No one has yet to suggest a new mechanic that might balance it (besides respecing). It doesn't matter whether it gets implemented or not, it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

Darn right. Why would anyone waste their time on that? I mean, I get it if it's a puzzle and you like puzzles, but that's critical time I could spend actually gaming, or prepping for one...or what have you.

The point is, pick your battles. If all your efforts can be hand-waved in five minutes, there's no purpose and nothing is gained.

Speaking as a designer myself, it is nearly impossible to perfectly balance any game. There are always imbalances, but as long as they are minor and essentially not a real issue - like this one - then it doesn't matter.

I often wonder why people think the developers didn't consider this when they were making the game. They obviously did, and decided in favor of good story and narrative. If you want to play a game where you can worry about being the best mathematically, go play a d20 game.

To summarize your argument (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) It is impossible to balance any game, so let's not try

But why can't we work together to think of ways to balance it further? Why give up? Let's pool our knowledge together to think of ways to further balance the game. Instead of demanding we don't try to change this game we love, why don't we think about different ways to balance it? I know its academic, but why give up? This is the EotE forums, I assumed there would be people who had some extra time on their hands and would be willing to think of ways to balance the game, but no one wants to even think of ways it could be better. Why?

2) It is a minor issue - it doesn't matter

I cannot argue against this point. All I can do is point to the 25% difference in success or advantage rate and suggest it does matter enough to think about ways that it can be balanced. It matters enough to spend a little bit of effort to see if it can be more balanced. It is academic to see if there is a way to balance it, but why just silence those that want to see if its possible?

3) They decided on good story and narrative, and allowing characters to upgrade their characteristics later up to a maximum of their species specific starting XP using the XP they gain in the game (as if they did so at character creations so at max 3,3,3,3,2,2 4,3,2,2,2,2, or 5,2,2,2,2,2) would detract from good story and narrative.

This can be argued either way. There can be narrative where a character can improve them-self but to a limit, and there is narrative where a character can only improve them-self in very rare circumstances (talent tree).

Some people want a balanced game. I'm suggesting it can be completely balanced.

At this point I can't help but think you're either pulling our legs (a polite form of the T-word), or you're so blinded by The Maths that you're taking this to a ridiculous extreme. If you enjoy The Maths, the by all means go for it, but I don't think you should fool yourself into believing you're helping anybody else.

Because this is how my conversation would go with a player:

"Hey GM, my character, in which I invested no XP at chargen into characteristics even though you told me to, seems to suck a bit compared to everybody else's character."

"Okay, let's take a look and rebuild him...better, strong, faster..."

Here's how yours apparently would go:

"Hi everybody, here are my new special rules for character creation that supersede the ones in the book. You didn't read those, but I expect you to read these."

"No."

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

No, it's just an acknowledgement of where the issue actually lies: with those who don't read the rules. It's not a huge sin, and is easily corrected, but that's still where the fault is.

As for "empathy", that seems ironic. We're the ones who initially advocated letting the players respec as the quickest and simplest solution.

If you enjoy The Maths, the by all means go for it

It's really for academic reasons - can the system be improved further?

Because this is how my conversation would go with a player:

"Hey GM, my character, in which I invested no XP at chargen into characteristics even though you told me to, seems to suck a bit compared to everybody else's character."

"Okay, let's take a look and rebuild him...better, strong, faster..."

I'm fine with that, of course that's how it would go for anyone's table (hopefully)

Here's how yours apparently would go:

"Hi everybody, here are my new special rules for character creation that supersede the ones in the book. You didn't read those, but I expect you to read these."

"No."

That's unnecessarily making my suggestion incomprehensible - A human can spend at most throughout the campaign 110xp on characteristics. It can be at the start or later on. A Rodian can spend at most 100xp on characteristics.

As for "empathy", that seems ironic. We're the ones who initially advocated letting the players respec as the quickest and simplest solution.

Calling you out on being unnecessarily mean and suggesting I not have any empathy. I've yet to be mean to anyone here.

Some people suggested respecs and I like that for balancing's sake. It balances the game for a novice and an expert.

But this is the EotE forums, we take academic positions all the time, dreaming up new ideas for ships and characters etc. Let's get academic and think of ways to further balance the system!

