I myself optimize within the identity of the character's 3+ page background of the character and my view of the character. It's up to the GM if they allow it. If you like it, great. If you hate it, great. It's not for me. Great. It's an agree to disagree situation. No more, no less.

Well, yeah. When I played WoW I came up with a background for my mage that basically made sense to spec him as a fire mage. At that time Molten Core was the end game and every other mage specced Frost (so so it seemed) to optimize damage. I stayed true to my character background and stayed fire. So, yeah, it's just me being silly, but if one of my players wanted to do something that breaks the rules to "optimize" their character, I would not have a problem doing so if they could give me just a bit of background as to why they should be allowed and as long as it doesn't end up causing problems for the other players

Well, I'd not allow PCs to go over the 2 not because it would break the game but because I think that one of the reasons the max is there is to get players to spread their starting points around more. To encourage well rounded characters rather than boring min-max ones.

If you're just going to try and get that one super skill up to 5 while ignoring other skills your character, and by extension you (at least to my group), can come across as a bit one dimensional. But to each their own I guess.

Well rounded doesn't fit all character concepts. Some characters, droids in particular, may be better played as hyper specialized.

Well rounded doesn't fit all character concepts. Some characters, droids in particular, may be better played as hyper specialized.

Arguably yes, but we are playing a game here, and it will tend not to be fun or interesting unless everybody can contribute something most of the time. The hyper-specialized character may find themselves with nothing to do (or rolling a single green die, which is basically the same thing) for long stretches of the game. IMHO a character with 3 or 4 in their main characteristic and 1 or 2 skill ranks is plenty specialized, especially for starting characters.

Well rounded doesn't fit all character concepts. Some characters, droids in particular, may be better played as hyper specialized.

As I said, to each their own. Whafrog seems to get what I'm talking about, min-maxed characters tend to be pretty useless except for the one or two things their built to do, which are usually combat stats. They also tend to be over qualified for those tasks in adventures that are built for characters with more rounded skills of the same exp level. Keep in mind I'm talking about min-maxing, not characters with a focus on a set of skills, just the ones that max out a particular skill or attribute at the expense of all the others.

Also I've never been particularly impressed with the "it's my character concept!" argument. It's usually used to justify a d*ckish play style.

Well rounded doesn't fit all character concepts. Some characters, droids in particular, may be better played as hyper specialized.

As I said, to each their own. Whafrog seem to get what I'm talking about, min-maxed characters tend to be pretty useless except for the one or two things their built to do, which are usually combat stats. They also tend to be over qualified for those tasks in adventures that are built for characters with more rounded skills of the same exp level. Keep in mind I'm talking about min-maxing, not characters with a focus on a set of skills, just the ones that max out a particular skill or attribute at the expense of all the others.

Also I've never been particularly impressed with the "it's my character concept!" argument. It's usually used to justify a d*ckish play style.

I see nothing wrong with a Slicer that pushes Computers up, a Doctor that pushes Medicine up, or a Mechanic that pushes Mechanics up. All three of those exist in my game (levels are currently 3, 3, and 4). The characters are hardly one-dimensional, nor are the players possessed of "a d*ckish play style." I hardly think that this is unusual.

Also I've never been particularly impressed with the "it's my character concept!" argument. It's usually used to justify a d*ckish play style.

Yeah, that is something to watch for. I've been playing with the same group for the past 12 years or so, so all my comments are based on them; I know them pretty well by now and know their tendencies to "abuse" gaming systems (they are normally the ones that spot something and call it cheesy even if it is legitimate and they could benefit).

Edit: Not that I'm calling this topic "cheesy"

To be honest , the way I would run this ,is that I would allow someone to hold back the xp, however the game does state that you can only level up at certain points, I dont think the start of the first adventure is one of those points. If you apply it that way it would actually be more effective to hold back either 5 or 10 points since you will get some xp anyway, allowing you to rank immediately to 3 on your first 'level up'.

There is a dangerous precedent here that can really ruin the game based on the vagueness of the RAW.

HappyDaze is technically correct, there is nothing stopping you from doing what he suggests. Nothing of course, but the GM. At the end of the day, it would have to be approved by the GM for any "I buy extra skills" shenanigans.

