Hi everyone,

Here's the week 7 update for the beta. I'd like to direct your attention to a final revision to pricing for talents and specializations.

Excellent clarifications on maintaining Move and I think it's a good call to make the base Move power short (but I have a question).

One thing. It says:

Force Power: Move, Control Upgrade (pages 184-185):
Increase the range of the Move Basic Power to Short.

So is this only with the Control Upgrade or is Basic move going from engaged to short even if you don't have the control upgrade?

usgrandprix said:

Yeah, that's confusing. Is it the Basic power that's being upgraded? And if so, are we losing a Control upgrade /slash/ does the missing Control upgrade do something different now?

Also: now specializations are too expensive I felt like before they were just accessible enough to get two, maybe 3, specializations at the expensive of increasing characteristics. Now I feel that they've been put out of reach in terms of pricing, and now it only makes sense to pump characteristics at character creation, ignoring extra specializations until you start playing.

I'm confused, with the droids, were they supposed to get the Durable talent? I can't seem to find an Enduring talent. I like the skill change, but I feel that the new cost of specializations is really restrictive to characters who want to be more than one trick ponies. It also doesn't address the issue of having to choose your specializations in a certain order so as to get the most out of your points.

I'm also confused about the change to the Control Upgrade that makes the Move Basic Power short range, which upgrade was this added to?

Hi Testers,

The Enduring Talent used to be named "Resilient." This was changed in an earlier update and this change can also be found in the errata document on page 4.

We apologize about the confusion with the Move basic power change. Yes, this has nothing to do with its control upgrade, and is simply a change to the basic power.

awayputurwpn said:

I agree with you on this. I still think the original cost of specializations (# of specs x 5) with a +10XP kicker would be the optimal solution, particularly with non-career skills going back to their original pricing, which was one of the big draws of choosing non-career specs, to get those skills as career skills.

I certainly applaud the updates to the Move Basic Power, both in terms of its range and being able to maintain the powers' effects.

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Cool. Also, what do we do now with the range upgrades? Leave them be?

Week 7 update is awesome. I whole-heartedly agree with all changes made. I especially like the force move update, for totally ego-centric reasons.

The devs still need to address the following issues, in order of decreasing priority:

1. Fix the dice mechanics. [Top priority]
2. Auto-fire is too powerful.
3. Mild skill consolidation.
4. Droids still need a boost (though the E nduring talent makes a lot of sense, there's a long way to go).
5. Damage scaling between characters, vehicles, and starships feels clunky, and could afford some tweaking.
6. Provide a use for vigilance for force powers.
7. Add specialization career skills for Force Exiles. [Lowest priority]

Proposed solutions, respective to list above:

1. Either address source of the problem (distribution of symbols on the dice), OR re-balance ability costs, maneuvers, defense, etc to reflect the source (player vs luck vs GM ruling) and actual effect (numerical advantage provided) of the abilities.
2. Increase cost to activate AF. Regardless, please make changes in small increments: start with increasing the adv cost to 2, then re-evaluate.
3. Officially break rigid ties between skills and attributes. Allow the appropriate attribute for a skill to vary by the task at hand. This will allow consolidation of pilot skills, vigilance/perception/surveillance['s old uses], and potentially others.
4. Consider giving Droids either a set of integrated equipment starting packages, about 2 per class OR provide droids with a credit allowance at creation to purchase integrated equipment.
5. Create new damage scale "Speeder" or "Vehicle" for Landspeeders, airspeeders, AT-PTs, etc. Ratio of character:speeder:starship scale something around 1:5:10. TIE's and AT-ATs can stay "Starship" scale. Or just scale armor value to silhouette or something.
6. This description hasn't been removed from the Vigilance tree, and I think the majority of players feel that adding discipline uses to the Influence and Move powers was generally positive. Provide similar uses for Vigilance to the Sense power (either default or via control upgrades).
7. Discipline and Vigilance should be the minimum of the Force Exile's spec skill list. This can allow the removal of the Insight talent. This frees a talent slot in the tree to add a "Clear your mind" talent or other talent.

But again, great work on this update. Keep this up and it'll be ready to ship in short order!

-WJL

PS Thank you again for fixing the forum's text editing bug.

Donovan Morningfire said:

That was the exact reason it had to be changed. New specs should be taken to represent substantial character growth and change, not for a discount on skill prices.

Besides, the OOC cost of skills is back to it's original, and really pretty dirt cheap, price.

-WJL

awayputurwpn said:

Curious about that myself, unless the intent is for Move to be viable in vehicle/space combat, which has an added range category that character-scale ranges don't have.

