Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FFG_Sam Stewart

Beta Update 7

Recommended Posts

Early indeed.  Thanks!

 

EDIT: you need something to get through the work days.

 

Initial impression of the change to terrify... I don't like it.  It railroads characters who take it into conflict whether they actually use it or not.  I think use of the talent should cause conflict, not possession of the talent itself.

 

Or perhaps, it should be improved terrify that causes the auto conflict. 

 

It's not a big deal.  The difference is pretty minimal, but considering how well the force powers were designed to avoid railroading a character into a dark path, it seems a shame to make talents do it.  But at the same time, I understand that some specializations will be designed to be dark specs.  Since the aggressor is the only core spec that's designed that way, it just feels a little out of place.

Edited by Thebearisdriving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the conflict addition to Terrify, but it seems more like something that should only trigger when you try and use the talent. Like I get it taps into the force to make it more effective (immobilizing) and you can easily avoid the talent altogether, but it still seems odd that a player could conceivably just sit in a ship with no contact with anyone, and he'd still get conflict just for knowing how to tap into the force to scare somebody.

 

That and I know that it was only added to Terrify and not additional talents for the purpose of introducing and testing the talent, but it would make sense for things like Fearsome to also trigger conflict even though it's not tied to the force - and if the conflict was only triggered by use of the talent, then it gets around the fact that a player would have to take a conflict-triggering talent to grab Grit/Force Rating (unless those got moved).

 

 

EDIT: I just realized that trying to use Fearsome/Terrify would likely automatically trigger "Inflicting Emotional Abuse" on the conflict suggestion table, so I guess there's no point in adding auto-conflict to  Fearsome. Still stand by the suggestion that the auto-conflict only happens when actually trying to use Terrify though.

Edited by Lathrop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeeeaaah, I'm going to go ahead and agree that the Conflict for just having Terrify seems redundant.  Not sure what that thinking is -- is it to plug-up some hidden loophole?  Like it's OP and if ppl only use it in the middle of a fight, one can argue that Conflict shouldn't accrue because it's not gratuitous?  Obviously using it to frighten people out of the blue already gives Conflict...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the addition to terrify, especially given the other recent changes to the aggressor tree.  You just added talents that only work if the target is disoriented, and then add a penalty to the one talent that disorients people.  It's pretty much forcing anybody who takes this tree to get an automatic conflict every game, regardless of how good or evil they act. 

 

I also don't like the alternative of dinging the person every time they use Terrify.  This talent could be the center piece of a lot of Aggressors combat strategy, and could easily cause the character to rack up a lot of conflict over a session.  I personally don't see how using Terrify to attack somebody is any worse then running somebody through with a lightsaber.  Once you're in combat you do what you need to do to  not die.

 

I'd just put a note or sidebar in saying that this is a talent that could easily be abused, and the GM and player should be aware that it's easy to gain conflict while using it, but don't force it.  This should be a role playing thing not a mandated rule.

Edited by Split Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea is for future specs in splats down the road, say with potential alchemy and other nightsister/sith/EVIL talents.  talents that represent knowledge that simply twists you just because you know it.

 

I think my issue with the conflict for possession is there is currently no way to unlearn a talent, and while those talents aren't expensive, they ain't cheap.  So if you want to redeem a character with terrify down the road because you can, so sorry Charlie, the dark path has dominated your destiny.

 

It just seems really counter to the rest of the FaD philosophy of punishing actions, not character creation/advancement choices.

 

EDIT: @split light

The fear and coercion based abilities walk a fine line.  Using fear is using the darkside, so there is a sort of guilt by association.  Problem is determining the difference between intimidating someone to lay down their arms, and terrifying some one to the point they soil themselves just to get bonus damage...

 

The issue here for me is that this turns Aggressor into a dark spec.  Which is cool, flavorful, and maybe not right for the core product.  Not much they can do about that now, but the darker paths seem better suited to splats than the core.

Edited by Thebearisdriving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I think that the terrify talent should definitely generate conflict when used, and I'm even fine with knowledge of the talent generating conflict.  My actual issue is with it being in a talent within the warrior class.  I think that the current orientation of the aggressor as a fear and intimidation-based combatant give it an obvious dark side slant that makes warrior a less desirable choice overall.  As an example, I actually had a player choose defender over warrior despite wanting force ace simply because he felt that his long term expansion options were limited to two specializations instead of three because of the aforementioned dark side association with the aggressor tree.  

 

The thing is, I actually like the aggressor specialization.  I think that it would be better suited to a career associated with the dark side.  The talents make that association implicit already, why not simply make it explicit and create a career instead of leaving it as a sub optimal choice within an otherwise great career?  

 

If it stays in, I'll probably have to write another option to keep my players satisfied, and that should say something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an example, I actually had a player choose defender over warrior despite wanting force ace simply because he felt that his long term expansion options were limited to two specializations instead of three because of the aforementioned dark side association with the aggressor tree.

 

It's 10XP more for a different career spec, I wouldn't exactly call that a limitation (unless you have a house rule...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As an example, I actually had a player choose defender over warrior despite wanting force ace simply because he felt that his long term expansion options were limited to two specializations instead of three because of the aforementioned dark side association with the aggressor tree.

 

It's 10XP more for a different career spec, I wouldn't exactly call that a limitation (unless you have a house rule...)

 

 

You might not, certainly, but other people value their character resources differently.  He felt that it was a tax, and that he shouldn't be forced to spend his experience on what he viewed as a sub optimal design choice.  While I certainly don't think his opinion is universal, I do think that it's a valid perspective on what is, in my opinion, an unnecessary problem.

