When creating characters last week, I was disappointed that nearly all of them chose to create Humans, with the exception of a single Duros. When I asked why, one of them mentioned that none of them were particularly attractive because I had emphasised that space combat would be relatively rare in the campaign.

I noticed that he was right. Both Duros and Sullustans have features that are almost entirely one dimensional. Both are focused on space related skills. Though this is Star Wars, space combat still features only about once for every three or four ground and social encounters in my EotE game. Because the characters are members of a SpecForce unit, they will see space even less in my AoR campaign.

When looking over the other options, both Ithorians and Mon Calamari seem underpowered too when not performing in their niches. Ithorians have less XP, but aren't nearly as "cool" as Wookiees. Personally, I think they sound fun, but I can understand why someone would avoid them for roleplay reasons. Mon Calamari seem to have two bonuses that do the same thing, an increase in Intellect (which is offset by Cunning) and a free rank in Education. They'll make great thinkers, and maybe keep up with a Human mechanic or medic, but have no interesting bonuses related to combat and social encounters which make up the bulk of play. Very few players want to build a character dedicated to Knowledge skills.

Compare to the Gran. I think the Gran is very well built. He has flexibility in his skill rank choice, an interesting balance with weak Cunning and strong Presence, and a special ability that is sure to come into play.

Anyways, I was wondering what other player's parties were experiencing regarding species preferences. Was anyone else underwhelmed?

Interesting observations. I shall have to present these species to my players and get their take. I've been hesitant to do so due to the beta status and due to the fact that our SWSE and Metamorphosis Alpha games are occupying our time lately. Still, it wouldn't hurt to use a little of that time to devote to character generation in order to playtest at least this aspect.

I'm not sure that it's purely an issue of specialization. In many cases the races are simply too weak. Mon Calimari are a good example. They get to be amphibious. Woo-freakin-hoo. How often does this come up in a game where you can travel through space in a space ship?

To me it's more cosmetic with a once-in-a-blue-moon actual benefit. Then you tack on Education for the sexiest skill evar.

It's all true to what we see in the movies, but you are seriously handicapping yourself from a game perspective. I'd prefer a little creative thinking so that Mon Cal lovers don't have to suffer to play their favorite race.

Compare this to Human. Humans get 2's in every stat, 10 extra XP (A math fix to account for the 3 stat other races get), and one of the best abilities in the game – 2 extra non-class skills. Every player can figure out how to use those two extra non-class skills. How many can figure out how to use Amphibious on a regular basis? Pitch a fit every time the adventure sends them to a desert world or urban landscape? 'Cause that's mature.

Humans will always be a popular race. I like that, but there are consequences. I think if they can keep all the races somewhat competitive they will have done a good job. For Mon Cal the solution might be to simply give them 10 more XP as an acknowledgment that amphibious is weak.

Those 2 free skills for humans are the deal-maker for me and other players. If they gave the MonCal 1 free skill that would help a lot. Surely a smart species is also adaptable...

At the very least, the Knowledge skill should be one of your choice. I would also throw a talent in there. I think that we can consider Amphibious a wash as far as value goes.

I'm still concerned with the Duros and Sullustans. They're some of my favorites, but they're completely unbalanced towards space. I would drop one of their two space bonuses and replace with a more flexible ability usable in traditional (skill, stealth, social, combat) encounters.

By all means, still give Mon Cals the Amphibious trait, but as folks have pointed out, it's basically just for flavor and/or window dressing and not something that I'd expect to come up much/ever in any sort of campaign, and so its factoring into the XP calculation should be minor to nonexistent.

I also don't like Knowledge (Education) as a free skill rank. Being trained in Knowledge (Education) suggests something about the character's upbringing, not something innate to their species, and while it's true that, in Star Wars, sociology and physiology have a lot of overlap, having a free rank in a skill that speaks to the character's past is less than ideal IMHO.

For instance, if for some reason, a player wanted to make a Mon Cal who grew up as a scavenger on Nar Shaddaa, I somehow doubt that, simply by virtue of being a Mon Cal, they'd have an amazing grasp of algebra and advanced chemistry.