As for "empathy", that seems ironic. We're the ones who initially advocated letting the players respec as the quickest and simplest solution.

Calling you out on being unnecessarily mean and suggesting I not have any empathy. I've yet to be mean to anyone here.

Except where you suggested we had no empathy because we think it's the player's responsibility to know the system.

Let's get academic and think of ways to further balance the system!

Go right ahead...meanwhile, I'll do something that *actually* helps the game experience.

No one has yet to suggest a new mechanic that might balance it (besides respecing). It doesn't matter whether it gets implemented or not, it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

Darn right. Why would anyone waste their time on that? I mean, I get it if it's a puzzle and you like puzzles, but that's critical time I could spend actually gaming, or prepping for one...or what have you.

The point is, pick your battles. If all your efforts can be hand-waved in five minutes, there's no purpose and nothing is gained.

This is the EotE forums. We get academic all the time.

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

I kinda stopped following this thread a bit ago, because it's really devolving.

Did you address why allowing a respec doesn't sufficiently solve the problem and the proposed house-rule is still necessary?

Nobody said you couldn't, but you're judging everybody else for not caring about your issue. I don't collect stamps either, if you did and I didn't, would you be upset about it?

Nobody said you couldn't, but you're judging everybody else for not caring about your issue. I don't collect stamps either, if you did and I didn't, would you be upset about it?

Your lack of stamp collecting frankly offends me, sir.

Some people want a balanced game. I'm suggesting it can be completely balanced.

At this point I can't help but think you're either pulling our legs (a polite form of the T-word), or you're so blinded by The Maths that you're taking this to a ridiculous extreme. If you enjoy The Maths, the by all means go for it, but I don't think you should fool yourself into believing you're helping anybody else.

Because this is how my conversation would go with a player:

"Hey GM, my character, in which I invested no XP at chargen into characteristics even though you told me to, seems to suck a bit compared to everybody else's character."

"Okay, let's take a look and rebuild him...better, strong, faster..."

Here's how yours apparently would go:

"Hi everybody, here are my new special rules for character creation that supersede the ones in the book. You didn't read those, but I expect you to read these."

"No."

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

No, it's just an acknowledgement of where the issue actually lies: with those who don't read the rules. It's not a huge sin, and is easily corrected, but that's still where the fault is.

As for "empathy", that seems ironic. We're the ones who initially advocated letting the players respec as the quickest and simplest solution.

I personally am done with the rain man thread. It's become the song that never ends.

Calling you out on the unnecessary meanness. That's not okay here.

Nobody said you couldn't, but you're judging everybody else for not caring about your issue. I don't collect stamps either, if you did and I didn't, would you be upset about it?

Nobody said you couldn't, but you're judging everybody else for not caring about your issue. I don't collect stamps either, if you did and I didn't, would you be upset about it?

Your lack of stamp collecting frankly offends me, sir.

Unnecessary. If you don't want to be a part of the conversation, and simply want to tell everyone that they can't (collect stamps) please leave.

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

I kinda stopped following this thread a bit ago, because it's really devolving.

Did you address why allowing a respec doesn't sufficiently solve the problem and the proposed house-rule is still necessary?

I haven't, actually, I've been putting out fires and responding to people saying we shouldn't even have a respec or houserule

I think personally the respec works to balance the issue, but i feel like there is a narrative part that's lost on a respec.

I like XSanders's idea of the narrative version of unlocking your potential - you could spend up to your starting XP on characteristics throughout a campaign, showing how a character can evolve and grow stronger (but not stronger than he could have at character creation), as well as growing skillfully.

Okay, one reason for the 'spending experience up to your starting XP on characteristics throughout a campaign' being not really a solution is because it completely invalidates the Dedication talents. If someone is working towards that talent, for say Brawn because they're playing a Marauder, but they've already capped Brawn with the other experience, then that talent is wasted as a final tier. Sure, they could use it on another characteristic, but that might conflict with the character concept - or they've now just spent all this experience getting to the final talent which is then... well, useless in their mind and could have been used on another final talent.

