think with enough work with the GM, any archetype could be made to work. Mind you, you really have to jibe with the game concept - fighter jock in an all ground game probably wont work.

That said, all things being equal, I don't think I'd play a slicer. I think the tree could be useful, but it's got to be a supplement to something else, and not a stand-alone.

Sorry, I've no idea what happened there! It's never happened before. EDIT: amended, hopefully!

Now black on dark grey. Kinda hard to read, but doesn’t stab you in the eyes.

For me, the thing is that I have never, ever been good at Strategic stuff, and so I would make a really bad, horrible leader or strategist/planner type.

I’ve got to first imagine a character that does something I am good at doing, or something that I would like to be good at doing, and where I can imagine some creative things to do with that character. If I can’t get that starting point, then there’s no sense in me going any further down that line.

It’s not that I consider any of the specific careers or specializations to be “bad” or anything, it’s just that some of them are conceptually totally alien to me and I cannot conceive of how I could be that type of a person/character or want to try to be that type of person/character.

In this game , even if you cant lead out of gamme, no reason you cant be a leader. The talents guide you. Talents like field commander, or its improved variety, you are just calling for the roll, and voila you given a few people a free maneuver with your powerful leadership skills. Its not about how good a leader or charmer you are but your character.

Example , pwrsobally I might not be able to charm myself into the good graces of the ladies, but if my character has 4 presence and 5 ranks in charm, in games my pickup lines have improved exponentially, mind you 1 presence and 2 ranks would also be enough for that statement to be true.

The biggest issue I’ve seen with Leadership is knowing what to think of to ask or do, and who to ask or do them with. The talents really aren’t going to help you in these cases.

I’ve known guys who founded or co-founded some pretty big companies, and the smartest ones are the guys who found someone who was a natural CEO/leader type but otherwise agreed with the founder on the important things, and then you let that guy go do his thing.

There’s a lot of things that I can pretend to do well, or would like to be able to do well, but being a leader is not one of them.

I have found that I can make a decent-to-pretty-good second banana, at least for short periods of time. But that’s as far as I can go.

Colonist Scholar is one that I STRONGLY dissuade my players from taking as it has barely any functionality on adventures.

I think commander: squadron leader is a quite strong specialization. Can fly a ship better than anyone else (2x defensive driving, tricky target, brilliant evasion), field commander to command others in combat to get extra maneuvers and actions, socialize well, repair a ship when needed, boosts his allies with situational awareness

A 2/3/3/3/2/3 human can do basically everything with this specialization. great skill choices. amazing talents. Focuses on agi/pre which are two of the "best" attributes in the game and can have decent int as well which is the 3rd "best" attribute. Enhance/focus agi more for a better combat/pilot. Enhance/focus pre for a better leader/socialite.

Can easily be both the face and the pilot in a party of 2-4 leaving other roles open.


For Combat.... Both Ace: gunner and solider: sharpshooter are absurd. 2x True aim each is ridiculous and both get other great talents as well. Bounty hunter: gadgeteer is quite good also if more defensively and gear focused.

I currently have a (guess what?? lol) +250exp Gank Bounty Hunter Gadgeteer who then took sharpshooter and ace Gunner who is an absolute BEAST in any form of combat. Aim for ~5Y1G and 2(++)Blue+1adv on any gunnary/heavy/light check.

I have to purposely stay away from autofire/linked weapons (which lets all just agree that autofire w/ jury rigged is just stupid and shouldn't allowed)so as not to trivialize ground combat encounters (we just agreed as a group to avoid those types of weapons). Also the Targeting Array mod on ships is likewise absolutely unbalanced. 3 upgrades on all attacks for 1HP. It MIGHT be ok for 3+ hardpoints. Its absolutely not ok for 1.... Lets not even talk about adding in Droid Gunners to assist....

I quite like Politico/ Advocate for a social game. And the Quartermaster/ + empire equivalent cane be very good in a low credit / salvaging game. Most classes do well in a game revolving around the type of stuff their class is meant to do and badly in a game that isn't. So just make sure your playing a 'useful' class according to the type of game your DM is planning on running.

As a last overall note classes that can get to their dedication more cheaply or with less "bad" talents in the way than others are slightly better overall I would say. Same goes for Force using classes that get +2 force ratings or +1 force rating and + 1 dedication more cheaply/quickly/ with better precursers.

I currently have a (guess what?? lol) +250exp Gank Bounty Hunter Gadgeteer who then took sharpshooter and ace Gunner who is an absolute BEAST in any form of combat. Aim for ~5Y1G and 2(++)Blue+1adv on any gunnary/heavy/light check.

I have to purposely stay away from autofire/linked weapons (which lets all just agree that autofire w/ jury rigged is just stupid and shouldn't allowed)so as not to trivialize ground combat encounters (we just agreed as a group to avoid those types of weapons).

I have a Besalisk Heavy/Gunner that is well on his way to the same place. I’ve decided that he’s more interested in firing multiple separate weapons than he is in firing one bigger weapon with autofire. My GM and I have already worked out how we’re going to get him to the place where he can do Four Weapon Combat.

EDIT: I take much of my inspiration for this concept from the images shown on the page at http://christopherburdett.blogspot.com/2015/07/armed-to-teeth-process-star-wars.html

Also the Targeting Array mod on ships is likewise absolutely unbalanced. 3 upgrades on all attacks for 1HP. It MIGHT be ok for 3+ hardpoints. Its absolutely not ok for 1.... Lets not even talk about adding in Droid Gunners to assist….

For a party where no one has any Gunnery skill, or where they don’t have good Agility and low Gunnery skill, I don’t think it’s OP.

If you’ve got people on board with Agility 4 and 4 or more ranks of Gunnery, plus their own ranks of True Aim to throw into the mix, plus all the ranks of True Aim they can get from the ATA, then yeah — I can confirm that starts getting pretty silly.

My GM and I have been talking about ways we can keep starship combat more interesting for my Besalisk, like finding a way to do Two Weapon Combat (or better) while using shipboard weapons. No decisions yet, but we both want to keep this game within the realm of semi-sanity.