I have a suggestion for the Duty mechanic. A lot of folks seem to be upset about the inability to purchase additional experience, and this might be an easy solution.

I suggest that characters start out with 10 Duty in their chosen field. (Although this could vary by party size like in EotE). Then if the player wants, they can choose to reduce their Duty to take additional starting XP, in a similar fashion to how things are set up with Obligation in Edge of the Empire.

Reduce 5 Duty to get 5 XP, or 10 Duty to get 10 XP. I probably wouldn't allow folks to take additional credits with Duty because of how strapped for resources the Rebellion is supposed to be at this time, and especially given the mechanic to start out with a stationary base of operations with significant cash influx. You could kind of see this as, the character has spent less time in Rebellion but that time was spent learning valuable skills, etc (or alternatively, this character spent more time in basic training and hasn't done anything super productive for the Alliance).

This would certainly make starting characters more on par with EotE characters, and provide a significant incentive for joining the Rebellion and gaining access to higher levels of equipment through the Duty mechanic, instead of constantly owning money to criminals or other obligations.

What do people think about this idea?

Would this initial amount vary based on player-group size? The problem is that if you have five players, and none decrease this total, then they have a 50% chance of gaining a bonus to their Wound Threshold every session.

That's not all that different from them all starting with obligation 10 (5 base, and 5 extra for each player) and having a 50% change of it triggering also? It will get reset as soon as they reach the 1st contribution level anyways, if they all earned 10 duty for their first mission for being awesome, then they're back to square 1. Technically they can all start with a duty of 50 by putting 10 xp in by RAW. Its just like having a 10 XP bonus starting. If you want to slow down that creep, then you could scale by the number of players in the game.

Not a fan of giving away xp. I'd be more likely to incorporate Obligation as an option for those that want more cash or xp to start. Although that may not be an option for those just using AoR. After the first mission they'll have collected more resources anyways so if they all have to start on equal footing it should be good.

I'd say you've gotta look at what you mean by "on par."

Obligation is a BAD thing. Duty is a GOOD thing. Giving your players Duty to start out with means that they are actually BETTER than Edge of the Empire characters.

Consider also that Age of Rebellion characters get half-a-Y-Wing per PC (rounded up), a Lambda-class shuttle with Imp clearance codes, or a base and +2500 credits A PIECE to start the game with.

It's an entirely different game, so pointing at one facet (XP) and trying make that facet match up with the other game makes all the other facets uneven. Like pointing to a d12 and saying, "the d12's 7-side isn't the same shape as the d8's 7-side, so let's make it the same shape." Then you throw off the rest of the octahedron and it doesn't roll right. Also it ceases to be a Platonic solid and you've just broken math. See what you did!?

Seriously though. Reading through character creation from start to finish for both games, I came away with the sense that both games are well-balanced against each other, even at this early stage in the Beta.

Not a fan of giving away xp. I'd be more likely to incorporate Obligation as an option for those that want more cash or xp to start. Although that may not be an option for those just using AoR. After the first mission they'll have collected more resources anyways so if they all have to start on equal footing it should be good.

This. If you're running characters from both games, just give the players the ability to take Obligation and/or Duty.

Would this initial amount vary based on player-group size? The problem is that if you have five players, and none decrease this total, then they have a 50% chance of gaining a bonus to their Wound Threshold every session.

I know not everyone would see it this way, but I'd take a stat bonus over a slightly increased wound threshold, pretty much every time I was given the option. Just my .02

I'd say you've gotta look at what you mean by "on par."

Obligation is a BAD thing. Duty is a GOOD thing. Giving your players Duty to start out with means that they are actually BETTER than Edge of the Empire characters.

Consider also that Age of Rebellion characters get half-a-Y-Wing per PC (rounded up), a Lambda-class shuttle with Imp clearance codes, or a base and +2500 credits A PIECE to start the game with.

Seriously though. Reading through character creation from start to finish for both games, I came away with the sense that both games are well-balanced against each other, even at this early stage in the Beta.

I completely agree.

5xp doesn't break the bank and you make that up quickly in this game. Figure one session is 10 to 20 xp with bonus xp's after each story arc. Two sessions later you could have around 20 to 45 xp to burn.

