Jump to content

dougnugget

Members
  • Content Count

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dougnugget

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    St Leonards, East Sussex, United Kingdom
  1. Dude, I'm an assassin, my "slicing talents" are for people, not computers! As an aside, I'm liking how you don't have a certain career or specific talents to do most things, but they help out. And in situations like this, it would really help to have the relevant talents.
  2. Cake for me please! More seriously - let's revisit the OP - it wasn't about the Empire actually being the good guys. There was still acknowledgement that the Empire was responsible for many evil acts. It's just that not everyone saw the Empire as a bad thing, and not all imperials were bad. IMHO, that's far more interesting than "imperials always bad, rebels always good". What I don't advocate is taking the opposite stance and saying "imperials all good, rebels all bad". That's just as problematic, I would say more so given the plight of Alderann and Kashyyyk - I have no intention of playing in a setting where they were "good" acts. This means, for me, either accepting that there is something rotten within the empire itself, or retconning the events so that they didn't happen (or that someone else was responsible - unlikely). But this average imperial citizen who doesn't know the truth and just wants peace, or that imperial customs officer who's trying to stop people ruining their lives with spice? Yeah, that's a bit more interesting than Darth Nastyguy and his faceless stormtrooper minions. Maybe it means thinking twice before falling back on fighting as your only instrument of social change.
  3. Yes, because the Empire isn't the Nazi party. It's fiction. Wanting to rewrite the fictional aspects of Imperial rule is not the same as being a Nazi apologist. Suggesting otherwise is both shortsighted and deeply offensive, and it needs to stop now. Personally, I think that it's more interesting if the Empire itself - or at least the upper echelons of it - remains rotten, but the majority of imperial citizens/soldiers/officials aren't good or evil - they're just people. Some of them believe in what they are doing, some won't. And the vast majority of them are unaware of the terrible things going on behind the scenes. (Which is why removing these terrible things still works! It's just not my preference)
  4. Your reputation for being evil is completely fabricated and is my revenge on you for not giving us enough XP (Seriously, lupex is an awesome GM. I'm still laughing over the "to do" list he sent me after I hacked Teemo's records.)
  5. From my (limited) experience as a player - Obligation is a really good way of tracking what's important to the party right now. But it has to be interesting, and the player has to want to reduce it down to zero, which means then you need a different Obligation to keep the cycle going. If the character in question has gained a new obligation already - either by taking on favours to resolve the original obligation, or as a consequence of unrelated actions - then it's all cool. This also encourages the taking on of new obligation to resolve old obligation - as you have to have at least obligation already, which is actually pretty cool. For example, my character has a Bounty obligation, currently at 18. he's an escaped slave, and lupex (who is my GM, and is evil) has made it so that my character has a slave tattoo on his cheek (currently being covered up with makeup) and a malfunctioning tracking device implant (which might start working again if my obligation comes up). I like this obligation because it's in my face - literally - and demands that I do something about it. An NPC (Maru from Long Arm of the Hutt) has offered me an opportunity to fix my problem - but it's going to cost me 10,000 credits that I don't have right now and I could very well end up owing her a favour after. So that's a real opportunity for me to convert Obligation. However, let's say that I successfully resolve all my remaining obligations (nah, not gonna happen, but lets pretend it does.) Mechanically, I need a 5 point Obligation stick. I would suggest putting a blank 5-point obligation against the character, and defining exactly what it is when it gets activated. So when it gets rolled, my evil GM gets to stick me that session with 5 points worth of bull that I really didn't see coming.