I would much more easily buy that Mon Calamari are more inherently observant (Perception) or are more calm and collected (Cool) than that they all just happen to be born to be plugged into the ship-building factory consortium (Education).

Only one of the AoR races has the iconic appeal factor (Mon Cal). We see only one Sullustan, and he's just a copilot whose name isn't even mentioned. (Had to wait for the toys to learn his name.)

The others don't even figure.

So Duros have the cool astrogation bit.

Gran have the perception bit

Sullustans have a free talent rank

Ithorians are never unarmed except in vacuum.

none of those is a clear rival for two free non-career-skill ranks AND 10 XP more...

In a space oriented game, Duros are worthy, otherwise, no. They're all underpointed.

Only one of the AoR races has the iconic appeal factor (Mon Cal). We see only one Sullustan, and he's just a copilot whose name isn't even mentioned. (Had to wait for the toys to learn his name.)

The others don't even figure.

So Duros have the cool astrogation bit.

Gran have the perception bit

Sullustans have a free talent rank

Ithorians are never unarmed except in vacuum.

none of those is a clear rival for two free non-career-skill ranks AND 10 XP more...

In a space oriented game, Duros are worthy, otherwise, no. They're all underpointed.

To be fair, in the grand tradition of Star Wars tabletop roleplaying, all of those species are iconic player races, even if they're admittedly less so for folks who are just fans of the films.

I do admit, though, that the Sullustan and Mon Cal, in particular, could use some retooling. Back in Saga, they were both pretty powerful, and I get the feeling that someone effort was made here in AoR to counter that, but it seems like it may have gone a bit too far, almost.

Only one of the AoR races has the iconic appeal factor (Mon Cal). We see only one Sullustan, and he's just a copilot whose name isn't even mentioned. (Had to wait for the toys to learn his name.)

The others don't even figure.

So Duros have the cool astrogation bit.

Gran have the perception bit

Sullustans have a free talent rank

Ithorians are never unarmed except in vacuum.

none of those is a clear rival for two free non-career-skill ranks AND 10 XP more...

In a space oriented game, Duros are worthy, otherwise, no. They're all underpointed.

To be fair, in the grand tradition of Star Wars tabletop roleplaying, all of those species are iconic player races, even if they're admittedly less so for folks who are just fans of the films.

I do admit, though, that the Sullustan and Mon Cal, in particular, could use some retooling. Back in Saga, they were both pretty powerful, and I get the feeling that someone effort was made here in AoR to counter that, but it seems like it may have gone a bit too far, almost.

Most of the people I know never adopted the d20 Star Wars; Saga Ed had more uptake, but few, if any, tell tales of non-humans made it my way. Really, the only iconic races are Ewoks and Wookies. Has to do with screen time leading to cool factor.

Star Wars RPG play has been, mostly, humanocentric, equally as much as the films were. Edge gave compelling specials in exchange for those up to 20 points less. Wookie rage rocks. Trandoshans regenerate. Twileks look cool, easily two of the most memorable minor roles in the films are twileks.

I've never met anyone excited to play a Mon Cal or a Sullustan. But Wookies? Yep. Ewoks? Yes, but I really don't grok why.

And bothans? Unless TCW did something spectacular with them, they're WAY under the radar. Really, some other race should replace them in AoR - they're far from compelling enough to justify reprint, but toss wookie in instead...

Also - I don't think a species is Iconic unless the average high schooler non-nerd/non-geek looks and goes, "That's from Star Wars"... Ewoks get that reaction. Wookies get that. Twileks and Hutts get that. R2 and 3PO units get that.

Most of the people I know never adopted the d20 Star Wars; Saga Ed had more uptake, but few, if any, tell tales of non-humans made it my way. Really, the only iconic races are Ewoks and Wookies. Has to do with screen time leading to cool factor.

[...]

Also - I don't think a species is Iconic unless the average high schooler non-nerd/non-geek looks and goes, "That's from Star Wars"... Ewoks get that reaction. Wookies get that. Twileks and Hutts get that. R2 and 3PO units get that.