Okay, one reason for the 'spending experience up to your starting XP on characteristics throughout a campaign' being not really a solution is because it completely invalidates the Dedication talents. If someone is working towards that talent, for say Brawn because they're playing a Marauder, but they've already capped Brawn with the other experience, then that talent is wasted as a final tier. Sure, they could use it on another characteristic, but that might conflict with the character concept - or they've now just spent all this experience getting to the final talent which is then... well, useless in their mind and could have been used on another final talent.

Constructive criticism! I like it!

The character can only ever spend 110xp (if they're human) on characteristics, so the most he'll have is a 5 in Brawn (5,2,2,2,2,2), but they'll probably round out the character to a max of (4,3,2,2,2,2)

and for both of those, that's 30xp+40xp+50xp = 120xp for 5,2,2,2,2,2 or 30xp+40xp+30xp = 100xp for 4,3,2,2,2,2 so they won't be able to increase it any more, because they've now spent the XP equivalent to what they would have at character creation.

And the Dedication talents wouldn't count toward that XP expenditure maximum, so the Dedication talents are just as useful and will still increase it to the max of 6.

Thanks for the feedback! Does that solve that worry?

EDIT:

I suppose like in this example of having a 5, we'd have to take into account obligation taken to increase XP so that a character could get a 5 in a characteristic (110xp + 10xp extra). I personally think getting one 5 and all 2s really takes away from the roleplay aspect of the game and turns your character into a one-trick pony, so maybe we would only use the XP limit for species and ignore obligation? Not sure

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

I kinda stopped following this thread a bit ago, because it's really devolving.

Did you address why allowing a respec doesn't sufficiently solve the problem and the proposed house-rule is still necessary?

At this point, it seems more about the argument as to why people should be trying to create house rules for an issue that is easily addressed by reading existing rules and players and GMs working together when they find an issue with how they are playing the game. The respec method was suggested, he even agreed at the time it seemed the way most people felt it was easiest to address, and then the thread continued on for 12 more pages.

Personally, I see no reason for a house rule or codifying 'people are allowed one respec'.. I think the simple, elegant answer is for the people at the table to behave like adults that are attempting to play the game in an environment that fosters mutual fun and entertainment and just work together as a group to address issues that might come up while gaming. This could be helping a player rebuild their character if it's not working how they want but carries through to basically any issues that might come up.

Let's get academic and think of ways to further balance the system!

Go right ahead...meanwhile, I'll do something that *actually* helps the game experience.

Thank you!

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

I kinda stopped following this thread a bit ago, because it's really devolving.

Did you address why allowing a respec doesn't sufficiently solve the problem and the proposed house-rule is still necessary?

At this point, it seems more about the argument as to why people should be trying to create house rules for an issue that is easily addressed by reading existing rules and players and GMs working together when they find an issue with how they are playing the game. The respec method was suggested, he even agreed at the time it seemed the way most people felt it was easiest to address, and then the thread continued on for 12 more pages.

Personally, I see no reason for a house rule or codifying 'people are allowed one respec'.. I think the simple, elegant answer is for the people at the table to behave like adults that are attempting to play the game in an environment that fosters mutual fun and entertainment and just work together as a group to address issues that might come up while gaming. This could be helping a player rebuild their character if it's not working how they want but carries through to basically any issues that might come up.

the simple, elegant answer is for the people at the table to behave like adults that are attempting to play the game in an environment that fosters mutual fun and entertainment and just work together as a group to address issues that might come up while gaming

I agree, ideally this happens at every table, but sometimes this doesn't always happen for various reasons (talking about it makes them more defensive about it, or they're a family member so you can't kick them out, etc)

The respec method was suggested, he even agreed at the time it seemed the way most people felt it was easiest to address, and then the thread continued on for 12 more pages.

Putting out fires responding to those that continued to say neither a respec nor houserule was necessary

JJrodny, are you an astromech droid? Be honest!

I think we have reached the point that the discussion is finish. Everybody repeat the same thing over and over. Since it seem Jrodny just want to be accademic and rewritte rules for the sake of rewritting rules because he doesn't agree with them, let leave him alone with the few people who agree with him and let the thread die.

I haven't, actually, I've been putting out fires and responding to people saying we shouldn't even have a respec.

I don't remember seeing someone saying this

No one has yet to suggest a new mechanic that might balance it (besides respecing). It doesn't matter whether it gets implemented or not, it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

Darn right. Why would anyone waste their time on that? I mean, I get it if it's a puzzle and you like puzzles, but that's critical time I could spend actually gaming, or prepping for one...or what have you.

