Hey everybody. I haven't posted here in years and years. This'll be a long post, so I'll summarize at the top.

EDITED: I have put together a draft of a Consular Career Tree, to illustrate what I would be going for. You can check it out here:
Consular Career Tree _____ __________________________________________________________________________________________


TL;DR: I would like to homebrew a system where each of the 18 Careers has a single Talent Tree (a Career Talent Tree). which would be a condensed version of their Specializations from the RAW. I'm looking for input about this project, which is just an idea right now.

_________

I'm getting back into these product lines, preparing to run a KOTOR campaign for my friends.

Looking at everything that's out now, I'm amazed by all the tools the communities have come up with. You can tell there's real love for this game. And I've always loved this game too! I love the dice and the whole idea of the mechanics.

Like many, I don't love the splitting of the game into three parts. I think I like to call a spade a spade here and say that this was part of a strategy - which Fantasy Flight Games does to perfection anyway with everything - of maximizing what the players will want to purchase.

I've heard it said that you can't fit all of their game into one book, all three settings, all the careers, etc.

Except that's not true, because West End Games' d6 Roleplaying Game did that. (Fantasy Flight has even republished it). Wizards of the Coast's d20 and the subsequent SAGA Edition did that too.

Yes both of those games had their extra sourcebooks and what not. FFG's game does too.

But don't worry, this isn't a big gripe fest of a post.

It's more of a musing, an idea, a brainstorm, a prompt.

If you look at one of these games - EotE, AoR, F&D, you see that that each book has 6 Careers, and each Career has 3 Specializations. What this means is that each book has 18 Specializations (of course) filling out that space. The basics of How to Play & Game Mastering and much of the Equipment and whatnot are the same.

So here's what I'm "proposing". As a homebrew project that I would have interest in taking a shot at, if nothing else.

1 Book, 18 Careers. Each Career has its own Talent Tree. No Specializations. That means that there's a Smuggler's Talent Tree. A Guardian Talent Tree. A Soldier Talent Tree, etc.

What this would have ended up creating, if Fantasy Flight had done it, would be a Core Rulebook roughly the same size as each individual Core Rule Book, but one that actually gives you the complete Star Wars setting in all its flavors. Morality, Duty and Obligation can all be provided as optional rules depending on the type of adventure that the Game Master wants to run. The adversaries would be condensed. The built-in adventure would be more encompassing in its theme.

Of course, I'm probably not going to type up my own complete Core Rulebook (though I'm tempted, at least I type fast), and if I did I wouldn't share it because legal.

But I AM interested in making homebrew Talent Trees of each Career which are condensed "best of" examples. Meaning, each Tree would be the same size as any Talent Tree that currently exists. Ranked Talents would no longer be Ranked. Instead they would be a powerful singular version. For example, take Convincing Demeanor. As written this Talent removes a number of Setback Dice per rank of the talent from any Deception or Skulduggery check. In a new condensed, enhanced, Career Talent Tree, this Talent would remove ALL Setback Dice from Deception and Skulduggery checks. It's a one-time Setback negation Talent.

I'm thinking Careers will retain the normal Career Skills they already have (8 for Non Jedi, 6 for Jedi). The player will be able to start with a free rank in 6 of these.

Species XP wouldn't even need to be adjusted really, as a new Level 1 Character would still have the same amount of stuff. From the perspective of the player who owns 1 Book (and not 3), there wouldn't even be less options (18 Talent Trees), just less options WITHIN each Career. And the options would represent the entirety of the Star Wars setting. Which, personally, I think I would enjoy and prefer.

XP Rewards MIGHT need to be adjusted. I kind of don't think so though.

How you attain a Force Rating if you don't start as Jedi may need to a change (for characters that want to replicate the Luke Skywalker-like journey). I'm not sure having a Universal Force Talent tree like Emergent or Exile would be necessary under such a system. Maybe!

I think probably what I would do is allow the player to choose additional Careers for 30 XP, and implement one of the following options:

1) if you choose one of the 6 Jedi Careers as a second career, that grants you a Force Rating of 1.

