Is there/will there be guideline in AoR for transitioning characters from EotE?

Specifically how will characters be able to give up their old career take on a new one?

Will they have to buy specializations as they do when they are outside their current career or can they change to the new one and not have the penalty for buying out of career?

I really hope this is addressed in the Rules as it will likely happen often that an experienced EotE PC will join the Rebellion and want to change their career to match the new setting.

I don't think any sort of retraining is honestly needed.

You didn't see Han retrain out of being a Smuggler/Pilot/Scoundrel, though he likely picked up Tactician along the way. Lando might have opted for a dip in Squad Leader, but he's still a Smuggler/Scoundrel at his core. And while Luke Skywalker eventually became a Jedi Master, he didn't mystically forget about his Pilot specialization and associated talents that he picked up and honed prior to getting really serious about his Jedi training in ESB.

If an existing EotE PC wants to pick up some of those new AoR specializations, there's already an existing mechanic that lets them do that. It's called buying a non-career specialization, meaning it'll just be a little more expensive for the EotE characters, particularly if they've already picked up an extra EotE career or two. But nothing is stopping them from doing so other than the XP cost.

That's the beauty of an RPG that uses point-based character advancement... the sky's the limit in terms of character growth, rather than the enforced caps of a level-based system such as d20 or even Green Ronin's AGE (system used for their Dragon Age RPG).

I understand how this can work and how buying specializations out of one's career works. However, the way FFG has chosen to release these three games, that are actually just three versions of the same game, is not just three aspects of the game world but three also periods within the age EothE (Early and throughout), AoR (Middle - Empire Strikes Back etc.), and F&D (Late - RoJ+). It's natural that a character will progress through all three of these periods and may want to take on a new role, possibly without having to create a new character to avoid the extra XP cost to advancement.

What I'm hoping for is a codified way of progression in the RAW, a paragraph will do. It's not that one can't extrapolate from the current RAW that you just pay the extra XP if you want to have skills from a new career, but to avoid confusion.

Plus since there are different periods this is a good lime to add rules for changing careers if their going to.

I don't see any reason to have rules for changing careers. Purchasing specs allows for those changes. Once all three books are out, people will have lots of options for starting characters. If your concept changes you can purchase the spec(s) needed or create a new character.

The only reason I could see for changing the career of a character is if a new career is released that better serves the history and background of the character.

If your character is simply growing and developing, just purchase the skill or specialization.

For my group, the plan is:

- If they choose to join the Rebellion during the storyline I have planned out, then they will instantly have access to the trees and specializations on offer in the AoR Core Rulebook.

-However, though they are transitioning into Rebel Agents, they are still first and foremost a group of fringers. That way, the story will jump between Rebellion missions and dealing with Obligations as and when it comes up in the narrative.

When Han Solo helped destroy the Death Star, he decided to stick aroud instead of high tailing it back to Tatooine with the Hutt's bounty. He completely ignored his obligation by focussing on his Duty to his friends and the Rebellion, especially with the evacuation of Yavin 4 and other craziness before the Rebel base is set up on Hoth. That of course bites him in the ass when the Empire uses the bounty on Han's head to their advantage and utilises a group of Bounty Hunters to track him down.

Quite frankly, I love how I'd be able to mix and match the campaign like that, having old Nemesis characters from earlier EotE games show up in AoR, wanting vengeance or simply leverage in capturing them to then get back at the Rebellion for a greater Imperial reward.

I don't see any reason to have rules for changing careers. Purchasing specs allows for those changes. Once all three books are out, people will have lots of options for starting characters. If your concept changes you can purchase the spec(s) needed or create a new character.

The only reason I could see for changing the career of a character is if a new career is released that better serves the history and background of the character.

If your character is simply growing and developing, just purchase the skill or specialization.

The reason you seem to keep missing is the XP cost.

Right now if a character starts in EotE and plays a story arc over the better part of a year until the next set of rules come out and another year before F&D comes out with it's inevitable new set of careers, their currently known options if they want to take advantage of a new career that they will not necessary have even known to exist, is to make a new character or pay a premium to buy new specializations, or to wait until all the rule books and supplements are out. And before you mention the Beta rules just stop, not everyone is going to want to use a beta set or spend the extra cash to get a cut down unfinished version of the rules.

What I'm suggesting is not that the designers necessarily add rules for changing careers, though I think it would be better than the inevitable house rules that will arise from not doing so, but that they address it by having a paragraph of guidelines to either re-enforce the current out of career specialization rules or come up with rules for changing careers so that they are consistent across gaming groups.

You may not think that there is a reason to have rules for changing careers, but I can't fathom why you would oppose a paragraph of guidelines to cover this. No, space in the rule book is not a sufficient reason.

