SladeWeston

Members
  • Content count

    241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SladeWeston

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

91 profile views
  1. I think you make a good point. However, given how good crafted armor can be and that combat armor is already the best/most practical, I'm not sure it needs the buff. Currently, there is very little reason to make segmented armor. One of them is for the "Hard" attachments. If you give that to combat armor then Segmented Armor might as well not be there. +1 Def and +1 HP isn't worth restricted, twice the price, 50% more crafting time, +2 encumbrance and +1 difficulty. Especially when you consider that the reduced difficulty of combat armor has a good chance to give you the advantage to get +1 def or HP. I think it's a perfectly reasonable idea though and in general I'd rather have more options than less (at least when they are this 50/50).
  2. Did you "craft" the chassis with a roll or did you just roll to program and later add cybernetics? What are your thoughts about Flying droids? Obviously Star Wars has probes and remotes that wiz around. Do you think they intended that sort of thing to just be flavor you added to any given droid or do you think that it should cost advantage during crafting, or perhaps that it should be it's own chassis type?
  3. Good morning Folks, So I am in the early stages of planning out a character for an upcoming blended knight level campaign (all 3 systems). My plan is to play a Verpine scientist who was doing deep space research when an accident occurred and he lost most of his clutchmates?, hivemates?, whatever. In the equivalent of Star Wars Cast Away, he went a little crazy and crafted droid versions of his lost crewmates. After several years he was eventually rescued and of course he's brought his small army of droids with him. Mechanically, he is likely going to start as a Scientist or Analyst and go into Droid Tech to get cheaper droid crafting, eye for detail and lots of speaks binary. I've got the mechanics pretty hammered out at this point and I am looking to start with a crafting check of YYYGGGBBB plus 1 adv from gadget and one from EfD (assuming enough success). Computer crafting checks should be similar, give or take. So with that in mind, I'm looking for ideas for my droid army. Here are a few of my early ideas: Scientist Droids - half a dozen monotasker with translation directives. With that crafting pool I should be able to have each with 3 Int (modular hardware+superior hardware) and 3-4 knowledge skills. Since they will be minions, I'd give them varied knowledges so that there was 2-3 redundancy of any single one. With Speaks Binary (x3) and Improved SB, that gives them YYYBBB if they do knowledge checks on their own or allow me YYYGGGB if they assist. Combat Droid - For combat and given the unaggressive nature of Verpine, I was thinking of repurposed emergency response droids. So a fireman droid (w/ Cryoban Projector) and Law Enforcement Droid (with some sort of stun rifle). I hadn't thought out exactly what chassis or programming to use. I like the idea of using Elimination Directives (hopefully with a slightly modified skill set) since that upgrades them to Nemesis regardless of the chassis. I will be working with suggested starter Knight level credits however so my chassis options are limited. Mechanic and Medical Droid - Obviously the first thing that needs making is a mechanic's assistant. Likely just a monotasker with repair directives. Also, a medical droid would be good. So here are the things I need help with: Given my credit restrictions and crafting pool, am I going with the right chassis options? Did I miss any droid builds that are useful? What are your favorite crafted droid combos? How does NPC droid destruction work? If they exceed their WT are they perma destroyed or does that only happen after they exceed it x2? Monotasker chassis have craft WT after all. Ideas for fun and quirky personalities are welcome. They are supposed to be modeled after real people. Ideas to optimize/maximize droid use. Are there good ways to take advantage of all that Speaks Binary or Imp. SB that I'm not thinking of? Thematically, how should I flavor the various members of my army? In my head they are fairly small (I should have the adv to reduce their size) but 10 droids moving around is still quite the group. Obviously I don't adventure will them all at once, but even 3-4 seems a bit impractical. The droid tech in the crafting section picture has one that is nice and small but the rules don't really go into detail on how small Sil 0 can be. Thoughts? I was kinda thinking to have them Bug themed and to have some sort of carrier bug that housed and transported some of them (hidden storage talent). Anyway, I'd love to hear from other Droid Techs about what they've done with there characters, problems they encountered and what worked well. Thanks in advance. <Side Note> I understand the character is very crafting focused. Normally I'm not so fond of building hyper-focused characters but I figured I could get aways with it because he is a near 100% support character. I also plan on having his ethics prevent him from abusing the crafting system to make 15 dmg Autofire pistols for the other players. What I'm trying to say is that yes, he is highly optimized and yes, I am aware of how that can negatively impact a game. I hope that doesn't negatively impact anyones desire to give advice or assistance.
  4. Sorry, I only meant stacked in the sense that I was constructing a hypothetical case where I knew the mathematical outcome. Not that the scenario was unlikely. I think the fact that the average ranged combat smuggler or bounty hunter is going to have the same odds as a 3 agl pilot with skilled jockey and 3 ranks demonstrates my point adequately.
  5. Math is fun to me, but I get what you're saying. When I discuss math, I do it as a way to apply logic to the feelings people get when playing a game. When you are playing a character who feels less successful than everyone else, it's usually because you are subconsciously recognizing a statistical trend even if you don't recognize it as such. Now in a game like D&D I don't usually need to discuss math because it's pretty obvious. You have +2 more bonus to hit than me. In this game, the dice math is a lot harder and people regularly have misconceptions about how different dice are balanced. People generally think that upgrade dice are better than they are and that boost and setback have a lower impact than they do, for example. People also tend to think that many of the dice are symmetrical when they are not. All of these misconceptions can lead to people making character creation/development choices that aren't doing what they think they are doing. They build a pilot with a pool of YYY and can't understand why they aren't succeeding as much as they'd like. You can tell them they should have a higher agility, but if they are overvaluing the effect of proficiency dice and talents it might be hard to persuade them. Math allows you to show the odds behind the rolls and help people to understand why the character is performing they way it is.
  6. Let's assume you have two lowish xp characters, the pilot has skilled jockey YYY piloting. The gunslinger has YGGG (he got a free rank of piloting as a career skill or something). You have a ship with a -1 handling and you need to make a difficulty 3 piloting check. In that stacked case, the pilot has only a 3% higher chance of success than the gunslinger and a lower chance of getting net advantage. If the gunslinger decided to go ham and start with a 5 agility they are going to outperform the pilot even if he has two ranks of skilled jockey and you up the check to 2 setback dice. The point is, that even good talents and prof. dice don't always do enough to make up for a lower characteristic. Keep in mind that in this example that being a good pilot cost the gunslinger almost nothing. In my actual game, we were playing knight level and had an Ataru Striker (with enhance to Agility) who was constantly showing up our pilot. His 6 agl +1 forcedice +1 skill rank meant it was usually best for him to pilot while the pilot player made a skilled assist. Granted, the Ataru Striker was a hyper focused agility character but starting with a 5 characteristic isn't all that uncommon. From a purely mathematical, optimization point of view, the main issue with generalist character is that green dice are way more powerful than yellow dice. Since Yellow dice occur when skills and characteristics overlap, a character with a 5 and a lot of 1 is going to have more green dice in their 5 pool (obviously) but will also get more bang for their buck off xp invested into skill ranks on their 1 characteristics as each beyond the first will be granting new green dice rather than just upgrading. That lets a low characteristic character close the gap quicker on their off characteristic skills then it does for a 3/3/3/3 to close the gap on their high characteristic skills. This isn't true with all archetypes of course, as triumphs are disproportionately useful for some skills than others (I'd rather my doctor had YYY over YGGG for example), but it's true enough for most. But of course that's getting into an old argument that has been argued to death around the forums.
  7. I appreciate the tips, although I've been GMing for the better part of 25 years and I still think what you suggest isn't a sustainable game structure for many groups. Even if it was, I'm still not sure how much that improves the viability of the 3/3/3/3 character. 2 players with complimentary 4/3 stats and skills are still going to be able to cover almost anything that's appropriate because players almost always split in a way that makes sense for the mission. The two sneaky guys, one combat focus and one slicer go to deactivate the shield while the demolitionist creates a diversion and the melee character and face rescue the prisoner or whatever. In that situation, at best a 3/3/3/3 who splits off with a group is going to be giving up effectiveness in their primary goal in order to be more versatile. I'm not saying that isn't useful, I'm just saying that it's usually not needed. This is all splitting hairs really. I mean in the end we are talking about a 10% chance of success and some GMing philosophy. A GM could certainly structure a game to make 3/3/3/3 more playable and even advantageous. I just don't think that the average game is structured that way. Perhaps it's just sample size, I've only played in about a half dozen games (not counting the ones I've GM'ed) and they were never very generalist friendly. It could also be my personality. I would despise being a pilot focused character who wasn't as good of a pilot as the gunslinger who only has a single rank in piloting. I have seen this happen in my games and it was very frustrating to the player who thought he'd be happy with a 3 agility. Since the OP was interested in player a combat specialization I think it's fair to say that he was interested in being good at combat. Combat is by far the easiest place for a generalist to get outshined by a focused character. When he runs up and deals 7-8 dmg (YYY vs PP) while the ranged heavy is AF'ing for 12 (x2) he may feel differently about his choice. Particularly since, unlike most melee characters, he likely only has 1 or 2 soak on the ranged player.
  8. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I understand that splitting the party is very Star Wars, but I seldom find that it is very good for the health of a game. Splitting the party just gives the party and excuse to disengage. Even with experienced, more mature players, I find that I get a LOT more people on their phones or doodling during split party situations. I don't blame them really. It's human nature to care more about things that directly affect you. I know, if you are a good enough GM, you will always have a 3 way split group where each group's actions affects the other players encounters. And my hats off to you if you can make that happen more than once during any given play session. It has been my experience that even when you do manage to split the party, the party usually splits in such a way that each group maximizes their usefulness for a given goal. I'm not saying that you shouldn't try to split the party and then throw stuff against them that they aren't good at. I do this all the time and I think it's a great way to encourage players to diversify their character builds. I just haven't found that when these situations occur that I'd rather have a 3/3/3/3 character. A smart 4/3 character can be built with enough versatility that an unexpected check shouldn't crush them.