I'm inclined to agree with previous posts.

There's already a mechanic in place that allows players to get additional XP: Obligation.

What makes you want to go a different route?

I completely agree.

5xp doesn't break the bank and you make that up quickly in this game. Figure one session is 10 to 20 xp with bonus xp's after each story arc. Two sessions later you could have around 20 to 45 xp to burn.

Except xp gained from Obligation is counted as generation XP and can be used on characteristics. The problem is that a Human in EotE could start with 4 3s in characteristics, and a Human character starting in AoR can't (or other similar circumstances where +10 XP puts the character just over the edge into being able to buy another characteristic boost).

I'm inclined to agree with previous posts.

There's already a mechanic in place that allows players to get additional XP: Obligation.

What makes you want to go a different route?

Because Obligation isn't part of AoR?

Honestly, I can really understand the desire for parity among starting characters in either system, and that +10 STARTING XP can be pretty big in certain situations because it can be spent on characteristics.

Not to mention the fact that a Commando in AoR can't even manage to afford a ranged (heavy) weapon, unless the PCs opt to be stationary.

Except xp gained from Obligation is counted as generation XP and can be used on characteristics. The problem is that a Human in EotE could start with 4 3s in characteristics, and a Human character starting in AoR can't (or other similar circumstances where +10 XP puts the character just over the edge into being able to buy another characteristic boost).

I'm inclined to agree with this reasoning for bringing in a mechanic for allowing additional XP at character creation, because a character in EotE can get a substantial stat boost compared to a character in AoR and players will comment on this aspect ofthe new game. I also don't feel the need to bring OBligation into AoR as it doesn't necessarily fit the theme of the game but having a starting Duty that can be reduced in exchange for XP is a good way to go.

I also can't see many players wanting to give up starting XP to buy Duty as they will have opportunities to get Duty during game play but will have limited opportunities. To increase characteristics.

Not to mention the fact that a Commando in AoR can't even manage to afford a ranged (heavy) weapon, unless the PCs opt to be stationary.

Unless Option 3 (extra 2500 credits for each PC) is the Rebellion Resource the group chooses, giving the Commando (and anyone else) plenty of funds with which to purchase all sorts of toys, and without the various strings & headaches that come with taking a +10 hit to an EotE PC's Obligation. They may not get a ship, but I suspect it wouldn't be too difficulty for an enterprising group of PCs to manage to procure a light transport after a few sessions.

Even if the extra starting funds option isn't picked, it probably won't take more than a couple of encounters for the Commando to have a chance to snag a bigger gun, such as a stormtrooper rifle taken from a defeated stormtrooper. Given the Alliance has rather frequently staged raids on Imperial supply depots to get necessary supplies (blasters, ammo, medical supplies, foodstuffs, etc), it's not too crazy to suggest that the PCs would make use of stolen Imperial gear. After all, they're already guilty of sedition and treason (which carries either a death penalty or a life sentence in prison) just for being members of the Rebel Alliance, so why not tack on a bit of "theft of Imperial property" while you're at it?

I'm inclined to agree with this reasoning for bringing in a mechanic for allowing additional XP at character creation, because a character in EotE can get a substantial stat boost compared to a character in AoR and players will comment on this aspect ofthe new game. I also don't feel the need to bring OBligation into AoR as it doesn't necessarily fit the theme of the game but having a starting Duty that can be reduced in exchange for XP is a good way to go.

I also can't see many players wanting to give up starting XP to buy Duty as they will have opportunities to get Duty during game play but will have limited opportunities. To increase characteristics.

Right! Obligation is for a completely separate game. The developers have explicitly stated that the game should be playtested in its own right, without EotE. They are trying to make this a stand alone product.

From that perspective, I think having the 110 XP +10 optional XP benchmark set by EotE for humans is a really reasonable thing to measure up against. Also, for all of the folks that really like leveling up, any chance to increase their experience is kind a cool and attractive feature. One is not giving away XP, you're setting the bar for starting characters. They already set a bar in EotE, I think there should be the option for these statistics to be equivalent. A priori, I can't imagine that characters from Age of Rebellion would be inherently weaker than Edge of the Empire characters. It just doesn't make sense to me. You could make an EotE Hired gun that would be a better soldier than the actual AoR Soldier.