LethalDose said:

And what of those character concepts best served by blending two specializations at the start, even if they're from the same career? Given how little I've seem folks jump into multiple careers at character creation (with the noted exception of power-gamers trying to exploit the system), I really don't see how this most recent revision is needed, behind shoehorning players into staying within certain career boundaries.

This current update also really screws over anyone wanting to play a Force-Sensitive character, as they now have to pay 30 XP to get a trait that does them zero good without spending even more starting XP.

Granted, I've deep-sixed the official rules on official specialization costs when it comes to becoming Force-Sensitive (as well as constructing additional Force specializations), but not everyone's gone that route.

After this, I'm starting to see why Venkelos feels there's a definite anti-Jedi bias in this game. It's one thing to want Force-sensitives to be rare, which is already covered by the bit of text that says "ask your GM's permission before making a Force-Sensitive PC, it's something a bit different to be forced to spend nearly a third of your starting XP (closer to a fourth of it if you're Human) for a trait that provides no real benefit unless you spend even more XP. At least with a regular non-career spec, you get a few new career skills which will generally be far more useful than the basic ability of a Force Power.

The upgrade to the Move Basic Power does counteract this, as it's gone from "nifty party trick" to marginally useful, only requiring a minimum of 2 FPs to be useful in combat (1 to activate, 1 for a Strength Upgrade) rather than three that were needed previously (1 to activate, 1 for Strength, 1 for Range), as well as the sidebar on maintaining the power. Nice to see that the developers agreed with my sentiment that under most circumstances, the power lasts as long as it's needed within reason (several minutes is as good a guideline as any for "Jedi Boy is getting carried away with carrying stuff along"), with the Ongoing Effect option for combat encounters.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Well, 3 points:

1. If the OOC spec is vitally important to character concept, then the player should take it, and view it as being worth the points. The new spec will likely bring substantial benefit that will make the price worth it in flexible talents skill choices. This is exactly what I meant when I said "substantial character growth and change": It's a big move, with lots of benefits, and therefore should be expensive.
2. As a GM, honestly, I will probably not count the starting spec against the cost hike, which brings the cost for the first additional spec to 10/20, where it was before, but still handles the scaling well and charges a premium for out of career. I thought this was in the revision, and it wasn't.
3. They said it's final, so there's very little point in discussing it further.

Honestly, I preferred the original system with a 3-spec limit, ability to drop old specs, permanent talents, and set spec costs; It just needed a way to improve attributes that didn't require goofy spec buying methods. But I think that this is final system is pretty damned good, too.

If you need to piss and moan about how Force users are getting shafted and you're right and the devs don't get it, there are plenty of threads for that. But as far as these numbers are concerned?

It's Done.

It's Final.

Do what you have to do to live with the facts.

Game over, man, GAME OVER!

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Sorry you feel that bringing up a possible concern of the potential consumer base, on that has been mentioned quite often, counts as "pissing and moaning," but the fact remains that it is just as much a concern as your own about how the dice math regarding Proficiency dice doesn't quite work out or how powerful Autofire currently is.

The fact that FFG is still accepting comments and suggestions regarding this Beta would be a pretty strong indication that any of the topics under discussion are "done and final." But if you want to be defeatist about it, then you're certainly welcome to do so. Just because you don't have an issue with a particular aspect of the Beta or the upgrades doesn't mean everybody else feels the same way.

Hell, the simple fact that non-career skills went back to their original, pre-update cost after extensive feedback from the playtesters regarding the escalated costs says that things are far from being "done and final" where the Beta is concerned.

So until the December 1st deadline passes, I fully intend to keep providing FFG my feedback, thoughts, and suggestions both here, on the D20 Radio Forums, and via direct e-mail, both on the existing rules and the updates made to said rules, and probably long after that point as well. After all, there are numerous game systems that have errata issued based upon player feedback, so why should EotE be any different?

LethalDose said:

That's fairly dismissive for someone posting this:

LethalDose said:

The first especially. That ship has already sailed. The starter set is at the printer, so there is no going back now. They aren't going to have one set of dice for the starter set and another for the final EotE book.

As far as the Specialization Cost is concerned, this is a change for the better. I can understand the thought that it is too expensive, but I think it works as is (now you can look at a character and know how many XP it is built with). I agree that it is still dirt cheap for that 2nd and even 3rd spec.

An easy houserule fix would be to change it to 10 x current number of specs. That would keep the same rising cost for 3rd, 4th,5th, etc that a x5 multiplier lacks.

Let's not turn this thread into a intarwebz flamewar… that's probably when the devs stop reading the thread, and we all lose.

