@Yaccarus

I can't see the things highlighted:


Please tell me, where is info about 3 intellect; discipline, talent Respected Scholar and WT9/ST14 and 110 starting X? Since I need to explain it to my GM.

I simply don’t see what makes Drall so exceptional as to warrant Intellect 4. I think 3 suits them just fine, as they seem to be at about the same Intellect level as other Intellect 3 species.

The wound and strain thresholds are unchanged; I see nothing wrong with the original in that department. WT 9 means 8+Brawn, and ST 14 means 12+Willpower.

Discipline was chosen as a reflection of their scholarly, refined, dignified, focused, and calm demeanor.

I brought in Respected Scholar as a way of reducing their XP to a reasonable level as well as further highlighting how respected they are in academic circles. Tiran was a Drall, was he not?

Silhouette 0 is the obvious choice given their small size.

110 XP was calculated based on the above: 3 1 1 means +20 XP in comparison to a similar 3 1 species. Those 3 1 species are typically a skill, a minor benefit (environmental adaptation, minor talent, or boosted WT/ST) with 100 XP. -2 WT offsets +2 ST, So 3 1 1 with the skill choice and Respected Scholar would be 120 XP. Silhouette 0 has benefits, but they are rare, so when it is factored in, they get dropped to somewhere in between 115 XP and 120 XP. Finally, Problem Solvers strikes me as a powerful ability worth a little more than 5 XP. This leaves the Drall at 110 XP.

Because of popular opinion on an argument I had on Discord a few days ago, I've changed the CSG in a way that makes and more like FFG (and arguably, more user-friendly)

Wound Thresholds and Strain Thresholds are now written the way they are in official sources; the addition is no longer done for you.

I didn't see Nagai in the species. Am I missing them or are they not a species worked on?

No Nagai yet .

A huge thanks to @thedearth2 for helping to format this project into a new, better-looking version.

Here it is: https://www.mediafire.com/file/wpacvyhbr9zwfm9/The_Complete_Species_Guide_Nov18.pdf/file

Also a lower resolution version: https://www.mediafire.com/file/dkb3ftbgaxq3fm9/The_Complete_Species_Guide_Nov18_small.pdf/file

And finally a bug tracker: https://goo.gl/forms/AEW8DwepboWbOBf52

Of course, the printer-friendly version will continue to be updated. With that completed, I'll go back to adding species, such as the legendary Sljee .

Needs more Ugor.

Awesome!

This looks fantastic. Is this just a reformating, or are there new and/or updated species in there? Thank you.

It's a nice piece, but I can't stand the organization. I'd much rather have an alphabetized list of the species rather than divisions based on which Characteristic is at 3 and then having needless redundant entries for species with more than one 3 (Dathomirians are in there 4 times!).

33 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

It's a nice piece, but I can't stand the organization. I'd much rather have an alphabetized list of the species rather than divisions based on which Characteristic is at 3 and then having needless redundant entries for species with more than one 3 (Dathomirians are in there 4 times!).

Could we have it both ways? I agree with your assessment, and while an alphabetical list is in the index, it would be cool to have that be the first thing one sees when opening the book. That said, I do enjoy the way this has been presented and I think it will suit many people's needs. However, it can hardly be called complete ?

6 hours ago, DarthKaage said:

This looks fantastic. Is this just a reformating, or are there new and/or updated species in there? Thank you.

Primarily reformatting, as well as a handful of minor updates that I've made over the past few months. Echani got some major changes, but they're the only one that comes to mind.

4 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

It's a nice piece, but I can't stand the organization. I'd much rather have an alphabetized list of the species rather than divisions based on which Characteristic is at 3 and then having needless redundant entries for species with more than one 3 (Dathomirians are in there 4 times!).

I'll talk to theDearth about that.

Do you plan to add Miraluka in a next update ?

4 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

Do you plan to add Miraluka in a next update ?

They're in Willpower 3.

I missed them. Thanks.

48 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

I missed them. Thanks.

That's an issue with the current organization.

I did not come up with this structure but it makes sense when thinking about the most useful use cases. When a player looks for a specific race they can check in the index quite easily (moving it next to the table of content might be a good idea though). All others who are more trying to explore the book looking for a species, get a much easier way to go through by checking first which attributes are important to them and then going through the chapter.

Alphabetical is easier to quick reference, but by attribute it is easier to explore and just look around for inspiration and my assumption is that the latter is the more common use case.

11 minutes ago, thedearth2 said:

I did not come up with this structure but it makes sense when thinking about the most useful use cases. When a player looks for a specific race they can check in the index quite easily (moving it next to the table of content might be a good idea though). All others who are more trying to explore the book looking for a species, get a much easier way to go through by checking first which attributes are important to them and then going through the chapter.

Alphabetical is easier to quick reference, but by attribute it is easier to explore and just look around for inspiration and my assumption is that the latter is the more common use case.

Sorry, but that's just not true. A starting 3 isn't really a big deal at all because of how starting XP are balanced. It would be far better to put your "chart-by-3s" in the back and to keep the main body of the text a unified set [without duplicate entries) arranged alphabetically by name.

I disagree, but seems we just have two different views on it.

Starting characteristics only define what your minimum scores can be. For example, a Human can start out every bit as strong as the mightiest starting Wookiee with Brawn 5, but would find having a Willpower 1 impossible. Based on this fact, it would make more sense to organize the species by the Characteristics that start at 1, as that's actually far more definitive in this system than which ones start at 3.

Thanks, @Yaccarus , for the amazing resource. This is a huge boon to the community (even though you left out some of the cool species, like Lamproids. )

I agree, though, that a simple alphabetical organization would be far more user friendly. Sorting by 3-stats is just catering toward the min-max player rather than the narrative player. An index in the back could do the job of sorting by stat while keeping the main body both smaller and more easily navigable. Just my 2 creds. At the end of the day, this is a great product, and I'm glad y'all put it out.

I too hate the sort by stat presentation, it does lend itself to a min/max style of game play.

Alphabetical is more natural in my opinion, especially if you're trying to find species X that you thought was really cool in legends.

I also appreciate the idea of this resource, but calling it a "complete species guide" when the stats in various cases deviate from FFGs published works is a misnomer (especially when 90% of the reasoning for the changes amounts to "I didn't like it"). I know its stated in the first post that this is a Legends focused, homebrew Labour of love but it still feels like false advertising and could lead to confusion for new players who don't know any better (or miss that first post caveat).

Is it really that hard to add an alphabetical table of contents, thus pleasing all parties?

Guys, this product didn't have to get made at all. There was no pay. It was an act of generosity. How about more gratitude and less complaining. Just a thought.

7 minutes ago, Seven Hells said:

Guys, this product didn't have to get made at all. There was no pay. It was an act of generosity. How about more gratitude and less complaining. Just a thought.

I'm not sure if they're complaining or simply giving constructive criticism.