If I have a Characteristics of 6, will installing an Implant push it up to 7?

There is a strange citation in the books that makes reference to "stat can be even higher than 6". There isn't a clear definition but it seems that we will need some official FAQ. A Rancor Brawn its just 6 so... maybe is a mechanics thing.

So, there isn't a clear idea sorry, so, at your will. Personally, at that point to agilize the game, I prefer to add a Boost rather than a 7 atribute stat.

There is a strange citation in the books that makes reference to "stat can be eben higher than 6". There isn't a clear definition but it seems that we will need some official FAQ. A Rancor Brawn its just 6 so... maybe is a mechanics thing.

So, there isn't a clear idea sorry, so, at your will. Personally, at that point to agilize the game, I prefer to add a Boost rather than a 7 atribute stat.

Because nobody has started up the cyber-rancor yet!

OMG! Cyber-Rancor! XD

I want one of them in my games ha ha ha. Probably my players will say me "STOP PLAYING DIGIMON!" XD

Yes.

My Scholar starts off with 5 intellect, I will use the Dedication to raise it to 6 and eventually will get a Cybernetic Brain Implant to raise it to 7.

I think his dad didn't hug him enough...

Josep Maria is correct. You cannot raise a characteristic above 5 at character creation and after that point you cannot raise a characteristic above 6. This includes use of the dedication talent or cybernetics.

Also, I wouldn't use NPC statblocks as a caparison. It's stated in the CRB that NPCs do not follow the same rules as PCs.

Josep Maria is correct. You cannot raise a characteristic above 5 at character creation and after that point you cannot raise a characteristic above 6. This includes use of the dedication talent or cybernetics.

No, he is not correct. It is right here in the rulebook, page 173: The combination of purchased increases and the increases provided by cybernetics can increase a character's skill or characteristic one step above the normal maximum (seven for characteristics, six for skills).

So, the Digi... Cyber-Rancor (7+) is possible?

As a PC?

Josep Maria is correct. You cannot raise a characteristic above 5 at character creation and after that point you cannot raise a characteristic above 6. This includes use of the dedication talent or cybernetics.

No, he is not correct. It is right here in the rulebook, page 173: The combination of purchased increases and the increases provided by cybernetics can increase a character's skill or characteristic one step above the normal maximum (seven for characteristics, six for skills).

I stand corrected. For some reason I thought 6 was the hard cap even for talents and cybernetics. Ah well. a 7 just sounds unnecessary to me anyway, but I'm not that type of player (anymore).

Josep Maria is correct. You cannot raise a characteristic above 5 at character creation and after that point you cannot raise a characteristic above 6. This includes use of the dedication talent or cybernetics.

No, he is not correct. It is right here in the rulebook, page 173: The combination of purchased increases and the increases provided by cybernetics can increase a character's skill or characteristic one step above the normal maximum (seven for characteristics, six for skills).

I stand corrected. For some reason I thought 6 was the hard cap even for talents and cybernetics. Ah well. a 7 just sounds unnecessary to me anyway, but I'm not that type of player (anymore).

You play characters who go into deadly situations and don't bother to prepare for them?

"Hey I spend a lot of time with my gun in my hand and it's kill or be killed, maybe I should work on my reflexes a bit and get a cybernetic targeter... nah. What's the worst that could happen, get eaten by sandman?"

You play characters who go into deadly situations and don't bother to prepare for them?

"Hey I spend a lot of time with my gun in my hand and it's kill or be killed, maybe I should work on my reflexes a bit and get a cybernetic targeter... nah. What's the worst that could happen, get eaten by sandman?"

Do you feel that unless a character is min-maxed, they are unprepared?

You play characters who go into deadly situations and don't bother to prepare for them?

"Hey I spend a lot of time with my gun in my hand and it's kill or be killed, maybe I should work on my reflexes a bit and get a cybernetic targeter... nah. What's the worst that could happen, get eaten by sandman?"

There are already 2 or 3 extensive threads about the effects of cybernetics so I'm not going into any of that.

To answer your question, No. I don't play or run those types of games. So when I say "unnecessary" I suppose I mean unnecessary for the types of games I participate in and the types of games I see most of the people here play in.

Well I'd hardly call having the possibility to raise 1(!) statistic to 7 after spending a lot of xp and then a lot of credits as min-maxing to be honest...

Well I'd hardly call having the possibility to raise 1(!) statistic to 7 after spending a lot of xp and then a lot of credits as min-maxing to be honest...

Any attribute raised to even 6, with a modicum of skill, will result in significant positive results regularly and easily. At 7, the system seems to get a bit silly.

