Jump to content

fatedtodie

Members
  • Content Count

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Dayham in Padawan?   
    The more appropriate example would be Ezra Bridger.
     
    He is just barely a padawan now.
  2. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Sarone in Need Help With Signature Abilities   
    To clarify again, these are not "my" rules that state you can take more than 1, that is explicitly reading what is said in the currently available 3 Career books.
     
    I don't allow any signature abilities in my games because not all the careers have them available, so it is an imbalance until they are on equal footing, but limiting to only 1, seems like a house rule.
     
    There is a line I think people read wrong that states "Once a signature ability has been attached to a tree, no other signature abilities may be attached to that tree, and the attached ability cannot be removed or switched to a different tree" to mean you only get one. But if you get a second Spec in the same Career, you can easily attach the other ability to the bottom of that one. It is just crazy expensive to get down to the bottom of 2 specs.
  3. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from MTaylor in Character optimization   
    Honestly it is hard to "screw up" a character in this game. Even fumbling through character creation is fine because that is what RPGs are about learning through doing.
     
    As a GM I worry about a Player that spends too much planning the starting character and less on someone that plans a good character story and fits skills to the story. If you are focused on even an "end goal" of a character you miss some things that can benefit your team. Think long term, sure but not at the expense of "now".
     
    What type of player are you in video games? why do you choose that type? Is there a career/specialization that matches that style? those are the questions you should be asking.
     
    Optimizing leads a Player down a narrow path that they get pissed if they aren't making progress down. Anytime they have to stray from that path they feel gimped and they are too worried throughout play.
     
    Have fun. You won't screw up unless you don't speak up.
  4. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from WFPII in Ship Decks in FFG's Future?   
    I like the idea of more cards, but wasting them on injuries annoys me.
    I don't like the talent decks at all or the Career ones.
     
    I absolutely love the adversary decks.
    Give me ships
    Give me more NPCs - Animals? Force Users? Whatever they want.
    Gear would be nice. Armor/weapons/etc Those my Players would use.
     
     
    Injuries? nobody wants a card for that.
  5. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from MTaylor in Character optimization   
    Honestly it is hard to "screw up" a character in this game. Even fumbling through character creation is fine because that is what RPGs are about learning through doing.
     
    As a GM I worry about a Player that spends too much planning the starting character and less on someone that plans a good character story and fits skills to the story. If you are focused on even an "end goal" of a character you miss some things that can benefit your team. Think long term, sure but not at the expense of "now".
     
    What type of player are you in video games? why do you choose that type? Is there a career/specialization that matches that style? those are the questions you should be asking.
     
    Optimizing leads a Player down a narrow path that they get pissed if they aren't making progress down. Anytime they have to stray from that path they feel gimped and they are too worried throughout play.
     
    Have fun. You won't screw up unless you don't speak up.
  6. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from RLogue177 in My players seem afraid of combat   
    The combat pools are not the reason they are going against open combat, they just get too creative with what to do and decide to do random fun rather than fight.
     
    9 sessions in still combat shy. =) We will see what happens during tonight's session. I have 3 combat scenarios that COULD happen, but I won't force any of them unless the story requires it.
  7. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from RLogue177 in My players seem afraid of combat   
    I did ambush them... 3 - 4 times already, at the same time I did not want to stifle their creativity so I let them bribe/talk/handle the situations their way. Eventually they will fight, but I think I made the decision I will let them choose when rather than demanding it. It is funny seeing them wiggle out of things.
  8. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from RLogue177 in My players seem afraid of combat   
    So after 7 sessions with my current group, it seems it is clear my Players are afraid of conflict.
     
    I am pretty sure my last group went into every situation thinking "this is a great time to shoot people". This time it is the exact opposite.
     
    While they started a few attempts at fights the first 2 sessions, since then it has been steadily avoiding combat all all costs. I have put situations that could be easily solved with combat, instead they try the hard way of talking their way out of it.
     
    Last session there were at least 3 combat opportunities, all avoided. I got one person wanting to fight last session, during the first opportunity, but the other group members talked him down.
     
    It is rather comical to watch the lengths they will go to avoid any form of combat whatsoever.
     
