I don't see why it is not feasible to raise main characteristics with XP with say 30 or even 40xp multiplied by the next level of that characteristic. I understand about race limits or even a random chance to fail at it. But if a guy/gal worked hard enough at it you can become stronger smarter etc etc etc. So why not with this game outside of the talent tree...?

Its just unbalancing in that boosting an ability can really give a leg up in whole swaths of skills and reduce the benefit of characters specializing.

With the same amount of xp you propose you could probably boost up specific skills to exceed what you would get from an ability boost.

I don't see why it is not feasible to raise main characteristics with XP with say 30 or even 40xp multiplied by the next level of that characteristic. I understand about race limits or even a random chance to fail at it. But if a guy/gal worked hard enough at it you can become stronger smarter etc etc etc. So why not with this game outside of the talent tree...?

Well if you were to do it, you would want a higher coast. Otherwise no one would ever take the Talents. But maybe the designers felt that this was the best way to do increasing attributes, through talents. Rather than just letting people buy them. So that there is a process, much like working out or studying or practising.

I don't see why it is not feasible to raise main characteristics with XP with say 30 or even 40xp multiplied by the next level of that characteristic. I understand about race limits or even a random chance to fail at it. But if a guy/gal worked hard enough at it you can become stronger smarter etc etc etc. So why not with this game outside of the talent tree...?

Well if you were to do it, you would want a higher coast. Otherwise no one would ever take the Talents. But maybe the designers felt that this was the best way to do increasing attributes, through talents. Rather than just letting people buy them. So that there is a process, much like working out or studying or practising.

I agree with an exorbitant cost. But its so limited in achieving a high degree of skill and I see the chance to max out in your skill very early on considering the recommended amount of xp that the book says to give. I have played all previous versions of SW in rpg form. Yes I have my favorite but the raves on about the dice system for this game made me want to play test it. So at the moment I'm addressing longevity and generalizing of skills. So if you would be kind to continue to share your thoughts tell me what you think.

1: If you could raise characteristics maybe with some kind of limitation whether time or just some kind of maximum, what would that be?

2: I find the skills to generic. Like melee skill. I do not find it a good idea to say pin shock sticks, vibro axes and lightsaber in the same grouping again I think it would lead to skill maxing out at an early level and I do not think someone who swings a club would be good with a lightsaber. How would you handle this or do you think the game is refined enough?

TY in advance for any constructive ideas:)

I find Melee refined enough, but I can see wanting more nuance. You could easily create weapon groups and require a character to be proficient with them or suffer a penalty. Characters could gain extra proficiencies as if purchasing Talents for, say, 10XP (first one is free). Lack of proficiency means either an increase in difficulty (extra purple), or upgrade in difficulty (convert a purple to red), or both, when attempting to use the weapon.

As for lightsabers, apparently that will be an extra skill when the Force and Destiny book comes out. I'm assuming it will unlock extra abilities like deflecting, etc. Until then it's just another melee weapon.

For the characteristics, I like the limitations and how it's structured. People don't really change their basic physical and mental attributes much over the course of their careers, they pick up skills and talents and apply them to the best of their native abilities. I certainly wouldn't want it to be easier to gain higher characteristics.

I find Melee refined enough, but I can see wanting more nuance. You could easily create weapon groups and require a character to be proficient with them or suffer a penalty. Characters could gain extra proficiencies as if purchasing Talents for, say, 10XP (first one is free). Lack of proficiency means either an increase in difficulty (extra purple), or upgrade in difficulty (convert a purple to red), or both, when attempting to use the weapon.

As for lightsabers, apparently that will be an extra skill when the Force and Destiny book comes out. I'm assuming it will unlock extra abilities like deflecting, etc. Until then it's just another melee weapon.

For the characteristics, I like the limitations and how it's structured. People don't really change their basic physical and mental attributes much over the course of their careers, they pick up skills and talents and apply them to the best of their native abilities. I certainly wouldn't want it to be easier to gain higher characteristics.

Will say this I love FFG approach to this seedy underbelly of the star wars galaxy and it was a smart choice as an entry point into game with starting with those types of denizens and end with the jedi installment to round out their trilogy of sw games and despite my concerns I am enjoying running their first beginner adventure.

Depends on your definition of great? If you're used to High Fantasy systems, like D20, where you're taking on dragons and demons and demigods, then no, this system will never get you there. A mook is always a threat because a blaster is just as dangerous when wielded by someone who really knows how to shoot and one that doesn't. The higher skill guy might put the round more consistently on target, but all it takes is one or two shots hitting someone to drop even the mighty. Just look at Boba and Jango. Jango was taken out by a single swing of a single weapon. Boba was knocked into the maw of a beast (and took quite some time to escape since he was "rescued" by EU writers sans armor).

