• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bren_Waynero

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States
  1. My guess is they made it up based on old sources... WEG had a lot of good material back in the day.
  2. As a stand alone product, I agree it should be moved up. However, as the third in the trilogy of products, knowing to turn to the back (chapter VIII in all three) didn't bother me.
  3. I don't remember there being any official starship sheets with the beta. There was a fan made one done by Aazlain, but in checking it looks as though that old link is dead. And I don't see any but the current layout in my own files. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
  4. Found It. Here's a link... Starship Management
  5. There was a sheet, I believe made by Darian Ocana, that I found quite useful for starship management. It has some info for fuel usage, docking fees, provisions, and maintenance. It had some suggestions on how to implement dice roll results to adjust prices. I looked around a bit here and found some of the posts for it, but the links to the sheet appear to be dead. Not sure if anyone else has an existing link to a copy. I will see if I can find my copy and make it available.
  6. The AoR Beta book did not contain the info. However, during the beta testing the info was added into the beta updates. Though I can't say for certain how much it changed from those updates to the final product.
  7. I'd say it's situational. Destroying the battle droid that is attacking/killing people wouldn't be conflict worthy. Eliminating the protocol droid so the party's droid can "fill in" as a means to gain access to information... maybe a little conflict. Vaporizing the labor droid because you simply don't like it... a bit more conflict. Dispatching the power droids that supply energy to a small community because you're trying to drive those sniveling meat bags off their land so you can take it over... definitely handing out some conflict there.
  8. What if someone crafted their lightsaber, believing they had crafted an perfect extension for themselves. Later, they find that it could have been better. Hence the need to adjust the original design with a better balanced hilt? It would be impressive to get it right the first time, but everyone, Jedi included, can learn from experience and mistakes.
  9. Or have the NPC roll a Deception check using the best Knowledge (Core Worlds) of the PC's as the difficulty. If he fails, the PC gets the feeling something is off. With enough threat they could catch a bit of a Corulag accent. If he succeeds on the check, they're none the wiser. With advantage, he could have some quality tales from the outer rim to give his deception even more validity.
  10. There are a few melee weapon attachments from the existing materials that one could argue could be used on lightsabers. The ones that feel most acceptable would be the Balanced Hilt (Core books) and Gene Lock (Dangerous Covenants). One could argue that a Weighted Head could come into play on a lightsaber pike as increasing the momentum of the swing, although not until the pike had a HP added through Tinkerer or Intuitive Improvements. It doesn’t quite feel right though as the pike’s damage seems more the result of the blade than any bludgeoning damage. The Mono-Molecular and Serrated Edge are out, I can’t see justifying changes to an energy blade. Superior weapon doesn’t matter as the superior hilt does the same thing. Going the other way, lightsaber crystals clearly can’t be used on normal melee weapons. Likewise the Dual-Phase modification and Training emitter shouldn’t work. However, the Curved and Extended hilt could work on the same bladed weapons as a Balanced hilt does. The base benefit of the curved hilt wouldn’t be of much use as it generates an advantage to successful Lightsaber checks (although the Ancient Sword does use the Lightsaber skill). And for the extended hilt, personally, I would rule that to gain the benefit a character would need to be wielding the weapon with both hands. How would you handle player requests for any of these possibilities?
  11. Every tree other than this one has a clear 4x4 layout below the basic power, some with double or triple wide upgrades. Visually, this tree bothers me. I like crisp and clean layouts. One solution would be to move the Magnitude upgrade at the bottom of column three between the Magnitude and Control of column two and spread the control out to be a double wide in row four and the Mastery also to be a double wide accessible by both columns three and four. Or another possibility would be to add an additional upgrade between the magnitude and control in column two and do the control spread in row four. However, adding upgrades shouldn't be taken lightly. An additional Range upgrade would lead to extreme range healing... personally that seems a bit much. Magnitude would allow up to six people getting healed, not too bad or overbalanced, as most groups tend to be four to six PC's anyway. Strength would add one additional point of healing/harming per check... also doesn't feel too bad. There are no Duration upgrades, and that seems to be a good idea, it's a single round effect that acts like a stimpack usage. Control upgrades are unique and I don't even want to try coming up with something like that. Anyway, the layout and design has always been top notch in the books. This is just something that sticks out to me as being off.
  12. Under the Lightsaber attachments, the Ilum crystal lists Hard Point requirements as 1. Every other crystal/gem is 2, and the description of the basic lightsaber(s) say the Ilum crystal fills two HPs. Also... For many it is enough to only have the used HP's of the basic versions mentioned in the description. But there are some who may only look at the chart and fail to read the description in it's entirety. So should the table be adjusted to indicate some HP's are in use? Or maybe just reduce the HPs by 2 and make a note that every saber hilt has room for a single, as yet unmodified, crystal?
  13. If you introduce Morality into an existing game, or include it into a new campaign based on EotE or AoR, would you allow the starting Morality bonuses to be included? Give the existing game's PCs a +10 XP bump? Find a credit chip with 2500 credits? The +/- 20 Morality? For the new campaign, would you allow both a bump from the Obligation/Duty mechanic and a Morality bump? Possibly doubling up on the XP, lots of extra credits, or restricting a combo so that you could only take the +/- 20 Morality in conjunction with an XP/credit boost? Opinions?
  14. When you are writing that the ammount of damage dealt must exceed the armor rating to score a critical hit, but pierce nevertheless goes through all armor, it a) twists the rules even mire and b) still isn't solving in any way thr apparent problem of high soak, because such a character would not really care about 1-2 pierce damage, if this wouln't trigger a Critical Injury. , because such a character probbaly will also have quite some wound threshold. Regarding the critical hit info... a) I'm not twisting any rules. Straight from the book, page 158 for personal weapons... "A Critical Injury can only be triggered on a successful hit that deals damage that exceeds the target's soak value." And page 243 for vehicle scale... "Remember, an attack's damage also has to exceed a target's armor to deal a Critical Hit, which is important when firing small arms at something using armor instead of soak." And b)... You're right. I am not trying to solve a high soak problem with critical injuries. I am only responding with my view on Pierce/Breach vs Soak/Armor. If a high soak character/vehicle wants to ignore the guy slowly wounding him with successful hits that are only able to do a minimal amount of wounds via Pierce/Breach since he can't exceed the Soak/Armor value, fine. After a few rounds of 1-2 (or more) points at a time, he will take notice and have to deal with the little guy. For me, that's enough to solve a high soak/armor issue. I don't need to crit. The "Death by 1000 cuts" will do just fine.
  15. Or Qui-Gon melting a blast door... the Force could have been assisting with that, but in time, the lightsaber alone would eventually put a hole through the armor. Still my opinion... the small amount of damage inflicted by the personal scale weapons (designed to damage vehicles thanks to breach) against the hull threshold of the larger vehicles fits. One lightsaber attacking the AT-AT, at 1 damage per successful hit... will take 40 rounds to disable/destroy the walker. And remember, that will never trigger a critical hit. To trigger the crit the amount of damage dealt must exceed the armor. 1 point (2 for a missile tube) getting through thanks to breach, will not exceed the 6 armor of the AT-AT. The extra successes are added to base damage, not wounds/hull trauma inflicted. Also, I admit after reading these posts (and those @ the d20radio forums) I need to adjust my option 2 formula... Wounds = (Damage - Soak) [minimum of 0] + Pierce/Breach [maximum of Damage] because no mater how much pierce/breach a weapon has, it can't do more damage than what was rolled.