Hey PeteZero,

first of: try to get rid of the number-crunching-thinking which often takes place in MMO(RPG)s or highly simulative rpgames. SW EotE is after all a very narrative roleplaying game, although it is loaded with many rules. But the nice thing about it is: it finally boils down to what dice-pools you have in a given situation and how you (narratively) resolve the dice-results. Now as for your (more specific) questions:

Maybe put it another way, is melee worth it in EotE? And build a backstory on such kind of PC? Or is it mainly ranged (heavy or light doesn't matter) and spend my creativity (whcih needs to resurface) on such a kind of PC? Or does it not really matter, as you will get everything, melee and ranged combat. And on top, how important is piloting and technical skills? Usually you could neglect all kind of skills, but might be different in EtoE.

1. You will never be able to assess melee as worth or as not worth it. This really, really, really depends on all the situations you play during the game-sessions. If your gaming group decides to remain in long-range combat as much as possible, melee is a waste; but melee is especially true if it comes to many, many close-combat arrangements. But truth about both is: neither way of playing is representative for SW EotE, since both types of combat should be common - just compare it with the movies of SW Episodes IV through VI.Very often both combat types go hand in hand, since some characters use their guns, while others brawl like crazy. I happen to envision the incredible action scene on Tatooine on this flying party-boat of Jabba du Hutt, when Luke, Han, Chewie, and many more fight all the villains around Jabba in order to avoid being tossed into this huge mouth in the ground ...

2. Piloting and technical skills ... How important are those? Well ... This again depends on the gaming group. Piloting is important, if you will face troublesome vehicle- or space-flight-situations on a regular basis. And technical skills will help you a lot in many situations which are based on complications. But here is the thing: If you don't have ranks in the given skills, you may never the less try to solve the situation with your characteristics. Unlike many other roleplaying games the skills in SW EotE are usable anytime -regardless if your character has or has not "learned" a skill by putting ranks into it.

3. Having said that! In my opinion: in the beginning you are well advised to choose some kind of orienteering for your character: If you try to cover as much different fields of expertize, you won't be able to be good in anything; but don't make the mistake to focus only one one thing. Maybe you should consider all the skills and sort them by the characteristics each one (generally) is tied to. Then compare this with your "initial" idea what type of character you want to play - is it the Chewbacca-kind - so a technician and brawler? Or is it more kind of a zen-monk, or the bodyguard, or something like "Beastman" from the X-Men? You have plenty of opportunities here.

4. Keep in mind that you will earn XP sooner than later; and this will allow you to develop your character, which includes the great opportunity to learn things which you have thought of during the character creation, but for which you did not have the proper amount of building-resources in the beginning. SW EotE provides a very solid and elegant means of character development. But the important thing here is: You won't start with a "finished" and "fleshed-out" character - under no circumstances.

Best wishes!

Mad

For an upcoming Star Wars campaign (long running) I need to decide on a character. As I have never played EotE I could need some help to guide my decision.

First idea – the heavy Wookie melee combantant soaking up damage.

I would start out as Marauder, popping all xp to bring Brawn to 4, Agility to 3 and Willpower to 2. Get a vibro axe, and further on pick up gadgeteer. For ranged – I would have only access to light weapons skills, or would it be worth to put something into heavy ranged and pick up a bowcaster at one point?

Other idea – Rhodian, using heavy ranged weapon, increase Brawn to 3, Agility to 4 and Willpower to 2 (or just get Agility to 5?) and go down the Assassin line, and maybe then gadgeteer or mercenary soldier.

As I would like to be force sensitive, force sensitive exile might come in as well, or would that be three careers specialization too much?

Thanks for any help and input!

Well theres alot of anti marauder feeling on the board, but from actual play experience Axe to facing, takes alot of investment or isn't really worth the effort. And both the plus +brawn races pay a big guy tax (with extra obligation you can get either a human or gand to brawn 5)

Agility 3 (skill is optional) is plenty for ranged combat unless you want to be sniping (never comes up)

As for the Rodian our Rodian death-machine, aka assassin (three figure death count so far), went cunning 3 brawn 3 agility 4 and is ever annoyed at his lack of willpower therefore coercion.

