Jump to content



Photo

Ditching classes.


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#21 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 560 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 01:05 PM

I think you mean that Hired Guns have to buy additional, useful talents to get that many ranks of True Aim.

That's indeed how I'd see... if I actually liked the Talent Trees.
 
They don't sit well with me though.  Too much "Classism"... not sure best how to fix it other than to play a different game system.

But I do like the dice. Conundrum.
 

This game has one of the best class systems I've ever seen -- not too restrictive, nor too loose.  I'd happy port this sweet-spot over to other games before spacing it.

It could just be a knee-jerk hatred of Classes for me. Or it could be a design "flaw" that is tweaking only me and a few in my group...


We're a crew of old time GURPS players... so classes don't sit well with most of us.



#22 Enoch52

Enoch52

    Member

  • Members
  • 110 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 01:18 PM

It's a matter of taste.  I can totally see how a class system sticks in your craw; I personally hate level-based systems.

 

Luckily, the dice mechanic is very portable, though you might have to fiddle with how you assemble a pool.  Any system where you have stats and skill levels should be reasonably easy to assemble, though.



#23 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 560 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 01:42 PM

It's a matter of taste.  I can totally see how a class system sticks in your craw; I personally hate level-based systems.
 
Luckily, the dice mechanic is very portable, though you might have to fiddle with how you assemble a pool.  Any system where you have stats and skill levels should be reasonably easy to assemble, though.

I hate levels even worse than I hate classes.
 
 
To be honest, I'm not that against the way FFG is doing "classes" here since they sort of drop away once you start play.  It's just an exp tax and buy in wall at that point.
 
I think it's the wonky way some Talent Trees are laid out... and the obvious munchkin choices that are bothering me more.

 

 

 

EDIT:  Added the "not" above.


Edited by evileeyore, 13 August 2014 - 03:54 PM.

  • Kavadh likes this

#24 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,502 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:30 PM

Levels I hate...classes I can live with.  But if you don't like it, you can actually play the game just fine without any Talents at all.  The players just get really good at certain skills.  Mind you, not having Toughness and Grit means you have to ease up on some challenges.

 

Alternately you could use the following:

 

Toughness and Grit cost:  5, 10, 15, 20, 25

Enduring and Durable cost:  10, 20, 25

Ranked Talents cost:  5, 15, 25XP (max of 3)

Non-ranked Talents cost:  15

Non-ranked Talents with an Improved/Supreme cost:  10, 20, 25

Dedication or Force Rating cost:  25, and for each you must have at least 5 other Talents, at least one of which is another 25XP Talent

 

Edit: removed ridiculous rudeness


Edited by whafrog, 13 August 2014 - 02:41 PM.

  • KevynnRedfern and evileeyore like this

#25 Lorne

Lorne

    Member

  • Members
  • 460 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:39 PM

 

 We're a crew of old time GURPS players... so classes don't sit well with most of us.

 

Before playing GURPS went out of style, I used to play GURPS like it was going out of style.

 

I loved the freedom of games like that and HERO and BRP and such.  But they were balanced around that pure point-based design -- mage-tanks in GURPS were sub-optimal to either pure mages or tanks because of hyper-dependence upon good stats, whose costs were prohibitive enough to discourage maxing everything out.

 

In contrast, a starting human can easily have 4 stats at 3, and be competent at most everything (and having that option is a good thing!).  The classes in FFG's SW are mostly gates to the talent trees, which is where the cinematic larger-than-life stuff come into play.  At low level, skill training hardly matters because upgrading g to Y affects chance of success only very slightly.  You could probably banish the concept of class skills and hardly notice anything except how similar each of your PCs suddenly look with all only having training in combat-related skills (where it might actually make a diff -- e.g.: if you have a 4 Int, why even bother training knowledges? 4 green will blow away most all knowledge check anyway. Might as well invest everything in Ranged combat where extra success = more damage).

 

Now, if we want to critique the talent trees (and, lo, there is MUCH critiquing that could happen there), their various shapes and compositions, I'm game, but that's another discussion entirely.



#26 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,551 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 02:42 PM

 

 

 We're a crew of old time GURPS players... so classes don't sit well with most of us.

 

 At low level, skill training hardly matters because upgrading g to Y affects chance of success only very slightly.  

 

20.8% increase in success.  If you're curious.....


