Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Haggard

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Newport News, Virginia, United States
  1. Four mods would already cost a PC 100 + 200 + 300 + 400 = 1000 credits, and that's making four rolls of increasing difficulty, a failure on any of which can prevent installation of that mod unless a new attachment is purchased to work on, and which on a Despair (should the GM upgrade a die, for example) destroys the attachment entirely. You're darn right 2500 credits for no-roll guaranteed mods is too generous. The way I see it, a tech making that roll has to be prepared for the hassle of dealing with Edge of the Empire types who, if he damages their equipment failing to install a mod, is going to get shaken down or have the cost of a new attachment coerced or beaten out of him. On top of this, the tech needs to cover his own rent and make a profit, too. I'm no actuarial nor do I have a dice roller probability calculator right in front of me, but at a ballpark, if it were *my* character? If the understanding is, "Your credits, your risk," my hypothetical tech would probably charge your prices plus parts. That's with a dice roll, customer takes their chances. You already said that's not your interest. If the arrangement is, "You do this until it's right," implying using as many attachments as necessary to get the job done. This is closer in line with what you're envisioning. In such a case I'd charge somewhere between a quarter and half price of the attachment, plus parts, plus labor fees in line with what you've already outlined, per mod, depending on the tech's confidence in their skills and greed. Over the course of four mods, that gives the tech wiggle room to replace the attachment once or twice and still make a profit, and if they one-shot the job? Bonus for them. Yeah, that ends up being expensive. Example: Forearm grip. Base price: 250 credits, mod options: One Innate Talent (Point Blank), One Weapon Quality (Accurate +1). Do it yourself cost: 100 credits (first mod) + 200 credits (second mod) = 300 credits. "Your credits, your risk" cost: 100 (first mod) + 250 (labor for first mod) + 200 (second mod) + 500 (labor for second mod) = 1050 credits. "Guaranteed success" cost: As above, plus 125 credits per mod (half the base cost of the item) = 1300 credits. So possibly a bit steep on the labor costs, but in my experience, having something like an automobile or a firearm worked on *is* expensive. So maybe it's not worth differentiating for a cheap mod like a forearm grip... but use that price scheme on something like an Augmented Spin Barrel and you're looking at a "Guaranteed Success" cost of 2800 credits at two mods, plus the original cost of the attachment. A full four mods becomes 7000 credits. That seems pretty fair to me for a no-risk procedure (for the client; if the mechanic has a string of bad luck, it can still end up costing them more than they make very easily).
  2. PCs shouldn't be able to equal this level of reliability. This level of reliability denotes parts that are customized by the manufacturer under ideal circumstances and with technicians trained to perform this mono-task over and over again. It's the difference between trying to mod out a Galaxy S2 to perform like a Galaxy S5 vs. just paying the increased cost and buying the Galaxy S5 to begin with. That's not Star Wars, though. The Millennium Falcon isn't the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy because Han bought a top of the line custom manufactured starship - it's because of a lot of the "special modifications" he made himself. Boba Fett's armor is the envy of the bounty hunting community because of the various tricks and enhancements he made to the armor, not some guy or droid he shoveled a bunch of credits at. Jedi make their own lightsabers as a rite of passage because that is an act with meaning, even if technically the Jedi Temple Outlet on Coruscant could have manufactured lightsabers integrating the best design features of ten thousand years of refinement (back when they were open for business). If the system suits your gaming table, more power to you and your group, but substituting credits for blood, sweat, and tears (and Mechanics checks) to me undermines the feel of the setting. More, I think it's a lost opportunity to cultivate a relationship with an NPC Outlaw Tech if your own party doesn't have the skillset needed - and that's more hooks for interaction and adventures. The feel of that, likewise, is more characteristic of the setting than cultivating the sales guy for BlasterIkea as a contact.
  3. They're really not. Particularly as they start facing opponents with more dangerous talent and gear loadouts. Honestly if you're only going by the starter set I think you're prematurely judging the potential lethality of the system, though you are right to an extent that it is supposed to be easier to render someone hors de combat than it is to kill them outright. If you adopt this system, rather than splitting crits out (which defeats the purpose - the OP is decrying that it's hard to get 1-hit kills initially), let characters who deal more severe crits draw two (or three, or four) and then decide which one gets inflicted on the target. The WH Swordmaster handles crit severity this way and it can be very lethal.
  4. You are already paying a premium for it. Presumably the manufacturer of said barrel gets sufficient Boost dice from having the perfect equipment and having perfected the process that failures are very rare. They make such a profit (compare how much the DIY cost is vs the price I'm talking) that discarding the few defective pieces barely touches the bottom line. Credits are much easier to come by than guarantees - which in fact do not exist. I wouldn't be wild about a system that lets players bypass even a little bit of the risk in modding out a piece of gear. In addition to marginalizing characters who *do* want to make mechanics and modding gear their schtick, I think it promotes an unhealthy level of min-maxing and interferes with the principle of keeping the party lean. For example, in my current game, somewhere down the road I know I'm going to want to spring the 5500 credits for another strength-boost system for my Gadgeteer's armor, because I flubbed the mod rolls on one of the +1 Brace and one of the +1 Athletics mods. I still have a great, functional set of armor, but I have a long term goal in *perfecting* it. It feels much cheaper to me if I'd had the option of just having two of the mods prebuilt and waiting for a moment when I could pop Destiny and make a Mechanics roll to get the rest. There's a lot less risk involved, and less of a sense of someone constantly tinkering and improving their armor, which is part of why I like the failure to mod penalty even when it frustrates me as well.