  6. EDIT - this is Escape from Mos Shuuta, forgot to say that. Party of 3, Human Assassin (me), Rodian Thief, Wookiee Marauder. Was originally meant to be 5 of us but 2 of the group aren't able to turn up very often, so they're still in the cells, or something. This happened a while back and I didn't take notes, so I might be a bit off in some of the details. We duck into the cantina and somehow manage to avoid attention by blending in and/or hiding. We stay for a bit in the hope of getting behind the search pattern, during our interactions with the locals we notice that bounties for us are being posted over the local communications network... time to get out of there. We also find out about Trex and his ship, and that he owes money to the spaceport. So we decide to split up - I'll negotiate passage with the Trandoshan, as having a Wookiee around isn't going to help with that, and out of our abysmal social skills, I'm probably the best to do it (Presence 3). Our hope is that once Trex shakes on the deal, he won't back out of it. The others scout out the place - bumping into the Gamorreans at the bridge into the shanty area. Wookiee does what Wookiee does best, and sends a couple of the Gamorreans flying off the bridge, and kabobs another with his force pike. One problem resolved. Negotiations go OK - I offer to settle his debts and pay for the hyperspace doohickey he needs to fix up the ship - until our oh, so evil GM has Trex ask me, flat out, whether there's a Wookiee in the group (this was him spending accumulated threat from the negotiations). **** it. I 'fess up, and Trex says that the rest of us can have passage, but not the Wookiee... unless we bring him as a prisoner. I pretend to think about it, and get out of there. Okay, time for plan B. We still need the part, so I go to the yard to buy it, but the merchant is asking for more than he agreed with Trex for it, even though I know and he knows that a price was agreed. For some reason, I blow my top and refuse to pay the extra 200 creds, even through we're in a fix, dumb move on my part. I also pay the docking fees, so there's no issue with getting out of there, except this time we're going to have to steal the ship. At somepoint during all of this we find out that there's an imperial presence on the planet too, great. After some faffing around (I can't remember exactly what happened) - we end up taking out the droids guarding the ship while Trex is away, someone crashes a speeder into them and we finish them off with small arms fire. Someone also (I think the Rodian?) managed to steal the crate with the Twilek in, not knowing what's in there, and we all make it out - although we still don't have the part we need so we're going to have to get some repairs real soon. On our way off planet - a couple of TIE fighters hail us and we play the old "static over the radio" trick, somehow avoiding a fight (we were sweating bullets at this point, really thought it was going to be a fight and we nearly opened fire ourselves.) So, at the end of it all, we've got a malfunctioning ship, and we've left a lot of enemies behind - and alive - but we've escaped. And we've managed to rescue someone, yaay! It was a lot of fun, I've been impressed with how quickly things happen and get resolved. (Another thing. Next session, the Rodian finds the Wookiee skins, and the Wookiee goes on a rampage. The Rodian "disposes of them" later - we're pretty sure as players the skins got sold, but as characters we're none the wiser. At the end of the session, we're talking about fixing the ship up, and the Rodian chips in "I've got some furry dice..." - totally cracked me up.)
  7. I love how I'm the "medic" from that example even though I have no medical skills whatsoever
  8. I think there's enough precedent for Force users with unusual talents not to rule this out. Nothing wrong with a PC being special, as long as they don't overshadow the rest of the table. Mechanically, I'd just re-imagine some of the Marauder talents as being an exertion of Force. So +1 damage from "Feral Strength" is actually Force-enhanced punching, "Frenzied Attack" is a temporary boost using the Force that costs strain. The character can then use Force Exile talents normally, without having to take them just to do their thing. Here's a quick sample character. Human Marauder/Force Sensitive Exile Stats - Brawn 3, Willpower 3, Rest at 2 (60XP) Hired Gun skills: Athletics, Brawl, Discipline, Vigilance Marauder skills: Resilience, Coerce Human Bonus skills: Cool, Perception Buy Brawl up to 2 (10XP) Force Sensitive Exile (20XP) Rank 1 Talents: Frenzied Attack, Feral Strength, Toughened, Uncanny Reactions (20XP) This isn't overpowering at all - my main concern would be how to make sure that the character can contribute outside combat (the main reason for picking up Coerce.) There's also nothing that shows up as flashy use of Force, which might help to keep things under control for the first few sessions. What's more important though is to understand why he wants to be able to to this - is it just to have a cool power, or is the connection to the Force more important than that? How much do they want the Force to be a part of their story, and what do they see themselves being able to do, and wanting to do, later on in the game? Does their talent factor into their Obligation? I think that knowing that's going to help a lot more with how to deal with how to bring it into play.
  9. Here's an example from one of our sessions. we were trying to sneak up on some guards on a construction site. I blew my stealth roll but got a triumph. We'd already established (through a bit of electrobinocular spying) that these guards were lazy and not very competent. So after a quick chat with the GM, we ruled that I'd completely failed to hide effectively, but that didn't matter because the guard had deserted his post to visit the outhouse, leaving the keys in the ignition of the digger he was sitting in. Epic fun ensued.
  10. Yeah, that was funny as hell (I'm another of the players in that group). But not as funny as when Teemo critted and broke the Wookiee's axe! I think melee works pretty well as-is. It's easy to get hurt, but it's also easy to dish it out - so either avoiding combat, or getting the drop on the opposition, are both really good tactics. It's a bit like old school D&D that way. A combat focused PC can actually take a lot of punishment, once they have decent armour. However, crits are dangerous if they accumulate, especially as taking damage above your wound threshold knocks you out and inflicts another crit. There's also lots of ways to up your survivability: - Our Wookiee has a high soak value, and normally takes stuff down before it can hurt him to much (just not this time...) - I'm playing a human bounty hunter (assassin spec). I've spent my accumulated XP on getting both Dodge talents, so for 2 strain I can upgrade the difficulty of any incoming attack by 2. This is nearly always worth it, but I don't want to get mobbed. so I let the Wookiee go in first. - Our Rodian Thief stays out of melee combat and snipes. This is relatively easy to do when there is an angry Wookiee in the room drawing all the fire. I think that lightsabers are another issue entirely, and agree that defensive talents are they way to go. Basically, it's all fun and games - and then someone loses a hand.
