Why is it dumb that your characters initial choice of career (what should help define them) has an ability that makes the choice more meaningful?

You worked at McDonalds in high school, sorry, you can't become a good doctor, your signature ability will always be the patty flip.

It is a remarkably stupid mechanic. As I pointed out. Someone with 400 points in explorer can't take it but someone with 40 can. Stupid. Add on top that you can't switch careers, Luke will ALWAYS be a moisture farmer, he can NEVER be a top Jedi, sorry kid, you didn't go t the Jedi Academy when you were young.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/397/625/be7.jpg

I have mixed feelings on the abilities being career specific.

Luckily all the rules are just guidelines and individual groups can decide what works best for them.

It is a remarkably stupid mechanic.

Not so much "stupid" as much "not the direction I want the career/specialization relationship to go". It's perfectly fine if you want career to mean something.

So any chance we could get a listing of what the new weapons are? Not asking for stats, just the names.

Got a friend that's eager to re-spec her character as an Explorer/Archeologist but wants to know if there's some sort of high-tech whip available to go with her "Bothan Indiana Jones" theme.

Ranged energy X-30 Lancer Blast Pistol, E-11s Sniper Rifle, LBR-9 Stun Rifle.

Slugthrowers Model 77 rifle, Model 38 rifle, KS-23 Hammer.

Net gun and glop grenade.

Melee Pulse drill, Vibrospear, Vibrosaw.

Regarding the "once per session" mechanic, my own understanding (based on what I would do and how modules are structured) is that a session is supposed to represent time a period in which the PCs complete a major objective and/or face down a major threat, then have time to prepare for the next event. Using Episode IV as an example, Luke's first session began when he drove off looking for R2-D2 and concluded when the Millenium Falcon escaped Tatooine. He had to deal with a sustained challenge- first Raiders, then a hostile Mos Eisley filled with Stormtroopers- and then reach a major objective, namely getting a ship to fly to Alderaan. The next "session" would start when the Millenium Falcon arrives at what's left of Alderaan, and end when they escape to Yavin 4. In that case, everything they do is dominated by the need to escape the Death Star and the threat of Darth Vader. Does that make sense?

Why is it dumb that your characters initial choice of career (what should help define them) has an ability that makes the choice more meaningful?

You worked at McDonalds in high school, sorry, you can't become a good doctor, your signature ability will always be the patty flip.

It is a remarkably stupid mechanic. As I pointed out. Someone with 400 points in explorer can't take it but someone with 40 can. Stupid. Add on top that you can't switch careers, Luke will ALWAYS be a moisture farmer, he can NEVER be a top Jedi, sorry kid, you didn't go t the Jedi Academy when you were young.

I think working at McDonalds only counts as a "Career" if you're 40 years old and the night manager.

How would the game work changing careers? Would you 'respec' your characters starting skills? Would a character forget about their knowldege (core worlds) for athletics when they change from colonist to hired gun? I think you are using the term career far too literally. You're comments are facetious at best, more condescending, really. To call it stupid is going a bit far. You may not agree with it, I'm sure the game you publish is perfect. Perhaps you can illuminate me as to how you think things should work?

As it stands, you're starting career choice - something that shapes your character by giving them a past, of how they lived their life before they take an adventure, CAN and does have a mechanical benefit now. But just because you can access a signature ability, doesn't necessarily mean you will. If your character is better suited by spending the experience on different talent trees from other careers or what not, that is perfectly valid. If you wan't this extra movement from the explorer, then great go for it.

Personally, I don't map out my characters from start to finish. I don't know what will happen. Maybe my colonist will become a pilot, maybe a slicer, maybe they'll die at the hands of a hutt's henchmen. The journey is the main thing, not the destination.

Something else I'm concerned about is the addition of named weapons, rather than generic versions. I hope the stats of these weapons doesn't overshadow the basic weapons, otherwise we may see powercreep starting to show it's ugly head. I personally would rather I have the ability to call my heavy blaster pistol whatever I like, rather than be forced to take a DL-44 because it is the 'better' weapon.

