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.

Eugh, but then your Commander Tactician will never get access to Suppressing Fire or Prime Positions, which I could gripe about for hours . That said - and going by the rule that all XP expenditure should make sense and contribute to RP - cross-career characters are my favorite and become generally very interesting when justified well. My Commander Tactician might finally accept that open invitation to be part of the Urban Guerrilla's SpecForce group (which he'd been ignoring because "his squad needed him") and pick up the Soldier Commando spec. The Force sensitive who crash lands on a desert planet and discovers he's a Seeker Pathfinder before the game starts might have spent most of his life as Smuggler Pilot before being betrayed by a contact and shot down, so he'd spend his XP on both specs. My Warden might decide punching things too much will lead to the Dark Side and start to dedicate himself to ending fights in the "peaceful" way of ensuring there isn't one to begin with... because everyone's too scared to try anything. So he may decide to pick up Agitator or even any of the other specs with Fearsome. If you want to play a dedicated martial artist, it helps to have cross-career access.

But, with 20 characters, allowing cross-career specs would probably create a lot of agonizing overlap. So there's that.

Back on topic! What wouldn't I play? Entrepreneur or Gambler. I'll admit, every spec has it's place in someone's game, but I just can't see these being interesting to me at all. I've never been much into the economics of the game, though; it slows down what I and my players generally find interesting... so I'm biased. If I ever get around to starting the idea I had for a numerous-player PC-run colony based on Homesteads and Businesses and space stuff, then maybe those characters could see some use. But it's a game designed specifically so that players can try out specs that never see use in traditional games.

I despise the Recruit. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to be a recruit unless it's your first specialization, but it can't be, so... yuck. It lacks any real flavor because it's basically just a way to cheapen the cost of combat skills, and there's really no need for that when you can just pick up non-career specs and/or purchase ranks in non-career skills.

I despise the Recruit. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to be a recruit unless it's your first specialization, but it can't be, so... yuck. It lacks any real flavor because it's basically just a way to cheapen the cost of combat skills, and there's really no need for that when you can just pick up non-career specs and/or purchase ranks in non-career skills.

Well, ignoring situations where you can't use non-career specs, it does seem a weird substitute for just buying ranks in non-career skills. Surely over the long run it would be cheaper to get a few ranks in those skills with the 5 XP penalty than it would be to buy an entire spec and the talents necessary? At a 5 XP penalty per rank, you can afford four ranks in non-career skills with the 20 XP you'd spend buying into Recruit, ignoring the need for Talents.

That said, it does have a smattering of useful survivability talents, like Toughened, Grit, and Second Wind. Spare Clip, Jump Up, and Quick Draw can be useful. Dynamic Fire and Creative Killer are... well... dubiously worthwhile? The big kicker here is Enduring. It's a great way to get that relatively rare talent, since Recruit probably costs 10 XP less to get than any of the other trees that have it.

All in all, though? I view it more as a Spec you throw your PCs for free to represent them joining the Alliance or something in a crossover game.

All in all, though? I view it more as a Spec you throw your PCs for free to represent them joining the Alliance or something in a crossover game.

Exactly, that's the kind of thing I'd provide for free, based on the needs of the campaign.

Well, ignoring situations where you can't use non-career specs,

Aside from house rules specific to that effect, there are no such situations.

Just thought of another one: I'm not a fan of the Performer. Never have been, in any systems. As a GM, I don't know how to build a story around that character that gels with the rest of the PCs. And because "performing" isn't a skill or activity or feature of the game that's covered anywhere, really, the talents don't seem to so much reflect performance as they do a supporting Melee character.

If other people have had good experiences with performers, I'd be interested to know.

I am thinking of taking it for my face but more as a way to play up concentrate on me while the others are doing something else.

All in all, though? I view it more as a Spec you throw your PCs for free to represent them joining the Alliance or something in a crossover game.

Recruit was not in the AoR beta book simply because it was included as a way for characters coming off an Edge campaign could be brought up to speed on the more military style where most specs dont have any form of weapon skills. In Edge other than hired gun, and bounty hunter only the Big Game hunter, mechanic, marshal, scoundrel & gunslinger start with any weapon skills from a total of 24 specializations, as you would expect from non military careers, even in the outer rim.