The point is, pick your battles. If all your efforts can be hand-waved in five minutes, there's no purpose and nothing is gained.

This is the EotE forums. We get academic all the time.

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

Your argument is flawed. You aren't thinking of ways to further balance the game. The game itself is rather balanced in that regards. The rule you created changes the balance of the game to an imbalance since all the other gaming mechanics in it are based on the current rule and not your house rule.

We aren't willing to try because:

A. There is no such thing as perfect balance. It's an impossible dream that will never be achieved. As such it's pointless.

B. There is no real imbalance.

C. There are simpler ways to fix this "problem" than your house rule. We've actually covered those ways all of which you've dismissed because ..... reasons. This has clued us into knowing that you're not really out to get balance, you just want people to tell you your house rule is awesome.

Regardless, it comes down to what your table needs. If your role-playing character is woefully unhappy with their attribute choices, let her buy the attributes with XP, or just re-create the character. Just don't let it get abused.

Perhaps grant 30 - 50 XP after character creation. Tell your players that the XP they get for character creation really should be spent on characteristics, but the little extra you are giving them can go towards skills, talents, or Force powers. The idea is to put everyone on an even level with their characteristics, but still give the players some XP to play with for the fun stuff.

Another option for the GM is to allow the players to re-spec their characters. If things aren’t working out as they had hoped and it’s because they put the wrong points into the wrong things, then the GM could choose to let them go back to the beginning and re-spec according to the standard character generation rules, and then re-apply the XP earned after generation to the powers and talents and skills, etc….

But so long as the two extremes aren’t too far out-of-whack, it is my belief that the GM could design the encounters to better challenge them in appropriate ways. So, the powergamer might face a stronger/deadlier opponent, while the roleplayer might face an opponent that is less deadly. And likewise in skills-oriented areas where the roleplayer might normally fare better — they face the more talented/skilled opposition, while the other players face less talented/skilled opponents.

I think this "definition" is the core of the issue, and it's misleading. What you're saying is "power gamers" know the game, and "role-players" are just ignorant (in the best sense of the word). But it seems like a really small deal. Unless you're making a "character for life" it's easy to do it right the next time. And if you are making a character for a very long running campaign, then the GM should be flexible enough to either let you re-stat the character once you understand the concepts, or allow you to create a new character with the same XP as the old.

It's like any other game. Are you going to change the rules for Monopoly or Risk because there's a new player who doesn't know what's going on?

Plenty of posters suggested respec early on in this conversation.

I'm not the only one that agrees that EotE is great, and is much more balanced than any other RPG, but also that its not perfectly balanced, and that this change could possibly perfectly balance it.

The arguments against it are:

1) It's fine the way it is, the problem is very minimal.

The math proves that it exists. 25% difference in success rate or advantage rate is not minimal. Its minimal by DnD standards, but EotE is better than that.

2) This problem shouldn't happen, the GM or expert player will help them. It's the GM's fault if it does happen.

This is good as its step 1: admitting there is a problem. Yes the GM should stop this from happening, but there's still a problem in the game that the GM has to solve.

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

To point #1... Your Contention of 25% difference is Seriously flawed.

At character creation,

Skill human succeeds 40% of the time

Characteristic human succeeds 53% of the time

100xp in

Skill Human 49% success

Characteristic Human 55% success

400xp in

Skill Human 56% success

Characteristic Human 59% success

Your Numbers Show a 13% difference at Character creation, a 6% difference at 100Xp ( a Huge Jump) and a 3% Difference at 400XP.

That hardly equates to 25%.. and you can not add percentages together and get a Combined value of difference.

!3% is a decent Difference... But the Skill character will have a few more skills with a Yellow die in it and By the time you get up to 400exp? a 3% difference in success at skills is hardly something to argue about.

Would I be Willing to Play such a Character that was More skill based than Characteristic based?

Why Certainly I would, Especially if It Fit My Concept.

But Here Is the Key My friend.

If I am Making a Bounty Hunter Assassin.... Regardless of whether I develop by characteristics or skills.... and there is Another Bounty Hunter Assassin in the Group...

