Plus, it makes it easier to customize your character in general.

Not that it isn't common in RPGs, but its odd that a game as story focused as EotE tries to be has such strict rules for Characteristic customization.

It's designed this way because, you can either choose a species, with certain strengths and weaknesses - you can choose to enhance the species strengths or compensate their weaknesses. There IS a species that allows for outright customization: Droids. You can do whatever you want with Droids, but that freedom has it's drawbacks as well (no force use, or normal healing).

If moving all characteristic points around freely is allowed, then why would anyone pick a Droid? Why not pick a human, which can be Force Sensitive and receive normal healing?

I think most people in this thread are okay with the "one time use" idea of doing it for only ONE characteristic and ONE point. This allows a little flexibility and isn't a re-write of a species.

A friend of mine asked me if he could start with the Droid characteristics (1 point in all attr and whatever the starting xp is), build it however he wants to spend the xp, but just say it's a Wookie.

Basically, he wanted a Wookie for RP reasons, but wanted the flexible build of a droid. I didn't let him lol.

I mentioned this earlier, in the case of Guri. The CRB even says their are droids built to look like other species, using synthskin (WTF Terminator?)

I find this thread interesting because I don't think that my players would even consider lower Characteristics. Excepting the two Droids we've seen, every PC has bought their 1 up to a 2, and often up to a 3 (Rodian Willpower, Trandoshan Agility, and Wookiee Willpower - we've even had someone considering a Toydarian 'warrior' with Brawn 3 and Agility 3). My players find that playing against type to be easy when raising the low stat, but I'm pretty sure none of them would be interested in dropping species highs down.

I would only consider allowing the dropping of Brawn to 1 and only if the PC was a child. I would not give any extra EXP to spend rather I would give a Boost die to some rolls that one would reasonably expect being a child would be a benifit. I would not allow the dropping of any other Attributes.

I don't like telling someone 'no' as a general rule but at times being the last word is a need in games. I do find that by requiring them to present a background and personality before numbers are crunched most people tend to moderate themselves when putting together their characters.

So you're saying people who develop their character personalities based on a set of numbers they assign first to fulfill a particular role well are Doing It Wrong?

/pound head on desk

In any case I wouldn't allow stat reduction to get a bonus 20 XP. Don't see a good reason for the houserule, so therefore I don't see a point to add it.

Personally it sounds like a terrible idea. I can see where people are coming from, wanting to have an older, or child character maybe, but I think there's a reason FFG decided humans were broadly competent across the board.

I don't think it would take much to abuse this, and the last thing EoE needs is 'dump stats'. I don't think it would be things like Brawn or Agility that got dumped, but things like Presence. Give full value for it and pretty much every Twi'lek would be Presence 2 and jack up something else.

It also takes away from things like droids, and those aliens with desirable stats.

In this instance, I think FFG knew what they were doing. I'm pretty sure limitations could just be role-played without having to munchkinize.

Wanting to customize your character so that the mechanics reflect the fluff is hardly munchkinizing.

And there are other rules in the game that are open to abuse, that FF have made clear work exactly as intended.

Also FF made the choice to have 6 ability scores with wildly different levels of usefulness. I'm not sure that should be held against the player.

Also if Presence is so sub par, then Twi'leks sure do look like a very poorly designed weak race. Letting people tweak their characteristics make it more likely to see one played.

I don't like telling someone 'no' as a general rule but at times being the last word is a need in games. I do find that by requiring them to present a background and personality before numbers are crunched most people tend to moderate themselves when putting together their characters.

So you're saying people who develop their character personalities based on a set of numbers they assign first to fulfill a particular role well are Doing It Wrong?

I think this is being unnecessarily antagonistic. 2P51 is simply telling us what is done at the table that he GMs.

And there are other rules in the game that are open to abuse, that FF have made clear work exactly as intended.

Also FF made the choice to have 6 ability scores with wildly different levels of usefulness. I'm not sure that should be held against the player.

