Jump to content

OB-1

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OB-1

  1. So, Coming from someone who is currently playing Bayushi Kyo (4 Composure; 8 Endurance), and had not a long exposure to the "game as played" yet, what do you think of this simple fix: In Question 3: Character's Role (CR p. 56), make the following change: Bushi: -2 Composure; +2 Endurance; Courtiers: +2 Composure; - 2 Endurance; Artisans: +2 Composure; - 2 Endurance(?); Shugenja: +1 Composure; - 1 Endurance(?); Monks: -1 Composure; +1 Endurance(?); Shinobi: +1 Composure; - 1 Endurance. I really don't know if this proposed solution solves your problem, or if there is a problem to begin with. Not convinced in either case, yet, I think it depends on the consequences of unmasking, but I was reading this thread and thought to put it out there.
  2. I received an email yesterday from Leisure Games confirming shipment to Portugal.
  3. I don't agree that by allowing to heal strain with medicical care (p. 219 rulebook) you make the "inspiring rethoric" talent (p. 137) useless. The prime reason being that medical care can only be attempted once for encounter, whereas there is no such limit on "inspiring rethoric". Furthermore, as the arguments presented in this thread have shown, I believe it makes sense allowing medical treatement to a strained character, even with no wounds sustained, justifying an Easy, or even Simple medecine check in that situation. In any case, its your game, do what works best for you. I don't think the system will break either way, it's that flexible to begin with.
  4. There are more uses to maps in adventures than for grid tactical play. I have been using maps in adventures for years, since the 80's, in such games like DragonQuest, RedBox DnD, AD&D 1st and 2nd Edition, Call of Cthullu, Warhammer FRP, Pendragon, WEG StarWars, and many others, almost all played without tactical grids. A mark of an excellent adventure is also the quality of player handouts. Amongst them, maps. This is one of the reasons "The Enemy Within" for WFRP 1st edition or the "Masks of Nyarlathotep" for Call of Cthullu are still considered today hallmarks of adventure design.
  5. Good question this is. I suppose imaginative you may have to be. Just describe it to the players as a dead-end into a sunken cavern?
  6. Maybe because he is just better at reacting to a situation (Vigilance) than at executing a dangerous plan (Cool).
  7. What do you think of the adventure's quality and playability? There's any stuff you particularly like or dislike? I am still eagerly waiting for my copy while it makes its voyage across the atlantic ocean, from Florida to Portugal, and would't mind some spoilers... as I have much hope in running this adventure with my crew.
  8. maybe you can find something related to what you are looking for here: http://christopherburdett.blogspot.pt/2013/09/star-wars-edge-of-empire-beyond-rim.html
  9. I have a very bad feeling about this...
  10. +1 I also wish FFG could adress this issue better in AoR, if not before in Enter the Unknown. I still stuggle with sensor rules applications and lack of examples on EotE; and I don't understand why Perception is used instead of Computers - I would think that Perception should be used to spot objects within visual range, whereas using sensors (long range or deep scan) would imply some tech aptitude, as it is done handling technology (Computer use)...
  11. Thanks for sharing your most excellent work. I believe it goes a long way to ease players in the slightly more complicated starship combat rules, without overwhelming them with information, and thus helping to make the game more fun for all participants. I will most certainly use it next session!
  12. I figure that people which are more likely to contribute to the beta testing, sending feedback this way, are the ones who bought the book in the online store, if only because they are the ones who are already here, part of this community (barring a few who got the book at Gen Con).
  13. Yes, but the lightsaber skill is the simplest thing that can still be added as a custom skill, which is totally kosher for the GM to introduce.The only thing that will be really missing is lightsaber talents - and presumably talent tree(s). I kind of understand why they are opting to detail this stuff in FaD. If FFG opts to diferenciate lightsaber forms, some will probably be based in Agility, others in Brawn. Or not. Until then, it is for your GM (or group) to decide.
  14. I second. BUT it stands for Star Wars Role Playing. Which system is that? There are four that I can think of. That is a fine term here at this forum. But if you go over to a general Star Wars RPG forum, they are going to have to ask you which system you are talking about. They will know what you mean when you say Star Wars Saga, Star Wars d6, Star Wars d20, etc. When you say Star Wars RP, they will ask which one? FFG SWRP
  15. Does anybody knows if they kept the "adversary" talent in the final cut? It became during the beta stage a pet peeve of mine.
