Forgive me if this comes out rambling, there’s a lot of factors involved....

In my current campaign, I have a player right now who has been avoiding taking any combat capabilities (he’s a force user who hasn’t yet gotten a lightsaber, but won’t take any combat skill ranks, and almost doesn’t engage in combat). Rather, he’s pigeonholing himself into Intellect, Mechanics, and Computers, and trying to find a way to resolve every check with one of those two skills. While he tends to push the spotlight, he also will RP up to the point where he has to make a roll, and then try to work around the roll if he views it as being higher likelihood of failure. (He won’t initiate most checks that he isn’t focusing, and has tried to back out of others when he finds the difficulty is above his skill level.) While I’m all for creative solutions, I feel like there’s a limit to how much you can try and force-feed one skill into an alternative use.

He’s decided to build a droid (labor chassis with elimination directives) in order to play combat, which I’m mostly fine with, but the more he talks about it, the more it’s sounding like he’s trying to gain an extra PC to take advantage of. Part of it also looks like he’s attempting to utilize it as a fast and easy way of giving himself a 3 yellow 1 green (forgive me, I don’t know how to insert the symbols into my post) combat check without spending any experience (which they have over 500 earned, so there’;s no reason not to splurge a little)

For the moment, I’ve told him that if he wants to have the droid count under player control in combat, then he’ll have to make a leadership check to direct the droid each turn, so as to balance out with the other players. (He’ll get to make an extra roll each round, but doesn’t necessarily get to take two full slots himself)

My biggest reason for posting on here to ask is that in the past I’ve tried to make a habit of explaining my decisions by the written rules in most of my previous rulings, so I’m trying to figure out if this is something that already has a precedent in the rule books. (I’m aware that the GM is the final arbiter of the decisions, but I’ve had too many instances where my GMs were rigid to the point of stifling and stomping on creative decisions that didn’t fit with their plans.)

Well, if he's building a droid, it isn't really "without spending any experience". 3y1g with no combat talents is nothing to write home about XP wise. The only reason you can't do that on a character right out of chargen is the limit to 2 points in a skill (and the fact that it's inefficient to waste chargen points on skills). He's probably spent more way more points getting his Intellect and Mechanics up to the point in which he can succeed on these crafting rolls - or investing in Manipulate.

The bigger concern (in my opinion, anyhow) is busting the action economy by giving him two turns, one player and one droid. You really should play it as a NPC to prevent him gaining two turns.

Maybe have it whine and complain all the time. Passive aggressive stuff, organizing his tools for him in the most logically efficient fashion (which is anyway other than the way he likes them - that looks like a setback die to me!), clean the party's ship constantly (whoops, did I get solvent in the hyperdrive?) that sorta stuff. Or you can flip it around and have it threaten innocents, swipe stuff from merchants, etc. Not only will this attract attention and make enemies, but it could reflect on the PCs Morality if he doesn't take steps to "tame" his droid.

As sarg01 has said give the droid independence under your control. My players have about 14 droids in their employ (7 of which are PIT Droids) but they cause nothing but trouble. If he makes the droid docile its going to be ineffective in combat and too good at combat means it will have a hard time reigning in those impulses.

I had to go look up the rules on droid crafting because of this, so that was enlightening thank you.

Now to the point of the post. I like the ideas that Sarg had, namely giving the droid independence. It literally says in the block for Elimination Protocols that the droid becomes a Nemesis NPC, meaning that he doesn't control it anymore, you do. The Leadership check to make it do as he wants sounds legit. But I think my major issue comes from a littler earlier in the process. Namely giving a set of elimination protocols to a simple labor droid chassis. If I was GM I would have likely required a more complex chassis to be used as the basis for what it is in essence an assassin droid. A simple droid chassis designed for menial labor wouldn't have the articulation/coordination required to function efficiently with elimination protocols (downgrade, possibly twice) any combat checks made by a labor chassis used in combat other than due to lack of coordination on the chassis configuration.

Basically force the player to use the more expensive, time-consuming construction, and expensive chassis in order to have elimination protocols installed in it. It's like, sure I can install the latest badass gaming software onto a 1990s laptop, but it isn't gonna really do much compared to putting on something designed to run that software. Also, how is he even getting elimination protocol software? I don't imagine that that's something you can buy from Johnny Mechanic down at the market. Nor, imo, would it be something that a character who knows nothing about combat could feasible write on his own. I'd make a task out of even getting the software in the first place (raiding some droid tech corps mainframe system or something like that)...