On force sensitive, i'd suggest either finishing you first career or jumping in deep early. I've found 4 stats at 3 achievable by most races with +10 exp from obligation, then buying the core of your class (career) or 2 3s (agility and one of the socials) and start with a power at a usable state been the best way to go for a first time player.

Well theres alot of anti marauder feeling on the board

There is? News to me.

As for the Rodian our Rodian death-machine, aka assassin (three figure death count so far), went cunning 3 brawn 3 agility 4 and is ever annoyed at his lack of willpower therefore coercion.

Well, to use Coercion, the target pretty much has to know that you're there. If you're an Assassin, you're probably best off with your target not knowing you're there, so I'm surprised that he's annoyed by a poor Coercion pool. OTOH, low Willpower hurts Discipline and Vigilance too, and those are likely more of a sore spot for most Assassins.

first of: try to get rid of the number-crunching-thinking which often takes place in MMO(RPG)s or highly simulative rpgames. SW EotE is after all a very narrative roleplaying game, although it is loaded with many rules.

Ugh I am just so sick of this argument. Edge doesn't prevent or even discourage "number crunching." There are ways to optimize the system. Thinking about mechanics is not a bad thing. "Narrative RPG" just means there aren't near as many piddly little spot rules compared to rules-heavy systems. But the rules still matter and most people don't enjoy playing an ineffective character.

. Imagine yourself on the fringe, are you with friends? At that point you should be good to go with who you are and what you want to do. If you study the book and look for power, you'll find it. Me personally I always seem to create characters that end up scrounging for droid parts.

first of: try to get rid of the number-crunching-thinking which often takes place in MMO(RPG)s or highly simulative rpgames. SW EotE is after all a very narrative roleplaying game, although it is loaded with many rules.

Ugh I am just so sick of this argument. Edge doesn't prevent or even discourage "number crunching." There are ways to optimize the system. Thinking about mechanics is not a bad thing. "Narrative RPG" just means there aren't near as many piddly little spot rules compared to rules-heavy systems. But the rules still matter and most people don't enjoy playing an ineffective character.

And yet what Maddock said is true (it's a very MMO/rules heavy system thing to do) and a large percentage of us RPGers think exactly how Maddock does. To each his own sorry if our way makes you sick for some reason. It's not an "argument" at all but a preference.

Eta: Obviously you can crunch with this system. There are lots of details. But, this system does have the term, "narrative" for a reason. It's general tone is not meant for number crunching even if you can do such with it. So please don't vomit if we suggest playing this system how the designers intended it.

first of: try to get rid of the number-crunching-thinking which often takes place in MMO(RPG)s or highly simulative rpgames. SW EotE is after all a very narrative roleplaying game, although it is loaded with many rules.

Ugh I am just so sick of this argument. Edge doesn't prevent or even discourage "number crunching." There are ways to optimize the system. Thinking about mechanics is not a bad thing. "Narrative RPG" just means there aren't near as many piddly little spot rules compared to rules-heavy systems. But the rules still matter and most people don't enjoy playing an ineffective character.

Define ineffective? Theoretically if a GM crafts a session to mirror the issues that arise in complicated scenarios having a character that can only shoot or stab and can't really hack a terminal, talk their way out of or into something, render medical aid, fix something broken, negotiate a better deal, sneak past something, track a person in the wild, or even do all that well on initiative, might end up being the ineffective character.

Define ineffective? Theoretically if a GM crafts a session to mirror the issues that arise in complicated scenarios having a character that can only shoot or stab and can't really hack a terminal, talk their way out of or into something, render medical aid, fix something broken, negotiate a better deal, sneak past something, track a person in the wild, or even do all that well on initiative, might end up being the ineffective character.

This.

It's all the little things that add up. And frankly, a creatively played character with an Agility of 2, no ranks in Ranged (Light), a Blaster Pistol, Combat Knife, Heavy Clothing, and a Comm-link is still a serious threat to anything you might encounter in, say, a Mos Eisley cantina.