So if your GM is willing to allow you to do it, by all means, do what you want.

For me, it comes down to two things.

First of all, I've never really been a big "Letter of the Law" guy, or a rules lawyer. For me, its all about Spirit of the Law. People speed 5 mph over the speed limit all the time, does that mean each one needs a ticket? If you are a "letter of the law" guy, yes, all of those people are guilty. But if you are a "Spirit of the Law" guy, you understand that the intent of the law is to keep people within that threshold, and to work THAT hard to make sure everyone is following the limit EXACTLY is overtaxing and frankly, too much of a bother. Instead, you hold back, and ticket the guys going 10 to 15+ mph over the limit.

So with that in mind, when the book says "No skill can start higher then 2 at character creation" to me that means after you get done with your character, no skill should be higher then 2. If you want to start with 3, I would hear you out as to your reasoning as to why you think you get this better skill then anyone else. And if you have a good reason, supported by backstory, and its what you really want, I'm not going to stand in your way. I will stand in your way if you want to start at say, 5. Because that's a bit much.

If you don't have a good reason, I'm not going to stop you from holding xp. You want to hold xp, that's your deal. But I'm not going to let you suddenly buy it when the first session starts. You'll have to wait til the end of the first session when you can say something in the narrative like "I work on my shooting". And if you shot some dudes in the adventure, sure, sounds great, spend that xp.

There is one thing that I will never ever allow. And that is spending XP in the middle of the session. Sorry that smacks of ring of wishes type stuff. If I as a GM engineer an adventure to give the party a hard time because I know they don't have that skill, then so be it. I've probably thought of some other ways the players can creatively get around that problem, or the players might think of something even more heroic or creative to get around it. Suddenly marking off xp and going, hey I can do that just takes the adventure right out from under me. This isn't the Matrix. You don't make a phone call, say "Tank, I need a pilot program for a YT-2400" and bam, sudden skill. No. This will never happen on my watch.

You want afterward to spend some points on that skill AFTER the adventure is completed? By all means. This is where I'm at. I don't think its unreasonable, but I do think that FFG should clean up those xp rules. They are incredibly vague as to when that xp gets spent. And already I see problems with it, as if I had a player like HappyDaze so willing to do what I'm not willing to allow, there already creates tension in the group. Because as I said, technically he's right, but that doesn't mean I as the GM have to allow it in game.

We've always spent xp after we were done for the night or right before the next session if we couldn't figure out what to buy.

There is a dangerous precedent here that can really ruin the game based on the vagueness of the RAW.

HappyDaze is technically correct, there is nothing stopping you from doing what he suggests. Nothing of course, but the GM. At the end of the day, it would have to be approved by the GM for any "I buy extra skills" shenanigans.

So if your GM is willing to allow you to do it, by all means, do what you want.

For me, it comes down to two things.

First of all, I've never really been a big "Letter of the Law" guy, or a rules lawyer. For me, its all about Spirit of the Law. People speed 5 mph over the speed limit all the time, does that mean each one needs a ticket? If you are a "letter of the law" guy, yes, all of those people are guilty. But if you are a "Spirit of the Law" guy, you understand that the intent of the law is to keep people within that threshold, and to work THAT hard to make sure everyone is following the limit EXACTLY is overtaxing and frankly, too much of a bother. Instead, you hold back, and ticket the guys going 10 to 15+ mph over the limit.

So with that in mind, when the book says "No skill can start higher then 2 at character creation" to me that means after you get done with your character, no skill should be higher then 2. If you want to start with 3, I would hear you out as to your reasoning as to why you think you get this better skill then anyone else. And if you have a good reason, supported by backstory, and its what you really want, I'm not going to stand in your way. I will stand in your way if you want to start at say, 5. Because that's a bit much.

If you don't have a good reason, I'm not going to stop you from holding xp. You want to hold xp, that's your deal. But I'm not going to let you suddenly buy it when the first session starts. You'll have to wait til the end of the first session when you can say something in the narrative like "I work on my shooting". And if you shot some dudes in the adventure, sure, sounds great, spend that xp.

