Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About perfidius

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    Nantes, Pays de la Loire, France
  1. I have to disagree here. IMO, the point is "do we need to change the current rule to use Discipline in order to mod a lightsaber ?", which is very different. For a Force user, EVERYTHING is about the connection with the Force, mind over matter and all that jazz. I completely agree with that. But in a game, that would mean: ALL checks could be made using Discipline, if Discipline represents how efficient is the connection with the Force. The Force powers show us a different route: Enhanced is a good example, allowing to add Force dices to Piloting checks, for instance, but doesn't allow the use of Discipline instead of Piloting. As it is a game, balance and variety in characters are issues, not only simulation. Which is why i express concern if Discipline becomes a uber-skill, and offer alternatives if Mechanics seems too weird for some: K(Lore), for instance, or the possibility (maybe with a Talent) to add Force dices to mod a lightsaber. The part about Luke & Vader being skilled mechanics is a different argument, far less important, trying to show that considering only the OT, which is covered by F&D, using Mechanics is not so crazy. But I agree this is by far a weaker argument Kudos for your EU trivia, btw !
  2. Couldn't agree more ! Using Discipline to mod (not build, MOD) would make Discipline the go-to skill for any type of Force user. It's not good for the variety of the game. Arguments about Discipline are mostly based on lightsaber construction. Yes, we see jedis assemble sabers with their mind. So what ? Doesn't mean it's how they make their lightsabers super efficient by tinkering them. In the OT, 2 of 3 saber users we see are skilled mechanics (Luke & Vader). Yes, it's not thanks to their jedi training though If people have issues with Mechanics for saber mod, maybe K(lore) could be an alternate solution which would solve the uber-skill problem. Add Force dices to a skill check when attempting to mod a saber with a Mech (or Lore ) check could also be an interesting alternative.
  3. here is an idea : When you consider an evil action from your so called "heroes", play the "Dark Side Point gained" music from KOTOR and take a Destiny point from the light side pool. It all depends of the type of game you (you=group of players, PC+GM) want at the table. You should discuss it, and everyone should be ok with that. Do you want a group of bloodthirsty killers or mobsters with a heart of gold ? Bloodthirsty killers: just have fun and don't bother them too much with consequences. Mobsters with a heart of gold: Destiny point, reccuring nightmares, fear checks related to what they did, vigilante asking questions about their next of kin killed by players, guilt trip, etc... but the easiest way would be to talk about it with players if it's not the type of story you're looking for, instead of punishing them. Just my two centimes, Perfidius
  4. awayputurwpn said: The weapons with inherent Knockdown capabilties (2 Adv) are the Bowcaster and Brawl checks That sounds great and actually solves my issue You want this guy on the ground ? Brawl check ! Thanks for the intel, Perfidius
  5. Hi guys, I know it's too late, but as i had a chance to test drive EotE only recently, i'd give my two cents anyway. The Knockdown Talent is the worst idea ever. The beauty of the system is, IMO, the possibility of action packed & cinematic combat encounters, with a lot of stuff happening, assuring it's NEVER "roll to hit apply damage" dull. The Knockdown Talent basically says: "if you don"t have this Talent, you CAN'T put an enemy on the ground". That sucks, as tripping(triping ?) people is a nice, dramatic move which happens a lot in hand to hand fighting scenes. And on a technical pov, it's not a "I win" button. A much better take, still IMO, would be to add the knockdown effect of the Advantage table (3 Adv cost, for instance), and allowing the character with the Knockdown Talent to use that effect for 2 Adv only (maybe renaming it something like "Knockdown specialist" ?). Anyway, as i said, my two cents are probably too late, but it had to be said Perfidius
  6. Bones1968 said: Suggestion: Make many attributes and skills have uses in combat. Some of this is already in the rules. The doctor has Stem Application talent. The leader has Inspiring Rhetoric and Field Commander talent. More of this would keep everyone engaged in all the encounters. For example: Weapon: MM9 wrist rocket: Computer guided missile is mounded on the wrist. When making range attacks use commuters skill instead of ranged (light) skill. You may spend a maneuver to program the missile and ignore cover. (Computers, dam 8, crit 3, encumbrance 3, range medium, limited ammo 1, stun setting, 1500 credits + 100 credits per missile) Talent: devious maneuver: You may as an action distract or confuse your opponent. Disconnect the power pack of his blaster, knock him off balance, throw sand in his eyes or convince him you have a thermal detonator. Must be within short range. Roll a opposed cunning test. If you succeed your opponent loses he next action. If you succeed with two triumphs you negate his defense for the next round. These are the best ideas i've read in 17 pages of Combat feedback. I also agree adding "dice rolling maneuver" is a terrible idea, as it would slow down an otherwise simple and fast paced combat. 1 rolling of dices per player per turn is a very elegant rule and shouldn't change. "Devious maneuver" should rather be your Action and probably needs to be a skill check (Deceit). But these "non-violent combat actions" are IMO very important and, if not limited to extra talents, could easily be described in the Skill section (the same way a Coerce action allows strain damage, for instance). Savage Worlds does this pretty well (tricks, test of wills). Obvviously, veteran GMs and Players already use skills creatively during combat and are prompt to adapt rules on the fly. Nevertheless, a general rule or table on "how a skill could influence combat" could be helpful to new GMs, 'Could be something like that: - 1 strain damage per success - 1 Triumph = 1 Critical hit, even without weapon (= 1 mook down) - Success = target loses is next Action, etc… It's probably broken as written, but you got the idea. Still, the Wirst rocket is kewl and the limited ammo quality a great balance of power. Kudos on this awesome, yet simple, idea ! Perfidius
  7. Whitmire said: Well to me the game seems to be in excellent balance, so I wouldn't go balancing it... at least not yet. The best expansion idea so far would be the addition of Old World Decks depending on the historical era the game takes place in (Siege of Praag, Rise of Sigmar, etc.). That wouldn't upset the game too much but would give players options to play different kinds of games. I am totally against the addition of new gods. There is no place for Gork, Mork or Bork for that matter in this game. +1 Thematics Old World decks would be the way to go. It could still be fancy, adding new Old World units instead of the boring Event counters, with a few specific tweaks; for instance a "Greenskin invasion" deck with Goblins,Orcs & Trolls miniatures, each with a specific effect, or a "Crusade" deck with great looking knights & witchhunters minis instead of the also boring Hero tokens. It would be cool and look cool, just like the way FFG likes it Perfidius
  • Create New...