Jump to content

Chrislee66

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Chrislee66

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Storytelling and narrative consequence can really change the feel of a game without modifying the rules. Small tweaks like increased damage or allowing damage overflow to increase the critical injury roll result can also have a significant impact. You can also increase or decrease the narrative impact of triumphs and despairs as well. Just make sure that you articulate the themes that you're trying to evoke and how you're doing so to your players.
  2. It can mean both. If there are no purple dice to upgrade, presumably because the pool is full of challenge dice, you add another purple. As above, the word "increase" always signifies more purple dice.
  3. I wasn't too fond of the disconnect between combat skill and defense myself. Given that I'm running a fantasy game, I decided to make a couple of rules changes in order to better suit the thematics of the setting. In effect, I used the Perry model and decided to apply universally. Characters can spend 3 strain and reduce the incoming attack by damage equal to the calculation below. This way, skill is still a factor but it doesn't affect the underlying probability of the dice system. They're also talents that increase the efficacy of the below Active Defenses Avoid: 1/2 agility + coordination. Used for attacks from creatures with silhouettes of higher than 1, ranged attacks, and things that you would generally trying to dodge. Parry: 1/2 agility plus melee or brawl. Used in melee with other arranged weapon or unarmed. Block: 1/2 brawn plus resilience. Requires a shield. Can be used in melee and against physical ranged attacks. Ward: used to reduce damage from magical attacks, Elementals, demons another appropriately magical sources of damage.
  4. I don't know about everyone else, but I strongly dislike the honor mechanics. I'd rather see it reflecting a character's reputation. As it stands, there's a huge internal and psychological component that, while interesting, also has a host of unpleasant implications for characters.
  5. I'm also not fond of character weapon skill not being a factor in defense. I understand why it's difficult to change mechanically. Perhaps changing the fitness roll to a combat roll would help, or by adding some sort of reduction mechanic based on combat skill, a bit like parry in edge of the empire. Fundamentally, I'm not fond of it because it fails to support the sorts of samurai fantasies that the game should be representing. This sort of resource attrition based scaling prevents a single highly skilled combatant from defeating larger number of lesser foes, a staple of samurai fiction and mythologies. Musashi's legendary duel with the Yashioka school being perhaps the most famous example of such. It simply wouldn't be possible with the system as written.
  6. I get that you disagree with how Jedi should be represented, and I actually agree with most of what you're saying here, but telling people that they're "whining" and belittling their ideas isn't exactly polite. Given that I don't recall seeing you're name on any cannon Star Wars products, they're perceptions are just as valid as yours.
  7. This is an interesting comment. Can you explain what you mean by a comparison between force rating and a ranks in a key skill?
  8. This has already eaten about three hours of my day today. It's the first time that anything prequel related has made me smile in a long, long time.
  9. I like the changes to move and unleash, I absolutely love the changes to battle meditation. In relation to protect, I'm not a fan of the powers current implementation, really, so I'm ambivalent about the changes. Spending an action is a big deal when combats, at least at our table, rarely last for more than four or five rounds. I much preferred negate energy, as an example, which was used as a reaction. I wish it worked more like Parry or Reflect.
  10. This issue is actually quite relevant to the game that i'm currently running. We finished our first Edge of the Empire campaign after playing since the beta was released and just started a new game incorporating all three books. A player playing a non force user in a mixed party suggested that I allow the two characters from the FaD beta to start with a force rating of higher than two when we were using the knight rules. I was initially opposed to the idea, but his argument was pretty compelling. I'll synopsis it below. Basically, he posits that a characters force rating serves as an implicit gate to force power purchases given the randomness of the power source in relation to activation costs. Take, for example, enhance. With a force rating of one, and the control (leap) and range upgrades, the utility (used in an economics sense) of the range upgrade to force leap is low given the number of single force pips on a force die. There's a 66.6 percent chance that with one force die you will not gain enough pips to activate the range upgrade of the power. This is without even considering the costs incurred by dark side pips. Given that I don't require that a character fling himself out over a void before determining the distance generated with the power activation, it doesn't pose a risk of character death, but it does have two primary negative effects. First, it makes the expenditures on power upgrades an underwhelming proposition without first upgrading your force rating. This is not insignificant given experience rewards, talent costs, and time. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it involves player agency and expectation. It causes dissonance between what they expect to happen, having purchased a power, and the way the game mechanics work. If someone expends a player resource on a power, they should be able to reliably use that power, within reason. This seems particularly true for a new system, relatively speaking. Ultimately, while I like the force dice mechanics in concept, I'm growing disenchanted with them in practice. I did allow the two players to start the game with a base rating of two. Even with two force dice both characters are rarely able to utilize their powers, given that one of those dice is typically locked for sense. If it didn't require an action to lock a die, it might be as significant. Att 250 earned experience their characters still feel underpowered in relation to the rest of the party. If the mystique of the Jedi weren't so powerful a draw, I'd imagine that they would have changed by now. Neither of them are power gamers, but they want to feel useful, they want the powers that they purchase to be reasonably dependable, and they want their expectations of character agency met in relation to the source material. I definitely don't think that any of those things are unreasonable.
  11. It should. What it shouldn't be is in the core book where it's the only specialization of eighteen that has any sort of force alignment. I would much rather the specializations in the core be neutral and accessible to all to flavor their own characters as they like. If the developers opt to keep Aggressor as it is, I'll probably retool marauder or assassin to suit Force and Destiny and offer those as choices instead. One spec that clearly leans towards the dark side impacts the whole career.
  12. Yoda wasn't alive to see the final act. That statement was proven to be terribly wrong. Anakin was redeemed, but I think you could still argue that the dark side did dominate his destiny. In fact, the very act of redemption couldn't have taken place without him falling to the dark side, and it wouldn't have been so meaningful if he hadn't fallen so deeply and so long. I would say that validates Yoda's statement. Besides, if you really want to nit pick Yoda's gems of wisdom, the "Do or do not, there is no try," line is much, much more worthy of criticism.
  13. Indeed. Post-overhaul, this spec is too morally aligned for my tastes, whereas all other specs are morally neutral. I was really hoping they would clean this one up from printed beta into what it seemed like they were going for -- a Marauder with Force talents, a melee/saber spec without the exclusive focus on sabers. Well, we got that, kind of, but with the mandatory Dark flavor. I disagree. If the previous example of the difference between Darth Maul and Mace Windu was not apt enough, perhaps take Sora Bulq and Mace Windu as considerations. Both were Aggressors. One fell to the Dark Side by letting his emotions control him, and one stayed true to the light side by accepting the darkness within (the conflict) and using it as a weapon for the light. I think it's a flavorful mechanic, and yes it's dark, but it's not inherently Dark Side. It's how the character is RP'd in light of this talent that makes a light- or dark-sider. I disagree of your interpretation of Mace Windu as an aggressor as the class is written. He was aggressive, certainly, and used what could be his own negative emotions to fuel his fighting style, but he didn't engender fear and terror as a combat tactic. I don't know enough about the other character you mentioned to form an opinion.
  14. The issue, at least for my player, wasn't the conflict. During our session the update hadn't even been released. The issue was that the aggressor in it's current configuration has a dark side orientation due to its focus on fear and intimidation that colors it and the whole warrior career. No other career currently has this, and it therefore makes it a sub optimal choice for someone that doesn't want to play a character that delves deeply into the dark side. I understand that not everyone cares about these things, but for those that do their preference is as valid as anyone else's. As I said above, I like the specialization, I just don't think that it' well suited to the product as it stands.
  15. It's 10XP more for a different career spec, I wouldn't exactly call that a limitation (unless you have a house rule...) You might not, certainly, but other people value their character resources differently. He felt that it was a tax, and that he shouldn't be forced to spend his experience on what he viewed as a sub optimal design choice. While I certainly don't think his opinion is universal, I do think that it's a valid perspective on what is, in my opinion, an unnecessary problem.
×
×
  • Create New...