I think the rules, as they stand now, provide an excellent framework for GM's to expand upon, if they really want to dive deeper. I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but the Jedi side of the house hasn't been neglected either - and the devs were pretty clear that Jedi weren't going to be the primary focus of this particular installment of the RPG.

Regardless, I have neutral feelings about this weeks update. The costs for extra specializations would be much more manageable with a "n-1" approach… that is to say, reword the update on page 2 to say something like:

" Purchasing an additional specialization within a character’s career costs ten times the total number of specializations he would possess with this new specialization, not including the first specialization purchased at character creation." or just "… minus one. "

… such that " a character with one specialization could purchase a second career specialization for 10 experience. If he wished to purchase a third career
specialization, it would cost 20 experience…" and " a character with one specialization could purchase a second–non-career–specialization for 20 experience. If he had two specializations already, a third specialization that was also a non-career specialization would cost 30 experience."

The update to droids is helpful, but I'm not sure it completely offsets their XP deficiet.

NEXT UP

LethalDose said:

All of this - especially the top 4 you listed - are great suggestions and I'm onboard. Although I would probably make some minor changes to include more space combat updates as my #5… the remaining ones (scaling, jedi stuff) are less critical but still worth looking at.

1. Fix the dice mechanics >> triumph counts at 3 successes; despair counts as 3 failures

2. Auto-fire is too powerful >> increase cost to 2 advantage

3. Mild skill update >> some consolidation, some additions (i.e. demolitions)

4. Droids still need a boost >> more starting XP or can train up to rank 3 skills at creation

5. Gain the Advantage is too powerful >> specify a one-round duration, and allow for choice of defense zone OR mitigating evasive manuevers

6. Damage scaling between characters, vehicles, and starships >> 1/5/10 ratio

7. Provide a use for vigilance for force powers >> "yes, you packed your lightsaber" jkjk

8. Add specialization career skills for Force Exiles >> discipline, vigilance, perception, lightsaber(!?!??!?/1111?//1?)

I'm also feeling twice-weekly updates on Tuesday and Friday from here on out to December 1st.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Exalted5 said:

Doc, the Weasel said:

Yeah, its supposed to be dismissive.

Doc, the Weasel said:

If you read the recommendations I made in that same post, I explicitly listed two possible solutions for number one. One addresses the dice, the other addresses the mechanics dependent on the dice. In all likelihood, yeah, we're probably stuck with the dice the way they made them, and have been for the last 3 weeks since they announced that the beginners set was at the printers.

For the record, that ******* sucks.

This is going to lead to balance problems that players are already finding. This is going to lead to players gaming the system.

If one set of mechanics (the dice) are already immutable, then problems have to be fixed in a different set of mechanics (game rules/symbol interpretation)., hence:

LethalDose said:

Its not the ideal fix, but its probably what we're stuck with. And it really REALLY needs to happen.

Doc, the Weasel said:

Sounds like a great idea, all you gotta do is get some support.

Exalted5 said:

LethalDose said:

-WJL

Exalted5 said:

Regarding this suggestion, not counting the PC's initial spec would be a definite step in the right direction in terms of cost, as helps curtail system abuse while not totally discouraging players from making off-kilter character ideas, such as a tech-savvy Bounty Hunter that's also an expert pilot (BH career with Gadgeteer as the initial spec and Pilot purchased at character creation). Still expensive (20 XP for buying a non-career spec), but not prohibitively so, particularly with the focus being on buying up your Characteristics at character creation over buying skills, talents, or even other specializations.

Regarding Dice Mechanics, one alternative option would be alter things so that extra successes have one of two effects, either accomplish the task faster (non-combat skills) or deal more damage (combat skills), with everything else being the purview of Advantages, as the math (particularly where Boost Dice are concerned) appear to lean more towards generating Advantages over Successes. As for Triumphs, I think just providing the option to treat the "turn the tide" aspect as 3 extra successes if no other option presents itself (highly unlikely unless dealing with a profoundly unimaginative player). Despair I think is powerful enough, since effects that can really screw over the players should be fairly limited, particularly as one of the effects is "tool or melee weapon being used is damaged" and the other is "ranged weapon runs out of ammo," both of which are pretty nasty thing to happen to a PC.

For skills, the main one I think that can stand to go is Cool, as that skill's functions can be split between Discipline (simply changing which Characteristic is used based on what is being resisted) and Vigilance (initiative). Demolitions would be fine as a function of Mechanics rather than needing to be it's own entirely separate skill.

