Going by RAW, your first option is invalid, as you must have more talents of the next lower TIER, not an equal amount. Nothing you couldn't house rule, but still.

I think I would prefer your second option as well. It would keep the higher TIER slots open, and you can always take a TIER 1 talent to start a new row.

29 minutes ago, Xcapobl said:

Going by RAW, your first option is invalid  , as you must have more talents of the next lower TIER, not an equal amount. Nothing you couldn't house rule, but still.

I thought what we were talking about was already a house rule, so...no RAW required.

The purpose of the RAW is not to enforce a pyramid shape because "that's cool", it's to reinforce the idea that simple abilities are easier to accumulate that complex ones. But that has to be balanced with campaign and PC longevity and your table's needs. FFG sets these things up to mirror the way most people seem to play, which is short campaigns that cap out around 300XP with monolithic PCs that are too awesome at that level in their chosen field. If you play your PC more broadly so that 2000XP is still fun, then the pyramid becomes a semi-arbitrary straightjacket, mostly because there aren't enough Tier 1 talents to get numerous ranks in expensive ones, like FR. I still want to enforce the "simple abilities are easier to accumulate" concept, but the shape of the talent stack is the least important part of that.

How I understand it is for ranked talent : first rank cost 5 xp and count as a tier 1 talent. then 2nd rank cost 10 xp but do not count as a tier 2 talent, 3rd rank cost 15 xp and do not count as a tier 3 talent, 4th rank cost 20 xp and do not count as a tier 4 talent and 5th rank cost 25 xp and do not count as a tier 5 talent; all ranks thereafter are the same as rank 5.

If the 1st rank for a ranked talent start at a higher tier than tier 1, do the same except the 1st rank bought always count as a T2+ talent but the subsequent ranks don't count even if they cost the amount of XPs.

That way ranked talents aren't cheap if you want a lot of ranks in it, but having 5 ranks in it doesn't take a tier 5 talent slot. And to get a real tier 5 talent you still must buy talents as indicated by RAW. It gives more freedom in the choice of talents for characters with a lot of xps.

The way I do it is I basically waive the Spec Tax or reduce it by 5 if you can make a good explanation for why your character would easily transfer over and why it would make sense for them to do so.
Examples: Why couldn't a Clone Trooper get the Sharpshooter tree from AoR? Why couldn't a Soldier (Commando) get the Marauder tree? And (I don't have FaD, so take this with a grain of salt) why couldn't a Consular adopt a Diplomat specialization? After all, in the days of the Old Republic, they were often used as negotiators.

To the op, it's 10 extra xp and you can't attach signature abilities to the out of career tree... what's the fuss about? That's not a "problem" that's worth fixing.

Hey folks, new poster here. I'm also fairly new to the system, but have some experience both as a player and GM.

My basic question here is that I'm not really following why you should be able to take Specializations outside of your Career at all. Sounds like from the discussion that many GMs are pretty liberal with this. Is there an obvious downside to game balance that I'm not seeing to being very much more restrictive with this? As a GM I really feel its more appropriate to heavily restrict Specs outside of Career, but from my lack of experience I may be missing something that is clear to the rest of you.

On 12/24/2019 at 7:07 PM, RickInVA said:

Hey folks, new poster here. I'm also fairly new to the system, but have some experience both as a player and GM.

My basic question here is that I'm not really following why you should be able to take Specializations outside of your Career at all. Sounds like from the discussion that many GMs are pretty liberal with this. Is there an obvious downside to game balance that I'm not seeing to being very much more restrictive with this? As a GM I really feel its more appropriate to heavily restrict Specs outside of Career, but from my lack of experience I may be missing something that is clear to the rest of you.

Because the specs do different things, and some are very complementary or just make sense together. For example: You have a Mandalorian bounty hunter with Death Watch Warrior as a second spec (universal spec). If you dual-wield pistols, why shouldn't you be able to pick up the Gunslinger tree from the Smuggler career? It fits doesn't it?

As per RAW, you'd be able to pick it up for 10 additional XP. As per me (I mostly GM, so I'm not saying this as a player), I'd waive the fee because it matches the character concept to a T. It isn't like a Marauder cross-specing into Doctor.

14 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Because the specs do different things, and some are very complementary or just make sense together. For example: You have a Mandalorian bounty hunter with Death Watch Warrior as a second spec (universal spec). If you dual-wield pistols, why shouldn't you be able to pick up the Gunslinger tree from the Smuggler career? It fits doesn't it?

