I was thinking about the other thread regarding Perception and Vigilance, and I still feel that EoE 'doubles up' on too many skills. It feels like having to buy them twice sometimes.

One of the new players was thinking of a Gand Explorer, but the other players talked him into trying a Survivalist BH, on the basis that the Explorer career is basically 'a guy who learned all he knows from a hobo underneath a bridge'.

Is that fair? I understand the career is meant to be a bit 'eclectic', compared to, say, the Hired Gun specialities. But I feel the Explorer feels a lot less focused than the other careers. In the other five careers, you can pick from all the various specialities and they mesh together pretty well.

But Explorer doesn't really have the tools he needs to make best use of his talents. Fringer has a talent that lets him knock down a foe with a melee weapon on a Triumph. But he lacks the Melee skill, so good luck getting that Triumph in the first place. Also, it seems odd that a' space cowboy' like the Fringer lacks the skill to use pistols, or indeed any weapon.

Scout is even odder - he has talents that help him with Stealth and Vigilance checks, but lacks these as class skills. This feels like the Marauder lacking Melee, really - not being able to hide and sneak well is REALLY going to hinder your ability to act as a scout.

Yes, I know you can take these as non-class skills (though not initially), but the fact they have Talents that utilise these skills seems to suggest they are core abilities. Why doesn't Scout have Stealth or Vigilance instead of Medicine or another use of Survival (doubling up on skills doesn't seem to help outside of character creation). Yes, I can take another specialisation, but it seems odd having to multiclass just to use the talents in my original class. That feels like a D&D Rogue taking Fighter levels just so he can actually backstab.

Overall, Explorer reminds me of those 3rd edition D&D classes that nobody really takes, but that other classes dip into as a multiclass. I can see why a Smuggler might take Fringer or a Survivalist might take Scout, but it seems less desirable to focus in these classes...

I was thinking about the other thread regarding Perception and Vigilance, and I still feel that EoE 'doubles up' on too many skills. It feels like having to buy them twice sometimes.

One of the new players was thinking of a Gand Explorer, but the other players talked him into trying a Survivalist BH, on the basis that the Explorer career is basically 'a guy who learned all he knows from a hobo underneath a bridge'.

Is that fair? I understand the career is meant to be a bit 'eclectic', compared to, say, the Hired Gun specialities. But I feel the Explorer feels a lot less focused than the other careers. In the other five careers, you can pick from all the various specialities and they mesh together pretty well.

But Explorer doesn't really have the tools he needs to make best use of his talents. Fringer has a talent that lets him knock down a foe with a melee weapon on a Triumph. But he lacks the Melee skill, so good luck getting that Triumph in the first place. Also, it seems odd that a' space cowboy' like the Fringer lacks the skill to use pistols, or indeed any weapon.

Scout is even odder - he has talents that help him with Stealth and Vigilance checks, but lacks these as class skills. This feels like the Marauder lacking Melee, really - not being able to hide and sneak well is REALLY going to hinder your ability to act as a scout.

Yes, I know you can take these as non-class skills (though not initially), but the fact they have Talents that utilise these skills seems to suggest they are core abilities. Why doesn't Scout have Stealth or Vigilance instead of Medicine or another use of Survival (doubling up on skills doesn't seem to help outside of character creation). Yes, I can take another specialisation, but it seems odd having to multiclass just to use the talents in my original class. That feels like a D&D Rogue taking Fighter levels just so he can actually backstab.

Overall, Explorer reminds me of those 3rd edition D&D classes that nobody really takes, but that other classes dip into as a multiclass. I can see why a Smuggler might take Fringer or a Survivalist might take Scout, but it seems less desirable to focus in these classes...

Maybe the Explorer splat book will help? I really haven't looked at Explorer much, but they all seemed to be a jack of all trades sort of bunch. As odd as this will be to say regarding scout, I think they mean it more in the scouting out new trails and less of the "traditional gamer scout". More map making and survival skills and less stealth.

Editing keeps screwing up formatting quotes...

"I was thinking about the other thread regarding Perception and Vigilance, and I still feel that EoE 'doubles up' on too many skills. It feels like having to buy them twice sometimes."

Well Perception is not the same as Vigilance, they can overlap but they have different purposes.

Perception is for spotting something that is already present that you are actively looking for (even if you don't know specifically what you are looking for), like finding a hidden box on a room or to see a gesture someone makes or to catch non-obvious item or action.