Then again, it's your table, so play it how you want it, but this sounds OP as **** to me and suuuuuuper min-maxy, which irritates the crap out of me as a GM. Thankfully my players don't do this, so it doesn't come up often.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that, prior to reading the specific rules I was going to suggest doing something akin to what Starfinder does with it's Engineer class, but with an SWRPG twist. Make the droid a minion with crap skills unless the PC actually controls the droid, using the PCs action/maneuver to give the droid an action or maneuver. However since it specifically states that the droid becomes a Nemesis NPC that was made moot. Still, might be something to that by trying to make a simple labor chassis function as a Nemesis level NPC, but I sorta covered that already, so carry on...

The labor chassis is already poor in combat compared to advanced combat chassis. (Brawn 3, Agility 1, Soak 4, Wound/Strain 7 vs Brawn 4, Agility 3, Soak 7, Wound 19, Strain 10, Ranged Def 1)

A couple of blaster pistol hits or a blaster rifle it will take it out.

I presume as you say YYYG he is going for Melee/Brawl combat? As ranged would be YGGG. Not being able to afford to take damage whilst closing distance will make it quite a glass cannon.

10 hours ago, Dendros said:

For the moment, I’ve told him that if he wants to have the droid count under player control in combat, then he’ll have to make a leadership check to direct the droid each turn, so as to balance out with the other players. (He’ll get to make an extra roll each round, but doesn’t necessarily get to take two full slots himself)

Each turn? That's absurd. Save the Leadership checks for when he's giving the droid orders that contradict what the droid wants to do (but note that he got to program it, so he should have a fair amount of say in what it wants). For super-kill-droid, that might mean Leadership checks to break off attacks, to take opponents alive, or to go slap a stimpack on a downed friendly, but it really shouldn't take a check to have the droid return fire at opponents and not target friendlies.

5 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

But it really shouldn't take a check to have the droid return fire at opponents and not target friendlies.

Unless he builds it really bad and it develops a personality quirk so it can't tell friend from foe!

28 minutes ago, MrTInce said:

Unless he builds it really bad and it develops a personality quirk so it can't tell friend from foe!

The same can happen with biological offspring too.

Thank you all for the input.

First off, Sarg, this is perfect for what I was trying to figure out

9 hours ago, sarg01 said:

Or you can flip it around and have it threaten innocents, swipe stuff from merchants, etc. Not only will this attract attention and make enemies, but it could reflect on the PCs Morality if he doesn't take steps to "tame" his droid.

The fact that it’s a nemesis from the directives means it’s an NPC inherently, which automatically fixes the combat turn issue, although it means that he’s not going to get the desired effect from it. (Namely being able to roll in combat himself)

6 hours ago, Smeeg699 said:

A simple droid chassis designed for menial labor wouldn't have the articulation/coordination required to function efficiently with elimination protocols (downgrade, possibly twice) any combat checks made by a labor chassis used in combat other than due to lack of coordination on the chassis configuration.

Basically force the player to use the more expensive, time-consuming construction, and expensive chassis in order to have elimination protocols installed in it. It's like, sure I can install the latest badass gaming software onto a 1990s laptop, but it isn't gonna really do much compared to putting on something designed to run that software.

This was exactly what I was trying to find a way to mentally wrap my head around how to articulate to the player, but to be blunt, I was tired when they sprung this on me, and didn’t have the capacities to argue it. Apparently the goal is some variant off of C3-PX from the old EU comics.

6 hours ago, Smeeg699 said:

Also, how is he even getting elimination protocol software? I don't imagine that that's something you can buy from Johnny Mechanic down at the market. Nor, imo, would it be something that a character who knows nothing about combat could feasible write on his own. I'd make a task out of even getting the software in the first place (raiding some droid tech corps mainframe system or something like that)...

That’s perfect. My min/maxing senses were going haywire, and I couldn’t figure out why it didn’t make sense in-universe, but that’s the perfect explanation.

thank you all again!

As a thought, too, if he tries to write elimination protocols by himself, limit it to what HIS skills are. It's something akin to the Teaching skill in GURPS, a system I used to play a lot. You could use the skill to help people learn skills you had, but only to the LESSER of your skill in teaching or your skill in whatever you were trying to teach. Take a leaf out of that book and make the skills that he can innately give the droid without access to specialized droid specific programming be the lesser of his Computers skill (for doing the actual programming) or the skill he is trying to impart on the droid.