    Not sure if I should force the situation or reward it. =)
     
    Anyway it is much more fun for me as a GM to see a diplomatic solution than to have every angry issue end up in combat that is so mechanical.
  9. Like
    fatedtodie reacted to awayputurwpn in My players seem afraid of combat   
    Wondering, what are their combat skill pools like? Are they reticent to engage in combat because they lack the appropriate skillsets?
    If you think a situation would be more fun for everyone involved if a fight broke out, it might be worth broaching the topic with your players and seeing why they seem to be going to such lengths to avoid combat.
    Again, this sounds like a great group, but IMO Star Wars needs the occasional blaster shootout.
    As another idea, if they really just aren't interested in combat, you could have fights going on that they can see out watch, but in which they aren't obligated to participate. That way you get a fuller experience without the risk of personal combat!
  10. Like
    fatedtodie reacted to Kallabecca in Would Video Tutorials be Helpful?   
    Yeah, videos are a bit of a waste in this regards. An indexed document is far better as it allows for searching and reading out of order to better understand. Videos really only work for things like video game tutorials where you need to show the exact maneuver being done in the game.
  11. Like
    fatedtodie reacted to What in Another Character Generator   
    -A way to track failed modification attempts
    -The order of lightsaber mods effects the damage - Crystal then extended hilt is different than hilt then crystal
    -Defensive training!
    -Dice pools on the ship sheet would be fantastic - some section where it shows the character's piloting and gunnery so I don't have to flip back a couple pages every time it's called for.
  12. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Krieger22 in Canon update   
    I am pretty sure the script of Indiana Jones didn't call for him to shoot the guy with the swords, but it was in the take that made it to the theaters.
     
    I am not sure a "script" especially a 4th draft is any more definitive than "my mother's friend's sister's boyfriend says..."
     
    Script + whatever allowed Improv + Editing = final release
     
    On a side note, I think that same script draft was featured last week on Pawn Stars. That dude's version was signed by George back in the 70s.
  13. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from bradknowles in Tinkerer Talent: Is there a Limitation to the size?   
    The way I would handle it at my table is if it is lent and not returned within the same scene, the benefit is lost and must be reapplied when it is returned. The intent I see from the talent is the person that has the talent gets the benefit, not anyone that happens to know the person with the talent gets that benefit. Other GMs are allowed to read more than is written and add rules where they have none.
     
    I look at it from a Roll20 perspective. For the 2nd person to be able to "use" it, it has to be on their equipment list. And 1 item doesn't magically spawn a clone, so it would have to be removed from the 1st person's sheet.
     
    It is now "lost" from the first sheet and may be "found" later but it is "gone".
     
    My definition is not flawed, it is just different than yours. Calling my method of reading the exact words that are written and you ADDING WORDS is tragic on your part.
     
    As most of the threads go on this forum I will exit before it gets more hostile than insulting my ability to read words as they are printed.
     
    One last note: Just because my opinion and yours different does not make one or the other "better" keep that in mind before you throw out words like "flawed" towards others. This is a game meant to be fun and I was listing how I would do it at my table. You are not at my table nor would you be welcome there anyway, so there is no reason for my opinion on the matter to anger you so much that you resort to insults.
  14. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from bradknowles in Tinkerer Talent: Is there a Limitation to the size?   
    ??? that takes it a whole different kind of crazy. You say that if they sold it, they still own it? That is DRM style thinking that the software/music/movie/etc industry loves but nope.
     
    I fit more by "possession is 9 / 10ths of the law" kind of thinking. If you are holding it for more than a scene it is now in your character sheet and not the original owner. The original owner removes it from their sheet (aka it is lost) and they get to mod a new item. The original item loses the additional mod slot. The Outlaw tech sees where they can manipulate the weapon/armor/gear so it can fit something, but he also knows how to hold it with that method.
     
    Also nowhere is it RAW that HPs could stack. It is not handled in RAW and it is the potential issue if people add that it can be transferred to another person.
     
    Take this scenario;
     
    Tinkerer A applies Tinkerer to item A.
    Tinkerer A then gives the item to Tinkerer B.
    Tinkerer B applies Tinkerer to item A.
    Tinkerer B then gives item to Tinkerer C.
    Tinkerer C applies Tinkerer to item A.
    Tinkerer C then gives item back to Tinkerer A.
    Tinkerer B/C die.
     
    Tinkerer A has an item with 3 additional mod slots and technically B/C never "lost it" it can just never go back to them.
     
    This is how power-gamer/min-max/munchkin people think. You give them a little bit of an inch of rope they will have enough to hang you with it. That isn't creativity at that point it is deliberately gaming the system trying to push through a rule that isn't RAW.
  15. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from bradknowles in Tinkerer Talent: Is there a Limitation to the size?   
    That is the whole thing I am advocating against. You would have to change the text to "Each item can only be modified once regardless of how many Characters with the Tinkerer talent are around". Even with that it is a bad idea to allow it to be transferred.
     
    I would make the "loss" as "soon as it is removed from the character's sheet". So if it was given away to someone else... the mod slot is gone, but if it is left on the ship it is still there (unless it is stolen/borrowed/etc by another character at which point it is "lost").
  16. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Vigil in Agility based lightsaber use in EOE/AOR has problem in FnD?   
    Honestly I go by the "Rule of now" when I come across situations like this.
     
    If "at this moment" I am creating a character I go by whatever are the accepted rules NOW. If later they change it doesn't make sense to force a redesign, you are working in the equivalent of a parallel universe at that point.
     
    So move forward as if you never saw the new rule until the game reaches a point that new people come in.
    New people still utilizing the rule of now create using the NEW rules because that is what is accepted now.
     
    Hopefully that helps.
  17. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Icosiel in Future Use of EU Ships, Equipment, & History   
    Last I checked there is nothing that Disney (The house of the mouse as you put it) put in the license that prevents EU/Legends mining.
     
    They still allow SWTOR mmo to be fully living in the EU with a valid license.
  18. Like
    fatedtodie reacted to Krieger22 in Canon update   
    There's no "controversy" here. In the original cut (I still have the old original VHS-releases) Han fires the only shot, killing Greedo. It's completely obvious to anyone who sees the film.
     
    Although Lucas gets a lot of heat for something that wasn't his idea, namely to have Greedo shoot first. The 1997 re-release was ready for release when the US ratings agency told Lucasfilm flat out that if they left the scene the way it was in the original they'd get a PG-13 rating instead of the Universal rating the movie had. This was due to the ratings rules having changed in the 20 years since the original was released. Lucasfilm had to chose between accepting the PG-13 rating and closing off the Star Wars movies to kids, or make the alteration and keep the Universal rating. They went for the latter, and there was a great disturbance in the Force, "as if millions of voices cried out in b*tthurt".
  19. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Krieger22 in Canon update   
    I am pretty sure the script of Indiana Jones didn't call for him to shoot the guy with the swords, but it was in the take that made it to the theaters.
     
    I am not sure a "script" especially a 4th draft is any more definitive than "my mother's friend's sister's boyfriend says..."
     
    Script + whatever allowed Improv + Editing = final release
     
    On a side note, I think that same script draft was featured last week on Pawn Stars. That dude's version was signed by George back in the 70s.
  20. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Corg Ironside in My players seem afraid of combat   
    BTW to everyone that has participated in this thread so far, I appreciate your comments. I see that the game is going well and I have not done anything wrong allowing it (which I was slightly worried about).
  21. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Vigil in Canon update   
    To be 100% fair, the only "canon" is what George wanted, and the Special Edition is literally what he wanted. So it doesn't matter if from a literary perspective it was stupid to make the update (it was stupid) it was changed and therefore is canon.
     
    There is zero that can be dug up, dredged, or found in a time capsule that can change that except if it comes from Disney.
     
    It is nice to see old scripts being found though. 
  22. Like
    fatedtodie reacted to HappyDaze in Ramming Enemy Vessels   
    Remember that these rules should also be usable with speeders and speeder bikes for making more exciting chase scenes.
     
    As for ships, my group's pilot had "bumps" a fighter or two with her Ghtroc 720 (Armor 5 is a blessing).
  23. Like
    fatedtodie reacted to Zar in Tinkerer Talent: Is there a Limitation to the size?   
    Why are you trying to find a loophole in the rules? The designers aren't lawyers. Ask yourself what they intended with the trait.
    Why are you bothering me with these questions? Ask your GM. If he agrees to what you want and you abuse it, you are just making the game less fun for everyone at your table. Every GM is different as you can see from the replies in this thread.
    Why are you bothering the devs with these questions? I'd much rather they continue to work on more content for the game then to say what they would do in their own game if someone wanted to abuse hard points.
  24. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Icosiel in Future Use of EU Ships, Equipment, & History   
    Last I checked there is nothing that Disney (The house of the mouse as you put it) put in the license that prevents EU/Legends mining.
     
    They still allow SWTOR mmo to be fully living in the EU with a valid license.
  25. Like
    fatedtodie got a reaction from Icosiel in Future Use of EU Ships, Equipment, & History   
    Last I checked there is nothing that Disney (The house of the mouse as you put it) put in the license that prevents EU/Legends mining.
     
    They still allow SWTOR mmo to be fully living in the EU with a valid license.
×