Some people tend more towards the wargaming side, some towards the storytelling side, just make sure the group is aware of what style of campaign it will be beforehand.

As others have said... you really don't need to 'game' EoE. This isn't like 4E where you have to make a power 'build' to keep up with the curve.

Think of what you want your character to be like and grow accordingly.

The tree structure of the classes and the separation into classes HEAVILY promotes min-maxing. Having force be another tree that uses the same XP pool as other career skills enforces this even more. Want to make a young Luke and think that means you should have some mechanic skill, some force sensitivity and some piloting/gunnery tricks? NOPE, 3 different trees, need 70(?) XP just to buy ACCESS to the trees. Think an ability is appropriate to your character but it happens to be buried in the tree... spend 50 XP just to get to the ability.

first of: try to get rid of the number-crunching-thinking which often takes place in MMO(RPG)s or highly simulative rpgames. SW EotE is after all a very narrative roleplaying game, although it is loaded with many rules.

Ugh I am just so sick of this argument. Edge doesn't prevent or even discourage "number crunching." There are ways to optimize the system. Thinking about mechanics is not a bad thing. "Narrative RPG" just means there aren't near as many piddly little spot rules compared to rules-heavy systems. But the rules still matter and most people don't enjoy playing an ineffective character.

And yet what Maddock said is true (it's a very MMO/rules heavy system thing to do) and a large percentage of us RPGers think exactly how Maddock does. To each his own sorry if our way makes you sick for some reason. It's not an "argument" at all but a preference.

Eta: Obviously you can crunch with this system. There are lots of details. But, this system does have the term, "narrative" for a reason. It's general tone is not meant for number crunching even if you can do such with it. So please don't vomit if we suggest playing this system how the designers intended it.

I'm not saying that your way is "wrong." I just get sick of seeing people say it's "right" and being more mechanically-inclined is "wrong." I rarely see the people who look at things my way telling you that you're doing it wrong, while I see a lot of the people who go the story-first route say thinking about mechanics first IS doing it wrong. Gets old.

To me it's not so much a mechanically first approach, it's a, mechanically to do as much damage as possible to the exclusion of all else approach. Couple that with two different races, both that were chosen for the given max stat potential for the given selected combat style speaks to making a character that can put out max DPS to burn through as much xp as possible. A mmo toon. The point most people made was it's probably better to just pick the race and basic idea you like best, and not to invest everything all into combat.

My suggestions, and I think a lot others, are that this approach makes a flat one trick pony character. It doesn't actually net a player anymore xp, everyone around the table in most cases is going to earn exactly the same xp as the shooty/stabby guy. Unless a GM awards a base xp per session and then bonus blocks for specific points in a story individuals achieve, in which case a player with everything vested in one purpose, whether it's being joe gun, or joe computer, might find themselves not even earning as much xp.

An example, have a WHFRP I GM as well. A friend wanted a wood elf Waywatcher and made him. He maxed out the elf for the iconic image of the master archer. He quickly found he didn't like the character at all, because unless he was shooting arrows the character just wasn't much good for anything else in the session. He would've made an outstanding Night Elf Hunter in WoW, and was a totally boring character in a RPG.

As others have said... you really don't need to 'game' EoE. This isn't like 4E where you have to make a power 'build' to keep up with the curve.

Think of what you want your character to be like and grow accordingly.

The tree structure of the classes and the separation into classes HEAVILY promotes min-maxing. Having force be another tree that uses the same XP pool as other career skills enforces this even more. Want to make a young Luke and think that means you should have some mechanic skill, some force sensitivity and some piloting/gunnery tricks? NOPE, 3 different trees, need 70(?) XP just to buy ACCESS to the trees. Think an ability is appropriate to your character but it happens to be buried in the tree... spend 50 XP just to get to the ability.

