Going to start some EotE "from scratch" with my kids. Learning the system myself. So I'm curious, how/where do you spend your initial XP during character generation? Seems like characteristics can't go up later, so it seems reasonable to spend most or all of it on those, taking very few levels in skills. Conversely, six-ish rank 1 skills seems a tad weak to begin with, suggesting at least a noticeable % be spent on non-characteristics.

I'm sure there's no right or wrong answer. So I'm simply asking, how do YOU spend your initial XPs during character generation?

Thanks in advance.

All on characteristics.

Plus I gave my group +70 extra to spend on talents/skills ONLY to represent a bit of experienced they'd learned throughout their lives. I still limited it to rank 2 as maximum during creation. Worked out well. I think anywhere from 25-75 extra AFTER creation really makes for well rounded starters.

Most of my guys had 1-2 skills with 2 and 2-4 with 1 skill trained with about 3-4 talents as average. Only 1 of them opt'd to get a 2nd specialization off the bat.

I have said this before, think about your character. If you are playing a grizzled veteran smuggler out to make one last score, focus on skills and talents. If you are playing a young character with lots of raw talent, focus on attributes.

My players dumped just about everything on Attributes (with their cost, it's hard NOT to dump it when raising 2 of them), with a few left over to cover a few skills.

No one bothered to buy a talent at chargen.

I did give my players a "free" talent tree to denote some extra experience that they had; I may start offering a few extra XP to offset that initial hit that they face for more "advanced" characters later on.

For non-humans I tend to boost their Attribute at 3 up to 4 if it's relevant to my concept (i.e. Twi'lek Politico can benefit from Presence 4 a lot). I'll boost another to 3 (for said Twi'lek, probably Cunning), and shore the 1 up to 2 if it's Brawn, Agility or Willpower. Then I round out the rest (if any) with Tier 1 talents or buying a couple 1s in Career Skills.

Chargen rewards you most for spending XP on Characteristics directly, since it's the only time you can do so. Future Characteristic increase comes when you spend 100-125 XP on a Specialization tree to get to Dedication.

I would say max out what attributes you can. Its your only chance to. Skills can come later.

Humans are by far my favorite race mechanically, and I enjoy them from a roleplaying standpoint too. In EotE, as a human, if you take an extra 10 obligation, you start with 120 xp, which is enough to raise 4 of your characteristics from 2 to 3, making a very well rounded character. The most important stat(s) can be raised to 4 or 5 later through the dedication talent. It's a lot cheaper xp wise to have balanced stats than to try to boost a characteristics to 4 (unless your race starts at 3 for that attribute) because each point of characteristic becomes more expensive the higher it is. This makes it more efficient to wait for dedication to raise your primary stat(s) to 4 (or 5), which costs the same no matter how high the stat is. It all depends on your character concept though, and whether or not you mind having weak secondary stats.

To provide a more general answer to the OP's question though, I would always suggest putting as much xp into attributes as possible. Higher attributes mean more dice when you roll for skill checks and it's very hard to raise attributes later.

As others have said, there IS actually a right answer here!

You can buy Talents and skills later on in the game, but this is your ONLY chance to raise baseline stats with XP.

And one reason why humans are mechanically better than other races, you can start with 3,3,3,3,2,2. That's a better array than anyone else.

I'm kind of sad that there seems to be a plethora of people that are focusing more on optimization by saying attributes come first and it is a better choice as you only have one chance to maximize your attributes.

It is as if millions of roleplayers cried out and were suddenly silenced (by roll-players).

Based on advice I'd read on this forum, I suggested to my players they might want to spend about half their experience on attributes the rest on skills/ talents.

Most did this and seemed happy with their characters.

Putting one or two attributes up to 3 gives a character who seems very good in a particular area. The career skills are really cheap so it is easy to start with a competent character.

The rulebook does recommend this though, they designed it this way.

It is as if millions of roleplayers cried out and were suddenly silenced (by roll-players).

Riiight. We're all roll-players, and only thou art pure...seems like a pretty small place to draw such a line.

I guess I don't buy your grizzled vet scenario, because you can't train higher than 2 skill ranks anyway. So the most you'll ever roll is 2 dice for quite some time…that doesn't seem very "grizzled" to me even if both those dice are yellow.

Anyway, I wouldn't have said all that, but you decided to make this very minor optimization exercise into a value judgement, without having a viable alternative.

I'm kind of sad that there seems to be a plethora of people that are focusing more on optimization by saying attributes come first and it is a better choice as you only have one chance to maximize your attributes.

It is as if millions of roleplayers cried out and were suddenly silenced (by roll-players).

I was really waiting for someone to post a stupid, knee-jerk response like this with that tired old dichotomy. Note that the shoe is basically NEVER on the other foot; from what I've seen, people who start with numbers and work backwards rarely criticize those who prefer to start with story and let the stats build around that. In my experience, people who advocate for utilizing the mechanics effectively frequently just say how it's an inefficient use of limited resources, without the condescending, holier-than-thou value judgment "roleplayers" tend to make about chargen.

So I'm done responding nicely to this sort of crap. Screw you for saying I'm doing it wrong by wanting my character to be mechanically superior in his chosen field, or for suggesting to others that this is a good idea. Build your character the way you want and keep your snide, judgmental "roll-play" BS to yourself.

It is as if millions of roleplayers cried out and were suddenly silenced (by roll-players).

Riiight. We're all roll-players, and only thou art pure...seems like a pretty small place to draw such a line.

I guess I don't buy your grizzled vet scenario, because you can't train higher than 2 skill ranks anyway. So the most you'll ever roll is 2 dice for quite some time…that doesn't seem very "grizzled" to me even if both those dice are yellow.

Anyway, I wouldn't have said all that, but you decided to make this very minor optimization exercise into a value judgement, without having a viable alternative.

Only as a small point of mechanical concern, I would like to point out that you can only train 2 ranks in a skill at chargen, but that doesn't limit your dice pool to 2 dice. If you have an Agility of 4 and Ranged Light of 2 you would roll 4 dice (YYGG).

And as a side note, mechanics and story are meant to go hand in hand. Building a character that is mechanically sound to represent a character concept is no more or less valid that drafting a short story and then placing the numbers where they make sense.

Of the many demos, one-shots, and events that I have run, I tend to emphasize to new players that this is the only time they will be able to spend XP directly on characteristics. If this restriction wasn't in place, then I wouldn't do so but because it is I make sure they are fully aware of the implications behind using their starting XP on other options. It's not an effort to "twink" their characters, but to give the players a good chance to succeed.

It is as if millions of roleplayers cried out and were suddenly silenced (by roll-players).

Riiight. We're all roll-players, and only thou art pure...seems like a pretty small place to draw such a line.

I guess I don't buy your grizzled vet scenario, because you can't train higher than 2 skill ranks anyway. So the most you'll ever roll is 2 dice for quite some time…that doesn't seem very "grizzled" to me even if both those dice are yellow.

Anyway, I wouldn't have said all that, but you decided to make this very minor optimization exercise into a value judgement, without having a viable alternative.

Only as a small point of mechanical concern, I would like to point out that you can only train 2 ranks in a skill at chargen, but that doesn't limit your dice pool to 2 dice. If you have an Agility of 4 and Ranged Light of 2 you would roll 4 dice (YYGG).

Not if you don't increase your characteristics, which is what I was responding to. The suggestion was if you wanted a "grizzled vet", you should spend nothing on characteristics and everything on skills and talents at char-gen, which pretty much means a 2 dice pool for everything (non-humans aside).

I spent them all on characteristics because more experienced players made me think they had to be spent... But I am guessing that they probably said that because it made the most sense by the game mechanics.

Fyi, I hate homophones Roll play, role play... I had no idea what anyone was trying to say because I listen rather than read.

Not if you don't increase your characteristics, which is what I was responding to. The suggestion was if you wanted a "grizzled vet", you should spend nothing on characteristics and everything on skills and talents at char-gen, which pretty much means a 2 dice pool for everything (non-humans aside).

ah, a misunderstanding then. you are , of course, correct.

And technically, Samoflange didn't advocate spending nothing on attributes, just focusing on skills/talents over attributes. Which is fine if that's the character type he preferrs.

I so wish he hadn't brought up the "roll-playing" thing though. it only Leads to madness and butt-hurt

I think it really depends on the character. The main one I am playing now is almost 100% support (Computers, Mechanical, Medicine) and also very focused. So I spiked his Int to 4, then spent the rest on skills, and a second talent tree right out the gate.

The other character I am playing is more of a generalist, but I wanted him to have a lot of potential but almost no training (since another PC was taking him on as a protigee) so he has three characteristics at 3 (Will, Agility, and Cunning) and spent the rest on opening up new trees.

In both cases they have been a blast to play, I have been able to contribute significantly to the group, and I have never felt in the slighted "under powered", even tho in both cases I started with less total XP than the rest of the group.

I'm kind of sad that there seems to be a plethora of people that are focusing more on optimization by saying attributes come first and it is a better choice as you only have one chance to maximize your attributes.

It is as if millions of roleplayers cried out and were suddenly silenced (by roll-players).

I don't see putting XP in to characteristics as "roll-playing"... The core rulebook makes it very clear that these are your innate attributes and every single RP starts with designating additional characteristic points (this defines your character's strength and weaknesses off the bat, like a Wookiee that's strong as hell, but is very susceptible to be coerced), without these initial characteristics, you're character really isn't innately good at anything.. There's only so much training in skills you can receive because you've hit your ceiling.

I mean, seriously, let's take a droid for instance, from a "roleplay" standpoint, who is going to buy a droid that sucks at everything (1 Characteristic point in everything and all 'proficient' skills? You'll have a hard time with ANY average difficulty check)... There's a reason that the rulebook tells you to put points into characteristics from they get go: you setup your characters inherent abilities and then, show what training he has, then how talented he is at things. If you don't have any innate characteristics, even in real life, what skills are you really capable of learning and how can you be talented at anything? From a gaming perspective, you'd realistically be making an imbecile, so if you're down to RP Jar-Jar Binks, who sucks at everything... Well Jar-Jar can at least swim, so he'd have Agility and some skills there, so that's not even a good comparison, but seriously, you'd be making an at most average character, who's had a lot of training, but isn't really good at anything... You'd be that guy you know, who can't really hold a steady job, most likely is lazy and probably wouldn't be adventuring out in the galaxy of Star Wars.. But hey, if that's what you want to RP, go for it!

If you want to mix in Characteristics, skills and talents, go for it! I mean, you're guy doesn't have to be 'raw' per say, but it would be limiting his ceiling by taking skills over characteristics. So yes, you'd be an out of the gate go-getter, with a higher chance of triumphs, but the limitations of the dice pool, will eventually set you back from the other players. But hey, if that's how you want to RP, go for it!

I hardly considered putting XP into characteristics 'roll-playing' because of the limitations of EXP during chargen, very few characters are going to have '5' in a characteristic - with characteristics MAXING at '6' you've got a one-trick pony. Min-maxing in this game isn't really an issue because of the diversification of skills and the dice rolling mechanics. I don't even think it's realistically possible for players to max out all characteristics at 6, even if they buy every talent tree. So what if he can swing an axe, that's all he's going to be able to do.. And if he wants to do that, let him.

So I clearly offended people with my role/roll playing remark, which with emoticon I figured people would see was a jest.

The fact though I'm sad that there are many that say the correct way to spend initial xp is on attributes. This is bantha poodoo. If the 'correct' way was this, im sure we would just have attribute points to spend. We don't. We have an option to buy what you choose. My first post made this clear. Sometimes a concept will require all attributes sometimes none being increased. To me that is the CORRECT way to build a character: on a case by case basis.

Attributes arent the bees knees when it comes to certain concepts. If you want to be a great pilot you need talents more than skill ranks. Having maxed out skills and attributes on a pilot will likely be overshadowed by the pilot with talents being the focus.

So if you want to focus on attributes for a character fine, but really think if it is something that is important to the character concept and not being taken because you think it will be a mechanical advantage. It is my personal opinion that with this system and a great gamemaster a failure can be just as fun as a success. If you can see that failing can be just as integral to a character as succeeding then I will say this. I won't say your doing it wrong, but I feel pity that you can't see the opportunities that arise from both success and failure. We have a system that each roll of the dice can enhance the story and not just represent a pass or fail mechanic.

I'm sorry my comment offended some. I strongly believe that optimized character is synonymous with being the best built character. We as people are defined as much by our failures in life as our successes.

The rulebook disagrees with you and so do I.

Also putting a smiley next to a remark that is uncalled for does not negate the remark, especially if the rest of your post supports and underlines it.

The fact though I'm sad that there are many that say the correct way to spend initial xp is on attributes.

I'm not seeing anyone saying there is a "correct" way, only that putting XP into attributes is most optimal, most of the time, and most people will want to do this. It seems to me you're implying a regimental view where there is none.

I'm not sure I agree that talents are where it's at either. Talents are great and add flavour, but usually don't make up for a small dice pool.

As for "failure is fun"…I couldn't agree more! And yet…if your character can barely succeed at average tasks, that's too persistent a level of failure, hardly cinematic. If the GM wants the group to succeed, and the story has tasks that must be succeeded at, then he's going to have to dumb it down and make a lot of tasks "easy".

In any case, most stories focus on growth and character development. It's one of the things that makes the SW story arcs so compelling. Yes, the character can develop in ways that aren't defined mechanically, and yes the character can defy all odds by starting out "average", but worldly. But most people prefer a character concept where they are innately special in some way. This doesn't make them roll-players.

You're the one saying there is a "correct" way to build a character, and you even capitalized the word in your own post. It appears that to you, concept should come before mechanics. Great, fine, if that works for you. It doesn't usually work for me, or for some others. I approach from the position of "so I want to play a pilot, hm, what stats will help me do my job and not get us shot out of the sky? Agi and Piloting? There we go."

Look, I'm actually really glad you have another viewpoint and want to share it with the OP. I think your style of character building is perfectly valid and that you seem to enjoy it. I'm sure you create characters you enjoy playing from it, as well as mechanically-effective characters. And I am sure that you make characters I'd like to play with. Where I get annoyed is the implication that my method of "I do the mechanics first" is less "correct" than your method of "I create my character's story first." That's where I see an offensive value judgment. Nobody here is saying "you must put the numbers down first and them build story around them or you're doing it wrong." It seems like you ARE saying "you should try to make a story and have the mechanics match that story." Basically, I take offense if you seem to say that if I go with mechanics first and build a concept around that, then I am Wrong.

I completely agree with everything whafrog says, especially "if your character can barely succeed at average tasks, that's too persistent a level of failure, hardly cinematic." Ever been in that position as a player? It's neither fun nor engaging. It just makes you feel dumb. There's no good story there when the player just feels incompetent. Failure can be engaging sometimes, especially when you're up against badass opponents. Very rarely being able to succeed at commonly-occurring rolls solely because of your build choices: pretty much never fun.

And sometimes your GM isn't feeling super creative and just decides to (legally) lump a ton of Strain on you from Threats. Me, I tend to want to have a mechanical advantage to prevent that occurrence, which is basically bigger pools, more upgrades, and boosts. And think of it this way: if I'm built to roll GGGYYBB on a Stealth roll from high Agi, Skills, and Talents, then it's going to blow my mind even more when the Big Bad sees through it, rather than if I throw GG at it and pretty much expect it to not succeed under normal circumstances.

Whafrog, Maelora and splad have said that there IS a right way. I have said that if the it makes sense for the character to have maxed out attributes fine. But that is not the only way to do it. I've seen people say in this thread and countless others that the right way is to spend experience primarily on attributes because mechanically that is the best option.

My experience with playing role playing games is that there are more people that focus more on building a character than playing one. It seems every RPG forum has some optimization forum and having played pick up games with people who play Jedi that seem to acquire 'phat loots' and care more about feat trees than a characters family tree. So I have an opinion that people preach to have a well thought out background and then try to find the best gear or best feat, talent, race with mechanical benefits. Similar to how ive seen people say that the ithorians should have resolve as a free skill because their natural 'attack' uses it even though it flies in the face of the race background.

So yes, I don't like roll-playing. I'm tired of seeing it as the majority where I am and it bothers me. So I will and have made characters with high attributes, but i've made characters that have sub par decisikns because story wise it felt right on both cases.