How do you guys buy your talent trees? I noticed that they tend to break down into complimentary patters - the two left columns and the two right columns. Like, for example, the Politico has the Give a Blue abilities on the left side and a Inflict a Black abilities on the right.

So do you guys tend to buy from the tree? Do you jump around left and right? Do you try and fill up a tier before moving on (the OCD method )? A beeline straight to that sweet, sweet Dedication? Do you stick on one side? Or are you just higgledy piggledy all over the map?

I'm curious as to how others do this as well.

Typically, I spend the XP in this order:

-Buy all career skills until they're around 1 to 3 ranks until the skills fit the type of character I want to play, in relation to the background, etc.

-Buy a second career spec.

-Buy more my second career spec skills until I get to ~1-3.

-Buy a few 5 cost talents.

-Make a bee line towards the more favorable dedication of the two talent trees that I have.

My group mostly does the same, however one guy is gunning for dedication, without having a second career spec yet.

Really depends on the character. I've built a character that cut a swath through the Maruader tree, sorta prioritizing talents on an individual basis by bang vs. buck, and also by what talents they gave me access to.

Saga Edition was easy...I had many a character planned from 1 to 20 I never actually got to level 20, but I always stuck to my plan and I was very satisfied with my choices. But this edition, man it's like each XP purchase is total heat of the moment for me. I love it.

EDIT: My F-S Exile, though, I stuck to one side of the tree. Again, it was mostly a bang vs. buck scenario. Wanted that higher Force rating

My players tend to pick up most of a row before dipping to the next. None of them dive straight for Dedication - its just not that important to us to max out base numbers (we also tend to take a lot of skills at ranks 1-2 rather than pushing one or two to ranks 4-5).

Really too hard to say. It so depends on the tree and the concept I have in mind. Some really encourage a beeline to the Dedication bonus like Bounty Hunter Gadgeteer, others are more meandering or dubious in the talents they provide.

I tend head towards dedication, picking up cheap talents on the way, unless there is a good reason to take a detour. I can't say i've seen a talent not worth picking up for 5 exp, when its costing 10 or more i start getting picky.

Mind i tend to spend exp as soon i get it.

I have been letting the story dictate where I put my XP skill wise. I have found myself with more 1s and 2s in skills (except for Ranged: Light) and like the organic feel that it has given my character. I find it hard, however, to stop myself from buying into out of career skills, but have managed to do so for everything except Cool.

As for Talents, I have been doing the same thing as well. While I do have Dedication in my Survivalist tree, with Gadgeteer and FSE those have been primarily story driven.

An example would be...

We had been trekking through the desert, blah blah blah, and I had enough XP to buy Tinkerer from Gadgeteer. I ended up buying a rank 3 in Resilience since it fit more to the story.

In our group the thief went straight for dedication, Our gadgeteer has picked up dedication but upped his ranged heavy and a couple of other skills first as well as picking up other talents and just started on his second spec tree. Our Merc Soldier Has spent everything on his weapon skills and picked up a ton of talents I believe he his going to pick up every talent on his tree as well as a signature ability before going else where. We have an outlaw tech/doctor/Force sensitive exile which is all over the place. As well as a scoundrel theif who is picking up complimentary talents I don't think she has gone down to dedication yet.

With most of my character builds, I give them balanced stats to start with and then beeline for dedication, counting on having 3s in the important abilities to get me through a lot of checks without actually having to buy many skills beyond what I get for free at the start. That being said, if I have an extra 5 xp here or there, I'll pick up a new career skill, sure. Also, though I have it roughly planned out in what order I will buy things, I sometimes deviate based on anticipated needs. For instance, we just picked up a prisoner, so I used the 15 xp I just got + the 5 I had in the bank to buy intimidating and natural enforcer in anticipation of the the interrogation next session.

I think most of the other people in my group just buy what looks interesting or what they think is going to be beneficial at the time they get their xp. Only one other character has gotten dedication so far, and that's the scoundrel.

In our group the thief went straight for dedication, Our gadgeteer has picked up dedication but upped his ranged heavy and a couple of other skills first as well as picking up other talents and just started on his second spec tree. Our Merc Soldier Has spent everything on his weapon skills and picked up a ton of talents I believe he his going to pick up every talent on his tree as well as a signature ability before going else where. We have an outlaw tech/doctor/Force sensitive exile which is all over the place. As well as a scoundrel theif who is picking up complimentary talents I don't think she has gone down to dedication yet.

