Jump to content

musicninja98

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About musicninja98

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

364 profile views
  1. So this post doesn't pertain to lightsaber combat alone but rather the mechanics of an engaged check as a whole. I've been DMing using the Star Wars Roleplaying games since Edge of the Empire first came out. Most of the time because melee took largely a back seat to the action going on around and unless built properly (my best friend built a wookie with 24 WT 18 ST and a soak of 8 w/ armor that could obliterate everything.) it was not generally as useful as being able to fight at range so the problem I've been having went largely undetected. Now that I've been running with Force and Destiny for the last 2 years some glaring issues have arisen with the way difficulty is handled. Namely on the PC side of things. The difficulty is always 2P by default and never reflects character skill or ability. I do acknowledge that yes, there are a number of talents that allow one to add setback dice (Defensive Training) or upgrade the check while suffering strain (Dodge, Defensive Stance, and Side Step), and there are a number of talents that allow you to negate damage a la Parry and Reflect. In my opinion I feel that a large expenditure of experience points has to go into these talents to get the most use out of them (barring parry and reflect unless you want to counter attack), and when approaching a battle with knight-level+ enemies they are largely rendered useless (except for parry and reflect) by the fact that the enemy is rolling far more dice than you can counter with upgrades, so you use them just to hope for despairs and threat rather than actually stopping the attack. For example: NPC has lightsaber 4, and characteristic 5. PC has lightsaber 4 characteristic 5 as well. On paper this seems fine at first until you add in the Adversary trait which allows the NPC to upgrade the check directed at him for free, meanwhile the player has to suffer strain to gain the same effect, and then further spends strain to negate damage if the attack goes through, leading to a large expenditure of resources to keep going while the NPC can quite contemptuously bat the player around spending strain on extra maneuvers and upgrading his attack rather than having to use it defensively. Has anyone else had an issue like this pertaining to melee combats or am I the only one? If so, what have you done to try and patch it with house rules? I am thinking about having the player's skill with whatever weapon he is wielding allow him to upgrade the check a number of times equal to his ranks in said skill. For example: If wielding a vibrosword with 2 ranks in melee he would upgrade incoming melee check difficulties by 2 to reflect his training and ability with a blade. The same player has lightsaber 4 but does not benefit from this since he is wielding a vibrosword. Brawl is also included as part of this discussion making it a highly defensive skill. Minions won't benefit from this set of rules, and NPCs with the Adversary Talent will use which ever is higher for engaged checks. Thoughts? Also for discussions sake, if wielding a lightsaber should lightsaber skill be allowed to increase the difficulty of incoming range attacks?
  2. So this post doesn't pertain to lightsaber combat alone but rather the mechanics of an engaged check as a whole. I've been DMing using the Star Wars Roleplaying games since Edge of the Empire first came out. Most of the time because melee took largely a back seat to the action going on around and unless built properly (my best friend built a wookie with 24 WT 18 ST and a soak of 8 w/ armor that could obliterate everything.) it was not generally as useful as being able to fight at range so the problem I've been having went largely undetected. Now that I've been running with Force and Destiny for the last 2 years some glaring issues have arisen with the way difficulty is handled. Namely on the PC side of things. The difficulty is always 2P by default and never reflects character skill or ability. I do acknowledge that yes, there are a number of talents that allow one to add setback dice (Defensive Training) or upgrade the check while suffering strain (Dodge, Defensive Stance, and Side Step), and there are a number of talents that allow you to negate damage a la Parry and Reflect. In my opinion I feel that a large expenditure of experience points has to go into these talents to get the most use out of them (barring parry and reflect unless you want to counter attack), and when approaching a battle with knight-level+ enemies they are largely rendered useless (except for parry and reflect) by the fact that the enemy is rolling far more dice than you can counter with upgrades, so you use them just to hope for despairs and threat rather than actually stopping the attack. For example: NPC has lightsaber 4, and characteristic 5. PC has lightsaber 4 characteristic 5 as well. On paper this seems fine at first until you add in the Adversary trait which allows the NPC to upgrade the check directed at him for free, meanwhile the player has to suffer strain to gain the same effect, and then further spends strain to negate damage if the attack goes through, leading to a large expenditure of resources to keep going while the NPC can quite contemptuously bat the player around spending strain on extra maneuvers and upgrading his attack rather than having to use it defensively. Has anyone else had an issue like this pertaining to melee combats or am I the only one? If so, what have you done to try and patch it with house rules? I am thinking about having the player's skill with whatever weapon he is wielding allow him to upgrade the check a number of times equal to his ranks in said skill. For example: If wielding a vibrosword with 2 ranks in melee he would upgrade incoming melee check difficulties by 2 to reflect his training and ability with a blade. The same player has lightsaber 4 but does not benefit from this since he is wielding a vibrosword. Brawl is also included as part of this discussion making it a highly defensive skill. Minions won't benefit from this set of rules, and NPCs with the Adversary Talent will use which ever is higher for engaged checks. Thoughts? Also for discussion sake, if wielding a lightsaber should lightsaber skill be allowed to increase the difficulty of incoming range attacks?
