Jump to content

Rikoshi

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    422

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rikoshi

  1. Posted

    So I noticed on p.207 that...

     

    "Multiple sources of defense do not stack."

     

    Since cover now provide 1 range defense (or potentialy greater than 1 at GM discression) does this mean that any character with armor that provides a defense rating shouldn't ever bother taking cover? 

     

    For instance armored clothing provides 1 defense and 1 soak.  Cover would not stack with the armors defense?

     

    Wraith428

     

    Interesting question. Logic suggests that armor and cover should stack just fine, after all.

     

    I wonder if this was just a minor oversight. A question for the devs, maybe.

  2. Posted

    So, I'm wondering how the Empire or anyone else maintains control of space, given the realities of Hyperspace...

    Are ships in Hyperspace detectable?

    Are they interceptable (short of having a deployable sun)?

     

    and given as any ship with a Hyperspace drive can simply jump, how do pursuits work?

     

    I'd recommend looking on Wookieepedia for the details on hyperspace, but to answer your questions more generally:

     

    Ships in hyperspace can't be detected, but hyperspace signatures can, so you can see where a ship has jumped and try to guess where it's jumped too (this is why, when trying to escape, ships will often plot a short jump, drop out of hyperspace, then make another jump or series of jumps before heading toward their real destination).

     

    There are also Interdictor ships that the Empire (and other entities) use to pull ships out of hyperspace; basically, it creates a giant mass shadow to force a ship's failsafes to kick in and drop out of hyperspace--basically tricking the ship into thinking it's going to hit a sun or something so that it forces a stop.

    themensch reacted to this

  3. Posted

    No. At least 2 or 3 sets will be needed. I have 4 and may buy another.

     

    I'd hesitate to say 'needed.'

     

    For the majority of rolls, the dice in a single pack will suffice, especially early on. In the event that you need to roll more dice than you have, just take note of what's been rolled, then roll that type of die again.

  5. Posted

    A DIFFERENT Talent question dealing with the broken lines in some of the trees.

     

    Mine is a Technician : Slicer.

     

    I bought technical aptitude I (Cost 5) which is not connected to anything.

     

    Can I purchase Technical aptitude II (cost 10)? 

     

    My reasoning is ... It is on the 2nd row and not connected to anything on row 1.  If i wanted to be "technical" about it I could buy Technical Aptitude II with out buying Technical Aptitude I  but I would only get the benefit of having one rank in the talent (but for a more expensive price)

     

    Likewise I could NOT get Grit II without getting one of the talents to its left or right... ?

     

    am I understanding this correctly.

     

    You can only purchase the Technical Aptitude in Column 2, Row 2 after you've followed the line down from Codebreaker to Defensive Slicing, over to Improved Defensive Slicing, and then back up (see how the line works?). You do not need to have purchased the 5xp Technical Aptitude in Column 3, Row 1 (though the benefits do stack),

    Same with the Grit talent in Column 3, Row 2; you need to follow the lines to purchase it, but you don't need the 5xp version in Column 2, Row 1.

    billw2 reacted to this

  7. Posted

     

    In the entry for Stun Damage's Stun Setting;

    "As a FREE ACTION, the wielder can choose to switch the setting of his weapon to 'Stun.'"

    In this book, they haven't called anything free actions.  That seems to be a DnD Pathfinder term.  I believe they meant to say Incidental.

     

    Do you know what page that's on?

     

     

    Page 157, under 'Stun Damage'

  8. Posted

    My Bounty Hunter has a drawn vibroblade and is currently engaged with my acquisition's bodyguard (who is wielding a vibro axe). 

     

    I decide that this is not a situation that favors me, so I want to disengage and move to short range so that I can plug him with my disrupter pistol instead.

     

    From what I can glean from the Core Rulebook (pg. 202), this just requires a single maneuver. I carefully back away and am now in short range.

     

    I don't have to spend a maneuver to "disengage", and then another to move to short range.

     

    Am I reading this right?