Vigilance is to notice something that is about to or has begun to happen or appear that you are not actively looking for or is unexpected. Such as a person sneaking into a room you are in or an object falling from a roof or a trap activating (not necessarily the physical trap but a traps effect). It represents not actively looking for something but instead noticing something with out actually asking to look for it.

Other games put these together but they are distinctly different and will have different affects on PCs in a scene.

Ask the obvious question.

What do Explorers do?

Fringers are can be everything from your typical country bumpkin (Luke) to average guttersnipe. By definition, they are people who live on the fringes of society.

While it's possible to talented at combat, like the Fringer's Knockdown talent, it isn't a life skill that most Fringer's would need succeed in life. Your average fringer is more worried about the next harvest, or about the "next season". Basically just living their daily lives.

A lot of people approach role playing games from the Dungeons and Dragons' mindset of min-maxing. It a flaw in your way of thinking about roleplaying. Think back to D&D 3rd edition where people would splash a class just for one level for all the level 1 benefits. Monk was a real popular class to splash. So you can have a thief where you splash a level of Monk just to get the benefits for being a Monk. Question? What sense does it make for your Rouge in character to suddenly become a Monk partway in their adventuring career only to turn right back around for their thieving ways the next level. It doesn't make sense in most cases for a thief to be doing that.

This game is a completely different animal.

If your asking the question, "Why be a Survivalist Hunter over a Fringer." The question that should be asked is "does it make sense for my character?" You shouldn't be asking, "Which career choice is going to give me the better stat block". If your making your decisions based soully on the mechanical aspects of the game, then you're already loosing sight on what this system is all about.

I think one of the issues is that people get too hung up on the notion that they have to build their characters around the career skills. The career flag is there as a bonus discount, but it seems part of the design intent is to also encourage skill investment outside those 12 skills. I think this is why few (if any) of the combat careers have Cool as a career skill.

I think that one of the weaknesses of the game is the way the skills are allocated. The classes only are useful in very small ways, namely just adding complexity to buying new talents and skills, and they cause oddness in how the skills are allocated. Like the oddness in the OP, I came across that Doctors get deception and charm, but not kno:xenology.

I am about half a step from banishing class from my game all together. Say just start with 6 skill levels, and a talent tree, and then afterward all skills are treated as class skills and all talents are class talents.

The question that should be asked is "does it make sense for my character?" You shouldn't be asking, "Which career choice is going to give me the better stat block". If your making your decisions based soully on the mechanical aspects of the game, then you're already loosing sight on what this system is all about.

I'd just prefer the Talents and career skills were on speaking terms really...

You don't need to be a min-maxer to want the character classes to feel coherent.

It a flaw in your way of thinking about roleplaying. Think back to D&D 3rd edition where people would splash a class just for one level for all the level 1 benefits. Monk was a real popular class to splash. So you can have a thief where you splash a level of Monk just to get the benefits for being a Monk. Question? What sense does it make for your Rouge in character to suddenly become a Monk partway in their adventuring career only to turn right back around for their thieving ways the next level. It doesn't make sense in most cases for a thief to be doing that.

But I'm asking 'why do I have to take Monk levels for my Rogue to use stealth?

Shouldn't Rogue already have that?

Why do I have to multiclass to get that, because my Sneak Attack is kinda useless without it?

It a flaw in your way of thinking about roleplaying. Think back to D&D 3rd edition where people would splash a class just for one level for all the level 1 benefits. Monk was a real popular class to splash. So you can have a thief where you splash a level of Monk just to get the benefits for being a Monk. Question? What sense does it make for your Rouge in character to suddenly become a Monk partway in their adventuring career only to turn right back around for their thieving ways the next level. It doesn't make sense in most cases for a thief to be doing that.

But I'm asking 'why do I have to take Monk levels for my Rogue to use stealth?

Shouldn't Rogue already have that?

Why do I have to multiclass to get that, because my Sneak Attack is kinda useless without it?

The answer to that is primarily the unsatisfactory "because they chose to do it that way". Every system has the option of how open and how structured to make character generation. FFG went with a balance between the two. You can still select any skill for your character, but it may cost more.

I think that the basic question comes down to definition of the specialization.

Lets take the Monk example you are using. Why would a Monk ever sneak anywhere? By historical definition they are quiet, contemplative, and religious. They read, pray, and chant all day long. In the East, they are portrayed as also using martial arts and meditation to achieve enlightenment. I can't imagine a monk sneaking anywhere on purpose.

Something similar with Scouts. Scouts explore the land and make maps. They live off the land while they do it, in the same way as Lewis and Clark. They don't need stealth or combat as a primary career skill to do that.

