No, the arguments against it are:

1. If you want to play a game you got to put in a little bit of effort.

2. If you want to run a game you got to put in a little bit of effort.

No one is advocating reading the entire book before setting out to play.

But what you suggest is even weirder, what is the cut off?

"Charles, why do you have all sixes in your characteristics?"

"I skimmed through the book and saw that was the maximum you could take."

"But... No, not really. Ah, that's okay! Will fix it in 3 or 4 sessions."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean

What is unclear? If you don't expect your players to read the rules or follow the the book when they make a character then when do you draw a line? Is it only if they are not optimized or is it also for when they are built "illegally"? When do you, the GM, take your responsibility?

Don't be. I have lived with a brother in the autistic spectrum (or perhaps I shoud rephrase that to "all over the autistic spectrum") and this thread reminded me of some of the discussions I had with him...

Had you included that additional information in your previous post, I would not have been so offended. You have direct experience with such discussions, and this reminds you of them. I have no problem with that statement.

In the future, if you’re going to say something that you believe others may be likely to take offense at, I feel it would be likely to be useful to explain why they should not take offense in this particular circumstance.

Otherwise, you leave us to fill in the gaps, and you take the risk that we don’t fill them in the same way you would have done.

Letting players rebuild a character because it doesn`t feel right or because of misunderstanding or not understanding rules is more about being a fair gm than houseruling. That said, not everyone wants an optimised character.

Why does it not feel right? It is the solution that A. Fixes your problem. B. does not devalue talents in the game. C. does not require optimizing. It could be as simple as rejiggering to get the character to work the way the player wants.

He actually answered this directly when I posed that question ( here ). I personally disagree with his response for reasons at the end of this post of mine. Basically, I would qualify the respec as the lesser of two evils.

Which as I asked how does it break the narrative. Because last I checked no one in the game world can see the character sheet. Hell often times no one but the GM and player see the character sheets. So I fail to see how it breaks the narrative in anyway. Other than the character can do what they were designed to do better. But that tends to happen when the character gets XP. So even that fails that standard.

And now we have a discussion that has risen out of a case of mistaken identity!

So.. your 'solution' to a GM that doesn't feel that sitting down and working with a player who is having problems with their character to revise the character into something that does work for them is to suggest that this same GM introduce a new rule that changes the way they can spend their XP?

To be fair, this is a misrepresentation of what the JJR has been saying (or at least what he was saying 10 pages ago)

He had a situation come where there was only a problem apparent *after* the campaign had started: A player that went skill/talent-heavy at creation felt woefully out-gunned by the player that went for a characteristic-heavy build. The situation could just as easily arise when all players, including the GM, are novices, so it doesn't really matter *how* it happened at the OP's table, it's a reasonable possibility.

My statement was more of a very generalized summarization as my intent was that the GM sitting down and working with the player was along the lines of a respec or after game started modification of stats to fit something that better suits the player's needs. That is to say, if people aren't having fun with their characters at any point, the good solution is to have the group discuss ways to resolve this issue.

And you are, in fact right.. and I actually agree.. it's not really clearly noted or implied in the rules that one should dump XP into characteristics. But his early posts implied he'd accepted this as the case and I was going with it. I personally, didn't see that as implied or otherwise initially myself and my early characters in fact had more in talents and skills than characteristics.. and they worked just fine, even.. much as you've said.. the system doesn't seem broken at all. Sure, my dice rolls were potentially less effective than they could be or than other players... but I don't see that as a problem or imbalance in the system at all either. My comments were more to try to get him to clarify how he felt this new rule introduction would really fix anything if, by his statements, it was known ahead of time that characteristic dumping was the intended path to go in character generation.

Has EotE turned into D&D and balance and power obsessed players now?

Has EotE turned into D&D and balance and power obsessed players now?

For maybe one person here, not the rest of us.

Here ya go folks.

It's worth pointing out that anyone truly concerned about balance would be looking at the whole picture as opposed to a single isolated incident. The solution proposed and the desire to acheive some kind of perfect balance ignores the fact that the game is already balanced in a particular way. A true house rule seeking to achieve more balance on this issue would have also included a new pricing scheme for everything else as well. Once you change how stats are upgraded you also have to reprice the XP cost of everything else in the game to account for the new way that XP can be spent. This would need to be done for ex expenditures during character creation and after it. Most games develop a different pricing scheme based on when you buy something as a way to maintain balance. This game was most assurdely balanced on the idea that you could only improve traits at char creation and through the talent Dedication. Everything is priced based on this simple assumption.

To change the way xp is spent post char creation with out also changing the way xp is spent on everything else in general shows a lack of overall concern for game balance.

It sounds like the forum has come to a consensus that there is a problem when creating characters (that if the GM doesn't fix) and respec-ing is the best option to fix it. I'm willing to end it at that.

It's funny... I had a similar discussion with some of my players... stating that the "optimal" way to build a character was to invest heavily (all starting xp + 10 from extra obligations) in characteristics. The problem he saw was that with no talents and very few skill points, most character would feel the same at startup. To allow our characters to feel more unique, we decided to create Padawan-level characters meaning we get 50xp to spend after character creation (so you can't raise characteristics)

I also calculated that raising a characteristic to 4 at character creation was counter productive since the invested XP meant that you couldn't raise more then one other stat to 3... basically you'd get 4-3-2-2-2-2 (some species could get 4-3-3-2-2-1 but it's even worse in my mind)... you're way better having 3-3-3-3-2-2 and raise a characteristic to 4 with the Dedication talent... at Chargen, it would cost 40, but with Dedication, it cost only 25.... if you keep one characteristic at 1 and raise it with the Dedication talent, you're down 5 xp since it would have cost 20 xp at chargen instead of 25 with Dedication.