There is one thing that I will never ever allow. And that is spending XP in the middle of the session. Sorry that smacks of ring of wishes type stuff. If I as a GM engineer an adventure to give the party a hard time because I know they don't have that skill, then so be it. I've probably thought of some other ways the players can creatively get around that problem, or the players might think of something even more heroic or creative to get around it. Suddenly marking off xp and going, hey I can do that just takes the adventure right out from under me. This isn't the Matrix. You don't make a phone call, say "Tank, I need a pilot program for a YT-2400" and bam, sudden skill. No. This will never happen on my watch.

You want afterward to spend some points on that skill AFTER the adventure is completed? By all means. This is where I'm at. I don't think its unreasonable, but I do think that FFG should clean up those xp rules. They are incredibly vague as to when that xp gets spent. And already I see problems with it, as if I had a player like HappyDaze so willing to do what I'm not willing to allow, there already creates tension in the group. Because as I said, technically he's right, but that doesn't mean I as the GM have to allow it in game.

You do realize that, as I see it, the "letter of the law" is that no Skill can go above 2, while the "spirit of the law" is that you can't get skills above 2 with free picks from species, career, and/or specialization, right?

There is a dangerous precedent here that can really ruin the game based on the vagueness of the RAW.

HappyDaze is technically correct, there is nothing stopping you from doing what he suggests. Nothing of course, but the GM. At the end of the day, it would have to be approved by the GM for any "I buy extra skills" shenanigans.

So if your GM is willing to allow you to do it, by all means, do what you want.

For me, it comes down to two things.

First of all, I've never really been a big "Letter of the Law" guy, or a rules lawyer. For me, its all about Spirit of the Law. People speed 5 mph over the speed limit all the time, does that mean each one needs a ticket? If you are a "letter of the law" guy, yes, all of those people are guilty. But if you are a "Spirit of the Law" guy, you understand that the intent of the law is to keep people within that threshold, and to work THAT hard to make sure everyone is following the limit EXACTLY is overtaxing and frankly, too much of a bother. Instead, you hold back, and ticket the guys going 10 to 15+ mph over the limit.

So with that in mind, when the book says "No skill can start higher then 2 at character creation" to me that means after you get done with your character, no skill should be higher then 2. If you want to start with 3, I would hear you out as to your reasoning as to why you think you get this better skill then anyone else. And if you have a good reason, supported by backstory, and its what you really want, I'm not going to stand in your way. I will stand in your way if you want to start at say, 5. Because that's a bit much.

If you don't have a good reason, I'm not going to stop you from holding xp. You want to hold xp, that's your deal. But I'm not going to let you suddenly buy it when the first session starts. You'll have to wait til the end of the first session when you can say something in the narrative like "I work on my shooting". And if you shot some dudes in the adventure, sure, sounds great, spend that xp.

There is one thing that I will never ever allow. And that is spending XP in the middle of the session. Sorry that smacks of ring of wishes type stuff. If I as a GM engineer an adventure to give the party a hard time because I know they don't have that skill, then so be it. I've probably thought of some other ways the players can creatively get around that problem, or the players might think of something even more heroic or creative to get around it. Suddenly marking off xp and going, hey I can do that just takes the adventure right out from under me. This isn't the Matrix. You don't make a phone call, say "Tank, I need a pilot program for a YT-2400" and bam, sudden skill. No. This will never happen on my watch.

You want afterward to spend some points on that skill AFTER the adventure is completed? By all means. This is where I'm at. I don't think its unreasonable, but I do think that FFG should clean up those xp rules. They are incredibly vague as to when that xp gets spent. And already I see problems with it, as if I had a player like HappyDaze so willing to do what I'm not willing to allow, there already creates tension in the group. Because as I said, technically he's right, but that doesn't mean I as the GM have to allow it in game.

You do realize that, as I see it, the "letter of the law" is that no Skill can go above 2, while the "spirit of the law" is that you can't get skills above 2 with free picks from species, career, and/or specialization, right?

The spirit of the law is that no character starts play with more than 2 ranks in a skill, no matter what. Not even if they have a bonus rank from their species, a rank from their career, a rank from their specialization, and 60 XP they want to spend on raising it further.

Saving 60 XP from character creation to bump that 2 up to a 5 immediately 'after' character creation and before play pretty blatantly violates spirit of the law. Saving 15 XP to bump a 2 to a 3 is the same violation, simply of lesser magnitude.

