Jump to content

fictionsuit

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I'd like to presage this comment by thanking Borithan for contributing to this thread, acknowledging his game lore, his wisdom, and above all his sense of decency and balance. Not at all the type of vindictive GM to abuse Dark Side counters against players who might appear to hold different viewpoints to his own... Flexibility might equate to power, but less flexible weapons will generally make up for that with... more power. You're not going to see basic staffs with Vicious or Piercing or Sunder, high damage or low critical ratings. More powerful staff weapons should lose some of those options. Giving staff weapons more options should make them a more viable selection for players, at least for a certain period of a character's career. That isn't actually to say I think they're not viable, more that maybe they need to be more consistent, which would make tweaking a level appropriate weapon easier. I'm not going to disagree with keeping staff qualities to a minimum for sake of simplicity, game balance, consistency etc. When I've been thinking about this I'm trying to bear in mind the way the system narrates combat and accounts for damage, so if you strike your opponent with the the pommel of your Corellian cutlass that can be suitably accounted for by the narration of that round of combat, rather than dual wielding, if you hit an opponent's head with the flat edge of your blade maybe you do a low level Critical that gives them a concussion, but your sword doesn't need the Disorient quality. So there's a level of flexibility built in to the system both in thematic and mechanical terms. What remains is whether a staff weapon, or really any weapon, has properties so intrinsic to their use they need to be described by a special weapon quality, that either gives them a passive property like Defensive or describes what most characters will be actively attempting to do with said weapon e.g. a lightsabre sunders, an axe pierces viciously, a truncheon delivers blunt force trauma. For me, one of the typical uses of a staff weapon is the leg sweep, which to me suggests the Knockdown quality, far more than a sword or axe does, but maybe not enough to justify an actual quality? A lot of other respondents have focused on the striking multiple times/opponents in quick succession aspect, but it's unclear (although not intractably so) whether dual-wielding covers that. Apologies if some of the above seems obvious, I'm clearly still trying to get a handle on how the system operates.
  2. Aye, well, as it stands you make a good point, but initially I would have liked to use something that emphasised the non-lethal properties and used a quality that differentiated it from that kind of edged mace/bludgeon. Needlessly complicated perhaps.
  3. I agree with OggDude, in that when I visualise what I see a staff weapon doing, I think of it in terms of its flexibility and I see the examples he describes (and described elsewhere on this topic). You can strike an exposed limb (standard attack), jab into the ribs or other vulnerable point (Critical), bludgeon someone over the top of the head (Disorient), keep an opponent at bay with its extended reach (Defensive), use it to trip or otherwise direct an opponent's movement (Knockdown), or quickly strike a single opponent twice or fend off two separate opponents (Linked or dual-wielding). And because of that flexibility I think it would be sensible to reduce its damage and/or increase its difficulty. There should be a reason that despite its versatility we don't see everyone carrying one: conspicuous, reduced lethality, difficult to use at their full potential (Unwieldy). I would be happy to see a standard staff inflict only Stun damage, obviously different variations might change that. I don't know if their needs to be an actual staff quality, just for the qualities to be applied more consistently. Maybe an actual quality that could apply to all "double-bladed" weapons, just to make it explicit that they can use the dual wielding rules (and possibly that they need to be wielded with two hands)? As there are some poleaxe / glaive type weapons that might share some of the suite of "staff" qualities, but that definitely shouldn't have Linked or dual-wielding.
  4. Hmmmm. I think the descrtiption you posted above is viable, Gran, so thanks. I think Unwieldy is a good option. When you said you thought allowing two-handed fighting made it more flexible, in the sense of potentially attacking two opponents, at the cost of additional difficulty, I thought that made it the more representative choice. My GM and I have decided to go with a very basic staff weapon with the Defensive and Disorient qualities; it doesn't entirely satisfy thematically what I would like the item to do, but it seemed more important to get the game going than get bogged down in the details. But I agree in general that it would be helpful for staff weapons to have consistent qualities, I might try and post some thoughts in the Game Mechanics thread.
  5. Hey Whafrog, I don't mind long rambling responses, they're interesting (usually). I like the idea of a talent that synergises different skills or assists dual-wielders generally, but given dual wielding must be such a common option that people would want to take up I guess I think it would be restrictive to limit it to only specific lightsaber focused trees. As an individual player I can discuss a talent similar to the one you mention with my GM eventually, but I'm surprised FF haven't already come up with something in the existing core books. In the (perfectly valid) example Gransolo uses above, employing a Lightsaber and a blaster feels less "intuitive" to me than someone incorporating martial arts into their swordplay, but they both suffer the same level of disadvantage. A talent could redress that I suppose. I could see them coming up with something either to increase the viability of a Lightsaber + Brawl style if they cover Teras Kasi in a future supplement, but I suppose I would see that as a bit restrictive. There is a lack of synergy with the combat skills in the core mechanic that I find a but limiting, but I'm happy to accept that might my problem rather than that of the system, and anyway I probably need to get a bit more practical experience with it first. Second point: Ah don't worry, not really expecting to be any sort of multi discipline master straight away. It's more about deciding what to invest in initially. Will it be worth it to invest in Brawl, Melee and Lightsaber, or just Lightsaber? At what point does it become viable mechanically to start activating the advantages of dual-wielding? Will Brawl or Melee become superfluous eventually as lightsaber combat becomes more prominent as the campaign goes on, is the window for synergistic usage too short? Not questions I was necessarily expecting definitive answers to but hearing people's responses has helped clarify what I was thinking about doing. I could focus on lightsaber initially and buy up Brawl later when I would have enough a dice pool to use both effectively, but from a character viewpoint that doesn't feel right. With a basic 100XP build I'm struggling as it is to put even one dot in the skills I'd like to develop later, one or two Soresu talents, maybe one weak force power, so I'm very aware that what I will be building will be a a) non-optimal b) essentially quite weak. So I definitely don't feel I'm trying to get an end result right at character generation; what I am struggling with is deciding on what skills are absolutely essential as both representing the character's backstory and as building blocks for what they will eventually become. Just a sidebar, but I think I'm essentially used to systems which give you a broader range of initial abilites/XP/starting points to play with. In other games I've been able to assign much more easily the characteristics which are appropriate to what I would think of as quite a modest character's background. Not a criticism, but trying to build even a sub-padawan force user that isn't super specialised/limited in terms of their skills is pretty tough.
  6. No, Refined Cortosis staff not really what I was looking for. A simple staff of wood or metal. The Imbue rules are interesting, thanks, but more something I would think about later, at the moment it's just a simple weapon for a starting character, I'm not so worried about it being particularly powerful or able to hold its own against a lightsaber. Plus the image of the mysterious, hooded wanderer with the staff is so iconic (cliched?) that I more or less picture Obi-Wan with one every time even though I don't think you ever actually see him with one. Know what I mean? I think Knockdown conveys what I'd like to be able to do, I'm not sure why you think it's overpowered Whafrog, but you're more familiar with the system than I am. How would you cost it differently if it was included? I think adding a Stun Setting, and Unwieldy 3 are good options. I got the feeling that the Linked quality was a bit overpowered acually, or was seen that way, so I'm wary, even though it makes sense to give staff type weapons consistent qualities.
  7. I'd like my warrior-monk type character to use a two handed staff or quarterstaff. Bit of a RPG fallback, but I'd like to present my GM with the description of a cheap staff weapon that my character could use from the point of character creation, and the description of the truncheon doesn't quite fit. Electro-Staffs and Force Pikes are more setting specific (and more powerful), but I'd like something that's a bit more discreet and wouldn't immediately be identified as an offensive weapon, and thematically might be assumed to be a walking aid or religious accessory. Mechanically I'd like something between a Truncheon and a Gaffi Stick. How does this sound? Two-Handed Staff Skill: Melee Damage: +2 (same as truncheon) Critical: 4 (more versatile than truncheon hence more likely to be able to jab in ribs, eye, etc, but with less cutting, spiky attachments like the Gaffi Stick) Range: Engaged. Encumbrance: 3 Hard Points: 2 Price: 75 Rarity: 2 Qualities: Defensive 1, Knockback (I wondered about Disorient here – rather than Knockback – but I think it needs something to make it sufficiently different to just a bludgeoning weapon and suggest that you’re more likely to trip or otherwise upset someone’s footing) Should it have Stun Damage? (to convey its non lethal nature?) Any other thoughts?
  8. Whafrog: I understand what you're saying about the narrative system. I think you described it equally eloquently in another thread I was reading. But in what you're describing, as you say, the character's ability in Brawl or Ranged (light) doesn't matter. Which if it the blocks and kicks are incidental, or the character is purely using their off-hand blaster to force their opponent to duck, that's maybe fine. I understand that these sorts of actions are happening as part of a whole series of actions within the same combat round. But what I'm trying to get at, maybe mainly for my own understanding, is how a character's strengths or weaknessess with different weapon proficiences are reflected in the ruleset. I would argue that while Maul is clearly a highly skilled lightsaber combatant, he's gaining an additional advantage because he's complementing that with some highly aggressive and acrobatic martial arts i.e. there's (potentially) more to it than just an advantage generating lightsaber check. I think there's scope for us to narratively describe what he does after an advantage generating lightsaber check as acrobatically kicking Obiwan off the catwalk, whereas we might describe what Dooku does after the same check in a different way because they clearly have very different styles. But I also think there's something to be said for a player to say that they are going to launch a series of lightsaber blows but then attempt to follow that up by sweeping the leg of their opponent, because, as above, that opens up a series of other options for how the combat unfolds, and that should, in my opinion, be at least partially dependent upon their skill in unarmed combat rather than purely with a lightsaber. And because otherwise everyone would be running around twirling, dodging and high-kicking like Maul without any basic competency (i.e levels) in Brawl!
  9. Thanks Gran, glad you like the concept. Me too! Am I right in thinking that you don't think the lightsaber form talents that allow you to substitute in another characteristic should "penalise" such a character? The way Dono explained it it sounded to me like gaining Shien or Ataru technique use would then potentially degrade your dice pool if your alternative characteristic to Brawn was lower. That doesn't seem right to me, that an optional talent would provide you with almost automatic disadvantage. And you've got it exactly, I'm trying to get some more information on how a (lightsaber + brawl) style could work to give the charactor flavourful options in combat (without building it in such a way that the character is hobbled by a bad dice pool). So if we generate enough advantage we've potentially got an additional unarmed strike/hit (that's at your basic Brawl damage right?), and the potential to activate the specific qualities of your unarmed attack. And the info on the Enhance power is also really useful to note. Ok, cool. I think the benefits as described are fine, I just want to make sure that I don't create a character build where it's prohibitively difficult to activate them. And... yeah, totally don't need to be sold on the "independent" qualities of raising Brawl. The setting very much suggests to me that if your first instinct is pull out your lightsaber, no matter how powerful you are if you are not combining that with a certain level of discretion it is going to cause all sorts of problems for your character. And I think it's very fitting that a character has this incredibly powerful weapon, has trained to hone their skills, but if they want to try and follow what they know of the Jedi code then they've got to try and stop themselves using that power unless it's absolutely necessary.
  10. Thanks for clarifying that it's possible, I was only able to have a very quick look at the ruleset. Looks like it would only really work mechanically if you were to keep the Brawl and Lightsaber skills balanced and concentrate on a Brawn based character build initially. I apprecate that the rules might not really suit what I have in mind, but they certainly seem to discourage the kind of examples of mixed duelling / martials arts above. Darth Maul, as a high Brawl, high Lightsaber, high Brawn example, would seem to combine both styles highly effectively, but for most characters the disadvantages would seem to outweigh the benefits to the point where even for high level characters why would you bother? I suppose I feel that the added difficulty is harsh given that, presumably, it would be easier/more instinctive to try and punch/elbow an opponent with your free arm rather than aim a blaster or dual-wield a shock whip, but fair enough.
  11. Hello all. I've been reading the forums avidly for the past few weeks but first post, so apologies in advance if I ask any questions that have been covered before. I'm about to start playing in a F & D beta game, we're currently in the midst of character generation. I'd like to play a warrior-monk type character at least in part inspired by Shaolin style martial arts. Essentially, to take to take some of the implied inspiration for Jedi from Eastern philosophy within the films and make it more overt. I'm planning a Mirialan Soresu Defender, but I have a couple of questions regarding combat mechanics. As I understand it, characters can dual-wield weapons, with increased difficulty dependent upon the weapons being of the same type, but with the possibility of a second attack with the secondary weapon if the first attack is successful. Now, within the films, and partly as the result of a succesful lightsaber attack being so, um, decisive, we often see Jedi characters parrying lightsaber attacks but then following up with quick punches, kicks, elbows etc which gains them temporary advantage. After a quick-readthrough there doesn't seem to be scope for this in the combat mechanics unless the character is dual-wielding another weapon (even if it's knuckle dusters or something). I understand that it's a narrative based system, so some people might be happy to assume that when a lightsaber check is made some level of unarmed combat is implied if it fits the context. However, mechanically, in a lightsaber duel there doesn't seem to be a difference between a lightsaber wielder who's also a martial arts master and another that's completely unskilled. I really like the way the Parry talent stops Lightsaber duels being a first successful attack wins type scenario, and the way Strain can be used to represent a character being forced back or reeling from an intense exchange of strikes; I wouldn't want to replace that in any way, but I like the idea that maybe an opponent manages to parry your lightsaber attack and not take any damage, but in the process you manage to land an elbow or a headbutt that does a small amount of damage or a lucky knockdown - and I guess what I'm asking is whether one's proficiency in doing so should be based on the character's skill at unarmed combat. Within the concept of the character I have in mind I would ideally invest in Brawl, Melee and Lightsaber skills. I want my character to be a student of different combat disciplines, and specifically if they do focus on lightsaber combat to have the potential to take down opponents using non-lethal means. But realistically if lightsaber combat doesn't have the potential to incorporate Brawl then I feel I might be better off from a gaming perspective to focus purely on the Lightsaber skill and talent tree, rather than sink points into a skill which (I imagine) will be of limited use. So: can (or should) a character dual-wield a lightsaber and unarmed? And how advantageous is it for a lightsaber focused character to include points in Brawl?
×
×
  • Create New...