Jump to content

Algetzz

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Algetzz

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/03/1993
  1. "FIRE IN THE HOLE!" Haha love it! Great comment. I like where you are going with these, but I feel like it can get dangerously close to breaking the game. Perhaps if I hike the difficulty enough. Thanks for the response! Appreciate your understanding and insight. I think we are on the same page. Oh and your scenario is awesome, thanks for the input!
  2. I am trying to invoke the spirit of the Skill Monkey, in order to get the most out of what this system has to offer.
  3. A couple of the characters are new to the system, and as GM and a player I enjoy trying to come up with clever ways of using the various skills in the game, perhaps in ways that are not obvious. Think of it as a fun little cognitive exercise. I am just trying to make the game more fun for all my players.
  4. So I am running a group through the Chronicles of the Gatekeeper adventure, and while the majority of the group is Force sensitive, I have a spattering of non-Force users, including one Outlaw Tech who seems to have no interest in doing any fighting. While she is incredibly valuable to the group prior to when the shooting starts, she does not have a whole lot to do during a combat encounter. What are some interesting ways that she can use her non-combat skills in a combat setting, or at the very least how can she spend her actions and maneuvers in a way that will contribute to her allies struggle? I have a similar situation with a PC who is an Adviser armed with a lightsaber for self defense, but it less inclined to go out of her way to strike down opponents. Thoughts?
  5. FFG does see the problem that producing these kinds of compendiums, and their solution was to come up with the "utility decks" accessories to the game. In general, I do not see the justification in buying the critical injury decks or the Specialization decks, mostly because there is so much player generated resources that address this particular need. That said, I did pick up the "Scum and Villainy" adversary deck (which I think comes close to what you are looking for in a "monster compendium," Bluhfer) and I have gotten plenty of use and mileage out of them and would recommend it and the other adversary decks for their convenience factor.
  6. When I ran the Jewel of Yavin adventure I had the timeline line up with the Imperial invasion of Cloud City. The PCs never saw the characters from the cannon but the weight of the event played a significant factor on how they wrapped up their dealings. Having Lando come over the PA system and tell everyone to leave made it pretty clear that staying was not an option, and when the thief who was going in to steal the Jewel found himself face to face with Stormtroopers instead of regular security personnel, the PCs knew poodoo just got real...
  7. I felt a little weird about it at first, but I really like the image of holding your speeder bike together past its limit through the sheer power of the force. I kinda get where you are coming from, whafrog, but I think that might mean that you as a person are simply not a Sentinel-minded Force user =P While it would not be something I would personally focus on (the me that is a Force sensitive in a galaxy far, far away...) I completely sense the practicality, or flat out necessity for the Jedi or any Force culture to figure out some way to interact with machines and technology. It is like a larger scale version of the "Imbue" talent that Artisans/Armorers have. Gotta say I'm with deraforia on this.
  8. I will say this: in my down time from GMing or playing a character I have been reviewing the various talent trees extensively, and I have noticed that the talent trees in EotE Core are noticeably less specialized than the ones printed in the later Core books (with a handful of exceptions). If a Second Edition were to come along that stays true to the game's original feel, I wouldn't mind them revisiting a few of the Specializations' talent trees and cleaning up some of the ambiguity in descriptions of core mechanics--so really more of a 1.5 kinda situation. Weighing in on the main discussion topic, I don't play either Spy or Engineer so I don't have a whole lot of preference. I think for the sake of balance across the product line it would make more sense to do Spy next then Engineer (since we just got Special Modifications), but if Absol says the data suggests otherwise it is hard to argue. Plus it is probably marketing to end on a book that is a little more sexy. Here's to hopping for a cover art that is a Mon Cala in a tuxedo sipping the Star Wars equivalent of a martini. Jawa Juice, shaken not stirred.
  9. I've tinkered with this but I thought it might be unbalancing toward the Reflecter as we do run into NPCs with Improved Reflect and them getting extra damage in that way could really suck. How has this worked out over all in your experience? I actually really like this idea. If the attack missed and generated 3x threat or a despair, I don't see why the PC could not trigger improved reflect without taking any damage at all. A failed combat check with all that threat/despair is pretty cataclysmic (for anyone) so I don't see this as particularly game breaking. I will play test this going forward. Edit: Perhaps I would put a skill requirement on the Lightsaber skill. For example: if the PC has 3 ranks in Lightsaber, then they "unlock" the ability to deflect missed shots this way. The skill ranks represent the amount of time the PC has spent training (with the remote, studying holocrons, general practice from actual fights), and after a point the player is skilled enough to see (or "sense") the opportunity to deflect stray blaster fire.
  10. I want to add on to what Dono has said. Characters don't have to only make combat actions in a structured combat scenario. This is a Shien Expert? Then maybe they use Perception to notice something that works in their favor. Survival to interact with the environment. Skulduggery to create obstacles, retreat through a closed door to a better fighting location, or pick something up near by that the Baddie does want them to have. Streetwise to know the area and lead the fight to an advantageous area. Deception to make their opponent think they are in over their head and the PC is that much more powerful than them. And those are just suggestions to key off a possibly higher Cunning of a Sentinel. Knowledge checks could be used to introduces facts to the encounter. I know that's normally done with destiny points but it works with Knowledge checks due to the possibility of failure/threat/despair making it not a sure thing. Piloting to judge the speed/traffic of those speeders/ships over there so you could successfully jump on the vehicle. I could go on but hopefully you get the idea. The above are all non-combat checks. If you use these you have the ability to put more setbacks or upgrades on a minion group of shooters change to hit you. Hell, you could even put failures or threat on their combat checks depending on your GM, how cool/cinematic/creative your idea is, and the dice results from your check. Finally, if you want to get movie/tv level blaster bounce back going, I recommend two Force Powers: Sense and Misdirect. Sense has two control upgrades that cost 40 XP to get to, including base power cost, and once you have them you commit a single force die and upgrade combat checks against you twice for two attacks per round. This essentially gives you Adversary 2 for two separate attacks targeting you. Misdirect has a combat control upgrade that costs 55 XP to get to, including base power cost, and once you have it you commit force dice up to your Force Rating to add threat equal to dice commit to all checks targeting the Force user. I personally think Misdirect is the better power for blaster bolt bouncing shenanigans. The two upgrades aren't bad and can sometimes make the check more difficult for your opponents. But the chance for a despair isn't as good as guaranteed threats. In fact, I've found that you want only a single deflection on your saber. You can get other setbacks with cover, and you aren't looking to make the attacker miss their shot. You want them to hit with enough threat to reflect the shot back. Committing two Force Dice into the Misdirect upgrade will have you Reflecting many shots as they only need a single threat on a hit to realize the bad decision of shooting at you. Happy reflecting! Oh my goodness thanks a ton! This is exactly the kind of analysis I was looking for.
  11. Outside of computer based MMOs and such with integrated "invisible" Aggro systems isn't this pretty much every RPG out there? I mean every system has things like the Bodyguard talent, or Marks, ect that can specifically affect a target to encourage or discourage a set of allies to attack or not attack a specific character over another. But I'm not aware of any system that, outside of those special effects or a canned adventure/encounter, manages things like how a set of opponents should act or select targets. When a player does something to look dangerous, or look combat-ineffective should the GM not be the one to make the call on how that affects the target prioritization of the opposition? When setting up an encounter should the GM not layout tactics and general expected behavior of the NPCs? How is this any different than laying out when you design the dungeon room that the Hobgoblins will attack the Wizard first by rushing him with their longswords unless one of the other players distracts them or prevents their movement? That is totally what I am trying to say, just from the opposite perspective. The GM should take into consideration the flow of the battle and make sure the enemies are taking actions that make sense. Sometimes I feel like the GM can be tempted to a "me vs. the players mentality" and try not to let the players affect the flow of battle. The goal of the players should be to take the situation into their own hands as much as possible (that is just good battle tactics) and the GM should respond appropriately based on the players efforts. I have just played with too many GMs who either do not want to relinquish any control to the players or just have no concept of how a fight/battle would actually go down that this level of Player/GM cooperation was actually a bit of a personal revelation.
  12. You know, I've come to a similar conclusion myself, but it is frustrating how the game can be wildly technical and simplistic at the same time. It almost encourages/requires GMs to take matters into their own hands to fill in the blanks. I generally do not like to encourage the development of House Rules, but I would not necessarily have a problem with a player asking me to "take cover" behind their lightsaber for as long as they didn't move it to attack, particularly is they have a couple upgrades purchased for the skill. The lack of detailed rules instruction also requires GMs to make sure they are thinking tactically about a battle, and about how the enemy NPCs are going about choosing targets. For example if my saber-toting Force sensitive PC wants to "protect" his fellow PCs or a group of innocent NPC bystanders, he could simply stand between them, forcing the enemies to either go through him or re-position themselves. As a GM in this situation I would 'reward' the PC by having the enemies attack him instead of just trying to shoot the people they were going for anyway. The rules do not say I have to do this, but it would be crummy roleplaying if I did not try to accommodate the intentions of my players. Perhaps if the PC is thwarting an assassination attempt, he could make an opposed Lightsaber vs. Discipline check to intimidate a character into attacking them, breaking their concentration by waving a shiny blade of death around (maybe spend extra advantage to generate threat on the attack--improved reflect? yes please!). I know stuff like that sometimes comes dangerously close to 'game breaking' or serving up a big block of cheese, but I feel like so much effort is put into the narrative essence of this game that it would be a shame not to try to encourage players to be creative with their skills. I love this system but I feel at its very foundation the rules require a bit more support from those playing it compared to other systems on the market, which is honestly best exhibited in the "narrative dice" that it is built on. thoughts? I know I get a bit intense, but this is what happens when a GM spends too much time without a group... they spend too much time thinking =P Edit: changed proposed skill check from opposed Lightsaber vs. Vigilance to Lightsaber vs. Discipline cause that made more sense to me.
  13. Shien Expert is my absolute favorite Saber Form Specialization, but I am having a little trouble figuring out how to optimize my use of the Supreme Reflect talent. For those who don't know (or don't have their book handy) the talent reads, "If the user did not make a combat check during previous turn, may suffer 1 strain to use Reflect." The obvious advantage to this is the reduction of strain drain, but what should my character be doing during a combat encounter if not making combat checks? I like the idea of trying not to actively run into a mob of bad guys and mercilessly hacking them to pieces--something the raw damage of a lightsaber clearly favors--and instead taking a more passive approach in a very Jedi fashion of protecting myself and allies from laser fire... I just do not know what I would be doing otherwise. So come on fellow skill monkeys, what are some clever ways to use non-combat skills/abilities in combat that could still help the group drop the baddies?
  14. Not sure if this has been said yet in this thread, but on top of all the goodies everyone has mentioned I just want to point out the care that the development team put in to writing this book. I mean, all of these books have been pretty good about loading up on description, but I was really feeling the love as I was reading through the motivations and the "who becomes a sentinel" sections--early Chapter One stuff (before the species and specs). Even the descriptions of the Specializations (particularly Racer) seemed a step up from the normal quality, which is no small feat.
  15. So after some limited play testing, I am having a hard time getting any sort of reliability out of this talent. Now, I understand that due to balancing concerns, a player should not be allowed to be nearly invincible when they have a lightsaber in their hand, but I would like to get a little more out of this iconic ability, especially when the Shien Expert Specialization is so heavily focused on it. So my question to you is how do you all is what combination of force powers/other talents/house rules have you guys implemented to make Reflect worth the experience? The first control upgrade for Sense seems like an easy way to generate some more failure/threat pips, and I was thinking that maybe perhaps a force user would be allowed to take the "take cover" maneuver while they have their lightsaber out, though that comes a little too close to the Defensive Circle Talent for the Soresu Defender (though I don't really see why someone couldn't do both). Thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...