Well, again, I'm talking about iconic in the sense of people who have been fans of the various editions of the roleplaying games. Sure, the average person on the street absolutely knows what a Wookiee is, but I challenge you to find a Star Wars roleplaying nerd who doesn't also know what a Trandoshan or a Bothan is.

And apparently we must run in very different Star Wars RP circles, but I see people roll up Duros and Mon Cals and weird species like Nosaurians and Cathar all the time. I've played in and run a ton of campaigns over the last several editions, and it wasn't until the Edge game I'm currently running that I had a player actually make a Wookiee PC (which I admit is freakish that it had never come up before in our games).

Well, again, I'm talking about iconic in the sense of people who have been fans of the various editions of the roleplaying games. Sure, the average person on the street absolutely knows what a Wookiee is, but I challenge you to find a Star Wars roleplaying nerd who doesn't also know what a Trandoshan or a Bothan is.

Half my group. Most of them don't read the novels.

It's been the general trend in most of the Star Wars games that I've been in that over half the party are Humans, particularly in d20 where being Human simply provided some really good benefits (namely, free bonus feat and free skill ranks). EotE/AoR is pretty similar in that, in terms of pure mechanical benefit, unless your character concept calls for a specific species, you're better off sticking with a Human, both for the free skill ranks and the additional starting XP. Again, this is from a purely mechanical perspective; in short, using roll -playing instead of role -playing.

Unlike Rikoshi's group, I've had a Wookiee PC show up in most every campaign that I've run, to the point that the Saga Edition Skype game he and I were in was the exception for me in that nobody played a Wookiee.

Wookies are about the most powerful non-human for the points in Edge - Trading 10 Starting XP, skill flexibility and the second skill, and 2 stress threshold for a frequent damage bonus, and +4 Wound threshold. They reall shouldn't be 20 points less...

10 points is a pretty big deal for starting characters. It rapidly dissipates if not spent on attributes, but it can be a profound difference long term if it is.

I don't think the fact that more often than not people will choose Humans is really the problem here. I think the problem is more that the other species don't have abilities or bonuses that are flexible enough or interesting enough to provide exciting and unique play. Ithorian Bellow, Trandoshan Regeneration, Wookiee Rage, Gran Perception, and Gand Respirators are all very unique and useful abilities. I don't know why, but Twi'leks, Rodians, and Bothans all feel more interesting, useful, and unique than Duros, Mon Calamri, and Sullustans.

EotE/AoR is pretty similar in that, in terms of pure mechanical benefit, unless your character concept calls for a specific species, you're better off sticking with a Human, both for the free skill ranks and the additional starting XP. Again, this is from a purely mechanical perspective; in short, using roll -playing instead of role -playing.

See. I don't understand this kind of talk here. This is the "Game Mechanics" forum. We are supposed to discuss the mechanics and not the role playing.

Personally, I don't see good mechanics and good role playing as polar opposites. I know lots of great role players who worry about game effectiveness. They want the rules to model the character they want to play.

From a world development standpoint, why would an inferior race survive in a competitive galaxy? Life is based on competition. Poorly adapted species fall before well adapted ones. Mon Calamari are not supposed to be intellectual couch potatoes. They are supposed to be consummate space-fairers. How about a bonus to some kind of mechanical ability?

Maybe we come to an agreement? You don't imply folks are bad role-players, and I won't assume you failed math class.

Why would an inferior species survive in a harsh galaxy? Palpatine wants humans to have that question answered "only to be humanity's servants".

I don't think the fact that more often than not people will choose Humans is really the problem here. I think the problem is more that the other species don't have abilities or bonuses that are flexible enough or interesting enough to provide exciting and unique play. Ithorian Bellow, Trandoshan Regeneration, Wookiee Rage, Gran Perception, and Gand Respirators are all very unique and useful abilities. I don't know why, but Twi'leks, Rodians, and Bothans all feel more interesting, useful, and unique than Duros, Mon Calamri, and Sullustans.

I have to agree. The races in Edge each clearly have definitive pros and cons which can tool them towards some Careers or be interesting if you pick something unusual (Trandoshan politico can work real well!) I'm not seeing the same balance or mechanical benefits in the AoR races.

