Jump to content



Photo

Soak & Pierce


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#41 ErikB

ErikB

    Member

  • Members
  • 930 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 02:06 AM

 

There is a bit in Nights Black Agents
 
 
about incorporating gun porn (which I, at least, really enjoy) without slowing things down too much that I think might be worth looking at:-
 
>>>Technothriller Monologue
Prereq: Shooting 8+
 
Rules aren’t the only way to create an
atmosphere of gun grease and cordite.
Adopt this rule if you want to keep
the combat rules simple while giving
your resident gun bunnies a taste of the
fetishistic combat detail they crave.
Once per fight, a player with a Shooting
rating of 8 or more can gain a 3-point
refresh in that ability by uttering a brief
narrative description of his or her actions
redolent with Clancy-esque detail:
 
?? -“The rubber recoil pad of my
Saiga SWAT shotgun bounces
against my body armor as I come
through the door blasting!”
 
??- “I sit at the bunker, waiting, scope
trained on the doorway, my M4A1
kitted out with all the custom
blessings the SOPMOD can bestow.”
 
-?? “As I fire one of its trademark
bursts from the HK UMP, I take
a deadened, existential solace
from the soulless blankness
of its polymer casing.”
 
At the Director’s discretion, a
technothriller monologue may provide a
4-point refresh when it is so impenetrably
jargon-filled that other players recoil in
awe at the utterer’s ballistic enthusiasm.
In the deployment of technothriller
monologue, advance preparation is no
vice. Players should feel free to script
out suitably purple utterances, perhaps
on index cards.<<<

If you want a picture of the Empire, imagine a jackboot stamping on a beings face - forever.

#42 shaddai

shaddai

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 11:06 AM

 

Yepesnopes, no one here can provide you the answer you crave.  If you're a GM, I recommend you implement rules so that you're satisfied with the weapon quality.  If the designers catch this thread, hopefully they'll address the issue prior to the book's release.  Probably not, but then hopefully it'll be addressed in a future errata, book reprint, or second edition.  I agree with you that pierce could stand to be looked at or reworded.  Me, I'm gunna suggest my GM use LethalDose's rather elegant alternate and viable interpretation, but each GM to their own.  Harping on the subject and confronting other forum members will just get the thread shutdown, rather than observed by anyone other than a moderator.  If other GMs feel that this is an issue in their game, they'll alter the rules as they desire, rather than allow rules trivialities to ruin a story.

The same goes for soak to damage ratio in general.  Nothing will stop a player from creating a soak monster.  Too bad that character won't be very good at much else other than combat for awhile.  Hope he doesn't get aboard a spaceship that can be blown out of the stars anytime soon.  A player will always lose an escalation war against a GM, particularly if that player is brazen.  Simply put, there's no limit to the number of boost dice an attack roll can attain against you.



#43 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 747 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:25 PM

Yepesnopes said:

 

Can someone tell me please then, why and how Pierce 1 and Pierce 2 is different from +1 damage and +2 damage respectively if you have Total Soak > 1

 

 

Under the 'traditional' interpretation, there is very very little difference.

Under the 'alternative' interpretation, Pierce lets some damage go through in the case that none would go through on a hit otherwise, unless the target has protection with the Cortosis quality.

But really, shaddai is right, nobody posting here is an EotE designer, so nobody here can tell you how the designers intended Pierce X to be different than damage +X.  If someone is claiming to know what the designer's "true intent" actually was, then they either have inside information from having discussed the intent with a designer, read a designer's stated intent somewhere (in which case it would be nice for them to provide a citation), or they are simply overreaching what can be inferred from the information at hand.

-WJL



#44 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 747 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:28 PM

Donovan Morningfire said:

To allude to something mentioned in the thread about attacking with two weapons, trying to argue that Pierce should deal "auto damage" instead of simply reducing the target's Soak Value does have the feel of trying to twist the rules to say something they really don't.  I think gribble had it right when he said the part about "ignoring" a target's Soak just means you reduce how much damage the Soak Value absorbs from that one attack.

I just re-read this, and I want to be sure two things are clear:

First, I'm not "trying to argue that Pierce should deal 'auto damage'", I AM saying that it could be intepreted this way, though I really hate the term 'auto-damage' because that seems to imply damage on a miss as well.