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.

That sounds like an awesome character idea (cool pic) and a great DM to let you move away from RAW for the sake of "cool"

I'd love to get a message with the houserules you end up making for doing that.

Targeting arrays lets people who are not very good at gunnery be good enough to enjoy ship combat its true. But its hands-down the "best" via lowest HP cost for most effect module you can add to a ship. I think its effect should be lowered or its cost increased for balance. 2 HP costing modules like the +1 armor (prevents 1 damage on attacks) or shields (+1 def in 3/4 of the ship or + 2/1 defence on smaller once) are some of the next best modules and for 1 HP you basically negate the advantage of both (+ 1 successes + 2 adv on average for +3 upgrades cancels out 1 armor and 1 def fairly easily).

I basically one shoted a star destroyer with a torpedo with my 6Y2blue+1advantage dice pool in a previous session. We retconed it to just be a section was destroyed and we now deal with big ships as sections giving the overall ship MUCH more HP and making them much more crit resistant. (side note most capital ships can kill an identical copy of themselves in 1 round firing all their guns on a single side at long range... that is a little silly)

Droid gunners also same thing - except expressesly better for low skill characters and not as good for high skill characters compared to the targeting array - except NO hardpoint cost just credits - so imagine a star destroyer with all its gunners having a droid gunner to assist.... oww... soo much oww.

Back on track, recruit and force emergent are kind of terrible for their costs. You can almost guarenteed find a better class or set of classes for what you want. Also solider: medic is crazy OP. The Stims giving 1-2 extra attribute points to friendly characters for a scene is absolutely bonkers, only costs 1 strain once proper talents are taken and is basically automatic with a character built around the concept. Everyone else in the group routinely having higher attributes is VERY strong. Also the Cyber tech overcharge /improved/ supreme is also extremely strong (although only for them not for everyone). Being able to in 1 turn make a mechanics checks on yourself, give yourself +1 str + 1 agi + int +1 to XX skills from + an extra rank in talents from all your many implants (gank or droid wet dream anyone?) for an encounter... AND.... then use a triumph or 2 adv (almost automatic with good build) to get ANOTHER action which essentially turns the above into a free action.

I've already mentioned how much I dislike Recruit, but Force-Sensitive Emergent and Force-Sensitive Exile both have their place as gateways to other Force specs.

I do agree that Medic can be very powerful.

I've already mentioned how much I dislike Recruit, but Force-Sensitive Emergent and Force-Sensitive Exile both have their place as gateways to other Force specs.

I do agree that Medic can be very powerful.

I'm sure those both have their "use' but If you want to play a force using character... its "better" to pick an actual force using class. If you DM won't let you without taking those first or something.. its just an EXP tax on force users. But the added benefits for the EXP costs are empirically worse than other classes for the same or similar benefits.

That sounds like an awesome character idea (cool pic) and a great DM to let you move away from RAW for the sake of "cool"

I'd love to get a message with the houserules you end up making for doing that.

Right now, I don’t know much. I know it involves getting my character up to a 3 Intellect naturally, and then getting some cyber-enhancements for a 4 Intellect, plus maybe some other stuff. Among other things, Besalisks are apparently not well-known for being multi-dextrous and actively split-brained, so we’ll have to do something about that.

Beyond that, he hasn’t told me much specifics, just that he’s got some ideas of how to get there. And so long as I know there’s a plan on how to get there and what the next couple of steps are, I’m fine with not having much in the way of details for the rest of the plan.

Targeting arrays lets people who are not very good at gunnery be good enough to enjoy ship combat its true. But its hands-down the "best" via lowest HP cost for most effect module you can add to a ship. I think its effect should be lowered or its cost increased for balance. 2 HP costing modules like the +1 armor (prevents 1 damage on attacks) or shields (+1 def in 3/4 of the ship or + 2/1 defence on smaller once) are some of the next best modules and for 1 HP you basically negate the advantage of both (+ 1 successes + 2 adv on average for +3 upgrades cancels out 1 armor and 1 def fairly easily).

Yup, the ATA can be very deadly, if it’s fully upgraded and in the hands of people who already have lots of Ability and Skill. We used our modified Gozanti to take down a much better equipped CR90, because of our higher abilities and skills plus our ATA. If we didn’t have those advantages, we would have been toast in very short order.