I don't see any reason to have rules for changing careers. Purchasing specs allows for those changes. Once all three books are out, people will have lots of options for starting characters. If your concept changes you can purchase the spec(s) needed or create a new character.

The only reason I could see for changing the career of a character is if a new career is released that better serves the history and background of the character.

If your character is simply growing and developing, just purchase the skill or specialization.

The reason you seem to keep missing is the XP cost.

Right now if a character starts in EotE and plays a story arc over the better part of a year until the next set of rules come out and another year before F&D comes out with it's inevitable new set of careers, their currently known options if they want to take advantage of a new career that they will not necessary have even known to exist, is to make a new character or pay a premium to buy new specializations, or to wait until all the rule books and supplements are out. And before you mention the Beta rules just stop, not everyone is going to want to use a beta set or spend the extra cash to get a cut down unfinished version of the rules.

What I'm suggesting is not that the designers necessarily add rules for changing careers, though I think it would be better than the inevitable house rules that will arise from not doing so, but that they address it by having a paragraph of guidelines to either re-enforce the current out of career specialization rules or come up with rules for changing careers so that they are consistent across gaming groups.

You may not think that there is a reason to have rules for changing careers, but I can't fathom why you would oppose a paragraph of guidelines to cover this. No, space in the rule book is not a sufficient reason.

We agree on recreating the characters from the ground up (with the SAME background, concept, and history) if a new book has a career that better reflects that history. Stats are there to assist the narrative, not the other way around.

Where we seem to disagree is the notion of "lost XP".

Why should a character that chooses a new path in life between books gain any advantage in selecting new specializations than someone who purchases additional specializations?

For example, a bounty hunter survivalist character decides later in life to branch out and learn doctor in order to learn more about xenology and how best to neutralize foes. This is an out of career specialization and costs an extra 10 XP. Perhaps later on he retires to a small colony to make up for this days as a killer? He focuses entirely on doctoring, but never loses his previously learned skills. He can still shoot and stab, but he has chosen not to. This gives the character background, character, and built in drives and personality.

He changed his career, but why should he suddenly pay the same (for Doctor) as if he had continued the lifestyle he had spent his entire life to date learning and honing (say by purchasing the gadgeteer specialization)? I think FFG did it the right way by letting people change their characters over time as they develop organically.

Why should a character that chooses a new path in life between books gain any advantage in selecting new specializations than someone who purchases additional specializations?

For example, a bounty hunter survivalist character decides later in life to branch out and learn doctor in order to learn more about xenology and how best to neutralize foes. This is an out of career specialization and costs an extra 10 XP. Perhaps later on he retires to a small colony to make up for this days as a killer? He focuses entirely on doctoring, but never loses his previously learned skills. He can still shoot and stab, but he has chosen not to. This gives the character background, character, and built in drives and personality.

He changed his career, but why should he suddenly pay the same (for Doctor) as if he had continued the lifestyle he had spent his entire life to date learning and honing (say by purchasing the gadgeteer specialization)? I think FFG did it the right way by letting people change their characters over time as they develop organically.

I see your point but I, for example, went back to school and changed my career and can tell you that even though I still can do all of those things I used to in my old career my focus is now on the skills and growth of my current one. If however I wanted to pick up my old career I could, but I would have to spend some extra time and effort to update my skill set to be at my peak.

From a purely mechanical perspective there should be no penalty after you've spent an initial cost of learning and entering a new career, which would be what I would advocate if such a system was going to be added to the RAW. One that after an initial cost to changing a career that would be prohibitive enough to limit PCs from going back and forth but less expensive than buying out of career specializations, would allow PCs to have a new career and the long term benefit of growth in it.. While keeping in mind that once a PC changes a career if he wanted to take a specializations in his old one he'd have to pay the extra out of career XP cost.

But this is not really the point of this topic, my point is that I believe this transitioning between rules sets should be covered in the RAW regardless of how the designers choose to handle the issue.

Hi there,

Hmmm, perhaps let your characters play as usual with the content from EotE, spending XP like maniacs and enjoying what we've currently got available rule-wise.

Then when you want to move on to AoR, if they aren’t happy about things they could have bought more ' efficiently ', just have a session re-gening there existing characters to better suit.

As long as they don't go changing the basics about their characters or blatantly re-gening for maximum POWA, you should be OK. Worst case, you upgrade the baddies the same way (remembering to enjoy an evil laugh when doing so).

As long as everyone is having fun right? :-)

Scotbloke.

Uhm... I think this is an odd thing... Changing career would be like changing class/profession in another system, not multi-classing. It's not really any point unless you remake the character from ground up, which is up to the individual group/GM to decide upon, and is basically to remake the character. there is no need for this in the book really...

The careers in this system, as I understand it, is your charcter's essential core concept, no matter how much retraining you go through, you're not changing the fundamental skills, experiences and individual historical narrative/biography of the character. You can learn new stuff sure, but its not the same, and that is already covered in the system.