Second, could you be explicit about which rules you think "have the feel of trying to twist the rules to say something they really don't" under this interpretation?  I have NOT done an exhaustive search of the beta text, but the only text I have found describing the rules governing Pierce is in it's description on page 107, which states

"An attack made with this weapon ignores one point of soak for each rank of Pierce."

I really feel that the interpretation could easily go either way, without any twisting.  Actually, the statement is so brief, there's almost no room for twisting to begin with.  It all comes down to how you interpret the word "ignore" in the sentence, and without any other information, I think both the traditional and alternative interpretations are equally valid.

 

Now had it actually said that Pierce reduces soak, instead of ignores soak. then you'd be right and we wouldn't even be having this conversation to begin with.

But it doesn't say that.  

 

However, if it does say that somewhere else in the book, please let me know so I can read it and correct this if I'm wrong.  And, as always, do whatever feels right and works best at your table.  

-WJL

PS well, crap.  I thought this posted hours ago, but came home to find it still up on the desktop.  Oh well.



#45 Bladehate

Bladehate

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 09:20 PM

shaddai said:

A player will always lose an escalation war against a GM, particularly if that player is brazen.  Simply put, there's no limit to the number of boost dice an attack roll can attain against you.

 

 

 

This isn't very helpful.  Of course its possible to houserule flaws, kill powergaming players and do basic GM stuff.  This is a bit like stating the obvious, no offense intended.

Stacking soak is a problem.  The degree to which it is a problem depends entirely on your campaign and your players.

But no, stacking soak does not make a player useless in all other ways.  Oh sure, you might not have quite so many yellow dice as other players, but the cap is the same for skills which allows a competitive number of green dice for everyone.  The difference between rolling 1-2 yellows and 3-4 greens veruss 2-3 yellows and 3-2 greens is fairly marginal.  Especially if it allows you to take blaster bolts to the chest like a Star Wars version of the Man of Steel…

 



#46 Yepesnopes

Yepesnopes

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,338 posts

Posted 19 April 2013 - 09:30 PM

@shaddai and @ lethaldose: Thanks for the replies, at some point reading some of the post I had the impression I was really missing something.

It looks like we will have to wait to the release of the EotE core book, or more probably to the future core books to see if the designers have a purpouse for having Pierce in the game. 

Cheers,

Yepes


The Book of the Asur - High Elf fan supplement

The Dark Side - Witches, Warlocks, Dark Magic and more

Secrets of the Anvil - Advanced Dwarf careers and runes

Dice statistics calculator for SW EotE


#47 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 747 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:07 AM

Yepesnopes said:

@shaddai and @ lethaldose: Thanks for the replies, at some point reading some of the post I had the impression I was really missing something.

It looks like we will have to wait to the release of the EotE core book, or more probably to the future core books to see if the designers have a purpouse for having Pierce in the game. 

Cheers,

Yepes

Yeah, hopefully there will be a combat example that describes/discusses how Pierce works when soak > damage + pierce.  I'm not going to hold my breath for an explicit clarification of the mechanic since this whole converstation has come after the book has been sent to the printers.

-WJL



#48 shaddai

shaddai

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:59 AM

I still have a hard time being intimidated by anything up to a fifteen soak.  It's not a house rule to have a squad of six stormtroopers assist one another on a single target, yielding their commander possibly over five boost dice (only two advantage per trooper) on his next attack, and stripping all defence from a single target for the round.  You need to have impressive soak in order to stand against in-system and normal tactics such as this.

If you have over 15 soak, you have enough xp that you'll be facing disruptor rifles and enemy Force Users on a not-so-irregular basis, and you better be bringing far more than soak to the table.  I'm not talking a mere two yellows in your discipline score, cuz a serious fear effect will have your soak tank fleeing from, or cowering in battle before it even begins.  Three Gamorean henchmen with vibro axes will ruin any tank's day, as they sunder his armor into sweet oblivion.  The bottom line: you may have 16 soak, but I guarantee your companions don't, let's see how well you get along in intergalactic society after I blast them instead.  I know, I'm playing a Trandoshan tank in our group, and the enemies don't *have* to shoot me.  If I started with anything above a 6 soak, I'd have basically specialized myself into near uselessness.

