Ok, so don't get me wrong: I like the Career/Specialization system, and the artful mix of skill-based and class-based progression that FFG has arrived at with EotE/AoR/F&D. It necessitates mechanical choices in a way that results in characters that capture the flavor of our familiar Star Wars universe media. It's fun and well done, and I really don't have any problems with it.

But I also can't help but think to myself; what else could it have looked like if it went almost fully "skill-based", little class-base to it at all, if it were more "open"? ... aaand I also like tinkering with RPG systems.

Due to the nature of Talents, it can't really work off of a completely open progression, I think. The tyranny of choices, the pitfalls of being too scattered, the loss of flavor, would all be too much. But what about a more open progression structured around Careers, alone, or perhaps Skills and Characteristics? Could that work?

I'm thinking; you chop out Specializations completely, and for the most part shred the Talent Trees to ribbons. And I don't mean get rid of them completely (obviously there are chains that must remain tethered to each other - basic, improved and supreme lines, etc.), but just reduce them to more focused "paths", but give all of those paths a more common-denominator starting point... Not making much sense? Bear with me.

What if one took the time to sort the Talent trees into their "base components" and created much smaller/shorter and more numerous Talent paths out of those components?

Things like Toughened or Grit might have no path, only a single instance that could be purchased iteratively for increasing XP cost, a limited number of times per Career (roughly however many instances of theTalent are present across all Specs in the Career vanilla?).

Things like Parry (Imp. Parry, Sup. Parry), or Reflect, or Shortcut, and the other Talents with "progressions", or that are tightly related thematically, could be purchased in an order of their progression.

And "Capstone Talents" things like Dedication, or Force Rating, or other penultimate 25XP Talents (that aren't a part of a progression) can be purchased only be purchased after the expenditure of X-amount of XP in a Career.

And what Talents and Talent paths are available to you - and/or the XP cost - is linked to the Skills you have chosen as your Career skills, and/or your Characteristics ratings. So, PCs would be allowed to select 5 skills from a single Career Skill List, that includes all "normal" Career Skills for a Career and also all singular instances of unique Specialization Skills under that Career.

So if you have selected a certain skill: Lightsaber, Stealth, Mechanics, Computer, Coercion, etc. from your Career List as your PCs, this may allow you to purchase Reflect, or Sleight of Mind, or Mental Tools, or Comprehend Technology or Baleful Gaze, respectively. The skills you select could determine in some instances whether you can take a talent at all (like Lightsaber, without it you can't take Reflect or Saber Throw, or "X" Technique, etc. at all), OR it may just determine that you can take a Talent for 5 XP instead of 10 or 15 (like Discipline, maybe it allows you to take Confidence a 5 XP to start, instead of 10 if you don't select it).

Many "general" Talents would be selectable by anyone at the outset as many are not reasonably "linkable"/related to any skill, but the XP cost(s) could still be linked to Characteristics ratings. Grit or Toughened can be taken by anyone for 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 XP, but if your Willpower - for Grit - or Brawn - for Toughened - is 3 (or 4, or whatever) you can take them at 5, 5, 10, 15, 20.

Anyway, I know it sounds a lot more complicated than Specializations and Talent trees, and I think it would be, but I think setting it all up would be the really complicated part, and afterward if it was presented in a similar fashion as Talent trees it wouldn't be too bad to actually use.

It would eliminate the XP-tax of switching Specializations (but would necessitate rules for switching/adding Careers, and/or taking Career Skills outside your Career), it would allow more customized PCs and, in theory, maybe then more diverse PCs, you could also add a wider selection of general Talents even maybe to further increase diversity. Or it could just result in power gaming I know it's where my thoughts about this on the first place arose from; having to take Talents that are extraneous to "my build" in a Spec I otherwise like.

And a very similar thing could be achieved I suppose just by house-ruling the elimination of the XP-tax for Spec changes within a Career, but I also like the idea of completely open character builds.

I dunno, what do you guys think? Of the idea in general, of my speculative approach specifically, your own thoughts on any of it?

