When AoR comes out instead of taking Smuggler to get Pilot you could take Ace. Will taking it from one or the other make a role playing difference (assuming that you only want the pilot skill). Seems like some are saying it will and others no, a pilot is a pilot

Why I think it will make a difference: becuase one person became a pilot to get money (smuggler) and one to fight the empire for the rebellion (Ace), this is a very different reason that two people come to the same end. Now, why would a Bounty Hunter become a pilot? Why would some other rebel career become a pilot? Those are examples that really flesh out a character. For example, say I was a bounty hunter assassin. It's what I did and I love, then the Empire killed my best friend. I take pilot and join the rebellion. Unlike the Ace, I wasn't always a rebel, in fact I'm a rebel becuase I want to kill Imps not free anyone. And being a pilot will help me be a better bounty hunter when this war is over and empire is gone. But Now say Im a colonist doctor, and I take Pilot, why? Maybe it is so I can go from place to place more quickly, help more people. My career is influsing why I do what I do, if I had a good crew and friends and one of them was a pilot then I would not likely take pilot myself, instead pick up maybe mecahnic, so I can help heal driods, because I love to heal, and droids need healing too.

You're asking how role-palying helps enhance the game? I'm not trying to be arguminative just asking for clarification.

But to answer, following how it is in the book helps players know how they might react in a given event.

I don't need a label on a character sheet to know how my character would react. The idea that writing "Sector Ranger" on my sheet instead of "Bounty Hunter" has one iota of effect on my roleplaying is idiotic.

Then why have the careers at all? This was something I didn't get when we were talking about non-career skill costs and getting the spec refunds. If it means nothing, then why have it? No role-player is perfect, I don't role-play to play myself, I do it to play a character and sometime I might be so caught up in what I would do, and I might need a quick, "oh yeah, bounty hunter," to help me back in character. Maybe you're that rare perfect role-palyer and you never get out of character like I do sometimes and I have to stop and say what would Benra Jaks the Twi'lek Smuggler Pilot, and not TCBC the human substitute teacher, do in this case?

Pirates most certainly do fight for money. They belong to crews that fight for shares of plundered loot. That's pretty much spot on for Hired Gun, and they are hired by the vessel's captain.

A Hired Gun doesn't mean anyone who fights for money. Do you consider people in the military Hired Guns?

Then why have the careers at all? This was something I didn't get when we were talking about non-career skill costs and getting the spec refunds. If it means nothing, then why have it? No role-player is perfect, I don't role-play to play myself, I do it to play a character and sometime I might be so caught up in what I would do, and I might need a quick, "oh yeah, bounty hunter," to help me back in character. Maybe you're that rare perfect role-palyer and you never get out of character like I do sometimes and I have to stop and say what would Benra Jaks the Twi'lek Smuggler Pilot, and not TCBC the human substitute teacher, do in this case?

1. Its a pacing mechanic for advancement. I've said this at least 2 or 3 times in the thread.

2. Just because I think the NAMES mean nothing, doesn't mean I think the groupings of abilities mean nothing. I keep saying this one too, and I'm not sure how you can miss it. I pick the career that MATCHES THE CHARACTER I AM MAKING BEST IN CAPABILITIES, not what it says on the tin.

3. I know my characters background, and their reaction is going to be a bit more nuanced than "Oh I'm a bounty hunter", so I don't see how having bounty hunter written on a character sheet means jack.

Remember, this is a game about criminals and low lives. I think in this case that was the intention of that career - a mercenary rather than a soldier. Not saying that you have to play it that way, but in general your characters are/were scum.

Remember, this is a game about criminals and low lives. I think in this case that was the intention of that career - a mercenary rather than a soldier. Not saying that you have to play it that way, but in general your characters are/were scum.

My point was that being a pirate isn't the same as being a mercenary. Hired Guns are mercenaries. I picked something that was much more stark to show what I meant.