All this, and not a single house rule, I just don't feel it's a game changer.  The real dilemma you should test is putting your players up against a similar soak level, and see how they handle it.



#49 Jon D

Jon D

    Member

  • Members
  • 127 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 03:09 PM

shaddai said:

I still have a hard time being intimidated by anything up to a fifteen soak.  It's not a house rule to have a squad of six stormtroopers assist one another on a single target, yielding their commander possibly over five boost dice (only two advantage per trooper) on his next attack, and stripping all defence from a single target for the round.  You need to have impressive soak in order to stand against in-system and normal tactics such as this.

If you have over 15 soak, you have enough xp that you'll be facing disruptor rifles and enemy Force Users on a not-so-irregular basis, and you better be bringing far more than soak to the table.  I'm not talking a mere two yellows in your discipline score, cuz a serious fear effect will have your soak tank fleeing from, or cowering in battle before it even begins.  Three Gamorean henchmen with vibro axes will ruin any tank's day, as they sunder his armor into sweet oblivion.  The bottom line: you may have 16 soak, but I guarantee your companions don't, let's see how well you get along in intergalactic society after I blast them instead.  I know, I'm playing a Trandoshan tank in our group, and the enemies don't *have* to shoot me.  If I started with anything above a 6 soak, I'd have basically specialized myself into near uselessness.

All this, and not a single house rule, I just don't feel it's a game changer.  The real dilemma you should test is putting your players up against a similar soak level, and see how they handle it.

 

And at that point the PCs will be rocking Disruptor weapons of their own, as well.

 

I personally don't see an issue with high soak characters, only because in RotJ, Luke gets shot for absolutely minimal damage (just his hand) and Leia takes a shot from a blaster rifle and only gets grazed.



#50 Bladehate

Bladehate

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 05:08 PM

shaddai said:

.  If I started with anything above a 6 soak, I'd have basically specialized myself into near uselessness.

 

 

 

 

First off, let me just say I appreciate feedback from others that don't conider soak stacking a problem.  While I agree that there are ways in game to overcome soak, they border on GM fiat.  In other words, a character dies because that was the GM's decision.  While I am a big fan of having NPCs using tactics and behaving as they logically should, in this case its just using game mechanics to do the Star Wars equivalent of having a character sniped or blown up by an explosive charge.  I'm not a GM who believes this is the proper way to deal with particularly successful characters nor do I have "troublesome" players who habitually attempt to abuse the system.

I also appreciate Jon Ds point of view, that taking lots of fire and emerging relatively unscathed is in keeping with the Heroic theme of EotE.

But I do think that there are two problems with soak stacking.

The first is world consistency.  Stacking soak allows you to marginalize or eliminate damage from a wide selection of weaponry.  This is an intentionally broad and narrative system, so some inconsistencies are to be expected.  But I still find it counter to immersion that a Hired Gun with enough ranks in Enduring and Brawn can ignore blaster pistols, even when he's only wearing boxers.  By contrast, a low brawn character wearing Mandalorian armor falls over the instant that same blaster pistol is fired at him.

If this system had more of the Soak value relying on armor, and less on Brawn and Talents I might not have a problem with it.  Especially since Pierce would be a perfect way to counter that armor, without completely destroying lower armor/lower soak characters in the process.  This approach would be consistent with the world as well.  Heavy Battle Armor is countered by heavy weaponry.

The second reason is group dynamics, something that I've already touched on and Shaddai also mentions.  The tank's team mates have nowhere near his durability, and there's no way to force an enemy to fire on the tank.  Ironically, Shaddai sees this as a sort of solution to the problem whereas I feel its the opposite.  When the combat performance gap is so wide between different builds, I do think its an issue.  Both as a GM and as a player.  Of course, the GM can use existing game mechanics to ensure the tanker dies, but that begs the question:  If its so darned effective why dont the storm troopers just do that to the rest of the group as well?  And that…to me…is the crux of the problem:  Anything that can threaten the tank just flattens the rest of the team.

