Jump to content

Sileo

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sileo

  1. I'm yet another one hanging out in the Austin area here. I used to play multiple times a week before I made a couple of cross country moves, I've kept up on the books and online games but been a couple of years since I did a proper in person game. So definitely interested in seeing something pan out. During the week I usually can only get out of work at 1900 at the earliest, so weekends tend to work better in my day to day. Depending on how the wind blows and/or the timing, I could probably convince my wife to come to the game as well.
  2. I've always used Maptools, but there are many pros and cons here which make it less than ideal for many people. Pros: Highly configurable and customization basically allows you do nearly anything and track anything. There is an existing Framework for Edge of the Empire which can be modified to be used in AoR/FaD with some work. Very adjustable Web UI, font sizes can also be changed on the fly for Chat, or even use full HTML if you want to be crafty. Free as in free beer. Cons: The scripting language used to create frameworks/rulesets, while powerful is complex unless you have some experience in scripting/coding. Community has quieted down in the past year on producing frameworks/rulesets. No audio component, which may or may not be a problem depending on online play style. It's locally hosted, so network issues with connecting/hosting can be problematic. I've played around with several other virtual table tops, and I keep coming back to it because in my case most of the cons are irrelevant. Mileage will vary on how big of a deal breaker the cons are, though.
  3. That has to be a Terentatek based on the illustration. No accounting for size. And my last experience with current canon places it on Kashyyyk, which may as well be the planet of huge fauna and flora for no particularly good reason.
  4. What - you mean a fourth computer? Don't be ridiculous! That would be silly. No, the first computer simply pushes the third computers button! Wouldn't that be the computational equivalent of being your own grandpa? May explain why No Disintegrations hasn't been posted yet, lack of delta algorithms can't do swell things to that first computer's ability to process.
  5. I haven't really thought there were many issues with the crafting rules myself, but I do like the notion underlying this that someone will set out with a goal to build a piece of equipment with a specific quality. Someone may well set out to design an amphibious piece of armor. The potential outcome of them successfully making something that isn't amphibious would be a bit odd. (Don't quote me on the hard points working out here, it was just the quick and dirty example that sprang to mind). I'd be more inclined to go with Upgrading the skill check, or Upgrading the difficulty than adding Setback/Boost die. It also prevents someone with sufficiently high ranks of Gearhead from gaming the system.
  6. Huh. I'll have to take another look at an actual die. I've used a gaming table program too long potentially. I had the die sides recorded as 2 sides having 2 light pips, 3 sides with 1 light pip, 1 side with 2 dark pips and 6 sides with 1 dark pip. Which struck me as making a dark side pip a lot more likely to come up. "Is the dark side stronger?" - "No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive." The Force Die shows a total of 5 light sides, 3 of those have 2 pips. It shows 7 dark sides, 1 with two pips. So the chances of rolling dark are higher (7/12) than rolling light (5/12). But when you roll light, the chances are 3/5 for two pips, while when you roll dark, the chances are 1/7 for two pips. There is a total of 8 dark and 8 light pips on the die, so when you roll enough dice the amount of dark and light should be the same. Thanks for that, I now have something to correct on that framework. Explains quite a bit about how the rolls have seemed unfairly dark biased, too.
  7. The GM Kit would be the first obvious one, that screen can be quite helpful. Beyond that it'll vary a bit on which themes you want to go with all said and done. For Edge of the Empire I'd really recommend Lords of Nal Hutta for a GM. It has a lot of good information about a pretty iconic group of antagonists (Hutts) for a bunch of underworld types. Career books would vary based on your players, but some, like Lead by Example and Far Horizons contain mechanics in and of themselves. Mass Combat (also found in Onslaught at Arda I IIRC) and homesteads in the previous two books.
  8. Huh. I'll have to take another look at an actual die. I've used a gaming table program too long potentially. I had the die sides recorded as 2 sides having 2 light pips, 3 sides with 1 light pip, 1 side with 2 dark pips and 6 sides with 1 dark pip. Which struck me as making a dark side pip a lot more likely to come up.