Again, this is from a purely mechanical perspective; in short, using roll -playing instead of role -playing.

Ugh ugh ugh I'm so tired of this argument, this notion, and more than anything else, this condescending phrase.

There's nothing wrong or inferior about enjoying the mechanics of a game. It doesn't make you worse at immersion or enjoying play or building a deep character that the GM enjoys plotting at/against and the other players enjoy interacting with. There's nothing inherently bad about wanting your character to be mechanically competent at his chosen field and picking the race that maximizes his chances of successes and advantages. Refusing to be a jack-of-all-trades because you want to focus deeply on 1-2 aspects of gameplay and master them IC is not Objectively Doing It Wrong.

A player is not bad for thinking about the concept he wants to play and where he wants his numbers/dice pools to be for his preferred competence level before he thinks about the character's backstory. We all know character backstory can drive and inspire the mechanical implementation of chargen but increasingly it's viewed as dirty/immature for the mechanical implementation of chargen to inspire and drive character backstory. For me, that's the easier way to do it: with a character picture and assigning my numbers, and then I get into the details of figuring out how the character got there. Generally it's more about comfort and priority preference than anything else, and there's no right answer, so please drop this silly cliche catchphrase. It's not pithy or relevant, let alone imparting some kind of Word of God truth.

If all you care about is good role-play, I suggest not having racial mechanical differentiations at all. Set all stats at baseline 2 for any possible race, and racial features are all pure fluff with no mechanical effect.

Last I checked, the topic was "Are non-Humans too specialized in a particularly niche?" not "Let's just whine about every species that isn't Human sucks."

The answer is Yes, and it's deliberately so, and has been since the WEG system. Hell, it's been that way since D&D was created by Anderson and Gygax, with certain races being better at certain roles and sub-par at others, with Humans being the "generalists" in that they're not inherently biased towards a given role, but can choose to focus on a role and be pretty good at it. It's going to be a factor of any RPG that mechanically differentiates between races/species.

The only real "solution" is to just deep-six having mechanically different races entirely and put everyone at the same baseline: a 2 in all Characteristics, a 100 XP budget, base 10 for Wound and Strain Threshold, and that's it . No bonus talents, no bonus skills, no species abilities, nothing inherently special at all. Then you've got your "mechanically balanced" species, to the degree there's no point in going the Star Trek route and simply playing a bunch of rubber-forehead aliens.

Dono, I agree that they are deliberately specialized, but the way that they have been mechanically specialized has been done, in my opinion, a way that makes some species inherently less fun to play. Again, this is mainly from a mechanical perspective. I think that if you want to play a species and concept, you should play that species regardless of its mechanics. But at the same time, that species should have a set of abilities that make them feel like you're playing that species at least once a session. Mechanics should enhance role-play . I am a firm believer that that is a fair and noble design goal.

Personally, I don't think that Mon Calamari, Sullustans, or Duros are mechanically inferior to the other species. I do argue that the way they are presented seems uninteresting to play and that not enough has been done to make their "theme" run throughout multiple aspects of the game.

I'm mostly going to draw on EotE examples as well as AoR, simply because I feel like EotE did a MUCH better job of promoting non-humans as viable mechanical options given the bonuses they get. As others have said, AoR aliens just don't have the same mechanical strengths, and I think the worst offender is the Mon Cal in terms of "things a Species gets."

If humans are the baseline as generalists, then they're also the baseline for comparison. In an equivalent-value analysis, other species should be getting as much value (not necessarily as much flat XP in equivalence) as humans get with all 2s, 10 extra XP, and 2 free non-career skills at Rank 1 (which is the equivalent of starting with 130 XP).

Compare with droids, who start at 175 XP, with effectively +10 XP invested into other Career skills and every characteristic at 1. The point being droids are not designed to be generalists by the fluff of the setting, they're designed to specialize, and the flat +175 XP to buy up characteristics leans towards this view (rather than the starting 2-in-everything, it's neither mechanically ridiculous nor out of place in the setting for a droid to have a spread of 5-2-1-1-1-1). I feel like this is a good way to model it since "droid" is less an individual species and more of a template for all inorganic beings regardless of design (a 3PO unit is really, mechanically, a distinct species from an R4 unit, for example).