  5. How are you planning on handling "failed" mod slots? For example, a player is buying an Augmented Spin Barrel with a preinstalled +1 Damage Mod. Since failure to install a mod renders that "slot" unmoddable in the future, it seems to me a barrel with +1 Damage Mod preinstalled *and* a guarantee that the second +1 Damage Mod slot is untouched/open for further customization should be worth more than a barrel that meets the criteria but has its further moddability circumscribed in some manner.
  6. My character's a Big **** Hero, thank you very much. No force sensitivity required.
  7. Tell that to the kid in the snow with a lightsaber and a concussion grenade in Empire. ;-)
  8. The most obvious one that comes to mind is... get the explosive inside the vehicle. Also remember that when placing explosives, successes = more damage, too. Who cares if the shell is intact if everything inside is pasted along the inside like messy contact paper? This analogy *may* have actually been used in-game. When assassinating a head of state. In her armored car. So one of our members (who's overly fond of glow sticks - the rave kind - and spice) could run off with two slaves she'd purchased. Under the guise of TWI'LEK SOLIDARITY. "Kids these days... I'm getting too old for this."
  9. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's not suddenly easier to pull back a bowstring just because you're firing an arrow of a different type. The mechanisms of how a bow works do not fundamentally change, although if you're firing an arrow that is longer it might be possible to draw the bow back further. The only thing that should change based on the type of arrows you're firing is the damage that is done. Everything else about firing and handling the bow should be the same, regardless of the type of arrow. I'm sorry. I've got a lot of respect for the game developers, and I know that sometimes they do things for game balance or forward compatibility reasons. However, sometimes they simply say or do stupid things. I think you missed the point. When you're using a bow normally, you aren't only concerned with connecting with the target, but also with penetrating power, whereas when you're firing one of those special arrows, all you care about is making contact. That could definitely change how you are handling the bow. That said, I think it's ridiculous to require two separate skills for this as well. If that was the intent, then the simplest way to handle it would be for the "needs penetrating power" arrows to have the Cumbersome quality, reflecting that lack of Brawn will equate to higher difficulty in landing an effective shot, while "damage by contact" arrows would not have that quality. Requiring two different skills is silly. If they didn't want to add a Ranged (Bow) skill, then shots with the thing should default to Ranged (Heavy) since the design of various weapons and attachments always seems to indicate that Ranged (Heavy) is used for a weapon requiring two hands to fire and Ranged (Light) is used with one-handed weapons. I expect this to crop up again when we see crossbows. :-P
  10. I've seen a fair number of posts lately suggesting that winning initiative is providing a disproportionate advantage in combat at many tables. This idea has also been percolating in my head since one of our players joked that the main benefit of a good initiative roll from him was to allow me or our Hired Gun the first action, and another lamented that his roll of once success, six advantage essentially did nothing for him since PCs win ties anyways. To an extent shooting first *is* the best form of defense, but I'm also wondering if people have considered allowing boons and setbacks on initiative rolls to spent as normal for combat resolution; for example, allowing a Vigilance/Cool roll of three successes, two advantage to not only tally as their initiative result but also allow the character to take a free maneuver before combat begins. Or similarly, using threat to give boost dice to the opposing side - but to less threatening characters, to both encourage the party to shake up the "optimal" initiative order and reflect that the party generating threat may be focusing on the fellows in battle armor up front, giving the less obvious threats on the other side an advantage in taking them off-guard. Essentially initiative would include a "pre-combat round" of maneuvering and jockeying for position right before the blaster bolts start flying. I think the benefits of a system like this would be two-fold. First, it would provide some "ownership" of the initiative roll since it would affect your starting situation in combat even if another party member uses the actual slot you generated for another purpose. Second, it adds an element of uncertainty and could help groups from the "You turn around the corner, combat starts, roll initiative," school of gaming play around with more dynamic setups and springboard ideas for more engaging combat situations than simply determining who opens up first and proceeding straight to, "First one to die, loses!" On a related note, I'm also leaning towards arguing at our table that Discipline should be a valid Initiative skill/roll for organized groups of minions. My understanding in actual combat squads is that speed of reaction is just as dependent on everyone watching the area they're supposed to, notifying their comrades, and reacting without hesitation in a crisis as it is on actual observational skills. Thoughts?