What does xp expenditure have to do with it? These signature abilities are there to enhance their parent careers, not the specs within each career. Which is why they are not tied to certain specs. Your example is extreme too. 400/40? the only difference between taking career specs and non-career specs is 10 XP. talents don't cost anymore. So this sounds more like someone upset that they can not cherry-pick or power-game the signature abilities they want because they are tied to careers rather than any valid reason.

As to Luke, one could say that since his base career of being an Explorer (Fringer) would make the signature ability of Sudden Discovery well suited to him. Being that he had to search out and rediscover information on the Jedi rebuild the Jedi order from what was basically nothing, he had a rather good knack for finding the right things.

I thought it obvious, but the XP expenditure shows that someone that is an expert explorer can not access the ability while someone that is a relative novice can. That makes no sense. It is stupid.

It is not someone mad at not being able to cherrypick. In fact I happened to have the one character at the table who is a fringer, it is everyone else who is SOL. I'm mad because the mechanic is nauseatingly bad. Not just bad in the short term until other careers get similar traits but even in the long term when they have all get them.

Now the most important thing about career, the only thing you can't really alter or change, is the capstone. So at character creation the most important thing to consider when picking a career is... the one thing you can't change. You now have to care about 10 sessions down the road at what capstone trait your class might give you and pick your career based on that. It is, literally, text book bad game design.

Regarding the "once per session" mechanic, my own understanding (based on what I would do and how modules are structured) is that a session is supposed to represent time a period in which the PCs complete a major objective and/or face down a major threat, then have time to prepare for the next event. Using Episode IV as an example, Luke's first session began when he drove off looking for R2-D2 and concluded when the Millenium Falcon escaped Tatooine. He had to deal with a sustained challenge- first Raiders, then a hostile Mos Eisley filled with Stormtroopers- and then reach a major objective, namely getting a ship to fly to Alderaan. The next "session" would start when the Millenium Falcon arrives at what's left of Alderaan, and end when they escape to Yavin 4. In that case, everything they do is dominated by the need to escape the Death Star and the threat of Darth Vader. Does that make sense?

Session is the dictionary definition. You can see it used a lot in the GM section where an example is the first session might be used for character creation. It doesn't have anything to do with major events.

The modules for FFG Star Wars have been using the term Episode to partition the parts of an adventure into logical groups, and these often have some sort of major event being the trigger for the transition to the next part of the story. This is probably the term you're looking for.

Having the abilities work once per episode rather than once per session would have been much better.

Hmmm, I may have found an inconsistency in one of the weapon descriptions. In the chart for the new ranged weapons on page 38, the new Hammer slugthrower is listed as having a Short range. However, in the description of the weapon, it is described as being "Brutally effective at short and medium ranges". The Hammer is basically described as a shotgun that was originally designed for taking on "extremely hardy game like the krayt dragon or rancor." You would probably not want to get too close to such nasty beasties.

The difference in silhouettes generally plays out as either decreasing the difficulty of a shot or increasing it, not allowing the range of a weapon to increase.

I don't have an issue with signature abilities being the "sole" property of a given career. The McDonald's reference notwithstanding, a career is representative of the core training and orientation of a given individual. Yes, people can and do frequently change careers in real life, but the core training of their original career remains with them.

In terms of game balance, I think the signature abilities restrictions provide an extra benefit to starting and developing a given career. This way you may have someone who genuinely develops up a Colonist/Doctor career & specialization, rather than a Hired Gun or Bounty Hunter dabbling in the Doctor specialization because they need some healing.

I still have to get my hands on Enter the Unknown, so I've not had a chance to take a closer look at it yet. Soon...

You can't be an expert explorer if you didn't take the explorer career. Which is the point of abilities like this. It makes your career choice mean more. Something that many people have wanted careers to mean more than just your initial skills and now we are starting to see that. These are signature abilities to give careers more identity. Sure only explorers have them right now, but we can't have everything at once. I'm looking forward to more for sure though.