  • awayputurwpn, Doc, the Weasel, KevynnRedfern and 2 others like this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#27 Kavadh

Kavadh

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 03:36 PM

 

 

I think it's the wonky way some Talent Trees are laid out... and the obvious munchkin choices that are bothering me more.

 

 

I'm with you on this one. It seems almost like they just drew random lines. There's no sense to the escalation in cost or placement on the "railroad grid." 

 

But I've always hated advancement trees. The moment you start taking things not because you want them, but because you have to in order to get to where you want to go, my attention drifts. 

 

We've been kicking around the idea of dropping the extra xp cost for taking out of class specializations. It's not come up yet because no one has wanted to so far, but the main reason we're pondering it is entirely because of the layout of the talents.



#28 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 560 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 04:12 PM

Levels I hate...classes I can live with.  But if you don't like it, you can actually play the game just fine without any Talents at all.  The players just get really good at certain skills.  Mind you, not having Toughness and Grit means you have to ease up on some challenges.

I've thought about that. But it feels like it would strip away some of the "wahooey" that makes Star Wars cinematic.
 

Alternately you could use the following:
 
Toughness and Grit cost:  5, 10, 15, 20, 25
Enduring and Durable cost:  10, 20, 25
Ranked Talents cost:  5, 15, 25XP (max of 3)
Non-ranked Talents cost:  15
Non-ranked Talents with an Improved/Supreme cost:  10, 20, 25
Dedication or Force Rating cost:  25, and for each you must have at least 5 other Talents, at least one of which is another 25XP Talent

I'll take a longer look at that.  It looks smooth.

 

...if you have a 4 Int, why even bother training knowledges? 4 green will blow away most all knowledge check anyway. Might as well invest everything in Ranged combat where extra success = more damage).

Not everyone's a munchkin.

My character has 4 INT and 4 CUN, I've trained the Knows all my Knows at least 1 rank. I haven't touched combat skills... yeah, being useful in combat is difficult for my character, but I tend to manage (I fix things, I break things, I slice, I heal, I act as a tiny distraction, I steal vehicles and drive poorly, I reload people's weapons, I throw stun/smoke/EMP grenades with much hilarity, etc).
 

Now, if we want to critique the talent trees (and, lo, there is MUCH critiquing that could happen there), their various shapes and compositions, I'm game, but that's another discussion entirely.

A long and no doubt frustrating and confusing discussion. The current configurations make such little sense to me.


 

20.8% increase in success.  If you're curious.....

I know the odds... It just feels like since going from 2Y2G in Mechanics to 3Y1G I fail a lot more. As in "if I'm not Boost stacking, I fail". The Smuggler feels the same, she went from 1Y2G in Light Ranged to 3Y and now never succeeds without 2 Boost dice. And that's against 1P most of the time.

I'm sure it'll even out, but right now we're both sorta wishing we could roll those skills back...

 

We've been kicking around the idea of dropping the extra xp cost for taking out of class specializations. It's not come up yet because no one has wanted to so far, but the main reason we're pondering it is entirely because of the layout of the talents.

I'm really the only one in my group who has hit this "problem". I've spent 50 EXP on just picking up two other specs... but then I felt it was "worth it" as they both brought me skills (2 skills in total) I was going to buy to 5 anyway, so in the long run it'll even out. It's the next Spec Tree that has to be really, really, really worth it before I'll bother (like it needs 2 skills I want or a whole host of low hanging Talents)...


Edited by evileeyore, 13 August 2014 - 04:12 PM.


#29 korjik

korjik

    Member

  • Members
  • 306 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 05:07 PM

For none of you having actually tried what the OP was asking about, you sure are sure about how the game would go.

 

I hate classes with a passion also. Blame WEG, Steve Jackson and DP9 for that. That and a desire to actually think for myself instead of obeying the rules. Let the player decide what they want their character to be instead of a game designer's view.

 

I got rid of classes and class skills. The only time it mattered was that you picked a starting tree and got the skills available to that tree. After char gen, all you needed was two of the spec skills at level 2 to buy off that specs tree.