As I'm still new to things, I'm curious in your group how many sessions have you played? About how much earned xp do you all have? And do the characters who are all over the place find themselves useful to the party? I'm setting up a game for my friends and I am trying to understand how progression is going to work and your group sounds similar to how my players will likely end up distributed. We've got a few that like to focus, two the like to play against character and one that dabbles.

Depends on the tree. I'll bee-line for the Talents I think will be most useful for my role, or will be used most frequently, and then head for Dedication. Other stuff, particularly niche ranked stuff, I'll get if I see that it will actually be relevant in the current game.

In our group the thief went straight for dedication, Our gadgeteer has picked up dedication but upped his ranged heavy and a couple of other skills first as well as picking up other talents and just started on his second spec tree. Our Merc Soldier Has spent everything on his weapon skills and picked up a ton of talents I believe he his going to pick up every talent on his tree as well as a signature ability before going else where. We have an outlaw tech/doctor/Force sensitive exile which is all over the place. As well as a scoundrel theif who is picking up complimentary talents I don't think she has gone down to dedication yet.

As I'm still new to things, I'm curious in your group how many sessions have you played? About how much earned xp do you all have? And do the characters who are all over the place find themselves useful to the party? I'm setting up a game for my friends and I am trying to understand how progression is going to work and your group sounds similar to how my players will likely end up distributed. We've got a few that like to focus, two the like to play against character and one that dabbles.

I think we have been playing for over a year at this point. I think everyone has received an additional 140 xp The Outlaw tech/Doctor/Force Sensitive exile has atleast a rank in every intelligence skill an intelligence of 4 and is the only healer slicer or mechanic in the group so they get alot of use. They just started on the force path and more for story reasons and so we can see how the force runs then anything else. I actually think that characters that are more generalized get more gameplay in and are more useful then the niche character that is only good at one thing though it depends on the GM. If you are running a campaign that is almost all combat the combat characters will dominate the gameplay and be good at what the campaign focuses on. If there is a good balance of everything or you have really creative players that combat character will be awesome at combat but not too good at much else though if they have a high agility they could also reasonably do some stealth or piloting. Our merc soldier is almost all combat is a little trigger happy but is branching out into leadership negotiation and charm since he has a higher presence then the rest of us. The more the group diversifies the easier it is to handle all situations. We have a lot of combat but there is also alot of other stuff.

For instance the group encountered a jedi didn't know he was they decided they needed him to accompany them to a mysterious cave. He wouldn't go so they decided to stun him and take him. Well he disarmed them all which took away the only stunning weapon the merc soldier had so he pulled his disruptor rifle and blew the guys arm off. The doctor saved him and put him in a bacta take to recover. While deciding what to do because now he will be extremely angry and they thought he was a dark jedi they decided to drug him with something to give him memory loss. Decided he could see through any thing they came up with because he could read minds.(They were assuming any story ever told of any force user must be true of this guy) They ended up giving the whole group amnesia. That was actually the last encounter. While it doesn't represent the diversity of actions taken it does kind of highlight the groups creativity.

Thanks Tanarri, this helps relieve some of my fears. My game will be a mix of story, puzzles and combat, so I'm really hoping that I don't end up with players who essentially have to "sit it out" for parts of the session just because they are focused spec'd or jacks of all trades.

There's no reason for a PC to sit out. Every character can attempt to roll every skill. They just might not be great at it, but they can still try if they want.

There's no reason for a PC to sit out. Every character can attempt to roll every skill. They just might not be great at it, but they can still try if they want.

True, it might take some time for them to get used to that though, we'll see. I'm hoping the destiny points will help some of them come out of their shells when it comes to doing things not class specific.

There's no reason for a PC to sit out. Every character can attempt to roll every skill. They just might not be great at it, but they can still try if they want.

True this. Though I don't make a habit of it, I have rolled charm and negotiation checks with my Bounty hunter who has no ranks and a presence of 2. I'm also likely to make some leadership checks in the future. You do what your character would do, not what you think you mechanically will succeed at (though to an extent, mechanics aught to reflect your characters personality).

Even though my intellect is only 3, and I have no ranks in any knowledge skills, I'm not afraid to attempt even hard knowledge checks. You never know what your character might know.

Even though my intellect is only 3

I have been seeing a lot of posts lately that consider Characteristics of 2 (and even 3) to be "low" which seems off to me, as I see a 2 as being average and a 3 as being notably above average.