The group dynamic is also why I pulled out the quote I did.  There are many ways to build a character, but maxing a single attribute at character creation does not specialize your character into uselessness in every other area.  It certainly does specialize you, but it does not cripple you or prevent you from developing your character to be competitive with your team mates.  Some skills may mature at a slower rate, but when players make their characters priorities vary widely depending on what they are playing anyway.  A Trandoshan BH/HG is by definition one of the group's prime combatants.  Its not expected that he also be the smooth talking face man or the moodily talented jizz-wailing musician.  Capping Brawn at character creation and focusing on maximizing soak makes him an extremely effective combatant though.



#51 nullunit

nullunit

    Member

  • Members
  • 7 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 08:14 PM

While I understand your concern about Brawn/Soak stacking being exploitable; from my experience with the game so far there are plenty of in-rules ways to combat it.

That pin-headed meatwall will die long before they reach broken levels because it does not have the skills to back up the brute strength. As their companions die around them, more and more attacks will be directed at Meatwall the Trando/Droid/whatever and they will die. With all of those points pushed into Brawn, Will is going to be deficient and they will become succeptible to Strain attacks (read Stun Setting).

The management of Strain Threshold can be even sketchier than WT in some cases, since players burn ST by choice.  Threat/Despair results causing little bits of Strain damage, Strain depletion for abilities that have a strain payment component, and all of a sudden the players can be stunned with relative ease.

In the case of your Brawny Droid there are societal restrictions in the SWU to take care of it not mention tangible ones. Tanglible fixes being restraining bolts and ion based weapons that are designed to incapacitate droids quickly. Societal fixes being that the galaxy just had to deal with the Separatist Droid armies and there are references in the fiction to the manufacture of battle droids being restricted (possibly abolished) by Imperial edict. IG-88 and 4-LOM being the only 2 combat droids in the Rebellion era that I can recall off the top of my head and I don't think 4-LOM is technically a battle droid, his chasis looks more like a protocol to me anyways. A player droid in EOTE would be pretty much bait for a stealthy jawa with an Ion blaster or restraining bolt/caller.

If the GM cannot cope I think it is a failure of imagination and inattentiveness to the full scope of the rules. I haven't done a comprehnsive read of the beta rules, just the ones available in Beginner box, and it seems like a managable issue. I had a table of players with a cumulative RPG experience of about 60 years who created their own characters using the beta rules and even with a few botched rulings in their favor and I still had to be careful of a total party kill. Shaddai is one of my players and his Trando is formidable but he still got tagged with 2 criticlal wounds by the time they were able to get out of Mos Shutta. 

On the other issue brought up in this thread:

In the Beginner box rulebook, Breach is stated as effecting the armor of vehicles and starships. I also take that to mean the 1breach =10 soak negation conversion, that is being bandied about is also in the context of vehicle/starship. Ships/vehicles have deeper pools of threshold than players or npcs so that makes sense. They should clean the wording up so that rules lawyers don't start exploiting crap like that. Pierce works fine to my mind. It will become more relevant as the players progress.



#52 Yepesnopes

Yepesnopes

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,338 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 08:27 PM

Bladehate said:

 

If this system had more of the Soak value relying on armor, and less on Brawn and Talents I might not have a problem with it.  Especially since Pierce would be a perfect way to counter that armor, without completely destroying lower armor/lower soak characters in the process.  This approach would be consistent with the world as well.  Heavy Battle Armor is countered by heavy weaponry.

 

 

I understand that the designers wanted to create a game of smuggler PCs and the like, instead of a Wh40K space marine game, but I fully agree that the system should rely more on armour to rise soak.

Luckily, this is something that can be easily house ruled by limiting the soak comming from sources like the trait enduring and by redesigning and creating armours.

Bladehate said:

 

The second reason is group dynamics, something that I've already touched on and Shaddai also mentions.  The tank's team mates have nowhere near his durability, and there's no way to force an enemy to fire on the tank.  Ironically, Shaddai sees this as a sort of solution to the problem whereas I feel its the opposite.  When the combat performance gap is so wide between different builds, I do think its an issue.  Both as a GM and as a player.  Of course, the GM can use existing game mechanics to ensure the tanker dies, but that begs the question:  If its so darned effective why dont the storm troopers just do that to the rest of the group as well?  And that…to me…is the crux of the problem:  Anything that can threaten the tank just flattens the rest of the team.