  11. I don't agree that we should be allowing substituted stats in combat. Here's why: Characteristics are already a big deal in this game (maybe too much so) because they are the cheapest way of getting bonus and/or upgraded dice across multiple skills. I think it follows that your choice of which stats to develop should be a hard choice; allowing easily-purchased talents to mitigate this undermines that difficult choice. It also encourages munchkinism - for example, Intellect 5 skillmonkeys who can also fight exceptionally well because they took some "Clever Shot" talent. Plus, it's not like Agility 2/Brawn 2 characters are that gimped in a fight - for a very modest outlay you can get the first rank of a relevant combat skill and get one of your ability die upgraded to a proficiency die. As long as you don't go for the really hard targets, there's a good chance that you are going to be able to succeed (so you hit somthing) or generate some advantage which you can pass on to your buddies - and they should be generating advantages and opportunities for you. If you can find a way of using one of your better non-combat skills in a fight, all the better - there's now a really good chance that you will be generating advantages which you can pass along to the guys who are fighting. Ducking behind cover while trying to talk the other side down, then passing your advantages on as boost dice for the team sniper? Go for it - besides, it's a staple "hostage negotiator" move trope. Allowing stat swaps instead of challenging the players to find tactical uses for the skills they have is less tactically interesting, IMO. And if you find your Doctor or Politico is spending most of their time in stand-up fights with no opportunities for tactical use of your abilities - maybe that's a problem with the playstyle for the group not matching your expectations. If, as a GM, I knew that I was planning to lead my players into a lot of combat - I'd be warning them about this when they make their characters. If one of them still dumps all their combat options, screw them, they were warned (and more power to them for sticking to their metaphorical guns - or lack of them. I'll make it up to them by making sure they get other opportunities to shine.) If as a player I knew that I wanted to get into lots of fights - I'd tell the rest of the group about it and build accordingly.
  12. lupex said: I had a thought about skill progression and I think it ties into the idea of an archetype build, I originally posted this in the skill feedback thread but I though it worth reposting here for feedback; lupex said: I have had an idea about how skills can be separated from specializations and make it more worth buying into skills. The proposal will effectively get rid of the notion of non-career skills, replacing the two skill types with starting skills and learned skills… So to buy access to a new learned skill costs a flat rate of 5 XP and then you can buy ranks in this skill as per the current guidelines for increasing career skills. I think that this is a good compromise between the current inflated price of non-career skills and the need to have a distinction between skills that you start with and skills that you buy later. I like the idea, but I think there is a simpler way of doing this - just treat all skills as "career" but make the first rank of any skill cost 5Xp more. So if you got the first rank of a skll at chargen - you've already got it covered. If you buy into the skill after chargen, you pay the extra 5XP with your first skill rank. This does mean that skills which are theoretically in your starting career still cost more if you didn't take them at chargen - but I think that's actually reasonable. It also means that you can do the whole thing with one table instead of having a career/non-career distinction.