Edited by Chrislee66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My actual issue is with it being in a talent within the warrior class.  I think that the current orientation of the aggressor as a fear and intimidation-based combatant give it an obvious dark side slant that makes warrior a less desirable choice overall.  

 

Indeed.  Post-overhaul, this spec is too morally aligned for my tastes, whereas all other specs are morally neutral.

 

I was really hoping they would clean this one up from printed beta into what it seemed like they were going for -- a Marauder with Force talents, a melee/saber spec without the exclusive focus on sabers.  Well, we got that, kind of, but with the mandatory Dark flavor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question: is +1 conflict per session really that damaging?

I think it's a lot more reasonable than, for instance, a mandatory 1 conflict whenever the talent is used (a case where you'd have players complaining that they invested XP into the talent and are being penalized every time they use it instead of just once per game). Sure, there might be sessions where a given player might not use the talent at all or might not even gain conflict from another source, but that evens out over the course of a campaign and I think, in the long run, it might be to the player's net benefit. 

I think the mechanic in play here is actually a decent way to make the seductive nature of the dark side mechanical and not just fluff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aggressor tree, to me, says "Dripping with Conflict." I like the mechanical emphasis of this. It's not heavy enough to be railroady IMO, but at the same time it's like, "Hey, this is you, you like being scary; you revel in the conflict."

 

Just so long as you don't do anything else in game to warrant conflict, you won't be slipping to the Dark Side because of this one talent.

 

EDIT: Two well-established (canonical) characters jump out at me as being Aggressors: Mace Windu and Darth Maul. Mace Windu had his own way of dealing with internal conflict and stayed true to the light side while also being absolutely terrifying in combat. Darth Maul, on the other hand...well. Y'know.

Edited by awayputurwpn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question: is +1 conflict per session really that damaging?

I think it's a lot more reasonable than, for instance, a mandatory 1 conflict whenever the talent is used (a case where you'd have players complaining that they invested XP into the talent and are being penalized every time they use it instead of just once per game). Sure, there might be sessions where a given player might not use the talent at all or might not even gain conflict from another source, but that evens out over the course of a campaign and I think, in the long run, it might be to the player's net benefit. 

I think the mechanic in play here is actually a decent way to make the seductive nature of the dark side mechanical and not just fluff.  

The issue, at least for my player, wasn't the conflict.  During our session the update hadn't even been released.  The issue was that the aggressor in it's current configuration has a dark side orientation due to its focus on fear and intimidation that colors it and the whole warrior career.  No other career currently has this, and it therefore makes it a sub optimal choice for someone that doesn't want to play a character that delves deeply into the dark side.  

 

I understand that not everyone cares about these things, but for those that do their preference is as valid as anyone else's.  As I said above, I like the specialization, I just don't think that it' well suited to the product as it stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my players is playing an aggressor with a rank or two in Terrify, I'll be testing this update on Sunday.

 

The player wanted to play this specialization because it was an interesting roleplay choice. He wanted to play a character who wasn't darkside, but was always under the threat of falling (kind of like Cade Skywalker).

Edited by kaosoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One objection I have is to just knowing a talent causing obligation, is that's a permanent ding, forever more.  Say your character starts as an Aggressor, bordering on the dark.  They scare the crap off of people left and right and revel in the darkness.

 

Now flash forward 10 years.  This same character has seen the light, they're the new Yoda,  master of the Jedi, bastion of the light, dancing with puppies, and doing all things good.  They haven't used that talent in 5 years, but it's still there dinging them every session.  The rules as written don't give any allowance for somebody who has changed over time and gone away from their scary ways. 

 

I don't think a character should be dinged every session regardless of their behavior, because it gives no allowance for the characters true personality, or where they've developed over time.  There's no way to unlearn a talent.  I also  don't like it dinging somebody every time they use the power as I think that's just to onerous a penalty, and could rack up the conflict to quickly.

 

As a compromise I might suggest giving the character one, or maybe even two, conflict every session they use the talent, not every time.  So if they go a few sessions without using it, no penalty, but if they get in a fight for their life and use it 5 times in one giant melee they still only get dinged once.

Edited by Split Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Split Light, one way to look at it would be that this inclination to terrify is built into the character's personality and, even years later, they must be vigilant to avoid giving in to it.

 

Similar to people with addiction who still consider themselves addicts after being clean for 10 years, or 20, and who still fight the urge to give in to their vice each day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SplitLight, one house rule you could enforce would be to only hit them with the +1 whenever their morality is triggered. The GM could then use that as a story point for that session.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm fine with this rule, I think it is an interesting twist and I'm curious to see what else they have in mind for this idea.

 

However, I kinda doubt that it will make it into the rulebook. I think we're going to see another "Duelist Training" situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mandatory conflict for filling out your specialization tree? No. Bad FFG. Bad.

 

If talent drawbacks were "a thing" already, an integral part of the game's design, it would be different. The game would be different and designed and balanced accordingly -- maybe talent trees that branch instead of webs of arbitrary connection, without "must have" capstones at the end, where the player has more choice after choosing a spec.

 

But here, as with the Duelist's Training, it sticks out like a sore thumb because that's what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea. 1 conflict will never make your morality go down if you're trying to keep to the straight and narrow. Most players who bought into the aggressor spec are not going to be squeamish about earning some conflict (and if they are, they're in the wrong tree).

 

Personally, I think I like this and it would pull me toward taking terrify even faster when playing an aggressor.

 

As for getting rid of it once you've had a change of heart...

 

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny"

Yoda says no.

Edited by Doctor Xerox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...