Perhaps I need to rethink What profession and specialty I am taking Or Think of How I can fill a slightly different Niche.

If the Other BHA is focused in Ranged Weapons, Perhaps I should go for a stealth and Melee Approach. Or perhaps I should Look at How I can make an "assassin" out of another class that uses Poisons in food and disguises to accomplish my Goals.

When Making a character, if I want to be Unique and useful to the group, I need to Look at What is already In the group and then Try to fill a different Niche.

If All I am Doing is making another carbon Copy of another Players Character, well then, I only have Myself to blame if I feel Less effective than the other character, or Feel like another player is taking away part of My Shine because they are trying to do exactly what I am trying to do, Or tend to be smarter and more proactive in accomplishing the same Goals as I am so they Shine "Brighter" in the game than I do.

Point of Fact, I have 2 Bounty hunter Assassins In my gaming Group, One is focused More on range and the other is Focused more on Melee and Brawl. Can the Melee BH still Shoot Decently? Yes she can. Can the Ranged BH still melee Decently? Yes she can, But they Both have their Area of Excellence.

I also Happen to have 2 Smugglers in my Game...One Smuggler Went with a Scoundrel and Focused on Piloting and Charm/persuasion and a ranged weapon... The Other Smuggler Went for a Charmer and focused on Deception, negotiation and Stealth and Skulduggery. One was going for an Actual Smuggler Pilot type, the other was Going for more of a Spy-Thief-Fence.

Now if One of these characters Went More focused in skills than stats? Who cares? They aren't focused on the Same Thing Anyway.

Also Consider the Character from another Thread here that is Focused on a Vibro Axe with Vicious and a Brawn of 4 and a Melee of 3..... is it possible that By Focusing to Much, You also leave your character Weak in other areas that will come to Bite you in the end? You betcha. He could have Very little to No Stealth skill at all save for his Agility stat... and a Mission comes up that is going to Need Stealth... Now a Melee Focused character could be Very useful in a stealth mission in taking out guards really quick.... But the fact that he doesn't have good stealth would be a problem so he gets left behind, because he focused to Much ...... Should HE be allowed to Respec? Because he Really wanted a Melee Combat Monster?

Not at My table... He made his Choice ...whether he was trying to "Game" The system as a Munchkin player or he just didn't think about the fact that Being able to One shot everything at Character creation makes him a one trick Pony. Or Maybe that is really What he wanted to do and he was willing to live with the consequences..... No respecs once the character has Started earning exp at my table.

You Are stuck on this Idea that there is Only 1 way to make a good Character and that You MUST be Just as Good as another Character at your table with the same Skill.

That my friend is Flawed and narrow thinking.

So (ignoring the dependecies between advantages, successes, and triumphs that LethalDose pointed out),

A Characteristic-focused character succeeds 10 percentage points more often, gets advantages 8 percentage points more often, and gets triumphs 2 percentage points less often

Comparing the percentages,

Going Characteristics will increase your character success rate by up to 33% , down to 5% at 400xp

(53/40-1 = 0.325, 55/49-1 = 0.11, 59/56-1 = 0.05)

It will increase advantage rate by up to 25% , down to 11% at 400xp

(38.5/30.5-1 = 0.26, 40/32-1 = 0.25, 44/39-1 = 0.11)

It will decrease triumph rate by up to 65% at character creation, decrease it by 25% 100xp in, and they'll be the same at 400xp

(1.5/4.4-1 = -0.65, 4.5/6-1 = -0.25)

I'm not the only one that agrees that EotE is great, and is much more balanced than any other RPG, but also that its not perfectly balanced, and that this change could possibly perfectly balance it.

The arguments against it are:

1) It's fine the way it is, the problem is very minimal.

The math proves that it exists. 25% difference in success rate or advantage rate is not minimal. Its minimal by DnD standards, but EotE is better than that.

2) This problem shouldn't happen, the GM or expert player will help them. It's the GM's fault if it does happen.

This is good as its step 1: admitting there is a problem. Yes the GM should stop this from happening, but there's still a problem in the game that the GM has to solve.

3) It's the player's fault for not knowing or not reading the rules entirely.

This is not the adult approach to take. It is childish and narrow minded, and lacks any empathy for others.