Autofire I will presume is still being worked on, though having it cost 2 Advantage per extra target or additional damage is a nice simple fix, with the latter also being extended to Linked, which suffers the same issue. Alternatively, have it cost extra successes to use Autofire/Linked rather than Advantages, which are less common and would also curtail the power of those two qualities.

As far as Vigilance and the "foresight to be prepared for situations," I can't help but wonder if, like the Utility Belt talent, that's left over text from an earlier draft of how Destiny Points work. The talent based upon Destiny Points only being able to allow a PC to "just happen" to have items of Rarity 1 (which most if not all of the examples given fall into) and the skill description due to a Vigilance skill check being required to spend that Destiny Point.

Can't say I agree with Force Exile getting career skills, since one of it's first tier talents adds two skills to the character's list of career skills. While I don't agree with the current costs of acquiring that specialization, I think that getting what amounts to the Force Rating talent for free just for buying the spec is a decent trade-off.

Speaking of, one possible idea regarding buying Force Exile (or any future Force-Sensitive specializations) would be allowing the player to select Force Exile as their initial free specialization rather than one typically associated with their career, provided the player has the GM's approval. You'd loose the two bonus skill ranks (meaning you'd be forced to pay XP to get 2 ranks in any given skill unless your species happens to provide a free rank in it) as well as anywhere from two to four additional career skills, but considering how much XP is being saved, I'd call it a fair trade-off. Even if not an official rule, it could be an option for GMs to consider if they feel that the costs to play a Force-Sensitive character are too steep.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Not saying I disagree about things being expensive, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I think the reasoning behind it is a matter of rules endorsing behavior.

It's one thing to put a note in a book saying that the GM should be the arbiter of what does and doesn't go for a character being Force-sensitive, but for a lot of players, it's just going to annoy them if the rules say they can easily build a Force-sensitive character, but the GM just flat-out tells them no.

For the setting feel that the designers seem to be wanting to get across, I see the logic in making it so that it should be a major character investment to have a connection to the Force, as opposed to just asking your GM nicely. Yes, the PCs are supposed to be extraordinary people, but having a connection to the Force is even more extraordinary still, and I think that, from a purely narrative standpoint, it's more impressive for a GM to make that investment worth it to the player than it is for the buy-in to be cheap and for the GM to simply feel generous in allowing it (if that makes any sense). The Force is supposed to be special, after all, and I see the logic, from a design standpoint, of wanting to make it feel special.

As to how expensive is "too expensive" (or "expensive enough," for that matter), that's something that doesn't even necessarily need to be hard-coded into the game itself. Similar to how other game systems have different suggested power levels for characters depending on the type of campaign the GM wants to run, I can easily see there being a rules option to give a higher XP budget (or, alternatively, allowing for a lower cost of entry to be Force-sensitive) for GMs who want to run games where Force use is more prevalent.

This way, accounting for personal and/or GM taste can be a part of the campaign setup from the outset, instead of the core rules being something that people feel compelled to constantly change for taste because they're not happy with them.

Rikoshi said:

It makes sense. Well said, Rikoshi.

LethalDose said:

Another thing, now that I think of it, is that making it more expensive to venture into Force-sensitivity pretty much forces a player to take a high Obligation to offset the XP cost--and that's exactly how it should be, in my opinion.

Palpatine rules the galaxy with an iron fist. Darth Vader and other Imperial agents have hunted the Jedi and other Force-users to near-extinction. Being a Force-sensitive PC should feel like you've got this big honkin' Sword of Damocles hanging over your head at all times, and the "Obligation for XP" mechanic hardwires that into the game instead of relying (solely) on GM savvy to get that feel across.

Most of what I see works here, but I think the earlier version of Specializations was expensive enough, especially considering that Specializations within a career are so closely related.

I think the main issue (at least the one we are seeing in our game and I am seeing as a GM) is the fact that some useful skills are neglected when it comes to certain Specializations. For example, I've noticed that the Smuggler does not have, in any specialization has Negotiation, Knowledge (Outer Rim) or Knowledge (Core Worlds) as career skills. The very essence of a smuggler is to move goods (legal or illegal) from one place to another, presumably for sale or trade. Without a knowledge of bargaining or skill-based gambling (Negotiation. No, Deceit is NOT a viable substitute, though it IS a good supplement to it), or where to best buy and sell these commodities (Knowledge [Outer Rim] and Knowledge [Core Worlds]-it's right in the description of each), how does a smuggler do the job? These do not make sense as non-career skills for a smuggler at all. The only currrent way to solve this is to take Non-Career specialixations which are now a bit too expensive or to house-rule them in, which may unbalance the career in comparison to other careers.