So this also follows the transition process, and I'm not sure this has been answered already. The trees that are duplicated from EotE to AoR can you rebuy the ones in AoR or is it just assumed you have those already??

Duplicate trees are considered already taken. The pilot spec in smuggler and ace are the same.

Uhm... I think this is an odd thing... Changing career would be like changing class/profession in another system, not multi-classing. It's not really any point unless you remake the character from ground up, which is up to the individual group/GM to decide upon, and is basically to remake the character. there is no need for this in the book really...

The careers in this system, as I understand it, is your charcter's essential core concept, no matter how much retraining you go through, you're not changing the fundamental skills, experiences and individual historical narrative/biography of the character. You can learn new stuff sure, but its not the same, and that is already covered in the system.

Good point Jegergryte. I suppose at the very least (if people do regen) that you ensure the PCs still have the same original career. :-)

Liking the duplcate trees. I was worried the Ace would outclass the Pilot tree with more nifty stuff. Although I suppose, like we're saying, you could just have your EotE character buy into the Ace tree when you're ready to move onto the AoE book/adventures.

Scotbloke.

What mouthymerc said -- if you're a Smuggler Pilot, then during gameplay you can choose to buy Driver or Gunner from the Ace career .

Uhm... I think this is an odd thing... Changing career would be like changing class/profession in another system, not multi-classing. It's not really any point unless you remake the character from ground up, which is up to the individual group/GM to decide upon, and is basically to remake the character. there is no need for this in the book really...

The careers in this system, as I understand it, is your charcter's essential core concept, no matter how much retraining you go through, you're not changing the fundamental skills, experiences and individual historical narrative/biography of the character. You can learn new stuff sure, but its not the same, and that is already covered in the system.

"

Sigh...

The reason is to provide a clear and concise answer to a question that my players have already asked. I'm not necessarily asking for special rules only that since this group of games are supposed to be interchangeable and they are not all coming out at the same time that some small paragraph in the character creation section acknowledges and clarifies how to deal with characters from other editions in the context of the new available careers. As I said it may be exactly as it is in the EotE RAW that you just buy with a penalty new Specializations but you can't change careers (which BTW I agree it is likely going to be), or it could be another solution that allows PCs to change careers and save the extra XP costs. Regardless rather than leaving up to individual groups to decide they should just plainly state it. Thats all.

The games work together in the sense that you can build characters from all three books that can play together. I sincerely doubt there will be rules for changing careers. No need. If someone built a character that they feel is better served using a career and spec in AoR, then either let them rebuild or start a new character. Pretty much as simple as that.

The games work together in the sense that you can build characters from all three books that can play together. I sincerely doubt there will be rules for changing careers. No need. If someone built a character that they feel is better served using a career and spec in AoR, then either let them rebuild or start a new character. Pretty much as simple as that.

You haven't actually comprehended what I've written have you?

The games work together in the sense that you can build characters from all three books that can play together. I sincerely doubt there will be rules for changing careers. No need. If someone built a character that they feel is better served using a career and spec in AoR, then either let them rebuild or start a new character. Pretty much as simple as that.

You haven't actually comprehended what I've written have you?

I get it just fine. Still don't see any need for it.

1) Sigh...

2) The reason is to provide a clear and concise answer to a question that my players have already asked. I'm not necessarily asking for special rules only that since this group of games are supposed to be interchangeable and they are not all coming out at the same time that some small paragraph in the character creation section acknowledges and clarifies how to deal with characters from other editions in the context of the new available careers. As I said it may be exactly as it is in the EotE RAW that you just buy with a penalty new Specializations but you can't change careers (which BTW I agree it is likely going to be), or it could be another solution that allows PCs to change careers and save the extra XP costs. Regardless rather than leaving up to individual groups to decide they should just plainly state it. Thats all.

1) ?

2) Why focusing on "saving XP"? What has that got to do with anything? Adding a new specialisation from another career is, I assume, the same in both games. And since the games are compatible and made to be interchangeable the answer is already in there I'd think, under "buying new specialisations" ... it doesn't require a huge leap of thought to come to this conclusion.

Still, I do agree that perhaps, for some, adding something like this to the "buying new specialisations" (and in the GM sections perhaps?) would perhaps help: "If the group agrees on it, careers from other FFG star wars rpgs and supplements can also be used. Buying into these specialisations follows the above rules. Duplicate specialisations that appear in different careers does not qualify the character to consider both career's remaining specialisations as career specialisations. A specialisation talent tree can only be taken once."

Is this what you're thinking of?