If you want your character to be the 'best of the best' in a skill, you're better off, both in the short term *and* the long term buying up ranks in the associated characteristic. Otherwise the guy with 2 ranks in the skill and 4 ranks it the characteristic is going to pass you by pretty quickly.

You do realize that, as I see it, the "letter of the law" is that no Skill can go above 2, while the "spirit of the law" is that you can't get skills above 2 with free picks from species, career, and/or specialization, right?

Did you read the post?

In the very next sentence I talk about how players can go above that limit and how I would allow it.

There is a dangerous precedent here that can really ruin the game based on the vagueness of the RAW.

HappyDaze is technically correct, there is nothing stopping you from doing what he suggests. Nothing of course, but the GM. At the end of the day, it would have to be approved by the GM for any "I buy extra skills" shenanigans.

So if your GM is willing to allow you to do it, by all means, do what you want.

For me, it comes down to two things.

First of all, I've never really been a big "Letter of the Law" guy, or a rules lawyer. For me, its all about Spirit of the Law. People speed 5 mph over the speed limit all the time, does that mean each one needs a ticket? If you are a "letter of the law" guy, yes, all of those people are guilty. But if you are a "Spirit of the Law" guy, you understand that the intent of the law is to keep people within that threshold, and to work THAT hard to make sure everyone is following the limit EXACTLY is overtaxing and frankly, too much of a bother. Instead, you hold back, and ticket the guys going 10 to 15+ mph over the limit.

So with that in mind, when the book says "No skill can start higher then 2 at character creation" to me that means after you get done with your character, no skill should be higher then 2. If you want to start with 3, I would hear you out as to your reasoning as to why you think you get this better skill then anyone else. And if you have a good reason, supported by backstory, and its what you really want, I'm not going to stand in your way. I will stand in your way if you want to start at say, 5. Because that's a bit much.

If you don't have a good reason, I'm not going to stop you from holding xp. You want to hold xp, that's your deal. But I'm not going to let you suddenly buy it when the first session starts. You'll have to wait til the end of the first session when you can say something in the narrative like "I work on my shooting". And if you shot some dudes in the adventure, sure, sounds great, spend that xp.

There is one thing that I will never ever allow. And that is spending XP in the middle of the session. Sorry that smacks of ring of wishes type stuff. If I as a GM engineer an adventure to give the party a hard time because I know they don't have that skill, then so be it. I've probably thought of some other ways the players can creatively get around that problem, or the players might think of something even more heroic or creative to get around it. Suddenly marking off xp and going, hey I can do that just takes the adventure right out from under me. This isn't the Matrix. You don't make a phone call, say "Tank, I need a pilot program for a YT-2400" and bam, sudden skill. No. This will never happen on my watch.

You want afterward to spend some points on that skill AFTER the adventure is completed? By all means. This is where I'm at. I don't think its unreasonable, but I do think that FFG should clean up those xp rules. They are incredibly vague as to when that xp gets spent. And already I see problems with it, as if I had a player like HappyDaze so willing to do what I'm not willing to allow, there already creates tension in the group. Because as I said, technically he's right, but that doesn't mean I as the GM have to allow it in game.

You do realize that, as I see it, the "letter of the law" is that no Skill can go above 2, while the "spirit of the law" is that you can't get skills above 2 with free picks from species, career, and/or specialization, right?

The spirit of the law is that no character starts play with more than 2 ranks in a skill, no matter what. Not even if they have a bonus rank from their species, a rank from their career, a rank from their specialization, and 60 XP they want to spend on raising it further.

Saving 60 XP from character creation to bump that 2 up to a 5 immediately 'after' character creation and before play pretty blatantly violates spirit of the law. Saving 15 XP to bump a 2 to a 3 is the same violation, simply of lesser magnitude.

If you want your character to be the 'best of the best' in a skill, you're better off, both in the short term *and* the long term buying up ranks in the associated characteristic. Otherwise the guy with 2 ranks in the skill and 4 ranks it the characteristic is going to pass you by pretty quickly.

So if it's not being done to gain an unfair advantage, then why such an apparently strong reaction to the idea?