25 minutes ago, Dendros said:

The fact that it’s a nemesis from the directives means it’s an NPC inherently, which automatically fixes the combat turn issue, although it means that he’s not going to get the desired effect from it. (Namely being able to roll in combat himself)

Any droid that isn't built with the PC rules is an NPC. Sure, you can take his fun away by rolling the dice yourself, but why? Do you really want to just roll more dice against yourself as the GM?

As for trying to gimp the droid by the characters own combat skills, that makes no sense either. The programmers of combat droids are still droid programmers, not elite commandos themselves. Those who can, do. Those who can't program droids to do it for them.

9 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

As for trying to gimp the droid by the characters own combat skills, that makes no sense either. The programmers of combat droids are still droid programmers, not elite commandos themselves. Those who can, do. Those who can't program droids to do it for them.

The reason I'm suggesting lowering it's skills is because Dendros seems to feel that what the player is trying to do is OP. Basically giving himself two full combat turns, though it sounds like his PC is going to be mostly useless until/unless they get a lightsaber, then a turn with a badass droid that. Now, to be fair, he could simply up the ante from the other side and start throwing more NPC enemies at the group, even possibly ones with anti-droid tech once they begin to learn that the PCs are relying on a tricked out droid for their combat capabilities. But my suggestions were ways to implement it that either reduced the power of the droid inherently or that provided adventure hooks and challenges that would then "earn" the PC that piece of amazing loot (droid elimination protocols).

So is it that he doesn't really like combat or is it that he is trying to make non-combat skills just as effective as combat skills in combat?

I think you're making this way more complex than it needs to be. Your player is essentially asking to buy/build a Henchman which is totally fine. Security Droids are common plus they must follow the same laws or even more restrictive laws as anyone else so if you are concerned about it getting too powerful just play that part pretty strict. Remember if open carry Hvy Weapons are illegal for a PC, their illegal for a Droid as well. In any case it's not a big deal in game it's just another piece on the table and it's limited by how much cash you make available to him to upgrade and such. Remember whatever Credits he's spending on the Droid he's not spending on himself so it going to even out.

You can do it one of three ways, either have your player create a second PC and they just run two PCs, which is harder to do than most people think, or the player buys/builds a droid Henchman, an NPC that either he controls directly through some controller/interface (which would be his Action during Combat), or you as the GM control with his guidance . If you are the controller they would order the Droid in game ie. he communicates with the droid in some way usually by vocal command , to do something and you do it to the best of it's ability. They do not get to micromanage the Droid's abilities or position they just tell it what to do, sort of like how Luke communicates with R2D2 or the characters in Rebels tell Chopper to do something.

Personally I like the latter because it's fun but the easiest is to just have him make a second PC.

Funnily enough, the first thing that came to mind is this:

To me he sounds like a min-maxer that needs to be addressed properly. In my mind it is fine to be a specialist, I have roleplayed as a specialist on many occasions who was specialised in Machanics and has slowly diverged out into other fields. but the moment it starts infringing on everyone's enjoyment? No. This is a toxic player that needs addressing to reign it in a bit, though the fact that he cares about his character is a great and useful resource. There is a separate video on how to address these quirks, but the short and long of it is that he might have to be given a direct conversation about his expectations of the game; he will frequently have to make checks that aren't of his skill and once the dice are on the table they can't go back. I can't express enough that no amounts of rules will solve the issue in the same way that understanding and addressing the fundamental issue will.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3lC5j01Zmo