OR

2) If you start as a Non-Jedi, the Force Rating could be bought with 20 XP, and this grants the user access to Force Powers, but only the Basic Power (none of the upgrades), unless you take on one of the six "Jedi" careers. This is for the hero that wants to be Force Sensitive for some of those added perks and themes, but doesn't want to commit to it as a Career. For example, Leia Organa. (Create a Character, choose Spy. Pretty quickly, buy Force Rating 1. At high level branch out into Commander).

OR

3) As number 2 but instead of purchasing a Force Rating, you can purchase the Force Sensitive Talent Tree, which would be a condensed version of Exile and Emergent from the RAW.

So there'd be 18 Career Talent Trees, possibly 2 Universal Trees (Recruit and Force Sensitive), and Force Power Trees.

I know not everyone feels this way, but I don't like the huge amount of choices. I don't like the bloat. I like having deep options, but I want to be able to present this game to new players without it seeming overwhelming.

Any thoughts and/or advice would be appreciated.

Note: this isn't how I'm going to run my game. I would do be doing this knowing it will be time consuming, and purely for fun. If I finish it and it works out, awesome.

Addendum: And I don't want to feel overwhelmed by it either. Often times when I buy a "Beginner" Game, I really enjoy the streamlined rules. And then I am encouraged to buy the "Full Game", which I like less. I've felt this way about D&D and Pathfinder. Why couldn't the whole game be like the Beginner Game? With FFG's Star Wars Beginnner Games, you have these premade characters that have Talent Trees which exemplify what I'm talking about to some degree. I've even enjoyed less skills (Piloting & Knowledge, for example). If the Beginner Game had a Character Creation system, I would prefer it to the Core Rulebook honestly. The truth is, there's a lot of people like me, I think, who have a lot of experience with RPGs, but have developed a fondness for simplicity. Sometimes it feels like this wonderful game is trying to be narrative based, and in some areas has succeeded, but hasn't quite gotten there. When you've played Cubicle 7's The One Ring, or Margaret Weis's Marvel Heroic Roleplaying or the wonderful new product Quest RPG (especially), then games like this one, or D&D 5th Edition, really don't feel as narrative or approachable as others make them out to be, in my opinion.

Best of luck to you but I prefer options and think that if it was just limited to one tree per career it would be to restrictive. If anything, look at the options where people to the Genesys open talent format and use that for Star Wars.

Still, I'll be interested in seeing what you come up with

16 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

So there'd be 18 Career Talent Trees, possibly 2 Universal Trees (Recruit and Force Sensitive), and Force Power Trees.

I know not everyone feels this way, but I don't like the huge amount of choices. I don't like the bloat. I like having deep options, but I want to be able to present this game to new players without it seeming overwhelming.

Any thoughts and/or advice would be appreciated.

Note: this isn't how I'm going to run my game. I would do be doing this knowing it will be time consuming, and purely for fun. If I finish it and it works out, awesome.

This is an interesting pursuit, but I think it'll be a lot of wasted effort. I also think your assertion that there are too many options is in error. As a new player (with access to only 1 CRB because I was a new player), the process was pretty simple. What do you want to play? Soldier? Okay, here're three options. It didn't feel overwhelming at all. As I got into it more, then I really delved into the details and the options, but I don't think it's really all that daunting for new players.

One of the difficulties with condensing it into a single talent tree is that many careers have radically different specializations inside of them. Smuggler has Gunslinger, Pilot, and Charmer just as an example, or look at Technician: Mechanic and Slicer.

If you try to condense all of this down into one tree, it will either be huge and overwhelming or not actually be that good. You also end up having characters that are jack-of-all-trades within their career, limiting the ability to have multiple characters of the same career. I have a campaign now that has 3 Engineers/Technicians. They are quite different because of their different specs, but if they were using an Engineer talent tree or a Technician talent tree, those differences would be nearly non-existent. There is also the problem of characters having a bunch of talents that they don't actually want and that don't actually fill out their concept.

If you want to do this, here's my advice: Look at the beginner box character folios. They each have a 3-tier career talent tree unique from the specialization talent trees. Modify those as necessary and maybe fill it out to a full tree. Then allow your players to purchase specializations to add to that. If you limit them to the one tree, they are quickly locked in with no real room for expansion, or else very slow progression.