You do realize that, as I see it, the "letter of the law" is that no Skill can go above 2, while the "spirit of the law" is that you can't get skills above 2 with free picks from species, career, and/or specialization, right?

Did you read the post?

In the very next sentence I talk about how players can go above that limit and how I would allow it.

I did read it, but I may not have paid it as much attention as it deserved. Such things have happened many times on these boards. My apologies.

When my players asked me if they could ”hold back” xp from character creation, my answer was ”no.” We all agreed it broke the spirit of the game.

I am also a player in another group where the gm independently shared the same belief.

If you feel the same, getting three ranks right away is neither possible nor important. If you don't feel that way fine, it's your game so what you want.

When my players asked me if they could ”hold back” xp from character creation, my answer was ”no.” We all agreed it broke the spirit of the game.

I am also a player in another group where the gm independently shared the same belief.

If you feel the same, getting three ranks right away is neither possible nor important. If you don't feel that way fine, it's your game so what you want.

Sums it up.

Compare the following , 2ranks in ranged (light) DEX =5 (start at 2, raise to 5 for 120 xp) start with ranged (light ) skill of ppaaa.All dex skills get 5 dice.

Now start with 2 dex and save 60 xp so that you can raise rank to 5' ranged light = ppaaa ,exactly the same as above except that dex skills get 2(3 at most) dice. I dont really see where thats broken. At least in the top example you get 5 dex for all the other skills, its just more ineffective to go for 5ranks (you could hold back all xp for 2 ranks at 5 and you would still be less effective than pumping your ability). A character building themselves this way isnt getting an unfair advantage in fact I would go so far as to say that they are in effect nerfing themselves for 'just' to get 5 ranks in a skill, when they could get 4 in a stat for a similaar xp cost ,or theycould start with paaaa in one stats skills and ppaaa in one skill instead of 2.

In short a character who thinks they are taking advantage of the system to min/max this way is 1/ Not getting an unfair advantage over other characters 2/also making their character weaker overall except for these one or two skills.

HappyDaze:

You don't read too good do you?

What I'm referring too are players that create PCs that are min-maxed not just specialized. There is a difference. An example of a specialized PC would be a Slicer that focuses on skills that not only allow him/her to Slice well (Computers) but also support getting to a computer to do the slicing from such as:

Stealth and/or Skulduggery - to get to a console with out being detected or one behind a locked door. Can't be of much use if you can't get to a computer...

Negotiation, Charm, Coercion, or Deception - again to get to a console or find a job that pays, or some critical information that will help you know WTF you're slicing for and for how much.

Streetwise - to help find that bit of illegal equipment that helps you get whatever...

A combat skill - so when sh*t hits the fan you can back up your sorry a$$ with a little boom boom.

How about a Doctor? Well the same goes, you're a Doctor living on the edge of of the Empire after all. Think about the Doctor on FireFly, He was a great Medic for sure but he was also well Educated, knew the Core Worlds like the back of his hand, a great Negotiator, fairly good at Deception, stood up to Mal (Cool), constantly on the watch to keep his sister safe (Vigilance), knew his way around security system or two, and even had a few Underworld contacts.

I could go on...

The point is that making a character that can only Slice or only knows Medicine well by maxing out their Computers or Medicine skill at the expense of everything else is basically useless without supporting skills. Oh and my favorite: The Combat Monster - This can be summed up with the phrase: "If you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail"

Chewbacca could rip your arm off and beat you into paste with it but he could also fix a starship, pilot, and play Dejarik... well maybe not but he could Coerce you into letting him win.

One trick ponies are boring. Sure a good RPG'er can make anything interesting but making a PC useful, that takes more than being an awesome guy at the table and telling your GM all those great ideas you want your character to do, it takes at least some stats to make those ideas work.

As for not being impressed by the " it's my character concept " argument, when it gets to a point where that line is pulled out, it's usually by people covering for being a d*ck at the game table. Not always but usually.

Why stop there, then? At character creation start. What would prevent a player from hording xp and waiting to see what they needed and spending it "on the fly" to get exactly the skill they needed?

I don't think I'd want that for every game, but it's not necessarily such a bad idea. In effect, you'd just be playing character generation rather than doing it before play starts.