You play characters who go into deadly situations and don't bother to prepare for them?

"Hey I spend a lot of time with my gun in my hand and it's kill or be killed, maybe I should work on my reflexes a bit and get a cybernetic targeter... nah. What's the worst that could happen, get eaten by sandman?"

I've seen a lot of this in my short time playing role playing games. My GM and the other players in my group say it comes from years playing certain other games where the common attitude is that your character has to be fine tuned and "optimized". While that's not what I'd like, I can see how it might be fun to do. Sometimes I get a feeling like the rulebook has given me a zillion puzzle pieces and I can make whatever I want with them so who's to say that it's wrong? If your friends prefer a game a certain way and the GM is willing to run it, then do it!

My GM says that players have two responsibilities:

1. Have fun.

2. Be fun.

(the secret 3rd responsibility is to remind Mom to buy his Throwback Pepsi... lol)

Well I'd hardly call having the possibility to raise 1(!) statistic to 7 after spending a lot of xp and then a lot of credits as min-maxing to be honest...

Any attribute raised to even 6, with a modicum of skill, will result in significant positive results regularly and easily. At 7, the system seems to get a bit silly.

How so? If you specialize to that point, it is unlikely that you'll have any other characteristics of major significance. Pushing a Characteristic to 7 happens at the expense of versatility.

I find it entirely appropriate that my sauced-up Astromech player-character specializing in the Computer Skill and with a tertiary focus (the secondary focus for this character is Deception and Skulduggery) in Mechanics and Astrogation can, after picking up two end-of-tree Talents (of which 1 will be a b!tch to get) and investing in an Intellect-enhancing upgrade (fluffed as being a Cogitator Upgrade to achieve higher computational powers), reach the height of regular sapient intelligence... +1.

That is to say, the height of what can still be considered normal (6), and then one step beyond that (7).

I don't see how the system itself becomes silly because of that. It is a silly amount of arguably unnecessary specialization, offering you little beyond what you already have? Sure, yes, of course. But to certain characters, that makes perfect sense, and I'd argue that not going for pushing Characteristics to 7 is far more Min-Maxing than doing so. Upping my Cunning from 3 to 4 would surely have more effect than pushing my Intellect from 6 to 7.

Well I'd hardly call having the possibility to raise 1(!) statistic to 7 after spending a lot of xp and then a lot of credits as min-maxing to be honest...

Any attribute raised to even 6, with a modicum of skill, will result in significant positive results regularly and easily. At 7, the system seems to get a bit silly.

How so? If you specialize to that point, it is unlikely that you'll have any other characteristics of major significance. Pushing a Characteristic to 7 happens at the expense of versatility.

I find it entirely appropriate that my sauced-up Astromech player-character specializing in the Computer Skill and with a tertiary focus (the secondary focus for this character is Deception and Skulduggery) in Mechanics and Astrogation can, after picking up two end-of-tree Talents (of which 1 will be a b!tch to get) and investing in an Intellect-enhancing upgrade (fluffed as being a Cogitator Upgrade to achieve higher computational powers), reach the height of regular sapient intelligence... +1.

That is to say, the height of what can still be considered normal (6), and then one step beyond that (7).

I don't see how the system itself becomes silly because of that. It is a silly amount of arguably unnecessary specialization, offering you little beyond what you already have? Sure, yes, of course. But to certain characters, that makes perfect sense, and I'd argue that not going for pushing Characteristics to 7 is far more Min-Maxing than doing so. Upping my Cunning from 3 to 4 would surely have more effect than pushing my Intellect from 6 to 7.

I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe that we view gaming in two entirely different ways when it comes to game play and character design. I would consider any character that has been optimized for game play to that level to have been min-maxed, while you seem to consider it normal.

My concern is less about a character being a one-trick pony, and more about the unneeded level of success at those levels. Even at a 5 characteristic, with a skill point or two, characters can succeed with great regularity on almost any roll. When the impossible becomes commonplace, the game often loses its magic.

You play characters who go into deadly situations and don't bother to prepare for them?

"Hey I spend a lot of time with my gun in my hand and it's kill or be killed, maybe I should work on my reflexes a bit and get a cybernetic targeter... nah. What's the worst that could happen, get eaten by sandman?"

I've seen a lot of this in my short time playing role playing games. My GM and the other players in my group say it comes from years playing certain other games where the common attitude is that your character has to be fine tuned and "optimized". While that's not what I'd like, I can see how it might be fun to do. Sometimes I get a feeling like the rulebook has given me a zillion puzzle pieces and I can make whatever I want with them so who's to say that it's wrong? If your friends prefer a game a certain way and the GM is willing to run it, then do it!