15 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

This is an interesting pursuit, but I think it'll be a lot of wasted effort. I also think your assertion that there are too many options is in error. As a new player (with access to only 1 CRB because I was a new player), the process was pretty simple. What do you want to play? Soldier? Okay, here're three options. It didn't feel overwhelming at all. As I got into it more, then I really delved into the details and the options, but I don't think it's really all that daunting for new players.

One of the difficulties with condensing it into a single talent tree is that many careers have radically different specializations inside of them. Smuggler has Gunslinger, Pilot, and Charmer just as an example, or look at Technician: Mechanic and Slicer.

If you try to condense all of this down into one tree, it will either be huge and overwhelming or not actually be that good. You also end up having characters that are jack-of-all-trades within their career, limiting the ability to have multiple characters of the same career. I have a campaign now that has 3 Engineers/Technicians. They are quite different because of their different specs, but if they were using an Engineer talent tree or a Technician talent tree, those differences would be nearly non-existent. There is also the problem of characters having a bunch of talents that they don't actually want and that don't actually fill out their concept.

P-47 Thunderbolt ...

Wasted Effort: It would be fun for me, so it won't be waste no matter what!

Character Creation is simple: I agree that it's simple to create a character! I agree with that. What feels overwhelming is returning to the game and looking at the game from the perspective of these 3 Core Rulebooks, with their 54 Specializations + more from other sources. I'm not suggesting that any of this will be overwhelming to everyone. But it feels very unwieldy to me, and it all ties into the redundancy that happens between these three Core books that I think could have been 1 Core book. The idea is: here's how this could have been 1 Core book

Radically different specializations: Yes, each Career will have a lot of variety, just as they currently do.

Huge and Overwhelming or Not Actually That Good: Well, they won't be huge, because that would defeat the purpose and would be the opposite of condensing. Whether it will be actually that good, I guess we would see!

I really feel like if the game had released with this design nobody would be pining for multiple trees per class.

The idea would be that you could create different different types of Smugglers from within the one tree.

As Varlie said this would feel restrictive to anyone that didn't like the idea. For me, it would feel more focused, neat and approachable. Above all, and this for me is the real point of it, it would put this whole game into 1 book, in theory.

Lack of Variety: If you compare this system to the RAW, yes, you will always lose character diversity. There are a dizzying number of options for character diversity as is! And it's really cool, don't get me wrong. But if you look at it from the perspective of imagining what the game is if it had always been this way (Career Trees), then you end up with a more focused, streamlined design, and the variety is there because you have 18 different Careers to choose from. And if you look at it from the perspective of the whole game, you actually have a lot more variety from a thematic perspective! You have Bounty Hunters and Jedi Consulars and Rebel Spies in the same game.

I think that's an important point I want to emphasize here ... The idea would be to use these trees as part of a Homebrew system which unites the three games into one game that would actually be a feasible page count. I realize that might seem strange as I'm not releasing a book to the public.

1 minute ago, DylanRPG said:

Character Creation is simple: I agree that it's simple to create a character! I agree with that. What feels overwhelming is returning to the game and looking at the game from the perspective of these 3 Core Rulebooks, with their 54 Specializations + more from other sources. I'm not suggesting that any of this will be overwhelming to everyone. But it feels very unwieldy to me, and it all ties into the redundancy that happens between these three Core books that I think could have been 1 Core book. The idea is: here's how this could have been 1 Core book

Well, if you want some advice on making it not overwhelming, just look at it as 3 multiple choice questions: Jedi, Rebel, Fringer. Then, Careers 1-6. Then pick a specialization. After you've played for a bit and are ready to pick a new spec, you'll probably know what you're looking for.

3 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

Radically different specializations: Yes, each Career will have a lot of variety, just as they currently do.

Huge and Overwhelming or Not Actually That Good: Well, they won't be huge, because that would defeat the purpose and would be the opposite of condensing. Whether it will be actually that good, I guess we would see!

I really feel like if the game had released with this design nobody would be pining for multiple trees per class.

The idea would be that you could create different different types of Smugglers from within the one tree.