The group dynamic is also why I pulled out the quote I did.  There are many ways to build a character, but maxing a single attribute at character creation does not specialize your character into uselessness in every other area.  It certainly does specialize you, but it does not cripple you or prevent you from developing your character to be competitive with your team mates.  Some skills may mature at a slower rate, but when players make their characters priorities vary widely depending on what they are playing anyway.  A Trandoshan BH/HG is by definition one of the group's prime combatants.  Its not expected that he also be the smooth talking face man or the moodily talented jizz-wailing musician.  Capping Brawn at character creation and focusing on maximizing soak makes him an extremely effective combatant though.

 

 

Since I come from Warhammer 3, I can say with confidence that high soak is a "problem" when only 1 PC has high soak (the ironbreaker in warhammer 3).

Typically as a GM you have two possibilities

a) You ignore the tank. You play the game normaly knowing that there is one PC that cannot be challenged by combat. Luckily this is a rpg and there are many in-game challenges, not only combat.

b) You challenge the tank by using certaing tactics /enemies as has been pointed in this thread. Nevertheless, my experience has shown me that this is a very dangerous option. What challenges the "tank" in combat typically will potentially oblitarate the rest of the party,  meaning that combats focus fully on the tank, and if he fails the combat will end in a TPK.

 

Cheers,

Yepes


The Book of the Asur - High Elf fan supplement

The Dark Side - Witches, Warlocks, Dark Magic and more

Secrets of the Anvil - Advanced Dwarf careers and runes

Dice statistics calculator for SW EotE


#53 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 747 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 09:00 PM

nullunit said:

That pin-headed meatwall will die long before they reach broken levels because it does not have the skills to back up the brute strength. As their companions die around them, more and more attacks will be directed at Meatwall the Trando/Droid/whatever and they will die. With all of those points pushed into Brawn, Will is going to be deficient and they will become succeptible to Strain attacks (read Stun Setting).

The management of Strain Threshold can be even sketchier than WT in some cases, since players burn ST by choice.  Threat/Despair results causing little bits of Strain damage, Strain depletion for abilities that have a strain payment component, and all of a sudden the players can be stunned with relative ease.

You made a lot of good points above, but I think this part doesn't hold up well.  

First, stun damage from blasters set to stun is subject to reduction by soak (Beta text, p107, Stun Damage), so targets with crazy amounts of brawn/soak aren't going to be particularly more vulnerable to stun damage vs normal physical damage.

However, I do understand that you are intending to aim to deplete a smaller resource pool, which brings me to the second point:  we've seen a pretty major practical problem with strain in that is feels unlimited since the RAW allow players to spend a single adv to regain 1 pt of strain.  While the intent seems to be that strain is a currency to throttle action economy, the recovery of strain is so cheap and the adv so [obscenely] plentiful, strain damage is really not much of a threat.  This is somewhat mitigated at our by house-ruling that it costs 2 adv to recover 1 strain.

It may be appropriate for the GM to take every advantage possible to use NPC abilities and threat/despair to inflict strain, but remember that strain can only be caused by threat on the character's roll; There is not an option to use adv to inflict strain on a target.  As a GM, I've find this system's 'reactive' nature somewhat frustrating.  

-WJL


  • Brother Orpheo likes this

#54 Leechman

Leechman

    Member

  • Members
  • 47 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:09 PM

If the RAW don't give you an option, why not just change them to suit your needs?

Problem Solved.



#55 Bladehate

Bladehate

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:26 PM

nullunit said:

 

In the case of your Brawny Droid there are societal restrictions in the SWU to take care of it not mention tangible ones. Tanglible fixes being restraining bolts and ion based weapons that are designed to incapacitate droids quickly. Societal fixes being that the galaxy just had to deal with the Separatist Droid armies and there are references in the fiction to the manufacture of battle droids being restricted (possibly abolished) by Imperial edict. IG-88 and 4-LOM being the only 2 combat droids in the Rebellion era that I can recall off the top of my head and I don't think 4-LOM is technically a battle droid, his chasis looks more like a protocol to me anyways. A player droid in EOTE would be pretty much bait for a stealthy jawa with an Ion blaster or restraining bolt/caller.