My GM says that players have two responsibilities:

1. Have fun.

2. Be fun.

(the secret 3rd responsibility is to remind Mom to buy his Throwback Pepsi... lol)

The funny thing is, it isn't about the games needing to be that way. Even D&D 4e, which has had this be a common complaint can be easily played narratively. I have friends to have used it this way.

It is all about the group and how they want to play. I think that certain groups with this mindset tend towards those games, rather than the game creating those beliefs and attitudes.

Heck, you can really get silly with narrative games like FATE and min-max the hell out of them. There are very few safeguards built into the system other than the best - the group has the final say.

Even at a 5 characteristic, with a skill point or two, characters can succeed with great regularity on almost any roll.

However, this character I envision is inherentely flawed and not a happy person, he cares not for the world he lives in but spends most of his time nosing through books, the holonet and libraries. Alone, quite old and unhappy. I think it will be a blast to play him, a know-it-all that can never really put his knowledge to use. In a team he might be quite an asset however.

I think it is unreasonable to call out someone for sticking to a design he likes as min-maxing while that person obviously has to make pretty harsh choices for his character in doing so. It also reeks of calling other peoples games and characters "bad fun" to be honest.

I think it is unreasonable to call out someone for sticking to a design he likes as min-maxing while that person obviously has to make pretty harsh choices for his character in doing so. It also reeks of calling other peoples games and characters "bad fun" to be honest.

Wouldn't that be the definition of min-maxing?

While I agree that different people have different thoughts on the process, as mentioned above, it is still optimization of the mechanics of a character based upon a specific narrow goal.

Edit - It may only be wikipedia, but...

Min-maxing

I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe that we view gaming in two entirely different ways when it comes to game play and character design. I would consider any character that has been optimized for game play to that level to have been min-maxed, while you seem to consider it normal.

My concern is less about a character being a one-trick pony, and more about the unneeded level of success at those levels. Even at a 5 characteristic, with a skill point or two, characters can succeed with great regularity on almost any roll. When the impossible becomes commonplace, the game often loses its magic.

"Agreeing to disagree" is the cop-out of the feeble; if you have an argument to make, make it.

You say "optimized", whereas my argument was that any character that chooses to focus in one thing at the expense of getting the most out of his advances is not optimized at all. What you say yourself supports this, yet you reject (without argument) my conclusion; you, yourself, say that even at 5 characteristic, with a skill point or two, a character can succeed with great regularity on almost any roll.

Thus, by that same logic, pushing it far beyond that (7 with 5 Skill Points), and by that same logic, then, the XP sunk into pushing these things beyond the norm would be far better served being placed elsewhere, where the added points - whether Characteristics or Skills - would matter far more, such as the example I provided, take Skills and Talents into account and it becomes even more relevant.

If we were talking about a DnD 3.5 Diplomancer, I could see the issue, since excessive investment and liberal interpretation of the ruleset has the potential of completely crashing the system, but in Star Wars, I do not see any such issues, and I would be deeply grateful if anyone could point out any such flaws instead of retreating to "Let's agree to disagree".

Regarding Impossible difficulty; why would that become commonplace? A GM that skews the test difficulties upward to account for player advancement alone is a terrible GM. Hacking a run-of-the-mill computer console should still have the same difficulty, as should pickpocketing a peasant, or picking a medieval lock. Unless you adhere to the Oblivion school of thought regarding character advancement, a spade's still a spade, and difficulties should rise because you are doing more difficult actions, not because you became better at what you do.

I think we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this point. I believe that we view gaming in two entirely different ways when it comes to game play and character design. I would consider any character that has been optimized for game play to that level to have been min-maxed, while you seem to consider it normal.

My concern is less about a character being a one-trick pony, and more about the unneeded level of success at those levels. Even at a 5 characteristic, with a skill point or two, characters can succeed with great regularity on almost any roll. When the impossible becomes commonplace, the game often loses its magic.

"Agreeing to disagree" is the cop-out of the feeble; if you have an argument to make, make it.

You say "optimized", whereas my argument was that any character that chooses to focus in one thing at the expense of getting the most out of his advances is not optimized at all. What you say yourself supports this, yet you reject (without argument) my conclusion; you, yourself, say that even at 5 characteristic, with a skill point or two, a character can succeed with great regularity on almost any roll.

Thus, by that same logic, pushing it far beyond that (7 with 5 Skill Points), and by that same logic, then, the XP sunk into pushing these things beyond the norm would be far better served being placed elsewhere, where the added points - whether Characteristics or Skills - would matter far more, such as the example I provided, take Skills and Talents into account and it becomes even more relevant.