It seems like it would be a lot easier to leave specializations mostly as is, but remove the connecting lines and say something like "You can't buy a 10xp Talent until you buy at least one 5xp Talent, etc." Although that doesn't work in fringe cases like the Rain of Death talent in the Heavy tree which seems to be balanced around taking a handful of 25xp Talents before getting it, a 20xp Talent. Or something closer to Dark Heresy 2e's proficiency system. But more to the point, any change that grandiose would require a lot of playtesting and would probably result in greater system changes than just how talents are acquired. Like that it would fundamentally change how Wound and Strain thresholds (and to a lesser extent Soak) advance either making characters too tanky or too squishy depending on how it was handled.

My first question is, "what are you trying to achieve?"

If this is a super high powered deal (1000+ xp) and your specialization costs are cutting into the fun than make all career spec's free and only cost the out of career ones by themselves. One out of career spec, 10 xp. Two, 20 etc.

If you really like a particular talent for your build but it's low on a specialization you don't want anything else in than maybe you could talk to your gm about earning that talent through play and paying extra xp for it, or maybe put it on the bottom of one of your career specs (and cost extra xp).

If you're experimenting with a classless system than good luck! I don't have any quick, constructive thoughts on that. I also think there would be less variation than previously exists. You could build a particular archetype quicker under this system but in the same type you'd have mostly the same thing. IMO.

EDIT: And I'd personally cost all talents that have different xp costs in different trees as the highest example. True aim, for example, should always cost 25.

...But more to the point, any change that grandiose would require a lot of playtesting and would probably result in greater system changes than just how talents are acquired. Like that it would fundamentally change how Wound and Strain thresholds (and to a lesser extent Soak) advance either making characters too tanky or too squishy depending on how it was handled.

How would it fundamentally change WTs or STs or Soak? I'm not proposing any changes to Species or the basic "add applicable Characteristic to base T/S").

Both the first DM who introduced me to EotE/AoR and myself both have also done similar tinkering to see if we could make another system with a little more freedom on talents, much less EXP tax on everything, a little faster or at least more focused character progressions. Neither of us ever finished a final product to run a game with but I think both were at least interesting ways of doing this.

His idea was to chop up specializations, especially those with base/improved/supreme skills, into 5-10-15-20-25 single trees with a name. Each would have 3 class skills associated with it. Each person got to start with 3 Trees unlocked. Each additional tree costs 5, then 10, then 15, and so on.

Example: Heavy Gunner - skills mechanics, gunnery, ranged heavy. (5) Burly- (10) Barrage- (15) Toughened - (20) Deadly Accuracy- (25) True Aim

Dedications could be bought for 25/then 50/then 75/then 100 xp/wtc. Same for Force Rating I think. Seemed a little more simple for character to pick a concept and run with it cheaply (he was sorta xp/credits stingy as a GM... like 25 sessions in we had maybe 120xp and 5-10k credits each + a ship that always broke down?

My attempt was as part of my Eve Online conversion attempt for EoTE. I basically made a giant grid with starting points at the bottom based on your "class" and then from there things cost 5xp and linked to things costing 10xp etc. all talents were there 5-8x, with chains (field commander,improved field commander) usually 2x on different sides of the grid, and Grit/Toughened were there 10-15x. You started with 2 classes, each had class skills and gave you a point on the grid to expand from. New classes cost 30xp. Some Talents required a certain class/class combination to buy. Others required certain skill ranks to buy. Example the first True Aim took 1 rank gunnery skill and either soldier or mercenary. The Second took 1 skill ranged light, 1 ranged heavy, and 2 gunnery.

Anyway something to think about when you make your plan

My first question is, "what are you trying to achieve?"

...

If you're experimenting with a classless system than good luck! I don't have any quick, constructive thoughts on that. I also think there would be less variation than previously exists. You could build a particular archetype quicker under this system but in the same type you'd have mostly the same thing. IMO.

But I am absolutely interested in what ppl think the repercussions would be; mechanically, RP-wise, etc.

I'm just seeing if there's anyone else out there who has thought about anything like this

Many times... Check the EotE and the GM board, I recall quite a few threads, though you'll have to scan quite a ways back.

Both the first DM who introduced me to EotE/AoR and myself both have also done similar tinkering to see if we could make another system with a little more freedom on talents, much less EXP tax on everything, a little faster or at least more focused character progressions. Neither of us ever finished a final product to run a game with but I think both were at least interesting ways of doing this.