Also if Presence is so sub par, then Twi'leks sure do look like a very poorly designed weak race. Letting people tweak their characteristics make it more likely to see one played.

It's definitely clear that each species is well-suited for a variety of specific roles and ill-suited for others, perhaps moreso in FFG's version of the RPG than ever before. But I do think we should be careful when we assign levels of usefulness to different characteristics. There are different venues in which they are useful, but none of them are inherently more useful than the other. Try to reprogram a droid using Brawn and you will end up smashing its head. Similarly, put your high-Intellect scholar in a fight against a shockboxer and watch him collapse after a one-two punch to the gut.

I've played around a LOT with the game design in trying to create an Elder Scrolls hack, and I have found the characteristics to be insanely well-balanced against each other.

Now this might vary between player and GM gaming styles, so much so that players won't WANT to skimp on Brawn or Agility because they know their GM likes to throw fight after fight their way, but I don't think there is inherently anything in the RPG to where certain characteristics are "more useful" than others in a general sense.

And I do like the idea of a "tweak," but I do cap it at one characteristic. Otherwise, to me it is rather more of an overhaul than a tweak.

Also FF made the choice to have 6 ability scores with wildly different levels of usefulness. I'm not sure that should be held against the player.

Pretty much every system is going to have stats that are tied to combat that are inherently overvalued by everyone, compared to stats for "smarts" and "social skills" which are typically more niche. Even in D&D, every class is going to have stats they don't need. The only system I've seen that doesn't really have this problem is 7th Sea, since all the stats have an important role to play in combat, and some have additional roles out of combat.

The fact of the matter is that most players will want to be combat-competent at a minimum even with everything else they may want to take on. It's part of the nature of rules-oriented roleplaying: some scenes can't be ended with noncombat. For what it's worth I like that Presence can play a role in Initiative and that Willpower helps you recover post-combat. But in virtually every system, the attack to-hit stat is always the most important, and frequently also a god-stat on top of the to-hit. Balancing away from that isn't easy, for the very reason that the system includes combat and presupposes that a lot of conflicts will be solved violently.

but as your gm, if you have intellect 1, I'm telling you now, any clever ideas you come up with I will dismiss, because your character isn't

I wouldn't necessarily say that having a 1 as an intellect score necessarily makes something stupid, as in a d20 system. A 1 score in anything shouldn't prevent a player from narration, or submitting a request for a roll.

Actually, I would suggest that a 1 Intellect is decidedly below average. How far below average would have to be determined by the group, but keep in mind that most animals have a 1 Intellect. Heck, as per RAW a human cannot have a one I would suggest that it may even be stupider than a human can be.

I wouldn't stop a player from narrating or requesting a roll, but both the player and gm should be diligent in monitoring any "good ideas" that come from the player being used by the rest of the party. After all, it would be doubtful that the character would be able to create those ideas.

I've always felt droids are underpowered, they half half the xp of a human once you put all stats to 2 (55xp left)

personally, I've house ruled it that droids stating stats are 1,1,2,1,1,1, giving the droids 20 extra xp, they are so under powered.

now raising all stats to 2 gives 75xp left over, and if they take 15 obligation they can have 3 stats of 3 and 3 stats of 2, which is still lower then all other races (most races can have 4 stats of 3 and 2 of 2)

If you like my rule feel free to use it.

I have only had 1 droid player in 17 people due to them being underpowered.

the reason i gave Int 2 instead of +20xp, is i believe it very hard for a player to role play something very stupid that can't think, their ideas can't be shared at the table properly if they stay in character.

Its interesting that people seem to say that droids are for customizing are also the people against min maxing.

And yet, as you have pointed out, droids really do not have the points to do much but min max if you want to customize them more than the other races.

I do think you're undersell ing droids however. Their characteristics might not be as hot but their soak, immunities, and heaps of free skill points go a long way.

This sounds like a blatant attempt by some trash munchkin power gamer who wants to min max.

Verboten at my table.

It seems like you've really thought it through and come to a reasonable opinion.