The key crux I feel is that this character is an expert who does a couple things really well. That is cool, but skills by the definition is very narrow. Computers requires a computer or console of some description, or perhaps to investigate computer theory. Machanics requires either knowledge of mechanical theory (sometimes I might roll a machanics check for gauging the likelihood of something, or giving an appraisal) or something to interact directly with in a mechanical event. That's it and the definitions are fairly rigid. Be up front and talk to him directly; you insist on resolving issues only a singular way and remind him that there is a time of being smart and a time for action. Remember that time where Leia expressively implored to the stormtroopers to let her pass in a passionate 3 minute long speech about freedom and the fall of democracy? No, she picked up a blaster pistol, started shooting the facist wall that had taken everything from her and immediately took charge of the disorganised smugglers that were aboard the death star, there might have been some inspiring rhetoric involved to bolster their stain thresholds and pass boost dice but she chose to live by example as that duty to the republic was literally all she had left. Likewise Rose was a techie type character who knew so many things, but almost never employed those skills in practice. Or R2D2 and BB-8 is the principle non-combative specialist, they were hugely intelligent but couldn't solve all problems like that. They often had to improvise situations quite heavily when just blending into the background just wasn't good enough, which sometimes got a little silly but it proved entertaining for the table and thus was fine. The key thing is not everything can be resolved with a singular skill or even a singular person, sometimes they need to either adapt or step aside and let someone else take the spot light for a little bit; just allow them to trust that it will come back to them at some point. I mean, firing a blaster pistol at short range is a 1 purple check, it's clear that the system encourages "just give it a go." unless they have IC motivations not to (they are a pacifist who do not believe in killing).

With that in mind, no he cannot have a second PC. That is the thing that keeps everyone feeling cool at the table that each is an important person. Having a person be two I feel directly infringes on the roleplaying experience, I used to play with an alt system that served really well in testing out alternative character ideas, but the ultimate issue was that it was practically impossible to resolve story arcs with other characters as only half of the pool was available at a time, thus due to our tendency to spilt we literally had members who were very important within the squad who had literally only been at the same events for 8 sessions in a 2 and a half year run worth of sessions. Having a player be two characters at the table only really encourages them to rely on themselves to the expense of other members of the party, I implore you not to do this lightly.

As an NPC though there is interesting potential. The way that we handled animal companions in a combat situation is that we issued orders with Manvours, which would give the targeted companion to take one immediate move, one action. This does give an advantage to the action ecomany in exchange for limiting the player's personal actions. Of course one could chose not to and the NPC will behave according to it's designs either in it's own init slot or at the end of the round; it's target priority might not be the same as it's comrades. Depending on how it is set up will determine whether it will be a fascinating group resource, or something that player will horde and program only to obey him. Interesting character test actually.

The super important thing here is to talk to the player away from the table about expectations and specify your expectations directly to them; you are cool with them being a specialist and the spotlight will be on him strongest during that moment, but remind him there are a table of people who might want their own moments to shine and express their own skills in less analytical times. Either diversify your skill range a little so you can do more interesting, different things in those emotionally charged situations, or be that NPC that the players turn to when they need that one, exact niche.


Edit: In reflection there is one thing I've missed; establish that failing a check is fine. It isn't the player's job to "win" at roleplaying, you simply can't due to the machanics of it. It should all be about telling a compelling narrative tale.

Might be pulling the trigger a bit quick there, LB!

Nothing the original post presented seems all that min-maxish to me. FFG talent trees encourage the "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail" approach. The system itself doesn't (untrained with 3 agi still has a good shot at shooting someone at Medium range), but the talent trees very much do. It's actually worse for EotE / AoR careers than FaD, because the entire career often has a particular bend "Technician", "Soldier", "Diplomat" and the game clearly encourages you to stick to your career.

FaD careers are better, but you're not getting lightsaber as a career skill without buying into a nearly pure combat tree. This character is probably Sentinel/Artisan, since there's only 3 FaD trees that give Mechanics as a career skill, and the other two are combat trees (Armorer and Starfighter Ace).

If you're Sentinel/Artisan, you have no weapon career skills. You have Computers (x2), Mechanics, Stealth, Skulduggery, Deception, Astrogation, Core Worlds and Education. And when you look at the tree, it's mechanics, computers, technology. Plus a few strain thresholds, the Force rating and dedication boxes. Ignore crits to Intellect/Cunning. Imbue Item and Comprehend Technology are the only things that actively contribute to combat, and both require Force rating to make useful.

Without having enough XP to buy into another tree, you're shoe-horned. Now you could maybe argue that with those starting skill choices you should have bought some agility to use Stealth and Skulduggery ... but isn't that min-maxing a little? It doesn't fit my character concept, but it's efficient to build that way!

And the same thing is true for most single tree builds. Some trees straddle two different things (the face trees often do), but the piloting, medicine, tech and combat trees are all pretty min-max. Is a guy who has 5 intellect, 4 ranks of Mechanics and a tech tree to be more min-maxed than someone with 5 agility, 4 ranks of Ranged - Heavy and a combat tree?

