27 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

So if you’re halving the Characteristic for dice pools, their major purpose, then what is the benefit of doubling? I fear I’m kind of lost here

Making it a little harder to reach the cap, and a larger range to stat the various races with.

?‍♂️ Still seems a little pointless, without the ability to add a 1/2 Ability dice to the check the difference between 5 and 6 or 6 and 7 will be negligible.

Just give boost dice when someone does something favourable to their species, and Setback when their species is a detriment.

5 minutes ago, Richardbuxton said:

1) ?‍♂️ Still seems a little pointless, without the ability to add a 1/2 Ability dice to the check the difference between 5 and 6 or 6 and 7 will be negligible.

2) Just give boost dice when someone does something favourable to their species, and Setback when their species is a detriment.

1) Give a free upgrade in case of an odd characteristic: Brawn 5 > 2 dice, 1 upgrade; Brawn 6 > 3 dice; Brawn 7 > 3 dice, 1 upgrade

2) Most species have some kind of ability specific to them already, and what constitutes doing something favourable or unfavourable? How does it solve how easy it is to reach the stat cap, or make it easier to distinguish between the races (races with the same characteristics would presumably get very similar upgrades or setbacks)?

On 3/9/2018 at 9:14 PM, penpenpen said:

PCs characteristics may not be raised with starting XP or Dedication above their species' starting value +3.

Suddenly those 3's and 1's becomes alot more important. Maybe too important. Feel free to chime in. Personally I think it would be a good thing if your choice of species mattered more, but getting capped at 4 might feel fairly crippling.

With regards to this, telling players they can have a starting characteristic at 6 is lip service. Unless you're giving out extra starting xp, a 6 is just not possible to achieve during character creation. (Unless I've been doing it wrong all this time, of course. Someone please point it out if I am!)

From a 3, it would require 150 xp to start with a 6. At best, there are several species that have a 3 in some characteristic and have 100 xp to spend. They could receive another 15 xp from Obligation (or Duty), but they're still going to fall short by 35 xp. The Drall come the closest to being able to start with a 6, but they just won't have enough. They have a 4 in Intellect, which would require 110 xp for a 6. However, they start with only 90 xp and with 15 more from Obligation (or Duty), they're still 5 xp short. Even if you allowed Droids to start with a 6, they wouldn't be able to do it. 200 xp to raise a 1 to a 6; they start with 175 xp, plus 15 xp from Obligation/Duty; 10 xp short.

Raising a 1 to a 4 is pretty easy, though. That's only 90 xp, and most of the species have at least 90 starting xp. However, most players, I would think, would not choose a species with a 1 in a characteristic they really want a 4 in. That sounds like a waste of 50 xp to me. I mean, rule of cool not withstanding of course; someone might want a really buff little Chadra-Fan or something.

We have two house rules at my table that might be of use to you at your table, penpenpen.

1. Characteristics cap at 6. Whether you got there with Dedications, or cybernetics, or a combination of both, characteristics cap at 6. (Special, enhanced gear like armor or such might boost that above 6, but that's only while that gear is being used. It's not a permanent increase.)

2. Impossible tasks are rated at 6 difficulty dice, and no Destiny Point needs to be spent.

3 minutes ago, RLogue177 said:

With regards to this, telling players they can have a starting characteristic at 6 is lip service. Unless you're giving out extra starting xp, a 6 is just not possible to achieve during character creation. (Unless I've been doing it wrong all this time, of course. Someone please point it out if I am!)

You misunderstand. Start +3 would the cap of what you can reach with starting xp and dedication. So most cap at 5, but a few at 4 or 6. 6 would be the hard cap you could reach with bonuses from cybernetics, power armor, force powers etc. 7 is right out.

Also, I've since noticed that @OddballE8 had pretty much the same basic idea in another thread. As I can't rule that I didn't crib it from him and forget, he deserves some credit.

1 minute ago, penpenpen said:

You misunderstand. Start +3 would the cap of what you can reach with starting xp and dedication. So most cap at 5, but a few at 4 or 6. 6 would be the hard cap you could reach with bonuses from cybernetics, power armor, force powers etc. 7 is right out.

