Soooo anyway … before this thread derails completely into politics and finance …
Does anyone have an argument for why XP costs should be different depending on when the spec is chosen? If they changed it would you argue against it, or is this more of a case of defending what is written?
Donovan Morningfire said:
That's hilarious! I've only eaten there once, and used it as an example because I have a gift certificate on my desk =)
darkrose50 said:
I think you're missing my point. It's not about the cost of dinner. It's about having the meal when I want it, not when it's cheapest. I could have saved more by bringing a packed lunch instead of going to PF Changs in the first place.
In game terms you're saying:
Well you shouldn't ever get a 2nd specialization because Americans spend too much XP in general.
darkrose50 said:
I apologize. I was upset over something quite serious, but completely unrelated and it seeped into my post.
Fair enough buddy, I hope everything is ok?
In a final rules set, the disparity in XP costs depending on the order you take specializations would be a bit of a deal-breaker for me, because you can actually wind up penalizing a character for roleplaying and following the story.
Say that my player has a Smuggler (Scoundrel) who we both know will one day want to become a better pilot, but in the short run he's been thinking about branching out and getting some more social skills and buying and selling advantages with the trader specialization, just to add more to the party (mostly a game system benefit.)
I introduce an NPC that the characters will be working with for a while that is an old spacer with legendary pilot skills in this part of the outer rim. My player decides that it makes more sense story-wise to take the in-career pilot specialization sooner and play it as his character learning from this legendary character I introduced. It will add to the story and the impact this NPC has on the player's character, and provide additional narrative rationale for taking the pilot specialization and having new skills or talents available.
But by taking in-career specializations he had planned to get eventually before out-of-career specializations he had also planned to get eventually, to make for a better story, he gets an XP penalty in the long run because his character's path isn't optimized any more.
If characters let their characters grow organically according to the story, they take an XP penalty per the XP cost rules, whereas in most games it's recommended you give bonuses for roleplaying.
And there isn't just an outside chance of this sometimes happening, at least for groups I've been in: our current GM for the playtest wants us to show how we're improving in skills during game sessions - we have to demonstrate that our characters are learning these skills we add to our character sheets. I've been in several groups for different games that have been like this. Opportunities to take in-career specializations could come up in the narrative before opportunities to take out-of-career specializations. In fact, that seems likely to me because most campaigns start small in terms of story and then branch out.
I have to respectfully disagree with those who say it's not much of an issue. It's a potential XP penalty for developing your character through roleplaying rather than meticulous character building.
Illya Mar said:
In a final rules set, the disparity in XP costs depending on the order you take specializations would be a bit of a deal-breaker for me, because you can actually wind up penalizing a character for roleplaying and following the story.
Say that my player has a Smuggler (Scoundrel) who we both know will one day want to become a better pilot, but in the short run he's been thinking about branching out and getting some more social skills and buying and selling advantages with the trader specialization, just to add more to the party (mostly a game system benefit.)
I introduce an NPC that the characters will be working with for a while that is an old spacer with legendary pilot skills in this part of the outer rim. My player decides that it makes more sense story-wise to take the in-career pilot specialization sooner and play it as his character learning from this legendary character I introduced. It will add to the story and the impact this NPC has on the player's character, and provide additional narrative rationale for taking the pilot specialization and having new skills or talents available.
But by taking in-career specializations he had planned to get eventually before out-of-career specializations he had also planned to get eventually, to make for a better story, he gets an XP penalty in the long run because his character's path isn't optimized any more.
If characters let their characters grow organically according to the story, they take an XP penalty per the XP cost rules, whereas in most games it's recommended you give bonuses for roleplaying.
And there isn't just an outside chance of this sometimes happening, at least for groups I've been in: our current GM for the playtest wants us to show how we're improving in skills during game sessions - we have to demonstrate that our characters are learning these skills we add to our character sheets. I've been in several groups for different games that have been like this. Opportunities to take in-career specializations could come up in the narrative before opportunities to take out-of-career specializations. In fact, that seems likely to me because most campaigns start small in terms of story and then branch out.
I have to respectfully disagree with those who say it's not much of an issue. It's a potential XP penalty for developing your character through roleplaying rather than meticulous character building.
I completely agree.
Doc, the Weasel said:
A cleaner way would be to have non-career specs cost just 10 xp more than an in-career one (5*num of specs +10).
idea - being a player in a current EotE campaign its frustrating to feel like I have to jump to an out-of-career specialisation first …unless I want to shorthand myself on xp …
Your mistake…let you characters progress the way they want to make the character they envision…
Its your job to empower their ability to play the game they want within reason. It is completely reasonable that if my smuggler wants to become a medic, then you as the GM should allow that possibility to happen…
Argh…a reply to a specific post still goes at the end?
Grrr…that last post was in response to the guy who said he wouldn't let any player take an out of class specialty without a darn good reason…
As for the problem at hand…it isn;t that big a deal…assuming the devs don't fix this…which they probably will…it isn;t hard to house rule it out.
A fixed addition for out of class after the multiplier is easy and balanced.
mjprogue1 said:
Argh…a reply to a specific post still goes at the end?
That's pretty typical BBS mode of operation. And has been for decades, except for a few odd ones (the old CIS and Delphi Forums come to mind)
mjprogue1 said:
Grrr…that last post was in response to the guy who said he wouldn't let any player take an out of class specialty without a darn good reason…
I agree, that's unreasonable as a GM. Archetypes, however, are part of Star Wars, and meshing them is always something to consider carefuly. Ask "Why?"