How big are you thinking of making the tree? 4x5 like it is now? As far being able to create different types of smugglers within the same tree, you can , but you also run out of room to expand so the high-level characters bleed together in terms of the "special" things they can do.
Another issue is Dedication. This game is set up for you to be able to increase your characteristics multiple time through Dedication, but if you only get a single tree, that becomes much more difficult to work out.

I'd say the bottom line here is that it puts a cap on character development.

16 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If you want to do this, here's my advice: Look at the beginner box character folios. They each have a 3-tier career talent tree unique from the specialization talent trees. Modify those as necessary and maybe fill it out to a full tree. Then allow your players to purchase specializations to add to that. If you limit them to the one tree, they are quickly locked in with no real room for expansion, or else very slow progression.

Those character folios are very telling, I feel. I agree that they would be a useful thing to look at But I'm not adding multiple specializations for 1 career, that moves away from the purpose.

You would be able to take on multiple careers though. In practice this really works the same way as in the RAW, just the terminology is different (you don't "buy a new Specialization", you "buy a new Career").

Let me try to illustrate my point here ...

If you were to create a character in the RAW, and let's say you choose a Smuggler / Thief. And you play the whole game, the whole campaign as a Smuggler / Thief. You never buy a new Specialization.

Do you feel limited? Do you feel locked in with no room for expansion?

In my concept, this is what's happening. But you shave off the "Thief" as an official designation. If you want to play your Smuggler that way, you can, and you can focus on the Thief archetype through the Talents you choose and the skills you develop, and your backstory and how you play your character. But just as before, you're using one Talent Tree. And you can also be a Spy or a Sentinel too if you want.

I don't think it would be a "Jack of All Trades". If you do a side-by-side comparison between 1 Smuggler Tree and 3 Smuggler Trees, yes, it's all 3-in-1! It's boiling the Smuggler down to the Smuggler Archetype, shall we say. Thematically, I don't have a burning desire to play as a Thief in Star Wars, or a Gadgeteer. But I do want to play as a Smuggler, or a Bounty Hunter.

It's not going to be for everybody. I find it to be more focused vs restrictive.

It all comes down to execution though! I appreciate your feedback and thoughts.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Well, if you want some advice on making it not overwhelming, just look at it as 3 multiple choice questions: Jedi, Rebel, Fringer. Then, Careers 1-6. Then pick a specialization. After you've played for a bit and are ready to pick a new spec, you'll probably know what you're looking for.

Sure! I am running the game as is and I have played it before. I think it's a great game.

This is a homebrew idea for these 3 "games" as 1 game, and what that would look like. Call it fan fiction, if that helps.

I'm not lost in this system and looking for a way to wrap my head around it.

I'm thinking of an alternative way of doing things.

1 minute ago, DylanRPG said:

Sure! I am running the game as is and I have played it before. I think it's a great game.

I meant "after you've played that character for a bit" not "after you've played the game for a bit."

7 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

How big are you thinking of making the tree? 4x5 like it is now? As far being able to create different types of smugglers within the same tree, you can , but you also run out of room to expand so the high-level characters bleed together in terms of the "special" things they can do.
Another issue is Dedication. This game is set up for you to be able to increase your characteristics multiple time through Dedication, but if you only get a single tree, that becomes much more difficult to work out.

I'd say the bottom line here is that it puts a cap on character development.

It would be the same size, yes, 4x5. Maybe with the Signature Ability options too.

Dedication would have to be changed too, yeah, like the Ranked Skills. That's something to look at. Probably Dedication would become a Talent that allows you to improve more than one Characteristic.

I'm not sure it puts a cap on character development, because you still have the same number of Talent Trees that you do in any one Core Rulebook.

Though for long term play, you may be right, and then I'd be looking at adjusting the recommended XP Rewards that the GM gives out. It might require slower progression. Though, with the Talents themselves becoming likely more powerful (see my note on Ranked Skills), I think this would be okay.

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I meant "after you've played that character for a bit" not "after you've played the game for a bit."

Sorry I was probably reading your post way too fast.

I should also say that under this design, it's probably going to simply be less often the case that players would choose the same Career. Anyone using this design or having fun with the idea probably go into it with the idea that everyone is going to be something different.

