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."

The FATE quick start rules use this to decent effect. Just be able to justify it with your background. Of course, that applies more for the first rank (or first instance) rather than any additional ranks.

i like tea.

Make mine mint or green please.

i like tea.

Not if it doesn't already say so on your character sheet, you don't!

But you can't start a character who likes three kinds of tea.

That would be kinda unbalancing.

I think that if you don't like the cap on skills in character creation then, as others have stated, lift it. Otherwise it strikes me as gaming the system for whatever little advantage you can. But to each their own even if I am not a fan.

So those that don't like the idea of saving the XP from character creation and then spending it within the first moments of the first session are OK with the idea that the skill can jump from rank 2 to rank 5 before the second session? Is there some reason that the first session has to be treated with such kid gloves?

Like I said before, the limit of rank 2 really only makes any sense as the limit of how high 'free rank picks' taken before XP expenditure can take you, since you can always just spend the XP a little later and get the same thing.

Because there is really no reason for them to limit your starting skill to 2 ranks if you can then immediately raise it. In my opinion, until you experience using that skill it doesn't make sense to allow that skill to be raised when a second ago the rules firmly stated you couldn't. Again, that's just how I like my game flavored but I can understand different tastes

As Happydaze explained, the reason for the 2 rank skill cap is a mechanical balance on, not a flavor or narrative one. Most races get 6 talents at character creation, 4 career and 2 specializations. If all go to 1 rank, that is an effective experience of 30. Humans get effective experience of 50, since they get 2 non class skills, and droids get 45 since they get 6 career and 3 specialization. Every time you double up on character creation skill ranks, you increase your effective experience by 5. A marauder who puts 2 of his 2 ranks in melee and 2 ranks in resilience, since they are both career and specializations skills, gains an effective 40 xp instead of 30, due to skill rank stacking. If you allow for career, specialization, and race bonuses to stack, you can get 50 effective exp by clever skill stacking. That is why it is forbidden by the rules. Someone who saves 15 xp from character creation and ranks up a skill to 3 isn't gaming the system. Maybe it is just their character concept. But they certainly aren't cheating, and as people have pointed out, in most cases it is actually suboptimal. A lot of people have made really good suggesstions about how this choice can be worked into the narrative. Good work.

You're doing it wrong! Stop that at once! That has no place in a narrative game like EoE!

And awarding extra XP will completely destroy the balance of the game...

Nobody said this, at least I didn't. What I said was that the whole point of a narrative game was to tell the story of character growth. Doing the auto 3rd rank cheats you of a portion of that growth. Maybe it's just me. I prefer characters with faults and as much room for growth as feasible. I'd take Night Crawler over Wolverine, any day, just because there is more to the character, IMO.

So those that don't like the idea of saving the XP from character creation and then spending it within the first moments of the first session are OK with the idea that the skill can jump from rank 2 to rank 5 before the second session?

Not at all! Just because one reads an astronomy book, doesn't make them Steven Hawking. Nor does one spend a night at a gym and become a state level wrestler. I would say one rank per instance/training, unless some very good explanation was given. I’m not deaf to the idea, just require more.

I would almost be tempted to go back to the old palladium concept of having to actually use a skill, or study/practice it, before leveling it, I just thought that made sense. I wouldn’t go that far, but there is a certain logic to it that I’m drawn to.

Believe it or not, I've never been asked this from the 15 people I've GMd this game for. Would never even have thought of it had you not mentioned it. I guess I've been lucky with my gamers/ and demos.

In addition, I would suggest that any GM handing out 50 xp for one session is probably doing something wrong.

Why do you have to be such a jerk about it? I know it is the internet, but keep things civil. You've never been asked this perfectly reasonable question by anyone so you are lucky, implying anyone who would ask it is wrong? Feel free to express your difference of opinion, but keep your condescending attitude to yourself. Second person on this forum I've had to ignore list, geesh.

It's not that they were given 50 XP for a session, it's that they earned 15 XP for the session and that they have some previous XP set aside. If they set aside 45 XP from start and earn 15 XP, they can shoot a career skill from 2 to 5 after that first session.

It's not that they were given 50 XP for a session, it's that they earned 15 XP for the session and that they have some previous XP set aside. If they set aside 45 XP from start and earn 15 XP, they can shoot a career skill from 2 to 5 after that first session.

