Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bren_Waynero

  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.
  16. While we don’t need another opinion here, I just can’t help myself. We can all agree that: Wounds = Damage – Soak (to a minimum of 0 wounds) So the question is, should Soak be reduced by Pierce giving us: Wounds = Damage - (Soak - Pierce) which shows if you don’t do enough damage even with pierce you may inflict 0 wounds. Or should Soak be ignored by the Pierce value giving us: Wounds = (Damage - Soak) + Pierce where (Damage - Soak) can only go down to the minimum of 0… which will always do at least Pierce value in wounds. The problem usually arises with melee weapons, as the non-melee weapons usually do enough damage that either option yields the same result. Some examples… Heavy Repeating Blaster vs Soak 8 (Brawn 4, Padded armor, Enduring x2). With two success. Option 1 we get 15 + 2 - (8 - 2) = 11 wounds. Option 2 we get (15 + 2 - 8) + 2 = 11 wounds. Armor Piercing Grenade (AoR beta) vs Soak 8. With the same two success. Option 1 we get 16 + 2 - (8 - 3) = 13 wounds. Option 2 we get (16 + 2 - 8) + 3 = 13 wounds. Now a Vibro-ax with Brawn 4 vs Soak 8. We did real well and got 4 success. Option 1: 4 (Br) + 3 (ax) + 4 - (8 - 2) = 5 wounds. Option 2: (4 + 3 + 4 - 8) + 2 = 5 wounds. Still no problem with either option since we are still dealing enough damage. Vibroknife wielded by the Brawn 1 doctor vs that big Soak 8 rival. Only 1 success. A hit! Option 1: 1 + 1 + 1 - (8 - 2) = minimum 0 wounds. Option 2: (1 + 1 + 1 - 8) [minimum of 0] + 2 = 2 wounds. In my games, I will probably use Option 2. My thinking is that if hit with a Piercing melee weapon, regardless of the toughness of the target, the wounds will occur. IMO, a character that is tough enough to go without armor (replace the padded armor with additional 2 ranks of Enduring) that gets hit by a vibroknife should suffer the wounds. I know… “But what about the trooper in full laminate armor?” I would still say take the wounds, the hit found the ***** in the armor. “Totally encased in an unbreakably sealed suit!” Then there should have been enough difficulty and setback dice to keep from finding that “unknown” weakness. So what about Crits? Can you Crit with that Vibroknife example? No. “A Critical Injury can only be triggered on a successful hit that deals damage that exceeds the target’s soak value.” The total damage was still just 3 in the example, so the hit still does the 2 wounds, but as the damage did not exceed the Soak value, no Crit is possible. Regarding Breach… Personally, I would again use Option 2, provided the weapon was truly equipped with the right ammo... a missile tube purchased with anti-vehicle missiles vs anti-personnel ammunition (say a fragmentation round). If the attack was made directly against a vehicle using the right weapon for the job, the breach quality should mean something, even coming from a personal scale weapon. So the missile tube can consistently do 1 hull trauma. If the vehicle decides not to go after the attackers, or deploy troops to do so, it will get what it deserves. Same with those nice Jedi glow sticks, 1 point of trauma per attack. How about those AoR beta Anti-Vehicle Mines with a Breach of 4. In the description they are “designed to destroy walkers, speeders, and other land-borne vehicles.” With personal scale damage base of 25, let’s set one for that approaching AT-AT. With 5 success, we hit the 30 damage mark (3 vehicle scale). Against the walker’s armor of 6… Option 1: 3 - (6 - 4) = 1 Trauma. Option 2: (3 - 6) [minimum 0] + 4 = 4 Trauma. A weapon designed to destroy vehicles… without the 5+ success, Option 1 would do 0 Trauma. Option 2 still does 4 Trauma. Once again, if the Walker keeps plodding on through the minefield without stopping to reassess the battlefield… that commander better hope he dies in battle today. And the Crit rule would still be true here. Without the 5+ success, there won’t be a critical hit. Anyway… that’s my two cents. Since I’m in with the minority opinion, I expect to see my views proven wrong with Sam’s response. Which will also be okay. Option one is not bad. I just feel Option two better represents reality… which we all know doesn’t always belong in a game. And as the GM… I can bend the rules to fit my game regardless of RAW.
  17. Since I wasn't the one able to get it to work, hopefully we could get Sketchpad to give it a go. I will try to find a converter myself, but no promises. Good catch. And it appears that while I had fixed the skill tab to add Discipline when Insight was selected, I forgot to remove the additional benefit from Vigilance. Guess I failed my Vigilance check originally, thanks for the boost die. This will be fixed in the next update. Your right... my original thought of changing quantities would also require a constant change in credits acquired. So a quantity used column sounds like an excellent idea. Cost override... also a good idea, rather than needing to make credit changes on the description tab. I could add a column for that, or just change the looted column to it... looted = cost of 0 anyway. The only downside I foresee right now with my idea for formulating it is if you have already purchased some of an item at one price, and were buying more at a different price, you would need to put the new items on a separate line, otherwise the price override would change the original price as well... unless I also add additional columns for quantities with the price override... But you already have an idea for fixing that as well. I have some additional ideas as well thanks to your post. I do know that the credits obtained column on the description tab currently does accept negative values to reflect spending. I will work on these ideas and see if we can get a better tracking system in place. Thanks for the help.