The game as is encourages two players to be Bounty Hunters and they can be very different kinds of Bounty Hunters that don't overlap by choosing an Assassin and a Gadgeteer. And that's one of the great strengths of the system.

You sacrifice that level of variety under my system.

If what you gain doesn't seem like a gain to you, you probably won't enjoy it.

22 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

If you were to create a character in the RAW, and let's say you choose a Smuggler / Thief. And you play the whole game, the whole campaign as a Smuggler / Thief. You never buy a new Specialization.

Do you feel limited? Do you feel locked in with no room for expansion?

No, not at all. If I play a single specialization the whole game, I'm not limited or locked in at all because it's my choice.

I think we may have conflicting paradigms here. How much earned XP do your players generally have at the end of a campaign? If you tend to run short campaigns, it won't be as much of an issue. If you run up to several hundred, it will.

22 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

I don't think it would be a "Jack of All Trades". If you do a side-by-side comparison between 1 Smuggler Tree and 3 Smuggler Trees, yes, it's all 3-in-1! It's boiling the Smuggler down to the Smuggler Archetype, shall we say. Thematically, I don't have a burning desire to play as a Thief in Star Wars, or a Gadgeteer. But I do want to play as a Smuggler, or a Bounty Hunter.

It's not going to be for everybody. I find it to be more focused vs restrictive.

It all comes down to execution though! I appreciate your feedback and thoughts.

The problem with your stated option of buying into other careers is that you don't grow up you grow out. You aren't able to focus as much into a specific realm of interest unless it is one of the more general categories like combat or social skills.

The Pilot tree has 20 talents. Let's say 10 are specific to that tree as opposed to talents like Toughened, Grit, or Dedication that are pretty much everywhere. You've also got 5 other specs in that career. Now you are fitting them all under the same roof, meaning each gets 3.3 talents to call its own. This leaves them with much, much less ability to specialize within their field.

8 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

I should also say that under this design, it's probably going to simply be less often the case that players would choose the same Career. Anyone using this design or having fun with the idea probably go into it with the idea that everyone is going to be something different.

The game as is encourages two players to be Bounty Hunters and they can be very different kinds of Bounty Hunters that don't overlap by choosing an Assassin and a Gadgeteer. And that's one of the great strengths of the system.

You sacrifice that level of variety under my system.

If what you gain doesn't seem like a gain to you, you probably won't enjoy it.

This is a big part of my problem. My campaigns tend to feature characters of a relatively similar bent, often the same career (Soldier, Bounty Hunter, Hired Gun, Engineer/Technician). They then tack on additional specs to fill out their concept and make their characters even more distinct. Even without those additional specs though, they are still quite unique because they have different specializations within the same career with different strengths and weaknesses.

I would suggest you put together a proof of concept spec for a career and get feedback. Without something to directly critique, the conversation is much more theoretical and prone to stubbornness on both sides.

35 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm not limited in at all because it's my choice.

This would be the same thing. It would be your choice. You chose a Smuggler instead of a Soldier or a Colonist or a Commander or a Mystic.

If it feels restrictive to you because I'm taking away your choices, then ... don't play in my game if I do this? It's an idea I would use. It doesn't have to be something you would use. I honestly don't feel like I'm digging my heels in or anything about this. This would be a homebrew system that people can simply ignore if they don't like it. It wouldn't change what you're doing or encroach on your game.

I have never run or been part of a campaign that went beyond 12 or 14 sessions, I would say.

I have played and especially enjoy games which have significantly less options than this one.

Your example about what the Pilot would become does indeed kind of presuppose or imagine something that doesn't work well. I'm not going to simply mash it al together and slice things out. There will be some real game design going on here. I'm not asking the community to tell me whether they think it would work. As you say I don't have an example to show. I'm asking whether it would be of interest, and any ideas you may have.

This would be a project where I would present what I have and ask for input, of course. I think that's why we're not connecting here and I why I don't really fully understand where you're coming from. What I'm hearing is that this would not interest you, which is useful to know. It doesn't have to. It doesn't sound like you would enjoy it, which is okay.