To point #1... Your Contention of 25% difference is Seriously flawed.

At character creation,

Skill human succeeds 40% of the time

Characteristic human succeeds 53% of the time

100xp in

Skill Human 49% success

Characteristic Human 55% success

400xp in

Skill Human 56% success

Characteristic Human 59% success

Your Numbers Show a 13% difference at Character creation, a 6% difference at 100Xp ( a Huge Jump) and a 3% Difference at 400XP.

That hardly equates to 25%.. and you can not add percentages together and get a Combined value of difference.

!3% is a decent Difference... But the Skill character will have a few more skills with a Yellow die in it and By the time you get up to 400exp? a 3% difference in success at skills is hardly something to argue about.

13 percentage points difference.

25-33% difference.

Regardless, it comes down to what your table needs. If your role-playing character is woefully unhappy with their attribute choices, let her buy the attributes with XP, or just re-create the character. Just don't let it get abused.

Perhaps grant 30 - 50 XP after character creation. Tell your players that the XP they get for character creation really should be spent on characteristics, but the little extra you are giving them can go towards skills, talents, or Force powers. The idea is to put everyone on an even level with their characteristics, but still give the players some XP to play with for the fun stuff.

Another option for the GM is to allow the players to re-spec their characters. If things aren’t working out as they had hoped and it’s because they put the wrong points into the wrong things, then the GM could choose to let them go back to the beginning and re-spec according to the standard character generation rules, and then re-apply the XP earned after generation to the powers and talents and skills, etc….

But so long as the two extremes aren’t too far out-of-whack, it is my belief that the GM could design the encounters to better challenge them in appropriate ways. So, the powergamer might face a stronger/deadlier opponent, while the roleplayer might face an opponent that is less deadly. And likewise in skills-oriented areas where the roleplayer might normally fare better — they face the more talented/skilled opposition, while the other players face less talented/skilled opponents.

Based on my experience with this system and others, this gain tends to be very minor. Now, if you actually find this to be a problem, the solution should be relatively simple: simply let the "roleplayer" respec (i.e. re-create their character with the number of XP they have) once. By the time they're noticing, it should be clear how they can improve their character. Limiting it to one-time-only is merely to avoid abuse.

I think this "definition" is the core of the issue, and it's misleading. What you're saying is "power gamers" know the game, and "role-players" are just ignorant (in the best sense of the word). But it seems like a really small deal. Unless you're making a "character for life" it's easy to do it right the next time. And if you are making a character for a very long running campaign, then the GM should be flexible enough to either let you re-stat the character once you understand the concepts, or allow you to create a new character with the same XP as the old.

It's like any other game. Are you going to change the rules for Monopoly or Risk because there's a new player who doesn't know what's going on?

Plenty of posters suggested respec early on in this conversation.

Agreed.

No one has yet to suggest a new mechanic that might balance it (besides respecing). It doesn't matter whether it gets implemented or not, it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

Darn right. Why would anyone waste their time on that? I mean, I get it if it's a puzzle and you like puzzles, but that's critical time I could spend actually gaming, or prepping for one...or what have you.

The point is, pick your battles. If all your efforts can be hand-waved in five minutes, there's no purpose and nothing is gained.

This is the EotE forums. We get academic all the time.

it matters to find a way (if possible) to balance the game further, and no one seems to want to even try .

If you don't want to help think of ways we can further balance the game then stop following the thread. Don't try to tell those of us who want to balance the game further that we can't. That doesn't help at all.

Your argument is flawed. You aren't thinking of ways to further balance the game. The game itself is rather balanced in that regards. The rule you created changes the balance of the game to an imbalance since all the other gaming mechanics in it are based on the current rule and not your house rule.

We aren't willing to try because:

A. There is no such thing as perfect balance. It's an impossible dream that will never be achieved. As such it's pointless.

B. There is no real imbalance.

C. There are simpler ways to fix this "problem" than your house rule. We've actually covered those ways all of which you've dismissed because ..... reasons. This has clued us into knowing that you're not really out to get balance, you just want people to tell you your house rule is awesome.

If you're only going to say that the game shouldn't be changed then you're not helping the discussion

I want to figure out how to further balance the game - not if it should be further balanced than it already is.