About the bonus skills: I don't see the issue with the Archaeologist not having a bonus careers skill in the combat category, it's not like archaeologists receive combat training is it? And there is no forcing the archaeologist to spend his well rounded on a combat skill - you can still train and make use of combat skills without having it as a career skill. Sure it will cost you more, but would combat skills really be the main focus of an archaeologist character? I think not, I mean it can be obviously, that's why the well rounded talent is there, but if a players wants to be combat oriented, I'd pick a different specialisation, like Big Game Hunter or some other career even. I see no reason an archaeologist should have any combat bonus skills, their work is sort of different, isn't it?

About the talent: Given the vagueness in some talent descriptions (and open-ended conventions of this game) I'd say there is a good basis for an interpretation that this talent suggest cooperative story telling, it's a fundamental principle of the game really (it's in the dice mechanic even) and this talent should obviously allow you to do more than a normal knowledge check. In that sense it becomes, to me, a natural interpretation of the talent that it puts more responsibility, and power, in the hands of the player.

It's 25xp and once per session, that means it should have more potential than a normal knowledge check (or a "re-roll" option if you failed some other knowledge check).

Sure cooperative story telling is something the group agrees on and no a talent isn't necessarily needed - as I alluded to above this game is based on the assumption of a social contract wherein all the participants have agreed to create and cooperate on creating fun and exciting stories, facilitated and guided by a GM. In the case of this talent it gives more power to the player, it gives incentive to the player act and it also creates incentive for the GM to make room for it, more so than normal and it allows players to take on a more active role, and they can make it happen at their own volition and not just at the mercy of the GM or destiny point, or extreme dice results.

In the FFG star wars rpg universe Archaeologist specialists ARE by implication trained in Melee. Look at Stunning Blow and Knockdown. Stunning blow is a melee talent AND is a chokepoint for the the left side of the tree. Knockdown requires at least one rank in Melee to be remotely useful. The other left side talents (other than perhaps well rounded and dedication) are made for someone that gets in a lot of fights.

I hear what you're saying about incentives but you're reading things in the talent that don't exist. Either you want a cooperative story or you don't. The talent RAW says nothing either way about it.

In the FFG star wars rpg universe Archaeologist specialists ARE by implication trained in Melee. Look at Stunning Blow and Knockdown. Stunning blow is a melee talent AND is a chokepoint for the the left side of the tree. Knockdown requires at least one rank in Melee to be remotely useful. The other left side talents (other than perhaps well rounded and dedication) are made for someone that gets in a lot of fights.

I agree you should use Well Rounded if you want to follow those things in the talent tree, obviously.

I hear what you're saying about incentives but you're reading things in the talent that don't exist. Either you want a cooperative story or you don't. The talent RAW says nothing either way about it.

I think the talent RAW would not need to say anything specific about it as the system RAW itself already does.

Having talents that improve melee doesn't mean they should have the skill. I can understand someone thinking that, but it is about interpretation and options really. The Knockdown talent is isolated leading nowhere, it's there for someone wanting it and possessing ranks in Melee, but there is no need to take it. Of course they could have picked a different talent, but the reasoning that talent X therefore skill Y is simple and goes against the intentions of how I've come to understand the design of this game, which doesn't follow all of the usual conventions one has become familiar with the last decade or so.

The things I read into the talent do exist, in the fundamentals of the game design, even the dice mechanics. Sure, it isn't spelled out in the talent itself, but it is a fundamental principle of the game and its mechanics, so I don't think its a stretch. Sure, if you don't want to see it that way or try to play the game as intended, that's fine, but considering how vague RAW is in this game in so many instances I don't really think it's even an argument that "the talent RAW says nothing either way about it." That's the intention as I've come to understand it with a lot of stuff in this game. So one can either argue for the sake of it, or one can attempt to find various solutions to something that is very vague and open-ended, like the Museum Worthy talent, to make it useful and generative for the game.

Museum Worthy is like an academic and more narrative version of the Bad Motivator talent as I see it. It has less directly mechanical and tangible benefits straight away, but it serves to shape the game and characters position in relation to the plot, mysteries and goings on wherever they may be.

I like Archaeologist (except for the excremental Museum Worthy).

As for lack of Melee, well, perhaps that's what Well Rounded for the bargain price of 5xp is for.

I am aware of the talent but you shouldn't be forced to spend one of the choices (or even be forced to spend 5xp) on something that should already be a bonus career skill.

I dunno. I don't reckon 90% (or even 50%) of all Archaeologists are also two-fisted pulp heroes. Getting two extra career skills very cheaply seems like a cool nod from FFG. It's a "Yeah, you can make a Dr. Jones (or Ms. Croft*), you crazy kids."

* or Sydney Fox - zing!

All this talk of archeology, has inspirede to make a klatooinian archaeologist, in the vein of Indy (but sounding like his father) that is searching for remnants of culture that the hutts didn't destroy, but sold off long ago.

He likes a good rumble in the search of his lost culture, with the tagline (performed in my very bad Sean Connnery accent) "I call THIS archeology!" As he throws a punch.

I dunno. I don't reckon 90% (or even 50%) of all Archaeologists are also two-fisted pulp heroes.

Talent tree says otherwise.

I dunno. I don't reckon 90% (or even 50%) of all Archaeologists are also two-fisted pulp heroes.

Talent tree says otherwise.

That depends on if you believe that every talent is going to get purchased. Several talent trees have a few talents that are unlikely purchases except for odd corner cases.

I dunno. I don't reckon 90% (or even 50%) of all Archaeologists are also two-fisted pulp heroes.

Talent tree says otherwise.

What? No it doesn't, you say otherwise, which is something completely different.

The talent tree, or specialisation page, also lists the career and bonus career skills, and these obviously don't include melee or brawl, so you are mistaken that the talent tree says anything at all, it's a non-sentient list of options and alternatives that are available to the PCs. Whatever meaning you put into this and the conclusions you draw from that are certainly up to you, but it's quite obvious from the discussion here that there are many ways to interpret it, yours is but one way, a deterministic and limited way, being no more "right" than any other interpretation, but it's less fun and pragmatic than the other ways.

Talent tree says otherwise.

I see your point, but those are options you can take if you want to be a pulp hero Archaeologist.

Specialisations only get four bonus skills. Athletics, Discipline, Know: Education and Know: Lore are all stuff Indiana would have. Only Lore is a repeat of an Explorer core skill, and if you're dipping your toe into Archaeologist (from another Career, I mean) Lore is something you really should pick up.

You could argue that Lore is a skill that could be nabbed from Well Rounded, but at that point it's an option, not a requirement - and from the description of the Lore skill, it really shouldn't be optional for this Specialisation.

About a quarter of the archeologist tree directly supports the Henry Jones Jr. Model of archeology. In fairness, to represent the Henry Jones Sr. School, I'd lean towards the scholar.

I'd agree on that, I recently watched Last Crusade and in my mind Sr. is more of a scholar by the FFG definitions, Jr. has some of the same elements, but is more physical. He might have melee as a bonus career skill (his whip and all), but I'd think he's got more ranks in athletics than either melee, brawl or ranged (light). He knows how to fire a gun, but I wouldn't give him more than 1 rank, and perhaps 2 in Brawl. No need for him to have those as career skills. He'd probably have a Drive skill as a bonus skill (a pilot (ground vehicle) if it existed).

He knows how to fire a gun

Well he prefers it over a sword fight.

Ultimately I think if someone goes for Archaeologist they have to really be into the concept and filling in the cracks with character concept and their own imagination. It's not a tree I would point someone to if they're wanting fulfillment via the skill/talents and the build.