Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Garran

  1. There are a number of power uses that simply add to/improve the user's die pool when making a skill check, such as Influence and Enhance. There's no special mechanic to resist those - it's the standard skill vs skill; the force user just has a better pool than normal. In the event that a power is resisted via Discipline vs Discipline it isn't necessarily going to be down to a narrative 'no effect' even if there's no mechanical effect from the failed power. If Misdirect is used to alter something's appearance, it actually does look different but the PC/nemesis realizes that something is 'off' and isn't actually fooled, whether it's because they poke at it and discover the difference, just happen to have good intuition at that moment, etc.
  2. A counterpoint to keep in mind: if someone is choosing and heavily using a power like that then they're telegraphing to you that they don't like 'tense infiltration, going in blind' scenarios, and trying to short-circuit the power so that they have to go into those scenarios anyway is just going to antagonize them.
  3. The first, since you're capitalizing all of the other words for the title.
  4. I would actually tell the GM that directly: "If you're this fixated on making the characters go dark side then we'll all just start using black pips now and not have to care about it anymore."
  5. The other problem is that I don't think it was designed around the idea that Light Side Paragon is some super-special thing that should be really difficult/impossible to reach, but a lot of people want to treat it that way.
  6. And there's no reason it *has* to be fired out of your hands. Make a breath-blast or eye beams out of it. (Be ready for 'Darkseid' puns in the latter case, though.)
  7. You could easily have a bunch of nemesis-type opponents who answer to a minion-type boss - minion/rival/nemesis defines their combat (and equivalent) strength against a PC and doesn't necessarily relate to their organizational role.
  8. There's also Luke pulling his saber out of the snow when he's hanging upside down in the cave. While there was arguably some time pressure there (the thing could come back at any moment), he *was* able to keep trying over and over. It definitely wasn't a case of "you tried once and failed, so you can't do it at all, ha-ha!"
  9. There's a reason why concepts like "Take 20" were introduced in various forms in various games: if a PC has all the time in the world to do something and can repeat the task until it works then you don't roll - it just gets done. This will apply to most uses of force powers where there isn't any particular pressure to pull off the use *this time, right now*; the only time that roll are still necessary is if it's using up some other limited resource (like Heal counting toward recoveries) that will run out even if time isn't an issue.
  10. That pattern will generally hold in RPG books regardless of whether iconic characters are used - one gender will be used throughout an example. The "always default to male/you can't use they/them as singular" bit is one of several phony rules of grammar that were introduced a couple of centuries back in an attempt to Latinize English, along with the well-known (and equally false) ones about not beginning a sentence with a conjunction or ending it with a preposition.
  11. Have the PC group all make the roll against a set difficulty, usually that of the most observant NPC. Collectively they need one success per PC - one character failing it doesn't automatically blow it for the group since a good result from someone else can offset it.
  12. I'd go with LordBritish's answer on this one: intent and context matters; there's a huge difference between PCs doing this as a spur-of-the-moment thing for laughs and doing it as part of a carefully planned operation by a rebel cell to eliminate a legitimate military target. It's also only likely to work once if you pull it off - after that, and assuming that the investigation doesn't manage to find anyone responsible, measures will still be put in place to prevent a repeat.
  13. Access to good sources of information gives a boost die (or two) to knowledge checks - this has been pretty clearly established by the various equipment items with that effect.
  14. There's a third one, also in the teacher tree: Now The Master, which lets you copy any one talent or force power that another character (PC or NPC) in the scene has, including all of its ranks or upgrades. The person that it's taken from doesn't lose it; you just have it now too.
  15. There are a couple of things that let you copy someone else's ability and/or share it to others, but they don't take it away from the person being copied.
  16. In addition to what Absol said, it's important to remember that conflict/morality is entirely dependent on player engagement to work. If you play it heavy-handedly, as per some of your earlier ideas, you'll just turn them off and be left with a nonfunctional system. As for how I'd handle it, I'd treat it the same as having a Sith Lord mentor as per DoH, since that's effectively what you're working with. Some powers cost a bit less to learn and you double the morality drop if conflict is greater than the die roll.
  17. The increase and effect of Duty ranks is both mechanical and narrative. Gaining a rank in the Rebellion (or whatever organization is being used) has story implications, not the least of which is what sort of responsibilities they PCs will be given, but it also has a mechanical effect (improved/reduced disposition of various NPCs, and acquisition of a 'favor' of some sort). Duty usually seems to be awarded in 5 or 10 point blocks. If someone's Duty is rolled for the session then they should definitely have some opportunity to fulfill it, but otherwise it will depend somewhat on the story. Contribution rank is a math way to express the narrative effects since otherwise you'd be left with only a vague idea of where things stand. You can go with obvious combinations but it isn't required or necessary (not to mention the option of a character having two Duty entries). A soldier could have a Combat Victory focus as part of a regular forces unit, but they might just as easily be a special ops type that deals with Intelligence, Resource Acquisition, etc. Likewise, a pilot (which also covers ground vehicle and gunnery specializations, among other things) might have an Intelligence duty because they focus on insertion or surveillance rather than fleet engagement, or a Personnel duty because they're a locally-known racer whose crowd-working just happens to act as cover for their recruiting activities. And so on.
  18. Or maybe they didn't die... because it was a body double. Really, you can come up with all kinds of reasons beyond the mechanics.
  19. You can also pick up a second specialization later to fill in skill ranks (and more importantly, talents) that the first one doesn't provide, and with a decent Cunning you'd be reasonably effective at Skulduggery and Deception at the outset.
  20. If the character doesn't care about morals, what DO they care about? They might operate by a different set of guideposts that don't have to do with conventional morality as such. (Morals in the general sense aren't the same as F&D Morality - you might not care about the former but still stay on the light side of the latter for other reasons.) Re: reputation, the guardian career book had a simple +3/-3 (or maybe it was +4/-4) system for that sort of thing, not strictly based on the character's morality but rather on their public reputation.
  21. If they're spending a maneuver to disengage then they're not spending that maneuver (or are having to spend strain) to Aim. That's already a win for the melee attacker, especially with talents like True Aim floating around.
  22. Garran

    OP PCs

    No PC is 'good at everything' barring silly XP totals (like tens of thousands). This PC has good (not even overpowered - not by a long shot) defense capability. That's fine. Let him be the brick wall that holds off the opposition while the others take care of whatever actually needs to get done during the scene (which usually shouldn't be 'kill all the bad guys'). Constantly being disruptive about the rules is an actual problem and that should be dealt with. On the other hand, he might be about a rule sometimes. Generally, I'd err on the side of the PCs (not just him) and double check later if it's a plausible interpretation, as long as it can be done quickly.
  23. And on the computer game front it would be competing with a lot of other established brands, some of which probably served as inspiration for TI as a board game.
  24. It would depend a bit on what they do breathe. If they just need a lot of nitrogen then they'd be perfectly okay in a typical earth-like atmosphere. If it's a case of needing unusual trace elements then they might not require a breathing mask, just a small emitter worn near or on the face, similar to Benzites in Star Trek.
  25. You don't need to create situations left and right in an attempt to guarantee that the character(s) end up with conflict, and trying to do so would be unnecessarily oppositional. You want to have a few things that present the possibility of gaining conflict, but if the PC(s) choose a path that doesn't grant them any then everything is working as intended just as much as if they choose conflict-granting paths. It's also okay to accept that some situations or storylines simply aren't likely to involve much conflict. If the party is essentially a bunch of white hats from the outset then no, they probably aren't going to be generating conflict very often, a rapid rise to light side paragon is to be expected, and the character would probably be better off using duty rather than morality.
  • Create New...