29 minutes ago, sarg01 said:

Might be pulling the trigger a bit quick there, LB!

Nothing the original post presented seems all that min-maxish to me. FFG talent trees encourage the "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail" approach. The system itself doesn't (untrained with 3 agi still has a good shot at shooting someone at Medium range), but the talent trees very much do. It's actually worse for EotE / AoR careers than FaD, because the entire career often has a particular bend "Technician", "Soldier", "Diplomat" and the game clearly encourages you to stick to your career.

FaD careers are better, but you're not getting lightsaber as a career skill without buying into a nearly pure combat tree. This character is probably Sentinel/Artisan, since there's only 3 FaD trees that give Mechanics as a career skill, and the other two are combat trees (Armorer and Starfighter Ace).

If you're Sentinel/Artisan, you have no weapon career skills. You have Computers (x2), Mechanics, Stealth, Skulduggery, Deception, Astrogation, Core Worlds and Education. And when you look at the tree, it's mechanics, computers, technology. Plus a few strain thresholds, the Force rating and dedication boxes. Ignore crits to Intellect/Cunning. Imbue Item and Comprehend Technology are the only things that actively contribute to combat, and both require Force rating to make useful.

Without having enough XP to buy into another tree, you're shoe-horned. Now you could maybe argue that with those starting skill choices you should have bought some agility to use Stealth and Skulduggery ... but isn't that min-maxing a little? It doesn't fit my character concept, but it's efficient to build that way!

And the same thing is true for most single tree builds. Some trees straddle two different things (the face trees often do), but the piloting, medicine, tech and combat trees are all pretty min-max. Is a guy who has 5 intellect, 4 ranks of Mechanics and a tech tree to be more min-maxed than someone with 5 agility, 4 ranks of Ranged - Heavy and a combat tree?

I disagree with this assessment. The trees are designed to encourage players to branch out into multiple specializations specifically by not giving any one tree a large number of key talents, be they combat or non combat. What the trees do encourage is making non combat focused characters just as viable as combat characters, as well as creating Jacks of All Trades by allowing, and even encouraging players to take Out of Career specializations instead of restricting them to only those specs within their Career.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree with this assessment. The trees are designed to encourage players to branch out into multiple specializations specifically by not giving any one tree a large number of key talents, be they combat or non combat. What the trees do encourage is making non combat focused characters just as viable as combat characters, as well as creating Jacks of All Trades by allowing, and even encouraging players to take Out of Career specializations instead of restricting them to only those specs within their Career.

There's an explicit mechanical cost for doing these things that you don't otherwise encounter. It's never an equal exchange.

Can you buy non-career skills? Of course you can, they're just more expensive (i.e. the system prefers that you don't). You can buy other trees, but there's not only an extra cost, that cost stacks for your character's entire life. To make matters worse, the ultimate 'flexibility' boxes are generally at the bottom of the trees: Force Rating, Dedication. This is a mechanical punishment for not sticking with a tree, the delay in improving your attributes / force. Speaking of hampering well-rounded characters, you can't buy up from Cunning 2 to Cunning 3 without blowing your once/tree Dedication. How is that not encouraging you to spend the dedication on things you're actually good at and use frequently (at least up to the cap) instead of rounding out the character?

Is it less restrictive than D&D or Pathfinder? Sure. If we're talking about 500+ XP characters, fine. If we're talking about a 200 XP character, the trees scream for one-sided characters (again, a few trees are exceptions), and make anything else painful.

Being slightly more than a career skill or spec does not inherently discourage taking out of career skills or specs. On the contrary. The additional XP cost is minimal. If they really wanted to discourage taking out of career skills and specs, they would have made the costs significantly higher, such as doubling the XP costs. The fact is that it is expected that an out of career ability would cost more than an in career one. Otherwise, why have different careers? For example, if you really wanted to make a “Uber techie”, you would have to take multiple out of career specializations in order to get all of the tech centered talents. The same goes with a lightsaber specialist. No one tree has a full range of these talents, nor does any one career cover the entirety of any given role. As such, taking multiple specs, particularly out of career specs is not only encouraged , but necessary.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same range of characters.

I'm not referring to characters with three trees, a couple force powers and maybe a signature ability. Of course those characters can afford 10 points for Ranged - Light rank 1. I'm talking about characters 5-10 sessions out of character generation. If you're looking at 100 or 200 points of post-chargen XP, 30 points to buy into a tree (which by itself gains you nothing but the opportunity to spend further XP) represents between 15 - 30% of their entire character.