  9. That is, using them without flipping Destiny Points.If you’re willing to flip DPs, then either light or dark side users can use pips of the other type — but there is a cost to using pips of the wrong type, and that cost is more than just spending the DPs. All of these where wrong when they stated that "anyone with morality 30 or more uses Light Side Pips. In fact if a Character falls below 30 Morality they will be required to use Dark Side Pips as their "normal" Pips until they have reached the 70 Morality Light Side Paragon status. Until that point they either have to Flip a DP and suffer strain to use White Pips (thus avoiding conflict). Or they use the Dark Side but gain Conflict. This monumental hill they need to climb makes redemption a very difficult thing to achieve. Rules lawyer over I return you all to your regular derailment. Hello anyone who might still be interested in the original topic , The main problem with RAW and playing a "gray Jedi" seems to be that you can always only spend either Light OR Dark Side Force Pips without Destiny Point, regardless of what makes sense in the situation. In order to cater to those interested in "walking the line", I/you/someone might consider the following houserule, that allows for a more lenient option of spending light/dark pips, while still being (IMO) balanced. Houserule: A force user between 30 - 70 Morality may spend either dark OR light side pips without spending Strain and a Destiny Point. They must decide which side of the force they are trying to use BEFORE they throw their Force Dice. They can still use pips different from their choice by suffering Strain and spending a Destiny Point. When deciding which side of the force they intend to tap into, the player should take their character's emotinal state into consideration. Are they calm and concentrated? Then they should try use the light side and would suffer Strain (+Destiny Point) for using light side pips. Are they angry, fearful or craving for cookies? Then they should try to tap into the dark side and and would suffer Strain (+Destiny Point) if light side pips come up and are used. This might actually lead to or inspire some great roleplaying. Morality >70 can only use the light side without penalty until they reach Morality <50. Morality <30 can use only dark side until they reach Morality >50. Cheers and may the Bendu be with you GM Fred Great points, and a great potential solution as well. The way the die are marked, you'll tend to roll more dark than light. It seems like it's this RPG's version of the "power of the dark side". It may be an unfair generalization, but my experience is from a player stand point unless they have a specific non-binary Force Tradition they want to go with, wanting to be a "Grey Jedi" just means they want to tap into some of the benefits without the harsh drawbacks of being a Dark sider. Though in this system I tend to think the penalty for being one is markedly less than some other iterations. Saga was a lot of fun when I had to turn in my Jedi character because he used Force lightning one too many times. I think either way you're left with some form of house rule/GM adjudication to handle this. I'd likely just go with the character being on "recovery" from being dark to get access to dark side points without spending a destiny point, and it would last as long as they stay in the 30-70 range, which seems reasonable for being "grey". The fact the die come up dark more often then light is the benefit there. I'd probably then adjust conflict gains based on why they were using the Force power in the first place; that should help mitigate the need to spend one session messing up people's days then next session feeding orphans to recoup the lost morality.