     

    I think I'm having a bit of SAGA edition hangover here, so I want to make sure I'm doing this correctly.

     

    Correct. As per 'Engage or Disengage from an opponent' on pages 202-203, one maneuver changes your range band from Engaged to Short.

  9. Posted

    Ever since I read Penny Arcade's write-up of the Beginner Box, I've been waiting with baited breath to give this game a try.  But before I do, I have one last question, a question that I haven't seen answered: just how compatible is this game with map-based play?

     

    As a DM, I've only run 4th edition DND so far, and the main feedback my players have given me is that they REALLY like using the maps I make.  So is this book dedicated only to theater-of-the-mind type play, or does it have rules for map play, or does it do both?

     

    I'm likely to get everything anyway (my players want to try a sci-fi system, and people seem to sing this one's praises) but I'd like to know just what I'm getting into beforehand.

     

    You can absolutely use maps when running encounters (and in fact, I'd recommend it in a lot of cases).

     

    The major difference between this system and your typical d20 system is that movement is way less rigid.  You don't have defined squares and movement rates, per se, just the concepts of 'short range' or 'medium range.'  Having a visual reference is often very handy, even when you don't need to measure out distances in super-finite detail.

  11. Posted

    I'm super excited about the release of EotE and am putting together a group within the next couple weeks (waiting to get my next paycheck before buying the core rulebook). I'd love to have a few adventures for them ready to go and was wondering if Escape from Mos Shuuta is available anywhere other than the Beginner Box. I have the free download from the FFG site for the follow-up, but I'd love to run them through Shuuta first.

     

    Along the same lines, is Crates of Kryats available anywhere other than the Beta book?

     

    Both of those adventures are thus far available only in the places you indicated. No word on them being slated for reprint elsewhere.

  14. Posted

    Howdy, I hope this is the correct forum to post in

     

    My core rulebook has just arrived, and I'm looking forward to running my first game as soon as I can.

     

    However I'm a little nervous about the advantage/threat mechanic. I really like that the idea of not necessarily having a black and white success or failure, but are the results of this normally improvised? I'm very much a GM who likes to have as much detail written down beforehand - I like to be prepared.

     

    I'm curious as to whether published material makes it clear the consequences of advantage or threat when a check is called for?

     

    Cheers

     

    It is very much a situational, improvisational thing, yes.  For example, Threat could trigger very different consequences if a player were firing at a stormtrooper in the middle of a crowded marketplace vs. in the middle of a plasma reactor chamber.

     

    But don't worry, all is not lost! The book (and GM screen) both include a sort of framework for how much Threat and Advantage are 'worth' to the narrative.  For instance, in the plasma reactor scenario above, a single Threat might warrant a setback die to the slicer who's trying to shut the thing down, whereas 3 Threat might result in a much more hazardous coolant leak.

  15. Posted · Edited by Rikoshi

    Could we have some guidelines on how to provide Obligation settlements as part of adventure rewards? The 'Debts to Pay' adventure from the Game Master's Kit has some, but one of the things it includes is a way to knock down a whopping 20 Obligation, which to me seems kind of like a lot.  I realize that the numerical values of Obligation are heavily situational, but a baseline on 'Obligation economy', as it were, might be helpful.

     

    Related: the same adventure also gives bonus XP to players for paying down their Obligation. This sort of thing isn't referenced in the Core Rulebook anywhere I've seen; bonus XP seems relegated to the realm of Motivation. Should settling Obligation like this always give bonus XP, or only when it's in exchange for something majorly tangible? Would tying bonus XP to both Obligation and Motivation like this constitute a form of double-dipping (isn't lowering your Obligation sort of its own reward, in a way)?

    Cilionelle and EldritchFire reacted to this

  16. Posted

    Rules clarification:

    Page 133:  Convincing Demeanor

    The rule states that per rank you can remove a Setback die from any Deception or Skullduggery check.  