Mercenaries are people who fight in conflicts that don't concern them in exchange for money. Pirates are attacking people with money because they want it. There is a difference.

OK. I am not disagreeing with you. Just not sure if it's worth 10 pages of discussion. Everyone is free to play the game as best suits their needs and that of their group.

Then why have the careers at all? This was something I didn't get when we were talking about non-career skill costs and getting the spec refunds. If it means nothing, then why have it? No role-player is perfect, I don't role-play to play myself, I do it to play a character and sometime I might be so caught up in what I would do, and I might need a quick, "oh yeah, bounty hunter," to help me back in character. Maybe you're that rare perfect role-palyer and you never get out of character like I do sometimes and I have to stop and say what would Benra Jaks the Twi'lek Smuggler Pilot, and not TCBC the human substitute teacher, do in this case?

1. Its a pacing mechanic for advancement. I've said this at least 2 or 3 times in the thread.

2. Just because I think the NAMES mean nothing, doesn't mean I think the groupings of abilities mean nothing. I keep saying this one too, and I'm not sure how you can miss it. I pick the career that MATCHES THE CHARACTER I AM MAKING BEST IN CAPABILITIES, not what it says on the tin.

3. I know my characters background, and their reaction is going to be a bit more nuanced than "Oh I'm a bounty hunter", so I don't see how having bounty hunter written on a character sheet means jack.

1. I get that, good point.

2. I hear that, but what I'm saying and what the BOOK says is that it is not a bunch of skills. And like I've been saying, you can ignore the book but at least be clear you are ignoring the words and intent of the book.

3. Way to read more into what I said then was there. I never said I'm going, "What does a bounty hunter do here?" I said, I would be agree that this guy is shaking down this shop owner, but my hired gun works for the same hutt, he has done this too, so even though I'm upset, my character isn't. I didn't need to refrence my career sheet, cause I was in career, but lets say it's more nuenset than that, lets say we find a sick man, and our doctor wants to stop to heal him, but we are on a mission, and its a mission we are one becuse our boss gave it to us. Now a hired gun pure would want to keep moving, but I'm still playing the character and he's not a cold hearted killer (nothing to do with career) so he agrees to stop. I'm not saying I base all my choices on my careers, but it does help me when I'm not sure, or when I've gotten out of character because of something going on at the table, or the like. and it means Jack because the writers and developers of the game say it does, you can ignore that, but at least be clear that you are ignoring it.

Edit: I did a bit of edit, it was way to forceful so if you read it before the edit, I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack and so I should be more careful with my words.

OK. I am not disagreeing with you. Just not sure if it's worth 10 pages of discussion. Everyone is free to play the game as best suits their needs and that of their group.

That's fair, and I know I can get a little heated sometimes, lol. I was just trying to say that the intent it clear, careers are meant to mean something. As an educator I struggle all the time with my students about wording and intent. And so having someone say the book doesn't make it clear that careers are supposed to matter, and then act like they aren't going against the intent (which is a fine thing to do, I house rule all the time), just rubs me wrong.

But you're right, I should take a step back.

In my group I have a couple of guys that will look at the choices they made based on career and specialization and do their damnest to role play that... With one character. With their next character they might have a strong concept in mind so the career and specializations they pick are a means to an end only. I have other players that just want to make the "best" character possible. If the issue of refunding xp comes up I could be doing everything suggested in this thread as long as no player feels like he got the short end of the stick.

I would still like an answer to my question that got all this started. Is paying more exp for non-career specs fair?

I don't really have an issue with it. My issue with the way specializations and non-career skills interact is more with preplanning is necessary to not waste points.

Since you can't buy a new career, the cost of buying the specialization doesn't really change, so there is no order of purchasing thing going on. (I mean, yes it changes if you buy another specialization before you buy that one, but to get to the same spot you would have to buy the other spec too, and you are just shifting the 10 xp from one spec to the other.)