Anyway... the only real RULE that is valid is to have fun....

If you're not having fun with your character, you should be free to change i...

It sounds like the forum has come to a consensus that if there is a problem when creating characters ( because the GM and/or player decided to skim the book and get right to playing ) and respec-ing is the best option to fix it. I'm willing to end it at that.

Here fixed it for you.

It's funny... I had a similar discussion with some of my players... stating that the "optimal" way to build a character was to invest heavily (all starting xp + 10 from extra obligations) in characteristics. The problem he saw was that with no talents and very few skill points, most character would feel the same at startup. To allow our characters to feel more unique, we decided to create Padawan-level characters meaning we get 50xp to spend after character creation (so you can't raise characteristics)

I also calculated that raising a characteristic to 4 at character creation was counter productive since the invested XP meant that you couldn't raise more then one other stat to 3... basically you'd get 4-3-2-2-2-2 (some species could get 4-3-3-2-2-1 but it's even worse in my mind)... you're way better having 3-3-3-3-2-2 and raise a characteristic to 4 with the Dedication talent... at Chargen, it would cost 40, but with Dedication, it cost only 25.... if you keep one characteristic at 1 and raise it with the Dedication talent, you're down 5 xp since it would have cost 20 xp at chargen instead of 25 with Dedication.

Anyway... the only real RULE that is valid is to have fun....

If you're not having fun with your character, you should be free to change i...

Most species I have found get 90 or 100 experience... so if you add 10 from obligations... Most Characters can get one 4 and two 3s if you focs on a race Prime for the skill area you want to be best at. (i.e. The race that has a 3 in the stat that your prime skills are set in).

If you don't go with a race like that Or go with Human.. then yes.. 1 4 and 1 3 is about what you get. Though you can also usualy have enough left to Raise the ability that is set to 1 for your race up to a 2.... so that no stat is below 2 which can also be nice.

Ofcourse even with a race with a 3 in a stat that is't your prime ability.. you can still manage to 3s and a if you raise two other stats than the oe the race has a 3 in.

So .. your restriction? No really.

I'm not sure I follow up what you're saying SnowDragon...

Best characteristics race would be Dressellian : 2-2-2-2-3-1 with 110xp

So you could raise Willpower to 4 (40xp), Presence to 2 (20xp), and 2 other stats to 3 (60xp) for a final pool of 2-2-3-3-4-2 which is quite good.

Best warrior race would be Niktos : 3-2-2-2-2-1 with 100xp

So you could raise Brawn to 4 (40xp) and Dexterity to 4 (30xp + 40xp) for final pool of 4-4-2-2-2-1 which is a pretty lethal killing machine.

With some rare exceptions, all races are built equal to humans... so with a starting pool of 2-2-2-2-2-2 and 110xp, Humans could pump up 4 characteristics to 3 (120xp) for a final pool of 3-3-3-3-2-2 which is pretty good. If they try to raise a characteristic to 4 (for a total of 70xp), then they could only raise 1 other characteristic to 3 (30xp) for a final pool of 4-3-2-2-2-2 which is focused but not exceptional.

You could have better high characteristics if you keep one at a rating of 1, but I still find it subpar and wouldn't recommend it.

My point is that with 100 experience.. which a good majority of the races have.. you can raise the 3 to a 4,, and two of the 2s to a 3.... so you would have which is exacly 100 points.. so you would have a character with a 4,3,3,2,2,1

or if you don't want the the Primary stat to be the Primary stat of the Race .. you can Leave the 3 of the race a 3... and rais another stat to 4 which is 70 point snad a third stat to a 3 with is 30 points for again 100 points..

It does leave you with a 1 in one ability score.... but thems the breaks for having 1 4 and 2 3s or 3 3s...

The Finale choice is to have one 4 one 3 and all others at 2... which only takes 90 points for most.

Though a few that can achieve 110 experience could get three 3s and three 2s in stats

But I find getting at least 3 stats to 3 or higher quite manageable for most races if you don't mind having a 1 in a stat.

My point is that with 100 experience.. which a good majority of the races have.. you can raise the 3 to a 4,, and two of the 2s to a 3.... so you would have which is exacly 100 points.. so you would have a character with a 4,3,3,2,2,1

or if you don't want the the Primary stat to be the Primary stat of the Race .. you can Leave the 3 of the race a 3... and rais another stat to 4 which is 70 point snad a third stat to a 3 with is 30 points for again 100 points..

It does leave you with a 1 in one ability score.... but thems the breaks for having 1 4 and 2 3s or 3 3s...

The Finale choice is to have one 4 one 3 and all others at 2... which only takes 90 points for most.

Though a few that can achieve 110 experience could get three 3s and three 2s in stats

But I find getting at least 3 stats to 3 or higher quite manageable for most races if you don't mind having a 1 in a stat.

Being somewhat of a min-maxer for Characteristics, like I said about humans, for 110xp and +10xp from extra obligations, you can raise 4 characteristics at 3 and have the last 2 at 2, for a total of 3-3-3-3-2-2. Almost every races can get the same setup : they usually have 100xp but 1 characteristic at 3 and 1 other at 1... raising the lower characteristic to 2 requires 20 xp, and raising 3 more characteristics to 3 cost 90xp, for a total of 110xp.... you end up with the same total has the human stated above, and you still need to take the +10xp from extra obligations...

To me, having 3-3-3-3-2-2 is the best possible total characteristics startup (regardless of characteristics at 3), it maximizes your starting xp and gives you more success chances.

If a race can't reach that setup, I probably wouldn't play it.... it's a shame for wookies

Hello Edge of the Empire forum community-

This thread has been closed because it has devolved into personal attacks and in-fighting. Please feel free to continue beneficial discussion elsewhere, and remember to treat all other users with respect.

Thanks,

FFG Forum Moderator