"What the target is too far for my pistol?" "No body is able to shoot that rifle proficiently?" "BAM, I just learned heavy" "GIve me the rifle". While you "could" do that, how does that help the spirit of the game? I couldn't see an argument against it, given the aforementioned "learn on the fly" notation.

You wouldn't necessarily need to characterize that as learn on the fly. It might just be a revelation of skill the character already possessed.

Player A: "Nobody is able to shoot that rifle proficiently?"

Player B: <Marks off 5 xp> "I am. We all hunted womp rats back on Tatooine. Give me the rifle."

I would have someone try to shoot the rifle anyways, and if they hit, then I'd let them spend XP on it on the fly. If they miss, then they have a drive to get better now don't they?

I lost the quote boxes

Me:

"Keep in mind I'm talking about min-maxing, not characters with a focus on a set of skills, just the ones that max out a particular skill or attribute at the expense of all the others."

HappyDaze:

"I see nothing wrong with a Slicer that pushes Computers up, a Doctor that pushes Medicine up, or a Mechanic that pushes Mechanics up. All three of those exist in my game (levels are currently 3, 3, and 4). The characters are hardly one-dimensional, nor are the players possessed of "a d*ckish play style." I hardly think that this is unusual."

You don't read too good do you?

What I'm referring too are players that create PCs that are min-maxed not just specialized. There is a difference. An example of a specialized PC would be a Slicer that focuses on skills that not only allow him/her to Slice well (Computers) but also support getting to a computer to do the slicing from such as:

Stealth and/or Skulduggery - to get to a console with out being detected or one behind a locked door. Can't be of much use if you can't get to a computer...

Negotiation, Charm, Coercion, or Deception - again to get to a console or find a job that pays, or some critical information that will help you know WTF you're slicing for and for how much.

Streetwise - to help find that bit of illegal equipment that helps you get whatever...

A combat skill - so when sh*t hits the fan you can back up your sorry a$$ with a little boom boom.

How about a Doctor? Well the same goes, you're a Doctor living on the edge of of the Empire after all. Think about the Doctor on FireFly, He was a great Medic for sure but he was also well Educated, knew the Core Worlds like the back of his hand, a great Negotiator, fairly good at Deception, stood up to Mal (Cool), constantly on the watch to keep his sister safe (Vigilance), knew his way around security system or two, and even had a few Underworld contacts.

I could go on...

The point is that making a character that can only Slice or only knows Medicine well by maxing out their Computers or Medicine skill at the expense of everything else is basically useless without supporting skills. Oh and my favorite: The Combat Monster - This can be summed up with the phrase: "If you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail"

Chewbacca could rip your arm off and beat you into paste with it but he could also fix a starship, pilot, and play Dejarik... well maybe not but he could Coerce you into letting him win.

One trick ponies are boring. Sure a good RPG'er can make anything interesting but making a PC useful, that takes more than being an awesome guy at the table and telling your GM all those great ideas you want your character to do, it takes at least some stats to make those ideas work.

As for not being impressed by the " it's my character concept " argument, when it gets to a point where that line is pulled out, it's usually by people covering for being a d*ck at the game table. Not always but usually.

I read just fine. Thanks for being offensive.

My point was that having a skill pushed up doesn't necessitate being a 'one trick pony' but, even if it did, such a character may not be boring for some players.

wow, as the OP i've just popped onto the forums and seen this mess.

the reason i asked the question was i was AFB and had used the excel spreadsheet that a fan provided on this forum to help a player create a character. the xls let the 3 ranks be selected. i had a hazy recollection of the 2 rank limited rule but couldn't recall if it was from beta or the final rules.

as it stands the player only went for 2 ranks of his own volition before i checked the rules.

To be honest I would actually try and talk a player out of doing the examples I listed in my last post , even the game legitimate boost to 5 stat idea, and recommend a more rounded character. If someone really wanted3 ranks in a skill the best way is to hold back 10 xp at start up and then level up at the first xp award. Another possibilty would be if a character made the good case, I would maybe allow them to use ths +15 xp they get from boosting obligation for it, however, that one is definitely wrong if you play RAW.

I would maybe allow them to use ths +15 xp they get from boosting obligation for it, however, that one is definitely wrong if you play RAW.

It can be done by RAW if you wait until the moment play starts.