Looking at other species in EotE, the main comparison is 3/1/2/2/2/2, so you're up 10 XP from 1 stat at 3 and the cost of raising your 1 to 2. Add in a free Talent and skill rank (usually a 5 XP option on one table or another, and usually from the table that the race is best-known for, i.e. Bothans seem tailored to have improvements to Politico/Scoundrel-type stuff from their +1 Streetwise and Convincing Demeanor x1). On first impression it looks like most species with a 3 in one Characteristic also give a Talent and Skill Rank that benefit Skills tied to their Characteristic at 3 (Bothans with 3 Cunning and Streetwise and Convincing Demeanor; Twi'leks with 3 Presence and Charm or Deception). That's about the equivalent of 10 XP (5 XP Talent + 5 XP in a skill tied to careers that the characteristic bump pushes them towards).

What is harder to value is the "removal of Setbacks" type of bonuses, with which I include the Lungless Gand "I don't breathe" ability as well as Twi'leks and their removal of a Setback in arid environments. The former can be useful just about anywhere there's a non-Type-I atmosphere (notably: this is explicitly valued at 10 XP, given the exchange that lung-possessing Gand receive for their drawback of needing a breathing mask); the latter is quite niche to providing a benefit on particular missions to arid places, which may occur frequently or never in a given campaign. It's really this latter category that is the hardest to value because of the inapplicability in a lot of situations. -1 Setback die to X condition is typically a ranked Talent first available at the top tier of a Career. That's usually 5 XP, but the drawback of further limited applicability doesn't seem to be factored in. It's worth noting that in-Career Talents aren't this limited. Forager removes Setback die in any biome, not just arid or aquatic; Brace removes Setback from any environmental factors, not just high wind or low-light. So I would value "remove a Setback under arid conditions only" as being worth less than 5 XP, compared to the "remove Setback Talents" that aren't so limited in applicability, merely limited to certain broad-sweeping conditions or tied to a particular Skill.

I also consider removing a Setback in arid conditions much more useful than being able to breathe water. Breathing (or not being affected by) any atmosphere, regardless of its gas mixture, is pretty powerful, removing a lot of danger for that character. Removing a Setback in arid conditions can be useful on a number of worlds, as most adventures on-planet will expose characters to the environmental conditions of that world. So why is Amphibious "less valuable" to me? Mostly because, on a planet, every character will be dealing with an atmosphere, whether they're immune to it or need a breather or get Setbacks from it being very dry or not. Dealing with bodies of water isn't a given on every planet. One could run a game on an Earth-like world and never interact with an ocean or body of water. This is an ability that is even more limited in scope than, really, anything else given to PCs in the game.

Now, when it comes to free Skills, I think it's clear that the humans' "+1 to 2 non-Career Skills" is pretty powerful, worth 20 XP by itself. Other species' free Skills can bump a Career Skill to 2 (saving either XP or being able to pick another option if the Skill is offered both in Career and Specialization) or can provide a 10-XP benefit for granting a non-Career skill. The options listed in EotE are pretty far-reaching: Streetwise (Bothans), Charm or Deception (Twi'leks), Brawl (Wookiees), Perception (Trandoshans), Survival (Rodians), Discipline (Gand), Streetwise (Bothans). Of these, the ones I find least useful are Survival and Streetwise (relatively situational compared to the others) - they can be useful in a number of situations, but probably not as often as, say, Discipline or Perception or social/combat skills. However I consider all of these examples more useful than Knowledge: Education. That skill CAN certainly be useful in the right moment, but compared to broadly-applicable skills like Discipline or Perception, or more-narrowly-applicable-but-still-frequently-used skills like social and combat skills, Knowledge Skills are going to require very specific events to come into play (IMO), with some Knowledge skills (Underworld, Core Worlds/Outer Rim and Xenology) providing the most-frequent opportunities to roll and gain a benefit thereby.