I find this thread interesting because I don't think that my players would even consider lower Characteristics. Excepting the two Droids we've seen, every PC has bought their 1 up to a 2, and often up to a 3 (Rodian Willpower, Trandoshan Agility, and Wookiee Willpower - we've even had someone considering a Toydarian 'warrior' with Brawn 3 and Agility 3). My players find that playing against type to be easy when raising the low stat, but I'm pretty sure none of them would be interested in dropping species highs down.

Yeah, I do think not many PCs probably have 1s.

The Duro smuggler in my game dropped his Int from 3 to 2.

Why?

Being smart wasn't important to him.

What'd he do with the points?

Boosted his Brawn, because he wanted to be a rough and tumble spacer.

The sky has yet to fall.

I would only consider allowing the dropping of Brawn to 1 and only if the PC was a child. I would not give any extra EXP to spend rather I would give a Boost die to some rolls that one would reasonably expect being a child would be a benifit. I would not allow the dropping of any other Attributes.

Why?

Twi'leks have 1 Brawn.

Are they as weak as a human child?

Do Twi'lek kids have a 0 Brawn?

I don't like telling someone 'no' as a general rule but at times being the last word is a need in games. I do find that by requiring them to present a background and personality before numbers are crunched most people tend to moderate themselves when putting together their characters.

So you're saying people who develop their character personalities based on a set of numbers they assign first to fulfill a particular role well are Doing It Wrong?

I think this is being unnecessarily antagonistic. 2P51 is simply telling us what is done at the table that he GMs.

And there are other rules in the game that are open to abuse, that FF have made clear work exactly as intended.

Also FF made the choice to have 6 ability scores with wildly different levels of usefulness. I'm not sure that should be held against the player.

Also if Presence is so sub par, then Twi'leks sure do look like a very poorly designed weak race. Letting people tweak their characteristics make it more likely to see one played.

It's definitely clear that each species is well-suited for a variety of specific roles and ill-suited for others, perhaps moreso in FFG's version of the RPG than ever before. But I do think we should be careful when we assign levels of usefulness to different characteristics. There are different venues in which they are useful, but none of them are inherently more useful than the other. Try to reprogram a droid using Brawn and you will end up smashing its head. Similarly, put your high-Intellect scholar in a fight against a shockboxer and watch him collapse after a one-two punch to the gut.

I've played around a LOT with the game design in trying to create an Elder Scrolls hack, and I have found the characteristics to be insanely well-balanced against each other.

Now this might vary between player and GM gaming styles, so much so that players won't WANT to skimp on Brawn or Agility because they know their GM likes to throw fight after fight their way, but I don't think there is inherently anything in the RPG to where certain characteristics are "more useful" than others in a general sense.

And I do like the idea of a "tweak," but I do cap it at one characteristic. Otherwise, to me it is rather more of an overhaul than a tweak.

I mean, I agree with you in general. I think Presence is very useful in this system.

Though Agility is for sure the king stat, everything else is pretty well balanced.

Except for Willpower, which isn't so much weak as it is boring.

Also FF made the choice to have 6 ability scores with wildly different levels of usefulness. I'm not sure that should be held against the player.

Pretty much every system is going to have stats that are tied to combat that are inherently overvalued by everyone, compared to stats for "smarts" and "social skills" which are typically more niche. Even in D&D, every class is going to have stats they don't need. The only system I've seen that doesn't really have this problem is 7th Sea, since all the stats have an important role to play in combat, and some have additional roles out of combat.

The fact of the matter is that most players will want to be combat-competent at a minimum even with everything else they may want to take on. It's part of the nature of rules-oriented roleplaying: some scenes can't be ended with noncombat. For what it's worth I like that Presence can play a role in Initiative and that Willpower helps you recover post-combat. But in virtually every system, the attack to-hit stat is always the most important, and frequently also a god-stat on top of the to-hit. Balancing away from that isn't easy, for the very reason that the system includes combat and presupposes that a lot of conflicts will be solved violently.