  10. Because that's a lot of Conflict points, even for the GM's pet PC... Innocent? I believe the innocents were on Alderaan. I'd say you had innocents in both incidents. There are certainly rational reasons why the Death Star had to be destroyed, but the same can be said of Tarkin's Fear Doctrine (Is that even canon anymore) leading to the conclusion that blowing up one planet would spare a hundred more the same fate. The Empire seemed big on the kill/imprison one to warn a hundred technique. I'm pretty sure the guys cleaning the toilets and cooking food on the Death Star would be categorized as innocent by most. They blew up the Death Star to get at the few people willing to make the decision to use it, and Alderaan was destroyed for the few people who founded and pushed for the creation of the Alliance. Arguably both disproportionate responses with unnecessarily high body counts. Have to give it for Alderaan for the most involved folks killed for being on the wrong planet. Imagine being that poor sap just picking up a load of Nerf meat for a chain of restaurants and going "Huh, that's a new moon... what's that green light.." To add to the actual thread, and the above kind of hints at it, I always have to divide intention from outcome to really weigh "morality", with or without impact of the Force. Tarkin destroyed Alderaan to make a point. Luke destroyed the Death Star to spare another world the same fate. Both killed a significant number of people, or more accurately, were responsible for their demise in Tarkin's case, but one had a more goodly reason when judged by common conventions of morality in most societies. I'd award less Conflict to Mr. Skywalker for that reason, but he'd get some. Even when you justify it and accept you had to do it, it'd still weigh on you. And that's honestly as far as I take it. Some powers have inherent drawbacks to using one pip color versus another. If a character exists on the Paragon side of Light/Dark, I'll expect Strain expended to go so strongly against what is the best representation of your "philosophy of the Force" the system provides. I don't typically flip the Destiny Point unless it's drastically out of character. Otherwise, I tend to rule it based on intention/outcome. Using the Force to terrorize a Stormtrooper into fleeing a scene to avoid killing him wouldn't generate Conflict. Using it to inspire his sense of compassion to act aggressively and kill his superior who just summarily executed someone, would generate Conflict in my opinion. So far it hasn't caused many problems in my groups balance wise, but I have certainly played with folks who would find some way to exploit it. I wouldnt say there are innocents in both. The people on the Death Star were Imperial Navy. They joined and they knew what they were a part of. Most of the people on Alderaan were just people who were going on with their lives. There is also the fact that Alderaan was blown up only to make a point. It was only 'If we will blow up Alderaan, just think how little we will care about your crappy little planet.' It wasnt a military target or a rebel base. The Death Star was a warship. That is a big difference. If we run with the assumption that signing up with the Imperial Navy makes you accountable for the actions of the people above you, then the people of Alderaan, who I am admittedly assuming here, who voted a rebellious Senator into office is accountable for his actions. Of course,there is only one penalty in the Empire for sedition against the Empire, so who can be surprised they blew up the world? One drawback to democracy is that everyone is held accountable for the decisions of the majority, one way or another. On principal, I am not arguing the point a battle station is a more valid(er) target than an entire world to most definitions and people, for the record; I very much agree with it. I'd have to be a lunatic to try and defend the Empire from a morality standpoint, I like to think I'm sane so I'll avoid that. If you hold an entire group accountable for one action, it becomes problematic to then not allow that logic to reach fruition with another because the general consensus is they are morally correct. The Empire is harsh and despotic, but to hold every individual accountable for the actions of a couple of megalomaniacs is difficult to hold all the way through. Many people on the Death Star no doubt questioned what happened on Alderaan. Blowing up the Death Star and killing two million some odd people, only served to galvanize the people who were reeling from Alderaan with a sizable sense of loss. Officers who were wavering in their loyalty had friends, lovers and classmates exploded by a dirt farmer who rolled a bunch of Triumphs. Many of them would be subjectively good people. As a valid military target, it certainly made sense to blow it up, but you got rid of enough people who were just following orders and trusting that their chain of command had an "ultimate good" in mind that yes, you should reflect on all the lives lost and feel terrible about it. Star Wars as a series of movies tries very hard to skirt these moral grey areas, but there is a perspective where people see the good the Empire has done, especially if they are from one of the "hundred" that didn't get blown up, subjugated and worse to make a point. Rational people can argue over the finer points of that, but we loop back around to the notion that there are lots of grey in the setting they try overly hard to distill to black and white, light side and dark side. Luke Skywalker killed over two million people. End statement. Everything else is justifying why that was the only action he could have taken, and that's fine, but he has a sizable weight to carry for the rest of his life because it's a fair guess that not all of them deserved a disintegration. Doesn't mean he did anything wrong in the grand scheme, but only someone with an extreme manifestation of an anti-social personality disorder wouldn't be kept up at night by that action and the body count that follows.
