I'm very curious...

I would feel much better making the purchase of the AoR final product knowing I'm getting greater diversification possibilities between characters, more specifically among specializations. I have read that some specializations in AoR are directly ported from EoE (though they may have different names), but exactly how many specializations are significantly different or divergent from those in EoE, particularly in terms of both starting skills and talent tree configurations?

I also have a very quick question regarding chargen:

Let's say a Bounty Hunter, who chooses Ranged (Heavy) as one of his/her four starting career skills, chooses Assassin as the first specialization- if the character then chose Ranged (Heavy) as one of his/her two starting specialization skills, would the skill ranks stack, resulting in Ranged (Heavy) 2?

Thank you, in advance, for your replies.

2 first, and yes, they will have a skill rank 2 in Ranged(H) to start out.

Most specs in AoR are new, there are a couple few reprints. I think scout, pilot, slicer, and mechanic off the of of my head. In regards to how different I would say more combat focused. More careers/specs in AoR tend to offer at least Range(L) as a skill option. Not all. Not so much sneaky wrong side of the tracks kind of people. There is enough difference I would say it's worth it to have.

Also bear in mind that even the repeated specialisations feel different in AoR.

Explorer/Scout makes for a poor fit, because of the limited utility of the Explorer class skills.

But Spy/Scout adds the Scout abilities to the great career skills of the Spy career, making for a versatile character. Plus the addition of 'Recruit' so that pretty much everyone can get some early combat skills without a need to multiclass.

AoR and EotE are similar games. You will get similar charater types, like pilot, droid, heavy (soldier), politician, etc.

The books primarily diverge in campaign structure:

Obligation Vs Duty

Obligation means that your characters constantly owe someone a debt of some kind and also have a quirk or two related to character backgrounds (owe someone money, on the run from someone, etc). These can crop up from game to game quite fluidly. However, if Obligation is not seen to, if it reaches a high enough number, the player characters will become obsessed and be unable to do anything until their obligations are met. Think of it like notoriety.

"Oh crap, I forgot to pay the Hutt and now every spaceport in the next 15 systems are crawling with goons looking to collect on my bounty. I can't continue on the Beyond the Rim storyline until I get this sorted."

Duty on the other hand is more mission based. You are running a Rebel Cell, outfitted by the Rebellion to do specific tasks and you gain Duty in order for the Rebellion to trust you with more expensive equipment/more dangerous missions.

The other differences will be:

Different equipment/vehicles/spaceships in the Core Rulebooks

Different fluff relevant to each scenario.

Different enemy characters at the back of the book/different example scenario game at the back of the book.

Dice mechanics and character creation are basically the same in both games. They are their own game, but also 1/3 of an even larger one in the making.

At first, I viewed Obligation with a hesitant "meh", but the more I've considered how it would interact with character and story development I've since developed a greater appreciation of it. Duty, on the other hand, appears to be an award mechanic- complete primary objective, get +X Duty. If this is the case, I'm not impressed. Warhammer 40K's Deathwatch uses the same principle in awarding Renown- perform better, achieve access to better toys- and I don't care for it, at all. I'll wait until I have a chance to see Duty's full outline, and reserve further judgment until then.

In response to Maelora's comment that ported specializations "feel different" in AoR: skill and talent descriptions do not (or should not) change from EoE to AoR, so a specialization in EoE can "feel different" even within different EoE campaign settings and themes. However, if nearly twenty-five percent of AoR's specializations are (mostly) exactly the same in regards to skills and talents, then that's about reaching my personal limit before passing beyond being universally useful. And I have to say, an Explorer/Scout PC may be less than intriguing for some, but I'm sure there are players that would readily disagree- it's all a matter of personal taste, vision, and role play value.

I'm truly not interested in AoR for additional weapons, armor, or gear. I really just want to feel comfortable making a purchase that allows for even more diversified character development when moving onward from EoE. I'm even more concerned about this moving onward from AoR into FaD, as it seems AoR may be near the limits of "normal" PC development and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius for Force users. New adversaries- adversaries that aren't X from EoE re-skinned as Y for AoR- would be a welcome bonus.

There may be some 'carry overs' but there are also some 'nothing like its, as well. Combat Medic is an awesome spec. I think Engineer Saboteur is very good as well as Scientist. If you wanna be Joe Gun the buck stops with Soldier/Sharpshooter imo.

If you want an idea of Age of Rebellion's careers and specializations, take a look at Armis' trait tables.

Thanks much for this link-

If you want an idea of Age of Rebellion's careers and specializations, take a look at Armis' trait tables.

This definitely allays some of my concerns.

Most of the careers and specializations in AoR have more of a combat focus, with all but two of the careers granting Ranged (Light) to a character, ensuring that most PCs are going to have at least one combat skill as a career skill.

Many of the specs are more combat-focused as well, with the Soldier's specs being pound-for-pound some of the burliest specs out there, and Ace being a pro at flying pretty much anything, and even better with their vehicle class of choice (starships for Pilot, atmospheric craft for Driver). The Diplomat specs seem to have taken the Colonist's Politico and split it between them, but I could see Agitator being quite good at Strain-draining mooks as they are pretty much geared for Coercion checks, while the Diplomat serves as the party's face. Spy makes very good use of the Scout and Slicer specs thanks to the complimentary list of career skills the Spy has. But seeing as how the main focus of AoR is that the PCs are members-in-good-standing of the Alliance, that makes sense that the PCs would be well-suited to fighting a war.

The EotE careers and specs aren't quite as focused, and I've heard a few folks call them "weak" in comparison to the AoR specs. But that's a matter of perspective than an actual flaw in the design; the Hired Gun and Bounty Hunter are effective combatants, and with Enter the Unknown the Explorer now has some really cool options for specs. Colonist can start out as either be a medical wizard or party face, and excel in that role as well as having the option to blend the two. The Scoundrel spec can turn a Smuggler into an effective combatant, particularly against ranged attacks as it's got Cool and Vigilance as career skills plus Ranged (Light), and two ranks of Side Step right next to each other doesn't hurt, to say nothing of some face traits (Charm and Deception) and talents useful for dealing with the seedy side of the galaxy.

...and I've heard a few folks call them "weak" in comparison to the AoR specs.

I can see this, though I don't have a problem with it, per se. They are, after all, just fringers, self-made and without much in the way of "formal" training. If anything, characters transitioning into AoR specializations from EoE may actually have a slight advantage in the long run.