His idea was to chop up specializations, especially those with base/improved/supreme skills, into 5-10-15-20-25 single trees with a name. Each would have 3 class skills associated with it. Each person got to start with 3 Trees unlocked. Each additional tree costs 5, then 10, then 15, and so on.

Example: Heavy Gunner - skills mechanics, gunnery, ranged heavy. (5) Burly- (10) Barrage- (15) Toughened - (20) Deadly Accuracy- (25) True Aim

Dedications could be bought for 25/then 50/then 75/then 100 xp/wtc. Same for Force Rating I think. Seemed a little more simple for character to pick a concept and run with it cheaply (he was sorta xp/credits stingy as a GM... like 25 sessions in we had maybe 120xp and 5-10k credits each + a ship that always broke down?

My attempt was as part of my Eve Online conversion attempt for EoTE. I basically made a giant grid with starting points at the bottom based on your "class" and then from there things cost 5xp and linked to things costing 10xp etc. all talents were there 5-8x, with chains (field commander,improved field commander) usually 2x on different sides of the grid, and Grit/Toughened were there 10-15x. You started with 2 classes, each had class skills and gave you a point on the grid to expand from. New classes cost 30xp. Some Talents required a certain class/class combination to buy. Others required certain skill ranks to buy. Example the first True Aim took 1 rank gunnery skill and either soldier or mercenary. The Second took 1 skill ranged light, 1 ranged heavy, and 2 gunnery.

Anyway something to think about when you make your plan

Interesting approaches, thanks for the reply fastera.

Did you do any test play with the systems? Or full builds?

Not with the DMs but he was sorta basing it on a Dark Herasy remake he did wirh another group. Sort of. I handed 6 players premade 500xp characters with amnesia and put them through a very "dark matter" plot but it had no character progression. So no real tests.

For Wound thresholds, take your suggestion for increasing costs. The Protector has two 5 point Toughness talents and Soresu Defender has a third. 15xp would become 30 (5, 10, and 15 if you're multiplying by instances taken) and that's assuming you keep the first instance cost at 5. Then compare it to a Mystic with two 10 point instances and a 25 point instance. By the same metric, 45 xp drops to 30 xp. It's probably less of a problem for Strain because the talent to increase is more common across character types and the Enduring talent kind of depends on how available you make it whether or not Soak would be largely affected.

And my playtesting comment was mostly saying that while just changing how talents work would meet your goal of a more freeform, it could cause hiccups in other places like making it easier to cherry pick particular potent combos and trivializing certain skill checks, etc.

For Wound thresholds, take your suggestion for increasing costs. The Protector has two 5 point Toughness talents and Soresu Defender has a third. 15xp would become 30 (5, 10, and 15 if you're multiplying by instances taken) and that's assuming you keep the first instance cost at 5. Then compare it to a Mystic with two 10 point instances and a 25 point instance. By the same metric, 45 xp drops to 30 xp. It's probably less of a problem for Strain because the talent to increase is more common across character types and the Enduring talent kind of depends on how available you make it whether or not Soak would be largely affected.

And my playtesting comment was mostly saying that while just changing how talents work would meet your goal of a more freeform, it could cause hiccups in other places like making it easier to cherry pick particular potent combos and trivializing certain skill checks, etc.

As for other similar considerations, I have a ~30,000 cell spreadsheet (~1700 rows, by ~15 columns worth of data) I've put together to analyze things like average cost, availability and so on. The examples I gave in my OP were just to demonstrate the structure and theory behind what I'm doing. Nowhere near "final" implementation strategy. But your concerns are definitely noted.

Or maybe you could link Talents to skill ranks in specific skills. For example Toughened would be linked to Resilience skill. 5xp Talents would require skill rank 1 and 25xp talents would require skill rank 5. Some Talents should require two or maybe more skills at rank 5. Like Dedication and Force Rating mavbe.

Or maybe you could link Talents to skill ranks in specific skills. For example Toughened would be linked to Resilience skill. 5xp Talents would require skill rank 1 and 25xp talents would require skill rank 5. Some Talents should require two or maybe more skills at rank 5. Like Dedication and Force Rating mavbe.

