Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About devinebovine

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If the players are using the stars and night sky to navigate, then I think they absolutely should use Astrogation. Reading the weather, catching fish, noticing a change of current that indicates a shallow bank, those all would fall under Survival. I interpret the Navigator's "Studious Plotting" talent as relating to navigating land environments - urban, wilderness, etc.
  2. Thank you for this great resource! Not all of my players have access to OggDude's program, and I'm the only one with all the books to boot. I think this will be extremely useful for them finding interesting gear that isn't just guns and armor!
  3. I GM one online game, and am a player in another. This app has become the roller app of choice in both games. Well done!
  4. What would people think about using Deception in place of a character's attack skill? I'm just musing here, so I haven't thought it all through. But what I'm imagining is a character with some kind of Melee weapon who attempts some kind of ridiculous flourish in order to distract and disorient their foe. Rather than attack with Brawn + Melee, maybe they attack with Brawn + Deception, but you don't add successes to the damage? I realize that this could make non-combat specializations become decidedly more "combaty", but it's something I think I'll mull over for a while.
  5. Unfortunately all my games are online, otherwise I'd totally take you up on the offer! I really like the sliding door you've come up with. Good luck!
  6. I'm not sure how I'm only JUST discovering this thread, but I'm sure glad I finally have! I like that these sheets have the same layout as the "official" ones, but I also appreciate that yours have their own look while not breaking too far away. Thank you for all your work!
  7. Thank you for all the work you've put into this app! I'll be giving it a try tonight for my online game.
  8. Before you consider whether to give out Conflict or not, I think you should discuss with your players why they want disruptor weaponry. Not only will that help inform your response, but it should help your players understand their own characters better as well. The question isn't so much as whether a tool or weapon is inherently Conflict-worthy, but rather how and why that tool is used. However, as many of the comments above me have said, there's a noticeable difference between blasters and disruptors. While a blaster is meant to simply disable or kill an opponent, disruptors do that incredibly painfully. If there are no other options and one is in a tight spot, then it is what it is. But if a PC is standing in an arms shop and has the choice between blaster or disruptor weaponry, asking them why they specifically want to cause an immense amount of horrific pain over and above what is considered "normal" would be revealing, especially as it relates to their Morality. For example, if a PC's Morality is Justice/Cruelty, then it seems to me every deliberate usage of a disruptor over any other less-horrible weapon plays into that. I can also see this playing into Compassion/Hatred. If the PC doesn't just want to catch the bad guy, but make them pay, then their usage of a disruptor is telling, and should absolutely generate Conflict. Please note: I'm not saying that using or choosing disruptor weaponry automatically makes one cruel and torturous. But I do think that these are exceptional weapons, and deserve a little extra consideration. When a PC makes the choice to use one, I think that you as the GM should make it clear how horrible the results are. It's the difference between squashing a bug and pulling its legs off one by one. Sometimes that's the only way to kill it. Sometimes ... you really didn't need to do that.
  9. My group used this last night (apparently before you added the ability to make comments) and LOVED IT. Thank you so very much!
  10. This is amazing. Thank you so much. I'm a player in a game tomorrow (Thursday), and I'll try to get the group to use this. Next week I'm running a game, which means I'll make the group use this
  11. I don't have my rulebook handy, but I don't think the description of pilot actions implies that while acceleration is taking place a ship is motionless. Acceleration is movement. Those two rounds of accelerating to speed 2 are spent speeding up in a direction. I've just thought of it as going straight and speeding up. Otherwise the pilot can use their action to maneuver into a certain position.
  12. This is a question for everyone else in the thread: how do you organize your custom datasets? Until recently I had just one (which I keep backed-up) with all the info I've entered from the books, but I just started a new one for a campaign which has a couple custom skills and the like. I'm always seeking better ways to stay organized (in games and in life!) and it occurred to me that folks in this thread would probably have useful tips and tricks!
  13. I second the CSV export. You've got enough design and coding on your hand - let some of us work on making the data pretty
  14. What would be a reasonable encumbrance for a chandelier? Basically, I need to know how many I could fit into a backpack. Asking for a friend.
  15. The text seems pretty clear to me. Per EotE pg 210, "To make the attack, he performs a combined check." The procedure for assembling the dice pool continues to refer to this as a check. All attacks are some form of skill check. The result of of the skill check determines how many hits. Furthermore, since the attack is a skill check, that means there is only one target. The end of the second paragraph says, "Finally, he determines his target." This is completely unambiguous. The final paragraph in the Two-Weapon Combat section begins, "If he succeeds, he hits with his primary weapon as normal. He may also spend AD AD or TR to hit with his secondary weapon as well." There's no assuming about what the terminology means. You make a single check as described. Success means you hit with the weapon you declared is primary. Then you can spend advantage/triumph to cause your secondary weapon to hit. Net successes increase damage for both hits. Two-weapon combat, with no fanciness added, is against one single target. There is literally no reason to think otherwise. And that is where Spitfire's functionality comes in. You follow the same procedure I said above, but with the following added to it: "You may allocate the hit from your secondary weapon to any target within range." So if you succeed your combat check, and have enough advantage and triumph to activate a second hit, you can deal damage to two targets. If you modified the initial check to activate autofire, and/or you have linked, then each additional hit can therefore be applied to an additional target. I understand perfectly well how dual-wielding works. The discussion is, again, Spitfire, which is oddly written and why people are confused. Except it's not as long as one consistently uses the language and terms the books use. Like how it's two-weapon combat, not dual-wielding. "Additional hits" does not mean "this talent gives you extra hits". Confusions arise when folks start inconsistently using language from other game systems. Maybe the rulebooks should come with a dictionary?
  • Create New...