  18. What I like to do is leave it up to the creativity of the players. If they want to try making primitive weapons based on Survival, great. I would use whatever base difficulty I decided on. The Engineer wants to use his Mechanics skill, because he knows how to build and fix things, go ahead, but I'm going to hit you with a setback die as well, since this isn't your usual shop environment. "But I grew up on the streets and had to get by with whatever I could find." Okay, I'll let you add a boost die. What about Athletics? I could help set the traps by lifting a heavier counterbalance. Okay, I'll let you assist. Add a boost die to the primary builder. Stealth could add to the effectiveness of a hidden trap... boost die. Knowledge... Xenology could find a poison to dip an arrow into. Education covers all kinds of stuff, you could have studied primitive cultures and know something about making weapons. If the players are creative enough in how they can contribute, I can add boost or setback dice accordingly. If the education could be used as a primary, I might add or upgrade my base difficulty due to lack of experience 'in the field'. The system allows so much creativity and imagination, and so many possibilities based on the outcome of a roll of the dice. If a player can think outside the box... reward them. The trick is, they have to tell me why it should work. "Can I use my Melee skill?" "Why?" "Because it's my best skill?" "Don't think so." or "Because I know about melee weapons, how a pointy stick might be more effective against an armored opponent than say a simple stick hitting him." "Sure... here's the difficulty, upgraded for your lack of experience building the weapons you use, and some setback dice for not having proper tools to sharpen your stick." Just some of my thoughts. Happy gaming!
  19. At this time, no there isn't. I do want to set things up at some point with options of what material to include. EotE, AoR, the GSA's USM, FaD (eventually), etc... But that probably won't happen for awhile. Sorry. Until then, at least the AoR selections is (for the most part) nearer the bottom of the drop down lists, or in the case of Duty has it's own tab. For instance, the species selection shows the EotE choices at the top, followed by the AoR additions, then the USM. Same with the Careers, Motivations, and Force Powers. The new Skill and any additional gear/equipment however are blended in with everything else, to maintain the alphabetical listings.
  20. If you're getting the 'Your selection is either not a career skill, or you already have four career skills chosen' pop up... This has been an issue from the beginning. The work around is to not hit enter, tab, or arrowing away after marking your last choice, but rather mouse click away to another box. If this doesn't work, you may have a 'space' in one of the boxes... a 'space' counts as a mark. If you need to remove a choice, it needs to be deleted, not just overwritten with a space. Someday maybe I'll figure out a better way to limit selections, but I need the limitations in there to keep PC's legal... so to speak.
  21. Now with Age of Rebellion Beta possibilities Version 1.05 is up... SWEotE CharSheet 1.05.xlsx Please keep an eye out for the ever present errors. And be aware, I will be updating the layout of the sheets in time. Especially page 2, I made a quick change so that I could get it out this weekend. It works as is, but I know I can do better when I have more time. I will continue to work on it as I get input from you, and as the beta test moves forward and changes are made. I will try to check this post for feedback, but the primary post in the EotE forums will be checked more often.
  22. Here we go... Version 1.05 is up... SWEotE CharSheet 1.05.xlsx Now with Age of Rebellion Beta possibilities. Newest fixes and additions - Added Species from the AoR Beta, and removed them from the Unofficial Species Menagerie listings. Added new Careers and Specializations from AoR Beta. This includes skill selections for each, and talent trees. Added Galactic Civil War (Int) to the skills page and the character sheet. No longer have "other" option under Knowledge skills. Added Force Powers from AoR Beta. Added new Motivations from AoR. Moved Motivations from Obligation-Career tab to it's own tab. Also added dropdown to select type of motivation to limit the specific motivations list to only include appropriate choices. Added new gear/equipment from AoR Beta. Added Duty mechanic from AoR to it's own tab. Changed layout of Char Sheet(s)... Pg 1 now has difficulty sections under the critical injury section to help coordinate injuries by severity. Pg 2 had Duty added, lost multiple lines of Talents/SA's. Pg 3 is now only Talents/SA's. Added pg 4 for a few more talents plus Force Powers. (NOTE: There will be more layout changes, but for now I wanted to get something out there) Fixed 'Custom' Species option to list skills in bonus selection dropdown. On Armor & Weapons tab, changed label for weapons from 'Equipped' to 'Carried'... only weapons with a quantity and being carried (choose 'Yes' or 'Built In') will be displayed on the character sheet. Fixed Encumbrance of weapons to only count what is carried. Please keep an eye out for the ever present errors. And be aware, I will be updating the layout of the sheets in time. Especially page 2, I made a quick change so that I could get it out this weekend. It works as is, but I know I can do better when I have more time. I will continue to work on it as I get input from you, and as the beta test moves forward and changes are made. So... happy gaming!
  23. Did I miss something somewhere? It's quite possible, but I thought the difficulty increases by one for each additional mod, not upgrades by one. So the second mod has a daunting difficulty [^^^^], the third would be formidable [^^^^^], and may the Force be with you if you attempted a rare fourth mod... [^^^^^^] Six difficulty dice! Can someone else chime in with the clarification.
  24. Bren, any chance that there's a map for The Wheel in it? There is a partial map displaying part of the hanger deck. But that's all for mapping of the wheel. Good descriptions of various areas though. Along with some brief info on the store owners, and various other NPC's to be found there.
  25. I like that. I may indeed try adding something like that to the layout.
  • Create New...