On a related note, I can't imagine any character I make (or any of the people I play with) where I (or they) would purchase Duty. I don't think you get enough out of the 1 to 1 mechanic. A 5% chance of getting extra wound threshold isn't as valuable as switching a green to a yellow for that extra 8% chance of a triumph (and better probabilities for everything else!). Especially given how valuable of a resource XP is when making your character. Maybe if they increased the value you get for purchasing Duty. I might spend experience to start out with contribution rank one, as that's basically saying, yup I'm a trusted rebel member. But, I don't think spending to get 5 Duty is really worth the 5 XP cost.

Also, Duty isn't entirely a good thing. After all, you get higher and higher on the Empire's wanted list... Which kind of makes Duty and contribution rank a level tracking system. So if you spend XP to make yourself a higher "level", then you will be less prepared to take on that squad of Stormies that oppose your Rebel cell, or the Emperor's Hand looking for the Jedi Emergent..

I have not yet seen the AoR book, my copy is still in the post. Having said that, from what I have read I have gotten the impression that while Duty is the primary schtick of the AoR characters, Obligation can also be available. After all, one thing they want you to be able to do is start an EoE character, play through AoR and then finally play through FaD all with the same character. This should mean that Obligation Duty and whatever schtick they provide in FaD (Destiny or the like) should be interchangable.

Also, the op was already talking about a home rule to achieve the effect of additional xp, so simply allowing for the taking of an obligation fits quite nicely there without needing house rules. I was kind if expecting to see higher starting xp values given that this is the second book and if Jedi are to be modelled at a decent power level they should probably be starting at at least 300xp if not more.

Not to mention the fact that a Commando in AoR can't even manage to afford a ranged (heavy) weapon, unless the PCs opt to be stationary.

Unless Option 3 (extra 2500 credits for each PC) is the Rebellion Resource the group chooses, giving the Commando (and anyone else) plenty of funds with which to purchase all sorts of toys, and without the various strings & headaches that come with taking a +10 hit to an EotE PC's Obligation.

Oddly, it looks like I already said that.

And honestly, its a weird thing. So in order for a character trained in Ranged (Heavy) to actually HAVE a Ranged (Heavy) weapon, the whole PARTY has to make a decision to have a stationary base instead of some form of space travel. And there are plenty of strings and headaches involved in having an utter lack of reliable mobility.

Apparently, this issue occured to whoever was making the pregens too, as the Commando character is written up with an "Inferior Blaster Rifle" which and has the inferior quality.

Oddly, it looks like I already said that.

And honestly, its a weird thing. So in order for a character trained in Ranged (Heavy) to actually HAVE a Ranged (Heavy) weapon, the whole PARTY has to make a decision to have a stationary base instead of some form of space travel. And there are plenty of strings and headaches involved in having an utter lack of reliable mobility.

Unless:

a) someone lends them some money. In my group the agitator lent the commando money.

or

b) They get the slugthrower rifle

But also note that the alliance gives the characters equipment for each mission. If a character is going on a mission as a rifleman, then thy'll be given a rifle. The starting money is for personal possessions.

A lot of folks seem to be upset about the inability to purchase additional experience, and this might be an easy solution.

My thoughts are summed up here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKG07305CBs

Seriously, though, I'm of two minds:

1) Why can't people view AoR as it's own game? If EotE had come out SECOND, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

2) On the other hand, whatever is fun, right? To each his own.

A lot of folks seem to be upset about the inability to purchase additional experience, and this might be an easy solution.

1) Why can't people view AoR as it's own game? If EotE had come out SECOND, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Oh, yes we would, but it would be of a different tone.

Why should a human on the fringe be able to get that extra 10 XP that the human of the Rebellion can't?

And why can they convert 10 XP into extra cash?