Can't that would be cheesy...rolls eyes...

Nobody said this, at least I didn't. What I said was that the whole point of a narrative game was to tell the story of character growth. Doing the auto 3rd rank cheats you of a portion of that growth. Maybe it's just me. I prefer characters with faults and as much room for growth as feasible. I'd take Night Crawler over Wolverine, any day, just because there is more to the character, IMO.

I was just kidding really, didn't intend to ruffle your feathers, so apologies if I did.

Just not a fan of fetishizing RAW really, since I've been playing games for 35 years now. D&D 4E really was an eye-opener for me, an entire generation of gamers who seem to have enshrined RAW as some sort of holy, sacred concept.

It strikes me that EoE is a fairly narrative game, yet there's a fair bit of arguing semantics and 'you're doing it wrong!' on these boards. Just seems funny, is all.

I see your point and it is a valid one. But I don't see Joe Rodian starting with a 3 in Survival as being overkill, if that's what the player really wants.

It's not that they were given 50 XP for a session, it's that they earned 15 XP for the session and that they have some previous XP set aside. If they set aside 45 XP from start and earn 15 XP, they can shoot a career skill from 2 to 5 after that first session.

Can't that would be cheesy...rolls eyes...

Nobody said this, at least I didn't. What I said was that the whole point of a narrative game was to tell the story of character growth. Doing the auto 3rd rank cheats you of a portion of that growth. Maybe it's just me. I prefer characters with faults and as much room for growth as feasible. I'd take Night Crawler over Wolverine, any day, just because there is more to the character, IMO.

I was just kidding really, didn't intend to ruffle your feathers, so apologies if I did.Just not a fan of fetishizing RAW really, since I've been playing games for 35 years now. D&D 4E really was an eye-opener for me, an entire generation of gamers who seem to have enshrined RAW as some sort of holy, sacred concept.It strikes me that EoE is a fairly narrative game, yet there's a fair bit of arguing semantics and 'you're doing it wrong!' on these boards. Just seems funny, is all.I see your point and it is a valid one. But I don't see Joe Rodian starting with a 3 in Survival as being overkill, if that's what the player really wants.

I don't think it's overkill either. I just feel like it's an exploit of a rule loophole (Aha! I am not allowed to have 3 skill ranks at creation so I will save 15xp and the instant the game starts I will get my third rank). It has nothing to do with RAW or RAI, but rather it just feels like an exploit to me and I don't like exploits in any game. Now, if there is a good narrative reason provided by the player I might reconsider - I am not an inflexible GM that holds the rules above the narrative and having fun

Except that the word "exploit" means to take advantage of a situation for your benefit, and as has been pointed out, saving the XP for rank 3 is a net loss for the character, it's a less efficient optimization. You can't argue it's a kind of cheat when the math doesn't support it.

Personally I wouldn't allow it, but only because the game is new and people I game with don't know the system well enough. "Spend it before we start, or lose it" would be my response. My son has already revised his characters, coming to the realization that going for 4 in a characteristic means suffering in too many other areas; saving XP for rank 3 in one skill would be even worse, and the player would probably end up feeling useless more often.

But later on, with some experience with the system, with a well-rounded party, with a good character-driven reason...why not?

True, but that's semantics. I should have used the term loophole rather than exploit. The rule says you can't create a character with more than 3 ranks in a skill, but waiting until the game actually starts and for all intents and purposes you have created a character with 3 skill ranks.

Again, if a player just did that I'd say no. If another player created a deep character background with a ton of roleplaying potential explaining why he should have 3 skill ranks, sure. I already said I am not rigid and inflexible when it comes to fun and narrative

Cheesy? In my opinion, yes.

Game breaking? In my opinion, yes

Goes against the spirit of the game? Again, my opinion, again yes.

Now, that's me personally. But, there's other factors to consider, player types, group dynamics and what each of the players want to get out of the game. If they just want to blow s**t up, they don't care about narrative. If the group and GM allow it, then that's the group, if the GM doesn't allow it, then, that's what the GM has ruled. Many people have house ruled many games, many rules, and so on.

In my old group, we referred to my GM and GMs in general, as god. They are the creator of the world, they are the alpha and the omega, if they decided your character dies from a fart, then it's time to roll up a new character. If they want to allow it, then by that factor, they can allow it, but, anyone who decides to do this, should not expect every GM to allow it.