It is from the Raw point of view. I have not played the system long enough yet to decide that anything needs to be changed considering there was a beta test so obviously everything was looked at and decided upon for balance reasons. Heck, it might even be something planned in one of the other two books that will be completely borked by changing it. I don't know so my intention is to try to play with the RAW for awhile before changing things. That said, if a player came to me and was upset about the xp cost for picking up a specialization after spending xp on several ranks of non-class skills in that tree I would probably give him a discount, if he gave me a role playing reason why and it didn't upset another player

Pirates most certainly do fight for money. They belong to crews that fight for shares of plundered loot. That's pretty much spot on for Hired Gun, and they are hired by the vessel's captain.

A Hired Gun doesn't mean anyone who fights for money. Do you consider people in the military Hired Guns?

You stated pirates wouldn't be hired guns unless they were hired to fight for people. I stated that they are hired for just that purpose. Considering the motivation of most pirates is Ambition (often Greed) while most military (at least in a cinematic setting) are motivated by Cause or Relationship, I'd say that Hired Gun works fine for most pirates and less well for most regular military types (which will be getting the Soldier career in AoR).

So all pilots are smugglers?

No, some are Aces.

So I need to buy another book just to play a non-smuggler who has a heavy focus on piloting?

Can I ask this: What is the benefit of taking all the names literally? Like in all honesty. What do you gain? As long as the capabilities match the fiction of your character, what do you gain?

It appears that you do need another book, in the same way that you need another book to be a tactician.

The benefit of taking the names literally is for flavor. You may not believe that matters (and it may not at your table), but others do. Personally, I see the "names matter" issue as something that every group decides on their own. There is no set in stone answer that fits everyone's play style.

I would still like an answer to my question that got all this started. Is paying more exp for non-career specs fair?

Sure. there's no level cap, so all it means is that for some folks it might take longer to get to a goal than others. Is it "fair" that I chose Ranged (light) and can do well in combat, but someone else is useless in combat because they chose Knowledge (Core)?

It just represents different ways to develop a character. Every character will be good at something someone else is not.

I'm not trying to be arguminative just asking for clarification.

The thing you're missing, Freak, is that he IS trying to be argumentative. Many of his posts consist of more questions that answers. He doesn't make a statement to defend his stance, he asks you to defend yours so he doesn't have to. That's the very definition of argumentative.

It appears that you do need another book, in the same way that you need another book to be a tactician.

The benefit of taking the names literally is for flavor. You may not believe that matters (and it may not at your table), but others do. Personally, I see the "names matter" issue as something that every group decides on their own. There is no set in stone answer that fits everyone's play style.

This answers nothing. How does it impact play other than restricting player options? How is the game made better?

How does it give "flavor". Explain "flavor".

How does making everyone with the Doctor specialization have to literally be a Doctor, everyone who has the Colonist Career literally be a Colonist, Everyone with the Bodyguard specialization literally be a bodyguard, make anything BETTER?

All I can see taking the names literally does is do 2 things:

1. Make certain character types unplayable, as no one can play anything that doesn't fit into little boxes created by the names.

2. Make people have to buy things that don't fit their character just because they fit into one of those boxes. Say you do want to represent a Pirate with the Hired Gun career. So now a Pirate starfighter pilot has NO CHOICE but to start Hired Gun + some specialization inside it (probably mercenary soldier, since bodyguard doesn't fit, and at least Merc Soldier has more to do with piloting than marauder), and take 4 skills in Hired Gun and 2 skills in Mercenary Soldier REGARDLESS of whether it fits the character just so it matches the little name on the box. So even though Smuggler-Pilot would have been 100% a better fit for the actual CAPABILITIES of my character, I'm forced into starting with a career and specialization that make no sense, giving me capabilities my character shouldn't have, just so a little name on a box is valid. Keep in mind I would also not even start with Piloting (Space) as a career skill.