If we were talking about a DnD 3.5 Diplomancer, I could see the issue, since excessive investment and liberal interpretation of the ruleset has the potential of completely crashing the system, but in Star Wars, I do not see any such issues, and I would be deeply grateful if anyone could point out any such flaws instead of retreating to "Let's agree to disagree".

Regarding Impossible difficulty; why would that become commonplace? A GM that skews the test difficulties upward to account for player advancement alone is a terrible GM. Hacking a run-of-the-mill computer console should still have the same difficulty, as should pickpocketing a peasant, or picking a medieval lock. Unless you adhere to the Oblivion school of thought regarding character advancement, a spade's still a spade, and difficulties should rise because you are doing more difficult actions, not because you became better at what you do.

Very well.

The idea of a role-playing game is that of creating a challenge for the players and creating a narrative that entertains the group.

How much fun is it for a player when they are constantly able to make every skill check? Unless the GM chooses to arbitrarily up the difficulty, which you say you abhor, then why should they even bother to roll? They know they will succeed. I have found that most creative players get bored with such a one trick pony after a very short duration. Then they want to try something new. Again and again.

Meanwhile the other players at the table begin to feel underwhelmed by their own characters, because obviously they didn't do something "correctly". After all, this guy can do everything in this bailiwick every time, unless it is nigh impossible. And why should our characters bother to have cross training? After all, we will be far inferior to his efforts in the same field. So now you have a whole bunch of character silos, each doing whatever they do best and little else.

You may enjoy that type of game. I do not. I like rollicking pulp adventures where the players are unafraid to try anything that may help them succeed, regardless of their individual skill and attribute ratings. I prefer games that don't have one person who is absolutely the go to person for every social encounter or solves every technical problem. I prefer games where the group can work together with their creativity and their character's skills.

Focusing too much on optimization, which is simply a more politically correct word for min-maxing, can be detrimental to my kind of game. If I wanted to play a game like that, I would choose to play a war-game or tactical squad battles of some sort.

Now, I am not arrogant enough to believe that my desires are the only way to play. There is a wide spectrum between these two poles, and even I am somewhere in the middle. You choose to focus only on the mechanics, while I say that the mechanics are only there to help create a story. THAT is why I decided to back off and offer the polite demurral. Different people want different things out of their games. You will likely never agree with my point of view, regardless of how well or poorly I argue my case. That sort of thing, without the likelihood of resolution, does not need to clog up a thread.

The long and the short of my belief is simple and even the developers agreed to it during a pod cast when they mentioned the Rancor. When the stats reach a certain level, it becomes far too easy to succeed and everything involving that element becomes less fun. This concept is so simple that it shouldn't require an argument, but not everyone will agree with it.

If someone wants to play the pure power fantasy, so be it. I won't say a word to them. However, this aside was started because someone stated something along the lines of "if the character isn't planning on being tricked out to max, then they aren't prepared". I will always defend someone's opportunity to play a more narrative game or character.

So, regardless of your attempt at baiting me to the dark side, I hope this answers your question. I hope that I answered it in a relatively calm, cool, and measured response.

Edit - I almost forgot your question about the impossible. Sorry. When a player becomes more and more skilled, there is often a trend to attempting more and more impossible actions. After all, the skills suggest that it is possible. It is similar to how movie and book sequels become more and more epic. Save the world, save the planet, save the universe. It reaches a point when it all just becomes a bit silly.

Well, in theroy one could cyber up beyond the human limit. Exhibit A, m'lard:

(A Link for Haley, so she doesn't go "Who are those people?" )

An astronaut is probably going to be at the top end of his game, as far as human fitness goes. Super Secret Agent Steve Austin probably kept in shape during his down-time between missions to save the free world (and his natural parts do look pretty ripped). But it's the bionic legs that let him sprint at 60 miles an hour and jump over an attacking Bigfoot.

If it works with the concept (Ninja fighting astronaut? Sure. Desk bound diplomat? Not so much), I would probably allow it. But then voluntarily whacking off bits and replacing them with Cybernetics is a pretty serious step and will almost certainly come with all kinds of story complications. Breakdowns, specialized first aid issues, cultural bias - your 7 will come with a price. . . .

If it works with the concept, I would probably allow it. But then voluntarily whacking off bits and replacing them with Cybernetics is a pretty serious step and will almost certainly come with all kinds of story complications. Breakdowns, first aid, cultural bias - your 7 will come with a price. . . .

Luke preferred the mechanical option to regrowing a natural one. Same with Anakin. It's the people without cybernetics that are the freaks. Natural bits stink too much of evil clones. Robots are the future!