  13. Hi, I've just read through this and am finding it incredibly useful. I'm working on a related issue - trying to tidy up the specialisations into thematically groups of talents - and I think that the two ideas work well together to allow a lot more flexibility in character creation. Details are here if you are interested: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=323&efcid=46&efidt=723629&efpag=0#725732
  14. Illya Mar said: I can go down one path in Trader and still be completely in my own personal Lando concept, I'm very good at getting what I want or need cheaply or getting someone else what they need at a profit. But I can't go down one path in Scout and still fit my Chewbacca concept, or go down a path of Fringer and be true to a Biggs Darklighter sort of concept of someone from the backwater who's pretty good at piloting from place to place, for some reason I also mount and dismount animals very well. Yes, there's the cockpit aspect of it, so I can TJ Hooker the front of a ship and slide into the cockpit, but I can still mount and dismount animals that seems unnatural for a fringe spacer. I could ignore it, but if the situation comes up to use it, is the average player really not going to take advantage of it? Mark me down as one more person who thinks talent trees should be more focused on one particular type of trait for each path. Exactly! The trees tend to force you to take certain things that might not be part of your character concept, before you can take the things which are part of it. I can sort of see why they did this - it helps to make sure that people don't hyperspecialise in a particular skillset - but I think this is already balanced by the progressively harder costs of moving down to higher-costed talents. Lupex: most talents link to skills, but not in a 1:1 way. For example, some talents affect 2 skills (for example, Plausible Deniability works on Coerce and Deceit) and most combat talents overlap multiple combat skills, but sometimes with other restrictions (such as only working at a particular range). Also, I can see that there is some very interesting discussion going on here about having a "classless" system which I think is also relevant to this thread: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=318&efcid=46&efidt=724997&efpag=1 If you combine some of that with what's going on here, you don't really need specialisations either - just take some starting skills, and pick 3-4 thematic "lines" that your character is good at. If you want more "lines" after that, you pay progressively higher XP for each new one you take on. So, for example, my starting character has: 6 free skills 3 thematic lines, each with 5 talents costing 5,10,15,20,25 XP A "grit" line with which allows me to buy +1 strain 5 times for 5,10,15,20,25 XP A "toughness" line with which allows me to buy +1 wound 5 times for 5,10,15,20,25 XP I can then spend my starting XP on more stats, more skills, or buying talents. If I want access to additional thematic lines, it costs me (say) 10Xp for the 1st extra line, 20Xp for the 2nd, and so on. There's lots of fun you can have with this. For example, there's nothing IMHO stopping someone from having 1 or more of their starting thematic lines being Force-related. I'd be tempted to cut up the current Force Sensitive Exile talent tree and the Move/Sense/Influence trees, and turn it into the following talent lines Sense Basics ---> Sense Alter Basics ---> Alter Control Basics ---> Control (sorry, couldn't resist renaming these!) So, some of the better stuff is now on an advanced talent line that requires you to complete the basic line first. What about Dedication? I would probably allow a player to buy +1 to a characteristic for 25Xp each time they complete a talent line (which means it costs 100XP to max out a line and buy a characteristic.) However, I would also set a hard cap of no more than 2 advances to the same stat. So if you started with an Agility of 2, no buying it past 4. I might make an exception for droids, as I think they would get hit harder by this. I would still have some pre-generated archetypes to illustrate how this works.
  15. lupex said: I think that there are a couple of issues with the system, and these are all based from memory as someone has my book . I wonder who that is, eh? To answer your points, since we seem to be on our own in here: 1) I think there's a logic behind it but not a strict "X ability must cost X points" thing. I think it's more of a "here's lots of cool stuff we designed for your specialisation, now how much should we charge you for it?" 2 & 3) I think looking at the lowest cost you can get a talent for is a useful guide. For example, Quick Draw can be purchased for 5 points if you take the right spec. Whereas I don't think there are any talents that allow you to reroll a skill check for less than 15 points. Gaining a characteristic point is always a 25 point cost. Where a talent costs more than the basic cost, thisis likely to be down to one of: * Wanting to make the trees a bit different from each other, * Maybe there are too many other talents competing for that cost, so something has to move sown the tree, * It's a stackable talent and this means that later ranks need to be harder to get. 4) I think the Force trees also need a lot of tidying up, no argument there. Re: character concepts. I think it's helpful to analyse the talents and extrapolate from that what each speciality is meant to be good at. For example, the Assassin tree is mainly about: * Marksmanship, with a focus on taking foes down at a distance (Precise Aim, Sniper Shot) * Making any hit count, whether ranged or melee (Lethal Blows, Anatomy Lesson/Targeted Blow, Deadly Accuracy) * Being sneaky (Stalker, Master of Shadows) * Reflexes (Jump Up, Quick Strike, Quick Draw, Dodge) However, not all the trees are this fully featured. Take Politico, for example, which breaks down as: * Being a nice leader (Kill With Kindness, Inspiring Rhetoric) * Being a not-so-nice leader (Plausible Deniability, Scathing Tirade) * a grab-bag of more general talents to cover force of personality (Steely Nerves, Intense Presence, Nobody's fool, Natural Charmer) * The Well Rounded Talent IMHO, Politico is a weak concept as is, with too much focus on friendly vs shouty and no ability to negotiate or "wheel and deal". The Doctor tree is particularly weak, being mainly about fixing people up, stuffing them full of stims (really? I know this is a more "gritty" SW setting than most, but do we really need 3 talents dedicated to getting people all hopped up on meds?) a nice talent (Resolve) and a few combat talents deep in the tree. What doctor particularly lacks on the "healer" side is any ability to help other people recover strain (heard of counselling?) which I would have expected to see instead of Stim Application. Also nothing to represent that people tend to trust doctors and tell them what's on their mind. My view is that each specialisation should 3 or 4 "lines" to reflect their specialist training (so they all get 3, or they all got 4). There should be some overlap between the specialisations but each one gets something that none of the others can get.
×
×
  • Create New...