Noting that Humans can generate any of the following stat arrays

• 120 XP: 5,2,2,2,2,2 (6)
• 120 XP: 3,3,3,3,2,2 (15)
• 110 XP: 4,3,2,2,2,2 (30)
• 90 XP: 3,3,3,2,2,2 (10)
• 70 XP: 4,2,2,2,2,2 (6)
• 60 XP: 3,3,2,2,2,2 (15)
• 30 XP: 3,2,2,2,2,2 (6)
• 0 XP: 2,2,2,2,2,2 (1)

The parenthesized number is the number of permutations. Red indicates only Edge characters, not AoR ones. 21 different attribute permutations gone of 88; without the 10 extra XP available, AoR characters are significantly LESS diverse.

They also can't get to attribute 5 without going the Dedication Talent route.

It is a compatibility issue, because it means the attribute scaling is inherently different.

Perhaps PC's could start in a "Duty Hole" - allow them to start with a negative duty; they don't get an extry on the duty table, and their first 10 points don't get them onto it. (For what it's worth, almost every one of my players took the extra obligation in Edge for the extra 10 points; the one who didn't was a non-human who was unable to get an extra attribute point out of it. I've had, by the way, 12 players between two edge campaigns, plus 3 one-shot players - and only one didn't opt for the extra XP; 2 of the players used the extra XP for extra cash, one in order to buy a bowcaster )

In a combined game, if duty and obligation both exist for the same character, it's a non-issue.

In a combined game where they don't stack, the Obligation characters can be long term better by at least 25 XP worth simply by taking the extra 10 XP for either 4x3s, or having a 5 stat. ANd they're better out the gate.

We don't know which it's going to be for combined games yet.

Attributes are WAY too important to ignore.

Sorry. I don't buy that that initial 10 xp makes that much of a difference in the long run. An extra die here or there doesn't put characters head and shoulders above others. There is too much latitude in rolls beyond a simple pass/fail for this to be that much of an issue. I've seen people rolling minimum dice roll just as well as people rolling a mitt-ful. And once xp is gained in the game that difference becomes even less. I do not buy that with a mix of characters from both games that anyone would be noticeably less effective. Throw as many numbers and statistics out there as you want. That may work with games like d20 and such, but it does nothing for me here. This game is not that simple to be only a numbers game.

Throw as many numbers and statistics out there as you want. That may work with games like d20 and such, but it does nothing for me here. This game is not that simple to be only a numbers game.

Could you possibly be any more condescending?

Is it really that hard to understand that some of us want characters from EotE and AoR to start on even footing mechanically?

(And yes, I know obligation is bad and duty is good, and that does matter, but those are much more nebulous and campaign specific rather than character specific)

Could you possibly be any more condescending?

Yup.

Is it really that hard to understand that some of us want characters from EotE and AoR to start on even footing mechanically?

Yeah I get that. Which is why I think this needs repeating (as I posted this in another thread):

Seems to me some people are overthinking this. Play the game you want. If you are playing an EotE game, use Obligation. Any of the careers from both EotE and AoR will work with it. If you want to play an AoR game, use Duty and any career from the two books. If you want to run a more comprehensive game, use both Obligation or Duty and all the careers. Characters can choose to have either or both of Obligation and Duty. It doesn't look all that complicated.

If equal footing is your goal, give access to the same things. If you are playing different games then equality is relative within each game. After characters gain xp those differences become, for all intents and purposes, negligible.

See, here is the thing. I can houserule things any way I want to.

I was pretty sure that this forum is for feedback on the BETA on what people want in the main game. Having you turn around and dismiss it because we can do whatever in our own home games seems to be kind of missing the point.

In the words of the wise, misjudged black dolphin: "Can't we all just swim along?"

I'm still planning on running the games as written when used; but I also intend on allowing my players the chance to gain both Duty and Obligation, depending on what happens IC.

See, here is the thing. I can houserule things any way I want to.

I was pretty sure that this forum is for feedback on the BETA on what people want in the main game. Having you turn around and dismiss it because we can do whatever in our own home games seems to be kind of missing the point.

Guess what? Within the context of the AoR game, the characters all have the same starting abilities, so they do have parity. If you are going to compare them to starting characters in EotE, it only becomes an issue if you are allowing EotE characters access to options that AoR characters do not have access to. Allow all characters access to the same options and you have your equality. Seems pretty simple to me. Otherwise just house rule and give them extra xp or credits to make up the disparity.