49 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The "Strategist" tree from Lead by Example and the "Clone Commander" tree from Collapse of the Republic have the talent "Clever Commander" which allows the player to use Knowledge (Warfare) instead of Leadership to upgrade Mass Combat checks. "Calm Commander" from the "Figurehead" tree allows the player to use Cool and "Cruel Commander" from the "Separatist Commander" tree allows the player to use Coercion.

Yes. But base that isnt what you use. So i would say if they are using knowlege warfate for boosts they cant use it in place.of leadership

The only custom skill I've ever considered introducing to a game was a Performance skill - covering everything from playing music, to painting, etc. I considered it for a player character that was trying to make it as a stand-up comedian and wanted to go all-in on social skills rather than combat but in the end opted to let it fall under Charm (for the comedy anyway, for something like dancing Coordination would be better). There really isn't much that can't be covered by an existing skill - and anything that can't can usually be adjusted ad-hoc by swapping out the related characteristic for that skill in a particular scenario.

In the example given in the OP - Knowledge (Warfare) is the skill to keep, but expanding its use so it draws upon Intellect, Cunning or even Willpower in different scenarios could help in making rolls feel more dynamic depending on the circumstances (and reward players who force their opponents to make opposed Warfare rolls using a characteristic that they're great at but their opponent isn't - Admiral Ozzel probably had reasonably high Intellect but soon fell apart when he had to roll opposed Warfare checks against the rebels using his Cunning).

On 9/7/2019 at 5:17 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Because I like the idea of the opposed check, and this fixes the balance issue of using Warfare for both.

This isn't a Balance issue. You have created a problem for yourself by adding an extra roll, when the normal Mass Combat check is a single check which represents your characters ability to plan the strategy, lead the battle, and adapt to the situation on the fly.

You are calling it a balance issue because you want multiple rolls. The logical conclusion of this process is Mass Combat should be completely reworked. If you are rolling for strategy before the battle why not roll for each unit in combat? Why not have rolls to account for communications difficulty?

17 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That's what I'm doing, I'm just adjusting a talent for balance reasons.

Is there really a need for balancing? Why do you think it is unbalanced? As a GM I take care, that the players don't find a box with thermal detonators in every street corner they look into, but in your case I'd be afraid to weaken the character in an inappropriate way.

4 hours ago, Vader is Love said:

Is there really a need for balancing? Why do you think it is unbalanced? As a GM I take care, that the players don't find a box with thermal detonators in every street corner they look into, but in your case I'd be afraid to weaken the character in an inappropriate way.

It gives the "Clever Commander" talent too much power because it allows you to focus on just one skill, whereas all other Mass Combat built characters have to split their xp over two skills.

7 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It gives the "Clever Commander" talent too much power because it allows you to focus on just one skill, whereas all other Mass Combat built characters have to split their xp over two skills.

It's supposed to give the character with Clever Commander more power than someone who doesn't have the talent. That's what talents do . They make you inherently better than someone who doesn't have that talent. You're trying to hamstring your players.

15 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's supposed to give the character with Clever Commander more power than someone who doesn't have the talent. That's what talents do . They make you inherently better than someone who doesn't have that talent. You're trying to hamstring your players.

You are misunderstanding, I'm talking about giving them too much more power after the change. And the change I suggested to it does anything but hamstring the players.

Quote

Use Knowledge (Warfare) for the opposed check. In order to avoid one skill for both parts of Mass Combat, replace the Clever Commander talent that allows the character to use Knowledge (Warfare) for Mass Combat with "Flexible Commander" (or "Adaptable Commander"): Once per Mass Combat after a phase, may (spend 1 Destiny Point, make a Hard Leadership(?) check, take X strain) and re-roll the opposed check.

What do you think? Also, I need some help with the details (as you can see). It would go into the Strategist tree at square 2B and because of how the tree is built, it would cost a minimum of 25 XP to get to it.

It would also go into the Clone Commander tree at square 3B.

On 9/10/2019 at 6:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You are misunderstanding, I'm talking about giving them too much more power after the change. And the change I suggested to it does anything but hamstring the players.

It would also go into the Clone Commander tree at square 3B.

I get exactly what you're saying. I'm saying I disagree with that assessment. All of the talents, skills, specs, etc are heavily play-tested. This is true of pretty much all RPGs. I may disagree with how they handled some of their ships, but the system, as a whole, is well play-tested for play balance. The talent dies exactly as it is intended to do. It's intended to grant a significant advantage for the very reason that it gives that character a capability most characters don't have, and they pay the XP to do so.

20 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I get exactly what you're saying. I'm saying I disagree with that assessment. All of the talents, skills, specs, etc are heavily play-tested. This is true of pretty much all RPGs. I may disagree with how they handled some of their ships, but the system, as a whole, is well play-tested for play balance. The talent dies exactly as it is intended to do. It's intended to grant a significant advantage for the very reason that it gives that character a capability most characters don't have, and they pay the XP to do so.

Yes, the talent is balanced. What I'm adding, in this case, unbalances it. One demonstration of such being that "Cruel Commander" and "Calm Commander" do the same thing as "Clever Commander" but they are not the same skill as used for the strategy check, so the player still has to invest in 2 different skills for the 2 different parts.

34 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yes, the talent is balanced. What I'm adding, in this case, unbalances it. One demonstration of such being that "Cruel Commander" and "Calm Commander" do the same thing as "Clever Commander" but they are not the same skill as used for the strategy check, so the player still has to invest in 2 different skills for the 2 different parts.

And what I and others are saying is that no, it doesn't unbalance things. Just because you're using the same skill for two different rolls does not make things unbalanced.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And what I and others are saying is that no, it doesn't unbalance things. Just because you're using the same skill for two different rolls does not make things unbalanced.

I still believe that it does unbalance it, but aside from that, I think that since I'm adding a strategy phase and basically defining the normal phase as your ability to command your troops it makes sense to have possibly Cool (Calm Commander) and Warfare for the strategy phase and Leadership and Coercion (Cruel Commander) for the commanding phase.

9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I still believe that it does unbalance it, but aside from that, I think that since I'm adding a strategy phase and basically defining the normal phase as your ability to command your troops it makes sense to have possibly Cool (Calm Commander) and Warfare for the strategy phase and Leadership and Coercion (Cruel Commander) for the commanding phase.

Whether you "believe" it might unbalance things does not mean it actually does unbalance things.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Whether you "believe" it might unbalance things does not mean it actually does unbalance things.

I believe, my opinion, etc. I try (and sometimes fail) to avoid stating things as fact unless I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that what I am positing is, in fact, a fact.
That doesn't mean that when I posit something as a fact that my mind can't be changed though.