We are toying with the idea to disallow stacking between the specialisations. One could choose which specialisations’ tree one uses for the talent. Example: either Doctor or Marauder, but they do not stack.
One could even cross out those talents and enable faster advancement in those trees. Maybe that would be to fast, not sure…
So, let’s theorise a bit…
For the why:
no more Wookie Doctor Marauders and their kind
it seems that the talents in one tree are more than enough to be heroic
it encourages to buy specialisations more for what they are, and not for the talent
most “crazy stuff” comes from stacking talents
Disadvantages:
obviously no more stacking talents
lower “power” level
?
I am interested in the opinions of my fellow gamers. What do you think, how will such a rule effect the game?
It is at odds with the game’s fundamental design, and adds some cumbersomeness to the game.
I take it the idea is if you want to use a talent, you can only combine it with stuff on the same tree? So if you have Parry 2 from one tree and Parry 1 from another, you can only use Parry 2, but if the tree with Parry 1 has Improved Parry, you’d have to use Parry 1 in order to Improved Parry? What if you have Feral Strength from one tree, and Knockdown from another?
I think it’s wonky and unnecessary. Are there some broken combos? Yes. But the trees are designed with the expectation that you’ll be stacking trees to get good builds, and at high levels of EXP, eliminating talent-stacking puts a pretty hard cap on a character’s build.
One major effect it will have is causing players to invest a lot of XP into their skills.
It’s not something I would use or recommend, and I would probably not play in a game that disallowed talent combos across specs, but if you want to play that way, go ahead.
I do not think it is at odds. Good point with Parry, but you could use Improved Parry with Parry 2, as Improved Parry is a different talent. Same with Feral Strength and Knockdown, different talents. The idea is that you can use anything from anywhere as in RAW, but the same talents do not stack from different trees. Basically you coud use the higher of the two. In my experience it even simplifies things, or keeps the same length at the table.
I am not sure they were designed with stacking in mind. If they was it was a bit of a careless design. But that is my hypothesis.
I think people will spend a bit more on skills which is not a bad thing. The effect will be much more limited, if I understand your described implications correctly. It will just keep talents around 3 and not raise them to the 5+ range.
Stacking like that is pretty standard in RPGs, and based on the quantity of talents you need to make some things effective (e.g., Parry, Reflect), stacking is clearly intended behavior if it’s to represent the power scaling they intend. Same thing with Toughened/Grit. Can it get out of hand at very high XP tiers? Yes, but those are also games at extremely high EXP, and the people in those games knew what they were getting into.
(For Toughened/Grit, compare to leveling in D&D-like RPGs, where HP scales with XP/levels)
The combo of Doctor/Marauder you mention in your first post is to make use of Pressure Point. If the only problem with stacking is multiple iterations of the same talent from different trees, that would not address the Doctor/Marauder brokenness. The two trees share one talent, Toughened, and it isn’t even part of that combo.
I agree spending more on skills isn’t a bad thing (in moderation), but it also has a lower XP ceiling and has a more totalizing effect on the game. While talents allow players to do cool things or make the things they do more effective, more skills increase their likelihood of success without expanding their options. This turns situations that could be high-risk/high-reward into low-risk/mid-reward, which is less interesting. Remember, the more dice you have, the greater influence the law of averages has. The more your dice rolls average out, the less variance there is in the consequences of your actions.
Speaking as a GM, I would rather my players stack talents than max out skills. Either can be taken to an extreme and each has different consequences.
There wouldn’t be any point in taking extra specializations if you can’t buy the talents from that spec. I guess you unlock more career skills that way, but without talents you might as well just eat the +5XP penalty for raising skill ranks out-of-career.
@P-47Thunderbolt
We can discuss the issue of stacking and rpg design, but that is question of taste. I accept that you like it, no problem with that.
Yes, I think the problem is stacking multiple iterations of the same talent from different trees.
No, the issue (at least in my/our experience) is stacking Pressure Point. Of course it remedies the problem. Doctor and Marauder share Pressure Point too. So you would have Toughened once, and Pressure Point only from one specialisation tree. I am not saying you have to like it, but does reduces the problem!
I am not against talents in this game. I also do not believe that people would spend less on talents, exaclty because you can do cool things with them. But, yes, skills would probably more prominent. Yet, there are many things skills can not do, but talents can.
Pressure Point is not a ranked talent, and Marauder does not have Pressure Point. The issue is not stacking Pressure Point with itself, but the synergy between Pressure Point and a good Brawl, with relevant Feral Strength talents. Brawn 4, Feral Strength 2, Medicine 3, 1 Success would deal 10 Strain, bypassing Soak. Against a Stormtrooper Sergeant (5 Soak, 15 WT), that’s the equivalent of 15 regular damage. To repeat, between the two trees, there is only ONE copy of Pressure Point. The only way your proposal would affect the combo is by preventing ANY cross-pollination of talents between trees, such that Feral Strength would not apply on a check that also uses Pressure Point.
I don’t mean this to be insulting, but you seem to lack an understanding of certain factors in this discussion.
As for stacking and RPG design being a question of taste, that is true in a broad scope if you were designing a game from scratch. However, to modify an existing game, it is important to understand how the game was designed, and why it is the way it is. Otherwise, you can unintentionally break things.
Propeller aircraft and jet aircraft have strengths and weaknesses, and one is more suitable for some jobs and vice versa—but you can’t repair a propeller aircraft’s engine the way you’d repair a jet aircraft’s engine, and vice versa.
@Swordbreaker Yes, I did that, liked it much more. Thank you!
@P-47Thunderbolt I stand corrected. Now, I get the “would not address the Doctor/Marauder brokenness”. Never the less, it still not see the issue with avoiding stacking, but I agree it would “put a hard cap on the character build”, which we like.
End of the day, we this part of the campaign we will see how to commence. After all the book are excellent sourcebooks on themselves.
I am in almost identical parts Player and GM and for me, all attempts in almost any RPG I ever played to temper with the rules to prevent the players of some of their advancement always felt bad.
If you don´t like the Wookie Doctor Marauder then just don´t allow special combos but even that I wouldn´t do.
Without stacking there is no Sith or Jedi deflecting blaster shots or parry a lightsaber strike from an experienced fighter.
You break the game more than you prevent
I think not allowing talent from multiple trees would hurt high level games, but not sure how high exp your games get. Force Characters would be most impacted from this. It sounds like it would also impact buying dedication multiple times.
If you big issue is pressure points, try talking to your player about why it is so trouble some and offer a different talent to replace that or let him rebuild his character to something with out that combo. Or change to where he can use that but it doesn’t ignore Soak.
If he refuses the you need to decide if it is a big enough issue to ask him to leave the game over it. If he is ruining your fun and the fun of the players at the table then maybe he doesn’t need to be part of your table. You could also kill his character off in the story, but that would feel petty if you already talked to him about changing his character.
