Jump to content

Garran

Members
  • Content Count

    399
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Garran


  1. I'd treat the chip as analogous to a restraining bolt: NPC droids can't resist them but PC droids can do so at Daunting/4P difficulty (no destiny point needed). PC clones can resist the chip/order at the same difficulty (again, no DP needed).

    Or if the players aren't keen on the potential for PvP play then skip it entirely. These clones CAN resist it for whatever handwave reason.


  2. 15 hours ago, WolfRider said:

    Aiming your brawl / melee attack means you focus on precision to raise your chance of hitting your opponent. That's exactly the same meaning than for a ranged attack. Why is it so difficult to understand such a simple thing ?

    It occurs to me that Aim actually does more to increase the odds that Something Special Happens (tm) than it does to increase the odds of hitting, given the greater number of Advantage symbols across the faces of a Boost die. Successes in this system also increase damage, so it isn't just about hitting with those, either.

    That applies to ranged attacks too - and for that matter, attacks that potentially affect targets in an area - so the problem is partly that 'Aim' is kind of a misleading name given the effect.

    Calling it something like 'Focus' sounds too Force-y though.


  3. Taking the droid away from both of them is arguably the King Solomon Solution. ("You two can't agree on whose baby this is? Well, then...")

    We'd really need to know more about the situation. On what basis does that guy's religion state that the droid belongs to him, and why should he suppose that everyone else (who doesn't share his religion) will automatically accept it? That's not reasonable, nor is it desecrating anything if someone else doesn't adhere to his beliefs. As to the other guy, if possession makes for ownership, then the PCs effectively just honored his tradition...

    It would also depend a bit on what they want to do with the droid itself. If it wants to go back to the ruins and that's where they send it, they may well be doing the just thing, especially if it hasn't yet been established that its prior owner is no longer around and/or didn't specifically set it up as a caretaker. (If either of those is the case then those two salvage-claimants would become thieves by taking it.)

    While their methods are problematic and probably worthy of some conflict - especially if one of them jumped straight to using threats - I'm not sure that this counts as 'cruelty'. Generally the justice/cruelty dynamic means going overboard with your justice to the point that it becomes vindictive ("Make them suffer for what they did!"), and it's not even clear that any particular outcome is a 'just' one here.


  4. Activation: Active (Incidental; Out Of Turn)
    Ranked: No
    Trees: Medic

    Once per game session, when an ally is about to suffer a critical injury, the character can take an It's Not That Bad incidental to make a Hard Medicine check. If successful, the ally does not gain the Critical Injury and does not suffer any of its normal effects (although the attack that caused the Critical Injury still deals its damage as normal).



    Unlike every talent that actually requires you to be adjacent and says so, there is no range or adjacency requirement, no requirement to do anything to or with the subject, or even any requirement to banter about it.

    Nor is the medic assessing or treating anything. The critical effect is outright removed from the incoming attack just before the attack actually lands.

    So yes, it is one of several similar (and mostly non-force) talents that are effectively narrative magic spells.

    And that's a perfectly normal thing in space opera.


  5. 7 hours ago, Xcapobl said:

    As far as I can tell, being away from my books currently, when Obligation is triggered, all characters suffer its effects (and the one whose Obligation triggered might suffer double under the proper circumstances). Duty also affects the group, basically, as the group as a whole benefits from Contribution Rank. Only Morality is a highly personal thematic rule, only affecting the character with it.

    I'm not sure that that's the case: the entries were written assuming that the entire group would be using the same mechanic. In a mixed group I'd be inclined to treat each thing on a per-character basis, especially since Obligation and Duty are almost opposite mechanics - and you could have characters with Duty to entirely unrelated organizations on top of that.


  6. Only characters that are using obligation would be affected by it, but whether a given character uses it, or morality, or both would really depend on what best fits the theme of the character and the campaign. If it's an Edge game and the force sensitivity of one PC is incidental to that then ignore morality and just use obligation.


  7. I'm going to come down on the other side of this: It's Not That Bad is an out-of-turn incidental, and it outright prevents the crit from taking place rather than removing it after the fact. This doesn't mesh with the idea that the medic has to be looking the person over or providing any kind of treatment - it doesn't involve any meaningful amount of time, nor would there be any injury to look over and treat.

    It's also a one-per-session ability that does not have any other limitations written into it - it doesn't even have a range requirement (like being near the person to treat them...). It *should* be usable whenever the trigger comes up, because it's a signature "once per session, something awesome happens" talent in the final row of the tree.

    Two other considerations.

    tt's entirely in keeping with the setting's style of humor if the medic responds to the "I'm bleeding out!" by mumbling "No, you're not," falling right back asleep - and being right about it.

    Second, in the circumstances, this would let the medic character (and player) participate in the scene that round rather than twiddling their thumbs. That's a good thing.


  8. There may not always have been a war on, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have been sent out to do things as part of their training at other times. Practical experience has to be part of the regimen too, and it's all the better if that just happens to end up providing for one of the trials while they're at it.


  9. I don't know about the Edge book, but the Age/F&D versions specify that many of those mechanics/tables are for bulk purchases/sales rather than for individual items, so if they're just unloading a few random things at the local pawn shop (as opposed to finding a buyer for 20 tons of unobtanium ore or the like), most of those elements won't apply.


  10. Star Wars material does seem to use 5+ rather than 4+ as the cutoff, although as noted, there are cases where it's inconsistent, so at the very least, I'd set the threshold at Sil 5+ in a SW game.

    The idea of using Int for capital ship piloting isn't unreasonable, since maneuvering a ship like that is more about how the ship will handle (and how well you can work with that) as a cognitive task rather than how quick you are on the controls.

    In the case of a ship where it's ambiguous (like the Sil 5 Ghost) I'd say 'Agility or Intellect'. It's not like the system and various adventures don't allow for multiple options depending on the approach/circumstance.

    Likewise, if someone was specifically built as a capital ship pilot using Agi and not Int, then either they should be allowed to rebuild, or (more simply) heirloom in their use of Agi for the rest of that game.


  11. If the players are at least somewhat familiar with RPGs then option overload shouldn't be much of an issue, and if you're already familiar with the careers then you can help out the rest by pointing them to likely options for whatever it is they want to play.

    It may be worth sounding them out ahead of time as to whether they'd prefer the AoR or EotE style of campaign to start; no point in going for one if they're more comfortable with the other.


  12. Given the question that Yoda's statement was in response to (context matters!), a de-Yodaized version would be "Assess the situation before you act, because it might not be what it appears."

    It's good advice in either form, but it doesn't actually prohibit Jedi from going on the offensive. It does mean that they should do their due diligence first.

    Non-Jedi light siders may or may not fully agree with that but they'll probably stick somewhere close to the spirit of it.


  13. Agility 2/Gunnery 1 sounds reasonable for rank-and-file types. They're average people who are trained enough to be competent in the field, but they're not exceptional.

    In that circumstance, though, I think I'd treat the turbolaser fire as an ambient hazard while they're dealing with the TIEs and fixing the ship - it comes into play as effects of threat and despair rather than being attacks as such. (This also allows a Triumph to remove a TIE in dramatic fashion...)



  14. The main reason that you end up with offense > defense is that if you don't then combat becomes padded sumo. Which might be okay if you want to dedicate an entire session to whittling down 10% of the opponent's staying power, but not otherwise.

    As for the PCs vs Palpatine, I'll second what some others have said: if he's dumb enough to let a bunch of competent assassins corner him unprepared, he deserves to get splattered.

    He shouldn't be that stupid, though.

×
×
  • Create New...