I don't think so, I see what your saying and how you feel...but so what if it takes that long? We've had multi hour scenarios where no dice were even rolled...years...maybe a decade of a player using a character...what is the hurry? Now if you are rushed for time and have a place where your character "has" to be....then I guess these things become relevant. Otherwise what is the rush...It is like online mmo mentality...must level and create uber..then..what...there is no content..uninstall game...next game...start all over.

If you want your character to be a pro mechanic/engineer, ace pilot/gunner, and bristling with psychic force abilities, then yes, you have to spend some experience. If you want a good pilot/gunner who is a decent mechanic (3 ranks in mechanics) and some few force abilities, your looking at less than 100xp after character creation. It's all in the perception. You don't have to have a specialization to be good at something. That's why it's called a specialization.

That's how I look at it anyway.

Thank you for all the comments, lots of food for thought, it really helped.

First thing, I will drop the Wookie, he is mechanically very good, but comes with a lot of 'attachments' and being only able to go grrrw or wrrg in conversations, don't know.

So, thinking about it, I am down to two different characters, either an assassin (human or rodian), being able to sneak in and out of places, who's past was being hired as a professional killer, now leaving his past. Would probably start to dable with mechanics.

Or a doctor (human), organ trading and responsible for cybernetic implants. When replacing an eye, there is a market, esp. for organ implants. The other kidney might still be working, but one is enough.... - not the kind of doctor you want to run into. But might be fun to play.

Also consider what the rest of your party is playing, if you have knowledge of that. I'm really big about making sure my character's niche won't step on what the other characters are meant to do. But it's also worth considering the personality of the other characters. Is your character going to be the odd ball and cause more problems than he solves?

When I run D&D, I usually run the typical heroic style games and I tell my players the tone of the story they will be playing so they can come up with a concept that would fit into that tone or give it another layer. I'm really hesitant to allow my players to make an evil character unless they sit down and talk with me about what they had in mind.

It doesn't sound like that will be a problem with your game, but it's certainly something to consider.

For sure I want to make a character which works with a party, I don't like evil characters. Esp. the doctor idea, I see him as qwirky doctor, who can run shivers down your spine, might not be 'nice', but loyal. And left the illegal dealings - might be good to tie in obligations here. Going for Brawn, Agility, 3, and probably Intellect 3 as well, and even Cunning or Willpower - would depend who wants to deal mostly with the underworld. And on top have to see what others play. I know one wants to play a Han Solo like character so Smuggler/Pilot, not sure about the rest.

I prefer to think about options, and have some from the get go. Seeing already, I would have probably jumped onto the Wookie and later regret it.

first of: try to get rid of the number-crunching-thinking which often takes place in MMO(RPG)s or highly simulative rpgames. SW EotE is after all a very narrative roleplaying game, although it is loaded with many rules.

Ugh I am just so sick of this argument. Edge doesn't prevent or even discourage "number crunching." There are ways to optimize the system. Thinking about mechanics is not a bad thing. "Narrative RPG" just means there aren't near as many piddly little spot rules compared to rules-heavy systems. But the rules still matter and most people don't enjoy playing an ineffective character.

I won't argue about this. But the potential of min-maxing is - as you say - somewhat limited compared with "classic" min-maxing systems. So maybe you are sick of this argument, but this does not invalidate it.

The game-design supports it, again agreed; but the benefits are kind of limited. Very limited. You may be able to create exceptional potent characters with SW EotE (AoR); but on the downside the game won't submit to be played only to have the same three or five situations making such characters shine. The opposite is true, as Advantages/ Threats, Triumphs, and Despair don't resolve in game-mechanical effects (alone), but especially in narrative moments. Since two out of three dice-result-pairs (success <-> failure, advantage<->threat, and triumpf + despair) are about the narrative, the focus of the game simply is obvious. And I don't see any argument invaldiating this conception and the argument(s) concluded from this.

Understanding this will help you to reconsider planing and creating your character as well as see the potentials available from the narratives, which are not closely and tightly fix and set like rules in rules-heavy systems.

Best wishes!