As per RAW, you'd be able to pick it up for 10 additional XP. As per me (I mostly GM, so I'm not saying this as a player), I'd waive the fee because it matches the character concept to a T. It isn't like a Marauder cross-specing into Doctor.

In FaD this comes up with lightsaber specs a lot. Ergo, why are lightsaber styles associated with specific careers? A related issue is that each style is associated with a specific characteristic. I find this very "gamey" and kind of restrictive. I think lightsaber styles should be universal force-user specs. I also think that the various style talents should be replaced with a something more akin to the renegade style talent. Effectively, pick the stat that for your character.

On 12/24/2019 at 6:07 PM, RickInVA said:

My basic question here is that I'm not really following why you should be able to take Specializations outside of your Career at all. Sounds like from the discussion that many GMs are pretty liberal with this. Is there an obvious downside to game balance that I'm not seeing to being very much more restrictive with this? As a GM I really feel its more appropriate to heavily restrict Specs outside of Career, but from my lack of experience I may be missing something that is clear to the rest of you.

Because the specs are at least half-arbitrary and contain really weird specializations that really anyone should be able to pick up. How about the "Pin" Talent in the Archeologist tree? Why is that not available to every character that wants to be good at martial arts? Or to flip it around, why is the scientist who "knows some tricks with his fists" able to only know Pin and not some other cool move?

The only reason for the surcharge is to give GMs a "rule-based reason" to prevent players from skipping from tree to tree and picking up all the low-hanging fruit, like all the 5XP Grit, for example. If the player isn't doing that, the surcharge is pretty onerous and is only a damper on character development. I generally waive the cost of a new tree entirely so long as the player isn't abusing the system.

But now that Genesys is out, my regard for the tree system has plummeted. The trees still have some value to provide examples of Talents that might be useful for a given character concept, but that is the extent of their value.

As for game balance...that's a really difficult thing to measure with Talents. Most of the balance comes from characteristics and skill ranks because these inform the majority of the dice pool. Past that, it really depends on the campaign and how useful a spec is in the campaign context. So no, you are not affecting game balance issues by waiving career spec surcharges.

On 12/27/2019 at 10:10 AM, whafrog said:

Because the specs are at least half-arbitrary and contain really weird specializations that really anyone should be able to pick up. How about the "Pin" Talent in the Archeologist tree? Why is that not available to every character that wants to be good at martial arts? Or to flip it around, why is the scientist who "knows some tricks with his fists" able to only know Pin and not some other cool move?

The only reason for the surcharge is to give GMs a "rule-based reason" to prevent players from skipping from tree to tree and picking up all the low-hanging fruit, like all the 5XP Grit, for example. If the player isn't doing that, the surcharge is pretty onerous and is only a damper on character development. I generally waive the cost of a new tree entirely so long as the player isn't abusing the system.

But now that Genesys is out, my regard for the tree system has plummeted. The trees still have some value to provide examples of Talents that might be useful for a given character concept, but that is the extent of their value.

As for game balance...that's a really difficult thing to measure with Talents. Most of the balance comes from characteristics and skill ranks because these inform the majority of the dice pool. Past that, it really depends on the campaign and how useful a spec is in the campaign context. So no, you are not affecting game balance issues by waiving career spec surcharges.

I hear what you are saying about the trees being somewhat arbitrary. My counter argument is that, to me, a large part of role-playing is about scarcity. It appears to me that allowing players to pick any tree without regard (except for cost), would likely result in no skill scarcity or talent scarcity. Its a min/max heaven!

I certainly can put a stop or slow to that in my campaign, but what I am trying to think through, and welcome advice from more seasoned GMs here, is will my characters loose some play balance if I restrict specs to the 6 career specs. My initial thought is that it makes the characters more "what they are" and not "jacks of all trades", which sounds good to me.

Thanks!

27 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

I hear what you are saying about the trees being somewhat arbitrary. My counter argument is that, to me, a large part of role-playing is about scarcity. It appears to me that allowing players to pick any tree without regard (except for cost), would likely result in no skill scarcity or talent scarcity. Its a min/max heaven!

I certainly can put a stop or slow to that in my campaign, but what I am trying to think through, and welcome advice from more seasoned GMs here, is will my characters loose some play balance if I restrict specs to the 6 career specs. My initial thought is that it makes the characters more "what they are" and not "jacks of all trades", which sounds good to me.

Thanks!