33 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

This is a big part of my problem. My campaigns tend to feature characters of a relatively similar bent, often the same career (Soldier, Bounty Hunter, Hired Gun, Engineer/Technician). They then tack on additional specs to fill out their concept and make their characters even more distinct. Even without those additional specs though, they are still quite unique because they have different specializations within the same career with different strengths and weaknesses.

It's no problem! It sounds more like a solution, really. You don't have to like my idea.

3 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

"I'm not limited in at all because it's my choice."

This would be the same thing. It would be your choice. You chose a Smuggler instead of a Soldier or a Colonist or a Commander or a Mystic.

If it feels restrictive to you because I'm taking away your choices, then ... don't play in my game if I do this? It's an idea I would use. It doesn't have to be something you would use. I honestly don't feel like I'm digging my heels in or anything about this. This would be a homebrew system that people can simply ignore if they don't like it. It wouldn't change what you're doing or encroach on your game.

I have never run or been part of a campaign that went beyond 12 or 14 sessions, I would say.

I have played and especially enjoy games which have significantly less options than this one.

Your example about what the Pilot would become does indeed kind of presuppose or imagine something that doesn't work well. I'm not asking the community to tell me whether they think it would work. As you say I don't have an example to show. I'm asking whether it would be of interest, and any ideas you may have.

This would be a project where I would present what I have and ask for input, of course. I think that's why we're not connecting here and I why I don't really fully understand where you're coming from. What I'm hearing is that this would not interest you, which is useful to know. It doesn't have to. It doesn't sound like you would enjoy it, which is okay.

I'm trying to point out the pitfalls of this method. Yes it doesn't interest me, but it's more than that. I think it causes problems for the game. The difference between me choosing to play a single spec over the course of the game (something I would probably do in a campaign of the length you mention [see below]) and only having a single spec for the career is that I can choose to expand any time I want. In this, a player is limited to what's in the tree for their career unless their concept happens to match well with another career. This limits them even if they don't want to be limited. Part of the reason for the tack of my argument is that I was taking exception to what I perceived as your assertion that this is the way the game should have been done. I obviously don't think you're forcing me to play with your houserules.

12-14 sessions would probably come out to about 200 earned XP, which isn't nearly enough to fill out a tree. In that case, have at it. It'd probably work fine. I don't generally start at a level lower than heroic (+150 XP) so as I suggested, our paradigms are different here. However, that caveat is important. If you want to go to 300 earned XP, you'll definitely be pushing the limits of your proposal.

I've edited my original post to include a draft of a Consular Career Tree I came up with to illustrate what I'm going for.

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm trying to point out the pitfalls of this method. Yes it doesn't interest me, but it's more than that. I think it causes problems for the game. The difference between me choosing to play a single spec over the course of the game (something I would probably do in a campaign of the length you mention [see below]) and only having a single spec for the career is that I can choose to expand any time I want. In this, a player is limited to what's in the tree for their career unless their concept happens to match well with another career. This limits them even if they don't want to be limited. Part of the reason for the tack of my argument is that I was taking exception to what I perceived as your assertion that this is the way the game should have been done. I obviously don't think you're forcing me to play with your houserules.

12-14 sessions would probably come out to about 200 earned XP, which isn't nearly enough to fill out a tree. In that case, have at it. It'd probably work fine. I don't generally start at a level lower than heroic (+150 XP) so as I suggested, our paradigms are different here. However, that caveat is important. If you want to go to 300 earned XP, you'll definitely be pushing the limits of your proposal.

I appreciate you trying to help, in that case. That caveat is definitely very good to keep in mind! I think adding in Signature Abilities would help a bit. I appreciate your feedback.

16 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

I've edited my original post to include a draft of a Consular Career Tree I came up with to illustrate what I'm going for.

Aside from some talents that aren't quite right,* it looks pretty good. I am not very familiar with the FaD careers though, so I'm not as qualified to critique them.

Some suggestions though: I think you went a bit heavy on Active talents (part of the problem with condensing the trees). Consulars were diplomats and arbiters, so I think you should put more of those sorts of talents in there. (Congenial, Savvy, etc.)

As for the talents you appear to have changed intentionally, I'd suggest buffing Parry to reducing 6, possibly moving it up a bit lower on the tree.