I don't have any plans to play an explorer, and in my current group that I co-GM, nobody plays one.

How much mileage do you think I could get out of the book for general purpose use? Any ideas?

I don't ever think I've encountered a situation where more information is ever a bad option.

More ships, more classes, more species, as well as exploration themed adventure ideas (anyone can explore, heck the ship can crash on an uncharted planet).

If you're hurting, in the wallet, then yes, there are probably better things to spend your money on, but you will certainly get mileage from the book, if only for NPC stuff. But the ships are for any/everyone, so your pilot, smuggler, etc.. could purchase one. Swoops could come into play with biker gangs. The limits are your imagination.

Just my .02,

I actually like that these uber abilities are linked to career.

It feels similar to what Pathfinder did, giving some meaningful abilities to the upper levels just so that everyone doesn't have to multiclass.

Me too! And I like the "reward" for finishing off a spec. Gives someone something to look forward to and save for. Granted this will be a lot more helpful with my non-combat classes (not that scout isn't one of them), but the talkers where the players tend to cherry pick skills from everywhere else to get them more combat focused (at least in my experience).

I'd also argue that it seems reasonable that Luke would have a setback in just how powerful a Jedi he can be, because he was raised and trained most of his life as a moisture farmer than a Jedi.

Generally, somebody who devotes their entire life to something from when they are a small child can become greater than someone who just starts doing it later in life.

My instincts about the specializations are that it's a cool idea, I'm looking forward to getting to a point in our games where some characters could make use of it.

Also keep in mind they're putting out more Career books, so we'll soon learn about the Signature Abilities of the Hired Gun, right?

At some point all the careers will probably have them. Seems cool to me.

The once per game session is a horrible mechanic too, some people play 2 hours, some play 8, some have many fights in a session, some have just 1. Not only will this ability play differently for different groups, it will play differently for the same group at different times, but there isn't really any control the GM can put on it like a "must rest" mechanic has.

You could always say that a "session" is a four hour period of gaming (or more or less depending on what you thought would be fair for "once per session"), that would give the GM some more control. So even if you play 6 hours one day, and 2 hours the next, if you could only use it once per 4 hours of gaming it would always play the same.

Edit: So I didn't realize that there was a second page before I posted this, but once per "episode" might be something better as well.

Your example is extreme too. 400/40?

I thought it obvious, but the XP expenditure shows that someone that is an expert explorer can not access the ability while someone that is a relative novice can. That makes no sense. It is stupid.

Not only is the example extreme its disingenuous. It takes a minimum of 100 XP to be able to attach a SA. That's if your lucky that you've got a straight line to the 25 point level and the two 25s needed are right next to each other. How is this person a novice?

Is it me or others here getting on edge when they read Union's posts here? "Stupid", "Dumb", "Horrible", "Ridiculous", etc. This is not the tone I want to have discussions in.

I'd also argue that it seems reasonable that Luke would have a setback in just how powerful a Jedi he can be, because he was raised and trained most of his life as a moisture farmer than a Jedi.

Generally, somebody who devotes their entire life to something from when they are a small child can become greater than someone who just starts doing it later in life.

My instincts about the specializations are that it's a cool idea, I'm looking forward to getting to a point in our games where some characters could make use of it.

Also keep in mind they're putting out more Career books, so we'll soon learn about the Signature Abilities of the Hired Gun, right?

At some point all the careers will probably have them. Seems cool to me.

The reason I don't like it being tied to a career is that if something fits your "idea" of what your character is that is released after you already made you character, then you are prevented from really diving into that option. Maybe someone thought that the archeologist specialization sounded better, but chose scholar instead (after all, Indiana Jones would fit best into the scholar position from the starting trees). If you could "switch" careers later (granted for lots of XP) and only have 1 career at a time, I don't think that would be as bad. It is possible for people to learn something new as they get older (and even become better at that aspect of their life than what they were trained in early on in their life).

I actually like that these uber abilities are linked to career.

It feels similar to what Pathfinder did, giving some meaningful abilities to the upper levels just so that everyone doesn't have to multiclass.

Me too! And I like the "reward" for finishing off a spec. Gives someone something to look forward to and save for. Granted this will be a lot more helpful with my non-combat classes (not that scout isn't one of them), but the talkers where the players tend to cherry pick skills from everywhere else to get them more combat focused (at least in my experience).

The reason that people cherry-pick talents from other trees is that there aren't as many combat-oriented options in the non-combat-oriented classes. This is not abnormal, as combat-oriented characters should have more combat-oriented talents. What will be interesting to see is if the signature abilities will all be combat oriented, or if they will be non-combat oriented for the combat-oriented classes.

Is it me or others here getting on edge when they read Union's posts here? "Stupid", "Dump", "Horible", "Ridiculous", etc. This is not the tone I want to have discussions in.

Tone is not something that comes across well in text. I understand your point, but I am not sure that calling him out on it is going to help the situation. Instead, youcould have made a more general statement instead of focusing on him, or if you wanted to focus on him maybe PM him.

Tone is not something that comes across well in text. I understand your point, but I am not sure that calling him out on it is going to help the situation. Instead, youcould have made a more general statement instead of focusing on him, or if you wanted to focus on him maybe PM him.

Noted. You are right.

I apologize...

Is it me or others here getting on edge when they read Union's posts here? "Stupid", "Dumb", "Horrible", "Ridiculous", etc. This is not the tone I want to have discussions in.

The tone was set by the magnitude of the designer's mistake. The only discussion is how stupid it was, not that it isn't text book bad design.

I am not convinced that it is bad game design. Part of the problem is that EotE and the Star Wars line in total are still incomplete and evolving at this point. Is it bad game design if my ideal Star Wars character is not a possible build until Force and Destiny?

Currently everyone that is not an Explorer is disadvantaged when it comes to Signature Abilities. Is this a *real* problem? How many players are currently at the point with their present characters that they would be taking Signature Abilities if they were available to their career?

Do people really read through all the rules options and totally map out their character progression from creation to retirement before they start play? Do they stick with this plan? Is a Signature Ability really that big a deal in terms of character concept and design that it will overshadow every other consideration in character development and dare I say it role play?

I think it is good game design to make the choice of career a meaningful choice. As it is in the core book career choice has very little impact one characters get a few experience points under their belts. After all every character has access to every specialization tree...

Is it me or others here getting on edge when they read Union's posts here? "Stupid", "Dumb", "Horrible", "Ridiculous", etc. This is not the tone I want to have discussions in.

The tone was set by the magnitude of the designer's mistake. The only discussion is how stupid it was, not that it isn't text book bad design.

The fact you dislike it doesn't mean it is a mistake. Leave your indignation at the door and try to remain respectful in discussions. The words I quoted have no place in an adult conversation.

Nothing written here has done anything to convince me that doing something to make each career special was a mistake.

Extreme as it is, I don't mind the 400/40 point thing as a hypothetical.

However, if a player had spent 400 points in a specialisation, personally I'd wonder why they hadn't taken that specialisation's career at character gen - the effort they've employed to master that specialisation kind of indicates they enjoy the role that the career was designed to fill.

I agree. "stupid, dumb, ridiculous, horrible" and "the magnitude of the designer's mistake" really don't advance the discussion.

"I don't like it and think it should have been done this way instead..." Is much better.

It is easy to armchair quarterback game design, but have you actually published anything? If so what feedback did you receive? Do your objections to this rule come from actual play or just from reading it in the book and working out theoretical characters as an exercise?

I find many (indeed a majority) of "this rule is broken!" discussions stem from reading not playing. If it did not come up as a problem in actual play it is NOT an actual problem.