Jump to content

Madeiner

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. How are you going to do Materia? I'm interested because i'm doing something similar. My idea is that Materia is a spellcasting skill; only you need an actual item in order to make use for it. It then follows special rules for magic, like: Fire: can use the "attack" and "utility" spells. When using attack, you may only add the Blast, Range, Fire, Close combat upgrades. (possibly at a lower difficulty than normal)
  2. Maybe it's my own connection... i realized it's working from my phone network. Thanks, i'll try to save the page if i can
  3. Hello, the online dice roller at http://game2.com/eote/ seems to be not working anymore. I liked it a lot and it's essential for my gameplay... did anyone save the page for offline view by chance and can send it to me? The other rollers i found don't seem that great :\
  4. Yeah i know, it wasn't really intendended as a formula. My reasoning was that while you can "store" sil 2 and 3 vehicles, sil 4+ ships cannot be stored in anything but an hangar bay (and we have rules for that), requiring a more complex docking system than that of a small vehicles. You can "store" a small z95 by just using some cables and securing it "somehow", but that wouldn't be feasible for a larger ship. This allows me to cover the "hole" in the rules where i want to transport small vehicles in sil 4 or less ships where the hangar bay mod cannot be installed.
  5. Well, i think i answered my own question I'm too nerdy to just "fluff it" so i went and analyzed this image I scaled the length of the ship to 80 meters as the FFG manual says. The z95's come up at the right scale at around 12 meters length each, right as the manual says. I calculated the storage area for the image, scaled, and considered it 800 encumbrance as the manual says. The wayfarer is 850 encumbrance, but i assume 50 of that is not actually located in the pod itself. The z95s take about 50% of the middle area, and the middle area is about 400 encumbrance when scaled to the total size of the cargo pod. So each z95 is around 100 encumbrance. You can't fit 8 in an 800 encumbrance pod because of walls and the shape of the pod itself Since a z95 is 3 silhouette, i'd say silhouette x 30 is the right amount for a "square" ship. Then i tried to scale an image of a G9 and an aethersprite. I know an aethersprite must fit in a G9 as shown in "the clone wars". The g9 has 80 encumbrance of cargo. Since the aethersprite is significantly smaller (8 meters length) and thinner than the z95, i'd say it's sihouette x2, or 60 encumbrance to store one. You can store one in the G9, but can't fit much else. Comparing this to an image which i created and scaled: You cannot fit a z95, because it's encumbrance 90 is just a bit higher than the G9 cargo hold. If you check the image, it actually will not fit by a small margin Looks like i'm right on track and satisfied. So i will be using, in my game, silhouette x 30 for "square" object like z95 or airspeeders, or silhouette x20 for thin objects like an aethersprite or a speeder bike
  6. Hey there My group recently acquired a G9 rigger, and the clone wars shows that's it's able to at least fit a delta-12 skysprite in its cargo hold, which is listed as silhouette 3. The g9 rigger doesn't have hangar bays, but still has a magnetic field which allows to at least launch and recover a small fighter from the cargo bay while in flight, unlike many other ships. The question is: how much cargo space should a cargo bay take? 10 per silhouette? More?
  7. I keep a sheet with the group's obligation among other things. At the end of a session (not at the beginning!!) we roll for morality and obligation. I note whose obligation has been triggered and announce it. If possible, i will weave it in in the next session (something needs to happen, i don't like the strain-only option). If nothing can happen due to current story, i'll just use the strain penalty for that session, but leave the obligation with a mark. At first opportunity, i will provide something that triggers the obligation, which might come in 2 or 3 session. Obligation may start to add up; if you have the same obligation triggered twice before being able to "respond", just make up something "harsher". If different people are triggered, you can easily make a session where two different obligations come up.
  8. Maybe the armor was not modified to look like modern clone trooper armor; but instead they accidently impressed some symbol of an old commander who wore that old armor and was respected everywhere. It doesn't work if you want to infiltrate anonymously, but it might open other door. Of course, be sure to flip a destiny point at the end of the infiltration to make someone recognize the scam, and change the scene into a shootout or chase.