    That seems a little odd as the Talent refers to the character's Demeanor which would mean his appearance.  So basically he appears confident at all times and sure of himself.  So how would that have any application whatsoever in using Skullduggery to pick a lock?  

    Now the way I've GM'd it since the Beta has been that you get to remove the Setback when using Skullduggery for things like disguises or slight of hand tricks where distraction and your appearance matter.  For example, I might let a character use Convincing Demeanor when picking someone's pocket in a fairly empty bar, suggesting the character is distracting his target with his movements or how he's speaking in a mile a minute fashion which is causing the victim to lose focus and get confused.  On the other hand I would not allow him to use this bonus to break into a safe... What does his demeanor have to do with that?

    So I would suggest a little clarification is in order.

    Yancy

     

    I don't think it's too imbalancing to have the removal of the setback die to apply to all uses of the skill; after all, there are other talents that do that for other skills, and they don't have such a caveat.

     

    After all, the name of the talent is just that: a name. The mechanics behind it call out no such limitations. If you want, think of the ability to keep cool in a social situation as also applying to keeping cool and keeping your hands steady while picking a lock.

  18. Posted · Edited by Rikoshi

    Are any species in SW lore not force sensitive (besides Vong)?

     

    Well, King George himself said that the Vulptereen are too stupid to be Force-sensitive, which seems to go against everything we know about how the Force works, but hey, that's Star Wars for you sometimes.

     

    EDIT: My bad, apparently they're "not smart enough to be Jedi," which isn't the same thing.

    Also, the Rakata eventually lost their ability to be Force-sensitive after the Infinite Empire, so there's that.

  19. Posted

     

    For your example, for 1,500CR you have a longer range, but heavier weapon that takes up 2 hard points. Now that you have a sniper rifle, you want to make sure you hit with it, so you add both Accurate +1 mods. That requires 200CR and a Daunting (PPPP) Mechanics check.

    If you succeed, you now add 2 boost die (UU) to all your attacks with the weapon. If you fail, you can't increase the accuracy of the weapon at all, but you can try to add other mods.

     

     

    Shouldn't it technically be 100cr and a Hard (PPP) Mechanics check for the first Accurate +1 mod and then 200cr and a Daunting (PPPP) Mechanics check for the second?

     

    After all, you're adding two separate +1 mods, not a single +2 mod.

  20. Posted · Edited by Rikoshi

    So, I was testing out the Beginner game and realized that if one set of Stormtroopers is at medium distance from the heroes, and the other (behind the first group) is at long, there is a way to cheat (kind of).  I wanted to confirm if this were true.

     

    So usually you have to spend 2 movement (maneuvers to go from long to medium (vs the 2nd group of stormtroopers).  However, there is a group at medium distance from the PC's at the same angle.

     

    The PC's move from Medium to Short for ONE maneuver to fight group one.

     

    Now, regardless of this making sense rule-wise, they have effectively also gotten closer to the group which was at long range, pushing them into MEDIUM distance, at the cost of ONE maneuver, not two.

     

    If a PC wanted to move toward the second group, he or she would technically be medium with them now and could get there with a single maneuver (Medium to Short).

    Am I right?  Seems an easy way to abuse the system.

     

    Clearly, this workaround you've come up with is total cheese, and as a GM I would never allow it.

     

    In this case, I would rationalize the double maneuver requirement to close into long range as the effort needed to safely go around the nearer stormtrooper squad.

     

    Now, if it's a matter of a PC using a maneuver to get to the nearer squad, and then the other squad uses a maneuver to close in as well, so that they're both in short range to each other, then I'm okay with that, because the battlefields are very abstract, and keeping track of 'range bands with relative maneuver caveats' is needless bookkeeping and not fun for anyone.

  22. Posted

    It is believed that Disney won't allow for pdfs to be created. As I understand it they are considered to be a form of electronic media, and thus under a different license than books.

     

    To further clarify, this was a Lucasfilm thing since before the Disney buyout (before people misdirect their rage). This is why the WotC Saga Edition books never had official PDF releases, either.

×
×
  • Create New...