  11. Honestly it sounds to me like part of the problem is in player responsibility and hyperspecialization. Racing to completely capping out combat skills and then complaining that they work as intended is a problem I see a lot with either younger gamers or those coming into the hobby from video games. There's a lot of enjoyment to be had pacing the development of a character, and personally I strive to build well-rounded characters as well, which also mitigates the hyperspecialization problem. Example: My group's coming up on the 300XP mark - actually, we should pass it tonight. Sure, I could easily have my primary combat skill at 5 by now (and I think we may have 1-2 people who've done that). But to me, that makes no sense for a bounty hunter. How does he catch his prey and maintain his gear? How does he cut his own deals with the underworld? Being beholden to other party members to *always* be available for those tasks breaks immersion for me, so I tend to roll with working on the whole package being solid. Sure, I can't generate the combat totals the Hired Gun can - but I stay alive in combat a lot better than he does by playings smart and not engaging until I've already won, and I have the supporting skills to do that. It's also pretty rewarding to be able to participate in the game no matter where the session goes. It's a shared responsibility thing. I'm already doing things like planning how to reach Dedication in the Survivalist tree *without* taking Enduring, and forgoing integrating Superior customization into my battle armor, because I'm already the party tank at Soak 7. Modest by many campaigns' standards, but I've no interest in pushing an arms race between my fellow players, my GM, and myself to the point where support weapons need to be involved to threaten my character (and one-shot my allies). My GM's side of it is to make sure that every once in a while, people need to make rolls that are off-specialization. He doesn't do this often or in a contrived enough fashion to make people feel like they're being cut out of their jobs, but it does happen often enough that it's noticeable when people are throwing nothing but green dice at a task or when they've invested in a rank or two in their supporting skills. He makes it clear people are making a trade-off, and by and large it keeps everyone from feeling that they're stagnating or plateauing, while also allowing the specialists to excel often enough yet still feel their gaps.
  12. I find it really interesting that so many people are invested in making slugthrowers more effective. They're not supposed to be competitive with blasters except in certain niche roles, like sniping. They're already incredibly cheap, easy to get ahold of, and reasonably lethal. IIRC some of the early Star Wars material (might have been from WEG) extrapolated that the Rebel Alliance didn't use slugthrowers unless they had to due to the difficulty in supplying and carrying the ammo (easier to trace, and much heavier per round than blaster power cells) and because Stormtrooper armor rendered them almost worthless without difficult-to-obtain specialty rounds. If anything I'd house rule that any kind of hardshell armor (laminate and above) gets double its soak value against slugs. Yes, that would put the typical Stormtrooper at soak 7 versus slugthrowers. The weapons should be fine against low-tech opponents (modern body armor probably qualifies as padded, tops) but obsolete on the galactic scale for a reason.
  13. You answered your own question here, btw. The skilled shooter has the talent - that's part of what makes them skilled.
  14. While I can't speak for Doc, I kind of agree with him on this one. Two ranks of Medicine - eh, it's nice, but that level of specialization is really only an advantage at very low XP levels in my opinion, and skill overlap between Career and Specialization is a double edged sword, since it also restricts the number of unique skills that are considered Career skills for advancement. Your second and third points look more like a wash to me. Doctors can get three ranks in Surgeon and get those ranks more accessibly due to the tree structure than Medics can pick up their two. I think at best you can make a case that if party healing mostly consists of burning through stimpacks, Medics might have an edge. For situations where supplies are more restricted such that you can't spend 25-50 credits every time someone gets hurt, Doctors have the edge. Your last item I think is your most valid point. It's Not That Bad looks like a pretty awesome talent. Now, what does the Doctor get that the Medic doesn't? The entire suite of social skills as career skills right off the bat. At least in the circles I game with, these are harder to come by than combat skills, and having a full arsenal of social skills is, I think, more valuable than having four different weapon skills. Those weapon skills lend a certain versatility, of course, but I see plenty of characters do well just focusing on one, whereas a competent face character needs a broad range of social skills or they risk being very vulnerable to shifting situations. There's a less defined advantage that may or may not come up at the gaming table, and that's also the matter of prestige and licensure. Presumably, just like Bounty Hunters have IPKCs, Doctors have an MD. If you're curious as to what difference that makes, walk into almost any setting - from a legitimate medical emergency to a cocktail party to even buying a camera or a car - and announce that you're a doctor versus an EMT. People will treat you differently. Edit: Safety disclaimer. Don't really do that in a medical emergency. It's not only illegal unless you're an MD, it's also immoral if you don't actually have a clue what you're doing.
  15. I think Marshal makes a lot more sense for colonist than a sector ranger since a Marshal could focus on one colony while a sector ranger has a much broader area of responsibility. Agreed. I'm still hoping to see Sector Ranger in the Bounty Hunter book. To me, the difference in careers is like the difference between a Sheriff and a Texas Ranger in most Old West settings. Sure, technically they're both lawmen, but a Sheriff tends to a community and thus interfacing with that community to keep the peace is pretty important. Texas Rangers are borderline manhunters anyways, and the "One riot, one Ranger," philosophy fits the self-sufficient/jack of all trades aspect that Bounty Hunters have.
  • Create New...