*Again, not an expert. However, I'm pretty sure Draw Closer isn't limited to 1 Force Die.

If you were to do a tree for Soldier, Bounty Hunter, Hired Gun, Technician, or Engineer, I'll be more able to give feedback as I have the experience to see when stuff isn't quite right.

Thank you, that's very helpful!

Some of the wording may be off because my limited skills made me limited for space, but some of the changes may be more intentional than you suspect, I'm not sure.

I'll take a look at Parry.

It's good feedback about Active vs Passive. There was an emphasis on Force Talents for sure. I think part of it is I have the Consular idea from Knights of the Old Republic in my head, which thematically was about being a negotiator, but in practice was about force powers (because video games). You're 100 percent right though, I need to make sure some Negotiation Talents make the cut.

I think what happened is when you break down the Specializations thematically, none of them focus on negotiation primarily - but rather all of them feature it in a supplemental way. So I was looking at making sure that the Consular was a healer, a sage and a Niman disciple, but I left out the essence (ironically) of being a Consular. So it's about editing which ones are in there. Great suggestion, I'll take out some Active talents (probably some of the lightsaber ones) and put in some passive ones which focus on this.

Draw Closer was made more limited because it was moved up the tree, but since the talents on the bottom have been increased in power, that may not have been necessary. It's a juggling act for sure.

What do you think about Grit and Toughened being where they are? Wherever I put them they kind of have to be in that row for every Career. I could see them being moved lower down, but I also thought it would be nice to get them earlier.

13 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

What do you think about Grit and Toughened being where they are? Wherever I put them they kind of have to be in that row for every Career. I could see them being moved lower down, but I also thought it would be nice to get them earlier.

Since they aren't ranked, that's a trade-off you have to make. I say leave them where they are, otherwise you're pushing more valuable talents lower down. It's just a weakness of the condensed style.

I've uploaded a new version of the tree. Things have been moved around, more negotiation themed talents were added, a couple combat focused ones were moved, and Grit and Toughened were combined into one Talent ("Tenacity"). It now increases Strain Threshold by 2 and Wound Threshold by 4.

11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Since they aren't ranked, that's a trade-off you have to make. I say leave them where they are, otherwise you're pushing more valuable talents lower down. It's just a weakness of the condensed style.

To me it's not a weakness though I like it a lot better this way. I feel like this kind of tree feels more exciting to me which each Talent acquisition feeling more significant. Some aspects of the standard trees feel underwhelming to me.

28 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

I've uploaded a new version of the tree. Things have been moved around, more negotiation themed talents were added, a couple combat focused ones were moved, and Grit and Toughened were combined into one Talent ("Tenacity"). It now increases Strain Threshold by 2 and Wound Threshold by 4.

This is much better. Tenacity is good, Force Rating as +2 is good, and the revised Dedication is also quite good. It should be specified (if it isn't already elsewhere) that those talents aren't ranked.

Kill with Kindness and Sense Emotions: I think these should probably be remove/add 2.

I think you should add Congenial (equivalent to Congenial 2) in Parry's spot, adding a line to connect it to Healing Trance and removing the lines connecting it to the "saber" side of the tree. Then put Parry in Reflect's place and Reflect in place of Sum Djem. Or make it easy on yourself and just replace Preemptive Avoidance.

32 minutes ago, DylanRPG said:

To me it's not a weakness though I like it a lot better this way. I feel like this kind of tree feels more exciting to me which each Talent acquisition feeling more significant. Some aspects of the standard trees feel underwhelming to me.

Fair enough. I think a lot of that has to do with our different paradigms, as I'm looking at it from a much higher-XP perspective than you are.

This is all extremely helpful, thank you!

Yes and agreed about different perspectives.

27 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I thiik you should add Congenial (equivalent to Congenial 2) in Parry's spot, adding a line to connect it to Healing Trance and removing the lines connecting it to the "saber" side of the tree. Then put Parry in Reflect's place and Reflect in place of Sum Djem. Or make it easy on yourself and just replace Preemptive Avoidance.

Is Reflect considered more powerful / useful than Parry because ranged attacks are more often encountered?