The thing you're missing, Freak, is that he IS trying to be argumentative. Many of his posts consist of more questions that answers. He doesn't make a statement to defend his stance, he asks you to defend yours so he doesn't have to. That's the very definition of argumentative.

I ask questions because some of the statements are absurd. If someone is going to insinuate that I do not find roleplaying important because I don't adhere to the idea of the names of careers and specializations being 100% literal, then I ask questions because that is a leap of logic that makes ZERO sense. If someone is going to accuse someone of something with a shaky foundation, don't be surprised if questions that point out those shaky foundations are posed. Its a basic debate method, with a history spanning two and a half millennia, and if debate is not allowed on this forum, I'm not sure why the forum exists.

Also, I'm not even sure you are reading my posts. I've made many a long post in which I defend my position and the reason for it. I've also made several posts that are just one question, because people always seem to avoid answering the questions that are included in the longer posts of my position. If people can't answer questions about their view, its probably not a strong position now is it?

And at least I'm asking questions about the actual discussion taking place, rather than an offtopic post taking potshots at someone because they have a different point of view than me. So unless you have something that actually addresses the actual subject of conversation, rather than accusing me of being oh so bad for debating my point of view, I suggest you kindly be on your way.

I have nothing to add to this thread.

The thing you're missing, Freak, is that he IS trying to be argumentative. Many of his posts consist of more questions that answers. He doesn't make a statement to defend his stance, he asks you to defend yours so he doesn't have to. That's the very definition of argumentative.

I ask questions because some of the statements are absurd. If someone is going to insinuate that I do not find roleplaying important because I don't adhere to the idea of the names of careers and specializations being 100% literal, then I ask questions because that is a leap of logic that makes ZERO sense. If someone is going to accuse someone of something with a shaky foundation, don't be surprised if questions that point out those shaky foundations are posed. Its a basic debate method, with a history spanning two and a half millennia, and if debate is not allowed on this forum, I'm not sure why the forum exists.

Also, I'm not even sure you are reading my posts. I've made many a long post in which I defend my position and the reason for it. I've also made several posts that are just one question, because people always seem to avoid answering the questions that are included in the longer posts of my position. If people can't answer questions about their view, its probably not a strong position now is it?

And at least I'm asking questions about the actual discussion taking place, rather than an offtopic post taking potshots at someone because they have a different point of view than me. So unless you have something that actually addresses the actual subject of conversation, rather than accusing me of being oh so bad for debating my point of view, I suggest you kindly be on your way.

Most people don't treat these threads as a formal debate. Most of us are here to have a friendly discussion and maybe collectively work out problems. Your insistence that others must prove your assertions wrong along with your attempts to shoot down others' ideas, combined with the vitriol of your language makes you appear to be here just to argue, whether that is your intention or not.

Otherwise, I'm with mrvander.

Most people don't treat these threads as a formal debate. Most of us are here to have a friendly discussion and maybe collectively work out problems. Your insistence that others must prove your assertions wrong along with your attempts to shoot down others' ideas, combined with the vitriol of your language makes you appear to be here just to argue, whether that is your intention or not.

Otherwise, I'm with mrvander.

1. If someone is going to tell me I'm wrong, yes, I will ask them to actually back up the assertion that I'm wrong with actual facts or at the least opinions. And if the thing they are telling me I'm wrong about something factual (does this require tracking for instance) then opinions don't cut it. To expect anything different on this site is to expecting everyone to be cowed by the smallest of criticisms, as you are expecting everyone to take any criticism as absolute truth.

The greatest irony on this one is that the post that the person responded to criticizing me asking questions... was asking me a question. Which I was glad to answer, because answering the question lets him better understand my position.

2. There has been a lot more of people shooting down everything I say than of me shooting down other people's ideas. Of course, you seem to have no problem with that. For instance, I said that a house rule would be a perfectly valid approach for a situation, it was followed by a bunch of people telling me how wrong I was, I said that the names of careers and specializations shouldn't have meaning, cue a bunch of people telling me how wrong I was, including insinuations that I didn't see the benefit of roleplaying in a roleplaying game.