  9. Taking 3/3/3/3 is like being a bard in D&D 3.5. You go in planning on being the generalist but end up being fairly sucky at everything. Once every few sessions something comes up that you are halfway decent at and you're so thrilled that the rest of the group doesn't have the heart to tell you that the rogue could have done it better. I think the main issue is that most groups don't split their parties too often. Which makes sense given how much harder it is to keep a split group engaged. If a group never splits, a larger portion of the encounters will get resolved by the person with the best dice pool. Or just as often, with the person with the largest characteristic being assisted by the person with the most ranks. The end result is that rather that 4-6 individuals, the party often functions as a single individual composed of the highest characteristics and skill ranks of the group. In those situations, a player with 3/3/3/3 isn't likely to contribute to the group whole very often. This is aggravated by the fact that it is very possible to look at a groups makeup and create a character that can cover 2ndary roles while still being reasonably focused. It is virtually impossible, for example for a Ranged Combat focused character to not be able to cover for the pilot or for a focused doctor to not be able to cover for the groups mechanic. These overlaps happen naturally so often that the 3/3/3/3 is seldom more than the backup to the backup. In my experience, you can usually look at a group of 4 people and immediately see what very small holes might need filling. Then when you build your character, all you have to do is give those missing roles some slight consideration in your build. Everyone always tries to play off the 3/3/3/3 as being the character that swoops in and saves the day when the focused characters drop the ball, but let's not forget that there are only six characteristics and no one here is suggestion a group of 5/2/1/1/1/1 droids. A group of 4 players with 4/3 are very likely to have someone with at least a 3 in any given characteristic. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the 3/3/3/3 to shine. Plus, if there is a glaring whole, and nobody has Cunning for example, then the party would likely be better served by the player just building a 4/3 character with a 4 or 3 in Cunning. I suppose there are situations where a party is A) very small (2-3 people) B) Heavily Share Characteristic focuses ( nobody has >2 in 3 or 4 of the characteristics) or C) the GM is fond of splitting the party, that a 3/3/3/3 character might shine, but those are exceedingly rare.
  10. Thanks Oggy. I regularly use GM grants when testing possible character progression and builds and this little bug was driving me bonkers. I really appreciate you taking care of it so quickly.
  11. I've seen those floating around before and thought they looked interesting. Has anyone ever played with them in a game? I'd love to hear your thoughts on their balance and impact on play. I've rolled up some doctor characters in the past, but they always seems a little lacking in depth with little to do in combat when nobody was hurt. These rules looked like an interesting way to give you a few more interesting things to do. Please note that I am not looking to derail this thread by have an argument about the effectiveness of doctors in combat.
  12. Not sure if this is a bug or a quirk, but every time I use the GM grant feature is resets my bonus xp/credits for obligation/duty. It took me forever to figure out why it kept looking like using the GM grant was costing me 10xp.
  13. Too true. I once played in a game that averaged less than a dozen rolls total per session. I could have been playing a mouse droid with a comm taped to its back and been fine stat wise. My advice was more about playing optimally which doesn't always correlate with most fun.
  14. Depending on you game and GM that may work out for you. In a combat heavy game or one with even mildly optimised characters you will still likely feel underpowered in combat. Even with the 4 dice, you will be doing less damage, soaking less, and actively hitting your strain every turn. Since my goto technique when dealing with Marauders is to target their ST, you plan would put in you a real bad spot if you were in my games. The issue with generalist characters is that they are seldom needed in most game sessions. An average sized group of moderately focused characters are going to cover like 80% of the skills naturally. Then consider that most encounters can be accomplished via multiple skills and that there are really only a handful of skills that everyone wants. This is due in large part to how the assist system works. Even in games without a dedicated role, a generalist with a pool of YYG is almost always going to get overshadowed by a higher characteristic group member assisting someone else. For example. You've got a YGG pool for piloting, will you ever get to fly? Even in a group without a dedicated pilot, the gunslinger (4 agl) being assisted by someone with 2 ranks of piloting is going to be a much better choice. I guess it comes down to, is the juice worth the squeeze. Namely, is having two more threes worth everything you have to give up. In a combat light game the answer could be Maybe, but in most games I'd suggest the answer is likely No.
  15. Unless you are starting at knight level or higher, I almost always advise against starting without at least one 4. In my experience a 3/3/3/3 stat spread will only ever be good at being mediocre at everything. I could maybe see playing that spread in a very RP/narrative heavy game or in a very small group. There are also some builds that are more talent driven, like force power heavy builds, were characteristics matter less. Marauder isn't one of them. Marauders dmg being linked to your brawn makes a 3 even more of a challenge to play. Hopefully that isn't too discouraging, I mean in the end the best option is usually to play what sounds fun. I've just seen too many players roll up 3/3/3/3 stat spreads and then beg for a respec down the road when they find they never seem good at anything.