As for the rest of your point, you actually nailed it with your question: Otherwise, why have different careers?

The system having careers is precisely what I'm arguing encourages min-max behavior. I've house-ruled a lot of that out at my table as I find the concept of 'career' non-sensical as a straight-jacket. People change careers all the time in RL. Luke goes from Colonist to Ace to Jedi in the movies, and I can't think of anyone who'd argue it's the farmer part that controls his destiny, just because it was first.

2 hours ago, sarg01 said:

I'm not sure we're talking about the same range of characters.

I'm not referring to characters with three trees, a couple force powers and maybe a signature ability. Of course those characters can afford 10 points for Ranged - Light rank 1. I'm talking about characters 5-10 sessions out of character generation. If you're looking at 100 or 200 points of post-chargen XP, 30 points to buy into a tree (which by itself gains you nothing but the opportunity to spend further XP) represents between 15 - 30% of their entire character.

As for the rest of your point, you actually nailed it with your question: Otherwise, why have different careers?

The system having careers is precisely what I'm arguing encourages min-max behavior. I've house-ruled a lot of that out at my table as I find the concept of 'career' non-sensical as a straight-jacket. People change careers all the time in RL. Luke goes from Colonist to Ace to Jedi in the movies, and I can't think of anyone who'd argue it's the farmer part that controls his destiny, just because it was first.

Having different careers doesn’t necessarily encourage “min-maxing” behavior. All it does is provide a thematic structure upon which to build your character, and from which your character can grow from. It’s not a straight jacket that forces you to remain within.

As for characters with only five or so sessions in, and only 100-200 earned XP, there is no reason why they can’t have multiple specs going at the same time, neither of which are maxed out. You are not required to max out one spec before taking a second. In fact, based upon a character’s concept, it is wholly appropriate to even start the character with multiple specs.

2 hours ago, sarg01 said:

I'm not sure we're talking about the same range of characters.

I'm not referring to characters with three trees, a couple force powers and maybe a signature ability. Of course those characters can afford 10 points for Ranged - Light rank 1. I'm talking about characters 5-10 sessions out of character generation. If you're looking at 100 or 200 points of post-chargen XP, 30 points to buy into a tree (which by itself gains you nothing but the opportunity to spend further XP) represents between 15 - 30% of their entire character.

As for the rest of your point, you actually nailed it with your question: Otherwise, why have different careers?

The system having careers is precisely what I'm arguing encourages min-max behavior . I've house-ruled a lot of that out at my table as I find the concept of 'career' non-sensical as a straight-jacket. People change careers all the time in RL. Luke goes from Colonist to Ace to Jedi in the movies, and I can't think of anyone who'd argue it's the farmer part that controls his destiny, just because it was first.

Yes. This game has an ingenious narrative core dice mechanic that can function without careers, specs, and talents. I'm not advocating that I'm just saying that the core Characteristic and Skill resolved via Narrative Dice is the base machine. The careers and spec trees introduce a second level of progression and canned shapes to characters that encourage players to make builds to achieve something rather than just making a character who organically develops as they would because of their adventures, etc. But because this would be too little guidance for most people and it wouldn't sell books they went with he build-a-bear system so that character builds would be standardized. On the low end of things players will see this as a legitimate way to be "better." At start of play my character is essentially substandard, but after I have bought my two specs and put in the points the character will be acceptable.

Instead of a character rooted in a concept or even better rooted in what they actually portray in the game, you have character that are superficially built from FFG legos. It reminds me of how in the early gaming conventions the big thing was "I don't want to hear about your character," because the listener knew they were just going to get stats and magic items recited to them and not an actual interesting character.

But because the Careers and Specs are a part of the system I have learned to live with them and just try to minimize the effect of the way its designed by really emphasizing to the players that their character is not just the Stats and Talents.

18 hours ago, sarg01 said:

Might be pulling the trigger a bit quick there, LB!

Nothing the original post presented seems all that min-maxish to me. FFG talent trees encourage the "when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail" approach. The system itself doesn't (untrained with 3 agi still has a good shot at shooting someone at Medium range), but the talent trees very much do. It's actually worse for EotE / AoR careers than FaD, because the entire career often has a particular bend "Technician", "Soldier", "Diplomat" and the game clearly encourages you to stick to your career.