Mad

first of: try to get rid of the number-crunching-thinking which often takes place in MMO(RPG)s or highly simulative rpgames. SW EotE is after all a very narrative roleplaying game, although it is loaded with many rules.

Ugh I am just so sick of this argument. Edge doesn't prevent or even discourage "number crunching." There are ways to optimize the system. Thinking about mechanics is not a bad thing. "Narrative RPG" just means there aren't near as many piddly little spot rules compared to rules-heavy systems. But the rules still matter and most people don't enjoy playing an ineffective character.

And yet what Maddock said is true (it's a very MMO/rules heavy system thing to do) and a large percentage of us RPGers think exactly how Maddock does. To each his own sorry if our way makes you sick for some reason. It's not an "argument" at all but a preference.

Eta: Obviously you can crunch with this system. There are lots of details. But, this system does have the term, "narrative" for a reason. It's general tone is not meant for number crunching even if you can do such with it. So please don't vomit if we suggest playing this system how the designers intended it.

I'm not saying that your way is "wrong." I just get sick of seeing people say it's "right" and being more mechanically-inclined is "wrong." I rarely see the people who look at things my way telling you that you're doing it wrong, while I see a lot of the people who go the story-first route say thinking about mechanics first IS doing it wrong. Gets old.

Well, I did not say approaching the game with a mechanical or gamist way of thinking would be wrong; it is just counter-intuitive because the game actually addresses a different gaming-style and -purpose - that's why the first part of the book is all about dicing and dice-resolution aimed at a narrative and cinematic gaming-style. Not considering this may lead someone into "the trap" to simply not recognize the opportunites which are being made available in the set of rules and concepts of the game.

Still: If someone decides to do it the "crunchy way of things", then go ahead. Neither does the game forbid this, nor does the game punish you for doing so. After all it is what anyone makes of it.

So after all I actually agree with you insofer, that the narrative way is just one way of playing a game; but I also say it is the one way being heavily supported and encouraged by the game. And this is something a gamer should realize sooner than later.

Best wishes!

Mad

So after all I actually agree with you insofer, that the narrative way is just one way of playing a game; but I also say it is the one way being heavily supported and encouraged by the game. And this is something a gamer should realize sooner than later.

Perhaps using an opposite example could shed more light. Perhaps not the best since all will not know the system, but in my teenage years I played lots of Twilight 2000 and loved it. It was a post-WW3 survival game with characters playing ex-soldiers. It was very, very mechanical going out of its way to simulate combat and survival in minute detail. That was what the game was all about with hit location charts, varying penetration values at different ranges, varying armor values for different faces of vehicles all researched versus realworld values. Although you could play Twilight 2000 while telling players to describe what they do narratively, roleplay as much as they can, that was not at all what the system was intended for. It was all about realistically simulating being caught in a post-WW3 setting. It wasn't about the narrative at all. Any GM or players trying to shoe horn a narrative style into that system would probably soon be without a play group.

The opposite may also hold true. Thus, those of us giving caution.

First thing, I will drop the Wookie, he is mechanically very good, but comes with a lot of 'attachments' and being only able to go grrrw or wrrg in conversations, don't know.

Keep in mind the game defaults to "not knowing the language" being a non-issue; I'd only say there are translational issues if it's important to the plot (see: RotJ). Chewie is frequently understood by several characters even though he's not speaking Basic, and the fact that Wookiees can't speak Basic doesn't mean the player can't do so when describing what the character does or says, with the knowledge that you're actually speaking Shriywook and everyone understands it or has a translator available.

So after all I actually agree with you insofer, that the narrative way is just one way of playing a game; but I also say it is the one way being heavily supported and encouraged by the game. And this is something a gamer should realize sooner than later.

Perhaps using an opposite example could shed more light. Perhaps not the best since all will not know the system, but in my teenage years I played lots of Twilight 2000 and loved it. It was a post-WW3 survival game with characters playing ex-soldiers. It was very, very mechanical going out of its way to simulate combat and survival in minute detail. That was what the game was all about with hit location charts, varying penetration values at different ranges, varying armor values for different faces of vehicles all researched versus realworld values. Although you could play Twilight 2000 while telling players to describe what they do narratively, roleplay as much as they can, that was not at all what the system was intended for. It was all about realistically simulating being caught in a post-WW3 setting. It wasn't about the narrative at all. Any GM or players trying to shoe horn a narrative style into that system would probably soon be without a play group.

The opposite may also hold true. Thus, those of us giving caution.

Man I loved twilight 2000.

So after all I actually agree with you insofer, that the narrative way is just one way of playing a game; but I also say it is the one way being heavily supported and encouraged by the game. And this is something a gamer should realize sooner than later.

Perhaps using an opposite example could shed more light. Perhaps not the best since all will not know the system, but in my teenage years I played lots of Twilight 2000 and loved it. It was a post-WW3 survival game with characters playing ex-soldiers. It was very, very mechanical going out of its way to simulate combat and survival in minute detail. That was what the game was all about with hit location charts, varying penetration values at different ranges, varying armor values for different faces of vehicles all researched versus realworld values. Although you could play Twilight 2000 while telling players to describe what they do narratively, roleplay as much as they can, that was not at all what the system was intended for. It was all about realistically simulating being caught in a post-WW3 setting. It wasn't about the narrative at all. Any GM or players trying to shoe horn a narrative style into that system would probably soon be without a play group.

The opposite may also hold true. Thus, those of us giving caution.

Man I loved twilight 2000.

Ever play the 2.2 version?

Fire off a M249 SAW and grab 10d20. You only hit on like a 1-4 (with a good skill level), but any bullets that miss the primary target then roll against the next target in the line of fire, then the next, then again against the next, etc. until all of the bullets either hit something/someone or there are no targets left in the path of fire. A character could get off three of these attacks per turn, so the dice rolling was obscene.

We once had a character fire of a M19 AGL (automatic grenade launcher) and he grabbed his 5d20. In addition to the above he had to calculate scatter from one round to the next and then calculate blast effects and fragmentation hits to all targets in the blast radius. It took an hour to calculate the effects of that one action, and he still had the ability to fire off a second such attack in his turn. The joke in the group became that, if the players wanted to take a food break, have Mark fire off the M19.

Sounds like someone should of made an app to calculate all that crap for you lol.

Ever play the 2.2 version?

Fire off a M249 SAW and grab 10d20. You only hit on like a 1-4 (with a good skill level), but any bullets that miss the primary target then roll against the next target in the line of fire, then the next, then again against the next, etc. until all of the bullets either hit something/someone or there are no targets left in the path of fire. A character could get off three of these attacks per turn, so the dice rolling was obscene.

We once had a character fire of a M19 AGL (automatic grenade launcher) and he grabbed his 5d20. In addition to the above he had to calculate scatter from one round to the next and then calculate blast effects and fragmentation hits to all targets in the blast radius. It took an hour to calculate the effects of that one action, and he still had the ability to fire off a second such attack in his turn. The joke in the group became that, if the players wanted to take a food break, have Mark fire off the M19.

I think it was 10d6 not d20 or am I screwing up my versions? I thought the damage was always d6's but the skill roll later used a d20? I had all versions but I don't think I actually ran a campaign with 2.2. I hated all of the fists of dice also, so I had a simple house rule starting with version 1. A weapon with a damage of 10 would normally roll 10d6, for example. I instead had the player roll a single d6 and multiply by 10 for damage. While it made the curve flat, it still had the same damage range.

Mk or "Mark" 19, not M19. I've fired those in real life and it was the most awesome gun experience ever. You push the butterfly trigger down for a 6 round burst. You see little black tennis balls fling through the air. A couple seconds later, grenades are exploding all over down range. Very cool. Except for the time an idiot fired a round into the dirt in the dark about 20 meters in front of my Hummer while I was up in the turret playing assistant gunner. Stuff dinged off my kevlar and I thought I got a piece of shrapnel in my cheek until I pulled it out and it was just a pebble.

Sorry nostalgic moment.