I think some of their choices in career skills are odd, but they are the choices the devs made.

If you wanna house rule character generation, have fun with it. Post what you come up with here on the forum and share it with everybody. I tend not to worry about things like that anymore, assuming that I have enough leeway to approximate the background I want.

Maelora, wouldn't it make sense to start with a template that roughly suits the character in general and then use XP to get the character more like the player wants it, through buying characteristics, skills and talents?

I'm not clear on what you mean by "Also, it seems odd that a' space cowboy' like the Fringer lacks the skill to use pistols, or indeed any weapon."

Surely any Fringer can increase their Agility or purchase skills in Ranged (Light) just like any other character can, right? Either of these would improve that character's skill with pistols.

What is preventing that from happening?

One of the new players was thinking of a Gand Explorer, but the other players talked him into trying a Survivalist BH, on the basis that the Explorer career is basically 'a guy who learned all he knows from a hobo underneath a bridge'.

Is that fair?

Not IMHO, it's a bit of a silly thing to say. Actually, it's a D20 thing to say. I don't think hobos know much about all those Knowledge skills, no matter where they live Personally I don't have a problem with how it's set up, it looks completely reasonable to me. It's possible that people aren't using the Knowledge skills as much as they could, but IMHO that's a D20 hangover, where "knowledge-type" skills take a distant back seat in the storytelling over other more immediate skills. No D20 player I ever met put points or feats into those skills. But they're much more relevant and usable and (more importantly) fun in this system. The challenge then is to find ways to weave those Knowledge skills back into the sessions so that players find value in them. It's not that hard to do, but I'll admit it took me a bit to come to that conclusion myself.

That the skills don't tie into the Talents 100% isn't relevant...instead, it encourages players to look more broadly. As FangGrip said, Scouts don't necessarily need Stealth or combat...only the Scout who is also a big game hunter or guide, or a Scout who is attached to a military company, might need that.

My son has an Explorer character, and is enjoying it. He took the Scout, backstory being that his grandfather, a mine owner, taught him and hired him to explore for new sources of ore. Since gramps has "disappeared", and his mine is now owned by some shady characters, and trouble of all kinds is pursuing him, he took the first XP he earned and bought into the Assassin tree to get the career skills. This is a bit min-maxy, because it was easy to see that the tree paid for itself after bringing all its skills to rank 1, but his character has vengeance-for-gramps on his mind and buying the tree makes sense in story.

The Explorer struck me as a "jack of all trades" sort of character (particularly the Fringer), though lacking in combat skills. But definitely not the "learned from a hobo" career that the OP's players have cast it as.

It covers those folks that literally live and work on the edges of Imperial space, particularly the Outer Rim, giving them a decent selection of Knowledge skills to reflect stuff they've learned "along the way" as well as skills to allow them to survive and perhaps prosper on the fringes of the galaxy, with each of the specs broadening the options available to the Explorer.

Fringer adds piloting chops and plenty of combat tricks with a touch of criminal savvy (Street Smarts and Streetwise). Scout is more about making it in places where civilization really doesn't exist and being pretty good at getting the drop on your foes (Quick Strike, Stalker, & Disorient) as well as a bit of medical skill (Medicine). Trader is all about making a profit and staying one step ahead of the other guy. With the upcoming Explorer-based sourcebook, you've got Driver, adding planetary-based piloting chops if the AoR Beta is anything to go by (since it's got a Driver spec under the Ace career), with a number of talents that would also translate over to starship combat as well. I'd be surprised if the Archeologist spec didn't take at least a few cues from Indiana Jones. Big Game Hunter will likely be some tracking ability as well as a ranged combat focus.

None of the stuff above sounds like "learned it from a hobo." Hell, Explorer is probably the career in EotE that is most accepting of various character concepts... unless your concept calls for the character to be an incredibly competent marksman or melee fighter.

So what if the skills were learned from a hobo. It's that player's character. If my group ever told me what to play, I'd be sure to play the character I wanted to play. If the player has an idea he likes, he should be left to run with it. Players should be left to run with stuff that they find neat and interesting. But for those players, you need to keep them interested in the game. It may be a bit shady, but I try to throw in bits of knowledge skills to get them to realize that blowing up the door isn't always the smartest move.

Something like this:

PCs come up to three doors and written on them is an alien language that's old and hasn't been seen in thousands of years. Most of the PCs want to blow each open. Explorer translates the language and discovers that the words on the doors is a riddle, solve the riddle, the correct door opens. solve the riddle wrong, wall closes in behind them and none of the doors open.