  9. Yeah, group obligation is now at 70 and going up. I warned them about not being able to spend XP. The players got upset and they are probably going to talk to the offending player themselves. I'll see what happens after i show the new obligation table and we have a group talk to see if we can reign in the bad behavior
  10. Thanks for all your inputs. The party is "democratic", but not voting on issues. Everybody roleplays what their character would do, including the offending player. Conflict for knowing inaction is not that bad of an issue. Nobody really feels bad for getting a couple conflict that way. It's just they need to consistently "police" the offending player and the session ends up revolving around him. It's also not in character for them to let him do whatever he wants, and it's also usually common sense to stop him. The offending player is just trying to roleplay his character. He just has a weird character and he ends up killing, disfiguring or torturing people as soon as he gets the chance to. And of course, the other players (not characters) cannot really abandon him, it's not very polite to do so. They also don't want to play that kind of game where he either disrupts everyone, or the session is about the characters trying to stop/save him all the time or face the consequences of his actions. And since they hang out together, they end up getting (group) obligation as they get caught supporting someone doing horrible things. For example, he decided to attack an imperial officer in an hospital. The players had to intervene, and stunned the officer before he could call for reinforcements, then they dragged him out of the hospital. The other players wanted to just abandon him somewhere to fake a robbery, but the offending player then decided to kill him because he had seen them. Now the robbery became murder. Then, he decided he wanted to remove his teeth and generally make him unrecognizable. And all of them were caught on cameras in the hospital, so they are now a band of murderers for the law. Best to leave the planet and never come back. I'll try and talk to him and try to convince him to stop; if it doesnt work, i'll add morality to his character, and see if that works.
  11. I was worried about the same thing, even if my vision is a little different from that of your group. I feel that nobody should actually have 0 conflict each session, except people like yoda or possibly obi-wan. I like and encourage the usage of dark sides pips; i dont see it as "using the dark side of the force", rather to just not be able to banish all negative thoughts when using powers. Only a master should be able to never use those dark sides pips. My characters are normally accruing from 2 to 6 conflict each session, and they are very slowly advancing to the light side, as i think it should be. I sometimes use a smaller die when i feel no morality issues have arosen in the current session, but not always
  12. I tried to find a suitable thread title My gaming group currently has 5 players. Of these, 2 are using EotE characters. The other 3 are force users, using F&D characters. One of the force users also has a small obligation, selected at chargen. We are having an issue with morality and some of the players (the force users) have asked me to do something about it. Before i explain the situation, note that i'm playing a "good" campaign, even if the some of the heroes are scoundrels, it is supposed to be about a party of "good guys" as we agreed before the game. As such, i'm using morality for force users and we agreed on retiring characters at 0 morality, with the character that "falls" responsible to DM (or co-DM) a session or two depicting his downfall. One of the EotE character is always making morality choices that affect everyone else, especially the F&D characters, and the characters are not ok with it, especially since they are gaining conflict for "knowing inaction", or they always have to argue with him not to make him do things (which he does anyway once everyone else is not looking), and are accruing additional obligations for his bad choices. What should i do? I'd like to tell the EotE guys not to dabble too much in moral choices when they have no consequences, but let the F&D guys have the last word on how to behave, while also telling the F&D guys that obligations and how to settle or acquire them should be up to the EotE guys. However that seems heavy handed and i cannot really see how it's fair that you dont get to make moral choices if you are using EotE characters. The other possible solution would be to apply morality to the problematic EotE player, too. However, i can't see how using "anger" or "knowing inaction" (or some of the other entries) would give conflict to a non-force user. What would you guys do?
  13. Oooooh so you CAN go back to dark theme. My eyes thank you profusely
  14. I don't like this It should be the other way around. How do you propose to homebrew a fix?
  15. I'll try and find those manuals that you posted (well, and fly casual when i get to buy it here, might be months...)
×
×
  • Create New...