Also, I've since noticed that @OddballE8 had pretty much the same basic idea in another thread. As I can't rule that I didn't crib it from him and forget, he deserves some credit.

Oh, I see! My apologies. I did misunderstand.

This is all Zero-Sum Game stuff and something I prefer to avoid because it feels like just bumping up numbers for the sake of it. If the player gets to 7 then guess what is gonna happen to the adversaries ....

I like progression in games, but I don't feel like it is a compelling basis for play by itself, and there is the sim to consider: For me, a 7 would represent legendary strength in a Characteristic that is extremely rare and pronounced. Because strength without weakness is boring, a character with a 7 in something would buy themselves all sorts of problems from me just for having that high of a stat in something. Brawny characters could tend to accidentally kill people or break things, and would be obscenely muscular unless otherwise noted. If they had cybernetics that were the cause of their strength then all kinds of hiccups are possible from that. 7 Agility characters could tend to be twitchy and overly reflexive, 7 Intellect could be very bored by anyone under a 5 Intellect in conversation, 7 Cunning characters could be prone to predation and anti-social behaviors, 7 Willpower characters could be seen by others as a robotic figure un-moved by the foibles of mere mortals because of their inhuman will, 7 Presence could be someone who caused others to fight over them and would attract notice.

In a narrative game it seems to me like the appropriate descriptions need to be attached to these numbers, and that considered in the choice to go to the higher numbers. I feel like fully abstracting the Characteristics makes them descriptively problematic, even though I will admit that in this game I think they were meant to be used in an abstract manner where description is concerned.

I kind of like the Racial Base +3 rule for max attribute. It keeps it simple but does give some meaning to those starting attributes. That said, I don't think anybody in our group has ever had an attribute above 5, so I'm not overly worried. Players in our group tends to prefer to spread it around.

2 hours ago, Split Light said:

I kind of like the Racial Base +3 rule for max attribute. It keeps it simple but does give some meaning to those starting attributes. That said, I don't think anybody in our group has ever had an attribute above 5, so I'm not overly worried. Players in our group tends to prefer to spread it around.

This seems particularly limiting for droids with a base of 1 in all characteristics.

I don’t see this as a problem. Player characters are not meant to be run of the mill. Using the systems that have been playtested to boost attributes by RAW is intentional. If you feel that a player reaching a 6 intellect at 200 xp is too smart for that level of play, then ask him to open a can of pickled nerf. Guaranteed she’s/he’s sacrificed others areas to get to that point. Your job as a GM is to challenge your players by presenting them new and unique problems. throw a force power at them, or a social skill. Seperate players who rely on their counterparts to make up their shortcomings to reinforce their failing. My most memorable session had my character lose a Discipline Check to a Miralukan Force Using Crime Boss who basically Kylo Ren’d the thoughts of her Deception from her.

15 hours ago, penpenpen said:

You misunderstand. Start +3 would the cap of what you can reach with starting xp and dedication. So most cap at 5, but a few at 4 or 6. 6 would be the hard cap you could reach with bonuses from cybernetics, power armor, force powers etc. 7 is right out.

Also, I've since noticed that @OddballE8 had pretty much the same basic idea in another thread. As I can't rule that I didn't crib it from him and forget, he deserves some credit.

No worries, I wouldn't mind even if it was me who came up with the idea (I don't know if it was).

Good ideas deserve to spread.

On 3/11/2018 at 11:02 PM, penpenpen said:

Because a jawa able to wrestle a rancor breaks logic, common sense and the suspension of disbelief, even in Star Wars.

We already have a mechanic in place for that disparity. If you think a character is trading blows outside of their weight class, throw them some black dice or an upgrade and call it good.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

We already have a mechanic in place for that disparity. If you think a character is trading blows outside of their weight class, throw them some black dice or an upgrade and call it good.

Actually that would be a 2 silhouette difference. So the Jawa would increase their difficulty twice and the Rancor would decrease their difficulty twice. Which results in the Rancor wiping the floor with the Jawa trying to wrestle it. So the RAW does not break Logic or suspension.