Skills are not all created equal, and it seemed like in EotE most of the Species Skills were derived from traits the Species is known for, or traits expressed through biology or upbringing as Skills, and all those Species-granted Skills in EotE seemed to complement the naturally-boosed Characteristic that the given Skill was usually tied to. Further, I don't think that Knowledge skills are ever really appropriate as Species-given skills (aside from droids, who are programmed) because it can cut out possibly story elements. All Trandoshans have +1 Perception because they are perceptive predators; Gand naturally trend towards having Discipline based on their culture and lack of colonization; Twi'leks can use their natural beauty and poise to get what they want. Not really the case with Knowledge; I liked the example of a Mon Cal street tough - how/why would they automatically have Knowledge: Education?

TL;DR: AoR Species balance skews towards humans as the mechanically optimal choice; this skew is not present in EotE and I for one am disappointed that two "complementary" game lines variated so far between balancing different Species and making some clearly always-better choices than others.

My humble opinion is that the starting sequence of Skills, Attributes, Abilities and Talents are going to diminish in importance as the duration of the campaign extends away from the start. In a years of 20xp sessions just once a month we'll all have 240xp to spend. I would suggest that after spending 240xp getting 20xp on skills for free is not going to have as much effect as some of the abilities the various races get.

What is the value of an ability that ignores heat effects, toxins or drowning when none of these abilities are available beyond character creation?

In the fight between Obi-Wan and Janga Fett the possibility of one of them falling into the ocean and drowning is quite a significant threat. If being amphibious would save your life just once in a campaign, just what is that ability worth when compared to a human character that now has to be re-rolled. (Clone Wars Season 1 has an episode called Gungan Jedi, which is an example of this very thing.)

In the Order 66 List that have a category called "raising the stakes" or what can make it more dangerous. Having a fight over water during a storm, while fighting on a glass smooth surface, has to be something you can add to the list of stock standards.

In a "Special-Opps" campaign the players will never have to board a ship or off-shore mining platform? Mate, anyone that tells you the Mon-Calamari special ability is a waste isn't paranoid enough.

In a "Special-Opps" campaign the players will never have to board a ship or off-shore mining platform? Mate, anyone that tells you the Mon-Calamari special ability is a waste isn't paranoid enough.

No one seems to be saying it's worthless - but we are saying it's not worth the same as a human's open skill choice.

Let's recap

Average Race

Base 100p

stat 1@1 -20p

stat 1@3 +30

one skill: 5p to 10p (call it five) - often pick one of two

one talent: 5p or 10 point value

total 120-130p

Human

base 110p

two non career skills: 2@1 10p ea = 20

Total 130p

Mon Cal

base 100

Stat 1@1 -20

Stat 1@3 +30

skill 1@1 5p or 10p

Amphibious ≤5p utility

total 115-120+Ambibious

Amphibious avoids a movement and combat penalty in an infrequent environement - it's far less valuable than the Skilled Jockey ability of Sullustans, which is a 5-10 point ability in relevant trees, cancels only a die per rank, but does so in EVERY environment with terrain penalties. Skilled Jockey just feels much more relevant and much more powerful because it's going to matter a LOT more often.

And then there's that Education as a skill for a race may be worthy - but only useful rarely. So it's really not worth the 5 points.

THe Mon Cal would do well to have an option for some other skill in place of Knowledge (Education) - perhaps perception - or to have 5 more points.

Skilled Jockey is

5p: Pilot,

10p: Driver, Fringer

FWIW, yesterday the players all chose non-humans to play. Overall, they were more interested in the specializations than in the actual race. The species intriguied them certainly but ultimately, it was all about the build and the back story.

Amphibious avoids a movement and combat penalty in an infrequent environment ....

I live in Sydney and there is water all over the place. What if for example there is a heist that will take place in the Sydney Opera House, could I not jump off a ferry and swim on in?

If water is an infrequent environment and you are playing a Mon-Cal perhaps you should take the time and effort to ask and investigate the use of such an environment. I recon that if you start looking for, and creating great chances for you to use the ability the GM will go with the flow more than not.

Now, if your campaign takes place on Tantooine you'll have a problem, but....