Maybe all the system "needs" is a set of "General" Talents that could be swapped out for a given Talent in a Tree for an additional 5 XP? Things like Dodge, Side Step, Confidence, Rapid Recovery, Grit, Toughened, Uncanny Senses, and so on, things that aren't very Specialization focused. Just have a list of General Talents that can be swapped out for specific Talents a PC isn't interested in for a Spec. They could be Career-specific lists, limited to 1 or 2 times when you can take any given Talent, or other restrictions. But still making Specializations less restrictive.

Hello,

I am do a version of your "General" talents idea in a game I am running. It is currently limited to just swapping out Dedication for any other talent but is working well so far

Hello,

I am do a version of your "General" talents idea in a game I am running. It is currently limited to just swapping out Dedication for any other talent but is working well so far

Wow... what's the trade-off?

This idea was in Warhamer Fantasy RolePlay 3rd edition, which was a testbed for the mechanics we got in Star Wars. In WFRP, they had a fixed progression, where you had to spend at least one upgrade on a certain item to level up. While it was open, it still had a limiting feel, to the point that characters weren't leveled by the player, but by the system.

I've been very interested in getting away from the Spec Trees, as that would allow the system the openness to work for other settings. But doing so in a sense of balance is tricky.

I also understand how you feel about the rigidity and that was my first complain when i was trying to design my first character. I wanted a force sensitive sniper but with some of the abilities of the shadow. And i wanted that without buying into a second career as everything was costly and XP scarce.

Though i haven't tried to find a solution, and prefered to just "live with it" it do think this rigidity is somewhat of a draw back especially in the case where you try to design a character who doesn't fit nicely into the offered specs. But in the end i was able to design him (tough without any bonus talents to help his Sniper aspect) i could explain his abilities via investing in skills and i think this is where the fluidity comes from.

The point i believe FFG tried to make is having it "newbie" friendly by offering you a path with a small limited number of choices (unlike old D&D which could boggle your mind with the number of options of feats and weapons and skills and what not). But having the checks based on the higher of your characteristic or skill rank and upgrading allows you to still be able to perform well in that other aspect of your character which is not your "main". Sure, you are not Super in it, but you are not lame either.

I have a feeling there is some hidden secret about life hiding in that realisation. Something about the choices we make and their sacrafices. What and Where is the excellence, and being able to be satisfied with what you get and chose ... but maybe it's just me

I guess one solution would be to come up with smaller trees, essentially narrow them, with varying lengths. Instead of focusing on an entire job, each is a lead up to a particular task. then a PC can mix and match different task's to their whim. Keeping the career system so that certain tasks become cheaper, but others out of career are more expensive. the same talents may appear in multiple task trees, but at differing costs based on the tree. its a big task, but would allow easier mixing of character archetypes.

As an example the following could be a way of splitting up the Armourer tree:

Guardian Armour Master tree:

Grit 10xp

Armor Master 15xp

Improved Armor Master 20xp

Supreme Armour Master 25xp

Guardian Mental tools tree:

Inventor 5xp

Gearhead 10xp

Mental Tools 15xp

Inventor 15xp

Reinforce Item 25xp

Guardian Armourer Force Rating tree:

Grit 5xp

Gearhead 5xp

Tinkerer 15xp

Imbue Item 20xp

Force Rating 25xp

Guardian Armourer Saber throw tree

Toughened 5xp

Toughened 15xp

Comprehend Technology 20xp

Saber throw 10xp

Falling Avalanche 20xp

Dedication can be "attached" to the bottom of any 1 tree fro 25xp.

A Signature Abilities can be attached to the bottom of any 2 fully completed trees (perhaps they could be limited to certain trees, but the entire Career would need sorting to make that work).

Each Tree costs 5xp multiplied by the number of trees owned including the new tree. Add 10 for out of career trees.

Its rough, and more expensive in the long run, but gives much more flexible character options.

For how much work the "Talents Unchained" thing has proven to be (which is a lot), I'm finding the "replacement Talents" to be just as exciting (along with creating my own, less riddled w/ "remove setbacks", Specs... ). Because, I agree that choices are meant to be a part of the system and should be, even. That's a big thing with the Force. So even if that choice is "more of what I want for more XP", I think there's value in that.

Or you could read Forged in Battle and look at the wounds section.