Boom, sorted. That's taken care of then.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Actually that would be a 2 silhouette difference. So the Jawa would increase their difficulty twice and the Rancor would decrease their difficulty twice. Which results in the Rancor wiping the floor with the Jawa trying to wrestle it. So the RAW does not break Logic or suspension.

Am I reading the silhouette comparison rules wrong in the combat section or is there an errata/different rule located elsewhere? RAW it is easier for a Jawa to hit a Rancor (make contact, not necessarily do damage), not the other way around.

“When a character makes an attack against a target with a silhouette 2 or more points larger than he is, he decreases the difficulty of the check by 1. When a character makes an attack against a target with a silhouette 2 or more points smaller than he is, he increases the difficulty of the check by 1.”

24 minutes ago, OriginalDomingo said:

Am I reading the silhouette comparison rules wrong in the combat section or is there an errata/different rule located elsewhere? RAW it is easier for a Jawa to hit a Rancor (make contact, not necessarily do damage), not the other way around.

“When a character makes an attack against a target with a silhouette 2 or more points larger than he is, he decreases the difficulty of the check by 1. When a character makes an attack against a target with a silhouette 2 or more points smaller than he is, he increases the difficulty of the check by 1.”

This would be for ranged attacks. I would apply them the way I said for melee brawl attacks. As being bigger is an advantage in brawl melee attacks unlike ranged attacks.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

This would be for ranged attacks. I would apply them the way I said for melee brawl attacks. As being bigger is an advantage in brawl melee attacks unlike ranged attacks.

So this is a house rule then? Ok.

Not really. Using an existing rule in a logical manner for a situation not covered. Since the silhouette combat rules are for ranged combat. They do not actually cover melee.

Okay, lets crunch the numbers here - 90 points gets the 1 character to a 4 right out of the gate. Assuming for a second that they got a lucky tree with a straight shot from the 5 tier to the 25 Attribute Up talent, that's 75 points to get to a 5. Want to do it again? Another 20 points for your second tree please - and then at least another 75 points, putting us somewhere in the neighborhood of 170 points.

Assuming 20 points a game, that's 9-ish games where a character hasn't raised skills, bought talents that aren't in that straight line to Dedication or done anything else for their character, for over two months of real time. If the player has THAT kind of devotion, then let them have their fun.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

Okay, lets crunch the numbers here - 90 points gets the 1 character to a 4 right out of the gate. Assuming for a second that they got a lucky tree with a straight shot from the 5 tier to the 25 Attribute Up talent, that's 75 points to get to a 5. Want to do it again? Another 20 points for your second tree please - and then at least another 75 points, putting us somewhere in the neighborhood of 170 points.

Assuming 20 points a game, that's 9-ish games where a character hasn't raised skills, bought talents that aren't in that straight line to Dedication or done anything else for their character, for over two months of real time. If the player has THAT kind of devotion, then let them have their fun.

I don’t think there are trees that let you get to Dedication in a straight line, but some do let you get there for 100 XP. I think the second boost is easier to get from cybernetics though, the cost is no more than 10k credits - less than 9 sessions’ worth of income as far as I can tell, and obviously it lets you invest that XP elsewhere.

The thief tree does - I only know this because I just built a thief and was shocked that it was a straight line. But yeah, those straight shot trees are the minority. So it's 75 points at the very minimum to get there, but more like 100 points.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Not really. Using an existing rule in a logical manner for a situation not covered. Since the silhouette combat rules are for ranged combat. They do not actually cover melee.

I’m not disagreeing with your logic or the concept, but it is not RAW. The rule states “an attack” and does not specify Ranged attacks, so it applies to all attacks.

The rule isbin the starship combat section. Laat i checked starships dont do melee cobat.

The applicable rule is in the combat section.

EotE p. 212

AoR p. 225

F&D p. 218

Trees that get to Dedication for 75xp:

FaD:

Ascetic, Healer, Armourer, Advisor, Hunter, Shien Expert, Aggressor.

AoR:

Driver, Hotshot, Rigger, Commodore, Tactician, Agitator, Quartermaster, Mechanic, Vanguard, Scout

EotE:

Assassin, Gadgeteer, Skip Tracer, Doctor, Big Game Hunter, Driver, Scoundrel, Thief, Mechanic, Modder

Univeesal:

None.