 

The game went over 800 XP over the 18 months we played (yes the game started in the beta). No player had more than 3 talent trees, and no more than two or three L5 skills. I didnt have any problems with the game, as I play with adults, and not people who think abusing the game system is fun. My players got very good at fast talking their way into and out of trouble, and they got pretty good with blasters and fists, but they were scoundrels for the most part, so autofire was used only a few times in the game, and was only occasionally devastating. That just makes it fun. Giving 15 xp per session is a bit much tho, but I think that a as much a generic issue as a house rule issue. I will prolly do 10 xp per next time I run a game.



#30 progressions

progressions

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,528 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 06:47 PM

Nope, I quite like the way it was written.


  • Maelora and GMmL like this

EOTE Styles and Dice Symbols for Obsidian Portal

Our group's EOTE Obsidian Portal: Explorers on the Edge


#31 ScooterinAB

ScooterinAB

    Member

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 09:04 PM

Since your career is largely meaningless anyways, I'm also unclear as to what you gain from taking careers out of the game. See, Star Wars is already a level-less, largely freeform advancement system, and your career really doesn't play into that. Rather than removing them as some abomination (which is why I so hate when people make house rules), I would like to know what the problem is and why people want to remove them in the first place. How are careers getting in the way and stopping the game from occurring? How are they tripping things up? Are they tripping things up? Or is this just a knee jerk reaction or something to do with the Dedication talent? Because the latter has already been discussed to death as to why that's unnecessary.


  • Maelora likes this

#32 whafrog

whafrog

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,502 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 09:10 PM

That and a desire to actually think for myself instead of obeying the rules.

 

Riight, the rest of us are sheeple...sheesh.


  • Doc, the Weasel, Lorne, KevynnRedfern and 4 others like this

#33 Shamrock

Shamrock

    Member

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 13 August 2014 - 11:22 PM

The Recruit Universal tree in AoR, would help with a lot of this.... except the getting rid of classes part.  It has a ton of skill access etc..


Be well,

 

Sham


#34 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 06:12 AM

Wow, what a conversation. I see a lot of good points, and a lot of...well...yeah.

I have not done what the original post is asking. I am playing my game as much by RAW as I can. Mainly for three-ish reasons.
1. I'm still pretty new to the system and still trying to learn the ins and outs of it.
2. My new group has never played, well except for a couple of minor mini adventures with me; and most just went out and bought the books and are reading them now. So we will all be playing the same game, no wierd house rules to deal with, no one is thinking one thing and having something different come up.
2a. I have just met these people and I am building up my trust base with them. As seen in other threads, I want them to realize that I am here to have fun, tell a good (I hope great) story, and that I am not here to screw them over.
3. I spent a lot of money on this stupid book, so I am going to use it. :)

Some people here make it sound like that if you want to play by the rules, then you are mindless retard who can't do anything on their own. That following the game designers view is wrong. Well, I don't agree. Following the rules does not limit player creativity.

Some people here feel deviating from the written gospel of the book is horrendous and evil. That you can't break the law of the designers. Ok...

People have to do what they, and the group feels right. If everyone is on board with it, then great. Nothing is worse than playing your character and all of sudden the GM changes the rules on you, or you didn't know about them. For example in Edge. I'm a force user, and I'm going to use move to pull the gun from the mooks hand. I roll up the Force Points I need. Yippie, I did it. Nope, the GM now says roll Discipline to do it.?!?!? Wha? Where did that come from. "Well, I just feel that the mook should be able to resist you, because that's how it was in WEG, CR, RCR, and Saga." Great, then go play one of this effing games! This rule book says nothing about opposed discipline checks for that.

My question to the original poster, have you played this game yet? If so, did you play it with Carrers? If not, try it out first, you may actually like it. To those that did play it without Carrers, did you play the game with them too?

I too cut my teeth with WEG Star Wars. I loved that system. Making the switch to D20 was horrible on me. I learned to kind of like RCR, I always hated Saga. I have never been a fan of "Levels". You can't put a level on a 900 year old Jedi master... So if you want to go think for your self, and play a game with out Classes/Careers, then why aren't you still playing those other games?

I am not accusing anyone here of anything, but in my 25 years of gaming I have seen mainly two types of "house rules". Those that a GM/DM makes up to limit the players. And the "house rules" players try to bring in to be a power game. Very rarely are the house rules there to enhance the game to make it "funner" for everyone.