  3. If the take-the-important-baddy-hostage is becoming a regular thing have said baddy pull out a Thermal Detonator and prime the dead man switch. Mexican Stand Off!
  4. I'm currently running a F&D campaign 250 total xp (They are now 100 more xp in) Campaign and had an issue like this come up where I had placed a hundred or so custom-made battle droids, under the control of a possessed bounty hunter for dramatic scenes, the group after defeating him decided to take his datapad and steal the droids to sell them on the black market. I let them have them. They got a 200k to 300k pay out for the droids. The City they've been operating in is now in a civil war due to previous character actions serving as a catalyst and they are now fighting their way through the small army of droids they sold and gangers, to get at a small time Crime Boss that has set himself up as a self-stylized warlord thanks to the help of an unseen patron. Let them have the money and hit them with consequences later. Harsh consequences seeing as how they are angering 3 factions currently.
  5. I'm not sure how to respond. xD On the one hand that is a lot of dudes. Easily 100+. Jedi masters were killed with far, far less but their senses were dulled by endless war and trust. None of that would apply here. Hmmmmm. Like I said 500+ at a minimum for a Vader fight in my opinion. =p If you want 700 then rock the boat and make a 700+ xp fight. I'm not worried about invincibility. If they want to fight someone like Vader they should always be far removed from invincible. The Vader I envision would be as follows: This stat line assumes the highest damaging character does 8 damage with a lightsaber. Darth Vader (Nemesis) [Human] Soak 7 WT 40 ST 29 M/R 3/3 Bra 6 Agi 3 Int 3 Cun 5 Wil 5 Pre 3 Skills: Lightsaber 4, Vigilance 4, Cool 4, Coercion 3, Leadership 3, Athletics 3, Resilience 5, Knowledge (All except Lore) 4, Knowledge (Lore) 5, Perception 4, Discipline 4, Piloting (space) 3, Gunnery 3, Astrogation 3. Talents: Parry 6, Improved Parry, Supreme Parry, Reflect 6, Improved Reflect, Supreme Reflect, Force Rating 4 or 5, Maelstrom of Terror, All players make a RRPPP Fear check every round until they succeed with a triumph, Saber Master: If Darth Vader would suffer strain to use a lightsaber talent reduce it by 1 to a minimum of 1. Adversary 4, Durable 7, Lethal Blows 4, and Not Your Destiny: Flip an additional light side destiny point when a Light Side destiny point is used against Vader, Undying Rage: Vader cannot be killed by Critical Hits Force Powers: Maxed out Sense, Maxed out bind (except magnitude), Max Enhance (excluding Force Leap) Equipment: Darth Vader's Lightsaber Damage 10 Critical 1, Vicious 3, Sunder, Breach 1. If targeted by a Force Power reduce the Force Users pool by 2, starting with Light side points. Darth Vader's Cortosis Plated Sith Combat Armor: (Soak +2, Defense +3), Cortosis; Add 2 Dark Force Power Point to every force roll. If the party decides to nick his armor or lightsaber to use after defeating him I'd hit them with a 3 or 4 conflict points per session per item used to represent the item being drenched in the dark side and they have to pass a RRRPP discipline check for each item to get rid of them . If you fail you keep the item for that session, every despair rolled grants an additional 1 or 2 conflict. Not everyone will agree and that's just the rough draft of him off the top of my head. Too stat or not too stat? That is the question.
  6. For flavor as well Blaster weapons tend to be bulkier since the technology is less refined. So folding stocks are less of a thing. And warships I would give a silhouette no greater than 7. Harrower-class Dreadnought were 800 m according to wookieepedia.
  7. If you start at base character creation I would progress as follows. Start as non-alliance rebel cell on one planet > Build up guerrilla forces and expand to other planets > Have Alliance Agents contact the cell and arrange an off-planet meeting > Bad things happen and players demonstrate valor in the face of impossible odds > Get scooped up by SpecForce > Become galaxy trotting fleet and troop commanders with resource management and a stake in the wider civil war. Can include raids, boarding imperial vessels etc.
  8. I've found some really good gm tips from Matt Mercer on YouTube that have helped me grow a bit. He focuses a bit on the D&D side but it is quite applicable to any tabletop rpg.
  9. Personally I'd Stat him out like crazy. I've entertained the idea of bringing both Palpatine and Vader into the game. I even have a player who vehemently denies being evil but wants to kill Palpatine and take over the Empire. The issue here isn't necessarily whether one approach is better than the other. It's whether or not you want to preserve continuity or not. Personally I take the setting for what it is and the PCs can run amok. Your players are what matter not the iconic heroes and villains. Vader and Palpatine are late late late game fights if you make them fights. 500+ xp at a minimum with some high powered campaigning to set them up. The other heroes and villains a la Boba Fett, Luke, Han and what not I'd put around 350-400+ and make em bigger than life. Boba Fett may go it alone but he'll snipe, rocket and use traps to get his man. Make up Icon unique talents. if you want them to pop up earlier use Azeraphin's system sparingly maybe twice with the 3rd time being the inescapable showdown. Also spice it up. Ultimately it comes down to do you want your characters to change the universe or be a part of the main events? So they killed Vader huh? Now a wound in the force has opened as the Strands of Destiny are torn asunder and they have to race across the galaxy to find a way to seal the breach by any means necessary even so far as delving into Sith ruins and damning themselves to take his place before it destroys all life. You could even alter the mechanics by removing the destiny pool from the game for a few sessions until they repair it.
  10. In the context of a session and how the various skills would work from my understanding. Party members A, B, C, and D. A is scouting for enemy artillery, B and C are routinely patrolling the trenches, and D is watching from his sniper perch. D knows that the enemy's favored tactic is an artillery bombardment. Followed by an infantry assault. A (a trandoshan) uses perception as he picks through the underbrush and catches the tell tale scent of high explosives. Before the roar of cannons blasts throughout the forest. B and C make a vigilance check and hear the unmistakable whistle of artillery shells zeroing in on their position and they dive for cover. As the bombardment subsides and the enemy infantry assault the trench B and C make vigilance checks to react first to the intruders while D makes a cool check as he lines up his sights on an unsuspecting trooper.
  11. So I've been running a group of players through FaD for the last several months and I have been slowly incorporating the conflict system more and more. Recently I started giving conflict for excessive violence during combat. My definition of excessive violence is simply any hostile action that goes beyond what is necessary to incapacitate the foe. Now in the cases I'm about to give I did not explain that exceeding the wound threshold does not necessarily mean the NPC is dead just incapacitated (this was not an issue until this player whined). That situation will be remedied this Sunday. Case 1 - A no conflict situation for me: A group of 3 minions of the violent criminals/bounty hunters/stormtroopers/rebel soldier (Not the Alliance) variety face off against one of the PCs armed with a lightsaber. He wades in bisecting one, decapitating another, and severing an arm from the 3rd. Case 2 - A 6-10 conflict situation: The PC squares off against 1 minion of the previously mentioned variety and removes both arms from the combatant and then decapitates them after removing the threat. Player's argument: In combat the heat of the moment takes over and you do what you have to do to remove the threat. ie You end up wrestling with an armed gunman and one of you will die. My argument: FaD characters operate based on a code of combat conduct similar to cops. If the enemy uses lethal force against you, you are allowed to retaliate in kind, if however you incapacitate your foe (severing the sword/gun arm) without killing them you cannot then use lethal force to "finish the job." The player is reportedly not having fun any more because of this and a few other reasons because he says the targets are enemy combatants not innocents. I've been kicking around the idea of not awarding conflict unless it is truly excessive or the target is a member of law enforcement, or civilian. Conflict for unprovoked attacks would still be a key part of the game. Thoughts and ideas?
×
×
  • Create New...