Yes, these can be taken as Non-Career skills, but some are just used too often in practice to be seen as such.

The fact that half the classes have no way to defend themselves doesn't help. The Tech having brawl is ok, but the Outlaw Tech or Slicer that CAN'T USE a weapon at all? In life itself this could be acceptable, but in an adventure game it's almost suicide. This is why most classes in earlier editions had at least a blaster pistol as a proficiency (The equivalent of a career skill here). I think this could use some work.

The argument that this is acceptable loses it's power with the fact that true characters in sci-fi shouldn't be completely limited by their careers. While there are few real ways to do this, the movies reflect a certain versatility in characters that reaches beyond a single career. Luke Skywalker was an amazing pilot, a mechanic AND a Jedi. Han Solo was a Pilot, Scoundrel AND a general. Leia Organa was a polititian, War leader AND something of a soldier. Boba Fett was an Assassin, Survivalist AND a Gadgeteer (if his armor and the fact that he PERSONALLY modified it was any indication). The only true 'one-trick ponies' were the droids, and even THEY weren't all quite that limited (At least, R-2 wasn't. I won't get into C-3PO, underappreciated though he was….).

The number of Specializations x5, or x10 for non-career specializations is expensive enough because the cheaper price applies to only TWO specializations other than what you choose at character creation. Everything else is x10, which is more than enough in my opinion.

As for Force users, I would give that particular Specialization a flat cost, rather than treat it as any other specialization. It is NOT simply another specialization because you get NO skills for it, You end up with ANOTHER characteristic which needs to be built up and all of it's powers already have a flat rate. For cost consistency if nothing else, make it a flat cost, say 20 or 25 xp.

The argument of "If the player wants to do it, then they should think it worth the cost" loses power as well in the name of fairness. As a GM, I cannot favor non-force users any more than I can favor force users. If I make a force-user pay more for what they can do, I have to make a Bounty-Hunter do the same or I fail as a GM by not being balanced in my rulings. Force-Sensitive does fundamentally change the character, but it is a curse as well as a gift, especially for those who have done the research on the positive AND negative aspects. I have never seen a non-force user driven insane by visions of a battle that happenned 1000 years ago by simply being at that location, but Force-Sensitives can STILL die or go mad from being too close to the location of Ruusan's Thought Bomb as ONE example. It's a different dynamic and should be treated as such, not just as a hard-wired extra cost, but as a roleplaying opportunity for players and GMs. Just Hard-Wiring extra cost due to circumstance or iminent danger at all times removes the very essence of role-play. If you as a GM have so much issue with a force-sensitive in your, simply dissallow it rather than punishing players for choosing it. Since the Force has been a focal point in every movie in every series EVER MADE for Star wars, and is indeed the very reason the setting is Star Wars and not 'Battlestar Galactica', it's something to consider. Difficult enough to be so hunted, and a great roleplaying opportunity for my (few) players who are willing to accept being so hunted.

A reminder to all here, this Beta version is a method in which to discuss issues players have with the system and tweak it so all can enjoy the game better. Please do not simply dismiss another's opinion because it is not agreeable to you. The simple fact is, what some would call "whining" is what this version of the game was built for, to discuss perceived issues with the system so that all players can enjoy the game better. I understand that we don't all agree, but let's not attack each other for disagreeing. Debate is fine in itself, but let's not lose our dignity here, Not to mention that if there is no chance of solving an issue, there is no reason for this thread, the Beta or any conversation on the subject at all.

Thank you all for your understanding and your time. May the force be with you.

@Dreddwulf1

I'm not going to quote your whole passage above, I hope that's okay.

I think I agree with your main point. In my own words, It seems that the career skill lists are, well, sloppy . I think the broad variety of skills kind of screwed up who got what. You raise a number of very very good points, especially re: smuggler lists. I think more care should be spent on the career/spec skill lists, and personally I think the first part of that is cleaning up skill redundancies, but I'm getting off of your point: skills are poorly distributed, especially combat skills.

Between the week 4 update and today, I would have agreed with you. But really, the current cost of a rank in an OOC skill is not as bad as you might think. There is a bit of a premium you pay, but it doesn't add up as much as I suspect you believe it does. I think a character can take enough ranks without breaking the XP bank to be at least competent. They may have to choose to focus in just one weapon, but I don't see that as an issue in non-combat oriented careers (Colonists, Techs, Explorers). They have other toys they can play with. Having the reduced, but not absent, penalty keeps characters playing to their strengths while still being able to round out their portfolios.

RE: your opinion on the Force exile… I think Rikoshi hit the nail on the head. I don't have anything to add.

-WJL