Blasters kill, Swords are lethal, and that is what the system shows. Also, it is very hard to change who you are, hence why it takes Talents and not just XP to raise Characteristics after creation.

Depends on your definition of great? If you're used to High Fantasy systems, like D20, where you're taking on dragons and demons and demigods, then no, this system will never get you there. A mook is always a threat because a blaster is just as dangerous when wielded by someone who really knows how to shoot and one that doesn't. The higher skill guy might put the round more consistently on target, but all it takes is one or two shots hitting someone to drop even the mighty. Just look at Boba and Jango. Jango was taken out by a single swing of a single weapon. Boba was knocked into the maw of a beast (and took quite some time to escape since he was "rescued" by EU writers sans armor).

Blasters kill, Swords are lethal, and that is what the system shows. Also, it is very hard to change who you are, hence why it takes Talents and not just XP to raise Characteristics after creation.

I always thought of star wars as a larger than life stories and the pcs are legend in their own right inspite of which side of the law or light they stand on. That is what I was looking to be reflected in this system. As I said I am a great fan of the concept of this game. I love the outlook on shady patch of the galaxy. I was just looking for more emphasis and depth. Im not looking to discount the system. Just looking for more

I don't see why it is not feasible to raise main characteristics with XP with say 30 or even 40xp multiplied by the next level of that characteristic. I understand about race limits or even a random chance to fail at it. But if a guy/gal worked hard enough at it you can become stronger smarter etc etc etc. So why not with this game outside of the talent tree...?

Characteristics are powerful. If you allow people to raise them after character creation, optimizers will horde experience until they can afford an attribute increase. I suspect most people find this much, much less fun than improving their character in small ways after every session or two. I know I do.

The current system has two other benefits:

1. It encourages characters to make hard decisions about what they want their character to focus on. While this can be frustrating when building characters, it can also lead to better stories because people who aren't good at the task at hand will often come up with creative, memorable ways to use their specialties.

2. It keeps triumpths from becoming too frequent. A character with four proficiency die has a 29 percent chance of getting exactly one triumph on every roll. At five die, that goes up to 35 percent. Six brings it to 40 percent, which means a triumph will happen almost every other roll. That might make triumphs less significant and strain the group's abilities to come up with reasonable results.

Remember, you can increase a skill beyond your rating for the associated characteristic. You won't get a yellow die for doing so, but you'll get another green die. Green die aren't as fun as their big brothers, but they're still powerful. They also give you a way to use to force points even when you're doing what your character is designed to do.

I find the skills to generic. Like melee skill. I do not find it a good idea to say pin shock sticks, vibro axes and lightsaber in the same grouping again I think it would lead to skill maxing out at an early level and I do not think someone who swings a club would be good with a lightsaber. How would you handle this or do you think the game is refined enough?

Lightsabers fall under a separate skill even in Edge of the Empire. The equipment chapter's description for Lightsabers reads in part:

Lightsabers normally require the Lightsaber skill to wield. However, since that skill is not an option for the Player Characters in this book, players must use a lightsaber untrained (selecting either Brawn or Agility as the base characteristic).

To address your overall concern about characters maxing out, keep in mind that maximizing a career skill requires 75 experience, or four to eight sessions if the DM awards 10-20 experience every session and the player ignores everything else. That might seem quick, but it isn't actually maximizing a skill. With talents from the Marauder and Assassin trees, as well as equipment upgrades, even the five-melee, five-brawn headsmasher has a long way to go if he truly wants to master his craft.

Of course, someone with five ranks in a skill is still good at it. He might even be good enough to stop investing in it. I like this, as it will allow the character to diversify and contribute to the game in other ways. Perhaps the mercenary who once cared only for money has found a higher cause and begun to pick up the political skills it will take to win others' support.

I do agree that it should not be easy. But I just find their is such little definition from the poor to the great in the range it makes it very easy to be taken down by the weak. Im not saying this to be a nay sayer just trying to find a better clarity and depth in the system. How do all of you feel about the longevity of the game? Can you truely be great or legendary. Or just somewhat above middling.

For some, the system's relatively flat power curve is a feature rather than a disadvantage. It gives the characters a reason to watch their back no matter how powerful they become. Ideally, it'll also let them take on much stronger foes if they plan carefully and have fortune's favor.