Back on track, recruit and force emergent are kind of terrible for their costs. You can almost guarenteed find a better class or set of classes for what you want. Also solider: medic is crazy OP.

I actually like Recruit quite a bit. It gives you a lot of lower level combat-oriented skills and talents to help make non-combat type characters much more survivable. And for those who are already combat-oriented, it can definitely help contribute to making them OP.

I’m fine with Force Emergent and Force Exile, because they likewise give you a good baseline introduction to Force powers and talents and skills, and they make a good gateway to F&D.

Medic can definitely be OP, but then so can Doctor. A high-brawn character that uses Pressure Point can be quite devastating. You could take out a Rancor or a Lylek single-handedly — been there, done that.

But with both Medic and Doctor, you have to be careful about the talents and skills you use and how you use them. Otherwise, it can be a high cost of XP for not much benefit.

I've already mentioned how much I dislike Recruit, but Force-Sensitive Emergent and Force-Sensitive Exile both have their place as gateways to other Force specs.

I do agree that Medic can be very powerful.

I'm sure those both have their "use' but If you want to play a force using character... its "better" to pick an actual force using class.

Can't say I agree, FSEx/m have some great talents, especially for Edge and/or Rebellion settings. That said, those are the other ones I like to give for free

Medic can definitely be OP, but then so can Doctor. A high-brawn character that uses Pressure Point can be quite devastating. You could take out a Rancor or a Lylek single-handedly — been there, done that.

Take a look at the Inquisitor rules for a much less broken way of running Pressure Point.

Well, ignoring situations where you can't use non-career specs,

Aside from house rules specific to that effect, there are no such situations.

Well, on the other page and referenced in my post above your original, Maelora literally just stated she did that. I'm assuming she's not the only one, so my point still stands. Of course, that doesn't explain why FFG put the spec in, but it's also easy to imagine that, with the relatively hefty penalty for non-career specs, the publishers assumed players might impose such restrictions on themselves and put the Recruit Universal spec in for very similar reasons.

As to the point of Exile and Emergent, keep in mind that FaD careers give you Force Rating, not the specs. You can't become Force Sensitive buying into Warleader or Pathfinder or whatever, which means if you want to play a character realizing their potential later in life - say, after years of being a smuggler - then your only option is to buy them. Without house rulings, of course... and there are lots of ways to do that. For example, some of the characters in my FaD game have additional specs to flesh out their character based on background (the more focused ones got additional XP to spend on talents or Force powers). Since I wanted them to be Force Sensitive, the guy who was a fleet officer for the Empire for years before becoming leader of a pirate fleet before deciding to pursue what turned out to be latent Force Sensitivity started as a Guardian Peacekeeper and bought Commodore, rather than the other way around... which would have made more sense. But it was better than forcing him to be a Commander Commodore with FSExile before even being able to buy into Guardian.

I used that all to represent how that chapter of their life is behind them - as a Commodore or Trader or Pilot, whatever - and who they are now is a group of Guardians and Sentinels and Seekers and such. Their Career has essentially become something different, but they retain the specs of their past. It's a wonky way to do it. Worked for me, but I wouldn't recommend anyone do it again.

Well, on the other page and referenced in my post above your original, Maelora literally just stated she did that. I'm assuming she's not the only one, so my point still stands. Of course, that doesn't explain why FFG put the spec in, but it's also easy to imagine that, with the relatively hefty penalty for non-career specs , the publishers assumed players might impose such restrictions on themselves and put the Recruit Universal spec in for very similar reasons.

A penalty which doesn't apply to Recruit (or Exile/Emergent), because they are universal specializations.

I do not consider 10 XP to be a "hefty penalty" at all.

Well, on the other page and referenced in my post above your original, Maelora literally just stated she did that. I'm assuming she's not the only one, so my point still stands. Of course, that doesn't explain why FFG put the spec in, but it's also easy to imagine that, with the relatively hefty penalty for non-career specs , the publishers assumed players might impose such restrictions on themselves and put the Recruit Universal spec in for very similar reasons.

A penalty which doesn't apply to Recruit (or Exile/Emergent), because they are universal specializations.