FaD careers are better, but you're not getting lightsaber as a career skill without buying into a nearly pure combat tree. This character is probably Sentinel/Artisan, since there's only 3 FaD trees that give Mechanics as a career skill, and the other two are combat trees (Armorer and Starfighter Ace).

If you're Sentinel/Artisan, you have no weapon career skills. You have Computers (x2), Mechanics, Stealth, Skulduggery, Deception, Astrogation, Core Worlds and Education. And when you look at the tree, it's mechanics, computers, technology. Plus a few strain thresholds, the Force rating and dedication boxes. Ignore crits to Intellect/Cunning. Imbue Item and Comprehend Technology are the only things that actively contribute to combat, and both require Force rating to make useful.

Without having enough XP to buy into another tree, you're shoe-horned. Now you could maybe argue that with those starting skill choices you should have bought some agility to use Stealth and Skulduggery ... but isn't that min-maxing a little? It doesn't fit my character concept, but it's efficient to build that way!

And the same thing is true for most single tree builds. Some trees straddle two different things (the face trees often do), but the piloting, medicine, tech and combat trees are all pretty min-max. Is a guy who has 5 intellect, 4 ranks of Mechanics and a tech tree to be more min-maxed than someone with 5 agility, 4 ranks of Ranged - Heavy and a combat tree?

I like playing devils advocate. I just didn't like any of what I've read so I felt a desire to comment on it to give the GM a very alternative perspective from a player who has had dealt with this issue several times in the past. In my experience the problem in those cases has always been with the player rather then the character.

Just to provide context this is what I had read: This player will go to great lengths to simply avoid doing any checks related to skills that they are bad in and have tried use two skills to attempt to solve every problem encountered.. extremely limited range of skills (Int, Machanics, Computers) and an unwillingness to engage in situations that they are less good in is prime min-max territory. Since the character is bad at combat, the character is building another NPC for the soul purpose of combat so he has a character likely to succeed in an area he definitely isn't good at..

Keep in mind my comments weren't on the players statsheet, careers or even the droid (since commanding NPC's is fairly simple). but rather his underlaying behaviour. The player isn't engaging unless they have a perceived advantage, and actually attempting to withdraw from a dice check that is on the table (generally, players should never see the difficulty dice until the situation is underway.) all the while trying to win every encounter (mentioned by pushing the spotlight) with only two skills is just silly.In this particular case the stat sheet isn't the problem I'm taking, but the players attitude toward the collaborative experience. Now, that might be how the post was worded, but I feel I wasn't wrong with raising the possibility that the player just needs a good talking to about expectations. After all, people can't win at roleplaying but rather the roleplaying is a device to further the story.

It's nice to have the data presented surrounding the trees and that's a fantastic resource, so I will have a little bit of a read of it myself to digest it so your contribution is very useful from a mechanical perspective. ^__^. Just providing a perspective from a player who has experienced this before (though most people who overspecialised were just murder hobos that wanted to be really good at being a force wizard or "shoot gun stuff dies" so having someone be a min-max genius is kinda amusing.).


Edit: Which isn't to say I'm being over reactive; it's always difficult to judge how big a problem is by the text as we almost never have enough context in a single post to ever make the decision at the table. I just like presenting issues I've seen in a way they may have not considered, just in case it might be that. That way, it's something to talk about. e.g. "Why do you feel that every situation you come across can only be solved this way?" "Why are you avoiding/withdrawing from situations where the result might be close? Shouldn't that be where the specialist thrives?" and so fourth.

On my Mechanic, I have approached this by liberal use of crafting and modding (in the early game before I branched out into other specs)

So I used a weapon that had Augmented Spin Barrel, Custom Grip and Electronic Sighting system, all of which could add a boost dice via a mod, and allow aim as incidental. Suddenly my pool could hit GGBBBB without using a manoeuvre, which is a pretty decent chance to hit

And I made gadgets (precision implement) that would remove setbacks from particular general skills, spending advantage mainly on reducing encumbrance to 1, but sometimes on also adding an advantage. That could make certain offskills more effective, as long as you remembered to bring along the right gadget.

By doing this, I was definitely still a mechanic, but could be more generally effective, but without generating the triumphs that the skilled characters in the party would in the same areas, so not stepping on their toes.