  11. If you're willing to pull from Force and Destiny and Force Sensitivity fits the underlying story, I think a Mystic - Advisor hits a good balance of basic knowledge skills, only really missing Education, and the key social abilities. Otherwise, the above suggestions all are very workable depending on the XP investment and character flavor. As for species, I'd honestly say go with a Nemodian. If I imagine a sleazy type they spring to mind quickly for me thanks to Nute Gunray.
  12. Because that's a lot of Conflict points, even for the GM's pet PC... Innocent? I believe the innocents were on Alderaan. I'd say you had innocents in both incidents. There are certainly rational reasons why the Death Star had to be destroyed, but the same can be said of Tarkin's Fear Doctrine (Is that even canon anymore) leading to the conclusion that blowing up one planet would spare a hundred more the same fate. The Empire seemed big on the kill/imprison one to warn a hundred technique. I'm pretty sure the guys cleaning the toilets and cooking food on the Death Star would be categorized as innocent by most. They blew up the Death Star to get at the few people willing to make the decision to use it, and Alderaan was destroyed for the few people who founded and pushed for the creation of the Alliance. Arguably both disproportionate responses with unnecessarily high body counts. Have to give it for Alderaan for the most involved folks killed for being on the wrong planet. Imagine being that poor sap just picking up a load of Nerf meat for a chain of restaurants and going "Huh, that's a new moon... what's that green light.." To add to the actual thread, and the above kind of hints at it, I always have to divide intention from outcome to really weigh "morality", with or without impact of the Force. Tarkin destroyed Alderaan to make a point. Luke destroyed the Death Star to spare another world the same fate. Both killed a significant number of people, or more accurately, were responsible for their demise in Tarkin's case, but one had a more goodly reason when judged by common conventions of morality in most societies. I'd award less Conflict to Mr. Skywalker for that reason, but he'd get some. Even when you justify it and accept you had to do it, it'd still weigh on you. And that's honestly as far as I take it. Some powers have inherent drawbacks to using one pip color versus another. If a character exists on the Paragon side of Light/Dark, I'll expect Strain expended to go so strongly against what is the best representation of your "philosophy of the Force" the system provides. I don't typically flip the Destiny Point unless it's drastically out of character. Otherwise, I tend to rule it based on intention/outcome. Using the Force to terrorize a Stormtrooper into fleeing a scene to avoid killing him wouldn't generate Conflict. Using it to inspire his sense of compassion to act aggressively and kill his superior who just summarily executed someone, would generate Conflict in my opinion. So far it hasn't caused many problems in my groups balance wise, but I have certainly played with folks who would find some way to exploit it.
  13. Not sure if this is a new issue or not, but posting here for a sanity check. I remember the "Campaign" selection used to be sticky. When you selected a Campaign on the list of characters, it would remain selected when you went to another area on the creator and back. This seems to no longer be the case. Minor issue to be sure, but when running multiple campaigns that feature was handy to narrow down the character's involved.
  14. Is this from a web install? If so, uninstall (if you've already installed it), upgrade to the latest version of the .NET framework, and try a re-install. You can also try turning off any virus checker temporarily just while installing the app. Virus checkers can do all sorts of weird things under the hood, especially when it already thinks something is suspicious (such as downloading an unsigned executable named Setup.exe ). If all else fails, try the manual install with the ZIP. So updated net Turned off all anti-virus uninstalled Clicked Web install got same issue The error keeps pointing to the system.deployment.dll file have you checked it???: PLATFORM VERSION INFO Windows : 10.0.14393.0 (Win32NT) Common Language Runtime : 4.0.30319.42000 System.Deployment.dll : 4.6.1586.0 built by: NETFXREL2 clr.dll : 4.6.1586.0 built by: NETFXREL2 dfdll.dll : 4.6.1586.0 built by: NETFXREL2 dfshim.dll : 10.0.14393.0 (rs1_release.160715-1616) SOURCES Deployment url : https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26990628/deploy/SWCharGen/SWCharGenLauncher.application Server : nginx IDENTITIES Deployment Identity : SWCharGenLauncher.application, Version=1.7.0.1, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=0000000000000000, processorArchitecture=x86 APPLICATION SUMMARY * Installable application. ERROR SUMMARY Below is a summary of the errors, details of these errors are listed later in the log. * Activation of https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26990628/deploy/SWCharGen/SWCharGenLauncher.applicationresulted in exception. Following failure messages were detected: + Activation failed. + The system cannot find the file specified. (Exception from HRESULT: 0x80070002) You ran into a known issue with ClickOnce installs. This happens occasionally, but not to everyone. Sometimes, a new deployment will fix it. Unfortunately, I have no control over how ClickOnce works, so I can't fix it . You may have better luck when 1.8 is released. In the mean time, you can use the manual install and just copy the contents of the ZIP file into a directory and run it from there. I have had this problem for months now. And I'm running 8.1 I think Oggdude meant 1.8 of his Creator. For now your best option if you haven't done it already is likely doing a manual install and excluding the directory/folder you put it in from all Anti-Virus programs.
  15. When trying to add or modify/add the skill for Deadly Accuracy I'm getting this error in 1.8.0:
  16. I had this issues while I was playing around with creating a bunch of sample characters. I was able to resolve it by clearing the cache and restarting the program. Unsurprisingly, fixed it for me too. Thanks for the fix! Should have thought to clear the cache before posting.
  17. Found a potential issue, not sure if it's been posted before (Quick search turns up nothing). When I try to purchase a Talent in my Career Specialization for a Technician, I get asked "You have purchased talents in your current career specialization. If you continue, these talents will be lost. Are you sure you want to do this?" If I select "Yes", the character's Career Specialization changes to Cyber Tech. if I select "No", nothing happens and the Talent is still purchased; however this comes up every time I attempt to purchase a Talent in the specialization. Reproduction Steps: 1) Create a New Character 2) Select Career Technician 3) Select Career Specialization; anything but Cyber Tech. 4) Purchase a Talent in the Specialization, and the above message appears. Anyone else able to reproduce this, or is it possibly a data file issue?
  18. No and no, and has been confirmed by the devs. The properties of the off-hand weapon in regards to the combat check do not apply. So if you're using an off-hand weapon with Accurate, you don't get to suddenly add that boost die as you first need to roll and generate 2 advantage to trigger a hit with the off-hand weapon. Also, I believe with the program it's deliberately set up so that effects that only trigger after a successful combat check aren't applied by default, as it'd be confusing on the character sheet if the dice pool field listed a free advantage (such as with a Bantha Laser Sight) that wouldn't be applicable if the combat check fails. The free advantage from a curved hilt is only applied in a specific situation (fighting a single opponent), so it wouldn't show up as not every combat check you make would fit that situation, same to how Duelist's Training (boost die in one-on-one fights) and Multiple Opponents talents (boost die when fighting more than one opponent) don't get added to every combat check. Thanks Donovan. Can you further help me interpreting the rules then? 1) Although I tried Oggy's chargen with a dual-wield superior weapon too. it says XXXY/Y (X=skill/proficiency dice, Y=advantage), So it means for the primary weapon I get the advantage and if the off-hand is triggered: I get another advange. I beleive this goes by the rules. (I'd think, that if you have a dual-wielded curved-hilt weapon pair and you are fighting a single opponent, then the same is the case: You get one advantage for primary and if the off-hand is triggered: you receive another) 2) Shouldn't this mean, that if I trigger an Accurate off-hand, then I roll one more boost die? (According to the above: no is the answer, though I think this would be more consequent) 3) What if the secondary weapon has another passive quality like defensive/deflection? Do you get the benefit only if triggered? This would seem very awkward to me, see this scenario: The adversary comes first, you have two weapons in your two hands, one has deflection2, the ohter has none. Now what is your (ranged) defense? (You didn't have a turn to tell which is primary and which is secondary, and it can't be told by which hand you are carrying the weapon. -- I beleive you can swap primary/secondary without swapping hands) 4) As you are saying: "This has been confirmed by the devs". Is there a source where I can find such official information without the need of reading through hundreds of topics with thousands of posts? Thanks Not quite Donovan, but here's my understanding around these: 1) Correct. My own understanding from the development response was the initial Combat Check is assembled by the main-hand weapon, and if activated the off-hand weapon will trigger the qualities that do not impact the roll itself. 2) No. The system doesn't allow the second-hand activation to modify the dice pool. It can however modify the result, like adding the Advantage from Superior or Curved Hilt if the circumstances permit it. 3) Deflection/Defense are calculated by the highest item/talent which provides it; including the off-hand you are wielding. In your example it would be 2, from a thematic stand point this is the same thing as wielding a "parrying" weapon. The system does not expect you to trigger it on an attack to work. 4) The sticky at the top of the forum has a record of the answered questions under the heading "FFG Developer Answered Questions". I've copied the relevant answer here from Episode II in that sticky.
  19. I noticed this to, but thought it might have been deliberately removed, as the program was incorrectly allowing multiple instances of Defensive to stack, when clarification from Sam Stewart is that they don't. So for instance, if you had a pair of vibroknives equipped and had the Defensive Training talent, the program would previously give you Melee Defense 2 when it should only be Melee Defense 1. And since Defensive is a situational trait anyways (you need to have the weapon actively in hand to gain its benefit), it might just be simpler to not have the program automatically include the effects of Defensive or Deflection. Obviously it's OggDude's call to make, but I for one don't mind that Defensive/Deflection don't automatically get added in. Absolutely agreed it didn't work in version 1.5.0 in line with recent clarification. Re-reading the release notes I think my second use case (being the easier to reproduce one) should have incremented Melee Defense from 0 to 1, however. Snipped from Release notes. "The calculation for determining your final melee and ranged defense values was incorrect based on a recent developer-answered question. Now, only one equipped item will contribute to melee or ranged defense at a time. For instance, if your armor gives you a total of 1 melee and 1 ranged defense, an equipped melee weapon (maybe a shield) contributes 2 melee defense, and an equipped lightsaber has 1 melee and 3 ranged defense, your final defense values will be 2 melee (from the melee weapon) and 3 ranged defense (from the lightsaber), assuming you always have the weapon and lightsaber in-hand during combat. "+ Defense" mods (such as from the Defensive or Deflection qualities, or from talents) only stack for a particular item, not for your final defense values. Soak values will still stack, with the highest figured soak from each of four "source types" (armor, cybernetics, weapons, gear) contributing to the final value." I believe Defensive Training should have increased the Lightsaber's Defensive Quality from 0 to 1 which should have resulted in a Melee Defense of 1 when it was "equipped" for the final Melee Defense value. Of course this is all dependent on my reading comprehension. EDIT: It does grant the Defensive +1 Quality to the Basic Lightsaber when it is Carried or Equipped, but it does not reflect in the final Defense values. Weapons which natively have Defense, like the Lightsaber Pike, do. If you give me your exact layout (weapons and armor you have equipped, along with all attachments and mods), I'll replicate it on my end and see if the defense values are correct. Remember, though, only one item can be a source for defense. Hello, In the use case I was testing it was only the Basic Lightsaber as equipment at all. Exact Reproduction steps (At least for me!): 1) Create New Character 2) Career, Select Mystic and Makashi Duelist 3) Specializations, Buy up to Defensive Training 4) Equipment, Add Basic Lightsaber 5) Click Equip for the Basic Lightsaber 6) Melee Defense remains at 0 (In my case) The oddity here is that the Basic Lightsaber does not have the Defensive 1 quality until Equipped or Carried, and it loses that property when not Equipped or Carried, so that piece is working right. This also will work if I add an attachment which grants the Defense 1 quality (Lorrdian Crystal + Mods for example). This also works if I use a weapon which has a native Defensive bonus. It almost looks like Defense added via Talents to equipment (I tested Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes, those work) isn't being factored correctly to raise the "Character" Defense values, but all other sources are working correctly.
  20. I noticed this to, but thought it might have been deliberately removed, as the program was incorrectly allowing multiple instances of Defensive to stack, when clarification from Sam Stewart is that they don't. So for instance, if you had a pair of vibroknives equipped and had the Defensive Training talent, the program would previously give you Melee Defense 2 when it should only be Melee Defense 1. And since Defensive is a situational trait anyways (you need to have the weapon actively in hand to gain its benefit), it might just be simpler to not have the program automatically include the effects of Defensive or Deflection. Obviously it's OggDude's call to make, but I for one don't mind that Defensive/Deflection don't automatically get added in. Absolutely agreed it didn't work in version 1.5.0 in line with recent clarification. Re-reading the release notes I think my second use case (being the easier to reproduce one) should have incremented Melee Defense from 0 to 1, however. Snipped from Release notes. "The calculation for determining your final melee and ranged defense values was incorrect based on a recent developer-answered question. Now, only one equipped item will contribute to melee or ranged defense at a time. For instance, if your armor gives you a total of 1 melee and 1 ranged defense, an equipped melee weapon (maybe a shield) contributes 2 melee defense, and an equipped lightsaber has 1 melee and 3 ranged defense, your final defense values will be 2 melee (from the melee weapon) and 3 ranged defense (from the lightsaber), assuming you always have the weapon and lightsaber in-hand during combat. "+ Defense" mods (such as from the Defensive or Deflection qualities, or from talents) only stack for a particular item, not for your final defense values. Soak values will still stack, with the highest figured soak from each of four "source types" (armor, cybernetics, weapons, gear) contributing to the final value." I believe Defensive Training should have increased the Lightsaber's Defensive Quality from 0 to 1 which should have resulted in a Melee Defense of 1 when it was "equipped" for the final Melee Defense value. Of course this is all dependent on my reading comprehension. EDIT: It does grant the Defensive +1 Quality to the Basic Lightsaber when it is Carried or Equipped, but it does not reflect in the final Defense values. Weapons which natively have Defense, like the Lightsaber Pike, do.
  21. I believe I may have found a defect, though my memory is not completely intact on this one. I have an existing Force and Destiny character with Defensive Training for multiple trees, and this bonus is no longer applied once the character equips a Lightsaber. I confirmed this isn't a stacking issue by creating a new character with no other source of Melee Defense and buying Defensive training in the Makashi Specialization and equipping a basic Lightsaber. I really do seem to recall this used to add the Melee Defense bonus to the character sheet.
  22. Found a minor display issue. If your current and max Encumbrance goes into double digits, and you have Cybernetics the digits for your total Encumbrance go under "Cybernetics" on the equipment screen. Doesn't seem to be fixable by resizing the program. Link to a screenshot: https://copy.com/rbCUwV2Do3TgtV4e
  23. I'm guessing you mean in the descriptions? Then yes, you can. Descriptions are actually HTML with some special tags thrown in for pips, dice, and the like. If you want to see bulletted points, just use unordered lists (<ul> tag), with each item being a list item (<li> tag). For instance: <ul> <li>Item 1</li> <li>Item 2</li> </ul> This will look something like this: Item 1 Item 2 That was exactly what I was looking to do! Thank you very much for the response, didn't think to just try HTML tags.
  24. Been playing with this editor for a bit, it's great and I commend the work that went into it. I've started working through inputting information into the Data Editor, and ran into a format question. Is there a way to implement bullet point format, like the Core Book(s) use to single out specific applications of individual Skills?
×
×
  • Create New...