Well, on the other page and referenced in my post above your original, Maelora literally just stated she did that. I'm assuming she's not the only one, so my point still stands. Of course, that doesn't explain why FFG put the spec in, but it's also easy to imagine that, with the relatively hefty penalty for non-career specs , the publishers assumed players might impose such restrictions on themselves and put the Recruit Universal spec in for very similar reasons.

A penalty which doesn't apply to Recruit (or Exile/Emergent), because they are universal specializations.

Thank you for reinforcing my point?

I suppose I should clarify: while the publishers don't create content anticipating house rules like "no cross-career characters", they might have looked at the 10 XP penalty for non-career specs and created and created Recruit as a broadly appealing universal spec that fleshes out any concept and career with combat-ready talents and skills for people that don't want to pay that penalty just to pick up a combat spec or don't want a dedicated combat role with highly specialized talents. So, you know, while no there for that GM house rule, it supports very similar player-set restrictions: the "I don't want to pay the penalty" players and the "thematically I can't justify becoming a Commando or an Infiltrator just so I can defend myself" players.

I do not consider 10 XP to be a "hefty penalty" at all.

That's why I said "relatively", as it's the largest penalty. It offers more than enough return for cost if you want everything in the non-career spec you pick up, but for people that purely want access to greater survivability and a combat acumen, it doesn't exactly make a more "specialized" specialization worth it. I'm away from book, but all the combat-capable AoR specs have talents that many characters just looking for those two things won't need... and why pay all the cost for a new spec plus the 10 XP if you don't even want most of the talents? But I agree, 10 XP isn't a lot in the long run, especially considering the rate I and all the GMs I've played under hand it out...

Besides, I still stand by the spec thematically. It's there to represent basic training, so it's awesome - from a storytelling point of view - for characters "new to the rebellion" after a relative life of peace (or at least contemplation). Your Scholar who's learned more than he can stand about the Empire and decides it's finally time to take up arms against them probably isn't going to be a full-on Commando in a month or two, but he can pick up Recruit and blast stormtroopers with the rest of 'em.

...

Well, since I'm at risk of entirely derailing this thread into a discussion of the Recruit spec entirely, I'll weigh in on the actual topic.

Performer is an entirely strange specialization, I agree. There is precedent for it in Star Wars lore, it's true... but there aren't really any guidelines to being a performer. I can think of dozens of sloppy house-rules, but it feels... well, weird. Same as they aren't full rules for gambling. I think it's mentioned somewhere? I haven't scoured the books as much as I'd like, I'll admit. That said, I think Biggest Fan is a hilarious talent, so Performer doesn't make the list of specs I would never play.

Here's an odd one: I probably would never play a Warleader, at least in most FaD parties. I love the spec, but most of the talents work by helping a group of ranged combatants, and most Force users want those shiny lightsabers, so it feels ultimately useless. And I'm still mad that they get sensible regular talents like Suppressing Fire and Prime Positions that the Commander career can't have.

EDIT: Taking a second look, those talents imply ranged weapons but actually just read "combat checks". And, I suppose, it is sometimes valuable for melee combatants to take cover, though idealy this should not be their main course of action. So Warleader isn't as out of place as a I thought it was!

I'm also not a fan of the Strategist. I mean, on paper I am, but it's built a lot around the idea of Mass Combat, so in my mind you can only in good conscious bring it to a game where the GM has told everyone ahead of time you're doing high-level operations most of the time. Maybe you're meant to buy into it after you get promoted so much that you're probably leading Mass Combat regularly?

I despise the Recruit. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to be a recruit unless it's your first specialization, but it can't be, so... yuck. It lacks any real flavor because it's basically just a way to cheapen the cost of combat skills, and there's really no need for that when you can just pick up non-career specs and/or purchase ranks in non-career skills.

Well, ignoring situations where you can't use non-career specs, it does seem a weird substitute for just buying ranks in non-career skills. Surely over the long run it would be cheaper to get a few ranks in those skills with the 5 XP penalty than it would be to buy an entire spec and the talents necessary? At a 5 XP penalty per rank, you can afford four ranks in non-career skills with the 20 XP you'd spend buying into Recruit, ignoring the need for Talents.