So my advice to the original poster; play the game as written, try it out, learn what works for you and your group, then change what you don't like. Then you actually have a reason to say I changed rule x becuase of this reasoning. Instead of saying well that is how it was in Saga or Pathfinder or whatever.
  • whafrog and Roman Virtue like this

Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#35 Caliber42

Caliber42

    Member

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 06:59 AM

Gone for a couple days and returned to find more responses then I thought I'd receive.

 

Like others, I started playing WEG D6 back in '87 I believe it was. I still have many of my books actually...

 

Edge intrigues me, and I've dabbled with it here and there, along with a friend of mine who I've been gaming with for 20+ years. We've played one full session and several sessions of mock combats and skill-checks. I'm not against careers so much as I miss the conceptual character design elements I got from WEG, essentially letting ME create the "career" and starting skills. My players aren't min-maxxers or power gamers, they're just a group of guys who have a starting concept they find is easier to achieve with a classless system.

 

Given the varied responses, and the power of the internet and it's effect on inflection and tone, I get the feeling some are looking at the original topic as heresy. I'm just simply curious if anyone tried it or not.

 

-Cal



#36 Lorne

Lorne

    Member

  • Members
  • 460 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:14 AM

Heresy! Yes, exactly! Whosoever even looks at the RAW the wrong way shall be sent to the spice mines of Kessel...

 

 

giphy.gif


  • Kavadh likes this

#37 KevynnRedfern

KevynnRedfern

    Member

  • Members
  • 49 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 07:48 AM

Welcome back Cal!  I hope all of these replies (some rather vehement) have not scared you off.

 

Now that I hear what you are doing, my recommendation would be to _try_ it with the careers for 50-100 XP or so, see how it feels with the group.  If it just does not work, recreate careerless (once your house rules are in place to handle it), and go about your merry way.

 

Personally, I found the career helped ground me and focus the character a little bit.  Helped me determine what the character was innately good at, and what they were innately bad at; and gave me easier to find targets to make the character better or worse at for flavour.  It also helped me _not_ step on the toes of the other players at my table.  Without knowing that my table already had 2 smuggler pilots, I might have created one; and thus we would have had at least one pilot not piloting, which sorta defeats the purpose.  Without careers, all the GM could tell me was, "Well, there are 4-6 other people, and I have no idea what they want to build; so just pick something and we will try and make it work."

 

Even in WEG Star Wars, you had templates to start with, and then you broke off and did whatever you like.  This is almost that free form, it is just a little more expensive in XP to get there.  Completely possible, just not a cheap on the XP front.

 

Kevynn


  • whafrog and R2builder like this

#38 KJDavid

KJDavid

    Member

  • Members
  • 122 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 09:00 AM

Many tabletop gamers believe a system which gives them as many character choices as possible is a better system than one which does not. For example, many cling to the idea that a classless system is inherently better than a system with classes.

 

Psychological studies about choice typically don't bear this behavior out. There is a limit at which excess options became paralyzing. In my opinion, too many classless, build-your-own-PC systems fall into this trap. Hero System is an excellent example. In theory, the system is brilliant, since you can create just about any type of character you can imagine. If this is such a good thing, why haven't these tenets spread outside over their relatively shallow waters?

 

Because people do not want infinite choices. There's a reason why 10 or so items works on a fast food menu and why a handful of classes work in an RPG. People dislike infinite choices, because they obsess over making the wrong choice with so many options to choose from. The brain is, essentially, incapable of parsing the various data in order to choose 'correctly' (for whatever that might mean to the individual).

 

Now, I'm not saying systems like Hero or Gurps are bad. They are fine systems. What I am saying is that there are very good psychological reasons to use a class system, especially if you're trying to sell a lot of product. 


  • awayputurwpn, whafrog, Lorne and 3 others like this

#39 ScooterinAB

ScooterinAB

    Member

  • Members
  • 149 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 11:14 AM

Many tabletop gamers believe a system which gives them as many character choices as possible is a better system than one which does not. For example, many cling to the idea that a classless system is inherently better than a system with classes.

 

Psychological studies about choice typically don't bear this behavior out. There is a limit at which excess options became paralyzing. In my opinion, too many classless, build-your-own-PC systems fall into this trap. Hero System is an excellent example. In theory, the system is brilliant, since you can create just about any type of character you can imagine. If this is such a good thing, why haven't these tenets spread outside over their relatively shallow waters?