I understand how this can work and how buying specializations out of one's career works. However, the way FFG has chosen to release these three games, that are actually just three versions of the same game, is not just three aspects of the game world but three also periods within the age EothE (Early and throughout), AoR (Middle - Empire Strikes Back etc.), and F&D (Late - RoJ+). It's natural that a character will progress through all three of these periods and may want to take on a new role, possibly without having to create a new character to avoid the extra XP cost to advancement.

What I'm hoping for is a codified way of progression in the RAW, a paragraph will do. It's not that one can't extrapolate from the current RAW that you just pay the extra XP if you want to have skills from a new career, but to avoid confusion.

Plus since there are different periods this is a good lime to add rules for changing careers if their going to.

I think that would be extremely confusing and I don't see any reason to create sub-rules, that supersede existing rules, this is how most role-playing games get in trouble mechanically. The system is quite simple, you pick a career at the start of the campaign and you can specialize anyway you like from that point forward. Once the Rebel book comes out, you will simply have added character specializations to choose from. I wouldn't want players switching careers anymore then I would want them switching races.

I do expect that their will be some attention given to how to navigate a story from the Fringe to the Civil War, I imagine it will be covered extensively. As a GM if I want to get the players into "rebel specializations", for example lets say they join the rebel alliance and train to be soldiers I would simply give them XP sufficient enough to get into their new specialization representing that training. I would expect however that they maintain all the skills they have earned up to that point.

Another words what I don't think should be allow is for example a Smuggler: Pilot specialization character to be able to switch to say a Rebel: Pilot. Even if such a rule was created I would ban it immediately. Their needs to be strong continuity in a campaign first and foremost.

Yeah. AoR adds new options for characters, they're not designed to outright replace EotE ones. If you are a Smuggler Pilot, then that's fine and dandy, you gain nothing by switching to Ace Pilot.

Sure some trees are copied over between books, but that makes sense thematically. Rebels and Smugglers can both be pilots after all and both Smugglers and Rebels can have weapons training of some sort, be they soldier or hired guns.

It also makes sense since while many of us are buying AoR almost to supplement EotE and enhance our games, first and foremost it is being designed as a stand alone game.

So, why can't players on AoR also have a chance to train as a pilot and get the same EotE skills? The only difference comes in the types of ships that the Rebels drive around in as provided by the core rulebooks.

1) Sigh...

2) The reason is to provide a clear and concise answer to a question that my players have already asked. I'm not necessarily asking for special rules only that since this group of games are supposed to be interchangeable and they are not all coming out at the same time that some small paragraph in the character creation section acknowledges and clarifies how to deal with characters from other editions in the context of the new available careers. As I said it may be exactly as it is in the EotE RAW that you just buy with a penalty new Specializations but you can't change careers (which BTW I agree it is likely going to be), or it could be another solution that allows PCs to change careers and save the extra XP costs. Regardless rather than leaving up to individual groups to decide they should just plainly state it. Thats all.

1) ?

2) Why focusing on "saving XP"? What has that got to do with anything? Adding a new specialisation from another career is, I assume, the same in both games. And since the games are compatible and made to be interchangeable the answer is already in there I'd think, under "buying new specialisations" ... it doesn't require a huge leap of thought to come to this conclusion.

Still, I do agree that perhaps, for some, adding something like this to the "buying new specialisations" (and in the GM sections perhaps?) would perhaps help: "If the group agrees on it, careers from other FFG star wars rpgs and supplements can also be used. Buying into these specialisations follows the above rules. Duplicate specialisations that appear in different careers does not qualify the character to consider both career's remaining specialisations as career specialisations. A specialisation talent tree can only be taken once."

Is this what you're thinking of?

I am sure that a sidebar like this will be included in the final product.

1) ?

2) Why focusing on "saving XP"? What has that got to do with anything? Adding a new specialisation from another career is, I assume, the same in both games. And since the games are compatible and made to be interchangeable the answer is already in there I'd think, under "buying new specialisations" ... it doesn't require a huge leap of thought to come to this conclusion.

Still, I do agree that perhaps, for some, adding something like this to the "buying new specialisations" (and in the GM sections perhaps?) would perhaps help: "If the group agrees on it, careers from other FFG star wars rpgs and supplements can also be used. Buying into these specialisations follows the above rules. Duplicate specialisations that appear in different careers does not qualify the character to consider both career's remaining specialisations as career specialisations. A specialisation talent tree can only be taken once."

Is this what you're thinking of?

Yep thats pretty much what I'm talking about, though I'd put it in the character creation section as well since it'll be the players that are going to ask the question.

If you look at XP as a representation of the effort and practice/training time invested in being good at something, the current "multi-classing" rules seem fine, to me.

Only thing that bugs me (more of a niggle) is where the mechanics will clash with character backgrounds.

In our group we've two PCs who were either trained by or served in their homeworld's military (a Merc and a Bounty Hunter). Mechanically, they'll be paying more for a specialisation that suited their background more than the (by necessity) limited careers available to them at creation.