If the GM cannot cope I think it is a failure of imagination and inattentiveness to the full scope of the rules. I haven't done a comprehnsive read of the beta rules, just the ones available in Beginner box, and it seems like a managable issue. I had a table of players with a cumulative RPG experience of about 60 years who created their own characters using the beta rules and even with a few botched rulings in their favor and I still had to be careful of a total party kill. Shaddai is one of my players and his Trando is formidable but he still got tagged with 2 criticlal wounds by the time they were able to get out of Mos Shutta. 

 

 

I will say it again, I have plenty of experience.  And I am not saying I cannot "cope".  What I have been saying…again…is that there is an issue with stacked soak.

Now, to address your points:  PC droids are not inherently slaves or servants.  And this is the "Edge" of the Empire, so all kinds of things can exist here.  IG-88 itself was a part of the posse of bounty hunters hired by Darth Vader himself.  I am also fairly certain that an assassin droid (aka a PC droid) would be an exception to the Mos Eisler cantina "no droids" rule…I highly doubt that bartender would toss IG-88 out if it decided to show up for business…

Also, your argument that there are RP counters to stacked soak is a strawman.  It is misleading.  The point is not that a combat character is weak outside of combat…the point is that one type of combat build is significantly stronger then any other.  And in fact, so much stronger that he invalidates a considerable amount of what would otherwise be valid design encounters:  IE a blaster duel (with pistols) in a bar, as a deal goes sour.  Something that should occur far more often then a full-scale, tactical assault in a smuggler oriented campaign.

Also, Shaddai himself admitted that he is not stacking soak.  As I stated earlier, soak in the 3-6 range is not broken.  It requires a higher value before that occurs.

By comparison, my group is essentially a bunch of combat machines since I wanted to A.)  Test the new system while its still in Beta.  B.)  Ensure that when the blaster bolts started to fly, everyone could chip in.  Every single one of them (save the Smuggler pilot who is the only one to dual wield) is either Bounty Hunter or Hired Gun as their primary focus.  With these kinds of characters, it becomes very obvious very quickly which builds perform best.  The droid and the wookie stacking soak are monsters compared to the rest.

Clearly, you and Shaddai have not encountered this problem, and consider it a trivial issue to the point where you are borderline insulting with veiled references to "experienced GMs" and "coping".  To which I can only respond that I've shown numbers, I've given testimony from Escape from Mos Shuuta + Long Arm of the Hutt that those combat encounters as presented are trivial for a soak stacker. 

You counter with strawman arguments about RP and social restrictions, and GM fiat options that can TPK an entire party if used to "counter" the soak stacker. 

Clearly, we do not see eye to eye on this issue.



#56 shaddai

shaddai

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:32 PM

LethalDose, I did happen to locate something today in the Beginner Game.  It refers to pierce as reducing soak.  Page 22 of the EotE Adventure Book under the Stormtrooper vibroknife.  Not a big deal, especially if the release of the main book still has the "ignore" term.  Guess we'll just have to wait and see what's published.

Leechman speaks wisdom.

In regard to soak concerns, I suppose it's an individual's view on GMing, becuase in my opinion, anytime a character dies, it's always up to the GM.  It's a little odd to me that a judge might feel more distanced from --or less responsible for-- any such ruling anytime a PC expires.

A PC with 6 Presence will be equally "unbalanced" in social situations.  The tanks are good at combat, the bookworms are good at data collection, the frontmen are good at public relations.  Failure in any of these fields can be equally deadly.  Since this is a very story driven game, to feel that such rulings are specifically fiat, well, that's just something I find amusing.  The whole game is fiat.  Triumphs and Despairs demand fiat everytime they're rolled.  I think you're equally fiating --is that a word?-- if you don't have your NPCs perform as they're capable.  As a side note, you'd be implementing a fiat if you added a pierce1 setting on your weapons.  If adding such a mechanic helps you tell your story, then you should totally do it!  I'm just saying, I have yet to see the need myself.  I'm glad you brought up the concern though, as it's certainly made me consider how this situation can be dealt with should I encounter it as a player (or GM) in the future.