 

Because people do not want infinite choices. There's a reason why 10 or so items works on a fast food menu and why a handful of classes work in an RPG. People dislike infinite choices, because they obsess over making the wrong choice with so many options to choose from. The brain is, essentially, incapable of parsing the various data in order to choose 'correctly' (for whatever that might mean to the individual).

 

Now, I'm not saying systems like Hero or Gurps are bad. They are fine systems. What I am saying is that there are very good psychological reasons to use a class system, especially if you're trying to sell a lot of product. 

 

Exactly. I was making characters with my group for Barbarians of Lemuria a few weeks ago. For those unfamiliar, this is a very rule slight game with a few stats, no skills, a handful of different mechanical items to buy, and that's it. One player took literally two hours agonizing over the choice of 2 flaws and 3 bonuses. Nearly all flaws and bonuses in this game are a dice penalty/bonus that applies in that situation, so there were very few details to go over. This was just a matter of picking a few situations the player wanted his character to shine and to struggle. I even limited the choices for each player to their race and profession so things didn't get slowed down. 2 hours for a game that should only take 20-30 minutes with a new player. It was ridiculous. All because the player froze and agonized over the best options to take, thinking that he had to game the system.

 

For the naysayers, I once tried to remove classes from D&D 3rd and turn it into a freeform advancement game. I tried to turn all skills, class abilities, and feats into XP purchases, not unlike what Mutants and Masterminds does (but ages before that book came out). It was a disgusting mess. It was so hard to even come up with the numbers, let alone reproduce a valid character. It was a fun idea, but you'd never be able to play with what I had come up with. I haven't done this with Star Wars because I don't need nor care to. The game is already close enough to freeform advancement that it doesn't matter. But I also don't care to, because removing careers would only create problems that solve nothing.


  • awayputurwpn, KevynnRedfern and KJDavid like this

#40 evileeyore

evileeyore

    Member

  • Members
  • 560 posts

Posted 14 August 2014 - 01:14 PM

For example in Edge. I'm a force user, and I'm going to use move to pull the gun from the mooks hand. I roll up the Force Points I need. Yippie, I did it. Nope, the GM now says roll Discipline to do it.?!?!? Wha? Where did that come from. "Well, I just feel that the mook should be able to resist you, because that's how it was in WEG, CR, RCR, and Saga." Great, then go play one of this effing games! This rule book says nothing about opposed discipline checks for that.

Two things:

1 - That has nothing to do with ditching classes. That's a disagreement between your reading of the rules and your GM's intentions. That sort of stuff should be hashed out before play begins.

2 - By the reading of the Control upgrade (and the concept of Move in general) all it does is "What you could do with your hands, without needing to use your hands" (I'm not getting into tossing starships about here). The rules for Move don't say you can automagically disarm your foes, that's normally something that can only be accomplished with Triumphs (or a leinent GM allowing a Melee attack to forgo damage for a disarm). Personally I'd rule for sort of thing, yeah, it would be opposed. But then I'd also have a discussion with the Player in advance about what sort of hijinks he thinks he can get away with using the Force and we'd negotiate how the Force works in our game.
 
 

Now that I hear what you are doing, my recommendation would be to _try_ it with the careers for 50-100 XP or so, see how it feels with the group.  If it juGM does not work, recreate careerless (once your house rules are in place to handle it), and go about your merry way.

We just hit the 80 EXp mark in my game... and I have to say, stick with it till 200 EXP if you can.

Unless you've years, and years, and years of succesfully reinventing the wheel in the games you play. I might disagree with 2P51 (his "They're awesome" to my "It looks very slapdash"), but really the designers did have a plan. It might not work for you (it certianly doesn't for me) but it's worth it to see it through a ways to see where things break down for you.

For instance I'm just noticing the wierd non-statistical anomaly of "more failures with more Yellow dice" thing that is happening in my group. Something we wouldn't have seen down in the 50 EXP range band.

And 100 EXP isn't enough to start making a run at a second Dedication. Seeing how that shakes out for your group can also put a spin on your Classless rules. Heck 200 EXP almost isn't enough to get to 2 of 'em.
 
 

Many tabletop gamers believe a system which gives them as many character choices as possible is a better system than one which does not. For example, many cling to the idea that a classless system is inherently better than a system with classes.

This broad stroke isn't valid.