There's no reason for a PC to sit out. Every character can attempt to roll every skill. They just might not be great at it, but they can still try if they want.

True this. Though I don't make a habit of it, I have rolled charm and negotiation checks with my Bounty hunter who has no ranks and a presence of 2. I'm also likely to make some leadership checks in the future. You do what your character would do, not what you think you mechanically will succeed at (though to an extent, mechanics aught to reflect your characters personality).

Even though my intellect is only 3, and I have no ranks in any knowledge skills, I'm not afraid to attempt even hard knowledge checks. You never know what your character might know.

I didn't mean to make it seem like you shouldn't or couldn't make checks if you don't have the stat or skill. I just meant that when given the option on who will roll a given check we try to give it to the person with the best chance of succeeding. There have been a ton of different rolls where people only rolled 2 green dice against whatever difficulty. The doctor in the group has an agility of 2 and no weapon skills she still fires in combat. The group often tries to be stealthy even though only 2 people have any ranks in it.

I feel if you are going to be a niche character you should have a 4 in your specific stat but you should try for a 3 in a back up stat so you are a little more flexible. Otherwise get as many 3s as possible and be extremely well rounded. I play a politico in a separate campaign I have 4 stats at 3 and not alot of points in skills.

Even though my intellect is only 3

I have been seeing a lot of posts lately that consider Characteristics of 2 (and even 3) to be "low" which seems off to me, as I see a 2 as being average and a 3 as being notably above average.

Agreed.

Intellect 1 could indeed be a moron but just as easily a naive or uneducated individual.

Intellect 2 is average. You are smart enough but not the brains of any operation.

Intellect 3 is above average. You're a smart guy/girl indeed.

Intellect 4 is higher education. You know your stuff. You can reason, deduct, work out and remember pretty much everything.

Intellect 5 is academics. You are top of your field and people look to you for information all the time.

Intellect 6 is genius. This is mensa level intellect and your thought process scares people.

Intellect 7.... Hey, wait a minute is that a brain implant?

Even though my intellect is only 3

I have been seeing a lot of posts lately that consider Characteristics of 2 (and even 3) to be "low" which seems off to me, as I see a 2 as being average and a 3 as being notably above average.

People consider 3 to be "only"? If we've got a scale of 6 to work with, six being Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan's love child and one being . . . well, this guy:

Then three is pretty goddamned good. I imagine it goes something like this:

Brawn 1) Below Average - a pre-Super Solder serum Steve Rodgers

Brawn 2) Average - You and Me

Brawn 3) Above Average - a Nightclub Bouncer

Brawn 4) Exceptional - Mister T and Sylvester Stallone

Brawn 5) Highly skilled - Football players, a Mr Universe era Schwarzenegger

Brawn 6) Pinnacle of human development - Batman

Even though my intellect is only 3

I have been seeing a lot of posts lately that consider Characteristics of 2 (and even 3) to be "low" which seems off to me, as I see a 2 as being average and a 3 as being notably above average.

The big problem with the scale is that 2 is "average" and therefore 1 is everything from "slightly below average" to "not worth mentioning. It's a skewed curve.

Even though my intellect is only 3

I have been seeing a lot of posts lately that consider Characteristics of 2 (and even 3) to be "low" which seems off to me, as I see a 2 as being average and a 3 as being notably above average.

The big problem with the scale is that 2 is "average" and therefore 1 is everything from "slightly below average" to "not worth mentioning. It's a skewed curve.

Is it much of a problem? How many PCs have you seen with a 1 in anything? I've only seen one - a Gand with Presence 1. Everybody else buys up to a minimum of 2 in their lowest Characteristic, so the "below average" score mainly appears in NPCs (and Droids, but my group considers them poor choices for PCs).

Even though my intellect is only 3

I have been seeing a lot of posts lately that consider Characteristics of 2 (and even 3) to be "low" which seems off to me, as I see a 2 as being average and a 3 as being notably above average.

The big problem with the scale is that 2 is "average" and therefore 1 is everything from "slightly below average" to "not worth mentioning. It's a skewed curve.

I disagree. How many flavors of bad do you need?

Do you GMs have a preference as to when the player spends XP- at the beginning of a session, during a session's wrap up, or as the need arises? Or do you simply not care?

I want them to spent it straight after the session or in between. Not at the start....

In between is the best as that means I can help out and give advice as best as possible.