Absolutely.

It why I'm a fan of the idea of mostly or totally untethering ability scores and combat numbers.

Do you have an example of that done successfully? I'm having trouble picturing it.

Really what comes to mind was Shadowrun 4e dealing with the Matrix. A hacker depended on a good commlink and high program ratings. His mental stats (which logically should also be pretty high) did not matter at all vis a vis hacking or Matrix combat. it was very jarring that the only things that mattered were his gear and skills, not attributes.

Do you have an example of that done successfully? I'm having trouble picturing it.

Really what comes to mind was Shadowrun 4e dealing with the Matrix. A hacker depended on a good commlink and high program ratings. His mental stats (which logically should also be pretty high) did not matter at all vis a vis hacking or Matrix combat. it was very jarring that the only things that mattered were his gear and skills, not attributes.

I'm too fresh with this sytem to really get too deep with the math.

But with my other preferred game system 4e D&D, everyone has a baseline combat competency (something which EotE doesn't have.) And the numbers are really transparent.

So its really easy to say "You first level fighter has a +5 to hit, +4 to damage base, before any feats or powers" and ignore the ability score rat race. So your fighter doesn't need to have an 18 STR to feel/be effective. Ability scores then become used pretty much for skills only. So your wizard doesn't need to be a high level genius to do wizard things in combat.

A hafling fighter becomes just as viable as a half-orc fighter.

Which to me is awesome.

EoTE dice pool system makes that harder, but I'm sure there is some way to do such a thing.

I would only consider allowing the dropping of Brawn to 1 and only if the PC was a child. I would not give any extra EXP to spend rather I would give a Boost die to some rolls that one would reasonably expect being a child would be a benifit. I would not allow the dropping of any other Attributes.

Why?

Twi'leks have 1 Brawn.

Are they as weak as a human child?

Do Twi'lek kids have a 0 Brawn?

yes they are almost as week as a human child.

a human can carry lets say on average 30kg.

a twi'lek may only be able to carry 20, a small child only 10

by giving brawn 1 we are saying they can carry less then an average human but more then 0

the child can still be weaker then a twi'lek in an arm wrestle.

also brawn 0 wold mean your suffering from that disease that Sammuel L Jackson had in unbreakable.

Do you have an example of that done successfully? I'm having trouble picturing it.

Really what comes to mind was Shadowrun 4e dealing with the Matrix. A hacker depended on a good commlink and high program ratings. His mental stats (which logically should also be pretty high) did not matter at all vis a vis hacking or Matrix combat. it was very jarring that the only things that mattered were his gear and skills, not attributes.

I'm too fresh with this sytem to really get too deep with the math.

But with my other preferred game system 4e D&D, everyone has a baseline combat competency (something which EotE doesn't have.) And the numbers are really transparent.

So its really easy to say "You first level fighter has a +5 to hit, +4 to damage base, before any feats or powers" and ignore the ability score rat race. So your fighter doesn't need to have an 18 STR to feel/be effective. Ability scores then become used pretty much for skills only. So your wizard doesn't need to be a high level genius to do wizard things in combat.

A hafling fighter becomes just as viable as a half-orc fighter.

Which to me is awesome.

EoTE dice pool system makes that harder, but I'm sure there is some way to do such a thing.

The thing is, with this system every skill is realistically viable for a situation; I see people saying that combat stacking is absolutely necessary but I tend to disagree. So, in my opinion Agility isn't the 'god skill' and things like Presence or Intellect aren't 'dump skills'. On the rails campaigns may be true for the situation of combat, where a GM throws in a series of events which absolutely require combat to accomplish a goal. When a sandbox system is in play, every skill can be used for almost any situation with varying difficulties, even much disregarded Knowledge skills.

One of my campaigns, my group avoided combat as much as they possibly could, and the group included two PCs that had Mercenary Soldier specializations. Rather than fighting, they opted to come up with solutions around obstacles I gave them. They preferred interrogation and intimidation, capturing people with stealth, having one person sneak into places and unlock them, while other were spotters of skullduggery as distractions... They used Knowledge skills to think through building schematics, etc. I think they got pretty close to using many of the skills in their repertoire, with one combat encounter I through in the midst, where they let the last guy go so they could escape (They were more concerned with living than fighting).

Every skill is viable in this game - even having the face trying to talk down NPCs in combat. If anything, this game is less about combat than many of the table tops I've played before; yes it does happen, but realistically it can be avoided if you as a GM allow your players to avoid it if they choose.

but as your gm, if you have intellect 1, I'm telling you now, any clever ideas you come up with I will dismiss, because your character isn't

I wouldn't necessarily say that having a 1 as an intellect score necessarily makes something stupid, as in a d20 system. A 1 score in anything shouldn't prevent a player from narration, or submitting a request for a roll.

Actually, I would suggest that a 1 Intellect is decidedly below average. How far below average would have to be determined by the group, but keep in mind that most animals have a 1 Intellect. Heck, as per RAW a human cannot have a one I would suggest that it may even be stupider than a human can be.

I wouldn't stop a player from narrating or requesting a roll, but both the player and gm should be diligent in monitoring any "good ideas" that come from the player being used by the rest of the party. After all, it would be doubtful that the character would be able to create those ideas.

If a character with one Intellect can't think freely, can a character with one Brawn move freely?

No, but they would not be able to lift as much as an average adult human. They would be considered infirm and sickly. Someone with a 1 Agility would be significantly less agile than a normal human. Perhaps with an injured leg or some such.

There are minimums built into the system for a reason. If you simply look at it from a mechanical perspective you are missing the flavor and consideration of the way the developers created the system, but it is important.

Think of it like an IQ scale. The statistical human norm is around 90 - 110 IQ. Since there are only 6 tiers in an attribute, there is a significant difference between each one. I would suggest for INT around 15 points per tier. So that would lead to...

INT 1 - Between 75 - 89 IQ

INT 2 - Between 90 - 110 IQ

INT 3 - Between 111 - 125 IQ

INT 4 - Between 126 - 140 IQ

INT 5 - Between 141 - 155 IQ

INT 6 - Between 156 - 170 IQ

You may even want to increase the level of difference by another 5 point spread, to be able to include the highest IQ levels. That would lead to approximately...

INT 1 - Between 70 - 89 IQ

INT 2 - Between 90 - 110 IQ

INT 3 - Between 111 - 130 IQ

INT 4 - Between 131 - 150 IQ

INT 5 - Between 151 - 170 IQ

INT 6 - Between 171 - 190 IQ

Regardless of which scale you use, there is a significant difference in the clarity and quality of thought between each tier. A character with an INT of 2 would not be able to create the same plans as an INT 6 character. Likewise, a INT 1 character should not be able to have the same level of creative thought as a INT 2 character.

It is simply using the narrative to help illuminate the mechanics of the system. Otherwise, what would be the point of having any difference in attributes? You should then have a system like FATE that simply uses skills with the assumption that all people are roughly equally intelligent.

...All stuff said about IQs...

Again, I don't necessarily think this a fair assumption of how the game was setup; I believe that if the devs wanted the thought process of IQ grades, they would've mentioned it. Plus, a PC could have a score of 1 Int and still have a skill trained to 6. Telling someone that they can't come up with good ideas because they have 1 point in int, but their Core World Knowledge, Lore Knowledge, Mechanics, Computers and Medicine skills are trained to 6 doesn't make sense. It's like saying, well you know everything there is to know about the Core Worlds and Computers, but actually, you know what, you're too dumb to know anything about the Core Worlds or Computers because your Intellect is a score of 1...

Or, even though you've trained for years in melee combat, because you only have a brawn of 1, you obviously can't lift that Vibo-Axe, even if it's within your Encumbrence range, because you're weaker than anything...

I get we're all trying to justify these statistics, but in reality I don't think it does the system justice to punishing individuals, narrative for having 1 statistic in something. There's no required 'int' to learn a language in this game, no required 'brawn' to pick up objects... No required characteristics to do anything; just because a beast has and Int level of 1, and a PC has an int level of 1, doesn't necessarily hold them equal on the intelligence scale in this game. I think all this talk is really over-analyzing everything, as many d20 systems have given more meaning to attributes to define a character's roleplay, since they are more combat focused - whereas in Edge, everything is a skill.

Why would a narrative game not have a narrative flavor to a system?

It may be over-analyzing, but it isn't punishing anyone. Players choose what type of players they want to play. Someone who chooses to play a below average character shouldn't gain the same benefits as an average character. Otherwise, it only becomes a question of how many dice can I roll with little to no flavor.

Ugh... See this is why messing with characteristics isn't the greatest idea; now it's simply opened up a massive can of worms with analysis on Characteristics, importance, how to 'punish' players for making stats too low... This is what I mean by, when you make significant adjustments to the RAW, it has unforeseen consequences. Telling a player how to narrate defeats the purpose of a narrative game. Narrating based on statistics really isn't really in the spirit of the game; palyers are supposed to roll and narrate based on their results, not based off their Brawn or Intellect Score. A person with 2 Intellect and 4 Knowledge Training is consider the same as a person with 4 Intellect and 2 Knowledge Training. The same with Brawn; for all intensive purposes, a person with 4 Brawn and 1 Melee has the same level of aptitude, strength or whatever with their attack as 1 Brawn 4 Melee...

When it comes to how many dice you can roll, I don't think it matters. You can lack proficiency in something, roll and succeed and a person who is proficient can roll and fail. You roll and narrate, that's the point of the game. Not, base your narration off your characteristics. I don't think that dice rolling has little to no flavor with advantages, triumph, threats and despairs. I also think, that if a player isn't proficient at something, they can try a roll and fail; I don't really agree with discouraging a player from narrating, or making dice roll attempt at anything, even if they have a low characteristic in something - it's fair to let them succeed or fail, and narrate the outcome.

Ugh... See this is why messing with characteristics isn't the greatest idea; now it's simply opened up a massive can of worms with analysis on Characteristics, importance, how to 'punish' players for making stats too low... This is what I mean by, when you make significant adjustments to the RAW, it has unforeseen consequences. Telling a player how to narrate defeats the purpose of a narrative game. Narrating based on statistics really isn't really in the spirit of the game; palyers are supposed to roll and narrate based on their results, not based off their Brawn or Intellect Score. A person with 2 Intellect and 4 Knowledge Training is consider the same as a person with 4 Intellect and 2 Knowledge Training. The same with Brawn; for all intensive purposes, a person with 4 Brawn and 1 Melee has the same level of aptitude, strength or whatever with their attack as 1 Brawn 4 Melee...

When it comes to how many dice you can roll, I don't think it matters. You can lack proficiency in something, roll and succeed and a person who is proficient can roll and fail. You roll and narrate, that's the point of the game. Not, base your narration off your characteristics. I don't think that dice rolling has little to no flavor with advantages, triumph, threats and despairs. I also think, that if a player isn't proficient at something, they can try a roll and fail; I don't really agree with discouraging a player from narrating, or making dice roll attempt at anything, even if they have a low characteristic in something - it's fair to let them succeed or fail, and narrate the outcome.

Sure, but you need to understand the character in order to narrate the event in question.

You can still let the character roll a skill check even with a low intellect. You have to understand what that intellect represents in order to properly narrate the results. A brilliant character should not have the same narrative events as the dullard even if they made identical skill rolls. The flavor and description needs to change to suit the situation.

As to the System Analysis, I tend to agree with you about sticking with RAW and enjoying the flavor created by the authors. That said, I also enjoy understanding why they made certain decisions to better understand why they did certain things. With most systems it is really hard to get a definitive grasp of why a developer did something, but FFG has been really good about podcasts discussing their philosophy behind certain creative decisions.