Having said that, I get the impression characters can become ridiculously powerful in their field if they focus. For proof, try creating a character with unlimited credits and 400 experience. A friend tells me he made an almost unkillable bounty hunter doing that. While he was using the beta rules, I suspect it's still possible.

I don't know if that sort of hyperspecialization is good for the game. I've heard players tell stories about shelfing their weapons for good because one player became such a combat monster the others could no longer contribute. I'm hoping situations like that are the exception rather than the norm, as games are much more fun when specialists shine in their element but everyone can participate.

The simple answer to "why" is it was a developer decision for game balance to push character specialization as a vehicle for base attribute increase rather than the "jack-of-all-trades" independent purchase approach. And even then any character can attempt any skill test. Just not all of them will have many dice or Upgrades.

Trees are 100-150 XP from getting to Dedication along the path of least resistance. That's anywhere from 8-15 sessions of play, continuously spending XP to get cool things on the way to a stat increase, depending on how you want to focus, and along the way you will be picking up key Talents for your area of expertise rather than saving up for one big (but ultimately less useful) purchase. I like this. You're not losing out on anything. You're gaining Talents that are, taken in the aggregate, much more useful than a flat +1 dice rolled or Upgraded.

Buying up attributes at character creation is probably the best way to go. Skills can max out quickly if that is all you are spending your xp on, but there are many talents and other specs you will also be investing in. The talents are going to be the best way to flesh out your character. I like the broadness of the skills as they are. Talents allow you to focus on different aspects, with future books expanding those options even more so.

If you are going to allow for buying attributes, you will want a cost higher than reaching the Dedication talent. So at least 100-150 xp or even more as I'm not sure of the cost to reach Dedication in every case. As a restriction you could say that each attribute could only be raised this way once after character creation.

But I'm not a fan of doing that.

two ways. Credits to buy enhanced cyberware, or the dedication talent.

You increase attributes at the beginning at the cost of skills.

Anyone who complains seems to me wants to munchkinize their character at low cost.

The game is designed to support a more narrative style of play, which I think the broad Skills support. Super-specific skills are the realm of more mechanics-heavy systems like Shadowrun. And as has been stated, lightsabers are a bad example as the book even says that real lightsaber fighting, Jedi-style, will not be used with Melee; using Melee is using a lightsaber basically untrained for its specific style and use.

A better example for what I read is your complaint is more like "should groundcars and airspeeders both use Pilot: Planetary when one is a wheeled land vehicle and the other is a flying repulsor vehicle?" To which my response is: I don't see this game, designed to promote a relatively rules-light playstyle (compared to many other games out there) benefiting in any way from more skill bloat.

I think there are generally two schools of thought when it comes to characteristics:

1) Characteristics doesn't "mean" anything, it's just a stat that makes you better at combat, with your skills, etc. This is the classic (is D&D 3e classic by now?) D&D approach. Your wizard has Intelligence 22 because it makes him better with his spells. You are not supposed to think about what the actual in-world implications are of having an Intelligence of 22 when the racial maximum is 18. With this philosophy, characteristics advances tends to be plentiful, since it's "just another" way to improve your character.

2) The "realistic" approach. Characteristics increases are relatively hard to come by. Your thief is super flexible but kinda dumb? That's the character you build, and the core concept isn't going to change that much. You're the hero of the story, but you're not Batman. You are unlikely to end up with 6 in every characteristic because that's would be kinda ridiculous. Characteristics have meaning beyond how many dice they let you roll for skill checks, and improving yourself beyond your baseline is a significant investment.

Without making any judgement of either approach, I think EotE is following #2 pretty closely.

I think there are generally two schools of thought when it comes to characteristics:

1) Characteristics doesn't "mean" anything, it's just a stat that makes you better at combat, with your skills, etc. This is the classic (is D&D 3e classic by now?) D&D approach. Your wizard has Intelligence 22 because it makes him better with his spells. You are not supposed to think about what the actual in-world implications are of having an Intelligence of 22 when the racial maximum is 18. With this philosophy, characteristics advances tends to be plentiful, since it's "just another" way to improve your character.

2) The "realistic" approach. Characteristics increases are relatively hard to come by. Your thief is super flexible but kinda dumb? That's the character you build, and the core concept isn't going to change that much. You're the hero of the story, but you're not Batman. You are unlikely to end up with 6 in every characteristic because that's would be kinda ridiculous. Characteristics have meaning beyond how many dice they let you roll for skill checks, and improving yourself beyond your baseline is a significant investment.

Without making any judgement of either approach, I think EotE is following #2 pretty closely.

I do agree FFG is following the second approach and that's the thing is Star Wars that a 'realism' game. Im not saying everyone out their is walking around with 6s and I agree that it should be a significant investment over many sessions to raise that. Star Wars is grandeur, larger than life, Space opera the Republican series brought to life and the game system brings to a shadowrun level. Gritty dirty and that is an interesting perspective but when they get around to the jedi supplement can they support that level of being. Or even a Han Solo at this stage who is a ridiculous pilot, shot and so much more. The D6 allowed the character skill narrative to flesh this out. As someone mentioned before calling it skill bloat. But as you know with a game that is often played some max out early. D6 had no upper limit and a wide variation between the poor to mediocre and upwards to the good and great in skill levels. It also had the ability to allow a really luck mediocre slob to bring down one of the big guys with lucky die rolls so their was not this indestructible feeling. It was imo balanced. The skill system here seems to feel like Star Wars small scale. Again I reiterate I am not a hater and I am glad someone of FFGs caliber picked up SW after Wizards Debarcle D20 system. They are a quality game producer. I am just looking for a good SW fit or to make this one work and be more fleshed out.

There's no upper limit for an EotE character. Take a new EotE Specialization. Ask to take something from AoR that fits your concept. And Han Solo is not a chargen character, thinking of him as such is really silly. By Ep IV he had about a decade's worth of adventures if not more already. You can't begin to model Han Solo in this game until he has most of the Pilot and Scoundrel trees and even then he'd work better as as NPC, cherry-picking appropriate Talents and having the plot armor of the Adversary trait.

I'm not sure what your "small scale" complaint means.

I do agree that it should not be easy. But I just find their is such little definition from the poor to the great in the range it makes it very easy to be taken down by the weak. Im not saying this to be a nay sayer just trying to find a better clarity and depth in the system. How do all of you feel about the longevity of the game? Can you truely be great or legendary. Or just somewhat above middling.

I think truly great or legendary is definitely possible. I haven't been playing with enough frequency to make a lot of progression, but it's easy to tell the difference between someone with a 3 dice pool with one upgrade (YGG) and someone with a 5 dice pool with three upgrades (YYYGG). And that's not even that many XP. I have to be really careful when building the opposition…I want the player to know whether or not they're in over their heads, but I've already made the mistake of going one-die-too-many, and the difference is telling.

And that's just skills. Throw in armour, talents, weapon and equipment mods, etc…hmmm, I'm guessing you haven't seen all the threads about how overpowered some of these might end up being.

Then there's the Force: maxing out here with the little taste we've seen is pretty potent already. I'm expecting (hoping) that the future Force stuff will emphasize a very long but rewarding road.

Personally I like that stormtroopers will always be a problem, as I've always hated the D20 "untouchable past level X". But there's no doubt that as the character develops the GM will need more and more of them to "make a point".

For some, the system's relatively flat power curve is a feature rather than a disadvantage. It gives the characters a reason to watch their back no matter how powerful they become. Ideally, it'll also let them take on much stronger foes if they plan carefully and have fortune's favor.

It's not particularly flat. The power difference in combat between someone who has focused on a broad range of skills and someone that has taken a quick trip down the maurader tree is dramatic. It can easily be the difference between splashing most nemesis in one or two hits and taking 6 or more.

The power curve is going to go up as more combinations come into the game. For example with Age of Rebellion added to EotE you can get +120 on your crit rolls with lethal blows and an ax which will be obliterating stuff left and right. That is just an easy example, there are much cheaper ones.

There's no upper limit for an EotE character. Take a new EotE Specialization. Ask to take something from AoR that fits your concept. And Han Solo is not a chargen character, thinking of him as such is really silly. By Ep IV he had about a decade's worth of adventures if not more already. You can't begin to model Han Solo in this game until he has most of the Pilot and Scoundrel trees and even then he'd work better as as NPC, cherry-picking appropriate Talents and having the plot armor of the Adversary trait.

I'm not sure what your "small scale" complaint means.

thank you for this interesting response. So if you could expand on this. Can your character belong to multiple talent trees? Also I do know that han is a very very diverse character and not a good fit for any one tree in this game. How is could this layering of talent trees work?

I do agree that it should not be easy. But I just find their is such little definition from the poor to the great in the range it makes it very easy to be taken down by the weak. Im not saying this to be a nay sayer just trying to find a better clarity and depth in the system. How do all of you feel about the longevity of the game? Can you truely be great or legendary. Or just somewhat above middling.

I think truly great or legendary is definitely possible. I haven't been playing with enough frequency to make a lot of progression, but it's easy to tell the difference between someone with a 3 dice pool with one upgrade (YGG) and someone with a 5 dice pool with three upgrades (YYYGG). And that's not even that many XP. I have to be really careful when building the opposition…I want the player to know whether or not they're in over their heads, but I've already made the mistake of going one-die-too-many, and the difference is telling.

And that's just skills. Throw in armour, talents, weapon and equipment mods, etc…hmmm, I'm guessing you haven't seen all the threads about how overpowered some of these might end up being.

Then there's the Force: maxing out here with the little taste we've seen is pretty potent already. I'm expecting (hoping) that the future Force stuff will emphasize a very long but rewarding road.

Personally I like that stormtroopers will always be a problem, as I've always hated the D20 "untouchable past level X". But there's no doubt that as the character develops the GM will need more and more of them to "make a point".

Any character can buy into any Specialization in the books* (the RAI seems to imply "with GM approval" but that's basically always the case). Buying into a new non-Universal Specialization outside of your Career (e.g. a Colonist/Politico buying into the Trader Specialization) just costs more XP.

This isn't a very good idea at chargen unless you want to start with Force powers and therefore buy in to Force-Sensitive Exile. The optimal XP expenditure at chargen involves buying as many Characteristic points as possible (since they're not easily-purchaseable later), and spending the rest on Skills/Talents.

*except droids can never become Force-Sensitive and thus, arguably, can never buy into Force-Sensitive Exile.

So as Kshatriya has said, characters are frankly encouraged to buy into more than one spec, thus having no real "cap" on characteristic growth, outside of campagin length. As far as that goes, I'm averaging 15 xp/session with an ideal campagin length of about a year. That will allow my Players to fully realize 2 Specializations, or a combination of them before closing the curtain.

Skills have a max rank of 5, and Characteristics 6/7 with Cyberware in Strength, agility, and Intelligence.

As far as a character focusing in a skill, i have an active player who's Ranged Heavy is currently 5 with an agility of 4 I believe. He shoots a lot of stuff, and rarely misses, but it does happen on occasion. My philosophy towards adventure design lends itself towards a more "organic" approach, so I generally make a determination on what kinds of forces would "realistically" be available and go from there.

This does mean that there have been encounters that the party has "walked" through, and some that have given the other PC's a bit of trouble, but they are starting to maximize the effiency of their combat talents.

That being said, in non-combat situations this character generally walks around providing Aid dice to the others due to a lack of social skills, but he does blather quite a bit.

Normally when asked about skills and what their ranks mean, regardless of system, I tend to equate the different "levels" in terms of formal education. In SW, a single rank in a skill is about 2 years of education per rank. Meaning rank 1 is basically something you were good at in highschool, 2 would be an Associates degree, 3 a bachelors, 4 a masters, and 5 a doctorate. I then ask the player if their character would really put in the time and effort to achieve this level of profiency with a given skill. Also, I emphasize the Knowledge skills in my game, as any one who has played any sort of cyber punk/ shadowrun / dark hero kind of game can tell you, a few successes on a Knowledge check and save the team a few dozen "active" skill checks on a job.

but that's just my 2 cents.

As a side note, this system is an evolution of Warhammer Fantasy Role Play 3rd Edition. Under that system, the PC's generally got 1 advancement every session. To increace a characteristic, you have to spend a number of advances equal to the next level of the characteristic, assuming it was one associated with the career you were currently in. Meaning that getting from a 4 to a 5 would take 5 games worth of "xp".

Any character can buy into any Specialization in the books* (the RAI seems to imply "with GM approval" but that's basically always the case). Buying into a new non-Universal Specialization outside of your Career (e.g. a Colonist/Politico buying into the Trader Specialization) just costs more XP.

This isn't a very good idea at chargen unless you want to start with Force powers and therefore buy in to Force-Sensitive Exile. The optimal XP expenditure at chargen involves buying as many Characteristic points as possible (since they're not easily-purchaseable later), and spending the rest on Skills/Talents.

*except droids can never become Force-Sensitive and thus, arguably, can never buy into Force-Sensitive Exile.

So what do you think of buying into a second tree. Put down a foundation cost. Say Luke as he went from Bush Pilot to Jedi Knight or Han went from imperial academy pilot to smuggler/gunslinger/etc etc? Your thoguhts please

I don't understand your question. The process of buying into a new Specialization is in the RAW.

Numbers wise, it costs xp = 10x the number of specializations the character will have if the Spec is in career. If the specialization is is out of career it costs +10 xp. Universal specs are always considered "in career".

So, if the desired specalization is in career a PC's second specialization will cost 20 xp, and 30 xp for the third. if either of them were out of career, it would cost an aditional 10 xp.