Now, imagine what happens if that explorer who learned his skills from a hobo wasn't there.

Now, some fictional explorers/adventurers can do the brain work as well as do well in a fight. Look at Indiana Jones and Allan Quartermaine.

Famous fictional smart people: Sherlock Holmes, MacGuyver. MacGuyver would rather work out a problem, than take a machine gun and mow down a bunch of people to get to his objective.

Plus, Imagine if the PCs got into a situation like the 2010 version of Predator. Kidnapped and dropped somewhere no clue where they were, what's edible, and what not. Sounds like an explorer would come in handy there.

Sure, sometimes the skills for careers and specializations may not make sense, but that's any game. It's why my group prefers games like West End Games' system of character building. But, we also like the "powers" that other systems have as well. I rewrote a whole section on magic because after, say 10 years studying magic, they only know 1 spell at level 1? Yeah....I think not. So, I rewrote it.

Find what works for you, talk to your players and GM see what they think, and work together on a system that fit all of your idea on how you all think and like to play. But encourage the player who wanted to play a Gand Explorer play their Gand Explorer.

Now, some fictional explorers/adventurers can do the brain work as well as do well in a fight. Look at Indiana Jones and Allan Quartermaine.

That's all true, but a player wanting to play Indiana Jones would swiftly become frustrated if he found he couldn't shoot straight or handle a whip.

Hopefully, as Donovan suggested, the new splatbook will help these concepts fit a bit better. It feels odd you can't really make a Luke-type character from the start of the first film (if he's a fringer, he's lacking Ranged Light and Gunnery).

I think my player was facetious, but it still doesn't help that most of the explorer talents and skills don't match up. Scouts lacking Stealth still feels glaring to me. If they have a talent that helps with it, shouldn't they have the skill? Why do they need to multiclass to use the skills in their original class? <shrug>

This isnt a system issue. This is a GM issue. If you as a GM cant make a scenario or a campaign where an explorer doesnt fit or feel that he contributes to the story "cause he cant use a blaster", then DO NOT, for the love of god, encourage your players to roll an explorer.

Hopefully, as Donovan suggested, the new splatbook will help these concepts fit a bit better. It feels odd you can't really make a Luke-type character from the start of the first film (if he's a fringer, he's lacking Ranged Light and Gunnery).

Luke uses a rifle on Tatooine and a stolen stormtrooper rifle (really seems more like a carbine to me) on the Death Star. Why the emphasis on Ranged (Light)?

Besides that, Luke is more of the Ace (the get Ranged [Light]) than the Explorer in SW IV, he just doesn't show it until the last scene.

As far as Luke goes, perhaps he used one of his Human bonus non-career skills for a rank in Gunnery (from bullseyeing those womp rats in his T-16 back home), and just his raw Agility Characteristic when making ranged attacks. Nothing really says that he's an expert marksman, and he'd only need two successes to drop a stormtrooper when using the purloined rifle, which with an Agility of 3 and firing at Medium Range is easily doable.

I also don't think Luke is perhaps the best example of a typical Fringer in regards to combat-skill, since he's got the whole Force thing going on, likely spending XP on upgrading the combat side of the Sense power to give him extra defense and offense upgrades, so that by the time he goes to make that fateful attack run on the Death Star's thermal exhaust port, he can use Sense's offensive Control Upgrade to get two free upgrades to his Gunnery check, increasing the chances of him rolling the Triumph he needs to trigger a critical hit on the station.

Scouts lacking Stealth still feels glaring to me. If they have a talent that helps with it, shouldn't they have the skill?

They needed the other skills more, in order to flesh out what the core of an Explorer is. Think of the explorers in history, few of them would have had "stealth". An explorer doesn't need stealth, he just needs to go boldly where no sentient has gone before, deal with the navigational hazards, the natives, the flora and fauna, and find his way back.

Why do they need to multiclass to use the skills in their original class? <shrug>

They can still use the talent if they are untrained in the skill. Maybe you're overthinking the multiclassing. This isn't like D20 where a class is a discrete archetypal package. Maybe it's just me, but no raw character class feels "complete". I suspect that's by design. The game has such breadth you can create a far more nuanced character with it. If I were a player (which I doubt I'll ever get the luxury of being) I'd want to spend most of my first XP buying a non-career talent tree or two.

What do Explorers do?

They do the things that their skill and talent availability facilitates. That's what every Career and Specialization does because other than the label, the skill and talent availability is what sets each Career and Specialization apart from the others. And the label is just a label. A character in the Smuggler Career isn't compelled to deal in contraband, and characters not in the Smuggler Career can deal in contraband.