There is no EotE police who runs around to makes sure that everyone is playing the game how the creators intended.

The saying goes, opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one, and this is a topic that fits into this category. But each player is different, each GM is different, and each group is different. Again, if the GM allows it, that's fine, but don't expect every GM to allow it.

I think we can all agree on that.

Game-breaking? Really? Your tolerances seem to be exceptionally low.

In my opinion, yes. It takes away from the fun of playing through the adventure. Keeping it at 2 keeps the players and GM going along in the story, once everyone reaches 5 in the stats they particularly want, what fun is left with that character when they can pilot through everything, blow everything up and come out unscathed? But I am the type of player would can play without a character sheet or dice, but add to a story. For me, and only me, I care more about the story that is being formed. But I also said, if a GM allows it, then by all means, do it. As a player, will I? No, even if my GM allows it. It would be akin to a GM giving a level 1 character a Flaming Two-Handed Sword +6 because they looted it off a goblin. As a GM would I allow it, no. But each group can do what they want. It depends on how the group wants to play. If they want to be able to do that, then that's fine. It just doesn't work for me. It's the reason I like tactical maps. I've had fellow players state that they were blocking a door, the very next turn, without moving, they were always standing next to the enemy on the opposite side of the 200 foot room, for me, having a map of the encounter keeps everyone from powergaming their way through the adventure.

Each GM is different, each group is different. If the GM allows it, fine, if not, fine, but it won't happen in my game, and I won't be using the loophole.

A Skill at rank 5 is hardly the end of the road. Even within the limited purview of a single Skill, there are a number of Talents that are necessary for total mastery (including Dedication to get the linked Characteristic raised). Medicine has an entire Specialization (Doctor) devoted to it, and Mechanics has two (Mechanic and Outlaw Tech). If we're talking a combat skill, then there are multiple Trees with a scattering of Talents. Just having the Skill topped out doesn't make you a master.

A Skill at rank 5 is hardly the end of the road. Even within the limited purview of a single Skill, there are a number of Talents that are necessary for total mastery (including Dedication to get the linked Characteristic raised). Medicine has an entire Specialization (Doctor) devoted to it, and Mechanics has two (Mechanic and Outlaw Tech). If we're talking a combat skill, then there are multiple Trees with a scattering of Talents. Just having the Skill topped out doesn't make you a master.

nah bro it makes you overpowered and therefore a one trick pony with extra cheese that is incapable of doing anything else that exploits the rules and ruining my campaign that I spent months writing.

A Skill at rank 5 is hardly the end of the road. Even within the limited purview of a single Skill, there are a number of Talents that are necessary for total mastery (including Dedication to get the linked Characteristic raised). Medicine has an entire Specialization (Doctor) devoted to it, and Mechanics has two (Mechanic and Outlaw Tech). If we're talking a combat skill, then there are multiple Trees with a scattering of Talents. Just having the Skill topped out doesn't make you a master.

nah bro it makes you overpowered and therefore a one trick pony with extra cheese that is incapable of doing anything else that exploits the rules and ruining my campaign that I spent months writing.

I'm thinking that you're trying to be funny. Am I correct?

A Skill at rank 5 is hardly the end of the road. Even within the limited purview of a single Skill, there are a number of Talents that are necessary for total mastery (including Dedication to get the linked Characteristic raised). Medicine has an entire Specialization (Doctor) devoted to it, and Mechanics has two (Mechanic and Outlaw Tech). If we're talking a combat skill, then there are multiple Trees with a scattering of Talents. Just having the Skill topped out doesn't make you a master.

nah bro it makes you overpowered and therefore a one trick pony with extra cheese that is incapable of doing anything else that exploits the rules and ruining my campaign that I spent months writing.

I'm thinking that you're trying to be funny. Am I correct?

yub yub.

I have never seen a community so hell bent on being mediocre, that they bash any attempt to be optimized.

I don't know if they realize you can be optimized AND be good at role play/talking skills. GASP!

And I don't know if you realize that most experienced GMs know that. When discussing rules, you can pretty much add the "depending on your players and group" to most of the comments.

Personally, when I play a role playing game (even computer ones) I don't try to optimize my character, but that's just me and I can appreciate others feeling the opposite