3. I have vitriol towards people who start going down the one true way party lines, and several people in this thread have gone that direction. Other than that, and the annoyance with people making factual assertions without any evidence to back it up, I've been civil.

I'll be honest, friendly discussion will include debate, barring a hivemind, people are going to disagree. And asking questions to ascertain where someone is coming from is a perfectly rational and valid form of communication. I ask questions because something isn't adding up to me. Sometimes the answer helps me understand where they are coming from, sometimes the answer explains what it is that they aren't understanding about what I'm saying, sometimes the answer just shows that we aren't going to see eye to eye on the subject.

So once again: If you have something to add to the discussion besides taking potshots at my character, go right ahead.

The thing you're missing, Freak, is that he IS trying to be argumentative. Many of his posts consist of more questions that answers. He doesn't make a statement to defend his stance, he asks you to defend yours so he doesn't have to. That's the very definition of argumentative.

I ask questions because some of the statements are absurd. If someone is going to insinuate that I do not find roleplaying important because I don't adhere to the idea of the names of careers and specializations being 100% literal, then I ask questions because that is a leap of logic that makes ZERO sense. If someone is going to accuse someone of something with a shaky foundation, don't be surprised if questions that point out those shaky foundations are posed. Its a basic debate method, with a history spanning two and a half millennia, and if debate is not allowed on this forum, I'm not sure why the forum exists.

Also, I'm not even sure you are reading my posts. I've made many a long post in which I defend my position and the reason for it. I've also made several posts that are just one question, because people always seem to avoid answering the questions that are included in the longer posts of my position. If people can't answer questions about their view, its probably not a strong position now is it?

And at least I'm asking questions about the actual discussion taking place, rather than an offtopic post taking potshots at someone because they have a different point of view than me. So unless you have something that actually addresses the actual subject of conversation, rather than accusing me of being oh so bad for debating my point of view, I suggest you kindly be on your way.

Maybe if you treated it less like a debate and more like conversation, you'd get better responses. I've been reading your crap since the beginning and have just decided its better to warn people off of you than attempt to convince you of something you won't be convinced of. Why bother with the discussion when you can't come to a resolution? Is the end of it all everyone telling you you're right? Is that how you see this ending? I'm sorry if that's the case, because it isn't going to happen. And running everyone off because you've badgered them to death with your questions and lack of answers doesn't count as a win.

besides taking potshots at my character, go right ahead.

Your character has been sniped many times, he just doesn't know when to lay down and be dead.

That's a metaphor.

And running everyone off because you've badgered them to death with your questions and lack of answers doesn't count as a win.

1. I've answered most questions posed towards me. If I missed some, please point them out to me. Sometimes, I didn't answer specific lines because I was focused on another line of conversation that was going on in the thread, because that portion was more important to me at the time, so there are probably a few I really did miss.

2. As opposed to running people off by accusing them of not being roleplayers, of not understanding the game, of not understanding roleplaying, of being minmaxers? The only thing I actually badgered anyone about was them telling me I was factually wrong about something without providing a single shred of evidence I was wrong. Factually wrong. Not an opinion. FACT. I'm sorry, but if someone is going to accuse someone of being wrong, they don't get to just get it accepted as truth, they have to prove it.

3. Oddly, we are three conversations away from where I started in this thread, yet for some reason you can't catch on that I'm not talking about the same thing anymore, and so have obviously dropped that line of discussion, yet for some reason you are implying that I am still arguing the same points. Very difficult when we aren't even having the same conversation. We are currently discussing whether the specific names of careers and specializations have meaning or if its the capabilities that they embody that has true meaning. You are welcome to join the conversation of course, but you don't seem to actually want to, instead content to warn people off from discussing things with that person who is badgering on the same points even though we are three conversations away from the original point he joined.