  16. gribble said: OB-1 said: That said, I would mantain that, on principle (there are nuances) the first extra hit would cost only 1adv. (otherwise the goak to mantain effectiveness when hitting multiple targets would be compromised). I think that if you started the scalling effect with 2adv, you would nerf autofire too much. But that's exactly what my clarification/restatement does… First additional hit on the original target costs 2 adv, because they've now been hit twice, but the first hit on any additional targets only cost 1 adv, because it's the first time they've been hit (by that attack). Make sense? Yes, of course. I can see now where the examples provided were wrong. I will rectify asap. Done. Please do tell me if its better now. Really, your post made me evolve all the formulation behind the initial idea, and its a lot better for it now. I still prefer the simplicity of the later proposal, though.
  17. gribble, Sorry, the editing above was a mess, utterly incompreensible ( I really don t understand muliquote in this boards. doesn t help i type from an ipad, either). Anyway, the ideia I tried to implement in my post above had the purpose to decrease the lethality of auto-fire when hitting a target multiple times while mantaining the effectiveness of walking fire when hitting multiple targets. That said, I would mantain that, on principle (there are nuances) the first extra hit would cost only 1adv. (otherwise the goal to mantain effectiveness when hitting multiple targets would be compromised). The thing is, I think that if you started the scalling effect with 2adv, you would nerf autofire too much. Think about it: what i am proposing is an alternative to a flat out increase from 1adv to 2adv activation cost to Auto-fire, as to mitigate the consequences to the effectiveness of Auto-fire, while trying to decrease its lethality. I will try to clear the post above. Thanks for your patience.
  18. Of all the suggestions above regarding auto-firing, I think the one with the most merit is the one from Boehm that states it should cost 2adv to hit the SAME TARGET with auto-fire. After having realized on this forums that the issue with the current state of auto-fire revolved more with hitting the same target multiple times and less with hitting different targets, I was thinking on something along similar lines. The objective, for me, should be to help mantain the effectiveness of auto-fire when hitting different targets (generally henchmen, and specially minions), while at the same time decreasing its lethality when hitting a target multiple times (generally nemesis, and specially player characters). With that purpose in mind, I was considering two alternative solutions: 1. The first, according to which, when using "auto-fire" (weapon quality) or "walking fire" it should cost 1 adv to activate said quality the first time vs. each different target. 2 adv the next consecutive hit on the same target. 3 adv the next one. And so on… The cost to activate the quality should be 1adv the fist time to a target other than the original, 2adv the second time to the same target, 3adv the third time vs same target….such as the cost to hit a target multiple times should be [1 adv. for each additional hit, times the total number of hits against the same target]. So, when "walking fire", ( i.e. spreading the fire vs. multiples foes) the cost would remain 1adv. per the first extra hit against a different foe. the second extra hit would cost 2adv., the third extra hit 3 adv, and so on, as usual. In this case, it would cost 1adv [to hit 2 characters]; 2adv [to hit a character 2 times] or [to hit 3 characters]; 3adv [to hit a character 2 times] and[ another one 1 time]; or [to hit 4 characters]; 4adv [to hit a character 2 times] and [another two 1 time]; or [to hit 5 characters]; 5adv [to hit a character 3 times]; or [to hit 2 characters two times]; or [to hit one character 2 times] and [to hit 3 characters]; or [to hit 6 characters]; and so on… (thanks gribble for helping me clarify those examples, please tell me if you find something wrong still) This was based somewhat on something proposed by WarrenH in the Week 3 Update thread. 2. As per the second idea, when using "auto-fire", the cost to activate should be 2 adv. When "walking-fire" the cost should remain 1 adv (mitigated by the fact that you are adding 1difficulty die upfront). This later solution seems to me cleaner and more elegant, on principle. what do you think?
  19. Re: Autofire Apply soak individually for each hit. This is how I have been doing it.
  20. Donovan, Yes, I know that was also the case in the old WEG STAR WARS game, which is more of a reason to want the problem solved this time around. I just had a lot more exposure to WFRP at the time. Off course we all agree, this "Wookie" problem is not exclusive to Wookies. I just called it this way as it seemed more iconic. And I really would like to know your opinion on this matter. It is a problem? Can it be solved?
×
×
  • Create New...