It’s not necessarily a “min-max heaven”. If anything, it allows for more “Jack of all trades” characters rather than hyper-focused min maxed characters. Limiting characters to specs only within their career is what really pushes characters towards Min-maxing. Not only that but it puts a hard line limit on a character’s growth and advancement. And that’s not good.

1 hour ago, RickInVA said:

It appears to me that allowing players to pick any tree without regard (except for cost), would likely result in no skill scarcity or talent scarcity. Its a min/max heaven!

How so? XP is what provides the scarcity. Philosophers aren't necessarily going to take Lethal Blows, while Heavys aren't going to take Knowledge Specialization...unless that fits in with their cool concept or something. XP is precious and players are naturally going to want to use it to flesh out their character concept. If the GM is doing their job they might spend a bit here and there to beef up weaknesses (eg: a little Discipline so their Brawn 5 Wookiee doesn't run away at the first loud noise), but otherwise I trust the players more than the designers to stick with a concept.

Genesys still requires you to pick 8 "career" skills, and I'm fine with the surcharge for non-career skill advancement, but I'm not sure even that is necessary.

Every time I host a campaign or one-off, I describe the situation to the players and they give me an outline of their PC. Invariably I get something like this: "Art collector type, very business savvy, knows a lot of people, charming, etc; wears flamboyant yet tasteful clothing; not strong, but can be surprisingly effective with an umbrella; thinks he's a good driver, but is actually terrifying behind the wheel."

There isn't a spec for that...

And sure, I can probably make something work, with modifications and Talent swaps, but if I have to swap even one Talent it's just easier to ditch the entire thing.

These seem like rather complex fixes, when Fantasy Flight itself has given precedence for gaining talents that aren't part of any specialization tree.

Exhibit A: Battle Scars, from Forged In Battle - when you heal a critical injury the GM may, at their own discretion, allow you to pay some amount of XP to gain an out-of-career talent.

Exhibit B: Quick Path To Power - A GM may allow a player to spend 30 XP at character creation to buy a rank of Force Rating, allowing them to start as a Jedi Knight or Jedi General.

I could also see the "Mastering a Technique" rules from Keeping the Peace coming into play, if you want to give PCs a way to learn certain talents outside their specializations. Or just let the PCs buy the talent outright, if it's restricted to a specialization that doesn't fit your campaign.

Alternatively, you could gate certain essential talents by skill rank. Perhaps you need 1 rank in a Piloting skill to buy Barrel Roll, 2 to take Improved Barrel, and 3 to take Supreme.

The biggest problem with denying out of career specs ist that some Careers have specs that don't fit so well together.
Bounty Hunter has one "fits everywhere" spec while the other specs are very specific and will drive the Character even more Jack of all trades.
The same is true for the Colonist.
So if you fear the lack of scarcity - just wait for the first chars to come up like:

Colonist: Marshall, Doctor, Politico
Explorer: Archaeologist, Big-Game Hunter, Driver
Bounty Hunter: Gadgeteer, Operator, Assassin

They will end up all over the place and be super Jack of all trades. If you restrict for the sake of specialization - this won't work out hat well - most specialized builds I've seen were specialized by taking the fitting specs from 3 or more careers.

Just assume someone wants to be the Medic/Doctor in what career he will find more than one medical oriented spec?
Will this lead to more or less Jack of all Trades in the Case of the Medic?

On 1/1/2020 at 6:31 AM, abookfulblockhead said:

These seem like rather complex fixes, when Fantasy Flight itself has given precedence for gaining talents that aren't part of any specialization tree.

Exhibit A: Battle Scars, from Forged In Battle - when you heal a critical injury the GM may, at their own discretion, allow you to pay some amount of XP to gain an out-of-career talent.

Exhibit B: Quick Path To Power - A GM may allow a player to spend 30 XP at character creation to buy a rank of Force Rating, allowing them to start as a Jedi Knight or Jedi General.

I could also see the "Mastering a Technique" rules from Keeping the Peace coming into play, if you want to give PCs a way to learn certain talents outside their specializations. Or just let the PCs buy the talent outright, if it's restricted to a specialization that doesn't fit your campaign.

Alternatively, you could gate certain essential talents by skill rank. Perhaps you need 1 rank in a Piloting skill to buy Barrel Roll, 2 to take Improved Barrel, and 3 to take Supreme.

Just a quick correction here. The Mastering a Technique rules from KtP does not allow you to take out of spec talents. What it does allow is for you to pay a partial cost for a talent (or Force Power/Upgrade) which you already qualify for .