That said, it does have a smattering of useful survivability talents, like Toughened, Grit, and Second Wind. Spare Clip, Jump Up, and Quick Draw can be useful. Dynamic Fire and Creative Killer are... well... dubiously worthwhile? The big kicker here is Enduring. It's a great way to get that relatively rare talent, since Recruit probably costs 10 XP less to get than any of the other trees that have it.

All in all, though? I view it more as a Spec you throw your PCs for free to represent them joining the Alliance or something in a crossover game.

I kind of like recruit (if you could take spy as your career and recruit as your starting spec, granted it'd take special GM approval/house rule, that'd be cool) but IIRC demolitionist can get enduring for 30 xp total.

BTW my favorite starting spec is demolitionist, of course I'd like to play a Jason Bourne/James Bond type character. No duplicate skills, close to my ideal skill list (i'd like to swap out melee for stealth though), the big boom talents aren't interesting to me but time to go (and improved), enduring, rapid reaction, steady nerves (cool and skulduggery makes for a good spy). And it let's you get last one standing, pair that with mercenary soldier and gadgeteer and you gotyou can have a pretty flexible (brawling and ranged light badassery) and hard to kill.

What I would never play, hmmm... probably an assassin, don't like the talent combo, figurehead, and entrepreneur are out too. If I played an entertainer, it would be an adult holovid star character played for laughs, otherwise I wouldn't play one of them.

An interesting character is engineer:mechanic, demolitionist, scientist, played as a mad scientist/alchemist, mechanic->bad motivator (techno voodo), demolitionist, rapid reaction and time to go (preterm natural knowledge of what's about to happen), improvised explosive (alchemy makes bombs crazy stuff that shouldn't work but does for him), and scientist, care planning (get to make up crazy absurd techno mumbo jumbo that is some how relevant), utility belt, stroke of genius, intense focus, speaks binary (the guy starts whistling to himself and Droids perk up and do stuff crazy efficient like) pluso the tinkerer intento etc. If he had doctor thrown into the mist he could be a cyberneticist who goes around giving "annoying sentients a Vulcan nerve pinch)

I kind of like recruit (if you could take spy as your career and recruit as your starting spec, granted it'd take special GM approval/house rule, that'd be cool) but IIRC demolitionist can get enduring for 30 xp total.

Haha, yeah, but then you grab the next rank from Recruit, then you get Armor Master from somewhere... bonus points if you're a Droid (free Enduring rank). It's a great tank talent, and absolutely critical if you want to go up against lightsabers without Parry.

Navigator is my new surprising favourite. Very few characters combine Agility and Intellect skills, its refreshing and interesting.

Healer/Doctor/Medic just don't interest me at all, I prefer other kinds of support character.

Recruit is cool, but you spend a lot of xp getting Skills to be Career skills, then more on getting ranks in those skills, in a lot of ways your better to choose a smaller group of skills and pick a Specialisation that focuses on that. But if your focusing on only one of the branches going down then there are a lot of talents that make for one tough character.

On a seperate note for Recruit, what do other GM's say when a character takes recruit but already as some of those 8 Skills that can be made Career Skills through purchasing the 4 Talents? As an example if a character already had Melee and Ranged (Heavy) as Career Skills would you give them "credit" for prior experience and not force them to purchase the Tactical Combat Training talent?

Navigator is my new surprising favourite. Very few characters combine Agility and Intellect skills, its refreshing and interesting.

Err...what book's that from?

Savage Spirites, brand new Seeker book released last week for Force and Destiny.

I love the theme of the Protector, but I find it really odd that it has several talents that require a lightsaber (Reflect [along with the Reflect application of Circle of Shelter] and two Center of Being picks), yet it doesn't grant Lightsaber as a Career Skill. This makes it look like an add-on to a lightsaber spec rather than a stand alone spec.

On a seperate note for Recruit, what do other GM's say when a character takes recruit but already as some of those 8 Skills that can be made Career Skills through purchasing the 4 Talents? As an example if a character already had Melee and Ranged (Heavy) as Career Skills would you give them "credit" for prior experience and not force them to purchase the Tactical Combat Training talent?

I play it by RAW. They may have the skills as career skills, but if they don't have the talent, they can't skip over it and have to pay for it if they want to move past it.