Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jasonco2

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Flagstaff, Arizona, United States
  1. I stand corrected! Thanks everyone. I hadn't seen this in the FAQ. In my defense, the books aren't very clear. "Ignore soak", at least at my table, has always mean ignore that much soak (not reduce)! EDIT: I'll add that letting it "ignore" soak (or armor at a rate of 1 Armor = 10 Soak) has allowed my table to represent some of the cool thinks you see in the movie. A door or walker with 2+ armor can still be cut with a light saber if you can do enough damage to it. Likewise a slugthrower with pierce can slowly pick away at an armored foe. It's worked for us!
  2. This is incorrect. Pierce and Breach DO ignore soak (not reduce it). A 3 damage attack with 1 pierce against a soak of 20 (or Armor 2) still does 1 point of wound damage.
  3. Yeah I just don't see it. I mean, I can "see" it in my head, but I just can't see that aligning with the mechanics presented elsewhere in the game. The most individual enemies any character (to my knowledge) can hit in one "attack" is two (the Gunslinger), and that's with two weapons and high exp talents. So why is it that any average joe can pick up an uzi and drop 2 guys on opposite sides of the room? The only other mechanic that allows you to hit that many targets so easily is Blast, and that is limited to engaged enemies. Thus, that's where I set my limits on Autofire.
  4. My houserule has been to simply treat it like Blast, it can only hit targets engaged with the first. My issue with Autofire has always been that a character could 360 degree spin and wipe a whole room. If they want to clear a hallway or pour fire into a baddie, I'm cool with it. They just can't delete the whole encounter (that's what signature abilities are for!).
  5. Other obviously handy use over two attacks with Improved PS is Winded + Hamstring, turning off all maneuvers for the enemy. It's easy to catch a running Bounty when they can't move!
  6. My group and I all agree that auto-fire is broken; yet my Heavy player (who has avoided jury-rigged so far) has just recently decided that he want to pick up the Gunner spec. for the True Aim. At which point I asked, "Are you planing on using jury-rigged with your gun?" and he was all, "Well it's there, so why not?". At which point I informed him that if he wished to go down that path, then I would need to as well for their enemies (I'm the GM). He just shrugged. It's already a struggle sometimes to create dramatic scenarios that don't seem "unfair" against him without him just killing every enemy in sight. Yet here the player is, forcing my hand... Some people just like poking bears I guess, haha.
  7. This. Unlike many other games, players can freely shuffle their order in the initiative. If you're worried about that guy with the vibroaxe, than go before him and do something about it.
  8. A Session should always be made up of multiple encounters. Thus, if an encounter that involved combat has ended, a new check should be allowed. I know for me, an encounter is "over" when the situation has resolved. Sometimes that's one combat, sometimes that's multiple combats that are all connected. It all comes down to context.
  9. Let me just stop you right there. This whole prejudiced attitude against non-force users and their ability to wield a lightsaber really needs to stop. You've got a great question on your hands, why muddy it up with this nonsense? We now have multiple examples in the canon of characters who fight using a lightsaber despite not having the force (or having any understanding of the Force even if they do have it). Han, Leia, Finn, Vizla, Grievous... even Cassie Cryar were all were able to fight with a lightsaber. At the end of the day, the ones with natural aptitude and training fared the best; same as any other weapon.
  10. I'm with Syrath on this one, actually. The Stunning Blow talent already lets a character "subdue" NPCs non-lethally with lethal melee weapons via Strain damage. Likewise the same can be said for most brawl weapons anyway. "Precision Strike", to me, is that character that knows how to shoot a guy in the leg without kill him, or toss a grenade just high enough that it shell-shocks his foes instead of killing them. Does it make sense? Not really. But that's what makes it heroic, right? You'll also notice that similarly worded talents like Deft Maker ("In Addition") are used to separate two different parts of a talent. In the case of Deft Maker, it denotes one part of the talent that benefits from multiple ranks, and another that doesn't. I would likewise think that the use of "additionally" in Precision Strike denotes that the talent provide two separate benefits.
  11. Personally I'd treat "Limited Ammo 3" grenades as being rechargeable like guns; a small charge of energy that doesn't destroy itself when used, but must be reset (reloaded) after every detonation up to the amount of charges it can carry at a time (in this case three). So you get a grenade that you only have to buy once, can use three times in combat (assuming you retrieve and reset it each time), and then must recharge in your downtime. Perhaps it works kinda like a small disco-ball of death? Spewing blaster bolts in every direction?
  12. Fair enough. :-) I just always like to get some extra feedback! Thanks everyone!
  13. Well the character in question is the lone non-force user of the party, and she wants to use tech to level the playing field. In this case, the player's been using an energy buckler with that electrical attachment (which bumps the encumbrance up to 3). He'd like to integrate the shield into an arm so he is never without a weapon/protection, and is willing to spend his ranks in jury-rig to "make them look like fists" (like Vi in League of Legends). I'm tempted to work with him, because I like the idea. Perhaps I just rule that in-built weapons don't take up any encumbrance while deactivated, but attachments do? The extra weight of the gear weighing down the hands a bit more?
  14. Just wanted to get some thoughts on allowing players to add attachments to the weapons they've "in-built" to tools and cybernetics using the crafting system. Anyone had a problems with this? What if the attachment in question would bump the weapon over the original 2 encumbrance required for "in-built weapon"? Should you include the encumbrance of the weapon at all times? EX: Does a cyber-arm with a blaster in it always count as 2 encumbrance? Just when in use? At all? These are the questions that vex me, and I'd love to get your thoughts!
  15. Just embrace the lekku man. :-P My players have an entire crew (30 some odd npcs) that are twi'leks, haha. Just brush up on your french accent and you'll be good to go! ;-) Or just go with a Togruta, Mirialan, or Pantoran?
  • Create New...