The simple fact that the designers have you creating stuff to fix their rules is still a success in my eyes, especially since you find that it's something worthy of fixing, and not just scrapping the entire system.  Hooray for innovation!

The man with Brawn will have a great chance at surviving the sniper shot, it's what he does.  The guy with Presence will have a great chance at convincing those troopers --with a Star Destroyer in orbit-- that, "these aren't the droids you're looking for."  Both encounters can easily lead to a TPK.  Both require a specialist to have a decent chance of success.

The brawny guy can dip into computers, the slicer can dip into soak.  They're both still equal in my eyes.

Heh, I know my fellow players would all be upset with me as the tank if they all died, yet I remained.  "How come when you do your job well, the rest of us die, but when I talk well, I save us all?"  In this regard, tanking and melee are lacking compared to all other skills.

As I said, if you toss a similar NPC as your juggernaut player at the party, and end up with a TPK several times over, then you might have something of a concern from me.  As is, GM created Nemeses have access to all the same options as PCs, and more.  Another tell-tale sign: did every single one of your players want to immediately reroll Brawn-Droid?  Everyone in my group pretty much wants to dip into Gadgeteer just for Deadly Accuracy.  To me, that's a tell-tale sign that something's amiss.



#57 Bladehate

Bladehate

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:38 PM

Leechman said:

If the RAW don't give you an option, why not just change them to suit your needs?

Problem Solved.

Leechman said:

If the RAW don't give you an option, why not just change them to suit your needs?

Problem Solved.

And indeed, that is what will likely happen if this goes live as it is.

By far the easiest way to deal with it is just to ask my players not to cap Brawn, and not to stack soak.  Which, since my guys are all mature, is likely what will happen when release rolls around.  The system functions fine as is with a moderate soak value, where no one has a definitively higher soak value then the rest of the group. 

After last game session fighting Angu Drombs men on Ryloth, the difference in performance was so acute that even the two soak stackers will most likely re-roll or at least re-adjust the stats on their characters for next game session, without my even requesting it.  The players themselves recognized that this was just too problematic to stand.



#58 shaddai

shaddai

    Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:46 PM

Bladehate said:

I highly doubt that bartender would toss IG-88 out if it decided to show up for business…

No, he'd just radio the local stormtrooper garrison.



#59 Bladehate

Bladehate

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:53 PM

shaddai said:

  Since this is a very story driven game, to feel that such rulings are specifically fiat, well, that's just something I find amusing.  The whole game is fiat.  

 

 

 

This is a fairly interesting point, bordering on the philosophical.

I disagree with it because of several factors.  The first is that I don't allow the face guy to "smooth talk" someone into killing themself or doing something that is obviously against their best interest or bordering on the suicidal.  By the same token, I don't allow the Computer guy to hack the Galactic Bank and solve the group's money problems forever.  Even if they have Presence 6 and whatever skills and talents they need to mechanically back them up.

By comparison, max brawn let's a guy take a shot to the bare chest from a blaster…

Also, because combat is usually far more roll-intensive then social or skill challenges, there are more chances for things to go disastrously wrong.  Its part of why combat is fun for my group, and such a prevalent part of many RPGs.  My group still recalls the time when one of the gang fumbled not once…but twice in a row in Dark Heresy.  That would not have been a problem except he was wielding an Eviscerator…a massive fusion of greatsword and chainsaw which has as one of its consequences a self-strike on fumble as the wielder loses control of his weapons.  He survived the first strike, but lost a leg and very nearly died due to the second fumble.

That was not GM fiat.  That was just luck.



#60 Bladehate

Bladehate

    Member

  • Members
  • 353 posts

Posted 20 April 2013 - 10:59 PM

shaddai said:

Bladehate said:

 

I highly doubt that bartender would toss IG-88 out if it decided to show up for business…

 

 

No, he'd just radio the local stormtrooper garrison.

Versus a licensed, quite possibly lethal bounty hunter with legitimate business?  On Tatooine which only sees Imperial interference due to special circumstances or at the behest of powerful people?

I gotta say, I think just removing the droid as a playable species would be a better option. 

Many droids are the equivalent of second class citizens, but some are not.  The playes are by definition in the latter category. 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS