• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Aetrion

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

262 profile views
  1. I don't think there are any official rules for making poisons, but I'd rule it something like this: Set the price and rarity of the components based on what the poison does. Something that can kill in a single dose should cost 1000+ credits to manufacture. (Look at grenade prices to get an idea what's appropriate for different effects) Make a medicine check against a difficulty equal to the desired difficulty of resisting the toxin with one automatic upgrade(for the inherent danger of handling toxins) to prepare the compound and apply it to a weapon. 2 advantages to upgrade the difficulty of resisting the toxin once. 2 threats to downgrade the difficulty of resisting the toxin once. Triumph to create an additional dose. Despair to poison yourself.
  2. The upsides of this system: It's a great blend between a narrative and rules heavy system. It gives you a ton of narrative freedom in the sessions but doesn't do away with all the gear and classes and other stuff to keep you reading and thinking between sessions. It has a combat system that is fun to play without mapping, allowing you to let your imagination run wild without being constrained by having to produce miniatures or maps for everything. Semi-classless system allows for a high degree of customization of characters but doesn't require endless research to pick a sensible advancement path from people who aren't into making builds. There are relatively few things to keep track of numerically, and the wound/strain thresholds are low enough that you can comfortably use counters for them. The downsides of the system: Proprietary dice are required for play, and while they work well, it's annoying having to buy several sets to have enough, and since they all look the same it's a pain to try and maintain a personal set. Some systems are poorly balanced or thought out, like the possibility of taking a crit that flat out rips your arm off or even kills you on a single point of damage, so the usefulness of soak doesn't rise linearly, but makes a leap from decently useful to godlike when it blocks that last point of damage. Some of the themes in the system only fully work when you split the party. It can get very Shadow Run if you want to let a fighter pilot, an entertainer, a gunslinger and a mechanic all play to their strengths in an encounter.
  3. Depends on what kind of game you run. I like the kind of "Die Hard" adventure where suddenly you're surrounded by bad guys with no gun and no shoes, and there is a hard time limit for pulling your butt out of the fire, but not every adventure can be like that. Sometimes it does have to be the players turn to do the planning and set things in motion. Every time you do a hyperspace jump to another system that's potentially a week or more of downtime too, unless you're using Rogue One class 0.0001 hyperdrives.
  4. Well yea, you can always try your best to run adventures in such a way that you avoid the weaknesses in the system, but at the end of the day a classless game like this would have heavily benefitted from some normalization in its mechanics that ensures that nothing ever stops posing a challenge all together.
  5. That'd be an even worse way of actually encouraging people to have a discussion of different viewpoints and not just create a sycophantic circle jerk.
  6. The problem is when some characters are way more amazing than others, and being able to design encounters that don't turn half the characters in your party into stains on the floor while the other half just giggles about their soak ratings.
  7. Well, of course having the crafting rules is better than not having any, but there are some things that get runaway powerful even if you don't even intend to powergame. Like a cybertech being able to craft cybernetics at a fraction of their actual cost when they are already a system that provides a straight money to power pipeline that completely changes the power level of any given game. I'm not a big fan of that sort of thing, because if you make a Cybertech without any intention of powergaming you still get trapped in a system where your character can act 100% within plausible motivations and still end up really minmaxed and broken. I mean, there is a significant difference between powergaming when it flat out flies in the face of playing a plausible character and making a perfectly well played character who ends up way too powerful. This also happens a lot in F&D, where a lot of the choices you make in the beginning of the game, like buying 35 XP worth of Influence because you want to be able to be decent at social checks by throwing your two force dice suddenly turn into this absurd game-breaking thing a couple hundred XP down the line where no mere mortal can ever say no to you again.
  8. Maybe the reputation can go down if you receive infractions from moderators, but I don't think these boards are very heavily moderated, if at all.
  9. I think it's just your lifetime likes received. I personally don't really care for ratings like that, all they do is push everyone to conform to popular opinion if they actually want to have a high score. Group think isn't a virtue.
  10. Having miniatures and other visual aids to show what's going on does enhance any game, if you have the minis go for it.
  11. Commodores really aren't all that impressive at commanding capital ships. They have exactly one talent that is actually specific to that role, and all that does is increase the silhouette of target ships by one. A gunner has more natural aptitude for actually rolling the barrage checks that enable players to utilize the full power of a capital ship. I kind of wish the game had more solid rules for actually commanding NPCs, like for example, when you use a Barrage action, shouldn't you make gunnery checks with Presence/Gunnery or Intellect/Gunnery instead of Agility/Gunnery, given that you are literally commanding an entire battery of cannons, so you're issuing orders to hundreds of men, or programming a firing pattern into a computer at least, you're in no way using your agility to bring the entire main battery of a star cruiser to bear on a target, these are huge turrets, every one the size of a Sil 4 ship, housing an entire crew of gunners, loaders, technicians and officers. There are the mass combat rules, and you can make checks with those to command large starships in theory, but that's still not an activity you can do collaboratively if you were playing a campaign where the players are all officers on a huge starship.
  12. The crafting system is unfortunately a hotbed of cheese in this game, and the only real way to reign it in if you play strict to the rules is to stringently enforce the time requirements for crafting and make sure they only craft during the session.
  13. Scaling. It allows minion groups to adjust their relative power to party size, so you don't need to introduce more actual enemies to manage into the encounter when there are more players.
  14. Minion groups should be the size of the party unless it's somehow important to the story that they aren't.
  15. I think it was just fluff the GM was laying on, because when you think about it, the destruction of the Executor did absolutely nothing for the story. The rebel fleet was still trapped, the death star was still fully operational, no essential characters were on board. It had no immediate impact at all. Perhaps it had some long term strategic impact, but we all know that Star Wars isn't about logistics and fleet strengths at the end of the day.