I prefer classless systems, I however wouldn't say they are "better". There are elements in many systems I prefer, the dice in this one for instance, that have or nothing to do with class.

My favorite system, GURPS, falls down in many places for me and I wouldn't blindly suggest it to new gamers (in fact I'd suggest they go play WotC 3.5 Core D&D first*).

My first question when I face a game system is this one:
Can I make these three heroes with out "strange convolutions" withing the rules:
1 - Conan
2 - The Grey Mouser
3 - D'Artagnan

I can do that in every classless system I've run into. I can do that in this game despite the classes, which is a massive selling point! (ignoring that for a Sword and Sandal, a Mysterious Fantasy, and a Renaissance Swordsman game I'd need completely different Talents).


* It's a good mid-point between "extremely limited choice Class-based" and "free-wheeling Classless". Also it's a nice mid point between simulationist and gamist. If D&D 5e is as "good" as the designers are claiming it is, I might shift my "first recommendation" there, as it includes some narrativist elements.

 

Psychological studies about choice typically don't bear this behavior out. There is a limit at which excess options became paralyzing. In my opinion, too many classless, build-your-own-PC systems fall into this trap. Hero System is an excellent example. In theory, the system is brilliant, since you can create just about any type of character you can imagine. If this is such a good thing, why haven't these tenets spread outside over their relatively shallow waters?

It has. There are almost as many classless systems as there are classed systems.

Why are there so many Classed Systems? Because they are easier on the GMs. No other reason, it simplifies things for the guy running the game (levels when combined with classes increase this simplicity).

Indeed, I'm almost willing to call FFG Star Wars "Classless" because if the GM tells me "I have a Scoundrel Theif, a Fringer Doctor, and an Explorer Scout" I can't tell if we need someone with Piloting (Space) or not.

All three could have pretty good Piloting, all three could have skipped it.

Also the GM has to tailor his games based on his characters with far more care than in other Class-based games. Whn I run this system I know it'll take just as much work (probably more due to my non-mastery of the system) as it does for me running GURPS*.



* The joke here being I do almost no prep work for running GURPS. Ever. I will have to do some prep for SW FFG until I'm more proficient with the rules.
 

Because people do not want infinite choices.

Then why do so many play Pathfinder or late-stage WotC 3.5 D&D?

Seriously, you want "choice paralysis" watch as the dazed look creeps across a new gamers face when confronted with the excruxiatingly level of Class choices (not to mention feats) presented in those games.

We had less issues when I ran a newb through GURPS than when we introduced him to 3.5. (We actually had no issues with the newb making a GURPS character, he made one in less than two hours mostly on his own... he spents three weeks agonizing over classes and feat and attributes for D&D 3.5 and that was with us sticking to just the Player's Handbook and the 7 "Complete" books).

 

What I am saying is that there are very good psychological reasons to use a class system, especially if you're trying to sell a lot of product.

Ahahahahahahaha...

That has nothing to do with "decision paralysis" and everything to do with "Look 3 new Classes in the new splatbook! Look, new options! Look new rules we didn't put in the Core book, rules YOU REALLY NEED!" followed by the rubbing of hands and evil-mustache-twirl and cackling.

It's why I'm never going to buy anything FFG puts out. Luckily for FFG one guy (our current GM) is a Star Wars fanatic and buys everything Star Wars.

I think he personally funded their CEOs last vacation with his X-Wing Miniatures purchases alone... purchases for a game he doesn't play (we do use the miniatures in our space combat scenes at least). Le sigh.


For the naysayers, I once tried to remove classes from D&D 3rd and turn it into a freeform advancement game.

Blink, blink. D&D is nothing like FFG SW. D&D has classes and levels as it's core character building mechanic.

FFG SW does not. The core character building mechanic here is the interplay between Attributes and Skills and Talents. The Classes and Specializations are a way to "balance" characters after creation, nothing more.

And trying to turn D&D into a classless system? Sounds... crazy to me. But one man's fun is another's beating his head against a wall.


The game is already close enough to freeform advancement that it doesn't matter. But I also don't care to, because removing careers would only create problems that solve nothing.

It doesn't matter to you. It matters to me.

It solves my disgust with some of the "design choices" which do not look balanced in anyway.

Edited by evileeyore, 14 August 2014 - 01:21 PM.

  • KevynnRedfern and Kavadh like this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS