My gaming group is going to start playing EotE in December and I’m looking for a comprehensive guide to character design. All I’ve been able to find so far is general advice about spending lots of build points on raising stats. That being said, I have some specific questions that perhaps the community at large can help answer.

It looks like maximizing your proficiency dice is the best way to make a character effective. If so, the optimum characteristic level seems to be three. This way for only 15 points, you can get two proficiency dice from any given skill and still have room to grow. Is this an effective way to spend your points, or is it really important to have a four or five in your main characteristic?

Is it OK to leave a characteristic at level one? It looks dangerous to have a will power of one and it seems downright suicidal to wander around with a brawn (and soak) of one. Conversely, it seems safe to leave the other four characteristics at level one, if they aren’t an important part of your character design.

I’m considering building a bodyguard hired gun for our campaign. I have a cool concept for a trandoshan, but with a starting agility of one, these guys shouldn’t be let anywhere near firearms. If I play a gands, I can have three level three characteristics for only 60 points, leaving me with 40 (or 50 with disad) points plus obligation for skills and talents. I thought about playing a wookie, but that starting willpower of one doesn’t synergize well with the hired gun skill set, which includes discipline and vigilance. So my last question is: why did the game designers make the two combat oriented species poor choices for combat careers?

"You must unlearn what you have learned" ....regarding other systems.

50 xp to raise AGI from 1 to 3, leaving you with 40 more, which you could use to even raise it to 4 if you wanted, or bring a 2 up to a 3 with 10 left over.

I'm not sure how good an understanding you have of the dice pool creation, but for someone with heavy training a low starting attribute isnt a killer like in other games.

Say you had your Trandoshan with 1 starting AGI. If he ranked his Ranged(Heavy) skill up to 3 (which you could easily accomplish within 1-2 sessions)...that means his dice pool is now 3 dice, 1 upgraded. Thats the beauty of EoE skill/characteristic system. Sure hes not the best shot in the Galaxy but 3.1 is very much competent in battle. When you throw extra stuff like weapon attachments/mods, aiming, destiny points....it isnt such a big deal anymore.

Lastly if you are new to the game, I highly suggest you use Oggydude's awesome character creation program, which will keep you from making mistakes when creating the actual character...until you have a better understanding of the system.

If you focus too much on mechanics and min-maxing in this system, you're gonna have a bad time. EotE is all about story-telling.

Instead of looking at stat combinations and how much you can reap from your starting XP pool, I recommend changing your focus to the character's backstory and personality. The EotE system is crafted around the concept of narrative roleplaying, rather than mechanical "roll-playing," and really shines when the whole crew is in the mindset of BEING their characters, instead of being trapped behind their skills, talents and dice pools.

If you want a jack of all trades out of the gate, 3 is optimum in this system. But they won't excel at anything in particular until they train up.

If your group is small, it might make more sense to go with more generalist characters if you don't want to be too bogged down with situations outside your areas of expertise (though that can make for good challenges). With a larger group it's easier to have more specialized characters.

As others say, a Generalist can do fine with Characteristics at 3. That is how my current character is built, pumping his species' weakness (Cunning) up to 3 alongside his strength (Intelligence).

However, a highly specialized character concept, such as other players' re-built MagnaGuard Droid or Ace Pilot, will benefit from boosting their core Characteristics (Brawn and Agility, respectively) to 4. Yes this often means leaving one Characteristic at 1, but that trade-off can sometimes be worth it.

Every week one of these threads pop up. I always say "whatever is right for the character". Many people extol the virtue/gospel of spending experience on attributes only. Before you do that focus on the other steps of character creation. Your motivation and obligation. If you are playing a young character with no adventures under their belt focus on bumping up attributes if you want lots of raw unfocused potential. If you character is an aging smuggler buy more skills and talents. Don't necessarily spend all your starting experience. You can save some to spend on skills that were only allowed to put two points in. It's the "I'm a little rusty" factor.

Is it OK to leave a characteristic at level one? It looks dangerous to have a will power of one and it seems downright suicidal to wander around with a brawn (and soak) of one. Conversely, it seems safe to leave the other four characteristics at level one, if they aren’t an important part of your character design.

I’m considering building a bodyguard hired gun for our campaign. I have a cool concept for a trandoshan, but with a starting agility of one, these guys shouldn’t be let anywhere near firearms. If I play a gands, I can have three level three characteristics for only 60 points, leaving me with 40 (or 50 with disad) points plus obligation for skills and talents. I thought about playing a wookie, but that starting willpower of one doesn’t synergize well with the hired gun skill set, which includes discipline and vigilance. So my last question is: why did the game designers make the two combat oriented species poor choices for combat careers?

What characteristics are important is dependent on what you want your character to be able to do. A mechanic or a doctor needs a high (3-5) intellect, while someone who shoots blasters for a living needs a high agility. I would argue that every character aught to have a 3 in either agility or brawn in order to contribute to combat, though I'm sure there are those who disagree with me. A high intellect is a great thing to have if you have it, but having 1 intellect doesn't really penalize you too much if all you do is swing an axe at the thing with the...thing...thing. Similarly, if you don't plan on doing anything devious, 1 cunning won't hurt you either....that is until you have to bluff that imperial official. "No, sir, there are no secret compartments under the floor panels."

I don't like my characters to be especially poor at anything, as a rule, so my first character is a human bounty hunter with the base stats of Brawn 3 Agility 3 Intellect 3 Cunning 2 Willpower 3 and Presence 2, with an aim to raise Agility later through Dedication. (I can get four 3s by taking 10 obligation).

With a wookiee or trandoshan you can have the stats: Brawn 4, Agility 2, Int 2, Cunning 2 Willpower 3 and Presence 2. These stats are great for a melee character, if you aren't too worried about doing other things. If you want him to shoot too, either lower the brawn and get an extra 10 xp to spend or trade the 3 in Willpower for a 3 in Agility. Or you can spend all 90 xp as a trandoshan to make your Agility 4. Wookiees and trandoshans are absolutely good combat races. If you're looking for a race that doesn't have a "dump stat" in a combat related characteristic though, try looking through the Unofficial Species Menagerie at something like the gamorrean, if your GM will allow it.

I’m considering building a bodyguard hired gun for our campaign. I have a cool concept for a trandoshan, but with a starting agility of one, these guys shouldn’t be let anywhere near firearms. If I play a gands, I can have three level three characteristics for only 60 points, leaving me with 40 (or 50 with disad) points plus obligation for skills and talents. I thought about playing a wookie, but that starting willpower of one doesn’t synergize well with the hired gun skill set, which includes discipline and vigilance. So my last question is: why did the game designers make the two combat oriented species poor choices for combat careers?

Keep in mind that wookies and trandoshans have other perks to make up for their lower starting experience. Wookies have a high wound threshold and a damage bonus to melee and brawn attacks that applies whenever they're wounded. Trandoshans have a slightly lower but still impressive wound threshold, the ability to regrow limbs, and a faster wound recovery rate.

From a characteristic standpoint, the nondroid races seem comparable if you're playing to their strengths. They fall into three categories:

1. Humans, who start with 110 experience and a 2 in every characteristic;

2. Bothans, Rodians, and Twi'Leks, who start with 100 experience, a 3 in their race's natural strong point, and a 1 in that race's weakness.

3. Gand, who are identical to the races above but have the option to get 10 extra experience by accepting the risks associated with having lungs; and

4. Trandoshans and Wookies, whose initial characteristics are identical to those of the 100 experience races but who only start with 90 experience to account for their other abilities.

So what characteristic spreads can you get with this setup?

The Gand can get 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2. However, the 5 or the 3 must be in willpower, and they need 120 experience, which means they must take 10 extra obligation and lungs.

Every race except the Wookies and Trandoshans can get 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. Because raising a characteristic from 2 to 5 costs 120 experience, humans can only do so by taking 10 extra obligation. The other races also need to take obligation or lungs to get this array, and the 5 must be in their traditional strong point.

Excepting humans, every race can get 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1. However, the 5 must be in the race's strength. Raising a characteristic from 3 to 5 costs 90 experience, so the 100 experience races will have 10 experience left, while Wookies and Trandoshans will have none.

Any character who starts with 5 in a characteristic will be super-specialized. Unless you're comfortable being a one-trick pony or you enjoy the challenge that comes from figuring out how to apply your specialty to any situation , I would recommend using a more balanced array.

Speaking of more balanced arrays, every race can get 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2. Humans can choose to put their 4 and their 3 in any two characteristics and will have 10 experience left over. The 100 experience races must put the 4 or the 3 in their race's strength but will also have 10 experience left over. Not surprisingly, the 90 experience races will have no experience left.

4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1 is available to every race except humans. The 100 experience races will have 30 experience left over, while their 90 experience counterparts will have 20.

Not surprisingly, every race can also get 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2. Humans who do so will have 40 experience left over. The 100 experience races also will have 40 experience left over, but they must put the 4 in their race's strength. Shockingly enough, the 90 experience races will only have 30 experience left over.

4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1 is avaialble to every race except humans. As you would expect, the 100 experience races will have 60 experience left over, while the 90 experience races will have 50 experience left over.

I haven't been playing this game long, but I suspect 4/3 arrays are common for people who want to specialize in a specific area. Players interested in generalists will favor having multiple 3s.

Every race except Wookies and Trandoshans can get 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2. Raising four characteristics from 2 to 3 requires 120 experience, so humans can only do so if they take extra obligation and spend all their experience. The same is true for the 100 experience races (except Gand, who can always choose lungs over obligation).

Every race can get 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2. Humans and the 100-experience races will have 20 experience left, while Trandoshans and Wookies will have 10 experience left.

Excepting humans, every race can get 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1. The 100 experience races will have 10 experience left, while the Trandoshans and Wookies will have none.

So what does this mean? Assuming you spend almost all of your starting experience on characteristics, the differences between the races are minor. Every race can get the specialist array 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 or the generalist array 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2 without taking extra obligation. You might be giving up 10-20 experience with one race over another, but that should only be one session. Ideally, the race's other perks, such as a higher wound or strain threshold, special abilities like claws, and the role play perks, will make up for your slightly lower experience.

So should you spend all your starting experience on characteristics? If you're looking at the game from a mechanical perspective, the book and most posters here will say yes. If you're looking at it from a story perspective, you need to decide whether you want to play a seasoned veteran with average potential or a young prodigy who has yet to develop his natural talents.

In either case, consider how long you expect the game to be. If you're only going to play a few sessions, spending less on characteristics to raise your key skills might make sense. If you're going to play a longer campaign, you might want to raise your characteristics to maximize your long-term potential. If you're playing a really, really long game and have a turtle's patience, you could start with 2s in all stats and raise your characteristics through the Dedication talent, which is chaper than raising a stat above 2.

Whatever route you take, don't shy away from the race you want to play. From a mechanical perspective, the game is flexible enough to host twi'lek marauders, trandoshan snipers, gand diplomates, and rodian Jedi. Whether those things make sense within the universe is up to you, your GM, and the rest of your group.

My gaming group is going to start playing EotE in December and I’m looking for a comprehensive guide to character design. All I’ve been able to find so far is general advice about spending lots of build points on raising stats. That being said, I have some specific questions that perhaps the community at large can help answer.

It looks like maximizing your proficiency dice is the best way to make a character effective. If so, the optimum characteristic level seems to be three. This way for only 15 points, you can get two proficiency dice from any given skill and still have room to grow. Is this an effective way to spend your points, or is it really important to have a four or five in your main characteristic?

Is it OK to leave a characteristic at level one? It looks dangerous to have a will power of one and it seems downright suicidal to wander around with a brawn (and soak) of one. Conversely, it seems safe to leave the other four characteristics at level one, if they aren’t an important part of your character design.

I’m considering building a bodyguard hired gun for our campaign. I have a cool concept for a trandoshan, but with a starting agility of one, these guys shouldn’t be let anywhere near firearms. If I play a gands, I can have three level three characteristics for only 60 points, leaving me with 40 (or 50 with disad) points plus obligation for skills and talents. I thought about playing a wookie, but that starting willpower of one doesn’t synergize well with the hired gun skill set, which includes discipline and vigilance. So my last question is: why did the game designers make the two combat oriented species poor choices for combat careers?

I think the main reason to pump most of your starting points into characteristics is that the rules say that this is the only time you are allowed to increase them using XP. The rest of the things you can purchase throughout the game, including dedication talents that increase your characteristic by 1 to a max of six.

It really depends on your perspective. Do you want to min/max your character to play a particular role? Then you are probably best spending lots of points to increase that particular characteristic: brawn for a melee damage dealer/sponge, agility for a shooter/pilot, intellect for slicer/mechanic/medic/scholar, cunning/presence/willpower for manipulating others. Different races would probably be easier to min/max in different areas. Droids are probably fairly easy to maximize in any one area since they have 175 XP to start (but probably harder to make more well-rounded since they start as straight 1's). I would imagine that it is perfectly acceptable to leave any of your starting characteristics at 1, but there would be drawbacks to each. If you have a brawn of 1, you aren't going to be very sturdy in a fight. If you have an agility of 1, you won't be able to use guns/vehicles effectively in this game. If you have an intelligence of 1, then you aren't going to be able to crack many locked computers or help heal/fix anyone/thing. 1 in willpower/cunning/presence will limit your ability to notice things and be influential over other people (and you would be easily swayed/manipulated by others).

If you want your character to reflect a certain history, you can also shape him/her around that type of theme. If you have a good idea for a Trandoshan, and you would like to explore that, you can use some (or all) of 90 XP to fix that low agility if you think he should be better with a gun.

The two combat oriented species are fine for a combat oriented career. They have 15-17 base wound threshold (whereas most of the other races have 12 base threshold) and a 3 soak (higher than the average 2 from other races). There just needs to be a balance, so you have to spend your experience in the particular area if you want to be a combatant. If you want your Wookie to by more synergistic with the bodyguard tree with the high willpower, raise your Wookie's willpower to 3. These pegs really aren't all that round/square to start because you have so much flexibility with the ~100 XP. You can easily shape your starting race into any career type. It might not be as ideal as other races, but that is up to you if you want to focus more on min/maxing or more on the role-playing aspect. I think this is something like the stormwind fallacy?

Define effectively... 5 Ranks in a skill and 1 in the characteristic is the same as 1 Rank in the skill and 5 in the characteristic when it comes to the base pool. Then it all comes down to the boosts and setback. Agility of just 2 is better than average for hitting something at medium range (positive dice slightly favored over negative dice). That's with no skill. And any skill or characteristic can be maximized in this game, it just takes time.

So, I call BS on needing to have high stats to "be effective" as another holdover from the D20 crowd.

Define effectively... 5 Ranks in a skill and 1 in the characteristic is the same as 1 Rank in the skill and 5 in the characteristic when it comes to the base pool. Then it all comes down to the boosts and setback.

Except someone with 5 in a characteristic gets that huge pool for every skill that relies on it. That's much more cost effective at the beginning of the game.

Agility of just 2 is better than average for hitting something at medium range (positive dice slightly favored over negative dice). That's with no skill. And any skill or characteristic can be maximized in this game, it just takes time.

As was pointed out in another thread, this isn't true. Yes, the odds slight favour a positive outcome (success are 50/50, while advantages are a little higher), but since you need 1 net success to succeed, the odds are actually only 35-40% that you will get it with even dice.

So, I call BS on needing to have high stats to "be effective" as another holdover from the D20 crowd.

If you spend your game rolling 1 or 2 dice for everything, it's an exercise in frustration, and hardly "cinematic". None of my players mind being challenged in their areas of weakness on occasion, it often makes a good tale. But they also like to be able to excel at something.

If you focus too much on mechanics and min-maxing in this system, you're gonna have a bad time. EotE is all about story-telling.

This. Oh dear gods, this.

Just make the character you want. EoE supports that more than most systems.

I thought about playing a wookie, but that starting willpower of one doesn’t synergize well with the hired gun skill set, which includes discipline and vigilance. So my last question is: why did the game designers make the two combat oriented species poor choices for combat careers?

I'm playing a Wookie Scout/Tactician (AoR spec that shares a lot with Hired Gun). The low starting Willpower isn't as much of an issue as you would think. You will use Discipline primarily to recover Strain after combat which is a Simple check. So a couple ranks in Discipline and you are going to get a decent amount of Strain back despite your low Willpower. And you could always use Advantage to recover some as well. As long as your GM doesn't equip all the bad guys with Stun weapons, you will be just fine.

I think Vigiliance is sort of a toss up in utility. I'm not using it very often, but you might.

Thanks for all the great replies. From a mechanics point of view, it looks like any race with a one in a necessary stat is at a twenty-point disadvantage. The hired gun for example, needs good brawn, agility, and willpower scores to use their skills and talents to best effect. If one of those is your weak stat, you probably want to raise it; it’s embarrassing when your Wookie marauder flees in terror from every googly-eyed monster because he can’t make a discipline check.

Given this, the Gand makes a great bodyguard. Presence is a dump stat anyways and he can have a three in brawn, agility, and willpower for only 60 points. This leaves 40 (or 50 with lungs) for skills and talents. He’s a reasonably effective fighter at both range and melee which makes it easier to stay with whatever party member most needs guarding. Gunnery is a class skill so he has something to do on board a ship. However, I’m not really into playing a Gand so I’m going to see if the GM will allow races from the Species Menagerie; there are a lot of strong possibilities there.

A number of people have made comments about roll-playing vs. role-playing and I’d like to address that point. There is a difference between a min/maxed character and an effective character. It’s not fun if your well thought out character with the ten page background fails at everything he does because of poor design. Likewise, it’s not fun to play an unappealing race/class combo because it’s most efficient. If you want to maximize your enjoyment of the game, I find it’s best to find a balance between the two extremes. It also depends on the game group: our GM doesn’t pull punches and our group enjoys the risk, since it makes our victories that much sweeter. In fact, I want to play a bodyguard to help protect the weaker party members.

Anyone know if there are new playable species in the supplements?

Anyone know if there are new playable species in the supplements?

There seem to be 3 new playable races per supplement.

The heroes on demand series on the GSA blog is a good place to start looking at various PCs.

There is a difference between a min/maxed character and an effective character. It’s not fun if your well thought out character with the ten page background fails at everything he does because of poor design. Likewise, it’s not fun to play an unappealing race/class combo because it’s most efficient.

EoE more than most games is fairly forgiving in that you don't need a munchkinised character by default. It's not something like 4E where a certain amount of system mastery is a requirement.

Skills can make up for low stats, and even a stat of 1 doesn't seem to make a colossal difference.

You'll get far more out of the experience by playing a race you like rather than going for something that gives you a slight mathematical advantage. All races can do well at all careers, it's not a system where you need to be afraid of being 'sub-optimal'.

There is a difference between a min/maxed character and an effective character. It’s not fun if your well thought out character with the ten page background fails at everything he does because of poor design. Likewise, it’s not fun to play an unappealing race/class combo because it’s most efficient.

EoE more than most games is fairly forgiving in that you don't need a munchkinised character by default. It's not something like 4E where a certain amount of system mastery is a requirement.

Skills can make up for low stats, and even a stat of 1 doesn't seem to make a colossal difference.

You'll get far more out of the experience by playing a race you like rather than going for something that gives you a slight mathematical advantage. All races can do well at all careers, it's not a system where you need to be afraid of being 'sub-optimal'.

Gods, I hate having to have any discussions like that. Just let me make my character with flaws and all. That way I will enjoy playing them.

The heroes on demand series on the GSA blog is a good place to start looking at various PCs.

It is indeed excellent, and the characters there are not tricked-out, min-maxed munchkinised abominations either.

Gods, I hate having to have any discussions like that. Just let me make my character with flaws and all. That way I will enjoy playing them.

Agreed. But not all systems let you do that.

EoE is great in that it can handle all kinds of characters, and that everyone has some chance of contributing without having to ruthlessly trick out every last stat.

Gods, I hate having to have any discussions like that. Just let me make my character with flaws and all. That way I will enjoy playing them.

Agreed. But not all systems let you do that.

EoE is great in that it can handle all kinds of characters, and that everyone has some chance of contributing without having to ruthlessly trick out every last stat.

Not true. It all depends on the group you play with. Any game can be a min-max fest or a narrative delight, although some rule sets do often veer in one direction. That presupposes you have a set of like minded players and GM of course.

You can try not optimising something like 4E, but then you're fighting the system, and you have to spend a fair bit of time reverse-engineering the maths to play that game.

Which is why I'm done with all that nonsense, and why I prefer playing games like EoE and Numinera these days.

You can try not optimising something like 4E, but then you're fighting the system, and you have to spend a fair bit of time reverse-engineering the maths to play that game.

Which is why I'm done with all that nonsense, and why I prefer playing games like EoE and Numinera these days.

I couldn't speak to 4e, having never bothered with it, but previous editions seemed to be okay - just not always my cuppa.

I think the GM should be able and willing to provide some guidance here. I pushed my players to spend on attributes above skills and tallents as this would give them a better starting experience overall. Now if I wanted to create an adventure for teenagers and try to have teenage characters I may just direct my players towards limiting the spend on attributes and look more at skills and talents.

As long as the campaign starts in a consistent form, players should be having fun and challenged by the narrative. If you let players unknowingly go against the grain then you will probably have problems because of over or under powered player characters.

You can try not optimising something like 4E, but then you're fighting the system, and you have to spend a fair bit of time reverse-engineering the maths to play that game.

Which is why I'm done with all that nonsense, and why I prefer playing games like EoE and Numinera these days.

I couldn't speak to 4e, having never bothered with it, but previous editions seemed to be okay - just not always my cuppa.

It was a rock solid system, and that was its failing. Make a character optimized to fill a specific role, you're rocking. Make a flavorful character, or a generalist, or one that fills a role already spoken for, and things won't go so smoothly.

So if this game becomes more popular when f&d or the new movie hits we can probably expect more posts like this.