It a flaw in your way of thinking about roleplaying.

Or, maybe, just a different but equally valid way of thinking about role playing?

If your asking the question, "Why be a Survivalist Hunter over a Fringer." The question that should be asked is "does it make sense for my character?"

I think that seeking a set of mechanical abilities that make for a competent character is at least as valid a way of answering the question "Which career and specialization should I choose for my character" as is "which combination career and specialization names sounds most like my character concept." A player building a character whose concept is "hunter" might well as "Does it make sense for a character whose back story is that he is a hunter to be defined by a career that doesn't include the use of rifles?" If that player, quite reasonably, answers that question "no" then whatever flavor text points to Fringer is probably a bunch of nonsense.

You shouldn't be asking, "Which career choice is going to give me the better stat block".

Why shouldn't you? Why is choosing a career that gives you a stat block that provides competence at one's character concept "loosing sight on what this system is all about"? Is the system "all about" playing incompetents?

I think my player was facetious, but it still doesn't help that most of the explorer talents and skills don't match up. Scouts lacking Stealth still feels glaring to me. If they have a talent that helps with it, shouldn't they have the skill? Why do they need to multiclass to use the skills in their original class? <shrug>

This may be a glass half empty vs. glass half full sort of issue. When you look at the Scout and see a talent that supports the Stealth skill, but don't see the Stealth skill on the career skill list, you see an omission. But remember, that untrained characters can still use skills, and the untrained character who has a talent that supports the Stealth skill will be better off than an untrained character who lacks that talent. Perhaps that was the designers' intent -- a sort of half-step between untrained and trained, giving the Scout a leg-up on other specs that lack Stealth as a career skill, but not putting them on even ground with those careers that include it. So, where you see the Scout's "glass of Stealth" half empty, the designers may have intended it to be half full.

That's all true, but a player wanting to play Indiana Jones would swiftly become frustrated if he found he couldn't shoot straight or handle a whip.

I still don't understand why this hypothetical character who wants to play Indiana Jones wouldn't spend some of his XP on being able to shoot straight or handle a whip.

They could increase the characteristics and skills associated with those actions to be able to do them better, couldn't they?

Why wouldn't they be able to do this?

Maybe it's just me, but no raw character class feels "complete". I suspect that's by design.

But all the others have the skills that tie in to their talents. Why is this one different?

Heck, in most cases, the three specialisations synergise with each other well. Take all three specs for Hired Gun and you'll have a terrific all-around warrior eventually.

Do the same for explorer, and you'll have... well, a bunch of random talents and skills that you'll likely have to multiclass to use properly.

I still don't understand why this hypothetical character who wants to play Indiana Jones wouldn't spend some of his XP on being able to shoot straight or handle a whip.

They could increase the characteristics and skills associated with those actions to be able to do them better, couldn't they?

Why wouldn't they be able to do this?

Yes, but he'd have to buy non-career specialisations to do it as things stand. That will get expensive if he wants to be really good at them.

I'm hoping 'Into the Unknown' will alleviate this issue.

I think that seeking a set of mechanical abilities that make for a competent character is at least as valid a way of answering the question "Which career and specialization should I choose for my character" as is "which combination career and specialization names sounds most like my character concept." A player building a character whose concept is "hunter" might well as "Does it make sense for a character whose back story is that he is a hunter to be defined by a career that doesn't include the use of rifles?" If that player, quite reasonably, answers that question "no" then whatever flavor text points to Fringer is probably a bunch of nonsense.

Thank you. That's kinda what I was trying to say.

I don't have a problem with Explorer being a generalist, or a non-combat class.

I do think it seems odd that its talents and skills do not really match, when the other careers clearly do.

I feel that 'multiclassing' should add new abilities to your character, not be necessary to use the skills in your original class. Maybe that's just me.

This may be a glass half empty vs. glass half full sort of issue. When you look at the Scout and see a talent that supports the Stealth skill, but don't see the Stealth skill on the career skill list, you see an omission. But remember, that untrained characters can still use skills, and the untrained character who has a talent that supports the Stealth skill will be better off than an untrained character who lacks that talent. Perhaps that was the designers' intent -- a sort of half-step between untrained and trained, giving the Scout a leg-up on other specs that lack Stealth as a career skill, but not putting them on even ground with those careers that include it. So, where you see the Scout's "glass of Stealth" half empty, the designers may have intended it to be half full.

Fair comment. This may have been intentional, but we don't see it in the other careers, which is why Explorer screams 'dip class' to me.